Talk:Partita for Violin No. 2 (Bach)

Untitled

Is it just me, or is this page kind of weak? I know vague criticism is mostly useless, but I don't know if anyone is watching this page. One thing I noticed is the page on the chaconne/ciaconna form claims spanish provenance, with this page claims italian. I always thought italian, but I'd like to find a more accurate reference.

Abruzzi 03:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed some of the more subjective ane emotional parts of this article as I think they are unencyclopedic in nature. I also removed the Brahms quote mainly because it distracts form the subject itself.

I added a general musical description of the piece in terms of key and subject. As for the origin of the dance, I am still not quite sure. Some sources (Britannica) states it as an originally spanish or mexican dance that was afterwards brought to Italy, afew others I have seen before hinted at an older Italian origin. Since I can not find these sources at the moment, I have changed it to spanish. If someone finds another source that supports the Italian origin, please reference it. [unsigned comment?]

--> This article currently does seem weak in comparison with how important a piece it seems to be regarded as among professionals as well as articles all over google, youtube, special feature broadcasts, etc. Much of the importance consistently mentioned by highly esteemed professionals is its "emotional" impact, so I think that proves the relevance of emotional aspects to the encyclopedic description; though it would be nice to emphasize quotes which go deeper into specific details of where/how/why it strikes them so strongly. The extreme power of the responses currently sound a bit abstract and mysterious to a layperson. I also noticed that one of the current top hits in google is an article which quotes the following [missing?] content "from wikipedia" - https://rhapsodyinwords.com/2014/09/09/a-study-of-j-s-bachs-baroque-violin-masterpiece-the-chaconne-in-d-minor/ "The ciaccona (commonly called by the French form of the word, chaconne), the concluding movement of Partita No. 2 in D minor, BWV 1004, surpasses the duration of the previous four movements combined. Along with its disproportional relationship to the rest of the suite, it merits the emphasis given it by musicians and composers alike. The theme, presented in the first four measures in typical chaconne rhythm with a chord progression based on the repeated bass note pattern D D C♯ D B♭ G A D, begets the rest of the movement in a series of variations. The overall form is tripartite, the middle section of which is in major mode. It represents the pinnacle of the solo violin repertoire in that it covers every aspect of violin playing known during Bach’s time. It is still one of the most technically and musically demanding pieces for the instrument."

Was that passage removed or moved and should it be linked to from this article or reinstated? DKEdwards (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Does anyone else feel that there should be an article on the 6 sonatas and partitas for solo violin, and that the information here should be moved there? After all, these pieces (BWV1001-1006) are usually recorded together. Alcuin 02:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak is an understatement. This entry purports to be about the Partita, but it amounts to little more that a hodgepodge about the chaconne. Joshua Bell played the chaconne while busking?? Why is this sort of nonsense included? I suggest deleting all but the introductory paragraph so the bulk of this entry can be written anew, since trying to work with the current mishmash is too great a task. JapanRef (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Character of Partita 2

Music-encyclopedic writings must not be without character-descriptions which are in essence personal and subjective, however the good encyclopedian naturally expresses a mean (average) of common perceptions.

I allowed myself to remove a note stating a question or request for "original research", which is inappropriate according to the above. I actually also like the Brahms quote (should be sourced, though) which adds to the reader immense value. After all, a written work by a 300 year old European composer has several aspects: genesis, realization, performance history, and reception history including reviewers and researchers opinions.

For the question of whether it should be mentioned as part of "The Complete Six" I disagree, there is a certain amount of freedom and judgement needed and emphasizing the importance of this piece versus, say, the Sonata in C is most appropriate and well done by having it mentioned in a special article.

Furthermore composers often selected and performed single pieces from complete works. Another example is the organ version of the prelude from Partita 3 by Bach himself found in some Cantata. --d-axel (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The Complete Six

I think it is a very good idea to make an article combining all six works for unaccompanied violin. I am not sure if individual articles are needed for each individual work, but if we remove this one we probably have to dedicate a significant section of the larger article to Chaconne being as it is the most popular movement in the repretoire.

• Turns out, there already was one, it was just hard to find. Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (1001-1006) I've been working on it lately. Alcuin 06:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Duration

Dublin pedant writes: The page states "The ciaccona ... lasts some 13-14 minutes, surpassing the duration of the previous movements combined." This is not true for the Monica Huggett/Veritas recording (first 4 movements: 16 mins 40 secs, Chaconne: 14 mins); I doubt that this is true for other recordings either.

