{"id":924,"date":"2013-05-13T08:00:04","date_gmt":"2013-05-13T06:00:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=924"},"modified":"2015-06-18T08:25:11","modified_gmt":"2015-06-18T06:25:11","slug":"commenting-on-a-decisecond-bach-%e2%80%93-b-or-b-flat-in-the-b-flat-major-%e2%80%98corrente%e2%80%99-bwv-825","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2013\/05\/13\/commenting-on-a-decisecond-bach-%e2%80%93-b-or-b-flat-in-the-b-flat-major-%e2%80%98corrente%e2%80%99-bwv-825\/","title":{"rendered":"Commenting on a decisecond Bach \u2013 B or B flat in the B-flat major \u2018Corrente\u2019 BWV 825"},"content":{"rendered":"

A short time ago our attention was drawn to a supposed error in our Urtext edition HN 28 <\/a>of the \u2018Six Partitas\u2019 by Johann Sebastian Bach (BWV 825-830): it was maintained that in the Corrente of the first Partita in B-flat major the last left-hand note in bar 12 erroneously has a \u266e.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Bach\u2019s partitas were published by us more than 60 years ago, that is, in 1952 (edited by Rudolf Steglich, 1886-1976). Hence they have already ever so often been reprinted, complete with any corrections of errors that have become known in the meantime. In 1970 Steglich had reviewed the volume critically and written a new preface; in 1979, after the first-rate Urtext edition (by Richard Douglas Jones) had appeared within the New Bach Edition, our edition was once more gone over by our house editors, as Steglich was since deceased.<\/p>\n

An error in such a Henle publishing-house \u2018warhorse\u2019? Hard to believe. An issue for paying a visit to our extensive archives of sources and music editions to check the evidence!<\/p>\n

First surprise<\/strong>: Only since a reprint done in 1997 are we conveying this passage with a \u266e, before then, always without. At that time a harpsichordist had contacted us to let us know that our edition had an engraving error here: it after all must read B<\/em>\u266e. Thus, a comment contrary to what was current. My then colleague carefully checked on the situation and, as it happens, then decided for the correction, though adding in the Critical Report the important proviso (and the circled \u20181a\u2019 to be seen in the above): \u2018The \u266e at the last note is not in the original print, but in an old copy.\u2019<\/p>\n

It is a fact that this natural sign is not actually in any issue of the \u2018original print<\/a>\u2019 of 1731, not even in the later issues of this beautiful, but quite imperfect print.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It is a fact, furthermore, that the \u266e turns up in a copy from the 18th<\/sup> century. The source, though, unfortunately has no authority of any kind; on the contrary, the New Bach Edition describes this copy<\/a>, known in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin under the siglum \u2018P 215\u2019, as \u2019corrupt\u2019, meaning that occurring here are notes and signs having nothing to do with Bach.<\/p>\n

Second surprise<\/strong>: The vast majority of 19th<\/sup>– and 20th<\/sup>-century editions have, contrary to the original-edition source, this portentous \u266e:<\/p>\n

–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the critical edition of the Bach-Gesellschaft (1853) has B<\/em>\u266e;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the Peters edition by Czerny, Griepenkerl and Roitzsch (about 1870) has B<\/em>\u266e;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the edition by Busoni published by Breitkopf & H\u00e4rtel (1918) contains the \u266e, but interestingly enough, with \u2018(\u266d)?\u2019 placed questioningly underneath;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the New Bach Edition (1976) and following it the B\u00e4renreiter edition (2007) has B<\/em>\u266e (the \u266e in small print, which means that the editor considers B flat<\/em> to be wrong);<\/p>\n

–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the Wiener Urtext Edition (1993) has B<\/em>\u266e (without comment);<\/p>\n

–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 and now since 1997, even the Henle Urtext edition.<\/p>\n

Without an accidental, but with B flat<\/em> here at this passage, are, according to my knowledge:<\/p>\n

–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the Peters edition by Soldan (1937) \u2013 this is the first ever \u2018Urtext edition\u2019 of the work;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the earlier issues of the Henle edition (1952\/1970, all issues before 1997)<\/p>\n

–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 as well as the edition of the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (1981), here even with the advice: \u2018The \u266e to the last note, found in some modern editions, is not in CE [= Originalausgabe 1731] and seems unnecessary.\u2019<\/p>\n

So, what next? Well, to the piano to try out the passage in both variants: The B<\/em>\u266e sounds absolutely convincing. One of the typical Bach so-called springboard leading tones, supporting as well the discernible, characteristic secondary dominant to the following C major. The B<\/em>\u266e is literally, intuitively played. Or? Played without accidental, thus B flat<\/em>, the passage initially seems strange, but certainly not wrong. More frequently played it develops its own charm, because it is understood \u2013 assuming Bach really intended B flat<\/em> and not B<\/em>\u266e <\/em>\u2013, that the sound of the 7th<\/sup> above C has already been arrived at, indeed to be brilliantly, exhaustively elaborated in the following bars (not until bar 18 are we again in F major).<\/p>\n

Third surprise<\/strong>: In practice, thus at full \u2018Corrente\u2019 tempo (not \u2018Courante\u2019, as in many old editions!) the passage is almost inaudible. It simply goes by too fast. The triplet-quaver in question lasts a blink of an eye and at that is on the most unaccented beat in the bar! I have calculated that one bar played at the right tempo lasts about 1 second, the crotchet beat thus about a third of a second, a third of it in turn lasts about as long as our triplet-quaver \u2013 so the note sounds for no more than a tenth of a second or a decisecond!<\/p>\n

Still, whoever listens carefully, recognizes that most pianists\/cembalists play B<\/em>\u266e, at any rate on the recordings I happen to have at hand (there are 5). Thus, even Andr\u00e1s Schiff in his \u2013 to my mind \u2013 standard-setting live recording<\/a> with ECM. If I am not hearing wrong, though, Claudio Arrau<\/a> and Trevor Pinnock<\/a> play a B flat<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Dear reader, aren\u2019t you perhaps asking if any case the note can still not be heard because it goes by so fast, and the difference is only a matter of a semitone which is in either case musically correct, why are Henle publishers making such a fuss about it? At this, the answer must of course be that for philologists like us (and, I am certain, also for all serious musicians), it doesn\u2019t matter whether it is an \u2018important\u2019 thus prominent note, or whether it is an entirely \u2018unimportant\u2019 passing tone that flies by in a tenth of a second \u2013 we simply want to know which is the \u2018right\u2019 note.<\/p>\n

In the case of the decisecond B<\/em>\u266e <\/em>or B flat<\/em>, though, <\/em>I\u2019m not so sure now. What do you, valued reader, think?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A short time ago our attention was drawn to a … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[70,274,430,3,438,322,320],"tags":[40,117],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/924"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=924"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/924\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=924"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=924"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=924"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}