Bach's Passacaglia

[Pachinko7]

It seems to be an improvisation, or pieced together to be played as improvisation or in an improvisation setting. With exception of the first couple of variations and the last two, which are related to one another and necessarily "sequential", all the variations seem to work independently. Could the order of some of the variations perhaps be modified and the whole still sound well? (sacrilege ! sacrilege !) I don't know, I've never attempted this. But at any rate, both extreme styles of registration (1 and 2 of original post) seem to work well, as well as styles somewhat in between.
My point being, if we can accept the improvisational character of the piece, some liberties taken with (at least) registration may be okay.
The original theme is by some French composer, Bach extended it a bit for the Passacaglia, originally it ends in the G, the extra notes make it end in the low C, actually the original theme is used as such in the fugue.

[fugueist]

All Passacaglia lovers:

How about this "problem"? Almost everyone stops after the "Passacaglia" proper (to cut the fullness of the Plenum back a little), then proceeds with the fugue. The ms doesn't have that, however. (I know it's not Bach's ms, but it's unlikely that anyone would make such a major change). My solution? I consider the Fugue to be the 21st variation, so resist the temptation to build up to full organ at the end of the Passacaglia proper. I don't resist the temptation after the Neopolitan chord at the end of the fugue, however! I think seeing this as a 2 manual and pedal harpsichord or clavichord work (which would remove the problem) isn't credible.

Food for thought?

fugueist

[Peterboroughdiapason]

It seems to be an improvisation,

Not to me , it doesn't!

[Pachinko7]

All Passacaglia lovers:

... Almost everyone stops after the "Passacaglia" proper (to cut the fullness of the Plenum back a little), then proceeds with the fugue. The ms doesn't have that, however. (I know it's not Bach's ms, but it's unlikely that anyone would make such a major change). My solution? I consider the Fugue to be the 21st variation, so resist the temptation to build up to full organ at the end of the Passacaglia proper.

fugueist

Well, the fact remains that the "Passacaglia" theme in the fugue is a shorter theme, the original theme, not by Bach, ending in that G, not going all the way to the lower C. In other words, the theme of the fugue is "different" from the theme of the Passacaglia.
By the way, I don't like that in the ms the first note of the first exposition of the theme of the fugue is part of the final chord of the Passacaglia. Personally I would never play it that way. The fugue is a "complete" piece in its own right, a masterpiece at that; not playing the full first exposition of the theme separately does a disservice to it.

[Pachinko7]

Not to me , it doesn't!

Well, think of it this way. You are Bach. Some french organist is traveling your way; he is probably going to challenge you to improvise something on this theme of his in some sort of public performance, and you have insider info on the theme. How ? who knows. Maybe he was kind enough to send you a letter and show you the theme in advance. Or maybe you have some spy. The point is, you are a master improviser, you are thinking of playing a passacaglia. Extend the theme a bit so it is a slightly longer, complete phrase. The theme is slow, play it on the pedalboard again and again as you play variations on the manual. Perfect for improvisation. Write down a few ideas. Play phrases on the manual going up, the next time phrases going down. And so forth. Then have your performance. It is the 18th century. Even though it is a memorable performance, nobody is recording anything. Gather your notes, put the best possible version together and send it to your publisher !

[indianajo]

How about this "problem"? Almost everyone stops after the "Passacaglia" proper (to cut the fullness of the Plenum back a little), then proceeds with the fugue. The ms doesn't have that, however. (

I like hearing the reverberations bounce around the building in the pause between P & F. Just a radio fan's approach to music, I suppose. Sure no echoes in my living room, except the spring reverb tank. I've only heard P&F live once, and that building didn't have much of an echo.

[Peterboroughdiapason]

Well, think of it this way. You are Bach. Some french organist is traveling your way; he is probably going to challenge you to improvise something on this theme of his in some sort of public performance, and you have insider info on the theme. How ? who knows. Maybe he was kind enough to send you a letter and show you the theme in advance. Or maybe you have some spy. The point is, you are a master improviser, you are thinking of playing a passacaglia. Extend the theme a bit so it is a slightly longer, complete phrase. The theme is slow, play it on the pedalboard again and again as you play variations on the manual. Perfect for improvisation. Write down a few ideas. Play phrases on the manual going up, the next time phrases going down. And so forth. Then have your performance. It is the 18th century. Even though it is a memorable performance, nobody is recording anything. Gather your notes, put the best possible version together and send it to your publisher !

No doubt much of Bach's keyboard music began life as improvisations (Goldberg Variations, Art of Fugue etc.), but the Passacaglia and Fugue, in its written-down form, seems to me much to be too highly organised to be be described as "seems like an improvisation".

Peter Williams writes:
"If ever there was a work greater than the sum of its parts - a singable theme, impeccable harmonic logic, clear pedigree, imaginative response to other music, conscious manipulation of motifs, careful working-out of permutation, calculated shape - it is the Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor."

[Pachinko7]

No doubt much of Bach's keyboard music began life as improvisations (Goldberg Variations, Art of Fugue etc.), but the Passacaglia and Fugue, in its written-down form, seems to me much to be too highly organised to be be described as "seems like an improvisation".
Peter Williams writes:
"If ever there was a work greater than the sum of its parts - a singable theme, impeccable harmonic logic, clear pedigree, imaginative response to other music, conscious manipulation of motifs, careful working-out of permutation, calculated shape - it is the Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor."

You say "too highly organised to be described as [an ...] improvisation", but the fact remains that, with the exception of a few of the variations at the beginning and also at the end (I am not counting the fugue, more on that below) all the variations are "disconnected" from each other, it almost seems to me like they could be shuffled.
As for Peter Williams' quote, I would LOVE to know what he means exactly by "clear pedigree".
The "careful working-out of permutation" clearly refers to the fugue, which has 3 themes that are presented through the work as permutation between the soprano/alto/tenor/bass voices, with another "random theme", to call it something, as it is always different, alternating also with the remaining 4th voice. I totally agree with you on this, the fugue is NOT an improvisation.

[douçaine]

I always found the Passacaglia very hard to memorize. As Pachinko7 was saying, the beginning and end are distinct, but in the middle, things get a little foggy. Likewise, I sometimes get lost in the middle of the Passacaglia, when playing from memory. The fugue, on the other hand, was quite simple to memorize. It's a piece I love to play, but the middle variations kinda annoy me.
Sometimes, I change the registration, sometimes I don't. It depends on the organ. There are some organs whose mixtures satisfy the ears for a long time; usually, they are in unequal temperament, and have mechanical actions. Bach's organs (in particular, the ones built by Trost) have very beautiful mixtures; you can listen to them for hours and not tire of them. Though maybe he might have switched manuals from time to time when playing it himself, playing the whole thing on the big plenum would have been just as acceptable to the ear. Other organs have mixtures which are quite spectacular, but become boring after a while; usually, they are in equal temperament, and have electric actions. A lot of neobaroque organs as well suffer from this problem. Then, I use the mixtures for certain phrases, where their brilliance can shine best, and turn them off or close the boxes around them when it could get annoying. I try not to make any registration changes throughout, except for the mixtures, and the pedal reed, if I have it on with the mixtures. Bach might have been a colorful player, but anything approaching Virgil Fox's performance is no longer color for the sake of the music, but color for the sake of showing that the organ sounds cool. I try to leave that kind of color to the articulation (which Bach apparently was a master of himself). Listening to Fox playing, though, few of the ensembles he used would have been satisfying for this kind of music for a long time - maybe his frequent changes did serve some purpose.
WWBD (what would Bach do)...

[Peterboroughdiapason]

You say "too highly organised to be described as [an ...] improvisation", but the fact remains that, with the exception of a few of the variations at the beginning and also at the end (I am not counting the fugue, more on that below) all the variations are "disconnected" from each other, it almost seems to me like they could be shuffled.

It's lucky we don't all agree, isn't it - I have a much higher opinion of the Passacaglia than you do!