-
Second bar first system should have C natural not C#.
Wife (cellist) got very angry. Checked in Urtext, original key G (F natural)
Is this a known error?
-
10-30-2019 08:26 AM
-
Never got past Volume I.
Thanks for taking one for the team. 
-
You mean it should be a D7 chord and not a DMa7 leading to the G or G add 9 chord in the next bar?
-
Michael Lorimer edition has C natural there, as you say. And a quick listen to the CD and it sounds like Noad played it correctly.
Switching gears slightly, Noad played the prelude pretty flatly in terms of expression. Trying to remain true to the period? Maybe. But this version is much more enjoyable, but then it was played by a virtuoso.
Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 11-02-2019 at 01:14 PM.
-
This will be informed by fairly up to date scholarship
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Obviously as we play guitar not silly chin cello we are out on a limb anyway. I vote for some latitude of tempo and a bit of dynamic expression because it seems nice to bring it to life.
-
Don’t care what Lorimar has. Always check the urtext baby. :-) (in actual fact my wife plays cello so we have it knocking around.)
Interesting thing about the Noad misprint is the fingerings are consistent with the incorrect note.
-
The note is C natural, of course. Noad is not regarded a great arranger, though I learned from his two volumes a century ago, or so it seems. I have a soft spot for those books, but they are dated now.
-
Where does Bach say, "Play my music flatly"? He was a man of great passion. Noad just played badly. Don't blame Bach. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
-
I didn't blame Bach and was trying to be neutral, and I can hear Noad just fine, thank you. Originally Posted by Rob MacKillop
You're not suggesting that expression was the same from the Baroque through Romantic periods though. You wouldn't do that.
So, do you think that Kulikova's performance was in any way influenced by what came after Bach?
-
Do you ever play that piece Rob? I know it's a bit of a cheesy choice, but I just wanted a classical party piece for applying for teaching gigs, and its not too hard. Originally Posted by Rob MacKillop
The slurring and overring seems a ripe area for editorial decisions. What editions do you think are good for this piece?
-
Listening to the Kulikova she is playing it in drop D and using octave alternating basses.... many guitar versions I have heard do this, and I suppose it's a way of filling out the sound of what is a lighter key than the original key G.
A few other things - use of overringing capenelas scales towards the end and playing that ascending chromatic scale in thirds.
Gives a bit more vibe as a guitar piece but of course the thirds and the bass alternating are additions are not found in the original Bach.
I enjoyed it.... Transcription is always a matter of translation, no?
-
If you you did care what Lorimar has, you might find that he used some nice double stops in the climactic 5th and 4th last bars of the piece, like Kulikova did, and like Noad didn't. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
The Segovia version is pretty heavily arranged, of course, lots of extra notes!
In a weird way, I think if you are going to pay this piece on guitar, why not go full on Segovia haha? (I mean I can't play it that's my excuse)
The cello can sell simpler music just by it's sound....
-
See above Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
-
Lorimer used drop D tuning Christian. Just check it out and knock off the one upsmanship BS.
Also, the piece isn't cheesy, but Hollywood's use of it can be.
-
Yes, it is. And Lorimer used 6ths as opposed to thirds. I prefer Kulikova's. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Is she playing the Lorimer edition then? Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
I meant it's an obvious cheesy choice, the one everyone knows, but that's why I thought it would be a good one to do for my nefarious purposes.Also, the piece isn't cheesy, but Hollywood's use of it can be.
Anyway, one advantage of using drop D is that you can play the whole suite (IIRC the following piece requires drop D) but I'm shite at reading in alternate tunings, and that's unlikely to change soon.
-
Just saw this, so no. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
I think I'll stick with standard just for simplicity's sake. It'll be good enough for what I need it for. Drop D always sounds immense on guitar though.
-
No I think she's likely playing her own transcription/arrangement. Originally Posted by christianm77
Some time ago I searched for different published transcriptions of this piece for the guitar and was disappointed by the small number of attractive choices. Lorimer has some artistic cred that the others don't, so I bought it. I don't like everything about it, but you can always change it up because it's transcribed for the guitar as opposed to written for the guitar. (A loophole that keeps the classical police from arresting you). For example, Kulikova's transcription is probably her own and I don't hear one single thing in it that I don't like, but that's just one opinion.
Cheesy, yes it can be used in a cheesy way. Why? Because it's so powerful and people can leverage it to push others emotional buttons, like at a really girly wedding, or in a melodramatic movie or manipulative commercial, etc.
-
Of course this piece in some ways put you-know-who on the map. Casual setting but some interesting comments at 2:30
And one of his many "real" performances
-
AFAIK it was Pablo cassals who originally put the suites on the map... and I have to say along with Segovia, that unfashionable early/mid 20th century way of playing Bach, I kind of love it.
It’s hard to imagine pieces so defining of the cello repertoire was obscure until the 20th century... these days when so much as a sneeze of Bach would be recorded in its original site in Leipzig
by John Eliot Gardner it’s amazing to think that there were obscure corners of the music of a man who might be reasonably argued as the greatest composer of all time....
One question I have (probably for Rob) is on the urtext it says ‘senza bass’ - ie (presumably) without continuo accompaniment. Was Bach the first to do this, or just the one who did it well?
Obviously the unaccompanied solo string pieces are amazing study vehicles for jazz musicians because they show how to outline changes in a single melodic line...Last edited by christianm77; 11-03-2019 at 06:23 AM.
-
I read a book about the history of the cello suites a few years ago, it was quite interesting as I recall, it was by Eric Siblin (just looked it up).
I have the Stanley Yates edition of the complete cello suites arranged for guitar, it contains some quite detailed essays about baroque interpretation, ornamentation etc. which are useful. Another nice touch is that in addition to his arrangements (with fingering), he also includes the original cello version alongside his version (transposed to the ‘guitar’ key), so you can easily compare bar by bar what he has changed from the original (and make your own guitar version if you want to).
-
Haha Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Well I don’t have much worry on that front lol
In real terms I’m just demonstrating that I can play a bit of classical for education and I enjoy bashing through classical pieces for my own enjoyment (doing more teaching and needing to sight read graded rep in lessons etc usually reminds me of this) but in the main being a classical interpreter to the point where the classical police notice you enough to decide that what are doing is crap, is a full time job. Interpretation is such a heavy trip... I remember doing lieder masterclasses and it just being super specific.
I mean mostly jazz players doing the classical thing tend to be pretty meh unless they are Keith Jarrett...
OTOH I play jazz with guys from a classical background, and that can be interesting. Super detailed and anal about everything haha. It’s an education in another way of going about it. They are good improvisers but less willing to let things play out or go off piste than the pure jazzers I know.Last edited by christianm77; 11-03-2019 at 05:38 AM.
-
Nice, thanks. I have the Siblin book. I started it but didn’t finish it, iirc Siblin is writing very much from the sensitive non-musician’s perspective which is interesting read in itself. Originally Posted by grahambop
-
The Stanley Yates edition from Mel Bay is streets ahead of any other guitar edition, both for the notation and the essay on the history and interpretation of this music. It is controversial in the classical guitar micro world for having the first cello suite in the key of C. The original of course is in G, and all other guitar arrangements are in D, so C stands out as being different. But it works well.
As for Christian's question over whether Bach was the first to do such "senza bass" pieces, he wasn't. They date right back to the early baroque period where a bass line at least was always played by a bass instrument, lute or keyboard, with improvised chords and runs above the bass - continuo playing. When the composer wanted just the solo instrument, he had to specify this, if only to stop overeager jobbing accompanists jumping in. As specifically regards the cello, the Italian composer, Domenico Gabrieli published in 1689 solo works (7 Ricercar and a Canon) to be played unaccompanied. We don't know if Bach knew them, but he certainly knew the unaccompanied cello suites of Biber and Westhoff. Some see connections between the Biber and Bach's first cello suite.
As for interpretation, the overriding thing is to study oratory. Imagine you are talking to a small crowd of people, using fairly short sentences, emphasising certain points, engaging the audience in your discourse. The subject of your discourse would vary from heavy and profound to light a frothy, but always articulated well, sometimes passionately, other times with noble disdain :-) Have fun!
Reply With Quote
Mental check on buying a good guitar
Today, 10:38 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos