Bach's Chaconne: manuscript vs urtext vs transcriptions
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2022 3:50 am
Years ago, I noticed that there are discrepancies when the autograph manuscript of Bach's Chaconne (BWV 1004) is compared to an urtext edition, to a performance edition, and to the various transcriptions of the work. I have collected them in the table below.
In the table, the 'Serge Blanc's edition' is a performance edition. 'M/S' stands for 'Mendelssohn/Schumann'. All of the scores listed are available on IMSLP.
All of the differences between the manuscript and the Haußwald urtext edition can be explained if the rule regarding accidentals was different during Bach's time (specifically that an accidental only applies to the note next to them and doesn't carry on to the rest of the bar, as someone explained at http://www.gnu.org/software/lilypond/sr ... ntals.html). This seems to be the case since in the manuscript, Bach usually wrote accidentals on the later notes of the same pitch as the previous ones with an accidental (which would be
considered redundant today), but there are also an instance that he didn't (such as Bar 37, where he didn't write another sharp symbol for the second G-sharp in the bar).
If the above explanation is correct, then the differences between the Serge Blanc's edition and the Haußwald urtext can be attributed to Serge Blanc's neglecting to put in every change in accidentals to conform to today's rule when he adapted the manuscript to make this performance edition.
This leaves the deviations found in the various transcriptions (for violin and piano, and for piano). My guess is that the arrangers of these transcriptions based them on a 19th century edition that contained copying errors, which are then carried over to them. But it is also possible that some editor thought that Bach made some harmony mistakes in the Chaconne.
I would like to know the cause of these discrepancies because I have been basing my transcriptions of the Chaconne on the Serge Blanc's edition. What do you think is the cause of these discrepancies?
- Bach chaconne table.png (826.94 KiB) Viewed 13683 times
All of the differences between the manuscript and the Haußwald urtext edition can be explained if the rule regarding accidentals was different during Bach's time (specifically that an accidental only applies to the note next to them and doesn't carry on to the rest of the bar, as someone explained at http://www.gnu.org/software/lilypond/sr ... ntals.html). This seems to be the case since in the manuscript, Bach usually wrote accidentals on the later notes of the same pitch as the previous ones with an accidental (which would be
considered redundant today), but there are also an instance that he didn't (such as Bar 37, where he didn't write another sharp symbol for the second G-sharp in the bar).
If the above explanation is correct, then the differences between the Serge Blanc's edition and the Haußwald urtext can be attributed to Serge Blanc's neglecting to put in every change in accidentals to conform to today's rule when he adapted the manuscript to make this performance edition.
This leaves the deviations found in the various transcriptions (for violin and piano, and for piano). My guess is that the arrangers of these transcriptions based them on a 19th century edition that contained copying errors, which are then carried over to them. But it is also possible that some editor thought that Bach made some harmony mistakes in the Chaconne.
I would like to know the cause of these discrepancies because I have been basing my transcriptions of the Chaconne on the Serge Blanc's edition. What do you think is the cause of these discrepancies?