There is one of very similar character attributed to Buttstett as well (similar beginnings but different developments). I think this has been considered Pachelbel's work for quite awhile. The score I used to play the piece was published in the 1970s and claims it to be Pachelbel. I am not sure of the historical attribution of this work. However, based on my knowledge of Pachelbel's keyboard works (quite extensive), this is very soundly in the style and form of Pachelble. If JS Bach wrote it, he was heavily referencing the style of Pachelbel. See Pachelbel's chorale fantasias on "Vom Himmel Hoch," "Nun komm der Heiden Heiland," and "Ein feste Burg" to see but a few that clearly follow the form and style of this piece. Thus, it seems like Pachelbel or someone really ripping off Pachelbel. Everyone once loved to attribute things to the "big" names; the same thing used to be done in Renaissance musicology with Ockeghem and Josquin. Now people are more suspect of these tidy filters.
@@JordanAlexanderKey :: Thank you for the composer-information. I listened to a recording (v=2-GTvRpX5ZM) on a Witteveen positiv organ, the sound of which I love, and there the attribution was "Bach-Pachelbel" and I was stricken with confusion ... "Pachelbel Bach", like Lennon-McCartney? OK not so, I know that it was an honor in the Baroque to be quoted. But then, IMSLP, BGA? Pachelbel comes up, and Bach pieces "Christ lag in Todes Banden" are something different. What a good thing that we now do not attribute everything to "big names"; it must mean that nowadays we do not subscribe to "only geniuses can make music".
@@dibaldgyfm9933 Yes, many are more suspect of the "exceptionalism" picture we once painted of the past, recognizing that many people were accomplishing quite a lot, even if we today are unaware of those accomplishments. Due to further historical research over the past decades, we have been able to uncover much information that teaches us about many artists we did not know of previously. There are many questions still left unanswered and possibly many "geniuses" to yet be known. JS Bach might still be obscure if not for the 19th century revival of his music. Furthermore, JS Bach's music could have easily been utterly lost if it wasn't coincidently preserved. Keep in mind that only a handful of Bach's music was published in his life (only a few works for keyboard); consequently, much of what we have now was coincidentally and fortunately preserved by simply sitting ignored on some shelves in churches and courts that conveniently were not destroyed over the centuries - we are still finding works by Bach up to the present. Bach's works weren't painstakingly preserved after his death because people thought, "Oh wow! This stuff is a monument to human genius." For example, the manuscript of all the Brandenburg concertos was unopened by the Margrave of Brandenburg and totally un-played during Bach's life; they sat on the shelved of the court of Brandenburg until they were sold for a pittance in what one could basically call a "garage sale" by the Brandenburg court decades after Bach's death. Basically no one gave a s*** about ol' Johann Bach. It is only by cultural consensus and the effort of some promoters that JS Bach has migrated from musical periphery to the epicenter, and this certainly might have never happened for countless reasons. We have discovered that there are many such composers whose works were simply forgotten and sitting on various shelves in various archives to be discovered. Furthermore and unfortunately, many churches, libraries, and palaces have been destroyed over the centuries (natural disasters, revolutions, wars, etc.). We know of composers for whom we only have a couple of surviving works; they have only a few works not because they only wrote these few but because the storehouse of their works (often a church) was destroyed at some point by some cataclysm. We will consequently never know what "genius" or lack thereof might have been with such a composer. Keep in mind that even if they were not well regarded in their lifetime as composers, they still might have been genius by today's standards. Remember that JS Bach was NOT widely regarded as a composer during his life (he was passed over for many composer jobs, often a third or lesser choice over composers people today have never heard of); consequently, if we only had a few surviving works of Bach and the remarks of his contemporaries, our history books today would probably not mention Bach at all or only say that he was a well regarded pipe organist who wrote some trifles that were not well regarded by his contemporaries. Time is a fickle companion, and history is (perhaps troublingly so) only what we decide to make it, regardless of the reality that might stand behind the façade we erect.
@@JordanAlexanderKey I agree that this is Pachelbel's work. The structure is quite typical, but even the rhetorical gestures, the voice interplay and the kind of keyboard technique required are certainly similar to his other works.
