# Who wrote Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 ?



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

2 options:

a) Johann Sebastian Bach
b) Someone else

Please vote, and explain your stance.

Another question: what do you think of that piece in general?

I like it a lot and consider it very powerful... in some way it stands out from other similar Bach works... especially when it comes to emotional aspect of it and the atmosphere that it creates.

I think this work is undeservedly underrated, simply because it's too popular, and people like criticizing what is popular.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Wow! What an alternative! I think it was Vivaldi...or his mother


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toccata_and_Fugue_in_D_minor,_BWV_565
wikipedia is not clear either. It says the work is attributed to Bach, but it is not even known when he wrote it.

To me, it does not sound like anything else Bach ever wrote. The mood and style of the work is different. And there are many examples when a work was misatributed. So I voted "not Bach", though the actual answer should be "I do not know"


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

Good question. I don't think it's impossible that it was Bach - given the almost textbook fugue subject, and the great counterpoint used - However, I find it difficult to believe that Bach wrote the Toccata. It just doesn't sound like Bach, and it sounds a little too silly. Don't get me wrong - it's a good piece, but clearly ridiculously overrated.

Now, if Bach *did* write it, the overly dramatic nature of the piece tells me he probably wrote it when he was quite young, and ambitious - But even then, Bach was writing great organ works like the passacaglia and fugue when he was young.

The short answer: Who knows?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'll remain in the Bach camp. Yes, the work isn't typical of Bach. However, that leaves me with a problem. It's a fantastic piece, and I can't think of any other baroque composer who had what it takes to compose it.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

BenG said:


> Good question. I don't think it's impossible that it was Bach - given the almost textbook fugue subject, and the great counterpoint used - However, I find it difficult to believe that Bach wrote the Toccata. It just doesn't sound like Bach, and it sounds a little too silly. Don't get me wrong - it's a good piece, but clearly ridiculously overrated.
> 
> Now, if Bach *did* write it, the overly dramatic nature of the piece tells me he probably wrote it when he was quite young, and ambitious - But even then, Bach was writing great organ works like the passacaglia and fugue when he was young.
> 
> The short answer: Who knows?


Hehe, IMO it's ridiculously *underrated*, mainly because people often skip it when discussing Bach, and then if it's not Bach it remains an orphan, because it's not being discussed in context of ANY composer.

All that, in spite of it being "the most famous organ work in existence"- a claim by Kranenburg, from Wikipedia.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

According to Jonathan Hall of NYU, Cornelius Heinrich Dretzel, a highly respected organist who almost certainly studied with Bach in Weimar, is the most likely candidate. A contemporary paid tribute to Dretzel, calling him "one of the greatest virtuosos of his time in performance and composition" and a master of counterpoint. The Prelude of the _Prelude and Fugue in A Minor, BWV 897_ is now firmly attributed to Dretzel and it bears some clear parallels to the Toccata of BWV 565. The Prelude is the second movement of Dretzel's _Divertimento Amonico_ in 3 movements, the manuscript of which was owned by Haydn. The second movement is marked adagiosissimo, a strange tempo designation best known to organists from the conclusion of BWV 622, "O Mensch, bewein", in Orgelbüchlein. The word is also found at the third movement of Bach's early Capriccio. All 3 movements of Dretzel's Divertimento show stylistic similarities and have closely parallel passages with BWV 565. There are also several technical similarities, but basta!


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I think it _is_ Bach. Everyone says it sounds like nothing else Bach wrote, but that's not quite true. It actually is in style not far off some of Bach's early keyboard toccatas and preludes. And for me the fugue is believably by Bach, although various aspects about it to me indicate early Bach. Maybe very early?

ETA: I had not heard about the Dretzel hypothesis previously, nor heard any of his music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Knorf said:


> I think it _is_ Bach. Everyone says it sounds like nothing else Bach wrote, but that's not quite true. It actually is in style not far off some of Bach's early keyboard toccatas and preludes. And for me the fugue is believably by Bach, although various aspects about it to me indicate early Bach. Maybe very early?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toccata_and_Fugue_in_D_minor,_BWV_565#Attribution_question
"Roger Bullivant thought the fugue too simple for Bach and saw characteristics that were incompatible with his style:

Conclusion of the piece on a minor plagal cadence
A pedal statement of the subject, unaccompanied by other voices
Trill in bars 86 to 90
"


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toccata_and_Fugue_in_D_minor,_BWV_565#Attribution_question
> "Roger Bullivant thought the fugue too simple for Bach and saw characteristics that were incompatible with his style:
> 
> Conclusion of the piece on a minor plagal cadence
> ...


Not at all persuasive. And "incompatible" is at best an exaggeration.

