Fantasia, Preludes & Fugues BWV 541-552
Discussions

The 552 fugue, and a few questions

Bradley Lehman wrote (September 20, 2004):
< Here's an idea to perhaps soothe everyone. Why not sit down for a few > moments and take a listen to Bach's St. Anne Fugue (BWV 552).
Agreed. Wonderful piece. >

I agree, too. Marvelous music. I'm fond of Schoenberg's orchestration of it (and the prelude), too. Anybody have a good recommendation for that version, in addition to the Salonen/Los Angeles disc?

=====

And as we listen to and enjoy that piece, some food for thought in the form of a serious question.

In how many other fields (perhaps we could enumerate them) are professionally trained practitioners forced to defend the very nature of expertise, daily, against those who believe there's no respectable substance to it?

- Partisan politics (every pundit in every newspaper editorial and every talking-head TV appearance knows better than the elected officials how the tasks should be handled; everybody's got an opinion about how everybody else is a moron....)

- Spectator sports ("Aw, man, did you SEE that play?! My grandma could have caught THAT ball! Why are they paying these jokers?")

- Religion/theology (but our sacred text is SO clear on such and such a point, how could anybody possibly misinterpret it and be living the way they do?!?!?!...and all the scholars and theologians are just out to erode the believability of everything we hold dear, anyway!...)

- Music (all musical interpretation is just going with the way you feel it, right, and music school is completely a waste of time and money...there are no objective standards to judge the quality of anybody's musical effort, except that something sounds good or awful to untrained listeners...?...How could any musicians DARE transgress the score that anybody with two years of piano could read correctly? And why are scholars so unbelievably unable to get the simplest things right?!?!)

- what other fields?

=====

And, a related and equally serious question: why do people get upset when a defense of such a field IS presented? (And, why is it appropriate to dismiss experts by assessment of their presumed personalities, instead of by the quality of the work and insights that are presented?) Why is it wrong to discuss standards of quality?

What's this culture we're in, where at the universities there are web opinion boards for students to rant in public about how much their professors are jerks, or how un-entertaining the class is, as if that's the most important consideration in the quality of education? Personally, I learned the most from professors who DID make life difficult in their classes (whether through personality conflicts, or extremely demanding workloads, or attitudes that seemed harsh, or dull lecturing)--because, in such a situation, one is forced to confront one's own prejudices and unexamined assumptions, get past the first wave of negative emotions, and actually DO the work of responding with a well-thought-out position. Without challenge, nothing is learned.

OK then, analogous to those web opinion boards in academia, isn't this list itself another one outside academia? A place for people to bitch and whine in public about recordings and books they dislike, and complain about other members, INSTEAD OF paying attention to anything useful that might be learnable through the interactions? Over the past few years I've increased my collection of Bach recordings by something like 25% due to the stimulating discussions that are had about the available resources, getting me to notice options I hadn't been aware of. (For example, Diego Fasolis, Celine Frisch, and the Brilliant Classics series.) Aren't we all here to learn from one another about possibilities we didn't recognize, through whatever twists and turns the discussions might take?

Matthew Neugebauer wrote (September 20, 2004):
Bradley Lerhman wrote:
< What's this culture we're in, >
A culture where objectivity and subjectivity are utterly confused. Where someone says that there is no absolute truth and anyone who disagrees with them is absolutely wrong.

As well, a culture that has no hope in the order of the universe-a culture with a lack of certainty that good will triumph in the end.

Jan Henford wrote (September 20, 2004):
Bradley Lerhman wrote:
< What's this culture we're in, >
A culture in which many academics are incapable of expressing their knowledge to the "untrained listeners" in a manner that is effective, understandable and compelling. They then blame the "untrained listeners" for not wanting to hear more rather than question their own methods. They actually drive people away from the topic they hold so dear. We've all seen it, particularly on this list and, even worse, on usenet.

The problem isn't about no one respecting "professionally trained practitioners". I think many if not most people do, including me. The problem is the tedious, often self-important delivery of the information from some of these practioners. The internet Bach "Intelligentsia" are very good are patting each other on the back for their pages and pages of rhetoric. But I believe the average "untrained listener" really just wants the facts and to move on.

That is something the Bach Intelligentsia seem incapable of either understanding or accepting.

Donald Satz wrote (September 21, 2004):
[To Jan Henford] I haven't thought of some recent Hanford postings, but this time she is well on target. Those who consider themselves 'experts' have a tendency to talk down to others and slam any comments they don't find acceptable.

Personally, I'd like to see more reviews of Bach recordings. Assuming we all acquire many Bach discs every year, the paucity of reviews is bewildering.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (September 21, 2004):
Jan Henford wrote:
< "The problem isn't about no one respecting "professionally trained practitioners". I think many if not most people do, including me. " >
There's been scant evidence of Jan showing respect for anyone in recent days; instead Brad has been accused of "ranting", of spouting "babble"; a perfectly straightforward exchange of information about cadenzas in Kremer's

Beethoven recordings was deemed to be nothing but bragadoccio and she has resorted to hurling childish insults at people off-list.

Bradley Lehman wrote (September 21, 2004):
[To Jan Henford] So, the boredom of people who expect easy answers is the primary criterion by which quality is judged? (Welcome to the sound-bite culture of the Free Internet Public Library, in which every concept and every piece of reality can be boiled down to a couple of lines! Answers that go beyond the superficial layer are simply not welcome as truth!!!)

What if the field of music is complex enough that easy answers simply DO NOT exist, especially if the questioners don't make it clear what context (if any) they are bringing to the questions? Should the "untrained listener" not be made at least aware that the questions asked go a lot deeper than they might have expected?

I had drafted a considerably longer response to this, exploring several levels of concepts in the commentary below, but then I cut it all because I figured it would merely bore. Why bother to think deeply? Play lots of Bach, party on, be happy. Woo hoo!!!

Charles Francis wrote (September 21, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< I agree, too. Marvelous music. I'm fond of Schoenberg's orchestration of it (and the prelude), too. Anybody have a good recommendation for that > version, in addition to the Salonen/Los Angeles disc? >
I have a nice version with the Boston Symphony orchestra conducted by Seiji Ozawa. It's on their 20th Century Bach CD containing transcriptions by Stravinsky, Webern, Sotowski, Schönberg and Saito.

Shelly wrote (September 21, 2004):
[To Jan Henford] Hear, hear!!!!!!

Neil Halliday wrote (September 21, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
"Marvelous music. I'm fond of Schoenberg's orchestration of it (and the prelude), too."
I have dug up an old Coronet Hi-Fi LP: E. Power Biggs, on the organ in St. Paul's chapel, Columbia University, New York.

It's an igrand affair, building up to the exhilirating climax with clarity, style and aplomb. (Not recommended for chamber organ lovers!). Recording quality is surprisingly good.

The music matches perfectly the cover photo, which features the rose window in the front of the nave, from the interior of the church; one of the most amazing features in western architecture - the rose window - is well matched with this most splendid music.

The 'St Anne' fugue (BWV 552) is followed on this LP by music of similar impact, namely the stand alone D minor fugue known as 'The Giant'.

John Pike wrote (September 21, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< In how many other fields (perhaps we could enumerate them) are professionally trained practitioners forced to defend the very nature of expertise, daily, against those who believe there's no respectable substance to it? >
I'm afraid I have to do it every day in Medicine, Brad, in large part thanks to the antics of the "Daily Mail".

Teri Noel Towe wrote (September 21, 2004):
Bach-Schoenberg BWV 552

< I'm fond of Schoenberg's orchestration of > it (and the prelude), too. Anybody have a good recommendation for that > version, in addition to the Salonen/Los Angeles disc? >
1. Erich Kleiber, Berlin Philharmonic (1931) - Ultraphon 78s
2. Maurice Abravanel, Utah Symphony Orch. (ca. 1965) - Vanguard LP
3. Robert Craft, CBC Symphony Orch. (ca. 1968) - CBS Masterworks LP (I have not heard Craft's late 1990s remake)

PS: I find the Eschenbach recording dreadful.

Bradley Lehman wrote (September 22, 2004):
[To Teri Noel Towe] I think I might have a copy of that Abravanel somewhere, but haven't been able to dig it up.

I did, however, find the 1973 quadraphonic Ormandy disc (RCA) "Bach's Greatest Fugues" of which BWV 552 is the first item on side 1. Interesting arrangement by Arthur Harris, written to show off quadraphonic recording. Strings and timps in the middle, and a brass and woodwind choir on each side, to extreme left and right. Has that performance ever made it to CD?
|
How's the Frederick Stock arrangement, in the CD issue of that Kleiber/Berlin? Amazon.com

Apology. . . BWV 552/3C -- Wow!

William L. Hoffman wrote (December 24, 2008):
Terejia wrote:
< Just to get back to BWV 191 in my last paragraph- I'm going to play > Es-dur fuga of BWV 552 as a postlude and accidentally I noticed-> probably much belatedly-that C part of that organ masterpiece has the same rhythm as A part of first movement of BWV 191. >
William L. Hoffman replies: I wish I could be there. BWV 552/3C, the so-called "St. Anne" fugue, the closing bookend of the great ClavierUebung, and my all-time favorite Bach passage. I also heard it at Bethlehem Bach Fest. this year to close the Easter Oratorio concert, I think. Why is it called "St. Anne"?

Anyways, to echo Terejia: "Happy Holiday greetings to all."

Douglas Cowlin wrote (December 24, 2008):
[To William L. Hoffman] The first line is the same as the opening of the English hymn tune, "St. Anne" by William Croft (c. 1708). The similarity is probably coincidental. Handel uses the theme at the beginning of his Chandos Anthem,"O Praise The Lord With One Consent". He is probably quoting Croft's theme. Bach's work only has its nickname in English-speaking countries.

John Pike wrote (December 24, 2008):
[To William L. Hoffman] Yes, it's one of my very favourite pieces by Bach. We had it at our wedding. Had a very good organist who played it as we left the church.

Douglas Cowlin wrote (December 24, 2008):
[To John Pike] We had the big Bach fantasia on Komm Heilger Geist.