|
Baz
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #375 on: 11:22:08, 28-06-2008 » |
|
The E minor Fugue in Book I (here - rapid-share / send-space - in an utterly addle-brained version) is the only two-part Fugue Bach published in the Well-Tempered Clavier. Tovey says that "finger- staccato" should be used, much as in some Mendelssohn Scherzo. (Regrettably our crackpot did not do that.) But we wondered how it would sound in a really staccato version, and suspecting that Glenn would know turned to his recording. Well! His rendition really flies by, and is much faster than anything by Mendelssohn we think. But would Bach have even recognized it? So for further comparison here (since Helmut has not yet turned up) is Wanda again. She is fast enough but not particularly staccato. Thank you Mr Grew - I think we can safely be satisfied now with having "done" the E minor fugue (if not exactly to extinction, at least as far as the pearly gates). It is remarkable both how much and how little can be done with a simple bicinium-style movement of only 42 bars. Of the three crackpot versions you have kindly offered us, I feel that the first (your own) is far less crackpot than either of the others. It does not pretend to be anything it is not, but diligently renders the notes as they appear in the score (leaving us to imagine for ourselves what we might have done with them without prejudice to what you have given us). Glenn - as we might have suspected - does not regard a fugue in itself as a kind of 'argument'. Instead he formulates his own intellectual argument with it. So throughout we hear his own vocal moanings and groanings, almost like a kind of macabre basso continuo in which the piece seems transformed from two voices to three. The difficulty with his excessive speed is that he loses a) the subtle pacing of the chromaticisms and modulations, and b) the intended ambiguity at key points between 3/4 and 6/8 (especially in bars 15 - 19). He is also uncertain as to whether or not Bach has achieved a satisfactory conclusion to the piece, and so imposes his own forced rit and dim on to the final 3 bars. (It here reminds us of the way Angela habitually sulks as she reaches the final candences in many of her performances, thereby leaving an unresolved ambiguity in our minds as to whether a movement has been happy-or-sad, emphatic-or-speculative, energetic-or-lyrical.) Wanda again does miracles with her box of paperclips, making us want to hear it several times over. Quite why Tovey imagines the need for staccato is puzzling. When played (as it was undoubtedly intended) upon a plucked instrument (rather than a banged one) there should be more than enough attack and energy in every note without the need to sock them to us any more. More to the point is the question of phrasing and how this might be approached. The Subject is based upon two ideas: i) a descending chromatic melody, and ii) a repeatedly-struck tonic pedal. Since the only melodic component seems to be the descending chromatic line one should have expected the notes that define this to have sounded more legato - merely poking at every note in a staccato manner hardly enhances the effect of any melody (and some of us regard Bach's music as being essentially about the sounding and articulation of melodies). Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Turfan Fragment
|
|
« Reply #376 on: 15:40:19, 28-06-2008 » |
|
Thanks for the tip on the pastorale, Baz. I was not familiar with that piece.
The ytb clip had it labelled as a "Pastorella" which I think means shepherdess, as in "Fumia la pastorella tessendo ghirlandetta."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #377 on: 09:06:33, 29-06-2008 » |
|
Glenn - as we might have suspected - does not regard a fugue in itself as a kind of 'argument'. Instead he formulates his own intellectual argument with it. So throughout we hear his own vocal moanings and groanings, almost like a kind of macabre basso continuo in which the piece seems transformed from two voices to three. We having mercifully small speakers have until now been entirely unaware of all that; we must hook up some larger ones and have a listen! The E major Prelude and Fugue from Book II of his Well-Tempered Clavier rank among Bach's most magnificent productions. Here ( rapid-share / send-space) is a completely crackpot rendition of the Prelude - we note that although it mostly flows in three voices a little extra emphasis has from time to time to be given to the middle voice. Bach's harmony in bar forty-eight is especially notable, and in addition we find quite delightful his introduction of muted trumpets at the very end. We urge Members if they wish to be amused not to miss this one and its companion Fugue! Well we have been waiting a long time for Helmut, whose considerable reputation preceded him, so let us hear what he can do with this Prelude! Our first impression is that he is rather too rapid, as is especially apparent in bars nine and ten. And another very curious thing is the way he plays the top crotchets A and G sharp in bars thirty-seven and thirty-eight. He does not hold them properly, but makes them somewhat staccato quavers instead, in imitation of bar forty-four for instance. But unless Tovey's edition is mistaken again (as well as the Urtext), crotchets are what Bach wrote! And Helmut observes Bach's first repeat but not his second - why? Do Members think he is any good? When one hears those strange names "Gulda," "Walcha," and so on with their utterly outlandish ring it is images of the ancient Danubian hordes on their way to sack Rome which flash before one's mind's eye is not it? Indeed we find in the O.E.D. a quotation from Auden - not a poet we know: "The dazed uncomprehending stare
Of the Danubian despair."What is all that about then? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #378 on: 10:15:43, 29-06-2008 » |
|
...The E major Prelude and Fugue from Book II of his Well-Tempered Clavier rank among Bach's most magnificent productions. Here ( rapid-share / send-space) is a completely crackpot rendition of the Prelude - we note that although it mostly flows in three voices a little extra emphasis has from time to time to be given to the middle voice. Bach's harmony in bar forty-eight is especially notable, and in addition we find quite delightful his introduction of muted trumpets at the very end. We urge Members if they wish to be amused not to miss this one and its companion Fugue! This is an interesting if unusual rendition - but the compiler has missed an opportunity! When (as he claims) Bach introduces the muted trumpets for the final cadence, it should have been remembered that when Baroque trumpets were muted their base pitch was immediately raised by a full semitone! Yet I do not hear the innovatory bitonality this should have yielded at the final cadence! What happened to it? I was ready to be excited (having already in advance mentally stepped into 'Bartók'-mode) only to be disappointed that all I heard was a run-of-the-mill cadence. Well we have been waiting a long time for Helmut, whose considerable reputation preceded him, so let us hear what he can do with this Prelude! Our first impression is that he is rather too rapid, as is especially apparent in bars nine and ten. And another very curious thing is the way he plays the top crotchets A and G sharp in bars thirty-seven and thirty-eight. He does not hold them properly, but makes them somewhat staccato quavers instead, in imitation of bar forty-four for instance. But unless Tovey's edition is mistaken again (as well as the Urtext), crotchets are what Bach wrote! And Helmut observes Bach's first repeat but not his second - why? Do Members think he is any good? I don't feel that Helmut plays it too quickly, but his performance is too brutal and mechanical. When Gustav plays this movement - at about the same pace - all those little details that Mr Grew feels are lacking in Helmut's playing (e.g. the subtle harmonies in bars 9 and 10) come to life because Gustav provides just a little flexibility sufficient enough to give them the space to make their effect. He also does something that Helmut does not: when he repeats the first section he does so with a changed timbre. It is, I believe, a stylistic crime ever to perform a repeated section of Baroque music in exactly the same manner as that offered upon its first appearance! There is the opportunity for adding a few more ornaments, or at least making the instrument a little softer - indeed doing anything reasonable and in-style so as to avoid giving the false impression that the composer has run out of all further musical ideas other than inserting a 'repeat' symbol! Helmut (unlike either Gustav or Mr Grew) also fails to recognize that this movement is another 'Song-without-words' affair, and consequently the numerous melodies that are introduced and (indeed) developed are played without any differentiation whatever from the surrounding detail (and Mr Grew's correct criticism of bars 37 and 38 only pinpoints two isolated examples out of many where the melody is both underestimated and underplayed). The other problem with Helmut's playing is that he too often makes the semiquavers sound 'fiddly' by imposing unexpected and irrelevant articulations upon them that interrupt the smooth flow. These kinds of articulations should - in a piece using this notation and tempo - in my view only be applied at the levels of the quaver and the crotchet. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #379 on: 10:39:26, 30-06-2008 » |
|
We expect the trumpets were constructed rather larger in the first place so as to compensate. Here ( rapid-share or send-space) is the most memorably magnificent Fugue in this series, the one in E major and four parts from Bach's second Book. In it he seems to return to the style of sixteenth-century polyphony - of music which flourished about a hundred and fifty years before his time and was thus already for him ancient. (There are no composers to-day who would wish to return to the style of 1858 are there? Perhaps in Bach's case he had better and more lasting models to turn to.) This Fugue would seem to call at least for a church organ, or better as Tovey suggests a chorus a cappella. In one after another of these Preludes and Fugues we feel that Bach had in his mind not keyboard instruments but a chamber ensemble or orchestra. In their present form they are just jottings sketches or reminders of his real musical conceptions are not they! The work is much praised not only by ourselves but also by Tovey, Riemann, and Prout, who all offer an extensive and detailed analysis. It sent Ebenezer Prout in particular, usually a very matter-of-fact man, into paroxysms of ecstasy, prompting him to write "One of the most perfect art works in the series. The subject is short and simple, but lends itself, in the hands of genius, to wonderful variety of resource." We would draw members' attention particularly to the combinations in bars eleven and twelve, and seventeen and eighteen, among other spots. Another curious feature is what sounds like a vamping till ready in the first half of bar twenty-three, but that is doubtless an inconvenient co-incidence. An alternative performance is given here, by a Russian lady pianist from whom we have not yet heard, Maria or Mariya by name, "whose ability," as Mr. Methuen-Campbell puts it in Grove, "to master and project details of counterpoint won unanimous admiration." But by the sound of things she one of the old school was even so quite a speedy lady. Mr. Methuen-Campbell adds "The eccentricities of her personality were to some extent reflected in her interpretations, most particularly in the freedom she took with regard to tempo markings." So there you are, another crackpot for this thread. Incidentally she had (or suffered from?) a life-long obsession with cats. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #380 on: 18:40:48, 30-06-2008 » |
|
Here ( rapid-share or send-space) is the most memorably magnificent Fugue in this series, the one in E major and four parts from Bach's second Book. In it he seems to return to the style of sixteenth-century polyphony - of music which flourished about a hundred and fifty years before his time and was thus already for him ancient. (There are no composers to-day who would wish to return to the style of 1858 are there? Perhaps in Bach's case he had better and more lasting models to turn to.) This Fugue would seem to call at least for a church organ, or better as Tovey suggests a chorus a cappella. In one after another of these Preludes and Fugues we feel that Bach had in his mind not keyboard instruments but a chamber ensemble or orchestra. In their present form they are just jottings sketches or reminders of his real musical conceptions are not they! The work is much praised not only by ourselves but also by Tovey, Riemann, and Prout, who all offer an extensive and detailed analysis. It sent Ebenezer Prout in particular, usually a very matter-of-fact man, into paroxysms of ecstasy, prompting him to write "One of the most perfect art works in the series. The subject is short and simple, but lends itself, in the hands of genius, to wonderful variety of resource." And praise indeed the work deserves! BUT...it is remarkable how little (if anything at all!) Dr Tovey informs us about the work's origin and genesis is not it? Had he done so in an informative and scholarly manner (instead of using the work as just another means of peddling his musicological propaganda) we might have understood a little more about ( inter alia) the style and tempo that is appropriate. The genesis of this fugue goes back of course to Johann Kaspar Fischer's Ariadne musica of 1715 - itself a famous collection of Preludes and Fugues traversing 19 different keys (his tuning not apparently permitting the remaining 5 keys which remained too out-of-tune to be worthwhile). Even so, the title suggests (allegorically) what a labyrinth as many as 19 different keys must have been for musicians of the early 18th century. Of these pieces (obviously well known by Bach) the Fugue in E Major provided the actual subject used by Bach in his fugue of the same key in Book 2 of the WTC. But how different the two pieces are! Fischer provides only a short piece (merely what Bach might have term a 'Fughetta'). Already at the limit of what Fischer's tuning would permit, this 4-sharp fugue provides little, if any, means of modulating further sharpwards. Not until near the end is there any suggestion even of dominant tonality (the Subject and Answer both remain in the Tonic key from the outset). When this eventually arrives, one feels that such a simple tonal move is something of a highlight! But the piece is written Alla breve (using minims and semibreves, with movement provided by only occasional crotchets). The pace must therefore be one that moves with clear minim beats. For those who have access to the Davison & Apel Historical Anthology of Music (Vol.2) the piece can be viewed as no. 247. But the fugue can be heard... HERENow since Bach used the same theme written with the same Alla breve notation, one must assume that his fugue should also move in clear minim beats (though probably a touch more slowly in view of the increasingly greater use of shorter note values as the movement progresses). But Bach's Well Tempered tuning marks a crucial difference: Fischer's Mean-tone system (whichever it may have been) was what can be called a 'Closed' system, while Bach's tuning was an 'Open' one. Tonally, Fischer was able only to progress along a cul-de-sac, while Bach was completely unhindered in moving freely from key to key. Not surprisingly therefore we find that Bach provides a much more developed piece structurally, thematically and tonally that is also about 4 times the length of Fischer's little essay. Indeed, Bach manages to use Fischer's theme (unlike Fischer!) in stretto, inversion and diminution. He is also able to use inverted diminution against the Subject in its rectus form. Furthermore, the fugue is patterned into three quite distinct and extended sections giving a clear sense of Beginning, Middle and End. As Mr Grew suggested, the Organ is probably the best medium for this piece, and a performance is offered... HEREBaz EDIT: The Fischer E Major Prelude and Fugue - together with others from the collection (with online score display) - can be seen and heard...HERE |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 10:15:00, 01-07-2008 by Baz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #381 on: 11:24:24, 01-07-2008 » |
|
On behalf of the Group we thank Member Baziron for his learned contribution. Interesting that Fischer fugue - was it really Bach's model? And even more interesting the Bach fugue played on the organ. It sounds so different from either the piano or the harpsichord versions does it not! An a cappella performance would sound quite different again. We like to hear it played slowly so that the sound of the semitones and sevenths grinding against each another might be savoured at the listener's leisure. Bach was more modern than the modernest modernists! So after the sublimities of the past two days we turn now to a typical two-part invention with tons of trills. It is the Prelude in E minor from Book II ( rapid-share / send-space). Regrettably it does not adhere to Mr. Baziron's wise advice about repeats, but since it was prepared by a crackpot that would not be to be expected. Tovey's advice about dwindling trills in the style of Chopin is ignored as well! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pianola
Posts: 38
|
|
« Reply #382 on: 23:48:21, 01-07-2008 » |
|
Sydney, dear chap, I have several copies of your excellent book on the Player Piano (two with the original dustjackets). I also have the 48 on roll, and I thought you might like to see them. Here they are, end on:  I realise they are not crackpot interpretations, though you might think me one for collecting them. They are all metronomically arranged rolls, but in due course, I'll see if I can dig out exactly who recorded which ones on the reproducing piano. There are quite a few, and we might find some rather weird versions. Cheers, Pianola |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #383 on: 11:30:47, 02-07-2008 » |
|
Sydney, dear chap, I have several copies of your excellent book on the Player Piano . . . We are so glad you like it Mr. Pianola. We were fortunate to find a .pdf version recently on the Internet, but strangely and regrettably it does not appear to have been properly proof-read! It is full of annoying little errors, many more than are found in most books. I also have the 48 on roll . . . in due course, I'll see if I can dig out exactly who recorded which ones on the reproducing piano. There are quite a few, and we might find some rather weird versions. It will be most interesting to hear them; and not only we but the membership in general will surely thank you! (There are hundreds who lurk on this thread without venturing to post messages you know - they feel intimidated of course.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #384 on: 11:37:29, 02-07-2008 » |
|
To-day a stimulating but somewhat crackpot interpretation of the Fugue in E minor from Bach's Second Book ( rapid-share / send-space). We hear at once that this is late Bach do we not? Like most composers he was fascinated by the combination of duple and treble time, but - correct us if we are wrong - we are unaware of any instances in Bach of triplets that extend over more than one beat! How about later composers - when did triplets really get going? We read much of the rhythmic complexity of the music of the fifteenth century and we suppose that must have extended to a few triplets from time to time, so had things actually gone backwards by the time of Bach? As companion and comparison we present two interpreters of the old school, a lady harpsichordist ( guess who) - the end of her Fugue is especially good and she makes her instrument sound just like an organ - and a gentleman at the piano ( Edwin) - his performance too has some interesting spots. But assuredly there are in these three offerings a good many wrong notes for Mr. Baziron to find! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 11:47:13, 02-07-2008 by Sydney Grew »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #385 on: 12:41:36, 02-07-2008 » |
|
...But assuredly there are in these three offerings a good many wrong notes for Mr. Baziron to find!
Perish the thought! I shall listen to them later, and (mark my words) not a single complaint over 'wrong notes' (or anything else) will follow! Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #386 on: 12:45:43, 02-07-2008 » |
|
Like most composers he was fascinated by the combination of duple and treble time, but - correct us if we are wrong - we are unaware of any instances in Bach of triplets that extend over more than one beat! How about later composers - when did triplets really get going?
You surprise me here Mr Grew! It does not seem so long ago (on this very thread) that you offered us a not-so-crackpot version of BWV 682 ( Vater unser im Himmelreich) wherein very many triplets extended over multiple beats. (Now we are not getting 'old' are we Mr Grew?) Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #387 on: 13:17:24, 02-07-2008 » |
|
To-day a stimulating but somewhat crackpot interpretation of the Fugue in E minor from Bach's Second Book ( rapid-share / send-space). We hear at once that this is late Bach do we not? Like most composers he was fascinated by the combination of duple and treble time, but - correct us if we are wrong - we are unaware of any instances in Bach of triplets that extend over more than one beat! How about later composers - when did triplets really get going? We read much of the rhythmic complexity of the music of the fifteenth century and we suppose that must have extended to a few triplets from time to time, so had things actually gone backwards by the time of Bach? As companion and comparison we present two interpreters of the old school, a lady harpsichordist ( guess who) - the end of her Fugue is especially good and she makes her instrument sound just like an organ... Wanda had some unexpected surprises for us there did she not!? The first one was the shock of hearing that she had abandoned her box of paperclips for nothing less than a staple machine. Armed with this lethal implement she ploughs through the fugue (I'm afraid I fast-forwarded through the Prelude without listening to it) with vigour and determination. Unfortunately, when her staple gun runs out of staples she needs to stop and replenish it with the necessary ammunition. The first time this happens seems to be at bar 67 where - having plunged what seems to be her final staple into the bass C-natural - the piece completely winds down to a standstill. Because Bach (the ever-prescient 'practical' composer) has strategically placed a fermata symbol over the second chord of bar 70, Wanda takes his advice and re-loads her gun (taking all the time needed for this complex operation). Then off she goes again, peppering each note with a new, clean staple. The only thing that puzzles me is why she runs out of new staples so quickly? As soon as bar 80 she has to slow down again, having already observed that Bach has provided yet another practical fermata at bar 83 for her to re-load her gun. But, presumably because Bach has placed this one only upon a quaver (instead of a crotchet, as before), she seems to have time enough only to insert two or three new missiles. When she 'gets going' again at the end of bar 83, we never really feel that she has any confidence that her ammunition will last for the remaining 3 bars of the piece. Indeed, during the last bar we have an overbearing sense of sympathy with her that the last remaining and final staple may not even allow her to pin the last chord definitively enough. And, my goodness me, we were almost right were we not?! During the course of the piece, her stapling technique was almost flawless - indeed we only managed to notice one 'miss' - in bar 40 she aimed very carefully at D# on the 4th note, but managed only to hit D-natural. Now I don't think, in view of all the technical difficulties she created for herself, that that was too bad was it? Baz |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 13:21:14, 02-07-2008 by Baz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #388 on: 13:32:58, 02-07-2008 » |
|
...and a gentleman at the piano ( Edwin) - his performance too has some interesting spots. But assuredly there are in these three offerings a good many wrong notes for Mr. Baziron to find! I shall refrain from offering any comments upon 'Edwin's' truly dismal performance. Earlier in this thread I offered a brief analysis of this fugue, together with the reproduction of the complete score. Those interested enough might care to locate it, and play 'Edwin's' so-called "performance" so as to discover any causal connection between the two that may be possible. It might have helped had 'Edwin' bothered to correct some of his misreadings, and (I'm afraid) unforced errors. But he clearly was either a) not being paid enough, or b) was not sufficiently interested in the composer's work for the effort needed to have been (in his view) worthwhile. Pity that - the music is truly excellent! Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #389 on: 13:54:55, 02-07-2008 » |
|
As a postscript to my two previous postings...
I forgot to say that of the three performances Mr Grew offered, his own yet again seemed to me to be the least 'crackpot'. It was accurate, well projected and at exactly the correct tempo.
Being a computerized performance, some anomolies exist - in particular the mismatch between triplet quavers and the concurrent dotted-quaver/semiquaver figures. At this time, the dotted-quaver/semiquaver notation actually meant a 'triplet' rhythm just as much as a non-triplet one (depending only upon musical context). Computers are, of course, too dumb to work that out for themselves though.
Baz
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
