I have probably listened to this maybe a dozen or so times, but this is the first time I've "seen" and heard it live. Thanks so much for this awesome concert. ❤
Eduardo Poblete de Chile, bella versión, nunca olvidamos la versión de Glenn Gould, que siempre nos ha quedado como referencia...muy agradecido por este maravilloso aporte....
Her romantic style misses the austerity that is central to Bach, which is far more severe than this decorative rendering. Schirmer should focus on Brahms, Beethoven, and maybe Mozart, because her Bach is alien to the composer, but in romantic music Schirmer sometimes gives great performances, and I especially admire her Brahms Rhapsody Op. 79 #2, which performance suggests that maybe she'd be great on his two piano concerti also. Also, why hasn't she recorded Beethoven's Emperor Concerto?
The idea that each composer's music must be confined to one rigid definition is, itself, the modern affectation that needs to be got rid of in Bach performance. Bach certainly didn't teach it or follow it; he made a point of putting to use other composers' styles, to educate himself (and others), and to take those styles further and improve upon them, or at least to explore more possibilities in them. And even disregarding those facts, the idea that Bach requires austerity obviously contradicts his music. The St. Matthew Passion requires austerity because it's the St. Matthew Passion, not because it's Bach. The Coffee Cantata requires frivolity because it's the Coffee Cantata, not because it's Bach. The climactic moment of the Goldberg Variations prominently features a well-known song of the time, and its lyrics essentially say "I'm a slob - you're a slob"; when we find a jokingly irreverent song at the climax of an apparently austere work, we are forced to conclude either that the work cannot be so austere as we imagined, or that the composer is incompetent. (With the Goldberg Variations, that choice is not a difficult one.) Anyone who goes through the set of variations treating them in an exclusively austere way (which is not necessarily an unreasonable start) is certainly forced to reconsider their assumptions when they encounter that song, if not already before that. Has Bach turned the entire work into a thoughtless prank by incorporating this song? That seems uncalled-for and not like something he would do. To me it means that in the Goldberg Variations the "high" and the "low", light and darkness, the exalted and the ordinary, the austere and the indulgent, must coexist and interact with each other. This way, the climax, in which the sublime and the ridiculous are almost literally woven together as one, can be a kind of fusion or apotheosis of the contrasts that precede it. If we eliminate the indulgent side of the music, the austere side is no longer perceived as austere, but merely barren, and the work is reduced to a vain display of compositional techniques. If we eliminate the austere side (which I think would be difficult for me to accomplish), I suppose we get some very fancy "elevator music" in which the serious parts are meaningless, the dances have no reason to dance, and the jokes are no longer relevant. In short, you are trying to replace "take Bach seriously" (i.e. he meant what he wrote, including the indulgent and the joking parts as well as the austere parts) with "play Bach seriously" (i.e. ignore his clear intentions, ignore both his humanity and your own, and make all his music uniformly dour and one-dimensional).
Two things that I neglected to say: 1. I agree that something is not right with this performance; it seems to me that she did not manage this instrument well at all, and I think the flaws come from her being physically out of control rather than lacking austerity. 2. It is more than a little odd to say someone's style lacks austerity and then immediately suggest it would help if they switched to Brahms. There are thousands of better suggestions if someone lacks austerity, and the fact that Brahms came to mind seems like a fairly clear indication that austerity isn't the problem.
@@baronmeduse She plays with a modern piano technique on one of the most precious and famous antique fortepianos. This is the reason why she is not able to produce a pleasant singing sound because she plays with too much weight, too much force - against the instrument and the historical technique of playing that is required. It is also absolutely not appropriate to perform this repertoire on a fortepiano that was built a long time after the death of Johann Sebastian Bach.
@@musael22 You're absolutely right, but if you ever listened to or played a replica of a Christophori or Silbermann fortepiano you'll notice it's a completely different world than the instrument in the video. Enjoy your evening!
