Next installment of my WTC re-recording. I worked on these for a very long time so I hope they are ok.

Bach - BWV 858 - Das Wolhtemperierte Clavier I - Prelude and Fugue No.13 in F sharp major (4:24)
Bach - BWV 859 - Das Wolhtemperierte Clavier I - Prelude and Fugue No.14 in F sharp minor (4:33)
Bach - BWV 882 - Das Wolhtemperierte Clavier II - Prelude and Fugue No.13 in F sharp major (5:51)
Bach - BWV 883 - Das Wolhtemperierte Clavier II - Prelude and Fugue No.14 in F sharp minor (9:22)

I'm commenting only on BWV 882, since it's the one I've played most recently. I found the prelude a bit too "right-handed"--the counterpoint is all invertible, so I'd sometimes like to hear the left hand sound louder than the right to give a sense of dialogue. Also for my taste you can afford to relax (slow down slightly) at phrase endings sometimes. For what it's worth, in bar 52 for the LH I play A sharp as the second note. All the scores I've checked have G sharp, as you play it, but it just sounds wrong to my ears. I've heard it played both ways, so there seems to be no consensus.

The fugue I think is one of the most difficult in WTC--even though it's only three voices, it doesn't lie under the hands comfortably, there are a lot of leaps, and the ornaments are difficult to bring off. On the whole your playing is very clear and you've met most of the challenges successfully. But you could have made it a lot easier for yourself by not insisting on so much legato--the 6ths suggest a more detached style of playing, which would help to bring out the gavotte character, and it's also easier to play that way. Be careful with the voicing in places such as bars 26-27--I think you need to play the alto voice louder than the soprano in order for it to make sense.

I'm impressed by your dedication in rerecording all of these. I think most people would be very satisfied to do it just once!

Thanks for the feedback Alexander. Your professional opinion is always welcome.

It never occurred to me this G sharp sounded wrong. Indeed A sharp sounds good too, just as plausible if not more. But who are we to improve on Bach ? I've learnt that everything he does is for a reason, even if I don't always get it. Isn't Bach a lot like God

Curiously, I do have such an issue with the fugue of BWV 858. In bar 21, last beat, the RH has two D#'s that sound wrong to me. In fact I've always played C## but for the recording I decided to be puritan. Others I heard play as written too. What is your take on this ?


I gave the soprano priority here, and when that passage re-occurs in bars 56 onwards, I tried to give the alto priority to provide some variation. I guess that idea did not work as I thought it would. Yes this fugue could be played more lightly, detached, and dance-like, but I get carried away with its powerful driving force.


It's a labor of love Also my first cycle was only just passable in terms of sound, interpretation and technique. It had to be replaced.

If I could be 100% sure that Bach wrote it, and that he checked and rechecked it carefully, then I'd feel very bad about changing it. (I'm much more conscientious about sticking to the score with Brahms, because it's known that he was meticulous in checking the publisher's proofs.) But handwritten manuscripts being what they are, I don't believe I'm improving on Bach's work, but on the work of some unknown copyist or editor. At least, that's my excuse so far.

Re BWV 858: I haven't yet performed this work, so it's possible that my opinion might change after I spend some time practising the piece. But my feeling at the moment is that, yes, the dissonance in bar 21 is a little uncomfortable, but the D sharp is intended as a pedal point. If you change it, then logically you should also change the parallel passage at bar 12-13. So I'd be inclined to play this one as written.

While we're on the subject (possibly this should be in another thread), the other place where I do depart from the score is the G major prelude of book 2, BWV 884. I'm absolutely convinced that bar 7 should have C sharps.

For what it's worth, I'm looking at my Tovey (hardly the last word, I admit) re bar 52 of Bk 2 the F# prelude: he gives us G#. (I take it the "second note" LH refers to the first beat, second sixteenth note.) And as I sit here at the piano playing it, it sounds right to me, because I am used to hearing it; altough playing the LH A# does sound more consistent with the RH A# that immediately follows.

This is one of my favourite preludes from Bk 2. The tricky dotted rhythms, which are the hard part, all come across perfectly. My only quibble would be with some of the ornaments, which could be clearer and more precise, especially in the left hand (ditto with the Gavotte/Fugue that follows.) I here a trace of reverb, but barely perceptible, which I personally am unable to bring myself to do (even though I know it is the right thing to do).

The piano is very nicely tuned!

JG

I don't see the problem. There is a C# in bar 7 of that prelude (just the one though). At least in Henle Urtext. You mean your score has C natural ? That would be silly because we're modulating to D major.

Thanks JG. I though I had the ornaments pretty well nailed, but seems like not. Have you got any particular ones in mind ?
I use the same reverb as in all my recordings, Concert Hall Light. It sounds drab without it. I guess you would not need it, having a better instrument, acoustics, and equipment.

[/quote]
Thanks JG. I though I had the ornaments pretty well nailed, but seems like not. Have you got any particular ones in mind ?
I use the same reverb as in all my recordings, Concert Hall Light. It sounds drab without it. I guess you would not need it, having a better instrument, acoustics, and equipment.[/quote]

Re reverb: actually meant to say that I am pathologically addicted to too much reverb and I am unable to use a tasteful amount. You use a tasteful amount.

Re ornaments: I should have been more precise. I meant the shakes or trills, only, of the F# Major Fugue: The first note of the main subject --E#-- should (for me anyway) be stated, even over-stated, at the outset. So either one sits emphatically on it at the start and THEN the shake (which is contrary to the usual rule but safe: Afanassiev, Ashkenazy do it) OR the shake starting on F# must be letter perfect, not even slightly truncated *eg A. Hewitt. Maybe my ears need cleaning, but I hear Feltsman starting on the F# but truncating the shake; whereas, if anything, I would err on the side of overextending the duration of that all important trill.

So (I guess that puts you in good company with Feltsman): that opening trill sounds truncated to me. Bar 40: trill seems to my ears uneven.... Contrast to LH bar 64: trill is perfect and the trill at bar 5, second statement of the subject, likewise so: exactly the right length.

May be a quibble. May be my ears. I just call'm as I see'm! Of course, one only gets into this sort of detail when there is nothing else to critique.

JG

*I'm not a fan of her Bach; but she does everything right.

Ah right. I evaluated the various preset reverbs in CoolEdit long ago and found that I consistently liked Concert Hall Light. So I've stuck to that religiously over the years, no matter the type of music (though I like to use Large Occupied Hall for some organ recordings).


I suppose with shake you mean the Nachslag. Yes that first trill seems a bit too short, listening back.
The trill in bar 40 is with 3-4, which I find uncomfortable. There are a couple more like that in this fugue, which to me accounts for its difficulty than anything else.


Haha good point. If all there's to nag about are the odd imperfect trill, there may be hope for me yet

Interesting, there must be two different Henle urtexts! Mine is published 1970 with a preface by Otto von Irmer; catalogue number HN 9256/9258. I haven't checked for a newer one. I also have Dover's reprint of the Bach-Gesellschaft edition, which also has C natural in that bar, and I've heard commercial recordings where people do play it that way (sorry, can't remember offhand which pianist(s)).

The bar in question has two Cs: right hand on beat 2 and left hand on beat 3. Surely you don't have one sharp and one natural?

Same here. Though mine is dated 1974 and doesn't seem to have a catalog number (or I can't find it). BTW I have great respect for Hans-Martin Theopold's pragmatic fingerings. I find them most always spot-on.

Oops... been looking at the wrong prelude
Indeed two C naturals. I think I was used to play a C sharp there because there's a note in my score. Yes probably C sharp would be more logical. But sometimes Bach does unexpected things. I think if you want to change the LH C to C# you would also change the following D to D#. Anyway I believe it is good as it is.

Hi Chris,
I've just listened the BWV 882 too, because I played it a long time ago. Very nice rendition ! I have little to add to what the others said. For my taste, I'd like sometime more non-legato, more dialog between voices (e.g. marking the entries of the fugue theme), and also with contrast between tense and calmer sections, but I guess you have strong views about your aesthetical choices, and they are highly respectable.
I admire the cleanness of your technique. Sometimes we hear notes that are (probably) unpurposedly weak, but you never fall down ! Congratulations and good luck for the completion of this huge work,

Strong views I would not call them, but these days I do lots of conscious things with phrasing, articulation, dynamics, and voicing. I find that in most any WTC item I can put something of my own. It's all very subtle though, and never quite enough to satisfy everybody. I won't shove the fugue theme in-yer-face as some do.

Clean technique, I like that. Bach has done more for my technique than Chopin or Liszt or any composer ever did. Thanks for the thumbs-up. I'm over half way now But some great challenges are yet to come.

Ah, genuine Bach. Really nice phrasing and clear voicing. Somehow, I can't say why, I prefer the PFs of WTCII. It's something I sense in your rendition here also.

Thanks Pantelis. I believe my Bach to be unspectacular but reliable
Can't say I have a preference for book II over book I though. If it sounds like that, it must surely be coincidence because I spend equal time on them.