A beloved cantata from Bach’s early 20s, the Actus Tragicus anticipates the future of opera more than it foreshadows Bach’s own later cantatas. Albert Schweitzer’s beautiful writing on Bach features heavily in this episode.

Here is the tuning video with chorale in question toward the end of the episode:

WTF Bach is a listener-supported publication. To receive new episodes, to support the work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Let’s have a look at BWV 106. I focus on the two recorders and their almost unison playing. The effect of one flute dropping a few notes from their otherwise identical melody is marvelous:

The theme of the cantata joins the Old-Testament ‘fear of death’ with the New-Testament ‘joy in death.’ Bach combines both testaments’ text in multiple movements. This idea of the soul rising above the old world, ‘as if hastening hither from another,’ musically detached from the fugue in the lower voices, a soprano floats over the texture, quoting Revelations:

And who can forget this moment? It even looks striking to the eye:

We find a similar image of the comforted soul floating above the music in the duet toward the end of the cantata. Over Jesus’ dying words, the alto slowly sings a Lutheran hymn:

Bach so carefully wants to paint the idea of peace in death, he gives one word (sleep) its own dynamic:

Performers today were: Masaaki Suzuki, Joshua Rifkin, Rudoplh Lutz. The additional organ chorale at the end of the episode is BWV 616.

We Rely On Listener Support! How to Donate to this Podcast:

The best way to support this podcast, is to become a paid subscriber at wtfbach.substack.com

Enough paid subscribers = exclusive content, monthly merchandise giveaways!

You can also make a one-time donation here:

https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach

https://venmo.com/wtfbach

https://cash.app/$wtfbach

Thank you for listening! Thank you for your support.

Reach us at Bach (at) WTFBach (dot com)

The bard— not the brook, but don’t worry, this podcast isn’t going to become an English lesson.

Thanks for reading WTF Bach! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Here is my reading of Shakespeare’s first publication, Venus and Adonis, a poem that is pure music. If I were to list my favorite lines, I might as well copy out half the poem. Just something that pops into my head would be a line like,

“Rain added to a river that is rankPerforce will force it overflow the bank.”

It bursts with melody and rhythm! And at least one moment, such as when Venus addresses Death,

'Hard-favour'd tyrant, ugly, meagre, lean,Hateful divorce of love,'--thus chides she Death,--'Grim-grinning ghost, earth's worm, what dost thou meanTo stifle beauty and to steal his breath,Who when he lived, his breath and beauty setGloss on the rose, smell to the violet?

'If he be dead,--O no, it cannot be,Seeing his beauty, thou shouldst strike at it:--O yes, it may; thou hast no eyes to see,But hatefully at random dost thou hit.Thy mark is feeble age, but thy false dartMistakes that aim and cleaves an infant's heart.

Why, this might well be compared with the later tragedies. Grim-grinning ghost! As Keats wrote in the margin of his copy of the Sonnets, ‘Lo!’

I hope you enjoy this diversion. I’ve been toying with this for about a year now. I suggest reading along while listening to best absorb the poem. You can read the full text in modern English here, and as it appeared (with older spelling) in 1593, here.

Poor queen of love, in thine own law forlorn,To love a cheek that smiles at thee in scorn!

We Rely On Listener Support!

How to Donate to this Podcast:

The best way is to become a paid subscriber at wtfbach.substack.com

You can also make a one-time donation here:

https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach

https://venmo.com/wtfbach

https://cash.app/$wtfbach

Thank you for listening! Thank you for your support.

Reach us at Bach (at) WTFBach (dot com)

UPDATE: One of my astute listeners pointed out that it is in fact Jones’ review of Butler’s work in Music & Letters, and the original work by Butler is this book. Thanks for the correction!

Don’t miss the end of this episode where I play three of Bach’s earlier settings of the same tune, BWVs 700, 701, & 738!

We finish our study of this late masterpiece by reading some scholarship on the two different versions Bach made of his canonic variations on Luther’s 1539 melody. Whereas Wolff suggests both versions could be ‘authentic,’ Gregory Butler reveals that he believes the Original Edition was a mistake— one that prompted the handwritten fair copy.

As for the signature in the augmented canon— the finale in the fair copy— it is first spelled out in bar 19. See the top line, G, F#, A, G#:

These are not the same notes, but it is the same shape as B-A-C-H. The line that imitates this upper line is moving at half its speed. Therefore, it must repeat the spelling twice as slow later in the piece. See how it is joined by an independent line of counterpoint, now singing out the signature in parallel 3rds:

Two signatures in two different final movements!