@@TrinkBruder Hi. I am not sure what you are referencing. What is your source for this work by Bach? The Dupre edition you are speaking of? Is it a manuscript with Bach's name on it, or merely the work published with Dupre (or someone else) as editor from later, who chose to give Bach credit for a reason we might have no access to (and a reason that is probably not well founded)? Maybe I am just not understanding you. You should realize that publishers of PERFORMANCE editions (NOT musicological editions - an important distinction) take liberty to change works, especially in early music. So, the addition of F# or the lack thereof at the end of a work might not actually be from the composer but from the publisher, who, in knowing conventions of the Baroque and feeling a particular way about the work might or might not choose to raise the final chord from minor to major. Such raising of the final chord, like musica ficta of the Renaissance, was sometimes an unwritten practice and left to the discretion of the perform given the situation of the performance, and so editors will justifiably take the same liberty today. To help you answer your question further, I would need to see the edition you are talking about, which I do not have access to online. Realize that someone like Dupre and Faure made some liberal choices when editing Bach's work. They are great PERFORMANCE editions, but they are NOT musicological (especially given their numerous errors in attribution). I would not trust them for truth of Bach’s mind, rather I would trust them for truth of how Dupre or Faure would have performed Bach, which was probably not historically accurate. Take for example their numerous fingerings given in the editions. If my Faure edition is anything to evidence the similar quality of Dupre's as a "musicological edition," they not only falsely attribute works but also prescribe French style legato fingerings for nearly every piece, a style of playing that Bach would have probably not been using. These are great editions based on great PERFORMERS (Dupre or Faure), however, they are not necessarily or likely based on Bach! Your thoughts about the Toccata in D minor are also prescient to this discussion, since there is debate over whether Bach wrote this piece himself. First, I doubt that JS Bach would reference the Toccata in D minor, since it was not famous in his lifetime (he himself was not a famous composer in his lifetime), and this work, as far as we can tell from Bach's own writing, was not a piece he held in high regard. We could assume that most of Bach’s favorite works that he does not list himself are the many works he continually recycled throughout his latter career (see, for example the numerous recycled works in the Well-Tempered Clavier and Mass in B minor). As far as we know, Bach never significantly returned to Toccata in D minor in his latter catalogue . Though, perhaps I am mistaken, or you have some good courter-evidence; however, a Picardy third or absence thereof at the end of two works is not a good basis to suggest a deep relationship. Bach seems to have liked many other of his own organ works much more than the Toccata in D minor. Also, there is some debate in the musicological world as to whether Toccata in D minor is, in fact, Bach's. Bach took many pieces by others and put them in his books of music and did not properly credit the pieces. Of course, he was not publishing these works and was probably just using them for his own liturgical and teaching purposes, so he felt no need to pedantically list the names of composers in trifling notebooks of sketches. A significant body of Bach’s works come to us in unpublished “sketch books.” We cannot know the truth, and we have some evidence to suggest that not all sketches are Bach’s work but are rather pieces by others that Bach enjoyed and studied. Of course, crediting artists was not necessarily a consideration at this point in history. While, of course, artists put their names of their work (in most cases) at this point, there was still a wide practice of not doing so, especially in the case of unpublished manuscripts. Most of Bach's work is in unpublished manuscripts without any name, sometimes aside sketches of other’s works. Thus, we have no way of knowing if some of Bach's works are by him or not. Bach was sedulous in his counterpoint, but not so sedulous in cataloguing his sketches and notes. For a further example of this modern musicological quandary, there is now much debate and some evidence that says that one of Bach's wives might have written a number of the cello sonatas (or heavily influenced them), since she herself played the cello. Ultimately, we have no way of knowing because Bach was not reliable about crediting people where credit might have been due, and crediting women was highly unlikely and perhaps even unwise for a man’s career. Of course, there was no expectation of citation in the 18th century and artists borrow material all the time. However, borrowing is quite different from wholly stealing a work in its entirety. We might scoff that Bach “stole” (or “borrowed”) works from his wife (uncredited in either case), but when one considers other cases of similar genius who also borrowed from their wives without credit, we should pause and wonder. I am thinking here about Albert Einstein, who has been recently shown to have very likely collaborated on most of his early and most famous works with his first wife, Elsa Einstein. Based on threatening words written to Elsa by Albert himself in numerous letters, it appears Albert was blackmailing or threatening her to keep secret that his work on Relativity and the photoelectric effect, for which he won the Nobel Prize, were (at least) done in collaboration with her or (at most) significantly based on her independent work. See the recent popular publication on Elsa Einstein, “The Forgotten Einstein,” for an engaging read on this topic, or follow the various scholarly literature upon which this book is based. If Einstein could potentially “borrow” from his wife, Bach certainly could have! We certainly know Bach “borrowed” (to greater and lesser extents) from plenty of other composers. I make no value judgements here about artistic borrowing, but we should be clear that borrowing does not constitute taking a complete work and merely changing the composer’s name at the top. When did Bach borrow; when did Bach steal? Was this really stealing if the work was unpublished? Bach certainly did not necessary expect his sketch books to be published, so can we fault him for sloppy attribution in them when we publish such volumes without his permission? Thus, as musicologists, we should do our best to view such sources with a critical eye and not be taken up in the fervor of genius-worship and begin compiling self-fulfilling prophecies.
