Comparative Early Music Performances

Early Music, Vol. , No. © The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.doi:10.1093/em/cah008, available online at www.em.oxfordjournals.org 233

The term ‘early music movement’ is commonlyused as a label for the large group of musicians

who strive to perform the early music repertory inan historically informed manner. In order to achievethis goal one was traditionally required to recon-struct a multitude of performance parameters whichhad been lost or had gone through extreme transfor-mation. For example, performances using ‘early’instruments, which are markedly different frompresent-day ‘modern’ instruments, have beenacknowledged as tools to reveal the manner ofsound production and many other idiomaticdevices. Likewise, a thorough reading of writtencomments by performers, theorists and other con-temporary musicians has been favoured to shedlight on their lost world, leading to the understand-ing of some of the lost aspects of performance, suchas improvisation or rhythmic interpretation of thenotation.1

However, from its very early stages there havebeen disputes over a variety of ideological issuesamong the movement’s activists, and in recent yearsthis has intensified to full scepticism. Criticismemerged from within the movement itself, tendingto undermine what was referred to as ‘positivistic’ or‘traditional’ viewpoints such as scientific objec-tivism or credibility of past treatises, as well as issuesconnected to performance practice such as the insist-ence on using period instruments.2 As revealedthrough the writings of some of its most prominentfigures, the ‘early music movement’ appears to beconnected with a complex mosaic of ideologies

residing one next to the other in different degrees ofcompliance.

A recent investigation of the influence of suchdiverse attitudes on the practice of early musicperformers surveyed a large group of currently activeperformers concerning the principal factors of theircraft. Its purpose was to find the extent of correspond-ence between the various ideological approachesand performers’ attitudes and choices made in prac-tice. Performers’ attitudes to issues such as the useof critical editions, period instruments, originalpitch and temperament, or composers’ status, toname but a few, were examined through per-sonal interviews and a questionnaire distributedworldwide.

Results have pointed to the clear tendency of themajority of performers towards traditional, ‘posi-tivistic’ standpoints: such was the importance givento the reading of historical treatises, to the useof intonation and temperament relevant to thehistorical period performed or to performance onperiod instruments. To a much lesser degree ‘scep-tic’, non-traditional positions were traced as well:such were the ambivalent attitudes found towardsthe musicological discipline or the prevalent conceptby which the performer is of equal status tothat of the composer. Generally speaking, theresults indicated that early music performers tend tocling to traditional conventions while almost ignor-ing more recent, ‘sceptical’ statements.3

Having looked at performers’ declarations regard-ing their craft, it seemed interesting to observe to what

Eitan Ornoy

Between theory and practice: comparative study of

early music performances

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 233

234 early music may 2006

extent and by what means they are executed. Hence,there was an examination of the mode of performanceof central musical parameters, aimed at exploringperformance conventions made in ‘real’ practice. Thiswas done through comparative analysis of a selectionof recorded performances of Baroque compositions,made by prominent early music performers of differ-ent periods. Such comparison marked diachronicchanges in performance practice, practice conven-tions and canonical authorities. Special significancewas attached to the examination of the correspon-dence between scholars’ theoretical findings andtheir actual performance. This was because the major-ity of performers who took part in the surveyconsidered the implementation of scholarly opinionsand instructions during performance as of crucialimportance.

The recordings chosen for this analysis were alsocompared with ‘mainstream’ performances—the termmost commonly used to describe performers using‘modern’ instruments who do not connect them-selves to the movement’s agenda. By this one couldobserve differences as well as similarities betweenboth ‘historically informed’ and ‘mainstream’ groupsin regards to the various elements of practice.

Method

The performance elements checked were pitch,intonation and temperament, tempo, rhythmicinterpretation and ornamentation.

The analysis of pitch, intonation and temperamentwas made through the use of a Melograph. Due to theequipment’s limitations,4 analysis was restricted tosmall-range, relatively slow, monophonic repertory,namely J. S. Bach’s Sarabande from the solo flutesuite in A minor (BWV1013) and the Sarabande fromhis solo cello suite in C minor (BWV1011).

Pitch analysis was based on comparison of theaverage a� used by each performer. Intonation analy-sis was based on comparison between the suggestedmean tuning representing historical practice, asoffered by Werckmeister’s famous model dated 1691(‘Werckmeister III’) as well as by various modernscholars (Kelletat 1960, Barbour 1972, Kellner 1977,Barnes 1979), and the interval sizes executed in ‘real’practice.5

The analysis of tempo, rhythmic interpretationand ornamentation was based on meticulous aud-itory examination, using a metronome and a tapemachine. In this case there were no technical restric-tions as to choice of repertory, which consisted ofDomenico Scarlatti’s harpsichord sonata in A, K113,L345 (Vivo), J. S. Bach’s Sonata no.2 in A for violinand harpsichord, BWV1015 (Andante un poco) and J. S. Bach’s Aria from the Klavierübung, BWV988(‘Goldberg’ Variations). Special significance wasgiven to the type of musical edition used for analy-sis: Balla Gyorgy’s edition (Editio Musica Budapest,1977) was used for the Scarlatti sonata, RudolfGerber’s edition (Bärenreiter, 1958) for the Bachviolin sonata, and Christoph Wolff’s edition(Bärenreiter, 1977) for the Goldberg Variations.6

Table 1 The average a� used by both ‘historicallyinformed’ and ‘mainstream’ groups of performers

Recording Performer Average a�date (Hz)

Flute1967 Maxence Larieu (Philips)* 4581969 Aurèle Nicolet (Archiv)* 4471975 Frans Brüggen (SeOn) 4181982 Wilbert Hazelzet (Archiv) 4101989 Barthold Kuijken (Deutsch 385

Harmonia Mundi)1991 Janet See (Harmonia Mundi) 3961998 Noam Buchman (JMC)* 439

Cello1938 Pablo Casals (EMI)* 4411963 Paul Tortelier (EMI)* 4501970 Nicolaus Harnoncourt 427

(The Musical Heritage)1979 Anner Bylsma (SeOn RCA) 4001985 Mischa Maisky (Deutsche 447

Grammophon)*1989 Pieter Wispelway 406

(Channel Classics)1992 Anner Bylsma (Vivarte-Sony 422

Classical)1992 Peter Bruns (Opus 111)* 447

* Performers considered to belong to the ‘mainstream’group

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 234

early music may 2006 235

Tempo analysis was based on the examination of theaverage tempo being used, inner tempo changeswithin the piece, and the use of rubato.

Rhythmic interpretation analysis examined theagogic accents being used (suspensions, shorteningof notes, accented notes etc.), and the manner inwhich notes inégales and ‘overdotting’ were beingexecuted (if at all).

Ornamentation analysis examined all ornamentsused in each piece, particularly the type and mannerof execution of trills and mordents. The analysisobserved the manner in which ornamentation sym-bols presented in the original score were interpretedby each performer.

ResultsPitch analysis

The ‘historically informed’ performances showeddifferences of pitch range varying by almost 30 Hzbetween the poles (nearly 40 cents above the minor2nd) in both groups of instrumentalists (see table 1).Yet the examination indicates compliance to modernscholars’ findings: Arthur Mendel, for example,offered 440 Hz as relevant for the cello’s a� pitch,while limiting the flute’s a� pitch to 414–22 Hz.7 BruceHaynes, who conducted his research much later,

offered 392–6 Hz as the standard a� used by bothcello and flute during Bach’s period in Cöthen—thetime at which both pieces were written.8

On the other hand, most ‘mainstream’ perfor-mances clearly deviate from scholarly opinion, inparticular those offered by Haynes. Comparisonbetween the average a� executed by both ‘historicallyinformed’ and ‘mainstream’ groups of performersshows clear differences of pitch, a range varyingover 70 Hz (equal to nearly a minor 3rd) betweenboth poles.

Intonation and temperament

As opposed to the pitch analysis results, comparisonbetween scholarly opinion in regards to the relevanttemperament system to be used in both pieces andthe interval sizes exectued in practice has shownclear differences: about 40 per cent of the intervalsexecuted by all players, ‘historically informed’ and‘mainstream’ alike, deviated from what could beregarded as historical practice. This similaritybetween both groups was mainly traced in the modeof execution of diatonic intervals, by which compli-ance to scholars’ directives was found in approx-imately 37 per cent of the intervals examined. Suchcompliance, for example, could be traced in the

Table 2 Melograph analysis of minor 2nds in Bach, Flute Sonata, BWV1013, Sarabande

Interval no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12b�–c� g#�–a� f�–e� g#�–a� f�–e� b�–c� b�–c� g#�–a� f�–e� f#�–g� c�–b� b�–c�

Larieu* 91 92 122 123 ? 91 ? 98 98 ? 102 ?Nicolet* 108 87 95 112 92 86 79 95 94 103 73 73Brüggen 137 89 117 85 133 99 99 ? ? 101 125 72Hazelzet 94 109 101 106 115 103 ? 122 125 107 ? ?Kuijken ? 93 99 99 105 120 92 88 112 96 119 108See 102 ? 108 95 ? 96 88 86 ? ? 112 105Buchman* 92 110 87 90 89 102 102 118 89 96 109 102Scholarly opinion 106–14 96–100 108–11 96–100 108–11 106–14 106–14 96–100 108–11 106–12 106–14 106–14

Intervals deviating 10 cents or more from scholars’ directives are shown in boldface.* Performers considered to belong to the ‘mainstream’ group? Undetectable data

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 235


excessive widening of major 3rds above their justsize (386 cents), a practice considered by mostscholars as corresponding to Bach’s standardtemperament system.9

Clear differences between the two groups of per-formers were traced in the use of chromatic intervalsonly: among the ‘authentic’ group, 57 per cent of theaberrant chromatic intervals were found to correspondto historical practice, while such correspondence wasfound in 27 per cent of the chromatic intervals of the‘mainstream’ group. Correspondence in that regardcould be traced in the lowering of a sharpened noteagainst raising its enharmonic equivalent.10

Table 2 records the size of minor 2nds asperformed by the group of flautists. The lowest rowindicates the size of intervals representing historicalpractice. Hazelzet’s widening of the 2nd in bar 5 cor-responds to historical practice, while Kuijken’sdiminution of that interval (bar 7) is in contrast toit. Note that the intervals singled out in the per-formers’ columns as not matching historical prac-tice are those deviating 10 cents and above scholarlyopinion. This is due to human hearing sensibility inhigh range, detecting pitch differences from approx-imately 5 cents and above. 10 cents is an effectiverange assuring the anomalous intervals are auditorynoticeable.11

Tempo

As for tempo, the analysis showed clear complianceto most theoretical findings and directives, yetthis was common to both groups. Table 3 showsthe average tempo chosen by all performers to allthree pieces.

In the Scarlatti sonata all performers selected afast tempo, corresponding to its tempo indication(Vivo) and mensural indication (Alla breve).12 BothGilels and Pletnev’s fast tempo is clearly connectedto their choice of instrument, enabling idiomaticfactors that could not be implemented in perfor-mance on a harpsichord.

In the Bach pieces there were greater differences inthe choice of tempo. This matches a common viewthat Bach was deliberately vague in his tempomarkings, indicating mood and spirit rather thanactual speed.13 In the violin sonata BWV1015 the tempochosen by Szering/Walcha, Biondi/Alessandrini

Table 3 Average tempo analysis: (a) Scarlatti, Sonata inA, K113, L345, Vivo; (b) Bach, Sonata in A for violin and

cembalo, BWV1015, Andante un poco; (c) Bach, GoldbergVariations, BWV 988, Aria

Recording Performer MMdate

(a) Scarlatti1956 Emil Gilels (Westminster)* 1441990 Scott Ross (Erato) 1041995 Mikhail Pletnev (Virgin Classics)* 1321996 Andreas Staier (Teldec) 100

(b) Bach sonata1961 Reinhold Barchet, violin 54

(Musical Heritage)*Robert Veyron-Lacroix, harpsichord

1970 Henryk Szeryng, violin (Philips)* 80Helmut Walcha, piano

1973 Sigiswald Kuijken, violin 69(Edition Classica)Gustav Leonhardt, harpsichord

1975 Jaime Laredo, violin (Sony Classical)* 69Glenn Gould, piano

1983 Monica Huggett, violin (Philips) 72Ton Koopman, harpsichord

1989 Joseph Swensen, violin (RCA)* 88John Gibbons, harpsichord

1996 Fabio Biondi, violin (OPS) 76Rinaldo Alessandrini, harpsichord

1999 Andrew Manze, violin (Harmonia 76Mundi) Richard Egarr, harpsichord

(c) Bach Goldberg1945 Wanda Landowska, harpsichord 42

(RCA Music)1955 Glenn Gould, piano (Sony Classical)* 561965 Gustav Leonhardt, harpsichord 40

(Telefunken Decca)1966 Edith Picht-Axenfeld, harpsichord 50

(Erato)1985 Chen Pi-hsien, piano (Naxos)* 631988 Ton Koopman, harpsichord (Erato) 361990 Maggie Cole, harpsichord (Virgin 46

Edition)1992 Daniel Höxter, piano (Ambitus)* 481993 Pierre Hantaï, harpsichord (OPS) 462000 Murray Perahia, piano 52

(Sony Classical)*

* Performers considered to belong to the ‘mainstream’group

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 236


earliest Goldberg aria recording (Landowska) usesfaster tempo than later ones, and Koopman’srecording of 1988 is the slowest among the Goldbergaria recordings examined.

In most performances, ‘historically informed’and ‘mainstream’ alike, inner tempo alterationsoccurred before significant thematic, harmonic,rhythmic or structural events. Table 4 serves as anexample of the inner tempo changes in several barsof the Scarlatti sonata. In this example, the tempoalterations found in bar 9 are made by mostperformers in order to emphasize separationbetween the opening motif (bars 1–9) and the fol-lowing episode (succession of virtuoso quaversabove the pedal bass). Similarly, slowing the tempotowards bar 69 is most probably made because ofthe cadence ending this section.

All performances, ‘historically informed’ and‘mainstream’ alike, used the element of rubato, clearlymatching scholarly opinion. It is employed beforecadences and during significant thematic, harmonicor structural moments. However, the use of melodicrubato—namely the use of rhythmic alterations in themelodic frame while keeping a solid rhythm in theleft-hand bass—was found in slow-paced piecesamong the ‘historically informed’ group only,

and Manze-Egarr corresponds to that favoured byNeumann, who regarded the term ‘Andante’ asroughly matching ‘Moderato’ during the period inquestion.14

As for the Goldberg aria, given the wide range oftempo interpretations presented by editors through-out the years, such variety of tempo is hardly un-expected.15 However, most performances on theharpsichord are slower than those on the piano. Inthis case, the choice of a relatively slow tempo by themajority of ‘historically informed’ players corre-sponds to the common perception regarding the rel-atively slow tempo of the French or GermanSarabande.16 Similar to what was traced in the analy-sis to the Scarlatti piece, it would be plausible toassume that the choice of tempo is also connected tothe instruments’ idiomatic features. However, suchsimilarity might also suggest the existence of a pre-dominating conventional practice, evolving fromeither an authoritative performance(s) or a canonicaledition.17

No correspondence was found between the dateof recording and the chosen tempo. Thus, for exam-ple, the earliest recording of the Bach violin sonata(Barchet-Lacroix) uses the slowest tempo amongthe recordings examined of that piece, whereas the

Table 4 Tempo alterations in Scarlatti, Sonata in A, K113, L345, Vivo, bars 1–69 (first repeat)

Bars MM Staier

Gilels Ross Pletnev

1–8 126; acc. up to 144 104 132 969 138 rit. down to 76 acc. up to 138 9610–11 138 104 138 9611–14 138 104 138 slight acc. up to 10014–27 138 104 138 10027–36 138 104 138 9636–42 acc. to 144 104 138 9642–9 144 104 138 9649–54 138 104 138 9654 138 104 138 slight rit. between beats 3 and 455–9 138 104 138 9659–60 138 104 138 rit. between both bars61–7 144 104 132 10068–9 slight rit. to 126 104 132 100

