Discussion:
Bach question
(too old to reply)
Tommy Grand
2010-03-14 17:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Hello dear friends,

Refer to the prelude for the first cello suite, measure 22, beat 2.
I'm playing a transcription in D major which has an F# here, instead
of the customary E natural. I understand that no autograph exists for
this suite, and there are numerous competing early manuscripts. Is
there any support for the F#? I saw one manscript online and it was a
little ambiguous to my eyes, hard to tell exactly what note was
intended. They both sound fine to me!

Tnx,
TG

p.s. don't pretend the E natural is the only logical choice. The fact
is that you're just used to it.
Andrew Schulman
2010-03-14 17:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tommy Grand
Hello dear friends,
Refer to the prelude for the first cello suite, measure 22, beat 2.
I'm playing a transcription in D major which has an F# here, instead
of the customary E natural.  I understand that no autograph exists for
this suite, and there are numerous competing early manuscripts.  Is
there any support for the F#?  I saw one manscript online and it was a
little ambiguous to my eyes, hard to tell exactly what note was
intended.  They both sound fine to me!
Tnx,
TG
p.s. don't pretend the E natural is the only logical choice.  The fact
is that you're just used to it.
The -E- is the only logical choice. I'm not pretending.

This very note came up in a thread a while back when Matt Faunce
posted an mp3 with it. Search for that thread and you will find a
discussion about it.

Andrew
Tommy Grand
2010-03-14 19:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tommy Grand
Hello dear friends,
Refer to the prelude for the first cello suite, measure 22, beat 2.
I'm playing a transcription in D major which has an F# here, instead
of the customary E natural.  I understand that no autograph exists for
this suite, and there are numerous competing early manuscripts.  Is
there any support for the F#?  I saw one manscript online and it was a
little ambiguous to my eyes, hard to tell exactly what note was
intended.  They both sound fine to me!
Tnx,
TG
p.s. don't pretend the E natural is the only logical choice.  The fact
is that you're just used to it.
The -E- is the only logical choice.  I'm not pretending.
This very note came up in a thread a while back when Matt Faunce
posted an mp3 with it.  Search for that thread and you will find a
discussion about it.
What do you think is the correct harmony for m 11?
Andrew Schulman
2010-03-14 21:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tommy Grand
What do you think is the correct harmony for m 11?
It's an E7+9 chord, also know as the "Jimi Hendrix" chord. If you
don't believe me ask Mark Delpriora.

Or, it could be functioning as a B7-9 with the 5th in the bass, when
played in played in D major.

Using the versions based on the urtext available at the (now up and
running again) Icking site let's look at the original G major version:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4433469920/sizes/l/

Now the same thing in D major:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4432694885/sizes/l/

And now, just for laughs, at my 8-string guitar version, m's 10-12:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4433469724/sizes/l/

Andrew
Matt Faunce
2010-03-14 22:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tommy Grand
What do you think is the correct harmony for m 11?
It's an E7+9 chord, also know as the "Jimi Hendrix" chord.  If you
don't believe me ask Mark Delpriora.
Or, it could be functioning as a B7-9 with the 5th in the bass, when
played in played in D major.
Using the versions based on the urtext available at the (now up and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4433469920/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4432694885/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4433469724/sizes/l/
Andrew
In the key of G: there's a D, F, G#, B. Looks like a G# half
diminished 7th chord, which leads nicely to A minor. Some people call
that a Bmin7(b5).

Jimmi Hendrix' Purple Haze chord is: E, e, g#, d, fx (double sharp).
E7+9 If Bach implied the root G, he did in fact copy from Jimi here.

Matt
Matt Faunce
2010-03-14 22:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Faunce
Post by Tommy Grand
What do you think is the correct harmony for m 11?
It's an E7+9 chord, also know as the "Jimi Hendrix" chord.  If you
don't believe me ask Mark Delpriora.
Or, it could be functioning as a B7-9 with the 5th in the bass, when
played in played in D major.
Using the versions based on the urtext available at the (now up and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4433469920/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4432694885/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4433469724/sizes/l/
Andrew
In the key of G: there's a D, F, G#, B. Looks like a G# half
diminished 7th chord, which leads nicely to A minor. Some people call
that a Bmin7(b5).
Jimmi Hendrix' Purple Haze chord is: E, e, g#, d, fx (double sharp).
E7+9 If Bach implied the root G, he did in fact copy from Jimi here.
Matt
Fully dim. 7
Tommy Grand
2010-03-14 22:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tommy Grand
What do you think is the correct harmony for m 11?
It's an E7+9 chord, also know as the "Jimi Hendrix" chord.  If you
don't believe me ask Mark Delpriora.
Or, it could be functioning as a B7-9 with the 5th in the bass, when
played in played in D major.
Using the versions based on the urtext available at the (now up and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4433469920/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4432694885/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4433469724/sizes/l/
Andrew
Sounds like B in the bass is ok. Next question: what bass notes do
you use for mm 25-28? My version has the following (in half notes) :
A, D, A, E, E, E, A
Andrew Schulman
2010-03-15 00:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tommy Grand
Sounds like B in the bass is ok.
I see you are using the Pujol version. I don't like a B in the bass
there. I think the intention is the 7th in the bass.
Post by Tommy Grand
 Next question:  what bass notes do
A, D, A, E, E, E, A
I have taken the liberty to upload the Pujol for measures 25-28 (i
inputted it in Sibelius, but it matches the style of notation for the
Pujol very closely). Notice the wrong note in m. 26? And to answer
your question as to what bass notes I use I have uploaded that excerpt
as well:

