VIDEO: Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852 by J.S. Bach

[perfect_pitch]

Greetings perfect_playing,

I won't be linking any new recordings to this forum for quite a while, I assure you of this, and probably once this thread dies away I will be little present here!

Last time he said that, he lied through his teeth and shoveled more manure onto this site with his recordings... don't trust him.

[michael_sayers]

The difference is - seeing a tornado and it could be said that the person had a legitimate claim to observing it... claiming Liszt spoke to you makes you sound like a rambling, psychotic nutcase.

Are you a psychologist?

[ahinton]

Why would I register a musical work of the performing arts for copyright if I am not the person who notated it?

You wouldn't necessarily even if you were the person who notated it, for the copyright rests in the content rather than being the property of the person who wrote it down (OK, that's often the same person but not always - consider, for example, Delius's late works). Furthermore, copyright could be registered by a person on behalf of the owner; the person registering it doesn't necessarily have to be the copyright owner but must successfully assert the right to register it nevertheless. However, if it's already in the public domain by virtue of the fact that the person who would otherwise have been its copyright owner having died more than 70 years before copyright application was made, then it cannot be so registered.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I can not prove my communion with Liszt to others.  So what?  I give credit where credit is due.

So you give credit where you contend that credit is due, not where it actually is provably due (although I have to say that, in the present case, I am well less than convinced that "credit" is the right word to use in any event).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Do you trust him??? That is the question...    

I neither trust not distrust his statement about ths piano concerned because I have not heard it live.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

You wouldn't necessarily even if you were the person who notated it, for the copyright rests in the content rather than being the property of the person who wrote it down (OK, that's often the same person but not always - consider, for example, Delius's late works). Futhermore, copyright could be registered by a person on behalf of the owner; the person registering it doesn't necessarily have to be the copyright owner but must successfully assert the right to register it nevertheless. However, if it's already in the public domain by virtue of the fact that the person who would otherwise have been the copyright owner having died more than 70 years before copyright application was made.

Best,

Alistair

All of the copyright stuff sounds a bit too complicated for me to worry about.  As long as my material is deposited, I can let others worry about what to do with the Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March.  I just want the music to become available to scholars, and also to be performed and recorded by pianists.  As you have demonstrated, I ain't no copyright lawyer  

[ahinton]

You might want to communicate your request also to Alistair Hinton, as directly as well, as he simply refuses to get off my back.

That's not your decision to make.

This thread isn't even about one of his compositions, yet he is here doggedly demanding to decide what the background story of the Bach arrangement can or can not be (but it is NOT his arrangement, so it is not his decision to make . . . ), et c.

No, it's not about one of my works and, if it were, it would mercifully not have taken the course that it has. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can "decide" the background story of the work because itg is whatever it is; the issue here is that what you claim it to be is implausible, as not only I but also a good many other conributors to this thread who are likewise not "on your back" have stated, whereas the truth is that you've done it yourself, unaided other than by the pre-existence of the Bach work on which you purport to base it.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Last time he said that, he lied through his teeth and shoveled more manure onto this site with his recordings... don't trust him.

Manure has its uses in the appropriate places.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

All of the copyright stuff sounds a bit too complicated for me to worry about.  As long as my material is deposited, I can let others worry about what to do with the Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March.  I just want the music to become available to scholars, and also to be performed and recorded by pianists.  As you have demonstrated, I ain't no copyright lawyer  

I'm sorry, I was insufficiently clear in what I wrote.

In respect of your own work as a transcriber, you can register your copyright in that, subject to clarifying that the music that you have transcribed is Bach's, so that the Bach remains in the public domain where it belongs and your transcription of it is registered as yours. The Liszt transcription that you mention that you're trying to find is not possible for you or anyone else to register, for reasons that I have already provided.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Alistair,

There even is a piano composition I wrote for Liszt for the occasion of his 201st birthday - admittedly, I was late completing the endeavor, hence the title Late Happy 201st Birthday Mr. Liszt.  This thread isn't about any of your works, and it is not for you to say what the background story of the Bach Prelude arrangement presented here can or can not be.  It is as simple as that.

