|
|
Goldberg Variations BWV 988
General Discussions - Part 5 (2005) |
|
Continue from Part 4 |
|
BWV 988/30 Eye and/or Ear Music? |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (January 11, 2005):
BWV 988/30 Eye and/or Ear Music?
Aryeh has kindly assisted and place on the BCW my discussion of BWV 988/30. It is found at:
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/BWV988-Quodlibet[Braatz].htm
After investigating BWV 524, one of the only two quodlibets that have come down to us from Bach's pen, I have also looked into the historical background as well as the interpretation of Bach’s best-known quodlibet, the final variation in the set of variations known as the Goldberg Variations.
What I have discovered, contrary to András Schiff’s opinion regarding Variatio 30 that it should simply be treated non-reverentially: "He [Bach] was not at all concerned with posterity, and it is important not to treat every bar too reverentially." That is especially true, Schiff suggests, of the 30th and last variation, the so-called Quodlibet. "We are expecting a variation that is true to the structure of the piece, which would be a canon in tenths. Instead, Bach produces 'a most human climax', a movement whose title means literally 'what pleases'” If Schiff had looked more closely, he would have found canons in 9ths and 11ths in this same variation
The fact is that serious study of this music begins to reveal a much more carefully structured, formal composition that serves both as a summary of what precedes it as well as pointing to future possibilities of development. The fact that words of the folksong “Ich bin so lang nicht bei dir g’west” {“I haven’t been together with you for such a long time”] coincide with and are thought by the listener/player to connect meaningfully with the reappearance of the basic bass line which had only made a few rare appearances throughout the entire set of variations can be construed as an intentional connection on Bach’s part, a kind of musical pun where the words of the folksong now relate to an important structural element of the entire set of variations.
Literally another folksong sings of “Kraut und Rüben” [“cabbage and beets”] as food, but this combination of German words in a figurative sense can mean a ‘hotchpotch’ or ‘jumble’ of things. Various things which do not belong together are thrown together; hence, selecting this folksong with this particular text offers at the same time a definition of what we might normally find in a quodlibet.
Another folksong “Mein junges Leben hat ein End’” [“My young life is now coming to an end”] can also be understood as a deliberate choice of folksong text by Bach to help in underlining the arrival of this set of variations at a culminating end point. It is as though this wonderful set of variations, having already quickly (early in its life) reached Variation 30, must now come to an end
More astounding yet is Bach’s use of these three folksongs contrapuntally as canons, following the methodical progression of canons at increasing intervals. In the quodlibet Bach uses an amazing number of different types of canon in only 16 measures.
And yet, more research needs to be done to identify the missing folk tunes. One hint, which I am unable to pursue, is given by Elaine Sisman [in the article from Grove Music Online which I quoted in my discussion] who points out: >>Froberger's most celebrated variation set makes up the sixth suite, ‘auff Die Maÿerin’… also known as ‘Schweiget mir vom Frauen nehmen’ (the title of a poem by Georg Greflinger published in 1651; a variation set by Reincken with both titles made its way into the Bach family scriptorium).<< Here we have important sets of variations by Froberger and Reincken based upon a folksong: “Die Mayerin” [“The Farmer’s Wife/Peasant Woman“] or “Schweiget mir vom Frauen nehmen” [“Don’t talk to me about taking a wife.”] Is it possible that the incipit or some other important fragment from this melody may also have been used by Bach for the yet unidentified themes in Variation 30?
Musical Interpretation on Keyboard Instruments
If Bach prescribed only one manual on the harpsichord (with two manuals it might have been possible to ‘bring out’ certain melodies while emphasizing others less), what does this tell us about his possible intention to allow all the different melodies to be heard equally, i. e., without any special emphasis on any particular one as they appear in this variation. Will unusual articulation such as the sharp, accented shortening of certain notes over against the legato treatment of others provide the listening experience that Bach might have had in mind?
What about a Gould-like approach on the piano? Will it be sufficient to attack crisply with greater volume and clarity the opening notes of each entry and to de-emphasize those fragments which have not yet been identified? Or is it sufficient simply to provide a joyous and celebratory mood without worrying too much about all the details?
