WE THE JURY

[Nick Bennett]

Wow, fantastic. Superb rythmic drive. Superb organ, too.

 

This is rather reminiscent of St Albans last year, where by far the best performance of one of the Mendelssohn sonatas, which was set for the semi-finals, was given by the assistant organist, name of Winpenny, as part of a concert.

[MusingMuso]

In retrospect, as other performances have come to light, perhaps the listed performances were not ideal. However, as jurists, (like beggars), cannot select their victims, it doesn’t matter very much.

 

What is interesting about the selected performances, is the manner in which fashions have changed, as the Virgil Fox performance demonstrates. It’s not even “Romantic Bach,” so much as a re-arrangement of the composer’s intentions; immediately drawing attention to a performer who placed drama and virtuosity above all else.

 

Interestingly, the Russian Bayan Accordion trio, playing the A Minor Prelude in a distinctly “romantic” way, probably achieves far greater musical communication than Fox did on the right instrument, which is why it was included.

Perhaps the Karl Richter recording is the one which obviously finds many admirers, and it is not difficult to hear why, in spite of “that awful reed” gate-crashing the party from time to time.

 

Richter, on the right instrument, was quite a stunning Bach player , and yet, a lot of scholarship still remained to be done when he recorded the Bach organ-works. I was perhaps fortunate in being exposed to Richter at an early age, (14),when my parents bought me an old ¼ inch tape album with Richter as the performer. It was impressive then, and it remains impressive to-day. The Schweitzer recordings were just plain droll by comparison, and the Walcha recordings a bit “flat-line.” Richter expressed great passion in his Bach performances, and that of course brought an appreciation of relatively “authentic” Bach to a world audience in all the different genres. Above all, he played from the heart, and that still comes across 40 years and more later.

 

Interestingly, I find that none of the performances actually rattle my fibrous tissues totally, but if I could have found it, I know that the Chapuis performance would have done. Chapuis did things which now seem to alarm the current crop of Bach performers, like changing registration or changing manuals; bringing a heightened sense of drama to the works. Why has this gone out of favour? Did Bach simply use the other manuals as book-rests, and the stops somewhere to hang his wig? It doesn’t make sense in such dramatic and grand works.

 

One of the very finest performances of the A-minor took my breath away in the Nederlands, when the organist commenced the Prelude on a Positiv Flute combination at 8ft and 4ft; starting off almost demurely and slowly, with a very controlled accelerando; the Flutes chirping away as if it were the Haydn “Surprise Symphony.” When the bottom EEE dominant unexpectedly crashed in at “ff,” and the full pleno followed on the manuals, it was probably much the same as being struck by lightning. The impact was musically devastating, and yet, entirely possible to play this way on an organ built contemporary with Bach.

 

However, my biggest gripe with many contemporary Bach players, is the tendency to play too “vertically;” the performer quite happy to sacrifice linear contrapuntal flow to short-breathed, over emphasised articulations of phrasing quiet unrelated to the arching contrapuntal phrases. Bach was not a mathematician, but there is a distinct relativity in those phrases, and we destroy them at our peril. I believe that Richter knew this instinctively, and his performances are still highly regarded because of it.

 

I think this is the secret of the Imbruno performance, which although registrationally rather flat-line, nevertheless pays due regard to the linear flow and rhythmic swagger of the whole; whether that be the free “phantasticus” Prelude or the almost jazzy, synocopated fugue.

 

I think this is how Bach needs to played, but I would still prefer the dramatic contrasts and registrational changes of Chapuis as an added bonus.

 

 

MM

[wolsey]

Bach was not a mathematician,

 

Wow! Are the many people who write of Bach numerology - and cite examples - barking (Baching) up the wrong tree?

[MusingMuso]

Wow! Are the many people who write of Bach numerology - and cite examples - barking (Baching) up the wrong tree?

 

 

============================

 

 

That is exactly what I'm suggesting.....right brain v. left brain.

 

All this nonsense was very popular in American musicology in the 1960/70's during the "Early Music" wave of interest, and seemed to attract others from around the world. The name Kellner sticks in my mind for some reason, but I can't recall whether he was German or Austrian.

 

I'm not suggesting that there isn't mathematical relativity, (which is why I used the word), but to suggest that Bach's music was so contrived as to be formulaic, is IMHO, complete tosh.

 

All music has rhythm, all music has metre and all music (of any worth) has to conform to the relativity of cedents and antecedents, but that is not the same as composing on pieces of graph-paper.

 

I know that when I tried to complete an unfinished Bach work, (I never did finish it), I carefully studied the relative proportion of the contrapuntal phrases, and the way that inner parts often moved as displaced fractions. Even augmentation and diminution seemed to work in a mathematical way.

 

However, the better question is to ask if there is any other way that strict counterpoint can be written?

 

I'm quite sure that in the music of Mozart, Reger, Handel and numerous others, there are probably thousands of examples of mathematical proportion.

 

Of course, I'm not suggesting for one moment that Bach DIDN'T use numeric symbolism, if that served a purpose and was part of an accepted, popular consciousness in Thuringia and beyond, but I can't help but think of "Bach the mathemetician" as something of a silly pursuit.

 

As I say, each to their own......left and right brain.

 

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

Wow, fantastic. Superb rythmic drive. Superb organ, too.

 

This is rather reminiscent of St Albans last year, where by far the best performance of one of the Mendelssohn sonatas, which was set for the semi-finals, was given by the assistant organist, name of Winpenny, as part of a concert.

 

============================

 

 

Wimpenny?

 

He has Yorkshire connections I believe..........Leeds PC?

 

I may be wrong, but I'm too lazy to check it out.

 

MM

[Vox Humana]

I'm not suggesting that there isn't mathematical relativity, (which is why I used the word), but to suggest that Bach's music was so contrived as to be formulaic, is IMHO, complete tosh.

Have you actually read and assessed all the literature on the subject? If so, please do dismantle it for us item by item in order to prove your sweeping statement. Or were you calling it tosh because it doesn't fit the way you like to think about Bach?

 

I have grave reservations about numerology in Bach, simply because I tend to think that one can find numbers anywhere in a piece of music to support whatever point one is trying to make. Who is to say whether the three flats in the key signature of BWV 552, or the fact that the fugue has three subjects, is indicative of the Trinity or just a coincidence? What might you find if you looked for the number 4 instead? I've not tried, but I bet you could find things. I am barely numerate, let alone a mathematician, and haven't been interested enough to read the literature, so, not being in a position to argue, I remain entirely neutral on the topic.

 

It has no direct relevance to Bach, but if you want proof that a composer could indeed compose top-quality music while structuring it according to a whole raft of complex mathematical inter-relationships (which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be coincidental), read Roger Bray's analysis of Fayrfax's Mass O quam glorifica - but make sure you have a bandage handy to strap your lower jaw back to your upper. It makes Dunstable look like a mere abacus flicker.

[innate]

Have you actually read and assessed all the literature on the subject? If so, please do dismantle it for us item by item in order to prove your sweeping statement. Or were you calling it tosh because it doesn't fit the way you like to think about Bach?

 

I have grave reservations about numerology in Bach, simply because I tend to think that one can find numbers anywhere in a piece of music to support whatever point one is trying to make. Who is to say whether the three flats in the key signature of BWV 552, or the fact that the fugue has three subjects, is indicative of the Trinity or just a coincidence? What might you find if you looked for the number 4 instead? I've not tried, but I bet you could find things. I am barely numerate, let alone a mathematician, and haven't been interested enough to read the literature, so, not being in a position to argue, I remain entirely neutral on the topic.

 

It has no direct relevance to Bach, but if you want proof that a composer could indeed compose top-quality music while structuring it according to a whole raft of complex mathematical inter-relationships (which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be coincidental), read Roger Bray's analysis of Fayrfax's Mass O quam glorifica - but make sure you have a bandage handy to strap your lower jaw back to your upper. It makes Dunstable look like a mere abacus flicker.

There's little doubt in my mind at the moment that CÜIII isn't full of numerological symbolism: the number of words on the title page gives Bach's age at publication; the three flats, the triple fugue, the 72 appearances of the 6-note quaver figure in Jesus Christus, Unser Heiland BWV 688 that are significant in that 72 is 3^2 x 2^3 x 1^1, another mathematical representation of the Trinity. When I play these pieces I am very much aware of these and other significances which, I hope, add cohesion and purpose to my interpretations. I could easily, however, wake up tomorrow and read something here that will change my mind :-)

[Tony Newnham]

============================

 

 

Wimpenny?

 

He has Yorkshire connections I believe..........Leeds PC?

 

I may be wrong, but I'm too lazy to check it out.

 

MM

 

Hi

 

I do't know how much of a Yorkshire connection there is, but Tom Winpenny's grandfather is amemer of the Badford organists' assoc.

 

Every Blessing

 

Tony

[MusingMuso]

Hi

 

I do't know how much of a Yorkshire connection there is, but Tom Winpenny's grandfather is amemer of the Badford organists' assoc.

 

Every Blessing

 

Tony

 

=====================

 

 

This I know, and from the dim, distant past, I seem to recall that Wimpenny the younger was in the choir at Leeds PC as a boy chorister.

 

I may be completely wrong of course.

 

MM

[Vox Humana]

the number of words on the title page gives Bach's age at publication

But do you know, for example, why Bach should have felt it necessary to engineer this, who amongst his purchasers needed to know this information and why it was so important to tell them? You see, this is the sort of problem I have. Without some demonstration of the relevance, i.e. why Bach should have done it and why others should have expected him to (after all, there's little point in presenting a riddle if no one realises you're presenting it), how do I know that this isn't just another of those coincidences onto which musicologists are foisting some spurious import? But maybe this has been done; like I said, I've not read the books.

 

I'm not trying to be contentious; I really am totally ignorant about the subject. What books/documents exist from Bach's time dealing with numerology in music?

[innate]

But do you know, for example, why Bach should have felt it necessary to engineer this, who amongst his purchasers needed to know this information and why it was so important to tell them? You see, this is the sort of problem I have. Without some demonstration of the relevance, i.e. why Bach should have done it and why others should have expected him to (after all, there's little point in presenting a riddle if no one realises you're presenting it), how do I know that this isn't just another of those coincidences onto which musicologists are foisting some spurious import? But maybe this has been done; like I said, I've not read the books.

To which other "coincidences onto which musicologists are foisting some spurious import" do you refer?

I'm not trying to be contentious; I really am totally ignorant about the subject. What books/documents exist from Bach's time dealing with numerology in music?

 

Try this.

[MusingMuso]

But do you know, for example, why Bach should have felt it necessary to engineer this, who amongst his purchasers needed to know this information and why it was so important to tell them? You see, this is the sort of problem I have. Without some demonstration of the relevance, i.e. why Bach should have done it and why others should have expected him to (after all, there's little point in presenting a riddle if no one realises you're presenting it), how do I know that this isn't just another of those coincidences onto which musicologists are foisting some spurious import? But maybe this has been done; like I said, I've not read the books.

 

I'm not trying to be contentious; I really am totally ignorant about the subject. What books/documents exist from Bach's time dealing with numerology in music?

 

==================================

 

 

There are many ways to demolish something. There is the piece by piece approach, the quicker burning-log method used by Fred Dibnah, and the instantaneous method employed by “Blaster” Bates. I prefer the latter option, using Gelignite, a switch, two wires, a planar detonator and a torch battery!

 

Where is the evidence for Bach using numerology, or to give it its’ correct name, Gematrics ,in any of his works?

 

The “evidence” began in 1947, in an alpha-numeric puzzle published by Friederich Smend, but taken from a ‘Paragram’ by Christian Friedrich Henrici , (better known as Picander), the librettist for many of Bach’s major choral-works. This used the numeric alphabet to represent actual letters, and was a popular type of puzzle in the 18th century, along with such things as anagrams and chronograms.

 

Writing in 2005 for BBC Radio 3, Ruth Tatlow wrote the following:-

Smend did not know what a paragram was. As a church historian, he had met a similar technique in Jewish cabbalism and falsely assumed that its use in the 1730s still had religious connotations. Smend was also drawn to the traditional interpretations of biblical number symbols. Again with no evidence to support his method, he presented detailed interpretations of selected numbers (of notes and bars) in Bach's scores. The lethal combination of symbolic interpretations and cabbalistic techniques that promised to unlock the secret depths of Bach's spiritual motivation in his greatest works proved irresistible. A fire was started in Bach studies that continues to smoulder and occasionally flare up today.

 

My own understanding is, that Schweitzer was the one who wrote about the “Trinity” Fugue; possibly around the same time; making claims about the symbolic numbers and triple references. What may well have been contrived mathematics rather than, (God forbid), contrived music, found a ready and receptive audience among the “early music” brigade. After this, a whole academic industry seemed to flourish; proving this or that piece of musical/mathematical symbolism, BUT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT ANY REFERENCES CONTEMPORARY TO BACH.

 

Ruth Tatlow also makes the serious point that numeric puzzles and games, if used as religious sumbolism, would actually have been frowned upon as superstitious. That would have been completely unacceptable to a man of faith, such as Bach was.

 

I suspect that the deeper truth, is that musicians and listeners alike, are so spellbound by the genius expressed in the music, they try to attach a God-like status to what is actually only a supreme expression of human genius. The religious on the other hand, seem to need God to be the ultimate inspiration, and thus seem happy to attach religious symbolism to Bach’s life-work.

 

But was Bach better than all his contemporaries?

 

After all, there were rivals....Handel obviously, Cernohorsky, Zelenka, Scarlatti, Bruhns, Buxtehude (et al).....the quality of the age was high; very high indeed, and perhaps the major distinction between Bach and the rest, was the sheer volume of his output and the impeccable quality of the craftsmanship. Make no mistake, Bach was as much a craftsman as he was a musical genius, or he would not have been able to write a quarter of what he did.

 

So I’m afraid that the “evidence” for Bach using Gematrics in his manuscripts is non-existent, except as a contrived exercise for those of a pseudo- academic bent who have nothing better to do, and probably couldn’t write a simple set of variations on “Baa Baa Black Sheep.”

 

I must not end on a cynical note however, because someting really amused me when I read it, and it is worthy of replication.

 

From, “The True Life of Johann Sebastian Bach” by Klaus Eidam, 1999 German, 2001 English]

 

At the beginning of chapter 24, p291, Eidam treats that same alleged "Trinity" fugue. "The fugue, in E-flat major, has become known as the St. Anne or the Trinity Fugue, in allusion to its triple character---three themes are separately introduced and then interwoven with each other. Since there are three themes, Schweitzer posited the reference to the divine Trinity, not without carefully distancing himself from the idea: He states that an organist (unnamed) drew his attention to the correlation. Rueger then expands on the insinuation in his Bach biography, pointing out that not only the fugue but also the prelude is tripartite. The structural observations are correct, but identifying the work as a detailed portrayal of the central Christian belief undoubtedly goes too far. With complete impartiality, we might conceivably recognize the first fugal theme as the ascent of God's spirit from the depths. But if the second theme depicts Jesus Christ, we have him speeding by on roller-skates, and the third evokes a Holy Ghost who clanks along like a knight in armour."

 

So I’m sorry if the Gelignite approach is a bit brutal, but as it burns at 4 miles per second, it serves a purpose and excuses me from the brick- by- brick approach requested by our friend "Vox."

 

MM

[robinwgc]

=====================

 

 

This I know, and from the dim, distant past, I seem to recall that Wimpenny the younger was in the choir at Leeds PC as a boy chorister.

 

I may be completely wrong of course.

 

MM

 

From a 2009 recital programme . . .

 

Tom Winpenny took up the post of Assistant Master of the Music at St Albans Cathedral in September 2008, where his duties include accompanying the daily choral services and assisting in the training of the Cathedral choristers. He also directs the Abbey Girls Choir and the Abbey Singers. Previously, he was Sub-Organist at St Paul's Cathedral, and during this time, he performed with the Cathedral Choir at the American Guild of Organists National Convention, performed in Mahler's Symphony no. 8 with Valery Gergiev and the LSO, and played for many great state occasions. He has also broadcast regularly on BBC Radio 2, 3 and 4.

 

He began organ lessons under John Scott Whiteley while a chorister at York Minster, and continued as a Music Scholar at Eton College under Alastair Sampson. After holding the post of Organ Scholar at Worcester Cathedral and then St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, he was for three years Organ Scholar at King's College, Cambridge, where he graduated with a degree in music. With the Choir of King's College, he gave concerts in the USA, Hong Kong and throughout Europe, in addition to appearing as their accompanist on CD releases on EMI Classics, including music by Purcell and Rutter and discs of contemporary Christmas carols and music for boys' voices. He has also taken part in the first performance of works by Sir John Tavener, Judith Bingham, Jonathan Dove, David Bednall and Sir David Willcocks, and commissioned an organ work from Francis Pott to conclude the 2005 Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols from King's. He has studied with Thomas Trotter and Johannes Geffert, and won First Prize and the Audience Prize at the 2008 Miami International Organ Competition.