I've listened through all of Bach's extent organ and most of his other keyboard music, and what stands out to me is how much variety there actually is. There are _many_ surprising pieces that are singular in any number of ways and are unlike most of what else Bach wrote.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

For those interested in Dr. Hall's research into the authenticity of BWV 565, I've attached the link to a copy of his Diapason magazine article.

https://www.thediapason.com/sites/thediapason/files/24_Jan 2013 Hall BWV.pdf


----------



## StDior (May 28, 2015)

For me, the toccata part is somehow similar to Buxtehude's BuxWV 155 - Toccata in D minor:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Pretty obvious that the Phantom of the Opera wrote it.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> For those interested in Dr. Hall's research into the authenticity of BWV 565, I've attached the link to a copy of his Diapason magazine article.
> 
> https://www.thediapason.com/sites/thediapason/files/24_Jan 2013 Hall BWV.pdf


Thanks so much for posting this! Much appreciated.

I read through it, and once again am not very persuaded. I understand quite well where the doubt about BWV 565 comes from. But this is another in a long line of people sloppily presenting their own opinion and pure speculation as scholarship, without actual _evidence_. The Dretzel hypothesis is intriguing, perhaps even compelling, but it is very far from _proven_.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Okay, I admit it. I wrote it. How was I to know that it would catch on?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Perhaps Satoshi Nakamoto wrote it... or Elena Ferrante


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

It was Herbert Lom as "the lunatic Dreyfus" from the Pink Panther movies:









Seriously, as StDior suggested the previous page, I think it quite possible that a young Bach took inspiration from Buxtehude's Toccata in D minor. If so, it was not without precedent - or antecedent, as the case may be - when we consider Bach's Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, which is clearly derived from Buxtehude's Passacaglia in D minor:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It is typical of some of the small-minded so-called musicologists to try and reduce Bach’s genius to the limitations of their own tiny minds. So what he wrote a piece unlike any other he wrote? So what? He was a genius.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

dvsxvdxbv dxfb fcdx bcdfxb cdfb


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> dvsxvdxbv dxfb fcdx bcdfxb cdfb


Can't argue with that!


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> According to Jonathan Hall of NYU, Cornelius Heinrich Dretzel, a highly respected organist who almost certainly studied with Bach in Weimar, is the most likely candidate....


Never heard of Dretzel until this thread. In the meantime, I just read Hall's piece and compared/listened to both BWV 897 & the Toccata & Fugue in D Minor. I'm actually persuaded by Hall's argument and notice the parallels myself. So either Dretzel borrowed from Bach or he ended up in Bach's catalog. As Hall says, he's a very good composer.

Bach is my beloved composer, above and beyond all others, but I've always felt that his Toccata & Fugue in D minor was, not an aberration, but an exception to his usual practice. Dretzel must have been a formidable composer and keyboardist and it's a shame there's not more surviving music by him.


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

DavidA said:


> So what he wrote a piece unlike any other he wrote? So what?


So, as their is no evidence of it being written by Bach, and as other works are formally attributed to Bach - As well as the fact that Bach's style is overwhelmingly consistant, we have good reason to believe that Bach probably did not write it.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I didn't realize it was in question, but if Bach didn't write it, I'll vote for Captain Nemo.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Bach was one of the least predictable of composers. If we disqualified all his works that "don't sound like him" than we would have to get rid of several others as well. It's not among my favorite organ works of his, and I'm sympathetic to the argument that it's not by him, but I see no reason to think otherwise.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Bach was one of the least predictable of composers.


I'm not sure what this means. He was very skillful in terms of compositional intricacies, but he was also a product of his time, and he followed the standards of procedures appropriate for his time. 



But then "predictability" wasn't necessarily a bad thing in those times. ("craftsmanship" and "good taste" were considered more important) Look how many Bach fugues end with a picardy third over a tonic pedal point, with all the minor-key ones ending in tonic major.
By the standards of contemporary music (for example), this could be deemed a "predictable" element.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not sure what this means. He was skillful in terms of compositional intricacies, but he was also a product of his time, and he followed the standards of procedures appropriate for his time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. I was talking mainly about unpredictability of structure (i.e. cantata 138 and several others not on the tip of my tongue) and his ability to use Baroque compositional technique to conjure up emotional universes that were pretty much unmatched in his day (have a listen to cantata 109; it's startlingly progressive).


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Those that think Bach wrote it, what evidence do you have for it? Other than it is commonly attributed to him.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Yes. I was talking mainly about unpredictability of structure (i.e. cantata 138 and several others not on the tip of my tongue) and his ability to use Baroque compositional technique to conjure up emotional universes that were pretty much unmatched in his day (have a listen to cantata 109; it's startlingly progressive).


