Cantatas BWV 190 & BWV 190a - Discussions

Cantata BWV 190
Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied
Cantata BWV 190a
Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied!
Discussions - Part 3

Continue from Part 2

Discussions in the Week of August 9, 2009

William Hoffman wrote (August 9, 2009):
BWV 190: Fugitive Notes & Köthen Connections

First, review the BCML discussion of Cantata, BWV 190: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV190.htm
especial Aryeh Oron's Intro, Aug. 10, 2003, and John Pike's Intro, Jan. 15, 2006 (Part 2)

NEW YEAR: BWV 190, Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied [parodied, incomplete]
1/1/24 (Cycle 1), repeated 1736-39; wholly original, parodied in BWV 190a, Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied!, Augsburg 1, 6/25/30.
Sources: (1) score (#3-7 only, SPK P.127, CPEB, Berlin Sing.), (2) 6 parts (SATB, vn 1&2 (doublets), SPK St.88, ?, Berlin Sing.), score #1-2, other parts (3 tp, timp., 3 ob [1 d/a], va, bc) with BWV 190a (lost).
Literature: BG XXXVII (Waldersee 1884; NBA KB I/4 (Neumann 1964); reconstruction Walther Reinhart (Zürich: Hug, 1948); recon. Olivier Alain, 1971; Smend Bach in Köthen, 66-70, 86 (190/3-6 orig. Köthen 1/1/23); Whittaker II:221-5; Robertson 39 f; Young 141-3; Dürr 147.
Score (pf,vv): http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Scores/BWV190-V&P.pdf
(Kalmus-?Alain K 06060, Drinker Eng. Trans.); 190, Breitkopf 7190, 1996, D. Hellmann recon.
Text: #1, 2, Luther cle. Te Deum; #4-6, ?? Bach or Picander; Mvt. 7, Herman cle. "Jesu, nun sei gepreiset" ("Jesus, Now Be Praised") (S. 2).
Forces: ATB, 4 vv, 3 tp, timp, 3 ob (1 d'a), str, bc.
Movements: chorus, 3 recit. (BTA, B, T), 2 arias (A, T), chorale.
1. Chs.(tutti): Sing to the Lord a new song (Ps.149:1, 150:4, 6).
2. Rec.(BTA w/cle.): O God, we praise Thee.
3. Aria(A,str): Praise Zion thy God with joy (Ps.23:2) (polonaise).
4. Rec.(B): Let wish to itself the world.
5. Aria(TB,ob): Jesus shall my all be (passepied-minuet).
6. Rec.(T,str): Now Jesus, grant with the New Year.
7. Cle.(tutti): Let us the year fulfill.

Summary: Diethard Hellmann, Bretikopf Ed. Preface. Nos. 3-7 of the New Year's version survive in their entirety, along with the two violin parts (doublets), the choral of Mvt. 1 (Chorus) in four parts and all the vocal parts of Mvt. 2 (Chorale & Recitative), all the parts in the hand of J.A. Kuhnau at the end of 1723.

Much credit goes to Hellmann, and Gustave Theile, for their restoration through reconstruction of important works now recognized by Koopman [4] and Suzuki [7] (both with their own reconstructions of BWV 190). Previously, only Rilling [3] was willing to venture into Bach musicological minefields, which Harnoncourt and Leonhardt shunned in their alleged "Complete Cantatas" edition, notably Vol. 44, blatantly omitting BWV 190, BWV 191, and BWV 193. Shame on them!

Turning to recent commentaries, Dürr's Cantatas says the alto aria (Mvt. 3), because of "Its homophonic string texture, articulated by echo dynamics, suggests a secular origin, though no concrete evidence of this has come to light." Somehow, Friedrich Smend's pioneering <Bach in Köthen> gets short schrift, but is discussed in detail below. David Schulenberg's entry on BWV 190 in the OCC:JSB, p. 452f, points out the similarities of this work with three movements in Cantata BWV 69(a): opening chorus full instrumentation, tenor-bass duet (Mvt. 5) use of oboe d'amore, and closing plain chorale trumpet interludes. Cantata BWV 69(a) is primarily a Town Council cantata and has festive, celebratory music very similar to New Year's cantatas as well as special celebratory events such as similar cantatas parodied for 200^th anniversary of the Augsburg Confession in 1730, especially Cantata BWV 190's sister, BWV 190a, discussed below.

Cantata BWV 190 shows some close connections to both Bach's Köthen New Year's serenades and his presumed first sacred New Year's Cantata BWV 143. Cantata BWV 143 reflects both Bach's command of his vocal art achieved in Köthen, especially the accessible, expansive and technically challenging arias and choruses with their gracious dance style, and, like Cantata BWV 143, the imaginative, commanding and unparalleled use of the chorale, first perfected in the organ preludes composed before Köthen.

Smend argues that the surviving five movements of Cantata BWV 190/3-7 contain material first conceived in Köthen for a sacred New Year's cantata. Besides the two arias with dance style, including one signature duet (Mvt. 5), alternating with proclamatory, utility recitatives, Smends points to textual parallels. Most notable is the choice of particular words in the closing, summary recitative, "Now Jesus, grant," original librettist unknown (maybe J.F. Helbig?). Could this be Bach's first, perhaps partial parody, by Bach's foremost parodist poet, Picander? Smend cites the use of the word "Gesalbter" (Annointed One), no where else found in any original Leipzig work for New Year's Day, referring to a prince or his family with their "Stamm und Zweige" (trunk and branches). Smends suggests that this proto version of Cantata BWV 190 was composed soon after the birth of Prince Leopold's first child, on Sept. 21, 1722, and performed Jan. 1, 1723 as Bach's last extant work before departing Köthen for Leipzig.

It should be noted that Bach's parody of Leipzig regal secular serenades as sacred oratorios, most notably in the Christmas Oratorio, offended certain late-19^th century Bach scholars who either avoided or denigrated these works, or, in the case of W. Gillies Whittaker, who went to great lengths and contortions to try to prove that the Christmas Oratorio (BWV 248) was composed before its parodied serenades. Bach had no apparent reservations transforming or metamorphosing at least five and possibly more Köthen serenades into sacred cantatas for the Easter, Pentecost, and Trinity Sunday feast days, and maybe even New Year's.

While Christoph Wolff continues to decry the massive loss of Köthen works, with little supporting evidence, it was Smend who tenaciously suggested that certain Leipzig sacred works had their origins in Köthen sacred works: Cantatas BWV 190, BWV 145, BWV 193, and BWV 32. It was the theologian Smend, whose reach was further than his grasp and who made mistakes of the heart, who more than a half century ago commendable and resolutely took up the cause of Bach's neglected parodies and Köthen vocal music. Smend resurrected the "lost" St. Mark Passion and helped pave the way for the rightful place of the Bach Christological oratorios and the Lutheran Masses, and perhaps influenced the elevation of Bach's stile antico late vocal works first championed by Wolff.

Next: Cantata BWV 190a.

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (August 9, 2009):
William Hoffman wrote:
< While Christoph Wolff continues to decry the massive loss of Köthen works, with little supporting evidence. >
I completely disagree with that statement. But many thanks for all the hard work and fine research you've provided in this entry, it's greatly appreciated.

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (August 9, 2009):
I will divide my introductory remarks on Cantata 190 as follows:

1. Sunday:

BWV 190 as another occasion to restore the cantatas to its original purpose

2. Monday:

A reflective miniature of an affect to be properly guided by God through Cantata BWV 190

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (August 9, 2009):
1. BWV 190 as another occasion to restore the cantatas to its original purpose

More than merely a psychic blow would be necessary in order to excel the vast void in human affairs, although, undoubtedly, the public, bored with such an adequate endeavor, would prompt us to find a higher purpose than conquering an audience. With such a distinction a work avoids popularity, being the single individual the sole addressee of a bunch of masterpieces. Now, a labor like that is intended for few listeners, and precisely because, not deluded, we admit the determined different direction of majority, whereas, along with me, one or two are directed to reconstruct nothing but praise to overshadow infamy, which daily defies even through writings and art, through the base carved language of blasphemy. Farewell, let us say to the blurred appearance of wisdom! Yea, seashore sunk beneath the horizon - adieu! For, beyond the bursting waves of sophistry, the undecided skeptical breakers, we search for divine glory - o that we, worthy of longing, could long worthily not merely to sing an aria, otherwise singing it devotedly to the Lord, and singing the new covenant, his secret counsel revealed in our fear and trembling, the forgiveness of all sins, promise of eternal bliss. For if strong in love, you are immensely apart from sinning; and if weak though fearing, grace is revealed, so that you may praise along with his saints. But those who neither love nor fear, what do they sing, as if praising, else dishonoring the one they should praise not sinning? And if you do not praise in listening to a fearless sin singing an old song, why not to acknowledge the judgment of sin, the hypocrisy that has divorced you from praising? But as soon as you acknowledge God's judgment, you fear, away from sin, but not from praise. For the cantata will be at last restored when we sing TO THE LORD, and either loving or fearing to be ourselves reconstructed to the perfect love that casts out fear.

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 9, 2009):
BWV 190 [introductory]

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote:
< BWV 190 as another occasion to restore the cantatas to its original purpose >

The original purpose of Bach's cantatas was specific to time and place. One of the objectives of this discussion group is to make the texts understood (or understandable, at least) to a worldwide audience. That is not an identical objective to endorsing their content as a universal truth.

No one has said it better, more concisely, more simply, than Francis Browne, who described the task of translation as penitential. France is prone (inside joke).

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 10, 2009):
William Hoffman wrote:
< While Christoph Wolff continues to decry the massive loss of Köthen works, with little supporting evidence. >
Kim Patrick Clow replied;

Is the disagreement with the statement attributed to Wolff, or with the assertion of <little supporting evidence>? Indeed, <lost works> and <little supporting evidence> go virtually hand in hand, no? Further on, Will notes:
< It was the theologian Smend, whose reach was further than his grasp and who made mistakes of the heart, who more than a half century ago commendable and >resolutely took up the cause of Bach's neglected parodies and Köthen vocal music. >
I read all this as Will essentially agreeing with both Wolff and Smend, that there are likely to be lost Köthen works surviving only in parody, but that the belief is more a matter of heart than interpretation of evidence.

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (August 10, 2009):
"While Christoph Wolff continues to decry the massive loss of Köthen works, with little supporting evidence."
< Is the disagreement with the statement attributed to Wolff, or with the assertion of <little supporting evidence>?
The latter.
< Indeed, <lost works> and <little supporting evidence> go virtually hand in hand, no? >
Maybe. But then, Wolff gives some compelling evidence to justify his claims. I feel the explanations to counter Wolff's "evidence" are more creative than the more simpler explanation, a lot of Bach's music vanished due to a variety of reasons.

Here's an interesting tidbit. There were 12 unique sources for about 10 orchestral suites by Johann F. Fasch in Leipzig. Hugo Riemann mentions them in his writings around 1909, and even prepared a few keyboard reductions of some movements from these suites. Of those 10, only one (!) survives now in the Leizpig archives. A significant loss of music since just 1910. So, the losses Wolff estimates for Bach aren't unusual for a composer of the baroque (I've given details about that in other threads),in fact Bach fared pretty good.

No matter what, the lost Bach and Fasch (and of course, Telemann) is tragic :/

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 10, 2009):
BWV 190: Multiple Settings of texts

William Hoffman wrote:
< NEW YEAR: BWV 190, Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied [parodied, incomplete]
Text: #1, 2, Luther cle. Te Deum; #4-6, ?? Bach or Picander; Mvt. 7, Herman cle. "Jesu, nun sei gepreiset" ("Jesus, Now Be Praised") (S. 2). >
The opening movement also serves as the dictum with quotations from Psalm 149:1 and Psalm 150:4&6. This cantata is fascinating because it is one of the relatively rare examples when Bach set the same German text twice (the Latin masses provide an encyclopedia of Bach's brilliance in handling common texts). The psalm verses are also part of the libretto for one of Bach's greatest works, the motet, "Singet dem Herrn". I've always felt that the motets are unfairly ignored because they are 'a capella' works: "Singet dem Herrn" and "Jesu Meine Freude" are masterpieces.

There aren't many examples of multiple settings of the same text. A quick skim across the alphabetical cantata list gives these (I haven't looked them up so they many not be identical):

Ach Gott wie manche (3 settings)
Herr wir loben (2)
Ich ruf zu dir (2)
Lobe den Herrn, meine Seele (3)
Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland (2)
O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort (2)
Schwingt freudig euch empor (2)
Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan (3)

It's instructive to compare motet and cantata. A quick outline of the motet:

Mvt 1: (bipartite "prelude and fugue")
Prelude: "Singet Dem Herrn"
Fugue: "Die Kinder Zion"

Mvt 2 (Polyphonic "Aria" interspersed with Chorale)
Choir 1: Aria: "Gott, nimm dich ferner unser an"
Choir 2: Chorale: "Wie sich ein Vater erbarmet"

Mvt 3: ("prelude and fugue")
Prelude: Lobet den Herrn in seinen Taten
Fugue: Alles, was Odem hat

Common texts are bracketed:

Cantata text:
[Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied!
Die Gemeine der Heiligen soll ihn loben!]
Lobet ihn mit Pauken und Reigen,
lobet ihn mit Saiten und Pfeifen!
[Alles, was Odem hat, lobe den Herrn!]

Motet text:
Mvt 1
[Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied,
Die Gemeine der Heiligen sollen ihn loben.]
Israel freue sich des, der ihn gemacht hat.
Die Kinder Zion sei'n fröhlich über ihrem Könige,
Sie sollen loben seinen Namen im Reihen;
mit Pauken und mit Harfen solsie ihm spielen.

Mvt 3:
Lobet den Herrn in seinen Taten,
lobet ihn in seiner großen Herrlichkeit!
[Alles, was Odem hat, lobe den Herrn] Halleluja!

In both "Singet" sections, Bach contrasts homophonic shouts of "Singet dem Herrn" with ecstatic vocalizations on "singet" and "lobet". Both melodies for "singet" have the same prominent dactylic rhythm. In both cantata and motet, the "Singet" section functions as a kind of choral prelude to the fugue which follows.

"Alles was Odem hat" is set in both works as fugues, but they have very different themes and developments. Probably coincidently, they both begin in the basses and rise successively through the tenor, alto and soprano. There is some similarity to the theme of "Sicut locutus est" but ornamented by the dactylic "singet" theme as a counter-subject. The motet fugue is set in quicksilver 3/8 with constantly diminishing stretto which makes the voices sound literally and symbolically gasping for breath.

One other interesting point about this New Year's cantata is the use of the chorale, "Herr wir loben" which is the German version of the Te Deum. The Te Deum was traditionally sung on New Year's Day as a thanksgiving for the preceding year (a continuation of the Catholic tradition). Bach set the long canticle-chorale as a monumental organ chorale prelude and motet setting which the congregation would recognize instantly as THE New Year's hymn -- sort of an ecclesiastical "Auld Lange Syne".

