k miehling early music 2000 bach tempo sherman
TRANSCRIPT
7/24/2019 K Miehling Early Music 2000 Bach Tempo Sherman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/k-miehling-early-music-2000-bach-tempo-sherman 1/4
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Early Music.
http://www.jstor.org
xford University Press
Bach's Notation of TempoAuthor(s): Klaus Miehling and Bernard ShermanSource: Early Music, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Feb., 2001), pp. 153-155Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3519107
Accessed: 10-10-2015 22:34 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 90.48.146.145 on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:34:35 UTC
7/24/2019 K Miehling Early Music 2000 Bach Tempo Sherman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/k-miehling-early-music-2000-bach-tempo-sherman 2/4
Correspondence
Bach's
notation
of
tempo
Bernard
D.
Sherman's
article 'Bach's
notation
of
tempo
and
early
music
performance:
some
reconsiderations'
(EM, xxvii/3
(Aug
2000),
pp.454-66)
contains
interesting
observationson tempo practicewith traditionaland-as
he calls
it-historically
informed
performance
(HIP)
players,
and
gives
us
a
lot
to reflect on the difficult
ques-
tion of
Bach's
tempos.
I
can't
share
his
opinion,
however,
that the mentioned
examples
of
HIP
tempos
are 'less historical than
slower
pre-HIP tempos'
(p.455).
The
range
of common time
tempo
ordinario
of MM
80
with some
margin
(MM 65-95,
as
Sherman
suggests)
seems
to me all
right.
But
is
every
piece
in
e
without a
tempo
indication
such a
tempo
ordinario
piece?
In
spite
of
Sherman's rather
generous margin
there is at least one
example
that
proves
the
opposite:
Heinichen's Laetatus
sum
a3
should be
such a kind of
tempo
ordinario
piece,
but its duration
of
'4
min.'
leads
to
MM
106,
being
more
a slowish
Allegro
han a
tempo
ordinario.'
And as to Bach:
many
of
his
concerto
opening
movements
have
no
tempo
indication-I don't
think
that could mean a
tempo
ordi-
nario,
but
an
Allegro,
ince
it was
clear
to the
performers,
that a concerto
with three movements
starts with a fast
one.
Also to me the
movements that
are unmarked
n
one
version
and
Allegro
n
an other don't
mean different em-
pos.
There s
such
a lot of
proof
in
contemporarywritings
that the 'true
movement'
of
a
piece
is of
the
highest
importance
for
its character-it seems
hardly
believable
that,
for
example,
the first movement
of the violin con-
certo in
E
major
(Allegro)
s
fast,
but
the 'same'
in
the
D
major
version for
harpsichord
would
be a
remarkably
slower
tempo
ordinario.Since
both versions are
marked
?,
not
c,
one
may
argue
that
a
tempo
ordinario
n
?
would
match with an
Allegro
n
c,
so
the indication
in the violin
version
is redundant.
But,
of
course,
there are similar
concerto movements
having
c,
and without
a
tempo
indi-
cation.
Also Bach's turbae
are fast
in
my
opinion.
Here it is the
affect of the text that makes the tempo clear to the per-
formers.
Already
Praetorius,
n
a time when the
tactus,
or
call it
tempo
ordinario
principle,
was more
topical
than in
Bach's
days,
wrote:
'Es kan aber
ein
jeder
den Sachen
selbstennachdencken
vnd
ex
consideratione
extus
& Harmoniae
observieren,
wo
ein
langsamer
oder
geschwinder
act
gehalten
werden
miisse.'
'But
every-
body
can reflect
on
the
things
himself,
and observe
by
considering
the text and
the
harmony,
where
a slow or
fast beat should
be
taken.')'
The
next
point
is
the
question
of
triple
time
tempo
ordinario-'a point of significance o this article',as Sher-
man
says (p.456).
Without
quoting contemporary
evid-
ence
he
suggests
for
3/4
the
same crotchet
speed
as for
c.
This
precondition
leads him to criticize
HIP
tempos
of
'Ach,
mein
Sinn'
(St
John
Passion)
and of the
'Cruxifixus'
(in 3/2,
B
minor
Mass)
as too fast.
First let us consider that the ear
can
divide
c
time
always
into
units
of
two
crotchets,
while
3/4
time has
three crotchets
as its
smallest
perceptible
unit. So if we
want
to
have
comparabletempo
units,
the
3/4
has
to
be
50
per
cent
faster,
leading
to an
ordinario
range
of MM
97.5
to
142.5 (with
Sherman's
generous margin).
Also
in
Renaissance and
early
Baroque
music this
sesquialtera
proportion
seems to be
the
most used between common
and
triple
time.
