On Teaching

Gavin Black is Director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center in Princeton, New Jersey. In the spring of 2011, he will be playing recitals around the Northeast. Details and contact information can be found at gavinblack-baroque.com.

Buxtehude BuxWV 141 – Part 5
So far we have looked at the first three—or possibly four—of what might be seven or eight sections of the Buxtehude Praeludium in E Major, BuxWV 141. (As I discussed in the column of June 2010, there are a number of different ways of counting sections, depending on choices about how to count brief changes of texture at cadences and several other such issues. Are mm. 47–50 their own section? This does not really matter when it comes to understanding or learning the piece.) Several sections remain, and, as with the three already discussed, they display considerable contrast in texture—where that means primarily the extent to which the texture is or isn’t contrapuntal—rhythm, tempo, meter, and mood. Three sections—mm. 60–72, 75–86, and 91 to the end—are truly contrapuntal. The latter two are real fugues or fughettas, constructed quite rigorously from their subjects; the first could probably also be analyzed as a fugue, but really comes across as a sort of contrapuntal mosaic derived from very short motifs.
The other measures—mm. 73–74 and 87–90—are non-contrapuntal. This does not mean that they fail to follow the normal rules of voice-leading when there is more than one note sounding. It means that they are not essentially constructed through the impulses and imperatives of imitative counterpoint, and that the listener’s ears will not respond to them primarily by following an interaction between independent melodies. The first of these sections, mm. 73 and 74, resembles the trillo longo section discussed at length in the November 2010 column. The passage in mm. 87–90 is a texture new to the piece, something like a four-voice chorale, though not with the aesthetic of any chorale meant to be sung.
In this month’s column I will talk about all but the last of the remaining sections. That section, mm. 90 to the end, will be the subject of next month’s column, which will also include some overall thoughts about this Praeludium and the act of learning it.

Measures 60–72
The passage beginning in m. 60 is a contrapuntal section in three voices. It is noteworthy for several things. It is the first section of the piece to have a tempo marking—Presto. Since this section immediately follows one that is essentially unmeasured, it is quite possible that the function of this tempo marking is more to make clear to the player that we are back to measured and regular music than to suggest a specific speed. Of course, it does at least place the music in the realm of “fast” rather than “slow”. This section is in three voices, with the exception of a few beats where a fourth voice briefly appears. (Two of those beats are at mm. 65–66; the other two are part of the cadential measure, m. 72.) The lowest of those voices has a compass that would not have been playable on the pedalboard of Buxtehude’s time. Therefore it is almost certainly not a pedal line, even though it would fall under the feet fairly well. Oddly, the lowest voice does not go very low. Its lowest note is tenor D-sharp, more than an octave above the lowest note of the manual organ compass. Therefore the entire section has a “high” feeling to it.
The section opens as shown in Example 1. This could be read as the opening of a fugue exposition, with a measure-long subject in stretto with itself from the very beginning. However, as the section unfolds, each of the two halves of this theme (Examples 2 and 3) occurs more often by itself than paired with the other half. (The whole theme occurs six times, one or another half occurs separately sixteen times.) Furthermore, two other short themes are introduced, each of which occurs nine times (Examples 4 and 5).
These four short motifs, including the quarter-note that ends each one, account for by far most of the notes of this section. It is this pattern of four short motifs each recurring many times, not really coalescing into “subject” and “countersubject”, which leads me to describe the section as a contrapuntal mosaic. Since for the performer the important point about this kind of analysis is to allow the mind and the ears to know without fail what is coming up next in the piece, the act of going through the score and highlighting each of the motifs is probably worthwhile.

Hand choices
Since the lowest of the three voices is quite high in compass, it is not surprising that the middle voice can fit—almost every note of it—at least reasonably well in either hand. Therefore, this a good passage for a student to use in practicing the art of making hand choices—something that was discussed at some length in last month’s column, though in the context of a very different piece. Here it is possible for the student to play the lower two voices all the way through in just the left hand—omitting just a few notes of the middle voice, in m. 67 for example. Then it is also possible to play the upper two voices in the right hand, again being required to omit only a few notes. Neither of these is at all likely to be the best way to play the passage, of course. The next step is to go through and figure out what choice of hand actually works best for the middle voice as it goes along. This will be different from one student to another, based on existing fingering habits, details of hand size and shape, and musical goals. Any student should be able to work this out essentially for him- or herself, and it is a good exercise to do so.
Once the hand choices have been worked out, since this is a contrapuntal section, the player should practice the middle voice alone with the correct fingering, in order to make the transitions from one hand to another seem as smooth and natural as possible. This can supplement the usual practicing of individual voices and pairs of voices.
(In the few beats where Buxtehude has violated the voice structure by adding anomalous extra notes, it is fine to fudge the voice practicing a bit—omit the extra notes, or expand the voice that you are playing to included, briefly, two notes. As long as the student is aware of doing one of these things, it is fine.)
An important compositional/aesthetic point to notice in this section is that it ends with an incomplete cadence. Everything that develops in mm. 71–72 points strongly to a C-sharp triad on the first beat of m. 73. (It could be major or minor.) However, instead there is nothing there. The timing and pacing of this non-cadence is important, in particular, in setting up the next section.

Measures 73–74
This next “section” is short enough to earn quotation marks—only two measures (Example 6). This section is preceded and followed by contrapuntal sections that are longer than it is, and that are different from it in mood. That is, they are—though also quite different from each other—both marked by strong rhythmic motion and a regular pulse. This section is marked con discrezione, which would strongly suggest free, perhaps even unmeasured, rhythm, even if the overall nature of the writing did not already suggest that. The combination of the shortness of this section with the importance of the contrast that it offers to the sections around it suggests something to me that might seem a little bit simplistic but that I think is valid, namely that within the bounds of what can work, it is a good idea to let this section take as long as it can. That is, the slower and freer it can be, the less perfunctory it will seem as a way station between the contrapuntal mosaic discussed above and the fughetta discussed below. This is just one thought, however; it certainly would not be a good idea to play it more slowly or more freely than seemed appropriate for the passage on its own terms. But all else being equal, perhaps the more time it occupies the more effective it will be.
The elements of this short passage are drawn from other sections of the work. The student should examine the notes of the solo opening measure for motivic connections to the previous section, and the notes of m. 74 for connections to earlier part of the work, in particular the trillo longo section. It becomes apparent that none of this is filler or cadential material. (I should admit that I myself did not notice the relationship between the melodic shapes in m. 73 and the material in mm. 60–72 until I had been studying the piece for quite a few years. There are probably details of the construction of this extremely well thought-out work that I have not noticed yet. Students should be encouraged to undertake as much detective work as they like, picking apart themes and scanning the whole piece for connections.)
Since the pedal note that enters in m. 74 does not change anything about the harmony or anything significant about the counterpoint, it is perhaps there for emphasis. It makes more emphatic the negation or contradiction of two things: first, the B-sharp that has prevailed since m. 71; second, the high tessitura of the section that has just ended.

Measures 75–86
The section that begins after the downbeat of m. 75 is a short fugue in three voices. The subject (Example 7) occurs six times in eight measures, followed by a fairly extended build-up to the final cadence—which this time is completed. This is again a manuals-only section—the lowest voice is too high for the pedal compass. Once again the notes of the middle voice can almost all be reached by either hand. For about five measures’ worth of the section, there are actually only two voices being played, so hand choices as such are limited to the remaining measures. (When there are only two voices being played, there is of course rarely a reason not just to split them between the two hands.) The most interesting spots to think about hand choices and fingering are mm. 78 and 82 and perhaps mm. 84–85. Students should try several possibilities and in particular notice differences in the range of possible articulations with different hand/fingering choices.
A particular feature of this fugue subject is the presence of a repeated-note event at a crucial moment in the unfolding of the theme. The articulation and timing of this repetition each time it occurs is probably more important than any other one thing in shaping the overall effect of the passage. Therefore it is a wonderful opportunity for a student to think about planning repeated notes and to listen carefully to them. As I wrote in the column of January 2009, I believe strongly that whenever possible, it is a very good idea to use different fingers for repeated notes. I would, for example, finger the opening statement of this fugue subject as shown in Example 8 (this is in the left hand, of course).
As always, there are many other specific ways to do it. Changing fingers on repeated notes, in addition to giving the player more control over a wider range of articulation and timing possibilities, is also a free shot at repositioning the hand. In a passage like this, which has an active subject and, just for good measure, four sharps, repositioning the hand can be useful. Here is an example of a repeated-note fingering (in the right hand) that also positions the hand to deal easily with the other notes (Example 9).

Measures 87–90
The last of the four sections that we are looking at here is another fairly short non-contrapuntal passage (Example 10). Since the previous section ended with a convincing and well-heralded cadence in B-major, the opening harmony of this section is another instance of abrupt contradiction. The first note in the pedal sounds like it is inviting a continuation of the same harmonic scheme; when the chord is filled out in the hands it negates that harmony quite clearly. This passage is in the form, more or less, of a four-part chorale harmonization. The Adagio marking suggests a slow tempo for the section. Again it seems to me that, all else being equal, the slower these measures are, the more effective they will be as a counterweight to the rhythmic and contrapuntal material that surrounds them. The same range of possibilities for dividing the alto voice between the hands is found here as in other sections discussed above. In this case, since the lines are slow and not very complex, the choices are perhaps low stakes. However, in a slow bare-bones texture such as this, the addition of ornaments is always a possibility, and that might shape decisions about hand choices as well as fingering. For example, I like to play a trill on the final quarter note of m. 88. In order to accommodate that trill the most easily, I use a fingering like that in Example 11. There is nothing surprising or particularly original about this fingering. The gist of it is taking the first D-sharp in the left hand in order to permit the right hand to approach the trill in an unconstrained way. Students should try out various ornaments: trills, mordents, appoggiaturas, slides. (I sometimes play a slide all the way down from the high D-sharp to the G-sharp in the measure just above, or between the two pedal notes in m. 89.) It is in principle fine to ornament all of the notes, or none of the notes or anything in between. The important thing is for the student to try things out, and react and think.
This month’s discussion ends in the middle of a cadence, since the unresolved final note of m. 90 is resolved by the first note of the fugue subject of the final section. We will resolve this cadence and discuss the rest of the piece next month.

Gavin Black is the Director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center in Princeton, New Jersey. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected]

Buxtehude BuxWV 141 – Part 1: Getting to know the piece
This month we begin the process of working on the Praeludium in E major, BuxWV 141, by Dietrich Buxtehude. As I mentioned last month, there is a good edition available online for free at http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/1/1e/IMSLP29682-PMLP06429-BuxWV136-154.pdf, pages 21–26. This is a reprint of the edition first published in the 1870s by Breitkopf & Härtel, edited by Phillip Spitta, and frequently reprinted, later on with revisions by Max Seiffert. It is also available in a 1988 Dover reprint and in Kalmus editions. There are several subsequent editions available through music dealers and at libraries. Small differences in these editions will not in any way interfere with the discussion of the process of working on the piece. Any one of them will serve this purpose very well.
The first step in working on a piece is to make sure that there are measure numbers, and if there are not—as in the edition referred to above—to put them in. This is worth doing! It will save time later and help in getting to know the piece. Even though the measure is somewhat of an arbitrary construct (and I feel pretty sure that as a matter of performance and listening nothing would change in the least if all of the bar lines in the notated music were erased), the act of going through and writing in measure numbers is a good first step in exploring what a piece seems to be about on the broadest level. The Buxtehude Praeludium has 110 measures. Going through the piece counting measures, I notice the following, among other things:
• three measures are whole notes;
• three tempo markings appear along the way, each of which apparently occurring at a place where there is also a noticeable change in texture;
• quite a few measures or passages are in only one voice;
• pedal is present almost exactly half the time (though this can be an artifact of the edition rather than the piece);
• several changes in time signature.
None of this is exactly earth shaking, and of course most of what there is to notice about a piece is not noticed casually while counting measures. However, I want to introduce the idea that noticing anything and everything about a piece is the first and an important step towards learning how to play it. I am not talking specifically—or only—about the things that constitute a formal analysis—harmonic or motivic/contrapuntal—such as might be done in a theory class. This might overlap with what I am talking about, and that kind of rigorous academic analysis has several important purposes, only some of which bear upon the act of learning a piece or actually performing it. However, noticing things about a piece—simple or complex, superficial (even, for example, things about font and layout in the page) or “deep” (contrapuntal structure, harmonic intricacies)—can increase ultimate performing security by increasing the extent to which a player simply knows what is coming up next. This is analogous to the fact that it is easier to drive around a town whose streets you know well, or to walk around a building where you know all of the corridors and staircases. It is also part of the process of making a non-memorized piece as well-learned and secure as a memorized piece is supposed to be. (A piece that is memorized mostly by feel is often not particularly secure.) Of course, working out fingerings and pedalings and then practicing them is by far the most important component of learning a piece and becoming comfortable playing it. However, the more consciously familiar you are with the landscape of a piece, the more your mind will be able to help you, as you practice and perform the work, with the task of remembering what is coming up next in time to execute it serenely and securely. Such things as “the next subject entry is in the tenor” or “there’s a surprising chord coming up” or “the first thing on the next page is a D-major chord” or “the font on page 4 is larger, because there are fewer lines” all serve this function. Some of these things might also contribute to an analysis of the piece and perhaps to a greater artistic understanding of the piece as well. However, the point right now is that they make the basic learning of the piece more solid and secure.
The first thing to explore about a piece is what sections the piece falls into. Sometimes sections are delineated by double bars or (of course) movement breaks, or flagged by words—tempo indications, usually. Sometimes they are not. It is also possible to be unsure whether two adjacent areas within a piece should be considered different sections or simply somewhat different parts of the same section. This almost always does not matter at all. Exploring the issue and describing for yourself what is going on is all that is necessary.
In this Praeludium, there are quite a few spots where something changes, that is, where one kind of writing gives way to another. These spots seem to be as follows: after m. 12; the beginning of m. 51; after m. 59; after m. 72; after the first beat of m. 75; after m. 86; and after m. 90. This suggests that there are eight different sections. The nature of the writing in the second, and longest, of these sections changes in the last three and a half measures, that is, from the middle of m. 47 through m. 50. There is no clear break leading into this change, so perhaps it isn’t quite a new section, but simply a different kind of passage. As I pointed out above, it does not matter what we call it as long as we notice what is happening.
So, if these passages or sections are different from one another, then how are they different and what can this tell us about how to work on the piece? Keyboard writing has a tendency to mix contrapuntal and non-contrapuntal textures. Therefore it is always useful in looking over a piece to notice which passages, if any, are written in a thoroughgoing contrapuntal texture and which are not. There may also be passages that seem to be somewhere in between. Of course one can assume that, in general, Renaissance and Baroque keyboard music will have a large proportion of formally worked out counterpoint, later music rather less.
In the case of this piece, the following sections seem to be fully contrapuntal, in the sense that they have a set number of voices and they treat recognizable motives imitatively: the section beginning at m. 13, excluding the last few measures; the section beginning at m. 60; the section beginning in m. 75; and the final section, which begins at m. 91. Each of these sections is more or less fugal—that is, in addition to their being contrapuntal in the sense described above, they have at least one theme or motive that is heard one or more times in each voice. These themes are first heard as follows: 1) mm. 13–15 in the soprano voice; 2) m. 60 in the alto voice; 3) m. 75 in the tenor voice; and 4) m. 91 in the alto voice. It is important to go through and find each and every occurrence of each of these themes. This is certainly part of understanding the rhetoric of the work, and of analyzing the work for achieving an intellectual understanding of the piece and of the mind of the composer. But it is also a very practical step in learning how to get the notes right and how to make the piece secure in performance. As noted above, the more you simply know what’s coming up, the more familiar you are with what is in the piece, the more likely you are to recall it in time to play it easily and securely. The most natural thing to remember is any kind of pattern, and a recurrent theme is a pattern.
Motives or themes, including themes functioning as fugue subjects, are of course not the only recurring patterns that can (and should) be noticed; we will get to some others just below. However, fugue subjects and similar recurring motives are easy to notice and to identify, and are therefore a good starting point. So it is a good idea to highlight them on a copy of the work. I find twelve instances of the theme introduced in m. 13—four in the soprano voice, three in the alto, two in the tenor, and three in the bass. There are also many instances of the second half of this theme occurring without the first half, as in, for example, measures 33 and 34. The theme introduced in m. 60, if we take it to be the full measure in the alto voice, occurs six times: three in the soprano voice, two in the alto, one in the tenor. (This section is in three voices.) However, each half of the theme occurs separately quite a few more times. Does it make sense to call this a measure-long theme, or is it really two separate four-note motives, which may or may not follow one another in the same voice? It doesn’t matter! As long as you notice what the notes and patterns are, either of those concepts will do very nicely to describe the situation. The theme introduced in m. 75 occurs six times, two in each of the three voices. Again, fragments of this theme also occur. The theme introduced in m. 91 seems to occur eleven times, though it would be possible to argue that a couple of them are not quite exactly that theme, but rather a close variant. Each half of the theme also occurs separately many times.
Turning for a moment to the four remaining sections of the piece, what is there to notice about them? First of all, they are short, occupying 27 of the piece’s 110 measures. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that they take up a proportionately small amount of time: that depends on tempo. One of these sections—mm. 87–90—is in a set number of voices (four), with a homophonic, somewhat hymn-like, texture: fully worked-out counterpoint, but with no imitation or motivic development. The other three (at mm. 1, 51, and 73) are not in any fixed number of voices or, really, in voices at all. They include passage work, trills and trill-like writing, fairly long one-voice passages, occasional abrupt changes in texture—the most noticeable of which is near the beginning, where a long solo passage ends in a four-note chord—and some unprepared dissonance. Two of these sections have written comments associated with them: trillo longo in mm. 51 and 53, and con discrezione in m. 73. Both of these might suggest rhythmic freedom at a fairly broad level. This is obvious with con discrezione. It also makes sense that trillo longo, written over a very brief trill-like passage, would suggest that the trill can be made to occupy more time than is notated for it.
Getting to know a piece in order to perform it securely involves simply noticing things, even things whose significance isn’t clear—indeed, even things that are not really significant except in that they form part of the process of getting to know the piece. It is most important to notice anything that happens more than once. There is a good chance that anything that happens more than once is important compositionally, that the composer did it on purpose. However, even if this is not the case, the act of noticing helps with learning. By “anything” in this context I mean, probably, anything except individual pitches. It is probably not fruitful to notice that, for example, the note “a above middle c” occurs in this measure, and then occurs again in that measure. Once in a while this might matter, but usually not. Anything more involved than an individual note, however, is worth paying attention to.
Here are some things—other than the well-defined motives discussed above—that I notice in looking over this piece. The upward leap of a step in the pedal part occurs five times in a row near the beginning; it is possible that the rising quarter-note line in the lowest voice (not shared with the other voices) in the section beginning at m. 60 could be heard as related to this, an extension of it. The countersubject fragment in m. 16 and again m. 18—four notes in the soprano voice beginning just after the downbeat—comes in again somewhat prominently in the final section beginning at m. 103, and ends up being the final gesture of the piece. It also occurs in m. 72, but in a way that is interrupted: it does not resolve, and it leads into the con discrezione section. The phenomenon of two voices playing together—that is, in a way that is in sync rhythmically and more or less parallel—is characteristic of the beginning (mm. 4–6) and the end (mm. 99 on) of the piece, but not, except fleetingly, the middle. The one instance of this that I notice in the middle of the piece is at m. 57 and seems to foreshadow the fugue subject that governs the final section of the piece beginning at m. 91.
The most interesting recurrence of a compositional element in this piece is the first four notes—that is, the rising scale fragment B–C#–D#–E—which keep coming back at crucial moments. To start with, it is the germ from which the rest of the opening section is, at least partly, built up. This is most explicit in mm. 3, 4, and 9. Then this opening gesture is quoted directly as the last notes of the fugue subject that is introduced in m. 13. Also, the second half of that subject is essentially an ornamented inversion of this motive. When the long fugal section that begins in m. 13 is coming to an end and gives way to non-fugal passage work, the four-note motive or a close variant of it is present throughout, as it also is in the following section. The final fugue subject, which enters in m. 91, is made up of the ornamented inversion of this motive, followed by the motive itself. From m. 94 on, the motive occurs in parallel or contrary motion in two or three voices at once repeatedly, and the flourish that gives energy to the ending of the work in mm. 106 and 109 is made up of two iterations in a row of this four-note motive in diminution.
I have posted a copy of the score of BuxWV 141 with various motives and other aspects of the text of the piece highlighted at http://www.gavinblack-baroque.com. Next month we will continue with this piece, and I will discuss how to break the work up into units for practicing. Then, in the August column, we will turn to the Boëllmann Suite Gothique. 

