>This move to the sixth instead of the octave may well be a
>characteristic of the late c17th German suite style, as you can find
>similar examples in Reincken (eg B&H edition p.24 bar 5), Buxtehude
Blast! More holes in my library!
> The Bohm example quoted sounds fine to me, but it's a piece I've
>performed a great deal in the last 20 years, so have got used to it,
>perhaps. I'm more concerned about two other passages (p.47 bar 12
>tenor fifth note, Bb instead of D to maintain the sequence?;
That certainly makes more sense to me too.
>alto G instead of F? - compare the Double; or vice-versa).
After the "Neapolitan" (?) chord, I think almost anything goes! I see no
harm in a dominant seventh which resolves conventionally. That this is not
repeated in the double doesnt worry me either. Am I inconsistent? Well
then, I am!
> And of the
>course there's the problematic rhythmic interpretation of the Gigue
>(I've got used to 12/8, very fast).
Ferguson has some interesting stuff on this on p.12/13 of his Vol I. He
has a comparison of Frobeger's Gigue from Suite VII in the composer's
autograph (C) and the Bauyn m/s (3). Very different the rhythms are,
too. Nonetheless, I think he is stretching things a little when he
proposes in Boehm's gigue that four equal 1/16ths in 2/4 should be played
as a dotted 1/8th and 3 1/16ths in 6/8 (think about it!).
>Just to inject some controversy, this suite - like so much of the
>mid-Baroque German suite repertoire - has always seemed to me to be
>archetypal clavichord music (although it sounds very good on
Yes. Leonhardt plays two very effectively on clavichord on his Sony Boehm CD.