I take lessons on the piano and organ, and study musicology in university. That having been said, this one has been a head scratcher so far. I don’t suppose there are any early music experts on here, but perhaps someone on here played these on piano now or at some point in their lives? Any help is appreciated.
I started doing Bach’s French Suite No. 4 in Eb major in April. I showed it to my organ teacher last week for funzies, and he commented on my performance of the courante, in particular, the rhythm of the left hand. Here’s a sample of the score:
Observe, if you will, the left hand. That dot-sixteenth rhythm is pervasive throughout. My question then is, do the sixteenths A) line up evenly with the third note of the triplets, or B) come immediately afterwards? The piece is in 3/4, and taken literally, B would be the answer as written. But my organ teacher argues that this was a notational shortform by Bach (this is an urtext edition), and indeed that seems quite plausible explanation, especially given how jittery ‘B’ would sound a tempo.
I’ve asked two professors at my university, who are of conflicting opinion. One says that the French stylistic “Over-dotting” might be present, in which case the effect of B would be even more exaggerated. The other believes that A sounds and feels more natural.
Thanks in advance if anyone wants to tackle this one!
I will look for some evidence to back this up. What follows is simply my opinion, at least for now.
I agree with your organ teacher - a precise 4 against 3 in a ‘Courante’ would sound artificial. The idea of ‘mathematical’ precision in rhythmic writing is more of a 20th century concept.
For what it’s worth, my Peters edition has a little footnote that says “dotted eighth + sixteenth = triplet quarter plus eighth”.
I would agree with you on this one, but the early music professor whom I spoke to (who was really trying to avoid making a definitive answer of “the way it should be”) suggested that if it had a lilting, almost “Jazzy” swing to it, it would sound nice, which I couldn’t disagree with!
To that second part I bolded, I was taught that it was Leopold Mozart (Wolfgang’s daddy) that codified the dot as being “duration plus one half.” So, late 18th century onwards.
I’d love to see that Peters Edition! Do you have an ISBN so I can do a WorldCat search?
No - the original plate is from 1949, and this is a reprint done in 1967. It is Edition Peters, Nr. 4594 - here it is on page 6 of the Peters catalogue. (Warning - PDF).
Yes, but even with that, some people mean the dot more seriously than others - the performer seems to have been allowed a degree of freedom throughout the 19th century. I’m thinking of Chopin, in particular, where he seems to indicate an exact pattern of notes so that you get 13 over 4. You could play it that way, but I dare say it would sound more like Messiaen. To my ear, it sounds much more characteristic if you figure out which of the four should have five notes crammed in after it…
Speaking of Messiaen, do you happen to play any of his organ works?
No, not really. Despite us both being Church organists, playing Messiaen at Mass isn’t necessarily the best way to encourage the congregation; they’re too narrow minded :D. I studied composition with a student of his, so I know enough of his music. I definitely see what you’re getting at!
