A little note regarding the rhythmic interpretation of the gigue, which is a surprisingly thorny question. Specifically: (1) What that time signature means, or, more precisely, whether it indicates compound time; (2) notwithstanding (1), whether Bach expected that the simple/duple rhythm would be tripletized in performance into conventional gigue rhythm; and (3) notwithstanding (1) and (2), whether playing the gigue as written or with a triplet rhythm is the better musical choice. [As an aside: if you want to hear tripletized interpretations of the gigue check out Schiff and Pinnock, who take the gigue in 24/16. Practically all other interpreters - Gould and Hewitt included - play it as written, though Hewitt acknowledges there is a choice between interpretations.] *1:* The barred circle time signature is not used by Bach’s contemporaries, and is never used before or again by Bach. To figure out what it means you’ve got to start with the simple circle time signature, which was an extremely archaic (even in Bach’s time) 14th-century time signature derived from Renaissance mensural notation denoting _tempus perfectum_ - which meant 3/4 time, but also came to denote a subdivision of beats into 3. (This rhythm was considered perfect because 3 was thought to be a more ideal number than 2, hence the use of a circle - the most perfect shape - to represent this. Incidentally, this is the origin of the “C” notation for common time. That’s not actually a capital c, but a *broken circle,* which used to represent _tempus imperfectum_ - imperfect tempo, with a duplet number and/or division of beats.) What the bar does to the circle is controversial. The bar definitely indicates some kind of rhythmic diminution (cf the barred C for alla breve), but what kind of diminution is unclear. It might mean _tempus perfectum, proportio dupla,_ or 6/8 time - basically, you have 9/8 with three beats in a bar, and then you steal one of those three beats, getting 6/8 (or 24/16). But, less conventionally, it might also mean you just go from 3/4 to 2/4, without further triplet subdivision, or stealing from each beat of 6/8 to get 2/4. (Very confusingly, there is also one lone source - Thomas Morely’s 1597 table of mensural notations - that says the plain O indicates imperfect time, which is super weird and extensively contradicted elsewhere.) There’s also the fact that the original time signature of this gigue actually *was* alla breve (barred C, with note-values halved), as notated in Anna Magdalena’s notebook in 1725 (what you see here is from 1731). So maybe Bach just assumed that sticking 2 alla breve signatures together would just make for a simple 2/1 or 4/2, or perhaps this time signature was just a copyist's or publisher's error for alla breve. *2:* Assuming the time signature really is 2/1 or 4/2, did Bach expect performers to play in triplet rhythm anyway? The argument for this is that it was a reasonably common baroque convention to notate music in non-triplet rhythm, with the expectation that the performer would make the necessary rhythmic adjustments (this is one of many similarities between Baroque music and jazz). So in the Tempo di Gavotta which precedes this suite’s gigue, you can hear that all the semiquavers have been tripletized, either lengthened to a triplet quaver or shortened to a triplet semiquaver. Two of Froberger’s gigues appear in the composer’s autograph in common time but in later publications appear in complex time, which was presumably an indication of how they were actually performed. Some French composers even wrote _en gigue_ as a performance indication into allemandes, suggesting that “gigue” indicated a triplet-rhythm performance style. And Italian composers would often write in compound meter for violin parts in gigues, while the bass remained in common time, though it was presumably playing in compound time. On the other hand - why didn’t Bach just write the triplets out when he did so in the piece immediately preceding this gigue, the Tempo di Gavotta? It’s in common time, but Bach clearly notates it as 12/8. And Froberger notated loads of gigues in simple time, while Bach wrote all his gigues in compound time - with just the exception of this gigue and the one in the French Suite No.1 (the latter of which is almost impossible to tripletize). So while notating gigues in non-triplet rhythm might have been common in the Baroque, it certainly wasn't Bach's practice. *3:* What about exclusively musical considerations? Though the stuff above is very interesting, this is the most important question - and it actually yields a pretty clear answer: play in duple rhythm, as written. There’s 3 reasons for this: A - The single most striking aspect of this gigue, and the one which gives it its mesmeric intensity, is the use of echoing notes between voices - basically, notes repeated an octave apart, staggered only slightly in time (seriously: start counting and you’ll see them everywhere). The use of triplet rhythm utterly wrecks this - the rhythmic emphasis naturally moves to the first note of each triplet, making the echoing notes (which often don’t come at the beginning of the beat) lose prominence. B - The Tempo di Gavotta which precedes the gigue is already in complex time, and is already unusually giguelike. (Bach probably did this deliberately, wanting to end the final piece of the final suite on a special note, and thus pushing the real gigue up to second-last place.) Having two compound-time gigues come right after another robs the finale of contrast, while having the angular and insistent gigue come after the more flowing Tempo di Gavotta makes for a nice finish. C - The compound-time version of this gigue sounds pretty jaunty and even a bit silly, mostly due to the long pauses in the theme. That’s not bad by itself, of course, but it’s really strange to end a partita as dramatic and concentrated as this one on that note. It might work if you didn’t listen to the Sarabande or the Toccata, though.
I completely disagree. I just heard Pinnock's harpischord version. It is no way silly and jaunty.The jagged rhythm is very bach-like, and very grandiose, in the same vein as the Toccata and Sarabande (their opening themes especially - I wonder if the long pauses in them make the music 'silly and jaunty'). Musically, it is all so fantastic, like a lot of voices weaving into one another: da daaaaa weaves into another da daaaa so on and so on.) Absolutely gorgeous. (and think about it. Which is more fearsome? da daaaaa da daaaaa or da da da da da da da da da da da da? I swear Jazz has completely corrupted our ears.) second, Bach is also very good at preparing you for climaxes. Can we not argue that Bach was preparing, with the Gavotte, for the Gigue? And why did Bach feel compelled to change the time signature? But real thanks for your effort in telling us, otherwise I would not have in any way realised.
Thank you for your comprehensive Annexed Notes. I am always amazed by your musicality that I wonder your background,which to me seems very well documented. I'm a self taught Pianist thats why ask such a Question: What is your background in Music?
What if you were to play in duple style for the first pass repeated section and then switch to triple when repeating? I feel so enthralled by both the duple and the triple style. The triple style reminds me a lot of Beethovens Grosse fugue in its thrust and exhilration and I would personally not want to miss out on that.
@@kevinnguyen552 I believe its an old notation. Mensural notation. It goes back to the renaissance. The markings indicate what was thought to be perfect and imperfect subdivisions of the beat. But I forget what means what exactly. It must have been an artifact of Bach's time to write like that
Just watched him (Anderszewski) play this tonight at the Barbican, followed by Szymanowski, Weber and Beethovens 31 sonata op 110, he played 3 encores one of which a prelude from wtc book 2, amazing pianist, best I've seen live thus far
Merci pour cette approche . C’est passionnant je suis admirative . quelle chance de pouvoir écouter toutes ces interprétations . De suivre la musique Merci
I do love the other partitas, so it doesn't trouble me that partita 6 is part of that body of work, but it is still the most transcendental and amazing of all of them.
The first sound of the Sarabande is Em/M7 9, ffs, and that's just one of countless examples. Chromaticism saturates the whole work, advanced chords everywhere. The 'Gigue' sounds nearly atonal in snatches with its the angularity, chromaticism, and unpredictable movement. Then there's the raw drama of the opener, the wild FUN of the Corrente, just the overall density of quality in this work. This really is a staggering masterpiece. Then think, this is in the same set as the Bb Partita, which sounds like it's from a different universe.
M. Ahsan those diagonal lines in the chord are an acciacatura, adding a D# and an F# to the chord. They’re not held, but they’re what hits your ear and determine how the rest of the chord is heard.
Ah, my 2nd favourite Partita. While a lot of people, rightfully, love his WTC, there is something about these Partitas that is special to me. Since I have played through every invention and played some of the preludes in the WTC, perhaps I can embark on this journey soon too :)
@@ajaysandhu4670 what?hah, you must have a very limited emotional life. i've experienced just joy and uncontrolled sobbing from music many times? have you not? if you haven't, you need to open your heart...sorry, don't respond, i don't have notifications.
Yes, it's the greatest partita but not sure that I'd say this is "a lot more serious and concentratedly expressive than it's five siblings" as opined in the introduction. While this may be true for partita no. 1 the other partitas in the set are substantial works; and nos 2 and 4 are major pieces too with significant opening movements. I guess that Bach wanted each of the partitas to display a different quality so, for instance, no. 4 is a French Overture complete with dotted rhythm. For this current partita my three stand outs are the Toccata, the Corrente and the Gigue which is a very angular and unusual piece. But it's all great.
I really like Anderszewski's take on this partia: it is daring in a good way. The toccata is dramatic and the corrente sounds almost "jolly". He uses playful dynamics that retain my attention and make me smile at times. At other times, they make for beautifully sad endings to phrases. Levit's performance, like stated in the description, sounds more "contemplative" to me, which makes for interesting comparative material after the almost "romantic" performance of Anderszewski. Anyway, that's what my poor little brain makes of it. Thanks for the upload :)
the fugue starting at 1:31, I always play very fast ... +- 1.25 you tube speed , from beginning till the end I maintain this velocity with a lot of power (one of the most cool fugues to execute) ... I think this fugue really would be so cool when executed by Il Giardino Armonico, with orchestra at a 1.25 velocity :)
@@roadguide123 It isn't as tricky as it looks. Bach has a way of making something look super difficult but once you have the correct fingering its fine. Also, I would definitely not play the toccata section so fast.
