Here (rapid-share / send-space) is to-day's crackpot interpretation: the Fugue in C sharp major from Book II of Bach's Well-Tempered collection.

Also, which may please members who like to compare and contrast, here is Wanda again with yesterday's Prelude and to-day's Fugue. Her Prelude is impressively funereal and becomes slower still as it goes on - we cannot accept that - but her Fugue is rather pleasant we find.

Since our Unknown Artist - Trevor or Bob - evidently stirs Mr. I. so much we shall look out for another contribution from him to post in the days to come!

We can inform the Member that the cats have at least for the time being departed. And we thank him for passing on Gustav. It should be said that we always think of Gustav now as the terrifying, wild, even possessed man of the Book I C sharp minor fugue (http://r3ok.myforum365.com/index.php?topic=2878.msg115118#msg115118) but we do agree that his performance here in this ovine-style Prelude is just right, and pleasant to listen to. It should again be added, though, that the harpsichord, while offering many of the attractions of exoticism, nevertheless lacks the power to sustain notes that is essential if all that is in this work is to be brought out (we mean the semiquavers tied to the crotchets).

Once again we wonder exactly what instrument Bach used when working on his compositions. He did not, like Mozart for instance, do it all in his head; that seems clear from typical works such as Preludes 8 and 10 in the first book, and 11 in the second, which contain so much decorative material plainly derived from improvisation at the keyboard. Yet as we said above the elaborate harmonic combinations and progressions do not come out properly on to-day's clavichords and harpsichords, and could not have done in Bach's day either could they (during composition he would have had to keep on striking the sustained notes). We can only deduce that Bach's favourite keyboard instrument of those he had at his disposal, the one he made most use of in his daily labours of creation, was: a chamber organ! The only drawback of that being of course that it does not offer a great variety of timbre. How many musicians worry about harmony we wonder? Bach certainly did.

Does Glenn play it too quickly? I don't think so, and neither do I think his tempo is "quite contrary to Tovey's indications".

Tovey marks the tempo "Andante", and this does not mean "slow" but rather "a slow walking pace" (so there is a sense of movement - even if the movement is relaxed). But Tovey then adds "non troppo lento" which definitely means "not too slowly". It does not mean "not too quickly", even if the Member feels that this is what Glenn provides.

Conversely I feel that the 'crackpot' version offered is contrary to Tovey's advice since it sounds too slow! Glenn's performance is about dotted-crotchet=50, and since there are 3 such beats per bar this sounds just about borderline to me in terms of almost (but not quite) being "too slow". Instead, however, it flows nicely, even though I do not like his articulations and phrasings (which are, of course, contrary to Tovey's advice).

Baz

You are speaking here of the C# Major Prelude (Book 2) which you crackpotted for us a couple of days ago at http://r3ok.myforum365.com/index.php?topic=2878.msg115389#msg115389.

Contrary to what you say, the harpsichord is essential for this piece. Listening to your crackpot version, in which all the written notes remain fixed in intensity throughout their entire duration, you may not have noticed that twice in each bar you have (in effect) provided your dreaded "Scotch snap". This is because instead of hearing a continuous semiquaver rhythm (wherein the tied notes decay and the movement continues in the Alto voice) your crackpot version emphasises the tied longer note (since it holds through with the same intensity as the attack). One soon gets tired of this rhythmic effect, especially since it provides a syncopation that becomes tedious.

Bach never intended this: his notation only indicates hand position and hand movement. The tied notes merely sustain the resonance providing a harmonic accompaniment to the chords in the LH. But the effect - when played upon the correct instrument - is one of continuous movement incorporating arpeggios and melodic decorations.

It is not necessary for a harpsichord to provide a fully sustaining effect, any more than it would be necessary for a lute, guitar, or clavichord to do so.

Baz

Food for thought there!

Here (rapid-share / send-space) is a crackpot rendition of the C sharp minor Fugue from Bach's Second Book. Tovey warns the executant thereof against "dangerous tempi," and indicates a number of ways in which he might "steady his nerve." Would that the many highly strung players of to-day might heed those words.

Here for comparison is Trevor or Bob we know not which with his jumbochord. We must apologise to Members because the Prelude is surprisingly slow, slower than our flügelhorn even, and the Fugue contains no feature of any particular interest. We really want to find some one who plays it very very fast.

Glad to note Mr Grew that you do not always genuflect to the assumed wisdom of Magister Tovey. I have seldom heard a piece played at such a "dangerous tempo" as your crackpot version of today's fugue! But the really funny thing was that from the very first startling bar I knew (being a scientically engineered offering) that everything would still work like clockwork (as it did).

The last time I had an experience like that was when I was daring enough to ride on the looping rollercoaster (including a 360-degree vertical circle) at Margate. As it plunged forward everyone screamed, and as it approached its loop-the-loop benefit performance all were suddenly in a state of absolute panic! ALL - that is - except myself, because (like your fugue) I knew that the whole thing was a scientific 'put up job', and that the danger was only in the mind.

But actually playing the piece at such a crazy tempo is another matter. Even if it were technically and humanly possible (or even for whatever non-musical reason desirable) we still have the embarrassment of knowing full well that Bach himself never conceived or wanted such a blatantly stupid tempo. Why? Because he used the signature 12/16!

This has two prime functions: a) to indicate that the denominator (16=semiquaver) was a temporal unit,and b) to assert that each bar contained FOUR beats (and not just two). If he had used mathematically equivalent signatures things would have been different: 6/8 would have implied 2 beats per bar, while 3/4 would have indicated 3 beats per bar (all these still, of course, presenting bars in which could be accommodated 12 semiquavers). But this piece requires the clear articulation of four beats in each bar, each of which subdivides into three sub-units (semiquavers). Logic and intelligence therefore must dictate that your tempo of (approximately) dotted-quaver=140 is simply to fast since at this tempo we do not hear four pulses to the bar, but only two.

Moving from the mathematical to the musical, your tempo provides insufficient space for the subtle chromatic harmonies and modulations to make any impact. Instead we hear a kaleidoscopic splutter of notes (all perfectly in time) that have little or no melodic or harmonic logic. It reminds one of the efforts of those Guinness-book-of-records hopefuls who attempt to speak as many words as possible within a specified and limited time. Hearing them, one is quite unable to understand any of the emotional or dramatic content whatsoever, but marvels at the ability (only) to spout out so many separate phonics at such a ridiculous speed.

I should have thought the tempo (for the fugue) adopted by Bob or Trevor (whichever it is) must be the maximum tempo that provides the necessary framework under which all the above conditions would be satisfied. Indeed this is, in my view, an excellent and accurate performance that shows regard and understanding for the form and content of the piece, and projects a clear sense of contrapuntal line and harmonic energy.

Baz

So what then is the actual purpose in tossing off a 3-page 71-bar fugue in less than two minutes? Is it to make us feel 'excited', to make him feel 'super-changed', to make Bach seem 'daring', or even to spare the listeners 'boredom' in discharging the piece at the earliest possible second? I know you will forgive me, but I just don't understand this kind of approach.

What makes sense to me is a) evincing an appropriate affect, b) conveying that affect using a normal Baroque approach to tempo, dynamics and articulation, and c) adhering as far as possible to a composer's written notation (allowing whatever conventions that apply to that notation to be applied in the performance).

What we have with Glenn is nothing more than a circus act - very skilfully executed, but just a circus act. Nothing is conveyed to an intelligent listener about the counterpoint, harmony or structural pacing of the movement. But that is no surprise is it? For a piece of such subtle design and proportion, how could a time-limit of 1' 50" convey anything resembling it?

Baz

Now that is better! It is not in any way 'slow', but is reasonably animated, and (more importantly) normal as a Baroque tempo for music that moves in semiquavers. It is a pity that she only has her box of paperclips to play with, but at least it is a start.

Now, moving on from Wanda, here is Gustav playing both movements: the Prelude is given the affect of a song that is both lyrical and plaintive, even though he does not 'hang around' with it. The fugue is more lively, and he manages within an animated (but normal) tempo to heighten the expressive harmonies and melodies in what I think is a very subtle manner. There is never any feeling that he is lecturing to us, or ever socking some obscure point at us; but the movement flows eloquently and speaks its own tongue in a very telling way.

Incidentally, there is no added reverberation or 'echo' in the recording - the wonderful resonance stems entirely from the wonderful instrument itself.

CLICK

Baz