Discovering Bach’s Altos

A document submitted to the Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Musical Arts

in the Division of Ensembles and Conducting of the College-Conservatory of Music

November 2018

by

Aaron Knodle

B.A., Luther College, 2011

M.S.M., Boston University, 2016

Committee Chair: Earl Rivers, DMA

ii

Abstract

This document seeks to uncover identifying characteristics of the alto voices Johann Sebastian Bach might have encountered at Mühlhausen, Weimar, Cöthen, and Leipzig, and provide vocal casting recommendations for the alto voice in modern performances of Bach’s music. Using range and voice type as primary identifiers, this study combines secondary scholarship with analyses from original source material in order to provide sung range expectations of alto voices in works associated with each of Bach’s abovementioned professional positions. This document also employs secondary source material in order to seek an answer to whether Bach used women, boys (unchanged voices), or men (falsettists), and if he used the latter, whether they sang in falsetto throughout or with a mix of head and chest voice. This information concerning voice type and technique combined with actual range requirements is compared to the identifying ranges and characteristics of modern mezzo-sopranos, contraltos, and countertenors in order to provide ideal vocal casting recommendations for contemporary performances of Bach’s music.

iii

iv

Table of Contents

List of Tables v I. Introduction 1 II. Background 3 III. Literature Review 10 IV. Mühlhausen 17 V. Weimar 24 VI. Cöthen 35 VII. Leipzig 41 VIII. Altos in eighteenth century Germany 52 IX. Making modern choices 59 Bibliography 66 Appendices 71

v

List of Tables

Table 1 52 Table 2 52 Table 3 62 Table 4 63

1

I. Introduction

Addressing the identity of Johann Sebastian Bach’s altos in 1994, Peter Giles wrote, “It is

reiterated that the Bach-alto question: ‘What kind of altos did Bach use?’ has long been argued

over. It still is.”1 Joshua Rifkin reflected a similar sentiment in 2016 when he wrote, “Alto parts

in Bach are indeed a particular problem.”2 These two scholars suggest that questions concerning

Bach’s altos remain current, and though one cannot, realistically, ever uncover or reproduce the

actual identity of an alto encountered by Bach, the more information one possesses about such an

alto’s identity, the better one can make informed decisions about modern vocal casting choices in

contemporary performances of Bach’s music. Specifically, should one engage a mezzo-soprano,

contralto, or countertenor to sing Bach’s alto parts? This document investigates potential identity

markers of Bach’s altos at several of his major professional positions, cataloging both the notated

and actual sung ranges demanded of the alto voice as well as categorizing their voice type. The

three research questions guiding this document are 1.) did vocal works from Mühlhausen,

Weimar, Cöthen, and Leipzig all demand the same sung range, 2.) did Bach use women, boys

(unchanged voices), or men (falsettists), and if he used the latter, did they sing in falsetto

throughout, or with mix of head and chest voice, and 3.) what modern voice type best matches

these qualifications?3 In truth, no modern voice type likely provides a perfect match for the alto

voice that Bach encountered, and the choice between mezzo-soprano, contralto, or countertenor

may come down, not to general practice, but to individual singers, their availability, and whether

1. Peter Giles, The History and Technique of the Counter-Tenor: A Study of the Male

High Voice Family (Aldershot, England: Scolar Press, 1994), 92. 2 Joshua Rifkin, e-mail message to author, March 31, 2016. 3 Ibid.

2

or not they can successfully navigate Bach’s range demands at a specific pitch level.4 All of

these aforementioned factors can change from one circumstance to the next, complicating any

generalized recommendation. Nevertheless, the knowledge of what modern voice type best

matches an alto Bach might have encountered can serve as a helpful guide for performance

practice.

Apart from the guiding researching questions, this document contains examples of

written ranges found in extant materials from Bach’s catalogue and presents them at the

presumed pitch level of A = 440 Hertz (Hz). Recognizing the relativity of pitch and the

understanding that Bach encountered a variety of different pitch levels, the presentation of

written ranges at A = 440Hz allows their recalculation into different sounding ranges at various

pitch levels (A = 392, 415, or 465Hz, etc.) possibly experienced by Bach and all relative to A =

440Hz.5

4 Rifkin, e-mail message to author, March 31, 2016. 5 Daniel R. Melamed, Hearing Bach’s Passions (NY: Oxford University Press, 2005), 6.

3

II. Background

Bach’s oeuvre contains many examples of instruments playing colla parte with the

voices, and one need only look at the extant materials from both complete passions (BWV 244

and 245) and the motet BWV 226 to find strong evidence of this.6 These extant materials allow

one to investigate whether Bach tended to write for the voice through an instrumental lens or the

instruments through a vocal one. Betsy Jerold provided evidence that Bach certainly could write

for the voice through an instrumental viewpoint, citing cadential motion in Bach’s treatment of

the bass voice in some of his early cantatas. She specifically noted incredibly low bass notes that

appear in 22 early cantatas at cadential points, usually the note of the dominant dropping an

octave before ascending to the note of the tonic.7 Jerold attested that in these moments Bach

treated the voice part instrumentally and did not actually expect bass singers to perform the low

octave, but, instead, remain on the note of the upper octave while the accompanying

instrument(s) covered the lower octave.8 Christoph Wolff, however, noted that Bach could, in

6 Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 244, D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 110, Faszikel 1,

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed September 24, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002445; Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 245, D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 111, Faszikel 1, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed September 24, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002447; Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 245, D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 111, Faszikel 2, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed September 24, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002448; Daniel R. Melamed, J. S. Bach and the German motet (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 23 and 85.

7 Beverly Jerold, “Pitch in the Vocal Works of J. S. Bach.” Bach, vol. 31, no. 1 (July

2000): 74-95, accessed January 31, 2018, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=99814607&site=ehost-live, 84.

8 Ibid.

4

fact, sing, and that in his youth, Bach sang both soprano and bass.9 This evidence, combined with

the reality that Bach both wrote and led performances of hundreds of compositions for voices

and instruments throughout his life in the form of cantatas, chorale harmonizations, passion

settings, masses, and motets, could suggest that Bach understood the voice and successfully

wrote for the singers at his disposal. In either case, Bach wrote extensively for the voice, and a

contemporary performance of Bach’s music should include a vocal cast best equipped to render

this music as Bach might have heard it, whether the composer actually understood the voice or

not.

In order to identify the best types of voices for Bach’s music, one must, at least,

understand both the notated range written in Bach’s scores as well as the actual pitch level at

which vocalists rendered Bach’s music. Unfortunately, little information addressing these exists.

Alfred Dürr’s 1951 dissertation, Studien über Die frühen Kantaten Johann Sebastian Bachs,

documents the overall notated range of each voice part required in thirty-seven of Bach’s early

cantatas, but does not provide the range required of individual movements within these same

works.10 Dürr also provided no discussion of the actual sung ranges demanded by each of these

cantatas.11 Arthur Mendel’s 1955 article “On the Pitches in Use in Bach’s Time – I” only cites

the overall written range of each voice part for five works that date from Leipzig.12 Mendel,

9 Christoph Wolff, Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician, 1st ed. (New York:

W.W. Norton & Co, 2000), 59. 10 Alfred Dürr, Studien über Die frühen Kantaten Johann Sebastian Bachs, [2. Auflage],

Verbesserte und erweiterte Fassung der im Jahr 1951 erschienenen Dissertation ed. (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1977), 22–58.

11 Ibid.

5

unlike Dürr, did include a discussion concerning the suggested pitch level at Bach’s major posts,

but did not recalculate notated ranges into actual sung ranges. In order to get a clearer picture of

the notated range demands of Bach’s altos, both the overall range of a specific work as well as

the ranges required in individual movements within must be documented, allowing the

calculation of both notated range extremes and averages. This does not, however, complete the

picture, as the process of identifying the possible range of an alto Bach may have encountered

during his lifetime also requires knowledge of the pitch level used at each of Bach’s posts.

Unlike information concerning the ranges required in Bach’s vocal works, information

pertaining to the pitch level at each of Bach’s posts appears more documented but remains far

more intangible and complex. In his book, Hearing Bach’s Passions, Daniel Melamed wrote,

“Bach’s musicians used two or three different pitch standards, none of which conform to our

concert pitch of A at 440Hz.”13 Melamed’s assertion confirms that knowledge of notated ranges

cannot stand alone. A full understanding of the range demanded of an alto voice requires the

calculation of the actual sung range, which, as the composer, Bach chose. Discovering the actual

sung ranges of Bach’s altos has an incredible impact on modern performance choices. Martha

Elliot wrote, “To transpose a work even a half step in either direction can make a tremendous

difference in the technical and expressive qualities of a voice.”14 It could, also, as this study

unveils, potentially change the type of voice needed to perform the voice part. Several scholars

12 Arthur Mendel, “On the Pitches in Use in Bach’s Time – I,” Musical Quarterly 41, no.

3 (Jul 01, 1955): 332–354, https://search.proquest.com/docview/1290827481?accountid=2909, 347 and 348.

13 Melamed, Hearing Bach’s Passions, 6. 14 Martha Elliott, Singing in Style: A Guide to Vocal Performance Practices (New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press, 2006), 13.

6

have, fortunately, undertaken the task of identifying the pitch levels at the institutions where

Bach worked. Bruce Haynes used eighteenth century documents to provide information

concerning the pitch of organs and the pitch of instruments made and in use during Bach’s time.

His conclusions suggest that the sung pitch of Bach’s Leipzig churches would have been a half-

step below our modern pitch (A = 440Hz) and that secular music in Leipzig may have been a

half-step, a whole-step, or even one and a half-steps below our modern pitch.15 For Weimar,

Haynes argued that the sung pitch may have sat a half-step above our modern pitch and that

Cöthen probably heard vocal music one and one-half steps to two complete whole steps below

the notated pitch.16 Jerold’s research agrees with Haynes concerning the sung pitch levels in

Leipzig and Cöthen but argues that the sung pitch at Weimar may have been closer to our

modern pitch or even slightly beneath it.17 Rifkin, however, believes that the sung pitch at

Weimar was higher than Leipzig and that Cöthen was different from either post, but reveals little

further.18 The pitch at Mühlhausen requires a particularly careful investigation as Jerold only

suggested that it might have been similar to Haynes’s conclusions about Weimar, and Haynes

did not explicitly address the pitch at Mühlhausen at all.19 In addition, the pitch at Weimar stands

as the most complex as Jerold and Haynes, who have respectively published the two most recent

studies on the matter of Bach’s pitch levels, hold disagreeing conclusions regarding Weimar.20

15 Bruce Haynes, A History of Performing Pitch: The Story of “A” (Lanham, Maryland:

Scarecrow Press, 2002), 215 and 229–32. 16 Ibid. 232–36. 17 Jerold, 95. 18 Rifkin, e-mail message to author, May 8, 2016. 19 Jerold, 83.

7

Beyond the calculation of notated and sung ranges, unveiling hypothetical details about

Bach’s altos also requires information concerning their voice types and characteristics, which,

like the pitch levels Bach may have used, remain equally complicated. According to Melamed,

Bach’s vocal ensembles consisted of both unchanged boy and male falsetto voices singing alto in

Leipzig.21 Elliot also suggested that Bach used schoolboys as his singers and that the later age of

maturation, when compared to many modern male gendered children, among these schoolboys

(at the age of sixteen or seventeen) resulted in stronger sopranos and altos.22 Elliot, believed that

in Leipzig, Bach likely had both unchanged boy and male falsetto voices singing alto.23 Elliot

also cited the commonality of male falsettists singing in church choirs during the Baroque.24

Andrew Parrott, on the other hand, argued that the school supplied all four different voice parts

(soprano, alto, tenor, and bass) and that the sopranos and altos likely possessed unchanged voices

only.25 Parrott, like Elliot, noted the later age at which boys’ voices in eighteenth century

Germany changed, but placed it at seventeen or eighteen years of age.26 Parrott suggested that

these boy altos possessed convincing voices considering that Bach took a particular interest in

the schoolboys whose voices he labeled as “strong” and “quite strong.”27 Rifkin wrote in

20 Jerold, 83. 21 Melamed, Hearing Bach’s Passions, 5. 22 Elliot, 84. 23 Ibid. 24 Elliot, 20. 25 Andrew Parrott, The Essential Bach Choir (Suffolk, UK: The Boydell Press,

Woodbridge, 2000), 12-13. 26 Parrott, The Essential Bach Choir, 13.

8

agreement with Parrott in the sense that Bach’s vocalists came from the school, highlighting this

belief in his translation of Bach’s Entwurff, which reads, “The vocalists in this place made up of

pupils from St. Thomas’s school, and specifically of four sorts, namely sopranos, altos, tenors,

and basses.”28 Rifkin, however, argued against Bach’s use of altos with unchanged voices, but

rather that older students with changed voices sang alto in falsetto.29 Parrott even noted that after

entering the Thomasschule, the boys often stayed in residence for six to ten years, long after their

voices would likely have changed, but did not state which voice parts these particular students

sang.30 Peter Giles, in disagreement with Parrott, made his argument for adult male falsettists

singing alto by citing multiple court and church choral rosters found around eighteenth century

Europe. Giles claimed that in eighteenth century Germany, boys (unchanged voices) often sang

soprano, but falsettists typically sang alto.31 The practice of having boys (unchanged voices) sing

only soprano or the highest voice and adult men sing the lower voice parts was not new.

Guillaume Dufay, for example, specified that boys, apparently stipulating for six in his will,

should sing the cantus part of his setting of Ave regina caelorum, and that adult men should

cover the lower three voices.32 The question of falsettists or unchanged voices deserves careful

27 Parrott, The Essential Bach Choir, 131. 28 Joshua Rifkin, Bach’s Choral Ideal (Dortmund: Klangfarben Musikverlag, 2002), 24. 29 Joshua Rifkin, “The St. Matthew Passion” (lecture, Special Topics in Musicology,

Boston University, Boston, May 4, 2016). 30 Parrott, The Essential Bach Choir, 13. 31 Peter Giles, The Counter Tenor (London, UK: Frederick Muller Limited, Dataday

House, 1982), 47. 32 Andrew Parrott, “Falsetto beliefs: the ‘countertenor’ cross-examined,” Early Music 43,

no. 1 (February 2015): 79-110, accessed February 6, 2018,

9

investigation as many scholars disagree on issues concerning the identity of and vocal technique

used by Bach’s singers. None of these studies specifically address the possibility that Bach may

have encountered or used female voices in his vocal ensembles. Why studies do not address the

notion that Bach might actually have encountered or employed female vocalists remains striking

as Bach’s second wife, Anna Magdalena Wilcke (Bach), served as an official soprano of the

Cöthen Court Capelle.33 In addition, Bach encountered female sopranos at the court in Dresden,

confirming that Bach, at the least, could conceptualize the sound of a female soprano and

probably knew and understood their general capabilities.34

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=101371249&site=ehost-live, 85.

33 Wolff, 193–95. 34 Simon Ravens, The Supernatural Voice: A History of High Male Singing (Suffolk:

Boydell Press, 2014) chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Bach’s Altists and Discantists,” Kindle.

