Hi guys and gals

I'm trying to learn the prelude for the Bach cello suite in G major (from the Libster's website http://svc196.bne075v.server-web.com/)

My question is - at bar 20 there is a low C# - but I have a 4-string bass. Should i be playing up til this point an octave up to allow me to go down to the C# or do i play a normal C#??

At the moment for example bar 1 starts on G - which i'm playing on the E string at 3rd fret - should i be playing this on the A string at 10th fret?

Thanks for your help

Dean

I always play that one an octave up, with the first note being the G on the A string. BUt, I play a 6 and the upper notes in the piece are well withing range....

The bass is a transposing ("transposer"?-"Transpositional"?) instrument. This is, the notes sound one octave lower than written. This is not the case of the cello (it sounds the same as written), so you should play the entire piece one octave higher if you want it to sound as it's supposed to do. This is what John Patitucci does in his first instructional video with his six-string. :)

Play the entire thing an octave higher, or transpose it to a different key.

Thanks guys - I'll move up an octave then.

Dean

I've been working on the 1st Suite for a while. I recorded this a while ago. I can play it much better now.

http://www.unpronounceable.com/audio/1007-prelude-071099.mp3

For more Bach, you can go to http://www.jsbach.net/bass/

These are my first attempts at recording Bach and I wasn't that happy with the results so I decided to wait until I was good enough to play them better. Getting close! I'll be sure to let you guys know when I have some new recordings up.

- Dave

I also play a 6-string, but i play this piece with the first G at E string, third fret. I think it may sound better one octave higher but, for example, how do you play the ascending chromatic lick near the end, where you have to use the open D-string? Hope you understand what i mean.

sorry, another thing, where can i obtain partitures (tablatures better, i don't read music very well) of the other cello suites?

The chromatic lick alternating with the D? I just fret the D, and each other note. D the with my index finger and the other notes with the other 3. The exception is the G in that lick, which I barre.

Hope that's clear.

As far as tabs, I don't know. The Bach is excellent for learning to read music, tho, as the rhythms are relatively easy.

Good luck

Actually it's wonderfully easy to play on a 4-string, without transposing, so long as you have 24 frets.

Kinda like

G|--0----16-14--16----16------0-----16-14--16----16-----|
D|----12--------------12----12-----12-------------12----12--|

i assume on the mp3 that was posted that you're tapping out the line correct? or are you playing open strings and fretting up high....very impressed either way =)

Originally posted by Zjarrett
i assume on the mp3 that was posted that you're tapping out the line correct? or are you playing open strings and fretting up high....very impressed either way =)
Nope, no tapping. I'm playing the open D and an open A for those pedals near the end. The open A is an octave lower than written which changes the sound somewhat but is more in keeping with the spirit of the piece since that A was meant to be played on an open string. I remember having a discussion about that with the Libster. It was my assertion that the sequence with the alternating A near the end was actually two voices interweaved. One voice played the pedal A and the other played the melody.

- Dave

Originally posted by Dave Grossman
The open A is an octave lower than written which changes the sound somewhat but is more in keeping with the spirit of the piece since that A was meant to be played on an open string. I remember having a discussion about that with the Libster. It was my assertion that the sequence with the alternating A near the end was actually two voices interweaved. One voice played the pedal A and the other played the melody.

That kind of multiple voice thing, pedal points and counterpoints etc., are everywhere in the suites. That's one of the things that makes them so incredible.

Have you tried playing the A at the correct pitch, sounding it as a harmonic at the twelfth fret of the A string? I believe that will give it the textural quality you want while maintaining the integrity of the line, which should take precedence over anything. And while we're being analytical, the D is the pedal, not the A. Beginning four bars from the end you have G major triadic arpeggios with D in the bass on beats one and three. On beats one and three of the next measure you have A7 with D in the bass. Then, to wrap things up, the bar before the end is D7, with D still in the bass, resolving to the Gmajor chord in the last bar. If you play the A down an octave the arpeggios are pretty much destroyed.

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski That kind of multiple voice thing, pedal points and counterpoints etc., are everywhere in the suites. That's one of the things that makes them so incredible.
Yes! Definitely. Sometimes it isn't obvious when a single melodic line can be phrased to make it more contrapuntal. That is one of the things that makes these works so intriguing. I am always discovering new phrasings that emphasize different counterpoints in the single line passages.

Have you tried playing the A at the correct pitch, sounding it as a harmonic at the twelfth fret of the A string?
I haven't tried the harmonic. I have tried just fretting the note which works but doesn't give me a difference in tonal quality between the unisons that give the line the contrapuntal feel. Perhaps I'll try the harmonic sometime.

I believe that will give it the textural quality you want while maintaining the integrity of the line, which should take precedence over anything.
I don't think that is necessarily the case when playing a transcription for another instrument. There are numerous examples in Bach's own transcriptions where he has changed the octave of a pedal or voice to be more in keeping with the technical capabilities of an instrument. I am quite confident that Bach would have agreed with my decision to play that pedal on the open A since it was an open string that was intended.

And while we're being analytical, the D is the pedal, not the A. Beginning four bars from the end you have G major triadic arpeggios with D in the bass on beats one and three. On beats one and three of the next measure you have A7 with D in the bass. Then, to wrap things up, the bar before the end is D7, with D still in the bass, resolving to the Gmajor chord in the last bar. If you play the A down an octave the arpeggios are pretty much destroyed.

I play the arpeggios in the cadence as-written. Imediately prior to those arpeggios is the section with the D pedal. Prior to that is a section that has an A pedal. It is that A that I play an octave lower.

Check out measures 31-36:

( from http://www.libster.com/ )
http://www.libster.com/lib/bachgmajprel2.gif

You can see that every other note is an A which was undoubtedly meant to be played on the open A string. Likewise, in measures 37-38, the D is meant to be played on an open string. My change is to measures 31-36 where I play that A an octave lower. It emphasizes the fact that there are really two intertwining lines there. It also lets me play the melody of the primary line such that the notes ring longer than their notated value. Similarly for the pedal line. I also believe that this is what was intended and it is how I hear it played in the recorded versions I have.

Here's the clip again.

http://www.unpronounceable.com/audio/1007-prelude-071099.mp3

- Dave

I've got to disagree about one thing here. The open A has to be the same pitch as the stopped A. That's why playing it an octave up makes so much sense. I use the 14th fret on the G string and the 9th on the C string. This gives true pitch and the change in tambre required to show the counterpoint in the line. This is also how Patitucci played it on his recording of the piece. I think the open A an octave lower makes it to abrupt.

Course that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by Pacman
I've got to disagree about one thing here. The open A has to be the same pitch as the stopped A. That's why playing it an octave up makes so much sense. I use the 14th fret on the G string and the 9th on the C string. This gives true pitch and the change in tambre required to show the counterpoint in the line. This is also how Patitucci played it on his recording of the piece. I think the open A an octave lower makes it to abrupt.Course that's just my opinion.

If you're playing the whole piece an octave higher, then definitely. In the 6th suite there is an E pedal section which I play in that manner. However, I play the work an octave lower as written ( which is normally how bass is read from bass clef anyway ) so stretching from the 12th fret on the A string to the 7th fret on the D string isn't very easy for me. I tried playing it that way and it was just too painful and difficult to play well.

I think that playing the A an octave lower is fine. There are many places in the solo violin and cello works where there are unisons that can't be played properly and where dropping one of the unisons an octave works out very nicely. It is a better alternative then dropping one of the voices altogether. Or, in this case, playing the same string and fret for both voices.

Remember, if Bach was doing the transcription, he would make many many more changes so dropping a note an octave is really a trivial change.

Try comparing the 3rd Solo Violin partita to the Lute Suite in E minor or similarly for the 5th Cello Suite and the Lute Suite in G minor. Or even more drastic, the keyboard transcriptions of the 2nd Violin Sonata and the Adagio from the 3rd Sonata.

Philip Hii has written up something about Bach's method of transcription at:

http://www.delmar.edu/music/bachtran.html

- Dave

Originally posted by Dave Grossman
I play the arpeggios in the cadence as-written. Imediately prior to those arpeggios is the section with the D pedal. Prior to that is a section that has an A pedal. It is that A that I play an octave lower.

Check out measures 31-36:

You can see that every other note is an A which was undoubtedly meant to be played on the open A string. Likewise, in measures 37-38, the D is meant to be played on an open string. My change is to measures 31-36 where I play that A an octave lower. It emphasizes the fact that there are really two intertwining lines there. It also lets me play the melody of the primary line such that the notes ring longer than their notated value. Similarly for the pedal line. I also believe that this is what was intended and it is how I hear it played in the recorded versions I have.

It would have never occured to me those were the bars you were referring to.

I'm not familiar with the examples of Bach changing octaves to suit a note. I am however very familiar with bass transcriptions of music written for other instruments. In my experience preference has always gone to maintaining the integrity of the line and sacrificing the textural nuance you're talking about. I think it's the much lesser of two evils. The other option would be to play it in a different key that gives you the open stings you want, or tune your bass differently. With a light or possibly a medium-light guage string, you could tune the first sting up to A.

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski
I'm not familiar with the examples of Bach changing octaves to suit a note. I am however very familiar with bass transcriptions of music written for other instruments. In my experience preference has always gone to maintaining the integrity of the line and sacrificing the textural nuance you're talking about. I think it's the much lesser of two evils. The other option would be to play it in a different key that gives you the open stings you want, or tune your bass differently. With a light or possibly a medium-light guage string, you could tune the first sting up to A.

I used to tune my C string down to an A but found that in convenient so I then moved to playing that A an octave lower which I liked better than any of the alternatives. Technically, the lower A has a harmonic component an octave higher so it is really kinda like I'm just adding an extra note in addition to the normal note. :D

I have studied Bach's music and his transcriptions for a while now and dropping a pedal an octave is nothing compared to some of the things he has done when moving a piece to a new instrument. He will often drop a voice an octave or even add a completely new voice to a piece. He will always add more notes if the new instrument is capable of playing more notes. He even added an entire orchestra to the Preludio of the 3rd Violin Partita. I don't think he would think that my change hurt the piece any.

For what it's worth, that is the only change I make in that piece. For the 6th Suite, I do another octave drop of a unison A in the beginning of the suite. Although, I have experimented with playing the same A but picking it differently so it sounds like a different voice. I haven't decided how I want to approach that one yet.

- Dave

Actually, Bach frequently wrote outside the range of the instruments available during his time, viz. keyboard and lute stuff. It almost seems like he was anticipating the development of new instruments...

Originally posted by Dave Grossman
I have studied Bach's music and his transcriptions for a while now and dropping a pedal an octave is nothing compared to some of the things he has done when moving a piece to a new instrument. He will often drop a voice an octave or even add a completely new voice to a piece. He will always add more notes if the new instrument is capable of playing more notes. He even added an entire orchestra to the Preludio of the 3rd Violin Partita. I don't think he would think that my change hurt the piece any.

I read the article you pointed to in your other post, and I see two problems with how your using it to support your position. First, what Bach did with those pieces cited is really more recomposition than transcription. Secondly, the purpose of the recomposition was, one, to make the piece more idiomatic for the instrument, and two, to update the work to reflect his own development as a composer. It's been a few years since I read it, but I believe Albert Schweitzer made reference to this in his two volume biography of Bach and study of his music.

I've been studying the third suite on db for about two years. The question of changing the register of something has never come up.

As a footnote: you mention the sixth suite, did you know that was written for a 5-stringed cello of Bach's own invention?

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski
I read the article you pointed to in your other post, and I see two problems with how your using it to support your position. First, what Bach did with those pieces cited is really more recomposition than transcription.
I see the difference between recomposition and transcription as rather hazy. The works BWV 995 and BWV 1006a are pretty much always called transcriptions even though they both include aspects of what might be termed 'recomposition'. At what point does a transcription become recomposition? Recomposition implies a more extensive renovation of a work but even works that have been heavily renovated like the Sinfonia to Cantata 29 which is based on the Preludio to the 3rd Violin Partita are still called transcriptions. I hesitate to call my versions transcriptions. I think of them of arrangements since I am mostly just changing the instrumentation. There are only a handful of places in the half-dozen or so works I have been working on that require any changes and another handful of places where I double a note with the note an octave lower or higher. For example, the begginning and ending of Partita No. 2 in D minor fo Solo Violin. Although it is possible to play the unison D's, I find it is more dramatic to bookmark that piece with the unisons *and* an octave doubling. In the Allemande of the 6th Suite, I double a low C with a note an octave higher since the low C on the bass doesn't seem to work as well on its own.

Secondly, the purpose of the recomposition was, one, to make the piece more idiomatic for the instrument, and two, to update the work to reflect his own development as a composer.

I think that making the piece more idiomatic for the instrument is exactly what I was doing by transposing a voice that was meant to be on an open string down an octave to a point where it can be played on an open string. Bach's use of open string pedals is all over the Solo Cello and Violin works. In many cases, it is possible to play them on at two different strings but in other cases, you can't. One then has to make a decision to respect the exact notation or respect the intent. I don't think there is any question as to whether these notes were meant to be played on open strings or not.

When I come across situations like this, I agonize over how to deal with it. I would love to play it exactly as written but in some cases I would have to resort to retuning, just living with voices that cross at the unison using the same fretted note, or playing the notes high enough on the fretboard such that I can stretch the unison. In some cases, transposing a voice down an octave is a better solution. There are other examples where I have tried every option.

When I first learned this piece about 6 years ago, I did it with my high-C tuned to an A. Since the only place in the first suite that this helped me any was in that one passage, I decided to tune normally and play that note an octave lower.

I've been studying the third suite on db for about two years. The question of changing the register of something has never come up.
What score do you work from? The double-bass editions I have seen do depart from the original in many movements.

Try the sixth suite sometime. How would you play the triplets with the fretted A alternating with an open A? I still don't know whether I should try play the open A an octave lower on an open string or just pluck it differently to give the illusion of a different voice. I've even tried doing the 7th-12th fret stretch but that doesn't work well either.

As a footnote: you mention the sixth suite, did you know that was written for a 5-stringed cello of Bach's own invention?
Some say that it was written for a Viola Pomposa which is said to have been invented by Bach. Others say that it was written for a 5-string Violoncello Piccolo. I don't think that anybody knows for sure. All the recordings I have use a standard 4-string Cello or 5-string Violoncello Piccolo ( pictured below ).

http://www.jsbach.net/images/violoncello-piccolo.jpg

One last word in my defense. Check out measures 40-43 in the Fugue in G minor for Lute BWV 1000 ( this is a difficult score to find its original version. guitar versions might not have this change ). You can see that in measures 40 and 41, the pedal D is played as normal but is then dropped an octave in measures 42 and 43. In the original version for violin, this note stays at the same pitch for the duration. I presume that this change was made to facilitate playing it more idiomatically on the Lute. Although it has been argued that this transcription was not done by Bach, it was certainly done with someone who knew what they were doing.

Check out my Bach Works Catalog at: http://www.jsbach.net/catalog/index.html which has hyperlinks between works that were transcriptions of other works.

Dave

Originally posted by Dave Grossman
What score do you work from? The double-bass editions I have seen do depart from the original in many movements.

Try the sixth suite sometime. How would you play the triplets with the fretted A alternating with an open A? I still don't know whether I should try play the open A an octave lower on an open string or just pluck it differently to give the illusion of a different voice. I've even tried doing the 7th-12th fret stretch but that doesn't work well either.