[8_octaves]

A proven copyright for a work that isn't existing anymore, would be..hmm..:

Quotation from a card in the files of the Copyright Office in Washington:

"A GUEST OF HONOR, a ragtime opera, written and composed by Scott Joplin. Entered in the name of Scott Joplin, under C 42461, Feb. 18, 1903."

Additional notation:

"Copies never received."

( The further assumptions, tales, rumours etc. around this work in the further text by Rudi Blesh in my Vera Brodsky-Lawrence - volume of Joplin's Rags are VERY exciting to read! )

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[ahinton]

This thread isn't about any of your works

That's the second time that you've mentioned this and it was quite unnecessary the first time as neither I nor anyone else has suggested that it is; as I noted, I am relieved that it isn't, given its course!

and it is not for you to say what the background story of the Bach Prelude arrangement presented here can or can not be.  It is as simple as that.

What is? I am as entitled as anyone else here to express an opinion on it and to point out what is and is not scientifically demonstrable. It is as simple as that. It might not be so were I in a minority of one on it...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

A proven copyright for a work that isn't existing anymore, would be..hmm..:

Quotation from a card in the files of the Copyright Office in Washington:

"A GUEST OF HONOR, a ragtime opera, written and composed by Scott Joplin. Entered in the name of Scott Joplin, under C 42461, Feb. 18, 1903."

Additional notation:

"Copies never received."

( The further assumptions, tales, rumours etc. around this work in the further text by Rudi Blesh in my Vera Brodsky-Lawrence - volume of Joplin's Rags are VERY exciting to read! )

That's an interesting one! You'd think, would you not, that any copyright office worthy of the name would not register copyright in any work without at least some evidence of its existence as well as its authorship?!

By the way, although I am not a copyright lawyer, as a composer in my own right and the literary executor of another I have nevertheless had some experience of intellectual property issues.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

What is? I am as entitled as anyone else here to express an opinion on it and to point out what is and is not scientifically demonstrable. It is as simple as that. It might not be so were I in a minority of one on it...

Best,

Alistair

Indeed, it is not about a scientific formula or hypothesis which can be verified in a lab, I'll give you that!  It is not about 2 HCl + 2 Na → 2 NaCl + H2.  Now that we have agreed, can we please get this thread out of the rut it is in and let it fade away into the archival recesses of Piano Street?

[28843253]

Having stumbled on this astonishingly fecund thread and given a cursory glance at the arguments set forth I can only conclude we have gone full juju. Never go full juju!

[ahinton]

Indeed, it is not about a scientific formula or hypothesis which can be verified in a lab, I'll give you that!  It is not about 2 HCl + 2 Na → 2 NaCl + H2.  Now that we have agreed, can we please get this thread out of the rut it is in and let it fade away into the archival recesses of Piano Street?

The dissension here is that there's quite simply no evidence to back up a claim such as yours; I don't just mean your own claim, of course, but any and all others in which the dead are likewise suppossed to be capable of successful communication with the living. The rut that the thread is in has arisen largely as a consequence of your determined unwillingness to accept that, in the face not only of the facts and the lack of such proof but also of the lack of support that your claim has attracted among those of the membership here who have contributed to it. Whether and when it might so fade away will depend partly upon your continued stance of this and expressions thereof (assuming that you maintain them) and partly upon the extent to which other contributors decide whether or not to keep it alive.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

The dissension here is that there's quite simply no evidence to back up a claim such as yours; I don't just mean your own claim, of course, but any and all others in which the dead are likewise suppossed to be capable of successful communication with the living. The rut that the thread is in has arisen largely as a consequence of your determined unwillingness to accept that, in the face not only of the facts and the lack of such proof but also of the lack of support that your claim has attracted among those of the membership here who have contributed to it. Whether and when it might so fade away will depend partly upon your continued stance of this and expressions thereof (assuming that you maintain them) and partly upon the extent to which other contributors decide whether or not to keep it alive.

Best,

Alistair

May there is, or can be evidence, or maybe not - and this is so of many things, including my communion with Liszt.  Proof is one thing.  Balance of the evidence is something else.  There are all different types of hypotheses, and not merely scientific ones.

