@@sutefuanu Chiara Massini is very good, but I don't like the way she cuts off the notes at the end of some of the phases. And the drama she gives is not the as dramatic. I prefer the way Karl differentiates the soft and loud passages. Robert Hill is another one I love for this piece but gives a very different interpretation than either Massini or Richter, but yet achieves high drama by use of momentum (I am talking about the recording he did in 2000 for haenssler CLASSIC.
@@epicaunleashed8764 I'm not used to it being played on the piano, but her performance is very dramatic. I think everyone has their own favorite of this piece as it can be interpreted very differently with each performer.
Although played on a non authentic harpsichord, no doubt Karl Richter was one of the best performers of Bach's music and an excellent musician. Thanks for this most impressive upload.
@@freezafrezado9472 Search this in RU-vid and you'll understand the difference in sound, between historic authentic harpsichord and non-authentic one (I chose for comparison the same musical work): Johann Sebastian Bach Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue in d minor, BWV 903, Marco Mencoboni, For a general information: in the mid of the 20th century, there was a revival of the harpsichord (as well as other music-instruments from the Baroque-era) for performing Baroque music. The first models were heavily-constructed, had external pedals like in a piano (for changing registers and doubling them) and had strong metallic sound which could compete the piano in concert-halls, due to the materials of the inner components - these were the non-authentic (like those made by "De Blaise" company, for ex.). At around the 70' of the 20th century, musicians began to demand authentic sound of the Baroque-era which were lighter and more gentle (though - less strong) and builders began to reconstruct authentic instruments, based upon original historic models.
@@wolkowy1 :: But is this, then, a "modern" heavy harpsichord? I think this instrument is not too metallic, but I suspect you can make harpsichords with featherlight touch which have a more "guitar-like" tone, warmer, less metallic.
Judging by the speed at which he played it, together with the fact that this is all played by heart, I have to conclude that Richter possessed a Ferrari-like brain. He drives through with impressive force and security.
I vividly remember hearing Karl Richter live in Firenze in 1974, where his interpretation of Bach’s fugues was so dynamic and spirited that it felt revolutionary. His performance infused such rhytmic joy and energy into the pieces that the audience couldn’t help but respond with enthusiastic applause, so much so that the presiding priest felt compelled to raise his hands, as if to ask for forgiveness for the excited crowd.
I want to be overcome in absolute tears. This...THIS is Bach. This one man truly, down to its very root, understood what it meant on how to approach Bach. What unparalleled mastery, wisdom and understanding of the art of portraying counterpoint and voice-leading we have here. Case closed. I now understand and realize, almost as if this is a revelation to myself, the harpsichord really is superior when it comes to learning and performing this music.
Some here are discussing whether this instrument is an "authentic" harpsichord. It is an interesting question if it gets to capturing the essence of Bach's intention in the music. I am not a musicologist, but I will share what I believe to be true. * There were different styles of harpsichord in the 17th century, some with one keyboard, others with two keyboards. Pedals were provided with some of the instruments to give access to an added set of strings * Bach had expressed that he loved the clavichord, which is a precursor of the piano. The clavichord allows volume control because the strings are struck rather than plucked. But clavichords were very soft in volume, so they could not be used in concert * Bach as a rule did not specify what instrument should be used to perform a piece, so he would have been OK if this and other keyboard pieces were played on clavichord or harpsichord * One could think that Bach might have relished the futher development of soundboards and key action that led to the piano. The clavichord allowed more expressiveness than the harpsichord but was too soft for public performance. So if early pianos were available to Bach (which they were not) would he have written a "Well-Tempered Piano" or its equivalent? Would he have enjoyed playing the Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue on a piano, or even on an enhanced harpsichord? Bach was an explorer in many ways, as this piece and the 4th Brandenburgh Concerto 1st movement show. He even wrote a Catholic Mass and it was one of the last pieces he worked on. So who can say with certainty that the modernized harpsichord is "wrong" with a composer who loved challenges and new ways of expressing? So what I am trying to point to, with the above, is that an "inauthentic" harpsichord may be in keeping with the spirit of Bach's musical intention, and in the end what matters is finding the best way to express the essence of the music. Each performer can do so with a range of choices of instrument, although I would not imagine, for example, playing this piece on the organ
@@martinbernhard1882 The action was heavy and the bass was lacking if I remember correctly. It had much potential and he undoubtedly saw that, but the piano needed more time to flourish. So long in fact that harpsichords were still being played alongside pianos during Beethoven's time.
I don't care whether the Neupert instrument is or is not a real harpsichord. Richter loved it, and it has something to do with Landowska enregistered sound...). Richter was a genious.
Pas de partition sur un compositeur Johann Sebastian Bach, réputé très technique. M. Bach et M. Richter se sont rencontrés à quelques siècles d'écart. Quel bonheur!
This piece, and this performance, gives the lie to those who say that the fugue is a dry and academic form without poetry, emotion and powerful expressive power.
@@OldPannonian Bach's sound and instrument choices for music involved very deep, arguably darker notes. Some required a bass that required 2 or more people to operate just to get the notes right. It has been a debate among many metalheads if Bach was in a modern age with the instruments of say the 80s or 90s, if his sound direction would've evolved into metal or if he'd have stuck with more traditional sounds of those eras. I can see it, personally, but I also think it would've popularized melodic metal, rather than let many popular forms of metal people know today that rely on trill, djent or other techniques that really don't translate into other instruments.
Thanks so much for posting this video. I'm ashamed to say I've never heard this Maestro before now. Is he still alive and performing? He is obviously a genius. His interpretation of the CF & F is world-class (I hate that term but it's certainly accurate in this case). Move over Andras. Move over Wanda! Move over Glenn!
