Ah yes, we do see what Mr. Baziron means. (We had been stupidly looking at the renowned treble line of BWV 645 whereas we should have gone to the middle bit starting half way through bar thirteen.)

Well - we now see what the Member means, and we must apologize for having earlier been suffering from PMT (i.e. Post Meridiam Tescorami). It has taken until now (some 5 hours no less!) for us to remember to what "BWV 645" relates, and (though we need not have been surprised at his accuracy) the Member of course was speaking about the first of Bach's "Schübler" chorale preludes - in this case his setting of Wachet auf. But we are confident that he will forgive our slowness since we had all along been referring to the actual chorale itself rather than to anybody's setting of it.

The Member is also completely accurate in identifying within that setting the arrival of the melody to which we refer at "bar 13". Well done Mr Grew!

Baz

The 'crackpot' version is we feel just too fast! At this speed real players (rather than computers) would be error-prone. It is the sort of thing Glenn might try, and (who knows) he may bring it off (note-wise that is). But we have to notice that the crackpot here (even though a 'material resource' rather than a 'human' one) cannot even manage this tempo without wrong notes! Here we show Bach's original engraving (which to our knowledge is the only primary source for this piece)...




...Now our anonymous crackpot plays a) an F# (instead of an F-natural) on the final LH quaver in bar 23; and b) an A (instead of a B) on the 5th LH quaver of bar 27. The former is clearly signed by Bach with a natural. The latter, however, has become repeated 'folklore' through poor editing by later people. (Indeed, it even finds its way into the Barenreiter Edition - shame on them!). Bach's intentions are perfectly clear here we feel.

Helmut's tempo on the other hand is just too slow! (If he were to play the 12/8 setting of Dies sind die heiligen zehen Geboth that occurs earlier in the collection at this speed we should all fall asleep before he reached the half-way point we feel!) While we note however that Helmut plays the correct note-pitches in bar 23, he still inherits the rogue 'A' in bar 27.

Why cannot people just do what Bach asks we ask! What was good enough for him should certainly be good enough for us we insist!

Baz

What a coincidence that Mr Grew should ask this question just as I was about to join in the thread with a couple of contributions from who other than a well-known lady organist!

Clavierübung, Duetto II - not too crackpot, indeed quite lovely
Clavierübung, Duetto III - same performer, same recording, but here the lady's brain synapses seem to have fused

The Member's powers of deduction are impressive. Dame Gillian it is, recorded by Priory in the very series he mentions. I always found the sound of that LH stop very odd but quite fascinating: not being an expert on the music of the period I wonder what if any historical justification there might be for such a choice (or indeed for the choice of instrument: the 1974 Phelps instrument at St Luke's Episcopal Church, Fort Collins, Colorado).

Some of her tempi are very odd on that CD, too, as if she were getting impatient with all those "Wachet auf"s.

PS "Whodunnits", surely?

('whodunit' would appear to be at least equally acceptable judging from a quick Google straw poll.)

Since she became a Dame, we consider her "public property". We feel therefore that "Madame" is incorrect and the term NotreDame should be employed instead (ringing as it does with the resonances of the Machaut Mass, the great Parisian cathedral, and - yes - our very own Christian liturgy!).

It may perhaps be "A custom more honoured in the breach than in the observance", but we feel it still to be there.

Baz 

Your crackpot version seems we feel to be textually entirely sound Mr Grew. Indeed we may go further and suggest that you successfully fixed one of the few errors to be found in the collection that occurs in this piece: the final RH note of bar 30 should have been tied across the barline to the first RH note of bar 31, but evidently the engraver omitted to draw the tie by mistake! This can be ascertained by inspecting the original engraved text that appears here...




Baz