Discussion:
New Bach editions by Nigel North
(too old to reply)
Tashi
2006-10-29 23:26:36 UTC
Permalink
I saw on Nigel North's website he is working on new editions of Bach's
violin and cello suites for lute, guitar and keyborad, I assume all in
one edition. Anyone out there know when they might be published?
Can't wait! Check it out.
http://www.nigelnorth.com/publications.html

MT
leao43grams
2006-10-31 12:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
I saw on Nigel North's website he is working on new editions of Bach's
violin and cello suites for lute, guitar and keyborad, I assume all in
one edition. Anyone out there know when they might be published?
Can't wait! Check it out.
http://www.nigelnorth.com/publications.html
MT
When I go to a guitar recital if there is Bach on the program I
will ask for my money back. Bach should never be played on guitar.

Regards,
Jaquinn Teilke
Rudi Menter
2006-10-31 13:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by leao43grams
Post by Tashi
I saw on Nigel North's website he is working on new editions of Bach's
violin and cello suites for lute, guitar and keyborad, I assume all in
one edition. Anyone out there know when they might be published?
Can't wait! Check it out.
http://www.nigelnorth.com/publications.html
MT
When I go to a guitar recital if there is Bach on the program I
will ask for my money back. Bach should never be played on guitar.
Yep, please stay out and keep doing so.
Tashi
2006-10-31 14:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudi Menter
Post by leao43grams
Post by Tashi
I saw on Nigel North's website he is working on new editions of Bach's
violin and cello suites for lute, guitar and keyborad, I assume all in
one edition. Anyone out there know when they might be published?
Can't wait! Check it out.
http://www.nigelnorth.com/publications.html
MT
When I go to a guitar recital if there is Bach on the program I
will ask for my money back. Bach should never be played on guitar.
Yep, please stay out and keep doing so.
I have no problem getting my money back, as most guitarists feel
ashamed and guilty at trying to make the thing look like a serious
instrument, in the first place.

Regards,

Jaquinn Tielke
Rudi Menter
2006-10-31 14:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
I have no problem getting my money back, as most guitarists feel
ashamed and guilty at trying to make the thing look like a serious
instrument, in the first place.
Fine.
Got some more news? Perhaps a little bit interesting ones...
Kleoeo21
2006-10-31 14:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudi Menter
Post by Tashi
I have no problem getting my money back, as most guitarists feel
ashamed and guilty at trying to make the thing look like a serious
instrument, in the first place.
Fine.
Got some more news? Perhaps a little bit interesting ones...
Yea, there's a new edition of Carrulli Opus 60 coming out soon, by
Theodore Pilkington.
MT
Kleoeo21
2006-10-31 15:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudi Menter
Post by Tashi
I have no problem getting my money back, as most guitarists feel
ashamed and guilty at trying to make the thing look like a serious
instrument, in the first place.
Fine.
Got some more news? Perhaps a little bit interesting ones...
Quite frankly if you must transcribe Bach, which I don't think you
should, but if you have to, here is an example of how it should be
done.
https://www.cherry-classics.com/sheetMusicFrame.html

Kind regards,
Theodore
Tashi
2006-10-31 15:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kleoeo21
Post by Rudi Menter
Post by Tashi
I have no problem getting my money back, as most guitarists feel
ashamed and guilty at trying to make the thing look like a serious
instrument, in the first place.
Fine.
Got some more news? Perhaps a little bit interesting ones...
Quite frankly if you must transcribe Bach, which I don't think you
should, but if you have to, here is an example of how it should be
done.
https://www.cherry-classics.com/sheetMusicFrame.html
Kind regards,
Theodore
Theodore, your a moran!
MT
Rudi Menter
2006-10-31 16:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kleoeo21
Post by Rudi Menter
Post by Tashi
I have no problem getting my money back, as most guitarists feel
ashamed and guilty at trying to make the thing look like a serious
instrument, in the first place.
Fine.
Got some more news? Perhaps a little bit interesting ones...
Quite frankly if you must transcribe Bach, which I don't think you
should, but if you have to, here is an example of how it should be
done.
https://www.cherry-classics.com/sheetMusicFrame.html
Theodore, your a moron!
Yes it is ;) And truly so.

Btw would Bach himself never have cared about marginals
relating to his absolute music. So, for instance, the
versions of instrumentation of the same piece sometime
ranges freely from organ or choir to harpsichord, which
is an extreme contrast due to the sustain of the tones.

The same holds with every other detail, like, for
example, the key!

Here is a proof: the fugues of BVW 1001 and BWV 539 are
exactly alike, except that BVW 1001 is written for the
solo violin in g minor, while BWV 539 is written for
the organ in d minor...

Regards
--
Tashi
2006-11-01 14:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudi Menter
Post by Kleoeo21
Post by Rudi Menter
Post by Tashi
I have no problem getting my money back, as most guitarists feel
ashamed and guilty at trying to make the thing look like a serious
instrument, in the first place.
Fine.
Got some more news? Perhaps a little bit interesting ones...
Quite frankly if you must transcribe Bach, which I don't think you
should, but if you have to, here is an example of how it should be
done.
https://www.cherry-classics.com/sheetMusicFrame.html
Theodore, your a moron!
Yes it is ;) And truly so.
Btw would Bach himself never have cared about marginals
relating to his absolute music. So, for instance, the
versions of instrumentation of the same piece sometime
ranges freely from organ or choir to harpsichord, which
is an extreme contrast due to the sustain of the tones.
The same holds with every other detail, like, for
example, the key!
Here is a proof: the fugues of BVW 1001 and BWV 539 are
exactly alike, except that BVW 1001 is written for the
solo violin in g minor, while BWV 539 is written for
the organ in d minor...
Regards
Exactly so! Bach could careless about the key. He used any good
theme in many arrangements, in many different keys. The question
remains is the 6 string guitar suitable for Bach's lute and keyboard
music? There was no 6 string guitar in Bach's time. I can't help but
to think he would have found it strange, in many ways.

