Bach interpretation

[Dirk]

I'm amazed at the emotional replies to the topic of Piano for Bach's
music. The topic of actual instrumentation seems to be a springboard
for conflict between the purists and the more progressively minded.
So I'm starting this topic again in the hope that more reasonable and
constructive discussion can be had on this (... thus speaks daddy :-)
While belonging to the latter group, I can see merit in both views:
Listening to works as they would have sounded like in Bach's time must
give some people a kind of intimacy to the music, a feeling of reality
and truthfullness to the works and historical era of the time.
But Bach himself was quite progressive, experimenting with different
instruments (Like the Viola Pomposa which never really took off), and
even his organ settings were often frowned upon because they were
innovative. His preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more
sensitivity than the harpsichord. To Bach, the pianos of that time were
lacking in sharpness of tone, were too heavy-actioned and the keys were
too large to his liking.
Andras Shiff, one of my favourite Bach interpreters, said in one of his
interviews that he thought the sound of the harpsichord 'awfull'. I
actually agree with that, the tone has no depth, and there is no touch
sensitivity. We had a harpsichord in the conservatorium, but no one,
including the teachers, bothered playing Bach on it. You can apply much
more nuance on the Yamaha or Steinway (the grand piano keys travel a
greater distance down to the keyboard bed, giving you much more control
over dynamics). The keyboard, unlike the violin (which virtually
remained unchanged), has evolved to a much more agreeable instrument in
the grand piano.
Add to that the notion that the core of Bach's music is the music
itself, with its melody and harmony. I'm for that matter quite happyly
(and gratefully) play the ninth 'Art of the Fugue' fugue on a (full
action) midi keyboard, using actual violin samples. The harpsichord
interpretation of this work misses out on all the intrinsic harmonies
held by sustaing notes.

[Sybrand Bakker]

Post by Dirk
Andras Shiff, one of my favourite Bach interpreters, said in one of his
interviews that he thought the sound of the harpsichord 'awfull'. I
actually agree with that, the tone has no depth, and there is no touch
sensitivity. We had a harpsichord in the conservatorium, but no one,
including the teachers, bothered playing Bach on it. You can apply much
more nuance on the Yamaha or Steinway (the grand piano keys travel a
greater distance down to the keyboard bed, giving you much more control
over dynamics). The keyboard, unlike the violin (which virtually
remained unchanged), has evolved to a much more agreeable instrument in
the grand piano.
Add to that the notion that the core of Bach's music is the music
itself, with its melody and harmony. I'm for that matter quite happyly
(and gratefully) play the ninth 'Art of the Fugue' fugue on a (full
action) midi keyboard, using actual violin samples. The harpsichord
interpretation of this work misses out on all the intrinsic harmonies
held by sustaing notes.

I must ask whether you really tried to listen to a skilled harpsichord
player, leaving your prejudices against the harpsichord behind.
I bet the answer to this question is 'No'
Mr. Schiff clearly doesn't know what he is talking about, as is the
case with many pianists, who really don't have a clue at all on
baroque music and it's interpretation.
They would better admit that, instead of making statements betraying
their ignorance.
Harpsichords have grandeur in this music. Pianos sound just ridiculous
in this music. A modern Steinway should play what is was build for:
late 19th and 20th century music. Sadly, the modern Steinway has
brainwashed people, and ruined our ears.

Then no one who knows anything about the violin would state that it
remained virtually unchanged. It didn't.
Evidently, I can only feel sorry for you, as you were in the wrong
conservatorium, with teachers without a clue about Baroque Music.


Also the idea of 'nuance' as you call it is *fully akin* to music of
that time, and it is not being expressed by dynamics, but by good and
bad notes and by using chords where forte is required.
Then I can easily demonstrate there is no such thing as absolute
music, and Bach's music is *completely* a child of it's time.

I would wish, that people defending the piano, would at least *TRY* to
know what the so-called 'purists' are talking about, and read the book
of Arnold Dolmetsch (published *1910*) or Thurston Dart, or Robert
Donington, or ... who else should I name.
The above contribution again demonstrates that defenders of the piano
in Bach really don't have a clue about Baroque music, and they really
don't care about stylistic interpretation.

They would better admit that, and stop raping Bach on the Procrustean
Bed called 'piano'. The modern piano has *NOTHING* to do with the
Silbermann instrument, and even Brahms *rejected* it. The modern piano
has *NO TONAL REGISTERS*, the 18th and 19th century instruments do.

I would very much wish this group would see more posts which do make
*sense*, and would show some *knowledge* about Bach and his music.
This post, again, sadly doesn't.
The piano sounds awful in Bach, the harpsichord doesn't.
Anyone who states otherwise has been on another planet for the last 40
years.




Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[Ioannis]

"Sybrand Bakker" <***@sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
[snip]

Post by Sybrand Bakker
I must ask whether you really tried to listen to a skilled harpsichord
player, leaving your prejudices against the harpsichord behind.
I bet the answer to this question is 'No'

Nonsense. You are just trolling for arguments, again. I myself have posted
this,
http://tinyurl.com/ob96x

(and on other older occasions I have commended various harpsichordists)
which clearly shows my respect and preference for good harpsichord playing.
Several other people have expressed their positive feelings in this thread,
but I didn't see YOU commenting on it.

That some of us like the piano for interpretation of JSB, doesn't mean we
outrightly reject the harpsichord. Otherwise our musical libraries would be
bereft of any harpsichord recordings altogether.

YOU on the other hand, claim that we are members of the "PIANO MAFIA",
always condoning its use against the harpsichord. Whether the piano is
appropriate for JSB, is a matter of OPINION now, never mind your childish
tantrums about its historicity vis-a-vis whether JSB /intended/ his music to
be played on a piano.

Grow up.

[snip]

Post by Sybrand Bakker
The piano sounds awful in Bach, the harpsichord doesn't.
Anyone who states otherwise has been on another planet for the last 40
years.

Yeah, yeah, we read it all before.

Post by Sybrand Bakker
Sybrand Bakker

--
Ioannis

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Sybrand Bakker
I would very much wish this group would see more posts which do make
*sense*, and would show some *knowledge* about Bach and his music.

Sybrand,

I thought by now you would have realized that the only instrument truly
worthy of Bach's music is the 8-string guitar.

Shame on you for being so slow-witted!

Andrew

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Sybrand Bakker
I would very much wish this group would see more posts which do make
*sense*, and would show some *knowledge* about Bach and his music.

Sybrand,
I thought by now you would have realized that the only instrument truly
worthy of Bach's music is the 8-string guitar.
Shame on you for being so slow-witted!
Andrew

Here here!

Steve

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Here here!
Steve

Steve, don't you think it's about time people realize that there really
is such a thing as the GUITAR MAFIA?

Andresito

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Here here!
Steve

Steve, don't you think it's about time people realize that there really
is such a thing as the GUITAR MAFIA?
Andresito

Are you going to have to tell these folks about RDLA and the Sopranos?

Steve

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Are you going to have to tell these folks about RDLA and the Sopranos?

Obviously this thread has already been hijacked by the GUITAR MAFIA so
there is no need to bring The Sopranos into it. By the way Steve,
which do you prefer, the piano or the harpsichord? I'm rather partial
to the clavichord myself, vibrato!

Andrew

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Are you going to have to tell these folks about RDLA and the Sopranos?

Obviously this thread has already been hijacked by the GUITAR MAFIA so
there is no need to bring The Sopranos into it. By the way Steve,
which do you prefer, the piano or the harpsichord? I'm rather partial
to the clavichord myself, vibrato!
Andrew

I'm afraid of Sybrand. Very afraid.

Steve

[Dirk]

A friend of mine suggested I should try playing Bach with my testicles
on a xylophone ... now there's something ...

[Alain Naigeon]

Post by Dirk
A friend of mine suggested I should try playing Bach with my testicles
on a xylophone ... now there's something ...

Dirk, it seems that in Bach's time you wouldn't have omitted
the third, in the middle of the chord :-)

[Dirk]

Post by Andrew Schulman
I thought by now you would have realized that the only instrument truly
worthy of Bach's music is the 8-string guitar.
Shame on you for being so slow-witted!

And the banjo ... What about the banjo? Bela Fleck gives some mean Bach
renditions.

[Andrew Schulman]

Yes, Bela is great!

A.

[o***@aol.com]

Post by Sybrand Bakker
Then no one who knows anything about the violin would state that it
remained virtually unchanged. It didn't.
Evidently, I can only feel sorry for you, as you were in the wrong
conservatorium, with teachers without a clue about Baroque Music.

I couldn't agree more. (I have also replied to Dirk explaining some of
the changes in the violin.)

- snip -

Post by Sybrand Bakker
They would better admit that, and stop raping Bach on the Procrustean
Bed called 'piano'. The modern piano has *NOTHING* to do with the
Silbermann instrument, and even Brahms *rejected* it. The modern piano
has *NO TONAL REGISTERS*, the 18th and 19th century instruments do.

Dear Sybrand, why spoil a good argument with such over the top and
tasteless metaphors? To play Bach on the piano is not to "rape" him,
that is offensive language which achieves nothing. It may not be to
your taste (it usually is not to mine, incidentally) and one could have
a considered discussion about whether it is right or wrond to do so.
For the record, I believe it is not wrong to play baroque music on the
piano, but usually more rewarding on the appropriate historical
instrument. But please let's keep things in proportion!

Post by Sybrand Bakker
I would very much wish this group would see more posts which do make
*sense*, and would show some *knowledge* about Bach and his music.

I agree. But it makes no sense to talk about "raping" Bach, however
much knowledge you have.

Post by Sybrand Bakker
This post, again, sadly doesn't.
The piano sounds awful in Bach, the harpsichord doesn't.

This is a personal opinion, and a very valid one, but you are unwise to
present it as if it were a fact. A good pianist who understands the
music can make the piano sound wonderful in Bach, in my opinion, and a
bad harpsichordist will struggle to make anything sound good. Your
statement weakens, rather than strengthens, your argument.

Post by Sybrand Bakker
Anyone who states otherwise has been on another planet for the last 40
years.

No, they simply have different taste to you. Again, your reaction is so
extreme that any valid point - and I'm sure you have some, which I
would probably agree with! - is swamped

Regards,
Oliver Webber

[Zach]

I prefer the pipe organ! LOL~

But seriously if I had to choose between harpsichord and piano I must
take the harpsichord.

Zach

[Alain Naigeon]

Post by Zach
I prefer the pipe organ! LOL~

AOF on Alpen horns would be still greater! ;-)

[Zach]

Post by Alain Naigeon
AOF on Alpen horns would be still greater! ;-)

Tres jolie :-P

Zach

[John_Sturmond]

Post by Zach
But seriously if I had to choose between harpsichord and piano I must
take the harpsichord.

Seriously? The harpsichord is not without it's charms, but it is
SO monochromatic - I can't listen to it for more than about
30 minutes before it starts to become positively annoying.

The piano is capable of so much more dynamic and textural
depth, I find your statement hard to believe - but you know
what they say about taste.

[Tom Hens]

Post by Dirk
I'm amazed at the emotional replies to the topic of Piano for Bach's
music. The topic of actual instrumentation seems to be a springboard
for conflict between the purists and the more progressively minded.
So I'm starting this topic again in the hope that more reasonable and
constructive discussion can be had on this (... thus speaks daddy :-)
While belonging to the latter group, <snip>

Somebody who starts out by claiming that there is a conflict between two
groups of people, "purists" on the one hand, and "the more progressively
minded" on the other, and that he (of course) belongs to the second group,
has already shown that he isn't interested in any kind of reasonable or
constructive discussion.

<snip>

Post by Dirk
His preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more
sensitivity than the harpsichord.

Please show us where J.S. Bach expressed such an opinion.

Post by Dirk
Andras Shiff, one of my favourite Bach interpreters, said in one of his
interviews that he thought the sound of the harpsichord 'awfull'. I
actually agree with that

Now there's a reasonable and constructive argument if ever there was one.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens
Please show us where J.S. Bach expressed such an opinion.

http://www.jackgibbons.com/bach.htm

Andrew

[Tom Hens]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
Please show us where J.S. Bach expressed such an opinion.

http://www.jackgibbons.com/bach.htm

Last time I checked Jack Gibbons, whoever he is, isn't Johann Sebastian
Bach.

Please show us where J.S. Bach expressed such an opinion, viz. "his
preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity than the
harpsichord".

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens
Last time I checked Jack Gibbons, whoever he is, isn't Johann Sebastian
Bach.
Please show us where J.S. Bach expressed such an opinion, viz. "his
preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity than the
harpsichord".

Yes, and the last time I checked Werner Breig isn't Johann Sebastian
Bach either!

Tom Hens wrote: "I quote from Werner Breig's notes to Trevor Pinnock's
recording of the
harpsichord concertos".

Post by Tom Hens
From Forkel's Biography of Bach, Chapter 3, "Bach the Clavier Player"

"He liked best to play upon the clavichord; the harpsichord, though
certainly susceptible of a great variety of expression, had not soul
enough for him...He therefore considered the clavichord as the best
instrument for study...He found it the most convenient for the
expression of his most refined thoughts..."

Also see JS Bach: The Learned Musician - Christoph Wolff, page 174.

So, if you are saying Forkel, Wolff, and Gibbons are wrong, on what
evidence to you base your assumption?

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens
Last time I checked Jack Gibbons, whoever he is, isn't Johann Sebastian
Bach.
Please show us where J.S. Bach expressed such an opinion, viz. "his
preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity than the
harpsichord".

Tom Hens also wrote (Tues, April 18): "I quote from Werner Breig's
notes to Trevor Pinnock's
recording of the harpsichord concertos".



Yes, and the last time I checked Werner Breig isn't Johann Sebastian
Bach either!

Post by Tom Hens
From Forkel's Biography of Bach, Chapter 3, "Bach the Clavier Player"

"He liked best to play upon the clavichord; the harpsichord, though
certainly susceptible of a great variety of expression, had not soul
enough for him...He therefore considered the clavichord as the best
instrument for study...He found it the most convenient for the
expression of his most refined thoughts..."

Also, see JS Bach: The Learned Musician - Christoph Wolff, page 174.

So, if you are saying Forkel, Wolff, and Gibbons are wrong, on what
evidence to you base your assumption?

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens
Last time I checked Jack Gibbons, whoever he is, isn't Johann Sebastian
Bach.
Please show us where J.S. Bach expressed such an opinion, viz. "his
preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity than the
harpsichord".

Tom Hens also wrote (Tues, April 18): "I quote from Werner Breig's
notes to Trevor Pinnock's recording of the harpsichord concertos".

Yes, and the last time I checked Werner Breig isn't Johann Sebastian
Bach either!

-From Forkel's Biography of Bach, Chapter 3, "Bach the Clavier Player"

"He liked best to play upon the clavichord; the harpsichord, though
certainly susceptible of a great variety of expression, had not soul
enough for him...He therefore considered the clavichord as the best
instrument for study...He found it the most convenient for the
expression of his most refined thoughts..."
Also, see JS Bach: The Learned Musician - Christoph Wolff, page 174.

So, if you are saying Forkel, Wolff, and Gibbons are wrong, on what
evidence do you base your assumption?

Andrew

[Dirk]

Post by Andrew Schulman
-From Forkel's Biography of Bach, Chapter 3, "Bach the Clavier Player"
"He liked best to play upon the clavichord; the harpsichord, though
certainly susceptible of a great variety of expression, had not soul
enough for him...He therefore considered the clavichord as the best
instrument for study...He found it the most convenient for the
expression of his most refined thoughts..."

Yes, I don't think you can get much closer to the 'horse's mouth' than
Forkel, who was acquainted with CPE Bach.
In the end, whether Bach liked the harpsichord or not shouldn't even be
an issue, he simply did what he could with the instruments of the time
as we all do.

[Tom Hens]

Post by Dirk
Yes, I don't think you can get much closer to the 'horse's mouth' than
Forkel, who was acquainted with CPE Bach.

Forkel exchanged a few letters with C.P.E. Bach, decades after J.S.'s
death. Therefore, his opinions are those of J.S. Bach. Yes, that makes a
lot of sense.

I'm somehow reminded of that old song about a girl who's ecstatic because:
"I've danced with a man, who's danced with a girl, who's danced with the
Prince of Wales".

Post by Dirk
In the end, whether Bach liked the harpsichord or not shouldn't even be
an issue,

"[Bach's] preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity
than the harpsichord". Remember who wrote that?

[Dirk]

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Dirk
Yes, I don't think you can get much closer to the 'horse's mouth' than
Forkel, who was acquainted with CPE Bach.

Forkel exchanged a few letters with C.P.E. Bach, decades after J.S.'s
death. Therefore, his opinions are those of J.S. Bach. Yes, that makes a
lot of sense.

I don't know, maybe I prefer to belief the information gotten from the
composer's son about his father rather than your patronizing ramblings
...

Post by Tom Hens
"I've danced with a man, who's danced with a girl, who's danced with the
Prince of Wales".

Is this analogy an example of your creativeness?

[Sybrand Bakker]

Post by Dirk
I don't know, maybe I prefer to belief the information gotten from the
composer's son about his father rather than your patronizing ramblings

It has been sufficiently established CPE is a source of misinformation
on his father's music (Wolff demonstrated the assertion of CPE the AoF
is Bachs last work, and the composer died writing it, isn't true),
also the remarks were written down by Forkel *decades* after JS death.
It has also been established WF was engaged in performing JS works,
while CPE didn't care about his father's music.


Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[Thomas Wood]

Post by Sybrand Bakker

Post by Dirk
I don't know, maybe I prefer to belief the information gotten from the
composer's son about his father rather than your patronizing ramblings

It has been sufficiently established CPE is a source of misinformation
on his father's music (Wolff demonstrated the assertion of CPE the AoF
is Bachs last work, and the composer died writing it, isn't true),
also the remarks were written down by Forkel *decades* after JS death.
It has also been established WF was engaged in performing JS works,
while CPE didn't care about his father's music.

Wrong again. CPE Bach performed the "Credo" section of his father's Mass in
B Minor in Hamburg in 1786. He also was responsible for collecting and
publishing the "371 Chorales," 1784-87. This publication was crucial in
carrying Bach's reputation as a great writer of harmony and counterpoint to
later generations.

Tom Wood

[Tom Hens]

Post by Dirk

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Dirk
Yes, I don't think you can get much closer to the 'horse's mouth'
than Forkel, who was acquainted with CPE Bach.

Forkel exchanged a few letters with C.P.E. Bach, decades after J.S.'s
death. Therefore, his opinions are those of J.S. Bach. Yes, that makes
a lot of sense.

I don't know, maybe I prefer to belief the information gotten from the
composer's son about his father rather than your patronizing ramblings

Where's your substantiation that Forkel based his claim about the
clavichord being J.S. Bach's favourite keyboard instrument on statements by
C.P.E. Bach (who isn't necessarily a reliable source himself)? The letters
from C.P.E. Bach to Forkel survive. If Forkel based his claim on something
C.P.E. Bach wrote, why aren't you quoting C.P.E. directly?

Post by Dirk

Post by Tom Hens
I'm somehow reminded of that old song about a girl who's ecstatic
because: "I've danced with a man, who's danced with a girl, who's
danced with the Prince of Wales".

Is this analogy an example of your creativeness?

Splutter, splutter, splutter.

"[Bach's] preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity
than the harpsichord". Please provide substantiation.

[Dirk]

Post by Tom Hens
Where's your substantiation that Forkel based his claim about the
clavichord being J.S. Bach's favourite keyboard instrument on statements by
C.P.E. Bach (who isn't necessarily a reliable source himself)? The letters
from C.P.E. Bach to Forkel survive. If Forkel based his claim on something
C.P.E. Bach wrote, why aren't you quoting C.P.E. directly?

Well are we going to go around in circles? I read mine in Forkel, which
has been quoted countless times in this thread. We know, you don't
agree, so give it a rest ...

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Dirk

Post by Tom Hens
I'm somehow reminded of that old song about a girl who's ecstatic
because: "I've danced with a man, who's danced with a girl, who's
danced with the Prince of Wales".

Is this analogy an example of your creativeness?

Splutter, splutter, splutter.

What's that, drowning in your own crap?

Post by Tom Hens
"[Bach's] preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity
than the harpsichord". Please provide substantiation.

Here we are again, the merry go-round ... substantiation provided in
galore ... which you dispute ... yawn.

[Tom Hens]

Post by Dirk

Post by Tom Hens
Where's your substantiation that Forkel based his claim about the
clavichord being J.S. Bach's favourite keyboard instrument on
statements by C.P.E. Bach (who isn't necessarily a reliable source
himself)? The letters from C.P.E. Bach to Forkel survive. If
Forkel based his claim on something C.P.E. Bach wrote, why aren't
you quoting C.P.E. directly?

Well are we going to go around in circles?

Not at all, we're going in a very straight line. The line from you making a
factual claim to you not being able to provide substantiation for that
claim.

Post by Dirk

Post by Tom Hens
"[Bach's] preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more
sensitivity than the harpsichord". Please provide substantiation.

Here we are again, the merry go-round ... substantiation provided in
galore ... which you dispute ... yawn.

Endless repetition of an opinion from someone who never met Bach, was born
after Bach lived, and demonstrably peddled falsehoods about Bach, is
substantiation to you. Yes, we get the message.

[Charles]

Post by Tom Hens
Not at all, we're going in a very straight line. The line from you making
a factual claim to you not being able to provide substantiation for that
claim.

The substantiation offered was the report of Bach's son; many will find
that evidence compelling, others not. Those inclined to misrepresentation
will presumably be sceptical.


Regards
Charles

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Charles

Post by Tom Hens
Not at all, we're going in a very straight line. The line from you making
a factual claim to you not being able to provide substantiation for that
claim.

The substantiation offered was the report of Bach's son; many will find
that evidence compelling, others not. Those inclined to misrepresentation
will presumably be sceptical.

Yes Charles, I agree with you. You have summed up the situation quite
well.

Andrew

[Tom Hens]

Post by Charles

Post by Tom Hens
Not at all, we're going in a very straight line. The line from you
making a factual claim to you not being able to provide substantiation
for that claim.

The substantiation offered was the report of Bach's son;

Forkel was Bach's son? Now that's certainly a new slant on things. If
anybody in this thread quoted any "reports" from any of Bach's legitimate
sons on the subject, I must have missed those. I've only seen Forkel
several times over.

[Arthur Ness]

What does Wolff say on page 174?
==============================

Post by Tom Hens
Last time I checked Jack Gibbons, whoever he is, isn't Johann Sebastian
Bach.
Please show us where J.S. Bach expressed such an opinion, viz. "his
preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity than the
harpsichord".

Tom Hens also wrote (Tues, April 18): "I quote from Werner Breig's
notes to Trevor Pinnock's recording of the harpsichord concertos".

Yes, and the last time I checked Werner Breig isn't Johann Sebastian
Bach either!

-From Forkel's Biography of Bach, Chapter 3, "Bach the Clavier Player"

"He liked best to play upon the clavichord; the harpsichord, though
certainly susceptible of a great variety of expression, had not soul
enough for him...He therefore considered the clavichord as the best
instrument for study...He found it the most convenient for the
expression of his most refined thoughts..."
Also, see JS Bach: The Learned Musician - Christoph Wolff, page 174.

So, if you are saying Forkel, Wolff, and Gibbons are wrong, on what
evidence do you base your assumption?

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Arthur Ness
What does Wolff say on page 174?

He discusses CPE's comments that Bach generally composed without an
instrument, but then tried the new piece on keyboard. Wolff then asks
the question, which keyboard? By way of answer he quotes the Forkel,
basically what I quoted. There is a footnote to this quote which adds
that "Mozart also used the clavichord to check the results of his
composing activities."

Andrew

[Tom Hens]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Arthur Ness
What does Wolff say on page 174?

He discusses CPE's comments that Bach generally composed without an
instrument, but then tried the new piece on keyboard. Wolff then asks
the question, which keyboard?

Wolff must have revised the text extensively since the one on which the
Dutch translation (2000) I have is based. There's no question there at all.
He only quotes Forkel with appropriate disclaimers ("according to Forkel",
"Forkel himself [as opposed to C.P.E. Bach] says", etc.).

Post by Andrew Schulman
By way of answer he quotes the Forkel,
basically what I quoted. There is a footnote to this quote which adds
that "Mozart also used the clavichord to check the results of his
composing activities."

And here we have the miraculous multiplication of the sources. Wolff
quoting Forkel suddenly turns the non-source Forkel into *two* sources. No
doubt this John Gibbons person quoting either of them turns it into three
sources.

And what Mozart has got to do with anything is anybody's guess.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens
Wolff must have revised the text extensively since the one on which the
Dutch translation (2000) I have is based. There's no question there at all.
He only quotes Forkel with appropriate disclaimers ("according to Forkel",
"Forkel himself [as opposed to C.P.E. Bach] says", etc.).

I have the 2000 W. W. Norton edition. The quote is, "as for the
instrument itself, Forkel related..."

Post by Tom Hens
And here we have the miraculous multiplication of the sources. Wolff
quoting Forkel suddenly turns the non-source Forkel into *two* sources. No
doubt this John Gibbons person quoting either of them turns it into three
sources.

Spitta also says the clavichord was his prefered keyboard instrument;
I've lent my copy to a friend so someone else will have to provide the
quote.

Post by Tom Hens
And what Mozart has got to do with anything is anybody's guess.

I was asked what Wolff wrote, I relayed the info including the
footnote, but obviously Wolff is connecting the attraction to the
clavichord to another great composer.

[Tom Hens]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
Wolff must have revised the text extensively since the one on which the
Dutch translation (2000) I have is based. There's no question there at
all. He only quotes Forkel with appropriate disclaimers ("according to
Forkel", "Forkel himself [as opposed to C.P.E. Bach] says", etc.).

I have the 2000 W. W. Norton edition. The quote is, "as for the
instrument itself, Forkel related..."

Just as an aside: the only reason I bought the Dutch translation was
because at the time of publication it was the most up-to-date version, as
Wolff was able to include clarifications and corrections to the first
edition in English, and additional illustrations (he knows Dutch,
apparently). I have no idea how it relates to subsequent editions in
English.

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
And here we have the miraculous multiplication of the sources. Wolff
quoting Forkel suddenly turns the non-source Forkel into *two* sources.
No doubt this John Gibbons person quoting either of them turns it
into three sources.

Spitta also says the clavichord was his prefered keyboard instrument;
I've lent my copy to a friend so someone else will have to provide the
quote.

Yet another miraculous multiplication of sources. Who cares that Spitta (b.
1841) quoted Forkel (b. 1749), or Wolff (b. 1940) quotes Forkel and/or
Spitta? It's still the same little passage from Forkel's book. Do you think
the factual accuracy of a unsubstantiated statement grows as more people
repeat it?

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
And what Mozart has got to do with anything is anybody's guess.

I was asked what Wolff wrote, I relayed the info including the
footnote, but obviously Wolff is connecting the attraction to the
clavichord to another great composer.

In a completely irrelevant way.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens
Yet another miraculous multiplication of sources. Who cares that Spitta (b.
1841) quoted Forkel (b. 1749), or Wolff (b. 1940) quotes Forkel and/or
Spitta? It's still the same little passage from Forkel's book. Do you think
the factual accuracy of a unsubstantiated statement grows as more people
repeat it?

And what exactly is your evidence that Bach did not prefer playing or
own a clavichord?

Andrew

[Arthur Ness]

Yes, but they were more robust by Mozart's time. Stein made clavichords.
Was Mozart's by Stein? Now that makes one think about the Mozart sonatas.
Thanks for the info. I should own Wolff's bach biography.

I can't do ascii. Hope this is better.
==============================================

Post by Arthur Ness
What does Wolff say on page 174?

He discusses CPE's comments that Bach generally composed without an
instrument, but then tried the new piece on keyboard. Wolff then asks
the question, which keyboard? By way of answer he quotes the Forkel,
basically what I quoted. There is a footnote to this quote which adds
that "Mozart also used the clavichord to check the results of his
composing activities."

Andrew

[Sybrand Bakker]

Post by Andrew Schulman
There is a footnote to this quote which adds
that "Mozart also used the clavichord to check the results of his
composing activities."

Evidently, there is a practical argument to that, the harpsichord
being much louder and taking more space.
But then of course the piano is way much louder than any clavichord.

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[Tom Hens]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
Last time I checked Jack Gibbons, whoever he is, isn't Johann Sebastian
Bach.
Please show us where J.S. Bach expressed such an opinion, viz. "his
preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity than
the harpsichord".

Tom Hens also wrote (Tues, April 18): "I quote from Werner Breig's
notes to Trevor Pinnock's recording of the harpsichord concertos".

I quoted that passage because it's a convenient summary of what
musicologists think (and AFAIK have thought for as long as musicologists
have looked into this matter) about the transcription process of Bach's
harpsichord concertos, and why the concertos that originally had violin
solo parts were transposed down. It saved me from summarizing things
myself. If you disagree with that consensus, you are of course free to
publish your own scholarly articles on the topic and engage in the
subsequent debates. Bach never expressed himself on the topic, he just made
those transposed transcriptions.

When on the other hand someone makes the claim: "[Bach's] preferred clavier
was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity than the harpsichord", that
is a historical claim that one should be able to back up with historical
facts. The only thing offered so far when asked for such substantiation is
another unsubstantiated claim on the website of a pianist.

Post by Andrew Schulman
-From Forkel's Biography of Bach, Chapter 3, "Bach the Clavier Player"
"He liked best to play upon the clavichord; the harpsichord, though
certainly susceptible of a great variety of expression, had not soul
enough for him...He therefore considered the clavichord as the best
instrument for study...He found it the most convenient for the
expression of his most refined thoughts..."

Forkel was born in 1749, consequently never met Bach, and wrote his
biography in a cultural and musical environment that had changed vastly
since Bach's days. Whatever he imagined Bach thought is irrelevant.

Post by Andrew Schulman
Also, see JS Bach: The Learned Musician - Christoph Wolff, page 174.

In my edition, that page is about Bach's appointment in Weimar, and doesn't
say anything at all about clavichords.

Post by Andrew Schulman
So, if you are saying Forkel, Wolff,

Please quote the passage from Wolff you're on about, instead of assuming
everyone has the same edition you do.

Post by Andrew Schulman
and Gibbons are wrong, on what evidence do you base your assumption?

I am merely asking for evidence for the claim: "His preferred clavier was
the clavichord, which has more sensitivity than the harpsichord". Not for
regurgitations of third- or fourth-hand opinions, some of them from
self-serving present-day pianists, who somehow want to turn an assumed
preference of Bach for the clavichord into an argument for playing his
music on a Steinway.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
Tom Hens also wrote (Tues, April 18): "I quote from Werner Breig's
notes to Trevor Pinnock's recording of the harpsichord concertos".

I quoted that passage because it's a convenient summary of what
musicologists think (and AFAIK have thought for as long as musicologists
have looked into this matter) about the transcription process of Bach's
harpsichord concertos, and why the concertos that originally had violin
solo parts were transposed down. It saved me from summarizing things
myself.

Too lazy to summarize it yourself?

Post by Tom Hens
If you disagree with that consensus, you are of course free to
publish your own scholarly articles on the topic and engage in the
subsequent debates. Bach never expressed himself on the topic, he just made
those transposed transcriptions.

Yes, as you know, Bach expressed very little in writing about his
process. So you accept Breig's idea about the transcriptions, and it
is very plausible. But it is not from Bach himself. So why do you
expect to find a direct quote from Bach, one way or the other, about
his preference for a particular keyboard instrument?

Post by Tom Hens
Forkel was born in 1749, consequently never met Bach, and wrote his
biography in a cultural and musical environment that had changed vastly
since Bach's days. Whatever he imagined Bach thought is irrelevant.

-From the New Bach Reader, W. W. Norton, 1998
"Johann Nikolaus Forkel (1749-1818) deserves a place of honor in the
history of musical scholarship."

Furthermore:

"Probably his finest piece of writing was the present essay on Bach,
the first of its kind and particularly valuable since it contains a
considerable amount of information gathered from Carl Philipp Emanuel
and Wilhelm Friedemann Bach..." (page 417)

The Preface goes on to say, "The reader will observe, however, that he
did not always avoid the temptation to read his own views into the
material." (page 418)

Post by Tom Hens
I am merely asking for evidence for the claim: "His preferred

clavier was

Post by Tom Hens
the clavichord, which has more sensitivity than the harpsichord". Not for
regurgitations of third- or fourth-hand opinions, some of them from
self-serving present-day pianists, who somehow want to turn an assumed
preference of Bach for the clavichord into an argument for playing his
music on a Steinway.

There is more evidence about his preference for the clavichord than
there is about why he transposed his string concertos down a whole
step! Yet you accept as fact the transposition theory (which I accept
simply as a good and plausible theory, I checked every one of the
keyboard transcriptions and there is not a single note above D3).

By the way, I don't care if a performance of Bach's music I listen to
is played on the piano, harpsichord, or clavichord, etc. I care if the
player is an accomplished artist, and I care if the interpretation
resonates with me.

By the way, are you a professional musician?

Andrew

[Tom Hens]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
Tom Hens also wrote (Tues, April 18): "I quote from Werner Breig's
notes to Trevor Pinnock's recording of the harpsichord concertos".

I quoted that passage because it's a convenient summary of what
musicologists think (and AFAIK have thought for as long as
musicologists have looked into this matter) about the transcription
process of Bach's harpsichord concertos, and why the concertos that
originally had violin solo parts were transposed down. It saved me
from summarizing things myself.

Too lazy to summarize it yourself?

In just how many different ways can one summarize the simple statement:
Bach in all likelihood transposed down earlier violin concertos when
transcribing for the harpsichord because his harpsichords only went up to
D3, whereas his violin concertos routinely used E3 but only rarely any
higher notes?

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
If you disagree with that consensus, you are of course free to
publish your own scholarly articles on the topic and engage in the
subsequent debates. Bach never expressed himself on the topic, he just
made those transposed transcriptions.

Yes, as you know, Bach expressed very little in writing about his
process. So you accept Breig's idea

It's not "Breig's idea". As I already pointed out, I merely quoted him
because he provided a convenient summary of the communis opinio on this
point, and I happened to have the CD booklet in question close to hand.

Post by Andrew Schulman
about the transcriptions, and it
is very plausible. But it is not from Bach himself. So why do you
expect to find a direct quote from Bach, one way or the other, about
his preference for a particular keyboard instrument?

I don't expect to find such a quote, because I know for a fact no such
quote exists. Therefore, when somebody makes the claim: "[Bach's] preferred
clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity than the
harpsichord", they can be expected to be asked on what brand-new discovery
of fact they base this claim. Instead of just regurgitating that hackneyed
old quote from Forkel.

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
Forkel was born in 1749, consequently never met Bach, and wrote his
biography in a cultural and musical environment that had changed vastly
since Bach's days. Whatever he imagined Bach thought is irrelevant.

-From the New Bach Reader, W. W. Norton, 1998
"Johann Nikolaus Forkel (1749-1818) deserves a place of honor in the
history of musical scholarship."

Because someone wrote that in 1998, Forkel must be assumed to have been a
posthumous mouthpiece channeling the private opinions of J.S. Bach?

Post by Andrew Schulman
"Probably his finest piece of writing was the present essay on Bach,
the first of its kind and particularly valuable since it contains a
considerable amount of information gathered from Carl Philipp Emanuel
and Wilhelm Friedemann Bach..." (page 417)

Forkel quite demonstrably came up with "information" that is completely
inaccurate. Probably best-known is his story about the origin of the
Goldberg Variations, which had nothing to do with Goldberg or his
employer (but we're still stuck with the name). He also didn't give any
specific sources for most of the stories he told. You'll note that there is
no indication where he got his idea from that Bach preferred the
clavichord. Why should I believe his (unsourced) story about a supposed
preference of Bach for the clavichord, but not his (unsourced) story about
the origin of the Goldberg Variations?

Post by Andrew Schulman
The Preface goes on to say, "The reader will observe, however, that he
did not always avoid the temptation to read his own views into the
material." (page 418)

You mean, like his own views about the clavichord and the harpsichord?

Post by Andrew Schulman
There is more evidence about his preference for the clavichord than
there is about why he transposed his string concertos down a whole
step!

There is *one* claim from Forkel, who was born months before Bach died,
that Bach preferred the clavichord and disliked the harpsichord. Claims
from posthumous fans don't generally count as "evidence" in historiography.
On the other hand, there are seven harpsichord concertos transposed down
two semitones by Bach himself from violin originals. (Although only in the
cases of BWV 1041, 1042, 1043 and 1047 do we also have the originals to
compare.)

Post by Andrew Schulman
Yet you accept as fact the transposition theory (which I accept
simply as a good and plausible theory, I checked every one of the
keyboard transcriptions and there is not a single note above D3).

Where did I ever say anything else? I merely stated this is the most
plausible and generally accepted theory about why Bach went through the,
otherwise unnecessary, chore of transposition. If anyone can come up with a
better theory, the world wants to know.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
Too lazy to summarize it yourself?

Bach in all likelihood transposed down earlier violin concertos when
transcribing for the harpsichord because his harpsichords only went up to
D3, whereas his violin concertos routinely used E3 but only rarely any
higher notes?

"In all likelihood"! So you are a regurgitator as much as anyone else
Mr. Hens.

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
Yes, as you know, Bach expressed very little in writing about his
process. So you accept Breig's idea.

It's not "Breig's idea". As I already pointed out, I merely quoted him
because he provided a convenient summary of the communis opinio on this
point, and I happened to have the CD booklet in question close to hand.

Oh. So, do you even know who's idea it is then?

Post by Tom Hens
I don't expect to find such a quote, because I know for a fact no such
quote exists. Therefore, when somebody makes the claim: "[Bach's] preferred
clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity than the
harpsichord", they can be expected to be asked on what brand-new discovery
of fact they base this claim. Instead of just regurgitating that hackneyed
old quote from Forkel.

Yes, regurgitating is a term you must know so well from all the
regurgitating you do-

Post by Tom Hens
Because someone wrote that in 1998, Forkel must be assumed to have been a
posthumous mouthpiece channeling the private opinions of J.S. Bach?

And your evidence that he is wrong in his statements about the
clavichord is...?

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
The Preface goes on to say, "The reader will observe, however, that he
did not always avoid the temptation to read his own views into the
material." (page 418)

You mean, like his own views about the clavichord and the harpsichord?

And your evidence that he is wrong in his statements about the
clavichord is...?

Andrew

[Tom Hens]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
Too lazy to summarize it yourself?

Bach in all likelihood transposed down earlier violin concertos when
transcribing for the harpsichord because his harpsichords only went up
to D3, whereas his violin concertos routinely used E3 but only rarely
any higher notes?

"In all likelihood"! So you are a regurgitator as much as anyone else
Mr. Hens.

Sigh. When did I ever claim to originate new musicological insights? (BTW,
where I typed BWV 1047 earlier it should have been BWV 1049.)

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
Yes, as you know, Bach expressed very little in writing about his
process. So you accept Breig's idea.

It's not "Breig's idea". As I already pointed out, I merely quoted him
because he provided a convenient summary of the communis opinio on this
point, and I happened to have the CD booklet in question close to hand.

Oh. So, do you even know who's idea it is then?

Do you know what "communis opinio" means?

<snip>

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
Because someone wrote that in 1998, Forkel must be assumed to have been
a posthumous mouthpiece channeling the private opinions of J.S. Bach?

And your evidence that he is wrong in his statements about the
clavichord is...?

Yes, yes, we know your idea of reasoning by now. All statements about
Bach, especially by people who never met him, are always true, until proven
false. And if they're proven false by documentary evidence, such as the
inventory of Bach's estate, we move on to claiming those documents
therefore can't be accurate.

Post by Andrew Schulman
And your evidence that he is wrong in his statements about the
clavichord is...?

Did you miss Logical Reasoning 101?

Bach was a rampant, violent alcoholic, a wife-beater and a serial rapist.
Your evidence that I am wrong in these statements is... ?

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens
Sigh. When did I ever claim to originate new musicological insights? (BTW,
where I typed BWV 1047 earlier it should have been BWV 1049.)

When other people here site sources you call them regurgitators, yet
you do exactly the same thing, but "sigh"...

Post by Tom Hens
Do you know what "communis opinio" means?

A commonly accepted view is not a fact. That Bach preferred the
clavichord to the harpsichord is also a communis opinio.

Post by Tom Hens
Yes, yes, we know your idea of reasoning by now. All statements about
Bach, especially by people who never met him, are always true, until proven
false.

Never said that.

Post by Tom Hens
And if they're proven false by documentary evidence, such as the
inventory of Bach's estate, we move on to claiming those documents
therefore can't be accurate.

Ah, your idea of reasoning! The inventory proves nothing about
clavichords except that they are not on a list of instruments in the
home AFTER Bach was dead.

Andrew

[Sybrand Bakker]

Post by Andrew Schulman
A commonly accepted view is not a fact. That Bach preferred the
clavichord to the harpsichord is also a communis opinio.

Why is it a communis opinio? Is it because *you* say so?

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Sybrand Bakker

Post by Andrew Schulman
A commonly accepted view is not a fact. That Bach preferred the
clavichord to the harpsichord is also a communis opinio.

Why is it a communis opinio? Is it because *you* say so?

Given the choice between the community of Forkel, Spitta, Wolff, etc.
and the community of Bakker and Hens, I say yes to the first community,
of course.

Andrew

[Tom Hens]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
Sigh. When did I ever claim to originate new musicological insights?
(BTW, where I typed BWV 1047 earlier it should have been BWV 1049.)

When other people here site sources you call them regurgitators,

Only *one* supposed source has been quoted so far, Forkel. Then other
people who quoted that same passage from Forkel were mentioned as if
they're somehow additional sources. Once again: Forkel never met Bach,
wrote about him decades after his death, and demonstrably came up with
fairytales (or at least retold fairytales he'd heard from other people)
about Bach.

<snip>

Post by Andrew Schulman
A commonly accepted view is not a fact.

Nobody ever said it is. But when there is only one reasonable explanation
for a fact (such as Bach transposing down some concertos when transcribing
for harpsichord), in a field like musicology it's the closest thing you're
likely to get to a fact. There are no competing theories around.

Post by Andrew Schulman
That Bach preferred the
clavichord to the harpsichord is also a communis opinio.

"Communis opinio" doesn't mean "I think so". Or in this case, "Forkel
thought so".

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
Yes, yes, we know your idea of reasoning by now. All statements
about Bach, especially by people who never met him, are always
true, until proven false.

Never said that.

In this thread, if I've counted correctly you've demanded no less than
seven times that I *disprove* Forkel's unsourced claim that the clavichord
was Bach's favourite instrument.

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
And if they're proven false by documentary evidence, such as the
inventory of Bach's estate, we move on to claiming those documents
therefore can't be accurate.

Ah, your idea of reasoning! The inventory proves nothing about
clavichords except that they are not on a list of instruments in the
home AFTER Bach was dead.

Of course. Everybody knows clavichords miraculously disappear into thin air
when their owner dies. Harpsichords, violins, violas, cellos, viols and
lutes don't. Nor do books, gold, money, clothes, tableware and furniture.
Even outstanding debts don't disappear when someone dies. It's a magical
property only clavichords possess.

In the meantime, have you been able to come up with *one* *single*
*mention* of the clavichord by Bach yet? If that's too much trouble, could
you perhaps help me with another conundrum? I've just checked the Bach
Werke Verzeichnis (edition 2a, 1998, the latest one). The word "clavichord"
appears to be completely absent from the list of instruments in that
volume. Have I overlooked something? Otherwise, do you have an explanation
for why the BWV doesn't seem to include a single mention of Bach's
favourite keyboard instrument?

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens
Only *one* supposed source has been quoted so far, Forkel.

Well, just go and argue this thing until you are blue in the face! I
could not care less what you think. There are honorable and reputable
people who are actually scholars in the field, their names have been
repeated many times here already, whose comments carry more weight then
yours ever will.

Have a nice day!

Andrew

[Tom Hens]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
Only *one* supposed source has been quoted so far, Forkel.

Well, just go and argue this thing until you are blue in the face!

Facts seem to scare you. In this whole thread, only one supposed source for
your pet theory has been mentioned, Forkel. I can't change that fact.

There has also been quite a bit of misrepresentation, such as citing (after
a bit of prodding) Wolff, who merely quotes Forkel with appropriate
disclaimers, as if he somehow agreed with and substantiated Forkel's
unsourced claim. Conveniently, the places where Wolff points out how
unreliable Forkel (an extremely secondary source to begin with) is, are
forgotten.

Post by Andrew Schulman
I could not care less what you think. There are honorable and reputable
people who are actually scholars in the field, their names have been
repeated many times here already,

Indeed, a name has been repeated many times. Forkel. Wolff quoting Forkel.
Spitta quoting Forkel. Someone from Canada called Jack Gibbons (whoever
that may be) perhaps quoting Forkel. And of course Forkel himself, but for
the purpose reincarnated as one of J.S. Bach's sons.

I see you still haven't gotten round to identifying one single mention of
the clavichord by J.S. Bach. He must be a unique composer indeed: the only
composer who didn't leave a single work designated for his favourite
instrument.

[o***@aol.com]

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
I could not care less what you think. There are honorable and reputable
people who are actually scholars in the field, their names have been
repeated many times here already,

Indeed, a name has been repeated many times. Forkel. Wolff quoting Forkel.
Spitta quoting Forkel. Someone from Canada called Jack Gibbons (whoever
that may be) perhaps quoting Forkel. And of course Forkel himself, but for
the purpose reincarnated as one of J.S. Bach's sons.
I see you still haven't gotten round to identifying one single mention of
the clavichord by J.S. Bach. He must be a unique composer indeed: the only
composer who didn't leave a single work designated for his favourite
instrument.

While I sympathise with your frustration at the absence of a full
answer to this interesting question, I believe the point made in Tom
Wood's reply (albeit again quoting poor old Forkel!) was that the
clavichord was (allegedly!!) Bach's favourite instrument for STUDY, as
opposed to public performance. This, if it could be established to be
true, would indeed be an explanation of why no works were designated
for performance on clavichord.

Please note that I am not defending either side in this argument - I
hope no-one will be offended by these remarks! I just wanted to bring
what seemed to be a missed point into focus.

Regards,
Oliver Webber

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by o***@aol.com
While I sympathise with your frustration at the absence of a full
answer to this interesting question, I believe the point made in Tom
Wood's reply (albeit again quoting poor old Forkel!) was that the
clavichord was (allegedly!!) Bach's favourite instrument for STUDY, as
opposed to public performance. This, if it could be established to be
true, would indeed be an explanation of why no works were designated
for performance on clavichord.
Please note that I am not defending either side in this argument - I
hope no-one will be offended by these remarks! I just wanted to bring
what seemed to be a missed point into focus.
Regards,
Oliver Webber

Hello Oliver-

I'm not offended by what you say here! And I appreciate the tone of
all your posting to this newsgroup. Furthermore, I quite agree with
you.

Andrew

[Thomas Wood]

But also note that Forkel states that Bach preferred the clavichord as an
instrument for "study." It was suitable for practice and private
music-making, but too quiet for public performance. The harpsichord and (at
the end of his life) fortepiano were much better suited for concerts,or
ensemble playing,

Tom Wood

[Young Generation]

I'm not certain I'd place much value on what Jack Gibbons has to say. His
page is just a lot of hype, and nowhere does he indicate a scholarly bent.
He is simply attempting to rationalize his performances of Bach on the
piano. So what? Everyone knows that Bach did not compose for a
Boesendorfer concert grand.

By the way, Jack Gibbons should not be confused (as I was) with John
Gibbons, the Boston-based player of early keyboard instruments
(harpsichord, forte-piano, portative, etc.) I have heard him with the
Boston Baroque orchestra, the Handel & Hayden Society, and and annually in
the Museum of FineArts recital series, as soloist and as member of an
ensmble. He often plays the Museum's restored fortepiano of circa 1800.
That instrument has a Janissary stop,which he uses in Mozart's A Major
sonata,with Turkish rondo. Lotsa fun. (The Jannisary stop was invented
after Mozart's death, however. Now I wonder what Synbad's opinion will be
of that!?)
================================================================================

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
Please show us where J.S. Bach expressed such an opinion.

http://www.jackgibbons.com/bach.htm
Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Young Generation
I'm not certain I'd place much value on what Jack Gibbons has to say.

Hi Arthur-

Not certain about Jack Gibbons? What about CPE Bach, Forkel, Spitta,
and Wolff?

Andrew

[Arthur Ness]

That page seems to be a great deal of hype, rather than a reasoned
discourse. Sounds almost like a publicist's press release. But I wouldn't
take his comments over what Forkel, CPEB or Wolff might say, nor would I
give Gibbons's comments equal weight with those worthies. Bach's comments
about Silbermann's pianos are common knowledge, and we don't need the
authority of Jack's programme notes for that. That's all I'm saying.

By the way, Andrew, have you looked at Per Farstad's book on arranging
galant music for the eight-string guitar?

YG, Inc.

Post by Young Generation
I'm not certain I'd place much value on what Jack Gibbons has to say.

Hi Arthur-

Not certain about Jack Gibbons? What about CPE Bach, Forkel, Spitta,
and Wolff?

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Arthur Ness
That page seems to be a great deal of hype, rather than a reasoned
discourse. Sounds almost like a publicist's press release. But I wouldn't
take his comments over what Forkel, CPEB or Wolff might say, nor would I
give Gibbons's comments equal weight with those worthies. Bach's comments
about Silbermann's pianos are common knowledge, and we don't need the
authority of Jack's programme notes for that. That's all I'm saying.
By the way, Andrew, have you looked at Per Farstad's book on arranging
galant music for the eight-string guitar?
YG, Inc.

I don't know Gibbons work, but he does seem to have some impressive
professional credits. But of course one wouldn't give him equal weight
to the others!

I didn't know about Farstad but just listened to some samples here:
http://www.mic.musiconline.no/shop/displayAlbum.asp?id=26357

Very nice playing, and also confirms why I love the 8-string guitar!
Thanks for the info-

Andrew

[Arthur Ness]

Yes, Andrew, Jack Gibbons has very impressive credentials. But I would
prefer to hear from someone like our John Gibbons, who has lived with early
keyboard instruments for many years, and doubtlessly studied them in depth.
That was my point. I think Jack's thoughts were a bit on the hype side when
he claims a significant role for JSB in the development of the piano. And
the Austrian musicologist Eva Badura-Skoda has not been mentioned. She has
argued someplace that one of the JSB keyboard concertos was written for
forte-piano. That surely must have created a controversy, but I've not read
up on it. The book she did with her husband, Paul the concert pianist,
Mozart-Interpretation (later transl. as Interpreting Mozart at the Keyboard)
blew my mind when I read it as a student in the '60s. Their scholarship is
impressive since it combined her deep knowledge with the practical mind of a
supurb performer.

It is nice to know that Per Farstad's CD of galant lute music can be heard
in excerpts. Thank you for pointing it out. All of the pieces on the CD are
transcribed for 8-string guitar in his book. There is probably a copy in the
NYPL. It really is a thorough piece of work. Most of that repertory has
never been published, and he explored everything very nicely. There is lute
life after Weiss. He also explains those pesky signs for ornaments used in
the sources. The Locatelli variations (arr. by Bernhard Hagen) are the most
virtuoso pieces in the entire repertory, imo. And there's Falkenhagen
prelude through all the major and minor keys (a well tempered lute). Paul
Beier has recorded it on lute. It lasts 21 minutes. Wonderful sounds. Some
of those lutenists were excellent composers.

--ajn.
===============================================

Post by Arthur Ness
That page seems to be a great deal of hype, rather than a reasoned
discourse. Sounds almost like a publicist's press release. But I wouldn't
take his comments over what Forkel, CPEB or Wolff might say, nor would I
give Gibbons's comments equal weight with those worthies. Bach's comments
about Silbermann's pianos are common knowledge, and we don't need the
authority of Jack's programme notes for that. That's all I'm saying.
By the way, Andrew, have you looked at Per Farstad's book on arranging
galant music for the eight-string guitar?
YG, Inc.

I don't know Gibbons work, but he does seem to have some impressive
professional credits. But of course one wouldn't give him equal weight
to the others!

I didn't know about Farstad but just listened to some samples here:
http://www.mic.musiconline.no/shop/displayAlbum.asp?id=26357

Very nice playing, and also confirms why I love the 8-string guitar!
Thanks for the info-

Andrew

[Dirk]

Post by Tom Hens
Somebody who starts out by claiming that there is a conflict between two
groups of people, "purists" on the one hand, and "the more progressively
minded" on the other, and that he (of course) belongs to the second group,
has already shown that he isn't interested in any kind of reasonable or
constructive discussion.

Now now, this is reasonable isn't it? I fully acknowledge your love for
the harpsichord.
Of course I have nothing against the instrument, for me it's just one
step in the evolution of the clavier... and believe me, I do appreciate
people playing the instrument for reasons of authenticity etc...

Post by Tom Hens
Now there's a reasonable and constructive argument if ever there was one.

you conveniently left out the rest of the sentence which actually gives
the reason why I agree, i.e. the sound is thin and has no touch
sensitivity, is that not clear enough?

I am amazed, though, at the attitude of harpsichord lovers I
encountered so far in this newsgroup (one of which is not even worth
replying to). I hope it is not reflective of the spirit of the
instrument. I'm getting a tinge of the less attractive side of the late
Baroque era, namely its pomposity and grandiosity.

[Tom Hens]

Post by Dirk

Post by Tom Hens
Somebody who starts out by claiming that there is a conflict between
two groups of people, "purists" on the one hand, and "the more
progressively minded" on the other, and that he (of course) belongs to
the second group, has already shown that he isn't interested in any
kind of reasonable or constructive discussion.

Now now, this is reasonable isn't it? I fully acknowledge your love for
the harpsichord.

As if anybody cares what you "acknowledge" or not. Any imputed "love for
the harpsichord" has got nothing to do with *your* claim: "[Bach's]
preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity than the
harpsichord". Please provide substantiation for that claim.

Post by Dirk
you conveniently left out the rest of the sentence which actually gives
the reason why I agree, i.e. the sound is thin and has no touch
sensitivity, is that not clear enough?

Verbosely restating that you think a harpsichord sounds "awfull" [sic],
using meaningless verbiage like "the tone has no depth", isn't
substantiation for the claim: "[Bach's] preferred clavier was the
clavichord, which has more sensitivity than the harpsichord".

Post by Dirk
I am amazed, though, at the attitude of harpsichord lovers I
encountered so far in this newsgroup (one of which is not even worth
replying to). I hope it is not reflective of the spirit of the
instrument. I'm getting a tinge of the less attractive side of the late
Baroque era, namely its pomposity and grandiosity.

Splutter, splutter, splutter.

"[Bach's] preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more sensitivity
than the harpsichord". It's a pretty simple claim, substantiation should be
pretty simple too.

While you're at it, you might want to explain why if it was his preferred
instrument, of all the keyboard music published during his lifetime, *none*
is specified for the clavichord (the instrumental designations only mention
organ or harpsichord), and why he didn't own a single clavichord on his
death, but did own eight harpsichords

And based on both the surviving volume of music, as well as second-hand
reports from people like C.P.E. Bach, if one wanted to build a case for
Bach supposedly having had a "favourite" keyboard instrument, the organ
would be the obvious choice.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens
While you're at it, you might want to explain why if it was his preferred
instrument, of all the keyboard music published during his lifetime, *none*
is specified for the clavichord (the instrumental designations only mention
organ or harpsichord), and why he didn't own a single clavichord on his
death, but did own eight harpsichords
And based on both the surviving volume of music, as well as second-hand
reports from people like C.P.E. Bach, if one wanted to build a case for
Bach supposedly having had a "favourite" keyboard instrument, the organ
would be the obvious choice.

Eight harpsichords? Wrong. He had five harpsichords at home when he
died, 3 pedal harpsichords had already been given away, to JCB. He
also had two lute-harpsichords and one spinet. No organs are listed in
the inventory of instruments he owned. Why were there no clavichords?
Clavichords are small and very portable, and whatever he owned had
probably also been given away, it is obvious that he had at the very
least one from what we know from CPE.

Personally, I doubt he had only one "favourite" keyboard instrument.
We guitarists, professional and also the serious amateurs, usually have
a number of guitars, some are best suited for one type of situation
and/or repertoire, some for others. When he was in the mood for the
big sound obviously it was the organ. The most personal, intimate, and
possibly expressive sound was the clavichord. Then there were the
various types of harpsichord. And the specific individual instrument
was a factor too, instrument making is after all an art, not a science,
although based on scientific principals. The particular wood and metal
and design and craft of the builder always varied; clearly, within a
type, he had favorites, not "a" favorite.

Andrew

[Sybrand Bakker]

Post by Andrew Schulman
hy were there no clavichords?
Clavichords are small and very portable, and whatever he owned had
probably also been given away, it is obvious that he had at the very
least one from what we know from CPE.

Ah, you resort to making up imaginery instruments again to support
your claim.
Is there any evidence JS owned a clavichord? No, there isn't!!!!
Could he have owned a clavichord? Obviously!
Do we know anything about JS actually playing the clavichord, apart
from that one Forkel quote? Nothing!


Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Sybrand Bakker
Ah, you resort to making up imaginery instruments again to support
your claim.
Is there any evidence JS owned a clavichord? No, there isn't!!!!
Could he have owned a clavichord? Obviously!
Do we know anything about JS actually playing the clavichord, apart
from that one Forkel quote? Nothing!

Poor Sybrand, you don't even know there was more than one quote!

"For these purposes he used two clavichords..."
"He always tuned both his harpsichord and his clavichord himself..."
- Forkel, Chapter 3

"He possessed one set of pedals, apparently for use with
clavichords..."
Footnote 11: Chapter 3.

Also read:
http://www.harpsichord-sd.com/clavichord/bach-touch.html
http://www.boydell.co.uk/80461352.HTM

It is simply not plausible that Bach didn't own clavichords.

Andrew

[Tom Hens]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Sybrand Bakker
Ah, you resort to making up imaginery instruments again to support
your claim.
Is there any evidence JS owned a clavichord? No, there isn't!!!!
Could he have owned a clavichord? Obviously!
Do we know anything about JS actually playing the clavichord, apart
from that one Forkel quote? Nothing!

Poor Sybrand, you don't even know there was more than one quote!

Now that is very impressive. Forkel didn't just say it once, he said it
*twice*, on different pages of the same book. Who could argue with evidence
like that.

Post by Andrew Schulman
It is simply not plausible that Bach didn't own clavichords.

Nobody in this thread, as far as I can see, ever disputed that Bach may
have owned a clavichord. By its very nature, it's a claim that can't be
disproven.

[Tom Hens]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
While you're at it, you might want to explain why if it was his
preferred instrument, of all the keyboard music published during his
lifetime, *none* is specified for the clavichord (the instrumental
designations only mention organ or harpsichord), and why he didn't
own a single clavichord on his death, but did own eight harpsichords
And based on both the surviving volume of music, as well as second-hand
reports from people like C.P.E. Bach, if one wanted to build a case for
Bach supposedly having had a "favourite" keyboard instrument, the organ
would be the obvious choice.

Eight harpsichords? Wrong. He had five harpsichords at home when he
died, 3 pedal harpsichords had already been given away, to JCB. He
also had two lute-harpsichords and one spinet.

Wrong? Five harpsichords, plus two "lute-harpsichords", plus one spinet, a
small harpsichord, equals eight harpsichords on the planet where I live.
But yes, there were those other harpsichords given to J.C. Bach, and which
became a matter of dispute among the heirs. So that makes it eleven
harpsichords. And still zero clavichords.

Post by Andrew Schulman
No organs are listed in the inventory of instruments he owned.

I believe this is where one is supposed to say: "Duh!"

Post by Andrew Schulman
Why were there no clavichords?
Clavichords are small and very portable, and whatever he owned had
probably also been given away, it is obvious that he had at the very
least one from what we know from CPE.

"Probably"??? What you're claiming is that Bach *must* have owned
clavichords, therefore, he *must* (although only "probably") have been
giving them away shortly before he died so that they wouldn't be included
in the inventory of his estate, leaving him with a mere eight harpsichords.
Where is your substantiation for this fantasy scenario? Why didn't he give
away other small, easily portable musical instruments he owned before he
died, such as three violins (one piccolo), three violas, and a lute? And if
this was going on, why didn't the other heirs kick up a fuss about this
alleged giving-away of expensive musical instruments, the way they did
about the harpsichords given to J.C. Bach?

It's a very familiar scenario: if the facts don't fit the preconceived
theory, change the facts. Just start claiming the documentary evidence
doesn't say what it so unequivocally says. I note you don't go into the
question of why, if the clavichord was Bach's favourite keyboard
instrument, he never, ever mentions it in the instrument designations of
either the keyboard works he published during his lifetime (which only
specify either organ or harpsichord), or as far as I know in any autograph.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
Eight harpsichords? Wrong. He had five harpsichords at home when he
died, 3 pedal harpsichords had already been given away, to JCB. He
also had two lute-harpsichords and one spinet.

Wrong? Five harpsichords, plus two "lute-harpsichords", plus one spinet, a
small harpsichord, equals eight harpsichords on the planet where I live.
But yes, there were those other harpsichords given to J.C. Bach, and which
became a matter of dispute among the heirs. So that makes it eleven
harpsichords. And still zero clavichords.

You dare dispute Wanda Landowska's evaluation of the inventory?!?
"That is to say, five harpsichords and one spinet..." ( from
"Landowska On Music", Stein and day, 1963) Plus the two Lauten
Werck's.

By the way, many of us here do wonder what planet you live on; must be
a very cold place.

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
No organs are listed in the inventory of instruments he owned.

I believe this is where one is supposed to say: "Duh!"

And the organs he owned are listed in the inventory... between the
lines?

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
Why were there no clavichords?
Clavichords are small and very portable, and whatever he owned had
probably also been given away, it is obvious that he had at the very
least one from what we know from CPE.

"Probably"??? What you're claiming is that Bach *must* have owned
clavichords, therefore, he *must* (although only "probably") have been
giving them away shortly before he died so that they wouldn't be included
in the inventory of his estate, leaving him with a mere eight harpsichords.

And your evidence he didn't is...?

Post by Tom Hens
It's a very familiar scenario: if the facts don't fit the preconceived
theory, change the facts. Just start claiming the documentary evidence
doesn't say what it so unequivocally says. I note you don't go into the
question of why, if the clavichord was Bach's favourite keyboard
instrument, he never, ever mentions it in the instrument designations of
either the keyboard works he published during his lifetime (which only
specify either organ or harpsichord), or as far as I know in any autograph.

And in this issue you have, no facts!

Andrew

[Tom Hens]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
Eight harpsichords? Wrong. He had five harpsichords at home when he
died, 3 pedal harpsichords had already been given away, to JCB. He
also had two lute-harpsichords and one spinet.

Wrong? Five harpsichords, plus two "lute-harpsichords", plus one
spinet, a small harpsichord, equals eight harpsichords on the planet
where I live. But yes, there were those other harpsichords given to
J.C. Bach, and which became a matter of dispute among the heirs. So
that makes it eleven harpsichords. And still zero clavichords.

You dare dispute Wanda Landowska's evaluation of the inventory?!?

Who needs an "evaluation"? The text of the inventory is easily available
(Bach-Dokumente Vol. II p. 627), and unequivocal. And if Wanda Landowska is
your idea of current Bach scholarship, or organological knowledge about
keyboard instruments from the 18th century, you need to do a lot of
catching up.

Post by Andrew Schulman
"That is to say, five harpsichords and one spinet..." ( from
"Landowska On Music", Stein and day, 1963) Plus the two Lauten
Werck's.

A "Lauten Werck" is a harpsichord. A spinet is a harpsichord. I am
therefore in full agreement with Ms. Landowska on this point. (It's hard to
miscount on such a short, clear list.) And no clavichord anywhere in sight.

<snip>

Post by Andrew Schulman
And the organs he owned are listed in the inventory... between the
lines?

You're getting *really* silly. Who ever said Bach owned an organ? Organists
generally don't.

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
Why were there no clavichords?
Clavichords are small and very portable, and whatever he owned had
probably also been given away, it is obvious that he had at the very
least one from what we know from CPE.

"Probably"??? What you're claiming is that Bach *must* have owned
clavichords, therefore, he *must* (although only "probably") have been
giving them away shortly before he died so that they wouldn't be
included in the inventory of his estate, leaving him with a mere
eight harpsichords.

And your evidence he didn't is...?

"Bach was an alcoholic". And your evidence he wasn't is... ?
"Bach was a freemason". And your evidence he wasn't is... ?
"Bach owned several voodoo dolls". And your evidence he didn't is... ?
"Bach had very unpleasant body odour". And your evidence he didn't is... ?

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
It's a very familiar scenario: if the facts don't fit the preconceived
theory, change the facts. Just start claiming the documentary evidence
doesn't say what it so unequivocally says. I note you don't go into the
question of why, if the clavichord was Bach's favourite keyboard
instrument, he never, ever mentions it in the instrument designations
of either the keyboard works he published during his lifetime (which
only specify either organ or harpsichord), or as far as I know in
any autograph.

And in this issue you have, no facts!

That Bach never used clavichord as an instrument designation, and in all
his published keyboard music only specified either organ or harpsichord
isn't a fact in your world? That he didn't own any clavichords on his death
isn't a fact in your world? As long as we're talking facts, can you point
to even just *one* *single* *mention* of the clavichord by Bach at all?

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman
And the organs he owned are listed in the inventory... between the
lines?

You're getting *really* silly. Who ever said Bach owned an organ? Organists
generally don't.

My mistake, I misread an earlier post you made which I thought was
referring to the inventory.

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
"Probably"??? What you're claiming is that Bach *must* have owned
clavichords, therefore, he *must* (although only "probably") have been
giving them away shortly before he died so that they wouldn't be
included in the inventory of his estate, leaving him with a mere
eight harpsichords.

Yes!

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
I note you don't go into the
question of why, if the clavichord was Bach's favourite keyboard
instrument, he never, ever mentions it in the instrument designations
of either the keyboard works he published during his lifetime (which
only specify either organ or harpsichord), or as far as I know in
any autograph.

Others here have already answered it. The small but very expressive
voice of the clavichord was most suited to study and personal
expression rather than public performance.

Post by Tom Hens
That Bach never used clavichord as an instrument designation, and in all
his published keyboard music only specified either organ or harpsichord
isn't a fact in your world? That he didn't own any clavichords on his death
isn't a fact in your world? As long as we're talking facts, can you point
to even just *one* *single* *mention* of the clavichord by Bach at all?

See above.

Andrew

[Tom Hens]

Andrew Schulman <***@panix.com> wrote...

(Sorry for all the '>''s, but Andrew seems to have an annoying habit of
responding to the same posts from earlier in the thread several times over)

<snip>

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Tom Hens
"Probably"??? What you're claiming is that Bach *must* have owned
clavichords, therefore, he *must* (although only "probably") have
been giving them away shortly before he died so that they wouldn't
be included in the inventory of his estate, leaving him with a mere
eight harpsichords.

Yes!

Did he give them away to the same people he gave his voodoo dolls and his
huge stash of pornographic literature to just before he died, or was that
an entirely distinct circle of people?

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Tom Hens
I note you don't go into the
question of why, if the clavichord was Bach's favourite keyboard
instrument, he never, ever mentions it in the instrument
designations of either the keyboard works he published during his
lifetime (which only specify either organ or harpsichord), or as
far as I know in any autograph.

Others here have already answered it.

Just to be sure, I've scanned the whole thread again. Nobody, including
yourself, has even attempted to answer this very simple question.

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
That Bach never used clavichord as an instrument designation, and in
all his published keyboard music only specified either organ or
harpsichord isn't a fact in your world? That he didn't own any
clavichords on his death isn't a fact in your world? As long as we're
talking facts, can you point to even just *one* *single* *mention*
of the clavichord by Bach at all?

See above.

In other words, you can't come up with an answer. There is no "above" to
see.

This has got to be the dumbest debating trick ever. Haughtily pretending to
have already answered a question when you haven't is of course not a new
idea, but doing so in a medium like Usenet, where everybody can scroll back
and see what has been posted before at their leisure, makes it really
silly.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens
Did he give them away to the same people he gave his voodoo dolls and his
huge stash of pornographic literature to just before he died, or was that
an entirely distinct circle of people?

Entirely distinct circle of people.

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
I note you don't go into the
question of why, if the clavichord was Bach's favourite keyboard
instrument, he never, ever mentions it in the instrument
designations of either the keyboard works he published during his
lifetime (which only specify either organ or harpsichord), or as
far as I know in any autograph.

Others here have already answered it.

Just to be sure, I've scanned the whole thread again. Nobody, including
yourself, has even attempted to answer this very simple question.

Tom, you need a new scanner-

From: Thomas Wood
Date: Sat, Apr 29 2006 1:53 pm

But also note that Forkel states that Bach preferred the clavichord as
an
instrument for "study." It was suitable for practice and private
music-making, but too quiet for public performance. The harpsichord and
(at
the end of his life) fortepiano were much better suited for concerts,
or
ensemble playing.

Tom Wood

Post by Tom Hens
This has got to be the dumbest debating trick ever. Haughtily pretending to
have already answered a question when you haven't is of course not a new
idea, but doing so in a medium like Usenet, where everybody can scroll back
and see what has been posted before at their leisure, makes it really
silly.

Obviously you need to work on your scrolling technique! You're not too
dumb for something like that, are you? And talk about being haughty!
You do take the cake...

Andrew

[Sybrand Bakker]

Post by Andrew Schulman
Obviously you need to work on your scrolling technique! You're not too
dumb for something like that, are you? And talk about being haughty!
You do take the cake...

pot kettle black

You have still to come up with evidence.
Obviously you can't and you are too stubborn to admit your fault.

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[Paul Matton]

Post by Sybrand Bakker
Obviously you can't and you are too stubborn to admit your fault.
Sybrand Bakker

Hey Sybrand -





listen carefully.






scroll down....

















keep going....





















































put your ear by my mouth and listen closely.....

































G R O W U P ! ! ! !

Contrary to your seemingly inflexible belief in the contrary,
the sun does not rise and set in anticipation of your every word.

[Tom Hens]

<snip>

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Tom Hens
I note you don't go into the
question of why, if the clavichord was Bach's favourite keyboard
instrument, he never, ever mentions it in the instrument
designations of either the keyboard works he published during his
lifetime (which only specify either organ or harpsichord), or as
far as I know in any autograph.

Others here have already answered it.

Just to be sure, I've scanned the whole thread again. Nobody, including
yourself, has even attempted to answer this very simple question.

Tom, you need a new scanner-
From: Thomas Wood
Date: Sat, Apr 29 2006 1:53 pm
But also note that Forkel states <snip>

I saw that message. You can't possibly be serious. The supposed answer to
the question why, if it was his favourite instrument, the clavichord was
*never* *once* mentioned by Bach, is yet another regurgitation of Forkel.

When did this newsgroup change into alt.worshippers.j-n-forkel?

[Martin]

Just a thought, but I suppose none of you have any of these instruments
hanging around your house? You need a lot of space for a proper
harpsichord so as a matter of sheer practicality it would be convenient
to have a small semi-portable ("clavichord") around for casual use. We
tend to get lost in arguments about favorites and the like and forget
that people like Bach had homes and families, practical contraints on
housing, budgets and so on.

Bach would have been famliar with a fortepiano -- I believe he was
dealing in them at one point in his life -- but they're nothing like a
modern piano in compass, touch and sound. (They have the feel of a
harpsichord and the sound of a knackered upright.)

I play Bach on both a harpsichord and a piano. I can't say either is
better, its as if a piece was really two completely different pieces --
same notes, different music.

I resent people being unkind about the harpsichord. Its not a piano so
you can't play it like one -- its closer to an organ in technique
anyway -- so pianists should recognize this and either learn to play
the thing or leave it alone. Playing the wrong music or playing it
badly is no excuse for dissing the instrument. There are lots of
reasons why a piano is a better choice for most people -- its easier to
play expressively and it doesn't need anything like as much tuning and
voicing, its just a much more practical instrument -- but there's
something unique about a harpsichord's sound.

[Dirk]

Post by Tom Hens
Wrong? Five harpsichords, plus two "lute-harpsichords", plus one spinet, a
small harpsichord, equals eight harpsichords on the planet where I live.
But yes, there were those other harpsichords given to J.C. Bach, and which
became a matter of dispute among the heirs. So that makes it eleven
harpsichords. And still zero clavichords.

I reckon, all these harpsichords were left because he couldn't get rid
of them ...

[Sybrand Bakker]

Post by Dirk

Post by Tom Hens
Now there's a reasonable and constructive argument if ever there was one.

you conveniently left out the rest of the sentence which actually gives
the reason why I agree, i.e. the sound is thin and has no touch
sensitivity, is that not clear enough?

The idea of 'touch sensitivity' is a 19th century concept and doesn't
apply to the music of Bach.

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[Dirk]

Post by Sybrand Bakker

Post by Dirk

Post by Tom Hens
Now there's a reasonable and constructive argument if ever there was one.

you conveniently left out the rest of the sentence which actually gives
the reason why I agree, i.e. the sound is thin and has no touch
sensitivity, is that not clear enough?

The idea of 'touch sensitivity' is a 19th century concept and doesn't
apply to the music of Bach.

It didn't apply because it wasn't there. I don't think that negates the
argument that Bach's music can be greatly enriched by applying touch
sensitivity to his clavier works. I understand that the harpsichord
uses different techniques to use dynamics in its music...
Would you at least agree that the way Bach's music is performed
(authentic instruments or contemporary instruments) is a matter of
taste? Not many people can afford a harpsichord to perform Bach. Are
you implying they shouldn't be playing Bach at all?

Post by Sybrand Bakker
Sybrand Bakker
anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[o***@aol.com]

Post by Dirk

Post by Sybrand Bakker
The idea of 'touch sensitivity' is a 19th century concept and doesn't
apply to the music of Bach.

It didn't apply because it wasn't there. I don't think that negates the
argument that Bach's music can be greatly enriched by applying touch
sensitivity to his clavier works.

Well, my personal view is that Bach's works would be changed by this.
In some ways it would be enriching, but at the same time other
qualities would be lost (clarity, incisiveness, brilliance spring to
mind). To my ears the losses outweigh the gains. However I am lucky to
have heard and worked with some genuinely great harpsichordists.
This balance of gain and loss is of course true of most changes in
instrument design throughout history. It is only if you think that
music has "improved" through the centuries that you would have to
assume that instruments have improved too!

I understand that the harpsichord

Post by Dirk
uses different techniques to use dynamics in its music...
Would you at least agree that the way Bach's music is performed
(authentic instruments or contemporary instruments) is a matter of
taste?

Quite. I would also say that the quality and understanding of the
artist is paramount!

Not many people can afford a harpsichord to perform Bach. Are

Post by Dirk
you implying they shouldn't be playing Bach at all?

Speaking for myself, of course they should! I think it would be
unreasonable to the point of absurdity to suggest otherwise. A
harpsichord is of course much cheaper than a piano, though... :-)

[Praetorius]

Once an artist's work is out in public, there isn't much he/she can do
re: interpretation. This may be a curse, but it's reality nonetheless.
You can complain about the weather, but it's still gonna rain
sometimes.

Clearly, Bach in is own time played his compositions on different
instruments adapting to the characteristics of each instrument. One of
my favorite vinyl recordings, dating from the mid-60s is E. Power
Biggs' "Bach on the Pedal Harpsichord" (don't think this is available
on CD) which contains performances of some of Bach's best known organ
works. In the liner notes Biggs points out that there may very
pragmatic reasons for playing music on instruments other than what may
have been intended, eg. hiring bellows-treaders made organ praticing "a
luxury". "Only" owning a piano, then, may be such a pragmatic reason.
(I, myself, only own a keyboard which I plug into my computer, which I
then listen to thru headphones)

One thread which runs thru the work of many Bach scholars seems to be
the 'flexibility' of his music. The Passacaglia is a good example.
Apparently (per Biggs) "the manuscript was headed 'Cembalo e pedale' "
Should this be taken literally? or, was Bach actually thinking organ
despite the notation? He continues, "Classics such as the Passacaglia
survive because they are interesting to all ages and adaptable to all
circumstances. The music seems equally at home in the sonority of
strings or pipes, and it assumes a different individuality in each."

Having said this, I prefer the harpsichord over pianos in works such as
the Goldberg Variations, the Well-tempered Clavier, etc. I like to
project myself sitting in the same room as Bach while he plays his
music--something which doesn't happen with pianos. (btw, I had dinner
with Shirley MacLaine last night, and she said Bach specifically told
her that his music was NOT written for the modern piano)

[Tom Hens]

Praetorius <***@yahoo.com> wrote...

<snip>

Post by Praetorius
One thread which runs thru the work of many Bach scholars seems to be
the 'flexibility' of his music. The Passacaglia is a good example.
Apparently (per Biggs) "the manuscript was headed 'Cembalo e pedale' "
Should this be taken literally? or, was Bach actually thinking organ
despite the notation?

No autograph manuscript for BWV 582 survives. The only source is a copy by
J.C.F. Bach in the so-called Andreas-Bach-Buch. He may well have added
"cembalo e pedale" simply to indicate that a pedal was needed when playing
it at home (i.e., not on a church organ for which it was intended). Whether
Bach himself ever put that designation on it cannot be established.

[Dirk]

Post by o***@aol.com
On the other hand, if you say "I don't like the sound of x, I prefer
y", nobody could be upset. For you, "x" is the harpsichord, for Sybrand
"x" is the piano, and my recommendation applies equally to both of you!

I subject to being compared with Sybrand who reacts abusively ...
again, I was stating my point in a friendly manner. I only became
agitated after being patronized...

Post by o***@aol.com
It is only if you think that
music has "improved" through the centuries that you would have to
assume that instruments have improved too!

I think the technology as regards control over the instrument has
improved a great deal. As regards sound, well that's indeed subjective;
I sometimes perform with African musicians, and their sound, though
'rough' to our ears, has an amazing amount of soul.

Post by o***@aol.com
Quite. I would also say that the quality and understanding of the
artist is paramount!

Are you telling me that you 'understand' the artist? For me, all I
know is that his music is of the highest standard, thereby giving us a
glimpse of a higher order in the universe...

Post by o***@aol.com
A harpsichord is of course much cheaper than a piano, though... :-)

That would suprise me, since there are many more piano's than
harpsichords. Also, the harpsichord, I believe, is much more of a
'niche' market. But I stand to be corrected...

[o***@aol.com]

Post by Dirk

Post by o***@aol.com
On the other hand, if you say "I don't like the sound of x, I prefer
y", nobody could be upset. For you, "x" is the harpsichord, for Sybrand
"x" is the piano, and my recommendation applies equally to both of you!

I subject to being compared with Sybrand who reacts abusively ...
again, I was stating my point in a friendly manner. I only became
agitated after being patronized...

I guess you meant "object"?
the only thing you have in common is that you have both stated opinions
as if they were facts. I certainly acknowledge that Sybrand has reacted
in the most extraordinary and offensive manner, which is unacceptable
in a group such as this, and I do not accuse you of that!! I have
replied to his post to that effect but he didn't respond. I don't know
if he is aware of how unpleasant he can be, as this is not the first
time he has written in such a way.

Post by Dirk

Post by o***@aol.com
It is only if you think that
music has "improved" through the centuries that you would have to
assume that instruments have improved too!

I think the technology as regards control over the instrument has
improved a great deal.

Well, I think that depends what you want from the instrument, and what
kind of control is needed for those things! The harpsichord can do many
things better than the piano, and the piano can do many (different)
things better than the harpsichord.


As regards sound, well that's indeed subjective;

Post by Dirk
I sometimes perform with African musicians, and their sound, though
'rough' to our ears, has an amazing amount of soul.

Post by o***@aol.com
Quite. I would also say that the quality and understanding of the
artist is paramount!

Are you telling me that you 'understand' the artist? For me, all I
know is that his music is of the highest standard, thereby giving us a
glimpse of a higher order in the universe...

I think you misunderstood me: I meant that the artist should be of high
quality and have a deep understanding of the music. In otherwords, a
lousy artist is not going to convince anyone of the greatness of Bach's
music, whatever instrument he chooses. But a great artist who
understands Bach's music, can perform it movingly and effectively on
any instrument. In my view, an artist who has studied the instruments
Bach used (be it harpsichord, violin as it was in his day, whatever)
will have a deeper understanding of Bach's music than one who has not.
That doesn't mean he has to use those instruments to perform! (Although
I usually prefer to hear original instruments myself)

Post by Dirk

Post by o***@aol.com
A harpsichord is of course much cheaper than a piano, though... :-)

That would suprise me, since there are many more piano's than
harpsichords. Also, the harpsichord, I believe, is much more of a
'niche' market. But I stand to be corrected...

[Sybrand Bakker]

Post by Dirk
It didn't apply because it wasn't there. I don't think that negates the
argument that Bach's music can be greatly enriched by applying touch
sensitivity to his clavier works. I understand that the harpsichord
uses different techniques to use dynamics in its music...
Would you at least agree that the way Bach's music is performed
(authentic instruments or contemporary instruments) is a matter of
taste? Not many people can afford a harpsichord to perform Bach. Are
you implying they shouldn't be playing Bach at all?

It wasn't there because it wasn't needed/required.

You are applying 19th century aesthetics to the 18th century.
In 18th century music there are contrasting sections, there is no
drama required dynamics.

Also the long legato line didn't exist, basically all music needs to
be played non-legato. If you compare music to a rope with pearls, in
18th century music the individual pearls are still important, in 19th
century music they aren't.

If you hear a pianist playing Mozart on a modern Steinway, you can't
distinguish the individual notes any longer in a series of sixteenths.
On a Walter or Stein copy you still can.

Consequently, as we are informed about how music actually *was*
played, and how composers expected it to be played, the way Bach's or
Mozart's music is NOT a matter of taste, if that 'taste' violates the
composers ideas about articulation and tempo etc. Playing Bach on a
modern Steinway simply doesn't do any justice to the composer.
This applies very much to the renditions of Glenn Gould, who is
deliberately ignoring *all* rules pertaining to articulation of 18th
century music. Such a rendition I consider being *tasteless*.
Ronald Brautigam, a pianist which switched to the fortepiano, has once
noted that if you were to play Mozart on a modern Steinway, you could
hardly touch the keys, as you simply have too much power and volume at
your disposal for this music.


One shouldn't play Bach on a piano. No harpsichord player, incapable
of buying a piano, would play Debussy on a harpsichord. Strangely
enough pianists seem to think it is normal to play music which was not
written for their instrument.
Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Sybrand Bakker
The idea of 'touch sensitivity' is a 19th century concept and doesn't
apply to the music of Bach.

Of course there was such a thing as touch sensitivity in the 18th
century, it was the essence of the Bach style of playing keyboard
instruments!

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Sybrand Bakker
The idea of 'touch sensitivity' is a 19th century concept and doesn't
apply to the music of Bach.

Of course there was such a thing as touch sensitivity in the 18th
century, it was the essence of the Bach style of playing keyboard
instruments!
Andrew

On the clavichord!

Any, I wasn't referring to the instrument mechanism but to the
fingering technique.

Andrew

[Sybrand Bakker]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Sybrand Bakker
The idea of 'touch sensitivity' is a 19th century concept and doesn't
apply to the music of Bach.

Of course there was such a thing as touch sensitivity in the 18th
century, it was the essence of the Bach style of playing keyboard
instruments!
Andrew

On the clavichord!
Any, I wasn't referring to the instrument mechanism but to the
fingering technique.
Andrew

Would you *please* come up with *substantial* evidence (other than
repeating Forkel, who never met Bach), showing Bach's works were *not*
written for Clavier, but for *clavichord*?
Are you aware the concept of crescendo and decrescendo is fully akin
to Bach's music?


Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Sybrand Bakker
Would you *please* come up with *substantial* evidence (other than
repeating Forkel, who never met Bach), showing Bach's works were *not*
written for Clavier, but for *clavichord*?
Are you aware the concept of crescendo and decrescendo is fully akin
to Bach's music?

Forkel never said that, neither did I.

Andrew

[o***@aol.com]

Post by Dirk
I'm amazed at the emotional replies to the topic of Piano for Bach's
music. The topic of actual instrumentation seems to be a springboard
for conflict between the purists and the more progressively minded.

Dear Dirk,
I completely sympathise with your opening statement: but I must say
what follows makes it less surprising that replies can be emotional! I
will do my best to keep a sense of humour - and proportion! - but do
have a look at my responses below...

Post by Dirk
So I'm starting this topic again in the hope that more reasonable and
constructive discussion can be had on this (... thus speaks daddy :-)
Listening to works as they would have sounded like in Bach's time must
give some people a kind of intimacy to the music, a feeling of reality
and truthfullness to the works and historical era of the time.

Yes, it can be very rewarding both in itself and as a way of learning
about how musicians worked and thought at the time.

Post by Dirk
But Bach himself was quite progressive, experimenting with different
instruments (Like the Viola Pomposa which never really took off), and
even his organ settings were often frowned upon because they were
innovative. His preferred clavier was the clavichord, which has more
sensitivity than the harpsichord.

Are you sure this was JS Bach? I know CPE Bach considered it the best
keyboard.

To Bach, the pianos of that time were

Post by Dirk
lacking in sharpness of tone, were too heavy-actioned and the keys were
too large to his liking.
Andras Shiff, one of my favourite Bach interpreters, said in one of his
interviews that he thought the sound of the harpsichord 'awfull'. I
actually agree with that, the tone has no depth, and there is no touch
sensitivity.

I think you must have listened to some very bad harpsichords, or
possibly some very bad harpsichordists! A good instrument, played well,
has a womderful depth of tone. Of course there is no touch sensitivity
on the way that there is on other types of keyboard, however a skilled
player can create extraordinary variety with use of timing, spreading
of chords, ornamentation, registration etc. Also fascinating is the
difference between harpsichords, eg Italian, Flemish, French.

We had a harpsichord in the conservatorium, but no one,

Post by Dirk
including the teachers, bothered playing Bach on it.

Was it a good instrument? Was it well maintained and tuned carefully
and regularly? Were the teachers who didn't use it trained to play it?
The more "no" answers to the above, the easier it is to understand why
it wasn't used!!

You can apply much

Post by Dirk
more nuance on the Yamaha or Steinway (the grand piano keys travel a
greater distance down to the keyboard bed, giving you much more control
over dynamics).

That depends on your skill and understanding of the instrument - see my
notes above.

The keyboard, unlike the violin (which virtually

Post by Dirk
remained unchanged), has evolved to a much more agreeable instrument in
the grand piano.

I must say that is a very personal view, it is rather inflammatory to
present is as a statement of fact. I must also say that it is very
wrong to say the violin remained virtually unchanged. The violin of
Bach's time, although similar in external appearance, was profoundly
different in timbre, articulation, balance, almost every aspect of tone
production. Have you seen a baroque violin bow? It curves the other way
and is much shorter. Also different were the bridge (lower, thicker,
different cut out) soundpost (small, placed differently, bass bar
(shorter and smaller), neck (straight rather than angled back), strings
(all gut, or sometimes G wound with silver, and equal tension, which
gives a stronger bass sound compared with a modern instrument)...
Just so you know!

Post by Dirk
Add to that the notion that the core of Bach's music is the music
itself, with its melody and harmony. I'm for that matter quite happyly
(and gratefully) play the ninth 'Art of the Fugue' fugue on a (full
action) midi keyboard, using actual violin samples. The harpsichord
interpretation of this work misses out on all the intrinsic harmonies
held by sustaing notes.

Was the art of fugue written for harpsichord? Was it indeed written for
any specific instrument?

For some reason my browser has stopped quoting your post here so I'll
continue in a separate one. My point is really that it's no wonder
people respons emotionally if you dpresent personal opinions - which
are of course valid and welcome - as facts - and especially if your
facts aren't quite right!

I fear you will have some rather fiery responses - please try to see
through them and have a look again at your own post . It could indeed
be an interesting discussion!

