They're not that different are they?



(BWV 78 transposed to D minor to make it look a bit more like BWV 1004 but the basic content's the same)

There are certainly more notes in BWV 1004 but the excerpt there is from a spot where the figurations have developed a bit (they also do that later in BWV 78 but by that stage he varies the bass line as well). And of course it's Bach writing for a soloist, not for his band of cantata players. Still, as far as the harmonic content goes it's surely comparable. Depends on what you call a (chromatic or other) passing note and what you call a chord change, perhaps - but in any case the fundamental rhythmic vocabulary is strikingly similar, no?


To be fair, strina, that's the last thing on my mind - I was trying to make the point that it will be out of balance whatever the player does, so the balance of the piece within the suite doesn't really point either way in terms of the chaconne's tempo. Neither for nor against the Crackpot version.

Yes, but if BWV 1004 was a vocal line in a work of Italian music, wouldn't there be every reason to allow for expansion of the pulse to accomodate the more florid writing on top of the ground bass? In Bach's case, the harmonic implications of the melody are more intense than they might be in other music, and to my ears certainly want more time to 'speak' compared to the relatively bare functionality of the example from BWV 78.

Also bear in mind that in the solo violin piece there's no (possibly bored) bass line player chugging along underneath what's going on above.  The violinist needs to create that bass line.  At the same time, though, the bass line (by virtue of being played on a non-bass instrument and in a non-bass register) becomes something more thematic and complicated.  That ambiguity/duality needs room to express itself. 

There are places where the harmonic rhythm clearly speeds up, and yet slowing the tempo down to compensate would make no sense.  Yes, there are many places where one could argue either way whether the harmony is actually changing or whether Bach is incorporating passing tones, neighbour notes, etc; but there are places where the harmony is completely unambiguous.  A couple of examples:  the last bar of the variation starting in bar 121, full of hemi-demi-semi-quavers and leaping string crossings, clearly changes harmony on every crotchet.  It's not a good place to slow up as it leads back to what at first seems to be a reiteration of the opening, but in fact turns out to be another place where the harmony changes on every crotchet.  Too much slowing down at these points would get turgid, and also bring the piece to a stop when in fact it then blooms into D-major.  Later in the piece, in the variation starting bar 241, the harmony moves on every quaver.  I don't think there's anything like that going on in either of the chorale chaconnes.

I also agree with Ian about the "harmonic implications of the melody."  In the first beat of the second bar of your comparison, Ollie, there's an amazing high B-flat absent in the chorale.  Yes, it's just an upper neighbour of the following consonant A, but to pass it by in a hurry without giving it the breadth to clash against the C-sharp in the lower line (held in the ear, not the bow) would be a shame.  Same with the F-against-B clash in the first beat of bar 3.  But not only are these harmonic clashes and touches interesting - those passing notes give the whole of the upper line a sinuous shape that the other does not have, and that takes a certain breathing space to make the most of.

Also keep in mind how it takes a bit of time to spread chords on a violin.  Some modern violinists imagine that those 4-note chords ought to be played as near to simultaneously as possible.  Those of us in the hysterical world think more akin to how harpsichordists might spread chords, how you can vary the timing and overlap of the spread to emphasise different voices, etc.  A fast tempo allows much, much less scope for such things.  In particular the three variations starting at bar 141 would lose much scope for showing that ambiguity/duality between harmonic rhythm and melodic line, not to mention passing which voice does what amongst themselves.

I'm not saying it's technically impossible to play this piece at a faster speed - I'm sure with enough practise one could get ones fingers around it - but how much would be lost, would go racing by without the chance to register or to exhibit the subtle differences Bach puts into each variation.  Many variations seem grouped into categories of similar or developing ideas, but each one is different - most of the time the end of each variation contains the seed of the next - and hurrying through gives neither the player nor the listener a chance to register such things.  Maybe it would be exciting, but is it possible or desirable to sustain mere excitement over such a vast piece?  Surely an emotional journey such as the chaconne should have more to offer than just rhythmic momentum and excitement?

