Playing Bach on anything other that an harpsichord is ineluctably not Bach. This is not to say that Bach on the piano cannot be self referently beautiful. The featured cerebral and exquisitely nuanced performance by Filippol Gorini is an undoubted example. It is far more reverent than Gould, even mores so than Schiff's, which is marred by uncharacteristic and un-Bachian excess here and there. Bach was, after all, writing for the instrument he knew. On the harpsichord all 'voices' are equal. On the piano one cannot resist the temptation to expressivities which bring to the fore a pianistic palette - astonishingly as beautiful they iare. But, as a lecturer once said, 'playing Bach on the piano is akin to saying that if Caesar had had cruise missiles he would have used them'. How ever! he didn't.

Such music is indeed a proof of the existence of God. But not more so than an English choir of men and boys or some choice French monks.

Playing Bach on an early fortepiano, clavichord, or any other of the many keyboard instruments available to him would be a disgrace? I think not. Let's remember that the clavichord, with its ability to delineate individual voices through dynamics, was Bach's preferred keyboard instrument. Also, to play Bach on an Italian or French harpsichord, an instrument that Bach would have certainly rejected in favour of the darker German models he knew well, would be an even greater disgrace in my mind than to play his works on an instrument he simply did not know. However, the former is done all too often by those who would shun a modern piano as "inauthentic".

(Not to mention that there are many passages in at least the WTK that clearly demonstrate Bach going beyond the limits of the harpsichord/clavichord and require an instrument with a greater sustaining potential, whether Hammerklavier or organ.)

No one said that harpsichords aren't expressive—especially when coaxed by well-trained fingers. But there's no denying they pale in comparison (where expressivity is concerned) to the piano. Heck... they even pale compared to a nice, intimate tracker organ.

[Don't misunderstand me... I love harpsichords and delight in playing them whenever presented the opportunity.]

I consider some of these modern, reimagined performances of ancient works (as distinct from deliberate attempts at historical performance) in the same category that I file all the transcriptions of Bach's Toccata in D for full orchestra. They are fine for what they are. I prefer a genuine baroque orchestra on period instruments playing Bach any day... but I don't want the subculture of historical performance to stymie other attempts at presenting the music too. I've been told that there are modern orchestras that avoid performing Bach specifically because critic snobs lambaste them for not doing it on period instruments with historic bowing, etc. etc. etc. so it's just not worth the effort. That is truly sad to hear.

Don’t put your waddles in such a kafoofdernick, y’all. Bach can be played on any instrument ancient or modern. The newer instruments reveal that human creativity can never be halted, and that beauty can emerge ever new from what is old.

As a composer, I write notes on the staff which are simply a guide for the performing artist. If a new instrument comes along in 100 years I would be delighted for humanity to rediscover a work with a new kind of beauty found in its timely presentation. Personally, I don’t think Bach cares much HOW you play the notes but that you play the notes in an artistic and beautifully rendered interpretation.

The stodginess and rock headed purists of “correct historical performance” to the exclusion of other possibilities is laughable.., and that applies to the schools of chant that strive to stand as king of the hill. Play beautifully and pray from the depth of your being. God is listening with delight.

Note: it is a shame that mr. Gould insists on humming along with his playing as does the jazz pianist, Jarret. (Although I have seen mention that Jarret may have suffered a malady in that regard)

I've been told that there are modern orchestras that avoid performing Bach specifically because critic snobs lambaste them for not doing it on period instruments with historic bowing, etc. etc. etc. so it's just not worth the effort. That is truly sad to hear.

Not to mention that most of the mainstream period performance crowd deliberately withhold historical information that does not fit their narrative, which is generally more in accord with modern taste than 18th-century taste anyway. The fact that vibrato is banned despite historical advocacy for its use from prominent musical figures, Classical orchestras are reduced to tiny bands when Haydn routinely doubled the wood-winds and favoured huge string sections, 16' harpsichord manuals are seen as unstylistic when they were featured in instruments Bach specifically commissioned, and so on shows that this is nothing more than selective scholarship. I think it's about time that we give up the charade that these performers are trying to mimic a certain historical practice. They are imposing their own sound ethic on the music, drawn from 20th-century ideals rather than 18th-century ones, and and searching for historical support for their ideas after the fact.

They are imposing their own sound ethic on the music, drawn from 20th-century ideals rather than 18th-century ones, and and searching for historical support for their ideas after the fact.

My biggest objection is those organists who only want to play Bach on those screechy N. German organs. Those were not the organs Bach built or played. The mid-German organs he knew had a more mellow tone.

I clearly need to go to school on composition. I've tried to write anything instrumental even approaching this, and it always sounds like mush, and not very good mush at that.

@ghmus7

It will be good to hear your interpretation