ON THE INTERPRETATION OF BACH'S TRILLS

Abstract

Musical notation is symbolic. The notes, rests, and other signs that appear on a page of manuscript or printed music never mean exactly what they purport to mean. These symbols are used by the composer of each era according to the conventions of his time; they serve as a reminder to the performer of patterns of musical tones and rhythms with which he is already familiar. The notation of Western music is based on mathematics; the durations of notes and rests are represented on paper in terms of arithmetic proportions. Yet, if the executant were to reproduce these proportions with strict mathematical accuracy the resulting performance would inevitably be dry, mechanical, and unmusical. The business of the interpreter is, among other things, to determine which notes should be emphasized, which should be held a little longer or a little shorter than their specified values in order to project the musical pattern that the composer had in mind. In the realm of ornamentation this problem is greatly intensified. The interpreter must decide not only which notes to emphasize, which to hold longer or shorter than the others, but also how many notes go to make up the ornament and what notes they are in the first place, since none of these factors are made explicit by the notation. Tables of ornaments, such as J. S. Bach's Explication in the Clavierbiichlein vor Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, often translate the ornaments indicated by signs into arithmetically proportionate note values. Even if these tables were to be taken literally the problem of which notes to emphasize, which to hold a little longer, etc., would still remain. But the discrepancies between the tables left by various composers and teachers show that they were not intended to be taken literally. The number and value of the notes allotted to a given ornament vary from table to table-even, in some cases, between two tables by the same composer. Such realizations are schematic; they do no more