The Concerto in D Minor for oboe, strings and basso continuo by Marcello is one of the most popular works of the oboe repertory. Johann Sebastian Bach transcribed the work for solo harpsichord and grouped it under his XVI Concerti nach A. Vivaldi, (BWV 974). Bach's version provides an illustration of his method of transcription as well as a guide to baroque improvised ornamentation. in his survey of the baroque concerto, Arthur Hutchings indicated that Marcello's concerto "combines romantic pathos with classical integrity and elegance [and] many must regard it, as Bach evidently did as one of the supremely beautiful works of the Venetian School." [1] Despite the popularity of the work and the attention it has received in the literature, the concerto is still attributed to the wrong member of the Marcello family.
The history of this misattribution begins with J.S. Bach, who included it among his XVI Concerti nach A. Vivaldi, which is a set of transcriptions. Early researchers found no reason to doubt Bach's title and Vivaldi's authorship remained unquestioned. [2] Writers agreed that Bach's transcription, like Marcello's concerto, followed the Venetian style. [3] When the concerto was finally attributed to Marcello, it was Benedetto who received credit for the work.[4] This attribution remained unquestioned because Benedetto was the more famous of the two brothers. His musical output, too, was larger and more widely distributed due to the success of his satire Il teatro alla moda and the psalm settings in the Estro poetico-armonico. [5] Arthur Hutchings has pointed out that, "knowing by name only [the] Marcello of the satire and the 'Psalms'-, people sometimes attributed Alessandro's work to Benedetto."[6]
The first researcher to attribute the work to Antonio Vivaldi was Siegfried W. Dehn, the first editor, in 1851, of Bach's set of transcriptions.[7] When Dehn, as well as the editors of the first edition of Bach's complete works, reviewed the manuscript, he found no reason to doubt Bach's attribution to Vivaldi.[8] The manuscript of Bach's transcriptions was discovered among works of Johann Ernst Bach (1722-1777), the son of Johann Berhard Bach (1676-1749) of Eisenach.[9] This manuscript, numbered Ms. P. 280 in the Berlin Staatsbibliothek, was originally part of the Poelchan collection and is entitled Vll Concerto di Vivaldi elaborati di J.S. Bach.[10]This collection contains eleven concertos transcribed for harpsichord and one transcribed for organ. Interest in these Bach transcriptions led researchers to seek out the originals upon which they were based.[11] As more of the sources of the transcriptions were discovered, the model for Concerto III also was revealed. A copy of the manuscript of the model concerto was located by Arnold Schering in the Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek Schwerin, then known as the Mecklenburgische Landesbibliothek [12] Schering attributed the concerto to Benedetto Marcello (1686-1739).[13] Schering no doubt based his attribution on the catalogue of the music collection of the Schwerin Library.[14] In this catalogue, Otto Kade incorrectly listed the concerto as composed by Benedetto Marcello, no doubt encouraged by the fact that the copy at the Schwerin library is signed only by the name Marcello.[15]
A copy of the concerto was also incorrectly attributed to Benedetto Marcello by P.A.F. Walther in his catalogue of holdings of the Darmstadt Library.[16] In this catalogue we find the attribution reading, "Marcello, B. Concerto Accommode au Clavessin de J.S. Bach. Msc."[17]
Corroborating this misattribution was Robert Eitner's article on Benedetto Marcello in Monatshefte fur Musik- geschichte [18] In this article, Eitner confirms Benedetto Marcello as the composer of the oboe concerto which Bach used for his transcription.
Arnold Schering was responsible for locating most of the originals on which Bach based his transcriptions.[19] Schering's research revealed that nine of the sixteen transcriptions were based upon works by Vivaldi, in addition to the one based on the Marcello concerto. Following Schering's research, S.A. Luciani attempted to reassign the oboe concerto to Vivaldi but furnished no formal proof.[20] But later, in an exchange with Pietro Berri, Luciani suggested that authorship of the concerto could be attributed, not to Benedetto, but to his brother Alessandro Marcello.[21]
After Luciani presented his hypothesis, the noted English musicologist, Frank Walker located the first edition of Marcello's concerto. Walker discovered the concerto in the British Library, in a collection entitled Concerti a cinque, con violin), oboe, violetta, violoncello e basso continuo, di Signori G. Valentini, A. Vivaldi, T. Albinoni, F.M. Veracini, G. St. Martin, A. Marcello, G. Rampin, A. Predieri. [22] This collection was published in Amsterdam c. 1716 by Jeanne Roger, the elder daughter of Estienne Roger, whose printing business she inherited. [23] In this edition, the oboe concerto upon which Bach based his transcription appears as the second concerto with all parts being attributed to Alessandro Marcello. [24]
Unaware of Walker's research, the German musicologist Albert Van der Linden also discovered the concerto some eight years after Walker. His research, appearing in Die Musikforschung, fully supports Walker's findings. [25]
Alessandro Marcello (1669-1750) was one of three brothers born to a wealthy Venetian family. [26] Alessandro was born in 1669, 17 years before Benedetto, to Agostino Marcello, a Venetian nobleman. Alessandro was not only a composer but a practical musician who sang and played several instruments. He was described as being versed in philosophy, mathematics, history, chemistry, painting and poetry. His musical output is relatively small, consisting of two sets of chamber cantatas, some vocal works and various concertos and sonatas. Alessandro was a member of the Arcadian Academy, a group which encouraged the study and promotion of music. [27] His compositions were written to be performed at meetings and Alessandro used his Arcadian name, Eterio Stinfalico, on the title pages of these works. [28] Hutching points out that, "If his concertos were ever played except at these and other private concerts, [he had] not seen or heard evidence of the fact." [29]
Bach's transcription of Alessandro Marcello's Concerto in D Minor remains an important source for the study of his transcription methods. A comparison of these two works reveals how Bach adopted the melodic and harmonic elements from one composition and transferred them to another medium which reflected his unique style.
Marcello's concerto was probably composed before 1708, or at the latest by 1712 or 1713. [1] Prior to 1708 the last name of the composer was sufficient to identify the composer.[2] In 1708, Gioseppe Sala had published Benedetto Marcello's Op. 1, Concerti a cinque con violino solo e violioncello obligato . . . opera prima in Venezia.
Marcello's Concerto in D Minor was printed between the years 1716 and 1721 by the Amsterdam publisher Jeanne Roger.[3] Estienne Roger's will, leaving the printing business to Jeanne, is dated September 11, 1716. From that date, on, Estienne used his daughter's name exclusively on works he published even though his death did not occur until July 7, 1722.[4]
Copies of Marcello's concerto were widely distributed in Europe.[5] Along with the D minor version there is also a version in the key of C minor, notated in transposed Dorian with two flats.[6] Today only one manuscript copy has survived and it is owned by the Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek Schwerin. Until recent years another copy, now lost, of the C minor version existed at the library of the School of music of Bologna, now known as the Civico Bibliografico Musicale.[7]
There are some differences between the two versions other than key.[8] For instance, the version in D minor lists its movements as "Andante e spiccato," "Adagio," and "Presto," while the copy of the Schwerin library lists its movements as "Andante," "Adagio," and "Allegro. "[9] Also the bass figures in the D minor version are much more extensive than those in the Schwerin copy. This extensive figuration, which does contain mistakes, is thought to have been added by the publisher Jeanne Roger. Roger was not above making additions to works he published as is shown in an edition of the first six of Arcangelo Corelli's twelve violin Sonatas, Op. 5. [10] This edition was published with a highly ornamented version of each "Adagio" movement printed along with the original line. Roger claimed the embellished version was in Corelli's own hand. The edition sparked some doubt as to its authenticity for Roger published a catalogue of his publications in 1716, listing Corelli's Op. 5, published in 1710 as catalogue number 40, as follows:[11]