Was Bach simultaneously addressing various levels of listeners from the first-time, uninformed to the most astute critical listeners among which would be world-class performers and top-notch Bach scholars?
I would like to hear various opinions on this subject as well as constructive criticism of the material that I have presented. Any corrections and/or additions to this commentary would be very welcome. |
|
John Pike wrote (January 11, 2005):
[To Thomas Braatz] The quodlibet is one of my favourites of all the Goldberg variations. I would certainly agree that this music is actually very profound as well as artistically very complex.
I haven't read Schiff's notes but I have read Perahia's and although I generally found them very good, I wasn't convinced that he had done the quodlibet justice (in his notes).
Of the recordings of the Goldbergs that I know best (Gould (1955 and 1981), Schiff 2, Perahia and Tureck), Gould is my favourite in the quodlibet. I think his performance is actually very deep with all sorts of moods and dimensions brought out. I have never found any of the other recordings I mentioned (much as I love them generally) quite as satisfying as Gould. |
| |
|
Q on notes in Urtext of Goldberg variations of J.S. Bach |
|
Jim Groeneveld wrote (January 11, 2005):
I recently obtained the Urtext score of the Goldberg variations of J.S. Bach. I hope one of you can help me out. I have a question about variation 5. I also have another score of it and it appeared to me that there is a difference.
In the Urtext in bar 7 right hand notes 6 and 8 both are F#'s, while in my other copy they are G's. The G's sound more logical to me, though that might be due to already being used to them. Are the F#'s misprints or something like that or are they the correct original notes? Is that what the Urtext makes it Urtext? Are the original manuscripts clear about them? |
|
Anne Smith wrote (January 11, 2005):
[To Jim Groenveld] My Urtext, G. Henle Verlag, has both these notes as F#. I have always played them this way. I checked the Rosalyn Tureck CDRom. It has the score in midi format as she played them. It also has both notes as F#. I have never heard a recording that had G. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (January 11, 2005):
Jim Groenveld wrote:
>>I recently obtained the Urtext score of the Goldberg variations of J.S. Bach. I hope one of you can help me
out. I have a question about variation 5. I als have another score of it and it appeared to me that there is a difference. In the Urtext in bar 7 right hand notes 6 and 8 both are F#'s, while in my other copy they are G's. The G's sound more logical to me, though that might be due to already being used to them. Are the F#'s misprints or something like that or are they the correct original notes?<<
The G's are misprints or something like that. There never were any other valid variants according to the NBA KB V/2 p. 116.
>>Is that what the Urtext makes it Urtext? Are the original manuscripts clear about them?<<
Urtext is the accumulation of decisionsmade by editors regarding the validity and correctness of notes and text. They are frequently forced to choose between variants, but in this instance the Urtext (which one is it BTW?) has either allowed copy errors to go through or else they have used sloppy research methods, possibly even copying this error from another printed source thinking that it was reliable. |
|
John (JSB1441) wrote (January 11, 2005):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Urtext is the accumulation of decisions made by editors regarding the validity and correctness of notes and text. They are frequently forced to choose between variants, but in this instance the Urtext (which one is it BTW?) has either allowed copy errors to go through or else they have used sloppy research methods, possibly even copying this error from another printed source thinking that it was reliable. >
In this case it is very clear. Looking at both the facsimiles of the original printed edition and also Bach's Handexemplar, with his own personal corrections and additions, the notes in question are certainly F#s. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (January 11, 2005):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Urtext is the accumulation of decisions made by editors regarding the validity and correctness of notes and text. They are frequently forced to choose between variants, but in this instance the Urtext (which one is it BTW?) has either allowed copy errors to go through or else they have used sloppy research methods, possibly even copying this error from another printed source thinking that it was reliable. >
Jim G's remark and question was that his other score (not the Urtext one) has the errors of G instead of F# in those spots of var 5, bar 7. |
| |
|
Perhaps this is a dumb question |
|
Anne Smith wrote (February 22, 2005):
I have been under the allusion that there is no such thing as a dumb question. If you want to know something - ask.