Wanda Landowwska was very good in her way. Totally different from Karl Richter. Can't compare. Glen Gould was a bit crazy. It's so sad that Richter left this world still quite young.
Thanks, Tom---I certainly agree. Now that I've had a chance to hear this performance again, I'm afraid I find it lacking. Richter's reputation precedes him, of course . . . which is why it is with disappointment that I point to the rushing of the early portion of the Fantasia, and the too-great difference between the two registers there. The tempi seem more calculated to accommodate his ability or state of preparation, from one minute to the next, rather than to an overarching scheme that would bring the whole together as a single statement. In the Fugue, by contrast, I can't easily tell the difference between the two registers, which makes me wonder how he decided when to use each. Helma Elsner's recorded performance might be my favorite; Landowska's is of course unique. She cannot in any event be accused of rushing thoughtlessly through any piece of music, including this one; on the contrary she relishes every moment of it. Why Richter should seem to be thinking that he has better things to do with his time is a complete mystery to me . . .
Hahaha that harpsichord was built in the same years of this recording without any regards for the true harpsichords. Compared to a true harpsichord this monster sounds rather terrible.
How his left hand gets precisely the right notes when he's looking at the right hand area, I'll never understand. I mean, a computer k/b is one thing, but to be aware of positioning of that huge number of keys, it must be just absurd amounts of practice ?
This is not true! In Germany Richter is considered a legend, a genial and unsurpassed Bach interpreter (see J.Kaiser, the most famous German musical critic). Of course, as Karl Richter would say, "only a donkey can please everybody". He is disliked only by the fanatics of the philological interpretation, an experiment which produced modest results and is fortunately over.
@@annamcancarini6953 the absurd thing is no one really knows how Bach would have perforned his music or how he would have liked to heard others play it. Yet the purists think they do know !
Richter is Playing A Magnificent NEUPERT NAMED: MODEL “ BACH “ Harpsichord here.....how APROPOS 📣📣📣📣 My Favorite Harpsichord to play....It is 9 feet long and Magic to play......P.S. It has 7 Pedals 👑👑👑👑👑👑👑
@@daftheck1439 Richter played a special Neupert "Bach" Harpsichord with a 16''' Foot Register (means the Notes sound an octave lower than played) Here it is described: www.jc-neupert.de/en/node/48
Karl Richter était très bon, je me demande pourquoi ses vidéos commencent si souvent par un interminable silence (ici 31s). Idem à la fin. J'en ai un plein DVD (les Brandebourgeois) qui est très beau mais pénible, sauf à couper soi-même chaque MP3. Wed 07 Feb 2024 07h03 GMT
Until 3:05 the two registers are coupled: you see the keys of the top one moving with the bottom one. The top is clearly softer, and at 3:10 he has decoupled the two: when he plays the bottom keys, the top ones do not move. So effectively he has 3 different "sounds" available: bottom+top, bottom, top
I noticed that in the beginning and in the end of the fugue can be seen the back of the pedal set: I suppose he used the feet for either coupling/uncoupling the manuals or adding/removing stops.
The performance practice of the Baroque period considered the use of the picardy third to be somewhat up to performer's discretion. I can assure you he didn't miss it, he deliberately chose to play a d minor chord.
@Lari Kipe I am actually so thankful for the guys question and moreover your answer!! I will stay to true to the minor mode when at the end of the work if it is truly considered and up to the liberty of the performer!
I really must object. It is clear to me from a lifetime of listening to Bach (primarily) and other Baroque music that the composer determines major and minor and those choices are respected without question. I would be happy to look at your sources -- but never have I heard a performance of this or most other musics in which the last chord was arbitrarily altered, as if it were a mere decision of ornament.
@@ignacioclerici5341 Composers have the right to alter their music as they see fit. Performers ? Not so much, as I see it. There's a well-regarded (apparently) first violin in a certain lowlands Bach performance group who indulges himself with show-off ornamentation during recorded performances, leaning heavily (I guess) on the license a Baroque musician is given to improvise. Ruins the music, for me . . .
I play this fromemory. That way I geto listen and be not distracted by having to read the music. (After manyears have found that I have unintentionally changed a few notes.) Besto play everything fromemory.
Too many HIP harpsichords are MONOCHROMATIC. They have one sound, and it often is unpleasant. Bach may have loved modern harpsichords for all we know. The authenticity crowd can believe what they like, just stop being self righteous about it. Also keep in mind - the best selling recordings of Bach keyboard music and Scarlatti Sonatas are the ones by pianists. Abandon the rigid dogmatism once and for all!
Yes! Bach's favourite instrument was the lute harpsichord, which has a completely different sound from those mainly in use today. He probably would have loved an harpsichord so tonally rich that it even resembles an organ, as some user has pointed out.
One is left to wonder what this wonderful man might have done if he had played a real harpsichord instead of these dreadful Serieninstrumente of Neupert.
Just out of curiosity(and for the spark of an insightful conversation!), what is with Neupert Cristofori that you dislike? Would you not agree that this really is an astonishing instrument? I personally find the timbre of this very instrument model thee most alluring, strong, full-sounding I have ever heard from any harpsichord; I think it sounds above and beyond!
+CziffraTheThird I agree! The sound of a Neupert Harpsichord is one of the most beautiful ones, and by far much more expressive than Baroque instruments.
+anachreon01 In fact, Karl Richter always played Bach using modern instruments (for example, he played Brandenburg concerti with valved descant horns, strings with modern bows, piccolo trumpet), his performances were NOT historically informed.
