Chapuis' Bach organ recordings re-issued at bargain price

[kirkmcelhearn]

On Amazon FR:

http://amzn.to/noMxAk

Chapuis' Bach set, 14 CDs, on United Archive, for a mere €27.

Kirk

[pianomaven]

And more:

http://www.amazon.fr/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?__mk_fr_FR=%C5M%C5Z%D5%D1&url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=United+Archives&x=21&y=11

TD

[Pierre Paquin]

I hope that this reissue tames some of the high trebble which was annoying
on the original DAW LP issues and difficult to track as well.
Pierre
_____________________________________________________________________
Free and continuous, non-stop internet broadcasts
12+ HOURS OF HAYDN SYMPHONIES at http://www.live365.com/stations/ppaquin
9 HOURS OF LIGHT & LIVELY POPULAR CLASSIC AND MORE at
http://www.live365.com/stations/amorbach

<Kirk McElhearn> wrote in message
news:4ea08236$0$30792$ba4a...@reader.news.orange.fr...

[Mark S]

Is UA a legit company producing CDs under license, or are they a
pirate operation like Haydn House?

[pianomaven]

I do believe that this is a legitimate company, Mark. The owner used
to be a senior manager at Sony in France and has been working for a
company specializing in baroque music. Jordi Savall? I forget. In any
event, these recordings hold NO interest for the current owners, who
would have provided an easy license to United Archive without their
having to lift a finger. Not even produce the tapes, since the CD
masters already exist. It's found money for them.

The owners of Astree are doing the same with some Philippe Cassard
Debussy recordings for Universal next year.

I am surprised you ask, Mark, as I would have thought you had heard
some of the previous albums from United Archives. To date all of their
material has been old monaural stuff out of copyright. This is their
first foray into stereo recordings, I think.

TD

[Mark S]

Oh, I've heard of UA, but this Chapius set is the first release I've
seen from them that interests me. I had the set on DAW LPs, and
listened to them constantly (I was in college at the time). I
imprinted many of Bach's organ music with this set. The price is
cheap, so I'd be interested in seeing my reaction to the recordings 30
years down the road.

[Mark S]

On Oct 20, 6:05 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Oh, I've heard of UA, but this Chapius set is the first release I've
> seen from them that interests me. I had the set on DAW LPs, and
> listened to them constantly (I was in college at the time). I
> imprinted many of Bach's organ music with this set. The price is
> cheap, so I'd be interested in seeing my reaction to the recordings 30
> years down the road.

Should have mentioned that I'm asking if they're legit at this point
because I do have an interest in the Chapius. Up to this point, it
didn't matter to me in practice as I had no interest in ordering their
product. I ask now because if they were a pirate, I wouldn't reward
their thievery with a purchase. If they're legit, I may jump.

[wagnerfan]

Mark - i think you'll find them just as exciting and dramatic as
before - I have the French CD issue with the detailed booklet and have
heard it many times - thrilling playing. Wagner Fan

[pianomaven]

On Oct 20, 9:17 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think you'll find them just as exciting and dramatic as

> before - I have the French CD issue with the detailed booklet and have
> heard it many times - thrilling playing.

Thrilling? Bach's organ music?

If that is the case, you would probably just adore Lang Lang's Liszt.

Bach never intended his music to be "thrilling", as you put it,
Dickey. He wanted you to enjoy the structure of his music, how he
treats the various contrapuntal lines.

You want thrills? Go to the circus.

TD

[JohnGavin]

Spoken like a true Rosalyn Tureck fan. Let's wipe those smiles off
our faces when we listen to Bach............and pass the formaldehyde
please.

[pianomaven]

No need to avoid smiles (I feel sure that Bach was able to smile in
his music), nor to anaesthetize yourself, John. (always a bad sign
when someone takes the argument and pushes it to an extreme in order
to make his point) But the chills and spills, not to mention spit-
curls, are to be avoided at all costs. If you want great Bach today,
you have to go to Grigory Sokolov or, on the organ, Olivier Latry, I
think. There is truly something wrong when you have to look to Bach
for cheap thrills.

Chapuis is/was a kind of Liberace/Horowitz of the organ. Finally, it
can all be very wearing, although the surface delights are surely
there for those who need or want that. Myself I stopped listening to
VH a very long time ago. Ditto GG.

TD

[Randy Lane]

Ah, but Tom, you forget that many listener's first exposure to this
music was a Stokowski transcrition. Hence, it is associated with
"thrills".
Then again, with Stokowski in mind maybe your use of the term circus
is appropriate.

[wagnerfan]

Now now John - we really should take seriously Leakin Deacons opinion
of what Bach would have wanted - after all, he was there when Bach
was composing his organ music!!!!! LOL what a prehistoric view of
Bach's music!!!!Wagner fan

[wagnerfan]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:43:00 -0700 (PDT), JohnGavin
<dag...@comcast.net> wrote:

The old fool once again didn't read properly - I said the music was
thrillingly played!!!!! Idiot.
Wagner fan

[pianomaven]

That would only be the VERY old folk here, no?

TD

[Roland van Gaalen]

One of the CDs in the set released in 1988 (*) contains music performed at the Klapmeyer organ in Altenbruch, a small town not far from Bremen and Hamburg in Germany.

Here is a video demonstrating the beautiful sound of that instrument built between 1498 and 1730:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZQi3hXjK4

(*) Ref.:
JS Bach - L'oeuvre d'orgue - Michel Chapuis, organist - Auvidis-Valois; 14 CDs; recorded 1966-70
(organs: Andersen organ/Copenhagen, Denmark; Arp Schnitger organ/Zwolle, the Netherlands; Bekerath organ/Hamm, Germany; Klapmeyer organ/Altenbruch, Germany; Andersen organ/Ringsted, Denmark)

[Roland van Gaalen]

Great music, great organs, great organist, great interpretations, great recordings -- a great set; buy it without hesitation!

Following the advice of organist Joel Warren Lidz, who used to post here, and others, I bought a previous release a few years ago.

I am assuming that the new United Archives release, which I haven't heard, is just as good as the one I have:

JS Bach - L'oeuvre d'orgue - Michel Chapuis, organist - Auvidis-Valois; 14 CDs; recorded 1966-70

(organs: Andersen organ/Copenhagen, Denmark; Arp Schnitger organ/Zwolle, the Netherlands; Beckerath organ/Hamm, Germany; Klapmeyer organ/Altenbruch, Germany; Andersen organ/Ringsted, Denmark)
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
r.p.vangaalenATchello.nl

[wagnerfan]

Yes that the pressing I have - thrillingly played. Wagner fan

[Roland van Gaalen]

I should add that for anyone who likes or wants to get acquainted with Bach's organ music, buying this superb set is much more efficient than collecting single "greatest hits" CDs.

[pianomaven]

On Oct 23, 12:23 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That will depend upon just how acquainted they wish to become. There
are many compliations of Bach's organ music which give nice pictures
of Bach's organ music without delving into esoterica. Two or four CDs
should do the trick for anyone who doesn't want to bathe in the music.
After all, some people here push Biggs, and yet he never ever signed a
complete Bach edition. Nor would he have, I think. It's just too much
for most people.

Completeness has become a fetish among collectors in recent decades.

TD

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Sunday, October 23, 2011 7:49:05 PM UTC+2, pianomaven wrote:
> On Oct 23, 12:23 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandv...@gmail.com>

For me it's not a fetish but a practical consideration.

If you buy single CDs, you are likely to end up with many recordings of BWV 565 and none of the wonderful BWV 536, for example.

