Talk:BACH motif

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B, H, and Bb[edit]

Just for the reassurance of anybody who happens upon one of the dodgy websites I found while writing this: the article here is right - "B" is "B flat" and "H" is "B natural", not the other way round. --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 12 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right it is!!!! :) Nevilley 19:15 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

On another note, I found a webpage which said there were works by Rheinberger and Karg-Elert based on BACH, and Grove says that Rimsky-Korsakov and (if I remember correctly) D'Indy used it. Anybody happen to know what those works are? I'm sure there are lots of other examples as well, I just mention these ones because the composers are pretty well known, and I'd be interested to find out myself. --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 12 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]

"WEDDING"[edit]

Great article, Cam! Was it Schubert or Schumann who wrote a piece in which the bassline spells out "WEDDING" in German? -- Tarquin 10:12 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks tarq, it was fun writing it. "WEDDING" is a new one on me. Definitely sounds more like Schumann than Schubert, but I don't know, really. --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 12 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]
What I remember my piano teacher telling me was that he wanted to propose, but his potential future father in law was not keen. So he wrote a piece with that bassline, and sent it to her so she got the message. -- Tarquin 16:55 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Then I'm pretty sure it can't be Schubert. I may be wrong, but I don't think he ever planned to marry. Schumann on the other hand married Clara Wieck, who was a pianist (so this would make sense) and, if I remember correctly, whose father wasn't too keen on the pair getting together. So it sounds like him. I think I have a Schumann biog lying around the place somewhere, I'll see if I can find anything about it in there. Must say though, I don't know how you'd spell out WEDDING in German - isn't the German word Hochzeit? How do you make a Z or a T or an O or an I? That said, Ravel once spelled out Haydn's name in a piece, so anything's possible... --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 14 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I found an oddball page about people spelling things out in music. You had to stretch the rules or invent your own in many cases. btw I changed hommage to homage, hope this is correct, if not just beat me up. :) Nevilley 19:15 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

I've been thinking about starting an article on things spelled out in music, just for fun, but I can't think of a good title for it. You're right about "homage" by the way - two Ms in French, just the one in English (god knows why). And I looked in that Schumann biog for mention of WEDDING, but nothing was forthcoming (he spells something out in Carnaval though, ASCH, if I remember correctly - can't remember why). --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 16 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Carnaval (Schumann) was, famously, entirely based on 3 related motifs, ASCH, AsCH and SCHA. The first two referred to his then girlfriend's home town, Asch, and SCHA was Schumann's own signature. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Camembert, Could the German word in question be "Ehe" (marriage) rather than "Hochzeit", "Trauung", "Heirat" or "Vermählung" (wedding)? It's certainly an easier "spell" -- Someone else 19:50 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

Possibly, although the sequence of notes "EBE" probably wouldn't be very recognisable unless bashed out quite a lot. Then again, I suppose they'd stand out in A flat major or something - yes, it's a possibility. --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 16 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]

NB, EBE is a tritone, not a perfect fifth. EHE is a fifth. 209.112.192.94 19:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) -- Bruce Simonson — Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's so short I thought perhaps it wouldn't stand out: it would be in there only for the delectation of the cognoscenti. Which will make it, alas, hard to find :( -- Someone else 20:05 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
L'Arlesienne, Zarathustra? :) Nevilley 23:19 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
Never heard of 'em. Racehorses, are they? Oh, alright, I suppose a fifth can be recognisable given the right instrumentation and the right films. I wouldn't want to have to check whether every perfect fifth in Schumann was a marriage proposal, though ;) --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 17 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]
Heheheh. And Fanfare for the Common Man does it backwards and is therefore a writ for divorce? Oh and by the way ... "and the right films" - bitch! I'll get you yet, damme, Sir! :) Maybe we need an article "List of tunes with fifths in" ... Nevilley 08:17 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
And maybe we should move this page to "List of BACHs" and have that mirrored by a genealogical listing at "List of Bachs"... --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 18 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]

The Schumann thing probably is in relation to his "Myrten", Opus 25, a cycle of 26 songs that apparently is ordered in some alphabetically-coded manner. The song cycle was a wedding gift to his wife Clara. It's not clear if the "alphabet" relates to the music or the lyrics, but perhaps someone else can clarify. -- Someone else 09:37 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a score for that cycle and have a look. I'm not too sure what it all has to do with BACH, but I'm curious :-) --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 18 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]
(six months later) I'm still going to check up on this, by the way, honest! --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 19 October 2003 (UTC)[reply]

It's Mondnacht, number 5 from Schumann's Eichendorff Liederkreis Op. 39 written during the honeymoon, and spelt EHE (or EHEHE). In the key a forth lower which we basses favor, however, it comes out HFISH. Sparafucil (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transposition[edit]

Do we really need this in the article:

In many pieces, while the exact notes B-A-C-H are not played, a transposition of the motif is used (a note sequence with the same intervals: down a semitone, up a minor third, down a semitone).

I mean, if the motif has been transposed, it's not the Bach motif any more, is it? It's the FEGGes motif or whatever. Also, what are these "several other pieces" by Bach that use the BACH motif? It would be good to list them here if possible. --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 19 October 2003 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found one of them, the Vom Himmel Hoch canonic variations, BWV 769 (see talk:The Art of Fugue). It'd still be good to have a list if anyone can provide. (On reflection, incidentally, I don't really mind that sentence I've quoted above.) --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 27 December 2003 (UTC)[reply]

the very end of contrapunctus 4 quotes the BACH motif (a bit subtly, in the tenor). one of the fugues of the WTC has a theme of the same "shape" as the BACH motif, but that may be coincidence. (possibly F# minor or C# minor of WTC1?) also there is of course BWV 898! (apparently a "doubtful" work but still deserves mention.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.94.73 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2004 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar "note", the Sinfonia in F minor BWV 795 does not contain the motif as a motif, it merely contains those 4 notes "hiding" within another musical motive (starting with the second note). Like the Art of Fugue #4 ending mentioned by another person right above on this talk page, these are not use of a motif but are simply a few notes in a row NOT being used as a motif. Maybe we need a section "Dubious or transposed occurrences of the notes of the motif" or something like that!David Couch (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Francis Schonken for trying to reorganize the article and for adding better sources for these (to me) ridiculous and incomprehensible points of view and ways of writing such as Cumming's and Eggebrecht's. I acknowledge but do not apologize for my negative attitude. David Couch (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the BACH motif#Johann Sebastian Bach section (about Cumming commenting on Kivy commenting on Eggebrecht commenting on Bach) is still not OK: I added links to accessible relevant texts as much as possible, but the current paragraph in the Wikipedia article seems far from an adequate summary on the topic. Afaics Eggebrecht is mostly commenting on the final subject of the final fugue of The Art of Fugue, while Cumming only mentions the end of the fourth fugue explicitly... so I didn't rewrite the prose yet while it's not yet completely clear to me whether these authors weren't partially commenting next to each other. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hofstadter[edit]

Is it worth mentioning Douglas Hofstadter, who devoted some attention to this phenomenon in Gödel, Escher, Bach? JFW | T@lk 13:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. Supposedly, Bach fell ill and died almost immediately after writing it in. I assume this story has factual backing, and it would be nice to see it on Bach's page and/or this one. -MescalineBanana 06:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why??[edit]

Why in German is B alone referred to B flat and H to B natural, as opposed to the standard English terminology?? Georgia guy 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your question, but do not have an answer. Musical notation is silent on the matter. Key signature names and translations tells us about the names used in other languages, but gives no history of why they are different in some cases. There's a job for somebody with an hour or so to kill.
There's no reason to assume, though, that every country would use the same conventions as are used in English. The English were hardly at the vanguard of the development of western music theory and nomenclature when all these things were coming about. JackofOz 01:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK it's not all that common to use letters for the names of the notes anyway. French uses the solfege names (C=ut, D=re, E=mi, etc.), and I think Italian does too. —Angr 08:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AIUI the German usage is older. It probably had something to do with how the two Bs were treated in hexachords (B♭ = B molle, B♮ = B durum), which resulted in the modern flat and natural signs. I don't have a cite though. — Gwalla | Talk 06:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A possible explanation is that the Flat sign is also pronounced "bay", so B flat would become "bay bay"! Which is faintly ridiculous and could also be confused with baby. Just a thought! Kein Leben ohne Bach (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danish example of "composer's name" motif[edit]

Carl Nielsen has composed at least one longer work with a motif spelling the surname of a fellow Danish composer: (Niels) G-A-D-E. (The name of the piece escapes me, but I read this detail in an album liner years ago.) ISNorden 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liner notes often contain fascinating tidbits, but I've never heard about this one. I'm compiling a list of "tributes" from one composer to another, and this would certainly qualify if it was true. I've found nothing about it on Google or elsewhere. JackofOz 00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"BACH Signature Cross" ???[edit]

Dear Wikispherians,

For some years I've been dissatisfied with the inclusion of the graphic titled "BACH signature cross" on this page. In that interval I've searched for, but found no evidence that, the composer himself used it. As Bach evidently never "signed" his work in this way, the term "signature cross" is therefore misleading.

While I would love to believe that the graphic is somehow connected with the composer, the evidence points to the contrary. Two years ago, being sufficiently curious about the symbol, I wrote to Professor Ulrich Prinz, the Scientific Director of the Internationale Bachakademie Stuttgart (where the graphic is used on the website), who graciously replied as follows. I trust that he will not mind my quoting his reply, in part.

Thank you for your question from 11 Jun 2005 about the cross graphic on our website. There exists no document that Johann Sebastian Bach did use himself this symbol as a cross graphic. I have never found anything about this symbol in the early biographies of J. N. Forkel, K. H. Bitter, J. P. Spitta, A. Schweitzer etc. The first example, where I have found the symbol was an "ex libris" of 1934 and another in a church-glass-window in Dessau, built in 1950 (discovered and taken a photo by my colleague Holger Schneider in 1994).

In "The New Grove" is only written something about the existence of this symbol, but nothing about the inventor, neither the earliest year of invention nor the country.

In view of Professor Prinz's reply, I recommend that the "BACH signature cross" graphic either be deleted, or its provenance, so far as we know it, accurately labeled. I defer to others more in contact with this article to make the actual changes.

Tim Smith (aka "fugueman") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.209.179 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I always wondered where that came from, wondering if somebody just made it up here. It's nice to know they didn't, but to clarify that its invention apparently has nothing to do with Bach himself. It may be worth keeping in the article if it's mentioned in the New Grove, but I tried to clarify its uncertain provenance in the caption. Rigadoun (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rigadoun, your new caption solves the problem. Thx. --TS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.209.179 (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears in Grove V (published 1954) in their article "Cryptography, Musical", where it's described as "the well-known German rebus on Bach's name". I also noticed it when watching the documentary Elgar's Enigma: Biography of a Concerto (a 2006 New Zealand production, broadcast on ABC TV in Australia on 24 August 2008). It was not about the Enigma Variations, but about the hidden messages in and motives behind the Cello Concerto. A lovely and moving film. At one stage, some of Elgar's early childhood writings and compositions were shown, and the Bach cross was there in Elgar's hand, in plain view. There was no suggestion that Elgar himself created the cross ab initio, so it must have been around well before he was born (1857). I thought of writing an article on the BACH cross, but am also having some trouble finding sources to identify who created it, and when. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Schönbergs signature motif[edit]

I think the mentioned signature motif from Arnold Schönberg is wrong, he used A-D-Es-C-H-B-E-G (Arnold Schönberg), that's A, D, Eflat, C, Bnatural, Bflat, E, G. But the only citation I have on that is my transcript from my music lessons back in school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.3.42.11 (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin op. 25/12 does NOT quote B-A-C-H[edit]

It is of course in measures 9-12 the same interval (then small second down, small third up, small second down), but it starts dorm es so is not b-a-ch, but s-d-f-e!!! In my opinion it is complete rubbish to interpret that chopin wanted to quote here the bachmotif! Regards, RC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.142.184.138 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We know Bach was one of Chopin's idols, and he played Bach preludes and fugues every day. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was thinking of Bach when he wrote the notes in question in the étude in question. It would definitely need a citation to support Chopin's use of the motif in this way.
However, that raises an interesting point. A composer might have wanted to honour Bach, but used the motif transposed to the relevant key in order to fit better with the composition. Would this qualify as use of the BACH motif? Does the BACH motif exist only as the notes B flat, A, C and B natural, or does any sequence of notes with the same intervals count, as long as there was a conscious intent to use the BACH motif as a starting point? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duruflé and Alain[edit]

A, D, A, A, F for Jehan Alain, used by Maurice Duruflé in his Prélude et Fuge sur le nom d'Alain (op. 7).

Comment: This needs some explanation, and a cite. It seems to me that Duruflé is mixing up some of the letters from Alain's name (A, A, A; but he ignores the E) with the D and F from his own name. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've worked it out. He uses ABCDEFGH as the basis of his schema, then makes I=A, J=B, K=C, L=D, M=E, N=F etc. ALAIN then becomes ADAAF. I wonder why he didn't go the whole hog and convert JEHAN ALAIN to BEHAF ADAAF (B flat, E, B natural, A, F, A, D, A, A, F). It still needs a cite, though, that explains this schema, because otherwise it's OR (or, if you like, GB). -- JackofOz (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Ravel seems to have taken a similar but slightly different approach with his Menuet sur le nom de Haydn, which he treats as HADDG. In this case, his schema was ABCDEFG. K, R and Y are all represented by D, and N and U are represented by G. Being totally consistent would mean that H comes out as A, but he uses H from the German notation (Haydn being Germanic) to represent our B natural. Once again, this is just my take on what the letters represent, and it's still OR (or, in this case, AD). -- JackofOz (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason it's used in fugues[edit]

The article currently states "Perhaps because it was used by Bach himself in a fugue, the motif is often used by other composers in fugues or other complex contrapuntal writing." First this seems to me to be either an original speculation or simply needs a citation. Also, it seems rather silly. Bach used the motif in other places such as the St. Matthew Passion as mentioned in the article. Furthermore, Bach is known primarily for his fugues and other contrapuntal works, which is why other composers honor him with such[citation needed]. To say it's because he used it in one particular fugue strikes me as specious at best. I vote that barring a citation (in which case we can reword it to "Name speculates that perhaps because...") we remove this line or change it substantially. Comments? NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your arguments and suggest we remove the statement entirely. --Jashiin (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweelinck[edit]

I suggest removing the bit about Sweelinck. First of all, it refers to that composer's Fantasia in A Phrygian (Dirksen 14), the theme of which is not B flat, A, C, B natural, but A, A, A, G, B flat, A, C, B natural, B flat, A. Does that really count as an instance of the BACH motif? I don't think so. Furthermore, I notice that the bit about Sweelinck paying homage to a member of the Bach family, which I removed a year ago, has been inserted back. This is simply too far-fetched, because Sweelinck died in 1621, long before the Bach family gained such prominence as to impress composers in other countries. Any opinions? --Jashiin (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the mention. Would've done it earlier, but completely forgot about this page. --Jashiin (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

Works which prominently feature the BACH motif include:

The above uncited example where removed. Hyacinth (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove[edit]

This article needs additional citations in regards to the Bach cross, the list directly above, and the definition, meaning, and use of the Bach motif in the first place. Hyacinth (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material I kept in place when editing, and the material I added is from New Grove. I've added two inline citations to reflect that fact. Personally, I find both the list and the Bach cross completely useless here. The cross has no relation to the motif whatsoever, not to mention that it is very, very obscure (if not a hoax altogether). The first section of this talk page deals with the issue. Why the cross is included here is beyond me.
As for the list, our options are (a) include all 409 pieces from Boyd's list, (b) only make a small list of the most well-known pieces such as Schumann's and Liszt's, and (c) include no list at all, since it is impossible to demonstrate how Schnittke's piece is more important than Eisler's, or vica versa, and so a partial list will be biased. I tried performing (b) since it seems to me the most sensible thing.
Finally, I don't think there's any point in adding references for works such as Liszt's or Schumann's, since the fact that they're based on the B-A-C-H motif is reflected in their original titles. --Jashiin (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References can help establish Wikipedia:Verifiability, but also Wikipedia:Notability, per #General notability guideline. Hyacinth (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dallapiccola[edit]

Readded the examples from Luigi Dallapiccola's work, this time with citation to Raymond Fearn's 2003 book. Verified in original text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curryku (talk • contribs) 06:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Jazz Quartet[edit]

Another example of the B-A-C-H motif in composition is the Modern Jazz Quartet's Blues on Bach. The album consists of a series of preludes and blues in the keys of B-flat, A, C, and B-natural, all arranged and composed by the MJQ's pianist John Lewis. The preludes are arrangements of well known Bach compositions, orchestrated for the quartet (piano, vibraphone, bass, drums). Following each prelude is a blues composed with the B-A-C-H motif transposed into each of the four keys. Blues on Bach is a prime example of what Gunther Schuller called "third stream" jazz, combining concepts from both European art music and African American jazz - a genre which consciously plays with the boundaries between inscribed composition and thematic improvisation. Would anyone object to the inclusion of this example? Pulamusic (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the motif from the 19th-century Bach Revival[edit]

Most of the examples from mid XX century on are from non notable composers, and some of them without reference. I think this section should be cleaned.--90.171.35.37 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed three that had no Wikipedia article about them and nothing in Google except (pretty much) things the composers themselves had put up. I actually think the criteria for inclusion should be even stricter, maybe if no mention of the composer in Grove then no inclusion here, but I can't check myself just now because I've (temporarily, I hope) lost my access to Grove. TheScotch (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove all unreliable sources, and all sources that fail to confirm that a composition contains the BACH motif, then remove all unsourced entries from the list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BACH_motif&oldid=1182348186"