Not his first composition! It appears to date back to the Weimar period (circa 1710). The booklet that comes with the CD says it could have been "put together at Arnstadt, Weimar, and perhaps even later still".
Nice registrations on some of them but the choral is played much too fast.
In the second variation he adds an extra line line... this is not what is written in the score. I hear 'something' extra in the 4th and 7th vars as well.
If you're used to the interpretation by Richter which I just listened to then you will definitely find it too fast :) As far as I am concerned, I discovered this piece with Chapuis so I am not bothered by the way it is played. On the other hand I do understand your point for I knew some choral preludes from Tarkovsky's movies e.g. BWV639 and I did find Chapuis rushed through them too much.
I understand but I don't know the score. I still find the rendering beautiful and beauty is what matters most in my view. I'm not much of a purist. It would be exaggerated to see a few added notes as a betrayal of Bach's music (esp. given the fact this piece was reworked a lot by Bach himself). Music is a living thing not a dead corpse.
This has nothing to do with purism, this is a simple matter of respecting the composers markings. I don't even need the score to hear the distortions he creates. It does "sound nice" but that is all there is to it.
The right to "rework" a piece is reserved for the composer alone.
I'm concerned with only the natural beauty of music. Anything else is superficial. In interpretation one should only vary the naunces, not personalize it.
This is a piece Bach reworked throughout his life. There might be different versions of it as a consequence. Bach himself reworked pieces such as Pergolese's Stabat Mater (BWV 1083) or Vivaldi's concerto (BWV 1065)
I would also like to bring to your attention tath Bach used the S.D.G. autograph in a number of places in his works. S.D.G. stands for Soli Deo Gloria. Do I need to translate? Music comes from God and does not belong to anybody.
In this case it's is just how Chapuis plays things. It's his preference.
You are right in implying that Bach was the kind of man that would add things and even "rework" pieces, I know that but my point being that was because was the composer.
As for your comment on what music is, that is opinionated and not open to discussion. And I don't plan on having any such interchange with you either because we'd only fight as our ideas are not compatible.
Maybe one day you will read Brothers Karamazov as one ought to read it (that is not from the outside but from the inside) and faced with Aliosha's question "And you with him, you too?", will not elude answering for yourself by either a "yes" or a "no". For any other attitude is moral cowardice.
I say this again, I will not have this discussion with you. My ideas are not understandible as they are derrived from something that is not of any human concept.
On the note of the score you mentioned, if this is indeed an older version of this piece then I will stand corrected with my comments regarding the notes.
With regards to the concept that drove Bach's music.. it was religion, which is also the key driving force in the interpretations by Karl Richter. This is something I cannot and will not deny as it is pointless to do so.
But faith in God is not adhesion to an abstract concept or ideology. This is as though you reduced love to being a concept. A concept can never be a driving force. A driving force always stems out of an irrational "feeling".
Ok. Just to make it clear. I you truly love a person, you love that person in herself, as a unique being, not the idea or representation of that person. And true, the human mind essentially works with representations which are approximations of reality but authentic love (which, although rare, does exist) overcomes the possibly idealized representation being shattered by experience.
Love of God is love of the Creator, "the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible". Bach lived in a time where God was an obviousness and beauty a hymn to His Glory, not a concept or an idea as spiritually-exhausted modernity would later tend to believe.
But "modernity" itself will pass, as all that is merely human.
The cross is only the prelude to the resurrection.
Look, I said I am not going to discuss your views. That is out of the question, but I can empathise with your previous comment (before this one) as I already know this.
This has been flagged as spam show
Joyeux Noël! Blessings..
vereiana 1 year ago
Which variation # is from 6:26 to 7:29? Is it 5?
buerm009 1 year ago
is this the first composition of the Master?
in my cronology it say so!
apologyze y english
tommyIglesias 1 year ago
@tommyIglesias
Not his first composition! It appears to date back to the Weimar period (circa 1710). The booklet that comes with the CD says it could have been "put together at Arnstadt, Weimar, and perhaps even later still".
goliadkine 1 year ago
Upload Part 2 of Sei gegrusset, Jesu gutig with Michel Chapuis
iparker681998 1 year ago
Nice registrations on some of them but the choral is played much too fast.
In the second variation he adds an extra line line... this is not what is written in the score. I hear 'something' extra in the 4th and 7th vars as well.
advisorC101 2 years ago
typo.. "extra line".
advisorC101 2 years ago
If you're used to the interpretation by Richter which I just listened to then you will definitely find it too fast :) As far as I am concerned, I discovered this piece with Chapuis so I am not bothered by the way it is played. On the other hand I do understand your point for I knew some choral preludes from Tarkovsky's movies e.g. BWV639 and I did find Chapuis rushed through them too much.
goliadkine 2 years ago
In all honesty the speed is hardly what bothers me... It's how he messes with the peice itself. Specifically those extra notes.
