Cantata BWV 168 - Discussions

Discussions in the Week of July 28, 2002

Aryeh Oron wrote (July 28, 2002):
BWV 168 - Tue Rechnung! Donnerwort - Introduction

Today (July 28, 2002) is the 252^nd anniversary of the death of J.S. Bach. Talking about numbers and calculations, the subject of this week’s discussion, according to Francis Browne’s suggested list, is Cantata BWV 168 ‘Tue Rechnung! Donnerwort’ (Give an account of yourself! Word of thunder) for the 9^th Sunday after Trinity. Gospel for this Sunday is Luke 16: 1-9 - the parable of the unjust steward. The librettist of this cantata is Salomo Frank. It is possible that Bach composed an earlier version while he was in Weimar, but this is not extant. The Frank’s libretto is directly connected to the Gospel-reading, because it is concerned with what man owes to God when the hour of judgement comes.

Recordings

The details of the recordings of this cantata can be found in the following page of the Bach Cantatas Website: Cantata BWV 168 - Recordings

Three complete recordings of this cantata come from the regular forces (Rilling [1], Harnoncourt [2], and Leusink [3]). John Eliot Gardiner recorded the fourth in 2000 during his Bach Pilgrimage [4].

Texts & Translations

Original German text (at Walter F. Bischof Website): http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/168.html
English translation by Francis Browne: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Texts/BWV168-Eng3.htm
Another English translation by Z. Philip Ambrose:
http://www.uvm.edu/~classics/faculty/bach/BWV168.html
Hebrew translation by me: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Texts/BWV168-Heb1.htm

Commentary

Commentary in English by Simon Crouch: http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/works/bachjs/cantatas/168.html
Commentary in Dutch by Johan de Wael: http://home.tiscalinet.be/bach2000/commentaar_168.htm
Commentary in Spanish by Julio Sánchez Reyes: http://homepage.mac.com/cantatasdebach/168.html

Reading the text, it seems that the opening aria for bass (possibly a senior in the tax authorities) should be frightening. It is interesting to see what musical representation did Bach give to the text, and especially how did the four bass singers interpreted it.

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

Francis Browne wrote (July 28, 2002):
BWV 168: Whittaker

I am sure that I am not alone in finding of great interest the quotations from commentators on the cantatas that Tom Braatz has supplied in recent weeks. Even when they seem mistaken or misguided I have found such opinions useful in coming to terms with the week's cantata (and of course Tom's own superbly detailed comments are a wonderful supplement and often correction to other commentaries).

In discussing BWV 45 Tom mentioned a (wrong-headed) opinion of W. Gillies Whittaker but added he did not have access to the book. I suspect few members of the list do, since the text is out of print and was first published in 1959. This is a great pity since the two volumes and 1400+ pages of the work contain much that is valuable and illuminating. Whittaker clearly had a great love and knowledge of Bach's music and over a period of forty years performed all of the cantatas at least once. Sometimes he is simply wrong about a movement, his sympathies with some aspects of the librettists' expression of Luther's Christianity was clearly limited and his coverage of the cantatas varies greatly in detail and insight. But at his best he is perceptive and illuminating, and I have learned much from the first volume of his book (all frustratingly that my local library possesses!).

To allow other members of the list to sample Whittaker's writing for themselves I add without comment what he says about this week's cantata. I have omitted his quotation of the text - a translation is available - and [quote] means the point is illustrated from the score. The cantata is discussed in a chapter devoted to 'Reconstructed Weimar Cantatas'.

See: Cantata BWV 168 - Commentary

[Just one question on the sustained chords for oboes in the recitative: does Bach use this technique where the text portrays a process of thought on the speaker's part, a working out of the implications of a point perhaps made earlier to reach a conclusion or insight in the course of the recitative? This is what to my untutored ears the sustained chords seemed to convey]

Thomas Braatz wrote (July 29, 2002):
BWV 168 Tue Rechnung! Donnerwort

See: Cantata BWV 168 - Provenance

Thomas Braatz wrote (August 2, 2002):
Francis Browne kindly shared the contents of Whittaker’s comments on this cantata and called our attention to Whittaker’s comments on the Tenor Recitative (Mvt. 2). The points of interest here are:

See: Cantata BWV 168 - Commentary

Thomas Braatz wrote (August 2, 2002):
BWV 168 - Commentary [Spitta, Schweitzer, Dürr]

See: Cantata BWV 168 - Commentary

Philippe Bareille wrote (August 3, 2002):
This rather "terrifying" cantata (metaphorically speaking), "Tue Rechnung!
Donnerwort" (Thine accounting! Judgement day!) is worth discovering. I hope many in this group will have this pleasure.

I have just listened to Harnoncourt recording [2] and as often I find his performance rather satisfying. Harnoncourt wrote in the comments on the performance in the booklet included with the CD "In the first aria all the dotted notes were adapted to fit the continuous triplet rhythm, regardless of whether they were semiquavers or demisemiquavers. This articulation brings out the rhythmic severity and ostinato with which the judgement scene is depicted" This comment sets the tone of the aria: ardent, pungent, capturing admirably the spirit of the text. The bass Robert Holl may not be as subtle as Egmond in his delivery but his strong voice is ideally suited to climate of this music.

The tenor aria is no less frightening: Capital and Int'erst payment all my debits great and small I must soon account for all. Equiluz characterisation is outstanding and the melancholic accompanying oboe d'amore brings some solace to the daunting prospects. Harnoncourt wrote "Aria no 3 was of course played as a solo for the first oboe d'amore, although it in fact appears in both parts, as was common at the time ".

The duet doesn't give itself away at a glance. You need several listening occasions to fully appreciate this music. I am glad that Harnoncourt opted for a boy alto rather than the usual Esswood in this aria. His name is Christian Immler. His voice is less appealing than P Iconomou's but he is no less talented. A few months back I happened to see him on a television programme taking part in a Renata Tebaldi master class. He had become a professional bass. In this recording he is well matched to the treble Helmut Wittek who however was obviously still very young so his voice seems to be
pushed up to the hilt.

Another rewarding cantata.

NB: Rifkin who professes to give historically informed performances uses women and countertenors, a fundamental historical inaccuracy!

Aryeh Oron wrote (August 3, 2002):
BWV 168 - Tue Rechnung! Donnerwort - Background

The background below is taken from the following books:
Alec Robertson: ‘The Church Cantatas of J.S. Bach’ (1972), and
W. Murray Young: ‘The Cantatas of J.S. Bach – An AnalGuide’ (1989);
The English translation is by Francis Browne, a member of the BCML.

See: Cantata BWV 168 - Commentary

The Recordings

During last week I have been listening to 4 complete recordings of this cantata.

[1] Rilling (1970)
Siegmund Nimsgern, who proves himself as the right man for the job, is simply astounding. He has a marvellous tool in his throat, rich, deep and, when needed, frightening. He is a thinker, and in full awareness of the circumstances. And most important, he has the intelligence and the sensitivity to use his impressive powers to the best. I shall give you few examples. In the opening words ‘Tue Rechnung’ he uses his lowest register to sound authoritative, and does it so naturally that it is easy to believe him. Than, between the word ‘Donnerwort’ and ‘Das die Felsen selbst zerspaltet’ there is a microscopic pause, a moment of tension, as the micro-second when the hammer is up and you are ready, dreadful, waiting it to fall down and break the object into pieces. Nobody catches this short moment better than Nimsgern. And when he sings ‘Seele, fort!’ his voice suddenly softens, as if he wants the soul to do what is needed from her own good will and not because she is horrified. Like a good teacher, or a father, who knows well, that with a whip a carrot must come. He is also helped by the strong, colourful, and forceful accompaniment from Rilling, which creates the atmosphere of urgency. Theo Altmeyer gives a very convincing account of both the recitatives and the aria for tenor, with natural, unforced, and wide expression. The text might be dry, the singing is not. The duet is the least successful movement in Rilling’s rendition. The voices of the two ladies lack tenderness, they sing in full voice with strong vibrato, and the match between their voices leaves the impression that they feel uncomfortable together.

[2] Harnoncourt (1987)
Robert Holl seems to be a much better candidate for a good performance of the opening aria than the usual Egmond with his lighter voice. Holl’s voice is indeed impressive, deep and dark, and most of the time he conveys the message successfully. But hearing him head to head with Nimsgern, and few shortcomings also pop-up. His voice is less flexible, and his expression less varied. The accompaniment is is also less successful than Rilling’s. The tension is not built gradually as it should, because the short notes break it to uniform and uninteresting pieces. There is neither power, nor urgency. As a result, the whole performance becomes monotonous. Equiluz is more restrained than Altmeyer, but no less moving. He quickens the tempo in the last part of his recitative, when he is talking about his wish to run from God’s anger, before the final weep. The idea of using two boys (soprano and alto) for the duet proves itself to be successful here. The pure voices of the singers, the charming way with which they are blending, together with an unchallenging technically piece, makes this duet almost irresistible.

[3] Leusink (1999)
Sorry, but Bas Ramselaar, who is usually the best part in Leusink cantata recordings is somewhat disappointed here. First, it seems that his voice has not enough ‘bottom’ and he does not put the right amount of expression into the opening words to make them really frightening. In his approach he reminds me of Holl, but he is less well equipped for the job. The light accompaniment and the quick tempo do not help him either. Schoch does not have anything interesting to offer in the recitative and aria for tenor. Surprisingly, the duet comes out quite well in this recording. This is one of the cases where there is good match between Holton and Buwalda, and they seem to support each other in encouragement, as they should.

[4] Gardiner (2000)
I like Gardiner’s dramatic approach to the opening aria, full of drive and momentum, a much better proposition than the other two HIP recordings (Harnoncourt & Leusink). The problem with this rendition of the aria is that the singing of the bass, Peter Harvey, is rather bland. It seems that he tries to do his best, but the tool he has in his throat does not match the demands of the aria. Gilchrist is much more interesting in the recitative and aria for tenor. He sings tastefully with many nuances. The real gem of this recording is the duet for soprano of alto, where the charming voices of Fuge and Taylor and their gentle approach make the duet a real delicacy. It seems that they enjoy singing together. This is the best duet among the mixed couples.

Conclusion

Personal preferences:
Mvt. 1 & Mvt. 4: Nimsgern/Rilling [1], Holl/Harnoncourt [2], Harvey/Gardiner [4], Ramselaar/Leusink [3]
Mvt. 2 & Mvt. 3: Altmeyer/Rilling [1], Equiluz/Harnoncourt [2], Gilchrist/Gardiner [4], Schoch/Leusink [3]
Mvt. 5: Wittek & Immler/Harnoncourt [2], Fuge & Taylor/Gardiner [4], Holton & Buwalda/Leusink [3], Burns & Gohl/Rilling [1]
Overall performance: Rilling [1], Gardiner [4], Harnoncourt [2], Leusink. [3]

A movement to take away: The opening aria for bass with Nimsgern/Rilling [1]!

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

Thomas Braatz wrote (August 2, 2002):
BWV 168 – Review of the Recordings

The recordings that I listened to this week were:

Rilling (1970) [1]; Harnoncourt (1987) [2]; and Leusink (1999) [3]

[1] Rilling:

Mvt. 1 & Mvt. 4 Nimsgern:
Nimsgern is “ein schwarzer Bass” (“ a ‘dark’ bass with reference to the dark quality of the voice.) This full voice is aptly suited for portraying with great power the seriousness of the text. The orchestral accompaniment complements this rendition with a full orchestra including a double bass in the bc which makes the bc sound almost too heavy. The strings, despite the agitated (non-triplet) figures sound almost legato at times. There is an obvious contrast, more piano and lyrical, in the middle section where the characterization of the words should change. The expressive qualities of Nimsgern continue to be excellent in the recitative as well.

Mvt. 2 & Mvt. 3 Altmeyer:
This is another good singer with a full voice and excellent expression in both the recitative and the aria. Altmeyer does have a problem with his high notes which he approaches from a point slightly below the correct pitch. Most of the time he manages to correct this imperfection in intonation, but not always. This can be very disconcerting. Rilling uses only one oboe d’amore in the aria, whereas Bach calls for two of them to play in unison.

Mvt. 5 Burns, Gohl
Here the chains are so heavy that they are never broken. The thick bc is made even heavier with a double bass. Both voices have thick vibratos and do not match each other (they are so concerned with trying to control their voices that they can not listen carefully to what the other voice is doing.) There seems to be no attempt to sing the words of the text with understanding. Perhaps theyhad too many other things to worry about.

Mvt. 6 Chorale
The enunciation of the words, the legato phrasing, the intonation between the parts, the temp chosen – all these things are very good, but the middle parts (alto, tenor) in their low ranges tend to become a little weak and unclear. The perceptible vibratos used in the female voices detract from the overall clarity as well.

[2] Harnoncourt:

Mvt. 1 & Mvt. 4 Holl:
This version is astonishingly energetic and angular because of the sharp accents and rhythms and the occasional use of staccato; however, the sheer power (with larger orchestral forces and a more powerful voice, Nimsgern) of this movement is diminished here. Although Holl has a larger, fuller voice than Egmond, there is something lacking in the power of expression when he has to resort to barking out certain words rather than singing them at the correct pitch. In other words, in this version, expression is more important than the proper presentation of text and music. Where Bach has indicated phrasing marks to encompass all three notes in the triplet figures, Harnoncourt persists in doing just the opposite (ms. 15 -17, 48.) Of course, the long notes in the bc of the recitative are lopped off prematurely.

Mvt. 2 & Mvt. 3 Equiluz:
The primitive sound of the oboi d’amore lacks any sense of musicality. They are too loud, out of balance with each other and have the usual intonation problems. It must really bother Harnoncourt that these long notes were written out with such long note values (Harnoncourt even tries to shorten them a little because he is so accustomed now, after having complete ¾ of the cantata recordings, to shortening the bc in the secco recitatives.) The negative effects of this type of playing affect Equiluz as well. He departs from his otherwise lyrical style and begins to shout the words rather the sing them. Perhaps he is forcing his voice so that it can be heard over these horridly loud oboes. Does Harnoncourt follow Bach’s indication to use two oboi d’amore in unison in the tenor aria? No! This is probably a good thing, for Harnoncourt now decides to use a silly-sounding, clumsy bassoon (the very type of playing that Bach detested.) Again, Equiluz is forced to push his voice too much and loses the wonderful lyrical, expressive quality that he normally has.

Mvt. 5 Wittek, Immler:
If you thought that Rilling’s soloists were bad, this is much worse. The singing here is almost indescribably bad. Perhaps Immler is only slightly better than Wittek, but it really does not matter when the quality of singing has reached such a low level. How is it even possible to try to concentrate on the text and expression under these circumstances? Have you ever heard of a long held note in the voice receiving a special accent somewhere in the middle when the 1st beat in the measure occurs?

Mvt. 6 Chorale:
The inner voices (alto and tenor) are somewhat clearer here than in Rilling’s version, but, on the other hand, you will have to put up with strange accents and tiny hiatuses between the notes of a phrase. All of this has the effect of cutting up the phrase into tiny stops and pieces. Thus the melody line does not flow easily. At certain points, when the choir accents a high point of a phrase, the choir begins to sound more like it is shouting rather than singing.

[3] Leusink:

Mvt. 1 & Mvt. 4 Ramselaar:
Ramselaar is indeed not a ‘schwarzer Bass’ but what he does offer on a lighter scale with less volume is a clear delivery of the notes with good intonation although the German pronunciation still has a few flaws (‘Himmel’ pronounced as ‘Himmal.’) With less volume available to use, Ramselaar has a more limited range of expression, although he tries to do what he can here within his limitations. The contrast between the outer sections and the middle, lyrical one is very much less pronounced. Leusink does not help much here either since the strings generally stay at about the same volume level all the way through. Leusink does not recognize the ‘piano’ markings that are placed at the beginning of the middle section. The fast moving triplet figures in the bc present Leusink with a problem that he was unable to solve satisfactorily. When these figures accompany the bass voice, they sound like the rumble of a train going by – everything is completely indistinct. You know that there is something going on down there in the bc, but what is it? It can not be clearly identified. The moment these figures change to the typical moving eighth notes, Leusink has the double bass (that horrible, modern double bass [I simply can not believe that the Violone had such a loud sound]) enter to play the ‘easy’ parts. And so a switching on and off of the double bass takes place throughout the mvt.
In the recitative, Leusink tries something new with the chest organ which should be holding out the long tied notes in the bc. He terminates the note prematurely, but then picks up the note again in the middle of the hold when the figured bass chords change. The poor man is caught in a quandary: he wishes to do obeisance to the Harnoncourt theory, but he sees things in the score which stand in contradiction to this theory of the shortened accompaniment of secco arias. What is there left to do? Try to please both sides in the same mvt.!

Mvt. 2 & Mvt. 3 Schoch:
What is amazing here is how the oboi d’amore sound so mild and receding (muffled.) Schoch sings many notes without any special inflection, with an almost dead quality. It is very disturbing when he tries to approach (not land on directly) high notes from below. His intonation is slightly flat and he usually takes his time in correcting this intonation flaw. In the aria Leusink has solved the problem of the two oboi d’amore playing in unison (as Bach had indicated), but just how does he do this? Do the sound engineers control this aspect entirely, or do this instruments really sound like this? The volume level of these two instruments does not vary – no change to ‘piano’ takes place when indicated in the score. Schoch’s rendition of the aria is the least expressive of those that I listened to.

Mvt. 5 Holton, Buwalda:
The voices of Holton and Buwalda do not blend well since Buwalda has a completely different timbre. His voice is like a thin, frail reed and hers more like a tiny trumpet. The organ in the bc is much too loud. This rendition, from the standpoint of the expression of text, is rather uninteresting.

