Talk:Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582

Deleted last paragraph

I deleted the last paragraph because I believe it was added erroneously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.216.235 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

I removed the following two paragraphs:

Bach’s Passacaglia is of greater length and complexity than any composed before or during his lifetime. The chief difficulty of the passacaglia form, in which a composer writes a series of variations over a ground, is maintaining interest. The harmonic structure repeats, and there can be no excursions into other keys. Bach turns the inexorable repetition of the ground to his advantage, and it contributes to the growing intensity of the variations.

Although Bach's great Passacaglia is technically not sacred music, many consider it to be one of the most sacred of his organ compositions. Bach is not easily separated from his religion, nor would he want to be. He dedicated his compositions, including the secular ones, “to the glory of God alone.” An obvious reference to the sacred in the Passacaglia is his use of the numbers 3 and 7. The Passacaglia is in 3/4 time and written in the key of C minor, which has three flats. The Passacaglia theme, or “ground” is played twenty-one times, a multiple of 3x7.

The first is POV through and through, the second is half POV, half unsourced statements on the mystical nature of numbers in Bach's work, which has always been a controversial topic. I also removed a bunch of errors ("composed in 1717", "Buxtehude's theme is somewhat similar", etc.), the E. Power Biggs quote (described the passacaglia as "a work of reasoned and convincing musical logic" - couldn't find the source anywhere), and maybe some other minor things.

I left the Alain analysis in place, but I don't have her set and couldn't find anyone who has; the whole thing needs a more substantially formatted reference rather than the vague "Vol. 14" - if anyone can check whether Alain really wrote any of that stuff, and add the details about the discs to the article, please do. Jashiin (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have the set - on Erato, cat number 4509-96747-2 for CD 14. Unfortunately Erato/Warner in their wisdom deleted the set, and I don't think the notes are available online. The only way they could be is if they were scanned in which I'd be reluctant to do on copyright grounds. They are in Alain's hands (in French) and translated into English by Stewart Spencer. I hope that's enough for you to reference it according to Wiki quality guides. The catalogue numbers are pretty much unique like ISBNs, and I don't think Harvard referencing needs an ISBN does it?

Incidentally, Alain dates the work at 1716-7 from the Weimar period, though my copy of the Schmeider dates it (questionably) 1708-12. If my German is good enough I might check the BGA, though the academic weight of a publication from the 19th century in relation to current performance practice is potentially dubious.

Wolff mentions BWV582 in his biography (OUP, 2001) but makes no effort to date it there. However in his notes accompanying my copy of the Koopman organ works (Teldec 2000, cat 3984-25713-2), Wolff cites the Passacaglia as "around 1708". Most likely, it is a Weimar work.

If you need any more information re: MCA's notes, I'd be able to provide, naturally if it doesn't breach copyright rules. Chavster01 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for adding the reference! Its perfectly fine to only include catalogue numbers, and sure enough scans are not required; I was just worried that someone might have vandalized the page, putting their own theories here and falsely citing Alain. Could you check whether the wording is identical, in the article and in the Alain text? Because if it is, it is a copyright breach and we'll have to reword the article.

As for the date issue, well, 1708-1713 is a long period.. I decided to mention the Lübeck voyage (like Williams does) because of the Buxtehude connection. And Wolff in fact does refer to the Passacaglia's date of composition (see my reference; its page 94 in the edition available on Google Books, not sure exactly which one it is). Its a short sentence, he mentions some other works, and then says that BWV 582 probably dates from the same time (i.e. 1708-1713, possibly Arnstadt). I don't think there's need to check the BGA, precisely for the reason you give.

Thanks for your help! Jashiin (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I added it whilst NLI. My edition is isbn 0199248842. Which, according to p94 dates it even earlier, something which I doubt, given the works we can less vaguely ascertain the dates for, it feels too mature (I've played it). The google edition appears to be the same imprint - Damn, I regret spending £30 now.

The wording isn't identical, I paraphrased it intentionally to avoid that issue.

