If not indeed honed or even H-O-O-N-E-D!

Baz

There is something more we keep forgetting to add here. Our crackpot version certainly does bray, and it brays to such an extent that we are convinced Tovey was wrong in wishing to suppress it. In fact this Prelude was almost certainly written by Bach as an intentional imitation with the specific purpose of amusing any or all of his tribe of children. In his day donkeys and asses were no doubt an everyday experience, passing his door hourly; it was only by Tovey's time that they had assumed an aura of the infra dig.

It might by way of introduction be said, although it does not form part of a proof as such, that the imitation of a donkey in music accords with what we know of the German sense of humour.

And while the Member ventures to remind us that Bach's Preludes and Fugues are "abstract pieces," a) where is his proof that this is so? and b) even if it is so and they are "abstract" does that necessarily mean that they may not from time to time also sound like a donkey's bray?

Yet the Member seeks certainty about Bach's donkey music. Actually the proof is quite simple, and here it is, in five short steps:

1) As is well known, the imitation of animal sounds, and in particular of those of donkeys, is an ancient tradition in Germano-Austrian music. Bach would indisputably have been familiar therewith.

2) So, even if it had somehow escaped his notice during the labours of composition, he would upon his first performance of the work as an entirety at once have perceived the presence of the donkey. It cannot possibly have escaped his attention can it!

3) But Bach was a true artist.

4) For the true artist every element and aspect of his work must by definition contribute in some way to the organic whole. (See inter alia Bernard Bosanquet Æsthetics.)

5) Bach, then, aware that his Prelude sounded like a donkey, and being a true artist, must have taken the conscious decision to retain that sound. In the end it was part of his intention for the work that it should sound like a donkey.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Wasn't the C# major at least in the first book originally in C major? That might explain something...

A# minor would have Gx and Fx in it far too often for my taste as well as a quite inadmissible tonic major key - not that Bach would have worried too much about my crackpot tastes but perhaps there they might have coincided with his...

A gentle reminder to Members: this thread is not about Bach alone. We look forward to hearing your crackpot interpretations of Beethoven, Strawinsci, Shopstaconkitch, Scryabine, Webern, Chaiceffsci, and any other composer you fancy.

But to-day, having passed the half-way mark in the Well-Tempered Clavier, we present a crackpot's view of the Prelude in F sharp major from Book I. F sharp seems more suitable for Korngold than Bach does it not? Did Mozart Beethoven or Brahms produce much in F sharp? Anyway, here it is (rapid-share / send-space) and we hope the tempo is not felt to be too fast this time. Are any Members reminded of chickens?

And for comparison we have Rosalyn, somewhat slower. Knowing all her bad habits we were interested to find out how she would handle a duetto.

That does not quite work Strina - in Book 1 we have a Prelude in Eb Minor followed by a Fugue in D# Minor. The Ab and D# must therefore have been exactly equivalent in pitch (as well as keyboard position) to G# and Eb (both providing identical "5ths").

By the same reckoning, A# would be identical in all attributes with Bb, and C# with Db.

The only issue to resolve is why Bach should have chosen to express these keys in the notation he did. Even if the C# Major P&F were (according to Ollie) originally in C, this does not explain why, in presenting it a semitone higher, he eventually opted for C# instead of Db.

Even assuming that a reason might have been his preference for keys that were 'easier' to write and read, even this does not explain why he should have used a signature of 7 sharps for no. 2 (in both sets) instead of the 'easier' presentation of just 5 flats.

Baz

I was not in any way reminded of chickens here, but strangely enough the experience of hearing it did manage to take me back to my childhood. I could not help thinking what a wonderful piece of background music it might have been (had it existed in those days) against which to practise pea-shooting.

With regard to Rosalyn's performance, the tempo is much more suitable I feel. But oh dear! She really does play all the ornaments in mechanically-measured notes does not she? We know that that is how Bach illustrated them notationally in his famous Explication (thereby giving each different ornament a clearly-perceived pattern), but they could never have actually been played that way, lacking as they do any decorative attribute whatever.

Also another very weird thing she did in bar 2 was to play the LH shake on D# with an upper E-natural, rather than with an E#! Since this piece begins in F# major, it seems strange that she should have forgotten (or at least decided to ignore) the normal notes of the F# Major scale does not it? And how strange it sounds too, crippling and destabalising as it does our sense of the Tonic key (even as early as bar 2!).

Baz