Found a great Bach interpreter!

For a couple of decades I only knew Glould's rendition of the WTC, and I thought his way was the "correct" one. I also found his rendition about as exciting as listening to a tumble dryer (and not necessarily one in operation either). Then I ventured out to get Barenboim's version (I always loved his Beethoven), and - lo and behold - I thought it sounded good and interesting! Later I also heard Nikolayeva's version of the "Little preludes", and I thought she played them brilliantly; they sounded pleasant and engaging.

With respect to what Bach himself would have wanted; he used the most moderne instruments available to him, didn't he? So, had they existed, he would probably have used moderne instruments as a matter of course, and with pleasure taking use of their possibilities.

CyberGene Because it stems from an attempt to play the piano as a harpsichord or organ.

For me, it is not a matter of how it should sound (in that case I would stick with Jean Rondeau recordings and call it a day) but how it sounded to Bach when he was composing. Since harpsichord dynamics is limited, Bach would create musical tension by adjusting other things in the score: single note vs chords, pauses, voice interplay, etc… Bach composed that score in that manner because of the limitation of the instrument, and not despite of… I believe that a more free play does not showcase the player ability to bring up those details.

vagfilm I’m not sure that was the case. Bach often reused his works between instruments. For instance, some of the keyboard concertos are also violin concertos and were first composed for the violin. There are other similar interchanges in his works, I think he reused material from his cantatas from/to other forms and instrumentation. I think his music is somehow absolute, in the sense it’s not so much about the timbre and arrangement, as it is purely (absolutely) about the content. Which is why it works on synths and in so many transcriptions and arrangements. That’s just my opinion though, not necessarily a scholarly fact, I’m not really sure what scholars think about it. But I believe Bach was a very flexible composer who was known for his improvisation and transcription/adaptation skills, and I’m sure he would’ve appreciated and approved all kinds of freedom that future musicians would put interpreting his music and would stay away from dogmas. Again, that’s just my personal view 🙂

QuasiUnaFantasia For a couple of decades I only knew Glould's rendition of the WTC, and I thought his way was the "correct" one.

And you were right the first time around! Barenboim and Bach don’t mix well…..IMHO!

On the matter of Glenn’s “dryness,” I think this rumor has been greatly exaggerated, for you see, he doesn’t play Bach like a robot (as some would imply), but rather emphasizes phrasing over everything else, and believe it or not, he does “stretch” the music here and there, only, it’s not overt and tacky like many “romantics” tend to do.

So good, his timing is, that he can play the Goldbergs at super-fast speeds, yet still, the impeccable phrasing and musicality is still there; something easier said than done. As a matter of fact, Long Lang attempted such speeds (perhaps even faster), and whilst he can certainly maintain the fast tempo, it all comes at the expense of phrasing and musical intelligence; whence his Goldbergs seem a circus act by comparison to Glenn’s master interpretation!

I’m not a fanboy, but I humbly believe Glenn the greatest Bach interpreter; because he did just that: (re)interpret!

Barenboim and friends simply interpret Bach through the prism of false notions and myths perpetuated by romantic dogma; heck, I know more about “the real” Bach than effing Barenboim and his prodigy, Long Lang, but surely, they know more about wowing an audience with flashes of bombastic energy intended to showcase yet not elucidate!

Pete14 there’s truth to what you say. Gould is great for hearing all the notes in a non colored way, no flashy stuff. But I still occasionally find it way too dry 😀 I need variety.

CyberGene I need variety.

Slippery slope, friend 😘

If people want consistent volumes during Bach, why not simply listen to harpsichord recordings?

CyberGene I think his music is somehow absolute, in the sense it’s not so much about the timbre and arrangement, as it is purely (absolutely) about the content. Which is why it works on synths and in so many transcriptions and arrangements.

Absolutely. 😉 Of all the major composers Bach's music seems to be the most indestructible. It somehow manages to keep its integrity no matter what instrument you play it on, and can be adapted to many different interpretive styles.

BTW, I agree Koroliov is a fantastic Bach pianist - his WTC has long been one of my favorites. He's also recorded the Partitas and French Suites I believe.