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 237


Tab

le 5

Rhy

thm

ic in

terp

reta

tion

in B

ach,

Son

ata

in A

, BW

V10

15, A

nda

nte

un

poc

o, b

ars

1–15

Bar

sB

arch

et–L

acro

ixSz

eryn

g–W

alch

aK

uijk

en–L

eonh

ardt

Lare

do–G

ould

Hug

gett

–Koo

pman

Swen

sen–

Gib

bons

Bio

ndi–

Man

ze–E

garr

Ale

ssan

drin

i

1–5

B2/

b1(V

n)

em 1

st 8

thB

1/b4

(Vn

) s

1st

8th

, wB

2/b1

(Vn

) em

1st

8th

B1/

b2(V

n)

s 8t

hB

2/b1

(Vn

) em

1st

8th

B1/

b4(V

n) s

1st 8

th w

2nd

B1/

b4(V

n)

s bo

thB

2/b1

(Vn

) sl

ight

em

B4/

b1(C

emL)

p 1

st2n

d 8t

hB

3/b4

(Vn

) em

d 8

th, s

16t

hB

2/b1

(Vn

) em

1st

8th

,B

2/b3

(Vn

) s

4th

8th

8th

1st

8th

16th

*B

2/b1

(Vn

) em

1st

8th

B4/

b1(V

n)

emL

2nd

8th

B3/

b1(C

emL)

w 4

thB

2/b1

(Vn

) em

1st

8th

B2/

b1(V

n)

w 1

st 8

thB

4/b3

(Cem

R)

p d

B4/

b4(C

emR

) s

16th

B5/

b4(V

n)

em d

8th

, s 1

6th

B3/

b1(P

iR )

em

1st

8th

,B

3/b3

(Cem

R)

s 4t

hB

4/b1

(Cem

L) p

1st

16t

h,

B4/

b3(C

emR

) od

8th

L 2n

d 8t

hB

5/b3

(Vn

) od

odB

3/b3

,4; B

4/b1

,2B

4/b4

(Cem

L) s

ligh

t n

i(P

iL)

w 1

6th

B5/

b2(V

n)

s 1s

t 8t

hB

5/b4

(PiR

) s

4th

6–10

B7/

b1(V

n)

em 1

st 1

6th

B6/

b4(V

n)

em 1

st 1

6th

B7/

b1(V

n)

em 1

st 1

6th

B6/

b1(P

iL)

w 1

6th

B6/

b3(V

n)

s 1s

t 8t

hB

6/b3

(Cem

R)

p d

8th

B6/

b3(C

emR

) od

B6/

b1(V

n)

em 8

thB

8/b4

(Vn

) w

2n

d 16

thB

7/b1

(Vn

) em

1st

16t

hB

9/b1

(Vn

) em

8th

, s b

oth

B7/

b1(V

n)

em 1

st 1

6th

B10

/b3(

Vn

) n

iB

7/b1

(Vn

) em

1st

16t

hB

7/b1

(Vn

) w

�em

B6/

b3(C

emR

) od

B3/

b3(C

emL)

p 3

rdB

8/b3

(Cem

R)

s la

st16

thB

7/b2

(PiL

) w

1st

16t

hB

7/b2

(Cem

L) s

ligh

t n

i1s

t 16

thB

7/b1

(Vn

) em

1st

16th

16th

B10

/b4

(Vn

) em

d 8

th, s

B8/

b2(P

iL)

w 1

st &

2n

dB

9/b1

(Vn

) em

8th

B10

/b2

(Vn

) w

1st

16th

B9/

b1(C

emL)

w 1

st16

th16

thB

9/b3

(Cem

R)

p 4t

h16

thB

9/b1

(Vn

) em

8th

16th

B9/

b2(P

iL)

w 1

st 1

6th

B9/

b3(C

emL)

p 1

st 1

6th

B9/

b3(C

emR

) p

4th

11–1

5B

11/b

1(C

emL)

p 1

stB

11/b

4(C

emR

) s

last

B12

/b2-

3(V

n)

s bo

th 8

th,

B11

/b1-

4(P

iR,L

) w

B12

/b3

(Vn

) em

1st

8th

B11

/b4

(Vn

) w

8th

B11

/b4

(Vn

) s

8th

B11

/b1

(Vn

) s

4th

16th

16th

em 8

th o

f b3

16th

B13

/b1

(Vn

) s

4th

B12

/b1

(Vn

) 8t

hB

12/b

2(V

n)

s bo

thB

11/b

4(V

n)

em 8

thB

12/b

3(V

n)

em 1

st 8

thB

12/b

2(V

n)

s 1s

t 8t

h,

B14

/b2

(Vn

) em

d 8

th,

B12

,b3

(Vn

) em

1st

8th

B13

/b1

(Cem

R)

ni

B12

/b2

(Vn

) s

1st

8th

, w8t

hB

12/b

1(V

n)

em 8

thB

14/b

3(C

emL)

w 1

stw

2n

d 8t

hs

16th

B12

-B15

/b3

(PiL

) w

B13

/b3

(Cem

L) w

4th

2nd

8th

B12

/b3

w a

nd

em 1

stB

12/b

3(V

n)

em 1

st16

thB

12/b

3em

1st

8th

16th

B14

/b1

(Vn

) od

B12

/b3

(Vn

) em

1st

8th

8th

8th

B15

/b2

(Cem

R)

s la

stB

15/b

2(C

emL)

slig

ht

ni

B15

/b2

(Cem

R)

od16

thB

15/b

4(V

n)

s 1s

t 8t

hB

15/b

4(V

n)

s 1s

t8t

h, w

2n

d 8t

h

*In

mos

t pe

rfor

man

ces

p or

s h

ave

been

tra

ced

in t

he

bass

lin

e, u

sual

ly in

th

e fi

rst

sem

iqu

aver

of e

ith

er t

he

firs

t or

th

ird

beat

.K

eyC

emR

�C

emba

lo, r

igh

t h

and;

Cem

L�

Cem

balo

, lef

t h

and;

PiR

�P

ian

o, r

igh

t h

and;

PiL

�P

ian

o, le

ft h

and;

Vn

�V

iolin

; ni�

not

es in

égal

es; o

d�

over

dott

ing;

B�

bar;

b�

beat

; 4th

�cr

otch

et;

8th

�qu

aver

; 16t

h�

16th

not

e; d

8th

�do

tted

qu

aver

; d 1

6th

�do

tted

sem

iqu

aver

; em

�em

phas

is; L

�lig

ht;

p�

pau

se b

efor

e; s

�sh

ort;

su

�su

spen

sion

; w�

wid

e

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 238


Table 6 Suggested interpretations of the ornamentation symbols in Goldberg aria

Symbol Dolmetsch Kirkpatrick Emery Bodky Dart Donington Neumann

Tr�te Tr�te Tr�te CoMo or DMo or Tr�te Tr�teTr�te CoMo

‘Doppelt Doppelt DeApp� \ \ StGru�Tr GrTrCadence’ Cadence’ LTr (‘descendingGrTr GrTr trill’)Gru Gru Gru Gru Gru Gru all kinds of Gru,

depending on context

App�Tr App�InMo App�LTr DeApp�Tr \ AppTr or App�Tr; could PTr mean grace note

as well as astandard trill

Tr StTr Tr Tr InMo usually Tr, but Tr, LTr, Tr�te, Mocould be DMo,App�Mo, PTr,vibrato, tremolo(�CoMo)

Sl Sl Sl \ \ Sl Sl or AsApp

Key App � appoggiatura; CoMo � compound mordent (mordent with three or more alteration notes); DeApp � descendingappoggiatura; Dmo � double mordent (mordent with two alteration notes); GrTr � gruppetto trill; Gru � gruppetto;InMo � inverted mordent (‘schneller’- single mordent by which note of alteration is above the main note); LTr � long trill;PTr � prepared trill (trill slurred to its preceding note); StGru � standard gruppetto (‘turn’- four note figuration startingfrom the auxiliary note above the main note); StTr � standard trill (trill which is opened by an appoggiatura above the mainnote, maintaining stable tempo during alteration with its auxiliary note); Tr � trill; Tr�te � trill with turned ending (trillending with its lower auxiliary note followed by its main note)

especially at heavily ornamented spots.Congruity inthat regard was traced, for example, at the second beatof bar 27 of the violin sonata, and in bar 1 (secondrepeat) and bar 17 of the Goldberg aria, as well as inmany other places throughout. This practice corre-sponds to views shared by most scholars, who havetraced it as relevant to 18th-century repertory.18

Rhythmic interpretation

As for rhythmic interpretation, the analysis showeddifferent degrees of compliance to theoretical find-ings and directives. Table 5 serves as an example ofrhythmic alterations found in the Bach violinsonata. As the table shows, agogic accents were usedconsiderably by both groups of performers forstructural lay-out, thematic emphasis and characterportrayal, thus corresponding to scholars’ sharedviews in that regard.19

The use of notes inégales was mostly traced among‘historically informed’ performers.20 Its context and

manner of execution correspond to views sharedby many scholars, who have pointed to its use inmovements of moderate tempo (such as the Bachviolin sonata and Goldberg aria),21 during slursof pairs of semiquavers (as in bars 24–5 of the violinsonata, suggested as slurred in Gerber’s edition)22 andto its cessation before cadences and significant end-ings (as in bar 29 of the violin sonata).23 One shouldnote that in the latter case several exceptions werefound (such as the use of notes inégales towards thecadences of bars 24–5 of the violin sonata).

However, the use of notes inégales in Bach’s music,which has been regarded by many as correspondingto historical practice,24 does not match views sharedby more recent scholars on the issue. These ‘right-wing’ scholars25 find it mostly relevant to Frenchrepertory, oppose its use at cadences or limit its useto specific periods.26

Overdotting was traced among the ‘historicallyinformed’ group in both Bach pieces, extensively

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 239


Tab

le 7

Orn

amen

tati

on in

Bac

h, G

oldb

erg

Var

iati

ons,

BW

V98

8, A

ria,

bar

s 1–

16(2

nd

repe

at c

olu

mn

sho

ws

only

cha

nge

s fr

om1s

t re

peat

)

1st r

epea

t2n

d re

peat

Land

owsk

aG

ould

Leon

hard

tA

xenf

eld

Pi-

hsie

nK

oopm

anC

ole

Höx

ter

Han

taı̈

Per

ahia

B1/

b3D

Mo

StM

oD

Mo

Mo

StM

oM

oSt

Mo

StM

oM

oSt

Mo

B1/

b3D

Mo

DM

oB

2/b1

PaA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppP

aApp

B2/

b2A

ppA

ppA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppB

2/b1

App

*(b-

a)B

3/b1

StM

oSt

Mo

StM

oSt

Mo

StM

oSt

Mo

StM

oSt

Mo

DM

oSt

Mo

B3/

b2,3

GrT

r�te

GrT

r�te

GrT

r(ac

c)�

teG

rTr

GrT

rG

rTr(

acc)

�te

GrT

r(ac

c)�

teG

rTr(

acc)

GrT

r(ac

c)�

teG

rTr

B4/

b2A

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppB

5/b3

DM

oSt

Mo

DM

oM

oSt

Mo

Mo

StM

oSt

Mo

DM

oSt

Mo

B5/

b2St

Gru

*B

5/b3

AsA

pp�

DM

oB

6/b1

PaA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppA

pp (

e)*

PaA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppB

6/b2

App

App

App

PaA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppB

6/b3

StG

ruFN

Gru

StG

ruFN

Gru

FNG

ruSt

Gru

StG

ruFN

Gru

StG

ruSt

Gru

B6/

b3St

Gru

B7/

b3A

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppB

8/b2

(RH

)A

pp�

StM

oA

ppA

pp�

StM

oA

pp�

DM

oA

pp�

StM

oA

pp�

StM

oA

pp�

StM

oA

pp�

StM

oA

pp�

StM

oA

pp�

StM

oB

8/b2

(RH

)A

pp�

StM

oB

8/b3

(LH

)D

Mo

StM

oSt

Mo

StM

oSt

Mo

App

�St

Mo

StM

oSt

Mo

StM

oSt

Mo

B8/

b3(L

H)

DM

oB

9/b1

(LH

)/

//

AsA

pp*

//

/B

9/b2

//

/In

Mo

*/

//

B9/

b3D

Mo

StM

oD

Mo

Mo

StM

oA

pp*�

Mo

StM

oSt

Mo

DM

oSt

Mo

B10

/b2

(LH

)A

pp�

InM

oIn

DM

oA

pp�

InM

oA

pp�

InM

oIn

Mo

StT

rA

pp�

InD

Mo

InM

oD

Mo

App

�In

Mo

B10

/b2

(LH

)A

pp�

InM

oIn

Mo

B11

/b1

InA

rpIn

Arp

Arp

Arp

InA

rpA

rpIn

Arp

InA

rpA

rpA

rpB

11/b

2,3

GrT

rG

rTr(

acc)

�te

GrT

r(ac

c)�

teG

rTr

GrT

rSl

�T

r(ac

c)�

teG

rTr(

acc)

�te

GrT

r�te

GrT

r(ac

c)�

teG

rTr

B11

/b2

FNG

ruT

r(ac

c)B

12/b

1P

aApp

PaA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppP

aApp

PaA

ppB

12/b

2St

Tr

App

StT

rSt

Tr

GrT

rG

rTr

StT

rA

pp�

InD

Mo

StT

rSt

Tr

B12

/b3

(LH

)/

//

//

InM

o *

StM

o*B

14/b

2A

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppA

ppB

15/b

3St

Mo*

B16

/b1

App

App

App

�FN

Gr

App

App

App

App

App

App

App

B16

/b2

LApp

LApp

App

App

App

LApp

App

App

App

LApp

*O

rnam

ents

not

not

ated

in t

he

scor

e.K

eyA

pp�

appo

ggia

tura

; Arp

�ar

pegg

io (

chor

d ‘s

prea

d’ fr

om t

he

bott

om u

pwar

ds)

AsA

pp�

asce

ndi

ng

appo

ggia

tura

(gr

ace

not

e lo

cate

d u

nde

rnea

th t

he

mai

n n

ote)

; B�

bar;

b�

beat

;C

oMo

�co

mpo

un

d m

orde

nt

(mor

den

t w

ith

th

ree

or m

ore

alte

rati

on n

otes

); D

mo

�do

ubl

e m

orde

nt

(mor

den

t w

ith

tw

o al

tera

tion

not

es);

FN

Gru

�fi

ve n

ote

gru

ppet

to (

five

not

e fi

gura

tion

star

tin

g fr

om t

he

mai

n n

ote

and

con

tin

uin

g in

th

e st

anda

rd g

rupp

etto

ord

er);

GrT

r�

gru

ppet

to t

rill

(‘as

cen

din

g tr

ill’,

‘tu

rn t

rill’

- st

anda

rd t

rill

wh

ich

is o

pen

ed b

y a

gru

ppet

to);

Gru

�gr

upp

etto

;In

Arp

�in

vert

ed a

rpeg

gio

(ch

ord

‘spr

ead’

from

th

e to

p do

wn

war

ds);

In

CoM

o�

inve

rted

com

pou

nd

mor

den

t (‘

hal

f tri

ll’);

In

DM

o�

inve

rted

dou

ble

mor

den

t; I

nG

ru�

inve

rted

gru

ppet

to (

fou

rn

ote

figu

rati

on s

tart

ing

from

th

e lo

wer

au

xilia

ry n

ote)

; In

Mo

�in

vert

ed m

orde

nt

(‘sc

hn

elle

r’-

sin

gle

mor

den

t by

wh

ich

not

e of

alt

erat

ion

is a

bove

th

e m

ain

not

e); L

app

�lo

ng

appo

ggia

tura

(th

egr

ace

not

e is

su

stai

ned

lon

ger

than

usu

al, s

omet

imes

tw

ice

as m

uch

as

its

mai

n n

ote)

; DeA

pp�

desc

endi

ng

appo

ggia

tura

(gr

ace

not

e lo

cate

d ab

ove

the

mai

n n

ote)

; PaA

pp�

pass

ing

appo

ggia

tura

(‘co

ule

’- p

assi

ng

not

e co

nn

ecte

d to

its

succ

essi

ve m

ain

not

e, fo

un

d be

twee

n t

wo

mai

n n

otes

wh

ich

are

par

ted

by t

he

inte

rval

of t

hir

d)M

NT

r�

mai

n n

ote

trill

(‘P

rallt

rille

r’-

trill

ope

nin

g fr

om it

s m

ain

not

e); M

o�

mor

den

t; M

oTr

�m

orde

nt

trill

(st

anda

rd t

rill

open

ing

wit

h a

mor

den

t); p

Tr

�pr

epar

ed t

rill

(tri

ll sl

urr

ed t

o it

s pr

eced

ing

not

e); S

iMo

�si

ngl

e m

orde

nt

(mor

den

t w

ith

on

e al

tera

tion

not

e lo

cate

d be

nea

th t

he

mai

n n

ote)

; Sl�

slid

e (p

assi

ng

to t

he

mai

n n

ote

thro

ugh

its

two

succ

essi

ve n

otes

loca

ted

abov

e or

bel

ow it

); S

lTr

�sl

ide

trill

(tr

ill o

pen

ing

wit

h a

slid

e, u

sual

ly o

f tw

ode

scen

din

g n

otes

); S

tGru

�st

anda

rd g

rupp

etto

(‘t

urn

’- fo

ur

not

e fi

gura

tion

sta

rtin

g fr

om t

he

auxi

liary

not

e ab

ove

the

mai

n n

ote)

