Bach BWV1043 again
I checked quickly last night and saw a 10-year-old thread, so perhaps it's time for another, although I'd be surprised if there hasn't been one in the intervening time.
I have Andrew Manze's Baerenreiter, but I'm not convinced by it.
What's the next best text?
I have never used that edition. Can you specify why you find it unconvincing?
There is a manuscript in the library at Krakow. Not sure if it is by CPE, or one if his parents. Nevertheless, a very cool thing to see.
The thing I don't like about Manze is the large quantity of pedantic bowing instructions (in the v2 first movement part), which are unnecessary in places and self-contradictory in others and disagree with Oistrakh. In measures 5 and 6 EVERYBODY upbows that second half-note (minim), but Manze insists on down-bowing it and then following it with a redundant upbow instruction! It only really makes any sense if the upbow mark in measure 5 is a misprint for a downbow mark, but this isn't the only place where Manze treats the music in the same way.
Having said that, I see there was a new edition last year, whereas I have the 2003 edition.
None of that sounds redicoulous if your going from a HIP perspective as manse obviously is. And having one note open and one closed. Is an old trick to add variety to a phrase. Manse would likely never do the same thing as Oistrakh as they had such different views on style.
Remind me what HIP means?
Historically informed performance
I did find it once, then forgot what it meant. Now if you google it, it's some brand new fear women have been told to have of "violin hips". (what about cello hips or double bass hips?)
@Gordon - the bottom line is that you do what works for you. I suspect that if you looked at CPE's manuscript copy on IMSLP, you would not find up and down bow notations, although you would find slurs. So, if you are interested in HIP, the main thing is to do the slurs. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect there were not many Baroque conventions about up-bow-down-bow issues. Anyhow, Oistrakh was a Romantic, not a HIP devotee, but he understood the music at a level which few of us could achieve, and his Bach recordings are superb. You could do worse than follow his lead, even he does not conform to Manze's purist HIP standards. Ultimately, you have do what seems to work best for you. Good luck!
My previous teacher is somewhat a HIPP performer, and he is rule of down bow (at beginning of bars and stronger beats in the bar)
@Jake - I think your teacher is probably right to the extent that down bow is favored for the beginning of bars. After that, it probably depends on several factors having to do with rhythm and notation.
Exactly Tom ^_^
Thank you Tom for the tip about the C.P.E. Bach manuscript. I find the slurs in there quite similar to the Peters edition (that I own). So I wonder why so many HIP performances don't play them. Whom do you trust if not C.P.E.? He was the son and he is on record having expressed great respect for the music of this father.
Remember that in baroque music the choice of bowing is to a significant extent controlled by the bow itself, if it is a baroque bow that is being used. Note that a baroque bow behaves differently to the modern Tourte bow.
Stephen, if you are thinking of Anna Magdalena, she was not one one of CPE's parents. I don't know of any manuscript copying that Maria Barbara did, but please, someone more knowledgeable, if I'm wrong, shoot me down.
@Albrecht - with the bowings, one thing to remember is that at least in Bach's ms. of the S&Ps, it is sometimes quite unclear which notes Bach intended to include in slurs. Looking for consistency to try to decipher these slurs also seems dicey; Bach does not appear to have been consistent. Perhaps the slurs in CPE's copy of BWV 1043 are clearer/easier to interpret, and he may have had better insight into some of his father's more ambiguous slurs.
Thankyou for your comments. I am going to print them out and keep them.
That's scary to hear Gordon about the heart attack, glad you seem to be back, take care!!
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.