|
|
On-line Book Review |
| FRONT COVER | OVERVIEW | ||||||||||||||||||
Dimension 21.0 x 14.8 x 1.3 cm |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
f you are expecting to find in this book the ‘correct’ tempo at which one should play any of Bach’s compositions, you will be disappointed. This book is not such a practical manual: it examines the surrounding theoretical issues ‘on Bach’s rhythm and tempo’. |
This book is a revised version of the author’s doctoral dissertation entitled “Studies of Rhythm and Tempo in the Music of J. S. Bach” submitted to Tel-Aviv University in 1999. As it is well known, Bach did not publish theoretical treatises, though many of his less-well-known colleagues did. By acknowledging that “Bach had outstanding knowledge of – and involvement with – older traditions” (p.ix), the author provides much ground for his readers to feel that with a better understanding of the relationship between tempo and other factors such as rhythmic texture, harmonic rhythm, articulation, affectual content, degree of accentuation, they can develop “a theory more in tune with actual musical practice, a theory that acknowledges the performer’s inherent freedom of choice and responsibility of choice, in relation to the tempo parameter.” (p.x)
Abravaya begins his enquiries with the 16th-century vocal style. There he finds the background concepts to appreciate the subject matter, namely the differentiated behaviour of durational strata (i.e., ‘slow’ moving in semibreve, ‘middle’ in minim, ‘fast’ in semiminim, and ‘vocal-ornate’ in fusa), which are of fundamental importance for his central argument. By doing so he makes illuminating observations on the fast-changing views that one can observe in the published treatises during the course of the Baroque era: he argues, for instance, that the walking-bass texture was incorporated in Baroque stile antico as an additional ‘modernizing’ factor during Bach’s lifetime, whereas in his sons’ generation it represented a ‘retrospective’ element. Particularly revealing to me was his discussion of the fastest stratum in some of Bach’s compositions, which pushes the bounds of ‘fast’ to extend to ‘impossible’ or ‘forbidden’ fast notes, e.g. the final section of the F-major fugue of WTC II (written in 6/16 time), whether this has the implication of a slower tempo, compared with a similarly textured piece such as the C#-minor Fugue of WTC II (written in 12/16 time but without the ‘super-fast’ passages in demisemiquavers). For Bach, such ‘hyper-fast’ passages often emerge in a late stage of composition or revision, as an addition of virtuoso elements in the composition. Does this mean that the basic tempo of the piece should be broadened for a later version that has newly-worked out demisemiquaver passages?
Another was his careful examination of writings by Bach’s contemporaries such as Mattheson, Roger North, Quantz, and Kirnberger on their perception of tempi and their observations at particular time and place. To me Abravaya made a convincing case here, demonstrating how important it is to read and interpret these historical accounts from their correct contexts.
And from it also emerges how much care we need to take when considering how fast or slow Bach himself played when using these historical references, as he warns us (p.176):
But examining Bach’s actual policy of tempo indications is even more perplexing, as its lack of system does not even approximate any of the tempo philosophies of his time -- or ours.
In effect, he warns us that it is impossible to assign ‘right’ tempi for Bach; instead he encourages us to focus on examining what musicians of Bach’s former generations thought about tempo, and investigate its relationship with rhythmic texture and structure. This book thus does not offer any answers to how fast or slow one should play a specific piece. What it offers instead is a fair way to interpret 18th-century tempo theories, which will serve as a source of inspiration to performers of today.
Published online on 9 January 2007