The Art of Fugue

Started by The Mad Hatter, May 23, 2007, 12:37:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

milk

Quote from: Mandryka on April 20, 2017, 12:54:55 PM


Hewitt's AoF.

In interview she says that she wants to make all the lines sing, keep them independent, use the piano colours. She's able to manage the complex textures that the independent voicing produces in the more complex music. Articulation seems fine. Touch is varied.

I think this could have been a tremendous, bold and imaginative AoF, except that she does one thing which I can't get used to - she uses extreme dynamic variation, in a way which seems pointless to me. It's a deal breaker for me.

Piano sound seems to me a bit dominated by high and mid-range, the bass is not often very present. I don't like that, though I appreciate it may be justifiable.

https://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/recording-bachs-the-art-of-fugue-with-angela-hewitt
Thanks for that note. I've been comparing Cédric Pescia to Hewitt a bit. I think Pescia is more decisive and a little less fussy than Hewitt - as well as more tasteful dynamics there. However, he has some romantic moments that some may not like. I am interested in what people like on the piano. Hewitt got raves but the samples I have don't make me inclined to get it all. Maybe it's too thought out or something.

Mandryka

Can't seem to get inspired by Pescia, but if you want decisive, try David Lively.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

premont

Quote from: Mandryka on April 21, 2017, 07:54:28 AM
Can't seem to get inspired by Pescia, but if you want decisive, try David Lively.

Your earlier comment (the one you deleted) about Pescia was more interesting. About him I share your view.

Lively is interesting, but I am confused by his sequence of the Contrapuncti. On the other hand - never mind. Nowadays one can change the sequence ad libitum.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Mandryka

Quote from: (: premont :) on April 21, 2017, 11:13:42 AM
Your earlier comment (the one you deleted) about Pescia was more interesting. About him I share your view.

Lively is interesting, but I am confused by his sequence of the Contrapuncti. On the other hand - never mind. Nowadays one can change the sequence ad libitum.

I thought it was best to make a constructive suggestion!

Re Lively, does he say anything about the order in the booklet? I only have it through streaming. I find it strange, given that I'm more and more convinced (by Dirksen)  that the early fugues are a cycle.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

milk

Quote from: Mandryka on April 21, 2017, 07:54:28 AM
Can't seem to get inspired by Pescia, but if you want decisive, try David Lively.
The samples sound a bit like Gould's WTC...a bit harsh. But maybe I need to download a full track. I like a little romanticism these days in the piano.

Mandryka

Quote from: milk on April 13, 2017, 05:26:57 AMEveryone praises Nikolayeva, do you share in this?

I can say now I prefer the first recording, the Melodya, not the Hyperion, I wouldn't go as far as to recommend either.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

premont

Quote from: Mandryka on April 21, 2017, 11:35:18 AM

Re Lively, does he say anything about the order in the booklet?

Npthing epochal.

From the booklet:

David Lively en propose une lecture qui sépare toutes les fugues en deux
groupes: celles où la forme dicte le fond, le contenue expressif se pliant
aux exigeances de la construction et celles, plus libres, qui ont en commun
le souci prépondérant de l'expressivité. Ainsi, les deux fugues miroirs sont
disposées de facon à server de cadre symmétrique: en ouverture, le rectus
de la première fugue-miroir suivi de l'iinversus de la deuxième et, pour
clore, le rectus de la deuxiéme fugue-miroir précédé par l'inversus de la
première. Se cadre formel enserre les quatre canons stricts présentés
en série croissante de complexité, terminant par une cadence improvisée.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Mandryka

Quote from: (: premont :) on May 02, 2017, 12:50:32 PM
Npthing epochal.

From the booklet:

David Lively en propose une lecture qui sépare toutes les fugues en deux
groupes: celles où la forme dicte le fond, le contenue expressif se pliant
aux exigeances de la construction et celles, plus libres, qui ont en commun
le souci prépondérant de l'expressivité. Ainsi, les deux fugues miroirs sont
disposées de facon à server de cadre symmétrique: en ouverture, le rectus
de la première fugue-miroir suivi de l'iinversus de la deuxième et, pour
clore, le rectus de la deuxiéme fugue-miroir précédé par l'inversus de la
première. Se cadre formel enserre les quatre canons stricts présentés
en série croissante de complexité, terminant par une cadence improvisée.

