# Bach-Busoni Chaconne



## chu42




----------



## Enthalpy

I dislike Busoni's transcription. He introduced plain mistakes in the tonalities, in the style... Alas, many arrangers copied his mistakes to other instruments, as if it were difficult to listen to the original and exercise discretion.

And may I say: a piano doesn't fit the Chaconne well? Play in on the lute, the guitar, the harp, the accordion, the organ, even on the violin - but not on a piano.


----------



## Rogerx

Me neither, to think that Philips made a whole series of CD's about it. Unsalable .


----------



## Mandryka

Enthalpy said:


> And may I say: a piano doesn't fit the Chaconne well?


Why is that?

Smxmxmxmxmc


----------



## 96 Keys

I love Busoni's arrangement and I thought you played it very well.


----------



## Antune

The arrangement of Brahms for the left hand is pretty amazing, I think.


----------



## tdc

Your playing sounds good, I just wonder why you play some of the chords in the intro as broken chords. The last note of the chord falling later than the other notes, sounds a bit weird to me. You play the first few chords as solid chords then the next several seem to stutter. Perhaps that is to mimic the way those chords sound on a violin? Maybe that is another reason I've always loved the sound of this work on a guitar. If I played the piano arrangement I would smooth out those intro chords, just my tastes.


----------



## Festus

Enthalpy said:


> And may I say: a piano doesn't fit the Chaconne well? Play in on the lute, the guitar, the harp, the accordion, the organ, even on the violin - but not on a piano.


Al least give him a half-mark for playing the piece well even though it may not be to our liking.


----------



## 59540

Meh, the debate on the merits of Busoni's transcription is beside the point here. Fine playing, chu42.


----------



## chu42

tdc said:


> Your playing sounds good, I just wonder why you play some of the chords in the intro as broken chords. The last note of the chord falling later than the other notes, sounds a bit weird to me. You play the first few chords as solid chords then the next several seem to stutter. Perhaps that is to mimic the way those chords sound on a violin? Maybe that is another reason I've always loved the sound of this work on a guitar. If I played the piano arrangement I would smooth out those intro chords, just my tastes.


There is a lot of variation to how people interpret the opening chords. Seems to me that the music indicates that only the left hand ought to be used, and in that case there are chords that must be broken due to their wide span. Furthermore, it does imitate the way the chords are played on the violin.


----------



## chu42

Enthalpy said:


> I dislike Busoni's transcription. He introduced plain mistakes in the tonalities, in the style... Alas, many arrangers copied his mistakes to other instruments, as if it were difficult to listen to the original and exercise discretion.


I used to feel the same way as you; but then I listened to the work as its own entity instead of as a direct transcription (which it clearly is not meant to be...after all the Brahms already existed at the time which is a true transcription).

It is a superb study in pianistic effects and certainly brings something new to the original work. I think the issues arise when people try to bring a "historically informed" veil to the work, which is not at all the original intention.


----------



## Mandryka

chu42 said:


> I used to feel the same way as you; but then I listened to the work as its own entity instead of as a direct transcription (which it clearly is not meant to be...after all the Brahms already existed at the time which is a true transcription).
> 
> It is a superb study in pianistic effects and certainly brings something new to the original work. I think the issues arise when people try to bring a "historically informed" veil to the work, which is not at all the original intention.


 Busoni wrote "I start from the impression that Bach's conception of the work goes far beyond the limits and means of the violin, so that the instrument he specifies for performance is not adequate."

So Busoni thought that the violin wasn't a good instrument for Bach's conception - and by implication the piano piece is better at expressing Bach's conception.

Busoni was trying to express an idea he thought he found in Bach's music.

By the way, I love the recording that James Brawn made of the Bach/Busoni for its restraint.


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> Busoni wrote "I start from the impression that Bach's conception of the work goes far beyond the limits and means of the violin, so that the instrument he specifies for performance is not adequate."
> 
> So Busoni thought that the violin wasn't a good instrument for Bach's conception - and by implication the piano piece is better at expressing Bach's conception.


The fact Busoni stated this makes it even more bizarre to me that he built some of the violin's limitations into his own transcription by indicating chords with a wide span be played only with the left hand.


----------



## 59540

Mandryka said:


> Busoni wrote "I start from the impression that Bach's conception of the work goes far beyond the limits and means of the violin, so that the instrument he specifies for performance is not adequate."
> 
> So Busoni thought that the violin wasn't a good instrument for Bach's conception - and by implication the piano piece is better at expressing Bach's conception.
> 
> Busoni was trying to express an idea he thought he found in Bach's music.
> ...


OK, I'll bite, although the following has nothing to do with chu42's playing. The Chaconne is all about transcending boundaries. Yes, a violin is "inadequate" but Bach near-miraculously makes it adequate. That's part of what makes that piece and all of the solo works for violin and cello so great. That's also why I would prefer Brahms' transcription for the left hand alone. He follows Bach in setting up a boundary -- the pianist in effect has to play it with one hand tied behind his/her back, so to speak.


----------



## tdc

Bach's chaconne for violin is a technical marvel for the instrument. However it is such a monumental work I would be surprised if he didn't make a keyboard transcription for this work as he did for some of his other solo violin pieces, but it has been lost. 

I believe BWV 1004 is dated to Bach's Köthen period, Christoph Wolff has suggested much of Bach's music from that time has been lost.


----------



## Mandryka

Anyone interested in this music may find it worthwhile to take a bit of time to explore other baroque composers of chordal solo violin music in Germany, especially Westhoff and Schmelzer - the music is easily available on Spotify. It just helps give a bit of context. There is something very organ like about the Bach chaconne, there's a performance by Leo van Doeselaar on the small (Picard) organ at Groningen, on his CD with Erwin Wiersinger on MDG - I think (but I'm not sure) that the transcription was a joint effort from Doeselaar and Gustav Leonhardt (can someone verify?)

There's one here on the big beast of an organ at Groningen, the Schnitger


----------



## SoloYH

Great performance. Also saw that you performed Don Juan, one of my favorites.



> Top 100 Hardest Piano Concertos


TFW when you know 100 piano concertos.... lol.


----------



## Enthalpy

Mandryka said:


> Busoni wrote "I start from the impression that Bach's conception of the work goes far beyond the limits and means of the violin, so that the instrument he specifies for performance is not adequate."
> 
> So Busoni thought that the violin wasn't a good instrument for Bach's conception - and by implication the piano piece is better at expressing Bach's conception. [...]


It's pretty clear to me - and to other violinists - that the Ciaconna exceeds the technical possibilities of a violin, essentially at the chords, which a violin must break while the piece needs to play the 4 notes simultaneously. Worse: some sequences are strictly impossible to play on a violin as written. I suppose musicians played pieces on different instruments much more often then, so JSB wrote a kind of ideal version, which was to be adapted for each instrument. Other theories want the Ciaconna to be a lute piece on which JSB added "violin", but I don't believe it, since many more double stops and chords would be unplayable on the violin.

For these possibilities, a lute or guitar fits this piece better. Or an organ, an accordion, which sustain the note while a piano can't. Chords sound also differently on an organ or on a piano. Whether a good transcription would sound properly on a piano?

Few things among others I hate in Busoni's transcription:
Expressive marks added. JSBach didn't put any. Alas, pianists feel bound by Busoni's arbitrary indications.
Plain mistakes when he added notes to the violin's line, sometimes in the tonality.
A passage where Busoni wrote "leggero" and added the corresponding rhythm despite the Ciaconna is tragic, especially the first and third parts.
Again, pianists follow these mistakes blindfolded, and later arrangers repeated Busoni's mistakes in other transcriptions.


----------



## Mandryka

There is a performance of the Busoni which seems to be slightly more in tune with the tragic vibe, see what you think


----------



## mikeh375

Enthalpy said:


> It's pretty clear to me - and to other violinists - that the Ciaconna exceeds the technical possibilities of a violin, essentially at the chords, which a violin must break while the piece needs to play the 4 notes simultaneously. Worse: some sequences are strictly impossible to play on a violin as written. ......


The only discrepancy between performance and notation is in the sustained notes. Writing seemingly impossible sustains spares the part being covered in rests and has the added benefit of being conceptually important for the modern player who clearly 'feels' the harmonic structure as they play thanks to the clarity provided. Not only is the harmonic structure clarified, but the contrapuntal aspect too. This is achieved with individual stems and beaming for each member of the multiple stops. However it appears that Bach may have meant what he wrote with those sustains in mind.

I've read that there is more curvature in a modern violin's bridge and that in combination with a modern non-curved bow obviously makes it impossible to sustain 3 or 4 notes. This 'modern' design favours single note and double stop work, with multiple stops having to be spread, even when quickly played. The Baroque bow is another matter altogether. The slacker hairs, apart from aiding in the facility to sustain, could also actually sustain in a more expressive way, allowing for more nuance and dynamics when playing a chord.

Here's a clip from a very informative article...The Baroque German Violin Bow: A Lost Art ...(my bolded below).

_'....*But Bach's contemporary violinists could indeed play chords*, using the simple expedient whereby the bow–hairs of an arched bow were held under tension by the player's thumb and relaxed for the performance of chords.'







_

and the proof of playability is in the pudding......






The differences between the above and the Grumiaux below are very noticeable right from the start. I actually prefer the Baroque bow myself.
I'm curious @Enthalpy, you say some passages are impossible to play (presumably other than the sustains). Bach was a good violinist, so could you point to the passages you mean because listening to Grumiuax on a modern violin whilst following and studying the music doesn't suggest that?


----------



## Enthalpy

Thanks Mike!

I had searched for hearing examples of the special bow, nice of you to have provided some.

Yes, Bach's Ciaconna sounds far better with the modified bow.

But most interested people coincide that the bow a Bach's time did not look like this and was not operated like this. It was much more flat, which does not allow for the extreme rounding of the hairs. We have paintings from that time, and also descriptions of the bow and the technique.


----------



## Enthalpy

Impossible to play on a violin (at least with the bow now usual): check among many more the last notes of the fist three bars, the score claims that the lower 2-3 notes should continue, which would sound horrible with a broken chord and is not done. Elsewhere, JSB even wants similar sequences legato, then truly impossible.

On other instances, JSB writes shorter low chord notes, so the higher one is to be played alone. Apparently he really meant the written duration, which an organ can do but no violinist does.

Hence my suggestion (with all due doubt), that playing a score on a different instrument was more common than now, so JSB wrote a kind of ideal music do be adapted to the possibilities of each particular instrument.


----------

