J.S. Bach on the Organ

[Antoine Marchand]

Well, that Italian lost his opportunity:

[Coopmv]

Well, that Italian lost his opportunity:

He could have published something in Italian ONLY ...   

[Antoine Marchand]

It's always possible, Coop  .

Actually, all is possible. But possible don't mean probable  .

[Coopmv]

He could have published something in Italian ONLY ...   

This brings us back to the point whether JS Bach was the composer of bwv 565 ...

[Antoine Marchand]

I'm afraid that's right, Coop.

[Coopmv]

I'm afraid that's right, Coop.

Perhaps there is as high a probability that JS Bach did not compose bwv 565 as Marco polo had never visited China ...

[Antoine Marchand]

I don't think so because to prove a fake attribution requires proofs.

The arguments against the authenticity of BWV 565 are merely stylistic; but those reasons are refused by important scholars. For instance, Christoph Wolff claims its authenticity in his book Johann Sebastian Bach. The Learned Musician, and he is probably the most important scholar on Bach at the moment.     

[jlaurson]

I don't think so because to prove a fake attribution requires proofs.

The arguments against the authenticity of BWV 565 are merely stylistic; but those reasons are refused by important scholars. For instance, Christoph Wolff claims its authenticity in his book Johann Sebastian Bach. The Learned Musician, and he is probably the most important scholar on Bach at the moment.     

I reckon he's also the same scholar who won't allow unrestricted access to the Bach archive to scholars who don't agree with him? When it comes to the OVPP debate, I'd like to believe that the Wolff/Koopman group is right, not the Rifkinites. But that doesn't mean I (or anyone else) should be completely uncritical of Wolff's doing.

In any case, argumentum ad verecundiam ("Ipse dixit") shouldn't convince anyone because it's a fallacy and itself insufficient to sway any thinking person. (Now if we read "The Learned Musician", we might be convinced, of course.)

In any case, I think there is enough of a hypothesis by respectable scholars our there to raise the question as to BWV565's authenticity. Whether we believe it is by Bach or not is ultimately a matter of our faith/flexibility/conviction. Most of us have always associated it strongly with Bach and could probably not have their minds changed if we found the original manuscript by Albertus Cornelius Kreuzbeiniger himself. Fair enough: I could probably not be convinced that the Cello Suites are not by the master himself, even if we found a letter of JS congratulating Magdalena on such a fine composition. (He would probably have whispered it into her ear, while making child No.21 -- so no such letter will likely appear.)

P.S. Most (probably 98% or more) of attributions are based solely on stylistic grounds, not "proof". I don't know where you get that "proof" thing from. That is largely impossible with paintings or compositions or other artistic works from that period. It's all about stylistic 'evidence'.

[Antoine Marchand]

I reckon he's also the same scholar who won't allow unrestricted access to the Bach archive to scholars who don't agree with him?

Well, that's an argumentum ad hominem, Mr. Laurson.

In any case, argumentum ad verecundiam ("Ipse dixit") shouldn't convince anyone because it's a fallacy and itself insufficient to sway any thinking person. (Now if we read "The Learned Musician", we might be convinced, of course.)

You have missed the most important part of the discussion. We were talking about possibilities v/s probabilities. I admit a possibility of fake attribution, but one or several stylistic studies aren't enough (or conclusive) , when –on the other hand- tradition, documents and many respectable scholars (considering their own analyses), state the authenticity of the work. When authenticity is a problem, the authority on the subject is an essential criterion. Everyday, as you know, expert reports are accepted o rejected on the basis of the authority on the subject and that isn't an argumentum ad verecundiam. It's only a practical (and wise) solution when there are different opinions.

P.S. Most (probably 98% or more) of attributions are based solely on stylistic grounds, not "proof". I don't know where you get that "proof" thing from. That is largely impossible with paintings or compositions or other artistic works from that period. It's all about stylistic 'evidence'.

That's wrong because in the 98% of the cases, the attributions aren't dubious or are clearly documented.

[71 dB]

Wouldn't you agree that one Dittersdorf is enough?

No. Seven Dittersdorfs would be nice, one for each day of the week!  0:)

[jlaurson]

Well, that's an argumentum ad hominem, Mr. Laurson.

Well, almost. This one actually categorizes as a 'snide aside'.

That's wrong because in the 98% of the cases, the attributions aren't dubious or are clearly documented.

Well, if they're clearly documented, then the problem of authenticity (or the 'original attribution') doesn't arise in the first place. Where the problem does arise, such attribution is absent. Certainly we were talking about that subset where questions of authenticity and attribution must be considered. And the vast majority of those are not questioned/re-attributed based on new found hard evidence to the contrary but usually based on stylistic analysis or the like. (And yes, I concede that the argument of a knowledgeable Bach scholar does have great weight here, but that's ultimately reliant on the quality of his argument, not the respect he commands from his peers.)

[nut-job]

Well, if they're clearly documented, then the problem of authenticity (or the 'original attribution') doesn't arise in the first place. Where the problem does arise, such attribution is absent. Certainly we were talking about that subset where questions of authenticity and attribution must be considered. And the vast majority of those are not questioned/re-attributed based on new found hard evidence to the contrary but usually based on stylistic analysis or the like. (And yes, I concede that the argument of a knowledgeable Bach scholar does have great weight here, but that's ultimately reliant on the quality of his argument, not the respect he commands from his peers.)

I guess musicologists have to have something to occupy themselves, but deciding attribution based on stylistic analysis seems dicey.  People are unpredictable, afterall.  At least James is honest, "I don't like it, therefore it is not by Bach."  Straightforward reasoning which I suspect is the subtext of many a musicologist's analysis.

[rubio]

I find this historical set by Walcha an excellent set to own.  I am a little half way through the set.  For under $20, this was heck of a bargain and the SQ is quite good too ...

My only Bach Organ set is the stereo Walcha (which I really like), and I wonder if i should go for the above set as well. It's cheap, but maybe I'm better off going for another performer? And I wonder if the sound quality is markedly inferior to the DG Original Masters incarnation?

[nut-job]

My only Bach Organ set is the stereo Walcha (which I really like), and I wonder if i should go for the above set as well. It's cheap, but maybe I'm better off going for another performer? And I wonder if the sound quality is markedly inferior to the DG Original Masters incarnation?

If you only have one why get a second set by the same artist?  Walcha is good, but a bit stodgy and didn't change much over the years.  If you are on a budget, better to pick up a few disks that have your favorite pieces by contrasting artists.  A few installments of the Weinberger set would be a significant contrast to Walcha, for example.

[Bulldog]

If you only have one why get a second set by the same artist?  Walcha is good, but a bit stodgy and didn't change much over the years.  If you are on a budget, better to pick up a few disks that have your favorite pieces by contrasting artists.  A few installments of the Weinberger set would be a significant contrast to Walcha, for example.

I'm with you.  I learned my lesson a few years ago with Tureck's various recordings of the Goldberg Variations.  I had her version on the Philips Great Pianists of the Century series and her more recent DG account; loved both of them.  So I acquired another two versions on VAI Audio.  That was a waste of money and time, because there was nothing of interest in either of the two additional versions. 

If I owned a complete Bach/Walcha set (and I don't), I'd never get another one.

[Coopmv]

If you only have one why get a second set by the same artist? 

I have every set of Beethoven Symphonies ever recorded by Karajan - from the first set with Philharmonia Orchestra and every set on DG plus the 1963 SACD set.  I see nothing wrong with this collection style ...

[Coopmv]

Just ordered this yesterday.  Should be fun to watch ...

[Bulldog]

I have every set of Beethoven Symphonies ever recorded by Karajan - from the first set with Philharmonia Orchestra and every set on DG plus the 1963 SACD set.  I see nothing wrong with this collection style ...

As long as you have money to burn.

[nut-job]

I have every set of Beethoven Symphonies ever recorded by Karajan - from the first set with Philharmonia Orchestra and every set on DG plus the 1963 SACD set.  I see nothing wrong with this collection style ...

I'm not going to embarrass myself by telling you your collecting style is wrong if it pleases you.   I think HvK's 77 cycle is probably my favorite, I have his '63, which is also good but which adds little.  I had one disc from the digital cycle (I got it before the '77 cycle was released on CD) which I found unsatisfactory.  I haven't heard the Philharmonia set.  But there is a LOT more to Beethoven than Karajan.  Given limited funds and/or space a diversity of artists is more enriching (for me).

On the other hand, there are more significant differences between performances in Karajan's Brahms symphonies, although in no case is Karajan's recording my favorite of a Brahms symphony (except perhaps the '64 Symphony #4).

[Coopmv]

I'm not going to embarrass myself by telling you your collecting style is wrong if it pleases you.   I think HvK's 77 cycle is probably my favorite, I have his '63, which is also good but which adds little.  I had one disc from the digital cycle (I got it before the '77 cycle was released on CD) which I found unsatisfactory.  I haven't heard the Philharmonia set.  But there is a LOT more to Beethoven than Karajan.  Given limited funds and/or space a diversity of artists is more enriching (for me).

I have 16 Beethoven cycles, which includes Bernstein with the VPO, Christopher Hogwood and the AAM, Toscanini and the NBC Symphony, Kurt Masur and the Gewandhaus Orchestra and quite a few others.  The last cycle I bought was the Harnoncourt and the European Chamber Orchestra, which is still in cellophane.  I think I will probably add the cycles by Colin Davis, John Eliot Gardiner and Charles Mackerras to my collection later this year.