The Art of Fugue BWV 1080

[mc ukrneal]

Too defensive,

You've erected a straw man to destroy, rather than engage with the interesting questions  - like the consequences of taking a work conceived for solo realisation and moving it to ensemble orchestration.

Most curious. Let's see - I'll call him defensive to put him down and puff myself up. Then I'll claim it's all straw man stuff without explaining. We'll ignore that some of the posters along the way were in agreement with these ideas. (Perhaps what interests you was not what interested me, and thus what interests me does not interest you or vice versa.) But then you talk about worrying about the consequences of playing a solo piece for ensemble as if there is something wrong that (all I will say is that all choices affect the end result). To top it all off, you've neatly brought up a new topic that wasn't being directly addressed in the first place.

[Ken B]

Most curious. Let's see - I'll call him defensive to put him down and puff myself up. Then I'll claim it's all straw man stuff without explaining. We'll ignore that some of the posters along the way were in agreement with these ideas. (Perhaps what interests you was not what interested me, and thus what interests me does not interest you or vice versa.) But then you talk about worrying about the consequences of playing a solo piece for ensemble as if there is something wrong that (all I will say is that all choices affect the end result). To top it all off, you've neatly brought up a new topic that wasn't being directly addressed in the first place.

The straw man is obvious. No one has argued that anyone sins in listening to transcriptions or modern instruments.

And the final point about solo vs ensemble was raised explicitly earlier in this discussion, I believe so Mandryka is not bringing in a new topic, not that there is anything wrong with new topics.

What interests me in this and similar debates is a principle. Evidence matters.

[San Antone]

The straw man is obvious. No one has argued that anyone sins in listening to transcriptions or modern instruments.

And the final point about solo vs ensemble was raised explicitly earlier in this discussion, I believe so Mandryka is not bringing in a new topic, not that there is anything wrong with new topics.

What interests me in this and similar debates is a principle. Evidence matters.

Yes, well, the evidence you allude to is so shaky that many musicologists discount it - which is why there is an ongoing debate, and why there are so many recordings of the work using a variety of instruments.  The music is such that it lends itself to being played under many different circumstances, despite your "evidence".

But what interests me in this and other debates, is not the debate itself - but the subject of the debate, in this case the AoF.  Whether it is played on a harpsichord, or a piano, or an ensemble of some sort - I enjoy the music.

That's enough for me.

[prémont]

Yes, well, the evidence you allude to is so shaky that many musicologists discount it - which is why there is an ongoing debate, and why there are so many recordings of the work using a variety of instruments.

Which musicologists? Don't say Göbel. As I wrote above his arguments are pure nonsens and reveal that he lacks an intimate knowledge of the harpsichord and its repertoire.

The music is such that it lends itself to being played under many different circumstances, despite your "evidence".

This can for obvious reasons also be said about most of Bach's other keyboard music

[San Antone]

Which musicologists? Don't say Göbel. As I wrote above his arguments are pure nonsens and reveal that he lacks an intimate knowledge of the harpsichord and its repertoire.

Do you deny that there has been a debate among scholars about how the AoF is to be performed?  The quote you refuted from Goebels was not his words but a paraphrase by Wikipedia.  Do you claim he is an ignoramus?

This can for obvious reasons also be said about most of Bach's other keyboard music

Besides the Musical Offering, Bach's other keyboard works are rarely performed with an ensemble (I've seen one recording of the WTC).  So, the fact that the AoF is done so often leads credence to the claim that many musicians reject an insistence about the use of a keyboard.

[Mandryka]

I've been listening to the late canons, with a view to seeing whether the music is expressive or intellectual or what. This, for example, the canon at the 10th

https://www.youtube.com/v/xL_kik1nyGk

(Who's playing?)

I mean it just seems obvious to me that it's both! And that's its genius. There is clearly an important mechanical, mathematical element. But it also sounds like poetry, moving poetry, to me.

[Mandryka]

Do you deny that there has been a debate among scholars about how the AoF is to be performed?  The quote you refuted from Goebels was not his words but a paraphrase by Wikipedia.  Do you claim he is an ignoramus?

Has there been any scholarly debate since Leonhardt published his monograph?

So, the fact that the AoF is done so often leads credence to the claim that many musicians reject an insistence about the use of a keyboard.

Musicians are one thing; scholars are another.

[San Antone]

Has there been any scholarly debate since Leonhardt published his monograph?

I don't know when Leonhardt published his monograph, but the proof that his argument is unconvincing is evident with the recordings that keep appearing of the AoF played on something other than a keyboard.

Musicians are one thing; scholars are another.

Many musicians, I'd say most in the early music field, are enough of a scholar to know what they are about.  You are creating a dichotomy that does not really exist in the real world; and I'd go further to say that a scholar who is not a musician has limited knowledge to offer, IMO.

[Ken B]

I don't know when Leonhardt published his monograph, but the proof that his argument is unconvincing is evident with the recordings that keep appearing of the AoF played on something other than a keyboard.


Many musicians, I'd say most in the early music field, are enough of a scholar to know what they are about.  You are creating a dichotomy that does not really exist in the real world; and I'd go further to say that a scholar who is not a musician has limited knowledge to offer, IMO.

Oh come on David. That a musician wants to play a piece, or gets paid for playing, is no argument at all about the origins or composition of that piece. I have heard brass quintets perform the big D- prelude and fugue. Does that constitute an argument it wasn't written for organ?

[Mandryka]

I don't know when Leonhardt published his monograph, but the proof that his argument is unconvincing is evident with the recordings that keep appearing of the AoF played on something other than a keyboard.


Many musicians, I'd say most in the early music field, are enough of a scholar to know what they are about.  You are creating a dichotomy that does not really exist in the real world; and I'd go further to say that a scholar who is not a musician has limited knowledge to offer, IMO.

Musicians do what they do because they like it and they (hope to) get paid for it etc. At least that's my experience.

[San Antone]

Oh come on David. That a musician wants to play a piece, or gets paid for playing, is no argument at all about the origins or composition of that piece. I have heard brass quintets perform the big D- prelude and fugue. Does that constitute an argument it wasn't written for organ?

Because you heard one performance of one of Bach's organ works played by a brass quintet changes nothing about its origin as a work for organ.  There is no debate about Bach's organ works; there has been one for the AoF.  Does your post qualify as a strawman?  I'll let others decide.

My point is that the evidence you and others have alluded to as to nailing down the AoF as a keyboard work is unconvincing to a plethora of musicians.  That is not true for any of Bach's other works.

Musicians do what they do because they like it and they (hope to) get paid for it etc. At least that's my experience.

I don't know what your experience is, but as a musician who has worked with a variety of musicians from both the classical and jazz worlds - they have integrity and knowledge about what they do and why they do what they do beyond getting paid for doing it.  Often the pay is not very much.  And as for liking it, well, of course they are doing what they think is good musically, and fits with a broad consensus if what is appropriate for the period, and is according to their taste.  At least most; I accept that there are some who are more crass than that - but I think they are in the minority.

I am kind of tired of this discussion and probably won't contribute much anymore. 

[prémont]

Do you deny that there has been a debate among scholars about how the AoF is to be performed?  The quote you refuted from Goebels was not his words but a paraphrase by Wikipedia.  Do you claim he is an ignoramus?

I have not read Göbel's own treatise, but suppose that the quote you posted was representative of his opinion. Or why quote it?

I do not deny, that there has been a debate on the subject, but the actual situation is, that all important musicologist's agree that the AoF is a keyboard work. And you seem to be unable to quote an important musicologist, who thinks otherwise and also has weighty arguments to support his opinion.

Besides the Musical Offering, Bach's other keyboard works are rarely performed with an ensemble (I've seen one recording of the WTC).  So, the fact that the AoF is done so often leads credence to the claim that many musicians reject an insistence about the use of a keyboard.

I referred to the character of Bach's other keyboard (preferably harpsichord) fugues, which lend themselves equally "easily" to transcription for instrumental ensemble. Mozart has done some. The fact that the AoF nowadays is the preferred target among arrangers says a lot about the arrangers of our time, but nothing about the AoF

[mc ukrneal]

Can I ask  a question to Ken, Mandryka and Premont - What is it that you want me/us to get out of this discussion. What is the conclusion you want embraced?

[prémont]

Can I ask  a question to Ken, Mandryka and Premont - What is it that you want me/us to get out of this discussion. What is the conclusion you want embraced?

My aim is to convince San Antone, that all our actual knowledge (and that is quite a lot) points to the fact that the AoF is conceived as a keyboard work, But which arrangements he or anyone else choose to listen to has no importance in this discussion.

[Mandryka]

I would like an investigation of

1. The expressiveness of the music and the mechanical side of the music
2. The effect of different realisations, in particular solo versus ensemble, keyboard versus non-keyboard,
3. The state of current understanding about authentic performance

[San Antone]

My aim is to convince San Antone, that all our actual knowledge (and that is quite a lot) points to the fact that the AoF is conceived as a keyboard work, But which arrangements he or anyone else choose to listen to has no importance in this discussion.

Okay, I will concede that AoF (if Bach actually conceived of it for any instrument) was conceived as a work for keyboard.  But I am not sure why that is important. 

In the book The Keyboard Music of J.S. Bach by David Schulenberg, although he includes the AoF in a book about the keyboard works, he really thinks that Bach wrote the work as a treatise to contain the culmination of his contrapuntal art - not necessarily meant to be performed.  That idea appeals to me a great deal.  It appeals to me for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is, for a master craftsman such as Bach to write a work for keyboard with obvious awkward sections is not credible.

So, you and others seem hellbent on proving something that I don't think can be proven, and not only that, something I don't even think is important or interesting.

[Ken B]

Can I ask  a question to Ken, Mandryka and Premont - What is it that you want me/us to get out of this discussion. What is the conclusion you want embraced?

I do not think that you can sensibly perform The Unanswered Question and call it a performance of Mozart's PC 24.    I don't think any else does either, but they insist on arguments that imply this. Florestan insists that any choice of how to perform is equally valid. That position implies the Ives as Mozart result. So there must be limits that even Florestan recognizes. What are they? Florestan's gut instinct? Whatever they are I think they must start from the contemporaneous evidence.  With AofF we have a particularly egregious example of that evidence having been suppressed and ignored. Which makes it an interesting case.

None of which has any bearing on what Florestan should listen to.

[Florestan]

Florestan insists that any choice of how to perform is equally valid.

Incorrect.

[Ken B]

Incorrect.

Then state your criteria or rules or standards please.

[Florestan]

Then state your criteria or rules or standards please.

Criteria, rules and standards for what?