Do you dispute that Bach in BWV4 Cantata made the same alteration to the sequence Victimae Pashali Laudes by altering the descent of the first note to second to a semitone? That is indisputable and plainly acknowledged by John Elliot Gardiner as in fact what JS Bach did. Is Gardiner a poor source for scholarship on the subject? He simply does the same thing in the source for his Chorale Prelude. It did not have anything to do with Faure or Dupré, anymore than it had anything to do with the blues pianist Champion Jack Dupree
I have tried to provide internet sources much to my chagrin to find the score I referenced. Google Oeuvres Complètes pour Orgue de J.S. Bach annotées et doigtées par Marcel Dupré, Volume 12
This used to be attributed to Bach, with some changes in the accidentals.
There is one of very similar character attributed to Buttstett as well (similar beginnings but different developments). I think this has been considered Pachelbel's work for quite awhile. The score I used to play the piece was published in the 1970s and claims it to be Pachelbel. I am not sure of the historical attribution of this work. However, based on my knowledge of Pachelbel's keyboard works (quite extensive), this is very soundly in the style and form of Pachelble. If JS Bach wrote it, he was heavily referencing the style of Pachelbel. See Pachelbel's chorale fantasias on "Vom Himmel Hoch," "Nun komm der Heiden Heiland," and "Ein feste Burg" to see but a few that clearly follow the form and style of this piece. Thus, it seems like Pachelbel or someone really ripping off Pachelbel.
Everyone once loved to attribute things to the "big" names; the same thing used to be done in Renaissance musicology with Ockeghem and Josquin. Now people are more suspect of these tidy filters.
@@JordanAlexanderKey :: Thank you for the composer-information. I listened to a recording (v=2-GTvRpX5ZM) on a Witteveen positiv organ, the sound of which I love, and there the attribution was "Bach-Pachelbel" and I was stricken with confusion ... "Pachelbel Bach", like Lennon-McCartney? OK not so, I know that it was an honor in the Baroque to be quoted. But then, IMSLP, BGA? Pachelbel comes up, and Bach pieces "Christ lag in Todes Banden" are something different.
What a good thing that we now do not attribute everything to "big names"; it must mean that nowadays we do not subscribe to "only geniuses can make music".
@@dibaldgyfm9933 Yes, many are more suspect of the "exceptionalism" picture we once painted of the past, recognizing that many people were accomplishing quite a lot, even if we today are unaware of those accomplishments. Due to further historical research over the past decades, we have been able to uncover much information that teaches us about many artists we did not know of previously. There are many questions still left unanswered and possibly many "geniuses" to yet be known.
