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

 

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"

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

"

 

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.

 

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

 

Pretty obvious that the Phantom of the Opera wrote it.

 

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

 

Perhaps Satoshi Nakamoto wrote it... or Elena Ferrante

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

dvsxvdxbv dxfb fcdx bcdfxb cdfb

 

Can't argue with that!

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

"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.

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.

 

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.

 

^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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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".