Cantata BWV 17 - Discussions

Cantata BWV 17 Wer Dank opfert, der preiset mich Discussions
Discussions in the Week of September 21, 2003
Neil Halliday wrote (September 27, 2003): Speaking of BWV 17, this is the cantata chosen for discussion this week. It's a happy, tuneful, church cantata, on the subject of thanks and praise for God's gifts. I have the Richter [3] and Rilling [4] recordings. Title: "Wer Dank opfert, der preiset mich" Mvt. 1: Opening Chorus. (scoring - oboes, strings and continuo). This is an engaging and brilliant fugal movement, unusual for the length of time between the choral entries in the beginning (in the order TASB), and for the insistent syncopated-like emphasis on the 2nd beat of the bar, brought about by the entries of the choral lines on the 2nd beat of the bar, and long notes in the orchestral ritornellos also sounding on this beat (in the context of a triple time rhythm.) As already noted, Richter's recording [3] suffers from the use of an overly shrill organ registration accompanying the choral entries; the acoustic in the Herkulessaal in Munich (c. 1977) is too live with these large forces; and combined with a fast tempo (3:52), this results in an indistinct presentation of the parts. Rilling [4] gets it right: a relaxed (4:45), engaging performance, with clearly drawn instrumental and vocal lines. The choir is bubbling with joy on the long melismas. Mvt. 2: secco recitative (alto). Both Hamari with Richter [3], and Shreckenbach with Rilling [4], give a good account. Richter uses organ and cello, while Rilling uses harpsichord and cello, equally enjoyable to hear. Mvt. 3: soprano aria. Richter [3] uses the string section of his orchestra for this aria (scored for two violins and continuo), and he manages a bright rendition - helped by the adoption of a semi-staccato treatment of the violins' parts. Mathis is in fine form. Rilling [4] takes the chamber approach, with two violins playing legato. Augér is her usual inimitable self. Both versions, of this music of thanks for God's gifts, are highly enjoyable. Mvt. 4: secco recitative (tenor). Same remarks as for #2; Richter has Schreier [3], and Rilling [4] has Kraus). Mvt. 5: aria (tenor, with strings and continuo). Richter [3] gives a fine orchestral performance of this enchanting (Robertson's description) aria, with added interest engendered by a prominent bassoon in the continuo. Rilling's [4] chamber orchestra also gives a bright, pleasing performance. Both tenors are fine. Mvt. 6: secco recitative (bass). This movement is a good example of what all the fuss has been about, on this forum, for a long period of time. DFD, with Richter [3], brings phenomenal reverence and interest to this simple, even plain, vocal line, in combination with the organ and cello parts as presented here. (BTW, the BWV 594 example is unsatisfactory for this reason - there is nothing simple or plain about the fantasia-like passages in BWV 594). Rilling [4] also employs the organ with cello; and while perhaps not achieving the magic of DFD, Heldwein engages one's attention throughout, assisted by an excellent organ registration and continuo realisation. Mvt. 7: chorale. While Richter's large-scale presentation [3] is fine, I prefer the more modest proportions of Rilling's choir [4], for these chorale movements. The oboes can be heard in both of these excellent recordings.
Aryeh Oron wrote (September 27, 2003): BWV 17 - Introduction The chosen work for this week’s discussion (September 21, 2003) is the cantata ‘Wer Dank opfert, der preiset mich’ (Who gives thanks praises me) for the 14^th Sunday after Trinity. The librettist for this cantata is unknown. Neumann suggested Bach himself of Mariane von Ziegler, where Walther Blankenburg suggested Christoph Helm. The Gospel, Luke 17: 11-19 - Jesus heals the ten lepers in Samaria - is partly quoted but thoroughly reflected in the libretto. More on the text of this cantata can be read at Francis Browne’s English translation. See: Cantata BWV 17 - English Translation [Interlinear Format] Although it is not long, the cantata is in two parts, the sermon coming between them. The two arias are especially attractive in thought and musical setting. Very impressive is also the intense fugue of the opening chorus. Recordings The details of the recordings of the cantata can be found at the following page of the Bach Cantatas Website (BCW): Cantata BWV 17 - Recordings After the exhausted overflow of recordings of last week cantata, BWV 202, we have kind of relief with only 5 of cantata BWV 17. The additional recordings to the usual three - Harnoncourt (1972) [2], Rilling (1982) [4] and Leusink 1999 [5] - are: Hans Thamm (1961) [1] and Karl Richter (1976-1977) [3]. All these recordings are available in CD form. Unfortunately I shall be able to add music examples only at the beginning of October 2003. Additional Information In the page of recordings mentioned above you can also find links to useful complementary information: A. Original German text and various translations, three of which were contributed by members of the BCML: English (Francis Browne), French (Jean-Pierre Grivois), and Hebrew (Aryeh Oron). B Score in Vocal & Piano version and BGA Edition (unavailable until Oct. 2, 2003). C. Commentaries: in English by Simon Crouch (Listener’s Guide) & Craig Smith (Emmanuel Music), and in Spanish by Julio Sánchez Reyes (CantatasDeBach). I hope to see many of you participating in the discussion. Only 12 cantatas (3 sacred, 9 secular), including this one, remained to be discussed in the BCML!
