Talk:Goldberg Variations

Thanks for adding these brief notes on each variation - they're very useful. However, I'm curious about this assertion that the aria is "not the theme but the first variation". That seems a rather odd thing to say to me seeing as the following thing is marked "Variation 1". I think I have the Williams book somewhere, but can't lay my hands on it, so any explanation of this is gratefully received. --Camembert

The theme, if you can call it that, is in the bass. There is a sequence g-f-e-d b-c-a-g etc which forms the structure of all the bass lines. The upper parts have nothing in common, unlike, say, the Diabelli, where the theme is varied in the upper part. This is why it is referred to as a chaconne. I think I'm right in saying that variations on a ground (ie in the bass) are pretty rare after 1750. BevRowe

PS I see you are interested in cinquains, too. We seem to be dogging each other.

I see what you mean, and you're right that variations on a ground are rare beyond the baroque (there's a rather jolly example in Beethoven, however: the 32 Variations in C minor, WoO80), but I still don't see why that makes the aria the first variation and not the theme. That bass-line has to come from somewhere (just as the top line has to come from somewhere in the Diabelli vars), and it comes from the theme. There's no rule that says that a piece in variation form must be based on the uppermost line. The Diabelli Variations aren't really based on the upper line either (which is after all tremendously dull), but on the underlying harmony (the 13th variation of that set makes this point rather wittily by only making a sound when the harmony changes) - in that sense, the Diabellis are rather like the Goldbergs. So I'm going to remove that comment from the article - sorry. Of course, the article could probably do with more discussion about why the piece is often reckoned to be a chaconne, but if we're going to present a list of variations, I don't see the logic in saying the aria isn't the theme. --Camembert

Here's an idea for how to handle this article: we make the comments in the list of variations into anonymous comments on pretty uncontroversial things, like "this is a canon at the second", and "a lively variation with imitation between the upper two parts" - quite dry, technical things like that. Then we put Williams' comments after the list: "Peter Williams, writing in his book Goldberg Variations comments that the aria is not really the theme, but the first variation. He also questions the presto possible tempo at which variation 11 is usually taken..." and so on. I'm a bit worried that we're giving too much prominence to Williams' interpretations of the piece, you see, and that by putting his views in the list we're presenting them as "correct", when a lot has been written about this piece, and there are many differing ideas about it. I think this will give us a better article. --Camembert

I've played around with the article a bit, and it's ended up a bit different to how I originally envisioned it, but I think it's an improvement - basically, Williams' views are labelled as such as they crop up, rather than labelling the entire list as being based on Williams. I hope everyone else think this is an improvement too, but if not, it's a pretty simple task to change it back. Some views of writers and performers other than Williams would be very useful - I'll see if I can dig anything up later. --Camembert

Good, I like what you've done, in general anyway. I may have some detailed quibbles when I look at it more carefully. What about more recordings? I just put in a few I had to hand.