Azu Etd 16920 Sip1 M PDF

J.S.
Bach’s Chaconne for Solo Violin: A Performer-

Composer’s Approach to Interpretation
Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation
Authors Abraham, Immanuel Tzemach
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material

is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.
Further transmission, reproduction, presentation (such as public
display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except
with permission of the author.
Download date 16/11/2020 16:38:11
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/631897

!1
J.S. BACH’S CHACONNE FOR SOLO VIOLIN:
A PERFORMER-COMPOSER’S APPROACH TO INTERPRETATION
by
Immanuel Tzemach Abraham
—————————————————————————————————
Copyright © Immanuel Tzemach Abraham 2019
A Document Submitted to the Faculty Of:
THE FRED FOX SCHOOL OF MUSIC
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS
VIOLIN PERFORMANCE
In The Graduate College:
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
2019
!2!2
!3
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR:
This document has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced
degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made
available to borrowers under the rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are
allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source
is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript
in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or Dean of the Graduate
College when, in their judgment, the proposed use of the material is in the interests of
scholarship. In any and all other instances permission must be obtained directly from the author.
SIGN:
PRINT: Immanuel Tzemach Abraham

!4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To the following individuals, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for their support in the
successful completion of this academic endeavor at the University of Arizona, Fred Fox School
of Music.
I thank my violin instructor, Professor Lauren Roth. You have been a phenomenal teacher, caring
advisor, and steadfast advocate of my every musical endeavor here. Thank you for your
guidance, support, patience, and friendship. I am eternally grateful.
I thank my composition instructor, Dr. Daniel Asia. You have guided the advancement of my
written musical language while never compromising any part of my voice for another’s. Thank
you for expanding the collection of tools with which I communicate my music.
I thank my orchestral conductor, Dr. Thomas Cockrell. It has been an honor to work under your
direction over the past few years, and I greatly look forward to more in the future.
I thank my previous instructors, Guillaume Combet (2004-2009), Gabriel Bolkosky (2009-2011),

Andrew Jennings (2011-2015), David Halen (Orchestral Repertoire), Aaron Berofsky (Baroque
Repertoire) and Yizhak Schotten (Viola).
I thank Professor Lauren Roth, Dr. Philip Aléjo, Dr. John T. Brobeck, Professor R. Thomas
Patterson, Dr. Yuanyuan (Kay) He and Dr. Theodore Buchholz for serving on my dissertation
committee. I also thank Dr. Daniel Asia, Dr. Pamela Decker, and Professor Timothy Kantor, for
serving on my comprehensive committee.
Finally, I thank the friends to whom it is due, for their moral support and encouragement: Aaron
& Afa Dworkin, Andrea Lara-García, Spencer Miller, Jasmine Reese, Adan Rico, Casey Shaw,
Fritz & Gretchen Stansell, et al.
DEDICATIONS:
To My Loving Parents:
Micheala Bharati Washington & Dr. Eliahu Ben Abraham (1946-2010)
!5
Table of Contents
List of Musical Examples………………………….……………………………….……………..6
Abstract………………………………………..…………………………….…..….……..………9
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………10
Chapter 1. The Compositional Approach: An Interpretive Tradition…….……….…..……...….16

1.1 What is The Compositional Approach?…………………………..……….…………16
1.2 Reasons for the Compositional Approach……………………………………………19
1.3 A 19th - 21st Century Practice of Performer-Composers.………….…………….……21
1.4 Was Bach Not Good Enough?.………………………………………….…….……..26
Chapter 2. Bach’s Original Chaconne……………………………………………………...…….29

2.1 What is a Chaconne? Facts and Attributes………..……………………………….…29
2.2 The Bach Chaconne…………………………………….……………………………32
Chapter 3. Ferruccio Busoni’s 1892 Chaconne…………………………………………………..37

3.1 Applying the Compositional Approach: Honoring the Original…….……….………37
3.2 Subjective Translation of the Baroque………………………………………….……41
Chapter 4. Andrés Segovia’s 1934 Chaconne……………………………………..……..…..…..51

4.1 Subjective Clarifications…..…….……………………………………………….…..51
4.2 Changes for Technical Practicality…………………….…..…………………...……57
Chapter 5. Immanuel Abraham’s 2018 Chaconne…….………….…………………….……….…59

5.1 Indicating Interpretation: Mood and Tempo Fluctuation.…………..……………..…59
5.2 Vertical Changes: Expansions of Harmony and Range…………….….……….……67
5.3 Horizontal Changes: Six New Variations and Other Additions.………..…….82
Chapter 6. Conclusions and Abraham Edition (Complete)………………………..……………..92

6.1 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………..92
6.2 Analysis Abbreviations….………………………………………….…………..……95
6.3 “Ciaccona,” Abraham Edition (Complete): Annotated Score………….….…..….…97
Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………………….106
!6
List of Musical Examples
Musical Example 1. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, “Chaconne,” ed. Mendelssohn, for Violin and
Fortepiano, mm.1-13, vars.1-3…………………………………….…….….………….…22
Musical Example 2. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor: Variation 1 Harmonic

Progression…………………………………………………………………….…………34
Musical Example 3. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, “Chaconne,” mm. 1-5,
var. 1……………………………………………………….……….………….…………35
Musical Example 4. Diagram of Modal Divisions in Bach, Partita No. 2; “Chaconne”

…………………………………………………………………………………..……….36
Musical Example 5. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, “Chaconne,” ed. Busoni for Piano, mm.1-8,
vars. 1-2………………………………………….……………………………..………..38
Musical Example 6. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, “Chaconne,” mm. 25-29,
var. 7……………………………………………………………………….………….…39
Musical Example 7. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, “Chaconne,” ed. Busoni for Piano, mm.
25-29, var. 7..…………………………………………………….…….…….…………41
181-183, var. 44-45……………………………………………………………….…..…46
166-168, var. 41..………………….……………………………….………..……….…..46
73-77, var. 19………………………………….…………………………………………50
Musical Example 11. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, “Chaconne” (manuscript),
mm. 125-127, var. 32………….……….….……………………………………………..53
mm. 1-5, var. 1.…….…………….……………….……….….…………………………54
Musical Example 13. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, “Chaconne,” ed. Segovia for Guitar,
mm. 1-5, var. 1…….……..…….…………………….….…….………….…….….…….54
!7
Musical Example 14. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, “Chaconne,” ed Segovia for Guitar,
mm. 18-21, var. 10…………………..……………………………..….…….….……….56
Musical Example 15. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, “Chaconne,” ed. Segovia for Guitar,
mm. 57-60, var. 15..……………………………………………..……….…….….……56
Musical Example 16. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, “Chaconne,”ed. Segovia for Guitar,
mm. 1-5, var. 1.………………….………………………………………….……………57
Musical Example 17. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, “Chaconne,” ed. Abraham for Modern
Violin A.mm.1-5, A.var. 1……………………………………………….………………61
Musical Example 18. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor,“Chaconne,” ed. Abraham for Modern
Violin, A.var. 23, mm. 91-96 into A.var. 24..………………………….………….…….64
Violin, A.mm. 104-07, A.var. 27……………….……………………….…….………….65
Violin, A.mm. 129-32, A.var. 33.………….….…………………………….……..……66
Violin, A.mm. 133-38, A.var. 34……………….…..……………………………………66
Violin, A.mm. 13-16, A.var. 4………………………………………………..…………69
Violin, A.mm. 97-99, A.var. 25………………………………………….………………70
Violin, A.mm. 25-28, A.var. 7 (N.V. 1)……..……………………………………………71
Violin, A.mm. 33-36, A.var. 9…………………….…….………….………………….…72
Violin, A.mm. 65-68, A.var. 17………..………….………….…………………..………73
B.mm. 79-80, B.var. 16………………….………….………….…………….…….…….74
Violin, A.mm. 95-96, A.var. 24…………………………………..…….………..………74
!8
Violin, A.mm. 97-99, A.var. 21………………….………….……………………………75
B.mm. 160-176, B.vars. 41-45…………….…….………….………….…………….…77
Violin, A.mm. 177-184, A.var. 45……..………….………….…….…….………………78
Violin, A.mm. 185-192, A.var. 47……….……….………….………….…………….….79
Violin, A.mm. 272-282, A.vars. 68-70……….……….………….………………….…..81
Violin, A.mm. 25-33, A vars. 7-8 into A.var. 9…………….………….…………………83
Violin, A.mm. 45-48, A.var.11…………….…….……….………….……….….………84
Violin, A.mm. 104-32, A.vars. 27-33…………………….………….……….….………87
Violin, A.mm. 73-80, A.vars. 19-20…………………….………….…………….….….88
Violin, A.mm. 217-220, A.var. 55.………………….……………….…….…….….….89
Violin, A.mm. 230-37, A.vars. 69-70.……………….………….…………..…….…….91
!9
ABSTRACT
The thesis of this document comprises two parts. The first demonstrates that recomposing
Bach’s Chaconne has formed an interpretive tradition among performer-composers over the past
one hundred eighty years. The second is dependent upon the first, and attempts to demonstrate
that this tradition may be methodically used by performer-composers interpreting Bach’s
Chaconne upon the unaccompanied modern violin. A comprehensive realization of this thesis has
been arranged by the author in a complete, annotated score following the document's
conclusions.
!10
INTRODUCTION
Any performance of a work is itself also a transcription,
and still, whatever liberties it may take, it can never annihilate the original. 1
—Ferruccio Busoni
An “interpretation” is the sum of a performer’s aesthetic decisions for a preexisting work.
A solo, symphony, concerto, or any other musical work, regardless of genre, will be interpreted
differently by its every performing artist. Even those interpretations which attempt the purest
performance of an original score’s every indication will often result in stark contrasts. Then,
there are interpretations which change a great deal of a score’s extra-notational indications, those
being dynamics, articulations, tempi, observance of repeats, and instrumentation.
Still, other interpretations take liberties on the compositional level, thereby changing the
notes themselves, in addition to changing the extra-notational indications mentioned before.
This interpretational approach is the topic of my document. In it, I will explicate its history,
methodology, and current practice. The piece it is applied to is the Chaconne from Partita No. 2
in D Minor for Solo Violin by Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) BWV 1004.
The thesis of this document comprises two parts. The first part attempts to demonstrate
that arranging Bach’s Chaconne has formed an interpretive tradition among performer-composers
over the past one hundred eighty years. The second part is dependent upon the first, and attempts
1 Ferruccio Busoni, Sketch of a New Aesthetic of Music, trans. Theodore Baker (New York City, G.
Schirmer, 1911), 17-18.
!11
to demonstrate that this tradition may respectfully be used by performer-composers interpreting
Bach’s Chaconne upon the unaccompanied modern violin.
J.S. Bach’s Chaconne for solo violin has undergone elaborate rearrangements by many of
its best-known performers, far beyond the scope of mere ornamentation or transcription. This
practice with Bach’s Chaconne dates back to Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy’s 1840 premiere of
the work. This is because it was not Bach’s original version which premiered then, but an
arrangement for violin with fortepiano accompaniment. Mendelssohn had arranged and
premiered it himself with celebrated violinist Ferdinand David (1810-1873) in Leipzig, Germany
that same year. 2
Indeed, the very first documented performance of the Chaconne had been itself, an
arrangement for the modern violin with added accompaniment. As stated by renowned violinist
and conductor Jaap Schroeder,
[Robert] Schumann tells us about the historical concert in Leipzig, in early 1840 at which
David, the concertmaster of the Gewandhaus Orchestra, performed “a Ciaconna by
Bach”. This was the first public performance of the piece, but not as a solo: Mendelssohn
accompanied the violinist on the [forte]piano “in such a splendid manner”, Schumann
wrote, “that the old eternal Cantor himself seemed to have has his hands there.3
Since then, nearly two centuries of arrangements by its performer-composers has yielded an
interpretational tradition in its own right. In that span of time, its practice also developed time-
honored compositional guidelines. I have defined these guidelines, and use them to identify this
interpretive approach. For the sake of discussion, I call it the “compositional approach”.
2 Jonathan Kregor, "After the Golden Age: Romantic Pianism and Modern Performance,” Music Library
Association Notes 65, no. 2 (December, 2008): 306-9.

3 Jaap Schröder, Bach’s Solo Violin Works: A Performer’s Guide New Haven (Connecticut: Yale University
Press, 2007), 131.
!12
Such interpretations of the Chaconne have spanned a multitude of ensembles and solo
instruments, violin with several different accompaniments, violin in string quartet, and even
violins in duo. However, and perhaps on account of purist taboos, this interpretive approach has
not ever been published in an edition for the unaccompanied violin until my arrangement which I
present within this document. This referenced edition is my own arrangement of the Bach
Chaconne, written using the compositional approach on unaccompanied violin. I have included
the complete edition at the end of this text in Chapter 6.2. It is my hope that, by way of
explication and demonstration, this document may encourage the compositional approach when
interpreting Bach’s Chaconne on unaccompanied violin.
In Chapter 1, I further define the compositional approach to the Bach Chaconne. I also
list its tenets, rendered by the tradition of its application to the Bach Chaconne dating back to
Mendelssohn in the mid 19th century. This chapter also differentiates between practice of the
compositional approach, arranging, and transcribing. I also briefly explicate my choice of
terminology for this document. In Chapter 2, I define the chaconne genre, listing pertinent facts
and features. I then analyze Bach’s Chaconne specifically to provide more detail and context.
This facilitates score-analyses and cross references between the versions I discuss in following
chapters.
In Chapters 3 and 4, I introduce selected arrangements of the Chaconne which used the
compositional approach. Respectively, these are the 1892 arrangement by celebrated Italian
pianist Ferruccio Busoni (1866-1924) and the 1934 arrangement by renowned Spanish guitarist,
Andrés Segovia Torres (1893-1987). These have been selected to serve as archetypes of the
compositional approach and to exemplify similarities and contrasts between their respective
!13
implementations. The methodology exemplified in these versions will later be cross-referenced
with the relevant measures of my own 2018 arrangement for the modern unaccompanied violin.
Chapter 5 is the longest and most-substantial chapter. In it I introduce my own
compositional approach to the Chaconne. I indicate where traditional devices of the approach,
discussed in all four prior chapters, are applied. I also discuss the two primary ways in which my
compositional approach differs from that of Busoni and Segovia. First is the difference of
arranging for a similar instrument as the original while addressing the stark differences between
Baroque and modern violins. Second is my account of the variant devices used in my
compositional approach versus theirs.
Chapter 6 is the full annotated score of my own compositional approach, published by
Axis Music Company, and copyrighted by MakeMusic in 2018. It is complete with editorial
clarifications including fingerings, bowing, articulation, and indications as discussed in Chapter
5. Full permissions are granted to the University of Arizona for the non-commercial use of this
portion as necessary for the partial fulfillment of my Doctor of Musical Arts degree.
Documents addressing the interpretation of J.S. Bach’s Chaconne are numerous. Robert
Murray and Jon Eiche provided a collaborative study of the work’s performative practices from
when and where it was written, during Bach’s tenure in Cöthen between 1720 and 1723.4 Albert
Schweitzer, Donald F. Tovey, Heidi Gigler-Dongas, and Phillip Spitta lend insights regarding
interpretation based upon music theory, including its relation to dance forms, melodies, direct
and implied harmonies, and voice-leading within the work.5 Analyzed comprehensively in the
4 Jon F. Eiche, The Bach Chaconne for Solo Violin: A Collection of Views (Van Nyus, California: Alfred
Music, 2010), 5-10.

