BWV 14.5 (Riemenschneider 182 and Barenreiter 182) have a repeat which creates a successive 5th between the bass and the alto at the point where the repeat returns to the beginning. The Musica Budapest and the Kalmus (EMB 330 and Kalmus 330) editions are the same as the chorale in the cantata, which does not have an exact repeat and therefore no successive 5th.
This does not exist in the cantata version because there is not a repeat, and Bach changed the bass and alto notes in the chord at the beginning of the next phrase. The Kalmus edition is correct. See the illustration. I am not sure why Barenreiter chose to publish this form of the chorale when it is supposed to be the accurate New Bach Work edition.
From the cantata
From the Riemenschneider and Barenreiter editions
BWV 27.6 changes time signatures; the pdf files show the proper notation, four four time to three one time. The midi and sound files were made with a change to three four time rather than three one, to get the right tempo change. This chorale is notated with one flat in Kalmus, two flats in the NBA.
BWV 38.6 has a g natural on the second note of measure three, the beginning of the second phrase. All other editions keep the g sharp. I see no reason why the natural should occur and believe it is a misprint.
BWV 40.3 has 2 flats in the key signature in all editions except the Musica Budapest, which has one flat, the same as the chorale in the cantata. Bach notated the other flat with accidentals.
A cross or false relation may exist between the alto and the soprano between measures 8 and 9 in BWV 40.6, a chorale from BWV 40.
False relation: In harmony, the appearance of a note with the same letter-name in different parts (or 'voices') of contiguous or the same chords, in one case inflected with a sharp or flat and in the other uninflected; e.g. E natural and E flat in the same chord or adjacent chords. American term is 'cross relation'. Partly from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, 1980, edited by Michael Kennedy.
False relations may exist (a) between two notes of the same chord; (b) between different parts of adjacent chords; (c) of a tritone between two notes in adjacent chords.
The F sharp in the alto part followed by an F natural in the soprano part in the illustration above would seem to fit all the criteria for a false or cross relation. But, I ask, does it?
The soprano voice has the structure A A B B. Though the soprano exactly repeats the A and B, the harmonization of the repeated phrases is completely different. The alto F sharp is at the end of a phrase, and the soprano F natural is at the beginning of a new phrase, and in fact, measure 8 is the end of the part A and measure 9 is the beginning of the next part B. Thus, though the notes appear in adjacent chords on the paper, musically they seem as separated from one another as the two sides of a river. So I am not sure that these notes really stand in a false relation to one another.
BWV 41.6 is not a complete score. The violins and viola double the soprano, alto and tenor so I have omitted them. Likewise the 1st and 2nd oboe double the soprano and alto. I have included the 3rd oboe when it is different from the tenor. I have omitted the continuo because it doubles the bass.
In BWV 70.11, measure 4, the half-note on beats 3 and 4 of the alto has an F# in Riemenschneider and Barenrieter. The cantata and all other editions have a D.
In BWV 79.3, measure 12 and 26 in Horn 1, and measure 41 in Horn 2, the eighth-note on the second half of beat 2, has an editorial G# in Kalmus and EMB. The cantata has no indication of this sharp.
In BWV 113.8, measure 13, beat 4 in the alto has a# in the cantata and in Kalmus. The Budapest edition shows this a natural.
In BWV 114.7, measure 3 and measure 7 , beat 1 to 2 in the tenor and bass have an E flat in the tenor and an E natural in the bass. The NBA edition and the Barenreiter edition of the chorales show a courtesy accidental on the E flat which does not appear in Kalmus or the Budapest edition. I surmise this is to reinforce the unexpected notation of this true cross relation.
BWV 145a is a chorale found in the literature, but not recorded with the cantata BWV 145. It is a different chorale than BWV 145.5 which concludes the cantata. Also in the literature but not recorded is a chorus by Telemann.
In BWV 179.6, a sharp appears on the g in the tenor on the second beat of measure 13 in Kalmus that does not appear in the cantata or in the Budapest Edition.
In BWV 264 the alto part varies from one edition to another:
measure 5 to measure 6 from beat 4 to beat 1, has no tie in Barenreiter, no tie in Kalmus but is tied in Musica Budapest;
measure 6 to measure 7 from beat 4 to beat 1, has a tie in Barenreiter, no tie in Kalmus, but is tied in Musica Budapest.
These variations depend on the syllables of the words of the verse being sung, so none are right or wrong. I changed the pdf because I committed to the Barenreiter edition.
BWV 324, "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren" is a four part treatment of the Magnificat, based on an old plain chant. Each of my four editions have a different version of measures six, seven and eight. This is because there are eleven verses, each of which has a diffent number of syllables in the words of these measures. In the manner of plain chant, these words are sung as if spoken, on the pitch indicated, without a beat, or metric division. So the version of these measures will depend on which verse is being sung.
BWV 409, "Seelenbräutigam, Jesu, Gottes Lamm" exists in two variations, one from the Choralgesänge 2 of 1769, the other from the edition of 1785. I have arbitrarily assigned BWV 409v to the earlier edition, and treated the 1785 version as BWV 409.
In BWV 437, the EMB, the Musica Budapest edition, has a C natural on the 4th beat of the 4th measure in the soprano part. All other editions show a C sharp on this note. I have gone with the C sharp, making the chord A major. I believe this is a typographical error in the EMB. If anybody has information to the contrary, please let me know.
Likewise, in the EMB, the eighth note on the beginning of the 4th beat of measure 30 in the alto is marked C natural. All other editions have a C sharp on this note. I have gone with a C sharp. I think this is less likely to be a typographical error in the EMB, since the note is clearly marked with a natural sign, whereas the note in the 4th measure is simply not marked with a sharp.
I am not sure what to make of all this.