We Rely On Listener Support! How to Donate to this Podcast:

The best way to support this podcast, is to become a paid subscriber at wtfbach.substack.com

Enough paid subscribers = exclusive content, monthly merchandise giveaways!

You can also make a one-time donation here:

https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach

https://venmo.com/wtfbach

https://cash.app/$wtfbach

Thank you for listening! Thank you for your support.

Reach us at Bach (at) WTFBach (dot com)

Today, as we did in episode 5 of this miniseries, we’ll examine the revisions Bach made from engraving copy to handwritten copy. This is an important view into the composer’s workshop, and unlike clear ameliorations between layers in his other works, the two versions of BWV 769 present a unique challenge in seeking the “best” version.

Changes like this (first beat, alto) are minute, yet fascinating:

(Top: engraving. Bottom: fair copy.) Bach made three revisions dealing with a similar leap of a fifth.

The most important revision in the inverted canon variation, is in this pedal line:

(Top: engraving. Bottom: fair copy.) Notice the ornament in the fair copy— we often see more ornaments in handwritten versions, but this is not consistently the case in this piece.

Heading over to the augmented canon, this revision (in the bottom line) seems to be the only one of major consequence:

(Top: engraving. Bottom: fair copy.) The need to change this canonic line stems from a revision Bach made 11 bars earlier— the lines being in augmentation with one another. Admire Bach’s brazenness as he changes what was D over B, to D over C#!

Here, as I mentioned, is a very early episode introducing the concept of Bach in revision:

We Rely On Listener Support! How to Donate to this Podcast:

The best way to support this podcast, is to become a paid subscriber at wtfbach.substack.com

Enough paid subscribers = exclusive content, monthly merchandise giveaways!

You can also make a one-time donation here:

https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach

https://venmo.com/wtfbach

https://cash.app/$wtfbach

Thank you for listening! Thank you for your support.

Reach us at Bach (at) WTFBach (dot com)

Show me a finale as densely packed with thematic material as this one. Here are the five bars — the only five bars — discussed in today’s episode. You might listen while looking at them:

Notice the finale comes in two stages, first diminution, then stretto. The signature in the final bar is noteworthy (though it should be mentioned that the letters are an addition by the editor.)

And here is a video of the Mandelbrot set fractal, as promised (with perfect background music:)

We Rely On Listener Support! How to Donate to this Podcast:

The best way to support this podcast, is to become a paid subscriber at wtfbach.substack.com

Enough paid subscribers = exclusive content, monthly merchandise giveaways!

You can also make a one-time donation here:

https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach

https://venmo.com/wtfbach

https://cash.app/$wtfbach

Thank you for listening! Thank you for your support.

Reach us at Bach (at) WTFBach (dot com)

Have a look at this. This is Bach beginning a canon in inversion. The follower is a 6th below the leader:

(If you can’t see that the shapes are inversions, hold up a mirror — seriously!) Yet here, only a few bars later, the imitation seems to be at a different interval:

The follower is no longer a sixth below, but a third. How rare! And going on, something else:

(We’re looking at the lower two voices in this picture, the quarter notes.) We see the canonic imitation has shifted yet again, to the interval of a second. What is happening? Dare I say… W.T.F. Bach?

This type of composition is, I believe, completely unique. I’d love to see another example elsewhere in music. Bach writes the chorale melody four times, and in all four appearances, finds a different interval at which inverted imitation works.

The man’s capacity to combine a single shape with itself, to abstract the DNA of the smallest musical cell, to spin it, lengthen it, shrink it, to construct a world from a grain of sand; this is late Bach.

We Rely On Listener Support! How to Donate to this Podcast:

The best way to support this podcast, is to become a paid subscriber at wtfbach.substack.com

Enough paid subscribers = exclusive content, monthly merchandise giveaways!

You can also make a one-time donation here:

https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach

https://venmo.com/wtfbach

https://cash.app/$wtfbach

Thank you for listening! Thank you for your support.

Reach us at Bach (at) WTFBach (dot com)

Imagine composing an ornate melody, then stretching it out so it moves twice as slow, and somehow when you layer the stretched version onto the original, they match up beautifully: One shape, two different speeds. This is what Bach has done in this canon (but he also made sure that the consequence of both lines also blends into the harmonic implications of the chorale melody, which must also past through both lines…)

Let’s see what our augmented canon looks like on the page. Here is the opening of the ‘quick’ line:

And now see the same shape, moving in augmentation:

Those images are from the print, which as I mentioned is in open-score, and particularly difficult to read. The left hand is on the 2nd and 4th lines, the pedal sandwiched between them on line 3, and, did I mentioned? Four different clefs. Have a look:

We’ve seen this type of composition before on the podcast. Here is the episode from Season One about the augmentation canon (as well as in inversion) from the Art of Fugue:

Stay tuned for the final variation!