Aryeh Oron wrote (September 29, 2003): BWV 17 - Background The commentary below, quoted from the liner notes to Thamm’s recording on Bayer [1] (originated from Cantate), was written by Alfred Dürr (English translation by Stanley Godman). Dürr wrote also the commentary on this cantata for Harnoncourt’s recording on Teldec [2]. This cantata is one of a series of works composed in 1726, the textual form of which has given rise to various conjectures. As the American Bach scholar W.H. Scheide has shown, it corresponds exactly to that which Bach's Meiningen cousin Johann Ludwig Bach used in his cantatas, or at any rate in those which Bach performed in Leipzig in 1726. It has not yet been discovered whether Bach's librettist was inspired by this form or whether both the cousins set texts by the same author. The characteristic form of these cantata texts is as follows: Quotation from the Old Testament Recitative Aria Quotation from the New Testament Aria Recitative Chorale Another typical feature are the often quite lengthy lines (frequently Alexandrians) especially in the recitatives. The subject-matter of this cantata is derived from the Gospel for the 14^th Sunday after Trinity, Luke 17: 11-19, which tells of the healing of the ten lepers only one of whom, a Samaritan, thaGod for his cure. The cantata emphasises man's indebtedness to God for His blessings. The first part speaks mainly of God's world-embracing goodness, whilst the second part deals with the Christian duty to thank God. But His blessings, the concluding recitative declares, are only images of the still richer treasures which await us in heaven. Various quotations from the Bible have been woven into the text. The introductory section derives from Psalm 50: 23. The words of the first recitative "Wenn ihre Ordnung als in Schnuren geht" are an allusion to Psalm 19: 4 (“Their line is gone out through all the earth"). The opening of the following aria is clearly based on Psalm 36: 5 ("Thy mercy, o Lord, is in the heavens; and Thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds"). The recitative which introduces the second part, Luke 17: 15-16, comes from the Gospel for the 14^th Sunday after Trinity, and the last recitative ("Fried, Gerechtigkeit und Freud in deinem Geist") - ("Peace, righteousness and joy in Thy spirit") is a paraphrase of Romans 14: 17 ("for the kingdom of God is not meat' and drink; but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost"). All these allusions reveal a profound student of the Bible, though, from the specifically Christian standpoint, his praises denote a rather loose interpretation of the first clause of the Creed. The music, however, bears the unmistakable and unique marks of genius which lift J.S. Bach's works out of the ruck of cheap, mass-produced articles turned out by his contemporaries (including Johann Ludwig Bach). The Sinfonia of 27 bars, which introduces the opening chorus already, has an impressively noble design. The main choral part of the number is divided into two similar sections, each of which again falls into two parts: A Choral fugue (a) Introductory Sinfonia (shortened) with choral insertion (b) A' Choral fugue (a') Introductory Sinfonia (shortened) with choral insertion (b) This thematically homogeneous construction and the uniform architectural planning of Bach's mature vocal works is the result of a purposeful development of the serial form which Bach took over from his predecessors and used himself in his early works, into a large-scale homogeneity of structure. A simple recitative leads into the following aria, the soprano part of which, with an accompaniment of two violins, forgoes the usual Da Capo repeat in view of the length of the text, and so the form is in three sections. It is delightful when the violins enter with the final ritornello before the soprano voice has finished, the aria being concluded with only a few instrumental bars. The cantata is divided into two parts, with the sermon in between. At the beginning of the second part another quotation from the Bible is heard, this time, however, in a simple, recitative-like setting. The succeeding tenor aria with full string accompaniment gives expression in lyrical vein to man's indebtedness to God; the words "Dank" and "Lob" being marked by extended coloraturas. Here again, for textual reasons, Bach forgoes a regular Da Capo repeat but he does introduce into the third part an appreciable echo of the first. Once again a simple recitative-arioso parts are entirely absent in this cantata - leads into the final chorale which for all its simplicity is a model of Bach's style, for example in the "autumnal" sounds which illustrate the words "der Wind nur drüber wehet" ("the wind only blows over it"). In this there is almost an anticipation of impressionist harmonies. Recordings & Timings Last week I have been listening to 5 complete recordings of Cantata BWV 17:
No	Conductor	Year	Mvt. 1	Mvt. 2	Mvt. 3	Mvt. 4	Mvt. 5	Mvt. 6	Mvt. 7	TT
[1]	Thamm	1961	4:52	1:20	3:51	0:51	4:15	1:21	1:43	18:13
[2]	Harnoncourt	1972	5:04	1:03	3:49	0:41	4:12	1:08	1:52	17:49
[3]	Richter	1976-7	3:52	1:16	3:20	1:07	3:30	1:42	1:50	16:37
[4]	Rilling	1982	4:45	1:10	3:31	0:56	3:36	1:30	1:52	19:00
[5]	Leusink	1999	4:12	1:03	3:19	0:44	3:30	1:13	2:02	16:03
Short Review of the Recordings As you can see from the table above, Thamm’s opening chorus [1] is not the longest, yet it is the most dignified and very well balanced, with clear singing by all four sections of the choir, so that the fugue can be easily followed. It has the needed intensity without being rushed. Richter [3], with similar approach, achieved less satisfactory results. The tempo he chose for the chorus is the faster of all five. I believe that it should reflect enthusiasm, but much is lost along the way, with many details unnoticed and hard to follow lines. A choral fugue should get a more * Rilling’s opening chorus [4] is full of joy, happiness and vividness. This is a legitimate interpretation of the text and the music, but I found that both Thamm and Richter reveal more dimensions of this chorus. Harnoncourt’s [2] tendency to break the flow of the lines is less evident here, probably because the recording of this cantata was done early in his joint cycle with Leonhardt. The Viennese choral forces sing with precision and clarity, even if next to most other choirs they sound restrained. The sense of urgency revealed by all other four renditions, Leusink [5] included, is almost missing here. This rendition calls for more boldness and vigour. Leusink’s opening chorus is livelier than Harnoncourt’s, more attractive and sweeping. Although there are some imperfections are easily recognisable they are not so important, because you want to sing with them. The Lord should be convinced by their enthusiasm. Emmy Lisken (with Thamm [1]) gives a fantastic performance of the recitative for alto, with beautiful dark voice, clean singing and commanding interpretation. The playing of organ that accompanies her is not varied, but this is only small reservation. The organ accompaniment in the recitative for alto is tasteful and Esswood delivery is satisfactory. Hamari (with Richter [3]) makes the recitative for alto am attractive piece to listen to. Schreckenbach (with Rilling [4]) has dark voice and natural authority, but the instability of her lines disturbs. Buwalda (with Leusink [5]) holds the simple lines quite satisfactory. Wehrung’s voice (with Thamm [1]) sounds somewhat strained in the upper part and her expression is not as emotionally loaded as Augér. Otherwise this is a quite listenable performance. Mathis’ interoperation falls short of Wehrung. Although she copes well with the technical demands of the aria, she does not give any meaningful substance to it. The anonymous boy, who sings the aria for soprano with Harnoncourt [2], has beautiful voice but pale expressivity. Augér (with Rilling [4]) raises the aria for soprano to a new level with her usual excellent and touching performance. She gives you something to which you want to listen over and over again. Holton gives impeccable performance in the aria for soprano, but I have found Holton’s boyish timbre (with Leusink [5]) not so suitable to the demands of the aria for soprano. On the other hand, it might very well be that my mind was already poisoned by Augér’s rendition. Jelden (with Thamm [1]) has a warm voice with unique softness, which makes it very attractive. His subdued expression also does not much to be desired, but it is not as heart-rending as Equiluz, for example, is. What I have missed in his interpretation is compensated by the entreating playing of the violins. Nothing is missing from Equiluz exemplary performance (with Harnoncourt [2]) of both the recitative and aria for tenor. You ask with him what else can you give in return that have not given yet. Every word gets extra meaning through his interpretation. Kraus (with Rilling [4]) gives both movements convincing interpretation as well, although he approaches them from a different point of view. His delivery is freer and bolder. Equiluz is the more introvert and Kraus the more extrovert. Schreier (with Richter [3]) gives his usual commanding performance. Personally, I prefer in this case the previous three tenors, because I feel that each one of them brings something unique to his rendition, where Schreier sounds somewhat more ordinary. This is not a criticism of his performance, just a personal feeling. Schoch (with Leusink [5]) has nothing to sell in this group of tenor singers. What can I write about Stämpfli’s rendition of the recitative for bass (with Thamm [1]) that I have not written before? Nothing really. Such a joy listening to a master-singer in his pick, singing a Bach recitative as few other singers can, making it a small masterpiece. Next to Stämpfli, DFD (with Richter [3]) seems trying (too much?) to give extra meaning to every syllable, instead of letting the music flow naturally and speak for itself. I hear moving sensitivity in Egmond’s singing of the recitative for bass, not always to be found in his renditions along H&L cycle. Heldwein (with Rilling [4]) is passable, but I find his interpretation of the recitative for bass as the least interesting of all five. Ramselaar is the most impressive of Leusink’s singers [5]. I was particularly taken by the naturalness of his singing. Conclusion** All five recordings of the cantata are satisfying in various ways, but I have found Thamm [1] as the one to which I would like to return. And now I would like to hear other opinions.
Peter Bloemendaal wrote (September 30, 2003): This cantata was written for the fourteenth Sunday after Trinity. A.D. 2003 that was September 21^st. The epistle reading is Galatians 5: 16-24 (The works of the flesh as opposed to the fruit of the Spirit). The gospel reading is St. Luke 17: 11-19 (The healing of ten lepers). Three cantatas for this Sunday have survived: “Es ist nichts Gesundes an meinem Leibe” – BWV 25, for 29 August 1723, “Jesu, der du meine Seele” – BWV 78, for 10 September 1724, and “Wer Dank opfert, der preiset mich” – BWV 17, for 22 September 1726. The main theme of BWV 25 is that every man, not only the ten lepers, is full of sins, such as lust, pride and greed. The only way man can be cured is through Jesus, the perfect physician. The impressive cantata BWV 78 is about the redemption of the human soul through Jesus’ bitter sacrifice. The theme of BWV 17 is already mentioned early in the cantata: Whosoever offers Jesus gratitude, honours God. The unknown librettist is obviously referring to the Samaritan, the only one of the ten healed lepers, who returns to Jesus to thank Him for being made whole again. In the Oxford Composer Companions J. S. Bach, there is an interesting entry on this work by Konrad Kster, professor of musicology of Freiburg University and a renowned Bach scholar, from which I adopt the following. Cantata BWV 17 is the last composition to result from Bach’s encounter with the church music from the ducal court of Saxe-Meiningen, where his distant cousin Johann Ludwig wrote some influential church cantatas, using a standardized text pattern devised by Duke Ernst Ludwig. Johann Sebastian performed 18 of his cantatas in 1726 and integrated some of their stylistic elements into his own cantata style. Following the typical pattern of these cantata texts, the work is shaped by two corresponding passages from the Bible, one from the Old Testament and one from the New. The text for the first movement is from Psalm 50:23; the fourth movement is based on the passage in St. Luke 17: 15, 16, which tells of the Samaritan who, alone among the ten lepers that Jesus cured, showed his gratitude. Unlike most of those in the other cantatas of this type, the opening movement (A major) is not multi-sectional, but rather, since the text is only a short one, it consists of a single, large chorale fugue. It is followed first by a short simple recitative for the alto, and then by a soprano aria with two solo violins, “Herr, deine Güte reicht so weit der Himmel ist”. Contrary tot the normal construction of these cantatas, the text of this movement is, strictly speaking, not based on “free poetry” but on another quotation from the Bible (Psalm 36:6): “Thy righteousness standeth like the strong mountains.” This verse serves for the first part of the aria, which then continues with a “free” strophe. The movement as a whole is given a tonal shape such as might be found in a Baroque concerto movement, with ritornellos in the tonic (E major), the dominant (B major), the relative minor (C# minor) and finally again in the tonic. With no. 4, “Einer aber unter ihnen”, the second part of the cantata (after the sermon) begins. The biblical text is cast as a simple recitative, not as an aria or arioso (as in all other Bach’s “Meiningen” cantatas except “Gott fähret auf mit Jauchzen”). The reason for this might be that the Gospel “Spruch” (the healing of the ten lepers) is not like the text for a sermon, but a plain biblical narrative which can be entrusted to an Evangelist, here as so often with Bach a tenor soloist. However, Bach cuts off the narrative when the Samaritan gives thanks to Jesus. The tenor aria that follows, “Welch Ubermass der Güte schenkst du mir”, is an individual reflection on what we should offer God in return for his abundance of goodness. Apparently, Bach understood this as a direct allusion to the gospel account of the thankful Samaritan, and the words of the aria might be those of the Samaritan himself and, in a wider sense, of anyone who will avow in solidarity “Ich bin ein Samaritaner”. After another simple bass recitative, the cantata ends with the third strophe of the hymn “Nun lob, mein Seel, den herren” by Johann Gramann (1530). When Bach wrote his four “short masses” in about 1738-9, he reused the opening chorus of “Wer Dank opfert” for the concluding “Cum Sancto Spiritu” of the Gloria in the G major “Missa” BWV 236, to which its fugal form is well-suited. He transposed the music down one tone and replaced the orchestral riternello with a homophonic vocal introduction. I listened to the recording by Holland Boys Choir and Netherlands Bach Collegium, conducted by Pieter Jan Leusink [5]. From the opening ritornello to the final chorale, I was quite pleased with their performance. The first chorus is sung with sound conviction and ardour. The melodic lines are clear and the orchestra play not bad at all, although they could do with a bit more colour at times. The soprano aria features Ruth Holton together with two concertante violins. All three of them lack some firm body in places, but nevertheless it is a pleasure listening to them, and moreover, they are throughout well-supported by an expressive basso continuo. Short or long notes in the recitatives, I can hardly tell the difference. Since this is a HIP recording, I guess these must be short notes in the BC. It has been said that recitatives become uninteresting that way. Not for me, that is. To me everything sounds musically right and well-balanced. The tenor aria is real bel canto, Knut Schoch at his best, eine herrliche Melodie and excellent singing to match. The cantata ends with the chorale “Wie sich ein Vater erbarmet”, a well-known melody of great beauty, a worthy conclusion of an apparent simple cantata that becomes more and more attractive the more frequently and intensely you listen to it.
Marie Jansen wrote (October 3, 2003): There are so many things to thank God for. Many of them are listed in cantata BWV 17. Why do I so often forget? Before the choir begins to sing in the opening there are small figures, like gestures of offering. After a while they become an unbroken stream of praise and gratitude building up to the first entrance. Richter [3] begins very enthusiatic, so swift that the opening nearly looses its dignity. The soprano aria flows gently along in Rillings version [4]. Richter's [3] is more distinct. The tenor recitativo reminds me of the passions. An evangelist appears. The leper kneels in gratitude in front of Jesus. Notice "Dankete" What a sound painting! Both Kraus (Rilling [4]) and Schreier (Richter [3]) do fine. I like both Rilling’s and Richter’s versions. Welch Übermaß der Güte Schenkst du mir! ...(BWV 17)
Aryeh Oron wrote (October 5, 2003): BWV 17 - Music Examples I have uploaded into the Bach Cantatas Website Music Examples (mp3 format) of the Opening Chorus (Mvt. 1) from 6 recordings of Cantata BWV 17. See: Cantata BWV 17 - Music Examples I would like to hear your opinions.