; StM

o�

stan

dard

mor

den

t; S

tTr

�st

anda

rd t

rill

(tri

ll w

hic

h is

open

ed b

y an

app

oggi

atu

ra a

bove

th

e m

ain

not

e, m

ain

tain

ing

stab

le t

empo

du

rin

g al

tera

tion

wit

h it

s au

xilia

ry n

ote)

; StT

r(ac

c)�

acce

lera

ted

stan

dard

tri

ll; T

r�

trill

; Tr�

te�

trill

wit

h t

urn

ed e

ndi

ng

(tri

ll en

din

g w

ith

its

low

er a

uxi

liary

not

e an

d w

ith

its

mai

n n

ote)

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 240


assimilated by both groups in the Goldberg aria.27

The places in which it is used correspond to viewsshared by many, pointing to its assimilation in suc-cessive dotted figures and before cadences or othersignificant endings.28 In most cases it was executedwith a slight pause between the dotted note and thesucceeding short note, although in some places thedotted note is lingered on by a long bow stroke or bycarrying a heavy ornament.29

Executing notated dotted rhythms in an unevenmanner was regarded by many earlier scholars as auniversally implemented rhythmic effect, relevantto most Baroque and pre-Classical repertory.30

However, following the scathing criticism ofNeumann, recent scholars have been more reluctantto use it extensively, and are divided in opinion overits relevance to the music of Bach.31

Comparison between the different recordingsreflects a variety of rhythmic interpretations. How-ever, a number of congruent alterations in similarplaces throughout the recordings might indicate theexistence of a ruling conventional practice. One ofthese, for example, is the pause in bars 42 and 103(first beat) before the entry of the right-hand sopranoin the Scarlatti sonata, the use of notes inégales by all‘historically informed’ violinists in Bar 24 (beat 2)and by most harpsichord players in bar 25 (beat 2or 3) of the violin sonata, the use of overdotting by allperformers in bar 8 of the Goldberg aria or the man-ner by which all performers (except Pi-hsien) havedelayed the entrance of one of the upper voices inbeat 2 of bar 16 of that piece.

No clear correspondence was found between thedate of recording and the use of rhythmic alter-ations: while Landowska’s recording of 1945 orKuijken/Leonhardt’s recording of 1973 rarely makeuse of rhythmic effects, Leonhardt’s 1965 recordingof the Goldberg aria is rich in its use of rhythmicalterations, while Cole’s later recording of 1990 isquite lacking in this respect.

Ornamentation

Although all performers employed ornamentationto some degree, it was clearly used to a greater extentby the ‘historically informed’ group. Among thisgroup various ornaments were traced, such as the

appoggiatura, acciaccatura, slide, Cadent, grup-petto, different types of mordent and trill etc. Theextent of the use of ornamentation highly differed,Koopman and Egarr being the most liberal with dec-oration, while the Kuijken—Leonhardt recordingwas the most modest in this respect.

In regards to ornamentation, one can again tracedifferent degrees of compliance to theoretical find-ings and directives. Full compliance was found inthe relation between ornamentation and other per-formance elements such as tempo,32 the instrumentchosen for performance,33 or da capo markings.34

However, different degrees of compliance to schol-arly opinion were traced in the manner of interpre-tation of some of the Goldberg aria’s pre-writtenornamentation symbols, and in the mode of execu-tion of mordents and trills. Table 6 serves as anexample of the different interpretations to orna-mentation symbols in the Goldberg aria. Table 7serves as an example of the ornamentation found inthe analysed performances of the Goldberg aria.

Bach’s ornamentation symbols have raised manyspeculations and theories about their proper inter-pretation.35 As table 6 shows, scholars have legit-imized quite a few interpretations to any onesymbol. However, as seen in table 7, most perform-ers have used similar ornaments in many cases.Such, for example, is the similarity traced betweenthe ‘crossed chevron’ (bars 1, 3, 5 etc.) and ‘standardchevron’ (bars 19–21) symbols, both interpreted as amordent, although differing in their manner of exe-cution among performers. Another example couldbe traced in the common interpretation of the‘vertical-lined chevron’ (soprano, bar 12) as ofindicating a trill.

In all three pieces, many of the mordents wereexecuted in their ‘standard’ manner, by which thefirst note of the mordent figuration (the main note)is stressed. In many places its assimilation contra-dicts recommendations made by several scholars,who suggested the use of the ‘Italian mordent’ (i.e.slurred Vorschlag and mordent tied to the succeed-ing accentuated main note) as more relevant toScarlatti’s music, or the use of ‘port de voix et pince’(i.e. fast single mordent slurred to its dotted mainnote), as relevant to several places in the Goldbergaria.36 It should be noted, however, that although

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 241


considerable discrepancies occur, compliance to thelatter suggestions was found in several recordingsbelonging to both groups. Among the aria record-ings, later recordings (such as those by Koopman,Cole, Pi-hsien and Perahia) are relatively more inaccord with the aforementioned suggestions thanearlier ones (such as, obviously, Landowska’srecording, which was made before the publicationof Emery or Neumann’s arguments, as well as Gouldor Anexfeld recordings).37

A different picture emerges in the ‘standard’ trill(i.e. the trill beginning on an accented note abovethe main note), which is extensively used by mostperformances in all three pieces, corresponding thusto views shared by many scholars who have linkedits usage to almost the entire Baroque repertory.38

Decision regarding the number of alteration notesor their tempo was said to be derived from thespecific musical context.39

However, the overall assimilation of a ‘standard’trill contrasts positions made by several scholars,recommending in certain places the use of othertypes of trills, such as the ‘prepared’ or ‘tied’ trill (i.e.a trill slurred to its preceding note), the compoundmordent (in which the altering note is lower thanthe main note), the ‘main-note’ trill (starting fromthe accented main note), the ‘grace-note start’ trill(in which the note of alteration opening the trill isnot stressed) etc.40 The dominant use of the ‘stand-ard’ trill was traced throughout the majority ofrecordings examined, regardless of their orientationor date of recording, although in the case of theGoldberg aria later recordings tend to use othertypes of trills more frequently than earlier ones. Fewexceptions from such practice were traced amongthe ‘historically informed’ recordings, while the useof ‘main-note’ trill was traced quite considerablyamong the ‘mainstream’ violin sonata recordings.41

Comparison between the different recordings inregard to ornamentation strongly suggests the exist-ence of a predominating conventional practice or acanonical, authoritative performance influencinglater recordings. During analysis many places werefound similar not only in the type of ornament used,but also in the specific manner of its execution.Among the many examples are: the ornamental tex-ture identically produced by all performers in bars

110–18 of the Scarlatti sonata, the production of astandard trill as ornamenting the fourth-beat dottedquaver in the violin sonata (bars 3, 5, 10 etc.), the useof a ‘prepared’ mordent (‘port de voix et pince’) inbars 8 and 19 of the Goldberg aria, or the unanimousinterpretation of Bach’s divided chevron sign.

Here, as opposed to other performance factors, theanalysis made in regard to ornamentation mightindicate correspondence between this parameter andthe date of recording. Hence, the use of ornaments inthe Kuijken—Leonhardt recording or both Landowskaand Leonhardt’s Goldberg aria recordings is relativelymodest compared to later recordings, such as thosemade by Biondi–Alessandrini, Koopman or Egarr.As mentioned above, turning to different manners ofmordents (and trills in the case of the Goldberg aria,although to a much lesser extent) is also a feature oflater recordings. It seems that the significance givento ornamentation by scholars and early music play-ers, leading to (and thus being intensified by) audi-ences’ expectations in that regard, have led to thegradual implementation of ornamentation as a dom-inant feature of the ‘early music style’.

Conclusion

This examination of how early music performersexecute central musical parameters suggests someinteresting points for consideration:

1 In most parameters analysis shows differentdegrees of compliance to theoretical findings anddirectives. While the elements of pitch and tempoare executed in accord with most theoretical find-ings, clear deviations from scholars’ directives canbe traced in the parameters of intonation and tem-perament, where compliance was roughly traced inthe execution of chromatic intervals only. Contraryto performers’ declarations, it seems that intonationis more confined to idiomatic limitations than totheoretical directives.42 As for rhythmic interpreta-tion and ornamentation, despite certain exceptions,there is a clear inclination towards the ‘traditional’positions of earlier scholars with regard to inegalés,overdotting and the manner of execution of mor-dents and trills. Later, critical attitudes of scholarssuch as Neumann, Gilbert, Hefling and Kochevitskyhave not found their way into general practice.