It could be that performing the previous movements without any repeats is shorter than performing the Chaconne alone -- but I've never tried to time that myself. Mademoiselle Fifi 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about all this about the Chaconne being some 13-14 mins. I don't play with any repeats for any of the songs and so it's pretty much shorter. Lady Nimue of the Lake 23:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the duration figure seems questionable. Scott Slapin (on viola) plays the Chaconne in 16:04, the other movements total is 12 minutes. But Schlomo Mintz (who takes the repeats) plays the first 4 movements in 17 minutes, while the Chaconne is 15:18. In both cases, the length of the Chaconne is longer than the 11-14 minutes mentioned, and as we all know, there are no repeats in the Chaconne. David.kaplan 16:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Data point: Arthur Grumiaux takes 13'17" to work his way through the Chaconne. The timings for the other movements of the partita are 3'06" for the Allemanda, 1'58" for the Corrente, 3'05" for the Sarabanda, and 3'06" for the Giga. He takes the usual repeats, which is to say, he repeats the first section but not the second in each movement. Clearly the Chanconne makes up the bulk of this work. ILike2BeAnonymous 17:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ciaccona vs Chaconne

I have a repruduction of handwritten from Bach Ciaccona, and it is written Ciaccona, not Chaconne! Stop saying Bach wrote Chaconne! He wrote Ciaccona! thanks --93.147.133.46 (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

List of famous recordings: Useless?

According to the article, "[n]otable recordings of the Partita have been made by Henryk Szeryng, Midori Goto, Nathan Milstein, Arthur Grumiaux, Gidon Kremer, Jascha Heifetz, Itzhak Perlman, Yehudi Menuhin, Leonid Kogan and Hilary Hahn, to name a few."

Hasn't nearly every well-known concert violinist recorded the Partita, or at least the Chaconne/Ciaconna, at some time? IMO, it's safe for a layperson to assume that if s/he has heard of a violinist, that violinist has recorded at least the last movement of the Partita. (rhetoric) It might be easier to list performers who *haven't* recorded it! (/rhetoric)

For this reason, the "notable recordings" sentence seems useless to me; I recommend removing it. If there are recordings made notable by some unique aspect of their performance, place in music history, etc., we could have a separate section with approx. one sentence naming a given performer and describing what is noteworthy about his/her recording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.176.7.3 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Brahms quotation

The Brahms quotation needs a citation, but I don't know how to flag that or whether anyone is really paying attention to this page. 134.173.80.129 (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Added. For your future reference, you can flag unreferenced material in WP articles by typing {{cn}} or {{fact}} immediately following an unreferenced claim. /ninly_(talk) 22:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.42.9.70 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.42.8.141 (talk)  

Bach/Busoni Chaconne - A musical myth

This text focuses the musical myth in which has been transformed the piano transcription done in 1892 by the pianist and composer Ferruccio Busoni (1866-1924), based on the composition of Johann Sebastian Bach named Chaconne – BWV 1004, the 5th Movement of the Partita Nr 2 for solo violin.

Bach composed the Partita Nr 2 between 1720 and 1723 and according to some scholars, prominently Professor Helga Thoene,1 the Chaconne was done in homage to Maria Barbara, his first wife, unexpectedly died in July 1720 during his absence by reason of work. Bach was not informed about the wife’s death and when he returned the body had been buried a week ago. This loss motivated him to compose the Chaconne.

Busoni became known mainly because of his many transcriptions for solo piano of Bach’s compositions, specially the Chaconne and the Chorale Preludes as, by example, that named “Nun komm’ der Heiden Heiland” (Now comes the gentiles’ Saviour) – BWV 659. Being a great pianist, he influenced new pianist generations at the transition from the Romanticism to the Modernism.

Usually the transcriptions are done with the purpose of performing the music through a different instrument of that the composer had chosen for the original score. Concerning the Bach’s Chaconne, many and several transcriptions have been done for piano, guitar, organ, bassoon, orchestra and even one for choral. Frequently the transcriptions of Bach’s compositions are object of polemic arisen by purist critics who do not accept modifications in the opuses of that, who is considered the Music’s father, or by other critics who accept changes, but with reservations, mainly those concerning the original’s content or essence.

The Busoni transcription of the Bach’s Chaconne has been object of criticism by both the tendencies. Busoni did so many alterations to the original – of expression, rhythm, time and even quantity of measures – which affected strongly the opus’ content of deepest feelings and expressive emotions. It’s impossible to believe that Busoni, with his vast knowledge on the Bach’s music, was not conscious of the intrinsic but not written performance indications in the original, since they were not used at that period. However, even who knows a minimum about baroque music and, particularly, a little of Bach’s music, can almost naturally see the presence of narratives and dialogs in the ascendant or descendant, bass or treble phrasing, which concern the expression. Because of the deliberated distance from the original, it is not wrong to say that this transcription could be another composition, a great composition if it were not the fact that, in despite of the alterations, still it is the Bach’s Chaconne, even though transfigured. It’s, for example, as if the Da Vinci’s Monalisa were redone with other colors, other lines and proportions, but even so it could be recognized.

