Organ Works BWV 561-570
Discussions - Part 2

Continue from Part 1

BWV 565

Fabrizio wrote (September 29, 2004):
I'm new on this group.

I hope you can help me to find an answer to this: surfing the net, I read of the German book ZUR ECHTHEIT VON TOCCATA UND FUGE (isn't it just a toccata???) D-MOLL BWV 565 by Rolf-Dietrich Claus about whether Bach was or not the real author of the Toccata BWV565. Again, surfing the net, I found that some scholars are quite skeptical about Bach as the author of that piece, whereas Wolff in his latest biography doesn't show any doubt about Bach's authenticity.

As you can see, my English is already so sloppy, but at least I could try to read it if in English... Alas, I can't read a German book, even though I'm very interested in that topic. I wonder if there's anybody familiar with that book (is it really so powerfully argued but a little subjective as Yo Tomita writes?), and more in general I'd like to know which is at the moment the most likely hypothesis of the scholars: who other can be the author of the Toccata? If we have to accept the idea that it may have been a solo violin work transcribed for organ (a thesis I wouldn't subsribe though after hearing the recording of the violinist Andrew Manze for Harmonia Mundi), who was as greatly skilled at playing both violin and organ as Bach was? And if it's not by Bach why was it thought to be a Bach piece at the first place?

Thanks for your attention and best regards.

Donald Satz wrote (September 30, 2004):
[To Fabrizio] I have no idea about the authenticity, but the work is a Toccata and Fugue, not just Toccata.

Riccardo Nughes wrote (September 30, 2004):
Welcome!||

> I hope you can help me to find an answer to this: surfing the net, I > read of the German book ZUR ECHTHEIT VON TOCCATA UND FUGE (isn't it > just a toccata???) <
One survived copy is titled "Toccata con Fuga" in Italian ^__^

> I'd like to know which is at the moment the most likely hypothesis of > the scholars: who other can be the author of the Toccata? <
If it is true that some scholars have some doubts about the real author of BWV 565 AFIK no one has ever dared a name -> the main argument is one : there is not a copy written by Bach himself.

> If we have > to accept the idea that it may have been a solo violin work > transcribed for organ (a thesis I wouldn't subsribe though after > hearing the recording of the violinist Andrew Manze for Harmonia > Mundi), <
Truly? I found it very convincing.

> Fabrizio <
Are you Italian? If so do you know the Italian ML "Musica Barocca" ->
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/MusicaBarocca/

Bradley Lehman wrote (September 30, 2004):
>> I hope you can help me to find an answer to this: surfing the net, I >> read of the German book ZUR ECHTHEIT VON TOCCATA UND FUGE (isn't it >> just a toccata???) D-MOLL BWV 565 by Rolf-Dietrich Claus about whether Bach was or not the real author of the Toccata BWV565. Again, surfing the net, I found that some scholars are quite skeptical about >> Bach as the author of that piece, whereas Wolff in his latest biography doesn't show any doubt about Bach's authenticity. <<

The BWV (1998) and Peter Williams (2003: _The Organ Music of Bach_, 2nd edition) report that Claus' conclusion was that it's inauthentic.

The BWV keeps it in the main section of the book rather than their purgatory appendices of currently doubtful works; their main stance presently aligns with George Stauffer's dissertation, saying it's Bach of c1704. They give a bibliography of about ten other books/articles.

Williams doesn't really commit himself but his presentation is a bunch of leading questions and puzzles, suggesting that it's probably the work of somebody in the 1730s to 1750s (Ringk or an acquaintance faking Bach's style...in any case, someone who is both a "knowledgeable composer" and "skilled musician"). Williams disagrees explicitly with Wolff. Williams spins off about a dozen other studies of the work: citations that look interesting to explore, on all the questions he brings up.

Charles Francis wrote (September 30, 2004):
[To Fabrizio] It is nothing new for a professional musicologist to make a splash by proposing the allegedly earthshaking, and, in my opinion, it is best to take such "research findings" with a pinch of salt. As I've reported before, the fugue theme from BWV 565 combines in canon with the final bars of Bach's incomplete Contrapunctus 14 from the Art of Fugue. Now were I a professional musicologist, I would achieve instant fame by suggesting a link between these two works - just think of the implications for the chronology of BWV565!

Donald Satz wrote (September 30, 2004):
[To Charles Francos] Why not give your musicologist bashing a rest - your jealousy shows through every time.

Bradley Lehman wrote (September 30, 2004):
[To Charles Francos] Translation of the context, for those who would otherwise take that at face value and miss his acidic subtext:

Charles would have us believe that Bradley Lehman's forthcoming article about keyboard tuning (which is an earthshaking scientific study of it) is really nothing. But it's not about instant fame or making a splash. It's about getting scientifically reproducible findings out there through proper scholarly channels, where they will make a difference in the way the music is taken seriously. The findings reveal that Bach was even more brilliant and musically sensitive than we had suspected. (And Bach's a pretty difficult guy to underestimate, as it is.)

Meanwhile, Charles' own attempt at "instant fame" in June had a similar topic (hey, fancy that!)--a paper put together quickly after hearing that I was working on my paper, and disdaining any responsibility to have it checked out by people who know the topic, in the interest of plausibility. His is here: http://www.eunomios.org/contrib/francis1/francis1.html
...well, that piece of work stands or falls on its own merits. Anyone with a practical background in tuning harpsichords is welcome to give it a try by Charles' proposed methods, and experience the results for oneself--they're sitting right out there, as the way that Bach allegedly taught his boy that technique. I followed the instructions exactly as given, bringing to it a lot more tuning experience than any ten-year-old, and my opinion (in barest summary) was that the proposed method makes Bach into an incompetent musician and a buffoon. Not a convincing outcome there. What's the opposite of taking the music seriously and expecting it to sound decent?

Weston and Stafford (as "Jonathan and Darlene Edwards"), now THERE was a good satire team.
Amazon.com
Amazon.com
Especially "Stayin' Alive".
http://www.counterpoint-music.com/specialties/jdedwards.html
http://www.counterpoint-music.com/specialties/interview.html
That interview page had me laughing OUT LOUD yesterday.

p.s. The fugue theme from BWV 565 also combines in canon with side 2 of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon", if one isn't too particular about the occasional dissonance. It would also combine nicely with several Ives pieces, following Ives' own examples of musical abstract expressionism. So what?

Thomas Braatz wrote (September 30, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>> Bradley Lehman's forthcoming article [is]about keyboard tuning (which is an earthshaking scientific study of it)<<
This remains to be seen and heard!

>>It's about getting scientifically reproducible findings out there through proper scholarly channel, where they will make a difference in the way the music is taken seriously.<<
John Butt's findings on Bach's inability to play the 'Goldbergs' in the last years of his life appeared in a 'scholarly' book on Bach for which he [Butt] was the consultant editor, but I hope these findings will not diminish the innocent high regard that some musicians, amateur or not, and listeners have for Bach as one of the most skilled keyboard artists of his century.

"The findings reveal that Bach was even more brilliant and musically sensitive than we had suspected."
Perhaps he could even play them in the dark or without seeing the keyboard. Even little Mozart did this trick in public with a cloth covering his hands so that he could not see the keyboard when he played. The audience was astounded, but anyone today, even the millions who have learned to type without looking at the keys on keyboard, can vouch for this fact without being told that this is easily possible for many who have been trained this way.

>> The GV are not _that_ difficult...The GV become more difficult in the dark, while the other pieces I've mentioned here do not become more difficult to that same extent. To say that more directly: it's much more necessary to glance at the keyboards during performance of the GV than in his other pieces. In the GV it is easy to get disoriented without looking.<<
While this may be true for the one who made this comment because he did not play the harpsichord from an early age, it will not necessarily be true for many of those who did. This is a case similar to John Butt's where in place of real evidence a personal projection of inadequacy [not being as good as Bach was technically in playing the variations] is directed at Bach's musicianship as if he could easily be compared with anyone else in today's world of keyboard artists.

>> (And Bach's a pretty difficult guy to underestimate, as it is.)<<
That's exactly what is happening with John Butt and those who support him in his unfounded judgement of Bach's playing ability.

>> ...disdaining any responsibility to have it checked out by people who know the topic, in the interest of plausibility.<<
These words should be directed at John Butt by the official committee of degreed experts on this list. Only in this way can respect for his scholarly methods be regained so that others will have a model to look up to.

>> ...bringing to it a lot more tuning [read in the case of Butt: Bach scholarship] experience than any ten-year-old, and my opinion (in barest summary) was that the proposed method [commentary on Bach's playing ability] makes Bach into an incompetent musician and a buffoon. Not a convincing outcome there.<<
I am glad these were not my words, but this is exactly what John Butt did.

p.s. Bach's difficult 'Goldbergs' with hand-crossings bring up, if one isn't too particular about comparing the aging Domenico Scarlatti with Bach in the last few years of his life, Burney's comment which remained a 'fact' until it was disproved by Ralph Kirkpatrick: The difficult sonatas with hand-crossings were no longer composed "when Scarlatti was too fat to cross his hands as he used to do." So why couldn't this as collateral evidence be applied to Bach as well along with the issue of partial blindness which made it difficult for him to see the keys as he was playing. He probably had even more difficulty seeing the pedals on the organs that he played. Yes, there may still be ways to get John Butt out of his predicament.

Donald Satz wrote (September 30, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz] There seems to be no limit to the matters you folks will argue about. Bach's playing ability at different stages of his life? Ever heard him play? If not, just move on to more important things like the intent to make the Count fall asleep.

Fabrizio wrote (September 30, 2004):
BWV 565, part 2

Thank you all for your replies.

Just a few things more, if you can help me.

1) Are you sure that BWV 565 is actually a Toccata and fugue? What is written on the surviving copy is not enough in my humble opinion to claim that, since it was not written by Bach. I see that after the toccata, there's a part with some imitations, but not really a fugue. Even the second entry of the subject is in G minor, not in A minor, as one would expect. And most important, you can clearly hear some toccata passages at the end of the work, with no further entries of the subject. That seems to me more similar to young Bach's harpsichord toccatas, that feature some fugato parts, but not really fugues. Please, tell me frankly if I'm completely wrong. Every occasion is appreciated for me to learn.

2) Why was it thought to be a Bach piece? Is the name Bach written on the surviving copy? Or was there any other reason to suppose that Bach could be the author?

3) Sometimes doubts came from the tempo signatures included in the manuscript, somethings rarely esplicitly written by Bach. But since it was not written by Bach himself, couldn't it simply be that the person that wrote it, took note of something to do in performing the work, as he could have listen to? To me, it doesn't seem such an important clue...

Again thanks a lot for your attention and your help.

Charles Francis wrote (October 1, 2004):
<>

Thomas Braatz wrote (October 1, 2004):
Fabrizio wrote:
>> 1) Are you sure that BWV 565 is actually a Toccata and fugue? What is written on the surviving copy is not enough in my humble opinion to claim that, since it was not written by Bach.<<
According to the NBA IV/5+6, Teilband 2, p. 518 ff., Johannes Ringk (1717-1778) was 13 years old when this only contemporary copy of BWV 565 was completed in 1730. This copy is riddled with serious errors ["ziemlich fehlerhaft"] which made it very difficult for the editor Friedrich Kilian, who was forced to make corrections based upon reasonable guesses. It can only be conjectured that the 13-year-old Ringk was working from Bach's autograph.

Ringk's title is as follows:

Toccata Con Fuga: pedaliter, ex. d.#.

Kilian points out that Ringk committed an error here even before beginning to copy the music: the key should read 'd. [natural sign]" or 'd. b." [b = flat symbol]

Other designations directly from Ringk's copy with measure numbers given:
1 Adag: Adagio:
3 prestiss:
22 prestiss:
30 Fuga:
127 Recitat:
130 Adagissimo.
133 praesto:
136 adag:
137 Vivace.
141 molto adagio

>> 2) Why was it thought to be a Bach piece? Is the name Bach written on the surviving copy? Or was there any other reason to suppose that Bach could be the author?<<
Circumstantial evidence having to do with Ringk's belonging to the circle around Kellner. Here's the article from the "Oxford Composer Companions: J. S. Bach" [Boyd, Oxford University Press, 1999]:

Ringk, Johannes (b. 25 June 1717; d. 24 Aug. 1778 ). Organist, born in Frankenhain, Thuringia. He studied with J. P. Kellner (who may have been a Bach pupil) in Gräfenroda and with G. H. Stölzel in Gotha, and from about 1740 he held various posts in Berlin, including that of organist at the Marienkirche from 1755 until his death. Ringk was responsible for copies of several organ and keyboard works by Bach, including the famous, but not wholly authenticated, Toccata and Fugue in D minor BWV565. It is also to Ringk that we owe the preservation of the wedding cantata Weichet nur, betrübte Schatten .

R. Stinson, The Bach Manuscripts of Johann Peter Kellner and his Circle ( Durham, NC, 1990).

>> 3) Sometimes doubts came from the tempo signatures included in the manuscript, somethings rarely esplicitly written by Bach. But since it was not written by Bach himself, couldn't it simply be that the person that wrote it, took note of something to do in performing the work, as he could have listen to?<<
Bach does include tempo signatures in his manuscripts and original parts, but compared to later periods after the Baroque he might be considered to be somewhat sparing in always including them. The tempo designations could have been added by Ringk or suggested by his teacher Kellner.

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 1, 2004):
>>> 1) Are you sure that BWV 565 is acta Toccata and fugue? What is > written on the surviving copy is not enough in my humble opinion to claim that, since it was not written by Bach.<<<
> According to the NBA IV/5+6, Teilband 2, p. 518 ff., Johannes Ringk > (1717-1778) was 13 years old when this only contemporary copy of BWV 565 was completed in 1730. This copy is riddled with serious errors ["ziemlich fehlerhaft"] which made it very difficult for the editor Friedrich Kilian, who was forced to make corrections based upon reasonable guesses. It can only be conjectured that the 13-year-old Ringk was working from Bach's autograph. <
Just as food for thought, about the methods of musicological determinations: Peter Williams' analysis is on musical style after he's already made reference to the NBA's assessment in his first paragraph. He's taken the NBA seriously but he's brought additional clues into the investigation (Williams' own analysis, plus the citation of a dozen other recent articles, both of which he's very good at doing with thoroughness).

He suggests: "Such details as the opening octaves, spread chords, triadic harmony, thirds, sixths, and solo pedal bear the hallmarks of the newer, simpler idioms post-1730 or even post-1750."

And later, as his concluding remarks for the piece: "Perhaps Kellner inspired or acquired or even composed the 'original', for his circle was clearly interested in transcriptions--see BWV 1039, below. Or perhaps an organist like Ringk, known for his fugal improvisations and performance of Bach works, could produce such a work himself and then ascribe it to a composer admired by the Berlin cognoscenti around him. Its 'old' features need not mean that it was altogether an early work, as still so often claimed, only that organists of Ringk's generation were immersed in earlier organ music and knew its more approachable characteristics--could in fact fake them, even to deriving most of the themes from much the same notes (a scale of D minor, up and down). The very simplicity of so much harmonization in 3rds or 6ths argues for Friedemann's generation rather than his father's, someone well read in keyboard styles as far afield as 'Les Timbres' in Couperin's _3eme Livre_, 1722."

As I pointed out yesterday, Williams goes for a balanced approach where he asks as many questions as he tries to answer. He doesn't say things such as: "It can only be conjectured that the 13-year-old Ringk was working from Bach's autograph" as asserted by someone else above. He doesn't try to tell his readers what they must think. Rather, he provides the sources where they can go investigate it more on their own, examining the clues reasonably. A well-written book, thisOrgan Music of J S Bach 2nd edition! Recommended.

One other angle that occurs to me this evening. Who's to say that the 13-year-old Ringk himself couldn't have improvised or written this toccata and fugue? The conjecture's been spinning around that another Bach pupil, namely the 14-year-old Goldberg, had the skills to play the intricate variations that now bear his name. And one of Goldberg's own compositions, the sonata for two violins in C major (BWV 1037), is a very fine piece of music which got attributed to Bach for many years on account of its high quality. [I'm not suggesting that he wrote it at 14; merely pointing out that he was talented!] Anyway, with these excellent young musicians going around learning the craftsmanship of music, why could young Ringk not have composed BWV 565 himself at age 13? That seems to me just as reasonable a conjecture as the assertion above that there's NO reasonable possibility other than copying it from a Bach autograph. Such a hypothetical Bach autograph no longer exists.

And Williams' remark about the Couperin piece is a good one: it really does look and sound a lot like BWV 565's fugue subject. It's quite a plausible conjecture that Couperin's piece (published, remember) would be a model for an eager young musician.