I have probably listened to this maybe a dozen or so times, but this is the first time I've "seen" and heard it live. Thanks so much for this awesome concert. ❤
Eduardo Poblete de Chile, bella versión, nunca olvidamos la versión de Glenn Gould, que siempre nos ha quedado como referencia...muy agradecido por este maravilloso aporte....
Her romantic style misses the austerity that is central to Bach, which is far more severe than this decorative rendering. Schirmer should focus on Brahms, Beethoven, and maybe Mozart, because her Bach is alien to the composer, but in romantic music Schirmer sometimes gives great performances, and I especially admire her Brahms Rhapsody Op. 79 #2, which performance suggests that maybe she'd be great on his two piano concerti also. Also, why hasn't she recorded Beethoven's Emperor Concerto?
The idea that each composer's music must be confined to one rigid definition is, itself, the modern affectation that needs to be got rid of in Bach performance. Bach certainly didn't teach it or follow it; he made a point of putting to use other composers' styles, to educate himself (and others), and to take those styles further and improve upon them, or at least to explore more possibilities in them. And even disregarding those facts, the idea that Bach requires austerity obviously contradicts his music. The St. Matthew Passion requires austerity because it's the St. Matthew Passion, not because it's Bach. The Coffee Cantata requires frivolity because it's the Coffee Cantata, not because it's Bach.
The climactic moment of the Goldberg Variations prominently features a well-known song of the time, and its lyrics essentially say "I'm a slob - you're a slob"; when we find a jokingly irreverent song at the climax of an apparently austere work, we are forced to conclude either that the work cannot be so austere as we imagined, or that the composer is incompetent. (With the Goldberg Variations, that choice is not a difficult one.) Anyone who goes through the set of variations treating them in an exclusively austere way (which is not necessarily an unreasonable start) is certainly forced to reconsider their assumptions when they encounter that song, if not already before that.
Has Bach turned the entire work into a thoughtless prank by incorporating this song? That seems uncalled-for and not like something he would do. To me it means that in the Goldberg Variations the "high" and the "low", light and darkness, the exalted and the ordinary, the austere and the indulgent, must coexist and interact with each other. This way, the climax, in which the sublime and the ridiculous are almost literally woven together as one, can be a kind of fusion or apotheosis of the contrasts that precede it.
If we eliminate the indulgent side of the music, the austere side is no longer perceived as austere, but merely barren, and the work is reduced to a vain display of compositional techniques. If we eliminate the austere side (which I think would be difficult for me to accomplish), I suppose we get some very fancy "elevator music" in which the serious parts are meaningless, the dances have no reason to dance, and the jokes are no longer relevant.
In short, you are trying to replace "take Bach seriously" (i.e. he meant what he wrote, including the indulgent and the joking parts as well as the austere parts) with "play Bach seriously" (i.e. ignore his clear intentions, ignore both his humanity and your own, and make all his music uniformly dour and one-dimensional).
Two things that I neglected to say:
1. I agree that something is not right with this performance; it seems to me that she did not manage this instrument well at all, and I think the flaws come from her being physically out of control rather than lacking austerity.
2. It is more than a little odd to say someone's style lacks austerity and then immediately suggest it would help if they switched to Brahms. There are thousands of better suggestions if someone lacks austerity, and the fact that Brahms came to mind seems like a fairly clear indication that austerity isn't the problem.
♥️👏🏻♥️
The poor instrument. I can feel its pain.
Explain.
@@baronmeduse She plays with a modern piano technique on one of the most precious and famous antique fortepianos. This is the reason why she is not able to produce a pleasant singing sound because she plays with too much weight, too much force - against the instrument and the historical technique of playing that is required. It is also absolutely not appropriate to perform this repertoire on a fortepiano that was built a long time after the death of Johann Sebastian Bach.
@
Bastian Uhlig - I agree. And she plays way too fast
@@bastianuhlig Bartolomeo Cristofori was contemporain of Bach he built pianoforte as early as 1701.
@@musael22 You're absolutely right, but if you ever listened to or played a replica of a Christophori or Silbermann fortepiano you'll notice it's a completely different world than the instrument in the video.
Enjoy your evening!