Organ Transcriptions for Orchestra
Discussions

Organ transcriptions for orchestra?

Juozas Rimas wrote (January 25, 2004):
Besides the well-known Stokowski's transcription of the BWV582 Passacaglia and Fugue, are there any recorded orchestral transcriptions of Bach's organ works? Thank you.

Bradley Lerhman wrote (January 25, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas] Two of the most popular are Schoenberg's orchestration of the E-flat Prelude and Fugue (BWV 552), and Elgar's of the C minor Fantasia and Fugue (BWV 537). Elgar's own recording of the latter is very powerful....

Riccardo Nughes wrote (January 26, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas] I think there are many out there (I cannot be more precise because this is not my cup of tea ^__^).

However this is a very fine cd : Amazon.com
Bach: Transcriptions/Los Angeles Philarmonic/E.Pekka-Salonen

Benjamin Mullins wrote (January 26, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas] I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I have made an orchestration or two myself. In case anyone is interested they can be found here: http://members.sibeliusmusic.com/Verbatim
My apologies for the shameless self promotion!

Thomas Radleff wrote (January 26, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas] There is a whole disc with orchestral versions of organ works (+ the Chaconne):
Bach Transcriptions. BBC Philharmonic w/ Leonard Slatkin. Chandos 2000.
Schönberg´s BWV 552 aside, here we have mostly lesser known or even first recordings, with some surprising names:
Passacaglia & Fugue 582 by Respighi
BWV 545 by Honegger
BWV 537 by Elgar
chorales:
BWV 645 by Bantock
BWV 622 by Reger
fugue 680 by Vaughn Williams & Foster
fugue 577 by Holst
and the Chaconne by Raff.

Anne Smith wrote (January 26, 2004):
[To Benjamin Mullins] I haven't listened to them all yet. I especially liked the Prelude and Fugue in E minor. My daughter's wind symphony played a P and F transcription last year. Yours was every bit as good. Good work!

Juozas Rimas wrote (January 26, 2004):
[To Riccardo Nughes] And to me it's a great pity some conductor hasn't taken the feat to record a complete set of Bach's organ works transcribed for ensemble. Such a set would sell better than complete sets performed on the organ. More and more transcriptions could finally bring those undeservedly unknown organ works to the "masses". Paradoxically, the organ is to blame that few organ works by JSB are listened to more widely.

I wish Benjamin Mullins to arrange all the organ works by JSB and have them performed someday

Donald Satz wrote (January 26, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas] Bach's organ works don't need to be transcribed to be listened to more widely; they are available as is. Folks who don't like the organ don't have to listen to Bach's organ music. This attitude that organ music should be transcribed for different instruments rubs me the wrong way, because Bach's organ music naturally is best presented on the organ.

Benjamin Mullins wrote (January 26, 2004):
[To Anne Smith] Thanks! It was rather fun to do. Not that I think Bach needs arranging to be appreciated, but it can be frustrating for some ensembles who want to play baroque music, but can't. I'm glad you liked it!

Benjamin Mullins wrote (January 26, 2004):
Juozas Rimas wrote:
<SNIP>
> I wish Benjamin Mullins to arrange all the organ works by JSB and have them performed someday <
I appreciate the vote of confidence in my compositional skills. But, even if I had the courage to do such a thing, not all of Bach's organ music really lends itself to arrangement. Some pieces just work too well played on an organ!

Benjamin Mullins wrote (January 26, 2004):
OT: neo-baroque (was: Organ transcriptions for orchestra?)

Matthew Neugebauer wrote:
> Wow! I'm surprised at how many composers out there are venturing to compose in baroque style! A few years ago (when I had got this idea on my own), I though I was alone, not to mention nuts. But now it seems that there are those out who have been fully trained in the compositional craft and are using those skills in 18th-century style! Now will I be the one who takes this to the sacred choral genre?
Matt, who is realising his dreams are not that far away! <
While I'm sure many would argue the point, I think it is good that there are still composers that practice "the old ways". It is certainly harder than one might think! I will be very interested to hear your results!

