Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Some days even J.S. Bach phoned it in

Yes, that passage somehow reminded me that good ol' JSB discovered minimalism long before Riley, Reich, Glass.....

So Chopin and Liszt shook hands while playing alternate hands of a Chopin piece. Glad to know that's true.

Of course.

They were such good buddies that Chopin wrote his Rondo in C for the two of them to play, he on his favorite Pleyel, Liszt on the Erard.

Until, of course, poor old Fryderyk coughed blood onto his keyboard (as A Song to Remember reminded us).........

If that chromaticism seemed novel in Bach's time, it was only because people had already forgotten the music of Lassus and Gesualdo, which could be very chromatic indeed. As has been said of Gesualdo's chromaticism, it was 400 years before anyone took chromatic writing any further.

Surprised no one has brought up this similar passage from the cadenza of the 5th Brandenburg:
[img:center]http://[/img]
Couple other observations:

The OP quotes the BWV 535, which (though an early work), is considered by scholars to be authentic. It is actually rather fun to play, if far less musically demanding than the later monumental F&F in G minor BWV 542.

The 'too many notes' issue with Mozart is of course a reference to Entführung, but ask any soprano who has sung the centerpiece aria 'Marten aller Arten', and they might agree that there are a lot of notes! (Years ago I was rehearsal pianist for a production of the opera.)

But no, not too many notes, just Mozart at his most virtuosic, exceeding anything he wrote for the piano.

Damon, I don't think I could ever get through that film again. It was as putrid as 'Impromptu'.

NYT not good enough then?

When you are in a hole stop digging.

You are the one who wrongly attributed the remark to Bach when it was to Mozart.

The "Emperor" was only 9 when Bach died? LOL. (I suppose you doubt the veracity of historical fact.......)

In case you didn't realise (- your post shows you definitely didn't), my earlier statement was meant to be a joke (hence, the ) - OK, it was a poor attempt at British humour, but I'd have thought that you'd have understood, living not too far from me.

I assumed that my following post about Joseph I (or 0) made that clear, but obviously not..........

BTW, just to be clear, all my other posts in this thread are in the same jocular vein. Including the one about minimalism. So, please, JSB, wherever you are, don't take offence......

Bach did it again in his organ-fugue in E-flat, BWV 532, also worthwhile in Busoni's pianoversion, this is perhaps the most silly fugue-subject of all times, but what he does with it, well, that's genius/God (as in SDG).

BWV 532 is in D. It is a great test of one's pedal technique, just ask me! Not sure why you say it is 'silly', why do you think so?

it's in D indeed, try humming the theme and the rests...

I'm coming to this late, I know, but what is so strange about the Messiah example?

As for phoning it in, what about this extract from a mature work? I think I could probably write counterpoint of this quality, though I couldn't begin to conceive or construct the magnificent contrapuntal space that it inhabits. I'm sure that phantom5 will be able to recognize the source - key signature is 3 sharps. When I hear this bar performed, I just long for it to be over.

Maybe it was the muzak of the day, to be played when people are walking in and out of church, for example.

Thanks for your vote of confidence, but I plead ignorance, I don't know its source lol.

As for that particular bar, if I were performing it, I would start by emphasizing the top note, and as the measure progresses, bringing out the bottom line, until the listener's attention is entirely focused on the bottom line and can hear the interplay between the two.

I see that measure as way to switch the primary voice from the treble to the bass. The last two notes especially, the bass is the most important (setting the root or whatever).

It is an "effect" of a sort, and I think it makes sense in the context of that fugue (the F# minor from WTC II, for those who might be wondering). It would never occur to me that it was the result of "phoning it in" - it's too deliberate and conscious for that, IMO. You may not like it very much, but that's a whole different issue.

JSB was a somewhat cantankerous chap, but he was also very pious. I believe that he really did write all his music "to the glory of God", so 'phoning it in' for me is inappropriate. His level of inspiration was incredible: all I can say is if it dropped at times, then that reflects, like his temper, on his humanity, not on his 'phoning it in' because he couldn't be bothered.

That example from the WTC is not the kind of thing we're talking about. How come you "can't wait till it's over"? It's over in about 3 seconds.

Yeah, I know. It's just always seemed to me that JSB inexplicably got lazy for one measure and resorted to ~3 seconds of insipid filler material in what is otherwise a masterpiece. Maybe my aesthetic insight is off-base; yes, it is only my opinion; there is purpose to the passage (ingeniously dissected by phantom 5); and it's not really an example of "phoning it in". I just cited it as tangential evidence that not every note of Bach is perfect (which sort of is the focus of the thread) and that even his best work can be marred by passages that are little more than empty rhetoric, IMO of course. Apologies to those who think I was wasting their time . . .

a great remark in an overall fun thread

plus, so much fuss for such a brief, and faster, passage in an entry-level piece most likely brought about for education of his pupils...

I love Bach's preludes