Really? Darn.
Any reccomendations for best organ recording, then?
Hope a recommendation on harpsichord is OK too? :)
My absolute favourite: Robert Hill.
(http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-NonVocal-BIG/Hill-A02[Hanssler].jpg)
Q
P.S. I'm not in the know on this, but word has it that on the piano Koroliov's interpretation is the one to go for.
But you'd better consult Don on this matter! :)
(http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-NonVocal-BIG/AOF-Koroliov.jpg)
On piano, my favored versions come from Koroliov, Nikolayeva, Sokolov and Rosen. Just as fine is Gould's recording where he plays both piano and organ.
Yeah, but he doesn't play all of it. Plus there's that stop where Bach went and died - I'd actually really like to hear a complete version, even if it's not all his. If you'll forgive my desire for a cadence.
Yes, he died without completing the work. I can live with that, and I don't need someone else completing it.
I don't 'need' it either, but I do think it's very interesting to hear the 'might-have-beens', especially if they do give the piece a real sense of wholeness.
I hope you can forgive that.
The interpretation is not terribly dynamic to me
Koroliov's Art of Fugue was Ligeti's desert Island disc. You can't get a higher pedegree than that. Repent, now. >:(
I also have a cool string quartet version by Keller,
My absolute favourite: Robert Hill.
Yes but Art of Fugue wasn't even composed by Ligeti ???
I really tried to get into the Keller Quartet recording, but I think it just sounds dull to me. Maybe I just really like it to be played on keyboard.
What is with the extra few bars at the end of the unfinished fugue on the Sokolov recording? I don't see those in any score of mine, and it sure isn't a completion since it still doesn't end on a cadence... ???
(Sorry to dig up a dead thread, but I didn't want to start a new one just for this question.)
You don't think the word of a world class composer (perhaps the best we had this side of the century) isn't worth something? ;D
Koroliov's Art of Fugue is otherworldly. Suffer not the heathen. >:(
Try Emerson. I know they usually get a bad rap from me but their style seems to land very well for this piece. They are much more agile then Keller and their texture if very clear as well.
I'm looking for a transcription of the art of fugue for a string quartet. I cant find it anywhere.
Huh? The Emerson SQ version is the top-selling CD of the ensemble on Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Bach-The-Art-of-Fugue/dp/B00008O8B3/ref=wl_itt_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1VDENXC0WP1Y9&colid=I7682ALB5LG2
Although probably intended to be playable on a keyboard, Bach's original edition was written in score form, so I don't think a string quartet version would be any easier to transcribe for clarinet quartet than the original. Mainly you would have to deal with the transposition. One transcription for string quartet by Robert Simpson and recorded by the Delme quartet transposes the entire work to better suite the ranges of the string instruments, so transposition would not without president. The original is in d minor, so presumably you'd want to transpose to the relative minor of B flat, or g-minor.
I'm asking if it's weird, if we just take the score for string quartet, so it would sound c-minor and not d-minor.You are the one who said you want to transcribe into the key of B-flat. I'm just pointing out that the piece is in minor key and the relative minor of B-flat is g-minor. Of course if you interpret the score as a part of B-flat clarinet it will sound in c-minor instead of d-minor.
I dont understand want you mean with that I should transpose it to g-minor? why to g-minor, because of the range of clarinet?
Or should sound like original in d-minor?
You are the one who said you want to transcribe into the key of B-flat. I'm just pointing out that the piece is in minor key and the relative minor of B-flat is g-minor. Of course if you interpret the score as a part of B-flat clarinet it will sound in c-minor instead of d-minor.
I would like to play this work in clarinet quartet.
I just asking you guys, what do you think. Should it sound in original d-minor or it doesnt matter if it sounds in c-minor or even g-minor.. 0:)
I just asking you guys, what do you think. Should it sound in original d-minor or it doesnt matter if it sounds in c-minor or even g-minor.. 0:)
It will sound best in whatever key you can play it in.
F# major?
I'm assuming you meant to type d# minor
I was making a joke, caro barone.
So was I, it was almost as funny as yours.
Although some consider the organ the only appropriate instrument for performing this work, I like the Emerson quartet.
A fine choice, although I think czgirb should be aware that the Emerson is a modern strings outfit.
Glenn Gould - Piano/Organ/Sony
Evgeni Koroliov - Piano/Tacet
Tatiana Nikolayeva - Piano/Hyperion
Kenneth Gilbert - Harpsichord/Archiv
Davitt Moroney - Harpsichord/Harmonia Mundi
Robert Hill - Harpsichord/Hanssler
Gustav Leonhardt - Harpsichord/Vanguard
Rinaldo Alessandrini/Concerto Italiano - Opus 111/Naive
Jordi Savall/Hesperion XX - Astree/Alia Vox
Walter Riemer - Fortepiano/Eroica
Gerhard Weinberger - Organ/CPO
Sergio Vartolo - Harpsichord/Naxos
Bradley Brookshire - Harpsichord/Bach Harsichord Inc.
Although a rather long list, it could be much longer. My top pick is Kenneth Gilbert, but all the others are mighty fine.
If you provide a few preference features, I could shorten the list.
Since Bach did not write the piece for strings, I consider modern strings no less appropriate than period strings. 0:)
I would get that it it weren't so out of print.
Talking about "alternative" versions, Münchinger and his Stuttgarter Kammerorchester are a top choice, too.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41E3ETK0M3L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,1044
But the most interesting is the version by Roger Vuatez, performed by Scherchen leading the Orchester des Radios Beromünster, recorded November, 1949 and released by Decca (I have the vinyl).
(http://store.acousticsounds.com/images/large/XXXX__72602__01182011050349-9453.jpg)
On the whole I have tended to avoid piano or harpsichord versions == I find that there's not enough variety.
But the Art of Fugue is about musical variety - which it has got in abundance.
But the Art of Fugue is about musical variety - which it has got in abundance.
Before I made the thread, I've tried to search "Art of Fugue" ... but NONE appeared ... that's why I made the thread.
I meant colour really.
It's musical variety in a fairly strict uniform - all cpti are in d minor, etc.
Uniform, and for that very reason, concentrated variety is often one of the points in Bachs works.
(Inward variety)
Perhaps one that labeled him 'old-fashioned' even among his contemporaries?
I have that too, but it is the only instance I can recall of preferring the Marriner version of something.
Well, this makes more sense. But still I think, that the musical variety is so great, that a variety in colour is unnecessary, and maybe even distracts from the musical variety. Personally I prefer the organ for this work - not because of the variations in colour made possible, but because of the sustaining power of the organ as compared to harpsichord and piano.
My feeling is that some good orchestra performances -- like the one in the 1949 Scherchen recording -- helps to bring out the argument of the fugues. And at the same time introduces an element of sensuality, which is really fun. But I wouldn't want to be without Koroliov or Tachezi.
I often feel, that we (modern educated listeners) are prone to listen in a too analytical way to works like The AoF. We are very concerned about hearing every statement of the fugal subject, and whether the subject is heard in diminution, mirror version et.c., but maybe the important point for Bach was the musical expression as such. And once having analyzed the work we should maybe forget about theory while listening. This is the reason (other than the fact that I consider the work to be a keyboard work) why I do not wholeheartily favour a rendering with chamber ensemble which tends to make every thematic statement too prominent.
Where did you get the notion that performance by a chamber ensemble has the effect or making statements of theme more prominent? A good performance can enhance the clarity of the voice-leading but has nothing to do with making one part of another more prominent at the expense of another.
I have actually heard all chamber ensemble recordings which have been made but a few (HIP as well as non HIP). My experience is, that exactly what you call enhanced clarity of the voice-leading results in enhanced focus on the thematic statements. Actually the musicians "instinctively" play in this way. Many pianists play in the same way (Koroliov, Nicolayeva f.i.) On an organ (and a harpsichord) , properly registered, this is impossible.
I have noticed no such effect, and I think you should attribute this effect to yourself, rather than to the performers.
I often feel, that we (modern educated listeners) are prone to listen in a too analytical way to works like The AoF. We are very concerned about hearing every statement of the fugal subject, and whether the subject is heard in diminution, mirror version et.c., but maybe the important point for Bach was the musical expression as such. And once having analyzed the work we should maybe forget about theory while listening. This is the reason (other than the fact that I consider the work to be a keyboard work) why I do not wholeheartily favour a rendering with chamber ensemble which tends to make every thematic statement too prominent.
BTW, a good orchestral performance, have you heard the recording of Eric Bergel.
No I haven't heard Eric Bergel -- I'll try to.
The discussion is interesting. [....]
No I haven't heard Eric Bergel -- I'll try to.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean though. Can you find an example (on youtube if possible) of voice leading which you like -- voice leading which doesn't over - emphasise the theme. If I had that I could contrast it with Scherchen , Koroliov etc.
But some years ago, organist Bram Beekman and harpsichordist Sébastian Guillot convinced me otherwise. Since then, I've begun admiring and loving this work more and more.
As a youngster I played the AoF eagerly on my mothers piano, but I found it for a long time rather abstract. An important experience was a concert (AoF complete) with the Stuttgart Chamber Orchestra / Münchinger, but the recordings which eventually opened this work to me were first and foremost Walcha´s and later Leonhardt´s - both of them interpretations which treat this work as expressive music in the same way as Guillot.
At first, I didn't think Die Kunst der Fuge was music for me, even though I loved Bach very much.
Reading about it gave me the idea that it was some kind of an abstract and theoretical musical monument. It scared me.
It is time to go to bed in my country now, but to morrow I shall upload a couple of Counterpoints´s from Bergels recording.
(Listening to the downloaded final fugue right now .... I must say: I still prefer the organ or harpsichord ....)
Here are some examples from Bergel´s AoF.
Erich Bergel (1930 - 1998) conducting the Cluj Philharmonic Orchestra.
He was himself an organist, and obviously his point of departure was the sound of the organ. One can in a way say, that he registers rather than arranges the work for orchestra. He even made a conclusion for the unfinished Fugue. I have included this in the examples. The sound quality is mp3 , 320 kbps
Contrapunctus I
http://www.mediafire.com/file/2v1yfdm4volo5jr/Contrapunctus%20I.mp3
Contrapunctus III
http://www.mediafire.com/file/7fe73zz8poye7hc/Contrapunctus%20III.mp3
Contrapunctus VII
http://www.mediafire.com/file/9zzdgy63y6lge7c/Contrapunctus%20VII.mp3
Contrapunctus Inversus a 4, Inversus
http://www.mediafire.com/file/cusyk5ulc0tq47x/Contrapunctus%20inv.%20a%204%2C%20inversus.mp3
Fuga a 3 soggetti (conclusion by Erich Bergel)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/3h53smi57nl3h65/Fuga%20a%203%20soggetti.mp3
So do I, and I do not intend trying to convert anybody to prefer chamber- or orchestral arrangements to keyboard renderings.
But some of these "arrangements" may be rather interesting even if they only rarely are relevatory.
Here are some examples from Bergel´s AoF.
Erich Bergel (1930 - 1998) conducting the Cluj Philharmonic Orchestra.
He was himself an organist, and obviously his point of departure was the sound of the organ. One can in a way say, that he registers rather than arranges the work for orchestra. He even made a conclusion for the unfinished Fugue. I have included this in the examples. The sound quality is mp3 , 320 kbps
Contrapunctus I
http://www.mediafire.com/file/2v1yfdm4volo5jr/Contrapunctus%20I.mp3
Contrapunctus III
http://www.mediafire.com/file/7fe73zz8poye7hc/Contrapunctus%20III.mp3
Contrapunctus VII
http://www.mediafire.com/file/9zzdgy63y6lge7c/Contrapunctus%20VII.mp3
Contrapunctus Inversus a 4, Inversus
http://www.mediafire.com/file/cusyk5ulc0tq47x/Contrapunctus%20inv.%20a%204%2C%20inversus.mp3
Fuga a 3 soggetti (conclusion by Erich Bergel)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/3h53smi57nl3h65/Fuga%20a%203%20soggetti.mp3
I don't want to put you on the spot -- but please, give me an example of a performance of a fugue played on organ or harpsichord or piano which is revelatory in the sense you mean -- I'm having a hard time getting what you're driving at. On the one hand there's internal variety. On the other hand it's best not to try to listen analytically, but rather enjoy the musical expression. And on the third hand orchestral versions are may actually distract the listener from appreciating this internal variety (?) because of the colour, the sensuality, they bring.
(http://www.jpc.de/image/w600/front/0/5998309300110.jpg)
I supposse it reflects the mental image of many of our about the AoF.
Thanks for everything Aulos. I've just downloaded the files and I'm looking forward to hearing them.
The AoF is without doubt concieved for harpsichord or organ (manual only) enabling all the parts to sound in perfect equilibrium. This ideal is realised in the recording Gerd Zacher made (Aeolus 1999) on the restored Balthasar König-organ (1714) der Pfarrkirche St.Leodegar, Niederehe. The organ contains a manual section of nine stops and a pedal section of three stops. He only uses the manual for this recording. In his interpretation one can concentrate upon the internal variety or upon the musical expression. If one does not know the work so well it is tempting to concentrate upon the internal variety (the counterpoint which often is so dense as to become confusing) in order not to loose the orientation, but as one gets to know the work better it may be relevatory deliberately to ignore the counterpoint and just listen to the rich musical expression. Zacher´s version is indeed contemplative and expressive. This IMO concerning these issues (counterpoint and expression) ideal interpretation permits both points of view in equal mesure, and ideally even both ways of listening at the same time, experiencing the balanced synthesis of spirit and emotion, which this work reflects more than any other of Bach´s (or anyone else´s) works, and which I consider the essential meaning of the work. It takes time to reach this way of listening, compare the way Marc, Velimir and I described our initial problems about understanding the work at all. Hope you understand. It is indeed difficult to explain things like these in a foreign language.
Preferring a rendering with all the parts in equilibrium, I think chamber and orchestral versions often disturb the balance of the work, the parts being scored in different colours, and the playing often with enhanced focus on the thematic statements, the purpose of which seems to be some wish for expression rather than to bring contrapunctal clarity to the playing. I only mention this as some kind of tendency. There are exceptions - the recording by Stuttgart CO / Münchinger being one such exception, because of the homogeneous sound of the very disciplined Stuttgart strings, and because of Münchinger´s balanced vision of the work.
Gerd Zacher The Art of Fugue
Contrapunctus I
http://www.mediafire.com/file/m6ccs8d5woib38j/01%20-%20Contrapunctus%20I%20-%20Gerd%20Zacher%20%281929%29.mp3
Contrapunctus III
http://www.mediafire.com/file/yfo0mtmdsoo7uj7/03%20-%20Contrapunctus%20III%20-%20Gerd%20Zacher%20%281929%29.mp3
Contrapunctus VII
http://www.mediafire.com/file/xx8ngbb2fwdqht9/07%20-%20Contrapunctus%20VII%20%28A%204%20Per%20Augmentationem%20Et%20Diminutionem%29%20-%20Gerd%20Zacher%20%281929%29.mp3
It might seem relevant to choose Walcha´s recording for my purpose, but as he uses the pedal almost throughout, he does not really illustrate my argument.
IMO the logical sequence isI quite liked Indra Hughes' theory (http://www.indrahughes.com/indra_hughes_thesis.htm) that Bach left the Fugue á 4 unfinished as a kind of musical riddle for the student or performer to resolve. It's hard to fully buy into his view simply because it involves a good deal of numerological speculation, but I do think he makes some very strong criticisms of the idea that a page of the manuscript went missing or that Bach died in the middle of writing the work.
Contrapunctus I - XI
Four-part mirror fugue + inversion
Three-part mirror fugue + inversion
Canon I - IV
Incomplete Fugue á 4
You may even consider the Canons a kind of appendix (like the Duets in Clavierübung III).
But maybe any supposed sequence only serves editoral purposes, since it is uncertain whether the work was meant to be performed in one sitting or not.
Bach probably beforehand completed the unfinished Fugue á 4 in his head, but never managed to write it down.
It is also possible that more complex Contrapuncti was intended to follow.
The AoF is without doubt concieved for harpsichord or organ (manual only) enabling all the parts to sound in perfect equilibrium. This ideal is realised in the recording Gerd Zacher made (Aeolus 1999) on the restored Balthasar König-organ (1714) der Pfarrkirche St.Leodegar, Niederehe. The organ contains a manual section of nine stops and a pedal section of three stops. He only uses the manual for this recording. In his interpretation one can concentrate upon the internal variety or upon the musical expression. If one does not know the work so well it is tempting to concentrate upon the internal variety (the counterpoint which often is so dense as to become confusing) in order not to loose the orientation, but as one gets to know the work better it may be relevatory deliberately to ignore the counterpoint and just listen to the rich musical expression. Zacher´s version is indeed contemplative and expressive. This IMO concerning these issues (counterpoint and expression) ideal interpretation permits both points of view in equal mesure, and ideally even both ways of listening at the same time, experiencing the balanced synthesis of spirit and emotion, which this work reflects more than any other of Bach´s (or anyone else´s) works, and which I consider the essential meaning of the work. It takes time to reach this way of listening, compare the way Marc, Velimir and I described our initial problems about understanding the work at all. Hope you understand. It is indeed difficult to explain things like these in a foreign language.
Preferring a rendering with all the parts in equilibrium, I think chamber and orchestral versions often disturb the balance of the work, the parts being scored in different colours, and the playing often with enhanced focus on the thematic statements, the purpose of which seems to be some wish for expression rather than to bring contrapunctal clarity to the playing. I only mention this as some kind of tendency. There are exceptions - the recording by Stuttgart CO / Münchinger being one such exception, because of the homogeneous sound of the very disciplined Stuttgart strings, and because of Münchinger´s balanced vision of the work.
Gerd Zacher The Art of Fugue
Contrapunctus I
http://www.mediafire.com/file/m6ccs8d5woib38j/01%20-%20Contrapunctus%20I%20-%20Gerd%20Zacher%20%281929%29.mp3
Contrapunctus III
http://www.mediafire.com/file/yfo0mtmdsoo7uj7/03%20-%20Contrapunctus%20III%20-%20Gerd%20Zacher%20%281929%29.mp3
Contrapunctus VII
http://www.mediafire.com/file/xx8ngbb2fwdqht9/07%20-%20Contrapunctus%20VII%20%28A%204%20Per%20Augmentationem%20Et%20Diminutionem%29%20-%20Gerd%20Zacher%20%281929%29.mp3
It might seem relevant to choose Walcha´s recording for my purpose, but as he uses the pedal almost throughout, he does not really illustrate my argument.
So I'm left with the expression. But what do you mean -- expression? On the emotional, affective, level..
I quite liked Indra Hughes' theory (http://www.indrahughes.com/indra_hughes_thesis.htm) that Bach left the Fugue á 4 unfinished as a kind of musical riddle for the student or performer to resolve. It's hard to fully buy into his view simply because it involves a good deal of numerological speculation, but I do think he makes some very strong criticisms of the idea that a page of the manuscript went missing or that Bach died in the middle of writing the work.
As Prem... err, Aulos said: variety in abundance! :)
Another good one, IMO, is played by Alessio Corti (organ again), part of his integral. Unfortunately, this one is not easy to get.
But here's a link to a live performance:
http://avaxhome.ws/music/classical/bach_kunst_der_fuge.html
For the harpsichord, I would recommand Christian Rieger:
I've lived with the Zacher A of F for quite a few days now and I'm clear that I was wrong to be worried about expressive variety. This is a great recording in a style completely new to me which has made me see this work in a completely new light. Cpt 6 is haunting me particularly powerfully at the moment. Also the way the thing climaxes towards the end -- cpt 11 I think -- is quite astonishing.
What is this like?
I'll try Conti and Rieger soon -- thanks for the pointers. I've never heard it on harpsichord, so I'm particularly looking forward to hearing Rieger. I have Rogg's CD , though I haven't played it for years: I remember being very impressed by the colourfulness and the sense of forward motion (even though it's slower than Tachezi's I think)
[....]
I'll try Conti and Rieger soon -- thanks for the pointers. I've never heard it on harpsichord, so I'm particularly looking forward to hearing Rieger. I have Rogg's CD , though I haven't played it for years: I remember being very impressed by the colourfulness and the sense of forward motion (even though it's slower than Tachezi's I think)
[....]
For variety I would prefer Rieger. You describe Rogg´s interpretation very well. Corti´s is much in the same vein, actually he is a pupil of Rogg.
Since a couple of days I've also grown attached to Leonhardt (& Van Asperen) on harpsichord. There's no Fuga à 3 soggetti in this one, though.Leonhardts second version has always been my favorite harpsichord version. But the choice above seemed to be between Rieger and Corti, and my remark about variety was adressed to Rieger versus Corti, since Mandryka already knows Rogg´s version.
For a more chamber-like organ version, Bernard Foccroulle comes to mind. But yes, Tachezi is quite good, too!
And for the piano, I would suggest Pierre-Laurent Aimard (Deutsche Grammophon), with good mastering of the counterpoint and some very powerful climaxes. I must admit though that I do not own other paino versions to compare with.
[....]
Aimard´s version gets rather hectic and "hammering" during the course of the work, as the counterpoint gets more dense. I do not think his way suits the work. Your countryman Ivo Janssen is much to prefer to Aimard. But most (on the piano) I prefer Hans Petermandl (Gramola) and Walter Riemer (ORF). Both are noble and balanced accounts.
Yes, I agree that listening to Aimard with headpones on can be a violent expierence.
But if you're in the mood of letting it all out his interpretation can be helpful. ;)
I might consider buying (or borrowing) another piano version, but, as you know, Bach on the piano is not entirely my Bach. Therefore it's more likely I'll hunt for other harpsichord or organ versions in the future.
Btw: it's Bach's 326th birthday today!
For that reason I've changed my listening habits tonight, to have a go at .... :P
Unfortunately I am ill at the moment, suffering acute bronchitis (I must add that I never smoke) and rather much prostration, so I am "indisposed" these days. :(
Yes, congratulations to him. Unfortunately I am ill at the moment, suffering acute bronchitis (I must add that I never smoke) and rather much prostration, so I am "indisposed" these days. :(
That's very nasty. I hope you get better soon.
If you're better on the 31st you can always celebrate his birthday new calendar style!
Hey Premo.... errr Aulos: I wish you a quick recovery!
Unfortunately I am ill at the moment, suffering acute bronchitis (I must add that I never smoke) and rather much prostration, so I am "indisposed" these days. :(
I'm sorry to listen that, dear Premont. Definitely this was a hard winter for you. I hope you will be totally recovered very soon. :)
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
@ Scarpia: I can not read scores well unfortunately :(.
For the past couple of days I have been immersed in this recorinding:
I find Bach's Art of Fugue one of the most difficult compositions in the classical music repertoire to absorb. I try hard to identify the principal theme, then the counterpoint theme then the marriage of the two. I have had a lot of success over the years with this technique but every once in a while I lose the train of thought and I find myslef having to start all over again.
The most elusive are : Contrapunctus 13 a 3 voix; rectus and Contrpunctus 13 a 3 voix; inversus.
Anyone here face similar difficultues with this work? I would be interested in how you approach this work.
marvin
I just listen and enjoy the work, not forcing any listening strategy. Once that's done, it's easy to identify the myriad of themes.
[....]
I find Bach's Art of Fugue one of the most difficult compositions in the classical music repertoire to absorb. I try hard to identify the principal theme, then the counterpoint theme then the marriage of the two. I have had a lot of success over the years with this technique but every once in a while I lose the train of thought and I find myslef having to start all over again.
The most elusive are : Contrapunctus 13 a 3 voix; rectus and Contrpunctus 13 a 3 voix; inversus.
Anyone here face similar difficultues with this work? I would be interested in how you approach this work.
I find Bach's Art of Fugue one of the most difficult compositions in the classical music repertoire to absorb. I try hard to identify the principal theme, then the counterpoint theme then the marriage of the two. I have had a lot of success over the years with this technique but every once in a while I lose the train of thought and I find myslef having to start all over again.Doing this along with the music in hand would make it much easier I would think. This piece was actually the first Bach in my collection (the one with the Canadian Brass) and it is not so hard if you just sit back and enjoy it. As you listen to it, you'll get better at picking out all the details. But the best way is with a score in hand - you would save time and get more out of it I would think. If you don't read music, you could probably learn the basics fairly quickly and this would help with all future pieces.
The most elusive are : Contrapunctus 13 a 3 voix; rectus and Contrpunctus 13 a 3 voix; inversus.
Anyone here face similar difficultues with this work? I would be interested in how you approach this work.
marvin
I find the main difficulty with this work is the lack of an ending. If Bach had been able to complete it we would know what the music was driving towards and that is always a great help in understanding a musical process.
I also think that perhaps there is an Emperor's New Clothes effect at work. Here is a serious contender for greatest composer in history perhaps unintentionally producing a clunker. There is an old expression for this: Homer nods.* Nobody can believe it's not so good, so they keep trying new instrumentations, new interpretative ideas, etc. Perhaps there is not another layer under the skin of this particular onion. The composer certainly doesn't really need another jewel in his heavily-jeweled crown.
[...]
All right, gentlemen, take aim and fire...
Have you tried other recordings?
You don't like it, so those who like it are deceiving themselves? That doesn't strike you as a tad narcissistic?
This is I believe the 2nd thread recently in which you have tried to put words in my mouth that are different from what I said. I nowhere said anyone was deceiving himself. I hedged my opinions about with modifiers like "perhaps," "respectfully," "nervously," "hazard the opinion". And since I knew others would differ with me, I invited them to fire back at me.
That's all they are, opinions. I don't pretend to speak for other peoples' feelings and opinions.
You, on the other hand, do.
Ok I tried this on another thread (the Art of Fugue in the Great Recordings Section of GMG) with limited success. Perhaps I can find a larger audience here?? Well it is worth a shot so here goes:
For the past couple of days I have been immersed in this recording:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Vlm-9ipXL._SS500_.jpg)
I find Bach's Art of Fugue one of the most difficult compositions in the classical music repertoire to absorb. I try hard to identify the principal theme, then the counterpoint theme then the marriage of the two. I have had a lot of success over the years with this technique but every once in a while I lose the train of thought and I find myself having to start all over again.
The most elusive are : Contrapunctus 13 a 3 voix; rectus and Contrpunctus 13 a 3 voix; inversus.
Anyone here face similar difficultues with this work? I would be interested in how you approach this work.
marvin
True, Art of the Fugue is not an easily accessable work. BTW Moroney's recording is IMO not the best guide into the work - it did not work for me either... ::) Same goes for the other, old-style and rather dogmatic approaches by Leonhardt and Gilbert. (Don and Premont are not going to like this ::) ;))
It is about listening and absorbing the expression.
Contrapunctus IX/ Contrapunctus I-VIII/ Contrapunctus XIIa (conclusion), from The Art of Fugue, BWV 1080 - Akademie für Alte Musik Berlin:
http://www.wgbh.org/programs/-803/episodes/-25390
[....]
Don't wanna ruin this thread, and obviously Marvin's questions are valid, but if this topic is really going to end in try this or that recording, then I don't see any reason why these posts shouldn't be merged with the previous thread.
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,1044.0.html
For the rest, as has been suggested before: try to read the score, if possible. Or begin with learning to read musical notation. I would not be surprised if this really helps in this particular case, especially with the aid of some articles and books that have been written about the piece.
I never saw the point of two threads, and if Que merges them, I shall not complain.
IMO - as I have written elsewhere - a beginner without experience in score reading and musical forms should rather approach the AoF with open ears and mind, and forget about theory. Love arises from repeated listening and ability to recognize the music as such. This is true of the AoF as well as all other music.
Louis Thiry, the latter on the Silbermann/Kern organ of the Strasbourgh cathedral.
IMO - as I have written elsewhere - a beginner without experience in score reading and musical forms should rather approach the AoF with open ears and mind, and forget about theory. Love arises from repeated listening and ability to recognize the music as such. This is true of the AoF as well as all other music.
No, not the cathedral, but léglise de Saint-Thomas de Strassbourg, which is not the cathedral
see link:
http://www.google.dk/#hl=da&source=hp&biw=976&bih=757&q=l%C3%A9glise+de+saint+thomas+strassbourg&btnG=Google-s%C3%B8gning&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=l%C3%A9glise+de+saint+thomas+strassbourg&rlz=1R2GGLL_da&fp=758f715784bed336
I was merely relaying my own experience, that when listening to contrapuntal music on an instrument like a harpsichord, which does not provide explicit cues that indicate which is voice number 1, voice number 2, voice number 3, voice number 4, having the score in front of me can give that extra bit of information to recognize which voice is which, etc. I got into this habit because my first recording of the piece (on organ) was an LP edition which came with a score (Tachezi on Telefunken). I found it rewarding despite the fact that I do not have the training to properly read or analyze a score.
Que, let's merge and mingle! :-*
And I was referring to my own experience, which is that score reading supports the formal analysis of the work, but this attitude did initially prevent me from taking in the expressive qualities of the music. Only later when I had listened to the work a lot of times without any thought of the score, and had experienced the expressive qualities to the full, did I succed in listening to it with my brain and my emotional part at the same time, so to say to listen with both halves of the brain simultaneously.
In both cases, Alfred Kern was responsible for the (re)building respectively restoration.
Another possibility is to listen with the score, then subsequently listen without the score but with the insights that came from seeing the score. In any case, just my own experience, obviously.
[....]
Que, let's merge and mingle! :-*
Yes please Que, if you would be so kind :-*
He did! He did! :-* :-*
He is! He is! :-* :-* :-*
He did! He did! :-* :-*
He is! He is! :-* :-* :-*
I never doubted he would do everything to please us :-* :-* :-*
Oh, get a room!
;) ;D
Contrapunctus IX/ Contrapunctus I-VIII/ Contrapunctus XIIa (conclusion), from The Art of Fugue, BWV 1080 - Akademie für Alte Musik Berlin:
http://www.wgbh.org/programs/-803/episodes/-25390
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41nxC7OZq5L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
On my wish-list now, I'm afraid .... ;)
In our Room of Music, we join together: Premont, Que and me:
OK., I have reestablished my username.
.. Aimard where he makes this comment about AofF...
In principle I think these are wise words.
BTW the music is so hard for him to play, that his words do not always shine through.
I have discovered that simply listening to the music as music really does not work for me.
It will benefit me to seek out other recordings, preferably on different instruments than the harpsichord.
A new recording performed on harpsichord with interludes on the organ.
Q
I think I noticed about four or five new releases of the AoF in the pre-release charts earlier this year. And this was one of them.
I think this is another one (also played on harpsichord), although it was recorded in 2008:
(http://www.glossamusic.com/glossa/files/References/220/GCD_P31510_HD.jpg)
Yep. Two on piano; the AAMB's version on HM, and a DVD (with artsy visuals) with der(?) MAK performing.
... after all the Goldbergs deserved to have a rest. ;)
... after all the Goldbergs deserved to have a rest. ;)
I think this is another one (also played on harpsichord), although it was recorded in 2008:
(http://www.glossamusic.com/glossa/files/References/220/GCD_P31510_HD.jpg)
Calling off a banquet after a few appitizers having been served? Nah!
I find the main difficulty with this work is the lack of an ending. If Bach had been able to complete it we would know what the music was driving towards and that is always a great help in understanding a musical process.
I tend to see the Contrupuncti I-XI as a 'reliable' corpus.
To me, Contrapunctus XI is definitely one of the highlights of the piece and therefore acceptable as a closure.
I've been enjoying Menno van Delft a lot! It's so composed and tranquil and elegant, and somehow pure and simple.
And yet, despite this it is emotionally rich.
I use to call this the Dutch way, since many Dutch keyboard players (even organists) play more or less in this way. (Koopman is the exception which confirms the rule)
Someone gave me a few weeks ago Leonhardt's first AoF on Vanguard. It's clearly a major achievement, and I'm enjoying getting to know it. The harpsichord doesn't always sound so good, maybe.
I see he recorded it a second time, for DHM. How does this later recording compare? What would I be getting if I buy the later recording -- just better sound, or some new and interesting ideas?
I think this is close to how I believe Bach may have played himself. Thought provoking though that our ~Que~ does not like him.
At least in my mind Bach's own style was besides being intellectually profound and that of a highly gifted musical scholar, also that of a brilliant virtuoso who liked exploring the limits of his abilities ..
Excuse me my late answer.
While I find Leonhardt´s 1952 recording for Vanguard (on a non-period Neupert harpsichord) deliberate, legato-dominated and rather understated as to exoression, his later recording for DHM is more energetic and rhytmically alert and more extrovert and exiting. I think this is close to how I believe Bach may have played himself. Thought provoking though that our ~Que~ does not like him. IMO Leonhardt´s second recording is mandatory. (It omits the unfinished Fugue á 3 soggetti).
And yet, I love the 1954 canon at the tenth. It makes me go slightly damp eyed sometimes when I hear it: the simple, un-ornamented style, played with such flexibility, moves me.So do I,- indeed the entire 1952 recording. I think Leonhardt plays the work with great awe, as if he only recently discovered its depths - and maybe this is also so.
(http://i.prs.to/t_200/brilliantclassics94061.jpg) (http://www.prs.to/r/Brilliant%2BClassics/94061)
3 CD + CD-ROM Multibox
[....]
The renowned Italian harpsichordist, organist and musical scholar, Matteo Messori, has won awards for his recordings of Bach. Messori has gone back to original sources and letters relating to these works, and taken account of the most up-todate research and interpretative knowledge, in order to reveal Bach’s true intentions for his music, and to give as authentic a performance as possible. Messori performs on the harpsichord and organ, and is joined by Italian early music ensemble Cappella Augustana, featuring Luigi Mario Lupo (transverse flute), Luca Giardini (violin), and Marco Testori (cello).
(http://i.prs.to/t_200/brilliantclassics94061.jpg) (http://www.prs.to/r/Brilliant%2BClassics/94061)
It's a bargain indeed, but to be honest I wasn't really impressed by other Bach stuff from Messori, i.c. the Clavier-Übung III (also on Brilliant Classics). Beautiful organs, but IMHO most of the pieces were too 'heavily' interpreted.
Nor was I - as you know - that impressed by Messori´s Clavierübung III. But I think the AoF stands that kind of treatment better.
PLEAZE!
DO NOT CONVINCE ME TO BUY THIS INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE SET!
YOU ARE RUINING ME!
It's a bargain indeed, but to be honest I wasn't really impressed by other Bach stuff from Messori, i.c. the Clavier-Übung III (also on Brilliant Classics). Beautiful organs, but IMHO most of the pieces were too 'heavily' interpreted.
Hi everyone,
I am in the market for a good recording of The Art of Fugue on solo keyboard or preferably harpsichord.
I have the Fretwork release which I enjoy immensely, but want to expand my collection to a solo instrument and possibly a SQ.
Thanks in advance, my friends :)
Hi everyone,
I am in the market for a good recording of The Art of Fugue on solo keyboard or preferably harpsichord.
I have the Fretwork release which I enjoy immensely, but want to expand my collection to a solo instrument and possibly a SQ.
Thanks in advance, my friends :)
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000ZGKBYE.01.L.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000ZGKBYE/goodmusicguide-20) | (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005RCZ5.01.L.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005RCZ5/goodmusicguide-20) | (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B002KPW3YE.01.L.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002KPW3YE/goodmusicguide-20) | (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000025HN5.01.L.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000025HN5/goodmusicguide-20) | (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008O8B3.01.L.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008O8B3/goodmusicguide-20) |
Aimard, pn / DG | Sokolov, pn / Naive | Rieger, hp / Cavi | Keller Q4t, SQ4t / ECM | Emerson Q4t, SQ4t / DG |
Multi instrument, in order of preference: Emerson String Quartet, Goebel/Musica Antiqua Koeln, Canadian Brass. I think the Goebel/MAK may be available only as part of a DG box set of all of MAK's Bach recordings; the original CD issue was one of the first CDs I ever bought. Don't have the Fretwork recording, so I can't directly compare it to these.
Modern piano: Aimard
I have only two recordings on harpsichord and none on organ, so I can't suggest a favorite there; but the recording by Matteo Messori which Tonito suggested impressed me on the first hearing.
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000ZGKBYE.01.L.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000ZGKBYE/goodmusicguide-20) (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005RCZ5.01.L.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005RCZ5/goodmusicguide-20) (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B002KPW3YE.01.L.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002KPW3YE/goodmusicguide-20) (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000025HN5.01.L.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000025HN5/goodmusicguide-20) (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008O8B3.01.L.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008O8B3/goodmusicguide-20) Aimard, pn / DG Sokolov, pn / Naive Rieger, hp / Cavi Keller Q4t, SQ4t / ECM Emerson Q4t, SQ4t / DG
Aimard on piano is very good, but I have always hoped it to be better than it turned out... partly because I admire the artist so much.
I do, in the end, prefer Sokolov.
Am intrigued by the mere existence of the Konstantin Lifschitz's account (Orfeo) (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B0045FGFZA/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=goodmusicguide-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1638&creative=19454&creativeASIN=B0045FGFZA v) but haven't heard of it.
Trying to think of a harpsichord version that I think is really good... and I'm noticing that I don't even know that many. Rieger is pretty good... but right now I'm blanking on any other newer versions on the harpsichord that I've [apparently not] heard.
Second the Emerson recommendation, one of their finest recordings IMO. (As opposed to their Bach follow-up of assorted Fugues, which I found disastrous.) I do, by the slightest of margins, prefer the Keller Quartet on ECM, though.
Aimard on piano is very good, but I have always hoped it to be better than it turned out... partly because I admire the artist so much.
I do, in the end, prefer Sokolov.
Actually, there are many wonderful versions on solo instrument, and each one easily trumps a chamber or orchestral version. If you really want to hear everything that's going on in the AoF, solo is the way to go.
Yes, I also prefer Sokolov, and by a wide margin. Aimard isn't nearly austere enough for my tastes. However, if one likes the jazz-infused Aimard version, you can do much better with Bradley Brookshire on harpsichord. It's a very interesting version that makes Aimard's sound as dull as dishwater.
Another version I'd like to highlight comes from Walter Riemer on fortepiano. Actually, there are many wonderful versions on solo instrument, and each one easily trumps a chamber or orchestral version. If you really want to hear everything that's going on in the AoF, solo is the way to go.
Whereas i prefer the multi instrumental versions because it's easier for me to follow the different voices and the musical structure--to "hear everything going on", as you put it.
Obviously I need to bulk up this section of my library. Any particular harpsichord performances you think particularly well of (especially if they lean in the "austere" direction)? And organ?
Yes, I also prefer Sokolov, and by a wide margin. Aimard isn't nearly austere enough for my tastes. However, if one likes the jazz-infused Aimard version, you can do much better with Bradley Brookshire on harpsichord. It's a very interesting version that makes Aimard's sound as dull as dishwater.
Another version I'd like to highlight comes from Walter Riemer on fortepiano. Actually, there are many wonderful versions on solo instrument, and each one easily trumps a chamber or orchestral version. If you really want to hear everything that's going on in the AoF, solo is the way to go.
Obviously I need to bulk up this section of my library. Any particular harpsichord performances you think particularly well of (especially if they lean in the "austere" direction)? And organ?
The AoF is without doubt concieved for harpsichord or organ (manual only) enabling all the parts to sound in perfect equilibrium. This ideal is realised in the recording Gerd Zacher made (Aeolus 1999) on the restored Balthasar König-organ (1714) der Pfarrkirche St.Leodegar, Niederehe. The organ contains a manual section of nine stops and a pedal section of three stops. He only uses the manual for this recording. In his interpretation one can concentrate upon the internal variety or upon the musical expression. If one does not know the work so well it is tempting to concentrate upon the internal variety (the counterpoint which often is so dense as to become confusing) in order not to loose the orientation, but as one gets to know the work better it may be relevatory deliberately to ignore the counterpoint and just listen to the rich musical expression. Zacher´s version is indeed contemplative and expressive. This IMO concerning these issues (counterpoint and expression) ideal interpretation permits both points of view in equal mesure, and ideally even both ways of listening at the same time, experiencing the balanced synthesis of spirit and emotion, which this work reflects more than any other of Bach´s (or anyone else´s) works, and which I consider the essential meaning of the work. It takes time to reach this way of listening, compare the way Marc, Velimir and I described our initial problems about understanding the work at all. Hope you understand. It is indeed difficult to explain things like these in a foreign language.
Preferring a rendering with all the parts in equilibrium, I think chamber and orchestral versions often disturb the balance of the work, the parts being scored in different colours, and the playing often with enhanced focus on the thematic statements, the purpose of which seems to be some wish for expression rather than to bring contrapunctal clarity to the playing. I only mention this as some kind of tendency. There are exceptions - the recording by Stuttgart CO / Münchinger being one such exception, because of the homogeneous sound of the very disciplined Stuttgart strings, and because of Münchinger´s balanced vision of the work.
Gerd Zacher The Art of Fugue
Contrapunctus I
http://www.mediafire.com/file/m6ccs8d5woib38j/01%20-%20Contrapunctus%20I%20-%20Gerd%20Zacher%20%281929%29.mp3
Contrapunctus III
http://www.mediafire.com/file/yfo0mtmdsoo7uj7/03%20-%20Contrapunctus%20III%20-%20Gerd%20Zacher%20%281929%29.mp3
Contrapunctus VII
http://www.mediafire.com/file/xx8ngbb2fwdqht9/07%20-%20Contrapunctus%20VII%20%28A%204%20Per%20Augmentationem%20Et%20Diminutionem%29%20-%20Gerd%20Zacher%20%281929%29.mp3
It might seem relevant to choose Walcha´s recording for my purpose, but as he uses the pedal almost throughout, he does not really illustrate my argument.
I don't understand this. What is it that the pedal does that stops Walcha's performance following the principal of equilibrium?
I don't understand this. What is it that the pedal does that stops Walcha's performance following the principal of equilibrium?
Ordered this one.
The KdF is played by Charles Rosen.
(http://i51.tinypic.com/35c4buq.jpg)
On piano I have Riemer and Sokolov and Gould and Koroliov and Aimard. I wonder if you could say something about why you prefer Riemer to Sokolov, or Koroliov.
Riemer, even if playing on a fortepiano - and not even an early item (displaying a kind of double anachronism)- has in my ears got some of the timelessness in his playing, which I associate with the AoF, and which I consider essential.
Koroliov I find almost vulgar with his stereotyped use of dynamics. Every Cpt. begins pp and ends fff. He has not discovered, that the climax is written into the music.
Sokolov is IMO irritating romantic in his "delicate" use of dynamic shadings. I am not far from calling him misguided.
About Aimard I have written earlier in this thread (reply 101 and 155).
And Gould. Never liked his demonstrative self-conscious piano playing. The Cpt´s he recorded on organ are IMO more eatable.
Koroliov often (maybe always) gets louder towards the end of each piece -- do you think that he puts the climaxes in the wrong place sometimes? That's interesting.
[....] I never really favoured Bach on piano, and blind completism may have played a part.
At first I was suitably impressed by his [Charles Rosen] playing, but since then I got twenty other piano versions, and except for Koroliov, Sokolov, Aldwell, Ader, Lifschitz and the tedious Boyle, I would rate all of them higher than Rosen, favorites being Petermandl, Riemer, Mechler, Janssen, Lepinat and Nicolaieva.
The AoF was obviously written with the keyboard manualiter in mind - in the first hand the harpsichord, in the second hand the organ manualiter, considering the fact that all of it (except the two mirror fugues) can be played with two hands. This assumption is confirmed by the fact that the bass part is written in manualiter style, and is unsuited for execution by the feet, as well as the fact that there are some voice-crossings between the tenor and bass part. One can say, that the AoF is written in the style of the fugues of the WTC rather than the style of Bach´s organ fugues. (The problem of the mirror fugues may be solved by playing them on two keyboards, a solution Bach himself hinted at by arranging the three part mirror fugue for two keyboards adding a free fourth part for the fourth hand).
Concerning the Contrapuncti I – XI all four parts must sound in perfect equilibrium like the fugues of the WTC, which means that the foundation registration of all parts must be set at equal pitch (preferably 8´). This will be natural for a harpsichordist. If he changes the registration during the playing, this will affect all four parts. If we translate this to the organ, the work should be played manualiter, and if the organist changes manual during the playing, he should move both hands to the other manual at the same time. There are some organists who rightly consider the AoF a manual work and realize it without the use of the pedals (e.g. Zacher and Wikman). Even the mirror fugues can be played on the organ´s manuals, two organists playing two parts each on their “own” manual in equal registrations.
Arranged for organ in the way Walcha did, the bass part is generally set for the pedal, and few organists (Walcha himself the least) can resist the temptation to register the pedal with 16´ and the manuals with 8´ , thereby causing an imbalance between the parts, making the bass part sound too prominent, and transforming the AoF into a "genuine" organ work, which it is not.
The unfinished fugue a 4 soggetti is more related to the organ works, and the bass part of the first and the third section (but not the second section) is perfectly playable with the feet, which may be interpreted in the way, that this fugue was conceived for manual and pedal, probably organ. The middle section of the fugue may be a manualiter solo episode like the middle section of the E flat major triple fugue BWV 552 or the F major double fugue BWV 540. If this is correct, it seems unlikely, that the fugue was intended to be a part of the AoF - a work written entirely manualiter.
An organist who plays a Contrapunctus without changing stops - which is the rule in case of historically informed players, - in Bach´s age it was for technical reasons impossible to add stops (or remove stops) during the playing - will largely have to let the music display the climax itself. Well, he can add to the inner tension af the playing by using more expressive agogics or articulation, but he can not change the dynamics, so the climax is -as I wrote above- built into the music. To emphazise the climax by dynamic means - which is possible on piano - introduces a palette of expression which is anachronistic and in a way pasted on the music and in the end feels romantic - and the AoF is not romantic music. Maybe I express myself a tad strict, but I think Koroliov should be more restrictive with dynamic variations instead of overdoing the point.
An organist who plays a Contrapunctus without changing stops - which is the rule in case of historically informed players, - in Bach´s age it was for technical reasons impossible to add stops (or remove stops) during the playing - will largely have to let the music display the climax itself. Well, he can add to the inner tension af the playing by using more expressive agogics or articulation, but he can not change the dynamics, so the climax is -as I wrote above- built into the music. [....]
The Art of the Fugue on saxophones, anyone?
The Art of the Fugue on saxophones, anyone?
It's just that I did see such a recording on Amazon. (No, I didn't listen to samples. Not that that's a bad thing . . . .)
Here's one on saxaphones/Protone Label:You mean this one?
I'm also aware of another one on Channel Classics.
I know this one:
(http://i51.tinypic.com/smr0v8.jpg)
http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Kunst-Fuge-Hybrid-SACD/dp/B0001K2KK2/
It's not like if I want sax, I call Candy :-* .... but it's good!
Though I'm definitely not a 'sax connaisseur', IMO this is thoughtful Bach playing and I don't regret having it.
You mean this one?
(http://i51.tinypic.com/smr0v8.jpg)
For this reason, I hope that some day organist Wolfgang Zerer will make a KdF recording. I've had some tremendous fugal experiences during his live concerts the last two/three years.
I'll keep some of those names in mind .... Janssen and/or Nikolayeva could be tempting.
Having owned Koroliov´s AoF as well as his contribution to the Haenssler Bach edition (Goldbergs, Inventions and Synphonies, Clavierübungg II, Chromatic phantasy and fugue and Phantasy c-minor) I have not been urged to investigate his Bach-recordings further, and I do not know his WTC. I own the Fischer, Gieseking and 2 x Sviatoslav Richter, and they meet my need for the WTC on piano.
[snip]....favorites being.....Janssen.....
Would that be Ivo Janssen? And is the disc below what you're referencing? I've grown mighty fond of this pianist and to read that his Bach is exceptional is good news. Thanks.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61D4fNpLZGL._SS500_.jpg)
I see. Personally I find Koroliov highly expressive and thoughtful in the WTC which he has been playing for many many years ..
For the Art of Fugue, I think Leonhardt's DHM is basically definitive (really there is no one who better captures flexible devotion and expression, and flavor not pretension of austerity in Bach playing.
Do you think the Rogg performance is balanced well in registrations?
Any comments on Rubsam's versions?
The word "definitive" is not part of my vocabularium in a context of musical interpretation. But Leonhardt´s second AoF recording has IMO got an aura of congeniality about it, and represents the closest, how I think (I may be wrong) Bach himself might have played the work.
Rogg uses the Walcha organ arrangement...
But Leonhardt´s second AoF recording has IMO got an aura of congeniality about it, and represents the closest, how I think (I may be wrong) Bach himself might have played the work.
I thought you thought that it was intended for organ.
The AoF was obviously written with the keyboard manualiter in mind - in the first hand the harpsichord, in the second hand the organ manualiter, considering the fact that all of it (except the two mirror fugues) can be played with two hands.
Or do you just mean that the articulation, ornamentation, voicing, tempos etc are in line with what we can infer generally about how Bach played things on the harpsichord?
Yes, this is the one. I have not heard other Bach from him than this, and exceptional may be an overstatement. For AoF on piano I still prefer Petermandl (Gramola). But I find Ivo Janssen sufficiently interesting to think of getting his complete Bach box.
Harpsichord or organ manualiter.
I think the closest we get is Tachezi.
His [Tachezi´s] AoF is one of the ones I have known for longest and it's one which I enjoy very much.
By coincidence I was listening to Harnoncourt's Musical Offering yesterday and was struck by the beauty of Tachezi's harpsichord. Any suggestions for how I can hear more harpsichord playing like that -- has he recorded other harpsichord music?
By coincidence I was listening to Harnoncourt's Musical Offering yesterday and was struck by the beauty of Tachezi's harpsichord. Any suggestions for how I can hear more harpsichord playing like that -- has he recorded other harpsichord music?
Concerning the instrument he uses in the Musical Offering my item of the CD does not tell, but a GMG member some time ago wrote, that it is an instrument by Martin Skowroneck.
Harpsichord or organ manualiter.
Yes, even if some of this is conjecture. Leonhardt recorded the AoF twice on harpsichord. What a pity he did not record it on organ too. I can not from the top of my head recall any organist who quite has absorbed the style of his second recording. Rübsam claimed in an interview that he did in his (Rübsam´s) first recording , but I think the closest we get is Tachezi.
Indeed. Thanks to Scarpia (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,289.msg448113.html#msg448113), we know that it's one from 1720. :)
Nice to see Tachezi mentioned.
At first, I got me another Bach organ disc from him, but he never made my day.
Which one? Vol I (BWV 565 et c.) or Vol. II (BWV 564 et c.?)
Probably a sampler:
(http://i52.tinypic.com/sebsis.jpg)
BWV 565, 552, 542, 582 and 564.
Had a listen to BWV 542 before good night and well, it's not bad at all.
I guess I wasn't happy with the rather diffuse sound quality. And I still wished for a better recording.
Other than his [Tachezi's] solo harpsichord in the Musical Offering I only know of his solo harpsichord contribution to Hermann Scherchen´s Art of Fugue for Westminster (ca.1964), Tachezi playing the four Canons. His playing in these is (IIRC -parted with the recording -LP- many years ago) a bit stiff, and he was not well served by the engineer.
I can easily let you have the mp3s if you want them.
For my taste:
* Organ: Walcha (DGG)
* Harpsichord: Gilbert (DGG)
* Piano: Koriolov (Tacet)
That's very close to my taste except I prefer Tureck slightly to Koroliov.
You're confusing AoF with WTC maybe -- or is there a Tureck AoF that I haven't heard?
The problem of the mirror fugues may be solved by playing them on two keyboards, a solution Bach himself hinted at by arranging the three part mirror fugue for two keyboards adding a free fourth part for the fourth hand.
You mean, a duet?
You mean, a duet?
A nice and friendly version IMO. Maybe a bit too friendly.
Yes. And this is how they [the mirror fugues] often are recorded, when harpsichord or piano is used.
All the four part contrapuncti may also be played by four hands, each hand playing one part, whether played on two harpsichords (like Ton Koopman and Tini Mathot) or on two pianos (like Richard Buhlig and Wesley Kuhnle) or on different manuals of an organ (like Pascale Rouet / Jean-Christophe Leclere) or on more organs (like the Wolfgang von Karajan Ensemble), and there is even a recording with two parts played on piano and two parts on organ (Jean-Christophe Geiser organ and Elisabeth Sombart piano - on IFO).
I can't wait
Try Emerson. I know they usually get a bad rap from me but their style seems to land very well for this piece. They are much more agile then Keller and their texture if very clear as well.
Did Leonhardt actually record for Pro-Arte or is this some re-issue?
So the now defunct Pro-Arte was like BC. I have Leonhardt's Goldberg Variations on Pro-Arte as well ...
Leonhardt's on ProArte.
The Oct 1979 issue of Gramophone had this to say about the Harmonia Mundi issue:
BACH. The Art of Fugue, BWV1080. Gustav Leonhardt (harpsichord).
Harmonia Mundi 1C 165 99793-4 (two records, nas, £9.98).
[....] [Leonhardt] relegates the four canons to the fourth and last side. This denies the work a final climax. It will never have occurred to Bach that it needed one; even so, in a radio broadcast it might be best to play just Nos. 1 to 12. [....]
After the introduction (Cpt I), the following three fugues (Cpt II to IV) are played jubilantly.
Your comment here surprised me. "Jubilant" might apply to a degree to Cpt IV, but I don't hear it with II and III which are quite severe except for infrequent (and astounding) rays of light.
It is very different from the Naxos - as are the two Bach integrals. Some time ago Marc published a link to a website from where the first integral including the AoF might be downloaded.
A legal downloading, I guess. ;D
BTW, some days ago I was listening to the AoF on Naxos, and I highly enjoyed it. I supposse Rübsam "late style" is some kind of acquired taste because I really hated it some years ago.
Don´t know. I was just stating a fact. 8)
I have never hated Rübsam´s late style as such, because most of the Naxos cycle is very impressive, f.i. the recordings from St. Martini Kerk, Groningen and from the Freiburger Dom. It is just the AoF and a few other things I think differ a bit from his late style as otherwise represented, but still I find these items interesting at least.
I have never hated Rübsam´s late style as such, because most of the Naxos cycle is very impressive, f.i. the recordings from St. Martini Kerk, Groningen and from the Freiburger Dom. It is just the AoF and a few other things I think differ a bit from his late style as otherwise represented, but still I find these items interesting at least.
That's CU3 and the Trio Sonatas -- is there more?
His 4th Trio sonata gives me a lot of trouble -- basically I really really appreciate what he does with movement 2 and 3, but I just can't get my head round what he does with movement 1. I mean the slow tempo for the vivace (is that Bach's own tempo indication?)
Yes, in the last time, I have started to enjoy his deliberate style; but as a matter of fact, for instance, Vartolo's slowness and deliberate playing in Frescobaldi, it's almost a "baby" compared to some Rübsam in his second Bach cycle.
I have had similar thoughts before. Maybe Rübsam can learn me to appreciate Vartolo´s AoF a bit more. :)
[....] Rubsam recorded the AoF in 1978 just after completing his first Bach integral (Philips). The AoF was subsequently released separately (on LP), but when Philips rereleased the integral on CD, they included this recording of the AoF. It is very different from the Naxos - as are the two Bach integrals. Some time ago Marc published a link to a website from where the first integral including the AoF might be downloaded.
... but AFAIK that link, legal or not :P, has gone.
Universal should re-release this interesting issue!!
... although, apparently, that already happened regarding his Frescobaldi, if I'm not wrong. :)
I once mentioned a link with a download (mp3) possibility for the OOP Philips Bach Rübsam integral, but AFAIK that link, legal or not :P, has gone.
Universal should re-release this interesting issue!!
A friend of mine who is a Vartolo fan rates the Trabaci recordings very highly.
Your comment here surprised me. "Jubilant" might apply to a degree to Cpt IV, but I don't hear it with II and III which are quite severe except for infrequent (and astounding) rays of light.
By the way, why does Robert Hill leave out cpt 4? And why does he play the music in such a strange order? I'm listening on spotify, so maybe that has something to do with it.
In his notes on AoF Vartolo says that he deliberately avoided a sort of monochromatic baroque style which he suggests has become the default of period Bach performances -- he suggests that it has its main origin in a knee jerk reaction to the way Landowska played, and has little to do with what we can read about authentic Bach performance.
I heartily disagree. One can call the so-called preauthentic modern style (f.i. Neville Marriner, Karl Richter and Martin Galling representing this) monochromatic, but certainly not the later historically informed style. I wonder whom Vartolo thinks of.
Not at all like their recording, then. One important member of the ensemble is now deceased, so perhaps the change in personnel has had an impact on their playing style?
Correct
Could the sound on a viol be so directional that my impression of the balance was caused by the fact that I was looking directly at the high viol, and the low viols had their backs to me?
V. V.
V. V
ME
For those who know the Wigmore Hall I had the aisle seat of row 2, central bank of seats (B13). So very close and very central. I wouldn't have this problem with a regular string quartet.
Or are low viols less powerful dynamically than high ones? Even on the record, Fretwork aren't as equally balanced as an organ recording can be. I just compared their cpt 6 with Gerd Zacher, and it's clear.
I must be going mad. It wasn't Fretwork it was Phantasm. The lineup was Laurence Dreyfus, Emilia Benjamin, Johnathan Mason, Markku Luolajan-Mikkola.
I just finished reading the 15 pages topic, and must say I am thrilled of how many fans this great work has.It was the Hofstadter's book that excited my curiosity about The Art of Fugue a long time ago. It's an amazing book and I was totally mesmerized. I first purchased the CD of Münchinger / Stuttgart Chamber Orchestra, and for some reason, it felt so dull that I almost disliked the music itself. However, after many years not touching it at all, when I listened to the album a few days ago, it turned out to be a very fine performance. I enjoyed the whole album very much. I have Gould and Delmé Quartet (Simpson's arrangement), which are very nice. I also have Menno Van Delft's recoding but have not listened to it enough. I feel it sounds too slow.
This was my formal initiation in classical music through a not so related source: a book. While reading the now classical Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid from Hofstadter, I realized the hard task of finishing such an extensive and sometimes complex book was going to be impossible without having a deep knowledge of the Art of Fugue, which is deeply tight to the idea of self reference the author uses to explore Gödel ideas. I was quite lucky, since the only recording I was able to found here in Chile was MAK CD, which caused a deep impression on me.
This was 7 years ago, and I have been able to extend the narrow scenario that was drawn by that masterpiece and now would say classical music is my second great passion, being really close to literature. As for today I own 16 versions of the Art of Fugue, being the one played by Phantasm String Quartet my favorite, therefore I am quite surprised nobody mentioned it before in this topic: I absolutely recommend it over the Julliard, Emerson, Fretwork SQ versions.
I am not sure if this post is completely dead, but sure is still an interesting subject for me.
I also recommend Uri Golomb article, which has a real nice analysis of the work and a critic selection of recordings: http://www.academia.edu/384041/Johann_Sebastian_Bachs_The_Art_of_Fugue (http://www.academia.edu/384041/Johann_Sebastian_Bachs_The_Art_of_Fugue)
Have a nice 2014!
(http://www.pieterdirksen.nl/Images/kdfcd.jpg)
Pieter Dirksen plays the 1742 AoF, in the first 12 tracks of the above CD. There's a lot to say about Dirkesn's expressive and introspective music making, but what struck me most is the end of this early version of AoF - the intense and dissonant chromatic penultimate fugue, followed by the strange, gentle, mystical canon at the end. Tracks 11 and 12 on the CD. It is maybe the best way to listen to the end of AoF.
This is a very good harpsichord recording, and the 1742 is very pleasing to listen to in entirety. Dirksen is really sensitive to the huge variety of affects in the music. The CD contains music from later versions too.
That's good to know; I'm always looking for a really good harpsichord version (ironically), but haven't really found one that totally clicks.
THE EARLIEST VERSION OF BACH'S ART OF FUGUE In the 20th century, several myths have emerged regarding Johann Sebastian Bach's Art of Fugue, some of which unfortunately are still alive today.
One of the most persistent misperceptions is the idea that Bach wrote an 'abstract' score which should be arranged for instrumental ensembles, though it has already long been proven that the work was written for harpsichord. Through intense research, especially from the last two decades (notably by Wolfgang Wiemer, Gregory Butler and Christoph Wolff) our knowledge about the background of this fascinating work has been deepened considerably. The idea that the Art of Fugue as Bach's final work was left behind in a rather chaotic state should therefore be seen as inaccurate. The main sources of Bach's Art of Fugue consist of an autograph (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, MS Bach P 200) and the posthumous print of 1751. Due to recent research, the status of the two sources as well as their mutual relationship had to be considerably revised. The printed version was ranked for a long time as a rather erratic work, in which the posthumous editors did scant justice to Bach's intentions. In this view P 200 was considered to be a sort of sketchbook, the content of which Bach was unable to work out completely for the printed version. This interpretation, which set the scene for the numerous 'new' orderings — mostly in con-junction with orchestrations alien to the work — has been proven untenable. It is now clear that the 1751 print does indeed predominantly reflect Bach's intentions.
This conclusion has, however, not diminished the stature of the autograph, as new insights have been brought about regarding this source as well. P 200 has been increasingly recognized as containing an independent, early version of the Art of Fugue. This new view was strengthened by the discovery, made on the basis of comparative watermark and handwriting analysis, that the manuscript did not originate in Bach's very last years but already in the early 1740s — probably in the year 1742. The work in the form found in P 200 has been repeatedly examined regarding its cyclical character, without leading to wholly convincing results. A plausible solution has only recently been discovered.' Previous interpretations of the version in P 200 foundered because all of the movements it contains were considered as a unity. Renewed scrutiny of the graphological evidence and the watermarks in combination with stylistical observations (in the context of Bach's other music of the 1740's) has led me to the conclusion that the earliest version of the Art of Fugue consisted of only twelve pieces (nos. 1-12 of the autograph). This part of the manuscript was most likely written in 1742.
The twelve-movement cycle is easily recognizable as an organic whole. An exhaustive analysis of its cyclical principles has been carried out elsewhere;' here, a few of the most salient points may be singled out. Two ordering principles which are present in other late cycles of Bach can also be found in the 1742 Art of Fugue: The cycle is completed by a canon in augmentation — a feature which is also found in the Fourteen Canons BWV 1087 and in the final version BWV 769a of the Canonic Variations `Vom Himmel hock, do komm ich her Bach retained this position of the augmentation canon in the printed version of the Art of Fugue as well. [II] The position of P 200 no. 7, the early ver-4 sion of the later Contrapunctus 6 in stylo francese', did previously not allow for a convincing cyclical explanation. In Bach's late keyboard cycles, a movement in this specific style is always placed at the opening of the second half of the work, as in Clavierabung 111(1739), the Well-Tempered Clavier II (ca.1739 — 1742) and the Goldberg Variations (1741). Both in the printed version and P 200 in its entirety the 'French' fugue does not occupy such a position; only in the twelve-movement early version does this fugue take its 'normal' place, opening the second half of the cycle.
The '1742' version exhibits a symmetrical structure with a progressive increase in the use of contrapuntal artifice. The cycle consists of three fugues in simple counterpoint (nos. 1-3) which are followed by six movements in double counterpoint (nos. 4- 9) and concluded by three more pieces, now in triple counterpoint (nos. 10-12). The treatment of the fugue as a contrapuntal principle contrasts with a work like the Well-Tempered Clavier (the second part of which was completed about the same time) in which the fugue is treated as a genre. In the Art of Fugue 'counterpoint' is thus emphasized by the dominance of multiple contrapuntal techniques. Strict ordering can also be found in the distribution of the rectus and inversus forms of the theme over the twelve movements. Half of them use only a single form; whereas three fugues (nos. 1, 3 and 5) use the normal form, and another three are devoted to the inverted version (nos. 2, 6 and 10). The other half of the fugues (nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12) incorporate both forms simultaneously.
At a later stage (probably around 1747) Bach extended P 200 with two new mirror fugues (nos. 13-14) and a completely rewritten version of the augmentation canon (no. 15), which should be seen as the first step in preparing the work for publication. Shortly thereafter, these plans were finalized into the form we now know from the print. The most conspicuous changes which Bach made are the doubling of note values for a number of pieces and some major cyclic changes. In the latter process the `baroque' mixture of genres was exchanged for a more 'didactic' ordering according to genre. Above all, this revision brings about the important practical implication that the early version is much more a concert cycle than the printed version, which has more the character of a rationally ordered fugue compendium with little regard towards cyclic performance. In the ordering of the early version, the theme undergoes various transformations in a consequent and logical development, while in the printed version this development begins anew with each different group. The performance time needed for the 'dynamic' early version is moreover much shorter than the 'static' printed version. The length of the early version can be compared with Bach's other large harpsichord cycles such as the French Overture BWV 831. In fact, the early version is shorter than the Goldberg Variations BWV 988.
The present recording is based upon a reconstruction of this twelve-part early version. The later re-visions in the manuscript have been omitted in order to recapture the original text of the 1742 version. The decisions which had to be made contain, to be sure, an element of subjectivity. Many corrections are easily identifiable as later emendations. However, other corrections may have already been carried out while Bach was copying the pieces. Thus, the version presented here is hypothetical in character — offering, nonetheless, fascinating perspectives. One such example is the early version of the chromatic triple fugue no. 11, where one encounters striking dissonances and harmonic clashes occasioned by some uncompromising voice leading which were only later resolved. Contrary to the printed version, this fugue is ordered right after its pendant on the same thematic constellation in inversion (no. 10). Together they form the expressive culmination of the whole cycle. The two framing canons, which, in their rather introverted, concentrated two-part writing, stand in striking contrast to the two triple fugues. These four pieces form the closing part of the early version of the Art of Fugue. This recording is an attempt to revive the earliest and perhaps most unified version of Bach's last major harpsichord work.
As has already been mentioned, around the year 1747 Bach made an 'interim' version of the Art of Fugue, in which the augmentation canon was completely recast and two newly composed mirror fugues added, which should stand before this canon. These three additional pieces have been recorded as well, and with the possibilities of CD technology one can listen to this second version of the cycle by pre-programming nos. 1-11 and 13-17. The resulting fourteen-movement cycle must have represented Bach's thoughts about the Art of Fugue before he decided upon a much more radical revision —the final version as found in the 1751 print. The present recording does also show that the mirror fugues are indeed playable by two hands alone (which has routinely been doubted thus far), thus demonstrating that even those pieces were conceived for a single harpsichord. The most startling feature of the mirror fugues is perhaps not so much the technical feat in itself which Bach brings off here, but rather the musical wonder of the inverted version of both fugues: these are markedly different in expression from the normal version, reaching out as it seems to the very limits of musical experience.
Pieter Dirksen
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51SheOSM62L.jpg)
Ron Lepinat uses an interesting piano by J L Duysen (1926), it is clear and strong in bass, midrange and treble. Its exceptional balance suites his approach to voicing, which is equal in all voices at all times. The voicing is responsive and dramatic and alive (listen to his way of playing the canon in hypodiatesseron! Not just the voicing, but also the touch and the rhythm, the swing of it, are extraordinary.) He is imaginative with respect to the emotional content of each piece, he finds a wide range of emotional content. The agogics and ornamentation are not intrusive for me.
In just one place he lets does something really unexpected, and the result may be a stroke of genius or it may not, I can't say right now - the end of the canon in the 10th.
I am happy to see, that you like this recording. I have always considered it to be one of the most idiomatic - as much as it is possible on piano :) - piano renderings of the work.
What is it that people love about Koroliov that others don't like?
I'm sorry to say I feel pretty negative about Koroliov, I used to like what he does but that was years ago, before I really discovered what how good AoF can be.I wonder how I would respond to it. How about Pescia? He definitely uses the pedal at times but I don't think he does anything grotesque as you describe in Koroliov. And, I may be mistaken, but I think the dynamics are tasteful. Listening to his Canon III, I find it touching, consistent and lonely. I like this feeling in AOF. But you may have a different reaction. Everyone praises Nikolayeva, do you share in this? Changing the topic, could I get your view of Vartolo and Brookshire, both of whom seem to play around with agogics in less subtle ways than, maybe, Hill? I liked Vartolo the last time I listened to it but I haven't tried Brookshire lately (I like his French).
Koroliov uses modern piano techniques like dynamic variation over short sections of music, speeding up and slowing down, pedalling to alter the timbre and digging deep into the notes to produce a bell like rich sound. He's less skilled from the point of view of voice leading, giving the voices character, ornamentation and agogics. This impacts the character of the music fundamentally I would say.
Where he really comes a cropper is in the second half, when the pieces become more complex. Actually that's being a bit charitable because the problem sets in before the end of the first CD. He bangs and rushes his way through the canons and fugues in a totally matter of fact way.
I'm sure you can make AoF into music on a modern piano, but Koroliov ain't succeeded.
I wonder how I would respond to it. How about Pescia? He definitely uses the pedal at times but I don't think he does anything grotesque as you describe in Koroliov. And, I may be mistaken, but I think the dynamics are tasteful. Listening to his Canon III, I find it touching, consistent and lonely. I like this feeling in AOF. But you may have a different reaction. Everyone praises Nikolayeva, do you share in this? Changing the topic, could I get your view of Vartolo and Brookshire, both of whom seem to play around with agogics in less subtle ways than, maybe, Hill? I liked Vartolo the last time I listened to it but I haven't tried Brookshire lately (I like his French).
I don't know and I'm kind of not in the mood to listen. Test it out on the big complicated multi voiced canons and fugues -- my theory is that that's where you need to play in a HIP way to make it into music.I would like to see a comparison for the layperson between HIP and non-HIP in AOF or analysis of performances, necessarily including the piano, for this question. This would be interesting and maybe help some of us understand the question more deeply. I see Hewitt get over-the-moon reactions about what she did in AOF but there's not much mention of her in this thread. I'd like to say Pescia is quite good too, from my perspective. But, it leaves me wondering what's involved here in these performances. I can catch some of the differences in approach. But I'd love to get a deeper picture. This talk of voices and how technical and artistic choices bring out different aspects of the music is interesting.
reaction. Everyone praises Nikolayeva, do you share in this?
Vartolo
Brookshire,
Well AoF was probably written for a harpsichord, so start by thinking of all the things a good harpsichordist can do to interprete the score. These are probably what a historically informed performer would do. Things likeThanks! I see. I will compare Brookshire and Vartolo to see what you mean. I would guess that AOf takes much more discipline than the French Suites. Perhaps I shall acquire the Riemer. I'm interested in the instrument anyhow.
1. Delay a note very briefly to draw the listener's attention to it, or play it a millisecond earlier.
2. Accelerate a phrase to draw attention to it or play it with a different touch.
3. Roll a chord
4. Ornamentation
5. Stagger the attacks of simultaneous notes in different voices
6. Vary the tone of a note by changing the way you press the key, and hence changing the length of contact between string and plectrum
7. Change tuning
By the way I listened to Walter Riemer's AoF last night, it's good.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51SheOSM62L.jpg)
Ron Lepinat uses an interesting piano by J L Duysen (1926), it is clear and strong in bass, midrange and treble. Its exceptional balance suites his approach to voicing, which is equal in all voices at all times. The voicing is responsive and dramatic and alive (listen to his way of playing the canon in hypodiatesseron! Not just the voicing, but also the touch and the rhythm, the swing of it, are extraordinary.) He is imaginative with respect to the emotional content of each piece, he finds a wide range of emotional content. The agogics and ornamentation are not intrusive for me.
In just one place he lets does something really unexpected, and the result may be a stroke of genius or it may not, I can't say right now - the end of the canon in the 10th.
Old post, but how do you find this recording? It seems interesting but I can't find a trace of it anywhere.
Old post, but how do you find this recording? It seems interesting but I can't find a trace of it anywhere.
It should be on the symphonyshare server, let me know if there's a problem with it.
https://www.amazon.de/Die-Kunst-Fuge-Ron-Lepinat/dp/B002HR5ZDG/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1492252606&sr=1-1&keywords=ron+lepinat
(http://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/sites/www.limelightmagazine.com.au/files/CDA67980.png)Thanks for that note. I've been comparing Cédric Pescia to Hewitt a bit. I think Pescia is more decisive and a little less fussy than Hewitt - as well as more tasteful dynamics there. However, he has some romantic moments that some may not like. I am interested in what people like on the piano. Hewitt got raves but the samples I have don't make me inclined to get it all. Maybe it's too thought out or something.
Hewitt's AoF.
In interview she says that she wants to make all the lines sing, keep them independent, use the piano colours. She's able to manage the complex textures that the independent voicing produces in the more complex music. Articulation seems fine. Touch is varied.
I think this could have been a tremendous, bold and imaginative AoF, except that she does one thing which I can't get used to - she uses extreme dynamic variation, in a way which seems pointless to me. It's a deal breaker for me.
Piano sound seems to me a bit dominated by high and mid-range, the bass is not often very present. I don't like that, though I appreciate it may be justifiable.
https://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/recording-bachs-the-art-of-fugue-with-angela-hewitt
Can't seem to get inspired by Pescia, but if you want decisive, try David Lively.
Your earlier comment (the one you deleted) about Pescia was more interesting. About him I share your view.
Lively is interesting, but I am confused by his sequence of the Contrapuncti. On the other hand - never mind. Nowadays one can change the sequence ad libitum.
Can't seem to get inspired by Pescia, but if you want decisive, try David Lively.The samples sound a bit like Gould's WTC...a bit harsh. But maybe I need to download a full track. I like a little romanticism these days in the piano.
Everyone praises Nikolayeva, do you share in this?
Re Lively, does he say anything about the order in the booklet?
Npthing epochal.
From the booklet:
David Lively en propose une lecture qui sépare toutes les fugues en deux
groupes: celles où la forme dicte le fond, le contenue expressif se pliant
aux exigeances de la construction et celles, plus libres, qui ont en commun
le souci prépondérant de l’expressivité. Ainsi, les deux fugues miroirs sont
disposées de facon à server de cadre symmétrique: en ouverture, le rectus
de la première fugue-miroir suivi de l’iinversus de la deuxième et, pour
clore, le rectus de la deuxiéme fugue-miroir précédé par l’inversus de la
première. Se cadre formel enserre les quatre canons stricts présentés
en série croissante de complexité, terminant par une cadence improvisée.
This cadence improvisée, I wonder what he means.
An "improvised cadenza" maybe? Someone with better French might correct me.
Cadence is rhythm or pulse, but it's not usual to hear anything improvised in AoF as far as I know, but maybe he's intending something to do with the unfinished fugue, which is placed at the very end.
In the end of the Canon à la decima there is room for an improvised cadenza.
I thought as much, it explains why I was so surprised by what I heard in Ron Lepinat's performance.I want Lepinat more than ever. It's not for download anywhere. I've been listening to Lively: so, no pedal and very subtle dynamics, right? Almost like a harpsichord on the piano? So, this is very clear voicing. And the distinguishing feature of the piano is boiled down to the color of the piano? I wonder, why do some people prefer this on AOF against WTC? I admit I get annoyed with heavy dynamics but am more open to other piano "tricks." I wonder about the case for people's different tastes when it comes to Bach on the piano? What's in and what's out and is AOF a special case?
I'm, pretty sure that the french for cadenza is cadenza and cadence means rhythm. Je pense qu'on peut parler de la cadence scolaire, par exemple, ou la cadence de travaille. Mais je ne suis pas francophone.
I want Lepinat more than ever.
I want Lepinat more than ever. It's not for download anywhere. I've been listening to Lively: so, no pedal and very subtle dynamics, right? Almost like a harpsichord on the piano? So, this is very clear voicing. And the distinguishing feature of the piano is boiled down to the color of the piano? I wonder, why do some people prefer this on AOF against WTC? I admit I get annoyed with heavy dynamics but am more open to other piano "tricks." I wonder about the case for people's different tastes when it comes to Bach on the piano? What's in and what's out and is AOF a special case?
I want Lepinat more than ever. It's not for download anywhere. I've been listening to Lively: so, no pedal and very subtle dynamics, right? Almost like a harpsichord on the piano? So, this is very clear voicing. And the distinguishing feature of the piano is boiled down to the color of the piano? I wonder, why do some people prefer this on AOF against WTC? I admit I get annoyed with heavy dynamics but am more open to other piano "tricks." I wonder about the case for people's different tastes when it comes to Bach on the piano? What's in and what's out and is AOF a special case?
I think the vigour of it is also a distinguishing feature, esp on modern piano where they tend to play languidly and sweetly. I'm not sure he really plumbs the emotional possibilities of the music, despite that booklet note that Premont posted.I'm a download only person. I'm not an audiophile since I'm such a nomad. So Reimer is another one not for download that I want. That's good too, right?
The present recording presents all commonly available keyboard instruments to Bach (except the Lautenwerk and the fortepiano which he did not particularly like). I only use my feet on the pedals in #14 for dramatic effect.
My impression is that Balint Karosi's AoF is a attractive, expressively mainstream HIP performance, with the distinguishing feature that some of the pieces are on a neo-baroque organ (Richards and Fowkes op 10), and others are on harpsichord apart from one on clavichord.
The reason for posting about it here is this claim in the (interesting) booklet essay by Balint Karosi
Do we really know that Bach didn't like Lautenwerk and piano?
(https://www.hbdirect.com/coverm/thumbnails/5991813278425.jpg)
My impression is that Balint Karosi's AoF is a attractive, expressively mainstream HIP performance, with the distinguishing feature that some of the pieces are on a neo-baroque organ (Richards and Fowkes op 10), and others are on harpsichord apart from one on clavichord.
The reason for posting about it here is this claim in the (interesting) booklet essay by Balint Karosi
Do we really know that Bach didn't like Lautenwerk and piano?
At the beginning there may have been some difficulties with Silbermann's fortepianos, because Johann Sebastian Bach criticized the weak sound of the instrument's treble and the too heavy touch of the keyboard. However, when Silbermann improved his instruments decisively, evidently as a result of a detailed examination of a Cristofori fortepiano, Bach gave them his "complete approval".
For Johann Sebastian Bach a renewed encounter with a Silbermann fortepiano occurred, when he visited the Prussian King Friedrich II at the palace of Potsdam in 1747. On this occasion Friedrich II gave Johann Sebastian Bach the famous "King's Theme". Johann Sebastian Bach improvised directly on the king's Silbermann fortepiano a Ricercare for three voices that met with his majesty's "most gracious pleasure".
The liner notes to Elizabeth Farr's recording on Naxos argue that Bach liked the lautenwerk so well he had at least two built for him, and wrote the lute works for the lautenwerk, not the lute. I must admit I didn't like the instrument Farr herself used in that recording.
As for fortepiano, Wikipedia yielded this link via the Wayback machine
https://web.archive.org/web/20130613105200/http://www.jc-neupert.de/e/instr_2/silber_ham.htm
Quote Karosi:
The present recording presents all commonly available keyboard instruments to Bach (except the Lautenwerk and the fortepiano which he did not particularly like).
And this is of course nonsense. We know nothing about Bach's opinion of these two instruments.
J.S. Bach's connection with and interest in the Lautenwerk was considerable. He clearly liked the combination of softness with strength which these instruments are capable of producing, and he is known to have drawn up his own specifications for such an instrument to be built for him by Hildebrandt. In an annotation to Adlung's Musica mechanica organoedi, Johann Friedrich Agricola described a Lautenwerk that belonged to Bach:
The editor of these notes remembers having seen and heard a "Lautenclavicymbel" in Leipzig in about 1740, designed by Mr. Johann Sebastian Bach and made by Mr. Zacharias Hildebrand, which was smaller in size than a normal harpsichord but in all other respects similar. It had two choirs of gut strings, and a so-called little octave of brass strings. It is true that in its normal setting (that is, when only one stop was drawn) it sounded more like a theorbo than a lute. But if one drew the lute-stop (such as is found on a harpsichord) together with the cornet stop [?the 4' brass stop undamped], one could almost deceive professional lutenists.”