This cadence improvisée, I wonder what he means.

Also the idea that you can classify the fugues according to how expressive they are is not uninteresting. I'll listen again to the recording tomorrow if I can.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

Mahlerian

Quote from: Mandryka on May 02, 2017, 02:05:02 PM
This cadence improvisée, I wonder what he means.

An "improvised cadenza" maybe?  Someone with better French might correct me.
"l do not consider my music as atonal, but rather as non-tonal. I feel the unity of all keys. Atonal music by modern composers admits of no key at all, no feeling of any definite center." - Arnold Schoenberg

Mandryka

#329
Quote from: Mahlerian on May 02, 2017, 03:20:44 PM
An "improvised cadenza" maybe?  Someone with better French might correct me.

Cadence is rhythm or pulse, but it's not usual to hear anything improvised in AoF as far as I know, but maybe he's intending something to do with the unfinished fugue, which is placed at the very end. 
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

premont

Quote from: Mandryka on May 02, 2017, 08:26:02 PM
Cadence is rhythm or pulse, but it's not usual to hear anything improvised in AoF as far as I know, but maybe he's intending something to do with the unfinished fugue, which is placed at the very end.

In the end of the Canon à la decima there is room for an improvised cadenza. But this Canon is not the last in the Canon-sequence, if we group them according to their growing complexity. Maybe I also need to relisten to Lively.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Mandryka

Quote from: (: premont :) on May 03, 2017, 12:38:14 AM
In the end of the Canon à la decima there is room for an improvised cadenza.

I thought as much, it explains why I was so surprised by what I heard in Ron Lepinat's performance.

I'm, pretty sure that the french for cadenza is cadenza and cadence means rhythm. Je pense qu'on peut parler de la cadence scolaire, par exemple, ou la cadence de travaille. Mais je ne suis pas francophone.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

milk

Quote from: Mandryka on May 03, 2017, 04:35:35 AM
I thought as much, it explains why I was so surprised by what I heard in Ron Lepinat's performance.

I'm, pretty sure that the french for cadenza is cadenza and cadence means rhythm. Je pense qu'on peut parler de la cadence scolaire, par exemple, ou la cadence de travaille. Mais je ne suis pas francophone.
I want Lepinat more than ever. It's not for download anywhere. I've been listening to Lively: so, no pedal and very subtle dynamics, right? Almost like a harpsichord on the piano? So, this is very clear voicing. And the distinguishing feature of the piano is boiled down to the color of the piano? I wonder, why do some people prefer this on AOF against WTC? I admit I get annoyed with heavy dynamics but am more open to other piano "tricks." I wonder about the case for people's different tastes when it comes to Bach on the piano? What's in and what's out and is AOF a special case?


Mandryka

#334
Quote from: milk on May 06, 2017, 05:53:31 PM
I want Lepinat more than ever. It's not for download anywhere. I've been listening to Lively: so, no pedal and very subtle dynamics, right? Almost like a harpsichord on the piano? So, this is very clear voicing. And the distinguishing feature of the piano is boiled down to the color of the piano? I wonder, why do some people prefer this on AOF against WTC? I admit I get annoyed with heavy dynamics but am more open to other piano "tricks." I wonder about the case for people's different tastes when it comes to Bach on the piano? What's in and what's out and is AOF a special case?

The Lepinat is a rarity which may never be rereleased, snap it up if you can.

Years ago I asked Thierry Mechler to rerelease his piano AoF, and he responded by putting it here

https://soundcloud.com/thierry-mechler/sets/die-kunst-der-fuge

It's not a favourite of mine but there are interesting ideas there and it's well worth downloading I think.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

Mandryka

Quote from: milk on May 06, 2017, 05:53:31 PM
I want Lepinat more than ever. It's not for download anywhere. I've been listening to Lively: so, no pedal and very subtle dynamics, right? Almost like a harpsichord on the piano? So, this is very clear voicing. And the distinguishing feature of the piano is boiled down to the color of the piano? I wonder, why do some people prefer this on AOF against WTC? I admit I get annoyed with heavy dynamics but am more open to other piano "tricks." I wonder about the case for people's different tastes when it comes to Bach on the piano? What's in and what's out and is AOF a special case?