10

III. Literature Review Scholars have written much about Bach and the performance of his music, but little of

this vast wealth of material specifically addresses the identities and characteristics of his

vocalists, and even then, as this study demonstrates in the previous chapter, scholars do not

always agree. Melamed’s Hearing Bach’s Passions provides valuable insight into Bach’s

performance practices, even addressing Bach’s choirs. As discussed in the previous chapter,

Melamed suggested that Bach’s musicians used several different pitch standards, none equal to A

= 440Hz, and that Bach used both unchanged boy altos and adult male falsettists in Leipzig 35

Melamed’s study, unfortunately, provided no further specifications concerning the identity of

Bach’s altos, though he did remind readers that no matter how much research one does, without

any original listeners to identity and describe the vocal characteristics of Bach’s alto voices, one

can never fully determine any of Bach’s actual performance performances.36

Rifkin’s contribution to Melamed’s Bach Studies 2 confirms important information

concerning Bach’s pitch in Leipzig. Rifkin noted that Bach performed his Trauerode at the

Paulinerkirche and that Bach wrote out the continuo parts one whole-step lower than the voice,

wind, and string parts in order to accommodate the high pitch of Leipzig’s, including the

Paulinerkirche’s, organs.37 This reveals that the sung pitches written in the voice parts of BWV

198 did not sound at their notated pitch. Rifkin also suggested that the performers of the

Trauerode consisted of a mix of schoolboys, students, and civic musicians, giving some general

35 Melamed, Hearing Bach’s Passions, 5 and 6. 36 Ibid., 3. 37 Daniel Melamed, Bach Studies 2 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 122

and 125.

11

hints as to the identities of Bach’s vocalists.38 Rifkin, however, did not specify which individuals

within these named groups sang during the performance of Bach’s Trauerode or even what parts

they may have sung.

Wolff’s Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician provides a substantial biography

detailing countless aspects of Bach’s life. In this book, Wolff provided lists of the Weimar Court

Capelle from 1708–1709 and 1714–1715.39 These lists reveal the existence of hired falsettists

and even adult male discantists.40 Wolff also listed the roster of the Cöthen Court Capelle (1717–

1723), which even included female vocalists, Anna Magdalena Wilcke (Bach) as a soprano and

“Two Monjou daughters” as singers, but did not identify who sang alto.41 Wolff also cited that

Cöthen never had a full company of vocalists on staff and that no relationship existed for the

court to receive additional vocalists from a local Latin School.42 Wolff’s research suggests that

Bach’s singers may have possessed different identities at different posts, while also providing

strong evidence for the idea that Bach, at least at some points in his career, used falsettists as

altos, employed adult male sopranos, and even had female vocalists at his disposal.

Dürr’s Studien über Die frühen Kantaten Johann Sebastian Bach conveniently provides

the overall notated ranges for the alto voice in thirty-seven of Bach’s early cantatas.43 Dürr,

however, did not provide any information revealing the actual sung pitches of Bach’s altos, and,

38 Melamed, Bach Studies 2, 122. 39 Wolff, 121 and 158. 40 Ibid., 121, 129, 133, 134, and 158. 41 Ibid., 193–95. 42 Ibid. 43 Dürr, Studien über Die frühen Kantaten Johann Sebastian Bachs, 22–58.

12

the discussion concerning the composition or performance dates of these cantatas has been

updated since 1951, interestingly by Dürr himself. His 2005 book, The cantatas of J.S. Bach:

With their librettos in German-English parallel text, provides a comprehensive study concerning

the texts of Bach’s entire cantata repertory as well as essential compositional and performance

dating. This data enhances any discussion concerning the actual sung range demands of specific

works, as Dürr’s updated scholarship allows the association of individual cantatas to Bach’s

specific posts.

Mendel’s 1955 article, “On the Pitches in Use in Bach’s Time – I,” cites the overall

written range of each voice part in five works that date from Leipzig.44 Mendel also provided an

extensive list of the written midrange note of the entire vocal ensemble’s (soprano, alto, tenor,

and bass) overall ranges combined but did not include information specific to the alto voice.

Mendel, unlike Dürr, did make suggestions concerning the pitch levels Bach encountered at his

various posts, but this scholarship has seen important advancements by both Haynes and Jerold,

found later in this review. In addition, despite Mendel’s discussion of pitch, he did not link

notated ranges to actual sung ranges in his examples of Bach’s music.

Elliott’s book, Singing in Style: A Guide to Vocal Performance Practices, provides

information concerning singing styles from the early Baroque through the twenty-first century.

Elliott included a brief discussion on pitch in the early and late Baroque, where she noted that

Bach’s complex transposition systems for his instrumental parts probably represent a concern for

his vocalists’ comfort.45 She also offered some discussion concerning Bach’s vocalists and

suggested that in Leipzig Bach used school boys and that his altos may have included a mix of

44 Mendel, 347 and 348. 45 Elliott, 65.

13

falsettists and unchanged voices.46 Elliot cited Parrott’s book, The Essential Bach Choir, another

book included in this review, as the “most comprehensive discussion” concerning the identity of

Bach’s singers.47

Giles divided his book, The History and Technique of the Counter-Tenor: A Study of the

Male High Voice Family, into two sections: the history of the countertenor and the technique of

the countertenor. In the first section, Giles devoted an entire chapter to the relationship between

falsettists, Bach, and Germany. He suggested that Germany had developed and possessed a

flourishing adult male alto tradition throughout the eighteenth century, advocating that Bach may

have used falsettists.48 Giles also dedicated several chapters to the countertenor’s vocal

mechanism, register, and range, all of which work to help clarify the possibility of Bach using

falsettists, particularly when compared against actual sung ranges.49 Giles included a further

chapter on performance pitch and its tremendous effect on the ability of a countertenor, or any

vocalist, to comfortably perform music, with specific suggestions not unlike Elliot’s.50

A History of Performing Pitch: The Story of “A” by Haynes provides an exhaustive

survey of historical pitch from the seventeenth century through the twenty-first century.51

Haynes’s methodology consisted of combining reports, treatises, and other written

documentation concerning surviving instruments in order to calculate historical pitch levels from

46 Elliot, 84 and 85. 47 Ibid., 85. 48 Giles, The History and Technique of the Counter-Tenor, 87. 49 Ibid., vii. 50 Giles, The History and Technique of the Counter-Tenor, 297 and 298. 51 Haynes, The Story of “A”, vi–xi.

14

all over the European continent. He notably discussed the pitch levels Bach encountered at

Mühlhausen, Weimar, Cöthen, and Leipzig, and extensively discussed the latter three.52

Haynes’s work on historical pitch allows current scholars to understand and make the conversion

from the pitches Bach notated in his alto parts to the ones his altos actually sang.

Jerold’s essay, “Pitch in the Vocal Works of J. S. Bach,” represents another recent and

detailed study that provides support for some of Haynes’s conclusions and contrasts others.

Jerold’s research agrees with Haynes’s assessments concerning the pitch levels Bach

encountered at Leipzig and Cöthen, but argues that the sung pitch at Weimar may have been

closer to our modern pitch (A = 440Hz) or even slightly beneath it.53 She based her arguments on

the notion that many of the Weimar cantatas demand a high upper range, which would sound a

semitone even higher if the organ had the same pitch level as those in Leipzig.54 She also noted

that Bach used some of his Weimar string and voice parts at Leipzig without making any

additional transpositions, meaning that the pitch of the cantata would have sounded lower at

Leipzig than in Weimar.55 Her disagreements with Haynes encourage scholars to look deeper

into the pitch at Weimar.

In his book, The Essential Bach Choir, Parrott provides an in-depth discussion

concerning Bach’s vocal forces, including where Bach might have employed ripienists and the

duties assigned to Bach’s choir(s) at Leipzig.56 He stated that the Thomasschule supplied all four

52 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 229–57. 53 Jerold, 95. 54 Ibid., 92. 55 Ibid. 56 Parrott, The Essential Bach Choir, viii.

15

voice parts (soprano, alto, tenor, and bass) and that the sopranos and altos likely possessed

unchanged voices, a contrast to Giles, Elliot, and Melamed.57 Parrott also confirmed Elliot’s

belief that boys’ voices changed at a later age in eighteenth century Germany, but pushed it to

seventeen or eighteen years of age, one to two years older than Elliot’s summation.58

In his article, Falsetto beliefs: the ‘countertenor’ cross-examined, Parrott hoped to clarify

what it meant to sing in falsetto during different periods of history.59 This information provides

this study with a possible explanation as to how falsettists during Bach’s time might have

navigated their technique. In a slight counter to his claim that Bach used unchanged voices for

altos, Parrott did cite the possibility of using boys for the soprano or highest voice and adult men

for the lower voices.60 As discussed in the previous chapter, Parrott cited Guillaume Dufay’s

specification that the cantus part of his Ave regina caelorum setting should be sung by boys

while each of the lower three voices would be covered by adult men.61

Much like Parrott’s The Essential Bach Choir, Rifkin’s Bach’s Choral Ideal contains

Rifkin’s beliefs about the make-up and identity of Bach’s choir(s). Rifkin wrote this book after

the release of Parrott’s, and most of Rifkin’s suggestions come from his new translation of the

Entwurff. Rifkin supported Parrott’s claim that Bach’s vocalists came from the school, however,

in commenting about his discoveries in the book, Rifkin argued against Bach’s possession of

57 Parrott, The Essential Bach Choir, 12 and 13. 58 Parrott, The Essential Bach Choir, 13; Elliot 84. 59 Parrott, Falsetto beliefs, 79. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid., 85.

16

altos with unchanged voices, but rather that older students with changed voices sang alto in

falsetto 62

62 Rifkin, Bach’s Choral Ideal, 24; Rifkin, “The St. Matthew Passion” (lecture, Special

Topics in Musicology, Boston University, Boston, May 4, 2016).

17

IV. Mühlhausen

Bach began his duties in Mühlhausen on July 1, 1707.63 This position offered the young

composer a chance to work with a slightly more developed musical establishment than his

previous position at Arnstadt.64 At Mühlhausen, Bach’s duties did not actually specify his

involvement with vocal music or any particular vocal or instrumental ensembles.65 Bach,

however, chose to involve himself with both vocal and instrumental ensembles while at

Mühlhausen, and wrote pieces that combined both forces.66 One of these works, BWV 71,

actually helped Bach garner the attention of a wider public audience, following the composer’s

performance and publication of the cantata in February of 1708.67 Remarkably, and for the

remainder of his life, Bach would never again have the chance to publish any of his vocal

works.68 Along with BWV 71, BWV 150, 131, 106, 196, and 4 represent cantatas composed at

Mühlhausen for which original material survives, though some scholars argue that BWV 71, 196,

and 4 may have been composed in Weimar.69 In these cantatas, F3–E5 represents the combined

total written range demanded of the alto voice, though Bach required neither extreme note within

the same work (Appendices 1–6). Little consistency actually exists between the written upper

extreme notes demanded in these cantatas (Appendices 1–6). BWV 150 requires a D5, BWV 131

63 Wolff, 102 and 103. 64 Ibid., 103 and 104. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid., 110 and 111. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid., 111. 69 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 11.

18

a C5, BWV 106 an E-flat5, BWV 71 an E5, BWV 196 a D5, and BWV 4 a C-sharp5 (Appendices

1–6). All of these uppermost range demands fall within the range of C5–E5 but only one reaches

E5, suggesting this note as a possible upper extreme. More consistency appears in the lower

extremity of the written range at Mühlhausen. BWV 150 requires a written F-sharp3 and BWV

106 requires a written F3, while the other four cantatas in this survey require a written G3

(Appendices 1–6). This study will consider F3 as the extreme of the lower written range at

Mühlhausen, though the consistency of the written G3’s deserves notation as a possible general

expectation.

Arthur Mendel believed that the written notation of works associated with Mühlhausen

sat deceptively low.70 Jerold held that the organs of Mühlhausen likely conformed to the

standards of the day, approximately A = 465Hz).71 Her belief stemmed from evidence that, while

working at Mühlhausen, Bach consistently wrote organ, string, voice, and trumpet parts at the

same Chorton pitch, and woodwind parts, which sounded at Cammerton pitch, either one or one

and one-half tones higher, depending on the instrument.72 Simply put, Chorton represented a

higher pitch level customarily associated with organs in seventeenth and eighteenth century

Germany.73 Cammerton, customary for most other instruments, sounded approximately one

whole-tone below Chorton, though some instruments were pitched at tief Cammerton,

approximately one and one-half tones below Chorton.74 All of these values, however, could vary,

70 Jerold, 83. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid., 74. 74 Ibid., 74 and 75.

19

even slightly, from city to city.75 In his explanation concerning the discrepancy in pitch between

organs and other instruments in eighteenth century Germany, Haynes wrote,

Pitch was not an issue in German Protestant cantatas until the new French instruments began to be generally used. These instruments, often at lower pitches than the organs, appear in German churches at the end of the 17th century, a period when the cantata was developing new patterns… The usual solution to the pitch discrepancy was to transpose some of the parts, just as is done for “transposing instruments” of today, like the B-flat clarinet. Since Cammerton instruments sounded lower in pitch the common factor in any transposing scheme was that their parts were written higher than the organ’s.76

Haynes specified that by the eighteenth century, Germany associated Cammerton with A = c.

415Hz, while organs remained at A = c. 465Hz, known as Cornet-ton or Chorton.77 Autographs

for four of the six cantatas (BWV 150, 71, 196, and 4) exist in Bach Digital’s online database,

and all these autographs have an organ part written in the same key as the vocal parts.78 This

provides support for Jerold’s claim concerning Bach’s part writing practices at Mühlhausen, and

offers evidence that the vocal ensemble at Mühlhausen actually sang these cantatas at the pitch

level of the organ, likely A = c. 465Hz. Taking, then, the total notated range of the six surveyed

75 Jerold, 74 and 75. 76 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 183. 77 Ibid., 195. 78 Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 150, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 1044, Staatsbibliothek zu

Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 11, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002001; Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 71, D-B Mus. ms. Bach D-B Mus.ms. Bach St 377, Faszikel 1, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 11, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000877; Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 196, D-B Am.B 102-104, Faszikel 2, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000456; Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 4, D-LEb Thomana 4, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00003219.

20

cantatas (F3–E5) and recalculating this range at A = 465Hz, reveals F-sharp3–F5 as the probable

sung range for an alto at Mühlhausen. As previously mentioned, no consistency exists between

these six surveyed cantatas in concern for the upper limit of the expected range. The six cantatas

actually require a notated upper range between C5–E5 or, at A = 465 Hz, C-sharp5–F5. In

addition, four of the six cantatas require a written G3 as the lower extremity of the range,

suggesting that, at A = 465Hz, altos in Mühlhausen could probably sing, at the very least,

between G-sharp3 and C-sharp5–F5, if not at the all-encompassing range of F-sharp3–F5.

A total sounding range requirement does not provide a complete assessment,

unfortunately. A survey of the range requirements of the individual movements within each of

six cantatas reveals both consistencies and irregularities. Concerning the uppermost sung notes

required of an alto in Mühlhausen, with the exception of one instance, every movement reaches

at least a sung C5 (Appendices 1–6). The outlier, movement four of BWV 131 (“Meine Seele

wartet auf den Herrn von einer Morgenwache”), has a sung range of G-sharp3–G-sharp4

(Appendix 2). This movement sits uncharacteristically low for the alto voice when compared to

the other surveyed cantatas, though the final movement of BWV 131 (“Israel hoffe auf den

Herrn; denn bei dem Herrn”) requires the alto voice to sing six written G3’s (the lowest written

note in this movement) and only four written C5’s (the highest written note in this movement)

(Appendices 1–6).79 In assessing the low extremities of the demanded sung range, the alto voice

must, at least, reach a (sung) C-sharp4, though Bach typically required the alto voice to reach

even lower notes, as every cantata in at least in one movement requires a sung G-sharp3

79 Johann Sebastian Bach, Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, BWV 131, IMSLP Petrucci Music

Library, accessed May 11, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Aus_der_Tiefe_rufe_ich,_Herr,_zu_dir,_BWV_131_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian).

21

(Appendices 1–6). Combining these two sung ranges reveals a probable minimum and maximum

sung range for an alto voice in Mühlhausen. The absolute minimum sung range extends from C-

sharp4–C5 and the maximum from F-sharp3–F5. The discrepancy of a sung fifth on each side of

these ranges could represent the creative development of a young composer or simply represent a

composer compensating for an inconsistent performance environment that included equally

inconsistent personnel.80

As mentioned in the above paragraphs, BWV 71, 196, and 4, included in this study’s

Mühlhausen survey, may actually represent works Bach composed and performed at Weimar.81

A complete discussion of the sung pitch level at Weimar appears in the next chapter. In short,

however, Bach followed the same part writing procedures at Weimar that he did in Mühlhausen,

with vocal parts written in the same key as the organ parts.82 Haynes argued that the pitch of the

organs Bach encountered in Weimar sat at the higher Chorton (A = c. 465Hz) while Jerold

argued that the pitch at Weimar sat just below our modern pitch of A = 440Hz or even closer to

the pitch in Leipzig (A = c. 415Hz).83 Cary Karp, however, suggested that organs at this time

usually sat between A = 445Hz to A = 460Hz with a tendency towards the latter.84 Mendel also

provided evidence that many organs in eighteenth century Germany sat above the modern pitch

of A = 440Hz, and that the Chorton that Bach used in Weimar, the pitch level of the organs in

80 Christoph Wolff and Ton Koopman, The World of the Bach Cantatas (New York:

Norton, 1997), 146. 81 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 11. 82 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 195 and 201; Jerold, 83. 83 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 232; Jerold, 95. 84 Howard Mayer Brown and Stanley Sadie, Performance Practice (New York: W.W.

Norton, 1990), 156 and 157.

22

Weimar, sat above A = 440Hz.85 Though Haynes and Mendel’s precise conclusions do not

completely agree on the pitch level in Weimar, Melamed and Marissen point out that Haynes

benefited from new research, including an extensive study of historical instruments, that revealed

an overwhelming majority of organs in Bach’s Germany pitched at A = c. 460Hz.86 Given this

information combined with Bach’s practice of writing vocal and organ parts in the same key

suggests that even if these three cantatas (BWV 71, 196, and 4) come from Bach’s time at

Weimar, the sung range expected of an alto in these cantatas does not change, remaining

approximately one semitone higher than the notated pitch.

If one assigns BWV 71, 196, and 4 to Weimar instead of Mühlhausen, the expected sung

range at Mühlhausen changes slightly from F-sharp3–F5 to F-sharp3–E5 (Appendices 1–6). Wolff,

however, asserted that extant documentation confirms a performance of BWV 71 at

Mühlhausen.87 Restoring BWV 71’s sung range (G-sharp3–F5) to the Mühlhausen survey restores

the above proposed sung range at Mühlhausen to F-sharp3–F5 (Appendices 1–4). In the following

chapter concerning Weimar, this study will consider the impact of including BWV 196 and 4 in

the Weimar survey instead of the Mühlhausen one.

Specific information concerning the makeup of both the instrumental and vocal

ensembles at Mühlhausen, unfortunately, does not exist.88 Wolff argued that some musical

85 Arthur Mendel, Pitch in Western Music since 1500: A Re-Examination (Kassel:

Bärenreiter, 1979), 30–32, 76, and 77. 86 Daniel R. Melamed, Michael Marissen, and Ohio Library and Information Network. An

Introduction to Bach Studies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006;1998; doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304923.001.0001), 145.

87 Wolff and Koopman, 145 and 146. 88 Ibid., 145.

23

establishment must have existed in order to allow the composition and performance of BWV 71,

which boasts extravagant demands for all participants.89 Wolff wrote, “Bach would hardly have

aimed for ‘a well-regulated church music’ [at Mühlhausen] if there had been inadequate

performance conditions in the town.”90 This, unfortunately, says nothing about the identities of

Bach’s singers at Mühlhausen, and as a result leaves only the information concerning an alto’s

sung range gleaned from extant scores, which, as mentioned above, has little actual consistency.

89 Wolff and Koopman, 146. 90 Ibid.

24

V. Weimar

In reference to the previous issue concerning the dating of Bach’s Mühlhausen cantatas,

Dürr noted that Bach’s actual compositional activities between 1708 and 1713 remain

uncertain.91 Bach did, however, move to Weimar in 1708 to take a twofold position as both a

member of the court orchestra and as the court organist.92 Scholars suggest that Bach wrote a

tremendous amount of organ music at Weimar and that the easily datable “Weimar Court

Cantatas” did not appear until 1714, when Bach took over as Konzertmeister for the court

orchestra, a position that required Bach to write one cantata every four weeks.93 As such, this

study surveys BWV 182 and 12 from 1714, BWV 31 and 165 from 1715, and BWV 155 and 161

from 1716.94 G3–D5 represents the total notated alto range demanded in these six cantatas

(Appendices 7–12). In general, the “Weimar Court Cantatas” exhibit far more consistency than

the earlier Mühlhausen cantatas. Concerning the upper extremes of the range, four of the six

cantatas require a written D5 (Appendices 7–12). The other two, BWV 12 and BWV 31, do not

stray far from a written D5, requiring a written D-flat5 and a written B4, respectively (Appendices

8 and 9). For the lower extreme of the written range, the six cantatas remain within one whole

step of one another (Appendices 7–12). Specifically, BWV 182 requires a written G3, BWV 12

an A-flat3, BWV 31 a G3, BWV 165 an A3, BWV 155 an A3, and BWV 161 a G3 (Appendices 7–

91 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 13. 92 Christoph Wolff and Walter Emery, “Bach, Johann Sebastian,” Grove Music Online,

May 15, 2018, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-6002278195.

93 Wolff and Emery, “Bach, Johann Sebastian,” Grove Music Online. 94 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 14.

25

12). If one combines these ranges, the theoretical minimum written range of an alto at Weimar

extended from A3–B4 while the theoretical total written range extended from G3–D5. G3–D5 does

not simply represent a theoretical range but the actual written range (G3–D5) required of the alto

voice in BWV 182 and 161, suggesting that this written range represents a truly feasible

expectation for an alto in Weimar (Appendices 7 and 12).

As mentioned in the chapter concerning Mühlhausen, scholars do not agree on the pitch

used at Weimar. The most recent studies on Weimar, by Haynes and Jerold, have opposing

viewpoints. Haynes attested that the pitch of Weimar’s organs must have held to the standards of

the day with A = c. 465Hz.95 Haynes noted that both organs located inside the Schloßkirche in

Weimar dated from 1658.96 Ludwig Compenuis built one of the organs, while Samuel

Bidermann built the other.97 Extant documentation provides evidence that Bidermann pitched his

organ at “Cornet Thon.”98 Phillip Spitta claimed that Compenius also pitched his organ at

Cornet-ton, but no evidence exists to prove Spitta’s belief.99 Haynes, nevertheless, argued the

unlikeliness of having two organs in the same space at different pitch levels, and noted that,

regardless of which organ Bach used, evidence exists to help support the notion that Bach’s

organ pitch at Weimar stood at A = c. 465Hz.100

95 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 232. 96 Ibid. 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid.

26

To further his argument, Haynes cited other extant parts from Weimar and noted that

Bach consistently wrote the oboe parts in BWV 21, 12, 172, and 199 a major second above the

organ part.101 In addition, BWV 152, 185, 132, 80a, 31, and 161 all have hautbois parts, or

recorder parts in the case of BWV 161, consistently written a minor third above the organ part.102

Haynes noted that Bach consistently gave the label to hautboy parts written a minor second

above the organ “Oboe” and hautboy parts written a minor third above the organ “Hautbois.”103

Haynes reasoned that an “oboe” likely held a pitch level at A = c. 413Hz, while the pitch of the

“hautbois” sat closer to A = c. 392Hz.104 Haynes admitted that the renovation of a Weimar organ

between 1712 and 1714 might have affected that organ’s pitch, but noted the high inefficiency

that such a change in pitch level would bring and that it would also require a change in recorder

and fagott parts as well.105 The parts of these instruments (recorder and fagott), however, remain

the same both before and after the organ’s renovations.106 Considering one further consistency,

Bach always wrote “Fagotto” parts at the pitch of the organ(s) in Weimar and always notated

“Bassono” or “Basson” in Cammerton, likely evidencing a difference in pitch between

“Bassono” or “Basson,” probably a French instrument, and the “Fagotto.”107 Haynes contended,

then, that the Weimar period cantatas BWV 208 and 63, both of which have a complete set of

101 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 232 and 233. 102 Ibid. 103 Ibid., 234 and 235. 104 Ibid. 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid., 236.

27

parts written in Cammerton, must have occurred in a different venue or under special

circumstances, as these two cantatas do not fit Bach’s exceptionally consistent part writing

patterns during his Weimar period.108

Jerold, on the other hand, took an entirely different approach in order to arrive at her

conclusions about the pitch at Weimar. She looked at the soprano and bass voice parts in both

Weimar and Leipzig cantatas. Jerold argued that the pitch at Weimar sat either just below A =

440Hz or even closer to Leipzig’s pitch (A = c. 415Hz).109 Jerold noted that, in analyzing 27 pre-

Leipzig cantatas, 22 of them possessed bass notes ranging from E2–C3.110 She noted that most of

the lowest bass notes in these 22 early cantatas occur at cadential points, primarily the note of the

dominant dropping an octave before ascending to the tonic.111 As previously discussed, Jerold

argued that in such cases, Bach treated the voice part as an instrumental one and that bass singers

may not have actually performed the low octave, but, instead, remained on the note of the upper

octave.112 Jerold also compared soprano parts in early cantatas to ones from Leipzig and wrote,

“In comparing the highest soprano notes of the early cantatas with those of the Leipzig ones,

there does not appear to be an appreciable difference between the two groups.”113 To emphasize

her point, she wrote, “Of the 22 [Weimar] cantatas, 14 (64%) require a soprano pitch from A5 to

B5, which would sound a semitone higher if the organ had the same pitch level as those in

108 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 233. 109 Jerold, 95. 110 Ibid., 84. 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. 113 Ibid.

28

Leipzig [A = c. 465].”114 Jerold noted that Haynes’s documentation of recorders in the A = 383–

387Hz range sit little more than a quarter tone away from the pitch level requiring a minor third

transposition, as Haynes stated they did, with a Weimar Chorton, the pitch of the organ(s), at A =

c. 420.115 Jerold also mentioned that Bach often used string and vocal parts interchangeably at

Leipzig.116 She highlighted BWV 21, which Bach performed at Leipzig with the same string

parts as in Weimar but also in Cöthen with the parts written a whole tone higher, suggesting that

Cöthen’s pitch sat below both Weimar and Leipzig’s.117 Jerold argued that the interchangeability

of the Leipzig and Weimar string parts strongly suggests that the two cities must have held

similar pitch levels.118 Jerold also noted that Cöthen cantatas require unusually high registers for

soprano and bass voices, which Bach consistently transposed down when he reused them at

Leipzig.119 Jerold gave further citation to the historical tendency of pitch levels to rise,

correlating, often, to an increasing skill level of instrumentalists using improved instruments, and

that scholars, due to the general lack of surviving instruments from this time period, do not

possess an adequate amount of verifiable information to make irrefutable statements about

seventeenth century pitch levels.120

114 Jerold, 92. 115 Ibid. 116 Ibid. 117 Ibid., 94. 118 Ibid. 119 Ibid. 120 Ibid., 91 and 92.

29

Jerold effectively stands alone in her belief that the pitch at Weimar sat much below A =

c. 465Hz. A general consensus that the heard performance pitch of Bach’s cantatas at Weimar sat

higher than the performance pitch at Leipzig appears strongly among scholars. Interestingly,

even Jerold’s final conclusions about the pitch level at Weimar place it above Leipzig.121 The

question of how much higher, however, still raises issues, but most of evidence supports

Haynes’s conclusions that the organs at Weimar possessed a pitch level close to A = 465Hz. In

support of Haynes’s conclusions, Cary Karp suggested that organs from this time usually sat

between A = 445Hz and A = 460Hz with a tendency towards the latter.122 Mendel also concluded

that organs in eighteenth century Germany sat above the pitch of A = 440Hz and that the pitch of

the organs in Weimar had to sit above A = 440Hz.123 In addition, Melamed and Marissen noted

that Haynes’s study benefited from an extensive study of historical instruments that revealed an

overwhelming majority of organs in Bach’s Germany pitched at A = c. 460Hz.124

This study suggests that, due to the majority of evidence suggesting that organs in

eighteenth century Germany held a pitch level close to A = 460Hz, the pitch level of Bach’s

organs at Weimar most probably stood above A = 440Hz and, likely, closer to A = 465Hz. As

Bach generally wrote organ and vocal parts in the same key at Weimar, the calculation of the

sung alto range for Bach’s Weimar cantatas will place the result one half-step above the notated

pitch. Several problems, unfortunately, still remain. In BWV 182, 165, 155, and 161 the voice

121 Jerold, 95. 122 Brown and Sadie, 156 and 157. 123 Arthur Mendel, Pitch in Western Music since 1500, 30–32, 76, and 77. 124 Daniel R. Melamed, Michael Marissen, and Ohio Library and Information Network.

An Introduction to Bach Studies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006;1998; doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304923.001.0001), 145.

30

and organ parts appear in the same key in Bach’s extant score.125 Though this seemingly follows

Bach’s rather consistent part writing practices at Weimar, Haynes noted that, when looking at

works from Weimar, one cannot rely on a score as an indicator of whether Bach transposed the

individual parts or not.126 Haynes wrote,

While separate parts were often in different keys, original scores to the same pieces could be either transposed or rationalized to a single key. Bach’s Weimar scores are not consistent, for example; some parts in the autograph score of BWV 152 are in g-minor, others in e-minor; BWV 182 also shows dual pitch notation. In BWV 12 the hautboy is un-transposed in the score but for technical reasons [the range of the instrument] the part (now lost) must have been played a M2 higher.127

In addition, BWV 12 has only a transposed organ part written a one whole step higher than the

surviving vocal parts.128 Bach did rework BWV 12 for Leipzig, but that should have resulted in

the organ part appearing one whole-step lower than the voice and string parts, not higher.129 One

extant score to BWV 12 does have the organ part written in the same key as the voice parts, but

125 Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 182, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 103, Staatsbibliothek zu

Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000970; Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 165, D-B Am.B 105, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000458; Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 155, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 129, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000996; Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 161, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 124, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000991.

126 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 182. 127 Ibid. 128 Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 12, D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 109, Faszikel 1,

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002443.

129 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 243.

31

as indicated above, scores from Weimar cannot definitively reveal whether Bach transposed an

individual part or not.130 In the case of BWV 31, no Weimar organ part survives, though the

surviving string and voice parts appear in the same key.131 Haynes pointed out that Bach also

reworked BWV 31 for Leipzig and that both BWV 12 and 31 as well as BWV 155, 161, and 182

all exist as cantatas by Bach with pitch problems where the surviving parts leave inconclusive

evidence as to under what circumstances and at what pitch level Bach performed these works.132

Nevertheless, Rifkin affirmed that the pitch level in Bach’s early cantatas, including those at

Weimar, sat at a higher pitch level than the notated score indicated.133 As a result, and with a

warning that much of the information concerning the pitch levels of Bach’s cantatas at Weimar

remains inconclusive, this study will calculate the alto voice range at A = 465Hz or one half step

above the notated range that appears in extant scores and parts.

As previously mentioned, G3–D5 represents the total notated range of an alto voice in the

six surveyed Weimar cantatas and the actual notated range required of BWV 182 and 161

(Appendices 7 and 12). Recalculating this range at A = 465Hz, the sung range expected of an

alto voice in Weimar extends from G-sharp3–D-sharp5. Smaller by one whole-step on both

130 Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 12, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 44, Faszikel 7,

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000876; Haynes, 182.

131 Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 31, PL-Kj Mus. ms. Bach St 14, Faszikel 1,

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00003856; Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 31, PL-Kj Mus. ms. Bach St 14, Faszikel 3, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00003858.

132 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 243 and 246–57. 133 Joshua Rifkin, e-mail message to author, March 31, 2016.

32

extremes than the proposed sung range in Mühlhausen (F-sharp3–F5), Weimar’s surveyed range

could represent either a more consistent and established core of vocalists or the maturing of a

young composer beginning to understand the limits or capabilities of the alto voice. If one

includes the sung range of the two remaining cantatas from Mühlhausen (BWV 196 and 4)

thought to possibly come from Weimar (due to Wolff’s affirmation that BWV 71 belongs to

Bach’s Mühlhausen period) into the sung range from Weimar, the range remains unchanged

(Appendices 5–12).134 Moreover, BWV 196 and BWV 4 actually fit with the consistency of the

Weimar Court Cantatas ranges, as BWV 196 has a sung range of G-sharp3–D-sharp5, the total

overall sung range expected at Weimar, and BWV 4 has an exceptionally similar sung range

extending from G-sharp3–D5 (Appendices 5–12). This consistency in the proposed sung alto

range at Weimar, regardless of the inclusion or exclusion of the debated Weimar cantatas (BWV

196 and 4), cannot be overlooked as a realistic expectation for an alto vocalist that Bach

encountered at Weimar.

Similar to Mühlhausen, little information exists regarding the actual identities of Bach’s

vocalists at Weimar. Extent records from Bach’s time at Weimar evidence that the Weimar court

consisted of two official ensembles, the professional Court Capelle and the Latin School’s

Cantorei.135 The great vocal demands made by Bach’s cantatas from this period suggest the

Court Capelle’s high level of capability.136 In the case of the Latin School’s Cantorei, Bach

usually assigned this ensemble to lesser demanding ripieno roles, though BWV 31’s five-voice

texture with divided soprano, which the Cantorei likely participated in, suggests their ability as a

134 Wolff and Koopman, 146. 135 Ibid. 136 Ibid., 148.

33

highly capable vocal ensemble as well.137 The Weimar Court Capelle from 1708–1709 consisted

of two discantists, one falsettist, two tenors, and a bass, meaning that any vocal ensemble put

together by Bach during this time, from this particular roster, consisted of all male vocalists.138

The Weimar Court Capelle roster from 1714–1715 only strengthens the idea that male vocalists

sang the alto parts at Weimar, as the register notes the employ of “2 male discants, 2 altos male,

two tenors and two basses.”139 Adam Immanuel Weldig likely sang the soprano part in BWV

199, which required a sung range that extended from C4–G-sharp5.140 This identification of a

single sung range demanded of Weldig does not, unfortunately, reveal any information about an

alto vocalist or whether they sang in falsetto throughout or with a mix of head and chest voice.

Interestingly, surviving evidence suggests that Weldig also sang the alto part in BWV 54, which

requires a sung range of F-sharp3–C-sharp5.141 This suggests that any alto range required by Bach

may not have been the upper, or even lower, extreme of an alto’s range, especially since extant

rosters listed Weldig as an alto of the Weimar Court Capelle, let alone the consideration that

Weldig’s own presumed range extended, at the least, from F-sharp3–G-sharp5.142 Even today,

capable sopranos, mezzo-sopranos, and altos can conceivably crossover and sing another voice

part, though Weldig’s range may have been unique and not an expected standard. In the end,

confirmation exists that Bach used male vocalists in Weimar who sang in falsetto, for at least

137 Wolff and Koopman, 148. 138 Wolff, 121. 139 Ibid., 158. 140 Ibid., 129. 141 Ibid., 133. 142 Ibid., 129 and 133.

34

some time. Of further importance, Wolff’s identification of the sung range of BWV 54 (F-sharp3-

–C-sharp5) changes the reported sung range estimate for an alto at Weimar from G-sharp3–D-

sharp5 to F-sharp3–D-sharp5, making the reported range at Weimar even closer to that of

Mühlhausen (F-sharp3–F5).

35

VI. Cöthen

Bach had his appointment at Cöthen confirmed on August 5, 1717, but due to a

disagreement with the duke in Weimar followed by a brief imprisonment, Bach did not likely

begin as the court Kapellmeister in Cöthen until after his “dismissal in disgrace” from Weimar

on December 2, 1717.143 In comparison to his other professional positions, Bach experienced

unique circumstances at the court in Cöthen. First, the court’s Calvinist identity did not

necessitate extravagant church music, and Bach’s position at Cöthen included no duties as a

church musician or composer, only secular assignments.144 As a result, Bach composed few

cantatas during this period, and even fewer of them survive, however, each of these surviving

cantatas share a unique feature.145 While at Cöthen, Bach wrote out each of the vocal and

instrumental parts of a specific cantata in the same key.146 This probably had to do with the

reality that Bach did not have to bother with the pitch levels of church organs in Chorton and

only dealt with instruments, including keyboard instruments, pitched in Cammerton.147 Bach

wrote the secular cantata BWV 66a in 1717, but only sacred parodies survive (BWV 66 and

42).148 The largely lost BWV 194a only survives in a sacred parody (BWV 194), and BWV 173a

(1717 or 1721) does survive, but does not assist this study, as it only involves soprano and bass

143 Wolff and Emery, “Bach, Johann Sebastian,” Grove Music Online. 144 Ibid. 145 Ibid. 146 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 236. 147 Ibid. 148 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 21.

36

voices, no alto.149 This leaves the surviving BWV 134a (1719) as the only work that can provide

evidence directly related to Cöthen concerning the expected range of an alto voice during this

period.150

Out of BWV 134a’s eight movements, seven of them involve the alto voice (Appendix

13). The overall notated range of the alto part in BWV 134a extends from G3–E-flat5 (Appendix

13). This range does not represent a theoretical expectation but the actual notated range required

of the alto voice in movements 6 (“Der Zeiten Herr hat viel vergnügte Stunden”) and 8

(“Ergetzet auf Erden, erfreuet von oben”) (Appendix 13). Throughout BWV 134a, the notated

range of the alto voice appears with some consistency, particularly in the upper register. Five of

the seven movements that require the alto voice’s participation reach a written E-flat5 (Appendix

13). The other two movements reach a written D5, only one half-step away from an E-flat5

(Appendix 13). The lower register has some consistency, though not as stable as the upper

register. Two movements, as previously noted, share the low-range requirement of G3,

movement 7 “Hilf, Höchster, hilf, daß mich die Menschen preisen,” only extends down to a D4,

and movements 1, 3, 4, and 5 all extend down to a B-flat3 (Appendix 13). Much like the case at

Weimar, the actual use of the notated range G3–E-flat5 twice in this cantata suggests its viability

as a notated range for an alto voice that Bach encountered at Cöthen.

Although scholars cannot make any definitive conclusions about the pitch level used at

Cöthen, they do agree, in general, that the pitch at Cöthen probably sat lower than either

Mühlhausen, Weimar, or Leipzig.151 Haynes noted that evidence of the pitch at Cöthen tends

149 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 21. 150 Ibid. 151 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 236.

37

towards A = c. 403Hz or even A = c. 392Hz, rather than A = c. 413Hz.152 He cited that, in

general, the ranges of vocal parts written at Cöthen sat uncharacteristically high for Bach,

suggesting that the composer conceived them at a lower pitch level than his other positions.153

Haynes specifically noted BWV 134a and 173a as possessing unusually high vocal parts and that

the tessitura of Cantata 194/194a sits about a half-step above the average Leipzig cantata.154

Citing yet another example, Haynes wrote,

Bach wrote Cantata 23 at Cöthen for his audition for the position [of] Kantor at Leipzig, and performed it there (together with Cantata 22, BC A48) on Estomihi Sunday, 1723. He apparently arrived in Leipzig only a few days before the performance, and the surviving parts indicate that he decided on a last-minute change of key/pitch.155

More than one example exists of Bach transposing the parts from Cöthen cantatas in order to

make them viable for performance at Leipzig. When Bach reused material from Cöthen at

Leipzig he would often perform those works at “tief-Cammerthon” or A = c. 403Hz or c. 392Hz

as opposed to Cammerton (A = c. 413Hz), the Leipzig standard.156 Instrument makers pitched a

number of surviving trumpets from Bach’s lifetime that the composer had access to at tief-

Cammerton.157 In addition, four German recorders from Bach’s lifetime, as well as fifteen F-alto

152 Haynes, The Story of “A”, lii and 236. 153 Ibid., 236. 154 Ibid., 236 and 237. 155 Ibid., 241. 156 Ibid., lii, 237, and 239. 157 Ibid., 237.

38

recorders from France that have surviving documentation as having existed in Bach’s

geographical area, also hold the pitch level of A = c. 392Hz.158

Unlike in her disagreements with Haynes concerning the pitch at Weimar, Jerold agrees

with her fellow scholars that Leipzig cantatas would likely have sounded a half-step lower than

notated in the vocal parts and that works performed at Cöthen likely sounded another semitone

or two below that of Leipzig.159 Jerold wrote,

BWV 21, performed in Leipzig with the same string parts as in Weimar, was also performed at the Cöthen court with the parts a tone higher, which suggests that the governing pitch level there was at least a semitone lower than in Weimar. Cantata 173a, also written for the Cöthen court, requires B5 from the soprano and G4 from the bass. BWV 134a, too, lies unusually high. When Bach later used works from Cöthen at Leipzig, he sometimes set them for tief-Cammerton. No transposition was involved in his Cöthen composition, for all parts appear in the same key. The pitch level there could easily have been in the A-390Hz range.160

The notion that two modern scholars (Haynes and Jerold) who completely disagree with one

another concerning the pitch in Weimar but fully agree on the likely pitch in Cöthen, suggests

both the strength of their conclusions as well as the availability of reliable evidence concerning

the pitch at Cöthen. Accordingly, this study will re-calculate the written range of BWV 134a at A

= 390Hz, with the acknowledgement that the sounding pitch may have sat about a quarter tone

higher (A = c. 403Hz).

As previously indicated, the total notated range requirement for the alto voice in BWV

134a extends from G3–E-flat5 (Appendix 13). A re-calculation of this written range at A = 390Hz

places the sounding range for an alto voice at Cöthen at approximately F3–D-flat5, with the

158 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 238. 159 Jerold, 95. 160 Ibid., 94.

39

reminder that the pitch may actually have sounded about a quarter tone higher. This range,

though only representative of one surviving cantata, represents the lowest range Bach expected

of an alto voice found in this study yet, though not terribly so. As formerly documented, the

likely sounding range presented in this study of an alto in Mühlhausen extended from F-sharp3–

F5 and the sounding range of an alto from Weimar extended from F-sharp3–D-sharp5.

Remembering that the projected sounding range at Cöthen may have sounded a quarter tone

higher than the presented F3–D-flat5 at A = 390Hz places the low extremity of the Cöthen range

(F3) within a semitone (at A = c. 403Hz) of both the projected low extremities of Mühlhausen

and Weimar (F-sharp3). This represents quite a remarkable consistency for Bach, whose output

of vocal works at the end of his tenure in Cöthen spanned three different posts and approximately

16 years (1707?–1723).161 In addition, the top of the projected sounding Cöthen range at A =

390Hz (D-flat5) already sits only a whole-step lower than that of Weimar (D-sharp5), but if one

considers the sounding Cöthen range at A = c. 403, the range sits less than one whole step away

from Weimar. This makes the top of the sounding range at Mühlhausen (F5) the outlier as it sits a

solid whole-step above the top expectation at Weimar and, at least, nearly two whole-steps away

from Cöthen. These projections, however, could simply represent a difference in the vocalists

and their abilities from Mühlhausen to Weimar to Cöthen, or, as mentioned by both Haynes and

Jerold, the notated range requirements of BWV 134a may not reflect a complete representation

of the expected range at Cöthen, which tended to sit high.162

The vocalists at Cöthen represent yet another unique situation in Bach’s career. Extant

records of the Cöthen Court Capelle from 1717–1723 include Anna Magdalena Wilcke (Bach) as

161 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 11; Haynes, The Story of “A”, 241. 162 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 236; Jerold, 94.

40

a soprano and “Two Monjou daughters” as “singers,” but does not specify what part these two

female vocalists sang.163 Extant records, unfortunately, do not provide any further clues as to the

identity of any alto vocalists, though these records do evidence the use of, at least, three female

voices.164 In addition, Cöthen never actually had a full complement of vocalists (soprano, alto,

tenor, and bass) on staff and had no relationship with the local Latin School to provide any

additional vocal forces.165 This suggests that if vocalists at Cöthen had the capability to provide

the same kind of vocal flexibility as Weldig did at Weimar, singing both soprano and alto

(particularly since Cöthen experienced a constant shortage in staffing), perhaps Anna Magdelena

or one of the Monjou daughters sang an alto part at some juncture.166 The reality that a male

vocalist provided the alto voice to the cantatas performed at Cöthen stands just as likely as

having a female vocalist cover the same part, particularly since the sounding range of BWV 134a

(F3–D-flat5 at A = 390Hz) represents Bach’s lowest tessitura for the alto voice yet. Nevertheless,

four of the seven movements including the alto voice of BWV 134a only extend down to a

sounding A-flat3 at A = 390Hz, and movement seven only requires the alto voice to sing down to

a sounding C4 at A = 390Hz, low extremes that sit much higher than the sounding F3 at A =

390Hz in movements six and eight (Appendix 13). In the end, proof that both female and male

vocalists participated in the performance of Bach’s vocal works, at least at Cöthen, exists, and

the possibility that a female vocalist may have sung alto at some point in Bach’s working

experience, even at a point of desperation or necessity, a reality.

163 Wolff, 193–95. 164 Ibid. 165 Ibid. 166 Ibid., 129 and 133.

41

VII. Leipzig

Bach spent the majority of his career as a cantor and music director in Leipzig. From

1723 to 1750, Bach, specifically, served as cantor at St. Thomas School, oversaw the church

music at four city churches (St Nicholas, St. Thomas, the New Church, and St. Peter’s), and

managed much of the civic music scene in Leipzig.167 While in Leipzig, Bach’s vocal music

endeavors included several cantata cycles including works reused or refashioned from previous

positions, passion settings, and motets, among other works.168 From Bach’s Leipzig output, this

study surveyed one passion setting (BWV 244), five cantatas (BWV 80, 129, 193, 195, and 198),

and one motet (BWV 225). The total overall notated range for the alto voice in these seven

works extends from F-sharp3–E5 (Appendices 14–20). Notably, this notated range represents a

combined total, and the demand for an alto to sing a notated F-sharp3 appears only in the alto

part of chorus II in BWV 244, specifically in movement 27b (Chori: “Sind Blitze…”), which

only extends from a notated F-sharp3–D5 (Appendices 14–20). The most extensive notated range

demanded of an alto voice in the surveyed Leipzig works extends from G3–E5 and appears as an

actual range only one time throughout the surveyed Leipzig works, in the same movement of

BWV 244 (27b Chori: “Sind Blitze…”) but in the alto part of chorus I (Appendices 14–20). The

low extreme of G3, however, does appear as the lowest written note demanded of an alto voice in

thirteen different movements throughout BWV 244, 80, 195, and 225 (Appendices 14–20). BWV

129 and 198 demand a written A3, while BWV 193 demands only a written a C-sharp4

(Appendices 16, 17, and 19). Far more consistency appears in the uppermost written note

demanded of the alto voice. E5 appears in all of the surveyed works from Leipzig, except BWV

167 Wolff, 237, 248, and 250–51. 168 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 22, 26, 30, 36, and 39; Wolff, 249, 253, and 288.

42

225, which requires a written E-flat5, only one semitone away (Appendices 14–20). In addition,

E5 appears in 21 separate movements in the six surveyed Leipzig works that demand a written

E5, and in BWV 244 it appears in the alto parts of both choruses in four separate movements as

well as in the alto part and the alto in ripieno part in the first movement of BWV 195

(Appendices 14–19).

