What happened to the harpsichord?

[Chris]

I don't really follow. He doesn't give any reasons for what he says. If I see a forte, I would play loudly, and if I see a piano, I would play softly. Sure, there were plenty of things that went without saying in music. But is this one of them? Do we have some kind of documentation of this from the era in question? A composer talking about it in a letter or something like that?

[Peter]

I don't really follow. He doesn't give any reasons for what he says. If I see a forte, I would play loudly, and if I see a piano, I would play softly. Sure, there were plenty of things that went without saying in music. But is this one of them? Do we have some kind of documentation of this from the era in question? A composer talking about it in a letter or something like that?

I don't see the problem Chris. Yes if it is marked forte or piano then we should observe them (although the context has to be taken into account - a Beethoven forte is different to a Mozart forte). Often there are no dynamic markings, tempo indications or articulation directions - obviously the performer was supposed to use his skill and musicianship. The point is that within given parameters there is the subtle shading and gentle rise and fall of the phrase which is not always indicated in the score. Music is basically song and dance - now no one would expect a singer to sing a phrase simply either loud or soft, so why an instrumentalist? Just take the obvious musical point of making the first beat stronger and shaping a phrase properly which cannot be done without accent and dynamic shading. Even in the music of Haydn and Mozart the markings are not always specific - we have to wait till middle/late Beethoven for that. From the urtext edition of Mozart sonatas "it may be that dynamic execution was so obvious that detailed markings would have cluttered the notation undesirably". Mozart's last three sonatas contain hardly any dynamic markings, the slow movements none - obviously he didn't expect them to be performed like that!

[Chris]

You say "obviously", but why obviously? Why can't a piece of music contain no dynamic changes? There are other ways to insert expression, otherwise the harpsichord would never have been a viable instrument.

[Peter]

You say "obviously", but why obviously? Why can't a piece of music contain no dynamic changes? There are other ways to insert expression, otherwise the harpsichord would never have been a viable instrument.

I say obviously because if there is no tempo marking, no dynamic marking, no articulation directions then the performer has to use his own judgement or his he supposed to do nothing, simply play the notes? Listen to different performances of Bach's 48 on the piano (Gould/Hewitt/ Fischer)- the differences can be vast, but you will not find one decent recording where the pianist plays without dynamic variation. Look at Czerny's edition of the 48 - he claimed his markings were based on Beethoven's interpretations, yet today this edition is rightly frowned upon because of the excessive dynamic variations and extremes that with modern research we believe to be unstylistic, almost Romantic. The point though is that Czerny and Beethoven would not have dreamt of 'just playing the notes' and Beethoven learnt the 48 under the guidance of Neefe who was surely familiar with baroque practice?

Mozart's slow movements are often like operatic arias - now take those last three sonatas I mentioned which have no indications whatever in the slow movements - you surely are not suggesting that Mozart intended a completely flat interpretation with no dynamic subtlety? Such playing is completely unmusical. Now when it comes to interpreting music that is unmarked, knowledge of harmony, style, phrasing, structure all have to be taken into account when arriving at an interpretation.

When it comes to the harpsichord as I mentioned in order to create expression the music is embellished far more with elaborate ornaments - from the classical composers on and the dominance of the piano, ornaments are reduced considerably, many become extinct. You look at Quantz's interpretation of baroque ornaments and the difference with the classical era is plain.

Now you may disagree but the acid test is to listen - find me one baroque aria that is sung without dynamic variation. Find me one performance of Mozart's last sonatas that is played completely flat and finally find me one musicologist throughout history who advocates playing an unmarked score flat with no dynamic variation.

[Chris]

I am not suggeting that the right thing to do is do nothing. I am asking, how do you know the thing you are doing is the right thing? I am wondering if we actually have some documentation of the way they actually played these pieces, or if we are just making things up that sound good to us.

But as to playing Bach on the piano, I would absolutely suggest that playing without dynamic variation is the right thing to do. Some may consider it flat, but I think the music contains all the expression it needs without us artificially injecting it with more. I personally think that the lack of dynamic variation can itself be a stunning effect. Maybe because it is unexpected? I don't know. But I have never heard a recording of Bach on the piano that I really liked.

[Peter]

I am not suggeting that the right thing to do is do nothing. I am asking, how do you know the thing you are doing is the right thing? I am wondering if we actually have some documentation of the way they actually played these pieces, or if we are just making things up that sound good to us.

But as to playing Bach on the piano, I would absolutely suggest that playing without dynamic variation is the right thing to do. Some may consider it flat, but I think the music contains all the expression it needs without us artificially injecting it with more. I personally think that the lack of dynamic variation can itself be a stunning effect. Maybe because it is unexpected? I don't know. But I have never heard a recording of Bach on the piano that I really liked.

