The usual question... philology or not

I would like you to contextualize the concept of "modern"

First, you will agree that 100% philological performance is objectively impossible, given that we do not have recordings of composers prior to the twentieth century. Instead, paradoxically, having the original recordings of Rachmaninov, Bartok, and Prokofiev, we continue to play their compositions however we want.

Now, coming also to the discussion of instruments, what do I do artistically and originally when I play a piece written by someone else, note for note on what is presumed to have been the instrument for which the composer wrote? Very little, to tell the truth. As an exercise, however, it is very useful, because it allows me to fully understand or at least approach what the original idea was.

I conclude by letting you listen to two particularly interesting and decidedly non-philological recordings!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi5-WRgA5GI

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Good to see you again Antares, where did you end up? At the seaside?

The same question arises in the context of organ recordings. In the '60s of the last century, there was less attention toward philology (or rather, it didn't even exist), so one finds recordings with the most disparate registrations; nowadays, it is always good to conduct a study to try to avoid playing Bach's music as if it were written by Reger

My dear fellow countryman, forgive me, but the question you pose to us is by now, from my point of view, tiresome. In these years, I don't know how many times I have read or listened to discussions on the subject, philological or otherwise, about everything and its opposite. And once again, I answer everyone like this: learned music must be interpreted. Its greatness lies above all in the hands of those who do it! Whether they do it with period instruments or modern instruments, it matters little to me - in fact, it doesn't matter at all -. There are wonderful philological interpretations and just as many that are not. Therefore, Antares, w the music. w the performers and above all, in this field W BACH! (Johann Sebastian naturally, the only one!).

I agree with Danielescarpetti regarding the interpretation in a musical sense.

Regarding the part: period instruments yes/no?

Limiting myself to my instrument, I would draw an imaginary line between the harpsichord and the fortepiano where there was a turning point in the construction of the two instruments.

in general terms, I believe that a piece written for harpsichord should be performed on a harpsichord, not necessarily a period one, but it must be a harpsichord, and the same applies to all other instruments; whereas for the fortepiano, there is the classic exception that proves the rule: Mozart.

I prefer his music on the piano, more brilliant, sonorous, and malleable than the fortepiano, but even here the difference between the two instruments is less than it is between the piano and the harpsichord.

For wind instruments, I would apply the same rule: today we would never play on natural horns, but we would use modern double horns which are higher performing, but they are still horns. Same thing for all other instruments like trumpets, trombones, etc.

Even for strings, the argument is correct: modern ones are better in every way, but they are still the same strings.

So in general terms, I would perform music on the instruments intended by the composer, with the sole concession that they can be modernly constructed instruments.

Question:

Why is it that when playing Poulenc's concerto for harpsichord and orchestra, no one dreams of playing it on the piano, whereas for Bach it is done habitually?

rstrauss wrote:

Why, when playing Poulenc's concerto for harpsichord and orchestra, does no one dream of playing it on the piano, whereas for Bach it is done habitually?

Because Bach's music is infinite and not thought for a specific instrument; often it does not prescribe harpsichord or organ, so why not the piano?

A lui interessa che ci sia una TASTIERA!!!

as for Bach's cantatas, I prefer modern "instruments": that is, with the soprano and alto parts entrusted to women.

For Poulenc's concerto for harpsichord and orchestra, I would say... because having both of them available (and knowing they are available) it is evident that he specifically wanted what was indicated.

I am for: "the end justifies the means"

If the end is art, any means (the instrument) is welcome.

Leonhardt or Gould? Who can say?

@ rstrauss I am starting to listen to some piano and orchestra concerts by Mozart conducted by Gardiner with Bilsam (I think that's what he's called, my apologies) on the fortepiano.... and I must tell you that for now I prefer the concerts on the fortepiano.... a matter of taste.... regarding the rest, I quite agree with you...

@ organista I was on vacation! but no sea, I can't stand the salt air haha

@crazypiano rather than better one or the other... I will modify my question to: do you prefer one or the other? or both

Better (I prefer) one or the other?... I'll give my opinion.

If the goal is art, I prefer Leonhardt, Carl Richter and Koopman (on harpsichord) as much as Schiff and Willem Brons (on piano).

I don't understand what artistic-transcendental subtlety there is in taking a piano and treating it like a harpsichord.

Open content (youtube)

Lestofante wrote:

Why is Bach's music infinite and not intended for a specific instrument, often not prescribing harpsichord or organ, so why not piano?

A him, all that matters is that there is a KEYBOARD!!!

Infinite or not, Bach did not have the piano and therefore could not conceive anything for this instrument. If he had had the fortepiano perhaps ...

The most "new" keyboards for that period were harpsichord and organ.

Let's suppose he had excluded all the so-called "small keyboards" like virginals, spinets, etc. ... Regarding the fact that Bach did not write whether he wanted organ or harpsichord, it doesn't surprise me too much; in fact, his writing for harpsichord is totally different from that for organ, setting aside the pedalboard.

Try playing any suite or piece from the CBT on the organ and you will immediately realize that it doesn't fit.

But wasn't it Bach who didn't even indicate the tempo of the piece at the beginning, claiming: "If one cannot understand the performance tempo on their own, they might as well not play it" or something similar?

antares86 wrote:

@ rstrauss I am starting to listen to some piano and orchestra concertos by Mozart conducted by Gardiner with Bilsam (I think that's what he's called, my apologies) on the fortepiano.... and I must tell you that for now I prefer the concertos on the fortepiano.... a matter of taste.... regarding the rest, I quite agree with you...

I'll tell you... I also have a version of concerto no. 9 in E-flat played on period instruments with the fortepiano and I must say that I prefer it to the piano. The almost "galant" character and the very classical nature of the extreme movements suit the fortepiano, but the central movement, which is almost Beethovenian in style (C minor), reveals to us the great limitations of this instrument when faced with more robust and dramatic writing.

The same applies to the two quartets for pf, vn, va, and vc... perhaps I can accept the one in E-flat on the fortepiano, but not the one in G minor.

But if we move forward in time and take, for example, the concertos from 12 onwards—above all the 20th—I definitely prefer the piano, mainly because Mozart's writing is much more advanced, the timbral and agogic choices have multiplied, the left hand has acquired an importance it didn't have before, and the orchestra has increased with new woodwinds. Here, sincerely, the fortepiano can no longer keep up, and the final result suffers greatly.

I still strongly agree with Daniele, interpretations are divided into good and bad.

That being said, if you happen to "know" certain things, then you start to like them, you get a taste for it and you can't do without it anymore... I love the timbre of the harpsichord and its possibilities for historical tuning very much. But it is not a question of philology or otherwise: I always remember that "philology" means something different from what some of you intend. Philological interpretations do not exist, philological editions exist. A score can be philological, in short, and even there one should describe what is meant by a philological edition. An interpretation can be historically informed, which does not mean having a Nazi pointing a machine gun at your temple; it means that as a performer you take care to study everything available in the field to get an idea EVEN of the performance style of Bach's time. From that point on, however, every choice is yours.

Therefore, there can be bad performances and good performances.

I know I'm making a strong statement, but philology cannot exist. If you are interested in the field, try to research Early music. If it is convenient for you, one of the most active centers in Italy is Urbino.

From an organological point of view, one should contextualize the meaning of ancient music, which until 40 years ago meant Renaissance/Baroque, but now also includes, for example, the music of Mozart (see correlations to the fortepiano which acted as a catalyst). Furthermore, I have heard, for example, in places like Parma, even Romantic contexts; after all, time passes, and there is this (vivid) need that concerns not only the piano - which from an organological point of view is light years ahead - but also the orchestra.

Clearly, the discussion is very broad, but the closer you get to this discipline (organology), the more you realize (Antares) that philology is a chimera.

Therefore, long live art; between Gould and Leonhardt (CrazyPiano), I choose both. Also because we bring the "harpsichord" into play in general... but if, for example, I asked you: French or Italian school? Or which one for Bach?

Because it is easy to say philology, but then what does it mean? What should be done to have truly philological performances? And how does Early music fit into this context?

Thallo, on 04 Sept 2014 - 5:42 PM, said:

(...) An interpretation can be historically informed, which doesn't mean having a Nazi pointing a machine gun at your temple; it means that as a performer, you take care to study everything available in the field to form an idea EVEN of the performance style of Bach's time. From that point on, however, every choice is yours.

Therefore, there can be bad performances and beautiful performances.

"From that point on, however, every choice is yours"... I agree with Thallo.

If I may vary the theme, I would say that every interpretation—authoritative, serious, high-level—has a duty to be historically informed: as much as possible. And let's even assume that 'historically informed' and 'philological' essentially mean the same thing.

But in Thallo's "From that point on" lies all the thrill, the responsibility—great and beautiful—of musical interpretation.

In extreme synthesis, philology is 'the starting point.' It is a necessary 'method' of work. Not the goal, not the destination.
The destination always remains the music: your interpretation.

great, I like the direction everything is taking^^

I agree with Frank, although I cannot subscribe to what Gould said regarding how he would perform the fugues from Bach's CBT: he maintained that with modern techniques, every voice should be performed separately and then put together.

I am not disputing Gould, but on this point I simply cannot agree ... I am a fan of live performances, with all the flaws they may have.

Returning to the original discussion, starting from Bach, it can be extended to all those contemporary composers of his who wrote for harpsichord and are performed on the piano.
The piano offers more timbral possibilities; the performer potentially has more opportunities to range and, at the same time, more opportunities to go beyond ... perhaps too far ... distorting what a specific piece requires ...

here comes into play what LucaCavaliere says ... the responsibility of interpreting a piece ... am I throwing a stone into the pond?

where is the boundary between interpretation and free will? ... also meaning "using an instrument different from the one used by the composer" ...

I will add that Bach did not know the piano, but surely... the piano knows Bach!

I mean that since the piano has existed, Bach has been played on its keyboard more than any other composer of his era (perhaps he rivaled Scarlatti in certain periods). In a sense, the sound of the piano was also "formed" on Bach.

And therefore (if you forgive my pun) the piano for Bach is not philological, but Bach for the piano is philological.

RedScharlach wrote:

And therefore (if you forgive the pun) the piano for Bach is not philological, but Bach for the piano is philological.

Subtle and interesting