More red herrings with your opinions on "prevailing views" and CPE Bach. It appears if you had your way, you would summon each of Bach's 16 surviving children, along with Anna Magdalena, to testify to how JSB originally "saw" his music, and intended for it to be interpreted. I don't deny that would be the most accurate way to do it.
If you wish to strike every trill and mordent from the upper note, and regurgitate what is taught in introductory harmony classes at universities, I won't stop you.
KindFurryBoy - you would not call Chromatic Fantasia and Fuge 903, Violin Fugue 1001 and Chaconne 1004, Suite no 4 for solo cello, Weimar Organ Preludes and Fugues, WTC book 2, Violoncello Piccolo Cantatas, Musical Offering, Goldberg, Brandenburg 5/Harpsichord, Flute, Violin 1044, John's Passion, or Art of Fugue musically unadventurous?
All of wcbroccoli's comments appear correct - i (gclalit) was just responding to a previous comment that chided the choice of instrument. Such arguments regarding what is the 'correct' way to play Bach (and Baroque) have existed at least since Mendelssohn's rich St Matthew's. I for one would like to think that JSB (an adventurous guy who hiked all the way to watch Buxtehude) was no prude when it came to interpretation. Incidentally the incomplete fugue added to 1742 autograph is not open score.
I wouldnt call bach adventerous, especially musically. Though I will say he maximized the potential of baroque music as did those who studied under him. Though he did walk to Buxtehude that is just a sign of an extremely determined pupil(if only more were like that).
Mendelssohn' s "rich St. Matthew's" was the result of necessity, cluelessness and 19th aesthetics:
unavailable Baroque oboes replaced by clarinets; church piece played in large, dry public hall; no portable organ & harpsichord too quiet for 500 person ensemble, so conducted from pianoforte; silly 19th craving for monumentality (used 10 voices per part instead of 1!).
12 of the eventual 14 fugues were already completed by 1745.
Autographs of earlier versions of these fugues survive. E.g, the 1st fugue originally ended where the coda of the final version begins.
ALL early autographs were written in 2-staff keyboard format.
In 1749-1750 Bach himself initiated the printing (in open score).
The so-called "incomplete fugue" published by Bach heirs with an Italian title (all the other fugues have Latin titles) was probably completed but the remainder lost.
But he oldest fair manuscript source of fugues in AofF dates back to 1740-1742 and was preceded by a working copy does not survive but must date back to at least to about 1740 or even the end of the 1730s.
So the romantic notion that AofF was Bach's "swan song" is not supported by the facts.
AofF was conceived and begun at least a decade before his death.
Nowhere was it implied that Art of Fugue was JSB's 'swan song' - Mass in B min (1725-49), Musical offering (1747 onwards), Organ Chorale Prelude 668a, all probably were conceived after the earliest working copy of Art of Fugue, except maybe the triple fuge (11), and final B-A-C-H.
What does any of this have to do with how Bach intended his work to be interpreted, and your 'romantic' red herring?
Just read the obituary. And CPE Bach's note (probably added as late at 1780s) that "the composer died at the place where the 3 subjects appear" encouraged this romantic misconception.
It was only the revelation of manuscripts dating back to the early 1740s that corrected that view.
And you're not telling me anything I don't already know about the compositional history of these works.
How can you say the "Mass in B min (1725-49)" was probably "conceived after the earliest working copy of Art of Fugue"?
The earliest working copy of the "Missa" (so-called in the dedicatory title wrapper submitted to Saxon Elector) dates from 1733, about a decade before the "earliest working copy of Art of Fugue".
You obviously meant the final version of the Missa, but even so, you can't assume the final version was not conceived years before its completion.
1) You should confine yourself to comments on my topics when you address your comments to me specifically as riposte.
2) Thank you, you are merely restating what others such as Leonhardt have given to the world several decades back.
3) Surely, if you can date the earliest fragments of Art of Fugue to the late 1830's, I too can presume and impute similar dubious historicity to the Mass and other works. What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.
I agree that your 3 points are "Utter self-serving crap."
Why I should confine myself to your topics? I'm free to expand the discussion.
You yourself restated what others have said, so why do you criticize me for (supposedly) doing the same?
