Bach Chaconne - a question regarding fingering
Can anyone suggest a fingering for the F major arpeggiated chord in bar 116 (Peters edition - Flesch) of the Bach Chaconne? Don't know if it's just me, but it appears to be impossible. In the Flesch edition he suggests 4 on the A, but are you supposed to take the 1st finger off the bottom A in order to play the top F? Seems a bit of a bodge to me. I'd be grateful for any ideas; thanks in advance.
Replies (17)
Yes, you are meant to take the first finger off in order to play the top F. Unless you can contort your hand to play the bottom A with a 2 and keep you first finger on the F!
Yes, I agree with Sam. I have IMC Galamian edition and it is measure 117. Once you play the A on the G string, you no longer need it, so you can move the first finger to the e-string to play the F.
Thanks for that - I'll give that fingering a go, although getting that to sound smooth can't be easy. In the Flesch edition the first arpeggio on that chord uses the bottom A and the second only uses the top three notes (ACF), repeating the top F, which might make it a little easier.
Galamian's arpeggiation is the same as Flesch's--play the A on the G-string only the first time. Same for the next two chords according to Galamian--play the B natural and C on the G-string only the first time. But you should probably play the G-string notes with slightly more weight and length, and play the upper notes more lightly, to bring out the movement of the bass line.
I've actually been tending to look more at the Rust-Trieger edition, which in Peters is printed underneath the Flesch. This notates the arpeggios as chords rather than writing them out in full. Just to clarify things I've just downloaded the manuscript facsimile, which is notated in the same way. It's pretty legible, but nevertheless I've started typing it up in Finale to make it clearer.
When you look at a manuscript from Bach's epoch, it just shows how much of the interpretation is left to the performer. So up until now I've been ignoring Flesch's arpeggiations and improvising them as they come. When I analyse what I'm doing, it seems that I tend to play the three-note chords as sextuplets and the four-note chords as octuplets. For me it seems to work, possibly because it adds variation to the rhythm, suddenly spurring it on a little. But I'd be interested to get other opinions on that.
I do not have the editions referred to above, but I do have the Wiener Urtext Edition. Regarding the playing of broken chords in the Ciaccona and elsewhere, Dagmar Glüxam says in the Introduction:
“As Leopold Mozart explained {Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule p.187}, this kind of broken chord was partly indicated by the composer and partly played by the violinist at his own discretion. Bach's Sei Solo accordingly contain arpeggios with and without instructions on performance (see Ciaccona, bar 89-120 and Sonata I, Fuga, bars 35-41 and Ciaccona bars 201-208). Where no instructions are given, the interpreter may perform the arpeggios at his discretion.“
I notice that in the Wiener Urtext “arpeggio” is printed at bars 89 and 201 in the Ciaccona, and in the Fuga of Sonata I at bar 35 there is an asterisked instruction to play the passage as arpeggioed chords.
An arpeggio interpretation may also be applied to some chordal passages in Bach's Cello Suites, notably the last line of the Prelude to Suite Nr II in D Minor, although I have heard several interpretations of this passage where the performer has preferred to use struck chords. In my opinion either is valid, but the choice may depend on how the rest of the Prelude is interpreted.
I do it the way Sam and Smiley have suggested. After playing the A on the G string with first finger, you lift it and use it to play the F on the E string.
Okay, I'll get practising!
A further question as regards interpretation: there are very few ornaments written in the manuscript, whereas in many Bach works, particularly for keyboard, he specified the ornamentation he wanted; was it normal at the time for players to add embelishments following their own whims? I'm not really that bothered about 'authentic' performance, but just wonder how far one can take things before it starts abusing the composer's original wishes. Any thoughts?
I have nothing to add regarding the F-major chord. But I find the question of the way to apply the arpeggio interesting. What are you thinking about the idea that bach gave us the idea with printing out the first quarter in bar 89 ciaccona in demisemiquaver?
My point is, that this section is for my taste always overinterpretated in the form that interprets change rhythm and ligatur too much so that the big harmonic development is interrupted.
While some interprets stick to the demisemiquaver rhythm even with the 4-note chords and reach a very high clarity even in the middle voices. (for example the old recording of Y. Menuhin) Some others, like Nathan Milstein (who's Bach I love very much), change in this Arpeggio passage 2 or even 3 times the rhythmic Bow pattern and for my taste destroy the flow of that incredible expressive orchestral sounding place.
I am talking only about the Ciaccona Bar 89 until bar 120 Bärenreiter urtext edition (quite similar to facsimile)
Sacha, you should probably start a new discussion topic for your question on Bach ornamentation. There may be a number of contributors who might have constructive thoughts on this topic but who won't notice that you've changed the subject from the fingering of a specific chord in the Chaconne. And I share your interest in the ornamentation question.
Simon, I completely agree with you about over-interpretation of this arpeggio section; the temptation is always there to make it sound virtuoso at the expense of musicality. If it's well played it shouldn't come across to the listener as being difficult; if it sounds difficult to the listener it probably means that the performer finds it difficult. So fair enough that perhaps the arpeggiation that Bach notated in bar 89 is what should be followed - it keeps it clear and simple, not too fast and furious and not over-embellished. Unfortunately Bach never suggested how the 4-note chords should be arpeggiated. If you continue with demisemiquavers you have to repeat the top note on the descent which inevitably changes the pattern and to my ear at least sounds a bit odd. So what I've started to do is to play demisemiquavers until the first 4-note chord (A7 - bar 103 in the manuscript), then, by playing all the 4-note chords as triplet demisemiquavers, take advantage of the natural increase in pace by sticking to that and playing all the following 3-note chords as triplet demisemiquavers also, repeating the top note of each for the descent. Maybe it doesn't work for everyone, but it's the most logical solution I've found. Good idea, Bill, I'll post the ornamentaion question on another thread.
The four note chords I like most to play, u probably guessed it, in demisemiquavers ;) playing the D-G Strings together the rest stays the same. on the 5th demisemiquaver one can choose wether to play just the d string or repeat the bass note and play G-D together. To me the triplet pattern sounds nice too, but I don't like the transition, it is difficult to get it smooth. I also think one has to find a musically logical place for the transition into triplets, not necessarily taking the first 4 Note chord on the 3rd beat to change the pattern, you know what I mean? One danger of going into triplets is also to loose tempo wich should be very steady in my opinion. I am just looking at the score and wondering how you finger the chord on the 3rd beat bar 105? I use open strings and put the c down with the stringcrossing to A-String. On the 5th demisemiquaver (is there an easier word in english? in german it is 32-tel ;) I play again open A. I wonder if someone plays the quint with fourth finger or something!?
good night or day, whatever time you have!
I know what you mean about the transition - it worries me too; think I'll try your way to see how it sounds.
The F maj chord 3rd beat bar 105 I do with 4th on the D and A, 2nd on C and first on F, but it's a bit of a squeeze, particularly as I have quite large fingers, and doesn't always sound that clear. Don't think I have the bow/left-hand co-ordination to put down the C at the right time! Although that's probably easier to co-ordinate if you're playing everything in demisemiquavers.
Think the Americans call a demisemiquaver a 32nd note, but it's only one syllable less anyway.
Reckon in France we're in the same time zone as you.
I like your current business! i love french cheese and wine! I have been in beaune and nantes once, playing on streets for cheese and wine :)!
chaconne´s fingering is hard to figure, i try and try and try...
Hey if anyone have a pdf with the right fingering please send to me, i reaally need it!
My email is vinicius_2_93@hotmail.com
I remove the 1st finger after accentuating the A (bass line) and play two arpeggios (triplets) on the top three strings, Schott Edition. You will need the 1st finger to execute the F natural, but can then leave it in place for the following chord.
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins
Subscribe
Laurie's Books
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine
August 5, 2011 at 08:28 PM ·
Hi, it would be helpful if you posted an image of the chord. If that is not possible, then perhaps you can list each note in the chord. I don't have the music handy, but I believe I've made it through that section.