Pianist Frank French has scheduled a performance of all 48 preludes and fugues in Johann Sebastian Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier,
in the "ascending chromatic order" in which they were organized, over
two concerts, one for each of the two volumes that Bach compiled, at the
Unitarian Universalist Church. The first concert took place yesterday
afternoon; and the second is scheduled for Sunday, March 22. For those
interested in an "authentic" sound of Bach, French has taken an
interesting approach. While he is playing on a modern piano, he has had
that piano tuned according to a system developed by Thomas Young in
1799, rather than the usual equal temperament. I shall not go into the
details of what makes Young's system so interesting, but those
interested in such details may find a "beginner's account"
on my blog. What is most important is that, on an instrument tuned
according to Young's system, each key has its own characteristic sound.
The distinctions between the keys are subtle, but they are most evident
in keys whose harmonic relation is remote. Thus, one is particularly
aware of the qualitative difference between C major and C sharp major;
so, by playing the preludes and fugues in the order in which Bach
recorded them, one is most likely to appreciate the variety of different
sonorities associated with the different keys.
Now, by way of
a disclaimer, we should remember that Bach died in 1750; so he would
never have had an opportunity to hear Young's specific approach to
tuning. As French observed in his program notes, Bach's probably
followed the practices of Andreas Werckmeister;
but, in the course of his career as both organist and theorist,
Werckmeister experimented with at least four (that being the number
given in the Wikipedia entry) tuning systems for keyboard instruments. Since Young was a physicist, rather than a musician, his approach may be viewed as an attempt to propose a more systematic
framework that would encompass both the theory and practice behind
Werckmeister's investigations. Thus, French's performance could be
heard as at least a credible approximation to the subtleties of
intervallic relationships that Bach originally had in mind.
I
chose the words in that last sentence carefully: Bach clearly could not
have imagined the sound of a modern piano. There is no question that
the subtleties of those intervallic relationships are likely to be more
evident on "period" instruments, particularly those in which each note
is sounded by a single string, than in the multi-string thickness of the
piano sound. However, by taking a "total immersion" approach to
exposing the audience to the full spectrum of the 24 examples in one of
Bach's volumes, French facilitated the ear's gradual discovery of those
subtleties. Furthermore, the modern piano was much more capable of holding
its tune over each half of French's recital (retuning took place during
the intermission) than any instrument of Bach's time could have been.
On the other hand the modern piano still has a disadvantage in that
thickness of sound. Rapid sequences of notes in a single voice risk
running together in a single blur, and that risk is all the greater when
several such voices are woven together in counterpoint.
Yesterday
afternoon's result was that a plan that initially would have seemed
about as inspiring as reading through a dictionary in alphabetical order
was actually excitingly revealing of the richness of an earlier
approach to tuning. The biggest problem was that the full set of 24
preludes and fugues makes for heavy demands on the performer,
particularly since French played them all from memory. Signs of fatigue
were evident not only through more than the usual number of faulty
notes but also in the ways in which the voices of Bach's intricate
contrapuntal webs (in the preludes as well as the fugues) were
balanced. (As pianists such as Richard Goode
have demonstrated, that "balancing act" is the usual way to sort out
the "blurring" problem on a modern piano.) In retrospect I would say
that French's decision to take a single break at the half-way point was
too demanding. Taking two intermissions to divide the collection into
thirds would have facilitated his endurance (not to mention the powers
of concentration of those of us in the audience).
In spite of
those shortcomings, I have every intention of returning to hear the
second volume on March 22; and I am very curious to hear whether or not
my ears have "learned" from yesterday afternoon's experience when they
are exposed to an entirely new body of material composed in the same
spirit.
No comments:
Post a Comment