This is the first performance I have heard of BWV998 (on any instrument) that never gets flat and boring! Richter brings the middle section of the fugue to vibrant life by accentuating the melodies of the 'hidden' middle voices. I think his choice of tempo is also brilliant.
The enigmatic # which appear above the eighth note F# , in the end of measure 18 of the fugue (time 3:21). Some performer plays as F#. Segovia when transcribed that for guitar adopted F# played 2 times, not natural F and F# in the first eighth note of the next measure, Tausig when did for piano went direct to F# 2 times, as Segovia. Other, as Richter, here plays as a chromatic movement, F natural, F#, G in that voice. It makes no sense that it was a Bach mistake, that he forgot to set the # for those first F, but the little # appears above in the score to make a signal of dubiety. The problem is that always a similar motive appear in other parts of the fugue there is no the chromatic F , F#, G ( in other pitches) but F#, F#, G.
I am not a musician but I heard this piece numerous times on the guitar, and it seems to me that all the time I heard F#, F# in that particular place, so, the natural F, F# sequence sounds ill-placed to me. But it is an interesting puzzle, indeed; thank you for noticing it.
Actually the reason it is chromatic rise only in this place is to do with harmony and structure (rather like a fugue subject "morphs" with a tonal answer). It also makes it stand out to the listener. You can find other examples of this in Bach's music.
Bach sempre nos impressionando! Olhem a escrita!? Poucos elementos que se entrelaçam maravilhosamente! E a interpretação de Richter está a altura. ( A música de Bach veio me socorrer... nos socorrer nesse momento tão difícil.)
I want to say thank you for all high-level comments posted here. I write now as an engineer, which doesn’t know so much about music theory or about musical interpretation. This is because Bach inspire in mathematicians and engineers a different state of wonder than it does in musicians. We use simple instincts trained by previous music listening and try to perceive the logic behind each voice of the composition as a separate melody. Some of Bach compositions are taken as examples for an abstract subject of mathematics called “group theory”. For us, regardless of either the harmony theory or the rules of interpretation, the preferred musician is a guy that impress a different, precise and “logical” dynamic for each voice. For us, piano is better than harpsicord, due to its dynamic capabilities. For us, Glenn Gould and Sviatoslav Richter are two of the preferred pianists and I know that these two pianists nourished mutual admiration. I’ve heard most of the interpretations posted here and I liked them all; but I must confess that I preferred Richter due to the reasons I explained above. Despite of all discussion about this subject, I really believe that BWV 998 was written for lute and the recommendation for cembalo was just a concession due to its technical difficulties. My belief is founded in the “magic” consonance that the prelude provokes when two notes are plucked at the same time in the lute; this consonance simply disappears in the clavichord of Benjamin Steens, in spite of his wonderful interpretation. I believe that Benjamin Steens’ interpretation has the recording of Göran Söllscher as a hidden reference. Söllcher has my preferred interpretation of all times. I believe that his dynamic and his tempo are perfect, together with the “magic” consonance of his guitar. Every time I hear about a good interpretation of 998’s prelude, I compare it to Söllscher recording: up to this moment I haven’t heard any interpretation that defeat it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mfyUmRwhPeM.html J.S. Bach: Prelude, Fugue and Allegro in E Flat Major, BWV 998 (Arr. for Guitar and Lute) - I. Praeludium · Göran Söllscher
@@Aaron-dj2vi The presence of parallel fifths (or sometimes fourths) is not necessarily a crime. Bach did it this way to keep the bass/tenor lines close enough to resolve into the third. Plus, they are offset by four factors; first, contrary motion from the soprano. Second, there is an eighth rest separating the two dichords, so the motion is not as obvious (on top of being masked by contrary). Third, in that eighth rest space, the soprano plays F ahead of the second fifth, filling the space and making F the actual note before the second fifth (playing a note of the chord beforehand), so it doesn't stick out as much. Finally, the harmonic motion that bach has been building up throughout the piece adds further justification to the direction the line is moving. So, in conclusion: yes, he wrote what are technically parallel fifths, but they are masked in an extremely masterful way to serve the greater purposes of the prelude. Plus, intentionally breaking rules in counterpoint is important! We can appreciate the mastery of composers in how they follow rules, but anyone can follow rules. We glimpse someone's genius when they 'break' the rules in a way that works for the piece and the music. Analyzing how composers approach these tiny issues is a gateway into understanding their priorities and their philosophy when writing. So, whenever you see parallel perfect intervals, don't bring down the hammer of judgment, but instead ask "why, how, and what was the result?".
@@curaticac5391 Have you heard the Williams and Barruecco versions? If you like precise and clean playing then these are exemplary. Dare I say incredible!!
There is guitar version that brings out the choral-like interplay in the fugue that Richter performs here (this and the upbeat tempo of the fugue which simply is not possible on the guitar). Paul Galbraitht and Fábio Zanon attempt the interplay that Richter pulls off effortlessly here, but their performances (as those, as fine as they may be, of every other guitarist including Barrueco, Russell, Williams, etc.) are no where near the musical level of Richter here. It's just the inherent limitation of the guitar regarding these kind of contrapuntal textures which on the keyboard are just much more natural.
Stefano Crosazzo, Bach composed a lot of music, but how often do we find parallel fifths in his music? Not often, and the reason? Parallel fifths sounds badly in the old style, which is why the rules arose. We who compose music in the old style do not make fun of the old rules, for they are good and should be followed in the old style. These days, we find parallel fifths also in our chorale books. Here, parallel fifths sounds perfectly ok because of different music styles. But there's an old rule that I think we should still follow, and it says: "Don't double the lead tone." I hear that rule is broken in pop, rock and jazz music.(I'm listening to those music styles with pleasure.) "Sure listen, does it matter?" Yes, it does matter, because regardless of the style of music - a doubling of the lead tone sounds bad!
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 I am! I recently finished the first fugue and have now completed the exposition of the second fugue, however, I've hit a roadblock. I'm not sure how to continue where I left off. In the meantime, I've been working on composing a sonata in the Galant style. It's coming along quite well!
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 Also, I thought I should mention that the fugue is an amalgamation of BWV 849 and 846's subjects. They fit decently well together (BWV 849's subject is transposed to C major)!
Why is everyone praising this? The work is played by Richter in such a plain, flat way, without the most minimal knowledge of baroque interpretation. The bass notes are not left sustained as should be naturally in the lute and are actually turned off inmediately, and the rhythm is played so sistematically it is boring and unreal. The fugue is taken at an extremely fast tempo. If you want to hear a good version of this listen to the Benjamin Steens clavichord version. You're welcome