Beyond E5’s frequency as the uppermost written note demanded of the alto voice during

Bach’s time in Leipzig, BWV 244 contains a unique moment that strengthens the evidence that

Bach believed a written E5 to represent the upper extreme of a Leipzig alto’s range. During the

first iteration of “Lass ihn kreuzigen,” (45b), written in A-minor, the altos of both choruses sing a

written E5 in measure 42.169 During the second iteration of “Lass ihn kreuzigen,” (50b), Bach

moves the music up one whole-step to B-minor, but instead of having the altos of both choruses

sing a written F-sharp5, Bach displaces the note by an octave in both parts and has the F-sharp

appear as a written F-sharp4 in measure 9.170 Even more importantly, every other voice part in the

reiteration of “Lass ihn kreuzigen” (50b) appears exactly as it did in the first iteration (45b), only

one whole-step higher.171 Bach, astoundingly, only changes the alto voice part, and, likely, in

regard to real or perceived range limitations.172 Reconsidering that a written F-sharp3 appears in

only one movement and in only one of the alto parts in BWV 244 when compared against the

entirety of the seven Leipzig works surveyed in the this study might suggest that the more oft

169 Johann Sebastian Bach, Matthäus-Passion, BWV 244 (Germany: Bärenreiter-Verlag

Karl Vötterle GmbH & Co., 1974), 201 and 202. 170 Ibid., 201–2 and 209–10. 171 Ibid. 172 Ibid.

43

appearing written G3 represents a more realistic low extreme for an alto at Leipzig (Appendices

14–19). Moreover, the written F-sharp3 appears only one time in the entire movement,

specifically measure 132.173 Nevertheless, Bach displaces two different alto parts in 50b in order

to avoid a single instance in the entirety of BWV 244 of a written F-sharp5 (Appendix 14).174 If

Bach took such care in the uppermost written note demanded of a Leipzig alto’s voice, he quite

likely took the same care in the lowest written note demanded of a Leipzig alto’s voice, even if it

only appeared once. Accordingly, this study will maintain that a feasible written range

requirement for an alto voice at Leipzig extended from F-sharp3–E5.

Far less debate surrounds the pitch levels associated with Leipzig than with any other of

Bach’s posts. Bach consistently wrote scores that reflected the same keys as the individual parts,

making it possible to use both scores as well as extant parts to confirm transpositions.175 Pitch

levels in Leipzig also exhibited consistency. Cornet-ton in Leipzig, as in Bach’s previous posts,

sat reliably at A = c. 465Hz, and evidence exists to prove that the small organ at the

Thomaskirche, rebuilt by Compenius, who had built the Frederiksborg organ at A = 470Hz., in

1630, also sat at Cornet-ton.176 Haynes wrote,

We know that the organs at the Thomas- and Nicolai-kirchen on which Kuhnau (and later Bach) alternated Sunday performances were both pitched at the same level, and in 1741 J. A. Silbermann confirmed that the pitch of the Nicolai organ was ‘Cornetthon, wie Erfurt.’ Organ pitch at Leipzig was interconnected to other musical activities in the city through the Stadtpfeiffer and Kunstgeiger. These municipal musicians made up the core of Kuhnau’s and Bach’s instrumental forces for performances at the Thomas- and Nicolaikirchen. By ancient and

173 Bach, Matthäus-Passion, 115. 174 Ibid., 201–2 and 209–10. 175 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 184. 176 Ibid., 215.

44

jealously guarded right, they also provided most other forms of professional music in the city, including the Opera and the Collegia musica.

Haynes further suggested that the Opera in Leipzig may have used tief-Cammerton, as it was

occasionally referred to as Operathon in Leipzig.177 Though only a few woodwinds survive from

Leipzig that represent the varying pitch levels of A = c. 391Hz, A = 405Hz, and A = 413Hz,

eight cornetts of the type likely played by the Stadtpfeifer survive.178 Of these eight cornetts, four

possess the pitch level of A = 466Hz, three have a pitch level of A = 465Hz, and one has the

pitch level of A = 460Hz.179

Haynes’s data complemented Jerold’s findings, as Jerold noted that Bach typically wrote

string, voice, and woodwind parts in Cammerton at Leipzig, while organ, trombone, and parts for

trumpets pitched at Chorton appear a whole-step lower.180 Haynes reaffirmed these findings

when he wrote, “The performing materials for the great majority of Bach’s vocal/instrumental

works at Leipzig are notated a M2 [major second] above the organ parts, so that the strings,

voices, and woodwinds, must have been at A-1 [A = c. 415Hz].”181 This also fits with Bach’s

practices for reworking earlier cantatas for performance at Leipzig. In BWV 12, 21, 192, and

199, cantatas all reworked for performance at Leipzig, the difference in notation between the

parts spans a major second.182 Indeed, the surviving Leipzig parts from BWV 4, another early

177 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 215. 178 Ibid., 215 and 232. 179 Ibid. 180 Jerold, 83. 181 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 239. 182 Ibid., 243.

45

cantata refashioned for Leipzig, contains an organ part written in D-minor, while all the other

surviving parts appear in E-minor.183 Usually an easy process, when Bach refashioned these

earlier cantatas for Leipzig, he transposed the voice and string parts up a whole-step in order to

match the key of the woodwinds, leaving the organ, pitched at A = c. 465Hz, with a part one

whole-step lower than the other parts.184 Bach could not apply this relatively simple transposition

procedure to all of his earlier cantatas. The conversion of cantatas where the interval difference

between the parts extended a minor third required complicated transpositions and, sometimes,

the elimination or replacement of some instruments.185 Nevertheless, Bach refashioned five of

these more complicated type of cantatas (BWV 31, 155, 161, 182, and 185) for Leipzig, and the

end result consistently produced parts, save for the organ, all in the same key.186 This suggests

that the sounding pitch of these cantatas did not change as the organs Bach encountered at

Leipzig all possessed a high Chorton pitch (A = c. 465Hz), while the instrumental ensemble at

Leipzig used a Cammerton a whole step lower (A = c. 415Hz.).187 Martha Elliot confirmed

Bach’s practice for creating scores and parts in Leipzig. She wrote,

Since the organ in Leipzig was tuned particularly high, the continuo parts composed for those performances were usually written a major second lower than the rest of the instrumental parts. In order to be performed in Leipzig, works written in Weimar had to go through another layer of transposition and adaptation in order to be suitable for the instruments.188

183 Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 4, D-LEb Thomana 4, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin –

Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00003219.

184 Haynes, The Story of “A”, 243. 185 Ibid. 186 Ibid. 187 Ibid.

46

In the end, the studies by Haynes and Jerold indicate that Chorton pitch in Leipzig sat one half-

step above A = 440Hz, which, in comparing the high organ parts to the rest of the lower

instrumental and vocal parts, would make the vocal parts sound one half-step lower than they

appear in the score.189

With evidence suggesting that vocal parts at Leipzig sounded one half-step lower than

they appear in the score, this study will present the total written range for an alto voice at Leipzig

(F-sharp3–E5) at A = 415Hz or F3–D-sharp5. As scholars have indicated that extant evidence of

Bach’s refashioning of earlier cantatas for performance at Leipzig preserved the original

sounding pitch, no further calculation concerning earlier cantatas need occur. The total sounding

range at Leipzig (F3–D-sharp5) displays consistency with the sounding ranges from Bach’s

previous posts. Mühlhausen’s sounding range extends from F-sharp3–F5, Weimar’s from F-

sharp3–D-sharp5, and Cöthen’s from F3–D-flat5 (remembering that the sounding Cöthen range

may have sat a quartertone higher). In either case, surveyed vocal works from all four of Bach’s

posts propose a low sounding extreme between F3–F-sharp3, a difference of a half-step. This

half-step gap between the low extremities of Bach’s four posts stands much smaller than the

surveyed gap between the high extremities. With Mühlhausen’s upper sounding extreme at F5,

Weimar’s at D-sharp5, Cöthen’s at D-flat5 (or, possibly, a quartertone higher), and Leipzig at D-

sharp5, the gap between the four posts appears as a major third. This interval could decrease

slightly, depending on if one interprets the pitch at Cöthen to stand at A = c. 390Hz or A = c.

403Hz. Nevertheless, and as previously mentioned, only one sounding F5 appears in BWV 31

188 Elliot, 65. 189 Jerold, 85.

47

from Mühlhausen.190 Removing that note makes the upper extreme of Mühlhausen’s projected

sounding range an E5, only a half-step above the D-sharp5 of Weimar and Leipzig and only a

minor third above Cöthen (D-flat5) (Appendices 1–6). Though we cannot presume that Bach took

the same care in writing his vocal parts in Mühlhausen as he did in Leipzig, if we consider the

previous example from BWV 244 where Bach explicitly avoids forcing the alto voice to make a

single utterance above a sounding D-sharp5, then the sounding F5 of BWV 31 may not appear

haphazardly and actually represent a note that an alto voice that Bach worked with at the time

could likely sing. Leipzig’s upper sounding extreme (D-sharp5), then, sits in the middle of the

above surveyed ranges, suggesting that the total sounding range of F3–D-sharp5 represents a truly

feasible range for an alto voice that Bach might have encountered.

Another important factor in the difference between the ranges at Bach’s four posts likely

represents the differences in the vocalists Bach had access to. Though we know little about

Mühlhausen, Weimar possessed a professional ensemble of adult male voices, Cöthen an

inconsistent ensemble that included female vocalists, and Leipzig most likely depended on the

school choir in Bach’s charge.191 Admittedly, some debate exists concerning the identity of

Bach’s vocalists at Leipzig, however, scholars possess a general agreement with one another.

According to Melamed, Bach’s vocalists consisted of both unchanged boy and male falsetto

voices in Leipzig.192 Elliot also suggested that Bach used schoolboys as his singers and that the

190 Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 71, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 45, Faszikel 1,

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 11, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000877

191 Wolff and Koopman, 145; Wolff, 121, 158, and 193–95; Rifkin, Bach’s Choral Ideal,

24. 192 Melamed, Hearing Bach’s Passions, 5.

48

later changing voices of these schoolboys (at the age of sixteen or seventeen) resulted in stronger

sopranos and altos.193 Elliot believed that in Leipzig Bach likely had both unchanged boy and

male falsetto voices singing alto.194 Elliot also cited the commonality of male falsettists in church

choirs during the Baroque.195 Parrott, on the other hand, argued that the school supplied all four

voice parts (soprano, alto, tenor, and bass) and that the sopranos and altos likely possessed

unchanged voices only.196 Parrott, like Elliot, noted the later age at which boys’ voices in

eighteenth century Germany changed than in many modern cultures, but suggested an even older

age range than Elliot by one or two years, specifically, seventeen or eighteen years of age.197

Simon Ravens cited an even older age of maturation and wrote, “However, Martin Heinrich

Fuhrmann, a Lutheran cantor in Berlin, said that the usual age at which an alto became a tenor

was over eighteen.”198 Still, accounts of Agricola writing about male voices that changed around

the age of thirteen exist.199 Beyond age of maturation concerns, Parrott also suggested that these

boy altos possessed convincing voices since Bach took a particular interest in the schoolboys

whose voices he labeled as “strong” and “quite strong.”200 Rifkin wrote in agreement with

Parrott in the sense that Bach’s vocalists came from the school, highlighting this belief in his

193 Elliot, 84. 194 Ibid. 195 Elliot, 20. 196 Parrott, The Essential Bach Choir, 12 and 13. 197 Parrott, 13; Elliot, 54. 198 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Bach’s Altists and Discantists,” Kindle. 199 Ibid. 200 Parrott, The Essential Bach Choir, 131.

49

translation of Bach’s Entwurff, which reads, “The vocalists in this place made up of pupils from

St. Thomas’s school, and specifically of four sorts, namely sopranos, altos, tenors, and

basses.”201 Rifkin, however, argued against Bach’s use of altos with unchanged voices, but rather

that older students with changed voices sang alto in falsetto.202 Parrott even mentioned that after

entering the Thomasschule, the boys often stayed in residence for six to ten years, long after their

voices would likely have changed, but did not state which voice parts these particular students

sang.203 Twenty-three years of age represented the maximum age for a “student” in attendance at

the Thomasschule, an age group that according to the above scholars likely consisted of

individuals with changed voices.204 Peter Giles, in disagreement with Parrott, made his argument

for adult male falsettists singing alto by citing multiple court and church choral rosters found

around eighteenth century Europe. Giles claimed that in eighteenth century Germany, boys often

sang soprano but falsettists typically sang alto.205 Eighteenth century Germany would not

represent the newest practice of having boys sing only soprano or the highest voice part and adult

men singing the lower voice parts. As previously mentioned, Guillaume Dufay specified that

boys, apparently stipulating for six in his will, should sing the cantus part of his setting of Ave

201 Rifkin, Bach’s Choral Ideal, 24. 202 Rifkin, “The St. Matthew Passion” (lecture, Special Topics in Musicology, Boston

University, Boston, May 4, 2016). 203 Parrott, The Essential Bach Choir, 13. 204 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Bach’s Altists and Discantists,” Kindle. 205 Giles, The Counter Tenor, 47.

50

regina caelorum, and that adult men should cover the lower three voices.206 Dufay, however, did

not mention the pitch level at which the choir of boys and men should sing.207

Other evidence concerning Bach’s altos at Leipzig exists. Johann Mattheson, a Bach

contemporary working in Hamburg, wrote that at their maturation sopranos in his ensemble(s)

usually became tenors and the altos usually became basses, suggesting that Mattheson’s vocal

ensemble(s) had boys (unchanged voices) singing the alto parts.208 Bach also wrote positively of

Johann Gottfried Neucke, who Bach utilized in 1729 as an alto, stating that the fourteen-year-old

possessed a strong voice and “quite fine proficiency.”209 Unfortunately, the 1730 Entwurff lists

Neucke as a soprano utilized for only the older motets, an assignment indicating that the

student’s training had not progressed enough for Bach to allow him to sing in the elite ensemble

that performed the composer’s new cantatas.210 In considering this evidence, Revans argued that

Bach’s altos, at least the ones that sang the cantatas, probably ranged between the ages of fifteen

and twenty-three and that these altos likely used a variety of vocal techniques in order to

successfully navigate the demands of their part.211

In combining these claims, then, this study can suggest several important identifying

features of Bach’s altos in Leipzig. An alto singing for Bach in Leipzig was likely of male

gender and certainly came from the school. Altos, in particular, may have sung in falsetto or may

206 Parrott, “Falsetto beliefs: the ‘countertenor’ cross-examined,” 85. 207 Ibid. 208 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Bach’s Altists and Discantists,” Kindle. 209 Ibid. 210 Ibid. 211 Ibid.

51

have had unchanged voices, or even both.212 As Ravens noted, there may quite likely have

existed a combination of alto voices at the school with both changed and unchanged voices

available for assignment, and perhaps even some altos who used multiple techniques, not always

healthfully, to battle their changing voices.213 Judging by the general demands of Bach’s music at

Leipzig, particularly the passion settings, these students probably, at least the best students,

possessed strong abilities. Finally, these students’ voices changed at a later age (between sixteen

and eighteen years of age, or even beyond) than the average age for voice changes in many

current societies among persons of male gender, which often begins at twelve to thirteen years of

age and usually tapers between fifteen and eighteen years of age.214

212 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Bach’s Altists and Discantists,” Kindle. 213 Ibid. 214 Elliot, 84; Parrott, The Essential Bach Choir, 12 and 13; National Center for Voice

and Speech, Voice Changes Throughout Life, accessed May 22, 2018, http://www.ncvs.org/ncvs/tutorials/voiceprod/tutorial/changes.html.

52

VIII. Altos in eighteenth century Germany

The above estimates concerning the sung alto ranges Bach encountered during his

lifetime allow an initial projection. In combining the estimated ranges from each of Bach’s posts,

an alto in eighteenth century Germany could potentially have had a range that extended from F3–

F-sharp3 on the low extremity to D-flat5–F5 on the high (Table 1).

Table 1, J. S. Bach sounding alto range demands by post Post: Written Alto Range: Sounding Alto Range: Mühlhausen F3–E5 F-sharp3–F5 Weimar F-sharp3–D5 G3–D-sharp5 Cöthen G3–E-flat5 F3–D-flat5 Leipzig F-sharp3–E5 F3–D-sharp5

Total range demands: F3–G3 to D5–E5 F3–F-sharp3 to D-flat5–F5 Source: Appendices 1 – 20 (notated ranges) combined with the following assumptions about the pitch of A: “Sounding Alto Range” (A = 440Hz), Mühlhausen (A = 465Hz), Weimar (A = 465Hz), Cöthen (A = 390Hz), and Leipzig (A = 415Hz); Wolff, 129 and 133. Conceptually, then, an alto from Bach’s time potentially had a two-octave range (F3–F5), though

not a single one of the surveyed works in this study require the alto voice to sing a range that

extends this wide (Table 2).

Table 2, Alto range demands by intervallic expanse Work: Alto range measured by intervallic width: BWV 150 one octave plus a minor sixth BWV 131 one octave plus a perfect fourth BWV 106 one octave plus a minor seventh BWV 71 one octave plus a major sixth BWV 196 one octave plus a perfect fifth BWV 4 one octave plus an augmented fourth BWV 182 one octave plus a perfect fifth BWV 12 one octave plus a perfect fourth BWV 31 one octave plus a major third BWV 165 one octave plus a perfect fourth BWV 155 one octave plus a perfect fourth BWV 161 one octave plus a perfect fifth BWV 134a one octave plus a minor sixth BWV 244 one octave plus a minor seventh BWV 80 one octave plus a major sixth BWV 129 one octave plus a perfect fifth BWV 193 one octave plus a minor third

53

BWV 195 one octave plus a major sixth BWV 198 one octave plus a perfect fifth BWV 225 one octave plus a minor sixth

Source: Appendices 1–20. In reality, an octave plus a minor seventh represents the most expansive range demanded by a

Bach work surveyed in this study while an octave and a minor third represents the smallest

range, neither of which equates a two-octave range demand (Table 2).

The idea of an alto in Bach’s time possessing a two-octave range, however, does not

represent a fallible conjecture. Evidence from Weimar suggests that the falsettist Adam

Immanuel Weldig had a range that, at least, extended from a sounding F-sharp3–G-sharp5.215

Weldig, however, represented a professional singer, a luxury Bach did not always have access

to.216 Interestingly, Martin Geck, a German musicologist, argued that an adult male falsettist

probably sang “Ich folge dir gleichfalls” from BWV 245.217 This aria requires a written range

that extends from D4–A-flat5 (D-flat4–G5 at Leipzig’s probable sung pitch, A = 415Hz) with a

required twenty-two written G5’s (F-sharp5’s at Leipzig’s probable sung pitch, A = 415Hz).218 In

addition, the German musician Johann Samuel Petri wrote about a falsettist with a range that

extended up to a written F6, and Dieterich Buxtehude’s chief sopranist, a falsettist named Hans

Iwe, sang up to a written B5.219 Ravens noted that Buxtehude’s soloists likely consisted of only

215 Wolff, 129 and 133. 216 Wolff and Koopman, 146. 217 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Bach’s Altists and Discantists,” Kindle. 218 Johann Sebastian Bach, Johannespassion, BWV 245, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library,

accessed May 22, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Johannespassion,_BWV_245_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian).

219 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Bach’s Altists and Discantists,” Kindle.

54

adult men.220 Bach even wrote positively of Christian Friedrich Schemelli, a student who sang

soprano for Bach and attended the Thomasschule between the ages of eighteen and twenty-

one.221 Effectively, male falsettists singing soprano occurred during Bach’s time and even in

Bach’s own ensembles, making it completely feasible that a falsettist would have probably had

little trouble singing alto in one of Bach’s ensembles.

The idea of a falsettist comfortably singing alto and even soprano, according to the above

evidence, sounds impossible as many modern falsettists have not demonstrated successful

mastery of a range that copes with the high tessituras noted in the above paragraph.222

Nevertheless, Ravens wrote, “…if the argument is valid that changes in human physiology

account for a Renaissance tenor having a higher voice than his modern counterpart, then by the

same token we would expect a Baroque falsettist to have what we would deem an unfeasibly

high range.”223 This begs the questions, then, what constituted as an alto to Bach and how did

these altos use their voices?

From what evidence exists, Bach would have encountered falsettists singing soprano in

Lübeck in 1705 and encountered castrati and women singing soprano at the Dresden Court.224

Combining this information with Bach’s likely experiences at Weimar, Cöthen, and Leipzig,

when it came to who sang his soprano and alto parts, Bach had experienced the gamut with

everything including unchanged voices (boys), changing voices, mature falsettists, women, and

220 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Bach’s Altists and Discantists,” Kindle. 221 Ibid. 222 Ibid. 223 Ibid. 224 Ibid.

55

castrati.225 This proves little more than Bach’s varied experience with a multitude of voice types

as little evidence exists stating who actually sang what, which probably depended on the

location, as well as an individual’s specific abilities and range. In addition, each of these

individual voice types used their voices differently. Ravens suggested that when it came to

falsettists, the dominating technique belong to the theories of Pier Franceso Tosi, who promoted

a blend of the “modal” and “falsetto” voices.226 Johann Quantz and Agricola agreed with Tosi’s

ideas concerning the needed blend of the modal and falsetto voices and promoted this in

Germany.227 Ravens, however, noted Petri’s suggestion that Tosi’s ideas rarely came to

successful fruition, and falsettists achieving a desirable blending of their vocal registers almost

never occurred.228 Furthermore, Agricola, who served as a copyist for Bach during his teenage

years, criticized Tosi for using terms that do not fully differentiate between head voice and

falsetto, while also stating that a falsettist must sing the lowest notes of their chest voice in

falsetto as well.229

Tosi purported that the transition point for a castrato’s modal and falsetto voices occurred

around a written A4–B4 (describing the lines and spaces on a soprano clef), about a sixth higher

than the usual transition point for female sopranos (C4–D4).230 Tosi, unfortunately, addressed his

225 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Bach’s Altists and Discantists,” Kindle. 226 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Tosi and the bel canto” and “Bach’s Altists and

Discantists,” Kindle. 227 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Bach’s Altists and Discantists,” Kindle. 228 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Tosi and the bel canto,” Kindle. 229 Ibid. 230 James Stark, Bel Canto: A History of Vocal Pedagogy (Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 1999), 61.

56

writings specifically towards the soprano castrato voice and did not specify the sounding pitch

level of the transition point.231 Guilio Caccini’s Le nuove musiche (1602) also included little

about specific register breaks for individual voices.232 Giambattista Mancini also believed that

the voice had two registers and that every voice type (soprano, contralto, tenor, and bass

according to Mancini) could easily discover the place where these registers divide.233 Mancini,

however, only addressed the specifics of the soprano voice and stated that the strongest voices

could reach a written E5 before their transition, less strong voices a written D5, weaker voices a

written C5, and those lacking endurance might only reach a written G-Sharp4 before finding it

difficult to manage their voice.234 Mancini even noted that soprano voices with strong chest

registers but weak head registers could possess a break in their voice that extended from a

written C4 to a written D5.235 Like Tosi, Mancini did not articulate the sounding pitch level or

discuss the register breaks of other voice types, such as an unchanged male voice or an adult

male falsettist, though he did support the need to blend these voices.236 He did, however, state

that one cannot find two physiognomies alike, resulting in the notion that no two voices share the

exact same qualities or features, and, likely, transition points.237 Considering that the purported

231 Stark, 59 and 60. 232 Ibid. 233 Giambattista Mancini and Pietro Buzzi translator, Practical Reflections on the

Figurative Art of Singing (Boston: R. G. Badger, 1912), 58. 234 Ibid., 58 and 59. 235 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Tosi and the bel canto,” Kindle. 236 Ibid. 237 Mancini, 57.

57

written register breaks of soprano voices according to Mancini (stronger voices at C5–E5 and

weaker voices at C4–D5) and Tosi (A4–B4) at A = 440Hz often sit below Bach’s highest written

demands (D5–E5) for the alto voice at A = 440Hz might suggest that Bach’s altos did have to

grapple with the register breaks in their voices. Unfortunately, not enough of the evidence

presented in this study provides definitive information allowing an accurate projection

concerning the register shifts in Bach’s alto voices. Indeed, this pertinent question deserves

further research as part of another study.

From a different perspective, Bach and his altos might have thought about their identity

and vocal technique differently than how modern definitions might try to categorize them.

Ravens wrote, “Perhaps, then, Bach would not quite recognize our own distinction between

‘boy’ and ‘adult’ alto. Perhaps even the distinction between ‘modal’ and ‘falsetto’ is overly

sophisticated for singers who probably had little idea, from week to week, of how they were

producing their voices.”238 The technique of such hybrid singers, likely, resulted in some unique

vocal productions, not always the healthiest, and probably exhibited harsh qualities at various

times and in different registers.239 Even the mature falsettist Weldig certainly sounded quite

different from a modern countertenor.240 In the end, Bach’s altos do not fit into a neat mold of

identity or vocal production, instead they likely embodied a blended identity that crossed from

unchanged voiced boys, to changing adolescents, to adult men, and depending on the situation

238 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Bach’s Altists and Discantists,” Kindle. 239 Ibid. 240 Ibid.

58

may even have included women and castrati, depending on the time, the place, and who was

available to sing.241

241 Ravens, chap. 5, Baroque Europe, “Bach’s Altists and Discantists,” Kindle.

59

IX. Making modern choices

The reality that one can never reproduce the identity or sound quality of an alto Bach

encountered during his lifetime begs the question of how a conductor should cast the alto role in

modern performances of Bach’s music. This question has a much smaller bearing if a conductor

has no interest in attempting to reproduce the ensemble sound that scholars imagine Bach might

have heard. If a conductor does have such a desire, however, the casting of the alto voice carries

much more weight in modern attempts to reproduce such a sound, as no true match exists. In

order to make such a choice, which presumably lies in the scope of this study between the

modern mezzo-soprano, contralto, and countertenor, then one must look at the existing evidence

as a guide that will allow them to make the most viable choice possible.

Though the persons who possess mezzo-soprano, contralto, and countertenor vocal

ranges each exhibit individual ranges and registers, one can cite general range expectations of

each of these voice types. According to Manuel Garcia, a “cultivated” mezzo-soprano possessed

a range that extended from A3–A5, with a possible extension down to G3.242 Owen Jander, J. B.

Steane, Elizabeth Forbes, Ellen T. Harris, and Gerald Waldman’s collective article concerning

the mezzo-soprano confirms Garcia’s proposals and states that the usual range of a mezzo-

soprano extends from A3–F-sharp5, with possible extensions at either end.243 For a contralto,

Garcia cited a “cultivated” range extending from F3–F5, with a possible extension extending from

242 Raymond Chenez, “Vocal Registers of the Countertenor Voice: Based on Signals

Recorded and Analyzed in VoceVista,” Order No. 3477195, The Florida State University, 2011, https://search-proquest-com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/docview/897112692?accountid=2909, 3.

243 Owen Jander, J. B. Steane, Elizabeth Forbes, Ellen T. Harris, and Gerald Waldman,

“Mezzo-soprano,” Grove Music Online, accessed June 21, 2018 from http:////www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000018571.

60

E3–G5.244 Once again, Oxford Music Online confirms this general range, citing a contralto range

generally extending from G3–E5 that, like the mezzo-soprano, can be extended on either end,

particularly in solo material.245 Finally, for a “cultivated” countertenor, Garcia cited a range

extending from F3–E5, with a possible extension reaching from D3–F-sharp5.246 This stands as

similar to what Oxford Music Online suggests as a range for countertenors, stating, “A male high

voice, originally and still most commonly of alto range, though the title is increasingly employed

generically to describe any adult male voice range higher than tenor.”247 It also aligns to some

extent with the ranges of Raymond Chenez’s eleven dissertation subjects (all countertenors).

Chenez wrote, “In regard to upper range, the majority of the participants had a top note of G5.

Two of the participants had a top note of E5. One participant exhibited a rare upper range, which

extended to C6.”248 Chenez noted his eleven subjects could all reach the lower extremity of G3, if

not below, and that one could potentially associate the range of a countertenor to that of a mezzo-

soprano.249 Notably, the mid-twentieth century countertenor, Alfred Deller, said that he preferred

to sing between G3–C5 or D5, though Ravens asserted that the countertenor voice has developed

244 Chenez, 3. 245 Jander, Owen, J.B. Steane, Elizabeth Forbes, Ellen T. Harris, and Gerald Waldman,

“Contralto,” Grove Music Online, accessed June 21, 2018, http:////www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000006365.

246 Chenez, 3. 247 Peter Giles and J.B. Steane, “Countertenor,” Grove Music Online, accessed June 21,

2018, http:////www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000006694.

248 Chenez, 63. 249 Ibid., 64.

61

much in repertory, range, and technique since Deller’s time.250 As no complete consistency exists

between different sources’ suggestions of the average ranges of mezzo-sopranos, contraltos, and

countertenors, this study will take the proposed range possibilities from Garcia, including his

proposed extensions. As noted above, Oxford Music Online effectively confirms Garcia’s beliefs

about mezzo-sopranos and contraltos, and Chenez’s research actually exceeds Garcia’s proposed

upper range extremity and evidences that countertenors can sing below a G3, Deller’s preferred

low range demand. Accordingly, this study will consider that mezzo-sopranos possess a total

possible range of G3–A5, contraltos a range extending from E3–G5, and countertenors from D3–F-

sharp5.251

The other decision and possible complication lies in choosing a performance pitch. As

with choosing a cast of singers, the circumstances surrounding a performance often dictate the

performance pitch. Modern builders tune continuo organs at a variety of pitch levels, including A

= 392, 415, 430, 440, and 466Hz.252 This study, in order to keep consistent with the analysis of

Bach’s performance pitch levels, will consider modern performance options at three pitch levels

or at A = 415Hz, 440Hz, and 465Hz. This study will also consider the ideal combination of pitch

level and modern performer at each of Bach’s posts.

When considering the ideal, the below table (Table 3) reflects the personnel

recommendations under the noted conditions.

250 Ravens, chap. 9, The Modern Counter-tenor, “The Falsettist Counter-Tenor Enters the

Limelight,” Kindle. 251 Chenez, 3. 252 Kenneth Tickell & Company, “Representative Examples of Continuo Organs,”

accessed June 21, 2018, http://www.tickell-organs.co.uk/gallery20.php; Vági Organs, “The Vági Continuo Organs,” accessed June 21, 2018, https://www.vagi.hu.

62

Table 3, Ideal Personnel Recommendations at Bach’s expected pitch levels Recommendation

Post: Written Alto Range:

Ideal Pitch Level:

Sung Alto Range:

Mezzo-soprano (G3–A5)

Contralto (E3–G5)

Countertenor (D3–F-sharp5)

Mühlhausen F3–E5 465Hz F-sharp3–F5 no yes yes Weimar F-sharp3–D5 465Hz G3–D-sharp5 yes yes yes Cöthen G3–E-flat5 390Hz F3–D-flat5 no yes yes Leipzig F-sharp3–E5 415Hz F3–D-sharp5 no yes yes

Source: Appendices 1–20 (written ranges) combined with the following assumptions about the pitch of A: Mühlhausen (A = 465Hz), Weimar (A = 465Hz), Cöthen (A = 390Hz), and Leipzig (A = 415Hz); Wolff, 129 and 133; Chenez, 3. Under ideal performance circumstances, one should only engage a mezzo-soprano to sing Bach’s

alto parts if one chooses to program Weimar cantatas at A = 465Hz, a fairly specific situation

(Table 3). One can, however, feasibly engage either a contralto or countertenor to sing Bach’s

alto parts at ideal pitch levels (Table 3). This provides some flexibility as one may not always

have access to either a countertenor or a contralto voice, and, from evidence associated with

Cöthen, Bach may have used female altos at one point in his career. The previously presented

evidence, however, overwhelmingly suggests that Bach, quite likely, had male vocalists perform

his alto parts, resulting in this study’s recommendation for the engaging of a countertenor over a

contralto if the opportunity to do so presents itself. This allows for the closest authentic casting

possible in modern contexts, as no replica of an alto from Bach’s time exists. As a cautionary

note, specific cantatas have specific ranges just as individual singers have individual ranges,

however, these ideal recommendations provide a feasible guide for organizing performances of

Bach’s music around vocal casting ideals.

