Why is Bach's music seen as natural for transcription to other instruments than the ones specified, whereas with other composers this is rarely or never done?
Quote from: Chaszz on March 25, 2013, 06:29:16 PM
Why is Bach's music seen as natural for transcription to other instruments than the ones specified, whereas with other composers this is rarely or never done?
I'm mostly speculating, but I think it's a product of 1) the eminence of Bach as a sort of founding-father composer, plus 2) the fact that in Bach's time it was perfectly normal to transcribe pieces for other instruments, plus 3) the frequent non-specificity of instrumentation in Baroque music (although this applies more to early Baroque than to music of Bach's time).
Bear in mind that Bach himself liked to transcribe, e.g. his transcriptions of Vivaldi concertos. Also, anyone playing Baroque music on a modern piano, or Baroque orchestral music on modern instruments, is already performing a de facto transcription.
Quote from: Velimir on March 26, 2013, 07:50:51 AM
I'm mostly speculating, but I think it's a product of 1) the eminence of Bach as a sort of founding-father composer, plus 2) the fact that in Bach's time it was perfectly normal to transcribe pieces for other instruments, plus 3) the frequent non-specificity of instrumentation in Baroque music (although this applies more to early Baroque than to music of Bach's time).
Bear in mind that Bach himself liked to transcribe, e.g. his transcriptions of Vivaldi concertos. Also, anyone playing Baroque music on a modern piano, or Baroque orchestral music on modern instruments, is already performing a de facto transcription.
But there's also Bach on marimba, xylophone, saxophone quartets, jazz ensembles etc.; these kinds of transcriptions are hardly, if ever, done for the music of other composers including Bach's contemporaries. So, at most, only the first of your speculative guesses might apply. :)
Hm, it might be a mix of this 'founding father' idea and the polyphonic/contrapuntal structure of his compositions, where all parts have an important (equal) role, combined with the rhytmic and dance-like base of his music, which until today (probably) has a tickling and challenging effect on various musicians and composers to arrange it for all kinds of instruments or ensembles.
Dunno.
When I listen to a Renaissance Mass (for instance) I tend to think that it might be as challenging as Bach's music to arrrange it, but I suppose that this elder music is much lesser known and/or popular.
Dunno dunno.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/24xfas2.gif)
Quote from: Opus106 on March 26, 2013, 07:58:52 AM
But there's also Bach on marimba, xylophone, saxophone quartets, jazz ensembles etc. . . .
And on piano.
Mind you, I love Bach on piano, too; but it is an implicit adaptation.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 26, 2013, 09:20:32 AM
And on piano.
Mind you, I love Bach on piano, too; but it is an implicit adaptation.
Definitely, but it's mainstream enough that you even find quite a few discs of Couperin and Rameau. Moreover, as long as there has been a piano, there has also been a reduced version of almost every piece composed, including the large orchestral ones. (And if there wasn't, you could always count on Liszt to come up with one.) So, in that sense, the piano doesn't really stand out as such.
Quote from: Opus106 on March 26, 2013, 09:56:20 AM
Definitely, but it's mainstream enough that you even find quite a few discs of Couperin and Rameau. Moreover, as long as there has been a piano, there has also been a reduced version of almost every piece composed, including the large orchestral ones. (And if there wasn't, you could always count on Liszt to come up with one.) So, in that sense, the piano doesn't really stand out as such.
An aside: on the current Bach 360 broadcast (going on through March 31 on WQXR-FM 105.9 New York, and on wqxr.org), I heard yesterday a recent reconstruction of a lute-harpsichord playing Bach. This was evidently a fairly popular instrument in Bach's time, designed to soften the more metallic sound of the regular harpsichord. It has completely disappeared, none are left, so this one had to be built from whatever plans and descriptions are available. The sound was surprisingly much closer to a piano than is the sound of a clavichord, the putative ancestor of the piano. This can lead to all kinds of speculation and research into how widely this instrument was in use and how it may have influenced composition. I have a notion we'll be hearing a good deal more from and about the lute-harpsichord in coming years.