Oh gawd, not this thing again.
I do hope the mods delete this garbage thread.
Thal
At least you don't have to eat your own words here

Award winning programme does not have quit button.
Anyway, perhaps one last post from my part in this thread?
Hi, sorry for answering so late, but sometimes there is just more important work to do and I didn’t want to answersuperficially.https://sf-media.12hp.de/images/Bar17-20.jpg
This is the “Urtext” perhaps you should check your Edition
I use a Hungarian edition, Japanese edition (Zen-On), as well as the Henle, which is by no means authoritative, although it claims to be. Nonetheless, whether it is from IMSLP or any of the scores I mentioned, those turns are exactly as I mentioned - top note of the turn on bar 18 is to E natural, not E sharp, and bottom note of the turn on bar 19 is C double-sharp, not C sharp!
That's true I slowed down there since the piano Bar 3 and forte in the score indicates something like a dualistic situation, one can't mark just by the use of different keyvelocities of the modern grandpiano. For Bach it would be probable, that he suggested to use a different register of the Cembalo when he wrotes dynamics like this (which is quite seldom the case as you probably know). We cant do that registerchange on a grandpiano. So I decided to underline the difference with means of agogic.
Maybe, but since we're performing on the modern grand piano - as it were - we have other means available at our disposal to reflect this change. For example, change the tone colour - make it lighter. You are not necessarily wrong, but I'm just suggesting there are other possibilities out there

Yes, I like it since the left hand is in this prelude (quite unlikly for Bach) really nothing else but just harmonic accompagnement, with out nearly any thematical substance.
I agree that it should be harmonic accompaniment, but yours is not enough to support the thematic substance in the right hand! I agree that it should be soft, but yours is barely audible at times.
I have checked it and found it true for three “slurs” (If I understand right what you mean. But that means I found it not true for all others which are by far “the most”.
Just to be sure, the phrases that I talked about have 3 notes. The last 2 notes are slurred. And I'm saying that you tend to accent the last slurred note (i.e. 3rd note in the phrase), instead of the first slurred note (i.e. 2nd note in the phrase).
1) 8-11 is not apt to a linear decrescendo, since it is a sequenced twobarphrase, I decided to let the dynamics also follow the phrase. But the second one is in fact more piano than the first.
2) I also disagree your Idea, Bar 11-15 should perform a linear crescendo since this would mean a crescendo which would be interrupted since the passage ends in bar 15. So I think it would be more reasonable to give bar 14-15 even a bit decrescendo.
1) Your idea sounds good. To be sure, of course I don't necessarily imply that the decrescendo should be linear, although that is how I personally executed it.
2) Sure, but I wouldn't decrescendo until I reach the cadence (b-flat major). Before that, the circle of 5ths progression really builds up quite a lot of tension.
Sorry, I really cant hear any “pedantic rubato” at all. Could you help me with any certain bar, which make obvious what you are talking about?
...basically I'm referring to all the occassions when you slightly distort the rhythm. If I remember correctly, it usually tends to happen at the end of some 4-bar phrase, at least in the first page. In other words, check out bars 4, 8, 12...
I may have overreacted before - or maybe your rubato is that much - but for me, one of the great things about this fugue is the unending, continuous flowing voices/phrases. I'd aim to convey this through beautiful sound and careful dynamic planning. Any rubato will only disturb this beautiful stream of voices.
Again, you are not necessarily wrong to put rubatos in, but in cases like this, you need to ask yourself whether it is really the most effective way to convey what you have in mind. You answer this question by experimenting with all the different possibilities - tone, dynamics, phrasing, time...
Let me thank you once more for your most precise, reasonable and musical understanding critics. Take the question in the right way. I don’t pretend any wonder or miracle, but I just like to show that it might be possible to make musical reasonable use of modern technical means. Musical reasonable does not mean that all I hve done with it would be above all discussion, but I know what I have done deserves at least the respect to argue reasonable, as everybody else here around expects for his own musical contributions. Your critics seem to me one of the most reasonable[.] nothing more but also nothing less is what I expect from people who post in this thread. Is this such a monsterous expectation?
Best
Steffen
To be fair, there is probably some misunderstanding, inciting emotion and ego/pride. And then it becomes a vicious cycle...as a result, the thread developed into constant ad hominem attacks. So...usually it's best to just...chill...

And remember that there are members here that commend what you have done (myself included), and a few that think it absolutely worthwhile.