Hello friend. This piece is widely known among bach, piano and luth lovers. But - - - isn't it wonderful to discover a piece like this you hardly or little know? -:)
@@quocanh95nguyen Strange, isn't it? A piece written for keyboard (lautenwerk) best known played on guitar or baroque lute--two instruments that Bach probably never wrote for. (Bach may have written for baroque lute, but the evidence is sketchy).
@@defiletia8838 Thank you for your warm response! Your reaction above applies for me to nearly all works performed by Sviatoslav Richter. The keyboard suites from Händel are a enormous revelation for me. But also " Pictures at a Exhibition" from Moussorgsky! Everything he touches becomes gold and goes straight to your heart and soul!
this work is incredible, but not many pianists play these pieces. In the world of classical guitarists, BWV 998 is one of the most popular work to play, to listen to...
Wunderschöne live Aufführung dieses perfekt konstruierten Meisterwerks im gut betrachteten Tempo mit sorgfältig kontrollierter Dynamik. Mehr als wunderbar!
Funny how so many of you saying this is too fast. I have an edition of this that has the prelude marked Presto and the fugue marked Vivace. I don’t play them that way. I’m about the same tempi as Richter. I love his voicing in the middle part of the fugue.
I would only like to mention that Bach's manuscript has NO TEMPI marked for the Prelude and the Fugue. Only the last movement has the tempo marking and name, Allegro. I don't know what edition you have, but the Presto and Vivace for the Prelude and Fugue are not based on anything legit. That said, I don't find his tempi at all outrageous...
@@dongsoks Yes, you are right. I was only pointing to the edition that I had to show that there are differing opinions on things like this. While there can be a big variety in what a tempo mark might mean, I just can't see Presto as being an appropriate tempo for this. And yet someone obviously did.
@@MadameDequoila Richter always chose the tempo that was the best for the given composition - deviations from this tempo, especially faster playing, would cause less spiritual content.
@@christiansoltenborn9667 it has quite a bit more drama though..( doesn't sound at all rushed to me ) ..to MY ear again, at a slower pace the phrases ( esp the first part, ) sound almost nonsensical.. I always compare how pianists and cellists and violinists play Bach, as opposed to most guitarists...typically, for example, the Allegro is NEVER played at Allegro by guitarists 😁..there's a certain amount of physical difficulty involved🤨 Meng Su managed a decent version when she was 18 (!) But the Fugue has always seemed so utterly non-musical played at the slow pace most guitarists play at...so much so, it's put me off playing it. ( i play both the Prelude and Allegro ..[ well ALMOST at Allegro🙄] ) But hey, it's all music, meant to be enjoyed....at whatever pace 😇
It is incredible how much stupidity and ego is there in poeple who dont play any Instrument or maybe some accords but think that they are able and can judge such grand maitre of Music and Piano, instead to listen and learn and be totaly happy and greatful to have chance to hear it.
Not only the fugue, but ALL is beatiful - I first heard that wonderful peace first on guitar, and fell in love with it.And that was played only the first movement....
Una, o la mejor, de las versiones del preludio fuga y allegro bwv998, que escuche en mi vida! Richter es un genio! y haciendo estas piezas del mas grande entre los grandes J. Seb. Bach, que deleite!!! gracias por compartir esto, es sublime por dios!
What is rather refreshing on this recording is that he plays the lower parts exactly in time with upper parts, guitarist have this habit of spreading the chords or harmonies, myself included. Much better like this.
Ejecución impecable. Sin duda amplia la gama de posibilidades en la interpretación. He escuchado no menos de 10. Yo me quedo con esta sin lugar a dudas. Saludo a todos.
La mejor obra compuesta para Clave-Laúd.. que luego fue transcripta para Laúd, y hoy la obra más famosa para Bach para guitarra moderna, la fuga es estupenda.
This guitarist loves Maestro Richter's rendering, and I use it as the play-along for working out technically weak spots. As to "original tempos," nobody knows. It was not written for lute anyway, but rather on (if not necessarily for) a gut-stringed keyboard instrument. Wicked-major musicological dorks like me might enjoy "The Myth of Bach’s Lute Suites" by Clive Titmuss
The whole point of the fugue is the choral voice Richter brings out. Not Russell. not Barrueco, nor Galbraight (I give the latter credit for trying on eight strings): you may be hearing the charming guitar, but Bach, really played with this interplay is impossible on the guitar and the recordings all prove it.
John Williams, guitar, 1975 recording, finally re-released by Sony Japan and available on Amazon and iTunes. ... the tone is clear and cantabile, with carefully placed vibrato and lovely sliding position changes that no piano can achieve. This one differs from all other lute and guitar recordings because it reflects the Segovia method of guitar transcription: stopped notes and higher fretboard positions are preferred to open strings and the lower positions in order to facilitate a more expressive tone. The voice leading is crystalline and transparent. Kenneth Gilbert (Couchet-Taskin harpsichord) gives the quintessentially French reading, evocative of the clavecinistes of the Grand Siècle. He ends the Allegro with a petite réprise to make his point. A good harpsichord performance demonstrates the artistic provenance of this masterwork. The PF&A is scored mostly for the lower half of the keyboard, which the French harpsichord school exploited because of the rich basses of their harpsichords, recalling the deep and low tessitura of the lute. (François Couperin's Les Barricades Mistérieuses and Les Slvains-which Robert de Visee transcribed for lute-are good examples.) The manuscript itself-in Bach's hand-has the ending of the Allegro completed in organ tablature, highlighting its keyboard conception. Richter plays this very well, but it is not piano music.
Roberto Alexandre You forgot to mention Yepes recording, which is infinitely more evocative that any other recording, including this or any other piano version. I mean, really. Where is Yepes in all these lists? john williams? really?? omg...
I haven't heard Yepes in decades. He made more than one recording. Lovely! I understand that these are matters of taste, but modern guitar playing has been moving away from the Segovia method, regarding it as outdated and out of step with lute technique and "historically informed performance". I suppose every generation has its own ideals. Williams' performance is set apart by a flawless execution of Segovia's method of transcription and fingering-higher positions and stopped notes are preferred because they allow the player to use shading and vibrato more effectively than the lower positions and open strings. The resulting tone is neither brittle nor weak, but full, bold and deep. To this old timer, it's like comparing a good dark roast coffee made in a French press to coffee brewed in a drip filter.
That's why it is the plaything of classical guitar... Key-phrase is "little known". Unfortunately we can't get to Bach's best solo work since our instrument does not have the capacity to sustain such polyphony!
@@meoguitar I didn't say the guitar can't play polyphonic music, but that it can't play _everything_ the piano can. Bach's most masterful solo work is written for the keyboard and a lot of is literally unplayble on the guitar, not necessarily because of range but because how busy each voice often is. I've seen countless of arrangements and they either compromise too much to be playable or require stretches that most of us simply can't reach unless we got Rachmaninoff spider hands. I should probably go make my own arrangements; say, the French suites are probably playable on guitar.
Мариос Христодулу thanks for your reply. I was referring to your statement that “guitar doesn’t have the capacity to sustain such polyphony”. I most certainly don’t hope for any new transcriptions of Bach’s keyboard works, but BWV998 is definitely one of the works guitarists adopted one their repertoire, due to some alleged vicinity with the Lautrnwerke. This said, I’m just sticking to this piece, no others, and I personally believe it is possible to study this clarity in the phrasing: it’s not a left ha d issue, it’s entirely in the right hand and - most importantly - in the mind. It is possible to differentiate 2 voices with the same transparency Richter uses here, so why should it be impossible to do it with 3? This was my point, nothing else. Of course, this can be done when the pieces physically allow to be played on the guitar. I’d rather ignore those unlikely arrangements you mention. :)
@@meoguitar What I was implying is that the guitar is _limited_ in it's polyphonic capacity when compared to the piano, not that it doesn't have any; I mean, it's clearly leagues ahead any other instrument that isn't the piano, so that says a lot. In my original comment I meant that BWV 998 is quite simply in its polyphony when compared to anything from the Art of the Fugue or even the WTC, which is why it's not hard at all to play on guitar. I played a transcription of all three movements of this piece (in D major, not in Eb) for my final jury/recital and I know it in and out, so I definitely understand how to play polyphonic music, and Bach is probably my favourite when it comes to guitar, as I find most of the repertoire pretty lacklustre.
My introduction to this piece was via Eugen Dombois on baroque lute. It probably remains my favorite version. Jason Stripinis appears to be right based on my reading--that historic manuscripts indicate BWV 998 was written for the lute-harpsichord (a gut-strung keyboard instrument). However, I doubt it's totally settled that Bach wrote nothing FOR the lute. Frederic Zigante claims that BWV 995, 998, and 999 were "certain(ly" written for lute; the case for Partita BWV 99s, 1006a and the fugue BWV 1000 was "probable", and "highly questionable" for Suite BWV 996. (J.S. Bach, Complete lute music, Guitart, 1996). Certainly some of the music allegedly for baroque lute did not lie on the lute easily--I remember the big deal when Lutz Kirchhof released the recording of Bach on baroque lute "in the original keys"--that they had previously been considered practically unplayable. This matters dearly to musicologists, but is only a curiosity to me and probably most others. My hope is to play this competently (on guitar, thank you very much) before I die. I rate my chances as nil to poor. As for Richter's version--yes, it's fast, but you can't fault great musicianship--on any instrument.
Interesting comment. I think the textures of BWV 998, 997 and 996 speak for themselves: totally conceived with keyboard contrapuntal facility in mind. The others would certainly be debatable. If we think of Weiss´ lute writing (or any other Baroque lute composers) and compare it to this, the contrast is undeniable. For these questions, we can almost forget the musicologists and just trust our ears: these pieces sound much more natural on the keyboard than on any stringed instrument. Never give up the attempt, which is always more interesting than the result.
I politely disagree. It's good that you mention the texture of them because it's because of the texture of the music that it really seems like concieved for the lute. For instance, the BWV 996, would you say the sarabande was intended to be played in a keyboard? or the prelude also, or just take a look to the gigue, which seems the most difficult from them all: take a look to the second bar, that phragment of two notes sounding at the same time, which is very characteristic. I don't think that idea was intended to be played in a keyboard, that texture is more lute-like, there are more examples of it. If it was intended to be played in a keyboard it would sound very different from the rest of the works that he composed for the keyboard. Nah, i dont think so, those melodic lines are more lute-like, definitely, which is something very characteristic of that suite: the melodic textures of it. I play the whole BWV 996 and from my point of view it can be perfectly played in a stringed instrument. They are difficult of course, but once you practice them, you flow with Bach. I also finished learning the prelude from this 998 recently and it can be perfectly played in a string instrument. Take a look to the moment at 1:56 - that phragment which comes from nowhere is obviously lute-like, no doubt of it, you don't understand the intention of that little phragment played in a keyboard, definitely. Bach composed for the lute, for me there is no doubt of it considering the musicality of those pieces. He also possesed a lute when he died. The fact that it can be difficult or not played with a contrapuntistic ability has only to do with those guitarist whose instrument dominate them and not otherwise, not with the music in my opinion. In fact, a good counterpoint in the guitar is always incredibly good. But one must know how to play that instrument, that's the only problem. But we shouldn't neither keep comparing our instrument always with the piano, the guitar and the stringed instrument have their aspects and the piano others, and both are great.
Good point. I always make it a point to disagree with myself! But not always so politely as I have a penchant to, just for fun, indulge in the most nonsensical ideas with the straightest face and utmost seriousness...just to see the reactions. The point here is that even the ear of experienced listeners comes down to preferences. However, Julian is write about the textures. Certain movements (Sarabande, Bourré and arguably the Allemande) in BWV996, others in the BWV998 (Prelude) and BWV997 (Prelude, Sarabande, Gigue and Double) really do have a lute-like texture and can be performed just as well on the guitar as on the keyboard. Weiss and Kellner, in their writing, share such figurations. The BWV996 Prelude is kind of a mix: but the presto is far more complex (and doesn´t fall so easily under the plucking hand) than anything any lutenist of the time composed. And the BWV996 Gigue...well, compare it to movements from the French Suites (or perhaps the Partitas - the First and Fifth of which have been transcribed and performed on the guitar) and you´ll see similarities in the writing: a relatively sparse writing for keyboard, but hardly idiomatic for the lute. However, the fugues (BWV998 & 997) are also another matter. Weiss´ fugues are quite different and don´t come anywhere near the complex writing of Bach. My own diletante opinion (which amounts to something less than a breath of air) is that the musical thinking behind these pieces (the fugues, and perhaps those aforementioned movements of the BWV996) had the keyboard in mind, albeit different from his other more complex pieces composed specifically for the keyboard. That shouldn´t surprise us, as so many composers do their thinking at the keyboard: which has been the universal reference instrument in Western music. Other composers (Sor, Giuliani and certainly Villa-Lobos when composing for the guitar) did their thinking with the guitar in mind. But I think even Ponce was thinking keyboard when he composed for the guitar, but because of his association with Segovia, he learned to write very effective music in that style. Back to Bach. Musicologists debate this point: it hardly matters to me whether Bach did or did not write specifically for the lute. My own pet opinion is that Bach wrote something and may have thought: "this is written for anyone who can play it on any instrument. If one can play it, it´s idiomatic, if not, it isn´t." Certainly Bach was aware of the possibilities of the Baroque lute (knowing Weiss). And I politely agree with Julian regarding the rest. He´s a good guy and consistenlt maintains civilized dialog on these TH-cam channels.
Check out J. S. Bach - Prelude, Fugue & Allegro in E-Flat major BWV 998 (2/3) - Robert Hill, Lautenwerk. I still prefer Richter here, because the piano has the advantage of being able to play one note louder than the other (to a certain extent, so does the guitar - but not quite like what what Richter does with the fugue here. There´s also a marble-like solidity to each note (which is what I always loved about G. Gould) on the keyboard. For these pieces to be effective on the guitar (IMO), the tone on the guitar must be absolutely robust, well-rounded, crystal like a powerful bell. That´s just the first part, then comes the phrasing, dynamics, legato (where necessary) and coloratura. And the player understanding the music to build it into a coherent narrative. Alas, what a task, no wonder so many fail.
The piece was written around 1735. The original manuscript with the title "Prelude pour la Luth ò Cembal c par J. S. Bach" was sold at Christie's on July 13, 2016 for £2,518,500. Clearly, it was intended for either/or. I don't think Bach would have intended it specifically for a Lute Harpsichord - the difference between that and a 'regular' steel-string harpsichord being only matter of timbre, something that didn't seem to matter much to Bach. The best thing about this piece, for me, as a pianist, is the sonority, as most of it is played on the bottom half of the keyboard. Sounds amazing on my 7' Steinway, makes me wish for the 9' model.
If the music is to be an alignment of notes set with a metronome, what I've heard is perfect. But if the music must be the reflection of an emotion, of a feeling, of an expression, I do not understand, but I must be considered as a heretic who does not know anything about music despite my 50 years spent in this world of sound which is very dear to me and really precious ...I apologize for those whom I hurt
Yes, never heard the fugue played like this. Galbraight is as good as Bach gets on the guitar. You know Angelo Gilardino said that the guitar adds nothing to Bach, however, we could say inversely Bach adds to the guitar. Yet, if one hears the traditional Bach repertoire (Luite Suites, this PFA, etc.) on keyboard, the guitar in most cases sounds feeble and only a few players can offer something convincing. But here Richter sounds better than any guitarrist ever could because whereas these pieces are relatively easy on the keyboard, they are the devil on the guitar. Ornamentation is problematical, counterpoint and polyphonic textures and the marble tone we like to hear in Bach are almost impossible to achieve on the guitar. It´s good he didn´t record the lute suites because I´m sure most guitarrists who play Bach might be tempted to give it up as a practically unfeasable task.
+Roberto Alexandre I couldn't agree more. Although guitar is my favorite instrument, a pure classical piece like this fugue deserves to be properly sounded as Richter is offering.
You hit the nail on the head "properly sounded". So we love Bach and seem to imagine the proper sound for him. The way Richter brings out that singing line (like a choral) in the second second of the fugue is transcendental (you just can´t do that on the guitar, like that anyway). And the Allegro...oh, my God! This is not to say I don´t enjoy Segovia´s Chaconne or Parkening´s romantic Bach, they´re very charming. But, charm really isn´t the "proper sound" is it? It´s great if you only know the guitar (like Williams´ Bach). But listen to this, to Glen Gould, and charm isn´t the word. Your idea of "proper sound" is what those artists capture. Even though Parkening has a version of the Allegro which is good, very good. But this by Richter is something else. Beyond Barrueco, Russell, Sollscher, Stephen Schmidt and Galbraight (to name the guitarists whose Bach I have thought the best, as far as the guitar goes).
+Roberto Alexandre I think I've met a friend who has same or very similar taste of music and its interpretation. I was shocked when I firstly listened to Richter's Fugue which sings all the songs hidden(well, it is written in the score, actually) in the fugue; Julian Bream played nicely this piece with his outstanding ligado technique and John Williams showed his majesty with his sound sound. David Russell is trying very hard to sing the fugue and Paul Galbraith is the one reach the goal with his 8-string guitar. But, Sviatoslav is just singing Bach as written. It sounds easy and natural. You don't have to listen because his song comes to your ears. Just beautiful.
Keun, that´s great what you pointed out and I´ve gone back to hear Galbraight. Yes! I never really noticed it before because, once again, these things, to you use your phrase, have the proper sound and the more immediate effect on the keyboard. Now I will go back to the others. And yes, Galbraight is reaching his goal (within the limits of even his formdable instrument). Your observation is simple, acute and to the point. Galbraight also treats the whole set quite organically as a single continuom. Great expression "sound sound". Thanks for the exchange.
Incredible that you don't hear the sheer beauty of Richter playing this wonderful composition of Bach like it should be done. Definitely something wrong with your ears or brains. There is no better performer than Richter!
What a total nonsense and impudence. Bream can play nicely the guitar but can't be compared with Richter, who is HC ( hors catégorie), in other words unique and above all.
these clowns do one trimester of musicology and then they fool themselves into believing that they're experts in baroque lol, ''everything must have ornamentation or it's not baroque'', absolute braindead.
The only thing I can add is that pianists like Richter and Gould come every few hundred years and music lovers are lucky they can listen and enjoy.
This incredible piece is too little known, far too little. Thanks for playing it, Richter!
Hello friend. This piece is widely known among bach, piano and luth lovers. But - - - isn't it wonderful to discover a piece like this you hardly or little know? -:)
maybe it's not known widely among works written for Piano, but it is a super popular work played on classical guitar or lute.
@@quocanh95nguyen Strange, isn't it? A piece written for keyboard (lautenwerk) best known played on guitar or baroque lute--two instruments that Bach probably never wrote for. (Bach may have written for baroque lute, but the evidence is sketchy).
Richter plays this fast BECAUSE HE CAN . A masterful rendition .
I only understood the full splendor of this composition when I heard it play by Sviatoslav Richter. One (?) of the greatest pianists of all time!
I would say The Greatest of all times!!
The biggest genius of all!!
@@janwillemheijbroek9107 ❤
@@defiletia8838 Thank you for your warm response! Your reaction above applies for me to nearly all works performed by Sviatoslav Richter. The keyboard suites from Händel are a enormous revelation for me. But also " Pictures at a Exhibition" from Moussorgsky! Everything he touches becomes gold and goes straight to your heart and soul!
2:15 Ah, this ending always makes me cry! Beautiful!
this work is incredible, but not many pianists play these pieces. In the world of classical guitarists, BWV 998 is one of the most popular work to play, to listen to...
Wunderschöne live Aufführung dieses perfekt konstruierten Meisterwerks im gut betrachteten Tempo mit sorgfältig kontrollierter Dynamik. Mehr als wunderbar!
I love him and his music
Perfect tempo for the Fugue. Any slower and it risks getting bogged down.
Funny how so many of you saying this is too fast. I have an edition of this that has the prelude marked Presto and the fugue marked Vivace. I don’t play them that way. I’m about the same tempi as Richter. I love his voicing in the middle part of the fugue.
I would only like to mention that Bach's manuscript has NO TEMPI marked for the Prelude and the Fugue. Only the last movement has the tempo marking and name, Allegro. I don't know what edition you have, but the Presto and Vivace for the Prelude and Fugue are not based on anything legit. That said, I don't find his tempi at all outrageous...
@@dongsoks Yes, you are right. I was only pointing to the edition that I had to show that there are differing opinions on things like this. While there can be a big variety in what a tempo mark might mean, I just can't see Presto as being an appropriate tempo for this. And yet someone obviously did.
WOW! Of COURSE! at this speed the Fugue finally makes complete sense!!!......Thanks so much for sharing
I play it even a bit faster.
@@MadameDequoila Richter always chose the tempo that was the best for the given composition - deviations from this tempo, especially faster playing, would cause less spiritual content.
For my taste, the Fugue is a bit too fast - in particular, I feel that the B part is slightly rushed...
@@christiansoltenborn9667 it has quite a bit more drama though..( doesn't sound at all rushed to me )
..to MY ear again, at a slower pace the phrases ( esp the first part, ) sound almost nonsensical..
I always compare how pianists and cellists and violinists play Bach, as opposed to most guitarists...typically, for example, the Allegro is NEVER played at Allegro by guitarists 😁..there's a certain amount of physical difficulty involved🤨
Meng Su managed a decent version when she was 18 (!)
But the Fugue has always seemed so utterly non-musical played at the slow pace most guitarists play at...so much so, it's put me off playing it.
( i play both the Prelude and Allegro ..[ well ALMOST at Allegro🙄] )
But hey, it's all music, meant to be enjoyed....at whatever pace 😇
It is incredible how much stupidity and ego is there in poeple who dont play any Instrument or maybe some accords but think that they are able and can judge such grand maitre of Music and Piano, instead to listen and learn and be totaly happy and greatful to have chance to hear it.
Get off your high horse damn
This performance is just such encapsulated perfection.
Fantástico 🎵🎶🎶❤❤🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷👏👏👏
this fugue is beautiful.
Not only the fugue, but ALL is beatiful - I first heard that wonderful peace first on guitar, and fell in love with it.And that was played only the first movement....
wonderful recording
One of my favourites! :)
Absolutely awesome
Richter has such big beautiful glowing eyes!
Una, o la mejor, de las versiones del preludio fuga y allegro bwv998, que escuche en mi vida! Richter es un genio! y haciendo estas piezas del mas grande entre los grandes J. Seb. Bach, que deleite!!! gracias por compartir esto, es sublime por dios!
Fantastic! I love this Fugue.
What is rather refreshing on this recording is that he plays the lower parts exactly in time with upper parts, guitarist have this habit of spreading the chords or harmonies, myself included. Much better like this.
Un chant du cygne absolument extraordinaire.
Ejecución impecable. Sin duda amplia la gama de posibilidades en la interpretación. He escuchado no menos de 10. Yo me quedo con esta sin lugar a dudas. Saludo a todos.
La mejor obra compuesta para Clave-Laúd.. que luego fue transcripta para Laúd, y hoy la obra más famosa para Bach para guitarra moderna, la fuga es estupenda.
This guitarist loves Maestro Richter's rendering, and I use it as the play-along for working out technically weak spots. As to "original tempos," nobody knows. It was not written for lute anyway, but rather on (if not necessarily for) a gut-stringed keyboard instrument. Wicked-major musicological dorks like me might enjoy "The Myth of Bach’s Lute Suites" by Clive Titmuss
interesting
The whole point of the fugue is the choral voice Richter brings out. Not Russell. not Barrueco, nor Galbraight (I give the latter credit for trying on eight strings): you may be hearing the charming guitar, but Bach, really played with this interplay is impossible on the guitar and the recordings all prove it.
John Williams, guitar, 1975 recording, finally re-released by Sony Japan and available on Amazon and iTunes. ... the tone is clear and cantabile, with carefully placed vibrato and lovely sliding position changes that no piano can achieve. This one differs from all other lute and guitar recordings because it reflects the Segovia method of guitar transcription: stopped notes and higher fretboard positions are preferred to open strings and the lower positions in order to facilitate a more expressive tone. The voice leading is crystalline and transparent.
Kenneth Gilbert (Couchet-Taskin harpsichord) gives the quintessentially French reading, evocative of the clavecinistes of the Grand Siècle. He ends the Allegro with a petite réprise to make his point.
A good harpsichord performance demonstrates the artistic provenance of this masterwork. The PF&A is scored mostly for the lower half of the keyboard, which the French harpsichord school exploited because of the rich basses of their harpsichords, recalling the deep and low tessitura of the lute. (François Couperin's Les Barricades Mistérieuses and Les Slvains-which Robert de Visee transcribed for lute-are good examples.)
The manuscript itself-in Bach's hand-has the ending of the Allegro completed in organ tablature, highlighting its keyboard conception.
Richter plays this very well, but it is not piano music.
Roberto Alexandre You forgot to mention Yepes recording, which is infinitely more evocative that any other recording, including this or any other piano version. I mean, really. Where is Yepes in all these lists? john williams? really?? omg...
I haven't heard Yepes in decades. He made more than one recording. Lovely!
I understand that these are matters of taste, but modern guitar playing has been moving away from the Segovia method, regarding it as outdated and out of step with lute technique and "historically informed performance". I suppose every generation has its own ideals.
Williams' performance is set apart by a flawless execution of Segovia's method of transcription and fingering-higher positions and stopped notes are preferred because they allow the player to use shading and vibrato more effectively than the lower positions and open strings. The resulting tone is neither brittle nor weak, but full, bold and deep. To this old timer, it's like comparing a good dark roast coffee made in a French press to coffee brewed in a drip filter.
those low notes at @3.12 ... oh my lord..
Yes! I never heard the theme at that part of the piece. My ears were always distracted by the other voices.
That's why it is the plaything of classical guitar... Key-phrase is "little known". Unfortunately we can't get to Bach's best solo work since our instrument does not have the capacity to sustain such polyphony!
Yes, it does: we just have to stop thinking it does not and find ways to just do it.
@@meoguitar I didn't say the guitar can't play polyphonic music, but that it can't play _everything_ the piano can. Bach's most masterful solo work is written for the keyboard and a lot of is literally unplayble on the guitar, not necessarily because of range but because how busy each voice often is. I've seen countless of arrangements and they either compromise too much to be playable or require stretches that most of us simply can't reach unless we got Rachmaninoff spider hands.
I should probably go make my own arrangements; say, the French suites are probably playable on guitar.
Мариос Христодулу thanks for your reply. I was referring to your statement that “guitar doesn’t have the capacity to sustain such polyphony”. I most certainly don’t hope for any new transcriptions of Bach’s keyboard works, but BWV998 is definitely one of the works guitarists adopted one their repertoire, due to some alleged vicinity with the Lautrnwerke. This said, I’m just sticking to this piece, no others, and I personally believe it is possible to study this clarity in the phrasing: it’s not a left ha d issue, it’s entirely in the right hand and - most importantly - in the mind. It is possible to differentiate 2 voices with the same transparency Richter uses here, so why should it be impossible to do it with 3?
This was my point, nothing else.
Of course, this can be done when the pieces physically allow to be played on the guitar. I’d rather ignore those unlikely arrangements you mention. :)
@@meoguitar What I was implying is that the guitar is _limited_ in it's polyphonic capacity when compared to the piano, not that it doesn't have any; I mean, it's clearly leagues ahead any other instrument that isn't the piano, so that says a lot. In my original comment I meant that BWV 998 is quite simply in its polyphony when compared to anything from the Art of the Fugue or even the WTC, which is why it's not hard at all to play on guitar.
I played a transcription of all three movements of this piece (in D major, not in Eb) for my final jury/recital and I know it in and out, so I definitely understand how to play polyphonic music, and Bach is probably my favourite when it comes to guitar, as I find most of the repertoire pretty lacklustre.
immenso
My introduction to this piece was via Eugen Dombois on baroque lute. It probably remains my favorite version. Jason Stripinis appears to be right based on my reading--that historic manuscripts indicate BWV 998 was written for the lute-harpsichord (a gut-strung keyboard instrument). However, I doubt it's totally settled that Bach wrote nothing FOR the lute. Frederic Zigante claims that BWV 995, 998, and 999 were "certain(ly" written for lute; the case for Partita BWV 99s, 1006a and the fugue BWV 1000 was "probable", and "highly questionable" for Suite BWV 996. (J.S. Bach, Complete lute music, Guitart, 1996). Certainly some of the music allegedly for baroque lute did not lie on the lute easily--I remember the big deal when Lutz Kirchhof released the recording of Bach on baroque lute "in the original keys"--that they had previously been considered practically unplayable.
This matters dearly to musicologists, but is only a curiosity to me and probably most others.
My hope is to play this competently (on guitar, thank you very much) before I die. I rate my chances as nil to poor.
As for Richter's version--yes, it's fast, but you can't fault great musicianship--on any instrument.
Interesting comment. I think the textures of BWV 998, 997 and 996 speak for themselves: totally conceived with keyboard contrapuntal facility in mind. The others would certainly be debatable. If we think of Weiss´ lute writing (or any other Baroque lute composers) and compare it to this, the contrast is undeniable. For these questions, we can almost forget the musicologists and just trust our ears: these pieces sound much more natural on the keyboard than on any stringed instrument.
Never give up the attempt, which is always more interesting than the result.
I politely disagree. It's good that you mention the texture of them because it's because of the texture of the music that it really seems like concieved for the lute. For instance, the BWV 996, would you say the sarabande was intended to be played in a keyboard? or the prelude also, or just take a look to the gigue, which seems the most difficult from them all: take a look to the second bar, that phragment of two notes sounding at the same time, which is very characteristic. I don't think that idea was intended to be played in a keyboard, that texture is more lute-like, there are more examples of it.
If it was intended to be played in a keyboard it would sound very different from the rest of the works that he composed for the keyboard. Nah, i dont think so, those melodic lines are more lute-like, definitely, which is something very characteristic of that suite: the melodic textures of it.
I play the whole BWV 996 and from my point of view it can be perfectly played in a stringed instrument. They are difficult of course, but once you practice them, you flow with Bach.
I also finished learning the prelude from this 998 recently and it can be perfectly played in a string instrument. Take a look to the moment at 1:56 - that phragment which comes from nowhere is obviously lute-like, no doubt of it, you don't understand the intention of that little phragment played in a keyboard, definitely.
Bach composed for the lute, for me there is no doubt of it considering the musicality of those pieces. He also possesed a lute when he died.
The fact that it can be difficult or not played with a contrapuntistic ability has only to do with those guitarist whose instrument dominate them and not otherwise, not with the music in my opinion. In fact, a good counterpoint in the guitar is always incredibly good. But one must know how to play that instrument, that's the only problem. But we shouldn't neither keep comparing our instrument always with the piano, the guitar and the stringed instrument have their aspects and the piano others, and both are great.
Good point. I always make it a point to disagree with myself! But not always so politely as I have a penchant to, just for fun, indulge in the most nonsensical ideas with the straightest face and utmost seriousness...just to see the reactions. The point here is that even the ear of experienced listeners comes down to preferences. However, Julian is write about the textures.
Certain movements (Sarabande, Bourré and arguably the Allemande) in BWV996, others in the BWV998 (Prelude) and BWV997 (Prelude, Sarabande, Gigue and Double) really do have a lute-like texture and can be performed just as well on the guitar as on the keyboard. Weiss and Kellner, in their writing, share such figurations. The BWV996 Prelude is kind of a mix: but the presto is far more complex (and doesn´t fall so easily under the plucking hand) than anything any lutenist of the time composed. And the BWV996 Gigue...well, compare it to movements from the French Suites (or perhaps the Partitas - the First and Fifth of which have been transcribed and performed on the guitar) and you´ll see similarities in the writing: a relatively sparse writing for keyboard, but hardly idiomatic for the lute.
However, the fugues (BWV998 & 997) are also another matter. Weiss´ fugues are quite different and don´t come anywhere near the complex writing of Bach. My own diletante opinion (which amounts to something less than a breath of air) is that the musical thinking behind these pieces (the fugues, and perhaps those aforementioned movements of the BWV996) had the keyboard in mind, albeit different from his other more complex pieces composed specifically for the keyboard. That shouldn´t surprise us, as so many composers do their thinking at the keyboard: which has been the universal reference instrument in Western music. Other composers (Sor, Giuliani and certainly Villa-Lobos when composing for the guitar) did their thinking with the guitar in mind. But I think even Ponce was thinking keyboard when he composed for the guitar, but because of his association with Segovia, he learned to write very effective music in that style.
Back to Bach. Musicologists debate this point: it hardly matters to me whether Bach did or did not write specifically for the lute. My own pet opinion is that Bach wrote something and may have thought: "this is written for anyone who can play it on any instrument. If one can play it, it´s idiomatic, if not, it isn´t." Certainly Bach was aware of the possibilities of the Baroque lute (knowing Weiss).
And I politely agree with Julian regarding the rest. He´s a good guy and consistenlt maintains civilized dialog on these TH-cam channels.
Have you and Julian heard Robert Hill, Lautenwerk (it´s here)? Great stuff.
Check out J. S. Bach - Prelude, Fugue & Allegro in E-Flat major BWV 998 (2/3) - Robert Hill, Lautenwerk. I still prefer Richter here, because the piano has the advantage of being able to play one note louder than the other (to a certain extent, so does the guitar - but not quite like what what Richter does with the fugue here. There´s also a marble-like solidity to each note (which is what I always loved about G. Gould) on the keyboard. For these pieces to be effective on the guitar (IMO), the tone on the guitar must be absolutely robust, well-rounded, crystal like a powerful bell. That´s just the first part, then comes the phrasing, dynamics, legato (where necessary) and coloratura. And the player understanding the music to build it into a coherent narrative. Alas, what a task, no wonder so many fail.
God-like interpretation
The piece was written around 1735. The original manuscript with the title "Prelude pour la Luth ò Cembal c par J. S. Bach" was sold at Christie's on July 13, 2016 for £2,518,500. Clearly, it was intended for either/or. I don't think Bach would have intended it specifically for a Lute Harpsichord - the difference between that and a 'regular' steel-string harpsichord being only matter of timbre, something that didn't seem to matter much to Bach.
The best thing about this piece, for me, as a pianist, is the sonority, as most of it is played on the bottom half of the keyboard. Sounds amazing on my 7' Steinway, makes me wish for the 9' model.