Again,
if
we look at Heinichen's
tempos-the only
ones
we
know
from
Germany
n Bach's
lifetime-we see
that
he
tends to
have
the
beat faster
n
triple
than
in
com-
mon time.
I
must
admit, however,
that
there
is no
pair
that
would be
perfectly
comparable
as to
tempo
indica-
tion
and
note values.
Fuhrmann,
eventually
quoted
by
Sherman,
says
of
the
Tripla
minima
=
3/4
measure:
gehet hurtig'
('goes
fast')3
and
postulates
that the 'kleinen
Tripel' (including 3/4)
should
be used
in
Pieces
'so
eine
geschwinde Bewegung
erfordern'
'that
require
a fast
movement').
Finally,
look at
Quantz:
MM
80,
which to
him
is an
Allegretto
n
c,
becomes
Adagio
cantabile
n
3/4
That
is
even
twice as
fast
as his
Adagio
cantabile
n
c.4
So
there is
plenty
of evidencethat
3/4
is
normally
aster
than
c:
by
50
per
cent or even loo
per
cent.
Therefore,
he
listed
HIP
tempos
for
'Ach,
mein Sinn' with
MM
96-115
are a ratherslow
tempo
ordinario,
while the MM
77
or
90
in
traditional
recordings,
preferred
by
Sherman,
are
about
the
range
of
Adagio
cantabile
Whetherthis
piece
is
a sarabande-well, thereare elementsthat would fit, but
others don't: for
example
the
plain
whole bar note in
all
parts
in
bar
2;
and the continuo
players
would
in
the
first
bars think rather of a
passacaille,
which has
in
France
almost
exactly
the
range
of
the
mentioned HIP
tempos
(being
slower
than
the chaconne-for Mattheson and
Quantz,
as
we
know,
the
passacaille
s even
faster).
EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY
2001
153
This content downloaded from 90.48.146.145 on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:34:35 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/24/2019 K Miehling Early Music 2000 Bach Tempo Sherman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/k-miehling-early-music-2000-bach-tempo-sherman 3/4
Sherman does
not
say
which
tempo
he would
prefer
for the 'Cruxificus'. But
it is clear
that,
for
example,
Harnoncourt's
MM
77 ('studio
speed
record')
seems
to
him too fast.
Well,
as was
said
before,
this is a
Quantz
Adagio
cantabile
(he
does
not discern between
3/4
and
3/2).
And
as
we
found
that it is natural for
3/4
to
be
in
sesquialtera
o
c,
it seems
plausible
that
3/2,
traditionally
slower, keeps the ordinariobeat at MM 65-95. Harnon-
court's
referring
to
the
passacaglia
s
correct as
to the
composing
technique
over
a basso
ostinato,
but not as to
the
kind of Air du
caractare,
which
would
be
remarkably
faster.
Now
I
come to the
significance
of Andante.Sherman
s
not
quite
correct
in
saying
that
Quantz
like Fuhrmann
'categorizes
Andante
among
the slow
tempo markings'
(p.460).
The
only
Andante
Quantz
mentions
is
Poco
Andante,
corresponding
to
Adagio
cantabile. So
if
Poco
Andante
s
slow,
then
Andantewould be faster.
(Compare
the Andante
un
poco
from Bach's Sonata
in A
major
for
violin and
harpsichord
with a
'walking
bass' in semi-
quavers.)
I
agree
with Sherman
that for
c
MM
60 is
a
'middle'
Andante
tempo;
however,
Quantz
fails
to
men-
tion it.
But is
this
also an
adequate
empo
for
the Prelude
n
B
minor from The
well-tempered
lavier,
book
i,
as
Sherman
implies (p.
460)? (At
least
he
calls
the
average
MM
70
of
modern
pianists
having
'more historical
support'
than
the
faster
nterpretations.)
Quantz
makes
very
clear
that the note values indicate
the
type
of
movement.
The
Allabreve
s twice as fast as the
ordinary
common time
('gemeinergeraderTact'),
and the
note values are
consequently
doubled.5Of course,
Quantz
demands that
?
should be
used with the
Allabreve,
but
obviously
most
composers
do not follow
him-look at
Handel. Take
also Heinichen's 'Credidi
propter quod
locutus sum' with
c,
without a
tempo
indication and
minim
( )
MM
142,
or
better:
MM
71
for the
semibreve,
since crotchets are
the
fastestnotes.6
The use of
c
in
even
this
kind
of Allabreve s
admitted
by
Heinichen
in his
'General-Bass
n
der
Composition'.7
So the
B
minor Prelude is
de
facto
an Allabreve
n
Quantz's
sense,
and
the beat should be
on
the
minim.
