Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Bach Partita #2 Caprice - Quite Difficult!

I recently started learning the C minor Partita (http://imslp.nl/imglnks/usimg/6/6d/IMSLP00790-BWV0826.pdf) because I think it's a fantastic piece. Usually I don't have too much difficulty learning Bach. I played a lot of his organ music in my youth and although much of it wasn't exactly easy (e.g. the trio sonatas), I didn't struggle with it like I did with, say, Messiaen or Reubke (anyone ever tried his sonata?). More recently, on piano, I've learnt a couple of the English Suites (G minor, A minor) and, just for fun, the D minor concerto. So, getting to the point finally, I thought this Partita would be the same. Just a few fingering notations and I'd be good to go.

Not! I was able to do a preliminary sight-read through most of it, although I had to go very slowly in places. Then I got to the Caprice. Oh boy. I started reading through it at half speed (crotchet = 52). Fingers went into some kind of seizure. I couldn't get through it. Even at quarter speed(!) I had to keep stopping to figure out voice distributions and fingerings. So after a few days of fairly intense practice I've got it close to where I want it. But it's been tough; I can't just breeze through it, I really have to concentrate hard or it all falls apart.

Anyone else tried this piece? Am I alone in finding it to be particularly difficult?

I know there are Goldberg variations that are similarly difficult, but this movement looks so simple on paper. It's just when you try to play it that you (well, I) realize that it's not at all simple. I had to write in fingering for about 50% of the notes, which is almost unheard of for me!

Here's a nice performance:
http://listenagain.canstream.co.uk/celticpodcast/audio/podcast-2014-06-16-55487.mp3

Here's one that I would have expected to hate, because it's Martha, but which I actually think is rather good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mFDXNODNyc
What I really like is that she makes it LOOK hard, which makes me feel a lot better!

This is Glenn Gould. Strangely cold, but still pretty good I think. Caprice starts at 25:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6AVYXxR6-U

Hi, SiFi! I agree completely; IMO, Bach wrote it as a virtuoso "finisher". I've been working on the Partita in G, and he does the same thing there: the Gigue, particularly the second section, is just loaded with leaps, ornamentation, melody between the hands,etc, all intended as a virtuoso challenge to finish off the Suite. Very exciting, but of course brutally difficult for the performer.

So glad to know that I'm not the only one. And yes, the Gigue at the end of #5 is at least as tricky. Thanks for helping me realize that I'm not losing it Tim.

It's one of my favorite movements in all the Partitas, though I've never tried to tackle it. Maybe someday. Unfortunately, I found that the performance by Gould in SiFi's link is blocked for me.

Here's a preliminary take on my out-of-tune piano (sorry for that). Needs to go faster and I think repeats are important for this movement, so that too. Far from perfect, but it's a start. I'll put it in the member recordings as well to make it easier to get to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1BosbTecg0&feature=youtu.be

The Capriccio does have some tricky leaps, but I've always found the fugue to be the most challenging movement (due to all of the awkward runs).

OK, so I posted another version in Member Recordings. If you aren't inclined to track it down there, here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjILUShbAUs&feature=youtu.be. It's a bit better than the last one, I think. Faster, more variation, and all that.

I listened to both versions. But I must say I really liked the first one ... the clarity of the voices was very pure and beautiful. The second version seems rushed ... almost emotionless.

As far as I know there is no way of ascertaining exactly what tempo Bach actually wished. Since the metronome and its calibrations were unknown at that time . I personally suspect that today's performers play everything much more quickly .... almost in a competitive spirit. I don't believe Bach never encountered a piano until he was about 60 ... he composed mainly for the organ ... and the clavichord and harpsichord ... none of which support breakneck speed.

For me one of the great joys of playing music of that era is that the "urtexts" are so clean of dynamics ... that the scope for the performer is left wide open.

As a composer today for young students, I leave my scores "open for interpretation" which allows both the composer and performer to share in the artistic "creation". And have been criticized vastly for my stance.

When I listen to Bach, I want to marvel at the independence of the voices .. the perfection of the interweaving of melodic elements. I don't care a rat's A about speed.

Hi, SiFi! Just listened to both "takes" -- agree with you that the 2nd version is more successful. For me, much more so -- the 1st sounds rather labored and "careful", whereas the 2nd sounds like you're much more confident in the decisions that you've made regarding this piece. Frankly, for this particular piece I think faster IS better, but only to the extent that it supports a sense of "the dance" -- the invitation to just get up and click one's heels. For my taste, your "repeat" sections were more successful, because it was overall lighter and quieter with more dynamic contrasts between the hands, while still fully maintaining the dancing pulse. I guess I would also look to hear more left hand integration with the right; without getting specific, too much feels like "notey" accompaniment figuration. But overall, a very musical, exciting rendition, and thanks for sharing the two "takes"!

P.S. I listened to the Argerich recording -- for me, that's an example of "too fast". Instead of dancing, I now feel like I'm being asked to be in awe of the speed at which precision can be maintained, but for its own sake -- consequently, I think some of the "joy" is removed. Just an IMO, although I have to admit I am indeed in awe of her prodigious technical capabilities.

The first version is quite good, but I agree with Tim the 2nd version sounds more confident and is thus, to my ears, more effective. While Martha's approach is perhaps a bit too fast this is one of those pieces by Bach that should be played at a quick tempo. Tim's comment about dances being very much on target, it should be a joyous, carefree, let it all out dance. There are so many pieces by Bach that call for such treatment that the concept of Bach as a dour old man never made sense to me. The man was definitely serious, but could let go and let loose. The stories from his own time about his playing ability make that clear. Just the old story about him throwing his wig at someone for being a "nannygoat bassoonist" is indicative that he sometimes wanted robust sound and quick tempos. You may find benefit from getting the tempo even quicker not for performance purposes but for that much more confidence at this tempo.

Hi SiFi, congrats, you did a really good job! I play this partita too, and I agree it’s tough stuff, it took me a while to put it in good shape.

I got some wrong notes. Maybe your edition is not accurate. Mine is Bärenreiter Urtext and I have in bar 16 A and B natural in the second voice, in bar 18 as well. And in bar 38 left hand B and A natural too. He is using the melodic scale.

I like very much your first take. Everything is very clear, and the second take in my taste is rushing in some parts and it’s true that you sound like you want to make it more variated and add some dynamics but sounds a bit random to me.

If you really want to play it with more contrasts I suggest you to follow the structure of the piece. So you could play for example the subject or answer more loud and the episodes a bit more gentle.

Here is my analysis of this fuge:

First part:

Exposition S-A-A (1-10), 1st episode (11-18), 1st Middle-Entry (19-21), 2nd episode (22-27), 2nd M-E (28-30), 3rd episode (31-34), Stretto (35-39), 4th episode (40-48).

Second part:

Exposition inverted S-A-S (49-62), 5th episode (63-69), 3rd M-E (70-72), 6th episode (73-76), Stretto (77-80), 7th episode (81-86), Stretto not inverted any more (87-93), Closing (94-96).

(Sorry if I'm wrong with the english terms)

I saw some inefficient fingering in bar 52. You managed to do it… but playing 4 5 4 when the 5 is in a black key and you have to go in and out very fast, it’s a bit risky. Better if you play with 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 the right hand and the left hand plays the two voices 5- 1 1- 5 5. It’s just a suggestion.

Then bar 61 the left hand should go in before you do it. You have a black key in bar 62 so when you play this scale move gradually and not at the last moment. It would be more confortable.

And then there is the section from bar 81 to 86. Quite tricky! A lot of people play it like you, holding the note with the finger 2 and playing the other voice with 3 4 5, but it’s a bit dangerous because it opens too much between fingers 2 and 3. So another possibility would be to play the second voice just with the thumb like that: 35 11 354535 11 343535 11 etc. That’s what my Taubman teacher told me, but it’s completely up to you.

But I really liked it. You got it very fast. And I’m sure you are going to play it wonderfully. Thank you for sharing it.

I definitely like the second version better, and I suggest that you continue to build up the tempo. Regarding Argerich, I have her early studio recording of the Partita #2 in c minor, and I loved her aggressively fast tempo for the Capriccio. In many cases, I think that one should play more rapidly than is musically necessary. It allows you to show off your technique, and it certainly sounds exciting.

