The Art of Fugue BWV 1080

[San Antone]

I think that when you take a piece which was written for solo lute (eg Luis Milan fantasias) or a piece written for solo keyboard (like most of Art of Fugue), you lose something, you lose integrity, by transposing it to ensemble. It transforms the nature of the music in a really fundamental way. 

I note, without drawing any conclusions,  that Savall doesn't transpose viol music for colourful ensemble. Viol is  his instrument.

What he does is the equivalent, the other way round, of Reger's piano transcriptions of the Brandenburg Concertos.

Of course you are free to feel this was about transcriptions, but as Florestan pointed out the Art of Fugue has no instrument indicated in the score, and has been recorded very often for string quartet (Emersons), viol ensembles (Fretwork), and a variety of other ensembles.  Both editions of the Art of Fugue are written in open score, where each voice is written on its own staff, which could indicate a keyboard instrument (although some fugues cannot be played on a single keyboard without making awkward jumps or neglecting the main theme) but could also be interpreted to mean any group of instruments suitable to the range of the parts, or as some scholars have thought an intellectual exercise not intended for performance.

The Musical Offering was probably intended for a keyboard, and could have been meant for the fortepiano which Bach knew of and in fact several of which were owned by Frederick the Great, who showed them to Bach, who tried them out.  Bach liked them although recognizing some technical problems which he communicated to the builders who made the corrections - much to Bach's satisfaction. 

But there is one movement, the trio sonata, which is scored for flute, violin and basso continuo.

In any event, I do not harbor your kind of hang-ups concerning transcriptions and am free to enjoy a variety of recordings of these works and do not feel that I am listening to them with compromised integrity.

[Ken B]

I'd be insulting your intelligence if I took this question seriously. Please don't insult mine by pretending you were asking it seriously.

I am asking it perfectly seriously.

And AofF is for keyboard. This was understood at the time of Bach's death and by his sons.

These are not unrelated issues. Nor is this. You want to translate The Charterhouse of Parma into English. Can Eliot's Middlemarch be counted as a translation?

It's not "everything is permitted", right?

PS you ignore the instrument indication that is written on the AofF score .... There is a section marked "for 2 keyboards". So not nada at all. For two, as opposed of course to the rest of it, which is for one.

[prémont]

AoF has no instrumentation whatsoever specified. None, nada, niente, nimic.

This is pseudo-argumentation. AoF is a keyboard work.

[Florestan]

AoF is a keyboard work.

Please provide irrefutable evidence.

[Ken B]

Please provide irrefutable evidence.

Davitt Moroney has written an article in English, and I have seen a translation of an essay by Leonhardt. Both lay out the arguments very clearly.

[San Antone]

Davitt Moroney has written an article in English, and I have seen a translation of an essay by Leonhardt. Both lay out the arguments very clearly.

Each argument for keyboard also has arguments against.  we simply do not know what Bach intended.  He may not have intended it to be performed at all, which has also been suggested.

And I am mystified why there is even a debate.  The more ways of playing this great work, the better, IMO.

[prémont]

Of course you are free to feel this was about transcriptions, but as Florestan pointed out the Art of Fugue has no instrument indicated in the score, and has been recorded very often for string quartet (Emersons), viol ensembles (Fretwork), and a variety of other ensembles.  Both editions of the Art of Fugue are written in open score, where each voice is written on its own staff, which could indicate a keyboard instrument (although some fugues cannot be played on a single keyboard without making awkward jumps or neglecting the main theme) but could also be interpreted to mean any group of instruments suitable to the range of the parts, or as some scholars have thought an intellectual exercise not intended for performance.

As should be well known by now it was common practice in the Baroque age to publish contrapuntal music for keyboard instruments in open score. There are many examples of this e.g. Roberday's fugues and caprices. So this fact does not exclude that the work is for keyboard, rather it makes it extremely likely, that it is about keyboard music.

Also the myth that the work can't be played on one keyboard is wrong. Though Bach realized the difficulties of the three-part mirror fugue and arranged it for two keyboards.

And you just need to listen to the AoF to find out, that it was meant to be performed. One can equally well consider a lot of Bach's other keyboard works to be intellectual excercises (CÜ III, Goldberg variations e.g.), but no one would claim, that they weren't meant to performed.

The Musical Offering was probably intended for a keyboard....

Yes, I also believe that it was concieved as a keyboard work except the trio sonata (and the canone perpetuo which also is scored for flute, violin and continuo).

It is of course evident, that arrangements for different instruments change the equilibrium of the voices in the fugues and transform them into other kinds of music - one of the most strange examples being Savall's AoF, with his choice of odd and unbalanced instruments.

But nobody will lift an eyebrow because you listen to and enjoy arrangements of keyboard music for instrumental ensembles. And of course you are aware they are arrangements.

[mc ukrneal]

I am asking it perfectly seriously.

And AofF is for keyboard. This was understood at the time of Bach's death and by his sons.

These are not unrelated issues. Nor is this. You want to translate The Charterhouse of Parma into English. Can Eliot's Middlemarch be counted as a translation?

It's not "everything is permitted", right?

PS you ignore the instrument indication that is written on the AofF score .... There is a section marked "for 2 keyboards". So not nada at all. For two, as opposed of course to the rest of it, which is for one.

What you really seem to be getting at with all this is: At what point does the work in question get so far away from it's original conception that it should no longer be considered that work? Isn't this what you are really driving at? I feel like we had this conversation with variations and transcription. Then we dabbled a bit with translations. But I think the argument is essentially the same one. Would you agree with my summary (even if you might quibble over some of the language I have used) that this is what we are really arguing about?

Personally, I would take San Antone's statement even further when he says (and I love it):

I do not harbor your kind of hang-ups concerning transcriptions and am free to enjoy a variety of recordings of these works and do not feel that I am listening to them with compromised integrity.

I am happy for ANY work to be played on any instrument or group of instruments. The question that interests me isn't what MIGHT (or might not) be lost, but what is GAINED. I am happy to hear the AoF played on saxophone. Bach clearly never intended for a saxophone to play this piece (it didn't even exist in his time). But why should that matter? And why shouldn't we continue to call it the AoF?

[Florestan]

I am asking it perfectly seriously.

You want to translate The Charterhouse of Parma into English. Can Eliot's Middlemarch be counted as a translation?

I refuse to think and believe that you can in all earnest stoop to such levels of contrarian absurdity or absurd contrarianism.

But just in case you stil persist on being serious, then I do question your intelligence, much as it pains me. Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Amen.

[San Antone]

As should be well known by now it was common practice in the Baroque age to publish contrapuntal music for keyboard instruments in open score. There are many examples of this e.g. Roberday's fugues and caprices. So this fact does not exclude that the work is for keyboard, rather it makes it extremely likely, that it is about keyboard music.

Also the myth that the work can't be played on one keyboard is wrong. Though Bach realized the difficulties of the three-part mirror fugue and arranged it for two keyboards.

This is true - but Bach left no indication which keyboard instrument it was written for; and the difficulties indicate something other than standard practice for Bach.

And you just need to listen to the AoF to find out, that it was meant to be performed. One can equally well consider a lot of Bach's other keyboard works to be intellectual excercises (CÜ III, Goldberg variations e.g.), but no one would claim, that they weren't meant to performed.

I do listen to it, often - but rarely on keyboard.

Yes, I also believe that it was concieved as a keyboard work except the trio sonata (and the canone perpetuo which also is scored for flute, violin and continuo).

It is of course evident, that arrangements for different instruments change the equilibrium of the voices in the fugues and transform them into other kinds of music - one of the most strange examples being Savall's AoF, with his choice of odd and unbalanced instruments.