*********

Just saw your latest post, Ollie.  I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "status quo" with this piece.  I've never heard two people play it the same way.  I'm pretty sure I've heard a very wide range of tempi as well.  But I can't say I have much desire to hear it at crotchet=anything-faster-than-100, no more than I do to hear it at crotchet=anything-slower-than-50.  Anything outside these rather wide parameters seems gimmicky to me.  I'd be interested to be convinced otherwise, but skeptical that it would be possible.

Also, just because the opening is bare, that doesn't mean one ought to take the tempo from that.  The opening of the Mozart clarinet concerto could have a very nice swing at half-bar=92, but would you want to play the rest of it like that?
 

We played this movement as a youth, but never really enjoyed it. Is not that true of so many of one's youthful endeavours? Mr. Sudden's speedy version does seem right in the slow and otherwise deadly dull middle section! (We have long since lost the score so are unable here to descend to the specific.)

But as other Members - even Madame S. - have already stated, even the dexterousest violinist would have to slow down if he wished effectively and convincingly to render the rapider sections.

When in doubt about matters of musical taste we turn to Sydney Grew the elder; he describes this Chaconne as "hard to receive into the soul." The truth of the matter is that it has always been unnatural on the violin. It is like the proverbial talking dog; the wonder is that violinists attempt it at all. (And as far as we are concerned the same can be actually said about all works for violin or violoncello solo.)


The Member is evidently something of a Sherlock, for it was indeed Novello. The error is presumably John West the Editor's and not Ernest Newman's who wrote the Introduction. We have marked the score accordingly. How delightful the clarity of Bach's hand-writing!

To-day we continue the series of crackpot renditions with Bach's Prelude in C sharp major from Book I. "It should suggest dancing not braying" exclaims Tovey. We suspect this version would not have satisfied his stipulation. He also notes that Bach here anticipated Debussy of all people in his clever avoidance of the "passage of the thumb" (rapidshare / sendspace). The best bars are sixty-three to ninety-six, and especially eighty-three to eighty-six - no possibility of braying there!

Something weird happened when I downloaded this and it started playing backwards.  Very interesting.  It's working properly now.

Sigiswald Kuijken?  His more recent version?  There's sometimes something a bit scrunched, forced and violin-y about it that bothers me slightly.  Like he's afraid of any possible gaps between the notes.  That's something that impressed me mightily about Marie Leonhardt's version - she's not afraid of air between notes, yet she manages never to lose the pulse or the line.  And somehow, for me, that makes it transcend the violin-ness of the piece - while at the same time being a remarkable violinistic tour-de-force.

Thank you Mr Sudden,

Whilst this is quite ludicrous in places, it does grow on me.  With some of the slower performances, it's actually hard work to hear the structure of the work, but with this it is handed to you on a plate.  It is also wonderful to hear the runs so fast and clean and electric!

It fascinating what comes out at this speed too.  In the first arpeggio section the rhythm is good, with the crotchet and quaver movements of the different voices coming out clearly (although the middle voice is lost a little in bars 100 -102).  I suspect speeding up a more romantic interpretation would give a more "sea-sick" rhythm.  But she's not so good in the second arpeggio section from 201 onwards.

Also, you spot things like odd sounds in bar 25 and bar 26 which I think are preparation for the chords, but just can't be sure.

Nevertheless, I think this is just too fast.  Some subtlety from the violinist is required, and I cannot imagine it being possible with fingers flying around at this tempo.

Ideally, I would like a tempo where the structure is aurally discernible, but where subtle changes in tone and dynamic can be managed within each phrase.  That doesn't mean there is an actual tempo that works, it just means there is an actual tempo that works for each player / interpretation.

I am afraid I must not have a soul.  I have listened to Baz's post and find I am sucking lemons between bars 177 and 201.  The intonation is not of a standard to send my soul (if I had one) heavenward.  I also find the opening bars crunchy and awkward, as if the performer is trying to make something out of this statement when playing it is enough.

I shall go an listen to my LP of Gidon Kremer later - definitely not Hyp!

Tommo

Ah; the Italian concerto is a piece quite close to my heart.  I'm not much of a fan of the sound of that version, though there is another take, this time by Camerata Brasil that I find marginally more pleasing, which people might listen to at their leisure by clicking here.