Dear Michael all,
I think it is wrong to assume that because BWV 995 calls for a low G, JSB
must have had a 14 course lute in mind.
I do not think it was a matter of practicality for JSB. He wrote pieces
for other instruments as well that called for notes out of the
tessitura. I think he wrote the piece in staff notation, with the lute in
mind, not accounting for the tuning of the lowest possible note on the
lute. I think the composition is based on an idea or an intention of the
idea. Notice that the contemporary intabulation was unable to play the low
G, had other solutions to the problem, often adding ornaments to cover up
for the loss of the low tonic.
In examining the contemporary intabulation, there are many, many areas that
are different from what Bach wrote. I think that the intabulator merely
thought it was great music ( indeed it is), adapted it for the lute, in
a version that is more practical, or playable. Back in those times, people
did not have the reverence that we have in our times for JSB. They were
just compromising great music, to bring it into their particular style.
Too often we judge these intabulations as being corrupt, when in actuality,
they are bone fide works from the period, and they give us a clue as to
what solutions they came up with. And after all, Falkenhagen was a
professional, and I think he did us a great service to intabulate 995.
In terms of Shouster, I seem to remember reading somewhere that he was a
bookseller, who sold the books of Falkenhagen. Hence, the dedication of
the copyist/intabulator [probably Falkenhagen] of BWV 995 to Mr. Schouster.
ed
He may have written it on the lautenwerke, but he intended it to be played
on a lute, ( See autograph copy). I think it all points to Weyrauch (sp?)
or Falkenhagen - or - and no one knows for sure on this - Schouster - a
possible amateur lutenist? having ownership of a 14 course with that low Gg.
Best regards,
Michael.