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 242


These findings are quite similar to the survey’sresults, which show that most participants clearlytend towards traditional, ‘positivistic’ standpoints.Such conservatism among performers might indi-cate either lack of acquaintance with or the rejectionof more recent critical research. The findings couldalso be connected with an ambivalence towards themusicological discipline, leading to a canonizationof what is known and familiar rather than to theimplementation of new ideas.

2 Results point to the existence of predominatingconventional practices, which might very well indi-cate the existence of a canonical, authoritative perfor-mances influencing others. Congruence was traced inthe tempo chosen for several movements, in the sim-ilar places by which rhythmic alterations were pre-sented and in their almost identical manner ofexecution, in likeness regarding places of ornamenta-tion, and in the similar interpretation to some of theornament symbols. These results confirm statementsmade by some prominent early music activists, point-ing to the emergence of canonical authorities whichmight dictate fixed prototypes of interpretations.43

An interesting picture arises from these findings,for one of the original purposes of the early musicmovement was the call for a revised approach to thatassumed to prevail in the ‘mainstream’ arena, bywhich celebrated artists’ interpretations were beingcopied or duplicated. Sadly, it seems that while impor-tant ‘historically informed’ performers presented new,revolutionary interpretations, they were soon to betaken as canonical authorities among their ownfollowers.

3 Comparison between the early music group ofperformers and their ‘mainstream’ colleagues showsclear similarities in many of the analysed parameters.This is most obvious with respect to intonation, bywhich the interval sizes executed in practice by bothgroups deviate considerably from what could beregarded as historical practice, and to ornamenta-tion. As for the latter, congruence was mostly tracedin the similar interpretations of the Goldberg aria’sornamental symbols and in their mode of execution.Similarity was additionally traced in the choice oftempo (apart, perhaps, for the Goldberg aria), in theplaces chosen for inner tempo alterations, and in theplaces and manner of use of agogic accents.

These findings, pointing to shared elements ofpractice of performance by both groups, suggest notonly the existence of mutual influences, but also theexistence of shared canonical authorities. Suchsimilarity corresponds to Taruskin’s position, whoconsidered throughout his writings the two tangentarenas as representatives of the same aestheticmodel, namely that of modernism. Represented as‘positivistic purgatory, literalistic and dehumaniz-ing’, the early music movement’s approach to theissue of historical instruments, for example, is takenas a mere inflection of the modern agenda.44

But there is more to that: findings might alsosuggest the high status of ‘historically informed’ per-formances as authorities dictating their own inter-pretations to other tangent musical arenas. The daysin which ‘authentic’ performances were consideredmarginal or irrelevant have long gone, and ‘histori-cally informed’ performances have themselvesbecome ‘mainstream’ so far as early music repertoryis concerned.

Eitan Ornoy is a visiting lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and is also a violin teacherand orchestra conductor at the Israel Conservatory of Music, Tel Aviv. As a violinist he has played inleading orchestras and chamber ensembles in Israel and abroad. [email protected]

1 Compliance with what could bereferred to as the ‘positivistic’ agendacan be found in writings from the firstdecades of the 20th century. Such isthe importance given to thereconstruction of composers’‘intentions’ and the historicalperformance style, assumed to be

achieved through traditional methodsof investigation and criticalempiricism. Rejection of the model ofhistorical progress coincided with thepreference for historical instrumentsand with the view that the composerserves as the highest authority over theperformer. See A. Dolmetsch, The

interpretation of the music of theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries(Seattle, 1969); Landowska on music,ed. D. Restout and R. Hawkins (NewYork, 1969). Although later criticizedfor their casual treatment ofepistemological minefields, suchattitudes were still vehemently

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 243


presented during the early 1970s andbeyond. See, for example,H. M. Brown, ‘On the performance

of fifteenth-century chansons’, Earlymusic, i (1973), pp.3–10; F. Brueggen,‘On the Baroque recorder’, Earlymusic, ii (1974), pp.101–3; B. B. Mather,‘Interpretation of French music’, Earlymusic, iii (1975), pp.293–5.

2 Of the many writings by early musicperformers, scholars and enthusiastspublished over the years, only a smallnumber can be mentioned here. Fromthe earliest stages, compliance withsome aspects of the ‘positivistic’ agendawas presented alongside statementslegitimizing intuitive performancefactors or calls for caution in drawingoperational deductions from historicaltreatises. See, for example, Dolmetsch,The interpretation of the music of theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries,pp.7, 27, 468; Landowska on music,pp.355–6; T. Dart, The interpretation ofmusic (London, 1954), p.16. Scepticismhas increased since the mid-1970s,when writers began to invalidatetraditional research as a tool forreconstructing composers’ intentionsand meanings, presented performers’individual utterances as of equalimportance with that of the composer,legitimized the use of ‘modern’instruments in early music repertory,validated ‘mainstream’ performancesor presented musicology andperformance as two totally separatedisciplines. See, for example, M.Morrow, ‘Musical performance andauthenticity’, Early music, vi (1978),pp.233–46; L. Dreyfus, ‘Early musicdefended against its devotees: a theoryof historical performance in thetwentieth century’, Musical quarterly,lxix (1983), pp.297–22; J. Kerman,Contemplating music: challenges tomusicology (Harvard, 1985), pp.182–217;R. Taruskin, Text and act: essays onmusic and performance (New York,1995).

3 For full details of the survey, see E. Ornoy, Between theory and practice:ideologies and performance conventionsin the early music movement (PhDdiss., Hebrew U of Jerusalem, 2002).

4 The Melograph displays each of thefundamental frequencies of theanalysed sounds in the form of amelogram. Calculating each of the

sounds’ average frequency determinesits relative pitch. In this way theMelograph can provide us withinformation about the standard pitchand temperament system used by theperformer. However, usefulinformation can be detected for only arelatively slow monophonic repertoryhaving only a narrow pitch range. Foradditional information on theinstrument and its limitations, see K. Dahlback, New methods in vocal folkmusic research (Oslo, 1958); D. Cohenand R. Katz, ‘Remarks concerning theuse of the Melograph inethnomusicological studies’, Yuval(1968), pp.155–64; D. Cohen, ‘Patternsand frameworks of intonation’, Journalof music theory, xiii (1969), pp.66–91;G. List, ‘The reliability oftranscription’, Ethnomusicology, xviii(1974), pp.353–77.

5 For scholar’s directives regarding thedesirable interval sizes to be used, see H. Kelletat, Zur musikalischenTemperatur, insbesondere bei JohannSebastian Bach (Kassel, 1960); M. J. Barbour, Tuning andtemperament (Michigan, 1972),pp.10–12; J. Barnes, ‘Bach’s keyboardtemperament: internal evidence fromthe Well-Tempered Clavier’, Earlymusic, vii (1979), pp.236–49; H. A. Kellner, ‘Eine Rekonstruktionder wohltemperierten Stimmung vonJohann Sebastian Bach’, DasMusikinstrument, xxvi (1977), pp.34–5.

6 The controversy regarding theappropriate edition of Bach’s‘Goldberg variations’ is of specialinterest: C. F. Becker’s historicaledition of 1853 was later joined byBischoff (1883), Kirkpatrick (1938),Steglich (1973) and others. Thediscovery of Bach’s personal copy of the piece in 1974 was followedby Wolff’s edition (1977), latercriticized by Erich Schwandt for itsnotational blunders. Choosing Wolff’sedition in this present research wasbased on the supposition that mostanalysed performances were recordedbefore Schwandt’s penetrating article.For more details, see C. Wolff, ‘Bach’sHandexempler of the GoldbergVariations: a new source’, Journal ofthe American Musicological Society,xxix (1976), pp.225–41; E. Schwandt,‘Questions concerning the edition of

the “Goldberg Variations” in the NeueBach Ausgabe’, Performance practicereview, iii (1990), pp.58–69.

7 Mendel claimed that in Bach’s timethe cello was usually adjusted to thestandard ‘Cammer-Ton’ system, i.e. a� = 440 Hz. According to his view,in most of the locations where Bachworked the woodwind instrumentswere adjusted to the ‘Tief Cammer-Ton’ system, i.e. a� = 414–22 Hz. See A. Mendel, ‘On the pitches in use inBach’s time’, Musical quarterly, xli(1955), pp.332–54, 466–80.

8 B. Haynes, ‘Johann Sebastian Bach’spitch standards: the woodwindperspective’, Journal of the AmericanMusical Instruments Society, xl (1985),pp.55–114. For further information, seeW. R. Thomas and J. Rhodes, ‘Shlick,Praetorius and the history of organ-pitch’, Organ Jahrbuch, ii (1971),pp.58–76; H. W. Myers, ‘Praetorius’spitch’, Early music, xii (1984),pp.369–71.

