Post by Andrew SchulmanPost by TashiAndrew, 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 TashiHowever 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 TashiMy advice is both simple and
complicated " you need more strings".
Well, of course I agree with this!
Post by TashiI'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 SchulmanPost by TashiAlso, 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 SchulmanThis doesn't answer the question about the title, but notice it refers
only to the Prelude!
Post by TashiThe 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