I am working on this, still! Great thread- thank you! (following)

I am working on this, still! Great thread- thank you! (following)

Thank you for this incredibly detailed dissection. How do you see and hear so much and so clearly?? You must have incredibly sharp ears and eyes!

Case in point: bars 16 and 18. I think you are right in both cases. I've actually been using Bach's manuscript (well, a facsimile of course) to resolve textual issues. In b.16 I simply misread Bach's handwriting. The accidental in front of the B looked like a flat to me, which would have made sense because he's already naturalized the B (second note) so why would he do it again on the same stave. But you're right, it's a B-natural. In b.18, however, he duplicates the natural before the A from earlier in the bar, but there's nothing in front of the B, so by comparison with the earlier case in bar 16 one might think that he meant Bb, which is what my Schirmer edition has explicitly. But I think the absence of an accidental supports your case that it should be natural and that therefore Bach was just being inconsistent.

In bar 38, on the other hand, the manuscript is quite clear. Yes, he's using the melodic scale, but in the left hand it's the descending version, so Bb and Ab. The RH has the accidentals, so there he's using the ascending version of the melodic minor scale for a descending figure, which of course he has every right to do.

Your other recommendations I've "taken under advisement", though I should say that I agree with you about the problem in b.52. Unfortunately I can't stretch an Eb - G 10th, so your suggestion won't work (I don't use the sustaining pedal). I've tried different ways of doing the right hand; the one I settled on seems the easiest. I'll try your suggestion for 81 to 85 tomorrow.

So thanks again for taking so much care with this. And BTW, your "English terms" are just fine!

I have that recording also. Joe80 IMO made a valid observation in the Member's Recording section:

I think that Joe80's point is definitely valid. I believe that Argerich (and other pianists) often play extremely rapidly because they want to show off their technique (which I think is a perfectly valid reason for choosing an insanely fast tempo).

Yes, quite difficult.

Even for some Chinese pianists. So that they even don't take the repeats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJXrabitDYQ

I don't have the recording, not being a heavy duty "argerichfan". But I do like the performance in the video and I think the tempo works in the context of that interpretation.

This one not so much IMO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZcrq-qDJGU. Here I believe she crosses the velocity sanity threshold! But then again it's an encore, so the context could be said to justify her tempo choice.

More generally, I also agree with Joe80. It's fascinating how much opinions vary as to the "right" speed for this movement but it's absolutely true that the interpretive vision has to explain or justify the tempo and not the other way around.

Thanks to everyone for sharing your observations, suggestions, opinions. I am always awed by the knowledge, thoughtfulness, and musicianship of the contributors to this forum. I'm so glad I was introduced to it! I'll probably post one more take which I want to make light and fast, just to see how it works . . .

Well that is good to know. I still don't totally get why this piece is so difficult - it really looks innocuous on paper. But at least it's worth the effort!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_J2o5t87Lk

Don't try to catch up Argerich like him. It does not sound good under incorrect hands.

Yep, pretty soulless, I agree, albeit remarkably proficient mechanically speaking.

"Some" Chinese pianists ??

Apparently no one told the kid that the piece is difficult.

As -apparently- no one told Argerich that Gaspard was supposed to be difficult.

The anecdote with her teacher Friedrich Gulda is part of Argerich lore, yet I find it odd that when he assigned her Gaspard, Martha had no previous knowledge of its legendary difficulties.

She certainly spent some time learning Rachmaninov 3 (though it was more of a musical polishing, not technical), and reportedly the Strauss Burleske was a challenge, though one wouldn't know it from the video. At any rate, she seems not to have played it since her note-perfect performance with Abbado.

I have read through the Strauss. It is unbelievably awkward -that could be an understatement- but IMO it is a great piece of music, especially considering Strauss was only 19 at the time, and he performed the first run-through.

Sorry for OT!

Yeah, it's pretty amazing, even without repeats!

OK, last one I promise!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSlHXU-DyOA&feature=youtu.be

This is significantly faster: quarter note = 120, give or take. Getting close to Martha speed - she's around 126-128. Unlike some pieces, this one doesn't get easier when you speed it up, which is why I totally ballsed up bars 12 thru 14. However, I did try to incorporate some of y'all's suggestions and also played the correct notes in the LH scale passages on page 1.

