|
Compositional process... |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (June 14, 2007):< Albert Schweitzer wrote a very good book (in two volumes) about Bach called 'J. S. Bach by Albert Schweitzer'. If you get a chance to get ahold of these volumes you will have a very good reference for the works and the time and place of writing, plus many clues into lots of musical distinctions in his writings. > I would put in another plug for a book I mentioned some months ago: the classic two-volume set by Robert Marshall, The Compositional Process of J.S. Bach (Princeton 1972) as a published revision of his dissertation. It goes through the autograph composing scores of dozens of the cantatas, teasing apart the different layers of revision: cross-outs, note head enlargements, faster-moving figuration added in later on top of a skeleton, etc etc. Bach did revise things quite a bit (while not as much as, say, Beethoven), which implies that he did have some time to consider and reconsider ideas. In reading this set I, for one, was especially surprised by the amount of keyboard tablature extant in his sketches, even for pieces that weren't ultimately destined for keyboard. These are vocal parts, and obbligato instruments in arias. Apparently for part of his process he noodled things out at the keyboard (presumably clavichord and/or harpsichord, rather than hiring an organ pumper), wrote them down, and then worked out all the orchestrational details and elaboration later. Certainly makes sense to me, the usefulness of that method! (If Bach were alive and working on such music today, would he improvise into a tape recorder instead?) I've been trying to track down how late into his life Bach continued to use keyboard tablature notation, as a working habit. In addition to the 30 or more cantatas that have tablature examples in Marshall's set, I found in the NBA that one of Bach's fresh compositions from 1735 or later also uses it: the Prelude/Fugue/Allegro BWV 998, where some of the last page is done in tablature instead of starting a fresh sheet of staff paper. And we just saw BWV 1040 a couple of days ago, still up at: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/BachCantatas/files/ It was apparently composed around 1712-16, like cantata BWV 208 where it fills out an unused page of its manuscript. This is a three-voiced instrumental trio where the end of the continuo part got done in letters instead of notes. As for the beginning of his career, a source discovered last year is from his organ lessons as a teenager: where he wrote out copies of other people's compositions and did it entirely in keyboard tablature, instead of score notation. Intriguing. It's a differently practical way of thinking about notation, for one thing. Note releases and articulation aren't written down, but are judged by taste, experience, harmonic context, and contrapuntal awareness. There's also an interesting article by Marshall about the typical sequence of events in composing four-part Bach chorales. "How Bach Composed Four-Part Chorales", Musical Quarterly, April 1970. These things of course don't (and can't) say definitively how long a composition took, from first thoughts through performance(s); but it least we can see some of the working strategies as first-hand evidence in the scores. Play some of the passages on keyboard first, then start putting things onto paper, then come back to it later and keep tinkering until it's good. It also doesn't (can't) say how many days/weeks/months ahead anything got finished, whether it looks like quick work or not. If something looks like a rush--which is already difficult to judge in itself, as Bach maybe just had lots of other things happening at the same time and diverting attention--was it a rush before performance date, or to get ready for some other deadlines altogether? For instance: approval of the music, or study by the musicians (in lessons or otherwise), or handing out the copying assignments, or just to have enough personal time to go over it again himself for revisions? We don't know. What if Bach had some of his musicians learn as much by memory/rote/demonstration, as by reading anything? Let's just hope it wasn't to the extreme end like "The Think System" for Harold Hill's Iowa boys, in "The Music Man". :) At least Bach could play orchestral/vocal music as demonstration on the keyboard, if he'd wanted to teach it that way by example, while Harold Hill (of zero credentials and nearly-zero musical ability) could barely hum the melody. |
|
