JAVS Spring 2025

Example 2. BWV 1001, Fuga, beginning.

Another significant change includes rhythmic values in different lengths. Bach used shorter note values in the violin version to notate polyphonic passages. In comparison, the lute transcription has much longer note values, which is a more ordinary way to notate counterpoint. Examples 1 and 2 show that the upper voice (Bb-Eb-A-D) at m. 2 in the violin version is notated in the eighth note value, while the lute version is notated in the quarter note value.

Added bass notes also indicate a significant change in the transcription. During the arpeggiated episodes (mm. 7-10, 42-51, and 87-92 in the violin version), the bass part has been added under the sixteenth notes, which is easier to play on lute than violin. Surprisingly, apart from a few broader intervals, no additional notes were filled on existing chords, with the exception of one cadential resolution at m. 52, which is a five-note chord (See Example 3). The four-voice texture of the violin version remains on the lute transcription.

Example 3. BWV 1000. m. 54.

(1720-1774), one of Bach’s students, remains the closest source to the original. Although called a lute suite, Bach probably wrote it on the Launtenwerk —a keyboard instrument with a body shaped like a lute and used leather plectrum (instead of quill plectrums found in harpsichords) to pluck the strings. 20 However, Ledbetter claims that Bach truly intended the suite to be played on the lute. For example, several passages in the fugue, such as mm. 62, 79, and 87, are unplayable on the keyboard due to extreme stretches that would be required (See Examples 4 and 5). 21 Additionally, Bach always wrote C1 clef (or a soprano clef) for the top voice in his keyboard music, while Agricola’s copy indicates G2, or treble clef (See Example 6). Finally, writings by the composer’s son Carl Philipp Emanuel reminisce about the elder Bach’s love of improvising on the Lautenwerk first, finishing the piece at his desk. 22 This suggests that Bach might have composed BWV 997 on the Lautenwerk, but intended it to be played on the lute.

Unlike BWV 1000, we know with certainty that Bach transcribed BWV 995, since an autograph manuscript in standard notation survives. Unfortunately, we do not know who made the tablature version. It could be Weyraunch, but multiple sources have agreed that it might be Adam Falckenhagen (1697-1754), another lutenist friend of Bach. 17 Dedicated to Monsieur Schouster, whose exact identity is unclear, Bach’s manuscript is less refined than his ‘copyist’ handwriting. 18 This suggests that the manuscript might be a draft version. Other than an added lower voice, the bass drops down the octave for ease of playing on the lute. Also, like the fugue from BWV 1001, Bach used shorter note values for BWV 995 as well. Interestingly, Bach’s staff notation requires a 14-course lute, while the tablature version requires a 13-course. However, the standard lute of his days in Leipzig would be the French 11-course lute. 19

Bach wrote BWV 997 between 1738 and 1741. The copy of Bach’s manuscript by Johann Friedrich Agricola

18

Journal of the American Viola Society / Vol. 41, No. 1, Spring 2025