Bach's polyrhythm?

[albert landa]

I am interested in opinions re the correct execution of the pairs of what
seem to be duplets in the 2nd bar of the Prelude No.2 in D major from Book 2
of Bach's Well Tempered Clavier.
I seem to remember hearing, a long time ago,a Baroque specialist insisting
that they had to be played in triple rhythm i.e. a crotchet (quarter note)
followed by a quaver(eighth note).

This seems to ring true because to play them as strict duplets seems rather
"modernistic" for Bach, especially on the 2nd page where you get groups of
six against duplets, and I can think of no other work of Bach where you
would find this sort of contra-rhythm.Yet I have 4 recordings of the "48"
and only one of the artists (Richter) plays them as triplets.The other
three(Demus, Fischer and Schiff) ALL play them as strict duplets.

Intuitively I prefer the triplet rhythm but I would be interested in any
informed views out there.

thanks,


albert landa

[Martin Dieringer]

Post by albert landa
I am interested in opinions re the correct execution of the pairs of
what seem to be duplets in the 2nd bar of the Prelude No.2 in D
major from Book 2 of Bach's Well Tempered Clavier.

Prelude 5 I guess?

Post by albert landa
I seem to remember hearing, a long time ago,a Baroque specialist
insisting that they had to be played in triple rhythm i.e. a
crotchet (quarter note) followed by a quaver(eighth note).

Why is it then written as it is in bar 6f?

Post by albert landa
This seems to ring true because to play them as strict duplets seems
rather "modernistic" for Bach, especially on the 2nd page where you
get groups of six against duplets,

hmm where is the problem here? There the 8th fits exactly to a
16th-triple, that's the solution to bar 2?

I don't think you can really argue in terms like "modernistic" in
case of Bach

Post by albert landa
and I can think of no other work of Bach where you would find this
sort of contra-rhythm.Yet I have 4 recordings of the "48" and only
one of the artists (Richter) plays them as triplets.The other
three(Demus, Fischer and Schiff) ALL play them as strict duplets.

so does Gould.
Richter could probably be called "romanticistic"...

Post by albert landa
Intuitively I prefer the triplet rhythm but I would be interested in any
informed views out there.

...but I'm not really informed...

m.

[albert landa]

Yes, of course.That was an error. No.5 in D major,

I still have a problem with the 2nd page because I don't hear those
semi-quavers(16th notes) as two sets of triplets(bar 2) Rather I hear them
as sextuplets with, if anything, a subtle feeling of accentuation of three
duplets which then makes the slotting in of the L.H. a matter of real
syncopation.

I'm not sure that I have made this clear and I am still puzzled by your
mentioning of Fuga 6 (2nd Book,I presume) as an example of Bach's contra
rhythm.I fail to see it.

thanks for the reply,


albert landa

Post by Martin Dieringer

Post by albert landa
I am interested in opinions re the correct execution of the pairs of
what seem to be duplets in the 2nd bar of the Prelude No.2 in D
major from Book 2 of Bach's Well Tempered Clavier.

Prelude 5 I guess?

Post by albert landa
I seem to remember hearing, a long time ago,a Baroque specialist
insisting that they had to be played in triple rhythm i.e. a
crotchet (quarter note) followed by a quaver(eighth note).

Why is it then written as it is in bar 6f?

Post by albert landa
This seems to ring true because to play them as strict duplets seems
rather "modernistic" for Bach, especially on the 2nd page where you
get groups of six against duplets,

hmm where is the problem here? There the 8th fits exactly to a
16th-triple, that's the solution to bar 2?
I don't think you can really argue in terms like "modernistic" in
case of Bach

Post by albert landa
and I can think of no other work of Bach where you would find this
sort of contra-rhythm.Yet I have 4 recordings of the "48" and only
one of the artists (Richter) plays them as triplets.The other
three(Demus, Fischer and Schiff) ALL play them as strict duplets.

so does Gould.
Richter could probably be called "romanticistic"...

Post by albert landa
Intuitively I prefer the triplet rhythm but I would be interested in any
informed views out there.

...but I'm not really informed...
m.

[Martin Dieringer]

Post by albert landa
Yes, of course.That was an error. No.5 in D major,
I still have a problem with the 2nd page because I don't hear those
semi-quavers(16th notes) as two sets of triplets(bar 2) Rather I
hear them as sextuplets with, if anything, a subtle feeling of
accentuation of three duplets which then makes the slotting in of
the L.H. a matter of real syncopation.
I'm not sure that I have made this clear and I am still puzzled by
your mentioning of Fuga 6 (2nd Book,I presume) as an example of
Bach's contra rhythm.I fail to see it.

well you have triplets (bar 1) and duplets (bar 3) in the same piece,
while not at the same time, yes. but you don't have them at the same
time in prel. 5 either. That's the trick that he uses 16ths in bar
18. So nowhere there are triplets and duplets opposed directly. I
think bar 18 of prel. 5 is just the proof that these are duplets and
have to be played as such.

I couldn't understand why one would play them as a 8th and a 16th,
it would be just a plain violation of what's written in bar 18. the 3
sets of duplets (RH) are not explicitely written so it's your choice
how to hear them.
I think Bach wants both rythms at once, but couldn't do it just
plainly 2 against 3 (does this ever occur in Bach's work?)


m.