More than likely, one will not have the ability to choose the ideal pitch level thought to

exists at each of Bach’s posts. Accordingly, the following table (Table 4) represents the engaging

recommendations for modern performances of Bach’s music at A = 415, 440, and 465Hz.

63

Table 4, Personnel Recommendations at Modern Performance Pitch Levels Recommendation

Post: Written Alto Range:

Pitch Level:

Sung Alto Range:

Mezzo-soprano (G3–A5)

Contralto (E3–G5)

Countertenor (D3–F-sharp5)

Mühlhausen F3–E5 415Hz E3–E-flat5 no yes yes Weimar F-sharp3–D5 415Hz F3–D-flat5 no yes yes Cöthen G3–E-flat5 415Hz G-flat3–D5 no yes yes Leipzig F-sharp3–E5 415Hz F3–D-sharp5 no yes yes

Mühlhausen F3–E5 440Hz F3–E5 no yes yes Weimar F-sharp3–D5 440Hz F-sharp3–D5 no yes yes Cöthen G3–E-flat5 440Hz G3–E-flat5 yes yes yes Leipzig F-sharp3–E5 440Hz F-sharp3–E5 no yes yes

Mühlhausen F3–E5 465Hz F-sharp3–F5 no yes yes Weimar F-sharp3–D5 465Hz G3–D-sharp5 yes yes yes Cöthen G3–E-flat5 465Hz G-sharp3–E5 yes yes yes Leipzig F-sharp3–E5 465Hz G3–F-sharp5 yes yes yes

Source: Table 1; Chenez, 3. Just like the ideal casting recommendations in Table 3 and regardless of the pitch level used in a

modern performance, in a situation where one has choices over the type of vocalist they can

engage or choose to sing Bach’s alto parts, the overwhelming suggestion points to either a

contralto or a countertenor (Table 4). As previously mentioned, due to the notion that Bach

probably used male voices to sing alto parts, even in modern contexts, the performance practice

recommendation from this study suggests the use of a countertenor as the alto voice in all of

Bach’s music. Another factor in this recommendation comes from the early instrument

movement, as modern builders have adopted A = 415Hz as a standard for period instrument

construction.253 Haynes even noted in his 1994 dissertation that in the mid-twentieth century the

“authenticity” of a player fell on their performance of Baroque music at A = 415Hz and that a

253 Mary Cyr, Reinhard G. Pauly, and Inc NetLibrary, Performing Baroque Music

(Portland: Amadeus Press, 1992), 65.

64

wide acceptance of this practice still exists today.254 If one notes the A = 415Hz

recommendations in Table 4, one should exclusively use either a contralto or a countertenor to

best render the alto voice in Bach’s music.

Despite these recommendations that suggest the use of a contralto or countertenor as the

ideal modern alto voice in the works of Bach, with a noted preference for the engagement of a

countertenor, the music of Bach needs a voice in the twenty-first century and beyond. As Mary

Cyr and Reinhard G. Pauly wrote, “In a concert, pitches and temperaments must be chosen

carefully, since retuning is often difficult and impractical. The music and its sonority should be

the player’s ultimate guide.”255 One should not deny anyone or any ensemble the opportunity to

perform a work by Bach simply because they do not represent the perfect or most authentic fit,

for one does not exist. Remembering that to change the pitch level of a piece can ease vocal

production and significantly affect the sonority of a work, Bach’s writing for the alto voice can

feasibly work with mezzo-soprano, contralto, or countertenor voices, though more effectively at

certain pitch levels and with certain voice types.256 Nevertheless, regardless of the available

aforementioned voice types or the available performance pitch level, one should not hesitate to

program Bach’s vocal music and allow all types of alto voices to experience it. This study asserts

that the knowledge of best practice allows one to move forward and not only have a guide on

how to possibly make the best vocal casting choices, for both the singer and the music, but to

have at least part of a concept of the identifying characteristics of Bach’s alto voices, how they

254 Bruce Haynes, “Pitch Standards in the Baroque and Classical Periods,” Order No.

NN08519, Universite de Montreal (Canada), 1995, https://search-proquest-com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/docview/304286532?accountid=2909, xxxi.

255 Cyr, Pauly, and Inc NetLibrary, 65. 256 Ibid, 64.

65

may have used their voices, and at what pitch levels and under what performance circumstances

they likely made music.

66

Bibliography

Bach, Johann Sebastian. BWV 80. D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 177. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Bach digital. Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00001044

———. BWV 129. D-LEb Thomana 129, Faszikel 1. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer

Kulturbesitz. Bach digital. Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00003258

———. BWV 193. D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 62. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer

Kulturbesitz. Bach digital. Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002388.

———. BWV 195. D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 12, Faszikel 3. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin –

Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Bach digital. Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002318.

———. BWV 198. D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 41, Faszikel 1. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin –

Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Bach digital. Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000862.

———. BWV 225. D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 36. Faszikel 2. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin –

Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Bach digital. Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000855.

———. BWV 244. D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 110, Faszikel 1. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin –

Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Bach digital. Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002445.

———. Dem Gerechten muss das Licht, BWV 195. IMSLP Petrucci Music Library. Accessed

February 2, 2018. http://imslp.org/wiki/Dem_Gerechten_muss_das_Licht,_BWV_195_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian).

———. Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80. IMSLP Petrucci Music Library. Accessed

February 2, 2018. http://imslp.org/wiki/Ein_feste_Burg_ist_unser_Gott,_BWV_80_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian).

———. Gelobet sei der Herr, mein Gott, BWV 129. IMSLP Petrucci Music Library. Accessed

February 2, 2018. http://imslp.org/wiki/Gelobet_sei_der_Herr,_mein_Gott,_BWV_129_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian).

67

———. Ihr Tore zu Zion, BWV 193. IMSLP Petrucci Music Library. Accessed February 2,

2018. http://imslp.org/wiki/Ihr_Tore_zu_Zion,_BWV_193_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian). ———. Johannespassion, BWV 245. IMSLP Petrucci Music Library. Accessed May 22, 2018.

http://imslp.org/wiki/Johannespassion,_BWV_245_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian). ———. Lass, Fürstin, lass noch einen Strahl, BWV 198. IMSLP Petrucci Music Library.

February 2, 2018. http://imslp.org/wiki/Lass,_Fürstin,_lass_noch_einen_Strahl,_BWV_198_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian).

———. Matthäus-Passion, BWV 244. Germany: Bärenreiter-Verlag Karl Vötterle GmbH &

Co., 1974. ———. Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied, BWV 225. IMSLP Petrucci Music Library. February

2, 2018. http://imslp.org/wiki/Singet_dem_Herrn_ein_neues_Lied,_BWV_225_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian).

Brown, Howard Mayer and Stanley Sadie. Performance Practice. New York: W.W. Norton,

1990. Chenez, Raymond. “Vocal Registers of the Countertenor Voice: Based on Signals Recorded and

Analyzed in VoceVista.” Order No. 3477195, The Florida State University, 2011. https://search-proquest-com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/docview/897112692?accountid=2909.

Cotton, Sandra. “Voice Classification and Fach: Recent, Historical and Conflicting Systems of

Voice Categorization.” Order No. 3259674, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2007. https://search.proquest.com/docview/304833358?accountid=2909.

Cyr, Mary, Reinhard G. Pauly, and Inc NetLibrary. Performing Baroque Music. Portland:

Amadeus Press, 1992. Dürr, Alfred. Studien über Die frühen Kantaten Johann Sebastian Bachs. [2. Auflage],

Verbesserte und erweiterte Fassung der im Jahr 1951 erschienenen Dissertation ed. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1977.

———. The cantatas of J.S. Bach: With their librettos in German-English parallel text. New

York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Elliott, Martha. Singing in Style: A Guide to Vocal Performance Practices. New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press, 2006. Giles, Peter. A Basic Countertenor Method for Teacher and Student. Rev. ed. London: Kahn &

Averil, 2005.

68

———. The Counter Tenor. London, UK: Frederick Muller Limited, Dataday House, 1982. ———. The History and Technique of the Counter-Tenor: A Study of the Male High Voice

Family. Aldershot, England: Scolar Press, 1994. Giles, Peter, and J.B. Steane. “Countertenor.” Grove Music Online. Accessed June 21, 2018.

http:////www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000006694.

Haynes, Bruce. A History of Performing Pitch: The Story of “A”. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow

Press, 2002. ———. “Pitch Standards in the Baroque and Classical Periods.” Order No. NN08519, Universite

de Montreal (Canada), 1995. https://search-proquest-com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/docview/304286532?accountid=2909.

Jander, Owen, J. B. Steane, Elizabeth Forbes, Ellen T. Harris, and Gerald Waldman. “Mezzo-

soprano.” Grove Music Online. Accessed June 21, 2018 from http:////www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000018571.

———. “Contralto.” Grove Music Online. Accessed June 21, 2018.

http:////www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000006365.

Jerold, Beverly. “Pitch in the Vocal Works of J. S. Bach.” Bach, vol. 31, no. 1 (July 2000): 74-

95. Accessed January 31, 2018. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=99814607&site=ehost-live.

Kenneth Tickell & Company. “Representative Examples of Continuo Organs.” Accessed June

21, 2018. http://www.tickell-organs.co.uk/gallery20.php. Mancini, Giambattista and Pietro Buzzi translator. Practical Reflections on the Figurative Art of

Singing. Boston: R. G. Badger, 1912. McGinnis, Pearl Yeadon and Marith McGinnis Willis. The Opera Singer's Career Guide:

Understanding the European Fach System. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press, 2010. Melamed, Daniel R., Michael Marissen, and Ohio Library and Information Network. An

Introduction to Bach Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006; 1998;. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304923.001.0001.

———. Bach Studies 2. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

69

———. Hearing Bach’s Passions. NY: Oxford University Press, 2005. ———. J.S. Bach and the German Motet. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Mendel, Arthur. “On the Pitches in Use in Bach’s Time – I.” Musical Quarterly 41, no. 3 (July 1,

1955): 332–354. Accessed February 1, 2018. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1290827481?accountid=2909.

———. Pitch in Western Music since 1500: A Re-Examination. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1979. National Center for Voice and Speech. Voice Changes Throughout Life. Accessed May 22, 2018.

http://www.ncvs.org/ncvs/tutorials/voiceprod/tutorial/changes.html. Parrott, Andrew. The Essential Bach Choir. Suffolk, UK: The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2000. ———. “Falsetto beliefs: the ‘countertenor’ cross-examined.” Early Music 43, no. 1 (February

2015): 79-110. Accessed February 6, 2018. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=101371249&site=ehost-live.

Ravens, Simon. The Supernatural Voice: A History of High Male Singing. Suffolk: Boydell

Press, 2014. Kindle. Rifkin, Joshua. Bach’s Choral Ideal. Dortmund: Klangfarben Musikverlag, 2002. ———. “The St. Matthew Passion.” Lecture. Special Topics in Musicology. Boston University. Boston. May 4, 2016. Shabalina, Tatiana. “Recent Discoveries in St. Petersburg and their Meaning for the

Understanding of Bach’s Cantatas.” Understanding Bach, vol. 4, p. 77-99. Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.bachnetwork.org/ub4/shabalina.pdf.

Stark, James. Bel Canto: A History of Vocal Pedagogy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,

1999. Vági Organs. “The Vági Continuo Organs.” Accessed June 21, 2018. https://www.vagi.hu. “Voice.” In The Harvard Dictionary of Music, edited by Don Michael Randel. 4th ed. Harvard

University Press, 2003. https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/harvdictmusic/voice/0

Wolff, Christoph. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician. 1st ed. New York: W.W.

Norton & Co, 2000. Wolff, Christoph and Ton Koopman. The World of the Bach Cantatas. New York: Norton, 1997.

70

Wolff, Christoph and Walter Emery. “Bach, Johann Sebastian.” Grove Music Online. May 15, 2018. http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-6002278195.

71

Appendices

Appendix 1 J. S. Bach, Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, notated alto range demands Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150 (before 1707?)257 Alto Range: 2. Chorus: “Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich” F-sharp3 – C-sharp5 4. Chorus: “Leite mich in deiner Wahrheit” B3 – C-sharp5 5. Aria: “Zedern müssen von den Winden” B3 – D5 6. Chorus: “Meine Augen sehen stets zu dem Herrn” B3 – C-sharp5 7. Chorus: “Meine Tage in dem Leide” F-sharp3 – D5

Total range demands: F-sharp3 – D5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 11, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Nach_dir,_Herr,_verlanget_mich,_BWV_150_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 150, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 1044, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 11, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002001.

Appendix 2 J. S. Bach, Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, BWV 131, notated alto range demands Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, BWV 131 (1707)258 Alto Range: 1. Chorus: “Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir” F-sharp3 – C5 3. Chorus: “Ich harre des Herrn, meine Seele harret” G3 – C5 4. Aria e chorale: “Meine Seele wartet auf den Herrn von einer Morgenwache”

G3 – G4

5. Chorus: “Israel hoffe auf den Herrn; denn bei dem Herrn” G3 – C5 Total range demands: G3 – C5

Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, BWV 131, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 11, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Aus_der_Tiefe_rufe_ich,_Herr,_zu_dir,_BWV_131_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian).

Appendix 3 J. S. Bach, Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit, BWV 106, notated alto range demands Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit, BWV 106 (1707?)259 Alto Range: 2a. Chorus: “Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit” B-flat3 – C5 2d. Chorus and Solo: “Es ist der alte Bund…” F3 – E-flat5

257 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 11. 258 Ibid., 11. 259 Ibid.

72

3a. Aria: “In deine Hände befehl ich meinen Geist du hast mich erlöset, Herr, du getreuer Gott”

B-flat3 – E-flat5

3b. Arioso and chorale: “Heute wirst du mit mir im Paradies sein…”

B-flat3 – C5

4. Chorus: “Glorie, Lob, Ehr und Herrlichkeit” G3 – C5 Total range demands: F3 – E-flat5

Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit, BWV 106, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 11, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Gottes_Zeit_ist_die_allerbeste_Zeit,_BWV_106_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian).

Appendix 4 J. S. Bach, Gott ist mein König, BWV 71, notated alto range demands Gott ist mein König, BWV 71 (1708)260 Alto Range: 1. Chorus: “Gott ist mein König” G3 – C5 3. Chorus: “Dein Alter sei wie deine Jugend” G-sharp3 – C5 5. Aria: “Durch mächtige Kraft” C4 – E5 6. Chorus: “Du wollest dem Feinde nicht geben” B-flat3 – C5 7. Chorus: “Das neue Regiment auf jeglichen Wegen” G3 – C5

Total range demands: G3 – E5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Gott ist mein König, BWV 71, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 11, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Gott_ist_mein_König,_BWV_71_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 71, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 45, Faszikel 1, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 11, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000877.

Appendix 5 J. S. Bach, Der Herr denket an uns, BWV 196, notated alto range demands Der Herr denket an uns, BWV 196 (c. 1708/9?)261 Alto Range: 2. Chorus: “Der Herr denket an uns und segnet uns” B3 – C5 5. Chorus: “Ihr seid die Gesegneten des Herrn” G3 – D5

Total range demands: G3 – D5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Der Herr denket an uns, BWV 196, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 12, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Der_Herr_denket_an_uns,_BWV_196_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 196, D-B Am.B 102-104, Faszikel 2, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000456.

