# How do you prefer to listen to the Well-Tempered Clavier?



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I'm curious about how people tend to listen to the Well-Tempered Clavier (either book). I must admit that I find it a bit fatiguing to listen to the whole thing straight through. After a while I tire of prelude-and-fugue after prelude-and-fugue, over and over. But it also feels sort of awkward to dip into it three quarters of the way through it. As a result, I'm much more familiar with the beginning of each book. I'm just not that engaged by the end. The sameness of the tone-palate doesn't help, especially on a harpsichord, which can get a bit grating after a while.

(I'm happy to admit that I'm an unsophisticated dullard if that's why I can't get through the whole thing.)

So, when you listen, do you pick and choose which pieces to listen to, or do you tend to listen to the whole thing in one go?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I usually play one CD at a time, inbetween switching to something else.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I usually listen to a whole book. It goes down like a really good pint of beer.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I've never listened to a whole book straight through. I can definitely see how it would work as a narrative, but I really don't think that's how Bach intended it. Like Art Rock I like to listen to it as a "palate-cleanser" (especially after hardcore modernist music), and I very often start my listening sessions with a pair or two. Sometimes I will just become transfixed by the music and keep listening for a long time.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

my personal way is listen to it in a car. I usually go to work by car ca 40 minutes there and 40 minutes back, so plenty of time to listen.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

I break it up in the most lazy and arbitrary way: I listen to one CD at a time. The versions I own are broken into two CDs per book.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Individual p/f pairs, or maybe a few at one time. I think it was Ralph Kirkpatrick who said once that the whole thing taken all the way through is pedantic absurdity. I don't think there's any indication that Bach intended the whole of either book to be taken in at one sitting. The Goldberg Variations are another matter.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

Honestly, while I appreciate this work, it isn't one of Bach's works that I go to very often. I can listen to the Goldberg Variations all the way through - not so much the 48. 

It is harder breaking it up. With the Cello Suites and Sonatas and Partitas for Violin, I can break those up and feel satisfied, listening to one Suite, Sonata or Partita. Listening to one Prelude/Fugue combination doesn't do the same, but I also can't just sit down and go through one whole book, or both.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I think I've listened to each book straight through exactly once, when I was a teenager - since then I pick and choose which I want to hear (or attempt to play, poorly).


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

With little exception, I listen to all 48 preludes/fugues in one sitting. Once I get started, I don't want it to end. The fact that the WTC is my favorite body of music has much to do with my listening regimen. Besides, I can't see the point of stopping the WTC to listen to a great piece of music I don't like as much or listen to obscure music which usually is obscure for a good reason.

If Kirkpatrick really did say that listening straight-through is "pedantic absurdity", I'd call that remark rather stupid. It's all about enjoyment of the music I love.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I just feel it's not necessary to listen to a work in its entirety once you know all its events. I often just pick 2~4 minute sections from a work to listen to. For example, I sometimes randomly get an urge to listen to the coda and its buildup of Beethoven's 3rd symphony 1st movement. (Not any other sections). Keeping my auditory exposure to these widely-loved works to minimum, I want to feel "fresh" every time I listen to their individual sections. Icecream is good, but I don't want to eat it too much every time, since I don't want to get tired of the taste. The same goes for Well-Tempered Clavier.


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

I usually listen to whole work in one day (with breaks) or I sometimes listen to book I and the Book II the next day. I perceive this work as a whole and I don't like to separate the individual parts. It's fine with Bach but I once listened to the whole Wagner's Ring in one night - an interesting 15 hours of my life. But I probably won't do it again...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> Honestly, while I appreciate this work, it isn't one of Bach's works that I go to very often. I can listen to the Goldberg Variations all the way through - not so much the 48.
> 
> It is harder breaking it up. With the Cello Suites and Sonatas and Partitas for Violin, I can break those up and feel satisfied, listening to one Suite, Sonata or Partita. Listening to one Prelude/Fugue combination doesn't do the same, but I also can't just sit down and go through one whole book, or both.


I think there's more justification in listening to all of the cello suites at one sitting than the WTC. They feel like more of a unified set, maybe two unified sets of three, in the view of Steven Isserlis (which makes sense to me).

But hey, if someone wants to listen to both books of the WTC at once, have at it.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Sometimes I listen to preludes and fugues individually, but it's much more usual for me to listen to an entire book at a time. And, as it is for me with the volumes of the Clavier-Übung, I view Book I and Book II of the WTC as separated, distinct works (there are two decades of Bach's life between them), and never listen to both together.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

The well-tempered clavier is also a mystery of tuning which is tricky on the harpsichord. You just do not get the real beauty behind while you focusing on sound only. There is much debate since 19th century as to what tuning system JS Bach intended for this set of brilliant works since the composer did not state clear but probably encoded in his works like musical cryptography. Though you might not be interested, JS Bach never touch a piano. The harpsichord can sound very diffrently under different tuning style, and there are innumerable tuning possibility for the harpsichord, it means one harpsichord can sound in innumberable tonal characters. Currently, I am interested in listening to listen to WT played on 17th century style harpsichords with 17th century tuning styles. So, Blandine Verlet`s set is the one, and I find the lengthy pieces are especially insteresting, mostly I love to listen to lengthy pieces or just play along many pieces.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allerius said:


> Sometimes I listen to preludes and fugues individually, but it's much more usual for me to listen to an entire book at a time. And, as it is for me with the volumes of the Clavier-Übung, I view Book I and Book II of the WTC as separated, distinct works (there are two decades of Bach's life between them), and never listen to both together.


The thing is though the two works of Clavier-Übung II (the Italian Concerto and French Overture) are not really an organic unity either. They're similar in that they both try to recreate orchestral textures on a keyboard, but I don't see any reason to listen to both in succession (unless you want to). I don't think that either book of WTC has the thematic unity of the Goldberg Variations, the Musical Offering or the Art of Fugue. But again if someone wants to listen to or play the entirety of either book, that's perfectly fine with me.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

On the floor in the dark with my eyes closed.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Ariasexta said:


> The well-tempered clavier is also a mystery of tuning which is tricky on the harpsichord. You just do not get the real beauty behind while you focusing on sound only. There is much debate since 19th century as to what tuning system JS Bach intended for this set of brilliant works since the composer did not state clear but probably encoded in his works like musical cryptography. Though you might not be interested, JS Bach never touch a piano. The harpsichord can sound very diffrently under different tuning style, and there are innumerable tuning possibility for the harpsichord, it means one harpsichord can sound in innumberable tonal characters. Currently, I am interested in listening to listen to WT played on 17th century style harpsichords with 17th century tuning styles. So, Blandine Verlet`s set is the one, and I find the lengthy pieces are especially insteresting, mostly I love to listen to lengthy pieces or just play along many pieces.


JS Bach played a fortepiano near the end of his life but before he composed _A Musical Offering_.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

BachIsBest said:


> JS Bach played a fortepiano near the end of his life but before he composed _A Musical Offering_.


That's true; he initially disliked it, offered improvement suggestions to the maker, Silbermann, and then expressed his approval of it. I've read that he's reported (by Forkel?) to have preferred the clavichord to the harpsichord and found the latter to be cold. But with Bach, so much is legendary or apocryphal so I don't know if it's true or not.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BachIsBest said:


> JS Bach played a fortepiano near the end of his life but before he composed _A Musical Offering_.


In fact, Bach became a sales agent for Silbermann fortepianos in the 1740s. Some records of his sales into Scandinavia survive. Many consider his _Musical Offering_ to be the first major fortepiano composition.

We might as well say piano composition, since the term _fortepiano _merely refers to an early piano.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

One book at the time.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Some records of his sales into Scandinavia survive..


Can you let me know a bit more about that?



KenOC said:


> Many consider his _Musical Offering_ to be the first major fortepiano composition.
> 
> .


That's interesting. Who? I knew some people think that the opening piece, the ricercar a 3, may have been based on a piece that Bach had improvised on a piano, but even there I've never seen an argument to say that the published ricercar resembled the improvised one, or that the published one is pianistic. I must say, it doesn't sound pianistic to me. And no one I've ever come across thinks that the rest of Musical Offering is a piano composition, but I've not investigated this much.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

BachIsBest said:


> JS Bach played a fortepiano near the end of his life but before he composed _A Musical Offering_.


But he cursed the forte-piano.He did not like it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

There is a greater timbral, mechanical difference between the early fortepiano and the modern piano (the kind Brahms and Tchaikovsky owned) than the early fortepiano and the harpsichord. You could play all of Bach's harpsichord pieces on fortepiano and still come close to reproducing the sound Bach intended. You can't achieve the same effect on the modern piano. It's just not possible. So when someone calls a Bach harpsichord piece a "piano piece", I would care more about what kind of piano he actually means.

*[ 4:00 ]*




*[ 3:16 ]*




*[ 14:20 ]*




(the videos are more about Mozart than Bach, but the same ideas can also apply to Bach. They both belong in the 18th century harpsichord non-legato-playing tradition)


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> ...
> That's interesting. Who? I knew some people think that the opening piece, the ricercar a 3, may have been based on a piece that Bach had improvised on a piano, but even there I've never seen an argument to say that the published ricercar resembled the improvised one, or that the published one is pianistic. I must say, it doesn't sound pianistic to me. And no one I've ever come across thinks that the rest of Musical Offering is a piano composition, but I've not investigated this much.


Charles Rosen once called the six-part ricercar the first great piano composition. I don't know that it was composed with *any* specific instrument in mind. The long held notes and chords are definitely not "harpsichord-ish" to my ears. The three-part one sounds fine to me on the harpsichord or on the piano. Or played by a string ensemble, for that matter.


Ariasexta said:


> But he cursed the forte-piano.He did not like it.


No, he didn't exactly "curse it". As someone has already pointed out he acted as Silbermann's agent in selling some of the instruments. He's reported to have given Silbermann's "improved" version his approval.


hammeredklavier said:


> There is a greater timbral, mechanical difference between the early fortepiano and the modern piano (the kind Brahms and Tchaikovsky owned) than the early fortepiano and the harpsichord. You could play all of Bach's harpsichord pieces on fortepiano and still come close to reproducing the sound Bach intended. You can't achieve the same effect on the modern piano. It's just not possible.


What "effect"? A fortepiano and a modern one are both greatly different from any harpsichord.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> Charles Rosen once called the six-part ricercar the first great piano composition.
> .


Does he say why he thinks it's a piano piece, or is it just that Bach had a piano available when he improvised a 3 part ricercar one day so . . . ?

I've never come across the idea that the note lengths in this piece were a problem for harpsichord. I mean, a harpsichord sustains enough doesn't it?

For my taste that ricercar sounds best if it leaps around and changes direction a bit wildly to give the impression of sudden floods of inspiration, so I like harpsichord most because that's what harpsichord's good at (think Siegbert Rampe, for example.) Nevertheless I can't help but enjoy Weinberger play it on organ!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> What "effect"?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Does he say why he thinks it's a piano piece, or is it just that Bach had a piano available when he improvised a 3 part ricercar one day so . . . ?
> 
> I've never come across the idea that the note lengths in this piece were a problem for harpsichord. I mean, a harpsichord sustains enough doesn't it?


Not for this piece, no. In my opinion anyway.



> For my taste that ricercar sounds best if it leaps around and changes direction a bit wildly to give the impression of sudden floods of inspiration...


Well then we've moved from "what Bach intended" to "what I imagine Bach intended".


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> Well then we've moved from "what Bach intended" to "what I imagine Bach intended".


I hope not, I mean I ususaly try to avoid positive claims about intention!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Getting back to the original thread theme, I'm glad to see that almost half of the respondents voted that they usually listen to a whole book in one sitting. That's what I would expect from those who really love this music.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> Getting back to the original thread theme, I'm glad to see that almost half of the respondents voted that they usually listen to a whole book in one sitting. That's what I would expect from those who really love this music.


I love Beethoven's sonatas too, but I don't really want to set aside 12 hours or so to listen to all of them in succession.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Listening to a whole book may be a 'pendantic absurdity' but that's what I prefer to do. That said, either approach is equally valid as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I'll give Kirkpatrick the benefit of the doubt and assume his quote makes more sense in context. I can't think of a composer for keyboard who's more pleasant to listen to for a few hours running than Bach.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Getting back to the original thread theme, I'm glad to see that almost half of the respondents voted that they usually listen to a whole book in one sitting. That's what I would expect from those who really love this music.


