Thank you so much, Conctrapuntus XIX!

THANK you !!!

Thank you - especially for BWV 883 F-Sharp Minor !!!

I agree-- what mars the performances of fischer, gieseking, feinberg fine as they are is tat oftentimes they lose the pulse. Bach suffers when he is made "free floating". Granted free floating is better than metronomic but as Tureck shows one can play with pulse and rhythm without being metronomic!

Furthermore, I love the small flourishes that Tureck often improvises at the end of the pieces-- it reminds one that after all the keyboard of Bach's time evolved gradually from the lute, and lute players would of course end their pieces with similar arpeggios..

Actually, Bach WAS familiar with the early piano-fortes. He had played them and even gave feedback on the instrument to at least one manufacturer. Based on the fact that he often wrote ties on notes, sometimes lasting a full measure at a slow tempo, he clearly foresaw the ability to play these pieces on an instrument capable of sustain.

I was referring to her earlier recordings, with which I am more familiar.

I totally agree with WTC has to be more deep and soft in a way.

Στις άκρες των δακτύλων της ρέει το ίδιο πάθος, με εκείνο του Gould, όταν ερμηνεύει Bach. Αυτοί οι δύο, εκφράζουν τον εαυτό τους, πρωτίστως και όχι κάποια σχολή. Το ερμηνευτικό αποτέλεσμα είναι ανατριχιαστικό (για όποιον ξέρει ν' ακούει), λόγω της εσωτερικής τους καθαρότητας και αλήθειας.

1. BWV 870 C major: Prelude [0:02], Fugue [2:34] * 2. BWV 871 C minor: P [4:36], F [6:55] * 3. BWV 872 C-sharp major: P [9:24], F [11:36] * 4. BWV 873 C-sharp minor: P [14:01], F [19:50] * 5. BWV 874 D major: P [22:14], F [27:33] * 6. BWV 875 D minor: P [31:30], F [33:12] * 7. BWV 876 E-flat major: P [35:28], F [38:07] * 8. BWV 877 E-flat minor: P [40:40], F [45:09] * 9. BWV 878 E major: P [49:38], F [54:30] * 10. BWV 879 E minor: P [57:58], F [1:01:57] * 11. BWV 880 F major: P [1:04:53], F [1:07:54] * 12. BWV 881 F minor: P [1:09:53], F [1:17:11] * 13. BWV 882 F-sharp major: P [1:20:28], F [1:24:35] * 14. BWV 883 F-sharp minor: P [1:27:18], F [1:30:03] * 15. BWV 884 G major: P [1:34:50], F [1:37:06] * 16. BWV 885 G minor: P [1:38:31], F [1:40:45] * 17. BWV 886 A-flat major: P [1:45:50 ], F [1:50:10] * 18. BWV 887 G-sharp minor: P [1:53:13], F [1:59:18] * 19. BWV 888 A major: P [2:06:10], F [2:08:30] * 20. BWV 889 A minor: P [2:10:24], F [2:15:15] * 21. BWV 890 B-flat major: P [2:17:03], F [2:24:40] * 22. BWV 891 B-flat minor: P [2:27:55], F [2:30:37] * 23. BWV 892 B major: P [2:36:05], F [2:38:22] * 24. BWV 893 B minor: P [2:42:55], F [2:45:26]

@@pilipalanda6990 Thank you for posting this!!

I'm rather curious to hear what in your view is flawed about so many other recordings.

@@user-yv6xw7ns3o I think you will understand if I am reluctant to name pianists whom I perceive to have rendered Bach incorrectly, but I will tell you that the most common error is one of timing. Generally the big name pianists can hit all the notes correctly, but the problem is that a surprising number of them do not understand the timing of many if not most of the pieces, and especially the complex ones. If you listen to pianists like Nikolayeva, Tureck, Richter, ... you can after careful study discover a common thread, relating to how the harmony and counterpoint has to be timed. Although not numerous, there are a good few of them - for example I recently discovered a young Russian pianist (Bogorodskaya) whose timing is really good, and on asking her she told me that she arrived at this rendering of Bach by "studying numerous different performances" (her words). Confirmation that there is indeed a "correct" timing, with some small variance, everything outside of this tiny range being incorrect. For some time now, if someone says that a particular pianist is very good, I believe it (or not) once I have heard them playing Bach. (By the way - Yuja Wang? Only one piece I have found so far, played correctly).

@@clive1294 thank you, that is certainly helpful! I appreciate your insights.

Am

Exactly my thoughts :-)

Richter is better than ‘studio’ Gould...

@@BERENCEV A long time ago I was member of a privatly owned LP library. I took out some Bach preludes and fugues played by Turek on 2 LPs - I can't remember whether it was the whole 48. Then I took out the identical performance by Gould. I remember it took only 1 LP. I listened for 10 minutes and have never listened to anything Gould played since then. Also here in S Africa we tend to get visiting pianists trying to make a name. My view is that because they are physically able to play fast, they do, whether or not the music demands it. This seems to be common in the Julliard school. There is a celebrated recording in which Bernstein, as conductor, publicy disasociated himself from the pianist's tempi.

We Will never know. Poliphony Is now as it was then. Different instruments deserve different approaches. Bach music is so universal that nowadays think that there are "should play like this..." Has no Sense. Unless you are trying a historical-on-authentic-instrument rendition, you are free to do whatever you want to. Time and remarcable players hace demonstrated that there are no limits for this Master Music.

That's incorrect. The clavichord has the same means of dynamic control as the piano. It's the harpsichord that is different in that regard.

@@rogerevans8081 I agree. Apart from a deep interest in music as music I have an adequate knowledge of mechanics. If you hit something hard it makes more noise than the reverse. The clavicord is struck not plucked. In the harpsichord any extra energy tends to be dissipated after the quill has plucked the string. And take also the case of the lute or guitar; these are in principle just strings over a sounding box, but most certainly can produce a range of volumes.

One should compare with other masters f.i. Evelyne Crochet and many others...

@@MrAmerica51 Evelyn Crochet is probably my next favorite interpreter of Bach. However, I don't think anyone can match the dynamic range, variety of articulation and tone that Tureck produces.

@@kenc6082 Yes, dynamic range and tone. Thanks for your observation. I will listen carefully to Tureck.

@@kenc6082 Ok, thanks.

@@MrAmerica51: Evylene Crochet is fantastic! Her playing is consistently beautiful and utterly convincing. And both books of the WTC are on KZfaq. Here are links: Bk. 1: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qayJbNCbm9OZZGw.html No. 2: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oNtmq9Oi1ry-hWg.html Tureck is not for me. 😎🎹

너무 좋네요

흐엉

I'll bet they also voted for Trump.

Maybe they're purists who think that Bach's keyboard music must not under any circumstances be played on piano.

I do like this performance. But even more important that my liking of it is the freedom for others not to like it. Art is ultimately about freedom. And choice, conscious choice, not complusion.

Probably the same seven who claim that New York cheesecake is not worth eating.

7 too many my dear

俺も。二人並べたら少しお互いに似ています。

Qué es lo que no te gusta de esta grabación?

Whaaaaaat???????

I don't think is pedaling. Live recording usually have more reverb. But no Pedaling

this is a joke, right?

@peter w rohr 👎