Hey folks, I'm looking for a version of this work on disc played on the harpsichord (or plucked kbd) with the right sound & recording, any suggestions?
I don't know what you mean by "right sound and recording".
Well, I only own (and have only ever owned) one recording of the Art of Fugue, but it is of a harpsichord and has a very, very beautiful tone indeed. It features harpsichordist Sebastien Guillot and was only recorded last year, I think. Elsewhere on the forum I've described it as this: "It feels like a cold winter day ... a fire in the fireplace, snow pattering against the windows, and you've just stepped in from the mush and are peeling off your hat and mittens ... hot cocoa beckons ..."
I will, however, bow to the recommendations of other listeners who know the piece better, as their picks will certainly be from a position of somewhat greater authority. :)
Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2008, 07:28:56 PM
Well, I only own (and have only ever owned) one recording of the Art of Fugue, but it is of a harpsichord and has a very, very beautiful tone indeed. It features harpsichordist Sebastien Guillot and was only recorded last year, I think. Elsewhere on the forum I've described it as this: "It feels like a cold winter day ... a fire in the fireplace, snow pattering against the windows, and you've just stepped in from the mush and are peeling off your hat and mittens ... hot cocoa beckons ..."
I will, however, bow to the recommendations of other listeners who know the piece better, as their picks will certainly be from a position of somewhat greater authority. :)
Although the Guillot is a fine performance, I do think there are better ones to be had:
Robert Hill/Hanssler
Kenneth Gilbert/Archiv
Gustav Leonhardt/Vanguard
Davitt Moroney/Harmonia Mundi
Gilbert's my favorite, but I must caution that he doesn't include the last unfinished fugue.
Quote from: Don on January 12, 2008, 11:55:29 AM
Although the Guillot is a fine performance, I do think there are better ones to be had:
Robert Hill/Hanssler
Another vote for Robert Hill - which is my favourite.
(http://www.jpc.de/image/w300/front/0/4010276016342.jpg)
Q
Reinhard Goebel and Musica Antiqua Koln - not all on Harpsichord, some is string quartet, but its my favorite recording.
Coming down the pipe from DG:
Quote from: donwyn on January 14, 2008, 09:16:30 PM
Coming down the pipe from DG:
That looks like Star Trek. Seriously.
Quote from: Brian on January 14, 2008, 09:17:52 PM
That looks like Star Trek. Seriously.
As in Mr. Sulu?
Quote from: donwyn on January 14, 2008, 09:16:30 PM
Coming down the pipe from DG:
Wow. I hope it will be a good one.
I stand by the Sokolov in the piano versions.
Quote from: bassio on January 15, 2008, 08:18:18 AM
I stand by the Sokolov in the piano versions.
Which other piano-versions have you actually heard?
Quote from: premont on January 16, 2008, 01:50:04 AM
Which other piano-versions have you actually heard?
The versions I am aware of .. Nikolayeva and Gould. If you have heard better versions (on the piano in particular) then please recommend them to me.
There are many Goldbergs out there, but few BWV1080 on the piano. I wonder why? Maybe due to the fact that it was not marked by Bach for the keyboard specifically on the score.
Quote from: bassio on January 16, 2008, 05:07:44 AM
The versions I am aware of .. Nikolayeva and Gould. If you have heard better versions (on the piano in particular) then please recommend them to me.
Not necessarily better, but excellent piano versions as well:
Evgeny Koroliov/Hanssler
Joanna MacGregor/Collins
Edward Aldwell/Biddulph
I didn't notice any of these three available on ArkivMusic, so they might be hard to find.
Another vote for
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41HsY8D%2BdeL._SS500_.jpg)
Quote from: bassio on January 16, 2008, 05:07:44 AM
The versions I am aware of .. Nikolayeva and Gould. If you have heard better versions (on the piano in particular) then please recommend them to me.
There are many Goldbergs out there, but few BWV1080 on the piano. I wonder why? Maybe due to the fact that it was not marked by Bach for the keyboard specifically on the score.
OK, these are the piano versions, I know or know about so far. My listening experience is a bit incomplete, since I only recently became interested in piano interpretations of this work. This is of course nothing but my opinion:
Hans Petermandl, my preferred version, magistral and noble, reminds of Hills harpsichord version even if he doesn´t pull the music as hard as Hill.
David Lively (a live version) stylish, exiting, displaying the growing intensity in the course of the work to great effect.
Thierry Mechler much like Lively, making the work an integrated whole.
Ivo Janssenand
Risto Lauriala, both solid interpretations, more introvert and subtle in expression than Lively and Mechler.
Charles Rosen A bit didactic I think. From a musical point of view he is not as integrated as the above mentioned.
Grigory Sokolovand
Evgeni Koroliov are both too romantic for me. They abuse the dynamic possibilities of the piano and play almost all the Contrapuncti in an exaggerated crescendo (whispering in the beginning and hammering in the end).
Zoltan Kocsis on the other hand is cold perfection from beginning to end, unemotional.
Glenn Gould complacent, mannered, only heard a part of it.
Pi-hsien Chen is in my listening queue.
Edward Aldwelland
Pierre Laurent Aimard , ordered both recently, not received yet.
I have neither heard
Tatiana Nikolayeva nor
Vladimir Feltsman nor
Joanna MacGregor.
Quote from: (: premont :) on January 16, 2008, 02:47:58 PM
OK, these are the piano versions, I know or know about so far. My listening experience is a bit incomplete, since I only recently became interested in piano interpretations of this work. This is of course nothing but my opinion:
Thierry Mechler much like Lively, making the work an integrated whole.
[
What is this, premont? The only Mechler AoF I can find is this one on organ
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_250/MI0001/134/MI0001134199.jpg?partner=allrovi.com)
Quote from: Mandryka on July 12, 2013, 01:27:09 PM
What is this, premont? The only Mechler AoF I can find is this one on organ
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_250/MI0001/134/MI0001134199.jpg?partner=allrovi.com)
Thierry Mechler has recorded The Art of Fugue twice. The one recording on organ and the other on piano. In the piano version he plays Moroney´s (rather good - everything is relative) conclusion to the unfinished fugue. I shall find the exact information and post it to morrow. Well his organ version is also interesting, very intense all through.
This one:
http://www.amazon.de/Die-Kunst-Fuge-Mechler-Thierry/dp/B0000631A2/ref=sr_1_13?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1373666713&sr=1-13&keywords=thierry+mechler
Well the piano version has disappeared without trace, but the organ record is easy to find. There are loads of piano versions on spotify, but the ones I keep going back to are Rosen's and Riemer's, and sometimes the very dramatic one from Rangell. But I like Rosen's way of playing the counterpoint a lot, and I like the fact that he's not too insistent and intense. I've ordered Petermandl but it hasn't arrived yet.
Three others which have caught my attention recently are the one from the Danish Lin ensemble for piano, cello and clarinet. The clarinet gives the music a nice feel for me, I can imagine the soundtrack for an Eric Rohmer film! I don't say it's a particularly deep record, I just find it really affable music making, and in a way quite revealing - who would have thought that the music could sound so friendly?
And I've been intrigued by an old string quartet record from the Portland Sting Quartet. I like the way they really do treat all the voices equally, so it sounds like something very complex and interesting - they make no attempt to simplify things by directing your attention here or there. They do some things which I bet will annoy you, like big dynamic ranges.
And I downloaded Bradley Brookshire's, which I enjoyed much much more than his French Suites. Sometimes I think he's really emotionally candid (cpt 5 for example)
Quote from: Mandryka on December 19, 2019, 07:12:19 AM
a piece written for solo keyboard (like most of Art of Fugue),
AoF has no instrumentation whatsoever specified. None, nada, niente, nimic.
Quote
you lose something, you lose integrity, by transposing it to ensemble. It transforms the nature of the music in a really fundamental way.
What is the nature of a music written without any specified instrumentation?
Quote from: Mandryka on December 19, 2019, 07:12:19 AM
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.
8)
Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 11:19:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 11:14:16 AM
AoF has no instrumentation whatsoever specified. None, nada, niente, nimic.
This is pseudo-argumentation. AoF is a keyboard work.
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 11:59:12 AM
AoF is a keyboard work.
Please provide irrefutable evidence.
Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 12:35:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Ken B on December 19, 2019, 12:38:26 PM
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.
Quote from: San Antone on December 19, 2019, 11:36:54 AM
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.
Quote from: San Antone
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.
Quote from: Ken B on December 19, 2019, 11:56:33 AM
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):
QuoteI 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?
Quote from: Ken B on December 19, 2019, 11:56:33 AM
I am asking it perfectly seriously.
Quote
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.
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 12:41:08 PM
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.
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 12:41:08 PMAnd 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.
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 12:41:08 PMYes, 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.
Quote from: Ken B on December 19, 2019, 12:38:26 PM
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.
Quote from: San Antone on December 19, 2019, 12:40:46 PM
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.
Quote from: San Antone on December 19, 2019, 12:46:41 PM
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.
Quote from: San Antone
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.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 19, 2019, 12:45:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 12:47:24 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 01:06:03 PM
maybe he thought
In other words, pure conjecture --- no better or worse than any number of other conjectures being made about AoF.
QuoteThe AoF is a very emotionally expressive work.
How do you know that?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 19, 2019, 12:45:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 01:23:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Florestan
How do you know that?
Your question seems to imply, that you never have heard - or rather listened to - the AoF.
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.
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?
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.
Listening to this recording of the Art of Fugue
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/818x09rtQnL._SS500_.jpg)
The Art of Fugue by Musica Antiqua Köln and Reinhard Goebel (he was one who argued against Leonhardt's "proofs")
Quote from: San Antone on December 19, 2019, 01:54:42 PM
Listening to this recording of the Art of Fugue
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/818x09rtQnL._SS500_.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 02:14:29 PM
I can't read scores. Should I take your word for it?
Yes.
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
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.
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 02:53:56 PM
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.
Quite. Now, what do you think: Are the Goldberg Variations meant ot be played all of them in a row for a stiff and still reverential listening, be it in a live concert or at home? Is the WTC meant to be played ditto?
Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 02:59:45 PM
Quite. Now, what do you think: Are the Goldberg Variations meant ot be played all of them in a row for a stiff and still reverential listening, be it in a live concert or at home? Is the WTC meant to be played ditto?
Bach is reported by one of his pupils to have played the entire WTC book I straight through for him at three different events. But this was probably not the usual way, since this pupil mentions it at all.
But this is quite another discussion, which has nothing to do with the scoring of the AoF.
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 19, 2019, 03:10:34 PM
Bach is reported by one of his pupils to have played the entire WTC book I straight through for him at three different events. But this was probably not the usual way, since this pupil mentions it at all.
The pupil's name? And the source for this?
Quote
But this is quite another discussion, which has nothing to do with the scoring of the AoF.
Of course. Nothing like changing the topic when the topic goes astray.
Quote from: San Antone on December 19, 2019, 01:55:48 PM
The whole discussion could be moved to one of the threads devoted to the AoF.
The AofF was not written for any particular thread. It's purely abstract. ::)
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.
Do you think that Bach intended it to be played inexpressively?
Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 02:32:29 PM
My own assumption is that we have no effing idea what the AoF was meant for.
But he wrote out a keyboard version of one of the fugues!
Do you think that we have no idea what Frescobaldi's toccatas were meant for? Or Froberger's ricercari?
What I think is that I deeply regret I got myself involved, time and again, in a pointless controversy. Let everyone listen to the AoF, and music in general, whatever way they like.
Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 03:14:25 PM
The pupil's name? And the source for this?
I have during the last 50 years read quite a lot about Bach and his music, and I do not recall precisely where I read this.
Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 11:15:47 PM
Let everyone listen to the AoF, and music in general, whatever way they like.
Of course. No one here forces anyone to anything, but we are supposedly free to comment each others points of view.
Quote from: Florestan on December 19, 2019, 03:14:25 PM
The pupil's name? And the source for this?
