Talk:Passacaglia

Eras

I would call in Kapsberger or Piccinini discussing the Passacaglia. Perhaps the Francois Couperin to give the ultimate example (instead of J.S. Bach) but Brahms c.s. is from another era.

Listcruft?

Sorry, I didn't intend to make the list of 20th century examples so long, but one example after another popped into my head and it got out of hand… My intention was to show that the passacaglia didn't die with Brahms' 4th! I'm too close to it now and can't see how to proceed; please feel free to prune. I feel strongly that we should not have a see also List of passacaglias.

I think the Webern, Shostakovich, Britten, and Lutoslawski give the finest and most encyclopedic examples mentioned. Rather than a list, perhaps it would be better to have a paragraph outlining these composers' use of the form? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Barry Lyndon

I believe the La Follia theme might have been used in the soundtrack for Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. Edit: On second thought, maybe not. -- Pangloss

If I remember rightly, the theme in the film is an arrangement of a movement from one of Handel's keyboard suites, which itself closely resembles La Folia. Whether either of them are passacaglias, I can't remember. --Camembert

This may well be the case, but the soundtrack to Barry Lyndon also obsessively uses Vivaldi's Trio-Sonata in D minor, op. 1, no. 12 (RV 63, Fanna XIII:28) on the Folia ground bass.--Jerome Kohl

The Handel piece in BLyndon is not a Follia or P., but a Sarabande with 2 variations.Galassi 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark Thompson

I'm a music enthusiast and noticed the same timing on a known Passacaglia with the piece from Solaris but I think it's an accurate characterization even if it's not explicitly mentioned as such, it would seem to fit the technical definition.

German

I have noticed over the past couple of days two attempts by anonymous editors to capitalize the German form of the term "passacaglia". These have been reverted by other editors, presumably because no explanation was given for the change. I have now once again capitalized the German word, with the explanation that, like all German nouns, Passacaglia must be capitalized. However, what those other editors did not seem to notice is that the word had a typo in it: the 'g' was omitted. Apart from capitalization, the German term (which can easily be checked on the parallel German Wikipedia article) is identical with the Italian form, which is also adopted into English.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's hard to know anyone's motivations without an edit summary, especially when it doesn't seem helpful, and goes against standard convention. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. However, as I'm sure you are aware, "standard conventions" vary from language to language, so that, when a foreign language is specifically referenced, the conventions of that language (rather than English conventions) must apply.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Origins and features

The section seems to be well referenced, but it certainly is very, very odd. I don't have any of the articles cited, but here's a list of oddities I found:

• We're first told that the term is Spanish, yet the first passacaglias are found in an Italian source. Silbiger's Grove article indicates that the very first are actually from Spanish sources from c. 1605.
• Immediately after claiming 1606 as the earliest source, the text jumps to 19th and 20th centuries, when "the word came to mean a set of ground-bass or ostinato variations." But this is wrong, and Silbiger's article states nothing of the sort. Silbiger writes "in 19th- and 20th-century music, a set of ground-bass or ostinato variations, usually of a serious character"; and the ostinato nature of the passacaglia has been established already in early 17th century. As a matter of fact, there should be at least a mention of Frescobaldi's 1627 work from Secondo libro di toccate, which is the earliest known example of a "modern" passacaglia.
• We're told that "the passacaglia is closely related to the chaconne, except that the former (in eighteenth-century French practice) leans more strongly to the melodic basso ostinato", which is at once odd (why only describe the French practice?) and/or wrong (because in other countries this need not be so, check Pachelbel's chaconnes, for instance).
• Then we have a bit that begins with "the seventeenth-century chaconne, as found paradigmatically in Frescobaldi's music...", which is silly, because Frescobaldi was working during the first half of the century, and there were many, many other chaconnes written after him.
• And finally, we're told that "composers often used the terms chaconne and passacaglia indiscriminately", which is correct... but then why does the article generalize as described above?