Will you please get off my back about this?

[ahinton]

There are all different types of hypotheses

A hypothesis is one thing; a vociferous claim that brooks no argument against the claimant is quite another.

Will you please get off my back about this?

As I have already stated, I am nowhere near your back about this or anything else and am by no means alone in what I have written about your claim rather more politely than some others have done; indeed, the only relevant "back" reference here is that you have gone to considerable and repeated efforts to make a rod for your own.

I wish you success in tracing the ms. about which you have written.

Best,

Alistair

[8_octaves]

A proven copyright for a work that isn't existing anymore, would be..hmm..:

Quotation from a card in the files of the Copyright Office in Washington:

"A GUEST OF HONOR, a ragtime opera, written and composed by Scott Joplin. Entered in the name of Scott Joplin, under C 42461, Feb. 18, 1903."

Additional notation:

"Copies never received."

( The further assumptions, tales, rumours etc. around this work in the further text by Rudi Blesh in my Vera Brodsky-Lawrence - volume of Joplin's Rags are VERY exciting to read! )

That's an interesting one! You'd think, would you not, that any copyright office worthy of the name would not register copyright in any work without at least some evidence of its existence as well as its authorship?!

By the way, although I am not a copyright lawyer, as a composer in my own right and the literary executor of another I have nevertheless had some experience of intellectual property issues.

Best,

Alistair

Rehi Alistair,

I don't know exactly how the law-matters are / have been in the former times in the US. That's the reason why I wrote the "hmm..". They never got any copies, as we can see from the additional notation: So, the word "proven" will have to be proven itself, but I think the case of the "Guest of Honor" is very exciting, even if an "announcement" won't be sufficient , or, if the work would only gain the full copyright protection when there are copies handed out to the office, too.

But interesting would be the fact, that the "guest", according at least to one man named Marshall, had been PERFORMED ONCE in St. Louis.

"As for the Rag Time Opera, "A Guest of Honor" was performed once in St. Louis. In a large hall where they often gave dances. It was a test-out or dress rehearsal to get the idea of the public sentiment. It was taken quite well and I think [Joplin] was about to get Haviland or Majestic Producers to handle or finance the play, also book it. I can't say just how far it got - as I was very eager for greater money, I left St. Louis for Chicago. ( TAPR 71 )

It was never booked, performed again, nor published.[...]Lottie Stokes Joplin, Scott's second wife, [...] had no knowledge of what had become of score or book. She ventured a tentative opinion in 1949 ( 32 years after Joplin's death ) that the missing material might, just might, have been in a trunk full of Joplin's clothing, unpublished music, letters, and family photographs, that Joplin, she said, had left against an unpaid bill in a theatrical roaming house in Pittsburgh. [...] Since 1950, The Case of the Missing Opera has engaged and baffled serious ragtime buffs. One comes up with a rumour: "X says that Y told him that someone - maybe Z - just found the manuscript in a music store in St. Louis." Next time around the music store was in Columbia, Missouri.

Then rumour has it that "A Guest of Honor" is in an ancient iron Wells Fargo safe in Nevada City. Then it is in one in Carson City, Nevada.

Then a Sedalia informant claims to have found the first three pages of the original manuscript. Culled from these ( but not seen by anyone else ) comes a supposed list of numbers from the opera: Sundown Rag, Jubilee Rag, Freedom's Etude, Elijah's Drag, Butler's Drag, Reception Rag, State Fair Rag, etc. The scene of the opera, says the informant, was a reception in the Missouri Governor's mansion. And the Guest of Honor? Scott Joplin himself. May anyone see these precious pages ? No! Well...
All this, of course, is the lighter side of a most melancholy matter [...]

Cordially, 8_octaves.

 

[ahinton]

Extraordinary! One could almost say that the tale is the stuff of opera!

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

A hypothesis is one thing; a vociferous claim that brooks no argument against the claimant is quite another.
As I have already stated, I am nowhere near your back about this or anything else and am by no means alone in what I have written about your claim rather more politely than some others have done; indeed, the only relevant "back" reference here is that you have gone to considerable and repeated efforts to make a rod for your own.

I wish you success in tracing the ms. about which you have written.

Best,

Alistair

Alistair,

I have read, and with varying amounts of patience, your arguments.  What I can say is: I go by knowledge, and not by faith or belief, and many things which other persons accept through a process of faith or belief, are to me known.  I know that I have communed with Liszt, I know of the existence of God, and I know of the Holy Spirit [or mind of God . . . words to describe it are insufficient] flowing through the ether, and this knowledge has been and is achieved through direct contact.

All of that said, and I want to be very clear about this: I have friends of all faiths, and including some dear friends who are atheist or agnostic, and I totally respect the right and freedom of everyone to reach his or her own conclusions about such matters.  I do not try to proselytize, or dissuade, my friends from their positions and/or convictions, and I would give any of them the shirt off my back if needed and at any day and at any time.

It is not for anyone to say what another must or must not believe.

To do so is totally unacceptable.

Maybe we will review this thread when the manuscript of the Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March becomes available, as I will be interested to see what hypotheses you have, Alistair, as to the accomplishment of having predicted the appearance of a manuscript of such title by Liszt and in advance and without reliance upon sources of this world.

And, Alistair, my respect and admiration for you is undiminished, and my kindly feelings toward you - while admittedly of some fluctuation in recent days - do nonetheless remain entrenched.  And as such, Alistair, you will be among the very first persons to know of the manuscript's recovery, which, indeed, will be tremendously exciting, and also nearly a religious experience in and of itself it most surely will be to behold this mighty work by Franz Liszt before one's eyes and which was written by his hand.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

I have read, and with varying amounts of patience, your arguments.  What I can say is: I go by knowledge, and not by faith or belief, and many things which other persons accept through a process of faith or belief, are to me known.  I know that I have communed with Liszt, I know of the existence of God, and I know of the Holy Spirit [or mind of God . . . words to describe it are insufficient] flowing through the ether, and this knowledge has been and is achieved through direct contact.

All of that said, and I want to be very clear about this: I have friends of all faiths, and including some dear friends who are atheist or agnostic, and I totally respect the right and freedom of everyone to reach his or her own conclusions about such matters.  I do not try to proselytize, or dissuade, my friends from their positions and/or convictions, and I would give any of them the shirt off my back if needed and at any day and at any time.

It is not for anyone to say what another must or must not believe.

I accept in principle what you write above to the extent that you believe what you do; that is, after all, your prerogative, just as it is anyone and everyone else's to form their own views both of your belief and of what it is that you say you believe. I'm not seeking to tell you what you should or should not believe; however, when you make a claim of a kind that has never been successfully tested anywhere (not just in your particular case) and others point out not only that it cannot be proved but also that there appears to be no obvius reason why it should have occurred, it is likewise not for you - or at the very least it seems unwise of you - to seek to persuade doubters of what they must or must not believe in terms of your claim.

Maybe we will review this thread when the manuscript of the Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March becomes available, as I will be interested to see what hypotheses you have, Alistair, as to the accomplishment of having predicted the appearance of a manuscript of such title by Liszt and in advance and without reliance upon sources of this world.[/quote
Maybe so, indeed although, like many others, I imagine, I will be more interested first to consider what's in it (once it's been professionally authenticated) than how its existence might have been discovered! - which is not to say that I'd be uninteresed in that.

And, Alistair, my respect and admiration for you is undiminished, and my kindly feelings toward you - while admittedly of some fluctuation in recent days - do nonetheless remain entrenched.  And as such, Alistair, you will be among the very first persons to know of the manuscript's recovery, which, indeed, will be tremendously exciting, and also nearly a religious experience in and of itself it most surely will be to behold this mighty work by Franz Liszt before one's eyes and which was written by his hand.

Thank you for your kind words; as I stated before, I wish you success in locating this ms.

[8_octaves]

Rehi Michael,

to the manuscript or printed version I have got a question.

Let's assume, for this question at least: You are right. ( Which sources there might be for your knowledge doesn't matter to me, in this case. )

And let's assume: The "Händel-Liszt-Queen of Sheba-march" R E A L L Y exists.