Sure, you could say different pieces of Bach instills different emotions in you. I think Bach had a lot of skill and sense in that regard, perhaps more than any of his contemporaries. But still it doesn't change the fact there were things called the "doctrine of the affections", and other standards in the time of the Baroque. 
As is the case with all other pre-Romantic era greats, there is a constant sense of "refusal to go out of the way" to do "ridiculous things". There is a strong sense of respect for tradition and standards of procedures. 
Someone in another site said that Bach feels like a "fine wine", I agree with him. The depth in his music comes more from "craftsmanship" and "good taste", as if it's about "universal truth" or something.

https://www.openculture.com/2018/01/artificial-intelligence-writes-a-piece-in-the-style-of-bach.html





-------------






But there are also people like:

"Why I Hate The 'Goldberg Variations'" -Jeremy Denk
https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations
"No amount of artistry and inspiration (sorry Glenn, not even you) can make you forget that you are hearing 80 minutes of G major; it's like trying not to notice Mount Everest. Not only is it G major, but it is always, (nauseatingly?) the same sequence of harmonies within G major. This is more than a compositional roadblock; it's essentially a recipe for monotony and failure. The Goldbergs are a fool's errand attempted by the greatest genius of all time."


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, you could say different pieces of Bach instills different emotions in you. I think Bach had a lot of skill and sense in that regard, perhaps more than any of his contemporaries. But still it doesn't change the fact there were things called the "doctrine of the affections", and other standards in the time of the Baroque.
> As is the case with all other pre-Romantic era greats, there is a constant sense of "refusal to go out of the way" to do "ridiculous things". There is a strong sense of respect for tradition and standards of procedures.


_"One will frequently be told that baroque movements, by tradition, tend to keep to the same mood or 'affect' throughout. This was too constricting for Bach who found many ways of getting around the problem and, as so often is the case, the clue lies in the text. When that soul who is unable to comprehend the name of Jesus is described as having a ′heart of stone′, the whole character of the music changes. The focus is now fully upon the soprano line, the bass and continuo are dropped and the first violins have a wispy, remote theme which accentuates the allusions to coldness.

This is another world where there is a clear division between those who hear and respond to the word of God and those who do not. But this is the whole point; the contrast must be made as a pedagogical moral, all the more effective if it can be encapsulated within a short period of time. The thesis and the message drive the structure of the aria but the musical imperatives still reign; the artistic success of the reconciliation of such extremes is part of Bach's unique genius."_ - http://www.jsbachcantatas.com/documents/chapter-30-bwv-133/ (Julian Mincham's analysis of cantata 133)

Yes, there is indeed a strong sense of respect for tradition in Bach; as you have said, pre-Romantic composers tended to have that mindset. But I think it's clear that Bach was also forging bold new pathways in terms of the expressive worlds he devised and his reluctance to "tame down" his church music in order to fit his Leipzig employers' strict molds. Do any of these sound like Bach is "staying on the safe path?"


















Yes, Bach did write some works that are overtly formulaic and not as inspired as his usual standard, but in my opinion none of his works is truly "bad" or not worth listening to. I don't really hear too many typical Bachian qualities in the toccata and fugue in question, but he wrote plenty of dramatic showpieces and I see no reason that he could not have written it - but it's also not quite distinct enough for anyone to say that it is 100% authentic.



hammeredklavier said:


> "Why I Hate The 'Goldberg Variations'" -Jeremy Denk
> https://www.npr.org/sections/decepti...erg-variations
> "No amount of artistry and inspiration (sorry Glenn, not even you) can make you forget that you are hearing 80 minutes of G major; it's like trying not to notice Mount Everest. Not only is it G major, but it is always, (nauseatingly?) the same sequence of harmonies within G major. This is more than a compositional roadblock; it's essentially a recipe for monotony and failure. The Goldbergs are a fool's errand attempted by the greatest genius of all time."


LOL, read to the bottom of the article, this is a parody:lol: He has a bunch of other articles in the series in which he analyzes the variations.



hammeredklavier said:


> Someone in another site said that Bach feels like a "fine wine", I agree with him. The depth in his music comes more from "craftsmanship" and "good taste", as if it's about "universal truth" or something


Agreed.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

The authorship thing is secondary now, since under JS Bachs legacies we have so many excellent pieces of music, even he had reworked other peoples music, he choosed right and worked right, that is enough.



> Jeremy Denk


Affirms to me why harpsichord and piano are enemies.

As to people who always love to accuse baroque of dogmatism, and may accuse me of bringing politics into the debate, are these people really free from political motivations in their attack on baroque? Well, I never deny that I see music as a part of my greater philosophy, however, music is never a mean to preach my philosophy, so was for most baroque composers, JS Bach published none of his cantatas, like most of his contemporaries. They gained no extra profit from their service, save the infamity modern media impose today. The left needs to demolish the tradition merely for the sake of attention seeking, and always maintains a straight face untill the end no matter how many lies and excuses they make, they are just pure force of destruction, in many names, music is just one of them. They make me sick.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Do any of these sound like Bach is "staying on the safe path?"