In the Goldberg-Variations Numbers 5, 7 and 29 are marked a ovvero 2 Clav. I can't find ovvero in my music dictionary. What does it mean in this context?
Thanks, |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (February 22, 2005):
[To Anne Smith] Or. |
|
Giampi wrote (February 22, 2005):
[To Anne Smith] ovvero in italian means or |
|
John (JSB1441) wrote (February 22, 2005):
[To Anne Smith] It simply means for one or two manuals. It is your choice. |
|
Anne Smith wrote (February 23, 2005):
Thanks guys! |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (February 23, 2005):
a 2 clav.
"a 2 Clav."
I think it's interesting that in the Goldbergs, that means to use two manuals; but in the Art of Fugue, it means to use two keyboard instruments and players (each having left-hand and right-hand parts). As Leonhardt pointed out in his book, in the Art of Fugue that spot is probably to be read with the emphasis on "2" as distinct from the rest of AoF, which is (tacitly) for "1" player and keyboard instrument. It's not meant as a contrast of "claviers" vs "other types of instruments".
And, the canon in the AoF that benefits most from having two manuals (the contrary-motion augmentation canon) is not marked for any particular number of keyboards; the player is just to figure that practical matter out without prompting. There are also a couple of spots in the Canon at the 10th that are easier on two manuals rather than one. |
|
Juan Carlos Herrera wrote (February 23, 2005):
[To Anne Smith] It is clear now. If you have a doubt, either you consult a book, ovvero you ask !
Enjoy the Goldberg's |
|
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 23, 2005):
[To Anne Smith] One or Two Manuals. As with the Klavieruebung, zweiter Theil, the Klavieruebung, vierter Theil, was intended for an instrument with two manuals (and possibly pedal-keys[?]). Such was common amongst German Harpsichords of the time (as opposed to French or Italian, which tended to be single-manualed). |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (February 23, 2005):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] French harpsichords of the time tended to be double-manualed. |
|
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 24, 2005):
[To Bradley Lehman] Not from what I have read and seen. According to the New Grove's and other sources, French Clavecin were usually single-manualed.
Also, there is further evidence outside of these sources. In French music, one does not usually see the following tell-tale signs:
1.) "auff zwei Klaviere (French equivalent, of course)
2.) such dynamics markings as piano, p, f, or forte, or ones like them.
The second is considered by most experts to be a tell-tale sign that the instrument intended was a dual-manualed instrument because in most (if not all) two-manualed Harpsichords, the second manual was usually a softer tone, and therefore could be used to play piano-marked passages (or the solo instrument role in the case of such
works as Bach's BWV 972-987). |
|
Douglas SA wrote (February 24, 2005):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] I really think you have got the wrong end of the stick here. Very few French harpsichords of the 18th century are single manual. Just look at any of the many recordings which have been made on French antique instruments, by players such as Carole Cerasi, Christophe Rousset, William Christie, Kenneth Gilbert etc etc - the sleeve notes will invariably refer to a double, and will often provide a photograph.
Or visit the websites of any of the major instrument collections (Russell Collection, Edinburgh; Paris Conservatoire; Smithsonian etc etc) and you will see photographs of two-manual French instruments - and very, very few singles. You can also see double-manual instruments in countless portraits.
Could you refer us to the page in the New Grove where it states that French harpsichords were singles? This is a major blooper! It would be helpful if you could identify your other sources as well.
The fact that the French 'clavecinistes' generally did not use dynamic markings, or didn't often write 'a deux claviers' on their scores, is simply a reflection of their notation practice. It does NOT indicate that they were unused to playing double-manual harpsichords. |
|
Ken Edmonds wrote (February 24, 2005):
[To Douglas SA] It might have been the same source that told him that the Haydn trumpet concerto was written for a natural trumpet or natural horn. Never did get the complete story from David. |
|
Stephen Benson wrote (February 24, 2005):
[To Ken Edmonds] Or that the Silbermann fortepianos were plucked rather than struck. Never got a response to that story, either. |
|
Laurent Planchon wrote (February 25, 2005):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote:
< Also, there is further evidence outside of these sources. In French music, one does not usually see the following tell-tale signs:
1.) "auff zwei Klaviere (French equivalent, of course)
2.) such dynamics markings as piano, p, f, or forte, or ones like them. >
That is not entirely accurate. I had a quick look at the music I have, and you can find a lots of:
-"P. Clavier" and "G. Clavier" in Forqueray for instance.