The pupil was called Heinrich Nicolaus Gerber. The testimony is in his son's writings about his father -- the son was called Ernst Ludwig Gerber. You will find the document in Hans T David and Arthur Mendel,
The New Bach Reader , pp. 321-2
Quote from: Mandryka on December 20, 2019, 01:53:24 AM
The pupil was called Heinrich Nicolaus Gerber. The testimony is in his son's writings about his father -- the son was called Ernst Ludwig Gerber. You will find the document in Hans T David and Arthur Mendel, The New Bach Reader , pp. 321-2
Thanks for the line-up.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 19, 2019, 08:05:42 PM
Do you think that Bach intended it to be played inexpressively?
I don't know what Bach intended, nor does anyone. I am not convinced that the Art of Fugue was just another keyboard Bach wrote like the WTC, though. It was assembled, some from previous works, and some newly composed during the 1740s, and he was working on it at the time of his death. But, The Musical Offering is considered the last
new work he wrote. For that one it is easy to determine his intentions since he was commissioned by Frederick the Great to write a work on the theme provided, for FtG to play with his friends, which Bach did approximately one year after receiving the theme.
For the Art of Fugue, however, there are enough clues to lead us to think that he had something other in mind than just writing another keyboard work for his students, or even for himself to play at the harpsichord.
At the end of the day, I don't care what his intentions were, or if the AoF was written for the keyboard or not; or really any of the issues we've been discussing.
I am only interested in the music, how he put it together, and listening to it played under a variety of settings. For myself, I prefer hearing it done by a group like Fretwork.
8)
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 20, 2019, 01:33:23 AM
we are supposedly free to comment each others points of view.
Yes, and this is what we do on a regular basis. Problem is, these recurrent discussions are pointless, nobody is going to convince nobody. I should really disentangle myself from them once and for all.
Quote from: Florestan on December 20, 2019, 03:26:29 AM
Yes, and this is what we do on a regular basis. Problem is, these recurrent discussions are pointless, nobody is going to convince nobody. I should really disentangle myself from them once and for all.
I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea that some people think there is something wrong or inauthentic about listening to music on different instruments. The reality is that what we call classical music used to be much more like jazz with improvisation and other changes to the music that are now considered heresy (especially odd when you consider that composers often sanctioned those changes or made them themselves at the time!)!
HIP has brought some wonderful things with it. But I think that one of the negatives it brings with it sometimes is inflexibility. I think most composers would welcome their works being interpreted and reinterpreted. I also thinks it's more important to adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the music. I also don't worry about where the edge is to the music becoming something else. It's never the same anyway (or at least, it shouldn't be). Of course, I write this listening to the Paris Saxophone Quartet playing Bach. So what do I know? :)
Quote from: Florestan on December 20, 2019, 03:26:29 AM
nobody is going to convince nobody.
I think you should say "nobody is going to convince me, Andrei."
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 20, 2019, 04:15:01 AM
I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea that some people think there is something wrong or inauthentic about listening to music on different instruments. The reality is that what we call classical music used to be much more like jazz with improvisation and other changes to the music that are now considered heresy (especially odd when you consider that composers often sanctioned those changes or made them themselves at the time!)!
HIP has brought some wonderful things with it. But I think that one of the negatives it brings with it sometimes is inflexibility. I think most composers would welcome their works being interpreted and reinterpreted. I also thinks it's more important to adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the music. I also don't worry about where the edge is to the music becoming something else. It's never the same anyway (or at least, it shouldn't be). Of course, I write this listening to the Paris Saxophone Quartet playing Bach. So what do I know? :)
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.
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 02:50:11 AM
I don't know what Bach intended, nor does anyone. I am not convinced that the Art of Fugue was just another keyboard Bach wrote like the WTC, though. It was assembled, some from previous works, and some newly composed during the 1740s, and he was working on it at the time of his death. But, The Musical Offering is considered the last new work he wrote. For that one it is easy to determine his intentions since he was commissioned by Frederick the Great to write a work on the theme provided, for FtG to play with his friends, which Bach did approximately one year after receiving the theme.
For the Art of Fugue, however, there are enough clues to lead us to think that he had something other in mind than just writing another keyboard work for his students, or even for himself to play at the harpsichord.
At the end of the day, I don't care what his intentions were, or if the AoF was written for the keyboard or not; or really any of the issues we've been discussing.
I am only interested in the music, how he put it together, and listening to it played under a variety of settings. For myself, I prefer hearing it done by a group like Fretwork.
8)
Wasn't his final work the unfinished AoF fugue? I've never looked into this question, so you could be right.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 20, 2019, 04:34:55 AM
Wasn't his final work the unfinished AoF fugue? I've never looked into this question, so you could be right.
It is like Abbey Road and Let It Be.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 20, 2019, 04:32:15 AM
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.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 20, 2019, 05:08:53 AM
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.
Quote from: Ken B on December 20, 2019, 07:01:40 AM
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.
8)
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 07:11:47 AM
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.
Quote from: San Antone
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
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 20, 2019, 07:33:16 AM
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?
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 20, 2019, 07:33:16 AMThis 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.
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.
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 07:43:10 AM
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?
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 07:43:10 AM
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.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 20, 2019, 07:45:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 20, 2019, 07:45:33 AMMusicians 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.
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 08:04:30 AM
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?
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 08:04:30 AM
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.
Quote from: Ken B on December 20, 2019, 08:14:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 20, 2019, 08:15:23 AM
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.
8)
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 07:43:10 AM
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.
Quote from: San Antone
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
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?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 20, 2019, 10:52:21 AM
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.
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
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 20, 2019, 11:04:47 AM
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.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 20, 2019, 10:52:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Ken B on December 20, 2019, 11:29:31 AM
Florestan insists that any choice of how to perform is equally valid.
Incorrect.
Quote from: Florestan on December 20, 2019, 11:34:41 AM
Incorrect.
Then state your criteria or rules or standards please.
Quote from: Ken B on December 20, 2019, 11:36:26 AM
Then state your criteria or rules or standards please.
Criteria, rules and standards for what?
Another ignoramus, according to Ken, Premont and Mandryka -
Ottavio Dantone QuoteIt'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.
(http://www.crossovermedia.net/albums/images/300x300/Accademia_Bizantina___Bach__Art_of_Fugue.jpg)
:o ;D 8)
Quote from: Florestan on December 20, 2019, 11:37:21 AM
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.
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 11:49:23 AM
Another ignoramus, according to Ken, Premont and Mandryka - Octavio Dantone
(http://www.crossovermedia.net/albums/images/300x300/Accademia_Bizantina___Bach__Art_of_Fugue.jpg)
:o ;D 8)
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?
Quote from: Ken B on December 20, 2019, 11:56:01 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 11:29:21 AM
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.
Quote from: San Antone
..., 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.
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)
Quote from: Mandryka on December 20, 2019, 12:11:11 PM
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.
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 20, 2019, 12:11:55 PM
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.
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."
Quote from: Mandryka on December 20, 2019, 12:14:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 20, 2019, 12:14:17 PM
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.
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 12:25:58 PM
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.
Quote from: JBS on December 20, 2019, 12:51:01 PM
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
Quote from: amw on December 20, 2019, 12:52:48 PM
but have a spiritual-hermeneutic purpose.
Ferneyhough avant la lettre!
(I don't recall seeing this claim about awkwardness before. -- I may have forgotten)
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 12:25:58 PM
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.
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 12:25:58 PM
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.
Quote from: San Antone
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.
Quote from: JBS on December 20, 2019, 12:51:01 PM
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' .
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 20, 2019, 01:05:26 PM
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:
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: San Antone on December 20, 2019, 01:10:56 PM
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".
Quote from: amw on December 20, 2019, 01:22:03 PM
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).
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
Some very interesting stuff here. Kudos to David for posting the long excerpts which undermine his case!
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 20, 2019, 12:11:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Ken B on December 20, 2019, 05:14:16 PM
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 ...
Quote from: Ken B on December 20, 2019, 11:51:08 AM
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.)
Quote from: amw on December 20, 2019, 12:52:48 PM
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.
Quote"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 -
Quote"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.
Quote from: aukhawk on December 21, 2019, 01:50:19 AM
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
Bump
Recent discovery - I think it is very good.
Lydia Maria Blank, cembalo (2023)
Quote from: San Antone on February 18, 2025, 02:46:21 AMRecent 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.