On May 13, 3:39 pm, "Tom Hens" <tom.h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> sagespath <sagesp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote...
>
> <snip>
>
> > The Aria you refer to is from the Anna Magdalena Book ca. 1726. It
> > was kind of a guest book in which visitors and Bach wrote small
> > pieces.
>
> The (second) Notenb=FCchlein of Anna Magdalena Bach wasn't a guestbook
at
> all. It was a notebook Bach gave as a present to Anna Magdalena after
> having copied some of his own keyboard works into it, and into which she
> then copied other pieces she liked, clearly for use in the family
circle.
> Apart from the few pieces Bach copied into it himself, almost all the
rest
> is written by Anna Magdalena. Most of that is music by her husband, but
it
> also includes pieces by other composers, as well as some of the first
> keyboard compositions of her young stepsons.
>
> > The Aria has no text. It was chosen by Bach as the theme for
> > the Goldberg Variations
>
> The Aria was copied by A.M. into the notebook c. 1741, at the same time
> Clavier=FCbung IV (a.k.a. the 'Goldberg Variations') was published.
There=
is
> no reason to assume the Aria existed first as an independent work, which
> Bach then later decided to write variations on.
>
> > when he was commissioned by Count Kayserling
> > (1742) to compose a lively work to help with his insomnia.
>
> Will this myth never die?
>
> There is absolutely *no* historical evidence that the fourth part of the
> Clavier=FCbung was a commission from Keyserlingk, or that they were
inten=
ded
> to be played by Goldberg. What evidence there is points the other way.
If
> it had been a commissioned work, the publication would have included the
> usual groveling dedication to the noble patron, which the custom of the
> times required. And when Bach published the work, Goldberg was only 14
> years old, still a schoolboy and not employed by Keyserlingk or anyone
> else.
>
> The only reasonable assumption is that Bach wanted to continue the
> Clavier=FCbung series with a volume dedicated to variations, a form that
> hadn't been treated in the first three volumes.
>
> > The Goldberg Variations were composed for a two manual harpsichord.
> > The parts frequently cross so performance on a modern piano is quite
> > difficult. For two excellent recordings on the piano visit
> >www.glenngould.com
>
> Since it's composed for harpsichord, and you say you're a harpsichordist
> and even built your own instrument, why are you recommending piano
> recordings, not harpsichord ones?
>
> > For the score, use only the Schirmer edition edited by Ralph
> > Kirkpatrick.
>
> Why, pray tell? What's wrong with all other editions? Including, for
> instance, the NBA one?
I'm not familiar with the 'NBA" edition. The title pages of most of
the few Bachs works published in his lifetime do not "grovel".
Nobody claims that Goldberg was employed by Count Kayserling. There
are references to his prodigious skill as a player. There is scant
evidence of composers specifying what performer should be allowed to
perform their works. Sometimes traditions ac***ulate and we get, say,
'The Moonlight Sonata', and worse.
Your 'only reasonable assumption' proves nothing and disproves
nothing.
|
