I listened to your interpretation of this fantastically beautiful work by J. S. Bach and I think you playing it beautifully. Also my compliment for your technical mastery of the music. The issue of tempo is not that interesting to me. In my view I like this music perhaps (a little) faster. There are so many different interpretations possible, I experience that as a blessing and interesting. What matters to me is whether you can also tell a story with your interpretation. And I articulate 'early music' from the principle that within a four-four time measure on the first and third beat there is more emphasis, more emphasis, than on the second and fourth beat. The second and fourth beats are so-called "bad" beats. In a three-quarter measure, the voicing comes on the first beat, the second and third beats are then the so-called 'bad' beats.
By the way, I totally agree with your ideas of strong and weak beats, if it suits the music style. In a 3-beat pattern of strong-weak-weak, I tried to do that prominently in this video (starting at 30 seconds in). Listen to the end and tell me if it worked. 🙏 th-cam.com/video/WLmckB6KYBg/w-d-xo.html
Unfortunate timing... I am currently in Canada as my Thai wife studies English and International Business here for 2 years. Back to Bangkok in late 2024! 🤗🙏
Email me when you have the opportunity. I might be returning to Bangkok in summer 2024. If so, I would be available to serve a a highly-competent director of music/choir director/organist/pianist should you have the need. danieljwerning@gmail.com
Nice to hear a "slower" version; Jonathan Scott and Diane Bish both rip through the piece like their "hair is on fire and their ass is a-catchin." I think the only performance that is a tad slower is the one by the late Virgil Fox on his Lp "Music For The New Age."
There is an old recording by Pierre Cochereau that is also a reasonable tempo. Just search TH-cam for "Bach Par Pierre Cochereau" and it should come up.
Thank you for listening and commenting. I'm assuming you listened to my entire recording to the end. Vexo's performance is beautifully precise and very well-played. No disagreement there. He is a true artist and played musically. However, my technical comments (musician-to-musician discussion over a glass of wine): 1. His piece without pre-silence or decay acoustics is 4'27". Mine is 4'39". So I agree he played a total of 12 seconds faster. Me? I like both. Depends on my mood! But I don't think he played "too fast." It worked. 2. He uses phrasing/rubato techniques beautifully--for a solo instrument. It is questionable whether those same effects can be applied with a full orchestra as they could not be easily conducted or followed by a whole ensemble. At the very least, it is unlikely Bach played his music with that much rubato. 3. He usually uses shorter staccato than me with his left hand and feet. It works and it's exciting. Generally no complaints there. 4. His left-hand "accompaniment" is less bright than mine. I decided I liked his left-hand registration better! 5. Overall, the right-hand organ solo is too "reedy" for my ears, like an oboe played it instead of bright organ principals with mixtures, which undoubtedly is as Bach would have played it ("make the solo organ sound like an organ--what it does best--to contrast with the orchestra strings, flutes, and reeds"). 6. Finally, I like the richness and fullness of my ending better. But that's no one's fault. We're using different instruments and different acoustics! Cheers! Or santé!
Sorry, but this is just right; you can hear things better. As I stated above, Jonathan Scott and Diane Bish rip through this piece. Only one that is even faster is the version by Walter Carlos on the seminal "Switched On Bach."
Having been a church organist for over 50 years, I've discovered that about 1/3 think I play too quickly, about 1/3 think I play too slowly, and about 1/3 think I play just about right. I consider that mix of human opinions high praise. 🤗😉
It is, in fact, Bach and his genius I was attempting to present here, not a test of organs. However, since that is your interest, are you willing to discuss that a bit? I have played hundreds of pipe organs in my life, all over the US and in England, Netherlands, and Germany. I agree that a digital organ cannot, in theory, compete with the "real thing" because logically, the copy cannot improve on the original. However, it is more complicated than that in real life conditions. To simplify it to the basics, an organ sounds as good as its: 1. Sound origination, 2. its setting or acoustic, and 3. the quality and location of the ears hearing it. Regarding 1., I have played many pipe organs like smaller Kilgen, Wicks, Schantz, Schlicker, Reuter, Muller, etc. that did not have a lot of good sounds coming from them. Many of those builders did make better larger instruments, but many of the small ones..., well, they hurt my ears. I also played an organ at my church in the Midwest in the 1970s that the great American organ builder Lynn Dobson experimented with before his first opus, and while it had some good ranks, the whole instrument just did not sound great as a whole. I'm sure that's why he didn't list it on his opus list: it was an experiment in learning, not a great organ. So just because it's a pipe organ doesn't make it sound great. But many potentially great organs are ruined by 2., the acoustic they're in, especially modern "praise band," studio-like controlled spaces designed as dry as possible so that the people at the mixing boards can create the sound they want (and yes, add pretty convincing reverberation if they want to and the church has the money to spend). So likewise, maybe the pipe organ was good, but it had no resonance and likewise grew tiresome to listen to. Then there's 3., the receiving of the sound. Here's where the "rubber hits the road." Anyone who listens to any kind of organ over smartphone speakers is hearing virtually nothing of the real organ. Likewise with almost any kind of earbud or speaker system. You just can't hear the high and low frequencies and the "thump" of any kind of organ on these devices unless you spend a lot of money. Personally, I listen to my organ and my music and any online organ music with +$1,000 audiophile studio monitor earphones. Short of sitting in the church (any church, great pipe organ or not, good acoustics or not), there is hardly a speaker system available that will play back a well-recorded pipe organ that will do it any justice. Only expensive studio monitor headphones get close. Which brings me to my main complaint about your complaint: ALL music that you hear which is not heard sitting in the actual space the pipe organ resides in sounds like "electronic [s]crap" if you want to put it that way. The best RECORDED pipe organ in the world will only sound as good as its recording parameters and the playback platform or equipment it is heard on. So IF neither I nor my listeners can travel to Hereford Cathedral and hear me play the piece on the actual instrument, what's our choice? Silence and no music? Seriously, was there NO beauty in my playing of Bach's great Sinfonia? Did you actually listen to the whole piece? If not, you should. It's a great composition, my favorite.
![J.S.Bach SINFONIA Wir danken dir [BWV29] Arr. M.Dupré #Willem vanTwillert Hinsz-Organ Kampen NL](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aTzw0rbncsA/mqdefault.jpg)
Danke , einfach Danke ! Genau das richtige Tempo !🥰
Thank you! I also believe Bach would have liked this tempo. 🙏
Beautiful!
@@tonymirenda3023 Thank you! My favorite organ piece, period. 😁
Fantastic rendition.
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. 🙏🤗
Yes. This IS well delineated. Closer to what the master had in mind...as composed.
Thank you! I think so. 🙏
Sehr schön
Danke! 🤗🙏
INCREIBLE.MARAVILLOSO
Thank you! 🤗 😊 🙏
Божественная музыка для нашей души супер ! ! !😎😋🙂😀
Thank you! Bach is wonderful. 🤗🙏
Thank you so much for listening! 😊
Jawohl!
Thank you! 🙏 😊
Very good performance and lovely and delightful to listen to. Maikaʻi nui. Were you not in Hawaii for a while?
Thank you! 🤗 🙏
Yes, in Hawai'i from 1999-2020.
this is awesome!!!
Thank you! My favorite organ piece. 😁
I listened to your interpretation of this fantastically beautiful work by J. S. Bach and I think you playing it beautifully.
Also my compliment for your technical mastery of the music.
The issue of tempo is not that interesting to me.
In my view I like this music perhaps (a little) faster.
There are so many different interpretations possible, I experience that as a blessing and interesting.
What matters to me is whether you can also tell a story with your interpretation.
And I articulate 'early music' from the principle that within a four-four time measure on the first and third beat there is more emphasis, more emphasis, than on the second and fourth beat.
The second and fourth beats are so-called "bad" beats.
In a three-quarter measure, the voicing comes on the first beat, the second and third beats are then the so-called 'bad' beats.
Thank you for listening to my FAVORITE Bach organ piece (although I'm lacking the orchestra, so had to use organ only!).😁
By the way, I totally agree with your ideas of strong and weak beats, if it suits the music style. In a 3-beat pattern of strong-weak-weak, I tried to do that prominently in this video (starting at 30 seconds in). Listen to the end and tell me if it worked. 🙏
th-cam.com/video/WLmckB6KYBg/w-d-xo.html
I read that you are in Bangkok. Have you ever thought of playing at Assumption? We are in desperate need of someone…
Unfortunate timing... I am currently in Canada as my Thai wife studies English and International Business here for 2 years. Back to Bangkok in late 2024! 🤗🙏
@@AllMyMusicbyDanWerning You are very much welcome when you return! Good luck to you and your wife!
Email me when you have the opportunity. I might be returning to Bangkok in summer 2024. If so, I would be available to serve a a highly-competent director of music/choir director/organist/pianist should you have the need. danieljwerning@gmail.com
This is a performance by someone who can hear himself play. A true musician in my opinion. It is very hard to really listen to what you play clearly..
Thank you for listening! 🙏🤗
Beautiful, clear performance! Whose arrangement? Dupré? Guilmant?
Dupre/Guilmant/Me! Thank you for listening. 🤗🙏
@@AllMyMusicbyDanWerning I don’t understand. Did you write this arrangement?
@@organvlnBach2Bach Yes.
Bravo! Agreed. It is a winner.
Thank you! 😁
Nice to hear a "slower" version; Jonathan Scott and Diane Bish both rip through the piece like their "hair is on fire and their ass is a-catchin." I think the only performance that is a tad slower is the one by the late Virgil Fox on his Lp "Music For The New Age."
Thank you for listening and commenting. 😁
There is an old recording by Pierre Cochereau that is also a reasonable tempo. Just search TH-cam for "Bach Par Pierre Cochereau" and it should come up.
Check out the monumental Fantasia & Fugue in G Minor: th-cam.com/video/_BFRsQx5xho/w-d-xo.html What do you think?
I prefer your speed.
@@Titurel Thank you. It also sounds pretty good at 2 bpm faster, so depending on acoustics, I kind of go back and forth! But not a lot faster.
Too slow,.. The best is Johan Vexo playing on a Cavaillé Kohl at the cathédrale de Nancy France.
Thank you for listening and commenting. I'm assuming you listened to my entire recording to the end. Vexo's performance is beautifully precise and very well-played. No disagreement there. He is a true artist and played musically. However, my technical comments (musician-to-musician discussion over a glass of wine):
1. His piece without pre-silence or decay acoustics is 4'27". Mine is 4'39". So I agree he played a total of 12 seconds faster. Me? I like both. Depends on my mood! But I don't think he played "too fast." It worked.
2. He uses phrasing/rubato techniques beautifully--for a solo instrument. It is questionable whether those same effects can be applied with a full orchestra as they could not be easily conducted or followed by a whole ensemble. At the very least, it is unlikely Bach played his music with that much rubato.
3. He usually uses shorter staccato than me with his left hand and feet. It works and it's exciting. Generally no complaints there.
4. His left-hand "accompaniment" is less bright than mine. I decided I liked his left-hand registration better!
5. Overall, the right-hand organ solo is too "reedy" for my ears, like an oboe played it instead of bright organ principals with mixtures, which undoubtedly is as Bach would have played it ("make the solo organ sound like an organ--what it does best--to contrast with the orchestra strings, flutes, and reeds").
6. Finally, I like the richness and fullness of my ending better. But that's no one's fault. We're using different instruments and different acoustics!
Cheers! Or santé!
Sorry, but this is just right; you can hear things better. As I stated above, Jonathan Scott and Diane Bish rip through this piece. Only one that is even faster is the version by Walter Carlos on the seminal "Switched On Bach."
Just for fun : Cavaillé-Coll.
Good. Now speed it up.
Having been a church organist for over 50 years, I've discovered that about 1/3 think I play too quickly, about 1/3 think I play too slowly, and about 1/3 think I play just about right. I consider that mix of human opinions high praise. 🤗😉
@@AllMyMusicbyDanWerning ok. 2/3 of those people are wrong. Speed it up.
@@eugeneveziridis 😁
Tz👎👎👎👎👎 no it is a electronic Organ👎👎👎 a real Pipe Organ is better😏 than this electronic scrap! 🙄🙄🙄🙄
It is, in fact, Bach and his genius I was attempting to present here, not a test of organs. However, since that is your interest, are you willing to discuss that a bit?
I have played hundreds of pipe organs in my life, all over the US and in England, Netherlands, and Germany. I agree that a digital organ cannot, in theory, compete with the "real thing" because logically, the copy cannot improve on the original. However, it is more complicated than that in real life conditions.
To simplify it to the basics, an organ sounds as good as its: 1. Sound origination, 2. its setting or acoustic, and 3. the quality and location of the ears hearing it.
Regarding 1., I have played many pipe organs like smaller Kilgen, Wicks, Schantz, Schlicker, Reuter, Muller, etc. that did not have a lot of good sounds coming from them. Many of those builders did make better larger instruments, but many of the small ones..., well, they hurt my ears. I also played an organ at my church in the Midwest in the 1970s that the great American organ builder Lynn Dobson experimented with before his first opus, and while it had some good ranks, the whole instrument just did not sound great as a whole. I'm sure that's why he didn't list it on his opus list: it was an experiment in learning, not a great organ. So just because it's a pipe organ doesn't make it sound great.
But many potentially great organs are ruined by 2., the acoustic they're in, especially modern "praise band," studio-like controlled spaces designed as dry as possible so that the people at the mixing boards can create the sound they want (and yes, add pretty convincing reverberation if they want to and the church has the money to spend). So likewise, maybe the pipe organ was good, but it had no resonance and likewise grew tiresome to listen to.
Then there's 3., the receiving of the sound. Here's where the "rubber hits the road." Anyone who listens to any kind of organ over smartphone speakers is hearing virtually nothing of the real organ. Likewise with almost any kind of earbud or speaker system. You just can't hear the high and low frequencies and the "thump" of any kind of organ on these devices unless you spend a lot of money. Personally, I listen to my organ and my music and any online organ music with +$1,000 audiophile studio monitor earphones. Short of sitting in the church (any church, great pipe organ or not, good acoustics or not), there is hardly a speaker system available that will play back a well-recorded pipe organ that will do it any justice. Only expensive studio monitor headphones get close.
Which brings me to my main complaint about your complaint: ALL music that you hear which is not heard sitting in the actual space the pipe organ resides in sounds like "electronic [s]crap" if you want to put it that way. The best RECORDED pipe organ in the world will only sound as good as its recording parameters and the playback platform or equipment it is heard on. So IF neither I nor my listeners can travel to Hereford Cathedral and hear me play the piece on the actual instrument, what's our choice? Silence and no music? Seriously, was there NO beauty in my playing of Bach's great Sinfonia? Did you actually listen to the whole piece? If not, you should. It's a great composition, my favorite.