Evolution through the Editing Process

The Chaconne was a well-known piece among violinist since the time of J. S. Bach. With of without the remaining of the set, several copies have been found that supports this idea. As stated earlier, it was in 1802 when an editorial edition was printed. This is the first of a long line of editions that can be count on the dozens. This edition published by Simrock is interesting since it varies significantly from the autograph in changing the bowing in order to give the idea for a more Mozartean style of playing. The name of the editor is unknown. In general, the early editors used an editorial technique called "Klangnotation? or "sound-notation,?in which the music is actually written, as it should be performed. This technique went into disuse because of its difficulty to sight-read and detect the contrapuntal lines. The urtext edition was then the alternative, in which there was no performance indication, very valuable among musicologists.

The first urtext edition was done by D?fel, a pianist and critic, and was published in 1879 for the Bach-Gesellschaft (collected works of Bach, volume 27). Another urtext was published in 1958 as part of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (Series VI, Volume I); the German musicologist G?ter Hausswald made the edition. The most used trend in editorial techniques, however, is that of the editor giving some clues to the performer. It has gone so far as to adding notes to increase the excitement and sonority in the music.

In the area of dynamics, there has been also an evolution: The earliest editors prefer a rather strictly defined crescendo from the first variation to the last. Because of its practical difficulty, modern editors from about 1900 to 1930 look for contrast within variations while still maintaining a framework of a large, overall crescendo. The most famous edition from the turn of the 20th century is that made by Joachim and Moser, published in 1908, one year after the death of Joseph Joachim. It was made after a photographic reproduction of a manuscript from Bach's hand.

Almost all editors introduced expression markings such as "espressivo?and "dolce? presenting an arch-like in the frequency of use throughout the piece. The peak of this custom was reached in the mid-1940 and then was dropped almost completely by 1950 perhaps due to more awareness in baroque interpretation.

More efforts have been made to preserve the integrity of the music in the manuscript while presenting it in modern notation. The challenge is clearly stated by Jean Champeil in the foreword of his edition (1959): "People had already forgotten the old rules and conventions of playing which permitted the composers of earlier time to use a much simplified notation -a sort of succinct shorthand, which came alive only through interpretation." (*7)
-------------------------------------------------------
(*7) Robert P. Murray, "The Editions," in The Bach Chaconne for Solo Violin, A Collection of Views, edited by Jon F. Eiche (Urbana, IL, 1985), 30.

It is evident that with the development of notation, the change of meaning of most symbols and its subsequent rigurosity, editions have become more sophisticated and versatile in the attempt to re-establish the spirit existing at the beginning of the 18th century. Most of them introduce double signs (e.g. the original slurring and the editor's). An unusual edition was made by Tadeusz Wronski in 1970: his edition is printed on the left-hand pages, with the corresponding section from Bach manuscript on the right, thus saving the editor from having to introduce double signs.

One interesting issue in the evolution of the editions is related to the two arpeggio sections: each is treated differently, although Bach provides a suggestion for the execution of the first. Editors have evolved several basic rhythmic patterns for the first section (mm.89~120), including that proposed by Bach. However, it has been customary for editors and arrangers to furnish his/her own set of patterns (Ex.2, as provided by Henryk Szeryng). It is proper to begin a new pattern over the second beat of a new variation, since it is the second beat and not the downbeat the beginning of the variation, at least in this arpeggio section. The second section (mm. 201~207) is treated in a more straightforward manner, the majority using only sixteenth notes. Such is the case of the present transcription for guitar.

Ex.2



Brief Survey of the Arrangements

The Chaconne is unique within Bach 쐕vre in that it bears the largest number of transcriptions, arrangements, and accompaniments written of it and for it. They began to appear toward the middle of the 18th century, after a long period of resistance from connoisseurs.

Historically, the accompaniments with piano were the first attempt to give the Chaconne another perspective. The first published accompaniment with piano was that of F. W. Ressel (1811-1855?), a Berlin violinist and viola player, in 1845 under the publisher Schlesinger, and dedicated to the Prussian Generalmusikdirektor Giaccomo Meyerbeer. However, it was the arrangement from the hand of Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy (1809-1847) the one that had a greater significance. Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy brought to light many of Bach's works including the solo sonatas. Ewer & Co. (London) published his accompaniment in 1849. About the first performance seven years earlier, Robert Schumann reported: ".......he accompanied the violin with the grand piano in such a wonderful way that the eternal Cantor seemed to have had his hands in it himself."8 Mendelssohn's artistic and individual arrangement is in the form of a concerto movement, giving the violin part enough freedom and opportunity for virtuoso development by assigning extensive tacet segments to the piano part. At times, the piano has independent lines, at others, it provides only harmonic support, and in some opportunities, both instruments go together like a solo instrument and solo orchestra in tutti passages.

Robert Schumann (1810-1856) published his own piano accompaniment in 1854 with Breitkopf & H?tel: Sechs Sonaten f? die Violine von Johann Sebastian Bach mithinzugef?ter Begleitung des Pianoforte von Robert Schumann (Six Sonatas for Violin by Johann Sebastian Bach with added Piano Accompaniment by Robert Schumann). This arrangement enjoyed wider attention than that of Mendelssohn while following the original somewhat more closely. It shares some common points with Mendelssohn's: the unaccompanied presentation of the main theme at the beginning and the harmonization of the theme in the major mode. Other successful published piano accompaniments were written by Carl Reinecke (1824-1910) and August Wilhelmj (1845- 1908) (he also wrote an orchestral accompaniment), among many others.
----------------------------------------
(*8) ; Georg Feder, "History of the Arrangements of Bach's Chaconne,?in The Bach Chaconne for Solo Violin,


The next step in the evolution of the arrangements of the Chaconne is the transcription, perhaps the widest area in this regard. As an outcome of the efforts of Mendelssohn and Schumann, the piano was the first instrument to enjoy a full transcription, the first of which was
published in 1855 by Carl Debrois van Bruyck (1828-1902). Ernst Pauer (1826-1905), who published his transcription with Senff of Leipzig in 1867, and Joachim Raff (1822-1882), publishing also in Leipzig by Bieter-Biedermann in 1865, wrote more interesting and influential
versions. What they share is an intricate use of polyphony beyond what is implied in the original.

There is one trend within the transcriptions for piano: arrangements for left hand alone. Following an unsuccessful attempt by Count G?a Zichy (1849-1924), the Chaconne for left hand was published in 1879 by Senff as No. 5 of the Studien f? das Pianoforte von Johannes Brahms (two arrangements after Chopin and Weber, three after Bach). In 1877, Brahms sent the manuscript to Clara Schumann, with the explanation in a letter as follows:  "To me the Chaconne is one of the most beautiful, incredible compositions. On one staff, and for a small instrument, this man pours out a world full of the most profound thoughts and most powerful emotions?If one cannot avail oneself of the most outstanding violinist, perhaps the greatest enjoyment of the Chaconne is to be achieved in one's mind. But this work also entices one to enjoy oneself with it in various other ways. After all, one does not always care to hear this music in one's thoughts, Joachim is no here very often, and therefore one occupies oneself in various ways with this music. Whatever I try, orchestra or piano, it always ruins my enjoyment. Only in one way do I succeed in coming close to a very reduced yet quite pure enjoyment of this work: if I play it alone with the left hand! At times it seems to me like the story of Columbus?egg! The similar difficulty, the kid of technique, the arpeggiation, all of this adds up to make me feel like a violinist!" (*9)

----------------------------------
A Collection of Views, edited by Jon F. Eiche (Urbana, IL, 1985), 41.

Unlike his predecessors, Brahms does not consider the Chaconne in its original form as incomplete; thus he does not dare to attempt improvements. In actuality, Brahms transposes the original an octave lower, occasionally adding a filler-note or striking an octave.

Ferruccio Busoni's arrangement represents the climax and conclusion for piano arrangements of the Chaconne. Busoni (1866-1924) himself gave the first performance of his arrangement in Boston in 1893. The published version (Breitkopf & H?tel) is titled as follows: Chaconne aus der vierten Sonate f? Violine allein von Johann Sebastian Bach. Zum Concertvortrage f? Pianoforte bearbeitet und Herrn Eugen d'Albert zugeeignet von Ferruccio B. Busoni (Chaconne from the fourth Sonata [?] for solo violin by Johann Sebastian Bach. Arranged for concert performance by Ferruccio Busoni and dedicated to Mr. Eugen d'Albert).

Busoni 's arrangement combined all of the tendencies of earlier transcriptions: Differentiation of sonority, expressive interpretation, virtuosity, polyphonic design, melodic combination, random extension, and stricter adaptation.

The first variations of the first and third sections are almost adopted from Brahms? version; the improvisatory extensions, invertible counterpoint and the rapid scales have their precursors in the freely inserted cadenza of the version by Count Zichy; the added counterpoint is a revival of the techniques of Paff and Pauer; and the addition of the theme in major mode as the main voice in the second section, thus identifying with Mendelssohn, who featured such combination earlier.
---------------------------
(*9) ; Ibid., 42.

In his treatise Von der ?ertragung Bach'scher Orgelwerke auf das Pianoforte (On the Transcription of Bach's Organ Works for Piano), Busoni writes that he treated the Chaconne  "with the idiom of the organ in mind? This approach, frequently attacked, is justified by the significant content that is not expressed sufficiently by the violin, and because of the example of Bach 's own organ transcription (BWV 539) of his Violin Fugue in G minor." (*10)
-------------------------------------------------
(*10) ; Ibid., 44.

Following the arrangements for piano two trends were developed that use the orchestra and the organ as media. The Russian composer Maximilian Steinberg (1883-1946) produced an arrangement of Busoni's piano version in 1911 for large orchestra. In particular, Steinberg modifies Busoni's version when it does not serve the original, or in order to strengthen the arrangement. Arrangements for organ, which at the beginning tended to be far removed from the original, started with the one written by W. T. Best (1826-1897), followed by another by H. Messerer appeared in Paris in 1909. A very successful version for organ, influenced by Busoni, was written by Arno Landmann (b.1887), published by Simrock in 1927.

Another path in the transcriptions of the Chaconne is represented by chamber ensembles. It begins with a piano trio transcription by B. Todt (1822-1907), appeared around 1900. This arrangement does not follow the ideal of the baroque trio sonata. In fact, it attempts to transform the Chaconne "into a technically demanding 'romantic?piano trio with cantabile treatment of the cello." (*11) Arrangements for string quartet appeared to provide a more suitable medium. Examples are those of Martinus Sieveking (1867-?) and Maria Herz (1878-?).

The trend of arrangements for orchestra evolved into a stage in which the primary source was the original itself. Arrangements by Riccardo Nielsen (b. 1908), Jen?Hubay (1858-1937), Alfredo Casella (1883-1947), and Leopold Stokowski (1882-1977) are typical of the changes that came about after romanticism. They replaced the free expressive interpretation of the 19th
century with a structurally bound, dynamic interpretation, laden with tension; also they created arrangements that are based on Bach's Chaconne as on a sketch. Very interesting is the arrangement of the Italian composer Ricardo Nielsen: he used the string orchestra, dividing it into tutti and concertino. With this scoring he followed the practice of the baroque concerto grosso, thus "establishing the preconditions for a stylistically homogeneous orchestral
transcription." (*12)
---------------------------
(*11) ; Ibid., 44.
(*12) ; Ibid., 45.



Transcriptions for Guitar

Published transcriptions of the Chaconne for the guitar are a product of the twentieth century. After the Chaconne was transcribed for several individual instruments and their combinations, Andr? Segovia (1893-1987) undertook the first successful transcription for the guitar, laying the foundations for a long list of works.

In this section, we will discuss briefly four published transcriptions, very distinct and representative: Segovia, Yepes, Scheit, and Carlevaro. While this chapter deals mainly with historical background, it is considered that some aspects of musical analysis cannot be overlooked.

