On 4 Sep 2007 at 17:49, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > On 9/4/07, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Because they were never used? Or because they got lost? Or because > > they didn't need them? > > > > By itself, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > > Sure it is. When someone makes the claim 16 member choirs were > performing Bach's music, you need the evidence.
Who made this claim? Nobody in this discussion, so far as I can recall, but perhaps you could provide an attributed quotation where someone made that claim. > I didn't mention it, > but Parrott also points out that in other genres of music from the > 18th century where multiple instruments would play, those parts DO > survive, so your explanations about the missing vocal parts doesn't > make any sense. Well, not in 100% of all instances. There are plenty of cases of incomplete sets of parts, and part sets with an inventory on the wrapper with numbers that no longer match the contents. This is the case with some of the "authentic" copies of Mozart's symphonies that came direct from Mozart's widow to the André's. > All of Graupner's music survives intact, yet most of > his cantatas only have one voice per part. Did you read the footnote > Parrott commented on about Graupner's audition cantatas for Leipzig? > Graupner wrote these pieces expressly for the Leipzig forces, more > proof for Rikin's theory. It's not "proof" -- it's only part of a body of evidence. And, here's a free clue: I'm not arguing that Bach didn't often perform his music one on a part. I'm only pointing out the weaknesses in interpretation of evidence that come from making claims about what was never there based on what is now there. > > > Besides Parrott's monograph gives a detailed listing (pgs 177-187) of > > > all surviving vocal parts from Bach's cantatas, and very few of them > > > have multiple copies, just single S/A/T/B parts. > > > > Which doesn't tell us whether or not Bach would object to having 8-12 > > singers, only that in many situations, the parts clearly indicate one- > > on-a-part performance. > > Which I think is what Parrott, Rifkin, and now Paul McCreesh are > advocating: let's hear the music the way Bach had it performed and > according to the documentary evidence. And I have no objection to that. I only object to those who argue that it *must* be performed that way, and that's where Rifkin was at a while back. He's since softened his stance for political purposes, but I still think he's very dogmatic about the whole thing, in a way that ignores the range of possibilities in favor of restricting performance only to that which can be demonstrated. > > It's always easy to mine treatises for all sorts of information. It's > > much more difficult to demonstrate that the remarks in those > > treatises: > > > > 1. represent anything other than recommendations or theories, and > > more important, > > > > 2. it's difficult to prove that the traditions represented in any > > particular treatise are connected with particular repertories. > > > > Praetorius is much, much earlier than Bach, of course. > > I mentioned Parrott quotes many other sources, including peers of Bach > (e.g. Mattheson). And there's no demonstrated connection there, either. Given the difficulties we have in interpreting Bach's own written words, I think it's foolish to think that other sources on the subject can do anything other than suggest what some other practices were in other locations and other periods. > > > Parrott cites many other quotes / sources showing that if there were > > > other singers, it was normative to copy out those parts. > > > > We know Bach performed his cantatas, but do we know that the Dresden > > B Minor Mass parts were used in a performance? I thought that there > > is no known performance until CPE's Berlin one quite some time after > > his father's death. > > No, the B Minor Mass was performed (or sections of it) in Dresden, I'm > not sure what difference versus a complete performance would make in > the performance materials of the sections that WERE played. I missed that, sorry -- it's been 15 years since I made my study of the B Minor Mass, and given the mess of details, I've forgotten a lot. > > > And what > > > about performance materials in Darmstadt and Frankfurt and Hamburg, > > > which have the same disposition, with one vocal part surviving, with > > > very few mutliple ones? Parrott raised the question and it's a valid > > > one, if there were multiple copies of vocal parts, if you add up Bach, > > > Telemann and Graupner's cantata output, we have about 3700 cantatas, > > > where there should be hundreds of copies of vocal parts. They just > > > don't exist. > > > > What survives is what survives, not what was. > > Exactly. No multiple parts for vocalists in three of the leading > centers of cantata composition in early 18th Germany. You can't apply the practices of one place to another unless there were demonstrated connections (like shared background of teachers, and a Kapellmeister or two shuttling back and forth between them). There was no "European" or "German" practice -- just a whole lot of little islands. This is why pitch is so variable, and I don't see why other practices could not be equally so. > I'm not even > bringing up Stolzel or Fasch, who were highly regarded as composers of > cantatas. I've seen several Stolzel cantata manuscripts-- they are > exactly like Graupner: one voice per part. Yet multiple instrument > parts survive (Sonderhausen apparently had better instrumental forces > than Bach in Leipzig). > > > And what was is not necessarily strictly limiting for what would have > > been considered appropriate performance forces. > > But you don't know that. And you don't know what you're claiming to know, either. You only know the evidence. From that you have to make a case for what it means, and that case is not factual -- it's just a hypothesis. > That's making an argument from thin air. Then > in another sentence you completely discount what musicians and > theorists of the period DO suggest as appropriate! I've done no such thing. What I'm pointing out is that you're placing too much faith in "absence of evidence." > > It's the dogmatic limitation that has always annoyed the hell out of > > me, not the assertion that the pieces were performed one on a part in > > their original performances. > > Actually the dogmatic types are Ton Koopman and Christoph Wolff. I saw > a video clip recently where they are discussing the Bach/Buxtehude > connection (these videos are still available on Ton Koopman's website > BTW). They seemed pretty snarky and snide in dismissing Rifkin's > theory. Koopman makes some pretty cheap pot shots at Joshua Rifkin and > Andrew Parrott in his written rebuttals too, which I found rather > disappointing considering how much I admire Koopman. Rifkin has always had something of a chip on his shoulder because he never finished his Ph.D. studies at NYU. I don't know if others hold that against him, but I know it's something of a personal issue for him. And don't get me started on Christoph Wolff... > > > Actually the onus is on providing proof that 12-20 member choirs were > > > the norm in early 18th century Germany. > > > > That's a ridiculous straw man -- it's not even close to what anyone > > is suggesting in this discussion. > > Maybe no one here suggested it, Exactly the case. > but I think I'm reading Koopman > correctly that IS his position, Then explicitly identify that you're criticizing Koopman's postition on the issue -- generalizing it to everyone in the discussion here is just going to lead to confusion. > or why would he have recorded all the > cantatas with exactly those forces?. Because he wanted to? Just because I play German 17th-century music at A440 doesn't mean I believe that's the way it was played at the time -- it's a practical consideration because of the instruments available to the group I play in. While Koopman has fewer restrictions on his group than the NYU Collegium, he *is* a modern musician, and he can choose to do what he wants. Now, I don't know if he's claiming that it's the "authentic" way that Bach would have preferred. If it is, that's hogwash (just as it would be if Rifkin claimed the same thing). But that's a different issue entirely. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
