Part 17
Continue from Part 16
Full scores and performing scores
Doug Cowling wrote (January 31, 2005):
Thomas Braatz wrote: < The other evidence shows, among other things, that the set of original doublets (perhaps many of these have been lost) frequently went along with the autograph score, thus separating these additional parts from the original set of parts, which made losing them or misplacing them much easier and increased the probability that only the main set would survive. (The thinking on the part of the autograph score holder would be: "If I wanted to perform the cantata, I at least have the beginning of a set of parts and the rest I can copy out from the score" while the possessor of only the complete set of original parts (St. Thomas School in many instances) may not even have needed an additional score, although often a copy of the score was made from the parts themselves. >
I am fascinated by the notion of performing a work of Bach's from only parts. This of course was the norm in the Renaissance and early Baroque where there was no full score. When Mozart heard the motet, "Singet Den Herrn", there was no full score and so he spread the eight parts around him and read through it. For me, the marvel here is not Mozart's ease with reading the parts, but the conductor's ability to prepare such complex music without a full score. String quartets still do it, but there are few orchestras who can pull it off, and even fewer choirs.
Which leads me to another question: were Bach's full scores ever used as conducting scores or just as the reference for the copying of individual parts? The evidence suggests that Bach normally conducted as concertmaster playing violin or as a continuo player at the organ. As such he would have played from a single stand part. In the absence of a conductor with a full score, how were performers signalled that their aria or recit was coming up? Not that difficult in a six movement cantata, but in a work such as the SMP (BWV 244) there must have be a series of signals -- from the keyboard player? I know the work well but I would never trust my memory to tell me the precise sequence of movements.
Bradley Lehman wrote (February 1, 2005):
< It is much more important to understand how more than one musician could sing or play from a single part. These are points that are conveniently overlooked by proponents of the OVPP theory. It was feasible, economical, time-saving, etc., and it was done. >
I have Parrott's 2000 book and Rifkin's 2002 book right here on my desk. I have read both of them, including all the footnotes. These scholars are not ignorant or dishonest as alleged here, and they're not "conveniently overlooking" evidence as alleged here.
Parrott's book has already been discussed here quite a bit, which see.
Rifkin's book is a closely argued 29-page essay, supported by 24 additional pages of footnotes in a smaller font, including well over a hundred pertinent references. The whole is a carefully balanced and impeccably REASONED argument, especially with regard to the scope and the thrust of Bach's own words and arguments. (Part of my experience with this book was in taking it along to the dentist's waiting room for something stimulating, instead of wasting time with trade magazines about fluff. There's always opportunity to spend odd otherwise-wasted moments improving oneself by reading excellent work....)
Rifkin is especially careful in his arguments to engage the material directly, and not to let any of it get wittered down with any accusations of ad hominem destructiveness. Instead of arguing against other scholars by name, he argues with their material as presented in the flow of the paper, and then documents the names/sources in the footnotes. Bravo!
No, not all the scholars agree with Rifkin's resulting thesis, which has many parts to it. The debate continues. But the debate IS REASONABLE and it respects that other real scholars are not stupid or dishonest.
In the book Rifkin remarks that this essay has been in development and refinement for more than a dozen years, through public presentations and ongoing research cycles in consultation with colleagues.
Furthermore, Rifkin himself (outside this book) is a composer and a practical keyboard player, and a conductor of Bach's music, with a whole career of experience in all of this. He knows this stuff inside out from both a scholarly and practical angle, and HE IS NOT MAKING UP STUFF, let alone deliberately overlooking evidence. The disrespectful allegations and arbitrary speculations of would-be critics who don't bring any of this background themselves, either in formal scholarship or musical practice, really have no bearing here whatsoever.
Rifkin's thesis stands up for study BECAUSE IT IS REASONABLE, and not merely because he's eminently qualified to have written it; but his qualifications in writing it have deeply informed the work itself, and have caused it to be very carefully thought out. I appreciate that. It's brilliant work, and Parrott's earlier book has presented it well also (to a more popularized level of audience). These two books make a nice complementary pair. I recommend both.
=====
I commend Dr Pike both for his question about resolving the Wolff vs Rifkin/Parrott apparent inconsistencies, and his stated enterprise to follow it up by getting a copy of the Rifkin book and reading it. That's an excellent and responsible way to handle a difficult question: by reading and grappling with the published work, to see the level of debate that has already taken place.
As for the vast camp of straw-people "proponents of the OVPP theory" (which evidently includes me, as one who takes the Rifkin/Parrott books seriously), we're straw-people who are all allegedly too clueless and misguided to think about the right things. Insult taken.
=====
Besides, the remark above about "feasible, economical, time-saving, etc." multiple singers on a copy is based on a foregone conclusion! It's the old PREMISE that those parts were typically to be sung by any more than one singer in the performance. That PREMISE is the thing that Rifkin's research questions, to see if that anachronistic expectation from later is really borne out by the historical record around Bach. And obviously, Rifkin's work can't be refuted simply by reasserting that premise repeatedly against him. (Basic reasoning, 101.) Is it quicker to hand-copy one copy of a part, than to do three? Duh. But the premise that Bach would even need performance-day material for approximately three singers on a single voice part (whether that's one piece of paper, or three, or whatever), that's the thing under examination here!
=====
One of the sideways ideas that occurred to me while reading Rifkin's book is: multiple singers could indeed rehearse the music from a shared part, just so several of the boys in the elite "concertist" group would be prepared to take it over if there was illness/absence of the assigned boy for the performance. They could do this anywhere, not being restricted to the choir loft. Lessons with Bach or other students accompanying the rehearsal on harpsichord, etc. Plus it would be good for their all-round educations for multiple singers to work on it, even if they wouldn't be in the final performance. It's good teaching material, the same way that other student musicians regularly work on music to learn technique/interpretation even if they won't play it in a definite concert.
It's also possible that different [solo] singers were used in different movements, from a single written-out part. Put in whatever boy learned it best, or sounds best, for each movement in particular. Whichever singers from the "roster" (Rifkin's term) make it into the one-to-a-part performance (the "lineup", deployment of musicians like the management of a baseball team) depends on their availability, their blend with the other soloists, and their preparedness to deliver the music. This seems obvious and practical to me, for feasibility. If a cantata has more than one "chorus" movement in it, what's to prevent it being different singers in the different movements, passing the written part around and getting up when it's their turn? And the solo movements and "chorus" movements could very well be the same people, or different people; whatever. The point is that it's one singer on each particular part at any given time, as the normal setup.
However many boys learned the parts of which movements, from however many copies on paper (generally "one" according to the extant record!), it's musical reasons that I find most compelling one way or another in decisions about number of singers. My carefully considered hunch is that the students typically had this set of parts to work on for some weeks, maybe even months, in advance of the scheduled performance. It's educational material for their ongoing edification, as much as any one-shot performance in church on a Sunday morning. And, the copying of a part, itself, is a music lesson for the person who writes it out, working from the score or from any other copy (whether the copyist is destined to be the performance singer of the part, or somebody else is). The educational process and the performance are both served by this. Seems simple, practical, and logical to me, expecting the copyist to learn something in the task. That's how Bach taught keyboard lessons, having students copy out his pieces into their own books. Why would he not do the same also for vocal or ensemble instruction, as the conductor and teacher?
Of course, now we'll be told here that my practical hunch in this matter is worth less than zero. I've had the disadvantaged background of being a church choirmaster, organist, composer, and keyboard accompanist of both soloists and groups. Therefore, my objectivity here is for naught (being too much colored by practical musical experience and knowing what really works as to balances, rehearsal techniques, etc), next to the objectivity of people who don't even bother to read books (e.g. Rifkin's) before dismissing them.
