Hidden triple concertos

Olivier Raap wrote (December 4, 1999):
Cantata BWV 99 "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan" opens with a Coro movement that seems to be an arrangement of a part (allegro?) of such a lost triple concerto: a concerto in G for flute, oboe d'amore, violin, strings and continuo. Maybe some major parts of the original work are not used in the cantata, and the solo violin part is relatively unimportant. Perhaps the work originated as a double concerto for only flute and oboe d'amore. If that would be the matter, a second part (slow tempo) of this concerto could be found in the opening Coro of cantata BWV 125 "Mit Fried' und Freud' ich fahr' dahin". Those cantatas are composed in 1724 and 1725, relatively short after the Köthen years. Maybe a Köthen concerto that is lost is borrowed for composing them. I didn't find any 3rd movement yet.

Another triple concerto, a concerto in D for 2 oboes, bassoon and continuo, can be assembled. For the 1st movement (allegro?) we can use the opening Sinfonia of cantata BWV 42 "Am Abend aber desselbigen Sabbats" For the 2nd slow movement the alto aria "Wo zwei und drei" can be used, but much reconstruction work has to be done. As a final fast movement the opening Sinfonia of the Easter Oratorio is a good choice. The trumpets and timpani, that probably are added later, have to be omitted.

Discussions in the Week of January 24, 2000

Aryeh Oron wrote (January 23, 2000):
Background - Aria for Alto

This is the week of cantata BWV 125, according to Ehud Shiloni's suggestion.

Mvt. 2 Aria for Alto
Ich will auch mit gebrochnen Augen
(I would e’en with my broken vision) Translated by Z. Philip Ambrose (Hänssler)
(In death my glassy eyes are turning) Translated by? (Teldec)
(Even with falling eyes I will look toward thee) translated by Derek Yeld (HM)
Alto, Transverse flute, Oboe d’amore, Continuo

Please pay attention that I put above 3 different translation of the opening words of this Aria from German to English. Each one of the translators chose different approach. I read them all, because I wanted to get to the real meaning of the original text. Personally I like the second one (Teldec). It is much more poetic than the others are and I feel that it reflects rightly the sombre feeling of the original text and the music.

Regarding this slow Aria, I would like to quote from Whittaker’s book, from Ludwig Finscher (linear notes to Teldec Cycle) and from Simon Crouch (of our group) Cantata pages.

Whittaker wrote:
"The Aria is one of the most extraordinary numbers in the whole range of Bach’s writings, all the more astonishing as his treatment of the text added by the unknown librettist to Luther’s paraphrase of the new NUNC DIMITTIS introduces an emotional element scarcely compatible with the peaceful and joyful, albeit solemn, death-bed hymn, and is unlike anything else found in the cantatas for the Purification of the B.V.M., of which this is undoubtedly the latest, c. 1740. During the whole number, over 140 bars of slow tempo, the continuo ceases once only from its repeated quavers, TUTTU LIGATO, on the second appearance of the word ‘Sterben’, where flute and voice are left unsupported for the moment and an awesome rest follows. Bach’s use of long leaning tones, producing dissonances with the foundational harmony, is one of the commonest and most expressive of his harmonic devices. Here he carries it to a degree unexampled elsewhere. The voice has many appogiaturas, but they are few as compared with the obbligato lines, which are crowded to an astonishing extent with…"

Finscher wrote:
"The ensuing Alto Aria combines flute, oboe d’amore and voice, over the continuo to be played ‘TUTTU LIGATO’ in a soaring, almost sentimental trio movement of particular tonal beauty, marked by the constant use of appogiaturas."

Crouch wrote:
"The very long slow Alto Aria that follows this impressive opening is itself equally remarkable. One might think that boredom would set in at around the five minute mark but the Alto soloist is beautifully accompanied by a flute and an oboe d'amore who together maintain the interest and attention throughout with some lovely harmonies and some really scrunchy discords. Excellent."

Personal viewpoint

And something personal:
This movement does not include strings, but they are not missed. The contrary is true. Bach achieves here a rare balance between the flute, the oboe and the voice and all of them have the same weight. I believe that most conductors will not resist the temptation to push the Alto ahead and in that way they might lose the delicate balance with the instruments and miss a major part of the solemn beauty of this cantata. The economy of means reminds me a tendency in the Jazz world to play with less and less instruments. With the right soloists, equipped with good technique, sharp ear, ability to listen to the other players, readiness to play sometimes the lead, sometimes the accompaniment and sometimes in tandem with another player, they achieve in some cases much more convincing results than with many more instruments. Another tool, which was very common in the early days of Jazz, was the ‘break’. This is the moment where the rhythm section suddenly stops playing and one instrument or two are left ‘in the air’ and they have to carry on the flow of the music ahead without support. This ‘tool’ is the equivalent to the moment described above by Whittaker.

Review of the Recordings

See: Cantata BWV 125 – Recordings.

The 3 performances I have listened to (in the order of listening) are – Rilling [1], Harnoncourt [2] and Herreweghe [3]. Each one of the recordings is from a different decade and they are indeed very different from each other. It is also a fine opportunity to check if Herreweghe learned a lesson or two from his predecessors and improved something, as has been claimed by other contributors to this group in another thread.

My conclusions below were written after listening to the full cantata in each performance, and at least one more hearing of the Aria for Alto alone. I recommend everybody in the list not to jump into conclusions after the first hearing. Another benefit gained by this way of comparison is that the beauty of the Aria is exposed gradually with each listening.

[1] Helmuth Rilling with Marga Höffgen (contralto) (1973; Aria for alto: 7:13)
Rilling is the least successful of all 3. His Alto is too prominent and I have to admit that I also do not like her voice. It lacks beauty and what is more important it lacks sensitivity. If woman voice is to be used here, I prefer somebody like Janet Baker or Christa Ludwig. But, as far as I know, none of them has recorded this Aria. Another thing that I do not like in this performance id that it is too rush, and the internal rhythm of the movement is not underlined. The sorrow dimension is almost non-existent.

[2] Nikolaus Harnoncourt with Paul Esswood (counter-tenor) (1982; Aria for alto: 8:41)
The beauty of Harnoncourt instruments is almost irresistible, and they play an equal part to that of the voice. I like Esswood voice. He sounds so natural and comfortable in the Bach idiom. In this Aria he is also very expressive. The continuo players also do their job right. You can almost physically feel the slow and heavy steps of the dying soul, as it should be according to the words of this Aria.

(3) Philippe Herreweghe with Ingeborg Danz (contralto) (1998; Aria for alto: 7:51)
In this Aria Herreweghe is in his natural playing yard. In the first hearing I thought that everything I have wished for in this Aria came to life with Herreweghe performance – the delicate balance, the sensitivity, the tender expression of feelings, and the beauty of voice and instruments. The last notes of this movement, where the two wind instruments play in unison,are breathtaking in their beauty. The Alto - Danz sings nicely, she has a very beautiful and gentle voice with a unique timbre which reminds me a counter-tenor voice. However, for my taste she is not as expressive as Esswood is, but somehow it works. Herreweghe succeeds in making the best out of the potential of this Aria.

In second (and third) hearing I came to conclusion that the Harnoncourt performance [2] of this Aria is the most dramatic and the most convincing. Hearing Herreweghe [3] alone you do not feel that you are missing something. Hearing him after Harnoncourt, and he sounds a little bit pale in comparison. In this Aria if the performance takes the approach of restrain of feelings, as Herreweghe does, some of its potential is not revealed. All in all, Harnoncourt performance [2] is my preferred choice for this Aria. His approach adds another dimension to the beauty of the music and the words.

One factor of development between the 3 performances is quite clear and it is the chosen Alto. Rilling [1] chose classical female Alto. Harnoncourt [2], as a prime representative of the authentic approach, naturally prefer contra-tenor. And Herreweghe (3), in the era of post HIP, preferred a woman with a unique voice, which reminds counter-tenor. There is a general agreement that women are to be preferred in performing of the cantatas, because their ability to be more expressive. Here I find the contra-tenor doing better than his two female competitors.

And as always, I would like to hear other opinions, regarding the above mentioned performances, or other recordings.

Enjoy and Happy Bach Year,

Marie Jensen wrote (January 26, 2000):
I don't have a big library with several versions of each cantata, or the books you quote, and when you have written, you do this so excellent and so quickly, that there often is nothing more to add. I am not writing this to criticise you in any way because you do a very fine job, but you asked. I want this idea to live, and if you compare with the activities a month ago, much more is written now. I am in fact writing as much as I am able to, but this must not end in being just another duty (that goes for you too). On the other hand we are not many active members, and I have sometimes found it difficult to choose which group to write to, because I am quite sure, that some of the very active persons on the recordings list not are involved here. Basically I agree with you about the Harnoncourt version (2) of the Alto Aria in BWV 125.

Ehud Shiloni wrote (January 27, 2000):
I did some "homework" and reached the exact same conclusions: In the "Battle of the H's", the former [Harnoncourt] (2) wins over the later [Herreweghe] (3). Herreweghe falls into his often found tendency towards the "dreamy" and somewhat mellow interpretation, where Bach's music would be served better with some more drama and excitement [BTW, Herreweghe IS quite capable of delivering exciting and dramatic spectacles - just listen to BWV 62 opening Chorus!].

The "order of discussion" plus your own excellent presentations, Aryeh, is really exciting: I am discovering new "treasures" even in familiar cantatas!

After thoroughly listening to BWV 125, I decided to add more Harnoncourt [and Leonhardt] to my collection. I have only a few of their Teldec series, and up until now I was disinclined to add more, but now I changed my mind.

Don’t worry about the scant responses - we are a small group, but I am sure that with time there will be more on this List!

Jane Newble wrote (January 28, 2000):
After reading Aryeh's review I had to tear myself away from BWV 42, which I have only just discovered, to listen to BWV 125 again.

This was the cantata CD that got me into the cantatas full-time. I got the Herreweghe version (3) in January last year (1999), and listened to it more or less non-stop for several weeks. (Is it possible to wear CDs out?) At the time I did not have time to concentrate on the words. When I listened to it again several times (this time with the words), it still sounds so beautiful, in fact, even more so, now I have heard lots more Bach during the past year.

