The Art of Fugue BWV 1080

[San Antone]

Another ignoramus, according to Ken, Premont and Mandryka - Ottavio Dantone

It's widely accepted now Bach really intended The Art of Fugue as a keyboard work, but Ottavio Dantone thinks otherwise. Some of the fugues, he writes, are impossible to play as written on a harpsichord. Instead, he opts for an ensemble of string quartet, harpsichord and organ, dividing the numbers between the instruments in a very skilful and effective way – the use of the two keyboards together, for instance, is unexpectedly striking.

      

[Ken B]

Criteria, rules and standards for what?

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

[Ken B]

Another ignoramus, according to Ken, Premont and Mandryka - Octavio Dantone



      

Well, based on the quotation you give he is certainly wrong about a factual claim. I have heard it played on a harpsichord, ergo it is possible. And the really tricky bit is actually marked for 2 keyboards.
Certainly it seems to take great skill.  8)Can someone remind me. In Bach's time there was a man renowned for his keyboard virtuosity. Commanded to perform before the king. Anyone remember his name?

[San Antone]

Well, based on the quotation you give he is certainly wrong about a factual claim. I have heard it played on a harpsichord, ergo it is possible. And the really tricky bit is actually marked for 2 keyboards.
Certainly it seems to take great skill.  8)Can someone remind me. In Bach's time there was a man renowned for his keyboard virtuosity. Commanded to perform before the king. Anyone remember his name?

The only way certain sections can be played on a harpsichord is if they are re-written (or did you miss that in the quote?): "Ottavio Dantone thinks otherwise. Some of the fugues, he writes, are impossible to play as written on a harpsichord."  It takes more than "skill" some sections are so awkward as to be impossible and require being re-written.

I doubt a craftsman such as Bach, "man renowned for his keyboard virtuosity", would do that if he really intended the work to be performed on the keyboards of his time.

[Mandryka]

You may have to make some adjustments to the score to make one of the pieces (I think just one) fit the normal span of two hands. Bar 77 of Contrapunctus VI, a 4 in Stylo Francese.  This is very common in Bach's keyboard music. You have exactly this problem in the following places:

Brandenburg 5, 1st movement, m. 192
D minor English Suite, at the end of the allemande
G minor English Suite, m. 24
Canonic Variations v. 5 m. 55
Four places in WTC1 -- I can provide the details if anyone wants.

In cpt IX m. 94, Cpt IV m. 35, Cpt V m. 41 and m. 60 you have a problem for keyboard because two voices meet at one note, but the duration of one is greater than the duration of the other -- which isn't possible to be heard on a harpsichord or clavichord. You have exactly this problem in

CU 3 Vater Unser (pedaliter) m.13
Orgelbuchlein Christe du lamm gottes m. 3
and three places in WTC 1.

[prémont]

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.

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. 

..., for a master craftsman such as Bach to write a work for keyboard with obvious awkward sections is not credible.

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

[Mandryka]

What I don't fully understand is why people think that it's a harpsichord piece and not an organ piece -- on organ the problem of the two voices meeting on the same note goes presumably, because you can give each note a different registration. Or have I misunderstood something?

(Similarly for some of WTC 1 I suppose)

[San Antone]

You may have to make some adjustments to the score to make one of the pieces (I think just one) fit the normal span of two hands. Bar 77 of Contrapunctus VI, a 4 in Stylo Francese.  This is very common in Bach's keyboard music. You have exactly this problem in the following places:

Brandenburg 5, 1st movement, m. 192
D minor English Suite, at the end of the allemande
G minor English Suite, m. 24
Canonic Variations v. 5 m. 55
Four places in WTC1 -- I can provide the details if anyone wants.

In cpt IX m. 94, Cpt IV m. 35, Cpt V m. 41 and m. 60 you have a problem for keyboard because two voices meet at one note, but the duration of one is greater than the duration of the other -- which isn't possible to be heard on a harpsichord or clavichord. You have exactly this problem in

CU 3 Vater Unser (pedaliter) m.13
Orgelbuchlein Christe du lamm gottes m. 3
and three places in WTC 1.

In the AoF Contrapunctus XII and XIII cannot be played on a single keyboard without making awkward jumps or neglecting the main theme.  I would have to pull out the scores of the works you mention in order to verify your other examples.  But in any event, I think they are far more minor than what is found in the AoF.

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. 

What you consider "compromised" others, like myself, find interesting and offering timbre variety and expanded dynamic and expressive opportunities.

You never responded to my point "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."

Schulenberg's idea is the most interesting thing I've learned about the AoF.  It is far more interesting than to worry about how to perform it on a harpsichord, or whether it is best played on a keyboard or ensemble.

For me, Dantone's group is a fine example of bridging both camps, using the harpsichord for manhy of the sections, and with the organ, in imaginative manner - and then the string quartet for even more variety of sound.  His recording is about the best, IMO.

[Mandryka]

In Cpt XV there's a low G in the lower voice. The only instruments available to Bach which had it are keyboard and bassoon and double bass. But the bassoon and double bass can't play high notes in the lower voice.

Cpt XVII is specified "a 2. Clav."

[prémont]

What I don't fully understand is why people think that it's a harpsichord piece and not an organ piece -- on organ the problem of the two voices meeting on the same note goes presumably, because you can give each note a different registration. Or have I misunderstood something?

(Similarly for some of WTC 1 I suppose)

The work is conceived for keyboard, this can also mean organ. One would have to use manual stops only, and the awkward parts could be played with help of attached pedal, the pedal just coupled to the manual without any pedalstops drawn. This would solve the problem of playability.

But it is impractical for one player to play two parts on one manual and two parts on another manual, because the two middle parts must be distributed between the two hands, so that one hand sometimes plays three parts and the other hand only one part. This excludes the use of two manuals with different registrations, unless you use two players, who distribute the four parts between their four hands. And if you want to give each part its own registration, you can just as well arrange the work for wind band.

Alternatively two harpsichords could be used. The arrangement of the three-part mirror fugue for two Klaviere points in that direction.

[JBS]

What I don't fully understand is why people think that it's a harpsichord piece and not an organ piece -- on organ the problem of the two voices meeting on the same note goes presumably, because you can give each note a different registration. Or have I misunderstood something?

(Similarly for some of WTC 1 I suppose)

Wouldn't a two manual harpsichord do that as well?

I prefer multi-instrument recordings. On a one instrument performance, the voices can be hard to distinguish.

[amw]

In the AoF Contrapunctus XII and XIII cannot be played on a single keyboard without making awkward jumps or neglecting the main theme.

This quote has been repeated multiple times but I haven't seen any specific passages cited—would be interested to see what Goebel claims is impossible. In any case Fugue XX from WTC I cannot be played as written on a single keyboard but there are plenty of reports of Bach himself & his students playing it on a normal harpsichord or clavichord and realising the difficulties as best as possible. A certain amount of impossibility is built into all of Bach's works—eg the Sonatas and Partitas for violin are more or less unplayable but at no point does this seem to have bothered Bach. The ideal of imperfect musicians striving for unreachable perfection seems to have held some fascination for him, & his work is full of things that "sound bad" (eg awkward leaps, uncomfortably low or high notes in vocal parts, etc) but have a spiritual-hermeneutic purpose.

[Mandryka]

On a one instrument performance, the voices can be hard to distinguish.

They shoudn't be -- maybe on a modern piano you have that problem but on a proper harpsichord or clavichord or organ, you shouldn't have that problem

[Mandryka]

but have a spiritual-hermeneutic purpose.

Ferneyhough avant la lettre!

(I don't recall seeing this claim about awkwardness before. -- I may have forgotten)

[Mandryka]

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.

Is he talking about the version published in Bach's lifetime, or the version with all the canons?

anyway, this idea seems difficult to hold given that Bach himself actually rewrote one of the fugues for keyboard! To be played on keyboard. Interesting to compare the performance version Bach made with the open score.

[prémont]

You never responded to my point "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."

Oh yes I did, see reply 58 in this thread.

For me, Dantone's group is a fine example of bridging both camps, using the harpsichord for manhy of the sections, and with the organ, in imaginative manner - and then the string quartet for even more variety of sound.  His recording is about the best, IMO.

Mandryka mentioned the idea of making the music "easy listening", and this is in my view what Dantone, Alessandrini, Savall and others do. The different timbres add color, which is easier to the ear, but which distracts from listening to what happens in this music. I am sure, that the pure counterpoint was Bach's point with the AoF.

How a homogeneous sound freed from distracting instrumental color influences ones listening, you can hear in Liszt's congenial arrangements for piano of Beethovens symphonies. Suddenly one is much more aware of what is happening in the music.

[prémont]

Wouldn't a two manual harpsichord do that as well?

This would make the different parts sound different as with two manuals on an organ, unless you use the manual coupler, but then you can only use the upper manuals 8' .

[San Antone]

Oh yes I did, see reply 58 in this thread.

Mandryka mentioned the idea of making the music "easy listening", and this is in my view what Dantone, Alessandrini, Savall and others do. The different timbres add color, which is easier to the ear, but which distracts from listening to what happens in this music. I am sure, that the pure counterpoint was Bach's point with the AoF.

How a homogeneous sound freed from distracting instrumental color influences ones listening, you can hear in Liszt's congenial arrangements for piano of Beethovens symphonies. Suddenly one is much more aware of what is happening in the music.

I am able to hear the counterpoint better because of the different timbres.  Bottomline: I enjoy both keyboard performances/recordings and those using other instruments.  I just rebel against all doctrinaire statements about interpretative choices in playing any work.

I like this:

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

Late in his life, much like Beethoven, he might have written what he heard in his mind's ear knowing it couldn't be played but not caring.

[amw]

Late in his life, much like Beethoven, he might have written what he heard in his mind's ear knowing it couldn't be played but not caring.

No, this is true throughout Bach's life—some of the early cantatas are just as hard on the singers as AoF is on the keyboardist. I think that although Bach's music is always instrumentally conceived (and for specific instruments, and more to the point specific physical exertions) he often puts on the page things that cannot be perfectly realised (e.g. four-voice chords on the violin) so that the performer will struggle both physically and psychologically. And these points of impossibility coincide with particular moments in the musical structure: e.g. the unplayable pedal point in WTC I Fugue XX is a final cadence meant to ground the most academically "perfect" piece in Book I (i.e. one that explores every possible permutation of its subject, and has no episodes or "filler"), the most difficult moments in the fugue of the C major violin sonata are also the moments of the greatest harmonic tension. Physical, spiritual and musical difficulties almost always coincide, and everything is meant to be played, but it is not necessarily meant to sound "easy" or "in good taste".

[San Antone]

No, this is true throughout Bach's life—some of the early cantatas are just as hard on the singers as AoF is on the keyboardist. I think that although Bach's music is always instrumentally conceived (and for specific instruments, and more to the point specific physical exertions) he often puts on the page things that cannot be perfectly realised (e.g. four-voice chords on the violin) so that the performer will struggle both physically and psychologically. And these points of impossibility coincide with particular moments in the musical structure: e.g. the unplayable pedal point in WTC I Fugue XX is a final cadence meant to ground the most academically "perfect" piece in Book I (i.e. one that explores every possible permutation of its subject, and has no episodes or "filler"), the most difficult moments in the fugue of the C major violin sonata are also the moments of the greatest harmonic tension. Physical, spiritual and musical difficulties almost always coincide, and everything is meant to be played, but it is not necessarily meant to sound "easy" or "in good taste".

Those might be easier realized with the Baroque curved bow.  But I take your point. 

Here's some excerpts from The Keyboard Music of J.S. Bach by David Schulenberg.

Regardless of the keyboard instrument used, the music is difficult to play, especially if taken at the relatively lively tempo implied by the alla breve notation of most movements. Like other late works of Bach, much of the Art of Fugue abandons the norms of idiomatic Baroque keyboard writing, making it impossible to sight read—one explanation for the work's original lack of success in an age when rehearsal in the modern sense was a rare luxury. As in many a twentieth-century piece—and in the six-part ricercar—it is necessary to work out fingerings with great care and to follow them religiously if one is to play without stumbling. The quasi-vocal style of the fugues might suggest a hyperlegato approach. But the more articulate manner of performance advocated here for comparable works (e.g., the C-major fugue in WTC1) will spare the player many finger substitutions and other unnecessary complications of nineteenth-century piano fingering.

Only the two mirror fugues require abnormally wide stretches of the hand; a single player might manage them more readily on an instrument with the narrow keys that Bach's pupil Agricola favored.  Otherwise these pieces are more easily performed by two players on two instruments, as Bach directed in his arrangement of the three-part mirror fugue. The arrangement includes an additional free fourth part, and although probably not meant for publication, it appeared in the print under the rubric a 2 Clav:. The latter must mean separate keyboard instruments, assumed to be harpsichords (clavicembali) in NBA VIII/ 2.1 but possibly clavichords according to C. P. E. Bach.

Although the Art of Fugue remains "clavier" music, Bach cannot have expected most purchasers to play it so much as to study it. Nevertheless, that they would have done so at a keyboard instrument was apparently self-evident; Mattheson implies as much in a brief 1752 report of the work (BD 3: 13–4 [item 647]/ NBR, 377).