MT
Post by Rudi Menter
--
Rudi Menter
2006-11-01 17:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
Exactly so! Bach could careless about the key. He used any good
theme in many arrangements, in many different keys. The question
remains is the 6 string guitar suitable for Bach's lute and keyboard
music? There was no 6 string guitar in Bach's time. I can't help but
to think he would have found it strange, in many ways.
Nah, now, 6 is even more strings than 4 strings, so we could at
least play the works for solo violin and cello the original way ;)

Regards
--
Tashi
2006-11-01 18:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudi Menter
Post by Tashi
Exactly so! Bach could careless about the key. He used any good
theme in many arrangements, in many different keys. The question
remains is the 6 string guitar suitable for Bach's lute and keyboard
music? There was no 6 string guitar in Bach's time. I can't help but
to think he would have found it strange, in many ways.
Nah, now, 6 is even more strings than 4 strings, so we could at
least play the works for solo violin and cello the original way ;)
Regards
Yes in a generalized way your idea makes sense. However, one
string on either the violin or cello is infinitely more dynamic than
one string on the guitar. To me the number of strings argument no
longer makes sense to me. One it seems must compensate for the lack of
dynamics in the guitar for a more dynamic polyphonic range. A concept
of course no one who plays guitar will admit to.

MT
Post by Rudi Menter
--
Andrew Schulman
2006-11-01 15:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudi Menter
Here is a proof: the fugues of BVW 1001 and BWV 539 are
exactly alike, except that BVW 1001 is written for the
solo violin in g minor, while BWV 539 is written for
the organ in d minor...
The form is basically the same, although the exposition is a little
different; but there are many, many changes in details besides the key
change. They are not exactly alike.

Andrew
Rudi Menter
2006-11-01 17:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
The form is basically the same, although the exposition is a little
different; but there are many, many changes in details besides the key
change. They are not exactly alike.
Right, the more it shows that the music itself is the item,
not the instrument, or other details. It is just one example,
but one that includes music which is common to the guitar...

Details like the key often were and are an issue of practical
matters, like the choir "used". So there is nothing wrong with
when e minor is a bit high, why not do it in d minor, etc.

Regards
--
Andrew Schulman
2006-11-01 22:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudi Menter
Right, the more it shows that the music itself is the item,
not the instrument, or other details. It is just one example,
but one that includes music which is common to the guitar...
Details like the key often were and are an issue of practical
matters, like the choir "used". So there is nothing wrong with
when e minor is a bit high, why not do it in d minor, etc.
An examination of BWV 539 & 1001 (1001 is in autograph score, 539 isn't
but most of the eminent scholars who have commented about it consider
it to be authentic) shows to what extent Bach takes into consideration
the instrument. As you would imagine, the organ version (known as "The
Fiddle Fugue") is much more elaborate harmonically and in figuration
than the violin version.

I had always played a version of my own for 8-string guitar of this
fugue, that was based on the lute arrangement by Weyrauch, BWV 1000,
but with quite a few passages from the violin version. When Richard
Yates posted about 1001 a few months ago I re-examined 539 and made
numerous changes. I wound up having to scale back some of the things I
took from 539 because they were not idiomatic.

And this is the great thing about Bach's transcriptions of his works
and those of others, they are always idiomatic. And to be idiomatic
means you must take into account the instrument you are transcribing
to.

Andrew
http://www.abacaproductions.com/
Rudi Menter
2006-11-01 23:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
And this is the great thing about Bach's transcriptions of his works
and those of others, they are always idiomatic. And to be idiomatic
means you must take into account the instrument you are transcribing
to.
It depends. In general, at that time, ornamentation has most
probably widely been supposed at concern of the musician.
Thats not too surprising as also today you would rarely hear
exactly the same music be played by the same organist during
the weekly service. This music is expected to be alive, much
more as the variations that are allowed in, say a string
quarttet of Beethoven.

In either way there is a wide spread hirarchy of the strictness
of imitation forms in Bach't era, beginning with the ricercare
and canon forms. The dux and comes in a fugue exposition also
usually are getting (with the single exception of the fourth)
imitated literally while the remaining parts are comparatively
relaxed, but not totally free, especially concerning the harmonic,
which was thought to follow a kind of typical basso continuo.

I think the music itself offers all answers to the transcriber,
at least when he is familiar enough with that kind of music...

Regards
--
Andrew Schulman
2006-11-02 00:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudi Menter
I think the music itself offers all answers to the transcriber,
at least when he is familiar enough with that kind of music...
I don't think quite "all answers"! Sorry, not everything works via
transcription. But, that there are ways to work things out is what
leaves open the possibility of a transcription being idiomatic, which
is another way of saying natural.

A really good transcription doesn't sound like a transcription, it
sounds as if it was written for the instrument. Again, as we all know,
Bach's genius took this into account.

Andrew
Rudi Menter
2006-11-02 01:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Rudi Menter
I think the music itself offers all answers to the transcriber,
at least when he is familiar enough with that kind of music...
I don't think quite "all answers"! Sorry, not everything works via
transcription.
Not at all, of course. E.g. at least 99.99% of the organ music
is impossible to be played on a guitar.

