4 ms·

My main quibble with modern performances like this (my personal favourite is Murray Perahia's) is the sometimes ridiculous level of rubato injected into perform

My main quibble with modern performances like this (my personal favourite is Murray Perahia's) is the sometimes ridiculous level of rubato injected into performances. It's a modern (well, 19th century) invention, and not reflective of how music was performed in Bach's day, as far as I know. To modern ears, a rubato-less performance would sound much more rigid, less expressive, and less emotive (particularly with Bach, whose music is often described as "mathematical"), especially when played on the original harpsichord. Compare Gould's with, say, the recordings of Karl Richter. You find the same thing in all modern interpretations of older music, filtered through modern lenses. Bach isn't Chopin, though it can of course also sound beautiful when played that way.

jancsika 6y ago
"Not reflective of how music was performed in Bach's day" is a data point, not a judgment of quality of an interpretation. If "molto rubato" is a complaint it needs to be followed by an actual criticism. For example-- I remember someone (Kissin?) using "unsuitable" rubato in one of Brahms Paginini Variations. The problem was that it obscured the 2-against-3 texture in that variation. By applying rubato the entire time, that rhythmic drive never gets established and the variation seems less effective for it. (And rhythmic drive is very often central to Brahms' music.) There are costs and there are benefits to any interpretive approach. But I'd be very cautious about going down the "modern lens" rabbit hole. At least for the 20th century, Taruskin persuasively argued that the "authenticity" movement mainly ended up reproducing modernist interpretations of Baroque and Classical period music.
jacquesm 6y ago
I think it is a more than fair criticism of many modern pianists of Baroque era music, but let's cut them some slack too: it is entirely valid to re-interpret existing music through a more modern lens (hence the 1000's of covers) and Bach himself saw absolutely no problem with re-interpreting other composers works. Music is both finished product and raw material, a score is much more raw material than finished product. Finally, the original is still available, nothing got lost.

jancsika 6y ago

"Not reflective of how music was performed in Bach's day" is a data point, not a judgment of quality of an interpretation. If "molto rubato" is a complaint it needs to be followed by an actual criticism. For example-- I remember someone (Kissin?) using "unsuitable" rubato in one of Brahms Paginini Variations. The problem was that it obscured the 2-against-3 texture in that variation. By applying rubato the entire time, that rhythmic drive never gets established and the variation seems less effective for it. (And rhythmic drive is very often central to Brahms' music.) There are costs and there are benefits to any interpretive approach. But I'd be very cautious about going down the "modern lens" rabbit hole. At least for the 20th century, Taruskin persuasively argued that the "authenticity" movement mainly ended up reproducing modernist interpretations of Baroque and Classical period music.

jacquesm 6y ago

I think it is a more than fair criticism of many modern pianists of Baroque era music, but let's cut them some slack too: it is entirely valid to re-interpret existing music through a more modern lens (hence the 1000's of covers) and Bach himself saw absolutely no problem with re-interpreting other composers works. Music is both finished product and raw material, a score is much more raw material than finished product. Finally, the original is still available, nothing got lost.