P.S. Here are links to other 'Baroque' composers on Sibeliusmusic.com:

Graham Dixon - http://members.sibeliusmusic.com/Clarino
Ian Macdougall - http://members.sibeliusmusic.com/mac
Glen Shannon - http://members.sibeliusmusic.com/gshannon

Charles Francis wrote (January 26, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote:
> Bach's organ works don't need to be transcribed to be listened to more widely; they are available as is. Folks who don't like the organ don't have to listen to Bach's organ music. This attitude that organ music should be transcribed for different instruments rubs me the wrong way, because Bach's organ music naturally is best presented on the organ. <
This point is debatable. Here is Gustav Leonhardt in the notes to his 1985 harpsichord transcriptions of the Violin Sonatas (BWV 1001 & 1005) and Cello Suite (BWV 1012):

"Experiences such as these have led us to realise that the full dimensions of a Baroque composition are not revealed in any single version, no matter how "original", nor in any single interpretation, no matter how true to the work and historically accurate - an insight whose historical relevance is documented by the numerous arrangements which Bach made of both his own works and those of others and which Bach's contemporaries made of his compositions"

"In what way, we may ask in concluding, do these arrangements reveal new dimensions of Bach's work? Most importantly, they transcend the specific limitations and qualities of an individual instrument, thus laying bare the musical substance."

Charles Francis wrote (January 26, 2004):
Juozas Rimas wrote:
> Besides the well-known Stokowski's transcription of the BWV582 Passacaglia and Fugue, are there any recorded orchestral transcriptions of Bach's organ works? Thank you. <
There is a nice CD "20th Century Bach" with the Boston Symphony orchestra with transcriptions by Stravinsky, Webern, Schonberg and Saito. There are also transcriptions for piano by Saint-Saens, Siloti, Reger, d'Albert and Kabalevsky on the Naxos CD "Bach Transcriptions for Piano".

Matthew Neugebauer wrote (January 27, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote:
> Bach's organ works don't need to be transcribed to be listened to more > widely; they are available as is. Folks who don't like the organ don't have to listen to Bach's organ music. This attitude that organ music should be transcribed for different instruments rubs me the wrong way, because Bach's organ music naturally is best presented on the organ. <
perhaps a good reason for doing this is for the sake of the arranger, not neccessarily the listener. orchestral arrangments have the tendency to bring out the character of passages that is only under the surface in organ originals-this is largely because of how instruments act and attack notes differently, and the various articulations available on orchestral instruments that aren't available on the organ. This can spark a composer's imagination quite effectively (at least from what I've noticed), and the transcriptions provide an avenue for that.

This is not at all to say that the organ originals can't be enjoyed, nor am I saying that I don't. The "16 colour" organ is simply different from a "256 colour" orchestra-they both have equal merit, imo.

Matt, who also intends to do some Wind Ensemble/Symphony transcriptions (which have also been done), so he can play them too with out having to learn organ or buy a trombone!

DonSatz wrote (January 27, 2004):
[To Charles Francis, in response to his message above] I'd like to fully express my feelings about orchestral transcriptions of Bach's organ music. I have no doubt that most folks have a strong preference for orchestral music. But some of them are not content to listen to orchestras play music written for orchestra; they have some intense desire to drag into their web of rapture works not written for orchestra. I just don't understand that kind of thinking; it's not in me.

Back to Charles who indicates that it's debatable that Bach's organ music is always best presented on the organ and employs the words of Gustav Leonhardt to represent his premise. If I misunderstand Charles, I apologize in advance.

Assuming we're talking about a Bach organ work that we know to be 100% Bach and clearly identified as being played on organ, we essentially have Bach's final words on the music. I also assume that folks on this list consider Bach our MUSICAL ICON/MESSIAH. I'm not saying that every note and musical decision he made was perfect, but I accept him as is all the time. That's the least I can do for my Main Man. Oh well, I know I'm running against the tide. Transcriptions of Bach's music happen - reality does have to win out.

Finally, there is a quote from Leonhardt that I find odd. Talking about arrangements of solo Bach music, he states "they transcend the specific limitations and qualities of an individual instrument, thus laying bare the musical substance". Eh? I find that orchestral music is the least likely to lay anything bare. Also, Bach decided to use an organ - who is Leonhardt or anyone else to suggest that a different instrumentation might better convey Bach's soundworld and/or psychology?

If someone decides to orchestrate a Bach organ or other solo piece, so be it. But to try to justify the action on grounds of musicality or substance is bankrupt as far as I'm concerned. This is more a matter to me of loyalty to the greatest composer ever born, and I'm a very loyal person to a very limited number of individuals - my wife, children, grandchild, General Jackson (my dog), and Bach.

You'd like my dog. He's on the big side, weighing in at 95 pounds: all white, extremely long legs, gigantic ears, a red nose like Rudolph, tremendous jumping ability. Part wolf, german shepard, and lab, he's shy and obeys all commands except the ones he can't fathom (unless he's tricking me). He probably could eat a small child with one gulp, but he's a coward at heart. As common to german shepards, the General whines quite a bit, and it is pathetic to see this big guy pleading like a little pussycat. He'll always be my little boy, but I do salute him each morning.