Regards

Oliver Webber

[Dirk]

reply to Oliver Webber. ***@aol.com:

Thank heavens for a non-patronizing reply ...

I see the irony in me being amazed at the emotional replies while
reacting emotionally to some replies myself ... so I take the rap for
that.

While I was giving you my subjective opinions about the harpsichord, I
don't believe I did so in an insulting manner.

My knowledge on Bach is derived from some years of reading up about
him, though nowhere do I claim to be a scholar on Bach, so if people
disagree, that's fine, as long as it is done decently.

As my interests lie mainly in the performing of Bach's work and since
I'm doing research in other fields, I don't have the time to go
searching through my books to quote passages from where I got
information from ... I leave that to all you scholarly experts.

[o***@aol.com]

Post by Dirk
Thank heavens for a non-patronizing reply ...
I see the irony in me being amazed at the emotional replies while
reacting emotionally to some replies myself ... so I take the rap for
that.

Thank you!

Post by Dirk
While I was giving you my subjective opinions about the harpsichord, I
don't believe I did so in an insulting manner.

No, I didn't say that - I said that to state an opinion, especially one
that is quite extreme, as if it were fact, is inflammatory, not
insulting. It's inflammatory because if you say "x sounds awful and y
sounds better", those who believe "y sounds awful and x sounds better"
will be upset. Come to think of it, though, I might well feel insulted
too if someone said something I loved was "awful" as a matter of fact!

On the other hand, if you say "I don't like the sound of x, I prefer
y", nobody could be upset. For you, "x" is the harpsichord, for Sybrand
"x" is the piano, and my recommendation applies equally to both of you!

My point is, of course, that if what you say is subjective, it is best
to make that clear.

Post by Dirk
My knowledge on Bach is derived from some years of reading up about
him, though nowhere do I claim to be a scholar on Bach, so if people
disagree, that's fine, as long as it is done decently.

Yes, absolutely. But it's so important to present opinions and facts
differently.

Post by Dirk
As my interests lie mainly in the performing of Bach's work and since
I'm doing research in other fields, I don't have the time to go
searching through my books to quote passages from where I got
information from ... I leave that to all you scholarly experts.

Fair enough.

[Brad Lehman]

Post by o***@aol.com

Post by Dirk
Andras Shiff, one of my favourite Bach interpreters, said in one of his
interviews that he thought the sound of the harpsichord 'awfull'. I
actually agree with that, the tone has no depth, and there is no touch
sensitivity.

I think you must have listened to some very bad harpsichords, or
possibly some very bad harpsichordists! A good instrument, played well,
has a womderful depth of tone. Of course there is no touch sensitivity
on the way that there is on other types of keyboard, however a skilled
player can create extraordinary variety with use of timing, spreading
of chords, ornamentation, registration etc. Also fascinating is the
difference between harpsichords, eg Italian, Flemish, French.

For any interested in hearing some Bach on a steel-strung Flemish
harpsichord, here's my own recording that was released in January 2006:
"Playing from Bach's Fancy".
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/cd1003.html

Maybe that album's program notes will be of some interest to people who
believe that harpsichords are inexpressive?

Another harpsichord example: Richard Egarr's live performance on the
BBC yesterday (30 April 2006). That's available at the "Listen to the
latest programmes - Sunday" link here this week:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/earlymusicshow/

Egarr talked about expressivity in the quilling, tuning, cantabile
playing, etc.

Post by o***@aol.com
We had a harpsichord in the conservatorium, but no one,

Post by Dirk
including the teachers, bothered playing Bach on it.

Was it a good instrument? Was it well maintained and tuned carefully
and regularly? Were the teachers who didn't use it trained to play it?
The more "no" answers to the above, the easier it is to understand why
it wasn't used!!

Agreed; I've heard plenty of harpsichords played by people who had
absolutely zero training on them, but only brought in semi-cognate
generic keyboard skill from piano or organ. Harpsichords don't respond
particularly well to being treated so generically...and they can make
untrained players sound especially inexpressive or bewildered.

That doesn't make it the harpsichord's fault, that it's treated badly
by people who don't understand it as a separate instrument!

Incidentally, I enjoy hearing Bach's music played on pianos also...as
long as the players treat it like a piano, instead of pretending it's
some mutant harpsichord. An example of good-sounding piano Bach (IMO
of course) is Zhu Xiao-Mei's set of Goldberg Variations, or similarly
her set of the Partitas. And, Andras Schiff's ECM set of the Goldbergs
too...even though he's so caustic against harpsichords in his booklet
notes.


Brad Lehman (DMA in harpsichord....)
http://www.larips.com
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Brad Lehman
Incidentally, I enjoy hearing Bach's music played on pianos also...as
long as the players treat it like a piano, instead of pretending it's
some mutant harpsichord.

Mr. Lehman:

We guitarists deal with a similar issue. I don't feel that it is a
very successful approach to try and make the guitar sound like it's
"mutant harpsichord" either!

I just listened to your harpsichord and organ audio samples; beautiful
and expressive playing.

Andrew

[Ioannis]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Brad Lehman
Incidentally, I enjoy hearing Bach's music played on pianos also...as
long as the players treat it like a piano, instead of pretending it's
some mutant harpsichord.

We guitarists deal with a similar issue. I don't feel that it is a
very successful approach to try and make the guitar sound like it's
"mutant harpsichord" either!
I just listened to your harpsichord and organ audio samples; beautiful
and expressive playing.

I am downloading Brad's samples as well. Meanwhile, I've already posted
those links, but I think it worthy to repost them:

Gergely Sarkozy's Rendition of

The Prelude/Presto for Lute Suite No.1:
http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/music/SarkozyLS1Pre.html (3.66MB mp3)

Bourree from the same suite:
http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/music/SarkozyLS1Bou.html (2.51 MB
mp3)

on a "Lute-Harpsichord". So far I find this instrument's tone superior to
that of harpsichords, even pedal harpsichords.

(You can replace the .html with .mp3 for a direct download)

Post by Andrew Schulman
Andrew

[Dirk]

Post by Brad Lehman

Post by o***@aol.com

Post by Dirk
Andras Shiff, one of my favourite Bach interpreters, said in one of his
interviews that he thought the sound of the harpsichord 'awfull'. I
actually agree with that, the tone has no depth, and there is no touch
sensitivity.

I think you must have listened to some very bad harpsichords, or
possibly some very bad harpsichordists! A good instrument, played well,
has a womderful depth of tone. Of course there is no touch sensitivity
on the way that there is on other types of keyboard, however a skilled
player can create extraordinary variety with use of timing, spreading
of chords, ornamentation, registration etc. Also fascinating is the
difference between harpsichords, eg Italian, Flemish, French.

For any interested in hearing some Bach on a steel-strung Flemish
"Playing from Bach's Fancy".
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/cd1003.html

Thanks for the samples. I downloaded some of the samples so I can
listen to it in my own time. You have tickled my curiosity and I do
admit to having expressed my view too bluntly, if not a bit naively. I
gladly hope to be converted, since this can only add to my Bach
experience ...

[santiago538]

Post by Dirk
I'm amazed at the emotional replies to the topic of Piano for Bach's
music. The topic of actual instrumentation seems to be a springboard
for conflict between the purists and the more progressively minded.

Yea right....everyone who prefers the harpsichord is some kind or
troglodyte purist and everyone who prefers the piano is an open-minded
free spirit.

Post by Dirk
So I'm starting this topic again in the hope that more reasonable and
constructive discussion can be had on this (... thus speaks daddy :-)
Listening to works as they would have sounded like in Bach's time must
give some people a kind of intimacy to the music, a feeling of reality
and truthfullness to the works and historical era of the time.

And some people actually happen to *like* the harpsichord (I realize to
you this sounds like a bit of a stretch) and enjoy listening (or
playing) the great masterpieces written for that instrument.

Post by Dirk
But Bach himself was quite progressive, experimenting with different
instruments (Like the Viola Pomposa which never really took off),

No, by the 1720s the aesthetics inherent in Bach's music had already
been supplanted in much of Europe.

and

Post by Dirk
even his organ settings were often frowned upon because they were
innovative. His preferred clavier was the clavichord,

Do you have any documentary evidence to back this up?

which has more

Post by Dirk
sensitivity than the harpsichord. To Bach, the pianos of that time were
lacking in sharpness of tone, were too heavy-actioned and the keys were
too large to his liking.

Then explain why he would like the organ so much?

Post by Dirk
Andras Shiff, one of my favourite Bach interpreters, said in one of his
interviews that he thought the sound of the harpsichord 'awfull'. I
actually agree with that, the tone has no depth, and there is no touch
sensitivity.

You and Schiff are entitled to your opinions. Don't expect everyone to
agree with them.

We had a harpsichord in the conservatorium, but no one,

Post by Dirk
including the teachers, bothered playing Bach on it. You can apply much
more nuance on the Yamaha or Steinway

That is complete, utter horseshit. If your teachers eschewed the
harpsichord for the purpose of teaching Bach, a diploma from that
institution isn't worth the paper it is printed on.


(the grand piano keys travel a

Post by Dirk
greater distance down to the keyboard bed, giving you much more control
over dynamics). The keyboard, unlike the violin (which virtually
remained unchanged), has evolved to a much more agreeable instrument in
the grand piano.

Since musical styles must have similarly evolved (else they would
virtually remain unchanged), would you agree that contemporary music is
much more agreeable than that composed in Bach's time?

Post by Dirk
Add to that the notion that the core of Bach's music is the music
itself, with its melody and harmony. I'm for that matter quite happyly
(and gratefully) play the ninth 'Art of the Fugue' fugue on a (full
action) midi keyboard, using actual violin samples. The harpsichord
interpretation of this work misses out on all the intrinsic harmonies
held by sustaing notes.

You must prefer Schumann's arrangements of the Cello Suites and Violin
Sonatas and Partitas, since he adds a piano accompaniment to supply all
the "intrinsic harmonies" only suggested in the originals.

[Dirk]

Post by santiago538

Post by Dirk
But Bach himself was quite progressive, experimenting with different
instruments (Like the Viola Pomposa which never really took off),

No, by the 1720s the aesthetics inherent in Bach's music had already
been supplanted in much of Europe.

Yes, I'm talking about instruments and instrumentation here ...

Post by santiago538

Post by Dirk
even his organ settings were often frowned upon because they were
innovative. His preferred clavier was the clavichord,

Do you have any documentary evidence to back this up?

As regards clavichord, many others already did in this thread ....
As regards the organ, yes, if you ask nicely ...

Post by santiago538
which has more

Post by Dirk
sensitivity than the harpsichord. To Bach, the pianos of that time were
lacking in sharpness of tone, were too heavy-actioned and the keys were
too large to his liking.

Then explain why he would like the organ so much?

He preferred the touch on the organ light also and the claviers close
together.

Post by santiago538

Post by Dirk
Andras Shiff, one of my favourite Bach interpreters, said in one of his
interviews that he thought the sound of the harpsichord 'awfull'. I
actually agree with that, the tone has no depth, and there is no touch
sensitivity.

You and Schiff are entitled to your opinions. Don't expect everyone to
agree with them.

I don't ...

Post by santiago538
We had a harpsichord in the conservatorium, but no one,

Post by Dirk
including the teachers, bothered playing Bach on it. You can apply much
more nuance on the Yamaha or Steinway

That is complete, utter horseshit. If your teachers eschewed the
harpsichord for the purpose of teaching Bach, a diploma from that
institution isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

May be horseshit to you but It's true ... Our teachers did 'eschewe'
the piano and organ for teaching Bach. I know ... inconceivable.

Post by santiago538
(the grand piano keys travel a

Post by Dirk
greater distance down to the keyboard bed, giving you much more control
over dynamics). The keyboard, unlike the violin (which virtually
remained unchanged), has evolved to a much more agreeable instrument in
the grand piano.

Since musical styles must have similarly evolved (else they would
virtually remain unchanged), would you agree that contemporary music is
much more agreeable than that composed in Bach's time?

Sorry you lost me there ...

Post by santiago538

Post by Dirk
Add to that the notion that the core of Bach's music is the music
itself, with its melody and harmony. I'm for that matter quite happyly
(and gratefully) play the ninth 'Art of the Fugue' fugue on a (full
action) midi keyboard, using actual violin samples. The harpsichord
interpretation of this work misses out on all the intrinsic harmonies
held by sustaing notes.

You must prefer Schumann's arrangements of the Cello Suites and Violin
Sonatas and Partitas, since he adds a piano accompaniment to supply all
the "intrinsic harmonies" only suggested in the originals.

Euh ... no. Violins and cellos do a pretty good job of sustaining
notes. In the AOF, the harmony is expressly stated, in the cello suites
they are implied.
I for one don't take to arrangements not coming from Bach ... But hey,
that's a matter of taste, I for one won't insult anyone who does.