Cantata BWV 16 - Discussions

Cantata BWV 16
Herr Gott, dich loben wir
Discussions

Discussions in the Week of February 9, 2003

Aryeh Oron wrote (February 10, 2003):
BWV 16 - Introduction

The subject of this week’s discussion (February 9, 2003) is the Chorale Cantata for New Year's Day BWV 16 ‘Herr Gott, dich loben wir’ (Lord God, we praise you).

Background

The commentary below, quoted from the liner notes to Gardiner’s recording [3] of the cantatas, was written by Ruth Tarlow (2000):

See: Cantata BWV 16 - Commentary

Recordings

The details of the recordings of this cantata can be found at the following page of the Bach Cantatas Website: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV16.htm

There are only 4 complete recordings of this cantata. To the usual three participants from the already completed cantata cycles - Leonhardt [1], Rilling [2] and Leusink [4] - joins Gardiner [3].

Additional Information

In the page of recordings mentioned above you can also find links to:
Original German text: at Walter F. Bischof Website; Two English translations: by Francis Browne (Bach Cantatas Website) and Z. Philip Ambrose; Two French translations: by Walter F. Bischof and Jean-Pierre Grivois (Bach Cantatas Website); Portuguese translation by Rodrigo Maffei Libonati (Bach Cantatas Website); Hebrew translation by Aryeh Oron (Bach Cantatas Website).
Score (Vocal & Piano version);
Commentary: in English by Simon Crouch (Listener’s Guide) and by unmentioned writer (All Music Guide); in Spanish by Julio Sánchez Reyes (CantatasDeBach).

I hope to see many of you participating in the discussion.

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 11, 2003):
BWV 16 - Provenance:

See: Cantata BWV 16 - Provenance

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 12, 2003):
BWV 16 - Commentaries: [Spitta, Schweitzer, Voigt, Dürr, Robin Leaver]

See: Cantata BWV 16 - Commentary

Dick Wursten wrote (February 13, 2003):
[4] Listening to BWV 16 with Leusink I once more was pleased by the sound and playing of the instruments. On this list one most often focusses on the singers, and they are not the best (with exception of Ramselaar, I agree, but this subject has already been discussed) but one should not deny oneself the pleasure of enjoying the HIP instrumentarium of the Netherlands Bach Collegium.

This cantata provides us with the possibility to hear the sound of the natural horn (esp in Mvt. 3. When I hear this sound I mentally immediately leave my house and project myself somewhere in the outer world, fox hunting [not shooting of course and rather cold on New-Years day..]. Also the viola can be heard in Mvt. 5... Is this the 'Violetta' Bach suggests ??

BTW: in this cantata the singers are not so bad after all. Ramselaar is good in his recitativo and the relatively small contribution to mvt 3 (more a choro than an aria).

Mvt. 4. Just try to ignore some of the cries of Buwalda in the high regions and instead try to note that he at least tries to sing the text with feeling for the contents. Very beautiful is the way he accomplishes the singing of the word 'Ruh'.

Mvt. 5 Nico van der Meel (tenor) is at his best when he has not to sing against many other instruments. So he gets well away in/with his aria.

I already said it once before, this time I am a little bit more angry. You can simply hear that the final choral is pasted here by the technicians of Brilliant from a different 'take'. Saying that Richter did the same, is no excuse for Leusink, but a minus for Richter too.

Finally, I was not able to switch off the CD, so by accident the next cantata on the CD started to play... The instrumental opening of it fascinated me... It was BWV 170. also recommended (but not with Buwalda, I'm sorry)

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 15, 2003):
BWV 16 - The Recordings:

This week I listened to the following recordings:

Leonhardt (1972) [1]; Rilling (1981) [2]; Gardiner (1998) [3]; Leusink (1999) [4]

Timings (from slow to fast):

Mvt. 1 (Chorus): Rilling (2:22), Leonhardt (1:38); Gardiner (1:37); Leusink (1:32)
Mvt. 2 (Recit): Leusink (1:26); Rilling (1:22); Leonhardt (1:14); Gardiner (1:08)
Mvt. 3 (Chorus/Aria): Leonhardt (3:52); Rilling (3:45); Leusink (3:45); Gardiner (3:30)
Mvt. 4 (Recit): Rilling (1:47); Leusink (1:36); Leonhardt (1:29); Gardiner (1:17)
Mvt. 5 (Tenor Aria): Leonhardt (8:49); Leusink (8:09); Gardiner (7:24); Rilling (6:45)
Mvt. 6 (Chorale): Rilling (1:16); Leusink (1:04); Leonhardt (1:03); Gardiner (1:01)

[Notice how Gardiner gravitates toward the extremely fast tempi. With the exception of the very fast tenor aria, Rilling tends toward the slower tempi.}

The Leonhardt, Gardiner, and Leusink recordings are definitely HIP, while Rilling’s is mainly non-HIP (using a higher pitch than the others and also utilizing modern instruments.

[1] Leonhardt:

Choral Mvt. 1, Mvt. 3, and Mvt. 6:
The entrance of the sopranos (Tölz Boys’ Choir), although forcefully present (there is nothing tentative about this entrance), presents a sound where all the boys are not together on the same note. This may be due to insecurity about the pitch and/or too much vibrato. Hermann Baumann ‘steals the show’ by playing the corno da caccia at the proper pitch (not an octave lower as in Leusink’s recording with a horn). The singing of the remaining voices of the choir (King’s College Choir Cambridge singing tenor and bass, I assume) is crisp and clear with all the parts audible and in balance with each other. The strings and oboes can also be heard on their independent parts, but the manner of playing is light, and, perhaps, with just a bit too much staccato.

Unfortunately, Hermann Baumann decides to play the wonderful, high corno da caccia part an octave lower. I rather doubt that the instrument that he is using is a corno da caccia because it sounds very much like a modern French horn. There is definitely ‘something fishy’ going on here since the booklet that comes with the recordings indicates that he is playing a corno da caccia, but here obviously he is not. Despite the removal of what might have been a very exciting performance with a horn in the proper high range, the choir continues to create excitement of its own with a very spirited rendition of the joyful aspect of this music. Leonhardt succeeds in obtaining crisp responses from the choir, however, the instruments do not live up to expectations as they fail to really differentiate between the sections marked ‘piano’ and ‘forte’ by Bach. The bass, van Egmond, is unable to continue the forceful spirit established in the choral sections. His half-voice simply does not have the necessary commanding power to establish itself firmly in the midst of this mvt.

The chorale once again has Baumann playing in the proper octave as he had in the 1st mvt. The entrance at the beginning of the chorale is quite tentative/insecure. With the help of the horn which plays legato, the beginnings of the ‘hack, hack, hack’-style of singing a chorale are overcome slightly, but if you listen carefully, you will the detect this direction of chorale singing with its ‘mini’-hiatuses already present here early in this cantata series.

Mvt. 2 (Bass Recit) & Mvt. 3 (Bass Aria) [vaEgmond]:
Van Egmond may have the ability to modulate his voice more than Ramselaar (see Leusink below) and thus provide for a better interpretation of the text; nevertheless, this voice remains limited in those instances when he indulges in sotto voce singing. Van Egmond does supply a suitable bridge between mvts. 1 and 3 as he attempts to build up to the entrance of the choir which follows immediately. Once the choir has sung its 1st section and van Egmond enters with this aria-like part, there is a definite ‘disconnect’ because the listener is forced to step way down to van Egmond’s limited voice capacity.

Mvt. 4 (Alto Recit) [Esswood]:
Esswood sings uncleanly. He has trouble hearing the proper pitches of the notes and allows his terrible vibrato try to cover up these difficulties. He could really benefit from having the bc continuo to play the notes as written by Bach, it could keep him from going flat. He does try to put expression into his singing, but it is the general quality of his voice that makes it difficult for me to listen to it with pleasure and not be distracted by its strange qualities.

Mvt. 5 (Tenor Aria) [van Altena]:
Here we can hear the oboe da caccia played very well without the shaky intonation most frequently encountered in the Harnoncourt recordings in this series. The combination with van Altena’s clear (slightly nasal) is an excellent blend/match and the slow tempo (slowest of the group!) seems very appropriate to bring out all the wonderful qualities of this music. This is a very satisfying performance that is definitely worth listening to more than just once.

[2] Rilling:

Choral Mvt. 1, Mvt. 3, and Mvt. 6:
At a tempo almost a minute slower than the fastest ones that are all HIP recordings, Rilling is able to reveal things about this mvt. that escaped the other conductors: there is a strong element of serious joy, praise, and gratitude. This mvt., now devoid of the ‘whooping’ and ‘hollering’ present in the other renditions, has in it a sense of firm conviction, even a feeling that comes much closer to that which Martin Luther may have had in mind. Yes, these are trained voices with vibratos, a fact, which in itself can become rather disconcerting, yet they sing forcefully with a presence often lacking in other choirs that have to speed along while trying to hit all the notes if possible. It is the ‘weightiness’ of this mvt. that gives it the character the suits the chorale text and Bach’s setting of it. Here, for the 1st and only time, there is, at the end of the mvt., a sense of completeness. There is not the feeling: “Oh, is this mvt. over already, so quickly?” Rilling’s treatment of the instruments is quite different as well: there is not the almost continual light, staccato treatment that characterizes the other recordings. Rilling uses legato and portato to achieve the necessary ‘singing’ lines of the instruments. A conventional French horn is used as a replacement for the corno da caccia. It can be heard in the 1st mvt. where it does help to steady the c. f. sung by the wobbly sopranos.

In Mvt. 3 the horn is playing the difficult part in the higher octave. Johannes Ritzkowsky outperforms the famous Hermann Baumann in the Leonhardt recording! This is much better than in some of the period instrument performances where the horn players ‘cheated’ by playing an octave lower.

Once again, with the exception of the ‘wobbly’ voices due to the vibratos being used by these ‘trained’ voices, this chorale rendition by Rilling demonstrates a much deeper understanding of the chorale singing tradition than any of the other recordings listed here. At a very slightly slower tempo than the other, Rilling is able to convey the feeling of a communal prayer which this is. The musical lines (horizontal) of all 4 parts are truly singable lines that have not been fractured by micro-analysis, strong accents, and slight separations between most notes in a musical line. The wonderful passing notes are clearly evident.

Mvt. 2 (Bass Recit) & Mvt. 3 (Bass Aria) [Huttenlocher]:
Rilling allows the bc, using a harpsichord in addition to a cello, to play the notes as written. Huttenlocher gives another one of his innumerable disingenuous performances in the recitative. Rilling has Huttenlocher sing the opening phrase of Mvt. 3 although it is not marked that way..

Mvt. 4 (Alto Recit) [Schreckenbach]:
Once again Rilling uses the harpsichord with the cello and sustains the notes in the bc for their full note values. Schreckenbach’s voice is warm and expressive and very suitable for this recitative.

Mvt. 5 (Tenor Aria) [Schreier]:
Rilling uses the optional viola instead of the oboe da caccia. Even at this fastest tempo of all the recordings in this group, this rendition does not sound rushed. Schreier gives an excellent performance with a lyrical, but also very expressive quality.

[3] Gardiner:

Choral Mvt. 1, Mvt. 3, and Mvt. 6:
Gardiner seems to be playing games with the listener by using two different instruments for the corno da caccia part. In Mvt. 1 it sounds like a French horn with the bell stopped or muted, but in Mvt. 3 it sounds more like a tromba/trumpet (among his instrumentalists a ‘Zink’ player is indicated.) Ruth Tatlow’s commentary says it all: “Any early morning lapse of congregational concentration would have been remedied by the whooping and trilling corno da caccia.” As listeners we need to be wary of statements of this type, statements that want to have us believe that brass instruments in Bach’s day had to sound like this. This is an unfortunate, but understandable situation as this aspect of period instrument performance is still under serious revision. The notion that Bach’s brass players probably could not play these parts any better than a few specialists today is a myth perpetrated by some period instrumentalist performers and conductors. There is no valid reason for enduring a ‘splattering’ brass sound, nor should it be necessary to trill a note (Mvt. 3, ms. 32-33) for two measures by a minor third rather than a semitone or whole tone above the note over which the trill is indicated.

Otherwise (disregarding the problem with the brass instruments), Gardiner has excellent control over the instrumentalists and choir. Everything is crisp and precise with all the parts, vocal and instrumental, clearly delineated. He observes Bach’s dynamic markings carefully, but is not afraid add articulation of his own, all of which seems quite appropriate. His tempi tend to be too fast, and while he can show off his musical forces to their best advantage in this way, the bass soloist sounds definitely rushed in his intervening sections.

Although the final chorale (Mvt. 6) should have the corno da caccia playing colla parte with the sopranos, Gardiner now decides to drop this part and revert to an earlier performance stage of this cantata. This does not make much sense. The choir sings in a rather non-legato style with slight separations between the notes and stronger accents on 1 and 3. This has a detrimental effect upon the wonderful passing notes in the lower voices, because through de-emphasis they almost disappear completely. There is also an effort to make the chorale become more of a dance which makes little sense here where the chorale text is fervently praying (most prayers are serious, aren’t they?) to be spared from harm and to receive the necessary sustenance in the coming year. Gardiner shows little or no understanding ofthe text and the nature of the chorale as he seems to be more interested in other musical aspects. He could just as well have the choir sing the text of an English dance song here, where his interpretation might be more appropriate.

Mvt. 2 (Bass Recit) & Mvt. 3 (Bass Aria) [Schwarz]:
Gardiner uses a modified form of the shortened accompaniment for a secco recitative: he mixes things up by sometimes sustaining Bach’s notes, but at other times shortening them considerably. Schwarz’ voice is clear, has good intonation and diction, but seems to lack the necessary capacity to really fill out the role, which in this instance, is to sustain the strength of praise and gratitude expressed by the choir in Mvt. 1 and carry this through the recitative directly into the next sudden choral entrance in Mvt. 3. There again Schwarz fails to establish a real presence, this partly being caused by Gardiner’s fast tempo which forces Schwarz to simply ‘tap’ many notes lightly. Whereas he does get expression into his part, he nevertheless fails to be utterly convincing, and that is just what this part demands.

Mvt. 4 (Alto Recit) [Ragin]:
Ragin does not have much a voice and Gardiner does not give him much support by using the shortened accompaniment in the bc. This voice is not at all convincing. His extensive efforts in attempting to pronounce properly the German text make this a recitative that a listener will be glad when it is over – this was not Bach’s intention, however.

Mvt. 5 (Tenor Aria) [Podger]:
This HIP version is faster than Harnoncourt’s. The oboe da caccia sounds just a bit rushed at times, but the quality of playing is otherwise excellent. The bc is appropriately subdued (not too loud.) The interplay between voice and obbligato instrument is noteworthy. Podger’s very slight failings (a weakness in the low range, a lack of force in pronouncing the German sibilant sounds) do not really detract from this otherwise noteworthy performance.

[4] Leusink:

Choral Mvt. 1, Mvt. 3, and Mvt. 6:
At this excessively fast tempo, some aspects of the music are bound to get ‘lost in the shuffle.’ The c. f. in the soprano voice makes a very tentative entrance even when supported by a horn. The other voices, with all their unusual characteristics very apparent, race through the mvt. with little conviction since the main object here seems to be how to get through this mvt. as fast as possible. The independent part writing in the 1st oboe and 1st violin disappears from the musical scene only to make occasional feeble appearances from time to time. This is partly due to the fact that everything has to be played very lightly (without substance.) When the mvt. comes to its abrupt end, the listener will ask, “What was that supposed to be?”

After the rather boring singing in Mvt. 1, the choir perks up here. Unfortunately the ‘yodelers’ are again at work creating a caricature of an exciting Bach choral mvt. The instruments are one-dimensional. They play with a very tentative-sounding light ‘piano’ (soft) touch that shows no gradation throughout the 3rd mvt. Where Bach indicates a ‘forte’ (ms. 43-46), they remain at their very reticent ‘piano’ level from which they never budge. As a result their playing sounds generally dull and unexciting. The horn is unable to play the horn part as written and thus plays everything an octave lower.

The final chorale (Mvt. 6) (with the exception of the yodelers and the disregard for some fermati) is slightly above average compared to other chorale renditions in this series.

Mvt. 2 (Bass Recit) & Mvt. 3 (Bass Aria) [Ramselaar]:
Except for a few notes here and there, Ramselaar sings this recitative sotto voce. It is as if his vocal capacity and his expression have been reduced to almost a whisper, as he pulls you aside and tries to whisper into your ear words that are joyous and should be continuing the notion of gratitude expressed in the 1st mvt. which the bass should then continue to build upon and lead directly in the ‘shouting for joy’ in the mvt. that directly follows this one. Lacking much in the way of any support from the bc which performs the abbreviated secco-type accompaniment, Ramselaar ‘cuts back’ even more in his presentation making this one of the least substantial bass recitatives in this group of recordings.
In the middle section of Mvt. 3, Ramselaar lacks the strength and capacity to lend dignity and substance to this wonderful middle section. He does not do justice to the idea that we should believe in eternal happiness because he does not have the power that a bass in this situation should have.

Mvt. 4 (Alto Recit) [Buwalda]:
Buwalda’s voice, for all of its unique qualities (qualities that I personally perceive as unsettling,) lacks the ability to do much of anything with the text, which lacks any true sense of genuine expression. Leusink, faced with the problem of a single note in the bc held for 8 beats in ms. 1-3, but which has Bach’s figured bass indications that call for chord changes, has the bc reenter for a beat on each change, thus he has attempted to resolve the confusion between Bach’s indications and Harnoncourt’s method of sounding the held-over whole note (total of 8 beats) only once for one beat and forgetting about the rest of the changes. No wonder that many listeners do not particularly enjoy Bach’s recitatives with a performance such as this one.

Mvt. 5 (Tenor Aria) [van der Meel]:
Leusink uses a viola as the obbligato instrument. This is one of the options available for a performance of this aria. It is interesting to hear this aria at this slow tempo, but with a rather uninteresting voice lacking much in the way of expression and volume, the result is that this aria can become boring due to its length. The limited range of expression is partly due to the fact that this is a small voice, one more suited to a chamber performance, but not in a church.

Summary:

Mvt. 1 & Mvt. 3 (Chorus): Rilling [2], then with a gap, Gardiner [3], Leonhardt [1]

Mvt. 2 (Bass Recit) & Mvt. 3 (Bass Aria tutti): Only average: Leonhardt [van Egmond] [1] and Gardiner [Schwarz] [3]

Mvt. 4 (Alto Recitative): Rilling [Schreckenbach] [2]

Mvt. 5 (Tenor Aria): Rilling [Schreier] [2] is the best, but do not miss listening to Leonhardt [van Altena] [1] and Gardiner [Podger] [3]

Mvt. 6 (Final Chorale): Rilling [2]

Juozas Rimas wrote (February 15, 2003):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Van Egmond [1] may have the ability to modulate his voice more than Ramselaar (see Leusink below) [4] and thus provide for a better interpretation of the text; nevertheless, this voice remains limited in those instances when he indulges in sotto voce singing. >
Thomas, now I don't understand why you criticize just about any instance of sotto singing - sometimes to the point that the avoidance of sotto singing becomes more important than the overal voice quality. I remember how you praised Nimsgern in BWV 26 for his "schwarz" voice. Now you attack VEgmond [1]. I think even (especially!) the quietest singing of Van Egmond is of higher quality than *any* singing of Nimsgern (well, at least in BWV 26, 27, 28, 31, 34 I have heard his big bass produces just standard singing – not on a par even with mediocre performances by Dieskau - and Dieskau's least acceptable performances IMHO are precisely where e decides to sing loudly!). Van Egmond's voice is simply naturally better: more flexible, tender, and, yes, more emotional. I fail to see any direct connection between loud singing and convincing conveyance of emotions.

Arjen K. Gijssel wrote (February 15, 2003):
[To Jouzas Rimas] You exactly make my point here. If you have the privilege of listening to so many different performances (I can only make comparisons occasionally) like Thomas, then choosing Rilling [2] and loud singing soloists is becoming more and more suspect. It has nothing to do with an objective assessment of interpretations, but all the more with a sort of inquisition against the more modern singers.

But hey, everybody is entitled to have an opinion... The problem is that Thomas has acquired such great knowledge of Bach and his cantatas, that you easily confuse expertise with a IMHO "very individual" taste.

Philippe Bareille wrote (February 15, 2003):
A cantata of joy and celebration with magnificent horns playing a crucial role emphasising the sense occasion by adding resonance and vigour. The tenor aria is more subdued, a kind of "lullaby" but not without a tinge of sadness (it is more obvious with the oboe da caccia). This beguiling aria is something to be treasured (it made me relisten to the splendid alto aria of cantata BW39 which - in a similar fashion- conjures up some images charged with nostalgia).

I have listened to Rilling [2] and Leonhardt [1].

[2] Rilling, who is usually not my cup of tea, delivers a splendid performance of the choruses. He enlivens the second chorus very convincingly supported by impressive horns. The tenor aria is less satisfying for 2 reasons: the very fast tempo and the viola instead of the oboe. However, Schreier is outstanding.

[1] Leonhardt is perhaps not as eloquent as Rilling in the choruses but his choir and the orchestra are both inspired and expressive. The natural horn is superb. The tenor aria is delightful. Marius van Altena captures the spirit of the aria admirably. Van Egmond is first rate. To dismiss van Egmond (and some others) as haf-voices (sic) is -for me - nonsense. (this is a derogatory term that is meaningless. I was lucky enough to listen to Max van Egmond live on several occasions He has a "small voice" but his singing is very effective; just listen to his recitatives! They sound so natural and their finesse and emotional power are almost unsurpassed. Moreover, Bach is
not Wagner!).

An other great cantata. Despite some minor reservations both Leonhardt [1] and Rilling [2] are worth exploring.

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 15, 2003):
In response to my statement:
< Van Egmond [1] may have the ability to modulate his voice more than Ramselaar (see Leusink below) [4] and thus provide for a better interpretation of the text; nevertheless, this voice remains limited in those instances when he indulges in sotto voce singing. >
Juozas Rimas Jr stated:
>>Thomas, now I don't understand why you criticize just about any instance of sotto singing - sometimes to the point that the avoidance of sotto singing becomes more important than the overall voice quality. I remember how you praised Nimsgern in BWV 26 for his "schwarz" voice. Now you attack Van Egmond [1]. I think even (especially!) the quietest singing of Van Egmond is of higher quality than *any* singing of Nimsgern (well, at least in BWV 26,27,28,31,34 I have heard his big bass produces just standard singing - not on a par even with mediocre performances by Dieskau - and Dieskau's least acceptable performances IMHO are precisely where he decides to sing loudly!). Van Egmond's voice is simply naturally better: more flexible, tender, and, yes, more emotional. I fail to see any direct connection between loud singing and convincing conveyance of emotions.<<
You are correct in pointing out that even the great full-voiced basses are capable of 'just standard singing' who sometimes do not really 'connect with' the music that they are singing. When such voices as Nimsgern and Dieskau begin to 'force' their voices it can become unbearable as well. There are many variables (too many to even begin to enumerate) just why this can happen to a good singer.

When I do hear Dieskau only very occasionally cutting back to a sotto-voce, it is generally very beautiful to my ears, not only because this contrasts with the previous 'forte', but also because I can feel a tremendous presence, a powerful intimacy that nevertheless expresses itself. I have trouble perceiving this in van Egmond's voice or in many basses who have been singing Bach recitatives and arias over the past 30 years. In those instances, the 'bottom usually falls out.' When I hear Quasthoff singing Bach, it is a very different experience for me when such a singer on occasion sings a passage as 'piano' and when most of the other basses indulge in excessive sotto voce singing. The latter become more like 'whisperers' in their recitatives. At such I point I continually ask myself, "Would this really work in a large church setting such as Bach had at his disposal? Could such a singer be properly heard?" and "Should recitatives be sung the same way that they would be sung in a Mozart opera: to hurry through them sotto voce because they are the least interesting aspect of the opera?" No, these recitatives must be sung with absolute conviction (even if the singer does not believe the words.) This can not be done properly if the singer with a smaller voice is faced with this challenge. Just as it is true that there is a danger that 'strong singing with conviction' can also be overdone (just listen to Huttenlocher in his recording of this cantata), so it is also that singing primarily sotto voce severely reduces the range of modulation for expressivity in the voice. Not only does the message suffer from this aspect, it also creates a 'disconnect' between the singer and the audience because it can not speak as directly, as forcefully to listener who is frequently sitting somewhere at quite a distance from the voice. Sotto-voce singing begins to assume that the listener is close by, perhaps in the same balcony (or in the headphones or loudspeakers of a!
n amplified system.) It may even be that such singers, even the great ones do this as well, have a different mind-set when there is no audience except the microphones to sing to. This often restricts them from projecting with a full-voice, if they even have such a full voice to begin with, and the result is invariably something less than a live performance where the soloist is trying to connect with a live audience.

These are some of the criteria that I have in mind when I classify van Egmond, as good as he was in the present cantata, as a generally sotto-voce singer, whose voice does not stand up very well (it lacks the necessary strength and conviction because of its reduced volume) in comparison with the exciting choral mvts. in which it is embedded. As I pointed out, van Egmond was generally better here than he usually is (better clarity and modulation of his voice) and certainly better than Ramselaar in this instance, but this still does not allow him to project the message of the text convincingly to an audience sitting at some distance from him.

I remember hearing Segovia in concert. At first all you could see on a barren stage was a rather rigid wooden chair with a high back with a tiny footstool in front of it. When Segovia finappeared and the applause had stopped, he waited for quite a while, as if in deep concentration, and the audience with him grew more silent (no more whispering or rustling) before the first very soft sounds began to emanate from the instrument. You might have been able to hear a pin drop. This concentration and control on the part of the audience was absolutely necessary in a large music hall because here the audience had to adjust itself rather severely to the tiny sounds in the distance. This instrument, due to its limited ability to project volume, and due to the fact that the audience had become accustomed to turning up the volume on his recordings which they heard at home, is by its very nature rather restricted and confined and probably is not the best choice of instrument to be heard in a large concert hall (imagine a clavichord recital in a large, filled-to-capacity hall!) The human voice need not be classified in this volume-deprived category. It also can impart human emotion more directly with words, if necessary it can sail above a large orchestra with modern instruments and still (although with difficulty) still get its message across. This is not an indirect plea to have Wagnerian singers sing Bach arias. However, it seems that over the past few decades, more and more voices with limited vocal capacities, or with special training to sound like an instrument rather than a human voice have been engaged to sing Bach's sacred music in primarily HIP settings. This would be fine if the object is simply to get the music recorded in such a way that it will be more 'palatable' to a new generation of listeners (lite entertainment or pleasant Baroque background music.) The text and range of expression become limited as the human voice is demoted to the level of an instrument as wonderful as such an instrument may be in its own right and as interesting as the range of expression may be in its limited area. This use of 'instrument-like' or 'limited-range-and-capacity' voices, I perceive, constitutes a great loss in the overall effort to restore Bach's sacred music to the level of glory that it should have. It deprives us from experiencing the full impact of Bach's music as he may have intended it.

Aryeh Oron wrote (February 16, 2003):
BWV 16 - Background - The first three movements

The background below is based on both Robertson and Young and something of my own.

The first three movements form a unique unity within the whole cantata. The first, a chorus, is for the choir; the second, a recitative for solo bass; the third is a combination of both: a recitative/arioso for bass with a chorus. There is a sense of continuity between these three movements. As such they can be seen as sections of a bigger movement. In light of this view complaints regarding the brevity of the opening chorus might be seen as irrelevant. Such is also the claim that Bach imitated Telemann in the combination he chose for the third movement, rarely to be found in Bach Cantatas. Bach used so many combinations in his cantatas that it seems almost unavoidable that he would also use the arioso-chorus structure. All the more so if we see the third movement as the concluding section of a larger movement.

In the opening chorus (Mvt. 1) the first four lines of Luther’s verse translation of the Te Deum set to his free version of the plainsong melody. First we hear the sopranos, and then basses, tenor and altos enter in close imitation. All the instruments participate. This lively and striking chorus seems as a very promising introduction to the three-part movement.

The second section (Mvt. 2) describes the warm devotion shown by the people at the beginning of the New Year. Apparently the secco recitative is rather dull, but it serves well the purpose of introducing the next section, a song of devotion to God for the New Year.

The basses of the choir begin the third section (Mvt. 3) with a rousing fanfare phrase in which all join. The corno da caccia gives brilliance, as it doubles the voices. This superb song of rollicking merriment expresses their exuberance over God’s blessing on them. The joy-motif is so overpowering in the first line that the listener can almost hear the singers’ joyous laughter, as the bass alternates with the full choir in repeating the first line. In a short ritornello before the repetition of the words, the 1^st violin adds two phrases of what one might call whoops of joy. These are later woven into the independent orchestral parts. The middle section is the solo bass arioso. The remainder of the arioso shows less verve, but its florid effect continues its charming repeats.

I can hear this three-part movement endless times and still discover new things to enjoy from. Restrained and introvert approach is not in place here. All forces involved must know how to convey convincingly outburst of joy, but also should have the wisdom not to exaggerate with it. The last one is always a good advice regarding the interpretation of any of Bach’s works, let alone his cantatas. The bass singer should have a strong voice with depth to form a good balance with the power of the full choir.

The Recordings

Last week I have been listening to the following complete recordings of Cantata BWV 16:

[1] Gustav Leonhardt (1972)
[2] Helmuth Rilling (1981)
[3] John Eliot Gardiner (1998)
[4] Pieter Jan Leusink (1999)

As usual, in order to be as objective as possible, I have avoided reading the messages regarding the recordings of this cantata, which were sent to the BCML prior to mine.

Short Review of the Recordings

[1] I like the sharpness and the precision in the singing of the choir in Leonhardt’s recording. The rhythm along the three sections also sounds right. Yet this rendition lacks any sign joy, as if Leonhardt had dried them out of any feeling. The singing of van Egmond is civilised and pleasant, but lacks enough inner strength to be fully convincing.

[2] Rilling’s rendition seems to come from a different world than Leonhardt's. The choral parts are multi-layered, with rich and varied singing by the choir and colourful playing by the instruments. Huttenlocher’s singing is not as varied as the choir’s is, and as consequence the third section sounds unbalanced. There is abundance of exuberant joy here, but Huttenlocher does not contribute a meaningful part to the celebration.

[3] Gardiner manages to combine the precision of Leonhardt with the vividness of Rilling. The choir and the accompaniment are indeed first rate. However, the expression of Gardiner’s bass singer, Gotthold Schwartz, is somewhat limited and his voice does not have enough strength to form a good balance with the choir.

[4] As could have been expected, Leusink’s rendition does not lack fresh enthusiasm, but he could have carried out a better rendition, had he taken a lesson or two from Gardiner. Both the singing and the playing in the choral parts sound almost uncontrolled. Ramselaar is a major improvement after Schwartz, with more expressive singing and better voice. He singing reflects more sensitivity than the two previous singers have shown, but I would like also to hear more force.

Conclusion

My first choices:
The choral parts: Gardiner [3].
The bass singer: van Egmond [1] or Ramselaar [4], although both of them leave something to be desired.
Combination: None is optimal.

I hope that Suzuki and Koopman [5] will do better, because this cantata deserves it.

Discussions in the Week of September 2, 2007

Russell Telfer wrote (September 1, 2007):
Introduction to BWV 16

Topic for discussion from 2^nd September 2007:

Cantata BWV 16
Herr Gott, dich loben wir
God, we praise you

BWV 16 is a choral cantata which was probably first heard on New Years Day 1726. Thomas Braatz reports that this is the most likely date, based on the watermark in the paper. He has also provided the provenance: Cantata BWV 16 - Provenance.

This cantata is also the last of ten to which I have offered an introduction. Preparing this study has been a new beginning for me. I hope I have provided the odd insight to add to the other received material which we have been reading.

Robin Leaver (in the Oxford Composers' Companion) tells us that the cantata BWV 16 was used again in 1731, 1745 and 1749.

It was last discussed in February 2003. The previous discussion offers many useful facts such as the timings for each movement for recordings by Gardiner [3], Leusink [4], Rilling [2] and Leonhardt [1].
Thanks also to Tom for this information.

Anyway, to the music:

Mvt. 1. A very powerful short chorus: We praise thee, Lord God. Corno di caccia with sopranos on the cantus firmus, oboes and strings on the other parts. It's a short electrifying movement with taxing parts for the singers.

Mvt. 2. A short bass aria. The theme concerns reverence for the Saviour, love and loyalty, blessing and redemption.

Mvt. 3. This is followed by another Aria - actually a chorus - (Let us celebrate, let us rejoice) with similar instrumental disposition except that now the soprano and horn have separate parts: the horn is let loose on a bravura display at the top of its range. The movement, about three and a half minutes long, is a show-stopper, commanding attention with the elemental directness of its rhythm and the remorseless power of its harmonic progress.

Mvt. 4. Recit for alto which begins in E minor and, like many other recits, ends in another key, this time, C major.

. faithful treasure, protect also your precious Word,
protect church and school .

Mvt. 5. Aria for tenor with oboe da caccia and violetta. The theme of this piece:

Beloved Jesus, You alone shall be the kingdom of my soul.

I have sung this, for study purposes, with others in my group. What I particularly liked was the interesting continuo part - without this superb background, we would have been (I felt) adrift in run-of-the-mill eighteenth century waters. Our local soloist(s) weren't up to much.

Perhaps I should rewrite that and say that if your forces are below par, you cannot do full justice to the music. Some other thoughts on this are quickly available on the BCML website: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV16-D.htm

Mvt. 6. A lovely six line (16 bar) Choral concludes the cantata with corno da caccia colla parte with oboe and soprano. The theme of praise continues:

We praise all manner of Your goodness,
Father on the throne of heaven.

A personal comment:

You might think that I was fortunate to have been introduced to Bach's music before I was of school age. It was then, and always has been, a central part of my life. When people talk about the child being father to the man, this may be what they mean. Listening to this cantata (the horn passages in particular) has brought back some of the emotions - mainly pure joy - which I experienced in those early days.

Julian Mincham wrote (September 1, 2007):
What particularly interests me about this work is the tonal planning. It is worthy of particular attention and appears to demonstrate the composer’s developing interest in progressive tonality. The opening of the first chorus (Mvt. 1) is ambiguous; is it A minor or C major? The ending does not help us because it closes on a G major chord. This is, however the dominant chord of C major which takes us naturally to the first chord of the C major recitative, which also ends on a G chord, thus leading to the C key of the second chorus (Mvt. 3). It does seem that Bach may well have used harmonic processes in order to present the first three movements as a cognate, integrated group, conjoined by the subtle tonal connections. He had done something similar with the opening movements of Cantata BWV 79 although there the three opening movements are more connected by theme and motive and less by tonal means.

Douglas Cowling wrote (September 1, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< What particularly interests me about this work is the tonal planning. It is worthy of particular attention and appears to demonstrate the composer¹s developing interest in progressive tonality. The opening of the first chorus (Mvt. 1) is ambiguous; is it A minor or C major? The ending does not help us because it closes on a G major chord. This is, however the dominant chord of C major which takes us naturally to the first chord of the C major recitative, which also ends on a G chord, thus leading to the C key of the second chorus (Mvt. 3). It does seem that Bach may well have used harmonic processes in order to present the first three movements as a cognate, integrated group, conjoined by the subtle tonal connections. >
I think you're right that the first three movements are conceived as a single tripartite movement.

The opening chorus (Mvt. 1) is based on the ancient Gregorian chant of the Te Deum which even before Luther was sung as a measured but irregular chorale. The melody is formed from two Mode Five melodies (E to E on the white notes of the piano) one of which ends on G and the other on E (the "final" or tonic of the mode). This mode was a problem for emerging diatonic harmony as early as the 16^th century when, as you point out, it doesn't seem to fit into a major or minor key mold.

In his organ-prelude, "Herr Gott Dich Loben Wr", Bach sets the whole Te Deum chant as an extended harmonized chorale -- its performance was a tradtion on New Year's Day. Bach struggles with the modal implications of the melody and ends some verses on G major when the chant falls on that note. But most of the verses end on the "final" of E. Bach dodges the modal inevitabity by resolving to C major with E as the mediant, but in the end, he has to conclude the whoie prelude in E major which simply sounds unfinished to modern ears. It's a classic example of a popular melody which couldn't be harmonized.

Bach's brilliant solution in this cantata is to use the chord of G major at the end of the chorus, which sounds inclusive to modern 18^th century ears, as a pivot to the C major of the recitative and into the "modern" C major of "Lass Uns Jauchzen". Many commentators mention the jittery, ambivalent affect of the opening chorus (Mvt. 1). This is undoubtedly due to our inability to accommodate the old modality. A contrasting example would be the First Mode (D-D) melody of the "Dies Irae" which, despite its flat seventh and sharp sixth degrees, can be "heard" in D minor even in the 19th century.

Leusink [4] performs the three movements with very little connection. There is the standard Grand Pause after the opening chorus which is all but pervasive in modern Bach performances. Strangely, the recitative is allowed to stand alone with no sense of moving into the chorus. This transition makes for an interesting OVPP question. Even if the choral parts are sung tutti, the music seems to call for a bass solo for the two opening flourishes of "Lasst Uns Jauchzen" and indeed throughout the moevemnt. From the Provenance description of earlier BCML discussions, the "solo" and "tutti" markings would appear to be modern editorial additions. OVPP?

Jean Laaninen wrote (September 2, 2007):
[To JulMincham & Douglas Cowling] Thanks to both of you for the technical enlightenment on the layout of this cantata. In the cantus firmus movement I find the independence of the continuo to be quite charming and adding much richness to the short opening. Doug's comment as to the modal aspects is also helpful. It's so great that we have people on this forum who can open up the great dimensions of the music in this manner.

Julian Mincham wrote (September 2, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< of which ends on G and the other on E (the "final" or tonic of the mode). This mode was a problem for emerging diatonic harmony as early as the 16^th century when, as you point out, it doesn't seem to fit into a major or minor key mold. >
Another fascinating example of Bach's dealing with the problems of harmonising modal melodies comes from the second cycle where he uses Luther's baptism hymn to close both cantatas BWV 7 and BWV 176 and also as the basis for the fantasia of BWV 7. In the chorales Bach bows to the inevitable and concludes each in the dominant (not the tonic) key as is suggested (at least within a ma/min key system).

But in the fantasia for BWV 7 (where, unusually the tenors have the chorale melody) he uses the tenor's final long note as a dominant chord to get him back to the tonic of E minor where the ritornello completes the movement in the key in which it began.

For those for whom this may be a bit technical---he finishes the chorales in keys other than that in which they began because that seems to be demanded by the shape of the archaic melody, but in the longer fantasia he uses a contemporary structural principle in order to finish in the original key.

No concepts of 'authenticity' here of course, but a fascinating insight into the ways in which Bach dealt with musical solecisms of his time.

Bradley Lehman wrote (September 2, 2007):
< of which ends on G and the other on E (the "final" or tonic of the mode). This mode was a problem for emerging diatonic harmony as early as the 16^th century when, as you point out, it doesn't seem to fit into a major or minor key mold.
(...)
For those for whom this may be a bit technical---he finishes the chorales in keys other than that in which they began because that seems to be demanded by the shape of the archaic melody, but in the longer fantasia he uses a contemporary structural principle in order to finish in the original key. >
Another good example: the big "Kyrie" organ setting, BWV 671, in the German Organ Mass (Clavieruebung book 3). The tune is in Phrygian, which is an especially problematic mode to try to force into tonal harmony. At the beginning, G-Ab-Bb, it sounds as if it's in E-flat major...but at the end of the piece we're on a G major chord.

Douglas Cowling wrote (September 2, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< Another fascinating example of Bach's dealing with the problems of harmonising modal melodies comes from the second cycle where he uses Luther's baptism hymn to close both cantatas BWV 7 and BWV 176 and also as the basis for the fantasia of BWV 7. In the chorales Bach bows to the inevitable and concludes each in the dominant (not the tonic) key as is suggested (at least within a ma/min key system). >
We see modal diffculties as well in "Christ Lag in Todesbanden" which is a reworking of the Gregorian Mode 1 melody, "Victimae Paschali" which starts on the "final" tonic of E and has the characteristic flattened seventh as its second note (interestingly, the chant avoids the sharp sixth degree and question of whether to flatten it) All through the 16 and 17^th centuries, composers try to deal with the conundrum of how to harmonize the modal
melody: the melody itself is varied, so that the openng note is treated as the dominant. Bach uses a more diatonic variant of the chant so that first two notes are a semiitone. The persistence of these problems as late as Bach's time is testimony that the melodies were still so well-known in their modal form that composers had find creative solutions to accommodate modality when it had long passed from currency.

Examples at: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/CM/Christ-lag-in-Todesbanden.htm#ScoSourceLuther

Neil Halliday wrote (September 4, 2007):
Knowing the metre of the somewhat meandering modal chorale melody (or rather, the position of the long notes in relation to the bar lines) increases the enjoyment of this fine movement. The harmonisation of the CM (whose modal character has already been mentioned in previous posts) via the instrumental and lower vocal parts is indeed most impressive; and the music has a soaring aspect on the extended phrases on "Ewigkeit".