5 Citations to these authors may be found in Marina Fabrikant, “Bach-Busoni Chaconne. A Piano
Transcription Analysis" (PhD diss., The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2006), 1-2.
!14
writings of virtuosi such as violinist Carl Flesch, violist Andreas Moser, violinist and violist
Eduard Melkus, violinist and conductor Jaap Schroeder, and violinist Joseph Szigeti are specific
performative matters relating mostly to techniques and their application in specific parts of the
work.6
While the Bach Chaconne’s most-renowned arrangements receive much scholarship,
rewriting the Chaconne using a distinct method of interpretation spanning nearly two centuries
has remained unaddressed. No such approach has ever been published for the unaccompanied
violin either.7 Thus, the topic of interpretation still lends a large gap in our literature regarding
performance practices of the Bach Chaconne, a gap which I will fill with this document.
In this document I significantly reference Marina Fabrikant regarding the 1892 Ferruccio
Busoni edition for piano, and Gerard Garno regarding the 1934 Andrés Segovia edition for
guitar.8 This essay’s two-part thesis is that the arranging of Bach’s Chaconne has formed an
interpretive tradition among performer-composers over the past one hundred eighty years (the
compositional approach) and that this tradition may be used by performer-composers interpreting
Bach’s Chaconne upon the unaccompanied modern violin. I comprehensively realize this thesis
by presenting my own arrangement of Bach’s Chaconne using the compositional approach on the
unaccompanied modern violin. I fully include my arrangement within this document in an
annotated score.
6 Jaap Schröder, Bach’s Solo Violin Works: A Performer’s Guide (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2007).
7 Marina Fabrikant, “Bach-Busoni Chaconne. A Piano Transcription Analysis" (PhD diss., The University
of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2006).

8 Gerard Garno, A New Look at Segovia, His Life, His Music, vol. 1 (Missouri: Mel Bay Publications,
2016).
!15
The intent of this document is to exemplify and encourage the compositional approach
when interpreting Bach’s Chaconne on the unaccompanied modern violin. It is also a personal
goal for my arrangement to be contributory to the canon of existing editions, supplemental to the
interpretational approaches already taught in violin performance, and complementary to
progressive pedagogical endeavors in violin performance, at large.

!16
CHAPTER 1: THE COMPOSITIONAL APPROACH: AN INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
1.1. WHAT IS THE COMPOSITIONAL APPROACH?
First and foremost I will state that the compositional approach is not my invention.
Rather, it is an approach to interpretation, nearly two centuries in development, for which I have
merely posited a due title. As far back as the 8th century A.C.E. and the troping of plainchants in
Medieval church music, there is documentation of performers changing music on the
compositional level as a means of realizing their expression.
An approach, comparable to the troping of a cantus firmus, had been used in the
Chaconne’s premiere during the mid 19th century and has since become a distinct tradition of
interpretation for the work. I have found this tradition to have the following tenets:
• The performer will add notation and extra-notational directives to the score, following
the compositional character, form, and prominent devices of the original work.
• Omission of any original notation, except by way of transposition or ornamentation
under the above parameters, is avoided.
• Changes traditionally serve to further expose or intensify musical devices of the
original composer.
• Changes often serve to subjectively translate hypothesized Baroque Era musical
experiences to the aesthetic standards of its arrangers’ eras.
• Extensive repurposing of original material added from elsewhere within the work.
!17
• Realization of the compositional approach aims to complement the preexisting music,
rather than to supplement it.
In summary, arranging the Chaconne using this approach traditionally involves some
variation of original music, polyphonic layering of original music from elsewhere in the work,
and the addition of new material. While original material is frequently represented via variation,
its omission is strictly avoided. New material does not violate any of the above guiding
parameters and “follow[s] the compositional character, form, and other prominent devices of the
original work”. As stated by one of its prominent arrangers for piano, Franz Liszt; “A certain
matrimonial faithfulness to the original is always best.”9
An “arrangement” is defined as “…an adaption of a work to a different instrument, or
different combination of instruments, than as originally composed. For example, a vocal
composition orchestrated for a string quartet, or a simple orchestral piece expanded to a more
different form with more, or fewer parts.” 10 The compositional approach is more specific than
mere “arranging” in two ways. First is that its method of arranging honors a specific tradition of
compositional parameters. Second, the compositional approach need not only occur when
arranging for instruments other than the original. I use the term referring to a specific method of
interpretation involving compositional changes, whether for the same, similar, or different
instrument altogether.
9 Jaap Schröder, Bach’s Solo Violin Works: A Performer’s Guide (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2007),
135.
10Malcolm Boyd, “Arrangement,” New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 5th ed., ed. Sir Stanley
Sadie (London: MacMillan, 1980), i: 626.
!18
That being said, a critical difference between the compositional approach and many other
types of arranging is that it is not possible to use on all instruments while respecting its
aforementioned tenets. As an hypothetical example, the Chaconne arranged for Irish penny-
whistle and indicated to be performed using 1920’s American swing rhythm definitively
constitutes an arrangement. Such an arrangement, however, is certainly not one achieved via the
compositional approach as it does not follow “the compositional character, form, and prominent
devices of the original work.”
An arrangement for unaccompanied concert flute, as another hypothetical example,
would require the omission of original notation to the extent of all polyphonic activity. Any
arranging attempt to compensate for Bach’s four-voice polyphony on account of the monophonic
capacity of the instrument is contrary to both the Chaconne’s character and prominent
compositional devices. Therefore, while the resulting product of the compositional approach will
always be an arrangement, all arrangements are certainly not achieved using the compositional
approach.
For the sake of clarity, the term “transcription” will be used less often in this document,
in favor of the more-accurate and more-relevant term, “arrangement.” While the most common
definition of transcription may more or less be “music transcribed or arranged for instruments
other than those for which it was originally designed,” its definition also encompasses key and
modal transpositions, changing a work’s original genre to another, and the first manuscript of
preexisting (usually folk) musics.11 This broadness is undesired amidst more specific
terminology, and therefore I will avoid it in this document.
11 Ibid.
!19
1.2. REASONS FOR THE COMPOSITIONAL APPROACH
There are two evident reasons to employ the compositional approach. Namely, these are
to respect the original composer amidst necessary technical accommodations in the case of other
instruments and interpretation beyond what the original ha notationally imparted. In practice,
both reasons evidently aim to complement the original composition and never to supplement it.
Because the piano is capable of realizing a pure, note-for-note rendering of the original
Bach Chaconne, any additions made in an arrangement as elaborate as Ferruccio Busoni’s for
piano, is evidently for the latter reason stated above. It is interpretation beyond what the original
had notationally imparted. The same reason is also the case when using the compositional
approach for the same instrument as the original, as I have. Because my arrangement is for the
modern violin, an instrument evolved to handle more technical demands than its Baroque
counterpart, arranging for technical practicalities is never necessary. There are no technical
barriers begging for ossias as there are in its arrangements for unaccompanied cello or guitar, the
latter of which I will exemplify in Chapter 3.
Because there is also no technical practicality requiring change from the original notes in
the exemplified piano arrangement by Busoni, this version merits discussion of the
compositional approach when only used for expression. Because my own compositional
approach is for an evolved version (modern violin) of the original instrumentation (Baroque
violin) therefore also requiring no recomposition for technical practicalities, the context of my
compositional approach is more akin to Busoni’s.
Contrastingly, Segovia’s arrangement for guitar involves much necessary recomposition
for technical practicalities. Smaller intervals between two more strings than the violin makes the
!20
addition of some notes necessary for practical strumming technique. As such, Segovia’s changes
are mostly limited to harmonic expansions, harmonic extensions, and octave doubling. However,
very many of his changes are not technically necessary and are evidently present for added layers
of polyphonic expression. Despite the combination of both reasons in Segovia’s compositional
approach, his changes are not as elaborate as Busoni’s or my own. This makes his arrangement
an appropriate selection to exemplify both a more-conservative compositional approach, and
alterations made for technical practicalities.
Busoni’s elaborate use of the compositional approach includes additional measures
(horizontal changes), added polyphonic layers and expanded harmonies (vertical changes), and
the addition of mood and dynamic directives (subjective specifications). His changes to the
original Chaconne have brought some to ask whether the work is still Bach, or actually Busoni.
When responding to this question I refer to Busoni, who had said of his own arrangements that
“whatever liberties it may take, it can never annihilate the original.”12
Lastly, I believe it is folly to consider the composer and performer to be considered in
mutual exclusion. It is intended and expected by all for any published composition have vital
roles shared by the performer and composer in the realization of the work, with very much
overlap. So intertwined are the roles of the performer and composer that many even cite the
moniker “Bach-Busoni” for his editions of Bach. My selection of Busoni’s arrangement is partly
to exemplify an extensive case of the compositional approach’s tradition.
12 Ferruccio Busoni, Sketch of a New Aesthetic of Music, trans. Theodore Baker (New York City, G.
Schirmer, 1911), 17-18.
!21
1.3. A 19TH - 20TH CENTURY PRACTICE
OF PERFORMER-COMPOSERS
Examples of the Chaconne’s interpretation via the compositional approach may be traced
as far back in time as its 1840 arrangement by Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy (1809 - 1847) for
violin and fortepiano. While leaving the notes of the original violin solo essentially the same,
Mendelssohn added definitive dynamics (ranging from pianissimo up to fortissimo) transitional
dynamics (crescendi and decrescendi), tempo alterations (ritardandi and a tempi), mood
directives (sempre allargando, tranquillo, etc.), and a tempo marking of “andante” from the start
(see Musical Example 1).
Most notably, Mendelssohn also added an elaborate fortepiano part to the score, which
enters with the violin from the very beginning. The other notable change is Mendelssohn’s
arranging, publishing, and premiering of the Chaconne as an independent work rather than the
final movement of a Partita, as in its original manuscript.13 While Mendelssohn's instrumentation
is different, it is none the less guided by following the compositional style, character, form, and
other prominent devices of the original, with any omission of original material being strictly
avoided. This began what would become the tradition-derived method constituting the
compositional approach.
13 Johann Sebastian Bach, “Chaconne mit Variationen fur die Violine Allein Pianoforte,” from Partita No. 2
in D minor, BWV 1004, ed. Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy (Leipzig, Breitkopf und Härtel Verlag, 1840), 1.
!22
Musical Example 1. Bach Partita No. 2 in D Minor, “Chaconne” ed. Mendelssohn, for Fortepiano,
mm. 1-13, vars. 1-3.
It is widely hypothesized that his arrangement had been made to satisfy the aesthetic of
his contemporary audience who were, by then, accustomed to pieces having piano
accompaniments. As stated by Mannes College of Music Professor Emeritus Joel Lester, “Felix
Mendelssohn singles out this movement [the Chaconne] for his accompaniment…in an age that
!23
deemed unaccompanied violin an incomplete performing medium.”14 Irish Times music critic
Michael Dervan adds that “Bach’s work for solo violin fell prey to the 19th-century habit of
bringing old things up to date in ways that conformed to contemporary taste.”15 This had been
Mendelssohn’s interpretation, which began the lasting tradition of the Chaconne’s interpretation
via methodical change on the compositional level.
Regarding the Bach Chaconne, the compositional approach has, thus far, occurred in
solo arrangements for different instruments, various chamber arrangements, large ensemble
arrangements such as symphony and SATB choir, several arrangements for solo violin with
various vocal and instrumental accompaniments, violin in string quartet, and violins in duo. It
has been very common to rearrange music for the same instrumentation or voicing as the original
since the very beginnings of Western art music. However, no case of the compositional approach
being used to interpret Bach’s Chaconne on the unaccompanied modern violin had ever been
documented until my 2018 arrangement.
Those who have practiced this interpretational approach have traditionally involved their
experience performing other works by Bach, and have exuded a pedant awareness and regard for
the original’s form, structure, style and genre. Concordantly, the Chaconne’s interpretation via
the compositional approach has primarily been practiced by performer-composers, because they
have the necessary amalgam of skills to do as such. 16
14 Joel Lester, Bach’s Works for Solo Violin: Style, Structure, Performance (Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press, 1999), 151.
15 Michael Dervan, “Bach Cut With Mendelssohn: A Bit Like Painting Over Early Artworks,” The Irish
Times (January 29th, 2014).

16 Viola Yip, "Darmstadt 2014: The Composer-Performer,” Tempo—A Quarterly Review of Modern
Music 69, no. 271 (January 2015): 69-72.
!24
It had been used by both Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy in 1840 and Robert Schumann in
1853 to arrange and perform the Chaconne on the modern violin with fortepiano
accompaniment.17 In both arrangements, the violin part remains largely the same with the only
substantial changes being the addition of variant tempi, articulations, and dynamics, which were
absent from the original. The keyboard accompaniment in both cases expands harmonic
structures, and increases polyphonic activity exclusively by layering reused material from
elsewhere in the original. Mendelssohn and Schumann both accompanied violinist-composer
Ferdinand David (1810-1873) in the respective premiere performances of their arrangements.18
For solo piano, the compositional approach was used by Johannes Brahms in 1877, Franz
Schubert in c.1858, Ferruccio Busoni in 1893, and Alexander Siloti in 1924, all of whom also
performed their arrangements of the work. For both string orchestra and string quartet, editions
were arranged by Maria Herz in 1912 and 1927, respectively. While also a performer-composer,
she is the sole individual of this list undocumented to have performed the work herself.19
For full symphonic orchestra, the best known arrangement is by Leopold Stokowsky
from the mid 20th century. Although Stokowsky’s score has regrettably been lost, a recording of
him conducting the work still exists on an undated album.20 For two-violins, it was arranged by
Friedrich Hermann c.1888. Violinist Christoph Poppen took it beyond purely-instrumental music
for the first time, and arranged it for violin, soprano, alto, and tenor, which he premiered in 2001
17 Marina Fabrikant, “Bach-Busoni Chaconne. A Piano Transcription Analysis” (Phd diss., The University
of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2006), 150-51.; Jeffery Mark Pruett, “J. S. Bach’s Chaconne in D Minor: An Examination of
Three Arrangements for Piano Solo” (PhD diss., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 1991), 5.
18 Alexander Silbiger, “Bach and the Chaconne,” The Journal of Musicology 17, no. 3 (1999): 358-85.
David Ferdinand (1810-1873) is perhaps better known as the celebrated teacher of Hungarian violinist-composer,
Joseph Joachim (1831-1907).
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
!25
with the Hilliard Ensemble. Finally in this canon is my own 2018 arrangement, interpreted via
the compositional approach for the unaccompanied modern violin. It is presented with full
annotation at the end of this document.21
All of these examples, mentioned chronologically after Mendelssohn’s 1840 arrangement
up through the present day, lend evidence of the compositional approach’s tradition among
performer-composers. While it its true that composers were expected to also be performers well
into the Romantic Era, it is also true that this culture began to divide into two separate disciplines
by the late 19th century.22 The fact that performers and composers are most-often separate entities
today grants additional significance to this enduring tradition among performer-composers that is
the compositional approach. It has remained an active interpretational tradition of the Chaconne
through the 19th and 20th centuries, and has continued into the 21st. Each of the afore-mentioned
artists who interpreted the Chaconne from 1840 through 2018 using the compositional approach
were performer-composers.
This evidence documents the Chaconne’s outstanding tradition of interpretation via the
compositional approach in arrangements for other instruments, voices, and ensembles, including
the violin.23 I find it peculiar that, despite the original instrumentation, this practice of
interpretation via methodical arranging has not ever extended to the unaccompanied violin itself.
Virtuoso performer-composer Ferrucio Busoni’s use of the compositional approach for the
Chaconne in 1892 has been called “one of the most brilliant piano works not only for the merit of
21 Rebecca Lloyd, ”Bach: Luther's Musical Prophet?" Current Musicology, no. 83 (Spring, 2007): 5-32.
22 Viola Yip, ”Darmstadt 2014: The Composer-Performer,” Tempo—A Quarterly Review of Modern
Music 69, no. 271 (January 2015): 69-70.

23 Friedrich Blume, "Bach in the Romantic Era,” The Musical Quarterly 50, no. 3 (January 1964):
290-306.
!26
the original piece, but also for the involvement of the artist in interpreting it.”24 This reaction
provides evidence that, perhaps, solo violin performers can interpret the Bach Chaconne via the
compositional approach, and thereby personalize and broaden the aesthetic experience.
1.4. WAS BACH NOT GOOD ENOUGH?
Paying due respect to Bach and to the performer-composers discussed in this document, I
feel it is important to note that the recompositions discussed, including my own, have not been
inspired by any shortcoming of Bach. On the contrary, the archetypal performer-composer, who
has interpreted the Chaconne via the compositional approach, has ardently expressed the
opposite of any such disappointment.
Johannes Brahms (1833-1897), rather than arranging a pure transcription, changed much
when he arranged the Chaconne for solo piano in 1877. Despite his changes, he stated of Bach’s
original work that,
On one staff, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest
thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have ever created, even
conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-
shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind. 25
Andrés Segovia (1893-1987) arranged and performed it on solo guitar in 1934. Despite
extensive changes, evidence does not support any dissatisfaction or desire to redefine Bach.
When asked in an interview to describe the process of arranging the Chaconne for guitar, he
responded, “Transcribing is to find equivalents which change neither the aesthetic, spirit, nor the
24Marina Fabrikant, “Bach-Busoni Chaconne. A Piano Transcription Analysis” (Phd diss., The University
of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2006), 2.
25 Vivien Schweitzer, “When Bach Laid Bare His Own Soul,” The New York Times, October 7, 2011.
!27
harmonic structure of the work.”26 This statement, with which I concur, nuances some priority to
retain the original work within his arrangement.
John Cook (1918-1984) also changed much in his performance of it on the pipe organ in
1955. In the edition’s preface, he states that “The Chaconne is sublimely satisfying in its
original form…Bach would have chosen the organ had he transcribed the Chaconne himself…
It is perhaps not unreasonable to suppose that a good performance on the violin may be taken
as the best guide to its interpretation on the organ.” 27
Cook believed, wrongly in my opinion, that the violin’s polyphonic capacity was not
sufficient for Bach’s musical intent.28 He also saw his many additions as complementing Bach’s
work, not supplementing it. While still lacking the polyphonic scope of a pipe organ, today’s
violin is a very different instrument from the Baroque violin available in the time and place of
Bach. Even more different today is violin’s standard performance practice in Western Art Music.
Therefore, it is reasonable that one might arrange this Baroque masterpiece for the modern violin
of today, and regard it as any other great transcription.
In none of these aforementioned cases has dissatisfaction with Bach’s original Chaconne
been documented. The evidence of the preceding testimonies suggests that dissatisfaction has
traditionally not been the impetus for compositional changes, and that realizing subjective
musical aesthetics via these changes had merely been their interpretational choice as performer-
composers.
26 Graham Wade and Gerard Garno, A New Look at Segovia, His Life, His Music. vol. 1 (Missouri: Mel Bay
Publications, 2016), 126.
27 Johann Paetsch, “J.S. Bach Chaconne, Arr. John Cook” The Musical Times 97 (January 1956): 27.
28 Ibid.
!28
Another layer which influences the interpretational choices of performer-composers is the
matter of audiences. Their experience of the Chaconne in any place and time will differ quite
substantially from any who may have heard it when and where it was completed. Realization of
aesthetic evolutions per the place and time of its performers proffers another reason why a
performer may choose the compositional approach when interpreting the Chaconne. That reason
is to subjectively “translate” a hypothesized experience similar to when and where it had first
existed to the musical aesthetics and understanding of their time and place of performance. This
topic will be revisited with more detail in Chapter 3.2.
In any of these cases, and in my own experience, the compositional approach has only
served to complement Bach, never to supplement his masterwork, and should thus be regarded a
tenant of the approach as well. Performer-composers all arranged with high awareness and
pedantic regard for the compositional style, character, form, and other prominent devices of the
original. They strictly avoided any omission of original material, except by way of occasional
and slight variation, and the aesthetic aim of complementation rather than supplementation.
!29
CHAPTER 2: BACH’S ORIGINAL CHACONNE
2.1. ) WHAT IS A CHACONNE? FACTS AND ATTRIBUTES
Any study of Bach’s Chaconne should include definition of the “chaconne” genre. At
present, its etymology remains lost to time. 29 Scholarly efforts to track its origin simultaneously
assert that it is from the surname of Jose Maria Chacon—the last Spanish Governor of Trinidad,
“chica”—an earlier term for a “jig”, and “chanson”—the French word for “song”. Alongside
these are only more candidates for its etymological root without any general consensus.
Regardless of its precise origin, it has at least unanimously been traced to a stately, early
16th century Spanish dance in 3/4 time.30 Later, the accompanying music came to be more
popular than the stepped dance and became recognized primarily as a musical form around
1600.31 Today, the word “chaconne” still denotes the musical form.32 According to musicologist
Marina Fabrikant, the comprehensive constituents of a typical instrumental chaconne are: a slow
tempo, a ¾ meter, a short harmonic progression grounded in an ostinato, and variation form.33
The particular motive for Bach’s authorship of the Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin,
BWV 1001-1006 (with BWV 1004 containing the Chaconne) is uncertain. Most likely these
works were a personal undertaking, as no known commission had existed for them. There is also
no documented performance of them until more than a century after their completion.34
29 Byron Cantrell, "Three B's - Three Chaconnes,” Current Musicology 12 (1971): 62-63.
30 Ibid., 63.
31 Ibid., 63-64.
32 Michael Kennedy, Joyce Bourne Kennedy. ed. Tim Rutherford-Johnson, “Chaconne," in The Oxford
Dictionary of Music (Oxford University Press: Oxford, United Kingdom, 2012), 14.
33Marina Fabrikant, “Bach-Busoni Chaconne. A Piano Transcription Analysis” (Phd diss., The University
34 Alexander Silbiger, "Bach and the Chaconne,” The Journal of Musicology 17, no. 3 (1999): 358-85.
!30
Many similarities between the chaconne genre and the passacaglia (another Spanish
dance genre from the same era) render the two variation forms nearly indistinguishable from one
another. While debated, the common consensus as to their difference is whether or not the
ostinato is revoiced from the bass to other contrapuntal voices in the variations. The chaconne’s
ostinato may frequently move to other voices. The passacaglia’s ostinato (as well as other
variation forms such as the folia and fandango) is a true basso ostinato. It is therefore rarely, if
ever, placed above the contrapuntal bass voice in these genres. Additionally, the passacaglia is
definitively in 4/4 time, while the chaconne, as previously stated, is exclusively in ¾ time.35
Below, I have accumulated defining features of the Chaconne genre into one place for the
reader’s convenience. This list will be referenced as the “List of Chaconne Attributes”, with
items referenced by their number (e.g. “List of Chaconne Attributes, Item 6”).
List of Chaconne Attributes
1. The Chaconne is invariably set in ¾ time.
2. It contains an agogic accent on its second beat, whose presence is traditionally
emphasized at the very beginning, and the beginning of large sections, as an accented
pickup.36
3. It most commonly uses an ascending or descending tetrachord as an ostinato.
4. The initial harmonic progression and rhythmic scheme is especially important,
typically serving as a thematic and harmonic base that is reused to unify subsequent
35 Evan Johnson, "Reader Forum,” Early Music America 8, no. 3 (Fall, 2002): 3-4.
36 The term “agogic” is an adjective which describes any note accented by way of length, usually greater
than those surrounding it, and including any notated and annotated accents of this kind. (e.g. Beat two of a stylized
Viennese Waltz exemplifies agogic accentuation.)
!31
variations and larger segments by way of its continuity or perpetual return. The initial
harmonic progression and rhythmic scheme will also typically return once unchanged as
a final variation.
5. A gradual increase in rhythmic activity within larger sections of the structure is
idiosyncratic.37
6. Pairing of variations, wherein consecutive variations share features such as rhythmic
scheme or harmonic eccentricities, is a very common practice of the Chaconne genre. 38
7. On occasion, variation “pairing” will involve more than two variations, thereby
forming variation groups larger than two.
8. Mobility of the ostinato from the initial bass to other contrapuntal voices is typical
within the Chaconne.
9. Typically, three larger sections defined by contrasting modes should be expected. The
third of these sections is typically a return of the original mode of the first section.
10. Contrapuntal composition and its associated textures and devices from the common
era are to be expected (i.e., omission of parallel perfect intervals when not formed with
the bass, direct perfect dyads, high deliberation of contrary and oblique motion, pedal
point, etc.).
11. New thematic material often enters and exists the variations for brief episodes, rarely
retaining their presence through more of the work.39
38 Márta Ábrahám and Barnabas Dukay, Excerpts from Eternity: The Purification of Time and Character,
The Fulfillment of Love, and Cooperation With Celestial Will in Johann Sebastian Bach’s Ciaccona for Violin
(Rome: Pátria Printing House Co., 2017), 21-22.
!32
2.2. THE BACH CHACONNE
In 1723, during his tenure in Cöthen from (1717-1723) while serving as the
Kapellmeister for Prince Leopold’s court, Bach completed three sonata da chiesa (church
sonatas) and three partitas (dance suites) for unaccompanied violin.40 Not being comissioned,
and having no documented performance in his lifetime, Bach’s purpose for writing the Six
Sonatas and Partitas (BWV 1001 - 1006) is not known. Regardless, these masterworks have
remained among the most standard repertoire for modern violin auditions, study, and
performance since the early 20th century, and through the present day.41
Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, rather than ending with the short and spirited gigue
expected of this genre, instead ends with a large, complex, chaconne following the gigue.42 This
single movement is equal in length to all four other movements (allemande, courante,
sarabande, and gigue respectively) in combination.43 While the earliest polyphonic writing for
unaccompanied violin had begun slightly earlier with the 1696 with the “Partitas for Solo Violin”
by Johann Paul Westhoff (1656-1705), the extent of polyphonic activity in Bach’s Chaconne had
been pioneering to the violin’s repertorial canon. The amount of polyphonic activity for solo
bowed strings instruments was only comparable with his own three fugues, one being allotted to
each solo sonata in BWV 1001, 1003, and 1005.
40 Sandra Eun Joo Kyung, "Chaconne from Johann Sebastian Bach's Partita No. 2: Linear Analysis” (PhD
diss., California State University, Long Beach, 1999), 4-12.
41 Zay David Sevier, "Bach's Solo Violin Sonatas and Partitas: The First Century and a Half, Part
2,” Bach 12, no. 3 (1981): 23.
42 Homer Ulrich, “The Nationality of Bach’s Partitas,” The American Music Teacher 34, no. 4 (February 01,
1985): 10.
43 J.S. Bach had originally used the Italian spelling,“ciaccona.” The most common title of the genre, and
of the piece today is the French variant, “chaconne.”
!33
Bach’s Chaconne comprises sixty-four variations on a descending tetrachord ostinato.44
This ostinato is the descending D Phrygian tetrachord [D, C , B♭, A]. Frequently this tetrachord
occurs in variations, most often as its harmonic-minor transposition [D, C#, B♭, A]. While it is
always at least implied in the lowest voice, the ostinato is realized in multiple registers, which is
also a defining characteristic of the Chaconne genre (see pp. 28-29, List of Chaconne Attributes,
Item 3).45 There is also a lengthy episode from m. 133 to m. 208 in the parallel major (D major)
where, only by course, the tetrachord is also in the parallel major as [D, C#, B , A].
Appropriately, this section is called the maggiore (It. “major”).46
Because the theme of the work is an ostinato, rather than a single melody, all sixty-four
variations are indeed all “variations” upon the ostinato theme. A common misconception among
performers is to consider the first variation of the ostinato as the theme itself, with sixty-three
subsequent variations. (Although vars. 1 and 63 are the same in the Bach original, they are
considered separately for their function within the form—var. 63 being a recapitulation.)
The twelve-beat harmonic progression fundamentally retained in all sixty-four variations
is a relatively simple tonic and dominant relationship, wherein tonic visits dominant twice before
its final resolution to tonic, all in the timespan of twelve beats. This yields a fundamental
progression of [ i - V - vi - V ]. Harmonic variation exists almost exclusively in the pre-
44 Basso Ostinato is an Italian term meaning “obstinate bass” and refers to a short, recurring melodic
pattern in the lowest voice of a polyphonic musical work, serving as the the principal structure of harmonic
progressions above it.
45 Byron Cantrell, "Three B's - Three Chaconnes,” Current Musicology 12 (1971): 63.
46 Stanley Ritchie, The Accompaniment in “Unaccompanied” Bach: Interpreting the Sonatas and Partitas
for Violin (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2016), 51.
!34
dominant functions thereof, as the dominant invariably resolves directly to tonic. The first
variation’s harmonic progression is depicted in the following musical example (see Musical
Example 2).
Musical Example 2. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor: Var. 1 Harmonic Progression:
[ i - (iiø4/2) - V6/5 - i - ( VI - iv - i6/4 ) - V6/5 ]
Emboldened in the previous Musical Example is the basic harmonic progression [ I - V -
VI - V ] regardless of its harmonic quality. (Harmonic qualities of the chords are decided by the
ostinato’s modal variation.) The predominant harmony for the third element of the ostinato (B♭)
I have found to be particularly variable between vi and iv6, though its grounded bass remains
consistent between either B♭ or its B variant during the work’s modulation to major from m.
133 to m. 208.
Because the work begins on a reoccurring agogic second beat, some scholars debate
whether or not to count the first measure as an anacrusis (see Musical Example 3).47 This
discrepancy renders the measure count to be either 256 with the first notes as an anacrusis, or
257 when they are not. Because the first measure contains the idiomatically-accented and
47 “Agogic” is an adjective describing any note accented by way of length, usually greater than those
surrounding it. (e.g., beat two of the Viennese Waltz exemplifies agogic accentuation.)
!35
thereby strong second beat, I have chosen to count 257 measures. 48 This count is also honored in
the critical urtext editions published by Bärenreiter and Henle, which comprise the primary score
sources I use when legibility of the composer’s manuscript is questionable (see Musical Example
3).
Musical Example 3. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, “Chaconne,” mm. 1-5, var. 1.
It had become common practice during the Baroque period (1600-1750) to write
variations in “pairs,” related by shared musical elements such as rhythmic scheme, articulation,
pitch range, and chosen harmonies with the ostinato.49 As evidence beyond Bach’s Chaconne,
variation pairing is observed in the opening bars of the Chaconne for solo violin by Tomaso
Antonio Vitali (1663-1745) as well.
The use of variation-pairing in the Bach original is so prominent that many performers
argue that there are only thirty-two eight-measure variations, rather than sixty-four four-measure
variations. This does not take into account the variations without pairs, which are all complete,
48. C. F. Abdy Williams, "The Rhythmical Construction of Bach's "Forty-Eight" Fugues,” Proceedings of
the Musical Association 19 (1892): 79.
49 Ibid., 82-3.
!36
self-resolving four-measure variations, and not eight-measure pair sets. Furthermore, while
many variations occur in pairs, not all do so. In the Bach Chaconne, the ones that stand alone are
vars. 19, 27, 31, 38, and 55. Some pairings also include more than two variations. Some pairings
have three or four variations, which is also typical of the genre.
The Chaconne may be organized into three larger sections. The descending tetrachord
ostinato has several variations in major. These major variations occur consecutively and
exclusively in the one section called the maggiore.50 Measures 1-132 (vars. 1-33) are in D minor,
mm. 133-208 (vars. 34-52) are in D major, and mm. 209-257 (vars. 35-64) return to D minor. I
have illustrated this in the following Musical Example (see Musical Example 4).
Musical Example 4. Abraham, Diagram of Modal Divisions in Bach Partita No. 2; Chaconne.
for Violin (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 2016), 51.
!37
CHAPTER 3: FERRUCCIO BUSONI’S 1892 CHACONNE
3.1. APPLYING THE COMPOSITIONAL APPROACH:

