The Art of Fugue BWV 1080

[San Antone]

Concerning Bach's intention with the composition of the AoF:

Alone among Bach's late keyboard works, the Art of Fugue was apparently planned from the beginning as a complete and systematic exposition of contrapuntal techniques. Nothing quite like it had been done before, certainly not with such rigor or on such a large scale. Clearly, Bach intended to make a substantial contribution to a repertory of learned keyboard fugues that went back to the time of Sweelinck and Frescobaldi. He may even have thought of the Art of Fugue as a treatise in the form of concrete examples, which is how C. P. E. Bach advertised the work about a year after his father's death.

The Art of Fugue thus took its place beside earlier encyclopedic musical textbooks, such as Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum, Rameau's Traité de l'harmonie, and Mattheson's Vollkommener Capellmeister, the last of which contains four substantial chapters on fugue, one of them directly challenging Bach to publish such a work.

Bach may also have envisioned the work as extending a "learned tradition" of counterpoint cultivated in northern Germany and preserved in such sources as the "Sweelinck" theory manuscripts (see Walker 2000, 204ff.). But Bach's teaching reportedly "omitted all the dry sorts [trockene Arten] of counterpoint given by Fux and others," and it is not surprising that his treatise on fugue eschews elementary examples and consists solely of actual compositions.

As with the Ciavierübung, Bach's composition of the Art of Fugue may have reflected his wish to surpass other recent publications. Fux's Gradus (of which Bach owned a copy) had included, beside the numerous illustrations of species counterpoint, several complete pieces, among them Mass movements in stile antico.

— The Keyboard Music of J.S. Bach by David Schulenberg

[Ken B]

Some very interesting stuff here. Kudos to David for posting the long excerpts which undermine his case!

[Ken B]

Because the expressive quality of the music changes with different scorings. When performed on keyboard there is a democratic equilibrium between the four parts as to sound quality, which is compromised in an arrangement for four musicians and instruments with different sound qualities, where one player tends to become focused - most often the uppermost part as in Göbel's recording for Archiv of the AoF. Here the music tends to stand out as an interplay between sound qualities instead an intrerplay between the "naked" voices. The different sound qualities of the voices steal the listeners attention, which I believe Bach intended should focus on their interplay. 

Bach's other keyboard music isn't devoid of awkward sections. ED: I see that Mandryka has written in more detail about this above.

The bolded bit expresses perfectly why I dislike most arrangements of this, such as the Marriner, but do like the more beige arrangements such as Fretwork or the Emersons. But in all cases I prefer keyboard.

[San Antone]

Some very interesting stuff here. Kudos to David for posting the long excerpts which undermine his case!

I guess you don't know what "my case" is.      whatever ...

[Florestan]

I said you assert all choices of performance are equally valid. You denied it. Ok, what standards apply, making some more valid than others.

Any performance which advertises the AoF played on a specific instrumental combo, and what they do is precisely playing the AoF on the specified combo, is valid. Eg: Dantone, Savall, Alessandrini or the saxophone quartet mentioned by Neal. Whether one likes it or not is a matter of personal taste and esthetic preferences.

Any performance in which "[the] performer announces he is going to play Mozart's PC 24. He does not touch the piano but conducts the orchestra in what sounds suspiciously like The unanswered Question by Ives." (I'm quoting you word for word) is invalid. Eg:..... (it's your example, actually, so you should fill it in.)

[aukhawk]

The ideal of imperfect musicians striving for unreachable perfection seems to have held some fascination for him, ...

No doubt born of necessity.  It seems he was surrounded by imperfect musicians for most of his life, and possibly there was not all that much striving either.

"If you could see Bach ... singing with one voice and playing his own parts, but watching over everything and bringing back to the rhythm and the beat, out of thirty or even forty musicians, the one with a nod, another by tapping withhis foot, a third with a warning finger, giving the right note to one from the top of his voice, to another from the bottom, and to a third from the middle of it - all alone, in the midst of the greatest din made by all the participants, and although he is executing the most difficult parts himself, noticing at once whenever and wherever a mistake occurs, holding everyone together, taking precautions everywhere, and repairing any unsteadiness ..."

Quote from Johann Matthias Gesner, Bach's headmaster at the Thomasschule.  Or again -

"His hearing was so fine that he was able to detect the slightest error even in the largest ensembles.  It is but a pity that it was only seldom he had the good fortune of finding a body of such performers as could have spared him unpleasant discoveries of this nature."

Quote from his obituary, authored by CPE Bach and JF Agricola.

To be honest, it sounds like a living hell.

My own view, in the keyboard vs ensemble debate, is that contrapuntal music takes on completely different characteristics, if each voice has a distinct timbre, as opposed to each voice having a similar timbre.  From a listening point of view, both are beautiful and stimulating, but in their very different ways.  On a keyboard the music when in full flow becomes a sort of quicksand of harmonic ambiguity, and as soon as each new fugal entry appears, plop! - its gone, into the quicksand.  If that sounds unedifying, it's actually how I like to hear this music best.

[Mandryka]

My own view, in the keyboard vs ensemble debate, is that contrapuntal music takes on completely different characteristics, if each voice has a distinct timbre, as opposed to each voice having a similar timbre.  From a listening point of view, both are beautiful and stimulating, but in their very different ways.  On a keyboard the music when in full flow becomes a sort of quicksand of harmonic ambiguity, and as soon as each new fugal entry appears, plop! - its gone, into the quicksand.  If that sounds unedifying, it's actually how I like to hear this music best.

You know I don't think it's a question of timbre, because an organist on the right sort of organ can, in principle, use a quasi-symphonic palate. I think the problem is that the music of AoF demands a harpsichord to really flourish -- because of the jaggedness. Look here's an example --  take the beautiful canon in the 10th. The music doesn't really have the flowing, connected lines which demand a sustained sound . By contrast, the melodies in the canons leap around wildly, and often break off suddenly. The AoF is made of pieces which are are floods of sudden inspirations; they manipulate a small number of motifs and modulate violently, careening from one end of the emotional spectrum to the other and back again. All this is typical for the chameleon-like, thrust-and-parry character of the harpsichord, and is utterly foreign to other instruments

Here's Koopman to prove the point

https://www.youtube.com/v/tro_gaczCxw&t=47m36s

[milk]

Bump

[San Antone]

Recent discovery - I think it is very good.

Lydia Maria Blank, cembalo (2023)

[Mandryka]

Recent discovery - I think it is very good.

Lydia Maria Blank, cembalo (2023)

It has definitely grown on me since it was released. At first I thought it was too light, but now I appreciate the delicacy of it.