Re: GG: Bach sarabande, and more on the repeats question

[Juozas Rimas <JuozasRimas@takas.lt>]

> If those are the only three performances you've heard, then you've never
> heard it played the correct (and most logical) way yet.  That is, A1 A2 B1
> B2.  That is, AABB (the complete standard dance form) where the second
> time for each section uses the more highly ornamented version, as an
> elaboration.
>
> Get a good recording: Edward Parmentier or Alan Curtis.

Thanks! While I agree completely that repeating the A section is undebatable, I
cannot see how repeating the B section is *logical*. Historically correct - no
doubt. But logical? There was AN END. Why do you logically need one more?

If B1 parts were written by the composer without the very ending (which can
durate tens of seconds, incidentally), then repeating them (with the very ending
this time) would be justified for the new ornaments included in it. But as long
as the B part obviously ends the whole piece, its repeat right away sounds much
like a "bis". Furthermore, pieces like the Sarabande from the 6th partita are
already quite long in Gould's rendition and in the AABB form, they'd be huge. To
me personally, it tends to dissolve the emotional impact of the piece (correctly
performed overtures from Bach's orchestral suites can be downright tiresome).

I understand that it is a musical tradition of the time, though.

Juozas Rimas Jr (not the one playing)
http://www.mp3.com/juozasrimas (oboe, piano, strings)