Arjen van Gijssel wrote (October 5, 2003): [To Aryeh Oron] Aryeh, thanks for your enormously rich set of new audio samples! The website is becoming more and more an unparallelled treasure. Nice to hear BWV 17! With the Laurenscantorij we have performed the G major mass BWV 236 two weeks ago. So, when hearing "wer Dank opfert" , I am constantly hearing "cum sancto spiritu" as well (I will upload a sample of it in due course). I listened to the samples of BWV 17. Harnoncourt [2] and Schweizer [M-2] have a strange pitch (going down), whereas I consider the choirs rather massive and intransparant. It may may have something to do with the quality of the samples. I am not a fan of Rilling [4], but he certainly did a good job (perhaps the best of all collected here). The choir is not as big as usual, they are not singing too vibrato and vibrantly as normally. You still hear Rilling's preference for vibrant high voltage notes in the strings, but this time it is digestable. Richter [3] is a little bit rough, both in tempo but also the choir is a bit too direct and raw for my taste. Thamm and his choir [1] did a good job, but I believe they are of another league than the Koopman, Suzuki, Herreweghe group etc.
Arjen van Gijssel wrote (October 5, 2003): BWV 236 + BWV 17 comparison; music example Aryeh uploaded a music example from the Mass in G major BWV 236 (Cum Sancto spiritu), which compares well with BWV 17 (Wer Dank opfert) which was the subject of discussion some weeks ago: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Mus/BWV233-242-Mus.htm The Laurenscantorij performed this Mass in the Grote of Sint-Laurenskerk, Rotterdam, the Netherlands on September 21^st, 2003. Furthermore, Aryeh has included some bios on the Laurenscantorij and its conductor Barend Schuurman: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Schuurman-Barend.htm http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Laurenscantorij.htm
Neil Halliday wrote (October 6, 2003): [To Arjen van Gijssel] On hearing the Laurenscantorij "Cum Sancto spiritu" from BWV 236, I was struck by the similarity of the sound to that of the Suzuki recording (acoustic and all!) (vol. 15) of the opening chorus of BWV 40 (Darzu ist erschienen der Sohn Gottes), a cantata composed in 1723. The liner notes say Bach parodied this "splendid piece" in the late 30's in the Mass in F, BWV 233, and here you have it again in the Mass in G, BWV 236! (One can understand Bach's reuse of material in this fashion; in a age before radio or recordings, very few people would have heard, even once, the endless pages of glorious music which he composed). Concerning the BWV 17 examples, I like the Harnoncourt [2], which is a pleasantly relaxed performance, better than the somewhat 'harsh' and rushed Richter performance [3]; and though the parody is not strictly comparable, I liked the Laurenscantorij performance better than Leusink [5] and Schweizer [M-2], because the characteristic swelling on the long notes on sharp-timbred (not pitch) period violins (and oboes!) - an effect which I would characterise as "fastidious elegance" - is not overly evident or distracting, as is the case with the latter two (Schweizwer is the worst in this regard). The Leusink recording is pleasant enough when the choir starts up. My ranking of the actual BWV 17 recordings: Rilling [4], Thamm [1] and Harnoncourt [2], Leusink [5], Richter [3], Schweizer [M-2]. BTW, the Stuttgart players recordings on this same page: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Mus/BWV233-242-Mus.htm are well worth hearing; in particular, I like the alto voice of Lotte Wolf-Matthaus.
Alex Riedlmayer wrote (October 6, 2003): < Neil Halliday wrote: On hearing the Laurenscantorij "Cum Sancto spiritu" from BWV 236, I was struck by the similarity of the sound to that of the Suzuki recording (acoustic and all!) (vol. 15) of the opening chorus of BWV 40 (Darzu ist erschienen der Sohn Gottes), a cantata composed in 1723. The liner notes say Bach parodied this "splendid piece" in the late 30's in the Mass in F, BWV 233, and here you have it again in the Mass in G, BWV 236! > I think you're confused because you weren't listening to BWV 236 - the link to that sample is broken.
Neil Halliday wrote (October 6, 2003): [To Alex Riedlmayer] Thanks Alex, you are correct. (I looked at the subject heading, but not the numbers alongside the examples.) Here is an even more BCJ sound-alike group, in the original of the BWV 233 movement ie, BWV 40, with Schütz: Cantata BWV 40 - Music Examples

Discussions in the Week of December 9, 2007
Douglas Cowling wrote (December 10, 2007): *Week of Dec 9, 2007: Cantata BWV 17, ³Wer Dank opfert, der preiset mich²* Week of Dec 9, 2007: Cantata BWV 17, ³Wer Dank opfert, der preiset mich² 14^th Sunday after Trinity 1^st performance: September 22, 1726 Leipzig Libretto: Psalm 50: 23 (Mvt. 1); Luke 17: 15-16 (Mvt. 4); Johann Gramann (Mvt. 7); http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lib/Gramann.htm Anon (Mvt. 2, Mvt. 3, Mvt. 5, Mvt. 6) [Walther Blankenburg suggested Christoph Helm] http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lib/Helm.htm Texts & Translations: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV17.htm Readings: Epistle Galatians 5: 16-24; Gospel: Luke 17: 11-19 Texts of readings: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Read/Trinity14.htm Other Cantatas written for Trinity 14 BWV 25 Es ist nicht Gesundes an meinem Leibe (Leipzig, 1723) BWV 78 Jesu, der du meine Seele (Leipzig, 1724) Introduction to Lutheran Church Year: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lutheran.htm Movements: Mvt. 1: Chorus ³Wer Dank opfert, der preiset mich² Instruments: 2 Ob, 2 Vn, Va, Bc Mvt. 2: Recitative - Alto ³Es muss die ganze Welt ein stummer Zeuge werden² Instruments: Bc Mvt. 3: Aria - Soprano ³Herr, deine Güte reicht, so weit der Himmel ist,² Instruments: 2 Vn, Bc Mvt. 4: Recitative - Tenor ³Einer aber unter ihnen, da er sahe, dass er gesund worden war² Instruments: Bc Mvt. 5: Aria Tenor ³Welch Übermaß der Güte² Instruments: 2 Vn, Va, Bc Mvt. 6: Recitative - Bass ³Sieh meinen Willen an, ich kenne, was ich bin² Intrumentents: Bc Mvt. 7: Chorale ³Wie sich ein Vatr erbarmet² Instruments: 2 Ob, 2 Vn, Va, Bc Piano Vocal Score: (free PDF download): http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV17.htm Recordings: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV17.htm#RC Music (free streaming download): http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Mus/BWV17-Mus.htm Commentaries: Crouch: http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/works/bachjs/cantatas/017.html AMG:http://wc10.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=42:4063~T1 Emmanuel: http://www.emmanuelmusic.org/notes_trans/notes_cantata/bwv017.htm Previous Discussions: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV17-D.htm
Julian Mincham wrote (December 10, 2007): [To Douglas Cowling] Just as a personal view I find this one of the least interesting of Bach's cantatas and would be interested to hear what others think of it. It certainly does not come up to either of its predecessors for this day, BWV 25 and BWV 78--mind you, BWV 78 tends to stand out as one of the greatest of the canon anyway. A rare event I find in Bach's music, but to me the relentless repitition of the semi-quaver figure first heard in bar 1 of the fantasia becomes quite tedious after a while. Still I guess even Bach was allowed the occasional off day--there weren't that many of them. It's interesting that this same figure was used for the prelude in Eb of WTC book 1---and if that's not enough it crops up a few times in the sop aria of this cantata too! You can't say that Bach didn't get his full money's worth out of his ideas!
Peter Smaill wrote (December 10, 2007): [To Douglas Cowling] BWV 17 , for the Fourteenth Sunday after Trinity, is as different as can be imagined from the intensely mystical Passion meditation, BWV 78, for the same Sunday of the church year. However, there is one tiny detail that links them, possibly a pure coincidence and in the hotly disputed area of numerology. Just as as the chorus of BWV 78/1 has 27 entries of the main subject, so the introductory sinfonia within BWV 17/1 has 27 bars. Before anyone scoffs at this observation, there is the matter of Ulrich Siegele's essay, "Some Observations on the Formal Design", in which his analysis of the B minor Mass identifies that the entire work can be deconstructed into building blocks of 27 bars, albeit with some marginal tinkering. 14 (BACH)+27=41 (J S BACH), but there may be other hermeneutic angles on this. I have no view but if others find 27 cropping up elsewhere.....? Meanwhile the controversy over the authorship of the text per Blankenburg is taken up by Konrad Kuester, who suggests that the author of this (and the six others) may in fact be Duke Ernst Ludwig of Saxe-Meiningen.
Jean Laaninen wrote (December 10, 2007): [To Douglas Cowling] I found the chorale (Mvt. 7) of this cantata quite appealing. For the first time (since I'd had dental work last week and was not moving quite as fast) I took time to listen to all of the music examples. I ended up liking Rilling's [4] best as to the opening number (Mvt. 1)...richer and smoother. I found the soprano aria (Mvt. 3) appealing, and it might be something I'd like to learn one of these days. I also took time to read all of the past discussions and Dürr, and Schweitzer's comments (limited). During the last week, as previously mentioned in communication with Julian, I found all three volumes of Spitta at an amazing price...only twenty dollars for all three purchased separately from the Dover catalogue. http://www.fldstone.com/PQ_MUBBC.HTM A Christmas gift funded the purchase, along with a PD score of the Italian Concerto which I might now record for my web site. Dover, incidentally via my communication with their copyright department does not restrict uses of their fascimilie scores...the fascimilies are copyright free. I was glad to get a note from them on this matter and while they are not lawyers to learn that their position is that they believe all of their scores are clearly in the public domain in the US. It can be a real challenge to find the right copies, but with the information in writing from Dover (and they have gone unchallenged on this matter publicly) their scores offer a good opening for someone looking to record. The National Library of Australia also grants permission on PD materials and asks for a citation if you use their digitized materials on your own siteon the web, as do various other libraries and other web score sources. Again, these sources cannot replace legal representation in regard to PD material, but some Bach materials are available on the Werner Icking site: http://icking-music-archive.org/index.php In the case of my French music one of the arrangers on that site also places no restriction on what may be recorded. This is a little deviation from the topic of the week, but once I am writing I wanted to mention these sites for anyone who might also find them useful.
Julian Mincham wrote (December 10, 2007): [To Peter Smaill] Peter had a quick look through the score but can't find anything further relevant. However I do have a bit of a problem with this in that the opening instrumental section of 17 is actually 28 bars long--musically it finished at the 28^th bar where it cadences over the bar line????
Peter Smaill wrote (December 11, 2007): [To Julian Mincham] BWV 17 sinfonia (Mvt. 1); is it of numersignificance? ! Well it is Dürr who says,there are 27 bars! I shall skip to the score and see if this normally punctilious writer has erred!
Peter Smaill wrote (December 11, 2007): Both Julian Mincham and Alfred Dürr are sort of right: there are 27 full bars plus one note! Not a full 28 bars but strictly, not 27 either.
Julian Mincham wrote (December 11, 2007): [To Peter Smaill] well I'm happy to be mentioned in such illustrious company. But musically i would maintain that the section has to be counted to its logical musical end--which is where the main cadence of the section is completed---that is the first beat of the 28^th bar rather than the last beat of the 27^th.
Jean Laaninen wrote (December 11, 2007): [To Julian Mincham] This is entertaining and a bit amusing, Julian, but what I want to know is if the cadence chord is part of the decontruction issue? Is it included in the significant material that constitutes the rest of the work? Just having a little fun here, and actually I believe that a section should include the cadence if one is to call it a section.
Julian Mincham wrote (December 11, 2007): [To Jean Laaninen] I wouldn't think of it as a deconstruction issue but a matter of musicalcommon sense. Cadences complete sections with differing degrees of finality depending upon which cadence is used. I suggest an exercise. Play a CD of 17/1 and turn down the volume (very quickly!) just before the first chord of bar 28 sounds. What is the effect? Does it sound as if the section is musically complete? or does it sound like it's been rudely interrupted. Now repeat the process and turn it down after the first chord of bar 28 just before the voice enters. What is the effect now? QED--I trust!
Jean Laaninen wrote (December 11, 2007): [To Julian Mincham] Yes, of course I would agree without doing the exercise that the smusical entence is incomplete. And the reiteration of a key would be implicit, certainly. So perhaps you have one up on Deurr, here. But just for the fun of it, suppose this was a false cadence...then you'd have some kind of musical fiction or musical friction. In terms of the issue there are 27 complete meausres, and a partial measure, or the equivalent of 28 measures, and for formal writing saying twenty-eight measures would without a doubt be best. If I were editing and checking the score as I've done sometimes I'd go for the twenty-eight measures. But if you had a false cadence that didn't have anything to do with the rest of a deconstruction you might choose to say twenty-seven. So a little tongue in cheek, that's why I asked.
Julian Mincham wrote (December 11, 2007): [To Jean Laaninen] What do you mean by a 'false cadence'? The bass line drives right up to the final two chords of the section V-1 and makes the whole musical statement most explicit it seems to me??---so what could be 'false' about it?
Neil Halliday wrote (December 11, 2007): Julian Mincham wrote: >the relentless repetition of the semi-quaver figure first heard in bar 1 of the fantasia becomes quite tedious after a while.< I do not experience this, but I'm wondering if either picturing the orchestra in one's mind (or actually seeing it play) may help: notice that the 1^st chair instruments (1st violins doubled by 1st oboe) take turns with the 2nd chair instruments (2^nd violins doubled by 2nd oboe) in playing this figure in the ritornello - all in the context of the lively, syncopated rhythm. In any case, this figure does not actually appear in either the subject or countersubject of the following vocal fugue; even in the subject the figure is inverted (and missing the 1^st 1/16^th note). It's worth recognizing the subject and countersubject of the fugue. Apart from the first entries in the two fugal expositions (naturally), the subject is always accompanied by the countersubject in the voice in which the subject was previously heard; and subject and counter- subject are always heard with the same text - subject with "Who thanks offers, he praises me" and counter-subject with "and this is the way, that I show him the healing of God" - resulting in the simultaneous setting of different parts of the text. Notice the long notes in the countersubject - minim plus a quaver for "show" ("zeige") and consecutive minims for "healing" ("Heil") and "of God" (Gottes"), resulting in an interesting rhythmic interplay with the subject. There is plenty of other material in the counterpoint to listen to as well. [The order of the subject entries in the two fugal expositions is: TASB;BTAS, with some entries intersperesed with bridge passages of varying length]. The two arias are tuneful, bright and cheerful, and with the four main movements all being in major keys (A, E, D, A) the whole cantata creates a happy mood. I notice Jean listened to all the samples available at the BCW, and like me chose Rilling's [4] BWV 17/1 (Mvt. 1) as one of the most appealing. Koopman [7] (short sample), released since the last discussions, also sounds fine in the opening movement. (I found Koopman's varying dynamics (HIP-style) on the two violins, in the soprano aria, rendered these instruments difficult to follow, at least in the internet sample on this computer).
Julian Mincham wrote (December 11, 2007): Neil Halliday wrote: < In any case, this figure does not actually appear in either the subject or countersubject of the following vocal fugue; even in the subject the figure is inverted (and missing the 1^st 1/16^th note). > True enough. I didn't make clear that it's the constant repitition of this figure in the 28 (27??) bar ritornello that I find rather tedious. Once the voices enter it's a different story?
Jean Laaninen wrote (December 11, 2007): Julian Mincham wrote: < What do you mean by a 'false cadence'? The bass line drives right up to the final two chords of the section V-1 and makes the whole musical statement most explicit it seems to me??---so what could be 'false' about it? > I wasn't specifically referring to this example when I said false cadence. A false cadence might be a case where there was no resolution...one is left hanging. I think I was trying to be funny, but what I really meant was that maybe Deurr said 27 measures because the chord in 28 was already in the measures he had mentioned and he didn't think he needed to incorporate it in his thought for the article, again. Because I have helped students I always kind of like to explore the varieties of ways a writer may think about something to in the end get the highest amount of clarity for the particular case.
Julian Mincham wrote (December 11, 2007): [To Jean Laaninen] Is there a trans-Atlantic terminology confusion here? Do you use the term 'false cadence' to mean the same as what I would call an 'imperfect cadence?' As you say this doesn't apply in our example of Cantata BWV 17 where the cadence is clearly perfect. I'm just trying to clarify in principle if you use the term 'false' to desribe a cadence pausing on chord 5?
Jean Laaninen wrote (December 11, 2007): [To Julian Mincham] Hummm, Julian. Well, incomplete or imperfect would work just as well. I was just speaking generally about what a writer might do 'if' a cadence was not relevant to the preceding material. However, if the cadence is perfect then it fits perfectlty with the preceding material and saying 28 measures probably makes more sense. The cold and damp weather here the last few days has me drifting a bit...when the weather front lifts the mental fog may also, and perhaps everything will become crystal clear. I was just trying to think of a reason why Dürr might not have miscounted...may he just wasn't concerned with measure 28. But then again, maybe he just made a mistake. Perhaps this instance is something you might want to email to his publisher. Maybe they will want to make a change in the next edition.
Alain Bruguieres wrote (December 11, 2007): Neil Halliday wrote: << In any case, this figure does not actually appear in either the subject or countersubject of the following vocal fugue; even in the subject the figuis inverted (and missing the 1^st 1/16^th note). >> Julian Mincham wrote: < True enough. I didn't make clear that it's the constant repitition of this figure in the 28 (27??) bar ritornello that I find rather tedious. Once the voices enter it's a different story? > I think I see what you mean. However I don't perceive things exactly that way. To me the opening instrumental section of 17-1 is not exactly a 'ritornello'. What is a ritornello now? We had long discussions about that some time ago and I'm not trying to go into niceties of vocabulary... I just mean that usually, in opening chorales, the instrumental intro has certain characteristics which I don't find here. One of these usual characteristics it that it occurs as an intro, but also provides material for filling the gaps between the chorale blocks; it also often provides material for the accompanying stuff during the chorale blocks both in the instrumental parts and (as often as not) in the lower vocal parts, and last but not least, it occurs also as a conclusive instrumental section (hence, probably, the term 'ritornello'). We agreed that one could use the term ritornello for the instrumental intro even if it did not share those characteristics, so I don't mind using the term here - still most ritornelloes share another characteristic which is hard to describe for me... They are thematically rich; they introduce melodic lines which are highly characterized, rich in affect, dazzling... anything but neutral. They prepare us for what comes next. Maybe the gorgeousness of ritornellos is meant to compensate for the comparative sobriety of chorale melodies. Here to me the instrumental intro sounds 'neutral', very much like certain preludes in the WTC which rely on one single rythmic pattern with a moderate amount of variation towards the end. This creates high expectations. Then comes the vocal fugue, with its very long and striking theme. To me the whole thing sounds very satisfactory. If the 'prelude' had been more eventful, the expectation would have been lower, and the impact of the exposition of the fugue theme, somewhat lessened. That's just how I feel it...
Julian Mincham wrote (December 12, 2007): [To Alain Bruguières] Yes I agree the term 'ritornello' has become somewhat problematic in that, particularly in some of these 3^rd cycle cantata choruses Bach tends to use them as the way of introducing all of the basic material without blocks of it being it being repeated between the vocal sections. He seem to be integrating his vocal and instrumental material much more in a number of these works. So if the 'ritornello' doesn't return, should one call it a 'ritornello'? In fact the material usually does return but not in easily identifiable blocks (as in typical Italian concerto movements), but with the motives reformed and continuously developed and extended. But if we don't call it 'ritornello' what do we call it? 'Prelude' and 'introduction' give out the wrong messages. I'm not happy with 'interlude' or 'episode' either because all these terms imply different meanings elsewhere. For myself 'ritornello' is as good a term in that it implies an intrumental tutti section introducing the key musical ideas--it is just that Bach uses it in a more integrated and less instrumentally wholistic manner in some of these works. Re BWV 17 I agree about the sense of expectation and the WTC feel--probably because of the connections with the Eb prelude. But I still find it more tedious than I find most Bach. Perhaps we shall just have to agree to differ on this one! For me it's a cantata i could live without.
Stephen Benson wrote (December 12, 2007): Julian Mincham wrote: < So if the 'ritornello' doesn't return, should one call it a 'ritornello'? In fact the material usually does return but not in easily identifiable blocks (as in typical Italian concerto movements), but with the motives reformed and continuously developed and extended. > A marvelous example of this occurs in the "Et in unum Dominum" of the B-minor Mass (BWV 232). The immediate presentation of the ritornello is perfectly proportioned — 4 bars antecedent; 4 bars consequent. Subsequent appearances of the ritornello begin exactly the same way, but each ventures into original territory. One of my favorite "touches" in all of Bach occurs when that ritornello material reappears for the first time, an incarnation which technically is not a ritornello at all. Six bars after the entry of the soprano and alto, reconstructed material from the ritornello makes an unexpected appearance marked piano as background to the duet. One of the things that continually impresses me about Bach is that he can continually see both the forest AND the trees!
Douglas Cowling wrote (December 12, 2007): Ritornello [To Stephen Benson] Perhaps I:m just stuck in the 17^th century, but I would prefer to keep the term "ritornello" with its original meaning of "the little guy who returns." There are plenty examples in Bach's works of a more conventional "ritornello". The recurring interlude in the opening chorus of BWV 78, "Jesu der du meine Seele" is probably the best example of a strict use of the term. One of the problems that we face is that there really isn't a consistent vocablary of structural terms for Baroque music, the way there is for 18^th-19^th century symphonic sonata forms.
Ed Myskowski wrote (December 12, 2007): BWV 17 I could not help but notice, in Peter Smaill's connection to BMM (BWV 232), that: (1) the cells of 27 bars are Trinity cubed (third power). (2) some marginal tinkering is required to make the fit.
Julian Mincham wrote (December 12, 2007): [To Douglas Cowling] I agree about the limitations of the vocabulary. But if one uses the term 'ritornello' in the limited C17 sense that's fine for describing what Monteverdi did at the beginning of Orfeo, it even describes pretty accurately the principles of a lot of Italian concerti by Vivaldi etc. The problem is that Bach took the principle and extended and adapted it so widely (even fusing it with other forms such as fugue, binary and ternary )as almost to invent new formal strucures. The complexity begins to bely description--and yet the genesis is so often still that of the ritornello principle. Look for example at Brandenburg 2/1--where the rit is designed to be split up into 2 bar segments and used accordingly, or Brandenburg 4/3 a combination with fugue. Or the double concerto 1^st movement where the rit theme is 'returned' with complete integrity after its use as the basis for a fugato exposition. Bach redesigned the principle almost as often as he used it---but the ancestry still exits within the various permutations. It just creates endless problems for the teachers and commentators.
Peter Smaill wrote (December 12, 2007): [To Ed Myskowski] Thanks Ed. Also of interest is the Clavieruebung III, the German Organ mass, which is deeply infused with Trinitarian significance (per Yo Tomita). It has long been a puzzle why four duets were added , some seeing the evangelists represented. This does raise the number of pieces to...27.
Neil Halliday wrote (December 12, 2007): Ritornello of BWV 17/1 (Mvt. 1) [Let's use Robertson's definition of ritornello, for the purposes of discussing Bach's cantatas - "The recurrence of an instrumental introduction to choral or (vocal) solo numbers, coming between lines (of text) or complete verses. The term is sometimes applied to the introductory (instrumetal) matter itself"]. [I have added the words in brackets for emphasis]. Bach has employed a method for composing the 'coda' of 17/1 (Mvt. 1), by taking part of the introductory ritornello and simply superimposing the four vocal lines over it. [We have seen this recently in other opening movements]. It can be seen that bars 1-7 and 20-27 (plus the first beat in bar 28) of the introductory ritornello of 17/1 (Mvt. 1) are reproduced in the the 'coda' (ie, the last 15 bars of the movement, namely those immediately follow the final statement of the fugue subject in the sopranos) with new vocal material superimposed. (The first beat in bar 7 of the introductory ritornello is neatly joined into the 2^nd beat of bar 20 of the introductory ritornello, in the composition of the 15 bars of the 'coda'). In fact the voices virtually simply double the instrumental parts in the final 8 bars. It's an effective device for rounding off the movement while relating it to the beginning.
Julian Mincham wrote (December 12, 2007): [To Neil Halliday] Thanks Neil.? One point is that Bach often (not always) reprises the initial instrumental section by having a few (sometimes very few) bars of it between choral sections and again at the end where part or most of it is combined with the continuing choral writing. Thus, although the section does not conform to the 'ritornello of Doug's description, it does return and as I said before has its roots in the Cantata BWV 17 models but goes far beyond them. In that sense, in my teaching and writing i still tend to use the term 'ritornello' albeit with a modified meaning.??
Neil Halliday wrote (December 13, 2007): Neil Halliday wrote: >It can be seen that bars 1-7 and 20-27 (plus the first beat in bar 28) of the introductory ritornello of 17/1 (Mvt. 1) are reproduced in the the 'coda' (ie, the last 15 bars of the movement,< and also, of course, at the end of the 1^st fugal exposition, bars 57-71, in the dominant (E major). In both cases the voices merely double the instruments in the last 7 of the 15 bars under consideration, while the first 7 bars have a variation in the continuo. So, the 1^st and last quarters of the opening ritornello (Bars 1-7 and 20-27) are used as the basis for the concluding sections of each of the fugal expostions. [I'm wondering if Bach would have pleased Julian, if the opening ritornello itself was shortened to the 15 bars subsequently employed as the basis of the two choral sections noted above :-)].
Neil Halliday wrote (December 13, 2007): The opening ritornello of BWV 17: Is it too long? It's structure is as follows: bars 1-10 in A major, with the modulation to E major confirmed in the 10^th bar; the E major repeat of this material in bars 11-20, with a modulation to D major confirmed in bar 20; then back to A major over the course of bars 21-28. (BTW, this is the order of the keys of the non-recitative movements of the cantata). Is it the E major repeat (in bars 11-20) of the material in the first 10 bars that results in "tedium" for at least one list member? Does recognising that bars 11-20 are merely a repeat of bars 1-10 (in a different key) aid in overcoming any perceived tedium?