I wouldn't say "staying on the safe path" or "unimaginative" to describe his music. It's something hard to describe, something like "intrinsic value". It's kind of like Michelangelo and Da vinci. There is indeed a sense of creativity in the craftsmanship, but the expression of "universal truth" through craftsmanship is so good that it makes the "unpredictability" of later music, (such as certain modern classical pieces) rather "shallow" in comparison, (as if they're "trying to be different for the sake of being different each time", in my view).
Some people like janxharris on this forum have negative views on Bach like the pianist Jeremy Denk. I just think that, if you're trying to convince people like them to appreciate Bach more, you need a different approach from, say, just telling them "Bach is one of the least predictable of composers". I don't think it'll work.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

^Fair enough 

BTW, as I mentioned in my revised post, the Denk article is a parody. He actually recorded the Goldbergs and wrote a whole series of articles on the same website breaking down the variations and explaining his love for them.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

BenG said:


> So, as their is no evidence of it being written by Bach, and as other works are formally attributed to Bach - As well as the fact that Bach's style is overwhelmingly consistant, we have good reason to believe that Bach probably did not write it.


No evidence at all. Unless, of course, you consider that every known source of the music has it attributed to his pen; but hey, that's nothing right!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

For me it was the first piece by Bach I heard and loved, and about 35 years later I have still not tired of it. Every time I hear it, I love it. There's not a single other composer from that era of which I can say that. I have no doubt that it is by Bach, possibly an early work.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

BenG said:


> So, as their is no evidence of it being written by Bach, and as other works are formally attributed to Bach - As well as the fact that Bach's style is overwhelmingly consistant, we have good reason to believe that Bach probably did not write it.


So where is the evidence it was not written by Bach?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I wouldn't say "staying on the safe path" or "unimaginative" to describe his music. It's something hard to describe, something like "intrinsic value". It's kind of like Michelangelo and Da vinci. There is indeed a sense of creativity in the craftsmanship, but the expression of "universal truth" through craftsmanship is so good that it makes the "unpredictability" of later music, (such as certain modern classical pieces) rather "shallow" in comparison, (as if they're "trying to be different for the sake of being different each time", in my view).


Still, to me, a lot of favorite examples people cite of Bach are often trite and predictable, repeating the same harmonic language and traditional relative keys, over and over and little else. It's his more creative or profound side that peaks my interest. There are so many colors, aesthetics and atmospheres to music, it seems senseless to waste it on the same strict cliches of harmony and patterns in early music. For example, I don't see much value in listening to this ever, but I see the value in some of his more motivic and thematic works that harmonically do best to stick to simple verticality (I can't really find the best examples atm, I have one really stuck in my head) but perhaps like [1] [2] (in fact you Hammeredklavier always provide great examples.)

With later music, I don't have any issue except when it's purposefully more creative than catchy/listenable. The latter is music's foundation. There's nothing ingenious about writing a string of provocative counterpoint or harmonies--I could do that. Part of what makes Bach, in particular, successful is he's often _so_ simple or predictable for most people who grasp the value in that sort of thing, it hurts my brain to listen to too much of him, and the major reason people like a lot of music like Bach, Beethoven and Mahler is because it has this air of 'epicness,' some things that come to mind are dark repeating patterns and very Germanic strictness and heaviness, and for me this style is of the more juvenile, lacking tremendous insight and imagination into other dimensions of Classical value like rhythm, atmosphere and orchestration (not critiquing Mahler in this regard but there are better composers imo.)


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

On a more serious note, it seems that this argument has parallels to the Shakespeare debate. Tradition is a strong, although admittedly imperfect, argument in favor of continuing to accept an assignment of authorship. (In the case of the Toccata, we do at least know that a manuscript documents the existence of the work back to close to the time of Bach. Consequently, we do not have to consider a problem like the famous Adagio in G that was long attributed to Albinoni, only later being revealed as a much more modern composition intentionally written in his style. Lots of very minor works got attributed to Hadyn, presumably as a way of gaining attention, but that would not seem to apply to this surviving manuscript of the Toccata, for which Bach's reputation at the time might not have justified the incorrect attribution.) 

But the main point is that with a strongly established tradition, the burden of proof is not on those who wish to adhere to the tradition. Instead, it falls primarily on those who wish to overturn the tradition. It is not necessarily a requirement that a new composer can be assigned, but it would need to at least be a persuasive argument that J. S. Bach is not the composer. Thus far, the argument appears to be merely a question of irregular elements of the composition. These are interesting, but hardly very persuasive on their own. I have been involved in many questions of this sort, although in a literary context, and a much stronger argument is generally required. One thing that we see is that authors are known to write works that might not be attributed to their pens based purely on internal evidence. I suspect that the same is true of composers.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

JAS said:


> But the main point is that with a strongly established tradition, the burden of proof is not on those who wish to adhere to the tradition. Instead, it falls primarily on those who wish to overturn the tradition. It is not necessarily a requirement that a new composer can be assigned, but it would need to at least be a persuasive argument that J. S. Bach is not the composer. Thus far, the argument appears to be merely a question of irregular elements of the composition. These are interesting, but hardly very persuasive on their own. I have been involved in many question of this sort, although in a literary context, and a much stronger argument is generally required. One thing that we see is that authors are known to write works that might not be attributed to their pens based purely on internal evidence. I suspect that the same is true of composers.