The inventory of Bach's possessions at the time of his death reveals that he owned two such instruments, as well as three harpsichords, one lute and a spinet.
And several hints indicate he loved the lautenwerk:
http://www.baroquemusic.org/barluthp.html
But we have no direct statements from Bach about either of these instruments. And particularly the "complete approval" of Silbermann's fortepianos might be made for commercial reasons, because Bach acted as agent for Silbermann's instruments.
I think he would not be an agent if he disliked the fortepiano.
(But now I am bit confused. Was Silbermann the piano builder the same as Silbermann the organ builder?)
I think he would not be an agent if he disliked the fortepiano.
(But now I am bit confused. Was Silbermann the piano builder the same as Silbermann the organ builder?)
The organ at St Laurent Alkmaar has the clear and intense sounds of a baroque instrument. H Walcha uses it with economy, which gives his interpretation a perfect lucidity of line, in a beautiful atmosphere which is both introspective and paired down to the essentials. The whole thing is deliberately austere, but sensitive. These parts stand out for different reasons
cpt 8 -- dazzling, superb
cpt 20 -- the registration, which is different for each section, allows us to grasp the architecture
cpt 17 -- treated with finesse and lightness
the cannons -- the varied colours give them a sustained interest
the final fugue, of which the sumptuousness seems all the more dazzling because the conception of the whole is so discrete. It finishes by a chord in D minor placed in the first beat of the bar left incomplete by Bach, and replacing it
I think the harpsichord in art of fugue isn’t as well recorded as it is for Naxos. Rubsam’s own recording is still very well engineered though, especially given that he did it himself in his own studio.
I like the new AOF a lot. I might also pick up the Pachelbel. For some reason, I have more problems with the Goldberg variations, though they are growing on me in spots. I imagine if one likes his Bach lautenwerk recordings, one will like the pachelbel too. And the Bohm.
I agree with this. Rübsam must have improved his enginering during the last years.
@MILK: Concerning his interpretation of the AoF I find it - not surprising - rather similar to the WTC.
(https://shop.new-art.nl/content/img/new_products/1458651361.jpg)Thanks. I had to get this based on the recommendation. Very rewarding listen.
Extraordinary symphonic Thuringian organ here, at Gräfenroda made by Johann Anton Weise in 1736, under the direction of Johann Peter Kellner. This recording had me jumping out of my seat a few times, the sounds are so unexpected, the flutes!!!!!! The bells!!!! I never knew organ music could sound like this.
Thanks. I had to get this based on the recommendation. Very rewarding listen.
Can I get some reactions to Rubsam’s AOF?
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41NcSDM2A0L.jpg) I have a hard time finding one measly glowing recommendation of a modern piano version of AOF on any page of this thread. I'm trying out Janssen tonight. I like how he avoids dynamics but he does seem a bit dry, i.e. not doing much with articulation/rubato. However, I'm sensing there's something to be got from it too. There's something in it.
My favorites are G. Sokolov on Opus 111/Naive and Konstantin Lifschitz on Orfeo.I’m just getting into Schiff and I’d love to hear him do AOF. Sokolov is very heavy on dynamics I think. Too much so for me maybe.
Sokolov is heavy, deep, emotional.
Lifschitz is elegant and ligth.
I'm still hoping Andras Schiff will record it someday...
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41NcSDM2A0L.jpg) I have a hard time finding one measly glowing recommendation of a modern piano version of AOF on any page of this thread. I'm trying out Janssen tonight. I like how he avoids dynamics but he does seem a bit dry, i.e. not doing much with articulation/rubato. However, I'm sensing there's something to be got from it too. There's something in it.
Joanna MacGregor. Definitely not dry.I will check her out. I am thinking that AOF is the most difficult of Bach's keyboard music to pull off well on the piano.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Fsp6dyqEL._SS500.jpg)
Joanna MacGregor. Definitely not dry.seems like Janssen uses soft/loud in at least less obvious ways than MacGregor. Well, maybe much less. And “dry” is unfair. I have to say I’m beginning to really prefer Janssen. At the very least, he avoids the temptation to slow things and pound out the endings.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Fsp6dyqEL._SS500.jpg)
Modern piano players. More often as not they want to play it vertically, emphasising the independence of the voices rather than the chords, but the only way they can think of to do this is to play one voice louder. And they’re all taught by their piano teachers that climaxes come at the end and you mark it by playing louder and slower.Yes I want to go back and listen more to those. AOF seems to accentuate every performer’s bad habits. At least it feel that way.
For a different approach on modern piano, have a listen to both the recordings that Tatiana Niloaieva made, she’s more harmonically interesting maybe, and less naive.
Walter Riemer recorded it with a fortepiano.
Walter Riemer recorded it with a fortepiano.this has always and still seems very stiff to me. I’m really missing it because I’ve tried and tried with Riemer.
I’m listening to the new Van asperen and I’m blown away by it. He creates so much suspense and drama. I almost want to say he should have released it on Halloween.
Through internal tension rather than external effects - I.e, through the way the voices respond to each other, not through volume changes.I don't feel they take away though. Those ornaments are totally French?
It’s really hard to make sense of Asperen’s reason for using so many ornaments - that François Couperin and D’Anglebert were influences on the music. Neither of them wrote fugues for harpsichord as far as I know. I wish he had said more in the booklet.
I don't feel they take away though. Those ornaments are totally French?
Well what else? Especially given he's convinced that the music takes some of it's influence from French composers.Sorry, does he say that in the booklet? You mean he says it without explaining why he thinks that? That is odd. Doesn't Hill play up an Italian angle? I'm a bit lazy with reading all the info. Would it be cynical to say it gives them a justification to do something a little different? Do you like the ornamentation or do you think it sticks out?
Finale: Froberger — French Elements — Performance
Particular influence on Bach's concept of monothematic fugue was exercised by Johann Jacob Froberger's fugues and variation fugues (Fantasias/Ricercars, Can-zonas/Capriccios) and by the old French fuguists, with whose time-honoured playing tradition — which travelled well beyond the country's borders — Couperin's L'Art de toucher le Clavecin, with its agrements, was probably closely related. Since this wide subject would go beyond the scope of the present pages a few concise remarks must suffice.
Of these earlier fugal compositions, Jean-Henri D'Anglebert's group of five Fugues sur le mesme Sujet (1689) has already been proposed as an example for Bach's Art of Fugue (Stauffer'). One may go a step further by observing that figuration in style luthe and hidden homophony, so typical of these French masters, can often be recognized in the Contrapuncti. Of several other French parallels to Bach's magnum opus, we will point here only to one, which has not been mentioned before: several correspondences with Bach's chorale-like main subject can be found in the Franco-Flemish Vingt-quatre Fantasies (Paris 161o) by the Bruges composer Karel Guillet (see threefold example (ill.) with (a) passages from Guillet's Fantasies I, VI, XVIII (transposed), and (b) Bach's Art of Fugue subject: rectus, inversus, and rectus as a tonal comes).
[Example omitted]
As regards the notation of ornamentation in polyphonic writing, in the Baroque era there was a tradition of leaving fugues without ornaments in the representative, didactic fullscore format of an 'Art Volume' ('Kunstbuch'). Subsequently, in practical two-stave keyboard notation, the required agrements — that rich palette of French orna-mentation also assimilated by Bach, including arpege, coule, detache, coulade — would be indicated, indeed in fairly consistent imitation in the other voices, as is demonstrated like a Rosetta Stone by, among others, D'Anglebert's edition (the Quatuor sur le Kyrie versus the five Fugues). The same procedure applies for that matter to articulation marks. Similarly striking in this sense is the two-fold transmission of a didactic (unornamented) Ricercar in juxtaposition to a 'practical' Fuge (richly decorated and even elaborated) from the hand of Bach's Viennese contemporary Gottlieb Muffat (Riedel).
In the first, 'representative' case, incidentally, Muffat doubled the note values: the much discussed question as to why Bach, for the engraver's copy of the 'Art Volume' of his Art of Fugue, changed several movements into such 'white' notation might thus be answered once and for all.
Elements of this dual approach can also be found Bach, for example in the Ricercari a 6 and a 3 of the Musical Offering (in full score and keyboard score respectively, where the former has no agrements at all, and the latter dozens, including some exuberant ones, and in the Fugue itself, where the seldom ornamented four-part Contrapuncti (in full score) contrast with the lavishly err ished canons (in keyboard score). Here again, this discrepancy also applies to articulation marks.
Apropos the embellishments themselves, often only sketchily explained in the — not always undogmatic — treatises of the period, and their application in Bach's circle: not only do we find such agrements in manifold, written-out form in the Art of Fugue, but in the first edition of the three-part Contrapunctus VIII there are traces of a systematic ornamentation tradition in Bach's entourage as well, for here ornaments in the subject are imitated in all the answers, even in the bass. We are dealing here with a long inter-European tradition of both composers and players (J.J. Quantz!), who, in fugues, especially singled out the theme entries in this way (ill. p. 16 Cp. VIII).
Finally, I would draw attention in this context to another significant Rosetta Stone which pertains particularly to the Art of Fugue. It concerns the Fughetta uber Wir glauben all an einen Gott (from Clavierubung III), in coparison with Contrapunctus VI, both "in Stylo Francese", as indicated by the composer above this last work (ill.).
This is apparently Bach's term for what was then generally cultivated as the theatrical, 'over-dotted' style for the composition and performance of overtures and dances, which for that matter we also observe, in a wider sense, in other, sometimes quite dance-like Contrapuncti and Canons. Both works contain substantial corresponding elements, and, surprisingly, even almost identical closing phrases: the harpsichord piece (in full score) is 'bare' and unornamented, while the organ piece (in keyboard score) is ornamented with many specific and sometimes even exuberant French agrements (see ill.: Wir glauben all (transposed), and Contrapunctus VI (idealised), beginning and close).
Here the question could be raised: Are there grounds to assume that the wealth of agrements printed in the (sacred) chorale fugue for the organ was not equally intended for the (secular) Contrapunctus for the harpsichord? In his personal copy of Clavierubung III, moreover, Bach later added supplementary ornamentation by hand (Stauffer2), and in so doing did not shy away from the use of two simultaneous agrements, so characteristic of the French style. On the question of Bach's 'Art of Playing the Harpsi-chord', to conclude, his Upright Instruction (Auffrichtige Anleitung) in the Inventions and Sinfonias specifies no more than a "cantabile manner of playing" (cantable Art im Spielen). The impression gained from his pupils' testimonies, including that of his son Carl Philipp Emanuel, that Bach taught Couperin's French manner and put it into practice himself, is confirmed by Marpurg, the Bach disciple and connoisseur par excellence, who in Paris had been schooled in the Couperin tradition, with its ever stressed jeu coule as the basis of harpsichord and organ playing. After visiting Bach personally in Leipzig, he confided in the little known first edition of his Kunst das Clavier zu spielen (Berlin 175o): "I can say no more to you in praise of Couperin, than that the learned Bachs [J.S., W.F. and C.P.E] considered him worthy of their acclaim" (Ich kann Dir zum Lobe des Couperin nicht mehr sagen, als daft die gelehrten Bachen ihn ihres Beyfalls wurdig schtitzen), in so doing referring explicitly to Couperin's manner of playing (ill. p.42). In this light it is also understandable that Bach at different times of his life expressed — and especially also to Marpurg — his great admiration for the "fine and mannerly playing" (feine and manierliche Spielart) of Louis Marchand, whose style furthermore enjoyed such excellent esteem in Germany that at the Dresden court he was offered a post in the king's service for the extraordinary salary of "more than a thousand thaler" (Obituary).
[Example omitted]
My interpretation of Bach's Art of Fugue on this recording takes into consideration the French maniere of Couperin, Marchand and Marpurg. When the latter, fervent Bach disciple, whom 'the Bachs' NB requested to write the preface to the reprint of the Art of Fugue, himself performed the many pieces by "our celebrated Bach" that he discusses in his treatise, including this very opus, he most probably did so in the above-mentioned 'Paris manner', effectively in Stylo Francese: on an assumed very lightly quilled instrument, and providing traditionally required, harmonically embedded agrements, made possible by a 'French', delicate toucher, as contemporaries also observed in Bach's own performance: "one hardly saw his fingers move..." (man hat kaum seine Finger sich bewegen sehen...).
Translation: Stephen Taylor
I was totally wrong to suggest that he doesn't justify his French approach, or indeed the influence of Couperin and D'Anglebert. On the contrary, I think what he writes in the booklet deserves close attention.Much of this I don't understand but I can make out that there's a very healthy case for what Van Asperen is doing. I remember Hill making a case for an Italian influence a la Frescobaldi also.
I remember Hill making a case for an Italian influence a la Frescobaldi also.
Where does he do that?I've been trying to find it somewhere.
I was totally wrong to suggest that he doesn't justify his French approach, or indeed the influence of Couperin and D'Anglebert. On the contrary, I think what he writes in the booklet deserves close attention.
Bach
I began to listen enthusiastically to this new recording, but gradually I got more reservations about the way in which van Asperen shapes this series of fugas and canons. First of all, it is clear that van Asperen has a completely different vision than Leonhardt. Where Leonhardt shapes his monumental vision with deep serenity is van Asperen more improvisational , often very beautiful and surprising but also more difficult to follow in all its movements and counter movements. Where Leonhardt is quietly unfolding his vision is van Asperen often a bit restless and lacks the deep tranquility of Leonhardt.
The more free approach is less impressive and the parts are more on their own while the Leonhardt recording reads more like a coherent book.
The recording is not particularly successful and makes it difficult to follow Van Asperen's intentions.
van Asperen is very daring and it is surely very rewarding though it is not my first choice, that is still the Leonhardt recording that also has a better recording .
Only one of the Contrapuncti (Cpt. VI) is titled "in Stylo Francese" (it is rather in French organ style than harpsichord style). Indirectly this leads me to the conclusion, that the other contrapuncti should not be played in the French manner. And a look at the score also reveals, that the style of the work (except Cpt. VI) is a mixture of Italian style (early Baroque ricercari in particular) and North German / Dutch style (Sweelinck,Scheidemann, Scheidt e.g.). And I find van Asperen's claim about a French style quite besides the point.This would be the recording Leonhardt made in the 50s?
Van Asperen's AoF fast becomes tiring listening - given his cornucopia of French style ornaments. They are so systematically applied, that foreseeability is unavoidable, and the end result is an impression of mannerism very far removed from spontaneity - just like Lena Jacobson's live Buxtehude recording in Stade.
Nor do I find van Asperens sequence of the contrapuncti justified, as Bach himself decided the sequence of the first eleven contrapuncti. And only God knows why van Asperen plays the manuscript version of Contrapunctus II. His omittance of the unfinished Fuga a 4 may be the most musicological valid characteristic of his recording.
One may go a step further by observing that figuration in style luthe and hidden homophony, so typical of these French masters, can often be recognized in the Contrapuncti.
Are Vartolo and Rubsam the first keyboardists to apply this broken style of playing? And the only ones employing it?
I’m listening to Van Asperen on headphones this morning and I also had time to listen to 3 tracks from Leonhardt’s 50s recording. I don’t find Leonhardt’s instrument to be very pleasing so I’d also like to know which recording’s most take on Leonhardt’s approach (Hill, Rieger Vartolo, etc.). The more I listen to this as the years go by, hopefully, the more I am able to identify the approach and good points of each artist. In fact, it’d be interesting to see what tagline people are willing to give their top 5 favorite recordings.
I do see the point that’s been made about Leonhardt, i.e. that he’s more pacific and that it fits together.