My question would be: Would you be of the opinion / could it, in your opinion, be possible, that it MAY have been catalogued by - for example - un-knowing librarians, who, e.g., got a bunch of material, catalogued all the stuff while chatting with their colleagues, and so, that they won't actually have recognized that it's an important piece?

What would be your opinion? It would be interesting, since then, the catalog-entry must be present in some form: On typewritten cards, which still exist ( mostly to be retro-catalogued in databases / online resources ), or already existing in our online-resources accessible to us?

Or: Could it be that it's in a magazine of a library ? ( Magazines' content sometimes isn't as quickly catalogued as the more common items. )

What is your opinion, Michael / what do you think?

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[michael_sayers]

I accept in principle what you write above to the extent that you believe what you do; that is, after all, your prerogative, just as it is anyone and everyone else's to form their own views both of your belief and of what it is that you say you believe. I'm not seeking to tell you what you should or should not believe; however, when you make a claim of a kind that has never been successfully tested anywhere (not just in your particular case) and others point out not only that it cannot be proved but also that there appears to be no obvius reason why it should have occurred, it is likewise not for you - or at the very least it seems unwise of you - to seek to persuade doubters of what they must or must not believe in terms of your claim.
Thank you for your kind words; as I stated before, I wish you success in locating this ms.

I must be departing from these forums, Alistair, and for a significant duration . . . I am supposed to be doing things which are required by Liszt, and though he is fatherly, he can be disapproving and when this happens it is of peculiar intensity and not very nice . . . please know that my kind words toward you are sincere, and my feelings toward you are such that I genuinely am one you could count on if cause, reason or request were ever to arise.

[michael_sayers]

Rehi Michael,

to the manuscript or printed version I have got a question.

Let's assume, for this question at least: You are right. ( Which sources there might be for your knowledge doesn't matter to me, in this case. )

And let's assume: The "Händel-Liszt-Queen of Sheba-march" R E A L L Y exists.

My question would be: Would you be of the opinion / could it, in your opinion, be possible, that it MAY have been catalogued by - for example - un-knowing librarians, who, e.g., got a bunch of material, catalogued all the stuff while chatting with their colleagues, and so, that they won't actually have recognized that it's an important piece?

What would be your opinion? It would be interesting, since then, the catalog-entry must be present in some form: On typewritten cards, which still exist ( mostly to be retro-catalogued in databases / online resources ), or already existing in our online-resources accessible to us?

Or: Could it be that it's in a magazine of a library ? ( Magazines' content sometimes isn't as quickly catalogued as the more common items. )

What is your opinion, Michael / what do you think?

Cordially, 8_octaves!

Maybe it is possible.  I am departing now . . . departing . . .

[8_octaves]

Maybe it is possible.  I am departing now . . . departing . . .

If it's possible, I'll search for it, too. If it's there, and if I find it, I'll contact you, Michael. Promised !!! I already once had a short look for it. And please don't depart.

Cordially, 8_octaves!!!

[michael_sayers]

If it's possible, I'll search for it, too. If it's there, and if I find it, I'll contact you, Michael. Promised !!! I already once had a short look for it. And please don't depart.

Cordially, 8_octaves!!!

But I am departing . . . departing . . . 

[still departing . . . !!!!] 

Maybe we can be in touch by P.M. or email.  And maybe, just maybe, you happen to live in or near the city specified by Liszt . . .

[perfect_pitch]

But I am departing . . . departing . . . 

[michael_sayers]

Hi perfect_pitch,

I didn't know I was worthy of having a going away party in my honour.  Thanks!  

Eventually I'll post as was suggested and to the other forum about having a rule of this website amended.  The rule prohibits more than one composition per thread in the Audition Room, and requires one on this basis to maximize the number of threads used.  In the quantity of threads, reduction is possible if the rule can be amended.

As with an example described elsewhere, if I were to record 15 or 20 of J.S. Bach's 371 harmonized chorales, I would not like to have to use 15 or 20 threads here to "audition" these when one thread (in my opinion) suffices and is preferred by everyone except maybe the website owner - and therefore I think there is a good basis for letting members decide when it is appropriate to have a plurality of compositions linked to a single thread, versus taking the maximum number of threads approach which the rule, as it stands right now, requires.

[michael_sayers]

p.s. - I hope that when a recording of a particular composition from this year - Love, Rebirth and Cosmic Acceptance - is posted, and with the harmonic and melodic content for the first 23 measures having been provided, and with a simplified piano arrangement for me to improve upon, by Franz Liszt, that we can avoid a repeat of the hubbub in this thread about the background story, and can instead focus on the merits and demerits of both the music and the performance/recording of it.

[chopinlover01]

It is not for anyone to say what another must or must not believe.
To do so is totally unacceptable.

You might consdier, however, that this is still protected under free speech, it's just considered socially unacceptable

[mjames]

Let me interrupt this thread with some good music

[perfect_pitch]

Hi perfect_pitch,

I didn't know I was worthy of having a going away party in my honour.

Yeah... you are... but you're not invited.    

[ahinton]

Michael:

I accept in principle what you write above to the extent that you believe what you do; that is, after all, your prerogative, just as it is anyone and everyone else's to form their own views both of your belief and of what it is that you say you believe. I'm not seeking to tell you what you should or should not believe; however, when you make a claim of a kind that has never been successfully tested anywhere (not just in your particular case) and others point out not only that it cannot be proved but also that there appears to be no obvius reason why it should have occurred, it is likewise not for you - or at the very least it seems unwise of you - to seek to persuade doubters of what they must or must not believe in terms of your claim.

Thank you for your kind words; as I stated before, I wish you success in locating this ms.

I am repeating this post because of an error in the previous one which for some reason I cannot modify (I think that there may be some forum software problem that ought to be checked).

Best,

Alistair

[cbreemer]

Let me interrupt this thread with some good music

Dang, that is good indeed. I did not know this opus, nor that Sviatoslav had recorded any Liadov. This is piano playing, rather than the senseless and ugly pounding that started this thread. And this is great and exquisite music, methinks Liadov is fully on a par with Chopin here. Albeit a little belatedly

[michael_sayers]

You might consdier, however, that this is still protected under free speech, it's just considered socially unacceptable

Quite right, it is free speech, though the protection is dependent on context and perception.

Mormon missionaries continue to ring my door though I have asked that this please stop.  Are they now breaking the law?  I don't know, Sweden doesn't have things like "no soliciting" signs and "no trespassing" signs as in the U.S. . . . this is a very open environment . . . the parks and the forests in Stockholm, with all the walking paths, blend in seamlessly with the roads, sidewalks and houses/buildings, so that there aren't signs posted for hours when the parks are open.  People seem to just use their common sense around here, though there can be lapses as, even though someone could camp out on the front lawn where I live if the person wanted to and due to such reasons as that sometimes people get stranded on the archipelago islands and have to do such things, I never thought I would see it happen as I don't quite live in the archipelago, yet it did happen one time and the tent was there for three weeks.  The sense of freedom is immense.  One rarely even sees a police officer.  In the municipality where I live, with a five figure population, there isn't even a police station or some equivalent of a constable.

So what is protected re. speech and its context/perception of action in one place, isn't necessarily the same as in another place.

p.s. - I have many Mormon friends, and this is nothing at all against them or their beliefs; when I am working though I do like for the door bell to be rung as little as possible!

[michael_sayers]

Yeah... you are... but you're not invited.    

That is okay, there are other parties I can attend. 

[michael_sayers]

Dang, that is good indeed. I did not know this opus, nor that Sviatoslav had recorded any Liadov. This is piano playing, rather than the senseless and ugly pounding that started this thread. And this is great and exquisite music, methinks Liadov is fully on a par with Chopin here. Albeit a little belatedly

There is nothing wrong with Bach's music being loud, and this is a Bach arrangement that was provided to me by Franz Liszt.

