An article from the Sydney Morning Herald explains how the conductor of the Darwin Symphony, one Martin Jarvis, has researched J. S. Bach’s ‘cello suites and come to the conclusion that they are not by Bach but, rather, by his second wife Anna Magdalena. He brings a variety of tools including—it is reported—music analysis to bear on the discussion, though it is not explained quite how. “During the past seven years, Dr Jarvis has used forensic analysis to examine various Bach scores, bar by bar, focusing on the musical structure and language, handwriting and the musical calligraphy.” Not surprisingly, this news item spurred some discussion on the American Musicological Society listserv, and one participant, a professional cellist, pointed out that the fifth cello suite was originally written for lute, which would need to be factored in to the theory. Jarvis’s suspicions were first raised many years ago, when as a student he was playing the suites on his viola—that is, an octave up—and noted how un-Bachian they were. One wonders if the tranposition might have had something to do with that? In all fairness, any opinion of mine is not going to be all that informed, since I am not a cellist. I will say that in addition to all the forensic-TV show stuff, I want to hear from Bach scholars and especially cellists—another point made by my friend on AMS-L. Anything can happen with a manuscript, and with copying and transmission, but I am interested in the informed opinion of cellists who know the suites in their hands, hearts, and DNA, and Bach’s other music as well. Those in the Bach scholarly community know his personal musical language as no one else does, also need to weigh in on such matters as “musical structure and language.” Cellists? Bach scholars? I have heard that the cello suites are not the equal of the suites and partitas for solo violin, for what that’s worth, but would really appreciate some well-informed thoughts on the subject.