Classical Music Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Yes, this made the transcriptions useful 150 years ago. But to day, when phonographic reproduction is widespread, and pianos are a much more rare occurrence, transcriptions are pointless from the listeners point of view.
I love Bach keyboard music but dislike harpsichords and most organs, so transcriptions are far from pointless from this listener's point of view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
This was not what I pointed to in the post of mine, you quote. Read Larkenfield's post (post 13) again and then mine (post 17). This was about the importance of transcriptions before we got phonographic reproduction.

BTW most transcriptions (for piano and for everything else) were made, because the transcriber wanted to play the music on his own instrument and only secondarily with the listener in mind.
Larkenfield was talking pretty specifically about piano reductions of orchestral scores but was responding to Mandryka who appeared to be making a pretty generalized and global comment about transcriptions as a whole.

Disagree that most transcriptions were made for the benefit of the transcriber. Bach himself was a big transcriber of his own music, and he transcribed his music for the purposes of performance. Liszt transcribed as a showcase for performance. Busoni transcribed works for piano so that people could hear Bach's music.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
But saying « I don't like organs » seems to me as strange as saying « I don't like wine » - there are so many different types that if you continue to explore you'll find some that you like I'm sure.
I've explored a fair amount and so far have not heard an organ Bach performance that doesn't make me miss the contrapuntal clarity of the notes I hear in good piano performances. They always sound like a mushy mess in my ears. The thing that you note about pianos--that the notes decay instead of sustain--is one of the reasons it's such a great Bach instrument, because the complex multi-voiced counterpoint is far more transparent. It's not about performer either--I get the clarity I want from Rubsam on the piano (although his rubato is too frequent and extreme for my tastes) but not from Rubsam on the organ for instance.

Of course, harpsichords also share that feature of decay with pianos, but they sound thin and insubstantial in my ears--exactly the opposite of how Bach sounds in my mind's ear. Of course this is complete speculation but I bet if you built a time machine and sent a modern piano to Bach, it'd be his favorite instrument--Bach's compositions indicate that he loved the big dramatic noise of organs and the clarity and complexity possible with harpsichords; and the piano is the best instrument that allows both at the same time.

Also I'm more of a scotch guy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
In very contrapuntal music, I often like to hear instruments which aren't homogeneous in all registers -- being able to appreciate the dramatic interrelationships amongst the voices is easier for me if the voices have different timbres. Of course there are some pianos and organs and clavichords which have irregular registrations, though less so in modern pianos I think.

You can bring out the narrative of tension and release amongst the voices on a homogeneous instrument, you have to give each voice a life and a personality of its own, and bring the whole together in a way which is musical, poetic.
I know what you mean--exceptional Bach pianists are exceptional in my mind specifically because they're able to assign ownership of each note to each voice to a truly impressive degree. Gould, Sokolov and Schepkin really stand out for me in this regard.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top