Aryeh wrote: “Another benefit gained by this way of comparison is that the beauty of the Aria is exposed gradually with each listening.” Although I totally agree about this Aria, it is the Duet (no.4) that means even more to me. There is so much hardly suppressed joy, a declaration of the best news that has ever been heard. When the voices stop, the violin takes over, and continues as if to back up what the voices are singing. Even the continuo is joyful and excited. I don't like some of the translation in the Herreweghe booklet [3]. Instead of 'ineffable', I would prefer ' incomprehensible', or even 'inconceivable'. Although the English words are so much more cumbersome than the beautiful German 'unbegreiflich' is.

From what Aryeh says, I shall have to get the Harnoncourt performance (2) of this!

Jane Newble wrote (January 28, 2000):
After remembering that last year I had taped some L&H cantatas from the radio (not BWV 125), I listened to them again last night, and I have come to the same conclusion. I have none of their CDs at all, so I ought to get at least one of the 4 volumes.

A comment from the (British) Classic CD magazine: "Expect JSB fans to have considerably enlarged CD collections and much thinner wallets come December..."

Aryeh Oron wrote (January 30, 2000):
(4) All the European members of Bach Recordings List and Bach Cantatas List, please take notice. Arte Channel will broadcast this week a Bach programmes with Herreweghe: Today Sunday, January 30, 2000 - 20:00 (Israeli time, about 45 minutes) A live broadcast from Nantes, including cantata BWV 125, which was discussed in the Cantata List couple of days ago.

HRS wrote (January 30, 2000):
(4) (To Aryeh Oron) Thank you for your hint! It was a wonderful performance! Today (time: 19:00) BWV 125. The chorale was little bit too fast... but... Herreweghe is great! (Believe me: I have all sacred works with Rilling....)

Kirk McElhearn wrote (January 31, 2000):
(4) Yesterday evening, the Arte TV channel broadcast Herreweghe and co. performing this cantata, from the Bach festival in Nantes. While I agree with much of the discussion regarding the recordings of this cantata and in particular this Aria, the live performance blew all that away. It was as close to perfect as possible. The singer was excellent, and the solo musicians were visibly enjoying themselves immensely.

Ryan Michero wrote (February 1, 2000):
Well, I'm late again here, so I'll keep my comments brief. I have the versions by Herreweghe (3) and Harnoncourt (2). While I agree with Aryeh that Esswood's version of the Alto Aria is very fine, probably finer than the Danz version with Herreweghe, I prefer Herreweghe's version overall. Both Harnoncourt and Herreweghe are strong in the opening chorus and the Alto Aria, with Harnoncourt having an edge in the Aria. However, Harnoncourt's bass, Thomas Thomaschke, simply cannot compete with the stupendous Peter Kooy in the bass recitative and the bass/tenor duet, "Ein unbergreiflich Licht erfullt". I like Kurt Equiluz, but his voice doesn't match well with Thomaschke's heavily vibrato-ed bluster. Mark Padmore and Kooy sound wonderful together, as do Herreweghe's violinists. It is a joy to listen to Bach's intertwining melodies in this movement. Thomaschke--a great Bachian surname, isn't it? It's only two letters away from Thomaskirche! Too bad he's not great Bachian singer.

Discussions in the Week of March 4, 2007

Chris Kern wrote (March 3, 2007):
Introduction to BWV 125 - Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin

Discussion for the week of March 4, 2007

Cantata BWV 125 - Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin

Date of first performance: February 2, 1725 (Purification of the Virgin Mary)

Information about recordings, biblical readings, translations, etc: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV125.htm

Music example (Leusink [5]): http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Stream/BWV125-Leusink.ram

What a stupendous cantata! I know sometimes it feels like you can say that every week, but I feel like this is an obvious 1 or even 1* cantata.

The lyrics, once again, talk about how you need not fear death, because if you have faith in God you will be saved. The movements start solemn when they are speaking of death, but by the end of the cantata (especially mv. 4) the mood is joyful.

Mvt. 1
This is one of my favorite chorale fantasias. The flute and oboe play an excellent ritornello. The speed and mood slow down in the middle when the lyrics talk about calm and quiet, perhaps an obvious device but it works very well.

Mvt. 2
Whittaker calls this "one of the most extraordinary numbers in the whole range of Bach's writings", but it's too bad that none of the recordings can really do it justice. The oboe and flute obbligato has some curious accidental writing that Whittaker comments on at length, especially since it is written differently in the oboe and flute parts. The continuo is subdued, marked "tutti ligato" at the beginning. The continuo falls away altogether on "sterben" (death).

Mvt. 3
This is another bass chorale/recitative combination. The mood is between sorrow at death and joy in the salvation of Christ.

Mvt. 4
A tenor and bass duet (an unusual combination). The NBA labels the obbligato staves simply as "Violin I" and "II" but all three recordings I listened to use solo violins to good effect. There is no hint of solemness or sorrow in this sprightly duet, which speaks of the glory of God filling the entire Earth and echoes Jesus' words in Mark 16 that whoever believes shall be saved.

Mvt. 5
The final alto recitative has left the sorrow completely behind.

Mvt. 6
This is the standard 4-part closing chorale. (Even Rilling [1] does not stall on the fermatas in this one.)

I listened to three recordings of this cantata: Rilling [1], Harnoncourt [2], and Leusink [5]. The duet was good in all three performances, with an excellent blending of voices and violin playing in all of them. I will focus on the alto aria and the opening chorus.

[1] Rilling:
This is the standout recording for me. The opening chorus is lush and full of a depth of feeling that none of the other recordings seem to reach. The main weakness is the alto singer in the aria (weaker than both Esswood and Buwalda) -- the obbligato playing is very good. I think that if you could just replace the alto with Esswood from the H&L recording this would be an almost perfect performance.

[2] Harnoncourt:
The opening chorus is a lot faster and a lot punchier; it has a certain charm of its own but I don't like it as much as the R. The alto aria is probably the best one of the recordings.

[5] Leusink:
I have basically the same comments about L's opening chorus as about H's. The alto aria is average -- the obbligato playing is not as good as the other two performances; Buwalda is not as good as Esswood but better than Rilling's alto.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 3, 2007):
This is one of five surviving cantatas for the Purification of the Virgin Mary and the only one to contain a chorus other than the chorale.

Despite the substantial alto solo, the emphasis is on the lower voices (tenor and bass) in these works; someone may be able to suggest a symbolic significance of this?

The opening chorus os 125 is reminicient of that from the SMP with which it shares the time signature, key signature and some similarities of figuration---- it is endlessly stretching upwards yet with a feeling of compliant resignation.

Of the many things one notices about this movement (the instrumental ritornello, for example, is endlessly inventive) is the variety and metaphorical significance of the writing for the three lower voices not carrying the cantus firmus. Here is an excellent opportunity for the student to study the range of Bach's choral writing.

Of the six phrases the first 3 are very similar, entering in the same order tenor, alto bass (the resigned and peaceful soul sustained on its pathway to heaven?)

The 4^th (with altered order of entry)expresses 'calm and quietness' and the choral and instrumental forcesdie away appropriately.

The 5th is more assertive, perhaps emphasising God's promise and the last is quite breath taking. Here is the passing from death to sleep, counterpoint is abandoned and the F major (Neapolitan) chord becomes deeply expressive.

This chorus is of a magnitude and depth that ranks with those of BWV 101, 103 and the great Passions. These few words no not do it justice--but they might point listeners towards a few more of the endless points of musical interest and high artistic qualities of this movement.

Peter Smaill wrote (March 3, 2007):
[To Chris Kern] As a boy the only source of literature on Bach's choral music in the house where I grew up was the abridged version of Grove's Dictionary of Music; and it was this Cantata which was chosen as the best exemplar of Bach's art. It benefits from a beautiful libretto, starting with Luther's alliterative "Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin", a euphony of expression which is lost in the clunky English translations. The texture is underpinned by the octave leaps in the continuo, and as with the use of a low register for the voices, the suggestion is of falling downwards, transitioning between waking and sleeping, night and day, life and death.

Bach deploys to the greatest degree his word-painting skills; the expression "sanft und stille" and "Der Tod mein schlaf worden" in BWV 125/1 are particularly sensitively extended. In BWV 125/2, the prolonged use of appogiatura and chromaticism across a throbbing bass, and key changes, creates a meditative effect. Even the Chorale BWV 125/6, which is skipped over by the commentators, has a magical impact (it is I think in the Dorian) mode); Bach creates a shift to E major by a tierce at 'Licht' in the first line, as well as the final joy-word "Wonne."

In one other setting of the chorale for a lost Cantata the final bass note is a low D, here in BWV 125/6 a low E. For some reason Riemenschneider thinks the low D is a mistake, although he acknowledges relative to "Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ" (BWV 91) Bach actually deploys a low C (!) in the vocal score. In all these examples, including BWV, we are well below the stave: in BWV 91, emphasising the ancient "Kyrie eleison", in the settings of the Nunc Dimittis, the venerable canticle.

The faith of the aged Simeon is the basis for a full-blooded Lutheran declaration of salvation through belief. The librettist conflates the two modes of Christ's salvific power,: the "stuhl der genaden", the mercy stool on which (OT) the blood of the sacrificial lamb was smeared is conjoined to the "Siegezeichen," the victory sign (an image also from BWV 78). Thus these contrasting ideas, atoning sacrifice versus "Christus Victor," which divide the SJP and the SMP theologically, are combined in the key doctrinal passage, which is the little-noticed BWV 125/5.

The key wor, however, is "Licht "; this Marian feast, otherwise Purification or Candlemas, is sometimes referred to as "Lichtmess." It is the focus of BWV 125/4 and BWV 125/6 following from its prominence in the "Nunc Dimittis". As Duerr notes, the "Nunc Dimittis" forms part of the service of Compline throughout the year, which is normally associated with the failing of the natural light and the coming of night and sleep.

The final poignancy lies in the fact that the congregation would well know that the conrector emeritus of St Thomas, and possible author of the text, Andreas Stuebel, had died on January 27 1724. His funeral would likely only just have taken place and thus the first performance of this consoling work must have had an especially powerful effect on the worshippers in Leipzig on that second day of February.

Alain Bruguières wrote (March 3, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< It benefits from a beautiful libretto, starting with Luther's alliterative "Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin", a euphony of expression which is lost in the clunky English translations. >
How about:

"With peace and pep I pop off" ?

Just a suggestion.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 3, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< The final poignancy lies in the fact that the congregation would well know that the conrector emeritus of St Thomas, and possible author of the text, Andreas Stuebel, had died on January 27 1724. His funeral would likely only just have taken place and thus the first performance of this consoling work must have had an especially powerful effect on the worshippers in Leipzig on that second day of February. >
An interesting observation which, I have to admit, hadn't previously occurred to me.

