Ask and you shall receive. My very smart RUclips algorithm presented this to me almost immediately after I asked the question of who were the musicians! Sometimes, I love life...:) I'm going to follow y'all on Twitter.
I like to think that Contrapunctus XIV is actually finished as it is. It is the last piece of his great compendium and it ends by intertwining the first two themes with the very final BACH - that really seems like a signature, doesn't it?
I understand what you're saying in spirit, but it is certainly incomplete, and I think Bach could have taken the fugal development even further given the opportunity.
@@OrlandoAponte He wrote the fugue like 5-8 years before he died however. That's a long time for industrious Bach to sit on a half completed work. Especially for a work he likely regarded as his magnum opus.
@@SlateFx His own son (CPE Bach) wrote "While writing this fugue the composer died where the name B A C H appears in the counterpoint" on the manuscript autograph. I'm surprised this is even a controversial topic. Bach also suffered a stroke late in life and became blind, so he often had to verbally dictate notes to his son to compose. Even if I knew none of the history, anyone can tell that the work is unfinished by listening to it or looking at the score. In fact, it is painfully and disappointingly unfinished. It's incredibly unnerving to listen to the "ending." It doesn't even end on a perfect authentic cadence, let alone a unison/resolution.
@@OrlandoAponte I take a much more romantic view, that it was a stylistic choice to fit his namesake, the ending melody being like stream that quietly and unassumingly slips back into the ocean, his whole life's work now finished. It is a fact he wrote many things himself in his later years, albeit with shaky handwriting, yet this final fugue, likely composed before he went blind, he sat on for what reason?
There is actually a mathematical perfection about the Contrapunctus XIV theme. One could see the link with the main subject of Contrapunctus I looking carefully on the score...
So many highly competent musicians - and a lot of 'intelligent bla-bla-bla' over Bach's last major harpsichord work... and no harpsichordist..... ??? Come on!! Looking forward to the next 'arrangement' - BWV 828, the fourth Partita, for Männerchor...
Don't you mean organ? Of course I kid (it works so marvelously on either, and as primarily an organist of course I'd say organ) I would say statements like we don't know what instrument he intended are a little on the "look at me being so fancy and philosophical" side. The pieces fit too damn well in the hands. It is a little sad they included no harpsichord... Especially some sexy 16' harpsichord... While I think this is a great way to give all the lines unique clarity, this is a little bit of a weird and unsatisfying approach. Too idiosyncratic.
I still can't believe Sato used The Swingle SIngers version of Contrapunctus 9 to fill his own and there is no mention of it. You can't pretend that was your own idea and your own arrangement no matter how I look at it. It's just too distinctive. It might work, but you can't stop people to think that you simply copied them giving up your originality. Of course the similarity that is too close to my ears might not cause any copyright issues, but there should be the respect for the creativity at least.... That was the only fugue they recorded from the art of fugue and you copied it. I wonder....What was the reason you pick that up... There are so many other ways to perform the same piece, even if you use the same voices. My heart went cold when I listened that part... can't keep listening any more. The swingle Singers...a lesser version. Or different. Those are classical singers, obviously. No blame for them however. It's just this decision making. One good thing about this was to remember how fabulous The Swinlge Singers were. Live 1994 was mind blowing for instance. Their achievement is more important than you think. Don't think like you can use it freely and nobody cares.
Thanks for your feedback. It's good that you noticed and pointed this out. You are of course right, Shunske Sato knew the recording of the Swingle Singers. If you make an instrumentation for the entire Art of Fuge and decide to use singers, you can hardly ignore their example. Shunske Sato chose very consciously to have Contrapunctus no. 9 sing. It is certainly not intended as plagiarism, rather as a tribute. Nowadays citing or using someone else's work is often seen as stealing, in Bach's time it was very common to use and incorporate it into your own if you appreciated someone else's work. Precisely to honor someone and show that his or her work has inspired you. That's what Shunske Sato meant. We have now slightly modified our accompanying text to explain this.
@@bach "Nowadays citing or using someone else's work is often seen as stealing, in Bach's time it was very common to use and incorporate it into your own if you appreciated someone else's work. Precisely to honor someone and show that his or her work has inspired you. That's what Shunske Sato meant. We have now slightly modified our accompanying text to explain this I totally agree ! BACH himself, was inspired by another guy, named Antonio Vivaldi. They were contemporaries.
@ ttwiligh7 "You can't pretend that was your own idea and your own arrangement" Did NBS do what you firmly think and write ? Where did you read that they "PRETEND that was their own idea and own arrangement" PRETEND ? Let me ask you something, Mr or Miss. Do you REALLY think that NBS can play as they do - this magnificent, wonderful version - for a worldwide audience and, in the SAME time, have they heart and mind closed and worried by the shadow of plagiarism ?
@@taf44tt8io I questioned Sato and NBS and they responded sincerely. I'm now happy and satisfied. If they have more to say to me, I'm happy to hear from them, not from someone else. I really don't know why you try to stir things up again like a personal issue. Yep. The whole thing "looked like" pretty much the way I described above, at least to my ears and eyes. Even if that wasn't their intention. It just didn't look fair. You can say that's just me, very much personal response, maybe misunderstanding, however, it is very important for them to know how some audiences feel about this whole issue. So I led them know. And they took it seriously. Obviously, they did what they should have done after the talk. They agreed on that with me. The conversation is over. No need to talk about it now.
The Netherlands Bach Society is one of the world's treasures.
Großartig erklärt und gespielt, dankeschön. 🎶👍🌺
Brillant ! As always.
Ask and you shall receive. My very smart RUclips algorithm presented this to me almost immediately after I asked the question of who were the musicians! Sometimes, I love life...:) I'm going to follow y'all on Twitter.
wonderful.
Thanks a lot! Bravi!❤❤❤
Brilliant.
Now I'm going to have to be on the lookout for Baroque scat singing when I watch the actual performance video . . . .
Wow.. the Nederlandse Bachvereniging goes Swingle Singers!! (from 5':00")
genial!
I like to think that Contrapunctus XIV is actually finished as it is. It is the last piece of his great compendium and it ends by intertwining the first two themes with the very final BACH - that really seems like a signature, doesn't it?
I understand what you're saying in spirit, but it is certainly incomplete, and I think Bach could have taken the fugal development even further given the opportunity.
@@Robert_1685 Because he died
@@OrlandoAponte He wrote the fugue like 5-8 years before he died however. That's a long time for industrious Bach to sit on a half completed work. Especially for a work he likely regarded as his magnum opus.
@@SlateFx His own son (CPE Bach) wrote "While writing this fugue the composer died where the name B A C H appears in the counterpoint" on the manuscript autograph. I'm surprised this is even a controversial topic. Bach also suffered a stroke late in life and became blind, so he often had to verbally dictate notes to his son to compose. Even if I knew none of the history, anyone can tell that the work is unfinished by listening to it or looking at the score. In fact, it is painfully and disappointingly unfinished. It's incredibly unnerving to listen to the "ending." It doesn't even end on a perfect authentic cadence, let alone a unison/resolution.
@@OrlandoAponte I take a much more romantic view, that it was a stylistic choice to fit his namesake, the ending melody being like stream that quietly and unassumingly slips back into the ocean, his whole life's work now finished.
It is a fact he wrote many things himself in his later years, albeit with shaky handwriting, yet this final fugue, likely composed before he went blind, he sat on for what reason?
There is actually a mathematical perfection about the Contrapunctus XIV theme. One could see the link with the main subject of Contrapunctus I looking carefully on the score...
My favorite arrangement of Contrapunctus XIV is actually for Brass quintet, performed by Canadian Brass.
Why our principal cellist Lucia get absent to this project?
Sometimes our musicians have other obligations. We were glad Viola de Hoog could replace Lucia Swarts
👏👏🎻
03:03 🤣🤣🤣
Anyone knows how to contact these people who are responsible for this recording????
Other than email as they don't reply!!!!
rude persons!!!
You can contact us via: www.bachvereniging.nl/en/contact
Not sure about the voices
So many highly competent musicians - and a lot of 'intelligent bla-bla-bla' over Bach's last major harpsichord work... and no harpsichordist..... ??? Come on!!
Looking forward to the next 'arrangement' - BWV 828, the fourth Partita, for Männerchor...
Don't you mean organ? Of course I kid (it works so marvelously on either, and as primarily an organist of course I'd say organ)
I would say statements like we don't know what instrument he intended are a little on the "look at me being so fancy and philosophical" side. The pieces fit too damn well in the hands. It is a little sad they included no harpsichord... Especially some sexy 16' harpsichord...
While I think this is a great way to give all the lines unique clarity, this is a little bit of a weird and unsatisfying approach. Too idiosyncratic.
I still can't believe Sato used The Swingle SIngers version of Contrapunctus 9 to fill his own and there is no mention of it. You can't pretend that was your own idea and your own arrangement no matter how I look at it. It's just too distinctive. It might work, but you can't stop people to think that you simply copied them giving up your originality. Of course the similarity that is too close to my ears might not cause any copyright issues, but there should be the respect for the creativity at least.... That was the only fugue they recorded from the art of fugue and you copied it. I wonder....What was the reason you pick that up... There are so many other ways to perform the same piece, even if you use the same voices.
My heart went cold when I listened that part... can't keep listening any more. The swingle Singers...a lesser version. Or different. Those are classical singers, obviously. No blame for them however. It's just this decision making.
One good thing about this was to remember how fabulous The Swinlge Singers were.
Live 1994 was mind blowing for instance.
Their achievement is more important than you think. Don't think like you can use it freely and nobody cares.
Thanks for your feedback. It's good that you noticed and pointed this out. You are of course right, Shunske Sato knew the recording of the Swingle Singers. If you make an instrumentation for the entire Art of Fuge and decide to use singers, you can hardly ignore their example. Shunske Sato chose very consciously to have Contrapunctus no. 9 sing. It is certainly not intended as plagiarism, rather as a tribute. Nowadays citing or using someone else's work is often seen as stealing, in Bach's time it was very common to use and incorporate it into your own if you appreciated someone else's work. Precisely to honor someone and show that his or her work has inspired you. That's what Shunske Sato meant. We have now slightly modified our accompanying text to explain this.
@@bach "Nowadays citing or using someone else's work is often seen as stealing, in Bach's time it was very common to use and incorporate it into your own if you appreciated someone else's work. Precisely to honor someone and show that his or her work has inspired you. That's what Shunske Sato meant. We have now slightly modified our accompanying text to explain this
I totally agree ! BACH himself, was inspired by another guy, named Antonio Vivaldi. They were contemporaries.
@ ttwiligh7 "You can't pretend that was your own idea and your own arrangement"
Did NBS do what you firmly think and write ? Where did you read that they "PRETEND that was their own idea and own arrangement" PRETEND ?
Let me ask you something, Mr or Miss. Do you REALLY think that NBS can play as they do - this magnificent, wonderful version - for a worldwide audience and, in the SAME time, have they heart and mind closed and worried by the shadow of plagiarism ?
@@taf44tt8io I questioned Sato and NBS and they responded sincerely.
I'm now happy and satisfied.
If they have more to say to me, I'm happy to hear from them, not from someone else.
I really don't know why you try to stir things up again like a personal issue.
Yep. The whole thing "looked like" pretty much the way I described above, at least to my ears and eyes. Even if that wasn't their intention. It just didn't look fair.
You can say that's just me, very much personal response, maybe misunderstanding, however, it is very important for them to know how some audiences feel about this whole issue. So I led them know. And they took it seriously.
Obviously, they did what they should have done after the talk. They agreed on that with me.
The conversation is over. No need to talk about it now.