Gavin Black is Director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center in Princeton, New Jersey. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

Buxtehude BuxWV 141—Part 4:
Free writing and trillo longo—mm. 51–59
This month’s column is about just a little bit of music—the third overall section of the Praeludium, nine measures long, mm. 51–59. I will provide some analysis of the passage, and offer some thoughts and suggestions about fingering and pedaling.

The Praeludium that we are studying is, as I discussed in the column from June 2010, a one-movement work in several sections. There is both contrast and continuity amongst the sections. Sources of contrast are clear. Some sections are contrapuntal, some are not; some are regular in pulse and rhythm, some are free or essentially unmeasured; some use striking dissonance, some avoid it. Sources of continuity can be more elusive, but can include the use of similar motivic material, or recurring rhythms or harmonies. This is the classic form of the toccata or praeludium as practiced by Frescobaldi and Froberger, among others, and adopted and adapted by Buxtehude as the form of his organ praeludia. It was also used by Bach for organ and harpsichord pieces that we know or believe to come from early in his career: most of the harpsichord toccatas, the famous D-minor organ toccata, BWV 565, and some of the preludes and fugues such as BWV 551.
The section that we are looking at here is essentially non-contrapuntal, in that the writing is not in a set number of voices, although, as we will see, there are recurrent motives. There are fairly quick changes of texture, from one voice in m. 51 and elsewhere to four and five later. Chords are built up out of passagework. There are abrupt changes in the prevailing note values, as in m. 52, which starts with 32nd notes and then somewhat surprisingly sits on the third quarter-note beat with no motion. The lowest notes make up a true pedal part (always a question with Buxtehude, since the sources don’t make it clear, and also since the relationship between the sources and Buxtehude’s original intentions is not always known), since there are stretches that cannot be executed by two hands alone.

Four-note motive
In the following example, some of the notes have been highlighted with either rectangular or oval outlines (see Example 1). The rectangular outlines indicate either an exact form—nine instances, including inversions—or a plausible variant—six instances—of the four-note motive that begins the entire praeludium (see Example 2). This motive is found in crucial spots throughout the praeludium, sometimes as a marker of transitions or important moments, sometimes as part of “officially” motivic material, such as the second half of the fugue subject of the final section of the piece. The section that we are looking at here is clearly chock full of this short motive—it is present almost exactly half the time. This is one of the sources of continuity between this section and the rest of the praeludium.
It could well be argued that this motive is too simple, too ordinary, to count as a real, identifiable motive, or to serve as a source of continuity or unity within a piece. After all, every piece has plenty of short scale passages, and this one in particular is introduced in the most casual possible way. However, it seems to me that if the composer had not intended it to be heard, perhaps subliminally, as a significant motive, then we would not be able to find it quite so consistently through the whole piece. In any case, we do find it, and each teacher and each student—having initially noticed it—can muse about how significant it really is, and decide for him- or herself.

Connections
The second element of this short section that ties it to the rest of the piece is the cluster of notes in the first half of m. 57, highlighted with an oval box. This is a foreshadowing of the fugue subject of the last section of the praeludium (see Example 3), especially as that subject appears when it is in parallel with itself. This happens in several places, such as m. 104, for example (see Example 4).
This section is also clearly related to the rest of the piece by its similarities to the transitional passage that constitutes the end of the second overall section of the piece and that therefore comes just before this section. This transition occupies mm. 47–50. It arises out of the fugue that precedes it without break or interruption. The fugal texture just gives way to non-contrapuntal writing with passagework and built-up quasi-arpeggio chords. This texture resembles that of mm. 51–59, although it has the feeling of both a cadence and coda to the long fugue that has preceded it. The flourish that ends the transitional passage and the pedal solo that begins the third section are more or less versions of each other (see Examples 5 and 6).
(A similar way of linking the end of one section to the beginning of the next was employed by Bach in, for example, the Toccata in C Major, at the transition between the opening manual solo and the ensuing pedal solo, where the first four pedal notes seem to answer the last four manual notes [see Example 7], and in the F-major Toccata and Fugue, where the very last notes of the toccata are echoed in the mordent that begins the fugue subject.)

Trillo longo
One interesting feature of this passage is the use of the term trillo longo, placed over two spots in the pedal part, as seen in Example 1. Of course it seems obvious, on one level, what this term means: long trill. And in both instances it is written above notes that are in the shape of a trill, one that begins on the lower of its two notes. One surprising discovery about this term—trillo longo—is that there is no evidence that it was ever in common use as a technical musical term or as a piece of accepted musical jargon. A bit of research reveals that it is not listed as a musical term in any music dictionary or encyclopedia, and there are no papers or articles that discuss it as a term or that mention any piece in the entire history of music that uses it as a term, other than this piece. (A Google search on the term “trillo longo” returns seven results, one of them about a piece that does not in fact use the term, and all of the other six about this passage. Included in these search results is one prior column in this series.)
So if this term was not in particularly common use—even if its basic meaning is clear—why did Buxtehude (or his copyist: we can’t be sure) use it here? Was he simply observing that the printed notes constitute a “long trill”? Or was he instructing the player to execute a long trill beyond what the notes indicate? If so, is this to be accomplished by adding notes and time, or by adding notes and making them faster? Does the designation of a group of 32nd notes as a “long trill” suggest that they can or should be played freely, or given some particular grouping or shape? (For example, the 16th-note B that falls on “the ‘and’ of three” in m. 51 could be thought of as the beginning of a trill, and the 16th-note/32nd-note rhythm rendered freely, as the gradual beginning of the trill.) Or was he just reminding the player to resist the temptation to shorten or omit or simplify the trill due to its being in the pedal, and therefore tricky to execute? Here’s another possibility: perhaps Buxtehude wanted to employ some Italian language at this point to signify that the trills in question were Italian-style trills, that is, trills beginning on the main note.
I don’t know the answers to these questions, or whether any of these thoughts really apply. I throw them out there for the student—or teacher—to muse about. Meanwhile, the “long trill” continues to be important as the section goes along, especially as manifested by the (very long) trill in one of the inner voices in m. 56. In this spot, unlike in mm. 51, 53, 55, and 57, the trill is accompanied throughout by motion in other voices. This is also the measure in this passage that is in five voices—and five notes are actually sounding throughout the measure—therefore it is literally the loudest measure within this section. It has the largest number of total notes played of any measure at 32. (The following measure is second at 29.) All of this suggests that this measure might be the rhetorical climax or high point of the section. The major interpretive or performance issue in this measure concerns the trill. Should the notes that follow the pattern of a trill on E and D-sharp be played “as written,” that is, as more or less measured 32nd notes, or should they be untethered from that timing and played as a fairly free trill? The latter is, to put it plainly, harder. It requires that the trill pattern be learned and practiced so well that the fingers can execute it while the mind of the player is, in a sense, ignoring it. The player must let those notes go their own way rhythmically and concentrate on playing the other—right hand—notes in the desired rhythm, regardless of how those notes do or don’t line up with the notes of the trill. In any case, the student or player should initially practice the notes of this trill in the “as written” rhythm, learning them more and more securely while thinking about whether to try to set them free from the printed rhythm.

Pedaling
Pedalings in this passage are mostly straightforward. That is, there are easy pedaling solutions involving toes—mostly alternate toes—as would have been the norm in Buxtehude’s time. A possible pedaling—along with some fingering—is suggested in Example 8. The pedal notes marked with asterisks are (some of?) those that could very easily be played with heel if a player is so inclined, either because that happens to be more comfortable for the particular player or to avoid a disjunct articulation at those spots. (Just for the record, I believe that I have usually used the left heel on the asterisked note in m. 51, where my particular posture makes it extremely comfortable and natural to do so, but not on the one in m. 53.) The transaction that takes place between the second and third pedal notes of m. 51 (G# and F#) is interesting. The articulation created by simply using the right toe for both notes, as I have indicated it, is natural and “musical” in that it precedes a note that is on a beat, and confers a slight accent on that note.
However, if in a particular player’s conception of the passage that articulation seems jarring, then it is difficult (but probably not impossible) to figure out a way to avoid it that works. Players with very wide feet can play the G# with the extreme outside of the right toe and rotate the foot in order to play the F# with the inside of the foot—the big toe. Some players might be comfortable initially catching the F# with the left toe and quickly substituting the right toe, in order to free the left toe up to aim for the following note. It is hard to picture getting the heel involved since we are dealing with black notes. It is very possible to turn the logic of this around and say that since it is so much more natural to use a pedaling here that creates an articulation, perhaps that is how the passage was meant to be played.

Fingering
As always, the first step in creating a fingering is to figure out, where there is any possible doubt, which notes belong in which hand. I have indicated some “handing” choices in the example above, using curved lines. There are several other options. For example, it would be possible to take the 16th notes on the second beat of m. 52 in the left hand, or the B# and C# in the second beat of m. 54 in the right hand. In the third beat of m. 57, I have suggested taking the G# in the left hand. This is because I would find it extremely awkward to play the remaining upper-voice notes of that measure while holding the G#, all in the right hand. However, reaching the E/G# dyad with the left hand is indeed also tricky. It certainly involves a break immediately before those notes, and must be practiced carefully to avoid making that break sound jarring or abrupt.
I have included only a few fingerings as examples. Any of them can also be done a number of other ways. For example, changing the numerals printed above the upper staff in m. 52 from 2-3-4-5-4 to 2-3-1-4-5 would result in an also very good fingering (leaving the other fingers the same). In the right hand in m. 53 the fingering could be (instead of 4-3-1-2-1-4-3) 5-4-3-2-3-4-3 or 4-3-1-3-4-5-2 or a number of other possibilities. For that matter either or both D#’s could be taken in the left hand. Comfortable hand position is the main guiding principle, and this is something that varies from player to player, based on posture and the size and shape of the hands.
Notice, however, that in all of these (m. 53) examples I am carefully preserving the use of a different finger to repeat the D# from the one that is already holding it. The suggested fingering for the right hand in m. 56 is also designed to use different fingers on repeated notes. By and large, it is a good idea to keep the thumb off of black keys. In fact, the most physiologically comfortable use of the thumb at the keyboard is for playing white notes just before or just after another finger has played a black note. Much of my approach to fingering a passage like this—in a heavily “black note” key—is derived from this concept of the use of the thumb. This can be seen in essentially all of the fingerings that I have written in here.
The student and teacher can try some of my fingerings, but should primarily work fingerings out from scratch, bearing in mind the ideas discussed above. Then, of course, the next step is what it always is: careful and patient practice, starting with separate hands and feet—doing as much of that as turns out to be needed, better too much then too little—then putting things together at a comfortably slow tempo, speeding up gradually, keeping the hands and feet relaxed.
Next month we will return to Boëllmann, looking at the charismatic and popular Menuet Gothique.

Gavin Black is Director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center in Princeton, New Jersey. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

Buxtehude BuxWV 141 – Part 3: Practicing the first fugal section
This month we return to the Buxtehude Praeludium in E Major, BuxWV 141, looking at the second section of the piece, which begins at m. 13 and goes through about m. 50. This—except for its last three measures or so, which are a transitional passage, cadential in nature, and which we will in the main discuss next month—is a contrapuntal, essentially fugal, section, a fact which has implications for studying, practicing, and learning the music. Much of what I will suggest here will involve revisiting the ideas that I discussed in the series of columns about counterpoint that began in September 2008, applying those ideas to this specific passage.
The fugal section that begins in m. 13 is in four voices. The musical text could by and large be written out on four staves, accounting for all of the notes, with each staff presenting a coherently “melodic” melody. (It departs from this briefly in mm. 32–33 with the addition of a few “extra” notes, and again in the transitional passage.) The voices behave like the voices of a contrapuntal piece: each of the four voices has a different compass, each of the voices is present most of the time but not all of the time, and, melodically, the voices do the same things at different times and different things at the same time. The section is “fugal” in that the voices enter one at a time, each with a version of the same theme, and that theme recurs a lot during the section.

Theme
This theme is as follows, in its first iteration:

It enters first in the top voice, and then in the other voices in descending order. It is present in 24 of the measures of the section, and a motive identical to the second half of this fugue subject is present in another 3½ or 4 measures. The longest stretch without any of this theme present—prior to the transitional/cadential section at the end—is about one measure.
(There is an interesting side note about this theme, one that in a sense is irrelevant to the piece on its own terms because of the chronology, but which should be intriguing to organists nonetheless. The first half of the theme is the same as the fugue subject of Bach’s Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 552, and the second half of the Buxtehude theme is essentially the same as a recurrent pedal motive in the Prelude, BWV 552. This Buxtehude work seems like a more likely source of Bach’s inspiration for the so-called “St. Anne” Prelude and Fugue than is William Croft’s hymn tune, which Bach most likely never heard.)

Bass voice in pedal?
The first practical question about working on this section is whether or not the bass voice belongs in the pedal. This is often a question with Buxtehude, since the sources for his music do not often indicate pedal explicitly, and in any case are rather far removed in origin from the composer. In this section, there are several reasons to believe that the bass voice was indeed intended as a pedal part. First, it works on the pedal keyboard, and, in order to make it work, the composer has shaped it a little bit differently from any of the three other voices. That is, there is no scale-wise writing in the bass voice that is any faster than the eighth-note, whereas there is such writing in each of the other voices. Second, there are many places in this passage where it is awkward to play all four of the voices in the hands and where the fingering is much more natural without the lowest voice. (This is true, for example, in m. 33 or mm. 42–43.)
There is, as far as I can see, only one spot prior to the transitional/cadential section where it is actually impossible to play all four voices in the hands, namely the second eighth note of m. 44. Someone else might be able to find a clever way to make it work, and it is certainly possible to do so by fudging the duration of some of the longer notes. (Someone with larger hands than mine would have no trouble with it, but the stretch of a tenth is beyond what is normally found in music of this time.) Furthermore, the transitional section ending in m. 50 certainly requires pedal—really physically requires it—and there is no particularly good place to shift the bass line to the pedal if that line has been played in the hands from m. 20 on. So on balance this seems to me to be a section to be played with pedal.
(The closing fugue of the Praeludium in E Minor, BuxWV 142, presents an interestingly different picture. There the fingering is made dramatically easier, more natural, and more idiomatic to the organ playing of the time by not including the bass voice in what the hands are expected to play. However, at the same time the bass line itself is, if not unplayable in the pedal, still extraordinarily difficult and well outside what would have been the norm at the time.)

Learning protocol
The protocol for learning this fugal section starts with the approach that I outlined in the columns on counterpoint mentioned above; that is, playing through each voice separately and then playing pairs of voices. Here are some specific points about applying that approach to this passage:
1) The section that we are looking at is about 34 measures long—long enough that it should be broken up into smaller sections for this kind of practicing. It doesn’t really matter how it is broken up. It is fine to practice separate voices and pairs of voices in chunks of just a few measures, or in significantly larger chunks. One average way to do it would be to have breaks at around m. 23 and at around m. 36. Each voice will naturally break at a slightly different place. So, for example, it would make sense to play the soprano voice from m. 13 to m. 20, the alto from m. 15 to the middle of m. 23, the tenor from m. 17 through the first beat of m. 25, and the bass from m. 20 through m. 24. Then these sections of these voices can be combined in pairs.
2) When playing individual voices, it is fine to finger those voices in ways that will not be used when later putting the voices together. This is especially necessary and important with inner voices—typically the alto voice in a piece or passage that has three voices in the hands. Such an inner voice will almost certainly end up migrating from one hand to the other. However, at this stage it is important to play each voice in a way that is comfortable and natural, and that makes it as easy as possible to hear that voice as a coherent melody. It is also necessary to be flexible about playing inner voices in either hand. So, of course, when putting soprano and alto together it will be necessary to play the alto in the left hand, but when putting alto together with tenor it will be necessary to play the alto in the right hand.
3) At this stage, it is also not necessary to play the pedal part in the pedals. Practicing the pedal line as a pedal line (see below) can come later or can start in parallel with this process of getting to know the voices. However, for carrying out this approach to learning the voices, just as it doesn’t matter what fingering is used, it also doesn’t matter whether the feet play the bass voice or the left hand does. The important thing is that the student be able to listen carefully and hear the voices well while playing them.
4) In putting voices together in pairs it is a good idea some of the time to play the two voices on two manuals, in order to hear them with extra clarity. This is especially useful when voices cross or, as for example with the soprano and alto voices at mm. 38–39, come very close. The two sounds should be similar in volume and different in character.

Pedaling
While studying individual voices and pairs of voices, it is emphatically not a good idea also to finger and practice the manual part of the texture. That will come a little bit later. It is perfectly fine to practice the pedal part, however. It is interesting that in this piece the pedaling choices are more straightforward, and in fact the pedal part is probably easier overall, in the more active fugue subject and subject fragments, than in the measures in which the pedal is playing long-held notes.
The fugue subject can easily be played with alternate toes, starting with the right foot; the subject fragment that occurs in m. 33 and elsewhere can also be played with alternate toes, starting with the left foot. These pedalings are natural enough that I would expect essentially every student or player to use them. (There are other possibilities: for example, using the same foot to play some of the successive quarter notes, or occasionally using heel to play some of the sixteenth notes that are on white keys when the immediately prior note was on an adjacent black key. On the whole, I doubt that many players would find these variants easier or better, but perhaps some would. They could certainly be OK.) This consistent alternate toe pedaling implies nothing in particular about articulation, phrasing, timing, or other interpretive/performance matters.
However, when the pedal part moves more slowly, particularly from m. 43 on, pedaling choices both affect and depend on choices about articulation. To the extent that the player prefers or can accept spaces between these long notes, he or she can apply the principal of playing each note with whatever foot happens to lie most comfortably above that note. As an example that would lead me to the following succession of toes for the eleven pedal notes beginning with the first note of m. 44 and going to the end of m. 50:
l-r-r-l-l-r-l-l-r-r-l
For someone else it might be a little bit different. Creating more legato in this passage would involve different pedaling choices—for example, crossing the left foot under to play the E in m. 44, and then playing the C# in m. 45 with the right foot.
Of course, practicing the pedal line once pedaling choices have been made involves the usual things: keep it slow and accurate; look at the feet as little as possible—ideally not at all; repeat small-enough passages that the memory of the feeling of the passage does not fade before you get back to it. When the pedal part has become secure, join it first to the tenor voice, then to the left hand part as such—once that has also been practiced as outlined below—then to the hands together. (Of course, it is fine also to practice pedal with right hand alone. However, as always, left hand and pedal is most important. Usually if left hand and pedal has been practiced enough, then adding the right hand is something that feels natural and almost easy.)
And do not forget what might be the cardinal rule of practicing: if you hear yourself make a wrong note while practicing, do not stop or hesitate or go back and correct it. By the time that your ears have heard the wrong note, your mind should already have moved on to playing the next note. Next time through the passage you can make sure to adjust what needs to be adjusted to correct what was wrong.

Fingering choices
Once you have played through all of the voices and all of the pairs of voices, it is time to work out a fingering for the three voices that will be in the hands. And, as I discussed in the column from last July, the first task is to decide which notes belong in which hand. This must come before making specific fingering choices, and it must be done in such a way as to make those fingering choices as easy and natural as possible. As I wrote before: I have seen students waste a lot of time or even make a passage that could be fairly easy almost unplayable by assigning notes to hands in a way that was awkward. However, there is not always only one good answer, and the answer is not the same, necessarily, for any two players.
In any situation in which three voices are present and the notes of the alto voice can be reached by either hand—that is, generally, in which neither the soprano notes nor the tenor notes are more than an octave away from the alto notes—the player can, in a pinch, try it both ways. Generally it is nice to put “extra” notes with whichever other voice is less active. So, in m. 19, for example, I would play the first three notes of the alto voice in the right hand since the tenor voice has sixteenth notes, but then play the half note E in the left hand, since the soprano voice then has sixteenth notes. In m. 24 I would play the one alto voice (whole) note in the right hand, even though the soprano voice notes are a bit farther away, since the tenor voice is more active; in m. 25, however, I would shift the alto voice to the left hand since the soprano voice become much more active. Again, these choices are not right and other choices wrong. It is simply very important that each player—each student perhaps with the help of a teacher—work this out carefully and patiently, in a way that feels right.
After the “handing” and fingering have been worked out, it is possible to try an interesting challenge, namely to play the alto voice alone with the correct fingering. This involves letting that voice move from one hand to the other according to the plan that has been worked out. The goal is to play it in such a way that it sounds as natural and cantabile as it would sound played in one hand. It is simultaneously harder to do this outside the cushion of the other voices and good practice for playing that voice well when it is partly obscured by the other voices.

Practice procedures
Practicing the three-voice manual texture of course follows the usual pattern for any practicing. Each hand should be practiced separately, slowly, until it seems easy. The tempo should be allowed to rise only according to a pace that is comfortable: once a passage is learned well at one tempo, it can be played a little bit faster; playing it much faster will often lead to its falling apart. Once each hand is solid at a given tempo, the two hands can be put together at a slower tempo. This can then also be allowed to speed up gradually. The rule about not stopping or hesitating when you hear yourself make a wrong note is always utterly important.
After a player or student has carried out all of the above—individual voices, pairs of voices, pedal part, individual hands, left hand with pedal, and all the rest—there is an interesting exercise to try. Play the section—well learned, all parts together—and consciously listen only to one voice at a time. This is easiest with the soprano voice, next easiest with whichever voice is the lowest at a given time, quite hard with a real inner voice. The ability to do this and also keep the whole thing going accurately and with a feeling of ease will help to reveal the fruits of studying the voices thoroughly and also test the solidity of the overall practicing of the notes.
Next month I will discuss both the transition measures 47–50 and the free section that follows, beginning in m. 51. ■

Gavin Black is Director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center in Princeton, New Jersey. He can be reached by e-mail at .

Buxtehude BuxWV 141 – Part 2:
Fingering, pedaling, and
practicing, part 1
In this month’s column, we will look at the opening section of the Buxtehude E major Praeludium in great detail as to fingering and pedaling, and outline ways of practicing that section. When we return to this piece, after beginning our look at the Boëllmann Suite Gothique, we will analyze the section that begins in m. 13 with regard to practicing and learning that section. These two sections offer several different textures and types of writing; each suggests a different approach to the very practical act of learning the notes. These textures include the one-voice opening, the multi-voiced but not strictly contrapuntal measures that immediately follow, and the rigorously contrapuntal—fugal—section that begins in the soprano voice in m. 13. Each of these textures recurs in this piece, and of course throughout the repertoire as well.
This and the next few Buxtehude columns will focus on the steps necessary to learn the right notes securely and efficiently. I will try my best to do this in a way that leaves open as many different interpretive possibilities as possible. In particular, I do not mean to take sides in any debate about how much to incorporate “authentic” fingerings and pedalings, or about what those are or might be in any particular case. That does not mean that I will not mention them or include them among the possibilities. As I hinted but did not quite state last month, I will not discuss any work on memorization. (I have, like many performers and teachers, somewhat mixed and complicated feelings about memorization, but I do not consider it to be a necessary or integral part of learning a piece well and performing it in a way that is both solid and artistically worthwhile. I will discuss memorization as an issue unto itself in a later column.)

Fingering
Since the opening of our Praeludium (see Example 1) is a monophonic statement of three rather long measures—49 notes—the first question that arises is which hand or hands should play it. (This foreshadows the most important practical question about any passage of keyboard music; namely, which notes should go in which hand. This question must precede detailed questions about fingering, and it is often overlooked or shortchanged by students. More about this later.) Since the passage is basically high—in the right hand region of the keyboard—and is probably not going to be played in a way that is prohibitively fast for one hand, it makes sense to start out by assuming that it is a right-hand passage.
However, it also makes sense to look for places where taking some of the notes in the left hand would make things easier. Each student can look the passage over and make this judgment for him- or herself. It might, for example, make sense to take the four sixteenth notes of the third beat of m. 3 in the left hand. These notes are lower than the rest and using the left hand to play them would put that hand in a good position to participate in playing the chord on the first beat of m. 4.
It is also possible to share the notes more or less equally between the hands, though I myself have not been in the habit of doing so in this passage. An advantage of sharing the notes between the two hands is that it is just easier to execute. This becomes more important the faster a player wants the passage to go. A disadvantage to dividing the passage up between the hands is that it gives more to think about in the learning process and to remember in playing, and probably takes longer to learn.
On a more positive note, an advantage to keeping the passage in one hand is that it is probably easier or more natural to project the overall rhetorical shape of the line when the shape and spacing of the notes is felt in the most direct physical way by the player. None of these considerations is absolute, and a teacher and student can think about them and work them out.
Just for the record, the fingering that I myself would use to play this passage is shown in Example 2. This is largely a common-sense and hand-position-based fingering. For example, the choice of 1-3 to begin the passage is entirely based on the way that my own fingers happen to fall over those notes, given my posture and my arm angle. (The arm angle stems from my preference for letting my elbows float out from my sides, which in turn is—for me—part of a relaxed posture.) The first four notes could just as well be played 1-2-3-4 or 2-3-4-5. The choice of 3 rather than 4 for the D-natural 32nd note late in m. 1 is designed to make it easier to reach the coming G# with 4 (rather than 5). The point of playing that G# with 4, in turn, is twofold: first, to place the (long) third finger on the F# and the (shorter) second finger on the E; second, to make it easier then to reach the high B on the final half-beat of the measure with finger 5. (It would also be fine to play those notes—G#-F#-E—with 3-2-1.) For me, keeping the thumb off of raised keys is a guiding principle.
A reason for not playing the third beat of m. 1 with 2-1-2-5, etc. (but rather with 4-3-2-5, etc.) is that the gesture of turning the second finger over the thumb to play the G# moves the hand away from the upcoming (high) E, and therefore makes the playing of that note awkward—at least, that is how it works with my hand. In m. 3, the non-adjacent fingerings of each of the beat groupings are all designed to move the hand in the correct direction for whatever is coming up next.
This fingering is not intended to be a recommendation or even a suggestion: it is just how I would probably do it. There are many other ways. (Some of these might be more historically minded—with more disjunct or pair-wise fingerings—or less so—with substitution or more use of the thumb, even occasionally on a black note.) The important thing is that teacher and student work out a fingering that is appropriate for that student. Sometimes that process involves a lot of specific input from the teacher, sometimes little or none. A teacher should always look for ways to let the student assume increasingly more responsibility for working out fingerings. I tend to give very few specific fingering suggestions, but keep an eye out for spots where a student may not have succeeded in finding something that works well. In those cases, I will invite the student to analyze the spot again, perhaps with more input from me.
So in this case, once a fingering has been worked out, the most effective approach to practicing the passage is clear. That is, since it is only one line and one hand—at least, certainly one hand at a time—there is no concern about how to combine parts, and in what order. The plan is just to practice it. First, choose a very slow tempo: slow enough that playing the right notes with the planned fingering is actually easy. This might, for one player, be sixteenth note equals 60, for another 80, for another 45. For an advanced player or a good reader it might be faster, and it might be all right to think about a pulse for the eighth note even from the beginning. Anything is all right, as long as the student does not start with too fast a tempo. Then, having played the passage several times at this starting tempo, the student should play it several times a little bit faster, then a little bit faster still. At some point, the beat in the student’s head will naturally shift from the sixteenth note to the eighth note, then to the quarter note. The crucial thing is not to get ahead of a tempo that honestly feels easy. This, if practiced rigorously, will lead to unshakeable security.
Meanwhile, the rest of the opening section is multi-voiced, a mix of not very strict counterpoint and homophonic writing. In this passage, the main practical question is which hand should play some of the inner-voice notes. As I mentioned above, this is extraordinarily important. I have seen students waste a lot of time or even make an easy passage almost unplayable by assigning notes to hands in an awkward way. This is usually caused by assuming too readily that the notes printed in the upper staff should be played by the right hand and those printed in the lower staff should be played by the left hand. In fact, there should never be such an assumption unless the two hands are meant to be on different keyboards, providing different sounds for different parts of the texture. In general, the two manual staves between them present a note picture, and we have ten fingers with which to play that note picture in the most reliable way possible.
In each of the measures in Example 3, there are notes in what is more or less the alto voice that are printed in the upper staff; some of these might be best played in the left hand. The notes that I have highlighted are those that I would choose to play in the left hand. Again, this is not by any means the only way to do it. The first criterion that I use in working this out is that “extra” notes should be placed in the hand that otherwise has less to do. That is at work very strikingly in mm. 7-8, and the beginning of m. 9, but also elsewhere. Sometimes hand choices are made based on the need to prepare what comes next. That applies here in m. 11, where I am not taking several notes in the left hand that could, or in a sense should, be in the left hand, so as to make it possible for the left hand to play the (tenor) E in the chord in m. 12. (There would be other ways to deal with this, involving substitution.)
Sometimes the notes of a passage in a middle voice can be divided between the hands just to make that passage easier—less inclined to get tangled. This is the case here in m. 5 and to some extent in m. 10. An overriding consideration is hand position: how can notes be divided between the hands in a way that best allows each hand to remain in a natural, comfortable position?
After the hand assignments have been worked out, the next step is to work out fingering. (In the process, some hand choices may be changed.) As always, fingering will depend in part on factors that differ from one player to another, including the size and shape of the hands, existing habits or “comfort zones,” and artistic goals concerning articulation, tempo, and other matters. Example 4 shows a possible sample fingering for one of the more convoluted of these measures. As always, there is a lot here that could be done differently. For example, it could make sense to play the E that is the first note in the top voice of the first full measure with 5, or the D#/B right-hand chord later in that measure with 2/1. It would also be possible to take the A#-B in the first full measure with the left hand, probably with 2-1. The above is just one way of doing it.

