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

Every time I play the WTC, though I'm using exactly the same score I'd use were I to play it on the organ, harpsichord, clavichord, fortepiano, etc., (I'm only using a different technique than I'd use for any of those instruments) apparently I'm transcribing it, yes? You're playing the same damed music on another keyboard instrument...you're NOT playing it on the cello or the oboe, or the tuba, or whatever. It is NOT a transcription. Period.

Now, of course, he is right that to play a work that originally was composed for a keyboard instrument on say the flute, cello, oboe, etc. would be to transcribe said work (you'd arrange it for whatever instrument). To play Bach's keyboard works on the modern day piano there is no transcription needed.

I agree with stores. Playing Bach on any keyboard instruments is not a transcription. Why? Because Bach himself used all kinds of different keyboard instruments: clavichord, harpsichord, organ. How can we know what instrument Bach intended any of his works for? The answer is: we can't.
Saying that playing Bach on a piano instead of a (insert one of the above keyboard instruments) is a transcription is like saying that playing Bach on a Baroque cello or a modern cello. They're all cellos.

To be specific, dan, Bach did tell us at times which instrument he'd composed for, but more often than not he didn't. Your baroque cello was then called the viola da gamba, by the way.

Stores, I realize it's not your view. I just said it's a widely held view.

What you just did was, you repeated your view.

Which, btw, happens to be my view also. But a view is a view. And the opposite view isn't "wrong." If we say it's wrong, then we're wrong.

And more importantly for this discussion, the justification for pedaling doesn't depend on whether we think they're "transcriptions." This is just a side issue anyway.

I also agree with stores, but I think the issue is subtle (like most language issues) and open to some disagreement.

Here are some interesting examples:

1. Ravel arranges Pictures at an Exhibition for orchestra.
2. Webern arranges a fugue from The Musical Offering for orchestra. Exact same notes, but Webern-esque distribution of those notes among all the instruments.
3. A string quartet plays a 4-voiced fugue from WTC. Each instrument plays one voice exactly.
4. Prokofiev rewrites his flute sonata into a violin sonata.
5. A violin plays the viola part in a viola concerto.
6. Bach is played on a modern piano or a synthesizer.

I definitely call 1-3 transcriptions, and (like stores) I definitely do not call 6 a transcription. Not sure about 4 and 5.

What about you guys?

-Jason

4 and 5 are also transcriptions...they're rewritten parts.

I'm sorry, but it's not a view. It's not an opinion. Look the dam word up.

That's a view also.

Even speaking as someone who loves looking words up that doesn't necessarily address things like this. I'm talking about usage, which sometimes gets ahead of written definitions and then sometimes becomes part of the written definition. Is this thing I'm talking about (which, again, doesn't fit my concept of it -- I agree with your view) part of any written definition? I don't know, and it doesn't matter. The thing is that many musicians express that broader view of what's a "transcription."

And really, we're off the mark by even talking about it in terms of the word's "definition," because it's not about definitions; it's about a certain concept of what it means to play Bach on the piano. I don't know why you feel such a need to say that this other concept is just "wrong." I'm with you on the view, but I don't feel any such need.

I think that the definition of transcription as "playing a piece of music on a different instrument than was intended" is particularly precarious in Bach's case. The reason is that, as was already suggested , instrument making at the time was less rigid and very much in a state of ongoing evolution. It is even more apparent in the case of string instruments. In fact, while there is no authentic autographed manuscript for any of the cello suites (the closest is a copy by Anna Magdalena), it is thought they could have been written for an early cello or a violoncello piccolo or a viola hybrid, all of which were considered a kind of a "cello" (not exactly for the viola da gamba, which came in 4 or 5 different sizes and ranges). An exception is the sixth suite which was explicitly written for a 5 string instrument. Today's players will actually play the 6th suite on a 4 string instrument but you will not find them calling it a real transcription. Also the 5th suite requires "scordatura" or a re-tuning (of the top A to G), as indicated in the manuscript, making the actual instrument it is played on rather secondary to the music idea Bach wanted to explore.

The viola de gamba was not a standardized instrument, there were a number of different models that were known by this name or by other names.

Otherwise I agree completely with Stores about transcrition.

I also agree that the use of the pedal takes away from Debrucey's reading.

In general because of the use of the pedal I dislike hearing young pianists play Bach on the piano. Especially at competitions, where it appears they they believe that they need to pedal to make a good impression or to give corpus to a Bach who, in my view, doesn't really need help of this sort.

This idea of "finger legato" strikes me as a false notion. Pedal is not a substitute for Legato. Legato is legato, pedal is pedal.

I do realise that.

Yeah. I'm just feeling particularly combative today. I admitted as much earlier. Sorry for derailing the discussion with a completely irrelevant side issue.

+1

By the way, there is a great film which has a viola de gamba as it's main character. "Tous les matins du monde", the music is extraordianary, played by Jordi Savall. And no pedal !

My favorite instrument for a lot of Bach's keyboard music is the clavichord. On the clavichord, the string length between bridge and tuning peg is free to vibrate sympathetically, which adds to the music a certain blurring and resonance. In comparison, Bach's keyboard music played on the piano sounds dry to me. On the piano, I pedal to try to imitate the clavichord, as much as it is possible; I do not pedal to join notes. I often find myself doing a very shallow pedaling and changing the pedal almost on each beat, if not more often.

I once asked Father Sean Duggan (a fantastic Bach interpreter, IMHO) how to use the pedal in Bach. He said "a little dab will do ya". (Old Brylcreem slogan. If you knew that, as I did, you might be a baby boomer.)

ocd

I like it. How drab must stores' Bach be!

I doubt it.

(What an oddly unnecessary swipe!)

-J

Do you not use any "non-crutch" pedal in the WTC? Not even in Book I, the Prelude in E flat minor?

Isn't one reason the piano is such a ubiquitous instrument its ability to echo the styles of so many other instruments?