Talk:Cello Suites (Bach)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reqmusic[edit]

Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite #1 (BWV 1007), movement 1 (prelude) - mutopia sheet music available here

Viola pomposa[edit]

I thought the sixth suite was for the "viola pomposa", not the violoncello piccolo...? 68.6.190.89 08:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Andrew[reply]

This opinion is HIGHLY controversial. There is valid evidence both for and against, and the discussion is ongoing in the early music community. The opinion about what instrument the suites were written for (stated by Kuijken in the cited article) is simply an opinion and it absolutely should not be treated as fact in this article. It is simply incorrect to state that this smaller instrument is what was considered a "cello" at the time. This needs to be changed.

I know there is another name for the violoncello piccolo and that is the "viola da spalla". My name on the Dutch Wiki is Celloman


Umm- why is there only a listing for suite no. 1? I guess I'll put the rest up someday- hopefully within the next week, if I have time. :) Flcelloguy 13:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


i can't seem to edit this page. anyone else having a problem?tej 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

suite 1: experimental?[edit]

"It should be safe to assume that Bach was still experimenting in writing for solo cello when producing this Suite, since it is technically easier to play than any of the other suites."

do you have a source for this? i would be comfortable with more speculative wording about this unless you have specific scholarship to point to. it doesn't seem like a logical consequence of the relative simplicity of the G major suite that it was necessarily in any way an experiment in cello writing. thanks for the comments about all the suites!tej 00:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks 83.226.214.112 for your edits! I agree with tej here, and I've removed the part about the first suite--firstly, to my knowledge no evidence exists to suggest the chronology of the suites, (as I mention in one of the main paragraphs), and secondly, to assume it was written before the others simply on the grounds of compositional simplicity is rather dubious in my opinion.
By the way, please take your time to signup to Wikipedia. Best wishes, Lambyuk 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm 83.226.214.112, and have now registered to this amazing service under the nick Miffopro (if anyone here ever visits the Internet Cello Society Forums, you might recognize me). First, I apologise for the part about the 1st suite in G-major could be assumed to be an experiment in writing for cello, which was an unfounded statement in every way possible. Thank you Lambyuk, for removing it. But being a cellist myself, as well as being acquainted with many other cellists, I stand by my statement about the G-major suite being technically easier to play than the others, even the 3rd suite in C-major. When studying cello, most students begin with the G-major suite for that very reason. Both technically and musically I think it functions better than the others as an introduction to Bach's musical languange and common technical issues on the cello (apart from being a great musical work on its own, of course). The rythmics are not as complicated, great tonal leaps and string crossings are not as common, the left hand positions more comfortably calculated, and each movement is more coherent. I don't know either if this suite was in fact written before the others, but regardless of that I can very well imagine that it was written as a sort of introduction to the others, although I'm not historically informed enough to prove such a theory.
Even within the suite itself I see a build-up pattern, where one could say the Prelude warms up your right hand, the bowing, with its constant flowing arpeggios, and the following Allemande warms up your left hand with its very scale based movement, before the more complicated note reading starts in the following Courante. The Sarabande then fine-tunes your chord intonation. All this within the fantastic music that comes out. If any of this is worth putting in the article, let me know. :) Botten upp! Miffopro , 11:00, 23 Januari 2006
Added a sentence re. student study under the G major subsection. :) Lambyuk 14:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello :) Does somebody remember that Suite 1 was used in Adidas Torsion advert in 1990? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.88.210.84 (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Keys[edit]

This is not exclusive to this article, but what's the wiki protocol for musical keys? I always assumed it was capital letter for major, and lower case for minor. This is what you find in music programs of professional orchestras, and it is the same on classical music CD's. I've always felt that "D major" was repetitive, and my guess is that professional musicians would frown on the method of labelling used in this article. - Darkhawk

I don't think it matters that much in English. In German it's always G-Dur and e-moll, but I've seen "D major" on plenty of programs and records. --Quadalpha 21:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D Major, D minor. That's english. Justin Tokke 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[edit]

Can I have permission to translate the text of this great work for the cello from Bach. My username on the Dutch Wikipedia is : Celloman .

Go right ahead! I don't think you need permission at all. It's certainly a good article. Sandover 04:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editions?[edit]

Should there be information on different editions of the suites? While I realize there are dozens of editions by later cellists, there should probably at least be some information on the Magdalena Bach, Kellner, and Westphal manuscripts. If someone has access to such sources, that would be great; unfortunately, I don't. Adso de Fimnu 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have photostat copies of the editions you mention, but Wikipedia doesn't particulary like original research. What sort of things were you interested in? Lambyuk 18:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to include information on the main sources (of which Anna is only one). This is especially pressing since most editions actually include many parts of Kellner's source (usually without comment!) since they are more musical and seemingly without error. Anna's source has many errors. There's a dissertation that argues that Kellner is superior source. Given all this, Wikipedia really needs to at least mention the other sources and mention their discrepancies. Otherwise, you are misrepresenting the issue involving these works. – ishwar  (speak) 21:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribed for...[edit]

A while ago Lambyuk removed most of the instruments listed as having transcriptions of the suites, but various people keep adding more. I think this is a little silly, as it doesn't really matter whether there's an arrangement for (say) zither or kazoo. What does anyone else think? Adso de Fimnu 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suite 3[edit]

The thumb position is not strictly speaking mandatory to play the Prelude from measures 47 onward, but allows easier and more consistent playing by playing each chord note on a different string and by reducing the number of big position shifts while playing. The thumb position is marked in for instance the Bärenreiter version of the 6 cello solo suites (ISMN 979-0-006-40139-0, 1950), see page 17 starting from measure 74, where the C is played in 4th position on the D string and the D is played with the thumb on the A string so bigger portions can be played without leaving 4th position. A more experienced cellist may correct me. shutterfreak 21:25, 03 Nov 2011 (UTC)

Suite 4[edit]

It says that the second Bourree is notated in G minor. Yes, but it is in C minor. The reason being is because there was a different system for key signatures in the baroque and earlier times. Minor keys had one less flat (or one more sharp) than we know today. Should this be mentioned? Justin Tokke 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely no need to mention that the second Bourree is notated in G minor; toward-C (I guess one might call it) notation (actually, it was, I think, generally and often one less flat or one less sharp- bringing the notated key one fifth towards C, so that the rare E major work would have only 3 sharps in the key signature, e.g., not 5... and C major/A minor just stayed put,nothing added or subtracted) - this was - not invariable but - fairly standard practice. Maybe mention it on the major/minor page or some page (or the Baroque music era page?... hrm...- it did last a bit into the early Classical-- even the early Romantic period I think- if you count a movement that produced certain very retrograde liturgical works... - a thread of history that ... er... BIG tangent!...) - erm... right. Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suite 6[edit]

Other possible instruments for the suite include a version of the violoncello piccolo played on the arm like a viola, as well as a five-stringed normal sized cello, called a viola pomposa. As the range required in this piece is very large, the suite was probably intended for a larger instrument, although it is conceivable that Bach—who was fond of the viola—may have performed the work himself on an arm-held violoncello piccolo.

This does not agree with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viola_pomposa. The viola-pomposa is played on the arm, whereas the violoncello piccolo is played like a cello (sometimes disputed, but generally assumed to be true)... Or maybe I'm wrong? Someone with more information may want to look into this.


I looked it up in Oxford Music, and the viola pomposa was indeed similar to a modern viola, with the addition of an E string. I will change the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.60.220 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sample performances[edit]

I have a question about the performance samples. Early in the article it says that different interpretations are "fiercely defended" by their advocates, so I was curious as to why all the samples are by the same cellist. I edit on WP, but came to this article to read more about the suites and would have liked to compare/contrast different interpretations after seeing that bit about interpretative differences, so my question is, wouldn't it be a good idea to put up performance samples by at least one other cellist, Yo-Yo Ma, for example?--TEHodson 02:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you entered the text above, there was a notice below the edit box which pointed out that you "release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." If you find recordings of the suites where the copyright holder releases them under this license, they can be uploaded to Wikipedia/Wikimedia; else, not. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I quite understand what that means, but I take it you're saying that the ones on the article are the only ones allowed due to copyright issues. I have seen sound files on recording artists' pages, so thought that there are circumstances under which samples are allowed where there is no for-profit motive. Oh well.--TEHodson 05:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suite 5[edit]

Yo Yo Ma played the Sarabande from the first suite on September 11, 2002, not the Sarabande from the 5th suite. Here is video of the the sarabande from suite 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoJHd6VxE-4 I do not have definitive proof that he did not also play the sarabande from the 5th suite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.219.60 (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pre-1720[edit]

Trying to locate information on this; I think I've sort-of located a recent article that infers a 1718/1719 date from Bach's acquaintance with a Berlin cellist in that period prior to his return to Cöthen in 1720 (where, the argument goes, insufficient cellists who were good enough to play the suites are known to have been around to have inspired such comparatively difficult writing)- and presumably some other arguments (if that's all it seems a fairly weak reed, though admittedly not nothing.) ... Will have to look further, though. Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

Shouldn't this article use "suites" instead of "Suites" in its title? Did Bach actually give a collective title to these works? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as Orchestral suites (Bach). What Bach called them would not count here anyway, "this is the English Wikipedia". (See Wagner.) Anna Magdalena called them "Suites a Violoncello Solo senza Basso". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHERE are the refs for the Structure section of this article????[edit]

ANYONE????Coal town guy (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before we proceed, please see WP:SHOUT. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Someone, anyone, might want to look at WP:CITE. A total paraphrasing with no refs of the structure section caused me great concern. I very much enjoy playing and listening to these pieces. It seems ironic, that I had to insert a diagram showing the parts of the cello in the cello article, which was a former good article......Imagine my delight and thrill when, I printed a hard copy of the Structure sections of this article and read a few passages from various texts at Google books as well as my own notations and music copies. The entire section is not ref'd, needs to be ref'd. Again, and with utmost respect, I would love to do the refs, I thought that asking the question would cause anyoine to say, golly, why is this person so concerned. I am concerned because, the whole thing reads like a RCA Victor cover sleeve. Yes, I actually still play vinyl, egad.......WE will not begin anything, ANYONE can insert the refs or you can or I can. Dont like it? I just thought that it is glaringly obviousCoal town guy (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suite 1[edit]

I'm a new Wikipedia user, so forgive me if this question is dumb - but why is there so little content about Suite 1 (arguably the most famous of all the suites, at least according to the page itself) other than the Prelude? Shouldn't there be more content about the other works in the suite? Stara729 (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WIP and WP:BB. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of movements[edit]

This article should be listing the movements for each individual suite.

84.215.230.213 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Cello Suites (Bach) => Cello Suites no disambiguation needed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC).

Britten wrote important cello suites, - it also looks like a article on cello suites in general without "Bach", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I generally strongly support removal of unnecessary disambiguators, but as there is an article Cello suites (Britten) (and there must be more potential articles), having Cello Suites as a title for this article title seems unwise. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox?[edit]

We could tell the reader at a glance a bit more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spammy list of cellists?[edit]

Pardon my uncouthness, but I have never heard of the following "renowned" cellists who are listed as having recorded the suites: Emanuel Feuermann, Pierre Fournier, André Navarra, Gregor Piatigorsky, Mischa Maisky, János Starker, Anner Bijlsma and Heinrich Schiff. Am I just an ignorant booby, or can some of them go? Plus I can think of more famous cellists who probably recorded (Lynn Harrell?) but are not listed ... -- Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I went ahead and trimmed it to four rather incontrovertible major cellists of our time. Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belated response to original comment[edit]

I am assuming you are referring to the third paragraph in the History section of the article, Softlavender? I do not think the list of cellists about which you complained was actually spammy. The current shorter list, containing just Rostropovich, Tortelier, Starker, and Ma is perhaps more problematic. Though indisputably one of the greatest cellists of the twentieth century, Rostropovich was not known for his Bach, and many fans believe his recording of the suites is not a highlight of his discography. I believe too that Tortelier's Bach is not considered especially significant. All of the cellists you cut from the list have huge reputations, and at least two of them are especially known for their recordings of the Bach Suites: Pierre Fournier and Anner Bijlsma. I think this paragraph needs some work, which I would be happy to undertake, if I don't see any valid complaints. --HenryPurcell (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More sources[edit]

Here are some more sources to cull if anyone wants to. This is obviously not exhaustive; just some things I picked up along the way:

-- Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cello Suites (Bach). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The History section of this article contatins this very problematic, unsourced statement: "However, scholars generally believe that—based on a comparative analysis of the styles of the sets of works—the cello suites arose first, effectively dating the suites earlier than 1720, the year on the title page of Bach's autograph of the violin sonatas." No citation is given, and I am personally not aware of prominent scholars who have stated that cello suites likely were written before the violin solos. I believe the consensus is that they were written at about the same time (ca. 1720), and that the stylistic differences reflect Bach's nuanced way of addressing the different instruments. Schissel wrote in 2013 in the Talk section above called pre-1720 where Schissel mentioned having heard something about 1718 or 1719, but I do not see any follow up. HenryPurcell (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third Paragraph of this Article (on the history of the reception of the suites) needs work[edit]

The third paragraph of this article begins with a sentence that is full of unsupported, questionable statements.It says:

"Due to the works' technical demands, étude-like nature, and difficulty in interpretation because of the non-annotated nature of the surviving copies, the cello suites were little known and rarely publicly performed until they were revived and recorded by Pablo Casals in the early 20th century."

  1. Many would disagree and it would be hard to prove that the suites are étude like.
  2. By saying "because of the non-annotated nature of the surviving copies" it misleading suggests that if other sources, for example an autograph, did survive that they would have more annotation. Bach's own mss. of other pieces did not have more "annotation" than the surviving copy of the suites made by Anna Magdalena Bach.
  3. It's hard to document that the suites were little known, when there were more than 50 different editions published between about 1824 and 1900.
  4. As for Casals's role in revival of the suites, it was certainly large, but the above sentence overstates it.

This sentence really needs to be replaced. I would be happy to write it, if others agree with me.

--HenryPurcell (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on all counts. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to elaborate, Softlavender? As for my points above:

  1. Other than having no accompaniment, Bach's suites bear little resemblance to pieces called études.
  2. The surviving ms. copies of these suites are no less "annotated" than other music that survives by Bach, including the pieces that survive in his own hand. The way the above-referenced sentence from the article is worded, it would suggest that the cello suites as they survived were less annotated than other music, such as the violin sonatas and partias, or the keyboard music, which just is not the case.
  3. It is misleading to say that the suites were not well known (prior to Casals) when at least nine different editions were published between 1825 and 1888, about the time Casals is said to have bought his copy of the Grützmacher edition from a music shop in Barcelona.
  4. Casals deserves some credit in the revival of the suites, but so do the others, including cellists such as Dotzauer and Grützmacher.

The current sentence in the Wikipedia article seems to perpetuate myths, and add further confusion, rather than to sum up the current state of scholarly knowledge. --HenryPurcell (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References in this Wikipedia article[edit]

Many of the citations in this article are to sources of little scholarly authority. One particular example is Siblin's book. While it might make for engaging reading and succeed in broadening interest in Bach's music, much of the book's content is not rigorously accurate.

Things get even trickier, when a review of this book by a reviewer without apparent specialist knowledge is used as a source, not for information about the Siblin's book, but about Bach's actual music. I therefore replaced the following misleading text: "in addition, some of the suites were written for four strings, and some for five", which is not accurate, since exactly one suite was written for a five-string instrument, with the following more detailed statement: "additionally, while four of the suites are written for a four-stringed instrument in the standard tuning, the fifth suite employs a variant tuning, and the sixth suite was written for an instrument with five strings." The text I replaced made reference to a NYT book review, Janet Maslin. "Bewitched by Bach, Bewildered by His Masterpiece" The New York Times, November 30, 2009, which did support the inaccurate information that was previously in our article, so I deleted the citation as well. The information I have added to the article does not strictly speaking need source. It is widely known in the literature on the suites. If someone wants a citation there, it should be a reference to Anna Magdalena Bach's manuscript of the suites. --HenryPurcell (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cöthen[edit]

I'm prepared, in a footnote, to give a list of 4 important musicological works in English where the "Cöthen usage" is standardized, but I'm not sure the best way to go about this. Can anyone help? Gerda, you've read the comments on my talk page where I list the 4 important works in question, so perhaps you could aid me in forming these into a useful side-note? --Alphaten (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of important musicological works in English. There is no reason not to use the correct spelling of Köthen in this wiki article.
I think the discussion - if needed - would be better on the talk of the composer. This particlular article is just one written there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editions[edit]

I miss a section about editions of the music, coming from the Main page which says that Edmund Kurtz made an edition published in 1983, and the article - sadly not the Main page - adds that it has a facsimile of A. M. Bach's manuscript opposite each page. Worth mentioning, but I hesitate to do it is a stand-alone section without contect. My knowledge is zero, unfortunately. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I gave it a start, - finding a bit strange that "Arrangements" is a subsection of Manuscripts, but not wanting to touch this too much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Connections to fractal geometry[edit]

Hello. How does the community feel about adding a section with a brief description of the rigorous connection between the cello suites and fractal geometry?

FULL DISCLOSURE: I appear to be the only researcher who has published on this subject.

FWIW, I believe this connection says something fundamental about Bach's sense of melody (though I would not include this observation in the proposed section). The research itself was an outgrowth of my work with Benoit Mandelbrot and Michael Frame at Yale and was published in the journal Fractals. If there is a consensus to add a short section, these are the references I would propose using:

[1][2][3]

GiantSteps (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be properly considered for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, references generally need to be secondary sources. Direct interpretation of WP:Primary sources qualifies as WP:Original research, and more generally speaking, secondary sources help establish the notability of research and the degree to which it is considered mainstream. StereoFolic (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brothers, Harlan J. (2007). "Structural Scaling in Bach's Cello Suite No. 3". Fractals. 15: 89–95. doi:10.1142/S0218348X0700337X.
  2. ^ Brothers, Harlan J. (2009). "Intervallic Scaling In The Bach Cello Suites". Fractals. 17: 537–545. doi:10.1142/S0218348X09004521.
  3. ^ Ornes, Stephen (2014). "Science and Culture: Hunting fractals in the music of J. S. Bach". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111: 10393. doi:10.1073/pnas.1410330111.

Interpololation regarding authorship[edit]

I removed from the section Cello_Suites_(Bach)#Speculations_about_Anna_Magdalena_Bach the following, which was poorly formatted but more seriously is unsourced:

Georg Heinrich Ludwig Schwanberg has written on the title page, circa 1730 : "Pars 1. | Violino Solo | Composée | par | Sr. Jean Seb: Bach. | Pars 2. | Violoncello Solo. | Senza Basso. | composée | par | Sr. J. S. Bach. | Maitre de la Chapelle | et | Directeur de la Musique | a | Leipsic. | ecrite par Madame | Bachen. Son Epouse."

If anything, this contradicts the idea that "Mme. Bachen" composed the suites; it says "composée | par | Sr. J. S. Bach." If sourced, it could be reinserted as evidence. Zaslav (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cello_Suites_(Bach)&oldid=1204620469"