It's interesting to notice that the subject of the BWV 944 has the same harmonic pattern of the the subject from BWV 543. They literally look like one is the first version of the other.
Even the first species sections are quite similar, relying mostly on parallel 3rds and 6ths. BWV 543's counter subject in the sequence section is much more developed as reflected in its various iterations.
Wunderschöne und detaillierte Interpretation dieser drei perfekt komponierten Fantasien und Fugen in verschiedenen Tempi mit klarem doch elegantem Klang des technisch fehlerlosen Cembalos und mit sorgfältig kontrollierter Dynamik. Wahrlich intelligenter und vielseitiger Cembalist!
Yes, they are remarkably similar. This fugue specifies pedal at the end. I similarly used the pedalboard for BWV 914 (including the very end of the final fugue). PW
2nd fantasia does not appear to be what is written. All just gorgeous nevertheless! If I dare to say so, these fugues seem superior to many of those in the WTC which sometimes come to feel relatively perfunctory when one is dragged through all 24 X 2 as is often the case.
@@lingnguyen2623, reminds me of this: @Ling nguyen : My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect. Bach : Which few did you have in mind, @Ling nguyen?
I can speak to this, as the one who has spent the last 27 years studying and recording all of Bach's music for harpsichord, of which this video is just a small sample. I think that your question is an excellent one, and that it has a genuine answer. I understand exactly what you are saying: Bach's music seems, at first hearing, often almost superhuman in its complexity and skill, and in its demand on performer and listener. The Baroque era is full of incredibly great composers: Vivaldi, Telemann, Handel, Rameau, Scarlatti, Couperin: but none of them is at this level. Bach's music is elitist, but not in the narrow and exclusive way you may think. It has nothing to do with composing, or playing "for royalty". It has more to do with composing music that forces the listener/audience, to come up to the composer's particular level of thought, something that seems difficult at first, but which is, ultimately, more satisfying as it involves growth and evolution in the listener's own skill and taste. In that regard, it is the opposite of "elitist", in that the listener is invited to grow to Bach's level. It is not exclusionist, in other words. Most composers in the Baroque era wrote music for their audience's tastes, whether aristocratic or middle class: often their compositions were carefully tailored to what was perceived as the "public" taste. Telemann, in fact, published a series called "The Faithful Music Master" , which provided good quality music for amateurs: not too difficult to play or understand. Bach's music is the opposite of that idea. In 1737, Bach was criticised in print by a former student, Johann Adolph Scheibe, for making his compositions too complex and full of intricacies. Time has proven Bach right and Scheibe wrong in his judgement. We must think of Bach as the musical equivalent of Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein: on a unique level of human thought that poses an initial challenge for any listener or performer, yet invites others along on the path of musical evolution and growth. So, I guess, Bach can be called elitist if you mean that he challenges both listener and performer to the highest level. For me, that challenge is what all great art is about. PW
@@peterwatchorn411 I do enjoy Bach's masses and cantatas, or most if not all of his sacred works. I really enjoy the arias, duets, recitatives, and other features to his Cantatas. It is amazing to me that he composed cantatas every church weekend. But it is also unfortunate that lots of his work was lost during the war, and that some of immediate family died penniless, and that some of his writings instead of being appreciated were used to wrap fish.
Dankjewel Bartjen voor het delen van deze prachtige muziek. Groetjens, Klaasjen.
Felix Mendelssohn is my favorite composer but J.S. Bach is the greatest of all time.
This first fantasie is absolutely beautiful
The wonderfulness and comfort of this clear sound are irreplaceable , and soothe my soul
La musique classique m'apaise et me détend, j'aime ces vibrations 🎼💙
The first Fantasia is absolutely merveillous
17:02 ABSOLUTELY MAGNIFICENT
15:49 Love the modulation, and crazy pedals at 17:01 :)
Fantasia & Fugue in A minor, BWV 904
Fantasia Theme: 0:00
Fugue: 3:29
Fantasia & Fugue in A minor, BWV 944
Fantasia Theme: 9:41
Fugue: 10:53
It's interesting to notice that the subject of the BWV 944 has the same harmonic pattern of the the subject from BWV 543. They literally look like one is the first version of the other.
Even the first species sections are quite similar, relying mostly on parallel 3rds and 6ths. BWV 543's counter subject in the sequence section is much more developed as reflected in its various iterations.
