> Andrew and others commented on Prof. Jarvis conclusions on Bach works
authorship.
I apologise for coming back to this matter.
By chance today I found online the relevant newspaper article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2808296/Did-Bach-s-wife-write-compos
er-s-finest-works.html
I read it and was really surprised. There are four initial bullets:
"+ Bach's second wife composed some of his finest works, academics say
+ Study of handwriting on Bach's work suggests she was behind the music
+ Researchers know Mrs Bach helped husband write in his later years
+ But forensic analysis 'proves' she was composing the scores herself"
Let me quote relevant sentences from the article's main body:
"... Martin Jarvis, professor of music at Charles Darwin University in
Australia, has spent years compiling evidence, ...
Heidi Harralson, a forensic document examiner, said she believed the
composer was more likely to be Anna than Bach himself, saying she was as
sure as possible 'within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty'."
So far it all looks impressive. Scientific certainty! As for how this
certainty is reached, the explanation is given as follows:
"Anna is already known to have transcribed for Bach in his later years, but
researchers found the handwriting did not have the 'slowness or heaviness'
of someone who is merely copying. They concluded that the handwriting
suggested she had composed the scores herself. The experts also pointed to
numerous corrections to music written in her hand, signalling she is likely
to have been composing it as she went along."
I find this preposterous. The "they concluded" is a ridiculous jumping to
conclusion. Actually, in the several well-known studies, some written by
world renowned specialist, intended to prove Bach authorship (or lack, we
will not find such an argument. This is simply because it is worthless:
authorship is proved by the attempt to identify the original(s) source(s),
normally by reconstructing the "tree of copies", and by the analysis of
musical styles and other musical manners typical of the composer.
Here instead we are just told that copies of works by "Bach in his later
years" 1] are lacking the "slowness of someone who is merely copying"
(first time I read this type of argument) and 2] show "numerous
corrections": this could be due to many causes, surely one of them being
that she was not in her prime either. I fail to see in these arguments nost
just "scientific proof" but not even the slightest piece of valid evidence.
I hope that Prof. Jarvis has some better musicogical arguments: the ones
shown in this article, supposedly approved by him, appear to be very shaky
to say the least.
CDV
http://play.braybaroque.ie/
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Note: opinions expressed on HPSCHD-L are those of the individual con-
tributors and not necessarily those of the list owners nor of the Uni-
versity of Iowa. For a brief summary of list commands, send mail to
[log in to unmask] saying HELP .
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