Jean Laaninen wrote (June 14, 2007):[To Bradley Lehman] Thanks, Brad. I will follow through on this information. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (June 14, 2007):Bradley Lehman wrote: >> Bach did revise things quite a bit (while not as much as, say, Beethoven), which implies that he did have some time to consider and reconsider ideas.<< The question remains, in regard to the cantatas and their subsequent repeat performances, whether he had ample time to consider and reconsider ideas for changes, or whether this usually amounted to a similar situation to the one he encountered when he first composed the cantata: waiting until only a day or so before the actual performance, assessing which singers and/or instrumentalists were best able to perform the solo/obbligato parts, making as few changes as necessary so that most of the original materials could be used as is, and perhaps quickly copying out such a 'new' part himself. BL: >>These [inserted tablature additions instead of writing out the notes entirely] are vocal parts, and obbligato instruments in arias. Apparently for part of his process he noodled things out at the keyboard (presumably clavichord and/or harpsichord, rather than hiring an organ pumper), wrote them down, and then worked out all the orchestrational details and elaboration later.<< Bach's main reasons for using tablature (there are still many of his sketches written with normal notation in the margin or where there is available space as well) in the composing scores of his sacred music compositions are: 1. As a space-saver. Perhaps normal notation will no longer fit at the end of a page. Bach ran out of space or perhaps squeezing in another staff between two existing ones would make it even more difficult to read. Bach is notorious for the methods he used to make use of any available space on the page of a score. Clean copies of a score, particularly for those from the 1st 3 Leipzig cantata cycles, are rare among cantata compositions, since most of them were left as they were as composing scores thus indicating that he did not have much time to prepare such a score before the actual performance and often did not even bother to create one for a later performance (nor did he go back to the score to make any obvious corrections which he made to the parts). 2. To avoid an unnecessary page turn. This could be because he would conduct from the composing score or make things easier for himself when he copied out the parts: less paper shuffling - seeing the entire mvt. at a glance rather than having to turn the page for just a few bars which were missing. 3. As a time saver. Instead of taking a rastral to create a new staff in the available space, Bach uses keyboard tablature as a form of shorthand to write his ideas down quickly. BWV 1040 would appear to be part of a situation where Bach ran out of time as he hurriedly assembled the score so that the parts could be copied from it as quickly as possible. The notion that Bach, as a "Klavierritter" ("Knight of the Keyboard"), would first 'plink' out the notes on a keyboard before writing them down in keyboard tablature, sounds like an episode lifted from a biography of Bach written for little children. An entirely different matter, of course, is the report that Bach, after having composed certain partitas for harpsichord (without recourse to a keyboard while composing), would subsequently, late at night, work out fingerings at the keyboard to masure the compositions were playable. This would not detract from the notion that many, or at least most of his keyboard compositions may have undergone a two-stage composition process: first as improvisations, then in writing down and modifying what he had originally improvised. For the latter he would not need to have a keyboard present. However, once he had completed this improvisation-followed-by-writing-down process, he would return to the keyboard to determine if what he had ultimately 'composed' as resulting from improvisations was playable or not. Hence, we have this report about 'working out the fingerings' of pieces at the keyboard of music freshly composed on paper. This may have led him to change certain notes or the placement of these (Oktavbrechung, etc.) as well. This, of course, is a far cry from 'plinking' out the notes and notating them immediately, whether in normal notation or keyboard tablature, whenever a musical idea came to his mind, |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (June 14, 2007):Quoting Thomas Braatz:: < 3. As a time saver. Instead of taking a rastral to create a new staff in the available space, Bach uses keyboard tablature as a form of shorthand to write his ideas down quickly. BWV 1040 would appear to be part of a situation where Bach ran out of time as he hurriedly assembled the score so that the parts could be copied from it as quickly as possible. The notion that Bach, as a "Klavierritter" ("Knight of the Keyboard"), would first 'plink' out the notes on a keyboard before writing them down in keyboard tablature, sounds like an episode lifted from a biography of Bach written for little children. (...) > Yes, that would be a silly oversimplification, and a trivialization