Bach Busoni Chaconne

[lohshuhan]

i would just like to know, in the final coda of the Chaconne, where Busoni brings back the original subject in chords, how do you possibly spread the left hand chords? 

should we spread it like an arpeggio, or should we play it as 2 separate chords, or should it be approached with the little finger playing the bass note followed by the top chord? 

[thalberg]

Actually, everyone fakes that part except Kastle.









(Joke from another thread)

[mephisto]

i would just like to know, in the final coda of the Chaconne, where Busoni brings back the original subject in chords, how do you possibly spread the left hand chords? 

should we spread it like an arpeggio, or should we play it as 2 separate chords, or should it be approached with the little finger playing the bass note followed by the top chord? 

Watch this clip where Hamelin is playing this piece. You can clearly see what he does.

[lohshuhan]

Watch this clip where Hamelin is playing this piece. You can clearly see what he does.

i don't agree with that interpretation.  Hamelin occassionally leaves out the bass notes when its the same as the previous chord, but Busoni does not write any slur in his score... 

by the way...  did anyone notice the differences in Peters and Schirmer?  Which would be a better version? 

[etudes]

i don't agree with that interpretation.  Hamelin occassionally leaves out the bass notes when its the same as the previous chord, but Busoni does not write any slur in his score... 

by the way...  did anyone notice the differences in Peters and Schirmer?  Which would be a better version? 

Breitkopf & Härtel   

[faulty_damper]

i don't agree with that interpretation.  Hamelin occassionally leaves out the bass notes when its the same as the previous chord, but Busoni does not write any slur in his score... 

by the way...  did anyone notice the differences in Peters and Schirmer?  Which would be a better version? 

I assumed that Schirmer is a reprint of Breitkopf and Haertel, the original publisher.
I have Peters and I don't agree with a couple of things in this "urtext" edition:

1. Page layout.  I prefer the Breitkopf and Haertel's layout - it's more cramped but it shows the structure more.  In Peters, it's almost spaced to have 4 bars per system which divides the 8 bar theme and is difficult to see the connecting structure.

2a. Editorial markings are sometimes ambiguous and perhaps even pretentious.  Included are added rests, where there were no original rests; assuming this was written as parts, these rests can change the meaning.  Often, it's very obvious that parts are meant to come together so there is no reason to add rests.
b.  There are editorial ties to notes but it is marked as editorial but it is actually very misleading as the note that is tied to is not marked as editorial - it's possible to interpret this to mean that the tie is an option so you should play the note but the note is also editiorial.  Very confusing. 
c.  Editorial dynamics are also included because they correspond to similar places.  This is also misleading as it is possible that it really shouldn't be there.

As a preference, I much prefer the B&H edition reprinted by Schirmer.  Pianostreet offered this edition on this website but no longer.  Price cannot be beat: $4USD compared to $13USD.  But Peters also includes the differences between the 3 prior versions of this piece and also compares Busoni's own recording on piano roll to this final edition.  This is actually very useful because he does not play it exactly as the final published version.

Also

[m]

should we spread it like an arpeggio, or should we play it as 2 separate chords, or should it be approached with the little finger playing the bass note followed by the top chord? 

I play the notes all the bottom notes I can reach as a chord together and then very fast the top note with the thumb. I try to do it so that this "spread" acoustically crates an illusion that the chord is played almost together, and the top note is rather a "late coming" overtone.