Dynamics in Bach

[p***@gmail.com]

My music history books all talk about baroque dynamics as being fairly
unchanging during the course of a piece. Yet my version of the English
Suites have very romantic dynamic markings all over the place. Fortes,
pianos, crescendos etc. I can't imagine a harpsichord doing this. What
gives? (I have the Czerny edition published by Schrimer (sp?))
Neil

Fascinating thread below. I wonder if the same debate would be had if we were talking about Bach's contemporary, Domenico Scarlatti. In his music, there are so many repeated phrases, and these seem to invite a dynamic contrast (forte then piano or sometimes vice versa). For me, this is quintessential harpsichord writing, and I think it sounds great if you stick to 2 or maximum 3 dynamic levels, which of course can also create the illusion of a crescendo by e.g. adding notes progressively to chord, as Scarlatti often does.
Scarlatti's music also invites (me at least) to changes of speed, and longer pauses, as you often hear in harpsichord playing. For me, the spirit of Scarlatti's music is much better achieved on the piano by respecting these characteristics.
With Bach, it is a bit more complicated, because his writing tends not to be so tailored specifically to the harpsichord - it is almost as if he saw the keyboard as a means to an end, rather than as an individual instrument whose quirks called for a particular playing style.
I am not a great fan of 'authentic' playing for its own sake: I think some authentic playing, including on period instruments is fantastic, and some is actually rather boring. But I do think it's a good idea for performers to understand what the constraints of the original instrument were, and then make their choice of how to interpret, bearing this in mind or choosing to ignore it.
In the end, a great performance is an alchemy between the composer's text and the personality and imagination of the performer. And perhaps, in the days of easy access to many recorded versions, we also value even more the capacity of new interpretations to 'surprise' us, whether through careful research into authenticity, or through the sheer nerve of combining the composer's genius with the imagination of the performer. I actually think 'performer' in English is a misnomer: the French word is 'interpreter' and in my view it is much closer to the truth. There is no such thing as a correct 'performance', only a myriad of different 'interpretations', some of which move us, and some of which do not.

[J.B. Wood]

Post by p***@gmail.com

My music history books all talk about baroque dynamics as being fairly
unchanging during the course of a piece. Yet my version of the English
Suites have very romantic dynamic markings all over the place. Fortes,
pianos, crescendos etc. I can't imagine a harpsichord doing this. What
gives? (I have the Czerny edition published by Schrimer (sp?))
Neil

Fascinating thread below. I wonder if the same debate would be had if we were talking about Bach's contemporary, Domenico Scarlatti. In his music, there are so many repeated phrases, and these seem to invite a dynamic contrast (forte then piano or sometimes vice versa). For me, this is quintessential harpsichord writing, and I think it sounds great if you stick to 2 or maximum 3 dynamic levels, which of course can also create the illusion of a crescendo by e.g. adding notes progressively to chord, as Scarlatti often does.
Scarlatti's music also invites (me at least) to changes of speed, and longer pauses, as you often hear in harpsichord playing. For me, the spirit of Scarlatti's music is much better achieved on the piano by respecting these characteristics.
With Bach, it is a bit more complicated, because his writing tends not to be so tailored specifically to the harpsichord - it is almost as if he saw the keyboard as a means to an end, rather than as an individual instrument whose quirks called for a particular playing style.
I am not a great fan of 'authentic' playing for its own sake: I think some authentic playing, including on period instruments is fantastic, and some is actually rather boring. But I do think it's a good idea for performers to understand what the constraints of the original instrument were, and then make their choice of how to interpret, bearing this in mind or choosing to ignore it.
In the end, a great performance is an alchemy between the composer's text and the personality and imagination of the performer. And perhaps, in the days of easy access to many recorded versions, we also value even more the capacity of new interpretations to 'surprise' us, whether through careful research into authenticity, or through the sheer nerve of combining the composer's genius with the imagination of the performer. I actually think 'performer' in English is a misnomer: the French word is 'interpreter' and in my view it is much closer to the truth. There is no such thing as a correct 'performance', only a myriad of different 'interpretations', some of which move us, and some of which do not.

You're responding to a post from 22 years ago. Sincerely,