Performing Bach's Keyboard Music Embellishments: Part I

Author(s): George A. Kochevitsky

Source: Bach, Vol. 5, No. 3 (JULY, 1974), pp. 37-40
Published by: Riemenschneider Bach Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41639928
Accessed: 05-06-2017 00:29 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Riemenschneider Bach Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Bach

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:29:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Performing Bach's Keyboard Music
- Embellishments
Part I
By George A. Kochevitsky
New York City

Introduction

"Embellishment," "ornamentation," and "ornament" were, and are,

loosely used terms. Throughout the years a number of writers have em-
ployed these terms interchangeably, thereby adding confusion to an already
overly complicated problm.

"Embellishment" might best be used as a generic term signifying any

kind of melodic adornment. The term "ornamentation" would, then, more
properly denote a long, free embellishment - the result of the kind of
diminution practice in which the art of ornamenting was left to the per-
former. In conceiving such an "ornamentation," the performer customarily
replaced certain of the written-out notes with groups of other notes of
lesser values, while maintaining a resemblance of the shape of the original
melody.

Later, this kind of embellishment practice led to the creation of the

"cadenza," which was sometimes written out in full by the composer and,
at other times, left to the performer's creative ingenuity. Since this kind
of embellishment is found in Bach's keyboard works only in its first form
- that of fully written-out notes ( the arpeggiated chords of the Chromatic
Fantasy are, for instance, almost exactly indicated by the composer) -
the writer will omit from this paper the consideration of embellishment
in the form of "diminution."

An "ornament," on the other hand, is a short melodic formula which

(to use the analogy of Robert Donington) has evolved within the tradi-
tion of free ornamentation much as a crystal forms in a saturated solution.1

The study of ornaments is involved and intricate. As Friedrich Niecks

put it in 1884: 2

The subject of graces is one of the most difficult imaginable.

It is too complicated to be treated fully and briefly at the same
time, too obscure to be treated satisfactorily under any circum-
stances. Ornaments are modified and altogether abandoned not
only by the caprice of ages and nations but also by the caprice of
individuals. And of these innumerable modifications and changes,

37

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:29:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 we have either no record at all or, with a few exceptions, but a
very imperfect one. Hence, to speak dogmatically on this subject,
to lay down hard-and-fast rules, argues ignorance, not knowledge.

These words, written almost a hundred years ago, still have value
today.

While it is true that the problems involved in performing the orna-

ments indicated in eighteenth-century musical scores are complicated, it
would seem that acceptable solutions to these problems are more available
at the present time than are proper solutions to the problems of articula-
tion in Baroque music. (See the authors article "Performing Bach's Key-
board Music - Articulation," BACH, IV, 1 [January 1973], pp. 21-25.)

The performer contemplating solutions to Bach's ornament signs may

well ask why Bach (and certain of his contemporaries) employed signs,
rather than writing out in precise values the notes which were desired.
As the following paragraphs will indicate, there is no succinct answer to
this important question.

1. The embellishments were, no doubt, a kind of shorthand, just as

"figured-bass" was. At a time when music was most often copied
out by hand, when publication was rare and costly, it must have
seemed unnecessary - perhaps even improvident - to waste
space in writing out every detail when, as Putnam Aldrich has
put it, "... a mere hint or abbreviation would suffice to show
the performer what was intended."3 This assumption was, no
doubt, more nearly valid in Baroque times, when the arts of com-
posing and performing had not yet been separated.

In Bach's time, for example, the performer was usually well

educated in the arts of composition and improvisation, had devel-
oped "musical taste," and knew the rules and customs of his time
in regard to the execution of ornaments. Furthermore, it was
customary for either the composer himself or his pupils to per-
form his compositions. Thus, the dangers of distortion resulting
from ignorance of the meanings of the ornament signs were neg-
ligible.

2. The use of ornament signs allowed the composer to show clearly

which notes belonged to the basic melody and should be empha-
sized and which notes were merely ornamental and, thus, should
be executed in a somewhat lighter fashion.

3. It was the custom in earlier times to keep the score as uncluttered

as possible.