Johan van Veen wrote (January 27, 2004):
[To Charles Francis, in response to his message above] I don't have this recording (at least not the release referred to). But Brad Lehman mailed me this, which I thought important to pass to the list:

"I saw a message trickle in from Charles this morning....

Those words he's quoted about the Leonhardt transcriptions of 1001/1005/1012 are credited to annotator Kurt Deggeller, not Leonhardt, in the booklet of EMI 47601."

That figures, since this view doesn't seem very Leonhardt-like to me. And only at very rare occasions Leonhardt has written the liner notes for his own recordings (the essay on the Kunst der Fuge is the only one I can remember, and even that one wasn't specifically written for his recording). He has always been very reluctant in giving insight into his personal decisions regarding interpretation. For him it is the result that counts. He considers the decisions regarding interpretation as the 'art of cooking' and guests are not invited into the kitchen.

I think the liner notes in another recording with Leonhardt's transcriptions make more sense. I am referring to the 2 CD-set deutsche harmonia mundi 74321 32320 2, which contains the transcriptions of BWV 1001, 1002, 1004 - 1006 and 1012. Here Christophe Robert writes:

"It may seem paradoxical that performers anxious to secure audiences for the music of the past while respecting the original conditions, attach great value to transcriptions and even produce them in their own right. However, this attitude, far from being sacrilegious, is historically justifiable. It is not a matter of stylistically adapting a piece of music from one period to another (in the manner of Brahms's transcriptions of Busoni's transcriptions of the Chaconne for Solo Violin), but of adapting a work to a new instrumental idiom.

Bach himself set the example of transcribing orogonal violin works for the harpsichord. The care he took in alternating the musical material demonstrates, contrary to accepted opinion, the importance Bach placed on reproducing the sound of a work. Bach's transcriptions therefore do not substantiate the theory that his works were completely independent of the instrument. Instead, they illustrate the polymorphous nature of a musical idea or, at least, the various possible ways of expressing the same idea."

This view is clearly different from the one quoted by Charles, which basically means that in the original version something is missing, something the instrument for which is was originally intended, can't deliver and only another instrument can fully reveal. In the view I just quoted both versions are independent, both expressing a musical idea in different ways, none of which is inferior to the other.

I would like to add that whatever arguments one uses to defend transcriptions of Bach's works for solo violin or cello these can hardly be used to defend transcriptions of organ works for orchestra.

Juozas Rimas wrote (January 27, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote:
> Assuming we're talking about a Bach organ work that we know to be 100% Bach and clearly identified as being played on organ, we essentially have Bach's final words on the music. I also assume that folks on this list consider Bach our MUSICAL ICON/MESSIAH. I'm not saying that every note and musical decision he made was perfect, but I accept him as is all the time. That's the least I can do for my Main Man. <
Yet I remember very well you praising Tureck's piano renditions of Bach's harpsichord works. Doesn't this contradict your position to accept the Man's final words?

I find it very pleasing to have many non-authentic performances of Bach's music available, eg on modern violins, pianos.

Anyway, I'm still unsure of why Bach's organ works are obviously paid less attention to than the rest of his works. Do you have an idea?

Donald Satz wrote (January 27, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas] I don't feel I am contradicting my position because there's a huge difference between harpsichord vs. modern piano and one instrument vs. an orchestra. Bach didn't have the availability of a modern piano, but he had the availability of an orchestra. Also, the change of aesthetics is much greater when you skip from one instrument to an orchestra.

Concerning the lesser popularity of Bach's organ music, it has nothing to do with Bach and everything to do with the organ which isn't a popular instrument. Why? Two reasons that come to mind is that most folks associate the organ with religion and hot-dogs at sporting events. Second, they also don't care for the severity of the organ.

My mother-in-law absolutely hates the organ, even at a religious service. She finds it depressing and can't imagine why anyone would care for downer music. When I play organ music, my wife goes in the bedroom and closes the door. My dog starts growling and attacks the speakers. The king of instruments continues to get a bad rap due to the lack of experience most have with it. Hell, it even took me a few years to fully appreciate the splendor.