This has recently become another favorite WTC of mine, which I somehow missed when it was first released - some really fine Bach playing here:

jdg78 thanks for reminding me about Angela Hewitt. I first heard about her when there was an incident with her Fazioli piano destroyed by piano movers in 2020. I wanted to listen to her Bach records at the time but she is recording for Hyperion and at the time the label was not on the streaming services. They recently published their entire catalog and I posted about that here but I had completely forgotten about Hewitt. Thanks to you I’m listening to her WTC now and it’s very good! Immediately added it to my library and will listen it in the next days. To me it sounds like a Fazioli, the typical linear timbre gradation and it works fantastic for Bach. She seems to use a very dramatic dynamic contrast, however the Fazioli timbre consistency doesn’t turn it into a drastic timbre change and that makes it perfect for Bach. I hope I’m not mistaken about the piano though 😀 Would be fun if she used say Steinway for the WTC but I auto-suggested myself into hearing a Fazioli instead 🤣

@jdg78 yes, it’s a Fazioli, here’s some information from the liner notes of her re-recording of the WTC for Hyperion in 2009 which you linked to in Spotify (and I found in Apple Music):

https://angelahewitt.com/discography/bach-the-well-tempered-clavier-new-2008-recording/

I found also her first recording from 1999 and it’s not on Fazioli apparently but there’s no information about the exact piano. I’ll probably listen to her first recording too but she says she improved a lot in the re-recording.

CyberGene I’m wondering if this more Romantic Bach is a Russian school somehow.

Perhaps. But then again, there's such variety among Russian pianists so I find it difficult generalize. I heard an interview of Vladimir Ashkenazy a few years ago where he claimed that there is no such thing as a "Russian school". But then again (again) there seems to be a strong tradition around the Moscow conservatory so.... Anyway, another Russian pianist that I find to be an extraordinary Bach interpreter is Nikolai Demidenko. It's another, more strict, style than Mr. Koroliov and Mrs. Nikolayeva but yet very expressive and with a sharpness and transparency in the polyphony that sometimes lead my thoughts to a certain Canadian pianist.

CyberGene

Yes, she definitely uses a Fazioli in these recordings, but I think it really works well in this context, and the particular instrument she uses sounds a bit more characterful than some other Faziolis I've heard.

I also have been getting more acquainted with her recordings since Hyperion started appearing on streaming services, and I've been really impressed by her playing, particularly her Bach.

I've listened to both the older WTC and newer version, and while they are both excellent, I do think the newer version is the better of the two.

johanibraaten well, I’ve been listening to Angela Hewitt’s WTC in the last minutes (her second recording) and despite being Canadian, she’s closer to Koroliov’s Bach than to her compatriot Gould’s Bach 🙂 Hard to say there are any national “schools” of how to play Bach (or any other composer), although there are certainly some traditions. I found Koroliov, Nikolayeva and Richter’s Bach very similar. They are not shy of applying sustain pedal and use more dynamic contrast. Oddly enough, Hewitt’s Bach is even farther up that scale and I’m pleasantly surprised. I’ll wait to hear the entire WTC at least twice but I can easily see how Hewitt would become my new favorite. And the Fazioli is absolutely divine, as is the recording quality.

Decided to search for some comparison of Koroliov and Hewitt and while it’s not exactly that, I found an interesting review of Koroliov’s WTC 2 on Classics Today that mentions Hewitt and Gould:

As with his magnificent recording of Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier Book 1, Evgeni Koroliov interprets Book 2 from a pianistic angle, taking advantage of the instrument’s potential for varied colors, articulations, and dynamics, while at the same time avoiding stylistic anachronisms. There are so many details to savor, you hardly know where to begin. His unconventionally slow pace for the C minor fugue allows the contrapuntal lines to take on a more vocal quality than usual. Note how gorgeously he shapes the left hand’s often-ignored top line in the D-flat prelude and the subtle rubato with which he inflects the C-sharp minor fugue. In contrast to the D major prelude’s militant pomp, Koroliov takes an unusually brisk, nimble, and witty approach to its corresponding fugue (the A-flat fugue is similarly dispatched).

By contrast, Koroliov’s spacious, reverential way with the E major fugue recalls Glenn Gould’s similarly drawn-out mono recording. He resists Angela Hewitt’s dynamic contrivances in the difficult-to-clarify G minor fugue, achieving textural variety by means of his marvelously controlled staccato articulation. Koroliov keeps the G-sharp minor fugue’s lines afloat so that their accents fall over rather than on the barlines. The pianist’s gentle and introspective A minor prelude markedly contrasts to his bleak and hard-nosed way with its corresponding fugue. What a joy it is to experience Koroliov’s authoritative and individual Bach pianism at its best. Don’t miss this release!

Source: https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-8633/

Here’s also the earlier review of WTC 1 from Classics Today:

Evgeni Koroliov’s recordings of The Art of Fugue (for Tacet) and the Goldberg Variations (for Hänssler) have placed him in the forefront of today’s Bach pianists. This new recording of Book One of the Well-Tempered Clavier confirms his stature in this repertoire beyond a shadow of a doubt. Koroliov plays this music with such poetry, finesse, and real joy that questions of “authenticity” or instrument selection fade into insignificance.

