|
Baz
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: 13:38:09, 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. Mr Grew is correct in his assumption - when Bach himself used 24/16, it was for clarification rather than tempo. He didn't, of course, use this signature in the Gigue. 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? Mr Grew has correctly signalled a mistake - and one that I realized after posting! As the example under discussion shows, it also means what we understand by 4/2. However, Bach also uses the cut-C very often to indicate the same barring. It is really a question of where the composer chooses to place his barlines (or, rather, how often) rather than anything significant about the rhythm or tempo. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rauschwerk
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 13:41:58, 23-11-2007 » |
|
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.
Mr Grew, one cannot speak of the Gigue in connection with Bach, since four types are found in his music. However, the example you give can't be classified as a gigue since (as you say) there is no 'limping'. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 13:45:27, 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.
I think we may both be innocent parties to cross-purpose discussion. However, it seems that your exemplified realization is in fact correct by showing 24/16 rather than 12/8. Surely - contrary to what you say - it does not present "four groups of three 8th notes per bar" but rather four groups of two dotted 8th notes per bar. If so (as it seems to me), then 12/8 would be even more silly than 24/16. In reality though, surely Bach's own alla breve signature is the most meaningful? Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 13:53:06, 23-11-2007 » |
|
...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 #19 on: 14:04:07, 23-11-2007 » |
|
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.
Mr Grew, one cannot speak of the Gigue in connection with Bach, since four types are found in his music. However, the example you give can't be classified as a gigue since (as you say) there is no 'limping'. For a variety of reasons into which we shall not here very much go we are frequently misunderstood and this is one more small example. But we were not explicit enough that will be it! By " the Gigue" we intended simply that one particular E minor Gigue that is the ostensible subject of this thread not jigs in general at all! Next time we shall not be so slip-shod . . . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
C Dish
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 14:11:45, 23-11-2007 » |
|
My question whether this is 4 x 6/16, and that 6/16 is the basic unit (equivalent to a traditional gigue's 6/8) remains unanswered. Was it too untenable?
24/16 is indeed though rare a "common" time signature but not as S Grew confirmed for jigs.
Also, forgive me for not having the most alert eagle-eye, but did someone mention whether this realisation has been performed/recorded?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 14:22:57, 23-11-2007 by C Dish »
|
Logged
|
inert fig here
|
|
|
|
rauschwerk
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 14:18:08, 23-11-2007 » |
|
Actually, Baz, the more I look at that realisation the more my brain hurts! But I shall have a crack at playing it: failing that, I'll feed it into my computer and see what that comes up with.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 14:29:37, 23-11-2007 » |
|
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. No there aren't! There are eight groups of three sixteenth-notes. Apologies. This post (which I am no longer able to remove under the nouveau régime) adds nothing to Baz's #17. I'm afraid that when posting it I hadn't realised the thread already had a second page (posts #15ff.). |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 15:31:25, 23-11-2007 by time_is_now »
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 14:33:42, 23-11-2007 » |
|
My question whether this is 4 x 6/16, and that 6/16 is the basic unit (equivalent to a traditional gigue's 6/8) remains unanswered. Was it too untenable?
24/16 is indeed though rare a "common" time signature but not as S Grew confirmed for jigs.
In reference to rauschwerk's example, it is surely clear that by "24/16" is meant 4 x 6/16 (although, depending upon the tempo adopted) this might further subdivide into groups of 3/16). But I have to maintain that such a conception is far removed from that conveyed by Bach's own simple alla-breve signature. The 24/16 signature that Mr Grew aptly provided (and what a good example too!) is only for clarification; and it is interesting to note that when the same rhythmic permutations swap hands Bach considers it totally unnecessary to insert new time signatures for RH and LH. Mr Grew's "modernists" would not (I think) have been quite so unashamedly simple - but then (to them) such things would have represented some kind of "subtle complexity". Whatever Bach meant by his notations, it seems obvious to me (anyway) that when a composer inserts the title "Gigue" the intention has to be that of a piece that actually sounds like a gigue. This would, in any evaluation, surely imply some kind of "12/8 feel" in the manner of performance. The fact that the notation is only descriptive (rather than prescriptive) should not be a cause for worry. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 15:10:35, 23-11-2007 » |
|
A further curiosity is the Orgelbuchlein setting of In dulci jubilo (BWV 608). Bach here unambiguously gives the signature as 3/2 (which always implied a quick tempo in the Baroque). But take a close look at the notation! a) three minims per bar b) each minim divided into 2 crotchets butc) each minim also divided into three quavers. So the question is this: given that three quavers fit into one minim, what happens to the crotchets?! Is it 2-against-3, or are the crotchets unequal? This is what good old Bach wrote with his own hand...  Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 15:15:06, 23-11-2007 » |
|
So the question is this: given that three quavers fit into one minim, what happens to the crotchets?! Is it 2-against-3, or are the crotchets unequal?
It feels pretty obvious to me that the quavers are really crotchet triplets. But I'm quite ignorant, so am exceptionally open to erudite opinions to the contrary (or, indeed, those supporting my merely 'musical' claim  ). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 15:28:51, 23-11-2007 » |
|
This is what good old Bach wrote with his own hand...
To confuse the issue yet further *, am I right in seeing 'triplet' numeric indicators under the three beamed groups in the bar 2 LH, Baz? _______________________
(although admittedly the issue in question is only 'how many quavers fit into a minim?', to which there can only be one answer, whatever the notation; the deeper question of what to do with the pairs of crotchets remains unaddressed) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 15:34:38, 23-11-2007 » |
|
For a variety of reasons into which we shall not here very much go we are frequently misunderstood We ourselves do suffering not infrequently a kindred fate sympathise, Mr Grew. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 15:36:49, 23-11-2007 » |
|
...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. 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.
I'll leave colleagues to put the words under the notes for themselves! BUT, the only surviving manuscript of this fugue in Bach's hand appears below. It's obvious to me that the groups of 4 semiquavers are played as straight semis, often against the notated triplet quavers. But (again) this should not be a problem if the tempo is fast enough (i.e. with a definite strong crotchet pusle).  Baz |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 15:40:43, 23-11-2007 by Baz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 15:39:45, 23-11-2007 » |
|
This is what good old Bach wrote with his own hand...
To confuse the issue yet further *, am I right in seeing 'triplet' numeric indicators under the three beamed groups in the bar 2 LH, Baz? _______________________
(although admittedly the issue in question is only 'how many quavers fit into a minim?', to which there can only be one answer, whatever the notation; the deeper question of what to do with the pairs of crotchets remains unaddressed)For sure t_i_n. But since when have 2 crotchets subdivided into 3 triplet quavers? Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
