Is there any documentation on Bach's attitudes toward tempo in, for example, the WTC? There are tempo markings in a few places but for the most part there are none. Some are obviously intended to be slow and contemplative and others are clearly meant to be wild romps. But how slow, and how fast?

As an example, I'm noodling around with WTC I, #15. The prelude is quite easy but I listened to a few recordings online - all name brand material - and for the most part the accepted pace is very fast. Too fast for my taste but I'm wondering whether there's more to it than taste?

I printed this out a long time ago... I think it is pretty good.

Wow - great - thanks!

CA--You always find the BEST stuff!!!

You are welcome.

Andy, it is just that sometimes I had the same problem before... About this particular article, I even have it on my piano!

It is! It's very interesting.

But if we look at what's really there, IMO it also confirms that the answer to the OP question is what I would have thought:


No, not really.

To be exact, there are two instances in the 48. Bach, gives us complete freedom with all the rest. Each prelude and fugue has it's own character and as you've noted it's fairly obvious how most of them "should" go (of course there will always be someone who plays to the extreme poles...anything for attention). Notation, time signature, key, underlying pulse all play a huge role in determining tempo with Bach, and there is some evidence that he like fast tempi, but the "correct" tempo is that which fits the character of the piece and that which allows the performer to convey said character to his audience. So, is there more to it than taste? Yes...and no. Do your homework first and be grounded in the WHY you're doing what you're doing so that you can back it up and then apply it. Leave recording out of things though. Make your own decisions.

Can you say which?
And what?

3.5, if we're counting preludes and fugues separately. According to my Henle,

1. Book I B minor prelude is marked (Andante), in parentheses. (Why in parentheses?)
2. Book I B minor fugue is marked Largo (no parentheses).
3. Book II G minor prelude is marked Largo.

And,

3.5. Book I C minor prelude has Adagio and Allegro indications towards the end, but nothing at the beginning.

-Jason

Apparently there are different views on which things (if any) are authentic from Bach. I'm guessing that when Stores said "two," he meant that as far as he's concerned, there are 'two and only two' (how's that for a usage from math?) that are authentic. Are they from among those that you mention? I guess we'll find out.

Also, in Barenreiter -

The Bk. I b minor prelude has Andante without parenthesis.

The Bk. I c minor prelude has a "presto", as well as the "adagio" and "allegro".

They also note that in the Bb major prelude, a reliable copy of one of Bach's students has an "adagio" in bar 11.

And there's a "presto" for the last section of the Bk. I e minor prelude.

There's an "allegro" marking for the last section of the C# major prelude in Bk. II. And the b minor prelude in Bk. II is marked Allegro (there's another version without it).

Good calls; I have most of those too in my Henle, just forgot about them.

So to roughly summarize: Bach writes tempo indications for abrupt tempo changes, and for pieces in B minor.

-J

If you think that's really any kind of summary, you're assuming a lot -- including that Stores was just wrong.

This gets into what we can really make of what we see in editions.

I'd easily put my money on most of those indications not being authentic.

I don't think stores claims to be a Bach scholar. He said that Bach generally doesn't write tempo indications, and he's right. Yes, there are a few more examples than two, but these are coming from Henle and Barenreiter, which are based on scholarship. I don't think I'm assuming much here at all.

-J

You know more about those than I do, because I don't know anything about them. But of course that's not gonna stop me from saying just a little more.....

There's all kinds of "scholarship." Scholarship, even serious intensive scholarship, doesn't necessarily mean that they only give tempo indications that are authentic from the composer.

Or maybe does it?? If you know something about this specifically (with regard to those editions), that would answer it. If you don't, I'd say you are indeed assuming.

In his book "Interpreting Bach at the Keyboard", Paul Badura-Skoda references organ-barrels, a hand turned mechanism that was designed to produce music at the correct tempi. Based on the optimal speed of these organ-barrels, (plus other factors), he hypothesizes that Bach should be played at a faster tempo than what is being performed today.

It's an interesting book but I did not finish it because it was a bit over my head.

This site http://www.bachscholar.com contains interesting ideas on tempo in Bach. Those more learned in the subject than myself please comment on them!

I apologise! I obviously had Book II stuck in my head when I typed "two" above. There are five indications throughout the WTC. Three in Book I and two in Book II. These five are the only tempi indications we know of with a certainty as coming from Bach, himself. Various copies do have varying tempi indications, but these are copies (which come from many sources, but most often Bach's students thus giving us the first "editions" of Bach's works).

I don't claim to be a scholar on any subject, because one cannot know everything about anything, but, I come closest with Bach, and Beethoven, if one wanted to label my knowledge with a tag that is bandied about far too often.

Organ barrels! First prize for obscure information!

I think the issue of tempo is complicated by the fact that some of Bach's keyboard music, or maybe lots of it more like, was written for instruments with more than one keyboard. The technical challenges (especially in the Goldbergs) of rapidly running your hands over each other are likely to keep some pianists from going full tilt on some of these pieces.

The second and third movements of the Italian Concerto also have tempo indications.

The French Overture also has a tempo indication.

it's interesting tho, that there seems to be much tempi concensi on how these pieces are played. I google recordings to get a gyst and to hear how pianists interpret Bach's works. They are NOT all over the board.

It's also interesting that I play how I want to play them and I seem consistent with other people's interpretations. I guess the music itself does dictate it's execution, at least somewhat.

You must not listen to a lot of Glenn Gould.

In view of the above posts, I'm buying it.

actually I do! I love GG.. good point tho - especially in reference to his multiple recordings.

Richard Troeger's "Playing Bach on the Keyboard: A Practical Guide" devotes a great deal of space to tempos in Bach.

http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Bach-...mp;ie=UTF8&qid=1328807885&sr=1-3

Try the G minor P&F from book 1. That one is all over the board in terms of tempo and articulations. Compare Schiff, Hewitt, Gould, Gulda, and Tureck.

Of course, there are exceptions, both in P/F and artist. But I think this is a really interesting observation. In general, each piece has "converged" to a generally accepted tempo range. It could have been the case that for, say, half the P/F's, half the concert artists play them fast, and half slow. But it's not the case.

Two possible explanations: (1) There is something inherent in the music that dictates its general tempo, independently, the same way to most artists. Or, (2) We all influence each other, through recordings and concerts, and have thereby settled on a standard tempo through a sort of implicit communication over the decades (and centuries).

-Jason

On the other hand, if you check the appendix "Table of Tempo Indications" in Willard A. Palmer's Edition (Alfred Masterworks) of the WTC, Bk I, you'll see that tempi are, indeed, "all over the board."

Just a few examples among pianists (not including harpsichordists, here, although there is a listing of tempi taken by the latter) such as Demus, Fishcer, Gould, Gulda, Martins, Richter and Tureck :

Prelude No 1 : from 52 to 96 per quarter
Prelude No 2 : from 63 to 132 per quarter
Prelude No 8 : from 52 to 80 per quarter
Prelude No 16 : from 72 to 102 per eighth
Prelude No 23 : from 63 to 96 per quarter

Fugue No 2 : from 60 to 88 per quarter
Fugue No 7 : from 76 to 104 per quarter
Fugue No 12 : from 40 to 72 per quarter
Fugue No 21 : from 69 to 112 per quarter
Fugue No 24 : from 30 to 80 per quarter

Palmer makes similar tempo comparisons in his edition of the Two-Part Inventions where the same wide range of tempi can be observed :

Invention No 1 from 60 to 120 per quarter
Invention No 6 from 80 to 120 per eighth
Invention No 9 from 40 to 80 per quarter
Invention No 13 from 66 to 144 per quarter
Invention No 15 from 54 to 104 per quarter

These are pretty wide extremes, it seems to me, and many of the other Preludes and Fugues and Inventions exhibit the same wide range of tempi.

Regards,

If performances by the performers of the stature of those listed in Bruce_D's posting have such a wide range of tempi - 2:1 in some cases! - it seems to me that the question of what is the 'correct' tempo for a work can never be answered with a single number. So everyone can have their favourite speed for a given work and claim, with some reference to a notable performer, that it is correct.

Perhaps there are other reasons for the different tempi observed: I can think of the following to start with:-

* piano vs harpsichord vs clavichord
* acoustics of the recording environment - studio versus concert hall versus church
* peculiarities of the instrument (probably not a big factor wrt pianos)
* mood of the day of the performer and influence of recent research
* influence of adjacent works in a live programme for contrast or similarity.


And a final thought: did Bach himself always play a given piece at the same tempo every time he played it? Certainly with the organ works it is easy to imagine different tempi depending on the church (reverberation time) and the organ (a stop on one organ speaking faster or slower that the equivalent stop on a different organ). Possibly thus his various performances of a given P&F may have varied in speed. I admit this is pure conjecture!

Perhaps we have to ditch the notion of a 'correct' single tempo altogether?

Keep in mind that there is FAR less resistance on period instruments (Bach, would have a very difficult time with today's piano), thus meaning the tempi probably would be a touch faster, but it wouldn't be a great thing. You're correct in regard that much of Bach is written for multiple keyboards. The WTC, by the way, wasn't written entirely at the harpsichord.

+1
Absolutely, it does!!!

I'm not sure that's what anyone was looking for to begin with. There isn't any "correct" tempo, but the CORRECT tempo will be in keeping with the character of the piece.

True for most music(not just Bach) IMO.

Again, absolutely!

A consensus here might be that while there there are most definitely incorrect tempi (and we could all list examples) the correct ones lie in a range. This range is dictated by the music itself in that the various themes and voices need to be discernible. Another influence is the artistic intention - loosely translated as taste - of the musician.

I agree, and IMO you've nicely summarized the various points from the contributors.

That's not a bad way of putting it. As for "artistic intention/taste" it should always serve the music first and foremost.

stores--

Please see my comment to you in MarkH's "French Suites" thread in Member Recordings. I am being a pest!

--Andy