[innate]

==================================

 

From, “The True Life of Johann Sebastian Bach” by Klaus Eidam, 1999 German, 2001 English]

 

At the beginning of chapter 24, p291, Eidam treats that same alleged "Trinity" fugue. "The fugue, in E-flat major, has become known as the St. Anne or the Trinity Fugue, in allusion to its triple character---three themes are separately introduced and then interwoven with each other. Since there are three themes, Schweitzer posited the reference to the divine Trinity, not without carefully distancing himself from the idea: He states that an organist (unnamed) drew his attention to the correlation. Rueger then expands on the insinuation in his Bach biography, pointing out that not only the fugue but also the prelude is tripartite. The structural observations are correct, but identifying the work as a detailed portrayal of the central Christian belief undoubtedly goes too far. With complete impartiality, we might conceivably recognize the first fugal theme as the ascent of God's spirit from the depths. But if the second theme depicts Jesus Christ, we have him speeding by on roller-skates, and the third evokes a Holy Ghost who clanks along like a knight in armour."

So, whoever or whatever might be "pictured within" or even if entirely abstract, we have the greatest or one of the greatest religious composers who ever lived writing music that sounds like someone on rollerskates and a clanking knight. Poor imagery, I think.

[MusingMuso]

So, whoever or whatever might be "pictured within" or even if entirely abstract, we have the greatest or one of the greatest religious composers who ever lived writing music that sounds like someone on rollerskates and a clanking knight. Poor imagery, I think.

 

=========================

 

 

Well, it could have been an elephant dancing on ice and carrying a parasol.

 

I'm easily amused.

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

From a 2009 recital programme . . .

 

Tom Winpenny took up the post of Assistant Master of the Music at St Albans Cathedral in September 2008, where his duties include accompanying the daily choral services and assisting in the training of the Cathedral choristers. He also directs the Abbey Girls Choir and the Abbey Singers. Previously, he was Sub-Organist at St Paul's Cathedral, and during this time, he performed with the Cathedral Choir at the American Guild of Organists National Convention, performed in Mahler's Symphony no. 8 with Valery Gergiev and the LSO, and played for many great state occasions. He has also broadcast regularly on BBC Radio 2, 3 and 4.

 

He began organ lessons under John Scott Whiteley while a chorister at York Minster, and continued as a Music Scholar at Eton College under Alastair Sampson. After holding the post of Organ Scholar at Worcester Cathedral and then St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, he was for three years Organ Scholar at King's College, Cambridge, where he graduated with a degree in music. With the Choir of King's College, he gave concerts in the USA, Hong Kong and throughout Europe, in addition to appearing as their accompanist on CD releases on EMI Classics, including music by Purcell and Rutter and discs of contemporary Christmas carols and music for boys' voices. He has also taken part in the first performance of works by Sir John Tavener, Judith Bingham, Jonathan Dove, David Bednall and Sir David Willcocks, and commissioned an organ work from Francis Pott to conclude the 2005 Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols from King's. He has studied with Thomas Trotter and Johannes Geffert, and won First Prize and the Audience Prize at the 2008 Miami International Organ Competition.

 

======================

 

 

Oh! Thank God for that!

 

There IS a Yorkshire connection and he WAS a chorister.

 

Four out of ten?

 

MM (Slinking away sheepishly)

[innate]

Well, it could have been an elephant dancing on ice and carrying a parasol.

 

I'm easily amused.

It's late so I can't quite tell what prompted this memory: Alan Civil, then principal horn in the BBC Symphony Orchestra, describes how he was hauled over the coals after a broadcast where, at the end of a piece of modern and very serious orchestral music, he had led the brass section off the platform playing, as they walked, a Bavarian oompah tune. The foreign conductor: You are a buffoon, content only with inane music in Eb, in 3/4 time. Civil: Well, there goes the Eroica Symphony.

[Vox Humana]

To which other "coincidences onto which musicologists are foisting some spurious import" do you refer?

I didn't have any specific examples in mind. I only meant that if Bach was not incorporating numerology in his music, then those who claim he was are foisting it on him.

 

Try this.

Hmm. It's not musical though, is it?

