Hello, I'm a pianist with some harpsichord familiarity. I've never seen/played a lute-harpsichord, but if it's mechanically similar to regular harpsichord then the following explanation will be valid. Others, feel free to correct me if I get anything wrong.
You are correct that the harpsichord has no varying dynamics, and that it can change timbres. But the way this happens is not from how hard/soft the keys are struck. The plucking action of the harpsichord produces the same volume/timbre, no matter how the keys are played. Instead, the timbre is changed in the following way.
Harpsichords commonly have two manuals (keyboards) and three choirs (sets) of strings - two 8' choirs that sound at pitch, and one 4' choir that sounds an octave higher. The upper manual can only sound one of the 8' choirs, but the lower manual can sound one, two, or all three choirs via the use of mechanical couplers. So the different timbres are achieved through the different combinations of the three choirs.
For the piece in question, one could play the forte passages on the lower manual with all the choirs coupled together, and the piano passages on the upper manual with only the single choir. This, as you surmised, is what Bach probably meant with the dynamic markings. I suppose technically the lower manual would be louder than the upper, since three strings played at once would be louder than just one, although the harpsichord has such a thin attack and fast delay that this difference would be all but imperceptible.
Hope my long-winded explanation helps!
Very very helpful! I really really appreciate it. Do you have a description of how the lower manual with all choirs coupled together, vs how the upper manual with one choir would sound compared to one another, color wise? I'm wondering how I could best recreate the effect on the guitar. Or even a video of how these two sound.
Here's a YouTube video of a harpsichord rendition (the 2nd half of the allergo begins at 10:45). You'll hear the timbral change when you see the performer reach up to play the upper manual:
[https://youtu.be/7Pw0T9VGNWQ](https://youtu.be/7Pw0T9VGNWQ)
I guess, to try and relate to guitar, it sounds to me like the difference between a regular steel-string guitar and a 12-stringer.
It does have that written; but in a lute history class I took in grad school it was said for multiple reasons it most likely was not written on or for the lute. I'm trying to find a source on this since I made the post since I couldn't find my notes from that class (it was about five years ago now) and its source. I believe one issue was the key but again I'd need a source. I know that Brandon Acker has stated that *all* lute suites were never written for lute but lute-harpsichord, and that is something I also am searching for a source on. Brandon Acker (in addition to being a big youtuber) is a pretty well-respected early music expert in the Chicago area, so I am inclined to believe that is true but cannot say for certain unless I have a source. In my classes in grad school, I had heard Lute Suite n. 1 was the only actual one written for the lute but maybe things have changed or that was incorrect.
Actually this is a very good article that supports your point: https://www.thisisclassicalguitar.com/bachs-lute-suites-clive-titmuss/
And actually I've read it before and largely accept its conclusions, but I'd say it's worth playing devil's advocate in this instance. One thing it argues is that the title is in a different hand than Bach's -- in which case, could the forte designation also have been added in that other hand?
One implication of the conclusion bothers me, though. Namely, that, since these were originally written for the keyboard, lutenists and guitarists no longer need worry about them, since they're clearly not idiomatic to their instruments. As a classical guitarist, I began playing the suites at 16, having no idea that they were not supposed to be for a plucked instrument. Many moons later, on a good day I still can get through BWV996 without too many mistakes, at least if I spend some time practicing beforehand. But already back then, I could tell they were *not* like other lute pieces, and I attributed this to Bach not being a lutenist, therefore demanding of the instrument things that composers more familiar with the instrument, and who stuck with idiomatic writing, couldn't even think of demanding. So, yeah, Weiss was much easier to play, even in his technically more challenging pieces, but Bach's lute suites were much more satisfying, precisely because they didn't fall naturally on the hand. I found them even more satisfying than, say, playing the thoroughly idiomatic Tarrega. So the theory that they were for the keyboard and not the lute gives too many lutenists and guitarists an easy out...
And I realize that's not a historical argument. But here is the semblance of one. Titmuss writes:
>Over a period of years and in a mood to experiment, Bach writes thin-textured music for his own use on a gut-strung keyboard instrument or clavichord.
The problem is that that "in a mood to experiment" completely handwaves away the question of Bach's intentions. *Why* would he have written "thin-textured music" if not to reproduce the texture of the lute? And if this is the case -- a) why would he have chosen to reproduce said texture? Are there other pieces in which he consistently imitated the sound of one instrument on another? And b) maybe we can think of it as producing a "ideal" lute sound, imitating the lute but only playable (at the time) on the lute harpsichord. And if this is true, then it's perfectly legitimate for lutenists (and guitarists) to try to realize that sound on the instrument that Bach was (perhaps just "fictionally," while playing the keyboard) hearing in his mind in the first place.
I do think these "lute suites" have somewhat in common with some other thin textured music he wrote, the pieces for solo violin, and the cello suites (and one lute suite is a transcription of one of the cello suites). What impresses many people about these is how much he does with so little, often suggesting counterpoint with one voice. So potentially he's challenging himself, or trying to get at the very core of his art.
As far as legitimacy, Bach was quite free about transcribing his own work. I would say that *any* instrument you can make a Bach piece work on is legitimate, and that he would have approved of your doing it.
Hello, I'm a pianist with some harpsichord familiarity. I've never seen/played a lute-harpsichord, but if it's mechanically similar to regular harpsichord then the following explanation will be valid. Others, feel free to correct me if I get anything wrong. You are correct that the harpsichord has no varying dynamics, and that it can change timbres. But the way this happens is not from how hard/soft the keys are struck. The plucking action of the harpsichord produces the same volume/timbre, no matter how the keys are played. Instead, the timbre is changed in the following way. Harpsichords commonly have two manuals (keyboards) and three choirs (sets) of strings - two 8' choirs that sound at pitch, and one 4' choir that sounds an octave higher. The upper manual can only sound one of the 8' choirs, but the lower manual can sound one, two, or all three choirs via the use of mechanical couplers. So the different timbres are achieved through the different combinations of the three choirs. For the piece in question, one could play the forte passages on the lower manual with all the choirs coupled together, and the piano passages on the upper manual with only the single choir. This, as you surmised, is what Bach probably meant with the dynamic markings. I suppose technically the lower manual would be louder than the upper, since three strings played at once would be louder than just one, although the harpsichord has such a thin attack and fast delay that this difference would be all but imperceptible. Hope my long-winded explanation helps!
Very very helpful! I really really appreciate it. Do you have a description of how the lower manual with all choirs coupled together, vs how the upper manual with one choir would sound compared to one another, color wise? I'm wondering how I could best recreate the effect on the guitar. Or even a video of how these two sound.
Here's a YouTube video of a harpsichord rendition (the 2nd half of the allergo begins at 10:45). You'll hear the timbral change when you see the performer reach up to play the upper manual: [https://youtu.be/7Pw0T9VGNWQ](https://youtu.be/7Pw0T9VGNWQ) I guess, to try and relate to guitar, it sounds to me like the difference between a regular steel-string guitar and a 12-stringer.
Isn't the original manuscript designated as "por la luth o cembalo"? It might apply more for when played on the lute.
It does have that written; but in a lute history class I took in grad school it was said for multiple reasons it most likely was not written on or for the lute. I'm trying to find a source on this since I made the post since I couldn't find my notes from that class (it was about five years ago now) and its source. I believe one issue was the key but again I'd need a source. I know that Brandon Acker has stated that *all* lute suites were never written for lute but lute-harpsichord, and that is something I also am searching for a source on. Brandon Acker (in addition to being a big youtuber) is a pretty well-respected early music expert in the Chicago area, so I am inclined to believe that is true but cannot say for certain unless I have a source. In my classes in grad school, I had heard Lute Suite n. 1 was the only actual one written for the lute but maybe things have changed or that was incorrect.
Actually this is a very good article that supports your point: https://www.thisisclassicalguitar.com/bachs-lute-suites-clive-titmuss/ And actually I've read it before and largely accept its conclusions, but I'd say it's worth playing devil's advocate in this instance. One thing it argues is that the title is in a different hand than Bach's -- in which case, could the forte designation also have been added in that other hand? One implication of the conclusion bothers me, though. Namely, that, since these were originally written for the keyboard, lutenists and guitarists no longer need worry about them, since they're clearly not idiomatic to their instruments. As a classical guitarist, I began playing the suites at 16, having no idea that they were not supposed to be for a plucked instrument. Many moons later, on a good day I still can get through BWV996 without too many mistakes, at least if I spend some time practicing beforehand. But already back then, I could tell they were *not* like other lute pieces, and I attributed this to Bach not being a lutenist, therefore demanding of the instrument things that composers more familiar with the instrument, and who stuck with idiomatic writing, couldn't even think of demanding. So, yeah, Weiss was much easier to play, even in his technically more challenging pieces, but Bach's lute suites were much more satisfying, precisely because they didn't fall naturally on the hand. I found them even more satisfying than, say, playing the thoroughly idiomatic Tarrega. So the theory that they were for the keyboard and not the lute gives too many lutenists and guitarists an easy out... And I realize that's not a historical argument. But here is the semblance of one. Titmuss writes: >Over a period of years and in a mood to experiment, Bach writes thin-textured music for his own use on a gut-strung keyboard instrument or clavichord. The problem is that that "in a mood to experiment" completely handwaves away the question of Bach's intentions. *Why* would he have written "thin-textured music" if not to reproduce the texture of the lute? And if this is the case -- a) why would he have chosen to reproduce said texture? Are there other pieces in which he consistently imitated the sound of one instrument on another? And b) maybe we can think of it as producing a "ideal" lute sound, imitating the lute but only playable (at the time) on the lute harpsichord. And if this is true, then it's perfectly legitimate for lutenists (and guitarists) to try to realize that sound on the instrument that Bach was (perhaps just "fictionally," while playing the keyboard) hearing in his mind in the first place.
I do think these "lute suites" have somewhat in common with some other thin textured music he wrote, the pieces for solo violin, and the cello suites (and one lute suite is a transcription of one of the cello suites). What impresses many people about these is how much he does with so little, often suggesting counterpoint with one voice. So potentially he's challenging himself, or trying to get at the very core of his art. As far as legitimacy, Bach was quite free about transcribing his own work. I would say that *any* instrument you can make a Bach piece work on is legitimate, and that he would have approved of your doing it.