Bach's Art of Fugue

I agree with pe-zulu: I am not convinced that the 'last fugue' belongs with the rest of the corpus.

This is because it was interrupted just after the stretto combination of the three themes, as in a triple fugue, and it seems to me that this climax excludes the entry of yet another theme.

Also, I think the main theme of the AoF is too similar to the first theme of the last fugue for the work to end properly with the four themes combined.

That said, the last fugue is one of the most poignant works by Bach. I am extremely sorry that it is unfinished.

The 'Fragment X' theory (that there is a scrap of paper with Bach's ending) is wonderful, but I am not convinced. Bach's ideas seem to develop on paper, I mean, he thought out the notes as he wrote the piece. Therefore, it seems Bach only went as far as the beginning of the end of the fugue: most things were solved, now he only had to work out the end. He was unable to do it. Why?

This is very odd to me. The fugue cannot have displeased him. He certainly was capable of finishing it. Why didn't he do it? Ill health is a possibility. But we just don't know.

 

Pieter Dirksen's Art of Fugue

Pieter Dirksen's Art of Fugue

An interesting record has been released by Et'Cetera: the reconstruction of the hypothetical 1st version of the Art of Fugue. According to scholar, harpsichordist and organist Dr. Pieter Dirksen the manuscript version (P200) contains a completed version of the earlier finished Art of Fugue (circa 1742). This work was later corrected (1748) and finally it was published in a rather modified and probably incorrect (due to Bach's illness and death) version.

This has been done before (Gilbert started this trend) but Dirksen's version is different, because he rejects all the supposedly 1748 corrections). Many pointed rhythms disappear, there are harmonical and melodical differences. While these differences do not transform the work – after all, the general layout of each fugue is the same – they are very interesting.
He further records the mirror fugues and the new canon al rovescio, but these are not part of the earlier version: this is composed of only 12 fugues (or rather, 10 fugues and 2 canons), culminating in the famous triple fugue for four voices), after which the first version of the canon al rovescio is played. The result is consistent.

There are many arguments that give credence to the reality of this arrangement: the french fugue is at the beginning of the second half of the work; there are 3 simple straight fugues; 3 fugues with the inverted theme; and 6 fugues combining the two versions. It is also true that the work progresses in complexity – although the ending with a canon (which Diskson claims to be a mark of Bach's work at the time) leaves me somewhat unconvinced.

---

Dirksen's playing is, to me at least, very convincing. He plays the music and lets it speak for itself. By just playing the phrases as they suggest themselves (harmonically and melodically) and respecting the work, Dirksen lets the supreme beauty of the Art of Fugue come through.

The harpsichord is a copy of a Ruckers. While the harpsichord is not very transparent (as some new Saxon copies are) it is very expressive and rather well suited to the precise and respectful way Dirksen plays. Polyphony is very clear throughout – at least as far as it can be.

A very interesting version.

 

Two recordings of The Art of Fugue: Delmé and Collegium Aureum

I often think that The Art of Fugue sounds best when played by a string quartet: the sound is beautiful, expressive, there is the possibility of fashioning every voice at will.

And yet, most of the recordings I know are not very thrilling. Even if we put the Emerson and Julliard Quartets aside – as their playing is evidently inspired by the theory that ‘staccato makes polyphony clearer’ which I am absolutely convinced is wrong, the Keller is good but not nearly as convincing as the organ versions (Walcha is sublime in this repertoire) or almost all the good harpsichord versions (Moroney, Gilbert, Guillot, Dirksen to name a few – I do not mention Leonhardt because I think – I know this will come as heretical – he is too expressive and that the result is overdone).

I suspect string quartet versions fail because most string quartets are too specialized in classical and romantic repertoires and cannot do justice to the regular voice flow of a full blown fugue; it almost seems the musicians are not really convinced by the beauty of what they are playing. And yet, Munchinger managed, instead of his romanticism, to be quite convincing. A mystery unsolved for me.

In the recent months I have been listening to two versions by string quartets. One of them is hardly by a string quartet: the rather old (but very well recorded) Collegium Aureum version. The other, the Delmé Quartet version.


I will begin will the later, Delmé’s. I can only say that either I don’t understand it or that the transposition by a fourth (it is transposed up to g minor for reasons of feasibility) robs the piece of something.