This excellent 14-CD set is cheap, at least in at Amazon in France:

France: Amazon.fr: EUR 27
UK: Amazon.co.uk: EUR 38 at the current exchange rate
Germany: Amazon.de: EUR 54
USA: Amazon.com: N.A.
Canada: Amazon.ca: N.A.

[Kevin N]

Yes, thrilling is exactly what JSB intended. You don't really have to
read Aristotle's _Rhetoric_ and all the contemporary treatises, such
as those by Mattheson and Burmeister, that put Aristotle's ideas into
musical terms, to know that Bach intended to bring about various
affects in his listeners; a good performance of Bach's music will do
that well enough. It's really not all that difficult concept. At least
for some who isn't a complete musical idiot like yourself. And all
those flashy cadenzas in his toccata-like pieces that he wrote in a
similar vein to his North German predecessors? I suppose you think he
just put them in so he could bore his listeners like you do with all
your inane comments.

[pianomaven]

On Oct 24, 1:26 pm, Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 6:23 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 9:17 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think you'll find them just as exciting and dramatic as
> > > before - I have the French CD issue with the detailed booklet and have
> > > heard it many times - thrilling playing.
>
> > Thrilling? Bach's organ music?
>
> > If that is the case, you would probably just adore Lang Lang's Liszt.
>
> > Bach never intended his music to be "thrilling", as you put it,
> > Dickey. He wanted you to enjoy the structure of his music, how he
> > treats the various contrapuntal lines.
>
> > You want thrills? Go to the circus.
>
> Yes, thrilling is exactly what JSB intended.

What proof do you have for this statement? Or you simply imposing upon
Bach's music what you personally search for in musical performance?

You don't really have to
> read Aristotle's _Rhetoric_ and all the contemporary treatises, such
> as those by Mattheson and Burmeister, that put Aristotle's ideas into
> musical terms, to know that Bach intended to bring about various
> affects in his listeners; a good performance of Bach's music will do
> that well enough.

Again, I would ask what evidence you have from Bach himself - not the
musicologists, of course - that he intended the affects(sic!) in his
listeners?

It's really not all that difficult concept.

It is not a difficult concept. And probably appropriate for Chopin and
Liszt.

At least
> for some who isn't a complete musical idiot like yourself.

Your argument is not aided by attempts to paint yourself as a nasty
little bitchy queen.

And all
> those flashy cadenzas in his toccata-like pieces that he wrote in a
> similar vein to his North German predecessors?

The flashy cadenzas, as you put it, are better described as "florid".
They ornament the music, rather than forming its core.

I suppose you think he just put them in so he could bore his listeners
like you do with all your inane comments.

Apparently, you are trying not to learn something here. Pity, because
I feel you have a great deal to learn. Yes, even from little old me.
But benighted, blinkered, and rather nasty people like yourself would
rather wallow in their own ignorance than dare to acquire opinions,
nay, information, from others.

TD

[Kevin N]

On Oct 24, 2:08 pm, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 1:26 pm, Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 6:23 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 20, 9:17 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I think you'll find them just as exciting and dramatic as
> > > > before - I have the French CD issue with the detailed booklet and have
> > > > heard it many times - thrilling playing.
>
> > > Thrilling? Bach's organ music?
>
> > > If that is the case, you would probably just adore Lang Lang's Liszt.
>
> > > Bach never intended his music to be "thrilling", as you put it,
> > > Dickey. He wanted you to enjoy the structure of his music, how he
> > > treats the various contrapuntal lines.
>
> > > You want thrills? Go to the circus.
>
> > Yes, thrilling is exactly what JSB intended.
>
> What proof do you have for this statement? Or you simply imposing upon
> Bach's music what you personally search for in musical performance?

LOL! No wonder you find composers such as Bruckner and Wagner tedious
and long-winded. You do not even have the attention span to connect
the first sentence with the remainder of a paragraph!

>  You don't really have to
>
> > read Aristotle's _Rhetoric_ and all the contemporary treatises, such
> > as those by Mattheson and Burmeister, that put Aristotle's ideas into
> > musical terms, to know that Bach intended to bring about various
> > affects in his listeners; a good performance of Bach's music will do
> > that well enough.
>
> Again, I would ask what evidence you have from Bach himself - not the
> musicologists, of course - that he intended the affects(sic!) in his
> listeners?

The fact you add "sic" to my "affects" and think Mattheson and
Burmeister are musicologists shows that you really have no clue.

>  It's really not all that difficult concept.
>
> It is not a difficult concept. And probably appropriate for Chopin and
> Liszt.
>
>  At least
>
> > for some who isn't a complete musical idiot like yourself.
>
> Your argument is not aided by attempts to paint yourself as a nasty
> little bitchy queen.
>
>  And all
>
> > those flashy cadenzas in his toccata-like pieces that he wrote in a
> > similar vein to his North German predecessors?
>
> The flashy cadenzas, as you put it, are better described as "florid".
> They ornament the music, rather than forming its core.

OK. You would have no problem with, say, a performance of the 5th
Brandenburg Concerto with the cadenza omitted.

> I suppose you think he just put them in so he could bore his listeners
> like you do with all your inane comments.
>
> Apparently, you are trying not to learn something here. Pity, because
> I feel you have a great deal to learn. Yes, even from little old me.

Almost correct. I do have a lot to learn, as does everyone else, but
only from people who actually know what they're talking about.

> But benighted, blinkered, and rather nasty people like _myself_ would

> rather wallow in their own ignorance than dare to acquire opinions,
> nay, information, from others.

Fixed That For You.



> TD

[wagnerfan]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:53:28 -0700 (PDT), Kevin N <boss...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Once again its that sneering, demeaning tone, ironically supported
by nothing in the way of real facts or musical appreciation, that so
endears leakin' Deacon to so many here. His description of "florid" is
one of the funniest things I have read here in a long time. Poor old
thing. Wagner Fan

[pianomaven]

On Oct 24, 7:53 pm, Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2:08 pm, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 1:26 pm, Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 21, 6:23 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 20, 9:17 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I think you'll find them just as exciting and dramatic as
> > > > > before - I have the French CD issue with the detailed booklet and have
> > > > > heard it many times - thrilling playing.
>
> > > > Thrilling? Bach's organ music?
>
> > > > If that is the case, you would probably just adore Lang Lang's Liszt.
>
> > > > Bach never intended his music to be "thrilling", as you put it,
> > > > Dickey. He wanted you to enjoy the structure of his music, how he
> > > > treats the various contrapuntal lines.
>
> > > > You want thrills? Go to the circus.
>
> > > Yes, thrilling is exactly what JSB intended.
>
> > What proof do you have for this statement? Or you simply imposing upon
> > Bach's music what you personally search for in musical performance?
>
> LOL! No wonder you find composers such as Bruckner and Wagner tedious
> and long-winded.

As expected. No proof whatsoever. There IS none, of course.

You do not even have the attention span to connect
> the first sentence with the remainder of a paragraph!

Your first sentences and the "remainder" of a paragraph are simple-
minded hogwash. Best ignored.

> >  You don't really have to
>
> > > read Aristotle's _Rhetoric_ and all the contemporary treatises, such
> > > as those by Mattheson and Burmeister, that put Aristotle's ideas into
> > > musical terms, to know that Bach intended to bring about various
> > > affects in his listeners; a good performance of Bach's music will do
> > > that well enough.
>
> > Again, I would ask what evidence you have from Bach himself - not the
> > musicologists, of course - that he intended the affects(sic!) in his
> > listeners?
>
> The fact you add "sic" to my "affects" and think Mattheson and
> Burmeister are musicologists shows that you really have no clue.

