If 964 is Bach's arrangement of 1003, how come the BWV numbers are out of order (and the composition dates)? When looking up in the Wikipedia list of all works, 964 is missing?!
Many Catalog numbers have inconsistencies regarding chronological order of compositions, in part due to some earlier compositions being discovered much later.
Meh, I like the original much better. A lot of the implied harmonies in the first movement feel ruined by the added harmonies, and where he adds the new voices seems to throw off the natural emphasis in melodic line. And the fugue just feels like it's too much and forced. By adding a lot of running 16th note melodies and figures, Bach has at a lot of times ruined the rhythmic variation in the fugue and made it more monotone. And then there's also how on violin, you don't always have multiple voices playing and there's more variation in how many voices you have at once, but here it's more voices more consistently. The andante doesn't sound as good to me either, but he didn't change that much for that movement, so that's probably just because of the fact that it's being played on harpsichord and not violin and this person's interpretation. He didn't change much in the last movement, and it actually still sounds good even on harpsichord. Anyway, that's just my opinion.
Bach didn't arrange the original piece for people like you who can nowadays listen easy to one version and compare it to the other. It is the typical decadent thinking of people living nowadays. 300 years ago you would have an other opinion and you would have kissed Bach's feet if you had even this arrangement if you can't play the violin. Oh, how I hate these arrogant and short-sightet comments. Make a better arrangement and we will judge if you are better than Bach.
Your remark about the fugue is strange. The reason he added running 16th note lines is because violin technique is the only compensation for the 'emptiness' of the violin sonata's fugue, and it wouldn't work at all as a proper keyboard fugue. It would honestly be very boring if he didn't change it to this extent, because then there would be little reason to listen to this version. The harpsichord is not just another 'sound'. Think of the fugue as a keyboard fugue in its own right, rather than a 'ruined' version of the violin one. Having more 'variation' in how many voices you have at once is actually a drawback. It's an easy 'cheat' to writing a fugue. Having more voices consistently is a sign of a better fugue-writer. Compare Handel's fugues to Bach's and you will see what I mean.
@@michaelm5926 However, we are in a situation where we can easily listen and compare. Also, you don't have to be a good composer/arranger to be able to tell what's good and what isn't.
i like your resolve haha! just not giving in to the rule that bach is untouchable. he remains the goat ofc. but i agree, the OG is something else. what do you think of siloti's transcription for piano?