I'm happy to learn that I'm not the only one who prefers listening to it piecemeal! Listening to it all on one sitting feels a bit like eating your whole bag of Halloween candy when you get home from trick-or-treating. Each piece stands on its own, so why not just have a few and space it out a bit?

I'm happy to listen to very long symphonies or operas, but that feels a bit different because they tend to have something of a narrative thread that runs through it (literally, in the case of opera).


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> Getting back to the original thread theme, I'm glad to see that almost half of the respondents voted that they usually listen to a whole book in one sitting. That's what I would expect from those who really love this music.


Why? [and a bunch more letters]


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Blancrocher said:


> I'll give Kirkpatrick the benefit of the doubt and assume his quote makes more sense in context. I can't think of a composer for keyboard who's more pleasant to listen to for a few hours running than Bach.


To be completely honest about it I can't find the context or even where I saw the quote at the moment. I seem to have come across that comment attributed to him somewhere and it stuck with me since I value his recorded playing and his editions of Bach and Scarlatti. So until I can find it take it with a big grain of salt.


----------



## caracalla (Feb 19, 2020)

Usually two-to-four P&Fs at a time (not necessarily in any kind of order). If I'm still in the mood for Bach keyboard music, I'll then turn to something else - preferably on a different instrument, if we're talking harpsichords. I don't think I've ever been tempted to listen to the whole thing through from beginning to end. I don't read volumes of short stories like that, either.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

I used to listen a book at a time, but lately I've been shuffling for an hour or two at a time, since I don't like how my brain has been trained to expect them in order. This is less than ideal with CDs that track the preludes and fugues separately instead of on one track, so I've been listening almost exclusively to the Richter since that and the Fischer are the only ones I have with the preludes and fugues as paired tracks, and I prefer the Richter. I like it, it feels fresher shuffled.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Obviously there is no "right way" to listen to this masterpiece. What happened in Bach's day is hardly relevant as the world was so different. The argument that it lacks the narrative thread that can make it important to listen to a whole book is more compelling but I am mindful that we tend to perceive patterns even when they are not there - our brains are pre-programmed to see meaning. Doing this is often a slightly creative process.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

In the rather pompously subtitled "Interpreting Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, A Performer's Discourse of Method" Ralph Kirkpatrick rather pompously comments



> The impact of a total performance of the WTC, when other than soporific, is that of a literally overwhelming variety and richness, not that of an organized progression from one piece to another. In certain highly organized works of Bach such as the Goldberg Varia-tions or the organ works of the Clavier-Ubung, I believe it is just barely possible to make directly and dramatically perceptible to the ear the almost superhuman organization of the component parts into the whole. Just as in architecture there are certain structures that cannot reveal themselves all at once, but require for their full percep-tion a sequence of experiences linked and organized by memory, so many musical structures outdistance immediate direct perception. The WTC, however, is not one of these. It is simply an assemblage of spontaneous utterances, a sketchbook to which an appearance of theoretical arrangement has been given, consistent with the chronic mania for order that characterizes Bach's later years. A total per-formance of the WTC, on the one hand, is a monstrous piece of pedantry; on the other, if bearable at all, it carries an impact that a selection of individual preludes and fugues will never have as a whole, no matter how effective individually. It has some of the characteris-tics, at once revealing and disquieting, rich and provocative, reward-ing and overwhelming, of a condensation into a single day of an eternity of experience.


Intresting that mention of CUIII -- interesting that Kirkpatrick thinks it's more audibly unified that the WTCs.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Obviously there is no "right way" to listen to this masterpiece. What happened in Bach's day is hardly relevant as the world was so different. The argument that it lacks the narrative thread that can make it important to listen to a whole book is more compelling but I am mindful that we tend to perceive patterns even when they are not there - our brains are pre-programmed to see meaning. Doing this is often a slightly creative process.


Are we sure there's nothing being narrated? At least this: there's a massive chiasmus in the middle of WTC2, in BWV 890. That makes me think that there's all sorts of other symbolic stuff built in, a narrative of sorts waiting to be revealed maybe. Links to melodies in the cantatas may be a good avenue to explore, and alchemy, astronomy, Kabbalah, sacred geometry. For someone (not me) writing their Ph.D.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> In the rather pompously subtitled "Interpreting Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, A Performer's Discourse of Method" Ralph Kirkpatrick rather pompously comments
> 
> Intresting that mention of CUIII -- interesting that Kirkpatrick thinks it's more audibly unified that the WTCs.


