Editorial Decisions For Ornaments In Bach’s Works

An abstract on Beverly Jerold’s article

Preparing an edition of music found only in manuscript form is a difficult

process. Regarding ornaments, for example, most of us believe that performers are
expected to add embellishments to a composition. But while some composers wanted
it, others, in fact, did not. Perspectives like Johann Adolf Scheibe’s show us that the
player is not at liberty to alter pieces already embellished by the composer. However,
that liberty applies when the piece is meant for the soloist to show his skill and
invention. It is, therefore, important to know how to distinguish one from the other, in
order to know when and when not to embellish. A similar opinion was also left
written by J.S. Bach’s contemporary, Johann Matheson.
The author continues, saying that Bach wrote a large quantity of embellishment in
standard note values, once he, as other major composers, didn’t trust others to
embellish his pieces.
It is also true that a fashion for excessive over decoration spread through much of
Europe, in the second half of the eighteenth century. A good example of this practice
is the Trio in D minor (BWV 583), for which we know the existence of three
manuscripts. Two of them were probably written around 1800, and have abundant
embellishment; the third and earliest one contains many fewer ornaments, which puts
it in agreement with the most reliable manuscripts for other Bach works. The author
further states that “Bach’s autograph manuscripts are generally lightly, but adequately
supplied with ornament symbols. When an exception occurs, it is probable that the
ornaments are later accretions.” The opinion of many eighteenth-century
commentators is that adding too much ornaments only weakens and obscures their
beauty” (of the melodic lines), “making the ornaments the focus of attention.”
Also in variants of the Passacaglia (BWV 582) and the Canzona (BWV 588) we
can find “immoderate ornaments”; 48 bars in the Passacaglia and the whole piece in
the Canzona. Through studying the manuscripts, it is believed that such ornaments
might have been added later, although we find ourselves in the speculative field.
Dietrich Kilian, for instance, referring to this Passacaglia, observes that “the
authenticity of these ornaments therefore appears questionable.” However, the author
states that “the most reliable manuscripts for the Passacaglia show no trace of
overloaded embellishment.”
Regarding fermatas and whether they should or should not be embellished, Jerold
comes to the conclusion that even after Bach’s death, during the galant period, “most
fermatas were not intended to be embellished, but simply served to designate where a
note should be held longer than usual.”
A limited degree of variation in the placement and number of ornaments was
permissible. However, large numbers of ornaments were not acceptable anymore,
many early commentators say. Johann Georg Sulzer states the following: “It is not
enough to know how to make ornaments in the most graceful and convincing manner,
the main factor is their judicious placement. They should not tickle the ear or show
the skill of the singer/player, but raise the level of feeling. Foolish players apply them
everywhere, thereby inspiring only boredom.”
NBA published two versions of Bach’s Sinfonia no. 5, one with no ornamentation,
except for a trill, and other heavily ornamented, added a later date to the autograph of
the Inventions and Sinfonias. These ornamental additions have always been assumed
by modern editions to be from Bach himself, which is highly unlikely, once this small
notes, trills and turns are completely atypical elements of his practice.
Concerning Bach’s organ works, there are no original autographed documents,
only manuscripts whose later owners may have added their own ornaments. In the
Toccata in F Major (BWV 540), for example, NBA’s edition included a large number
of ornaments and a “good half of them are found only in the later, more questionable
manuscripts, and are not essencial to good performance.” In the author’s opinion, “it
would be helpful to bracket all the ornaments found only in the later manuscripts and
add an explanatory footnote. (...) early sources recommend very sparing use of
ornaments.”
It was usual that composers varied their ornamentation: a repetition/variant
measure with a short trill might replace a mordent, for example. It used to be a matter
of substitution instead of addition.
Beverly Jerold concludes, explaining that “modern editions in general are
inclined to include a substantial amount of ornamentation not found in the original
manuscript or edition, but in either other manuscripts or annotations to various copies
of the edition, (...) thus, ending up with many more ornaments than any other source.
(...) With works by composers like Bach, we might want to recall Scheibe’s words to
the virtuosos; the most praiseworthy quality, he says, is being “content with what the
composer has written”.”