Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Why do many great pianists...

...play very little or even no (non transcribed) Bach?
(Pianists with a ? are ones I'm less sure fall in this category)

Here are some that I think fall in this category:Horowitz, Rubinstein, Rachmaninov, Bolet, Trifonov(although he says Bach is his favorite composer), Casadesus(?),Cherkassky(?), Cliburn, Cortot(?), Volodos, Kissin, Friedman, Hamelin, Hoffman, Hough, Kapell(?). Katsaris, Lhevinne, Michelangeli, Uchida.

I also checked the 23 recital programs for the 2013 IKIF at Mannes in NYC.

http://ikif.org/schedule.aspx

Only around 2 of the about 23 recitalists included any Bach in their program.

I'm sure they could execute nicely an academic Bach, but my guess is they're not finding (or didn't find, in the case of the deceased ones) a whole lot of enjoyment in the challenge.

Romantic repertoire seems to call certain people, and baroque seems to call somebody different. I guess I see it this way: music is a collaboration between composer and performer. Each piece seems to require the performer to put something of himself or herself in it so that both voices are heard in the final product. But different pieces seem to call for different roles for the performers' voices, and overall, baroque music seem to invite the performer's voice in one way, and romantic in another. As if the composer is saying, "here, I'm doing this part, and you do this part, and together we'll make music." If you don't like the part the composer is inviting you to take, or don't find a whole lot of inspiration in the challenge to find your voice in the part you've got to play, then you won't be particularly inspired to play it that much in your standard repertoire.

That's not to say there isn't overlap--certainly Bach and Chopin have certain things in common. Not only that, it's not like people don't like a wide variety of music. I have cherished pieces of baroque as well as romantic. But to be a soloist with a rare and unique voice as those artists are in their genre, I would venture it's hard to find one who has the ability across such a wide spectrum. Or, they might if they weren't simply most inspired with the challenge of lending their voice in their chosen genre, which here seems to be more on the romantic end of things.

On the opposite end is someone like Gould, who seemed to cherish finding something to say within the parameters of what Bach was inviting the performer to find: a voice that dovetails with and highlights the almost architectural beauty of Bach's work. Very different spaces for the artist. Either Horowitz couldn't, or just didn't want to, find and express his voice in that space. Or would touch on it for a while, and then go back to where the inspiration was. Artists often say what they're driven to say rather than what they choose to say and have a hard time saying something else. Which is probably what makes them, fundamentally, an artist, and not simply a technician.

I'm sorry if I haven't quite answered your question. Maybe someone else will have something more specific to say.

Polyphonic music of the intricate type, like a lot of Bach's, doesn't appeal to all pianists. It especially appealed to Gould, who despised a lot of music that isn't polyphonic in nature (like Mozart, who he played just to show how bad it is.....).

Many pianists, like Horowitz, play Scarlatti but not Bach. Some even play Handel, Couperin and Rameau too, but not Bach.

And how does one play Bach? Wanda Landowska to Pablo Casals: "You play Bach your way, and I'll play him his way." (Using a giant harpsichord that Bach couldn't have envisaged in his widest dreams..... ).

Do you employ the tone colors and dynamics and variety of articulation that's available on the modern piano? Do you use the sustain pedal? Do you use the una corda pedal? Do you play legato or non-legato or even staccato - or employ all varieties? Do you bang out all the subjects in the fugues (like Richter)? Do you use rubato? If so, how flexible can you be with the rhythm? (Pianists generally keep much stricter rhythm than harpsichordists - is that really more authentic?)

It's too hard, the payoff isn't always that great, and people will either love it or want to slash your tires based on minuscule trivia (mordant vs. inverted mordant, pedal or no pedal, etc.).

clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap

Polyphonic music in general does not have mass appeal because modern ears are accustomed to hearing one accompanied melody. Counter-point is almost a totally different kind of musicianship, and is from an era that predates tonal harmony as we know it.

It requires very active listening on the part of the audience and is always challenging to interpret as the performer. Basically, it's not the easiest music to concertize and since big name pianists have to largely choose war horses and concert favorites, it's logical they will stay way from Bach.