On the other hand, there is a guy who really plays the goldberg
variations on the guitar in a absolute apropriate way...


Regards
--
Rudi Menter
2006-11-01 23:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
And this is the great thing about Bach's transcriptions of his works
and those of others, they are always idiomatic. And to be idiomatic
means you must take into account the instrument you are transcribing
to.
It depends. In general, at that time, ornamentation has most
probably widely been supposed at concern of the musician.
Thats not too surprising as also today you would rarely hear
exactly the same music be played by the same organist during
the weekly service. This music is expected to be alive, much
more as the variations that are allowed in, say, a string
quartet of Beethoven.

In either way there is a wide spread hirarchy of the strictness
of imitation forms in Bach't era, beginning with the ricercare
and canon forms. The dux and comes in a fugue exposition also
usually are getting (with the single exception of the fourth)
imitated literally while the remaining parts are comparatively
relaxed, but not totally free, especially concerning the harmonic,
which was thought to follow a kind of typical basso continuo.

I think the music itself offers all answers to the transcriber,
at least when he is familiar enough with that kind of music...

Regards
--
Rudi Menter
2006-11-01 23:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
And this is the great thing about Bach's transcriptions of his works
and those of others, they are always idiomatic. And to be idiomatic
means you must take into account the instrument you are transcribing
to.
It depends. In general, at that time, ornamentation has most
probably widely been supposed at concern to the musician.
Thats not too surprising as also today you would rarely hear
exactly the same music be played by the same organist during
the weekly service. This music is expected to be alive, much
more as the variations that are allowed in, say, a string
quartet of Beethoven.

In either way there is a wide spread hirarchy of the strictness
of imitation forms in Bach's era, beginning with the ricercare
and canon forms. The dux and comes in a fugue exposition also
usually are getting (with the single exception of the fourth)
imitated literally while the remaining parts are comparatively
relaxed, but not totally free, especially concerning the harmonic,
which was thought to follow a kind of typical basso continuo.

I think the music itself offers all answers to the transcriber,
at least when he is familiar enough with that kind of music...

Regards
--
Rudi Menter
2006-11-01 23:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
And this is the great thing about Bach's transcriptions of his works
and those of others, they are always idiomatic. And to be idiomatic
means you must take into account the instrument you are transcribing
to.
It depends. In general, at that time, ornamentation has most
probably widely been supposed at concern to the musician.
Thats not too surprising as also today you would rarely hear
exactly the same music be played by the same organist during
the weekly service. This music is expected to be alive, much
more as the variations that are allowed in, say, a string
quartet of Beethoven.

In either way there is a wide spread hirarchy of the strictness
of imitation forms in Bach's era, beginning with the ricercare
and canon forms. The dux and comes in a fugue exposition also
usually are getting (with the single exception of the fourth)
imitated literally while the remaining parts are comparatively
relaxed, but not totally free, especially concerning the harmonic,
which was thought to follow a kind of typical basso continuo.

I think the music itself offers all answers to the transcriber,
at least when he is familiar enough with that kind of music...

Btw, did you know, that the opening theme of the Mattheus
Passion "borrows" the opening movement of the cantata
BWV 125-1 "Mit fried und freud ich fahr dahin" ? Funny, no?

Regards
--
Rudi Menter
2006-11-01 23:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
And this is the great thing about Bach's transcriptions of his works
and those of others, they are always idiomatic. And to be idiomatic
means you must take into account the instrument you are transcribing
to.
It depends. In general, at that time, ornamentation has most
probably widely been supposed at concern to the musician.
Thats not too surprising as also today you would rarely hear
exactly the same music be played by the same organist during
the weekly service. This music is expected to be alive, much
more as the variations that are allowed in, say, a string
quartet of Beethoven. On the other hand, there is not much
occasion for a choir to act on impulse ;)

In either way there is a wide spread hirarchy of the strictness
of imitation forms in Bach's era, beginning with the ricercare
and canon forms. The dux and comes in a fugue exposition also
usually are getting (with the single exception of the fourth)
imitated literally while the remaining parts are comparatively
relaxed, but not totally free, especially concerning the harmonic,
which was thought to follow a kind of typical basso continuo.

I think the music itself offers all answers to the transcriber,
at least when he is familiar enough with that kind of music...

Btw, did you know, that the opening theme of the Mattheus
Passion BWV 244 "borrows" the opening movement from the
cantata BWV 125-1 "Mit fried und freud ich fahr dahin"?
Funny, no?

Regards
--
Rudi Menter
2006-11-01 23:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
And this is the great thing about Bach's transcriptions of his works
and those of others, they are always idiomatic. And to be idiomatic
means you must take into account the instrument you are transcribing
to.
It depends. In general, at that time, ornamentation has most
probably widely been supposed at concern to the musician.
Thats not too surprising as also today you would rarely hear
exactly the same music be played by the same organist during
the weekly service. This music is expected to be alive, much
more as the variations that are allowed in, say, a string
quartet of Beethoven.

In either way there is a wide spread hirarchy of the strictness
of imitation forms in Bach's era, beginning with the ricercare
and canon forms. The dux and comes in a fugue exposition also
usually are getting (with the single exception of the fourth)
imitated literally while the remaining parts are comparatively
relaxed, but not totally free, especially concerning the harmonic,
which was thought to follow a kind of typical basso continuo.

I think the music itself offers all answers to the transcriber,
at least when he is familiar enough with that kind of music...

Btw, did you know, that the opening theme of the Mattheus
Passion BWV 244 "borrows" the opening movement from the
cantata BWV 125-1 "Mit fried und freud ich fahr dahin"?
Funny, no?

Regards
--
Tashi
2006-11-02 00:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudi Menter
Post by Andrew Schulman
And this is the great thing about Bach's transcriptions of his works
and those of others, they are always idiomatic. And to be idiomatic
means you must take into account the instrument you are transcribing
to.
It depends. In general, at that time, ornamentation has most
probably widely been supposed at concern to the musician.
Thats not too surprising as also today you would rarely hear
exactly the same music be played by the same organist during
the weekly service. This music is expected to be alive, much
more as the variations that are allowed in, say, a string
quartet of Beethoven.
In either way there is a wide spread hirarchy of the strictness
of imitation forms in Bach's era, beginning with the ricercare
and canon forms. The dux and comes in a fugue exposition also
usually are getting (with the single exception of the fourth)
imitated literally while the remaining parts are comparatively
relaxed, but not totally free, especially concerning the harmonic,
which was thought to follow a kind of typical basso continuo.
I think the music itself offers all answers to the transcriber,
at least when he is familiar enough with that kind of music...
Btw, did you know, that the opening theme of the Mattheus
Passion BWV 244 "borrows" the opening movement from the
cantata BWV 125-1 "Mit fried und freud ich fahr dahin"?
Funny, no?
Regards
Transcribing Bach's lute music to guitar makes as much musical sense
as transcribing Liszt for Clavichord, and then trying to convince the
music going public to take such a thing seriously.

What I would like to know is why everyone says Bach never wrote music
for the lute except for the G minor suite.
Various explanations exist, however Bach clearly states lute, am I
wrong here? Bach as we can see historically knew the difference
between a keyboard instrument and a lute?
Where did the 4th lute suite get it's title of lute suite, as my
understanding is no instrument was specified? etc, etc.
MT
Post by Rudi Menter
--
Andrew Schulman
2006-11-02 01:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
Transcribing Bach's lute music to guitar makes as much musical sense
as transcribing Liszt for Clavichord, and then trying to convince the
music going public to take such a thing seriously.
I don't think that is a good analogy.

And, many many music lovers love Bach on the guitar. I know this from
personal experience as well as from others. That you don't like Bach
on the guitar is another matter, and of course you are as entitled to
your opinion as anyone else is, except for Larry Deack, and that is
because Larry is Kenny.
Post by Tashi
What I would like to know is why everyone says Bach never wrote music
for the lute except for the G minor suite.
Everyone?

I did a fair amount of research about this and there is a good
possibility that re: the solo works only BWV 995 and 999, of the pieces
Bach actually wrote (BWV 1000 was not written by Bach for instance)
were intended for the lute, and 999 is questionable. But this is a
disputed topic as we all know. I give the most weight in this argument
to the lute players and from what I have read, especially from Nigel
North.

BTW, there is no autograph score for BWV 1006a and no instrument is
referred to. It is most likely intended for keyboard.

Andrew
Tashi
2006-11-02 02:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Tashi
Transcribing Bach's lute music to guitar makes as much musical sense
as transcribing Liszt for Clavichord, and then trying to convince the
music going public to take such a thing seriously.
I don't think that is a good analogy.
And, many many music lovers love Bach on the guitar. I know this from
personal experience as well as from others. That you don't like Bach
on the guitar is another matter, and of course you are as entitled to
your opinion as anyone else is, except for Larry Deack, and that is
because Larry is Kenny.
Andrew, I love Bach on the guitar, actually more so than the lute,
simply because I prefer the tone of the guitar. I agree most guitarists
will not stop playing Bach because of a few people like me, so as you
can see I'm not much of a threat to the continued tradition of Bach on
the guitar. However if all of a sudden everyone started playing Bach on
the appropriate number of strings it was originally written for, and
people got used to that sound, they might find it strange to hear it on
6 strings, as much as I do.

Everything is relative. All I can do is express my feelings
concerning Bach on the guitar when it comes up on the RMCG from time to
time, whilst hearing players struggling for the right transcription,
interpretation, and advice from others. My advice is both simple and
complicated " you need more strings".

If Goran Sollscher did a grand concert tour of the USA I guarantee we
would see an increase of multistring guitars amongst the commoners,
that's what it would take and more actually.

Personally, and quite humorously I found the biggest protest to my
13 string guitar came from people who play 10 string guitars.... I
guess everything boils down to job security.

MT
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Tashi
What I would like to know is why everyone says Bach never wrote music
for the lute except for the G minor suite.
Everyone?
I did a fair amount of research about this and there is a good
possibility that re: the solo works only BWV 995 and 999, of the pieces
Bach actually wrote (BWV 1000 was not written by Bach for instance)
were intended for the lute, and 999 is questionable. But this is a
disputed topic as we all know. I give the most weight in this argument
to the lute players and from what I have read, especially from Nigel
North.
I'm beginning to firmly believe that this nonsense Bach didn't write
for the lute comes directly from lute players.
BWV 1000 comes from an arrangement by Bach's student Weyrauch as you
know. If we are to believe Bach's fugue was not written for lute
because there is no autograph by Bach himself.... this very premise
would render all six cello suites suspect as well, since no autograph
or original score from Bach exists of them! All the scores are made by
other people some of whom never even knew Bach. Might we trust
Weyrauch, and Falkenhagen as much as we trust Kellner, and Bach's own
wife? The evidence is overwhelming Bach's fugue 1000 is for lute, as
much as it is for organ or violin.

