Playing Bach

According to several accounts of contemporaries that have emerged in the past fifty years or so, Schönberg and Webern actually wanted their music to be played much more freely, even "romantic" than it was customary to be played in the first half of the 20th century. Pierre Boulez actually did another version of all his Webern recordings after this fact became more known, and replaced the rather dry and accurate first version with a much more free interpretation. It's even known that the orchestras that performed Schönberg's and Webern's pieces during their lifetimes played their pieces much too strictly and "lifeless" for their liking.

Personally I adore that particular Gould recording of Schönberg's Op. 19, and also Op. 23.

Originally Posted by Gardener

According to several accounts of contemporaries that have emerged in the past fifty years or so, Schönberg and Webern actually wanted their music to be played much more freely, even "romantic" than it was customary to be played in the first half of the 20th century.

Interesting. Reference?

Hmm, hard to find right now on the internet. It seems like most articles that contain interesting information must be paid I couldn't really find anything about Schönberg.

Anyways, there's Webern's quote "A high note here, a low note there - like the music of a madman" when he attended Otto Klemperer's performance of his Symphony Op. 21, which he said to Peter Stadlen, who later performed Webern's Variations for Piano. When Webern worked with Stadlen he made many annotations to the score that indicate how Webern wanted his music to be played. Here are some examples of this, even though I couldn't find any direct quotes by Stadlen yet:

Re-notation of Webern's "Piano Variations" (c) 1998 by Joe Monzo
SOLI March Program Notes & Bios
Anton Webern - authentisch aus Wien ( NZZ Online) (This one's in German)


If we assume that at least to some degree Schönberg shared this view with Webern (also coming out of a tradition of Mahlerian interpretation, with way more rubato than we're used today), I don't think Gould's interpretation goes too far. After all, even the score of Schönberg's Op. 19 which we were talking about is full of verbal remarks such as "espressivo", "etwas zögernd" (slightly hesitating), "flüchtig" (fleeting), "mit sehr zartem Ausdruck" (with very gentle expression), "wie ein Hauch" (like a breath), etc., almost reminding of Mahler's annotations in his music, all indicating that an actual interpretation by the performer was intended, and not just playing black on white notes.

should vibrato be used at all in bach's string music?

It depends upon how authentic you want your performance to be.

In the period, according to available treatises and written accounts, vibrato was used as an ornament to "sweeten" certain notes, rather than almost constantly as in modern technique. Stringed instruments were also configured and set up differently in those days (gut strings, no chinrests or endpins, shorter and lower fingerboards and bridges, etc. not to mention the various changes in bow configuration) and playing techniques were different, too.

It's not easy to get a very authentic performance on a modern instrument, but one can encorporate some period aesthetic by not using vibrato quite so liberally. I can't really describe this in words. Listen to some good recordings by reputable early music specialists, such as The Academy of Ancient Music, The English Concert, The Brandenburg Concert, Tafelmusik, etc. and listen to the string playing to get a better aural idea of what I'm talking about. These people have really done their homework.

what about those famous violinists like heifetz and perlman etc.? i have heard them playing Bach's violin concertos, and they seem to use alot of vibration. do they not care about authencitity?

In my opinion, diversity of performance is what makes recording baroque music so interesting. Conflicting agenda on such questions as the importance of musicality over historical accuracy, the arguments surrounding what constitutes an accurate historical performance and ultimately personal taste leave the modern listener with many more recordings of the works of baroque composers than they would surely have otherwise. This can't be a bad thing.

Bach's keyboard music has interested me for a long time, but only recently have I begun a systematic exploration of the works. At the moment, I feel I prefer the sound of the harpsichord, not simply for the superficial reason that it's more historically accurate (this doesn't really bother me), but that the compositions seem to fit the instrument more snuggly in terms of voice spacing and timbre. Having said that, I find it quite hard to justify my opinion; it's just that. An opinion. To my ear, the harpsichord is more commanding than the piano, a little more forceful, but this might just be nonsense. If for no other reason, it gives the instrument something to do. In some circumstances though, the piano wins hands down. When performing in public, the only thing I'd say is 'a must' is to be consistent in your interpretations. Don't play one piece with no pedal, baroque ornaments and highly mechanically and the next as though it were a Beethoven piano sonata.

The G minor harpsichord concerto (adapted from the Violin Sonata in A minor) does, to be frank, sound pathetic with a harpsichord and string orchestra. Bach himself realised this, and appears never to have finished the set to which the concerto was part. On the other hand, it sounds superb with piano and orchestra - it's perfectly balanced.

Originally Posted by darkwonderer18

what about those famous violinists like heifetz and perlman etc.? i have heard them playing Bach's violin concertos, and they seem to use alot of vibration. do they not care about authencitity?

In a word, no. They were trained to play using modern instruments and modern technique, and they do that beautifully. Not that their interpretations of Bach aren't wonderful in their way; they're simply not what Bach would have heard, nor were they probably what he had in mind. He might have found their effusiveness of technique and frankness of expression embarrassing.

A word about expressiveness and musicailty in authentic performance: there is as much of those qualities present in an authentic performance of a baroque work as there is in a modern performance, if not more so. It's just not the same kind of expressiveness. Whether the listener can hear it or not, or whether a performer cares to exercise the necessary self-discipline, depends on personal taste and sensibility.

We have gradually arrived at a point where most of us wear our emotions on our sleeves and express ourselves freely as a matter of course, with relatively few exceptions. The 18th Century was a time of restraint and decorum in personal expression. It is not surprising that the way those people played their music was necessarily restrained on the surface as well. If one really listens, though, there is a surging undercurrent of expressiveness and emotion just under that surface veneer of restraint. It's present in the music as well as the way it was played. I wouldn't keep anyone from doing as they like, but in my opinion, to play Bach with modern sensibilities about emotion and self-expression in full sway is just inappropriate. It takes discipline to channel all that under the surface, a discipline that appeals to some and is abhorrent to others. The fact remains that the kind of restraint and discipline I'm talking about is something Bach and his contemporaries lived with their whole lives, and is appropriate to the interpretation of their music.

I hope this is relevant but when I play Bach on the organ I think it should be played to the organist's own interpretation - especially in tocatta pieces and things - grand and impressive Bach is my favourite Bach

That was a really interesting post, JLeeGraham. Thank you.