 

After this, a whole academic industry seemed to flourish; proving this or that piece of musical/mathematical symbolism, BUT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT ANY REFERENCES CONTEMPORARY TO BACH.

That's precisely what worries me about the whole business. If someone could point me to a contemporary book or document giving (for example) advice to composers about composing by numbers (to put it glibly) then I'd be inclined to take it all more seriously. As it is, I'm not convinced it's not all a musicological fiction. At least with Fayrfax and his contemporaries we know why they played number games (it's all Boethius's fault, basically).

[MusingMuso]

That's precisely what worries me about the whole business. If someone could point me to a contemporary book or document giving (for example) advice to composers about composing by numbers (to put it glibly) then I'd be inclined to take it all more seriously. As it is, I'm not convinced it's not all a musicological fiction. At least with Fayrfax and his contemporaries we know why they played number games (it's all Boethius's fault, basically).

 

=========================

 

We don't need composers anymore. A computer has "written" another Mozart symphony, and it sounds like....erm.... Mozart in the style of the film "Amadeus."

 

I thought I was onto something in Holland, until the nice lady picked up the flakes of paint from the floor and super-glued them back onto a Frans Hals masterwork. I wish the flash had worked, because I'm sure there were numbers printed on the canvas beneath.

 

Who the hell was Fayrfax?

 

There are holes in my knowledge. Could he have been te euphomistic "friend" of Robert de Farnoux?

 

MM

[Vox Humana]

Who the hell was Fayrfax?

You needn't worry; he didn't write any organ music.

[ross cobb]

I've just discovered this:-

 

 

For once, I am speechless.

 

MM

 

This one knocks them all:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Sq2kF2Mac

 

played on the piano, arr, by Liszt & played by that notorious genius, Percy Grainger!

[MusingMuso]

This one knocks them all:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Sq2kF2Mac

 

played on the piano, arr, by Liszt & played by that notorious genius, Percy Grainger!

 

============================

 

I wouldn't say that it knocks anything, but it does expose the origins of what I would term the "Expressionist Style."

 

I know that many years ago, I made a special study of both Karl Tausig and Busoni, (the former in particular), and the way in which they transcribed organ-works to the piano. Unfortunately, I've never seen the Liszt transcriptions, but if they are true to form, it is quite likely that all the gradients of expression and tempo are actually included in the transcripted score, as well as marcato expressions for some of the inner parts of the fugues.

 

I'm no pianist I'm afraid, (too much dashing about for me), but I do know enough about the piano and the 19th century, to know that Liszt was really the founder of the "composer knows best" movement, which marks the point at which the performer became the servant rather than the co-creator.

 

Compare the piano transcription to the performing editions of, say, W T Best, and they are radically different in artistic terms; W T Best, IMHO, being the superior mind in his understanding of Bach.

 

The whole Hungarian/German/Berlin legacy found a ready and receptive audience in America, following the migration of German musicians there, and the links which they maintained with the fatherland.

 

The interesting things is, in this rather snobbish world, there probably isn't that much difference between that which Liszt prescribed, and that which Virgil Fox did on the organ; both quite happy to re-invent the music as they saw fit.

 

MM

[ross cobb]

============================

 

I wouldn't say that it knocks anything, but it does expose the origins of what I would term the "Expressionist Style."

 

I know that many years ago, I made a special study of both Karl Tausig and Busoni, (the former in particular), and the way in which they transcribed organ-works to the piano. Unfortunately, I've never seen the Liszt transcriptions, but if they are true to form, it is quite likely that all the gradients of expression and tempo are actually included in the transcripted score, as well as marcato expressions for some of the inner parts of the fugues.

 

I'm no pianist I'm afraid, (too much dashing about for me), but I do know enough about the piano and the 19th century, to know that Liszt was really the founder of the "composer knows best" movement, which marks the point at which the performer became the servant rather than the co-creator.

 

Compare the piano transcription to the performing editions of, say, W T Best, and they are radically different in artistic terms; W T Best, IMHO, being the superior mind in his understanding of Bach.

 

The whole Hungarian/German/Berlin legacy found a ready and receptive audience in America, following the migration of German musicians there, and the links which they maintained with the fatherland.

 

The interesting things is, in this rather snobbish world, there probably isn't that much difference between that which Liszt prescribed, and that which Virgil Fox did on the organ; both quite happy to re-invent the music as they saw fit.