Also, rarely mentioned amongst Bach's lute works is the Prelude, Fuge
and Allegro BWV 998 which has his autograph and clearly states for Lute
OR keyboard, this negates the common assumption that it indicates lute
but was actually intended for keyboard, as cembalo appears next to the
word lute.
Post by Andrew Schulman
BTW, there is no autograph score for BWV 1006a and no instrument is
referred to. It is most likely intended for keyboard.
The texture is quite thin for lute music. When did this suite take on
the title of "The 4th lute suite" Was the original written in Grand
staff or treble? What justifies this suite being included in the six
sonatas and partitas for violin?
MT
Post by Andrew Schulman
Andrew
Andrew Schulman
2006-11-02 04:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
Andrew, I love Bach on the guitar, actually more so than the lute,
simply because I prefer the tone of the guitar.
Me too!
Post by Tashi
However if all of a sudden everyone started playing Bach on
the appropriate number of strings it was originally written for, and
people got used to that sound, they might find it strange to hear it on
6 strings, as much as I do.
If the particular piece, say one of the violin pieces, is played well
on a 6-string guitar it works quite well in my opinion. After all, the
original uses the span of 4 strings, albeit tuned in 5ths and pitched
an octave higher. However, the plucked string technique allows for a
more precise counterpoint on the guitar than the bowed technique of the
violin. And the guitar has a much greater range of timbre.
Post by Tashi
My advice is both simple and
complicated " you need more strings".
Well, of course I agree with this!
Post by Tashi
I'm beginning to firmly believe that this nonsense Bach didn't write
for the lute comes directly from lute players.
BWV 1000 comes from an arrangement by Bach's student Weyrauch as you
know. If we are to believe Bach's fugue was not written for lute
because there is no autograph by Bach himself.... this very premise
would render all six cello suites suspect as well, since no autograph
or original score from Bach exists of them! All the scores are made by
other people some of whom never even knew Bach. Might we trust
Weyrauch, and Falkenhagen as much as we trust Kellner, and Bach's own
wife? The evidence is overwhelming Bach's fugue 1000 is for lute, as
much as it is for organ or violin.
Well, yes, no one is disputing that BWV 1000 is a version for lute.

Michael, have you studied 539, 1000, and 1001? I have, measure by
measure. 539 and 1001 are brilliant. The arrangement by Weyrauch
(most likely) has many weak spots that very obviously do not come from
the pen of J.S. Bach, as the corresponding measures in 539 and 1001 are
different, and far superior. On the other hand, the 'cello suites,
which are in Anna Magdalena Bach's handwriting, were obviously under
Bach's supervision.
Post by Tashi
Also, rarely mentioned amongst Bach's lute works is the Prelude, Fuge
and Allegro BWV 998 which has his autograph and clearly states for Lute
OR keyboard, this negates the common assumption that it indicates lute
but was actually intended for keyboard, as cembalo appears next to the
word lute.
Here is a quote from Nigel North about BWV 998 that makes a lot of
sense (from liner notes for a Lautenwerk CD by Kim Heindel):

"The three-movement Italianate partita known as the Prelude, Fugue and
Allegro in E-flat Major, BWV 998, survives in an autograph manuscript,
now in a collection in Japan, and has the fascinating title of "Prelude
pour la Luth o Cembalo par J.S. Bach". Like all the pieces on this
recording, it inhabits that ambiguous ground between the lute and
harpsichord. As a lutenist, I can confirm that the Prelude is certainly
feasible, even successful, but the other two movements, particularly
the Allegro, contain too much that is impossible on the lute. The
lautenwerk seems to me to be the intended and ideal instrument.
Incidentally, Bach ran out of space toward the end of the Allegro, so
he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature, not lute tablature
... another clue that this is keyboard music."

This doesn't answer the question about the title, but notice it refers
only to the Prelude!
Post by Tashi
The texture is quite thin for lute music. When did this suite take on
the title of "The 4th lute suite" Was the original written in Grand
staff or treble? What justifies this suite being included in the six
sonatas and partitas for violin?
"The 4th lute suite" is BWV 1006a. The E major violin partita you are
referring to is BWV 1006, which is in autograph score and one of the 6
Partitas and Sonatas for Violin Solo, Libro Primo, ca. 1720 (the title
in the autograph score).

BWV 1006a, ca. 1736-37, not in autograph score but thought to be
authentic, is in grand staff, and there is no instrument indication on
the title page.

Andrew
Tashi
2006-11-02 06:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Tashi
Andrew, I love Bach on the guitar, actually more so than the lute,
simply because I prefer the tone of the guitar.
Me too!
Post by Tashi
However if all of a sudden everyone started playing Bach on
the appropriate number of strings it was originally written for, and
people got used to that sound, they might find it strange to hear it on
6 strings, as much as I do.
If the particular piece, say one of the violin pieces, is played well
on a 6-string guitar it works quite well in my opinion. After all, the
original uses the span of 4 strings, albeit tuned in 5ths and pitched
an octave higher. However, the plucked string technique allows for a
more precise counterpoint on the guitar than the bowed technique of the
violin. And the guitar has a much greater range of timbre.
Post by Tashi
My advice is both simple and
complicated " you need more strings".
Well, of course I agree with this!
Post by Tashi
I'm beginning to firmly believe that this nonsense Bach didn't write
for the lute comes directly from lute players.
BWV 1000 comes from an arrangement by Bach's student Weyrauch as you
know. If we are to believe Bach's fugue was not written for lute
because there is no autograph by Bach himself.... this very premise
would render all six cello suites suspect as well, since no autograph
or original score from Bach exists of them! All the scores are made by
other people some of whom never even knew Bach. Might we trust
Weyrauch, and Falkenhagen as much as we trust Kellner, and Bach's own
wife? The evidence is overwhelming Bach's fugue 1000 is for lute, as
much as it is for organ or violin.
Well, yes, no one is disputing that BWV 1000 is a version for lute.
Michael, have you studied 539, 1000, and 1001? I have, measure by
measure. 539 and 1001 are brilliant. The arrangement by Weyrauch
(most likely) has many weak spots that very obviously do not come from
the pen of J.S. Bach, as the corresponding measures in 539 and 1001 are
different, and far superior. On the other hand, the 'cello suites,
which are in Anna Magdalena Bach's handwriting, were obviously under
Bach's supervision.
No I haven't played or studied 1000. I must confess I primarily
play Weiss thesedays. I am looking for a good Bach suite to play but I
like playing the stuff most people haven't heard much of.
The fact that there are mistakes in the tablature version by Weyrauch
doesnt negate the fact that it's a piece by Bach for lute, in the same
way that the G minor lute suite is a fuller and better version of the
cello suite 5. I can't say for sure but I would imagine one would have
a hard time finding any two pieces identical in Bach's MS.
I don't know enough to say Anna Magdalena Bach's MS is a faithful
copy of Bach's original, or if Bach supervised her or not, or for that
matter if there even was an original.

Weyrauch was close to Bach as a student, and find it hard to believe
Bach would not have heard his own music performed by Weyrauch on the
lute, whilst engaged in his studies with him. In my mind it's about as
good as it gets to make the case for a lute peice by Bach regardless of
the copying errors or inferior arrangement. This goes for all of
Weyrauch's arrangements. Just imagine not having Anna Magdalena's MS
and having to rely only on Kellner's MS would one then say the cello
suite were not originally for cello...... this is the senario for
Weyrauch's MS... no?
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Tashi
Also, rarely mentioned amongst Bach's lute works is the Prelude, Fuge
and Allegro BWV 998 which has his autograph and clearly states for Lute
OR keyboard, this negates the common assumption that it indicates lute
but was actually intended for keyboard, as cembalo appears next to the
word lute.
Here is a quote from Nigel North about BWV 998 that makes a lot of
"The three-movement Italianate partita known as the Prelude, Fugue and
Allegro in E-flat Major, BWV 998, survives in an autograph manuscript,
now in a collection in Japan, and has the fascinating title of "Prelude
pour la Luth o Cembalo par J.S. Bach". Like all the pieces on this
recording, it inhabits that ambiguous ground between the lute and
harpsichord. As a lutenist, I can confirm that the Prelude is certainly
feasible, even successful, but the other two movements, particularly
the Allegro, contain too much that is impossible on the lute. The
lautenwerk seems to me to be the intended and ideal instrument.
Incidentally, Bach ran out of space toward the end of the Allegro, so
he notated the last few bars in keyboard tablature, not lute tablature
... another clue that this is keyboard music."
Lutenists are notorious wimps when it comes to hard lute music!
Notice guitarists don't complain as much about transcriptions not
falling perfectly under their fingers, they just make it work.
Lutenists on the other hand, tend not to play anything that seems to
not fit perfectly under the fingers. This is because with the
exception of Bach everything is idiomatic and natural to the lute... in
other words they are spoiled. Barto says " there is seldom an awkward
passage in Weiss".

Bach wrote not on the lute, but on the keyboard and probably had a
limited technique on the lute. This doesnt indicate just because it's
not as easy as Weiss it's not for the lute. Just as Rodrigo wrote
unnaturally difficult music for guitar, as he was not a guitarist but a
pianist.

Not trying to be a scholar here, but the prelude North says fits
well on the lute. As the pieces progress they become more and more
difficult. As they become more difficult he then makes a case for it
not being a lute piece.

I find it very strange that Bach himself says BWV 998 is for lute,
yet North disagrees with this. It sounds rather redundant for Bach to
say this piece is for " keyboard or keyboard "? as the Lautenwercke was
essentially the same thing as a clavichord if you read the description
of one. I seem to remember seeing pieces where Bach wrote the word
Lautenwercke specifically, am I wrong? If so Bach seems to know the
difference between a Laute, and Lautenwercke, and a clavichord.
Post by Andrew Schulman
This doesn't answer the question about the title, but notice it refers
only to the Prelude!
Post by Tashi
The texture is quite thin for lute music. When did this suite take on
the title of "The 4th lute suite" Was the original written in Grand
staff or treble? What justifies this suite being included in the six
sonatas and partitas for violin?
"The 4th lute suite" is BWV 1006a. The E major violin partita you are
referring to is BWV 1006, which is in autograph score and one of the 6
Partitas and Sonatas for Violin Solo, Libro Primo, ca. 1720 (the title
in the autograph score).
BWV 1006a, ca. 1736-37, not in autograph score but thought to be
authentic, is in grand staff, and there is no instrument indication on
the title page.
Thanks for clearing that up for me Andrew.
MT
Post by Andrew Schulman
Andrew
Andrew Schulman
2006-11-02 17:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
The fact that there are mistakes in the tablature version by Weyrauch
doesnt negate the fact that it's a piece by Bach for lute, in the same
way that the G minor lute suite is a fuller and better version of the
cello suite 5.
BWV 1000 is an arrangement for lute of a piece by Bach, done by someone
other than Bach. BWV 995 is an arrangement for lute of the 5th 'Cello
Suite, done by Bach. That's a big difference.

We have to make guesses of a lot of things re: Bach because there is so
little documentation. If Bach did in fact hear BWV 1000 in the version
that has come down to us over the years, I think he would have
suggested to the arranger that various changes needed to be made.
Maybe that happened and the corrected version was lost to posterity.

It is also very plausible that he never heard this arrangement. We
know that Bach was extraordinarily busy in his professional and
personal life, this is why so little was written by him in the way of
explaining his methods, music, life, etc.

Andrew
Arthur Ness
2006-11-11 20:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
"The 4th lute suite" is BWV 1006a. The E major violin partita you are
referring to is BWV 1006, which is in autograph score and one of the 6
Partitas and Sonatas for Violin Solo, Libro Primo, ca. 1720 (the title
in the autograph score).
BWV 1006a, ca. 1736-37, not in autograph score but thought to be
authentic, is in grand staff, and there is no instrument indication on
the title page.
My information is that the autograph manuscript dated 1737 (see BWV 1006a)
remained in the private library of the Familie Klinckerfuss in Stuttgart
until the 'sixties (or so). It now joins BWV 998 in Tokyo (but in different
libraries). (Or has that manuscript since been shown not to be in JSB's
handwriting?)

There is a microfilm in the Bach-Institute in Göttingen (a private
institute). As well as several facsimiles, including Scheit's guitar
edition, and that weird edition for Gitarrenwerke by Cipriani (or whatever
his name is/was).

BWV 1006a is available in the NBA, as well as BGA. I don't have the notes
here, but I
would expect that the autograph was used. You are correct, no instrument is
named. But it is not idiomatic keyboard writing. A wild<!!> guess would be
for
pantaleone?<g> Hebenstreit was in Leipzig, I believe.

We will have to wait until Andre ("Liuto Forte") Burguete finishes his work.
He's certainly been at it for long enough. Clearly the last word has not
been heard on these pieces. And Per Kjetil Farstad, whose dissertation on
arranging music for 8-string guitaR, is perhaps the most thorough treatment
of this repertory, has jet to be heard from.

==ajn
Post by Andrew Schulman
Andrew
y***@apsu.edu
2006-11-02 17:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
Everything is relative. All I can do is express my feelings
concerning Bach on the guitar when it comes up on the RMCG from time to
time, whilst hearing players struggling for the right transcription,
interpretation, and advice from others. My advice is both simple and
complicated " you need more strings".
Not simply more strings Michael - a different tuning...
Post by Tashi
If Goran Sollscher did a grand concert tour of the USA I guarantee we
would see an increase of multistring guitars amongst the commoners,
that's what it would take and more actually.
Goran's alt-guitar is tuned in thirds, isn't it?

SY
Greg M. Silverman
2006-11-02 17:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by y***@apsu.edu
Post by Tashi
Everything is relative. All I can do is express my feelings
concerning Bach on the guitar when it comes up on the RMCG from time to
time, whilst hearing players struggling for the right transcription,
interpretation, and advice from others. My advice is both simple and
complicated " you need more strings".
Not simply more strings Michael - a different tuning...
Post by Tashi
If Goran Sollscher did a grand concert tour of the USA I guarantee we
would see an increase of multistring guitars amongst the commoners,
that's what it would take and more actually.
Goran's alt-guitar is tuned in thirds, isn't it?
SY
Stanley,
Do you know if Bream ever recorded this and if so, who sang (Peter Pears
maybe)? I have been unsuccessful in finding out anything about this.

Incidentally, the Seiber Centenary has a great web site at
http://www.seiber2005.org.uk/index.html
Greg M. Silverman
2006-11-02 17:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg M. Silverman
Post by y***@apsu.edu
Post by Tashi
Everything is relative. All I can do is express my feelings
concerning Bach on the guitar when it comes up on the RMCG from time to
time, whilst hearing players struggling for the right transcription,
interpretation, and advice from others. My advice is both simple and
complicated " you need more strings".
Not simply more strings Michael - a different tuning...
Post by Tashi
If Goran Sollscher did a grand concert tour of the USA I guarantee we
would see an increase of multistring guitars amongst the commoners,
that's what it would take and more actually.
Goran's alt-guitar is tuned in thirds, isn't it?
SY
Stanley,
Do you know if Bream ever recorded this and if so, who sang (Peter Pears
maybe)? I have been unsuccessful in finding out anything about this.
Incidentally, the Seiber Centenary has a great web site at
http://www.seiber2005.org.uk/index.html
Oops, wrong thread. Mea Culp!
Greg M. Silverman
2006-11-02 17:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg M. Silverman
Post by y***@apsu.edu
Post by Tashi
Everything is relative. All I can do is express my feelings
concerning Bach on the guitar when it comes up on the RMCG from time to
time, whilst hearing players struggling for the right transcription,
interpretation, and advice from others. My advice is both simple and
complicated " you need more strings".
Not simply more strings Michael - a different tuning...
Post by Tashi
If Goran Sollscher did a grand concert tour of the USA I guarantee we
would see an increase of multistring guitars amongst the commoners,
that's what it would take and more actually.
Goran's alt-guitar is tuned in thirds, isn't it?
SY
Stanley,
Do you know if Bream ever recorded this and if so, who sang (Peter
Pears maybe)? I have been unsuccessful in finding out anything about
this.
Incidentally, the Seiber Centenary has a great web site at
http://www.seiber2005.org.uk/index.html
Oops, wrong thread. Mea CulpA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Robert Crim
2006-11-02 17:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by y***@apsu.edu
Goran's alt-guitar is tuned in thirds, isn't it?
It's tuned like a lute.

