The Radio 3 Boards Forum from myforum365.com
05:52:24, 02-12-2008 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Whilst we happily welcome all genuine applications to our forum, there may be times when we need to suspend registration temporarily, for example when suffering attacks of spam.
 If you want to join us but find that the temporary suspension has been activated, please try again later.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

The Radio 3 Boards > The Music Boards > Music Through The Ages > Baroque Music > Bach's E-minor Gigue
Pages: [1] 2 3
« previous next »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bach's E-minor Gigue  (Read 1060 times)
Baz
Guest
« on: 00:05:15, 22-11-2007 »
Quote from: Sydney Grew on 17:20:18, 21-11-2007
Quote from: Ena on 20:17:34, 18-11-2007
. . . the last movement of Bach's Keyboard Partita in E Minor BVW 830.

It is marked "Gigue", but in the later version has a time signature of a full circle with a stroke. In the early version (found in the Anna Magdalena Notebook of 1725) it has a Cut-C signature. In both, the music proceeds in semiquavers (grouped in 4s) together with paired quavers, and dotted-quaver/semiquaver figures. At times there are pairs of demisemiquavers embedded in the groups, replacing straight semiquavers.

It is completely incomprehensible!

This is because it doesn't follow the "expected" Gigue rhythm and style. Even if the dotted-quaver/semiquaver pairs are performed as triplets (which one might suppose them to be in the first phrase), there is then no logical way thereafter of fitting the surrounding rhythms around this.

I can't explain it, and continue to wonder what Bach meant by it.
Those Partitas are full of Bach's numerology at its most rampant are they not.

Here for the benefit of Members who do not know the score are two extracts from the curious Gigue with which the Sixth Partita B.W.V. 830 ends, so well described was it not by Madam Ena.



The time signature, consisting of a circle with a vertical line drawn through it, is described somewhere as "The Great Alla Breve." Here it means 4/2 but in the olden days its significance we are told was something rather different - some sort of triple time and we await a specialist who might tell us more.

Now Madam is worried because she can neither see nor hear any triplets. It is true that the admirable Percy Scholes describes the jig in general as "moving along in a merry limp." But he adds that Bach not once but several times gave the name to pieces with 2 or 4 beats. We suppose do we not that Bach here had in mind not so much the limping as the leaping. It was four hops to one of his bars he wanted in this case, that is clear, and within each hop he has two or four beats instead of three. Well! That is no worse than Chaiceffscy and his waltz in quintuple time.

Even to-day if one ventures into one or two nondescript little bars in the back streets of Antwerp or Brussels one may all of a sudden come upon a scrum of twenty or thirty usually fat Flemings ardently bouncing up and down together in a kind of block or pack. This sort of dancing (which we have not encountered elsewhere) is the essence of one kind of jig is it not? They do not mind, as we said, whether there are three or four beats to the hop.

We have listened to Leonhardt's performance of this movement, but he does not play the repeats, and he is rather too slow. He does not conform with our vision of those strenuously bouncing Flemings.

Besides Leonhardt's we have listened to the work played on the piano in four different recordings. The best version is very much faster, but rather regrettably we did not make a note of the player's name.

Does not this Gigue somehow put us be it ever so slightly in mind of Beethoven's Grosse Fugue?

Incidentally we do hope that Madam Ena will soon see her way clear to a return; Mrs. Bucket for instance might might she not offer an appropriate new persona . . . ?


It is interesting also to see the version Bach left in the Anna Magdalena Notebook, which uses a cut-C time signature, and halves the notation. Assuming the piece is still the same piece, does this shed any light upon the way it should be performed?



Baz
Logged
rauschwerk
***
Posts: 117
« Reply #1 on: 08:14:08, 22-11-2007 »
I went on a course about Clav 1-3 given by Dr David Ponsford of the Univ of Wales. My rather brief notes say that there are two ways of looking at this problem: (i) play the piece as written (as Angela Hewitt, for example, does); (ii) subdivide the crotchets into 3 on the basis that the circle of the time signature represents 'perfection' (triple time). The issue with the second solution is how to deal with the semiquavers.

The same problem occurs in the Gigue from the 1st French Suite. We were recommended to consult 'Keyboard Interpretation' by Howard Ferguson. There is also a 9 page discussion (including suggested realisations) in "Dance and the Music of J S Bach" by Little and Jenne, a book which I possess. If I can abstract this, I'll report back!
Logged
rauschwerk
***
Posts: 117
« Reply #2 on: 08:46:29, 22-11-2007 »
If omeone will kindly explain to me how to do it, I can upload a page of Little and Jenne's realisation of the gigue in question, which they describe as "a guide for the adventurous". Incidentally, there were examples of this kind of piece before Bach: Denis Gaultier (who he?), Arcangelo Corelli, Froberger, Kuhnau, Bohm and Johann Mattheson all wrote them.
« Last Edit: 08:49:26, 22-11-2007 by rauschwerk » Logged
Sydney Grew
Guest
« Reply #3 on: 09:15:35, 22-11-2007 »
Quote from: rauschwerk on 08:46:29, 22-11-2007
If omeone will kindly explain to me how to do it, I can upload a page of Little and Jenne's realisation of the gigue in question, which they describe as "a guide for the adventurous".

Mr. Rauschwerk that would be most interesting. There are we believe various ways to do it, but let us describe how we do it. You have to begin by scanning your page of course, and that should give you a picture file in .jpg format on your computer. Then there are two steps:

1) Go to www.photobucket.com and follow the instructions there to join up as a Member. Once you are a Member, follow the instructions to upload your .jpg file to your photobucket page.

2) When you have done that, the second step is to copy a "link" from the image on your photobucket page and incorporate that link into a message which you write here. We can give you more details once you have completed step 1, but basically it involves highlighting the link in your message and then clicking on the little picture button second from the left on the second line when you compose a message here. Give it a try anyway once you have finished step 1. It becomes second nature after a while, and as we say the result will be most interesting and valuable for the more serious-minded Members here.
Logged
rauschwerk
***
Posts: 117
« Reply #4 on: 15:25:02, 22-11-2007 »
Here's a page of the realisation of which I spoke. Thanks for the advice, Mr Grew!
Logged
C Dish
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 481
« Reply #5 on: 15:52:32, 22-11-2007 »
That is utterly wild and I'd have to mull it over for a while before deciding what I thinks of it. Oop, there goes my grammer. Oh, and my speling! What's the world comming to?

I wonder if the e minor FUGUE from WTC II has somewhat similar problems, with a mostly triple-subdivision idea and a few groups of 'straight' sixteenth notes. I know one recording where the last three of those 16ths are shoved to the end of the beat so it takes on a triple feel as well (like a dotted eighth and 3 sixteenths under a triplet bracket)

Which fugue do I mean? The one that goes "As I rode onapenny bus overtothe mansion house, off came the wheel, down went the bus, all of the passengers fell in a heap on the floor of the rickety thing." The words I've run together are the sixteenth note groups.
Logged
inert fig here
rauschwerk
***
Posts: 117
« Reply #6 on: 18:12:26, 22-11-2007 »
Quote from: C Dish on 15:52:32, 22-11-2007

I wonder if the e minor FUGUE from WTC II has somewhat similar problems, with a mostly triple-subdivision idea and a few groups of 'straight' sixteenth notes.

But in that case the 16ths only ever coincide with quarters in the other parts, so they can be played as written.
Logged
C Dish
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 481
« Reply #7 on: 19:29:38, 22-11-2007 »
Quote from: rauschwerk on 15:25:02, 22-11-2007
Here's a page of the realisation of which I spoke.
The bass rhythm in the second halves of mm. 9 and 10 seem to me the most dubious part, with the tie. Have you heard a convincing recording of this rendition, or can we safely shelve it as a 'thought experiment'?

I have heard of Gigues blooming into 12/8 or 12/16, but never 24/8 or 24/16. Where does Bach, or anyone else, write gigues in 24?

Or is this a 6/16 gigue with 4 'measures' per notated measure?  I can see that happening, perhaps, but the non-occupation of the offbeats in the subject would be a point of considerable artistic license (not that Bach ever hesitated to add same if his muse called for it!)
Logged
inert fig here
rauschwerk
***
Posts: 117
« Reply #8 on: 07:14:27, 23-11-2007 »
Baz, it seems to me that the correct time signature is in fact 12/8. I'm sure someone must have recorded and/or performed this version, or something akin to it. As for practicability, I don't see why it couldn't work at around dotted quarter=66.
Logged
Baz
Guest
« Reply #9 on: 09:55:21, 23-11-2007 »
Quote from: rauschwerk on 07:14:27, 23-11-2007
Baz, it seems to me that the correct time signature is in fact 12/8. I'm sure someone must have recorded and/or performed this version, or something akin to it. As for practicability, I don't see why it couldn't work at around dotted quarter=66.

"12/8" can't be right! In that signature, each 8th note would divide into only 2 16ths. But here the groupings are in 3s. "24/16" is technically correct, but stupid - i.e. the unit of time is not the shortest note of the group, but the longest! What is wrong with Bach's own signature anyway?

