1733 B Minor Mass Dresden Performing Parts

Post by John Briggs
Following on from a discussion in the 'Mass in F' thread, can anyone tell me
exactly how many separate autograph Bach (family) performing parts there
were for the 1733 Dresden B Minor Mass (BWV 232(I))? I think I mean the
instrumental parts - I know there were just 5 vocal parts (SSATB).
Is the following list correct/complete?
Violin 1
Violin 2
Viola
Flute 1
Flute 2
Oboe 1
Oboe 2
Oboe d'amore 1
Oboe d'amore 2
Bassoon (1&2)
Horn
Trumpet 1
Trumpet 2
Trumpet 3
Timpani
Bass (Continuo)
Is there just the one Bass part? Is it figured? Are there any duplicate
parts? Are there any 'solo' and 'tutti' markings?
--

As near as I can tell, the "performance in 1733 at Dresden is just
speculation. The Missa parts were written down. However, this means
that there were one part per instrument from what I understand. There
is no proof of a performance. What exists is not a complete copy of
all the parts needed for a performance.

Jimmy Boy

Sybrand Bakker

2005-12-31 06:40:02 UTC

Could you please *proof* the parts were not complete? (With proof I
mean, any material other than you made up yourself).
Aren't you aware choirs in the 19th century sense didn't exist in
Bach's time? (And in many centuries before Bach's time).

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

John Briggs

2005-12-31 08:49:54 UTC

Post by John Briggs
Following on from a discussion in the 'Mass in F' thread, can
anyone tell me exactly how many separate autograph Bach (family)
performing parts there were for the 1733 Dresden B Minor Mass (BWV
232(I))? I think I mean the instrumental parts - I know there were
just 5 vocal parts (SSATB).
Is the following list correct/complete?
Violin 1
Violin 2
Viola
Flute 1
Flute 2
Oboe 1
Oboe 2
Oboe d'amore 1
Oboe d'amore 2
Bassoon (1&2)
Horn
Trumpet 1
Trumpet 2
Trumpet 3
Timpani
Bass (Continuo)
Is there just the one Bass part? Is it figured? Are there any
duplicate parts? Are there any 'solo' and 'tutti' markings?
--

As near as I can tell, the "performance in 1733 at Dresden is just
speculation. The Missa parts were written down. However, this means
that there were one part per instrument from what I understand.
There is no proof of a performance. What exists is not a complete
copy of all the parts needed for a performance.

Ignore him - of course performing parts are intended to capable of being
used in a performance! Could someone just answer my questions?

--
John Briggs

John Briggs

2005-12-31 08:49:27 UTC

Post by John Briggs
Following on from a discussion in the 'Mass in F' thread, can anyone
tell me exactly how many separate autograph Bach (family) performing
parts there were for the 1733 Dresden B Minor Mass (BWV 232(I))? I
think I mean the instrumental parts - I know there were just 5 vocal
parts (SSATB).
Is the following list correct/complete?
Violin 1
Violin 2
Viola
Flute 1
Flute 2
Oboe 1
Oboe 2
Oboe d'amore 1
Oboe d'amore 2
Bassoon (1&2)
Horn
Trumpet 1
Trumpet 2
Trumpet 3
Timpani
Bass (Continuo)
Is there just the one Bass part? Is it figured? Are there any
duplicate parts? Are there any 'solo' and 'tutti' markings?
--

No, there probably wasn't a performance in 1733 (or at any other time, come
to that.) But of course it was complete. A set of performing parts is
intended to be capable of being used in performance - otherwise you just
present a score.

--
John Briggs

j***@yahoo.com

2005-12-31 18:15:09 UTC

Post by John Briggs
Following on from a discussion in the 'Mass in F' thread, can anyone
tell me exactly how many separate autograph Bach (family) performing
parts there were for the 1733 Dresden B Minor Mass (BWV 232(I))? I
think I mean the instrumental parts - I know there were just 5 vocal
parts (SSATB).
Is the following list correct/complete?
Violin 1
Violin 2
Viola
Flute 1
Flute 2
Oboe 1
Oboe 2
Oboe d'amore 1
Oboe d'amore 2
Bassoon (1&2)
Horn
Trumpet 1
Trumpet 2
Trumpet 3
Timpani
Bass (Continuo)
Is there just the one Bass part? Is it figured? Are there any
duplicate parts? Are there any 'solo' and 'tutti' markings?
--

The question I have is whether there are enough written out copies for
a performance. I don't know what the performance practices of the day
were. In larger ensembles were the violins expected to read off the
same score or did they memorize or make notes for themselves? I don't
think we know. It is inconceivable to me that they wrote out seperate
parts for each performer. Paper was expensive and copying down music
was time consuming. However, maybe they did. They were use to more
hardship than we are.

Jimmy Boy

John Briggs

2005-12-31 18:41:17 UTC

Post by John Briggs
Following on from a discussion in the 'Mass in F' thread, can
anyone tell me exactly how many separate autograph Bach (family)
performing parts there were for the 1733 Dresden B Minor Mass (BWV
232(I))? I think I mean the instrumental parts - I know there
were just 5 vocal parts (SSATB).
Is the following list correct/complete?
Violin 1
Violin 2
Viola
Flute 1
Flute 2
Oboe 1
Oboe 2
Oboe d'amore 1
Oboe d'amore 2
Bassoon (1&2)
Horn
Trumpet 1
Trumpet 2
Trumpet 3
Timpani
Bass (Continuo)
Is there just the one Bass part? Is it figured? Are there any
duplicate parts? Are there any 'solo' and 'tutti' markings?
--

As near as I can tell, the "performance in 1733 at Dresden is just
speculation. The Missa parts were written down. However, this
means that there were one part per instrument from what I
understand. There is no proof of a performance. What exists is
not a complete copy of all the parts needed for a performance.

No, there probably wasn't a performance in 1733 (or at any other
time, come to that.) But of course it was complete. A set of
performing parts is intended to be capable of being used in
performance - otherwise you just present a score.

There must have been enough parts - otherwise why write them out?

We needn't assume that the instrumental parts were played one-to-a-part.
Indeed, we can be confident that two players could have used the same part
because in one movement ('Quoniam') Bach splits his bassoon part into
Bassoon 1 and Bassoon 2, but they are in the same part. However, there are
dangers in assuming that there are always two players to a part - for
example, the reduced scoring in 'Christe eleison' almost certainly means
single strings, but this would need to be indicated if more than one player
shared a part.

--
John Briggs

j***@yahoo.com

2005-12-31 21:27:35 UTC

Post by John Briggs
There must have been enough parts - otherwise why write them out?

The parts have the information for the performers. However, if there
are multiple players like three or four violinists, then they will need
to either share the part, memorize their part or copy out another part
to read during their performance. I have had to share copies before
and wonder what people did in Bach's time. This has to do with
performance practices.

Also it is very relevant when considering how many singers per part. I
still think the Entwerf is describing Bach's idea for the perfect choir
size. However, the proof is in the pudding. I would perfer to listen
to the B Minor with a choir size about 16 to 20.

Jimmy Boy

Post by John Briggs
We needn't assume that the instrumental parts were played one-to-a-part.
Indeed, we can be confident that two players could have used the same part
because in one movement ('Quoniam') Bach splits his bassoon part into
Bassoon 1 and Bassoon 2, but they are in the same part. However, there are
dangers in assuming that there are always two players to a part - for
example, the reduced scoring in 'Christe eleison' almost certainly means
single strings, but this would need to be indicated if more than one player
shared a part.
--
John Briggs

Sybrand Bakker

2006-01-01 17:01:30 UTC

Post by j***@yahoo.com
Also it is very relevant when considering how many singers per part. I
still think the Entwerf is describing Bach's idea for the perfect choir
size. However, the proof is in the pudding. I would perfer to listen
to the B Minor with a choir size about 16 to 20.