Mvt. 6 Chorale;
As usual the final fermata are clipped. There is, unbelievably, some ‘chirping’ and insecurity demonstrated by the sopranos when they hit a high F# which is not that high after all. The word, “stärk” is pronounced like “stark” and at one point I think I can hear the entire choir singing “von dem Welt” rather than “von der Welt.” The consonants generally are too lax in pronunciation.

Preferences:

Mvt. 1 & Mvt. 4: Nimsgern [1], Holl [2], Ramselaar [3]
Mvt. 2 & Mvt. 3 Altmeyer [1], Equiluz [2], Schoch [3]
Mvt. 5: none of the above
Mvt. 6: Rilling [1], Harnoncourt [2], Leusink [3]

Thomas Braatz wrote (Auguat 5, 2002):
Philippe Bareille wrote:
< Equiluz characterisation is outstanding and melancholic accompanying oboe d'amore brings some solace to the daunting prospects. Harnoncourt wrote "Aria Mvt. 3 was of course played as a solo for the first oboe d'amore, although it in fact appears in both parts, as was common at the time ". >
This seems to be another one of Harnoncourt's "selbstverständlich" (his use of "of course" in this context says it all by not explaining anything) ideas that spring from his head from time to time.

The record is simple and very clear (assuming that a conductor take the written record from Bach's hand seriously, which we know is not always the case with Harnoncourt.)

The NBA I/19 KB affirms what can be seen in the autograph score regarding Mvt. 3 Aria:

On the right side of sheet 4 which shows the beginning of Mvt. 3, Bach writes above the topmost line: "Aria Hautb unisoni"

In the original set of parts there are separate sheets for the two oboi d'amore:

the part for the 1^st oboe is entitled: "Hautb: 1. d'Amour" and contains mvts. 2, 3, and 6
the part for the 2^nd oboe is entitled: "Hautb: d'Amour 2" and also has mvts. 2, 3, and 6

In the 2^nd Oboe d'amore part, which was copied by both Kuhnau and Meißner, Bach personally finished copying the mvt. after ms. 128 where Kuhnau had left off. Then Meißner copied Mvt. 6.

In the face of all this first-hand evidence, Harnoncourt's ridiculous claim cloaked in "Selbstverständlichkeit" (a notion that I have discussed here before) exposes another of Harnoncourt's mistaken ideas on how Bach should be performed.

Why did he not simply admit: "I do not have two oboe d'amore players who can play in unison tolerably. Two players would be too loud and they can't play in tune anyway. Equiluz has complained also that he needs to force his voice too much to overcome the loudness of their playing. Those are some reasons, contrary to Bach's intentions, I have decided to use only one oboe d'amore player."

There is no 'of course' in choosing to have only one oboe d'amore play in Mvt. 3. Harnoncourt needs to explain why he did not/could not measure up to Bach's expectations and not make it sound as if there was an unwritten, undocumented tradition that caused two parts to be written out with exactly the same notes, but then only one part would be played by one instrument. Why would Bach personally write: "Oboes play in unison." Is this just another superscript that Bach placed at the top of the page for this mvt. simply as decoration and not to be taken seriously?

This situation relates directly to the kind of thinking that surrounds the secco recitative shortened bc accompaniment theory.

It is important to understand that this type of thing affects the way you hear the HIP recordings of Bach's cantatas. Note values are abbreviated, chords are left out, and now even entire instrument parts are being removed "selbstverständlich" (without a question.)

Andrew Lewis wrote (August 4, 2002):
[To Aryeh Oron] Aryeh, please note: I believe this is an important issue to all lovers of Bach's cantatas. I once again request that Laurence Dreyfus be asked to interview with you or this list in any way you see fit. Mr. Braatz seems to concur with this issue's importance.

Thomas Braatz wrote:
"This situation relates directly to the kind of thinking that surrounds the secco recitative shortened bc accompaniment theory.

It is important to understand that this type of thing affects the way you hear the HIP recordings of Bach's cantatas. Note values are abbreviated, chords are left out, and now even entire instrument parts are being removed "selbstverständlich" (without a question.)"

Aryeh Oron wrote (August 4, 2002):
[To Andrew Lewis] Have I missed something?
I do not understand what do you mean by: 'I believe this is an important issue to all lovers of Bach's cantatas.' And why do you think that Laurence Dreyfus should be interviewd?

Philippe Bareille wrote (August 7, 2002):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
"If you thought that Rilling's soloists [1] were bad, this (the Duo in Harnoncourt version) is much worse. The singing is almost indescribably bad"
What a strong statement!

I found interesting to compare the boy soprano Wittek in this cantata (BWV 168) with himself in his last appearance in the Teldec series (BWV 196). In the former his voice was still small and he couldn't always project his line forcefully enough (but he was doing his job conscientiously); in the latter he had turned into a mature singer brimming with self-confidence. Hence, (as I have mentioned in a previous email) no wonder why he was selected by the American conductor Leonard Bernstein to sing the sopran aria from Malher 4th symphony (DG).

To remain on the same topic; Aryeh you mentioned in one of your e.mails Markus Klein. He was another very fine boy soprano. His trills in the BWV 106/BWV 107 as well as his lower register and the way he could pass off the most difficult intervals could put many of his more experienced fellow [woman] sopranos to shame!

Aryeh Oron wrote (August 7, 2002):
[To Philippe Bareille] As I wrote in my review of BWV 168, I do like the duet as performed by the two boys from Tölzer Knabenchor. The technical challenges of the duet are not so high and the voices can cope with it without any noticeable difficulties. I also find that in this case boys' voices suit the emotional content of the duet better than women's voices. I know that Tom's opinion is different, but since our conclusions regarding the other singers of this cantata are almost identical, I find it almost logical to disagree about something. After all, these are only personal opinions.

On the other hand, I find that a boy's voice, good as he might be, is almost intolerable in Cantata BWV 196. Here we have a young bride in her wedding ceremony. How could a boy sing her part?

Regarding Marcus (not Markus) Klein, you can see his bio in the following page:
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Klein-Marcus.htm
His is one of the very few bios of boy singers I could get from the various boys' choirs to which I wrote.

I repeat my conclusion of Cantata BWV 168: IMO, the gem of this cantata is the opening aria for bass, and Siegmund Nimsgern's rendition (with Rilling [1]) is exemplary, head and shoulders above all the others.

Discussions in the Week of July 1, 2007

Russell Telfer wrote (June 30, 2007):
Introduction to Cantata BWV 168

Introduction to J.S.Bach's cantata BWV 168
Week beginning 1^st July 2007

Following Julian's tour of duty, I am providing the introductions for the next few weeks.

The work was previously discussed in the week beginning 28^th July 2002. This is often a good starting point for those of us who do not know a particular cantata well. You will note that several current contributors were active in discussing this work at that time.

On the webpage http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV168.htm
you can find Salomo Franck's German text with more than one English translation for comparison.

For the benefit of (new) members, Aryeh Oron has placed the Leusink recording of the complete recording of the cantata for study purposes.

BWV 168 - Give An Account of Thyself! Thunderous Words! is a solo cantata for the 9^th Sunday after Trinity. It was first performed at Leipzig on 29^th July 1725 and was not used again by Bach until 1746. 1725, of course, was one of the most productive periods of Bach's life. The text for the first five movements was provided by Salomo Franck. Bartholomäus Ringwaldt, Pastor of Langfeld, wrote the text used by Bach in the last movement.

The first movement is nominally in common time but semiquaver triplepervade the whole, which is resolutely in B minor throughout. In my view the bass part is of medium difficulty for an aria singer. There are allegro passages (the semis) mainly in triplet semiquavers. There are a few demisemiquavers with their dotted semi partners. The animation of the staccato strings emphasises the stark message of the words: we are veritably in a God fearing world.

Make a reck'ning! Thund'rous word, Which e'en rocky cliffs split open,
Word by which my blood grows frigid!
[Acknowledgement: Translations by Z Philip Ambrose.]

Next follows a tenor recitative on the theme of the anguish of a terrified soul fearing damnation from a vengeful God. It is scored for continuo and two oboes whose languid tones, so typical of Bach in this sort of writing, bring this short passage together with a touching beauty.

The third movement (Kapital und Interessen) is somewhat more cheerful. It adopts the same format of a da capo aria with a shortish repeat stopping where the soloist would have re-entered. The menace has dissipated, but there is still a heavy debt to pay.

After a simple bass recit, we have in BWV 168'5 a duet for soprano and alto accompanied only by continuo in which the words:

Build for me a solid house,
Which in heaven ever bideth -

indicate the simple prayer-like nature of this movement.

In conclusion we have an austere chorale on the theme:

Make me strong with thy Spirit's joy, heal me with thine own wounding,
Take me then, whenever thou wilt, to thine own chosen people.

Penance has been done and the cantata ends with a sense of turmoil assuaged: peace has been purchased at the price of purgation.

On a personal note, this cantata is comparatively new to me, and I have, unfortunately, no further bons mots to offer. I do know that list members will be able to furnish information lacking here.

Peter Smaill wrote (July 1, 2007):
BWV 168 is a puzzle. Why did Bach write nothing, apparently, between the last of the von Ziegler texts and his utilisation of Salomo Franck's eccentric imagery in "Tue rechnung! Donnerwort!"? He closes on Trinity Sunday with BWV 176 and then, unles manuscripts have disappeared, writes nothing for two months.

Is it because there was an absence of choice for this Sunday? Not so; the marvellous BWV 105 - one of the great librettos- and workmanlike Chorale cantata BWV 94 were both available. Many Sundays in Trinity do not appear to have more than two Cantatas extant. Is the cause theological? For it cannot be musical dissatisfaction given the quallities of the existing repertoire for the day.

The themes of rejection of Mammon and salvation through the blood of Jesus are themes in all three. If there is a special trend in BWV 168, it is to pietism, especially in the sentiment of the Chorale: "wash me with Thy death-sweat" (Mvt. 6). Schulze agrees that this Cantata is a little lost, a maverick, "Im Kontext von Bachs Leipziger Vokalwerk nimmt diese Kantate sich ein wening verloren aus". The origin he reveals is Pietist, for before Franck we have a sermon by the Rector of Rostock, Heinrich Müller, from 1679 expressing the same sentiments and language as BWV 168/1.

Müller, a follower of Arndt, is quite bolshie. He censored his contemporaries for trusting the "four dumb idols of the church....the baptismal font, the pulpit, confessional and altar" while "denying the inner power of Christianity". Pace Arndt , the movement is Pietist in that the aim is to establish the Kingdom in us, not Jesus for us. Müller was was also among the chorale writer Paul Gerhardt's early trailblazers.

Thus this Cantata, marooned as it is, remains a witness to the ability of Bach to get away with Pietist materials while remaining an orthodox Lutheran. But why did he write this Cantata for that day? remains an open question.

Thomas Braatz wrote (July 2, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>Why did Bach write nothing, apparently, between the last of the von Ziegler texts and his utilisation of Salomo Franck's eccentric imagery in "Tue rechnung!Donnerwort!"? He closes on Trinity Sunday with BWV 176 and then, unless manuscripts have disappeared, writes nothing for two months.<<
Based upon NBA KB I/17.2 and Konrad Küster (Bach Handbuch, Bärenreiter, 1999, pp. 303-304, it becomes evident that Bach may have composed at least some of the cantatas for the missing Sundays of Trinity 1 - 8, if not all of them. A cantata booklet which Bach had had printed for the the 3rd through 6th Sundays of Trinity including the Feast Day for Mary's Visitation, shows the usual type of cantata text that Bach employed. While there is always the possibility that some of these cantatas might have been composed by other composers, there is enough evidence to affirm that at least some of these cantatas were by J. S. Bach. For instance, the titles of two of the cantatas for the 5th and 6th Sunday after Trinity respectively are written down in Bach's handwriting. For the 5^th Sunday after Trinity there is a folder titled by Bach (contents missing) and for the 6^th Sunday after Trinity an autograph title page that reads:

Dominica 5. post Trinitatis | Concerto | à | 4 Voci |e | 4 Stromenti

but otherwise this page is still unwritten.

It is a reliable fact that on the 5^th Sunday after Trinity, Bach performed a cantata called: "Der Segen des Herrn machet reich ohne Mühe" and on the following Sunday: "Wer sich rächet, an dem wird sich der Herr wieder rächen", both texts by Erdmann Neumeister [btw, this means that Bach would no longer have had to struggle with the these texts. As a rule Bach composed Neumeister's and Franck's texts without changing a single word. Together with BWV 168, we see Bach returning to two of the best cantata librettists {Erdmeister, Franck} he had used previously.] Originally, when this text booklet was discovered, it had been thought that Telemann might possibly be the composer. However, the more recent NBA KB discounts this hypothesis as now being improbable.

Thomas Braatz wrote (July 2, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
>>It is a reliable fact that on the 5th Sunday after Trinity, Bach performed a cantata called: "Der Segen des Herrn machet reich ohne Mühe" and on the following Sunday: "Wer sich rächet, an dem wird sich der Herr wieder rächen", both texts by Erdmann Neumeister<<
Here are the complete libretti for these cantatas as printed in Bach's cantata booklet from 1725. If there is no translation already available for these, perhaps Francis Browne may want to translate these for this list and for the BCW.

(Spellings are original! Notice also that both of these cantatas were performed at the same, more conservative church, St. Nicolai, on subsequent Sundays. TB)

Dominica V. post Trinitat. zu St. Nicolai.

DEr Seegen des HERRN machet reich ohne Mühe.

Recit.
Was hab ich noch zu hoffen,
Des Tages Last und Hitze macht mir heiß,
Die Sorgen aber bange,
Der Seegen bleibt zu lange,
Und will mein Hauß gar nicht beziehen,
Was hilfft mir mein Bemühen?
Wenn tausend Tropffen Schweiß
Von mir getroffen,
Und wird die Nacht mit Kummer hingebracht,
So kan ich doch nichts vor mich bringen,
Und habe stets diß Klage=Lied zu singen:
Ich hab hier wenig guter Tag,
Mein täglich Brodt ist Müh und Klag.
Die Nahrung ist zu schlecht,
Der Vorrath wird geschwächt,
Wo endlich her zu nehmen?
Ach solt ich mich nicht grämen.

Wohl dem, der den Herrn fürchtet, und auf
seinen Wegen gehet, du wirst dich nehren
deiner Hände Arbeit, wohl dir, du hast es gut.

ARIA.
Was sorgst du doch so ängstiglich,
GOtt lebt ja noch und sorgt für dich,
Drum stedein Hertze zufrieden,
Er ist dein Licht, dein Trost und Heyl,
Er läst dich nicht und hat dein Theil
Dir zeitlich und ewig beschieden.

Choral.
Sing, beth und geh auf GOttes Wegen,
verricht das deine nur getreu
und trau des Himmels reichen Seegen,
so wird er bey dir werden neu,
denn welcher seine Zuversicht,
auf GOtt setzt, den verläst er nicht.

ARIA.
Drum thu nur das, was dir gebührt,
Das andre laß, wie er dich führt,
Nach GOttes Gedeyen sich fügen,
Wer ihn vertraut und liebt sein Wort,
Hat wohl gethan, und wird sich fort
Nach Wunsche des Hertzens vergnügen.

Choral.
Hierauf so sprech ich Amen,
und zweiffle nicht daran,
GOtt wird es allzusammen,
ihm wohlgefallen lahn,
und streck drauf aus meine Hand,
greiff an das Werck mit Freuden,
darzu mich GOtt bescheiden,
in mein'n Beruff und Stand.

Dominica VI. post Trinit. Zu St. Nicolai

Wer sich rächet, an dem wird sich der Herr
wieder rächen, und wird ihm auch seine Sünde behalten.
Vergieb deinem Nechsten, was er dir zu leide
gethan hat, und bitte denn, so werden dir
deine Sünden auch vergeben.

Recit.

Nichts schwehrer geht dem alten Adam ein,
Als wenn er soll vergeben und vergessen,
Versöhnlichkeit wird ihm zu bittrer Pein,
Die Rache schmeckt nur süße,
Und wenn man ihm die freyen Hände ließe,
So solte wohl das Maaß noch mehr als zehnfach seyn,
Womit er seinem Feinde würde messen.
Doch Christlich ist das nicht,
Wer diß im Vater Unser spricht:
Vergieb uns unsre Schuld,
Der muß auch dieses sprechen:
Als wir vergeben unsern Schuldigern,
Wer sich will selber rächen,
Verschertzet GOttes Huld,
Und wird selbst über sich
Den Stab zum Urtheil brechen,
Drum überwinde dich,
Denn nur der heist ein Christ,
Der seines Willens Herr und sein selbst mächtig ist.

ARIA.
Fried und Liebe krönt die Christen,
So ein Schmuck ist ungemein,
Und die sich mit Sanfftmuth rüsten,
Die werden Helden Christi seyn.
Wer durch einen stillen Geist,
Zorn und Grimm im Hertzen dämpfet,
Dieses heist
Einen guten Kampff gekämpffet.

Recit.
Ein Hund beist in den Stein,
Womit man nach ihn wirfft,
Und ist doch nur vergebens.
Was bringts vor Vortheil ein,
Wenn Gall und Gifft im Hertzen kocht?
Man wird ein mörder seines Lebens,
Und löscht das Tacht deßselben vor der Zeit nur aus,
So wirff den Greuel naus.
Die Menschen machet er zu Bären und zu Wölffen,
Wer ihm will selbst durch eigne Rache helffen,
Der reitzet GOttes Rache wieder sich.
Drum noch einmahl: ach überwinde dich!

ARIA.
Seegne dem, der dich verflucht;
Welcher dein Verderben sucht,
Diesem solt du guts erzeigen,
Und bey Läster=Worten schweigen.
Gehet dir das Unrecht nah,
Dencke GOttes Huld ist da,
Der wird die Schmach in Ehren,
Und den Fluch in Seegen kehren.

Choral.
Verleih, daß ich aus Hertzens Grund
mein'n Feinden mög vergeben;
Verzeih mir auch zu dieser Stund,
schaff mir ein neues Leben,
dein Wort mein Speiß laß allweg seyn,
damit mein Seel zu nehren,
mich zu wehren,
wenn Unglück geht daher,
das mich bald möchte abkehren.

Thomas Braatz wrote (July 2, 2007):
Based upon NBA KB I/17.1 (p. 126) and Konrad Küster (Bach Handbuch, Bärenreiter, 1999, p. 304, it becomes evident also that Bach performed and may have composed a chorale cantata for the 3^rd Sunday after Trinity: "Ich ruf zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ" per omnes versus (there are 5 verses in Johann Agricola's chorale from 1529{?})

Bach composed another chorale cantata using exactly the same text: BWV 177 which was first performed on July 6, 1732, but on the 4^th Sunday after Trinity and not the 3^rd as indicated above.

Neil Halliday wrote (July 3, 2007):
"Do a reckoning" of your debts: this is a metaphor for the sins that will be taken into account by God on Judgement Day, as emphasised by the characterisation of this "reckoning" as a "thunderous word" ("Donnerwort").

Bach sets this idea in a splendid bass aria that combines triplet and dotted rhythm motives in all parts. The string writing is particularly rich and vivid, and there is a powerful unison passage for all the instruments at the end of the opening ritornello and occurring twice later on, particularly effective in Rilling's recording [1]. Nimsgern (with Rilling) brings an appropriate `heroism' to his vocal part.

Notice that all the movements of this cantata are in minor keys; but the minor tonality is alleviated by modulations into major keys.

The tenor aria has a lovely, calm tunefulness, attractively sung by Altmeyer (in Rilling's recording [1]), whose voice reminds me of Schreier (I think).

The SA duet is attractive with its melodious semi=canonical writing for voices, and quasi-ostinato continuo that (as the OCC points out) is largely based on the notes of a descending scale.

In the duet, Rilling [1] has two problems: the continuous vibrato of the vocalists is disturbing, and the continuo line with double bass as well as cello, is too thick/heavy. The period versions overcome the first problem (excessive vocal vibrato), as one would expect; and Leusink, apart from having a better bass string line with cello alone, also has a particularly attractive, `ethereal' organ realisation that is perfect in the ritornellos. The other period
version for which there is a sample - Koopman [5] - probably has the best vocalists; Zomer (S) and Bartosz (A) combine beautifully, with each singer presenting her line with the utmost clarity.

Rilling's [1] final chorale (Mvt. 6) sounds a bit laboured, but OTOH Koopman [5] sounds too brisk; somewhere in between might be best.

Russell Telfer wrote (July 6, 2007):
My thanks to Peter Smaill and Thomas Braatz for information new to me on cantata 168.

Peter Smaillwrote:
< The themes of rejection of Mammon and salvation through the blood of Jesus are themes in all three. If there is a special trend in BWV 168, it is to pietism, especially in the sentiment of the Chorale: "wash me with Thy death-sweat" (Mvt. 6). Schulze agrees that this Cantata is a little lost, a maverick >
I suspected from Peter's comment that the cantata didn't conform to Bach's regular patterns, but the information provided makes clear that at least textually Bach was exploring foreign waters, so to speak.

Thomas provided information about other cantatas generated at this closely similar time in the church calendar:
< Based upon NBA KB I/17.1 (p. 126) and Konrad Küster (Bach Handbuch, Bärenreiter, 1999, p. 304, it becomes evident also that Bach performed and may have composed a chorale cantata for the 3^rd Sunday after Trinity: "Ich ruf zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ" per omnes versus (there are 5 verses in Johann Agricola's chorale from 1529{?})
Bach composed another chorale cantata using exactly the same text: BWV 177 which was first performed on July 6, 1732, but on the 4^th Sunday after Trinity and not the 3rd as indicated above. >
After this, I listened again to BWV 177, and reassured myself that BWV 177 has many lasting musical (and textual) values that are less apparent in BWV 168. But they're all unique and worth cherishing.

Ed Myskowski wrote (July 6, 2007):
BWV 168 [WAS: Another assessment of the BWV 244 at Glyndebourne]

Neil Halliday wrote:
< It's an interesting issue. I heard a bit of the final chorus in a radio news item, which the director Katie Mitchell (not the conductor) described as a lullaby, and yet I found the tempo to be unnecessarily brisk.
I have the same concern about the tempo of Gardiner's [4] (and Koopman's [5]) bass aria in this week's cantata. [BWV 168]
Presumably some like these fast tempi, but many people don't. >
Thanks for comments on the music of the week. To me, it seems less important whether we agree or disagree, and more important whether the discussion stimulates more careful listening, and enhancedenjoyment. As you have pointed out, from time to time.

By coincidence, the two recordings you mention (Gardiner [4] and Koopman [5]) are the two I have listened to. I did not find the bass aria noticeably quick, but I do not have a slower (more solemn?) alternative for comparison (Rilling [1]?). I will try to use your post as a stimulus for some additional listening and thoughts.

I did find BWV 168 to be a wonderfully balanced work, and a nice variant to the more familiar chiastic architecture. Its compact structure could be interpreted in many ways , I suppose, including Bach writing in a hurry, or not wanting to work harder than necessary. Why not Bach looking for ways to condense his ideas? That would be consistent with the final cantatas of Jahrgang II, as well.

One of the advantages of the chronologic discussion is the opportunity to examine the transition points, from Easter 1725 through Trinity, the Sundays after, and the start of an 'out-of-phase' liturgical year for Bach. Or perhaps kicking back for a bit to get back in phase?