Furthermore, BWV 565 does not have any stretches that would ever tax small young hands. I see nothing in it that would argue against composition and/or performance by a 13-year-old.

Those who take it as a Bach piece put it to pre-1706, i.e. Bach at 20 or younger, based mainly on stylistic analysis of the way the subjects are worked out, its gestural features. OK, presume for the moment that young Bach wrote it in (say) 1705. What, the piece then sat around lost for 25 years until suddenly young Ringk got hold of it and made a copy? All the existing copies stem from that Ringk MS; nothing earlier survives. How do we know with such certainty that the piece ever existed before 1730? Why is that any more reasonable than the notion it was fresh in 1730?

And, how firm is that date of 1730 itself? Obviously, Williams doesn't believe it's firm; see his "...or even post-1750" remark!

Boy, if Disney ever got hold of this, they could score some points out of a re-release of "Fantasia", with the suggestion that their opening piece of the film might have been written by a 13-year-old. Even if they kept the conservative estimate, instead, of Bach at 20, it's a good illustration that "classical music" is not always the province of ossified middle-aged composers wearing suit and tie.

Brad Lehman
(I was composing before 13, earnestly if not with sufficiently trained background yet at the time; and some of my stuff from year 20 has been published. I don't think it's outrageous at all that a talented 13-year-old could have written BWV 565. Dmitris Sgouros played the Rachmaninoff 3rd concerto, very well, at 14. Yevgeny Kissin recorded the Chopin concertos at 9. How about Sarah Chang and Midori? And Mendelssohn and Korngold and Mozart, all composing very good stuff before 14?)

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 1, 2004):
<>

Arthur wrote (October 1, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
> Charles would have us believe that Bradley Lehman's forthcoming article about keyboard tuning (which is an earthshaking scientific study of it) is really nothing. But it's not about instant fame or making a splash. It's about getting scientifically reproducible findings out there through proper scholarly channels, where they will make a difference http://www.eunomios.org/contrib/francis1/francis1.html ...well, that piece of work stands or falls on its own merits. Anyone with a practical background in tuning harpsichords is welcome to give it a try by Charles' proposed methods, and experience the results for oneself--they're sitting right out there, as the way that Bach allegedly > taught his boy that technique. Z
Weston and Stafford (as "Jonathan and Darlene Edwards"), now THERE was a good satire team.
Amazon.com
Amazon.com
Especially "Stayin' Alive".
http://www.counterpoint-music.com/specialties/jdedwards.html
http://www.counterpoint-music.com/specialties/interview.html
That interview page had me laughing OUT LOUD yesterday. <
Brad Lehman The eunomios.org link does not work for me--it indicates an unknown URL.--thanks for the tip on the Edwards duo--they're next on my To Order list.

John Pike wrote (October 1, 2004):
[To Charles Francis] I'm pleased you share my views about the treatment of Dr Lehman (amongst others) by Mr Braatz.

Thomas Braatz wrote (October 1, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>> (I was composing before 13, earnestly if not with sufficiently trained background yet at the time; and some of my stuff from year 20 has been published. I don't think it's outrageous at all that a talented 13-year-old could have written BWV 565. Dmitris Sgouros played the Rachmanino3rd concerto, very well, at 14. Yevgeny Kissin recorded the Chopin concertos at 9. How about Sarah Chang and Midori? And Mendelssohn and Korngold and Mozart, all composing very good stuff before 14?)<<
Did they also have trouble telling major apart from minor the way Ringk did at age 13? Did they also have serious problems with spelling and careless notation?

The circumstantial evidence that gives this oldest copy of BWV 565 a fixed time such as 1730 is the handwriting, ink, paper used which is the same as that of the only contemporary copy of BWV 202 “Weichet nur, betrübte Schatten” where Ringk does include the date of the copy. There also spelling/orthographical errors abound, but more importantly the NBA editors have found 2-voice contrapuntal passages which are very unlike anything that Bach would have composed: “besonders die geradezu dilettantisch-fehlerhaften Stimmführungen in den Takten 13 und 17” of mvt. 3 [“particularly the manner of voice-leading in both parts which is absolutely amateurish and full of errors”]

It would appear that there are numerous circumstantial clues that reveal that these two works by Bach(?), works whose primary sources come from Ringk were indeed copied around the same time. Williams reference to ‘after 1750’ seems to point to a batch of copies which were all based upon Ringk’s. These are listed in the stemmata section of the NBA IV/5+6, Teilband 3 p. 731 as the Dröbs, Voß, Grasnick, and Schubring copies which all, with the exception of a few insignificant variants follow the Ringk copy.

>> That seems to me just as reasonable a conjecture as the assertion above that there's NO reasonable possibility other than copying it from a Bach autograph. Such a hypothetical Bach autograph no longer exists.<<
Here we go again, applying ‘Spanish boots’ to force conjectures from being simply reasonable so as to make them come out with a ‘Yes/No; Plus/Minus, 0/1’ logical answer each time. We may have in Ringk a 13-year-old boy having some rather serious problems in simply copying what he has before him [why would such a boy have problems in assigning accidentals – using an, at that time, already outdated form of returning an accidental back to its original natural state? Was Kellner such a poor music teacher as to allow Ringk to use antiquated methods of notation? Even the personal connection of Kellner to Bach is in dispute with a printed and signed statement by Kellner from after 1750 to the effect that Kellner wished that he had made Bach’s personal acquaintance. There is another conflicting report regarding thismatter made by a relative of Kellner’s, a report written over a half-century after Bach’s death. Which evidence is more reasonable, which evidence is worthier of belief?]

To clarify my earlier statement which seems to have been misconstrued (perhaps I should have realized as I wrote it that it can be read to mean different things:

My statement: "It can only be conjectured that the 13-year-old Ringk was working from Bach's autograph" is similar to saying “It can only be conjectured that the 13-year-old Ringk was the composer of BWV 565.” The difference lies on a scale between these statements and toward which side of the scale reasonable evidence pro and contra regarding Bach’s style of composition would indicate the likelihood of Bach’s authorship or that of Ringk’s.

Whether to believe Williams because he wrote something more recently is really quite unimportant in regard to this issue. What is important is the actual evidence which he supplies in support of his conjectures. Does he indicate who stated that Ringk was good at fugal improvisations? Is this source to be trusted or is it a source comparable to Burney’s ‘evidence’ that Domenico Scarlatti no longer composed cross-hand sonatas in his later period of composition because he was too fat? For a fair discussion to take place in this forum, the respondent must not resort to a false coyness (being archly reticent or evasive about sharing specific details given in the sources quoted.) How else is a reader able to arrive at an independent decision? Certainly not by the logical error: appeal to authorities as proof that something is true or more prone to be true.

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 1, 2004):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
> Whether to believe Williams because he wrote something more recently is really quite unimportant in regard to this issue. What is important is the > actual evidence which he supplies in support of his conjectures. <
I agree. Read his book.

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 1, 2004):
>> That seems to me just as reasonable a conjecture as the assertion above that there's NO reasonable possibility other than copying it from a Bach autograph. Such a hypothetical Bach autograph no longer exists.<<
> Here we go again, applying 'Spanish boots' to force conjectures from being simply reasonable so as to make them come out with a 'Yes/No; Plus/Minus, 0/1' logical answer each time. <
How? Please demonstrate a working command of logic, instead of merely dismissing logic itself as "Spanish boots". Thank you.

(This is a serious request. Please explain the structure of valid logical constructions, clearly, in a manner that shows some respect for logic as a process of inquiry. Formal logic does not have binary values only. So, I'm curious why it's being asserted here that it does. Logic has to deal with at least the three possibilities of "yes", "no", and "indeterminable"...and often more.)

Thomas Braatz wrote (October 2, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>> Logic has to deal with at least the three possibilities of "yes", "no", and "indeterminable"...and often more.) <<
Let's have more of 'and often more!'

Thomas Braatz wrote (October 2, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>> in response to my question: "What is important is the actual evidence which he [Williams] supplies in support of his conjectures.<<
> I agree. Read his book.<
How about sharing a few more tidbits from his book which I assume you have in hand? Who knows? His conjectures might become even more believable for others who might be interested in this issue.

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 2, 2004):
>>> Logic has to deal with at least the three possibilities of "yes", "no", and "indeterminable"...and often more.)<<<
> Let's have more of 'and often more!' <
"And often four, five, or six." But I'm not going to explain it to a guy who's shown no inclination to handle merely three-valued logic even adequately, ...and ESPECIALLY not to a guy who believes that nothing I know is worth knowing.

