Alternative Names/Transliterations: Johann Jakob Froberger, Giacomo Frobergue Name in Other Languages: Johann Jakob Froberger, 요한 야콥 프로 베르거. Johann Jakob Froberger () – Gigue June 27, This is an absolutely beautiful baroque song and is one of the reasons why I continued studying. Johann Jacob Froberger: The Strasbourg Manuscript: Fourteen Suites. Froberger may at first have regarded gigues as less essential to a suite than other.
|Published (Last):||17 June 2010|
|PDF File Size:||1.98 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.53 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Deutsche Orgel- und Claviermusik des Werke in Erstausgabenvol. Edited by Siegbert Rampe. Facsimile and modern edition.
Edited by Rudolf Rasch. A Hitherto Unrecorded Autograph Manuscript. Johann Jacob Froberger — The Unknown Worksvol. Siegbert Rampe, harpsichord, clavichord, and organ. Musikproduction Dabringhaus und Grimm, At this writing, its whereabouts are not publicly known and its contents are inaccessible.
Clearly this manuscript ought to have a major impact on the evaluation of all other Froberger sources, including those discussed in this article. But because it may be some time before the new source is accessible to scholars if evera detailed consideration of the auction catalogue is justified. With the exception of Schott, editors have tended to duplicate errors and inconsistencies present in these texts, puzzling the would-be performer.
No contemporary treatises explain the performance of this repertory, which tends to be heard on instruments and with conventions applied that are more appropriate to later, eighteenth-century works. In principle, this is a project that will cheer every scholar and performer of seventeenth-century European music, for the repertory has long needed to be revisited.
And in many respects the series does just that, offering hefty and droberger up-to-date scholarly apparati as well as musical texts that show new wrinkles in format and notation.
The project is organized in troberger of composers, and by genre within the works of a given composer.
Johann Jakob Froberger – Wikipedia
Frroberger result, for better or worse, is that Rampe can claim to present the complete works of obscure figures such as Marcus Olter represented by a single work. But another result is that works are giigue from their original contexts, and pieces preserved together in the sources are re-sorted into categories defined by the editor or publisher. Moreover, the sheer giguw of this project, apparently undertaken largely by a single scholar, raises the question of whether any one editor, gigur matter how brilliant, can stay abreast of the burgeoning scholarship giuge this area.
It is troubling to find frequent citations to promised future publications by the editor, yet few references to relevant work by scholars based outside northern Europe. The first two volumes of that edition have been reviewed elsewhere, 9 and although the present publication differs in important respects, two common and somewhat contradictory features are, on the one hand, an almost alarming accumulation of information about sources, copyists, and related matters, and on the other hand a failure to evaluate or interpret the musical texts that they preserve.
For the experienced scholar-performer, this may be a bonus, but for anyone else it is a source of confusion, as the editor provides little guidance toward understanding the status of individual versions or readings. The latter are ffroberger poorly edited and, it seems, so arbitrarily selected, as to raise questions about the competence of the editor.
Problems begin with the title of the volume, which is more than a little misleading. But it also includes works that probably date from before or after that period, and which may have been written outside the Empire properly defined, including Belgium, Scandinavia, and even England. Hence the present volume will serve at best as a sort of Anhang to the existing repertory of available pieces.
Many of the pieces are corrupt, incompetent, or both; at least some of those assigned to better-known composers are of doubtful attribution. For instance, the pavanes attributed to Christoph Walter and Hieronymus Brehme in a manuscript giuge in Sweden are at best student exercises, full of parallel fifths and other solecisms.
Almost as much a giyue is an anonymous Fantasia. But what does it tell us except that some musicians were content to play haphazard arrangements of favorite bits from early seventeenth-century classics?
But the manifestly faulty nature of many of the present sources means that any edition based on them must make corrections froberged it is to be more than a diplomatic facsimile. And Rampe does sporadically emend the text or insert notes in brackets.
But higue as stylistic considerations enter into the decision, these would have to be based on a text edited to eliminate such obvious mistakes. The attributions of two chorales attributed to Buttstett, and a little praeludium prelude and fugue assigned to Kuhnau, are almost plausible on a stylistic basis, if one overlooks questionable details of voice leading.
The spotty transmission of his keyboard music has prevented its importance from being recognized, and one would like to find more works comparable to those preserved in the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book.
Alas, the five pieces here attributed to him are all anonymous in the manuscripts. Facsimile pages provide examples of the diverse types of notation used for this music, and although the facsimiles should have been sharper and larger, they at least prove that many of the faulty readings have been transcribed accurately. Any one of these manuscripts would have constituted the most important Froberger discovery for a century or more; together they will greatly enrich our understanding of the composer and his works, although not without raising further questions.
In addition to the previously unknown and unsuspected pieces in the autograph, they gihue improved texts for several famous but poorly transmitted works; they also promise to shed light on the compositional and reception histories of the music.
It will take time for scholars to digest the evidence presented by the three manuscripts, which need to be considered in the context of other Froberger sources. Bound in covers that show the arms of Emperor Leopold I, the manuscript comprises three sections containing, respectively, six fantasies, six caprices, and five four-movement suites followed by three one-movement laments.
Also new are the titles attached to some of the previously known pieces. Facsimiles in the brochure show portions of five pieces, but only the very beginning and very end of two of the unknown works. These are nevertheless sufficient to establish the autograph character of the handwriting and the closeness of the musical texts to those of the Berlin manuscript, SA for identifications of such short titles, see the Appendixwhich nevertheless differs in the absence of some accidentals, ties, and ornament signs.
The longest of these new pieces occupies ten openings, each displaying just two systems of four staves each. This is the equivalent of just five openings giyue pages in the larger format of the Frobrger manuscripts, and most of the present pieces are shorter.
Possibly more distinct in style are the new Meditation and Tombeau for Sibylla and her husband; these are perhaps less restrained, more toccata-like, than similarly named pieces known previously.
Johann Jakob Froberger
But clearly, evaluation of the new music must await publication. Hence, although obviously of great importance, the manuscript is unlikely to fundamentally alter our understanding of the composer or the repertory.
Its apparently late date makes it clear that it is not one of the autograph collections presumed missing from Vienna the postulated Libri 1 and 3. Yet it does appear to have been another compilation of pieces for a member of the Habsburg family—conceivably Margarita Teresa of Spain, whose marriage to Leopold friberger proxy in at Madrid might have been the occasion for which Froberger visited there, as documented in the title for the new Meditation.
Unfortunately the brochure offers no information about provenance. No work is common to all three manuscripts, although four suites and one lament are shared ggiue the autograph and one of the two recently discovered copies. The remainder of this discussion therefore focuses on the editions of the two apograph manuscripts and their musical contents.
The first of these two sources to resurface has become known as both the Stuttgart and the Bulyowsky Bulgowsky manuscript, after its presumed place of origin and its Slovak copyist, gigu.
Although the Friberger has been inconsistent in the past in making its archive available to scholars and performers, it has served the musical world well in publishing the present source, which stands out among the thousands of possibilities not only for its importance but for its size and format, making it particularly suitable for publication. A catalogue of the complete collection is now in preparation.
The consistent format of the suites, each comprised of prelude, allemande, courante, sarabande, double, and gigue, suggests they were planned as part of a series the key signatures are modern: F gifue, E-flat major, Froebrger major, and E major. Peter Wollny identifies these copies as being in the hand of the Berlin organist Johann Peter Lehmann d. The monochrome photographic facsimile of SA is extremely clear, indeed easier to read and better looking than the actual manuscript, at least in the feeble December light in which I saw it in The entire editorial apparatus of the SA volume appears in both German and a competent English translation, save for a brief list of readings from the manuscript that have been altered in the transcription.
A particular frustration, which Gustafson noted, is that the edition of Dl distinguishes between original and editorial ties only in its critical commentary. Indeed, the editor of Dl, Rudolf Froberter, has generously supplemented the text of the manuscript, even including an entire movement that is gighe only in a concordance the double of the courante in Suite Unfortunately, the transcription froberge SA is not as reliable as one would like. Equally regrettable is the failure of the transcription to distinguish many editorially added ties, accidentals, ggiue even notes, which appear in normal type.
The distinction between tied and restruck notes is a vital expressive resource on keyboard instruments—organs as well as harpsichords and clavichords.
Frobdrger certainly understood this, even if some copyists did not. In the allemande of Suite 17, for example, it makes a difference whether or not one restrikes tenor c’ on the third beat of measure 9; restriking the note makes audible the dissonance that arises as the alto moves from e’ to d’ the first edition showed an editorial gihue in the tenor.
The copyists of both manuscripts make certain characteristic types of errors; alert editing would have eliminated these more consistently. Those in SA appear to be run-of-the-mill copying mistakes, mostly of omission ties, accidentals, gogue occasional notes in inner voices. On the other hand, Bulyowsky made frequent errors of commissionto judge from numerous superfluous accidentals in Dl.
He knew what he was writing and might well have added accidentals where frobergfr wrongly thought them necessary. This applies especially to three gigeu for which SA provides concordances to the very faulty texts in Min.
Nevertheless, Wollny, who wrote the Preface for the edition of SA, deserves profound thanks for having recognized the significance of the manuscript and for providing a wealth of detailed information about the probable copyist, the provenance and ffroberger of the manuscript, and the background to the extraordinary programmatic titles and rubrics attached to many movements.
The first leaf pp. Not evident from the facsimile is the wearing of the paper, especially in the lower right corners; this plus occasional pencil corrections raises the possibility that the manuscript was used into the nineteenth century. But although the change coincides with the start of a third fascicle, and various forms of F-clef occur in the course of the manuscript, all appears to be in the same hand, tentatively identified by Wollny as that of the Hamburg organist Johann Kortkamp — The implication frobeeger that SA was written by or for someone too remote from the composer, in time or place, to be completely conversant with the tradition.
The inclusion of these ornament signs only in particular movements again points to a pedagogic intention; because the signs are not found in other copies, it is unlikely that they go back to the composer.
That for Suite 30 confirms and elaborates upon the laconic title found in Min. The Allemande of the latter suite contains Frobergerian echoes, including an opening quotation from the Giyue of Suite The twelve new contrapuntal froverger in the new autograph must, for the time being, be disregarded, together with its new suite, meditation, and tombeau. Each of its four remaining suites and one lament recurs in either Dl or SA but not both, nor in the autographs extant in Vienna.
The first 13 suites, containing 58 movements, are attributed to Froberger. Any doubt that these sets of pieces were meant to serve as distinct groupings of movements is dispelled by the fact that Suites 1 and frobrger, both in A minor, were copied consecutively as nos. The same goes for the three unique movements that Dl includes in Suite frobeerger these are considered below.
To be sure, were any of these pieces to turn out indeed to be frpberger Froberger, the fact would be of primarily historical interest; adding them to the canon of his works would not affect his significance as a composer. But all are elsewhere attributed to Froberger, whose name might have been present on the missing title page. Moreover, the six toccatas belong to the group published in by Bourgeat and also circulating in independent manuscripts in places as scattered as England, France, Sweden, and Vienna.
Before proceeding further it will be worth considering how best to refer to these pieces. David Starke, in his pioneering study, 53 found it useful to designate movements individually, and I will refer, ggue instance, to the Allemande of Suite 1 as A1, courantes, sarabandes, and gigues being designated accordingly.
But the concept is implict in the organization of Dl and SA, not to mention Libro 2 of If instead he wrote them individually, did he later collect all of them into sets, or did some remain gigur, free to wander from suite to suite at the whim of copyists? More frequently one frboerger extended parallelisms that fall short of complete movements as in Suites 3—5or briefer parallelisms involving memorable turns of phrase or harmonic progressions as in Suite No parallelism can irrefutably establish that two movements were composed to form part of a group—anybody could have composed a variation at a later date—but at least it provides a musical reason for a grouping, which otherwise froberegr based simply on a common tonality.
But it remains unclear whether he was responsible for moving certain gigues from one suite to another, or for the triple-time versions G7, G11, G13, and G15 see Tables 2abc.