Introduction and Purpose
The lack of autograph manuscripts and the haphazard transmission of Buxtehude's organ works through generations of questionable copyists has plagued Buxtehude scholarship since its inception. In many cases, the poor text found in surviving sources of Buxtehude's music makes it difficult for editors to produce successful Urtext editions for performance. In the late 1960s, Klaus Beckmann bravely diverged from orthodox editorial practice and asserted that he would attempt to recover Buxtehude's lost voice through inference and, occasionally, pure conjecture.1 Despite this controversial but necessary methodology, his 1971 edition of Buxtehude's organ works was rightly lauded by many as being thoroughly musical. (See Table 1 for the list of common editions cited in this article.) Consequently, not only did his edition become the most popular edition for recent generations of organists, but his method was successfully employed by his competitor Christoph Albrecht in the recent Bärenreiter edition. With the performer in mind, the present article evaluates the first two volumes of Beckmann's 1997 edition of Buxtehude's complete organ works by comparing them to his earlier edition and to competing editions.
Brief Survey of Editions and Primary Sources
Beckmann attempted to remove the degradation of the musical text resulting from copyists who not only used a different musical notation than Buxtehude but were also removed from Buxtehude by region and one generation. In some cases, the scribe was simply inept or the surviving manuscripts clearly do not reflect Buxtehude's intentions. The eighteenth-century scribe of the Toccata in D Minor, BuxWV 155, for instance, not only misunderstood the meter and where to place barlines, he was also clearly confused by the North German organ tablature he was transcribing. This magnificent work exists only in this one corrupt manuscript. In examples such as Praeludium in A Major, BuxWV 151, multiple corrupt sources contradict each other or even provide extra passages.2
Under an Urtext model for editing, most editors in the past attempted to reliably transmit extant sources with an emphasis on the most recently discovered manuscripts.3 In 1876-78, Philipp Spitta drew primarily from two sources available to him, the Berlin Manuscript and the Andreas Bach Book. In 1939, Max Seiffert augmented Spitta's work with the recently discovered Lowell Mason Codex of 1684 ("Codex E. B. 1688") and the Schmahl Tablature. Still using Spitta's work as a basis, Joseph Hedar depended heavily upon the Lindemann and Engelhart Tablatures recently found in the Lund University library for his 1950 and 1952 edition.
More recent editions (after 1970) have attempted to approach all the available sources with more circumspection. But in his 1971 edition, Beckmann not only reevaluated the extant primary sources and conflated musical passages from multiple sources further than his predecessors, he took the revolutionary step of examining the musical context ("internal textual criticism") to figure out what Buxtehude might have meant to say (his "ipsissima vox").4 Albrecht's 1994-95 edition embraces Beckmann's methods, but often with different musical results. In contrast to these recent approaches aimed towards a performable score, Michael Belotti chose the least corrupt source (in his opinion) and essentially marked all other sources as variants in his recent 1998 edition. Unlike Albrecht's and Beckmann's editions, Belotti's does not present an amalgamation of sources that attempts to find Buxtehude's real voice.
In summary, nearly every edition emphasizes different sources, and the recent editions present opposing but equally legitimate approaches: Belotti's volumes allow a scholar to reconstruct any of the sources with the help of his extensive (and easy to read!) critical notes; in contrast, Albrecht and Beckmann both present convincing interpretations that a performer can simply play without being forced into score study. Because the older and the newer editions represent different sources or approaches, I must say that they all still deserve consideration when seriously studying particular works.
Beckmann's First Edition (1971): The Criticisms
Several criticisms of Beckmann's 1971 edition motivated the publication of his 1997 revision. The primary objection to the original edition was that the critical notes were only located in the scholarly volumes (EB 6621-22) intended for scholars and libraries, whereas performers generally elected to buy the relatively inexpensive performance edition (EB 6661-62). Because few bought the expensive scholarly edition, it quickly fell out of print and became essentially inaccessible. Thus, performers who used Beckmann's scores were entirely dependent upon his good musical judgement.
Furthermore, the conveniently "clean" appearance of 1971 scores gives the performer a false sense of security over the notes and musical issues. Alternative readings, suggestive indications in the primary sources, and labels marking Beckmann's inferences were not on the scores, and thus the performer is kept in the dark concerning these issues. One could not know, for instance, whether ties on repeated notes were authentic or editorial. One had to guess whether directions in manuscripts or the editor's preference determined the assignment of bass lines to the pedal or manuals. Without editorial marks, even a determined organist might not be able to discover what was original to relevant manuscripts and what was purely Beckmann's.
Although most organ scholars now agree that Beckmann's methods are necessary for the performance of many late seventeenth-century organ works, any attempt to reconstruct Buxtehude's desires obviously invites disagreements over particular interpretations. The use of pedal can be contested throughout the repertory. The most frequent criticism is Beckmann's handling of the opening keyboard figuration in the Praeludium in G Minor, BuxWV 149, in which Beckmann's groupings do not resemble those found in any source.5 (And, one of the sources suggests a more exhilarating effect.) The Toccata in D Minor, BuxWV 155, provides another common point of disagreement, because the manuscript source requires extensive editorial reconstruction--or "resurrection" as one reviewer put it. For this reason, reviewers often use this toccata to test an editor's merit.6 In the case of the Praeludium in E Minor, BuxWV 142, two sources dramatically disagree at the juncture between the last two sections.7 The quirky countersubject of the first fugue in the Praeludium in C Major, BuxWV 136, seemingly defies a consistent solution.8 When comparing the two editions, one need only spend a little effort to find many shorter instances of some import, such as striking chords and registers being normalized or inferred.9 Although alternatives to Beckmann's solutions may be better in several cases, Beckmann's 1971 interpretations are, for the most part, justifiable, musical, and convincing.10 (Alternative solutions found in other editions and in recordings can often be justified as well.) For this reason, I believe Beckmann preserved the spirit of most interpretations from 1971 in his 1997 edition.
Beckmann's Revised Edition (1997): The Preface, Critical Notes, Bibliography, and Sources
The revised edition features a more in-depth preface, a bibliography, and critical notes in addition to the scores of Buxtehude's free organ works. Beckmann's serviceable preface, despite its awkward translation, defends his goals and several of his editorial choices (more on this later)--its language and content seem aimed more towards scholars than performers using his edition. The bibliography is a wonderful addition: in one concise page, Beckmann compiles a list of recent seminal articles, along with significant editions and books. Beckmann corrected the most prominent flaw of the 1971 edition by appending the critical notes. As usual, critical notes will be a dense list of cryptic abbreviations and German phrases to the uninitiated. Although musicologists immediately feel at home, I suspect only determined, scholarly minded organists will use them. (Other editions, incidentally, do provide more accessible prefaces and critical notes.11) With the addition of these three features (preface, bibliography, and critical notes), Beckmann has responded to scholars' chief criticisms.
In addition to discussing some noticeable changes in editorial procedures (more on this later), Beckmann reiterates the modern issue over genre names in his preface: titles such as "Toccata" or "Praeludium" that can be found in the manuscript sources are preferred over the misleading anachronistic labels such as "Prelude and Fugue" found in older editions. Beckmann presses this point further than most by avoiding the inclusion of key centers in titles. The well-known Praeludium in E Major is simply "Praeludium" and indistinguishable by title from any others. Fortunately, this is not a major inconvenience, because key signatures can be read quickly, and the table of contents does list the modern keys (carefully separated from the titles). The order of pieces by BuxWV number (i.e., by key center!) in the first volume also makes the pedaliter praeludia easy to locate. The second volume, which contains the non-pedaliter and a few pedaliter free works, preserves the seemingly haphazard ordering of works in the BuxWV. One would need to memorize the BuxWV numbers to avoid constantly referring to the table of contents. Worse yet, the rough division of pedaliter and manualiter works found in the BuxWV and reflected in distribution of works in the two volumes may make Beckmann's edition potentially misleading.12 Except for BuxWV 162, in which an early eighteenth-century scribe indicated manuals only in the title, organists today may often choose whether to use pedals.
According to Beckmann, the 1997 revision reportedly benefits from recent scholarship (after 1971). Beckmann also points out that Albrecht's 1995 edition does not incorporate this scholarship, but in an addendum to his second edition (1997), Albrecht discounts the importance to his edition.13 (Three articles from the mid-1980s and the 1990s only argue that one manuscript source is derived from another one.)
Several new entries were added to the list of sources consulted by both Albrecht and Beckmann since
Beckmann's 1971 edition;14 however, the interpretation of only four works was affected. The Praeludium in F-sharp Minor, BuxWV 146, experiences the largest change--all modern editions have switched to the recently discovered Werndt manuscript as a primary source. Beckmann 1997 also adds a late eighteenth-century secondary source beyond Albrecht's list of sources, but from what I can tell, its content of three pieces makes little difference to Beckmann's interpretations. Belotti's edition, incidentally, surveys all these currently available sources. The additional sources discovered since 1971 affect only a handful of pieces.
Beckmann's Revised Edition (1997): The Scores
Although the layout of the 1997 edition is exactly the same as the 1971 one--measures and musical notes are placed in exactly the same physical location along with the convenient page turns that we remember--the scores now distinguish some types of editorial license. In the 1997 edition, for instance, Beckmann clarifies which ties are editorial (dotted bowed lines) and which are original to the sources (solid tie). Although I find the dotted lines focus my attention too heavily on Beckmann's consistently good judgement on this issue, other reviewers apparently feel this is a major improvement. The locations of ties, incidentally, rarely change between the old and new Beckmann editions. (An example can be found in mm. 96-100 of BuxWV 149, where the tenor now rearticulates notes.)
Critical performance directions found in the sources now appear in the score. In particular, performers can easily tell whether a source specifies pedals. Thereby organists can identify ambiguous situations and choose to adopt Beckmann's educated guesses or to play alternative solutions instead. In several instances, a different choice might not only be more effective, but also be much easier to execute.15 The danger of Beckmann's (and Albrecht's) continued use of a separate staff for the pedal part, however, is that players may forget to consider these alternatives.16
Although Beckmann directly warns that "the decision about how much of the bass part is to be attributed to the manual and the pedal must be taken even when the work is notated in three staves,"17 one wonders how many organ students really read and heed his caution. Even though a skilled organist should be able to rearrange the parts at sight, too many organists may be seduced into relying too heavily on Beckmann's choices, however reasonable, to justify the ease that three-staff notation provides to the editor. Beginners will undoubtedly play what is on the page. In the preface, Beckmann also defends himself against those who claim that two-staff notation is better on historical grounds: Most sources of Buxtehude's music, admittedly, use two-staff notation, but Buxtehude himself certainly used organ tablature and did not need to make this notational decision at all.
A number of editorial changes between the 1971 and 1997 publications involve subtle changes in musical notation: (1) In the old edition, Beckmann beams four eighth notes together in 4/4 meter. According to Beckmann, the new edition uses duplets instead in order to encourage a Baroque performance practice "microarticulation." Although this change makes little difference to me when I use the scores, at least one reviewer found this subtle difference objectionably dogmatic, especially in the case of the three-eighth-note upbeat.18 (See Examples 1a and 1b.) In faster tempos, the more prominent layer of articulation probably lies on strong beats as quadruplets of the older edition would suggest. (2) Beckmann chooses to emphasize the use of dots over ties to lengthen notes. He believes that Buxtehude preferred this notation, perhaps because it reflects the act of playing more closely: If a note is struck once, one note head (with a dot) is used, rather than two note heads (with a tie). Perhaps Beckmann's scores resemble the Baroque sources a little more closely, but, as a modern player, I find this archaic notation simply irritating in some passages--it has little, if any, effect upon performance. (See Examples 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b.) (3) Like most sources, Beckmann's edition no longer supplies rests in empty bars, leaving numerous staves entirely empty. (If he omitted these empty staves, would he be able to decrease the number of page turns?) The 1971 edition, incidentally, used a small font size for editorially supplied rests, but most users probably didn't regard the difference. (4) Less significant details exhibit more consistency in notation, such as the addition of "6" above all the (controversial) sextuplets in BuxWV 149 and the breaking of a sixteenth-note beam in m. 152 of BuxWV 142. (Note that some notational changes do reflect significant changes, such as the changed incipit to BuxWV 142, which reflects the emphasis of an alternative source in the later edition.) In summary, the improved scores, once again, better approximate the original sources, but several notational improvements have little effect on the performer.
Although most players may generally find Beckmann's improvements somewhat subtle, the addition of pedal indications from the sources, altered stemming, or even ties in particular cases can make a great difference. Beckmann, for instance, works hard to reflect the voice-leading through stemming, and, in mm. 36-39 of BuxWV 143, the revised edition uses an additional change of register to untangle the confusion of counterpoint found in his 1971 edition. (See Examples 4a and 4b.) In a case where the reviewer Lawrence Archbold praises Albrecht's choice of a striking dominant seventh sonority in m. 8 of BuxWV 155 over Beckmann's 1971 "correction" to a major triad, Beckmann does revert to the dominant seventh that Spitta, Hedar, and Albrecht all read directly from the primary source.19 Such small but important differences are evident in numerous works, and, if one is familiar with the 1971 edition, one will notice a myriad of subtle changes in nearly every work. (See Examples 5a and 5b.) The publication of a revision is justified.
Recommendations
For organists buying Buxtehude's works for the first time, both
Beckmann's and Albrecht's editions serve the purpose of a ready-made and relatively affordable interpretation excellently. Both are highly recommended. While I personally prefer Beckmann's familiar renditions, Albrecht's edition provides enough information both on the scores and in the critical notes to involve "the user whenever possible in the decision-making process [of what to play]."20 (For this reason, Albrecht's edition might not be the best for beginners, but for more scholarly oriented players.)
From the above discussion, it is obvious that most Buxtehude enthusiasts will want to own several different editions. I should also mention that Dover has reissued Spitta/Seiffert's work (originally published by Breitkopf & Härtel in 1939). The publication is so inexpensive that it may be worthwhile to have it on one's shelves to consult occasionally, because their fine editing clearly reflects the sources that were available in 1939. In my opinion, upgrading from Beckmann's 1971 to his 1997 edition is simply too expensive, despite the countless small improvements justifying the revision's printing--Beckmann's 1971 edition suffices for those who already own it (with the caveat that performers reference another score or access the separate critical notes). I would avoid the Hedar edition as a sole performing score--as in the case of Spitta's edition, organists would need to consult other editions too often. Yet, for those without financial constraints, the Hedar edition provides another interpretation worthy of consideration and is a useful reference tool on the Lund sources. This older edition, after all, marked an important milestone in Buxtehude scholarship. Because both the Spitta and Hedar editions derive so clearly from the sources, a comparison with modern performing editions will show how much Beckmann's procedures have changed our view of Buxtehude's music.
Avid fans of Buxtehude's music should own Belotti's fine reference edition to supplement their performing editions. It is the best companion for study of this music. The scholarly edition, however, is out of the price range of most students, and, if used as a sole source for performing, it requires organists to study pieces and sources before learning pieces--something that isn't appealing to everyone.21 Libraries should obviously own Belotti's reference edition, because performers and scholars will want to examine the easy-to-read details of all the "variants" in the extant sources. A good music library will want to offer several, if not all, the currently available editions, because each displays different merits. Such resources would truly allow organists to intelligently tailor their own convincing versions.
Without Buxtehude's autograph manuscripts, no definitive edition can exist. Whatever edition of Buxtehude's music one is using, one should consult the preface and critical notes. Albrecht's preface is particularly good in this regard, along with the alternative readings in the score itself. Belotti's provides for fascinating reading and surprising accessibility in a scholarly edition. I hope that, with this article, organists will be able to choose the editions that best fit their needs and that they will feel inspired to consult multiple editions when enjoying and performing Buxtehude's music. n
Common Editions of Buxtehude Free Organ Works
Albrecht, Christoph, ed. Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Orgelwerke. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1994-98. (Edition BA 8221-23)
Beckmann, Klaus, ed. Sämtliche Orgelwerke. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1971-72. (Performer's edition EB 6661-62)
________. Sämtliche Orgelwerke. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1971-72. ("Scholarly" edition EB 6621-22)
________. Sämtliche Orgelwerke. Revised New Edition. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1997. (Edition 6661-62)
Belotti, Michael, ed. Dieterich Buxtehude: The Collected Works, Volume 15 (Part 1 A & B Preludes, Toccatas and Ciaconas for Organ (pedaliter)). Kerala J. Snyder and Christoph Wolff, general editors. Williamstown, MA: The Broude Trust, 1998. (ISBN 0-8540-7515-2)
Hedar, Josef, ed. Sämtliche Orgelwerke. Kobenhavn: W. Hansen, 1952. (Edition 3921-22)
Spitta, Philipp. Organ Works (1875/1939). Revised by Max Seiffert. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1952. Reprint edition. New York: Dover, 1988. (ISBN 0-486-25682-0)