Illuminating the beauty in Bach is perhaps more challenging than interpreting any other repertoire, and requires the dedication of a true artist - especially because your large investment of time doesn't pay 'direct' dividends into the later eras of piano music (although it certainly does pay dividends..)

However, it's safe to say that Bach is among the best and most satisfying music to hear and to perform, if done well (for me - the best.) If you yourself aren't a Bach fan, I insist you are and you don't know it yet, because they say Bach comes late in life.

Also, listen to some Schiff Bach and you will soon find other composers and pianists lacking.

This is why I don't play Bach in public. Why should I torture myself going out on stage knowing that the audience will find me lacking because I don't measure up to Schiff (or Hewitt, or Gould, or whoever the favored Bach pianist is...)

Yes, but doesn't this apply to most "classical" composers (the well known ones anyhow)? I mean I don't think that I could ever measure up to Schnabel, or Kempf, or whoever else for Beethoven... :-/

Yes, I think the real answer is one that Bach lovers don't want to hear. As Roland hinted, audience members are bored by the counterpoint. I don't think it's a problem if you play a single Bach piece in a program.

I'm a Bach lover, and that would be my answer. Audiences are not musically refined enough to appreciate the counterpoint, and they would much rather hear a nice tune and accompaniment from Schubert or Mozart. Which, of course, is nice too, but can't measure up musically to the genius of Bach.

lol

I agree.

When I play Chopin or Schubert sometimes my girlfriend says "I don't like this one" I say "good for you!"

When I play bach, if she says "I dont like this one" I'm like "hey! Take it easy!!! This is bach!"

Its like the bible. Stories are so so. But bach is a true bible.

She just laughs at me. I can't get no respect! No respect at all....

Perhaps Schubert or Mozart can't 'measure up', but Beethoven, Liszt, Brahms, and Chopin are up to the task.

I don't think so. Bach invented the wheel, Chopin invented the car. It's completely different, but without the wheel....

Why are you seriously comparing these great musicians? There's no hierarchy of superiority. You just make yourselves look immature by insisting that your taste is the truth. Get over yourselves.

"Whether the angels play only Bach praising God, I'm not quite sure. I'm sure, however, that en famille they play Mozart."

Counterpoint pre-dates Bach. If not for Mendelssohn, you might not have ever noticed Bach.

And if not for Liszt would wouldn't have rock stars and the Beatles. (maybe that would be a good thing)

Maybe it's evolution and there is no specific one to point the figures at and say - you are it!

Because a lot of pianists treat the piano in a way not very suitable for untranscribed performance of Bach in modern-day concert halls. That isn't to say it can't be done well. Arrau himself playing all of Bach's keyboard music in a dozen or more (can't remember the figure) recitals then completely stopped playing Bach in public, claiming the very same thing - modern day pianos are not good enough for Bach. And to quote a conversation between Schnabel and Horowitz:
Schnabel: "...I don't have the time. I still don't even know all of Bach."
Horowitz: "You know, Mr Schnabel, I do just the opposite. First I play these [romantic/virtuoso] things and then I will have time for Bach." :P

It's quite a small sample and at the same time your post doesn't make a distinction between composers performed/recorded and composers played in general. For example, maybe Trifonov would play Bach mostly if given the opportunity to do whatever he wants. But given that he's in a position where he needs to respond to audience demand, he's not yet able to dedicate himself to his favorite composer.

At the same time, it's hard to imagine a pianist not playing tons of Bach during the developmental phase. So if you were to compare Bach's contribution to the average pianist's development against any other composer it might be similarly out of balance. Maybe most pianists need a break from all that Bach and only a percentage make it back.

Lastly, if most of us have a hard time concentrating enough to listen to Bach critically, maybe we are more likely to listen to the pianist we are told is an authority on Bach. I know that's why I listened to lots of Gould and Schiff for my Bach (and Schiff for Mozart too). But in the end I found that I can't stand Schiff's Bach or his Mozart anymore. (That last statement is not intended to make a scene..I mean not really)