감사합니다 리흐테르😄
If the music is to be an alignment of notes set with a metronome, what I've heard is perfect. But if the music must be the reflection of an emotion, of a feeling, of an expression, I do not understand, but I must be considered as a heretic who does not know anything about music despite my 50 years spent in this world of sound which is very dear to me and really precious ...I apologize for those whom I hurt
имел счастье видеть
❤️
Wow
dit lijkt voor cello geschreven maar is voor harpsichord
en op klavier is zeker zo mooi !
💖🌹💖
8:32
Flawlessly played, except a bit too fast in my opinion.
completely agree
@@marvluse8147 his sin? who are you exactly?
Completely disagree....
Is this the the Busoni or Tausig transcription for piano, does anyone know?
Defficient (Not a joke)
Ave maria 2 pianos
this is too fast... i really love his interpretation of the well tempered clavier though
Beautiful Fugue. To my ears, Paul Galbraith is the only one can challenge Richter on a different instrument.
Yes, never heard the fugue played like this. Galbraight is as good as Bach gets on the guitar. You know Angelo Gilardino said that the guitar adds nothing to Bach, however, we could say inversely Bach adds to the guitar. Yet, if one hears the traditional Bach repertoire (Luite Suites, this PFA, etc.) on keyboard, the guitar in most cases sounds feeble and only a few players can offer something convincing. But here Richter sounds better than any guitarrist ever could because whereas these pieces are relatively easy on the keyboard, they are the devil on the guitar. Ornamentation is problematical, counterpoint and polyphonic textures and the marble tone we like to hear in Bach are almost impossible to achieve on the guitar. It´s good he didn´t record the lute suites because I´m sure most guitarrists who play Bach might be tempted to give it up as a practically unfeasable task.
+Roberto Alexandre I couldn't agree more. Although guitar is my favorite instrument, a pure classical piece like this fugue deserves to be properly sounded as Richter is offering.
You hit the nail on the head "properly sounded". So we love Bach and seem to imagine the proper sound for him. The way Richter brings out that singing line (like a choral) in the second second of the fugue is transcendental (you just can´t do that on the guitar, like that anyway). And the Allegro...oh, my God!
This is not to say I don´t enjoy Segovia´s Chaconne or Parkening´s romantic Bach, they´re very charming. But, charm really isn´t the "proper sound" is it? It´s great if you only know the guitar (like Williams´ Bach). But listen to this, to Glen Gould, and charm isn´t the word. Your idea of "proper sound" is what those artists capture.
Even though Parkening has a version of the Allegro which is good, very good. But this by Richter is something else. Beyond Barrueco, Russell, Sollscher, Stephen Schmidt and Galbraight (to name the guitarists whose Bach I have thought the best, as far as the guitar goes).
+Roberto Alexandre I think I've met a friend who has same or very similar taste of music and its interpretation. I was shocked when I firstly listened to Richter's Fugue which sings all the songs hidden(well, it is written in the score, actually) in the fugue; Julian Bream played nicely this piece with his outstanding ligado technique and John Williams showed his majesty with his sound sound. David Russell is trying very hard to sing the fugue and Paul Galbraith is the one reach the goal with his 8-string guitar. But, Sviatoslav is just singing Bach as written. It sounds easy and natural. You don't have to listen because his song comes to your ears. Just beautiful.
Keun, that´s great what you pointed out and I´ve gone back to hear Galbraight. Yes! I never really noticed it before because, once again, these things, to you use your phrase, have the proper sound and the more immediate effect on the keyboard. Now I will go back to the others. And yes, Galbraight is reaching his goal (within the limits of even his formdable instrument). Your observation is simple, acute and to the point. Galbraight also treats the whole set quite organically as a single continuom. Great expression "sound sound". Thanks for the exchange.
Christ.
too fast for me! I prefer listen this work in the usual speed, as the lutenists used to play.
Kind of disappointing, not only because of the rushed tempo. It sounds better on the guitar, played by a very good performer.
the only thing that is disappointing here is your comment....
I agree. This tempo is too fast and this beautiful piece loses all its warm affection
@@lookingouthere what a nonsense!
Incredible that you don't hear the sheer beauty of Richter playing this wonderful composition of Bach like it should be done. Definitely something wrong with your ears or brains.
There is no better performer than Richter!
Sorry, Julian Bream plays this millions better, recorded the same year.
lol!
Agreed. This piece loses its affectionate warmth and ecstatic glee At this tempo. And the arrangement, the voicing, is Murray. Bream gets it
What a total nonsense and impudence.
Bream can play nicely the guitar but can't be compared with Richter, who is HC ( hors catégorie), in other words unique and above all.
Yes, I love Bream's live recording of this. The fugue in the Lute Suite #2 in Cm played by Bream, in my opinion, is the best amongst guitarists.
Sorry, this music can not be properly executed whitout ornamentation.
And there is not any single one here.
youre an idiot if you think this needs ornamentation.. the notes as they stand alone are already perfect
post your recording with ornamentations, let's see if it sounds better with or without them...if it sounds better then it is the proper execution.
these clowns do one trimester of musicology and then they fool themselves into believing that they're experts in baroque lol, ''everything must have ornamentation or it's not baroque'', absolute braindead.