Registration of Bach

[Pierre Lauwers]

The Mixtures in Naumburg sound rather modern to my ears...

 

Pierre

[MusingMuso]

I have no disagreement about the sound, it's wonderful, but why is it so fast at the start? To me, it's just a jumble of notes. My copy has the direction très vitement, but this goes too far for my taste in that acoustic.

 

JC

 

==========================

 

 

I'm inclined to agree with this observation, but isn't the organ just wonderful?

 

Anyway, here's an equally surprising rendition of the infamous "Gigue" Fugue BWV577.

 

 

This man never ceases to confound.

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

BACH REGISTRATION - DELETED. SEE NEW ENLARGED POST

[MusingMuso]

BACH REGISTRATION - SEE LATER MODIFIED POST

[Nick Bennett]

I believe that on another thread, Herr Sprondel informed us that Buxtehude would have used 16ft manual stops, even when accompanying his choir, when he needed more volume, as opposed to drawing more upperwork. Perhaps this was common, too, in solo music.

 

When HIP people refer to playing a piece without changing registration, I think what they mean is not fiddling with the stops (much) during the piece. I don't think they mean also remaining on the same manual throughout. What are the other manuals FOR if not to bring in a contrasting colour? The point being that fiddling with the stops wouldn't have been terribly practical on the larger organs of Bach's time unless he had a registrant.

 

What I've never seen discussed is when the practice of having a registrant (or two) became common. Perhaps the academics on the board might pick this one up. Did organists from time immemorial recruit choirboys (who may also have been organ pupils) to draw the odd stop for them?

[MusingMuso]

I believe that on another thread, Herr Sprondel informed us that Buxtehude would have used 16ft manual stops, even when accompanying his choir, when he needed more volume, as opposed to drawing more upperwork. Perhaps this was common, too, in solo music.

 

When HIP people refer to playing a piece without changing registration, I think what they mean is not fiddling with the stops (much) during the piece. I don't think they mean also remaining on the same manual throughout. What are the other manuals FOR if not to bring in a contrasting colour? The point being that fiddling with the stops wouldn't have been terribly practical on the larger organs of Bach's time unless he had a registrant.

 

What I've never seen discussed is when the practice of having a registrant (or two) became common. Perhaps the academics on the board might pick this one up. Did organists from time immemorial recruit choirboys (who may also have been organ pupils) to draw the odd stop for them?

 

 

=================================================

 

No, it's much worse than you think it is Nick. There's a whole school of thought about "flatline" registrations for Bach, with many adherents who argue their corner with academic certainty and passion.

 

Bach never played the best organs, as his son C P E Bach stated, and if we take Arnstadt as an example, the organ wasn't very big, and the stops were set out in three, easy to grasps columns either side of the keyboard. (1 + 2 presumably!) Changes of registration would have been a very simple matter.

 

I'm not sure I know what the consoles were like at Weimar and Mulhausen, but I seem to recall a Bach console with vertical stops each side, and a horizontal row of stops above the organist. (Herr Sprondel may be the man who can tell us). Perhaps it wasn't a Bach console at all that I have in mind.

 

An interesting thing about the organ at Arnstadt, was the lack of any manual 16ft register. Nevertheless, there was a 5.1/3 Quint, which is a 16ft harmonic. Perhaps this produced a certain gravity of tone; which when coupled to a 16ft pedal, may have acted like a "Monkey Quint" or somesuch. With very few stops, the manual to pedal coupler would have been used a great deal, I suspect.

 

As regards registrants (or registruncles), I have never read anything which mentions them in relation to Bach, and even though they were paid for the task, they had great difficulty in recruiting choristers to man the pumps.

 

Everything is therefore a matter for conjecture, but knowing how things were, with the organs often in a west gallery with the choir and/or orchestra, it is quite probable that registrants would be on hand to help. That's a practice which was certainly very common when I was a chorister; organ consoles often being quite a social meeting place for the mentally deranged or musically deluded. Of course, I wasn't around in Bach's time, but you know what organists are like, and they never seem to change much.

 

We should also be aware of how music was taught in Bach's day. Musicians were like apprentices, and would act as copyists and general dog's bodies for much of the time.

