K Miehling Early Music 2000 Bach Tempo Sherman

7/24/2019 K Miehling Early Music 2000 Bach Tempo Sherman

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/k-miehling-early-music-2000-bach-tempo-sherman 1/4

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Early Music.

http://www.jstor.org

xford University Press

Bach's Notation of TempoAuthor(s): Klaus Miehling and Bernard ShermanSource: Early Music, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Feb., 2001), pp. 153-155Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3519107

Accessed: 10-10-2015 22:34 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 90.48.146.145 on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:34:35 UTC

http://www.jstor.org/

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3519107

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp




http://www.jstor.org/stable/3519107

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/



Correspondence

Bach's

notation

of

tempo

Bernard

D.

Sherman's

article 'Bach's

notation

of

tempo

and

early

music

performance:

some

reconsiderations'

(EM, xxvii/3

(Aug

2000),

pp.454-66)

contains

interesting

observationson tempo practicewith traditionaland-as

he calls

it-historically

informed

performance

(HIP)

players,

and

gives

us

a

lot

to reflect on the difficult

ques-

tion of

Bach's

tempos.

I

can't

share

his

opinion,

however,

that the mentioned

examples

of

HIP

tempos

are 'less historical than

slower

pre-HIP tempos'

(p.455).

The

range

of common time

tempo

ordinario

of MM

80

with some

margin

(MM 65-95,

as

Sherman

suggests)

seems

to me all

right.

But

is

every

piece

in

e

without a

tempo

indication

such a

tempo

ordinario

piece?

In

spite

of

Sherman's rather

generous margin

there is at least one

example

that

proves

the

opposite:

Heinichen's Laetatus

sum

a3

should be

such a kind of

tempo

ordinario

piece,

but its duration

of

'4

min.'

leads

to

MM

106,

being

more

a slowish

Allegro

han a

tempo

ordinario.'

And as to Bach:

many

of

his

concerto

opening

movements

have

no

tempo

indication-I don't

think

that could mean a

tempo

ordi-

nario,

but

an

Allegro,

ince

it was

clear

to the

performers,

that a concerto

with three movements

starts with a fast

one.

Also to me the

movements that

are unmarked

n

one

version

and

Allegro

n

an other don't

mean different em-

pos.

There s

such

a lot of

proof

in

contemporarywritings

that the 'true

movement'

of

a

piece

is of

the

highest

importance

for

its character-it seems

hardly

believable

that,

for

example,

the first movement

of the violin con-

certo in

E

major

(Allegro)

s

fast,

but

the 'same'

in

the

D

major

version for

harpsichord

would

be a

remarkably

slower

tempo

ordinario.Since

both versions are

marked

?,

not

c,

one

may

argue

that

a

tempo

ordinario

n

?

would

match with an

Allegro

n

c,

so

the indication

in the violin

version

is redundant.

But,

of

course,

there are similar

concerto movements

having

c,

and without

a

tempo

indi-

cation.

Also Bach's turbae

are fast

in

my

opinion.

Here it is the

affect of the text that makes the tempo clear to the per-

formers.

Already

Praetorius,

n

a time when the

tactus,

or

call it

tempo

ordinario

principle,

was more

topical

than in

Bach's

days,

wrote:

'Es kan aber

ein

jeder

den Sachen

selbstennachdencken

vnd

ex

consideratione

extus

& Harmoniae

observieren,

wo

ein

langsamer

oder

geschwinder

act

gehalten

werden

miisse.'

'But

every-

body

can reflect

on

the

things

himself,

and observe

by

considering

the text and

the

harmony,

where

a slow or

fast beat should

be

taken.')'

The

next

point

is

the

question

of

triple

time

tempo

ordinario-'a point of significance o this article',as Sher-

man

says (p.456).

Without

quoting contemporary

evid-

ence

he

suggests

for

3/4

the

same crotchet

speed

as for

c.

This

precondition

leads him to criticize

HIP

tempos

of

'Ach,

mein

Sinn'

(St

John

Passion)

and of the

'Cruxifixus'

(in 3/2,

B

minor

Mass)

as too fast.

First let us consider that the ear

can

divide

c

time

always

into

units

of

two

crotchets,

while

3/4

time has

three crotchets

as its

smallest

perceptible

unit. So if we

want

to

have

comparabletempo

units,

the

3/4

has

to

be

50

per

cent

faster,

leading

to an

ordinario

range

of MM

97.5

to

142.5 (with

Sherman's

generous margin).

Also

in

Renaissance and

early

Baroque

music this

sesquialtera

proportion

seems to be

the

most used between common

and

triple

time.

Again,

if

we look at Heinichen's

tempos-the only

ones

we

know

from

Germany

n Bach's

lifetime-we see

that

he

tends to

have

the

beat faster

n

triple

than

in

com-

mon time.

I

must

admit, however,

that

there

is no

pair

that

would be

perfectly

comparable

as to

tempo

indica-

tion

and

note values.

Fuhrmann,

eventually

quoted

by

Sherman,

says

of

the

Tripla

minima

=

3/4

measure:

gehet hurtig'

('goes

fast')3

and

postulates

that the 'kleinen

Tripel' (including 3/4)

should

be used

in

Pieces

'so

eine

geschwinde Bewegung

erfordern'

'that

require

a fast

movement').

Finally,

look at

Quantz:

MM

80,

which to

him

is an

Allegretto

n

c,

becomes

Adagio

cantabile

n

3/4

That

is

even

twice as

fast

as his

Adagio

cantabile

n

c.4

So

there is

plenty

of evidencethat

3/4

is

normally

aster

than

c:

by

50

per

cent or even loo

per

cent.

Therefore,

he

listed

HIP

tempos

for

'Ach,

mein Sinn' with

MM

96-115

are a ratherslow

tempo

ordinario,

while the MM

77

or

90

in

traditional

recordings,

preferred

by

Sherman,

are

about

the

range

of

Adagio

cantabile

Whetherthis

piece

is

a sarabande-well, thereare elementsthat would fit, but

others don't: for

example

the

plain

whole bar note in

all

parts

in

bar

2;

and the continuo

players

would

in

the

first

bars think rather of a

passacaille,

which has

in

France

almost

exactly

the

range

of

the

mentioned HIP

tempos

(being

slower

than

the chaconne-for Mattheson and

Quantz,

as

we

know,

the

passacaille

s even

faster).

EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY

2001

153

This content downloaded from 90.48.146.145 on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:34:35 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions





Sherman does

not

say

which

tempo

he would

prefer

for the 'Cruxificus'. But

it is clear

that,

for

example,

Harnoncourt's

MM

77 ('studio

speed

record')

seems

to

him too fast.

Well,

as was

said

before,

this is a

Quantz

Adagio

cantabile

(he

does

not discern between

3/4

and

3/2).

And

as

we

found

that it is natural for

3/4

to

be

in

sesquialtera

o

c,

it seems

plausible

that

3/2,

traditionally

slower, keeps the ordinariobeat at MM 65-95. Harnon-

court's

referring

to

the

passacaglia

s

correct as

to the

composing

technique

over

a basso

ostinato,

but not as to

the

kind of Air du

caractare,

which

would

be

remarkably

faster.

Now

I

come to the

significance

of Andante.Sherman

s

not

quite

correct

in

saying

that

Quantz

like Fuhrmann

'categorizes

Andante

among

the slow

tempo markings'

(p.460).

The

only

Andante

Quantz

mentions

is

Poco

Andante,

corresponding

to

Adagio

cantabile. So

if

Poco

Andante

s

slow,

then

Andantewould be faster.

(Compare

the Andante

un

poco

from Bach's Sonata

in A

major

for

violin and

harpsichord

with a

'walking

bass' in semi-

quavers.)

I

agree

with Sherman

that for

c

MM

60 is

a

'middle'

Andante

tempo;

however,

Quantz

fails

to

men-

tion it.

But is

this

also an

adequate

empo

for

the Prelude

n

B

minor from The

well-tempered

lavier,

book

i,

as

Sherman

implies (p.

460)? (At

least

he

calls

the

average

MM

70

of

modern

pianists

having

'more historical

support'

than

the

faster

nterpretations.)

Quantz

makes

very

clear

that the note values indicate

the

type

of

movement.

The

Allabreve

s twice as fast as the

ordinary

common time

('gemeinergeraderTact'),

and the

note values are

consequently

doubled.5Of course,

Quantz

demands that

?

should be

used with the

Allabreve,

but

obviously

most

composers

do not follow

him-look at

Handel. Take

also Heinichen's 'Credidi

propter quod

locutus sum' with

c,

without a

tempo

indication and

minim

( )

MM

142,

or

better:

MM

71

for the

semibreve,

since crotchets are

the

fastestnotes.6

The use of

c

in

even

this

kind

of Allabreve s

admitted

by

Heinichen

in his

'General-Bass

n

der

Composition'.7

So the

B

minor Prelude is

de

facto

an Allabreve

n

Quantz's

sense,

and

the beat should be

on

the

minim.

Lastly I should like to object to Sherman's attitude

towards

the

performers

with

whom he

starts,

closes

and

garnishes

his article. Are there

really 'surprisingly

wide'

limits for one and the same

piece,

as

Donington

claims

(Sherman,

p.464)?

I count no fewer than 18 statements

of

17th-

and

18th-century

uthors

pointing

to the

importance

of

the

correct

tempo

for a certain

piece

of

music,

many

of

them

using

the

notion of the

'true',

'appropriate'

empo,

intended

by

the

composer.

So,

although

performers

may

disagree

about

what

the true

tempo

of

a certain

piece

is,

there s one.

KLAUS MIEHLING

Freiburg

m

Breisgau

Notes

1 On alltheexamples yHeinichenmentioned, ee

K.

Miehling, Autographe

uffihrungsdauerangaben

n

der

Kirchenmusik

on

J.

D. Heinichen.

Ein

vorliufiger

Bericht',

Musik

und

Kirche,

v

(1993),

pp.266-76.

2

Michael

Praetorius,

yntagmatis

usici omus ertius

(Wolfenbiittel,

1619;

R/Kassel, 1978),

p.51.

3

Heinrich:

Fuhrmann,

Musicalischer-Trichter

Frankfurt

n

der

Spree,

1706),

p.48.

4

JohannJoachim

Quantz,

Versuchiner

Anweisung

ie

Flite

traversiere

u

spielen

(Berlin,

1752;

R/Kassel,

1983),

pp.264f.

5

Quantz,

Versuch,

p.263.

6 In

my

above-mentioned

rticle

here

s

a

misprint:

or

'5

min.'

read

'3

min.'

(p.268).

7

Johann

David

Heinichen,

Der General-Bassn der

Compo-

sition

(Dresden, 1728;

R/Hildesheim,

1969),

P-332.

BernardSherman

eplies:

Dr

Miehling's

comments

are of

great

value and reveal

impressive

knowledge.

But I am not

sure that

they

dis-

prove my

basic assertions.

1

Regarding

c,

my

viewpoint

is

less

sweeping

than the

one Dr

Miehling

imputes

to me.

('is

every

piece

in

ewith-

out a

tempo

indication

such an

tempo

ordinario

iece?'

he

asks.

Clearly

not,

and not

even

I

have

said

it

was.)

I

would

state

my position

thus:

when we

have

a

carefully

notated

source

(e.g.

a

complete

set

of

autograph parts),

we

can

usually

assume that

if Bach

wanted a

tempo

that felt

extremely

fast

or

slow he would not

have marked it

merely

with the

c

signature.

To

him,

e-in

the absence of

certain

modifying

factors-indicated a

tempo

that felt

more or less ordinary.

Dr

Miehling's

counterexamples

do not

seem to

me

fatal to that

position.

As he

notes,

for

example,

the

use

of

?

in

the

E

major

concerto would be

enough,

by my argu-

ments,

to indicate an

Allegro

empo.

(I

have

not

yet

found

other Bach concertos that

clearly

disprove

my

position.

It

might

also be worth

raising, parenthetically,

Robert

154

EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY

2001






Marshall's

rgument

hat

in

Bach he

tempo

rdinarios

an

Allegro,

ather han

something

remarkably

lower'.

am not surewhere standon

this,

but

Marshall'sase s

not

easily

dismissed.)

2 As for

Dr

Miehling's

more

general oint,

I

am surehe

is

right

hatsome

pieces

n

c

were

played

boveor below

the metronome angeI posited.Butsuchexamples o

not

necessarily

isprovemy

basic dea.

For

one

thing,

f I

could write

my

article

again,

would

statemore

clearly

that 'ordinariness' as defined

by feeling

rather han

numbers.Thusthe Heinichen

xample

does not violate

the

gist

of

my

assertion.

he

MM

hat

Miehling ives

or

Heinichen's aetatusum

might

still

'feel'

ordinary

this

would

especially

e so

if

'4

minutes'

was an

approxima-

tion

of,

say,

'4:15')

3

Further,

mentioned

enre,

nd

agree

hat t wasa crit-

ical ndicator f

tempo,

and that t

might

at times

mply

faster r slower

empos

han he otherwise

rdinary

ange

for the

signature.

Dr

Miehlingmay

or

may

not be

right

that the turbae

enre

was

played

well

abovethe

tempo

ordinariovenwhenmarked

nly

c;

but

I

brought

p

this

genreonly

to

suggest

hat t

is

not as

conclusive coun-

terexample

s

may

seem

apparent.

s

for

the Praetorius

quote,

my

position

wasthatwhile he

degree

f the 'slow

or fastbeat'varied

widely

as a resultof

such nfluences s

texts

and

affects,

t

normally

ad

outside

imits

placed

on

it

by

the time

signature

and

otherelements

f

notation).

4 I agree

hat

Andante

was a

complicated

east,

and the

termwas used

n

morethanone

way.

WhileI am confi-

dent about he moderate

peed

of the

'Et

n

unum'and

Prelude

n B

minor,

I

agree

that some

contemporary

Andante movementsmoved

differently.

hope

that

futurediscussionwill

explore

his

question

urther;

Dr

Miehling's

orkwill no doubt

be

important

o

it.

My

referenceo Andante

n

Quantz

was

parenthetical,

not at all central o

my

argument.

Were

I

to rewrite he

article would not make the

reference,

artly

because

Quantz

s

not

immediately

elevant

vidence

egarding

Bachian

practice

no matterhow one

readshim.

I

still

hold that more relevant sources (e.g. Walther and

Fuhrmann)

uggest

that

Andante

ndicated

a

slower-

than-ordinary

empo

n

Bach.

Heinichen, oo,

is not

necessarily guide

to Bach's

conventions.t

may

be relevanthatHeinichen

egarded

the distinction etween and

?

as old-fashioned. o did

some Bach

pupils,e.g.

Altnickol;

ut

the evidence

ug-

gests

that Bach

himself

still

considered the distinction

meaningful.

(He

was,

for

example, likely

to use

C

n Alla

brevemovements

that Altnickol

copied

in

c.)

This

is

part

of

why

I

disagree

with

Miehling's

position

regarding

he

tempo

of

Bach's

B

Minor Prelude

n

the first

book.

5

I

described

he sarabande eference

n

'Ach,

mein

Sinn'

as 'possible',and I still think so; I would applythe same

adjective

to

Miehling's passacaille

reference. But neither

possibility,

even

if

proven,

would have conclusive

impli-

cations

for

tempo.

(Thus

my

brief

reference o the

sara-

bande was

of

arguable

relevance,

hough

perhaps

of inter-

est.)

As

for

the

'Crucifixus',

did

present

evidence for

its

having

a

slow

tempo.

6

Regarding

riple

metre,

I

agree

that

many

theorists

say

that

3/4

is faster

than

c;

but

I

believe

they

are

referring

o

3/4

whose fastest

prevalent

note

is

no smaller

than

the

quaver.

I

do not

think

these theorists' statements

apply

to

Bach's

ypical

3/4

movements

(nor,

I would

argue

on sev-

eral

grounds,

does

the

sesquialtera

roportion,

although

t

is relevant

o much

17th-century

otation).

I

hope

to dis-

cuss the crotchet

beat

in

3/4

and

c

in

the

future;

in

any

event,

my

view

on

it

has been

proposed

before,

e.g. by

Marshall.

I

remain

convinced about

the

examples

I

gave

in

my

article,

but

I

agree

that

triple-time

tempo

is a com-

plicated

matter

and that furtherdiscussion is

needed.

7

Finally,my

difference

with

Dr

Miehling

regarding

per-

formers is

philosophical

rather than

historical.

I

did

not

assert that Bach

or

his

contemporaries

ook

a

wide

range

of

tempos

in a

given

movement,

or that

they

would

have

approved

of such

a

range;

one cannot know. Yet

I

uphold

the

prerogatives

of modern

performers

n these matters

regardless.

Even

when

the

composer

precisely

notates

a

tempo using

a

metronome or

stopwatch

(or

we

have

spe-

cific evidence of

the

tempo

the

composer

used when

per-

forming

a

piece),

I

do not

object

to

performers

taking

very

different

tempos.

A

novel or unhistorical

empo

can

sometimes be

an

element of an

inspired performance.

One thinks of the best

work of

Schnabeland

Furtwingler.

I

do,

however,

consider it valuableto learn all

one

can

about the composer's performance preferences,even if

one chooses to

disregard

them when

performing.

Dis-

cerning

Bach's

tempo preferences

s indeed difficult.

If

my

article

encourages

discussion

of this

complex

issue-

and if the current

exchangebrings

attention to

Miehling's

own fine

writings

on

Baroque

tempo-it

will

have

done

some

good.

EARLY

MUSIC

FEBRUARY 2001

155




K Miehling Early Music 2000 Bach Tempo Sherman

Documents

Transcript of K Miehling Early Music 2000 Bach Tempo Sherman