Bach Prelude and Fugue-D maj. Book I

[xhunterjx]

Please criticize.

[dabbler]

Very, very nice performance, xhunterjx! I like this prelude+fugue a lot (well, could say the same for basically any of WTC...). Some very minor comments: In the prelude, I felt that you could maybe tone done the accentuation in the right hand a tiny bit, this would contribute to the impression of a continuous flow throughout the prelude. While I think a bit less contrast would be good in the small groups, maybe the prelude might get some more dynamic development globally. On the other hand, the fugue might get a bit more accentuation (e.g. between the ornamentation at the beginning of the theme and the rest) and dramatic expression. But again, these are minor points and more or less a matter of taste, and I'm heavily biased by Andrasz Schiffs WTC to which I listen a lot these days. Overall, really great playing!

[xhunterjx]

21 downloads, and no more comments?

[asyncopated]

21 downloads, and no more comments?

'you can ignore this post if you want to.  You asked for comments so I'm not really going to be polite and be a critique.

I think the main problem with the predule is that instead of playing phrases you are accenting all the strong beats.  This makes it sound very rigid. There is no feeling of rising and falling.  I can't tell where each of the phrases start and where it ends.  There is no direction to each of the phrases, things sound like the just go on and on and dribble along.  I would even rubato very slightly to emphasise the phrasing, play slightly slower. After 1.06 I would take even more time, give the notes a chance to breath.

Balance is good, more variation in the dynamics for the main theme will be good (if you want a pianistic style). From what I can tell your left hand is doing will with the detached notes. There are alot of good things going but I suspect you know that.

BTW, keep in mind that I'm using a pc speaker so, nothing sounds very good on this.  I try to imagine with it would really sound like. 

If you don't mind me just making random comments that I'm not really qualified to make, and want me to do so for the fugue, just prod me and I'll be happy to do so.

Just one thing about the fugue.  I'm not sure if your semi-quavers in the main theme are correct, they sounds too accented and slow for me.

[gonzalo]

I didn't like the fugue

What do you know about it? Do you know in what style it is?

[xhunterjx]

I know (think) its in french overture style, but I dont really know what that means.

Someone want to clear it up?

[gonzalo]

You can start by listening to french overtures
Examples are:

Jean-Baptiste Lully (it's creator): overture to Alceste. Overture to Armide ( in 3 sections : slow-fast-slow)
Jean-Phillipe Rameau
Henry Purcell: though English he composed a french overture. It is the Overture to The Indian Queen
Handel: Overture to Messiah ( in 2 sections). Overture to Samson ( in 3 sections)

A French Overture has:

1. A slow section, majestic and dignified, featuring dotted rhythms, leading to:
2. A quick main section, usually in fugal style, often ending with a short slow passage similar in mood to the opening section

Sometimes it has 3 sections: slow-fast-slow.

I don't think the fugue is so much in the style of a french overture but it is in the French Style.

Take care,
Gonzalo

[pianowolfi]

Well with writing a comment on this I may expose myself a bit, but alas, let's take the risk. I don't like to play Bach currently. Why? because there are so many different do's and don't s and so many different opinions of what the "true" Bach interpretation should be like. And there is the whole ancient music- school that makes it hard for us pianists to stand our ground. I know, a lot of you will answer. don't bother, play your own Bach. But perhaps that exactly is what xhunterjx tries. And he soon gets controversy comments. Some would say one should accentuate every strong beat, some want it flowing and phrasing, some others would like double dotted long notes in the fugue, others won't. What remains? at the moment i really think the best would be to learn what the school of ancient music has to say as far as it is scientifically comprehensible. That means study the original sources like C.PH. E. Bach, Froberger, Leopold Mozart and others. Take lessons with a harpsichord player. And so on.

[asyncopated]

Well with writing a comment on this I may expose myself a bit, but alas, let's take the risk. I don't like to play Bach currently. Why? because there are so many different do's and don't s and so many different opinions of what the "true" Bach interpretation should be like. And there is the whole ancient music- school that makes it hard for us pianists to stand our ground. I know, a lot of you will answer. don't bother, play your own Bach. But perhaps that exactly is what xhunterjx tries. And he soon gets controversy comments. Some would say one should accentuate every strong beat, some want it flowing and phrasing, some others would like double dotted long notes in the fugue, others won't. What remains? at the moment i really think the best would be to learn what the school of ancient music has to say as far as it is scientifically comprehensible. That means study the original sources like C.PH. E. Bach, Froberger, Leopold Mozart and others. Take lessons with a harpsichord player. And so on.

I agree largely with what you say.  However, (there is always a but) i would like to add a couple of thing. 

I know these are rule, but you can't just say do whatever you want, you will be fine.  I we need to try to stick some what to the original sound -- focus in the sound -- more like a plucked instrument and with very little use of pedal.  This is basic and i think xhunter does this very well.  He has going a good bach touch, certainly.  I did not say this before perhaps i should have.

Apart from this i think it's a matter of interpretation.  But the music must shine through.  Music is not just a set of notes, but there is a message within the music, we need to find the message and express this clearly to the listener.  This is why i gave suggestions about phrasing, in the hope that i will help bring out message/musicality of the piece.

If you think that a ridgid sound like a march is appropriate for the prelude, then i say fine, do it more!  see if it works for you.  If it does, I think you will find that you should be able to convience me of the sound as well. I quite like hearing odd interpretations (that are good i.e. convincing).

With regards to taking lessons from a harpsichord player, I think most of us don't have that luxury.  If you do, then go for it!  I'm quite happy with modern interpretations as well.  I do subscribe somewhat to the school, "if bach had the access to modern instruments, what would he have done?"  Of course, there is a huge amount of speculation involved, but that's part of the fun of music. 

Lastly, I don't think you should be put off playing bach. Play what you feel sounds right to you.  Interpret your music with integrety, and assess what your play with honesty.  you will do fine. (why am i telling you this?  you are suppose to be the teacher here! and a much, much more experienced pianist!)

[pianowolfi]

Yes that is very true. Thank you, asyncopated. I will be back into Bach later in my life, surely. My experience is that there are many surprises, when you start to learn with harpsichordists. I have had a student who first learned piano with me and another teacher. Then he decided to study ancient music, harpsichord. And he soon(after one year studying with a harpsichordist) was able to play a successful audition on the harpsichord. But nevertheless he had to revise many things when he changed instruments. Some things, like fingerings, he needed to learn from scratch even. Actually it is in a certain sense a different world. But there are many things beyond the clichés. There are so many wonderful ensembles playing nowadays, ancient music is played often so lively and multifaceted, it's really worth to listen to. There has been an immense progress in the interpretation of ancient music i think. Worth a detailed examination.

[omgtifb]

I loved the fugue.  Didn't listen to the prelude, fast forwarded through it (I was anxious to hear the fugue, which I play and which is one of my favorites).  Anyway, I'm not sure what the poster above thinks you should do differently, but I thought your interpretation was very clean and musical and quite good.  I would add a few ornaments in a few places but your technical and musical command of the piece were obvious. I've listened to every professional recording of this piece I could find, and your interpretation was in line with most of them so I'm not sure what is "incorrect" about the style.  Well, come to think of it he probably wanted you to double dot but to my ears that makes the piece sound too jumpy plus it's impossible to do throughout the whole piece consistently.

[asyncopated]

In case you don't know, you can hear exerpts of Angela Hewitt's playing here.

http://www.angelahewitt.com/record.php?record_id=4

I am a huge fan, I think the playing is phenomenal in general. 

There are two basic things in the prelude that i noticed that she does differently --

1.  Accents as discussed.  She takes care not to accent the strong beats.  I can see why this is so easy to do, looking at the structure.

2.  The rhythm she has does not lunge forward.  I still don't quite know how she does this. If you figure it out tell me. 

These two i things are quite basic. Apart from the rhythm, she does the phrasing within the dynamics as well.  At the moment, I think that the phrasing is relative to the rise and fall notes in the piece, except for the return to the original theme.  But i'm not sure.