Corelli opera quinta, new edition . . . with the embellishments marked for the adagio, as Mr. Corelli wants them played: and those who are curious to see the original of Mr. Corelli with his letters written on this subject, can see them at Estienne Roger's.[12]
Roger's edition drew criticism from the English music critic Roger North: "Upon the bare view of the print any one would wonder how so much vermin could creep into the works of such a master. "[13] Though the authenticity of Roger's edition is not doubted by some modern scholars, there remain doubts as to the extent of the authenticity of the embellishments due to the "feeling of imbalance" created by them.[14] There are also minor pitch discrepancies between the two version of Marcello's concerto.[15]
With the existence of two versions of Marcello's concerto the question arises as to which is the original key. Bach's transcription, in D minor, supports the argument for D minor as the original key. Also, the C minor version contains errors that indicate the possibility of transposition from a D minor version.[16] Examples of transposition errors are seen in the second movement, measure 24 in the viola part, the last note of which is notated Bb which is a full step below the range of that instrument. The change of Bb and Eb to B and E is indicated by the use of a sharp sign. Other wrong notes, also in the viola part, third movement, measures 67, 68, and 75, correspond to the version pitched in D minor.[17]
Also supporting D minor as the original key is the fact that C minor, three flats, was a much more difficult key for the baroque oboe.[18] The beginning of the 18th century marks the start of the second stage of development of the oboe. This stage is characterized by the oboe having only two or three keys.[19] As Bate explains,
Though a great advance on any former reed instrument, the oboe was still really fluent in a few keys only. The demand for 12 notes in the octave with no more than 8 holes available resulted in a fingering technique which became more difficult with every remove [sic] from the natural key of the instrument, three sharps and three flats being the practical limit.[20]
Though it is unlikely that C minor is the original key of the concerto, it may be that the C minor version was prepared for a performance using an oboe pitched in Bb.[21] The use of such instruments is rare outside of military circles and few instruments have survived.[22] The most extensive orchestral use of the oboe in Bb is found in the music of J.S. Bach. Its use in Bach's music was recognized by implication in cases where the oboe part is scored beyond the lower range of the oboe pitched in C. Another clue to its use is extensive use of key signatures with flats. The use of the Bb instrument was first recognized by Charles S. Terry. [23]
One view discounting the use of the rare Bb oboe in Bach's music is held by William Denton.[24] According to Denton the notational problem is a result of the pitch level of the organ used by Bach. Denton explains the strings and voices were able to adjust to the organ's pitch level where the oboe parts had to be transposed. When the editors of the Bach Gesellschaft's edition published these works they transposed all the parts to match the key of the organ part.[25] This transposition would result in the oboe part exceeding the range of the instrument.
Though the evidence leans strongly in favor of D minor, the original key of the work cannot be definitively established.[26]
Alessandro Marcello's concerto is typical of instrumental concertos in the Venetian style. These consisted of three long movements, two fast movements with a slow movement in between.[27] The themes of the outer movements are distinct, being made up of distinctive material that is developed motivically and sequentially in alternation with connective passages.[28] This alternation embodies the principle of continuous expansion which is the driving force behind all forms in the late baroque.[29] Following the convention of dropping the tutti in the slow middle movement, Alessandro Marcello builds his slow movement as an expressive aria for the oboe. The common time signature of the Venetian finale is 3/8.
