The Keyboard Transcriptions

[Andrew Schulman]

In a recent thread there was a discussion of why Bach so often
transposed the key of the string concertos he arranged for keyboard.
The most plausible theory ventured in the thread was that the claviers
he had available to him at the time only went up to D3, and since the
string concertos he arranged went higher he needed to transpose down a
whole step.

However, tonight I was checking through BWV 978, his arrangement for
solo keyboard of Vivaldi's op. 3, #3 (RV 310) which is in F (I play
this in G on the guitar, both as a solo piece and with my group). The
original Vivaldi score is in G. And, the highest note in the original
is D3. In other words, there was no need to transpose down a whole
step, yet he did so anyway!

In many of the works he arranged, especially his own string concertos,
there are solo parts that go higher than D, so if in fact he didn't
have keyboard instruments that went higher than D3 he indeed had to
transpose downward. But with BWV 978 there was no need to accommodate
the keyboard. So, the question remains why did he transpose anyway?
To make matters more interesting, in BWV 972, from Vivaldi's op. 3, #9
(RV 230), also with nothing higher than D3, he stays in D major, the
original key. And, in BWV 976 in C, he has transposed down, not a
whole step, but a major 3rd from the original key of E. However, the
highest note is E3; why didn't he just go a whole step lower?

Like so many things he did, we don't know from Bach himself why this
happened in this way. Frustrating, but certainly makes life more
interesting!

Andrew

[Dirk]

Post by Andrew Schulman
But with BWV 978 there was no need to accommodate
the keyboard. So, the question remains why did he transpose anyway?
To make matters more interesting, in BWV 972, from Vivaldi's op. 3, #9
(RV 230), also with nothing higher than D3, he stays in D major, the
original key. And, in BWV 976 in C, he has transposed down, not a
whole step, but a major 3rd from the original key of E. However, the
highest note is E3; why didn't he just go a whole step lower?
Like so many things he did, we don't know from Bach himself why this
happened in this way. Frustrating, but certainly makes life more
interesting!

Just postulating here ... Depending on how the clavier was tuned (I
remember reading that Bach liked to tune his thirds sharp), each key
had its own 'flavour' , maybe some works written for strings didn't
invoke the same 'flavour' on the clavier.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Dirk
Just postulating here ... Depending on how the clavier was tuned (I
remember reading that Bach liked to tune his thirds sharp), each key
had its own 'flavour' , maybe some works written for strings didn't
invoke the same 'flavour' on the clavier.

Possible, but why would he then have transposed the Violin Concerto he
wrote in E to D for keyboard, but the Vivaldi in E to C?

A.

[Arthur Ness]

If my theory is valid, that the transpositions were made to reconcile Cammerton and Chorton, the Vivaldi transposition was made for a venue where the distance between the two was different. It is well known that the distance between the various Tons differed from city to city. In Leipzig it was a tone (IIRC), but in Dresden, a minor third (IIRC), for example.

And those organ concertos that serve as sinfonias to cantatas are often, but not always, a tone lower, iirc.

For example, BWV 1052 in d minor remains in d minor for Cantata No. 146 (1726), but is used in Canata 188 (1728?) in c minor.

They are also all manuels, too. No pedal. Bach was on "strike" when they were performed in Leipzig, and some have suggested they were for WFBach. But that isn't so, because at the time WFBach was off studying violin with Durant. They were probably written for the organist at the Nicholas Church.

Post by Dirk
Just postulating here ... Depending on how the clavier was tuned (I
remember reading that Bach liked to tune his thirds sharp), each key
had its own 'flavour' , maybe some works written for strings didn't
invoke the same 'flavour' on the clavier.

Possible, but why would he then have transposed the Violin Concerto he
wrote in E to D for keyboard, but the Vivaldi in E to C?

A.

[Tom Hens]

Post by Andrew Schulman
In a recent thread there was a discussion of why Bach so often
transposed the key of the string concertos he arranged for keyboard.
The most plausible theory ventured in the thread was that the claviers
he had available to him at the time only went up to D3, and since the
string concertos he arranged went higher he needed to transpose down a
whole step.
However, tonight I was checking through BWV 978, his arrangement for
solo keyboard of Vivaldi's op. 3, #3 (RV 310) which is in F (I play
this in G on the guitar, both as a solo piece and with my group). The
original Vivaldi score is in G. And, the highest note in the original
is D3. In other words, there was no need to transpose down a whole
step, yet he did so anyway!

