Bach: Art of Fugue, BWV 1080 - 2 Recordings on Piano

Eloise Bella Kohn and Daniil Trifonov have released in the past few months their own performances of Bach’s Art of Fugue (BWV 1080) on piano. These two separate recordings also both feature a completion of the final fugue.

For Kohn, she chooses a solution by composer Theirry Escaich; Trifonov writes his own. The other thing that differentiates the releases is that Trifonov’s recording offers considerably more music ahead of the performance of BWV 1080.

In the most general terms, Kohn’s pianistic technique is seemingly tuned, with restraint, at making the counterpoint most clearly heard, with good spacing and articulation between notes. I’d stop short at saying she’s applying an antique technique to a modern piano, but her consistency throughout is an artistic decision that makes sense, especially when considering the historical solutions we might imagine on harpsichord or organ. This is a performance philosophy shared by many pianists over the past decades, and as an exemplar of this approach I’d name Andras Schiff. Both musicians fall back from using the fullest dynamic color and power of their instrument. I’d label these as non-Romantic performances.

Trifonov is the more Romantic performer. His toolkit, at least when it comes to piano technique, is wider and deeper. In the final fugue, he arrives at the B-A-C-H theme at fortissimo. Both approaches I think can work. I find value in both of these as well. Trifonov’s solutions come across as more creative and ultimately more interesting, given his variety of tempos, articulations, and dynamics. While I believe Kohn’s solution was designed to bring clarity among the voices, Trifonov’s works as well, in the way that he is voicing the different lines with contrast.

There are of course other recordings of Die Kunst der Fuge on piano; these two not only came out at around the same time, but offer us very strong performances each, despite being very different. I won’t be in the position to choose a favorite, but some of you may certainly prefer one style over the other. My strongest comparison of Trifonov’s playing is that by Vladimir Feltsman. In his reading of this work, he chose some rather pianistic solutions to the performance; this newer one breaks, I feel, further ground.

I did want to make mention of the final fugue and the differences between the solutions. I read some time ago a postulation that Bach left the final fugue unfinished on purpose. I do not believe this for a second because there exist no other examples such as this. The idea never came across to his progeny, either. While his other late work, the Musical Offering (BWV 1079) does offer the musicians some work to do in figuring out how to solve the puzzle canons, these puzzles are self contained entities. It’s their notion that provides the puzzle, it’s not asking for the contribution of new material.

The idea that Bach would “sign” a piece with his name and then just quit in want of someone figuring out the rest? I think his compositional process probably worked out how to combine the themes and then he set about to do so. For speculative reasons, he did not finish the task. And while there is a philosophical approach toward only solving performance issues based on what is in the text, there’s also a real interest for us to want to hear this piece properly finished. So I do support efforts in finishing the final fugue, although I reject that this was part of Bach’s grand plan.

Both solutions offered lack, for me, the kiss of authenticity that we might be fooled into believing either one was a lost Bach solution. That said, they both work and were both enjoyable. Trifonov’s I think is less complex with a somewhat superfluous bookend in his own solution, but there’s something about his harmonic language that I prefer in its “Bachness.” Either way, as I said, both were enjoyable and the idea that a performer is by nature also a composer (or, well, that composers are performers?) would have been a very germane concept to musicians at Bach’s time of life. I wouldn’t read too much into the fact that one musician outsourced her solution. The truth is, our musical education system is quite different from the one that produced the likes of Handel or Bach. But I applaud the challenge all involved took in offering a solution. I think it speaks to their dedication to the spirit of the piece and helps differentiate each one with its own ending.

For different reasons these were both enjoyable. For pianistic technique, I think Trifonov’s release edges the other out. The opening of his recording offers some pieces by Bach’s sons and a selection from the Anna Magdelena’s notebook. The final track is a rendition of Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring, which while popular, I think was the wrong choice. The replacement chorale that was published with Bach’s 1751 release of the Art of Fugue is a far more satisfying and affecting piece of music.