Thomas Braatz wrote (February 1, 2005):
Doug Cowling wrote: >>In the absence of a conductor with a full score, how were performers signalled that their aria or recit was coming up?<<
They kept track of where they were in their own parts (very similar to orchestral parts today) and had markings in their score (but not cues in small notes of what immediately preceded their entry.) Bach had 'tacet' indicated in the parts: an instrumentalist who did not play in a certain mvt. like a recitative had "Recit. tacet" indicated on his part or perhaps "volti subito" at the bottom of the page at the end of a mvt. to remind the instrumentalist not to forget to turn the page quickly because he might be playing right at the beginning of the next mvt.
Thomas Braatz wrote (February 1, 2005):
Bradley Lehman wrote: >>I have Parrott's 2000 book and Rifkin's 2002 book right here on my desk. I have read both of them, including all the footnotes.<<
Certainly you will be able to share some specific information from Rifkin's book which does not repeat what has already been established in Parrott's. Any specific quotes from original sources from Bach's time in Leipzig would truly be helpful, or is this secret information that can not be divulged at the present time?
>>My carefully considered hunch is that the students typically had this set of parts to work on for some weeks, maybe even months, in advance of the scheduled performance.<<
This is contradicted by the evidence from the original sets of parts which you obviously have not considered carefully. I recently shared quotations from Alfred Dürr's "Bachs Werk vom Einfall bis zur Drucklegung" [Wiesbaden, 1989] which make such a 'carefully considered hunch' hardly worth taking seriously. The string parts were usually copied out first from the score when the score had just been finished. The vocal parts were the last to be completed with often the final chorale having to be added personally by Bach to a vocal part copied by someone else and left unfinished until Bach could supply its completion at that last moment before the rehearsal(s) would begin on Saturday before the Sunday performance. Possibly the last process was not completed until Saturday night when Bach added the 4-pt chorale which the Thomaner in that day could sight-read without difficulty.
Doug Cowling wrote (February 1, 2005):
Thomas Bratz wrote: < They kept track of where they were in their own parts (very similar to orchestral parts today) and had markings in their score (but not cues in small notes of what immediately preceded their entry.) Bach had 'tacet' indicated in the parts: an instrumentalist who did not play in a certain mvt. like a recitative had "Recit. tacet" indicated on his part or perhaps "volti subito" at the bottom of the page at the end of a mvt. to remind the instrumentalist not to forget to turn the page quickly because he might be playing right at the beginning of the next mvt. >
In the case of the Passions, do parts like the oboes da caccia, which do not play very often, have lists of tacet for all the movements?
Doug Cowling wrote (February 1, 2005):
<message deleted>
Eric Bergerud wrote (February 1, 2005):
[To John Pike] Personally, I rather doubt Rifkin's new book is going to end this debate. I've read Parrott's work closely (it includes Rifkin's original essay) and the interviews available onine given by Rifkin. As I stated a few weeks back the thesis is very strong, certainly responsible given the evidence, but given a lack of consensus must be considered "in play."
I think Mr. Braatz has put his finger on the real point of contention. Rifkin's supporters could support his interpretation of the Entwurff until the sun ceases to shine. I must say as a historian, I am very wary of interpretations based on "this isn't really what the author meant" arguments. That said, as a historian, I have often encountered documents that are indeed not clear. Clarity of expression is pretty rare actually and Bach was not a literary type. (This does not mean he wasn't an intellectual. His pals at Leipzig seem to have come from the faculty and student body of the University. We'll never know what they talked about over a mug of ale. But unlike Mozart, we don't have a large body of letters written by Bach. Those that do exist do not imply a gift for words.) And we certainly don't know what was said about the subject verbally - which no doubt constituted the bulk of a long running disgruntlement on Bach's part toward the music end of things at St. Thomas'. What strikes Rifkin and others today as being unclear was probably perfectly understood to those concerned in 1730.
So the sharing of parts issue, as I understand it, is indeed a very big deal. Does anyone know if a "conventional" multi-part choir has ever tried sharing music on a sustained basis the way Wolff, Koopman and others have argued was done by Bach? To the best of my knowledge nobody has actually tried OVPP with boys to see if they could handle the issues concerning balance and projection. I would think a little "laboratory work" might be interesting here.
Bismarck once said that if we solved all of the world's problems our grandchildren would grow bored. I don't see boredom setting in on this issue in the next few weeks.