of the point. It's rather like the 'plink' of stabbing the straw man you've set up here for the purpose. Nobody here has accused Bach of being any Klavierritter, or of 'plinking' out any notes he otherwise wouldn't have been able to imagine or assemble without a keyboard. As I said, the tablature was just a handy and quick way of writing down full-textured ideas; or occasionally (as in BWV 1040) to save space on a single line of notes instead of drawing a new staff. And you even confirmed that part, before going on to make up the rest of it that starts a dispute. The situation in BWV 1040, which you've given a bizarre interpretation here, does not imply any hurry (or lack of it!) one way or the other. Nor does it say that Bach was pressed on any copying tasks for BWV 208, where this page with BWV 1040 happens to be; he could have written that little trio after any performance(s) of BWV 208, completely at leisure and just using up space, and it would look exactly the same to us as it does! It only demonstrates that Bach ran out of space on that page for whatever reason, and then wrote in letters for the last bit instead of notes (sort of like what he also did in Orgelbüchlein and elsewhere). Here's an example from BWV 612, of Orgelbüchlein, where there is again no implication of being in a rush about anything; he merely ran out of space when working within an already-bound book, underestimating the number of staves his composition (already in his fingers!) would take to write down in ink: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/bwv612-tablature.JPG All this other "hurriedly" business has been thrust in there as a premise, by you on all kinds of cantatas left and right (now including 208 also, 10 years before his Leipzig job!!), pressing the sources to say things they don't necessarily say. You're the one who somehow needs Bach to have been in some alleged rush about every little thing, whenever he wrote vocal pieces, and somehow forcing the evidence to say that. Well, the evidence doesn't unequivocally say the things you impute to it in these interpretations. You're only bringing up one possibility (i.e. Bach being in a perpetual panic about deadlines at school and church, which suits some fantasy scene in your head, apparently), and then moving ahead as if it's necessarily true. |
|
Casimir Vetter wrote (June 15, 2007):[To Thomas Braatz] Mr Braatz you still did not answer my easy 5 minute question from a couple days ago. It would help understand your idea better. What instrument do YOU teach or play, at what school, where people sight read the music like you say Bach did? Did you write any music yourself for a school group or whatever, or church, and then have them do it without practice? How hard was it? I don't get why you say Bach was always in a hurry about everything, it's like every 3rd sentence. (I also looked up more or your web postings where you say the same thing over and over.) Why do you think he didn't just plan ahead better? Thank you |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (June 15, 2007):Bradley Lehman wrote: >>Yes, that ["plinking out the notes on a keyboard before writing them down in keyboard tablature] would be a silly oversimplification, and a trivialization of the point. It's rather like the 'plink' of stabbing the straw man you've set up here for the purpose. Nobody here has accused Bach of being any Klavierritter, or of 'plinking' out any notes he otherwise wouldn't have been able to imagine or assemble without a keyboard.<< but this is what Brad Lehman had written in the previous message: >>These are vocal parts, and obbligato instruments in arias. Apparently for part of his process he noodled things out at the keyboard (presumably clavichord and/or harpsichord, rather than hiring an organ pumper), wrote them down, and then worked out all the orchestrational details and elaboration later.<< According to your statement, first comes the 'plinking' or 'noodling' out at the keyboard, and after that Bach writes them down on paper. This is what I consider to be in the manner of the Knight of the Keyboard: first hit the notes on the keyboard and if they sound right, write them down in notation. BL: >>As I said, the tablature was just a handy and quick way of writing down full-textured ideas; or occasionally (as in BWV 1040) to save space on a single line of notes instead of drawing a new staff.<< However, in regard to the vocal or obbligato instrumental parts for which Bach sometimes used keyboard tablature for reasons already stated, these are not 'fully textured musical ideas' but simply a single line of notes. BL: >>You're the one who somehow needs Bach to have been in some alleged rush about every little thing, whenever he wrote vocal pieces, and somehow forcing the evidence to say that.<< BL: >>Well, the evidence doesn't unequivocally say the things you impute to it in these interpretations. You're only bringing up one possibility (i.e. Bach being in a perpetual panic about deadlines at school and church, which suits some fantasy scene in your head, apparently), and then moving ahead as if it's necessarily true.<< Not at all 'some fantasy scene', but one that experts like Alfred Dürr confirm when they, from their experience in working directly with the original materials, state that the process from composition to performance was one that took place under great pressure of time [this latter observation pertains particularly to the Leipzig period during the 1720s]: [from Alfred Dürr's "Bachs Werk vom Einfall bis zur Drucklegung", Breitkopf & Härtel, 1989, p. 14.] 1. Bach very likely used few sketches. It is observable that he modified themes at almost the same time when he wrote them down. 2. The preparation of performance materials is accomplished in the shortest possible period of time. ".denn jede Minute ist kostbar: Bach gibt die tintenfrische Partitur einem Thomaner." ("for every minute is precious: the ink is not even entirely dry when Bach gives his score to a Thomaner.."). Seldom does Bach take the time to enter the corrections and additions that he makes to the parts into his original composing score. "Freilich, bei Zeitknappheit kann dieser Revisionsprozeß auch entfallen oder verkürzt werden. So kommt es, daß ein letzter Reifungsprozeß oft unterbleibt und daß uns ein Wnicht in derjenigen Vollkommenheit überliefert ist, die es erreicht hätte, wenn mehr Zeit verfügbar gewesen wäre." ("To be sure, due to this lack of time, this process of revision also may be omitted or be shortened. Thus it often happens that a final maturation process can fail to take place and that we will not be the recipients of a composition in such a state of perfection which it might have attained if more time had been available.") Living in a fantasy world based upon current methods of composition and performance are those who believe that this hurried process based upon observable facts (the original composing scores and the copy process sequence used by Bach in the 1720s in Leipzig where and when the bulk of the cantatas was composed) could possibly have taken place weeks before a first performance of the music so that musicians could study their parts and have rehearsals in sectionals and as an entire group over a period of weeks in order to prepare themselves properly for the cantata performances in church. Such a fantasy cannot be reasonably related to the observations based upon the evidence that we do possess. |
|
Bach, the well-regulated composer |
|
Douglas Cowling wrote (March 30, 2008):William Hoffman wrote: < Exhibit 2: Motive. Besides the reference to contentment above, Bach is finishing writing cantata cycles. He's free to go wherever he wants. This intimate, deep work with charming recitatives and attractive arias (WGW) comes at the end of this amorphous, patchwork Cycle 3. The next work Bach presents, on Good Friday, April 11, 1727, is probably the first version of the SMP (BWV 244). A content composer on the way to a well-regulated church music? > I like this notion of Bach having an over-arching trajectory which culminates in the composition of the SMP. So often we fix on Bach's work load and give the impression that he worked (I was going to write "stumbled") from week to week in a Rossini-like panic -- "Oh no, my choir is exhausted -- I better write a solo cantata!" I just don't believe it. Bach asked for a "well-regulated" church music and that began with himself. When he arrived in Leipzig, he clearly planned to write cantatas for about five years until he had a basic collection of new music which would provide his core repertoire. He didn't get bored with cantatas or find new opportunities for composition outside the church. He had successfully completed a well-regulated plan. Were the two Passions part of that plan? In the months before he came to Leipzig, did he make the decision to write these monumental works? If so, five years makes perfect sense to me as the gestation time for what the Bach family called "The Great Passion". Well-regulated indeed. |
|
Jean Laaninen wrote (March 30, 2008):[To Douglas Cowling] Thanks for sharing your opinion, Doug. |
|