9 See J. M. Barbour, ‘Bach and the artof temperament’, Musical quarterly,xxxiii (1947), pp.64–89; R. Donington,The interpretation of early music(London, 1963), pp.447–9; Barnes,‘Bach’s keyboard temperament’,pp.236–49; M. Lindley,‘Temperaments’, New Grove.

10 See B. Haynes, ‘Beyondtemperament: non-keyboardintonation in the 17th and 18thcenturies’, Early music, xix (1991),pp.357–63; P. Barbieri, ‘Violinintonation: a historical survey’, Earlymusic, xix (1991), pp.69–87.

11 See Cohen and Katz, ‘Remarksconcerning the use of the Melograph’,p.159; J. Sundberg, ‘In tune or not? astudy of fundamental frequency inmusic practice’, Tiefenstruktur derMusik: Festschrift für Fritz Winckel, ed.C. Dahlhaus and M. Krause (Berlin,1982), pp.69–97; B. Karrick, ‘Anexamination of the intonationtendencies of wind instrumentalistsbased on their performance of selectedharmonic musical intervals’, Journal ofresearch in music education, xlvi (1998),pp.112–27.

12 The term alla breve is considered bymany scholars as marking a relativelyfast tempo. See R. Kirkpatrick,Domenico Scarlatti (Princeton, 1953),

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 244


p.293; Dart, The interpretation of music,p.98; W. P. Winzenburger, ‘Meter andtempo indications in music of the earlyBaroque’, Bach: the quarterly journal ofthe Riemenschneider Bach Institute, iii(1972), pp.13–21; E. Kilgore, ‘Timesignatures of the well-tempered clavier:their place in notational history’, Bach:the quarterly journal of theRiemenschneider Bach Institute, iv (1973), pp.3–16.

13 On Bach’s lack of clarity in regardto tempo indications, see P. Le Huray,Authenticity in performance(Cambridge, 1990), pp.36–8.

14 F. Neumann, Performance practicesof the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies (New York, 1993), p.68.

15 Kirkpatrick’s choice presented in hismonumental edition dated 1938 (MM

56), as well as other interpretationspresented throughout the years such asCzerny’s (MM 72), Bischoff’s (MM 76),or Schenkman’s (MM 60), serve as justa few examples of the multipleattitudes regarding the tempo of theopening aria.

16 Neumann pointed out that Bachnamed his opening movement ‘Aria’rather than ‘Sarabande’ as indicationfor its unclear origin: ‘It is certainly notan aria in the modern sense, and had itbeen his own composition, Bach mighthave more logically called the work“Sarabande with thirty variations”.’However, Neumann did not regard thetitle ‘Aria’ as indicating any specifictempo. See F. Neumann, ‘Bach:progressive or conservative and theauthorship of the Goldberg Aria’,Musical quarterly, lxxi (1985), 292.

17 In her article on recordings of theGoldberg Variations made in theperiod 1945–78, Fábián points toKirkpatrick’s 1938 edition as thecanonical authority used by mostperformers at that time. See D. S. Fábián, ‘Changing style inperforming J. S. Bach’s music,1945–1978: the Goldberg Variations’,Consort, liii (1997), p.30.

18 See R. Hudson, Stolen time: thehistory of tempo rubato (Oxford, 1994);S. P. Rosenblum, ‘The uses of rubato inmusic, eighteenth to twentiethcenturies’, Performance practice review,vii (1994), pp.33–47.

19 Many scholars have pointed tovarious treatises, such as those writtenby Couperin (distinguishing between‘measure’ and ‘cadence’, the latter termrepresenting the use of agogic accents),C. P. E. Bach, Quantz, Moffat andothers, in order to emphasize theimportance of using this element in thehistorical repertory. See, for example,Dolmetsch, The interpretation of themusic of the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies, pp.277–84; Le Huray,Authenticity in performance, p.53; Dart,The interpretation of music, pp.80, 85;Donington, The interpretation of earlymusic, pp.216, 374; Neumann,Performance practices of the seventeenthand eighteenth centuries, pp.91–2.

20 As for the ‘mainstream’ group ofperformers, the element of notesinégales was traced only in the Laredo-Gould recording of the violin sonata(bar 18, beat 3, piano, right hand).

21 See Dolmetsch, The interpretation ofthe music of the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries, p.79; Donington,The interpretation of early music, p.386.Quoting Couperin, Dart pointed to thelegitimacy of using notes inégales in fasttempo movements as well. See Dart,The interpretation of music, p.80.

22` See A. Newman, ‘Inequality: a newpoint of view’, Musical quarterly, lxxvi(1992), p.169.

23 Newman, ‘Inequality: a new pointof view’, p.169.

24 The concept by which inequalityshould be generally applied to theBaroque repertory, and thus clearly beindicated for Bach’s music, hasdominated the writings of manyscholars since Dolmetsch’s earlywritings on the subject. See Dolmetsch,The interpretation of the music of theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries,pp.75, 79; Dart, The interpretation ofmusic, p.80; Donington, Theinterpretation of early music, pp.386,394–6; D. Fuller, ‘Notes and inégalesunjoined: defending a definition’,Journal of musicology, vi (1989),pp.21–6; C. A. Fontijn, ‘Quantz’sunegal: implications for theperformance of 18th-century music’,Early music, xxiii (1995), pp.55–61.

25 The term ‘right wing’ was coined byDavid Fuller in regard to the famouspolemic controversy on the

implementation of inequality. See D. Fuller, ‘Notes inégales’, New Grove.

26 Neumann was the most dominantscholar in dismantling the traditionalconcept of inequality and in opposingits use in Bach’s pieces. Opposition tothe traditional concept has beenvehemently presented ever since hisfamous 1965 article, although earliercriticism can also be traced. See E. Bodky, The interpretation of Bach’skeyboard works (Cambridge, MA,1960), pp.185–6; F. Neumann, ‘TheFrench inégales, Quantz and Bach’,Journal of the American MusicologicalSociety, xviii (1965), pp.313–58; F. Neumann, ‘The notes inégalesrevisited’, The journal of musicology, vi(1988), pp.137–49; F. Neumann,Performance practices of the seventeenthand eighteenth centuries, pp.125, 133; G. Kochevitsky, ‘Performing Bach’skeyboard music—notes inégales: abrief history and summary’, Bach: thequarterly journal of the RiemenschneiderBach Institute, iv (1973), pp.27–35; S. E. Hefling, Rhythmic alteration inseventeenth and eighteenth centurymusic (New York, 1993), pp.49, 61, 144.

27 Examples of the use of overdottingamong the ‘mainstream’ group ofperformers can be heard in theGoldberg aria recordings of Gould (bar8 beat 1), Pi-hsien (bar 8 [beat 1], bar 9[beat 3]) and Perahia (bar 5 [beat 3],bar 8 [beat 3-bass], bar 9 [beat 3], bar20 [beat 3, 1st repeat]).

28 See Donington, The interpretation ofearly music, p.375; D. Fuller, ‘Dottedrhythms’, New Grove. The use ofoverdotting in one of the successive pairsof dotted quavers could be traced in bars4, 6, 15 of the Biondi–Alessandrini violinsonata recording, or in bars 5, 14, 21 ofthe Huggett–Koopman recording of thesame piece. Using this element beforecadences and significant endings can betraced in bar 10 (violin) and 25(harpsichord) OF the Huggett–Koopman recording, or in bar 8(bass) of most of the Goldberg aria recordings.

29 Dolmetsch (Dolmetsch, Theinterpretation of the music of theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries,p.62) pointed to Quantz and Agricola’sposition, by which a pause should bemade between the long dotted note and

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 245


its successive short note, as mostrelevant to Baroque repertory. Stringplayers were expected to articulate theshort note by stressing it with a newbow stroke. On the other hand, C. P. E.Bach and Türk preferred that the dottednote lingered towards its successiveshort note—a position regarded byDolmetsch as relevant to mostly Mozartor Haydn’s generation. Similarly,Donington (The interpretation of earlymusic, p.378) pointed to the mannersuggested by Quantz as the mostsuitable for overdotting. Examples oflingering the dotted note towards itssuccessive short note in the violinsonata could be found in Kuijken’s overdotting in bar 20, Huggetoverdotting in bar 3 or Alessandrini’soverdotting in bars 15 and 17.

