Unaccompanied Bach

Errata and addenda 04/10/2017

It is not possible to use in-text music symbols in this programme, so read # for sharp, b for flat, h for natural.

p.
x    add   < A-Wn   Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek >

4    For recent information about the paper used for P 967 see NBArev Bd.3 (2014) p.243; the paper seems to have been in use in central Germany and appears in other of Bach’s Cöthen works.

5    For recent thinking about P 267 see NBArev Bd.3, pp.244-5. Bach was still using the flat sign to cancel the sharp in the bass figuring he added to BWV 1021 (1732); for an opposing view, that all but BWV 1006 date from Weimar, see Clemens Fanselau in Das Bach-Handbuch Band 5/2, ed. S. Rampe and D. Sackmann (Laaber, 2013). For an expert assessment of Martin Jarvis’s theory that the cello Suites were composed by Anna Magdalena see Ruth Tatlow in Understanding Bach 10 (2015) < http://bachnetwork.co.uk/ub10/ub10-tatlow-wbmb.pdf >.  I would just add that the probable reason why Schwanberg wrote ‘Ecrite par Madame Bachen son Epouse’ at the bottom right of the title-page of P 268 was to emphasise the status of the copy he had acquired, i.e. not made by a student but by Bach’s wife so very close to the composer himself.

8    para.2 line 4:   add footnote after  < sense > : other than in the early violin Sonata in E minor BWV 1023.

13   para.2, 8 lines from end:   < andre >   delete first e

14   para.1 line 2:   Various dates have been suggested for the E minor Sonata BWV 1023: ‘after 1723′ (Wolff 1991), 1714-17 (Hausswald 1958), c. 1714 (Dirksen 2003); perhaps the most plausible suggestion is that Bach wrote it for Pisendel’s visit in 1709 (Wollny 2005), the earlier date explaining its rather old-fashioned style, in which case it would be Bach’s earliest known chamber work for violin and continuo.  Its authorship has been doubted and Jones excluded it from his 2007 survey. Wollny in NBArev Bd.3 (2014, p.244) doubts that Bach led from the violin as concertmaster in Weimar.

21   last para. second last line, 22 para.2 line 2:   < father’s cousin Johann Christoph >   not uncle

20   para.2:   In this book I use the term stylus phantasticus in its eighteenth-century sense of free, improvised style (as defined by Johann Mattheson, 1717 etc.) rather than for learned counterpoint (as originally defined by Athanasius Kircher, 1650); for an overview see Peter Schleuning, The Fantasia I: 16th to 18th Centuries, Anthology of Music Vol.42, ed. K.G. Fellerer (Cologne: Arno Volk Verlag, 1971), and for more detail, Paul Collins, The Stylus Phantasticus and Free Keyboard Music of the North German Baroque  (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005); Pieter Dirksen has suggested that the term was invented by Kircher’s friend Froberger, ‘The enigma of the stylus phantasticus’, Orphei Organi Antiqui: Essays in Honor of Harald Vogel, ed. C. Johnson ([Ithaca NY]: The Westfield Center, 2006) 107–32.

21   For Farina in Germany see Aurelio Bianco, Vie et oeuvre de Carlo Farina (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010).

22   para 2 line 11:   delete (Dok.III p.288)   [is in the endnote]

26   last line:   < the only surviving copy lacks >

27   para.2 line 16:    < use >   no d

29   para.3:   For detailed consideration of performance indications in movable type, including polyphony, see Uwe Wolf, Notation und Aufführungspraxis. Studien zum Wandel von Notenschrift und Notenbild in italienischen Musikdrucken der Jahre 1571-1630 (Kassel: Merseburger, 1992), and Constance Frei, Articulation et ornementation: les différentes pratiques d’exécution pour violon en Italie au XVIIe siècle (Lucca: Libreria Musicale Italiana, 2010).