I haven't dated anything "to the late 1830s." The pre-eminent modern Bach scholar, Christopher Wollf, observed that the (lost) composing copy must date back at least the 1742 (the date of the earliest extant fair copy) and probably to the late 1730s.
"Double counterpoint at the 12th" means that 2 counterpoints are composed so that either can serve as the bass to the other without violating the rules of harmony.
The 2 subjects in this fugue form double counterpoints at the 12th.
This is a flawless performance - just the correct speed at which the piece should be played to bring out all the voices, inversions, and subjects/countersubjects/false subjects etc
leonhardt plays it about this speed i think
as for the instrument - well i'm sure if a digital instrument had been around JSB's day, he would have gone nuts composing for it
"Open score" does not imply "open to interpretation."
In Bach's era and before keyboard music was sometimes written in open score. And the fugal writing style here is definitely his keyboard fugue style, not his orchestral fugue style. E.g., some of the 4-voice fugues end up with 5 or 6 voices, which not unusual for keyboard fugues, esp. organ fugues. Based on the writing style, Bach conceived this work for his principal keyboard instruments: harpsichord and organ.
bach was not a slave to the instrument like Chopin. i do not think Bach really cared about the specifics of his music in terms of instruments. he was the great transcriber he took music for the harpsichord and made it into a concerto and visa versa.
But his transcriptions are not simply note-for-note copies. He takes into account the instrument and idiom. To see this, consider the solo violin music he transcribed for solo harpsichord. As for AofF, these are typical keybaord fugues in the keyboard idiom, even adding extra parts near the end, as is typical of keyboard fugues, esp. organ fugues.
I love how you don't make a mistake! I fail most at that, even if I have good tempo (should you sacrifice speed or technicity?) You should increase the tempo as well as shade more the voices, but overall, I love it =)
I give you mad props for playing this by heart. Even though the trills are lacking, they are hard to do while playing all the other parts of the fugue.
Its not often you see anything other than the 1st contrapunctus, so I thank you for that.
(continued...) Actually I have always wondered: why is it that so many pianists do what you would never see a violinplayer or cellist do: settle for a cheap and very unsatisfying solution. Are pianists, as opposed to string players, not at all interested in the sound that comes out? Strange, indeed.
(continued...) To avoid being misunderstood: I think your playing is great, albeit a little on the slow side for my taste. It's the instrument I dislike.
Thanks db! Not too many versions of this fantastic piece of music on youtube. But really, you owe us a version on a proper instrument (a good piano/grand)! This sounds terrible, really terrible; how can you play such fine music - and obviously enjoy playing it - and then on such an ugly-sounding machine?
To do that I would need to give up an ungodly amount of time to practice. My hands are connected to each other. I do something on one, the other follows =| hehe. Love contrapunctus IX
Art of Fugue, Unfinished Fugue's ending:
i1105 . photobucket . com / albums / h352 / artoffugueend / artoffugue_ending . jpg
mtv565 7 months ago
Fughetta!!!!!! This is so beautiful.
TheNolb 1 year ago
tempo is a little bit awkward for to me, but this is nice
hopelesslyinlovedu 2 years ago
"if you can date the earliest fragments of Art of Fugue to the late 1830's" - sic , meant 1730's
mutinyvizier 2 years ago
More red herrings with your opinions on "prevailing views" and CPE Bach. It appears if you had your way, you would summon each of Bach's 16 surviving children, along with Anna Magdalena, to testify to how JSB originally "saw" his music, and intended for it to be interpreted. I don't deny that would be the most accurate way to do it.
If you wish to strike every trill and mordent from the upper note, and regurgitate what is taught in introductory harmony classes at universities, I won't stop you.
mutinyvizier 2 years ago
KindFurryBoy - you would not call Chromatic Fantasia and Fuge 903, Violin Fugue 1001 and Chaconne 1004, Suite no 4 for solo cello, Weimar Organ Preludes and Fugues, WTC book 2, Violoncello Piccolo Cantatas, Musical Offering, Goldberg, Brandenburg 5/Harpsichord, Flute, Violin 1044, John's Passion, or Art of Fugue musically unadventurous?
mutinyvizier 2 years ago
All of wcbroccoli's comments appear correct - i (gclalit) was just responding to a previous comment that chided the choice of instrument. Such arguments regarding what is the 'correct' way to play Bach (and Baroque) have existed at least since Mendelssohn's rich St Matthew's. I for one would like to think that JSB (an adventurous guy who hiked all the way to watch Buxtehude) was no prude when it came to interpretation. Incidentally the incomplete fugue added to 1742 autograph is not open score.
mutinyvizier 2 years ago
I wouldnt call bach adventerous, especially musically. Though I will say he maximized the potential of baroque music as did those who studied under him. Though he did walk to Buxtehude that is just a sign of an extremely determined pupil(if only more were like that).