 

If the master said, "Today you will change the stops for my new Fantasia & Fugue," I doubt that they would have complained or sloped off to the tavern early.

 

We are in the world of conjecture I'm afraid, but there is one conjecture which is a fair certainty. Imagine the dropped jaws when Bach really DID play his latest Fantasia & Fugue. What an experience THAT must have been.

 

MM

[Vox Humana]

In baroque music, contrapuntal dialogue is the name of the game, and involves musical rapport between different instruments or groupings of instruments. Why should the organ be singled out for monochrome polyphony?

Well there are various Baroque styles, not all of them necessarily involving contrapuntal dialogue. It is there in fugues, but there the rapport between the instruments is one of equals, as it was in Renaissance counterpoint (of which this after all is an evolution). The (relatively) monochrome nature of the harpsichord and clavichord is accepted readily enough.

 

Bach went to Lubeck for a reason, and stayed there for some time; no doubt intrigued by the music he heard and the prevalent "Stilus Fantasticus" of Buxtehude, heard at the Abendmusic concerts.

But of course Bach would already have been well acquainted with the stylus phantasticus from hearing (studying with?) Böhm in Lüneburg. We tend to think that Bach's youthful trips to hear Reinken and Buxtehude were undertaken specifically to further his organ experiences. No doubt this was part of it, but it not likely to be the whole story. We take Bach's career for granted, but the young Bach may not have been at all clear about where his musical future lay. He was a particularly bright lad and knew it. Did he aim to spend his life as a mere organist or cantor, or did he have grander ambitions? Like Elgar, Bach was a self-taught composer. Opportunities to experience the full possibilities for composing ensemble music may have been difficult to obtain in Lüneburg and Arnstadt in a way that it was not for keyboard music. It is perfectly possible, even likely, that his visits to Hamburg were made in order to experience opera (which was why Handel went there). If he did, he decided to travel other roads, but his experience of opera (wherever it was obtained) was later put to good use, as the cantatas and passions show. Similarly, while Buxtehude's organ playing at Lübeck was bound to be educational, his instrumental music may well have been the bigger draw for this budding composer. He timed his visit specifically to coincide with the Abendmusik; he could have heard Buxtehude play at any time.

 

The "Dorian" Toccata & Fugue has certain indications of manual changes, but this is a more or less isolated example. However, it does prove beyond doubt that Bach approved of the practice of contrasting voices rather than a preference for monochrome registrations throughout.

Of course, as also do the chorales for two manuals (not that there was anything new about that). One should be aware, however, that in those cases where periodic manual changes are specified – the "Dorian", the concertos, Ein feste Burg, Wo Gott der Herr (assuming the directions in these are authentic) – Bach only changes manuals at very clearly demarcated ends of phrases or sections. In other words, the points of change are always properly punctuated, entirely logical and easily managed. This treatment is fundamentally different to his practice in the large fugues, where the episodes tend to merge seamlessly into the middle or final sections, thus tending to make getting back onto the main manual a rather contrived and gauche affair (getting off is mostly easy enough). Could it be that the reason getting back is never clear-cut is that Bach never intended a change in the first place?

 

The problem we all share, is that there is not a single authentic Bach registration indication available to us

Not so. The autograph score of BWV 596 contains specific registration directions in the first movement. One wonders why they are there. Did Bach need to remind himself of the pitch level at which he had transcribed the orchestral score? Whoever the markings were intended for, the fact they are unique amongst Bach's organ autographs could very well point to such changes being wholly exceptional, prompted by the orchestral texture that Bach was transcribing.* The addition of the 32' Subbass and left hand 8' certainly marks the point at which the orchestral texture changes. Unfortunately so few of Bach's organ autographs survive that one can do no more than ask the question and suggest that this instance provides no reason to think that such changes were routine.

 

As I have pointed out before, the use of the manuals is very clearly signalled throughout the D minor concerto, even if only by differentiated dynamics ("f" versus "p"). The one exception is the fugue, which has no markings at all, either for changes of manuals or registration. Given that the rest of the concerto is so conscientiously marked, why not? One might argue about whether or not the "organo pleno" registration for the link passage still obtains, but it does seem that this fugue at least is to be played on one sound throughout.

