Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Anyone who is anyone pedals in Bach?

I said nothing of the audience. I said that you play only for yourself...maybe you don't quite understand that. You DO use it as a crutch, though. What color? I hear no color changes where you're using pedal...I only hear pedal at points where you're too lazy to use finger legato. I'm sorry, but I've played/heard/taught the suite thousands of times and I only need to see/hear snippets. All that you're doing with the pedal here is achievable without it.

To play music on an instrument other than that for which it was composed _is_ to make a transcription. That's what transcription means. To deny that by saying that Bach used terms like 'keyboard music' or 'keyboard practice' is disingenuous -- yes, there were more that one. But none of them sounded even remotely like a modern grand piano. They weren't even tuned the same.

The claim that one can make an authentic, non-interpetive rendition of baroque keyboard on a modern piano is only possible if one ignores history. Actually that's true to some extent of all music, but it's particular true of the baroque.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If the composer (and here we have, Bach) does not SPECIFY (maybe you didn't catch that part) an instrument, then it's not a transcription regardless of what keyboard instrument one chooses. To play Bach on the modern grand is not to arrange (or re-arrange) his works. Clearly, you're not too sure about what a transcription is.

I'm not saying its a good performance, lol. But I don't use it as a crutch.

Stop being so patronising stores! Ugh. I dont agree with kevinb either but there are more pleasant ways to disagree with someone.

I didn't say it wasn't a good performance. It's fine! Could it be better? Yes. Do you NEED the pedal? No. Do I see/hear you using it as a crutch? Yes. Let's just say this were a masterclass (you would certainly be one that I'd choose to play from the forum)...I'd ask why you use the pedal where you use it...you'd answer and then I'd ask you to play again without any pedal. The proof would be in the pudding, but, since we can't do that here the entire crutch issue is a moot one. I think you could elevate your playing to another level entirely by paying closer attention to and devoting more time to developing a finger legato that would grant you access to greater things.

It's not intentional. If you're wrong, then you're wrong and I'll tell you that you are. Simple as that.

If I spend any more time on finger legato in Bach than I am currently (about 4 hours a day) then I will go insane lol

You can doeeeeeeeet!

I doubt that you're sorry at all.

It's perfectly clear what class of instruments Bach had in mind, if not which specific type of instrument. In some cases he wrote for a specific, individual instrument, and we know what that instrument was.

The class of 'keyboard' instruments for Bach does not include the modern piano or anything remotely like it in timbre, range, or performance dynamics. The only similarity is the controls, so to speak, and even they aren't always that close.

You can play Bach flute suites on a tenor sax -- they're both roughly the same size and shape and have similar fingering. But the class 'flute' does not include 'tenor sax', for Bach or anybody else.

Different instrument = transcription. By definition. If you tell me what part of that you don't understand, I'll try to explain more clearly. Although I'm not sure how.

You would be correct in assuming that I'm not sorry. Sorry about that. Haha!

Bach DOES, indeed, specify instrumentation with some of his keyboard compositions, but does one assume that Bach (and we need not use Bach, here only) was not intelligent enough to understand that when he uses the term KEYBOARD that the future will realise a broader range of instruments than those available to him? He already saw, heard and played the earliest of pianofortes toward the end of his life and certainly he was aware of ongoing developments in keyboard construction. A transcription is an arrangement is it not? Other than technique, do we rearrange anything when we play Bach on the piano? No (well, I've heard some who do, including some famous players of Bach).

I don't have the faintest idea how Bach thought about the future. From his writings it seems he was not hugely impressed with the piano-like instruments becoming available in his lifetime. But he might have been thinking 'One day this will sound great on a piano played like a harpsichord'. I really don't know. It doesn't seem hugely likely to me, but who knows. Maybe.



Well, here we're quibbling over the meaning of the word 'transcription', which I concede is my fault for bringing it up. Perhaps 'reinterpretation' would be a less contentious term.

There is no piano technique that will produce a sound very much like any harpsichord, even leaving aside the tuning differences. So however you play, you aren't hearing what Bach heard. So you have to decide whether you want to play so that the sound is as close as possible to what Bach would have heard, or deviate from that and exploit the characteristics of the instrument.

I'm very sympathetic to the first approach, but it seems to ne to be a counsel of despair if approached dogmatically.

An analogy: the guidance notes for the ABRSM exam edition of Handel's Fugue in C minor point out a place where it is 'correct' to play a G2 rather than the written G3, because Handel undoutedly _would have_ written a G2 if his keyboard had had the range. I'm pretty sure everybody who plays this piece places the low G, rather than what Handel wrote.