KindFurryBoy 2 years ago
Mendelssohn' s "rich St. Matthew's" was the result of necessity, cluelessness and 19th aesthetics:
unavailable Baroque oboes replaced by clarinets; church piece played in large, dry public hall; no portable organ & harpsichord too quiet for 500 person ensemble, so conducted from pianoforte; silly 19th craving for monumentality (used 10 voices per part instead of 1!).
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
Comment removed
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
12 of the eventual 14 fugues were already completed by 1745.
Autographs of earlier versions of these fugues survive. E.g, the 1st fugue originally ended where the coda of the final version begins.
ALL early autographs were written in 2-staff keyboard format.
In 1749-1750 Bach himself initiated the printing (in open score).
The so-called "incomplete fugue" published by Bach heirs with an Italian title (all the other fugues have Latin titles) was probably completed but the remainder lost.
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
Bach died in 1750.
But he oldest fair manuscript source of fugues in AofF dates back to 1740-1742 and was preceded by a working copy does not survive but must date back to at least to about 1740 or even the end of the 1730s.
So the romantic notion that AofF was Bach's "swan song" is not supported by the facts.
AofF was conceived and begun at least a decade before his death.
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
Nowhere was it implied that Art of Fugue was JSB's 'swan song' - Mass in B min (1725-49), Musical offering (1747 onwards), Organ Chorale Prelude 668a, all probably were conceived after the earliest working copy of Art of Fugue, except maybe the triple fuge (11), and final B-A-C-H.
What does any of this have to do with how Bach intended his work to be interpreted, and your 'romantic' red herring?
mutinyvizier 2 years ago
Utter BS.
This was the prevailing view since the 19th c.
Just read the obituary. And CPE Bach's note (probably added as late at 1780s) that "the composer died at the place where the 3 subjects appear" encouraged this romantic misconception.
It was only the revelation of manuscripts dating back to the early 1740s that corrected that view.
And you're not telling me anything I don't already know about the compositional history of these works.
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
As for "What does any of this have to do with how Bach intended his work to be interpreted, and your 'romantic' red herring? ":
(1) I don't have to confine my comments to your topics.
(2) Composiitonal history (as well as structual considerations) support the view that AofF was conceived for keyboard.
(3) The romantic "red herring" is a legacy from the 19th c.
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
How can you say the "Mass in B min (1725-49)" was probably "conceived after the earliest working copy of Art of Fugue"?
The earliest working copy of the "Missa" (so-called in the dedicatory title wrapper submitted to Saxon Elector) dates from 1733, about a decade before the "earliest working copy of Art of Fugue".
You obviously meant the final version of the Missa, but even so, you can't assume the final version was not conceived years before its completion.
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
Utter self-serving crap:
1) You should confine yourself to comments on my topics when you address your comments to me specifically as riposte.
2) Thank you, you are merely restating what others such as Leonhardt have given to the world several decades back.
3) Surely, if you can date the earliest fragments of Art of Fugue to the late 1830's, I too can presume and impute similar dubious historicity to the Mass and other works. What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.
mutinyvizier 2 years ago
Comment removed
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
I agree that your 3 points are "Utter self-serving crap."
Why I should confine myself to your topics? I'm free to expand the discussion.
You yourself restated what others have said, so why do you criticize me for (supposedly) doing the same?
I haven't dated anything "to the late 1830s." The pre-eminent modern Bach scholar, Christopher Wollf, observed that the (lost) composing copy must date back at least the 1742 (the date of the earliest extant fair copy) and probably to the late 1730s.
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
First you claim that I'm (supposedly) "merely restating what others such as Leonhardt have given to the world several decades back."
Then you claim I'm presuming dates.
You can't have it both ways.
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
My dates regarding the Mass in B-minor and other works are not presumptions. They are based on documentary evidence.
Surely you've seen copies of the well-known title wrapper of the same Mass (and letter) delivered to the Saxon Elector in 1733?
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
"Double counterpoint at the 12th" means that 2 counterpoints are composed so that either can serve as the bass to the other without violating the rules of harmony.
The 2 subjects in this fugue form double counterpoints at the 12th.
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
Comment removed
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
i agree
GiveNoMercy13 2 years ago
great job!
kaiserkill 3 years ago
I have an old Casio at home, and it has Church Organ on it, it sounds awesome :D
n34t43v3r 3 years ago
very very well played, im looking at a score for a brass quintet and you sound just like the electronic score
0366tim0366 4 years ago
Very good. :) Your fingering is a little perplexing, but very good. :)
ryguillian 4 years ago
that was really amazing ¡¡¡ good job¡¡¡
juancillo 4 years ago
nice angle of the camera!
mxplizik 4 years ago
This is a flawless performance - just the correct speed at which the piece should be played to bring out all the voices, inversions, and subjects/countersubjects/false subjects etc
leonhardt plays it about this speed i think
as for the instrument - well i'm sure if a digital instrument had been around JSB's day, he would have gone nuts composing for it
so it's not a clavicord or harpsichord - big deal
art of fugue is in open score anyway
very well done - god bless
gclalit 4 years ago
"Open score" does not imply "open to interpretation."
In Bach's era and before keyboard music was sometimes written in open score. And the fugal writing style here is definitely his keyboard fugue style, not his orchestral fugue style. E.g., some of the 4-voice fugues end up with 5 or 6 voices, which not unusual for keyboard fugues, esp. organ fugues. Based on the writing style, Bach conceived this work for his principal keyboard instruments: harpsichord and organ.
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
bach was not a slave to the instrument like Chopin. i do not think Bach really cared about the specifics of his music in terms of instruments. he was the great transcriber he took music for the harpsichord and made it into a concerto and visa versa.
kepler101 2 years ago
But his transcriptions are not simply note-for-note copies. He takes into account the instrument and idiom. To see this, consider the solo violin music he transcribed for solo harpsichord. As for AofF, these are typical keybaord fugues in the keyboard idiom, even adding extra parts near the end, as is typical of keyboard fugues, esp. organ fugues.
wcbroccoli 2 years ago
this is not "piano"!
thetrojan01gr 4 years ago
I love how you don't make a mistake! I fail most at that, even if I have good tempo (should you sacrifice speed or technicity?) You should increase the tempo as well as shade more the voices, but overall, I love it =)
echlyn 4 years ago
I give you mad props for playing this by heart. Even though the trills are lacking, they are hard to do while playing all the other parts of the fugue.
Its not often you see anything other than the 1st contrapunctus, so I thank you for that.
Funkypotat0 4 years ago
I only can say, Beaiful piece
victorvalenzuela87 4 years ago
thanks for letting us peek at your fingerings. ^^
you never miss a key, good job.
the only thig i don't like are your trills. they really should be faster.
anyway, kudos for learning that bitch of a piece by heart. :-)
Timrath 4 years ago
(continued...) Actually I have always wondered: why is it that so many pianists do what you would never see a violinplayer or cellist do: settle for a cheap and very unsatisfying solution. Are pianists, as opposed to string players, not at all interested in the sound that comes out? Strange, indeed.
klaverfar 4 years ago
(continued...) To avoid being misunderstood: I think your playing is great, albeit a little on the slow side for my taste. It's the instrument I dislike.
klaverfar 4 years ago
Thanks db! Not too many versions of this fantastic piece of music on youtube. But really, you owe us a version on a proper instrument (a good piano/grand)! This sounds terrible, really terrible; how can you play such fine music - and obviously enjoy playing it - and then on such an ugly-sounding machine?
klaverfar 4 years ago
To do that I would need to give up an ungodly amount of time to practice. My hands are connected to each other. I do something on one, the other follows =| hehe. Love contrapunctus IX
learjet4 4 years ago
quite slowly played
i only know the really fast version
Corlagon1 4 years ago
I love this one
Aapton 4 years ago
nice, i enjoyed to hear this, as i try to play this song too,
i like you play it your own way and it makes perfect sense,
would you post you playing this song on organ?
mitchontrip 4 years ago