bwv1056

[oboenils]

hi
i uploaded a oboe concerto by bach yesterday.
someone put it as a arrangement/transcription under the violin concerto bwv 1056r
http://imslp.org/wiki/Violin_Concerto_i ... bastian%29
first it's not! it's a transcription from the harpsichord concerto bwv1056.
(i'm working on the violin concerto and the harpsichord editions as well!)
but i think this should have it's own work page just like
http://imslp.org/wiki/Oboe_Concerto_in_ ... bastian%29
or bwv 1060R
http://imslp.org/wiki/Concerto_for_Viol ... bastian%29
and under Misc. Comments there is an oboe concerto bwv1056R
just let me know what you think
thanks

[Carolus]

Arrangements do not get their own pages as a rule. However I see that the Oboe is actually present in the concerto navigator which means the lost original might have been intended for either violin or oboe. BWV 1056R is not found as an oboe concerto in our work listing though. That's an interesting case. I'll be asking our chief librarian what we should do with this.

[oboenils]

bwv 1059r ist just an arrangement based on a short fragment
then it also shouldn't have it's own page
and there is no proof that bwv 1056 ever was written for violin or oboe
probably there is no lost original and to call them a reconstruction is actually completely wrong
it's just wishful thinking
like most reconstuctions of bach...

[steltz]

BWV 1056 is more generally known as a harpsichord concerto, but according to Grove music, Bach took the outer movements of it from an oboe concerto, now lost. It has been reconstructed as an oboe concerto, which is why it gets a variant of the 1056 number. It is considered an arrangement even though the original was (partly) for oboe, because someone had to make guesses as to what the original might have been like. By the way, this brings in a copyright question as to who did the reconstruction, and whether they are entitled to copyright, or want to place the reconstruction under a Creative Commons License.

Grove lists a reconstruction that was done for the Neue Bach Ausgabe, VII/vii, 59. Is what you uploaded from that?

[oboenils]

@steltz i have made a new edition based of the manuscript of the harpsichord concerto downloaded from imslp.
so there is no (c) question here...
and you didn't understand the problem i think. imslp list the violin concerto bwv 1056R with it's own work page. and my edition as a arrange/transcription on this page. if the violin concerto gets it's own page then should also the oboe concerto...
or put them both on the harpsichord concerto page
but then comes the problem with all other reconstruction concertos where to put them

[steltz]

Ah, I see now. In my opinion, the violin version should then also go on the harpsichord page, but let's see what Davydov has to say . . .

[Notenschreiber]

I would propose to change the title of the workpage "Violin Concerto in G minor, BWV 1056R" to "Concerto in G minor, BWV 1056R". Then all reconctructions or
arrangements of a concerto for oboe or violin based on BWV 1056 (and there are a lot of them) can be domiciled on that page. As far as i know BWV 1056R is not
an "official" BWV number,but it is a good idea to indicate the origin of the arrangements in this way. This may be an exception of the general rule only to install
work pages for original works, but every rule needs sometimes exceptions. Bach himself is an exception!

[Carolus]

I think Notenshreiber's solution is the most elegant. That way, we can have a single page devoted to the reconstructions.

[steltz]

Agreed.