30 On the implementation ofoverdotting to Bach’s pieces, seeDolmetsch, The interpretation of themusic of the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies, p.62; Donington, Theinterpretation of early music, pp.375–8;Bodky, The interpretation of Bach’skeyboard works, pp.186–200.

31 See F. Neumann, ‘The overdottingsyndrome: anatomy of a delusion’,Musical quarterly, lxvii (1981),pp.305–47; G. Pont, ‘Handel andregularization: a third alternative’,Early music, xiii (1985), pp.500–505;Early music, xiv (1986), pp.409–11; LeHuray, Authenticity in performance,p.68; Hefling, Rhythmic alteration inseventeenth and eighteenth centurymusic, p.149.

32 Scholars have pointed to thewritings of C. P. E. Bach, Quantz,Burney and others to demonstrate thenotion that slow-paced movements arebetter suited for ornamentation; seeCarl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Essay onthe true art of playing keyboardinstruments (New York, 1949), p.84.Donington (The interpretation of earlymusic, p.111) recommendedornamentation in slow movements forenrichment and colouring, regardingits use in fast movements as mainlymeant for the display of virtuosity.

33 Many scholars have considered theharpsichord as better suited toornamentation than the piano: Dart(The interpretation of music, p.75)pointed to the dynamic factor as the

main cause for his position, praisingthe harpsichord’s dynamic equality ofboth main note and itsembellishments, G. Frotscher(Performance practices of early music(New York, 1981), p.146) refers to theornaments’ functioning as resonancereinforcement, warning against thepiano’s idiomatic limitations whichmight easily lead to their execution in a stiff and harsh way.

34 Most scholars have pointed to the‘Reprise’ as the section in which thereshould be most ornamentation. SeeDart, The interpretation of music,pp.60, 89; Donington, Theinterpretation of early music, pp.111–13;Le Huray, Authenticity in performance,p.87; F. Neumann, Ornamentation inBaroque and post-Baroque music(Princeton, 1978), p.551.

35 As a few examples to the overallview regarding the ambiguity of Bach’ssymbols we might cite Neumann’scriticism (Performance practices of theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries,p.327) of the excessive significanceattached to the famous ornament tableJ. S. Bach’s wrote out in his‘Clavierbuchlein vor WilhelmFriedemann Bach’; Frotscher’sconception (Performance practices ofearly music, pp.122–3) by which similarornaments were executed in differentmanners based on performers’individual taste and experience; andKochevitsky’s position (G. A. Kochevitsky, ‘Performing Bach’skeyboard music-embellishments’,Bach: The quarterly journal of theRiemenschneider Bach Institute, v(1974), p.40) that ornament tablesfunctioned as mere suggestions callingfor performers’ own judgement.

36 See W. Emery, Bach’s ornaments(London, 1953), pp.20–22; Neumann,Ornamentation in Baroque and post-Baroque music, pp.353–4 (for the Italianmordent), p.446 (for the use of ‘port devoix et pince’ in the Goldberg aria).

37 Exceptions from the general use of‘standard’ mordent among theexamined ‘historically informed’performances can be found in Ross’suse of ‘Italian mordent’ in bars 69 and118, or in Staier’s stressing the mordent’slast note when this ornament occurs inits ‘standard’ manner (the Scarlatti

sonata); in Koopman’s use of ‘port devoix et pince’ in bars 3, 4 and 13,Alessandrini’s mordent in bar 8, orEgarr’s appoggiatura and ‘prepared’mordent in bar 15 (the Bach violinsonata); in Anexfeld’s stressing the lastnote of the mordent’s figuration of bar8, 20–21 (bass), Leonhardt’s mordents ofbars 1, 5 and 9 softened by fast alterationand articulation of the last note, Cole’suse of ‘port de voix et pince’ in bars20–22 or in the general execution of‘port de voix et pince’ in bars 8 and 19by all (the Goldberg aria). As for‘mainstream’ recordings differing fromthe common practice, one could pointto Barchet use of ‘port de voix et pince’in bar 10 or to Gibbons’s use ofappoggiatura and inverted singlemordent (‘Italian mordent’) in bars 10,15 and 21 (the Bach violin sonata); to Pi-hsien extensive use of ‘port de voixet pince’ in most mordents, and toseveral of Perahia’s mordents by whichthe figuration’s accent occurs either onthe last main note (as in bars 1 and 5) or is significantly blurred (theGoldberg aria).

38 See Dolmetsch, The interpretation ofthe music of the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries, p.180; Donington,The interpretation of early music, p.171;Bodky, The interpretation of Bach’skeyboard works, p.150; Kirkpatrick,Domenico Scarlatti, p.379; Keyboardpractice consisting of an Aria with thirtyvariations for the harpsichord with 2manuals prepared for the enjoyment ofmusic lovers by Johann Sebastian Bach(New York, 1938), pp.xi, xiii. It shouldbe noted, however, that Kirkpatrick(Domenico Scarlatti, p.383) alsoregarded the ‘tied’ trill (i.e. trill slurredto its preceding note, which functionsas an appoggiatura) as most relevant toScarlatti’s music.

39 See Dolmetsch, The interpretation ofthe music of the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries, pp.218–19,Donington, The interpretation of earlymusic, p.181, Kochevitsky, ‘PerformingBach’s keyboard music’, pp.29–30. Itshould be noted, however, thatKochevitsky regarded accelerated trillas unsuitable for Bach’s pieces.

40 For Scarlatti’s trill, see Neumann,Ornamentation in Baroque and post-Baroque music, p.352; L. Salter, ‘Insearch of Scarlatti’, The consort, xli

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 246


(1985), pp.47–51. For Bach’s trill, seeEmery, Bach’s ornaments, pp.38–9;Neumann, Performance practices of theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries,pp.413–25; Neumann, Ornamentationin Baroque and post-Baroque music,p.336; Kochevitsky, ‘Performing Bach’skeyboard music’, p.25.

41 Exceptions from the overall use of‘standard’ trill by most ‘historicallyinformed’ performances can be foundin the Hugget-Koopman sonatarecording, in which many of the trillsare located after a cadence occurringon the beat or follow an ascendingappoggiatura, or in Koopman’s ariarecording, where the ‘three-noteanticipation trill’ (i.e. the use of threepassing notes preceding a main-notetrill) or ‘grace-note-start trill’ are used(bar 11, first repeat, bar 12 secondrepeat). As for ‘mainstream’recordings, one can point to theSzeryng-Walcha or Swensen-Gibbonssonata recordings, in which the ‘main-note-start trill’ was considerably used,or to Perahia’s blurring the accent ofthe gruppetto trill in the Goldberg aria,bar 3 (second repeat).

42 The difficulty of matching specifictemperaments while playing on non-fixed pitch instruments (such as theflute or cello) has been dealtconsiderably by many scholars. For itssignificance in deciphering historicalpractice, see S. Lloyd, ‘The myth ofequal temperament’, Music & letters,xxi (1940), pp.347–62; Dart, Theinterpretation of music, pp.46–8;Donington, The interpretation of earlymusic, p.448; Barbour, Tuning andtemperament, p.7. For research dealingwith intonation deviations amongmodern performers, see C. E. Seashore,Psychology of music (New York, 1938),pp.211–13; C. Shackford, ‘Some aspectsof perception’, Journal of music theory,v (1961), pp.162–202; J. Sundberg, A. Friberg and L. Fryden, ‘Rules forautomated performance of ensemblemusic’, Contemporary music review, iii(1989), pp.89–109; A. Friberg,‘Generative rules for musicperformance: a formal description of arule system’, Computer music journal,xv (1991), p.62; J. Fyk, ‘Intonationalprotention in the performance ofmelodic octaves on the violin’, Music,Gestalt, and computing: studies in

cognitive and systematic musicology(1997), pp.421–30.

43 Dart (The interpretation of music,p.59) regarded the recording industryas the dominant factor for the creationof authoritative prototypes ofinterpretation. Dreyfus (‘Early musicdefended against its devotees’, p.320)considers the emergence of canonicalauthorities as a parallel version of thesituation prevalent in the ‘mainstream’performance scene.

44 Taruskin, Text and act, p.76.Taruskin points to the demand for period instruments as representing modern values, by which the work of art is regarded asautonomous, and its ‘pure’ meaningself-contained. According to thismodel, the musical realm is directlyattached to its sonic medium, the latter considered hallowed andunchangeable.

Soundclips to accompany this article are available on the Early Music website.

cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 247


cah008.qxd 08/05/2006 17:05 Page 248

Documents

Comparative Early Music Performances