What would have been the Busoni’s purpose in doing these alterations? It’s known that Busoni, answering the pianist D’Albert’s criticism in May 1894, argued that the violin, for its limitations, wasn’t suitable for the Chaconne performance.2 According to this declaration, Bach would have made a mistake, or it would have been impossible for him to choose the adequate instrument or instruments. There are even people who suppose, without proof, that the Bach’s Chaconne for solo violin would be a reduction from other composition for orchestra, whose score would have been lost. These favorable arguments to the Busoni’s transcription work to justify its orchestral character. But this character is just the Achilles heel of this argumentation.

The arts, particularly the music, consist in feeling and expressing emotions. Regarding this Chaconne, it´s a deep emotion of a man who lost his wife and, after visiting her grave, is now alone in his room. Nobody, at this moment, feels like him that pain. Would he have than inspiration to compose for an orchestra or it would be more naturally adequate that he had chosen an intimist instrument as the violin to compose for? Let’s listen to an expert so qualified as Johannes Brahms:

“The Chaconne is the most wonderful, unfathomable pieces of music. On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind."

Brahms did also his piano transcription from the Bach’s Chaconne in the most simple and faithful way to the original and for left hand performance. A caprice or a gift and respect to those pianists who lost the use of one of the hands? It’s a beautiful transcription that causes emotion. It’s worthwhile to watch the pianist Anatol Ugorski playing it in the You Tube.

All those people who have done a transcription for orchestra from this Chaconne did not get a corresponding success to the original masterpiece weight, nor to the experience and competence of great composers as Leopold Stokowski whose transcription for symphonic orchestra, even being grandiose, don’t awake emotion with the same intensity like the original for solo violin. Why? I’ll try to answer, paradoxically, with other question: why the piano transcription done by Franz Liszt (1811-1886) from the Funeral March, 2nd Movement of the Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony, the Heroic, also doesn’t correspond to the Liszt’s mastery of the piano, neither to this Beethoven’s masterpiece? Each opus owns an essential character which is built from the initial idea, impulse or motivation of its creator. The Beethoven’s motivation to compose this Funeral March wasn’t based in an individual feeling, particular like that which motivated Bach to compose the Chaconne, but in other feeling of universal or collective ambit and resulting from that historic moment, a feeling of deep respect for the died and anonymous heroes of the French Revolution. This motivation couldn’t prosper through a solo instrument composition, but only by a Symphonic Orchestra executing a symphony. Nevertheless, the Bach’s Chaconne also moves millions of people around the world because, in the likeness of the spectator, the listener also abandons himself to the catharsis process by feeling as his own the another’s pain.

In his Chaconne transcription Busoni has opted for the orchestral character by availing himself of and exploring at the utmost the sonority, timbre and pedals resources of the modern grand pianos made in Europe (Bösendorfer, since 1828 in Austria) and after in the USA (Steinway & Sons, since 1853). This transcription became a musical myth and also a challenge even to the great pianists because of its complexity, on the point of many of them, almost that obligatorily, have included it in their repertoires. However, not all of them. Why? Glenn Gould (1932-1982), the great Bach’s interpreter, didn’t record it although had done recordings of Beethoven-Liszt Symphonies transcriptions. Vladimir Horowitz (1903-1989) also didn’t it, but has recorded another Bach-Busoni transcription, the Chorale Prelude – BWV 659. Purists? Absolutely not. Are they from those who accept changes, but with some reservations? Personally, I think so.

According to some enthusiasts of this transcription, Busoni, by exploring the piano timbre resources, would allow the interpreter to “almost hear the roll of drums and the ringing of bells.”2 However much I have heard this transcription many times by many performers, I couldn’t hear bells. What one hears well is, surprisingly, the sound of a steam locomotive (mm. 40-47), an abrupt change of tempo and touch –“più mosso ma misuratto” – that interrupts the narrative and breaks the melodic line and the passage unity. Busoni, along the transcription, deliberately ignores the Bach’s typical poetic rhetoric, so exuberant in this Chaconne. The strong sonority effects and the emphasis in grandiosity, which don’t allow the interpreter to perform with coherent expression, hide the evocations, dialogs, affirmations, exclamations, questions and answers, so clear in the Bach’s original to an attentive audience.

