Recordings/Discussions
Background Information
Performer Bios

Poet/Composer Bios

Additional Information

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

Cantata BWV 144
Nimm, was dein ist, und gehe hin
Discussions - Part 2

Continue from Part 1

Julian Mincham wrote (March 7, 2006):
Neil Halliday writes:
< but the unusual aspect is that the last note of the subject in the tenor is the first note of the subject in the bass, and likewise (an octave higher) for the soprano and alto. >
Although seemingly a minor technical point raised here by Neil, it is of considerable interest. He is right in saying this is unusual. Bach usually brings in his subsequent voices so as to form a harmony of some kind where first and last notes overlap---usually a 5th or 3rd or 6th. But he does overlap the note in this way from time to time--the excessively short subject from fugue 111 of WTC Bk 2 is one example as are fugues V1 and XVII from Bk 1--but in all these examples, while the voice announcing the answer comes in on the same note (or octave) it comes rhythmically one quaver later. In BWV 144 the answer settles on the same note at the same time (on the first beat of the bar)---which IS unusual.

It also give the interpreter something to think about for instead of the answer being differentiated from the subject by a) a different timbre and b) a different note, it sounds more like a continuation of a single melody.

Strange too how little details of this kind can take one back to listen to the movement and its interpretation quite differently.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 8, 2006):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>The ship is usually the individual soul; though Rumpius (in 1609), Josua Stegman (1627), and Simon Dach (1642) write of the ship of the Church.<<
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>The main body of a gothic church like St.Thomas is called a "nave" because the building resembles an inverted ship.<<
The histories of the words 'nave' in English and 'Schiff' or 'Kirchenschiff' in German reveal that these words were rather recent in church history and can be traced reliably only back to the late 17th or 18th century in both languages [English 1673, German 1793].

Here is the word 'nave' in English as it appears in the OED with full documentation of the first instance of its use:

Entry:

'nave' (from the Latin 'navis' = ship): The main part or body of a church, extending from the inner door to
the choir or chancel, and usually separated from the aisle on each side by pillars.

Earliest documented use: 1673 in Ray's "Journal of the Low Countries" p. 261 "A double isle on each side of the Nave."

Entry:

'nef' or 'neff' (from the French word 'nef' = 'ship' {not a word commonly used to denote a seafaring vessel} = 'nave') : The nave of a church (obsolete).

Earliest documented use in English: 1687 in Lovell's translation of 'Thevenot's Travels" I. p. 187 "The Church is very spacious, the Nef or Body of it is round."

Here is the word 'Schiff' or 'Kirchenschiff' as it appears in the DWB with full documentation of the first recorded instance the Grimm brothers (and others) were able to find:

Entry:

'Schiff' (from Latin 'navis', Greek 'naos/naus', and Sanscrit 'naus'): an architectural term denoting the middle, main space of the church located between the columns/pillars and 'choirs', starting from the hall all the way up to the 'choir' or the place where the altar stands. Specific types and locations are indicated by 'Hauptschiff', 'Mittelschiff', 'Seitenschiff', 'Langschiff', and 'Querschiff'. This notion of a ship meaning the area where the lay persons of the congregation assemble is relatively old but restricted to Medieval Latin as documented by Charles Dufresne Du Cange in his "glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis..", 1840-1887, and the French 'nef' in this sense may be seen as being derived from such a metaphorical application of the word 'navis' in this Late Latin sense. Without being able to document directly from any of the multitudinous sources used in extracting meanings of words in context and establishing a publishing date of such a source, the DWB resorts to quoting a reference (Herrig's "Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen" Braunschweig,1846) which in turn quotes from study by Johann Leonhart Frisch (Berlin, 1734) where without giving a specific reference there is a quotation attributed to a prolific writer, Johann Geiler von Keisersberg (1445-1510 mainly around Straßburg) who wrote in Latin, but whose sermons, tracts and treatises were translated into German and often modified from the original, hence not entirely reliable in their authenticity. However, despite a rather murky provenance, the DWB nevertheless gives the following quotation (remember that this is a quotation given by L. Herrig in his "Archiv.." 1846, pointing to a study by J. L. Frisch 1734 in which the latter attributes this quotation without giving a specific reference to an original Latin text by Keisersberg which, in turn, had been loosely translated into the vernacular German of the 16th century by an unknown and probably not very reliable translator):

"die Frauen sollen nit in den Chor gon, das Schiff gehört dem gemeinen Mann, das heist das Schiff worinnen ir [die Zuhörer] jetzund seyd." ("Women should not go into the choir area of the church, the ,ship' (the large open area) belongs to the commoners/lay people, by that I mean the ,ship' where all of you are now.)

1. It would appear that this ,translation' had a very limited distribution/circulation and does not truly represent a language usage that was commonly recognized among architects, construction workers, and church-goers. The fact that no other document written directly in German from the period before the Jean Paul quotation from his "Die unsichtbare Loge" Berlin, 1793 [see below] has been located, seems to indicate that "Schiff" in the meaning of "nave of a church" made a very late appearance in the German language and was not used as an architectural term nor as a common description of a specific area of a church until the end of the 18th century.

2. It may well be the case the Du Cange, who did not document his source for Latin 'navis' = 'church nave' had looked at the same source that Herrig seems to point to: Keisersberg, who wrote sermons in Latin such as [given in German translation] "Das Schiff des Heils.." ("The Ship of Salvation") and "Das Schiff der Penitentz" ("The Ship of Penitence"). "Nef" in French is already a specialized term used in architecture and does not refer generally to "ship", but just when was this term first used, in the 18th century or much earlier?

Here is the earliest bona fide quotation from an original German source as recorded by the DWV:

Jean Paul (1763-1825) in "Die unsichtbare Loge" Berlin, 1793, chapter 3, page 145:

".im neunten Säkulum muszte sogar der Pfarrer der Patronatkirche zugleich dem Kirchenschiff-Patron als bedienter aufwarten." ("in the 9th century even the pastor of the patronage church was required to bow to (serve) the patron of the church nave.")

Friedrich Christoph Schlosser (1776-1861) in "Weltgeschichte.." (Frankfurt am Main, 1844-1857):

".mag er [der Dom zu Mailand] auch in der Baukunst jetzt Ungleichheiten aufweisen,.so ist er doch ein Werk erhabener Pracht und Zierlichkeit, das im Innern mit seinem Säulenwald in den fünf Schiffen eine mächtige Wirkung übt." (".even if it {the cathedral of Milan} in its architecture now reveals irregularities,.it is nevertheless an edifice of splendor and gracefulness inside which creates a mighty impression with its forest of columns in the midst of the five naves.")

Summary:

There is no doubt that "Schiff", in contrast to the specialized architectural terms "nef" in French and "nave" or "Nef/Neff" in English, even today still can mean simply 'ship' [not true in English or French] but also include the specialized meaning applied in architecture. In the German language, it also has had the flexibility to be simultaneously used metaphorically in reference to Christian symbols as the "Lebensschiff" [Samuel Butschky (1612-1678) earliest use of word documented from 1659], a "navigatio vitae", even asfar back as to the late 16th and early 17th century. However, it is difficult to substantiate the specialized meaning of "Schiff" referring to 'nave' as one that Bach or any of his compatriots would have known and used.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 8, 2006):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>The ship is usually the individual soul; though Rumpius (in 1609), Josua Stegman (1627), and Simon Dach (1642) write of the ship of the Church.<<
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>The main body of a gothic church like St.Thomas is called a "nave" because the building resembles an inverted ship.<<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< The histories of the words 'nave' in English and 'Schiff' or 'Kirchenschiff' in German reveal that these words were rather recent in church history and can be traced reliably only back to the late 17th or 18th century in both languages [English 1673, German 1793]. >
First (1), I truly enjoy the detailed scholarship.

Second (2), I also enjoy a bit of humor. I am greatly relieved that the architect who sold us the inverted ship design in 1994 as a novel invention was not borrowing from ancient history, but from only about three hundred ago. On the other hand, for the cost of the design, it should have been either new, or very ancient. If you ever visit Salem MA, check it out for yourself.. It is very attractive, no question about that. Did I already say expensive?

Eric Bergerud wrote (March 8, 2006):
[To Thomas Braatz] I'll stand correction on this, but as I recall from my days on the naval lists the word "ship" didn't come into wide use in English until the late Middle Ages. I think the German term was Skiff. A great deal of nautical terminology would be fairly recent because until the multi-masted vessels that started showing up in the 13th century, vessels were pretty crude. Things like rudders have been around for eons. Many other items were unheard of in the centuries during which men have risked their neck on open water. But some 600 years back give or take a few generations northern Europeans began to make disctinctions between ships and boats. (Actually the argument isn't completely settled. The Viking "longship" is a term that has worked its way pretty deep into the language. By all modern definitions, however, it's a boat. Of course so is a nuclear powered submarine, some of which are the size of a World War II cruiser.) Oh, yea, ships have always been expensive. Also, my webster's says the nave also means the center of a wheel, something I remember from my farm boy days. (No joke. Our neighbor had an old wagon he loved to work on for parades, hay rides etc. He liked talking to the little kids of which there many in boomer days. Kept a couple of nags out of the glue factory anyway. His father bought the thing to use - stuff gets antique status fast in our time.)

Alain Bruguieres wrote (March 8, 2006):
<< The histories of the words ‘nave’ in English and ‘Schiff’ or ‘Kirchenschiff’ in German reveal that these words were rather recent in church history and can be traced reliably only back to the late 17th or 18th century in both languages [English 1673, German 1793]. >>
According to Le Robert/Dictionnaire historique de la langue Francaise, the french word NEF comes from lat. navis, boat/vessel and in late latin the main body of a church (in reference to its shape and probably also under the influence of greek naos : temple). In French the word NEF appears in 1050 in the sense 'boat/vessel' and as soon as 1150 in the sense 'main body of a church'.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 8, 2006):
[To Alain Bruguieres] Thanks for taking the time to look this up. This brings up two questions:

1. With all the linguistic borrowings from Old French coming into English as a result of the Norman Conquest, why did it take so long for the French word 'nef' to make it into the English language?

2. Why was there on the part of the German language (and all of its earlier forms and dialects) either a great lack of knowledge regarding this specialized sense of 'navis' or perhaps even resistance to the
notion that 'navis' = a distinct area of the church?

3. Did the confusion between Greek 'naus' (from which English gets the word "nausea" among other things), Greek 'naos'= 'temple', and Latin 'navis' at a time when all scholars had knowledge of Latin, and possibly Greek as well, cause them to look askance at any normal acceptance of this terminology: 'Schiff' = 'nave'?

Raymond Joly wrote (March 8, 2006):
Thomas Braatz's conclusion («Summary») looks watertight.

Just a few remarks and queries.

Charles du Fresne du Cange (1610-1688) published his GLOSSARIUM AD SCRIPTORES MEDIÆ ET INFIMÆ LATINITATIS in 1678; it went through many editions since then and is still in use.

The obviously 19th century edition one can peruse on the GALLICA site of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France starts NAVIS with the meaning «nave» and two quotations from Ordericus Vitalis (died 1141) and Suger (died 1151; and did he know about Gothic naves!).

What puzzles me most is that the French began using NEF «nave» as soon as 1150 (Robert's DICTIONNAIRE HISTORIQUE DE LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE), whereas the English and Germans, who read and spoke as much Latin as the French, if not more, apparently did not take to the metaphor at all. By the way, how did the Germans call a nave (SCHIFF, HAUPTSCHIFF), an aisle (NEBENSCHIFF, SEITENSCHIFF), transept (QUERSCHIFF) before they had SCHIFF at all? It is amusing that the metaphor apparently compensated its late introduction into their language by flourishing exuberantly once it had entered it.

Could it be that NEF first appealed as a term in architecture when the Gothic vault, that indeed looks more like an inverted ship than a Romanesque one (let alone a basilical flat ceiling), was invented? And that was in Ile-de-France: Paris and its surroundings. Strange that the triumphal progress of the ogive across Europe did not sweep the metaphor along.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 8, 2006):
Raymond Joly wrote:
>>What puzzles me most is that the French began using NEF «nave» as soon as 1150 (Robert's DICTIONNAIRE HISTORIQUE DE LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE), whereas the English and Germans, who read and spoke as much Latin as the French, if not more, apparently did not take to the metaphor at all.<<
Thanks for your input on this issue. Perhaps the Greek 'naus' vs. 'naos' confusion did after all cause hesitancy on the part of many scholars to accept the specialized meaning of 'nave' Somehow, however, it slipped by the scholarly censors to allow 'nef' to appear in French early on. But why the very long delay before it arrived in England?

>>By the way, how did the Germans call a nave (SCHIFF, HAUPTSCHIFF), an aisle (NEBENSCHIFF, SEITENSCHIFF), transept (QUERSCHIFF) before they had SCHIFF at all?<<
These must all be much later extensions when the German language with its penchant for compounding
simply went crazy adding all these compounds for which there is not a single separate entry in the DWB so
that any first occurrences would be listed. In any case, these terms were shorter than having to say
"Hauptkirchenraum", "Nebenkirchenraum", etc.

>>It is amusing that the metaphor apparently compensated its late introduction into their language by flourishing exuberantly once it had entered it.<<
It is as if all the architects and construction workers who built churches in Germany (and England) had been waiting for a simple, short term that was imprecisely referred to with other words until the time when the word would rather suddenly 'take off' and replace all previous equivalents.

Raymond Joly wrote (March 8, 2006):
Various Schiffs -- BachCantatas] March 5: Intro to Cantata 144

[To Thomas Braatz] Oops ! (That is comic strip diction again, I am afraid.) Grimms do have entries for NEBENSCHIFF and QUERSCHIFF. And they list some more, without separate entries, under SCHIFF.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 9, 2006):
Raymond Joly wrote:
>>Oops ! (That is comic strip diction again, I am afraid.) Grimms do have entries for NEBENSCHIFF and QUERSCHIFF. And they list some more, without separate entries, under SCHIFF.<<
The origins of both compounds 'Nebenschiff' and 'Querschiff' as connected with 'nave' are from the end of the 19th century. So what does this do to change the status of the argumentation and the determination of the first use of 'Schiff' in the sense of 'nave'? All the compounds I listed were from the DWB but none of these entries for compounds of 'Schiff' = 'nave', whether separate entries or appearing in other contexts give any indication that these compound terms existed in German before 1800. Please let us know if you find otherwise.

Raymond Joly wrote (March 9, 2006):
[To Thomas Braatz] «Thomas Braatz's conclusion ("Summary") looks watertight» is what I wrote on a former occasion, and I did not change my mind.

We are dealing in very fastidious fact-finding, though, and every slip of the pen, every misplaced index card (or computerized equivalent thereof) can lead to false conclusions. That is why they should be pointed out. No questioning of the gist of the argument intended, disparaging of the scholar even less.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 9, 2006):
[To Raymond Joly] The ship (not to say knave) looks "watertight" indeed!

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 9, 2006):
BWV 144

I have enjoyed listening to BWV 144 and Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan [6], both for the first time. In fact, I bought this recording specifically to relate to this week's and next week's discussions, as well as to introduce myself to the Suzuki series. The introductory comments by Julian Minchan and Neil Halliday have added greatly to my listening enjoyment. Worth repeating: added greatly! I do not have listening comparisons to make, so I will try to be brief.

My first overall impression was that the sound was almost too live and vibrant, artificial sounding. Then I looked at the photos of the musicians and the (presumed?) recording venue: Kobe Shoin Women's University Chapel. It looks to me like a nave, an inverted ship, if you will (as Douglas Cowling, Thomas Braatz, and others have been writing this week). The overall sound made more sense, sounded more natural. the second time through. It quickly comes to sound correct. I can relate to the Suzuki enthusiasm so often expressed throughout these discussions.

Now I am writing while I listen for the third (and repeated) times. The outstanding impression is Robin Blaze countertenor in the alto aria (Mvt. 2). I had his name confused with Robin Tyson, who many of you have complained about . I will not be making that mistake any longer. I have yet to hear Tyson, but Robin Blaze creates a sound of utmost purity, aided by the vibrant venue. Which provides a nice contrast for me to last weeks alto aria (BWV 83/1) with Helen Watts. Both wonderful, both valid IMO, both completely different. And Bach's structural, architectural, development comes alive by listening to these works (BWV 83 and BWV 144) chronologically, with a prominent alto aria in different positions in each.

Suzuki in his notes [6] is appropriately blunt: "the text , by an unknown author, is in both theological and poetic terms a mediocre piece of work". But what musical marvels the mediocre words inspire! More on this point in future posts. And perhaps the mediocre text is perfect for early February in northern climes. "Do not grumble, Dear Christian," Robin Blazes into poem. Or at least into rhyme, with heavenly sound.

Aryeh, please suggest any format changes which would simplify your job.

Neil Halliday wrote (March 9, 2006):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< I have enjoyed listening to BWV 144 and Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan [6] <> "The outstanding impression is Robin Blaze countertenor in the alto aria (Mvt. 2)".<
http://www.bis.se/index.php?op=people&pID=2396

(Those without this recording, click on '3' at the bottom, and find Mvt. 2).

Another interesting aspect of this recording (Suzuki) [6] is that it is the only one that uses oboes to double the violin I and violin II lines, in the ritornellos (judging from all the other amazon samples at the BCW). The resulting orchestral timbre is quite rich, and nicely complements the purity of Blaze's voice, in this restless, sombre, but consoling music.

[The BGA is sparse in specifying the orchestration for BWV 144; the SATB movements have no indicated instruments at all; and this movement (Mvt. 2) has strings only indicated. I wonder if the NBA has indicated oboes doubling violins, for Mvt. 2? Obviously it makes sense to double the voices with strings and oboes in the opening chorus, and the two chorale movements; I think everyone does this.]

Tom Hens wrote (March 9, 2006):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< It is almost impossible to discover the interrior religious disposition of an artist such as Bach because he left no personal memoir or theological writings. >
He did buy a lot of theological books, and made margin notes in some of them. Let's be grateful he left no theological writings -- based on what little writing we have from him, they would probably be nearly unintelligible.

< Shakespeare wrote no overtly religious plays and scholars have tried for four centuries to discover his religious beliefs. To no avail -- the most recent "grasy-knoll" theory makes him a crypto-Catholic. >
The kind of people who go for efforts like this tend to be people for whom religion is terribly important, and who therefore assume that it must be terribly important to everyone else too. That someone, for instance Shakespeare, simply might not have any highly specific religious beliefs, or any such beliefs at all, doesn't seem to occur to them.

< Bach lived in a time and place where religious conformity was required -- legally and socially -- and there is no evidence that Bach questioned his Lutheran context. If he had been a free-thinker, agnostic or dissenter, it is unlikely that he would have taken on a career which involved such an intimate, daily contact with established religion. >
That doesn't seem obvious to me at all. I don't think it applies to Bach, but I think you seriously underestimate the power of pragmatism. Any "free-thinker", "agnostic" or "dissenter" (now there are three terms about whose definition one could spend many hours disagreeing) in Bach's time and environment would have had to keep his personal beliefs to himself, would be confronted with established religion on a daily basis, and would be forced to go through the outward motions of belonging to the established religionanyway. I don't think you can deduce anything about Bach's personal religious beliefs from the fact that he took the Leipzig job. There are plenty of purely pragmatic reasons that can be advanced for this career move, and before that, he had been quite happy working for a Calvinist court where he didn't have to write any church music at all. What about his contemporaries Handel or Heinichen, who both happily composed specifically Roman Catholic church music, while always remaining Lutherans, at least nominally?

Tom Hens wrote (March 9, 2006):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< [The BGA is sparse in specifying the orchestration for BWV 144; the SATB movements have no indicated instruments at all; and this movement (Mvt. 2) has strings only indicated. I wonder if the NBA has indicated oboes doubling violins, for Mvt. 2? >
The incipit in BWV 2a indicates that doubling, so if it wasn't in the BG, itprobably is in the NBA.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 9, 2006):
Ed Myskowski writes:
< The introductory comments by Julian Minchan and Neil Halliday have added greatly to my listening enjoyment. Worth repeating: added greatly! >
Thank you for these comments.

As a meticulous reader of all emails about the cantatas hereby offered (and having learnt a lot from them) one thought occurred to me. It is thiswhilst there is a great deal of information, scholarship and opinion expressed about the texts, historical background and performance practices and traditions (all relevant and of considerable interest to cantata explorers; I do not criticise it) there seems to be less discussion on the actual substance of the music itself. By this I mean such matters as Bach's constant structural experiments, the combining of established formal principles, his incredible variety of phrase structures, the choice and usage of keys, his melodic contours, harmonic experiments, similarities and contrasts between the works etc. etc. Such matters are touched on sure, but seldom seem to stimulate passionate debate or be followed up as meticulously as, for example, the derivation of particular words of text; and, after all, it is the music itself and its expressive effect which is the heart of the subject. What price the performances without the music? Is this because there is a danger that such discussions may become too technical?--- employing technical language which may not be readily accessible to all? But a lot can be illuminated about the ways in which the music is put together without resorting to overly technical language. I well recall beginning the voyage of discovery of the cantatas years ago and pretty daunting it was, at first. My objective in commenting upon the cantatas each week has been to offer points of composition, structure or comparison which might be helpful to those following this same fascinating path. Nice to know that someone gains something from it. Personally I am happiest when engaging in exchanges of views and observations about the music itself, leaving comparisons of performances to those who, apparently with greater resources than I have, can draw upon a much greater range of comparative interpretations than I am able to do. Good luck to them, though!

Thomas Jaenicke wrote (March 9, 2006):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Viel oder wenig? Schnell oder langsam? Unbegrenzt surfen + telefonieren ohne Zeit- und Volumenbegrenzung? DAS TOP ANGEBOT JETZT bei Arcor: günstig und schnell mit DSL - das All-Inclusive-Paket für clevere Doppel-Sparer, nur 44,85 ? inkl. DSL- und ISDN-Grundgebühr!
http://www.arcor.de/rd/emf-dsl-2 >
I do not see that Grimm states the use of "Schiff" for a part of the church building in new:
here the entry im "Grimms Wörterbuch 1854)

15) schiff, in der baukunst, mittlerer hauptraum der kirche, zwischen den pfeilern und chören, von der halle an gerechnet bis an den chor oder den ort, wo der altar steht, hauptschiff, mittelschiff, seitenschiff, langschiff, querschiff. diese bezeichnung des für die laien bestimmten theiles der kirche ist bereits alt; vgl. schon mittellat. navis bei DU CANGE 5, 579 und auch franz. nef, sie ist wol erwachsen aus der alten an die oben besprochenen metaphorischen anwendungen erinnernden auffassung der kirche als eines schiffes, das uns aus dem verderben der sündflut rettet in short: Schiff in the art of building names the middle area in a church ... This name for the part appointed to the congregation is already old; compare middle Latin navis with DU CANGE and originates from the old metaphoric use of the church as the ship which saves us from the bane of the Flood.

Also don't forget that ships were much more in use in the olden days for mass transport than nowadays. On every river and every lake you saw ships and boats, so the use of "nautical" terms even in areas far off the sea was very common.

Neil Halliday wrote (March 9, 2006):
Julian Minchamwrote:
>"Is this because there is a danger that such discussions may become too technical"<?
This may be a bit of the problem; for full enjoyment of the music, I often have to `steal' a look at the score.

For example, in BWV 144's soprano aria (Mvt. 5), I straightaway knew that we have interesting writing for the oboe in the ritornello, but, despite what turns out to be an entirely natural, expected, and spontaneous shape for this long, rambling melody, its twists and turns ensured there was no way I could whistle or hum this melody without first playing it on a keyboard, from the score. (The oboe melody starts on the (dominant) F# - a bit hidden in the jumble of notes, if one is using the piano reduction score at the BCW). Once this melody is committed to memory, one can listen to bits and pieces of it cropping up all through the movement, including in the vocal line, as is usual in Bach's practice.
-------
Listening to the way both the fugue counter-subject and answer arise on the last note of the subject at the start of Mvt. 1 certainly illuminates the music (for me, and others apparently) but does such terminology make sense to everyone reading this list? (I did not comment on the way the lively counter subject gradually infuses the score as the movement progresses).

Anyway, I certainly enjoy such comments for the insight they may bring to the music.

Douglas Cowling wrote (March 9, 2006):
Tom Hens wrote:
< What about his contemporaries Handel or Heinichen, who both happily composed specifically Roman Catholic > church music, while always remaining Lutherans, at least nominally? >
Handel is a fascinating example. He was lionized by the Catholic hierarchy while in Italy although there were complaints in Rome that a heretic was writing music for the Catholic liturgy. Handel's decision to leave Italy was probably influenced somewhat by the realization that advancement was probably dependent on conversion. In England, where Lutheran music was forbidden in the liturgy, Handel made the decision to convert formally to the Church of the England whih gave him access to commissions in the Chapel Royal and at other court events such as the coronation.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 9, 2006):
Neil Halliday writes:
< Listening to the way both the fugue counter-subject and answer arise on the last note of the subject at the start of Mvt. 1 certainly illuminates the music (for me, and others apparently) but does such terminology make sense to everyone reading this list? >
Neil---- good question which I will follow with two others.

1--- Should we be too concerned about the use of musical technical information? I ask because in recent weeks there have been some highly technical emails about recording and 'compression' which I don't understand; likewise some of the arguments about the meanings of a particular word or phrase in the text in various languages are very technical for those without a good command of the different languages. So should we be too uptight about technicalities involved in the discussion of musical composition when we accept technicallities in allied areas??

I think there is a compromise situation whereby we do not need to invoke terms like 'counterpoint invertible at the 10th' or a 'dominant 7th in its third inversion'. But there are a range of terms (like 'subject' and 'countersubject' ) which are a) fairly clear b) definable through the glossary or c) which, if any member wants an explanation s/he might ask others on the list to define clearly--I'd be happy to do this for one.

2----who are we writing to and for? Obviously people of a wide range of musical experience and expertise. And in one sense it doesn't matter a jot because individuals will take that which means something to them personally (as I did with the emails on recording and compression---i.e. not a lot!!---but I am sure that others did). But I remember often coming across just one single phrase, image, observation or idea which completely illuminated a new work--or a single movement --leading to a consequent emotional (spiritual??) experience which lasted (sorry---IS lasting!) a lifetime.

Maybe it is possible, occasionally, to do this for each other???

What are people actually seeking within this arena? Do say.

Raymond Joly wrote (March 9, 2006):
Age of SCHIFF «nave» (was: Various Schiffs; was: March 5: Intro to Cantata 144)

[To Thomas Jaenicke] If SCHIFF meaning «nave» in German, not Latin, were really old, one can surmise that Grimm would have been able to adduce an occurrence earlier than Keisersberg, born 1445, whose works, in their German version, are translations from the Latin or revisions by others (Grimm, vol. 33, list of sources).

John Pike wrote (March 9, 2006):
Tom Hens wrote:
< He did buy a lot of theological books, and made margin notes in some of them. Let's be grateful he left no theological writings -- based on what little writing we have from him, they would probably be nearly unintelligible. >
I have to disagree with this. I think it would have been immensely interesting to have more writings from Bach on this, or any other topic. It could only increase our understanding of the man, and possibly of the music as well.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 9, 2006):
Neil Halliday wrote:
>>[The BGA is sparse in specifying the orchestration for BWV 144; the SATB movements have no indicated instruments at all; and this movement (Mvt. 2) has strings only indicated. I wonder if the NBA has indicated oboes doubling violins, for Mvt. 2?<<
Tom Hens wrote:
>>The incipit in BWV 2a indicates that doubling, so if it wasn't in the BG, it probably is in the NBA.<<
The NBA KB I/7 pp. 1-29 discusses in detail the problems associated with this issue and even the broader issue whether this cantata is actually by Bach at all.

Serious questions have been raised by Bach scholars about its authenticity (the score, the only real evidence from Bach's lifetime, is in Bach's handwriting without his name assigned (this was done many years later by C.P.E. Bach). Schweitzer, Schreyer (1913) and Schering (1913) give various reasons for not ascribing this cantata to Bach: 'weakness in declamation' (Schweitzer); 'almost entirely made of recycled mvts. not necessarily by Bach', 'an inexplicable scantiness/feebleness/weakness of the 1st aria', and 'the motivically irregularly rushed character of the introductory chorus' (Schreyer); "this cantata is one of Bach's later church cantatas, not even one of his pre-Leipzig ones, which could have been composed by any of the lesser cantors in the smaller churches of Saxony and Thuringia' (Schering).

Opinions from the other side include those of Leonhard Wolf (1913), Alfred Heuß (1933), and Friedrich Smend (1947-1948). They emphasized, among other things, the 'masterly structure', 'excellent declamation' found in this cantata.

The NBA relies upon C.P.E. Bach's attribution, the placement of 'J.J.' before the designation of the liturgical Sunday in question, the fact that the 4-pt. chorale harmonization was included in the Breitkopf collection of chorales (1784-1787), the appearance of the score generally as a 'working' or 'composing' copy with numerous corrections not simply as a result of miscopying from another score.

The problem with assigning oboes which are not indicated on the autograph score is a serious one:

1. A copy of the score which J. Ph. Kirnberger had had made in Berlin before 1787 (the first record of it when it donated to the Joachimsthal Gymnasium) has no instrumentation listed at all.

2. A copy of the score of the 1st mvt. from the estate of C.P.E. Bach which Pölchau, a famous collector of Bach manuscripts, acquired in 1841, likewise has no indication of instrumentation.

3. A copy of the score of the entire cantata which was passed down in the Hauser (Joseph and son Franz) family dates from the first half of the 19th century and lists 2 Oboi, 2 Violini, Viola, 4. voci. e. Fondamento. [My comment: this copy was made at a time when performance practices had changed considerably with larger choirs and substitution or inclusion of clarinets as indicated by Felix Mendelssohn's performance preferences for Bach's cantatas. Perhaps, also, more operatic voices were also used, allowing the increase in the number of instruments and the choice of different instrumental coloring.]

4. A copy of the score by Anton Werner dated 1839 which has the same instrumental designation as Hauser's copy.

5. Another copy of only the 1st mvt (no instruments indicated) by Kirnberger's copyist (2nd half of 18th century) in a collection entitled 'Motetten v. J.S. Bach" which also included:
1. BWV 226 "Der Geist hilft unsrer Schwachheit auf"
2. BWV 229 "Komm, Jesu, komm"
3. BWV 244/78 (St. Matthew Passion)

6. Another copy of the score from the 19th century with the same instruments indicated as in Hauser's copy.

Looking at the sources available, the NBA decided there were two main categories:

1. the autograph score (to be kept separate from:)

2. all the other copies of it

The NBA then decided to include the enriched instrumentation for the choral mvts. (1st and last mvts.) for which there are many original examples where Bach would have done this.

The 2nd mvt., the alto aria, is, however a thorny problem for which there is no authoritative solution based on the sources available. In view of the reservations caused by the doubtfulness ["Bedenken"] that any clear reasons could be established, the editors decided on an indication of 'Violino ' [remember that Bach has no instruments or voices indicated on the autograph score] with the following: (ed Oboe) for each of the treble instrumental parts at the top of the score. The editors comment that the extremely low range ["Die ausgesprochene tiefe Stimmlage"] for the oboes makes the use of oboes here appear rather/quite doubtful ["läßt diese Zuordnung allerdings recht zweifelhaft erscheinen"]. To play these two parts properly on oboes you would have to allow much more "Oktavknickung" according to the "Umknickverfahren" ["the method used to play parts that go too low by simply jumping up an octave and playing the notes an octave higher"] than one can normally observe in other works that are definitely verified to be by Bach. Despite the fact that oboes are often "Systempartner" ("share the same staff and play the same notes") with the violins in Bach's autograph scores, the editors feel that there is considerable reason to indicate their position by placing this assignation in parentheses on the NBA score with and asterisk referring to this section of the KB where the details of the discussion are given.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 10, 2006):
Julian Mincham wrote:
> What are people actually seeking within this arena? Do say. <
This person was seeking, and found:
(1) reference resource to aid in deciding which recordings to buy to supplement an existing accumulation
(2) analysis to add to the enjoyment of listening to the recordings, old and new

I did not expect to find such a wealth of information on a single site. In my experience getting information on a wide variety of topics from internet sources, the BCW is unique. With that in mind, probably better not to try to fix it if it is not broken. As long as there is a moderator willing and able to do the editing and manage civility, just let it be.

Now that I am on board, I find that listening with the intent to write something encourages me to focus. For me, that is the best, and unexpected, value of BCW.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 11, 2006):
Julian Mincham wrote:
> What are people actually seeking within this arena? Do say. <
A few more (non-comic) thoughts. You asked for it! Once the current chronological cycle is complete (end of next year, more or less?), how about:

(1) Cantata of the week, with structural and musical comparisons to other cantatas, along the lines of what you or Neil (I have forgotten, wait, I'll look it up) (...) It was you, re BWV 144 and BWV 181 (elapsed time, less than a minute, what a luxury), what you have already started, but with no restriction on the comparison subjects. I don't know what the logistics, server space, etc. would be to store and cross-reference discussion that wide-open. Nto mention editing demands, although that hardly seems like it could be any more challenging than it already is. One of those impossible jobs that somehow gets done. Thanks one more time, Aryeh.

(2) Mini-groups of selected cantatas (selected by whom? Whmmm.) with structural or musical similarities, for discussion over some time period. Perhaps four cantatas (on average) every two weeks for about two years.

This would not necessarily replace the comparisons of different recordings of the same cantata, which are useful and enjoyable under any circumstances, and will certainly continue to be so as new recordings are issued. It would provide a fresh emphasis for the next cycle of discussions. It might even create some opportunities for short (please!) books or articles for scholars who need such, and readers who would appreciate the product. If Thomas Braatz doesn't already have them in the dresser drawer, awaiting a publisher. Just kidding, sir, I read, enjoy, and think about your writing very much. I promised non-comic, time to sign off. Plenty of time left to plan the next cycle.

This discussion was brought about, and accompanied by, additional listening to the opening fugue of BWV 144 with your comments in mind. BWV 144, as well as the other four cantatas on the Suzuki CD [6] are among the shortest, and easy to undervalue. This is akin to saying that Opus 95 is Beethoven's shortest string quartet. Indeed it is. Also the most dense, IMO. I hope Beethoven analogies are welcome here. If not, Aryeh can edit me out.

Lew George wrote (March 11, 2006):
Text vs Technique

Julian Mincham wrote:
"By this I mean such matters as Bach's constant structural experiments, the combining of established formal principles, his incredible variety of phrase structures, the choice and usage of keys, his melodic contours, harmonic experiments, similarities and contrasts between the works etc. etc. Such matters are touched on sure, but seldom seem to stimulate passionate debate or be followed up as meticulously as, for example, the derivation of particular words of text; and, after all, it is the music itself and its expressive effect which is the heart of the subject. What price the performances without the music? Is this because there is a danger that such discussions may become too technical?--- employing technical language which may not be readily accessible to all? But a lot can be illuminated about the ways in which the music is put together without resorting to overly technical language."
Julian's suggestions for more discussion and illumination of Bach's work in musical terms are heartily supported here. I think that the avoidance of discussing music in technical terms is because of the limited knowledge and expertise in this area in the community generally.

The technical language of music is only faintly grasped, I would suggest, by most people, even among those with a passionate love of Western classical music. I have a lot of musical friends who both play and listen to music. Those who only listen have the same intense love of and reaction to the music they listen to as those who both play and listen. Yet in the listener only group, not one of them can read music. Some of them still have trouble in identifying whether it is a clarinet, bassoon or oboe they can hear in the orchestra, and if shown photos of various instruments would have trouble identifying many of them, particularly among the brass and woodwind (all this after some 40 years of listening to classical music on CD collections of several thousand).

If a composer miraculously and seamlessly changes key to great emotional effect, as all the great masters did comstantly, this only registers in an indefinable emotional way. Apparently, for this group, it doesn't seem necessary to delve into compositional technique to make the emotional impact greater. The overall shape of a symphonic work is more apparent, as I have noticed they can recognise when for example the development begins, the coda, and so on, even in a large scale work like a Bruckner symphony, but I suspect that difficulty would be apparent if one went much beyond that.

I wonder if technical musical knowledge in the community has ever been surveyed? The result would be an indicator of the extent to which we are entitled to brand ourselves as "civilised".

So, to all the members of this site who are musically trained, especially as professional and teaching musicians, I urge you to take up Julian's challenge, and balance the literary discussion, that is so good and so interesting for the main part, with an elaboration of phrase structures, key relationships, melodic contours and the like, using language we can all understand (if that is possible. A site like this could help change listening habits, with the help of some regular, clearly expressed analysis designed to encourage the listener to listen more closely beyond the surface emotion. Perhaps Aryeh could establish an archive devoted to such analysis, which could also include some more erudite material.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 11, 2006):
Lew George wrote:
< If a composer miraculously and seamlessly changes key to great emotional effect, as all the great masters did comstantly, this only registers in an indefinable emotional way. >
In my engineering days, I had a mentor who said "If you have to be an engineer to operate it, it isn't good engineering."

I think an analogous phrase applies to music: If you have to be a musicologist to listen to it, it isn't good music.

That doesn't mean that learning more about the craft won't add to your enjoyment. Defining the craftsmanship doesn't necessarily destroy the previously indefinable emotional response. Overexposure may destroy it (variety is the spice of life, after all), and overexposure is often necessary to grasp craftsmanship. So study, take a break, and come back to it. You will enjoy it more, the emotional response may be even greater, and you may appreciate the real miracle that distinguishes rare genius from only slightly less rare superb craftsmanship.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 11, 2006):
Ed Myskowski writes:
< In my engineering days, I had a mentor who said "If you have to be an engineer to operate it, it isn't good engineering." >
I think an analogous phrase applies to music: If you have to be a musicologist to listen to it, it isn't good music.

A goog point which, by implication, raises the question of the value of musical analysis. Leaving aside, for a moment the fact there there are numerous levels and approaches to musical analysis, it is still valid to ask what is its function and what do people (hope to) receive from it.

I recall a symposium some years ago lead by the opininated but stimulating Hans Keller. The agreed definition of musical analysis was 'the bringing to the attention and understanding of the conscious mind, aspects of the music which the unconscious has already absorbed and responded to'.

Which goes back to Emysko's analogy with engineering---music is received and appreciated at a very deep level (one of the reasons for the powerful effect it has upon us). We do not need technical knowledge in order to enjoy
this. But a number of different kinds of knowledge (technical, cultural, historic) insights, opinions and images MAY just press certain buttons for certain people which can take them more deeply into the musical experience.

All good teachers know this of course and find their own ways to stimulate their students' imaginations and enthusiasms.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 12, 2006):
Ed Myskowski writes:
< Mini-groups of selected cantatas (selected by whom? Whmmm.) with structural or musical similarities, for discussion over some time period. Perhaps four cantatas (on average) every two weeks for about two years. >
I like this idea. Looking at (listening to!) small cognate groups of cantatas can be illuminative in quite a different way than when looking at them individually.

To make this work it might be best to take the larger subdivions and work out sub-groupings within them

e.g. the first complete Leipzig cycle, the second L eipzig cycle, secular cantatas, the pre-Leipzig religious cantatas, the incomplete third cycle, the late cantatas etc.

If, for example one took the 53 cantatas of the second cycle one might take a group of three or four works at a time for a given month in ways as suggested below---

the three from this cycle which begin with an aria (all for bass)

the two which begin with a recit and the two which begin with a sinfonia

the half dozen which begin with a chorus which is not based upon the phrases of the chorale

cognate groups which begin with a chorale chorus based upon the traditional motet principles

cognate groups which begin with an Italianate ritornello type chorale chorus.

Going beyond the first movement, one could group the three which have a trio---or groups of the 14 cantatas containing a duet--or those which employ a second chorale etc.etc. Also as I suggested recently when mentioning Bach's demonic bass arias, one could even group cantatas because of the congruity of particular arias.

All of these possible groupings are based on the music and musical structure--other groupings related to text and image would be equally valid.

I don't know what the group has agreed--possibly that (from the present position half way through the first cycle) we should proceed with all the following cantatas chronologically---if so, fair enough. The only (tiny) criticism about this approach is that an awful lot has been already been said on the website about many of these individual works (just look, for example about what has been written about the next one coming up, BWV 18). Maybe a cognate grouping of the kind suggested might bring a little more light to bear on the works than individual chronogical scrutiny? And make additional links for those in the process of exploring this great canon of music?

Obviously subscribers and Aryeh would need to agree the process--which comes back to the question, what are people looking for in this subscriber list?

Tom Hens wrote (March 13, 2006):
John Pike wrote:
(in response to something I wrote about Bach's non-existent theological writings):
< I have to disagree with this. I think it would have been immensely interesting to have more writings from Bach on this, or any other topic. It could only increase our understanding of the man, and possibly of the music as well. >
It was a tongue-in-cheek remark, but it does have a serious basis. The harsh truth is that Bach, based on what little writing of his survives, was a terrible writer. It's no surprise that we know from C.P.E. that he disliked writing in the first place, and that he preferred to leave any unavoidable correspondence to a secretary. The famous "Entwurff" about his musical requirements addressed to the Leipzig town council could have been crystal-clear. Instead, it's a muddled mess, allowing people centuries later to keep on arguing about the exact interpretation of what he wrote. If he was that bad when writing about very concrete aspects of performance practice, such as how many singers he wanted, imagine how unfathomable he would have been when writing about the finer points of Lutheran theology.

Eric Bergerud wrote (March 13, 2006):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< I don't know what the group has agreed--possibly that (from the present position half way through the first cycle) we should proceed with all the following cantatas chronologically---if so, fair enough. The only (tiny) criticism about this approach is that an awful lot has been already been said on the website about many of these individual works (just look, for example about what has been written about the next one coming up, BWV 18). Maybe a cognate grouping of the kind suggested might bring a little more light to bear on the works than individual chronogical scrutiny? And make additional links for those in the process of exploring this great canon of music?
Obviously subscribers and Aryeh would need to agree the process--which comes back to the question, what are people looking for in this subscriber list? >

I think the present course is reasonable. It's true that the archive contains many posts. But at present there are a lot more members who didn't participate the first time around. Beyond that, I think a second listening (what, four years down the road?) will be a most pleasant experience for all involved. And, there are a few new recordings out. Full steam ahead says I.

Eric Bergerud wrote (March 13, 2006):
[To Tom Hens] Well, we'll never know. Bach led the type of life that allowed him to do most of communication face to face: probably pretty common in those days. Wonder how much we'd know about Mozart if he hadn't felt the desire to keep up correspondence with his father: a moot point in Bach's case. (And Bach never felt the need to beg money from rich friends, another major source of Mozart's letters.) And the prose of the 17th or 18th century can get a little dense unless it's in the hands of a literary master like Swift or Montaigne. (Fortunately for the early Republic, George Washington was a much better President than literary stylist and he wrote thousands of letters. And the people that knew him never accused him of being a dope. Or track down a copy of Ossian if you're having trouble getting to sleep.) Unless I misread Wolff and Boyd Bach was quite friendly with a number of students and faculty from the University at Leipzig. That was roughly the equivalent of Stanford in 18th century Germany. So perhaps Bach never had the need to hone writing skills. I do not think that implies that he would not have had some very interesting things to say. He was a genius after all.

And the Entwurff? The city council of Leipzig would have known the context of the problem. Sadly, we don't or there wouldn't be an OVPP debate one way or the other. Bach's words might have been perfectly clear to them.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 13, 2006):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< Mini-groups of selected cantatas (selected by whom? Whmmm.) with structural or musical similarities, for discussion over some time period. Perhaps four cantatas (on average) every two weeks for about two years. >
Julian Mincham wrote:
< I don't know what the group has agreed--possibly that (from the present position half way through the first cycle) we should proceed with all the following cantatas chronologically---if so, fair enough. The only (tiny) criticism about this approach is that an awful lot has been already been said on the website about many of these individual works >
I hope the thread is clear. I do not mean to be presumptuous, making suggestions for the next five years or so after being with you for a few weeks. I have known people like that. I am sure you have, as well.

I certainly did not mean to suggest interrupting the chronological sequence. Not that I would necessarily object, just not what I had in mind. How about inviting cross references during the chronological discussions and if Aryeh can handle the editing, let that develop the next discussion cycle. Just thinking out loud (or at the fingers, as Bach and Beethoven might have thought).

