I realize that my theory and claims have the potential of being highly controversial. For this reason, I have written this disclaimer_ that intends to clarify things and elaborate on what my theory is and what it is not. The reader is asked to please read and understand this disclaimer_ page before becoming offended and outraged. (Yes, believe it or not, my theory has been misinterpreted and stirred up a lot of emotions in the past.)

What my theory is:

1. My theory seeks to recognize certain peculiarities in Bach’s music, which have to do mainly with the numbers of measures Bach chose, the various proportional relationships between these measure counts, and their implications regarding tempo, duration, and overall architecture.

2. My theory is one of me playing the role as a “musical detective” who investigates Bach’s measure counts, relationships between measure counts, overall architecture, and temporal implications, just as an actual detective investigates evidence in order to solve a crime. I try to keep my research as objective and unbiased as possible, looking at the evidence and basing my decisions and conclusions on the interpretation of this evidence. The evidence to which I refer includes:

• musical style (all dance and non-dance styles)
• meter or time signature (this often implies a certain type of tempo)
• musical motives and melodic elements (used to cross-reference works)
• harmonic rhythm (faster changing harmonies often imply slower tempos)
• measure counts (this is probably the most revealing aspect of all)
• relationships between measure counts (this is also very revealing)
• symmetry (Bach’s use of symmetry is extremely revealing)

3. My theory assumes a special set of tempos from the outset, otherwise we would have no concrete, absolute values with which to work. Theorizing about durations and proportional duration ratios without assuming absolute tempos would be virtually impossible, not to mention highly impractical. It is simply not good enough to hypothesize that two movements have, say, equal durations, if no concrete durations in minutes and seconds are given. All compositions (by all composers) have to have a tempo and a duration of concrete, absolute values. These values may differ from performer to performer, but nevertheless, a composition still has to have a tempo and a duration.

4. My theory applies the assumed tempos to Bach’s works, which makes it possible to calculate actual durations in minutes and seconds. These assumed tempos are not just any tempos, but rather, tempos hypothesized as the tempos Bach most likely would have used, had he employed a mathematically ideal system of tempo. Of course, Bach had no metronome, however, clocks and watches had been in existence for a long time. Therefore, had he really wanted to, Bach could have easily determined his usual tempos in beats per minute using a clock or watch. Before the invention of the metronome, all that one really needed to measure a tempo was to know how long one minute lasted. And Bach certainly was able to clock the duration of one minute. Thus, it can be assumed that Bach knew his tempos in beats per minute unless proven otherwise.

5. The theory of proportional duration ratios in Bach's music has already been discussed by a few well-known scholars (as mentioned earlier in Elaboration 1), so it is not a new idea. I have just developed the idea to a new level, which has been made possible by the development of my own innovative and unique analytical system. I analyze Bach's music on my own terms and do not take much stock in the currently available literature on tempo in Bach's music. Therefore, I make no apologies for citing a very small number of the usual sources in the form of articles and books, since there are hardly any to rely on and hardly any worth citing. The subject of tempo in Bach's music has probably the greatest dearth of books and articles out of any musicological topic. With the exception of some of the writings of Johann Philip Kirnberger, Bach’s most famous student and disciple, and a couple of isolated studies that I believe are worthy and relevant to my theory (i.e., Marshall, Franklin), my sources are my musical scores.

What my theory is not:

1. My theory is not a study in historical performance practice, despite the fact that it deals with a topic that is traditionally performance-practice related. The discipline of historical performance practice is one of investigating the ways and means in which music was performed during the period in question. For example, a performance-practice study concerning tempo during Bach’s time would most likely contain a plethora of citations and references from eighteenth-century theorists and writers, which may provide evidence for tempo conventions among performers during this time. My theory does not concern itself very much with the way eighteenth-century performers may have played Bach’s music, but rather, focuses on evidence relevant to “Bach the composer,” “Bach the architect,” and “Bach the scientist.” In essence, I am not interested so much in the way performers played Bach’s music as I am in discovering cryptic elements in Bach’s compositional art and uncovering hidden secrets regarding Bach’s standard operating procedures, or modus operandi.

2. My theory is not one of dictating to performers how fast or slow to play Bach’s music. Please do not interpret my analyses as implying, “If you do not choose this tempo or achieve this duration, then you are a bad performer.” Performers will invariably play any tempos they choose as long as we exist on earth. Even were 1000 books and articles available about tempo in Bach’s music, performers still would probably end up playing the tempos they feel like playing. I am simply presenting the evidence, stating the facts, and making conclusions based on my research. It is the performers’ decision whether or not they wish to believe my research and conclusions.

3. My theory is not one that advocates playing Bach’s works like a robot with no feeling or flexibility. Just because I conclude that Bach intended a work to last, say, two minutes does not imply that one needs to play with metronomic rigidity to achieve this duration. It is very easy to follow a certain tempo and achieve a certain duration and at the same time play, sing, or conduct with emotion and feeling. For some reason, critics of my theory often assume that I advocate performing with robot-like precision. In all honesty, nothing could be further from the truth. I am sure everyone would rather hear a heartfelt, musical performance at an incorrect tempo than a cold and emotionless performance at the correct tempo.

4. My theory does not imply Bach performed his works with robot-like precision either, neither does it imply that Bach necessarily played these tempos exactly in his own performances. There is a big difference between an “ideal” or “planned” tempo and an “actual” tempo. The tempos I give are the tempos that I have concluded Bach heard in his head as he was conceiving the work, the “ideal” tempo, which could have been at a desk away from an instrument or during an organ improvisation in a church. The “actual” tempo, on the other hand, is the tempo Bach may have played or conducted in actual performance. Due to a variety of factors—for example, Bach’s mood on that particular day, the particular instrument he was playing, the acoustical environment—the tempos Bach played were almost certainly not exactly the same as the “ideal” tempo that he may have planned for his idealized creation of ;“musical architecture” or “musical science.” However, I estimate that the average difference between Bach’s “ideal” and “actual” tempos was probably not that great, in the range of no more than about four beats per minute in either direction. That is, if Bach planned, say, quarter = 72 as the ideal tempo, he most likely would have performed it in the range of quarter = 68-76. This estimation is based on studies in musical perception that suggest most humans generally perceive differences in tempo in intervals of about 8%, or four to five beats per minute.

5. My theory is not one of amassing an excessive number of footnotes and citations as a means in itself. It seems that many scholars choose this approach and expect this approach from other scholars, as it is very popular in academic journals and books. Personally, I find an overly academic use of footnotes and citations to be pedantic and counterproductive, since they often merely bring up side issues that are either irrelevant to the general thesis or just one citation could either corroborate or refute the thesis depending on how one interprets the information. For example, if I conclude that Bach's French overture tempo was quarter = 63 and I cite another scholar's tempo of quarter = 60 in order to corroborate my tempo, this could easily be turned around and used against me as a refutation of my tempo depending on how others interpret this data. Thus, my theory becomes more valid, self-contained, and much easier for the general public to read and understand if I simply refrain from using excessive footnotes and citations. As stated above, I make no apologies for not conforming to usual musicological methodology, because I have chosen to conduct my research on my own terms.

Top of page