Thank you for this. When Bach does write out elaborate passages that are ornamental in nature more so than his contemporaries, is he being prescriptive or are these compositions simultaneously didactic, where he shows one possible way of embellishing a line but ultimately permits alternatives? How authoritative is CPE Bach's book on interpretating his father's ornamentation practice, for example, that the appoggiatura must always start on the beat?
Thanks for this. If I understand correctly, Bach's music, (and for that matter most Baroque music, Mozart, Chopin...) is highly flexible with not only ornamentation, but with notes as well. The different versions of the second book of the Well-Tempered Clavier, for example, have several passages with different lines altogether- see the E major pair for starters. But certainly one of the main differences between copies will be its ornaments- the E-flat Sinfonia, BWV 791, i.e., you'll find the NBA prints at least three versions of the right hand part with completely different ornaments. I believe this implies taste triumphs over prescription.
As for CPE, his book is one of the best we have. As for 'always,' there might never be an 'always,' but I'm comfortable in saying that, in Bach, the appoggiatura 'almost always' starts on the beat.
Thanks for your reply. In what situation would an exception arise? For example, in certain places in the Goldberg variations, an appoggiatura on the beat would result in parallel intervals. Is that reason enough?
Hi Theobald, thanks for your question. In short, no, I don't think that's a good reason. This topic might even deserve its own episode, but allow me to try to get into it. Rules become RULES because people see patterns in many examples, but no rule ever begins as a RULE. All "rules" come from good taste. Once one has played thousands of appoggiaturas, one will sense why it is better to begin on the beat. It will be instinctive and not because somebody told you.
As for parallels: Parallel intervals, too, are not a RULE. Check my instagram where I've posted several examples of parallel fifths- one even from the Goldbergs. Parallel octaves occur in several famous passages and indirect fifths are abounding. There is even a wonderful article on where Bach uses parallel fifths in the chorales (!) implying that even in the most exposed voice leading, no rule is a RULE.
Rules aside, the appoggiatura itself is typically dissonance that is resolved, so one could permit to rethink our notions of consonance/dissonance in its execution. That may in fact be the point of the appoggiatura.
Bottom line: never decide on an ornament -or most anything in Bach for that matter- because of RULES, but be guided by good taste which rules (!) all. The only way to do that is to play every single piece you come across, especially those which are not well known. Most people tend to focus on the mature Bach but really digging into his earliest work provides us with an invaluable education which informs all other compositions.
You might also check out what Robert Hill said about looking for exceptions to rules: I believe we were speaking of the sixth fugue from The Art of Fugue.
Dear Evan, I absolutely agree with you that musical conventions (perhaps that's a more suitable word than "rules") should not be treated as a priori truth, and that every such thing exists to serve the music, not the other way around. As the great Charles Rosen said, "nothing disconcerts a composer more than an exact but lifeless performance of the notes".
That being said, what one considers "good taste" is simply conventions which have not gone through the rigor of codification. It is an adaptive-regressive process exactly the same as what ends up in the rule books. If we indeed go through this process - playing through thousands of examples, as you say, presumably also getting feedback on them - then "good taste" and "conventions/rules" become practically synonymous.
The issue here, though, is that we do not live in Bach's time, which makes the feedback loop tricky, and the only things we do have to go by are what had been written down. On that front, styles and opinions varied drastically across regions. As far as ornamentation goes, the German speaking lands were influenced by both the Italian and French traditions, which further complicates things, as I'm sure you know. Even within the same court, people could not always agree - CPE and Quantz, for example, treats the Nachschlag quite differently in their respective treatises. All of this leaves "good taste" a risky concept to hide behind, especially for the lesser practitioners among us.
Still, the main point of my question is, Bach elaborately wrote out many ornamental passages that probably would have been left as simple melodic sketches in, say, Telemann's hands. This suggests to me that he was particular about how he liked things done (please correct me if that's the wrong interpretation.) If that is the case, wouldn't he only write the most uncontroversial things in shorthand? Why would he have left such important decisions as picking a side between voice leading and ornamentation (most when prompted would probably go with voice leading) to the mere performer, and when would one ever feel worthy to be calling such shots?
Dear Theobald, I don't think I can guide you further! You'll have to take a look at various versions of the same piece and see the subtle differences between the ornaments. Try the Aria BWV988 as it appears in the AMB 1725 notebook and the sinfonias. Best of luck!
Pas de souci, dear Evan! Thank you for this dynamic discussion and I hope you will check out my writings and leave your thoughts. Look forward to the next post of yours.
