On May 20, 9:07 pm, "Tom Hens" <tom.h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> sagespath <sagesp...@[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.
Con****ius say: 'whoever thinks on only one channel, will never
compose two part invention' .
|
