It is about Walcha and Bach (the early organ recordings)
Light from darkness
"Why `light from darkness'? Walcha was blind, and his knowledge of the inner polyphony of Bach's works appears almost in `black and white'. Indeed, I often find that Walcha's playing reminds me of a water crystal: perfect, but almost non existing. You get incomparable sense of structure, polyphony is perfect (Walcha's toucher was unique, and his registrations often involve sharp sound - and therefore you can hear everything). And he manages to seem not to be present: the music is, not the interpreter. Of course that is not true. His playing is so personal you will find all the other organists different.
He was arguably the most important - in terms of impact - of all the Bachian organists. As a matter of fact, his stereo Bach recordings are often presented as the standard. Therefore, it is inevitable to compare this mono set with the best known one.
Now I don't think Walcha's Bach is very Bachian - I don't believe Bach played it like that. Nevertheless, most of his playing is very impressive (he played all the most important organ and harpsichord Bach works) and you do see into one of the most powerful music minds ever (Bach) through one of the most intelligent interpretative minds (Walcha). Some of Walcha's interpretattions (from the stereo set) are, I think, almost impossible to better. So how does Walcha fare against himself?
Although there is a very obvious continuity from the first to the second sets, I think they differ much more than one would believe.
All the interpretations are more expressive in the mono set. This is much easier to detect comparing the St.Pierre-le-Jeune recordings with the Cappel and Hambourg ones. Take the Orgelbüchlein. Although played in a low reverberating space, the Cappel recordings are actually slower. This gives the pieces, I think, more identity. Any one is in fact much more moved. Ore take the variations on Sei gegrüsset Jesu gütich. The Hambourg recording is heart piercing: it is excruciatingly beautiful, almost unbelievable. The St.Pierre one is totally decanted, ethereal; it moves, but it does not make you break in shatters.
The Preludes and Fugues are sometimes similar - or different but equally good. I would make two exceptions: I prefer both the great a minor and the 'dorian' fugues at Alkmaar. I may prefer the g minor (BWV535) p&f at Saint-Pierre, and I certainly favour the 'small' e-minor played there.
So, how does Walcha compares with himself?
By a very small margin I prefer the former recordings. Of course, audio technique is not so good; but technically Walcha was at his best - which means fabulously, almost unbeleivably, superlatively good). But, on the other hand, the stereo recordings have so many miracles to be found...
So if you have to take a decision on which to buy, go for both of them... You wont' regret it."
He was arguably the most important - in terms of impact - of all the Bachian organists. As a matter of fact, his stereo Bach recordings are often presented as the standard. Therefore, it is inevitable to compare this mono set with the best known one.
Now I don't think Walcha's Bach is very Bachian - I don't believe Bach played it like that. Nevertheless, most of his playing is very impressive (he played all the most important organ and harpsichord Bach works) and you do see into one of the most powerful music minds ever (Bach) through one of the most intelligent interpretative minds (Walcha). Some of Walcha's interpretattions (from the stereo set) are, I think, almost impossible to better. So how does Walcha fare against himself?
Although there is a very obvious continuity from the first to the second sets, I think they differ much more than one would believe.
All the interpretations are more expressive in the mono set. This is much easier to detect comparing the St.Pierre-le-Jeune recordings with the Cappel and Hambourg ones. Take the Orgelbüchlein. Although played in a low reverberating space, the Cappel recordings are actually slower. This gives the pieces, I think, more identity. Any one is in fact much more moved. Ore take the variations on Sei gegrüsset Jesu gütich. The Hambourg recording is heart piercing: it is excruciatingly beautiful, almost unbelievable. The St.Pierre one is totally decanted, ethereal; it moves, but it does not make you break in shatters.
The Preludes and Fugues are sometimes similar - or different but equally good. I would make two exceptions: I prefer both the great a minor and the 'dorian' fugues at Alkmaar. I may prefer the g minor (BWV535) p&f at Saint-Pierre, and I certainly favour the 'small' e-minor played there.
So, how does Walcha compares with himself?
By a very small margin I prefer the former recordings. Of course, audio technique is not so good; but technically Walcha was at his best - which means fabulously, almost unbeleivably, superlatively good). But, on the other hand, the stereo recordings have so many miracles to be found...
So if you have to take a decision on which to buy, go for both of them... You wont' regret it."
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário