Well consider this: when executant 1 interposes himself between Bach and the auditor, and performs an act of "expressiveness" A at one point, but on another occasion executant 2 interposes himself between Bach and the auditor, and introduces a gesture of "expressiveness" B at a different point, which of these gentlemen is true to the intentions of the composer? For they cannot both be good faithful and correct performances can they?

If all or almost all the executants could agree - were of one mind - the Member might begin to persuade us; for example all or almost all executants seem to agree that something of a rallentamento is called for over the final bar of yesterday's jolly little Prelude, and even our anonymous crackpot has given us that - quite contrary may we observe to the Member's assertion quoted above!!! But the rest of the piece is so simple and straightforward that a regular rhythm or beat will suffice to permit all its musical features to become of their own accord and without any kind of intervention evident. The work is certainly not broken; why attempt to "fix" it?

On the other hand the executant who is always saying to himself "Let them listen to my phrasing and my interpretation - they are profounder and subtler than his [some other performer's] - has departed from the straight and narrow in order to indulge in a deviant activity.

Percy Scholes is quite good here: "Interpretation in music is merely the act of performance, with the implication that in it the performer's judgement and personality have a share. . . . No two performers will adopt the same slackenings and hastenings of speed, the same degree of emphasis on an accented note, and so forth. The fact that latitude thus necessarily exists for the exercise of judgement and the expression of  personality often leads a certain type of performer (including, decidedly, the conductor) to seek the unusual and extreme in manner of interpretation."

He also says "No such thing as a continuous melody seems to be conceivable by the human mind. . . . Phrasing in performance means the neat and artistic observance of what may be called the punctuation of a composition - its phrases and half-phrases, and motifs. It has to be carried out clearly yet unobtrusively, as the result of genuine feeling and not of a mere intellectual analysis of the structure of the music: so achieved it constitutes one of the greatest refinements in the art of performance instrumental or performance vocal."

To-day's crackpot contribution although of course good is one of Bach's less memorable efforts we think, the F major Fugue from Book I of his 48: rapidshare or sendspace.

Welcome to the future...

Oh dear - I fear Mr Grew has (through my own fault) misunderstood me! When a computer program automatically plays notes that have been inserted mechanically, it uses a default setting of ZERO for the Start Time and End Time of each note. This has nothing to do with inserting other performance data (such as e.g. rallendando, crescendo, etc.), but simply means that the attack and decay of every note remains the same, as does the effect of moving from one note to another. So everything sounds (and in fact IS) the same in terms of attack and decay.

This means that there are no points when, for example, the melody becomes more legato or more detached. There are not points at which ends of phrases are articulated, because the last note of a phrase - like the first note of another - have ZERO defaults. Everything, therefore, sounds equivalent.

Now I am really confident that Member Grew is not suggesting that this should be how ANY performer should play (and this has nothing to do with rhythmic regularity, or tempo for example). I cannot contemplate that a real live performer would ever think of a phrase or melody without a beginning, middle and end; but computerised performances (unless specifically programmed to do so) can never make this connection, and simply present a succession of ZERO-default 'notes'.

That was the only observation I was making.

Baz

If it is played at something approaching the correct speed, the long notes in the bass are not that much of a problem.

In point of fact, this is one of the movements from the '48 that is quite effective played upon a chamber organ. You can hear such a performance HERE, though the performer wishes to remain anonymous (so as not unduly to injure his reputation!).

Baz

Tovey strikes again - obviously nobody in Bach's day could have sight-read this piece - the works he cites as pointers to this feat had not yet been written for some time! There does not seem to me to be that much difficulty about untangling the 4 voices. The difficulty is playing them.

Tovey correctly states that this fugue has three countersubjects, and that at times this leads to quadruple counterpoint. Now obviously this is difficult to play and to maintain. This is especially so since the piece is not necessarily a 'slow' one (indeed Mr Grew's electronic rendition is almost - though not quite - fast enough). The trick is to play it so that to listeners it does not sound difficult. If it sounds as though it simply flows, without complication, that is all that is needed. (They are not interested in the sophistry of the construction, or the fiendishly difficult layout for two hands!)

This, too, sounds quite effective on a chamber organ - though it is a little unkind to the hands, and some of the cracks are apt to show themselves in a way that a harpsichordist can carefully obscure. See what you think...

CLICK

Yes - that was rather poor wasn't it? Looking at the score, I can only conclude that the poor player was at that point less able than at other points to conceil from listeners his puny 'thumbing' of the inner part. I expect that he might have 'got away with it' rather better on a harpsichord though.

Baz

Bach, as we know, transcribed some of his instrumental concertos for keyboard - and in doing so transposed the originals down a tone. So the Concerto for 2 Violins in D Minor BWV 1043 became the Concerto for 2 Harpsichords in C Minor BWV 1060. But...

Not many people know that Bach also transcribed these works for voices alone, and that a single movement survives from the same concerto (above). If anybody has doubts about the 'one voice per part' ideas mentioned elsewhere on this MB, this work amply shows the high vocal qualities that singers of the day must have possessed!