Talk:Fantasia in G major, BWV 572

Improving this article

Just to say I'm delighted to see expert assitance moving in, and to explain my role to date.

I came across this article because I'm an organist preparing this piece for my repertoire. So I've looked very carefully at the three contemporary copies in the on-line archive (surprisingly consistent), at some of the printed editions (not very helpful), and at the standard literature (Williams etc.). When I came to look at the Wikipedia article last week it was truly awful - a mixture of inaccuracies and opinions. So although I've never edited anything in Wikipedia before, I started correcting what I knew was wrong, and left the bits that might have been correct. However I can now see that I've left a lot of loose ends that I really haven't got time to sort.

I was intending to add something about tempi - there is a glaring disparity between the markings in the contemporary copies (Tres Vistement) and in the printed editions, there is the fact tha the contemporary copies bring forward the first.bar of the second section to the previous page, to indicate continuity, and there is the disparity between "Gayement" and "Gravement" in contemporary copies of the final section. Would you be happy to cover those points? Or would you prefer me to start that off?

And finally ... One reference that you may not find easily is the similarity between the end of BWV 572 and of BWV 565. This comes from a recent article in Organists Review by Stuart Neame, which makes the point that both consist of spread chords over a slowly-descending dotted-rhythm bassline - something I'd never noticed myself, but once it's pointed out, it's an incredibly close resemblance.

Thanks, and good luck!

Stephen Croft

Stephen Croft (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I've also listened to most of the CD and Youtube recordings, which might be helpful if you were thinking of adding a section about recorded performances? Stephen Croft (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Tx. Did you see the Zehnder 2011 introduction and commentary (linked now from the references)? Re. Neame: see the thus far inconclusive discussion at Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Possible inclusion of Neame as a source. Would be very glad if someone could help out on how to assess the solidity of this source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, no, I hadn't seen the Zehnder 2011, I'll look forward to reading it. And no, I hadn‘t seen the discussion of Neame under BWB 565. For what it's worth, I personally would regard Neame's Organist Review article as a highly authoritative piece of musicology, as do my colleagues. If Neame claims it has been discussed with John Butt, how about writing to Butt and seeing what he thinks? Butt is one of the leading Bach musicologists, he's a professor at a Scottish university - Glasgow, I think - maybe they have an email address for him? Or to ask Organists Review to confirm whether it was discussed with Butt? And finally ... I'm not sure about your suggestion that there was probably a (lost) copy of BWV 572 entitled Fantasia. It's a possibility, certainly, but the other possibility is that the first publishers tried to neatly gather together Bach's works - few of which had titles - under different headings. And as 572 wasn't a Prelude or Fugue or Trio Sonata or Chorale Prelude, they just put it in the category of Fantasia? Stephen Croft (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Re. "lost" (Griepenkerl) copy:

• It is Williams' theory that it may have been titled Fantasia (see reference, p. 166)
• Zehnder writes about the Griepenkerl lost copy (Commentary, p. 12): "The music text underwent emendation through a meanwhile lost manuscript from Griepenkerl’s possession, which at present is accessible only through Peters IV: The readings in mm. 66–67, 173, and 182 are contrapuntally so convincing that they are to be valued as the composer’s improvements."
• Bach Digital notes that according to Kilian the lost Griepenkerl copy may be identical to the lost Gerber copy (in which case Williams' theory that the Griepenkerl one would have been named Fantasia becomes less likely, as the Gerber copy is indicated as "Piece d'Orgue" in contemporary sources).

Anyway, I added Stuart Neame's YouTube recording in the external links section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I had no idea of those theories of lost copies. And I'm astounded at how quickly you've transformed the article from rubbish to really good - I take my hat off to you. Brilliant. No need for me to worry about it any more, I'll leave it in your very capable hands. Thanks again, Stephen Stephen Croft (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Re. "...I'll leave it in your [...] hands" – hope not: it's no fun working without interaction with others who also give it their best shot to improve the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just had a final thought on something that might be worth mentioning, particularly if your research could turn up something about it, and that is the unplayable B in bar 94, one note below the bottom of the pedalboard. I know some editions write it an octave up, but that's an editor's afterthought, all the early copies have that low B so that's clearly what Bach wrote. Are there other examples of Bach writing an unplayable note, or is it rare enough that it's worth highlighting? Stephen Croft (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

From the liner notes of the Hans Fagius recording (did you see I just started a list of recordings?): "... The French associations have led to speculation that the piece might be a commission from France, or possibly written for Louis Marchand, who was once to have competed with Bach [...] The middle section includes a pedal note which goes lower than the German pedal range but which was available on French baroque organs, so-called ravalement." --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)