9

This is taken from the 1867 Breitkopf und Härtel's edition (1867) of Bach's Prelude and Fugue in E Minor, BWV 548, (page 1, 4th system, pedal):

Taken from Bach's Prelude and Fugue in E Minor, BWV 548

The key signature is E Minor, and in the second measure, there's a natural sign above the f instead of below. Does this mean that you can choose to play it natural or sharp, or something else?

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    A later urtext Bärenreiter edition (1972) notate it as f-natural without footnote. Maybe the Breitkopf and Härtel edition is more circumspect in adding the natural sign (possibly because it is a typo in the manuscript?) This performance plays it f-natural. A good answer would mention something about the publisher's convention (Breitkopf and Härtel).
    – GratefulDisciple
    Commented Nov 10 at 17:29
  • 1
    It would be instructive to show the entire measure, since the other accidentals — specifically the F-natural in the upper manual staff — would confirm that the accidental-above is exceptional.
    – Aaron
    Commented Nov 10 at 17:59
  • 2
    @GratefulDisciple the Bärenreiter edition likely has an editorial commentary that mentions the added accidental; such commentaries were not so common in the 19th century. Bärenreiter's decision not to call out the added accidental in the score is probably due to the fact that Bach included the accidental in the identical measure near the end of the prelude, so there's very little uncertainty.
    – phoog
    Commented Nov 10 at 20:33
  • "Reminder" or "courtesy" accidentals can infrequently be found above the staff. See Placement of reminder/courtesy accidentals
    – DjinTonic
    Commented Nov 12 at 21:05

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7

What does a natural sign mean above the note?

Most commonly, it is an accidental added by the editor that is absent in the source. There are many reasons for editors to add such accidentals based on analysis of the musical material, reconciling differences between inconsistent sources, and knowledge about performance practice, among other things.

Maintaining a distinction between notational elements in the source and those added by the editor allows the performer to consider whether the editor was correct to modify the composer's notation and perhaps to make a different decision.

Does this mean that you can choose to play it natural or sharp, or something else?

It means the editor thinks you should play F♮ but wants to give you the opportunity to think for yourself and perhaps seek out the opinions of other scholars and editors.

In this case, the conflicting source is an identical measure five measures before the end of the prelude, were the note in question does have an accidental in the holograph manuscript, fairly good authority for concluding that the omission of the accidental near the beginning of the prelude was simply an oversight.

Improve this answer
5

In the holograph on IMSLP, there is no accidental at all — but there is one in the upper staff — so the edition picture is hedging their bet. The Bärenreiter referred in the comments must either have concluded that the exclusion is an obvious mistake, or other reliable sources include it.

The passage comprises a transition to A minor (note the G# in the topmost voice), where it arrives in the measure following the one shown. While F# would have a place were the line ascending to G#, the (lower staff) line is descending, so an F-natural would be more conventional.

Here's the measure from the holograph.

Holograph

Improve this answer
4
  • So our venerable Mr. J.S. Bach made a mistake! Its' quite endearing that such a great master could make a mistake too. I wonder how many times he did something like this among his extant manuscripts. Should I post a question?
    – GratefulDisciple
    Commented Nov 12 at 1:44
  • @GratefulDisciple Bach does appear to have made a mistake, indeed, and I'm with you that it's endearing and also humanizing. But, one has to allow for the possibility that he actually intended that the passage be different between the first time and the repetition near the end. This is where studying other pieces helps: is Bach consistent in making repeated segments the same, or does he frequently introduce slight variations? (My experience says the former, but I'm far from a Bach scholar.)
    – Aaron
    Commented Nov 12 at 2:24
  • @GratefulDisciple I think there's a question in there, but not of the "how many" or "how often" variety, which, personally, I don't think is especially compelling. Maybe something along the lines of how researches determine what is a mistake and how to correct it. That might be a bit too broad, however, because there are many types of mistakes and many techniques for detecting/correcting them. Or maybe a question like "was Bach prone to errors, or is finding a mistake like this one the exception?" That would give some insight into "how often", but also give more substantive inforomation.
    – Aaron
    Commented Nov 12 at 2:28
  • @Aaron Thanks for the input. I'll think about it.
    – GratefulDisciple
    Commented Nov 12 at 2:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.