38

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:29:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
4. The concept that the musical score was written to be "seen" as
well as "heard" was widely held in Bach's time. In choosing the
shorthand of ornament signs, composers may have reasoned that
some ornamental dissonances which (if written out fully) might
look unbearable, would become quite acceptable once the ear
accustomed itself to them. This attitude seems strange to us to-
day, but we must not forget that the typical musician of Bach's
time perceived, comprehended, and approached problems in ways
which are different from our perceptions and approaches to
problem solving.

5. Originally, the art of embellishment was chiefly an art of impro-

visation. While the Italian style remained free and Italian com-
posers notated few embellishments, leaving the performer free
to add his own ornamentation, the French, during the first half
of the eighteenth century, devised a system of ornament symbols
that was rather rigid. Franois Couperin, for instance, demanded
that his richly ornamented pieces be played exactly according to
his explanations.

Although German composers availed themselves of the

French symbols, their attitude towards the execution of these
ornament signs was much more flexible, and, besides, they tended
to write out their ornaments in full notation.

Although Bach, in writing his table of ornaments, took over

his symbols from the French ( Anglebert), it does not follow
that he followed the French ornament practices exclusively. As
Alfred Kreutz has put it, "Bach had to rely on a Frenchman for
the simple reason that at that time there was neither in Italy nor
in Germany any settled system of keyboard ornaments."4

Manfred Bukofzer has observed that French and German composers

"do not call for additional ornamentation, whereas Corelli, Vivaldi, and the
Italian opera composers do."5

The assertion that harpsichord embellishments were necessary for the

placing of accents and the sustaining of tone is only partially correct. One
should not forget that ornaments were employed in compositions written
for the organ and for other instruments, as well. It is probably more accu-
rate to hold with C. P. E. Bach that embellishments served to connect and
enliven tones, to impart stress and accent, to increase the weight and im-
portance of notes, and to heighten expression.6

More than 200 books and tables dealing with ornaments were written
between 1600 and 1800. Unfortunately, their authors frequently disagree

39

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:29:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
in their explanation of this or that ornament. Sometimes a writer even
contradicts himself by giving different explanations on different occasions.
In speaking of these contradictions, Walter Emery expresses the thought,
"It cannot be proved that Bach was any more consistent.'7

These various discrepancies would seem to show that the rules of

ornamenting were not slavishly obeyed and that ornaments must have been
handled flexibly in Baroque music. It is important to remember that tables
of ornaments, being just tables, are schematic and abstract and, therefore,
unable to consider the musical context. Although they indicate more or
less accurately the melodic design of an ornament, they can only hint at
the quantitative and rhythmical patterns of the notes which were supposed
to have been executed at the discretion of the performer.

Since the ways of realizing ornaments varied at different times and

in different countries, the application to Bach's music of rules stated in
various books and tables must be carefully restricted as to time and locale
of publication. The fact that the German musical style began to change
profoundly while Bach was still alive must also be taken into account.

Bach's own table of ornaments is as insufficient as any other and,

perhaps, even more so. Since Bach wrote the table for his nine-year-old
son, he, quite naturally, gave only the basic, simple rules for executing
some of the signs which Wilhelm Friedmann was most likely to encounter.
If the performer tries to deduce from this table the key to Bach's rich and
complicated system of ornaments, he may often come to what Alfred
Kreutz has termed "musically nonsensical conclusions."8

Editor's Note: Part II of George Kochevitsky's article will be published in

the October 1974 issue of BACH.

Footnotes

1 Robert Donington, The Interprtation of Early Music (London: Faber and

1963), p. 125.
2 Friedrich Niecks, A Concise Dictionary of Musical Terms (New York: G
mer, 1884), "Preface."
3 Putnam C. Aldrich, Ornamentation m J. S. Bach's Organ Works (New
Coleman Ross Company, 1950), p. 6.
4 Alfred Kreutz, "Ornamentation in J. S. Bach's Keyboard Works," in Hinri
Musical Yearbook , No. VII (London: Hinrichsen Edition Ltd., 1952), p. 3
5 Manfred Bukofzer, Music in the Baroque Era (New York: W. W. Norton
1947), p. 375.
6 Karl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instru-
ments, trans. William J. Mitchell (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1949),
pp. 79-81.
7 Walter Emery, Bach's Ornaments (London: Novello & Co., Ltd., 1953), p. 15.
8 Alfred Kreutz, "Ornamentation," p. 361.

40

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:29:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms