Contrapunctus XI Ring a bell??

[jerry and judy <jerbidoc@zianet.com>]

Does anyone know to whom I was responding to when I posted this?  If I knew
the person's name I could find some midi files that are located in
'his/her' folder on that specific hard disk.  I have eleven hard disks and
I sometimes loose things.  :(  I use specific (usually proper) names as
keywords in a large catalog file  (instead of using midi or Bach or Art of
the Fugue).  It sounds weird but it seems to work better...
The creation date on this text file is Sept 17, 1997.
Thanks for any help.
Jerry

- - - - - - - -

>I still haven't figured out why GG chose to add those jarring tempo
>changes to his performance of Contrapunctus XI.  They blow apart the whole
>structure of the piece.  He argued so firmly about that sort of thing
>vis-a-vis the Hindemith piano sonatas, how Hindemith had committed an
>error in bringing in a theme at the wrong speed, yadda yadda yadda...and
>then he commits the same sort of error himself, adding arbitrary tempo
>shifts to Bach!  Why?
>
>There's also another new review of GG's reissued "Art of Fugue" recording
>in the newest _American Record Guide_.


I thank you for this question, because it called my attention back to the XI.

It's the least straightforward of the set, in terms of a projectable,
succinct musical statement, but a lot of fun to play.   You can experiment
with Bach's *unimplied* intentions, because the music is so solid, (i.e.
strongly held together).

GG was just fearless and opinionated enough to release this type of
interpretation.  I agree that the tempo changes are jarring to the
listener, but he realized that this piece is difficult bring off
successfully on the piano.  There's a square sounding opening section, then
a more chromatic section with a new and interesting treble figuration which
calls for more energy.  Next, a return to the opening mood, where Glenn
resumes the opening tempo.  But then there's a more intense (maybe it's
more joyful?) and longer final section which begins with a hint of the
repeating note figure that adds to the intensity.  It must not be too
ponderous.

I pulled out my other recordings to see if I thought that some other
approaches are more successful overall.

I have the Zoltan Kocsis (piano) recording of the "Art".  He plays at one
slow(!) tempo throughout the piece with some rit. during the first
"transition" measure at the point where GG seemingly doubles the pace.
Believe me, the repeated note figures played at Zoltan's pace reminds us of
the layman's one common perception of JSB's music, the *interminable* use
of these short, repeated (easily heard and memorable) snippets.  Anyway,
this is the most unsuccessful track in this set, sounds like it will never
end!      Length=11:44!!

The Musica Antiqua Koln, with director(?)  Reinhard Goebel, answers this
question for me!   Not everyone will agree with me, and I still treasure
Glenn's view, but once you've heard this quartet play this work you wonder
if Bach knew what he had set down.  And if he envisioned this statement, in
its totality, he couldn't have meant it for the keyboard!  and that's the
real reason why GG takes the contrasting tempo approach, to try to
indirectly capture the hugeness of its scope.   It reminds me of
Beethoven's late quartet writing, its successes and goals....  This
ensemble plays it a little faster than Allegro moderato and never deviates
until a mild rallent. is applied very late, not until the measure before
the last.  They achieve the level of expression (long lines, big musical
ideas) that pianists, sadly, only get to use for continuing inspiration (as
when GG played, intentionally ignoring the specific instrument or even
drowned it out with a vaccum cleaner).    Length=4:11  compared with GG's
Length=5:50

Jerry