Talk:Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582 is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

This article is supported by the Compositions task force.

I deleted the last paragraph because I believe it was added erroneously.

[edit] 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)