Bach's Notation of Tempo and Early-Music Performance:

some reconsiderations

by Bernard D. Sherman

Reprinted from Early Music, August 2000

Ever since historically informed performance (HIP) of Bach began to win recording royalties,
would-be debunkers have questioned its historical basis. Frederick Neumann campaigned against
HIP use of French-style performance practices in Bach; other critics cast doubt on unequal
temperament and 'rhetorical' phrasing. Below I suggest that certain tempos prevalent in HIP Bach
ignore notational distinctions and, as a result, have no more claim (perhaps even less) to be
historical than slower pre-HIP tempos. At this late stage of the early-music debates, however, my
stance is - or so I hope - not like Neumann's. First, what I've been able to discern suggests that in
general, HIP tempos in Bach tend to be more historically defensible than slower mainstream ones.
Second, while this article focuses on cases where the opposite pertains, I do not aim to be
prescriptive. Performers have plenty of good reasons not to care about the historical authenticity of
the tempos they choose. I question only the idea that certain HIP choices are more historically
grounded.

PART ONE: Time signatures and tempo

A number of scholars have argued recently that time signatures conveyed basic tempo information
for Bach.1 They note, first, that this is how the musical world in which he grew up used time
signatures. George Houle concludes that 17th century notational conventions 'required composers to
use meter signs uniformly to indicate both metrical structures and tempos'.2 He notes that by the
end of the century (when Bach was being trained), genres and Italian tempo words were
conventionally used to modify or clarify the tempo implications of time signatures, but that
signatures remained primary indicators. As for 18th-c. German writers, a number of them, such as
Sperling (1705), Mattheson (1712), Heinichen (1728) and Quantz (1752) explicitly mention links of
time signatures with tempos.3 While such linkages were neither perfectly systematic nor uniformly
observed,4 they are present in German sources from Bach's years as a composer.

Did Bach himself associate time signatures with tempos? At least two sources suggest as much. One
is a 1738 thoroughbass manual5 in the hand of C. H. Thieme, a a Bach student and member of his
choir; the title page lists Bach as the author. Much of the book replicates the 1700 treatise, Die
Musicalische Handleitung by F. E. Niedt,6 who appears to have studied in the late 1690s with
Bach's older cousin Johann Nicolaus Bach. Niedt's approach to teaching bears certain broad
parallels to what we know of Bach's own, leading a translator to speculate that 'it is possible that
Part I is a record of the Bach family's teaching techniques'.7 A skeptic may question that notion,
wonder about the extent of Bach's role in the 1738 manual, and doubt that a treatise by a minor
predecessor captures the practices of Bach. Still, it is worth noting that in the chapter on tempo both
Niedt and the 1738 manual discuss two time signatures (C and 2), and say explicitly that the
signatures have differing implications for tempo.8 The books say nothing to suggest that these are
the only such associations of tempo and time signature. Indeed, the laconic nature of the chapter
makes clear that it is not meant to be exhaustive; so does Niedt's comment that he presupposes that
the student will know about time, to which Bach (if it is he) adds 'because no one can give them
knowledge of metre [Tact] all at once.'

1
What might Bach have said if he had expanded on this topic? A well-known treatise purports to tell
us. Die Kunst des reinen Satzes in der Musik by J. P. Kirnberger, who studied with Bach from 1739
to 1741, details how time signatures convey information about tempo.9 Kirnberger claimed that in
this book he sought 'to reduce the methods of the late Joh. Seb. Bach to principles, and to lay his
teachings before the world to the best of my powers'.10 A skeptic may doubt the claim, assert that
Kirnberger's principles are probably systematized beyond anything one would find in Bach's
teaching or practice (which in some cases, discussed below, Kirnberger seems to contradict). But it
is nonetheless reasonable to suggest that Bach taught Kirnberger some of these associations
between time signature and tempo, or at least the general principle of such associations, and that
perhaps Kirnberger was true to his stated aim.

That Bach associated signatures with tempos seems, given the above evidence, more likely than
otherwise. Bach is often said to have surpassed contemporary norms for notating ornamentation and
articulation; if so, it would be characteristic of him to notate some instructions about tempo as well.
Yet tempo words are not common in his scores. The implications of time signatures might explain
why.

In 18th-century sources such as Mattheson, Rameau, and Kirnberger we find another 17th-century
principle, which underlies the idea of time signatures implying tempo: that note values have
intrinsic speeds.11 Quavers were, for example, by nature faster than crotchets. Thus - a point of
significance to this paper - the signature 3/4 would have tempo implications similar to C, because
its denominator is the same note value. The crotchet speed of both signatures would not feel
significantly different.

In 18th century usage, tempo implications of time signatures could be modified by many other
factors, such as Italian tempo words (discussed in Part Two, below), vocal texts,12 genre, and
affect.13 Also, as Kirnberger, C. P. E. Bach, and others explain, unusually small prevailing notes -
such as demisemiquavers in common time - tend to slow the tempo (an example is 'Komm, ssses
Kreuz' from the St. Matthew Passion). Unusually large prevailing note values - as in a piece in 3/8
with no notes faster than quavers - tend to indicate a faster-than-usual tempo.

Performers may have good reasons for disregarding composers' tempo notations, of course; I argue
only that such notations are more common in Bach than is sometimes believed. But if his time
signatures did imply something about tempo, what tempos did they imply? Let us look at the most
common of the signatures, C, whose tempo implications were central.

The tempo ordinario and historical performance.

According to writers such as Penna (1684) and Brossard (1703),14 the tempo of a common-time
movement with no modifying factors was called the tempo ordinario - the plain or ordinary tempo
(also known in Germany as schlechte Tact, which Mattheson,15 for one, explicitly relates to the C
signature). Handel appears to have used the term similarly, since some of his works, e.g., Messiah
and op. 4/2, contain movements in C marked 'a tempo ordinario' as well as others marked Allegro,
which are presumably faster. For Heinichen, too, Allegro clearly indicated a speed that was faster
than ordinary.16

Bach does not, in any surviving sources, use the term tempo ordinario. (He did sometimes use the
term tempo giusto, as did Handel in some works.) But Bach's cousin and associate J. G. Walther, in
his 1732 Musical Lexicon,17 for which Bach served as an agent, defines tempo ordinario in the
terms given by Penna and Brossard. It refers to the signature C, in which all the notes are played in
their 'natural and normal values.' Robert Marshall writes, 'There is no doubt about the relevance of
the tempo ordinario to a proper historical understanding of tempo in Bach's music.' 18

2
Two sources close to Bach discuss the time signature C in other terms, but these are compatible
with the tempo ordinario convention just discussed. Niedt says C is 'dignified' and contrasts it to the
'fast and lively' French signature, 2. The 1738 treatise changes the adjective to 'slow' (langsam); we
don't know if the substitution is by Bach or Thieme, and 'slow' may be meant mainly to contrast
with the high speed of the French signature. And Kirnberger distinguishes two kinds of common
time. The 'great 4/4' is indicated with the adjective 'grave' and is notated by the ratio 4/4; it is of
'extremely weighty tempo and execution' and is 'emphatic.' It is used in church pieces and fugues in
place of the (by the 1770s) outmoded 4/2 signature. But the far more common 'little 4/4' metre -
which is notated with C - 'has a more lively tempo and a far lighter execution' than the great 4/4, yet
'is still somewhat emphatic.' Walther, Niedt, and Kirnberger, then, all ascribe tempo implications to
the signature C, which in every case are more or less 'ordinary', explicitly so with Walther (as with
Mattheson).

Are there arguments against Bach's ascribing such a tempo significance to C? One involves the
signature , which was often held to be an exception to the idea of intrinsic speeds.19 Sperling (in
1705) says that while 'many' treat as faster than C, many others ignore the distinction.20 His
observation is not unique.21 Those who believe that Bach fell into Sperling's latter group note that
in some Bach scores the two signatures are exchanged in some way. Sometimes a score with
semiquavers will be marked C in one incarnation (the Sanctus of the B Minor Mass) and in
another (the score and most parts of the 1724 Sanctus). And in some movements (again, in the 1724
Sanctus) certain parts or staves are marked C while other parts or staves have .

Yet such inconsistencies do not necessarily imply that the two signatures meant the same thing to
Bach. In some cases, inconsistencies may suggest that time signatures were an inexact way of
conveying tempo, and that it was difficult to determine which signature to use in every case. Also,
different members of an ensemble may have needed different promptings, as shown by Bach's
frequent practice of notating tempo instructions only in certain parts. And Bach's decision might
change according to his judgment of the moment (indeed, modern composers often change their
views about the tempos of their own music). Bach's tempo in the Sanctus in 1724 might have
seemed fast enough to require , but the movement might have seemed less rapid to him in 1748.
Some authors suggest that Bach's tempo in French overtures slowed over these decades, which may
explain his tendency to move from to C in notating them.22 Thus Bach might sometimes have
changed these signatures precisely because they had different implications for tempo.23

Another factor is that of accuracy among copyists. Many instances exist of possible inaccuracy. For
example, the duet 'Wir eilen mit schwachen' from BWV 78 seems to require a faster-than-ordinary
tempo; yet most of the surviving parts, copied by Johann Andreas Kuhnau, are in C. (This is the
signature found in modern editions.) But two parts by the composer himself sruvive, and they show
- a signature that better suits the movement, it would seem. It is possible that Kuhnau's C was a
careless error, which Bach did not bother to correct since he himself was conducting, and that when
he began to copy parts he used the correct signature.24 In summary, inconsistencies do not, as is
sometimes claimed, disprove the idea that C and had different tempo implications for Bach.

If a plain C or-by the principle of intrinsic speeds, 3/4-time signature with no modifying factors
implies an 'ordinary' tempo, how fast would 'ordinary' be? Period discussions of a basic standard
tactus use such comparisons as the normal human pulse; this and other historical comparisons
variously suggest tempos between MM60 and MM85.25 George Stauffer suggests for Bach a tempo
ordinario of crotchet=MM72, the pace of a normal pulse.26 Marshall points out that Bach was said
more than once to take a lively tempo, implying that his tempo ordinario was at the fast end of the
range implied by period discussion. Thus Marshall suggests a tempo ordinario for Bach of
approximately crotchet=MM80.27

3
Still, Marshall notes, 'It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that the tempo ordinario, whether
defined as crotchet=MM80 or anything else, was by no means a fixed metronome point but
ratherencompassed a fairly generous amplitude. This is already clear from its traditional
association with such a variable standard as the human pulse'. Bach lived in the era before the
metronome. Even today, in the era of the metronome, musicians know that numbers fail to capture
what makes a tempo 'work'; two performances with identical metronome marks can feel as if they
have different speeds, and performances at differing MMs can feel as if they have a similar speed.
In practice, the speed of Bach's tempo ordinario would no doubt depend on the acoustics,
instruments, phrasing and accentuation involved, the affect of the piece, the text, and the whims of
the day. Still, within a certain range numbers convey differences that one feels and hears. Thus
Marshall posits a range, in the neighborhood of MM72 to MM88, 'or even further in each direction.'
(I would posit a range from about MM65 to MM95, or perhaps more. Again, these numbers are not
entirely to the point. The tempo ordinario would be defined by a feeling of not being very extreme
in either direction, and thus its measured MM might still be outside my posited range in a given
piece). Still, nowhere in the literature has anyone has argued that it was as fast as, say, crotchet
=MM115, which usually feels faster than ordinary.

The implication might be something like the following: when we have a carefully notated Bach
source - a set of autograph parts, for example - and a movement is in C with no modifying factors
such as unusual note values (or perhaps such as special considerations of genre), it may imply that
Bach, at the time of preparing the source, did not have an extremely fast or slow tempo in mind.

What do such considerations suggest about HIP Bach performance? On the one hand, the concept of
tempo ordinario often does seem to justify the 'briskness' of HIP tempos. The chorus 'Herr, unser
Herscher' in the St. John Passion is in ordinary C, and thus the tempos of Slowik (MM75) or Parrott
(MM72) appear to have the above historical justification. Might Bach himself have sometimes
taken the chorus as slowly as Karl Richter (MM57)? Of course. Might there be reasons not to care
what he did? Of course. I argue only that the notation seems to imply something on the faster side.

On the other hand, an aria from the same work, 'Ach, mein Sinn,' is in ordinary 3/4 time, with no
modifying factors such as a tempo words. Thus, whatever one's artistic judgement of rapid HIP
tempos (which are as fast as MM115; see Table 1), they seem to lack historical justification, while
the MM77 of Britten or the MM90 of Jochum and Richter seem better supported by the notation.
The slower tempos in this aria may also be implied by (an arguable) reference to the sarabande
topos, and by the meaning of its text.

Table 1 Speeds of recorded performances of 'Ach, mein Sinn' from the St. John Passion
_________________________________

period-instrument
Christopher = 115
Scholars =113
Herreweghe = 113
Gardiner = 111
Parrott = 106
Slowik =105
Suzuki = 105
Sorrell = 103
Koopman =98
Kuijken =9 6
median =105.5

modern-instrument
Scherchen = 98
Jochum =90

4
Richter =90
Britten =77
median = 90

____________________________

C is by far the most common time signature in Bach. A survey of recordings suggest that few early-
music performers accept the idea that movements in C, when not subject to the modifying factors
discussed above, fall within a range of, say, MM60 to 100 (I will be more generous than above). I
would not for a moment suggest that HIP musicians begin to limit their tempos thus, and I would
not do so even if the above arguments had quite explicit historical support, or if all the Bach sources
were reliable indications of his performance intentions.

Thus I am happy to continue to hear and play the Bb-minor prelude in the Well-Tempered Clavier
Bk. 1 at well below quarter=MM65. That Prelude may seem the sort of fatal exception that
disproves the approach to time signatures discussed above. But such apparent exceptions may
reflect modern prejudices. Consider the turba movements in the St. John Passion. While most of
these are in C or 3/4, HIP performers take them at a median tempo of MM109, above the ordinario
range; mainstream performers often take them just as quickly. We may find it difficult to imagine
these turbae being taken more slowly, given their dramatic character and our long experience with
them. Yet Britten takes them at an average of MM92-within the ordinario range-and his turbae
have all the power and variety that one finds in faster recordings. I do not mean to say that HIP
conductors should emulate Britten, or that faster turbae (which can be powerful) are unjustifiable. I
claim only that the turbae do not undermine the idea of C or 3/4 typically indicating a speed
somewhere in the tempo ordinario range. I further question the assumption, if anyone is making it,
that those who take faster speeds in the turbae are more historically accurate than Britten; an
examination of German Baroque Passion settings does not support this viewpoint.28

PART TWO: TEMPO WORDS: The significance of 'Andante'

John Butt observes that 'Many gurus of performance practice still interpret [Italian tempo words in
Bach] literally as moods rather than tempo indications.'29 Yet Baroque German sources, he notes,
contradict the gurus. From Praetorius on, these sources typically call for the use of Italian tempo
words specifically to indicate tempo.30 If some sources also relate some words to character, none
state that Italian tempo words have to do with mood more than speed. Why that belief became
common among early-music performers is an interesting question, which this article will not
examine, but it did not result from overwhelming evidence.

Consider sources close to Bach. In Niedt's treatise (and the related 1738 manual) the brief chapter
on tempo includes the sentence, 'If it is to be played fast, the composer expressly writes underneath:
allegro or presto. If it is to be played slowly, this is indicated by writing adagio or lento
underneath.' Also, in a 1706 second volume (not copied in the Bach-circle text), Niedt gives
definitions of Adagio, Allegro, Andante, Largo, and Presto that have to do purely with tempo; in
only one case, Allegro, is there additional mention of character.31

The tempo definitions in Walther's 1732 Lexicon often derive from the 1703 Dictionaire of
Brossard, with modifications. Despite Walther's familial relationship and documented contact with
Bach, one may question whether the Lexicon is an infallible guide to Bach's own usage; but again,
its definitions may be relevant evidence. Some, like Presto and Lento, deal more or less exclusively
with speed: Largo, for example, is 'very slow [sehr langsam], as if expanding the measure'. Three
other definitions (Adagio, Andante, Allegro) deal with character, but also, unambiguously, with

5
speed. Walther gives a literal translation (lebhaft) of the Italian Vivace, which might or might not
refer to speed.

Other sources related to Bach state unambiguously that Italian time words are used to indicate
tempo. These include the Musikalischer Trichter (1706) by Martin Fuhrmann, who later heard and
appreciated Bach, and (after Bach's death), C.P.E. Bach's Versuch (1753-1762), and Kirnberger's
Die Kunst des reinen Satzes.

As for the evidence of Bach's scores, Marshall argues that these suggest a hierarchy of tempo
words, from slowest (Adagissimo) to fastest (Prestissimo). That Bach also associated tempo words
with character, may be suggested by movements in which he combined two markings; but Marshall
notes only two such combinations - Allegro e presto and Vivace ed allegro-and only the latter
occurs more than once.32 In each case the words combined have speed implications that are neither
unrelated nor contradictory. Also, Stauffer mentions 49 cases where Bach gave different tempo
markings to different simultaneous parts (e.g., Lente and Adagio),33 suggesting that the markings
in question were more or less equivalent. But none of this implies that Bach's tempo words were
primarily concerned with character. Both external and internal evidence suggests that they primarily
indicated tempo.

Did any Italian tempo words indicate character and not tempo for Bach? Stauffer has recently
argued that this is true of Vivace,34 although Marshall and others disagree. And - quite influentially
- such commentators as Willi Apel, Fritz Rothschild, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, and David Fallows
have stated that Andante in Bach (to quote Fallows in New Grove) is 'not a tempo designation'. It
seems, says New Grove, 'to have been fully accepted as a tempo designation only with Leopold
Mozart (1756)'. Fallows says that the Andante marking in Prelude 24 of the Well-Tempered Clavier
(WTC) Book 1 is simply 'an instruction for clear performance of the running bass, and a warning
not to play ingale'.

But Bach sometimes uses the term Andante for movements without running or quaver bass lines.35
In some of these movements, the bass line involves held breves and semibreves (as in BWV 10/6).
In at least one case, Andante applies to a motet-style fugal passage in minims (the last ten bars of
BWV 12/2) that continues the style and texture of the preceding music. Andante can only refer to
tempo in this instance, and, similarly, in the final bars of BWV 21/2.

One might argue that in most (but not all) of these movements the motion is such that Andante
could refer to a steadiness or evenness of execution; Bach often uses Andante in movements with at
least one line, usually the bass, moving in continuous quavers (or semiquavers). But even in these
cases Andante could, of course, refer to tempo as well.

Opponents of that view sometimes point to composers like Corelli and Handel, who use the term
Andante in conjunction with other tempo words, e.g. Andante largo or Allegro andante. In these
cases, Andante may perhaps to refer to execution or character (and perhaps functions literally as a
verb). But it is by no means clear that Andante does not indicate tempo here; and in any case, the
use of Italian tempo words in other countries, particularly Italy, may not be relevant to the
conventional use of these words in northeast Germany. For that, we would do better to turn to the
sources closer to Bach.

These leave no doubt that Andante moderated the tempo. Niedt, for example, describes Andante as
being 'gantz langsam'.36 In a posthumous second edition of Niedt's book, Mattheson changed
Niedt's description to 'nicht zu langsam nicht zu geschwinde' with a footnote mentioning the earlier
description and saying that the musical reader 'shall decide whether this is right or wrong'.37 Even
Mattheson's revision indicates that for him, too, the term has tempo implications that preclude great

6
speed. Fuhrmann categorizes Andante among the slow tempo markings. Walther strays from
Brossard by adding that Andante is 'somewhat faster than an Adagio' ('etwas geschwinder als
adagio'). Since Walther considers an Adagio to be 'langsam', his comparison clearly indicates that
Andante slows the tempo to something below the ordinary. Finally, Kirnberger gives a list of Italian
tempo markings that, he says, modify the tempo implications of time signatures and note values. It
seems to begin at the slow end of the tempo spectrum (with Largo) and end at the fast end (with
Presto) - and Andante is on the slow side, faster than Adagio and slower than Allegro.

The unanimity of these sources (as well as his own usage) suggests that for Bach, the term Andante
slowed the tempo somewhat compared to what it would be without the marking. Marshall
speculates that a speed in the broad neighborhood of =MM60 would suit a common-time
movement marked 'Andante'. Once again, however, the Andante tempo would be defined by feeling
rather than by a specific metronome mark; Andante should feel more relaxed than ordinary.

HIP performers sometimes treat Andante this way, but at other times treat it as if it does not affect
the tempo. In, for example, Prelude 24 of the Well-Tempered Keyboard, Book 1, ten HIP
performers I surveyed took a median tempo of =MM87, while ten pianists had a more moderate
median of MM70.38 (See Table 2 below.) One may or may not prefer the faster tempo (I feel that
the fastest HIP performances, reaching MM100, undermine the expressive implications of the
pervasive dissonances); but we may question the assumption that the faster speed reflects history.
The 'Andante' that Bach wrote over this prelude would, by the above evidence, moderate the tempo
somewhat compared to the tempo ordinario that the C signature implies.

A similar argument applies to the 'Et in unum' of the Mass in B Minor. Here again we have a duet in
common time; the Andante marking may be considered cautionary, warning musicians not to
proceed as quickly as in an ordinary movement in common time. Mainstream performers take a
median tempo of MM67, but HIP performers take a noticeably faster median tempo of MM76.
Again, numbers convey little of the feeling of a tempo, and one must judge each performance for
oneself; but some of the fastest HIP performances feel, to speak purely subjectively, less Andante
than "jaunty." My point, once again, is not to condemn them, but to assert that we can't assume that
HIP performers have more historical support here than older, slower performers did.

(I can think of a few other reasons for taking the 'Et in unum' at less than an ordinary tempo. One
could argue that an unhurried pace helps the singers declaim the imitative writing most effectively.
Moreover, the movement has an enormous amount of text; at a fast tempo it 'often sounds gabbled,
almost like a patter aria'.39 One could also compare tempos in this movement to those in the
'Christe eleison', which, of couse, has just two word in its text, with some notes extending a syllable
at length. The Christe, like 'Et in unum,' is a common-time duet with a quaver bass line, but it has
no tempo marking to modify the time signature. Thus, the notation of the 'Christe' suggests at least a
tempo no slower than the 'Et in unum', and probably noticeably faster. Yet all but a few EM
recordings take the 'Et in unum' perceptibly faster and the other recordings s take the two
movements at more or less identical tempos.40)

PART THREE: Genre: The Crucifixus

Another element that might modify the tempo implications of time signatures was genre. But
applying that principle can be tricky. Misreadings of genre sometimes lead HIP performers to
historically dubious tempos.

An example is the 'Crucifixus' of the B Minor Mass. Four very distinguished EM performers -
Harnoncourt 1968, Leonhardt, Herreweghe 1997, and Brueggen - take the 'Crucifixus' far faster

7
than their colleagues, either HIP or mainstream. Harnoncourt, at [half note]=MM76, holds the
studio speed record [he is far slower in his 1986 recording].

Harnoncourt in 1968 explained his speed by saying that the 'Crucifixus' (which is in 3/2) is a dance,
a passacaglia. He added, 'it may well seem strange to us that, in this of all places, Bach has chosen a
dance form'. A different dance form has been posited for this movement by Thomas Hoekstra, who
asserts that it is a sarabande; he suggests a tempo in the mid-60s, since that would fit estimates of
the tempo of that dance.41

The basic lament notes are indeed reached on the second beat of each bar; but that does not make
the 'Crucifixus' an actual sarabande, to be played at a tempo that would allow one to dance. The
sarabande is marked by many attributes, including phrasing and rhythm, not present here. A
baroque movement in a triple metre with a significant second beat is not necessarily a sarabande,
much less a danceable one. (And, of course, actual dance topics may well not imply danceable
tempos in Bach's music, even in overtly named dances.)42

The passacaglia attribution is more plausible, but still does not imply a fast tempo. For one thing,
this movement is not simply a passacaglia. It has a more specific topos, a descending minor
tetrachord ostinato, which during the mid-17th century (as Ellen Rosand writes) 'came to assume a
quite specific function associated almost exclusively with a single expressive genre, the lament'.43
It still had this association for Bach, who used it in the early Capriccio on the Departure of His
Beloved Brother, with the title, 'Ist ein allgemeines Lamento der Freunde'. To this movement in 3/4
he gave the tempo marking Adagiosissimo, which Robert Marshall has identified as the slowest of
all his tempo markings. The slow tempo was not idiosyncratic: the lament was associated with a
slow tempo.44

Alexander Silbiger writes, 'it is still not clear to what extent the seventeenth century identified the
descending tetrachord ostinato with the passacaglia dance-genre.'45 Wye J. Allanbrook is more
certain about the 18th century: she states that the descending tetrachord lament had lost any dance
implications whatsoever.46 Even if one regards the Crucifixus as a passacaglia, its metre (as well as
its lamento topic) would still imply a slow tempo. Silbiger notes that a 'slower tempo for the
passacaglia is sometimes suggested by a meter based on larger note values (e.g., 3/2 rather than 6/4
or 3/4)'.47

A final argument for a slow tempo in the Crucifixus is that Bach gave its model, BWV 12/2, the
tempo marking Lente.

PART FOUR: Do HIP Performers Selectively Favour Evidence for High Speed?

One can come up with other examples in which the fast new tempos favoured by HIP performers
seem to have less historical support than the slow ones once favoured by mainstream performers.
But it is not the case the historical performers as a group have always played Bach faster than
mainstream performers, or that they have selectively favoured evidence for high speed whenever it
is available.

For one thing, a majority of HIP performers take certain movements as slowly as their mainstream
predecessors, in spite of evidence that could easily be used to support a faster tempo. One example
is the 'Et incarnatus', in which the median HIP tempo ( =MM50) is only four points faster than the
traditional median. Yet the movement is in ordinary 3/4, and has no markings to indicate a slow
tempo; if one wished, one could plausibly argue that it is a tempo ordinario movement. Admittedly,
Stauffer notes that 'the text, the b-minor mode, and the expressive slurring' (one might add, also, the
suspensions) slow the tempo in the 'Et incarnatus'48; but one can give these matters their due

8
without slowing below the tempo ordinario range. Rifkin and Ren Jacobs take the Et incarnatus at
=MM66-67, yet their slurs sound expressive and their suspensions have sufficient weight.

In another example, the Sanctus, most of the HIP tempos fall into two distinct groups. One group
(including nine conductors) has a median tempo of =MM64, barely faster than the median
mainstream tempo of MM60. The other group, with six conductors, takes a much faster median
tempo of MM78. The latter accords with Marshall's estimate of the tempo ordinario - the tempo
suggested by the movement's notation in C with triplets (again, an earlier version has with
triplets). Indeed, Bach could probably have notated the movement in 12/8 (unless one holds that the
timpani should not be assimilated with the prevailing triplets); for reasons of intrinsic note-value
speeds, Marshall argues that 12/8 would imply a tempo approximately a third slower than what is
implied by C.49

That the slower tempo is more common than the fast one in both movements among HIP performers
is no cause for outrage. But it does show that HIP performers have not always favoured evidence
for faster speeds, even when such evidence can be found easily. The Benedictus and Agnus Dei
arias are two additional examples; in the latter, several prominent HIP recordings are so slow as to
move at eight to the bar. Here, then, are four movements in which a majority of HIP performers
have ignored convenient evidence for a faster tempo.

Another reason to qualify the belief that HIP performers always favour evidence for speed is that in
some works and genres HIP performers have played significantly more slowly than their
mainstream predecessors and colleagues. An example is Book 1 of the Well-Tempered Keyboard, in
which a group of ten pianists take median tempos that are on the whole about 9 percent faster than
ten period-instrument recordings. While the period instrument players are significantly faster in
eight movements, usually serious ones like the minor-key fugues in c#-, d-, f#-, g#- and bb, the
pianists are significantly faster in 20 movements, usually fast ones like the Prelude in c minor. This
pattern suggests that what motivates HIP tempo choices is something other than a global taste for
speed.

Table 2 Tempo comparisons, pianists versus period keyboardists, in Book

One of the Well-Tempered Clavier
Note: Column Four includes ratios only for those pieces in which the tempo difference is greater than 5%. In cases
where the two groups take similar tempos, no number is given. The ratio is figured with the slower of the two tempos
servings as the denominator. Brackets are used in those cases in which period keyboardists are faster on average.

BOOK1 Median Median Signif. Median Median Significant

Piano HIP Diff. Piano HIP differences
MM MM MM MM

P1 in C C 75.5 73.5 P 13 in F# 12/16 75.5 80

F1 in C C 60.5 59.5 F13 in F# C 66.5 70.5

P2 in c C 114 104 9.6% P14 in f# C 104.5 73 14.3%

F2 in c C 79.5 78.5 F14 in f# 6/4 70.5 85.5 [21%]

P 3 in C# 88 77 14.3% P15 in G 24/16 C 97.5 80 12.9%

3/8

F3 in C# C 98 86 13.9% F15 in G 6/8 72.5 62.5 16%

P4 in c# 6/4 92 94 P16 in g C 41 41.75

9
F4 in c# 50 64.5 [29%] F16 in g C 69.5 66.5

P5 in D C 132 106 24.5% P17 in Ab 3/4 96 100

F5 in D C 60 58 F17 in G# C 61.5 61.5

P6 in d C 79.5 67.5 17.78% P18 in g# 6/8 116 114

F6 in d 3/4 63 70 [11%] F18 in g# C 55 63 [15%]

P7 in Eb C 73 71 P19 in A C 84.5 68 24.3%

F7 in Eb C 94 81.5 15.34% F19 in A 9/8 67.5 75 [11%]

P8 in eb 3/2 40.5 46 [14%] P20 in a 9/8 82 73.5 11.6%

f8 in eb C 69 64.5 F20 in a C 76 65 16.9%

P9 in E 76.5 70.5 8.5% P21 in Bb C 84 76.5 9.8%

12/8

F9 in E C 110 84 30.95% F21 in Bb 3/4 98.5 82 20.1%

P10 in e in 57 56 P22 in bb in C 35 41 [17%]

C

F10 in e 3/4 119 98 21.4% F22 in bb 48 56 [17%]

P11 in F 82 61 34.4% P23 in B in C 78 69.5 12.2%

12/8

F11 in F 3/8 60 57 F23 in B in C 60 58

P12 in f C 50.5 45 12.2% P24 in b C Andante 70.5 87 [23%]

F12 in f in 55 53.5 f24 in b C Largo 45 48

C

Perhaps it might be taken as evidence for the thesis that a central motive for HIP performers is to be
different from the mainstream. Perhaps this desire arises as a reaction to specific performance
traditions. Harpsichordists may be reacting against pianists and the Bischoff/Czerny tradition, while
HIP conductors may react against previous choral traditions, which tended to seek weight and
gravity. There will, of course, be many exceptions to the generalizations in the previous sentence;
but reaction against the mainstream may well motivate some of the fastest performances of the
Kyrie 1, the 'Et in unum', and the 'Crucifixus', among others.