Pujol:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4433143829/sizes/l/

Moi:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4433146883/sizes/l/

Andrew
Matt Faunce
2010-03-14 23:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tommy Grand
What do you think is the correct harmony for m 11?
It's an E7+9 chord, also know as the "Jimi Hendrix" chord.  If you
don't believe me ask Mark Delpriora.
Or, it could be functioning as a B7-9 with the 5th in the bass, when
played in played in D major.
M. 11, in the key of G: there's a D, F, G#, B. I'd call it a G# fully
diminished 7th chord, which leads nicely to A minor.

I see the E7(b5) given an implied root E.

Jimmi Hendrix' Purple Haze chord is: E, e, g#, d, fx (double sharp).
No rearrangement with any implied root of the Bach chord can get you
this. You need the G natural tone (fx).

Matt
Andrew Schulman
2010-03-15 00:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Faunce
Jimmi Hendrix' Purple Haze chord is: E, e, g#, d, fx (double sharp).
No rearrangement with any implied root of the Bach chord can get you
this. You need the G natural tone (fx).
I was joking about it being the Hendrix chord, just figured I'd get
you and Mark to jump in.

Andrew
f***@yahoo.com
2010-03-15 00:43:55 UTC
Permalink
And it worked!!
Do you have the Ponce transcription of this that Segovia played?
Mark
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Matt Faunce
No rearrangement with any implied root of the Bach chord can get you
this. You need the G natural tone (fx).
I was joking about it being the Hendrix chord, just figured I'd get
you and Mark to jump in.
Andrew
Andrew Schulman
2010-03-15 01:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
And it worked!!
Do you have the Ponce transcription of this that Segovia played?
Mark
I had it, lost, but I have the Segovia recording.

Andrew
Tommy Grand
2010-03-15 01:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
And it worked!!
Do you have the Ponce transcription of this that Segovia played?
Mark
I have it. Want it?
f***@yahoo.com
2010-03-15 02:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
And it worked!!
Do you have the Ponce transcription of this that Segovia played?
Mark
I have it.  Want it?
Yes!
Mark
Tommy Grand
2010-03-15 03:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
And it worked!!
Do you have the Ponce transcription of this that Segovia played?
Mark
I have it.  Want it?
Yes!
Mark
I emailed it...
f***@yahoo.com
2010-03-15 13:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Tommy,

Thanks!

I thought the Bach/Ponce was published?



Best,
Mark
Post by Tommy Grand
Post by f***@yahoo.com
And it worked!!
Do you have the Ponce transcription of this that Segovia played?
Mark
I have it.  Want it?
Yes!
Mark
I emailed it...
Tommy Grand
2010-03-15 13:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Tommy,
Thanks!
I thought the Bach/Ponce was published?
Not sure...I received it from Steve Bosell, see here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.guitar/browse_frm/thread/6d5ab8d708e3ed0/
f***@yahoo.com
2010-03-15 13:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Tommy,
Thanks!
I thought the Bach/Ponce was published?
Not sure...I received it from Steve Bosell, see here:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.guitar/browse_frm/...
Thanks!