JS Bach might still be obscure if not for the 19th century revival of his music. Furthermore, JS Bach's music could have easily been utterly lost if it wasn't coincidently preserved. Keep in mind that only a handful of Bach's music was published in his life (only a few works for keyboard); consequently, much of what we have now was coincidentally and fortunately preserved by simply sitting ignored on some shelves in churches and courts that conveniently were not destroyed over the centuries - we are still finding works by Bach up to the present. Bach's works weren't painstakingly preserved after his death because people thought, "Oh wow! This stuff is a monument to human genius." For example, the manuscript of all the Brandenburg concertos was unopened by the Margrave of Brandenburg and totally un-played during Bach's life; they sat on the shelved of the court of Brandenburg until they were sold for a pittance in what one could basically call a "garage sale" by the Brandenburg court decades after Bach's death. Basically no one gave a s*** about ol' Johann Bach. It is only by cultural consensus and the effort of some promoters that JS Bach has migrated from musical periphery to the epicenter, and this certainly might have never happened for countless reasons.
We have discovered that there are many such composers whose works were simply forgotten and sitting on various shelves in various archives to be discovered. Furthermore and unfortunately, many churches, libraries, and palaces have been destroyed over the centuries (natural disasters, revolutions, wars, etc.). We know of composers for whom we only have a couple of surviving works; they have only a few works not because they only wrote these few but because the storehouse of their works (often a church) was destroyed at some point by some cataclysm. We will consequently never know what "genius" or lack thereof might have been with such a composer. Keep in mind that even if they were not well regarded in their lifetime as composers, they still might have been genius by today's standards. Remember that JS Bach was NOT widely regarded as a composer during his life (he was passed over for many composer jobs, often a third or lesser choice over composers people today have never heard of); consequently, if we only had a few surviving works of Bach and the remarks of his contemporaries, our history books today would probably not mention Bach at all or only say that he was a well regarded pipe organist who wrote some trifles that were not well regarded by his contemporaries.
Time is a fickle companion, and history is (perhaps troublingly so) only what we decide to make it, regardless of the reality that might stand behind the façade we erect.
@@JordanAlexanderKey I agree that this is Pachelbel's work. The structure is quite typical, but even the rhetorical gestures, the voice interplay and the kind of keyboard technique required are certainly similar to his other works.
@@TrinkBruder Hi. I am not sure what you are referencing. What is your source for this work by Bach? The Dupre edition you are speaking of? Is it a manuscript with Bach's name on it, or merely the work published with Dupre (or someone else) as editor from later, who chose to give Bach credit for a reason we might have no access to (and a reason that is probably not well founded)? Maybe I am just not understanding you.
You should realize that publishers of PERFORMANCE editions (NOT musicological editions - an important distinction) take liberty to change works, especially in early music. So, the addition of F# or the lack thereof at the end of a work might not actually be from the composer but from the publisher, who, in knowing conventions of the Baroque and feeling a particular way about the work might or might not choose to raise the final chord from minor to major. Such raising of the final chord, like musica ficta of the Renaissance, was sometimes an unwritten practice and left to the discretion of the perform given the situation of the performance, and so editors will justifiably take the same liberty today.
To help you answer your question further, I would need to see the edition you are talking about, which I do not have access to online. Realize that someone like Dupre and Faure made some liberal choices when editing Bach's work. They are great PERFORMANCE editions, but they are NOT musicological (especially given their numerous errors in attribution). I would not trust them for truth of Bach’s mind, rather I would trust them for truth of how Dupre or Faure would have performed Bach, which was probably not historically accurate. Take for example their numerous fingerings given in the editions. If my Faure edition is anything to evidence the similar quality of Dupre's as a "musicological edition," they not only falsely attribute works but also prescribe French style legato fingerings for nearly every piece, a style of playing that Bach would have probably not been using. These are great editions based on great PERFORMERS (Dupre or Faure), however, they are not necessarily or likely based on Bach!
Your thoughts about the Toccata in D minor are also prescient to this discussion, since there is debate over whether Bach wrote this piece himself. First, I doubt that JS Bach would reference the Toccata in D minor, since it was not famous in his lifetime (he himself was not a famous composer in his lifetime), and this work, as far as we can tell from Bach's own writing, was not a piece he held in high regard. We could assume that most of Bach’s favorite works that he does not list himself are the many works he continually recycled throughout his latter career (see, for example the numerous recycled works in the Well-Tempered Clavier and Mass in B minor). As far as we know, Bach never significantly returned to Toccata in D minor in his latter catalogue . Though, perhaps I am mistaken, or you have some good courter-evidence; however, a Picardy third or absence thereof at the end of two works is not a good basis to suggest a deep relationship. Bach seems to have liked many other of his own organ works much more than the Toccata in D minor.
