On May 14, 4:50 am, "Tom Hens" <tom.h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> sagespath <sagesp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote...
> > On May 13, 3:39 pm, "Tom Hens" <tom.h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
> <snip>
> > > My translation:
>
> > > "In [teaching] composition, he immediately started his pupils on
> > > practical work, leaving out all the dry distinctions between types
of
> > > counterpoint, as they can be found in Fux and other authors."
>
> > If Fux is so dry, why did Bach produce a richly annotated version
> > of it in 1736? This has not yet been translated from the German.
>
> The simple answer is: he didn't.
>
> Are you perhaps confused by the fact that one of Bach's pupils, Mitzler,
> published an annotated edition of Fux?
>
> And I notice you haven't answered my simple question as to what's wrong
> with all editions of Clavier=FCbung IV except the one by Ralph
Kirkpatric=
k=2E
> Or why someone who claims to be a harpsichordist and harpsichord builder
> only recommends recordings of the work on piano, in particular the two
by
> Glenn Gould, not harpsichord recordings. It just seems rather odd.
Bach's students produced a lot of writing on theory. We may presume
the master had a large part in all of it (including the edition by
Mizler (sic)). Mizler, a very minor composer, was unqualified to do
this on his own. Marputg's book on the tuning of keyboard instruments
is another similar example.
Most people prefer Gould's recordings. For harpsichord recordings
try those of Gustav Leonhardt.
Kirkpatricks edition is a true urtext. Most other editions of Bach,
(Bischoff, Kroll) incor****ate things like phrasing marks, bad
fingerings, corrupt text- accretions held over from the 19th century
pianistic tradition.
|