In "alla breve" notation (used in both versions by the composer) both the cut-circle and the cut-semicircle mean the same thing - 2/2. The beat is therefore shifted to the half note (minim), indicating a brisker tempo in which (under normal conditions) the "flow" of the music is projected upon a canvas consisting of quavers rather than semiquavers. BUT in both versions, this procedure is given the added pace of a background movement consisting also of semiquavers. I should maintain, therefore, that the tempo is supposed to be breathtakingly quick.

Under such conditions, fitting in all the rhythms is easy (assuming a sufficient technical ability to play the piece at the required tempo), and doesn't necessarily call for absolute precision in the placing of the shorter notes/rhythms against each other (provided they all fit into the overall unit of tempo). For this piece, I should suggest the slowest viable tempo to be two beats per bar at 60 (though if a little quicker that would be more effective).

This kind of complexity is quite common in Bach - and usually in the end is resolved by adopting a suitable overall tempo. Another good example is the chorale setting of Vater unser from Clavierubung 3 (BWV 682). Here is the ending of the piece (as it appears in the original print), showing how the beats variously divide into 3s and 4s. Some help is given by the print in resolving performance issues (as indicated by the alignments that I have placed in red rectangles). But the main issue is the tempo (which is usually far too slow in performances): unless it flows the canonically treated chorale melody (between alto and tenor) becomes difficult to follow, and the complexity of the smaller note groups comes to the forefront rather than providing the background canvas.



Baz
Logged
Sydney Grew
Guest
« Reply #10 on: 11:02:21, 23-11-2007 »
Quote from: C Dish on 19:29:38, 22-11-2007
I have heard of Gigues blooming into 12/8 or 12/16, but never 24/8 or 24/16. Where does Bach, or anyone else, write gigues in 24?

Here is the start of the Fifteenth Prelude from the first book of the W.-T.C. We are not sure though how much it has to do with a jig (since again there is no limping) or with the Gigue, but it may be of interest.


Note that Bach unlike your modernists does not copy the 24/16 to the bass clef on the second line when the triplets start there.

Tovey calls it "whimsical" and tells us: "The whimsical time-signature 24/16 indicates nothing more than that all the semiquavers are triplets. This is no conflict with the C signature; but the tempo should be a very lively eight in the bar rather than a mere four."

We do thank Mr. Rauschwerk for posting that remarkable realisation and are still pondering whether there is something we might say about it that is worth while . . . Perhaps we shall listen to Leonhardt again; the notes to his C.D. say no more than what we have already relayed ("4/2 metre"; "archaic designation once reserved for triple time"). To get us any further forward there (in the matter of these triplets) we really need we think to consult some true scholar steeped in the mystical mists of mediaevalism - "Ars Cantus Mensurabilis Mensurata per Modos Iuris" and all that sort of thing what. We doubt though that there is any such who bothers himself with this forum.
Logged
Sydney Grew
Guest
« Reply #11 on: 11:20:00, 23-11-2007 »
Quote from: Baz on 09:55:21, 23-11-2007
"24/16" is technically correct, but stupid - i.e. the unit of time is not the shortest note of the group, but the longest! What is wrong with Bach's own signature anyway?

We suppose the Member is writing about the realisation cited by Mr. Rauschwerk, and not 24/16 as used by Bach in general, for example in our message above. It would not do to call Bach "stupid" would it? Tovey's "whimsical" is more diplomatic.

Quote from: Baz on 09:55:21, 23-11-2007
In "alla breve" notation (used in both versions by the composer) both the cut-circle and the cut-semicircle mean the same thing - 2/2.

Is this a mistake? The Herr Doktor Alfred Krings in the liner notes cited in our message above tells us that the cut circle means 4/2 here, and that seems to make sense. Is he a recognised authority?
Logged
oliver sudden
Admin/Moderator Group
*****
Posts: 6411
« Reply #12 on: 11:29:16, 23-11-2007 »
Slightly off topic we recall with great fondness Beethoven's use of 12/32. Especially since what he really meant was 36/64. That cat could swing. Wink
Logged
strinasacchi
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 864
« Reply #13 on: 11:43:38, 23-11-2007 »
Leclair occasionally printed 6/4 when he clearly meant 6/8.  Two examples come to mind: the first movements of the 7th and 8th violin sonatas in the Troisième Livre.  (I'm going to have to get a scanner some day...)
Logged
rauschwerk
***
Posts: 117
« Reply #14 on: 13:32:55, 23-11-2007 »
Baz, I fear I did not make myself clear. In the realisation I posted, the time signature of 24/16 is clearly wrong - it should be 12/8, for there are four groups of three 8th notes per bar. As I said, if you think all this tripleness is a load of rubbish, you can play the piece in simple time as printed by Bach - there are arguments in favour of both approaches, but no consensus on the issue.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
« previous next »
 
Jump to: