Name: Sebastian Oswald
Occupation: Composer
Nationality: Germany
Recent release: Sebastian Oswald's Oswald Grounded Bach Inventions is out now.

If you enjoyed this Sebastian Oswald interview and would like to find out more about his music, visit his official website. He is also on Facebook, and Instagram.



The press release mentions the “structures Bach, Monteverdi and Purcell were using.” I know it's not strictly speaking a focus of this album, but it did make me wonder what your preferences are in terms of a more structural approach versus complete freedom – which could perhaps be translated as picking limitations versus working as much as possible without them?

My preference is clearly for a structural approach. Since in concert music, in contrast to pop music for example, there are no longer any standard forms or a shared musical language, a pre-defined framework is essential in order not to drown in an ocean of possibilities.

Paradoxically, those limitations not only have a liberating effect when it comes to writing, it makes it possible in the first place. As the saying goes: you can make an infinite amount of music on a piano with 88 keys, but none at all on a piano with an infinite number of keys.

What, concretely, sparked the Bach inventions?

The joy of experimentation within a strict framework. It was about adding a contemporary dimension to the sonic landscape of the inventions with means available at the Baroque era.

The two means that seemed most suitable to me were the technique of ground bass and the renunciation of modulations.

What is your personal connection to this particular repertoire – and what makes the original great in your opinion?

For me, the inventions are like a musical equivalent of Alice's rabbit hole. I got to know the inventions in piano lessons because they are technically quite easy to master. That easiness serves as the entrance of the rabbit hole.

But then it goes quickly underground, because playing the two voices in such a way that they consistently sound like two individual parts is not easy and also there are many ways to do it, as Bach's notation is quite sparse in terms of phrasing, dynamics and tempo. I’ve always been loving that challenge.

The inventions are a widely ramified rabbit hole in a limited space, which brings us to the second part of the question: I think the variety, complexity and richness that Bach creates here with just two voices is absolutely stunning.

There have, of course, been countless interpretations of Bach's work, some of them quite radical. Do you feel that for some pieces, the traditional approach for interpretation has reached its limits? What defines these limits from your perspective?

During my studies I had to analyse pages and pages of sheet music without listening to the recordings. If you do this for a long time, at some point you develop an idea of the sound and subsequently certain convictions about how certain passages and parts are meant. Sometimes I then searched for an interpretation that corresponded with those convictions of mine. More than once I couldn’t find any.

Because of this experience, I believe that there will never be an end to interpretations. Despite the precise construction of classical music, there’ll always be an infinite number of fine details that cannot be written down. And details, I am firmly convinced, make all the difference. Always.

The press release mentions a few attempts to revitalise classical repertoire by creating alternate versions. There have been other ideas, like remixing the music, as well. Which of these do you personally find intriguing and possibly inspiring?

I am most interested when the material is treated in a compositional way. I once heard Mozart's Symphony No. 40, accompanied by Middle Eastern percussion beats. That was the whole idea, A+B. I'm not interested in that kind of thing.

On the other hand, there is Max Richter's version of Vivaldi's Four Seasons. In “Spring I”, for example, the birdcalls from Vivaldi's score are turned into a mixture of canon and imitation, resulting in a kind of collage that clearly wouldn't have been possible at Vivaldi's times.



[Read our feature on Max Richter's Four Seasons]
[Read our Max Richter interview]

I like that approach of transforming something old into something new while not really changing the original material. I consider it simple, effective, hence quite elegant.

You mentioned some of the things you focused on for the project. Can you tell me why you did not want to change a single note of the originals?

I like to limit the means. With a heavyweight like Bach, whose music is subject to quite strict rules, I felt that I somewhat owed it to him to stay as close to the original version as possible. And to be very strict with my framework as well.

If I had treated the inventions completely freely, I would have felt like a mixture of a dilettante and an impostor; it would have been too easy and to a certain extent also somewhat arbitrary.

Were there also some of the things you wanted to avoid when creating these inventions?

I wanted the five inventions to have the effect of a self-contained whole and I also wanted to avoid the impression of arbitrariness at all costs. Arbitrariness doesn't suit Bach at all.

