Bach - WTC I (Joanna MacGregor) - Prelude & Fugue No. 24 in B Minor BWV 869 - 2. Fugue

[TrevRockOne]

Is anybody else reminded of the opening fugue of Beethoven's 14th string quartet, Op. 131, at 1:27? It sounds like a direct quote to me, but I've never heard anyone else mention it, oddly.

[radstainforth]

Excellent!

[musicy88]

now I hear it after months, it sounds nasty. both prelude and fugue. eww! nikolayeva and richter are million times more enjoyable. at least for me.

[zutflutefleur]

The contrast she makes with the sequenced episodes is incredibly effective and profound. I really like this interpretation. Just goes the show the myriad possibilities when interpreting Bach.

[musicy88]

I wonder what edition she uses. couple of times, she played notes that can be controversial, if not regarded mistake.. nevertheless, beautifully depicted sequence.

[Erikk91]

@musicy88 it seems henle verlag...from the style of writing

[musicy88]

@Erikk91 or it might be just mistakes from not practicing enough. I'm more convinced with what i feel. she has concrete idea on what this music should be but lacks practice. (this one is one of the hardest fugues to memorize)

[Erikk91]

@musicy88 i don't think that this types of videos contain wrong notes, it is clearly computer-edited...maybe he use only a different edition

[marcohorowitz8]

Brilliant, very deep and dramatic! J. obviously sees a whole world withing this piece and she communicates that very well. There is no right or wrong way to play Bach, we all have different interpretations.

[FranzofL]

I very much do not enjoy her interpretation. This fugue is supposed to be sacred not an accented and bouncing gavotte. I feel that she portrays too much anger. The passage at 1:27 and all the other analogous passages are quite superior, however. I feel that she does not understand the elaborate symbolism of the piece. This is probably one of the absolute most special fugues of the entire WTC, especially because of it's astonishing subject. I don't believe Bach meant it to be "angular" at all!

[FranzofL]

I very much do not enjoy her interpretation. This fugue is supposed to be sacred not an accented and bouncing gavotte. I feel that she portrays too much anger. The passage at 1:27 and all the other analogous passages are quite superior, however. I feel that she does not understand the elaborate symbolism of the piece. This is probably one of the absolute most special fugues of the entire WTC, especially because of it's astonishing subject... I don't believe Bach meant it to be "angular" at all!

[FranzofL]

I very much do not enjoy her interpretation. This fugue is supposed to be sacred not an accented and bouncing gavotte. I feel that she portrays too much anger. The passage at 1:27 and all the other analogous passages are quite superior, however. I feel that she does not understand the elaborate symbolism of the piece. This is probably one of the absolute most special fugues of the entire WTC, especially because of it's astonishing subject... I don't believe Bach meant it to be "angular" at all!

[khawass]

the left hand seems to heavy at the beginning, too much variation between piano and forte, where the piano is also slowed down...this way doesn't sound homogenous, but rather a romantic playing: it's perfect contrapuncuts, not chopin...

richter is the best I've heard playing this.

[pbazant]

This is the best interpretation of this fugue I have ever heard. Gould's is good as well, although very different.

[dmcII]

Yes I agree. JoAnna's Bach is other-wordly. I think Gould is an acquired taste for many people. It took me a while to really understand his genius, but I definitely love him now.

[numbers3934]

I agree 100% gould has a style that just makes this piece sound like the rest of his. It's interesting, indeed, but not very deviant from what you'd expect from gould.