My interests have also been in a literary context and I was also reminded of Shakespeare. With Shakespeare, the controversy is mainly literary works being _added_ to his canon, not removed-such as the Funeral Elegy (the internal evidence of which eventually and convincingly suggested John Ford---and first suggested by me by the way). That said, there are parallels. For many years the notion that Shakespeare collaborated was met with the same indignant dismissal as the suggestion that BWV 565 wasn't by Bach. Despite passages in Timon of Athens that were simply not up to Shakespeare's genius, its was easier for the "establishment" to simply avert their eyes than accept that the great genius Shakespeare would ever let a hack like Thomas Middleton muck with his works of art. Bach didn't collaborate, as far as we know, but he did eagerly copy, transcribe and rewrite the works of other composers out of admiration and study-including those of his own students. Bach may have admired this work by Dretzel (if Dretzel wrote it), copied it for his library (which was extensive) and the rest is history. He may have even guided Dretzel's hand if the work was written while Dretzel studied with Bach.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Who was the most likely composer to combine these two?




and (0:43)




Some scholars suggest that BWV 565 was originally a violin piece. How about this influence instead?

The work might be very unusual because it was written by a young Bach in his early 20s, who needed a showpiece to tour with. Look how the beginning of the toccata can perfectly serve to check the acoustics of a new church...

Of course for this particular connection the linked Vivaldi piece would have to date from when Vivaldi was also very young. I have no idea if there is an original manuscript of this available.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> Who was the most likely composer to combine these two?


It could have been Dretzel. He was evidently a surpassing organist and so would have been as familiar with Buxtehude as Bach. And he likely would have been just as familiar with Vivaldi. Not only that, but he was obviously an admirer of Bach's (and possibly a student), and so the same reasoning could support Dretzel. BWV 565 is just the kind of work a very good composer who was familiar with Buxtehude, Vivaldi _and Bach_ might have written.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vtpoet said:


> It could have been Dretzel. He was evidently a surpassing organist and so would have been as familiar with Buxtehude as Bach. And he likely would have been just as familiar with Vivaldi. Not only that, but he was obviously an admirer of Bach's (and possibly a student), and so the same reasoning could support Dretzel. BWV 565 is just the kind of work a very good composer who was familiar with Buxtehude, Vivaldi _and Bach_ might have written.


Bach was a pretty good organist too btw!


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Bach was a pretty good organist too btw!


You know, for all the enmity directed at Frederick the Great and his reception of Bach, Frederick called Bach's visit one of the highlights of his life. He evidently took Bach on a tour of Berlin and Potsdam's organs, on which old Bach improvised. Can you imagine? Christ. I wouldn't have wanted to be Frederick, but to have been the King's assigned man to pump the organ that evening? Sigh...


----------



## Tasto solo (Sep 7, 2015)

vtpoet said:


> He evidently took Bach on a tour of Berlin and Potsdam's organs, on which old Bach improvised. Can you imagine? Christ. I wouldn't have wanted to be Frederick, but to have been the King's assigned man to pump the organ that evening? Sigh...


This is not true. Bach's audience with Frederick was rather short and the only tour was of a few rooms in the palace where Frederick had his renowned collection of keyboards including a couple of innovative Silbermann fortepianos. However, at the same time as his visit to Potsdam, a number of receipts which have survived suggest that he (as a renowned expert on organ construction and acoustics besides, of course, as a performer) carried out some consultancy work in various churches in the region. Perhaps these facts have got convoluted to give the false impression that Frederick and Sebastian went on some kind of "Organ crawl". But no...


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Tasto solo said:


> This is not true. Bach's audience with Frederick was rather short and the only tour was of a few rooms in the palace where Frederick had his renowned collection of keyboards...


You weren't there and neither was I, so all I've got to go on is what I've read. The historians could be wrong.


----------



## Tasto solo (Sep 7, 2015)

vtpoet said:


> You weren't there and neither was I, so all I've got to go on is what I've read. The historians could be wrong.


You do know that historians don't make things up? They use sources. There is no source which states the thing you said. Or would you like to share one with us?


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Tasto solo said:


> You do know that historians don't make things up? They use sources. There is no source which states the thing you said. Or would you like to share one with us?


Why yes I would. "On the following day, May 8, again at the request of the king and in his presence, Bach played the organ at Potsdam's Holy Ghost Church, a medium-size instrument built in 1730 by Johann Joachim Wagner. According to Forkel, 'Bach was taken to all the organs in Potsdam... The composer then went on to Berlin, where he visited the four-year-old royal opera house Unter den Linden (as described by CPE Bach).'" p. 428 Johann Sebastian Bach, The Learned Musician

But, you know, Christoph Wolff, Forkel and Bach's son, CPE, could all be wrong. And you right. You know how that goes....


----------



## Tasto solo (Sep 7, 2015)

vtpoet said:


> According to Forkel, 'Bach was taken to all the organs in Potsdam...