It is a shame these historically significant things go out of
print...such is life!
In my guitar literature class, I want to put this transcription in
context with Godowski, Busoni,and Rachmaninov's arrangement of 1006
Guitarists think this Bach/Ponce is so strange but it is not really in
context of the time..
Best,
Mark
Tommy Grand
2010-03-15 14:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Tommy,
Thanks!
I thought the Bach/Ponce was published?
Not sure...I received it from Steve Bosell, see here:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.guitar/browse_frm/...
Thanks!
It is a shame these historically significant things go out of
print...such is life!
 In my guitar literature class, I want to put this transcription in
context with Godowski, Busoni,and Rachmaninov's arrangement of 1006
Guitarists think this Bach/Ponce is so strange but it is not really in
context of the time..
Interesting to hear you say that! I had wondered awhile back, if
playing Bach in a Romanticized way could be considered a kind of
historically informed performance, not of Bach's time but of the early
1900s! But I didn't get any affirmative responses.
JonLorPro
2010-03-16 04:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
It is a shame these historically significant things go out of
print...such is life!
�In my guitar literature class, I want to put this transcription in
context with Godowski, Busoni,and Rachmaninov's arrangement of 1006
Guitarists think this Bach/Ponce is so strange but it is not really in
context of the time..
Interesting to hear you say that! �I had wondered awhile back, if
playing Bach in a Romanticized way could be considered a kind of
historically informed performance, not of Bach's time but of the early
1900s! � But I didn't get any affirmative responses.
I had occasion to forward this quote a while back- is this the sort of
line you were considering?
====
Harold Schonberg a few decades ago, in his "The Lives of the Great
Composers" wrote a passage which alludes to a continuing durable
firmity that music has with which to survive its production in
generations succeeding that of its origination. This is from his
chapter on Bach, but there is no reason his comments cannot be taken
as applicable in a broader sense:


"One of the great problems posed by Bach's music in the twentieth
century involves matters of performance practice. Obviously, it is
impossible to re-create a performance that would duplicate one of
Bach's day. Too many factors have changed. And every age has its own
performance style. The romantics, as they did in everything, took a
very free attitude towards Bach, and played him in their own image.
Romantic performance practice has extended into our own day, and it
has only been within the last few decades that serious effort has been
made to come to grips with the problem. Musicians, thanks to intense
musicological research, now know much more than previous generations
did about the salient points of Bach's style in performance. Not
enough, however, is known. As a corrective to romantic performance
practice, a generation of young artists grew up playing, singing, and
conducting Bach with mechanical rigidity, using approved editions and
relatively small forces in an attempt to be 'authentic.' The trouble
has been that the music sounds sterile- a Bach robbed of humanity, of
grace, of style, of line. If we know one thing about Bach it is that
he was a passionate man and a passionate performer. He undoubtedly
played and conducted his own music with infinitely more dash, freedom,
and spontaneity than modern performance practice will permit. Bach
himself told a pupil, one Johann Gotthilf Ziegler, that an organist
should not merely play the notes. He should express the "affect,"
the meaning, the emotional significance of the piece. By strange
irony, it might eventually turn out that the derided romantics, even
though lacking today's scholarship, were instinctually closer to the
essential Bach style than the severe, note-perfect, and literal
musicians of today."
Andrew Schulman
2010-03-16 04:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by JonLorPro
I had occasion to forward this quote a while back- is this the sort of
line you were considering?
====
Harold Schonberg a few decades ago, in his "The Lives of the Great
Composers" wrote a passage which alludes to a continuing durable
firmity that music has with which to survive its production in
generations succeeding that of its origination.   This is from his
chapter on Bach, but there is no reason his comments cannot be taken
"One of the great problems posed by Bach's music in the twentieth
century involves matters of performance practice.  Obviously, it is
impossible to re-create a performance that would duplicate one of
Bach's day. Too many factors have changed.  And every age has its own
performance style.  The romantics, as they did in everything, took a
very free attitude towards Bach, and played him in their own image.
Romantic performance practice has extended into our own day, and it
has only been within the last few decades that serious effort has been
made to come to grips with the problem. Musicians, thanks to intense
musicological research, now know much more than previous generations
did about the salient points of Bach's style in performance.  Not
enough, however, is known. As a corrective to romantic performance
practice, a generation of young artists grew up playing, singing, and
conducting Bach with mechanical rigidity, using approved editions and
relatively small forces in an attempt to be 'authentic.'  The trouble
has been that the music sounds sterile- a Bach robbed of humanity, of
grace, of style, of line.  If we know one thing about Bach it is that
he was a passionate man and a passionate performer.  He undoubtedly
played and conducted his own music with infinitely more dash, freedom,
and spontaneity than modern performance practice will permit.   Bach
himself told a pupil, one Johann Gotthilf Ziegler, that an organist
should not merely play the notes.  He should express the "affect,"
the meaning, the emotional significance of the piece.  By strange
irony, it might eventually turn out that the derided romantics, even
though lacking today's scholarship, were instinctually closer to the
essential Bach style than the severe, note-perfect, and literal
musicians of today."
I think good ol' Harold is right on the money.

I used to love reading his reviews in days gone by.

Andrew
Tommy Grand
2010-03-16 12:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by JonLorPro
I had occasion to forward this quote a while back- is this the sort of
line you were considering?
Hey Jon, I find that quote most interesting (and I love HS) but it's
not quite what I had in mind. Note that he justifies a Romantic
approach by suggesting Bach would have approved. I'm talking about
playing like Rubinstein/Segovia/Casals, regardless of what Bach might
have thought. I know the best style is supposed to be one that would
make sense to the composer and/or audiences of his day, but I don't
really get the rationale for this. It's not a Renaissance faire after
all.
JonLorPro
2010-03-16 14:50:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 16, 8:27�am, Tommy Grand <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
?
Post by Tommy Grand
Hey Jon, I find that quote most interesting (and I love HS) but it's
not quite what I had in mind. �Note that he justifies a Romantic
approach by suggesting Bach would have approved. �I'm talking about
playing like Rubinstein/Segovia/Casals, regardless of what Bach might
have thought. �I know the best style is supposed to be one that would
make sense to the composer and/or audiences of his day, but I don't
really get the rationale for this. �It's not a Renaissance faire after
all.
I agree. The question is, who is doing the supposing? I'm all for
informing oneself about what you perceive to be generally lauded as
"best style", but the one thing that never can be recreated in
attempting to be "authentic" is the contemporaneous mindset of the
audience. Music cannot be delivered wholly to its original effect
without its meeting with that original receptivity of mind wherein the
effect was realized, but that soundboard, peculiar to any age is gone
forever, supplanted anew with each generation.

If music of earlier eras is to be played today, valuable a resource as
it is to have available performances conducted in assiduous
conformance to the externals of past practices as understood, is it
not also an honest and valid approach simply to internalize the music
and then play it to the compatible responses of audiences of ones own
time as Bach, Dowland and Milano did in theirs?
f***@yahoo.com
2010-03-16 23:38:18 UTC
Permalink
I don't hear lute live all that often...In fact, 99.99% of my lute
listening experience has been player playing an Electric Lute!!!

That is, of course, on CD
?
Post by Tommy Grand
Hey Jon, I find that quote most interesting (and I love HS) but it's
not quite what I had in mind. Note that he justifies a Romantic
approach by suggesting Bach would have approved. I'm talking about
playing like Rubinstein/Segovia/Casals, regardless of what Bach might
have thought. I know the best style is supposed to be one that would
make sense to the composer and/or audiences of his day, but I don't
really get the rationale for this. It's not a Renaissance faire after
all.
I agree. The question is, who is doing the supposing?  I'm all for
informing oneself about what you perceive to be generally lauded as
"best style", but the one thing that never can be recreated in
attempting to be "authentic" is the contemporaneous mindset of the
audience.  Music cannot be delivered wholly to its original effect
without its meeting with that original receptivity of mind wherein the
effect was realized, but that soundboard, peculiar to any age is gone
forever, supplanted anew with each generation.
If music of earlier eras is to be played today, valuable a resource as
it is to have available performances conducted in assiduous
conformance to the externals of past practices as understood, is it
not also an honest and valid approach simply to internalize the music
and then play it to the compatible responses of audiences of ones own
time as Bach, Dowland and Milano did in theirs?
f***@yahoo.com
2010-03-16 14:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Paul O'dette said in a master class at the Manhattan School of Music
that Segovia and Breams Bach transcriptions are more in the spirit of
the Baroque period than... fill in the blank : )

Bream Williams arranged the music according to the nature of their
instruments and did not adopt fingerings and ornaments that
are awkward in imitation of some other instrument...
Post by JonLorPro
Post by f***@yahoo.com
It is a shame these historically significant things go out of
print...such is life!
In my guitar literature class, I want to put this transcription in
context with Godowski, Busoni,and Rachmaninov's arrangement of 1006
Guitarists think this Bach/Ponce is so strange but it is not really in
context of the time..
Interesting to hear you say that! I had wondered awhile back, if
playing Bach in a Romanticized way could be considered a kind of
historically informed performance, not of Bach's time but of the early
1900s! But I didn't get any affirmative responses.
I had occasion to forward this quote a while back- is this the sort of
line you were considering?
====
Harold Schonberg a few decades ago, in his "The Lives of the Great
Composers" wrote a passage which alludes to a continuing durable
firmity that music has with which to survive its production in
generations succeeding that of its origination.   This is from his
chapter on Bach, but there is no reason his comments cannot be taken
"One of the great problems posed by Bach's music in the twentieth
century involves matters of performance practice.  Obviously, it is
impossible to re-create a performance that would duplicate one of
Bach's day. Too many factors have changed.  And every age has its own
performance style.  The romantics, as they did in everything, took a
very free attitude towards Bach, and played him in their own image.
Romantic performance practice has extended into our own day, and it
has only been within the last few decades that serious effort has been
made to come to grips with the problem. Musicians, thanks to intense
musicological research, now know much more than previous generations
did about the salient points of Bach's style in performance.  Not
enough, however, is known. As a corrective to romantic performance
practice, a generation of young artists grew up playing, singing, and
conducting Bach with mechanical rigidity, using approved editions and
relatively small forces in an attempt to be 'authentic.'  The trouble
has been that the music sounds sterile- a Bach robbed of humanity, of
grace, of style, of line.  If we know one thing about Bach it is that
he was a passionate man and a passionate performer.  He undoubtedly
played and conducted his own music with infinitely more dash, freedom,
and spontaneity than modern performance practice will permit.   Bach
himself told a pupil, one Johann Gotthilf Ziegler, that an organist
should not merely play the notes.  He should express the "affect,"
the meaning, the emotional significance of the piece.  By strange
irony, it might eventually turn out that the derided romantics, even
though lacking today's scholarship, were instinctually closer to the
essential Bach style than the severe, note-perfect, and literal
musicians of today."
Tommy Grand
2010-03-16 14:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Bream Williams  arranged the music according to the nature of their
instruments and did not adopt fingerings and ornaments that
are awkward in imitation of some other instrument...
Yeh, you've got all the resources of the guitar -- use them!
Douglas Seth
2010-03-18 02:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Paul O'dette said in a master class at the Manhattan School of Music
that Segovia and Breams Bach transcriptions are more in the spirit of
the Baroque period than... fill in the blank : )
Bream Williams  arranged the music according to the nature of their
instruments and did not adopt fingerings and ornaments that
are awkward in imitation of some other instrument...
Mark,
It is an interesting perspective, but do you believe this?