Again, no proof, of course. You might well do spend some time on the
difference between affects and effects and then see whether either is
in any way relevant to what you call your argument.

> >  It's really not all that difficult concept.
>
> > It is not a difficult concept. And probably appropriate for Chopin and
> > Liszt.
>
> >  At least
>
> > > for some who isn't a complete musical idiot like yourself.
>
> > Your argument is not aided by attempts to paint yourself as a nasty
> > little bitchy queen.
>
> >  And all
>
> > > those flashy cadenzas in his toccata-like pieces that he wrote in a
> > > similar vein to his North German predecessors?
>
> > The flashy cadenzas, as you put it, are better described as "florid".
> > They ornament the music, rather than forming its core.
>
> OK. You would have no problem with, say, a performance of the 5th
> Brandenburg Concerto with the cadenza omitted.

Is this what you would describe as "flashy"?

In any event, I thought we were discussing the organ music here. I
think you mentioned toccatas. Perhaps you have also investivated
Bach's fugues? Or are they too unflashy for you?

> > I suppose you think he just put them in so he could bore his listeners
> > like you do with all your inane comments.
>
> > Apparently, you are trying not to learn something here. Pity, because
> > I feel you have a great deal to learn. Yes, even from little old me.
>
> Almost correct. I do have a lot to learn, as does everyone else, but
> only from people who actually know what they're talking about.

Ah, another bit of bitchy queen-ness. You and Dickey should get
together and swap fainting gestures and hissy-fits.

> > But benighted, blinkered, and rather nasty people like _myself_would
> > rather wallow in their own ignorance than dare to acquire opinions,
> > nay, information, from others.
>
> Fixed That For You.

You think so. Hate to disappoint you. But you were very wide of the
mark.

I suggest you acquire Helmut Walcha's organ music of Bach - either set
- as a corrective for all the Affective playing (certainly not
effective) of Monsieur Chapuis.

Perhaps not "thrilling", but that's the music Bach really wrote.

TD

[Kevin N]

On Oct 24, 8:26 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:53:28 -0700 (PDT), Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com>

Poor old leakin' Deacon, nothing better to do with his time than to
sneer at his betters. He really could use a good old-fashioned
schooling, but alas he's either unable or unwilling to learn. Still,
getting him make comments about any musical topic richly rewards the
effort with side-splitting humor--though he denies having a sense of
humor himself!

[Bob Harper]

>>>> On Oct 21, 6:23 am, pianomaven<1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> Thrilling? Bach's organ music?
>>
>>>>> If that is the case, you would probably just adore Lang Lang's Liszt.
>>
>>>>> Bach never intended his music to be "thrilling", as you put it,
>>>>> Dickey. He wanted you to enjoy the structure of his music, how he
>>>>> treats the various contrapuntal lines.
>>
>>>>> You want thrills? Go to the circus.

I find this extraordinarily puzzling, Tom. Why should there be a
contradiction between structure and thrills? I find Bach's organ music
both intellectually satisfying and, in the big pieces, utterly thrilling
even as I marvel at JSB's intellectual powers in performances like those
of Chapuis. In fact, performances of those pieces which are not
thrilling are, to my mind, missing some part of their essential greatness.

Bob Harpe3r

[pianomaven]

On Oct 24, 8:26 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:53:28 -0700 (PDT), Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com>

There are NO real facts, silly boy. You stick with your "thrilling".
It goes with all the glitter, now doesn't it?

What a little bitchy queen!

TD 

[pianomaven]

Thrilling, Bob is not a reaction you might get from the Schuebler
Chorales, for example, or any number of Bach's endless string of fugal
compositions, or, indeed, of the Art of Fugue, his masterpiece in the
genre.

Sure, the T&F in D minor is a dramatic work of great intensity. But it
was never intended to "thrill", in the manner of, say, watching a
pianist play La Campanella, for example. This is either to debase the
use of the word thrilling or the music of Bach, itself.

Posters of the Dickey variety - basically he's waiting for a tune
which resembles "Vissi d'arte" - are a very poor guide to the music of
Bach. So, of course, is Glenn Gould. That kind of playing can really
only be touched after you have done the hard slogging through the
music as it was written. Going straight to Gould as a Bible will
totally distort your understanding of Bach's music. Ditto Chapuis. Not
that he is a bad musician; just that most people who think he is
"thrilling" are only really saying that they don't understand the
music at all but manage to find it tolerable - or even exciting - when
some musician like Chapuis characterizes it in a flashy, and to me
gratuitous manner.

You want a French approach to Bach, try Marie-Claire Alain, Olivier
Latry, Olivier Vernet.

You want a German approach, well Walcha, either version.

You want Glenn Goule (AKA Liberace), well, Chapuis is your man, Bob.

TD

[JohnGavin]

This last travesty is proof that you should stop this already. The
problem with your argument is that you are drawing completely
artificial boundaries.
Bach's music is vaster than your ability to confine it within the
strictures that you, personally, find acceptable.

[pianomaven]

On Oct 25, 6:36 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Bach's music is vaster than your ability to confine it within the
> strictures that you, personally, find acceptable.

I agree.

It is also vaster than the word "thrilling" might convey, particularly
to someone who doesn't know it at all, John.

You know that, of course, as do I. My astonishment is that you would
go with "thrilling" anyway.

Really, just astonishing statement from someone who is presumed to
know this music well. Frankly, however, you have come up with some
pretty outlandish positions of late which have caused me to question a
very great deal about your musical knowledge and background.

TD

[Bob Harper]

On 10/25/11 2:20 AM, pianomaven wrote:
> On Oct 24, 10:05 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 21, 6:23 am, pianomaven<1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Thrilling? Bach's organ music?
>>
>>>>>>> If that is the case, you would probably just adore Lang Lang's Liszt.
>>
>>>>>>> Bach never intended his music to be "thrilling", as you put it,
>>>>>>> Dickey. He wanted you to enjoy the structure of his music, how he
>>>>>>> treats the various contrapuntal lines.
>>
>>>>>>> You want thrills? Go to the circus.
>>
>> I find this extraordinarily puzzling, Tom. Why should there be a
>> contradiction between structure and thrills? I find Bach's organ music
>> both intellectually satisfying and, in the big pieces, utterly thrilling
>> even as I marvel at JSB's intellectual powers in performances like those
>> of Chapuis. In fact, performances of those pieces which are not
>> thrilling are, to my mind, missing some part of their essential greatness.
>
> Thrilling, Bob is not a reaction you might get from the Schuebler
> Chorales, for example, or any number of Bach's endless string of fugal
> compositions, or, indeed, of the Art of Fugue, his masterpiece in the
> genre.

i agree, and thought I'd said as much.

>
> Sure, the T&F in D minor is a dramatic work of great intensity. But it
> was never intended to "thrill", in the manner of, say, watching a
> pianist play La Campanella, for example. This is either to debase the
> use of the word thrilling or the music of Bach, itself.

And here I disagree. For the big works, what you call 'a dramatic work
of great intensiuty', I call thrilling, at least in the sort of
performance I like. De gustibus, I suppose. Nothing to do with KK or GG.

>
> Posters of the Dickey variety - basically he's waiting for a tune
> which resembles "Vissi d'arte" - are a very poor guide to the music of
> Bach. So, of course, is Glenn Gould. That kind of playing can really
> only be touched after you have done the hard slogging through the
> music as it was written. Going straight to Gould as a Bible will
> totally distort your understanding of Bach's music. Ditto Chapuis. Not
> that he is a bad musician; just that most people who think he is
> "thrilling" are only really saying that they don't understand the
> music at all but manage to find it tolerable - or even exciting - when
> some musician like Chapuis characterizes it in a flashy, and to me
> gratuitous manner.

'To me' is the key phrase. You're free, for example, to like Tureck's
way with Bach, but don't insist that I prefer her to, say, Feltsman in
the WTC, or Perahia in the Goldbergs. In sum, I think you're being
unfair to Chapuis, but again, de gustibus.

Bob Harper

[pianomaven]

I would never prevent you from listening to anything you want. It is
even quite silly to suggest that I would.

But people here tend to get very touchy when their preferences allow
their tastes to be characterized. That's the problem, Bob. I suppose
my taste in Bach can also be characterized, but not only do I like
Tureck in Bach, I also like Feltsman, Richter, Fischer, Pedroni, and
many others. Not Perahia, however, as he tends to prettify the music
too much for my taste. Ditto for A Schiff, in my opinion. I like good,
sturdy, unfussy, unfrilly Bach, frankly. Bach was a straight-ahead
kind of guy. As soon as you become cutesy with his music Bach beats a
hasty retreat and the musician takes center stage: Look what I can do,
see my flashy runs and ornaments and registrations. ARGH!!! Just not
my tasse de the, Bob.

TD

[wagnerfan]

Look, Leakin Deacon has never heard the Chapuis set - not one note.
Once again he is giving out what he thinks are provocative opinions
about about performances he has not heard and once again looks like an
ass. Wagner fan

[Mark S]

On Oct 25, 6:34 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bach was a straight-ahead
> kind of guy.

And one would assume he was the kind of guy who wouldn't find it
necessary to correct a member of his congregation if they happened to
remark that they found his music thrilling. :)

[wagnerfan]

Mark what I actually said was I find the music "thrillingly played"
Not for the first time, Deacon was in such a hurry to find something
wrong with my posting that he misread it . However I do find much of
Bach's work "thrilling". To have a problem with that shows a kind of
parochial view of his works I actually thought was passe a long time
ago. Wagner Fan

[pianomaven]

On Oct 25, 10:30 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:36:43 -0700 (PDT), JohnGavin
>

You blithering idiot. I have it on LP.

Get thee to a nunnery. And don't give up Wagner; it suits you, pompous
tripe.

TD

[pianomaven]

North Germans don't find ANYTHING thrilling, Mark. You know that.

TD

[pianomaven]

On Oct 25, 10:41 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Mark S
>

> <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 25, 6:34 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Bach was a straight-ahead
> >> kind of guy.
>
> >And one would assume he was the kind of guy who wouldn't find it
> >necessary to correct a member of his congregation if they happened to
> >remark that they found his music thrilling.  :)
>
>   Mark what I actually said was I find the music "thrillingly played"

A distinction without a difference, Dickey.

You are sooooooooo stupid. It beggars description.

TD

[Johannes Roehl]

As a young man Bach was actually chastised by some church officials
because he had "confused" the congregation with too many modulations
while accompanying or preluding chorales sung during service. It was
also noticed (and not welcomed) that he brought a "strange maiden"
(fremde Jungfer) for singing in the church, presumabely his future first
wife.

[Ray Hall]

pianomaven wrote:

> But people here tend to get very touchy when their preferences allow
> their tastes to be characterized. That's the problem, Bob. I suppose
> my taste in Bach can also be characterized, but not only do I like
> Tureck in Bach, I also like Feltsman, Richter, Fischer, Pedroni, and
> many others. Not Perahia, however, as he tends to prettify the music
> too much for my taste. Ditto for A Schiff, in my opinion. I like good,
> sturdy, unfussy, unfrilly Bach, frankly. Bach was a straight-ahead
> kind of guy. As soon as you become cutesy with his music Bach beats a
> hasty retreat and the musician takes center stage: Look what I can do,
> see my flashy runs and ornaments and registrations. ARGH!!! Just not
> my tasse de the, Bob.

How do you categorize Gould? I can understand that Kempff may be
considered a bit too 'personal' in Bach, but Gould was fairly straight
in his own way.

As for the word 'thrilling', then Bach has the power to convey this
feeling, as well as other emotional reactions. I don't really see what
the issue is here, especially with the sheer power and grandeur that is
conveyed by an instrument such as an organ.

Besides which, I have Hans Fagius in much of the organ music. He is
straight .... too straight, and ultimately pretty boring, at least to
these ears.

Ray Hall, Taree

[wagnerfan]

its obvious from Deacons comments that he has not actually heard the
Chapuis recordings at issue (the ones from the 1960s and 70s first out
on DAW LPs and then on hard to get French CDs). In no way is he flashy
or cutesy - what he is is dramatic and exciting as well as just being
extremely proficient technically. But whats the point??? Deacon has
painted himself into a corner and can't get out even after he actually
hears the performances - which isn't likely. Ridiculous old fool.
Wagner Fan

[JohnGavin]

On Oct 25, 7:23 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 6:36 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Bach's music is vaster than your ability to confine it within the
> > strictures that you, personally, find acceptable.
>
> I agree.
>
> It is also vaster than the word "thrilling" might convey, particularly
> to someone who doesn't know it at all, John.
>

Here exactly lies the problem I'm having. Do you KNOW for sure that
the poster who described the playing as "thrilling" isn't ALSO
appreciating the contrapuntal and structural genius of the music as
well - or isn't in fact, taking for granted that the reader knows
this?


And to quote you:

"Bach never intended his music to be "thrilling", as you put it,
Dickey. "

How exactly do you know this Tom??

Again, from you:

"He wanted you to enjoy the structure of his music, how he
treats the various contrapuntal lines. "

Did Bach want the listener to enjoy anything else about the music?
Are the contrapuntal lines the end all of the music, or a means to a
greater end? Do the organ fugues have differing character? How does
the "Gigue" fugue compare with the "St. Anne's" fugue? Is it only the
contrapuntal lines that matter, or the mood and character as well?
Personally if the Gigue Fugue isn't performed in a thrilling manner, I
would think something is wrong with the performance.

It's your "Bach wanted......." statement that I find rather
pretentious and pompous. Not your specific preferences.

>

> Really, just astonishing statement from someone who is presumed to
> know this music well. Frankly, however, you have come up with some
> pretty outlandish positions of late

Name them.

[Mark S]

On Oct 25, 8:26 am, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:

> As a young man Bach was actually chastised by some church officials
> because he had "confused" the congregation with too many modulations
> while accompanying or preluding chorales sung during service. It was
> also noticed (and not welcomed) that he brought a "strange maiden"
> (fremde Jungfer) for singing in the church, presumabely his future first
> wife.

Here's one for the music theorists out there:

Q. What is the definition of a six-nine chord?

A. That's when the root of the bass is in the soprano.

[Kevin N]

Yawn. Attempting to reason with you is an exercise in futility.

> > > > those flashy cadenzas in his toccata-like pieces that he wrote in a
> > > > similar vein to his North German predecessors?
>
> > > The flashy cadenzas, as you put it, are better described as "florid".
> > > They ornament the music, rather than forming its core.

> > OK. You would have no problem with, say, a performance of the 5th
> > Brandenburg Concerto with the cadenza omitted.
>
> Is this what you would describe as "flashy"?
>
> In any event, I thought we were discussing the organ music here. I
> think you mentioned toccatas. Perhaps you have also investivated
> Bach's fugues? Or are they too unflashy for you?

Yes, he does provide flashy, toccata like endings to a number of his
organ fugues, such as one in c minor on a theme by Legrenzi, and the
great a minor fugue, BWV 543 (prelude and fugue together can be
considered to comprise a single toccata).

And going back to "florid" passages merely "ornamenting the music
rather forming the core," I suspect you would also prefer to listen to
all the chorales in das Orgelbuchlein performed as plain 4-part
chorales. One of them - "Wenn wir in höchsten Nöten sein" - was
stripped of much of its florid ornamentation (and provided with
additional interpolated passages) for inclusion in the 18 as "Vor
deinen Thron," where it takes on an altogether different character.
How would "Nun komm' der heiden Heiland," BWV 659 work for you just as
the music's "core"?

> > Almost correct. I do have a lot to learn, as does everyone else, but
> > only from people who actually know what they're talking about.
>
> Ah, another bit of bitchy queen-ness. You and Dickey should get
> together and swap fainting gestures and hissy-fits.

Consider yourself bitch-slapped, kurwa.

> I suggest you acquire Helmut Walcha's organ music of Bach - either set
> - as a corrective for all the Affective playing (certainly not
> effective) of Monsieur Chapuis.

I do have the Walcha, both sets as a matter of fact. He does play
several beautiful, period instruments, and chooses his registration
to bring out in clarity the counterpoint in the music. But he can
barely play the notes, and just plows through all the notes as
literally as humanly possibly (or a little less so, given his
technical limitations).

> Perhaps not "thrilling", but that's the music Bach really wrote.

Performance practices of Bach's organ works have advanced a great deal
since Walcha; before he made his stereo set even. You really should
try to get out of that rut some day.

> TD

[wagnerfan]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:25:59 -0700 (PDT), Kevin N <boss...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Kevin - you are arguing with a fool. I have both Walcha sets as well
and though they were valuable at the time of their release (well, the
first one anyway) as a corrective to the romantic excesses of a fomer
generation. the pendulum swung back a long time ago (Deacon doesn't
realize that) and now many find his playing overly literal and even
pedantic (I actually like some of his performances - the Trio sonatas
in the first set but the larger preludes and fugues are too dullly
played) With leakin' Deacon there can ever be a middle ground - he
can't think that an organist could play with drama and imagination
without going overboard - its such a constipated view of music and
interpretation I can only feel pity for the old sot. Wagner Fan

[Kevin N]

On Oct 25, 5:20 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

True. Same for Walcha.

> Ditto Chapuis.

> Not
> that he is a bad musician; just that most people who think he is
> "thrilling" are only really saying that they don't understand the
> music at all but manage to find it tolerable

Bull. Shit.

> - or even exciting - when
> some musician like Chapuis characterizes it in a flashy, and to me
> gratuitous manner.

Chapuis if flashy where dictated my the music, such as in his pieces
like the a minor and b minor preludes and fuges. Other places he is
very subdued, like the c minor fantasies (BWV 537i and BWV 562i), or
the hauntingly played fugue BWV 533 with the Vox Humana in the RH and
tremulant in the LH. His triosonatas are pure chamber music/

> You want a French approach to Bach, try Marie-Claire Alain, Olivier
> Latry, Olivier Vernet.
>
> You want a German approach, well Walcha, either version.

Are you really that shallow that you can only think in terms of stupid
stereotypes? As if you could even tell the difference! Wolfgang Rubsam
must be French, since his Philips set is also "flashy" - much closer
to Alain and Chapuis than Walcha.

> You want Glenn Goule (AKA Liberace), well, Chapuis is your man, Bob.

You never cease to amaze with one astonishingly stupid comment after
another.

> TD

[wagnerfan]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Kevin N <boss...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course he does - he always does - his postings here have shown that
over and over. The only Chapuis leakin' ever heard is what is on
youtube - he has never heard the LPs or CD under discussion (I am
waiting for someone to actually ask him if he has heard the sets in
question because I want to watch him lie)" He also obviously thinks
someone who likes vocal music could never appreciate the musical
architecture of a Bach organ work - its the way he thinks - everyting
is put into a box - nice and simple. Its a black and white way of
looking at art that is truly pitiful. The only time I read anything
resembling imagination from Leakin is when he regales us with those
nauseatingly written reviews whose only cure is a dose of
Pepto-Bismol. Wagner Fan

[pianomaven]

She would have been strange as women didn't sing in choirs, unless I
am wrong. Bach had boy sopranos for the soprano parts. Bach was seen
as a young turk and an old fogey during his lifetime. He lived long
enough for that.

TD

[pianomaven]

On Oct 25, 11:28 am, Ray Hall <raymond.ha...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> pianomaven wrote:
> > But people here tend to get very touchy when their preferences allow
> > their tastes to be characterized. That's the problem, Bob. I suppose
> > my taste in Bach can also be characterized, but not only do I like
> > Tureck in Bach, I also like Feltsman, Richter, Fischer, Pedroni, and
> > many others. Not Perahia, however, as he tends to prettify the music
> > too much for my taste. Ditto for A Schiff, in my opinion. I like good,
> > sturdy, unfussy, unfrilly Bach, frankly. Bach was a straight-ahead
> > kind of guy. As soon as you become cutesy with his music Bach beats a
> > hasty retreat and the musician takes center stage: Look what I can do,
> > see my flashy runs and ornaments and registrations. ARGH!!! Just not
> > my tasse de the, Bob.
>
> How do you categorize Gould? I can understand that Kempff may be
> considered a bit too 'personal' in Bach, but Gould was fairly straight
> in his own way.

I view GG as the romantic of Bach pianists of his day: willful,
capricious, always doing his own thing, going his own way, just as the
Romantics did. The funny thing is that he himself viewed Rosalyn
Tureck's Bach as the only Bach he admired. And it is from her he
acquired his detache touch, which he uses without any rhyme or reason,
alas.

> As for the word 'thrilling', then Bach has the power to convey this
> feeling, as well as other emotional reactions. I don't really see what
> the issue is here, especially with the sheer power and grandeur that is
> conveyed by an instrument such as an organ.

I have to wonder if you have ever sat through the Art of Fugue on the
organ and come away "thrilled". Impressed, yes, inspired, also.

> Besides which, I have Hans Fagius in much of the organ music. He is
> straight .... too straight, and ultimately pretty boring, at least to
> these ears.

There's that ultimate put-down. I was waiting for it. Boring, eh?
Fagius is a marvelous musician. What I see as having happened to you
is that you expect Bach's music to leap out at you with dazzling
registrations etc. This is, to me, a contradition of everything Bach
stood for. He had nothing to do with such frippery.

TD

[pianomaven]

So don't bother. I don't want to waste my time either, you know,
answering all your non-factual opinions.

We have thus ended our "discussion".

TD

[pianomaven]

On Oct 25, 4:00 pm, Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > You want a French approach to Bach, try Marie-Claire Alain, Olivier
> > Latry, Olivier Vernet.
>
> > You want a German approach, well Walcha, either version.
>
> Are you really that shallow that you can only think in terms of stupid
> stereotypes? As if you could even tell the difference! Wolfgang Rubsam
> must be French, since his Philips set is also "flashy" - much closer
> to Alain and Chapuis than Walcha.

Depends upon WHICH Ruebsam version you are speaking of. Ruebsam is NOT
flashy at all, not one little bit. Middle of the road registrations.
Steady rhythm. Tasteful ornamentation. And not at all French.

Frankly, I think you wouldn't know Marie-Clair Alain's playing of Bach
if it hit you in the face.

TD

[pianomaven]

On Oct 25, 5:21 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com>

I was listening to Michel Chapuis when you were still riding around on
the back of Peter Hofmann's motorcycle in Bayreuth locked in a
pubescent fantasy.

He also obviously thinks
> someone who likes vocal music could never appreciate the musical
> architecture of a Bach organ work

Never met an opera queen yet who knows or gives a fuck about music. As
opposed to opera, of course, which is all drama and show and vocal
acrobatics. Right?

Oh, yes, you're into Wagner. Music drama. Hmmmmm. About as much drama
per square inch as you could fit on the head of a pin.

- its the way he thinks - everyting
> is put into a box - nice and simple. Its a black and white way of
> looking at art that is truly pitiful.

Pitiful?

LOL

You have no brain, Dickey, and also no name, which is good, I guess.
Better to be anonymous when you have nothing to say. Ever.

The only time I read anything
> resembling imagination from Leakin is when he regales us with those
> nauseatingly written reviews whose only cure is a dose of
> Pepto-Bismol.

Sorry, Dickey, you're dating yourself horribly. Pepto-Bismol is an
antacid decades out of vogue.

Now, go back and get your facts and figures straight, otherwise we
will realize that it is YOU who are the old fogey here, not I.

TD

[Taffy Brendel]

On Oct 25, 2:21 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com>

Yes, those "reviews" LOL, they are like "molten toffy".
Perhaps Gerard should start parsing them for content:-).

Taffy

[pianomaven]

On Oct 25, 11:51 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 7:23 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 25, 6:36 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Bach's music is vaster than your ability to confine it within the
> > > strictures that you, personally, find acceptable.
>
> > I agree.
>
> > It is also vaster than the word "thrilling" might convey, particularly
> > to someone who doesn't know it at all, John.
>
> Here exactly lies the problem I'm having.  Do you KNOW for sure that
> the poster who described the playing as "thrilling" isn't ALSO
> appreciating the contrapuntal and structural genius of the music as
> well - or isn't in fact, taking for granted that the reader knows
> this?

Know for certain? No. But several years of gushing nonsense about this
and that singer/opera has given me a pretty good idea that he wouldn't
know his way out of a contrapuntal bag, John.

I could be wrong, of course, but I think not.

(more about Dickey snipped, as a waste of time)

> It's your "Bach wanted......." statement that I find rather
> pretentious and pompous.  Not your specific preferences.
>
>
>
> > Really, just astonishing statement from someone who is presumed to
> > know this music well. Frankly, however, you have come up with some
> > pretty outlandish positions of late
>
> Name them.

I think dirty laundry should be aired in private, John. People here
don't. But I have no intention of drawing and quartering you in
public, as you inspire a modicum of respect.

Over a beer sometime, perhaps, I will lay it out for you.

TD

[Kevin N]

According to Bach's own contemporaries, he did use dazzling
registrations. Organ builders were nervous when he sat down at their
instruments, as they never knew what novel combination of stops he
would pull out, but were invariably pleased. We do have Bach's own
registration for "Ein Fest Burg," and it is indeed dazzling with the
fagotto and sesquialtara.

You really are out of your depth when you attempt to discuss Bach.

[Kevin N]

Good. Now back in your kennel.

[pianomaven]

A naughty boy, Mark.

TD

[wagnerfan]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Kevin N <boss...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Kind of like trying to reason with a dusty old Kapellmeister -
surrounded by his moldy scores, set in his ways, no imagination or
life left while he scrounges around his study. while furtively biting
his nails and frightened of anything that goes against his opinions. I
ALWAYS loves when he asks for proof - knowing that anything you give
him will not be enough and not being able to provide any proof of his
own stance. Pitiful. Wagner Fan

[John Hood]

I went 'straight to Glenn Gould' and am working my way through the others at
my leisure, a very satisfying experience.

JH

"pianomaven" <1pian...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:65281732-ca98-4321...@20g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 24, 10:05 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On Oct 21, 6:23 am, pianomaven<1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> Thrilling? Bach's organ music?
>>
>> >>>>> If that is the case, you would probably just adore Lang Lang's
>> >>>>> Liszt.
>>
>> >>>>> Bach never intended his music to be "thrilling", as you put it,
>> >>>>> Dickey. He wanted you to enjoy the structure of his music, how he
>> >>>>> treats the various contrapuntal lines.
>>
>> >>>>> You want thrills? Go to the circus.
>>

>> I find this extraordinarily puzzling, Tom. Why should there be a
>> contradiction between structure and thrills? I find Bach's organ music
>> both intellectually satisfying and, in the big pieces, utterly thrilling
>> even as I marvel at JSB's intellectual powers in performances like those
>> of Chapuis. In fact, performances of those pieces which are not
>> thrilling are, to my mind, missing some part of their essential
>> greatness.
>
> Thrilling, Bob is not a reaction you might get from the Schuebler
> Chorales, for example, or any number of Bach's endless string of fugal
> compositions, or, indeed, of the Art of Fugue, his masterpiece in the
> genre.
>
> Sure, the T&F in D minor is a dramatic work of great intensity. But it
> was never intended to "thrill", in the manner of, say, watching a
> pianist play La Campanella, for example. This is either to debase the
> use of the word thrilling or the music of Bach, itself.
>
> Posters of the Dickey variety - basically he's waiting for a tune
> which resembles "Vissi d'arte" - are a very poor guide to the music of
> Bach. So, of course, is Glenn Gould. That kind of playing can really
> only be touched after you have done the hard slogging through the
> music as it was written. Going straight to Gould as a Bible will

> totally distort your understanding of Bach's music. Ditto Chapuis. Not

> that he is a bad musician; just that most people who think he is
> "thrilling" are only really saying that they don't understand the

> music at all but manage to find it tolerable - or even exciting - when

> some musician like Chapuis characterizes it in a flashy, and to me
> gratuitous manner.
>

> You want a French approach to Bach, try Marie-Claire Alain, Olivier
> Latry, Olivier Vernet.
>
> You want a German approach, well Walcha, either version.
>

> You want Glenn Goule (AKA Liberace), well, Chapuis is your man, Bob.
>

> TD

[pianomaven]

Please provide proof.

Organ builders were nervous when he sat down at their
> instruments, as they never knew what novel combination of stops he
> would pull out, but were invariably pleased.

You talked to them, did you?

We do have Bach's own
> registration for "Ein Fest Burg," and it is indeed dazzling with the
> fagotto and sesquialtara.

On which organ, precisely, and at which date, please.

>
> You really are out of your depth when you attempt to discuss Bach.

No, you are beyond your capacities. You talk about things as though
they were facts, but no facts are given. Just your statements.

Judging the source, they are gratuitous, until proven. I await the
taped interviews with his organ builders.

TD

[pianomaven]

On Oct 25, 8:10 pm, "John Hood" <johnh...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

> I went 'straight to Glenn Gould' and am working my way through the others at
> my leisure, a very satisfying experience.

As did I. But I have learned to put away childish enthusiasms as I
have grown older.

TD

[John Hood]

Guilty as charged, if one can have 'childish enthusiasms' in your forties
and maintain them to your sixties.

JH

"pianomaven" <1pian...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f7aed04b-b89d-4aee...@q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

[pianomaven]

On Oct 26, 4:30 am, "John Hood"

<johnh...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Guilty as charged, if one can have 'childish enthusiasms' in your forties
> and maintain them to your sixties.

AH. A little late to be able to see the light, John.

My enthusiasm for GG started when I was 14 with his Goldberg
Variations. By my forties I had already moved away from all that
razzle dazzle.

