Bach's English Suites were written before the French Suites and the
Partitas for Harpsichord.  Although the exact dates of composition are
not known, academic research is increasingly tracing their origin to
Bach's years at Weimar (1708-1714) when he was a young man.  The music
readily mixes French and Italian musical elements and styles with Bach's
counterpoint.  Nobody knows for sure why these are called English Suites,
but the musical content has no relation to anything English.

I have six full sets for comparison:

Robert Levin on Hanssler 92113 (1999).
Andras Schiff on Decca 421640 (1988).
Glenn Gould on Sony 42268 (1977).
Gustav Leonhardt on EMI 49000 (1985).
Peter Watchorn on Titanic 254 (1999).
Murray Perahia on Sony 60276 & 60277 (1998).

Other recordings compared are:

Suite No. 3 - Maria Joao Pires - DG 447894 (1995).
Suite No. 2 - Martha Argerich - DG 423880 (1980).
Suite No. 2 - Mieczyslaw Horszowski - Arbiter 113 (1984).
Suites 2 & 3 - Ivo Pogorelich - DG 415480 (1986).
Suite No. 5 - Horszowski - Nonesuch 79232 (1990).
Suite No. 6 - Angela Hewitt - DG 419218 (1986).

English Suite No. 1 in A major, BWV 811 - Each suite starts with a prelude,
and this one is outstanding music which constitutes Counterpoint Heaven.
It begins with a exciting flourish, then settles into a somewhat restrained
yet joyful mode of fairly constant tempo and volume.  At least, that's my
perception from Leonhardt's performance which is the one I'm initially most
familiar with and hum from time to time.  I've loved Leonhardt's version
for many years and have considered it my standard.  His accenting and
pacing are excellent, and the joy/good nature of the music stands out in
his reading; he is bouyant and sparkling.

Watchorn is slower, richer, and concentrates more than Leonhardt on the
beauty of the music.  His version is equally rewarding - two great
performances.

Gould has a different take on the Prelude than Leonhardt or Watchorn.
He is very slow, incisive, and highly poetic.  His counterpoint is
superb; softer passages are very poignant.  This is not your typical Gould
performance, but a freely poetic one to luxuriate in.  He's not interested
in beauty, spark, or richness, but in finding the music's core from within.
Initially, I wouldn't have thought that I'd prefer any version to
Leonhardt's, but Gould wins my heart convincingly.  He has clearly analyzed
the Prelude inside and out, delivering his own conception which I find
superior to Leonhardt's which now seems somewhat one-dimensional in
comparison.

Levin is as as good as Leonhardt and Watchorn.  Although his flourish is a
thrill, his reading is basically laid-back and the most beautiful of all.
Levin's bass line is particularly stunning.  In many respects, his
performance reminds me of Edward Aldwell at his best.

That leaves Schiff and Perahia.  As with Levin, Schiff is laid-back
but does not deliver as lovely a reading.  Also, his flourish is rather
weak.  Perahia starts off excellently with some real fire in the reading;
he continues this way until the middle of the movement when he gets
soft-focused; I lost focus.  Toward the end of the movement, he returns
to his vigorous ways.  He and Schiff give very good renditions, but the
competition is tremendously strong in the Prelude.

The second movement Allemande is elegant and stately music which unfolds
many beauties with a tinge of urgency.  It is ultimately uplifting in
spirit.  Gould's not the man to stay in the slow lane for long, and he
races through the Allemande with mixed results.  His first theme is very
musical and enjoyable, but in the second theme he goes "over the wall" with
eccentric and unmusical phrasing.

The other versions are excellent; my preference is Levin who dispenses
with a "tinge" of urgency and displays it proudly; I think it works very
well.  Watchorn and Leonhardt are models of elegance with incisive urgency;
both readings are on the slow side.  Perahia and Schiff are faster with
exquisite poetry.

Next is a series of four French-style Courantes: I, II, and two Doubles
which are ornamented versions.  Except for Gould, the versions are fairly
similar and successful.  Actually, Levin is more than merely successful
with another highly urgent reading as in the Allemande.  But that presents
a problem.  Combining the Allemande and the series of Courantes results in
almost ten minutes of constant and up-front urgency.  It just gets too
heavy for the material with little variety.  Levin needs to pick his spots
for urgency instead of bludgeoning the listener without relief.

Moving from the five versions to Gould's is like leaving terra firma and
drilling down to the Earth's center.  Gould uses a slow tempo and superb
pacing.  His is the only account that is ceremonial and regal in nature,
and I love this approach.  The counterpoint is amazing as well.  His
performance reminds me some of a great Tureck interpretation - slow with
incisive depth.  It's such a pleasure just to listen to Gould's part
playing and the staccato and legato regimen Gould uses for each hand.  The
second Double is particularly fine with the left hand's walking staccato.
This is masterful music in Gould's hands, simply excellent with the other
performers.

The Sarabande is lovely music which is introspective and heavily
ornamented.  As with so many Bach pieces, this one keeps sounding better
with additional listening.  The four piano versions are very similar to
one other in terms of tempo and pacing; just a few seconds separate them
in a four minute movement.  And each version is a mighty fine listening
experience.  Which performance to prefer is largely a matter of
ornamentation preference.  I favor Andras Schiff; his reading is most
poignant, and he makes all the right moves with ornamentation.  There
are two "descending" passages with about 2 and 1 minutes remaining in the
movement, and Schiff plays them exquisitely.  However, I don't want to
minimize the other versions; they are excellent, and any one of them will
provide the essence of the music.

Leonhardt and Watchorn also deliver the essence, but at this point I need
to make a big deal out of repeats.  The only time I downgrade a performance
not having repeats is when I do not have a feeling of completeness from the
interpretation.  That's the situation with Leonhardt.  This Sarabande, in
my view, is the wrong music to decide to discard repeats of themes.  Each
part of the piece is essential in order to reach a sense of completion at
the end.  I consider it analogous to reading a novel which has pages ripped
out; I've been cheated.  There *is* always the potential for the artist to
skip repeats and basically tell a different story which does feel complete,
but Leonhardt doesn't come close in the Sarabande.

It's Perahia's time to shine in the Bourree I & II.  Contrast is a very
important and prevalent element in music, and is fully displayed in this
movement.  Bourree I is joyous and outgoing; II is menacing, sinister,
and urgent.  I is in a major key, II in a tonic minor.  I is in a higher
register than II, and II has a strong and even dominating bass line.  The
change from I to II is immediate, thorough, and abrupt; it's very important
that the listener feel that an entirely new world has been entered in a
flash.  Perahia does all this superbly.  His Bourree I is very joyous and
thrilling; II is another thrill with emotions immediately nosediving into
the underworld.

Levin and Leonhardt well stand up to scrutiny; they just aren't as
magnificant as Perahia throughout, although Levin's Bourree II is the
best of all.  Schiff, Watchorn, and Gould don't give me that immediate and
thorough changeover.  Schiff's bass line creates little impact, Watchorn is
too slow in Bourree I, and Gould's bass line is eccentric and a little
non-musical.

A two-voice gigue concludes Suite No. 1.  This is feel-good music to
the core which can be exciting and possess controlled wildness.  It needs
to be rather light in texture to fully bring out the joy.  Watchorn and
Levin deliver sensational performances which render the other versions
superfluous.  Levin's the exciting one; his combination of thrill and
happiness is a major mood enhancer.  His counterpoint is exceptional.
Watchorn has the same effect on me, although he uses a much slower tempo
and eschews providing any excitement.  Instead, he gives the music a
stately joy.  Also, there is a swaying ending to each theme and its repeat
(in different registers) which only Watchorn makes a special listening
experience.

Perahia is much too heavy for the music; another negative is that when
he does get soft-focused, it's at the wrong time.  And there's a third
problem; I do believe Perahia is providing some humor, and I find it
annoying.  Leonhardt polishes off the Gigue in a little over one minute
(repeats); again, not a complete story.  Schiff is "twinkle toes" on
this one, being too delicate and dainty throughout.  Gould has some good
moments, but his reading is overly choppy and he engages in some excessive
posturing.

I'm very impressed with these performances of Suite No. 1, and the
differences in quality between my favorite version (Levin) and the least
enjoyable (Leonhardt & Schiff) are relatively small.  Although Gould's
Prelude and Courante are transcendent readings, he's just as likely to
barely tread water in some other movements.  So far, the surprise to me is
how good Watchorn is doing.  His set is identified as volume 1 of Bach's
keyboard works.  Since this set was issued well over a year ago, I am
assuming that the project has been scratched.

Suite No. 1 is an outstanding work, and it's been a great pleasure
listening to the different versions.  For Suite No. 2, Pogorelich,
Argerich, and Horszowski join the basic group.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]