It so happens (which can also be read from the Entwurff) that Bach
didn't have choirs.
You need to differentiate between a choir as an organisation and a
choir as a performing group.
Bach had *NEVER* 16-20 singers at his disposal.
The highest number of singers for a Requiem Mass in the St.
Stephansdom in Wien was *EIGHT*.
'Choirs' didn't exist in the eightheenth century. Not in Leipzig, not
in Hamburg, not in Dresden, not *anywhere*.

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

Arthur Ness

2006-01-01 18:42:15 UTC

Huh? How many singers are needed to make a choir? An SATB with EIGHT singers would constitute a choir, as far as I know. What else would you call it? "Madrigal Singers." (ugh). In St. Stephan's?

ajn

John Briggs

2006-01-01 19:07:07 UTC

Post by Arthur Ness
Huh? How many singers are needed to make a choir? An SATB with
EIGHT singers would constitute a choir, as far as I know. What else
would you call it? "Madrigal Singers." (ugh). In St. Stephan's?

Funnily enough, two to a part is the most difficult - because they have to
be exactly in tune with each other. Three to a part and you have a choir.

--
John Briggs

Arthur Ness

2006-01-01 20:50:43 UTC

I've never been aware of that definition of "choir." I understand your point. But what is an SATB ensemble with two singers per part if it's improper to call it a choir?

ajn

Funnily enough, two to a part is the most difficult - because they have to
be exactly in tune with each other. Three to a part and you have a choir.
--
John Briggs

Sybrand Bakker

2006-01-01 22:17:58 UTC

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 20:50:43 GMT, "Arthur Ness"

Post by Arthur Ness
I've never been aware of that definition of "choir." I understand your point. But what is an SATB ensemble with two singers per part if it's improper to call it a choir?
ajn

Bach didn't have a 'choir' in our meaning of the word.
Also, please stop top-posting.

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

Sybrand Bakker

2006-01-01 22:17:12 UTC

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:42:15 GMT, "Arthur Ness"

Post by Arthur Ness
Huh? How many singers are needed to make a choir?

Four singers is sufficient to perform a 4-part composition by Bach
labeled 'Coro': one to a part. Often Bach didn't have more singers at
his disposal.
If he did have more singers at his disposal,there were more parts.
There are 2S, 2A,2T, 2B parts available for the St John Passion (and
an extra part for the Evangelist and Christ), the St John Passion
consequently was performed by 10 singers.

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

John Briggs

2006-01-01 23:10:59 UTC

Post by Sybrand Bakker
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:42:15 GMT, "Arthur Ness"

Post by Arthur Ness
Huh? How many singers are needed to make a choir?

On Good Friday the service alternated between the two main churches.
Consequently, Bach had two 'choirs' available to him.

--
John Briggs

j***@yahoo.com

2006-01-01 20:06:03 UTC

This is insane. For example, how do you know how many singers Bach had
for his perfomance of BVW 71? It was an outdoor celebratory
performance. Yet we know little of the actual performance. For you
to claim knowledge about the hundreds of Bach performance that no
documentation exists sound a little nuts to me.

Post by Sybrand Bakker
The highest number of singers for a Requiem Mass in the St.
Stephansdom in Wien was *EIGHT*.
'Choirs' didn't exist in the eightheenth century. Not in Leipzig, not
in Hamburg, not in Dresden, not *anywhere*.

Documentation? You know about every performance of all groups in the
eightheenth century? This is impossible.

Jimmy Boy

Sybrand Bakker

2006-01-01 22:14:01 UTC

Post by j***@yahoo.com
Documentation? You know about every performance of all groups in the
eightheenth century? This is impossible.

Just read Andrew Parrott The Essential Bach Choir.

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

Sybrand Bakker

2006-01-01 22:20:20 UTC

Post by j***@yahoo.com
This is insane. For example, how do you know how many singers Bach had
for his perfomance of BVW 71? It was an outdoor celebratory
performance. Yet we know little of the actual performance. For you
to claim knowledge about the hundreds of Bach performance that no
documentation exists sound a little nuts to me.

Read Andrew Parrott The Essential Bach Choir, and you will stand
defeated.
In short: number of extant parts is number of performers.
In NO parts any distinction between solo and 'choir' is made. Ergo:
movements labeled 'Coro' were sung one singer to a part.

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

Thomas Wood

2006-01-01 21:48:03 UTC

Tell us about the size of the choirs Handel used for his oratorios and
ceremonial choral music, like the anthems and Te Deums.

Tom Wood

John Briggs

2006-01-01 23:20:15 UTC

Post by j***@yahoo.com
Also it is very relevant when considering how many singers per
part. I still think the Entwerf is describing Bach's idea for the
perfect choir size. However, the proof is in the pudding. I
would perfer to listen to the B Minor with a choir size about 16 to
20.

Tell us about the size of the choirs Handel used for his oratorios and
ceremonial choral music, like the anthems and Te Deums.

The choir for the oratorios wouldn't have been that large - say 12 or so.
Plus, of course, the soloists, who sang the choruses as well. The Chandos
Anthems may well have been one-to-a-part - they were re-arranged for the
later Chapel Royal versions. There was no 'choir' in the early operas - the
soloists sang the choruses.

--
John Briggs

Thomas Wood

2006-01-02 03:33:42 UTC

Post by j***@yahoo.com
Also it is very relevant when considering how many singers per
part. I still think the Entwerf is describing Bach's idea for the
perfect choir size. However, the proof is in the pudding. I
would perfer to listen to the B Minor with a choir size about 16 to
20.

Tell us about the size of the choirs Handel used for his oratorios and
ceremonial choral music, like the anthems and Te Deums.

Handel usually had 20, and often 30, choral singers for his oratorios.

He employed a choir of 47 for the Coronation Anthems for George II in 1727.
His Dettingen Te Deum in 1743 used even larger numbers.

Lully conducted an ensemble of 150 (many of whom were singers) for a
performance of his Te Deum in 1686, and soon after his death the piece was
performed with about 300 musicians.

My point is: to say choirs with substantial numbers of singers didn't exist
anywhere in the Baroque era is a patent falsehood.

Tom Wood

John Briggs

2006-01-02 13:02:38 UTC

Post by j***@yahoo.com
Also it is very relevant when considering how many singers per
part. I still think the Entwerf is describing Bach's idea for the
perfect choir size. However, the proof is in the pudding. I
would perfer to listen to the B Minor with a choir size about 16
to 20.

Tell us about the size of the choirs Handel used for his oratorios
and ceremonial choral music, like the anthems and Te Deums.

The choir for the oratorios wouldn't have been that large - say 12
or so. Plus, of course, the soloists, who sang the choruses as well.
The Chandos Anthems may well have been one-to-a-part - they were
re-arranged for the later Chapel Royal versions. There was no
'choir' in the early operas - the soloists sang the choruses.

Handel usually had 20, and often 30, choral singers for his oratorios.

I wish I could share your confidence. The Foundling Hospital account list
for the performance of "Messiah" on 15 May 1754 lists a chorus of 13 adult
males, plus (probably) 4 boy trebles, plus the 5 soloists.

--
John Briggs

Thomas Wood

2006-01-02 17:12:19 UTC

Post by John Briggs
I wish I could share your confidence. The Foundling Hospital account list
for the performance of "Messiah" on 15 May 1754 lists a chorus of 13 adult
males, plus (probably) 4 boy trebles, plus the 5 soloists.

That's 22. Some of the oratorios with double choruses, like Solomon and
Israel in Egypt, require more. But again, to say there was no such thing a
chorus with several voices per part in Bach's era is simply false.

Tom Wood

Tom Hens

2005-12-31 22:56:27 UTC

Post by John Briggs
We needn't assume that the instrumental parts were played one-to-a-part.
Indeed, we can be confident that two players could have used the same part

<snip>

I wonder if anyone has really tried this out under the then-prevalent
lighting conditions. Two players reading from the same clearly printed part
under electrical light, as is standard practice in present-day symphony
orchestras, is one thing. Two players reading from the same part,
handwritten and squeezed onto as little paper as possible because paper was
expensive, in a dim church during a service early in the morning in
wintertime is quite another thing, it seems to me. And oh yes, largely
without the aid of glasses for any musicians with less than perfect
eyesight.

John Briggs

2005-12-31 23:42:02 UTC

Post by John Briggs
We needn't assume that the instrumental parts were played
one-to-a-part. Indeed, we can be confident that two players could
have used the same part

<snip>
I wonder if anyone has really tried this out under the then-prevalent
lighting conditions. Two players reading from the same clearly
printed part under electrical light, as is standard practice in
present-day symphony orchestras, is one thing. Two players reading
from the same part, handwritten and squeezed onto as little paper as
possible because paper was expensive, in a dim church during a
service early in the morning in wintertime is quite another thing, it
seems to me. And oh yes, largely without the aid of glasses for any
musicians with less than perfect eyesight.

Well, we know that the two bassoons shared a part. The really crunch
question is with the violins. That there are two copies of each of those
parts is significant - the trouble is, I don't know what it means :-)

These particular parts were prepared specially as presentation parts, of
course, so they would be easier to use.

--
John Briggs

Tom Hens

2005-12-31 22:56:23 UTC

Nobody can tell you that, since we only know which parts have survived, not
how many possibly existed originally.

Post by John Briggs
I think I mean the instrumental parts - I know there were just 5 vocal
parts (SSATB).

<snip>

Post by John Briggs
Is there just the one Bass part? Is it figured? Are there any duplicate
parts? Are there any 'solo' and 'tutti' markings?

The surviving original parts of the "Missa", a.k.a. BWV 232 I, as preserved
in the Sächsische Landesbibliothek, Dresden (Mus. 2405-D-21) are:

Vocal: S I-II, A, T, B (as you say, one part each).

Instrumental: Tromba I-III, Timpani, Corno da caccia (for No. 11 only),
Flauto traverso I-II, Oboe (also Oboe d'amore) I-II, Violino I-II (2 parts
each), Viola, Violoncello, Fagotto (2 parts, diverging for No. 11 only);
and one Basso Continuo part, figured. The BC part also shows indications of
being intended as the conductor's part ("Direktionsstimme").

According to BWV 2a, the only instrumental 'solo' marking is in No. 6
(Laudamus te), "Violino solo", but I don't know if that's based on the
parts or from the partition.

You're right to refer to them as "Bach (family) performing parts". They
were largely copied out by Anna Magdalena, Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl
Philipp Emanuel Bach.

Happy New Year.

John Briggs

2005-12-31 23:32:57 UTC

Nobody can tell you that, since we only know which parts have
survived, not how many possibly existed originally.

The list you give seems pretty complete to me - I think that's the lot.

Post by John Briggs
I think I mean the instrumental parts - I know there were just 5
vocal parts (SSATB).

<snip>

Post by John Briggs
Is there just the one Bass part? Is it figured? Are there any
duplicate parts? Are there any 'solo' and 'tutti' markings?

The surviving original parts of the "Missa", a.k.a. BWV 232 I, as
preserved in the Sächsische Landesbibliothek, Dresden (Mus.
Vocal: S I-II, A, T, B (as you say, one part each).
Instrumental: Tromba I-III, Timpani, Corno da caccia (for No. 11
only), Flauto traverso I-II, Oboe (also Oboe d'amore) I-II, Violino
I-II (2 parts each), Viola, Violoncello, Fagotto (2 parts, diverging
for No. 11 only); and one Basso Continuo part, figured. The BC part
also shows indications of being intended as the conductor's part
("Direktionsstimme").

Thanks, that's very interesting. I'm excited by the "2 parts each", for the
two violins. Now we only need to decide how many played from each part!

That there is a separate Violoncello part is interesting, particularly if
that is playing the continuo part. Perhaps there was only one 'cello.

Post by Tom Hens
According to BWV 2a, the only instrumental 'solo' marking is in No. 6
(Laudamus te), "Violino solo", but I don't know if that's based on the
parts or from the partition.

Well, if the solo is in one of the Violin I parts and not the other, we are
almost home and dry! If there is a 'solo' marking in that part we know that
two people played from it. If there isn't, we know they didn't.