TD

[wagnerfan]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:30:19 +0800, "John Hood"
<john...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

>Guilty as charged, if one can have 'childish enthusiasms' in your forties
>and maintain them to your sixties.
>
>JH
>

Strange Deacon can't share that since he often acts like a five year
old here. Wagner Fan

[pianomaven]

On Oct 26, 6:41 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:30:19 +0800, "John Hood"
>

> <johnh...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >Guilty as charged, if one can have 'childish enthusiasms' in your forties
> >and maintain them to your sixties.
>
> >JH
>
> Strange Deacon can't share that since he often acts like a  five year
> old here.

It's no wonder you consider I am "old", since you are still using a
soother.

TD

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:25:59 PM UTC+2, Kevin N wrote:

> ... I do have the Walcha, both sets as a matter of fact. He does play

> several beautiful, period instruments, and chooses his registration
> to bring out in clarity the counterpoint in the music. But he can
> barely play the notes, and just plows through all the notes as
> literally as humanly possibly (or a little less so, given his
> technical limitations).

> [...]

> Performance practices of Bach's organ works have advanced a great deal
> since Walcha; before he made his stereo set even. You really should
> try to get out of that rut some day.

But in BWV 542 Fantasia & Fugue in G Minor, Walcha (mono, Cappel organ, 1952) is very powerful and very convincing.

He sounds like a black and white picture, as it were.

This impression has much to do with the relentless regularity of his tempo as well as the clarity of his counterpoint.

Chapuis, I suppose, is more like a very good painter -- if my metaphors make any sense.

His interpretation is more colorful and more elegant, but I wouldn't call it better than Walcha's.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
r.p.vangaalenATchello.nl

[wagnerfan]

Oh yes as I already posted I like Walcha in quite a few of the
pieces - for the reasons youi give and others. Some call it a degree
of "integrity" in the playing whatever that means. But in others I
need some more interpretive profile - I don't always want an
"explanation" of the music - I want an "interpretation". (I often
feel the same way about Klemperer - I appreciate what he is telling me
but I need to go elsewhere to get more color and mood.) Wasn't a
Walcha Lp the very first DG LP???? Wagner fan

[Roland van Gaalen]

Your comparison of Walcha to Klemperer makes good sense to me.

[pianomaven]

On Oct 26, 6:30 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

And both present object lessons in music-making of the highest order.

Klemperer had his Philharmonia. Walcha - on occasion - had that
fabulous instrument in Alkmaar in the North of The Netherlands. I have
travelled to that church just to hear that instrument played. It is an
experience worth having, I think.

TD

[joel lidz]

On Oct 20, 4:19 pm, Kirk McElhearn wrote:
> On Amazon FR:
>
> http://amzn.to/noMxAk
>
> Chapuis' Bach set, 14 CDs, on United Archive, for a mere €27.
>
> Kirk

As good as he is, chapuis is not as good as his pupil, Olivier
Vernet. In the past, Chapuis was my first choice, but no longer.

Joel Warren Lidz, Ph.D.

[joel lidz]

On Oct 21, 8:28 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 7:43 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 6:23 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 20, 9:17 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I think you'll find them just as exciting and dramatic as
> > > > before - I have the French CD issue with the detailed booklet and have
> > > > heard it many times - thrilling playing.
>

> > > Thrilling? Bach's organ music?
>
> > > If that is the case, you would probably just adore Lang Lang's Liszt.
>
> > > Bach never intended his music to be "thrilling", as you put it,
> > > Dickey. He wanted you to enjoy the structure of his music, how he
> > > treats the various contrapuntal lines.
>

> > Spoken like a true Rosalyn Tureck fan.  Let's wipe those smiles off
> > our faces when we listen to Bach............and pass the formaldehyde
> > please.
>
> No need to avoid smiles (I feel sure that Bach was able to smile in
> his music), nor to anaesthetize yourself, John. (always a bad sign
> when someone takes the argument and pushes it to an extreme in order
> to make his point) But the chills and spills, not to mention spit-
> curls, are to be avoided at all costs. If you want great Bach today,
> you have to go to Grigory Sokolov or, on the organ, Olivier Latry, I
> think. There is truly something wrong when you have to look to Bach
> for cheap thrills.
>
> Chapuis is/was a kind of Liberace/Horowitz of the organ. Finally, it
> can all be very wearing, although the surface delights are surely
> there for those who need or want that. Myself I stopped listening to
> VH a very long time ago. Ditto GG.
>
> TD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Chapuis is/was a kind of Liberace/Horowitz of the organ"

Then how would you describe Jean Guillou or Cameron Carpenter? Stick
to piano...

joel

[wagnerfan]

Joel - obviously Deacon has not heard the recordings in question or
he would not make such an absurd statement - in no way does Chapuis
fit that description.
I have the Vernet set and love the playing - I only wish the acoustic
were better. I prefer (this is just a personal thing) to have the
organ recorded closer - I know tha Vernet sounds closer to how the
organ sounds in the church but I can do without the slightly blurred
acoustic - again thats just me
Wagner Fan

[pianomaven]

I disagree. I find Vernet quite sober, even boring at times.

TD

[pianomaven]

Good question.

They both broke the mold. Maybe a kind of Virgil Fox with integrity?
That said, Guillou's complete Bach is not particularly eccentric, in
my opinion.

> Stick to piano...

I do, mostly, but I love organ music and have scads of it on LP and
CD.

Could I suggest that you take a course in manners?

TD

[pianomaven]

Yes, that's just you.

Get a better sound system, Dickey.

TD

[Dontait...@aol.com]

On Oct 20, 4:44 pm, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 4:19 pm, Kirk McElhearn wrote:
>
> > On Amazon FR:
>
> >http://amzn.to/noMxAk
>
> > Chapuis' Bach set, 14 CDs, on United Archive, for a mere €27.
>

> And more:
>
> http://www.amazon.fr/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?__mk_fr_FR=%C5M%C5Z%D5%D1&url=s...
>
> TD

GREAT news. I bought several of the LP sets and loved them. When I
get problems here resolved I'll be in line to buy the sets for sure.
Thanks to all.

Don Tait

[John Wiser]

"pianomaven" <1pian...@gmail.com> wrote:.

> Could I suggest that you take a course in manners?

Are you going to be the instructor? Whoopee!

JDW

[pianomaven]

On Oct 28, 7:23 pm, "John Wiser" <ceec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "pianomaven" <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:.

> > Could I suggest that you take a course in manners?
>
> Are you going to be the instructor? Whoopee!

I should hope not, John.

TD

[joel...@gmail.com]

Chapuis was the best recording for its time, but his student Olivier Vernet is now a first choice.

Joel

[Mandryka]

On Wednesday, 1 January 2014 14:34:05 UTC, joel...@gmail.com wrote:
> Chapuis was the best recording for its time, but his student Olivier Vernet is now a first choice.
>
>
>
> Joel

Was Chapuis's Bach set recorded before Walcha's stereo set? Or Kraft's?

I can't remember -- does Vernet use French organs for Bach? I like what he does in fact (I saw him last year in Fréjus, a fun concert.) My only regret was that I missed Claudio Atronio who was taking part in the same Var Organ festival.

[Willem Orange]

I believe Chapuis was recorded after both Kraft and Walcha stereo.

[Mandryka]

In that case I can't agree with Joel's claim that it was the best recorded for its time,even in terms of sound.

H

[td]

The problem I have always found with the Chapuis is his choice of registrations. He never saw a treble line in Bach which he didn't want to "enhance" with a healthy dose of the piccolo stops.

The music becomes bathed in this neon light, to the point that I end up screaming and ripping the CD out of the player. Or the LP off the turntable.

And Lord knows I have tried over the decades. Each time I return to it my ears are simply exhausted after a few minutes of this piccolo assault.

Others may like it - dressing Bach up in tinsel and cheap effects - but I balk at it.

Returning to Walcha, or almost ANYONE else after Chapuis is so soothing.

TD

[Mandryka]

I just played Chapuis in BWV 659, partly because you mentioned it in a post above. He basically plays it in a celebratory way, fast. The piercing registration he chooses for the cantus firmus in the treble got on my nerves.

The hymn is about celebrating the nativity. Bach's music has a celebratory element,sure, but there's sad, bitter element too (being born to die on the cross, His birth is marked by the foreknowledge of His passion) and there's a mystical feel: stillness of the morning, the beginning of time. I don't find much of any of this in Chapuis.

I probably wouldn't chose any of his contemporaries either. Not Walcha , not Kraft.

I'd go for Rubsam (Naxos). Or failing that, Knud Vad, Eisenberg, Weinberger, Hurford, Koopman, Vernet. Playing Bach has come on a good deal since Chapuis and Walcha.

[td]

I am sure it has come a long way.

Other names?

Marie-Clair Alain (3 sets)
Jean Guillou (Philips France)
Olivier Latry (BNL OP)
André Isoir (Calliope)
Daniel Roth
Ton Koopman (various)
Werner Jacob (EMI)

TD

[Mandryka]

Well my latest discovery is Knud Vad. He plays an organ (Soro Abbey in Denmark) which I really love -- strong sound, refined. For me it's ideal for baroque. I thought his Leipzig Chorales were exceptional. I'm working my way trough Clavier Ubung 3 now, and I'm a bit less impressed by the performances so far unfortunately. These big sets always have peaks and troughs.

Of those in your list, I've never heard Alain's first set, nor have I heard either of her two Art of Fugue recordings. I prefer the second set over the third, despite the fact that she used some nice organs for the last one.

I've heard some Werner Jacob (you know, he has an outstanding CD of Pachelbel's music). I'm wondering whether to buy the big Bach set in fact. What do you think?

I don't know what to think about Koopman. There are some fantastic things on the recordings he made for Novalis. The Teldec set, I'm less sure about.

Other names not previously mentioned. I think Foccroulle's big Bach box is good, solid, tasteful middle of the road HIP (On the other hand I thought his Art of Fugue was exceptional.) Claudio Astronio is always interesting. Bine Bryndorf, Piet Kee and Kare Norddstoga too. And you forgot Lionel Rogg. The more I listen to him the more impressed I am -- I'm talking about the second big set of Bach CDs. So transparent, and sometimes really imaginative.

[td]

Surprised you haven't got around to Isoir.

I do love Latry. There is a flair to his recordings. The great pity is that they are OP and unlikely to be reissued as Bernard Neveu is dead. Not sure who owns those mastertapes for BNL.

I did forget Lionel Rogg. Not intentionally, you know, just forgetfully.

TD

[Mandryka]

Oh but Latry's recordings have been extensively reissued. I think all his BNL recordings are on spotify. I've just never listened, but now that you've singled him out I can correct that. (There's a substantial BNL catalogue on spotify, including Fabienne Jacquinot and Natan Brand.)

I do like Issoir. ( I just forgot. Not intentionally . . . )I love what he does apart from Bach. There's a fun CD called "Airs et Danses de la Vieille Europe" for example. I'd love to hear more like that.

[td]

Reissued? On Spotify? LOL. That's just a way of hearing them. Not a reissue. They have NEVER been reissued that I am aware of.

TD

[jtemp...@gmail.com]

>
> I did forget Lionel Rogg. Not intentionally, you know, just forgetfully.
>
>
>
> TD

For me Rogg has been unforgettable ever since a long-ago evening in the early 70s when he gave a recital in Brown University's Sayles Hall. In keeping with the casual campus atmosphere of the time, someone had let a large black Labrador retriever into the hall, where it slept peacefully through most of the event. But whether in protest at the longueurs of Liszt's "Ad nos salutarem" fantasia or simply in sympathy with the organist as he wound up for the climax, the dog first grunted, then hummed, then burst into song in his best can belto style. Finally Rogg broke off in mid-phrase, stood up, looked down over the audience and declaimed, "I veel not play for dogs!"... and left the hall.

I know nothing of the dog's subsequent career. But Rogg I admired before, during and after. His Bach set on the Silbermann organ in Arlesheim has worn very well IMO.

John Temple

[Mandryka]

Very funny

One interesting early Rogg CD I found quite recently is this one, where he plays a pedal harpsichord

http://www.baroquecds.com/25Web.html

It's stiffer than his later recordings, but still well worth hearing I would say.

It was good to have that little exchange with Tom yeterday just because he's obviously very aware of French organists, and I've tended to sideline them a bit. I've been listening to some Isoir today in fact -- I really like the way he plays early music, 14th century music.

Anyway I thought I'd listen to some of Isoir's Bach, and so Iplayed a summit, BWV 682 -- the big Lord's Prayer from Clavieruebung 3. I'm not sure I like the way he plays it, he goes for the big tunes, but you lose some of the sighing, yearning quality which I like in other performances.

Oh, another French organist I like very much is René Saorgin. He's got a CD of Orgelbuchlein which is one of my favourite Bach records. And one I'd like to know more about is Xavier Darasse, but most of his stuff on CD seems to be post-baroque and I'm not so interested in the music right now.

[td]

I tend to use the Little Organ Book as a winnowing tool in Bach rather than the big pieces.

Try Jean-Charles Ablitzer on an OP 2CD set on the defunct Harmonic label recorded at the organ at St. Croix d'Aubusson in the Limousin.

I would love to read a detailed exegesis on Marie-Clair Alain's three versions of Bach's works for organ. Nobody in the 20th C did more to make the organ known and appreciated than this lady, who died at the end of February, 2013.

TD

[Randy Lane]

What about the later Rogg EMI set? Is it inferior?

[Randy Lane]

Actually make that "almost four" versions. She made 10-15 (I forget the
exact count and can't get at my listing of them right now) mono LPs in the
50s for Les Discophiles Francais in addition to the 3 more complete stereo
sets for Erato.

[Mandryka]

I shall check out the Ablizer recording, I've never heard him in Bach (I like his CD of Pretorius). I love Orgelbuchlein. I can listen to the whole thing pretty well in one go. I love the way the emotional feel of the music changes through the festivals.

Re MCA, I've listened to the Leipzig Chorales and the chorales from Clavieruebung 3 from her second and third sets quite recently. The third is interesting from an organological point of view. She said in an interview that the main reason she made it was that she was excited by the new wave of high quality restorations of baroque organs.

I think that very often the second is clearer recorded, especially in the bass, the pedal.

Her interpretations in the second set remind me of Walter Gieseking at his best. It was as if she'd seized the whole chorale in one go and was singing it all back to you in one breath.

In the third set she's started to adopt a more rhetorical articulation -- smaller cells of music, less note under each stoke of the bow. And I think it loses a bit of the magic of the second. A good example is BWV 678.

On the other hand, I sometimes felt that the tuning was different in the third set, and so the results were more tangy, more dissonant (which I like) I'm not sure about this, but I definitely preferred her BWV 669 for that reason.

[td]

Which is why I would like to read a detailed exegesis of all three (four?) of her Bach cycles.

TD

[td]

Those will now belong to EMI/Warner.

TD