WTC 1: Esfahani and Guglielmi
Two Approaches to Historical Performance
Before we even audition these two recordings, the liner notes of each tell us a lot about the approach each musician has taken to the performance of these works. Both speak to the authenticity of the Berlin manuscript and whether it’s the most authoritative source; both speak about instrument temperament (tuning), and both make mention of the instruments. Esfahani records upon a copy of a historical instrument close to Bach’s world; Guglielmi records upon a surviving Zell instrument, a maker favored by Leonhardt.
One could understand the confluence of what’s written to accompany both of these examples. These musicians are, of course, playing on the harpsichord—most likely the instrument Bach intended for performance of these twenty-four preludes and fugues. (I like that Hyperion included the musical themes to each prelude and fugue in the booklet; however, it would have been cool if they’d used that as the track listing. As familiar as I am with these pieces, the theme is more important to me than the key they’re in—of course this is coming from someone without the ability to well-establish pitch. The AVI recording offers descriptions of each piece, helpful for those who don’t read music.) I say most likely, knowing that Bach used these pieces in lessons at his home with a harpsichord, but I’ve also entertained performances on the organ, another historical option, as would be the fortepiano or clavichord.
The point isn’t the instrument; it’s an historical approach. Readers will know I’ve discussed before the concept of HIPP (historically informed performance practice), especially so in the review of the pair of recordings by the Berlin Barock Solisten, led by Reinhard Goebel.
Esfahani’s writing in his Bach releases, including this one, clearly provides us proof that there is not, in fact, one monolithic approach to HIPP, even for those artists wanting to use historical instruments. (I could frame him as a harpsichordist first, playing anything that might please him on the instrument, wherein we could look at counterexamples of artists who might see themselves as keyboardists, who would have little issue changing instruments for historical reasons. For what it’s worth, Guglielmi’s recording of the WTC II is on fortepiano.)
So how does Esfahani frame his approach to HIPP? His discussion speaks of embracing postmodernist influences on Bach. It’s interesting—his desire to embrace what I might call “learnings” from playing Bach beyond the Baroque age, as fodder for coming up with his own interpretations. In much the same way mainstream HIPP performers would look at textual sources, treatises, dance tempos, etc. from the period to understand how to interpret the music, Esfahani has simply expanded the time from which he’s willing to apply insight into the pieces’ interpretation. The approach isn’t new to him; it led one reviewer to suggest he approaches the music as a pianist, but on the harpsichord. Perhaps a bit too simplistic a comparison, but it’s a comparison nevertheless.
I personally find it confusing why one would seek a historical instrument, and go to such lengths to discuss the choice of a tuning that suits these works, to then embrace some historical aspects of performance while eschewing others in finding an appropriate interpretation? But Esfahani does state a case, if not implicitly, to give us the best interpretation possible.
This illustrates Esfahani’s whole approach to the world of harpsichord performance, aligning with teachers who themselves may not have felt embraced by—lacking a better word—the mainstream HIPP culture.
Let's be sure, most HIPP folk advocate for the use of historical context to frame interpretations for today's audiences. That said, not all HIPP-aligned performances are equally satisfying.
It’s worth discussing here because I agree with Esfahani in finding an interpretation that’s personally satisfying to the artist; I don’t want another “textbook” recording of the WTC I that comes across as sterile. I do live in 2025 and want a performer to squeeze a little bit of their own selves into the recording. I shouldn’t care where the artist finds his inspiration. But philosophically, the selective embrace of some historical components versus others, as it did for me with Goebel’s latest recordings with the BBS, I find difficult to accept. As much as this is a mental state for me, there is to be found validation for this approach if it's palpable—and agreeable—in the performances of the music.
I’m familiar with Guglielmi’s recordings, but never formally reviewed this earlier release of the WTC I. As ever, my double reviews are not intended to pit one recording against the other, as much as use them for comparative analysis.
Overview – Esfahani ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
This release continues Hyperion’s use of intense sculpted faces on the cover which helps us easily identify these as another “Esfahani” recording. The opening of this recording made me push myself back into my seat. As far as recordings go, this one is special. The sound of the instrument, the environment, the sense of acoustic that comes across? It must be among the best-sounding harpsichord recitals I can remember. Hyperion has made some outstanding-sounding recordings in the past, and this is up there with the best of them.
The instrument used has a buff stop and it’s used, as are changes in registration between the two keyboards as part of Esfahani’s practice. Esfahani uses rubato throughout the recording, which is the control of timing. Rubato can be an effective method to personalize what the artist and we hear in the music, especially so with the buildup and release of harmonic tension. As a general house rule, I’m into rubato and was pleased with Esfahani’s embrace of it for this recording.
Total time: 1 hour and 54 minutes.
Overview – Guglielmi ⭐️⭐️⭐️½
This recording, by comparison, isn’t bad; it just lacks the “glow” in the Hyperion recording. The recording does pick up a tad more of the textural detail in the instrument used, which I like. In some ways this recording feels closer (listen to the release at the end of the C major fugue), but then there are times it sounds like there’s more reverb.
Guglielmi is less flexible with time than Esfahani; he is open to tempo shifts when warranted by the music, but it’s not rubato. I’d also say that I can hear a more consistent approach to articulation with this recording. The liner notes make mention of treating fugues as dance music, and I noticed on more than one occasion my foot tapping to Guglielmi’s performances during the fugues!
Total time: 1 hour and 55 minutes.
Prelude and Fugue in C minor, BWV 847
This prelude requires strong coordination between both hands; as I’ve played it I felt the pedagogical influence in keeping your fingers locked into the patterns. It takes technical skill to play this consistently. Esfahani’s approach is to start this movement with a leisurely feel, the piece nearly stops when Bach plants a flag after all that repetitive stuff, offering the player an opportunity for a virtuosic flourish. Esfahani’s dynamic shift there jolted me awake, and the ending was strong and bold. Esfahani emphasizes smaller groups of notes for phrasing in the fugue, inserting some space in between, playing here with timing via rubato. A few ornaments are tasteful without excess, which we are led to believe was Bach’s preference. Overall, the fugue was very satisfying.
Guglielmi’s approach to the prelude made me think of a mechanical machine. Not an insult, as composers played with this concept of exploring mechanical representation in music. I can’t speak for Bach’s intent, but Guglielmi owns a metronome and it’s clearly ticking in his head. The flourish near the end is not as dramatic as Esfahani’s presentation. He plays the fugue well, and gets us to notice his approach in the final cadence.
Prelude and Fugue in E major, BWV 854
This prelude is an exercise in how to play a melodic line on the harpsichord; Bach includes some ornamentation. Guglielmi applies a big rallentando at the end, but overall, I think he does well with this prelude, which I will admit isn’t my favorite among the set. He chooses an excellent tempo for the fugue, matching the vitality offered by the subject with a strong rhythmic component. The tempo remains super-steady.
With Esfahani, the prelude’s melodic line is a bit more fluid. I found this approach slightly more organic and satisfying. He matches Guglielmi’s energy with the fugue, even at times I felt it might have been performed a tad more quickly. Esfahani manages to make the fugue sound more virtuosic under his fingers; ultimately, very satisfying.
Prelude and Fugue in G-sharp minor, BWV 863
The opening phrase of this prelude is performed very differently between these two recordings; Guglielmi plays it as one long phrase without special emphasis, wherein Esfahani dissects it, giving it more of a shape. I can’t say I remember hearing it the way Esfahani plays it, but I don’t dislike it. You could argue that his solution is more musical. The tuning of Esfahani’s instrument bubbles up in this set, especially as he lingers on the final chord in the prelude. Spicy!
The fugue is approached differently; Guglielmi applies strong articulation with the subject, but less of a “shape” to it than Esfahani. Guglielmi makes us hear the dotted rhythm each time in the subject. He applies a strong sense of pulse with the downbeat, and yes, I could envision it being danced to. He ends the fugue in the major mode.
Esfahani applies more shape to the subject and the color of the exotic key of G-sharp minor continues to bring interest to us throughout the fugue. I like his use of rubato here and as a counterpoint, he finishes the fugue in a minor resolution.
