Two Recordings: Bach's WTC II
I was asked recently why I sometimes pair two recordings together in a review. The answer I gave was both pragmatic and reader focused. The first reason is that I come across two recordings that I want to review and putting them into one survey saves me time. The second, and more logical reason, is that there’s something to be had by comparing the two recordings.
This is not something I came up with by myself; I’ve long been a fan of the reviews posted by Johann van Veen at Musica-Dei-donum, and he will sometimes combine a single writeup with multiple recordings, especially if they cover some amount of the same original material.
In this case, the second book of Bach’s Well-tempered clavier showed up by Vincent Bernhardt, and I also realized I’d missed the release in 2019 of Céline Frisch’s recording of the same work. Both are HIPP recordings. I unfortunately did not have access to the booklet for Bernhardt’s recording on Calliope, and even their website didn’t yet list this new release. But upon listening, these are two very different recordings, but two that I think offer much for the listener to enjoy.
I can tell you that the Frisch recording, on Alpha Classics, features a single instrument, a Restelli harpsichord modeled after one by Christian Vater from 1738. It’s got a nice bright sound, an attractive instrument all around. In Bernhardt’s recording of the WTC I, he used a harpsichord with a 16-foot stop, not unlike that used by Andreas Staier. The instruments built with the extra bass support, and specifically the one used by Staier, was based upon probably the most famous, surviving large harpsichord of the time, which was inspired by organ builders who wanted to give the instrument the equivalent of “stops” on the organ, to provide a lot of variety in timbres. I was not a fan of the way Staier kept changing these “registrations” throughout his performance. But he approached doing so much like an organist would. So I can’t say that his approach was anti-historical, but stylistically, once I get used to the sound, I’d prefer you not change it.
In the case of Bernhardt’s latest edition, which we’ll focus on here, he has adopted the use of multiple instruments. I can’t tell you what they are without the liner notes, but they include an early piano, a clavichord, and a harpsichord. And like his recording of the WTC I, once he starts, he doesn’t go changing things. For this reason, I found his WTC I more successful than Staier’s in terms of the use of a larger, more colorful instrument. But I can imagine some listeners might not like the switching of instruments from one pair to the next. But that’s what’s on offer.
The music
I hardly think the WTC series needs an introduction. For reasons that I can only imagine have to do with the novelty and popularity of Bach’s first volume of preludes and fugues written in each major and minor key, he returned to this format again eighteen years later with this volume. The reaction within the musical community to WTC II outclassed the reaction to the first volume. While one could argue that the WTC I was somewhat pedagogical in nature, the pieces in volume two overall seem a bit richer and more complex for the fingers. It seems to me that Bach challenged himself in the writing of these pieces, to do something even better. That thought aside, I often gravitate to book 1 more than 2, as I like the pieces in the first book better, as a collection. But I’m splitting hairs. They are both masterworks, not only for the level of invention involved in the construction of the fugues, and varying styles shown in the preludes, but also Bach’s boldness in promoting a work that could be played without changing the instrument’s tuning for each piece.
This is what those who primarily listen to Bach on the piano may miss: many tuning systems used were dependent upon the key of the piece, as certain intervals were favored with ‘perfect’ tuning. This meant that a piece in G might sound great, but in A-flat? Not good at all. We believe that Bach’s publication of these books was a proclamation of him figuring out something akin to an equal-tuning system, as is used on modern pianos, where you can play in any key without adjustment. The only problem is, we don’t know what tuning Bach used.
Yes, there was the discovery of the title page of volume 1, and the little decoration at the top, which some believe is Bach’s way of showing us his tuning system. (Read more here.)
While the tuning used in baroque keyboard music is sometimes discussed, there is no discussion of tuning in Frisch’s album’s notes, and of course, I don’t have access to the notes for Bernhardt’s recording. Any discussion of tuning, then, will be subject to what I’m hearing with my own ears.