I'd start rewriting the article immediately, but seeing how everything is cited, I'm reluctant to change anything without first discussing things here. I believe we should model this article after Silbiger's Grove article: a smoothly flowing text detailing the history of the form, not a two-section article with "History" and "Composers" separated. --Jashiin (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Point 1: Silbiger actually says "The first references to pasacalles appear in Spanish literature in about 1605". There are no musical examples prior to the Italian 1606 source, and even then "No examples of notated compositions entitled passacagli (or one of its variants) other than the guitar-strumming formulae can be dated before 1627".

But Silbiger also refers to paseos, which are found in earlier Spanish sources, and referred to as passacaglias by some authors. Ergo, they're relevant to this article; at least some mention must be made of these compositions, otherwise the change from Spanish to Italian is too abrupt.

Point 2: The jump to the 19th and 20th centuries is indeed abrupt, but the quotation that you claim is wrong and not confirmed by Silbiger is actually the very first sentence of his New Grove article: "In 19th- and 20th-century music, a set of ground-bass or ostinato variations, usually of a serious character". Frescobaldi is mentioned twice in the article, but I agree that specific mention should be made of the 1627 publication, with a citation to Silbiger (actually his 1996 article gives a much fuller picture of the history of the Cento partite, and explains just how Frescobaldi mixes the genres of passacaglia and chaconne).

Ah, but there is a difference. Silbiger's sentence states that in 19th and 20th- century music the word meant ostinato variations, whereas our article says that the word came to mean ostinato variations during the 19th and 20th centuries, which is wrong, because it came to mean that very thing much earlier, at least in Germany and Italy.

Point 3: One cannot quote Fischer without actually saying what he says, though I think it would help enormously if this sentence were exchanged with the following one, so that the earlier Italian practice is described first, before the later French deviations from it.

Agreed, but see my reply to your point 5 below.

Point 4: "Paradigmatically" means that Frescobaldi's chaconnes formed the model for the composers who came after him. Why is this silly?

Well, did they really form a model for them? In a way that allows us to speak of the entire century using only Frescobaldi's name? German chaconnes (Buxtehude, Pachelbel, Kerll..) are very different from Frescobaldi's, as far as I recall; Pachelbel's works are very strict about their ostinatos, and Buxtehude's are rhythmically stricter than Frescobaldi's and structurally all over the place (his C minor chaconne includes a fugue, for instance). French examples, with the refrains and all, are also different; and finally, there's also the lute repertoire, which I'm not especially familiar with, but which probably includes chaconnes different from Frescobaldi's prototypes.

Point 5: I did not write this article, though I did contribute a fair amount, especially the material on Goetschius, Lucas, and Silbiger 1996, which is the most important source on the history of the interrelationship between the two terms, but I imagine it generalizes in the way that it does in part because it started out being very doctrinaire about an out-of-date and completely one-sided idea that passacaglia is one thing (bass ostinato) and chaconne something quite different (harmonic ostinato). There was in fact a distinction (though not the one formerly claimed in this article) in the earliest, 17th-century sources, as Frescobaldi's Cento partite makes very clear (see Silbiger 1996), and in certain times and places, other distinctions were also often made (e.g., French 18th-century practice). Why does it puzzle you that such things are specified in this article, and what ought to be done to make these things clearer?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not the fact that the various distinctions are specified that puzzle me; it's that I think the article should first describe the problem - i.e. that there is no clear distinction between chaconnes and passacaglias, although attempts to draw a line between the genres have been made before. And after that we can give examples of all kinds, with appropriate comments. The way things are now, the article first makes some statements about chaconnes vs. passacaglias, and then proceeds to tell the reader that, in reality, these statements may or may not be correct, since the distinction between the genres is blurred. I don't think it's logical.

As for the general improvement of article, I've already outlined my thoughts above: this shouldn't have "history" and "composers" in separate sections, but rather several sections, proceeding chronologically, as in Silbiger's article, which seems to me a good model. --Jashiin (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have chosen to intersperse your comments with mine, and I trust you will not mind if I do not follow your example.

Point 1: I agree that the Spain-Italy jump is rather abrupt, though we should not lose sight of the fact that a good-sized chunk of the Italian peninsula was actually a Spanish province at that time, which somewhat blurs the boundaries. However, the identification of passacalle with paseo made by Silbiger is qualified by "in certain contexts", and Richard Hudson's New Grove article clarifies that this "context" does not occur until Sanz, in 1674. Further, there is an annoying chronology problem for the paseo, in that the earliest surviving source was published in 1626, though there was an earlier edition (which may or may not have included the paseos) published in 1586 or 1596 (see Hudson's article). Do we really need to go into this toruous business in the present article?

Point 2: If you think it makes a difference, by all means replace "came to mean" with "was" or "had come to mean". I can see no substantive difference.

Point 4: Do you believe that a substantial number of 17th-century passacaglias are in major keys, and/or chaconnes in minor? The cited authority for this sentence (Silbiger 1996, linked in the Bibliography to the online publication) says otherwise, and further asserts that there are essentially three phases in the history of these forms: pre-Frescobaldi (to about 1630), Frescobaldi to Bach, and post-Bach (1750 to the present). The post-Frescobaldi phase was characterized by "an outburst of passacaglias and ciaconnas in all types of Italian instrumental and vocal music. Eventually their popularity spread through the rest of Europe, as they displayed a dazzling variety of forms that appears to defy all attempts at generalization." How would you propose augmenting the sentence under discussion, and what sources should we use?

Point 5: I see what you are saying, and you are right. By all means let us restructure the article as you suggest. It is especially odd to have a separate "composers" section. Might I go further, and suggest that the ludicrously long and indiscriminate list of "modern examples" (a prime example of a tail wagging the dog) be trimmed to just a few really prominent ones, and be incorporated into the prose text? Wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage such lists, in any case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Point 1: I agree including paseos is problematic, but how else can we counter the abruptness of the transition? We can't say there are no written examples, because the paseos may just be such examples, but on the other hand, explaining that situation is complicated.

Point 4: Perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough. What bothers me isn't the statement as such - it is correct, of course - but the fact that Frescobaldi is mentioned as someone who defined the 17th century chaconne, which isn't true. Silbiger 1996 supports this: there were simply too many different types of passacaglias and chaconnes happening, so mentioning "17th century chaconne" and "Frescobaldi" in one breath seems wrong to me.

Point 5: Agreed. I'll comment it out for now, and will try to work on the article tomorrow using Silbiger's Grove article, so that we had something to incorporate the more important entries into. Does that sound good? --Jashiin (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've rearranged the first section of the article, leaving most of the material intact. I think it's much tighter now than before. I temporarily commented out Fischer's comments on the French practice, I think they'll work better in a discussion of French passacaglias later on. I've also commented out the bit about the melodic pattern serving as a harmonic anchor, and the upper voices being varied freely, because this is essentially an explanation of what an ostinato-based composition is, and is already given in the text. Oh, and I've also commented out the list of modern examples, as you suggested. Now going to work on this further. --Jashiin (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I see some problems in there, the most serious of which is the apparent reversion to the false idea that passacaglia is necessarily an ostinato variation form. I also do not agree with the removal of Silbiger's explanation (in his 1996 article) of the differences between passacaglia and chaconne in 17th-century Italy. There are also a few minor grammar and syntax problems. However, I shall have to reflect on how best to change this, and in any case I have other fish to fry today.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, but Silbiger 2001 specifically states it is so: "In 19th- and 20th-century music, a set of ground-bass or ostinato variations, usually of a serious character." Or do you mean that mention should be made of later composers who departed from the model? --Jashiin (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with this characterization for the 19th and 20th centuries; it is for the 17th and 18th where I see the problems. Especially in the French repertoire, the passacaille and chaconne often lack any recognizable ostinato (e.g., the Passacaille from Hotteterre's Première Suitte de pièces à deux dessus, sans basse continue), and in 17th-century Italy, the similarities and distinctions between passacaglia and chaconne have more to do with key, metre, rhythm, and melodic type (which is what permits the two forms to be combined and distinguished in a single composition, such as Frescobaldi's Cento partite) than with whether or not there is an ostinato. This was not made as clear as it should have been in the reference to Silbiger 1996 which you removed, so I will not simply replace it, but the issue needs to be addressed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The article currently states that it reached the ostinato model by the 19th century, but I think I see what you're talking about. I'll try to think of something. Maybe we simply shouldn't have a section on "features", only detail features for respective time periods and individual composers? --Jashiin (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I shall think about this, as well. Plainly we must have some sort of definition of what passacaglia is—perhaps multiple definitions according to different times and places—if only so that readers might be able to distinguish it from, say, boiled cabbage, or totalitarianism, possibly even from chaconne.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Brahms' 4th Symphony?

