D. Buxtehude Passacaglia d-moll BuxWV 161 - Loriane Llorca, l'orgue Cité de la Musique de Paris 

I was lucky to hear her play at st Sulpice on a visit in 2017 I was blown away.

In 1707, while being organist at Arnstadt, Bach went to visit Buxtehude and most likely composed the Passacaglia and Fuge in C-minor after returning from his study visit to Buxtehude. So yeah, it does sound like Buxtehude (one might wonder why).

The themes are very short & similar. Good Ole johnny Brook most likelly composed it when he visited Diderik/Dietrich(?) Buxtehude, like Mr. Teso mentioned in 1707. Since the Passacaglia, including the fugal theme is "21" variations, I suspect being the cheeky bugger that Bach was, that he composed it on his 21st B-Day(that an aldo because the 14th variation-which adds his name: B=2, A=1, C=3, H=8, all add up to 14) is the most interesting one! The number 14th always held a very "mystical" place for Bach!

Maybe, but reverb is easy to add while impossible to remove. IMHO this way one can hear every pitch really clearly which is fun. I'm for placing microphones in physical locations for accustic effects, electrical reverb is usually annoying because it's not at a natural/logical level...

@@Microsoft-Windows True, natural reverb would be vastly preferable. I'm surprised there does seem to be one in this recording. However the reverb choices offered by audio programs are impressive and sound real good. I"ve always used "Light Concert Hall" for my piano recordings and "Large Hall, Occupied" for my organ recordings. Indeed if you overdo it you may lose some of the clarity and transparency. Yet, arguably, the overall picture is more important than all the little details.

Chris Breemer True, it's a compromise. I myself like details so I prefer light reverb. I agree with you, perhaps a slight more reverb would be better, but I prefer less reverb than too much of it :)

@@Microsoft-Windows Yes. Easy does it :)

The soft voicing of the pipework has apparently been designed for dry acoustics. Churches with dry acoustics were (and still are) frequently encountered by the North Sea - stone was rare and churches generally had flat, wood-paneled roofs. To me, this consistent whole (acoustics, organ, piece, playing) leaves nothing to be desired. Of course there are other, equally valid, interpretations. See Michel Chapuis, Harald Vogel, Jean-Charles Ablitzer and quite a few others.

If you can, find a recording of Alf Linder playing this work. Very effective.

@@durupi Thank you. I'll check into your recommendation. I remember when I learned this piece in undergraduate school, and I guess I prefer my version. But she played very well, I think.

Unfortunately, the organ and the room are not large enough to carry and give body to her interpretation.

That sounds more romantic, like Reger. i think Buxtehodes vision was more modest.

@@degautaborg Thanks for your reply. When composers leave us no, or very ambiguous, interpretive "directions" (as many early composers did), it's simply a matter of the performer's personal taste. It's all anyone's educated guess. 😃

Göran your commentary is sad !

No, not sad. I would say solemn, which could be happy or sad.

It´s a dirge, no doubt, but the best.

No! Music in a minor key is not always sad.

But since we have you to bring us joy .....