Yeah, it's the classic falling fifths progression.
marvelous
Bellissima interpretazione, ho fatto una trascrizione per organo. Grazie per lo spartito
Magnificent.
Wunderschöne und detaillierte Interpretation dieser drei perfekt komponierten Fantasien und Fugen in verschiedenen Tempi mit klarem doch elegantem Klang des technisch fehlerlosen Cembalos und mit sorgfältig kontrollierter Dynamik. Wahrlich intelligenter und vielseitiger Cembalist!
"so you have any fantasies? 😈 "
"I happen to have 3 here with me"
This reminds me of a game called lies of p
Die letzte fuge erinnert mich irgendwie ganz stark an die fuge aus der toccata in e Moll bwv 914🤔
Yes, they are remarkably similar. This fugue specifies pedal at the end. I similarly used the pedalboard for BWV 914 (including the very end of the final fugue). PW
Привет. А есть расшифровка трелив фуге BWV 904? Пасибо
Bach listed a deciphering of all baroque ornaments himself. You can find it easily online.
2nd fantasia does not appear to be what is written. All just gorgeous nevertheless! If I dare to say so, these fugues seem superior to many of those in the WTC which sometimes come to feel relatively perfunctory when one is dragged through all 24 X 2 as is often the case.
The chords are arpeggiated
💗🌈💗🌈💗
I'm just curious, did Bach write this in his spare time. Or did he play for an audience or for royalty? Myself personally, the music seems elitist.
@@lingnguyen2623, reminds me of this: @Ling nguyen : My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.
Bach : Which few did you have in mind, @Ling nguyen?
I can speak to this, as the one who has spent the last 27 years studying and recording all of Bach's music for harpsichord, of which this video is just a small sample. I think that your question is an excellent one, and that it has a genuine answer. I understand exactly what you are saying: Bach's music seems, at first hearing, often almost superhuman in its complexity and skill, and in its demand on performer and listener. The Baroque era is full of incredibly great composers: Vivaldi, Telemann, Handel, Rameau, Scarlatti, Couperin: but none of them is at this level. Bach's music is elitist, but not in the narrow and exclusive way you may think. It has nothing to do with composing, or playing "for royalty". It has more to do with composing music that forces the listener/audience, to come up to the composer's particular level of thought, something that seems difficult at first, but which is, ultimately, more satisfying as it involves growth and evolution in the listener's own skill and taste. In that regard, it is the opposite of "elitist", in that the listener is invited to grow to Bach's level. It is not exclusionist, in other words.
Most composers in the Baroque era wrote music for their audience's tastes, whether aristocratic or middle class: often their compositions were carefully tailored to what was perceived as the "public" taste. Telemann, in fact, published a series called "The Faithful Music Master" , which provided good quality music for amateurs: not too difficult to play or understand. Bach's music is the opposite of that idea. In 1737, Bach was criticised in print by a former student, Johann Adolph Scheibe, for making his compositions too complex and full of intricacies. Time has proven Bach right and Scheibe wrong in his judgement.
We must think of Bach as the musical equivalent of Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein: on a unique level of human thought that poses an initial challenge for any listener or performer, yet invites others along on the path of musical evolution and growth. So, I guess, Bach can be called elitist if you mean that he challenges both listener and performer to the highest level. For me, that challenge is what all great art is about. PW
@@peterwatchorn411 I do enjoy Bach's masses and cantatas, or most if not all of his sacred works. I really enjoy the arias, duets, recitatives, and other features to his Cantatas.
It is amazing to me that he composed cantatas every church weekend.
But it is also unfortunate that lots of his work was lost during the war, and that some of immediate family died penniless, and that some of his writings instead of being appreciated were used to wrap fish.
Then I am elite, to have the musical and spiritual equipment with which to appreciate this superb work (BWV904)
@@peterwatchorn411 Interesting viewpoint and historical anecdote!
I'm not a professional misisician, but this harp sounds a bit raspy
It is a harpsichord, not harp. Completely different instrument.
@@bartjebartmans no crap. I was just trying to be efficient. No wonder I was repelled by continuing taking music courses
@@bartjebartmans perhaps I should have dubbed it a new term "harpsy"
@@baileyclanbookclub Just don't force abbreviations.
@@XenoghostTV did you just assume my abbrev?