Neil Halliday wrote (July 7, 2007):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
>Gardiner [4] and Koopman [5]) are the two I have listened to. I did not find the bass aria noticeably quick, but I do not have a slower (more solemn?) alternative for comparison (Rilling [1]?)<
The Rilling [1] is 'heroic' rather than 'solemn', although I can understand some may perceive his tempo to be too slow. Timings: Rilling 4.04 [1], Leusink 3.24 [3], Gardiner [4] and Koopman [5], my estimate c.3.04.

Leusink [3], with the intermediate tempo, is as fast as I want to go (personal opinion).

[The problem of tempos that are too fast is more significant in the SMP, for the reasons hinted at in the two opinions I highlighted].

Ed Myskowski wrote (July 10, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< BWV 168 is a puzzle. Why did Bach write nothing, apparently, between the last of the von Ziegler texts and his utilisation of Salomo Franck's eccentric imagery in "Tue rechnung! Donnerwort!"? He closes on Trinity Sunday with BWV 176 and then, unless manuscripts have disappeared, writes nothing for two months.. >
Apologies for the delay., but I think this detail worth noting, especially in the chronologic context of the next work for discussion, BWV 205. Ruth Tatlow, in the notes to the Gardiner [4] recording suggests:

<Problems in Leipzig went from bad to worse over the next few months [Trinity to Trinity 9].
[...] He had not written a cantata, for over eight weeks.>
By my calculation, it is exactly eight weeks missing, not over. You might expect a gemiatrist to get it right, but never mind.

<Recently he had heard of the death of a well-loved colleague, the Weimar court poet Salomo Franck. This in itself revived painful memories. Having been virtually banished from the Weimar court, Bach could not even return to pay last respects to his friend. As storm clouds gathered within and without, he turned to his copy of Franck's Evangelisches Andachts-Opfer. His eye fell on the perfect text: a cantata libretto for the Ninth Sunday after Trinity, enriched with dramatic expletives. Turning to a well-tried technique for speeding up the planning stages of his composition, he decided to give the four most complex movements 275 bars, apportioning exactly 50 bars and 150 bars to the first and third movements, respectively. To complete the work he wrote a short secco recitative and made a simple adaptation of a pre-existent chorale, written a year earlier for the Eleventh Sunday after Trinity, BWV 113, Mvt. 8.>
I pass this along with no opinion implied, on my part. Note the contrast with other conjecture, in recent posts and also cited by Woolf, that the existence of text booklets suggests the continuous composition of cantatas during those missing eight (exactly) weeks, despite the absence of any surviving music.

Also note, compositions since lost, for Trinity 1-8, would be consistent with 'well-tried technique for speeding up the planning stages of his composition'.

Planning? Who has time to plan. On the other hand, speeding up the planning leaves more time available for the writing. See you at BWV 205.

Peter Smaill wrote (July 10, 2007):
[To Ed Myskowski] Ed pulls out some very interesting observations from JEG's commentator Ruth Tatlow [4]. She certainly writes about gematria, being an expert on Smend, but is not a gematrist (if such a word exists) in that her writings have generally inclined to a healthy scepticism on number patterns and Bach.

Could this Cantata be a homage to the recently deceased Salomo Franck? Quite possibly; two of the Chorales for the 16th Sunday after Trinity are taken from deceased Leipzig predecessors, including the (disgraced) * Rosebmüller, so the idea of honouring Franck in this way - even with a Pietist text- is not improbable.

As to bar structures, Renate Steiger has observed that in BWV 5, "Wo soll ich fliehen", Bach makes the orchestral ritornello exactly double (52 bars) the choral section bar-length (26 bars). It may be recalled that this Cantata provided a lively discussion on Fibonacci and uniquely has a central Recitative of 13 lines.

Quite the significance of 275 bars, with 150 and 50 in Mvt 1 and 3 , the pattern in BWV 168, is elusive. However, in the case of BWV 5 -where the English translation by Stokes gives only on the surface weak textual cause for proportionality and numerology ("littlest" versus "infinity", for example), there is a clue in the last line of the Chorale. The German word "Gliedmass", which is translated as "member", is more literally "member-measure", referring to the incorporation of the believer in Christ. It is a sense difficult to convey in English.

The suggestion behind the gematric features of BWV 5 -which no doubt remain controversial-is thus IMO that they form an extended hermeneutic reference to man's proportion to God in a structured universe.

The wider point is that Bach premeditates bar numbers; the SJP (BWV 245) and BMM (BWV 232) having exactly (from memory) 2800 and 2500 bars, no more, no less.

* For Rosenmuller a (questionable ) source is: http://www.androphile.org/preview/Library/History/jsbach/bach.htm

Ed Myskowski wrote (July 10, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< The wider point is that Bach premeditates bar numbers; the SJP (BWV 245) and BMM (BWV 232) having exactly (from memory) 2800 and 2500 bars, no more, no less. >
From my limited experience with the wider point, it seems worthy of consideration. I have never personally counted the bars in any score, so I am relying on others. It does seem to go far beyond coincidence, whatever the interpretation may be.

Ed Myskowski wrote (July 10, 2007):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< The Rilling [1] is 'heroic' rather than 'solemn', although I can understand some may perceive his tempo to be too slow. Timings: Rilling 4.04 [1], Leusink 3.24 [3], Gardiner [4] and Koopman [5], my estimate c.3.04. >
Pretty good! Gardiner lists at 3:11 [4], Koopman at 3:03 [5]. Gardiner 'sounds' quicker to me, because of the rhythmic accents.

I had just written some more detailed comments, which sadly disappeared into the crash zone, before I finished. Sorry I don't have time at the moment to recreate them.

Thanks for your comments, which stimulated more careful listening.

Cantata BWV 168: Complete Recordings | Recordings of Individual Movements | Discussions

Back to the Top

Last update: ýJuly 11, 2007 ý13:27:43