A few sparkling and joyful clips

[acc]

Two magnificient lessons in articulation.

• Haendel's Fantasie in C by Irénée Geyrot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ypRY47ObCc.
• Bach's 5th Schübler Chorale by Lorenzo Ghielmi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVgNMpKQ5O4.

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha acc,

I really appreciated Mr. Ghielmi's read of the Bach - Moreso than than the Handel - Just my humble opinion.

Cheers,

CD

[acc]

You're welcome, CD!

No doubt Maestro Ghielmi is one of the foremost performers of baroque organ music these days (probably my favourite candidate for a Bach cycle).

But even if Maître Geyrot does not quite play in the same league as his illustrious colleague, I still find it surprising that he does not seem to be better known (I, for one, hadn't heard his name until spotting him on Youtube — nor had Google, apparently, because at this time, a search for his full name yields exactly one hit, namely... this very discussion!)

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha acc,

WOW!!! What a hoot that this discussion is the only hit on Mr. Geyrot's name - Totally surreal.............

Cheers,

CD

[rovikered]

Two magnificient lessons in articulation.

• Haendel's Fantasie in C by Irénée Geyrot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ypRY47ObCc.
• Bach's 5th Schübler Chorale by Lorenzo Ghielmi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVgNMpKQ5O4.

Yes, indeed! Excellent lessons in articulation but scarcely in meaningful interpretation.The Bach sounds as though it is being played by a machine: mechanical and soulless. The Handel(which I know as a keyboard piece but have not played on the organ)sounded less so.
Sorry to appear so unimpressed but that's how it comes over to me. Fine articulation is of supreme importance but it is only one ingredient in a musical performance which must include elements of freedom, human feelings and emotion.

[acc]

Don't be sorry — especially since I certainly agree with your post's last sentence!

Ghielmi's playing doesn't come over as mechanical to me. Obviously, he hardly uses any rubato in the usual sense. What I notice, though, is the way he slightly prolongs one or two notes in certain places (a sort of "micro-rubato", if you want), giving e.g. accents in the left hand not unlike a string player would do with his bow. It's very faint, almost as if it was meant not to be noticed consciously, yet deliberate enough to give his playing a "drive" and an "impetus", which I quite like. My feeling is that more would risk becoming too much.

Do you have any personal favourites for the Schübler Chorales?

[rovikered]

Do you have any personal favourites for the Schübler Chorales?

Of the 'Schubler' Chorales (sorry, I can't do the Umlaut) my preferred interpreter of the past is Helmut Walcha.
Of present-day organists, although my favourite Bach interpreter overall is Gerhard Weinberger, my preferred contemporary performances of Schubler 4 and 5 are John Scott Whiteley's in his '21st Century Bach' Series. It is particularly instructive to compare his interpretation of these two pieces with that of Walcha's (same two pieces): Walcha's playing of No. 4 ('Meine Seele erhebt . . ') is quite fast coming over to me as an expression of overt, extrovert joy, whilst JSW's is slower, ornamented, and expressing the joy in a reflective and prayerful manner. No. 5 played by JSW has a brighter registration and more incisive sound than Walcha's.
That's how they sound to me, anyway.
Best wishes.
rk

[acc]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I'm afraid I've never managed to share the enthusiasm that many people have about Walcha's playing. Like so many others, I grew up with those recordings, but since then, I've discovered many other good performers, among which I'll cite (in alphabetical order) Chapuis, Foccroulle, Ghielmi, Isoir, Kee, Koopman, and indeed Weinberger, who has done a fine job in his recently completed Bach cycle. When I now return to Walcha, I am somewhat lost: the job is well prepared and well done, the notes are there, carefully played, with a crystal clear polyphony, but I percieve nothing more.

[rovikered]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I'm afraid I've never managed to share the enthusiasm that many people have about Walcha's playing. Like so many others, I grew up with those recordings, but since then, I've discovered many other good performers, among which I'll cite (in alphabetical order) Chapuis, Foccroulle, Ghielmi, Isoir, Kee, Koopman, and indeed Weinberger, who has done a fine job in his recently completed Bach cycle. When I now return to Walcha, I am somewhat lost: the job is well prepared and well done, the notes are there, carefully played, with a crystal clear polyphony, but I percieve nothing more.

I'd like to have some recording of Chapuis playing Bach but I don't know if any of his recordings are still available. I have an old LP of him playing Marchand on a Clicquot organ and that is a fine sound.
I have an excellent recording of Isoir playing 'The Art of Fugue' in which he uses some interesting registrations interpreting the work in quite a different way from Walcha and Weinberger. Piet Kee is another favourite of mine,too, but I have only one CD of his Bach playing. Koopman, regarded by some,I believe, as the DG Bach artist successor to Walcha, doesn't impress me in the same way as Walcha, however.
We all have our different perceptions re interpretations.

[acc]

The Chapuis CDs are indeed out of print, I'm afraid.

Concerning Koopman, he was supposed to do a complete Bach cycle for Archiv/DG back in the 1980s, at the dawn of the digital age, but as far as I know, only two CDs were ever released. He later started a second cycle with Novalis, which was abandoned en route as well, but which has been re-released several times (as a single 6-CD box, then again as two 3-CD boxes) and should still be available. Finally, he started over a third time with Teldec (concurrently with his complete cantata cycle), where a complete set is now available as a 16-CD box. Generally speaking, I find the Novalis recordings more compelling than the Teldec (where his playing often starts to get a bit too nervous for my taste).

As for perceptions, it is indeed as you say, and frankly, I wouldn't want it to be otherwise! If it were the same things that made all of us tick in the same way, the world would be a very boring place.

[jgirv]

...goodness, the Bach comes across so beautifully... there is astounding clarity to his playing, and it suits the acoustics of the performance space wonderfully... and, you can hear all sorts of rubato, (baroque style, of course) in his lines. I like it because you hear more Bach, and less of the whims of the interpreter.

[acc]

I like it because you hear more Bach, and less of the whims of the interpreter.

Do I take it, then, that you would prefer this performance over that one (starting at 2'30")?

[jgirv]

....personally, yes. Both players are masters of their instrument, which allows them to play precisely as they intend... I would have been delighted to have been at either one of these performances... the interpretation at St. Eustache certainly takes advantage of the tonal resources of the instrument there... the performer is from that tradition of organ playing. The other interpretation of the d-major fugue suits the organ upon which it is played... not a case of one being wrong or the other right.... I'm sure most of us would love to be able to play this repertoire as effortlessly as these two performers.... best, jgirv

[acc]

the performer [Jean Guillou] is from that tradition of organ playing.

I don't think it's a matter of tradition. The one Guillou comes from is the French school of Widor and Dupré, and the way he plays is in many ways opposite to that school (in particular as far as registration of Bach works is concerned).

Besides, I was not suggesting Barthen's performance is "better" than Guillou's — just reacting specifically to your point about "whims of the interpreter".