Thomas Braatz wrote (February 1, 2005):
Doug Cowling wrote: >>In the case of the Passions, do parts like the oboes da caccia, which do not play very often, have lists of tacet for all the movements?<<
The oboe da caccia part does not exist as a separate entity. It, along with the part for the oboe d'amore is included in the SMP "Hautbois 1 & 2. Chori 1mi parts. The NBA KB describes this part as having numerous tacet or pause markings for the missing mvts. (when the oboes do not play. I have a facsimile of one page of a flauto traverso part for the SJP. It shows what might be the flute part for an aria conclusion at the top after which there are numerous vertical rest marks (perhaps these are countable) with two indecipherable letters above it {ij?); then a treble & key signature followed by notes of a choralto be played. The first three words of the chorale are written under the first notes. Then an 'Aria tacet' follows and a 'Recit. tacet' follow with something scratched out between them. Another treble & key signature follow with the first 5 words of the chorale indicated (the flute obviously plays along with the singers in this chorale and the earlier one listed here.) Then there is a 'Recit. tacet' and below that a large 'Volti.'
The NBA KBs indicate each and every movement when an instrument does not play by using the number of the mvt. enclosed with parentheses for mvts. which have no notes. They do not specifically count or designate when rest marks or a tacet marking was used in each instance, but rest assured, it is either one or the other.
John Pike wrote (February 1, 2005):
Dale Gedcke wrote: > RE: The appended altercation on one versus multi players per part:
I can appreciate that more than one musician sharing a single part must have been a more frequent circumstance in the 1700s than it is today. Copying an additional part was a lot of work. They couldn't just say, "Hmmm, we need two more parts. I'll just pop over to the Xerox machine, and have two more copies instantaneously." >
I agree with this, but how many people might have shared a part. Personally, I would find it difficult to imagine more than 2 sharing a part. When presented with new music of the difficulty of Bach's concerted church music, it is difficult to see how more than 2 people could learn such hard music from scratch when using a handwritten manuscript. What would happen when they wanted to practice parts between formal rehearsals?
Another important consideration is just how many singers of a particular voice Bach had at his disposal in Choir 1 (the only choir to sing concerted church music). Again, I find it hard to believe that he could find more than say 2 singers of each voice range of the requisite standard to sing in choir 1, especially given that, as he pointed out himself in the Entwurff, many were often ill at any one time and, as is also known, some of the choir members would sometimes have to play instruments.
As I have said several times before, I am not sure what Bach's choral ideal was, other than the suggestion in the Entwurff, but I am pretty sure he rarely or ever reached more than 1 or 2 singers to a part, due to resources/circumstance. Anyway, I still eagerly await that Rifkin book "Bach's choral ideal".
John Pike wrote (February 1, 2005):
[To Thomas Braatz] Thank you for this but, in my mind, it poses more questions than it answers.
Wolff indeed suggests that Christel sold his manuscripts to Carl to pay for his passage to Italy.
However, I do not think that the evidence presented below is sufficient to account for Wolff's apparent certainty about how the manuscripts were divided up. I also think that it is insufficient to prove or disprove OVPP. It would be a mistake to assume that so many parts were "lost". They may never have existed in the first place, unless there is independent evidence stating that they did at one time exist.
John Pike wrote (February 1, 2005):
Bradley Lehman wrote: < It's also possible that different [solo] singers were used in different movements, from a single written-out part. Put in whatever boy learned it best, or sounds best, for each movement in particular. Whichever singers from the "roster" (Rifkin's term) make it into the one-to-a-part performance (the "lineup", deployment of musicians like the management of a baseball team) depends on their availability, their blend with the other soloists, and their preparedness to deliver the music. This seems obvious and practical to me, for feasibility. If a particular cantata has more than one "chorus" movement in it, what's to prevent it being different singers in the different movements, passing the written part around and getting up when it's their turn? And the solo movements and "chorus" movements could very well be the same people, or different people; whatever. The point is that it's one singer on each particular part at any given time, as the normal setup. >
There was a great deal in Brad's e mail that I strongly agreed with.....good, practical thinking from someone who has done the job himself. However, I would particularly like to comment on the extract below. I was reminded of a very pleasurable week I spent in Italy once with Nigel Perrin, a former "King's singer". This is exactly what happened as we prepared music for the Venetian vespers for performance. he used me as a bass in some pieces and as a violinist in others. He used one person as soloist in one movement and someone else in another. he picked the person who would be likely to do the best job in a particular movement, after listening to a number of people singing the solo part in particular movements. Good, practical thinking and musicianship from someone who knew his job well and how to get the best results from a group of performers who had just a week in which to put on a complete programme, just like Bach.