Julian Mincham wrote (December 13, 2007): Cantata BWV 17 Neil Halliday wrote: < I'm wondering if Bach would have pleased Julian, if the opening ritornello itself was shortened to the 15 bars subsequently employed as the basis of the two choral sections noted above :-)]. > Hi?? Your message appropriately clipped! I like your understatement--as I said it's very rarely that I find Bach tedious--I can only think of a couple of examples off hand, another being the overlong fugue from the Cm toccata--it seems to go on for ever.? But, as also said, everyone's allowed an occasional off day. As for C 17 I just find the constant repetition of the semiquaver figure becomes predictable after a while--I think he used this identical idea more effectively?in the Bk 1 Eb prelude. But I don't have to listen to this particular cantata--there's plenty of others to choose from. I'm looking in detail at the remains of the 4th cycle at the moment?(according to Wolff)--some interesting stuff there.??
Terejia wrote (December 13, 2007): Neil Halliday wrote: < It's structure is as follows: bars 1-10 in A major, with the modulation to E major confirmed in the 10th bar; the E major repeat of this material in bars 11-20, with a modulation to D major confirmed in bar 20; then back to A major over the course of bars 21-28. > I just took a look at scores section of this, as I have no recordings of the piece to my hand. My own speculation is that it may be 3 1/16 ascending followed by 4 1/16 descending notes as one phrase(sorry for my poor English expression...) that may give repetitious impression. I find it very interesting that bass continuo part doesn't seem to have this phrase of 7 1/16th notes.(I hope I can get my point accross???) Again, since I'm writing this only by looking at piano score on the web in files section of this group, I'm not sure if my perception is correct at all. (snipped) On another subject relating to this, I suppose this chorale is used in one of the mass-brevis as "cum sanctus spiritu", if my memory is correct.
Neil Halliday wrote (December 14, 2007): Terejia wrote: > I just took a look at scores section of this, as I have no recordings of the piece to my hand.< You can listen to most of the ritornello with Harnoncourt's [2] amazon sample: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV17.htm <My own speculation is that it may be 3 1/16 ascending followed by 4 1/16 descending notes as one phrase(sorry for my poor English expression...) that may give repetitious impression.> Yes, this "WTC 1 Eb fugue figure" ("3 1/16 ascending followed by 4 1/16 descending notes") occurs in every one of the 1st 20 bars - obviously repetitious, whether as one phrase or otherwise. <I find it very interesting that bass continuo part doesn't seem to havethis phrase of 7 1/16^th notes.(I hope I can get my point accross???)> That's Bach's choice; often a figure such as this will occur in the continuo, but here he confines the figure to the upper instruments. Of course, a "repetitious impression", or worse, tedium (caused by the figure's occurence in every bar up to bar 20) will largely result from personal taste, subjective factors including mood, and performance, etc.
Bradley Lehman wrote (December 14, 2007): I concur with those who have suggested that cantata BWV 17 is sub-par. Bach set such a high par, and some of his work (by definition of the word "average") has to be below average. This cantata 17 is just, to me, pretty dull compared with so many of his others that I like better.
Terejia wrote (December 15, 2007): Belated thanks for the comment Neil Halliday wrote: < You can listen to most of the ritornello with Harnoncourt's amazon sample: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV17.htm > Oh, thank you for the link!!! I didn't know such a link and I enjoyed listening to the intro part. < Yes, this "WTC 1 Eb fugue figure" ("3 1/16 ascending followed by 4 1/16 descending notes") occurs in every one of the 1st 20 bars - obviously repetitious, whether as one phrase or otherwise. > It's strange...when I listend to that WTC piece, I don't find it to be repetitious. Maybe in cantata BWV 17 other parts than that particular figure are actively moving whereas in WTC Eb other parts are rather quiet and that particular figure stands out? conspicuously? < That's Bach's choice; often a figure such as this will occur in the continuo, but here he confines the figure to the upper instruments. > Indeed here in this particular chorale continuo seems to have special role. < Of course, a "repetitious impression", or worse, tedium (caused by the figure's occurence in every bar up to bar 20) will largely result from personal taste, subjective factors including mood, and performance, etc. > Yes, I concur with this. It's upon many personal factors both on the side of performers and audience.
Neil Halliday wrote (December 15, 2007): Terejia wrote: >Oh, thank you for the link!!! I didn't know such a link and I enjoyed listening to the intro part< A pleasure. (I'm sorry some people aren't aware of the sound samples). >It's strange...when I listened to that WTC piece, I don't find it to be repetitious.< Undoubtably we are all agreed the WTC piece is a masterpiece and endlessly fascinating, definitely not tedious despite the repetition of that figure (BTW, I mistakenly rto it as a fugue but I just remembered it's actually the prelude - that rich 4-voice polyphony threw me off). As for the rest of BWV 17/1 ((Mvt. 1)) (which was later, as you say, parodied by Bach in one of the short Lutheran Masses BWV 236), among other things I love the combination of the subject with the countersubject, regarding both the melodic and rhythmic interaction.
Ed Myskowski wrote (December 20, 2007): BWV 17 recordings I enjoyed the spirited discussion as to whether BWV 17 represents Bach the mature craftsman, or Bach anticipating minimalism (late 20^th C.) Or both. The Gardiner [6] and Kuijken recordings are new since the first round of discussions. Both add subtleties to the already extensive variety in earlier recordings. Gardiner [6] chooses to emphasize the extended final chorale by doing it softly and a cappella, the music spreading like a delicate scent through the vaulted abbey. The contrast with the the preceding sections could not be more extreme. Where does this fall, or stand, on the scale of authentic performance? The continuo line from the score is treated as optional. The choir does make a heavenly (presumably?) sound, a fine distinction to the earthly witness to God's creativity expressed earlier, especially in the A rec. of Mvt. 2. But if it is all God's realm, why the distinction? Which leads to the difference in Kuijken's approach [9], as I hear it - a seamless entirety, emphasized by the OVPP texture. I called the recorded sound edgy on first impression. After additional listening and thought, I would choose well-defined as a better description, without any unnecessary negative implication. Probably not to everyone's taste, but certainly worth sampling if you have that option, and perhaps supporting by purchase if you find that in your heart and pocketbook. Incidentally, Kuijken [9] in his notes points out the possible significance of 27 bars (3x3x3!), at the opening of BWV 17/1 (Mvt. 1). This is prior to my independent observation of the same point. I relinquish all rights. The opening chorus (Mvt. 1) of BWV 17, and the following week's BWV 19, make it difficult for me to embrace the idea that so many of the adjacent works without chorus were mainly a practical, rather than esthetic, consideration for Bach. That is, that the practical consideration was that the boys simply could not handle the work.

Cantata BWV 17: Complete Recordings | Recordings of Individual Movements | Discussions

Back to the Top

Last update: ýFebruary 28, 2008 ý08:04:06