On 17 Jan 2007 at 0:25, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > On 1/16/07, Raymond Horton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So McCreesh's "instinctive feeling" trumps the evidence of Bach's 12 > > voice choir, plus his preference for a larger one? > > What evidence? > > "Rifkin's pesky idea" deals with that: > (taken from http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/oneperpart.html) > > ********************************************************************** > **** What about Bach's memo to the Leipzig city council, the > "Entwurff"? This 1730 letter reads like a call for three or, > preferably, four singers per part. It seems to be a straightforward > statement of the composer's "ideal," and that's how it was always read > by Bach scholars - until Rifkin addressed it.
Kim, you and the individual being quoted should never take such documents at face value. Have you ever proposed a budget for a project or an organization? If you want $10K, you ask for $15K, in the hopes that you get what you need. Now, there's no way to know of Bach asked for 16 singers because he thought he could then get 12, but there's also no way to know for certain if he actually meant 16 (or whatever it works out to given the number of parts). One could, I guess, investigate the politics of the Leipzig city council and funding requests that came to it. One would then also need to investigate whether or not Bach was politically savvy in regard to the conventions and practices of the city council. But you can't just take the Entwurf at face value and say it proves anything at all. Yes, it's what Bach asked for, but we don't know for certain whether it represents an ideal or a dream or an overreach or a practical minimum for ideal performance. > Rifkin, Andrew Parrott, and John Butt have argued that when read with > philological care, this document tells us nothing clear about Bach's > choral preferences. They point out that the passage about vocal forces > refers not to Bach's four-voiced cantatas, but to simpler motets by > older composers - motets typically for eight voices, not four. > Moreover, they say, the numbers Bach gives refer not to the "starting > lineup" (to use Rifkin's favorite baseball analogy) but to the > "roster" of team members necessary to staff an entire church-year's > worth of singing. > > The text can even be interpreted as supporting Rifkin's views. It is > not strong evidence for Rifkin, of course, nor does he claim it is. > But he and others have shown that is is not strong evidence against > him. Aha! I should have read further before taking you to task for quoting this. > John Butt argues in favor of Rifkin's idea (and contributes more > evidence for it) in his "Bach's vocal scoring." Previously, in his > Bach: Mass in B Minor (p. 40), he wrote, "although [Rifkin's] view > continues to be opposed by some of the most important figures in Bach > research, there have been no convincing arguments, based on meticulous > source-study, actually to prove him wrong." I don't know Butt's work, but I can't see how anyone can argue that the evidence for one-on-a-part is incontrovertible in either direction. > Jeanne Swack has presented research showing that Telemann used > one-per-part scoring in his cantatas. Kerala Snyder, in her 1987 book > Buxtehude, shows that this composer - whose performances so captivated > the young Bach - normally intended his four-voice choral compositions > for soloists. Finally, David Schulenberg's Music of the Baroque > (Oxford, 2001) - the leading textbook on the period - endorses > Rifkin's viewpoint. He writes: "Although the exact makeup of Bach's > vocal forces has been a matter of debate, it appears increasingly > likely that most of Bach's vocal works were composed for a 'chorus' > comprising a single singer on each part. > ************************************************************* I don't believe the situation is nearly as settled as that last quotation would have it. > That certainly puts to rest your contention that "Joshua Rifkin's > arguments of "one-on-a part" Bach choruses were long ago shown to be > without merit." I would agree with this, that they have not by any means been "put to rest", but I think they've been severely damaged, at least in regard to Rifkin's most vehement claim, that the surviving parts could only have been used for one-on-a-part performances. Without that, there wasn't much controversial in Rifkin's original thesis. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