The playing itself is rather good, and every musician integrates well into the ensemble. But there is a kind of lack of gravity which stems both from the transposition and the extreme flow of playing that I think does not accord with the piece. Also, the quartet seems to have been recorded from too far, therefore achieving a stupendous blend of sound but not the possibility of close listening to every voice.

Being totally blunt, this version is too ‘classical’, almost Mozartean, and I would go as far as to say that the result sounds flippant to me.

I would not bring the following up if I did not find, even before reading the performing notes, that there was an element of flippancy. But Robert Simpson greatly irritated me by stating that he hopes his version will give the string quartets ‘short pieces with which to open concerts’: whatever one may think of The Art of Fugue it certainly is no musical canapé to wheat the appetite for something more solid.

So, for me, the Delmé version has almost everything to be a good candidate for a gift to someone I do not really like. I will keep it just because if features Tovey’s ending to the last counterpoint which I did not know before. It seems well written, although the ending is a trifle too flourished to my taste and seems a bit Technicolor in the concentrated and introvert world of The Art of Fugue.


The Collegium Aureum version is completely different. To start with, it is not quite a ‘quartet version’ because there are interventions of the double bass (violone). The voice leaders are the violin, the viola, the tenor viola and the cello (doubled by the double bass in certain movements). This distribution gives extreme clarity to every voice (the tenor viola is superb) and there is no preponderance of the treble (as with Goebel’s rather odd version): every voice is clear, you can perfectly well follow each thread of the music and yet it fully integrates into a beautiful harmony.

I quite like the extreme intensity of playing. The Collegium Aureum has always been unfavorably compared to the Concentus Musicus but I personally always thought it was a much better musical ensemble. I have read that the Collegium Aureum was ‘uninspiring’, ‘flat’ (not out of tune, just boring) and lots of such niceties. But you will definitely not find this recording boring. The playing is passionate – every musician seems deeply committed to what he is playing, and there is evenpowerful crescendi in certain fugue ends; each instrument vibrates powerfully and creates a very intense overall effect (To my readers that do not know me well, please bear in mind that I am definitely not against the kind of emotion that 1950-60 musicians used to put into their music making. If anything, I am partial to it: that is why I like Lautenbacher and even Karl Richter.)

The negative point is that the harpsichords used in the four voiced versions of the three-part mirror fugues and – this is the real alas! – the canons, are rather ugly.

I liked this version immensely. I would like similar versions of the Well Tempered Clavier were frequent.


For formal balance, let me conclude by a reference of the discussion with which I began this text: I fully confirm that I do not like ‘String Quartet’ versions, but that has, I think, nothing to do with the sonority or the possibilities of a string quartet. It has do to with the fact that usual string quartets are really not used to The Art of Fugue and that it seems that the work is really not in their hearts.

 

It is interesting that RdS has posted 911 times. Now I make my 382nd post, that is 823.
I have explained at my site www.marcobeaufil.com why the Art of Fugue is unfinished.
The site is in the process of udating and messy but I hope that it will interest someone. It it does, there's a button on the front page...

 

Mmm... I followed the link and found nothing. Now why is 911 relevant? I only remember the Porsche 911 from my more foolish days.

At any event now I will have 912 posts... Care to explain?

 

Rodrigo, the Collegium Aureum version seems unavailable: did you acquire this recently?

 

Ici :

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/hnum/3761096?rk=classic&rsk=hitlist

 

I thank you sir

 

Now it's back there... with warts and inorder. Rather long but you may find out why the AoF is unfinished, and why it is so relevant to these days. I hope you like it, if not you can tell me so.

 

A year or two ago, two versions of Walcha's Art of Fugue appeared on the market. One of them was by Archiv, and I already had it. The other one was by IDIS, a company unknown to me. As it said it was a new remastering, I bought it.

The first surprise was that the inner voices and even the bass were much stronger than the CD version (part of Walcha's 'integrale'). Then I spotted distortion - I did not remember it in the CD version (or, for that matter, in the vinyl version).

Having listened to the version in the car's stereo (a cheap affair) I hastened to listen to it at home.

COnclusion: it has been remastered from a vinyl using a dirty or faulty stylus! Would you believe it?