260 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 11. 261 Ibid.

73

Appendix 6 J. S. Bach, Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, notated alto range demands Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 (c. 1707-1713?)262 Alto Range: Versus 1. Chorus: “Christ lag in Todes Banden, Halleluja” G3 – C-sharp5 Versus 2. Aria Duetto: “Den Tod niemand zwingen kunnt” A3 – C-sharp5 Versus 4. Chorus: “Es war ein wunderlicher Krieg” B3 – C-sharp5 Versus 7. Chorale: “Wir essen und leben wohl” B3 – B4

Total range demands: G3 – C-sharp5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 12, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Christ_lag_in_Todes_Banden,_BWV_4_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 4, D-LEb Thomana 4, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00003219.

Appendix 7 J. S. Bach, Himmelskönig, sei willkommen, BWV 182, notated alto range demands Himmelskönig, sei willkommen, BWV 182 (1714)263 Alto Range: 2. Chorus: “Himmelskönig, sei willkommen” A3 – C5 5. Aria: “Leget euch dem Heiland unter” A3 – D5 7. Chorale: “Jesu, deine Passion ist mir lauter Freude” G3 – D5 8. Chorus: “So lasset uns gehen in Salem der Freuden” G3 – D5

Total range demands: G3 – D5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Himmelskönig, sei willkommen, BWV 182, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 12, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Himmelskönig,_sei_willkommen,_BWV_182_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 182, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 103, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000970.

Appendix 8 J. S. Bach, Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen, BWV 12, notated alto range demands Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen, BWV 12 (1714)264 Alto Range: 2. Chorus: “Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen” C3 – C5 2b. Chorus: “Die das Zeichen Jesu tragen” A-flat3 – C5 3. Recitative: “Wir müssen durch viel Trübsal” C3 – D-flat5 4. Aria: “Kreuz und Kronen sind verbunden” B-flat3 – C5

262 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 11. 263 Ibid., 14. 264 Ibid.

74

7. Chorale: “Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan” B-flat3 – C5 Total range demands: A-flat3 – D-flat5

Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen, BWV 12, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 12, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Weinen,_Klagen,_Sorgen,_Zagen,_BWV_12_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 12, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 44, Faszikel 7, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000876.

Appendix 9 J. S. Bach, Der Himmel lacht! Die Erde jubilieret, BWV 31, alto notated range demands Der Himmel lacht! Die Erde jubilieret, BWV 31 (1715)265 Alto Range: 2. Chorus: “Der Himmel lacht! Die Erde jubilieret” G3 – B4 9. Chorale: “So fahr ich hin zu Jesu Christ” A3 – B-flat4

Total range demands: G3 – B4 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Der Himmel lacht! Die Erde jubilieret, BWV 31, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 12, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Der_Himmel_lacht!_die_Erde_jubiliert,_BWV_31_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 31, PL-Kj Mus. ms. Bach St 14, Faszikel 3, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00003858.

Appendix 10 J. S. Bach, O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165, notated alto range demands O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165 (1715)266 Alto Range: 3. Aria: “Jesu, der aus großer Liebe” A3 – D5 6. Chorale: “Sein Wort, sein Tauf, sein Nachtmahl” B3 – G4

Total range demands: A3 – D5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 12, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/O_heilges_Geist-_und_Wasserbad,_BWV_165_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 165, D-B Am.B 105, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000458.

Appendix 11 J. S. Bach, Mein Gott, wie lang, ach lange?, BWV 155, notated alto range demands Mein Gott, wie lang, ach lange?, BWV 155 (1716)267 Alto Range:

265 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 14. 266 Ibid. 267 Ibid.

75

2. Aria: “Du mußt glauben, du mußt hoffen” B3 – D5 5. Chorale: “Ob sich's anließ, als wollt er nicht” A3 – B-flat4

Total range demands: A3 – D5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Mein Gott, wie lang, ach lange?, BWV 155, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 12, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Mein_Gott,_wie_lang,_ach_lange,_BWV_155_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 155, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 129, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000996.

Appendix 12 J. S. Bach, Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161, notated alto range demands Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161 (1716)268 Alto Range: 1. Aria: “Komm, du süße Todesstunde” G3 – D5 4. Recitative: “Der Schluß ist schon gemacht” A3 – D5 5. Chorus: “Wenn es meines Gottes Wille” B3 – C5 6. Chorale: “Der Leib zwar in der Erden” A3 – A5

Total range demands: G3 – D5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 12, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Komm,_du_süsse_Todesstunde,_BWV_161_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 161, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 124, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000991.

Appendix 13 J. S. Bach, Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a, notated alto range demands Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a (1719)269 Alto Range: 1. Recitative: “Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht” B-flat3 – D5 3. Recitative: “So bald, als dir die Sternen hold” B-flat3 – E-flat5 4. Aria: “Es streiten, es siegen, die künftigen Zeiten” B-flat3 – E-flat5 5. Recitative: “Bedenke nur, beglücktes Land” B-flat3 – E-flat5 6. Aria: “Der Zeiten Herr hat viel vergnügte Stunden” G3 – E-flat5 7. Recitative: “Hilf, Höchster, hilf, daß mich die Menschen preisen”

D4 – D5

8. Chorus: “Ergetzet auf Erden, erfreuet von oben” G3 – E-flat5 Total range demands: G3 – E-flat5

Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach and Alfred Dürr, Festmusiken für Die Fürstenhäuser Von Weimar, Weissenfels Und Köthen, Vol. Bd. 35 (New York: Bärenreiter, 1963), 51–94; Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 134a, D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 18, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin –

268 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 14. 269 Ibid., 21.

76

Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002326.

Appendix 14 J. S. Bach, Matthäus-Passion, BWV 244, notated range demands for Chorus I and II altos Matthäus-Passion, BWV 244 Chorus I Alto

Range: Chorus II Alto Range:

1. Chorus: “Kommt ihr Töchter…” A3 – E5 C-sharp4 – E5 3. Chorale: “Herzliebster Jesu…” C-sharp4 – D5 C-sharp4 – D5 4b. Chori: “Ja nicht auf…” D4 – C5 C4 – C5 4d. Chori: “Wozu dienet…” B3 – C5 X 5. Recitativo: “Du lieber…” B3 – D5 X 6. Aria: “Buss und Reu…” B-sharp3 – E5 X 9b. Chori: “Wo…” D4 – D5 X 9e. Chori: “Herr, bin ichs…” E-flat4 – D-flat5 X 10. Chorale: “Ich bins, ich sollte büßen…” B-flat3 – C5 B-flat3 – C5 15. Chorale: “Erkenne mich, mein Hüter…” D4 – C5 D4 – C5 17. Chorale: “Ich will hier bei…” D4 – C5 D4 – C5 19. Recitativo: “O Schmerz!” Chorale: “Was ist die Ursach…”

X G3 – Bb4

20. Aria: “Ich will bei meinem Jesu wachen…” (with Chorus II)

X G3 – D5

25. Chorale: “Was mein Gott will…” D4 – B4 D4 – B4 27a. Aria: “So ist mein Jesus…” (SA duet with Chorus II) B3 – E5 E4 – D5 27b. Chori: “Sind Blitze…” G3 – E5 F-sharp3 – D5 29. Chorus: “O Mensch, bewein…” G-sharp3 – D-

sharp5 G-sharp3 – D-sharp5

30. Aria: “Ach, nun ist mein Jesus…” (Alto with Chorus II)270

A-sharp3 – E5 C-sharp4 – D5

32. Chorale: “Mir hat die Welt…” D4 – C5 D4 – C5 33. Recitativo: Alto Testis, “Er hat gesagt…” X C4 – E-flat5 36b. Chori: “Er ist des Todes…” C4 – B4 C4 – D5 36d. Chori: “Weissage…” E4 – D5 C4 – D5 37. Chorale: “Wer hat dich…” G3 – A4 G3 – A4 38b. Chori: “Wahrlich…” X B3 – D5 39. Aria: “Erbarme dich…” B3 – E5 X 40. Chorale: “Bin ich gleich von dir gewichen…” E4 – B4 E4 – B4 41b. Chori: “Was gehet uns das an?” E4 – B4 B3 – B4 44. Chorale: “Befiehl du deine Wege…” B3 – A4 B3 – A4

270 Joshua Rifkin noted that early versions of this movement employed the bass from

Chorus I, not the alto. Bach revised the part for the alto in 1736, from Joshua Rifkin, “The St. Matthew Passion” (lecture, Special Topics in Musicology, Boston University, Boston, May 4, 2016).

77

45a. Chori: “Barrabam!” C5 A4 45b. Chori: “Laß ihn kreuzigen.” C-sharp4 – E5 C-sharp4 – E5 46. Chorale: “Wie wunderbarlich…” B3 – C-sharp5 B3 – C-sharp5 50b. Chori: “Laß ihn kreuzigen.” D-sharp4 – E5 D-sharp4 – E5 50d. Chori: “Sein Blut komme…” B3 – E5 B3 – E5 51. Recitativo: “Erbarm es Gott!” X C4 – E5 52. Aria: “Können Tränen…” X C4 – E-flat5 53b. Chori: “Gegrüßet…” F4 – D5 D4 – D5 54. Chorale: “O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden…” D4 – C5 D4 – C5 58b. Chori: “Der du den Tempel…” D4 – D5 D4 – D5 58d. Chori: “Andern hat er geholfen…” B-flat3 – C5 B-flat3 – C5 59. Recitativo: “Ach Golgatha…” C4 – E-flat5 X 60. Aria: “Sehet…” (with Chorus II) G3 – E-flat5 F4 – B-flat4 61b. Chori: “Der rufet dem Elias!” G4 – C5 X 61d. Chori: “Halt!” X G4 – C5 62. Chorale: “Wenn ich einmal soll scheiden…” A3 – B4 A3 – B4 63b. Chori: “Wahrlich, dieser ist Gottes…” E-flat4 – D-flat5 E-flat4 – D-flat5 66b. Chori: “Herr, wir haben gedacht…” C4 – E-flat5 C4 – E-flat5 67. Recitativo: “Nun is der Herr…” (with Chorus II) C4 – E-flat5 C4 – C5 68. Chorus: “Wir setzen un smit Tränen…” G3 – E-flat5 G3 – D-flat5

Total range demands: G3 – E5 F-sharp3 – E5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 244, D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 110, Faszikel 1, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Bach digital, accessed February 2, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002445; Johann Sebastian Bach, Matthäus-Passion, BWV 244. Germany: Bärenreiter-Verlag Karl Vötterle GmbH & Co., 1974.

Appendix 15

J. S. Bach, Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80, notated alto range demands Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80 (based on BWV 80a from 1715, possibly between 1728–1731, 1735?)271

Alto Range:

1. Chorus: “Ein feste Burg…” G3 – D5 5. Chorale: “Und wenn die Welt…” D4 – D5 7. Duet: “Wie selig sind doch die…” G3 – E5 8. Chorale: “Das Wort sie sollen…” A3 – B4

Total range demands: G3 – E5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed February 2, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Ein_feste_Burg_ist_unser_Gott,_BWV_80_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 80, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 177, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed February 2, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00001044.

271 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 709.

78

Appendix 16

J. S. Bach, Gelobet sei der Herr, mein Gott, BWV 129, notated alto range demands Gelobet sei der Herr, mein Gott, BWV 129 (1727)272 Alto Range: 1. Chorus: “Gelobet sei der Herr…” A3 – D5 4. Aria: “Gelobet…der ewig lebet…” D4 – E5 5. Chorale: “Dem wir das Heilig jetzt…” A3 – B4

Total range demands: A3 – E5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Gelobet sei der Herr, mein Gott, BWV 129, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed February 2, 2016, http://imslp.org/wiki/Gelobet_sei_der_Herr,_mein_Gott,_BWV_129_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 129, D-LEb Thomana 129, Faszikel 1, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed February 2, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00003258.

Appendix 17 J. S. Bach, Ihr Pforten zu Zion, BWV 193, notated alto range demands Ihr Pforten zu Zion, BWV 193 (possibly 1727 or later)273 Alto Range: 1. Chorus: “Ihr Pforten zu Zion…” C-sharp4 – E5 4. Recitativo: “O Leipziger Jerusalem…” C-sharp4 – E5 5. Aria: “Sende Herr…” D4 – E5 7. Chorus: “Ihr Pforten zu Zion…” (Chorus ab initio repetatur)

C-sharp4 – E5

Total range demands: C-sharp4 – E5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Ihr Tore zu Zion, BWV 193, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed February 2, 2016, http://imslp.org/wiki/Ihr_Tore_zu_Zion,_BWV_193_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 193, D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 62, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed February 2, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002388.

Appendix 18 J. S. Bach, Dem Gerechten muss das Licht, BWV 195, notated alto range demands Dem Gerechten muss das Licht, BWV 195 (possibly 1727–32, performed 1736)274

Alto Range: Alto (in rip.) Range:

272 Tatiana Shabalina, “Recent Discoveries in St. Petersburg and their Meaning for the

Understanding of Bach’s Cantatas,” Understanding Bach, vol. 4, p. 77-99, accessed February 2, 2018, https://www.bachnetwork.org/ub4/shabalina.pdf, 85–87.

273 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 731. 274 Ibid., 754 and 755.

79

1. Chorus: “Dem Gerechten…” A3 – E5 A3 – E5 5. Chorus: “Wir kommen, deine Heiligkeit…” A3 – D5 C-sharp4 – D5 6. Chorale: “Nun danket all’ und bringet Ehr’…” G3 – B4 G3 – B4

Total range demands: G3 – E5 G3 – E5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Dem Gerechten muss das Licht, BWV 195, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed May 2, 2016, http://imslp.org/wiki/Dem_Gerechten_muss_das_Licht,_BWV_195_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 195, D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 12, Faszikel 3, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed February 2, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002318.

Appendix 19 J. S. Bach, Trauerode: Laß, Fürstin, laß noch ein Strahl, BWV 198, notated alto range demands Trauerode: Laß, Fürstin, laß noch ein Strahl, BWV 198 (1727)275

Alto Range:

1. Chorus: “Laß, Fürstin, laß noch ein Strahl…” A3 – E5 4. Recitativo: “Der Glocken bebendes Getön…” C-sharp4 – Eb5 5. Aria: “Wie starb die Heldin so vergnügt…” (tons of E5) B3 – E5 7. Chorus: “An dir, du Vorbild grosser Frauen…” A3 – E5 10. Chorus: “Doch, Königin! du stirbest nicht…” B3 – E5

Total range demands: A3 – E5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 198, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 41, Faszikel 1, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed February 2, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000862.

Appendix 20

J. S. Bach, Singet dem Herr ein neues Lied, BWV 225, notated alto range demands Singet dem Herr ein neues Lied, BWV 225 (1726 or 1727)276

Chorus I Alto Range:

Chorus II Alto Range:

1. “Singet dem Herr…” G3 – E-flat5 A3 – E-flat5 2. Choir I: “Gott nimm dich…” Choir II: “Wie sich ein…” C4 – D5 Bb3 – C5 3. Chorus: “Lobet den Herrn…” B-flat3 – D5 A3 – D5

Total range demands: G3 – E-flat5 A3 – E-flat5 Source: Data from Johann Sebastian Bach, Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied, BWV 225, IMSLP Petrucci Music Library, accessed February 2, 2018, http://imslp.org/wiki/Singet_dem_Herrn_ein_neues_Lied,_BWV_225_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian); Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 225, D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 36, Faszikel 2, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bach digital, accessed February 2, 2018, https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00000855.

275 Dürr, The cantatas of J.S. Bach, 865. 276 Melamed, J.S. Bach and the German Motet, 102.