What are you listening to now?

[Michael]

Walking round the garden with wireless headphones listening to Third Piano Concerto and Triple Concerto. I am not very visible to the neighbours, so if I start waving my arms about I won't be carted away.

[Roehre]

Today:

JSBach:
Hohe Messe (Mass in b-minor) BWV 232

Beethoven:
Symphony no. 1 in C major op.21 (R3:Proms)

Dalbavie:
Flute Concerto (2010) (R3:Proms)

Elliott Carter:
Flute Concerto (2008) (R3:Proms)

[Chris]

As quickly reacting was deemed essential, even a couple of these Neumeister charales, which shortly afterwards turned out NOT to be bach JSBach, had been assigned BWV numbers

Well, it's not like it's the first time THAT happened!

[Chris]

Today:

The final disc of Christopher Herrick's complete Bach organ works, Bach Attributions (BWV 553-560, 581, 692, 693, 744-746, 748-751, 752, 756, 757, 759-761, 763, 771)

Since I am now done with this set, I should give some final thoughts on it. I really liked this one. The playing was light and fast, a contrast to my other set by Gerhardt Weinberger in some ways, and I'm very glad to have both. As I am in the process of learning the organ now, these two sets have been invaluable to me. I also loved the Metzler organs used here. They are not historical instruments, but they were obviously created along Baroque lines, so "period" instruments in a way. Registrations were good and definitely gave me some ideas.

One thing I especially appreciate in this set is how the spurious works were recorded as well. If it had a BWV number, it was pretty much in. Even Weinberger's set, which was perhaps more complete in general because it included several BWV deest works (as well as the Art of Fugue), did not do that. And as I have mentioned here before, I really appreciate when artists do this, as I am always curious about pieces that wound up with a catalog number but were then considered to be misattributions. Sometimes I wonder about the reasoning behind this, as it is often based on stylistic analysis. This final disc was the perfect example of this, containing just pieces that are considered spurious. But there are many enjoyable pieces here, including the 8 "Little" preludes and fugues, several of which I have played myself, and the BWV 751 "In dulci jubilo," which I may use for this Christmas.

Anyway, a fantastic set in my opinion.

[Quijote]

Today, having lost a "Call My Bluff" gamble, I have been obliged to listen to B's Triple Concerto (I shall not bore you with which orchestra, soloists, conductor, etc.). A little wicked confession : I'm off again on a trip tomorrow (Italy), so I took advantage of a little vacuuming, tidying up, ironing and general pottering about whilst the CD was playing. I do like returning after the holiday break to a clean apartment.

[Roehre]

Today:

Connesson:
L'Etre de lumière (2009) (R3: TtN)

Birtwistle:
The Cry of Anubis (1994)
Night’s Black Bird (2004)
The Shadow of Night (2001)

Castiglioni:
Inverno in-ver (1973) (R3: Proms)

[Preston]

Since I am now done with this set, I should give some final thoughts on it. I really liked this one. The playing was light and fast, a contrast to my other set by Gerhardt Weinberger in some ways, and I'm very glad to have both. As I am in the process of learning the organ now, these two sets have been invaluable to me. I also loved the Metzler organs used here. They are not historical instruments, but they were obviously created along Baroque lines, so "period" instruments in a way. Registrations were good and definitely gave me some ideas.

One thing I especially appreciate in this set is how the spurious works were recorded as well. If it had a BWV number, it was pretty much in. Even Weinberger's set, which was perhaps more complete in general because it included several BWV deest works (as well as the Art of Fugue), did not do that. And as I have mentioned here before, I really appreciate when artists do this, as I am always curious about pieces that wound up with a catalog number but were then considered to be misattributions. Sometimes I wonder about the reasoning behind this, as it is often based on stylistic analysis. This final disc was the perfect example of this, containing just pieces that are considered spurious. But there are many enjoyable pieces here, including the 8 "Little" preludes and fugues, several of which I have played myself, and the BWV 751 "In dulci jubilo," which I may use for this Christmas.

Anyway, a fantastic set in my opinion.

All of the Bach organ works - fascinating. I hope to get a set of that one day. The question I would have is did they use different organs for the different pieces? I know they probably did not use many different organs, but my point is - play the gentler pieces with a gentler organ and the more powerful pieces with a more powerful organ. I could not imagine listening to all of the beauty of the organ works being played on a "mad-scientist" (if you will) type of organ, .

One thing I especially appreciate in this set is how the spurious works were recorded as well. If it had a BWV number, it was pretty much in.

I think that is something to especially appreciate also. Does it really matter if it wasn't by Bach, or should it be thrown out because musicologists say it wasn't by Bach, I don't think so.

I am still bothered that there is controversy over BWV 565.

[Roehre]

I think that is something to especially appreciate also. Does it really matter if it wasn't by Bach, or should it be thrown out because musicologists say it wasn't by Bach, I don't think so.

I don't think so either. If a piece is good enough to be considered to be a genuine Bach, why should it be gathering dust as soon as it is shown that it isn't a genuine Bach, but someone else's work? Why aren't the spurious cantatas included in the complete Bach-Cantata-cycles?
Why aren't all the flute sonatas in the BWV catalogue played, not only those of which Bach has been shown to be the composer?

Or, re Beethoven: Why isn't the Jena-symphony played any more.
Once it was considered an exemplary Beethoven, especially for the beethovenian scherzo.

[Chris]

The question I would have is did they use different organs for the different pieces?

Complete Bach organ cycles these days do tend to use different organs, yes, often to try to use instruments like what Bach would have had at his disposal when he actually wrote the various pieces. The Weinberger set I mentioned made use of several historical instruments and the Herrick set made use of seven different Metzler organs throughout Switzerland. The Metzler organs are not historical instruments (they were mostly made in the 1980s), but they were made to make an authentic Baroque sound, so the Bach repertoire sounds right at home on them.

I know they probably did not use many different organs, but my point is - play the gentler pieces with a gentler organ and the more powerful pieces with a more powerful organ. I could not imagine listening to all of the beauty of the organ works being played on a "mad-scientist" (if you will) type of organ,

There is certainly something to be said for choosing the right type of organ, but the other part of it is for the organist to make good choices in registration. If you are playing on a big organ but have a delicate piece to play, you might just pull one or two flute stops and get a very appropriate sound.

[Chris]

I don't think so either. If a piece is good enough to be considered to be a genuine Bach, why should it be gathering dust as soon as it is shown that it isn't a genuine Bach, but someone else's work? Why aren't the spurious cantatas included in the complete Bach-Cantata-cycles?
Why aren't all the flute sonatas in the BWV catalogue played, not only those of which Bach has been shown to be the composer?

Or, re Beethoven: Why isn't the Jena-symphony played any more.
Once it was considered an exemplary Beethoven, especially for the beethovenian scherzo.

Definitely, Roehre. The time I have spent trying to track down these spurious works... And often they are declared spurious without any actual reason beyond the style seeming a little off or the quality being slightly below perfection.

[Preston]

just some thoughts?

I had remembered reading something, I thought, was absolutely absurd on Wikipedia regarding BWV 565, so I checked and found it, though it has been edited it is still absolutely absurd to my mind.

A musicologists name Peter Williams is quoted about on Wikipedia claiming these arguments about BWV 565:

- Parallel octaves throughout the opening of the toccata (unique)
- True subdominant answers in the fugue (extremely rare)
- A pedal statement of the subject, unaccompanied by other voices (unique)
- Primitive harmonies throughout the piece, with countersubjects in the fugue frequently moving through thirds and sixths only (extremely rare in Bach)
- Conclusion of the piece on a minor plagal cadence (extremely rare)

I do not know if anything I have written is even remotely correct or right, but I just wonder if they are using some kind of almost basis:

This seems extremely odd - considering they are referring to one of the greatest musical geniuses to ever walk the face of this earth? If you took every Bach work and - examined the works on the basis of what the musicologist considers to be Bach, using the exact same basis each time - then they would probably all differ to such a degree it would be astonishing. The problem seems they need to put the "math and science" away, because that causes them thinking that they know a "standard or basis" for Bach- which if so seems absurd, imo?

It almost seems they somewhat believe they know Bach's genius better than he? Looking into genius of that level is next to impossible - and this is music, not written philosophy (which is complex enough) - which since it is music, makes it much more challenging to understand the intricacies of the great musical geniuses.

Also, regarding Bach and basis, it was Beethoven who said something like Bach is not a brook he is an ocean. Which could be relative that one should not pinpoint a standard or basis for Bach because he was an ocean, .

[EDIT]
In short, I don't see how a piece of one of the great masters of music can be ruled out by the reasons quoted above? And I got a little too upset about it, sorry about that. Ex. they say Beethoven's Grosse Fugue is as complex, in the sense of 12-tone musical form, that music can be, so how can they rule out the Bach piece? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Preston]

I don't think so either. If a piece is good enough to be considered to be a genuine Bach, why should it be gathering dust as soon as it is shown that it isn't a genuine Bach, but someone else's work? Why aren't the spurious cantatas included in the complete Bach-Cantata-cycles?
Why aren't all the flute sonatas in the BWV catalogue played, not only those of which Bach has been shown to be the composer?

Or, re Beethoven: Why isn't the Jena-symphony played any more.
Once it was considered an exemplary Beethoven, especially for the beethovenian scherzo.

Good point, Roehre, and a point, unfortunately, I have not always followed. But we are human and make mistakes, so many mistakes. It is so easy to get caught up in things that make little, and occasionally, no sense. No logic.

Yes, we should enjoy the music because of what it is not who it was written by.

[Roehre]

A musicologists name Peter Williams is quoted about on Wikipedia claiming these arguments about BWV 565:

- Parallel octaves throughout the opening of the toccata (unique)
- True subdominant answers in the fugue (extremely rare)
- A pedal statement of the subject, unaccompanied by other voices (unique)
- Primitive harmonies throughout the piece, with countersubjects in the fugue frequently moving through thirds and sixths only (extremely rare in Bach)
- Conclusion of the piece on a minor plagal cadence (extremely rare)

I do not know if anything I have written is even remotely correct or right, but I just wonder if they are using some kind of almost basis:

This seems extremely odd - considering they are referring to one of the greatest musical geniuses to ever walk the face of this earth? If you took every Bach work and - examined the works on the basis of what the musicologist considers to be Bach, using the exact same basis each time - then they would probably all differ to such a degree it would be astonishing. The problem seems they need to put the "math and science" away, because that causes them thinking that they know a "standard or basis" for Bach- which if so seems absurd, imo?.

Preston, in itself you are IMO perfectly right to point to the musicologist and telling him off because he thinks Bach is not up to the standards of Bach, or, as the romans said: Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi (What is allowed to Jupiter, is not allowed to the cow).

However, BWV 565 is one of those pieces which stand-alone in Bach's output, in more than one sense:
-it must be an early Bach, as the copy (obviously not an Bach-autograph, because if so we didn't need to have this discussion) must date from the early 18th C,
-it is very well possible that the original is not a work for organ (we do have organ transcriptions of Bach works, but none of these are early works), and
-its contents are definitely not consistent with supposedly contemporary Bachian works of which the authorship is beyond doubt.

Given the technical assessment of the work (by Peter Williams e.g., but there are more musicologists, e.g. the body working at the Neue Bach ausgabe), which shows a less than accomplished style/knowlegde of composition techniques of its composer (in dept knowledge IS shown in those undoubtedly bachian works from supposedly the same years), its authorship must be seriously put in doubt.

But does all this diminish the standing of the work?
Of course not. It is still that Prelude and Fuge BWV 565, whoever the composer may be.

I don't know your age, but personally I do remember that a certain Trumpet voluntary was a work by Henri Purcell. It has been proven beyond reasonably doubt (in the mid 1970s) that it is a piece by Jeremiah Clarke.
But the piece is still played, and still popular.
That would happen with BWV 565 as well.

The spurious organ music, flute works and cantatas of Bach's, or "Beethoven's" Jena-symphony hadn't reached that kind of popularity as it was discovered these weren't works by the composers we originally thought they were. And consequently dropped out of favour - they simply weren't popular enough.

[Roehre]

Today:

Rachmaninov:
6 Morceaux op.11 (piano 4 hands)
Waltz, Polka and romance for piano 6 hands

Telemann:
Double horn concertos TWV 54: D2 and TWV 52: F3
Ouvertures (=suites) TWV 55: F3 and TWV55: D17

Smetana:
Oldrich and Bozena
Orchestral music from operas-
The Brandenburgs in Bohemia: overture and ballet
Dalibor: entr’acte and Entrance of king Vladislav
Libuse: Overture and Festival march Act 3
The 2 widows: Overture, Prelude act 2 and Polka act 2

[Preston]

Thanks for the information Roehre.

However, BWV 565 is one of those pieces which stand-alone in Bach's output, in more than one sense:
-it must be an early Bach, as the copy (obviously not an Bach-autograph, because if so we didn't need to have this discussion) must date from the early 18th C,
-it is very well possible that the original is not a work for organ (we do have organ transcriptions of Bach works, but none of these are early works), and
-its contents are definitely not consistent with supposedly contemporary Bachian works of which the authorship is beyond doubt.

I know too little of the history of the piece. If Bach didn't write it then np. When I was focusing on who wrote the work I went aloof to what you had written and what I agreed with - that it is the work itself not who wrote it. Then you have to worry a little though because composers should be credited for their works. So people shouldn't write-off too easily that a work is not written by the composer. Though, as you have said and I imagine is that he most likely did, whether it was a transcription from violin or what not. I do hear good resemblance between BWV565 and BWV542 and "The Little Fugue".

It has been proven beyond reasonably doubt...

Aside from the above, I was talking to about law recently and the person told me that in America you can be proven guilty based on "beyond reasonable doubt". I told them, so basically when giving a life sentence (which I find utterly disturbing) the judge should say, "You are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt... - Though, we are not entirely sure that it was you, but we think we are pretty sure."