Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Susan Taylor's avatar

These are so foundational it's hard to choose a single interpretation. I'm still a real piano fan when it comes to these pieces, regardless of the fact that they were written for harpsichord. I think of it this way: Beethoven somehow composed not for the relatively flimsy pianos he had at his disposal, but for the concert grand we have today, with all 50,000 pounds of tension against that metal harp - it just hadn't been developed yet. These pieces are also rewarding to those of us (and we are multitudes) who will never be able to play them up to tempo - the sheer pleasure of working your way through them is enough.

Expand full comment
Giles's avatar

I had a similar experience with trying to find a version of WTC (I happened to find Ashkenazy's in a record store). It's funny though how your 'first' version of a work like this influences how you hear everyone else's.

These days I think harpsichord makes more sense in many of these pieces - as great as the various textures from Gould vs Fellner vs Richter are, there's something about the sheer sound and density of the harpsichord that's totally different and it is technically what Bach wrote them for...I went to a Mahan Esfahani recital recently and it kind of opened my ears to how these composers wrote for *harpsichord* in the same sense that (to use your example) Jimi Hendrix wrote for *feedback-laden electric guitar*.

ps. re: footnote 3, I kind of thought that was part of the point of that scene, she's acting like she's this total Godess of music who has figured it all out and deserves to be able to boss everyone else's interpretations about...but is she really?

Expand full comment
20 more comments...

No posts