The finale of Brahms' 4th Symphony is not a passacaglia, but a chaconne. Its bass is not repeated, just the harmonic "chassis". There is a note on this affirmation (n. 9), but this own note has no extern citation. I'll remove it (it's also incoherent, becaus in Chaconne article it cites this movement). --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems to be a debate that'll never end (much like passacaglia vs chaconne itself). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read the present article, you will find that by Brahms's time the chaconne and passacaglia were thoroughly confused, and the notion of distinguishing them by bass-line vs harmonic ostinato is only one amongst several mutually contradictory proposed solutions, made by certain theorists of the early 20th century, and largely discarded by 1950 or so. It is indeed a moot point.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable 20th century

I see that anonymous contributor 98.207.63.92 has restored three items from the fairly indiscriminate list of fifty or so pieces recently put in limbo by Jashiin, pending discussion concerning which if any should be restored. The Ronald Stevenson example in particular seems doubtful by comparison to suppressed items by, for instance, Shostakovich, and I cannot seem to find the discussion here wherein consensus was reached that these three examples and no others should be restored. I am therefore reverting the addition.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the overlong list of every possible trivial example from the 20th century has been restored. It appears that the note explaining why it was commented out has gotten lost somewhere along the line. Since it has now been a year and two-thirds since this list was put in limbo and no discussion has yet ensued, I have removed the list here to the discussion page. I propose that the list be pruned to only truly notable examples, no more than ten or, at most, fifteen. Here is the list, with its introductory paragraph:

The passacaglia proved an enduring form throughout the twentieth century and beyond. In mid-century, one writer stated that "despite the inevitable lag in the performance of new music, there are more twentieth-century passacaglias in the active repertory of performers than baroque works in this form".<ref>Stein 1959, 150</ref> Notable modern examples of the passacaglia form include the following (in chronological order of composition):

• Georg Schumann, Passacaglia über B-A-C-H, op. 39, for organ (ca. 1900)
• Max Reger, Introduction, Passacaglia and Fugue in B minor, op. 96, for 2 pianos (1906)
• Anton Webern, Passacaglia, op. 1 (1908)
• Gustav Holst, first movement of "First Suite in E♭ Major for Military Band" (1909).
• Sergei Rachmaninoff, second movement of the second, unfinished, String Quartet features a C minor scale-based Passacaglia (circa 1910, but possibly 1896).
• Daniel Gregory Mason, Passacaglia and Fugue, op.10, for organ (1912)
• Arnold Schoenberg, "Nacht" from Pierrot Lunaire (1912)
• Max Reger, Introduction, Passacaglia, and Fugue in E Minor, op. 127, for organ (1913)
• Ernő Dohnányi, tenth variation of Variations on a Nursery Theme, op. 25 (1914)
• Maurice Ravel, third movement of Trio in A minor (1914)
• Healey Willan, Introduction, Passacaglia and Fugue in E flat minor (1916)
• Paul Hindemith, Sonata for viola solo, op. 11, no. 5, last movement (1919)
• Percy Grainger, Themes from "Green Bushes" (1921)
• Aaron Copland's Passacaglia (1922)
• Paul Hindemith, String Quartet No. 5, op. 32 (1923) last movement
• Alban Berg, Wozzeck act I, scene 4 (1925)
• Berthold Goldschmidt Passacaglia, op.4 (1925)
• Richard Strauss's Panathenäenzug (Symphonic Etudes in the form of a Passacaglia), for piano (left hand) and orchestra, Op. 74 (1926–1927)
• Leopold Godowsky's Passacaglia (44 variations, cadenza and fugue on the opening of Schubert's Unfinished Symphony) (1927)
• Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji's Opus clavicembalisticum contains a Passacaglia (1929-30)
• Frank Bridge, "Lento e ritmico" from "Oration" for cello and orchestra (1930)
• Leo Sowerby, Symphony in G for organ, third movement (1930)
• Sigfrid Karg-Elert, Passacaglia and Fugue on B-A-C-H, op. 150, for organ (1931)
• Ralph Vaughan Williams, Passacaglia on B – G–C, for organ (1933)>
• Stefan Wolpe, Zwei Studien for orchestra, second movement (1933)
• Stefan Wolpe, Four Studies on Basic Rows for piano, no. 4 (1935–36); arr. as Passacaglia for orchestra (1937)
• Samuel Barber, Finale of the Symphony no. 1, op. 9 (1936)
• Paul Hindemith, Passacaglia from Nobilissima Visione (1938)
• Ralph Vaughan Williams, Symphony No. 5 in D: Movement 4, Passacaglia (1938-43).
• Benjamin Britten, Concerto for Violin and Orchestra, op. 15, third movement (1939).
• Harold Morris, Passacaglia and Fugue, for orchestra (1939).
• Rebecca Helferich Clarke, "Passacaglia on an Old English Tune" for Viola and Piano (1940-1941).
• Dmitri Shostakovich, Symphony No. 8, fourth movement (1943).
• Benjamin Britten, Serenade for Tenor, Horn, and Strings, op. 31 “Dirge” (1943)
• Walter Piston, Passacaglia for piano (1943).
• Hans Krása, Passacaglia and Fugue, for string trio (1944).
• Frank Martin, Passacaglia for large orchestra (1944).
• Dmitri Shostakovich, Second Piano Trio, third movement (1944).
• William Walton, "The Death of Falstaff", from Henry V (1944 film), also featured in Ken Burns' The War (documentary).
• Benjamin Britten, The Holy Sonnets of John Donne, op. 35 (1945) “Death Be Not Proud”.
• Benjamin Britten, Passacaglia interlude from the opera Peter Grimes (1945), often performed separately.
• Benjamin Britten, String Quartet No. 2, in C, op. 36, third movement "Chacony" (1945), (commemorating the 250th anniversary of the death of Henry Purcell).
• Ellis B. Kohs, Passacaglia for organ and strings (1946).
• Dmitri Shostakovich, String Quartet No.3 in F, op. 73, fifth movement (1946)
• Benjamin Britten, The Rape of Lucretia, op. 37 (1946–47) (dramatic passacaglia after Lucretia’s suicide).
• Benjamin Britten, Albert Herring, op. 39 (1946–47), second-act septet.
• Dmitri Shostakovich, First Violin Concerto, third movement (1947-1948).
• William Schuman, Symphony No. 6 (1948).
• Benjamin Britten, Billy Budd, op. 50 (1950–51) (cabin scene).
• Dmitri Shostakovich, 24 Preludes and Fugues, op. 87, No. 12 in G-sharp minor, Prelude (1950-1951)

• Henri Dutilleux, First Symphony, first movement (1951).
• Miloslav Kabeláč, Mystery of Time, Passacaglia for large orchestra (1953-1957)
• Benjamin Britten, The Turn of the Screw, op. 54 (1954), final variation
• Witold Lutosławski's Concerto for Orchestra, 3rd movement, "Passacaglia, Toccata E Corale" (1954)
• Harry Somers, Passacaglia and Fugue, for orchestra (1954)
• Harold Morris, Passacaglia, Adagio, and Finale, for orchestra (1955)
• Ned Rorem, Symphony No. 3, first movement (1958)
• William Walton, Symphony No. 2, finale (1957–60)
• Paul Hindemith, Octet for winds and strings (1958), second and last movements
• Andrzej Dobrowolski, Passacaglia for tape (1960)
• Ronald Stevenson's Passacaglia on DSCH (1960-62)
• Carlos Chávez, Symphony No. 6, last movement (1961)
• Benjamin Britten's Nocturnal after John Dowland for guitar (1963) concludes with a passacaglia followed by the Dowland theme
• Benjamin Britten, Symphony for Cello and Orchestra, op. 68 (1963–64)
• Rudolf Brucci, Symphony "Lesta", second movement "Adagio come una passacaglia" (1965)
• Jerry Goldsmith, Passacaglia and Fugue from film score "The Blue Max" (1966)
• Don Ellis, Passacaglia and Fugue by , from Don Ellis Live at Monterey (1966)
• Benjamin Britten, Suite No. 2 for unaccompanied cello, op. 80, fifth movement "Ciaconna" (1967)
• Alfred Reed, Passacaglia, for band (1968)
• Dmitri Shostakovich, Symphony No. 15, central episode of the final movement (1971)
• Ralph Shapey, String Quartet No. 7, fourth movement (1972)
• Benjamin Britten, Suite No. 3 for unaccompanied cello, op. 87, ninth movement "Passacaglia" (1972)
• Benjamin Britten, String Quartet No. 3, op. 94, fifth movement "Recitative and Passacaglia (La Serenissima)" (1975)
• Chip Davis, Pass the Keg (Lia) (1975)
• György Ligeti, Hungarian Rock (Chaconne), for harpsichord (1978)
• György Ligeti, Passacaglia ungherese for harpsichord (1978)
• Andrzej Dobrowolski, Music for Orchestra No. 5: Passacaglia (1979)
• Stephen Sondheim, "Fogg's Passacaglia" from Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (1979)
• William Walton, Passacaglia for solo cello (1979–80)
• Alfred Schnittke, Passacaglia for large symphony orchestra (1979-80)
• José Antonio Rezende Almeida Prado, Concerto Fribourgeois (1985), Second Movement
• Aaron Jay Kernis, Passacaglia-Variations, for viola and piano (1985)
• Emmanuel Nunes, Wandlungen: Fünf Passacaglien für 25 Instrumente und Live-Elektronik (1985–86)
• Lorenzo Ferrero, Passacaglia for flute, clarinet and string quartet (1986)
• Witold Lutosławski, Piano Concerto, last movement (1987-88)
• Aldo Clementi, Passacaglia, for flute and tape (1988)
• György Ligeti, Violin Concerto fourth movement (1992)
• Aldo Clementi, Studio per una passacaglia, for tape (1993)
• John Harbison, Waltz-Passacaglia in E minor, for orchestra (1996)
• Aldo Clementi, Passacaglia 2, for alto flute, horn, trumpet, strings, and piano (1997)
• Sloth: Passacaglia/A Bud And A Slice, from Joe Jackson, Heaven and Hell (1997)
• Carlo Forlivesi, "Passacaglia" for piano (2000)
• Cliff Martinez Wear Your Seatbelt, from the music for the film of the same title Solaris (2002)
• Bear McCreary, Passacaglia (and variations such as The Shape of Things to Come and Allegro), A Promise to Return, and Violence and Variations, from the Sci-fi Channel's original series Battlestar Galactica (2005)
• Roberto Sierra, Symphony No. 2 ("Gran Passacaglia") (2005)
• Scott Glasgow, "Murder Passacaglia" from the film score to Chasing Ghosts (2005) with expanded variations in all the "murder scenes" throughout the film.
• Philip Glass, Symphony No. 8 (2005, Movement II)
• Jóhann Jóhannsson, "Passacaglia" (2006)

