Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Best Piano for Baroque and Classical?

Enjoyed Numerian’s post and am in large agreement with most of it. Then Apple says this:

As far as I know, which ain’t much actually, she is fairly well committed to the music of JS Bach.

Now putting on the composer’s hat, I can tell you that there is no reason to believe that composers of any era really fell in love with the instruments they wrote for. Certainly Bach was well known during his lifetime as a superb keyboard player. Though near the end of his life Bach was able to play a Silbermann pianoforte that he said he didn’t like, more that he believed the project to create a useful pianoforte needed more work, that didn’t mean that Bach loved his harpsichord and wouldn’t see his music played on a technically improved instrument even if it produced sounds by electronic means. Many of the other composers mentioned had more prosaic approaches to their craft because none of them other than Bach, who wrote about this concept many times, felt that anything they were doing was likely to survive.

We inevitably get into a situation with older music (that is nevertheless still modern) freighted with a lot of perhaps useless nostalgia that somehow were the instruments used for the older music more “authentic” that will somehow make the music seem better for whatever considerations. I watched this phenomenon run its course through the late 60’s into the 70’s with a few nice spin offs like Zuckermann Harpsichords which, again through competent builders, resulted in a fair number of very nice Harpsichords. That’s an entirely different subject of course as there are many famous makers (all modern) who deserve some mention for those looking for harpsichords.

Music either stands on its own no matter when it’s played (even if it’s several hundreds of years old) or it doesn’t. We appreciate that there have been many technical improvements in keyboard instruments over the past 250 years since Bach’s day and that Bach, perhaps the first composer to say so, was keenly aware that the equal temperament scaling and tuning which was at its infancy during his lifetime, would nevertheless inevitably take over (apologies to those whose ears are so fine that they can actually tell the difference in out of tune tunings) and as one of his magnum opus contributions were the 48 preludes and fugues of the Well Tempered Clavichord, he deliberately set out to prove the greater capabilities of the new tuning. He was also among the first to assert that a composer does not write merely for his immediate audience but “for all time” which is why the suggestion that we send out into space nothing but Bach actually does have some merits.

So, to reinforce the theme, a very high end modern piano should definitely suffice and if that does not suit you, perhaps you are among those of the “1 percenters” who either by hearing or by some neurosis simply can’t be satisfied. Or to put it more simply, go play your favorite Bach on every piano you can until you find the one that inspires you the most.

Oh boy, Emil Gilels. That was a pianist! Same for Sokolov. They certainly can make anything sound great regardless of period of composition and technical approach to the keyboard. They certainly "refresh the soul" which is what really matters.
Concert grand, fortepiano, harpsichord? To each one his/her preference, but plaease save a modern, big, shinny nine footer for me.


Uncle George

Whether Bach's music sounds better or is better suited to a harpsichord (and not a piano) is completely subjective.

Playing Bach on a modern piano is so "Kitsch".In our personal and respected opinions you may prefeer new instruments because of it's stability, the shiny tone and power.

But I'm pretty sure that when J.S. Bach composed this music for harpshichords he was sure that this compositions would never get a better sound in any other instrument. All music for klavier from Bach has perfection, clarity, but maybe Harpshichords are not perfect instruments (talking about the quality of the sound) than a new S&S.

But what makes usually beautiful the music of Bach is to listen it in a harpshichord. Bach make this music for this instrument, if you are changing the instrument you are not understanding his music, because you will listen it in other language. If what do you want is to hear Bach played on a newer piano you are not listening pure Bach but a modification of the piece that can result very limited.

I tell you that because it happened to me, I started playing piano two years ago. I started with a digital piano. One year later I bought a bad-quality baby grand from 1940's. When I learned and played Chopin on it, I was very happy. But I rediscovered completly F.Chopin when I listened interpretations of Chopin in Pleyel pianos. Yesterday I bought a Pleyel upright pianino from 1850's. And it needs to be restored, but I played a Chopin's song and I could really approach much more the chopin intention's on it's music.

More hardly it happens with Liszt. If you play Liszt in a modern piano it's so so so and so powerful, and it brings to chaos the musical piece. Listening a Liszt played in a Erard it's twicely better (Paralel strings).

Imagine if you play Bach on a modern piano, when strings get crossed, yes there's better harmoniques but you loose the clarity of the sound.

Think about this. Modern pianos just invested in beeing more "powerful": A powerful and brighty piano sound isn't all in a piano. Many important things had been forgoten and lost.

Lluís.

Bravo to variances in opinion. I note with some degree of genuine respect that Lluís has managed to acquire a 1942 Challen Baby Grand Piano (Challen, a now defunct British maker, was the maker of one of the longest pianos in the world) and a 1855 Pleyel Pianino (which should be carefully and completely restored including the original action so that the instrument plays as it did when new). This is someone who believes that music sounds best when played on contemporary (to the music) instruments. Very well then, the world is certainly large enough for many diverse aesthetics. If you think so too, perhaps you should acquire a fine modern harpsichord, many of which are respectable copies of period instruments.
http://earlymusichicago.org/businesses_harpsichord.htm

don't forget about his organ works

as much as I believe in being true to compositions, i love doubling octaves and using the sustain in some of Bach's works. So many of them are interchangeable.

Yes, I bought a Challen Baby Grand, I'm quite younger (19 y.o) and when I was looking to buy a piano I had a very little budged for a piano (1700 $). The first piano I played was a Yamaha console (1600 $).

I played the mazurka op 17 nº4 of Chopin on it and I've found that this beautiful music didn't fit in that instrument.The sound was so bright. So I tried another console piano (Samick) for 900$ , this time worse than first piano played. The third piano was a Yamaha U2 (2000$). I have to say that this piano almost convinced me due the elegant tone of the yamaha studio upright. But when I played that old Challen I've found a most delicate sound (I'm agree that this Challen is not a good instrument, but it has got english action like Pleyel!.The piano was in great shape and bought for 1600$ + transport.

Yesterday I bought a Pleyel, completly agree with you David that this piano needs a carefully restoration. I'm being taught by Mr. Olivier Fadini to restore the piano, but I'm start seeing the great diferences between restoring a modern piano and a early piano. . All Olivier says it's completly true, nothing like old instruments to feel the music in a more deeply and romantic sound (Ofcourse, this topic talks about Barroque and Classical so no Romantic ,but the same thing can be told to other periods). Ofcourse this is only a personal opinion and other people opinion are completly respectable.

Lluís.

Lluís,

Another detail: most Chopin pieces were written to be performed in salons in Paris where only a few people were ever in attendance. Chopin, despite having numerous students, was somewhat reclusive. Only during the period after the Russian takeover of Poland near the end of his life was he ever playing before hundreds of people at a time and even then that was the 1840’s when most pianos were straight strung, iron plates were new and the scale and tensions were lower. On top of that everyone complained that Chopin played softly. In fact it could be argued, if one really wanted to be fanatical about it, that the most authentic rendering of a piece by Chopin would be at a piano party where the piano used was a late pianoforte or restored Erard or Pleyel (the two brands Chopin liked most) and only a dozen or so people would ever hear it. For Bach’s WTC, that would be maybe two or three people besides the player at a clavichord which can only be heard above a whisper. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNXrse-xujU
On this recording I am certain that you are getting more volume due to close mikeing as they are never that loud.

Nice interpretation of the Prelude in D. This music arrives fastly in my hearth than played with newer instruments.
Yes, you are right that Chopin prefereed to offer intimate recitals in saloons than playing with a large piano in concerts.Thats why he prefereed Pleyel pianinos than Pleyel grands because it's more intimate sounding. The delicated sound of a Pleyel was described by F. Liszt as "A cristaline sound". It's true that Chopin also played on Erards an Broadwood pianos, but in its opinion the Erard pianos where easier to play because with no efford Chopin could play it's pieces easily. Chopin said that when he was tired and ill he prefeered to play an Erard but when he was Ok he prefereed to play on Pleyel's pianinos.

There's a video of a Pianino Pleyel of 1838 restored by my friend O.Fadini, more or less like the one I've got and bought for only 170$ in France (100% original parts!)

http://www.youtube.com/user/olipippocinque#p/u/6/YTlM8ULquqc

And first thing I advised when I played the small pianino was it's louder volume, so elegant...

