Blind comparison : J.S. Bach, Fuga sopra il Magnificat BWV 733

[madaboutmahler]

Vote:

First place: no.6
A really thrilling performance, and what an amazing organ, absolutely ground-breaking when the pedals enter! Excellently shaped too, a very moving performance.

Second place: no.10
Beautiful sound at an excellent tempo which is very well controlled. Amazing organ... wow, those pedals.......

Third place: no.1
At a steady tempo, well expressed, and a beautiful organ.

Least favourite: 11. (for the ornaments which irritated me due to being completely unnecessary...)

[mszczuj]

Every listening change all, but there is some pattern, so:

I can't say I really like any of this interpretations.

I decided to prefer three interpretations where it seems to me phrasing is most naturally and adequate to spiritual situation given in words Magnificat anima mea Domini

So my 3rd favorite is No.4 - here phrasing is for me the best and religious inspiration most obvious. Alas, the slow tempo make it not so ecstatic as it ought to be.

My 2nd favorite is No.2 Here phrasing is mediocre but acceptable (from my point of view) but I like the way in which voices correspond one to another so it is some step toward ecstasy.

My favorite is No.11. I can't judge if the use of ornaments is proper, but I accept it, and find the very fact of using it appropriate. But this is the least finger exercising and the most musical interpretation - half way to ecstasy.

The worst is probaly No.6 which I find hysterical. And I dont like mechanical no.1, No 5, or No. 7.

[PaulSC]

I was this close --> <-- to saying in my original commentary that a certain recording was likely to divide opinions. That recording has so far showed up in two "favorites" lists (including mine) and two "least favorites" lists.

[mszczuj]

I was this close --> <-- to saying in my original commentary that a certain recording was likely to divide opinions. That recording has so far showed up in two "favorites" lists (including mine) and two "least favorites" lists.

Well, probably some years ago the same recording you have pointed as one of your favorites and I have pointed as my least favorite would be my absolutely favorite.

But now I'm in phase "there are no good intepretation at all, all they play not music but notes, why they don't play Bach, Mozart, Beethoven with such subtlety of phrasing as they play when they perform Schubert."

And this is actually what I want. Good performance of Bach (mozar, Beethoven) should be similar in some aspect to Schubert or even to the German folk music played on zither.

[PaulSC]

I think I understand what you're saying, although I hear more nuance than you do in the recording that made my "favorites" and your "least favorites."

But I was actually referring to a different recording, which is on BOTH of our "favorites" lists, but is on the "least favorites" lists of the two other participants who have so far reported their impressions.

[mszczuj]

I think I understand what you're saying, although I hear more nuance than you do in the recording that made my “favorites” and your “least favorites.”

But I was actually referring to a different recording, which is on BOTH of our “favorites” lists, but is on the “least favorites” lists of the two other participants who have so far reported their impressions.

It is hard to speak about music when you can't point it.

Your 3rd favorite is my 12th favorite, But for another reason than a lack of nuances.

My 3d favorite is your 11th favorite and this is the one - I'm absolutely  sure - which will be the worst in the voting.

I must repeat again that my impressions about all interpretations have been changing all the time. Dull playing was exciting next time. Fresh was mechanical. So my opinion is a kind of statistics on small numbers.

[PaulSC]

(Indeed I do!)

[mszczuj]

(Indeed I do!)

I am a moron!

Yes!

The only thing  I can say to explain myself is that I wrote it while studying the roofs of Venice on Wikimapia and Google Earth to find where the hell my wive had taken this picture in July 1996.

[Opus106]

I'm sorry but I withdraw. The comparison listening just isn't for me, at least for now. But thanks for letting me participate.

[mc ukrneal]

No problem at all.

The listening will stop tomorrow, thursday, at midnight (Paris) / 11pm (London) / 6pm (EST)... (If you need more time just tell me I'll wait )

The results will be posted just after that limit.

I'll try.

[mahler10th]

Where are the 12 recordings?  I would like to participate but don't understand where to listen and whatnot.

[Opus106]

Where are the 12 recordings?  I would like to participate but don't understand where to listen and whatnot.

You didn't say the magic words* earlier.



*Something along that lines of "I'd like to take part in this."


EDIT: Ack... beaten by a straightforward reply.

[mc ukrneal]

As mentioned, I am not familiar with this particular piece. But based on the clips, I was able to give my preference. I found it difficult to really differentiate between some versions. I did learn what I prefer in organ sound, which is quite useful! Anyway - the rest is in spoiler mode.

First Place: #3
Second Place: #9
Third Place: #11

Second to Last: #4 and #6 (equally ticking me off)
Last: #5

Notes
1 – Monochromatic sounding. Irritates over time. Missing some sound/notes audible in others. Ends nicely.
2 – Warmer and fuller sounding. More varied. More is audible. My ear did not get tired listening to this one.
3 – More details audible here. Better articulation. Good version. #1
4 – Irregular beat/tempo. Too much a mass of sound with little differentiation. Too little of the melody line. Too long.  #11
5 – Can an organ be out of tune? That is what it sounded like. #12
6 – More differentiation, but irregular rhythm – much more so than #4. Really, really irritating. It's like they can't count.  #11
7 – Mushy at times, but ok.
8 – Gives the music more room to breathe. Different lines more audible with better balance among the different lines. Yet, something was missing. 
9 – More rounded sound. But the balance is not always there. Still, a nice version.  #2
10 – A bit on the monochromatic side.
11 – Different! But the melodies get a bit lost at times. Still, like that it is different. #3
12 – Better balance and I liked how everthing is audible. But the 'articulation' was too simple.

[Que]

Here we go! Since I'm one of the last, I'll just post it as it is. (Are we going to make all the comments visible after the voting closes?) I had only time for one run trough - so these are just off hand first impressions.

1: Slow, turgid, and underarticulated, amorphous sound on an (new?) "glitzy" organ I don't like. Makes you wonder if this was recorded by an organist who was actually still alive!

2: Much better!   :)Organ sounds quite good, but still too slow. Structured, articulated but still too much legato. Old School.

3: Uninspired, going through the motions. Very mechanical. Like the organ though.

4: A feisty old organ! Playing is very formal and stately. Slow.

5: At last, a quicker one!  On a appropriate (small) organ, at least to my ears... Playing is not structured and tight enough, registrations sound correct but not very imaginative.

6: A big (neo-Baroque?) organ. Swift but this organist makes mess of it. Not attractive and blurry.

7: Another organ I like. Playing is too hesitant and careful. Too safe, underpowered.

8: Good historic organ. Swift, structured, articulated. Definitely one of the best. It has sufficient gravitas without being stodgy.

9: A light, silvery sound - is this a historic organ or a modern copy? I like the strong pulse on this one - the music unfolds like clockwork. But it is a bit too smoothed out and lacks more pronounced articulation.

10: Mmmhh. Wall-to-wall sound and too much straightforward plodding. Old recording, Old School.

11. Much better. Historic organ (?), ornamentations. Nicely up-tempo. This guy (or girl) does interesting stuff with the music. Meticulous interweaving of the different voices - good stuff. And I love the organ.

12. I like the playing - swift but thourough. Contrary to no. 11 on the sober side, stately but this time in a good way. As Lutheran as they come!


After the first hearing I picked nos. 2, 8, 11 and 12.

No.2 was in the end too grand and straight laced. No 8 is very good and wins in the end from 12 on account of more imaginative registration. No. 11 has a place in itself because of the free, more ornamented style.

I would be quite happy with 8 and 11, or 12 for that matter.

Q

[Que]

So, just to be clear, your vote is 1st place : 8, then 11, then 12, then 2, then the others ?

We're still waiting for 2 more votes on Classik 

Well, yes I guess so.  But 8 and 11 are so close in preference yet also that different in approach, that I would get both.

Q

[Que]

I can put then both 1st ex aequo if you want

OK.

[mc ukrneal]

3:  Very mechanical.
Q

This is a great descrption. It's exactly what I loved most about it! It was like clockwork. Fascinating. It's part of what put you off.

[Que]

This is a great descrption. It's exactly what I loved most about it! It was like clockwork. Fascinating. It's part of what put you off.

I agree, the clockwork feel does have its attractions - especially with highly structured music like Bach's. Would on that acount no. 12 also appeal to you?

Q

[mc ukrneal]

I agree, the clockwork feel does have its attractions - especially with highly structured music like Bach's. Would on that acount no. 12 also appeal to you?

Q

I'll have to re-listen tomorow (way, way past my bedtime) to 12 for that particular trait. That one stuck in my mind for a different reason.

[prémont]

Just say you want to participate  I just sent you the necessary informations.

The "project" sounds more and more interesting. Count me in too, if it isn´t to late, thanks.