Quote from: Mandryka on June 06, 2014, 09:00:17 AM
Well what we now know Busoni said is "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 not like Busoni thinks Bach = Luther/Grief or something, and Bach/Busoni = Tristan/ Skriabin/Mahler or something. Busoni was trying to express an idea he found in Bach.
So no, I think Busoni would have agreed with me and Bach, and would have voted for Number 1.
I will start this topic by asking
1. Is what Busoni says true, and that the chaconne isn't suited to the violin?
2. If yes, why did he write it for the violin.
Bach wanted to top Biber's Passacaglia for solo violin. There was a certain tradition of unaccompanied violin pieces and of course a polyphonic piece is a special challenge. It seems fairly obvious that Bach loved compositional challenges a lot.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 01, 2014, 10:27:10 AM
Bach wanted to top Biber's Passacaglia for solo violin. There was a certain tradition of unaccompanied violin pieces and of course a polyphonic piece is a special challenge. It seems fairly obvious that Bach loved compositional challenges a lot.
OK. That's interesting.
Do you know why such technically demanding music was appropriate in a sacred context? The Mystery Sonatas are sacred clearly, and I think that some people think Bach's violin chaconne is too.
When I cited the chaconne as an example of really difficult music, I was thinking of performance, not composition.
Bach thought in counterpoint and he was also a fine violinist, so probably it was tempting for him to write some polyphonic works for that instrument too. He also tended to explore the technical limits of the instruments. So it is not surprising, that the Chaconne is technically difficult.
Concerning Busoni I think he just meant, that the piano is better suited for polyphon music than the violin. I would rather say the harpsichord, when it is about Bach. But a more easy-going performance on the piano would rob the Chaconne (and the S&P´s in general) of some of its character, much in the same way, as a rendering of early music on modern instruments has a tendency to soften the music and smooth out the edges.
Afterthought: The Chaconne is not a sacred work. It is the last movement in a completely secular traditional suite. In contrast the three sonatas are written in the idiom of the sonata da chiesa.
Quote from: Mandryka on November 01, 2014, 09:19:43 AM
1. Is what Busoni says true, and that the chaconne isn't suited to the violin?
No. His comment is untrue and IMO obnoxious. The Chaconne pushes (but not "goes far beyond") the limits of the violin. I think that's part of why it's great.
I enjoy listening to Busoni's transcription, but the violin original is better.
What I wrote is not a proven hypothesis, but I have heard/read statements in a similar direction. Even the Rosary sonatas are not really sacred music, although placed in such a context (so I think this connection is not so important and very spurious in case of the chaconne, despite some theories) Formally some of the rosary pieces are also suites of dance-like movements. Of course the rosary sonatas are with bass, but the passacaglia is not and there are some other solo violin pieces from before Bach. And I find it plausible that Bach felt challenged to compose extraordinary pieces in any genre he wrote anything at all. Of course the keyboard works are the most encyclopedic, but the challenge to write polyphonic music for violin solo is also considerable. So to me it seems that Busoni missed a rather obvious point (so obvious that I do not really think he missed it, he just thought differently).
Maybe Bach himself was not completely satisfied with the polyphonic properties of the violin. One of his pupils told, that Bach liked to play the violin S&P´s on keyboard instruments adding some more counterpoint, and he also left for posterity keyboard arrangements of some of the works.
The Bach violin sonatas & partitas are probably among the most difficult, least 'violinistic' works for the instrument. The Chaconne is not the worst offender, it fits under the fingers and bow more naturally in spite of the great virtuosity required; the three fugues, with their 'incomplete'/'theoretical' counterpoint, awkward multiple stops and great length, are significantly harder (the C major in particular—also one of Bach's most learned and strict creations, in spite of/because of this limitation). Bach set himself a challenge of recreating all the music of his time—concertos, dances, strict counterpoint, orchestral grandeur, galanterie etc—using only a single instrument (the violin was the most popular instrument of the time): an impossible task, since music at this time required both bass and melody, but one he overcame in a variety of ways. Of course one could simply add a bass or arrange the violin fugues for organ et cetera. Bach himself did this a few times. But that would be missing the point, similar to the way adding an orchestra to Alkan's concerto for solo piano would be missing the point: part of the charm is the way this single violin tries to encompass everything, even if it doesn't always succeed. It is something that sticks with us much more than, say, Bach's keyboard/lute arrangements of the sonatas and partitas, which are a curiosity rather than a repertoire staple.
One of the recordings I have goes into significantly more detail about the intentional impracticalities of these works, but since I didn't scan the liners before returning it to the library I am not sure which. Want to say it's Amandine Beyer's though.
Quote from: (: premont :) on November 01, 2014, 02:06:43 PM
Bach thought in counterpoint and he was also a fine violinist, so probably it was tempting for him to write some polyphonic works for that instrument too. He also tended to explore the technical limits of the instruments. So it is not surprising, that the Chaconne is technically difficult.
Concerning Busoni I think he just meant, that the piano is better suited for polyphon music than the violin. I would rather say the harpsichord, when it is about Bach. But a more easy-going performance on the piano would rob the Chaconne (and the S&P´s in general) of some of its character, much in the same way, as a rendering of early music on modern instruments has a tendency to soften the music and smooth out the edges.
Afterthought: The Chaconne is not a sacred work. It is the last movement in a completely secular traditional suite. In contrast the three sonatas are written in the idiom of the sonata da chiesa.
I think he's saying something more far reaching. He's saying that the means of the violin are not adequate for expressing Bach's conception.
The conception, the music, is not the score. Although the score is realisable on a violin, the music isn't. I think this is what Busoni was saying. And there's clearly a lot of theory behind it, a sort of musical idealism.
I've heard simlar things said about the Große Fuge. That a string quartet isn't adequate to the music.
Quote from: (: premont :) on November 01, 2014, 03:35:11 PM
Maybe Bach himself was not completely satisfied with the polyphonic properties of the violin. One of his pupils told, that Bach liked to play the violin S&P´s on keyboard instruments adding some more counterpoint, and he also left for posterity keyboard arrangements of some of the works.
As Busoni adds more counterpoint. How interesting. If you could find a reference for that comment by the Bach pupil that would be good.
I listened to Tetzlaff's second recording of the second partita, partly prompted by what you said the other day about him. The way Tetzlaff plays the anadante is really special - had me damp eyed.
And I listened also to Suzuki playing BWV 964 - a sonata which has some music from the violin partita. Also very moving.
Quote from: amw on November 01, 2014, 03:44:14 PM
The Bach violin sonatas & partitas are probably among the most difficult, least 'violinistic' works for the instrument. The Chaconne is not the worst offender, it fits under the fingers and bow more naturally in spite of the great virtuosity required; the three fugues, with their 'incomplete'/'theoretical' counterpoint, awkward multiple stops and great length, are significantly harder (the C major in particular—also one of Bach's most learned and strict creations, in spite of/because of this limitation). Bach set himself a challenge of recreating all the music of his time—concertos, dances, strict counterpoint, orchestral grandeur, galanterie etc—using only a single instrument (the violin was the most popular instrument of the time): an impossible task, since music at this time required both bass and melody, but one he overcame in a variety of ways. Of course one could simply add a bass or arrange the violin fugues for organ et cetera. Bach himself did this a few times. But that would be missing the point, similar to the way adding an orchestra to Alkan's concerto for solo piano would be missing the point: part of the charm is the way this single violin tries to encompass everything, even if it doesn't always succeed. It is something that sticks with us much more than, say, Bach's keyboard/lute arrangements of the sonatas and partitas, which are a curiosity rather than a repertoire staple.
One of the recordings I have goes into significantly more detail about the intentional impracticalities of these works, but since I didn't scan the liners before returning it to the library I am not sure which. Want to say it's Amandine Beyer's though.
Thanks for making this post, there's a lot to think about here. The bit I put in bold sounds right.
I'm not used to thinking about Bach as someone engaging with the physicality of the instruments like that, exploring physical boundaries.
Hmm. I'm not used to not thinking about Bach that way. I suppose it's more obvious if you try playing (or singing) some of his music, where the greatest physical discomfort is tied to the most extreme harmonies, the moments of greatest spiritual doubt or emotional pain etc. Fugues in the WTC with long sustained notes that would be inaudible on the harpsichord, or those fugues with five and six voices that one single keyboardist doesn't have enough fingers to execute giving each voice its true independence and can only convey a general impression of the course of the piece. The tuning down of the A string in the fifth cello suite, to remove the lustre from the high notes and give the music a darker cast. etcetera. In general one can assume every note in a Bach piece is so placed to exploit the instrument's capabilities and limitations, and to be an action realised in performance. This is also why arrangements by others are usually less effective (e.g. modern attempts to reconstruct the BWV 1052a violin concerto), they simply map the notes onto a different instrument without taking into account the relationship between the musical meaning of the notes and the physical actions used to create them—and more effective the less true to Bach they are, and more true to the individual sense of musical meaning on the part of the arranger (e.g. any Bach-Busoni arrangement, which is pure Busoni apart from the fact that the music happens to be by Bach).
Quote from: Mandryka on June 06, 2014, 09:00:17 AM
Well what we now know Busoni said is "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.
This reminds me of a friend who didn't listen to classical music much, except if I played it (disc-wise), and when he first heard these solo works he was convinced that they were played by two violinists.
And yes, after I convinced him it was only Henryk Szeryng, he said something like
why so difficult? Why not two players .
In the end, btw, we both liked it just the way it was.
;)
And for pianists: just great, those arrangements, either by Brahms, Busoni or Myra Hess.
Good music is good music.
Weingartner found also that Beethoven's op.106 was too grand or too large or whatever for the piano. But his orchestration has not really taken on. For very good reasons, I think.
Maybe there is some fairly "abstract" music, like the Art of Fugue. But Bach's solo violin pieces and late Beethoven sonatas and quartets are very close fits to their respective instrumental possibilities. I do not think they profit from arrangements.
I have always been fascinated with these solo sonatas and partitas, particularly the Chaconne. One can say that Bach's "conception was too large" for the instrument (yet I think Busoni, a pianist, had an axe to grind here), but it is amazing just how masterful it is and how a great violinist can sound "larger than life" in these pieces. Sure it stretches limits--but isn't that what great music does? 8)
Bach also wrote a partita for unaccompanied flute that definitely stretches the "limits" of what one can expect for a single voice.
A modern example of such a piece is Antal Dorati's Five Pieces for Oboe, the third of which is a three-voice fugue for unaccompanied oboe! :o 8) I've played it, not particularly precisely, but the voices come through.
Quote from: Mandryka on November 01, 2014, 10:47:24 PM
I think he's saying something more far reaching. He's saying that the means of the violin are not adequate for expressing Bach's conception.
Well, not adequate for expressing Busoni´s idea of Bach´s conception.
But who was this Busoni, who thought he had the prerequisites to know Bach´s intentions?
Quote from: (: premont :) on November 03, 2014, 09:52:17 AM
Well, not adequate for expressing Busoni´s idea of Bach´s conception.
But who was this Busoni, who thought he had the prerequisites to know Bach´s intentions?
He was a great pianist and (by reputation at least) a fair composer--and one of the ultimate Romantics who believed that the artist's ego trumps almost anything...
Quote from: jochanaan on November 03, 2014, 09:10:06 AM
One can say that Bach's "conception was too large" for the instrument
I find this to be a later and romantic interpretation. Bach was first and foremost a practical musician, who knew what he was doing.
Quote from: jochanaan on November 03, 2014, 09:53:59 AM
He was a great pianist and (by reputation at least) a fair composer--and one of the ultimate Romantics who believed that the artist's ego trumps almost anything...
In double contrast to the humble Bach, who as a composer was far superior.
Quote from: (: premont :) on November 03, 2014, 09:55:54 AM
I find this to be a later and romantic interpretation. Bach was first and foremost a practical musician, who knew what he was doing.
Agreed. 8)
I was reading some old reviews from an ancient Hungarian critic I am very fond of and thought of this thread. Anybody familiar with this composer or work? Is it as tough to play as the reviewer makes it sound?
CD from Hyperion
Charles-Valentin Alkan: Concerto for solo piano, Op. 39, Nos. 8–10; Troisième recueil de chants, Op. 65. Marc-André Hamelin, piano. CDA67569 (recorded 2006, released 2007).
Alkan, a contemporary of Chopin, Liszt, and Schumann, sounds like a pastiche of all three on steroids, very intense, wayward, and crotchety. It's great stuff, but you don't have to take it too seriously if you don't want to, and it's almost impossible to play. Of course, to Marc-André Hamelin everything is possible; he sails through the fiendish passages with incredible ease and panache. The man is not only a world-class artist but possibly the greatest-ever acrobat of the keyboard. The speed, articulation, and clarity of his finger work are simply beyond belief, and at the same time the music keeps singing regardless of the complications. His playing is much more controlled and transparent than that of, say, Horowitz or anyone else. The piano recording, a UK job, is somewhat on the dry side and wonderfully clear.
Some day, when I've got an uninterrupted hour or so or whatever it takes, I do want to hear that Alkan concerto. 8)
Quote from: Baklavaboy on November 11, 2014, 03:14:19 AM
I was reading some old reviews from an ancient Hungarian critic I am very fond of and thought of this thread. Anybody familiar with this composer or work? Is it as tough to play as the reviewer makes it sound?
CD from Hyperion
Charles-Valentin Alkan: Concerto for solo piano, Op. 39, Nos. 8–10; Troisième recueil de chants, Op. 65. Marc-André Hamelin, piano. CDA67569 (recorded 2006, released 2007).
Alkan, a contemporary of Chopin, Liszt, and Schumann, sounds like a pastiche of all three on steroids, very intense, wayward, and crotchety. It's great stuff, but you don't have to take it too seriously if you don't want to, and it's almost impossible to play. Of course, to Marc-André Hamelin everything is possible; he sails through the fiendish passages with incredible ease and panache. The man is not only a world-class artist but possibly the greatest-ever acrobat of the keyboard. The speed, articulation, and clarity of his finger work are simply beyond belief, and at the same time the music keeps singing regardless of the complications. His playing is much more controlled and transparent than that of, say, Horowitz or anyone else. The piano recording, a UK job, is somewhat on the dry side and wonderfully clear.
There is or was a Youtube of Hamelin playing the Alkan concerto, so you can see for yourself. I know one nonGMGer who admitted to gaping astonishment and admiration after seeing it.
I have the CD, and it is excellent. The only reason it would not be suitable for you is the fact that it is not a
box set. >:D
Quote from: Baklavaboy on November 11, 2014, 03:14:19 AM
I was reading some old reviews from an ancient Hungarian critic I am very fond of and thought of this thread. Anybody familiar with this composer or work? Is it as tough to play as the reviewer makes it sound?
CD from Hyperion
Charles-Valentin Alkan: Concerto for solo piano, Op. 39, Nos. 8–10; Troisième recueil de chants, Op. 65. Marc-André Hamelin, piano. CDA67569 (recorded 2006, released 2007).
Alkan, a contemporary of Chopin, Liszt, and Schumann, sounds like a pastiche of all three on steroids, very intense, wayward, and crotchety. It’s great stuff, but you don’t have to take it too seriously if you don’t want to, and it’s almost impossible to play. Of course, to Marc-André Hamelin everything is possible; he sails through the fiendish passages with incredible ease and panache. The man is not only a world-class artist but possibly the greatest-ever acrobat of the keyboard. The speed, articulation, and clarity of his finger work are simply beyond belief, and at the same time the music keeps singing regardless of the complications. His playing is much more controlled and transparent than that of, say, Horowitz or anyone else. The piano recording, a UK job, is somewhat on the dry side and wonderfully clear.
Alkan is great! Here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,917.20.html) is his thread. The Hamelin Sonatas disc and Gibbons' recording of
Alkan's magnum opus, the minor key etudes, Op. 39, are brilliant.
Quote from: Baklavaboy on November 11, 2014, 03:14:19 AM
I was reading some old reviews from an ancient Hungarian critic I am very fond of and thought of this thread. Anybody familiar with this composer or work? Is it as tough to play as the reviewer makes it sound?
CD from Hyperion
Charles-Valentin Alkan: Concerto for solo piano, Op. 39, Nos. 8–10; Troisième recueil de chants, Op. 65. Marc-André Hamelin, piano. CDA67569 (recorded 2006, released 2007).