William Hoffman wrote (March 31, 2008):Douglas Cowling wrote: < Were the two Passions part of that plan? In the months before he came to Leipzig, did he make the decision to write these monumental works? If so, five years makes perfect sense to me as the gestation time for what the Bach family called "The Great Passion". Well-regulated indeed. > William Hoffman replies: I think Bach's Passion plan began in the summer of 1707 when he composed two amazing mourning cantatas, BWV 106, and BWV 131, containing the seeds of his lyrical passion music. Since Lutheran service music (cantatas & passions) were considered as "musical sermons," I think Bach's template is the five-elements of the Lutheran sermon: exordium (introduction), Cantatas BWV 106 and BWV 131; proposito (key statement), the Weimar/Gotha Passion of 1717; tractacio (investigation of proposito), St. John Passion (BWV 245) of 1724; applicatio (application), St. Matthew Passion (BWV 244) of 1727 & 1729; and conclusio (final statement), St. Mark Passion (BWV 247) of 1731 with Picander again as the lyricist. My inspiration is Robin A. Leaver's booklet, "J.S. Bach as Preacher, His Passions and Music in Worship," where he says the Great John and Matthew Passions contain all five elements of the sermon. |
|
Jean Laaninen wrote (March 31, 2008):[To William Hoffman] Very interesting insights, here. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (March 31, 2008):[To William Hoffman] That's not only for Lutheran sermons; it's from principles of rhetoric by Quintilian, Cicero, et al: the basic art of expressing one's points with sufficient organization to be convincing. One of my classmates, years ago, wrote her thesis on Bach's use of exordium, proposito, etc etc in the Italian Concerto and the Prelude/Fugue BWV 894, going through them section by section to show the construction of music like a good speech. The first chapter of Laurence Dreyfus's book Bach and the patterns of invention (which see) opens up the question: did Bach really know classical rhetoric solidly himself, or was he just relying on little bits of Latin stuff learned by rote as a boy? |
|
Kim Patrick Clow wrote (March 31, 2008):Bradley Lehman wrote: < The first chapter of Laurence Dreyfus's book Bach and the patterns of invention (which see) opens up the question: did Bach really know classical rhetoric solidly himself, or was he just relying on little bits of Latin stuff learned by rote as a boy? > What did Mr. Dreyfus come up with as a conclusion to the question? I know Philip Pickett and others make a great case for the use of rhetoric in baroque music, far beyond the simple case of musical instruments representing things (e.g. the flute = the Holy Spirit). Considering the context of Bach's peers and the use of rhetoric and their heavy university training in law, I can't believe Bach just had a superficial exposure to rhetoric as a school boy. Thanks |
|
Jean Laaninen wrote (March 31, 2008):[To Bradley Lehman] Thanks, Brad. Interesting additions. |
|
Jean Laaninen wrote (March 31, 2008):[To Kim Patrick Clow] I would tend to concur with your opinion. Bach would likely have known of the uses of rhetoric simply from being so involved with the work of a church, in my opinion. |
|
William Hoffman wrote (April 2, 2008):[To Jean Laaninen] William Hoffman replies: I just dug out the Dreyfus book (1996) with all my penciled notes in the first chapter, "What Is an Invention?" My cursory summary: Using invention as a "mechanism for discovering good ideas" (P.2), the author "propose(s) that analyzing inventions as structured repetitions reveals aspects of the composer's thinking that are not otherwise apparent"(p.5). Also, Dreyfus (p.13): ...I have preferred Mattheson's divisions of rhetoric (five, 1737), which allow me to interpret Bach's inventions as mechanisms ensuring their own transformations." The question is Brad Lehman's and Dreyfus, writing in 1996, had no answer. I offer these points: Bach was thoroughly competent in Latin (altho he hated to teach it), Leipzig probably had the leading German university then, and Bach had a theological library that would have been the envy of any Lutheran pastor. Lastly, Christoph Wolff's powerful Bach biography explores in depth its subtitle and perspective: "The Learned Musician." |
|
Jean Laaninen wrote (April 2, 2008):[To William Hoffman] Thank you, William--very interesting. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (April 2, 2008):[To William Hoffman] What do you make of Dreyfus's page 9, and the endnote #30 springing from the middle of it? With regard to your remark, "Bach was thoroughly competent in Latin (altho he hated to teach it)": What's the evidence that Bach knew Latin at any academically-useful level (let alone be"thoroughly competent" in it), as he outsourced his own teaching responsibility in it? When did he ever use any Latin, other than occasionally sprinkling isolated words into his German, writing obsequious title pages (for which he could have enlisted help), and setting the standard Magnificat and Mass texts? I'd like to learn further about this if it's something beyond unsupported assertions.... |
|