I think the vigour of it is also a distinguishing feature, esp on modern piano where they tend to play languidly and sweetly. I'm not sure he really plumbs the emotional possibilities of the music, despite that booklet note that Premont posted.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

milk

Quote from: Mandryka on May 07, 2017, 04:02:37 AM
I think the vigour of it is also a distinguishing feature, esp on modern piano where they tend to play languidly and sweetly. I'm not sure he really plumbs the emotional possibilities of the music, despite that booklet note that Premont posted.
I'm a download only person. I'm not an audiophile since I'm such a nomad. So Reimer is another one not for download that I want. That's good too, right?

Mandryka



My impression is that Balint Karosi's AoF is a attractive, expressively mainstream HIP performance, with the distinguishing feature that some of the pieces are on a neo-baroque organ (Richards and Fowkes op 10), and others are on harpsichord apart from one on clavichord.

The reason for posting about it here is this claim in the (interesting) booklet essay by Balint Karosi

QuoteThe present recording presents all commonly available keyboard instruments to Bach (except the Lautenwerk and the fortepiano which he did not particularly like). I only use my feet on the pedals in #14 for dramatic effect.

Do we really know that Bach didn't like Lautenwerk and piano?
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

premont

#338
Quote from: Mandryka on May 08, 2017, 07:55:54 AM
My impression is that Balint Karosi's AoF is a attractive, expressively mainstream HIP performance, with the distinguishing feature that some of the pieces are on a neo-baroque organ (Richards and Fowkes op 10), and others are on harpsichord apart from one on clavichord.

The reason for posting about it here is this claim in the (interesting) booklet essay by Balint Karosi

Do we really know that Bach didn't like Lautenwerk and piano?

Quote Karosi:
I was concerned that the four canons and the mirror fugues might result in an excessively academic Disc Two, so I have counterbalanced the group with maximum sonic variety by performing on the clavichord, organ, and two different harpsichords.

Neither logical nor consistent; I think. Music of this kind asks for very little sonic variety. It is about something quite else.

Quote Karosi:
The present recording presents all commonly available keyboard instruments to Bach (except the Lautenwerk and the fortepiano which he did not particularly like).

And this is of course nonsense. We know nothing about Bach's opinion of these two instruments.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

kishnevi

Quote from: Mandryka on May 08, 2017, 07:55:54 AM


My impression is that Balint Karosi's AoF is a attractive, expressively mainstream HIP performance, with the distinguishing feature that some of the pieces are on a neo-baroque organ (Richards and Fowkes op 10), and others are on harpsichord apart from one on clavichord.

The reason for posting about it here is this claim in the (interesting) booklet essay by Balint Karosi

Do we really know that Bach didn't like Lautenwerk and piano?

The liner notes to Elizabeth Farr's recording on Naxos argue that Bach liked the lautenwerk so well he had at least two built for him, and wrote the lute works for the lautenwerk, not the lute.  I must admit I didn't like the instrument Farr herself used  in that recording.

As for fortepiano, Wikipedia yielded this link via the Wayback machine
https://web.archive.org/web/20130613105200/http://www.jc-neupert.de/e/instr_2/silber_ham.htm

QuoteAt the beginning there may have been some difficulties with Silbermann's fortepianos, because Johann Sebastian Bach criticized the weak sound of the instrument's treble and the too heavy touch of the keyboard. However, when Silbermann improved his instruments decisively, evidently as a result of a detailed examination of a Cristofori fortepiano, Bach gave them his "complete approval".

For Johann Sebastian Bach a renewed encounter with a Silbermann fortepiano occurred, when he visited the Prussian King Friedrich II at the palace of Potsdam in 1747. On this occasion Friedrich II gave Johann Sebastian Bach the famous "King's Theme". Johann Sebastian Bach improvised directly on the king's Silbermann fortepiano a Ricercare for three voices that met with his majesty's "most gracious pleasure".