A very insightful talk on this Prelude and Fugue. I've never heard it played so beautifully. I've just finished learning it and will now try it incorporating your points. Many thanks.
Thank you for the information beginning, you shared a very logical perspective on the tempo. I thought your performance was very inspiring, full of energy and clarity.
Another thing about the tempo choice: the meter is C and the note values are sixteenth notes which is the second subdivision. This two criteria put this prelude in the most text-book tempo ordinario you're ever going to see, therefore I think Patrick's choice is absolutely right. The traditional approach of performing it treats it as if it were written in alla breve, which is not the case.
Tiene usted razón sobre la necesidad de interpretar el inicio del preludio en “Tempo ordinario” porque de lo contrario estaríamos en problemas al llegar al “presto” o al “allegro” que aparecen al final.
Cher Patrick, comment diables pouvez-vous dire des choses aussi passionnantes sur chaque préludes et fugues ! Si vous projetez d'accompagner les 48 de votre impeccable érudition, on va se régaler en votre compagnie !
Bonjour, merci pour ce série, je suis l’amie de Michael, j’étais déçue de ne pas pouvoir assister à Cambridge en septembre au cause du COVID. J’avais avec moi les enfants (nés en France, dont un choriste en cathédrale). Je re-travaille ce prélude et fugue en ce moment. Vos propos sur le tempo m’intéressent. J’espère de pouvoir vous voir en Masterclass t. bientôt. Merci.
Bonjour Emily, la masterclass de septembre était une journée vraiment très sympa, j'espère qu'on pourra bientôt faire ce genre de chose à nouveau. Pour Czerny, ses indications métronomes dans Bach sont en général aberrantes. Je pense simplement qu'il avait de cette musique une idée influencée par la musique de son temps, et Beethoven en particulier. Bon courage pour le prelude et fugue.
Maybe Czerny put a v quick tempo for the purposes of using WTC as a book of virtuosity études. Perhaps Czerny would have performed them slower than this.
Lovely performance. I appreciated your discussion of Tempo ordinario, and I thought you employed it well, although at times it felt like something imposed from without, not wholly your own - something I've seldom if ever experienced with your playing! Rant of the day: My take on Tempo ordinario is the same as it is for any aspect of "composer intention". Composers exist within culture, tradition, and their learned experience of sound. But we also know that they, like all artists, are not defined so much by this context as they are by their ability to see beyond it: to idealize, imagine, reconceive through their art. As has often been remarked, Bach transcribed his own works often for different performing ensembles and instruments, implying that instrumental sound is not always central to his musical conception. Why should it not be the same for tempo or any other aspect of music? Even if Tempo ordinario was an important organizing principle for him, I find it hard to believe that Bach wouldn't also be able to imagine and enjoy his music played with different sorts of phrasing or tempi. For me, Bach is foremost a master of character - no other composer can establish such clear character for a piece of music with just a few notes in a single voice. As long as this character is respected, any tempi sounds agreeable to me. But perhaps I should take this argument to the next level: Who cares if Bach would find it agreeable or acceptable? Okay, perhaps "who cares?" is an extreme way to put it, but my point is, when two people are having a conversation, it's not only the intentions of the speaker that matter: the listener's perspective has to matter as well, or it's not a conversation. You say that we have been colored by hundreds of years of keyboard virtuosity when we play Bach faster, as if to invalidate this style of playing somehow. On the contrary, I see the hundreds of years of development of keyboard virtuosity (which Bach absolutely played a role in) as a critical justification for playing Bach's music faster than he himself would. For in order to truly hear Bach's message, living as we do in the 21st century, we have to hear it with the full range of our musical experience. To take part in an authentic conversation entails taking responsibility for every aspect of our being. To try to pretend to be someone who has never heard the music of Chopin and Liszt is inauthentic - and the same criticism can be levied at us if we pretend our audiences haven't, either. To make my point a little more specific: Speed aside, do the 16th notes of the Prelude have intensity? I would say they do. And if they do, then we may or may not be able to communicate that intensity on a modern instrument at a Tempo ordinario. Bach may say, "No, no! Too fast!". But Bach has the ability to hear his music as someone who only knew music up to 1722 at the time of composition - we do not, and we cannot. With this rant out of the way, I should say that quite liked your general conception of the pulse of this piece. At times the music seemed to break out of it and you reined it back in, but on the whole I prefer your interpretation to one that sounds like a finger exercise. (And at a faster tempo, it is!) But I feel compelled to push back against any idea of authentic performance which centers on reproduction rather than interpretation.
@@monsieurgrigny Stating your opinions dismissively as if they are fact, leaving no room for discussion, does not make your opinions any more "correct". They are still simply your opinions. Obviously I don't feel that my opinions are sophistry, obviously I feel that there is more to character than tempo, and obviously I disagree with your unidirectional understanding of music interpretation. But if you don't wish to discuss these things, why bother commenting? Just click on the thumbs-down arrow.
In a way ,I agree with your comment, however there are 2 points, I disagree with. There is no such thing as a conversation between the composer and the interpreter if they don't live in the same period. It reminds me that in its latin origin, the term 'conversation' meant ' to live with' . The meaning of the word changed in the 17th century to become a dialogue between 2 persons. In this case it is not a dialog but a monologue as there is no mechanism to have Bach's feedback on your interpretation as he cannot hear it and even if he could , he couldn't express his own appreciation. The so called conversation is just an illusion based on the spiritual aspect which is the result of playing beautiful pieces. Now, regarding the role of the interpreter and its duty towards the composer, I guess this has been discussed at length, but it is very clear that you will find composers open and even willing the interpreter to add his own colours and his own experience to the piece, it might be that Bach was one of them ; in some other cases , composers are more psycho rigid and don't tolerate any deviation from the original idea ( tempo, dynamics…) Ravel being a good example which probably explains why there are so many little details in his music sheets.
@@periodinstruments8651 Thanks for this response! When I use the word 'conversation', I am speaking very metaphorically, and it feels like your criticism takes me a bit too literally. Perhaps the word 'communication' would be less objectionable. Bach had a mental/emotional experience, he made this experience coherent by crafting an expression in sound ideas, then he communicated these ideas to us through written notes. Just as with language, we have a mental/emotional experience, then turn that experience into syntax and words, then communicate the words in sound or in print. The recipient of Bach's communication receives only the score, but our goal should be (as a good partner in communication or conversation) to understand the ideas and experiences behind that score, and how these are mediated through sound. I don't consider any of this to be an "illusion". The essence of musical interpretation is, in my way of seeing things, an act of empathy very similar to communication, if not at times conversation. The idea of the "duty" of the interpreter is, on the other hand, a complete illusion. That sort of moral framework may be a useful guideline but obviously it is something extra we impose from without. There is no such thing as an intrinsic duty. If we fail to engage with Bach in a deep way, the result is simply that no one will care about our interpretation. Or they simply won't notice that it was an interpretation. Some composers indeed were psycho-rigid. Some perhaps view their scores as a set of instructions to the performer. Some performers perhaps view themselves as following directions set out by composers. All this is fine, but I consider this the "illusion", even if it may be a very powerful one. Communication has no power in itself to bind or compel unless we submit to it. "Give me $100 now." means nothing to you, likely, unless there is some relationship between us where you have a reason to care about my words. I prefer to see things in less loaded terms: there is only communication. Communication from the composer, and the way we interpret and engage with that communication.
I appreciate a lot what you are doing in these videos. Your interpretations are moving and the explanations enlightening to me. Thank you.
Great series. Learning a lot
A very insightful talk on this Prelude and Fugue. I've never heard it played so beautifully. I've just finished learning it and will now try it incorporating your points. Many thanks.
Thank you for the information beginning, you shared a very logical perspective on the tempo. I thought your performance was very inspiring, full of energy and clarity.
Excellent. Loved the reference to the St John Passion. Had never occurred to me but it's obvious! Thank you!
