CLASSICAL Archives

Moderated Classical Music List

CLASSICAL@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Santu De Silva <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:55:57 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
I just got this in the mail, and am enjoying it.

It's wonderful.

To me, Bach transcriptions sound like one of four things:  (A) Bach,
with the arranger's own flavor clearly stamped on it, but still
recognizable enough, and enjoyable.  (B) Bach, with the original character
of the work so evident that it hardly sounds like a transcription at all.
(C) Something that hardly sounds like Bach, but is still interesting.  (D)
Something that may or may not be Bach-like, but where i don't really care
because I just don't like it.

This set is very much A.

In contrast, and surprisingly, the Simpson/Delme Art of Fugue falls into
category (C).  I guess that says more about me than about the recordings
in question, or I'm more sensitive to pitch than I realized.  (Simpson
transposed up to G minor.  Perhaps he did more to warrant getting his name
on the recording!)

In case anyone was wondering what I would consider (B), I was wondering
myself.  I guess (for me) the modern-instrument Orchestral Suites would
fall into category B, or the WTC on piano by Gould.  (Some would not
consider a piano performance of a clavier work a transcription at all
but merely a performance, while others would refuse to even consider it!)
The Stokowski arrangement of BWV 565 would be category D.

Arch

ATOM RSS1 RSS2