 

Incidentally, the pedal opens with an 8' Principal. Is the later addition of the 32' one of Bach's eyebrow-raising registrations which we should take at face value, or should we take the addition also of a 16' for granted?

 

There is apparently the belief, (Harald Vogel), that Bach may have been the first, (or at least one of the first), to regard the Pedal Organ as a distinct 16ft division, rather than merely a suitable bass to whatever is drawn on the manuals. (Presumably the same difference as that found between a Consort of Viols and a full Classical Orchestra).

Renaissance-style counterpoint in which all the "voices" are of equal importance does sound odd to my ears with a 16 ft pedal since the suboctave tone destroys the parity of the voices (assuming an 8' pitch for the manuals). But, if Bach was (one of) the first to use the Pedal as a suboctave division, where does this leave the Werkprinzip? I always thought that one of its aims was to provide clear octave distinctions between the various divisions (or is this a neo-Baroque misunderstanding?)

 

* There is one other comparable moment, but not in an autograph. If, as generally accepted, the concerto transcriptions were written for the Weimar Castle organ, the organo pleno direction in the first movement of the A minor concerto must indicate a change of stops since it clearly means something different from the directions "Oberwerk" and "Rückpositiv" and the instrument only had two manuals. However, it is not clear how authoritative these directions are since the secondary manual on the Weimar organ was apparently not a Rückpositiv: the pipes for the Unterclavier were below those of the Oberclavier – though Peter Williams does wonder how room was found for this arrangement.

[Vox Humana]

To ask another question, WHY does Bach work better on a Father Willis organ, than Herbert Howells, (God forbid), works on a Trost or Silbermann instrument?

Oh, that's easy. Because we think it does. It really is as simple as that.

 

It all depends on what you've conditioned yourself to accept. It's a perfectly conscious thing and can be controlled at will. I have conditioned myself to accept or reject certain performance practices, but I know from experience that reconditioning myself to accept alternatives is perfectly easy. I've done it lots of times. All I need is a good reason. If someone could come up with convincing evidence for playing the episodes of Bach's fugues on subsidiary manuals I am quite sure I would change my whole reception of the practice, probably within hours. Similarly, the only reason people don't like Bach fugues played on one registration throughout is because they don't want to like it. No other reason.

 

Oh, and I've 2 CDs of Howells accompanied at New College (with some solo pieces too) and one at Queen's, Oxford. All three are superb.

[Vox Humana]

It is perfectly possible to play Bach extremely musically on a Wurlitzer, using what may seem like bizzare combinations. So I have to suggest that any sort of historical or stylistic straight-jacket may well be counter productive and possibly inartistic, because once the performer is compelled to do this or that, we take the music out of one era and place it in another.

That's true enough. If a performer cannot understand Bach's music in the way Bach meant it to be understood he might as well abandon any attempt and go his own way. A performance that is uncommitted to the music is not likely to be successful. That is why I dislike teachers who insist on imposing their interpretations on players. If I can't feel the logic of the interpretation from within the piece is doomed. The goal for any music should really be to understand the wider context first and develop the interpretation from there. At least, that's the way it works for me. YMMV.

[DHM]

=================================================

...I seem to recall a Bach console with vertical stops each side, and a horizontal row of stops above the organist. (Herr Sprondel may be the man who can tell us). Perhaps it wasn't a Bach console at all that I have in mind.

MM

The Trost organ at Waltershausen has stops above the music desk as well as to left and right. Not an organ over which JSB presided, but certainly one he is known to have played.

[Pierre Lauwers]

"if Bach was (one of) the first to use the Pedal as a suboctave division, where does this leave the Werkprinzip? I always thought that one of its aims was to provide clear octave distinctions between the various divisions (or is this a neo-Baroque misunderstanding?)"

(Quote)

 

The organ evolved incredibly fast precisely during Bach's career, and precisely in his area; to the point

the central german organ took over the leadership in tonal design upon the north afterwards.

The Pedal went from one role to another: the "Cantus firmus Pedal", with high-pitched soloists, was

replaced by a "Bass Pedal", with less high-pitched stops and more deep-pitched ones.

As for the Werkprinzip, as I already wrote, this was completely foreign to the organs

Bach played. The organs built in his area during his time did not even have a Rückpositiv

save if there were a previous case to be re-used, while the Pedal division was at the back...

 

Pierre

[Vox Humana]

As for the Werkprinzip, as I already wrote, this was completely foreign to the organs Bach played.

Yes, Pierre, I know - but the question is what was the practice of those earlier organists who did preside at Werkprinzip organs.

 

In any case, one could argue that it was not completely foreign to him, since he would have had experience of Werkprinzip organs in Lüneburg (though Böhm did not get his pedal towers at the Johanniskirche until 1712-14) and his sights were set northwards during these years, with several visits to Reinken (there is also the later one to Buxtehude and as late as 1720 Bach was interested enough to apply for a Hamburg job). His independent pedal writing, matched only by the northern composers, surely owes everything to their organs.

[Pierre Lauwers]

So weit, so gut.

 

Let us then see the Specifications of the Lüneburg organ when

Bach knew it:

 

RÜCKPOSITIV,

Principal 8'

Quintaden 8'

Octave 4'

Hohlflöte 4'

Sieflöte 1'

Sesquialtera

Mixtur

Scharff

Regal 8'

Baarfeiffe 8'

Schalmey 4'

 

WERCK,

Principal 16'

Octave 8'

Octave 4'

Nachthorn 2' (basse)

Mixtur

Scharff

Trommette 8' (basse)

Cornette 2' (basse)

 

OBERWERCK,

Principal 8'

Hohlflöte 8'

Octave 4'

Nasat 3'

Superoctave 2'

Cymbel

Trommette 8'

 

PEDAL

 

Untersatz 16' (not full compass...)

 

The Pedal was permanently coupled to the Werck by pull downs.

 

Independent, "Werkprinzipisierter Pedal " ?

 

Ach, so !!!

 

(As you said, Böhm had a new Pedal division built.....After Bach's time there)

 

Now another point.

It seems the "modern late-Baroque Pedal" does indeed not always work

for Bach.

 

Here is a Video from Altenburg which might be interesting to illustrate the point:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXQgeCq0QhE

 

....Here, we have a slight problem, oder ?

 

But here, the Pedal is piccobello to the point:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ2pZgMSMUI...feature=related

 

 

Pierre

[MusingMuso]

So weit, so gut.

 

Let us then see the Specifications of the Lüneburg organ when

Bach knew it:

 

==================================

 

 

Yes, and another interesting thing about the Schnitger at Hamburg. I'm not sure if I can re-discover the reference/source, but wasn't the full pleno spread across two manuals, thus requiring coupling?

 

I wonder if Pierre knows something about this?

 

If not, we'll have to dig around a bit, because it is interesting, and rather upsets the idea of "completely independent choruses" in the Werkprinzip layout.

 

The trouble is, my dears, we are all victims conditioned by a certain amount of false scholarship in the 1950's and 60's.

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

Oh, that's easy. Because we think it does. It really is as simple as that.

 

It all depends on what you've conditioned yourself to accept. It's a perfectly conscious thing and can be controlled at will. I have conditioned myself to accept or reject certain performance practices, but I know from experience that reconditioning myself to accept alternatives is perfectly easy. I've done it lots of times. All I need is a good reason. If someone could come up with convincing evidence for playing the episodes of Bach's fugues on subsidiary manuals I am quite sure I would change my whole reception of the practice, probably within hours. Similarly, the only reason people don't like Bach fugues played on one registration throughout is because they don't want to like it. No other reason.

 

Oh, and I've 2 CDs of Howells accompanied at New College (with some solo pieces too) and one at Queen's, Oxford. All three are superb.

 

 

========================

 

 

I found myself laughing all the way to bathroom!

 

Meantone Herbert Howells.....whoooop! How DO you condition your mind to that, I wonder?

 

More seriously, changing manuals in Bach Fugues is done to great effect by many, and I always find myself coming back to Chapuis for a good dose of this.

 

It certainly never sounds contrived to me.

 

One of my "finals" pieces was the P & F in B Minor, and getting back onto the Great (Haoutwerk) manual couldn't be easier or more convincing as the re-entries queue up one after the other, starting in the LH. The same is true of the F & F in G minor, where the pedal entry fairly thunders in with the theme.

