The Art of Fugue BWV 1080

Started by James, January 11, 2008, 08:22:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

premont

Quote from: Ken B on December 19, 2019, 01:10:43 PM
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.

Precisely. But people nowadays seem to ignore it deliberately.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Florestan

Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 01:37:14 PM
Your question seems to imply, that you never have heard - or rather listened  to  - the AoF.

You're wrong. What my question does imply is this: which instrumental realization of the AoF did convince you that it is a very emotiional, expressive work?
Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

Florestan

Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 01:37:14 PM
This could mean

If "could mean" does not equate "conjecture" in your book then I'm afraid any further discussion is pointless. My English is not yours and viceversa.
Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

San Antone

Listening to this recording of the Art of Fugue



The Art of Fugue by Musica Antiqua Köln and Reinhard Goebel (he was one who argued against Leonhardt's "proofs")

Mandryka

Quote from: San Antone on December 19, 2019, 01:54:42 PM
Listening to this recording of the Art of Fugue



The Art of Fugue by Musica Antiqua Köln and Reinhard Goebel (he was one who argued against Leonhardt's "proofs")

What are his arguments? no, it's a distraction from what interests me more at the moment.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

San Antone

Quote from: Mandryka on December 19, 2019, 01:55:53 PM
What are his arguments? no, it's a distraction from what interests me more at the moment.

I don't have access to a source writen by him, my information only comes second-hand.  But Wikipedia does have a couple of points:

QuoteHowever, opponents of Leonhardt's theory such as Reinhard Goebel argue that:[This quote needs a citation]

    The Art of Fugue is not completely playable on a keyboard. Contrapunctus XII and XIII, for instance, cannot be played on a single keyboard without making awkward jumps or neglecting the main theme, especially on the keyboard instruments of Bach's day, such as the harpsichord or the early pianoforte, both of which lacked a sustain pedal. This is something Bach would never have allowed to happen. (Although Leonhardt notes that there are similarly 'unplayable' passages in The Well-Tempered Clavier.)

    The absence of the basso continuo is only logical since a fugue for string quartet wouldn't have one by default.

But, it may have been/probably (?) was conceived by Bach for a keyboard (but in fact we'll never really know), my interest in this debate is that it exists at all.  I don't understand the objections to the ensemble versions.

premont

Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 01:42:49 PM
You're wrong. What my question does imply is this: which instrumental realization of the AoF did convince you that it is a very emotiional, expressive work?

Very few, because arrangements for instrumental ensembles either have kind of diverting character (Alessandrini, AAM Berlin, Savall) or are overly educational about the fugal construction. The best instrumental arrangements are IMO the ones for a group of equal instruments (gamba quartet, recorders).

BTW my primary impression of the expressive potential of the AoF is a result of reading the score.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

San Antone

Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 02:02:36 PM
BTW my primary impression of the expressive potential of the AoF is a result of reading the score.

Many people think this is how Bach intended the work to be appreciated.  A kind of scholarly/theoretical "text" on the fugue; a treatise to equal, if not surpass, books by Fux and others of his time and before, on the instruction of fugue and counterpoint.

premont

Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 01:50:34 PM
If "could mean" does not equate "conjecture" in your book then I'm afraid any further discussion is pointless. My English is not yours and viceversa.

It is not as much conjecture as the guessing at instrumental ensemble.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Florestan

Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 02:02:36 PM
my primary impression of the expressive potential of the AoF is a result of reading the score.

I can't read scores. Should I take your word for it?
Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

Florestan

Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 02:07:37 PM
It is not as much conjecture as the guessing at instrumental ensemble.

Conjecture is not as much as guessing... pardon me, but you seem to have drunk more than I have.

Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

premont

Quote Göbel:
   The Art of Fugue is not completely playable on a keyboard. Contrapunctus XII and XIII, for instance, cannot be played on a single keyboard without making awkward jumps or neglecting the main theme, especially on the keyboard instruments of Bach's day, such as the harpsichord or the early pianoforte, both of which lacked a sustain pedal. This is something Bach would never have allowed to happen. (Although Leonhardt notes that there are similarly 'unplayable' passages in The Well-Tempered Clavier.) The absence of the basso continuo is only logical since a fugue for string quartet wouldn't have one by default.

This is why Bach arranged Cpt XII for two keyboards. As to Cpt. XII it is playable on one keyboard but difficult. And so are many of his other keyboard fugues. And as to string quartet: Bach never wrote for string quartet in our modern sense. And the compass of the parts in the AoF does not suit a string quartet. To claim that the AoF was meant for string quartet is nonsense.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

premont

γνῶθι σεαυτόν

premont

Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 02:16:43 PM
Conjecture is not as much as guessing... pardon me, but you seem to have drunk more than I have.

What I mean is: The assumption that the AoF was meant for keyboard is by far more certain, than the assumption that it was meant for instrumental ensemble (99% against 01%).

I don't know about you, but I am completely sober.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Florestan

Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

San Antone

Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 02:21:06 PM
Quote Göbel:
   The Art of Fugue is not completely playable on a keyboard. Contrapunctus XII and XIII, for instance, cannot be played on a single keyboard without making awkward jumps or neglecting the main theme, especially on the keyboard instruments of Bach's day, such as the harpsichord or the early pianoforte, both of which lacked a sustain pedal. This is something Bach would never have allowed to happen. (Although Leonhardt notes that there are similarly 'unplayable' passages in The Well-Tempered Clavier.) The absence of the basso continuo is only logical since a fugue for string quartet wouldn't have one by default.

This is why Bach arranged Cpt XII for two keyboards. As to Cpt. XII it is playable on one keyboard but difficult. And so are many of his other keyboard fugues. And as to string quartet: Bach never wrote for string quartet in our modern sense. And the compass of the parts in the AoF does not suit a string quartet. To claim that the AoF was meant for string quartet is nonsense.

QuoteBTW my primary impression of the expressive potential of the AoF is a result of reading the score.

Quote from: San Antone on December 19, 2019, 02:06:08 PM
Many people think this is how Bach intended the work to be appreciated.  A kind of scholarly/theoretical "text" on the fugue; a treatise to equal, if not surpass, books by Fux and others of his time and before, on the instruction of fugue and counterpoint.

That last, you may not have seen it, is really what I think the work is about.  But Mandryka is right - this discussion is off-topic for this thread.

Florestan

Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 02:28:06 PM
What I mean is: The assumption that the AoF was meant for keyboard is by far more certain, than the assumption that it was meant for instrumental ensemble (99% against 01%).

My own assumption is that we have no effing idea what the AoF was meant for.

Quote
I don't know about you, but I am completely sober.

Too bad for you.  :P
Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

Florestan

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 19, 2019, 06:53:28 AM
the (nonexistent until the 19th century) 'as written' philosophy

Amen! Thrice, that is!

(Except of course Ken B, who --- much to my disappointment --- seriously argues that three times four equals twenty.)
Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

premont

Quote from: San Antone on December 19, 2019, 02:06:08 PM
Many people think this is how Bach intended the work to be appreciated.  A kind of scholarly/theoretical "text" on the fugue; a treatise to equal, if not surpass, books by Fux and others of his time and before, on the instruction of fugue and counterpoint.

But I do not agree with this "overthought" theory. Bach's keyboard works are generally (other than their expressive qualities) intentionally instructive-  from the inventions all the way to the AoF, being models for the pupils to build upon. This does not mean, that they weren't meant to be played - on the contrary it meant, that they were to be performed among others by the pupils.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

premont

Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 02:47:18 PM
Amen! Thrice, that is!

(Except of course Ken B, who --- much to my disappointment --- seriously argues that three times four equals twenty.)

Well, you argues, that one percent equals ninety-nine.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν