Preface

IX
lection. These are scattered across sever-
al sources (see Comments), as the
project appears to have been left in a
state of near completion. In the editor’s
view, the careful scrutiny of variants is
the way to get closest to Bach’s final
thoughts. The reader is encouraged to
consult the Comments, where the back-
ground of Bach’s never-ending cycle of
revisions is summarised. There is little
doubt that if an extra opportunity for
finishing the task had been given to the
composer he would have produced a
radically different text, perhaps enrich-
ing it with further chromatic passages
and realized ornamentations and with
expressive treatments further removed
from the thematic development of mo-
tives. The approach adopted by the New
Bach Edition – which strictly observes
the separation of the two traditions of
sources – can be considered as one type
of compromise, but in the editor’s view
this does not quite reflect how Bach ap-
proached this work. As outlined above,
the picture one gains is of Bach as a man
who made numerous attempts to im-
prove the artistic quality of individual
movements, and not the whole ‘set’.
The present edition replaces G. Hen-
le’s Urtext edition prepared in 1970 by
Otto von Irmer. While the new edition is
freshly engraved, it nevertheless retains
many aspects of the 1970 score that had
been carefully worked out, in particular
the placement of notes on the staves in
clear, modern notation; likewise, the lo-
cation of line and page breaks essential-
ly follows the previous edition. However,
the most important change is as regards
the musical text, which has been thor-
oughly revised and modernized (includ-
ing the application of accidentals).
Round parentheses are used for editorial
suggestions, indicating the additions
that are, in the editor’s view, desirable
but that are not manifest in the sources.
There are areas of musical notation
where von Irmer’s modernisation has
not been considered appropriate, as do-
ing so might lose the nuances conveyed
by 18
th
-century notation, particularly
those emanating from the French tradi-
tion. To clarify rhythmic meanings in
Bach’s less-precise manner of notation,
the editor has followed Bach’s way of in-
dicating the timing of execution by the
vertical alignment of notes (see, for ex-
ample, Prelude in D, Fugue in e, Prel-
ude in Fk M. 44 & 67; and Prelude in g
M. 3, 8, 15 & 21). One specific place
where this has not been communicated
in the main text was Prelude in D M. 18,
where the implied uneven distribution
of duplets in the middle voice (viz. ex-
pected to execute V as v av a) was
not supported by manuscript evidence.
Another area where fine nuance is an
issue is in the notational forms of the
8th-note beams. As a general rule, what
Bach wrote has been followed, as it of-
ten seems to indicate the way in which
he felt a particular melodic line should
be phrased. This issue is perhaps illus-
trated most clearly in Fugue in g, in
which Bach distinguishes fairly consist-
ently the beaming of 8
th
notes between
those of the repeated notes in the fugue
subject (six 8
th
notes beamed together)
and those supporting the harmonic
shifts in the bass in the quarter-note
pulse (e.g. M. 24 f.: s s s). One has
to be cautious, however, as Bach does
not always seem to have paid attention
to this level of notational detail, and for
this reason the editor has made some ef-
fort to tidy up inconsistencies in the no-
tation. Likewise, the application of rests
follows Bach’s manner of notation, with
the single exception of the dotted half-
note rests in Prelude A (which Bach
simply wrote as H without the dot).
Some extra rests have been supplied
where their addition successfully clari-
fies the texture.
Bach’s ornaments have also been
carefully examined for this edition. In
Bach’s handwriting, the signs and
are equivalent and stand for the ordi-
nary trill. As a general guide, the follow-
ing table (in excerpt) on page XIII that
Bach added to Clavierbüchlein for Wil-
helm Friedemann Bach can be used.
Bach was well known in his day for
providing ornaments almost intrusively
so; but this is not the only picture that
we get from studying the manuscripts.
In Baroque performance practice, orna-
ments are freely explored by the per-
formers, and, as described in the Com-
ments, Bach often added different orna-
ments to different sources. Our main
text simply suggests that these are the
ornaments that Bach once added to his
composition. Where Bach appears to
have employed two or more different
forms of ornaments in the same place in
different sources, the most sophisticated
form of the ornament has been chosen
for the main text. Various appoggiatura
forms that are found in the manuscript
sources are unified in this edition to a
single style expressed by a small note
with slur.
Readers interested in further details
of Bach’s process of revision may consult
the author’s monograph The Genesis
and Early History of Bach’s Well-Tem-
pered Clavier, Book II: A composer and
his editions, c.1738–1850 (Aldershot:
Ashgate, forthcoming).
The editor wishes to thank the fol-
lowing institutions for allowing him to
consult the manuscripts in their care
and for permitting the use of these man-
uscripts as sources for this edition: The
British Library, London; Staatsbiblio-
thek zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz;
Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek
Hamburg; The Royal College of Music,
London; and Stadtbibliothek Leipzig.
Critical commentaries can be found
in the Comments at the end of this edi-
tion.
Belfast, spring 2007
Yo Tomita
Préface
La question de savoir pourquoi Jean-Sé-
bastien Bach, quelque 20 ans après la
composition d’un recueil de 24 préludes
et fugues consacrés à l’ensemble des
tons – le Clavecin bien tempéré, de
1722 –, écrit une deuxième partie selon
a
c