So, who's got favorite recordings of the Toccata and Fugue 565? John Butt's recording on Harmonia Mundi (January 2000) really rocks with the improvisatory flair. I like the old Rubsam recording on Philips, too. And the Leonhardt.

Donald Satz wrote (October 2, 2004):
[T Bradley Lerhman] I'm not a fan of the Butt version of BWV 565, not caring for his short note values in the Toccata and the very distant echoes in the Fugue. I love Leonhardt's sharp account and also the richer one from Hannes Kastner on Laserlight.

Charles Francis wrote (October 2, 2004):
Charles Francis wrote:
>> It is nothing new for a professional musicologist to make a splash by proposing the allegedly earthshaking, and, in my opinion, it is best to take such "research findings" with a pinch of salt. As I've reported before, the fugue theme from BWV 565 combines in canon with the final bars of Bach's incomplete Contrapunctus 14 from the Art of Fugue. Now were I a professional musicologist, I would achieve instant fame by suggesting a link between these two works - just think of the implications for the chronology of BWV565! <<
Bradley Lehman wrote:
> Translation of the context, for those who would otherwise take that at face value and miss his acidic subtext:
Charles would have us believe that Bradley Lehman's forthcoming article about keyboard tuning (which is an earthshaking scientific study of it) is really nothing. But it's not about instant fame or making a splash. It's about getting scientifically reproducible findings out there through proper scholarly channels, where they will make a differencein the way the music is taken seriously. The findings reveal that Bach was even more brilliant and musically sensitive than we had suspected. (And Bach's a pretty difficult guy to underestimate, as it is.) <
Given up the automatic answering machine business, then?

> Meanwhile, Charles' own attempt at "instant fame" in June had a similar topic (hey, fancy that!)--a paper put together quickly after hearing that I was working on my paper, and disdaining any responsibility to have it checked out by people who know the topic, in the interest of plausibility. His is here:http://www.eunomios.org/contrib/francis1/francis1.html
...well, that piece of work stands or falls on its own merits. Anyone with a practical background in tuning harpsichords is welcome to give it a try by Charles' proposed methods, and experience the results for oneself--they're sitting right out there, as the way that Bach allegedly taught his boy that technique. I followed the instructions exactly as given, bringing to it a lot more tuning experience than any ten-year-old, and my opinion (in barest summary) was that the proposed method makes Bach into an incompetent musician and a buffoon. Not a convincing outcome there. What's the opposite of taking the music seriously and expecting it to sound decent? <
For some unknown reason, you keep bringing up my tuning publications on this group.

> Weston and Stafford (as "Jonathan and Darlene Edwards"), now THERE was a good satire team.
Amazon.com
Amazon.com
Especially "Stayin' Alive".
http://www.counterpoint-music.com/specialties/jdedwards.html
http://www.counterpoint-music.com/specialties/interview.html
That interview page had me laughing OUT LOUD yesterday. <
I'm afraid I don't follow the above.

> p.s. The fugue theme from BWV 565 also combines in canon with side 2 of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon", if one isn't too particular about the occasional dissonance. It would also combine nicely with several Ives pieces, following Ives' own examples of musical abstract expressionism. So what? <
Ah, but BWV 565 combines in the same harmonic manner as the main Art of Fugue theme. And that harmonic combination supposedly proved Contrapunctus 14 was part of the Art of Fugue, didn't it? Now the BWV 565 theme not only combines harmonically in strict two part canon with the closing bars of Contrapuctus 14, but so does its inversion. And, moreover, it also combines harmonically with the main Art of Fugue theme. So I'm afraid that even- handed treatment of the evidence either requires BWV 565 to be included within the framework of the Art of Fugue or that the proposition that Contrapunctus 14 is part of the Art of Fugue is considered unproven.

Jan Henford wrote (October 2, 2004):
BWV 565 - the emperor is naked

Charles francis wrote:
> Ah, but BWV 565 combines in the same harmonic manner as the main Art of Fugue theme. And that harmonic combination supposedly proved Contrapunctus 14 was part of the Art of Fugue, didn't it? Now the BWV 565 theme not only combines harmonically in strict two part canon with the closing bars of Contrapuctus 14, but so does its inversion. And, moreover, it also combines harmonically with the main Art of Fugue theme. So I'm afraid that even- handed treatment of the evidence either requires BWV 565 to be included within the framework of the Art of Fugue or that the proposition that Contrapunctus 14 is part of the Art of Fugue is considered unproven. <
This has to be one of the silliest statements I've ever read. It doesn't take a trained musicologist to understand that the simplistic conclusion expressed here is based on nothing and certainly no kind of serious thinking.

Charles, everyone is on to you. Why don't you just give up? The same goes for Braatz.

The nonsense displayed by you and Braatz is just plain ridiculous. I can't imagine anyone on this list believing anything either of you have to say anymore.

At this point it's not about your insulting or attacking Brad, it's about your insulting everyone on this list.

Why continue when it's been made very clear you are wearing the emperor's new clothes. The clothes are new but the emperor is still naked.

Douglas Cowling wrote (October 2, 2004):
[To Jan Hanford] Here we go again ...

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 2, 2004):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
"Here we go again "
Except that this time Jan is right.

Charles Francis wrote (October 2, 2004):
[To Jan Hanford] Jan, why not chill out and relax to a good movie? Allow me to suggest Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy it...

Jan Henford wrote (October 2, 2004):
[To Charles Francis] Nice try. Brad may fall for your pathetic bait but I'm not interested.

Teri Noel Towe wrote (October 3, 2004):
[BachRecordings] Favorite BWV 565?

Bradley Lehman wrote:
> So, who's got favorite recordings of the Toccata and Fugue 565? John Butt's recording on Harmonia Mundi (January 2000) really rocks with the improvisatory flair. I like the old Rubsam recording on Philips, too. And the Leonhardt. <
For me, the Feike Asma recording from the early 1960s, on the Vater/Witte organ in the Oude Kerk in Amsterdam!

I get goosebumps just thinking about it.

The G. D. Cunningham and Edouard Commette 78 RPM recordings also are favorites, and Jean Guillou, Helmut Walcha (1952 version), Michael Schneider ("Bohm organ," Johanniskirche, Luneburg), and Heinz Wunderlich (Hamburg Jacobikirche Schnitger, pre Ahrend restoration) are all spectacular for me, too.

PS: And then there is Marie Novello's 1926 recording of the Tausig piano transcription....

Teri Noel Towe wrote (October 4, 2004):
Hannes Kastner on Laserlight?

> It's likely that this Classical Evolutions disc is now history, but the same music and performances are still available on Laserlight 15507 which sells on the CDNOW/Amazon website. It costs next to nothing and is a great buy <
Thanks!

Bradley Lerhman wrote (October 4, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote:
> I bought the recording on a label called "Classical Evolutions" which was connected with the chain store "Wherehouse Sound". Kastner plays BWV 565, and Gabor Lehotka plays the other works: BWV 552, 561, 542, 578, and five chorale settings. It's likely that this Classical Evolutions disc is now history, but the same music and performances are still available on Laserlight 15507 which sells on the CDNOW/Amazon website. It costs next to nothing and is a great buy. <
Another good 565 for almost zero money (less than the price of a sandwich!) is in the two-disc set from Pilz. Disc 2 is the fine set of the Goldbergs and the Four Duetti by Christiane Jaccottet. Disc 1 has Otto Winter playing a Silbermann organ in "Famous Organ Works" 565, 564, 605, 603, 610, 614, 543, 618, 625, 622, 542. The tuning is rough for those last two pieces, especially, but hey--it's a Silbermann. Good opportunity to hear those pieces run through 1/6 comma meantone, for better or worse. Works pretty well for most of that program. Amazon.com

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 6, 2004):
]To Teri Noel Towe] Richter, Rübsam, Leonhardt, Koopman, etc. As far as editions go, like other situations, I favor the BG edition.

Whilst on the subject, I have great problems with people callin BWV 564-566 Toccatas and Fugues (or, in the case of BWV 564, Toccata, Adagio, and Fugue). For me, I refer to the names that the BG give them (which is more accurate, since tsections are not separate, but run along one right after another and are, therefore, not separate movements). I call them Tokkate C-Dur BWV 564, Tokkate d-Moll BWV 565, and Tokkate E-Dur BWV 566.

Donald Satz wrote (October 6, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] Great problems with the name of a work? What do you call a real problem?