Robert
Robert Crim
2006-11-02 17:33:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:31:54 GMT, Robert Crim
Post by Robert Crim
Post by y***@apsu.edu
Goran's alt-guitar is tuned in thirds, isn't it?
It's tuned like a lute.
A renaissance lute.

Robert
Tashi
2006-11-02 18:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by y***@apsu.edu
Post by Tashi
Everything is relative. All I can do is express my feelings
concerning Bach on the guitar when it comes up on the RMCG from time to
time, whilst hearing players struggling for the right transcription,
interpretation, and advice from others. My advice is both simple and
complicated " you need more strings".
Not simply more strings Michael - a different tuning...
Goran describes his guitar as "lute tuning". This simply means it's
tuned just like a guitar but a third higher, as if one put a capo on
the third fret, the string length is an unbelievably short scale of
577mm, in order to get a first string thick enough to sound good.
I would assume when playing the Renaissance rep. he tuned the third
string to F#, and I would imagine for Baroque he tuned the third
string back to G.

I must confess I have only played a little Bach on my 13 string
guitar, the prelude in the G minor lute suite, ( transposed to A minor
by Hoppy Smith ) and the 1st cello suite, an arrangement I made between
Toyohko Sotoh, and Clive Titmus. I want to make a recording just to
put up on the web so people can hear the sustain the D minor tuning
adds to a piece (1st cello suite ) everyone is already familar with. I
also have the Passicaglia by Weiss almost ready to record and this with
be the first time in history it's been played on guitar ( same
fingering, and tuning etc.) as it was written by Weiss, sorry for the
over the top drama, but it's true.

I heard many lute players say Bach is easier in guitar tuning, but
recently I have come to the concusion they are just a bunch of wimps.
That being said, Bach is MUCH harder to play on the lute than Weiss.
Bach it seems was obsessed with duplicating the sound of the lute with
his lautenwerk, it was said, Bach was able to fool the most
accomplished lutenists into hearing a real lute. It would seem logical
that Bach would have even tuned the Lautenwerke to a D minor tuning in
order to deceive lutenists and to duplicate the sound of the lute. So
yes, Stanley personally I feel the different tuning is very important
to playing Bach, but again most guitarists won't admit to this. Even
Sollscher dosen't do this even though he could, as he has 11 strings
and not just 10.
MT
Post by y***@apsu.edu
Post by Tashi
If Goran Sollscher did a grand concert tour of the USA I guarantee we
would see an increase of multistring guitars amongst the commoners,
that's what it would take and more actually.
Goran's alt-guitar is tuned in thirds, isn't it?
SY
Rudi Menter
2006-11-02 01:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Tashi wrote:

[ things that I disagree with ]

Regards
--
Rudi Menter
2006-11-01 17:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
The form is basically the same, although the exposition is a little
different; but there are many, many changes in details besides the key
change. They are not exactly alike.
Right, the more it shows that the music itself is the item,
not the instrument, or other details. It is just one example,
but one that includes music which is common to the guitar...
(Btw. There are versions for the guitar that use the exposition
from BWV 539, and when I saw it at first I thougt it was an
fault ;)

Details like the key often were and are an issue of practical
matters, like the choir "used". So there is nothing wrong with
when e minor is a bit high, why not do it in d minor, etc.

Regards
--
e***@yahoo.com
2006-10-31 15:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by leao43grams
Post by Tashi
I saw on Nigel North's website he is working on new editions of Bach's
violin and cello suites for lute, guitar and keyborad, I assume all in
one edition. Anyone out there know when they might be published?
Can't wait! Check it out.
http://www.nigelnorth.com/publications.html
MT
When I go to a guitar recital if there is Bach on the program I
will ask for my money back. Bach should never be played on guitar.
Regards,
Jaquinn Teilke
Jaquinn,

Have you heard Frederic Zigante play Bach on guitar?

http://www.fredericzigante.com/indexen.htm

CD - "Compete Lute Music"
http://www.fredericzigante.com/discografia/disco.htm

Ed S.
Tashi
2006-11-01 15:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Post by leao43grams
Post by Tashi
I saw on Nigel North's website he is working on new editions of Bach's
violin and cello suites for lute, guitar and keyborad, I assume all in
one edition. Anyone out there know when they might be published?
Can't wait! Check it out.
http://www.nigelnorth.com/publications.html
MT
When I go to a guitar recital if there is Bach on the program I
will ask for my money back. Bach should never be played on guitar.
Regards,
Jaquinn Teilke
Jaquinn,
Have you heard Frederic Zigante play Bach on guitar?
http://www.fredericzigante.com/indexen.htm
CD - "Compete Lute Music"
http://www.fredericzigante.com/discografia/disco.htm
Ed S.
Hi Ed, For me it's just one more version of the same. I haven't
heard it, but without trying to sound too haughty and opinionated, I'm
bored by another Bach lute work recording on 6 strings.

Yesterday I bought an Excellent recording by.... Andreas Martin, "
Obras para laud Werke fur Laute " by Bach. Martin plays these on a
theorbe, which is a single strung 14 sting instrument, essentially the
same as a multistring guitar...... this is how it should be played.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...