D
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by JonLorPro
Post by f***@yahoo.com
It is a shame these historically significant things go out of
print...such is life!
In my guitar literature class, I want to put this transcription in
context with Godowski, Busoni,and Rachmaninov's arrangement of 1006
Guitarists think this Bach/Ponce is so strange but it is not really in
context of the time..
Interesting to hear you say that! I had wondered awhile back, if
playing Bach in a Romanticized way could be considered a kind of
historically informed performance, not of Bach's time but of the early
1900s! But I didn't get any affirmative responses.
I had occasion to forward this quote a while back- is this the sort of
line you were considering?
====
Harold Schonberg a few decades ago, in his "The Lives of the Great
Composers" wrote a passage which alludes to a continuing durable
firmity that music has with which to survive its production in
generations succeeding that of its origination.   This is from his
chapter on Bach, but there is no reason his comments cannot be taken
"One of the great problems posed by Bach's music in the twentieth
century involves matters of performance practice.  Obviously, it is
impossible to re-create a performance that would duplicate one of
Bach's day. Too many factors have changed.  And every age has its own
performance style.  The romantics, as they did in everything, took a
very free attitude towards Bach, and played him in their own image.
Romantic performance practice has extended into our own day, and it
has only been within the last few decades that serious effort has been
made to come to grips with the problem. Musicians, thanks to intense
musicological research, now know much more than previous generations
did about the salient points of Bach's style in performance.  Not
enough, however, is known. As a corrective to romantic performance
practice, a generation of young artists grew up playing, singing, and
conducting Bach with mechanical rigidity, using approved editions and
relatively small forces in an attempt to be 'authentic.'  The trouble
has been that the music sounds sterile- a Bach robbed of humanity, of
grace, of style, of line.  If we know one thing about Bach it is that
he was a passionate man and a passionate performer.  He undoubtedly
played and conducted his own music with infinitely more dash, freedom,
and spontaneity than modern performance practice will permit.   Bach
himself told a pupil, one Johann Gotthilf Ziegler, that an organist
should not merely play the notes.  He should express the "affect,"
the meaning, the emotional significance of the piece.  By strange
irony, it might eventually turn out that the derided romantics, even
though lacking today's scholarship, were instinctually closer to the
essential Bach style than the severe, note-perfect, and literal
musicians of today."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
f***@yahoo.com
2010-03-18 23:22:56 UTC
Permalink
I'll tell you, after I got my beautiful 1685 Voboam copy Baroque
guitar, I began to take an interest in early 20th century
arrangements. I particular like Segovia's Bach Chaconne (of course)
and especially Pujol's update of Guerau's "Villano".
I am interested in editors from this period that have an extremely
powerful voice that become almost the equal of the composer.

Why? With my Baroque guitar, I can read through Corbetta in tablature
and not concern myself with "sounding baroque" Interestingly, Corbetta
"feels" on the hand alot like Villa-Lobos., especially the "Suite
Populaire".

Some modern arrangements jump through hoops to make keyboard style
ornaments and fingerings on the guitar worthy of the virtuosity of a
Paganini and against the hand ...or as they used to Contra Naturum
(like alot of things these days).
Mark
Post by Douglas Seth
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Paul O'dette said in a master class at the Manhattan School of Music
that Segovia and Breams Bach transcriptions are more in the spirit of
the Baroque period than... fill in the blank : )
Bream Williams  arranged the music according to the nature of their
instruments and did not adopt fingerings and ornaments that
are awkward in imitation of some other instrument...
Mark,
It is an interesting perspective, but do you believe this?
D
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by JonLorPro
Post by f***@yahoo.com
It is a shame these historically significant things go out of
print...such is life!
In my guitar literature class, I want to put this transcription in
context with Godowski, Busoni,and Rachmaninov's arrangement of 1006
Guitarists think this Bach/Ponce is so strange but it is not really in
context of the time..
Interesting to hear you say that! I had wondered awhile back, if
playing Bach in a Romanticized way could be considered a kind of
historically informed performance, not of Bach's time but of the early
1900s! But I didn't get any affirmative responses.
I had occasion to forward this quote a while back- is this the sort of
line you were considering?
====
Harold Schonberg a few decades ago, in his "The Lives of the Great
Composers" wrote a passage which alludes to a continuing durable
firmity that music has with which to survive its production in
generations succeeding that of its origination.   This is from his
chapter on Bach, but there is no reason his comments cannot be taken
"One of the great problems posed by Bach's music in the twentieth
century involves matters of performance practice.  Obviously, it is
impossible to re-create a performance that would duplicate one of
Bach's day. Too many factors have changed.  And every age has its own
performance style.  The romantics, as they did in everything, took a
very free attitude towards Bach, and played him in their own image.
Romantic performance practice has extended into our own day, and it
has only been within the last few decades that serious effort has been
made to come to grips with the problem. Musicians, thanks to intense
musicological research, now know much more than previous generations
did about the salient points of Bach's style in performance.  Not
enough, however, is known. As a corrective to romantic performance
practice, a generation of young artists grew up playing, singing, and
conducting Bach with mechanical rigidity, using approved editions and
relatively small forces in an attempt to be 'authentic.'  The trouble
has been that the music sounds sterile- a Bach robbed of humanity, of
grace, of style, of line.  If we know one thing about Bach it is that
he was a passionate man and a passionate performer.  He undoubtedly
played and conducted his own music with infinitely more dash, freedom,
and spontaneity than modern performance practice will permit.   Bach
himself told a pupil, one Johann Gotthilf Ziegler, that an organist
should not merely play the notes.  He should express the "affect,"
the meaning, the emotional significance of the piece.  By strange
irony, it might eventually turn out that the derided romantics, even
though lacking today's scholarship, were instinctually closer to the
essential Bach style than the severe, note-perfect, and literal
musicians of today."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Douglas Seth
2010-03-19 15:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
I'll tell you, after I got my beautiful 1685 Voboam copy Baroque
guitar, I began to take an interest in early 20th century
arrangements. I particular like Segovia's Bach Chaconne (of course)
and especially Pujol's update of Guerau's "Villano".
I am interested in editors from this period that have an extremely
powerful voice that become almost the equal of the composer.
Why? With my Baroque guitar, I can read through Corbetta in tablature
and not concern myself with "sounding baroque" Interestingly, Corbetta
"feels" on the hand alot like Villa-Lobos., especially the "Suite
Populaire".
Some modern arrangements jump through hoops to make keyboard style
ornaments and fingerings on the guitar worthy of the virtuosity of a
Paganini and against the hand ...or as they used to Contra Naturum
(like alot of things these days).
 Mark
Thanks for responding. Very thought provoking. When I hear some of
Segovia Bach arrangements, I agree Segovia's voice is equal to Bach's
in the arrangements. I have actually gained a new appreciation for
Segovia and the "Segovia repertoire" of late. More of the Spanish
composers, not so much the Bach. There are modern editions for the
modern guitar that utilize open strings along with campanela and stile
brise that feel idiomatic and still sound "baroque". But I know what
you mean, employing alot of cross string ornamentation is a bit trick
sometimes. I guess as an artist, we are faced with a decision. We can
forge our own artistic voice regardless of the period we are playing
or attempt to perform each period with a stylistic interpretation
(different performance practices) unique to each period.