Also, there is some debate in the musicological world as to whether Toccata in D minor is, in fact, Bach's. Bach took many pieces by others and put them in his books of music and did not properly credit the pieces. Of course, he was not publishing these works and was probably just using them for his own liturgical and teaching purposes, so he felt no need to pedantically list the names of composers in trifling notebooks of sketches. A significant body of Bach’s works come to us in unpublished “sketch books.” We cannot know the truth, and we have some evidence to suggest that not all sketches are Bach’s work but are rather pieces by others that Bach enjoyed and studied. Of course, crediting artists was not necessarily a consideration at this point in history. While, of course, artists put their names of their work (in most cases) at this point, there was still a wide practice of not doing so, especially in the case of unpublished manuscripts. Most of Bach's work is in unpublished manuscripts without any name, sometimes aside sketches of other’s works. Thus, we have no way of knowing if some of Bach's works are by him or not. Bach was sedulous in his counterpoint, but not so sedulous in cataloguing his sketches and notes.
For a further example of this modern musicological quandary, there is now much debate and some evidence that says that one of Bach's wives might have written a number of the cello sonatas (or heavily influenced them), since she herself played the cello. Ultimately, we have no way of knowing because Bach was not reliable about crediting people where credit might have been due, and crediting women was highly unlikely and perhaps even unwise for a man’s career. Of course, there was no expectation of citation in the 18th century and artists borrow material all the time. However, borrowing is quite different from wholly stealing a work in its entirety.
We might scoff that Bach “stole” (or “borrowed”) works from his wife (uncredited in either case), but when one considers other cases of similar genius who also borrowed from their wives without credit, we should pause and wonder. I am thinking here about Albert Einstein, who has been recently shown to have very likely collaborated on most of his early and most famous works with his first wife, Elsa Einstein. Based on threatening words written to Elsa by Albert himself in numerous letters, it appears Albert was blackmailing or threatening her to keep secret that his work on Relativity and the photoelectric effect, for which he won the Nobel Prize, were (at least) done in collaboration with her or (at most) significantly based on her independent work. See the recent popular publication on Elsa Einstein, “The Forgotten Einstein,” for an engaging read on this topic, or follow the various scholarly literature upon which this book is based.
If Einstein could potentially “borrow” from his wife, Bach certainly could have! We certainly know Bach “borrowed” (to greater and lesser extents) from plenty of other composers. I make no value judgements here about artistic borrowing, but we should be clear that borrowing does not constitute taking a complete work and merely changing the composer’s name at the top. When did Bach borrow; when did Bach steal? Was this really stealing if the work was unpublished? Bach certainly did not necessary expect his sketch books to be published, so can we fault him for sloppy attribution in them when we publish such volumes without his permission? Thus, as musicologists, we should do our best to view such sources with a critical eye and not be taken up in the fervor of genius-worship and begin compiling self-fulfilling prophecies.
4:54 No final picardy third as written in the score? Christ really lay in the bonds of death :(
He does until Easter! : ) Let's not give any spoilers! : b
Another arrangement of this chant by Pachelbel: ruclips.net/video/ZdKZuhoZ8e8/видео.html
Do you dispute that Bach in BWV4 Cantata made the same alteration to the sequence Victimae Pashali Laudes by altering the descent of the first note to second to a semitone? That is indisputable and plainly acknowledged by John Elliot Gardiner as in fact what JS Bach did. Is Gardiner a poor source for scholarship on the subject? He simply does the same thing in the source for his Chorale Prelude. It did not have anything to do with Faure or Dupré, anymore than it had anything to do with the blues pianist Champion Jack Dupree
I have tried to provide internet sources much to my chagrin to find the score I referenced. Google Oeuvres Complètes pour Orgue de J.S. Bach annotées et doigtées par Marcel Dupré, Volume 12
Hallo aus Berlin
The beginning melody sounds like Japan national anthem.
AbEr AlLe Ok?????????🐞
Beaucoup de tenue, mais un peu sage. Le legato à ce point ?
Soweit man weiss, ist Pachelbel Barock!
Ich bin 371 brev