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 6, 2004):
To David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"Whilst on the subject, I have great problems with people callin BWV 564-566 Toccatas and Fugues (or, in the case of BWV 564, Toccata, Adagio, and Fugue). For me, I refer to the names that the BG give them (which is more accurate, since the sections are not separate, but run along one right after another and are, therefore, not separate movements)."
In what way are the three sections of BWV564 not seperate, in your book?! Are the the fourth and fith movements of Beethoven's Pastotal Symphony not 'seperate' movements then, because they are played without a break? Beethoven thought they were! Or the second and third movements of Rachmaninov's 3rd Piano Concerto? etc. etc.

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 6, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote:
> Great problems with the name of a work? What do you call a real problem? <
The constant reference to "Toccata and Fugue" rather than just "Toccata". The same thing goes for the two so-called "Toccatas and Fugues" BWV 538 and 540, which I refer to (as does the BG edition and the BWV catalogue) as Praeludien (oder Tokkaten) und Fugen. These do have separate Fugues, and therefore should be called by that. However, BWV 564-566 do not have totally separate fugue movements. The fugal sections (of which BWV 566 has 2) are interwoven into the texture of the works.

Besides all this, look at the models. The first (BWV 564) was clearly (at least clearly to me) modeled after the Cembalo Toccate of Alessandro Scarlatti (the works of which Bach was familiar with; he also used the same model for some of his own Cembalotokkaten). The other two have their models on North German stock. For me, the first of the twain (BWV 565) could be modeled after the Praeludium d-Moll and/or the Praeludium g-Moll of Georg Boehm. Even with Boehm, the fugal section(s) is not separate from the opening or closing free sections. Therefore, to refer to the Tokkate d-Moll as a "Toccata and Fugue", at least in my estimation, is totally erroneous and not to be tolerated.

The same goes for the Tokkate E-Dur BWV 566 (which in some places also goes by the equally erroneous title of "Prelude and Fugue in E Major BWV 566"). Here, there is a definite model: the Praeludium E-Dur BuxWV 141 of Dietrich Buxtehude. The same principle applies to Buxtehude's Freie Orgelwerke (Buxtehude having originated the format) as to Boehm's. The fugal sections are so integral to the entire work that to treat them as completely separate entities would be a grave mistake. Besides all that, where would one assign the beginning of the "Fugue"? There are two fugal sections.

That is also why I do not champion recordings that treat the separation between sections in, say, BWV 565, with a rest duration greater than that in the score. This is why, in all honesty, I could not say that I have a favorite recording at all, but the ones I mentioned are somewhat tolerable to me. I would also add to the list Walter Kraft's recordings.

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 6, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] Look at the models for the work (namely Alessandro Scarlatti's Toccate per Cembalo). Bach's Tokkate C-Dur BWV 564 is no different.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 6, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"Look at the models for the work (namely Alessandro Scarlatti's Toccate per Cembalo). Bach's Tokkate C-Dur BWV 564 is no different."
So what?

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 6, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"Therefore, to refer to the Tokkate d-Moll as a "Toccata and Fugue", at least in my estimation, is totally erroneous and not to be tolerated."
Aren't there more important things in life to get worked up about?!!

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 6, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"Look at the models for the work (namely Alessandro Scarlatti's Toccate per Cembalo). Bach's Tokkate C-Dur BWV 564 is no different."
Gabriel Jackson wrote:
> So what? >
The point is that, although there are different sections, they are still one work, and are actually often performed without break between sections.

The counter to this is the tradition (at least in current English-speaking society for the last 70+ years) to make the fugal section its own movement. This has no foundation at all in the music itself.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 6, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"The counter to this is the tradition (at least in current English-speaking society for the last 70+ years) to make the fugal section its own movement. This has no foundation at all in the music itself. "
This simply isn't true.

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 6, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"Therefore, to refer to the Tokkate d-Moll as a "Toccata and Fugue", at least in my estimation, is totally erroneous and not to be tolerated."
Gabriel Jackson wrote:
> Aren't there more important things in life to get worked up about?!! <
Depends on your viewpoint. For me, this life is not what is important, anyways. It is the life to come. However, as I am in this world, I view it my duty to correct errors in views, no matter what the subject. And this is one of them, and has been going on for countless years.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 6, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"I view it my duty to correct errors in views, no matter what the subject. And this is one of them, and has been going on for countless years."
That is admirable, but it is perhaps advisable to be correct in the first place, before correcting others so assiduously.

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 6, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"The counter to this is the tradition (at least in current English-speaking society for the last 70+ years) to make the fugal section its own movement. This has no foundation at all in the music itself. "
Gabriel Jackson wrote:
> This simply isn't true. <
Actually, it is. As I stated earlier, look at Alessandro Scarlatti's Toccate per Cembalo, and you will see what I mean.

The sole difference between the three works (BWV 564-566), besides the keys, is the models used. Outside of that, there is no difference at all between the three works. For the first one, Bach used an Italian model; for the second, he used a Franco-German model (Boehm being one of the first to adapt French ideas and styles to North German Organ music); and for the third, he used a North German model.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 6, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"Actually, it is. As I stated earlier, look at Alessandro Scarlatti's Toccate per Cembalo, and you will see what I mean.
The sole difference between the three works (BWV 564-566), besides the keys, is the models used. Outside of that, there is no difference at all between the three works. For the first one, Bach used an Italian model; for the second, he used a Franco-German model (Boehm being one of the first to adapt French ideas and styles to North German Organ music); and for the third, he used a North German model."
To argue that to refer to a piece that consists of a toccata, an adagio and a fugue as "Toccata, Adagio and Fugue" is wrong, is just plain perverse! Whether the sections, or movements, of a piece are played without a break or not (and what constututes a break?!) is of no consequence whatever. I have already given two instances (and godness knows there are plenty of others) of pieces where movements - designated by their composers as seperate movements - follow each other with no break at all.

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 6, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] Obviously, you have not even seen the Alessandro Toccate per Cembalo. They have the exact same thing, but are still refered to as "Toccate per Cembalo", not by their ssection names. Toccata refers to the entire piece, not just one section.

David Glenn Lebut wrote (6, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] Besides, if you look at the score, the only sections labeled with names are the "Adagio" and the "Fugue", which is also in keeping with the Alessandro Scarlatti model.

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 6, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] You wouldn't call a Symphony by each of the movement titles, would you? Just the same, one should not refer to a Toccata by the section names.

Thomas Braatz wrote (October 6, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
>> I call them Tokkate C-Dur BWV 564, Tokkate d-Moll BWV 565, and Tokkate E-Dur BWV 566.<<
This title represents the very limited viewpoint of the BG as the NBA KB IV/5+6, Teilband 2, p. 518 points out regarding the BG's 'Tokkate d-Moll' BWV 565: "Die älteste und wichtigste der erhaltenen Quellen, die Abschrift J. Ringks (B 49), ist aber sowohl Petere wie BG entgangen; und nicht auf Kittel, wie Griepenkerl vermutete, sondern auf Ringk werden die übrigen, neueren Kopien zurückzuführen sein. ["Both Peters {edition IV, Griepenkerl, 1845} and the BG missed taking into account the oldest and most important of all the surviving sources, the copy made by J. Ringk (B 49). Griepenkerl incorrectly surmised that all the remaining, newer copies pointed back to Kittel rather than Ringk."]

The BG based its edition upon B 115 (the Schubring manuscript) where the title is simply "Toccata," the Dröbs copy which has the title "Adagio [und] Fuga" [this copy was the main basis for Griepenkerl's Peters (IV) edition which was printed 22 years before the BG]and the Breitkopf & Härtel Edition prepared by A. B. Marx c. 1833 [here the sources used were not given but could have been another two of the late copies after Bach's death (as are all of them with the exception of Ringk's.) The remaining sources used by the NBA are the Voß (from the 1st half of the 19th century - the title is simply 'Toccata') and Grasnick {the title is 'Toccata con Fuga pedaliter')copies.

As stated earlier on this thread, the NBA has based its title upon the only copy to have been made during Bach's lifetime.

As far as how the NBA decided which title to use for which organ composition in this volume, they explain that they tried to take into account as much as possible the most important of the sources; for instance, for BWV 566, the BG introduced (made up) the title 'Toccata', but the sources available to the NBA made them change it to "Praeludium et Fuga."