Johann Sebastian Bach wrote his set of transcriptions during his employment at Weimar between the years 1708 and 1717, [30]the transcription of Marcello's concerto dating probably from 1713 or 1714.[31] While employed by Wilhelm Ernst, Duke of Sachsen-Weimar, Bach was primarily an organist.[32] Bach composed his set of transcriptions to use as a guide in learning to compose as well as to avoid making a score from parts.[33] The transcriptions were composed from manuscript copies since the printed editions had not yet appeared.[34]
By comparing the variants between the C minor and D minor versions to Bach's transcription we can gain an insight as to which version Bach used in making his arrangement.[35] The most obvious feature supporting Bach's use of a D minor version is that the transcription is in D minor. The second factor in support of Bach using the D minor version is movement denotation. Though Bach's transcription displays no tempo marking for the first movement, and all three works read "Adagio" for the second. The last movement is marked "Presto" in the Bach version and in the D minor copy. This differs from the "Allegro" marking for the last movement of the C minor version. Other supporting evidence for Bach working from a D minor copy are pitch discrepancies between the D minor and C minor versions. In the first movement, bass line, measure 42, we find Eb being used in both Bach's BWV 974 and the concerto in D minor, which differs from the C minor version. In movement III, measure 18, the fourth note of the melody line, both BWV 974 and the Oboe Concerto in D Minor read F which differs from the A in the C minor copy. Also in the third movement, fourth note we find an F# common to both Bach's transcription and the D minor version which the concerto in c reads F. In measure 80 of the same movement, the fifth note is Bb which differs from B in the C minor copy. Although Bach followed mostly the discrepant pitches in the D minor version, he also followed the C minor version in a few instances. In spite of the fact that it is not possible to prove conclusively which version Bach followed, stronger evidence supports his use of the D minor version.
One point of interest concerning Bach's BWV 974 is the range of the harpsichord part. The highest written note is D which is beyond the normal range of the harpsichord.[36] The only other example showing this same expanded range is the Concerto IV in G minor, found in the same set of transcriptions. From this we can conclude that Bach used a special instrument whose range included a high D.
In preparing his transcription for harpsichord Bach did more than simply rescore the original.[37] Bach expanded, as well as transformed, the music of Marcello's oboe concerto.[38] Only by comparing the first edition of the Marcello Concerto in D Minor to Bach's transcription, Concerto III, BWV 974, can we gain insight into Bach's method of transcription.
Bach's arrangement generally adheres to the melodic and harmonic scheme of Marcello's concerto. Changes noted will be discussed in terms of the reasons that prompted him to make these changes.
One frequent change encountered is the addition of harmonic tones in vertical harmonic structures. These additions occur where Marcello had left harmonic. structures incomplete or even ambiguous. In these cases Bach has added tones which render a more complete spelling of these chords. In example la we find a full spelling of the chords on beats one and three while in the Marcello concerto, example 1b, chords are left incomplete.
Also, Bach supplies filled in harmonies, (Example 2a) for Marcello's implied chords (Example 2b), beats three and four.
Bach's transcription exhibits rhythmic changes which give the work a consistent rhythmic drive. Many of the alterations occur in the bass line and most changes involve a diminution of the original rhythm. In example 3a we see such a change as the rhythm of Marcello's bass line is changed from eighth note patterns to sixteenth-note patterns on beats one and two of each measure.
Another change in rhythm that is characteristic of Bach's music is the increase of rhythmic activity preceding a cadence point. As shown in example 4 this feature created more tension which is resolved upon reaching the cadence. Oftentimes this increase in rhythmic activity involves the addition of ornamental figures as in example 4a.
A rhythmic drive to the cadence is most often accompanied by a thickening of the texture. In example 5 a thickening of the texture is used in combination with increased rhythmic activity.
Bach also introduced some changes of his own. These changes can be categorized into four types. The first type involves the correction of errors found in Marcello's concerto. If we refer back to example 4a we find a F on beat three in the upper voice. This differs from the F# of the first edition of Marcello's concerto (Example 4b).
The second type of change involves alterations to achieve harmonic variety. One such change is seen in example 6 where Bach changes a C# to a C, thus creating a harmony of A minor. Another instance of a change in the harmonic structure to achieve variety involves the use of the Picardy third. This change, example 7, alters the F to F# thus changing the harmony of the final chord to D major. This is a coloristic effect commonly used in works written in a minor key.
The third type of change concerns nonharmonic tones. Bach changes one type of non-harmonic tone to another. This is done as a matter of style and personal preference. In example 8, second beat, the last sixteenth note, was changed to G from an F#. This changes an anticipation to a passing tone.
The last type of change occurs where Bach felt an obligation to adhere to intervallic relationships established by preceding material. This often involves sequential material. In example 9, the fourth beat, the second and third sixteenths have been changed from E, which is not consistent with the intervallic pattern established in the first three beats, to D.
Bach also omitted two sections from the first movement of the Marcello model. The first omission is comprised of a tutti statement of the ritornello theme, last eighth note, measure 44 through beat three, measure 46. The material omitted in the next section is a repeat of a previously stated solo section, last eighth note, measure 50 through beat three, measure 54.
Changes in texture occur throughout Bach's transcription. They generally involve the simplification of the texture by omitting voices which double or accompany the melodic line. The most noticeable change in texture is in the final movement where the voicing is reduced to two parts. The texture resembles that of a two part invention.
One rather obvious change made by Bach is the omission of all forte-piano indications.
Changes in voicing occur in some parts due to the transfer of a five-instrument texture to the keyboard.
Throughout its history, ornamentation practices have taken two basic forms: the first is the diminution of a melodic line by means of improvisation: the second, the addition of a totally new voice. [1] These traits are paralleled in the ornamentation practices of Bach's day.
Improvisation has played a fundamental role in the development of Western music. [2]Even after the development of notational systems there was still a call for "instantaneous musical expression, spontaneous re-shaping of apparently finished compositions of partly finished compositions presented only in outline." [3] The polyphonic forms used by Bach were an outgrowth of improvisatory practices.
The ornamentation of melodies during the baroque era evolved from renaissance practices. [4]The primary function of embellishment is to sustain the interest of the listener and to provide an outlet for the performers virtuosity. [5] Ornamentation in slow movements serves to enrich the musical text while ornamentation in quick movements adds virtuosity. [6]
Music in the baroque era is comprised of two primary elements; structure and ornament. [7] Structure consists of only the essential melodic and harmonic elements while ornament is any addition to the structure. Ornamentation serves to set off structural elements. Theoretically, structure needs no ornamental addition to convey its expressive qualities but in practice the two elements combine and ornamentation becomes part of the expressive essence. By the end of the 16th century the art of diminution was highly developed in Italy. [8] Music written in the Italian style was notated in skeletal form showing only structural elements. In this style, embellishments were left to improvisation practices applied by the performer. [9] The success of the performance depended as much upon his improvisational ability as upon the ability of the composer. This practice remained in fashion until the late 18th century. [10]
In France large scale embellishments were outfashioned soon after they were introduced. [11] Music written in the French style was characterized by ornaments consisting of small graces or agrements. Ornamentation in this style was notated by the composer and his role was foremost over that of the performer [12]
The music of the German baroque was strongly influenced by foreign styles. Since Italy was the cradle of baroque music, German ornamentation practices were patterned after Italian models.[13] By the early 18th century, French ornamentation practices began to assert its influence on German music. [14] In keyboard music, French practices prevailed over Italian practices. Nevertheless, in Germany we find a coexistence of German, Italian and French styles with very little unification of practice.
In diminution practices, German composers leaned toward moderation rather than excess as their Italian counterparts had done. [15]The need for less ornamentation was due to the denser musical texture. During the first half of the 18th century free ornamentation was practiced in the musical genres where the Italian influence was strongest. [16]
It is not known whether Bach studied composition with a teacher but his obituary tells us he taught himself how to compose "chiefly by the observation of the works of the most famous and proficient composers of his day and by the fruits of his own reflection upon them." [17] It is in the Weimar period that Bach absorbed the Italian style by transcribing works of the Italian masters. [18] It was during this same period that Bach formed his own style. As Frederick Neumann explains, "Bach's adoption of models was synthesized into a uniquely Bachian entity."[19] Once formed, Bach's style was to remain consistent throughout the rest of his life.[20]
Bach's synthesis of styles was reflected in his ornamentation procedures as well.[21] Bach followed the French practice of writing out the ornamentation precisely as he wanted it but followed in style the Italian ornamentation practices. In fact the notation of diminutions was against the prevailing convention of the day. [22] But Bach adhered to notating 'free' ornamentation with greater regularity than he showed in other notational matters. Bach's notational practice did not escape criticism by Johann A. Scheibe, who, in 1737, wrote that,
every ornament, every little grace, and everything that one thinks of as belonging to the method of playing, he expresses completely in notes; and this not only takes away from his pieces the beauty of harmony but completely covers the melody throughout. [23]
Robert Donington supports Scheibe's criticism by maintaining that the performer would give more emphasis to structural elements if all the ornamentation were not notated. [24]
Scheibe's criticism received a rebuttal from Johann A. Birnbaum in 1738. Birnbaum points out that Bach was not the only composer who notated 'free' ornamentation and lists Grigny and DuMage as composers who used the same technique in the Livres d'orgue. [25] Birnbaum also maintains that few performers used ornaments correctly for if they did it would be
superfluous for the composer to write down in notes once more what they already knew. But only the fewest have sufficient knowledge, and the rest, by an inappropriate application of the manner, spoil the principal melody and indeed often introduce such passages as might easily be attributed, by those who do not know the true state of affairs, to an error of the composer. [26]
Quantz also reports,..."that the Adagio was much disfigured by many inexperienced performers, and this reduced and tarnished the honour and reputation of the composers." [27] By notating free ornamentation Bach was protecting his music from the inadequacies of poor performers. [28] Also, Bach's music required previous ornamentation due to the more complex harmony, denser texture and fast-moving bass line. [29]These characteristics presented greater problems for the improvisation of diminutions.
In his transcription, Bach has transformed the Adagio movement of Marcello's concerto by notating the improvised ornamentation.[30] The movement no longer has the bare simplistic appearance it had when notated mostly in eighth notes. Now sixteenth and thirty-second notes are common with added trills and mordents. Not only the appearance but also the expressive quality has been transformed.
In Bach's transcription we see the prominent structural points of the original melody enhanced by the addition of ornaments. [31] These prominent structural points may consist of cadences, highest or longest notes, extreme or wide intervals. [32] Bach emphasizes these points by introducing either dissonant notes such as appoggiaturas, or by heightening rhythmic and melodic activity by means of the trill, turn, mordent, or Anschlage. In example 10, Bach has emphasized the half note by adding a mordent.
Most of the notated diminutions Bach used consist of scalewise and arpeggio figures which normally begin and end with notes of the original melody. [33] This type of diminution is known as "passaggio." This system of ornamentation was taught systematically with the student being required to memorize the ornamental figures. Example 11 shows both scalewise and arpeggio figuration.
Another feature Bach used in notating 'free' ornamentation is rhythmic displacement. In this procedure notes of the original melody do not appear in their original rhythmic position. [34] The note affected will appear either before or after their position in the original melody. In example 12 the only notes retaining their original position are the G#, B, and D.
In some cases, the structural points of the original melody are bypassed and the ornamented version follows only the harmonic structure of the original. In this method the notes beginning and ending the phrase of the original will appear with new, improvised material between. Example 13 shows not only a different set of pitches but also a new melodic contour being used.
Bach's transcription adheres to the principle of cumulative effect of diminutions. [35]When the original melody consists of a sequence the extent of ornamentation becomes progressively more involved. This principle follows the Italian concept of "variatio delectat." In example 14 each statement of the sequence is written with a higher degree of diminution.
In Bach's method of transcription only the melodic aspects of the original are affected and the harmonic structure retained. This practice reflects the Italian style, used in instrumental concertos and sonatas during, the late baroque.
Aldrich, Putnam, "Bach's Technique of Transcription and Improvised Ornamentation," The Musical Quarterly XXXI (1949), 26-35
Bate, Philip. The Oboe. An Outline of its History, Development and Construction, 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1975.
Bukofzer, Manfred F. Music in the Baroque Era. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1947.
Cudworth, Charles. "Alessandro Marcello: A tercentury note," Musical Times 110 (1969), 1522-23.
David, Hans T. and Arthur Mendel, editors, The Bach Reader, revised edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1966.
Denton, William J., "The Oboe and the Oboe D'Amore in Bach's Church Cantatas: An Examination of Bach's Oboists as well as Range and Notational Problems," Journal of the International Double Reed Society, No. 6 (1978), 13-18.
Donington, Robert. The interpretation of Early Music. London: Faber and Faber, 1963.
Fechner, Manfred. "Concluding Remarks," Marcello Concerto in D Minor, New York: Peters, 1979.
Ferand, Ernest T. Improvisation in Nine Centuries of Western Music. Cologne: Arno yolk Verlag, 1961.
Hutchings, Arthur. The Baroque Concerto. London: Faber and Faber, 1961.
Lesure, Francois. Bibliographie des Editions Musicales publiees par Estienne Roger et Michel-Charles Le Cene. Paris: Societe Francaise de Musicologie, 1969.
Linden, Albert Van der. "Zur Frage J.S. Bach-Marcello," Die Musikforschung XI (1959), 82.
Marcello, Alessandro, "Concerto II," Concerti a cinque. Amsterdam: Jeanne Roger, c. 1717.
Neumann, Frederick. Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1978.
North, Roger. Roger North on Music, transcribed and ed. by John Wilson. London: Novello and Co., 1959.
Pincherle, Marc. Vivaldi, Genius of the Baroque, trans. by Christopher Hatch. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1957.
Pogue, Samuel. " Roger. Estienne, " The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. by Stanley Sadie. London: Macmillan, 1980, XVI, 99-101.
Quantz, Johann Joachim. On Playing the Flute, trans. by Edward R. Reilly. London: Faber and Faber, 1966.
Schering, Arnold. "Zur Bach-Forschung," Sammelbande der internationales Musikgellschaft IV (1903), 234.
Shant, Howard. "Why Did J.S. Bach Transpose His Arrangements?, " The Musical Quarterly XXXVI (1950), 180-203.
Squire, W. Barclay. Catalogue of Printed Music Published Between 1487 and 1800 Now in the British Museum, 2 vols. London: William Clowes & Sons, 1912.
Terry, Charles Sanford. Bach, A Biography 2nd. ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.
Terry, Charles Sanford. Bach's Orchestra. London: Oxford University Press, 1932.
Walker, Frank. "A Little Bach Discovery," Music & Letters XXXI no. 2 (1950), 184.
Young, Percy M. "Academy," The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians ed. by Stanley Sadie. London: Macmillan, 1980, 1, 30-32.
Interface, Vol. 10 (1981), pp. 113-136.[1] Arthur Hutchings, The Baroque Concerto (London: Faber and Faber, 1961), 170. [return]
[2] Putnam Aldrich, "Bach's Technique of Transcription and Improvised Ornamentation." The Musical Quarterly XXXV (Jan., 1949), 27. [return]
[3]Marc Pincherle, Vivaldi, Genius of the Baroque, transl. by Christopher Hatch (New York: W. W.. Norton, 1957), 220. [return]
[4]Arnold Schering, "Zur Bach-Forschung," Sammelbande der internationalen Musikgesellschaft IV (1903), 234. [return]
[5]Hutchings, op. cit., 166. [return]
[7]Manfred Fechner, "Concluding Remarks," Marcello Concerto in D Minor (New York: Peters, 1979), 26. [return]
[9] Aldrich, op. cit., 27. [return]
[10] Pincherle, op. cit., 229. [return]
[12]Fechner, op. cit., 26. [return]
[13]Fechner, op. cit., 27. [return]
[16]P.A.F. Walther, Die Musikalien der Grossherzoglichen Hofbibliothek (Darmstadt, 1874), quoted in Fechner, op. cit., 27. [return]
[17]Fechner, op. cit., 27. [return]
[19]Pincherle, op. cit., 230. [return]
[20]Pincherle, op. cit., 231. [return]
[21]S.A. Luciani, Musica (July-Sept., 1949), quoted in Pincherle, op. cit., 231. [return]
[22]Frank Walker, "A Little Bach Discovery," Music & Letters XXXI (April, 1950), 184. [return]
[23]Samuel Pogue, "Roger, Estienne," The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians ed. Stanley Sadie (London: Macmillan, 1980), XVI, 99. [return]
[24]Walker, op. cit., 184. [return]
[25]Albert Van der Linden, "Zur Frage J.S. Bach-Marcello, " Die Musikforschung XI (1958), 82. [return]
[26]Charles Cudworth, "Alessandro Marcello: A tercentenary note," Musical Times 110 (1969), 1231. [return]
[27]Percy M. Young, "Academy," The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians ed. by Stanley Sadie (London: Macmillan, 1980), I, 31. [return]
[28]Hutchings, op. cit., 165. [return]
[1]Fechner, op. cit., 25. [return]
[3]Francois Lesure, Bibliographie des Editions Musicales publiees par Estienne Roger et Michel-Charles Le Cene (Paris: Societe Francaise de Musicologies, 1969), 1. [return]
[4]Pogue, op. cit., 99. [return]
[5]Fechner, op. cit., 25. [return]
[10]Frederick Neumann, Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1978), 557. [return]
[11]Lesure, op. cit., 64. [return]
[12]Pogue, op. cit., 100. [return]
[13]Roger North, Roger North on Music, bans and ed. by John Wilson (London: Novello and Co., 1959), 161. [return]
[14]Neumann, op. cit., 558. [return]
[15]Fechner, op. cit., 26. [return]
[16]Fechner, op. cit., 27. [return]
[18]Philip Bate, The Oboe, 3rd Ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975), 46. [return]
[20]Bate, op. cit., 46. [return]
[21]Howard Shant, "Why Did J.S. Bach Transpose His Arrangements?" The Musical Quarterly XXXVI (April, 1950), 199. [return]
[22]Bate, op. cit., 115. [return]
[23]Charles S. Terry, Bach's Orchestra (London: Oxford University Press, 1932), 96. [return]
[24]William J. Denton, "The Oboe and The Oboe D'Amore in Bach's Church Cantatas," The Journal of the International Double Reed Society No. 6 (East Lansing, 1978), 15. [return]
[25] Denton, op. cit., 16. [return]
[26] Fechner, op. cit., 25. [return]
[27] Hutchings, op. cit., 134. [return]
[29] Manfred Bukofzer, Music in the Baroque Era. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1947), 360. [return]
[30]copy not available. [return]
[31]Fechner, op. cit., 25. [return]
[32]Charles S. Terry, Bach (London: Oxford University Press, 1928), 85. [return]
[33] Pincherle, op. cit., 225-226. [return]
[35] Fechner, op. cit., 25. [return]
[36] Shant, op. cit., 195. [return]
[37] Aldrich, op. cit., 27. [return]
[38] Aldrich, op. cit., 27. [return]
[1] Neumann, op. cit., 19. [return]
[2] Ernest T. Ferand, Improvisation in Nine Centuries of Western Music (Cologne: Arnoyolk Verlag, 1961), 5. [return]
[4] Robert Donington, The Interpretation of Early Musica (New York: Faber and Faber, 1974), 173. [return]
[5] Donington, op. cit., 174. [return]
[7] Neumann, op. cit., 3. [return]
[9] Johann Joachim Quantz, On Playing the Flute, transl. by Edward R. Reilly (London: Faber and Faber, 1966), 163. [return]
[10] Neumann, op. cit., 28. [return]
[11] Neumann, op. cit., 28. [return]
[12] Quantz, op. cit., 163. [return]
[13] Neumann, op. cit., 37. [return]
[17] Hans T. David and Arthur Mendel editors, The Bach Reader, revised edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 1966), 217. [return]
[18] Neumann, op. cit., 41. [return]
[23] David and Mendel, op. cit., 238. [return]
[24] Donington, op. cit., 158. [return]
[25] David and Mendel, op. cit., 246. [return]
[27] Quantz, op. cit., 163. [return]
[28] Neumann, op. cit., 544. [return]
[30] Aldrich, op. cit., 28. [return]
[33] Aldrich, op. cit., 32. [return]
[34] Aldrich, op. cit., 33. [return]
[35] Aldrich, op. cit., 33. [return]