[Martin Dieringer]

groups of six against duplets, and I can think of no other work of
Bach where you would find this sort of contra-rhythm.

how about Fuga 6?

m.

[albert landa]

It's interesting.I have just played my recording of Richter playing the
Prelude No.5 Bk.2 and he most definitely plays the duplets as triplets i.e.
as crotchet(quarter note) and quaver(eighth note)
and he plays them ikn that way in a most emphatic manner.

Added to that I recall(as I mentioned previously) hearing a musical scholar
here (Sydney, Australia) who had done a lot of research into early music
performance practice being most adamant that that was the way you simply had
to play them to be stylistically correct.

Yet, there are all those recordings where those artists who I previously
mentioned who play them (just as emphatically) as duplets.I wonder where
Richter got the idea to play them as triplets.It's made even odder by the
fact that the other notation of dotted quaver followed by a semi-quaver
which occurs throughout the prelude is played in exactly the same manner
i.e.as a crotchet followed by a quaver.I'm quite puzzled.

As I also mentioned before I tend to prefer the triplet "solution".I really
do need to locate a "baroque" specialist.

albert landa

Post by Martin Dieringer

groups of six against duplets, and I can think of no other work of
Bach where you would find this sort of contra-rhythm.

how about Fuga 6?
m.

[Martin Dieringer]

Post by albert landa
It's interesting.I have just played my recording of Richter playing
the Prelude No.5 Bk.2 and he most definitely plays the duplets as
triplets i.e. as crotchet(quarter note) and quaver(eighth note) and
he plays them ikn that way in a most emphatic manner.

Is there any other recording besides Richter that uses triplets? I
find his recording a bit boring, not only this prelude, so he
wouldn't be a standard for me anyway...

Post by albert landa
Added to that I recall(as I mentioned previously) hearing a musical
scholar here (Sydney, Australia) who had done a lot of research into
early music performance practice being most adamant that that was
the way you simply had to play them to be stylistically correct.

I really would like to know how he came to the conclusion...

m.

[albert landa]

I really wouldn't know if there any other recordings in which the pianist
plays the Prelude No 5 a la Richter.It's odd, the Richter thing, because I
wouldn't have imagined that there would have been a lot of performance
practice research done in the old Soviet Union.But I can't say that I agree
with you that Richter is "boring". I think his pianism is
superb.Stylistically, I would criticise him for being a little eccentric at
times and he often does play tempi which, for me anyway, are either tooo
fast or too slow, but I guess this is a ma tter of personal taste and it is
difficult to be too dogmatic when it comes to tempo in Bach.Do you have a
favourite pianist for Bach and please don't say Gould.I can't stand him!

Regarding the early music performance practice authority out here I can't
approach her because she's dead, but there is another chap out here who is,
if anything, even more knowledgeable in this area and I intend to approach
him and I will let you know his opinion.

It may have something to do with Bach's odd time signature for this prelude.
You know, the 4 over 4 and the 12 over eight.I just don't know.


albert landa

Post by Martin Dieringer

Post by albert landa
It's interesting.I have just played my recording of Richter playing
the Prelude No.5 Bk.2 and he most definitely plays the duplets as
triplets i.e. as crotchet(quarter note) and quaver(eighth note) and
he plays them ikn that way in a most emphatic manner.

Is there any other recording besides Richter that uses triplets? I
find his recording a bit boring, not only this prelude, so he
wouldn't be a standard for me anyway...

Post by albert landa
Added to that I recall(as I mentioned previously) hearing a musical
scholar here (Sydney, Australia) who had done a lot of research into
early music performance practice being most adamant that that was
the way you simply had to play them to be stylistically correct.

I really would like to know how he came to the conclusion...
m.

[Martin Dieringer]

Post by albert landa
I really wouldn't know if there any other recordings in which the
pianist plays the Prelude No 5 a la Richter.It's odd, the Richter
thing, because I wouldn't have imagined that there would have been a
lot of performance practice research done in the old Soviet
Union.But I can't say that I agree with you that Richter is
"boring". I think his pianism is superb.Stylistically, I would
criticise him for being a little eccentric at times and he often
does play tempi which, for me anyway, are either tooo fast or too
slow, but I guess this is a ma tter of personal taste and it is
difficult to be too dogmatic when it comes to tempo in Bach.Do you
have a favourite pianist for Bach and please don't say Gould.I can't
stand him!

I only have these 2 recordings of the WK, and Gould is just much more
clear. He does much more understand what he's playing, I think...
I don't like Richter much, except maybe for Mussorgski's Pictures,
his brutality fits very well with Baba Yaga...;-)
His Fuga no. 5 is ridiculously slow!
I think Perahia's Goldberg Var. for example are very good

Post by albert landa
Regarding the early music performance practice authority out here I
can't approach her because she's dead, but there is another chap out
here who is, if anything, even more knowledgeable in this area and I
intend to approach him and I will let you know his opinion.

very interesting!

Post by albert landa
It may have something to do with Bach's odd time signature for this
prelude. You know, the 4 over 4 and the 12 over eight.I just don't
know.

Yes, another hint it has to be duplets! There are 2 possibilities, 1st
bar is 12/8, meaning you have triplets per "quarter", second bar is
4/4, making it possible to have 2 eigths per quarter. In bar 18 he
mixes both. So you even have two time signatures together in one bar


m.