Frisch ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I started listening to her album following along with the score edited by Busoni. (I often like to listen following an original manuscript, when available, but I found them difficult to read, with how close each stave is to the next set.) But Busoni tried translating the ornaments for the pianist with writing out how he’d play them, which was different from the way Frisch was approaching them. Which is an apt reminder that the ornaments used by Bach can have different executions, based upon the interpreter.
Perhaps a great place to start is the D major set, BWV 874; tracks 9-10. Great confidence, great opening tempo, which may prove dangerous to some players, in terms of executing the ornaments. But Frisch chose a tempo that both fits her hands well and I think fits the music well. I also liked the sound of her instrument, the bass has some weight. She changes register for the fugue, which heightens the clarity. She plays this fugue faster than I’m used to, but there’s such a lightness to the sound, that I think this tempo also serves the music well. We had to admire how Bach relies not only on melody but also harmony in the construction of his fugue subjects. (Was Beethoven inspired by this one?)
The next pair I want to highlight is the E minor, BWV 879. One of the features of this prelude are some long-held trills. The effect helps sustain the sound on the harpsichord; although there are other examples of held notes that don’t get trilled. For me their inclusion is almost a flamboyant inclusion by Bach. Whether it’s placed to impress or even tickle one’s humor, Frisch executes them beautifully. Her chosen tempo for the prelude is again on the fast side, which I enjoyed. The binary design of the prelude, with repeats, offers the interpreter the opportunity to differentiate the second time around.
The fugue showcases what an incredibly precise and fine articulator Frisch is. Using both the 8 and 4 foot strings together in the fugue pulls some of the clarity I praised before away, but I can’t blame her for wanting to amplify the sound of this fugue. Her precision is all the more impressive as more voices pile on.
The next pair is the one in A-flat major, BWV 886. This one woke me up, in terms of the tuning. Treatises would describe the characteristics of the keys, with certain emotional or even bodily humors that align to the different keys. The tuning used here isn’t as ideal for this key, but it’s within that “color” that we can take some delight. That said, the tuning is serviceable in this key. Bach’s writing in the prelude almost seems to be searching to help us establish the key. It’s the repetitive figures which outline the triadic harmonies. I liked Frisch’s tempo for this one.
The leaps in the fugue subject are a bit of a virtuosic measure. Again, I think Frisch is spot-on with the tempo here. Again on the fast side, it never feels rushed. The chromatic wandering in the fugue again push the point of choosing the right tuning.
I’ll finish my traversal here with the next pair, the famous G-sharp minor one, BWV 887. I can’t help but here the Swingle Singers in my ears as this one plays. I like how Frisch uses both keyboards in this one, varying the dynamics a bit. While the tempo for this one very appropriate, I could have even gone slower and still enjoyed this one.
The fugue subject here is a long one, and not the most melodic of Bach’s fugue subjects. The highlight of it is the rising chromatic portion, which for me is the easiest bit to capture as the fugue develops. The slower tempo used here works; but it also feels careful, in context. It is, by chance, the longest track on Frisch’s album, at 6:04.
Bernhardt ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
In appraising this album, I wanted to start with the C minor pair, BWV 871. For this Bernhardt uses a clavichord. His chosen tempos are quick. The ornaments in the prelude stick out a bit with this instrument. While very subtle, I did like Bernhardt’s use of dynamics. Where the tempo of the prelude, for me, seemed appropriate, the tempo in the fugue may, for me, be too quick; despite me wanting the piece to unfold more slowly, the instrument itself has less sustain than a harpsichord. Therefore, there may well be a pragmatic reason for the tempo used.
In the E minor pair, BWV 879, Bernhardt uses a harpsichord. Like Frisch, he’s also quick in the opening prelude. The instrument sounds good, but it has far fewer upper-frequencies in its timbre (less bright). He’s no less adept at sustaining those long trills than Frisch.
