Cantata BWV 183 - Discussions

Cantata BWV 183
Sie werden euch in den Bann tun [II]
Discussions

Discussions in the Week of May 12, 2002

Aryeh Oron wrote (May 18, 2002):
Introduction

The subject of this week’s discussion (May 12, 2002), according to Francis Browne’s suggested list (of which this cantata is the first), is the Solo Cantata for Exaudi (Sunday after Ascension, 6^th Sunday after Easter) BWV 183 ‘Sie werden euch in den Bann tun’. We have another fine libretto from the pen of poetess Christiane Mariane von Ziegler, who wrote the libretto also for Cantatas BWV 103 & BWV 128, discussed in the BCML during last weeks. Like Cantata BWV 44 (which was discussed in the BCML two years ago) for the same day, it takes its text for the opening movement from the Gospel for the day, John 16: 2, but this time for a bass recitative (Mvt. 1) instead of a choral duet. All the movements reflect on the persecution, which the disciples and their followers will have to undergo, according to Christ’s prophetic words. As for Cantata BWV 128, Bach emended the libretto and also used unusual combination of four oboes (2 oboes d’amore and 2 oboes da caccia) for his instrumental setting, which he never did again in ant of his other sacred cantatas.

In order to allow the members of the BCML being prepared for the discussion, I compiled a list of the recordings of this cantata, the details of which can be found in the following page of the Bach Cantatas Website: Cantata BWV 183 - Recordings
You can see that there are only four complete recordings of this cantata and none of individual movement from it. Besides the usual Rilling, Harnoncourt and Leusink, we have a special one from the lovely mini-series of Coin, dedicated to cantatas that feature violoncello piccolo.

I hope to see many of you participating in the discussion. In most of the discussions during the last couple of weeks the participation of other members has been rather slim. Where are you all?

Background

The background below is taken completely from the liner notes to the CD ‘Cantatas BWV 85, 183, 199, 175’ with Christophe Coin – Violoncello Piccolo & Direction.

See: Cantata BWV 183 - Commentary

Review of the Recordings

[1] Rilling (1981)
I do not recall Walter Heldwein so frightening as he is in the opening recitative. He conveys so much meaning in very few words. Peter Schreier gives as usual an exemplary and fascinating rendition of the ensuing aria for tenor. Julia Hamari is good in the recitative for alto, and for Augér in the aria for soprano I have nothing but praises. The choir in the concluding chorale is warm, confident and comforting.

[2] Harnoncourt (1988)
After Heldwein, Hampson sounds almost superficial in the short recitative for bass. It is as if he is too kind and pleasant to make justice to the message he has to deliver. A fine playing of cello piccolo (Nikolaus Harnoncourt himself!) opens the aria for tenor. Equiluz gives a more subdued rendition than Schreier does, but he is no less convincing with his outmost sensitivity. Esswood is smooth and flowing in the aria for alto. The voice of Helmut Wittek, the boy soprano, is very nice in the middle register, but in expressive terms he does almost has nothing to offer. The singing of the choir in the concluding chorale is good, but why does Harnoncourt feel the necessity to cut it into fragmented section? The strange phenomenon is the contradiction between his almost legato playing of the violoncello piccolo and his staccato conducting.

[3] Coin (1994)
I find the singing of Gotthold Schwarz in the opening recitative somewhat dry and not enough interesting. Christoph Prégardien is almost on the same par with his two predecessors. His voice is a joy and his sensitivity to the words is something to marvel at. But bot Schreier and Equiluz, each one in his own personal way, also manage to put some dramatic flavour into their singing. I am more impressed with the playing of the violoncello piccolo by Coin, which is no less beautiful that Harnoncourt’s. Andreas Scholl is the star of this recording in the recitative for alto. I wish he had a longer part to sing. Barbara Schlick is in good form in the aria for soprano, but she does not have the depth that Augér has. The small choir is fine with simple, accurate, delicate, and convincing singing.

[4] Leusink (2000)
Ramselaar stands half-way between Heldwein and Hampson. He has a good and solid voice, but the drama is only partly achieved. Schoch is the least successful of the four tenor singers. His voice has less beauty than theirs does and his interpretation fails to interest. The good playing of the violoncello piccolo by Frank Wakelkamp cannot compensate for the failure of the singer. Poor Buwalda! Hearing him back to back with Scholl is not really a fair game. But the playing of oboes in this rendition is simply a joy. Marjon Strijk in the aria for soprano has a nice voice but not interesting interpretation. The chorale is the best movement in this recording, simply moving.

Conclusion

Personal preferences:
Mvt. 1 Recitative for bass: Heldwein/Rilling [1], Ramselaar/Leusink [4], Hampson/Harnoncourt [2], Schwarz/Coin [3]
Mvt. 2 Aria for Tenor: Schreier/Rilling [1] = Equiluz/Harnoncourt [2], Prégardien/Coin [3], Schoch/Leusink [4]
Mvt. 3 Recitative for Alto: Scholl/Coin [3], Hamari/Rilling [1], Esswood/Harnoncourt [2], Buwalda/Leusink [4]
Mvt. 4 Aria for Soprano: Augér/Rilling [1], Schlick/Coin [3], Strijk/Leusink [4], Wittek/Harnoncourt [2]
Mvt. 5 Chorale: Rilling [1], Leusink [4], Coin [3], Harnoncourt [2]
Overall Performance: Rilling [1], Coin [3], Harnoncourt [2], Leusink [4]

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

Marie Jensen wrote (May 19, 2002):
Aryeh Oron wrote:
< I hope to see many of you participating in the discussion. In most of the discussions during the last couple of weeks the participation of other members has been rather slim. Where are you all? >
Listening to cantata BWV 175 "Er rufet seinen Schafen mit Namen" the Richter version (vol 3 CD 2)
It is a pearl!
A Leusink version of BWV 183 [4] and a cantata fragment BWV 59 cannot compete with it.

Don't forget to let the Whitsun lark ascend (The soprano aria in BWV 68) . It is the same CD.

Pentecost greetings

Komm, leite mich,
Es sehnet sich
Mein Geist auf grüner Weide!
Mein Herze schmacht,
Ächzt Tag und Nacht,
Mein Hirte, meine Freude.

(BWV 175)

Thomas Braatz wrote (May 20, 2002):
Provenance:

See: Cantata BWV 183 - Provenance

Reof the Recordings

This week I listened to: Rilling (81) [1]; Harnoncourt (88) [2]; Coin (94) [3]; and Leusink (2000) [4]

[1] Rilling:
The opening recitative with the ‘vox Christi’ and the halo effect in the strings gets the best treatment here. With Heldwein Christ’s words are not simply an afterthought, but treated with the power and solemnity that needs to be accorded to these words. Schreier is excellent here, but Rilling’s bc is too loud. Hamari gives her recitative a truly heartfelt expression that supports the words both on the level of the community of believers, but also on a very intimate and private level as well. Her warm voice expands to fill space with a loving, comforting quality, while all the other singers of this mvt. tend to want to hurry through it. Perhaps they do not really have anything to say musically except that they sing the notes correctly (at a faster tempo.) Only one oboe da caccia is used (the score calls for two playing in unison). Augér, although just a bit forced at times, gives the best performance of this aria when compared to all the others. The second section (usually called the middle section, but in this aria the voice does not repeat the first section) has a particularly beautiful melodic line. Rilling’s chorale version is the only one to be ranked at the top. All the other versions are average to poor.

[2] Harnoncourt:
There is nothing very memorable or outstanding about Hampson’s voice. To make matters even worse, Harnoncourt insists on dismantling the halo (played by the strings) that Bach placed as background to the ‘vox Christi.’ How does he do this? The score shows whole and half notes that follow each other without rests. Following one of Harnoncourt’s discoveries of Bach’s performance practices (the bows for string instruments were shorter back then, hence the strings are unable to sustain notes for very long), Harnoncourt has the strings lift the bow or stop moving it over the strings and stop playing for a split second before attacking the next note with a special accent. By doing this, he causes Christ’s halo to become defective, to split apart. All of this seems to fit Harnoncourt’s non-legato style of playing string instruments. If there ever was a place in Bach’s music where playing legato made sense, it would be in creating this halo effect! In the tenor aria (Mvt. 2), where Harnoncourt plays the violoncello piccolo, Equiluz has to contend with Harnoncourt’s rubato (this means that he does not play the notes mechanically, but rather takes freedoms with the tempo (speeding up and slowing down) which is fine as long as he comes back to the original tempo on important beats or the first beat of a measure without losing any time in the process. Both the tenor and the cello are moving along on 16th notes, but the tenor also has 32nd notes occasionally. As Harnoncourt is trying to maintain the rubato that he had established in the ritornello, a clash occurs (ms. 13, for instance) when Equiluz is also trying to squeeze 32nd notes in on top of a span of rhythmically spread out 16th notes to which Harnoncourt has applied a rubato. In ms. 37 Harnoncourt actually changes the rhythmic structure of the notes that Bach indicated in the score. In the soprano aria (Mvt. 4) Harnoncourt uses only one oboe da caccia although two were indicated by Bach. Because of the strong accentuation of each quarter note the wonderful passing notes (eighth notes) receive such a strong emphasis (Harnoncourt sees all these passing notes as written-out appoggiaturas) that the second note in the pair becomes almost or entirely inaudible.

[3] Coin:
The bass, Schwarz, is just about as weak as Ramselaar (both are half-voices) Coin imitates Harnoncourt’s non-legato, broken-up halo. Scholl’s recitative is simply marvelous. Too bad there was no alto aria in this cantata! Schlick’s warbling half-voice has nothing at all in the low range. She sings mainly sotto voce throughout. This voice is very unfulfilling and it also makes me very uncomfortable when I am forced to listen to it. This is probably due to the fact that she always seems to be close to losing control of her voice, but somehow she just barely manages to make it through without creating an obvious problem such the problem that Harnoncourt’s Wittek has. Somehow I had remembered that Coin’s chorale renditions were quite acceptable, but this one is simply terrible. There is some thrusting on individual notes as with Harnoncourt, but quite unbelievable is the fact that many of the passing notes are simply swallowed up and can not be heard at all. Coin cuts the fermati short (a technique that Leusink also relishes.)

[4] Leusink:
Here you can hear the lack of stature in Ramselaar’s voice as it is covered up easily by the instruments (remember that these are soft, period instruments, one to a part!) The tenor, Schoch is concentrating so hard on getting all the notes right that nothing is left for attempting to insert his personal expression into the music as represented by the text. Buwalda? Now I am glad that this recitative was not any longer than it was. Strijk’s fragile half-voice lacks any sort of conviction to lend expression to the words of this wonderful aria. Leusink tries to help the situation by providing a very light accompaniment, but the heavy bc with a double bass playing along is much too loud and never cuts back even where Bach frequently indicated ‘piano’ in the score. Leusink’s chorale version is very much like his predecessors whose performance style he evidently copied. This means that all three HIP conductors can only provide mediocre or poor renditions of Bach’s chorale.

Personal preferences:

Mvt. 1 Recitative for bass: Heldwein/Rilling [1], Ramselaar/Leusink [4],
Hampson/Harnoncourt [2], Schwarz/Coin [3]
Mvt. 2 Aria for Tenor: Schreier/Rilling [1] = Equiluz/Harnoncourt [2],
Prégardien/Coin [3], Schoch/Leusink [4]
Mvt. 3 Recitative for Alto: Scholl/Coin [3], Hamari/Rilling [1],
Esswood/Harnoncourt [2], Buwalda/Leusink [4]
Mvt. 4 Aria for Soprano: Augér/Rilling [1], Schlick/Coin [3], Strijk/Leusink [4],
Wittek/Harnoncourt [2]
Mvt. 5 Chorale: Rilling [1], Leusink [4], Coin [3], Harnoncourt [2]
Overall Performance: Rilling [1], Coin [3], Harnoncourt [2], Leusink [4]

If you think these are the same ratings that Aryeh gave, you are correct. It seems that Aryeh and I are in complete agreement on all of these recordings.

Francis Browne wrote (May 21, 2002):
This is the first cantata on the list that I suggested to Aryeh. Others who have made suggestions for the order of discussion have, I am sure, chosen cantatas they know and love. Coming late in the day and still being in the happy position of exploring the cantatas for the first time I have adopted a different approach and suggescantatas that were all completely unknown to me. As the list has been going every week since December 1999 it seems probable that many of the most appealing cantatas may have already been discussed. Perhaps others have picked the cherries and now only the bran is left. Something cynical and pessimistic within me says that even with Bach there must be a dull cantata, one without a single redeeming movement.

[4] But if there is , BWV 183 is not that cantata. I say this despite having only listened to the Leusink version and agreeing in general. with the views of that performance taken by Aryeh and Tom. The orchestral playing is good, particularly the violoncello piccolo and the oboes, and the chorale is better managed than often in this cycle, but none of the singers carries full conviction. And yet I have enjoyed this cantata.

To explain. Having followed the discussions on this list for some months now I sense something of a division in those who make contributions - not quite a division between sheep and goats, since we all share a love of Bach's music- but between on the one hand those who have known and studied, perhaps even performed the cantatas for many years, have heard many different performances and multiple recordings , and so have clear expectations of what they want to hear in a recording, a sort of Platonic ideal form of a cantata against which generally imperfect reality may be measured; and on the other hand those like myself who have no profound usicological knowledge and are often hearing a work for the first time. The idealists, if I may so term them, listen to a performance and are aware of its shortcomings, of how much better it could be; we ignorant others listen to the same performance and - since it is Bach - hear something of amazing beauty and may remain unaware of how much more amazing and beautiful it could be. It is all a question of emphasis and this division is of course too schematic.

And so in listening to this week's cantata I have been delighted particularly by the two arias. The notes quoted by Aryeh talk about the violoncello piccolo 'uncoiling its tender spirals of consolation' and Robertson says that the 'cello's aspiring arpeggios seem to express the generosity of a willing sacrifice of life if that is demanded.' I'm not sure that either of these views articulates fully the effect of the marvellous writing for the violoncello piccolo ; but the music turns what by itself would be the superficial bravado of the text into something most memorable and moving. As for the soprano aria (Mvt. 4) I agree with Robertson ' in this gloriously melodic aria...it is as if Bach wanted to let the instruments fully express the joy of the coming of the Holy Spirit in anticipation of Whitsunday,'

Since it is through Leusink and his musicians and singers that I know this cantata, I am grateful to them. But I would listen to other recordings with great interest.

Marie Jensen wrote (May 21, 2002):
Francis Browne wrote:
< This is the first cantata on the list that I suggested to Aryeh. Others who have made suggestions for the order of discussion have, I am sure, chosen cantatas they know and love. Coming late in the day and still being in the happy position of exploring the cantatas for the first time I have adopted a different approach and suggested cantatas that were all completely unknown to me. As the list has been going every week since December 1999 it seems probable that many of the most appealing cantatas may have already been discussed. Perhaps others have picked the cherries and now only the bran is left. Something cynical and pessimistic within me says that even with Bach there must be a dull cantata, one without a single redeeming movement. But if there is , BWV 183 is not that cantata. >
< Aryeh wrote: I hope to see many of you participating in the discussion. In most of the discussions during the last couple of weeks the participation of other members has been rather slim. Where are you all? >
< I wrote: Listening to cantata BWV 175 "Er rufet seinen Schafen mit Namen" the Richter version (vol 3 CD 2) It is a pearl! A Leusink version of BWV 183 and a cantata fragment BWV 59 cannot compete with it. >
[To Francis Brown] It was certainly not my intention to criticize the cantatas you have chosen. I can see now that my mail could be understood that way. I want to apologize. There is nothing wrong with your order of discussion for the summer 02. I am looking forward to listen to the selected BWV's .I have not met a lousy Bach cantata yet .

When Aryeh asked his question , I simply felt: what a chance to make a little PR for a cantata I love (BWV 68) and one I just fell in love with (BWV 175). Both not reviewed yet.They have to come up next year, as well as BWV 26, BWV 43 or BWV 140. Wonderful cantatas, and I could easily go on.

What I wrote was about Leusink [4].There is absolutely nothing wrong with BWV 183 itself. But those weeks where I only have Leusink’s version I find it hard to write, as I don't want to yell at Buwalda and Schoch all the time. With many experts around my writings are not needed any more. We were only a few members in dec 99 , so I tried to write so much I could, so that Aryeh and a few others had a little response, because I wanted the list to survive. Thank you Aryeh: You are still going strong! You have not skipped one single week since Dec 1999!

Francis Browne wrote (May 21, 2002):
[To Marie Jensen] I know no offence was taken and I am sure no criticism was meant. But since my mathematical inability means that I have chosen cantatas not only for the next ten weeks but into August I thought I had better explain at the start of my suggestions the lack of principles in my choice -namely that whatever cantatas you choose there will be something of interest, usually of great interest.

I suspect that you are right -that there is no such thing as a lousy cantata. If a cantata or other music of Bach does not appeal at first, I have always found that if I persist in listening my first impressions change. As I listen to more of the cantatas and work my way through past discussions, I have often found your personal reactions valuable and illuminating.

Dick Wursten wrote (May 22, 2002):
Listened to this cantata...

I can only add to the positive criticism. It is a delightful and a varied cantata, esp. when you are fond of the instrumentation of Bach. Once again the 'Nederlands Bach Collegium' proves to be able. from the singers again only Ramselaar convinces as the viva vox Christi.

Mvt. 2 I myself wondered about the meaning of the contrast between text [firm believing], the melodic line [Kunstvoll (Dürr): artistic, with large intervals, changes in register] and the accompaniment [walking 16ths of the violoncello].. beautiful... but what does it mean?

Brorimbach (Francis Browne) speaks about the superficial bravado of the text; Aryeh though hears dreaded pangs of a tragic death in the text and uses words like tormented and agitation. Dürr characterizes the accompaniment as 'streng, unerbittlich' ... Francis +Aryeh though speak about tender spirals of consolation.

Is there an objective criterium to decide what Bach intended or is the 'significance' of these musical figures purely subjective ?

mvt 5. The ornamentation of the ending of the melodic lines: is that the original choral-melody or an extra of Bach ?

Thomas Braatz wrote (May 22, 2002):
Dick Wursten inquired:
< Mvt. 2 I myself wondered about the meaning of the contrast between text [firm believing], the melodic line [Kunstvoll (Dürr): artistic, with large intervals, changes in register] and the accompaniment [walking 16ths of the violoncello].. beautiful... but what does it mean? ?

Francis Browne speaks about the superficial bravado of the te; Aryeh though hears dreaded pangs of a tragic death in the text and uses words like tormented and agitation. Dürr characterizes the accompaniment as 'streng, unerbittlich' ... Francis+Aryeh though speak about tender spirals of consolation. >

Is there an objective criterium to decide what Bach intended or is the 'significance' of these musical figures purely subjective ? >
The stalking bass (bc) which seems to keep a rather strict (Dürr's 'streng, unerbittlich') rhythm and become quite insistent could possibly represent 'firm believing.' Perhaps this is the regular heartbeat of a soul unafraid of death. Some commentators have likened this to a clock. The twisted, contorted opening melody in the violoncello piccolo and later in the voice seem to hint at the irregularity caused by fear. The tenor solo also leaps about quite a bit as well. While the tenor goes through all these contortions and jumps, the cello provides a seemingly endless stream of 16th notes. This is quite comforting in itself for the tenor who is also trying to jump about and fit in the 32nd notes as well. [As I pointed out before, Harnoncourt's expressivity in the form of a rubato breaks down this regularity (which Bach may have intended) in favor of a soloist's idiosyncratic meanderings which undermine the firm foundation that the tenor (even Equiluz!) relies upon (not to mention the fact that the solo instrument should be involved in this performance as a member of a duet and not as a soloist who cares only about his own part.) There are some interesting passages where the violoncello piccolo comes down from his stratospheric level of performance of 16th notes and joins the bc in playing the bc's continuing motif of 8th notes (ms. 5,6, 10, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37) albeit in octaves (a type of unison).

When the tenor sings "[be]ruhn" (ms. 38) ["to be content with" but Bach uses the meaning of "to rest upon" which everyone in his audience would be aware of - this is a type of punning that I have frequently referred to before] on the only whole note in this entire mvt., it is objectively clear what Bach is attempting to express. There is nothing subjective about this. This type of musical interpretation becomes more subjective when attempting to link the clocklike regularity of the musical patterns with 'tragic death' unless you consider everybody's death as being tragic. But the clock analogy is not too far fetched. But then the firm repetitiveness representing a strong belief is also expressed by this type of pattern. I think Bach loved this type of multiple application. If two differing interpretations make sense in a given context, it only enhances the significance of the musical figures that Bach chose for the composition. I personally believe that Bach was aware of these multiple associations, but there may be some that he did not think of at the time. I think that Spitta, Schweitzer, and Dürr have provided some of these 'subjective' insights.

Think of other authors and poets who were fortunate enough to hear from their readers interpretations that had not occurred to them as they were thinking about and writing down the text. They are pleasantly surprised at recognizing a different, viable approach to the subject matter. I wish I could give you examples of this. I vaguely remember that something of this sort happened to Goethe, but I do not think I can find the quote easily.

< Mvt. 5. The ornamentation of the ending of the melodic lines: is that the original choral-melody or an extra of Bach? >
I could not find the simple version of the chorale melody in a modern German hymnal. They have substituted another melody for the text of the melody used in Bach's day. But my familiarity with Bach's 4-pt. treatment of chorales that I can compare this to allows me to state that he frequently (not always) added extra notes or embellishments even to the melody line. In this case (BWV 183, Mvt. 5) Bach's treatment of the notes for "lehret and "[er]höret" is significant. He is putting very special emphasis on these words. I had wanted to comment on the tenor voice moving beyond the other voices that have already reached the fermata. I sense a pleading quality (not to be heard in any of the HIP recordings because they swallow up the second note of anything that looks or sounds like it might be an appoggiatura. Rilling got it right. If you could hear his version of this, you would be amazed at what you are missing in the other recordings. The soprano, at this point, with the exposed melody line, has a trill on an eighth note with two sixteenth notes following. Bach meticulously writes out this embellishment precisely. On 'steigen' ["climb"] Bach has the bass voice 'ascend' scalewise or by leaps and when help comes "bis der geholfen habe" the bass pattern moves downwards. Bach uses whatever it takes to express the text even when encumbered somewhat by the strict, rather unyielding form of the 4-pt. chorale in the form that it usually takes, as for instance, at the end of many cantatas.

René de Cocq wrote (August 20, 2003):
[To Arjen van Gijssell] No. It's the elderly gentleman you can see in the Holland Boys Choir in live performances, constantly holding a hand against his ear. He may sing well, but has no inkling of what being a choir singer is all about. I am delighted, by the way, that at long last some members deem it time to complain about Leusink's trebles. Their screaming must be a pain to anyone's ears.

Discussions in the Week of May 27, 2007

Julian Mincham wrote (May 27, 2007):
BWV 183 Introduction

CONTEXT

At first glance it may seem that all BWV 183 and BWV 175 have in common is the lack of an opening fantasia since they both begin, the only two of the cycle to so do, with a recitative.

But they may have more in common than a cursory examination reveals. Neither has a substantial chorus of any kind, the choir appearing only in the closing chorale (Mvt. 5). Both have a symmetrical structure in that grouped pairs of recitative and aria precede the chorale, three pairs in the case of Cantata BWV 183 and two for Cantata BWV 175. Both have texts written by Mariane von Ziegler and both use all four solo voices and employ experimental instrumental combinations. Whether or not the commencing with a recitative particularly focused Bach's attention on this form or not, it cannot be denied that there is an unusual degree of experimentation with the instrumental support of the recitatives in both cantatas. Finally, they form part of the final group of five cantatas of the second cycle, all performed, and presumably composed within a very short period in May 1725.

This work, like BWV 176 which closes the cycle, is one of the shorter cantatas, lasting under fifteen minutes in performance. A glance at the schedule of works Bach provided for the churches at this time (Wolff pp277/278) shows that no fewer than eight were performed in a month from late April to the last week of May (Cantatas BWV 108, BWV 87, BWV 128, BWV 183, BWV 74, BWV 68, BWV 175 and BWV 176). This prodigious output showed that, even though it has been suggested that Bach may have been losing some interest in the cantata repertoire, his quality and production line never flagged. However it is hardly surprising, given the circumstances, that a couple were on the brief side.

The cantata of the week BWV 183 Sie werden euch in den
They will banish you and cast you out
.
Recit (bass)--aria (tenor)--recit (alto)--aria (sop)--chorale (Mvt. 5).
The forty-ninth cantata of the cycle for Exaudi. Librettist:- Mariane von Ziegler.

Perhaps, as if to compensate for the shortness of this work, Bach set outo make a particular effort to reinforce and colour his recitatives. The opening one, for bass, is short but arresting both musically and textually---you will be cast out and it will come about that he who dispatches you will think that he is doing the work of the Lord! One wonders what Bach would have made of this text if he had chosen to set it as a tempestuous chorus, in the mould of that which begins Cantata BWV 176.

But the effect is still startling. Over a pedal bass A, held until the final cadence, the bass vocalist authoritatively delivers his warning, accompanied by chords held by four oboes. This produces a unique sepulchral sound which is quite haunting and one imagines the Leipzig congregation being forced to sit up and pay attention if for no other reason than that this was not the beginning it would have expected!

It lasts but half a minute and we are into the most substantial movement of the cantata. The tenor aria (Mvt. 2) lasts longer than the other four movements combined. In a sense we have here a rebuttal of the opening admonition---I do not fear Death, Jesus will protect me and I am happy to leave God to deal with those who might take his name in vain. The feeling one gets from the text is that it is confident and individualistic; the mood of the music, however, is not quite what we might expect.

Firstly we note that the available oboes are not drawn into service. The tenor is supported by continuo and a piccolo 'cello. The timbre is consequently dark and shady, bordering on the somber.

Secondly, the key is minor; further it is E minor, a key Bach often associates with the crucifixion. It is not specifically mentioned, but Death is, and there are further implications of Christ's powers of protection which, we know, emanated from his sacrifice on the cross. The mood is infinitely reflective and quietly resigned.

This may seem to be a more cheerless piece than the text suggests; but it is not. This is Bach at his most human and most profound. This is music to touch the soul with a personal and gently declaimed expression of trust and belief. There is, in the vocal line, a suggestion of the action of shuddering at pain. Even though the text clearly denies this event, Bach cannot resist the temptation to portray it. But the emphasis upon 'folge'---follow---is indicative of Bach's slant on this stanza. Whatever happens, I shall unswervingly follow Christ. It is this quiet certainty and serene adherence to faith and obedience that the music so beautifully conveys.

The oboes are called back into service for the alto recitative (Mvt. 3). Now the strings sustain the harmonies whilst the oboes flicker amongst them. The theme is one of preparedness--I am ready to give all to my Savior whose spirit shall support me. Might the little oboe flashes represent short gasps as the individual calls upon the reserves of his strength? Set against this, the string chords suggest the solidarity and steadfastness of the Savior.

The ending is quite surprising. Bach wrenches us suddenly from one key to another on the very last line of text as it states-----despite all, I may still have to undergo more than I can bear. This is a sudden twisting of the meaning, for until now we have been concerned only with our preparedness; there has been no suggestion that we may not cope. But this thought is dropped into the text without warning, and that is precisely what Bach expresses musically. Yes, he takes us to C major, the key of the final aria. But he does it with an unexpected jolt that surprises us and underlines the complete change of direction.

The last aria (Mvt. 4), again, produces a change of mood and expression. It asks the Holy Spirit to direct our pathway and to care for and protect us. The music bounces along, surging with Bachian optimism. The rhythm is that of the stately minuet, but this is a minuet of confidence and vigour; there is nothing diffident about this music.

Of particular note is the continuing surging of the extremely demanding oboe da caccia obligato. It swells and flows in and around the vocal line almost certainly suggestive of the Holy Spirit, encompassing all that it encounters. And thoughts of our own human frailty are not entirely absent from this ebullient movement. The middle section reminds us that that, however much we might try, our strength might still fail------ and that is when we have to place our trust in the Spirit.

I also detect a sense of pleading suggested by the contours of the vocal lines. The Holy Spirit continues to surge about us and duly, we will return to the optimism that comes from the confidence of knowing that we are supported along the right path.

But we should remember that our inherent weaknesses have not been entirely overcome.

The chorale (Mvt. 5) is a good strong tune with a sense of Germanic sturdiness. Addressed again to the Holy Spirit, it exhorts it as the One who teaches us to pray; prayers, which will inevitably rise to heaven.

Cantata link: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV183.htm

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 28, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< A glance at the schedule of works Bach provided for the churches at this time (Wolff pp277/278) shows that no fewer than eight were performed in a month from late April to the last week of May (Cantatas BWV 108, BWV 87, BWV 128, BWV 183, BWV 74, BWV 68, BWV 175 and BWV 176). This prodigious output showed that, even though it has been suggested that Bach may have been losing some interest in the cantata repertoire, his quality and production line never flagged. However it is hardly surprising, given the circumstances, that a couple were on the brief side. >
I think we have to be cautious about assuming that the absence of a chorus or brevity suggests that Bach was "losing interest" or his choir was exhausted.

Evidence to the contrary, Bach wrote "Jauchzet Gott in Allen Landen" and "Ich Habe Genug" because he wanted to write solo cantatas. The "Magnificat " (BWV 243) runs only about 23 minutes, and yet the work is an astonishing microcom of Bach's entire vocal oeuvre.

Bach was a consummate professional who showed no sign of not meeting the compositional demands of his position. Nor were his musicians like modern amateur church choirs: they knew what the work load was and they were ready to perfrom.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 28, 2007):
Doug Cowling wrote:
< Bach was a consummate professional who showed no sign of not meeting the compositional demands of his position. Nor were his musicians like modern amateur church choirs: they knew what the work load was and they were ready to perform. >
For a number of years I sang in a large chorale here in Arizona. Some of the members were raised in Europe and grew up basically knowing the masterful choral works. The soprano who sat next to me was from the UK, and she had memorized everything in her youth. I maybe shouldn't tell this story, but she always brought a crossword puzzle with her to practice, and while the director could not see what she was doing, she somehow never missed a single note or proper inflection while working the puzzle, and completing it before practice ended. And this was after a full day on a demanding job. And she was nearing sixty. I never cease to be amazed at how this woman got through it all and looked refreshed at the end of practice, but I assume this was probably a result of a kind of intensive early training we don't really experience here. What we did was probably too easy for her.

The other thing that occurs to me in regard to variation in the length of the cantatas might have been related to scheduling within the service. Is it possithat there were Sunday's when something shorter would have been needed because of other rituals or readings or whatever?

I am also curious in regard to the cantatas generally regarding the use of two types of oboes (at least) and whether the oboes used in Bach's compositions are like the ones we have today.

Julian Mincham wrote (May 28, 2007):
Doug Cowling wrote:
< I think we have to be cautious about assuming that the absence of a chorus or brevity suggests that Bach was "losing interest" or his choir was exhausted. >
Just for the record I was not making either assumption in this introduction-----merely a suggestion that one or two of the cantatas might have been a little shorter than expected because so many were produced in such a short time.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 28, 2007):
BWV 183 Bored Composer or Exhausted Choir?

Jean Laaninen wrote:
< The other thing that occurs to me in regard to variation in the length of the cantatas might have been related to scheduling within the service. Is it possible that there were Sunday's when something shorter would have been needed because of other rituals or readings or whatever? >
I have never seen any serious scholarship which addresses the resaons for the differences in length or degree of choral involvement in the cantatas. Why do we have such large cantatas as BWV 147, "Herz und Mind" which has 10 movements in two parts, and such compact works as BWV 183 which is just a pair of Recit & Aria and a chorale (Mvt. 5)?

None of Stiller, Leaver or Wolff posit any reason which can be drawn from the liturgical context (special rites, days or traditions). That leaves us with the "Bored Composer" or "Exhausted Choir" theories which get tossed out without much thought (Sorry Julian, I didn't mean to suggest that you held either opinion ... grin).

I do still lean to the possibility that Bach used these Easter gospel readings from John to create a series of solo cantatas which each time begins with a dictum sung by a bass "in persona Christi".

Thomas Braatz wrote (May 28, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>I have never seen any serious scholarship which addresses the resaons for the differences in length or degree of choral involvement in the cantatas. Why do we have such large cantatas as BWV 147, "Herz und Mind" which has 10 movements in two parts, and such compact works as BWV 183 which is just a pair of Recit & Aria and a chorale (Mvt. 5)?
None of Stiller, Leaver or Wolff posit any reason which can be drawn from the liturgical context (special rites, days or traditions). That leaves us with the "Bored Composer" or "Exhausted Choir" theories which get tossed out without much thought...<<
The "Exhausted Choir" theory is not tossed about on the BCML without much thought! It has been sufficiently documented, although it is more difficult to pin down something specific for the month of May.

Here is what we already know to support the "Exhausted Choir" theory:

1. There are documents which prove that Bach had initiated payments to be made to certain descant Thomaner singers so that these boys would not sing during the extended Christmas/New Years Currende period which lasted until the end of the 3^rd week of January. [This payment was compensation for all the money a boy could have earned by singing in the Currende.] From this, it is quite apparent that Bach normally would have had serious difficulties in performing figural festive choral music (mvts. involving a full chorus with trumpets + tympani other than the simple 4-pt. chorales) for this season and also any mvts. for solo soprano and possibly, but not necessarily, also for alto solo without resorting to these measures which were considered acceptable by church and city authorities. We now know that Bach could still depend upon non-Thomaner (university students, private music students) who were not involved in Currende-singing. The contribution of this latter group singers not officially enrolled as Thomaner students should not be underestimated. How else then was Bach capable of performing all the splendid music which he composed and performed for this extended season while faced with the dwindling vocal resources caused by Currende-singing?

2. Very exhausting Currende-singing also took place on St. Gregor's and St. Martin's Day.

3. Semester exams at the Thomasschule took place during the week following Quasimodogenetii and around Michaelmas. These weeks set aside for preparation and exams, including an oral exam before all the school authorities and the entire student body, were taken very seriously and were very taxing for all those involved. Just how these activities may also have affected Bach's choice of solo over choral cantatas or solo mvts. over choral mvts. is not as clear or as obvious as the Currende-singing situation outlined above is.

Julian Mincham wrote (May 28, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote
< None of Stiller, Leaver or Wolff posit any reason which can be drawn from the liturgical context (special rites, days or traditions). That leaves us with the "Bored Composer" or "Exhausted Choir" theories which get tossed out without much thought >
I agree basically with this. Underlying much of my thinking about this last section of the cycle (or 'Part 2' as I like to think of it ---from BWV 4 to the end---) is the notion that far from being tired or lacking interest, Bach was here at his most inventive, dynamic and original. It was partly for this reason that I challenged the 'Stuebel theory' which has something of an implication of crisis and a lack of ability (through circumstance) to plan.

The incredible range and quality of the 14 cantatas following BWV 1 seems to me to challenge these somewhat tired and hackneyed ideas (numbers afficienados will note the significance the number 14 would have had for Bach).

The only explanation I can find for some short cantatas at the end of this group is that there were so many of them, coming at the rate of two a week!

I think there may be some correlation between workload/timing of the works and their length although I must confess I haven't looked at this in detail. What I am thinking of is the big works like BWV 75 and BWV 76 (in two parts, written to impress, at the beginning of the first cycle and clearly composed when Bach seems to have had more time in his previous position. Again we look at BWV 1, BWV 6, and BWV 105-----large works, or at least works with massive choruses which might well have been composed in the fallow period Jan-March 1725, before the Easter celebrations.

There is certainly more work to be done on seeking out such correlations.

Julian Mincham wrote (May 28, 2007):
Thomas's posting crossed with my last and suggests addition reasons which might have impacted upon cantatas' length and complexity.

What is certain in my mind is that there is no one glib and simple explanation (is there ever, when we come to seriously examine Bach's outpu?) but a variety of complex interlocking circumstances.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 28, 2007):
[To Julian Mincham] Is there any academic evidence that Bach may have been assigned certain poetic texts for a given Sunday, and that in turn limits the length of a cantata? Or, conversely, did Bach have free choice on the length of texts and find his poets without others giving him directives?

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 28, 2007):
[To Jean Laaninen] The motets which Bach's choirs sang certainly had traditional places in the church year. For instance, the choir sang Handl's "Ecce Quomodo Justus" every Good Friday at a later point in the service after the concerted Passion. Some cantatas such as "Christ Lag in Todesbanden" take a traditonal hymn text and set it without new poetry, but there is no suggestion that thelibretto was mandated. We can't totally dismiss the possibility that someone in authority (ecclesiastical or secular) may have commissioned or requested a setting of that hymn and Bach obliged with a masterpiece.

I suspect that Bach's theological credentials were so superb that the authorities trusted him to produce creative new musical settings on the seasonal themes. For instance, the unexpected addition of the chorale melody of the German Magnificat in the "Suscepit Israel" in the Magnificat (BWV 243) would have delighted muscians and theologians alike. So too the addition of the German Agnus Dei in the opening chorus of the St. Matthew Passion (BWV 244).

So many of Bach's musical solutions are uniquely his that it is hard not to think that they were the result of extended conversations with his ecclesiastical colleagues and poets, Did they discuss the theological and poetic conventions? Did Bach then for the libretto to be shaped in particular way to accomadate a musical idea? For instance, these Easter cantatas which all begin with a bass singing the words of Christ have Intelligent Design written all over them.

Censorship is the probably the wrong word to use for Bach's relationship with the ecclesiatical authorities. The Superintendant of Leipzig had to scrutinize all the daily sermons delivered by his clergy and students -- that would have been hundreds of pages. He must have sat back with anticipation when he looked over Bach's libretti for his formal imprimatur.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 28, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< 1. There are documents which prove that Bach had initiated payments to be made to certain descant Thomaner singers so that these boys would not sing during the extended Christmas/New Years Currende period which lasted until the end of the 3^rd week of January. >
These arrangements show that Bach knew the demands of the various seasons of the year well ahead of time and was careful to ensure that his complement of singers was not overextended. Wolff itemizes the Christmas schedule for Christmas 1723-24. It's an extraordinary workload The last thing Bach wanted was his best singers running around the streets singing Christmas chorales for donations. His roster must have been very carefully planned so that physical fatigue and illness did not endanger the quality of performance. The boys who sang "Christen Ätzet" three times on Christmas Day, 1723, plus the Magnificat (BWV 243) in the afternoon were not "laudevere-ing" in the streets.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 28, 2007):
[To Douglas Cowling] Your answer is helpful. Today in many churches the effort at producing Sunday worship is done in a team context, and perhaps there were moments like that for Bach. I appreciate all the information given about the choirs as prior to this kind of detail my imaginings were to be found a bit more in Bach in my life experience and in the past decades. But it is clear from the scholarship given to date on this forum that our choirs and Bach's were not the same at all. Thanks so much.

William Rowland (Ludwig) wrote (May 28, 2007):
[To Jean Laaninen] Bach and his librettist worked together. Many of these works were already published so all Bach had to do was to take the words and set them to music.

Church was an all day affair in Bach's time so there were no time limits ( or should not have been) on the length of Bach's Cantatas. Church for some people took the place of all the entertainments that we have today since there was no television, radio or computers and while there was theatre and Opera ---the average man could not attend these---they were mostly Aristocratic outlets. So that left the Coffee House to meet with Friends and books (if one could afford them) and work.

Peter Smaill wrote (May 28, 2007):
Perhaps neither of the above!

The reason is rather theological, because Bach has chosen to make Exaudi, the Sunday after Ascension and before Whitsun, a short introduction to the to the following Sunday's celebration , i.e. Whitsun which marks the descent of the Holy Spirit. Unlike BWV 44 the year before, which has the same title but no other commonality, this Cantata builds from the Gospel - the fate of Christians under other believers- through offerring of the Christian for Jesus' sake, to the calling upon the Holy Spirit whereby prayer ascends to God.

The conception is thus of Man's place in the Trinity; the text tends against the view that theology is the preserve of the Chorale Cantatas whereas texts by Mariane von Ziegler are marked by their poetic quality alone.

Note that both Jesus' Spirit (Mvt. 3) and the Holy Spirit (Mvt. 4) are separately invoked; the final Chorale (Mvt. 5) by Gerhardt is distinctively oriented to the Holy Spirit as the following link makes clear: http://musicanet.org/robokopp/hymn/ohenterl.html

Also remarkable is the the distinctive chordal spread (tenth in the lower voices ) at "lehret" (teaches) and "erhoeret" ( heard ) , plus the climbing tenths at "steigt" (climbs) in the Chorale Mvt. 5, a further example of Bach's largely unnoticed artistry in word painting in Chorale settings. I wonder if Bach had large hands such that these, and other Chorale settings , could have stretch enough to sustain the lower parts when composing without recourse to the upper manual of a keyboard .

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 28, 2007):
[To Ludwig] Interesting about the teamwork aspect of Bach and his librettist... And of course already published works would have offered convenience. Beyond straight academic thinking the environment during the Cantata period must have been very satisfying in terms of being wonderfully creative. I'm showing my age and my family's conservative background in sharing this, but I have only vague memories of a radio at home until I was six or seven and I'm not sure the folks even had one in the house at the time I was born. Mother played the piano...she was our entertainment and trainer. I don't even know if most cars had radios in 1944. We did not get television until I was in the 5th grade when we as students were required to write reports on some programs. Only then did I learn about theater and opera as my parents were strict and did not even allow me to attend movies when they were included with birthday parties. I was allowed to attend the cake and ice cream part later...rather embarrassing as a child, but perhaps the reason music of the Classical and Romantic periods has such a strong hold on me today. But the first Martin Luther film broke the taboo on theater attendance. Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska didn't have coffee houses as were available and sometimes considered a public nuisance in Europe during Bach's day , but there were plenty of church coffees. So in some sense I can identify with the strong Lutheran tradition that prevailed in Bach's time. Thanks for your answer.

Thomas Braatz wrote (May 28, 2007):
Ludwig wrote:
>>Church was an all day affair in Bach's time so there were no time limits (or should not have been) on the length of Bach's Cantatas.<<
There was a definite time limit for the cantatas (1/2? hour, I do not have the specific reference before me here). In any case, there is a documented report (culled from the existing list of numerous church expenditures during Bach's tenure in Leipzig for which details have been recorded) that a large (over-sized) hour (or was is a half-hour?) glass, which stood on the railing of the choir balcony where the singers could easily see it, had to be repaired or replaced. This makes me wonder if the pastors, with their long-winded sermons, also had certain limits and had inside the pulpit visible onlyto the pastor perhaps an even larger "Sanduhr" which could hold two or three hours worth of sand.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 28, 2007):
[To Thomas Braatz] The time limits are interesting. I remember someone setting an alarm clock under the pulpit at my Lutheran college years ago, and when the sermon for the day exceeded twenty minutes, the clock went off. I cannot imagine sitting through the sermons in Bach's day.

Thomas Braatz wrote (May 28, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>Censorship is the probably the wrong word to use for Bach's relationship with the ecclesiatical authorities. The Superintendant of Leipzig had to scrutinize all the daily sermons delivered by his clergy and students -- that would have been hundreds of pages. He must have sat back with anticipation when he looked over Bach's libretti for his formal imprimatur.<<
Where is there a job description for the Superintendent of Leipzig which spells out the detail that cantata texts would have to be submitted to him prior to performances in the Leipzig churches? Without access to such specific information, we are thrown back to the myth created by one very unreliable source from circa 1850 and repeated by a number of Bach biographies. None of the modern experts on Bach's cantata texts, Martin Petzoldt and Hans-Joachim Schultze, for instance, mention anything at all about such an arrangement or requirement. The closest they come to this is in suggesting that Bach was capable of deciding by himself such theological matters as pertaining to the cantata texts, since he was well aware of what the authorities would not find acceptable. Of course, it cannot be discounted that Bach may have occasionally discussed such matters with theologians and pastors in order to remain current in making appropriate decisions regarding the texts and specific wordings he would use. However, this is not at all the same as receiving the Superintendent's official imprimatur on the next batch of cantata texts before they were submitted to the printer.

The "Schul-Ordnungen" (school rules/statutes) for the Thomasschule spell out in great detail all the duties of the school's faculty which includes Bach as cantor, the rector, conrector and other teachers of the various classes at the school. Certainly there must be a similar 'job description' for the Superintendent of Leipzig. Do any Bach experts refer to, or better yet, quote directly from such a document? What is the document called? When was it printed? Does it state specifically the requirement of prior submission for approval of all sermons and cantata texts that will be heard in the Leipzig churches?

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 29, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Where is there a job description for the Superintendent of Leipzig which spells out the detail that cantata texts would have to be submitted to him prior to performances in the Leipzig churches?
Certainly there must be a similar 'job description' for the Superintendent of Leipzig. Do any Bach experts refer to, or better yet, quote directly from such a document? What is the document called? When was it printed? Does it state specifically the requirement of prior submission for approval of all sermons and cantata texts that will be heard in the Leipzig churches? >
I'm not sure why you are so hysterically opposed to the kind of bureaucratic censorship which was normative in 18th century autocratic societies. The key question here revolves around the fact that the libretti were published and all religious publications were monitored carefully by the secular and ecclesiatical authorities. Herl's research on Lutheran administration shows that the secular rulers depended on the ecclesiastical authorities to regulate all religious publications -- heretical tracts were frequently considered treasonable and seditious.

No printer in Leipzig would have undertaken the printing of a religious text without the necessary permission. In Bach's case, such permission was undoubtedly pro forma -- as Cantor he was hardly suspected of treasonable heresy. When Bach's sons dropped off the manuscript copy of the cantatas to the printer every six weeks or so, the printer assumed that the document had the normal permission. No official letters survive. There may have been none. In other places, the subscription "imprimantur" with the official's name was sufficent for such routine documents.

This is admittedly conjectural but there is no reason to extraoplate from the absence of documents that Bach was not part of a typical 18^th century bureaucracy. His genius is not compromised by such routine drudgery.

William Rowland (Ludwig) wrote (May 29, 2007):
[To Jean Laaninen] Today we are a very busy Society and Sundays are for some the only personal time that they have with friends and family.

I had once wanted to do a Bach Cantata as part of the Service---mind you this was one of the shorter ones. I was told NO because it would run the service over too much.

William Rowland (Ludwig) wrote (May 29, 2007):
[To Jean Laaninen] Yes Jean Automobiles did have radios in 1944---I was living then and remember one in my Uncle's Mercury Convertible. They were not standard then and did not become so until the 1950s when also electric windows and other such things came along in an American Motors car.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 29, 2007):
[To Ludwig] Thanks for the details...

Ed Myskowski wrote (May 29, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< That leaves us with the "Bored Composer" or "Exhausted Choir" theories which get tossed out without much thought (Sorry Julian, I didn't mean to suggest that you held either opinion ... grin).
I do still lean to the possibility that Bach used these Easter gospel readings from John to create a series of solo cantatas which each time begins with a dictum sung by a bass "in persona Christi". >
Very noticeable, once we treat these works in chronologic order. Has it been pointed out earlier, or are we (Doug and Julian) negotiating for first credit? The cognate Sundays from Jahrgang I might be a useful comparison?

Does the "bored composer" speculation (I hesitate to name it hypothesis, let alone theory) really get tossed out there?

I see a dozen or more related posts, not yet read. I opened my mouth first. Back to reading.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 29, 2007):
[To Ludwig] At the Presbyterian Church we attended in Apple Valley we had one choir member who actually had the gall to tell the pastor he'd like to see the sermon eliminated and have a strictly musical service. He had to be told no, but that makes more sense than the denial of your request. It seems to me that many of the Lutherans I have known will never know the meaning of cantata apart from some modern works that are casually in my view, often pieced together for Christmas or Easter. I'm not particularly fond of these modern works with spoken parts interspersed. In my view music alone tells the story best.

Ed Myskowski wrote (May 29, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
<< 1. There are documents which prove that Bach had initiated payments to be made to certain descant Thomaner singers so that these boys would not sing during the extended Christmas/New Years Currende period which lasted until the end of the 3rd week of January. >>
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< These arrangements show that Bach knew the demands of the various seasons of the year well ahead of time and was careful to ensure that his complement of singers was not overextended. Wolff itemizes the Christmas schedule for Christmas 1723-24. It's an extraordinary workload The last thing Bach wanted was his best singers running around the streets singing Christmas chorales for donations. His roster must have been very carefully planned so that physical fatigue and illness did not endanger the quality of performance. The boys whosang "Christen Ätzet" three times on Christmas Day, 1723, plus the Magnificat (BWV 243) in the afternoon were not "laudevere-ing" in the streets. >
Given the well documented additional requirements for singers, both within and beyond any particular service, the 'exhausted choir' speculation seems difficult to comprehend. Let alone support.

Ed Myskowski wrote (May 29, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>Censorship is the probably the wrong word to use for Bach's relationship with the ecclesiatical authorities. <<
Indeed, it is the wrong word, as I believe you subsequently indicated. Prior approval is the more accurate, and more restrictive, term. If it is applicable.

Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Where is there a job description for the Superintendent of Leipzig which spells out the detail that cantata texts would have to be submitted to him prior to performances in the Leipzig churches? >
Only the circumstantial evidence:

(1) The cantata texts, at least for Bach's peak creative years in Leipzig, appear to have been prepared and published well in advance of performance, based on the scarce surviving examples.

(2) Common (or not so common) sense.

Ed Myskowski wrote (May 29, 2007):
Jean Laaninen wrote:
< The time limits are interesting. I remember someone setting an alarm clock under the pulpit at my Lutheran college years ago, and when the sermon for the day exceeded twenty minutes, the clock went off. I cannot imagine sitting through the sermons in Bach's day. >
I cannot imagine sitting through a twenty (20) minute sermon. So I don't Attendance is optional.

Thomas Braatz wrote (May 29, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>I'm not sure why you are so hysterically opposed to the kind of bureaucratic censorship which was normative in 18th century autocratic societies.... Herl's research on Lutheran administration shows that the secular rulers depended on the ecclesiastical authorities to regulate all religious publications --heretical tracts were frequently considered treasonable and seditious. No printer in Leipzig would have undertaken the printing of a religious text without the necessary permission. In Bach's case, such permission was undoubtedly pro forma -- as Cantor he was hardly suspected of treasonable heresy. When Bach's sons dropped off the manuscript copy of the cantatas to the printer every six weeks or so, the printer assumed that the document had the normal permission. No official letters survive. There may have been none. In other places, the subscription "imprimantur" with the official's name was sufficent for such routine documents. This is admittedly conjectural but there is no reason to extraoplate from the absence of documents that Bach was not part of a typical 18th century bureaucracy. His genius is not compromised by such routine drudgery.<<
I still fail to see why whatever Herl may have found documented in other cities or principalities of Germany from 1723-1750 would apply to the unique situation in Leipzig, seat of a reknowned university with religious-political divisions existing within the city council and even at the court in Dresden. If Herl is unable to document more specifically what the Leipzig superintendent's (Salomon Deyling, when Bach arrived in 1723) job description entailed, then it would appear that Petzoldt, Schultze, Dürr and others, who have seriously researched and published various articles where this issue would most naturally be discussed, have good reason to be judiciously careful about stating anything at all about a generalization applied, as it would appear, widely to any part of Lutheran Germany during the 17^th and the 1^st half of the 18^th century.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 29, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< I still fail to see why whatever Herl may have found documented in other cities or principalities of Germany from 1723-1750 would apply to the unique situation in Leipzig, seat of a reknowned university with religious-political divisions existing within the city council and even at the court in Dresden. >
Go read the book.

George Brooke wrote (May 29, 2007):
[To Jean Laaninen] Jean, I agree with your basic statement that most of the contemporary "cantatas" are just a bunch of songs strung together. There are, fortunately, a few exceptions (but you have to plow through a lot of junk to find them). In the well composed cantatas I would suggest that the spoken parts are comparable to the recitatives in 18^th century cantatas. As has already been discussed, modern congregations/audiences aren't always prepared to handle some of the more "formal" aspects of the music so spoken parts are substituted. Just another view!

(P.S. - Jean, I'm just a short distance from you in New Hope.)

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 29, 2007):
183/5: alleged 10ths in the chorale...

< Also remarkable is the the distinctive chordal spread (tenth in the lower voices ) at "lehret" (teaches) and "erhoeret" ( heard ) , plus the climbing tenths at "steigt" (climbs) in the Chorale BWV 183/5, a further example of Bach's largely unnoticed artistry in word painting in Chorale settings. I wonder if Bach had large hands such that these, and other Chorale settings , could have stretch enough to sustain the lower parts when composing without recourse to the upper manual of a keyboard . >
I don't agree with (or maybe I just don't grant as sufficiently credible) such comments that would press Bach to have done deliberate little supposedly-theological things. This "largely unnoticed artistry" is (to me) just a bunch of evidence that Bach's musical mastery was excellent, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with word-painting here. This chorale BWV 183/5 is a good example of freedom/decoration of melodic parts, within a harmonic framework.

As is taught to first-year students of harmony and counterpoint: it works very well in four-part writing to keep the tenor generally high. Several reasons: (1) It gives plenty of space to have contrary motion between tenor and bass, without having the parts cross (which would invert the harmony). (2) It sounds good, putting a tenor singer into the normally strongest part of his range. (3) It sets up the tenor as an often equally-interesting partner with the soprano, melodically, rather than burying it down where it's harder to hear. (4) It's normal basso-continuo texture on keyboards: where the soprano and bass have contrary motion most of the time, the bass line is wide-ranging, and the alto and tenor parts filling in the middle both tend to get handled by the right hand.

Now, what's this about "the distinctive chordal spread (tenth in the lower voices) at "lehret" (teaches) and "erhoeret" (heard)"? What tenths, distinctive or otherwise? There aren't any of these alleged spreads of 10ths between tenor and bass at the words "lehret" and "erhoeret" in this particular chorale! The tenor and bass are never more than a 7th apart during those words...and they're less than a 5^th apart on all the strong beats there. I'm looking directly at the Bach-Gesellschaft page of this chorale. Another decently clean copy in open score (but without text) is at: http://www.jsbchorales.net/down/pdf/018305.pdf
The piano reduction at: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Scores/BWV183-V&P.pdf
doesn't give 10ths there, either. What wrong score gives any 10ths on those words?

As for the first phrase of "es steigt zum Himmel an", what would we have Bach do musically instead of his brief parallel 10ths on the word "zum", needing an E in that inverted A-minor chord and then an F in his passing weak part of that beat? Try taking those two tenor notes down an octave, and then the leap up to the notes of "Himmel" becomes pointlessly awkward: leap up by an augmented 4^th and continue into another leap after it? Nope. [General melodic rulein part-writing: when leaping by a dissonant interval, the next thing in that melody is usually either a step, or a leap back in the opposite direction...not a continued leap in the same direction, being hard to sing.] And he can't have his tenor sit on either a C or an A (instead of going E-F quavers), because those would create parallel octaves or parallel 5ths with the bass (try it!). His actual line of C-C-B-E-F-B-E-E-A-E makes more sense, all being nicely confined within the range of a 6th around middle C. He could just have kept his tenor on a bunch of E's through that part of the bar, but that would be an odd break from the steady quaver motion he's already given the tenor all the way through the piece, up to this point.

If Bach was doing anything with text-painting, there at that phrase, why not just remark about the bass ascending by steps through that whole bar? But even that feature could be described as merely a simple rise from tonic to dominant, in contrary motion against the soprano; nothing necessarily theological here either.

The thing I think is nifty about that tenor line at "es steigt zum Himmel an..." is: the last syllable of "Himmel" makes a suspended 7^th over the bass, and it really needs to resolve that poignant suspension down from E to D. But instead of doing it immediately, Bach leaps away from and then directly back to the E, keeping it going...until the third note of the next phrase, where he finally resolves it down to D...at which point the D itself makes a new dissonance against the bass's linear motion! Meanwhile, the D has also resolved in the expected spot (last quaver of the word "Himmel") harmonically, but it's happened in another voice (alto), and as a leap to a D of a different octave, going higher than the soprano! Clever stuff.

Another interesting point here, at least to me, is: through this entire chorale Bach doesn't give the tenor any notes outside the scale of A minor, until the C# and its anticipation at the end. This restriction to natural scale notes makes the tenor part, as a whole, more easily singable than either the alto or the bass.

And the part-writing in bar 14, at "geholfen", is exquisitely linear (not just a bunch of obvious chords) with accented passing tones (unprepared appoggiaturas) in the bass...anchored by the alto's repeated G....

I also don't understand the comment about the size of Bach's hands, as if this would be relevant to any use of the upper manual of a keyboard, supposedly to make chorales easier to play. It doesn't. Any use of a second manual just makes it farther to reach, when playing any four-part chorales on a keyboard. Play this one (BWV 183/5) directly from open score with all four voice parts, all on one manual: there aren't any difficult stretches, given the normal basso-continuo practice of playing all three upper voices in the right hand some of the time. The right thumb takes some of the tenor notes; so what? There's nothing extraordinarily awkward here in this piece, vis-a-vis playing other Bach chorales or his real keyboard music. It would be more difficult given the odd artifice of trying to use two manuals at once, or expecting the left hand to take both the tenor and bass parts all the way.

But this too is sort of moot, in the bigger picture; the point in a four-part chorale is not necessarily the easy playability by the organist (either with or without pedal!), but rather the singability and musical effect when it's given to singers, doubled by the orchestra.

I guess my overall point is: it's not necessary to make up little theological tidbit-points, whenever there are obvious and reasonable musical principles that already explain the musical motion well enough.... We know that Bach did musically-skilled things at every moment in his music, because he was a composer. Why not just let him be a composer practicing his craftsmanship?

Thomas Braatz wrote (May 29, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>Go read the book.<<
And what if, as I had already correctly suspected, Herl does not give as part of the job description of a Superintendent of a Luthern Church district censorship of sermons and cantata texts as the most likely tasks performed by a superintendent?

Find the book listed on Amazon.com, where it is possible to access the table of contents and the index and even search the book for specific words like "censor, censorship, superintendent" and it will become quite apparent that this book will offer little or no insight on whether Salomon Deyling, Bach's superintendent, might or might not have passed prior judgement on any cantata texts which Bach wished to set to music.

Herl defines a superintendent as follows: "The superintendent was a priest who oversaw the churches in a given region. Saxony had two kinds of superintendents, general and special, equivalent to bishops and rural deans." p. 41 from "Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism" by Joseph Herl (Oxford University Press, 2004). A major component of a superintendent's job description involved "ecclesiastical visitations" which were reactive and not proactive (like censorship would be).

The closest that Herl gets to relating anything at all to your strong assertion that the Bach's cantata texts had to receive prior approval (the imprimatur of the superintendent) before being set to music and performed is an obscure reference to a certain Hector Mithobius, jr., a pastor of a church in Otterndorf (north of Bremen) whose father, Dr. Hector Methobius, a pastor (not even a superintendent!) in Böblingen in the early 17th century "would take care that any figural music sung there was appropriate for the service....And when he was at Ratzeburg, he would require a list from the cantors of all the music they desired to perform so that he might review it and request any changes that might better accommodate it to the ecclesiastical time and sermon." (p. 119)

It is evident from obtaining a short insight into Herl's otherwise very interesting and colorful presentation that covers about 2 1/2 centuries in all the various principalities, cities, towns and villages from the North and Baltic Seas to Saxony and cities like Nürnberg and Ulm in the south, that there is little or nothing here that can relate specifically to Bach's situation in Leipzig as far as possible censorship of the sacred texts he selected for composition is concerned.

BTW, the original title pages of the books containing cantata texts (some used by Bach, others not) by von Ziegler and Picander printed in Leipzig show no indication that they needed prior approval by Salomon Deyling before being published.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 29, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< It is evident from obtaining a short insight into Herl's otherwise very interesting and colorful presentation that covers about 2 1/2 centuries in all the various principalities, cities, towns and villages from the North and Baltic Seas to Saxony and cities like Nürnberg and Ulm in the south, that there is little or nothing here that can relate specifically to Bach's situation in Leipzig as far as possible censorship of the sacred texts he selected for composition is concerned.
BTW, the original title pages of the books containing cantata texts (some used by Bach, others not) by von Ziegler and Picander printed in Leipzig show no indication that they needed prior approval by Salomon Deyling before being published. >
It is interesting that you can present collateral evidence and dogmatically assert it as a fact. But if anyone else speculates they must be crushed summarily and offensively.

Herl's study is hardly a "colourful presentaton". It is the most significant original research on music and the Lutheran church since Stiller. You should show more respect for scholarship. Perhaps you should even read the book.

Neil Halliday wrote (May 30, 2007):
BWV 183..

Bradley Lehman wrote:
<"the part-writing in bar 14, at "geholfen", is exquisitely linear (not just a bunch of obvchords) with accented passing tones (unprepared appoggiaturas) in the bass...anchored by the alto's repeated G....">
Thanks for commenting on this. Playing this section, along with the rest of this chorale (from the piano reduction score) on a sustaining keyboard, allows one to fully relish all of the exquisite dissonances and resolutions in this movement, considered within the context of the linearity of the 4-part writing.
-------
Speaking of resolutions, apart from the lovely resolution to A major at the end of the chorale, the resolution from diminished to major harmony at the end of the alto recitative (Mvt. 3) is striking, and also noteworthy are the resolutions from diminished to minor harmonies in the opening bass recitative (Mvt. 1), particularly striking on "tödtet", given the `archaic' sound (reminiscent of Monteverdi,I read somewhere) of the choir of oboes.

The OCC comments that this cantata is little known because of its unusual instrumentation and the demands on both vocal and instrumental soloists. Certainly the addition of midrange oboes (oboes da caccia) to the orchestral texture (except the tenor aria (Mvt. 2)) is most effective.

The first four of the five movements are given to the each of the soloists in ascending order: B, T, A, S - an unusual occurrence, I think.

In the tenor aria (Mvt. 2), the `cello piccolo obbligato has a lovely rising motif that is heard, ostinato-like, throughout much of the A section of the aria.

The bright, joyous C major tonality of the soprano aria (Mvt. 4) is in marked contrast with the darker, minor key tonalities of the other movements. Auger (with Rilling) is exquisite in this delightful aria. It seems a shame that music such as this should be "hidden" from the general music-loving public, given the cantata's lesser-known status.

Alain Bruguieres wrote (May 30, 2007):
< It is interesting that you can present collateral evidence and dogmatically assert it as a fact. But if anyone else speculates they must be crushed summarily and offensively.
Herl's study is hardly a "colourful presentaton". It is the most significant original research on music and the Lutheran church since Stiller. You should show more respect for scholarship. Perhaps you should even read the book. >
What's so disrespectful about 'colorful'? To me 'very interesting and colorful' doesn't sound that bad. What's wrong with me? Talking about being dogmatic, crushing or offensive, who's been recently throwing words like 'hysterical' at a fellow list member?

One thing you people don't seem to realize is that, when you think you're being offensive to just one person in particular, you offend all people who simply happen to enjoy a civilized conversation.

PS By the way I'm still wondering why the Rifkin quotation I submitted to the list has been completely hushed up... why make such a fuss about getting at the original stuff? Obviously interest in original stuff avoids carefully certain 'blind spots'.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 30, 2007):
Alain Bruguières wrote:
< What's so disrespectful about 'colorful'? To me 'very interesting and colorful' doesn't sound that bad. What's wrong with me? Talking about being dogmatic, crushing or offensive, who's been recently throwing words like 'hysterical' at a fellow list member?
One thing you people don't seem to realize is that, when you think you're being offensive to just one person in particular, you offend all people who simply happen to enjoy a civilized conversation. >
But that's the problem, Alain, it's not a civilized conversation.

Instead of saying --- "That's an interesting speculation. Do we have any evidence of how censorship of publications was handled in Bach's time?" -- there are aggressive demands for specific proof. What I find particularly offensive is to dismiss Herl's pioneering scholarship as a "colourful presentation" as if it was a quaint travelogue. That's an insulting turn of phrase.

Unfortunately, it's a tone of response that appears too frequently. This forum deserves better.

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 30, 2007):
>>> What's so disrespectful about 'colorful'? To me 'very interesting and colorful' doesn't sound that bad. What's wrong with me? <<<
Because in idiomatic American English, a phrase such as "a colorful character" refers to a person whose actions are reprehensible, a person who is a bad role model for behavior, a person who is barely redeemed or excused through charm or quaint provinciality.

Not a good way to review a book; especially a book that the writer of the "colorful" phrase didn't even bother to read.

Well, here's directly what was said:
< Find the book listed on Amazon.com, where it is possible to access the table of contents and the index and even search the book for specific words like "censor, censorship, superintendent" and it will become quite apparent that this book will offer little or no insight on whether Salomon Deyling, Bach's superintendent, might or might not have passed prior judgement on any cantata texts which Bach wished to set to music.
(...)
It is evident from obtaining a short insight into Herl's otherwise very interesting and colorful presentation that covers about 2 1/2 centuries in all the various principalities, cities, towns and villages from the North and Baltic Seas to Saxony and cities like Nürnberg and Ulm in the south, that there is little or nothing here that can relate specifically to Bach's situation in Leipzig as far as possible censorship of the sacred texts he selected for composition is concerned. >
And by his own admission here, he didn't read the book but just spent a short time running the Amazon "search inside this book" feature; apparently just enough to prove to himself that the book wasn't worth reading, or wouldn't satisfy his own personal expectations.

And then, it's dismissed as merely an "otherwise very interesting and colorful presentation"...although this happens to be an Oxford University Press book, by an author (Dr Joseph Herl) whose dissertation work was in this field of Lutheran church music: http://www.wels.net/s3/uploaded/6038/herl-presentation.pdf
and whose 2004 book here from OUP has more than 350 valuable pages of detail and historical argument about the topic. Amazon.com

Herl is a respected instructor at a Lutheran university, doing research into that church's historical practices as to music and worship; is that not important to our topic of Bach's church music? And Herl is also a published composer of music for choir and organ, for Lutheran worship use. Gee, maybe Dr Herl actually knows his topic both from research and practice, at least enough that his 366-page book of his post-doctoral research might be worth reading.

Get the point now, as to why the comment was offensive against Herl's and OUP's work? "Otherwise very interesting and colorful presentation" is just a bunch of pseudo-polite rationalization for "flush this, I can't be bothered to read this seriously, as I already know it's wrong and not what I wanted to see." Even though it's a book written by a high-profile Lutheran expert, and published by one of the top research publishers in the world!

As we've seen here regularly, this is just the latest in a long line of books that the same guy has dismissed in a similar manner, WITHOUT READING or considering as serious scholarship. "A short insight" is apparently euphemism for "just barely long enough to verify my prejudice that the object is worthless to me." If a book can't answer a specific question that he himself just made up (one about Leipzig superintendents, here), the whole book is therefore irrelevant and to be pooh-poohed ipublic forum. How convenient, as an excuse not to study it, and an excuse never to set foot in any serious research library. How convenient, as an excuse NOT to have a civilized or reasonable discussion with a church-music expert (Douglas Cowling) who HAS read the book and recommends its importance.

Well, the "colorful character" of that dilettante's charm and quaint provinciality has run out, long ago. It's the "otherwise interesting and colorful presentations", i.e. the way he offers dismissals of other people's serious scholarship, and the way he offers stuff he's totally made up against evidence, and the way he argues points into the ground on his own REFUSAL to trust (or even seriously read) scholarly material written in English. He even seems proud of NOT reading things, in the excuses he offers.

His attitude against other people's published work (record reviews, books, etc) is apparently the attitude that should be applied to reading HIS OWN UNpublished work, if these things were symmetrical and reasonable: take one quick 15-minute look at it, see that it's unpalatable, and flush the whole thing as not worth taking seriously.

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 30, 2007):
< Herl's study is hardly a "colourful presentaton". It is the most significant original research on music and the Lutheran church since Stiller. You should show more respect for scholarship. Perhaps you should even read the book. >
Hear, hear. To dismiss any excellent scholarly resource instead of reading it (and instead of entertaining its argument and evidence) is irresponsible, childish, patronizing, pathetic, and more.... I've even seen some real scholars fall into such a prejudiced trap against things they'd rather not consider as plausible; and it's a deplorable practice, no matter who does it, whether dilettante or scholar. Good stuff gets dismissed on hearsay or even less.

But, people who condemn things unread will create their own problems and short-change themselves (i.e. unwanted principles can't be proven or demonstrated to them anyway within their own little closed paradigm). They've erected their own limits of comfort around themselves, and they can't or won't get out. So, it's not worth worrying about trying to reach such unreachable folks anymore, where it's their own attitudes blocking them; there are more productive things to go do, instead. Let the serious forward-going research be done by people who have a healthy respect for scholarly processes, sound reasoning, and practical matters such as performing and composing church music....

=====

Many thanks are due to Mr Cowling for presenting this Herl book; I'm going to order an interlibrary copy of it right away, for my summer reading, to learn more about this important topic of Lutheran worship styles leading into the 18th century.

I've rather enjoyed the interesting thread of Bach's compositional planning, but I'd like to become better informed by actually reading the resources, before arguing possibilities. This Herl book looks like a terrific thing to study, so thanks again for mentioning it. I'd missed that reference, the first time on-list last August.

From a short bit of digging into the references, it's this book from Oxford University Press, following up Joseph Herl's own dissertation on related topics:

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Books/Worship-Wars%5BHerl%5D.htm
http://tinyurl.com/2cx2zx
Amazon.com

=====

At about 20 minutes into today's "Performance Today" show, a guy improvises a Debussyesque arrangement of "Yesterday" by the Beatles: http://performancetoday.publicradio.org/programs/
May 30, hour 1. And the Korngold concerto is always a whipped-cream treat to hear.

=====

Another article by this same Joseph Herl:
"Are Bach's Cantatas the Praise and Worship Music of the Eighteenth Century?"
http://www.calvin.edu/worship/luce/2003/herl.php

Thomas Braatz wrote (May 30, 2007):
It is truly amazing how much time and effort is spent in devising and presenting diatribes against me and my method of asking for more specific information in attempting to uncover what may have led to bold assertions made in this forum rather than in focusing directly on the subject matter at hand and providing as succinctly as possible the available evidence upon which these assertions are based.

Certainly these digressions (which may be intentional on the part of those who steer our attention away from the actual questions or subjects of discussion) could easily be avoided and thereby create less clutter for other BCML members who are required to sift through these extraneous personal reactions and reflections which have little or nothing to do with the original points of discussion).

Repeatedly Alain has unsuccessfully attempted to refocus attention on the Rifkin interview which he had presented to the BCML a short while ago. Thus far he has been met by a 'stonewall' response from the other vociferous BCML supporters of Rifkin's now famous, but still much debated, OVPP theory. I have attempted in vain for a long time to obtain from these Rifkin proponents an intelligible response outlining the new, seemingly irrefutable arguments and evidence that Rifkin has allegedly presented in his most recent booklet. The rather amazing unwillingness (or is it incapability?) on the part of these Rifkin supporters to point out specifically some key points of evidence that Rifkin uses in continuing to defend his OVPP theory may indeed be indicative that there really is not anything significantly new or different that might move a careful and reasonable reader closer toward accepting the possibility that most of the Leipzig cantatas and other sacred music composed there were performed OVPP under Bach's direction.

The assertion that Bach would, as a matter of course, have submitted his cantata texts to Salomon Deyling, Superintendent of Lutheran Churches in Leipzig, for approval is another assumption that needs to be questioned. And when, as it appears now, there really is nothing in Herl's book to connect the few fragmented statements about superintendents who lived elsewhere in the numerous principalities of what was then called loosely "Germany" and who lived primarily between 1520-1650, a century or more before the situation Bach encountered in an 'awakened' environment of the Enlightenment issuing primarily from the University of Leipzig with which St. Thomas School was rather closely associated (some members of the teaching staff were also teaching or would eventually teach at the university), then it becomes quite apparent that Herl's book cannot supply any meaningful supporting evidence for the contention mentioned above. Why should one necessarily read Herl's book for an answer to a question about possible censorship of Bach's cantata texts if an examination of the books contents on Amazon.com proves that there is nothing that relates directly to Bach's personal situation vis-à-vis Deyling and why should anyone need to read Rifkin's newest booklet, if what has already been presented in Parrott's book has not been surpassed with new and credible evidence that Bach's Primary Choir in Leipzig rarely, if ever, sang as a group of singers performing simultaneously in cantata mvts. scored for all four voices, but that generally only 4 solo (concertist) voices would have sung such (normally considered "choral") mvts.?

"Colorful" = OED: full of color, also figurative usage: full of interest, excitement, force, etc.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 31, 2007):
[To Bradley Lehman] Thanks so much Brad. After reading the PDF file given bthe link below, I can tell you that this material is right on target. My means of knowing comes first from my own Lutheran heritage. Although the PDF does not contain the references, the tone of this document is right on target with the oral history passed down in my own family--one which has had fourteen Lutheran pastors and/or church staff members in the last one hundred and twenty years. This writing (PDF) coincides with the literature upon which we were raised. My study of the History of Theology at Fuller Seminary, and even the time I spent in the study of Prebyterian history and polity supports what this document contains. I am sure the book itself offers a great deal more than an entertaining trip through time based upon the factual material contained therein.

Perhaps there is room to call the style of the writer (Herl) engaging, rather than colorful, but there is some evidence that the stories have the tone of Lutheransim, if not exactly color. Semantics tend to divide people at times, and personality also does show through--and we have many personalities on this mail list. Even so, I am persuaded from this preview found in the PDF that we have the genuine article here and if someone really wants to know the heart and soul and the scholarly facts of Lutheran History and the 'wars' intact, this book is right on target. I learned church history and church polity from the high chair up. Our home was filled with pastors and scholars in the Lutheran tradition as my parents entertained the dignitaries that came to the towns where we lived. My father served as the president of a small Lutheran college (later merged in Nebraska) and was on the board of another midwestern college besides. So I heard a good many discussions on the matter of history and much debate on the issue of the appropriateness of church music. There were personal differences and there were scholarly differences.

The same kinds of issues that required supervision in Bach's time, still prevail in some ways today, and not only in Lutheranism. For one and a half years I had a weekly dialogue with a person highly involved in the charismatic movement. By way of illustration, once we overcame some of the semantic issues the dogmatism on both sides dissolved. No person who has not been a Lutheran deeply entrenched in the history of Lutheranism can vouch for this book on Lutheran grounds, but scholarly grounds are highly supported, and therein a person with depth in the history of church music like Doug, or in musicology lilke Brad will realize that jointly we are able to substantiate the validity of a work such as Herl's. So there is room for unity. I would be more comfortable, if anyone writing on the forum would have the courtesy to read a book cover to cover before pronouncing a final judgment and my review is only regarding the PDF, I must add. Or if only covering a review substantiate his or her background. Is the writer a Lutheran? If so, what history does he/she have in regard to the literature of Lutheranism? Is the writer a scholar? When I have done translations for people at times I have learned that the context of the material is critical and revisions have been made to my work I considered to be a blessing. Even when one edits in English, one may not always grasp the context of the writer. This is why scholarly work does not place dictatorial absolutes on the basis of opinion. There is nothing wrong at all with saying "in my opinion....such and such."

We will work together better as a group of people who have worth while material to share if we can carefully separate our opinions from historical facts and rigid conclusions regarding them.

A year ago I joined this group, and then dropped out in part due to the controversy herein. But I decided to come back, and I am learning a great deal. When Thomas suggested reading to me regarding figured bass I did the reading, and in my opinion I gained quite a bit from the adventure. Brad also contributed to my knowledge and has continued to do so. In the end I am finally understanding much later that different approaches had to do with time period and with formal or informal settings. Even the controversy over what may have been appropriate formally or emotionally enters into the avenue of why some people like what the composer noted down and keeping it simple to the opposite approach of adding ornamentations and thereby possibly more emotional content.

I hope we can all continue to learn from each other, but good manners does in my opinion mean that when we have an opinion we state it as an opinion and note the facts and what we think they mean as scholarly possibilities. The greatest scholars I have ever been privileged to study with all say, 'in my opinion and from my analysis this is what I take this or that combination of factors to mean.' Directly quotable history also comes from various authors and the possibility is that on some issues we do not have all the historical documentation to have a completely clear picture. But we can all grow from knowledge, and a life without expansive thinking is pretty dull.

Thanks for listening to me.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 31, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Certainly these digressions (which may be intentional on the part of those who steer our attention away from the actual questions or subjects of discussion) could easily be avoided and thereby create less clutter for other BCML members who are required to sift through these extraneous personal reactions and reflections which have little or nothing to do with the original points of discussion). >
Wow! This is just like being in the 18^th century. Censorship is about to be imposed on us!

Peter Smaill wrote (May 31, 2007):
Reverting to the subject: why is this Cantata so short?

My suggestion is that the reason is theological: it is a build up to Whitsun and, once the component movements have covered the Gospel for the day, and then set the Christian in relationship to each member of the Trinity, concluding with a prayer to God through the Holy Spirit, then there is nothing further to add.

The Chorale is most beautiful, and Brad has added a good analysis of the setting. My error here is that the setting given out as "Zeuch ein zu deinen Toren" in Reimenschneider is apparently different from the BWV 183 setting, even though the words of this verse are not used according to the BCW in any other Cantata. The word painting (not really a theological observation here ) is valid for the Reimenschneider version.

Is Bach interested in the doctrine of the Trinity such that theology shapes his approach to music? In the B minor Mass (BWV 232) we have direct evidence for his use of musical symbolism to reinforce the sacred pattern of the unity of father and Son. Not only does the duet treatment of "Et in unum......." emphasise the concept of "unigenite", but Bach himself writes in the score, "Duo Voces Articuli 2" ,i.e "Two voices express 2"..

Just as Bach expresses "two in oneness" in the MBM (BWV 232) so in this Cantata the structure is built around the Trinity.

Neil Mason wrote (May 31, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< Wow! This is just like being in the 18^th century. Censorship is about to be imposed on us! >
I sympathise with this comment. It is only reasonable for list-members to require others in the same category to read a book or listen to a recording before criticising it. It's called "manners".

Julian Mincham wrote (May 31, 2007):
I don't agree with (or maybe I just don't grant as sufficiently credible) such comments that would press Bach to have done deliberate little supposedly-theologilittle supposedly-theologi<WBR>cal things.is (to me) just a bunch of evidence that Bach's musical mastery was excellent, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with word-painting here. This chorale BWV 183/5 is a good example of freedom/decoration of melodic parts, within a harmonic framework.

I agree partly but not wholly with these comments and their expansion in the remainder of the email.

Howevr they raise some interesting issues which I would like to a little.

The first is the idea that Bach may well have written as he did principally to fulfill the musical rather that the textural, word painting or theological imperatives. I am sure that for the most part he did although the two are clearly not exclusive---in fact probably less so in his music than in anyone else's. I believe that Bach probably took personal pride in fulfilling different imperatives simultaneously just as he seems to have done by representing quite different emotions,statements in the same movement (BWV 103/1)

However I thing it is wrong to assume that the musical imperative (or effective) ALWAYS took precedence over other factors. Tovey pointed out many years ago that some of Bach's fugues subjects, when inverted, became, angular and verged upon the ugly (I think, from memory he gave as examples the G+, D- and A- fugues fro book 1) Here the musical imperative took second place to the need to show compositional brilliance or to demonstrate his own cleverness. Very difference is the stretto inversion of the subject in the D-f ugue from book 2---so natural and flowing that most people would probably not notice it without reference to a score.

There are also examples where Bach takes a sudden and (on the surface) somewhat musically unconvincing twist at the end of some recitatives. Usually this is to portray the asking of a question, the introduction of a new and contrary thought, a moment of incompleteness etc.

In other words the musical imperative is largely but not wholly inevitably the driving force.

As to the harmonisations of chorales, my own research has shown examples where Bach has reharmonised an early version in order to end a cantata and in it he has introduced details--a dissonance here, a diminished chord there--which seem to have been suggested by the particular text of that final verse. So I have no problem with the recognition of details which are both musically and textually driven at the same time.

There is always the danger of reading something into the music which may not have been intended. But how do we judge this? 'Intention' is a most dangerous element for assumption: In fact much musical analysis carries such dangers.

All of which leads me to a hobby horse. What I like about this particular quoted posting, whether I agree or not, is that it deals directly with the MUSIC itself. Many of the postings deal with relevant issues (ignoring the irrelevant ones for the moment!) rather than about the music per se------text, translation, performance details and practices, comparative interpretations etc etc. I don't complain about this--some interesting views always turn up.

BUT I do feel that we tend to get the balance a bitwrong. What is there that attracts us to this canon (apart from the odd-ball who occasionally writes in to tell us how boring it all is) but the deeply felt reaction to the expressive character of the music itself? But we tend to spend most effort discussing matters adjunct to the music rather than the centrality of the music itself.

Maybe some people don't feel they have the musical background to enter into such discussion--to which I would respond 'phoo-ey' (or an even ruder word!) If you feel it, you can talk about it. Whether you can distinguish between a third inversion dominant 7th and a German 6th is entirely irrelevant. Some peoples' reaction to the (apparently) truncated bass aria a week or so ago is an excellent example of what I mean about music based discussion.

Other such questions which anyone, practising musician or not, might offer a view on might be

* do you find the recits in the two cantatas which begin with one, to feel to be of a different quality than those in other cantatas?

* what about the different uses of obligato instruments--particularly flute, violin, picc cello, oboes? How do you feel they colour particular arias/duets?

* how do you respond to the use of conventional suites movements in the cantatas?--minuets, gavottes etc

These (and a lot more possible questions) can be addressed and commented upon by those with minimal or nil musical background.

Please don't give me a rant for criticisng commonly discussed topics ---I am not! But I would like to see more discussion of and views about the music itself--a slight shift in the balance would interest me more.

Thomas Braatz wrote (May 31, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>Is Bach interested in the doctrine of the Trinity such that theology shapes his approach to music? In the B minor Mass (BWV 232) we have direct evidence for his use of musical symbolism to reinforce the sacred pattern of the unity of father and Son. Not only does the duet treatment of "Et in unum......." emphasise the concept of "unigenite", but Bach himself writes in the score, "Duo Voces Articuli 2" ,i.e "Two voices express 2".<<
It was not JSB who wrote this into the score, but his son, CPE, in 1786. The latter is also responsible for 're-writing' or 're-composing' his father's score (he changed considerably the 'texting' of the music ---where specific words fall) much to the detriment to the 'formative symbolism' of the entire mvt. (Friedrich Smend, NBA KB II/1 p. 154). Remember that CPE used a razor blade (Foreword to Rifkin's 2006 Urtext edition, B&H) to erase notes from his father's original composition and then superimposed his own inferior modifications upon them in such a way that it becomes impossible to ascertain for certain what his father had originally intended.

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 31, 2007):
< It is truly amazing how much time and effort is spent in devising and presenting diatribes against me and my method of asking for more specific information in attempting to uncover what may have led to bold assertions made in this forum rather than in focusing directly on the subject matter at hand and providing as succinctly as possible the available evidence upon which these assertions are based. >
Dude, that was 68 words in a row with no punctuation. Breathe. Organize your thoughts.

It is truly amazing how much time and wasted effort is spent fashioning belligerent demands, and whining about other people's scholarship one can't be troubled to read, INSTEAD OF reading scholarly material in its context.

"In its context": reading straight through a printed book (requiring a time commitment and concentration), to learn about an author's entire presented argument and organization of evidence...as opposed to picking and plucking at it with search engines -- or worse, demanding pre-digested "summaries" of it from intelligent readers to be (mis)used INSTEAD OF a look at the book -- to see if it contains certain keywords that would somehow magically tip the balance toward credibility.

The fashioning of demands and challenges takes longer than a reading of the material would do! It also shows that you're much more interested in pressing YOUR OWN ideas, and the framing of things YOU think are make-or-break important, than in listening to the organized work of experts.

The way you use (misuse!) scholarship is mainly pick-and-choose, yanking things out of context to corroborate things YOU wanted to say, and focusing on little factoids (twistable to whatever use you can fashion for them) instead of on organized musicological arguments; too bad for whatever the author of a published piece really said in context, or decided what was important in context.

That's part of the problem.

And what about the old-fashioned notion of reading books straight through, without agenda or prejudice, to learn something? Instead of treating them as tracts of land to be strip-mined for factoids?

I checked out the Herl book Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism (2004) last night, from a university library with an extensive theology section. While there, I grabbed another half dozen books nearby that also looked interesting and relevant; a nice byproduct of visiting libraries. Stacks browsing is a delightful activity. I look forward to reading these over the summer, to fill in on topics I don't understand well enough. The Dewey Decimal call number of the Herl book starts with 264.04102. Wow, five digits after the decimal: the subtlety of this cataloguing system in organizing a large collection, down to sub-categories.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 31, 2007):
183/5: Bach's Orchestration

Julian Mincham wrote:
< * what about the different uses of obligato instruments--particularly flute, violin, picc cello, oboes? How do you feel they colour particular arias/duets? >
One of the joys of this forum -- yes, there ARE joys! -- is the opportunity to marvel and Bach's incredible genius for orchestration. Every cantata has some unique orchestral technique which shows the composer's unceasing exploration of instrumental colour.

It's worth comparing Bach with his most famous contemporaries, Händel, Vivaldi and Telemann.

In spite of his kaleidoscope of concertos, Vivaldi hardly ever uses obligato instruments beyond the occasional oboe in his church music. Even trumpets and drums are very unusual.

Händel is much the same. The "Messiah" has one obligato instrument in one aria -- "The Trumpet Shall Sound". The rest of the oratorio is for strings and doubling oboes only (trumpets and drums appear in only three movements!) Compare that with orchestral treasure trove of the Christmas Oratorio (BWV 248). There are no obligato instruments in the Coronation Anthems and only the occasional oboe in the Chandos Anthem and the Latin Psalms. Only in a special case like "The Ode for St. Cecilia's Day" do we find obligato instruments in each movement and that is only because of the text celebrating the sound of various instruments.

Telemann is certainly more adventresome than Vivaldi or Händel (I've only heard a handful of cantatas) but there is never the sense of "oooh - ahhhh" that one has when encountering a new orchestral effect in Bach. I don't think there is another composer in the 18^th century who could have written the Magnificat (BWV 243), a 23-minute summary of the Baroque orcehstra.

Julian Mincham wrote (May 31, 2007):
Douglas Cowl