Well if you simply are going to play the notes with no dynamic variation you might as well get a machine to do it. We can obviously argue that playing Bach at all on the piano is not the right thing to do and a case can certainly be made for that, though in my opinion much would be lost and little gained. Now as to what is right and wrong in interpreting a score comes down to your musical knowledge - within a Bach prelude and fugue for example the structure of the phrasing is quite clear (even though he didn't mark them) because of the cadences - the harmony and melodic line determine the phrase structure with the natural rise and fall of tone to the centre and away. In other words a work has to be thoroughly analysed from its structural and harmonic perspective.

There are examples in Beethoven where he actually notates phrases incorrectly, as in Op.2/1 - it is rare for a phrase to end at the bar line, rhythmically the natural culmination is an accented beat - yet as it appears in the first edition it makes no sense. There are all sorts of interpretative points that have to be considered when arriving at a 'correct' appraisal and even when great musicians do this the results are different! The point is that there are many ways of doing it right, but there are also ways of being absolutely wrong.

[Chris]

We can obviously argue that playing Bach at all on the piano is not the right thing to do and a case can certainly be made for that, though in my opinion much would be lost and little gained.

How could you lose something that was never there to begin with? I'm no period instruments purist, but I find Bach on the harpsichord much more compelling than Bach on the piano. It seems to fit better, and I find adding dynamic variation can distract from the greatness that is already there, rather than enhance it. It's like adding too much vibrato to a Baroque violin work.

[Peter]

How could you lose something that was never there to begin with? I'm no period instruments purist, but I find Bach on the harpsichord much more compelling than Bach on the piano. It seems to fit better, and I find adding dynamic variation can distract from the greatness that is already there, rather than enhance it. It's like adding too much vibrato to a Baroque violin work.

Chris you seem in a very picky mood lately! I meant the loss would be for pianists - Bach's music provides excellent work in developing part playing which is invaluable in ALL piano music - Chopin who was way ahead of his time as a teacher realised that basic fact. Many great composers were brought up playing the 48 on the piano so why shouldn't we do it now, especially as few possess harpsichords? Not that Bach specified the harpsichord for the 48 anyway, they are for klavier (keyboard) and his polyphonic style transcribes perfectly well to the piano.

[Chris]

Yes, this is one of the few subjects that I really am picky about. Listening to Baroque keyboard music on the piano put me off of it for a long time, exactly for this reason. There is something false about it, to my ears. Two things that do not belong together, like...Christian rock

I have no objection to the pieces being used for piano study, but for serious performance, I think the harpsichord is the right choice. Or, if the piano is to be used, not injecting the performance with dynamic changes that were not part of Bach's conception for the pieces.

[Peter]

Yes, this is one of the few subjects that I really am picky about. Listening to Baroque keyboard music on the piano put me off of it for a long time, exactly for this reason. There is something false about it, to my ears. Two things that do not belong together, like...Christian rock

I have no objection to the pieces being used for piano study, but for serious performance, I think the harpsichord is the right choice. Or, if the piano is to be used, not injecting the performance with dynamic changes that were not part of Bach's conception for the pieces.

The Baroque era did not notate tempo and dynamic markings strictly - much was left to the interpreter, and you are making the mistake of not recognising that fact. Many of Bach's works have no dynamic or tempo markings -the performer was supposed to know what to do. Although things gradually improved in the 2nd half of the 18th century (when crescendo and diminuendo markings appeared), composers were still often inaccurate, even Beethoven as I pointed out in his slur markings in Op.2/1.

Let me quote from Quantz's (a friend of Bach's) chapter on "good expression in singing or playing" - P.108 - "A good execution should also be full of variety. You must continually oppose light and shade; for you will certainly fail to be touching, if you play always either loud or soft - if you use so to speak , always the same colour, or do not know how to increase or abate the tone as required. You must therefore use frequent changes from forte to piano".

A further quote "But although crescendo and diminuendo were impossible on the organ or harpsichord, they were natural enough for singers and players of bowed instruments, and were doubtless used for expressive purposes. Volume rises with rising emotion and relaxes with relaxing emotion. This happens in all music". It also happens in speech - nothing is more dreary and unnatural than a monotone voice.

I respect your preference for the harpsichord, but it wasn't necessarily shared by Bach who favoured the Clavichord (precisely for its more expressive qualities) and in many of his keyboard works made no such insistence, using the general term Klavier. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the dynamics should have great sweeping changes a la Liszt or Czerny's edition, but subtle rises and falls where appropiate according to phrasing and harmonic structure.

[Sorrano]

When you consider the limitations of the instruments in those days, particularly with the harpsichord and organ, the point of view towards dynamics would have been much different from how we view it. The organ with its various registrations/manuals relied on terraced dynamics in those days and the composers took advantage of that. I think of Sweelink, for example, and the echo effects that he was fond of. We see, too, in the concerti grossi similar effects of tutti and echo almost in the same spirit as the liturgical responsorial chants of that time. We simply have to use a different mindset to view the dynamics of that period.

[Peter]

When you consider the limitations of the instruments in those days, particularly with the harpsichord and organ, the point of view towards dynamics would have been much different from how we view it. The organ with its various registrations/manuals relied on terraced dynamics in those days and the composers took advantage of that. I think of Sweelink, for example, and the echo effects that he was fond of. We see, too, in the concerti grossi similar effects of tutti and echo almost in the same spirit as the liturgical responsorial chants of that time. We simply have to use a different mindset to view the dynamics of that period.

Certainly with regard to harpsichord and organ, which is why a problem arises whether or not it is right to perform it on a modern piano (which of course applies equally to the classical period). However when you consider string instruments or the most natural instrument of all, the voice - the matter is much clearer. Baroque use of the ornament Messa di Voce (cresc and dimiuendo swells, recognised in many treatise of the time) was a device used and that composers expected performers to use. The Clavichord and the piano were both developed precisely because composers wanted to have the range of expression possible with the voice - if everyone had a preference for flat dynamics, why invent instruments capable of doing the opposite? Why would a composer write a melodic line for the voice expecting dynamic variety, but react in horror if it were done on a keyboard instrument capabable of such a thing (as the Clavichord and Piano)? It is the early 20th century misconception of terrace dynamics that needs to be examined more carefully.

[Chris]

The Baroque era did not notate tempo and dynamic markings strictly - much was left to the interpreter, and you are making the mistake of not recognising that fact. Many of Bach's works have no dynamic or tempo markings -the performer was supposed to know what to do. Although things gradually improved in the 2nd half of the 18th century (when crescendo and diminuendo markings appeared), composers were still often inaccurate, even Beethoven as I pointed out in his slur markings in Op.2/1.

Let me quote from Quantz's (a friend of Bach's) chapter on "good expression in singing or playing" - P.108 - "A good execution should also be full of variety. You must continually oppose light and shade; for you will certainly fail to be touching, if you play always either loud or soft - if you use so to speak , always the same colour, or do not know how to increase or abate the tone as required. You must therefore use frequent changes from forte to piano".

A further quote "But although crescendo and diminuendo were impossible on the organ or harpsichord, they were natural enough for singers and players of bowed instruments, and were doubtless used for expressive purposes. Volume rises with rising emotion and relaxes with relaxing emotion. This happens in all music". It also happens in speech - nothing is more dreary and unnatural than a monotone voice.

I respect your preference for the harpsichord, but it wasn't necessarily shared by Bach who favoured the Clavichord (precisely for its more expressive qualities) and in many of his keyboard works made no such insistence, using the general term Klavier. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the dynamics should have great sweeping changes a la Liszt or Czerny's edition, but subtle rises and falls where appropiate according to phrasing and harmonic structure.

I don't doubt that there are understood dynamics, I simply question whether anyone today actually knows what was "obvious" and "understood" at the time. And I question playing the keyboard music that was written for something incapable of this as if it were not. If a human being is playing these pieces on a piano, there is always going to be some variation in dynamics anyway. The question is how much are you going to consciously play around with them.

[Peter]

I don't doubt that there are understood dynamics, I simply question whether anyone today actually knows what was "obvious" and "understood" at the time. And I question playing the keyboard music that was written for something incapable of this as if it were not. If a human being is playing these pieces on a piano, there is always going to be some variation in dynamics anyway. The question is how much are you going to consciously play around with them.

Well quite a lot is known about Baroque performance practice and obviously much is still disputed even amongst HIP interpreters - so where do you draw the line? Do you say we simply cannot know and therefore not perform the music?

For example Joshua Rifkin's argument that Bach expected most of his choral music to be sung by only one singer to a part. Rifkin and his defenders have argued repeatedly with scholars and performers who insist that Bach preferred something larger. There is no consensus on the subject amongst Bach scholars.

Many authorities, such as Robert Donington, have denied that Baroque time signatures implied much about tempo. These authorities made the same denial with respect to Italian tempo words, like "Adagio" or "Allegro". But more recently, a number of authorities have come to the opposite conclusion about both issues.

This is an indication of the problems that every interpreter faces and I suggest that 'playing around with it' is the wrong expression to use. What matters is that an artist thinks intelligently about the problems and arrives at an intepretation based on sound musical principles. This applies to all music and you always have to look beyond the printed page regardless of when the music was written.

[Chris]

Well quite a lot is known about Baroque performance practice and obviously much is still disputed even amongst HIP interpreters - so where do you draw the line? Do you say we simply cannot know and therefore not perform the music?

No, but I would like people who are making authoritative statements about these things to provide some justification. I read things like this too often, and have to question how the person knows these things or what he is basing them on. A lot of it comes off like random assumption to me.