Like Frisch, Bernhardt also engages the 8-foot and 4-foot strings for the fugue. If it wasn’t for the change in timbre of the instruments, given enough time, I might not have been able to distinguish these two performances. The fugue too, like Frisch’s, is played quickly, with hardly a space to breathe. The sustain of this tempo throughout until the cadence, is technically well-done.
The A-flat pair, BWV 886, is also performed on harpsichord. Bernhardt completes the prelude in 4:16. The fugue in 2:15, the same timings from Frisch! While I cannot speak to which tunings they each used, this one too has a similar “foreign key” character. Without using precise words to describe it, I’d say that Bernhardt’s instrument may sound “more in tune,” but the “flavor” is different, and also different from the one captured in Frisch’s recording.
The fugue comes across brighter with the way Bernhardt has voiced his instrument. I like the slight delay he adds to the ornament in the fugue subject. His performance all around is nice.
The last pair I’ll discuss from this album is the B-flat minor pair, BWV 891, which is performed here on fortepiano. In the prelude’s wandering bass line, Bernhardt varies the dynamics a bit in an intelligent way. There’s an opportunity to vary dynamically the repeated figure in the right hand theme, which I would have liked to hear more of. The tempo choice, ideal.
The fugue in this pair is another interesting one, starting with two notes that Bernhardt attacks hard, in a rather declarative, rhetorical way. Keeping that element going throughout made this an enjoyable performance. I’d love to know how the tuning of the piano differed at all compared to the harpsichord and clavichord; the flat-heavy key of B-flat minor for me wasn’t at all offensive in its flavor.
Final Thoughts
As it turns out, I was unable to recommend one of these recordings over the other. Whether it’s a tangent piano or early fortepiano, I cannot tell, but the variety in timbres in Bernhardt’s recording between the piano, harpsichord, and clavichord make for an interesting angle. Overall, Bernhardt makes use of the two instruments’ capability with dynamics, but the range of each isn’t something near the range we’d get from a modern concert piano. But in each case, I think his shading with dynamics is careful and stylistically well-done.
The surprise for me was where Bernhardt was quicksilver-fingered on the clavichord. Musically his interpretations work well.
In contrast, speed was also the surprising element in Céline Frisch’s recording on the harpsichord. Her pulse may beat faster than most, but I enjoyed her tempos, especially seeing how capable a player she is technically to do it each time so well. The C-sharp minor prelude may be an example where the tempo I preferred from Bernhardt’s recording, which is a minute and twenty seconds faster.
I need to be clear, I don’t think Frisch is going for speed records or trying to out-shine the likes of Gould, a pianist who played a lot of his Bach quickly. But those familiar with these pieces may be surprised more than once at the chosen tempo for either a prelude or fugue as they pass you by. And for me, this is refreshing. Yes, some of these pieces may work just fine at different tempi. But I was surprised more than once, and delightfully so.
In the E-flat minor prelude, for instance, Frisch pushes things along, even switching registration between repeats in the prelude. This is done in the service of the music. And despite what I said earlier, I the changes are far more subtle than the ones employed in some of Staier’s performances, invoking either his instrument’s rather nasal configuration, of the 16’ course of strings.
These two recordings highlight excellent recitals by two sensitive and technically-able musicians. While I may give the edge to the sound of Frisch’s instrument and her adopted tuning that gives unique character to each pair’s key, the Bernhardt recording gives us the variety of three historical instruments that are more than suitable for this music. I do advocate for hearing Bach on period piano, well-knowing that these were gaining popularity by the later part of his life. What we do not know, however, is how Bach would have treated the dynamic capabilities of the early piano. Bernhardt shows us that using our own ears can go far at coming up with solutions that seem to well-fit the themes Bach wrote.
Among fans of HIPP recordings of Bach’s major works, I think both of these recordings deserve your attention and highest praise. They’ve moved into first position for me for Bach’s second book of the WTC.