A wonderful series, thank you Pat, and very gracious towards WW.
Well, I haven't often been gracious towards him. But he made me think about tempo, I owe him a lot, in a crooked way.
Another thing about the tempo choice: the meter is C and the note values are sixteenth notes which is the second subdivision. This two criteria put this prelude in the most text-book tempo ordinario you're ever going to see, therefore I think Patrick's choice is absolutely right. The traditional approach of performing it treats it as if it were written in alla breve, which is not the case.
Excellent.
Tiene usted razón sobre la necesidad de interpretar el inicio del preludio en “Tempo ordinario” porque de lo contrario estaríamos en problemas al llegar al “presto” o al “allegro” que aparecen al final.
Cher Patrick, comment diables pouvez-vous dire des choses aussi passionnantes sur chaque préludes et fugues ! Si vous projetez d'accompagner les 48 de votre impeccable érudition, on va se régaler en votre compagnie !
Remarquable ! Merci. Vous avez entièrement raison. Cet ostinato est celui de la Passion selon St Jean en effer.
Bonjour, merci pour ce série, je suis l’amie de Michael, j’étais déçue de ne pas pouvoir assister à Cambridge en septembre au cause du COVID. J’avais avec moi les enfants (nés en France, dont un choriste en cathédrale). Je re-travaille ce prélude et fugue en ce moment. Vos propos sur le tempo m’intéressent. J’espère de pouvoir vous voir en Masterclass t. bientôt. Merci.
Bonjour Emily, la masterclass de septembre était une journée vraiment très sympa, j'espère qu'on pourra bientôt faire ce genre de chose à nouveau. Pour Czerny, ses indications métronomes dans Bach sont en général aberrantes. Je pense simplement qu'il avait de cette musique une idée influencée par la musique de son temps, et Beethoven en particulier. Bon courage pour le prelude et fugue.
Maybe Czerny put a v quick tempo for the purposes of using WTC as a book of virtuosity études. Perhaps Czerny would have performed them slower than this.
Patrick, est-il souhaitable de jouer les notes intérieures (de la fugue) sur le premier échappement?
Qué bonita su versión de la Fuga. 🌻
Lovely performance. I appreciated your discussion of Tempo ordinario, and I thought you employed it well, although at times it felt like something imposed from without, not wholly your own - something I've seldom if ever experienced with your playing!
Rant of the day:
My take on Tempo ordinario is the same as it is for any aspect of "composer intention". Composers exist within culture, tradition, and their learned experience of sound. But we also know that they, like all artists, are not defined so much by this context as they are by their ability to see beyond it: to idealize, imagine, reconceive through their art. As has often been remarked, Bach transcribed his own works often for different performing ensembles and instruments, implying that instrumental sound is not always central to his musical conception. Why should it not be the same for tempo or any other aspect of music? Even if Tempo ordinario was an important organizing principle for him, I find it hard to believe that Bach wouldn't also be able to imagine and enjoy his music played with different sorts of phrasing or tempi. For me, Bach is foremost a master of character - no other composer can establish such clear character for a piece of music with just a few notes in a single voice. As long as this character is respected, any tempi sounds agreeable to me.
But perhaps I should take this argument to the next level: Who cares if Bach would find it agreeable or acceptable? Okay, perhaps "who cares?" is an extreme way to put it, but my point is, when two people are having a conversation, it's not only the intentions of the speaker that matter: the listener's perspective has to matter as well, or it's not a conversation. You say that we have been colored by hundreds of years of keyboard virtuosity when we play Bach faster, as if to invalidate this style of playing somehow. On the contrary, I see the hundreds of years of development of keyboard virtuosity (which Bach absolutely played a role in) as a critical justification for playing Bach's music faster than he himself would. For in order to truly hear Bach's message, living as we do in the 21st century, we have to hear it with the full range of our musical experience. To take part in an authentic conversation entails taking responsibility for every aspect of our being. To try to pretend to be someone who has never heard the music of Chopin and Liszt is inauthentic - and the same criticism can be levied at us if we pretend our audiences haven't, either.
To make my point a little more specific: Speed aside, do the 16th notes of the Prelude have intensity? I would say they do. And if they do, then we may or may not be able to communicate that intensity on a modern instrument at a Tempo ordinario. Bach may say, "No, no! Too fast!". But Bach has the ability to hear his music as someone who only knew music up to 1722 at the time of composition - we do not, and we cannot.
With this rant out of the way, I should say that quite liked your general conception of the pulse of this piece. At times the music seemed to break out of it and you reined it back in, but on the whole I prefer your interpretation to one that sounds like a finger exercise. (And at a faster tempo, it is!)
But I feel compelled to push back against any idea of authentic performance which centers on reproduction rather than interpretation.
This is sophistry. Tempo IS character and it is Bach who is speaking to us not we to him. Therefore it is on his terms.
@@monsieurgrigny Stating your opinions dismissively as if they are fact, leaving no room for discussion, does not make your opinions any more "correct". They are still simply your opinions. Obviously I don't feel that my opinions are sophistry, obviously I feel that there is more to character than tempo, and obviously I disagree with your unidirectional understanding of music interpretation. But if you don't wish to discuss these things, why bother commenting? Just click on the thumbs-down arrow.
In a way ,I agree with your comment, however there are 2 points, I disagree with. There is no such thing as a conversation between the composer and the interpreter if they don't live in the same period. It reminds me that in its latin origin, the term 'conversation' meant ' to live with' . The meaning of the word changed in the 17th century to become a dialogue between 2 persons. In this case it is not a dialog but a monologue as there is no mechanism to have Bach's feedback on your interpretation as he cannot hear it and even if he could , he couldn't express his own appreciation. The so called conversation is just an illusion based on the spiritual aspect which is the result of playing beautiful pieces.
Now, regarding the role of the interpreter and its duty towards the composer, I guess this has been discussed at length, but it is very clear that you will find composers open and even willing the interpreter to add his own colours and his own experience to the piece, it might be that Bach was one of them ; in some other cases , composers are more psycho rigid and don't tolerate any deviation from the original idea ( tempo, dynamics…) Ravel being a good example which probably explains why there are so many little details in his music sheets.
@@periodinstruments8651 Thanks for this response!
When I use the word 'conversation', I am speaking very metaphorically, and it feels like your criticism takes me a bit too literally.
Perhaps the word 'communication' would be less objectionable. Bach had a mental/emotional experience, he made this experience coherent by crafting an expression in sound ideas, then he communicated these ideas to us through written notes. Just as with language, we have a mental/emotional experience, then turn that experience into syntax and words, then communicate the words in sound or in print.
The recipient of Bach's communication receives only the score, but our goal should be (as a good partner in communication or conversation) to understand the ideas and experiences behind that score, and how these are mediated through sound.
I don't consider any of this to be an "illusion". The essence of musical interpretation is, in my way of seeing things, an act of empathy very similar to communication, if not at times conversation.
The idea of the "duty" of the interpreter is, on the other hand, a complete illusion. That sort of moral framework may be a useful guideline but obviously it is something extra we impose from without. There is no such thing as an intrinsic duty. If we fail to engage with Bach in a deep way, the result is simply that no one will care about our interpretation. Or they simply won't notice that it was an interpretation.
Some composers indeed were psycho-rigid. Some perhaps view their scores as a set of instructions to the performer. Some performers perhaps view themselves as following directions set out by composers. All this is fine, but I consider this the "illusion", even if it may be a very powerful one. Communication has no power in itself to bind or compel unless we submit to it. "Give me $100 now." means nothing to you, likely, unless there is some relationship between us where you have a reason to care about my words.
I prefer to see things in less loaded terms: there is only communication. Communication from the composer, and the way we interpret and engage with that communication.
@@plusjeremy Communication is perfect ! thks for answer.
Completely convincing. Beautiful!