How to Play Bach

TRANSLATION

Chapter 1.3 Bach on the modern piano.

I was fortunate to grow up thinking that there is nothing wrong with playing Bach on a modern piano. Therefore, I never had "complexes" (meaning insecurities) when playing it. Certainly, I was informed that Bach was written for the harpsichord, and very soon that instrument became very familiar to me, but it was never very pleasant. I always quickly became frustrated by the fact that I could not correctly express a phrase that required playing two notes where the second is lighter than the first, or the impossibility of imitating the natural rise and fall of the human voice (I believe she always means in a dynamic sense rather than in terms of pitch). For these reasons alone, I found the harpsichord limited. The clavichord, another instrument of that era, was much more expressive and capable of singing. The piano was developed as a response to the desire for a more powerful instrument (meaning versatile in this case) that could sustain sound longer. I am not saying that the harpsichord cannot have a beautiful sound; it is just different, and I wanted an instrument that could truly sing. In the large concert halls we have today, the harpsichord simply cannot fill them. The piano can do everything Bach requires. It can successfully imitate a bow (violins, violas, cellos, double basses), wind, a human voice, and sometimes even an organ. Bach recycled much of his music, turning a violin concerto into a keyboard concerto, and later, using it again in a cantata for voice and orchestra. Therefore, the music matters much more than the current instrumentation. I agree with Rosalyn Turek, one of the greatest Bach experts of the twentieth century, who said that the fault lies with the performer rather than the instrument when Bach's style is lacking something in piano performances. It is true that Bach had the opportunity to test some summary examples (ancestors) of pianos developed by his friend "Silbermann" (I am not sure I understood the name correctly), but he found it too weak in the high registers and the mechanics too rigid. Certainly, he would not have said the same about this Fazioli Piano. I think Bach on the piano must be interpreted in a harder way than on the harpsichord, because you have many more decisions to make regarding timbre and touch, and the possibilities are infinite. Let me show you a gigantic advantage that the piano has over the harpsichord. A true Bach pianist has the ability to distinguish, using different colors (timbres), the different voices in Bachian counterpoint. To demonstrate this, let me take the third variation of the Goldberg: the unison canon. This means we have two voices played by the right hand that are singing exactly the same music, one measure apart. Because of this, the voices are constantly overlapping each other and easily become entangled.

The pianist plays.

On the harpsichord, there is no way to give one sound to the first voice and another to the second, something that can be done on the piano.

The pianist plays.

Now bringing out the dominant voice, which is the first, (the pianist plays) and now the second voice, which I did when I played the repetition, (the pianist plays).

On the harpsichord, you simply cannot do it; it is all uniform.

(The pianist moves to the harpsichord and repeats to demonstrate the uniformity).

This makes the entire experience of listening to this variation, at least for me, much more understandable and rewarding.

To be a good interpreter of Bach, you must be a scholar, reading how his music was performed in his day, and, as I have already said, many clues were left by Bach himself.

As pianists, we cannot ignore all the work that is called authentic. They have brought to light so many things that every good musician should know, but often the problem does not emerge to discover them, or we forget to apply them after some time. There are many beautiful books on this subject, including the essay on the true art of playing keyboard instruments by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Bach's son. His advice in the performance chapter is as valid now as it was 250 years ago. But being a scholar does not guarantee that you will become a great interpreter of Bach. This requires an inspired performer to bring it to life. More and more often people tell me to study Bach in a polished and academic way, and indeed I can remember many performers who bored me to tears and then are surprised to hear it so full of life and expression. This does not mean that one must give it a romantic imprint, which has nothing to do with the correct Bach style, so let's proceed to discover what the correct Bach style is.

I translated a bit quickly, I think the gist can be understood anyway.

Regards,

A very important video. An eternal dispute on how to play the great music of yesterday today.

I think that one must imagine and deduce the composer's idea to its fullest extent. An "Immense" figure like Bach, who thought directly in a polyphonic way, could not have conceived the voices with uniform color. I believe that the fact that He was able to play them on instruments that did not do justice or honor to his great idea does not exclude us from the possibility of realizing the great Idea on a modern instrument that allows us to diversify the color of the voices: I believe Bach would approve of hearing this possibility on a modern instrument. Don't you think?

Goodness, does that damn TheSimon never sleep at night?

Yesterday, returning from Romania, I saw the video of Hewitt and this morning I started transcribing its translation and here I am wasting my time (so to speak, it was a useful diversion nonetheless, it's just that I have a mountain of backlog, since I've been away for more than a month and a half!).

Anyway, next time, write immediately "I'll take care of IT", so everyone else can relax and wait!

Aside from the joke, I confirm for Simone that yes, he heard correctly, it is about Gottfried Silbermann, a German builder of keyboard instruments. After he had built two instruments, Silbermann submitted them to his friend Bach, who contested the tone of the highs and the hardness of the keyboard. He then dedicated himself to improving his pianos, examining the achievements of Cristofori and, this time, his instruments obtained the approval of the divine cantor (oh, the great advantages of copying!).

So much so that documentary evidence remains of Bach's mediation in the sale of Silbermann's pianos! (oh, the great advantages of understanding something!).

P.S. You should also keep documentary evidence of the payment for translations!

@PianoExpert

Yes, he certainly wasn't just anyone!

I am sure that what he heard was, as always happens to universal geniuses, enormously greater than what could be realized at that moment. (Imagination is the true God of reality. Isaiah 1:13:24)

Bye

Imagination is the true God of reality!!!! I am stamping this into my brain. A phrase of immense meaning!!!!! Thank you

Dear Paolo,

when I wrote this sentence, I was - as usual - playing (the quote Isaiah, 1.13.24 was completely made up by me, in order to cover the invention with biblical suggestions!).

At this point I don't know if I am or am not the inventor of the idea (but I don't think so), however the sentence reflects my exact thought. We place into reality what we imagine, and many others see/feel/touch what for us doesn't even exist: if this isn't divine, I don't know what is!

My playing depended on the fact that we were tackling a topic that was too serious and therefore I was trying not to be/appear pedantic.

I therefore thank you from the bottom of my heart for the benevolent comment "Sentence of immense meaning!" and this comment of Yours is one I will truly imprint in my mind!

Warm regards.

Dear Gennarino,

The phrase is truly beautiful. .......You won a watch!!!!!!!! ( Explain to the People of Pianoconcerto what that means.....they might think that with every beautiful phrase.....they win a watch....!!!!!! Aoh!!!!! )

P.S. Disorganized people like me shouldn't put things away, at the risk of never finding them again........this time you got lucky and I am sharing my negligence with all the friends of the Forum.

Look, I was sure you would find it again!

It was just that, since it is a great friend's favorite watch, you had put it in the safest place you have at home!!!!!!!!