Who is the composer of Toccata and Fugue d-moll BWV 565
Wim Kamp
Bach?
Who knows the truth?
Wim Kamp
Chris Baker
<wim...@sf.telia.no> writes
>Some people say this most known composition of Bach is not written by
>Bach?
Do they indeed ?
Last time I played it, it was by Bach.......and the next time I play it,
it will be by Bach. Who wrote it last time you played it?
>Who knows the truth?
Bach
--
Chris Baker
If God meant me to be an organist, how come
he only gave me two hands and two feet?
Karoly Banicz
> Some people say this most known composition of Bach is not written by
> Bach?
> Who knows the truth?
>
> Wim Kamp
Dear Wim,
Yours is FAQ, and the answer you'll find in the alt.music.j-s-bach FAQ at
http://www.basistech.com/bach
Nevertheless I paste the relevant part here for the benefit of those not
having web access.
Karoly
_________________________________________________________________________
What!? Is the Toccata and Fugue in D minor not by Bach!?
A scholarly mini-dissertation by Tom Parsons
Of course that music is by Bach! The question that has been raised,
however, is whether the piece, as Bach originally wrote it, was
intended for the organ. This question was raised by the noted Bach
scholar, Peter Williams. In his original paper "BWV 565: a toccata in
D minor for organ by J. S. Bach?" in Early Music, vol. 10, July, 1981,
pp. 330-337, he notes that it is in many ways quite different from
most of the large organ works (Preludes and Fugues) and concludes
that, in its present form, at least, it may not be entirely Bach's work.
(But note that that's not the same as saying that Bach "didn't really
write" it.) Although many people consider Williams' paper highly
speculative, and his conclusions are by no means universally
accepted, anyone seeking to evalute the authenticity of BWV 565 for
themselves should be aware of his arguments.
It comes as a shocker to most of us to hear someone challenge the
authenticity of this work. It is usually the first big Bach organ work
we encounter, and often the only one, so of course we take it as
representative of Bach's big organ pieces, and if someone like
Williams says it isn't really very much like Bach's big organ pieces at
all, that's hard to swallow. Perhaps it might be helpful to summarize
Williams's arguments. It isn't typical for these reasons:
Bach never called any of his big organ pieces "Toccata."
(According to Williams, the Toccata, Adagio, and Fugue in C
(BWV 564) is also suspect).
There is no autograph copy, and the earliest surviving copy is
by a pupil of a pupil, which is unusual.
The piece is full of varying tempo markings, unlike any other
authentic Bach organ piece. These are more characteristic of
a later era, possibly after Mozart.
The entire piece is atypically simple both harmonically and
contrapuntally.
In the Toccata, that familiar opening is played in octaves. It's
very unusual for a Bach organ piece to open with passages in
octaves. In fact passages in octaves are rare in Bach's organ
works.
The extended diminished-seventh arpeggio in measures 22-27
is weak organ writing for Bach.
The countersubject at the start of the fugue is
unimaginative--just parallel thirds and sixths.
The appearance of the subject as a pedal solo, in the middle of
the fugue, is something found in no other Bach organ fugue.
The echoes in measures 73ff are "naļve" (Williams's word).
The minor plagal cadence at the end is stylistically suspect.
The main objection to these points is that Bach often broke the mold;
his works are so richly varied that it is almost impossible to dismiss a
work just because it's "atypical." But it certainly is strange to find so
many departures from custom all together in one piece. And the
question immediately arises, if Bach didn't write it, who could have?
No other composer of the period is capable of writing at this level.
The notes themselves, Williams is pretty sure, are Bach's. But he
thinks the work is an arrangement, by another hand, of a piece
originally written for some other instrument. Williams suggests that
the original version may have been written for unaccompanied violin.
Anyone familiar with the massive sound of the organ version will find
this hard to believe. But it would explain, for example, the simple
counterpoint. There is only so much you can do in counterpoint for
violin; the physical limitations of the instrument pretty much force one
to write rather sketchy counterpoint. And the extended
diminished-seventh arpeggio in measures 22-27 may be weak organ
writing, but it is highly idiomatic for the violin. (It works splendidly
for
the strings in Stokowski's orchestral transcription, for example.)
It also explains the unaccompanied subject in the pedal: on the organ
this is peculiar; on the G string, it would work well. It further explains
that minor third at the end of the piece. Bach's violin cadences are
sometimes just open-fifth chords. These work on the violin, but not on
the organ. So one would naturally fill out the chord with a third, and in
a later period (perhaps Mozart's time or after), the major ("Picardy")
third was less common and an arranger might well have found a
minor third more natural.
Williams tried his hand at reconstructing the hypothetical violin
original. He found it suited the violin better if transposed a fifth up,
to
a minor. That way, for example, the three opening phrases land nicely
one on each string of the violin. It is for this reason that he doesn't
believe the piece was originally written in d minor. Williams thus
suggests that the Toccata and Fugue in d minor for organ was
originally not a toccata, not in d minor, and not for organ.
We can easily picture some late 18th-century organist casting about
for something new and wondering whether that neat violin toccata
might work on the organ. But wouldn't he write something like
"arranged by..." on the title page? Not if it was only for his own
use--and in any case, people were much less particular about
authenticity then than we are now. And the organ version works well
enough, even if it is atypical, that later generations would not have
been likely to question it.
Williams's arguments are plausible, but not conclusive, and we will
never know for sure whether he's right, unless some lost manuscript
for violin solo (or for the organ) suddenly surfaces somewhere.
Copyright © Tom Parsons 1996, 1997
Chris Baker
aachen.de>, Karoly Banicz <ban...@Physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE> writes
>On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Wim Kamp wrote:
>
>> Some people say this most known composition of Bach is not written by
>> Bach?
>Karoly
>_________________________________________________________________________
>What!? Is the Toccata and Fugue in D minor not by Bach!?
>
>A scholarly mini-dissertation by Tom Parsons
snip snip snip
I have often thought that the reason this piece doesn't fit the mould,
is because of the assumption by every editor that it must be played with
all the resources of a very large instrument. The assumption that
because it looks 'big' on the page, it must be a grand production.
Played lightly, with minimal, but colourful registration, Bach's humour
comes through in the same way as it does in the 'Peasant Cantata' or in
'Schleicht, spielende Wellen' (Can. 206 - that which we now call 'Four
Seasons').
The D minor (Dorian) pair also suffers from too much organ. Bach
required two contrasting registrations - taken to mean by most editors
that two contrasting 'full organs' are needed. The dorian fugue on
flutes and nazard grabs the soul like no other piece in the world.
It seems that an organist sees the words 'Bach' and 'Toccata' and
'Fugue', and immediately lunges for a set of diapasons, quints and
mixtures that would have sent old JSB running for cover, fearing that he
was about to be devoured by some awesome clamourous beast. And what he
would have made of swell shutters banging backwards and forwards is
anyone's guess!
--
Chris Baker,
Before Bach there wasn't much........
and there's been b****r-all since.
Marius Paulauskas
> Bach?
>
> Wim Kamp
>
I think, nobody knows a truth, in general.
Try here, maybe it will help a little:
http://www.basistech.com/bach/bwv565b.htm
regards,
/Marius
Inotmark
>> Some people say this most known composition of Bach is not written by
>> Bach?
>> Who knows the truth?
the article which began this discussion is about the manuscript which is in
someone else's handwriting. so in that sense, bach did not write "toccata and
fugue in d minor".
there are no substantive arguments against bach's authorship of the
composition. the musical arguments made by the author of the article are all
without merit, and no other composer has ever been identified who could have
written it.
Inotmark
>Williams tried his hand at reconstructing the hypothetical violin
>original. He found it suited the violin better if transposed a fifth up,
>to
>a minor...
but he neglected to state that it exceeds the range of the violin going down to
an e below the g string, the way he described it in his paper.
this is only one of many profound musical blunders in william's paper which i
will not rehearse here.
william's paper is without merit. anyone who reads it with violin in hand will
immediately see this. anyone who has played through bach's other preludes will
find much more boring material than the extended diminished seventh chord (for
example the extended sequence with 22 repititions in the g minor prelude).
it is a disservice to present william's irresponsible, incompetent ignorant and
subjective generalizations without comment.
Yo Tomita
This thread of discussion should consider the following book:
Claus, Rolf Dietrich: Zur Echtheit von Toccata und Fuge d-moll BWV
565. (Cologne-Rehinkassel: Dohr, 1995)
I am afraid I do not have the book at hand, so I cannot
contribute to this discussion.
Best,
Yo
Dr Yo Tomita <y.to...@qub.ac.uk>
http://www.music.qub.ac.uk/~tomita/
School of Music, Queen's University of Belfast
BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, UK
Bach Bibliography On-line Service
UK - http://www.music.qub.ac.uk/~tomita/bachbib/
US - http://www.npj.com/bach/
JP - http://www.nets.ne.jp/~bach/
Inotmark wrote in message
<19990825085322...@ng-bk1.aol.com>...
Christopher Pluntke
Bach because none of the autographs of the four organ toccatas (five with
Praeludium/Toccata et Fuga in E-dur BWV 566) has survived the last two
centuries. The oldest version found is headed "Toccata con Fuga pedaliter ex
d di J.S. Bach", but the manuscript was dated back to no earlier than the
second half of the 18th century. So you can't say if this is the piece Bach
originally composed more than a century before the oldest version of BWV565
was written.
Christopher
Wim Kamp <wim...@sf.telia.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
37C1BD2D...@sf.telia.no...
> Some people say this most known composition of Bach is not written by
> Bach?
> Who knows the truth?
>
Inotmark
>You can't really prove, if Toccata and Fugue d-moll BWV 565 was written by
>Bach because none of the autographs of the four organ toccatas (five with
>Praeludium/Toccata et Fuga in E-dur BWV 566) has survived the last two
>centuries. The oldest version found is headed "Toccata con Fuga pedaliter ex
>d di J.S. Bach", but the manuscript was dated back to no earlier than the
>second half of the 18th century. So you can't say if this is the piece Bach
>originally composed more than a century before the oldest version of BWV565
>was written.
it is really a profound indictment against musicologists that they are unable
to make judgments about a composition on the basis of compositional style.
this particular piece would have been inconceivable in the late eighteenth due
to its tonal structure based on plagal dorian mode. it doesn't matter if the
oldest copy was from 1998, the piece was clearly written in the early 18th
century, probably before 1720.
Richard Shindle
Inotmark <inot...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:19990826203916...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
You are wrong. That you could make such a statement is a serious indictment
against you. It is interesting in following this thread how many jump at
conclusion without reading Peter Williams article or referring to his
magistral study in three volumes "The Organ Music of. J. S. Bach" published
by Cambridge University Press.
Making judgements about a composition on the basis of compositional style
alone, a fault during the infancy of the discipline of Musicology. I highly
respect Professor Williams in his objectivity in dealing with all aspects of
dealing with the sources, and dealing with probabilties. You should note
that Professor Williams does not deny Bach as the composers but is concerned
mostly with the transmission of the work.
Richard Shindle
Inotmark <inot...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >Fugue d-moll BWV 565
> >From: "Richard Shindle"
>
> >You should note
> >that Professor Williams does not deny Bach as the composers but is
concerned
> >mostly with the transmission of the work.
> >
>
> as i mentioned before, his theory about a violin piece violates the range
of
> the violin as i have previously stated.
>
Then go back and read them again, this time with an open mind!