However, I find Van Asperen thoroughly enjoyable, ecstatic, dramatic - and I’m not, never, bored by what’s going on. I get used to his ornamentation; maybe it’s something like what it would have sounded like if Louis Marchand had gotten ahold of this music. But, I don’t find it to be so extreme anyway. I think it’s a great piece of art - Van Asperen’s recording. I’m looking forward to relistening to some of the other great ones like Hill and Vartolo soon. But I was very stimulated by Van Asperen. Though I don’t understand the musicology like others here, I highly recommend Van Asperen - though not as one’s only recording of course.
Well Premont says that he once read something by Rübsam saying that his first organ AoF (for Philips) was inspired by Leonhardt. The one which seems to me extremely calm, like Leonhardt, is Stefan Müller and Johan Sonnleitner - that’s not a recommendation by the way, so far I find it a bit uninspiring, but it could be just me.
The idea of "hidden homophony" comes from Leonhardt. It's a big idea in his book and I don't understand it. He argues that it's a major element of Bach's keyboard style, something that distinguishes his keyboard music from his ensemble music. As far as I can see, he doesn't draw a connection to French music. If anyone wants I'll upload the relevant parts, in French.
I'm on my way to Avignon now to hear Ensemble Musica Nova, I'll scan the relevant parts of Leonhardt's monograph tomorrow or Monday.
My favorites are G. Sokolov on Opus 111/Naive and Konstantin Lifschitz on Orfeo.Konstantin Lifschitz has some interesting moments with AOF. I doubt everyone around here will feel this way. He doesn't rely on dynamics too much, not as much as others on piano at least, which is a plus for me. I have a feeling that for some people his phrasing might be unnatural or too shallow, or be found wanting in some way. I'm just trying to pick up on how people listen to and view and view AOF. Whereas I feel very easy in responding to WTC intuitively, I feel a distance from AOF and less certain about it's meaning and interpretation. It's something attractive about it, the doubt about it and the mystery of it. And on piano, it seems trickier; my feeling about it is shifting as time goes on. Anyway, though I'm not sure yet if Lifschitz has the real insight, I do find him worth listening to.
Sokolov is heavy, deep, emotional.
Lifschitz is elegant and ligth.
I'm still hoping Andras Schiff will record it someday...
In fact I listened again to some Müller/Sonnleitner after making that post and I'm sure you're right.
I'm on my way to Avignon now to hear Ensemble Musica Nova, I'll scan the relevant parts of Leonhardt's monograph tomorrow or Monday.
Have a nice trip. ;)
In fact the trip was difficult. It took me less time to get from my front door to Marseille than it took to get from Marseille to Avignon.
The location for the concert was amazing, the popes' palace was shrouded in mist. The perspectives as you walk through the internal courtyard are astonishing, parts of Oxford also have impressive vistas and perspectives, but not as impressive as this! You're very conscious of the sheer quantity and weight, power and force, of gothic stone.
EMN are seven singers and an organist, they did about 10 Machaut motets and the Missa Barcelona.
I thought that the virtuoso element of the motets, that the motetus and triplum can keep together in such complicated music, is a major part of the listening pleasure.
They sang a couple of motets two on a part, and it worked very well indeed. Part of the pleasure of these pieces is the variety of ways if singing them - with/ without instrument, different voice types etc.
I decided I really don't care for organ transcriptions of Machaut motets, but I do like the organ in the tenor either alone or supporting the voice.
The missa Barcelona had a really fabulous Credo, a great Agnus Dei and a very fine Kyrie.
They sang the Machaut Ita Missa Est as encore, and I thought to myself how expressive, how joyful, this bit of music is.
Why doesn't my Hi fi sound as good as live music? I was really angry that they sounded so good live! Should I buy supertweeters?
In fact the trip was difficult. It took me less time to get from my front door to Marseille than it took to get from Marseille to Avignon.Sounds wonderful. I wish I could visit there some day.
The location for the concert was amazing, the popes' palace was shrouded in mist. The perspectives as you walk through the internal courtyard are astonishing, parts of Oxford also have impressive vistas and perspectives, but not as impressive as this! You're very conscious of the sheer quantity and weight, power and force, of gothic stone.
EMN are seven singers and an organist, they did about 10 Machaut motets and the Missa Barcelona.
I thought that the virtuoso element of the motets, that the motetus and triplum can keep together in such complicated music, is a major part of the listening pleasure.
They sang a couple of motets two on a part, and it worked very well indeed. Part of the pleasure of these pieces is the variety of ways if singing them - with/ without instrument, different voice types etc.
I decided I really don't care for organ transcriptions of Machaut motets, but I do like the organ in the tenor either alone or supporting the voice.
The missa Barcelona had a really fabulous Credo, a great Agnus Dei and a very fine Kyrie.
They sang the Machaut Ita Missa Est as encore, and I thought to myself how expressive, how joyful, this bit of music is.
Why doesn't my Hi fi sound as good as live music? I was really angry that they sounded so good live! Should I buy supertweeters?
In fact the trip was difficult. It took me less time to get from my front door to Marseille than it took to get from Marseille to Avignon.
The location for the concert was amazing, the popes' palace was shrouded in mist. The perspectives as you walk through the internal courtyard are astonishing, parts of Oxford also have impressive vistas and perspectives, but not as impressive as this! You're very conscious of the sheer quantity and weight, power and force, of gothic stone.
EMN are seven singers and an organist, they did about 10 Machaut motets and the Missa Barcelona.
I thought that the virtuoso element of the motets, that the motetus and triplum can keep together in such complicated music, is a major part of the listening pleasure.
They sang a couple of motets two on a part, and it worked very well indeed. Part of the pleasure of these pieces is the variety of ways if singing them - with/ without instrument, different voice types etc.
I decided I really don't care for organ transcriptions of Machaut motets, but I do like the organ in the tenor either alone or supporting the voice.
The missa Barcelona had a really fabulous Credo, a great Agnus Dei and a very fine Kyrie.
They sang the Machaut Ita Missa Est as encore, and I thought to myself how expressive, how joyful, this bit of music is.
Why doesn't my Hi fi sound as good as live music? I was really angry that they sounded so good live! Should I buy supertweeters?
The link below leads to Sectrion V of Leonhardt's AoF Monograph, which deals with hidden monophony. I thought I'd leave it hear in case anyone else was interested in trying to understand it. It's in French
https://drive.google.com/open?id=11lRER9dHVxsam25gDLHAlRtEqSBDwYma
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51oCWYvv-2L._SY355_.jpg) Well this seems peaceful to my ears. How does Tilney in his approach compare to his teacher, Leonhardt? It's interesting to have the fugues broken up by other contrapuntal music. Tilney's deliberate/purposeful playing style and the idiosyncratic instrument tie it all together. I could imagine being enthralled if this were an evening in Avignon.
I think this is a valuable performance: serious and subtle, enriched by its concept of juxtaposing Bach with his influences, beautifully recorded on a magnificent Italian harpsichord. It’s the sort of CD which repays the attention you give it on each fresh encounter.Tilley seems serious and understated in everything he does. His Mozart is shockingly stolid. I always think rustic. It’s enjoyable but not transcendent like Leonhardt.
However I don’t think that comparison with Leonhardt is helpful here, and it doesn’t do Tilney any favours. It shows how infinitely more expressive, how infinitely more humane, Leonhardt was in AoF, and indeed in Frescobaldi, Louis Couperin etc.
Tilley seems serious and understated in everything he does. His Mozart is shockingly stolid. I always think rustic. It’s enjoyable but not transcendent like Leonhardt.
I am sure this recording has been mentioned here, but I have just discovered it and am very impressed:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61JYZxE1XaL._SX425_.jpg)
I think alternating the ensemble with Dantone's harpsichord or organ is very successful. Also, the ensemble offers a variety of instrumental combinations for their tracks.
I like it.
:)
You should try his Musical Offering then.
I suppose you mean this one:
Musical Offering, BWV 1079 [50:41]
Carlo Chiarappa
Accademia Bizantina
Carlo Chiarappa (Violin); Franco Andrini (Violin); Alessandro Temperi (Viola); Mauro Valli (Cello); Eva Katharina Dumig (Flute); Ottavio Dantone (Harpsichord)
WEA / Denon
Apr 1991
CD / TT: 50:41
Recorded at La chiesa di S. Angiolo Vico L'Abate.
Never-the-less ordered.
… I just get annoyed by the nervousness of it, the only expression I can hear is brittle edginess. I just tried again but turned to Rampe’s recording in relief!
Never mind, I have ordered Rampe's too,
I thoroughly enjoy Dantone's "Art of the Fugue", too - don't know his "Musical Offering", but then I'm much less enamored with that work in the first place.
What is it yous guys like so much about this AoF from Dantone?
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61ICxoj12QL._SS500_.jpg)
which is kind of the polar opposite, because here there’s so much ornamentation you kind of forget that you’re listening to a fugue! Which may be a good thing - I mean the structure matters less to me that the poetry. Still, expressively Asperen doesn’t get mileage out of inner tension either.
I liked the MacGregor recording when I listened to it but don't have strong opinions otherwise. I like the Asperen a little more, perhaps mostly because I'd never heard it played that way before and it enlivened my interest in the music.
"Does he say anything in the liner notes why he adds that much ornamentation?
My interpretation of Bach's Art of Fugue on this recording takes into consideration the French manière of Couperin, Marchand and Marpurg. When the latter. fervent Bach disciple. whom "The Bachs" NB requested to write the preface to the reprint of the Art of Fugue. himself performed the many pieces by "our celebrated Bach" that he discusses in his treatise. including this very opus. he most probably did so in the above-mentioned "Paris manner" . effectively in Stylo Francese: on an assumed very lightly quilled instrument. and providing traditionally required. harmonically embedded agréments. made possible by a 'French'. delicate toucher, as contemporaries also observed in Bach's own performance: one hardly saw his fingers move..."
Apropos the embellishments themselves, often only sketchily explained in the — not always undogmatic — trea-tises of the period, and their application in Bach's circle: not only do we find such agrements in manifold, written out form in the Art of Fugue, but in the first edition of the three-part Contrapunctus VIII there are traces of a system-atic ornamentation tradition in Bach's entourage as well. for here ornaments in the subject are imitated in all the answers, even in the bass. We are dealing here with a long inter-European tradition of both composers and players (J.J. Quantz!), who, in fugues, especially singled out the theme entries in this way (ill. p. 16 Cp. VIII).
Finally, I would draw attention in this context to another significant Rosetta Stone which pertains particularly
to the Art of Fugue. It concerns the Fughetta fiber Wir glauben all' an einen Gott (from Clavieriibung III), in com-parison with Contrapunctus VI, both "in Stylo Francese", as indicated by the composer above this last work (ill.).
This is apparently Bach's term for what was then gen-erally cultivated as the theatrical, 'over-dotted' style for the composition and performance of overtures and dances, which for that matter we also observe, in a wider sense, in other, sometimes quite dance-like Contrapuncti and Canons. Both works contain substantial corresponding elements, and, surprisingly, even almost identical closing phrases: the harpsichord piece (in full score) is 'bare' and unornamented, while the organ piece (in keyboard score) is ornamented with many specific and sometimes even exuberant French agrements (see Wir glauben all (transposed), and Contrapunctus VI (idealised), beginning and close).
Here the question could be raised: Are there grounds to assume that the wealth of agrements printed in the (sacred) chorale fugue for the organ was not equally intend-ed for the (secular) Contrapunctus for the harpsichord? In his personal copy of Claviertibung III, moreover, Bach lat-er added supplementary ornamentation by hand (Stauffer2), and in so doing did not shy away from the use of two simultaneous agrements, so characteristic of the French style.
On the question of Bach's 'Art of Playing the Harpsi-chord', to conclude, his Upright Instruction (Auffi-ichtige Anleitung) in the Inventions and Sinfonias specifies no more than a "cantabile manner of playing" (cantable Art im Spielen). The impression gained from his pupils' testi-monies, including that of his son Carl Philipp Emanuel, that Bach taught Couperin's French manner and put it into practice himself, is confirmed by Marpurg, the Bach disciple and connoisseur par excellence, who in Paris had been schooled in the Couperin tradition, with its ever stressed jets coult as the basis of harpsichord and organ playing. After visiting Each personally in Leipzig, he con-fided in the little known first edition of his Kunst dos Clavier zu spielen (Berlin 175o): "I can say no more to you in praise of Couperin, than that the learned Bachs [J.S., W.F. and C.P.E] considered him worthy of their acclaim" (Ich kann Dir zurn Lobe des Couperin nicht mehr sagen, als daft die gelehrten Bachen ihn ihres Beyfalls wiirdig schlitzen), in so doing referring explicitly to Couperin' s manner of playing (ill. p.42).
In this light it is also understandable that Bach at dif-ferent times of his life expressed — and especially also to Marpurg — his great admiration for the "fine and manner-ly playing" (feine and manierliche Spielart) of Louis Marc-hand, whose style furthermore enjoyed such excellent esteem in Germany that at the Dresden court he was offered a post in the king's service for the extraordinary salary of "more than a thousand thaler" (Obituary).
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81l6Wxt6wnL._SS500_.jpg)
I wonder if Eckhart Kuper uses Bach’s written out ornaments for CU 3 that Asperen talks about, I don’t even know if the Bach manuscript with the annotations exists.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81l6Wxt6wnL._SS500_.jpg)What's this recording all about? Is that a pedal harpsichord?
I wonder if Eckhart Kuper uses Bach’s written out ornaments for CU 3 that Asperen talks about, I don’t even know if the Bach manuscript with the annotations exists.
No, they have chosen to play the chorales which don't make use of pedals on a harpsichord. They're not the first to do this, there's also a recording with Alena Vesela and Zuzana Ruzickova.
(https://plade-klassikeren.dk/60699-large_default/bach-clavier-ubung-part-iii-zuzana-ruzickova-alena-vesala-2-lp-supraphon.jpg)
How many times did Leonhardt record Art of the Fugue?
I was listening to an early one, on a not so great sounding harpsichord. Is there another?
First post here. I need to bulk up on harpsichord and organ recordings of the AoF, I've decided I've acquired enough piano versions!
Anyone heard this? Used to be on Funck's official website (I think)
Twice, first one on a revival harpsichord, second one on an authentic harpsichord. The second one is well worth hearing.
More than that. I find it to be one of the best of its kind.
Je suis la preuve vivante que le flegme britannique n'est pas une légende.
Twice, first one on a revival harpsichord, second one on an authentic harpsichord. The second one is well worth hearing.Hmm...I see the first one readily available. The second is scarce. Why does it have to be this way?!? >:( :o
The "second one" is this?
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51rFZWXKZOL.jpg)
Yes.
I'm intrigued, but it is a bit of a wild-goose-chase release.I found it streaming on amazon as something called "Gustav Leonhardt Plays Bach," (which includes his WTC recordings and other stuff too). It's pretty great.
I found it streaming on amazon as something called "Gustav Leonhardt Plays Bach," (which includes his WTC recordings and other stuff too). It's pretty great.
Uncharacteristically intense performance from Belder. Were the microphones too/very close to the instrument?
I'm not sure whether I fully understand the music yet or not. I definitely never listen to the work straight through all at once.
THE EARLIEST VERSION OF BACH'S ART OF FUGUE
In the 20th century, several myths have emerged regarding Johann Sebastian Bach's Art of Fugue, some of which unfortunately are still alive today.
One of the most persistent misperceptions is the idea that Bach wrote an 'abstract' score which should be arranged for instrumental ensembles, though it has already long been proven that the work was written for harpsichord. Through intense research, especially from the last two decades (notably by Wolfgang Wiemer, Gregory Butler and Christoph Wolff) our knowledge about the background of this fascinating work has been deepened considerably. The idea that the Art of Fugue as Bach's final work was left behind in a rather chaotic state should therefore be seen as inaccurate. The main sources of Bach's Art of Fugue consist of an autograph (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, MS Bach P 200) and the posthumous print of 1751. Due to recent research, the status of the two sources as well as their mutual relationship had to be considerably revised. The printed version was ranked for a long time as a rather erratic work, in which the posthumous editors did scant justice to Bach's intentions. In this view P 200 was considered to be a sort of sketchbook, the content of which Bach was unable to work out completely for the printed version. This interpretation, which set the scene for the numerous 'new' orderings — mostly in con-junction with orchestrations alien to the work — has been proven untenable. It is now clear that the 1751 print does indeed predominantly reflect Bach's intentions.
This conclusion has, however, not diminished the stature of the autograph, as new insights have been brought about regarding this source as well. P 200 has been increasingly recognized as containing an independent, early version of the Art of Fugue. This new view was strengthened by the discovery, made on the basis of comparative watermark and handwriting analysis, that the manuscript did not originate in Bach's very last years but already in the early 1740s — probably in the year 1742. The work in the form found in P 200 has been repeatedly examined regarding its cyclical character, without leading to wholly convincing results. A plausible solution has only recently been discovered.' Previous interpretations of the version in P 200 foundered because all of the movements it contains were considered as a unity. Renewed scrutiny of the graphological evidence and the watermarks in combination with stylistical observations (in the context of Bach's other music of the 1740's) has led me to the conclusion that the earliest version of the Art of Fugue consisted of only twelve pieces (nos. 1-12 of the autograph). This part of the manuscript was most likely written in 1742.
The twelve-movement cycle is easily recognizable as an organic whole. An exhaustive analysis of its cyclical principles has been carried out elsewhere;' here, a few of the most salient points may be singled out. Two ordering principles which are present in other late cycles of Bach can also be found in the 1742 Art of Fugue: The cycle is completed by a canon in augmentation — a feature which is also found in the Fourteen Canons BWV 1087 and in the final version BWV 769a of the Canonic Variations `Vom Himmel hock, do komm ich her Bach retained this position of the augmentation canon in the printed version of the Art of Fugue as well. [II] The position of P 200 no. 7, the early ver-4 sion of the later Contrapunctus 6 in stylo francese', did previously not allow for a convincing cyclical explanation. In Bach's late keyboard cycles, a movement in this specific style is always placed at the opening of the second half of the work, as in Clavierabung 111(1739), the Well-Tempered Clavier II (ca.1739 — 1742) and the Goldberg Variations (1741). Both in the printed version and P 200 in its entirety the 'French' fugue does not occupy such a position; only in the twelve-movement early version does this fugue take its 'normal' place, opening the second half of the cycle.
The '1742' version exhibits a symmetrical structure with a progressive increase in the use of contrapuntal artifice. The cycle consists of three fugues in simple counterpoint (nos. 1-3) which are followed by six movements in double counterpoint (nos. 4- 9) and concluded by three more pieces, now in triple counterpoint (nos. 10-12). The treatment of the fugue as a contrapuntal principle contrasts with a work like the Well-Tempered Clavier (the second part of which was completed about the same time) in which the fugue is treated as a genre. In the Art of Fugue 'counterpoint' is thus emphasized by the dominance of multiple contrapuntal techniques. Strict ordering can also be found in the distribution of the rectus and inversus forms of the theme over the twelve movements. Half of them use only a single form; whereas three fugues (nos. 1, 3 and 5) use the normal form, and another three are devoted to the inverted version (nos. 2, 6 and 10). The other half of the fugues (nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12) incorporate both forms simultaneously.
At a later stage (probably around 1747) Bach extended P 200 with two new mirror fugues (nos. 13-14) and a completely rewritten version of the augmentation canon (no. 15), which should be seen as the first step in preparing the work for publication. Shortly thereafter, these plans were finalized into the form we now know from the print. The most conspicuous changes which Bach made are the doubling of note values for a number of pieces and some major cyclic changes. In the latter process the `baroque' mixture of genres was exchanged for a more 'didactic' ordering according to genre. Above all, this revision brings about the important practical implication that the early version is much more a concert cycle than the printed version, which has more the character of a rationally ordered fugue compendium with little regard towards cyclic performance. In the ordering of the early version, the theme undergoes various transformations in a consequent and logical development, while in the printed version this development begins anew with each different group. The performance time needed for the 'dynamic' early version is moreover much shorter than the 'static' printed version. The length of the early version can be compared with Bach's other large harpsichord cycles such as the French Overture BWV 831. In fact, the early version is shorter than the Goldberg Variations BWV 988.
The present recording is based upon a reconstruction of this twelve-part early version. The later re-visions in the manuscript have been omitted in order to recapture the original text of the 1742 version. The decisions which had to be made contain, to be sure, an element of subjectivity. Many corrections are easily identifiable as later emendations. However, other corrections may have already been carried out while Bach was copying the pieces. Thus, the version presented here is hypothetical in character — offering, nonetheless, fascinating perspectives. One such example is the early version of the chromatic triple fugue no. 11, where one encounters striking dissonances and harmonic clashes occasioned by some uncompromising voice leading which were only later resolved. Contrary to the printed version, this fugue is ordered right after its pendant on the same thematic constellation in inversion (no. 10). Together they form the expressive culmination of the whole cycle. The two framing canons, which, in their rather introverted, concentrated two-part writing, stand in striking contrast to the two triple fugues. These four pieces form the closing part of the early version of the Art of Fugue. This recording is an attempt to revive the earliest and perhaps most unified version of Bach's last major harpsichord work.
As has already been mentioned, around the year 1747 Bach made an 'interim' version of the Art of Fugue, in which the augmentation canon was completely recast and two newly composed mirror fugues added, which should stand before this canon. These three additional pieces have been recorded as well, and with the possibilities of CD technology one can listen to this second version of the cycle by pre-programming nos. 1-11 and 13-17. The resulting fourteen-movement cycle must have represented Bach's thoughts about the Art of Fugue before he decided upon a much more radical revision —the final version as found in the 1751 print. The present recording does also show that the mirror fugues are indeed playable by two hands alone (which has routinely been doubted thus far), thus demonstrating that even those pieces were conceived for a single harpsichord. The most startling feature of the mirror fugues is perhaps not so much the technical feat in itself which Bach brings off here, but rather the musical wonder of the inverted version of both fugues: these are markedly different in expression from the normal version, reaching out as it seems to the very limits of musical experience.
Pieter Dirksen
I've actually accumulated a bunch of AoFs: Leonhardt/DHM, Rosen/Sony, Goebel/Musica Antiqua Köln/Archiv, and more recently Walcha/Archiv.
^A lot of the technical language around counterpoint practice goes over my head, but that is pretty interesting; so the 12 were written first and the "mirror fugues" were added on later.
This may be of
(Interesting that he says that the mirror fugues are playable by one person.)
Belder sounds really good to me, I think I'll get it, but I'm also looking at the Emerson SQ recording for something completely different.
I've actually accumulated a bunch of AoFs: Leonhardt/DHM, Rosen/Sony, Goebel/Musica Antiqua Köln/Archiv, and more recently Walcha/Archiv. The music withstands a wide variety of interpretations, and accordingly each of these sounds completely different from one another. That being said, I'm not sure whether I fully understand the music yet or not. I definitely never listen to the work straight through all at once.
As mentioned in another thread, I think this is interesting to listen to if I feel like 'something different'.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71sMS8efgCL._SS500_.jpg)
The Art of Fugue; The Canadian Brass Ensemble
As mentioned in another thread, I think this is interesting to listen to if I feel like 'something different'.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71sMS8efgCL._SS500_.jpg)
The Art of Fugue; The Canadian Brass Ensemble
What puts me off by this otherwise well realized interpretation is its Salvation Army sound.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61ICxoj12QL._SS500_.jpg)I love this. There's quite a lot of magic here. And drama. I'm not distracted by anything here.
I love this. There's quite a lot of magic here. And drama. I'm not distracted by anything here.
Noted. :) I've become a big fan of Van Asperen.
Q
I like van Asperen as well but I would see about streaming it first if possible, it is the most eccentric recording I've heard from him. I simply do not see the need for that amount of ornamentation in AoF.
Obviously there's no need, but Asperen isn't at all casual about ornamenting the music as if it were a piece in an earlier French style. There's a bit of discussion about this upthread -- with me Premont and milk -- it all turns on an enigmatic idea which you find in Leonhardt's manuscript called hidden homophony. None of us here have managed to make much sense of it, but the failing may be ours.
But you mentioning Dantone will make Que all the more keen to hear it. I don't think Dantone would play it on harpsichord like that.
I may well be the only one that this recording is passing by!
Is this the old discussion (older than Leonhardt) about which came first, harmony or voice leading? Long time ago I saw some claim, that the most important in Bach's music is the harmony, and that the counterpoint is just a fill out. This is of course a senseless point of view, because in all good contrapuntal music including Bach's these two elements (harmony and voice leading) are so intimately connected as to be inseparable. Also for that reason I think a special relation between the AoF and French lute music is senseless. But where the lines (counterpoint) goes is determined primarily by the dots (harmony), rather than the other way around.
I do not read French equally well as English and German, but would nonetheless like to se what Leonhardt writes.
Now I'm very intrigued. :)I wish Hill would record the WTC. He seems to have stopped releasing recordings though he seems active on social media and youtube in particular.
Mandryka is right about Dantone - I feel he did a mighty fine WTC.
My current AoF favourite is by Robert Hill:
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81LDG+JyXOL.jpg)
I also have Davitt Moroney, one of the rare occasions in which I rebought a previously culled recording.
Q
Re: 'hidden homophony' I haven't read the leonhardt, but I would agree that Bach is more harmony-driven than counterpoint-driven - at least compared to renaissance composers, where the thinking was more or less contrapuntal (the shape of individual voices, then relations between different voices) resulting in rather more simple harmonies. After all, the practice of partimento (which Bach used to teach his students) first gives you a bassline which implies certain harmonies, and you 'realize' it by filling in the harmonies with contrapuntal lines - sort of like connecting dots with lines.
Anyways I like the van Asperen, the ornamentation does not distract me.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with partimento, here's an example with bwv 639 - what is ostensibly a contrapuntal trio with three independent voices can be arrived at by starting with the bass line and filling in the harmony with increasing elaboration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIhxGSZg3o8
Re: 'hidden homophony' I haven't read the leonhardt, but I would agree that Bach is more harmony-driven than counterpoint-driven - at least compared to renaissance composers, where the thinking was more or less contrapuntal (the shape of individual voices, then relations between different voices) resulting in rather more simple harmonies. After all, the practice of partimento (which Bach used to teach his students) first gives you a bassline which implies certain harmonies, and you 'realize' it by filling in the harmonies with contrapuntal lines - sort of like connecting dots with lines.
Anyways I like the van Asperen, the ornamentation does not distract me.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with partimento, here's an example with bwv 639 - what is ostensibly a contrapuntal trio with three independent voices can be arrived at by starting with the bass line and filling in the harmony with increasing elaboration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIhxGSZg3o8
I think part of my disaffection with the Asperen is that I don’t find that way of ornamenting the music meaningful, expressive. It just kind of leaves me a bit cold. Piling them on like Asperen does doesn’t help in any way, it just seems pointless to me. Worse than pointless, it makes the texture thicker, I become less sensitive to how the voices are interacting, which seems a move in the wrong direction. When it comes to harpsichord I want agogics! I want lashings of lovely rubato drawing my attention to phrases, giving the music a sexy curvaceous contour, I don’t want spiky little wobbly trilly shards of wire wool flying all over the shop, shrapnel. Anyway I listened to Mateo Messori play a handful of pieces from it today and this is what I felt. Messori good, Asperen less good.
The more complicated fugues seem to come off worst to me, the thing just fills up with lots of notes. There doesn’t seem to be a great deal of difference between the timbres of the registers, and that makes things sound too solid, 2D - I mean not enough relief.
In the arch-ornamenter, Francois Couperin, the music is rarely as complex as one of the later pieces in AoF, if ever. Much of it is not much more than homophony! And even there it benefits from an instrument with non uniform timbres and a performer who will use them. Listening as I type to Leonhardt playing Francois Couperin on DHM - the performance is better than the music! Anyway, unlike Asperen, Leonhardt had the good sense not to let Francois Couperin influence his way of playing Bachian counterpoint.
How do you feel about Vartolo? I haven’t listened to it in a while. And how does Rubsam do on the Lautenwerk? I’d like to get a playlist of a few revelatory performances that are radically different from each other. Hill is another that must be good.
There was a performer that didn’t on fortepiano...I forgot his name. There must be something good on clavichord too.
Re: 'hidden homophony' I haven't read the leonhardt, but I would agree that Bach is more harmony-driven than counterpoint-driven - at least compared to renaissance composers, where the thinking was more or less contrapuntal (the shape of individual voices, then relations between different voices) resulting in rather more simple harmonies. After all, the practice of partimento (which Bach used to teach his students) first gives you a bassline which implies certain harmonies, and you 'realize' it by filling in the harmonies with contrapuntal lines - sort of like connecting dots with lines.
Anyways I like the van Asperen, the ornamentation does not distract me.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with partimento, here's an example with bwv 639 - what is ostensibly a contrapuntal trio with three independent voices can be arrived at by starting with the bass line and filling in the harmony with increasing elaboration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIhxGSZg3o8
One may go a step further by observing that figuration in style luthe and hidden homophony, so typical of these French masters, can often be recognized in the Contrapuncti.
The last time I listened to this music, apart from yesterday, it was Walter Riemer on piano. I thought it was excellent and that he probably is the foremost Bach pianist of all time.
This is a very satisfying performance as far as fortepiano/piano goes. One of the few on piano I'd listen to on a regular basis.
It made my list of best ever fortepiano recordings: https://www.talkclassical.com/65468-your-favorite-fortepiano-recordings-post1805298.html#post1805298
How about Khouri’s Chopin nocturnes or late Beethoven sonatas?
I haven't heard any of them, I will see about correcting that.
Well darn it, Van Asperen wasn’t listenable tonight for me. Fickle am I and impressionable. Yes, to much constant embellishing suddenly sounds like an involuntary tick.
I do like Lepinat, Hill, Vartolo and, surprisingly, Rubsam.
I tried putting on Ziao-Mei, and found her also unlistenable because of the constant dynamic changes.
One thing I found surprising: a new live recording of Nikolayeva from ‘93. I’m not sure I love it (she also plays with volume - as most pianists do) but she was an artist and she’s interesting. There’s a journey here.
Did you think that the new Nikolayeva is different in an interesting way from her other recordings of AoF? I like what she does, and when it came out I tried it in a couple of pieces, but sensed it was much the same as the others. But I didn't give it much thought.I don't know the other well enough and I have to constantly reassess - or maybe I should say I have to take the journey again and see if it leads me somewhere. I was surprised by some of the articulation I heard on the live one and I don't remember her doing that sort of thing on the earlier recording.
Sergio Vartolo sometimes plays with extreme rubato. It's highly emotional and dramatic, and also effective.
Does anyone know whether Leonhardt's notes for his 2nd AoF (DHM) have been translated into English? That is now my preferred version, but I think it's a pity we don't get to hear him play the fuga a 3 soggetti. Maybe he explains his reasoning for this?
sought to formalize an African-American aesthetic, synthesizing visual and musical elements
of what the painter Jeff Donaldson… has called “Trans-African” culture. The aspect of
Douglas’s theory that I wish to highlight here is the notion of “multidominant elements,”
which I will henceforth call “multidominance.” According to Douglas, the aesthetics of
multidominance, involving “the multiple use of colors in intense degrees, or the multiple use
of textures, design patterns, or shapes” … are found quite routinely in musical and visual
works of Africa and its diaspora. By way of introduction to his theory, Douglas recalls from his
art-student days that interviews with “most African-American artists with Eurocentric art
training will reveal that they received similar instructions, such as ‘tone down your colors, too
many colors’” … Apparently, these “helpful” pedagogical interventions were presented as
somehow universal and transcendent, rather than as emanating from a particular culturally or
historically situated worldview, or as based in networks of political or social power. Douglas,
in observing that “such culturally narrow aesthetic views would have separated us altogether
from our rich African heritage if we had accepted them without question,” goes on to
compare this aspect of Eurocentric art training to Eurocentric music training, which in his
view does not equip its students to hear music with multidominant rhythmic and melodic
elements as anything but “noise,” “frenzy” or perhaps “chaos”.