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 6, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz]
Two problems:

1.) Admittedly (by you) the NBA used a manuscript dating from around Bach's lifetime as their source for BWV 565. There has been (especially recently) much question about using manuscripts as sources for Bach works. The same problem people ran into with the Praeludium und Fuge f-Moll BWV 534. As we went around before on the subject, F Minor was just not possible on the Baroque Organ. And in fact, the only source we have for the work is a 19th century manuscript. What's to say that Bach did not originally write it in C Minor or G Minor or F Sharp Minor (which is the way it is commonly performed on historic organs). Remember the case of the Praeludium und Fuge c-Moll BWV 549. It started its life out in the Andreas Bach Buch as a (and I quote here) "Phantasie und Fuge d-Moll".

2.) I would question the sources the NBA uses here. The same sources would probably call the Buxtehude Praeludien, Tokkaten, and Praeamblum as Praeludien und Fugen, Tokkaten und Fugen, and Praeamblum and Fuge. This would be erroneous. Buxtehude referred to his works (a lot of which had survived in autograph or manuscripts in his own writing in organ tabulature) by the former titles rather than the latter.

Also, I find that the NBA takes out a lot of the improvisatory element in BWV 565. The elimination of the final "D" in that arpeggio sequence after the second chordal sequence in the opening section makes it appear more metrical, and the glissando for the second chordal sequence does the same.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 6, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"Obviously, you have not even seen the Alessandro Toccate per Cembalo. They have the exact same thing, but are still refered to as "Toccate per Cembalo", not by their ssection names. Toccata refers to the entire piece, not just one section."
Again, so what? Are you suggesting that because one piece is given the title "toccata" any similarly structured piece can only be called a "toccata" as well?! That's absurd.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 6, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"I call them Tokkate C-Dur BWV 564, Tokkate d-Moll BWV 565, and Tokkate E-Dur BWV 566"
This pedantic insistence that pieces must be called by particular names is arguably plain wrong. If you are not spaeking or writing in German why insist on using German titles? Names can be, and are, different in different languages. The same is true of places: the French name for London is Londres; the German name for Latvija (or Latvia in English) is Lettland. The Finns call their country Suomi - are wrong to call it Finland? No. etc. etc. "Toccata and fufgue in D minor" is a perefectly legitimate English name.

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 6, 2004):
BWV 565 and 534

[To David Glenn Lebut] I agree with Mr Braatz' information as provided below. In this case it has more credibility than the several objections provided below by Mr Lebut, especially on the question of sources used by the NBA and what they "probably" would contain. The NBA's actual methodology is pretty good, for the most part.

The argumentation from BWV 534, while interesting, is too conjectural here. I don't see how it casts aspersions on the process of "using manuscripts as sources for Bach works." A good article about 534 is David Humphreys' paper in Bach, Handel, Scarlatti: Tercentenary Essays (1985) ed by Peter Williams. Furthermore, if Bach (as opposed to somebody else) indeed wrote 534, it works just fine in the F minor of his temperament. I've played through it myself that way.

I still wonder why the argumentation about modern nomenclature (and cataloguing) is such a sticking point for Mr Lebut. The music's the same, no matter what title is slapped onto it. It's more important to know what things are than to assign some specific and single name to them!

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 9, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] It would be if the works were two-movement (or in the case of BWV 564, three-movement) pieces, which they are not.

As to your last point, yes it would. A nation's identity is in question. For the same reason I call Germany Deutschland and Tuscany Toscana. Unless a Finn or a German has lived in an English-speaking country for a long time, Germany does or Finnland does not exist for them. The same goes for the so-called "Lutheran Church". A German would not know what that is. They only know Evangelisch (Evangelical), which is as it should be, since that is the name that Luther himself took up. The lutherisch came into play only since the last century. So it is also for musical pieces. Just as it would be wrong to call Buxtehude's freely-composed works Preludes and Fugues or Toccatas and Fugues or Preamble and Fugue instead of Prelude or Toccata or Preamble, so it would be wrong to call these three works (BWV 564-566) Toccatas and Fugues instead of Toccatas. The only case I would be lenient in terminology would be BWV 566, which I would except Toccata or Prelude.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 9, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"t would be if the works were two-movement (or in the case of BWV 564, three-movement) pieces, which they are not."
You haven't demostrated in any meaningful sense why they are not. Should Elgar not have called his "Introduction and Allegro" thus? Presumably not - the two sections are played without a break. Perhaps you could devise an improved title for the piece?

"For the same reason I call Germany Deutschland and Tuscany Toscana. "
Of course you do. What do you call Croatia?

Jan Henford wrote (October 9, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut] Troll alert.

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 9, 2004):
[To G Jackson] And you haven't demonstrated at all that the works in question have separate movements instead of one movement in separate sections (which they are). The fugal sections make no sense on their own without the free sections, unlike the works BWV 531-552 (with the [possible exceptions of BWV 549-551). In these cases, the fugues can definitely stand on their own (which is most likely how they were composed, as is evident by the histories of some of these works).

Even if you look at the catalogue (the BWV catalogue, that is), they are sorted thematically. After the Sonatas (which are not trio sonatas, BTW, and which also have individual movements), the next set of works are the two-movement works, starting with the Preludes and Fugues (BWV 531-560) and ending with the Fantasias and Fugues (BWV 561-563, although to me BWV 561 should be classified with the works BWV 570-573). Then we get into the single-movement works, starting with the Toccatas BWV 564-566, followed by the Preludes BWV 567-569, then the Fantasias BWV 570-573, the Fugues BWV 574-581, the Passacaglia BWV 582, and the trios and other works BWV 584-591. We then take another break for six more multi-movement works in the form of the Concerti BWV 592-597 before concluding with the Pedal-Exercitium BWV 598, the Trio in G BWV 1027a, the Fugue in g BWV 131a, and the Four Duets BWV 802-805.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 9, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"And you haven't demonstrated at all that the works in question have separate movements instead of one movement in separate sections (which they are)."
What constitutes a movement? What constitutes a section? Does the title "Toccata and Fugue" actually mean "A piece in two distinct movements (defined how?) the first of which is a toccata and the second a fugue"? What's with this pedantic obsession with the names of things? It's very odd....

(And what do you call Croatia.....?)

Margaret Mikulska wrote (October 10, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote:
> As to your last point, yes it would. A nation's identity is in > question. For the same reason I call Germany Deutschland and > Tuscany Toscana. Unless a Finn or a German has lived in an English-> speaking country for a long time, Germany does or Finnland does not > exist for them. The same goes for the so-called "Lutheran Church". A German would not know what that is. They only know Evangelisch (Evangelical), which is as it should be, since that is the name that > Luther himself took up. The lutherisch came into play only since > the last century. [...] <
How interesing. On 12. Nov. 1778, W. A. Mozart wrote to his father:

"...Sie wissen, daß Benda unter den lutherischen Kapellmeistern immer mein Liebling war;..."

Examples from Leopold Mozart's letters are too numerous to be listed; here is one from 1763:

"...wo 4 Religionen sind, nämlich Catholisch, Lutherisch, Calvinisch, und Juden..."

I don't recall any use of "Evangelisch" in either Mozart's letters.

Somebody should have told Mozart, both father and son, that they didn't use correct German words.

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 10, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] Yes. A "Toccata and Fugue" is a work with two distinctly separate movements )a Toccata and a Fugue). None of which applies to the three works in question, but would apply to the two Preludes and Fugues BWV 538 and 540 (I would label them, as does the BWV catalogue and the BGA edition, Prelude (or Toccata) and Fugue).

A movement could be defined as thus: "A section or piece of music that could stand on its own in performance". A section, however, is totally different. A section could be defined as "a part of a larger piece of music that is integral to the whole of the work, and thus could not stand on its own". Therefore, while the three works in question are multi-sectional, they are single-movement works. That is one of the chief differences between these works and, say, a Beethoven sonata or symphony. In the case of the latter choices, a pianist or conductor featuring a movement of either in a concert would not sound ridiculous doing so. On the other hand, if the same person was performing, say, the Adagio section of BWV 564, he would sound ridiculous, expecially if one looks at the way it concludes (modulating to C Major to prepare for the fugal section).

As to Croatia, I would call it Croatia, because (as far as I know) the Croats call it that.

Donald Satz wrote (October 10, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut] No matter what we call a movement or section, the music doesn't change. I'm thankful for that.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 10, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"A movement could be defined as thus: "A section or piece of music that could stand on its own in performance". A section, however, is totally different. A section could be defined as "a part of a larger piece of music that is integral to the whole of the work, and thus could not stand on its own". "
These are arbitrary definitions. They could kust as credibly be defined differently. You are insisting on a particular nomenclature that is based enitirely on your own definitions.

"As to Croatia, I would call it Croatia, because (as far as I know) the Croats call it that."
Well they don't. It is best to be consistent when one is being pedantic.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 10, 2004):
Donald Satz wrore:
"No matter what we call a movement or section, the music doesn't change. I'm thankful for that."
Indeed.

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 10, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson]
Two things:

1.) The definitions given are not arbitrary. The music wants to continue on to the next section in the example I gave (BWV 564). To just perform the Adagio section of the work is absolutely ridiculous, because to conclude a performance, there must be some sense of resolution in the piece performed. There is none of that in the Adagio section of BWV 564.

2.) Have you suddenly become an expert in Slavic languages? If not, then don't do what you are accusing me of doing.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 10, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut wrote:
"1.) The definitions given are not arbitrary. The music wants to continue on to the next section in the example I gave (BWV 564). To just perform the Adagio section of the work is absolutely ridiculous, because to conclude a performance, there must be some sense of resolution in the piece performed. There is none of that in the Adagio section of BWV 564."
They are arbitrary. You have decided what constitutes a 'movement' and what constitutes a 'section' and then complained that others use (widely-used) titles for pieces which don't happen to accord with your own definitions. There is nothing more to be said.

"2.) Have you suddenly become an expert in Slavic languages? If not, then don't do what you are accusing me of doing."
I may have been an expert on Slavic languages for some time, for all you know! As it happens, I'm not. But it was not I that insisted it was a question of national idenity to speak of Deutschland or Toscana when writing in English (nothwithstanding the fact that Germans call their country Germany when conversing in English!), rather than their English equivalents. Coations call their country Hrvanska, for your information.

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 10, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote:
> On the other hand, if the same person was performing, say, the Adagio section of BWV 564, he would sound ridiculous, expecially if one looks at the way it > concludes (modulating to C Major to prepare for the fugal section). <
R.I.P. Jacqueline du Pre. Her 1962 recording of that Adagio (as a cello solo accompanied by organ) is beautiful.

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 11, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] I have heard it both ways.

Thomas Braatz wrote (October 13, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. had originally written:
>> The same goes for the so-called "Lutheran Church". A German would not know what that is. They only know Evangelisch (Evangelical), which is as it should be, since that is the name that Luther himself took up. The lutherisch came into play only since the last century.<<
To whMargaret Mikulska replied:
>> How interesing. On 12. Nov. 1778, W. A. Mozart wrote to his father: "...Sie wissen, daß Benda unter den lutherischen Kapellmeistern immer mein Liebling war;..."
Examples from Leopold Mozart's letters are too numerous to be listed; here is one from 1763: "...wo 4 Religionen sind, nämlich Catholisch, Lutherisch, Calvinisch,und Juden..."
I don't recall any use of "Evangelisch" in either Mozart's letters. Somebody should have told Mozart, both father and son, that they didn't use correct German words.<<
I know that I am treading into an area of church history which I know little about, but here are some mini-biographies preceding a collection of Luther's works "Martin Luther:Gesammelte Werke" [Editor Kurt Aland in "Digitale Bibliothek Band 63"]

Alber, Erasmus (um 1500-1553), lutherischer Prediger {Lutheran preacher}
Flacius, Matthias Illyricus (152(?)-1575), lutherischer Theologe {Lutheran theologian}
Link (Linck), Wenzeslaus (148-1547), lutherischer Theologe, Prediger in Nürnberg und Altenburg {Lutheran theologian and preacher...}
Mathesius, Johannes (150(?)-1565), lutherischer Prediger {Lutheran preacher}
Wickmann, Johann, lutherischer Prediger {Lutheran preacher}

but also the following:

Walther, Johann (149(?)-1570), evangelischer1 Kirchenmusiker {Evangelical church musician}
Müntzer, Thomas (um 1480-1525), evangelischer Theologe und Revolutionär {Evangelical theologian and revolutionary}
Krosner, Alexius († 1535) evangelisch gesinnter Hofprediger Herzog Georgs von Sachsen {Evangelical [in inclination and belief] court preacher...}
Khummer, Kaspar (um 1550), evangelischer Pfarrer {Evangelical pastor}
Heinrich von Zutphen (um 148-1524), Augustiner- Eremit, Prediger in Dithmarschen, einer der ersten Märtyrer des evangelischen Glaubens {a preacher who was one of the first martyrs to the Evangelical faith}

And from the beginning of the 17th century, the MGG [Bärenreiter, 1986] gives the following quote regarding Z

>> Jeep (Jepp), Johann(es), * 1582 (oder 1581, so Leichenpredigt) in Dransfeld (Hannover), † 19. Nov. 1644 in Hanau (nicht 1650 in Ulm). Mit der Absicht, auf »seine güter« in Weikersheim zurückzukehren, verließ er Frankfurt, blieb aber in Hanau, wo ihn Johann Ernst, der letzte Graf aus dem Hause Hanau- Münzenberg, im Jan. 1642 als »Capelmeister und Collegii musici director« an seinen Hof berief. »Ohngeachtet er lutherisch, wurde ihm doch in der großen Kirche (St. Marien) die Orgel zuerkannt«. Kaum drei Jahre später starb er, »und wurden ihm 2 leichpredigten gehalten, eine von dem Hofprediger Henning, die andere aber, so gedruckt worden, von dem M(agister) Philipp Böhm in der damaligen Lutherischen Schloßgemeinde«<<
[In short Jeep had originally intended to return to his properties from Frankfurt, but on the way home as he stopped in Hanau, he was retained by Johann Ernst, the last count from the house of Hanau-Münzenberg, to take up a position in January of 1642 as the 'Capellmeister' and Director of Music at this court which included responsibilities as organist in the large church of St. Marys despite the fact that he was a Lutheran. One of the two funeral sermons in his honor at the time of his death barely three years later was a funeral sermon by Philipp Böhm published by the Lutheran court congregation which was in existence at that time.]

Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of church history can indicate in which century these two somewhat related groups, Lutherans and Evangelicals were merged in Germany. My own intuition (not based on facts) tells me that this may have occurred quite late, in the late 19th or early 20th century.

PS: Here is an unusual (in this early period after the Reformation) concatenation of both terms:

Luther's letter : "An den Rat zu Halle," 7. Mai 1545 Erstdruck in: Martin Röber, Im Christlichen Evangelischen Lutherischen Jubel Jahr, I. Ein schön Braut Lied, II. Das rechte Hochzeit Kleid, III. Die Päbstische Grewel und Menschen Tand, Halle (Krusicke) 1618. [Luther's letter was first printed in Martin Röber's "In the Jubilee-Year Celebrating the Christian, Evangelical, and Lutheran Movement(s)...1618 -- there are no hyphens connecting these movements as a unified one]

David Glenn Lebut wrote (October 13, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz] In the 1900s. Even in America, the German Evangelical community only started calling themselves "Lutheran" in these years.

Also, the Mozart quote would not help the argument, since Mozart was in a community that was admittedly outside the Evangelical circle (namely Catholic Oesterreich [Austria]). The Catholics, remember, were also the first to use the term "Protestant" when they referred to the protest launched by the Evangelical princes at the 2nd Diet of Speyer against the Imperial policy in which the Catholics rulers were exempt from having to harbor Evangelical preaching and ministers in their estates but the Evangelical princes and estates were forced to harbor Catholic peaching and ministers within their borders.

Fredrik Sandstrom wrote (October 13, 2004):
Gabriel Jackson wrote:
> Coations call their country Hrvanska, for your information. <
Hrvatska, actually.

--
Fredrik from Suomi

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 13, 2004):
[To Fredrik Sandstrom] Thank you. My typing's never been great!

Margaret Mikulska wrote (October 13, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote:
> A movement could be defined as thus: "A section or piece of music that could stand on its own in performance". <
So Beethoven's Third Piano Concerto has only two movements, because the slow "section" goes attacca into the third. And the overture to Don Giovanni and to a few other operas are not movements for the same reason. These revelations are worth publishing.

> As to Croatia, I would call it Croatia, because (as far as I know) the Croats call it that. <
The Croats call it Hrvatska (three syllables, FYI). Your knowledge of geography is truly impressive.

BWV 564, Toccata, Adagio, and Fugue

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 27, 2009):
Although this particular work is not part of the scheduled BRML discusion of works for organ for summer 2009, it is in the range, I heard a performance last evening, and I hear a link to BCML discussion of Bachs musical characterization of Satan.