Lastly I should like to object to Sherman's attitude
towards
the
performers
with
whom he
starts,
closes
and
garnishes
his article. Are there
really 'surprisingly
wide'
limits for one and the same
piece,
as
Donington
claims
(Sherman,
p.464)?
I count no fewer than 18 statements
of
17th-
and
18th-century
uthors
pointing
to the
importance
of
the
correct
tempo
for a certain
piece
of
music,
many
of
them
using
the
notion of the
'true',
'appropriate'
empo,
intended
by
the
composer.
So,
although
performers
may
disagree
about
what
the true
tempo
of
a certain
piece
is,
there s one.
KLAUS MIEHLING
Freiburg
m
Breisgau
Notes
1 On alltheexamples yHeinichenmentioned, ee
K.
Miehling, Autographe
uffihrungsdauerangaben
n
der
Kirchenmusik
on
J.
D. Heinichen.
Ein
vorliufiger
Bericht',
Musik
und
Kirche,
v
(1993),
pp.266-76.
2
Michael
Praetorius,
yntagmatis
usici omus ertius
(Wolfenbiittel,
1619;
R/Kassel, 1978),
p.51.
3
Heinrich:
Fuhrmann,
Musicalischer-Trichter
Frankfurt
n
der
Spree,
1706),
p.48.
4
JohannJoachim
Quantz,
Versuchiner
Anweisung
ie
Flite
traversiere
u
spielen
(Berlin,
1752;
R/Kassel,
1983),
pp.264f.
5
Quantz,
Versuch,
p.263.
6 In
my
above-mentioned
rticle
here
s
a
misprint:
or
'5
min.'
read
'3
min.'
(p.268).
7
Johann
David
Heinichen,
Der General-Bassn der
Compo-
sition
(Dresden, 1728;
R/Hildesheim,
1969),
P-332.
BernardSherman
eplies:
Dr
Miehling's
comments
are of
great
value and reveal
impressive
knowledge.
But I am not
sure that
they
dis-
prove my
basic assertions.
1
Regarding
c,
my
viewpoint
is
less
sweeping
than the
one Dr
Miehling
imputes
to me.
('is
every
piece
in
ewith-
out a
tempo
indication
such an
tempo
ordinario
iece?'
he
asks.
Clearly
not,
and not
even
I
have
said
it
was.)
I
would
state
my position
thus:
when we
have
a
carefully
notated
source
(e.g.
a
complete
set
of
autograph parts),
we
can
usually
assume that
if Bach
wanted a
tempo
that felt
extremely
fast
or
slow he would not
have marked it
merely
with the
c
signature.
To
him,
e-in
the absence of
certain
modifying
factors-indicated a
tempo
that felt
more or less ordinary.
Dr
Miehling's
counterexamples
do not
seem to
me
fatal to that
position.
As he
notes,
for
example,
the
use
of
?
in
the
E
major
concerto would be
enough,
by my argu-
ments,
to indicate an
Allegro
empo.
(I
have
not
yet
found
other Bach concertos that
clearly
disprove
my
position.
It
might
also be worth
raising, parenthetically,
Robert
154
EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY
2001
This content downloaded from 90.48.146.145 on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:34:35 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/24/2019 K Miehling Early Music 2000 Bach Tempo Sherman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/k-miehling-early-music-2000-bach-tempo-sherman 4/4
Marshall's
rgument
hat
in
Bach he
tempo
rdinarios
an
Allegro,
ather han
something
remarkably
lower'.
am not surewhere standon
this,
but
Marshall'sase s
not
easily
dismissed.)
2 As for
Dr
Miehling's
more
general oint,
I
am surehe
is
right
hatsome
pieces
n
c
were
played
boveor below
the metronome angeI posited.Butsuchexamples o
not
necessarily
isprovemy
basic dea.
For
one
thing,
f I
could write
my
article
again,
would
statemore
clearly
that 'ordinariness' as defined
by feeling
rather han
numbers.Thusthe Heinichen
xample
does not violate
the
gist
of
my
assertion.
he
MM
hat
Miehling ives
or
Heinichen's aetatusum
might
still
'feel'
ordinary
this
would
especially
e so
if
'4
minutes'
was an
approxima-
tion
of,
say,
'4:15')
3
Further,
mentioned
enre,
nd
agree
hat t wasa crit-
ical ndicator f
tempo,
and that t
might
at times
mply
faster r slower
empos
han he otherwise
rdinary
ange
for the
signature.
Dr
Miehlingmay
or
may
not be
right
that the turbae
enre
was
played
well
abovethe
tempo
ordinariovenwhenmarked
nly
c;
but
I
brought
p
this
genreonly
to
suggest
hat t
is
not as
conclusive coun-
terexample
s
may
seem
apparent.
s
for
the Praetorius
quote,
my
position
wasthatwhile he
degree
f the 'slow
or fastbeat'varied
widely
as a resultof
such nfluences s
texts
and
affects,
t
normally
ad
outside
imits
placed
on
it
by
the time
signature
and
otherelements
f
notation).
4 I agree
hat
Andante
was a
complicated
east,
and the
termwas used
n
morethanone
way.
WhileI am confi-
dent about he moderate
peed
of the
'Et
n
unum'and
Prelude
n B
minor,
I
agree
that some
contemporary
Andante movementsmoved
differently.
hope
that
futurediscussionwill
explore
his
question
urther;
Dr
Miehling's
orkwill no doubt
be
important
o
it.
My
referenceo Andante
n
Quantz
was
parenthetical,
not at all central o
my
argument.
Were
I
to rewrite he
article would not make the
reference,
artly
because
Quantz
s
not
immediately
elevant
vidence
egarding
Bachian
practice
no matterhow one
readshim.
I
still
hold that more relevant sources (e.g. Walther and
Fuhrmann)
uggest
that
Andante
ndicated
a
slower-
than-ordinary
empo
n
Bach.
Heinichen, oo,
is not
necessarily guide
to Bach's
conventions.t
may
be relevanthatHeinichen
egarded
the distinction etween and
?
as old-fashioned. o did
some Bach
pupils,e.g.
Altnickol;
ut
the evidence
ug-
gests
that Bach
himself
still
considered the distinction
meaningful.
(He
was,
for
example, likely
to use
C
n Alla
brevemovements
that Altnickol
copied
in
c.)
This
is
part
of
why
I
disagree
with
Miehling's
position
regarding
he
tempo
of
Bach's
B
Minor Prelude
n
the first
book.
5
I
described
he sarabande eference
n
'Ach,
mein
Sinn'
as 'possible',and I still think so; I would applythe same
adjective
to
Miehling's passacaille
reference. But neither
possibility,
even
if
proven,
would have conclusive
impli-
cations
for
tempo.
(Thus
my
brief
reference o the
sara-
bande was
of
arguable
relevance,
hough
perhaps
of inter-
est.)
As
for
the
'Crucifixus',
did
present
evidence for
its
having
a
slow
tempo.
6
Regarding
riple
metre,
I
agree
that
many
theorists
say
that
3/4
is faster
than
c;
but
I
believe
they
are
referring
o
3/4
whose fastest
prevalent
note
is
no smaller
than
the
quaver.
I
do not
think
these theorists' statements
apply
to
Bach's
ypical
3/4
movements
(nor,
I would
argue
on sev-
eral
grounds,
does
the
sesquialtera
roportion,
although
t
is relevant
o much
17th-century
otation).
I
hope
to dis-
cuss the crotchet
beat
in
3/4
and
c
in
the
future;
in
any
event,
my
view
on
it
has been
proposed
before,
e.g. by
Marshall.
I
remain
convinced about
the
examples
I
gave
in
my
article,
but
I
agree
that
triple-time
tempo
is a com-
plicated
matter
and that furtherdiscussion is
needed.
7
Finally,my
difference
with
Dr
Miehling
regarding
per-
formers is
philosophical
rather than
historical.
I
did
not
assert that Bach
or
his
contemporaries
ook
a
wide
range
of
tempos
in a
given
movement,
or that
they
would
have
approved
of such
a
range;
one cannot know. Yet
I
uphold
the
prerogatives
of modern
performers
n these matters
regardless.
Even
when
the
composer
precisely
notates
a
tempo using
a
metronome or
stopwatch
(or
we
have
spe-
cific evidence of
the
tempo
the
composer
used when
per-
forming
a
piece),
I
do not
object
to
performers
taking
very
different
tempos.
A
novel or unhistorical
empo
can
sometimes be
an
element of an
inspired performance.
One thinks of the best
work of
Schnabeland
Furtwingler.
I
do,
however,
consider it valuableto learn all
one
can
about the composer's performance preferences,even if
one chooses to
disregard
them when
performing.
Dis-
cerning
Bach's
tempo preferences
s indeed difficult.
If
my
article
encourages
discussion
of this
complex
issue-
and if the current
exchangebrings
attention to
Miehling's
own fine
writings
on
Baroque
tempo-it
will
have
done
some
good.
EARLY
MUSIC
FEBRUARY 2001
155
This content downloaded from 90.48.146.145 on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:34:35 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions