Talk:Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes

Untitled

Great article but: In the explanation of Cantus firmus chorale Johann Christian Bach should be Johann Christoph Bach (Erfurt 1671- Ohrdruf 1721)cf. MGG 1, 914. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.32.108 (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BWV 660

My edit to clarify re. the texture of BWV 660 has been reverted. Original text:

This chorale prelude is unusually scored as a two-part invention for pedal and bass, with the ornamented cantus firmus in the soprano line following the original hymn melody fairly closely. The opening ritornello, played imitatively in canon, contains the notes of the cantus firmus—g, g, f♯, b♭, a, g, a, g— distributed between the two bass parts. (Williams, 2003, p. 365–366)

I revised it to:

This chorale prelude presents the ornamented cantus firmus in the soprano against two simultaneous bass voices, either of which could serve on its own as a functional bass line to the cantus.

My objection to the original text (even moreso than the less-than-stellar prose) lies with the term "two-part invention." The term "invention" does not describe any tangible musical form or type, any more than the term "sinfonia" describes one: Bach called only those 15 specific two-voice pieces of imitative counterpoint "inventions," just like he called only those 15 specific three-voice pieces of imitative counterpoint "sinfonias." To describe the two-voice accompanimental texture of BWV 660 as a "two-part invention" is disingenuous, especially since Bach himself described it as "a due Bassi," calling attention to a much more descriptive and "unusual" (to borrow the original text's term) characteristic. I haven't seen the source, but even if Peter Williams used the term "invention" to describe the texture of BWV 660, he should have known better. The article really should reflect 1) the music in question and 2) Bach's own description thereof rather than an anachronistic and (while not wholly inaccurate) misleading description applied in the twentieth century. Further thoughts are most welcome.—Cor anglais 16 19:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written using the sources. In this article the main sources are the eponymous book of Stinson and the 2003 book of Williams (and the predecessors in the first edition). Your own text was something you invented yourself. It seemed an absurd thing to write. You think that one of the bass lines can be omitted. (How does that square with the heading "for two keyboards and pedal"?) By the same token one can take the 3rd variation (Varatio III) of BWV 769 (canon in lower manual and pedal, ornamental solo + cantus firmus in upper manual) and omit one of the two canonic bass parts (e.g. the pedal). Perhaps some people do that when they practise it. But so what?

Williams uses the phrase "two part invention" to describe the bass ritornello. I don't see anything wrong with that description. It refers to the self-evident counterpoint and imitation between the two parts. What prompts you to use the word "anachronistic"?

This page is not a page for general discussions of these pieces; we can certainly discuss the two sources. The description in both Stinson and Williams is quite detailed. It includes some comments about the lugubrious nature of this chorale prelude; its lack of popularity; its precursors in viola da gamba trio sonatas of Buxtehude and Marais or keyboard works by Frescobaldi and Legrenzi; and special features such as the prevalent diminished fourths described as "haunting" by Williams. Williams' book is not anachronistic; you haven't looked at it. I would say that had I written this article now (and not seven or eight years ago), I would include more detail from the sources, rather than these quite brief summaries. Your own suggestions are original research which bear no relation to the chorale prelude at all. Who, apart from you, says that one of the bass parts can be omitted? Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I'm not trying to imply that one of the lines can or should be omitted at all—my point is that either of the two bass lines combines with the melody to provide a complete, contrapuntally-intact piece, and that the genius of the piece is in the combination of these two bass lines in a way that obscures neither. One can see this in the final measure—one of the bass lines ends in a whole note, the other in a short chord followed by rests. It appears strange but in fact is required in order to maintain the integrity of each bass line.

I use "anachronistic" to describe the phrase "two-part invention" because it's the sort of phrase that is bandied about in reference to any two-voice counterpoint, when in fact the historical usage of the term is limited specifically to the fifteen Inventions, BWV 772–786—again, while not completely inaccurate, it's not the most appropriate description. Such usage engenders the "slippery slope" fallacy: is all two-part imitative counterpoint an "invention?" Is all three-part imitative counterpoint (that is not otherwise a strict fugue) a "sinfonia?" I agree that sources are and ought to be the basis for the article, and further that Williams and Stinson are first-rate scholars and experts in this repertoire—I simply posit that 1) Williams should have used more accurate verbiage in his description, and that 2) assuming 1), the article should use more accurate verbiage than the source. —Cor anglais 16 22:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion and has nothing to do with the article. Williams' use of "two part invention" has nothing to with BWV 722–786. He uses the phrase but is certainly not referring to those single keyboard (manualiter) works. That is why there is no wikilink to that article. Perhaps your misunderstanding comes from that. (I call the three part inventions "sinfonias".) The two part inventions are some of the classic repertoire for those learning the piano. But this piece has to do with playing the organ, particularly playing one part with the left hand and the other part with the feet. Why confuse the two? (Many of those learning to play the inventions do not have legs long enough to reach the pedals. That is something that I've seen used in at least one murder mystery, where the murderer—the organist—gets one of the choristers to play instead of him to give him an alibi: but the chorister can only play manualiter—if I remember correctly he plays the B flat minor prelude from WTC 1—and the lady detectives notice the lack of pedal.) The four duets in Clavier-Übung III are also two part inventions. So are one or two pieces in WTC I and II. If you don't play the organ, you might not understand what is involved here (the same applies to BWV 769/3). Mathsci (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we're experiencing an issue of semantics—I am unwilling to call anything other than BWV 722–786 an "invention;" you are willing to expand the term "invention" to include additional two-voice counterpoint. From my semantic perspective, the duetti in Clav 3 are not two-part inventions, they are duetti, because that's what Bach named them. You ask why I would confuse the BWV 722ff inventions with BWV 660; from my perspective using the term "invention" to describe BWV 660 is in fact what is confusing the two. Now, Peter Williams' position as such a renowned scholar automatically ought to lend some credence to this use of the term "invention," but I contend that while it's perhaps not inaccurate, it's definitely not precise, and that for this reason the article should avoid the term "invention." —Cor anglais 16 17:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Peter Williams is (or was) a musicologist, an expert on Bach. You seem a little fixated on the Two Part Inventions. Nothing you have written has anything to do with these Chorale Preludes. Peter Williams uses the same term several other times in his book (e.g. for the manualiter section of the fugue in BWV 552). He also separately refers to the Inventions. I think readers of his book will find no problem understanding what he means; and nor would readers of wikipedia. Why not read his book instead of telling me about your preconceptions? Mathsci (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Note also that the use of this terminology is fairly common among Bach scholars, e.g. David Ledbetter uses it to describe some of the preludes in WTC. Mathsci (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Similarly David Schulenberg, in his book on the Keyboard Music of J.S. Bach, describes the Praeludium in BWV 825 (the first partita for keyboard) as a Sinfonia or 3-part invention. You seem to be objecting to standard terminology amongst Bach scholars. So I'm sorry, you'll just have to learn how they write, even if it surprises you. Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)