Nominations for the ten most notable examples, please. Alternatively, nominations for deletion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the obvious solution here is to simply create a stand-alone article, "List of passacaglias" (or perhaps just "List of 20th-century passacaglias"). There are many such list-articles, and it would really be a shame to lose all of the info that has been assembled. Of course, we would still want to retain some mention of the more notable examples in this article. I don't have time to do it right now, but I will try to come up with a short-list (hopefully some time soon). Cgingold (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea at all, and certainly supported by any number of other cases. This still leaves unanswered the question of which ten or so examples should be cited here—or even which ten should be lopped off the list, as a start toward establishing a short-list of the most notable examples.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Kabeláč's Mystery of Time is not a real passacaglia (or chaconne, for that matter). Toccata quarta (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In what sense is a work described by a composer as a passacaglia not a "real" passacaglia? I remember this very question being posed in a graduate class in twentieth-century counterpoint a long time ago, with reference to one of Benjamin Britten's passacaglias (I don't recall which one, but it might have been the one in the Cello Symphony) and the passacaglia in Berg's Wozzeck. Can textbook definitions be used to prove a composer does not know what form he is using, or should we instead correct the textbooks when we find they do not cover such cases? Still, as Kabeláč's name is not exactly a household word, even amongst specialists in 20th-century music, and we are fairly desperate for votes here, I am taking this as a nomination to delete, and so am striking through Kabeláč's entry in the list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The full score of the piece was published by the SNKLHU, Prague 1959. The foreword says the following: "The sub-title, 'passacaglia', must be understood in a very free sense. The composer decided on this designation of the form of the work only after it was completed, for it was not his intention to employ any established traditional form. He chose this term because the composition grows out of a single musical thought, which continually returns, though in various rhythmic and metrical variations, in which respect it diverges from the strict form of the passacaglia proper, whose basic principle, however, it approaches more closely than any other traditional form." -- Eduard Herzog, translated by R. V. Samsour, pp. XI-XII, 1st edition. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk! The liberty some composers take with the rules clearly set forth in all the best textbooks. They should all have their diplomas revoked! Shocking! Next thing you know, someone will discover that Nielsen's Chaconne doesn't conform to the rules, either!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Since there has been no movement on this issue for months now, I am boldly striking out Georg Schumann, an unfinished piece by Rachmaninoff, Daniel Gregory Mason, Dohnányi, Willan, Grainger, Goldschmidt, Godowsky, Sorabji, Bridge, Sowerby, Karg-Elert, one of two examples by Vaughan Williams, two works by Wolpe, Harold Morris, Rebecca Helferich Clarke, Krása, Martin, Kohs, Somers, Morris, Rorem, two works by Dobrowolski, Stevenson, Chávez, Brucci, Goldsmith, Ellis, Reed, Shapey, Chip Davis, Sondheim, Schnittke, José Antonio Rezende Almeida Prado, Kernis, Nunes, Ferrero, three pieces by Also Clementi, Harbison, Joe Jackson, Forlivesi, Cliff Martinez, Bear McCreary, Sierra, Glasgow, and Jóhannsson. I emphasize that my main criterion is the level of familiarity of the names and works, and I am not questioning the notability or even relative quality of the compositions in question. (In fact, one of my strikeouts I regard as perhaps the best passacaglia composed in the entire 20th century.) This leaves about 45 examples, which is still way too many but, before proceeding further, I would like to invite comments on the deletions so far. One further idea, given the large number of examples by Benjamin Britten, would be to incorporate a short discussion about the unusual prominence of this form in his music, thereby relieving this list of a good many items.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Nearly another year has gone by, and the only action so far has been an effort today to add Webern and Shostakovich back in to the article, without first checking in on this discussion. Since I appear to be talking to myself, here is what I propose doing: There are still 45 pieces on this list, 14 of which are by Britten, and another six by Shostakovich. For sheer volume of output in this form, these composers ought to be discussed, and not just distributed willy nilly in a list. After these two composers, the next-largest number goes to Ligeti, with just three. At this point it becomes necessary to make a judgment call, concerning which passacaglias are really influential/influential/whatever. I agree with today's editor about the Webern, and would add the Ravel, Berg, Hindemith, and Schoenberg examples. This makes a total of just seven composers, and 28 passacaglias, not all of which need to be named separately in the cases of Britten and Shostakovich. If anyone feels some composer is being unjustly slighted, then please discuss this here. Some of my own all-time favorite works in this form have not made the cut, but we can always make a separate List of passacaglias, as was once suggested, above.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction: the composer with the third-highest number of pieces is Hindemith, with five. Ligeti comes in fourth place. I have made the restoration in running-prose style, but could not think how to gracefully include Ravel.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The 'Stoic Theme' from The Shawshank Redemption by Thomas Newman is a notable example of a passacaglia. 2806:2F0:A4C1:F099:3005:2575:F503:3563 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone comes here looking, I have added the passacaglia from Stravinsky's Septet, assuming that the stature of this composer put this inclusion beyond any doubt. If this is one 20th-century passacaglia too many, then I suggest a lesser composer be bumped instead, and invite nominations: Hindemith? Shostakovich? Berg?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Must they explicitly be titled "Passacaglia"? If not, and when it comes to sheer output, Philip Glass seems to be a serious contender: Satyagraha: 1st scene [1] (on the Andalusian cadence!), Akhnaten: Prelude [2], Einstein on the Beach: Knee Plays [3], Violin Concerto: Second movement [4], Symphony No. 8, (I think there are more, but I've run out of examples from the top of my head...) If I remember correctly (I read the book 20 years ago!), he mentions the passacaglia form as a favorite in "Music by Philip Glass". I think he at least deserves an "honorable mention" for repeatedly using the passacaglia form in a different composition "school". -- megA (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why a formal title should be necessary, so long as there is a reliable source identifying the form. I know none of the works you mention, though I have a copy of the book you name, and Glass is certainly a prominent composer. If in fact he does describe the passacaglia as one of his favorite forms, then he would be in much the same position as Benjamin Britten, only half a century later. Now all we need decide is who to remove to make room for Glass, in the interest of combating listcruft.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Photograph

In response to User:Hyacinth's request, I have added an image of a page from Bernardo Storace's Selva di varie compositione. Was this the right idea, or was a photograph of a performance of a passacaglia desired? In any case, there was already a manuscript page from Bach further down the page, but it looks odd to have an illustration there and not at the head.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hyacinth, I see you have expanded the image request. Since both the Storace and Bach examples are in triple time and exhibit very plain bass ostinatos, am I to assume that neither example satisfies your criteria of legibility? They seem quite legible to me, but opinions may vary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If someone said my handwriting was illegible I wouldn't tell them that indeed it was, I would surely agree and probably do it over again. Though one can't assume absolutely what is legible or illegible to another person, I feel free to assume that you are already familiar with both pieces before you saw the images in this article. Hyacinth (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, as a matter of fact, I had never seen the Storace before (the Bach of course I know well). It is true, however, that I have been accustomed to reading music in 16th, 17th, and 18th-century prints for many years now, as well as in manuscript (the Bach example is a quite elegant fair copy, and not difficult to read at all, especially if you are familiar with his handwriting). When you are accustomed to the particularities of a notational or engraving style, it can make a huge difference in what you regard as "legible". Most beginning students of German, for example, initially find Fraktur completely illegible, but with experience comes clarity. If you think a modern typeset example would be preferable, it would not be difficult to transcribe the first few bars of the Storace C minor example. Perhaps it would be instructive to have both the original and a transcription for comparison?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Passacaglia?

I am surprised that the article accepts this modern term without comment. In 17c. sources the Italian term is usually plural, passacagli or passacaglio in the singular. The Spanish is pasacalles. Where does the word Passacaglia come from? I expect the term originated with ill-informed Germans, yet even for famous German works by Buxtehude and J.S. Bach, the sources read passacaglio as in the illustration of the Bach score! I don't recommend renaming the article, since the modern term is better known, but I would like to know when composers began using this term. I should also like to see more on the connection with the Spanish guitar, and the Alfabeto sources.Finn Froding (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikirules mandate sticking to the most common usage in ENGLISH.--Galassi (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)