We might also consider the role of performance media and fashions of playing. It could be that
harpsichordists play more slowly than pianists in fast movements because harpsichordists cannot
emphasize strong beats with dynamics, and instead use preceding articulatory silences.50 If
harpsichordists played with pianistic styles and speeds, they might sound mechanical. Moreover,
harpsichordists tend to place greater rhetorical weight on smaller motivic units. Also, while I used
the Crucifixus as an example of a movement that has sometimes been played quickly based on
mistaken ascription of a dance genre, considerations of dance have often slowed tempos, especially
in keyboard music.

It is often suggested that traditional choral recordings have been slower than EM recordings because
of the limits on speed caused by huge choruses. However, the evidence undermines the belief. In
the fastest choral movements, mainstream recordings with large choruses (e.g., the B Minor Mass of

10
Solti, or the St. John Passion of Scherchen) can be every bit as fast as the quickest early-music
recordings.

Another hypothesis might be that influential individual performers, e.g., Leonhardt, create tempo
traditions among students; a preliminary statistical investigation, however, fails to confirm this
hypothesis either in the Mass or in the WTC.

Perhaps, also, period-keyboardists simply tend to favor a narrower spectrum of tempos than pianists
do. If so, one might wonder if their circumspection reflects an attempt to apply the idea of the tempo
ordinario in movements in C or 3/4, and otherwise to interpret time signatures according to intrinsic
note values. But this idea could account for only eleven of 28 tempos in which the two groups differ
significantly in WTC 1.

One general influence on the cases examined in this article may be musicological advice. Influential
musicologists such as Robert Donington 51have told performers that time signatures had no tempo
implications in Bach, that Andante was not a tempo marking, even that Bach's notation generally
did not indicate tempo. If such advice turned out to be mistaken, performers who thought they had
historical sanction would be mistaken as well.

CONCLUSION: Authenticity and Tempo

Donington is indisputably correct when he says that 'the right tempo for a given piece of music is
the tempo which fits, as the hand fits the glove, the interpretation of that piece then being given by
the performer,' and when he adds that 'the limits within which the right tempo for any particular
piece of music may vary are surprisingly wide.'52 Such matters as the performance's character,
pulse, and phrasing all play a role in making a given tempo work. Even if we were able to
reconstruct Bach's systems of tempo notation with a fair degree of confidence, then, we should
hardly expect performers to be bound by it. Indeed, composers' own tempos in performance vary
widely from one occasion to another.

On the other hand, Andrew Parrott has argued that when musicians take account of historical data
'new possibilities emerge, even if old ones fall by the wayside'.53 The same might be said of
criticisms of HIP trends: even when attempts at debunking have failed, they have sometimes
suggested new possibilities to performers. Thus I hope that the arguments in this paper, however
they are judged in the long run, will serve to stimulate performers rather than to constrain them.

I am very grateful to Alyson Ahern, Jonathan Bellman, John Butt, Robert Cammarota, Matthew
Dirst, Laurence Dreyfus, Don Franklin, George Houle, Michael Marissen, Robert Marshall, Daniel
Melamed, Andrew Parrott, Joshua Rifkin, and Eric Van Tassel for their comments on this paper.

Endnotes:

1. T. Hoekstra, Tempo considerations in the choral music of J. S. Bach (doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1974);
D. Franklin, "The fermata as notational convention in the music of J. S. Bach,' in W. J. Allanbrook et al, Convention in
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century music (New York, 1992), pp. 345-61; P. Williams, 'Two case studies in performance
practice and the details of notation,' Early music 21 (1993), p 613-22; R. Marshall, 'Bach's tempo ordinario: a plaine
and easie introduction to the system,' in J. Knowles, ed., Critica musica: essays in honor of Paul Brainard (New York,
1996), pp.249-78; G. Stauffer, Bach: the Mass in b minor (New York, 1997), p. 231-33.Return to text

2. G. Houle, Meter in music, 1600-1800 (Bloomington, IN, 1987), p.32 Return to text

3. Sperling, Principia Musicae (Bautzen, 1705), p. 66, Mattheson, Das neu-erffnete Orchestre (Hamburg, 1713), Pars
Prima, chapter III; Heinichen, Der General-Bass in der Composition (Dresden, 1728; facsimile Hildesheim, 1969), pp.
257-378; Quantz: Versuch einer Anweisung die Floete traversiere zu spielen (Berlin, 1752), XVII vii, 50.Return to text

11
4 . See, e.g., Heinichen, Der General-Bass, p. 350. Return to text

5. Trans. P. Poulin as J. S. Bach's precepts and principles for playing the thorough-bass or accompanying in four parts
(Oxford, 1994). Re Thieme, see H.J. Schulze, ' "Das Stck im Goldpapier"', Bach-Jahrbuch 64 (1978), 19-42. Return to
text

6. F. E. Niedt, Die musicalische Handleitung... verheren durch J. Mattheson (Hamburg, 1721; facs. Buren, Netherlands,
1976), pp.109-115. The edition reprinted in facsimile contains some of these definitions; for all of them, and for
translation, see F. E. Niedt, The musical guide (trans. P. Poulin and I. Taylor, Oxford, 1989) pp.148-155. Return to text

7. Niedt, The musical guide, introduction by P. Poulin, p.xiii. Return to text

8. It is perhaps of interest that the books do not mention differing implications of the signatures for inequality, a
distinction made between these two signatures in such texts as Muffat's. Return to text

9. Kirnberger, Die Kunst des reinen Satzes in der Musik (1771-79, ) Vol. 2, Chap. 1. Translation: D. Beach and J.
Thym as, The art of strict musical composition (New Haven, CT, 1982) Return to text

10. Kirnberger, Gedanken ber die verschiedenen Lerharten in der Komponisten (Berlin 1782). Bach-Dokumente III,
no. 867. Translation from The New Bach Reader ed. H. T. David and A. Mendel, rev. C Wolff (New York, 1998),
p.320. Return to text

11. For the 17th century see, e.g., Printz, Compendium musicae signatoriae (Dresden, 1689. Reprint: Hildesheim,
1974)) ch. iv/7, p. 22. For the 18th, see, e.g., Mattheson, Das neu-erffnete Orchestre; Rameau, Trait de l'harmonie
(Paris, 1722), pp. 151-53. Kirnberger (trans.), The art of strict musical composition, p. 377 writes 'Those [meters]
having larger [denominator] values, like alla breve, 3/2 and 6/4, have a heavier and slower tempo than those of smaller
values, like 2/4, , and 6/8.' Return to text

12. Some see the meaning of vocal texts as more than merely a modifying element; they argue that in Bach vocal music
a given time signature suggested little about the tempo, and that performers discerned what speed to take mainly by
considering the text. I would emphasize instead how text influenced Bach's tempo choices at the stage of composition--
where it affected his musical setting-- and suggest that Bach, like later composers, then included tempo indications in
his notation (at least of parts and carefully prepared fair copies) in order to alert performers to his intended speed. [My
thanks to Joshua Rifkin for advice on formulating this sentence.] Unlike a metronome mark, however, Bach's notation
indicated a tempo's neighborhood rather than its specific address. His time signatures, tempo words, and note values
indicated a range of speeds; the text suggested where the actual speed might fall within the limits of this range. To the
general evidence for this approach given here, I would add that tempo words are about as frequent on average in Bach's
relevant vocal works as in his published keyboard works, and that Bach regularly did use notational devices (e.g. tempo
words) to indicate a particularly fast or slow tempo in vocal music. Neither point would seem likely if performers
discerned tempo mainly by considering textual meaning. Return to text

13. We might also mention harmonic rhythm; a faster harmonic rhythm tends to be associated with a slower tempo. In
Book 2 of the Well-tempered Keyboard, the Preludes in f# minor and in G major are both in 3/4 time. But the former
not only has prevailing motion in triplet 16ths to slow its tempo; it also has a fast harmonic rhythm (on the crotchet),
which may be said to slow the tempo as well. The G major, by contrast, has a slow harmonic rhythm, perhaps
suggesting a faster tempo (as does its dancing moto perpetuo genre). My thanks to Yo Tomita for suggesting these
examples. Return to text

14. See, e.g., Penna, La primi albori musicali (Bologna, 1684; facs. Bologna 1969) p. 40. Brossard, Dictionaire de
Musique, 2nd. ed. (Paris: 1705; facs. Hilversum, 1965), p.154. See also New Grove dictionary of music and musicians,
s.v., 'Tempo ordinario' and 'Tempo giusto', 18:685. Return to text.

15 Mattheson, Das neu-erffnete Orchestre, p. 79. Return to text

16. see Heinichen, Der Generalbass, p. 268 That Bach was familiar with the use of Allegro to indicate a tempo faster
than C might be suggested by a work he performed on three different occasions - a St. Mark Passion by another
composer. I discuss it in detail in the Appendix to this article on turbae movements. Return to text

17. Walther, Musicalisches Lexicon (Leipzig, 1732); facs. ed. R. Schaal, (Kassel, 1953). 'Tempo minore', p.598. Return
to text

12
18. R. Marshall, 'Bach's tempo ordinario," p. 252. Return to text

19. Its note values were 'twice as fast' as normal, according to Kirnberger (upholding an old tradition also maintained by
Brossard and Quantz). Walther says only that allabreve is 'beat very fast'. Many 17th- and 18th-century sources describe
simply as 'somewhat faster,' not twice as fast. For an excellent summary of source writings see Houle, Meter in Music,
pp. 13-19 for the 17th century, and p. 57 for the 18th.
W
hen the prevailing note value is the semiquaver - twice as small a note as is usual for - the signature would seem, by
the principles described earlier, to slow the minim pulse and indicate a faster-than-ordinary crotchet (4/4) pulse. See
Marshall, 'Bach's tempo ordinario,' p. 270; Hoekstra, Tempo considerations, p. 90. See also A. Drr, Neue Bach-
Ausgabe (NBA) I/10 Kritische Berichte (KB), p. 103. I would note that Bach adds the word 'Presto' to only when the
prevailing note value is the quaver, not the semiquaver; this pattern may lend support to the assertion that Bach saw a
systematic relationship between note values, time signatures, and tempos Return to text

20. Sperling, Principia Musicae, p. 66. Return to text.

21. See Heinichen, Der General-Bass, p. 350. Kircher and several French sources dismiss the distinction; see R.
Donington, Tempo and rhythm in Bach's organ music (London, 1960), p.22. Return to text.

22. M. Dirst, 'Bach's French overtures and the politics of overdotting', Early Music, 25:1: 1997, p. 40. Return to text.

23. Also, Don Franklin and Joshua Rifkin have both presented evidence (not yet published) that Bach's use of the cut-C
signature changed in his later years. Return to text

24. Rifkin first noted this history, though he has not as yet published it; my thanks to him for explaining it to me. The
parts are also mentioned in NBA KB I/21, p. 146. For another example, Don Franklin points to instances of Bach's
signature being changed to C in 18th-century copies of the Well-tempered clavier; he interprets them as suggesting that
perhaps 'the younger composers did not give as much prominence to the time-signature as did Bach' (personal
communication, 1999). An examination of the details supports the interpretation; most of the fugues in Book Two
whose signatures are thus changed are in genres that Bach typically notated in . Return to text.

25 Hoekstra, Tempo considerations, p.21, lists 14 sources from de Pareia in 1482 to Billings in 1794. Return to text

26. Stauffer, Bach: The Mass in B Minor, p. 231. Return to text

27 R. Marshall, 'Bach's tempo ordinario." Return to text

28 My examination of 20 other German Baroque Passions suggests that turbae tempos that are well above the ordinary
seem to receive special notation indicating speed. Details are posted at my Web site at
http://www.kdsi.net/~sherman/turba.htm. Return to text

29 Butt, Journal of the Royal Musical Association (1990), v. 115/2, p.265.Return to text

30 E.g., M. Praetorius, Syntagma Musicum v. III, (Wolfenbttel, 1619; facs. Kassel, 1959), p.51; D. Merck,
Compendium musicae (Augsburg, 1659), p.16; W. C. Printz, Compendium musicum signatoriae, IV,8 (p.22); J. D.
Heinichen, Neu erfundene und gruendliche Anweisungen wie die Musik-Liebenden... (Leipzig, 1711), section 25. Return
to text

31 Niedt, Die musicalische Handleitung, pp.109-115. and F. E. Niedt, The musical guide pp.148-155.Return to text

32. R. Marshall, 'Tempo and dynamics: the original terminology," reprinted in Marshall, The music of Johann Sebastian
Bach: the sources, the style, the significance (New York, 1989), pp. 255-269. Regarding another combination of two
words found in some Bach autographs, 'Grave. Adagio' (which is discussed briefly by Marshall), see S. Soderlund,
'Bach and Grave', in Organist as Scholar (Stuyvesant, NY, 1994), ed. K. J. Snyder , pp. 77-82. Both see 'Grave' as not
primarily a tempo word." Return to text

33. G. Stauffer, Bach: the mass in b minor, p. 295, n. 59. Return to text.

34 Ibid., pp. 236-37. Space limits preclude discussion. Return to text.

13
35 e.g., BWV 152/6; 176/4, 199/4; 229/2; 988/15; 1015/1.Return to text

36 See F. E. Niedt, Die Musicalische Handleitung underer Theil, ed. J. Mattheson, p.109. Return to text

37 P. Poulin and I. Taylor, The musical guide, p.148. Return to text

38 Pianists included Czerny and Bischoff (from metronome marks), Edwin Fischer, Sviatoslav Richter, Gould, Schiff,
Gulda, Joao-Carlos Martins, Tureck, and Demus. Period-instrument players (harpsichordists unless otherwise noted)
include van Asperen, Lon Berben, Kenneth Gilbert, Koopman, Leonhardt, Moroney, Scott Ross, Suzuki, Tilney
(clavichord), and Glen Wilson. Return to text

39 J. Butt, personal communication, Feb 27, 2000 Return to text

40 G. Stauffer, in his excellent Bach: the mass in b minor, p.235, lends support to this approach, by arguing that the
'Christe' is actually an Andante movement without the marking. To support my contrary view that the 'Christe' is a
tempo ordinario movement, I would note that many Bach movements with quaver bass lines are not Andantes, so the
Christe's bass, which Stauffer mentions, isn't necessarily a genre marker. Also, two features of the 'Et in unum' suggest
that it has a slower tempo than the Christe. First, the declamation of the Christe is on the crotchet, while that of the 'Et
in unum' is on the quaver; second, the two lines of 'Christe' move in parallel, while those of the 'Et in unum' move
imitatively. Return to text.

41. Hoekstra, Tempo considerations, p.121.Return to text

42. See, for example, L. Dreyfus, Bach and the patterns of invention (Cambridge, Mass, 1997), pp. 103-33 Return to
text

43. E. Rosand, 'The descending tetrachord: An emblem of lament,' The musical quarterly 65 (1979), pp.346-59, quote,
p.346. Return to text

44. Fuhrmann (Musikalischer Trichter, Frankfurt an der Spree, 1706, p.87) remarks that the Lamento (which he does
not equate with the descending tetrachord) 'must be set in a slow tempo'. Return to text

45. A. Silbiger, 'Passacaglia and ciaccona: Genre pairing and ambiguity from Frescobaldi to Couperin', Journal of
seventeenth-century music 2 (1996), http://www.sscm.harvard.edu/jscm/v2/no1/Silbiger.html Return to text

46. Personal communication, June, 1998 Return to text

47. Houle (Meter in music, p. 2) states of the 17th century in general that 'compositions written in 3/2. . . were slower in
tempo than those in 3/4'. As for 18th-century Germany, the slowness of 3/2 is implicit in Mattheson (who describes the
use of 3/2 in 'sad pieces, adagios, sarabandes'), and explicit in Kirnberger. Kirnberger (The art of strict musical
composition, 394, 400) describes 3/2 as indicating 'a ponderous and slow performance'; he later adds that '3/2 meter is
more ponderous than 3/4' . Return to text

48. G. Stauffer, Bach: the mass in b minor, p.238. Stauffer makes an interesting comparison of the 'Et incarnatus' to the
'Qui tollis', some of whose parts have the markings Adagio or Lente. Indeed, the two movements are similar in mode,
key, repeated crotchet bass line, and some aspects of melody. Various differences, however, might lead one to question
Stauffer's assertion that the Adagio and Lente markings of the 'Qui tollis' 'would seem to be appropriate' to the 'Et
incarnatus'. The most significant is that 'Qui tollis' has obbligato lines in semiquavers, whereas the 'Et incarnatus'
obbligato moves only in quavers. Flautists attest that the semiquavers put a limit on the tempo of the 'Qui tollis'
(moreover, the 'Qui tollis' flute obbligatos are imitative, which may limit the tempo further). The choral declamation
shows a similar difference in prevailing note values: that in the 'Qui tollis' is primarily in quavers while that in the 'Et
incarnatus' is primarily in crotchets. A less germane difference is that the slurs in the 'Qui tollis' are not really similar to
those in the 'Et incarnatus'. In the 'Qui tollis' they 'background' the string parts rather than indicating an expressive
rendering of a sighing appoggiatura as they do in the 'Et incarnatus'. Nor are the repeated-crotchet bass lines quite
similar. That in the 'Et incarnatus' serves as an eight-bar tonic pedal point on two occasion and is slurred within the bar
(a tremolo bowing, according to George Houle), but that in the 'Qui tollis' begins in first inversion, changes at least once
a bar, and is marked staccato (in the parts). Return to text

49. Marshall, 'Bach's tempo ordinario', p.256-59. Return to text

14
50. Thanks to John Butt for this point. Return to text

51. Notably Robert Donington; see, e.g., his article on 'Tempo' in The New Grove Dictionary, esp. pp. 676-77. Return to
text

52. Donington, Tempo and Rhythm in Bach's organ music, pp.12-13. Return to text

53. B. Sherman, Inside early music (New York, 1997), p.392. Return to text

15