Whole-heartedly enjoying all of the Bach Partita uploads! Do you plan on uploading the French Suites, English Suites, or any of rest of the Clavier-Ubung sets?
@@codonauta Well I exaggerated I confess. But I prefer the gigue played as written (binary) rather than assuming a ternary and basically rewriting the piece... I have full confidence in Bach's ability to write what he meant.
Alan Leonel David very true. Not only that - check out the first four notes of the Andante and Sarabande, G-C-D-Eb. LVB uses those same notes to start crucial themes in the Pathetique, namely the second subject of the Allegro (transposed at first) and the theme of the Rondo. In the context of the near-undeniable quotation in the Grave, I’m convinced this is deliberate.
Both of them is playing beautifully in these recording, but as we can hear in the first movement (toccata) Anderszewski plays the A7 chord without arpeggio. It feels much more like a baroque mixed with a sturm und drang performance. Levit is also amazing, but he performs like this was a romantic piece.
I prefer Levit's more romantic approach to the piece. The piece itself is so romantic in its notes and honestly, I feel like if Bach had a modern piano he would've been a romantic
another good one is Pletnev from early in his career. Perhaps the hardest movement to bring off is the Gigue and he really scores here with his abandon.
It's funny you say that, because this is the Bärenreiter Urtext. It's by far and away the best edition available online, and I'd happily chose it again over all the other versions (of which there are many) online. Glad you enjoyed the video, anyway!
A couple of other versions that one might find interesting. Gould's version, then an excellent version by Ryan Layne Whitney on the clavichord. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lxkbltXdoKI.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_zhEJekr2dI.html
The nice thing about playing Bach -- and Baroque music in general, actually -- is how much freedom you have. Adding embellishments (and varying on repeats) is practically necessary for good Bach performance.
Hey, if you read this I just want to say two things. First, I wonder if you have heard the maria tipo recording of these? They are my favourite. Second, could you check out my playlist for 2nd mvoements of piano concertos, I have lots of obscure ones that are just insanely beautiful such as the martucci, paderewski, kabalevsky, howells concerto to name a few, if you do look into them, could you analysis them. They are worth it.
For Bach, the Art of Fugue, Goldberg Variations, French and English Suites. Interspersed will be Debussy, the Prokofiev and Scriabin Sonatas, and possibly a couple of Schubert Sonatas and Chopin's 1st.
I am unbelievably excited to see the art of fugue on your channel with your handpicked recordings. The AoF is probably the most expressively vast and complex set of "variations" that's ever been written.
Yes, it is. But I'm pretty convinced it's a work of far more musical worth than most commentators think, and it's genuinely puzzling that people like Hamelin -- who play some _really_ worthless stuff -- think that playing it is beyond the pale. It certainly does not rise to the level of the Bb and B Minor Sonatas, but it's respectable enough.
I think you should not mix the mensural notation with the modern transcription of it. The mensural notation was defined in a context of unbarred music and set proportional values between notes given a fixed tactus. So the circle means that one has 3 semi-breve for one breve and a prolatione imperfecta ie 2 half notes for one semi-breve. This is usually transcribed into a 3/4 time signature in our modern system by dividing the notes value by 4, but that was not the initial meaning of it. The vertical stroke is not a time signature, it is a change in the proportion; and it indicates that this is temporarily changed to one breve equals 2 semi-breve ie 4 half notes, which is what the piece is, in 4/1, with a duple proportion at the next level. The issue comes with the fact that essentially all gigues are always reffered to as being in triple time. You say " The argument for this is that it was a reasonably common baroque convention to notate music in non-triplet rhythm". In fact we dont know that for a fact. There are some indications that it could be possible, but not all experts agree on that. There are a number of cases of baroque pieces notated in duple time but that we believe should be played in triple time. That indeed seems to prove that it was a notational practice in baroque music to notate in duple time but to be played in something closer to a triple. The famous example that you give is the Froberger gigues which are notated in duple time by the composer hand, but in triple time in other sources. The question remains if that second notation is a rythmic transformation or the way the piece was supposed to be played. So we are down to assumptions here. The gavotte in the same partita indeed presents the same issue. In fact all other Bach gavotte are in straight duple time. This one is more in the rythmic form of a gigue and could have been notated also in 12/8. The question of whether or not the duple time should be assimilated to triplets is open. Some players assimilate and others dont. There is no agreement on that point either. Of all the gigues that Bach wrote, there are only 2 cases notated in full duple time. It is not a conclusive fact, but then the question remain why only those 2. Of course it can be du to any circumstance. So all in all, from a pure musicology point of view, there is no hard evidence one way or another and musically speaking it is difficult to figure out what would have been the intended effect in the context of the time. Therefore the best way to go is to let each player make its own decision based on his or her musical sense. I dont think there is a right or wrong answer here that can be rationally justified, even if personally I would go for the duple time.
For fans of this Partita may I also recommend David Fray's incredible live performance in an all Bach concert. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qt8-Td6kJnI.html. Pure genius imho.
This is wonderful and I applaud its availability to us by the user and through youtube. However, I'm so sick of ads - ads at the beginning in multiples, interrupting ads, ads, ads, ads... Google has absolutely ruined you tube with its corporate crap and sickening mentality... And it's getting worse each year! I know, I know, "How else you gonna pay for it..." Blah blah. It just sucks, is all I'm suggesting. And may the fleas of 1000 diseased camels infest and infect Google's business pukes...
Déjà c est une partita il me semble, le nom de l oeuvre. après comme dans les toccatas bwv 910-916 (chefs d oeuvres absolus) il y a une alternance de style.
@@yeshuaarcosmartinez6589 de rien. voici le lien vers les toccatas dont j ai parlé, jouées par Glenn Gould ça vaut mieux...,il y en 7 au total. mais la 1ere ecoute a été pour insuffisante pour en apprécier toute leur valeur et beauté.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6oyFuepFX_0.html
you missed gould's recording, which is however of inferior sound quality. much more haunting then these recordings. I think the bad recording technique really adds an extra layer to this music.
I haven't "missed" any of Gould's recordings. I don't put up recordings if they're too well-known, and in any case you run into copyright issues if you try to upload Gould.
Нет ничего удивительного, что произведения Баха можно играть быстрее, чем он думал. С его времени техника игры шагнула далеко вперёд. Но что нам нужно? Мы хотим сыграть это ноты быстрее других, или мы хотим осознать то, что Бах хотел нам открыть? Скорость исполнения нот уже доведена до предела. Стали ли мы понимать Баха быстрее? Понимание Баха не в скорости игры его нот. Чем быстрее - тем лучше. Нет ! Невозможно осознать Баха играя его быстрее, чем другие. Скорость игры не несёт понимания произведения. Это успешно доказал Глен Гульд, когда стал играть Баха всё быстрее. Он показал, что может играть очень быстро, но инсульт прервал его опыты.. Глен Гульд открыл нам нового Баха, но и попытался закрыть его.
Personally, I dare say that I hate practising Bach on the piano, his compositions are very demanding technically. But now, after more than 12 years of piano playing, I have started appreciating his music! Are you a pianist too?
The toccata is intended to be a victory over death, as much of Bach's music. The sorrowness in the beginning should be clearly heard, which means a SLOW tempo. Just because you've got a 300k Steinway with nice mechanics does not mean that you've to play as a rushed idiot in a competition.
Bach didn’t write music to explicitly mean things, and if he did, we still wouldn’t be able to say what this piece was about, especially not “victory over death”. Personally I don’t hear any victory in it at all, and you could just as easily it’s about death itself or about Christ or whatever you wanted. Yes, Piotr plays it WAY too fast for my taste and faster than almost any other performer, but there’s no tempo marking and I don’t think “SLOW” is really a good instruction either. Too slow and the setptuplets sound wrong and the fugue sounds stilted because the lines are too simple. The fact is the moderate tempo most performers choose is probably the right one, because numerous musical clues point us to the most likely intended tempo. This is true of almost all Bach’s works, they don’t need a tempo marking because it’s so clearly implied by the contours and movement.
@@LAK_770 If you play slowly you can hear the dissonances, they were put there for a reason. The problem with many "professional" performers is that their tempo is way too high so that they can show technical skill, but that's not understanding the music. For that you need maturity and experience of loss and grief.
@@LAK_770 agree, I think there are pointers within the music that are sufficient for tempi... As an example, there are numerous harmonic subtleties that pretty much disappear when played too fast - a great pity... More distantly related to this, I often think of the long walks Bach used to take to go and listen to a famous organist.... These guys walked for days on end...Theirs wasn't an era of speed... Just sayin, I have absolutely no evidence this is relevant but... :-)
@@chrrev1 Because I've experienced it. And Bach knew about death, many of his kids died, his wife died, his parents died early. That he lived so long was fortunate, no health care and he was overweight.
To be totally honnest I really dislike Anderszewski's interpretation of the toccata at least. Toccata comes from Toccare in Italiano which means touch. You have to touch the keyboard before attacking the fugue. So you have to hear all the notes. That's why I think he just plays way too fast and with no aim in the musical sentence. Those repeated notes of the first bar are just awfull according to me.
J adore Bach , mais ces pianistes feraient mieux de jouer ma musique plutot que de jouer des oeuvres déjà connues....on est dans un monde où on marche sur la tête....