In his title for the work, Bach deliberately avoided naming a specific keyboard instrument, and it’s known that this music could and would certainly have been played on everything from a harpsichord to clavichord, organ, or even early piano. In fact, Bach’s music is a celebration of keyboard virtuosity, and Koroliov’s performance offers a genuine display of the pianist’s art. His playing of the G major fugue, for example, has the brittle clarity of the harpsichord but a witty brilliance that is all his own. On the other hand, the mesmerizing, gradual crescendo and diminuendo he makes of the long C-sharp major fugue offers a textbook lesson in how to use the piano’s dynamic shadings to enhance the clarity and harmonic tension of Bach’s contrapuntal lines. Even the more familiar fugues–the two openers, for example, in C major and minor–sound refreshingly vital and interesting, owing to a combination of irresistible forward momentum and a really intelligent, ear-catching approach to voice leading.

Koroliov’s view of the preludes is no less impressive: he perfectly catches the subdued, elegiac quality of the pieces in G minor and G-sharp minor. His playing has all the gentle intimacy of the clavichord. On the other hand, he’s not afraid to attack the F-sharp minor prelude with real anger and an almost Lisztian bravura, and he can stroke the simple, arpeggio preludes (such as the very first, in C major) with a dreamy sensuality that has us confused as to whether we are listening to Chopin or Bach, and frankly not caring which. In sum, this is a performance worthy to stand beside Gould, Tureck, Schiff, Fischer, or any other competing version that you can name. And it’s better recorded than any of them. The only drawback: really pretentious booklet notes that, as so often with German productions, say nothing intelligent about the music at all, and exist solely to prove that the note writer thinks he’s smarter than the composer. Who is he kidding? Never mind. Bring on Book Two!

Source: https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-4025/

CyberGene I’ve been listening to Angela Hewitt’s WTC in the last minutes

She's great! Not long ago I listened to a concert with her on YouTube from Wigmore hall in London where she played Bach, her playing is sublime. And she brought her Fazioli to that concert too and I agree that the clarity of the Fazioli is very suitable for Bach.

After one full listen to Hewitt’s WTC 1 (but not yet WTC 2), I find it a very well executed project with an emotional Bach, however I think there’s just a very tiny bit of exaggeration here and there. She’s just gone slightly over the top with the dynamic contrast. It’s not everywhere and is very minimal, so not a deal breaker but somehow Koroliov is more balanced and a middle ground between the ultra dry and emotionless Gould and the expressive Hewitt. I think that’s a nice variety of performances and I will listen to all of them depending on the mood I am in.

I can recommend this video series by EuroArts. It's four pianists that plays different preludes and fuges from WTC 1&2 and together they complete the whole circle. It's filmed in beautiful places around Europe and it's a very pleasant way to experience the music with four different but all fantastic pianists. I first watched it over 20 years ago when it was broadcasted on TV (I later bought it on DVD). The performing pianists are:
Andrei Gavrilov
Joanna McGregor
Nikolai Demidenko
Angela Hewitt
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBjoEdEVMABIhBJ4T0dIBu-jm3CzZQkY1&si=DsGrJ0rHaEgKQuAi

My favorite (by far) interpreter of Bach is Piotr Anderszewski. His last recording of WTC2 get high critical reviews, and his Bach is always fascinating. I can't stand Andras Schiff. He is like a beautiful machine. Everything is so perfect and even… so much that after a while everything sounds the same!

We all forget that using is to carry emotions and not IS NOT DEAD SET in traditions. Of course, playing Bach like Liszt would sound comic, so yes we have to be withing certain musical sense of style and knowledge.

But if anyone is telling me that there is no rubato in Bach, or be it baroque music, than one is simply uneducated fanatic. He should listen to a lot of harpsichord before saying that.

Bach is not a machine.

Thank you all for the recommendations! Listening to Anderszewski WTC2 - amazing so far.

Is it worth to get apple classical music over Spotify? I do think the Spotify search engine and way of organizing is not really optimized for classical music. And nowadays I listen to Classical >80% of the time. But maybe that's also a question for a new thread.

What about Zhu?

Here she plays, not too dry-not too wet; however, the room itself adds some interesting reverb, yet despite, I can hear some transparency in her playing that still brings out the independent nature of the voices whilst also coalescing with the bigger harmonic structure. The one thing I don’t like: she’s a “repeater,” and I believe the repetitions should be left for the practice room, but not for the performance hall. I heard you the first time, Zhu, so please, don’t repeat yourself:

https://youtu.be/3jGNgvz4GSQ?si=p_5gsL_8Ph-rnnSB

Note: Zhu uses “some” pedaling, but it is light & brisk, so as to not add too much “coloring,” especially in a room that already adds significant reverb(erations).