Stephen Benson wrote (April 2, 2008):Bradley Lehman wrote: < What do you make of Dreyfus's page 9, and the endnote #30 springing from the middle of it? > This was the same section that I marked when I first encountered it. It might be helpful for those following the discussion who don't have Dreyfus in front of them to see at least part of Dreyfus's argument, and I do apologize for arbitrarily selecting only a few sentences which contain what I think is his main point. He says in part: "One is on uneasy ground, therefore, when suggesting that a traditional German Capellmeister such as Bach had anything more than passing familiarity with or interest in the nitty-gritty of rhetorical theory. (Bach's education in rhetoric at the Luneburg Lateinschule has now been shown to consist, not of the likes of Quintilian, but of a poor boy's pocket compendium of Latin terms to be memorized tout court by the pupils for rote recitation.)" The parenthetical material here is footnoted, the source being a 1985 article entitled "Bach und die Tradition der Rhetorik" by Arno Forchert.Further down the page he summarizes: "For a composer like Bach, what remained, then, from the actual musical annexation of rhetorical territory was a far less analogical but far more metaphorical notion of musical invention, a notion, to be sure, with its own rules and practices." Again, I apologize for any oversimplification that might occur from selection of these brief excerpts. They do represent, however, what I see as the core of Dreyfus's thinking about Bach's use of rhetoric. |
|
William Hoffman wrote (April 3, 2008):[To Stephen B] William Hoffman replies: Mea maxima culpa! I had not underlined any text on Page 9. Thank you, Brad, for pointing it out, and Stephen Benson, for your concise explication. I agree wholeheartedly that this at the time was a reasoned view from Dreyfus. I would only add that subsequent to 1996, Christoph Wolff's Bach biography, subtitled "A Learned Musician" (2000), especially Chapter 9, "Musician and Scholar," sheds considerable light on Bach's learning and the intellect behind this most amazing composer. By analogy, I think that Bach had a generous, inquiring, conservative spirit, particularly in the Lutheran theological realm where he came to see and embrace competing, sometimes conflicting perspectives, from the Enlightenment, to Pietism, to Orthodoxy, all actively converging intensely in Leipzig as nowhere else in Protestant Europe. He was at the crossroads, quick on his feet, far more than an eyewitness, and firm in his resolve and application. Also, I don't think Bach needed to steep himself in the original Latin, as Mattheson did (now there's a Learned musician!), to understand and apply the principles of rhetoric, as crude as the results may have been. |
|
Jean Laaninen wrote (April 3, 2008):[To William Hoffman] Well put, William. Thanks for the continued thoughts. |
|
How fast could and did Baroque composers compose cantatas? |
|
Aryeh Oron wrote (September 22., 2008):How fast could and did Baroque composers compose cantatas? Thomas Braatz has contributed a short article: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/Speed-Composition[Braatz].htm The article contains additional evidence that describes the speed at which Baroque composers like J. S. Bach could compose and perform cantatas. The Baroque composer Thomas Stolzenberg (1690-1764) resembles in many aspects what J. S. Bach was capable of doing with the circumstances he faced in Leipzig during his most productive period. |
|
William Hoffman wrote (September 23., 2008):[To Thomas Braatz] Thank you, Thomas, for a fascinating glimpse at the milieu of the Baroque cantata composer. I think, on the positive side, that there were many skilled, talented, trained musicians who seemed to pursue composition as s "sixth sense," almost intutively. It helps, I think to have comprehensive treatises on music and other extensive, systematic writings as well as comprehensive collections of music. On the negative side, there may have been an excess of formula and patterning, where some baroque music became a sort of mannerism (like Ars Subtilior, Gesualdo, opera pasticcio, and perhaps the Mannheim School's stile galant excesses). Of course, the term "baroque" originally had a negative connotation. In the next two cantatas for discussion, we will look at the Anatomy of Bach Composition, with the shortness of time in BWV 215 through Stephen Crist's Bach Perspectives 2 article, "The Question of Parody," and then the studies of Robert Marshall and Gerhardt Herz in the three-stage composition of Chorale Cantata BWV 97, "In allen meinen Taten." |
|
William Rowland (Ludwig) wrote (September 23., 2008):[To Aryeh Oron] <> As far as JS Bach speed in composing---I have my doubts that he did all that my himself. He probably composed like Mozart did---melody sketched out ---one of the family helped fill in harmony,.another counterpoint and returned it all to JS for editing and final copying.t This is also the way Rembrant van Rijn and other painters worked. |
|
Bach Composing: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 |
Last update: ýSeptember 29, 2008 ý09:39:31
