When musicians count, we are doing more than just assigning a succession of increasing numbers to the beats. Counting is an expressive pursuit as well. The downbeat, or initial metric unit, is unique in that it serves as the rhythmic center of gravity and is less active than the ensuing metric units. Upbeats are distinguished by their pull to the next downbeat but are not emphasized unless specifically called for by the composer. In triple meters, the middle beat can vary in its intensity. And in quadruple meters, the third beat has a secondary emphasis, while the second beat is perhaps the least dynamic of all.
When a piece begins with an anacrusis, none of this changes. J. S. Bach’s magnificent chorale prelude, O Mensch, bewein’ dein’ Sünde gross, BWV 622, begins with a quarter-note anacrusis, establishing that the first 2-measure phrase ends on the third beat of measure 2. It then follows that each subsequent 2-measure phrase is identical in rhythmic organization.
I believe there is something unusual about the way the piece is notated. If we listen to it without knowing in advance that it is in 4/4 meter and that it begins with an anacrusis, how would we count along as we listen? Would we recite ‘4 & 1 & 2 & 3 &’ without giving it a second thought? I have tried this as I listen, and don’t feel it to be the proper inflection in the case of this chorale prelude. Instead, ‘! & 2 & 3 & 4 &’ feels right, as if there is no anacrusis.
Organists and others are most welcome to offer their comments.
2 comments:
Interesting question. Would it be possible that the way in which the original tune is written in the Gesangbuch (and in which it is sung at churches) might have influenced Bach -and others like Buxtehude? For example, O Mensch goes O(half note)Mensch(quarter) be-(quarter) wein(qaurter) dein(quarter) Sun-(quarter) de(quarter) gross(half) etc. The accent falls on Mensch, wein, Sun and gross. Although it is almost impossible to recognize the original melody (let alone the text and the accents!) when one hears the magnificent choral prelude I wonder if the hymn's starting in anacrucis has anything to do with Bach's choice of meter. Could there be anything more devastating, musically and spiritually speaking, than listening to the end of this chorale quoting the hymn which says the body of Christ was "stretched at the cross"? How slow do you think that passage should be? I never forget the first time I heard this played during class by you at the organ at Purchase's recital hall. This strange and beautiful ending was a mistery to me until I read the original text. I agree wholeheartedly with Widor when he says that this is the finest piece of instrumental music ever written!
Heitor - I believe you came to exactly the correct conclusion - the chorale harmonization [hymn] by Bach adheres to the fact that the original melody begins with an anacrusis. Thus, both the chorale harmonization AND the chorale prelude are notated within the same rhythmic framework. What's more, the chorale harmonization SOUNDS like it begins with an anacrusis, but the chorale prelude, as mentioned in my original post, does not [at least to me].
Your question as to how slow the ending should be played is important. I believe it should simply grow out of the preceding phrases and slow down appropriately but not excessively. Yes, there is the 'Adagissimo' indication - coming at the end of a piece which is already quite slow - 'Adagio assai'. But even so, the quarter note must sound like the metric unit, not the eighth note, lest the piece will sound TOO slow.
Have you ever heard a more beautiful example of 'flat VI'? I remember first hearing it many years ago and was stunned by its beauty. There is no question Widor knew what he was talking about when he called this the finest instrumental piece ever written.
Thank you for your valuable comments and please offer more of your insights here any time.
Post a Comment