 

Since I did "almost" study harpsichord at some point, I wouldn't say that they are 'monochrome' when there are buff stops and such. Of course, the German harpsichord was never as advanced as its French counterparts, but even so, they were not entirely monochrome.

 

My former American academic partner had a Clavichord. I found that I hated the clavichord; not because it was monochrome, (which it wasn't), but because I found it impossible to play!

 

Dynamic changes are possible on a clavichord, in degrees of pp/ppp/pppp and just plain inaudible, and of course, it is possible to introduce vibrato. Horrible instruments that they are, the only advantage is that it is possible to practice Beethoven at 3am without disturbing the neighbours.

 

Going back to the manual change thing, what about the echoes in the BWV565 T & F?

 

I always think that people phrase them all wrong, whether or not they use contrasting manuals, because the fugal theme starts OFF the beat, and when the echoes are played four-square ON the beat, they just sound plain odd; yet everyone does it.

 

It's far better to start the echo (or phrasing) a note later than normal!!

 

 

I'm all fired up now, so I shall just nip upstairs, find a Howells Rhapsody and nip over on the next plane to have a shot at it on the old choir-organ at Alkmaar.

 

MM

[Paul Morley]

========================

Going back to the manual change thing, what about the echoes in the BWV565 T & F?

 

I always think that people phrase them all wrong, whether or not they use contrasting manuals, because the fugal theme starts OFF the beat, and when the echoes are played four-square ON the beat, they just sound plain odd; yet everyone does it.

 

It's far better to start the echo (or phrasing) a note later than normal!!

 

MM

Both Jane Parker-Smith and Nicolas Kynaston have recorded the BWV 565 with the echoes played in this manner. I acquired both recordings during my teens, was struck immediately with the musicality and logic doing things this way, and resolved to do the same when I reached the stage when I could play the piece myself. Some time later, when I did get round to learning BWV 565, I discussed the matter with my teacher. His response was something along the lines of 'Oh yes, I see what you mean. It's obvious when you think about it. I wonder why no-one's done it before.'

[Pierre Lauwers]

See here for the Hamburg organ:

 

http://www.arpschnitger.nl/shamb.html

 

The organ has four manuals, with three "Postivs", among which

there is actually one tonal structure splitted between two manuals.

Schnitger took ancient material over from a previous organ, which had

already four manuals.

(The "Hinterwerk" was already known at that time, by the way...)

 

 

Pierre

[Vox Humana]

I found myself laughing all the way to bathroom!

 

Meantone Herbert Howells.....whoooop! How DO you condition your mind to that, I wonder?

Simple: like I said, you just have to believe that it works.

 

Actually, NC is variant of Thomas Young. I have never noticed any temperament issues. If I now find you have ruined my enjoyment of these CDs I shall sue.

 

More seriously, changing manuals in Bach Fugues is done to great effect by many, and I always find myself coming back to Chapuis for a good dose of this.

 

It certainly never sounds contrived to me.

Well it wouldn't. See my previous comments!

 

One of my "finals" pieces was the P & F in B Minor, and getting back onto the Great (Haoutwerk) manual couldn't be easier or more convincing as the re-entries queue up one after the other, starting in the LH.

If, as I assume, you're talking about the LH entry at bar 59 then I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more strongly. There is nothing logical about a manual change here and it actually ruins the musical argument. The musically important event here is not the re-entry of the LH theme, but the introduction at the same time of a new countersubject entering in the treble on a top B, which is then taken over a couple of bars later by the pedal and continues in use to the end of the piece. This new component in the musical discourse needs to be centre stage when it first appears, not buried in the background of a subsidiary manual while the player "brings out" the theme on the Hauptwerk. Changing manuals in both hands here isn't an option either since it disrupts the line of the middle part and acts as a brick wall in the flow of the musical argument.

 

Going back to the manual change thing, what about the echoes in the BWV565 T & F?

 

I always think that people phrase them all wrong, whether or not they use contrasting manuals, because the fugal theme starts OFF the beat, and when the echoes are played four-square ON the beat, they just sound plain odd; yet everyone does it.

 

It's far better to start the echo (or phrasing) a note later than normal!!

I first heard them done this way back in the 60s. I think you can make an argument for doing them either way.

[Pierre Lauwers]

Going back for a moment to the northern organ, I sometimes feel disconfortable

with the way they are registred today, and found an example here:

 

 

....Though this is a superb organ, beautifully played, I am convinced that

Sesquialter or Terzian was never intended to be used that way. Or Schnitger

was going deaf like Beethoven...

 

 

Pierre

[pwhodges]

Going back to the manual change thing, what about the echoes in the BWV565 T & F?

 

I always think that people phrase them all wrong, whether or not they use contrasting manuals, because the fugal theme starts OFF the beat, and when the echoes are played four-square ON the beat, they just sound plain odd; yet everyone does it.

 

It's far better to start the echo (or phrasing) a note later than normal!!

I've wondered why so many people (not all, admittedly) do that, too; it just seems so obvious that the phasing should match the theme.

 

Paul

[Vox Humana]

I've wondered why so many people (not all, admittedly) do that, too; it just seems so obvious that the phasing should match the theme.

 

Paul

I cannot possibly remember where I saw it, but I have certainly at some point seen some bowing marks in Bach that led me to think that, if he ever played BWV 565 (which he probably didn't! ), then he is quite likely to have phrased the echos off the beat. I don't think it has anything to do with matching the fugue subject though. That has three anacrusic notes, whereas, if you phrase the echos off the beat, the only strong note is the last one of each phrase - quite different (at least the way I see it).

 

The advantage of phrasing on the beat is that it preserves the rhythmic pulse of the piece better. In my experience, the off-beat interpretation is apt to displace the accents by a semiquaver. But yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice.

[MusingMuso]

If, as I assume, you're talking about the LH entry at bar 59 then I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more strongly. There is nothing logical about a manual change here and it actually ruins the musical argument. The musically important event here is not the re-entry of the LH theme, but the introduction at the same time of a new countersubject entering in the treble on a top B, which is then taken over a couple of bars later by the pedal and continues in use to the end of the piece. This new component in the musical discourse needs to be centre stage when it first appears, not buried in the background of a subsidiary manual while the player "brings out" the theme on the Hauptwerk. Changing manuals in both hands here isn't an option either since it disrupts the line of the middle part and acts as a brick wall in the flow of the musical argument.

 

================================

 

 

Actually a quite interesting and apt observation, and with which I find myself in agreement and opposition at the same time.

 

I played it my way at Armley, with the Schulze terraced dynamics, and it died a death at that point: the Great so utterly dominant.

 

However, I did much the same thing when I was given free reign of the Bavo Orgel, Haarlem, and the RH was then on the very punchy Rugwerk. The effect was electrifying, because what you got was not a change of volume, but a change of timbre, with the 16ft Principal added to the Hoofdwerk and my host also drawing out at least one of the pedal reeds. (I forget at what pitch, but it worked). So the new countersubject actually took centre stage, as you rightly suggest, but with the most magnificent underpin as the fugue subject entered on the terzchor of the Hoofdwerk.

 

It's all a question of how the tonalities of these old organs work, which even to-day, very few (if any) British organs can begin to match on equal terms.

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

That has three anacrusic notes

 

================================

 

 

Anacrusic......that's a good word. I shall have to look it up. I haven't a clue what it means in my ignorance. But for the letter 's', it could be an anabaptist on a Good Friday procession.

 

 

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

Going back for a moment to the northern organ, I sometimes feel disconfortable

with the way they are registred today, and found an example here:

 

 

....Though this is a superb organ, beautifully played, I am convinced that

Sesquialter or Terzian was never intended to be used that way. Or Schnitger

was going deaf like Beethoven...

 

 

Pierre

 

===================================

 

 

I can't bring to mind the exact quote by the late Stephen Bicknell, but I seem to recall him saying that Schnitger voiced the same way wherever he built an organ.

 

If it was a big church, fine. If it was a small church, tough!

 

In another article, he wrote something on the lines of, "You only have to go to Hamburg to know that Arp Schnitger wasn't afraid of creating a big sound."

 

I expect that with a full church, it will all mellow a little.

 

MM

[Pierre Lauwers]

"I played it my way at Armley"

(Quote)

 

Aaaargh !

 

Pierre