Doug
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Douglas Seth
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Paul O'dette said in a master class at the Manhattan School of Music
that Segovia and Breams Bach transcriptions are more in the spirit of
the Baroque period than... fill in the blank : )
Bream Williams  arranged the music according to the nature of their
instruments and did not adopt fingerings and ornaments that
are awkward in imitation of some other instrument...
Mark,
It is an interesting perspective, but do you believe this?
D
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by JonLorPro
Post by f***@yahoo.com
It is a shame these historically significant things go out of
print...such is life!
In my guitar literature class, I want to put this transcription in
context with Godowski, Busoni,and Rachmaninov's arrangement of 1006
Guitarists think this Bach/Ponce is so strange but it is not really in
context of the time..
Interesting to hear you say that! I had wondered awhile back, if
playing Bach in a Romanticized way could be considered a kind of
historically informed performance, not of Bach's time but of the early
1900s! But I didn't get any affirmative responses.
I had occasion to forward this quote a while back- is this the sort of
line you were considering?
====
Harold Schonberg a few decades ago, in his "The Lives of the Great
Composers" wrote a passage which alludes to a continuing durable
firmity that music has with which to survive its production in
generations succeeding that of its origination.   This is from his
chapter on Bach, but there is no reason his comments cannot be taken
"One of the great problems posed by Bach's music in the twentieth
century involves matters of performance practice.  Obviously, it is
impossible to re-create a performance that would duplicate one of
Bach's day. Too many factors have changed.  And every age has its own
performance style.  The romantics, as they did in everything, took a
very free attitude towards Bach, and played him in their own image.
Romantic performance practice has extended into our own day, and it
has only been within the last few decades that serious effort has been
made to come to grips with the problem. Musicians, thanks to intense
musicological research, now know much more than previous generations
did about the salient points of Bach's style in performance.  Not
enough, however, is known. As a corrective to romantic performance
practice, a generation of young artists grew up playing, singing, and
conducting Bach with mechanical rigidity, using approved editions and
relatively small forces in an attempt to be 'authentic.'  The trouble
has been that the music sounds sterile- a Bach robbed of humanity, of
grace, of style, of line.  If we know one thing about Bach it is that
he was a passionate man and a passionate performer.  He undoubtedly
played and conducted his own music with infinitely more dash, freedom,
and spontaneity than modern performance practice will permit.   Bach
himself told a pupil, one Johann Gotthilf Ziegler, that an organist
should not merely play the notes.  He should express the "affect,"
the meaning, the emotional significance of the piece.  By strange
irony, it might eventually turn out that the derided romantics, even
though lacking today's scholarship, were instinctually closer to the
essential Bach style than the severe, note-perfect, and literal
musicians of today."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Tommy Grand
2010-03-19 16:29:05 UTC
Permalink
 I guess as an artist, we are faced with a decision. We can
forge our own artistic voice regardless of the period we are playing
or attempt to perform each period with a stylistic interpretation
(different performance practices) unique to each period.
Perhaps commit firmly to no particular philosophy, but enjoy
performing Bach both ways.

Slogoin
2010-03-15 14:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Thanks!
It is a shame these historically significant things go out of
print...such is life!
 In my guitar literature class, I want to put this transcription in
context with Godowski, Busoni,and Rachmaninov's arrangement of 1006
Guitarists think this Bach/Ponce is so strange but it is not really in
context of the time..
There is a dissertation on that point using the Ponce/Segovia
letters.
Andrew Schulman
2010-03-15 00:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Faunce
M. 11, in the key of G: there's a D, F, G#, B. I'd call it a G# fully
diminished 7th chord, which leads nicely to A minor.
And I said "functioning" as a B7-9 with 7th in the bass because it is
leading into the Em chord in m. 12.

Andrew
Matt Faunce
2010-03-15 00:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Matt Faunce
diminished 7th chord, which leads nicely to A minor.
And I said "functioning" as a B7-9 with 7th in the bass because it is
leading into the Em chord in m. 12.
Oh, woops. I just remember so many people having talked about Bach's
implied notes, I locked on to that idea. It does function that way.
Post by Andrew Schulman
I was joking about it being the Hendrix chord,
just figured I'd get you and Mark to jump in.
I spent a few minutes and then some on that one. I've never seen you
screw up before so I kept giving you the benefit of the doubt. I kept
thinking, "implied G? E? What am I missing?"

BTW, in m.11 I don't know how people transcribe it to the key of D. It
should start with a D# rather than an Eb. Mark might have a version
with an Eb, maybe that's why he said F# dim 7.