In terms of the process, what, exactly, are you doing here – what are we hearing when listening to one of the variations?

We hear the inventions played much slower than usual and with a lot of rubato. Wave-like, rhythmic, but not strictly metrical.

I have taken this liberty because, on the one hand, the inventions have no tempo markings and, on the other, I wanted to create a dreamy effect. We also hear the inventions without modulations. As a result, the music is somewhat marking time, which supports the dreamy effect and makes the use of the ground bass possible in the first place.

Last but not least, we hear the added ground bass, which is placed in such a way that it fits harmonically at all times, albeit with regard to today's listening habits. In Bach's time, the voice-leading resulting from the bass in connection with the inventions would have been impossible, as would some of the resulting harmonies.

But this freedom was a necessary one, because if the grounds had been correct in the sense of Bach's time, the appeal of the new would have ceased to exist.

How would you describe the relationship between the originals and the inventions? Are they still Bach pieces? A collaboration across the centuries? Are you seeing these pieces as new compositions in a way?

Perhaps one could call it “an indirect collaboration across the centuries”. They are definitely not new compositions (the original is far too dominant for that), but arrangements.

I would describe the relationship between the arrangement and the original as a kind of respectful enrichment. Or, to put it more figuratively, it would be like putting Bach in 21st century clothes; the essence of his character would not change. He would just look a little different.

In terms of the results, what were quality criteria for you?

On the one hand, the inventions should have a contemporary, interesting sound. And that was to be achieved by compositional means, not by applying effects to the recording or by playing them on a synth or something like that. On the other hand, the music should just flow as naturally as water.

Everything would be fine if the end result sounded charming, somewhat contemporary and was produced with as little intervention as possible.

I have to say that these pieces have a wonderful, almost otherworldly flow and tranquillity to them, possibly the result of different strands of time overlapping. When listening back to these, what was your own response to the music?

I was surprised at how much the impression of the music changed despite the very modest interventions. It felt like changing the angle and lighting of an object and suddenly the proportions and focus changed. Nevertheless, the object remained the same.

For me, it is as if the few changes have brought to light a side of the inventions that has always been latently present, but was not yet audible.

What did this project tell you about the relationship between harmony and melody?

It told me once again how closely the two elements are linked in Bach's music and how fragile their connection is.

This is particularly true of the grounds, because being a voice a ground should follow certain melodic conventions. Yet being the bass at the same time it also defines the harmony. Consequently, it had to be written in such a way that it makes sense as an individual part and at the same time provides an overall harmonic context (even if not necessarily in the sense of Bach's time.)

It was interesting to see how a short phrase, which on its own could certainly exist in the Baroque period, in combination with the inventions leads to progressions of harmony and melody that are unimaginable in Baroque music.

You mentioned tuning as a subtle factor for the recording. Outside of this particular cycle, how important are questions of tuning for you?

Tuning doesn't really play an excessive role for me.

In this project the special tuning is due to the fact that shortly before production, I had heard a report with audio examples of the difference between the 440Hz and 432Hz tuning. I found the lower tuning to be actually less piercing; an effect, though, that can be felt rather than heard. Still, that seemed to be an interesting factor for the intended meditative, dreamy effect.

In general, however, I don't pay too much attention to tuning issues unless it’s about juxtaposing different tunings to create subtle effects of beats and harshness.

In classical music, the intentions of the composer are often considered paramount. Was this a consideration for you as well? What, do you think, would Bach have thought about these pieces?

I agree that the composer's intention should be paramount, but from my own experience of working with musicians, I can say that it is impossible to convey one's own intentions precisely using musical notation only. No matter how precisely you notate, there is always an astonishing amount of room for interpretation.

If you take into account that older music usually is written in a kind of shorthand, as it was usually performed by the composer or under his direction, you can imagine the close to impossible undertaking to actually fully grasp the composer's intentions just by reading the score. Nevertheless, the intention is absolutely correct.

As for Bach's opinion of my arrangements, I don't think he would like them. From his point of view, they would probably be artless and full of mistakes. And even if you could transport him to the present day and familiarize him with today's listening habits, I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually said: “Nah, sorry, not my cup of tea.”