If the piece were originally written for violin and transcribed for organ,
one would expect two possibilities; one is transposition and the other would
be an adaptation for violinistic writing to that suitable for the organ. He
speaks of it as a possiblity and in the next paragraph produces arguments
gainst such a hypothesis. The main problem here is the lateness of the
sources, and the inability to date to connect them to a direct transmission
from Bach and his circle.
> i stand by my accusation that williams is an incompetent analyst and his
paper
> is worthless.
I beg to differ with you. Peter Williams is a respected scholar, and I find
dealing with a closed mind absolutely worthless, so I will not be responding
in the future
Inotmark
>I beg to differ with you. Peter Williams is a respected scholar, and I find
>dealing with a closed mind absolutely worthless, so I will not be responding
>in the future
as i said, if you have anything to say about the music it will be interesting.
the homeric epithet of "respected scholar" does nothing to support anything he
says or the numerous mistakes i have demonstreted in his paper. in fact, it
seems to be closing your mind to a critical examination of the piece and his
claims.
Sven Berglund
<ban...@Physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Wim Kamp wrote:
>
>> Some people say this most known composition of Bach is not written by
>> Bach?
>> Who knows the truth?
>>=20
>> Wim Kamp
>
>Of course that music is by Bach! The question that has been raised,
>however, is whether the piece, as Bach originally wrote it, was
>intended for the organ. This question was raised by the noted Bach
>scholar, Peter Williams. In his original paper "BWV 565: a toccata in
>D minor for organ by J. S. Bach?" in Early Music, vol. 10, July, 1981,
>pp. 330-337
I well remember the thrill of reading this article when fresh in
print. IMHO, Williams does have a point. My own opinion is not, I am
afraid, founded on profound scholarship (of which Williams has enough)
but just on a guts reaction:
(1) Despite its fame, this work (Toccata, that is) is not IMHO
top-level Bach. Frankly, I think it is a bit bombastic: the content
does not manage to fill out the form.
(2) On the other hand, I think it would make a brilliant, thrilling
solo violin piece.
Has anyone actually *heard* an attempted reconstruction?
____________________________________________________
Sven Berglund
To answer by e-mail, remove "xyz" spam block.
Inotmark
>From: sven.b...@xyz.telia.com (Sven Berglund)
>(2) On the other hand, I think it would make a brilliant, thrilling
>solo violin piece.
>
>Has anyone actually *heard* an attempted reconstruction?
there is a very bizzare recording by an even more bizzare artist named "Kat", a
julliard student who dropped out and became something like a severely
psychocitic heavy metal dominatrix type of violinist.
the piece can not be reconstructed for solo violon along the lines williams
suggested.
Simon Montagu
before the article appeared in "Early Music", which
included a performance of his reconstructed version for
violin solo. As far as I remember from about 20 years ago,
the piece sounded idiomatic and convincing. I've no idea
how the obstacles Inotmark has raised were overcome.
Simon
Sven Berglund wrote:
>
>I well remember the thrill of reading this article when
>fresh in
>print. IMHO, Williams does have a point. My own opinion is
>not, I am
>afraid, founded on profound scholarship (of which Williams
>has enough)
>but just on a guts reaction:
>
>(1) Despite its fame, this work (Toccata, that is) is not
>IMHO
>top-level Bach. Frankly, I think it is a bit bombastic:
>the content
>does not manage to fill out the form.
>
>(2) On the other hand, I think it would make a brilliant,
>thrilling
>solo violin piece.
>
>Has anyone actually *heard* an attempted reconstruction?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dave Pitzer
Nobody knows the truth with regard to this question. I don't think that I
care, really. It is almost certainlt J.S. Bach's but perhaps not originally
written for organ but violin. There has been much written about this
possibility. In the end, who cares??
#Dave P.
Wim Kamp <wim...@sf.telia.no> wrote in message
news:37C1BD2D...@sf.telia.no...
> Some people say this most known composition of Bach is not written by
> Bach?
> Who knows the truth?
>