Jean Laaninen wrote (August 10, 2009):
Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote:
< But as soon as you acknowledge God's judgment, you fear, away from sin, but not from praise. For the cantata will be at last restored when we sing TO THE LORD, and either loving or fearing to be ourselves reconstructed to the perfect love that casts out fear. >
>>This is so well said, Henri. Thank you. When one participates with the heart there is little as glorious as singing Bach or hearing it well sung. And if one believes and finds a truth therein the exaltation is almost beyond words. You have captured the purpose in your understanding. Thank you again.

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (August 10, 2009):
[To Jean Laaninen] I am truly glad with your reaction, Jean; and - God is my witness - not as a hunter of recognition. For I cannot expect more than being used to share some depth with those who live the purpose captured.

May God bless you dearly!

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (August 10, 2009):
2. A reflective miniature of an affect...

to be properly guided by God through Cantata BWV 190

Love and truth are so united that any disjunction turns to be a delusion in our feeble heart, something we regret deeply whenever we acknowledge that there was a better way to expound the pearls of sincerity. On the other hand, to hear is an art that does not demand a perfect proclamation, and since merely a flash of human perfection is hard to achieve, and only a pampered soul would claim to hear ideally what is necessary to be heard. Now, if we had found gold, we would not throw it away by reason of its impurities, and that is how a wise ear enriches accepting the most beneficial statements. Thus, a well said truth is an instrument in God's hand only inasmuch as we humbly receives it from him. Otherwise, it turns to be nothing but a pearl we are eager to trample underfoot. Similarly, a sacred cantata will be an instrument in Almighty's hand to guide our affects toward his glory, but only if we care for God's glory; otherwise, Bach's cantatas are transformed in mere representation, at most godly dramas to distant observers, if not even an occasion to provide subject-matter to some misinformed critics that, unconcerned about exercising piety themselves, presume to understand Christianity through disdain or indifference; aesthetes that, after trying to separate those that were born to live united, portrait a sacred cantata deceptively as if it was absolute music. On the contrary, and since we have found a renewed occasion to celebrate, in this distinguished virtual society, neither the reconstructed score, nor the musical instruments, and since trumpets and drums and strings are but a companion, like dances and pipes with what the psalmist thanked the Lord God along with everything that has breath, so, let us praise him who have waited all our lives long, still thinking of us with mercy when our thoughts were remote or, worse, dared to blasphemously amuse our distinction from simple believers. For God blesses our present acknowledgment among those who harm themselves resisting. Yea! We thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; we thank you, that you make your sun rise on the evil and on the good, and send rain on the just and on the unjust, that while astuteness controls politics, you still show patience in protecting the land; that while utter impieties multiplies, and your name is prohibited in public schools, you refrain pestilence and war; and that your kindness has worked to protect us even when, not attentive of what you have done, we unfairly complained for any sufferance you supposedly ought not to have permitted; that, while we all frequently stumble in many ways, your steadfast love never ceases, and your mercies never come to an end, being otherwise new every morning. We praise you, for even if through a somber valley, you are leading us to green meadows - you, Jesus, who have engraved the truthful idea of safety in embracing you, in whom, directed and guided, we joyfully act to find you, and trusting in the price you have paid, so that, even stumbling in weakness, we may be confident of a good end; that if blessed branches set its top among the clouds, our hearts, not proud of height, will be kept instead in faithfulness and peace, and in all the virtue of love blessedly issued from a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Richard Raymond wrote (August 10, 2009):
[To Henri N. Levinspuhl] I hope that Johann Sebastian used to hear better sermons in the Leipzig churches...

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 10, 2009):
Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote:
< otherwise, Bach's cantatas are transformed in mere representation, at most godly dramas to distant observers, if not even an occasion to provide subject-matter to some misinformed critics that, unconcerned about exercising piety themselves, presume to understand Christianity through disdain or indifference; aesthetes that, after trying to separate those that were born to live united, portrait a sacred cantata deceptively as if it was absolute music. >
Frankly, I find this kind of comment about the motivations of list members and the purpose of the historical method offensive.

Evan Cortens wrote (August 10, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< Frankly, I find this kind of comment about the motivations of list members and the purpose of the historical method offensive. >
I'm with Doug on this one as well. Henri suggests that in order to even discuss Bach (never mind understand, which would be a different question) we must ourselves practice his particular brand of "piety". Do I need to be an anti-Semite to discuss Wagner?

Furthermore, I've been following the discussions over the past couple weeks, and I'm not quite sure what Henri, Jean and Paul are responding to: I haven't seen anyone suggest that Bach somehow wasn't a believing, practicing Lutheran.

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 10, 2009):
Evan Cortens wrote, in response and agreement with Doug:
< Furthermore, I've been following the discussions over the past couple weeks, and I'm not quite sure what Henri, Jean and Paul are responding to: I haven't seen anyone suggest that Bach somehow wasn't a believing, practicing Lutheran. >
I agree with both writers, especially the concluding point by Evan.

Julian Mincham wrote (August 10, 2009):
Evan Cortens wrote:
< I'm with Doug on this one as well. Henri suggests that in order to even discuss Bach (never mind understand, which would be a different question) we must ourselves practice his particular brand of "piety". Do I need to be an anti-Semite to discussWagner? >
Do we need to have visited or been involved with brothels to enjoy early jazz? Do we need to be a card carrying Nazi to appreciate the performances of Gieseking and others? Can an atheist not be moved by much of the huge bulk of music generated by the great religions of the world?

We have had bursts of this sort of piety before and they inevitably move us away from rather than towards an understanding and appreciation of this music.

Can we please get back to discussion with the music as the central focus?

William Hoffmann wrote (August 10, 2009):
BWV 190: Multiple Settings of texts

Thank you again, Doug Cowling for your information in Multiple Settings of texts, especially the final verse of the final psalm, "Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord," your advocacy of the motets, and the ultimate New Year's chorale, "Herr Gott, dich loben wir."

Before I forget, the John Eliot Gardner Bach cantata release, Vol.17, is available Aug. 11. It has New Year's and Sunday After New Year's Cantatas BWV 143, BWV 41, BWV 16, BWV 171, BWV 153, and BWV 58. I don't see BWV 190. Is it in a previous release?

Connections and Contexts: Re. Psalm 150:6, Alles was Odem hat (All that has breath): there is BWV 223, "Meine Seele soll Gott loben" (questionable fragment, Spitta) , closing fugue in Bb: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV223-D.htm.
Also the phrase is found in the closing tutti fugues BWV 190/1 (NY) and BWV 190a/1 (Augsburg), BWV 120a/8 closing chorale (wedding), and the same text in the closing chorale 137/5 with obbligato trumpet choir (?council). There also is a cantata of the same words by Johann Ernst Bach (1722-1727). He was a Sebastian student (1737-1742).

As for Bach's "monumental organ chorale prelude and motet; setting," BWV 725, says Peter Williams, <Organ Music of JSB> 467f : Luther's rhyming couplets, 53 lines; "BWV 725 often agrees with BWV 328 (plain chorale) when it does not re-harmonize for a new verse." "It is not certain Forkel's MS (the only copy) included the unique text incipits." See the full text on BCML: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Texts/Chorale036-Eng3.htm.

The music and a portion of Luther's Te Deum text is found in Cantata BWV 16/1 opening chorale chorus (NY), BWV 190/1,2 unison chorus and chorale trope (NY), 119/9 closing chorale (council), 120/6 closing chorale (council), BWV 190a,1,2 (Augsburg Confession) same as 190/1,2. Incidentally, in a recent BCW discussion, I believe Doug Cowling offered an explanation of why the Latin Te Deum wasn't performed in Lutheran Countries. Dogma, maybe?

Without raining on anyone's parade (or procession), I would point out that historically, the issue of the extent of Bach's spirituality has probably been the leading Bach studies topic in the last half of the 20^th century. It began with Friedrich Blüme questioning Bach's sacred commitment. It was followed by a plethora of studies, including the Calov Bible and the Internationale Arbeitsgemeinschaft für theologische Bachforschung, beginning in 1977. Beyond some reaction that Blüme was casting pearls or stepping on idols' feet, his challenge was essential to the 19th century idolatry of Bach (the Fifth Evangelist): http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Religion-4.htm.
and the growing 20^th century revisionist, Marxist dicta, especially in Bach Country, East Germany. From this polarizing, dualistic thinking has come a more unitarian, enriched perspective on the man and his music, which IMVHO cannot be separated, the New Criticism aside.

What especially resonates with me, rings my chimes, is the passage in Bach's Calov Interpretive Bible re. "Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord. (this means the praise of the mouth, that is from mankind on earth in whom is spirit and breath. The Lord God is to be honored and praised with instruments and voices in the temple and in the sanctuary where he dwells, and also in your prayers to heaven, for the Lord's throne is heaven and the earth is his footstool, Isaiah 66:1)."

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 10, 2009):
William Hoffman wrote:
< Incidentally, in a recent BCW discussion, I believe Doug Cowling offered an explanation of why the Latin Te Deum wasn't performed in Lutheran Countries. >
I did? What authoritative statement did I give? (grin).

Hopefully, I said ...

The Te Deum was sung at daily matins and as a stand-alone thanksgiving in German. Stiller might tell us whether the early-morning matins choirboys ever sang it in Latin. They sang the psalms and their antiphons in Latin.

There isn't a significant difference between Luther's German text and the original Latin. I would suspect that Bach's chorale-prelude and chorale-motet settings may have been intended as stand-alone acclamations for services at some civic or state celebration: an accession, military victory, etc.

Like the end of Act 1 of Tosca.

Neil Halliday wrote (August 11, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
> One other interesting point about this New Year's cantata is the use of the chorale, "Herr wir loben" which is the German version of the Te Deum.<
In both the first and second movements.

Most unusual is the chorale's unexpected appearance, in unison SATB, in the first movement, with the first phrase in long notes introducing the fugue ("all that breath have"), and the second phrase closing the fugue; notice the accompaniment to the second phrase 'quotes' the fugue in the 1^st violins.

The setting in the second movement is also distinctive; each phrase (in 4-part harmonisation) is separated by recitative (for TBA in succession).

Fortunately the parts for violoins 1 and 2 survive, allowing a reasonable reconstruction of the glorious Mvt. 1. Suzuki's recording [7] shows that a good reconstruction is well worth the effort!

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 11, 2009):
BWV 190: Unison intrusions

Neil Halliday wrote:
< Most unusual is the chorale's unexpected appearance, in unison SATB, in the first movement, The setting in the second movement is also distinctive; each phrase (in 4-part harmonisation) is separated by recitative (for TBA in succession). >
This quotation of the Te Deum surprised me as well: it's almost as if it's aboutto turn into a chorale cantata. Bach sometimes uses unison when he wants to cite a quotation. A couple of examples: In the SMC at the end of the chorus "andern hat er geholfen" the crowd quotes the words of Jesus with a unison "Ich bin Gottes Sohn; in the closing chorus of the Mark Passion (BWV 247), the voices "read" the words on the tomb of Jesus in a very effective unison. In Cantata BWV 190, it's almost as if the chorus exhorts the listener to sing a new song to the Lord, and then quotes the words of that new song: the Te Deum.

In Mvt. 2, I was also struck by the use of successive soloists between the lines of the chorale. I always thought of multiple soloists as a kind of valedictory device used at the end of the SMC and the Christmas Oratorio (BWV 248). Are there other works in which all the soloists sing in the same recitative movement?

Neil Halliday wrote (August 11, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>Are there other works in which all the soloists sing in the same recitative movement?<
Probably several. In the final (accommpanied) recitative of BWV 207 (and BWV 207a - both versions of this cantata are secular) all four soloists appear with extensive parts; though not separated by choral phrases as in the unforgettable valedictory SMP (BWV 244) movement, and in BWV 190/2.

William Ho wrote (August 10, 2009):
[To Douglas Cowling] Thank you again, Doug Cowling for your information in Multiple Settings of texts, especially the final verse of the final psalm, "Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord," your advocacy of the motets, and the ultimate New Year's chorale, "Herr Gott, dich loben wir."

Before I forget, the John Eliot Gardner Bach cantata release, Vol.17, is available Aug. 11. It has New Year's and Sunday After New Year's Cantatas BWV 143, BWV 41, BWV 16, BWV 171, BWV 153, and BWV 58. I don't see BWV 190. Is it in a previous release?

Connections and Contexts: Re. Psalm 150:6, Alles was Odem hat (All that has breath): there is BWV 223, "Meine Seele soll Gott loben" (questionable fragment, Spitta) , closing fugue in Bb:
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV223-D.htm.
Also the phrase is found in the closing tutti fugues BWV 190/1 (NY) and BWV 190a/1 (Augsburg), 120a/8 closing chorale (wedding), and the same text in the closing chorale 137/5 with obbligato trumpet choir (?council). There also is a cantata of the same words by Johann Ernst Bach (1722-1727). He was a Sebastian student (1737-1742).

As for Bach's "monumental organ chorale prelude and motet setting," BWV 725, says Peter Williams, <Organ Music of JSB> 467f : Luther's rhyming couplets, 53 lines; "BWV 725 often agrees with BWV 328 (plain chorale) when it does not re-harmonize for a new verse." "It is not certain Forkel's MS (the only copy) included the unique text incipits." See the full text on BCML:
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Texts/Chorale036-Eng3.htm

The music and a portion of Luther's Te Deum text is found in Cantata BWV 16/1 opening chorale chorus (NY), BWV 190/1,2 unison chorus and chorale trope (NY), BWV 119/9 closing chorale (council), BWV 120/6 closing chorale (council), BWV 190a,1,2 (Augsburg Confession) same as BWV 190/1,2. Incidentally, in a recent BCW discussion, I believe Doug Cowling offered an explanation of why the Latin Te Deum wasn't performed in Lutheran Countries. Dogma, maybe?

Without raining on anyone's parade (or procession), I would point out that historically, the issue of the extent of Bach's spirituality has probably been the leading Bach studies topic in the last half of the 20^th century. It began with Friedrich Blüme questioning Bach's sacred commitment. It was followed by a plethora of studies, including the Calov Bible and the Internationale Arbeitsgemeinschaft für theologische Bachforschung, beginning in 1977. Beyond some reaction that Blüme was casting pearls or stepping on idols' feet, his challenge was essential to the 19th century idolatry of Bach (the Fifth Evangelist):
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Religion-4.htm.
and the growing 20^th century revisionist, Marxist dicta, especially in Bach Country, East Germany. From this polarizing, dualistic thinking has come a more unitarian, enriched perspective on the man and his music, which IMVHO cannot be separated, the New Criticism aside.

What especially resonates with me, rings my chimes, is the passage in Bach's Calov Interpretive Bible re. "Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord. (this means the praise of the mouth, that is from mankind on earth in whom is spirit and breath. The Lord God is to be honored and praised with instruments and voices in the temple and in the sanctuary where he dwells, and also in your prayers to heaven, for the Lord's throne is heaven and the earth is his footstool, Isaiah 66:1)."

Next: The Augsburg Confession Cantatas: BWV 190; BWV 120b, "Gott, man lobet dich in der Stille"; BWV Anh. I 4a, "Wünschet Jerusalem Glück.

Neil Halliday wrote (August 11, 2009):
William Hoffman wrote:
>Before I forget, the John Eliot Gardner Bach cantata release, Vol.17, is available Aug. 11.<
William, you will find Gardiner's BWV 190 [6] in Vol. 16: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV190.htm

The amazon mp3 sample of BWV 190/1 sounds excellent, not quite as full- bodied as Suzuki's joyous performance [7]. Gardiner [6] is near the upper speed limit, IMO.

Peter Smaill wrote (August 11, 2009):
[To Douglas Cowling] The use of unison writing in Bach is rare; to Doug's examples we can add the Christmas Cantata?"Sie werden aus Saba alle Kommen" .

The techique is striking and in most of these instances the suggestion of unity leads to the hermeneutical interpretation that the unity is of Father and Son, especially in the SMP as quoted " ich bin Gottes Sohn". Ironically the Koopman pastiche reconstruction of the St Mark Passion (BWV 247) disowns the BWV 198 chorus because he feels the unison passage feels wrong. In symbolical terms the opposite is true!

That Bach might be creating a hermeneutical effect is borne out by his marginal notes to the score of the?B Minor Mass where in that instance canonic writing is used to express the Trinitarian relationship.

The existence of the Te Deum proximate to unison writing in BWV 190 does I think also support this interpretation of divine unity expressed via unison writing.

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (August 11, 2009):
A remark from my lawyer

It is said that "quarreling is like the bars of a castle", and I am thus not hopeful to open its closed doors. But since he who complains, though not necessarily with a pertinent reason, does, along with the most unjust criticism, an insalubrious effect on those who pay attention to disapproval and censure, let me clarify that, although my censors are free to speak from their perspective, as far as I am in charge of leading the discussions, I will speak in Aryeh's democratic list, not silenced as if my posts were morally unacceptable, and as if the malcontents could not simply ignore me and read something else. And please note, dear censors, that, no matter if you doubt it or nor, I declare not being in enmity with you, ready to be your friend WHENEVER you want, and I can prove it.

Now, Wagner was not a Jew, and has been even censured for his prejudice against Jews. But suppose he was a Jew, and the nazis denied that. Would it not be a case for asking why they were doing that? I think it is a much more interesting question, by the way, not to ask if Bach was a Christian, but why, having him said to be one, some scholars tried to contradict his own words. Why all that passion in denying that Bach's works and even his hidden praises were bona fide? He said: "I must bear my cross in patience and leave my unruly son to God's Mercy alone, doubting not that He will hear my sorrowful pleading and in the end will so work upon him, according to His Holy Will, that he will learn to acknowledge that the lesson is owing wholly and alone to Divine Goodness." Is it not enough? Certainly not for many, but why not? Do they have a reasoning? Do they work hard to erect a multitude of reasons able to turn Bach's faith into a metaphysical subject, from then on under suspect by Kantian dialecticians? Why did they do that? For Bach wrote: "God who knoweth all things is my Witness". Was he lying? And what about his library, his underlined Bible, his theological books - will anything count? It seems not.

Now, it is also said that "a brother offended is more unyielding than a strong city", and I am thus not able to refrain the grumblings that, not without misunderstandings, do not seem to appreciate my reflections at all. In fact, I would expect nothing but being expelled from this list if my abhorred censors were the authorities here. And they may be in their right to suspect me as a most imperfecthuman being, and, from this perspective, let me surrender to their rebukes with no defense but warning them that, since I also surrendered to Jesus as my lawyer, it would be most suitable if they were kind enough to drive their wails against me directly to him. On the other hand, and since my lawyer was similarly accused, I reaffirm, and sincerely in your behalf, dear censors, that, differently from him, I am a most imperfect human being. So, it is possible that you are duly right - I will let to him the final word. Anyhow, I honestly exhort you to be careful, and since, saying nothing but truth, and for the sake of his listeners, my lawyer was hated in exchange for his love, being, furthermore, expelled from the temple, detracted, condemned, mocked, tortured and crucified. And let us not forget that even his brothers rebuked him, so that, in answer to them, he most appropriately said:

"The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil."

Is it not offensive? The truth? And so, remember, for your own sake, dear censors, this most significant remark from my lawyer respect all those voiced furies against him:

"Blessed is the one who is not offended by me".

P.S. I am done with this subject, and I ask you nicely not to debate this e-mail. Write me personally if you want further clarifications.

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 11, 2009):
Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote:
< Now, it is also said that "a brother offended is more unyielding than a strong city", and I am thus not able to refrain the grumblings that, not without misunderstandings, do not seem to appreciate my reflections at all. In fact, I would expect >nothing but being expelled from this list if my abhorred censors were the authorities here. >
What? Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much?

Along with Evan (and probably many others), I fail to see that anyone on BCML has denied Bachs Christianity, certainly not in the discussion of recent weeks. Is the writers remark directed to the former East German Marxist goveernment?

Evan Cortens wrote (August 11, 2009):
Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote:
<< Now, it is also said that "a brother offended is more unyielding than a strong city", and I am thus not able to refrain the grumblings that, not without misunderstandings, do not seem to appreciate my reflections at all. In fact, I would expect >nothing but being expelled from this list if my abhorred censors were the authorities here. >>
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< Along with Evan (and probably many others), I fail to see that anyone on BCML has denied Bachs Christianity, certainly not in the discussion of recent weeks. Is the writers remark directed to the former East German Marxist goveernment? >
[To Henri N. Levinspuhl] I'm not sure I've ever been "abhorred"... thanks?

As I said before, and has Ed has just said again, no one here (at least in recent weeks) has denied Bach's Christianity. The argument you're having is with a straw man.

The closest anyone has come to this was, I think, Doug's post of August 7^th, wherein he said:
"I'm not sure we can call [Soli Deo Gloria] Bach's motto and posit a uniquely profound spirituality to the composer."

Hardly a denial of Bach's Christianity, but rather simply saying that whether or not Bach wrote S. D. G. on a sheet of paper tells us little about his personal beliefs, especially given that this formula was exceedingly common. (Kim backs this up by saying that Graupner too used this formula to end his pieces.)

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (August 11, 2009):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< Is the writers remark directed to the former East German Marxist goveernment? >
Since none of you deny that Bach was a Christian, yes, Sir. It is directed to him.

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (August 11, 2009):
[To Evan Cortens] I am so sorry for any misunderstandings I could possible have made. I am sincere in that I use to write blindly, not thinking in any particular person, let alone interested in offending the list members. I am daring with ideas, but before you or anyone else, I am mild and ask nothing.

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 11, 2009):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< Ironically the Koopman pastiche reconstruction of the St Mark Passion disowns the BWV 198 chorus because he feels the unison passage feels wrong. In symbolical terms the opposite is true! >
Really?!! I remember as a teenager listening to the old Gönnenwein reconstruction -- I think it was the first -- and being struck how haunting the unison was as the choir "read" the inscription on Christ's tombstone. Still gives me chills.

But then I will never believe that "Schlage Doch Gewünschte Stunde" -- which I also first heard as a teenager -- is not by Bach.

I was a very sensitive child ...

Julian Mincham wrote (August 11, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:

What happened subsequently, then?

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (August 12, 2009):
Evan Cortens wrote:
< I'm not sure I've ever been "abhorred"... thanks? >
I take this opportunity to beg your pardon, Sirs. In Portuguese, "annoyed" is "aborrecido", and I thus used "abhorred" involuntarily. I sincerely did not mean it.

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 12, 2009):
BWV 190 - Unison [or not?] intrusions

Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>I was a very sensitive child ... <<
Julian Mincham replied:
>What happened subsequently, then? <
Somehow, that sense of humour does not strike me as precisely British?

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 12, 2009):
Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote:
>In Portuguese, "annoyed" is "aborrecido", and I thus used >"abhorred" involuntarily. I sincerely did not mean it. <
Once again, I find it commendable to make the effort to explain, to eliminate a misunderstanding.

I wonder if something similar might be involved in use of the words censor and censorship, at least with respect to BCML? Some of us who have responded to Henri's introductions have expressed differences with some of his viewpoints and details, but only in the spirit of open discussion, never a suggestion of censorship, of banning from the list, I do not believe.

I often become annoyed (but never abhorred) with my Latino spouse when she construes my use of the word discuss to mean argue. Note that in current American English usage, discussion implies a more civilized, less disputatious conversation than argument (at least in the most familiar usage of argument). The subtleties of the Latin sources appear to be exactly the oppostite, rather more like the habitual interpretation of my spouse.

From loose recollection, without current review, I believe the Biblical story is that we all spoke the same language at one time, but God decided that we were becoming disrespectful and arrogant (see Tower of Babel). He taught us a lesson by creating confusion of language. We are still working out the results of that lesson, as best I can tell.

I would tell you that I think God made a mistake, but that would certainly be disrespectful and arrogant. Who knows what he might try next?

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (August 12, 2009):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< Once again, I find it commendable to make the effort to explain, to eliminate a misunderstanding. >
Even climbing some crags, I inevitably make silly mistakes, Ed, for my English is but solitary striving for reading. Also, I acknowledge the annoyance I eventually prompt; but offense is like a guardian of the doors of piety, which, even careful not to harm the listeners, may involuntarily offend them, and inasmuch as, only when, not eager to find fault on it, we dare to understand it patiently, only then it consistently appears incomparably rewarding. Just remember Karl Popper now, and let the deductive steps climb its crags, and you will see what a sacred cantata is from the perspective of a man who has been, in the past, a most declared adversary of piety, that is, your friend.

Julian Mincham wrote (August 12, 2009):
[To Henri N. Levinspuhl] Just to eliminate any misunderstandings.

Firstly I want to say that for many years I dealt with overseas students at the university many of whom were doing degrees using their second, thirdand even occasionally their fourth languages! I never failed to marvel at their skills and it taught me great respect for people who set out to express complex ideas in a language which is not their first. I couldn't do it and I continue to take my hat off to those who can do it successfully.

There are two issues with which I think I would disagree with you, however. The first is the assumption (if this is what is intended) that people have to hold certain views or faiths in order to fully 'appreciate' reliously inspired art works. I think that this is an insular view which can be felt to be quite offensive and exclusive. I do not believe that you have to be a Christian, a Lutheran or, in fact, anything but a human being to be deeply moved by Bach's music. This is because he suggests and illuminates many aspects of the human condition which bind us together--loneliness, loyalty, bereavement, love and admitration, concerns about death etc etc etc. An awareness of the social and religious mores of the time may well be of great personal interest?and will certainly add further dimensions of understanding as to how and why Bach composed?as he did; but I do'nt think they much affect that 'touching of the soul' which the music does in its own right.

(A few years ago I flew long haul with an Asian airline which had a complete audio channel given over to the works of JSB. I don't think anyone stopped to ask how many people on the flight were Christian or Lutheran? and whether they enjoyed the music more--or less--because of their respective faiths).

The second point is one of balance. The cantata list is fundamentally about Bach cantatas. This does not mean that all sorts of related topics, historical, religious, social, about texts, word setting, rehearsal practices etc etc may not be (and all of these certainly have been) discussed on list over the years. But if one gets too far away from the music as the essential centrality, I personally switch off. Others may not do so but I am more interested in the structure, performance and effect of the music than in Bach's (possible) beliefs, faith or motivations -- hence my earlier email of a few days ago.

Hope this clarifies my position--one with which people are welcome to dispute.

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (August 12, 2009):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< Just to eliminate any misunderstandings. >
Most grateful for your clarification, respected Julian, I will take it seriously into consideration, think of it, and answer you back politely as soon as possible.

Harry W. Crosby wrote (August 12, 2009):
[To Julian Mincham] Julian, far from disputing your thoughtful and reasoned response, I second it in its entirety. I also admire it as a concise, balanced, and economical statement, the sort of thing I strive for every day and achieve, if ever, only after much analysis and self-editing.

Most poignant for me was your perception that one's faith or lack of same is not necessarily a factor in one's love and appreciation of Bach. If your Christian faith is buoyed and reinforced by the effects (and affects) of this master's music, of course it is an element in the intensity of your rewards. However, you must recognize that many, perhaps most of your fellow believers are not as profoundly moved by Bach or perhaps by any sort of serious music.

However, one of another faith, or one who has no ties whatever to traditional religion in any form is not necessarily at a disadvantage, is not doomed to some sort of second-class appreciation of Bach or of any other sort of faith-related art. My sense of all this is that people limited in their ability to appreciate art tend to be far less fulfilled than are those who, upon reflection, find that they do not resonate with religious faiths.

Again, thank you, Julian!

Julian Mincham wrote (August 13, 2009):
[To Harry W. Crosby] Thanks Harry---well said

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (August 13, 2009):
[To Julian Mincham] I recognize your expertise, respected Julian, too far from being an antagonist of musical ruminations, and from believing that aesthetics requires whether a religious or any other existential commitment, a misunderstanding that undoubtedly proceeds from some of my abrupt, if not eventually too bold, assertions, those that, needing further clarifications, suffer from being myself a not so agile postilion on the English carriage. Nevertheless, now and then, I suggest which are the readers I seek in the first place, as the title of one of my posts on Cantata 143 clearly remarks, that its "consequent exposition" was intended "for those interested in apprehend it existentially", while, last Sunday, I added that the pious labor was "intended for few listeners", and since, admitting "the determined different direction of majority", "along with me" but "one or two" would be "directed to reconstruct nothing but praise". And, take notice, gentleman, that, invited by the respected list owner to lead the discussions, I warned Aryeh that, far from being popular, I would be involuntarily polemic; but he insisted, saying that "diversity of opinions and approaches are one of the key factors to the continuing success of the BCML". Now, if, through the stallions of your noble idiom, I am engaged in a laborious enterprise of making myself clear, an even harder aspect of my task is that I carry a deeply heterogeneous view, which, by its nature, is polemic as Christ has always been. And would I omit my view to express yours, Sir? In fact, I am Henri, and deeply persuaded that the sacred cantatas were made to praise the Trinity, what Julian may acknowledge at least objectively, without commitment to praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But even if I involuntarily offended you, Sir, I ask you to reconsider, for I reaffirm that whoever does not care to praise the Trinity will listen to sacred cantatas at most as if they were godly dramas. So, even if we agree that this list is fundamentally about Bach cantatas, we differ in our views of what a sacred cantata is, and I particularly do not believe that it was created to be the "essential centrality", but an instrument to praise God above all things, even above music and Bach. Now, you may personally switch off, not discussing my views, and freely link your attention to what you regard essential; but know for sure that there are people in this list that would love to talk about a cantata from a pious perspective, but are damped and, yes, indirectly censored as if writing inappropriately, and they are not. They just live what a sacred cantata sings, and contrarily to what academics eventually seem to insinuate, the faith in Christ has not disappeared with a particular Lutheranism, for we ESSENTIALLY believe in Jesus as Bach expressed our faith musically, whereas the composer, in the eighteen century, tried to express the faith also shared in the first century. Now, if you do not want to discuss how this faith is connected to the cantatas, you are free even to delete my posts, giving all your attention to those subjects that matter to you. But neither you nor anybody else, except perhaps the list owner, can impede Christians to express themselves freely in this democratic list. Otherwise, you are indeed acting as if my censors. In fact, let me say gently that a sacred cantata is supposed to be sacred, inasmuch as, if no one could think sacredly on them anymore, we would suspect that, like the world itself, sacred music has been usurped. Now, I admit that I have sometimes pinned scholarship, and I will try to be more careful in the future, but, let me make myself clear now, that my main struggle is neither against scholarship at heart, nor against a particular human being, rather practicing my sportive fencing versus ideas that frequently pin our faith as if they have surpassed it; for it is basic for those interested in apprehend the cantatas existentially to understand that, against the essential beliefs conveyed in Bach's cantatas, disdainful assertions are easily put to the ground. Now, the instances are many and may appear under different forms, for example, when, under the aspect of critical sobriety, and as if impartiaand desiring to know nothing but truth, someone works to discredit it, and not rarely with investigations that consist in badly disguised quests for apparent discreditable and blameworthy data. At heart, there is but a will of misunderstanding, through whose lens our not elaborated beliefs look like a "mythological jumble", and our devotedly reflected ones, precisely when showing their sense, too complex to a reasonable attention. For intellectualism may put itself too far from any earnest concern for God, and all in the sacred name of knowledge, namely, in the labyrinth of presumed suspicious and not suspicious sources, in bitter disputes and flaming responses, or even in frigid inaccessible presumption of superiority, God being nothing for such a superhuman appearance. And even theology may sometimes be so afraid of such aspect of mighty, that dwindles indoors with nothing to witness outside, if not altogether influenced by disbelief. Constrained by the not constrained harsh critics of our faith, it shows an enormous deference for skeptic's caprices, but only to its damage. In plain English, it is against my respect that I speak, audacious with ideas, but often mildly with particular human beings, as with you, Sir, being myself ready to be your friend, as I offered friendship to Ed, and never repented even if not quite in conformity with his unfavorable exegesis of my pious ideas.

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 13, 2009):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< The second point is one of balance. The cantata list is fundamentally about Bach cantatas. This does not mean that all sorts of related topics, historical, religious, social, about texts, word setting, rehearsal practices etc etc may not be (and all of these certainly have been) discussed on list over the years. >
I share Harrys enthusiasm for Julians careful and concise language. Regardng the second point, over the years I have come to accept that it is not unexpected to have a disproportionately high number of Lutheran believers on a Bach discussion list. I find that the moderator does an excellent job at keeping the expression of personal spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof), and related discussion, within proper bounds.

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (in response to Julian Mincham):
< we ESSENTIALLY believe in Jesus as Bach expressed our faith musically, whereas the composer, in the eighteen century, tried to express the faith also shared in the first century. >
This is simply incorrect. Bach's 18^th C. Lutheran Christianity finds much not to share with other 18^th C. Christian sects, let alone with 1^st C. Christianity (an already burgeoning group of Judaic sects), or with 21^st C. Christian sects. It is one thing for a writer to express his own beliefs, and it is for the moderator to acccept (or not) the relevance of such expression.

It is quite a different matter to suggest that ones own beliefs have some special relevance to Bach's private (or public, for that matter) beliefs. Doug has been the most eloquent and concise in pointing out the accumulation and distraction of such speculative pronouncements.

HL:
>Sir [Julian], being myself ready to be your friend, as I offered friendship to Ed, and never >repented even if not quite in conformity with his unfavorable exegesis of my pious ideas. <
EM:
I take (and accept) friendship to mean mutual respect as BCML list members. I find Henri's language dense (to say the least!), but not impenetrable. I have tried to make that point, by selecting factual (see above) or logical flaws, which to my mind detract from his expression of pious intent. The pious intent itself is a matter of personal belief and freedom, the right to which I respect without question. OTOH, anyone elses personal belief, whatever the institutional support, does not convince me of what my personal belief should be. Especially if it ignores three centuries of rational and scientific advances since 18^th C. Leipzig. You gotta have Faith, as they say, but to my mind, it helps if the Faith is consistent with observable facts, and able to accommodate new discoveries.

Russell Telfer wrote (August 13, 2009):
Harry W. Crosby wrote:
< Julian, far from disputing your thoughtful and reasoned response, I second it in its entirety. I also admire it as a concise, balanced, and economical statement, the sort of thing I strive for every day and achieve, if ever, only after much analysis and self-editing. >
From an occasional contributor .....

I'd like to thank Julian, Harry, Ed, and several other regular posters for providing a reasoned and informative ongoing debate and discussion about Bach and the cantatas. I read them; I appreciate them. Harry's comments very much apply. It's good that the interchanges are more civilised that they have been at times in the past. BCML is quite a broad church and can cope with the odd quirk and peccadillo of some of its members - it's not that much of a problem!

I'm coming to realise more and more that my love of the cantatas is ineffable, that it is not something I can express or want to express in words all that much. That makes me more of a reader than a writer in this situation. Of course I have expressed my thoughts and will again express my thoughts, but I wanted to disclose my feelings.

If I were to attempt to describe the wonder of, for example, cantata BWV 190, I would no doubt do it through an analysis of the music. But unfortunately a beautiful piece of musical analysis does not always lead to a beautiful musical creation. Quite the opposite sometimes if we think of more recent composers.

Julian Mincham wrote (August 13, 2009):
Russell Telfer wrote:
< If I were to attempt to describe the wonder of, for example, cantata 190, I would no doubt do it through an analysis of the music. But unfortunately a beautiful piece of musical analysis does not always lead to a beautiful musical creation. Quite the opposite sometimes if we think of more recent composers. >
I agree with this. I have also spent much of my life wondering if a developing awareness of what is happening in the music (through observation or analysis--I prefer the first term since it is less loaded and more or less subsumes the second) actually enhances our enjoyment of and deepens our emotional response to it. I guess part of the answer is, perhaps, more for some than for others. I can only speak for myself (as indeed can we all)?but I'll offer two examples. I have found that an awareness of the multitude of rhythms, ideas and textures which Bach uses in the three voices?underlying, supporting and intermeshing with the chorale melody in the opening fantasias of the second cycle really seems to enhance my?sense of thrill and excitement. It also leads me to understand the lines of text better?and, although a matter of frequent dispute on this list I think it does give some very good clues as to Bach's approach to his texts and their meanings for him. I find that, in rehearings of these choruses?I am more and more attracted to and excited by what the lower three vocal lines are doing and I believe that this enriches my enjoyment of the music--in the way that (for example)?a recognition of invertable counterpoint at the 12th in the Art of Fugue, although technically interesting, would not do.

My second example, spread across the cantatas (which is why I like to take a contextual perspective) is a recognition of how Bach treats reoccurring characters; the voice of God and Jesus?, St Michael, Satan etc. There is an wholeness and integrity with which Bach portrays them and and an addedd frisson of pleasure at their continual re-recognition. Who cannot thrill at the various opera buffo type representations of Satan as a scurroulous figure of malevolence, never a figure of?stature in the way that others are portrayed.

Does analytical and contextual observation of such points intensify the emotional effect that Russell, rightly in my view, describes as unable to be fully articulated?in words? For me I think??it does. But many musical observations of, say,?perfect cadences or contrapuntal devices do not.

And perhaps for Henri it's the recognition of what he ras fundamental religious truths perceived through the music which creates, for him, a glimpse of the sublime and inexpressable.

Julian Mincham wrote (August 13, 2009):
[To Henri N. Levinspuhl] Henri, I think we have to agree to disagree on some important matters. But that doesn't matter. A civilised discussion between people with different ideas is usually more fruitful and interesting than one between people who always agree on everything----like my wife and myself---ha, ha!!

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote (August 13, 2009):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< Henri I think we have to agree to disagree on some important matters. But that doesn't matter. A civilised discussion between people with different ideas is usually more fruitful and interesting than one between people who always agree on everything----like my wife and myself---ha, ha!! >
Funny indeed, Julian!
And thanks you for your kind words.

Cheers back to you!

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 13, 2009):
Back to the music ...

Russell Telfer wrote:
< If I were to attempt to describe the wonder of, for example, cantata BWV 190, I would no doubt do it through an analysis of the music. >
I wish you would. I posted some specific musical observations about Cantata BWV 190 and its relation to the motet specifically to see if anyone would pick up the analytical thread, and William was the only one to respond. The rest of the list was too engaged in speculations about piety.

I have an abiding interest in Bach's historical Lutheran context because it tells us something about the controlling factors of his compositional practice -- why did he use this version of a chorale in his chorale-prelude and that version in his cantata? What external factors shape his musical decisions?

It also is a controlling factor in preventing biographical fantasies from intruding. When I read Stiller's book, I was surprised to find that Bach made his private confession on a regular basis -- that wasn't part of the image of Bach that I received in music history. The recent scholarship about Bach's relationship with the Leipzig Town Council provides a much more sophisticated picture of the political dimension of his work. It isn't the Lonely Misunderstood Genius against the beer-swilling, small town philistines of Romantic fantasy.

Do I have a profound relationship with Bach? Yup. Does it tell you anything about the man and his work? Nope.

Anne (Nessie) Russell wrote (August 13, 2009):
Douglas Cowlin said:
< I posted some specific musical observations about Cantata BWV 190 and its relation to the motet specifically to see if anyone would pick up the analytical thread, and William was the only one to respond. >
I read and appreciated this post.

Like Russell I rarely post to this list. I am a instrumentalist. I have much to learn about the Cantatas. I hestiate to make a comment which might be stupid.

< The rest of the list was too engaged in speculations about piety. >
Not true. Some of us are not word people. I have to admit that if I need a dictionary to read e-mails I don't bother. I wonder,like Doug, if we can get back to music and stop trying to impress people with how many large words we know.

Anne, not one of the refined gentleman on the list.

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 13, 2009):
Russell Telfer wrote:
< It's good that the interchanges are more civilised than they have been at times in the past. BCML is quite a broad church and can cope with the odd quirk and >peccadillo of some of its members - it's not that much of a problem! >
EM:
I agree one hundred percent. I believe credit is due the moderator, as well as BCML members. The diversity of opinion is encouraged, and managed effectively with a minimum of interference.

Russel continued:
< If I were to attempt to describe the wonder of, for example, cantata BWV 190, I would no doubt do it through an analysis of the music. >

Doug replied
< I wish you would. I posted some specific musical observations about Cantata BWV 190 and its relation to the motet specifically to see if anyone would pick up the analytical thread, and William was the only one to respond. The rest of the list was too engaged in speculations about piety. >
Anne (Nessie) Russell replied:
< Some of us are not word people. I have to admit that if I need a dictionary to read e-mails I don't bother. I wonder, like Doug, if we can get back to music and stop trying to impress people with how many large words we know. >
EM
I think it is a mistake to equate volume of traffic with level of interest on any given topic. As both Anne and Russell have suggested, it takes a greater level of expertise and time commitment to make an intelligent response to a post specific to music analysis, no matter how interested the reader may be, than it does to toss of a response to <speculations about piety>.

That is, each and every one of us is expert on our own level of piety (or lack therof), and perhaps we all secretly think that Bach was more like us than anyone realizes. In fact, some writers not so secretly.

I for one am much more interested in the exchange between Doug and Will re BWV 190, than I am in the posts to which I have replied. However, I have not yet taken the time to do the required listening. When I do, I am not likely to have anything of substance to add, unless I do the listening with the specific intent, in advance, to write something. Incidentally, this is a commitment I have recommended in the past for everyone, and intend to continue to follow for myself, from time to time. Note that it guarantess a post of relevance, but not necessarily substance. In the meantime, I add my thanks to everyone who provides comments specific to the music. I read them all and accommodate my listening in response to most, whether or not I post a reply.

With regard to use of the dictionary, alas, this is a necessity, given a worldwide membership using a language, American English, which even most Americans <do not do so good with>. I am reminded of a cute anecdote from my early days on BCML. Alain Brugieres translated a French jocular idiom as frog of the stoup, using an English dictionary. Stoup is a legitimate and specific, if rather uncommon, variant of the same source word as the more common stoop. I did not previously know stoup, but I did not take the trouble to look it up. I assumed Alain wanted to say frog soup, but had made a typographic or translation error. I replied accordingly, whence another list member took immediate and verbose umbrage at my insult to all things French. Alain and I became friends in the course of sorting out (off-list) the misunderstanding. The third party never did get over it.

Julian Mincham wrote (August 13, 2009):
As both Anne and Russell have suggested, it takes a greater level of expertise and time commitment to make an intelligent response to a post specific to music analysis, no matter how interested the reader may be, than it does to toss of a response to <speculations about piety>.

[To Ed Myskowski] Ed, the point I have been banging on about for ages is that there are many things that do not need a musicians' time or expertise to describe, which WILL better inform listeners and which, additionally, MIGHT increase their enjoyment of the music. I gave two examples in a recent email.

But judging by the lack of response when one offers these examples, it may well be that few people on this?list agree.

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 13, 2009):
BWV 190 [was: Bach to the music]

Julian Mincham wrote:
< Ed, the point I have been banging on about for ages is that there are many things that do not need a musicians' time or expertise to describe, which WILL better inform listeners and which, additionally, MIGHT increase their enjoyment of the music. I gave two examples in a recent email. >
I see the point, and I agree. At the moment the wife is banging on about <lets go>. She must be correct? I will respond at more length, including the original thought from your recent email.

Russell Telfer wrote (August 14, 2009):
BWV 190

Henri N. Levinspuhl wrote:
< 1. BWV 190 as another occasion to restore the cantatas to its original purpose >
Thank you, Henri, for your introduction to the cantatas. They are interesting, and certainly different from mine.

< More than merely a psychic blow would be necessary in order to excel the vast void in human affairs, although, undoubtedly, the public, bored with such an adequate endeavor, would prompt us to find a higher purpose than conquering an audience. With such a distinction a work avoids popularity, being the single >individual the sole addressee of a bunch of masterpieces. ... >

I endorse Jean's words:
< This is so well said, Henri. Thank you. When one participates with the heart there is little as glorious as singing Bach or hearing it well sung. And if one believes and finds a truth therein the exaltation is almost beyond words. You have captured the purpose in your understanding. Thank you again. >
Partly in response to Doug Cowling's quite justified request for some feedback on his comments on BWV 190, and with Ed's prompting in mind as well, I venture my comments on this cantata. Which may not necessarily be orthodox.

The music of BWV 190 is wonderful. The whole cantata exudes a belief and a wonder in human life and I dare say whatever else you would like to breathe into it.

I was able to look up on my own website (which has information gathered from various sources) to find out the original purpose of this cantata: the Feast of the Circumcision. I believe this to be correct. Having looked at the translated text of 190, I can imagine that delicate personal operations are being hinted at in the bass recit, but fortunately they're not specified.

I don't find any mention of the Feast of the Circumcision in your introduction, Henri. Let me say at once, this doesn't bother me greatly. We all have to kowtow to the prejudices of whichever society we happen to live in, and Bach was only doing his bit in providing the music for whatever was demanded of him. Do we ever know what Bach thought of the non-musical constraints placed on his activities? We know what Stravinsky thought about Soviet political correctness, but we don't know much about Bach's situation. Did his devoutness protect him from all negative thoughts? We don't know.

Note also Doug Cowling's comment which may support this:
< It also is a controlling factor in preventing biographical fantasies from intruding. When I read Stiller's book, I was surprised to find that Bach made his private confession on a regular basis -- that wasn't part of the image of Bach that I received in music history. >
Whatever. We're left with BWV 190. Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Let Us Sing A New Song) is one of the most popular themes for a musical composition in a theocratic society and outside it. It's what composers do, and the encouragement to do what you want to do must be a boost to any composer. One of the highlights of my life was singing the BWV 225 Singet at twilight at Windsor Castle on a hot summer evening. It was a blast. Providing the music for such occasions is one of the few occasions when an "indentured" composer can really let him\herself go.

As Douglas Cowling writes:
< I've always felt that the motets are unfairly ignored because they are 'a capella' works: "Singet dem Herrn" and "Jesu Meine Freude" are masterpieces. >
Yes they are and no mistake.

And now, look what is given in BWV 190.
The opening chorus (Mvt. 1) offers an exuberant array of orchestral writing. There is something attention grabbing in the choral writing. There are other ways of creating choral parts than what we see in bar 22 and subsequently: the dotted crotchet\quaver\dotted crotchet\quaver\dotted crotchet\ figure which draws attention to the text and possibly the singer. But this is only drawing attention to 'sing a new song'. So, I speculate that Bach would have some other reason for presenting this figure in this way. (I'm thinking of the Farewell Symphony as a vague reference here. I think someone may have been bugging Bach. Pure speculation. - See Doug above, on the subject of fantasies.)

In Verse 2 there is an interesting contrast between the contributions of the soloists (in the Rilling recording [3]) and the Choir's urgent lines. waiting for...

Verse 3 which offers the strings a more than equal part in a wonderful alto aria (Mvt. 3).

I dare say Verse 4 contains the nub of the meaning, but the harmony is, as always, interesting.

There is then, unusually a duett for Tenor and Bass (Mvt. 5). Sometimes these low voices (I know from personal experience) can sink into the depths, but this aria is lovely, having a busy oboe d'amore obbligato and a wholesome and attractive bass part.

The tenor recit, verse 6, is greatly enhanced by beautiful support from the strings.

Verse 7 has the triumphal style of many of Bach's closing cantatas, with trumpets providing the brilliant closure to each phrase. These chorales, for me, never fail to thrill.

Unlike many of the cantatas, I haven't known it for very long, so for me it has a freshness that from time to time will keep me awake at night.

Neil Halliday wrote (August 14, 2009):
Russell Telfer wrote:
>what we see in bar 22 and subsequently: the dotted crotchet\quaver\dotted crotchet\quaver\dotted crotchet\ figure<
This rhythmically enlivening dotted figure (actually dotted quaver/semiquaver units) occurs throughout the first movement as well as the alto aria (Mvt. 3).

Its first appearance in bar 21 (in the first movement) triumphantly emphasizes the words "ein neues Leid"; later the sopranos have this figure in the three successive bars of melisma on the word "loben" ("the company of saints shall praise him). The violins use it to accompany the unison "Te deum" phrase, as well as to accompany the introduction of the vocal fugue; and finally it occurs in the voices of the closing "Alleluja" section.

The same rhythmic figure is a regular feature in the continuo of the alto aria (Mvt. 3), on the third beat of the bar, set against the lively 'joy rhythm' figures - quaver/two semiquaver or two semiquavers/quaver - of the violins and voice. (These 'joy motif' rhythmic figures are of course significant elements in the opening chorus).

Russell Telfer wrote (August 14, 2009):
Neil Halliday wrote:
QUOTING Russell Telfer::
>> what we see in bar 22 and subsequently: the dotted crotchet\quaver\dotted crotchet\quaver\dotted crotchet\ figure <<
Neil wrote:
< Its first appearance in bar 21 >
I was wrong. I miscounted. But I think you are wrong too. Mind you, my Kalmus miniature score has blank bars - presumably the passages omitted were not authentic. Anyway, on a recount, in my score, the figure I drew
attention to first appears at bar 27.

You have then gone on to detail the recurrences of this rhythmic figure. It is in my opinion equally prominent eg at bars 51 and 79 but less so when the higher parts are not involved. You are right to point out the repetitions:
without them the figure would be much less noticeable.

Neil Halliday wrote (August 14, 2009):
Russell Telfer wrote:
>I was wrong. I miscounted. But I think you are wrong too.<
Aha! Correct (less haste more speed I suppose).
Bar 27. This will be correct because the violin and vocal parts are complete including rests, hence we can count the number of bars even where all staves are vacant (I'm following the BGA).

It's interesting to follow the score while listening to Suzuki [7], for example; his reconstruction sounds remarkably 'correct'.

First half of each movement available at: http://www.bis.se/index.php?op=people&pID=2396
volume 21, accessed via the number '4' at the bottom of the page

His opening movement is a most brilliiant expression of the spirit of the text.

[Obviously those church authorities who frowned on trumpets and drums, and otherwise 'noisy' music in church, not to mention dancing, must have chosen to ignore Psalm 150, verses 3 and 4].

BTW, in the duet (Mvt. 5), Suzuki [7] uses an obbligato viola (I think, or is it a violin?) rather than the oboe d'amore heard on the Rilling CD [3]; very nice, with the tempo (ie Suzuki's [7]) perhaps a little slow.

Julian Mincham wrote (August 14, 2009):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< It's interesting to follow the score while listening to Suzuki [7], for example; his reconstruction sounds remarkably 'correct'. >
Neil, I wonder if you have had the opportunity of comparing this with Koopman's reconstruction [4] of the opening chorus (Mvt. 1) which I also find very convincing. (Mvt. 2 needs a little added work as well, as only the chorus parts have survived)

Re the duet (Mvt. 5), the obligato part is marked Oboe d'amore and violino solo, presumably doubling rather than intended as alternatives. Wolff's notes for this cantata (box 6 of the Koopman set [4]) are rather confusing, partly due, I suspect, to some poor proof reading.. He refers to it as a 'tenor aria with obligato oboe d'amore' although it's clearly a bass and tenor duet (Mvt. 5). To make matters all the more complicated, in the actual recording Koopman uses not the oboe but a stringed instrument which sounds very much like a viola!

All very confusing!

Neil Halliday wrote (August 14, 2009):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< Re the duet (Mvt. 5), the obligato part is marked Oboe d'amore and violino solo, presumably doubling rather than intended as alternatives. >
Interestingly, the BGA has only oboe d'amore in brackets! So there is some doubt as to the scoring even here. (Those Koopman [4] notes are certainly confused!). Apparently Koopman [4], like Suzki, uses a viola in the duet (Mvt. 5).

Re the second movement, the OCC casts some doubt on the use of the trumpets and drums.

Thanks for mentioning Koopman's reconstruction [4]; I'm preparing for work but will listen as soon as possible.

Julian Mincham wrote (August 14, 2009):
[To Neil Halliday] I was quoting the orchestration from the Bärenreiter urtext score which is usually pretty reliable. Certainly there seems to be a lot of doubt as to what the obligato instrument should be. Odd though that some of the top directors don't use an oboe d.amore if it's mentioned in the BGA. it is a much more common obligato instrument in the cantatas than the viola which is used very rarely. But perhaps there is another source which makes mention of the viola in this duet (Mvt. 5)? The mystery deepens!

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 14, 2009):
BWV 190 - Word-painting

Neil Halliday wrote:
< [Obviously those church authorities who frowned on trumpets and drums, and otherwise 'noisy' music in church, not to mention dancing, must have chosen to ignore Psalm 150, verses 3 and 4]. >
I'm curious about the odd dropping third figure which first appears at "ein neues Lied" and is developed in a long series of sequences at bar 50. I've never seen such a figure in Bach's vocal writing. Since the chorus has a fair bit of word-painting (repeated 16^th notes to depict timpani), I wonder if it's meant to symbolize the strings mentioned in the text. That kind of figure is quite common in Bach: "Ach Golgotha" in the SMC is a good example. A "happier" example would be the orchestral accompaniment to the Sanctus of the B Minor Mass (albeit as triplets there.) Is this figure a string "cliché" that Bach's performers would recognize as word-painting?

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 17, 2009):
BWV 190 recordings

Since the previously archived discussions, there is at least one important recording of BWV 190, that from Vol. 16 of the year 2000 Pilgrimage series by Gardiner [6], with CD releases ongoing. Indeed, BWV 190 was the very final work performed in the cycle, and it contains yet another reconstruction of the opening movements. Sounds like Bach to me, but I did not yet try to make any comparisons with other reconstructions. Gardiners comment: <Various attempts have been proposed and printed, none of them wholly convincing, and some not very idiomatic.>

I am a collector of the Gardiner series, and I find very little to complain about in any of the releases, nothing at all in BWV 190. These recordings are the weekly broadcast choice on WGBH FM radio, more often than not, as in todays BWV 46 for Trinity 10, which I noted this morning. Note the big orchestration in that and other cantatss for Trinity 10 (BWV 101 and BWV 102), in addition to the more obvious days noted by Doug, including BWV 190 for the Feast of the Circumsion (New Years Day).

William Hoffman wrote (August 19, 2009):
BWV 190: Praise & Thanksgiving

The Augsburg Confession Cantatas:
BWV 190a, "Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied"; June 25, 1730
120b, "Gott, man lobet dich in der Stille"; June 26, 1730
Anh. I 4a, "Wünschet Jerusalem Glück; June 27, 1730

Jubilee of the 200th Anniversary of the Augsburg Confession (25-27 June 1730).
Text: Christian Friedrich Henrici (Picander), Ernst-Schertzhaffte und Satyrische Gedichte, Teil III (Leipzig, 1732); Facs: Neumann T, p. 334; Reprint in Sicul, Annales Lipsienses, Sectio XXXVIII (1731) and Das Jubilierende Leipzig (1731).

Literature: NBA KBI/34, 1990 Higuchi; Stiller, JSB & Liturgical Life in Leipzig, 1984, 79-81; A. Schering Cantata Studies 1741

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV190a.htm

AUGSBURG CONFESSION I: 190a, Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied [parody, incomplete]
6/25/1730, St. Nicholas Church; wholly original, parody of BWV 190, Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied!, 1/1/1724, repeated 1736-39.
Sources: BWV 190/1,3,5; ?311; recits. 190a/4,6 lost
Literature: Reconstruction D. Hellmann, 1972, Breitkopf & Härtel, Widesbaden (orig. recits.)
Text: #1, 2, Luther cle. Te Deum; #3-6, Picander 1732; #7, Luther mel. "Es wohl uns Gott genädig sein," text (S.3) "Es danke Gott und lobe dich,"
Forces (190): ATB, 4 vv, 3 tp, timp, 3 ob (1 d'a), str, bc.
Movements: chorus, 3 recit. (BTA, B, T), 2 arias (A, TB), chorale.
1. Chs.(?tutti): Sing to the Lord a new song (Ps.149:1, 150:4, 6)=190/1
2. Rec.(?BTA w/cle.): O God, we praise Thee=190/3
3. Aria(?A,str): Praise Zion thy God with joy (Ps.23:2) (polonaise)= 190/3
4. Rec.(?B): Lord, if thy evangelism, the heaven's teaching (new, music lost)
After the Sermon:
5. Aria(?TB,ob): Blessed are we through the word (passepied-minuet)=190/5
6. Rec.(?T,str): God to thee our lips sacrifice their fruit (new, music lost)
7. Cle.(?tutti): They thanketh God, and praiseth thee=69/6 (Council, 1748), orig. ?BWV 311

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV120b.htm (Z. Philip Ambrose English translation)

AUGSBURG CONFESSION II: 120b, Gott, man lobet dich in der Stille [parody, incomplete]
6/26/1730, St. Thomas Church; parody of 120, Gott, man lobet dich in der Stille, Council 1728-29, repeated 1742.
Sources: BWV 120/1, 2, 4, ?226; recits BWV 120b/3,5 lost
Text: 1. Ps. 65:2; 2-5, Picander 1732 ; 6. Luther mel. "Komm heiliger Geist, Herre Gott," text (S.3), "Du heilige Brunst, süsser Trost"
Forces (120): SATB, 4vv, 3 tp, timp., 2 ob. d'a, str, bc
Movements: arias (A,S), chorus, recits. (?B,T), chorale
1. Aria (?A, obs, str): God, we praise thee now in the stillness (siciliano)=120/1
2. Chs. (?tutti): Pay, O Zion, all they pledges=120a/2, also BWV 232, Et expecto, 1748
After the sermon:
3. Rec. (?B): Ah! Ththe city loved of God (new, music lost)
4. Aria (?S, str): True and faithful; Never falt'ring in distress=BWV 120/4
5. Rec. (?T): Rise up, thou sacred congregation (new, music lost)
6. Chorale (?tutti): O thou holy flame, comfort sweet=?226/2 (1729)

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWVAnh4.htm. (Z. Philip Ambrose English translation)

AUGSBURG CONFESSION III: Anh. I 4a, "Wünschet Jerusalem Glück;
6/27/1730; St. Nicholas Church; parody of Anh. I 4, Wünschet Jerusalem Glück, Council, 8/27/25, rev. 1741.
Sources: BWV Anh. 4/1,2; ?BWV 253
Text: 1. Psalm 122:6-7; 2-5, Picander 1732; 6. "Ach blieb bei uns, Herr Jesu Christ" (stanza 1 after Malanchthon's "Vespera iam venit");
Forces: ?SATB, 4vv, 3 tp, timp, 2 ob d'a, str, bc
Movements: ?chorus, 2 arias, 2 recits, chorale

1. Chorus: Pray for Jerusalem's peace=Anh. 4/1
2. Aria: Laud and honor, sing and praise him=Anh. 4/2
After the sermon:
3. Recit.: Here is the Lord's own temple (new, music lost)
4. Aria: Lord, now hearken to our prayer (new, music lost)
5. Recit.: Give, Lord, thy word to righteous Christians (new, music lost)
6. Chorale: Oh, bide with us, Lord Jesus Christ (2 stanzas)=?253
Schering Cantata Studies 1741

The Augsburg Confession, written by theologian Philip Melanchthon, was formally presented in Augsburg, Germany, on June 25, 1530. The statement of attempted reconciliation and unity contained 21 articles of common basic faith and doctrine and seven additional articles dealing with changes adopted by the evangelical churches. It was signed (ascribed to) by seven German princes and two free cities. The Roman Catholic response was given on August 3. Some articles were accepted, some with qualifications, and some rejected. Unity was not achieved but the Augsburg Confession was a clear and forceful statement of the Reformers' position.

On special occasions the Te Deum laudaumus was presented. These included the feasts of St. Michael and Reformation Day, as well as special praise and thanksgiving services, when the Te Deum laudaumus was sung, with organ, trumpets and drums. (Stiller, pp. 81f). Bach has two related settings of Luther's German Te Deum and New Year's chorale, "Herr Gott, dich loben wir": the extended organ chorale prelude, BWV 725, and the four-voice chorale setting, BWV 328.

There is a strong interrelationship among the works Bach composed for services of praise and thanksgiving. First are the works for the Feast of New Year's Day in Leipzig with five cantatas (BWV 190, BWV 16 , BWV 41, BWV 171, and BWV 248IV) for all five projected sacred cycles. Also, there is the eight-voice motet BWV 225, Singet dem Herr ein neues Lied, first performed possibly on Jan. 1, 1727, and possibly again on May 12, 1727, along with lost Cantata BWV Anh. 9, for the birthday of Saxony ruler Augustus the Strong.

We also have at least five parodies of Köthen celebratory serenades (BWV 66, BWV 134, BWV 174, BWV 184, BWV 194) for the Feasts of Easter, Pentecost, and Trinity Sunday in 1724, cantatas without trumpets and drums.

Then, there are the annual cantatas for the installation of the Leipzig Town Council in late August: surviving, BWV 119, BWV 193, BWV 120, BWV 29, and BWV 69; questionable, BWV 137; lost, Anh. 4, 3, and BWV 193; parody fragments, BWV 216a, possibly sinfonia sketch BWV 1045. Despite Bach's conflicts with his employers, he may have presented council cantatas every year, as he probably did with Passions on Good Friday.

As to a special Thanksgiving service, Bach presented other works for similar special celebrations of either Lutheran observance or the Saxon Court. Besides three parodies for the three-day festival for the 200th Anniversary of the Augsburg Confession, June 26-28, 1730, we have the Festive Service of Allegiance to August III, April 21, 1733, at the Thomas Church, possibly with BWV 232I, Kyrie-Gloria; and a Thanksgiving Service for the War of Polish Succession, July 6, 1734, at the Nikolas Church, possibly with BWV 248a, later parodied as BWV 248VI for Epiphany 1735.

Besides the interrelationship of these works of praise and thanksgiving is the fact that many are parodied and/or lost while Bach engaged in a two-decade process of transformation of his works and the genesis of creative legacy in the fashion of composers beginning in the Renaissance.

The year 1730 in Leipzig marked a major shift for Bach, from the composition of church-year cantata cycles to the compilation -- primarily through parody (another Renaissance tradition) -- of the culmination of his vocal legacy. In the 1730s, Bach composed a Christological cycle of major works embracing the Feast Day Oratorios for Christmas, Easter, Ascension, and possibly Pentecost (lost). He completed the annual presentation of Passion Oratorios drawn from the Gospels. Bach initiated the de-tempore Trinity Season keystone work of Christian unity, the Mass, with the Kyrie-Gloria sequence. In his last two decades, Bach primarily composed collections of instrumental works, including organ chorales and finally in the 1740s completed the Catholic Great Mass in B Minor, BWV 232. Bach in 1750 had achieved his calling of a well-regulated church music in the broadest and deepest sense possible.

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 19, 2009):
William Hoffman wrote:
< AUGSBURG CONFESSION II: 120b, Gott, man lobet dich in der Stille [parody, incomplete]
1. Aria (?A, obs, str): God, we praise thee now in the stillness (siciliano)=BWV 120/1
2. Chs. (?tutti): Pay, O Zion, all they pledges=BWV 120a/2, also BWV 232, Et expecto, 1748
After the sermon:
3. Rec. (?B): Ah! Thou the city loved of God (new, music lost) >
Is this the original layout of the cantata? I can't think of any other cantatas which only have two movements before the sermon. Is there any suggestion that the celebration was not a mass or vespers but rather a stand-alone sermon with cantata? That might explain the odd layout.

Thomas Braatz' Provenance page also notes that there is a note at the end of the cantata: "In Fine Intrada con Trombe | e Tamburi". That seems to be an indication that there was a brass canzona to cover the processional exit of civic worthies. "Gott ist mein Konig" seems also to have had a preliminary brass piece.

Do we have any idea what the repertoire of the Leipzig waits was? The Three S's? Schütz, Schein & Scheidt ...

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 19, 2009):
William Hoffman wrote:
< Unity was not achieved but the Augsburg Confession was a clear and forceful statement of the Reformers' position. >
Thanks for the always accurate and helpful citations. The Augsburg Confession itself is new to me with recent BCML discussion, and the intent of unity by the Reformers is new with this post.

That unity, as I see it, would have been relatively local, in any event. European, at best. The concept of Christian Unity as something to be recovered is a misunderstanding. There have been local sects from the very beginning (the Year One, or shortly thereafter). Those sects coalesced centuries later into Roman, Eastern, and Coptic centers of spiritual and political authority, which continue to this day. My grandfather (about fifty to sixty generations removed) Charlemagne, alwith Pope Leo III, consolidated many of the western sects and states into the Holy Roman Empire on Christmas Day, 800 AD. That was the beginning of Europe and Christian Unity (not including Eastern and Coptic). My few sentecnes are a gross oversimplification, but accurate as far as they go, to my understandng.

The goal of Christian Unity is not a misunderstanding, just something which has never yet beeen achieved, neither before nor after the Reformation.

For any readers who appreciate the proposed Earth Circuit calendar, 2001 AD equals 4.56 Billion (10 to 9^th) plus 1, abbreviated as 1 EC. The Year One is thus neg 2000 EC, and 800 AD (dang those zeroes) is neg 1201 EC. I think Bach loves it, but that is of course a matter of Faith on my part (both the Love, and the present tense).

<Where there is devotional [or beautiful] music, God with His grace is always present.> J.S.Bach marginalia to the Calov Bible Commentary. There is a formal program at Brandeis University, Waltham MA, USA, called Music Unites Us (MUUs). You could do worse than to track it down and see what it is about.

William Hoffman wrote (August 19, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< Is this the original layout of the cantata? I can't think of any other cantatas which only have two movements before the sermon. Is there any suggestion that the celebration was not a mass or vespers but rather a stand-alone sermon with cantata? That might explain the odd layout.
Thomas Braatz' Provenance page also notes that there is a note at the end of the cantata: "In Fine Intrada con Trombe | e Tamburi". That seems to be an indication that there was a brass canzona to cover the processional exit of civic worthies. "Gott ist mein Konig" seems also to have had a preliminary brass piece.
Do we have any idea what the repertoire of the Leipzig waits was? The Three S's? Schütz, Schein & Scheidt ...>
William Hoffman replies: My listing shows three more movements:

4. Aria (?S, str): True and faithful; Never falt'ring in distress=120/4
5. Rec. (?T): Rise up, thou sacred congregation (new, music lost)
6. Chorale (?tutti): O thou holy flame, comfort sweet=?226/2 (1729)

Stiller emphasizes Bach's new Picander text, with the break for the sermon, as a full festival service of thanksgiving.

In festive pieces there often were processions with brass and, I assume, field drums, by the stadtpfeiffer or Collegium musicum. As noted, the Te Deum was sung with brass, drums and organ on Reformation Day Festival, then "there is more music, and after the music the singing of "Nun danket alle Gott" (Stiller 84).

As for Bach, we have the Cantatas BWV 207(a) addendum brass march.

As for the Three S's, as you know, Paul McCreesh uses instrumental pieces in his baroque Mass recreations, with processions, recessions, and intermedia, often chorales. I suspect that the Three S's' pieces and others were collected for Lutheran church festivals. I presume the authority is Ulrich Prinz (Instrumentarium in Cantatas) at Stuttgart Bachakademie.

Incidentally, I would be delighted sometime to see music listed for Bach Mass (re)creations for Christmas, New Year's, Easter, Pentecost, Trinity Sunday, and St. Michael's. I have the recording of the Reformation Vespers, Cantata BWV 80 (1979).

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 19, 2009):
Bach Reconstructions

William Hoffman wrote:
< Incidentally, I would be delighted sometime to see music listed for Bach Mass (re)creations for Christmas, New Year's, Easter, Pentecost, Trinity Sunday, and St. Michael's. I have the recording of the Reformation Vespers, Cantata BWV 80 (1979) >
Here is the musical sequence which I've researched for the Tallis Choir of Toronto's concert recreation of a Bach "Mass of Christmas" on Sat, November 28 at St. Patrick's Church at McCaul & Dundas W in Toronto.

The musical sequence is accurate up to the Gospel, where we arrange things a bit to accomodate a modern concert audience. I've edited modern performing editions for all the plainsong as well as the 17^th Latin polyphony from the sources known to have been used by Bach. The organ interludes in the chorales have been adapted from Bach's sketches for three Christmas chorales.

The research process has provided fascinating practical insights into Bach's musical world. It will be the first such Bach recreation in Toronto and is full of splendid festive music.
________________________________________________

A LUTHERAN MASS FOR THE SECOND DAY OF CHRISTMAS
as it may have been celebrated in St. Nicholas� Church, Leipzig
on December 26, 1746
under the direction of Johann Sebastian Bach
________________________________________________

1. Prelude before Introit:
'Puer Natus in Bethlehem',
'Orgelbüchlein', BWV 603, No. 5

2. Introit Motet: 'Puer Natus in Bethlehem' a 8
M. Praetorius, 'Musae Sionae' (1607), LXXXVI

3. Prelude before Kyrie:
'Gottes Sohn ist Kommen', BWV 703

4. Kyrie: Missa Brevis in F Major, BWV 233
1. Chorus: 'Kyrie'

5. Gloria: Plainsong Intonation
2. Chorus: 'Gloria in excelsis Deo'
3. Aria (bass): 'Domine Deus'
4. Aria (soprano) 'Qui tollis peccata mundi'
5. Aria (alto) 'Quoniam tu solus Sanctus'
6. Chorus: 'Cum Sancto Spiritu'

6. Collect: 'Dominus Vobiscum S Puer Natus'
'Neu Leipziger Gesangbuch' 1682, Plainsong

7. Epistle: Titus 3:4-7: 'So Schreib', Plainsong

8. Prelude before Hymn de Tempore:
'Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ', BWV 697

9. Hymn de Tempore:
'Gelobet Seist Du', Jesu Christ'
Verse 1 � Tune: 'Grates Nunc' -15th century
Verse 2 � 'Gelobet Seist Du, Jesu Christ', BWV 722
Verse 3 - 'Gelobet Seist Du, Jesu Christ' - J. Deck

10. Gospel: 'Dominus Vobiscum S Gloria Tibi'
'Neu Leipziger Gesangbuch' 1682
Luke 2:15-20: 'So Schreib' - plainsong

11. Hymn De Tempore: 'Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ'
Verse 4 � BWV 91, No.6
________________________________________________

INTERVAL
________________________________________________

12. Cantata: 'Dazu ist Erschienen', BWV 40

1. Chorus: 'Dazu ist Erschienen'
2. Recitative (Tenor): 'Das Wort ward Fleisch'
3. Chorale: 'Die Sünd macht Leid'
4. Aria (Bass): 'Höllische Schlange'
5. Recitative (Alto): 'Die Schlange, so im Paradies
6. Chorale: 'Schüttle deinen Kopf'
7. Aria (Tenor) : 'Christenkinder, freuet euch'
8. Chorale: 'Jesu, nimm dich deiner Glieder'

13. Prelude before Chancel Hymn:
'Vom Himmel Hoch', BWV 701

14. Chancel Hymn: 'Vom Himmel Hoch'
Verse 1 � 'Cantoral' - J. Schein
Verse 2 � BWV 738
Verse 3 � 'Cantoral' - J. Schein

15. Preface: 'Dominus Vobiscum'
'Neu Leipziger Gesangbuch' 1682

16. Sanctus: 'Sanctus in G Major', BWV 240

17. Lord�s Prayer & Verba:
'Vater Unser' - Plainsong
'Amen' XCI a 5, 'Mysto-Chorodia'
- M. Praetorius
Verba � 'Unser Herr' - Plainsong

18. Communion Motet:
'Lobet Den Herrn', BWV 230

19. Prayer after Communion � 'Der Herr Sei S'
'Neu Leipziger Gesangbuch' 1682

20. Blessing: 'Der Herr Segne Euch', Plainsong
'Amen' XLVII a 8, 'Mysto-Chorodia'
M. Praetorius

21. Hymn: 'Nun Danket Alle Gott', BWV 252
________________________________________________

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 19, 2009):
William Hoffman wrote:
< The Augsburg Confession, written by theologian Philip Melanchthon, was formally presented in Augsburg, Germany, on June 25, 1530. The statement of attempted reconciliation and unity contained 21 articles of common basic faith and doctrine and seven additional articles dealing with changes adopted by the evangelical churches. It was signed (ascribed to) by seven German princes and two free cities. The Roman Catholic response was given on August 3. Some articles were accepted, some with qualifications, and some rejected. Unity was not achieved but the Augsburg >Confession was a clear and forceful statement of the Reformers' position. >
I also note Dougs response to Wills post, but it is more concise to refer back to the original for my first question:

(1) If the intent of the Aubsberg Confession was to promote unity, and it failed, why should it be a matter of jubilee celebration two hundred years later (1730)? A possible answer is that it was not so much an attempt at unias a declaration of independence, or at least that it turned out that way.

(2) With regard to the jubilee instrumentation, why should this also apply to Trinity 10, BWV 46 and BWV 101? A possible answer is that this seemingly undistinguished Sunday after Trinity in fact represents the commemoration of the destruction by Romans of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, as prophesied in the Gospel for this Sunday (probably written after 70 AD). That event, much more than the birth, death, or resurrection of Jesus, represents the actual emergence of the Christian sects, independent of Judaism, although it is not now customary (or comfortable) to think of it that way, I do not believe.

Could it be that for 18th C. Lutherans, commemeration of that event, destruction of the Termple, was a jubilee equal to the more conventional (for us, in the 21st C.) ones, Christmas, Easter, Circumcision, etc.?

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (August 19, 2009):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< (1) If the intent of the Aubsberg Confession was to promote unity, and it failed, why should it be a matter of jubilee celebration two hundred years later (1730)? A possible answer is that it was not so much an attempt at unity as a declaration of independence, or at least that it turned out that way. >
It was a big musical event in Germany, Graupner wrote a large cantata for Darmstadt, and Telemann wrote very large scale cantata(s) for the celebrations in Hamburg in 1730, which also was celebrating the 100^th annivesary of the Hamburg Admiralty banquet, with Telemann writing unique "Kapitansmusik" for that event on 31 August. Large scale anti-Jewish riots had erupted in Hamburg the previous Sunday, due to sermon given Pastor Neumeister, which had called for expulsion of Jewish citizens. The city's militia had to be called out to restore order, with the chaos apparently causing Telemann to subsitute some singers. Ironically, the 1730 Kaptainsmusic survives, but none of Telemann's Augsburg anniversary cantatas.

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 19, 2009):
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
< Large scale anti-Jewish riots had erupted in Hamburg the previous Sunday, due to sermon given Pastor Neumeister, which had called for expulsion of Jewish citizens. >
Thanks once again for widening our historic perspective of Bach's contemporaries, especially figures such as Telemann and Graupner. We tend to think of Bach as so monumentally unique that we forget that his career
and music have a context and conventionality.

Given the latest flame-war over Bach and religion, Kim's description of Erdmann Neumeister's anti-semitism/anti-Judaism in Hamburg gives us a perfect example of how the historical method has to be the essential basis for our discussions. Erdmann was a supporter of Bach's application to the Jacobkirche in Hamburg in 1720, and the composer set no less than five of the pastor's cantata libettos, two in Weimar and three in Leipzig. There was a natural literary and theological sympathy if not a professional relationship between the two men.

So how do we discuss Bach and Neumeister's relationship? Do we "explain away" that Bach couldn't have shared Neumeister's anti-semitic opinions because his works show he was Pious, Good and Great? Do we use Neumeister's sermons as a key to unlock the connection with Bach's supposed anti-Semitism in the Passions? What degree of conventional anti-semitism did Bach espouse? Is there biographical evidence which links Bach's writings with his music and beyond to the collateral evidence of his colleagues's writings?

I'm not suggesting that we take up this particular question -- PLEASE let's not! -- but rather that we recognize that the question of Bach's interior belief system is an enormously complex issue, especially in the absence of any comprehensive historical documents. I deem it an impossible task to make a moral judgment about Bach or his glorious historical artifacts.

Yet I learned something about the world in which he lived from Kim's posting. Bach didn't live in a cute costume world of wigs, snuff and tinkling harpsichords. He lived in a world of gritty complexity. We do him a disservice to suggest simplistic judgments.

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (August 19, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< Thanks once again for widening our historic perspective of Bach's contemporaries, especially figures such as Telemann and Graupner. We tend to think of Bach as so monumentally unique that we forget that his career and music have a context and conventionality. >
Thank you for enjoying my typo-laden post ;) Clearly writing in the early morning hours after a long day isn't a wise thing to do, but I'm glad the meaning was still understandable. I'm just glad that I have an outlet for some arcane knowledge about baroque music and composers and I do try to make it as Bach centric as possible.

< Given the latest flame-war over Bach and religion, Kim's description of Erdmann Neumeister's anti-semitism/anti-Judaism in Hamburg gives us a perfect example of how the historical method has to be the essential basis for our discussions. Erdmann was a supporter of Bach's application to the Jacobkirche in Hamburg in 1720, and the composer set no less than five of the pastor's cantata libettos, two in Weimar and three in Leipzig. There was a natural literary and theological sympathy if not a professional relationship between the two men. >
Dr. Jeanne Swack (a Telemann specialist) is doing research on anti-semitism in German baroque music I believe. She's written at length about two Telemann cantatas that have such a bias, and wrote to me inquiring about Graupner cantatas with a similiar bias (I don't know of any, but that doesn't mean a thing either, since I've only have scores and parts to 80 out of the 1500 surviving cantatas; and even then I've not examined every score yet). I'll ask her more about this connection with Bach and Neumeister. Obviously, Telemann's cantata(s) that have such an anti-Jewish bias bothers me a great deal.

Evan Cortens wrote (August 19, 2009):
BWV 190, Bach's historical context

Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
< Dr. Jeanne Swack (a Telemann specialist) is doing research on anti-semitism in German baroque music I believe. She's written at length about two Telemann cantatas that have such a bias, and wrote to me inquiring about Graupner cantatas with a similiar bias (I don't know of any, but that doesn't mean a thing either, since I've only have scores and parts to 80 out of the 1500 surviving cantatas; and even then I've not examined every score yet). I'll ask her more about this connection with Bach and Neumeister. Obviously, Telemann's cantata(s) that have such an anti-Jewish bias bothers me a great deal. >
Though I've only heaProf. Swack speak about this once, on that occasion at least she was talking about Telemann's cantatas for "Judica" Sunday (aka Passion Sunday, the fifth Sunday in Lent). The general consensus, at least as I understood it, was that Telemann wasn't specifically expressing his own, person anti-Semitism, but rather was setting at text that lends itself to anti-Semitic sentiments. (the Gospel, John 8:46-59, discusses the condemnation of Jesus by the Jewish people.)

It was noted at that time that it was only the fact that Leipzig's "Tempus Clausum" covered these Sundays that prevented Bach from writing cantatas for these weeks. (The only Sunday during lent for which Bach was required to provide a cantata was the third, the others, like the second, third and fourth Sundays in Advent, had no figural music.) In other words, if Bach had gotten the Hamburg job in 1720, perhaps we'd be discussing his "anti-Semitic" cantatas!

Like I say, it's been my impression that Prof. Swack (and Prof. Marissen, who's done similar work on Bach and Handel) has tried not to suggest that Telemann (or Bach, or Handel) is anti-Semitic, but rather that these works were a product of their time, a time in which religious tolerance was scant. (Certainly one can see anti-Catholic sentiments in Lutheran cantatas too, and undoubtedly there were anti-Protestant sentiments expressed in the Catholic music of the time, though I'm not as familiar with that repertory.)

Evan Cortens wrote (August 19, 2009):
Evan Cortens wrote:
< Though I've only heard Prof. Swack speak about this once, on that occasion at least she was talking about Telemann's cantatas for "Judica" Sunday (aka Passion Sunday, the fifth Sunday in Lent). The general consensus, at least as I understood it, was that Telemann wasn't specifically expressing his own, person anti-Semitism, but rather was setting at text that lends itself to anti-Semitic sentiments. (the Gospel, John 8:46-59, discusses the condemnation of Jesus by the Jewish people.) >
While on this point, I noticed that the BCW page on the Lutheran Church Year (http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lutheran-Read.htm) doesn't give the Gospels and Epistles for the days which don't have extant cantatas. I wonder why this is? I'm looking specifically at those Sundays in Lent I mentioned, plus Good Friday (on which, of course, a passion was performed, rather than a cantata). As far as I'm aware, the later Sundays after Epiphany worked the same way as in the Catholic liturgy: unused readings for the final Sundays after Trinity were said here, though I could be wrong on this point.

Anyway, seems to me the page should either list:
1) All the Sundays/Feast Days Bach wrote cantatas for, leaving out entirely those ones without extant works
OR
2) All the Sundays/Feast Days in the Lutheran liturgical year, with readings, including those for which there are no cantatas

(As you can tell, I vote for the second option.)

In googling around, it seems that this BCW is the only good resource for this information, and we have an opportunity to make it complete, even if it's not 100% on topic...

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 19, 2009):
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
< I'm just glad that I have an outlet for some arcane knowledge about baroque music and composers and I do try to make it as Bach centric as possible. >
The quick sharing of information via an internet discussion group is truly astounding, especially for this Old Dude who is an alumnus of the card-catalog era of research! I find that you do an excellent job with Bach relevance, and with labeling non-Bach items OT, all with the moderators encouragement, I believe. You have overcome any early skepticism I might have expressed, regarding relevance. Written as if I had a bit of coaching from my son, the lawyer?!

KPC:
< Obviously, Telemann's cantata(s) that have such an anti-Jewish bias bothers me a great deal. >
EM:
I share Dougs hope that the question does not become inflammatory, but at the same time, I do not think we should let that hope restrict our discussions, especially if we have access to state-of-the-art research. Kim has added to the already strong position of BCW in providing historical context for Bach, his colleagues, and contemporaries. Let the questions and answers flow, and let the moderator moderate, as he never fails to do appropriately.

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 19, 2009):
Evan Cortens wrote:
< Anyway, seems to me the page should either list:
1) All the Sundays/Feast Days Bach wrote cantatas for, leaving out entirely those ones without extant works
OR
2) All the Sundays/Feast Days in the Lutheran liturgical year, with readings, including those for which there are no cantatas >
To that I would add the prescribed introit motet and hymns for each Sunday. Terry included the listings in his book of cantata translations. The interplay between these items and the cantatas is significant.

In an ideal listing, we would also have all the organ preludes in their places in the calendar.

Continue of this part of the discussion, see: Reading from the Bible [General Topics]

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (August 19, 2009):
Evan Cortens wrote:
< Though I've only heard Prof. Swack speak about this once, on that occasion at least she was talking about Telemann's cantatas for "Judica" Sunday (aka Passion Sunday, the fifth Sunday in Lent). The general consensus, at least as I understood it, was that Telemann wasn't specifically expressing his own, person anti-Semitism, but rather was setting at text that lends itself to anti-Semitic sentiments. (the Gospel, John 8:46-59, discusses the condemnation of Jesus by the Jewish people.) >
Right, that's what I meant. I just didn't write it very articulately. I don't know the specific Telemann cantata(s), and I don't know if there were some elements of the text that were non-biblical, etc which were demonstrative of the author's own anti Jewish sentiments. I really also don't know what Telemann's personal beliefs were on the subject (just like Bach's).

< Like I say, it's been my impression that Prof. Swack (and Prof. Marissen, who's done similar work on Bach and Handel) has tried not to suggest that Telemann (or Bach, or Handel) is anti-Semitic, but rather that these works were a product of their time, a time in which religious tolerance was scant. >
I agree with that. But sometimes it still hurts to see artists that aren't able to rise above the period they live in.

Thanks and have a good one Evan,

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 19, 2009):
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:

I feel the same about Wagner. His life was self-indulgent, his philosophy repugnant -- and his music transcendent.

Bach is an angel in comparison.

By the way, Richard Wagner was baptised in St. Thomas Church, Leipzig in 1813.

Evan Cortens wrote (August 19, 2009):
Russell Telfer wrote:
< I'm fairly clear in my own mind about this. Bach was constantly employed writing cantatas for every one of the 52 weeks of the year, and the festivals and high days that came on top of that. I'm not aware of any that were left out. Bear in mind that liturgical weeks can have different names: New Year's Day = Feast of the Circumcision, and - in my different liturgical lists in the back of hymnbooks - I find onhymnbook with NO mention of Trinity, and another with no mention of Pentecost. This of course is in English, and there could be something lost in translation. Trinity = Pentecost. (This will get some theologicans fuming.) >
Thanks for your email. A couple of points:

1. Though it varied based on his place of employment, there were a few Sundays during the year for which Bach did not provide cantatas. This was not a personal choice of his, but rather a directive of the church authorities. In Leipzig these were the second, third and fourth Sundays of Advent and the five Sundays of Lent. In Weimar, the rules differed slightly, allowing cantatas during all of Advent as well as the third Sunday of Lent.

2. I'm hardly a theologian, but I must correct you on this point:
Trinity and Pentecost are not the same day. Pentecost Sunday is seven weeks after Easter Sunday, Trinity Sunday is the following Sunday. (In the English tradition, you will occasionally see Pentecost called Whit Sunday, or Whitsun.) In the Catholic church, the Sundays following Pentecost were numbered as such, so Trinity was the "First Sunday After Pentecost", or Trinity Sunday. In the Lutheran church, they instead opted to number the Sundays starting with Trinity, so, for example:
- Second Sunday after Pentecost (Catholic) = First Sunday after Trinity (Lutheran)
(Keep in mind, this is accurate for the 18th century, but things have changed a little since then.)

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 20, 2009):
Evan Cortens wrote.
< [...] undoubtedly there were anti-Protestant sentiments expressed in the Catholic music of the time, though I'm not as familiar with that repertory. >
Picky, picky, picky?! If you are not familiar with the repertory, how can you insert the word undoubtedly?

Seriously, examples would be welcome, if we can make them relevant to Bach and environs. Given the connection between Bachs music, the bicentennial celebration (1730) of the Augsburg Confessions, and the importance of the whole business for the Reformation, relevance should be a sure thing.

Incidentally, spending an hour or so wading through a lot of readily accessible (God bless the web), although not so readily readable verbiage, I gather that the major misunderstandings between the Augsburg signatories and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (or IV, or VI, probably another Charlemagne descendant in any case), initiator of the attempt at unity, were:
(1) Celibacy, or continence, for clergy
(2) Dietary restrictions (not to be confused with Judaic dietary restrictions, a critical distinction)

Oh, fiddlesticks! As Bessie Smith sang, Gimme a pigfoot, and a bottle of beer. To all appearances, Bach anticipated her by a couple hundred years. Praise the Lord? Pass the ammunition, for those who wish a fight. For the rest of us (including me), Bessie will do just fine.

Another John Harbison anecdote. He was commissioned to write a piece for the Vatican, a few years ago. I have not heard the result; he did not sound like he felt it among his best works. He stopped short (as I recall) of saying he regretted accepting the commission, but I was left with that impression. He did mention that he submitted a number of examples, for possible expansion. The Vatican authorities (21st C., or perhaps late 20th) had a unique preference for the C major samples. John said that has been an unchanged preference since the 14th C. If he got the dates correct (I expect he did, precisely), that predates Luther and the Reformation. A mere blip on the screen of the truly big picture, from the Roman perspective?

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 20, 2009):
<>

For a more recent, smaller scale example, see trumpeter/singer Chet Baker, from the 1950s West Coast jazz scene. His musical skills and his failures as a human being are equally legendary. What to do? Enjoy his recordings is my suggestion.

Evan Cortens wrote (August 20, 2009):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
Evan wrote.
>>[...] undoubtedly there were anti-Protestant sentiments expressed in the Catholic music of the time, though I'm not as familiar with that repertory. <<
< Picky, picky, picky?! If you are not familiar with the repertory, how can you insert the word undoubtedly? >
Heh, fair enough! Probably? Perhaps? If I had to guess? All would have been better choices here.

I do keep meaning to learn more about eighteenth-century German Catholic music though... one of these days. There's a fairly recent dissertation on Catholic music in Dresden specifically by Laurie Ongley that's been on my reading list for a while. (1) Granted, she deals mostly with masses; the text then would clearly have been fixed.
There are, however, quite a number of oratorios out there from this time and place.

Dresden is certainly an interesting case though, and probably can't be taken as typical for the Deutsche Sprachgebiet.

(1) Ongley, Laurie. �Liturgical Music in Late Eighteenth-Century Dresden: Johann Gottlieb Naumann, Joseph Schuster and Franz Seydelmann.� 2 vols. PhD diss., Yale University, 1992.

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 20, 2009):
BWV 190, Naming of Sundays

Evan Cortens wrote:
< In the Catholic church, the Sundays following Pentecost were numbered as such, so Trinity was the "First Sunday After Pentecost", or Trinity Sunday. In the Lutheran church, they instead opted to number the Sundays starting with Trinity, >
This is probably more information than anyone wants, but the numbering of Sundays "after Pentecost" or "after Trinity" is not a Catholic-Protestant difference. Before the Reformation, there was not a consistent system for naming these Sundays in Catholic Europe. In medieval Italy and France, they used "after Pentecost", in medieval Germany and England, they used "after Trinity."

When the Roman calendar was fixed after the Council of Trent in 1575, the "after Pentecost" naming was imposed on the universal church. Ironically, the reformed churches of Germany and England stayed faithful to their ancient catholic traditions by continuing to use 'after Trinity".

Just a caveat. The calendars and lectionaries of all the liturgical churches -- Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican - were revised in the mid-20^th centuries and can no longer be used as references for the Renaissance and Baroque.

You may unglaze your eyes now.

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 20, 2009):
Evan Cortens wrote:
< I do keep meaning to learn more about eighteenth-century German Catholic music though... one of these days. There's a fairly recent dissertation on Catholic music in Dresden specifically by Laurie Ongley that's been on my reading list for a while. >
Report back on it for us. I would love to know if there was any music at the Catholic chapel royal maintained in Leipzig by the Dresden court.

Evan Cortens wrote (August 20, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< This is probably more information than anyone wants, but the numbering of Sundays "after Pentecost" or "after Trinity" is not a Catholic-Protestant difference. >
I confess, I'd always just assumed it was Catholic vs. Protestant; thanks for clearing this up!

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 20, 2009):
< In the Catholic church, the Sundays following Pentecost were numbered as such, so Trinity was the "First Sunday After Pentecost", or Trinity Sunday. In the Lutheran church, they instead opted to number the Sundays starting with Trinity >
I was able to figure this out a few years ago, from data availble on BCW, but it was not all that easy. Since the Roman Catholic calendar was earlier, can anyone explain the logic, or motivation, for the Lutheran change? From my quick scan of the Augsburg Confession, it appeared this was not yet a bone of contention at that point. In fact, as I noted in a previopost, it appears to me that the disagreements were
(1) Celibacy, or continence, for clergy.
(2) Dietary restrictions (not Biblical)

What was that cute phrase Will provided, re Bach? I will now put my foot in my moouth to avoid the need to bite my sharp tongue? Something like that.

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (August 20, 2009):
Evan Cortens wrote:
< I do keep meaning to learn more about eighteenth-century German Catholic music though... one of these days. There's a fairly recent dissertation on Catholic music in Dresden specifically by Laurie Ongley that's been on my reading list for a while. (1) Granted, she deals mostly with masses; the text then would clearly have been fixed. There are, however, quite a number of oratorios out there from this time and place.
Dresden is certainly an interesting case though, and probably can't be taken as typical for the Deutsche Sprachgebiet. >
Carus Verlag is publishing a series of Heinichen settings of the Mass (there are quite a few of them), and they are quite lovely pieces of music. I think Carus has also released a few of them on CD. There has been quite a bit of research done on the sacred music at Mannheim, a Catholic court. While the instrumental music seems to have been of the more galant style, apparently the church music was more of the "ancient style" with a focus on fugues etc. Franz Xavier Richter and Beck's music seems very worthy of exploration.

I have also heard on the grapevine that a Complete Works for Michael Haydn is gearing up. Most of his sacred music is unpublished ( I think there are literally 100s of pieces). I tried to order copies of some of his manuscripts from a Salzburg monastery. No luck :-(

William Rowland (Ludwig) wrote (August 20, 2009):
[To Kim Patrick Clow] Please excuse as I have missed out on part of this subject matter. Only those who are NOT of a liturgical church background would confuse a Catholic Mass with a Protestant one---there are great similarities just as there are great similarities between a Jewish Service and a Christian one particularly a Reformed Jewish Service but it all ends there.

These Christian churches often emulate the so-called Roman Catholic mass: The Anglican Church (called the Episcopal Church in the United States), The Reformed Anglican Church (these are the renegade bigots who left the Episcopal Church over female clergy, gay clergy, do not welcome people of other races into their church, are not good samaritans and a few other things),the Lutheran Church---particularly the Evangelical Lutherans, and other varieites of the Anglican, Greek Orthodox (and related national churches) as well as the Coptic Church.

The fact that Bach wrote a few masses does not mean necessarily that there were Catholic but they could be used in most cases in a Roman Catholic service of that time. We do know that some of Bach's patrons were Catholics but most were Protestant in the die-hard Martin Luther tradition. The Latin Mass was used in very high church occaisions as well as for a congregation of intelllectuals. In those days, Latin was the de riguer language of the worldwide scholarly community.

We must remember that Luther was an Augustinian Monk and in his reforms he brought with him some of the baggage of the Roman Catholic Church while throwing out much of the iconography of the Roman Church along with such things as the selling of Indulgences to get into heaven which grossly offended Luther when he was in Rome and saw the Pope selling of indulgences. Luther's goal was to purify the church of its corruption ( such things were going on at that time as Popes being married, keeping mistresses, having same sex lovers, fornications resulting in children, murdering people through the inquisition and conducting wars in the name of God( one Pope was so angry at one individual because he could not legally get at him --that he had him kidnapped and boiled in oil alive on Vatician Grounds et al ) and as such Luther was the first Purtian if we ignore what Savonorola was trying to do. Savonorola's efforts were more repressive than
reformist. Savonorola was what today would be called an extremist born again Christian. It is thus that we find the Roman Mass basically intact in the Lutheran and other Protestant Churches although certain segments have been either eliminated or modified.

Evan Cortens wrote (August 20, 2009):
Ludwig wrote:
< Please excuse as I have missed out on part of this subject matter. >
Evidently...

< Only those who are NOT of a liturgical church background would confuse a Catholic Mass with a Protestant one---there are great similarities just as there are great similarities between a Jewish Service and a Christian one particularly a Reformed Jewish Service but it all ends there. >
Don't worry, Ludwig, we'd moved on to discussing genuine Catholic masses.

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (August 20, 2009):
Evan Cortens wrote:
< Don't worry, Ludwig, we'd moved on to discussing genuine Catholic masses. >
Ok, I LOLed, for real ;)

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 20, 2009):
< Just a caveat. The calendars and lectionaries of all the liturgical churches -- Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican - were revised in the mid-20^th centuries and can no longer be used as references for the Renaissance and Baroque. You may unglaze your eyes now. >
On the contrary, I find this provides an interestting (interim) conclusive point for the historical context thread. It also provides a corrective in the simplest way possible to the illusory idea that Bach sits in the midst of a continuum of Christian constancy, spanning from 1st to 21st centuries.

On a personal note, I only noticed the Trinity/Pentecost discrepancy after joining BCML. Like Evan, I assumed it was a Protestant/Catholic difference. The explanation is welcome.

Hawaii Vanared (William Hoffman) wrote (August 20, 2009):
To the lively discussion started by my remarks on the Augsburg Confession:

I hope next year in the St. John Passion discussion to look in depth at two complex themes:

Luther's Christus Victor concept of John's triumphal and anti-semitic gospel (Luther was the same guy who demanded Jews become Christians, called the Pope the "anti-Christ," and trashed the peasants for their revolt).

The Hamburg pre-Brockes pietist-humanist-orthodox poetry in Hunold, Postel, Christian Weise, and Neumesiter, especially Postel's John Passion and Hunold's texts for Keiser's passion-oratorios like "The bleeding and dying Jesus," c.1705, with direct influence on the young Bach.

Out of simplicity comes complexity and verse-vissa.

Russell Telfer wrote (August 20, 2009):
[To Evan Cortens & Douglas Cowling] Thanks Evan, and Doug, for your comments

Those were useful additions to my understanding. In particular I looked up your point about Trinity and Pentecost and indeed that's what the book says.

One thing isn't cleared up though: why some Church of England hymnals go with Pentecost but most of them go with Trinity. (Fact: I've just checked.) I expect I would find out if I listened harder in church.

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 20, 2009):
Calendars

Russell Telfer wrote:
< One thing isn't cleared up though: why some Church of England hymnals go with Pentecost but most of them go with Trinity. (Fact: I've just checked.) I expect I would find out if I listened harder in church. >
In the late 1960's, the Catholic Church reformed both its calendar and its lectionary. These changes had a wide influence and were adopted in most Protestant churches.

In general, the calendar was changed to reflect more ancient patristic forms rather than the late medieval-Renaissance calendar which is familiar from Bach's schedule: for instance, the pre-Lent Sundays (e.g Quiquagesima) were eliminated. The 50 day Easter season now began with Easter Day and ended with Pentecost: the 2nd and 3rd Days after Pentecost, which were so prominent for Bach, were also eliminated as late medieval accretions.

More significant was the restoration of a reading from the Hebrew Scriptures before the Epistle, and the expansion fra one-year cycle to a three-year cycle. Under this arrangement, the entire New Testament is systematically read through.

There has been resistance to the new calendar and lectionary in all of the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican churches with conservatives refusing to change the patterns which were finalized during the highly-polemicised periods of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. In the Anglican and Lutheran churches, where dissent has greater flexibility, some parishes have retained the one-year cycle and calendar of their 16th century formularies. But even in the Catholic church, the pope last year provided an indult which allowed the use of the Tridentine mass with its calendar and its annual lectionary.

The only reason I offer this outline is that we have to be careful in reading present liturgical practice backwards into Bach's time. Bach's calendar with its concommitant ranking of Sundays and festivals for cantatas is quite different in many details from any modern church calendar. And even in the 18^th century, there were differing customs between regions and churches -- the Köthen and Leipzig musical calendars were very different.

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (August 20, 2009):
O.T. Calendars --> Vatican 2 and Tridentine Catholics

Douglas Cowling wrote:
< There has been resistance to the new calendar and lectionary in all of the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican churches with conservatives refusing to change the patterns which were finalized during the highly-polemicised periods of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. In the Anglican and Lutheran churches, where dissent has greater flexibility, >
Honestly I never heard any pro-Tridentine Catholic rant and rave about the new lectionary. Just a lot of babbling about their wanting the magic show restored to the Mass with lots of Latin and pomp and ceremony. For whatever reason, the handshake (or sign of peace) drives Tridentine Catholics absolutely insane. I don't understand that honestly. Believe it or not, it's YOUNG Catholics that are pushing for a lot of these rollbacks too. The current Pontiff has make several bruhahas over the American church liturgical habits, some of them are particularly anti-Vatican 2.

I'm aslo not sure there is that much more flexibility in the Anglican churches, given how the more conservative dioceses (especially in Africa) want to break from the main body over the issues of women priests, gay clery openingly serving, etc etc etc.

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 20, 2009):
William Hoffman wrote:
< To the lively discussion started by my remarks on the Augsburg Confession >
Lively and informative, at least for me. Thanks. I am looking forward to the SJP discussion, but many of these points are always on-topic, simply awaiting someone to bring them up.

I notice the new (?) handle, hawaiivanared. Naturally, I am curious. I thought to write off-list, but there seems no need for that: peronal profiles are always appropriate, I believe.

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 20, 2009):
Music for the Augsburg Confession - 1930?

Bach wrote his cantata for the 200th anniversary of the Augusburg Confession in 1730. Mendelssohn wrote the "Reformation" Symphony for the 300^th anniversary. I shudder to ask, but did any notable pen something for the 400^th in in 1930?

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 20, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< In the Anglican and Lutheran churches, where dissent has greater flexibility >
Greater than what? From the Jesuits I interact with personally, and from some of the Lutherans I have met on BCML, I question the generalization. Full disclosure: I do not know anyone who is specifically Lutheran in belief, other than BCML correspoondents.

Nevertheless, love you madly. The calendar details are helpful.

Ed Myskowski wrote (August 20, 2009):
A couple more general responses to Doug:
< Under this arrangement, the entire New Testament is systematically read through. >
Although I did not do the math, I presume this includes daily services, not Sundays and Feasts only?

DC:
< Bach's calendar with its concommitant ranking of Sundays and festivals for cantatas is quite different in many details from any modern church calendar. And even in the 18^th century, there were differing customs between regions and churches -- the Köthen and Leipzig musical calendars were very different. >
EM:
Emphasizing the point that Bachs music was composed in response to very specific demands of time and place. The universal spiritual power of the music does not necessarily confirm the universal verity of the specific constraints on its composition.

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (August 20, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< Bach wrote his cantata for the 200th anniversary of the Augusburg Confession in 1730. Mendelssohn wrote the "Reformation" Symphony for the 300^th anniversary. I shudder to ask, but did any notable pen something for the 400^th in in 1930? >
Not that I can find anything about ( I certainly never saw any CD releases at work about any such music). Why is this case? Honestly I think the Great Depression just made any such celebrations very unlikely. Especially in 1930 Germany.

Musically yours,

Douglas Cowling wrote (August 20, 2009):
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
< Honestly I think the Great Depression just made any such celebrations very unlikely. Especially in 1930 Germany. >
The Nazis certainly used historic anniversaries as excuses for musical extravaganzas. The most famous of course was the 1936 Olympics for which Richard Strauss wrote his Olympic Hymn. He also wrote a tone poem in 1940 to celebrate some imaginary bimillenial annversary of the Japanese monarchy. I'm sure that if the war had lasted longer, the Bach bicentennial in 1950 would have been co-opted as propaganda.

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (August 20, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< The Nazis certainly used historic anniversaries as excuses for musical extravaganzas. >
Right, but the Nazi party wasn't in charge in 1930.

Back to the Top

Last update: �August 24, 2009 �19:20:48