32   para.2 line 5:   < thinks of it >   add of

35   second last line:   < perhaps originally composed as early as 1712/13, >

38   para.1 line 9:   < section 2 >   not 1

45   para.2, fifth last line: delete  < very >

46   para.2:   Sigiswald Kuijken has recorded the cello Suites on a violoncello da spalla made by Badiarov (Accent, 2009) ACC 24196; in the booklet notes he makes the case that Bach, up till about 1740, meant the da spalla position when he used the word violoncello.  At a concert given at the Utrecht Early Music Festival in August 2012 by the violinist Sergey Malov, which included two of the cello Suites, Badiarov explained that he had originally developed the instrument as a viola pomposa and subsequently renamed it viola da spalla (called violoncello da spalla by Kuijken). In his article ‘A Bach odyssey’ (Early Music xxxviii/2, May 2010) Kuijken suggests that the viola pomposa was a smaller version of the violoncello da spalla. He makes the reasonable suggestion that the violone (Bach’s usual term for the string bass) was what we would call a large cello at 8′ pitch played da gamba, with the violoncello played da spalla. This gives the intriguing sonority in the Third Brandenburg Concerto of three violoncelli da spalla differentiated from the continuo violone.

48   para.2 third last line:   < from the 1676 book >   delete of

50   para.1:  While such inganni are not common on French lute music, there is a prelude ‘sur quatre lettres’ in F-Pcnrs MS sans cote f.39 (dated 1632, mostly Mesangeau and Merville).

56   para.1 second last line, 85 para.1 line 10:   The paragraphs in the Obituary that discuss Bach’s style are by J.F. Agricola, not C.P.E. Bach (see Dok.VII p.93).

58   line 1:   < Jacques Hotteterre) was published in 1707, >    not J.-P. Freillon-Poncein 1700

–     5th last line:   < in 3/4-time >   delete bracket before time signature

60   line 1:   < from the >

–    para.1, end of third last line:   < It also >   delete is.

63   para.3 line 4:   < Muffat studied in Paris in the 1660s at the time of Lully’s ascendancy and had contacts >

71   last line:   < Italian in one half and French in the other >

78   second last para, item 6:   < flute Solo >   l.c. flute

87   Section 7:   For use of standard bass patterns listed in this section, see also Robert O. Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

90   Ex.2.12h, bar 3:   figure is 6/5

93   third last line:   < drawback is that >    delete of

100  para.3 line 11:   < Ex.2.13e >   not c

102  last line:   < bar 4 to bar 5 >   omit ‘the middle of’

108  Ex.3.7, bar 16: move flat sign from B to A.

113  Ex.3.9, bar 17: third note d natural

123  para.1 line 5:   < whole sheet of paper >

–     para.3 line 2:   < a sheet (‘Bogen’), >

131  Ex.3.13 bar 16:   < 7#/4/2h >   add h to 2

135  para.2 line 2:   < eighth note >   delete hyphen

137  para.2 line 4:   < implied long-held >   delete first long

146  para.3, 4th last line:   < into bar 45 >   not 44

148 The first printing of NBArev Vol.3 (2014) has an amazing wrong note in the initial statement of the C major subject.

153  I am grateful to Pieter Dirksen for pointing to another use of these materials in Anthoni van Noordt’s Tabulatuur-Boeck van Psalmen en Fantasyen (Amsterdam 1659) Fantasia, pp.48-50 (facsimile Stuttgart: Cornetto-Verlag, 2005); see also Willi Apel, The History of Keyboard Music to 1700 (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1972) p.767.  As Dirksen points out, Van Noordt’s 6 Fantasias are the closest approximation to the Bachian fugue from before c. 1690.

169  Ex.3.26 bar 9:   organ RH, seventh note = g” (not f#”)

170  para.2:  The loure ‘Aimable vainqueur’ is a one-off example of the dance with its own special choreography.  For the character and steps of the usual loure see Wendy Hilton, Dance and Music of Court and Theater (Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1997), pp.406-10, 437-46.

–     fifth last line:   < 1708 >

179  line 2:   < Prelude. The >   add full stop

–     Ex.4.2b bar 1:  top note b, not g

184  para.2 line 2:   < than accurate >   not that

192  Sarabande: The Gavotte of Demachy’s G major suite begins with the same  IV7 effect as the Gavottes of the E major violin Partia and the D major cello Suite.