HONORING THE ORIGINAL
Busoni’s arrangement for piano certainly falls in line with the tradition of performer-
composers who have interpreted the Bach Chaconne using the compositional approach. Busoni
has embellished several variations to being one or two measures longer than their original
versions. This accounts for why Bach’s measures number 257, while Busoni’s number 263.
Though the measure count is greater, Busoni’s arrangement has the same number of
variations as Bach’s original. Even through Busoni’s elaborate embellishments, all variations
remain congruent in their ordering and motifs as Bach’s. Busoni also retains the use of
“variation pairing” by ensuring that any addition made to one variation is emulated in its
following pair. In doing so, he honors the approach’s traditional parameter which forbids
omission of the original and respects the original’s form while retaining its prominent
compositional devices (see Musical Examples 1 and 4).
The arrows in Musical Example 5 below cross-reference Busoni’s var. 1 and var. 2,
showing the frugality of changes between his paired variations. The A2 circled in both
variations (mm. 4-5 and m. 9) is added by Busoni.51 The added contrapuntal voices in these
chords honor the voice leading treatises of species counterpoint used by Bach. Even added
material such as the downward harmonic expansion to A2, purposefully occurs at the exact same
point in both variations, with the same two-beat duration. This is perhaps the simplest evidence
of Busoni preserving Bach’s devices amidst his own additions to the movement.
51 This document uses IPN (International Pitch Notation), e.g., “middle C” is “C4.”
!38
Musical Example 5. Bach Partita No. 2 in D Minor, “Chaconne” ed. Busoni, for Piano, mm. 1-8,
vars. 1-2.
Another compositional device of Bach’s variation form retained by Busoni are his
registeral melodic accents, typically in the bass. Each three-beat measure of the chaconne genre
traditionally has an agogic accent on the second beat (see table A, item 2). An agogic accent is a
musical stress achieved by the elongation of its rhythmic value, usually to a value greater than
one beat. How then might such an accent be made perceptible to the listener if a variation’s
!39
rhythmic values are all less than half of a beat? An example of this occurs in Bach’s var. 7, mm.
25-28 (see Musical Example 6).
Musical Example 6. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, “Chaconne,” mm. 25-29, var.7.
In Musical Example 6, the agogic emphases on beat two are achieved using register.
Following a D downbeat, the second beat of m. 26 is a C#, which remains the lowest pitch for
the rest of the measure. The listener predictably expects the conjunct motion of the ostinato from
the D - C# to continue. Notes above the D and C# are exclusively chord tones filling in the
harmony of the i and viiº7 respectively and do not participate in the bass voice.
After a D echappée on the downbeat of m. 27, the bass line finally continues stepwise
from C# to B♭on the second beat. Lastly, following a G incomplete neighbor, the line
continues stepwise from B♭ to A on the second beat of m. 28. In this way, emphasis on the
ostinato following the D 4 in m. 25 to C#, B♭, and A is retained by Bach by delaying the the
lowest voice’s continuation after beat two, so as to create agogic accents. In doing so, the
descending tetrachord and agogic accentuation are both emphasized.

!40
I state in Chapter 1 that “changes traditionally serve to further expose or intensify musical
devices of the original composer.” Attesting to this, much of Busoni’s compositional approach to
the Chaconne is, concordantly, not new. Many of his additions are merely repurposed material
by Bach from elsewhere within the same work. One example of this is how Busoni
simultaneously brings more attention to the agogic second beat and ostinato. He uses the same
method as Bach (registeral bass accentuation) while incorporating it into his own registeral
expansion. Allotted to the pianist’s right hand, Busoni respectfully leaves the pitches of the
original violin manuscript from var. 7, mm. 25-29, the same. He layers harmonic expansions
using the rhythmic schemata of var. 1 to further distinguish the melodically-implied agogic
accent. This is allotted to the left hand in the lower contrapuntal voices. This shows Busoni’s
acknowledgement of the importance belonging to a chaconne’s opening rhythmic scheme (see
Chapter 2.1, p. 28, List of Chaconne Attributes, Item 4).
Busoni also reinforces the descending tetrachord, now in its harmonic minor variant [D,
C#, B♭, A] with octave-doubling. This is indicated by circles in the following Musical Example
(see Musical Example 7). Leaving the pitches of the original largely untouched, though enacting
great change upon all other aspects of the music, these additions function analogously to the
troping of a cantus firmus in organum. 52 Thus has Busoni brought more attention to the agogic
beat, Bach’s opening rhythmic scheme, and the ostinato in his compositional approach.
52 Cantus firmus refers to an original Gregorian plainchant which, while its part is left unaltered, has had
other vocal parts added for polyphonic texture during the Late Middle Ages (c. 500-1400) through the Renaissance
(1400-1600).
!41
Musical Example 7. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, “Chaconne,” ed. Busoni, mm.
25-29,
var. 7.
Using the compositional approach to expose or otherwise intensify an original idea of the
composer’s is the most common context of its use. As musicologist Marina Fabrikant has
written, “Combining different material from within the same chaconne… intensifies the harmony
and sonorities.”53 In my theory, doing so may not only allow a more genuine expression of the
performer, but also holds greater potential to express the composer in the performer’s time and
place.
3.2. SUBJECTIVE TRANSLATIONS OF THE BAROQUE
By choosing the compositional approach for his arrangement and performance, Busoni
continued in a performance tradition already nearly two centuries old. While none the less
following the methodology of topic, Busoni also imbued this music of the Late Baroque with the
influence of his own Late Romantic aesthetic. As affirmed by Fabrikant, “Busoni, continuing
53 Marina Fabrikant, “Bach-Busoni Chaconne: A Piano Transcription Analysis” (Phd diss., The University
!42
with the traditions of the previous century, did use Romantic characteristics of style within the
Chaconne…However, he ensured that the elements of [the original] form and style
predominated, and thus, from a structural point of view, arose compatible functions.”54
Of course by Busoni’s lifetime, and even as early as Mendelssohn’s lifetime (1809-1847),
the audience would have been completely different than any who may have heard the Bach
Chaconne in the time and place of its composition. In addition to the audience, the technical
discoveries, the aesthetic demands, the abilities of performers, the size and space of performance
venues, the direction methods of ensembles (e.g. conducting), the guides and treatises on music
theory, and the design and acoustic spectrum of instruments would have stark contrast between
eras. All of these differences would have been unforeseeable in 1723, when the work was
completed.
For instance, a typical Baroque violin fingerboard measured as short as 230 millimeters,
set up under strings called “gut strings”, quite literally made of pig intestines, and played with a
shorter, pre-Tourte (1747-1835) bow whose shaft sharply curved in the opposite direction.55
Already by Busoni’s lifetime, the violin fingerboard had standardized at 270 milimeters, set up
under strings made mostly out of metals, and played with modern post-Torte bows.56 These
changes are comparable to the more exoteric facts of keyboards. Concert keyboard instruments
transferred from the harpsichord of Bach’s era, to the fortepiano of Mendelssohn’s era, to the
grand piano played by Busoni. For all intents and purposes, the classical violin design of today
54 Ibid., 105.
55 William L. Monical, Shapes of the Baroque: Historical Development of Bowed String Instruments
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Federation of Violin and Bow Makers Inc., 1989), 23.
56 Ibid.
!43
constitutes a very different instrument then the one Bach had composed for, which continues to
evolve through the present day.
While sharing fundamental similarities, the Baroque violin and the modern violin are two
different instruments. It would not be inaccurate to consider my use of the compositional
approach to interpret Bach’s Chaconne on the modern violin a transcription in its own right.
Consideration of the aforementioned musical evolutions offer more potential reasons why one
may choose the compositional approach when interpreting the Chaconne. This reason is the
subjective translation of musical impressions across performance eras.
A purist Baroque performance will leave a starkly different impression upon any non-
Baroque audience. This beckons the question of what Bach may have written had he a modern
violin and a post-Torte bow at his disposal. Is it possible that a performer may offer an
experience more similar to where the Chaconne first existed by not exercising rigid Baroque
performance trends? Might the experience instead be achieved by compositionally “translating”
its hypothesized Baroque Era impression to more equivalent musical effects of today?
Doing so via the compositional approach still follows the style, character, form, and
prominent compositional devices used in the original. As stated by Fabrikant,
Today we are imitating the sound of the Baroque with “white” sound, slightly hollow,
without much overtone or vibrato… Yet we can assume that during Bach’s time, the
Chaconne probably had the effect on the audience of a deep, layered, and saturated
sound. By the end of the nineteenth century the Baroque sound did not satisfy the
aesthetic expectation of the listener. The development of instruments, technique,
enlargement of the acoustic space [in] the hall, and the development of other arts (opera,
literature, paintings, etc.) led to a changed concept of what made the “deep, layered, and
saturated” sound to the Romantic [audience].57
57 Marina Fabrikant, “Bach-Busoni Chaconne. A Piano Transcription Analysis” (Phd diss., The University
!44
We may observe the reality of this most-clearly in the changed items shared between Busoni for
his 19th century audience, Segovia for his 20th century audience, and I for my 21st century
audience. First, I will note the added tempo indication in the very beginning of Busoni’s
compositional approach.
Like all movement names in Bach’s Partita No. 2, the Chaconne (orig. ciaccona) is an
Early Baroque dance genre. As such, it only implies a speed relative to the last people who
danced it. As the dance fell out of popularity and style, its pace also became less recallable as
time progressed. Today are is a range of tempi accepted between adagio and andante for
performance. 58 Piano and guitar arrangers generally choose slightly-quicker tempi closer to
andante, as these instruments cannot sustain or increase a pitch’s dynamic once articulated.
Simultaneously, this capability is a primary feature of bowed string instruments. To compensate
the loss of clarity for the tempo, Busoni chose andante. A standard definition of this tempo in
the early 20th century (when Busoni chose it) is “moderately slow…faster than adagio but slower
than allegro.”59
In addition to the andante indication to refine the less-definitive tempo implication
rendered by “chaconne” today, Busoni also adds mood directives. These mood directives are
evidently added for similar reasons as the tempo—to refine less-definitive implications rendered
by rhythm and harmony alone today. Throughout the original work, harmonic, melodic, or
technical devices frequently imply mood changes without any literal marking thereof. Where
notation alone might have made much of this clear to the discerning performer, mood directives
58 Deanna Joseph, "Nineteenth-Century Performance Practice: Reassessing Tradition and Revitalizing
Interpretation,” Choral Journal 54, no. 9 (2014): 18-31.

59 Michael C. Thomsett, Musical Terms, Symbols and Theory: An Illustrated Dictionary (Jefferson, N.C.:
McFarland & Co., 1989), 12.
!45
were a rare occurrence in Baroque music, and many of our most common ones simply did not
exist.60 In fact, in Bach’s entire works for unaccompanied violin (let alone his Six Suites for
Cello, BWV 1007-12) not a single mood directive, tempo fluctuation, or dynamic is marked.61
While not having these markings is considered a freedom by some performers today, others find
it a burden to lack such details of what the composer heard in his own mind, and thus appreciate
the interpretational clarifications of other experienced performers.
By the Late Romantic Era (c. 1820-1910), more detail of this sort had not only become
standard but also expected in western art music. 62 In order to grant future performers (and their
audiences) the clearest representation of the arranger’s interpretive intent, more detail is provided
in Busoni’s arrangement than Bach had in his original. Both brief and extensive, literal directives
for fluctuations of mood are inserted to the variations of his arrangement. All such details help to
translate the music more clearly to Busoni’s Late Romantic Era and future performers (see
Musical Examples 8 and 9). These details help keep the art of interpretation from being akin to a
game of telephone, wherein musical decisions are simply the assumption of whichever editor had
it last.
60 Jon F. Eiche, The Bach Chaconne for Solo Violin: A Collection of Views (Van Nyus, California: Alfred
Music, 2010), 20-23.
61 Dmitry Badiarov, "The Violoncello, Viola Da Spalla and Viola Pomposa in Theory and Practice,” Galpin
Society Journal 60 (April 2007): 121-45.

62 Jaap Schröder, Bach’s Solo Violin Works: A Performer’s Guide (New Haven, Yale University Press,
2007), 132.
!46
181- 183, var. 44 into var. 45.
166-168, var. 41.
!47
Let us recall the tenants of the compositional approach summarized in Chapter 1.1, pg.15.
Noting those, we may also note that Busoni chiefly arranges either by harmonic embellishments
while leaving the original notes unchanged, or by variation typically adding layers of repurposed
material from elsewhere in the original. In this way, it is comparable to the treatment of a cantus
firmus in organum. With this methodology Busoni omits none of the original chaconne, thereby
following this traditional parameter of the compositional approach while subjectively translating
affects across performance eras.
Another example of Busoni subjectively translating from the Baroque Era to the aesthetic
standards of his ambient Late Romantic Era audience occurs in var. 19, mm. 73-76 of his edition,
which aligns congruently with var. 19 from Bach’s original, mm. 73-76. This variation features
32nd note runs in the original which, at tempo, would have been among the fastest rhythmic
values played in succession upon bowed string instruments. They would have been considered
hyper-virtuosic by any audience when it was written. As stated by musicologist Rodolfo
Betencourt, “It is paramount to understand the challenges the violin faces in performing such a
difficult work… Bach likely wanted to challenge the violinist.” 63
During the Baroque Era, the original runs from this variation gave the impression of
being hyper-virtuosically quick. Just over a century later, by the end of the Romantic Era, faster
note values had become a regular occurrence, frequently appearing in concerti and other
instrumental genres of the era. To offer an “extremely quick” impression in the Late Romantic,
something faster needed to be offered to the audience. As such, Busoni extends the 32nd note
runs, doubles them in octaves, and divides the rhythm farther into nearly the fastest values a
63 Rodolfo J. Betancourt, “The Process of Transcription for Guitar of J.S. Bach Chaconne from Partita II for
Violin Without Accompaniment, BWV 1004” (PhD diss., University of Denver Colorado, Denver, 1999), 10-15.
!48
virtuoso performer of the Late Romantic would be expected to handle on his instrument.
The late 19th century practice of aiming to “translate” Baroque aesthetics for audiences of
the Late Romantic Era is well-recognized in western classical music circles. As explained by
Jaap Schröder, the author of “Bach’s Solo Violin Works,”
The Baroque revival in the nineteenth century, laudable as it was, largely ignored
historical practice [period stylism] in favor of interpretations that bent the music to
contemporary understanding. Thus Schumann wrote in his journal that what is
transmitted from the past should be elaborated by “the greater richness of means
available to recent times.64
The Chaconne, which had been hyper-virtuosic in its own time, was merely “virtuosic”
by comparison to the violin’s ambient repertoire by Niccolò Paganini (1782-1840), Louis Spohr
(1784-1859), or Heinrich Wilhelm Ernst (1812-1865), et al. Busoni’s compositional approach
inserts material making var. 19 hyper-virtuosic by Late Romantic standards. He thus translated
an evident experience (a display of hyper-virtuosity among other qualities) of the original
performance from the 1720s for his contemporary audience in the 1890s, using the compositional
approach.
Musical Example 10, depicting var. 19 at end of this chapter, is a detailed example of this
type of subjective translation from the Baroque to the way it may have been experienced in its
own time. These features include longer runs by way of added notes, faster (tupletized) note
values, and even an additional measure of added runs for dramatic effect. New material is
indicated within the boxed areas below, excluding octave-doubling of original pitches. Only new
pitches are indicated, and one may observe that none of the original has been omitted (see
Musical Example 10).
2007), 132.
!49
Thus, in this chapter I have exemplified the use of the compositional approach to
methodically “translate” a hypothesized musical experience of one place and time to the place
and time of its performer. As stated by musicologist, Mary Hunter,
Performance thus becomes an act of recomposition through reimagining the experience

or inspiration that stimulated the work, and transparency is achieved by the performer's
ability to take the listener to the apparent source of the composer's ideas, or his capacity
to make the same journey as the composer, and to return to the audience, Orpheus-like,
with the results of that journey.65
65 Mary Hunter, ““To Play as if from the Soul of the Composer,” Journal of the American Musicological
Society 58, no. 2 (Summer 2005): 357-8.
!50
73-77, var. 19.
!51
CHAPTER 4: ANDRÉAS SEGOVIA’S 1934 CHACONNE
4.1. SUBJECTIVE CLARIFICATIONS
Andres Segovia’s 1934 arrangement is historically revered, not only for being what many
consider the first successful arrangement of Bach’s Chaconne for solo guitar, but also because
the chaconne dance genre had been danced primarily to the guitar in the early 16th century of
Spain. Many had regarded this arrangement as a return of the masterwork to its “rightful”
instrument, from a sense of cultural ownership of the genre. As stated by musicologist, Felicitas
Curti, “Segovia has transcribed the Chaconne for the guitar, returning it, appropriately, to the
instrument of its cultural origin.” 66
This arrangement for guitar has been chosen to discuss more frugal and more conservative
changes, and for a brief discussion regarding the compositional approach’s use to make changes
for technical practicalities. This was not a matter for piano arrangements such as Busoni’s. Both
sources for change are a stark contrast to Busoni’s, and to a lesser extent my own arrangements.
While Busoni exhausts the parameters of the compositional approach outlined in the beginning
of Chapter 1.1, Segovia leaves his arrangement much closer to the original, though the
compositional approach to interpretation is employed at his discretion. As stated by musicologist,
Rodolfo J. Betancourt,
Segovia’s transcription follows the trend left by the Romantic arrangers in general, and
Ferruccio Busoni in particular, in such ways like the addition of filling-notes in important
harmonies, the inclusion of tempo markings, and expression markings. However, it is
closer to the original [than Busoni’s] in the sense that there is no inclusion of the running
Violin Without Accompaniment, BWV 1004” (PhD diss., University of Denver Colorado, Denver, 1999), 10-15.
!52
cadential passages. Addition of basses is economical while following the implied harmony
in the original.67
In order to provide a clear archetype of Bach’s initial motif, and descending tetrachord,
the first variation receives a minimal number of changes, if any, compared to the rest of the
work. Variation 1 receives the same treatment in both Mendelssohn’s and Busoni’s arrangement
as well (Mendelssohn’s fortepiano part does not enter until the beginning of var. 2). This is
largely due to the genre’s form as stated in Chapter 2.1, List of Chaconne Attributes, Item 4;
“The initial progression and rhythmic schemata is especially important, typically serving as a
thematic and harmonic basis unifying multiple other variations via thematic continuity.”
Because notation is a composer's primary manner of communicating what a performer is
to do with their work, it is an equal constituent of both composition and interpretation. Bach’s
manuscript is occasionally unclear to performers today. Perhaps the largest issue is whether or
not to repeat particular (usually the lower) notes of chords following the agogic second beat.68
This is the case of the original manuscript in measures: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 126, 127, 148, 186, 187,
209, 249, and 250 (see Musical Example 11).
Violin Without Accompaniment, BWV 1004” (PhD diss., University of Denver Colorado, Denver, 1999), 15.
68 Carmelo de Los Santos, “Performance Practice Issues of the Chaconne From Partita II, BWV 1004, by
Johann Sebastian Bach” (PhD diss., Manhattan School of Music, New York, 2004), 41.
!53
Musical Example 11. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, “Ciaconna” (manuscript), mm.
125-127, var. 32.
Carmelo De Los Santos (b.1977) is a celebrated baroque violinist and Bach analyst. He asserts,
regarding these chords that,
Before we comment on any practical issues of playing the chords, it is necessary to

discuss the “unplayable” notation of the opening measures of the Chaconne. Should the
up-beats be reiterated along with the lower parts or should they be left alone? The
upbeats are impossible to play as Bach notated them. This has been a source of
discussion for many years.69
In these cases, the chord’s half note value, below the E5 in m. 126 and D5 in m. 127,
technically should carry over to the eighth note value. Yet, these pitches are impossible to sustain
on either a Baroque or modern violin. There is no second articulation notated beneath the final
eighth note of these measures either. This leaves performers with the interpretive decision to
either honor Bach’s indicated rhythmic duration (by repeating the chord) or the articulation he
indicates (by not repeating the chord). It also leaves the Chaconne’s arrangers to decide which
had been Bach’s intention and if it is musically-poignant enough to honor in every interpretation
on every instrument including the modern violin.
!54
Today there remains no majority consensus among institutions, performers, or among
violin teachers. Violinists today are just as likely to repeat the chords as not to.70 Where indicated
with arrows, I have shown where Segovia clarified this conundrum within his compositional
approach (see Musical Examples 12 and 13).
Musical Example 12. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, “Ciaccona” (manuscript),
mm. 1-5, var. 1.
Musical Example 13. (Bach) Segovia, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, “Chaconne,”
mm. 1-5, var. 1.
70 Ibid., 41- 44.

!55
Segovia interpreted Bach’s manuscript to have implied the repetition of chords on beat
two, in mm. 1-2. Specifically, those repeated chord elements the root and third of the first chord
in m. 1, and the root, third, and seventh of the second chord in m. 2. Segovia expresses the chord
repetition by modern notational standards. In doing so, he avoids Bach’s notation of the Musical
Example, whose definite implication has been lost to time, had Bach ever meant it to be
definitive in the first place.
In his notation, he has also chosen to truncate the original value of the agogic beat’s
chord in m. 3. The C5 is not a chord element of the B♭ major triad, and functions instead as a
passing tone between the B♭major and G minor chords. A rudimentary understanding of music
theory easily lends as fact that any implied harmony on this eighth note would be a different
(passing) chord, which is not notationally indicated. Therefore, the half note indicated for the
bottom of the chord on the second beat of m. 3, Segovia replaced with a quarter note followed by
a quarter rest.
Like Busoni, Segovia’s version also offers the same literal expression of the tempo
(andante) to complement the less-definitive indication of “chaconne” by itself. As Chapter 3.2
devotes significant attention to this matter, it will not be repeated here. While similar to Busoni
and my own decision to add mood directives, Segovia’s is unique in that he never literally
indicates any modifiers of tempo, such as a “ritenuto” or “accelerando”. All tempo fluctuations
brought about by the affections of his mood directives in performance are thus within the scope
of andante. Within the following Musical Examples, I have indicated with arrows examples of
Segovia’s mood directives. Respectively, these are “espressivo” (abbrev. “express.”) and
“resoluto” (see Musical Examples 14 and 15).

!56
Musical Example 14. (Bach) Segovia, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, “Chaconne,” mm.
18-21, var. 10.
57-60, var. 15.
These are examples of the compositional approach’s use to definitively indicate an
interpretation, which may or may not have been the intended implication of Bach. With the
notation alone, one may ultimately only proffer interpretive hypotheses, while literal directives
offer more clarity. The same may be said for the dynamic markings, such as those added by
Mendelssohn, Busoni, Segovia, and myself. Indicating details which were evidently intended,
!57
but whose definition may have been lost to time or performance conventions, is part of the
tradition of this approach.
4.2. CHANGES FOR TECHNICAL PRACTICALITIES
When arranging the Chaconne for most other instruments, some of the arranging is for
technical practicalities on the new instrument. While this may be done with or without the
compositional approach, Busoni choses to use it. His changes begin with the inner voices of m.
3, and neither change the harmony, inversion, nor the outer voices of Bach’s original voice
leading. In doing so, no pitches of the original are omitted at all, as per the tradition’s parameters
stated in Chapter 1.1. Choices to change some of the initial chords at this point are therefore,
evidently, for technical practicality on the guitar rather than a desire to change this measure.
1-5, var. 1.
The only four changes in var. 1 are indicated by arrows in the above Musical Example (see
Musical Example 16). The first two changes, both in m. 3, are evidently for technical practicality,
!58
namely to facilitate the strum of chords in this case. Not doubling the D4 an octave higher here
would leave the B string idle in the middle of a chord, posing impractical challenge which would
reflect aurally in performance. A manuscript facsimile arrangement of this chord would require a
different articulation entirely, uncharacteristically differentiating it from the chords before and
after it. Even purist arrangers avoid this technical maneuver in the same manner. In this
arrangement, the performer (Segovia) is guided by the style, character, form, and prominent
compositional devices in the original in recomposition, while avoiding omission of the original
work. This is thus an example of compositional approach’s use for technical practicalities upon a
new instrument.
The final two changes occur at the beginning of m. 5, where Segovia could have chosen
the D minor triad omitting the chord fifth (A) as Bach originally had. Yet, he chose to include
the full chord instead, as Busoni had one measure sooner, as an implied common tone. On both
piano and guitar, the original manuscript could have easily been performed either exactly as
Bach had notated, or certainly much more closely had either desired a pure arrangement. It is
therefore evident that the arrangements are largely the performer-composer’s personal
interpretations following a tradition of reverence to the original composer.

!59
CHAPTER 5: IMMANUEL ABRAHAM’S 2018 CHACONNE
5.1. INDICATING INTERPRETATION: MOOD AND TEMPO FLUCTUATION
Nota Bene:
• Due to many cross references between the original Chaconne by J.S. Bach and the
arrangement I have written whose measures do not always align, abbreviations are introduced
in this chapter to differentiate between them with practical efficiency.
• Indications for measures and variations in the Bach original are “B.m.” and “B.var.”
respectively.
• Indications for measures and variations in the Abraham edition are “A.m.”
and “A.var.” respectively.
In this chapter, I discuss the Bach Chaconne using methods developed by its performer-
composers in my own arrangement for the unaccompanied modern violin. Again for lucidity, I
use the term “compositional approach” to denote this practice. Using the method myself, for the
unaccompanied violin, is thus a realization of my thesis. Similarities and contrasts of the
method’s application in versions by Busoni and Segovia are comprehensively analyzed and
cross-referenced in Chapters 3 and 4, respectively.
At the beginning of my compositional approach to the Chaconne, the first variation
remains essentially unchanged from Bach’s original. This is for the same, or at least similar
reasons that Busoni, Segovia, Mendelssohn, et al., are hypothesized to have done as discussed in
previous chapters. Because the first variation of the Chaconne genre is especially important for
the original’s integrity, it concordantly undergoes the least amount of change. As stated in
Chapter 2.2, in order to lend a clear archetype of Bach’s initial progression, rhythmic motif, and
!60
descending tetrachord ostinato, the first variation receives a minimal amount of change, if any,
when compared to the rest of the work (see Musical Examples 1, 2, and 4).
While those essential elements remain unaltered, I made other additions to the work. In
the first variation, I have made no compositional additions in terms of pitch, and instead lend
specifications for articulation, mood, tempi, and dynamic. This respects the tradition established
by Mendelssohn and developed by his successors, wherein elements which the original may or
may not have implied are objectively included or excluded. This is usually via a verbal directive
(e.g. a dynamic, or mood indication) or notational addition to an original score (e.g. the chord
repetitions discusses in Musical Examples 12 and 13).
The first of these added indications is the notational representation (see Musical
Examples 12 and 17). It is again, as in the Segovia subchapters, the indication for articulation of
select chords. As discusses in Chapter 4.1, the original indications are unclear today, and have
become an interpretational polemic. 71 I have also aimed to clarify Bach’s notation by notating
the repetition of these chords (see Musical Example 17). While Bach’s true intent will forever be
subject to post-Baroque hypotheses, most published compositional approaches of the work have
notated it in the same way. This notational choice is a case of “subjective clarification”, as also
addressed in Chapter 4.1.
!61
Musical Example 17. (Bach) Abraham, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, “Chaconne,”A.
mm. 1-5, var. 1.
Other additions affecting A.var. 1 and the entire arrangement are mood indications and
tempo fluctuations. While tempi fluctuate for some variations, the tempo marking I have chosen
for the work is adagio. Adagio is defined as “somewhat slower than andante…and stately” and
ranges from approximately sixty-six to seventy-six beats per minute. 72 Andante is the tempo
chosen by Busoni and Segovia. The tempo of Andante approximated to be some seventy-six to
one hundred eight beats per minute.
In practice, the tempi of adagio and andante have substantial overlap. I have chosen this
adagio as the subjective clarification of the Chaconne’s tempo for the reasons previously
explained in the previous chapter (see Chapter 4.1). This reason pertains to piano and guitar
arrangers purposefully choosing slightly faster tempi. In summary, this is on account of the
physical inability of those instruments to sustain or dynamically-shape the Chaconne’s long
individual half-note articulations. Dynamic modulations can only occur with more and sooner-
occurring articulations of other notes.
72 David Epstein, Shaping Time: Music, the Brain, and Performance (New York: Schirmer Books, 1995),
21.
!62
Alongside adagio I have also added the directive “grandioso.” Grandioso is a musical
term indicating that a work, or section of the a work, be played in a broad and stately style. grand
and noble style.73 With it, I indicate a mood which many performers already choose when
interpreting its original version. It is yet another subjective clarification, and therefore not
necessarily an addition of something musically absent from previous interpretations. However,
as many musical and technical features of the Baroque, it had no literal indication in the Bach
manuscript.
Extensive study of the Chaconne, its history, editions, recordings, and arrangements, as
well as my own sensibilities as a performer, brought me to the choice of including a literal mood
indication of grandioso. As stated by Bach biographer, Phillip Spitta, “Whoever studies the
musical thought of the Chaconne from his [Bach’s] score is brought to believe that the
instrument must burst absolutely open, and break, under this monumental impact.”74 Concordant
with this testimony is my choice of the musical term “grandioso,” which indicates a broad and
commanding style of interpretation.75
This mood and style has become a mere default for some, while simultaneously not
considered by others. I sought to subjectively clarify that mood literally, and have done so.
Mendelssohn, Busoni, Segovia, et al., all included mood directives for their arrangements at
multiple points. Subjective clarifications of this kind omit none of the original, and serve to
73 Michael C. Thomsett, Musical Terms, Symbols and Theory: An Illustrated Dictionary (Jefferson, N.C.:
McFarland & Co., 1989), 12.
2007), 133-34.
!63
clarify the arranger’s interpretation of the original work. As such, grandioso is sustained until m.
93 which is the start of var. 24, in my arrangement.
At A.m. 93, my mood directive changes from grandioso to misterioso. In the Bach
original, while rhythm and register have participated in significant variation, the repetitive
harmony above the descending tetrachord ostinato has remained essentially unvaried. Suddenly,
introduced in B.m. 77, the beginning of B.var. 20, are some rather exotic harmonies relative to all
that had come before. These relatively-exotic harmonies are mostly secondary functions borrowed
from closely-related keys (see Musical Example 18).
The rhythm at this point has also made a sudden and dramatic change in mood. Throughout
B.mm. 1-77, rhythms have incrementally gained faster and faster values, finally being dominated
by thirty-second notes by B.m. 69, B.var. 18. However, by B.m. 77, this long rhythmic
intensification abruptly stops. At this point, all rhythmic values have decreased back to sixteenth
notes exclusively through B.m. 84. These measures (B.mm. 77-84) comprise B.vars. 20-21.
This sudden change at B.m. 77 in both rhythm and harmony has affectively shifted the
mood in B.vars. 20-21 / A.vars. 24-25. In my interpretation, I describe this mood at the beginning
of B.var. 20 / A.var. 24 as mysterious. Rather than merely leaving this to be indicated by the notes
alone, I also state my interpretation here literally with the directive “misterioso” (Eng.
“mysterious”). I also accompany this with the added dynamic of mezzo piano, which is down two
levels from the added forte I have indicated before. This is a traditional practice when using the
compositional approach—to clarify one’s interpretation with literal markings. This is previously
exemplified in Chapter 4.1.

!64
Musical Example 18. (Bach) Abraham, Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004, “Chaconne,”
A.var. 23, mm. 91-96 into A.var. 24.
To add to the mystique of this section, I transpose the following variation (A.var. 25) up
one octave. Respecting the style of Bach, I also choose to avoid abrupt melodic leaps. In order
prepare my transposition of the next variation, I also raise the ascending [V7] arpeggio in the
final beat of A.var. 24 up one octave. To do this, I must also adjust the implied voice-leading in
the previous beat, which is beat two. As the D in this beat two is articulated twice, I deemed its
initial presence sufficient-enough to vary the second time for the sake of voice leading. Since I
transposed all of beat three up one octave, I also replaced the D 4 in beat two with a B♭ upper
neighbor figuration to the following A 4, which is transposed up from A 5. This change allows
for a smooth upward transposition of the variation’s final four pitches by one octave without any
abrupt leaps.
This leads into the next variation (A.var. 25) which is paired by way of the same exotic
harmonies. It is imbued with the eerily high register made permissible by voice-leading changes
made at the end of A.var. 24. Variation 25 also serves to further express the mysterious idea I
have interpreted from Bach. As this feature is a vertical change, the particulars of how and why
!65
this octave jump occurred are covered more comprehensively in the following chapter (Chapter
6.2) which is comprehensively devoted to my arrangement’s vertical changes.
The next mood directive I have inserted is “maestoso” (It. “majestic”) in A.m. 105, var.
27 / B.var. 23 (see Musical Example 19). This is the beginning of Bach’s eight consecutive
arpeggio variations. Maestoso is defined as “…a term used alone as an indication of mood or as
a tempo designation. It also appears as a modification of some other previous tempo mark. J.G.
Walther (1732) described it as…‘stately and slow, but with lively expression.’”76 As such, I do
intend for the tempo to be particularly slower, stately, yet to retain its “lively expression.” Most
artists do, more or less, interpret it this way already, though enough also do not, whereby I want
to specify this interpretation for my arrangement.
A technical directive I have also added to Bach’s arpeggio indication is the term,
“simile.” It is another term from the Italian language and indicates for the artist to continue in the
same (manner until the end of a musical episode. I repeat the term thereafter, wherever I mean to
specify that the artist should retain my marked pattern until the next indication (see Musical
Example 20).
A.mm. 104-07, A.var. 27.
76David Fallows, “Maestoso,” New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 6th ed., ed. Sir Stanley Sadie
(London: MacMillan, 2001), xv: 56-57.
!66
A.mm. 12-32, A.var. 23.
As all tempo modifications to this point have implied some form of time expansion, a
reminder of the overarching adagio tempo seemed a due courtesy, lest the work hypothetically
slow indefinitely. Thus, at A.m. 137, I have included the tempo directive “tempo primo” (It. “the
first tempo”) to retain the adagio, after a long section of eight variations where time is implied to
broaden.
A.mm. 133-38, A.var. 34.77
The last substantial specification of this sort is yet another directive for both mood and
tempo. At A.m. 230, the beginning of A.var. 58 / B.var. 53, I have specified “lent.” This term is
77 Ibid.
!67
defined as “a French term, directing the musicians to perform the indicated passage of the
composition with a slow tempo…and is used to designate a tempo range from largo to lento or a
metronome marking from around forty to sixty beats per minute.”78 This is one more instance of
adding a directive to specify something already done by most interpreters. Why bother to add
this specification then?
The most pertinent of my reasons stems from the fact that every thought affects the
performer’s physical motion, emotion, and thus their musicality. Performers of Western art music
are trained to constantly ask, answer, and execute musical decisions regarding any expression
whether implied or not. In my extensive experience as a student and teacher, the majority of our
thoughts in both practice and performance come to our conscience in the form of questions. This
has been so whether engaging with new unfamiliar works, or old familiar ones.
When a performer becomes familiar with my edition of the Chaconne which specifies
“lent” where the piece traditionally slows down, “should this be played lent” need not be asked
in doubt or played with uncertainty. In my experience, absence of this doubt yields the affirmed
musical elements to be realized with greater confidence and deliberation. This is one gainful
affect of the compositional approach to interpretation.
5.2. VERTICAL CHANGES: EXPANSIONS OF HARMONY AND RANGE
Like the Busoni and Segovia arrangements, I have expanded select harmonies as well as
the range of the work. Both of these comprise “vertical” changes to the original score because
78 Louis Charles Elson, “Elson's Pocket Music Dictionary: The Important Terms Used in Music with
Pronunciation and Concise Definition, Together with the Elements of Notation and a Biographical List of Over Five
Hundred Noted Names in Music” (Bryn Mawr, PA: Oliver Ditson Company, 1909), 52-53.
!68
they are a matter of organizing and adding musical material higher or lower in relation to the
physically-observed score. Such changes do not alter the metric length of the work in any
manner, and thus constitute “vertical” changes.
Distinct from this, I have also added variations of my own, to the original sixty-four of
Bach’s Chaconne, as well as a special extension to B.var. 52 / A.var. 57, A.mm. 225-229. These
comprise “horizontal” changes to the original score, as it is a matter of expanding the music
chronally—that is, as it exists in time. This is represented in the score horizontally, hence
“horizontal” additions. The horizontal additions to the piece will be covered comprehensively in
Chapter 5.3, “Horizontal Changes: Six New Variations and Other Additions.”
The addition of new material, as far as expanded harmony, begins in the same place as
Segovia, in B.m. 8.79 The inserted A , in both cases, is an additional sustain of Bach's ostinato
transposed up one octave. This prolongation and transposition of the original A 3 intensifies its
function, suspending a closer strain between the chord root, A 4, and seventh, G 5. As per the
developed practice, this omits nothing from the manuscript and serves to further expose an
element of the original composition.
Changes after this not only serve to expand harmonies but also to expand the range as
well. The range of the original work is G4 to F6, with a tessitura of G4 to D6.80 I make similar
harmonic expansion in A.m. 13, var. 4. This corresponds with the original Bach measure and
79 It is stated that I have “expanded” select harmonies throughout the Bach Chaconne. Note that this is
distinct from “extending" harmonies. The latter had purposefully been entirely avoided in doing so.
80 The tessitura of a piece is not determined by the extremes of its range, but rather by which part of the
range is regularly used. This contrasts the “range,” which is the full extant of an instrument or voice in a work from
the lowest note to the highest.
!69
variation count, as I have added no measures nor variations to the work by this point. Added
harmonic expansions have been indicated with circles in the Musical Example below (see
Musical Example 22).
A.mm. 13-16, A.var. 4.
It is evident that what would have left the impression of a “virtuosically-high” pitch in
the late Baroque may only leave the impression of a “high” pitch today. The expansion of the
ambitus is largely intended to translate the “virtuosically-high” impression to today’s audience.
In such ways, the compositional approach may be a viable candidate for hypothesizing what
Bach may have written, had he any access to today’s instrument, techniques, and audiences.
To intensify this idea, I take advantage of the modern violin. As stated in Chapter 3.2, the
violin today is an anatomically different instrument than the Baroque violin, modified from its
predecessors to enable higher pitches with a longer fingerboard. The difference in length
between an average Baroque violin fingerboard, which had some variation between makers then,
and a contemporary violin fingerboard, had been as much as 40mm. 81 This is slightly more than
81 William L. Monical, Shapes of the Baroque: Historical Development of Bowed String Instruments
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Federation of Violin and Bow Makers Inc., 1989), 23.
!70
the interval of a perfect fourth, when measured in the middle of the fingerboard. To make use of
the contemporary violin’s range, my arrangement purposefully expands the work’s ambitus by a
perfect fourth, from the original F 6 to B♭7. This occurs at A.m. 97, the beginning of A.var. 24
A.mm. 97-99, A.var. 25.
Of course, to remain respectful of the character, style, and period of the manuscript, this
augmentation in range is not achieved by an abrupt leap. On the contrary, I prepare the music by
expanding the range considerably earlier so that the expansion up to F6 is not abrupt. This
comes about via two mediums. For the first medium, I rewrite several of Bach’s manuscript
variations which invariably include methodical upwards transpositions of select original
material. For the second medium, I also compose and insert six of my own variations amid
Bach’s original sixty-four.
These six variations are written using Bach’s devices, style, and preexisting material, to
the best of my scholarship thereof. The first new variation raises the range in the middle of those
first fourteen variations from B♭6 (Bach’s original highest pitch at this point) to D6 in A.m. 25,
the beginning of my added variation, A.var. 7 (see Musical Example 24). As all variations
!71
through this point in the original have been paired, A.var. 7 follows this form with a second
added variation (A.var. 8) for the sole purpose of respecting the genre’s idiosyncrasy of variation
pairing.
A.mm. 25-28, A.var. 7, N.V. 1.
Variation pairing is discussed in Chapter 2.2 and is listed in Chapter 2.1, pp. 28-29, “List
of Chaconne Attributes” and is unnecessary to repeat here (see Musical Example 15). Because
the aforementioned new variations are melodic and metric (horizontal) additions, rather than
registeral and harmonic (vertical) additions, they will be more comprehensively in their own
section of this document. Chapter 5.3, “Horizontal Changes: Six New Variations and Other
Additions,” is thus devoted to this class of compositional change.
After this, my effort to subtly expand the range upward continues with my variation of
Bach’s original B.var. 7, which corresponds to A.var. 9, A.m. 33. While comprising all of the
same rhythms and notes as B.var. 7, I add some harmonic expansions (not extensions) and
registeral shifts of many pitches up by either one or two octaves. A.m. 3 repeats Bach’s exchange
between the F5 and its lower neighbor [F - E - F] above the original [D - C# - D], keeping a
!72
melodic counterpart a third higher which will continue to raise to the top of the new tessitura for
the first 14 variations (D 6). The harmony has remained the same as these additions are
expansions, rather than extensions. The [F - E - F] addition also provides enough melodic
material wherewith to raise Bach’s original measure by a full octave, avoiding unstylistic leaps in
range.
This upward-expanded tessitura falls by a descending scale, with harmonic emphasis
added to the agogic second beat of A.m. 36. The idiomatic eighth-note suffix to the agogic accent
is also emphasized with an added repeat of A3 from the ostinato. Per the developed practice, this
omits nothing from the manuscript and serves to further expose an idea of the original work. All
parallel and direct perfect intervals are also avoided, respecting Bach’s style of counterpoint.
The descending scale ending the variation continues via conjunct motions into Bach’s original
B.var. 14 (see Musical Example 25).
A.mm. 33-36, A.var. 9.
!73
The next substantial vertical additions occur in A.var. 18, from A.m. 65 to A.m. 68 (see
Musical Example 25). From the melodically implied harmony in the final beat of each measure,
I sustain the 3rd of each triad to resolve upward in the following measure. In the final measure of
A.var. 18, in dominant harmony, I increase the presence of the chord root. It emphasizes the
agogic second beat as Bach does throughout the work. Embellishments of this kind, bearing no
structural function, help to express the initial grandioso directive in my compositional approach
A.mm. 65-68, A.var. 17.82 
The last addition made to prepare the music for the range increase accommodating the
modern violin is a slight variation at the end of A.var. 24 / B.var. 20. In the final measure of this
variation, the last beat is transposed up by a full octave. Variation to one pitch made this possible
possible to achieve without abrupt leaps. By changing the final pitch of beat two (D4) to the
upper neighbor of the following pitch when transposed up—that is, a B♭4 to A4. The final D of
82 Johann Sebastian Bach, “Ciaccona” from Partita No. 2 in D minor, BWV 1004, ed. Immanuel Tzemach
Abraham (San Diego, California: Apex Music Company, 2018), 3.
!74
A.var. 24, rather than dropping down an octave from C#5 to D4 as in the original, the transposed
C#6 continues up to D5. This respects all of the original intervals save for the variation of one
pitch to a different chord tone for smooth voice-leading (see Musical Examples 27 and 28).
B.mm. 79-80, B.var. 20.
A.mm 95-96, A.var. 24.
Thus, my variation of one pitch to another chord tone allowed a transposition of the final
beat up one octave without abrupt leaps beyond an open-spaced arpeggio. In doing so, I was able
to allow A.var. 24 to omit none of Bach’s original notes, and to prepare the whole of A.var. 25 /
B.var. 21 (the following variation) to be transposed up by one octave without any abruption in
!75
the melodic line. This simultaneously expands the range of the work by the desired perfect 4th
mentioned earlier in this chapter (see Musical Example 29).
A.mm. 97-99, A.var. 21.
This propensity of the compositional approach to further expose ideas in the original
work has long been observed and is well-documented. Celebrated 19th century violin performer-
composer Joseph Joachim insisted upon only performing Bach’s unaccompanied violin works as
originally written. Yet, in 1855, upon first playing Robert Schumann’s arrangement of them with
Clara Schumann, he stated, “I like your accompaniments better and better. What beautiful
harmonies you have invented, or rather discovered for the Adagios.”83 The verb “discovered,” as
a deliberate correction from “invented,” attests to the aforementioned objective of the
compositional approach and that is to complement rather than supplement original material.
The next substantial vertical changes occur in A.vars. 45-48, by way of harmonic
expansions and contrapuntal embellishments. These four variations align with B.vars. 41- 45;
they exist in two pairs. The first pair, A.vars. 45-46, are related by a three-note motif, present
2007), 133.
!76
between the first and second beat of each measure. A.vars.47 - 48 are related by the four-note
motif, also present in each measure. These motifs are highlighted with oval-shaped indications
within the Bach manuscript of the following Musical Example (see Musical Example 30).
In my variations of the paired set B.vars. 41-42, I gave a greater exposure to the three-
note motif. Rather than its limited presence beginning on the first beat’s second half in each
measure, I chose to make it omnipresent throughout both variations. I propagate it on the second
half of all beats in B.var. 41 (A.var. 45). I also propagate it on the second half of beats one and
two in B.var. 42 (A.var. 46). Different registers are used for the motif’s added repetitions in order
to present it to the listener without boredom from said repetition. To me, it highlights and
emphasizes Bach’s original motif, and offers this to the listener. The following Musical
Examples indicates both Bach’s original three and four-note motifs, and the motif reiterations I
have added for this echo affect (see Musical Examples 30-31).
!77
B.mm. 160-176, B.vars. 41-45.
!78
A.mm. 177-184, A.var. 45.
In my variation of B.vars. 43-44, I have also given the four-note motif a greater emphasis,
but in a different way. Rather than repeating the unisons already stated as in the previous two
variations, I have harmonized the motif already provided by Bach in each measure with conjunct
four-note Musical Examples. The following Musical Example has indicated each occurrence of
this (see Musical Example 32). This treatment of all four variations serves to further expose an
original device of Bach, as per the defining attributes of the compositional approach, listed in
Chapter 1.1.
!79
A.mm. 185-192, A.vars. 47-48.
Following this, the final noteworthy vertical changes occur in A.mm. 273-274. This is the
end of A.var. 68, corresponding with B.var. 62. Having risen the range of the work by a perfect
fourth (in A.var. 25) and enacting other changes to raise pitch throughout my edition, the
rendered tessitura’s top pitch is no longer D6, but F6. Before the idiomatic repeat of the
Chaconne’s first variation (in A.var. 69 / B.var. 63), there is a final burst of rhythmic excitement
at the end of A.var. 68 / B.var. 62 in a run of thirty-second notes. To further expose an original
idea of the composer and to simultaneously take full advantage of this new tessitura a final time,
I continue this thirty-second-note run upward.
Rather than reversing the scale’s direction back down to land on the tonic D4 alone as it
originally had, I end the scale a chord between D4 and D5 for a stronger, doubled tonic. I have
also included in this chord the top of the new tessitura, F6, which is conveniently the chord third.
Even in this second-to-last variation, it still participates in the raised tessitura from the original,
!80
which again, takes advantage of both today’s techniques and the modern violin. Ending this on a
fingered tenth alone also helps translate some of the Chaconne’s once hyper-virtuosic affect to
today’s performer.84 As stated by renowned violin performance pedagogue, Jo Nardolitto,
“Reaching tenths is a daunting challenge on the violin… the tenth can seem impossibly distant,
but is part of today’s standard technique.”85 Thus, the tenth also serves to translate the hyper-
virtuosity of the original run to my contemporary audience, who are today accustomed to the
velocity of thirty-second note runs. 86 This practice of subjectively translating experiences across
eras has been previously exemplified in Chapter 3.2, “Subjective Translations of the
Baroque” (see Musical Example 33).
My final vertical changes are in A.var. 69 / B.var. 63. Here, I have implemented a
performance practice of Bach’s era, which historical evidence suggests may have been used
when interpreting the Bach Chaconne. In this practice a theme or other substantial musical
segment which repeats is often ornamented by the performer the second time. Baroque Era
specialist, Olga María Rúa, confirms this practice.
The lack of written ornamentation in Baroque music does not necessarily mean that the
performer should abstain from adding ornaments. In search of a balance between the
ornaments notated by the composer and a performer’s own improvisations, the performer
might consider the repeated sections in early eighteenth-century compositions. The
performer might play the composer’s ornaments the first time exactly as written, and the
second time through with his or her own additions or modifications.87
84 Jo Nardolillo, Violin Secrets: 101 Strategies for the Advanced Violinist (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers, 2015), 96.
85 Ibid., 33.
86 James Deaville, "The Virtuoso Liszt,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 60, no. 3 (Fall,
2007): 666-77.
87 Olga María Rúa, “A Historical Overview of Carlos Seixas's Works for Solo Keyboard and a Performance
Guide Based on Analytical Observations Including Pedagogical Annotations and Analysis of Four of his Keyboard
Pieces” (PhD diss., University of Iowa, Iowa City, 2010), 63-64.
!81
As stated in Chapter 2.2, B.var. 1 and B.var. 63 are identical and are the only case of
variation repetition out of the original sixty-four variations. Therefore, A.var. 69 / B.var. 63,
being the repetition of the first variation, has my ornamental additions expressed in its notation.
Again, this change respects the compositional style, form, and all other prominent devices of the
manuscript, while omitting none of Bach’s original work. Thus, my interpretation is clarified in
concordance with the compositional approach. This is observable in the annotated Musical
Example below (see Musical Example 33).
A.mm. 272-282 / A.vars. 68-70.
!82
5.3. HORIZONTAL CHANGES: SIX NEW VARIATIONS AND OTHER ADDITIONS
Like the Busoni arrangement and unlike the Segovia arrangement, I have made horizontal
additions to the work. These additions come largely in the form of my own added variations,
idiosyncratically following the compositional form, character, style, and other prominent devices
of the original. Bach’s original vars. 1-2 rhythmically comprise eighths, quarters, and dotted
quarter notes exclusively. Bach vars. 3-4 feature dotted eighths and sixteenth Musical Examples,
while B.vars.5-6 occasionally replace the sixteenth following the dotted eighth with two thirty-
second notes.
I picked up where this gradual increase in rhythmic activity had left off when composing
the first and second of my added variations. These added variations begin in A.m. 25, var. 5-6
(see Musical Example 34). Increasing the presence of the two thirty-second notes following
dotted eighths. I also made certain to compose these variations in a pair, as per the precedent six
variations of the Bach original, B.vars. 1-14 (see Chapter 6). While these paired variations end
and resolve on Bach’s original D5, I have allowed the ostinato A3 to resolve within its own
octave to D4 (not pictured) by adding it as a chord at the beginning of A.m. 33 (see Musical
Example 34).
!83
A.mm. 25-33, A.vars. 7-8 Into A.var.9, N.V. 1-2.
My arrangement also expands the original work’s range by a perfect fourth, from F 6 to
B♭7 in A.m. 97 (See Chapter 5.2). Consequently, the purpose of this variation is to begin raising
the tessitura of the work leading up to that point, so that the top of the work’s range is not
reached suddenly or abruptly. The full range of the original first fourteen variations had merely
been from the violin’s open g-string, G3, up to B♭5. In the middle of this, A.var. 7, I have
inserted these two variations, stylistically paired with one another, as is idiomatic of the
chaconne genre. These new variations, together with my vertical changes upon Bach’s B.var. 7 /
A.var. 9, raise the tessitura from B♭5 to D6 early in the work (see Musical Example 19).
The next horizontal change is my addition of A.var. 12 in A.m. 45. This new variation is
the third of six new variations and features sextuplets. Despite not following any precedent
!84
rhythmic scheme, it does foreshadow subsequent rhythmic schemes. In the Chaconne, tuplet
divisions only make a sudden and brief appearance near the end of the original work in a series
of descending duodectuplets. Most bowed string performers artists also use tuplets in Bach’s
arpeggiated variations, B.vars 23-30, in which he did not specify rhythms. I decided to
moderately balance these tuplet occurrences symmetrically by adding some sextuplets near the
beginning as well. This is the reasoning for my insertion of A.var. 12.
Abraham var. 12 also follows the compositional approach in that it retains the ostinato in
the bass, which has been the exclusive case through this point in the work. It also begins and
ends with the conjunct descending motions from the original Bach variations preceding and
following it. (Namely, those are A.vars. 11 and 13 / B.vars. 9 and 11.) It also continues the
idiomatic agogic accent of the genre via the ostinato’s placement on the second beat. Notably,
the ostinato is also grounded in the bass for this variation (see Musical Example 35).
A.mm. 45-48, A.var. 11.
Due to the relationship between this variation and the section discussed next, I will
temporarily skip over the fourth of my six added variations. Ergo, the next substantial horizontal
!85
changes discussed occur in in A.var. 12. This section is A.vars. 27-34 / B.vars. 23-30. In Bach’s
manuscript, he has written eight variations out in chords only with the directive, “arpeggio” at
their onset. This was a common notational practice throughout the Baroque Era. Even omitting
the literal instruction to arpeggiate, such notation alone would direct performers to decide, or to
improvise, the arpeggiation patterns ourselves. Distinguished Professor of Violin at Indiana
University’s Jacobs School of Music, Stanley Ritchie, confirms this fact of Bach’s notation.
In the following passage, Bach uses a conventional notation of the period (used
frequently by Vivaldi, and by Corelli in his Op. 5 sonatas) to indicate some kind of
arpeggiation, with the choice left to the performer… The episodes in this Musical
Example are improvisations on a series of harmonies, and their correct organization
depends only upon awareness of the duration of each harmony. 88
While Bach arpeggiates the first beat, it is unlikely the sole pattern intended for all eight
variations for two primary reasons. The first reason is that this initial pattern simply does not
work technically if followed precisely. Chords in the variations which follow, particularly the
four-note chords which begin in A.var. 30, require the pattern to be compromised in their every
occurrence. The second is that it is not common for any dance variation form to allow eight
variations to pass with the same rhythmic value used exclusively, and is not idiomatic to Bach’s
compositions. As stated by Ritchie, “…the floridity of Bach’s improvisatory-style writing
demands great flexibility and range of nuance within that notation. It is impossible to
overemphasize this point.”89
I chose to indicate arpeggiations with the realization of rhythmic variation present
between them. I have also used the chaconne genre’s idiom of variation pairing by introducing a
for Violin (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2016), 49-50.
89 Ibid.
!86
different pattern every two variations. Each pattern is followed by the term arpeggio simile,
meaning to use the pattern exclusively until otherwise indicated (see Musical Example 36).
Specifying a duodectuplet in the place of a written quarter-note is a horizontal change from the
range of rhythmic possibilities formerly implied. This constitutes a horizontal change because,
while the piece is not chronally altered by it, the rhythmic division of existing values is altered.
This is of course represented horizontally in notation (see Musical Example 36).

!87
A.mm. 104-32, A.vars. 27-33.
!88
I have inserted the fourth of my six added variations as A.var. 20 in A.mm. 77-80. I
composed this as an idiomatic paring with B.var. 16.90 It uses the rhythmic scheme of sixteenth
values in combination with inversion of the ascending open-spaced arpeggio pattern featured in
B.var. 16, B.mm. 73-76. This allows the two variations to be paired via the same rhythm and a
similar pattern. The inversion to open-spaced descending arpeggiations functions as musical
response to the pattern featured at the end of the previous variation (see Musical Example 37).
A.mm. 73-80, A.vars. 19-20.
The next horizontal change is another inserted variation, A.var. 55, A.m. 217. This is the
fifth new variation. I place it immediately after B.var. 50, B.mm. 196-199. This variation is little
more than B.var. 22, B.m. 85-88 transposed from D minor to D major for the maggiore. I chose
90 C. F. Abdy Williams, "The Rhythmical Construction of Bach's Forty-Eight Fugues,” Proceedings of the
Musical Association 19, no. 1 (January 1892): 79.
!89
to imitate Bach’s original var. 22 because it fits within the rhythmic progression of the work’s
three large sections (see Musical Example 3).
In addition to this sequence of notes largely from Bach’s own hand, chords I have added
in A.m. 219 and A.m. 220 serve to emphasize the agogic second beat of the Chaconne. This is
another instance of recycling material and devices from elsewhere in the work.91 To further
respect Bach’s methodical common-era practice, the last pitch is the 7th of V7 which must resolve
down in the same voice to the chord 3rd of I—an F#4.92 Therefore, I have changed the bottom
note of the chord in order to continue the conjunct resolution of the V chord’s 7th, followed by a
passing tone E to the root D, in order to restart the ostinato (see Musical Example 38).
A.mm. 217-220, A.var. 55.
The next horizontal change is not an added variation but the sympathetic extension of
B.var. 52 (A.var. 57, A.m. 225). The most dramatic shift in mood in the Chaconne is between the
91C. F. Abdy Williams, "The Rhythmical Construction of Bach's Forty-Eight Fugues,” Proceedings of the
Musical Association 19, no. 1 (January 1892): 79.
92 International Pitch Notation.
!90
end of A.var. 57 / B.var. 52 and A.var. 58 / B.var. 53. It is also the transition from the maggiore
to the third, and final, large division of the work (see Musical Example 4). The ostinato here
persists in its natural minor variant [D, C , B♭, A] and is invariably placed in the bass voice
through the work’s end. However, the harmony which the ostinato has through most of the work
[ I - V - VI - V ] is substituted with a different harmonic scheme by changing the chord elements
(and thus the inversion) indicated by the bass voice. Thus, rather than a basic progression of [I -
V - VI - V], this one is more harmonically ambiguous, with the basic progression of [VI - V7/III -
VI7 - V7].
The strong ending of A.var. 57 / B.var. 52, which is a fully voiced V7 chord with all
voices resolving in oblique motion to tonic as a doubled root, transitioning to the ambiguously
harmonized A.var. 58 / B.var. 53, is a dramatic affect which I cannot verbally overstate. I felt a
better chance as stating this musically by making this transition longer. As this is an unpaired
variation, I decided to use the variation pairing tradition of the genre to achieve this.
As such, the final variation I have added is A.var. 59, A.mm. 234-237. It contains the
same ostinato variation as its paired variation A.var. 58 / B.var. 53. It also keeps the ostinato
invariably in the bass on the agogic second beat of each measure, and comprises only quarter and
eight-note values. These are all features of the original Bach variation which precedes it.
Thereby, these features make them (A.var. 58 and A.var. 59) pairs. This is the sixth and final of
my added variations (see Musical Example 39).

!91
A.mm. 230-37, A.vars. 69-70.
!92
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND THE ABRAHAM EDITION (COMPLETE)
6.1. CONCLUSIONS
Has recomposition of the Bach Chaconne, as an interpretational approach, formed a
methodology over the past two centuries? If so, is it possible to apply that methodology to the
original instrumentation and merit similar regards as the arrangements by Segovia, Busoni, et
al.? With this document I have provided historical, compositional, and analytical evidence
supporting the affirmative conclusion to both inquiries.
Out of many texts researching performance practices of the Bach Chaconne, including
those listed in this document’s introduction, the tradition of recomposition as an approach to its
interpretation has never been addressed. Even farther from any peer-reviewed documentation is
the proposal to apply this interpretive tradition to violin performance. Thus has this large gap
existed in our scholarly literature regarding the Chaconne’s performance practices. The same gap
has existed in our music as well, as no compositional approach to the Chaconne for the
unaccompanied violin has been published before. This document has attempted to fill both of
these gaps via historical research, theoretical and technical analyses, and comprehensive
compositional realization.
I have researched performance of the Bach Chaconne to its very first documented
performance, and found it to have been an arrangement with significant compositional change
with the addition of a fortepiano accompaniment. The Chaconne, among hundreds of other works
by Bach, would have been lost to time had it not been for resurrection to the concert stage by
Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, who premiered his arrangement of it in 1840 with violinist

!93
Ferdinand David in Leipzig.93 The fact that this arrangement had been desired and realized by
the talent of Mendelssohn, and met with enough success to draw the world’s attention to the
entirety of BWV 1001-06 (Six Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin) is evidence for two
inferences.
The first inference is that Mendelssohn’s fabled musical integrity compelled him to use
some methodological approach, to achieve this. Tried and true composition methods formed the
pedagogical models of its education in the schools of Europe until the Impressionist Era,
including the Humboldt University of Berlin where Mendelssohn had studied composition from
1826 to 1829.94 This is evident in all areas of his arrangement including voice leading,
counterpoint, choice subjective translations and clarifications as addressed in Chapters 3.2 and
4.1, vertical changes as addressed in Chapter 5.2, and horizontal changes as discussed in Chapter
5.3. The second inference is his sole use of this arrangement to premiere the Bach Chaconne,
which had earned enough regard to spawn exponential perpetuation of the Chaconne’s
performance everywhere. Many of those resultant performances involved interpretation on the
compositional level following similar guidelines as found in Mendelssohn’s arrangement.
Renowned piano pedagogue Maurise Hinson, in the preface of his book, “Pianist's Guide
to Paraphrases, Transcriptions and Arrangements”, included his personal rubric for determining
whether an arrangement had been worthy of inclusion in his book. His rubric consisted of the
following three questions: “Is it a finer composition than the original? Is it pianistic? Is it in
2007), 131.
94 Larry R. Todd, Mendelssohn – A Life in Music (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 21.
!94
good taste?”95 These questions ask for compositional guidelines similar to the traditions which
define the compositional approach as summarized in Chapter 1. It is the performative tradition
alone which proffered these guidelines which became a distinct interpretational approach, and
not vice-versa. I have summarized the compositional approach’s guidelines as follows:
• The performer will add notation and extra-notational directives to the score, following
the compositional character, form, and prominent devices of the original work.
• Omission of any original notation, except by way of transposition or ornamentation
under the above parameters, is avoided.
• Changes traditionally serve to further expose or intensify ideas of the original
composer.
• Changes often serve to translate impressions across performance eras.
• Extensive repurposing of original material added from elsewhere within the work.
• Realization of the compositional approach aims to complement the preexisting music,
rather than to supplement it. As stated by Liszt, “A certain matrimonial faithfulness to the
original is always best.”96
The performative tradition has not previously been identified as an interpretive approach,
and only generically dubbed an “arrangement” or “transcription.” These terms indicate no
specificity regarding the methodology. For this reason, I found a much more specific term to be
necessary for discussion of the interpretational approach. I chose to identify it as the
“compositional approach”. I conclude that it is a distinct and legitimate interpretational approach
95 Christine Kefferstan, Sheila Barnhart, "Engaging, Accessible And Fresh: Two-Piano Transcriptions Of
Works By Mozart,” MTNA e-Journal 3, no. 1 (2011): 11-22.

96 Jaap Schröder, “Bach’s Solo Violin Works: A Performer’s Guide (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale
University Press, 2007), 135.
!95
in performance, and one which may also be respectfully applied to the modern unaccompanied
violin. I have written a full arrangement of the Bach chaconne using each tenet of the
compositional approach, in support of this thesis.
6.2. ANALYSIS ABBREVIATIONS
Nota bene: Chapter VI, Annotated Score
• The following analysis accounts for each change I have made in the methodical approach
discussed in this essay. It is not intended to be an analysis of harmony nor figuration.
• Bowing, fingering indications, and dynamics I have deemed subsidiary, and are not included in the
annotation. These have been discussed adequately for the purposes of this document.
!96
Score Annotation Index for Chapter VI:
alt.: alternative beginning or ending to an original Bach variation, usually to

accommodate other changes.
A.m.: “Abraham measure.” Measure count, including added measures. (See Chapter 5.1.)
A.var.: “Abraham variation.” Variation count, including added variations. (See Chapter 5.1.)
B.m.: “Bach measure.” Measure count, without added measures, provided for
comparison to the corresponding original Bach measure where applicable. (See Chapter 5.1.)
B.var.: “Bach variation.” Variation count without added variations, provided for
comparison to the corresponding original Bach variation where applicable. (See Chapter 5.1.)
dir.: directive for “subjective clarification” (See Chapters 4.1, 5.1.)
exp.: harmonic expansion (See Chapter 5.2.)
mel.: melodic expansion (See Chapters 3.2, 5.3.)
n.v.: new variation (See Chapter 5.3.)
orn.: ornamentation (See Chapter 5.2.)
r.v.: revoicing of chord elements (See Chapters 4.2, 5.2.)
ost.: ostinato element (See Chapters 2.2, 3.1, 5.2.)
t.d.: tempo directive (See Chapter 3.1.)
trans.: upward transposition by octave (See Chapters 3.2, 5.2.)

!97
6.3 “CIACCONA” ABRAHAM EDITION (COMPLETE):
ANNOTATED SCORE
JOHANN SEBASTIAN BACH (1685-1750)
ARRANGED BY
IMMANUEL TZEMACH ABRAHAM
FROM PARTITA NO. 2 IN D MINOR, BWV 1004

!998
8
Type to enter text

!99
99
!1100
00
101
!101
102
!102
103
!103
104
!104
105
!105
!106
WORKS CITED
Sources
Ábrahám, Márta and Barnabas Dukay. Excerpts from Eternite: The Purification of Time and
Character, The Fulfillment of Love, and Cooperation With Celestial Will in Johann
Sebastian Bach’s Ciaccona for Violin. Rome: Pátria Printing House Co., 2017.
Auer, Leopold. Violin Master Works and Their Interpretation. New York: Carl Fischer
Incorporated, 1925.
Badiarov, Dmitry. "The Violoncello, Viola Da Spalla and Viola Pomposa in Theory and
Practice." Galpin Society Journal 60 (April 2007): 121-145.
Betancourt, Rodolfo J. “The Process of Transcription for Guitar of J.S. Bach Chaconne from
Partita II for Violin Without Accompaniment, BWV 1004.” PhD diss., University of
Denver Colorado, Denver, 1999.
Blume, Friedrich. “Bach in the Romantic Era.” The Musical Quarterly 50, no. 3 (1964): 290-306.
Boyden, David D. The History of Violin Playing from its Origins to 1761 and its Relationship to
the Violin and Violin Music. New York: Oxford University Press. 1969.
Busoni, Ferruccio. Sketch of a New Aesthetic of Music. Edited by Theodore Baker. New York:
G. Schirmer, 1911.
Deaville, James. "The Virtuoso Liszt." Journal of the American Musicological Society 60, no. 3
(Fall, 2007): 666-77.
Eiche, Jon F. The Bach Chaconne for Solo Violin: A Collection of Views. Van Nyus,
California: Alfred Music, 2010.
Epstein, David. Shaping Time: Music, the Brain, and Performance. New York: Schirmer Books.
1995.
Fabrikant, Marina. “Bach -Busoni Chaconne.” A Piano Transcription Analysis." PhD diss.
The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2006.
Garno, Gerard. A New Look at Segovia, His Life, His Music. vol. 1. Fenton, Missouri: Mel Bay
Publications, 2016.
Geiringer, Karl. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Culmination of an Era. New York, Oxford
University Press. 1966.
!107
Hunter, Mary. “To Play as if from the Soul of the Composer.” Journal of the American
Musicological Society 58, no. 2 (Summer 2005): 357-398.
Kregor, Jonathan. "After the Golden Age: Romantic Pianism and Modern Performance." Music
Library Association.Notes 65, no. 2 (December, 2008): 306-9.
Kefferstan, Christine, N.C.T.M. and Sheila Barnhart. "Engaging, Accessible and Fresh: Two-Piano
Transcriptions of Works by Mozart." MTNA e-Journal 3, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 11-22.
Kyung, Sandra Eun Joo. "Chaconne from Johann Sebastian Bach's Partita No. 2: Linear
Analysis.” PhD diss., California State University, Long Beach, 1999.
Lester, Joel. Bach’s Works for Solo Violin: Style, Structure, Performance. Oxford, New York:
Oxford University Press. 1999.
Lloyd, Rebecca. "Bach: Luther's Musical Prophet?” Current Musicology, no. 83 (Spring, 2007):
21-22.
Monical, William L. Shapes of the Baroque: Historical Development of Bowed String

Instruments. Philadelphia: American Federation of Violin and Bow Makers Inc., 1989.
Murray, Robert P. “Evolution of Interpretation as Reflected in Successive Editions of J.S. Bach’s

Chaconne.” PhD diss., Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976.
Nardolillo, Jo. Violin Secrets: 101 Strategies for the Advanced Violinist. Lanham, Maryland:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2015.
Paetsch, Johann. “J.S. Bach Chaconne, Arr. John Cook.” The Musical Times 97 (Summer, 1956):
27.
Pruett, Jeffery Mark. "J.S. Bach's Chaconne in D Minor: An Examination of Three Arrangements
for Piano Solo." PhD diss., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 1991.
Ritchie, Stanley. The Accompaniment in “Unaccompanied” Bach: Interpreting the Sonatas and
Partitas for Violin. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2016.
Rúa, Olga María. “A Historical Overview of Carlos Seixas's Works for Solo Keyboard and a
Performance Guide Based on Analytical Observations Including Pedagogical Annotations
and Analysis of Four of his Keyboard Pieces.” PhD diss., University of Iowa, Iowa City,
2010.
!108
Santos, Carmelo de Los. “Performance Practice Issues of the Chaconne From Partita II, BWV
1004, by Johann Sebastian Bach.” PhD diss., Manhattan School of Music, 2004.
Schröder, Jaap. Bach’s Solo Violin Works: A Performer’s Guide. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale
University Press, 2007.
Schweitzer, Albert. J.S. Bach: Volume 2. ed. Ernest Newman. New York: Macmillan Publishers.
1911.
Sevier, Zay David. "Bach's Solo Violin Sonatas and Partitas: The First Century and a Half, Part
2." Bach 12, no. 3 (July 1981): 21-29.
Silbiger, Alexander. "Bach and the Chaconne." The Journal of Musicology 17, no. 3 (Summer
1999): 358-385.
Thomsett, Michael C. Musical Terms, Symbols, and Theory: An Illustrated Dictionary. Jefferson,
North Carolina: McFarland & Co., 1989.
Todd, R. Larry. Mendelssohn–A Life in Music. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Ulrich, Homer. “The Nationality of Bach’s Partitas." The American Music Teacher 34, no. 4
(February, 1985): 10-13.
Wade, Graham and Gerard Garno. “A New Look at Segovia, His Life, His Music: Volume 1”
Fenton, Missouri: Mel Bay Publications, 2016.
Williams, C. F. Abdy. "The Rhythmical Construction of Bach's Forty-Eight Fugues."

Proceedings of the Musical Association 19 (January 2009): 73-93.
Yip, Viola. "Darmstadt 2014: The Composer-Performer.” Tempo - A Quarterly Review of Modern
Music 69, no. 271 (2015): 69-72.
!109
Musical Scores
Bach, Johann Sebastian. “Ciaccona” from Partita No. 2 in D minor, BWV 1004, ed.
Immanuel Tzemach Abraham. San Diego, California: Apex Music Company, 2018.
Bach, Johann Sebastian. “Chaconne” from Partita No. 2 in D minor, BWV 1004, ed.
Ferruccio Busoni. München, Germany: G. Henle Publishers, 1963.
Ivan Galamian. New York: International Music Company, 1971.
Günter Haußwald. Kassel, Germany: Bärenreiter-Verlag, 2013.
Bach, Johann Sebastian. “Chaconne” from Partita No. 2 in D minor, BWV 1004, ed.
Andrés Segovia. Mainz-Hechtsheim, Germany: Schott Music, 1934.

Azu Etd 16920 Sip1 M PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Azu Etd 16920 Sip1 M PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J.S.

Bach’s Chaconne for Solo Violin: A Performer-

Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation

Authors Abraham, Immanuel Tzemach

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material

Download date 16/11/2020 16:38:11

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/631897

J.S. BACH’S CHACONNE FOR SOLO VIOLIN:

A PERFORMER-COMPOSER’S APPROACH TO INTERPRETATION

Immanuel Tzemach Abraham

Copyright © Immanuel Tzemach Abraham 2019

A Document Submitted to the Faculty Of:

THE FRED FOX SCHOOL OF MUSIC

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS

In The Graduate College:

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

PRINT: Immanuel Tzemach Abraham

I thank my previous instructors, Guillaume Combet (2004-2009), Gabriel Bolkosky (2009-2011),

Chapter 1. The Compositional Approach: An Interpretive Tradition…….……….…..……...….16

Chapter 2. Bach’s Original Chaconne……………………………………………………...…….29

Chapter 3. Ferruccio Busoni’s 1892 Chaconne…………………………………………………..37

Chapter 4. Andrés Segovia’s 1934 Chaconne……………………………………..……..…..…..51

Chapter 5. Immanuel Abraham’s 2018 Chaconne…….………….…………………….……….…59

Chapter 6. Conclusions and Abraham Edition (Complete)………………………..……………..92

List of Musical Examples

Musical Example 2. Bach, Partita No. 2 in D Minor: Variation 1 Harmonic

Musical Example 4. Diagram of Modal Divisions in Bach, Partita No. 2; “Chaconne”

that this tradition may be methodically used by performer-composers interpreting Bach’s

Any performance of a work is itself also a transcription,

An “interpretation” is the sum of a performer’s aesthetic decisions for a preexisting work.

being dynamics, articulations, tempi, observance of repeats, and instrumentation.

notes themselves, in addition to changing the extra-notational indications mentioned before.

to demonstrate that this tradition may respectfully be used by performer-composers interpreting

Bach’s Chaconne upon the unaccompanied modern violin.

that same year. 2

and conductor Jaap Schroeder,

Association Notes 65, no. 2 (December, 2008): 306-9.

interpreting Bach’s Chaconne on unaccompanied violin.

compositional approach, arranging, and transcribing. I also briefly explicate my choice of

implementations. The methodology exemplified in these versions will later be cross-referenced

Chapter 5 is the longest and most-substantial chapter. In it I introduce my own

compositional approach versus theirs.

Chapter 6 is the full annotated score of my own compositional approach, published by

clarifications including fingerings, bowing, articulation, and indications as discussed in Chapter

Music, 2010), 5-10.

While the Bach Chaconne’s most-renowned arrangements receive much scholarship,

unaccompanied modern violin. I fully include my arrangement within this document in an

of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2006).

interpretational approaches already taught in violin performance, and complementary to

progressive pedagogical endeavors in violin performance, at large.

CHAPTER 1: THE COMPOSITIONAL APPROACH: AN INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

1.1. WHAT IS THE COMPOSITIONAL APPROACH?

Medieval church music, there is documentation of performers changing music on the

compositional level as a means of realizing their expression.

• Omission of any original notation, except by way of transposition or ornamentation

under the above parameters, is avoided.

• Changes traditionally serve to further expose or intensify musical devices of the

• Changes often serve to subjectively translate hypothesized Baroque Era musical

experiences to the aesthetic standards of its arrangers’ eras.

• Realization of the compositional approach aims to complement the preexisting music,