Karl Richter is the inventor of the Bach Reinassance. Greatly missed. 'His redoutable musical intelligence combined with the ability to bring out the majesty and splendour in music, was what made him such a great interpreter of Bach'. His epigones and their flat moans are only pale shadows.
Upon hearing this, I understand this piece more deeply now than the innumerable times I've practiced or the few times I've had the honor to perform it publicly. Amazing what a great performance can do.
Almost fifty years ago, I was given the Stereo LP version of this stunning recording. After becoming organist myself and listening to many famous and wonderful musicians playing this masterpiece, there is no doubt in my mind that Karl Richter wanted to transport us to Bach’s time by performing it on a true-to-time instrument, registration and tempo.
"Richter came from a romantic tradition" - and that's great. Too many are playing Baroque pieces as if trying to treat them "scholarly" - abstract and rigid. We do not need competence, we need emotions and imagination. As for "he didn't know much about baroque style" 1. Nobody "knows" and never will: so called "authentic playing" is a far-fetched conception grounded in a very questionable and shaky premise that "old music should be played exactly as when it was created" - moot point because the modern audiences have perception clouded ages of music history left behind, so unarguably different than that of 17-18 cc. audiences. Furthermore even the playing of these "authentic" performers with time lapsing past the mark on the timeline can be regarded as not "authentic" but "historical" since scientific studies on "the old" music have been moving forth the constant progress path. "Always in motion is the future" (Yoda, Star Wars) 2. Richter undoubtedly "knew" much: it's impossible to let the thought that belonging to the upper circle of the musical society he lacked expertise or knowledge about Baroque deriving from his academic background, many years of studies in the european centers of culture. It was more about his aesthetics not the purported "lack" of knowledge.
ILJA SHEBALIN, I'm sorry for my inadequate English. Quote: "We do not need competence, we need emotions and imagination." I guess that were the reason why Karl Richter performed the old music the way he did, he liked it the way you and many other people do. Quote: "1. Nobody "knows" and never will." This is not correct! There are many old sources that tells us a lot of details how they performed the old music. Wolfgang A Mozart told his father in a letter that he(Wolfgang)didn't like the vibrato all the way. His father, Leopold write something similar in his violin school 1756: "Don't play with vibrato all the way." Richter-fans: Once again, enjoy your Karl Richter also in the music of Bach. But don't tell anybody that Richter was the best baroque performer, we know that he wasn't.
The last your sentence is where the major flaw of your logic is hidden: "But don't tell anybody that Richter was the best baroque performer, we know that he wasn't". It contains two absolutely fallacious premises which emerge once we parse it. Flaw#1: Assumption that someone can be "the best", "worse", "the worst" regarding the field of Art. These 3 references cannot serve as a sufficient ground for comprehensive evaluation in fine arts as much as in exact sciences. The latter require quantitative data and binary logic regardless of what emotionally perceptive response on our part they could drive. The former is a matter of emotional perception in the field of performing arts. There're no and have never been any quantitative data and binary logic patterns for evaluation thought out hence "the best", "worse", "the worst" are not universal, all encompassing values as an every performance is a derivative act of individually determined unique combination of will, psychology, audiovisual imagery and number of other factors which cannot be predicted and standardized - what science has put as its main goal for ages and which is substantial criteria of every successful scientific theory, analysis, diagnosis and anamnesis. Flaw#2: "we know that he wasn't" - much of aforementioned could be applied to this claim, however it's not immediately clear who these "we" are meant to be, what part of these imaginary "we" is claimed to exist as a satisfactory quantity that could be a subject to generating both a substantiated conclusion and a strict logic dependent correct judgment. As for what "Mozart wrote...", "Leopold Mozart wrote...", someone other wrote...: 1. First of all why even mention Mozart when he wasn't a Baroque composer like Bach was? As long as epochs pass so do the culture, mentality and musical taste. Why do you think Mozart has a slighest chance to be a significant reference to a cultural environment radically different than that of his own? 2. What he wrote and what he didn't doesn't bear even tiniest connection to overall practices of the day because every composer had its own set of "rules", esthetic values which could be a subject of evolution even within the timeline of his own life. If all was that simple would there exist so many scientific papers, discussions and research on the subject? 3. You can't deny that this ambiguity is a result of the one simple thing: regardless of the volume of the research being done we aren't and never will be able to witness the playing manner, tempos and other attributes of live performance by these composers. So, the discussion will be endless anyway. That's why the driving force behind any reproduction of notation symbols left by these deceased composers in the form of intelligent entities known as "musical pieces" is a unique (i.e. existing in singular) feel, determined by perception on individual basis. Hence every performer is free to impose his own conception and whether it exhibits emotional drive is what only matters. 4. Why Richter is "mine"? I haven't called him like that. 5. "Richter-fans": I'd suggest you to enhance your word usage to match the classical environment not the pop one otherwise it sounds very childish or teen-like, bearing the mark of mass culture: "Beaber fan", "Madonna fan".
Compositore ed esecutore in splendida sintonia mettono in comunicazione il loro con il nostro Essere , e dove Dio si incarna in noi . Bach-Ricther ci fanno un punto di riferimento , sono guide e nutrici per lo spirito
The Fugue has this supposedly simple 6/8 rhythm, but actually find it incredibly hard to follow, much more than with any other Bach piece. The rhythm often seems to shift its "phase" mid-bar. Does anyone else have this impression?
Sorry for my inadequate English. Yes, I agree with you! But why is it so? Because Richter play too many of the quavers too heavy, from the beginning it more sounds like 3/8. If we just play the first note heavy in each measure, it will more sounds like 6/8.
Part of the reason for that may lie with the fact that this organ has tracker playing action. Organs with tracker action are notorious for becoming harder to play as more stops are drawn, and even more so when the manuals are coupled, and worst of all when the manuals are coupled to the pedals. In such cases, sometimes the organist had to literally stand on the pedals, and throw his whole weight on the manuals, in order to play a big chord in a climactic passage. That may or may not be the case here. Only Marcussen, the builder of this instrument, could provide a definitive answer to that question.
The tracker action organs are notorious for their difficult disposition. The more stops might seem the merrier but... and coupling manuals and/ or pedals... It is remarkable that Richter, always the consummate artist has mastering the instruments with all its drawbacks - no pun intended.
By no criterion is this a simple subject. The metrical ambiguity and length alone make it complex. Not to mention the several keys implied by all the arpeggiated sequences. A simple subject is the first of WTC 1 (in C) or the ninth in WTC 2 (in E) or the subject in the art of the fugue. This subject is a whirlwind all by itself!
i'm studying this piece and i'm listening many different ways of playng it... i like this fugue slower than average: seems that richter want us to hear every note. on the other hand i'd like faster and more staccato on the two final chords.
Davide Lucchi Ma è ovvio! OGNI SINGOLA NOTA ha un’importanza abissale, CI DEVONO essere TUTTE, DEVONO ESSERE SENTITE TUTTE. La velocità è nulla di fronte all’esasperazione e alla profondità di ogni nota. QUESTO è BACH.
Ja, und es ist das gleiche bei den cantaten. Richter hatte als einziger verstanden, wie groß die Rolle der Orgel ist. Sein Orgelspiel hat eine Offenheit und Luftigkeit, und gleichzeitig wird man regelrecht in die Musik hineingezogen, das ist schon einzigartig bei Richter, meiner Meinung nach.
Assolutamente. Questa fuga è lenta, va passionata, deve essere struggente e chi la suona come se fosse un lettore midi sta semplicemente sputando sulla metafisica.
Mille sept cent ans après la mort de Son fils bien-aimé, Dieu a voulu apporter aux hommes qui souffrent et qui meurent une nouvelle preuve de Son existence, et Il n'a pas voulu que cette preuve se révelât dans la gloire de la seule et vraie religion, mais Il a choisi qu'elle se dissimulât dans la musique d'un obscur maître de chapelle prisonnier d'une chétive hérésie allemande.
I'm not really a fan of this interpretation. The overall playing style just seems a bit robotic to me. Not to mention how jarring it is in the prelude when the trumpets come in (perhaps that might be due to the quality of the recording). I did, however, like the registrations and registration changes in the fugue; it definitely made up for the robotic playing.
Organs of the baroque period did not have enclosed chambers with shutters that could be opened and closed with a pedal to change volume without a change in registration. If one is accustomed to period organs, , Richter's performances are remarkably expressive, but in quite subtle ways that novices might not even notice, much less appreciate.
Видеоклипы
![Finesse2Tymes - Pretty Ricky [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xIoP_mhYRT0/mqdefault.jpg)
Karl Richter is the inventor of the Bach Reinassance. Greatly missed. 'His redoutable musical intelligence combined with the ability to bring out the majesty and splendour in music, was what made him such a great interpreter of Bach'. His epigones and their flat moans are only pale shadows.
Richter is on another level
Gavin, he is not the only on "another level."
543's best performance of ever
543-2-1 Go Karl! Richter's riding this BWV like its a BMW.
In this passage Richter takes Bach by the hand and brings him back to earth
Damn what a comment.
The Best interpretation of the 543.
Ever.
yes
Upon hearing this, I understand this piece more deeply now than the innumerable times I've practiced or the few times I've had the honor to perform it publicly. Amazing what a great performance can do.
Almost fifty years ago, I was given the Stereo LP version of this stunning recording. After becoming organist myself and listening to many famous and wonderful musicians playing this masterpiece, there is no doubt in my mind that Karl Richter wanted to transport us to Bach’s time by performing it on a true-to-time instrument, registration and tempo.
& Jhr. Humphrey. This is the absolute combinatie organ and organist (Karl Richter) so Brilliant/Geniaal
Bravo bravo bravo bravo bravo fantastic grandiose genial music
Semplicemente MERAVIGLIOSA.
I've always wanted to hear Richter play this. Thank you for sharing.
Bella esecuzione!
Fantastica interpretacao
That fugue ahhhhhhh so epic
I felt in love!! This piece is magical!!
Truly monstrous recording. The definitive version.
terrific sound like this
Meraviglioso!
Extase.
Je souscris bien sûr entièrement ! Un autre réactionnaire hautement , clairement et complètement revendiqué !!!
Smukt, varieret og livligt orgelstykke, godt spillet😊👍🇩🇰
Simplesmente maravilhoso!
Bach e K. Richter parece ser uma combinação perfeita.
so precise yet so grand. this and the biggs recordings got me into church music...damn them.
\
so good
C'est bien Johann Sebastian Bach lui même qui joue cette pièce ? Fabuleux !
Bach en tant que compositeur, il n'y a pas mieux, mais que valait-il comme interprète? Et sur quel(s) instrument(s)? Je dois dire que je l'ignore...
@@tatozy Bach était surtout connu de son temps en tant qu'organiste virtuose et en tant qu'interprète plutôt que compositeur.
LA PIU' GRANDE, LA PIU' BELLA VERSIONE MAI REGISTRATA...♡
This is absolute perfection.
He is the embodiment of the organ music
The Music of God
YES!!!!!!! PRAISE GOD!!!!YES. "Most obediently yours, Johann Sebastian Bach"
The God of Music.
An amazing and wonderful performance with awesome registrations particularly in the fugue.
My dream is to perform like this giants of the pipe organ
that low A pedal is just dam magic goes for bars.O love it.
Nobody plays it as good, as typical barock as Karl Richter. Tnx for putting it up. I listened to this piece every day when I was 14.
Richter came from a romantic tradition, he didn't knew too much about baroque style.
Nevertheless, I prefer his way of interpretation! :)
"Richter came from a romantic tradition" - and that's great. Too many are playing Baroque pieces as if trying to treat them "scholarly" - abstract and rigid. We do not need competence, we need emotions and imagination.
As for "he didn't know much about baroque style"
1. Nobody "knows" and never will: so called "authentic playing" is a far-fetched conception grounded in a very questionable and shaky premise that "old music should be played exactly as when it was created" - moot point because the modern audiences have perception clouded ages of music history left behind, so unarguably different than that of 17-18 cc. audiences. Furthermore even the playing of these "authentic" performers with time lapsing past the mark on the timeline can be regarded as not "authentic" but "historical" since scientific studies on "the old" music have been moving forth the constant progress path. "Always in motion is the future" (Yoda, Star Wars)
2. Richter undoubtedly "knew" much: it's impossible to let the thought that belonging to the upper circle of the musical society he lacked expertise or knowledge about Baroque deriving from his academic background, many years of studies in the european centers of culture.
It was more about his aesthetics not the purported "lack" of knowledge.
ILJA SHEBALIN, I'm sorry for my inadequate English. Quote: "We do not need competence, we need emotions and imagination." I guess that were the reason why Karl Richter performed the old music the way he did, he liked it the way you and many other people do. Quote: "1. Nobody "knows" and never will." This is not correct! There are many old sources that tells us a lot of details how they performed the old music. Wolfgang A Mozart told his father in a letter that he(Wolfgang)didn't like the vibrato all the way. His father, Leopold write something similar in his violin school 1756: "Don't play with vibrato all the way." Richter-fans: Once again, enjoy your Karl Richter also in the music of Bach. But don't tell anybody that Richter was the best baroque performer, we know that he wasn't.
The last your sentence is where the major flaw of your logic is hidden: "But don't tell anybody that Richter was the best baroque performer, we know that he wasn't". It contains two absolutely fallacious premises which emerge once we parse it.
Flaw#1: Assumption that someone can be "the best", "worse", "the worst" regarding the field of Art. These 3 references cannot serve as a sufficient ground for comprehensive evaluation in fine arts as much as in exact sciences. The latter require quantitative data and binary logic regardless of what emotionally perceptive response on our part they could drive. The former is a matter of emotional perception in the field of performing arts. There're no and have never been any quantitative data and binary logic patterns for evaluation thought out hence "the best", "worse", "the worst" are not universal, all encompassing values as an every performance is a derivative act of individually determined unique combination of will, psychology, audiovisual imagery and number of other factors which cannot be predicted and standardized - what science has put as its main goal for ages and which is substantial criteria of every successful scientific theory, analysis, diagnosis and anamnesis.
Flaw#2: "we know that he wasn't" - much of aforementioned could be applied to this claim, however it's not immediately clear who these "we" are meant to be, what part of these imaginary "we" is claimed to exist as a satisfactory quantity that could be a subject to generating both a substantiated conclusion and a strict logic dependent correct judgment.
As for what "Mozart wrote...", "Leopold Mozart wrote...", someone other wrote...:
1. First of all why even mention Mozart when he wasn't a Baroque composer like Bach was? As long as epochs pass so do the culture, mentality and musical taste. Why do you think Mozart has a slighest chance to be a significant reference to a cultural environment radically different than that of his own?
2. What he wrote and what he didn't doesn't bear even tiniest connection to overall practices of the day because every composer had its own set of "rules", esthetic values which could be a subject of evolution even within the timeline of his own life. If all was that simple would there exist so many scientific papers, discussions and research on the subject?
3. You can't deny that this ambiguity is a result of the one simple thing: regardless of the volume of the research being done we aren't and never will be able to witness the playing manner, tempos and other attributes of live performance by these composers. So, the discussion will be endless anyway. That's why the driving force behind any reproduction of notation symbols left by these deceased composers in the form of intelligent entities known as "musical pieces" is a unique (i.e. existing in singular) feel, determined by perception on individual basis. Hence every performer is free to impose his own conception and whether it exhibits emotional drive is what only matters.
4. Why Richter is "mine"? I haven't called him like that.
5. "Richter-fans": I'd suggest you to enhance your word usage to match the classical environment not the pop one otherwise it sounds very childish or teen-like, bearing the mark of mass culture: "Beaber fan", "Madonna fan".
Wunderbar
GOD BLESS YOU
8:24 - 9:34 is unbelievable. Wow
Compositore ed esecutore in splendida sintonia mettono in comunicazione il loro con il nostro Essere , e dove Dio si incarna in noi . Bach-Ricther ci fanno un punto di riferimento , sono guide e nutrici per lo spirito
👏
The Fugue has this supposedly simple 6/8 rhythm, but actually find it incredibly hard to follow, much more than with any other Bach piece. The rhythm often seems to shift its "phase" mid-bar. Does anyone else have this impression?
I get the same feeling aswell!
Sorry for my inadequate English. Yes, I agree with you! But why is it so? Because Richter play too many of the quavers too heavy, from the beginning it more sounds like 3/8. If we just play the first note heavy in each measure, it will more sounds like 6/8.
geir øyvind eskeland I think you are right. The fugue theme puts emphasis on notes that is somewhat unusual also.
Part of the reason for that may lie with the fact that this organ has tracker playing action. Organs with tracker action are notorious for becoming harder to play as more stops are drawn, and even more so when the manuals are coupled, and worst of all when the manuals are coupled to the pedals. In such cases, sometimes the organist had to literally stand on the pedals, and throw his whole weight on the manuals, in order to play a big chord in a climactic passage. That may or may not be the case here. Only Marcussen, the builder of this instrument, could provide a definitive answer to that question.
The tracker action organs are notorious for their difficult disposition. The more stops might seem the merrier but... and coupling manuals and/ or pedals... It is remarkable that Richter, always the consummate artist has mastering the instruments with all its drawbacks - no pun intended.
3:21 Fugue
Ennio Morricone's theme "The sicilian clan" seems to be influenced by this.
The Fuge Need this Speed.
Any other makes lose integrity.
The simplicity of the subjects in the Prelude and the Fugue made it easy for Franz Liszt to transcribe this work for pianoforte !
Is that meant as sarcasm? Simple fugue subject??
@@jsbrules well, compared to other fugues, yes. It's commonly known to be one of the most simple fugue subjects and yet developed in such a grandeur!
By no criterion is this a simple subject. The metrical ambiguity and length alone make it complex. Not to mention the several keys implied by all the arpeggiated sequences. A simple subject is the first of WTC 1 (in C) or the ninth in WTC 2 (in E) or the subject in the art of the fugue. This subject is a whirlwind all by itself!
i'm studying this piece and i'm listening many different ways of playng it... i like this fugue slower than average: seems that richter want us to hear every note. on the other hand i'd like faster and more staccato on the two final chords.
Davide Lucchi Ma è ovvio! OGNI SINGOLA NOTA ha un’importanza abissale, CI DEVONO essere TUTTE, DEVONO ESSERE SENTITE TUTTE. La velocità è nulla di fronte all’esasperazione e alla profondità di ogni nota. QUESTO è BACH.
リヒターは天才です！早くに亡くなられたのは非常に残念至極。
diese kontinuität...richter "trifft" bach...immer
Ja, und es ist das gleiche bei den cantaten. Richter hatte als einziger verstanden, wie groß die Rolle der Orgel ist. Sein Orgelspiel hat eine Offenheit und Luftigkeit, und gleichzeitig wird man regelrecht in die Musik hineingezogen, das ist schon einzigartig bei Richter, meiner Meinung nach.
Bach sometimes sounds super-natural.
Ok Bach I get it. God is real!!!
Concordo pienamente con Richter ; anch'io lo suonavo così il Preludio. La fuga è lenta. Io la suonavo come Chapuis M.
Assolutamente. Questa fuga è lenta, va passionata, deve essere struggente e chi la suona come se fosse un lettore midi sta semplicemente sputando sulla metafisica.
私の持っている、カールリヒターのレコードと同じ写真ですが、曲が違います。
Which organ please?
pipe organ
@@GiovLig I mean, WHERE? Which organ / church / Cathedral / Hall?
Yes I was just joking
@@GiovLig But I'm NOT! Which organ is being played here?
Mille sept cent ans après la mort de Son fils bien-aimé, Dieu a voulu apporter aux hommes qui souffrent et qui meurent une nouvelle preuve de Son existence, et Il n'a pas voulu que cette preuve se révelât dans la gloire de la seule et vraie religion, mais Il a choisi qu'elle se dissimulât dans la musique d'un obscur maître de chapelle prisonnier d'une chétive hérésie allemande.
태초에 하나님의 말씀이 계셨느니라
아멘
10 minutes 22 secs for that extra ad revenue, huh? Yeah, i thought so.
I'm not really a fan of this interpretation. The overall playing style just seems a bit robotic to me. Not to mention how jarring it is in the prelude when the trumpets come in (perhaps that might be due to the quality of the recording). I did, however, like the registrations and registration changes in the fugue; it definitely made up for the robotic playing.
Organs of the baroque period did not have enclosed chambers with shutters that could be opened and closed with a pedal to change volume without a change in registration. If one is accustomed to period organs, , Richter's performances are remarkably expressive, but in quite subtle ways that novices might not even notice, much less appreciate.