Raymond Joly wrote (March 13, 2006):
[To Eric Bergerud] I am a non believer, but Bach was quite the opposite. I appreciate everything that may enrich our understanding of what went on in the world around him (and in his head) and shaped his work.

Please: I still do not get emoticons, and I think I guessed right about IOW and IMO. But what is OVPP? Maybe our site should have a little glossary for non-native American speakers.

Graig Chase wrote (March 13, 2006):
[To Eric Bergerud] Considering that I have only recently joined the group I suggest that you may want to pursue whatever path you have completed so far. Please do not negate or delete any of the BWVs that have been reviewed previously to this point, since I'm sure there are many like myself who have not covered some of the earlier material. I know this an inconvenience for many who have been with the program since the beginning. I would suggest recycling thru the curriculum once you have completed it.

Tom Hens wrote (March 16, 2006):
John Pike wrote:
< It is certainly true that Bach's writing style was very verbose but that in itself gives us some information about him. >
It's not any verbosity that is the problem, IMO. Somebody who left that little in writing can hardly be accused of being verbose.

< The difficulties we have in interpreting the Entwurff today are not necessarily the fault of Bach. As Eric pointed out, the authorities would have known a lot more about the background to the document than we do. Bach was writing for them, not for us. I can well understand that he thought he had made himself crystal clear. >
Of course, and that's a problem with the interpretation of any historical document. Many things that are self-evident to the writer and the intended readers aren't written down, and only become a problem when people without that shared background are trying to interpret things centuries later. For instance, the members of the Leipzig town council to which Bach's memorandum was addressed knew perfectly well how many singers were normally used for cantata performances, they saw that for themselves every Sunday. But (again, IMO) the problem with Bach's few surviving writings goes beyond that. If you compare them to texts written by, say, C.P.E. Bach, or Telemann, or Mattheson, the difference is huge. Just try and parse some of Bach's sentences -- a lot of the time it's just impossible, they're a mess of meandering subclauses without any clear structure. The lack of clarity isn't just due to a lack of background knowledge.

< There is nothing inherently opaque about this document. It is just that we lack the background to understand it in full. hence, a number of varying interpretations and translations have emerged, many of them reasonable ideas (and some of them unreasonable translations). >
The fact that a lot of discussion on this issue goes on between people who don't have German as a native language, or even as a decently mastered second language, certainly adds to the confusion.

Tom Hens wrote (March 16, 2006):
Eric Bergerud wrote:
< Bach led the type of life that allowed him to do most of communication face to face: probably pretty common in those days. >
People in Bach's day and in comparable social positions kept up huge amounts of correspondence, and so did institutions. Bach dealt with many people he couldn't meet face to face, and he preferred to leave such correspondence to secretaries. One of the few interesting aspects in Klaus Eidam's terrible book about Bach is his documentation of how the Leipzig town council and the church authorities during their conflicts communicated in writing, even though their offices were, quite literally, within shouting distance of each other (and remember, all of Leipzig was just 30 to 40 thousand people). If Bach's dislike of putting things in writing had been par for the course, C.P.E. wouldn't have commented on it.

<snip>
< (And Bach never felt the need to beg money from rich friends, another major source of Mozart's letters.) >

He certainly felt the need to send letters to people who had rented instruments from him and didn't return them on time.

< And the prose of the 17th or 18th century can get a little dense unless it's in the hands of a literary master like Swift or Montaigne. >
Now there's a sweeping generalisation. "The prose of the 17th or 18th century", two whole centuries, and across English, French and German?

As it happens, what we're talking about here, early 18th century written German, is generally quite understandable to someone who knows modern German. And Bach's prose is considerably less understandable than that of many other people of the same period.

< (Fortunately for the early Republic, George Washington was a much better President than literary stylist and he wrote thousands of letters. And the people that knew him never accused him of being a dope. >
Who ever said anything about anyone being a dope? (Although I have no idea of whether or not George Washington was a dope, or how he got dragged into this discussion in the first place. Maybe this is something that needs to be pointed out to Americans: George Washington isn't a terribly prominent figure in history if you aren't an American. Educated people outside the US tend to know he existed and gave his name to the capital, but that's about where their knowledge ends.)

< Unless I misread Wolff and Boyd Bach was quite friendly with a number of students and faculty from the University at Leipzig. That was roughly the equivalent of Stanford in 18th century Germany. >
Cultural references like this don't travel well. I have no idea what you mean by "the equivalent of Stanford". I know Stanford is a university in California, but what's special about it or why it would be particularly comparable to the university of Leipzig in the first half of the eighteenth century, I don't know. Let alone why any of this would be relevant to the fact that Bach was a terrible writer.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 17, 2006):
Please make two small corrections to my earlier post re BWV 144, Suzuki [6] recording:
(1) The CD booklet clearly states (it is not presumed) that the recording venue is the Shoin Women's University Chapel. This information is not adjacent to the photo, and I overlooked it.
(2) Specific performance notes are by Suzuki, but the generalized notes, including those relating to texts, are by Klaus Hofmann (as correctly attributed by John Pike in his commentary on BWV 73 a few weeks ago, before I joined BCW).

 

BWV 144 - Septuagesima Sunday (Feb. 8, 2009, third Sunday before Lent)

Ed Myskowski wrote (February 13, 2009):
Brian McCreath chose BWV 144 in the Koopman performance [4] for his regular Sunday AM broadcast on WGBH-FM and www.wgbh.org. I did not listen in real time, the reasons are nobodys business but my own. I did look up the choice on the playlist, and get to listen a few days late, missing the communal radio experience, but at least keeping up with the real-time liturgical thread.

The Koopman performance [4], with a featured aria for alto Bogna Bartosz is especially relevant to the parallel Koopman thread. Uncanny! One might almost think Brian is reading our minds, or at least our posts.

 

Continue on Part 3

Cantata BWV 144: Complete Recordings | Recordings of Individual Movements | Discussions: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

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 | Instrumental | Performers | General Topics | Articles | Books | Movies | New
Biographies | Texts & Translations | Scores | References | Commentaries | Music | Concerts | Festivals | Tour | Art & Memorabilia
Chorale Texts | Chorale Melodies | Lutheran Church Year | Readings | Poets & Composers | Arrangements & Transcriptions
Search Website | Search Works/Movements | Terms & Abbreviations | Copyright | How to contribute | Sitemap | Links



 

Back to the Top


Last update: ýFebruary 23, 2010 ý08:30:36