Notes with Brilliant Classics Bach Edition suggest this is a Weimar compostion ca. 1709, which I would call youthful Bach. Of course, from my perspective, I would also call Leipzig 1723 youthful Bach. Judging from results, so would Bach.

It is quite a thrill to hear such a work for the first time. I took the opportunity to listen to the Hagius recording from Bach Edition in advance, but that simply does not prepare one for the impact of the opening riffs on a spectacular organ. Two five note phrases separated by a four note rest, all 1/16ths. I got that from the BWV incipit, post facto. Could be Be-Bop, could be buffo Satan, but in fact it is Bach, for sure.

The performance by Raul Prieto Ramirez (b. 1979, oh my soul!) played from memory, was one of those experiences which changes ones life just a bit. See http:www.mmmh.org for details of the venue and instrument, Methuen Memorial Music Hall. Raul was very articulate, despite English as a secong language. He pointed out that the opening themes of the piece remind him of Daedulus (I hope he did not say Icarus!) from Greek mythology, soaring high and coming Bach to Earth. This became clear, which I would never catch from a recording, when the second theme comes in on pedals only, after the Boppy riffs.

In addition to some of the thoughts from the Brandenburg discussions, I would also propose BWV 564 as fodder for discussion re Bach the Innovator.

Other pieces of interest, if not relevance:
Spanish (Aragon actually, as distinct from Castille) Baroque, ca. 1640: Tiento partido sobre la letania de la Virgen (Thirty pieces about the litany of the Virgin) by Pablo Bruna, arranged Bruno Forst (b. 1965). Sounded ancient, compared to the preceding Bach, perhaps that was the point of the programming? Numerologic significance? 2x3x5? Capital letter on Virgin? Ask your mother.

The piece was composed specifically in thcity of Saragossa (spanish Zeragoza), which is famous for its siege by Napoleon ca. 1808, and its tower. That tower was the model for the tower at the Methuen Hall. Perhaps that was the point of the programming.

Max Reger, Chorale Fantasia, Op 40/2 (1899), <Straf mich nicht in deinem Sorn>. I did not yet take the time to see if Bach also set this Chorale, and what the relation to Reger might be. It sounded German, perhaps even Lutheran, in performance. Raul said that despite the title, he finds a bit of happiness (not to say Spanishness) in it.

Terejia wrote (August 28, 2009):
OT greeting after long absense Re: BWV 564, Toccata, Adagio, and Fugue

Ed Myskowski wrote:
>> It is quite a thrill to hear such a work for the first time. I took the opportunity to listen to the Hagius recording from Bach Edition in advance, but that simply does not prepare one for the impact of the opening riffs on a spectacular organ. Two five note phrases separated by a four note rest, all 1/16ths. I got that from the BWV incipit, post facto. Could be Be-Bop, could be buffo Satan, but in fact it is Bach, for sure.<<
Dear Ed and dear all,

Firstly I have to admit my long absense from the list and deep apology to all those who wrote to me off-list without my reply, which should be long due.

Yes, as Ed says, the impact of live organ performance cannot compete with listening to recordings. BWV564 is a piece I'd like to learn someday. Recently my organ lesson focus has been on organ chorales of J.S.Bach.

I have to confess that my music listening deviated from J.S. Bach to french baroque such as LeClair, Couprin etcs. Not that I lost interest to Bach cantatas. I simply find it too difficult for my poor ability to concentrate on complicated mathematical musical structure and profound evangelical messages under current busy schedule which demands concentration and Japanese summer-too humid, too hot, too uncomfortable to concentrate! So I just found myself listening to french baroque recently. I will come back to Bach when summer heat/humidity is gone.

Now, I find that my criterium for my preference is very different in french music and Bach. For the former, I prefer "spirituEl" elements while in the latter I prefer"spirituAl" elements. Leipzig Gewandthouse/St. Thomas Choir, Karl Richter performance style would be my last choice(although to the best of my knowledge I don't know they ever performed any french baroque so this is subjunctive sentense) while it is my first choice in Bach.

I haven't heard enough to discuss in detail, but I like french baroque performance when trills, figuratives are played with elegance and gracefullness.

I wish you all the best to all. I have to get back to preparing for my next court case.

Terejia wrote (August 28, 2009):
Terejia wrote:
>> Yes, as Ed says, the impact of live organ performance cannot compete with listening to recordings. <<
Oh, I didn't mean it to be an objective statement, which would sound very offensive if I were a receiver-deeply sorry for lack of my attention. I meant, "in my own humble personal experience," as a matter of course.

BWV 564 is a beautiful C-dur piece with 3 components. My personal taste prefers non-vibrate in soprano part in the 2nd part of the piece.

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 28, 2009):
Buffo Satan [WAS BWV 564]

Terejia wrote:
> I will come back to Bach when summer heat/humidity is gone. <
It is very nice to hear from Terejia again, I look forward to continuing posts, re Bach. Some readers may recall the many original thoughts she brought to us several months ago, and especially her expressive use of English, not her native language. I complimented her on this quality at the time. I do not believe I called her language poetic, but I would have if I had thought of it.

I am continuing my post re BWV 564 on both lists because of my buffo Satan suggestion (cited by Terejia), which is in fact more relevant to the cantata texts and music. In fact, the idea (buffo Satan in Bach) originated some time ago with Julian Mincham, I believe in discussion with Doug Cowling, and came up again recently from Julian.

My suggestion of the opening riffs of BWV 564 as satanic was not especially well thought out, but on further reflection I think it may have been intended by organist Raul Prieto Ramirez. His concert which opened with BWV 564 concluded with an arrangement for organ of a Liszt Mephisto Waltz. As Raul told the story of the music, the Devil attends a weddding. Once everyone has had sufficient drink, he takes a violin from the band, plays the waltz which sends all the guests into a trance, and runs off with the bride! Buffo, indeed, to my thinking, and making a nice frame for the concert, along with the opening Bach.

Terejia wrote (September 10, 2009):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
> It is very nice to hear from Terejia again, <
Thank you, Ed, for your kind words.

(..)
> I am continuing my post re BWV 564 on both lists because of my buffo Satan suggestion (cited by Terejia), which is in fact more relevant to the cantata texts and music. In fact, the idea (buffo Satan in Bach) originated some time ago with Julian Mincham, I believe in discussion with Doug Cowling, and came up again recently from Julian.
My suggestion of the opening riffs of BWV 564 as satanic was not especially well thought out, but on further reflection I think it may have been intended by organist Raul Prieto Ramirez. <
Some cantata arias have characteristics which may well be associated with snake-Satan appropriately. I still doubt whether or not BWV 564 opening is satanic. It could be. I have more live performance experience than recording experience in regard with BWV564 but I can also recall a live performance in which this part felt more like an aspiration toward heaven rather than satanic buffo. It would depend on performer, the choice of organ stops, in my humble impression.

Not every merisma is satanic buffo, but on the subject of BWV 248-part 4, it is true that penultinate tenor aria with two solo violins has a contrasting effect with soprano aria with echo, which has much pastrale serenity flavor, and subsequent bass arioso with soprano chorale, which is also in a peaceful mood.

Ed Myskowski wrote (September 10, 2009):
Terejia replied to my post:
>> My suggestion of the opening riffs of BWV 564 as satanic was not especially well thought out, >>but on further reflection I think it may have been intended by organist Raul Prieto Ramirez. <<
> Some cantata arias have characteristics which may well be associated with snake-Satan >appropriately. I still doubt whether or not BWV 564 opening is satanic. It > could be. I have more live performance experience than recording experience in regard with >BWV564 but I can also recall a live performance in which this part > felt more like an aspiration toward heaven rather than satanic buffo. It would depend on >performer, the choice of organ stops, in my humble impression. <
I do not find the idea of aspiration toward heaven incompatible with Satan, especially a buffo Satan. Consider:

Isaiah 14:14 [God quoting the thoughts, presumably of Satan (not specifically identified?)]
<I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.>

Terejia is in agreement with organist Ramirez, who specifically noted that BWV 564 could be heard as an ascent, followed by a descent to Earth. He specifically made the analogy of the flight of Dedalus, but perhaps this is simply less controversial than any Christian imagery. Note my previous mention that the concert, after opening with Bach (whatever the interpretation of the riffs), closed with a very specifically buffo Satan: Liszt, Mephisto Waltz.

Continue on Part 3