BWV 990: Sarabande con Partite in C Major (Scrolling)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2024
- Performer & Album Info - 19:37
Partita 1: (Sarabande) - 0:17
Partita 2 - 1:46
Partita 3 - 3:08
Partita 4 - 4:07
Partita 5 - 5:11
Partita 6 - 6:09
Partita 7 - 7:09
Partita 8 - 8:58
Partita 9 - 10:20
Partita 10 - 11:20
Partita 11 - 12:07
Partita 12 - 13:18
Partita 13: Allemande - 14:45
Partita 14: Courante - 16:13
Partita 15 - 17:47
Partita 16: L’ultima Partita o Giguetta - 18:41
La musica di Bach è immortale perché ha saputo captare l'armonia celestiale
Lovely Choice for starting the day
For me sound like french style
It reminds me of the "Goldbergvariationen"...
Yep, it's a very similar bass line and chord progression to the Goldberg variations.
@@jamesrockybullin5250 yes, it is indeed very similar, but it's in C instead of G, and the bass-ground is not exactly the same, and it's in the "French" style as opposed to the "German" style... Those are considered BIG differences when it comes to Baroque music, as I'm sure you know. (Different "mood" for each key, and there were national "styles", but somewhat arbitrarily... It had to do with tuning, Dmin being the "saddest of all keys", as we learned from Spinal Tap)... Which set was written-down first, I wonder?
Omg
Slovak artrock piece Collegium Musicum- Hommage á J.S. Bach is based on this. Listen to it, guaranteed pleasure for ears! (Hammond x-77)
Muchas gracias gerubach
perfect instrument for that piece
Thanks for uploading!
what a fantastic work :)
Thank you very much.
Very awesome!
Very beautifull
I love bach😍
Very nice, although I don't know if Bach would have expected quite so much ad hoc ornamentation. It sounds too style galant. Maybe more like CPE Bach.
JS Bach used lots of ornamentation in his keyboard pieces. But the sarabande is by Lully (according to certain sources) and you're right in saying that the style of the variations rather remind his 'galant' sons (CPE or Johann Christian...).
Bravo, Well said... It is not bad, but it is "overly adorned" imo... Like an eager young lover who wants to impress his older mistress.. Trying to tickle the buttons too much... Too much "syrup" on an otherwise decent "pancake"... Unlike some of his French and Italian contemporaries, JS Bach usually indicated the required ornaments in his manuscripts; in some instances he'd write down "les agrements" (to specify exactly what kind of elaborations he expected in the recapitulations; ex the sarabandes from the English suites 2&3 in Amin & Gmin) ... Even without the note-for-note instructions, we still use his shorthand symbols today... This clavecin guy can get away with it on this one, because it's lesser known, but students and teachers of the bigger set of 30 variations on a similar sarabande/aria in Gmaj ("The Goldberg Variations") would NEVER tolerate this copious amount of appoggiatura/trillo/nachschlagen/mordent/acciaccatura etc... It's not "wrong", per se, all the ornaments are executed "correctly" but they don't necessarily belong where they are inserted, even though they are not technically placed incorrectly... Besides, in the Baroque style, if you are going to devise improvisatory chingaderas, you're meant to save it for the repeats, (never do the same trick twice; the musical ear detests repetition without variation); "first engage the ear, than the intellect", not "showing off your own creativity right out of the gate"... Even the hated-Philistine Glenn Gould knew that rule, and he was the most un-Baroque famous horrible klavier-player of all time!
and without all of the ornaments, it would sound like ...?
Bach is the living proof that God exists and we are not living in a simulation. What computer could create such beauty?
An advanced quantum computer, probably?
And then you find out many of Bach's pieces are build on arithmetic and algorithms....
+John Kimble name one
well for instance, techniques like inversion, retrograde, and retrograde inversion are just manipulating a melody in a rather cold way. Fugues are very mathematical as well
that is only the impression at a superficial level; Bach is not mathematics, not even fractals; is like you would compare a chess-board with Picasso; Picasso also has line, curves, matematical forms, but it is not at all algorithmical
Regarding a comment below: Bach *is not* "living proof" that some god exists.
No, he was *100% human.*
As to his astounding achievements: absolutely *no gods were required* -- just human talent and ingenuity... along with much study & hard work!
We should be thanking and praising *PEOPLE* -- NOT *IMAGINARY GODS.*
and yet this ingenious man dedicated many of his best works to the glory of God alone ("soli Deo gloria" was written on the manuscripts).
Although true, that is irrelevant and not evidence for a "god".
Of course, there is no scientific evidence for existence of God but if an ingenious man you admire a lot was a believer, this fact might inspire you to believe also.
Hrvoje Staneković Buy why would any rational and sane person willingly *choose* to believe in a *fictitious, man-made construct*... one that requires *years of brainwashing/indoctrination* to "swallow"?* After all, we're all born *atheist.*
In my opinion, because humans are not only driven by logic but also by emotions. I might so much love the idea of some supreme being that is pure love and creation that I might choose to beleive in it. The religion is about choosing to believe, it is not about knowing.
Harpsichord has such an annoying sound.
Odisseu de Ítaca then why you here, get aut!
Odisseu de Ítaca No way, I find it awesome
I thought the video was on the piano. Got pissed. I think it's so funny that some of you fuckers actually think that if Bach was alive today he would prefer the bullshit harpsichord to the pianoforte. That's why I hate ancient instruments. It's like we're going forward in time and technology and making our lives bullshitier. I imagine Mozart (who dissed the harpsichord in a heartbeat when he discovered the piano) saying: "no way I want a full chromatic trumpet! No, that's too many notes to choose from! Let's go back to tonic and dominant with the timpani!"
Odisseu de Ítaca at the start you feel that but then you love it
Piano is in all a better instrument that cempallo. It has better dynamics, greater register and an overall a more rounded sound. But, if was unheard of at the time of Bach. Bach wrote specifically for cempallo, knowing it's sound. Playing those pieces on piano gives a different perspective than Bach's, not making them better nor worse. If you say these pieces sound horrible on an instrument that has a different sound, it's like you are saying that Bach couldn't compose well for those instruments, which is absolutely absurd! Try and listen with open mind, these instruments evolved for other reasons than those needed in Bach's music. If he knew the piano of today, he would write other pieces especially for it... And he would do it as the best. Love Bach's intentions!