What a pity that you did not quote the text which immediately followed this sentence


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Tasto solo said:


> What a pity that you did not quote the text which immediately followed this sentence


Why. Does it say that *Tasto solo* disagrees with all this and so we should be cautious? Here's another passage from James Gaines' book, _Evening in the Palace of Reason_, since you asked for sources:

"A night of sleep and a change of clothes later, Bach was summoned once more into the service of the king. Presumably from the same mix of motives he had for taking Bach from fortepiano to fortepiano-among which motives of course the desire to hear a great virtuoso who would not be around much longer, this time on the instrument for which he was most famous-Frederick asked Bach for a performing tour of the organs of Potsdam. _All_ the organs of Potsdam." The italics are the author's.

They probably didn't call that an organcrawl in Bach's day, but who knows...


----------



## Tasto solo (Sep 7, 2015)

vtpoet said:


> Why. Does it say that *Tasto solo* disagrees with all this and so we should be cautious?


No, it says this:

"According to Forkel, 'Bach was taken to all the organs in Potsdam,' so he would also have performed - though not, apparently, in the king's presence - on the organs at the Garnison Church ..., and St. Nicholas's ..."

So, the tour you claimed in your first post did not take place.

However, scholars have anyway cast a lot of doubt over Forkel's description of the visit, partly because it contradicts contemporary accounts i.e. primary sources (yes, I know Forkel interviewed CPE, who was there, but still his is a secondary source). Those accounts, including a front page newspaper article about Bach's visit can be read (in English translations) in "Rethinking J.S. Bach's
Musical Offering" by Anatoly Milka, 2019 Cambridge Scholars Publishing (online here, but possibly behind a paywall https://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/65573)


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

DavidA said:


> So where is the evidence it was not written by Bach?


I don't have the burden of proof - I simply stated that there is no evidence that Bach wrote it.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Yes. And? Gaines asserts that Frederick took Bach to "_all_" the organs while Wolff asserts Bach played on all of Potsdam's organs but that Frederick didn't. I don't know why or if that's true. Or which is true, but Wolff's assertion somewhat begs the question: _For whom was Bach performing if not the King_? The King, after all, instigated this organcrawl, and so why miss out?

Be that as it may. The historians are in general agreement that Bach did indeed go on an organcrawl and would that I had been the one to pump the bellows.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Those that think Bach wrote it, what evidence do you have for it? Other than it is commonly attributed to him.


I think we can say that of an awful lot of works by an awful lot of composers. The question is what positive evidence is there someone else wrote it? I know there was someone who wanted to attribute the cello suites to his wife for some vague reason and to try and get attention from the media.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

When a work is attributed to a particular composer, it's best to stick with the attribution unless there is strong evidence that another specific composer wrote the work. In this case, there is no strong evidence - just a string of "could have", might have and maybe".


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DavidA said:


> I know there was someone who wanted to attribute the cello suites to his wife for some vague reason and to try and get attention from the media.


Lots of serious musicians have questioned the authenticity of BWV565's attribution, including Elgar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocca...565#Authenticity_research_and_reconstructions
I think it sounds a bit too "cheesy" to be something by Bach, even in his early period. (The ending in the tonic minor is very unusual for Bach as well.) Compare it with his toccatas for harpsichord, for example.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> Lots of serious musicians have questioned the authenticity of BWV565's attribution, including Elgar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocca...565#Authenticity_research_and_reconstructions
> It sounds a bit too "cheesy" to be something by Bach, even in his early period. Compare it with his toccatas for harpsichord, for example.


Yes but with what evidence? Next to none. For goodness sake, every great composer has written something out of type. The problem is there will always be conspiracy theories because people love them.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

BenG said:


> I don't have the burden of proof - I simply stated that there is no evidence that Bach wrote it.


There is evidence, including the title page of the surviving manuscript copied by Johannes Ringk (1717-1778):









What there isn't is _absolute proof_, and that is, perhaps, an unreasonable standard.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JAS said:


> There is evidence, including the title page of the surviving manuscript copy:
> 
> View attachment 144256
> 
> ...


Now if the title page didn't say 'J S Bach' that might be worrying.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Now if the title page didn't say 'J S Bach' that might be worrying.


It would, which is why I am not arguing against the attribution of the piece to J. S. Bach. The claim made was that there was no evidence that Bach wrote it, and yet, there is the evidence in paper and ink.

Edit: It would also be a worrying if there were other roughly contemporary copies that had other attributions. I presume that this is not the case here.

Edit2: If it is not clear, I think the attribution of the Toccata to Bach is quite reasonable, and the claims otherwise mostly the stuff of conspiracies and attention-grabbing dramatics from scholars who otherwise we would never have heard of.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

BenG said:


> I don't have the burden of proof - I simply stated that there is no evidence that Bach wrote it.