I guess that the performance of the cantata, only 6 day after Stubel's death (and. let's face it, 92 came between the two) precludes any possibility that Bach was composing this work with his death in mind--he must have composed all or most of it by this time.

But it's still an interesting thought to conjure with.

Also Peter, your mention of the dorian mode chorale brings to mind the several examples of Bach's using a modal melody but forcing it into the mould of major/minor tonalities. That occurs on various occasions throughout the cycle, not least for BWV 176, the final cantata.

I have always thought it somewhat ironic that Bach should complete such an innovative canon with such an archaic melody. But maybe that says something about his stylistic range.

Douglas Cowling wrote (March 3, 2007):
Chris Kern wrote:
< Discussion for the week of March 4, 2007
Cantata BWV 125 - Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin >
Did the opening chorus remind anyone else of the opening of the Matthew Passion? 12/8 in E minor ... frequent pedal points ... dramatic repetitions of "wie"

Cara Emily Thornton wrote (March 3, 2007):
[To Alain Bruguières] LOL

Chris Kern wrote (March 3, 2007):
One other thing I forgot to mention is that Bach gave the first performances of BWV 92, BWV 125, and BWV 126 in the span of one week. As Wolff writes, "Bach's artistic productivity [bordered] on the incredible."

Actually during the Christmas week, BWV 91, BWV 121, BWV 133, BWV 122, and BWV 41 all were premiered in the space of one week, but since Bach had three weeks of advent to write these....actually, it's still pretty incredible despite that.

Neil Halliday wrote (March 4, 2007):
Chris Kern wrote:
>"One other thing I forgot to mention is that Bach gave the first performances of BWV 92, BWV 125, and BWV 126 in the span of one week. As Wolff writes, "Bach's artistic productivity [bordered] on the incredible.">
Amazing! I've listened to BWV 126 last week, because it's on the same CD as Richter's BWV 92. Greater contrast between the opening choruses of BWV 92 and BWV 126 would be hard to imagine; BWV 126 (with trumpet) has "Luther on the war-path again!" (Robertson), thrilling in Richter's performance.

Now to BWV 125.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 4, 2007):
BWV 125 What the Copy Process Reveals

BWV 125

First Performance: February 2, 1725, Friday

[Let's see now.
a new cantata, BWV 92 composed for and performed on
January 28, 1725
a new cantata, BWV 125 composed for and performed on
February 2, 1725
a new cantata, BWV 126 composed for and performed on
February 4, 1725
a new cantata, BWV 127 composed for and performed on
February 11, 1725

What a schedule! Each of these cantatas is a true masterpiece composed by a genius and composed shortly before each performance!]


Copyists for BWV 125:

JAK: Johann Andreas Kuhnau
CGM: Christian Gottlob Meißner
WFB: Wilhelm Friedemann Bach
AIId: Anonymous IId
AIIe: Anonymous IIe
AIIg: Anonymous IIg
JSB: Johann Sebastian Bach

A1: Soprano (mvts. 1 & 6) JAK: mvt. 1; CGM: Mvt. 6

A2: Alto (mvts. 1, 2, 5 & 6) JAK: mvts. 1 & 2; JSB: mvt. 5; CGM: Mvt. 6

A3: Tenore (mvts. 1, 4, and 6) JAK: mvts. 1-4 (to m 49); JSB: mvt. 4 (from m 50 to end); CGM: Mvt. 6

A4: Basso (mvts. 1, 3, 4, & 6) JAK: mvts. 1-4 (to m 49); JSB: mvt. 4 (from m 50 to end); CGM: Mvt. 6

A5: Corno (mvts. 1 & 6) CGM: mvts. 1 & 6

A6: Traversiere (mvts. 1, 2 & 6) JAK: mvts. 1 & 2; JSB: Mvt. 6

A7: Hautbois l'ordinaire (mvt. 1) / Hautbois d'Amour (mvts. 2 & 6) JAK: mvts. 1 & 2; CGM: Mvt. 6

A8: Violino 1mo (mvts. 1, 3, 4 & 6) JAK: mvts. 1, 3 & 4 (to m 49 7th note); JSB: mvt. 4 (from note 8 m 49 to end of mvt.); CGM: Mvt. 6

A9: Violino 2do (mvts. 1, 3, 4 & 6) JAK: mvts. 1, 3 & 4; CGM: Mvt. 6

A10: Viola (mvts. 1, 2 & 6) JAK: mvts. 1 & 3; CGM: Mvt. 6

A11: Continuo (all mvts.) Primary Continuo part not transposed, not figured; JAK: mvts. 1-4 (up to m 49 the 4th note); JSB: mvt. 4 (from m 49 5th note to end); CGM: Mvt. 6

A12: Organo (all mvts.) transposed, figured (but not mvt. 2) AIId: mvt. 1 to m 44; WFB: mvt. 1 (from m 44 to m 64); AIId: mvt. 1 (from m 64 to end of 1st mvt.) mvt 2 (until m 51); WFB: mvt. 2 (from m 52 until 95); AIId: mvt. 2 (from m 96 to end) mvts. 3-6

A13: Violino 1mo (doublet) (mvts. 1, 3, 4 & 6) AIIg: mvts. 1, 3 & 4; CGM: Mvt. 6; WFB: adds a correction consisting of 2 measures/bars in mvt. 4, mm 8 - 10

A14: Violino 2do (doublet) (mvts. 1, 3, 4 & 6) AIIe (all mvts.)

A15: Continuo (doublet) (all mvts.) not transposed, not figured WFB: (all mvts.)

I am following the sequence based upon the summary on pp. 31-32 of NBA KB I/28.1

Most of the copy work as usual was completed by Johann Andreas Kuhnau. Evidently Kuhnau began copying the parts for this cantata before J. S. Bach had completed composing all of it since Kuhnau had to stop copying mvt. 4 abruptly at m 49. It can be assumed that Bach had finished composing a portion of mvt. 4 to the bottom of one sheet and was ready to begin a new sheet in order to complete the aria in his score. Bach handed the completed portion of mvt. 4 from the score (a loose sheet) to JAK so that he could complete copying as much as was available at the moment. The 2^nd violin part was the last to be completed by JAK since he was able to copy this mvt. out to its conclusion without stopping at measure/bar 49. Next J. S. Bach personally finished copying out the yet unfinished parts, Tenor, Bass, 1st Violin, and Primary Continuo, for the remaining portion of mvt. 4. Then Bach personally copied mvt. 5 into the Alto and Primary Continuo parts as soon as he had finished composing this mvt. Next Bach composed the final chorale, Mvt. 6. Bach then added Mvt. 6 to the Flute part transposed up one octave from what the score indicated. While Bach was adding 'tacet' markings and was still working on copying out the incomplete parts for mvt. 4 that JAK had begun, Christian Gottlob Meißner added a few more 'tacet' markings that were still missing and then turned his attention to copying the final chorale into all the vocal parts (Soprano, Alto, Tenor, Bass), the oboe and all the string parts as well as the Primary Continuo part. In the Alto part, CGM also had added a 'tacet' after the 1^st mvt., but then recognized his mistake and crossed it out. CGM also copied, at this time, the Corno part, which was a relatively easy part to copy because it did not include very many notes.

The doublets (2 violin parts and a continuo part), as usual were not copied from the score, but rather from the parts that had already been prepared. (In this instance, however, compared to the usual procedure followed in copying these parts, the doublets for BWV 125 were copied before Bach had had a chance to make his corrections and additions (the violin doublets do not show any dynamics in the handwriting of the copyist, dynamics which are indicated in the original parts). Perhaps Bach was still busy writing out the figures for the Organo part at this point? Bach, together with another copyist (Wilhelm Friedemann Bach?) had to add these dynamic and articulation markings (slurs) later.


Summary:

1. Bach was still composing mvt. 4 out of a 6 mvt. cantata when JAK began with the major effort directed toward copying the parts for as much music as was available to him [last part of mvt. 4 Duetto, mvt. 5 Recitativo, and Mvt. 6 Choral still remained to be composed by Bach].

2. Seven copyists are involved (including J. S. Bach) in ensuring that all the parts could be copied out as quickly and efficiently as possible. Some copyists, probably younger members of Bach's family, were not as adept at copying and transposing parts as were JAK and CGM, but they were nevertheless pressed into service to help speed up the copy process and to learn something from this experience.

3. This entire copy process, which Bach used frequently during the composing of his chorale cantata cycle, gives evidence of the speed at which Bach worked in composing the score and preparing the parts for a performance to be given on the next day. Both activities took place almost simultaneously with only half of the score completed when copying from the score was begun. He knew that he could depend on his copyists to meet the deadline and musicians to sight-read, without any prior preparation or rehearsals, the music during the performances given the next morning and early afternoon.

Douglas Cowling wrote (March 4, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< He knew that he could depend on his copyists to meet the deadline and musicians to sight-read, without any prior preparation or rehearsals, the music during the performances given the next morning and early afternoon. >
Now the musicans are not only not given rehearsal time but they can't even look at the music to prepare!

This is utter nonsense.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 4, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>Now the musicans are not only not given rehearsal time but they can't even look at the music to prepare! <<
Yes, this is quite different from what one would expect based upon current practices. However, what we see indicated in the historical record reveals a different kind of modus operandi used to compose a tremendous amount of new music in a very short span of time with the final preparation of parts being prepared, as it were, at the last moment before a performance. There is evidence as well in Germany at that time that rehearsals and any repetition or prior preparation of these parts were frowned upon by any musicians other than those who were highly-paid professionals. Perhaps the musical results were not equivalent to what these professionals were able to achieve with much more time and money on their hands, but Bach's young, talented musicians probably provided some good competition for them although they did not entirely reach their high standards.

Cara Emily Thornton wrote (March 4, 2007):
[To Thomas Braatz] I recall reading at various times over the years about pieces written in modern times by people who are alive and quite well to this day, which were completed a scandalously short time before the premiere. Apparently modern times are not so different from Baroque times after all...

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 4, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< There is evidence as well in Germany at that time that rehearsals and any repetition or prior preparation of these parts were frowned upon by any musicians other than those who were highly-paid professionals. >
This sentence says that 'highly paid professionals' were willing to rehearse, but everyone else frowned upon rehearsal, repetition, or prior preparation.

I suppose this is not totally impossible, but it is certainly inconsistent with the crackerjack performances achieved by Bach's lads, as proposed in many other posts.

However, it is not inconsistent with the reference (awaiting recovery) I ran across, with an aging Tnomaner recalling that the performances were pretty much a shambles. My word, not his, but that was the gist of it.

Chris Rowson wrote (March 4, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< There is evidence as well in Germany at that time that rehearsals and any repetition or prior preparation of these parts were frowned upon by any musicians other than those who were highly-paid professionals. >
What is that evidence, please?

I remember seeing here evidence that French musicians were said to rehearse a piece 100 times before performance, and that this was looked down on by German musicians. But less than 100 is rather different from not at all.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 4, 2007):
BWV 125 What the time table reveals

Chris Rowson wrote:
< What is that evidence, please?
I remember seeing here evidence that French musicians were said to rehearse a piece 100 times before performance, and that this was looked down on by German musicians. But less than 100 is rather different from not at all. >
True. But the evidence of four quite massive and demanding cantatas performed within a week, plus the other liturical music required PLUS the fact that prior to BWV 3 there were seven (yes seven) cantatas performed in barely a fortnight (BWV 91, BWV 121, BWV 133, BWV 122, BWV 41, BWV 123, BWV 124) ----put all this together and it is only logical to reason that rehearsal time must have been very short indeed. There are so many new and difficult works performed within a minimal period and only so many hours in a day.

And furthermore, in referring to the latest accepted timetable of these works, Bach's choir performed 13 cantatas (91-127) in seven weeks.

Collate these facts and you have strong evidence (I suggest) if not for the 'no rehearsal' proposal, at least for the 'extremely limited' rehearsal proposal.

Nor is this unique within the cycle. At the end of the second cycle the choir performed 8 cantatas (108-176) in a month.

Between these two groups of apparently frenetic activity there are only six cantatas in around 10 weeks (BWV 1-103) --but this period also included performances of the revised SJP and Easter Oratorio.each of which could be considered (in terms of length and complexity) the equivalent of several cantatas.

Personally all this is, to me, pretty compelling evidence that these works were not rehearsed in anything approaching the 'French manner' and the sheer logistic of getting parts copied , organising people, rooms, learning notes, tunings etc etc must evidence minimal rehearsal times.

We've already heard from some of the singers on list that they could work up some of the highly difficult arias within a day. The evidence offered by the timetable suggests strongly that Bach's musicians could and did so, pretty consistently.

It occurs to me that a key figure to comment upon the rehearsal requirements would surely be JElliot Gardiner and his prodigious performances of the cantatas in Bach year 2000 [6].

Chris Rowson wrote (March 4, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< But the evidence of four quite massive and demanding cantatas performed within a week, plus the other liturical music required PLUS the fact that prior to BWV 3 there were seven (yes seven) cantatas performed in barely a fortnight (BWV 91, BWV 121, BWV 133, BWV 122, BWV 41, BWV 123, BWV 124) ----put all this together and it is only logical to reason that rehearsal time must have been very short indeed. >
< Collate these facts and you have strong evidence (I suggest) if not for the 'no rehearsal' proposal, at least for the 'extremely limited' rehearsal proposal. >
CR:
It´s certainly a very busy schedule, and it would be very interesting to have a non-dogmatic discussion of the implications of this evidence.

JM:
< Nor is this unique within the cycle. At the end of the second cycle the choir performed 8 cantatas (108-176) in a month.
Between these two groups of apparently frenetic activity there are only six cantatas in around 10 weeks (BWV 1-103) --but this period also included performances of the revised SJP and Easter Oratorio.each of which could be considered (in terms of length and complexity) the equivalent of several cantatas. >
CR:
Is it possible that JSB used that period to write these cantatas in advance, and to begin rehearsals of them?

JM:
< Personally all this is, to me, pretty compelling evidence that these works were not rehearsed in anything approaching the 'French manner' and the sheer logistic of getting parts copied , organising people, rooms, learning notes, tunings etc etc must evidence minimal rehearsal times. >
CR:
I don´t think anyone is suggesting French rehearsal manner for JSB. But the fact the JSB managed the logistics of getting the scores and parts produced (which we know) suggests that he might have been able to manage the logistics of having the cantatas ready in time for some level of rehearsal (which we don´t know, but could perhaps consider).

Alain Bruguières wrote (March 4, 2007):
Chris Rowson wrote:
< What is that evidence, please?
I remember seeing here evidence that French musicians were said to rehearse a piece 100 times before performance, and that this was looked down on by German musicians. But less than 100 is rather different from not at all. >
You do not remember the same as I do. There has been evidence that german musicians played ex tempore.

In fact, all the evidence dating from Bach's period - or shortly afterwards - which has been produced on the list indicate that the norm for German performers was to perform ex tempore - without any form of preliminary work on the piece.Even Bach says so - and deplores it.

It has been asserted that the 'no rehearsal hypothesis' was possible, but illogical and therefore should be considered only in the presence of strong positive evidence. I refute the term illogical. The fact is this hypothesis is contrary to modern usage, henceseems illogical, but within Bach's context it is exactly in conformity with contemporary usage, and therefore the burden of the proof should be on the contrary hypothesis.

We do have plenty of evidence that Bach was considered an exceptionnaly good performer on the organ; that he wrote excellent (if somewhat complicated and antiquated) pieces of music, that he was an expert of highest repute on all musical matters. Do we have any evidence that the cantata performances in Leipzig were of the highest quality? Not that I know of, and Ed just mentioned evidence to the contrary (by the way it would be great to have a precise reference for this).

We have significant evidence pointing in one direction, and the only arguments we have so far in the other direction are authority argument of the kind 'No one in their senses /with the slightest musical sense/would ever think such a thing'. Often this is associated with pretending that those who do not discard the no-rehearsal hypothesis off-hand are saying that rehearsals are useless. This kind of attitude always puzzles me. Is one trying to convince, or to silence? In any case - as far as I'm concerned - one achieves neither.

Uri Golomb wrote (March 4, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< It occurs to me that a key figure to comment upon the rehearsal requirements would surely be John Eliot Gardiner and his prodigious performances of the cantatas in Bach year 2000 [6]. >
Yes, this is indeed an interesting case in point. On the one hand, Gardiner did not have to compose the music, or even copy it out: it's true that he re-examined the editions, but presumably the scores and parts were ready in advance of the performance. (Gardiner did have a few years to prepare for the project: the performances all took place in 2000, but the planning was done before that). This arguably gave him more leeway for rehearsals. On the other hand, Gardiner and his musicians spent a lot of time on the road from one location to another, and performed each week in a different place -- so they had to get over travel fatigue and get used to a new acoustic (and, at least in some cases, a new organ) each week, whereas Bach and his musicians were performing in familiar places, and no travel was involved.

In any case, Gardiner did have rehearsals -- not many, but certainly more than none at all. It's amazing that he managed to inject so much interpretive detail into his performances with so few rehearsals; but I doubt if even he could have managed it with none. But then, he had the privilige of hand-picking the musicians -- most or all of whom have worked with him before, and were familiar with his style and his way of thinking. Bach, too, was working with musicians who knew him, but was not in a position to draw from a pool of the best professional musicians. In this sense, Gardiner's ensembles resemble the Dresden ensembles that Bach envied, rather than the Leipzig ensembles he actually worked with.

Incidentally, AFAIK Gardiner was the only musician to be involved in the entire project, appearing in each and every concert: the personnel of the Monteverdi Choir and English BAroque Soloists changed during the year, so that few or no singers and players took part in the entire series from beginning to end. One wonders if Bach was able (and/or willing) to "rotate" his musicians in a similar fashion, giving some singers and players a rest for a few weeks while other musicians took their place.

Another comparison one might offer is Pieter Jan Leusink [5], who covered the same repertoire in only a slightly longer period. Leusink did not proceed by the church calendar, did not (AFAIK) perform live, and indeed did not even do complete cantatas in sequence (he did individual movements, and then strung them together -- a standard practice in the studio, but not, of course, in live concerts!). In other respects, he was closer to Bach: he worked with children (like Bach, and unlike Gardiner [6]), and did not switch venues all the time (again, like Bach and unlike Gardiner). That said, the differences between the two series probably have more to do with the differences between the musicians involved than between their different circumstances.

Chris Rowson wrote (March 4, 2007):
Alain Bruguières wrote:
< We have significant evidence pointing in one direction, and the only arguments we have so far in the other direction are authority argument of the kind 'No one in their senses /with the slightest musical sense/would ever think such a thing'. Often this is associated with pretending that those who do not discard the no-rehearsal hypothesis off-hand are saying that rehearsals are useless. This kind of attitude always puzzles me. Is one trying to convince, or to silence? In any case - as far as I'm concerned - one achieves neither. >
So what do you think of the suggestion that Bach may have used the10-week lull to prepare for the extremely busy period following it?

Julian Mincham wrote (March 4, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
<< … Collate these facts and you have strong evidence (I suggest) if not for the 'no rehearsal' proposal, at least for the 'extremely limited' rehearsal proposal. >>
Chris Rowson wrote:
CR:
< It´s certainly a very busy schedule, and it would be very interesting to have a non-dogmatic discussion of the implications of this evidence. >
JM----- Is it being suggested that a statement of the performance schedule and the suggestion that this implies very little rehearsal time is being dogmatic??

JM:
<< Nor is this unique within the cycle. At the end of the second cycle the choir performed 8 cantatas (108-176) in a month. >>
CR:
< Is it possible that JSB used that period to write these cantatas in advance, and to begin rehearsals of them? >
JM___- People often suggest that Bach wrote the cantatas ahead of time but never offer any evidence for this certainly not with reference to this cycle. To ask your own question Chris, what is the evidence? Furthermore as I pointed out although there were only 6 new cantatas performed within this 10 week period, two major works were also performed. If the cantatas required substantial rehearsal, these works would have required even more. BWV 249 had not previously been performed at Leigzig although 245 had been heard in the first cycle but in the earlier version. So I do not see that there would have been a lot of time for additional rehearsals of the coming bunch of works. This was not a performance-free period.

But again where's the evidence for the supposition expressed?

CR:
< I don´t think anyone is suggesting French rehearsal manner for JSB. But the fact the JSB managed the logistics of getting the scores and parts produced (which we know) suggests that he might have been able to manage the logistics of having the cantatas ready in time for some level of rehearsal (which we don´t know, but could perhaps consider). >
JM yes I said in my first posting that all this evidence of sustained performance of new works did not prove a 'no rehearsal' supposition. I said that it is strong evidence for a 'minimum rehearsal' process---possibly somewhat less than many performers would look for today.

Chris Rowson wrote (March 4, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< Is it being suggested that a statement of the performance schedule and the suggestion that this implies very little rehearsal time is being dogmatic?? >

CR: no, I consider the performance schedule informative and your suggestion reasonable

JM: < People often suggest that Bach wrote the cantatas ahead of time but never offer any evidence for this certainly not with reference to this cycle. To ask your own question Chris, what is the evidence? Furthermore as I pointed out although there were only 6 new cantatas performed within this 10 week period, two major works were also performed. If the cantatas required substantial rehearsal, these works would have required even more. BWV 249 had not previously been performed at Leigzig although 245 had been heard in the first cycle but in the earlier version. So I do not see that there would have been a lot of time for additional rehearsals of the coming bunch of works. This was not a performance-free period.
But again where's the evidence for the supposition expressed? >
CR: I don´t claim to have evidence, I am not aware of any evidence for or against rehearsals of the JSB cantatas. I am suggesting a possibility for organising rehearsal - not necessarily substantial, but at least some.

JM: < yes I said in my first posting that all this evidence of sustained performance of new works did not prove a 'no rehearsal' supposition. I said that it is strong evidence for a 'minimum rehearsal' process---possibly somewhat less than many performers would look for today. >
CR: Yes, we can be sure the process was very different from that of modern concert performers and recording artists. My understanding of early 18th C practice is that it was in general considered necessary to have at least one full rehearsal.

Shawn Charton wrote (March 4, 2007):
Cara Emily Thornton wrote to Thomas Braatz
< I recall reading at various times over the years about pieces written in modern times by people who are alive and quite well to this day, which were completed a scandalously short time before the premiere. Apparently modern times are not so different from Baroque times after all...>
The finale to Oklahoma was completed 6 hours before opening night... for example...

Shawn Charton wrote (March 4, 2007):
[To Julian Mincham] Again, I'll say that, though Bach's music is difficult, it presents the SAME problems over and over again... Thus once you're in a Bach singing mode and the problems have been dealt with it becomes exponentially easier to read. The preparation I'd want to see it the preparation that happened BEFORE these marathon performing times. What kind of rehearsal time did he spend working up to these obvious special occasions...

Chris Kern wrote (March 4, 2007):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< However, it is not inconsistent with the reference (awaiting recovery) I ran across, > with an aging Tnomaner recalling that the performances were pretty much a shambles. My > word, not his, but that was the gist of it. >
Whittaker has a quotation from one of Bach's cousins (I think?) who was in Bach's choir; he was asked about how it was to perform the cantatas with Bach and his response was "Oh, he cuffed us a lot and they sounded terrible." I don't know how credible that is, though.

Alain Bruguières wrote (March 4, 2007):
Chris Rowson a écrit :
CR: < Yes, we can be sure the process was very different from that of modern concert performers and recording artists. My understanding of early 18th C practice is that it was in general considered necessary to have at least one full rehearsal. >
Whence do you derive this 'understanding of early 18th C practice?

Chris Rowson wrote (March 4, 2007):
Alain Bruguières wrote:
< Whence do you derive this 'understanding of early 18th C practice? >
From long-term occupation with 18th C music, with particular emphasis on contemporary sources.

To cite one example, The Diary of John Grano, written c. 1728 while he was in debtor´s prison in London, describes how he produced benefit concerts to try to raise the money to get out. Although he was using top-flight instrumentalists, his friends and colleagues from the opera orchestra etc., he took it for granted there had to be a run-through the day before.

This is all made clear by his description of how it went wrong.

Alain Bruguières wrote (March 4, 2007):
Alain Bruguières wrote:
<< We have significant evidence pointing in one direction, and the only arguments we have so far in the other direction are authority argument of the kind 'No one in their senses /with the slightest musical sense/would ever think such a thing'. Often this is associated with pretending that those who do not discard the no-rehearsal hypothesis off-hand are saying that rehearsals are useless. This kind of attitude always puzzles me. Is one trying to convince, or to silence? In any case - as far as I'm concerned - one achieves neither. >>
Chris Rowson wrote:
< So what do you think of the suggestion that Bach may have used the 10-week lull to prepare for the extremely busy period following it? >
First of all, I entirely agree with you that this question should be approached in a non-dogmatic way, and I believe that quite a few list members do approach it in a non-dogmatic way.

This suggestion which you mention has been discussed here. What I think about this basically is :

- no evidence sustains this; whereas there are indications of a hurried compositional process.

- even if this were true, this would not account for the amazing rate of composition and performance.

- Bach had other duties and activities - professional and not professional, and nothing proves that what few weeks when no new cantata was performed were entirely dedicated to stockpiling new cantatas.

We can consider two scenarii :

A. Whenever Bach has a 'free' week (ie with no obligation to pa cantata) he stockpiles.

B. Bach never stockpiles.

With infinitely many intermediate possibilities.

Now consider A : even if Bach stockpiles during free weeks, the number of free weeks is so small that the stock cannot possibly last for a full stretch of time without free week. This means that Bach alternates between two modes:
a) 'leisurely mode' when he composes ahead of time; then he has to juggle with several works at a time, the one (ones) he is composing, and the one he is about to perform.
b) 'emergency mode' when each week he composes the cantata of the week, which supposes a different mode of organization.

It is a general fact of life that shifting from one organizational mode to another is time and energy spending. My guess here is that scenario A would entail a waste of time and energy. If Bach was able to work on 'emergency mode' (and this seems to be the case) I think it would have been more efficient for him to adopt it systematically, and to reserve the free weeks to different activities. Therefore - to me- B seems more plausible than A.

By the way, the quality of his production during the first 2 Leipzig years is pretty homogeneous and doesn't suggest that some works were written hurriedly, and others more carefully.

For all thess reasons, I cannot rule out your hypothesis, but I do not find it convincing, nor does it contribute to explain the 'mystery' of Bach's incredible productivity any better than the contrary hypothesis.

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (March 4, 2007):
Chris Kern wrote:
< Whittaker has a quotation from one of Bach's cousins (I think?) who was in Bach's choir; he was asked about how it was to perform the cantatas with Bach and his response was "Oh, he cuffed us a lot and they sounded terrible." I don't know how credible that is, though. >
Makes sense.

Handel's Coronation Anthems were performed horribly according to one person who wrote about it. I'm not sure what the nature of this debate is, but performing conditions and the approach to music in the 18th century are light years apart from what we do today.

Another tip off to difficult performances and very short prep timeare in the the very difficult horn and trumpet parts in the cantatas. I heard a baroque trumpet player offer a suggestion that given the nature of the music, it was more than likely that the trumpet player in the first performances could have cracked a few notes, and that was ok, because this trumpet player thought having a perfect trumpet part was unlikely in the first performances anyway.

That makes sense to me, because in the DVD rehearsal for the Christmas cantatas for BWV 63, the lead trumpet player Mr. Mark Bennett was having a very hard time playing the music correctly; and you can see his obvious frustration with himself for not playing it right.

Have a great Sunday!

Alain Bruguières wrote (March 4, 2007):
Chris Rowson wrote::
< To cite one example, The Diary of John Grano, written c. 1728 while he was in debtor´s prison in London, describes how he produced benefit concerts to try to raise the money to get out. Although he was using top-flight instrumentalists, his friends and colleagues from the opera orchestra etc., he took it for granted there had to be a run-through the day before.
This is all made clear by his description of how it went wrong. >
Among these contemporary sources, is there any one concerning the practice in Germany?

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 4, 2007):
Shawn Charton wrote:
< The finale to Oklahoma was completed 6 hours before opening night... for example... >
The finale, yes (new to me), but while the show itself was in preparation and rehearsal! Or perhaps revision after the off-broadway tryout?

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 4, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
<< Is it being suggested that a statement of the performance schedule and the suggestion that this implies very little rehearsal time is being dogmatic?? >>
Chris Rowson wrote:
CR: < no, I consider the performance schedule informative and your suggestion reasonable
JM: << People often suggest that Bach wrote the cantatas ahead of time but never offer any evidence for this certainly not with reference to this cycle. To ask your own question Chris, what is the evidence? Furthermore as I pointed out although there were only 6 new cantatas performed within this 10 week period, two major works were also performed. If the cantatas required substantial rehearsal, these works would have required even more. BWV 249 had not previously been performed at Leigzig although 245 had been heard in the first cycle but in the earlier version. So I do not see that there would have been a lot of time for additional rehearsals of the coming bunch of works. This was not a performance-free period.
But again where's the evidence for the supposition expressed? >>
CR: < I don't claim to have evidence, I am not aware of any evidence for or against rehearsals of the JSB cantatas. I am suggesting a possibility for organising rehearsal ? not necessarily substantial, but at least some. >
This seems like a convenient point to insert an observation: rehearsal has been equated with preparation, perhaps unintentionally, because these discussions usually resume in response to another proposal of the 'Saturday night scramble'. In fact, with the parts available even a few days in advance, there would be ample time for Cara's single day of preparation, followed by minimal rehearsal.

Adequate preparation, followed by minimal rehearsal, is a long way from sight-reading, at least according to my memory of trying to do both at one time or another.

Whatever evidence there may or may not be for sight-reading as the normative German performance practice, it is clearly not Bach's preference, based on his own statements.

Incidentally, to an American, it is hugely ironic (!) to spectate on arguments that the French insisted on perfection while the Germans would slap off an ex-tempore performance, neither prepared nor repeated. I guess music is different from engineering.

JM: << yes I said in my first posting that all this evidence of sustained performance of new works did not prove a 'no rehearsal' supposition. I said that it is strong evidence for a 'minimum rehearsal' process---possibly somewhat less than many performers would look for today. >>
CR: < Yes, we can be sure the process was very different from that of modern concert performers and recording artists. My understanding of early 18^th C practice is that it was in general considered necessary to have at least one full rehearsal. >
To summarize my response: minimum rehearsal is much different from no rehearsal, and neither in any way implies total lack of other preparation.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 4, 2007):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
<< However, it is not inconsistent with the reference (awaiting recovery) I ran across, with an aging Tnomaner recalling that the performances were pretty much a shambles. My word, not his, but that was the gist of it. >>
Chris Kern wrote:
< Whittaker has a quotation from one of Bach's cousins (I think?) who was in Bach's choir; he was asked about how it was to perform the cantatas with Bach and his response was "Oh, he cuffed us a lot and they sounded terrible." I don't know how credible that is, though. >
Thanks, Chris, I believe this is the reference I was recalling. I had overlooked that I at one point had both volumes of Whittaker on library loan, but now only have one volume on my shelf.