Thank you for this. When Bach does write out elaborate passages that are ornamental in nature more so than his contemporaries, is he being prescriptive or are these compositions simultaneously didactic, where he shows one possible way of embellishing a line but ultimately permits alternatives? How authoritative is CPE Bach's book on interpretating his father's ornamentation practice, for example, that the appoggiatura must always start on the beat?
Thanks for this. If I understand correctly, Bach's music, (and for that matter most Baroque music, Mozart, Chopin...) is highly flexible with not only ornamentation, but with notes as well. The different versions of the second book of the Well-Tempered Clavier, for example, have several passages with different lines altogether- see the E major pair for starters. But certainly one of the main differences between copies will be its ornaments- the E-flat Sinfonia, BWV 791, i.e., you'll find the NBA prints at least three versions of the right hand part with completely different ornaments. I believe this implies taste triumphs over prescription.
As for CPE, his book is one of the best we have. As for 'always,' there might never be an 'always,' but I'm comfortable in saying that, in Bach, the appoggiatura 'almost always' starts on the beat.
Thanks for your reply. In what situation would an exception arise? For example, in certain places in the Goldberg variations, an appoggiatura on the beat would result in parallel intervals. Is that reason enough?
Hi Theobald, thanks for your question. In short, no, I don't think that's a good reason. This topic might even deserve its own episode, but allow me to try to get into it. Rules become RULES because people see patterns in many examples, but no rule ever begins as a RULE. All "rules" come from good taste. Once one has played thousands of appoggiaturas, one will sense why it is better to begin on the beat. It will be instinctive and not because somebody told you.
As for parallels: Parallel intervals, too, are not a RULE. Check my instagram where I've posted several examples of parallel fifths- one even from the Goldbergs. Parallel octaves occur in several famous passages and indirect fifths are abounding. There is even a wonderful article on where Bach uses parallel fifths in the chorales (!) implying that even in the most exposed voice leading, no rule is a RULE.
Rules aside, the appoggiatura itself is typically dissonance that is resolved, so one could permit to rethink our notions of consonance/dissonance in its execution. That may in fact be the point of the appoggiatura.
Bottom line: never decide on an ornament -or most anything in Bach for that matter- because of RULES, but be guided by good taste which rules (!) all. The only way to do that is to play every single piece you come across, especially those which are not well known. Most people tend to focus on the mature Bach but really digging into his earliest work provides us with an invaluable education which informs all other compositions.
You might also check out what Robert Hill said about looking for exceptions to rules: I believe we were speaking of the sixth fugue from The Art of Fugue.
I hope this helps!
Dear Evan, I absolutely agree with you that musical conventions (perhaps that's a more suitable word than "rules") should not be treated as a priori truth, and that every such thing exists to serve the music, not the other way around. As the great Charles Rosen said, "nothing disconcerts a composer more than an exact but lifeless performance of the notes".
That being said, what one considers "good taste" is simply conventions which have not gone through the rigor of codification. It is an adaptive-regressive process exactly the same as what ends up in the rule books. If we indeed go through this process - playing through thousands of examples, as you say, presumably also getting feedback on them - then "good taste" and "conventions/rules" become practically synonymous.
The issue here, though, is that we do not live in Bach's time, which makes the feedback loop tricky, and the only things we do have to go by are what had been written down. On that front, styles and opinions varied drastically across regions. As far as ornamentation goes, the German speaking lands were influenced by both the Italian and French traditions, which further complicates things, as I'm sure you know. Even within the same court, people could not always agree - CPE and Quantz, for example, treats the Nachschlag quite differently in their respective treatises. All of this leaves "good taste" a risky concept to hide behind, especially for the lesser practitioners among us.
Still, the main point of my question is, Bach elaborately wrote out many ornamental passages that probably would have been left as simple melodic sketches in, say, Telemann's hands. This suggests to me that he was particular about how he liked things done (please correct me if that's the wrong interpretation.) If that is the case, wouldn't he only write the most uncontroversial things in shorthand? Why would he have left such important decisions as picking a side between voice leading and ornamentation (most when prompted would probably go with voice leading) to the mere performer, and when would one ever feel worthy to be calling such shots?
Dear Theobald, I don't think I can guide you further! You'll have to take a look at various versions of the same piece and see the subtle differences between the ornaments. Try the Aria BWV988 as it appears in the AMB 1725 notebook and the sinfonias. Best of luck!
Pas de souci, dear Evan! Thank you for this dynamic discussion and I hope you will check out my writings and leave your thoughts. Look forward to the next post of yours.
- TR