I've just been web surfing and have concluded that Bosendorfer is THE piano for Bach. Of course, you've got to have the right piano operator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPPQLzwCosI&feature=related

Charles

[quote=David Burton
Music either stands on its own no matter when it’s played (even if it’s several hundreds of years old) or it doesn’t. We appreciate that there have been many technical improvements in keyboard instruments over the past 250 years since Bach’s day and that Bach, perhaps the first composer to say so, was keenly aware that the equal temperament scaling and tuning which was at its infancy during his lifetime, would nevertheless inevitably take over (apologies to those whose ears are so fine that they can actually tell the difference in out of tune tunings) and as one of his magnum opus contributions were the 48 preludes and fugues of the Well Tempered Clavichord, he deliberately set out to prove the greater capabilities of the new tuning. [/quote]

David,
not sure if you are being deliberately vague here....I just want to clarify in case people misinterpret your words here as meaning that the WTC was written for equal-temperament.
The WTC was of course composed to demonstrate the possibilities of Well-Temperament....very different temperament from Equal Temperament....weird keys are much weirder in the former.

Just watched a video sample of the new CD release of forum member Jeffrey Biegel: "Bach on a Steinway":

Bach on a Steinway

schwammerl.

I have a friend that has a baby Steinway built in the early 1950s. Ivory keys, shallow key dip, not real loud and sustaining...it seems a lot like a period instrument compared to my Estonia L190. Fun to play!

A key travel of 10.2 mm (0.40”) might appear quite standard today but when I started regulating grand actions (in the 1960s) 9.5 mm (0.374”) was more common. Steinway was considered a bit odd at 9.9 mm (0.390”). But we all knew (in the U.S., at least) that Steinway’s action geometry was some variable and it might actually regulate out at considerably more or less than this.

Over the years, as hammers became rather more dense and massive (thanks to Yamaha, et al), it became clear that key touchweight was going go up (requiring more finger strength), more key front leading was going to be required (increasing the action’s inertia) or the overall action ratios had to change (requiring the finger to move further). On balance manufacturers seem to have decided the latter was the least bad solution.

It would never do to go back to hammers of more reasonable mass. Manufacturers are convinced that “power” sells. And so, power we shall have whatever it takes.

ddf

Oh no! A bold statement! Duck and cover!



Absolutely.

Yes, accepted. It was Well-Temperament. What was the previous tuning called, something like Mean-tone?

It is a real shame that the Glenn Goulds and Murray Perhaias and Andras Schiffs and Mitsuko Uchidas and Leon Fleishers etc didn't have the opportunity to learn that they were horrible pianists before making their fatal mistakes of preferring modern instruments to historical. I feel even worse for all of the people who were profoundly, but no doubt mistakenly moved by these performers playing Bach and Mozart on modern instruments.
Perhaps there is still time for you to instruct them in their wasted and misguided lives.

What Keith D Kerman said.

And I'll add the late Lukas Foss, who played Bach in my opinion about as well as anyone: http://www.amazon.com/Lukas-Foss-Plays-Bach/dp/B00004SZTQ

And Dinu Lipatti could certainly play splendid Bach: http://www.amazon.com/Dinu-Lipatti-Plays-Johann-Sebastian/dp/B00004TZBK

In fact, and I'll say so again to make sure it sticks; MODERN music began with Bach and that his music lives on modern instruments supports my contention. I'm not really willing to take any prisoners on my position either. Those who prefer older more "traditional" instruments have their place but do not deserve to hog the stage. Get me?

I'm rather disappointed that a forum veteran such as yourself didn't pick up on my sarcasm... When someone levels such a silly question at me as "So, by association are all pianists who prefer to play the modern instrument instead of a historical one for these stylistic periods horrible pianists, too?" I feel entitled to reply with an equally silly answer... Rest assured that 240 of the 250 or so classical piano CDs (including all the pianists you mentioned) I own were made on the modern concert grand, and of those, maybe about 230 of them were done on the Steinway D (a piano I'm that I'm not particularly fond of).

Back to the original question, though... I still maintain that the best instruments to use are the historically accurate kind, and that most modern pianos are a horrible match for the Baroque and Classical eras. In my experience, things usually make more sense, musically this way. This does not necessarily mean that I advocate ditching the modern instruments.

Having read through this thread, two or three points. Playing Bach on the harpsichord or modern grand is a choice and there is no single right answer. A good Bach performer on either will obviously sound better than a poor Bach performer on either and surely we are in favour of good, musical performances are we not?

If Bach had known the modern grand his compositions would have been different, but this is a merely hypothetical point. He didn't.

I have yet to find a pianist who can realise baroque French music on a piano, any piano. It is pure harpsichord music. I don't think it is possible to realise it on a piano beyond a tiny percentage of what the music contains . Leave it to the harpsichordists.