Just listen to the music by Bach linked below and played on a grand piano - the Prelude and Fugue even are in the same key as with the Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, which I recorded in the arrangement provided to me by Franz Liszt - and much of the music linked below is played as ff, with the final measures of the Fugue and starting at about 12:20 played as fff:

[ahinton]

There is nothing wrong with Bach's music being loud, and this is a Bach arrangement that was provided to me by Franz Liszt.

Just listen to the music by Bach linked below and played on a grand piano - the Prelude and Fugue even are in the same key as with the Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, which I recorded in the arrangement provided to me by Franz Liszt - and much of the music linked below is played as ff, with the final measures of the Fugue and starting at about 12:20 played as fff:

.

[michael_sayers]

.

!!!  

I didn't mean to upset you Alistair.  The thread returned back to the subject of music and it was relevant to point out [the obvious, which ought not to need stating here] that Bach's music can be of both majestic and powerful expression - all is not delicato and of fragility with J.S. Bach.  For some reason pretence here was made to a contrary conclusion, and then the pretence was used as the basis of an argument that this arrangement is defective because it gets loud.  I think that maybe such things are deliberately contrived in order to draw me out into more discussion here.

Either way, the musicology of the keys is paramount in this instance.

Here for example is a short document titled Performing Liszt's Piano Music which in part discusses expressive of significance of particular keys for Liszt as a composer.  It also mentions that Liszt doubled bass lines in octaves - this is disputed at this website.

https://www.dersnah-fee.com/Essays%20and%20Educational%20Material/Liszt%20Thoughts.pdf

The way in which this connects with J.S. Bach is that one can see that particular keys do serve particular expressive purposes in Bach's music.  Maybe this even has been written up - to do so would not be difficult.  The Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, is in the same key as the mighty St. Anne Prelude and Fugue, and lends itself very well to such enormous spirit of expression.  And this is as it should be, and shows Liszt's musicological insight and sensibility in the arrangement he provided to me in which the dynamics, textures, tempos, et c., are very well in accord with the key of the piece and with the music's progressions.

Interpreting music is not just about being able to read what is on the page, it is about having some knowledge of composition, and of the specific composition - of its contents in musicological context and terms - and also of the composer and arranger as a musician, and of other music by the composer and arranger in particular.

Does it get loud?  Yes.  And it is not issue if Bach's music gets loud.

It may not be liked in this particular instance, and I can respect that.  The impression given with the post I responded to is that it is not okay for J.S. Bach's music to be loud, and I honestly don't know anyone or any musician - and at least not in person - who agrees with such a notion.

p.s. - This arrangement with interpretation corresponds very well with Liszt's documented style of piano playing, and as you will see with Love, Rebirth and Cosmic Acceptance, the opening 23 measures are of such combined harmonic and melodic force, and also melodic perfection, that the harmonic and melodic content could only have originated with the forces which operate through the genius of Franz Liszt, and not as a result of my own compositional efforts.

[perfect_pitch]

That is okay, there are other parties I can attend.

Good for you - bugger off and attend them then. I thought you were departing...

[cbreemer]

A troll won't go away as long as everyone keeps feeding him....

[michael_sayers]

A troll won't go away as long as everyone keeps feeding him....

The statement that you made about the recording linked here was worthy and deserving of some discussion, in my opinion.  If you don't think a statement is worth being discussed, then why would you post such a statement here?

[ahinton]

I didn't mean to upset you Alistair.

You didn't.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Good for you - bugger off and attend them then. I thought you were departing...

Then the party OFFICIALLY can begin as long as there is nothing left to contribute to this thread and it is permitted to rest in peace!

[perfect_pitch]

...

About bloody time.

[j_menz]

Geez. Arriving "fashionably late" hasn't been this hard since Melba said tara. 

[michael_sayers]

Hej, aren't you all supposed to be at a party right now? 

[michael_sayers]

Geez. Arriving "fashionably late" hasn't been this hard since Melba said tara.  

I think Oscar Wilde recommended to always be at least 30 minutes late.

[perfect_pitch]

Aren't you supposed to have buggered off and taken your psychotic rants somewhere else??? Save what credibility you have dangling left and bother some other forum with your rubbish.

I know you're just thinking about possibly replying, just simply to have the last word but you're not going to win. Move on and begone!