tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post3790533585883644500..comments2024-03-29T07:38:17.008-05:00Comments on The Music Salon: Bach: Partita No. 6, GigueBryan Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482696991279345516noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post-82567771415959947962022-06-30T23:47:28.435-05:002022-06-30T23:47:28.435-05:00It has always been and will always be in duple met...It has always been and will always be in duple meter. The tripletized interpretation is a meme. Someone got it in their head that it 'ought' to be in compound meter, saw the strange time signature, and then willfully misapplied the older Baroque notation practice of implying compound meter in an effort to justify their a priori conclusion. The meme then caught on with a certain type of pretentious and stubborn scholar/performer who fancies the idea of being 'correct'. <br /><br />But Bach did not notate like this, least of all in his carefully-constructed Opus 1, which is otherwise very straightforward and was written for an audience of middle-class amateurs. He easily could have written this piece in compound meter, but he didn't. But, most importantly by far, the duple subdivision is immeasurably more successful musically. The tripletization destroys the obsessive rhythmic drive, obscures the pervasive motives established over the course of the suite, and demands compromises and alterations to the text that would be unthinkable without the encouragement of this bizarre 'tradition'. The unique time signature is either a typo or an obscure choice by Bach, but it does not parsimoniously imply compound meter. <br /><br />Still, I like that this grand finale to the Partitas is controversial and enigmatic. It seems appropriate somehow. It's just a shame when otherwise outstanding performers like Schiff go out of their way to mar their interpretation with a silly rollicking tripletized finale. Njreuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07548635556014767010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post-11877123880878659962021-11-06T11:20:01.864-05:002021-11-06T11:20:01.864-05:00Yes, of course Bach knew what he was doing, but sc...Yes, of course Bach knew what he was doing, but scholars can help us understand what he was doing.Bryan Townsendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09482696991279345516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post-83085114549837850712021-11-06T09:13:07.474-05:002021-11-06T09:13:07.474-05:00I find it somewhat amusing that some "scholar...I find it somewhat amusing that some "scholar" sees fit to alter the score in no insignificant ways to satisfy his élucubration... Bach knew exactly what he was doing, I think it is criminal to literally rewrite it. Seriously. Unbelievable. Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03322985288347243123noreply@blogger.com