Bradley Lehman wrote (February 1, 2005):
< However, I do not think that the evidence presented below is sufficient to account for Wolff's apparent certainty about how the manuscripts were divided up. I also think that it is insufficient to prove or disprove OVPP. It would be a mistake to assume that so many parts were "lost". They may never have existed in the first place, unless there is independent evidence stating that they did at one time exist. >
As you'll see in one of Rifkin's footnotes, he has read Wolff and others thoroughly, and disagrees with them. In footnote 9, for example, he cites a handful of articles by Wolff and another scholar, and points out: "The efforts of ____ (...) and Wolff (...) to enlarge the performing forces at Weimar beyond the parameters implied by both the documents and the parts amount to little more than invoking phantom personnel to perform from non-existent materials."
(The book is obviously a lot more extensive than this, too; I'm just quoting that bit here as I enjoy his turn of phrase.)
John Pike wrote (February 1, 2005):
Eric Bergerud wrote: < Bismarck once said that if we solved all of the world's problems our grandchildren would grow bored. I don't see boredom setting in on this issue in the next few weeks. >
A nice quote. One problem that has been unresolved for nearly 300 years is Bach's temperament. Brad's paper will solve all that and comes out this very month. I am confident it will set the musical world ablaze. No doubt there are plenty more problems to be resolved, perhaps by members of this list. Uri?
Bradley Lehman wrote (February 1, 2005):
< I was reminded of a very pleasurable week I spent in Italy once with Nigel Perrin, a former "King's singer". This is exactly what happened as we prepared music for the Venetian vespers for performance. he used me as a bass in some pieces and as a violinist in others. He used one person as soloist in one movement and someone else in another. he picked the person who would be likely to do the best job in a particular movement, after listening to a number of people singing the solo part in particular movements. Good, practical thinking and musicianship from someone who knew his job well and how to get the best results from a group of performers who had just a week in which to put on a complete programme, just like Bach. >
Another bit you'll probably like in Rifkin's book. I mentioned earlier that Rifkin uses a distinction of "roster" vs "line-up", borrowed from American baseball, to describe the way a team is used. There's a "roster" of musicians, some or all of whom worked on learning the music in various capacities, and then the ones brought out to the performance are the "line-up", rather like putting one man to play second base, another at shortstop, a center fielder, etc etc. (A team without several good starting pitchers on the roster would never make it through even one week of a season! And obviously, all those pitchers aren't sent to the mound at the same moment to throw the same ball.) Rifkin's thesis then goes back to the Entwurff written by Bach to describe his "roster" for whole season of the work to be done, not necessarily his "line-up" for regular performance.
And in footnote #40, Rifkin draws in his European audience as well, by transferring the analogy from American baseball over to soccer or "what they call football. In German, one would render the distinction between 'roster' and 'line-up' with the words Mannschaft und Kader....".
What if somebody stopped a Bach performance and assigned a procedural penalty against the team for "too many men on the field"? :) And gave the alto singer or a Zippelfagottist a yellow card for indiscretions committed during the play? I think, like they do on TV coverage of soccer in Latin America, it would be cool if the theological points in a cantata came across with the same vigor as the play-by-play announcer going "GOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooLLLLLL!"
Extants parts/scores of the vocal works
Three voices per copy
Choir Form:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4Last update: ýMay 30, 2005 ý21:59:13