Of course, it is only one bit of data, certainly not conclusive. On the other hand, better than alternative conclusions without even that single bit of support.

Case closed, as far as my obligation to recover the reference.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 4, 2007):
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
>>Another tip off to difficult performances and very short prep time are in the the very difficult horn and trumpet parts in the cantatas. I heard a baroque trumpet player offer a suggestion that given the nature of the music, it was more than likely that the trumpet player in the first performances could have cracked a few notes, and that was ok, because this trumpet player thought having a pertrumpet part was unlikely in the first performances anyway.<<
This is the same type of erroneous argumentation as the one about rehearsals having been absolutely necessary under Bach's direction. One cannot judge Bach's preparation and performance practices based upon "this is what happens today" or "this is necessary for any singer or player today" according to the way we do things and perceive things through our own experiences. This trumpet player, and a few others, who still have not practiced sufficiently long enough on these older type instruments, find it easier to create this myth about Gottfried Reiche, Ulrich Heinrich Ruhe and others not being concerned about playing a part cleanly and accurately (or they were simply incapable musicians) and they even want to go so far as to imply that Bach intentionally wrote parts to take advantage of their problematic playing, parts which were too difficult to play because it was part of Bach's word-painting of a text which stated (BWV 77/5 "Ach, es bleibt in meiner Liebe lauter Unvollkommenheit" = "O, there is still so much imperfection in my [ability to] love").

This entire matter was discussed recently on this list [from "J. S. Bachs Instrumentarium" by Ulrich Prinz] in reference to a symposium, "Blechbläser-Praxis zur Bach-Zeit," held in Stuttgart (August 28-30, 1998) where two renowned trumpeters, Friedemann Immer and Edward H. Tarr both concurred that all of Bach's parts are playable on the 'long' trumpets of Bach's time. Both trumpeters demonstrated by playing these parts flawlessly.

Here is Prinz, quoting the summary of the symposium, on p. 57:

"Wenn das auf den historischen Nachbauten nicht immer so befriedigend klingt, so ist die Schuld zum einen bei den heutigen Trompetern zu suchen, die die alte Clarinblaskunst erst mühsam wieder erlernen mussen, und zum anderen sind unsere Hörgewohnheiten am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts 'verbildet' von den schlackenreinen CDs, am Bildschirm gemastert durch unendlich viele Schnitte - die Klangbalance völlig in der Hand des Tonmeisters."

"If this trumpet-playing on historical instrument reconstructions does not always sound satisfactory, then the fault lies in part with present-day trumpeters, who still have to (re)learn with great difficult the art of playing these high-range instruments, but also with our listening habits at the end of the 20th century, listening habits which have been spoiled by 'perfectly recorded' CDs, that have been modified an endless number of times using a computer screen - where the sound balance is entirely in the hands of the sound mixer."

All of this is confirmed by Gisela and Jozsef Csiba in their book, "Die Blechblasinstrumente in J. S. Bachs Werken", Merseburger, 1994, p. 23.

Shawn Charton wrote (March 4, 2007):
Shawn Charton wrote:
<< The finale to Oklahoma was completed 6 hours before opening night... for example... >>
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< The finale, yes (new to me), but while the show itself was in preparation and rehearsal! Or perhaps revision after the off-broadway tryout? >
as in the music was handed out 6 hours before opening the show... that's why it's just sorta a come out and sing a bit kinda number with a tag showstopper ending...

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (March 4, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< This is the same type of erroneous argumentation as the one about rehearsals having been absolutely necessary under Bach's direction. One cannot judge Bach's preparation and performance practices based upon "this is what happens today" or "this is necessary for any singer or player today" according to the way we do things and perceive things through our own experiences. >
Yet you're quote musicians from today (Edward Tarr for example) that are projecting their observations back into the 18th century, because they can play them well, as opposed to the trumpet player I quote who said that maybe cracked notes were a part of the regular performance habits of the time? So which trumpet player is correct?

The truth of the matter is, no one knows. We don't have a tape recording of any of the performances, so all of this is conjecture.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 4, 2007):
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
< time? So which trumpet player is correct?
The truth of the matter is, no one knows. We don't have a tape recording of any of the performances, so all of this is conjecture. >
Kim is absolutely right.

But then there is conjecture based upon a detailed knowledge of the scores and available sources and conjecture which has no basis whatsoever.

On this list we need to make an effort to sort out the one from the other. Certainly opinion from present day professional singers and instrumentalists is an important part of the basis for reasonable conjecture---as, indeed, is historical source material.

Bradley Lehman wrote (March 4, 2007):
I notice that the subject line is not: "What Musicianship Reveals". As in, listening to the opinions of working musicians who rightly point out that certain tasks are impossible without rehearsal.

This morning in church we did a piece that had two teenaged boys singing solos, about a 3-minute piece, with piano. We rehearsed it for 15 minutes earlier in the morning, before the service. And that was after they had both worked with their voice teacher on it for at least a week or two (it was scheduled for last Sunday's service that got snowed out). This voice teacher -- their high-school choral conductor -- was there to coach them this morning as well, talking them through several necessary improvements after their first few runs through it. I was the only person sight-reading it, playing the piano, although I'd also tried it out once on clavichord last night upon hearing that this was on this morning's service.

It went fine.... But it was an easy piece where the vocal lines were straightforward melodies, not even 25% as difficult as any Bach aria (vocally or rhythmically or finding pitch, or in any other way); and our 15 minutes rehearsing it this morning were well spent. In its very small way, this barely approaches the task of putting together a 20 to 25-minute cantata, with a whole orchestra and a different instrumentation for every movement, and more singers than two. That would require more than 15 minutes of rehearsal, and more time for everybody to work on their parts ahead of performance.

I remember very well the one time I consented to play one piece in a church service, without ensemble rehearsal, a couple of years ago. This was simply for one singer with organ, less than three minutes long, and the singer was himself a professional conductor and a fine singer. I had practiced my organ part for several days leading up to this, and I was ready; but he was sure we could put this together at sight, since his part was only to sing a chorale cantus firmus against these other two melodic lines on the organ. "It should work." Well....my part went fine, but he thoroughly botched it, having underestimated its difficulty in fitting it into these other flowing parts, and counting the right numbers of rests between phrases. It was an embarrassing muddle. And it was an unnecessary muddle, because 10 minutes of rehearsal probably would have made the piece go well.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 4, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< It was an embarrassing muddle. And it was an unnecessary muddle, because 10 minutes of rehearsal probably would have made the piece go well. >
Which is the reason why I personally believe in the 'very minimal' but not 'absolutely none' theory of rehearsal.

nevertheless all the evidence today we have would indicate that it was almost certainly less than we might have supposed it to have been some years ago.

Douglas Cowling wrote (March 4, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Yes, this is quite different from what one would expect based upon current practices. >
My principal objection in these debates is the presentation of historical possibilities as dogmatic certitudes. The simple fact remains that the direct documentary record is so spotty that we cannot recreate Bach's working method beyond the possible. The use of indirect collateral evidence is helpful but it cannotjustify the assertion of absolutes.

I am constantly criticized for not appreciating the differences between 21^st and 18^th century performance practices. Leaving aside continuity of performance practice for the moment, let's look at a few aspects of Bach's musical establishment which make it very different from modern ensembles and which in fact argue for a different concept of rehearsal.

Bach's students performed publically every day of the year. The choir school was an extension of its monastic foundation and the academic day was built around the musical performance of the liturgy. We can't underestimate the advanced musical skills which this schedule gave his choir. Their constant performing together foussed and honed their ensemble in a way no modern choir or orcehstra can ever hope to achieve.

This daily schedule was also founded on an extensive repertoire of motets and chorales which gave the choir an enormous musical base. In a sense, this repertoire was never wholly new because it was always being "dusted off" and refreshed for performance. That is a very different kind of rehearsal schedule than a modern concert ensemble.

Although there are obvious differences, a closer analogy is the repertoire of a modern residential English cathedral choir school which sings daily services.

Go to the Westminster Abbey site and click on "Services and Music": http://www.westminster-abbey.org/

What you see is the extraordinarily large repertoire which this men and boys choir sings in one week. Note also that the Sunday load is particularly heavy. This schedule would challenge a modern chamber choir. I suggest that this daily schedule with its built-in rehearsal times resembles what Bach and his musicians undertook every week.

Note too that many of these works are rehearsed in sections by various ensembles and do not necessarily require the modern "dress rehearsal".

The daily exeperience of working with Bach, even the mundane singing of a simple chorale, gave them a continuity of musical leadership which was of enormous value in decreasing the necessary rehearsal time. Bach's musicians instinctively knew what he wanted because they worked with him every day.

This is the performance matrix in which the "new" music, the cantatas were performed. Although it may seem incredible to modern musicians that music of this calibre was performed weekly, the comprehensive environment of the school made it possible. I have never believed that Bach spent his entire life listening to mediocre performances of his music.

Bach gave his cantatas to experienced and highly-trained musicians who he knew could give accomplished performances. What we don't know, and will never know, is the precise timetable of how Bach planned, composed, copied and rehearsed his cantatas. The parts do not have dates on them and we do not have a daily journal of how the music was rehearsed.

It is a disservice to the historical method and ultimately to Bach to press for certitude when there is rarely even probability. Our discussions need to remain within the possible.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 5, 2007):
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
<< time? So which trumpet player is correct?
The truth of the matter is, no one knows. We don't have a tape recording of any of the performances, so all of this is conjecture. >>
Julian Mincham wrote:
< Kim is absolutely right.
But then there is conjecture based upon a detailed knowledge of the scores and available sources and conjecture which has no basis whatsoever.
On this list we need to make an effort to sort out the one from the other. Certainly opinion from present day professional singers and instrumentalists is an important part of the basis for reasonable conjecture---as, indeed, is historical source material. >
As painful as it might have seemed at the time, we made some actual progress on this issue a few months ago. Under Aryeh's guidance, we decided that speculation would be limited to cases of unsupported scenario development, and used sparingly to avoid delicate feelings. Conjecture would be the preferred word (proposed by me, and tacitly accepted) for most of the scenario development on BCML: a bit of data or support, spun out to whatever lengths.

In the present case, the sound of Bach's natural trumpeters, as suggested by the hearsay opinion of a modern natural trumpet player, is what I would continue to call speculation. In order to rise to the level of conjecture, some of the reasoning used by the modern trumpet player would need to be presented. Perhaps it was, I did not read the original posts in that much detail.

The point is, Kim is correct. The sound of Bach's trumpets is conjecture at best, and perhaps it does not even rise to that level, in the strict definitions used on BCML.

Incidentally, I think this was a worthwhile linguistic distinction to make. What is the sense of having two vague words (speculation and conjecture) used interchangeably, when with a little discussion and a decisive moderator, we can add a bit of clarity to the language.

Nobody ever said progress would be easy, least of all the God of Bach's cantata texts.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 5, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>My principal objection in these debates is the presentation of historical possibilities as dogmatic certitudes.<<
How about your comment labeling my conclusions (as tentative as they are, they are my current conclusions) as "utter nonsense"? Does your statement not display a 'dogmatic' attitude based upon the arrogant notion that "the way we do things now must be very close to the way Bach did it back then"?

I am not labeling your opinions based on your experiences ("empirical evidence") as "utter nonsense", but I do believe it is necessary to step back at times to try to imagine what is suggested by historical evidence, as scanty as this may be, without expecting every detail to be spelled out so that there is little room for any doubt.

DC: >>The use of indirect collateral evidence is helpful but it cannot justify the assertion of absolutes.<<
How true! Just as momentarily reflecting on how we do things today might possibly reveal some clues as to how things were done in Bach's time as long as this method of reaching a conclusion does not stand in the way of historical evidence. BTW, the evidence I have presented from Bach's original parts is not simply "indirect collateral evidence", but reveals a process regarding which we can reach some reasonable conclusions, conclusions which preclude the notion that Bach prepared these cantatas far in advance of the actual performance date so that

1. the individual musicians could study and practice their parts alone

2. various types of rehearsals (sectionals, full ensemble, etc.) could take place over a span of a week or month or more

DC: >>I am constantly criticized for not appreciating the differences between 21^st and 18^th century performance practices. Leaving aside continuity of performance practice for the moment, let's look at a few aspects of Bach's musical establishment which make it very different from modern ensembles and which in fact argue for a different concept of rehearsal.<<
Or not rehearsal at all since all musicians involved were excellent sight-readers.

DC: >>Bach's students performed publicly every day of the year.<<
And Gottfried Reiche played his trumpet publicly 2 to 3 times a day from the church towers of Leipzig (probably more often when the Leipzig Fair was in progress). As a result these singers and musicians were always in the best form and ready to tackle any composition that Bach placed before them. Do you think for a moment, that Bach would compose music for his primary choir that the singers and instrumentalists would have difficulty performing? He knew precisely the capabilities of each one of them.

DC: >>Their constant performing together focused and honed their ensemble in a way no modern choir or orchestra can ever hope to achieve.<<
Exactly! The same way that Gottfried Reiche could pick up one of Bach's most difficult trumpet parts andplay it brilliantly at sight. This constant ensemble singing or playing was the key that allowed Bach to dispense with specific rehearsals needed to prepare any particular cantata.

The historical evidence from the original parts for the cantatas now under discussion makes quite clear that the composition of a cantata and its translation into individual parts was a last-minute effort, most likely on the evening before the actual performance the next morning. The editors of the NBA who examined these parts extremely carefully noting every aspect of what is on them sometimes express surprise that these parts appear never to have been used. Also, no one has ever discovered a privately made copy of a part or a student notebook containing the vocal part from an aria needed for private study.

So if parts were placed on the stands by Bach just prior to the performance and immediately collected again as soon as the performance was over and since no corrections or additions by any singing or playing musician have ever been noted, then there really is very little basis for assuming that these parts were used for rehearsals or even a single rehearsal.

DC: >>The daily experience of working with Bach, even the mundane singing of a simple chorale, gave them a continuity of musical leadership which was of enormous value in decreasing the necessary rehearsal time. Bach's musicians instinctively knew what he wanted because they worked with him every day.<<
Precisely! But he did not work with them by rehearsing any of the cantatas. Also, he had all those choir prefects, who were doing most of this important ground work for him.

DC: >>Bach gave his cantatas to experienced and highly-trained musicians who he knew could give accomplished performances. What we don't know, and will never know, is the precise timetable of how Bach planned, composed, copied and rehearsed his cantatas. The parts do not have dates on them and we do not have a daily journal of how the music was rehearsed.<<
We do not need a precise timetable of rehearsals because the parts 'speak for themselves'. What they tell us is that they were completed in relatively great haste in order for a performance to take place shortly thereafter. If a Friday was a Feast Day with a cantata expected, then, as we have seen, Thursday night there would be a copy session in Bach's apartment. For the next cantata on the following Sunday, the session would take place Saturday evening in time for the Sunday morning performances. This is what the historical evidence from the parts is trying to tell us, not that these cantatas were composed weeks earlier (despite the fact the texts were already available) and the parts copied out so that a number of rehearsals, stretching over a few weeks could be possible.

DC: >>It is a disservice to the historical method and ultimately to Bach to press for certitude when there is rarely even probability. Our discussions need to remain within the possible.<<
Nothing is absolutely certain about Bach when viewed from this perspective and when limiting or disproving reasonable theories is accomplished by stating that "there is rarely even probability". We do not even know precisely when (on what calendar date) Bach was born, but are we not all happy that he was!

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 5, 2007):

Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>My principal objection in these debates is the presentation of historical possibilities as dogmatic certitudes.<<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< How about your comment labeling my conclusions (as tentative as they are, they are my current conclusions) >
'ttentative' and 'conclusiion' are completely inconsistent in this sentence. What the the writer (TB) apparently means is 'conjectures', not 'conclusions'.

< as "utter nonsense"? Does your statement not display a 'dogmatic' attitude based upon the arrogant notion that "the way we do things now must be very close to the way Bach did it back then"? >
How is this notion 'arrogant'? Where does the idea that DC claims [now is close to then] come from?

< I am not labeling your opinions based on your experiences ("empirical evidence") as "utter nonsense", but I do believe it is necessary to step back at times to try to imagine what is suggested by historical evidence, as scanty as this may be, without expecting every detail to be spelled out so that there is little room for any doubt. >
And not to step back at other times? A classic sentence, as an example of how not to write. How to not write? Not write right?

GMAFB! (Not an official BCML abbreviation or acronym, translation available off-list on request). You start a fight over the use of the word 'speculation', and then post this sort of contentious ... Well, I almost wrote nonsense, but I will bite my tongue, sit on my pen (ouch), or something... Vomit on my keyboard.

Bradley Lehman wrote (March 5, 2007):
This cantata, like the others that have been discussed over the past several months, shows yet again that rehearsal was essential. Why? Once again, it's tricky stuff in unfigured bass of arias, and tricky stuff to coordinate in blatantly exposed string parts.

The latter? Movement 3, where the violin and viola parts all have 32^nd notes that have to be counted out accurately and played accurately (both in rhythm and pitch, with string-crossings and all), with varied bits of rest around them.

The former? Movement 2, where we have an alto singer, two obbligato wind lines, and an unfigured basso continuo. The two wind lines are filled with graceful appoggiaturas that spice up the harmony; and the bass line is a bunch of repeated notes, sometimes six the same all the way through a bar. And during these, the harmony changes in ways that there's no way the organist would know, except to learn during rehearsal. (Or, once again, we could force Bach to play the part...on no evidence.) Plus, the singer's appoggiaturas should probably line up at least somewhat with the way the wind players are doing them...again arguing for rehearsal.

And then the fourth movement is tricky, too, as a vocal duet plus two violins, at an obviously rapid tempo.

And now, as usual, the non-musicians among us will sputter on about the way such musical evidence either didn't occur to them, or somehow isn't important, in deciding if this music ever had rehearsal before its first performance by Bach. Or its repeat performance, years later.

Go into this music in a church service, sight-reading it? Absurd. Even if one's performance standards would be absolute crap, it would still be absurd; there are all these "train wrecks" waiting to happen in it, on almost every page of these three movements in a row. Why would Bach or his employers or musicians put up with such a ludicrous situation, with musicians that unprepared and it being Bach's fault (week after week after week) for not having it ready in time? They couldn't. It's practically impossible. There would have to be at least several hours of run-through, well in advance of Sunday morning, for even a chance.

Besides, we also can't cite long-afterward reports that the performances often sucked, as if non-rehearsal would be the only feasible reason for them to suck. These cantatas are tricky even with rehearsal, and so many things can go wrong.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 5, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>This cantata, like the others that have been discussed over the past several months, shows yet again that rehearsal was essential. Why? Once again, it's tricky stuff in unfigured bass of arias, and tricky stuff to coordinate in blatantly exposed string parts.<<
It appears to be common for some present-day musicians who find Bach difficult to perform without prior practice or rehearsals (or even with rehearsals) to blame Bach for their own inadequacies in being able to sight-read Bach at a level which could be considered reasonably good for a public performance. What is the first thing that some Bach trumpeters who still have not mastered the art of clarino playing say in their defense when their performance reveals some very obvious deficiencies?

1. Trumpeters in Bach's time could not possibly play Bach's trumpet parts cleanly because we fithese parts terribly difficult to play (accuse Bach's trumpeters of poor, substandard execution on their instruments rather than pointing the finger directly at the ones making this accusation, those who simply have not yet reached the higher level of mastery required to manage playing these instruments at a high level of perfection).

2. Bach deliberately composed his difficult trumpet parts to trip up any trumpeter because it was part of Bach's musical language used in attempting to express the meaning of the underlying text or thought (blame Bach for intentionally making these parts overly difficult so that audiences will realize that the present-day trumpeters are not at fault when some strange sounds emanate from there instruments).

The 'tricky stuff' referred to above is of a similar nature: the lack of the same level of experience that Bach's performers presumably had should not be used as an argument that Bach's performers simply could not sight-read his cantatas when the freshly copied parts were placed before them just before they were expected to perform a new cantata during the first church service on a Sunday morning. The observations obtained from a close examination of Bach's autograph score and the original set of parts do not in any way suggest that present-day ensembles performing Bach's music should attempt to do likewise. On the contrary, the need for intensive study of the parts with numerous rehearsals is perhaps greater today than it ever was.

However, let us try to keep these two notions separate:

1. Bach's custom of having the performers sight-read the freshly composed music during performances;

2. Today's need for more individual practice of a part from a Bach cantata along with sufficient rehearsals to attain the best ensemble results possible under the present circumstances.

Douglas Cowling wrote (March 5, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< However, let us try to keep these two notions separate:
1. Bach's custom of having the performers sight-read the freshly composed music during performances;
2. Today's need for more individual practice of a part from a Bach cantata along with sufficient rehearsals to attain the best ensemble results possible under the present circumstances. >
I always keep the two notions separate because the first is delusional.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 5, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>I always keep the two notions separate because the first is delusional.<<
...when viewed from the arrogant, empirical standpoint which allows no other possibilities to have existed at different times and in different cultures.

"Delusional" and "utter nonsense" appear to be rather dogmatic terms when applied to slowly growing body of historical evidence contrary to one's own expectations.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 5, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:.
< Besides, we also can't cite long-afterward reports that the performances often sucked, as if non-rehearsal would be the only feasible reason for them to suck. These cantatas are tricky even with rehearsal, and so many things can go wrong. >
Since I originally brought this up, I should state that I agree with Brad, non-rehearsal is not the only feasible reason for a terrible performance. I never intended to say that it was, only that the report of poor performance quality could be consistent with no rehearsal. I think I first brought it up some time ago, in the face of a comment that the typical performances were sight-read and superb, more to challenge the 'superb' than to support the 'sight-read'.

Now that we have the comment, as recovered by Chris Kern from Whittaker: 'He cuffed us a lot, and the performances were terrible,' it sounds much more like a description of combined rehearsal and performance practice, than strictly a church performance. Unless you like the image of Bach 'cuffing' the lads during a sight-read performance at services.

In any event, it is a tiny bit of hearsay evidence, long after the fact. Not much, of itself, to build any kind of case on.

Julian Mincham wrote:
< My own view remains the same and has not really been altered by the discussion--i.e. that in his first Leipzig two years Bach wrote and performed the cantatas at a phenomenal rate which allowed for a degree of individual practice and group rehearsal but probably little of each. >
My sentiments, as well.

Rick Canyon wrote (March 5, 2007):
< Now that we have the comment, as recovered by Chris Kern from Whittaker: 'He cuffed us a lot, and the performances were terrible,' it sounds much more like a description of combined rehearsal and performance practice, than strictly a church performance. Unless you like the image of Bach 'cuffing' the lads during a sight-read performance at services. >
Makes Bach sound a bit like Basil Fawlty.

I just want to be sure, but aren't we talking here about just two (roughly) of Bach's 27 years in Leipzig? Once this frenetic pace of composition abated, wouldn't the 'sightreading vs no rehearsal vs little rehearsal question' largely recede from being a performance factor?

Russell Telfer wrote (March 6, 2007):
This is a longer post than usual.

Thank heavens for Aryeh's placement of the Leusink performances of the cantatas [5] (and thanks to Leusink and his forces too). Which gives a chance to check the details at the last minute.

Brad Lehman wrote:.
<< Besides, we also can't cite long-afterward reports that the performances often sucked, as if non-rehearsal would be the only feasible reason for them to suck. These cantatas are tricky even with rehearsal, and so many things can go wrong. >>
Ed Myskowski replied -
< Since I originally brought this up, I should state that I agree with Brad, non-rehearsal is not the only feasible reason for a terrible performance. never intended to say that it was, only that the report of poor performance quality could be consistent with no rehearsal. I think I first brought it up some time ago, in the face of a comment that the typical performances were sight-read and superb, more to challenge the 'superb' than to support the 'sight-read'. >
I was listening to cantata BWV 125 Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin before this started and also writing some website text for an amateur choir trying to explain how the technical competence required for the performance of Bach cantatas varies from 'as easy as a hymn but with attitude' - up to the stratospheric level of the supermusician, a person able to get into John Eliot Gardiner's sanctum without a fuss - there are just a few around.

To the point: non-rehearsal or faulty rehearsal is a main contributor to a poor performance. Here are some others, drawn from real life:

- the lead singer is off colour, the conductor loses his composure and shouts to warn (!) her she's flat, making her even flatter.

The instruments are off colour. They either sound awful, are impossible to play, or are played badly. I'm not saying much about HIP, except to say that there must be some reason why Rachmaninov didn't write any concertos for clavichord. How many composers chose to retrogress to instruments which had been superseded a century before? (I love the clavichord.)

A majority of the tenors and basses and some of the orchestrat are tipsy. (Please note, this happens rarely, but may also have happened in Bach's day.)

The conductor has some daft ideas about tempo. Glenn Gould wasn't a conductor but qualifies otherwise.

The orchestra is in conflict with the conductor who, they think, has behaved unreasonably - he probably has - and they give a lousy performance appropriate to the moment.

There is conflict between the conductor and the choir's repetiteur (in the case I'm thinking of, the former disparaged the latter) and the choir take their revenge by screwing up. Not in a Bach cantata, I'm glad to say.

I shall stop short of citing instances where the catering prior to a concert was a major factor in causing further disasters, because the main point I wanted to make was from the singers' point of view:

In BWV 125, there are two movemefor choir. The opening chorus is a beautiful movement in 12/8 time at allegretto tempo; it offers minimal difficulty for trainable average singers. There is only one bar with semiquavers and demisemiquavers (for tenors only) otherwise the metre is slowish and dependable. Easily learnable, I would guess.

The last movement is a typically energetic Lutheran hymn, and a well trained choir could probably get away with almost no rehearsal.

There are plenty of opportunities for a poor performance but not for the choir in this cantata.

Uri Golomb wrote (March 6, 2007):
Russell Telfer wrote:
"I'm not saying much about HIP, except to say that there must be some reason why Rachmaninov didn't write any concertos for clavichord. How many composers chose to retrogress to instruments which had been superseded a century before? (I love the clavichord.)"
AFAIK, nobody ever wrote a concerto for clavichord - the instrument does not have the power to play with even a chamber ensemble. Bach wrote concerti for HARPSICHORD -- and that instrument illustrates that some compsoers DO "to retrogress to instruments which had been superseded a century before". Francis Poulenc wrote a concerto for harpsichord; Elliot Carter wrote a double concerto for harpsichord and piano. Admittedly, they wrote for Wanda Landowska and Ralph Kirkpatrick respectively -- and, if I'm not much mistaken, both these players played on "modern" instruments, which might have been more powerful (purely in a maximum-decibel-achievable level) than many historical instruments. But I wouldn't be surprised if later composers wrote concerti for historical harpsichords and chamber orchestras.

I know for a fact that MANY modern works were written for the instruments revived by HIP musicians -- harpsichords (solo music and chamber works), recorders, viols, etc. A couple of months ago I attended in London a world-premiere performance of a work written especially for the Academy of Ancient Music; and in a couple of months will attend another world-premiere, of a work written especially for the Jerusalem Baroque Orchestra. And these two works are hardly the first of their kind. It seems that composers today find some attractions in writing for old instruments (and/or for the musicians who play them).

BTW, has anyone written works expressly for the cornetto? It's a beautiful instrument, and I would love to hear a concerto for it -- AFAIK, no such concerti were written in the Baroque era (though Brad Lehman did suggest once that the trumpet part in the Bradenburg 2nd could be played on the cornertto -- as I recall, he did't suggest that this is what Bach had in mind, merely that it would work).

Continue of this discussion, see: HIP - Part 18 [General Topics]

Neil Halliday wrote (March 6, 2007):
Opening chorus. Sometimes, depending on my mood, Rilling's performance [1] seems a bit slow (7.24, made in 1973); OTOH, Herreweghe [3], the other recording I have, sounds faster than ideal (5.26). Suzuki [8] also seems a little brisk to capture the expansive grace and beauty of the music (5.55), although his is an excellent performance that is more substantial than Koopman [7] at about the same speed. A performance time of around 6.20 would probably be ideal, IMO

Those with a score will notice the careful ornamentation that Bach brought to the flute and oboe parts, in the following alto aria. In the first bar, the flute part has an appoggiatura on the second note, while the oboe has a short trill (or mordent?) on its simultaneously played second note, which obviously adds a little sparkle to the dialogue between the flute and oboe at that point. I think only Harnoncourt [2] and Leusink [5] observe this detail. Mostly appoggiaturas apply to both parts. BTW, does anyone know the difference in execution (if any) between the two types of trill signs that are shown in bar ten of the BGA score? Rilling [1] has a vivid continuo part (with harpsichord) with insistent, repeated notes, and lovely woodwinds; but Höffgen's vibrato is too strong. Surprisingly Herreweghe's alto [3] also has more vibrato than desirable. Koopman's lute [7] doen't quite 'fit in' with the other continuo instruments, IMO.

Chorale and recitative. The striking string motif perhaps expresses mankind's wonderment at the promised banishment of fear and pain of death. Once again, Robertson considers the chorale sections to be "much more effective if sung by the choir's basses"; unfortunately, none of the recordings allows us to judge this for ourselves. Robertson continues, "The strings accompany, with solemn harmonies, the beautiful long phrase at `dying' " (at the end of the movement). I had completely missed these harmonies, because the strings are too soft in my recordings; admittedly, they are marked `piano', but recording engineers ought to be able to ensure that this marvellous writing for strings can be clearly heard.

[To hear these striking harmonies, go to the BCW piano reduction/vocal score and play the piano part (better on a sustaining keyboard), which is in fact an accurate representation of the string writing].

The duet is sheer animated joy. All parts adopt the opening 1/16^th note motif, and the long coloraturas for the voices are most attractive in the solid 4/4 rhythm. Equiluz and Schöne (with Rilling [1]) are perfectly balanced and most expressive, accompanied by clearly articulated violins.

Cantata BWV 125: Complete Recordings | Recordings of Individual Movements | Discussions

Recordings & Discussions of Cantatas: Cantatas BWV 1-50 | Cantatas BWV 51-100 | Cantatas BWV 101-150 | Cantatas BWV 151-200 | Cantatas BWV 201-224 | Cantatas BWV Anh | Order of Discussion

Introduction | Cantatas | Other Vocal | Non-Vocal | Performers | General Topics | Articles | Books | Movies
Biographies | Texts & Translations | Scores | References | Commentary | Music | Concerts | Bach Tour | Memorabilia
Chorale Texts | Chorale Melodies | Lutheran Church Year | Readings | Poets & Composers | Transcriptions
Search Website | Search Works/Movements | Terms & Abbreviations | Copyright Notice | How to contribute | Links