Misattribution - Family plot

[Dux Corvan]

In CPDL, the german sacred lamento (a concerto-aria) "Ach, daß ich Wassers gnug hätte", is still attributed to Heinrich Bach.

More recent research has determined the real author is Johann Christoph Bach (1642-1703) -Bach of Eisenach- (not J. S. Bach's uncle -named the same- but Heinrich's son: a very inspired cousin of his father).

So, it should be corrected.

Also, the work "Wie bist du denn, o Gott" is correctly attributed to the same author (Johann Christoph Bach), but the dates of birth and death are erroneously those of the other Johann Christoph Bach (1645-1695), Johann Sebastian Bach's uncle, twin brother of his father Johann Ambrosius, who died only a few weeks later.

A very common mistake.

[pml]

Hi Dux!

There are indeed quite a number of misattributions on CPDL. However, my view is that the majority of these should be noted as misattributions rather than completely corrected, since they will in all likelihood lead to further confusion when people search for the musical work based on the older information. Someone who is in possession of the newer information relating to a work's composer is also likely to be aware of past misattributions.

On this forum I have already referred to the example of Non nobis Domine - which almost everyone thinks is by Byrd, but which could have been written by *any* composer living in England circa 1620 to 1625. It would be silly to insist on changing the page to Non nobis Domine (Anonymous) when virtually everyone will be searching for [Non nobis & Byrd], so instead the work page remains as Non nobis Domine (William Byrd) - but with a prominent notice explaining the research, and citing references.

Similarly, most people will search for "Mozart's Twelfth Mass" using Mozart as a query term, rather than using the name of the actual composer - Wenzel Müller.

Some people believe the Missa super Mon coeur recommende a vous should be attributed to Johannes Eccard, rather than Orlando di Lasso (who is usually referred to as Orlande de Lassus in more recent scholarly work; a lot of Renaissance composers are listed by alternate forms of their names, e.g. Josquin Desprez/des Prez or Vittoria/Victoria); in fact the work should be dually listed, on the Lassus page as a spurious work, and on the Eccard page as a possible work, but unauthenticated.

Re: your comments on the Bachs - I doubt it is a conspiracy (or a "plot") to discredit one particular member of the family - just that the family was so incredibly prolific, that some confusion of its members is now frankly unavoidable. Editors should include the full name *and* dates of any composer surnamed Bach when editing a work, but if they are drawing from manuscript or secondary sources these may be insufficient to make a definitive attribution, and even reference works such as Grove have been known to publish errors.

Anyone else with thoughts on this subject?

Regards, Philip

[SabineCassola]

Yesterday I've sent a corrected version of the "wrong Heinrich" Bach to CPDL. Thank you for the information.
Sabine Cassola

[CHGiffen]

This is not spam!
[rest of message (a link for phentermins) deleted]

Yes it IS spam, you are a spammer, your post has been deleted, and your IP address have been banned.