Interpretations are subjective, of course, but I enjoy Hewitt’s version more than Schiff’s because of the more lively fugue. The prelude is already slow and expressive, and if the fugue is played the same way, the lack of contrast makes it boring for me lol

@@benana_3 I agree :) Schiff’s playing is earthbound

It's a tripled tonic, no third or fifth. It just sounds minor based on the context, since the minor third scale degree shows up earlier in the measure.

There are only two fugues in the Well-Tempered Clavier that end in Minor: No. 18 G-Sharp Minor Book 1 and No. 20 A Minor Book 2

I agree, but I got this score off of IMSLP and it was the nicest looking one. I don’t actually have access to an urtext unfortunately.

I don't get why people have such a misinformed view on editions. It's all about date and being critical... The editions from early 1900 or 1800 is usually too misinformed, but a great part of editions with notations are from highly established scholars with a FAR better understanding of how to interpret early music than the vast majority of performer (pianists) today if not all of them. It doesn't add anything more to use clear unedited editions, with that you basically saying you can back it up better than musicologists who have expertise in exactly that and it's not realistic...

Il m'a semblé qu'il y en avait trop aussi... Je suis habitué à la version de Glenn Gould qui est plus claire...

Il m'a semblé qu'il y en avait juste un peu trop aussi... mais il en faut. Je suis habitué à la version de Glenn Gould en fait.

It is a triple fugue though

@@user-fu7zf4ck9z It is sometimes described as а " triple fugue," but this is not strictly accurate. Two counterpoints introduced in bars 20 and 36 are subse­quently combined with the subject, somewhat as in the C#Minor Fuga (1st book), but with this difference, they do not first appear together with the subject. Thus, they do not fulfil the conditions of true counter­subjects. Although they have treatment somewhat analogous to separate expositions, the entry intervals are too irregular to justify their being called new subjects. We, therefore, treat them, on their first appearance, as episodes designed to Ье employed subsequently as countersubjects.

@@thepianocornertpcI‘d say this is basically 3 fugues stitched together for the most part. All 3 subjects are equal and appear all at once during the climax of the piece towards the end. That’s why I view their “expositions” as own episodes in order to seperate them from the first subject. In a way, it would be justified then to call this piece a triple fughetta maybe, as only the “first” of the 3 fugues treats its countersubject properly and consistently. All in all it’s still more of a triple fugue than the (equally beautiful) St.Anne BWV552

@@user-fu7zf4ck9z Like any fugue, a triple fugue begins with the exposition, where each of the three subjects is introduced separately. Each subject is a distinctive melodic line that serves as the thematic material for the fugue. This is not the case in this Fuga.

@@thepianocornertpc So would you consider No.4 Book 1 to be the only triple fugue