Problem is, it's nigh on impossible to date the non-published works, unsure where MCA got 1717 from, it seems a bit late relatively speaking. Her playing is nice though (she records it at Grauhof, a lovely instrument dating from 1737, Treutmann is of the Silbermann school... oh and the said disc has just finished. Damn.) 86.3.219.136 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, I am going to add some information on Wolff's and Vogelsänder's theories, I just don't have the time to do so now. So its not like I'm going to leave the thing like that. Jashiin (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alain's theories - spurious?

I was wondering if it might be beneficial to the article to remove Marie-Claire Alain's analysis of the Passacaglia. Her theories seem to me to be spurious at best. Her point about Nun komm is perfectly accurate if you allow for the semitones being ornamentations of the Nun komm tune spelled in the dotted quavers, but when she says that the cantilena in bars 24-48 spell out 'Von Gott will ich nicht lassen' I cannot see how she came to that conclusion.

If written in degrees of the scale the chorale tune would be as follows (phrases are divided by semi-colons): 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 7; 7, 1, 1, 2, 2, 5; 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 3; 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 2; etc.

For comparison I will write out the openings of each part from bar 24.

Top part: 1, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 2; 5, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 7; 6, 5, 4, 3 etc. Voice two, right hand (starting from bar 25): If one accounts for the implied modulation that results from the imitation at the fifth then the pattern is almost identical to the one above. Left hand part: (starting from after the quaver rest in bar 24) 5, 1, 2, 7; 1, 2(flattened), 3, 1, 4, 2, 1, 7, etc.

Aside from a coincidental similarity that arises when falling scales are used in both pieces (which could be applied to any piece with a scale falling from the 5th to the 2nd) there is absolutely no similarity here between any of the voices in this cantilena variation and 'Von Gott will ich nicht lassen'.

As for 'Bars 49-72, the scales are a reference to "Vom Himmel kam der Engel Schar"', that Chorale is no more scalic than any other Lutheran hymn tunes, many of which move by stepwise motion. As Bach's scales involve a lot of notes I shall not transcribe what he wrote into degrees of the scale, but I invite people to compare the Bach scales with the Chorale as I see no similarity of shape.

I am not familiar with the 'star' motive in "Herr Christ, der Ein'ge Gottes-Sohn" so I cannot comment on that, nor do I know the ornamented figure to which she refers from "Christ lag in Todesbanden".

She says 'Bars 144-168 "Ascending intervals in bass recall the Easter chorale "Erstanden ist der heil'ge Christ"' but the ascending intervals in the (by which I presume she means pedal) are a rhythmically altered and then perfect restatement of the ground bass of the passacaglia.

I would like some others to check this out as well in case I am mistaken or overlooking something. If I am not then her theories are unhelpful to students of Bach or music theory and simply read into the work quotations that are not there. If this is the case then her conclusions are wrong and she is not a credible source in this instance.

Thanks in advance to whoever takes on the laborious task of doing the double checking and well done to anyone who actually sat through all those numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhainault (talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: After having done some more research it seems that Alain is referring not to the Lutheran chorale tunes themselves, but the choral preludes written by Bach that make up the Orgelbüchlein. This would make much more sense as, for instance, Bach's prelude on "Vom Himmel kam der Engel Schar" IS very scalic and features scales running up and down the keyboard.

If people are in agreement then it might be wise to amend the statement 'each opening with a quotation from a Lutheran chorale, treated similarly to the Orgel-Buchlein written at a similar time' which would mean that the chorales themselves are put into the piece, to read 'each including a treatment that is similar in Affekt and Figur to the treatments of the following chorales in the Orgelbüchlein.' It is a minor edit but the difference is important as it is incorrect to state that the chorales themselves are referenced or quoted. This problem may have arisen in the initial paraphrasing of Alain to avoid copyright issues. Thanks, Rhainault (talk • contribs) 04:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How many variants?

Second paragraph under Analysis says 20 variations; paragraph four says 21. (Possibly the opening theme plus 20 variations = 21?) Casey (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210014715/http://bach.nau.edu/BWV582/BWV582b.html to http://bach.nau.edu/BWV582/BWV582b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)