It is a technique rather different from that of Bach himself is not it:

"This is the way in which Bach played the harpsichord. 'His five fingers bent so that their extremities fell perpendicularly on the keyboard, above which they formed a parallel line ever ready to obey. The finger did not rise perpendicularly on leaving the touch, but rather glided back towards the palm of the hand; in the transition from one touch to another, this very gliding imparted to the next finger the exact strength of pressure that had been put into force by the preceding finger; hence a great evenness and a touch that was neither thick nor harsh.' It is Philip Emmanuel that has given us this description.

"Bach had a small hand; the motion of his fingers was barely perceptible, as the first phalanges were the only ones that moved. His hand preserved the rounded shape, even in the execution of the most difficult passages; the fingers were barely raised above the keyboard, just a shade more than in the playing a shake. As soon as a finger had been used, he brought it back to its proper position. The remainder of his body took no part whatever in the work. It is only those whose hands are not sufficiently nimble that need to exert their whole frame when playing.

"Nowadays we do not play the harpsichord, and the piano which has replaced it with great advantage requires methods and means that were hitherto unknown. No change has occurred in the art of playing the organ for the past two centuries. . . ."

Philip Emmanuel Emeagwali?

"Where beauty and elegance collide"

- Wynn casino tagline (apparently).  Conjures up quite the image, does it not?

Barmherzigkeit might translate as 'pitiful and compassionate forbearance', but isn't that about 3 words too many?

How about just plain 'mercy' or 'kind-heartedness' - though I can see that the latter is a bit contrived, it is nonetheless the most literal.

This use of ein (as in the indefinite article) does not imply one of many, but rather one for many. So don't let it raise your hackles to shackling Luther with a perceived error.

It was undoubtedly not a mistake of Bach's, but of the engraver's! The original paper manuscript would first be soaked with a chemical to make the paper become transparent (without allowing the ink to run!), and then placed face downwards on to the copper plate (to whose surface a sealer would have been previously applied). The engraver (not the composer!) would then carefully score through the composer's notation (that would appear in reverse of course) and this would scratch through the seal on the copper plate providing a copied reverse-image. When this process had been completed, the plate would have been treated with acid, and only those parts of the plate where the seal had been broken would become etched.

Afterwards, Bach would have studied a print for proof-reading. Where obvious omissions (e.g. ties, accidentals etc.) were noticed, they could be added to the plate. BUT...where certain errors (e.g. misplaced notes or accidentals) were found, correcting these was cumbersome (though not impossible) and would need a further process of carefully infilling the errors, and then re-etching them. Some evidence of this process is to be found, but for others of little or no consequence it simply would not have been worth the delay and expense.

The error to which the Member refers is, I suggest, one such example.

Baz

We enjoyed both performances - especially Helmut's which reminded us again of the magnificence of the sound of that wonderful Silbermann organ in St.-Pierre-le-Jeune, Strasburg! Bar 54 presents a difference of opinion (both between Mr Grew and Helmut, and also between players generally) does not it? We tend on the whole to agree with Helmut that the ante-penultimate quaver in the top voice is best left as an A-natural, though a case (within the notational convention applicable) could be made for the Ab which Mr Grew gives us. The ambiguity will be discernible in the original engraving which appears below.

This movement again uses the Fons bonitatis Latin plainsong melody in its Lutheran form, as shown here...


...and as the rubric in the print makes clear the cantus firmus has now moved down to the Tenor voice. Again it must be noticed how skilfully Bach uses the melodic material of each phrase of the plainsong (with an emphasis on the first phrase) to construct his glittering counterpoint.

We shall look forward to hearing the final Kyrie movement tomorrow!







Baz

The answer is two-fold we feel. First, Bach respects utterly the integrity of the plainsong theme which in its Lutheran version is transmitted by him with complete fidelity. Second (and more significant) is the manner in which he chooses to dispose it texturally.

The chant employs Mode III (Phrygian) with a finalis on E and a 'dominant' on C. Each strain of the chant therefore cadences with a falling scale that comes to rest on the E.

Now Bach, in using this pattern within a tonal framework and transposing it all up a minor third, regards the "E" (of the chant) as the mediant (id est "G" within the key of Eb). The first movement projects the cantus firmus in the highest voice, and cadences on the G (which is the transposed note "E"). That explains why this movement appears to cadence on G.

The second movement however now (for contrast and further engagement) places the cantus firmus in the Tenor voice. This also cadences upon G, but Bach makes this Tenor G function as the dominant of the cadence key (C minor).

The third movement (which we hope to enjoy tomorrow Mr Grew!) moves the cantus firmus now into the Bass voice (using the organ pedals). Since again the Phrygian cadence of the chant moves down (here in its transposed form) through Ab to rest upon the G, Bach unembarrassingly progresses (in a very dramatic way tonally!) towards another strong cadence upon G.

The feeling of "half-close" to which Mr Grew refers is, to us, nothing more than an incipient respect for the modal qualities of the melody. It never manages to sound entirely "Phrygian" in ambience because Bach not surprisingly gives it a tonal treatment. But the deliberately-injected tonal "ambiguity" we feel is a further touch of Bachian genius in showing observance of, and respect for the original modality of the source melody.

This to us seems sufficient explanation for the effect, and one we feel that again shows the mark of a composer who fully understands the nature of the materials (however old and arcane they might have been) that he is using.

Baz

"Jan Hanford said:

Appalling: yes. Not only does the first movement of the Sixth Concerto sound like a joke but the third movement of the Third Concerto sounds like a midi file played at 3 times the correct speed. Perhaps we are supposed to be impressed that the musicians managed to keep the melodies somewhat clear at such a speed. I'm not impressed. The whole recording sounds like they did everything they could to make it "different", therefore creating an unpleasant mess in the process. I adore Musica Antiqua Koln and Reinhard Goebel's recordings and own as many as I've been able to find (their recording of Bach's Orchestral Suites is wonderful). I'm confused by this ridiculous recording. I'm sure he has his reasons but the sad fact is that what could have potentially been one of the most beautiful performances yet recorded is, instead, a travesty." (http://www.jsbach.org/goebelbrandenburgconcertos.html)

WE AGREE!


The following interview between Carlo Vitali and Rinaldo Alessandrini occurred:

"CV: You're known for sometimes extreme tempos — e.g. the super-fast launch of your Vivaldi Gloria and the very slow opening of your Pergolesi and Domenico Scarlatti Stabat Maters. How do you settle on these tempos — and how do you make them work?

RA: I just follow the metric signature of the written scores. Vivaldi writes the opening of his Gloria in four, rather than in eight as was usual. On the other hand, I have come to the conclusion that in the 18th century, slow tempos were extremely slow. Generally speaking, I think there was a definite taste for extremes." (http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=20533)

One can only assume that RA has no historical understanding of what he terms "metric signatures"! Why should a work that is "in 4" and not "in 8" need to be played as though it was "in 2"? We detect - somewhere along the line - the lurking influence of Glenn.

Baz