First, I would like to excuse for my quite late answer. I had some private reasons (and they have nothing to do with you all here, of course!) I haven´t visited pianosociety a longer period.
thank you for your comment.
My approach to fugues is always one of voicing layers and functions, with emphasis always given to the subjects
At least I try so, too.
In this regard, I think more contrast could have been given to your fugue, but it is very satisfying nonetheless.
O.k., thank you for that advice. I appreciate listeners, who appreciate a good voicing and contrasts.
Piano sounds freshly tuned. The A Flat Major p and f, book 2, are a terrific combo and you succeed in both, notwithstanding the two wrong notes in the fugue and, it could be argued, the very slow (but I think successful) tempo adopted in the prelude. Measured playing, without hurry, and indeed without very much dependence on dynamics; yet it completely holds together, from beginning to end. That takes a precise conception of the "musical whole," as something more than the sum of its parts, which very few pianists can manage in Bach. (And I don't claim to be one of them.) I think it may be a kind of "gift," in other words, which is evidenced here in spades.
Thank you very much, John. This means very much too me. Yes, I´m conscious of the quite slow tempo in the prelude, but it was intentional, of course.
So he left it to the pianists of the future to make those determinations on more modern and capable pianos. Of course, we do have the Czerny edition covered with its plethora of markings, now mostly discredited. In contrast, visually Bach's scores really look like the very origin of the urtext. We should respect that and allow the individual artist to fill in the blanks to form an interpretation in good taste. That's my humble opinion.
Again, beautiful playing!
Thank you for your kind words and good thoughts, dear David, which I always find very inspiring! Yes, I share your opinion completely and I consider it to be my task as an interpreter of Bachs music to fill in these blanks. And I do it in a very subjective way sometimes. That´s what makes playing Bachs music so interesting. That there are millions respective thousands of possibilities to feel them and to put a sense into them, which lies beneath the objective structure. Sometimes I want to make "audible" some certain aspects of the structure, sometimes it´s a certain voice or melody I want to underline and often it´s a certain phrasing or articulation, which fits to my mood of the moment. I don´t consider my interpretations as something "steady" or "absolute", but as a kind of "picture of the moment", a kind of improvised interpretation.
Thank you very much also to you, Terez, for your praise and pointing out some more read errors. I will look for them and see, if they correspond to my Urtext-version.