The London publisher Schott issued the transcription made by Segovia in 1934. According to Christopher Nupen, apparently "Segovia was reluctant to attempt the Chaconne  'because I love that piece beyond any imagination,?and for years he studied the transcription by
F. Herman for two violins, Brahms for the piano (left hand), Busoni and Raff for the piano (both hands and how!), and Jena de Hubay for the orchestra. It was therefore not until 1935 in Paris that, with the support of the distinguished French musicologist Marc Pincherle, he decided to
make the transcription and play it in public." (*13)

The Segovia transcription follows the trend left by the Romantic arrangers in general, and Ferruccio Busoni in particular, in such ways like the addition of filling-notes in important harmonies and the inclusion of tempo and expression indications. However, it is closer to the original in the sense that there is no inclusion of running cadential passages; the addition of basses is economical while following the implied harmony in the original. The first arpeggio passage is relatively simple and steady compared to violin realizations, although Segovia suggests a continuous crescendo toward the scalar passage in measure 121. This technique, inspired by Busoni and Hubay versions, gives the fragment an ever-increasing tension that is not
released until the return of the second couplet of the main theme in measure 126. The second arpeggio passage inherits the common practice left by the violin tradition. Regarding fingerings, Segovia tends to use very idiomatic ones. These fingerings might force the performer to depart from the original phrasing that can be inferred from the original (Ex. 3).
-----------------------------------------------
(*13) ; Alirio D?z. Alirio D?z Plays Bach. Cassette. Notes by Christopher Nupen.

Ex. 3



A more technically ambitious transcription is that of Narciso Yepes (1927-1997), published in 1960 by Ediciones Musicales Madrid in Spain. Yepes thoroughly uses the harmonic capabilities of the guitar by using six-note chords very often, maintaining a full sonority throughout the entire piece, particularly when the polyphony is not intricate; he also uses octavation, particularly in the bass. Like Segovia, Yepes indicates tempo changes and expression markings. Fingerings are less orthodox and they include the right hand in essential passages. The first arpeggio passage reassembles the violin style in using the rhythmic arch form (more on this
topic in the chapter Analysis, page 24). Starting with a pattern in thirty-second notes, it continues 16 with thirty-seconds sextuplets in measure 105, returns to thirty seconds in the middle of the next variation in measure 109 in order to go into a varied version of the sextuplets in measure 113; in measure 117 Yepes returns to the first sextuplet pattern (Ex. 4).

Ex. 4



The technique of octavation is used throughout the entire transcription. However, it is on the second section, from measure 117, where this technique is extended when producing a bass line based on the structural points with connecting sixteenth notes. It can be said that the influence of Busoni's search for an individual view is paramount in Yepes?transcription: in the third section, measure 236, the rhythmic pattern of sixteenth notes departs from the original into sixteenth triplets, anticipating in the middle of the variation what is going to come five measures later. This edition is very effective regarding the increase of expressive tension, although it does
not follows the pattern of variation suggested by Bach.

After the sixties musicological studies have given to the transcriber a richer source information about original pieces and the performance practice of historical periods. Among transcribers and editors, the tendency has been toward a more scholastic and "pure?work. Some transcribers limit themselves to minimal addition of filling-notes or basses. Such is the case of the austere transcription by Karl Scheit published by Universal Edition in 1985. He provides a scholastic version: Scheit indicates where he is departing from the original in order to be more idiomatic to the guitar, as well as using dotted ties to show the original slurs and groups. Scheit indicates fewer fingering indications and gives no expression markings, following the Baroque style. He uses octavation and filling-notes when is strictly necessary. The arpeggio sections are similar in rhythm to those of Segovia's transcription.

Carlevaro?transcription is one that follows the presumed original intent of Bach: The sonatas and partitas as pedagogical works. Published by Chanterelle in 1989, is an integral part of Carlevaro's guitar masterclasses series. In both English and Spanish, the edition includes a brief historical background and reasons about the need for a guitar transcription. Following there is a section on mechanical aspects in which Carlevaro explains variation by variation the technical intricacies according to his own approach. He also suggests technical exercises that help to overcome specific technical difficulties. In this transcription, every single note is fingered for the left hand and the right hand indications are plenty. Carlevaro provides with alternative
interpretations for certain passages, considering different historical approaches. Including the first arpeggio section, the transcription is similar to that of Segovia's, although it is obvious that it takes a more scholastic and authoritative approach as it considers aesthetic considerations from later musicological research. At the end of the edition, Carlevaro provides a copy of the 18 manuscript, incorporating within the guitar transcriptions what has been done in editions for violin at the beginning of the 20th century.