-"fort" and "doux" in Dandrieu, Fevrier, A.L. Couperin and probably few others.
On top of that you have to consider all the 'pieces croisees' which are written for 2 keyboards (such as F. Couperin's Tic Toc Choc. It is quite something to watch Sokolov play it on one keyboard only) with clear instructions for owners of one manual harpsichords to play one hand one octave below. |
|
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 25, 2005):
Laurent Planchon wrote:
< That is not entirely accurate. I had a quick look at the music I have, and you can find a lots of:
-"P. Clavier" and "G. Clavier" in Forqueray for instance.
-"fort" and "doux" in Dandrieu, Fevrier, A.L. Couperin and probably few others. >
The majority of whom wrote in the latter 18th century, when the art of manufacturing Harpsichords at home (that is, in France) started to decline, and people started to import from Austria and other places. For the most part, the period up to the 1760s-1780s in France only saw single-manualled instruments.
Also, two questions:
1.) Are the works you are referring to for solo Harpsichord, or for ensembles that included Harpsichords? If thlatter, then your claim is not supported, for Rameau also uses said terms in his Pieces de Concert, but not for the Harpsichord part, but rather for the Orchestral parts.
2.) Are they for Harpsichord at all, or rather for Organ (which often used the same instructions that you list--i.e., P Clavier [Plein jeau], G Clavier [Grand jeau], etc.)? After all, many of the composers you list also wrote for Organ (or wrote primarilly for Organ).
< On top of that you have to consider all the 'pieces croisees' which are written for 2 keyboards (such as F. Couperin's Tic Toc Choc. It is quite something to watch Sokolov play it on one keyboard only) with clear
instructions for owners of one manual harpsichords to play one hand one octave below. >
Actually, from what I have read in the aforementioned sources, such pieces were actually writtten for single-manualled Harpsichords using the same principles as Scarlatti sonate written the same way. Where they cross is actually the hands, not the manuals (like in the Klavieruebung volumes). |
|
Craig Schweikert wrote (February 25, 2005):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote:
< The majority of whom wrote in the latter 18th century, when the art of manufacturing Harpsichords at home (that is, in France) started to decline, and people started to import from Austria and other places. For the most part, the period up to the 1760s-1780s in France only saw single-manualled instruments. >
Huh?
Dandrieu: 1682-1738
Forqueray: 1672-1745
Février: 1696-1760
A.-L. Couperin died in 1782, but one out of four does not a majority make. |
|
Laurent Planchon wrote (February 25, 2005):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote:
< The majority of whom wrote in the latter 18th century, when the art of manufacturing Harpsichords at home (that is, in France) started to decline, and people started to import from Austria and other places. >
Where do you get your information from ? The French were probably the last ones (with the English) to manufacture haprsichords and to try to compete with the fortepiano.
< For the most part, the period up to the 1760s-1780s in France only saw single-manualled instruments. >
Same here. My list of composers was pre-1780, and I actually even forgot Rameau's "la Poule" which has a bunch of "fort" and "doux". As far as the 'pieces croisees' are concerned with instructions to play one octave
below on single manuals, I was refering implicitely to Francois Couperin.
< 1.) Are the works you are referring to for solo Harpsichord, >
Of course.
< 2.) Are they for Harpsichord at all, or rather for Organ Harpsichord.>
I was refering only to 'pieces de clavecin'. |
|
Laurent Planchon wrote (February 25, 2005):
[To Craig Schweickert] It is also really striking to consider that 5 out the the 5 surviving Hemsch harpsichords (1736, 1751, 1754, 1756, 1762) are double manuals. |
|
Craig Schweikert wrote (February 25, 2005):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote:
< The majority of whom wrote in the latter 18th century, when the art of manufacturing Harpsichords at home (that is, in France) started to decline, and people started to import from Austria and other places. For the most part, the period up to the 1760s-1780s in France only saw single-manualled instruments. >
Amazing what a little bit of googling will turn up. For many more results of this type, use "french harpsichords" as your search string.
http://websquad.com/harpsichord/french/
(See the photos for the pre-1760 instruments, nearly all of which have two manuals.)
http://www.jph.us/dumont.html
http://www.jph.us/blanchet.html
http://www.i-way.co.uk/~storrs/jsw/English/Introduction.html
French instruments developed from the Flemish design. Many so-called French harpsichords were in fact Flemish in origin, rebuilt by French makers who increased the compass in both treble and bass. The music of
Chambonnières, Louis and François Couperin and Rameau demands a very colourful and rich sonority. Although the 17th century Flemish instruments were able to offer this in part, the French harpsichord gradually developed its own characteristics. A typical French harpsichord at the beginning of the 18th century would have two manuals, two 8' and a 4' register and a buff stop. With its increased range it was heavier than the Flemish instrument; its refinements in construction gave its tone a warmth and fullness matched equally by the elegance of its appearance. Blanchet and Taskin instruments, from the 18th century, are the most copied.
http://www.mindspring.com/~awinkler/gallery-french.htm
http://cfaonline.asu.edu/haefer/classes/564/564.papers/pierceharpsichord.html |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (February 25, 2005):
<< On top of that you have to consider all the 'pieces croisees' which are written for 2 keyboards (such as F. Couperin's Tic Toc Choc. It is quite something to watch Sokolov play it on one keyboard only) with clear instructions for owners of one manual harpsichords to play one hand one octave below. >>
< Actually, from what I have read in the aforementioned sources, such pieces were actually writtten for single-manualled Harpsichords using the same principles as Scarlatti sonate written the same way. Where they cross is actually the hands, not the manuals (like in the Klavieruebung volumes). >
David, the harpsichordists responding to you in this thread KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Go attempt to play "Le Tic Toc Choc" (in Francois Couperin's Ordre 18 - published 1722) yourself, on any single-manualed instrument of your choice, and you'll begin to understand.
Likewise, there are pieces by Louis Couperin (d. 1661) and Chambonnieres (d. 1672) that work only if there are two manuals available. No amount of speculation/rationalization by you is going to whiff double-manual French
harpsichords of the 17th and early 18th centuries out of existence.
< For the most part, the period up to the 1760s-1780s in France only saw single-manualled instruments. >
That's simply not true. They had spinets (small home instruments), and single-manual harpsichords, and double-manual harpsichords; and most of these had short-octave layouts in the bass, which is used to full advantage in the repertoire. (Both in 17th century France, and in some of Froberger's music.) Then, as now, some of the music being written (and improvised) could be played on the smaller instruments and some couldn't. People then, as now, had whatever keyboard instruments they could afford and had space for.
Furthermore, in addition to composers and music that others have already mentioned here, the Forqueray suites (published 1747) included some pieces that explicitly use two contrasting manuals. |
| |
|
Goldberg 16(th notes) a la Couperin |
|
Tom Dent wrote (March 10, 2005):
As readers will know the Goldberg variations contain a Variation 16 'Ouverture' in the form of a French Overture (with the return of the slow opening compressed to a single chord!). The question concerns the second half, a 3/8 fugato written mostly in 16th notes. If truly performed after the French fashion, this section should have noticeable notes inegales... i.e. it should 'have that swing'!
Now is there any performance that does have this feature?
I have been experimenting with playing the scale-like passages in conjunct motion (the fugue subject) long-short, while the rising figure in third seems to demand some different treatment, more even or even short-long. The tempo has to be slightly slower than if one played all even 16th notes, and extra ornamentation seems to be in order. The effect approaches a more cerebral version of Couperin.
The question with notes inegales in Handel (allemandes) is when to switch back to straight rhythm - usually when there is a passage with arpeggio-figures (style brisee), or the melody becomes jumpy. A similar question affects this Bach variation. At some poione might even deploy different levels of inegale on the left and right hands!
Certainly a tasteful performance involves more than just converting every pair of notes to long-short... |
|
Laurent Planchon wrote (March 10, 2005):
Tom Dent wrote:
< The question concerns the second half, a 3/8 fugato written mostly in 16th notes. If truly performed after the French fashion, this section should have noticeable notes inegales... i.e. it should 'have that swing'! >
I am not an expert and I don't have the music in front of me, but are you talking of inegales 16th notes ? That would seem odd to me unless it is an Allemande or a slow piece (and unless I am mixing up 1/8 and 1/16th notes. I am still not used to the English notation). |
|
John (JSB1441) wrote (March 11, 2005):
Tom Dent writes:
< As readers will know the Goldberg variations contain a Variation 16 'Ouverture' in the form of a French Overture (with the return of the slow opening compressed to a single chord!). The question concerns the second half, a 3/8 fugato written mostly in 16th notes. If truly performed after the French fashion, this section should have noticeable notes inegales... i.e. it should 'have that swing'!
Now is there any performance that does have this feature? >
I never think of notes inegales for the fugue. Where it is often used is in the first part of variation 16, the French Overture. Specifically, the rising line of sixteenth notes at the end of measure seven. Leonhardt and others employ it here. My best. |
|
Tom Dent wrote (March 10, 2005):
[To John (JSB1441)] Thanks for your thoughts, more below. A 16th note is a double-croche or semiquaver.
<< As readers will know the Goldberg variations contain a Variation 16 'Ouverture' (...) The question concerns the second half, a 3/8 fugato written mostly in 16th notes. If truly performed after the French fashion, this section should have noticeable notes inegales... i.e. it should 'have that swing'! >>
< I never think of notes inegales for the fugue. >
I think you are thinking of a different variation. The fughetta is Var. 10, but I meant Var. 16, and specifically the second half in 3/8 time.
Having said that, it might be fun to try inegales in Var. 10 as well! The quaver figures are certainly of a suitable type. I don't really have any scholarly reference point for the performance of the fugal sections of Overtures. Handel notates inegales with great throughness in a overture's fugal section in one of his Suites, G minor I think.
< Where it is often used is in the first part of variation 16, the French Overture. Specifically, the rising line of sixteenth notes at the end of measure seven. Leonhardt and others employ it here. >
This is the variation I meant, but the second half! In my edition these 16ths in the first half have dots over them - 23 dots in total. Is there any precedent for this meaning inegales? I would myself assume the reverse, i.e. evenly detached notes. At the risk of being dogmatic, inegales are typically used for cantabile/legato passages. Still I suppose Leonhardt did his homework. |
|
John (JSB1441) wrote (March 11, 2005):
Tom Dent writes:
< I think you are thinking of a different variation. The fughetta is Var. 10, but I meant Var. 16, and specifically the second half in 3/8 time. >
No, I was talking about variation 16. The second half is a fugue and I have never heard anyone use notes inegales for this section. As I said it is somewhat common practice to use this rhythm in the rising line of sixteenth notes at the end of measure seven. Measure seven starting from the beginning of variation 16. If you listen to Leonhardt and others you will notice it here. The dots you mention are simply staccato markings. |
| |
|
Goldberg Variations |
|
Luis wrote (March 12, 2005):
Sorry, I think I missed a lot of things... I'm sorry... I was abscent for some time. Well, I am starting to play the "Aria" from the "Goldberg Variations"... The problem is that I have the sheetmusic, but I don't have the music... I don't know how good I am playing it... I was looking for a CD, and I found one of the Goldberg Variations
performed by Andreas Schiff... Is that a good one? Did you know a better one?
Thanks! |
|
Stephen Benson wrote (March 12, 2005):
[To Luis] You'll probably get a lot of people telling you that they have another favorite, but, yes, that is definitely a good one. |
|
Donald Satz wrote (March 12, 2005):
[To Luis] Well, Schiff's recorded it twice - first on Decca, then ECM. If the latter, it's a great version. |
|
Stephen Benson wrote (March 12, 2005):
[To Donald Satz] Point extremely well taken. Vive la difference! |
| |
|
Continue on Part 6 |
|
|