Prelude and Fugue in A major, BWV 864
Bach’s lesson here is that preludes can use counterpoint too. Guglielmi is clear and steady throughout, and applies a slight ritard at the end. The fugue subject here is played consistently, and when Bach adds countersubject material, it contrasts well. This performance illustrates that clearly. I winced a few times, wondering how Guglielmi would handle things as the music intensified, but he’s a technically strong player, showing no signs of strain as he maintains a solid tempo throughout the fugue.
Esfahani again treats the “subject” of the prelude with different articulation in the first and second half, and maintains that distinction when the theme changes hands—it’s well done. Love the little ornament he gifts us on the last chord. His treatment of the fugue subject inserts a little pause after the first note; he also plays it a tad faster. His approach with articulation I find more musical. Ultimately, this performance came across as more virtuosic and musically satisfying.
Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 865
The prelude of this set has an interesting theme, with that half-step “wiggle.” I find it hard not to scrunch my nose as if I’m waving a finger at someone. The effect is a rhetorical one, whether it was intended as humorous or not to Baroque listeners. I feel Esfahani plays with this rhetorical aspect, whereas Guglielmi plays it “straight.” Guglielmi does treat the prelude with crisp, strong articulation, using consistent phrasing of three large beats. It’s a satisfying performance.
I was reminded of Guglielmi’s teacher, Ton Koopman, in his performance of the fugue. Koopman often bobs his head as he plays, and I could see that in my mind’s eye. He phrases the subject differently from Esfahani, applying a clear separation on the subject’s last two notes. He keeps, as ever, a steady pulse. He does his best to realize the grandiose majesty in the ending, which—as his notes suggest—is ripe for application on an organ.
Esfahani’s approach with the fugue has an organic feeling to it; although his phrasing of the subject is different, I think it works out well. He also attempts to change dynamics in this fugue by switching keyboards, which I thought was effective. His rubato in this fugue approached going too far for me a couple of times; the pauses felt jarring although they were consistently applied. I enjoyed his conclusion of the fugue.
Conclusions
While I of course didn’t speak to every prelude and fugue recorded, I have provided some commentary on enough to showcase some of the commonalities among the two performances here. Both offer us good sound, and thankfully, both performers within their approach came across as consistent.
I’d characterize Guglielmi as tempo-assured, using the text as a guide on how to think about phrasing and articulation. He clearly demonstrates that he’s a technically assured player. He represents, for me, the "mainstream" HIPP camp of performance which I've clearly found to be satisfying to me in my own lifelong exploration of music recordings.
Esfahani, it seems, is aching to creatively showcase the nature of each prelude and fugue. He doesn’t typically do so to the extreme, which I found a satisfying approach. While across the entire recording I didn’t like every solution provided, I am in real alignment with his approach to give us more than a MIDI rendition of the music.
It’s with his recording—both because I sensed someone feeling and playing the music, and also because his interpretive decisions sometimes shocked or surprised because of how different they are from others—that I found among these two recordings Esfahani’s more satisfying.
I’m constantly reminded that the concept of moving the listener is at the heart of the approach of not only Baroque music, but how can it not be the rationale for music from any age? We can accomplish that task as a composer and as a performer.
For Bach, he was one and the same. If we imagine ourselves in his home, for a lesson, imagine what we’ve missed in what was said, what rules he might have dictated as most important. The HIPP movement started really by saying we should avoid modern performance practices and base what we do on the text itself. But that approach is short-sighted, ignoring other textual references about musical performance during the Baroque period.
I can’t say I agree with Esfahani’s postmodernist embrace in the way he approaches his performances, but that aside, I cannot deny that he’s made an extraordinary recording here. Guglielmi’s recording is strong and I think attempts to present Bach’s music cleanly and clearly without the artifice of strong opinion from the performer. It’s a technical marvel in its own right.
But for me, I like hearing—especially so with music that for us today is very familiar—new ideas and ways of considering the music. Esfahani has applied good taste throughout the examples highlighted here. Both collections are worth a listen. There are recordings where I feel an interpreter robs the music of its essence; in this case, Esfahani supports Bach’s music in what I’d say is admiration and love.