There's also been somewhat extensive statistical analysis of the piece (i.e. in terms of compositional tendencies using computers) that came up with Bach as the most likely composer. This is in addition to mine, and others, comments that the original manuscript attributes it to Bach.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

I could ask also, who has written the French (sic, because are Italian) Suites... (no original music scores has been found). So glorious work can only been composed from JSB. The toccata is Bach's typical style representative. (good analysis made in thread) I understand that it is intriguing to find a new Bach, but Bach was, is and will be only one.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BachIsBest said:


> There's also been somewhat extensive statistical analysis of the piece (i.e. in terms of compositional tendencies using computers) that came up with Bach as the most likely composer.


I don't know if that ever happened, but test results like that would only be worthy of consideration if the researchers also performed extensive statistical analysis on complete works of other guys like Dretzel (2nd and 3rd candidates for the authorship of BWV565) and compared with those of Bach to see whose style is closest to BWV565 overall.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mendelssohn "discovered" this work and incorporated it into his organ recitals in about 1830. I've never read that he had any doubts about its authorship, and he knew a thing or two about music!


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

JAS said:


> There is evidence, including the title page of the surviving manuscript copied by Johannes Ringk (1717-1778)


Bach was a copycat. I doubt they took authorship that seriously in those days and heavily borrowed from each other. Bachs harpsichord concertos are all transcribed Vivaldi. So it is quite possible, that the work was copied in Bachs manuscript, although the author was someone else.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know if that ever happened, but test results like that would only be worthy of consideration if the researchers also performed extensive statistical analysis on complete works of other guys like Dretzel (2nd and 3rd candidates for the authorship of BWV565) and compared with those of Bach to see whose style is closest to BWV565 overall.


That's exactly what they did...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toccata_and_Fugue_in_D_minor,_BWV_565#Authenticity_research_and_reconstructions


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

BachIsBest said:


> That's exactly what they did...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toccata_and_Fugue_in_D_minor,_BWV_565#Authenticity_research_and_reconstructions


As Disraeli said there are lies, damned lies and statistics


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Jacck said:


> Bach was a copycat. I doubt they took authorship that seriously in those days and heavily borrowed from each other. Bachs harpsichord concertos are all transcribed Vivaldi. So it is quite possible, that the work was copied in Bachs manuscript, although the author was someone else.


That's true, but these pieces were generally named so as to give the original author credit (e.g. concerto in d minor after Vivaldi or something). It is certainly possible that Bach copied it down and then Johannes Ringk incorrectly attributed it to him, but surely this is, in the face of o other conclusive evidence, less likely than no mistake having been made, and the actual author being Bach.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

BachIsBest said:


> That's true, but these pieces were generally named so as to give the original author credit (e.g. concerto in d minor after Vivaldi or something). It is certainly possible that Bach copied it down and then Johannes Ringk incorrectly attributed it to him, but surely this is, in the face of o other conclusive evidence, less likely than no mistake having been made, and the actual author being Bach.


Yes, I was just going to comment that Bach was usually careful to give credit where credit was due-according to what I've read.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Jacck said:


> Bachs harpsichord concertos are all transcribed Vivaldi.


This is not correct, if you think of the concertos for harpsichord and strings. Only the concerto for four soloists and strings is a Vivaldi transcription.

Bach made some transcriptions of concerti by Vivaldi and others for solo harpsichord and some for organ (without strings), but these are not generally classified as harpsichord concertos and served probably first and foremost the purpose of his own instruction.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

DavidA said:


> As Disraeli said there are lies, damned lies and statistics


I only believe in a statistic I have manipulated myself.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

The only existing manuscript of BWV 565 (by Rinck) attributes it to JS Bach, and internal "evidence" is inconclusive - actually many traits pointing to Bach, so what is the positive reason to believe, that it should not be by Bach.

And the piece by Dretzel, which was misattributed to Bach, is artistically not at all at the artistic level of BWV 565.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Now for your entertainment, the bad boy of CM, Glenn Gould, plays the Chromatic Fantasy, but not the fugue of course.

When he was done he said that's Bach for people who don't like Bach.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> Now for your entertainment, the bad boy of CM, Glenn Gould, plays the Chromatic Fantasy, but not the fugue of course.
> 
> When he was done he said that's Bach for people who don't like Bach.


So hearing this it's unfathomable to me that people say JSB couldn't have written 565


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DavidA said:


> So hearing this it's unfathomable to me that people say JSB couldn't have written 565


I think the chromatic fantasy and fugue is closely-related to BWV944, one of my favorite Bach keyboard pieces






the fantasie of BWV944 also consists of chords (that are to be improvised on by the performer), something Gould may have disliked. It is followed by a 3-part fugue of early Bach style, just like BWV903. (I read somewhere that the theme is from Torelli or some other baroque composer)


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> I think the chromatic fantasy and fugue is closely-related to BWV944, one of my favorite Bach keyboard pieces


The chromatic fantasy is even more related to the b-minor prelude BWV 923


----------



## DHE (Jan 31, 2021)

If anyone knows how to access scholarly articles on either this topic or the question if Bach or Pezold composed the Minuet in G minor, I would love to read them. I've seen references to them in footnotes, but I don't know how to access them (often in German, which I can't read). I've searched decent libraries and can't find any real argument in references - just the statement of "some scholars believe."

Bach, so famous, is a prime candidate for the Shakespeare treatment - you know, the Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare thingee. Some of these suggestions may be true, of course. I've read up on a number of these "mysteries" and feel certain Shakespeare was Shakespeare, believe more likely than not Jesus existed, think there's a reasonable argument about Confucius not having existed, and see no real substantive support that Homer and J were women (though there are whole books on it). 

An author once convinced me that Clement Moore didn't write "A night before Christmas" until I read more on it some years later and realized how incomplete the first author's research was. Once bitten, twice shy. I need to learn more about the Bach mysteries before I have an opinion, if ever.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DHE said:


> If anyone knows how to access scholarly articles on either this topic or the question if Bach or Pezold composed the Minuet in G minor, I would love to read them. I've seen references to them in footnotes, but I don't know how to access them (often in German, which I can't read). I've searched decent libraries and can't find any real argument in references - just the statement of "some scholars believe."
> 
> Bach, so famous, is a prime candidate for the Shakespeare treatment - you know, the Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare thingee. Some of these suggestions may be true, of course. I've read up on a number of these "mysteries" and feel certain Shakespeare was Shakespeare, believe more likely than not Jesus existed, think there's a reasonable argument about Confucius not having existed, and see no real substantive support that Homer and J were women (though there are whole books on it).
> 
> An author once convinced me that Clement Moore didn't write "A night before Christmas" until I read more on it some years later and realized how incomplete the first author's research was. Once bitten, twice shy. I need to learn more about the Bach mysteries before I have an opinion, if ever.


Jesus, Shakespeare and Bach, what did they all have in common in the early years of their lives?


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

One of the common attacks on Bach's authorship is that BWV 565 "doesn't sound like Bach's mature compositions for keyboard."

I've studied and listened to almost every single extent keyboard piece by Bach. And it's true: BWV 565 doesn't sound like Bach's mature compositions for keyboard.

But it fits right in with quite a lot of his _early_ pieces for keyboard. And that's the general consensus among those advocating for Bach authorship: it would be a very early piece in his career, where it has a number of very similar companions.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Knorf said:


> One of the common attacks on Bach's authorship is that BWV 565 "doesn't sound like Bach's mature compositions for keyboard."
> 
> I've studied and listened to almost every single extent keyboard piece by Bach. And it's true: BWV 565 doesn't sound like Bach's mature compositions for keyboard.
> 
> But it fits right in with quite a lot of his _early_ pieces for keyboard. And that's the general consensus among those advocating for Bach authorship: it would be a very early piece in his career, where it has a number of very similar companions.


 Yes, it's an attractive and impressive piece (maybe from an improvisation) for that time in his performing life and he even took the trouble to write it all down lol, but when he could look back at the score later he probably rationalized that it was merely sufficiently 'attractive'. 'Not as serious as he wanted to be, from what we can see as the path that he began to follow.

People will ask, "Well, why isn't it mature and serious to you as a player?" It would take some explaining (music theory).

I really enjoy the fugue (to play), but I think it's considered to be even weaker. I just listened to it on a CD by Rubsam I purchased yesterday, and it has a nice spiritual quality, while being simple. I like that for a change… So anyway, now I respect the fugue even more. Gould avoided playing it, but he was in an exposed world, which thankfully I'm not..

People who go into music to make a living and support a family are the real risktakers IMO. i admire them.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> I really enjoy the fugue (to play), but I think it's considered to be even weaker. I just listened to it on a CD by Rubsam I purchased yesterday, and it has a nice spiritual quality, while being simple. I like that for a change… So anyway, now I respect the fugue even more. Gould avoided playing it, but he was in an exposed world, which thankfully I'm not..


BWV565 is an organ fugue. By "Gould avoided playing it", you mean BWV903?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The work is a Toccata which is meant to be unconventional in terms of form, free flowing for the composer. If Bach did not write it, then therefore it must have been John Cage who wrote it.


----------



## BaroquenBard (Feb 5, 2021)

*My two cents worth*

This is just my two cents worth based on the available facts, my own research, and weighing the opinions of others. Like anyone my thoughts on this are just a plausible set of actions that fit the end result and not meant to be definitive truth. Bach did what all composers do: borrow another composer's work to create variations. In the case of BWV 565 he was expounding on phrases written by some of J. Pachelbel's work. Two examples are Pachelbel's Prelude and Fugue in d (



) and one of his fantasias for harpsichord, #20 in d (



). In both you can clearly hear major elements of Bach's work. Maybe Bach never meant for this to be published and was just playing around? In the 40+ years I've been playing Bach's keyboard works I will freely admit to playing around with some of Bach's themes to create my own; none of which would I ever want published or performed as they were for my own amusement.


----------

