That single piece everyone knows.

[Soubasse]

For me there are simply too many inconsistencies in this work compared to the numerous others that count among the collection of JSB. There are also the "alarming" things which stand out such as the very opening of the Toccata (octaves) and the very final cadence of the Fugue (plagal, which was all but unheard of in central German Baroque).

The fugue I find far too underdeveloped even for young Bach. It doesn't even compare to the well-known Buxtehude influence. The counter-subject is nothing more than a parallel 6th harmonisation of the subject which is dull, even for a younger JSB. There are also those drawn out (and for me, rather tedious) echo passages in the fugue which are unrelated to any material presented elsewhere. The solo pedal entry of the subject later on is also without precedent - it just wasn't the "done thing" in those days, even for a young composer. They would have been discouraged from doing such a thing. Granted Bach really did enjoy bending the rules on occasion, but when he did so, he did it with magnificent panache!

There's too much of the Toccata and Fugue in d minor that is, relative to the known works (young or old) of JSB, compositionally inept. Personally I favour the theory that it was an arrangement in a Baroque style, possibly from the Romantic era, based on fragments/drafts of an earlier (anonymous) manuscript.


But in the end, who can really know?? I just might be in for a hell of a surprise!

[Contratrombone64]

Soubasse - well I'm glad there's one (more) person here who agrees with me on this!

[Dorsetmike]

If this is the case why is it that it's so popular? I must admit it's not my Bach number 1, in fact due to its overexposure probably not even in the top 5.

As for orchestral versions (especially the Fantasia one) they don't rate quite as low as Gorecki on my all time list but well down nevertheless.

[Marc]

Soubasse,
I agree at least on the very tedious echo passages in the fugue. Not my cup of tea, and I always want to get it over with.

I also agree about the fact that there's a countless amount of compositions in the BWV-catalogue that are much more impressive and striking than no. 565.

But I definitely don't agree with the hypothesis that it's a Baroque imitation of the Romantic era.

The first handwritten copy of the piece is by Johannes Ringk. He was a pupil of Johann Peter Kellner (1705-1772), who was a pupil of J.S. Bach. Ringk was organist of the Marienkirche in Berlin from 1754 until his death in 1778. Ringk also made a lot of copies of the so-called Kellner collection: a collection of copies by J.P. Kellner, made around 1725.
So I don't see the link with the Romantic era.

You mention the 'underdevelopment' of the piece. This might be caused by the possibility that BWV 565 is a transcription of a solo violin work, as Peter Williams tried to prove in his 1981 article.

[Marc]

If this is the case why is it that it's so popular?

Because 'simplicity' does work in music. Most big hits in the hitparade aren't very difficult compositions, AFAIK.

Also: compared to a lot of other BWV catalogue works, BWV 565 sounds spectacular (on the outside), and is a rather direct composition and not very difficult to 'grab'.

I know of many non-classical listeners who adore BWV 565 or even get bewildered by it, and absolutely dislike real great(er) organ works like the Passacaglia, or the Prelude & Fugue in E Flat BWV 552, or the Chorale Prelude Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir BWV 686 et cetera. I tried to convince them otherwise, but most of them find those pieces too long, utterly heavy, unattractive and/or boring.

Another cause for its popularity is the fact that Albert Schweitzer, who at his time was known as a great Bach connaisseur with lots of influence, absolutely adored the piece. He thought of it as a composition of great visionary power. His own performance of BWV 565 became one of the best-known vinyl recordings before World War II. I think it was recorded in 1935 or 1936 at the Harrison organ of All Hallows Church. Alas, the instrument was destroyed in the 1940 bombing raids on London.

[Dorsetmike]

You mention my Bach number 1, the Passacaglia, not often heard on the radio, come to that few of the keyboard works seem to get much air time other than 565, at least in UK.

The highest Bach placing on the Clasic FM top 300 of 2009 at number 40 was the double violin concerto in D minor, second was 565 at number 57, the only other Bach Keyboard work was the Goldberg Variations, at 158, out of a toal of 13 Bach works. Shows the bulk of the British listening public have no taste for real music

[Marc]

You mention my Bach number 1, the Passacaglia, not often heard on the radio, come to that few of the keyboard works seem to get much air time other than 565, at least in UK.

The highest Bach placing on the Clasic FM top 300 of 2009 at number 40 was the double violin concerto in D minor, second was 565 at number 57, the only other Bach Keyboard work was the Goldberg Variations, at 158, out of a toal of 13 Bach works. Shows the bulk of the British listening public have no taste for real music

Well, the Passacaglia probably (I'm a bit cautious) shares my personal Bach Number One position with the opening choir of the Johannes-Passion.

I somehow see this 'superior couple' this way:
the Passacaglia is the entrance of God, and the people on earth react by singing and playing Herr, unser Herrscher, dessen Ruhm in allen Landen herrlich ist!

Mmm, maybe mr. Bach himself would like this vision: it's nothing but S.D.G.!

[Soubasse]

Marc, thanks for mentiong the string adaptation, I'd temporarily forgotten about that aspect of it (and it's a perfectly logical assumption given the style of writing). I hadn't forgotten about Ringk and his copy but your mention of him reminded me of where I heard some of this stuff.

I said I "favoured" the theory of a Romantic era pastiche, but I wouldn't say I'm 1000% sold on it either to be honest. It was one of my Musicology lecturers (also an organist) that floated the idea, (and that's decades ago now!). He based his theories on some keyboard techniques of a young Liszt and also some of the things Mendelssohn tried with his organ sonatas (which I really don't like very much either). However, I thought at the time that there was some merit in the idea seeing as how fond Mendelssohn was of JSB. Other postulations came in to the mix such as the fact that the organ fell in to a bit of decline after JSB (thanks to the piano) and that Ringks copy may not have seen any interest (and possibly revision?) until much later when Felix resurrected JSBs music.

These of course are probably far more tenuous than any of the established theories, so as usual, I tend to take most of those ideas with a few grains of NaCl. I still can't listen to 565 and think "Bach" though!