 

MM

 

Dear MM,

 

I'm afraid you are much mistaken.

 

Liszt merely transcribed the notes, as faithfully as he could for the new medium.

He left no performance indications whatsoever, and it is Grainger who gives the piece such contours and lyricism.

You can see this by looking at the score (always a mouse click away), or listening to the other performances of the Liszt arr. on youtube, such as these:

the Great British pianist Solomon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtva4npTb5g

Svetla Protich: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmm1kC_fAaU...t=1&index=9

Swedish Roland Pöntinen:

 

What I find interesting, is that pianists, in the fugue at least, seem to relish the melodic shape of the subject, whereas organists just all seem to get off on the rhythm, resulting in lots of fast performances commented on by others. It was only listening to the piano performances that I realised how incredibly beautiful were Bach's inherent harmonic tensions within the fugue- something which the pianists (especially old Percy) really seem to bring out. Why is that? And why is it that organists seem to think that it is acceptable, as in the case of MM's "For once, i am speechless", Matteo Imbruno, to play elaborate counterpoint in what sounds like a 7-second echo? I have to say I am speechless too.

 

Incidentally, what do people think of Mr Dupre playing- in the 1940's, the A minor at St Mark's N. Audley St?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_j3ifCBq34.

 

Contrarily,

C-VV

[MusingMuso]

Dear MM,

 

I'm afraid you are much mistaken.

 

Liszt merely transcribed the notes, as faithfully as he could for the new medium.

He left no performance indications whatsoever, and it is Grainger who gives the piece such contours and lyricism.

You can see this by looking at the score (always a mouse click away), or listening to the other performances of the Liszt arr. on youtube, such as these:

the Great British pianist Solomon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtva4npTb5g

Svetla Protich: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmm1kC_fAaU...t=1&index=9

Swedish Roland Pöntinen:

 

What I find interesting, is that pianists, in the fugue at least, seem to relish the melodic shape of the subject, whereas organists just all seem to get off on the rhythm, resulting in lots of fast performances commented on by others. It was only listening to the piano performances that I realised how incredibly beautiful were Bach's inherent harmonic tensions within the fugue- something which the pianists (especially old Percy) really seem to bring out. Why is that? And why is it that organists seem to think that it is acceptable, as in the case of MM's "For once, i am speechless", Matteo Imbruno, to play elaborate counterpoint in what sounds like a 7-second echo? I have to say I am speechless too.

 

Incidentally, what do people think of Mr Dupre playing- in the 1940's, the A minor at St Mark's N. Audley St?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_j3ifCBq34.

 

Contrarily,

C-VV

 

 

===========================

 

 

In all humility, I am not so much mistaken as ignorant, but I did qualify my comments in suggesting that I had never seen the Liszt transcriptions of Bach.

 

My experieence is more or less confined to Tausig and Busoni, as I stated, and of course, I am not much of a pianist even if I did learn a few Beethoven Sonatas at some point.

 

However, having learned that Liszt remained faithful to the notes as far as possible, and made no performance indications, I am slightly amazed and pleasantly bemused.

 

I am amazed because Liszt was very much a part of that circle of pianists connected with Hans von Bulow, and the Polish transcriber/pianist Carl Tausig, was actually introduced to the Berlin audiences by von Bulow. Tausig filled out parts and altered the original Bach scores a great deal, obviously in contrast to Liszt who didn't.

 

I am bemused because Liszt seldom missed an opportunity to show off as the supreme virtuoso, and had scant regard for almost anyone apparently. Even the idea that he respected Bach's intentions demonstrates a humility I never knew Liszt to have expressed.

 

Anyway, it's good to be put right, and I shall add all this to my pool of knowledge for future reference.

 

I think you'll find that the ideas of Berlin school certainly travelled to America, and what I find interesting about that, is the way that many American (and English) organists sought out the lyricism in Bach, and made something of a meal of it.

 

If I can readily find the reference, I will post a link to fascinating programme from "Pipedreams" which demonstrates the various styles. It's quite fascinating.

 

MM

[Vox Humana]

Incidentally, what do people think of Mr Dupre playing- in the 1940's, the A minor at St Mark's N. Audley St?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_j3ifCBq34.

Pretty much devoid of everything except the right notes.