But, that's Chapuis for you..
advisorC101 2 years ago
I understand but I don't know the score. I still find the rendering beautiful and beauty is what matters most in my view. I'm not much of a purist. It would be exaggerated to see a few added notes as a betrayal of Bach's music (esp. given the fact this piece was reworked a lot by Bach himself). Music is a living thing not a dead corpse.
goliadkine 2 years ago
This has nothing to do with purism, this is a simple matter of respecting the composers markings. I don't even need the score to hear the distortions he creates. It does "sound nice" but that is all there is to it.
The right to "rework" a piece is reserved for the composer alone.
I'm concerned with only the natural beauty of music. Anything else is superficial. In interpretation one should only vary the naunces, not personalize it.
advisorC101 2 years ago
This is a piece Bach reworked throughout his life. There might be different versions of it as a consequence. Bach himself reworked pieces such as Pergolese's Stabat Mater (BWV 1083) or Vivaldi's concerto (BWV 1065)
I would also like to bring to your attention tath Bach used the S.D.G. autograph in a number of places in his works. S.D.G. stands for Soli Deo Gloria. Do I need to translate? Music comes from God and does not belong to anybody.
goliadkine 2 years ago
In this case it's is just how Chapuis plays things. It's his preference.
You are right in implying that Bach was the kind of man that would add things and even "rework" pieces, I know that but my point being that was because was the composer.
As for your comment on what music is, that is opinionated and not open to discussion. And I don't plan on having any such interchange with you either because we'd only fight as our ideas are not compatible.
advisorC101 2 years ago
"our ideas are not compatible"
Maybe one day you will read Brothers Karamazov as one ought to read it (that is not from the outside but from the inside) and faced with Aliosha's question "And you with him, you too?", will not elude answering for yourself by either a "yes" or a "no". For any other attitude is moral cowardice.
goliadkine 2 years ago
I say this again, I will not have this discussion with you. My ideas are not understandible as they are derrived from something that is not of any human concept.
On the note of the score you mentioned, if this is indeed an older version of this piece then I will stand corrected with my comments regarding the notes.
advisorC101 2 years ago
As you wish but this doesn't have anything to do with concepts.
goliadkine 2 years ago
With regards to the concept that drove Bach's music.. it was religion, which is also the key driving force in the interpretations by Karl Richter. This is something I cannot and will not deny as it is pointless to do so.
advisorC101 2 years ago
But faith in God is not adhesion to an abstract concept or ideology. This is as though you reduced love to being a concept. A concept can never be a driving force. A driving force always stems out of an irrational "feeling".
goliadkine 2 years ago
For some, ideologists for instance, this will be love of the concept in itself.
goliadkine 2 years ago
I believe in the living God which is not a concept. A being is not a concept.
goliadkine 2 years ago
Excuse me, I made a slight mistake in my last message.
I should have said "the [idea]". Not concept. I understand your feelings either way though.
advisorC101 2 years ago
Ok. Just to make it clear. I you truly love a person, you love that person in herself, as a unique being, not the idea or representation of that person. And true, the human mind essentially works with representations which are approximations of reality but authentic love (which, although rare, does exist) overcomes the possibly idealized representation being shattered by experience.
goliadkine 2 years ago
Love of God is love of the Creator, "the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible". Bach lived in a time where God was an obviousness and beauty a hymn to His Glory, not a concept or an idea as spiritually-exhausted modernity would later tend to believe.
But "modernity" itself will pass, as all that is merely human.
The cross is only the prelude to the resurrection.
goliadkine 2 years ago
Look, I said I am not going to discuss your views. That is out of the question, but I can empathise with your previous comment (before this one) as I already know this.
advisorC101 2 years ago
I wish I could do something but there is so much pride in you.
goliadkine 2 years ago
There is no pride in me. I am just an illogical entity.
But that "need" that you feel is opinionated as well. (no offence intended).
advisorC101 2 years ago
Now, I think it's time I end this discussion and leave.
I have no place in this music after all.
advisorC101 2 years ago
I think the illogical entity you associate with does not exist. You are always welcome here.
goliadkine 2 years ago
the entity you wrongly identify yourself with, to be more precise...
goliadkine 2 years ago
I am something.. different goliadkine. I promise you this, I cannot be understood and this is not a delusion on my part.
But I don't feel welcome on the organ anymore. Which is why I am going to focus on piano instead.
I've had enough of these discussions (I've been at it my whole life), now I just want to rest.
Thanks again for the upload.
advisorC101 2 years ago
5*****
nairigrigorian 2 years ago