But if this is the correct approach, why would it not be correct to say "Handel (or whoever) would definitely have pedalled at this point, if he had had pedals". I fail to see why one 'correction' is OK and the other not.

Of course, the evidence that Handel 'would' have written a low G is pretty compelling, and the evidence that he would have pedalled far less conclusive. But as a matter of _principle_, I don't really see the difference.

I certainly prefer to pedal Bach. Tho I am devoted to the composer's intent, I imagine Bach would laugh at the notion of ignoring the pedal when it could enhance his music.

I'm sure he would laugh at the notion also, but the writing that we have from him doesn't NEED the pedal. Had he lived longer I've no doubt he might have begun writing differently, but the content, as it stands, doesn't call for it. What's interesting is that I've heard many, many pianists sit down at a harpsichord, clavichord, or even a pianoforte from the early 1800s and what's the first thing they attempt? Bach. Know what? The vast majority of them have one helll of a time with it, because they don't know how to work without the dam pedal (this is not, apple, directed your way).

...I'm not qualified to add to this pedal debate but.. Debrucey, that is beautiful playing. Thanks.

I agree. Bach was familiar with the early fortepianos made by Silbermann, but the instrument as we know it didn't begin to manifest until the invention of the cast iron frame about 75 years after Bach's death.

It's easy to argue semantics, but that's a fundamentalist approach. This situation is very much borderline, because no significant change in technique is required (though having played organ and harpsichord they're a very different instruments to play). The term transcription can be applied to performing Bach by orchestra or voices both of which are significant leaps and bounds from playing Bach on a piano.

Bach was known to relish new sounds and possibilities. Why do you think his friend Silbermann asked him to play his fortepiano in the first place? If the pedal can be used to enhance the performance then use it.

Keep in mind Bach was a linear composer whose first thought was about counterpoint. Obscure the linear line or the counterpoint and you obscure the essence of Bach. This is very easy to do with a piano's sustain pedal, hence the caution against using it. I thought Debrucy's performance was quite good and enjoyed listening to it (and was disappointed when I clicked to read the next page of this thread and stopped it).

The other thread basically concluded if it sounds good it's OK. I agree.

Bach certainly played around with sustained notes on the organ. .. not to agree or disagree with anyone (stores ) There is big difference in my interpretation of the first prelude in WTC 1 for instance, rather than one of the fugues in an unusual key (like F# minor).. also, not agree or disagreeing with anyone.

I simply cannot play his fugue in C# minor (WTC 1) or the F# minor from book II without pedalling... just can't...altho they do sound fine without pedalling.

Can't argue with that, hah!

I use pedal in Bach, but not very often. I don't think I use it as a crutch (it might happen though), the main idea is to keep everything clear, each note is there for a reason. At the end of the day I don't care what this-or-that professional, audience, or armchair critic might think... unless they're right, then I'd best listen up! heh

Stores makes good points when he takes the time to explain himself. When I contrast that with his earlier posts I can see how he can get under the skin, they often read like "you're wrong, but I'm too tired to tell you why".

kevinb,

Perhaps the word you're looking for is "translation." "Transcription" denotes and connotes a written copy of something. Other senses of the term "transcription" also indicate a "copy" of something, even if in different media. I sense that you are trying to say that, since Bach was writing for an instrument that was very different from the modern piano in the effects it could achieve, any interpretation on a modern instrument diverges from the way Bach "would have said it," and is not in the original language, so to speak...

Being the Bach lover that I am, and having listened to a smattering of different artists playing his works on a modern piano, some using pedal, some not, it seems to me that Bach can be played well or poorly with or without pedal! Later recordings of Tatiana Nikolayeva sound as though she employs the pedal verrry judiciously, verrrry thoughtfully, and verrrry intentionally--as though at some point she reached a conclusion about the type of instrument she was playing on, and what it could do to enhance the music. Can anyone corroborate that?

--Andy

P.S. Stores--have you gotten anywhere with that Goldberg's faves list, yet?

Stores, you're wrong.

Because what he's saying reflects a pretty widely-held view of what's a "transcription."

I'm not saying it's more widely held then your view -- I don't know, I haven't seen a poll.
But his view is a legitimate one.

Me? I'm more on your side about the meaning of transcription, but considering how you're expressing yourself here, I was almost afraid to admit it.

To Cinnamonbear: I don't agree that the meaning of the term in music is limited to things involving a "written copy"; the term is often used in a broader way (although, again, not necessarily most often).

P.S. I don't think we need to think of playing the works on the piano as being "transcriptions" in order to justify using the pedal.