But nobody will lift an eyebrow because you listen to and enjoy arrangements of keyboard music for instrumental ensembles. And of course you are aware they are arrangements.

The same is true for those of you who insist that AoF was written for harpsichord.  I find both works benefit from the different timbres.

And I said earlier - the more ways to hear these works, the better, IMO.

[Florestan]

Davitt Moroney has written an article in English, and I have seen a translation of an essay by Leonhardt. Both lay out the arguments very clearly.

Argument form authority. You should know better.

[Florestan]

Each argument for keyboard also has arguments against.  we simply do not know what Bach intended.  He may not have intended it to be performed at all, which has also been suggested.

And I am mystified why there is even a debate.  The more ways of playing this great work, the better, IMO.

This.

[prémont]

This is true - but Bach left no indication which keyboard instrument it was written for; and the difficulties indicate something other than standard practice for Bach.

Yes, maybe he thought that the entire work should be played on two harpsichords, and each harpsichordist should play one part with each hand.

The same is true for those of you who insist that AoF was written for harpsichord.  I find both works benefit from the different timbres.

And I said earlier - the more ways to hear these works, the better, IMO.

But this is where we differ, I think the AoF looses in character by different timbres. The AoF is a very emotionally expressive work. The different timbres impose a predominantly analytical and intellectual way of listening upon the listener because every entrance of the subject becomes focused.

[Ken B]

What you really seem to be getting at with all this is: At what point does the work in question get so far away from it's original conception that it should no longer be considered that work? Isn't this what you are really driving at? I feel like we had this conversation with variations and transcription. Then we dabbled a bit with translations. But I think the argument is essentially the same one. Would you agree with my summary (even if you might quibble over some of the language I have used) that this is what we are really arguing about?

Personally, I would take San Antone's statement even further when he says (and I love it):
I am happy for ANY work to be played on any instrument or group of instruments. The question that interests me isn't what MIGHT (or might not) be lost, but what is GAINED. I am happy to hear the AoF played on saxophone. Bach clearly never intended for a saxophone to play this piece (it didn't even exist in his time). But why should that matter? And why shouldn't we continue to call it the AoF?

Yes I agree with your summary but am proceeding obliquely. I am laying a trap for Andrei; don't tell him.
The answer is, we depend on the contemporaneous evidence. That's how we decide what words or score mean. And some contemporaneous evidence is clearer than others.

[Ken B]

Argument form authority. You should know better.

It's not an argument from authority. It's a suggestion you google. That's why I mentioned the articles are available rather than just giving you names.

[Mandryka]

I believe that way he writes the fugues suggests keyboard, the sort of stretches he avoids and uses.

By the way, there's a keyboard score for some of the cpt that Bach wrote for one of his kids or students, I can't remember the details.

[Florestan]

maybe he thought

In other words, pure conjecture --- no better or worse than any number of other conjectures being made about AoF.

The AoF is a very emotionally expressive work.

How do you know that?

[Florestan]

I am happy for ANY work to be played on any instrument or group of instruments. The question that interests me isn't what MIGHT (or might not) be lost, but what is GAINED. I am happy to hear the AoF played on saxophone. Bach clearly never intended for a saxophone to play this piece (it didn't even exist in his time). But why should that matter? And why shouldn't we continue to call it the AoF?

This, too.

[Florestan]

I believe

Once again, pure conjecture.

[prémont]

In other words, pure conjecture --- no better or worse than any number of other conjectures being made about AoF.

The conjecture wasn't about harpsichord versus instrumental ensemble but about one harpsichord versus two harpsichords. After all Bach rewrote one of the mirror fugues for two harpsichords, because this fugue is difficult to play on one harpsichord. This could mean, that the entire work is for two harpsichords. But that the way of writing is keyboard idiomatic all through has, as Ken B wrote above, since long been proven by Leonhardt and Moroney.

How do you know that?

Your question seems to imply, that you never have heard - or rather listened  to  - the AoF.