I don't want to take it at this speed in performance, though I suppose I could be persuaded to if people like the tempo. So, anyone?

Thanks again for all the excellent feedback. I love this forum!!

I'd stick with the tempo in Take 2. You have better control - and the playing is much more musical. Forget Martha and enjoy being Simon !!

At some point you're going to memorize this - correct?? That may help improve accuracy.

You've inspired me to buckle down and learn this one myself. I doubt I'll play it as well as you - but the doggone thing sounds and looks like so much fun !!

OMG it is! SO much fun. OK, so there's music that's easy to learn because you can get it to concert speed/standard fairly quickly (random examples L'Ilse joyeuse, Brahms Op. 117), then there's music that's hard and tedious to learn (e.g. Beethoven late sonatas, lots of Schumann, Mendelssohn, most contemporary composers). Then there's pieces like this and late Chopin and even Prokofiev and Messiaen, where the music just glows with color whatever speed you're practicing at and where you feel physically in touch with the music with the feel of every note. Learn this piece. It will bring you great joy.

I pretty much have memorized this. However, I don't know how confident I would be walking out and playing it to a serious audence. It's not "quite" difficult, it's really really difficult.

Thank you so much for your comments.

I listened to this after a couple of glasses of wine and liked it. Difficulty not an issue because of the tempi, but it is almost hypnotic. Quite beautiful in fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_Nto_-j5Ao&feature=youtu.be

All good. I could get philosophical on texts, discourse, semiotics, and structure, but for me clean and pure is the perpetual pardigm. I think your point about performers sharing in the process of creative "solution" of art is spectacularly on point. For the Caprice, I've been working from a facsimile of the manuscript; there's enough there to justify all manner of edifying interpretations, but also enough to invalidate an equal number of bad ones. I've posted 3 versions of this piece, all quite different, but I think they each have a valid story to tell because I've taken the trouble to do the groundwork and examine sources.

Keep it up with the "open to interpretation" thing. I love that.

Beautiful indeed - even without the libations !! Here's another....this time on harpsichord...which seems to lend itself to a faster tempo.
https://youtu.be/R_R0qCUE3l0

Gorgeous! I do think pulling out all the stops (literally) for the Capriccio is overkill - that movement would be more effective with a lighter texture IMO - but the performance is quite wonderful. Thanks for sharing it Carey.

This entire Partita is well beyond me for the time being, but I would love to learn just the opening Sinfonia someday. How difficult is it if one doesn't take the fugal section too fast? In my opinion, most pianists, especially Argerich, play it too fast and turn it into an etude!

There's a couple tricky left hand parts towards the end of the first movement but its not that bad.

Well, I just wrote the fingering in for about 40% of the notes - which is par for the course for me with Bach. And I'm sure I'll be making some adjustments once I put the hands together. You're correct - it isn't as easy as it initially appears !!

But it's worth it, right? Great decision to learn this piece.

SiFi, you are a really fast learner. I’m impressed. If you did that just in a few days I can’t imagine what you could do over a longer time period!!

About bar 38: I'm sorry if I am so persistent about this, and I know it is in the manuscript, but before taking your last decision you may consider the false relation that produces in the other voice. In my ears that sounds quite bad, and if you really want to listen to the evidence play it in a distance of a third between the two voices instead of the two octaves separation that is written.



The other reason is because in every recording I’ve heard it’s been played this way and it’s more familiar to me.

But I don’t have any more reasons, and I don’t know if they are really convincing, but I’m curious what the other member who also play this partita think about and how they addressed it.

Anyway, great job.

I hear you on the false relations, but, JSB is full of them. And if you want an absolute doozy, look no further than the penultimate bar of the Sarabande, where the cross relation is perhaps the least startling harmonic event within the extraordinary segment. So I'm going Ur on this. No offense . . .

At the speed the OP is playing it at and that Chinese kid and several others it’s fairly straight forward maybe even grade 8 level, but at faster speeds it’s very tricky indeed even for acclaimed professional pianists and takes months to prepare correctly.

Even relatively slowly I still think it's above grade 8 level, but I totally agree with you about the rest. Actually, I feel some embarrassment listening to the first two takes in the thread. I eventually did get it up to speed. This take was recorded somewhere along the way. The caprice starts at 2:40.