We Rely On Listener Support! How to Donate to this Podcast:

The best way to support this podcast, is to become a paid subscriber at wtfbach.substack.com

Enough paid subscribers = exclusive content, monthly merchandise giveaways!

You can also make a one-time donation here:

https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach

https://venmo.com/wtfbach

https://cash.app/$wtfbach

Thank you for listening! Thank you for your support.

Reach us at Bach (at) WTFBach (dot com)

The subject of the last several episodes has been Bach’s canonic variations on a Christmas tune by Martin Luther himself. A major inquiry into this work is its existence in two versions: engraved and handwritten. The published version (for reasons explained in the episode) doesn’t fully solve the canonic lines, as seen here:

Notice how the notes of the bottom line don’t continue after the fifth note!

See two other canons, each with the comes omitted:

Variatio 2 omits the follower after only three notes, while the last image shows the second voice dropping out after two full bars.

Because of such condensed notation, a copy working out the solutions would be necessary for anyone wishing to play the work; Bach himself made one— and couldn’t stop himself from making very minor changes. Those intriguing revisions are the subject of this episode.

P.S. In the episode I mention that for time’s sake, I cut three revisions from our comparative study of the canon at the 7th. For reference, they are found below. The staves show the pedals and left hand, engraving copy on top, followed by the handwritten copy:

Bar 7:

Bar 13:

Bar 22:

P.P.S. I received a notification that the featured recording of Stravinsky conducting his own arrangement is banned in certain countries in which I have listeners. Pardon me if the sound drops out at the end of the episode! If this happens, you’ll have to look the piece up on your own: it can be found searching Stravinsky’s music under the title “Choral-Variationen” (or “Chorale Variations” in other languages) with either W83, K087, or BH-2629 as the catalogue number.

We Rely On Listener Support! How to Donate to this Podcast:

The best way to support this podcast, is to become a paid subscriber at wtfbach.substack.com

Enough paid subscribers = exclusive content, monthly merchandise giveaways!

You can also make a one-time donation here:

https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach

https://venmo.com/wtfbach

https://cash.app/$wtfbach

Thank you for listening! Thank you for your support.

Let’s delve into a third variation from Bach’s 1747 masterpiece, “Some canonic variations on the Christmas song, ‘From Heaven Above’ for the organ with two keyboards and pedal, by J.S. Bach.”

Two versions of this piece exist: the ‘fair copy’ and the ‘publication’ (Stichfassung), which present the variations in a different order. In this episode, we follow the publication, where the canon at the 7th appears as the third variation.

The previous two variations featured canons between right and left hands, while the pedals carried the slow moving chorale melody. This variation introduces something new: a canon between the pedals and left hand. On that page that looks like this:

Above those two lines, the right hand plays a quick-flowing accompaniment marked cantabile, but the chorale melody is missing…

Note the rest up top, and the downward-facing stems on all the notes. This implies a second voice is coming: the Christmas melody sung in half notes.

Together, the two voices of the right hand, combined with the canon between the pedals and the left hand, create a four-voice texture— the previous variations were in three voices. As we’ve seen in his other late canonic works, Bach will gradually increase the complexity of the canonic treatment toward the finale.

We Rely On Listener Support! How to Donate to this Podcast:

The best way to support this podcast, is to become a paid subscriber at wtfbach.substack.com

Enough paid subscribers = exclusive content, monthly merchandise giveaways!

You can also make a one-time donation here:

https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach

https://venmo.com/wtfbach

https://cash.app/$wtfbach

Thank you for listening! Thank you for your support.

I never knew the authentic version of the world’s most famous canon, having only known arrangements which conceal the fact that the music is indeed a canon in three voices. Here is what the ‘real’ canon looks like:

It continues for over 50 bars as a three voice canon at the unison. In my brief survey of this piece, I found one theory that suggests the 9-year-old J.S. Bach was in attendance at the first performance in history.

While the canonic treatment is clever and not worthy of our loathing— we blame its ill fate on others— Bach’s contributions to the genre outshine this example. We continue with Bach’s canonic art in the next episodes.

We Rely On Listener Support! How to Donate to this Podcast:

The best way to support this podcast, is to become a paid subscriber at wtfbach.substack.com

Enough paid subscribers = exclusive content, monthly merchandise giveaways!

You can also make a one-time donation here:

https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach

https://venmo.com/wtfbach

https://cash.app/$wtfbach

Thank you for listening! Thank you for your support.