I have the Bernat ed., the Sterling, and the Fritz Gaillard cello ed.; and I also have access to a cello edition my teacher has which I think is Rostropovich. I've found mistakes in different places of both bass editions, and I recall places in the Sterling where there was either a big mistake or the harmony was just plain changed. The cello editions are the ultimate authority.
They all (bass and cello eds.) have trills and grace notes marked in different places, but those I believe are a matter of peronal expression or artistry. What the bass editions are notoriously bad for are bowings. I use the given bowings as a suggestion but work out my own.

One of the problems with any edition of the suites is that it's ultimately just a transcription of how that particular performer played it. Some of it I believe is common performance practice and parts personal. The arguement over interpretation is age-old.

I tried checking out your site but got a message that the server was down. I'll try it later, I'm looking forward to seeing it. You seem to have a lot of knowledge on Bach.

Let me know which part (mvmnt, measure #'s) of the sixth suite you're referring to so I don't have go hunting for it.

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski
I have the Bernat ed., the Sterling, and the Fritz Gaillard cello ed.; and I also have access to a cello edition my teacher has which I think is Rostropovich. I've found mistakes in different places of both bass editions, and I recall places in the Sterling where there was either a big mistake or the harmony was just plain changed. The cello editions are the ultimate authority.
You should check out Baerenreiter's new edition at:
http://www.baerenreiter.com/6suites.htm

For each part that is different between the known sources, they show you what the differences are right in the score!

They all (bass and cello eds.) have trills and grace notes marked in different places, but those I believe are a matter of peronal expression or artistry. What the bass editions are notoriously bad for are bowings. I use the given bowings as a suggestion but work out my own.
Additionally, the slurs are generally inaccurate.

It is unfortunate that we don't have an authoritative source for the Cello Suites as we do in the original autograph manuscript for the Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin.

One of the problems with any edition of the suites is that it's ultimately just a transcription of how that particular performer played it. Some of it I believe is common performance practice and parts personal. The arguement over interpretation is age-old.
The only versions I work from now are the urtext editions which don't include any additions by a particular performer. Of course, there is always some interpretation of which source is used in various sections but the new Baerenreiter edition makes it easy to choose your own interpretation.

I tried checking out your site but got a message that the server was down. I'll try it later, I'm looking forward to seeing it. You seem to have a lot of knowledge on Bach.
Thanks. It seems to be up now. To be honest, I don't know nearly as much about Bach as a person as I do about his music.

Let me know which part (mvmnt, measure #'s) of the sixth suite you're referring to so I don't have go hunting for it.
measures 12-13 of the Prelude are where I have been experimenting with lowering the pedal A an octave so I can play it on an open string. Unfortunately, in this case, it doesn't work as well as it does in the first suite since the opening of the movement provides a strong reinforcement for playing it at the written pitch.

measures 23-32, I mostly play the pedal E on the 14th fret of the D string. I have experimented with the pedal on the 9th fret of the G string but other considerations make it more practical and consistant sounding to play it on the 14th fret. A few of those notes are played on the 9th fret though. I have gone through numerous iterations of how to play that section and will probably revise it again sometime.

measures 70-74, I play the first A as a harmonic which allows me to let it ring while I play the rest of the figure. I have also considered playing it as just an open A an octave lower which also works well. There's no reason why this note can't be played normally. I just like the effect it has when it is allowed to ring over the other notes. I think that this can be done on the Cello.

In measure 89, I play the first 6 notes as F D E F E D instead of F E D E F D because I really think that the existing part of that line is a mistake. It just doesn't sound right in relation to the rest of the line. Also, it breaks up the symmetry that is so prevalent in this work. Although, I have never seen an edition that makes this 'correction'. It is just my own theory that it is a mistake.

In the 3rd measure of the second part of the Allemande, I double the low C an octave higher. The low C on a Cello has more higher harmonics than it does on the bass so I think that is why it works fine on the cello but doesn't seem quite right on the bass. By adding the octave, I think I am supporting the intent of the work by emphasizing a harmonic component that is really already there in the original version.

In the last measure of the second part of the Allemande, I double the first D with a unison which mirrors the doubling of the A in the corresponding measure of the first part of the movement. In the first movement, the unison is changed to an octave with a lower A since playing the unison at that pitch isn't practical and just doesn't sound right when I try to do it with the 7th-12th fret stretch.