Hey, you found it. Thanks. At least I know I wasn't imagining it. But I don't think his observations are all that "pompous" though. Anyway he was accomplished and insightful enough - I still prefer his old edition of the Goldberg Variations, and I also love his recordings of them from the 50s, although they're truncated in not observing repeats. The "Organ Mass" is indeed more of a unity; at least the "manualiter" and "in organo pleno" portions are individual unities in themselves. They follow a specific unifying plan.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

^Yes, I think listening to CUIII as a whole works much better than the WTC, especially since there is a bookending prelude and fugue. I see it as the same sort of general concept as the B Minor Mass, which I also prefer to listen straight through.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

consuono said:


> I love Beethoven's sonatas too, but I don't really want to set aside 12 hours or so to listen to all of them in succession.


Twelve hours of Beethoven piano sonatas isn't a close comparison with about 4 hours of the complete WTC. As it happens, I often have the time for 4 hours straight of music in the evening. That's when my wife, the president of our Temple, goes to her administrative meetings which last about 4 hours (including driving time and a little socializing after a meeting).

So, I've got the time and Bach has the music - a perfect match.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> Hey, you found it. Thanks. At least I know I wasn't imagining it. But I don't think his observations are all that "pompous" though. Anyway he was accomplished and insightful enough - I still prefer his old edition of the Goldberg Variations, and I also love his recordings of them from the 50s, although they're truncated in not observing repeats. The "Organ Mass" is indeed more of a unity; at least the "manualiter" and "in organo pleno" portions are individual unities in themselves. They follow a specific unifying plan.


You know, I don't think I've ever listened to just the manualiter pieces as a sequence, I'll do that.

Re pompousness, I just reacted against _A Performer's Discourse of Method_ with it's allusion to Descartes, and even more so to "of a condensation into a single day of an eternity of experience." -- but I was probably overreacting!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^Yes, I think listening to CUIII as a whole works much better than the WTC, especially since there is a bookending prelude and fugue. I see it as the same sort of general concept as the B Minor Mass, which I also prefer to listen straight through.


The one I like to listen to all the way through is the Orgelbuchlein. Each festival has its own set of preludes, which seem to be unified by a common affect. Christmas -- cheerful. Easter -- serious etc.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> You know, I don't think I've ever listened to just the manualiter pieces as a sequence, I'll do that.
> 
> Re pompousness, I just reacted against _A Performer's Discourse of Method_ with it's allusion to Descartes, and even more so to "of a condensation into a single day of an eternity of experience." -- but I was probably overreacting!


Well you do have a point, the title is a bit much. :lol: If you've used any of Kirkpatrick's editions you can see his verbiage can get a bit florid at times.


----------



## ZeR0 (Apr 7, 2020)

My ideal preference would be to listen to a whole Book in one sitting, but oftentimes that is not feasible. In which case I will listen to the first half or quarter of the Book and then come back to it to listen sporadically in parts.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

I'll maybe listen to a few at a time, most often. Listening to more than a single book in one sitting will tire me out and lose the magic. It's different in a work like an opera or other longer work where there is narrative or thematic coherence between pieces, but that's not really the case with the WTC.


----------



## hiroica (Aug 31, 2015)

I used to have a playlist of my favorites and I would listen to them with waterproof headphones while swimming laps for 30 min. It was a truly spiritual and magical experience. Other than that I usually just listen to one or two at a time. The pieces are so rich, that I feel I can’t properly digest listening to too many at a time. Often I will just pick one and listen to it on repeat. For me, when I enjoy them this way, I could say they these pieces my favorite music of all time from any genre. I also agree with the person who said listening to the whole thing for them was like eating all your Halloween candy in one sitting. I always thought if it like scotch or some amazing wine. 1, 2, 3, 4 glasses maybe but more than that and I start to get a little dizzy and appreciate each one less than I would otherwise. But I respect those who like listening to the whole set in one go. Maybe one day I will gain the endurance for this way 

Ps I’m listening to the Richter recordings which I love because they highlight Bach’s emo side more than any other recording I’ve heard haha

Great to see all of the people in this forum though who love this music btw )))


----------

