Thanks.David Belcher wrote:Thanks Frank! This is an excellent transcription.
That makes sense, but it's not supported in any of the sources. It is of course possible that the reason why neither Anna Magdalena Bach nor Johann Peter Kellner nor anon. included a natural there is that they took it for granted. This is a common problem when editing music that only survives as manuscripts: what did the original copyist leave out simply because he or she didn't think it was necessary to mention?David Belcher wrote:If I'm not mistaken, the G natural from the previous measure should carry forward to this measure as well--so it should be an Em rather than EMAJ chord: E, B, G(natural), E.
Don't know about the urtext edition but yes, it is how it's written in all three sources and in all modern editions I've checked. This is where the problems of my true-to-the-original approach really becomes apparent.David Belcher wrote:I would also change some of the resolutions you have chosen. For instance, in the last measure of the A section in the Allemande (again just at the repeat bars, top of p. 5), you resolve the D# from the previous measure to the E an octave down. Is that how Bach has it in the Urtext?
You could also just hold that d# until it is resolved in the right octave later in the bar - possibly with some ornament to really empasize the point. Either solution would be perfectly in style. I guess this is where the advantages of my true-to-the-original approach becomes apparent. It allows the performer to make such decisions himself/herself.David Belcher wrote:Typically, when I came to those sections I played an octave so the note would resolve at its own octave and also provide the support of the bass...but that may be a performance decision. Interested in your thoughts on that.
Please feel free to do so!David Belcher wrote:I'm also interested in where you would put slurs. I added my own as I played
I never though of that. The reason why I included the campanella effect in the prelude is simply that it is how that particular passage is written in all three source manuscripts.David Belcher wrote:Finally, you utilize campanella (cross-string) fingerings quite a bit in the first movement to great effect. Did you consider/experiment using such fingerings
I'd love to hear that.David Belcher wrote:I may work on a recording of your version of the suite to post here soon!
Your wish is my command, sir!elindley wrote:If it isn't too much trouble, could you make a version without the tab notation available? ... also without the right hand fingering, to provide a cleaner version for those of us who find those markings distracting.
Glad to hear that!Tedi wrote:Dear Frank, Thank you for sharing. I use your transcription. I am playing this piece now. I like this tune a lot.[*]
Thanks. That was one of the purposes of the transcription.AlexRaven wrote:Of course, your arrangement is easily to play.
You can find facsimiles of all three surviving manuscripts at IMSLP:AlexRaven wrote:Unfortunately, I haven't Bach cello original work
I haven't seen Jack's arrangement but it is (and was even at Bach's time) common practice to add extra bass and chord notes when re-arranging music from a melodic instrument (flute, violin, cello etc.) to a chordal instrument (lute, guitar, keyboard etc.).AlexRaven wrote:but in Duarte version I see many bass notes that does not appear in your work.
It's a while since I did this transcription so I don't remember exactly the thought process that led to that particular key. I was doing a transcription of the BWV 999 lute/keyboard prelude at aproximately the same time though and that may have been where I got the idea. (As I'm sure you know, BWV 999 is originally in C minor but on the guitar it's usually played in D minor).AlexRaven wrote:Moreover , as I remember, Bach original is in G major. So what is the reason for A major?
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 7 guests