Matt
f***@yahoo.com
2010-03-15 00:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Faunce
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Matt Faunce
diminished 7th chord, which leads nicely to A minor.
And I said "functioning" as a B7-9 with 7th in the bass because it is
leading into the Em chord in m. 12.
Oh, woops. I just remember so many people having talked about Bach's
implied notes, I locked on to that idea. It does function that way.
Post by Andrew Schulman
I was joking about it being the Hendrix chord,
just figured I'd get you and Mark to jump in.
I spent a few minutes and then some on that one. I've never seen you
screw up before so I kept giving you the benefit of the doubt. I kept
thinking, "implied G? E? What am I missing?"
BTW, in m.11 I don't know how people transcribe it to the key of D. It
should start with a D# rather than an Eb. Mark might have a version
with an Eb, maybe that's why he said F# dim 7.
Matt
I was looking at the D major version...could be D# dim 7,too.
Andrew Schulman
2010-03-15 01:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Matt Faunce
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Matt Faunce
diminished 7th chord, which leads nicely to A minor.
And I said "functioning" as a B7-9 with 7th in the bass because it is
leading into the Em chord in m. 12.
Oh, woops. I just remember so many people having talked about Bach's
implied notes, I locked on to that idea. It does function that way.
Post by Andrew Schulman
I was joking about it being the Hendrix chord,
just figured I'd get you and Mark to jump in.
I spent a few minutes and then some on that one. I've never seen you
screw up before so I kept giving you the benefit of the doubt. I kept
thinking, "implied G? E? What am I missing?"
BTW, in m.11 I don't know how people transcribe it to the key of D. It
should start with a D# rather than an Eb. Mark might have a version
with an Eb, maybe that's why he said F# dim 7.
Matt
I was looking at the D major version...could be D# dim 7,too.
Pujol, with his B's in the bass literally makes it a B7b9, and Mark is
clearly correct in saying that the -c- natural to -b- that happens
twice derives from the motive beginning in the first measure. I also
hear it as functioning as a dominant chord but with the 7th in the
bass, foreshadowing m. 21 and the beginning of m. 22, and also
indicated by Bach by the repeated -a's- in measure 11.

Andrew
Tommy Grand
2010-03-15 01:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
the -c- natural to -b- that happens
twice derives from the motive beginning in the first measure.  
Then they absolutely must be articulated with slurs. Maestro
Parkening puts an A in the bass, which has the advantage of not
requiring a barre. And nobody will notice.
Andrew Schulman
2010-03-15 03:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Then they absolutely must be articulated with slurs.  Maestro
Parkening puts an A in the bass, which has the advantage of not
requiring a barre...
Yes, as you can see that is what I do, and with my 8th string at A I
can also repeat the bass pattern of the first measure of the
arrangement which has a half note -d- followed by a -D- an octave
lower.

In the original 'cello version, in G, the -G-s are in the same
register, because they have to be, there is no octave lower than the
first G in the bass for the 'cello. But the pattern of a first bass
note followed by the second one an octave lower can be be found in
many places in Bach's music, for example in the Prelude of the 3rd
Lute Suite:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adeadgbe/4434384784/sizes/l/

Andrew
f***@yahoo.com
2010-03-14 23:16:40 UTC
Permalink
As it stands, the harmony is an F sharp diminished 7th chord. The B is
a neighboring tone following the motive of the first measure.
BTW, I really like Godowsky's arrangement of the cello suites. If were
a pianist, I would play them!
I mean, you can add lots of extras perks to Bach. The more the
better!!
Mark
Post by Tommy Grand
Post by Tommy Grand
Hello dear friends,
Refer to the prelude for the first cello suite, measure 22, beat 2.
I'm playing a transcription in D major which has an F# here, instead
of the customary E natural.  I understand that no autograph exists for
this suite, and there are numerous competing early manuscripts.  Is
there any support for the F#?  I saw one manscript online and it was a
little ambiguous to my eyes, hard to tell exactly what note was
intended.  They both sound fine to me!
Tnx,
TG
p.s. don't pretend the E natural is the only logical choice.  The fact
is that you're just used to it.
The -E- is the only logical choice.  I'm not pretending.
This very note came up in a thread a while back when Matt Faunce
posted an mp3 with it.  Search for that thread and you will find a
discussion about it.
What do you think is the correct harmony for m 11?
l***@gmail.com
2010-03-16 17:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
As it stands, the harmony is an F sharp diminished 7th chord. The B is
a neighboring tone following the motive of the first measure.
BTW, I really like Godowsky's arrangement of the cello suites. If were
a pianist, I would play them!
I mean, you can add lots of extras perks to Bach. The more the
better!!
Mark
Post by Tommy Grand
Hello dear friends,
Refer to the prelude for the first cello suite, measure 22, beat 2.
I'm playing a transcription in D major which has an F# here, instead
of the customary E natural.  I understand that no autograph exists for
this suite, and there are numerous competing early manuscripts.  Is
there any support for the F#?  I saw one manscript online and it was a
little ambiguous to my eyes, hard to tell exactly what note was
intended.  They both sound fine to me!
Tnx,
TG
p.s. don't pretend the E natural is the only logical choice.  The fact
is that you're just used to it.
The -E- is the only logical choice.  I'm not pretending.
This very note came up in a thread a while back when Matt Faunce
posted an mp3 with it.  Search for that thread and you will find a
discussion about it.
What do you think is the correct harmony for m 11?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Very interesting thread - Sorry if this has already neen noted but
good book by Alan Winold


http://www.amazon.com/Bachs-Cello-Suites-Analyses-Explorations/dp/0253218969/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268759964&sr=8-1

on these suites. Good analysis and observations from a master
cellist. Quite useful imo.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...