Rilling [2] is a tad slow, and the continuo organ at the start is unattractive (raspy timbre), but his choir and upper instruments are otherwise excellent.
-----------
In the joyful 2^nd chorus (Mvt. 3), Rilling [2] may well have the best recording. The accuracy and brilliance of the virtuosic modern horn are noteworthy in this recording. Of the period ensembles, Koopman [5] (BCW sample) seems to come closest to Rilling's performance. In other examples, the horn part is partly hidden, or somewhat raucous in the lower octave.
-----------
The tenor aria's ritornello features what must be one of Bach's longest obbligato melodies. It's 16 bars long and may be divided into two sections, of 6 bars and 10 bars respectively. Bars 5 and 6 are repeated (transposed) in bars 14 and 15; in these bars (and also in bars 3 and 4) the melody seems to curl around and repeat itself in a
certain manner that is already hinted at in bars 1 and 2.

I much prefer the slower tempos of the period ensembles; especially Koopman [5], Harnoncourt and Gardiner [3] (Koopman is equal slowest with Harnoncourt). These three have excellent introductory ritornellos; the latter two have excellent, unobtrusive organ realisations, and Koopman (in his second version shown in the amazon list of movements) has come up with an exquisite realisation of the ritornello for obbligato `cello piccolo (I think) and continuo lute (plus cello). The oboes da caccia (in the other two mentioned above) are most expressive. (The samples cease just as the singer enters; I trust they maintain the interest).

-----------

It's interesting that Bach should have used the same text and CM for the final chorales ("plain" 4 part harmonisations) of BWV 28 and BWV 16, especially since the former was apparently followed by the latter on the very next day (if I understand the original performance dates correctly). The major difference in harmonisation is to be found on the word "Leid" (sorrow); in BWV 28 it's a plain C major chord, while in BWV 16 it's a diminished 7th chord.

Lex Schelvis wrote (September 4, 2007):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< Koopman [5] (in his second version shown in the amazon list of movements) has come up with an exquisite realisation of the ritornello for obbligato `cello piccolo (I think) and continuo lute (plus cello). >
I totally agree with Neil here. Koopman's [5] realisation of this aria made it one of my favourites while I never regarded it as a very special one before, in comparison with other compositions of Bach of course.

Julian Mincham wrote (September 4, 2007):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< It's interesting that Bach should have used the same text and CM for the final chorales ("plain" 4 part harmonisations) of BWV 28 and BWV 16, especially since the former was apparently followed by the latter on the very next day (if I understand the original perdates correctly). The major difference in harmonisation is to be found on the word "Leid" (sorrow); in BWV 28 it's a plain C major chord, while in BWV 16 it's a diminished 7^th chord. >
Well spotted Neil.

This is indeed curious. Without a thorough search I don't know of any other examples of Bach doing this on successive days--or even in successive weeks. In fact there are a number of small details of harmonisation--not least in the harmonisations of the first phrase. I think I made a point on list some time ago to the effect that Bach seemed to reharmonise the chorales not bnecessarily ecause he thought he could improve upon the original but because the different texts suggested different progressions.

But here the texts are the same and still he alters a number of details? Does he feel that he needs to give the chorale a different 'feel' simply because it is performed and heard on successive days? But if so, might he have not bothered to produce a more radical harmonisation as he has done on other occasions?

Strange.

Douglas Cowling wrote (September 4, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< But here the texts are the same and still he alters a number of details? Does he feel that he needs to give the chorale a different 'feel' simply because it is performed and heard on successive days? >
The most famous examples of repeated chorales is the so-called "Passion Chorale" which is given three succesive symbolic reharmonizations in the Matthew Passion. The same chorale also appears as the first and last chorales of the "Christmas Oratorio" (BWV 248) in breathtakingly different settings.

Jean Laaninen wrote (September 4, 2007):
[To Julian Mincham] I find the comment that Bach may have reharmonized the chorales due to different texts suggesting different progressions very interesting. This is an angle I had not previously considered. If you happen to have an analysis of a few measures in terms of Roman Numeral Analysis, compiled with a few texts I would be interested in seeing that kind of analysis, simply for the fact that such an idea is new for me. I wonder if anyone has prepared anything of this nature that is in a textbook.

Julian Mincham wrote (September 5, 2007):
Jean Laaninen wrote:
< I find the comment that Bach may have reharmonized the chorales due to different texts suggesting different progressions very interesting. >
I am not aware of any exhausitive comparative study of the different chorale harmonisations and how they relate to text but I have noticed it on a few occasions. I guess that Bach sometimes reharmonised because he thought he had a better idea or perhaps he just felt like it. Sometimes he even altered the phrases structures. But I feel pretty sure that at times he reharmonised to accommodate a different text..

A good example is the chorale which begins BWV 153 and ends BWV 2. In the latter cantata the text is about the wicked and ungodly who 'do not mix amongst us'. Note the Ab chord which begins phrase 2---it's a very odd chord in this context, it stands out significantly from the rest of the harmony and is not found in the earlier BWV 153. I suggest that the textual idea of those 'standing outside of the normal community' may well have suggested this weird effect and striking image.

A few other examples of where Bach used the same chorale which you may care to glance at may be found in BWV 87, BWV 66 and BWV 8--------BWV 7 and BWV 176-------BWV 48 and BWV 113------BWV 103, BWV 65, BWV 3, BWV 111 and SMP (BWV 244) (phrase alterations to be found here)---- BWV 3, BWV 58 and BWV 153 (last is converted into triple time)---

I'd be interested in what you might come up with.

Jean Laaninen wrote (September 5, 2007):
[To Julian Mincham] I have copied this email to my computer. I will get to looking at the details a bit later, but I will come back to it though right now I can't tell you when (forgive me for saying so-it's my schedule again this week). But I appreciate that you were able to point out some parallel circumstances in the various works. I'm sure this will be an interesting exploration and I won't attempt to answer until I've had adequate time to really take a good look.

Ed Myskowski wrote (September 5, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< A good example is the chorale which begins BWV 153 and ends BWV 2. In the latter cantata the text is about the wicked and ungodly who 'do not mix amongst us'. Note the Ab chord which begins phrase 2---it's a very odd chord in this context, it stands out significantly from the rest of the harmony and is not found in the earlier BWV 153. I suggest that the textual idea of those 'standing outside of the normal community' may well have suggested this weird effect and striking image. >
Like Jean, I have not tracked down the details, but I find the premise intriguing. Perhaps by this stage of his career, Bach found himself 'standing outside the normal community', but not necessarily 'wicked and ungodly', and he was exploring the unusual, striking, beauty of weird effects?

Julian Mincham wrote (September 5, 2007):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< and he was exploring the unusual, striking, beauty of weird effects? >
Hi Ed how's it going?

I sort of feel that his whole life was a restless pattern of searching, not only for unusual and weird effects, but for new and sometimes bizarre harmonies, textures, instrumental combinations etc etc. His mind seemed to be one of continual restless enquiry.

Guess he would have made a great scientist had he elected to go in that direction---fortunate, perhaps, for us that he did not!

Ed Myskowski wrote (September 6, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< Guess he would have made a great scientist had he elected to go in that direction---fortunate, perhaps, for us that he did not! >
Not to overlook that he was an accepted master of organ inspection.... The church organ was the ultimate engineering achievement, in that pre-industrial age, and Bach was an acknowledged expert at project approval (and management?).

I don't know if that makes him a great scientist, but perhaps a distinguished engineer, in addition to his composing genius? I like the phrase 'continual restless enquiry'.

My spell-checker suggests 'inquiry', but I referred to a printed dictionary, and 'enquiry' is perfectly fine as an alternate in American English. How confusing can a language get?

Julian Mincham wrote (September 6, 2007):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< My spell-checker suggests 'inquiry', but I referred to a printed dictionary, and 'enquiry' is perfectly fine as an alternate in American English. How confusing can a language get? >
Yep--I reckon it's all the fault of the Yanks tinkering about with words that have been around for years!

Caution--turf war warning!!!!

Harry W. Crosby wrote (September 6, 2007):
When Julian Mincham wrote:
< I sort of feel that his whole life was a restless pattern of searching, not only for unusual and weird effects, but for new and sometimes bizarre harmonies, textures, instrumental combinations etc etc. His mind seemed to be one of continual restless enquiry.
Guess he would have made a great scientist had he elected to go in that direction---fortunate, perhaps, for us that he did not! >
All I could think was, first, "Amen to that!", and then to remind myself what a marvelous model was the great Johann Sebastian, what a harmony of nature and nurture --- born into the most [documentedly] musical family of all time, equipped with their genes and raised in their envelopingly musical tradition in the presence of their daily musical expres. And with all that, still and supremely, his very own man.

Yes, Julian, we are fortunate indeed --- We All, Forever.

Nicholas Johnson wrote (September 6, 2007):
<>

Julian Mincham wrote (September 6, 2007):
Harry W. Ceosby wrote:
< what a marvelous model was the great Johann Sebastian, what a harmony of nature and nurture >
Like your words Harry.

I am sure we all benefit greatly from Hooke's law and Faraday's principles--but are we spiritually uplifted by them on a daily basis as with JSB's music??

I guess that was part of what I was trying.

Ed Myskowski wrote (September 7, 2007):
[To Julian Mincham] I take daily inspiration from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (dare I say HUP?), as well as from listening to Bach.

Are those inspirations incompatible? Perhaps Bach's weirdest, most 'inharmonious' harmonies, were pointing toward uncertainty. Or as Doug suggests, they were ongoing modal accommodations, in transition for a long time.

I can join in support for 'harmony of nature and nurture'. A question of balance.

Julian Mincham wrote (September 7, 2007):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< I can join in support for 'harmony of nature and nurture'. A question of balance. >
can't disagree with that.My point was about the different ways in which we receive, value and respond to artistic and scientific discovery and innovation--they are certainly not exclusive.

Wolff in fact has a few interesting words of comparison of JSb and Isaac Newton (PP6/7, 338/9 and 462 of the paperback edition).

Bradley Lehman wrote (September 7, 2007):
Bach's "weird" harmonizations

< I take daily inspiration from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (dare I say HUP?), as well as from listening to Bach.
Are those inspirations incompatible? Perhaps Bach's weirdest, most 'inharmonious' harmonies, were pointing toward uncertainty. Or as Doug suggests, they were ongoing modal accommodations, in transition for a long time.
I can join in support for 'harmony of nature and nurture'. A question of balance. >
I'm fascinated by the way Bach's "weird" or "inharmonious" harmonizations turn out to have excellent melodic voice-leading among the parts. Each line has its own melodic integrity, and if they rub against another occasionally in transit, so be it. Things don't always have to be recognizable (or harmonically-analyzable) chords according to typical principles. The balance is between counterpoint and harmony.

Continue of this part of the discussion, see: Harmony [General Topics]

Ed Myskowski wrote (September 12, 2007):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< It's interesting that Bach should have used the same text and CM for the final chorales ("plain" 4 part harmonisations) of BWV 28 and BWV 16, especially since the former was apparently followed by the latter on the very next day (if I understand the original performance dates correctly). The major difference in harmonisation is to be found on the word "Leid" (sorrow); in BWV 28 it's a plain C major chord, while in BWV 16 it's a diminished 7^th chord. >
Dürr's formulaic references to 'plain four part harmonisations' are certainly, well, formulaic.

I enjoyed Neil pointing out this detail of the CM repetition, as well as Julian's question as to why. As best I can tell, the CM is not an exact repetition, although the text is. From the BWV incipits, consistent with Leusink recordings [4], BWV 16 opens AABCCB, while BWV 28 opens AABCDB.

This distinction is not indicated in the BCW archive of chorale melodies. Perhaps it has been superseded by NBA scholarship, and BWV and Leusink [4] are now considered incorrect, or I have made an error?

One (or at least me) has to wonder if Bach would not have thoroughly enjoyed running this distinction by, on consecutive performances, two days apart, to see who noticed, to point it out, or some other motive. One (or at least me) might suspect there are some interesting undercurrents here. A microscopic point, for sure, but it is relevant to the weekly music. Not that I don't enjoy OT gossip.

In addition to recordings already discussed, the ongoing Kuijken [6] series is worthy of mention. The OVPP style is probably not to everyone's taste, and I wonder if it is not 'one microphone per part' as well. That, coupled with the ambient (or engineered?) resonance, results in the cumulative effect I previously described as 'edgy'. Is all this part of the SACD experience (even on conventional CD pickup)? Or is it a reasonable presentation of small forces, properly placed, in a resonant church environment . As Doug has pointed out from time to time, we almost never get to hear that.

Beyond the technical details, the vocalists and textural balances are superb. Kuijken [6] makes a point of noting that the obbligato instrument in Mvt. 5 is a 'violetta', while 'viola' suffices for Leusink [4]. Distinction between the instruments seems less important to me than the transparency which Kuijken manages.

Perhaps more important than that comparison is Leonhardt's [1] use of oboe da caccia, the instrument specified for the 1726 performance. That makes it appropriate in the chronologic context of our discussion, and the performance is a joy to hear, as noted in the first round. I expect anyone on this list would enjoy comparing these three versions. I also think it is worth pointing out from time to time that Leusink [4] provides thoroughly professional and enjoyable performances, not to be minimized, for those who don't have the opportunity or desire to hear a variety.

Neil Halliday wrote (September 13, 2007):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
>the CM is not an exact repetition, although the text is. From the BWV incipits, consistent with Leusink recordings [4], BWV 16 opens AABCCB, while BWV 28 opens AABCDB.<
Thanks Ed: yes, there are subtle differences in the CM itself, which I had not noticed, as well as the differences in harmonisation.

Comparing the vocal piano reduction scores of BWV 16 and BWV 28, I can see at least 6 differences (not important musically) in the CM (soprano line). There are also a couple of minor differences in the text.

The 6^th line of text "give us a peaceful year" suggests a new year's day performance; and while I suppose the text remains appropriate for a New Year's Eve performance, the question as to why Bach used this chorale to conclude these two successive cantatas will no doubt have to remained unanswered.

Neil Halliday wrote (September 13, 2007):
Neil Halliday wrote:
> Comparing the vocal piano reduction scores of BWV 16 and BWV 28, I can see at least 6 differences (not important musically) in the CM (soprano line).<
Or rather five - I included a variation in the bass by mistake.

Cantata BWV 16: Complete Recordings | Recordings of Individual Movements | Discussions

Back to the Top

Last update: ýFebruary 28, 2008 ý08:03:56