BWV 572 (Piece d'Orgue) - played Tres Vistement!

Bach's instructions are to start this piece "Tres Vistement" (very fast), but most organists play it quite slowly. However I think Bach may have intended the start to be played as fast as the organ's action would allow, to test the speed of an organ's action, with the complete piece becoming a recital piece to show off the new organs that he was often commissioned to test and approve. It is played here on the electric-action organ at Boughton, Kent, but I have subsequently played it on an 18th-century tracker-action organ (the Silbermann organ in Glauchau, built in Bach's lifetime) and the tracker action presented no problems at this speed.
I play this piece in Toccata style with contrasting keyboards and registrations as its form is that of the 3-part North German Toccata, and it has similarities to Bach's "Toccata and Fugue in D minor" BWV 565. Both, I think, were designed as recital pieces, unlike most of his organ works. My research on the relationship between these two Toccatas was published in Organists Review Sept 2017.

[@8000Christopher]

You've done very well with this, thanking you.

[@lindagreenwood1308]

This is a brilliant version of BWV 572. Thank you for your choice of stops and also the speed. I have listened to other versions and the quality of the organ and the size of the space being filled was a great influence on the final result. I like yours very much and thank you for the quality of the filming and sound reproduction. Great.

[@StuartNeame]

Throughout his career Bach enjoyed a lucrative sideline of testing newly-built organs, and it is quite possible that he specifically wrote BWV572 (and, for that matter, the Toccata and Fugue in D minor) to demonstrate those organs in his subsequent opening organ recitals (see my article in Organists Review September 2017, or www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/sCEtBbfxAQDazb).

[@nathanbotts2498]

I love this well reasoned and unique interpretation!

[@tommcghie2652]

What a brilliant interpretation of this little know master piece. Once again Stuart Neame , arguably one of Kents finest organist, has pulled it off. Henry Ironside McGhie

[@hipbonegamer]

It seems to me that this makes the opening and closing sections into suitable flourishes to frame the centerpiece in its majesty. Until now I have tended to skip directly to the middle section, which I admire almost as much as anything Bach wrote -- but this makes sense of the work as a whole. Thank you,

[@StuartNeame]

Thanks, Charles, that's exactly where I came from - I used to just play the central section and leave out the start and end because they didn't seem to fit. Then I thought, maybe they should all go the same speed, but to start with I couldn't play the start that fast ... so it took some work, but well worth it! Stuart

[@zalp66]

This works for me. Bravo.

[@scottblackwell93]

The central section is not a fugue, though, is it? Not sure whether the French title is Bach's or not, but surely this section is a Plein Jeu. Well done being able to play all those notes at the start so quickly while changing manuals.

[@jumpinjacques]

Glad someone has queried the title of piece! My teacher actually crossed out 'Gravement' and wrote 'Gaiement' - it really comes to life when it's played as a slow one in bar!

[@StuartNeame]

+Scott Blackwell Quite right, Scott, the central section isn't a fugue, I was trying to attract the D minor fans ... I don't think the French title is Bach's; as far as I know he didn't generally give titles to his organ pieces and there's no record of him speaking French (though he did come into contact with some French musicians in North Germany as a teenager). Maybe the piece was copied by a French organist who simply classified it as an "organ piece by Mr. Bach", and the surviving copies reproduce this as a title?

[@StuartNeame]

+jumpinjacques I think your teacher was right to cross out "gravement", it doesn't appear on the earliest surviving copy, so it almost certainly isn't Bach's marking!

[@StuartNeame]

Why so fast? Bach gives us little option. The start is marked "tres vistement" - not merely fast, but very fast. And there's another reason. The earliest copies show how Bach went out of his way to ensure that the start leads seamlessly into the fugue, by writing the first bar of the fugue on the previous page. Now, the fugue has to go at at least 29 bars per minute, as its time signature is 2, not 4, beats to the bar. So if the start must go at the same speed if it is to lead seamlessly into the fugue - 29 bars per minute. What about the final section, marked lentement? There's no such marking in the earliest copy - it's a later addition, "lentement" is not Bach's marking. So the final section should also be played at the same speed as the rest - 29 bars per minute. Yes, this speed creates challenges for organ, organist and acoustics, but maybe that was Bach's intention. Bach had a life-long sideline testing the new organs built in Saxony, and would have needed pieces to demonstrate their abilities and limitations. Was BWV 572 - like his Toccata and Fugue in D minor - written for his opening recitals? Certainly the two share the same structure, with an unresolved fugue leading to remarkably similar bravura finishes. Is BWV572 a Toccata? Bach didn't give titles like "Fantasia" to his organ works, that was done by later editors; and the heading "Piece d'orgue" on early copies means no more than it says - it's an organ piece. If titles have any meaning, it is to group similar works under the same heading, and BWV 572 is Bach's most similar organ piece to his Toccata and Fugue in D minor. So if one is called a Toccata, they both should be.

[@musicboy1304]

Why 29 bars per minute? Why exactly 29? What copy are you talking about? The earliest copy I found was by Johann Gottfried Walther dated back to either before 1717 or between 1717 and 1720. This copy was later owned by Johann Ludwig Krebs, who was friend, student and copyist of J.S.Bach. This copy doesn't have the "trés vistement" marking at the beginning but it does have the "lentement" marking at the end. You are partially right. The parts don't have to be played in the same tempo but I think the tempi have to be in a relation. So I, for example, would say that half of the bar of part one should be as long as half of the bar of part two, 6 eighth notes in part one should be as long as 2 quarter notes in part two. Part two is marked "gravement" but yours sounds more like an andante even if you count it in two as the score suggests and not in four.

[@StuartNeame]

Good points! Regarding the tempi, I of course agree that there has to be a relation between the tempi of all three parts. You suggest that the first section should be played at half the speed of the second section (in terms of crotchets or bars per minute). But if that was Bach's intention, then why did he not write the first section as triplet quavers rather than as triplet semiquavers? Then the second section could follow on from the first at exactly the same number of bars and beats per minute. A second problem with playing the start at half speed is that it sounds turgid - to me, at any rate. And a third problem is that it would then conflict with the "Tres Vistement" marking - though I confess that I put little faith these French markings. They are almost certainly not by Bach, who as far as we know didn't speak French, and rarely put any tempo markings on his organ manuscripts. Which is why I set more store by Bach's 2/2 time signature than by the "gravement" marking of the central section. But I hope I haven't suggested that there's anything magical about 29 bars per minute - it's just that if you play it significantly slower than that, it's hard to stop it becoming four rather than two beats to the bar. Which bring us to your other point, which I find most interesting. The copy that I believe to be the earliest is in the Berlin State Library, and its first page is at the start of this video. Where do I find the Walther copy you're referring to? Best wishes, Stuart Neame

[@benjybunny2097]

Rediculously fast pace. With the tracker action organs at the time, Bach could never have got the keys to move at this speed; so his "very fast" marking evidently meant as fast as possible on organs of that time. This is just the organist showing off. Recordings by far better organists (eg Peter Hurford) show more restraint and therefore more musicality.

[@StuartNeame]

Sorry, Benjy, but where did you get this idea about Bach-era tracker action being slow - have you actually played a properly-restored German tracker action organ of Bach's time? I played this piece, at this speed, on the Silbermann organ at Glauchau two years ago - an organ built at about the time this piece was written, and recently restored to original condition - and it is more than capable of playing at this speed. Indeed, because tracker eliminates the time-lag of electric solenoids, and because the organist is closer to the pipes, I found this piece easier to play at this speed on the tracker-action Silbermann organ than on our organ here at Boughton. Your comment about showing-off is interesting, as Bach was developing a lucrative sideline of testing newly-built organs at about the time he wrote this piece, and it is quite possible that he specifically wrote BWV572 (and, for that matter, the Toccata and Fugue in D minor) to demonstrate (show-off?) those organs in his subsequent opening organ recitals (see my article in Organists Review September 2017, or www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/sCEtBbfxAQDazb). It is also relevant that when Bach wrote BWV572 he was a court musician at Weimar, where he was regularly asked to "show off" his skills to impress the Count's guests. So, just as one cannot play Widor's Toccata without appearing to be "showing off", BWV572 is also impressive when played fast; and that may well have been Bach's intention.

[@TitofBee]

stupidly too fast, sorry