JS Bach's Well-tempered Clavier: Some basic thoughts on interpretation
If you are working with the music of JS Bach since some time, you will know that there is an incredibly wide spectrum of interpretations available. This is true even for the same type of work.
Take the St Matthew Passion as an example. If you compare the 1950 version of Herbert von Karajan (Vienna Symphonic orchestra) with the more recent recording of Philippe Herreweghe and the Collegium Vocale Gent, one might believe in the first instance that the two recordings cover two altogether different pieces.
This is also true for JS Bach's keyboard music. Next to differences in the individual style of each (serious) interpreter, the growing community of musicians who focus on the latest development in understanding historical performance practices has widened the variety of "how to play Bach" enormously. Just compare Tureck's and Egarr's interpretations of the Well-tempered Clavier - the results are materially different and it is astounding how approaches have changed over the years.
What can we derive as musician from this development? My view on the matter is that there are only limited grounds to put something into the "wrong" drawer merely because it does not follow historical practices. JS Bach's music is quite abstract by nature, and is open to a wide spectrum of interpretational approaches. Such, I would be careful to rule out certain approaches based on an academic understanding of how the music was (might be?) played some 300 years ago.
Having said that, I believe that one can of course differentiate between good and bad performances (and 100 shades of grey in between). The key aspects to make such categorization are consistency, thoughtfulness, having an overall concept to the work, and of course excellence in execution. Frankly, given all the new things that are out there, I have difficulties to listen to Karajan's recordings of JS Bach's music, at least longer than it takes to see where he is coming from with respect to a particular piece. However, Karajan clearly knew what he was doing, and while his style may - today - not be everybody's cup of tea any more (at least regarding Baroque music), his mastership in conducting the greatest large orchestras in the world can be felt in every second of the recordings.
Thus I believe that whatever the approach is, if it is done well, it is worth listening to. There is no need to be 100% historically correct, and just because somebody performs JS Bach's works on modern instruments, or interprets trills different to what seems to be the latest understanding of scholarly researchers, it does not mean the performance is without value.
In any case it is a good thing to understand many different types of interpretations. Before finding one's own language in playing Bach, a broad spectrum of records and live performances should be listened to. This includes interpretations on historic instruments. To know the latter clearly helps to improve the overall understanding of the music, its phrasing, embellishments etc.
To summarize: A great interpretation of a work which is as complex as the Well-tempered Clavier can only be achieved based on a deep analytical understanding (of the entire work, not just 1 or 2 fugues), balanced stylistic decisions, thoughtful choosing of tempo and articulation, consistency, and of course flawless execution (both technically, and musically). This is true for both "romantic" approaches and interpretations on the clavichord.
Take the St Matthew Passion as an example. If you compare the 1950 version of Herbert von Karajan (Vienna Symphonic orchestra) with the more recent recording of Philippe Herreweghe and the Collegium Vocale Gent, one might believe in the first instance that the two recordings cover two altogether different pieces.
This is also true for JS Bach's keyboard music. Next to differences in the individual style of each (serious) interpreter, the growing community of musicians who focus on the latest development in understanding historical performance practices has widened the variety of "how to play Bach" enormously. Just compare Tureck's and Egarr's interpretations of the Well-tempered Clavier - the results are materially different and it is astounding how approaches have changed over the years.
What can we derive as musician from this development? My view on the matter is that there are only limited grounds to put something into the "wrong" drawer merely because it does not follow historical practices. JS Bach's music is quite abstract by nature, and is open to a wide spectrum of interpretational approaches. Such, I would be careful to rule out certain approaches based on an academic understanding of how the music was (might be?) played some 300 years ago.
Having said that, I believe that one can of course differentiate between good and bad performances (and 100 shades of grey in between). The key aspects to make such categorization are consistency, thoughtfulness, having an overall concept to the work, and of course excellence in execution. Frankly, given all the new things that are out there, I have difficulties to listen to Karajan's recordings of JS Bach's music, at least longer than it takes to see where he is coming from with respect to a particular piece. However, Karajan clearly knew what he was doing, and while his style may - today - not be everybody's cup of tea any more (at least regarding Baroque music), his mastership in conducting the greatest large orchestras in the world can be felt in every second of the recordings.
Thus I believe that whatever the approach is, if it is done well, it is worth listening to. There is no need to be 100% historically correct, and just because somebody performs JS Bach's works on modern instruments, or interprets trills different to what seems to be the latest understanding of scholarly researchers, it does not mean the performance is without value.
In any case it is a good thing to understand many different types of interpretations. Before finding one's own language in playing Bach, a broad spectrum of records and live performances should be listened to. This includes interpretations on historic instruments. To know the latter clearly helps to improve the overall understanding of the music, its phrasing, embellishments etc.
To summarize: A great interpretation of a work which is as complex as the Well-tempered Clavier can only be achieved based on a deep analytical understanding (of the entire work, not just 1 or 2 fugues), balanced stylistic decisions, thoughtful choosing of tempo and articulation, consistency, and of course flawless execution (both technically, and musically). This is true for both "romantic" approaches and interpretations on the clavichord.
