BaL 20.10.18 - Bach: Keyboard concertos - BWV.1052-58

[vinteuil]

I didn't sense this at all, ardy - he started with Perahia, spoke very favourably indeed about Lifschitz (much more favourably than Lifschitz himeself!) and made clear why he disliked Schiff and Hewett - they were given a much longer shrift than was Rousset; and Pinnock and Koopman, as you say, remained shriftless. I thought it was a very "fair hearing" as far as the "Piano and/or Harpsichord" question was concerned (and in most other respects, too).

... yes indeed - tho' I think it was Feltsman/St Luke's rather than Lifschitz whom he particularly praised (tho' he liked Lifschitz too... ) : indeed he was so persuasive that I shall be acquiring the Feltsman. I felt he was spot-on in his disparagement of the 'prissy' Hewitt, and his comment (regarding Schiff) that having the piano can tempt the performer to over-indulge was well made; he noted that he doubted whether Schiff now wd have played in that style.

I enjoyed this BaL a lot, and learned from it. It will probably be the Egarr and the Staier which I return to most often - but I'm looking forward to the Feltsman.

.

[ardcarp]

Parrott and Rifkin are no doubt reasonable people, but their scholarship has led a generation of players to ignore the probability that there was no single way of performing in Bach's time. Bach no doubt had to adapt to forces available. He probably (though Parrott doesn't think so) had reasonably sized forces at the Thomasschule, though at other times he didn't. The same goes for dogmatism about pitch, which in all probability varied from town to town. I am certainly not 'anti-harpsichord'. (I own two and play them!) But Bach on the piano can shed a new light on (say) The 48, The Goldgbergs and the Suites without pianists having to 'overlay them with pianistic tricks' or whatever phrase was used today.

I also slightly disagree with Lowther's view of the soloist in concertos. (He used the word 'star' which was a bit cruel.) There was clearly a tradition of virtuosic Italian violin playing upon which Bach built. I grew up with the A minor, the E minor and the Double concertos echoing round my house, and to suggest the solo violin part/s + its player/s should not assume a foremost role is plainly ridiculous. And even in concerti grossi the solo group almost by definition has a prominent role (think harpsichord in Brandenberg 5)

I agree Lowther presented the programme well, but he hit on a few of my raw spots!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But, considering that he spoke so eloquently in favour of Feltsman (thank you, vinty) on the piano, and rejected single-instrument ensembles in his final choice, I'm not sure what he could have said that could have met your requirements, ardy.

But then, I get very irritated by DON's BaL presentations, so I suppose it's a matter of chaconne a son gout.

[Richard Barrett]

reasonably sized forces

But here's the problem: the suspicion that the actual forces were in some way "unreasonably" small, without really examining where this idea of what "reasonable" actually means here. Of course it's clear from numerous contemporary accounts that the sizes of ensembles could and did vary considerably (see Chiara Banchini's recordings of Corelli's op.6 using a rather large string ensemble) but surely it's interesting to know as much as possible about the conditions that composers were actually working with; and there's also the issue, which doesn't seem to have gained much attention, of how well a "solo" harpsichord can be heard against an "accompanying" ensemble of strings. The idea that Bach used a small ensemble simply because he didn't have any more players isn't necessarily a "reasonable" way to think. Whatever else he "would have wanted", hearing the music clearly will have been among his priorities.

[BBMmk2]

I totally disagreed with the outcome to this, albeit very good BaL. Give me Eggar every time for harpsichord and Perhahia for Piano.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I totally disagreed with the outcome to this, albeit very good BaL. Give me Eggar every time for harpsichord and Perhahia for Piano.

Why don't you like the Staier, Bbm?

[BBMmk2]

Why don't you like the Staier, Bbm?

The sound of the harpsichord really put me off.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

[BBMmk2]

Richard Eggar, everytime!

[doversoul1]

Mark Lowther said something to the effect ‘what happens in the control room, the luxury that wasn’t available to Bach and his performers’. Or to his audience, I suppose. How much or in what way does this issue come into when thinking about performing/listening to Bach’s (or Vivaldi, Corelli and others) music?

[HighlandDougie]

The sound of the harpsichord really put me off.

I must admit that, when I first played the Staier, I was a bit taken aback by it being such a, well, big - I could say, "instrument" but harpsichord will do. But the ear adjusts very quickly, BBM, honest - it's a thoroughly enjoyable set.

[BBMmk2]

I must admit that, when I first played the Staier, I was a bit taken aback by it being such a, well, big - I could say, "instrument" but harpsichord will do. But the ear adjusts very quickly, BBM, honest - it's a thoroughly enjoyable set.

At the moment I could compare it to the singing of Maria Callas, which I abhor!

[ardcarp]

and there's also the issue, which doesn't seem to have gained much attention, of how well a "solo" harpsichord can be heard against an "accompanying" ensemble of strings.

It depends on he harpsichord of course. The early-mid 20th century re-imaginings of the harpsichord (such as George Malcolm used to play) were generally capable of being very loud. But sounded wrong when compared with faithful reconstructions. Authentic or authentically reconstructed harpsichords generally grew in power as the centuries passed. For instance an early Flemish Ruckers instrument would have a tone of great beauty...a million miles from what George Malcolm might have expected...and would not be overloud. However an 18th century Hsss instrument (such as Bach is known to have used) might have two or even three manuals, 5 choirs of strings including a 16' stop. This would more than hold its own with a chamber-sized string orchestra with, say, oboes and flutes. Domenico Scarlatti would have used an instrument of similar construction and sound

We tend to forget how powerful modern string instruments are. It is not uncommon, for reasons of finance, to perform Messiah with a string quartet + double bass , with 1 Trumpet and Timps. This small ensemble will support quite a large choral group. Baroque violins with gut strings are much quieter and used 3 or 4 to a part will not overwhelm either a chamber choir or a harpsichord.

I'm sure this is all well understood, and I'm merely stating the obvious!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Closeness of recording can give the impression of a "loud instrument".

Perhaps ome recording engineers lack taste and discretion.

[Bryn]

The larger of the two rooms available at Café Zimmermann was 10 x 8 metre (similar capacity to the Brockway Room at Conway Hall (seating/tabling capacity from 60 to 40). I don't know how the seating/tabling was arranged, or how big an audience was expected, but with a large harpsichord in place the remaining space for musicians had to be taken into consideration. Seems to me that one player per part wight itself be a bit tight.