Practicing
Once the fingering has been worked out, the next step is practicing. The principles of practicing are always the same, and they are both so important and so difficult psychologically (for most of us, certainly including me) that they can’t be repeated too often: break the music down into manageable units—short passages, separate hands and feet; practice slowly enough; speed up gradually and only when the unit being practiced is really ready for it. In the case of the passage under discussion, one sensible way to divide things up might be as follows:
1) the right hand from the last few notes of m. 3 through the downbeat of m. 9
2) the left hand from the downbeat of m. 4 through the second beat of m. 9
3) the right hand from the first high B in m. 8 through m. 12
4) the left hand from the half note D# in m. 8 through m. 12, and
5) the pedal part, which I will discuss in its own right just below.
(Notice that the sections are designed to dovetail, not to bump into one another. This guarantees that practicing in sections will not cause fissures or awkward transitions to develop. This is quite important. It also applies to practicing across page turns.)
Each of these units should be played many times at, initially, a very slow tempo: as always, slow enough that it feels easy. For most students it would probably make sense, given the somewhat complex texture of this passage, to start with a beat—in the student’s head or from a metronome—that will represent the 32nd note, so that each of the sixteenth notes will receive two of those beats. This 32nd-note beat might initially be at 100, or 80, or 120: whatever feels comfortable. Then each unit should be sped up gradually.
(Some musicians express concern that starting the practicing procedure with beats that represent very short notes—many levels down from the “beat” suggested by the time signature—will result in playing that lacks a sense of underlying pulse, that is too divided into small fragments. However, it is insecurity as to the notes, fingerings, and pedalings that is by far the greatest cause of rhythmically unconvincing playing. At the early to middle stages of learning a passage, the best thing that we can do to predispose that passage towards convincing rhythm is whatever will get the notes learned the most securely. The use of very small note values early in practicing is so removed from later performance, in time and in feel, that I have never known it to come back and haunt or influence the quality of a that performance.)
Some variation is possible in the mode of reconnecting the separate hands. In general, the slower you are willing to keep things, the more promptly you can let yourself put components of the whole texture together. There is some speed at which any given student could indeed skip the step of separating hands. For most of us, in moderately or very difficult passages, this tempo is very slow indeed, and in general it is not a good idea to aim to do this. (Not a good idea partly because it taxes our boredom threshold and partly because separate-hand practicing also allows us to hear things clearly.) In general, if each hand feels really solid at a certain tempo—ready in theory to be performed by itself at that tempo—then it is possible to put those hands together at a somewhat slower tempo. How much slower varies from one situation to another. The overriding principle is a familiar one: when you put the hands together, the tempo should be such that the results are accurate and the experience feels easy—no scrambling, no emergencies, no near misses.

Pedaling
The pedal part in mm. 4–12 of this piece is simple though non-trivial. I would play the fifteen pedal notes with the following feet, all toes:
l-r-r-r-l-r-l-r-l-r-l-l-r-r-l
Other possibilities involve, for example, playing the first note of m. 5 with left toe (crossing over) or playing the second note of that measure with right heel; or playing some of the two-note groupings that span bar lines (between mm. 6–7, 7–8, 8–9) with one foot, either all toes or toe and heel. Once a student has decided on a pedaling, he or she should play through the pedal part slowly, not looking at the feet, until it is second nature. Since the note values are all long, getting the pedal part up to tempo will not take as long or go through as many stages as it would with some other passages. However, it is extremely important not to shortchange the practicing of even this fairly simple pedal line. This is all the more true because in general lower notes and slower notes play the greatest part in shaping the underlying pulse and rhythm in organ music. This pedal line is both.
When the pedal part seems very solid, then it is time to begin practicing it with the left hand. It is often true—for most players—that “left hand and pedal” is the combination of parts that requires the most work. Therefore it should be started as soon as each of those parts is ready. It is also often true that once left hand and pedal is very secure, and the right hand part is well learned, and the two hands together are secure, then the whole texture will fit together without too much trouble. However, it certainly never hurts to practice right hand and pedal as well. In the case of this section, there are a couple of places where the strongest rhetorical and rhythmic interaction is between the something that is being played by the right hand and the bass line in the pedal. This is the case, for example, with the transition from m. 3 to m. 4, and also the middle of m. 10. Practicing the right hand and pedal together will draw the attention of the ears to these spots.
Next month we will start looking at the Boëllmann, concentrating on understanding the overall shape of the piece and looking for connections and contrasts.

Gavin Black is Director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center in Princeton, New Jersey. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

Boëllmann Suite Gothique, Part 5: Toccata
In this month’s column we look at some aspects of the fourth and last movement of Boëllmann’s Suite Gothique, the Toccata. This is the last column in this series to deal in detail with a specific movement. Next month’s column will wrap up the yearlong series with a discussion of some general points.
The Toccata is probably the best-known and most popular movement of the Suite Gothique. (One singularly modern measure of popularity suggests that it is: it has far more entries on
YouTube than any of the other movements.) It is a true perpetuum mobile, in that there is one note value (in this case the sixteenth note) that is both always present and never superseded by a quicker note value—that is, until the last several measures, where the intensity is ramped up for a dramatic ending. The relentlessness of those sixteenth notes, along with a sense that the piece at least comes across as being difficult to play—virtuosic—is part of what makes it fit the genre of “toccata” as that genre was understood in the late nineteenth century. There are, of course, other organ toccatas from about the same time as the Boëllmann that are constructed similarly, in particular the work by Boëllmann’s mentor Eugène Gigout—the Toccata in B Minor from 1890—and the famous Widor Toccata from 1879.
It is interesting to remember that in the Baroque period, the word “toccata” was understood entirely differently. A toccata was a piece in several sections, with contrast between the sections. The Buxtehude Praeludium that is the other subject of these columns is in toccata form, though under a different name. Whereas we sometimes think of a toccata as a piece that is meant to show off virtuosity, in the sense of speed, dexterity and general flashiness, originally the word denoted a piece that was meant to show off the variety of possibilities inherent in a keyboard instrument. Of course in this Boëllmann Suite, the work as a whole, amongst all of its movements, shows off a generous subset of what the organ of the composer’s time could do, with different textures being assigned to different movements rather than to different sections of a continuous piece.

Textures
The sixteenth-note perpetuum mobile of this movement manifests itself in three different specific textures, with slight variants. The first texture, found initially in the opening, occupies about 55 measures out of the total of 111 (Example 1). The second texture involves the sixteenth notes’ moving to the left hand and the introduction of syncopation (Example 2). This texture is present in 32 measures. In both of these textures, the sixteenth notes are in chord patterns and remain within one hand-span. That is, the hand does not have to turn over to reach the notes of each chord shape. This is a crucial factor in the technical learning of the movement. The third texture displays more variety within itself. It first shows up in measure 26 (Example 3). With its variants, it accounts for 18 measures, only three of which occur before measure 67. It more or less takes over the ending of the piece.
Each of these three textures is first introduced in a manuals-only passage. The pedal, whenever it comes in, is providing slower-moving motifs, starting with what most listeners familiar with the piece would probably identify as the principal theme (Example 4). This theme returns several times, sometimes as is, sometimes in octaves. Other than this, the pedal provides quarter-note or slower harmonic foundation.

Hand placement
What from amongst these initial observations about texture might have interesting implications for learning the piece? Several things stand out.
Although the two hands are never meant to be played on separate manuals (all of the several manual changes, at m. 20, 28, 35, 53, 61, etc., involve moving the whole texture to a new keyboard), there is never any ambiguity about which hand should play which notes. I have scarcely ever seen a piece about which I would so confidently predict that every player would make the same hand choice decisions. The hand choice that makes sense is that represented by the placement of notes on staves in the Durand edition (and for that matter every other edition that I have seen). There are a very few spots where it would not be actually impossible to take an isolated left hand note in the right hand—the first note of m. 10, a few notes in m. 20 and similar passages—but it would always be awkward. This is interesting, since working out hand choices has been a focus of our discussion of several of the previous movements of the Boëllmann and also of the Buxtehude. It is a step that is just not relevant here.
For the majority of the quarter-note beats of this piece, each hand is playing a chord shape that fits under the hand without a change of hand position. Each of the manual examples above illustrates this. (In two beats of Example 3, the right hand’s notes are not chord shapes: this is the exception. In any case, the notes fit under the hand without a shift in hand position.) This means that fingering choices are also subject to less variation than usual, though not as little variation as the hand choices.
Most of these quarter-note-long chord-shaped note patterns succeed one another without the need for any planning. That is, the transition from one to the next is self-evident or, at least, straightforward. This manifests itself in different ways. For the long stretches of the left hand that resemble Example 1—eighth-note chords separated by eighth-note rests, or, looking at it another way, detached quarter-note chords—it is obvious that the rests give the hand an opportunity to regroup between chords and to play each chord with whatever fingering is simply the most comfortable. Furthermore, the chords are never very distant from one another on the keyboard. There are no scary leaps.
When the right hand has the pattern of the beginning measures, the transition from the last note of one (spread out) chord shape to the next is also easy. This is because the new beat begins in the direction in which the hand is already deployed, and the first note of the new beat is never too far away. After the thumb has played the fourth right-hand note of the piece, for example, the hand could easily play any note from c#′ to, say, e′′′. The actual next note, g′′, is extremely easy to find. It lies right under a finger, the fourth or fifth, most likely. This situation is repeated throughout the piece. If the fifth right-hand note of the piece were a middle C, for example, then the fingering and execution of that spot would go from being natural and easy to being extremely difficult. It would require careful planning and a lot of practice, and would indeed set a lower ceiling on tempo. If that note were a very high note, say a′′′ or even c′′′′, then the logistics and planning would still be straightforward but the execution would be much more difficult.
When the left hand has spread-out chords, as in Example 2, those chords are also arranged in a way that lends itself to simple and predictable fingering, much like the opening right-hand motif, though the specific chord shapes are different. In many of these measures—mm. 20, 22, 24, 28 and several similar spots—the right hand has mostly scale-wise quarter-note or slower melodies for which fingering is again straightforward. However, in a few places—mm. 26, 34, 59, and quite a few measures near the end of the piece—there is a new element. The right hand has to play a legato melody in the top part of the compass while playing sixteenth notes below that melody. This is seen in Example 3. These are the spots in the piece where the fingering becomes somewhat involved. The solution, assuming that the legato of the upper line is to be preserved, is to use substitution in those upper notes, so that each note can be played by the most available finger and then held by the fifth finger. This leaves the rest of the hand free to carry out the sixteenth-note patterns (Example 5).
(Of course this is just one way of doing it, based, as usual, on my particular hand. Others might want to use 2/5 on the first beat of the new measure, for example.)
So, this piece—at least the manual part of it—is constructed out of surprisingly simple elements, easy to plan out as to fingering and also easy to execute. That does not mean that a student can play it well without working hard on it. For one thing, the coordination with the pedal is potentially quite challenging; for another, it is all meant to go quite fast—fast enough that it ceases to be easy, even though it is made up of easy elements. In fact, any student should be over-conscientious about mapping out the fingering for all of these simple elements, and also should practice all of the parts amply: short sections, one hand at a time, until each hand for each section has become second nature. Only then should the hands be put together. This is in principle exactly the same as with any other piece.

Pedal part
The pedal part, unlike the hands, does provide the opportunity to make choices that will vary among different players. The opening pedal theme (Example 4) can be played with alternate toes and come out as legato as the player might wish. This way of playing it feels quite natural. Furthermore, there are no indications for use of the swell pedal or other non-note-playing uses of the feet during the passages in which the pedal plays this theme. However, there are also a number of different heel-and-toe-based pedalings that could also make sense. Given the time and place of the creation of this piece, any of the above could represent the composer’s assumptions about how it might be played. Since it is important that this theme be played easily with spontaneity, it is key that the student feel comfortable with the chosen pedaling.
During the middle measures of the piece, the pedal line is often a harmonically based quarter-note bass line. Again, the pedaling can be worked out a number of different ways, none of them particularly complicated. For example, in mm. 29 and 31 the third-beat quarter note can be played with right heel or left toe, consistent with its being legato. Or the choice could be made to play the quarter notes detached, in which case all of the quarter notes could be played with the right toe.
Measures 73–75 are a particularly interesting case. Clearly, the higher notes will all be played with the right foot and the lower notes with the left. The choice as to whether to get the heels involved will be based on personal preference and also on the intended articulation. These notes have no articulation marked. The overall sound and texture at this point in the piece is loud and energetic. Are these notes an energetic driving bass, or a kind of quasi misterioso chromatic near-trill? Or something else? Choices about articulation here will possibly depend in part on acoustics. This is a good place for a student to try different things and listen carefully to different effects.
Near the end of the piece, the opening pedal theme comes back in octaves. (This starts in m. 85.) Needless to say, by physical necessity, the left foot will play the lower octave and the right foot will play the upper. And again, choices about toe and heel will be made based on both personal preference about technique and decisions about articulation. If the student has conceived the theme as legato from the beginning, then it perhaps makes sense to play it legato here. However, the fact that the texture here is very loud and emphatic might suggest a somewhat more emphatic articulation. On the other hand, the composer has altered the upper line, changing it from sixteenth notes to quarter notes (Example 6). What does this suggest about the pedal articulation? This is another place where it would be interesting for a student to try different things and listen carefully.

Pedals in octaves
There are two things to mention about practicing a pedal part that is in octaves. The first is that, all else being equal, it is easier both to learn the part and to execute it in performance if the toe and heel choices are the same for both feet. This is certainly not absolutely necessary, but it will happen naturally here, since the black note/white note patterns largely determine the heel placement. The second thing—more crucial—is that practicing the feet separately is useful and important. Doing enough of that will make everything about putting all of the parts together easier and more secure. The protocol for practicing a passage like this should include practicing each foot separately with each (separate) hand, as well as the feet as a unit with each hand. Probably practicing each foot separately with the left hand is the most important component of practicing the passage.

Crescendo marking
The composer has, rather considerately, limited crescendo marking (mostly, see m. 76) to places where the pedal line is both low and slow. That makes it as easy as it can be to choreograph the use of the swell pedal or, on a modern organ, of the toe studs or the crescendo pedal. This should be incorporated into the separate pedal practicing from the beginning, not left to the step of putting parts together.

Practice strategies
It is always important to practice parts and combinations of parts thoroughly enough so at each step of the way the material being practiced becomes easy and natural. A specific reason that it is important to do so with this piece is that it is meant to go fast. Of course, no one must play it at the given metronome marking. It can be very effective slower than that, and also faster if it is executed well. However, at any tempo, it is important that the feeling of the piece not be at all deliberate, that it trip along lightly but—as it goes on—powerfully. In particular, it is important that the quick upbeat notes in the pedal part slip into the stream of sixteenth notes in the right hand in a way that has energy and momentum, and doesn’t interrupt the flow of those notes. This can be achieved only if everything is very solidly—extra solidly—prepared.
This ends our trek through some aspects of the study and practicing of two very different important works of the organ repertoire. Next month I will give an overview of what we have learned and observed, and try to draw some general conclusions.