Alkan, a contemporary of Chopin, Liszt, and Schumann, sounds like a pastiche of all three on steroids, very intense, wayward, and crotchety. It's great stuff, but you don't have to take it too seriously if you don't want to, and it's almost impossible to play. Of course, to Marc-André Hamelin everything is possible; he sails through the fiendish passages with incredible ease and panache. The man is not only a world-class artist but possibly the greatest-ever acrobat of the keyboard. The speed, articulation, and clarity of his finger work are simply beyond belief, and at the same time the music keeps singing regardless of the complications. His playing is much more controlled and transparent than that of, say, Horowitz or anyone else. The piano recording, a UK job, is somewhat on the dry side and wonderfully clear.
Precis version: he's Canadian. We all know that betokens supreme excellence! 8) :laugh:
The Concerto for Solo Piano is actually a great work precisely because it contains no extraneous virtuosity. It is exactly as difficult as it needs to be in order to encompass the forces of piano and orchestra in a single instrument. The length is similarly not excessive when you compare it to the other most ambitious concertos-with-orchestra of the Romantic era, with which it rightfully belongs rather than considered as a solo piano work: Brahms 1 & 2, Beethoven's Emperor, Schumann, Tchaikovsky 1 & 2. Consider it in that light and it should make a lot more sense.
Hamelin pulls it off pretty well in contrasting the 'solo' and 'tutti' passages, and convincingly conveys the sense of the instrument straining against its bonds that is essential to the work.
Quote from: amw on November 11, 2014, 03:40:43 PM
Hamelin pulls it off pretty well in contrasting the 'solo' and 'tutti' passages, and convincingly conveys the sense of the instrument straining against its bonds that is essential to the work.
Yet some people agree with Busoni in thinking
that very feeling marks a failure in Bach's chaconne for violin.
Quote from: Ken B on November 11, 2014, 03:59:23 PM
Yet some people agree with Busoni in thinking that very feeling marks a failure in Bach's chaconne for violin.
Indeed. They also thought it marked a failure in Alkan, Beethoven (etc). One of those people was Karl Klindworth who arranged the Concerto for Solo Piano for piano and orchestra. It's rather inferior to the original, but you can hear it on Naxos, I think. Weingartner's Hammerklavier-for-orchestra has been mentioned already, not to mention the significantly-more-tasteful-than-Busoni-but-still-missing-the-point arrangement of the Bach Chaconne for violin and piano by Schumann.
It is worth hearing these things, but ultimately, all music is constructed out of various forms of constraint. The possibilities and limitations of these constraints are what inspired the music to be created in the first place—the extent to which an instrument can be used or not used, the possibilities inherent in a tonal system or lack of one, strict formal structures etc, etc. Everything that tries to take preexisting material and force it within a
different set of constraints is, essentially, a different inspiration. Often a more conventional one, for better or worse.
Quote from: amw on November 11, 2014, 03:40:43 PM
The Concerto for Solo Piano is actually a great work precisely because it contains no extraneous virtuosity. It is exactly as difficult as it needs to be in order to encompass the forces of piano and orchestra in a single instrument. The length is similarly not excessive when you compare it to the other most ambitious concertos-with-orchestra of the Romantic era, with which it rightfully belongs rather than considered as a solo piano work: Brahms 1 & 2, Beethoven's Emperor, Schumann, Tchaikovsky 1 & 2. Consider it in that light and it should make a lot more sense.
Hamelin pulls it off pretty well in contrasting the 'solo' and 'tutti' passages, and convincingly conveys the sense of the instrument straining against its bonds that is essential to the work.
Now I am very intrigued. I have Smith's recording buried somewhere. I have no real memory of it. Is it any good?
I have never heard his performance so can't tell you. Hope so!
This may not be very difficult to play but the harmonies within the first minute of this one are rather extreme for the Baroque period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDG3JTWlzz4
Quote from: The Six on November 15, 2014, 06:29:53 PM
...but the harmonies within the first minute of this one are rather extreme for the Baroque period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDG3JTWlzz4
And then there's this. 8)
https://www.youtube.com/v/iwpwr0MYNWc