Post by Tom Hens
You're right to refer to them as "Bach (family) performing parts".
They were largely copied out by Anna Magdalena, Wilhelm Friedemann
and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.
Happy New Year.

Happy New Year to you, and thanks again.

--
John Briggs

Tom Hens

2006-01-04 15:49:57 UTC

John Briggs <***@ntlworld.com> wrote...

<snip>

Post by Tom Hens
According to BWV 2a, the only instrumental 'solo' marking is in No. 6
(Laudamus te), "Violino solo", but I don't know if that's based on the
parts or from the partition.

Well, if the solo is in one of the Violin I parts and not the other, we
are almost home and dry! If there is a 'solo' marking in that part we
know that two people played from it. If there isn't, we know they
didn't.

It don't agree. The mere presence of a "solo" marking doesn't show that
more than one person played from that part.

First, if that was common practice, there should be "solo" and "tutti"
markings all over the surviving parts for all of Bach's music. There
aren't.

Secondly, a "solo" marking can simply be a reminder to the player/singer
that he's on his own and clearly audible as a soloist in this particular
bit, not part of an ensemble. I've seen orchestral musicians highlight
solos, or particularly difficult passages, in their parts using marker
pens. That doesn't mean more than one person plays from that part.

John Briggs

2006-01-04 23:55:30 UTC

Post by Tom Hens
<snip>

Post by Tom Hens
According to BWV 2a, the only instrumental 'solo' marking is in No.
6 (Laudamus te), "Violino solo", but I don't know if that's based
on the parts or from the partition.

Well, if the solo is in one of the Violin I parts and not the other,
we are almost home and dry! If there is a 'solo' marking in that
part we know that two people played from it. If there isn't, we
know they didn't.

It don't agree. The mere presence of a "solo" marking doesn't show
that more than one person played from that part.

Yes, but the presence is necessary if two people are to use the part.

Post by Tom Hens
First, if that was common practice, there should be "solo" and "tutti"
markings all over the surviving parts for all of Bach's music. There
aren't.

That there aren't generally indicates that soloists' parts were not shared
by anyone else.

Post by Tom Hens
Secondly, a "solo" marking can simply be a reminder to the
player/singer that he's on his own and clearly audible as a soloist
in this particular bit, not part of an ensemble. I've seen orchestral
musicians highlight solos, or particularly difficult passages, in
their parts using marker pens. That doesn't mean more than one person
plays from that part.

The rare examples of 'solo' and 'tutti' in Bach's music have been added to
indicate to the copyist to prepare separate parts!

--
John Briggs

Thomas Wood

2005-12-31 23:53:59 UTC

Nobody can tell you that, since we only know which parts have survived, not
how many possibly existed originally.

Post by John Briggs
I think I mean the instrumental parts - I know there were just 5 vocal
parts (SSATB).

<snip>

Post by John Briggs
Is there just the one Bass part? Is it figured? Are there any duplicate
parts? Are there any 'solo' and 'tutti' markings?

The surviving original parts of the "Missa", a.k.a. BWV 232 I, as preserved
Vocal: S I-II, A, T, B (as you say, one part each).
Instrumental: Tromba I-III, Timpani, Corno da caccia (for No. 11 only),
Flauto traverso I-II, Oboe (also Oboe d'amore) I-II, Violino I-II (2 parts
each), Viola, Violoncello, Fagotto (2 parts, diverging for No. 11 only);
and one Basso Continuo part, figured. The BC part also shows indications of
being intended as the conductor's part ("Direktionsstimme").
According to BWV 2a, the only instrumental 'solo' marking is in No. 6
(Laudamus te), "Violino solo", but I don't know if that's based on the
parts or from the partition.
You're right to refer to them as "Bach (family) performing parts". They
were largely copied out by Anna Magdalena, Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl
Philipp Emanuel Bach.
Happy New Year.

There's no doubt that the 1733 Dresden parts were intended for a
performance: they're written out very clearly and carefully, and the organ
part is written for a tuning a tone lower then Leipzig organs (which would
match the organ at the Dresden Sophienkirche, where W.F. Bach was organist,
and which is a possible locale for a performance). Moreover, the organ part,
very helpfully and practically, has cues for vocal entries written into it.
But WERE they used for a performance? They're in excellent condition, but
bear some finger smudges, which is suggestive but inconclusive. They may
have been used for one or a two performances, or not at all. The
fingerprints may have come from later handling.

It's been suggested that at ca. 1748-49 Bach began work to extend the Mass
into a "Missa Tota" for a specific purpose -- possibly the dedication of the
new Hofkirche in Dresden, which took place in 1751. As it turned out, Hasse
wrote a mass for that occassion -- and its Credo is remarkably similar to
Bach's. Did Hasse know Bach's version? Had Bach sent (no longer extant)
parts for at least some of his continuation of the Mass to Dresden before
his death?

Remember, Bach, unlike us, didn't KNOW he was going to die in 1750. He wrote
music for actual performance right up to the end, and may well have had a
performance of the complete Mass in mind -- but death overtook him.

Tom Wood

John Briggs

2006-01-01 00:14:24 UTC

Nobody can tell you that, since we only know which parts have
survived, not
how many possibly existed originally.

Post by John Briggs
I think I mean the instrumental parts - I know there were just 5
vocal parts (SSATB).

<snip>

Post by John Briggs
Is there just the one Bass part? Is it figured? Are there any
duplicate parts? Are there any 'solo' and 'tutti' markings?

The surviving original parts of the "Missa", a.k.a. BWV 232 I, as preserved
Vocal: S I-II, A, T, B (as you say, one part each).
Instrumental: Tromba I-III, Timpani, Corno da caccia (for No. 11
only), Flauto traverso I-II, Oboe (also Oboe d'amore) I-II, Violino
I-II (2 parts each), Viola, Violoncello, Fagotto (2 parts, diverging
for No. 11 only); and one Basso Continuo part, figured. The BC part
also shows indications of
being intended as the conductor's part ("Direktionsstimme").
According to BWV 2a, the only instrumental 'solo' marking is in No. 6
(Laudamus te), "Violino solo", but I don't know if that's based on
the parts or from the partition.
You're right to refer to them as "Bach (family) performing parts".
They were largely copied out by Anna Magdalena, Wilhelm Friedemann
and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.
Happy New Year.

There's no doubt that the 1733 Dresden parts were intended for a
performance: they're written out very clearly and carefully, and the
organ part is written for a tuning a tone lower then Leipzig organs
(which would match the organ at the Dresden Sophienkirche, where W.F.
Bach was organist, and which is a possible locale for a performance).
Moreover, the organ part, very helpfully and practically, has cues
for vocal entries written into it. But WERE they used for a
performance? They're in excellent condition, but bear some finger
smudges, which is suggestive but inconclusive. They may have been
used for one or a two performances, or not at all. The fingerprints
may have come from later handling.
It's been suggested that at ca. 1748-49 Bach began work to extend the
Mass into a "Missa Tota" for a specific purpose -- possibly the
dedication of the new Hofkirche in Dresden, which took place in 1751.
As it turned out, Hasse wrote a mass for that occassion -- and its
Credo is remarkably similar to Bach's. Did Hasse know Bach's version?
Had Bach sent (no longer extant) parts for at least some of his
continuation of the Mass to Dresden before his death?

"No", is the simplest answer. But the Credo is clearly connected with
Dresden works; probably Bach and Hasse were imitating a common model -
possibly by Zelenka, although Zelenka seems to have been influenced by the
1733 Missa. But then again, Bach deliberately wrote the 1733 Missa in a
'Dresden' style.

Post by Thomas Wood
Remember, Bach, unlike us, didn't KNOW he was going to die in 1750.
He wrote music for actual performance right up to the end, and may
well have had a performance of the complete Mass in mind -- but death
overtook him.

His health was failing - he must have known.

--
John Briggs

Tom Hens

2006-01-04 15:49:58 UTC