203  last para. line 1:   < order in which >   omit first Bach

210  fifth last line:   < separate >   delete d

215  seventh last line:   delete dot after quarter note in notation example

217  line 9:   better < since both are in the same pitch range >

219  para.2 third last line:  In the Allemande bar 25 Dörffel in BG gives the bass note as Bb, but all the eighteenth-century sources have G. It may look as if the 9th chord should be a dominant minor 9th, in which case the sixth note of the bar should be B natural. This cannot be Bach’s intention, however, since the autograph lute version (BWV 995, in G minor) has a full chord d f a c’ e’flat (with f natural, not f sharp). I think the best way to hear this chord is as an incidental dissonance, a dominant 7th on B flat, with a ‘passing’ G in the bass, i.e. as if the bass were arpeggiating a triad shape, with an implied B flat in the second half of bar 24, G in the first half of bar 25, and an implied E flat in the second half. This seems to me more convincing than a mediant 9th.

220  para.2 line 2:  delete dot after first quarter note (cf. p.215)

–      line 3:  for bar 20 read bar 19

221  para.2, eighth last line:   add endnote after the full stop:  < There is always a difficulty in talking analytically about works where there is no primarily authoritative source; the bass note Eb in bar 3 is in Kellner, the other eighteenth-century sources have C; players must decide whether they prefer the progressive bass, or the drone effect. Bach’s autograph lute arrangement BWV 995 has the equivalent of Eb. >

–     third last line:   < only 6/4-time bars >

223  para.2 line 3:   < eighth notes >   no hyphen

231  last para. line 2:   < pointer than the >   not that

232  last line:   < bars 83–4 >   not 84–5

236  para.2:  Many editions reprint the refrain once at the end; the 18c sources have a segno at bar 20 instead, which probably means that the refrain should have its repeat again, giving the usual 4 + 4 pattern of a French rondeau refrain.

238  For a possible further suite for lute/Lautenwerk see Pieter Dirksen, ‘Überlegungen zu Bachs Suite f-Moll BWV 823’, Bachs Musik für Tasteninstrumente, ed. M. Geck (Dortmund: Klangfarben-Musikverlag, 2003) pp.119–31.

240  para.1:   A lute by J.C. Hoffmann, converted to 14 courses in 1732, is illustrated in Andreas Schlegel and Joachim Lüdtke, The Lute in Europe 2 (CH Menziken: The Lute Corner, 2/2011) pp.202-3.

243  Ex.5.2 bar 13 second beat, third sixteenth eh’ (not d’); bar 25 move mordant sign # to the left (for this sign and the words Mordant, Bebung etc. see Moens-Haenen 1988 pp.51–5)

245  para.1 lines 4-5:   The identification of the hand that wrote ‘aufs Lauten Werck’ as that of J.T. Krebs was made in Schulze 1975 p.V, though without supplying the supporting evidence. The evidence is an autograph organ report of 1733 by Krebs in which certain idiosyncrasies of handwriting are shared with the phrase in P 801. I am very grateful to Professor Schulze for providing me with photocopies of both examples of the hand and explaining his analysis.  The Wiemer source is now in D-B.

248  Ex.5.5 last chord:   delete BB

250  line 1:   < its main >   delete apostrophe

–     para.1, 4th last line:   < principle >

253  running heading:   < C minor>   not E

255  running heading:   < C minor>

256  last para.:   The general point about second tonic expositions in relation to Vivaldi’s Op.3 is valid, and explains seeming anomalies in, for example, the G minor organ Fugue BWV 542/2 and the G major Fugue from Book I of The Well-tempered Clavier.  In the case of BWV 997 it would probably be better to consider the tonic entry at bar 17 as the third entry of the exposition, with an exceptionally extended codetta before it due to the importance of the inganno motif in the original material.  The entries are therefore: bar 1 alto, bar 7 cantus, bar 17 bass.

257  running heading:   < C minor>

–     para.3 line 9:   < 98–104…83–7 >

–     line 10:   < 93–7 >

259  para.3 line 2:   On 13 July 2016 the autograph MS of BWV 998 was sold at auction at Christie’s, London, to a private buyer for £2,518,500 (information and a partial facsimile at Bach digital).

261  last para. line 9:   < bar 11 >   not 13

264  para.2 line 12:   < bars 17-32 >   not 33

273 Winfried Michel, ‘“Ein Ton”. Das “fis” im zwanzigsten Takt von Bachs Flötenpartita’, Travers & Controvers. Festschrift für Nikolaus Delius, ed. M. Nastasi (Celle: Edition Moeck, 1992) pp.67–87, argues convincingly that the f#’ in bar 20 of the Allemande is a copyist’s error for e’ (the copyist originally wrote f’ in error, to which some well-intentioned person later added a sharp).  Accordingly, Ex.6.1 bar 20 should have a whole-note e.

276 para.2, fourth last line:   < bar 2, an expressive >   delete d

–     para.2, third last line:   < is to the d” >   add to

–     para.3 line 2:   < conventional move up into bar 6 >

292 bar 8, first chord:   bottom note a’ not g#’

302 n.58: add   < The suites may be a sequel to a reported Erstes Dutzend Allemanden, Couranten, Sarabanden und Giguen Violino Solo sonder Passo Continuo (Dresden, 1682),  now lost (see the work list in New Grove 2, ‘Westhoff, Johann Paul von’. >

304 n.116:   < 1732; early >   delete space after 1732

305 n.157: add   < An inventory taken in 1708, after the death of Duke Johann Ernst II, lists 5 lutes, 2 theorboed lutes, 1 angélique and 1 theorbo among the court’s instruments at the time of Bach’s arrival in Weimar (see Christian Ahrens, ‘Johann Sebastian Bach und die Theorbe’, Bach-Jahrbuch (2008) p.333). >

306 n.161:   < time in Rome, see Sardelli 2007 p.4 >

–     n.165:   < 116–17); Vivaldi’s >   add semi-colon

–     n.171 line 2:   < Raspé >   with accent

307 n.18 line 2:   add dot to eighth note

–     n.34: for details of a possible Le Roux connection, and of other possible influences in Bach’s unaccompanied works, see John Lutterman, ‘”Cet art est la perfection du talent”. Chordal thoroughbass realization and improvised solo performance on the viol and the cello in the eighteenth century’, Beyond Notes. Improvisation in Western Music of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, ed. R. Rasch (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011) 118-28.

309 n.44 line 1:   < in the second >   add the

310 n.83 line 2:   < 1708 >

311 n.102: The version in the Dardanus Chaconne is major; the minor version is in Les Songes that opens Act IV.

312 n.123: The proposal that this is a Bach autograph has been questioned, see Martin Staehelin, ‘Beweis oder Vermutung? Zur Publikation der Bach zugeschriebenen Weimarer Tabulatur-blätter’, Die Musikforschung lxi (2008) 319–29.; with ‘Replik’ by Michael Maul and Peter Wollny, lxii/1 (2009) 37; and Staehelin ‘Duplik’, lxii/2 (2009) 150–1.

313 header:   < 162–178 >

–    n.147 line 3:   < 1708 >

317 n.49 last line:   30 ½     32 ½

318 n.49: add < b.48 last note down >

–    c” is a mistake in NBA; Agricola etc. and BG have d” (in Ferguson d’)

321 hexachord, second last line:   < shape) or >   replace semi-colon with bracket

323 1. Manuscript music sources. [Various German:   < Raspé > with accent

327 Brossard:   < 3/1708 >   not 1705

331 add Dreyfus, Laurence, ‘The metaphorical soloist: concerted organ parts in Bach’s cantatas’, Early Music xii/2 (5/1985) 237–47, reprinted in Stauffer and May 1986 pp.172–89

–    Fanselau:   <Clemens >   e not a

337 add < Soderlund, Sandra, ‘Bach and Grave’, The Organist as Scholar: Essays in Honor of Russell Saunders, ed. K.J. Snyder (Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1994) 77–81 >

–    Stinson line 4:   < 1989 >   not 1990

343 Buxtehude:   < Dieterich >   add e