sagespath <sagespath@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote...
> Bach's students produced a lot of writing on theory. We may presume
Could you please list who constitute this "we" on whose behalf you
apparently speak?
> the master had a large part in all of it (including the edition by
> Mizler (sic)).
I used the spelling 'Mitzler' because that's the variant used by C.P.E.
Bach in his letter to Forkel of January 13, 1775. Standardized spelling of
names was a long time away.
> Mizler, a very minor composer, was unqualified to do this on his
> own.
Says who? The same mysterious "we" as before?
> Marputg's
Marpurg (sic).
> book on the tuning of keyboard instruments is another similar
> example.
Says who?
> Most people prefer Gould's recordings.
Says who?
> 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.
Coming from someone who doesn't even know what the NBA is, and who
recommends the deeply corrupt phrasing (among other things) of Glenn
Gould,
not to mention the corrupt use of a one-manual piano rather than a
two-manual harpsichord, which Bach expressly specified, that's rich.
|