You're conflating two different groups of transcriptions.

There are the concertos for one or more harpsichords and strings, BWV 1052
to 1065, which are all (demonstrably or generally assumed) transcriptions
of earlier concertos for other solo instruments. Bach made these
transcriptions in Leipzig, probably for concerts with the Collegium
Musicum. The autograph with BWV 1052-1059 is datable to somewhere between
1738 and 1742. That the transpositions of concertos with violin solos are
due to the compass of the harpsichord vs. the violin is generally accepted.

Then there are a number of solo keyboard transcriptions of concertos by
other composers, most notably Vivaldi. These are much earlier, and probably
date from the Weimar years. As with many other "minor" Bach keyboard works,
it isn't always clear why some of them have been classified under "organ"
in the BWV (i.e., assigned a BWV number below 771), as opposed to the
generic "keyboard" designation (772 and upwards). To make any sense of why
transposition took place, you'd first have to establish for which specific
keyboard instrument with which compass a specific transcription was made. I
think that if this could be done, the editors of the BWV would have done
so.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens
You're conflating two different groups of transcriptions.

Thanks Tom, this was very helpful.

Andrew

[Brad Lehman]

In a nutshell, the BWV numbering system is essentially just a
cataloguing assignment against the old Bach-Gesellschaft...and then
with various additions/deletions later.

But the basic set of number regions goes way back to the
Bach-Gesellschaft's editors' assumptions that organ music by Bach
usually has pedals (and/or a definite connection to a chorale tune)
while the general "keyboard" music doesn't. Whatever the
Bach-Gesellschaft classed as "organ" music, those pieces got the low
BWV numbers.

At least the BWV itself now gives bibliographic links out to articles
and books representing more recent research on the compositions. It's
a very good resource, itself. My review of it, last year:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/bwv-review.htm

p.s. I play that batch of "keyboard" transcriptions of Italian
concertos on both organ and harpsichord. They work great on either
instrument, whether they have pedal parts or not (and these don't --
BWV 972-987). On the idea that they were originally intended for organ
as the primary instrument--while also playable on harpsichord or
clavichord, of course--there is a decent argument in Robert Marshall's
article "Organ or 'Klavier': Instrumental Prescriptions in the Sources
of the Keyboard Works". That article is available in both Marshall's
own book _The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, the Styles,
the Significance_ and in the book _J S Bach as Organist_ edited by
Stauffer and May.

They're also included in Heinz Lohmann's edition of the "organ works"
for Breitkopf.


Brad Lehman
http://www.larips.com
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl

[Brad Lehman]

Post by Brad Lehman
But the basic set of number regions goes way back to the

Bach-Gesellschaft's editors' assumptions that organ music by Bach
usually has pedals (and/or a definite connection to a chorale tune)
while the general "keyboard" music doesn't. Whatever the
Bach-Gesellschaft classed as "organ" music, those pieces got the low
BWV numbers.<<

p.s. One of the most extreme inanities in that regard is the assignment
of the four "Duetti" BWV 802-805 up to the "keyboard" section with the
high numbers, while the rest of Clavieruebung III got assigned into the
"organ" section with numbers 669-689. Bach published these together
himself in a single book! Yet, the Bach-Gesellschaft made the
artificial separation, and so the BWV (as a catalogue-numbering system
against it) had to preserve that same separation in the numbering
scheme.

Furthermore, the prelude and fugue in E-flat BWV 552--also a part of
that same book by Bach, flanking the whole set, is pulled out to a
separate spot. To get all of Bach's Clavieruebung III, one has to go
to three separate points in the BWV.


Brad Lehman

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Brad Lehman
p.s. I play that batch of "keyboard" transcriptions of Italian
concertos on both organ and harpsichord. They work great on either
instrument

I got the idea for transcribing some of these concertos for guitar by
looking at these transcriptions Bach did of the Italian concertos. I
use them mostly as guitar concertos with my group but some also work as
solo guitar pieces. What was particularly interesting to me was the
way Bach manipulated the material, and of course the written out
ornamentation.

Andrew