- Dave

Originally posted by Dave Grossman
Additionally, the slurs are generally inaccurate.

measures 12-13 of the Prelude are where I have been experimenting with lowering the pedal A an octave so I can play it on an open string. Unfortunately, in this case, it doesn't work as well as it does in the first suite since the opening of the movement provides a strong reinforcement for playing it at the written pitch.

Slurs=bowing

I'd play it on the D string at the 7th semitone and the A string 12th semitone (sorry I just didn't feel right writing fret). Unless you have very small hands that shouldn't be too hard to pull of on the bass guitar.

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski
Slurs=bowing

I thought you meant the additional bowing markings added by editors as opposed to the original markings in the manuscript.

I'd play it on the D string at the 7th semitone and the A string 12th semitone (sorry I just didn't feel right writing fret). Unless you have very small hands that shouldn't be too hard to pull of on the bass guitar.

In and of itself, that unison isn't hard to play. Playing it in context is more difficult and doesn't really work that great anyway. Try it and you'll see what I mean.

- Dave

Originally posted by Dave Grossman
I thought you meant the additional bowing markings added by editors as opposed to the original markings in the manuscript.

In and of itself, that unison isn't hard to play. Playing it in context is more difficult and doesn't really work that great anyway. Try it and you'll see what I mean.

Bow markings, as in marks indicating upbows and downbows, slurs, etc. all fall under the umbrella term "bowings."

Yeah, I know somethings don't appear hard out of context. Good fingerings are crucial, sometimes getting into and out of a lick is harder than the lick itself. I'll try reading through it sometime.

Thanks for all your helpful replies everyone! I've been slowly making my way through it but I've hit the wall again.

I've another wee problem now - the copy I'm working off is from The Libster's web site

http://svc196.bne075v.server-web.com

but the bottom of bars 25-27 is missing. Can someone please confirm whether the following is correct (I'm just guessing at this)

Bar 25

C A D F# / A B C A / B G D C / B G A B

Bar 26

C A B D / G A B A / C# Bb A Bb / Bb A G# A

Bar 27

A G F# G / G E C# B / A C E G / A C# D C#

Thanks again for your help

Dean

can´t be of much help..

But just wanted to say that I´m playing the John Patitucci version of it... although his is for a 6-string and I have a 5-string...

I play it at 15. fret on the G string... never play open strings.. but I wouldn´t be able to play it with fewer frets.... I´ve got 24 frets, and in the end I play at the 24. fret.

maybe I´ll try and record into my pc soon...

I love that song!

:D

Just thought I'd bump this up as I posted when most of you guys are asleep :)

Ta

Dean

Here is a screen cap from my transcription:

http://www.unpronounceable.com/images/25-27.gif

Here's my old recorded version:

http://www.unpronounceable.com/audio/1007-prelude-071099.mp3

Hope this helps.

- Dave

Originally posted by Dave Grossman
http://www.unpronounceable.com/audio/1007-prelude-071099.mp3

Hope this helps.

- Dave

Nice work Dave. I remember playing a transcription of that on classical guitar back in the old prehistoric undergrad days. If I ever get that 6 string bass I'm drooling over, I'll have to check out that transcription.

Chris

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
Nice work Dave. I remember playing a transcription of that on classical guitar back in the old prehistoric undergrad days. If I ever get that 6 string bass I'm drooling over, I'll have to check out that transcription.
Thanks!

The transcription isn't published but I'd be happy to send you a copy for a couple of bucks to handle postage and packaging. I didn't have it totally finalized ( I never finalize things since I'm constantly finding new finger positions that work a little better ) but it should be completely accurate ( as accurate as it can be considering the nature of the source material ).

- Dave

Hi Dave

Thanks a million for your help - I was getting a bit frustrated trying to guess what the notes were so your transcription will be brilliant. Well I guess that's my weekend sorted!!

You're a scholar and a gentleman!!!!

Dean
:)