Charles Francis wrote (January 27, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote:
> Assuming we're talking about a Bach organ work that we know to be 100% Bach and clearly identified as being played on organ, we essentially have Bach's final words on the music. I also assume that folks on this list consider Bach our MUSICAL ICON/MES. I'm not saying that every note and musical decision he made was perfect, but I accept him as is all the time. That's the least I can do for my Main Man. Oh well, I know I'm running against the tide. <
Yes, you may be right; the holy notes should be played as written and not corrupted by inferior mortals. But could we make an exception for modern instruments such as Steinways and Synths? After all, Bach didn't have the opportunity to transcribe to these instruments, so only we can do it for him.

> Finally, there is a quote from Leonhardt that I find odd. <
I found that remark odd as well (at least coming from Leonhardt) and I must admit my esteem for the man rose considerably. But alas, the notes to his transcriptions were apparently authored by someone else. Whether, Leonhardt had "artistic control" over them is another issue.

> If someone decides to orchestrate a Bach organ or other solo piece, so be it. But to try to justify the action on grounds of musicality or substance is bankrupt as far as I'm concerned. This is more a matter to me of loyalty to the greatest composer ever born, and I'm a very loyal person to a very limited number of individuals - my wife, children, grandchild, General Jackson (my dog), and Bach. <

What's with this new found conversion to family values? I had you down as a musical hedonist "if I like it, its right".

> You'd like my dog. He's on the big side, weighing in at 95 pounds: all white, extremely long legs, gigantic ears, a red nose like Rudolph, tremendous jumping ability. Part wolf, german shepard, and lab, he's shy and obeys all commands except the ones he can't fathom (unless he's tricking me). He probably could eat a small child with one gulp, but he's a coward at heart. As common to german shepards, the General whines quite a bit, and it is pathetic to see this big guy pleading like a little pussycat. He'll always be my little boy, but I do salute him each morning. <
I imagine General would like me as well (after all, I'm trained to throw sticks on command).

Johan van Veen wrote (January 28, 2004):
Charles Francis wrote:
>> Finally, there is a quote from Leonhardt that I find odd. <<
>I found that remark odd as well (at least coming from Leonhardt) and I must admit my esteem for the man rose considerably. But alas, the notes to his transcriptions were apparently authored by someone else. Whether, Leonhardt had "artistic control" over them is another issue. <
I generally wonder how much influence recording artists have on what is written in the booklet of their recordings. Not very much, I assume.

Sometimes there is even a clear contradiction between the liner notes and the recording, suggesting that the writer of the liner notes hasn't heard the recording. The release of Haydn's symphonies 6 to 8 by the Freiburg Baroque Orchestra (Harmonia mundi France, 2002) is a good example. The writer of the notes says that Haydn always performed instrumental music without harpsichord as basso continuo instrument. But the orchestra does use a harpsichord. Rather embarrassing (for the record company, that is).

Donald Satz wrote (January 28, 2004):
[To Charles Francis] Yes, I am a musical hedonist and that applies to Bach's music as well. I feel that my musical pleasures are enhanced by trusting Bach's decisons concering instrumentation available to him, and my musical experiences support my total faith in Bach's decision-making. Heck, if Bach couldn't get it right, there's nobody else on earth who could.

As for family values, I've always been a strong advocate and player in the family circle - married for almost 35 years with zero cheating. That hasn't been so easy because my libido is powerful and still going strong; the secret is to stay away from those environments where matters of the loin might take over. I've had to travel around the country a lot in profession, and I never go into those hotel lounges in the evening - they're a trap.

As for making exceptions for instruments not available to Bach, of course. However, I have to admit that I don't care for Bach on a synth.

Juozas Rimas wrote (January 28, 2004):
Charles Francis wrote:
> I don't feel I am contradicting my position because there's a huge difference between harpsichord vs. modern piano and one instrument vs. an orchestra. Bach didn't have the availability of a modern piano, but he had the availability of an orchestra. <
Could someone with a good knowledge in Bach's biography point out whether Bach had the availability of a good orchestra during the period he composed mostly for the organ? His choice of the instrument could well have been dictated by the environment: an instrument suitable for contrapuntal music at hand means no need to bother with real imperfect people.

> Why? Two reasons that come to mind is that most folks associate the organ with religion and hot-dogs at sporting events. Second, they also don't care for the severity of the organ. <
Indeed, religion, Dracula/Nemo cliches, sporting events. But primarily, at least to me (and to your kin and pets mentioned below), because of the very nature of the sound of the organ - plain, boring and lifeless.

> My mother-in-law absolutely hates the organ, even at a religious service. She finds it depressing and can't imagine why anyone would care for downer music. When I play organ music, my wife goes in the bedroom and closes the door. My dog starts growling and attacks the speakers. The king of instruments continues to get a bad rap due to the lack of experience most have with it. <
Nice description. I can't understand though, why such a primitive instrument as the organ has the label of the king of instruments. Could it be because of the dominating status of religion in people's lives earlier? (organs are played at church, everything that comes from church is to be worshipped)

> Hell, it even took me a few years to fully appreciate the splendor. <
I guess I'll have to do the same: just get used to it. Gather all the orchestrations available to imagine how the music could sound with dynamic nuances and life in it, and then find the versions with the softest, least blaring organs to get used to them and excavate good music from the buzz.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (January 28, 2004):
Juozas Rimas wrote:
> But primarily, at least to me (and to your kin and pets mentioned below), because of the very nature of the sound of the organ - plain, boring and lifeless. <
But there are so many different kinds of organs - Baroque instruments, French Romantic organs, English Cathedral organs, modern neo-Baroque instruments (to name just a few - and there is of course enormous difference and variety within such "categories") that can only be a huge generalisation to describe the nature of the organ as "plain, boring and lifeess".!

Neil Halliday wrote (January 28, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas, in response to his message above] As one who fell in love with Bach's organ music early in life, I am intrigued by the comments made so far on this topic.

Don and Thomas B's. suggestions regarding the lack of popularity of the organ, ie, the religious/horror movie associations, are probably partly correct, but then 'classical' music itself can have these associations in the popular mind.

You are obviously a serious music lover, who finds the organ "plain, boring and lifeless", and I find your view difficult to understand, because the associations suggested above obviously do not apply in your case.

My guess is that it's more a question of the physiology of the listener's hearing, and that the abilty to unravel the musical lines in a mass of organ sound is possessed by different listeners to varying degrees.

Admittedly, the picture is complicated by the fact that there are many awful organ recordings out there, that are little more than featureless 'aural soup', but if you insist that Fernando Germani's Royal Festival Hall (London) 60's recordings of Bach's famous organ works are "boring", then I must look to a physiological explanation.

I personally do not know of a more splendid sound; for me, the title "King of Instruments" has always made perfesense.

Stokowski did make some interesting orchestral transcriptions of these organ works, and while I would always choose good recordings of the Bach originals, there may indeed be a market for sympathetic orchestral transcriptions.

Juozas Rimas wrote (January 28, 2004):
I and others suffering from mild organ allergy should approach organ recordings in a completely different way than those on other instruments.

One shouldn't expect to find all the same qualities of music both in orchestral suites or brandenburgs and organ works.Even when going from the trios on organ to trios by ensemble, or from the AoF on organ to AoF by ensemble, one should perform a mental switch and listen differently.

For sure, I'm not going to omit Bach's organ music just because of the instrument.
(although I have to admit that having Gould's piano renditions of the harpsichord works helped me a lot to consume them sooner)

Donald Satz wrote (January 28, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas, in response to his message above] I would like to suggest that performers, not instruments, can be "plain, boring, and lifeless".

Donald Satz wrote (January 28, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas, in response to his message above] What qualities of Bach's music can't be found in his organ music? Augmentation? Diminution? Inversion? Canon? Fugue? Splendor? Sweep? Counterpoint? Stretto? Spirituality? Tenderness? Comfort? Security? Playfulness? Bitter-sweet brews? Severity? Changes in Pitch?

My view is that all the wonderful attributes we find in Bach's compositions are found in his solo organ works.

Roy Johansen wrote (January 28, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas, in response to his message above] Have you tried to listen to some of the works that exist in both organ and non-organ versions? If you familiarize yourself with the non-organ versions before you give the organ versions a serious try, perhaps it would make the organ less unbearable? Some good ones to start with, I think, would be the five Schübler chorales that also exist as cantata movements (645=140/4, 647=93/4, 648=10/5, 649=6/3, 650=137/2).

A lot of organ recordings, I agree, suffer from having been recorded in huge, empty churches that add several seconds of sonic porridge to otherwise amazing music. Have you tried listening with the score I front of you? Even if you don't read music very well (I don't), it can really help untangle the Phil Spector effect.

Peter Bright wrote (January 28, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote:
> What qualities of Bach's music can't be found in his organ music? Augmentation? Diminution? Inversion? Canon? Fugue? Splendor? Sweep? Counterpoint? Stretto? Spirituality? Tenderness? Comfort? Security? Playfulness? Bitter-sweet brews? Severity? Changes in Pitch?
My view is that all the wonderful attributes we find in Bach's compositions are found in his solo organ works. <
Yes, and in terms of his 'sets' of works (whether he intended them as such or not), I don't think there is anything more sublime than the trio sonatas (played on organ, of course...).

Juozas Rimas wrote (January 29, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote:
> What qualities of Bach's music can't be found in his organ music? <

I'm positive Bach's organ music is as great as the rest of his works. I rather meant qualities associated with different instruments. I don't think, for instance, the organ has so much dynamic flexibility as the violin or an ensemble, so a different approach is needed when listening: pleasure comes from the contrapunctus without expecting the abundance of emotions coming from, say, the violin's diminuendos etc.

BTW, as to Roy Johansen's suggestion to come to the organ music on the organ starting from the arranged versions... Well, I listened to the organ trios by ensemble (Holliger/Jaccottet et al) before I got to the organ version by Ton Koopman. It did make it easier to listen because the music was familiar, just as Roy suggested, yet also it felt like someone switched off the colors on my monitor and I had to view great colored photos rendered black and white. So I think it'd be safer for organ-rookies to start from the organ. Then coming to the ensemble versions - perhaps the stability and order of the organ performance would be more obvious then and make the listener to come back to the organ version as to the standard.

I must admit the piano is a different matter whatsoever, and organ transcription for piano sound quite blandly. Lipati's or Brendel's "Nun kom der heiden Heiland" were very appealing though.

P.S. And what is the Phil Spector effect Roy mentioned?

P.P.S. Does anyone on this list prefer organ renditions of the Art of Fugue to other versions? (harpsichord, piano, ensemble)

Donald Satz wrote (January 29, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas] Concerning the AoF, my preference of instrumention peaks with the harpsichord, then piano, organ, and ensemble. Detail is one of the paramount characteristics, and the harpsichord conveys all the lines and inner voices best. Depending on the acoustic and type of performance, the organ's washes of sound could be problematic.

Juozas Rimas wrote (January 29, 2004):
[To Donald Satz] Interesting. Doesn't it imply organ's washes of sound might be problematic in the organ works with detailed contrapunctus?

Donald Satz wrote (January 29, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas] Yes, it can be problematic and needs to be properly addressed by engineers and performers. Of course, "washes of sound" have nothing to do with the AoF; that's a prime reason that the organ is not my preferred instrument for the work. However, those works intended by Bach for the organ easily work best on organ - the Preludes & Fugues, Toccatas & Fugues, Leipzig Chorales, etc.

There is no Bach designated instrumentation for the AoF, so we find it recorded on a host of different instruments and also on multiple instruments including orchestral versions. One of my prime considerations for this work is that the more instruments involved, the less vivid the detail.

Stephen Benson wrote (January 30, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote:
> Detail is one of the paramount characteristics, and the harpsichord conveys all the lines and inner voices best. <
To these ears -- and I'm not trying to deny the detail of any of the harpsichord versions or to say this is how anybody else should hear the AOF -- many of the best ensemble versions -- Phantasm, the Alessandrini, the Savall -- are characterized by an inherent clarity that can be attributed to the distinctive characteristics of the voices of the individual instruments. Selecting and following a given instrument sometimes makes it easier to follow a line. That said, I also love Gilbert's, Moroney's, Rosen's, and Nikolayeva's keyboard interpretations.

David Glenn Lebut wrote (January 31, 2004):
Juozas Rimas wrote:
> Besides the well-known Stokowski's transcription of the BWV582 Passacaglia and Fugue, are there any recorded orchestral transcriptions of Bach's organ works? Thank you. <
Quite a bit. Some are 1.) actual transcriptions (that is, actually written down by composers), and some were 2.) (like the Stokowski transcriptions) transcribed solely for recordings or movie projects.

Here are examples of both:

1.) Praeludium (Phantasie) und Fuge c-Moll BWV 537 by Elgar and Respigghi.

2.) Tokkate d-Moll BWV 565 by Stokowski and by Ormandy.

Arrangements & Transcription by Schonberg

Tom Arkhurst. wrote (February 5, 2019):
I wish to purchase the two CDs of Schonberg’s orchestral arrangement ofl works by Bach

Please advise me of how much they cost and who the suppliers are.

Thanks for your assistance.

Aryeh Oron. wrote (February 5, 2019):
[To Tom Arkhurst] The recording of Schoenberg's arrangements and the stores from which you can buy them are presented at: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Arran/OT-Schoenberg-Rec-Orchestra.htm