Bach's Art of Fugue

He-he, I am sure it is a must for nobody. Just another recording of the AoF.

YOU FOOLS! Why do you listen to same stuff over and over?

You are just like a person who reads the same book over and over.

When you get over the AoF, I have some really cool tips for you.

 

Bat, just to tell you, that we are some, that never will get over the AoF. When you get older, you will understand - I hope.

 

Ahem... I actually read the same books over and over.
But pe-zulu is right: one day you will understand why we do not let go of the art of fugue. All you have to do is ... listen to it repeatedly until you grasp it.

 

I will listen to it sometimes... I recently even bought the score (written in parts, not the keyboard version score).

I am not sure about this, but the AoF is probably not intended for keyboard since the autograph is written in parts.

Why do you like the AoF?

 

So did Wolfgang Graeser think too, and people (for some unknown reason) believed him. This was in the first half of the 2000th century. And he was wrong. He just didn't know enough about the issue. Others have corrected the mistake later on, e.g. Gustav Leonhardt. The work is without any hint of doubt intended to be played on keyboard - with two hands - like the WTC.

 

Because of its subtile combination of spirituality and deep emotion, unique in the history of western art.

 

I'll second that. And each fugue is a marvel, some are unbelievably so, but the overall structure is very impressive: the main theme is inverted, combined with the non inverted form, and more themes creep in. Thus there is a progressive transformation of the overall aspect of the fugues: at first very serene, and towards the end they are truly tragic and magestic.

It is necessary to know the themes and to pay attention to such moments as stretti and invertions. But once that passed you do plunge into a magical world. It really is a mystical trip. We do not know the order, but it seems that the work progresses from simple, 4 voice, counterpoint, into very complex counterfugues (the last one before the canons); then the canons (which are very difficult to play well but are magically impressive) and the two double fugues. The end is missing: it is one of the most horrible moments in all music, because the end comes when there is the combination of three different themes, and you expect the fugue to reach its uttermost intensity. The music just stops.

As pe-zulu said, Gustav Leonhardt convincingly argues that the music is for harpsichord;* that said, one does have to play tenths a few times (one of which is almost impossible). The fact that the work is in open score is thought to mean that it is contrapunctal music. As a matter of fact, it is thought that Bach intended the work to be his last contribution to the Mizler society.

* (it is a small but masterly book; I think I posted a link for this work before; it is in French)

 

Unique, yes, in the sense that it does not resemble anything else.
But that is not rare. It is just a symptom of good art. Even many of the Beatles hits are unique.

Combination of spirituality and deep emotion - yes, but is it "better" than, say, William Byrd's keyboard works which I like very much? Or Domenico Scarlatti's works (do not shoot me)?

It is probably more "advanced", polyphonically, but is it better? Does it have more therapeutic, soul nourishing value?

Are you familiar with Bernini Quartet's record?

 

I'll answer my own question. It is not better. Of course tastes differ, but everything is not subjective. We can safely rate Bach higher than Saint-Saens, and Domenico Scarlatti higher than Bach (sic!), as a keyboard composer.

The Art of Fugue is certainly very good, but I'm afraid it is just a teeny-weeny itsy-bitsy over rated, technically brilliant (mirror fugues, etc.) but lacking some inspiration. Bach's late works (after c. 1730) never reached the heights of his earlier output.

 

Yeah, right.
Don't like it don't listen to it.

 

Read, what I wrote. It is the combination of spirtuality and deep emotion, which is unique.

Yes.

Obviously not for you, who seem to be immune to it.

No, I don't favour arrangements for modern string quartet of this idiomatic keyboard work.

 

Let's face it: the AoF was Bach's desperate attempt to reverse the obvious decline in his creative powers.

But the torch of the best composer in the world had years before passed to Domenico Scarlatti.

 

Ooh, silly me, that Domenico Scarlatti didn't spring to my mind at once.

 

Have you nothing better to do? It almost seems you want to get into this silly argument, or else that you are nagging pe-zulu and me just for the fun of it.

What about creating a new thread on Scarlatti? Or, perhaps even better, something called Bat's musings?

Anyway, at this time of the year you ought to be hibernating. MILD:

 

Interesting thread, one point though.

Not just mixing strings and wind, The AoSMitF recording was prepared by Andrew Davis and Neville Marriner for;

Two violins, viola, cello, violone, two oboes, cor anglais, bassoon, organ and two harpsichords.

Each part is played by a different section of the orchestra.

Contrapunctus 1 - string quartet

Contrapunctus 2 - full orchestra

Contrapunctus 3 - organ

Contrapunctus 4 - full orchestra

Cannon alla Ottava - harpsichord

And so on...

If you've never heard the Art of Fugue before, the Neville Marriner - AoSMitF recording is an ideal introduction.

 

Dear Basil
I have never really understood the reason for the instrumental distribution in Marriner's version. Is there any particular principle involved?

 

I can only quote from the booklet, which accompanies the recording, which I'm quite sure you will disagree with in the strongest terms!

"The full orchestra is used on only seven occasions and by alternating various sonorities the editors have produced enough variety to avoid any semblance of monotony, but have at the same time resisted any temptation to indulge in colour changes for their own sake."

My own impression is that Marriner and Davis have tried to make the work as accessible as possible to the widest audience.

 

ok,you got me,all this arguing made me think if people hold opinions that strongly on the work it has to be worth a listen.

if it's of any interest i bought the Hyperion, Angela Hewitt release.

i shall report my, eneducated, findings.

 

Yes

 

I bring this thread up because I never got the promised feedback on Sébastien Guillot's version.

I must say I grow ever more impressed with it. I will go as far as saying it is my preferred record at the moment. Such intensity and expression! Mind boggling in the extreme.

For those who mentioned professional reviewers, I will only say I find no fault to the version except for a few very small imprecisions; but playing with such intensity necessarily brings that and Guillot is not less precise than most of the top versions.

My only CD for the desert island right now.