 

I certainly do not have the intention to bluff my way into the Art of the Fugue , but for the last couple of days I've permitted myself to get dazzled and dazzled again by Lionel Rogg's interpretation at the Genevan cathedral Metzler-organ. A splendid recording, dating from 1969, and available in the nicely priced EMI Gemini series, coupled with some organ concertos.



http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Art-Fugue-Organ-Concertos/dp/B000NPCMHQ

 

Great Information.. Atleast knew something new..

 

Not as much as with Mozart's Requiem .... but .... there is a countless amount of theories about Bach finishing (or not) the Art of the Fugue and what happened in those last years and months of his life.
I must admit though that I never really dug deep into those matters. But here are some (possible) examples, of which maybe some may have sprouted from my own infinite fantasy :

Like: the composition is finished like it is. Bach intended to leave the final Contrapunctus unfinished.
Or: the final fugue wasn't intended to be part of the composition at all. So the AoF was already finished beforehand.
Or: the final fugue had been finished by Bach in an earlier stage and Bach only wanted to revise it. The original completion version got lost though before publication.
Or: did C.P.E. Bach have some 'mysterious' reasons not to publish the completed early version and did the completed early version got lost after publication of the unfinished version?
Or: was the chorale BWV 668a really dictated by a dying Bach?

et cetera & et al.

 

Hmm., in my opinon The Art of the Fugue was probably complete already, and JS Bach had not intended the unfinished Fugue a 4 to become a part of the work. CPE Bach included the Fugue a 4 (which probably even was infinished) together with the Chorale BWV 668a into The Art of the Fugue to create a myth, which might act as an PR argument for the work.

 

Could be.
Money made the world go 'round, nay?
Already in the 18th century!

In fact, it's known to all men (AND WOMEN!) that rigid capitalism started with CPE Bach.

:spank:

In a way I was sort of referring to your view, by suggesting that CPE might have had 'mysterious' reasons to publish the AoF the way he did.

With the drama of the add-on of the chorale, dictated by the blind and half-dead-or-alive composer to his son-in-law Altnickol.
And with that dramatic notation in the manuscript Ãœber dieser Fuge, wo der Nahme B A C H im Contrasubject angebracht worden, ist der Verfasser gestorben.



On the other hand: I have this unexplicable feeling that CPE Bach is reliable as a source.

:respect:

But then: if the world had to depend on my feelings .....

 

I think the unfinished Fugue exists in a parallel universe where the rest of the composition is unknown.
If this is correct, then in 1750 the universe separated in two halves.

A new split occurs every time something is lost. If I lose my keys the universe is split in two halves. The new half is otherwise empty but my keys are there.

May sound weird but this is in agreement with modern quantum physics.

Can you prove that it is not so ??

 

No, I can not and I think you're spot on.
It's all about death and resurrection, isn't it?

Or re-resurrection?

Anyway: you're correct. My quantum physics tell me so.

 

I mean this:

Fact 1: The unfinished fugue was a form of energy.
Fact 2: Energy cannot be destroyed
Corollary of facts 1 and 2: The unfinished fugue was not destroyed.
Fact 3:It is impossible to find the unfinished fugue.
Corollary of fact 3: The unfinished fugue is not in this world.
Corollary: There has to be another world where the unfinished fugue still exists.

 

Dear Bat, everything shall meet its end - even the unfinished Fugue.

 

Well, the 'last fugue' may or may not be part of the AoF. It seems to me that the particular place where it ends, a powerful combination of all the previous themes, seems that the fugue will end presently. In fact, Davitt Moroney claims that Bach reserved only a page to end it. It is very probable, than, that the last fugue doesn't belong with the rest. Plus, the first theme is too similar to the main theme. I very much doubt that Bach would have used two similar themes in a double, triple or quadruple fugue.

But be that as it may, it is one of the most impressive fugues by Bach.

Christoph Wolff has the theory that there is a 'Fragment X' yet to be found or irretrievably lost, with the end of it.

In a way it makes sense: the fugue stops just as the three themes combine, a plausible point to stop. But exactly the opposite argument can be presented: why would he not have stopped before or, if he began the combination and the climax (for climax it is, stretti and all), why didn't he write it down?

My guess is that the piece is truly unfinished, that Bach had more or less solved it on his mind but that he, for whatever reason, did not finish it. Was he unhappy with the result? Was the difficulty too formidable? (I don't think so); or did health fail him, as his son said? Most probably the last one.