Favourite British Player Of Bach

[gazman]

We will never know why great players change their minds about the “correct” way to play Bach. Karl Richter’s earlier and later Bach Cantata and Passion recordings show significant differences in tempi. At a public lecture, Lionel Rogg said that he had not done any historical research for his series of Bach recordings – he said he played from the heart! This is really what everyone does.

 

I am afraid we are all people of our own time.

 

Perhaps Bach would have changed his ideas of tempi throughout his musical life too!

[Pierre Lauwers]

So, Pierre, are you suggesting that none of Bach's organ works should be played briskly because the organs he played made it impossible?!

 

That would be of course a bit simple !

There must have been wide differences between 50 stops, three manuals

organs and little ones.

(By the way, it seems the rather little british baroque organs were easier

in that respect, and that the british builders were good at it...).

 

There is the specification also which may suggest slower tempis; an HPTW

with five 8' flue stops, a 16' Fagott and a tierce Mixture, this is rather

a Rolls-Royce than a Ferrari....

 

Which organs had Bach in mind ? We'll never know, but we may guess

the P&F might have been composed for something else than the trio sonatas.

 

Pierre

[Vox Humana]

Why? I fully agree that Andrew is a superb organist, but I wonder why the tempo seemed exactly right if it was "on the leisurely side". A few years back, many of us seemed to think that the tempo was exactly right if playing of Bach was "on the brisk side" (as, I feel, were some of Hurford's tempi despite the musicianly playing)! I wonder why the change....?!

I doubt it would be possible to explain why at this distance in time since what seems "right" in any given situation depends not only on the player, but also on such external factors as the organ, the acoustics, the position of the work in the programme, etc. - or, to be more precise, the player's sensitivity to such factors. I have occasionally heard fast performances of Bach that sounded "right"; I have also heard slow performances that sounded "right" - and of course examples of both that didn't. There is never just one right way of playing anything and those who try to insist that there is (and unfortunately there are a lot of them about) reveal more about the limitations of their musicianship than anything else. I'm sure it doesn't apply to any of our erudite members, but there are those who seem to love nothing better than to pick holes in other people's performances. My theory is that such people criticise in an attempt to establish credibility ("Ooh, look at me: I have high standards; I know what a good performance is!") Of course any fool can find faults. In my view it's far more profitable to look for what's right in a performance. This doesn't mean you lower your own standards. Not at all; it means you expand your horizons and develop your appreciation.

 

Of course, being able to appreciate different styles of performance doesn't mean you have to like them all - that's an entirely different matter!

 

Sorry for the rant; I admit it's a bit of a hobby horse of mine.

[Vox Humana]

We will never know why great players change their minds about the "correct" way to play Bach.

Because there is no one "correct" way (see above)

I am afraid we are all people of our own time.

Absolutely.

[gazman]

I doubt it would be possible to explain why at this distance in time since what seems "right" in any given situation depends not only on the player, but also on such external factors as the organ, the acoustics, the position of the work in the programme, etc. - or, to be more precise, the player's sensitivity to such factors. I have occasionally heard fast performances of Bach that sounded "right"; I have also heard slow performances that sounded "right" - and of course examples of both that didn't. There is never just one right way of playing anything and those who try to insist that there is (and unfortunately there are a lot of them about) reveal more about the limitations of their musicianship than anything else. I'm sure it doesn't apply to any of our erudite members, but there are those who seem to love nothing better than to pick holes in other people's performances. My theory is that such people criticise in an attempt to establish credibility ("Ooh, look at me: I have high standards; I know what a good performance is!") Of course any fool can find faults. In my view it's far more profitable to look for what's right in a performance. This doesn't mean you lower your own standards. Not at all; it means you expand your horizons and develop your appreciation.

 

Of course, being able to appreciate different styles of performance doesn't mean you have to like them all - that's an entirely different matter!

 

Sorry for the rant; I admit it's a bit of a hobby horse of mine.

 

I agree entirely, Vox. But it does seem to be the case that slower playing of Bach is coming into vogue, whereas brisker playing seemed to be all the rage a few years back.

[Vox Humana]

Well, Holz, I'm all for that (on the whole!) I think it's like Douglas said - we are all people of our time.

 

Modern generations have a problem that previous ones never did - the widespread availability of recorded performances for comparison. I venture to suggest that this is a mixed blessing for performers today. If our performance is a carbon copy of X's, why bother? So we have consciously to seek something new to say - a different interpretation - in order to stamp our individuality on a piece. Very often this has meant faster speeds. We have now reached the stage where, at the Last Night of the Proms, Jerusalem has practically attained the status of a Waltz. Ridiculous. But you surely can't go on getting faster for ever. Perhaps these things go in cycles and fashion will slow speeds down until some future player decides that they should pick up again? I once saw an article on the speeds of historical performances of a Brahms symphony (I think it was); I was quite surprised to see that speeds in the 19th century were often no less fast than those today, indeed some were quicker. But, if I remember correctly, there was variability then too.

[MusingMuso]

I am afraid we are all people of our own time.

 

 

======================

 

I would dispute this.

 

What if one takes not the slightest notice of what is musically in vogue, and instead, one relies entirely on musial instinct at the consoles of original instruments?

 

All I have ever done is sit there, play and listen to what happens, and what I have heard has modified by perceptions of the music.

 

I'm sorry to repeat the analogy of racing cars, but if you drove and old sports car, you would immediately know why the old racers used to sit bolt upright and very close to the steering wheel, because it enables maximum muscular strength to be applied to the steering-wheels with arms bent. Nowadays, with power-steering, it is straight arms with the steering wheel a stretch away, and a posture which requires much less physical strength.

 

It's a simple as that........the art is dictated by what is possible and what is not.

 

The same applies to old organs exactly, and whilst one may TRY rushing them, the end result will usually be a disaster.

 

In fact, within certain broad parameters, any difference in tempi is usually dictated by the acoustic; so whilst one may wish to play Bach a good deal quicker on an organ speaking into a quite modest acoustic, such as that at the Waalsekerk, Amsterdam (Muller), and a good deal slower on an organ like the Bavo, with the huge acoustic of that building, it isn't the difference of, say, Schweitzer or Virgil Fox.

 

In fact, I would go where others fear to go, and suggest that the bigger the acoustic, the more a detached playing style becomes desirable, for the sake of clarity. At the Waalsekerk, a broadly legato approach reaps dividends musically.

 

Perhaps if we were to discuss articulation and detachment, we might get nearer to the truth, whereas many organists just play ALL baroque music in a rather flat and boring manner.....even some of the big names.

 

I cannot resist the temptation to compare music academy trained musicians, with university trained musicians.

 

I recall one university lecturer saying to me, "If you want to be a performer, then a university is not the right place to be."

 

Since then, I've come a round almost to the same viewpoint......and therein lies, perhaps, the key to all this, and the British "problem" with exciting organ-playing.

 

MM

[wolsey]

======================

 

I cannot resist the temptation to compare music academy trained musicians, with university trained musicians.

 

I recall one university lecturer saying to me, "If you want to be a performer, then a university is not the right place to be."

 

Since then, I've come a round almost to the same viewpoint......and therein lies, perhaps, the key to all this, and the British "problem" with exciting organ-playing.

 

MM

We're digressing somewhat from favourite British players of Bach, but I'm not sure where the argument above takes us - unless I've got the wrong end of the stick. What about those musicians who spent some time at a conservatoire before or after university?

 

Were Peter Hurford, Simon Preston, John Scott, Thomas Trotter, David Hill, David Briggs, David Goode - or Andrew Fletcher - truly "performers" before, during, or after their time at university? What about Professor John Butt, a superlative player and academic?

[pwhodges]

I would dispute this.

You can't escape your education and subsequent influences that easily!

 

Paul

[DouglasCorr]

======================

 

I would dispute this.

 

What if one takes not the slightest notice of what is musically in vogue, and instead, one relies entirely on musial instinct at the consoles of original instruments?

 

MM

 

"I would dispute this." I thought you might...

 

Clearly performers of integrity such as Rogg, Richter and Hurford produce recordings that , to the best of their musical understanding and resources, recreate the intensions of the composer.

 

Unlike memories, recordings capture these performances exactly.

 

However neither we nor the artist can experience them years on as we would have originally.

This is why performance speeds are reconsidered ( over and beyond the consequences of different acoustics etc.)

 

You cannot wipe your mind like a computer disk to erase performances and experiences that have occurred in the passage of time.

 

I am afraid we are all people of our own time.

 

 

Your first paragraph is a starting condition that cannot be created.

 

Also consider what you mean by instinct... how do you get this??

[Vox Humana]

Were Peter Hurford, Simon Preston, John Scott, Thomas Trotter, David Hill, David Briggs, David Goode - or Andrew Fletcher - truly "performers" before, during, or after their time at university? What about Professor John Butt, a superlative player and academic?

Precisely! Universities are just as capable of turning out top-draw performers as are the conservatoires - and not just organists either. And I say that as a conservatoire-trained person.

 

Also consider what you mean by instinct... how do you get this??

Surely the point about instinct is that is inherent, not learned. How else does a Swallow, hatched in the summer and abandoned to its own devices by its parents after fledging know that it has to fly south to Africa for the winter? But I think what MM probably means is intuition rather than instinct.

[gazman]

Clearly performers of integrity such as Rogg, Richter and Hurford produce recordings that , to the best of their musical understanding and resources, recreate the intensions of the composer.

 

I don't think it's merely a case of recreating the intentions of the composer. If it were, why not just program a computer to make music and then call that the definitive performance? Surely all good performers bring their own interpretation to the composition - and aspects of their own character - when they play. This is what makes hearing different performers play the same work all the more interesting.

 

I've heard it said that performers sometimes discover aspects of the composition which were never directly intended by the composer, but were approved and enjoyed by the composer nonetheless.

[Vox Humana]

I don't think it's merely a case of recreating the intentions of the composer. If it were, why not just program a computer to make music and then call that the definitive performance?

Because the intentions of the composer are often not known (not least in the case of Bach) and even many composers have been reluctant to countenance the notion of a definitive performance of their music (though I am sure I have also heard of others who have been very prescriptive).

 

Surely all good performers bring their own interpretation to the composition - and aspects of their own character - when they play. This is what makes hearing different performers play the same work all the more interesting.

I think this is no less true of bad performers! Unless a player plays altogether without feeling and with mathemetical rigidity I fail to see how he can avoid imbuing his playing with his own personality. How far this is obvious to the listener is a completely different matter.

[MusingMuso]

You can't escape your education and subsequent influences that easily!

 

Paul

 

 

===========================

 

 

Oh yes I can!!!!!! I promised myself that I could.

 

The best organ lesson I ever had came form my Quaker English teacher, who praised my poetry efforts and described them as "outstanding". The bugger then awarded me 9/10!

 

When I dared to complain, he said, "But poetry is art, and art can never be perfect. Only God is perfect."

 

He was right of course.

 

The same man also said, "There a thousands of ways of saying almost anything, but only one of them is right."

 

The sole legacy of my own education was a massive sense of self-doubt, an insurmountable inferiority complex and the perfectionist's quest to achieve ever greater things; which is of course, completely unsatisfying and unattainable, no matter how well one does something.

 

I sincerely wish I was more relaxed, sloppier and less critical, because I feel that I would be a far better musician. Instead, I am emotionally chained to the eternal treadmill of never ending failure, disappointment and a sense of total futility.

 

Isn't that musicians and artists the world over?

 

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

I am afraid we are all people of our own time.

 

Your first paragraph is a starting condition that cannot be created.

 

 

================================

 

 

Time does not exist.

 

Consequently, there are no beginnings and no endings.........................................................................

.................etc

 

(Discuss)

 

 

 

 

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

But I think what MM probably means is intuition rather than instinct.

 

 

======================

 

 

Yes, I am in touch with my feminine side.

 

 

MM

[pwhodges]

Oh yes I can!!!!!! I promised myself that I could.

You may escape and be no longer a slave to past and present outside influences; but you can't alter the fact that you escaped, and are still aware of them.

 

Paul

[DouglasCorr]

================================

Time does not exist.

 

Consequently, there are no beginnings and no endings.........................................................................

.................etc

 

(Discuss)

MM

 

That's why we have ended up where we started!

 

For more insight go here

[Pierre Lauwers]

======================

Yes, I am in touch with my feminine side.

 

 

MM

 

WARNING: belgian humor:

 

This can be adressed medically..... :P

 

Pierre

[MusingMuso]

You may escape and be no longer a slave to past and present outside influences; but you can't alter the fact that you escaped, and are still aware of them.

 

Paul

 

 

===========================

 

 

That's filosoffy, innit?

 

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

We're digressing somewhat from favourite British players of Bach, but I'm not sure where the argument above takes us - unless I've got the wrong end of the stick. What about those musicians who spent some time at a conservatoire before or after university?

 

Were Peter Hurford, Simon Preston, John Scott, Thomas Trotter, David Hill, David Briggs, David Goode - or Andrew Fletcher - truly "performers" before, during, or after their time at university? What about Professor John Butt, a superlative player and academic?

 

 

========================

 

 

This is absolutely true, in much the same way that young Lewis Hamilton took driving lessons in order to pass his test.

 

Point taken!

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

WARNING: belgian humor:

 

This can be adressed medically..... :P

 

Pierre

 

 

======================

 

 

That's the catholics for you!

 

 

MM

[pwhodges]

That's filosoffy, innit?

Of course! My daddy was a filosoffy proffesor, see (but wrote books on religion).

 

Paul

[MusingMuso]

Of course! My daddy was a filosoffy proffesor, see (but wrote books on religion).

 

Paul

 

 

======================

 

 

Here is the most profound philosophy, which has to be uttered with a sigh, while pausing during the eating of a delicious, life threatning fry-up.

 

"Life's not so bad!"

 

 

MM

[pwhodges]

while pausing during the eating of a delicious, life threatning fry-up

As a choirboy at Christ Church in the late 50s, I had to get up early on red-letter saints' days to sing a boys-only plainchant eucharist in the cathedral. On these occasions our breakfast was unsupervised, and we used to make up a paste of equal volumes of marmalade, sugar and butter, and spread it thickly on hot deep-fried bread. Yummy (but I can't manage to eat it now )!

 

Paul