In the initial measures Bach evokes the Barbara’s name, following a clear dialog between them (mm. 7-20). Successively the phrases and passages go ahead suggesting reminiscences from the courtship happy days in Arnstadt and the marriage in Dornheim (mm. 24-119); the lancinating lament for the loss of Barbara (mm. 124-131); the complaining and revolt while talking to God (mm. 132-147); the disapproval about the insatiability of the death (mm. 148-150); increasing desperation, delirium, loss and refinding of the faith (mm. 151-183); the God’s answer to Bach at the music climax (mm. 184-189); a laudation act (mm. 200-207); dedication of the Chaconne to Barbara (mm. 208-225); a flamenco theme of moorish influence (mm. 228-239) and at last the moving farewell (mm. 248-256). Evidently the impressions above are personal and were inspired by listening many times to some violin performances. They are cited only to show the idea and emotion richness of the Bach’s Chaconne. Deep emotion, for sure, is the essence of this masterpiece.

These few observations concerning the Bach’s original for solo violin certainly didn’t pass unperceived to Busoni, a great connoisseur of the Bach’s music, composer and great pianist. Why than would he have concretized his Chaconne transcription in this way, covering that essence with another kind of emotion, with grandiosity? Personally, I come to the conclusion that Busoni wished to make something greater than the original. But when you deal with masterpieces I would say that it’s impossible. To the pianists who play this Bach-Busoni transcription a note of respect because it’s a personal conquest and an important mark in their careers. Nevertheless, here remains the suggestion to perform, also, another piano transcription, faithful to the original Chaconne.

Luiz Antonio V Penteado

Nov. 2010

Notes: 1. Helga Thoene, “Ciaccona Tanz oder Tombeau?", ISBN 3-935358-60-1, 2005.

2. Fabrikant, Marina: “Bach-Busoni Chaconne: A PianoTranscription Analysis”, pag. 57

                    University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2006. 

3. Fabrikant, Marina: “Bach-Busoni Chaconne: A PianoTranscription Analysis”, pag. 4

                    University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2006.   
          

Bibliography:

Rueb, Franz, “48 variações sobre Bach”. Ed.Companhia das Letras, São Paulo, 2001.

                 Fabrikant, Marina: “Bach-Busoni Chaconne: A PianoTranscription Analysis”.
                 University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2006.

                 Helga Thoene, Ciaccona Tanz oder Tombeau?", ISBN 3-935358-60-1, 2005.

French names of the 5 movements

My question is, assuming that Bach did label the names of the five movements of this Partita #2 in Italian, whether it would not be a good idea to also list their French equivalents. They are usually - not always - listed in French on recordings, and also at IMSLP [1].

(As to the statement and controversy concerning whether the Ciaconna takes longer to play the the preceding four movements together, it might seem simple enough to add something like depending on which repeats are played or omitted. This would be helpful to Wikipedia visitors who are unfamiliar with the concept of dropping repeats.) Milkunderwood (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Both done. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sound File Quality

I'm wondering what the quality standard is, if there is any, for inclusion of audio files with articles. While I'm sure that there are rights issues attached to particularly well-known performances of this Partita, there are certainly more polished performances of this work in the public domain than are posted here. The recordings of the Allemanda, Corrente and Giga are particularly unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vienner (talk • contribs) 00:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced sentence

The article says "The movements correspond to the dances of the time". Where is the citation for that claim? 190.173.136.114 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This does verge on a "sky is blue" situation, especially with each of the movement titles linked to an article about that form. However, if your point is that a chaconne is not a dance, then you are right to object.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Brahms quote

Why on Earth would you insist on removing the Brahms quote that I added and which I properly cited? It is under a specific section referring to the reception of this piece. It is not placed in a section discussing technical aspects, like counterpart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.129 (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I signed it and cited it. and someone flagged it for reason I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.129 (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The quote you added is already in the article. Look again. intforce (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Chaconne dance

On the wiki page about Chaconnes, it mentions accurately how the form came from South America, then quickly caught on in Spain. It also mentions that chaconnes were danced to. However, there is a statement in this article suggesting that Chaccones were not danced to, which is incorrect! Roymacneil (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I added this explanation to the article: "While the origin and early usage of the chaconne is a dance, its 'busy passage-work and contrapuntal density largely obliterated and dance feeling' by Bach's time in Germany." and provided a source for it, the same Silbiger at Grove who's cited in Chaconne. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ciaccona

it's well written Ciaccona not else 2.39.53.42 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"Chaconne in D minor" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chaconne in D minor has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Chaconne in D minor until a consensus is reached. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)