|
Recordings & Discussions of Cantatas : Cantatas BWV 1-50 | Cantatas BWV 51-100 | Cantatas BWV 101-150 | Cantatas BWV 151-200 | Cantatas BWV 201-224 | Cantatas BWV Anh | Order of Discussion |
|
Recordings & Discussions of Cantatas : Cantatas BWV 1-50 | Cantatas BWV 51-100 | Cantatas BWV 101-150 | Cantatas BWV 151-200 | Cantatas BWV 201-224 | Cantatas BWV Anh | Order of Discussion |
|
Ach wie flüchtig, ach wie nichtig Discussions - Part 2 |
|
Discussions in the Week of November 5, 2006 |
|
Alain Bruguières wrote (November 5, 2006):Introduction to BWV 26 "Ach wie flüchtig, ach wie nichtig" Week of November 05, 2006 --------------------------- Cantata BWV 26, Ach wie flüchtig, ach wie nichtig Second Annual Cantata Cycle, 1723-24 (Jahrgang II) 24th Sunday after Trinity 1st performance: November 19, 1724 - Leipzig --------------------------- Bach Cantatas resources Previous Discussions: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV26-D.htm Main Cantata page: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV26.htm Text: German http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/26.html English http://www.uvm.edu/~classics/faculty/bach/BWV26.html French http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Texts/BWV26-Fre4.htm Score Vocal & Piano: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Scores/BWV026-V&P.pdf Recordings: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV26.htm#RC Listen to Leusink recording [7] (free streaming download): http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Stream/BWV26-Leusink.ram --------------------------- Librettist : unknown Reading: EPISTLE Colossians 1: 9-14: Paul prays for the Colossians GOSPEL Matthew 9: 18-26: The raising from the dead of Jairus's daughter. This is a chorale cantata, based upon the chorale of the same name. Thirteen-verse hymn by Michael Franck. For more details on this chorale melody see: http://bach-cantatas.com/CM/Ach-wie-fluchtig.htm -------------------------------------------------------- Structure 1. Choral S + hn ATB ob I-III + fl str bc 2. Aria T fl solo vln I solo bc 3. Recit. A bc 4. Aria B ob I-III bc 5. Recit. S bc 6. Choral SATB bc (+ instrs) (Same structure Chorale-Aria T-Recit. A-Aria B-Recit. S-Chorale as the previous cantata - it seems that Bach used a similar structure C-A-R-A-R-C for several consecutive weeks, irrespective of the number of verses in the hymn). -------------------------------------------------------- Comment (mostly based on Dürr). In this Chorale cantata the unknown librettist uses the thirteen verses of the hymn in the following way: Mvt. 1 (Choral) = verse 1 Mvt. 2 (Aria T) = free paraphrase of verse 2 Mvt. 3 (Recit. A) = free paraphrase of verses 3-9 Mvt. 4 (Aria B) = free paraphrase of verse 10 Mvt. 5 (Recit. S) = free paraphrase of verses 11-12 Mvt. 6 (Choral) = verse 13. The libretto (and the hymn) is based on one single idea. The life of man is empty and fleeting like a mist (Mvt. 1), our days run by like rushing water (Mvt. 2), joy, beauty, stength, good fortune, knowlege are destroyed by the grave (Mvt. 3); attachment to such earthly treasures is foolish (Mvt. 4); whatever glory a man may achieve is forgotten in the grave (Mvt. 5). Human affairs are bound to perish,yet whoever fears God shall endure for ever (Mvt. 6). The first movement is a chorale fantasia in style concertante. The cantus firmus is in the soprano, reinforced by horn, each line of the chorale being accompanied by the other three voices in a swiftly moving chordal texture in quavers. At the end of each line the three accompanying voices quote the first line of the chorale melody in unison (but on different words). The ritornello's theme, independent of the chorale melody, is characterized by all-pervading ascending and descending scales in semiquavers, conveying a sense of restlessness to the entire movement. This chorale fantasia is exceptionally successful musical illustration of the text. The tenor aria retains the scale figures of the chorale fantasia, now suggestive of rushing waters. The tenor voice and the two obbligato instruments, tansverse flaute and violin solo combine in a complex and ever-chaging structure; sometimes the two instruments are in unison, or in thirds, sometimes the tenor and the instrumental part form a quartet. The alto recitative, secco after a coloratura on the word 'Freude', provides an instant of calm and temporary relief, soon dissipated by the folling aria. The basso aria is characterized, in Dürr's apt words, by a 'weird death-dance mood'. The movement is a 'genuine bourrée', whose instrumental theme introduced by the three oboes and the continuo is taken up by the basso; however the climate of this bourree is not joyful, but rather oppressive, due to the minor mode, the sonority of the oboes, and this is especially true in the middle section, on the words 'till everything collapses, dashed to pieces'; the hurried descending scales conjuring the macabre vision: 'Death strikes up and men have to dance to his shawm.' However pervert, infernal this dance may be, Alberto Basso notes that Bach, by his choice of the Bourrée, depicts this vision of Death in the style of a galanterie, as if hewere percieving a certain sweetness in it. Is it possible that in Bach's alchemy, the fantastic medieval symbolic representation meets a certain pietist approach to death? A secco recitative leads to the concluding 4-part harmonized chorale, whose last line brings the only (moderately) comforting idea in the entire libretto : 'Whoever fears God shall endure for ever'. -------------------------------------------------------- A more personal comment. This is one of my favorites! The purport of the text is rather simple: (terrestrial) life is worthless. It's difficult to me - and probably to most inhabitants of the 21st century, to accept (not to mention adhere to) this slogan. Note that the Gospel somehow contradicts this slogan: the fact that Jesus brings Jairus's daughter back to life is hard to reconcile with the idea that life is worthless. Yet Bach's treatment of this text is really wonderful. It suggests that the slogan shouldn't be taken at its face value, in all its bluntness - in particular the Basso aria reveals a much more subtle approach to death. Some time ago (when BWV 60 was under discussion), I posted the following remarks. < I have noted three approaches to Time in Bach's cantatas. > The first two concern 'human' time, that is time as percieved by a mortal. > - time viewed in a worldly perspective : time flows desperately fast, condemning all we are and all we achieve to a rapid destruction; hence vanity of things of this world. A moralist's point of view, which could have been endorsed by ancient, pre-christian philosophers. A typical example being Ach wie flüchtig, Ach wie nichtig BWV 26. - time viewed in a spiritual (pietist?) perspective : time flows al too slowly, while the christian craves for his final liberation from the sufferings of this world. Many instances of this, notably BWV 95. The third point of view is quite different : a meditation on Eternity - Time on a divine scale, which is completely beyond our experience. BWV 60 'O Ewigkeit Du Donnerwort' is obviously an instance of that. It's not really about time, in fact. More about the total absence of limits - a concept hard to fathom! > Now BWV 60 was performed on the 24th Sunday after Trinity, too, just one year before BWV 26, but with completely different points of view.Also, the point of view in BWV 26 is not the 'spiritual' point of view: time flows too fast from a worldly point of view; but if you aspire to liberation through death (and this seems closer to Bach's ideas), then it flows all to slowly. Hence perhaps a sense of 'cognitive dissonance' (in Eric Bergerud's words) which may contribute to the pleasure of listening to this cantata. |
|
Ed Myskowski wrote (November 5, 2006):Alain Bruguières wrote: < (Same structure Chorale-Aria T-Recit. A-Aria B-Recit. S-Chorale as the previous cantata - it seems that Bach used a similar structure C-A-R-A-R-C for several consecutive weeks, irrespective of the number of verses in the hymn). > But notice how the voice pairs alternate from week to week, SA recit, TB aria, and vice versa. An undeveloped idea (where is a graduate student when you need one?) is to relate this (or not ) to the proposed standard voice correlation of A = Geist, etc. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (November 5, 2006):Ed Myskowski wrote: < But notice how the voice pairs alternate from week to week, SA recit, TB aria, and vice versa. An undeveloped idea (where is a graduate student when you need one?) is to relate this (or not ) to the proposed standard voice correlation of A = Geist, etc. > It seems likely to me (as a practical matter for the music director) that Bach just planned out the season well and rotated his available singers into it, giving them enough lead time to learn their parts. On the weeks where they're not given particularly difficult solos, they could be working ahead on upcoming material for another week. I don't see why it's necessary to speculate more "deeply" into metaphysical assignments than that (A = Geist, etc etc etc), when a practical hypothesis so readily presents itself, and when the practical hypothesis shows Bach to be competent or better at his job. That job included educating a team of youths in musicianship, and supplying fine music well performed for the appointed church duties. The music was probably going to be heard once (at most) by any given parishioner over a lifetime, maybe twice; what point would there be to load it up compositionally with too many symbolic things that can't be gotten on that single hearing, next to the more immediate task of getting the music done well? The music certainly wasn't written with the expectation that it would be argued about 280 years in the future by a bunch of people communicating electronically by typing. |
|
Douglas Cowling wrote (November 5, 2006):Bradley Lehman wrote: < It seems likely to me (as a practical matter for the music director) that Bach just planned out the season well and rotated his available singers into it, giving them enough lead time to learn their parts. On the weeks where they're not given particularly difficult solos, they could be working ahead on upcoming material for another week. I don't see why it's necessary to speculate more "deeply" into metaphysical assignments than that (A = Geist, etc etc etc), when a practical hypothesis so readily presents itself, and when the practical hypothesis shows Bach to be competent or better at his job. That job included educating a team of youths in musicianship, and supplying fine music well performed for the appointed church duties. The music was probably going to be heard once (at most) by any given parishioner over a lifetime, maybe twice; what point would there be to load it up compositionally with too many symbolic things that can't be gotten on that single hearing, next to the more immediate task of getting the music done well? > Betraying my ever-perennial obsession with Bach as a practical musician, it would be fascinating to set up tables for the whole year (say Jahrgang I) showing the lists of music Bach had to prepare for the four churches-- motets, cantatas, chorales, perhaps even organ works -- and see if patterns of orchestration appeared. We have a tendency to ignore the non-Bach repertoire, but there would have been Sundays when an eight-voice motet of Lassus would have been more challenging than the cantata. And then there are the 6 or 7 organ works required. However, the genius of Bach is that he never became a hack: he never provided anything less than the best. Yes, the cantata may have been only heard once, but Bach gave each a profundity that perhaps only he and God appreciated. Those depths are the reason that this is the BCML and not a list devoted to the cantatas of Telemann. |
|
Douglas Cowling wrote (November 5, 2006):BWV 26 "Ach wie flüchtig, ach wie nichtig" - Unison singing
|
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 5, 2006):Douglas Cowling wrote: >>Any other examples [of unison choral passages]? << The conclusion of mvt. 6 of BWV 71 mm 32 to 37 on the words "du wollest dem Feinde nicht geben die Seele deiner Turteltauben" ["you did not want to give the {your} enemy the soul of your turtledoves"]. It sounds like a chant normally sung by the entire congregation. There are other passages in octaves like that in BWV 190/1 mm 79-85, mm 123-130, again this sounds very orthodox and antiquated recalling the "Leisen" and "Rufe" (see BCW for details) of an early period in church history (in Germany) "Herr Gott, dich loben wir" (Lord God, we praise you") and "Herr Gott, wir danken dir" ("Lord God, we thank you"). |
|
Ed Myskowski wrote (November 5, 2006):Bradley Lehman wrote: << (citing my earlier post But notice how the voice pairs alternate from week to week, SA recit, TB aria, and vice versa. An undeveloped idea (where is a graduate student when you need one?) is to relate this (or not ) to the proposed standard voice correlation of A = Geist, etc. < It seems likely to me (as a practical matter for the music director) that Bach just planned out the season well and rotated his available singers into it, giving them enough lead time to learn their parts. On the weeks where they're not given particularly difficult solos, they could be working ahead on upcoming material for another week. I don't see why it's necessary to speculate more "deeply" into metaphysical assignments than that (A = Geist, etc etc etc), when a practical hypothesis so readily presents itself, and when the practical hypothesis shows Bach to be competent or better at his job. > Yes, in fact I intended to suggest the same point you have made. I was writing a really quick note, so as not to lose the thought. I should have put more emphasis on the or not. I haven't done it yet, but I expect the <proposed standard voice correlation of A = Geist, etc> would disintegrate in the context of the cantatas for recent weeks: BWV 38, BWV 115, and more. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 5, 2006):Bradley Lehman wrote: >>It seems likely to me (as a practical matter for the music director)that Bach just planned out the season well and rotated his available singers into it, giving them enough lead time to learn their parts. On the weeks where they're not given particularly difficult solos, they could be working ahead on upcoming material for another week.<< Even more practical for Bach who lived and worked at a time and place unlike any available today and who therefore had different expectatiof his solo singers is to have at his service vocalists who could sight-read and sing while sight-reading with such a proficiency that no additional practice over a span of more than just one or two days was necessary. Evidence of this ability that good singers possessed is found in one of Bach's report(card)s/recommendations that he wrote for Johann Christoph Schmied, dated Leipzig, May 9, 1729 which reads as follows (Bach-Dokumente I, item 62 on p. 130): >>Vorzeiger dieses Johann Christoph Schmeid von Bendleben aus Thüringen 'aet': 19. Jahr, hat eine feine 'Tenor' Stimme und singt vom Blat fertig." "The individual showing this [paper/document], Johann Christoph Schmied [Bach misspelled the last name] from Bendleben in Thuringia, age 19, has a fine [excellent/accurate] tenor voice and sight-reads [music, his part] so that it is in no further need of improvement [so that it can be performed that way directly without needing further practice]." This is precisely the type of singer that Bach had at his disposal and upon whom he could depend to give an excellent performance in church after no more than a single rehearsal the day before the performance. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 5, 2006):Douglas Cowling wrote: >>However, the genius of Bach is that he never became a hack: he never provided anything less than the best. Yes, the cantata may have been only heard once, but Bach gave each a profundity that perhaps only he and God appreciated. Those depths are the reason that this is the BCML and not a list devoted to the cantatas of Telemann.<< Martin Geck, in his "Bach:Leben und Werk" Hamburg, 2000, pp. 378-379, states that Bach's first cantata cycle (and I would suppose that 2nd would also be appropriate here) can in no way be compared to Georg Philipp Telemann's cycle of cantatas from 1725/1726 as printed in his "Harmonischer Gottesdienst". The latter achieved its success throughout various regions in Germany due to its normative aspects: the texts, the orchestration, the sequence of choral and solo mvts and the manner of composition [simplified with its potential users in mind - small town cantors, choirs, soloists as well as those in larger cities] all follow the same pattern. This way the potential user knew that he would have music that could be used on the spur of the moment without any special problems or surprises (such as some difficult passages that may not be easily worked out quickly). Geck uses the word "bequem" ["made to be easy and convenient to use"] to describe the Telemann cantatas in this printed series. On the other hand, Bach found himself in a situation much more like an experimental laboratory. He did not have an entire year of libretti in hand when he began composing a yearly cycle. His method of composing cantatas was much more a matter of "living from hand to mouth" ["von der Hand in den Mund"]: it was necessary for Bach to accommodate the prevailing "Leipziger Verhältnisse" ["the conditions in Leipzig"]. He could hardly plan ahead for more than just a few weeks at the most. There is evidence for this in the original sources where he includes a notational sketch for the coming week's cantata on the cantata which he is composing for this week. After the performance of one cantata, Bach can learn from the strengths and weaknesses, make adjustments which he could then apply in the cantata for the coming week. Bach found a balance between the high artistic goals he set for himself and the requirements forced upon him by mundane factors which he faced daily. Despite the pressure of time which surrounded him on all sides, he was capable of creating gems with many facets, miracles of varying compositional structures, musical expression, theological,emblematical depth of meaning and existential vivacity/liveliness. In music history there is hardly anything comparable where a composer worked under such extreme conditions of productive tension: on one side the strong will to create music with a grand conception, on the other side the reality of routine which literally forced him to experiment and which, however, made necessary compromises of various types. Most of the time Bach had to react to situations on a week-to-week basis. This is the reason, however, why it is so astonishing that he composes with such certainty introductory choruses on biblical verses or chorale texts. etc. etc. Some conclusions issuing from the above: Composing with a specific user already in mind and getting the music printed with a goal of making money has a normative effect which makes the creation of truly great, enduring music much less likely. Having a high musical ideal in mind (creating the best music that one is capable of composing) and finding the means to materialize this goal by making quick, necessary adjustments (experimentation) to suit the daily requirements of reality are more conducive to the creation of great music. Secondary conclusions emanating from the above and applied to Bach performances today: Performing and/or recording music for a specific audience (performing music with the potential desires of current audiences or current fads/fashions in musicology in mind) has a normative effect on the quality of the performance. Performing and/or recording music with special attention given to serving humbly the goals inherent in the text and music as given by Bach will bring out more of its enduring spirituality and musicality. |
|
Douglas Cowling wrote (November 5, 2006):Thomas Braatz wrote: < This is precisely the type of singer that Bach had at his disposal and upon whom he could depend to give an excellent performance in church after no more than a single rehearsal the day before the performance. > This is your conclusion which is not supported by any of the documents you cite. Common sense and practical experience makes this supposition ridiculous. |
|
Douglas Cowling wrote (November 5, 2006):Thomas Braatz wrote: < Composing with a specific user already in mind and getting the music printed with a goal of making money has a normative effect which makes the creation of truly great, enduring music much less likely. > * Nonsense. Bach used a collection of the finest motets of the 16th - 17th century for his entite career in Leipzig. I doubt he thought the motets by Lassus were hack work merely because they were popular or widely-published. |
|
Peter Smaill wrote (November 5, 2006):The purpose of this commentary tis to act principally as a reprise of previous observations on the Chorale, which occurs in BWV 26/1 and 26/6. As regards BWV 26/1, it is perhaps the best instance we have of the word painting in the correlative organ prelude, BWV 644 in the Orgelbüchlein, following the same motif - rushing semiquavers in contrary motion. As Spitta puts it, the scales "hurry by like passing ghosts". Stinson suggests the common root may be Böhm's work (Var 4 of the partita), of the same title and figuration. In the organ prelude, Bach concludes without pedal, as he does in the aria, "Wie zittern und wanken", from BWV 105,"Herr , gehe nichts in Gerichte", the missing continuo part "symbolising the sinner's precarious existence". It is the final Chorale in the Orgelbüchlein, at the end of the Church year and a meditation of the fleeting nature of existence. Considered as a pure Chorale, BWV 26/6 displays palindromic text and music This arises because in earlier printed versions of the text (? do we have extant the text booklet for this Sunday?) the words NEBEL and LEBEN are capitalised, emphasising their ability to relate by being read backwards or forwards. So it is (subject to variance in note repetitions) with the melody of the first line of the Chorale: GABB BCDD DDCB AAGG. Both the organ work and Cantata emphasise falling octave figures in the bass, suggesting the finality of the end of the Church year and of life itself. Note that Bach reverses the linguistic order of the Chorale incipit; in BWV 644, it is given out as "Ach wie nichtig, ach wie flüchtig"; whereas the Cantata reads, "Ach wie flüchtig, ach wie nichtig". Dürr, who is often clinical in his analysis compared to the impassionate Whittaker, says of this work, "in its imposing display of pregnant images, it creates a stirring impression, it accords well with the general themes of the close of the Church year, and from a musical standpoint, above all, it is an unrivalled masterpiece". |
|
Raymond Joly wrote (November 5, 2006):Thomas Braatz, quoting and translating a recommendation by Bach, and commenting on it further: BACH: Vorzeiger dieses [...] hat eine feine 'Tenor' Stimme und singt vom Blat fertig. BACH TRANSLATED: The individual showing this [...] has a fine [excellent/accurate] tenor voice and sight-reads [music, his part] so that it is in no further need of improvement [so that it can be performed that way directly without needing further practice]. BRAATZ: This is precisely the type of singer that Bach had at his disposal and upon whom he could depend to give an excellent performance in church after no more than a single rehearsal the day before the performance. I think what Bach wrote is simply this: "This young man has a good tenor voice and can sight read". I understand "vom Blatt fertig" as meaning "straight off the page" (I hope my English does not confuse matters). This is an achievement expected today, for instance, from any accompanist. There may be degrees in accuracy, though, depending on how tough the stuff is. And a piece brilliantly sight read usually needs a lot of further practice and improvement before it is satisfactorily presented to an audience. I am well aware that we are not talking about concerts and recordings, but one-off performances in a church. But I do not think we make Bach any greater by idealizing Leipzig. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 5, 2006):Douglas Cowling wrote: >>Common sense and practical experience makes this supposition [that Bach's vocal solists, and instrumentalists as well, had great skill and artistry in sight-reading their parts and performing them up to Bach's high standards with little or no rehearsal) ridiculous.<< Actually, any 'common sense' based upon practical experience today cannot confirm that Bach was forced to use the methods employed today by choir directors world-wide. What is missing in this type of evaluation is a clear insight into the differences between Bach's time and place and whatever transpires today under very different conditions. The most important musical goal for Bach was to achieve "Profectus" in all musical matters; this is success in achieving a proficiency regarding the ease with which one can read accurately the notes on the page as well as the ability to make it sound like this is already a successful performance of the music including voice control, use of expressive means to bring out the meaning of the text (not mechanical devices alone, but a true 'singing from the soul' or 'singing with heartfelt emotion') which will naturally touch the emotions of the listeners. In his 'report cards'/recommendations for his pupils/students/musicians, Bach has a range of qualifications beginning with absolute perfection in sight-reading or about 'hitting the notes beautifully ("er trifft gar hübsch") to "mittelmäßig" ("average"), to "mediocre"/"passable" ("just barely good enough") to "ziemlich schlecht" ("rather bad"), "wenige Profectus" ("very little success/proficiency in music"). When Bach says that someone is able to play various instruments and also sing as well as anyone could expect of a truly skilled musician, then this certainly includes the ability to sing and play at sight any difficult music Bach could place before him and play/sing it in such a way that it could be considered a finished performance as judged by Johann Sebastian Bach, not by some present-day choir director who might insist that his standards are the same or even better than J. S. Bach's. A reasonable assumption, giving Bach credit for a high standard we are unable to prove today, is that Bach's achievements in performing (not to mention composing rather quickly) his weekly cantatas with little or no preparation aside from a Saturday afternoon rehearsal cannot be compared, for instance, with Leusink's attempt to perform and record all Bach's cantatas following a similar schedule. Asserting that these two situations are comparable is truly unreasonable and ridiculous. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 5, 2006):Raymond Joly wrote: BACH: Vorzeiger dieses [...] hat eine feine 'Tenor' Stimme und singt vom Blat fertig. JOLY: I think what Bach wrote is simply this: "This young man has a good tenor voice and can sight read". I understand "vom Blatt fertig" as meaning "straight off the page" This is an achievement expected today, for instance, from any accompanist. There may be degrees in accuracy, though, depending on how tough the stuff is. And a piece brilliantly sight read usually needs a lot of further practice and improvement before it is satisfactorily presented to an audience. MY RESPONSE: It is precisely this difference between how Bach's expectations (which were normal for his time) might have been quite different from those encountered today. Another way to translate "fertig" is something like "ready to roll" or "to embark on a journey directly without further preparation". With just a bit of imagination plus evidence from the original parts which Bach used for his cantata performances, it is possible to assume reasonably that there was a much higher expectation in Bach's time for the required ability of a singer or player since the parts for many cantatas which may have been performed only 2 or 3 times during Bach's lifetime show very little normal wear and tear from use (unlike a few cantatas which were performed so often that the parts literally wore out - BWV 80 is an example of this recently discussed here). Paper was very expensive and Bach wanted to ensure that he preserved his efforts and those of his copyists properly so that the parts would be reusable. The evidence from the parts also shows that performers never corrected wrong notes, added articulation, dynamics, put in fingerings or added any symbols that present day singers and players normally would today under similar circumstances. Never has a part copied by a performer for his own use to practice from at home or to use in a performance been found. The only original parts lost were the doublets which pertain mainly to the ripieno parts and the violin 1 and 2 parts which were unimportant to preserving what was deemed necessary to perform the cantata directly and quickly without much preparation. The point of all of this is that, compared to today's easy availability and creation of additional parts, every part in Bach's set of original parts was carefully accounted for and it appears almost certain that these key parts never left Bach's sight even between the rehearsal and Sunday performance(s). The immense pressure upon the players and singers (they were fined for wrong notes during performances in church) in Bach's time made mere sight-reading a more involved process than simply sight-reading today (as accompanists would) without worrying additionally about the fact that the sight-reading would also be the final performance of the work. I do believe that there are musicians alive today who are capable of duplicating this feat (sight-reading = final {or in case of a rehearsal, the next-to-last} performance of the work in its ultimate form. It does not help to clarify the difference between Bach's cantata performances and performances/recordings of the same work today by indicating that today there are truly many, many performers who can sight-read, but need additonal time and numerous rehearsals 'to get it right.' I do not believe that pointing out this difference amounts to an idealization of Bach's situation in Leipzig. |
|
Ed Myskowski wrote (November 6, 2006):Thomas Braatz wrote: < On the other hand, Bach found himself in a situation much more like an experimental laboratory. He did not have an entire year of libretti in hand when he began composing a yearly cycle. <s> He could hardly plan ahead for more than just a few weeks at the most. There is evidence for this in the original sources where he includes a notational sketch for the coming week's cantata on the cantata which he is composing for this week. <snip> Most of the time Bach had to react to situations on a week-to-week basis. > Reply: The experimental laboratory is a nice analogy. The creative miracle of the cantatas of 1724-25 stands on its own, no need to exaggerate the time constraints. The existence of published text booklets, a rare bit of actual evidence, just about proves that Bach could plan ahead for at least (as distinct from at most) a few weeks. It is impressive enough that he averaged one unique masterpiece per week, no need to insist that he was starting from scratch every Monday morning. We all make notes today for tomorrow's work, and react to situations on a week-to-week basis; those points do not say much about the overall creative time span available for any particular composition. T.B.: < Performing and/or recording music for a specific audience (performing music with the potential desires of current audiences or current fads/fashions in musicology in mind) has a normative effect on the quality of the performance. > Reply: I think the point is that there is a lot of similarity among HIP performances. But the economic reality is that most recordings and performances need to be responsive to the current marketplace, whether fad, fashion, or informed preference. OK, informed preference is wishful thinking. I also find the comment a bit unfair to Suzuki [10], who has stated (and recorded) his intent to add to the variety of available recordings whenever that is a valid choice. It is hard to ask for more than that. I do not exactly disagree with the basic point, but I do have other reservations. Gardiner's Pilgrimage is a noble creative concept, giving us live recordings. Koopman and Leusink have complete cycles with unique individual characteristics, whether one happens to favor them or not. Herreweghe disdains the complete cycle idea, but turns out a great record when the spirit (or economic reality) moves him. Kuijken is a relatively recent and IMO unique and outstanding OVPP sound. Many other important specialized releases, Coin comes immediately to mind from recent discussions. Should someone be making records in the style of Richter [2], Rilling [6], or Werner [1]? The originals remain available, sounding superb in many cases, no need to imitate. We are blessed with an abundance of options. Is it a perfect world? I have a wish list: (1) Release the Cantate LP series on CD, for one more (and sometimes best) traditional choice. (2) Release more Craig Smith/Emmanuel Music, bridging the HIP/traditional styles, and representing about thirty years of weekly performances of the Bach cantatas. (3) Keep the Harnoncourt/Leonhardt set in print, if only so that everyone has access to reference what Thomas means by the Harnoncourt doctrine. No intent to reopen controversy. As often as not I agree with the underlying thought. Especially that continuo sounds better with some continuity. Seems to me that the very word makes the point. If there is anywhere that Thomas' normative effect applies, IMO it is in this detail. It would be good to have listening options in recent recordings, whatever the theory. |
|
Neil Mason wrote (November 6, 2006):[To Thomas Braatz] I simply disagree with Thomas here. It is all supposition. My opinion (whether or not somebody else describes it as ridiculous) is that JSB would be pleasantly surprised to know that his works have been distributed all round the world for people to study and listen to. And furthermore, even though Leusink is absolutely dirt-cheap to buy, his performances are far from terrible (except for some alto arias). I don't know how many rehearsals Leusink's singers and players had on each cantata; I suspect not many. Musicians continue to be busy people, and we do what we can with the time and resources available, just as JSB did. THAT hasn't changed, so it's far from clear that other things have changed either. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 16, 2006):Ed Myskowski wrote: >>The existence of published text booklets, a rare bit of actual evidence, just about proves that Bach could plan ahead for at least (as distinct from at most) a few weeks. It is impressive enough that he averaged one unique masterpiece per week, no need to insist that he was starting from scratch every Monday morning. We all make notes today for tomorrow's work, and react to situations on a week-to-week basis; those points do not say much about the overall creative time span available for any particular composition.<< Rather than daily notes which are used to plan ahead for tomorrow, I would tend to see the cantata booklets more like a syllabus for a crash summer course on the American novel. All the books to be read are listed with specific discussion dates in class and every two weeks a paper is due. How many students, although all the specific assignments are known in advance, but faced with the prospect of keeping up with the tremendous amount of reading about which they will need to be prepared to discuss intelligently the content of each novel, will begin working on a paper which is due in two weeks, four weeks and six weeks or even the final paper due at the end of the course in eight weeks, even though the specific subjects to be chosen for each of these papers are already listed in the syllabus? Realistically, from a purely human standpoint, how many students would jot down in a margin of the paper being prepared for submission in 4 weeks an idea which might be helpful for a paper due in 6 weeks when the rather unfamiliar content of the latter paper had not yet had an opportunity to sink in? Why would Bach, working/composing on a score 5 weeks in advance of an actual performance date specified in the cantata booklet, quickly sketch out an idea in the margin of the working score for that cantata a new idea for the cantata intended for the week that followed it? Would it not be even more likely that such a sketch in the margin would be made while he was still working or had just finished working on the present cantata due this coming weekend so that he could now begin thinking about the next cantata? Why would Bach, who had planned and prepared his compositions well in advance of the actual performance, according to a theory that some people uphold, give his copyists an unfinished score from which they would prepare the parts for the singers and players to take home to study, only to have to recall them again so that the final mvt. could be added at the last moment because it had not yet been composed? It makes much more sense to consider the possibility that Bach allowed himself to be inspired by the texts, but first began working out possibilities in his mind and then possibly trying out some of the ideas on a keyboard, but waiting until nearly the last moment (the week before the performance) to prepare a composing score. There is evidence that the copying procedure was very efficiently organized so that copyists (if more than one was involved) could be accomplishing their tasks simultaneously and as the evening became night, Anna Magdalena Bach or one of the children who was old enough to be reliable prepared doublets from the parts already copied. Meanwhile Bach was busy copying out a tromba or corno part, possibly looking at the score over the shoulder of the copyist as these parts were usually not as difficult to copy and when he had finished this he would begin to compose the final 4-pt chorale which was still missing. Finally, when everyone had left the house or had gone to bed, Bach would copy out the chorale to add it to each of the parts that had already been prepared that evening so that now the complete set of parts would be ready for tomorrow's usual Saturday rehearsal and the Sunday performance(s). For the purposes of experimentation and making necessaradjustments which could come up on rather short notice (a singer's father died and he had to leave Leipzig for a week or so, a key instrumentalist had injured his hand and would not be able to perform as previously planned a difficult part), it would be much more feasible for Bach to wait until the last moment (the few days previous to the actual performance) instead of having to make major adjustments in the score and as a result in all of the parts. For a repeat performance many years later such adjustments were a matter of course, but not for a first performance which depended upon various performers singing and playing according to the highest standards that Bach required/demanded. |
|
Douglas Cowling wrote (November 6, 2006):Thomas Braatz wrote: < Finally, when everyone had left the house or had gone to bed, Bach would copy out the chorale to add it to each of the parts that had already been prepared that evening so that now the complete set of parts would be ready for tomorrow's usual Saturday rehearsal and the Sunday performance(s). > It is remarkable that the practical experiece of musicians is rejected in reconstructing Bach's working method, but this little fantasy scenario which sounds like a Hollywood movie is seriously presented. Does Alistair Sim play Bach in a bad wig? |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 6, 2006):Douglas Cowling wrote: >>It is remarkable that the practical experiece of musicians is rejected in reconstructing Bach's working method, but this little fantasy scenario which sounds like a Hollywood movie is seriously presented. Does Alistair Sim play Bach in a bad wig?<< It is remarkable that the evidence provided by the autograph scores and original sets of parts is so easily rejected in reconstructing Bach's working method and that a preference is expressed for using instead the unscholarly method of basing everything upon an empirical means of obtaining knowledge about a composer who lived and worked over two and a half centuries ago under very different conditions only a few of which can be deemed similar to those of today. Why is it that the practical experience of musicians is unable to give a reasonable explanation for a rather unusual method and sequence of composing and copying music which Bach employed on numerous occasions based upon the physical records which are still extant? Instead of relying upon present-day methods and experiences to the exclusion of seriously pondering the actual evidence, practical musicians could profit immensely from studying the results of solid research contained in the NBA and by occasionally taking to heart the interpretation of these results as given, for instance, by Alfred Dürr, in his "Bachs Werk vom Einfall bis zur Drucklegung" ("Bach's Compositions from Conception to Final Printing") Breitkopf & Härtel, Wiesbaden, 1989. Nothing is gained with a flippant remark which only serves to reveal one's own inadequate and inaccurate assessment of such an important matter as this. |
|
Raymond Joly wrote (November 6, 2006):Bach's working schedule --- Introduction to BWV 26"Ach wie flüchtig, ach wie nichtig" Douglas Cowling wrote: < It is remarkable that the practical experiece of musicians is rejected in reconstructing Bach's working method, but this little fantasy scenario which sounds like a Hollywood movie is seriously presented. Does Alistair Sim play Bach in a bad wig? > Two questions from an ignoramus: 1) Incredible though it sounds that Bach should have, week after week, started writing a cantata on Sunday evening and have been finished in time for it to be performed on the next Sunday, if this is not what happened, WHEN did he write them? (By the way: Graupner's cantatas are by no means as complex as Bach's, but they are not jingles either, and they do last 20-25 minutes; his yearly output averaged about 32, with peaks around 60.) 2) What precisely is wrong with Braatz's description Cowling quotes a paragraph of below? |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (November 6, 2006):Douglas Cowling wrote: < It is remarkable that the practical experiece of musicians is rejected in reconstructing Bach's working method, but this little fantasy scenario which sounds like a Hollywood movie is seriously presented. Does Alistair Sim play Bach in a bad wig? > One would hope that the screenwriter allows the Bach character to take off his wig at night, while working on this late-night chorale copying [by candlelight, presumably]. Also, that the screenwriter would figure out a way for Bach's house actually to be quiet enough to shoot such scenes, given that the household had small children in it during all these years. Where is this place that the Bach character would sneak off to, to work undisturbed at night, while his wife and eldest daughters took care of sleepless (and often dying) children? Where is the record that Bach's employers and students gladly tolerated such a last-minute approach to their musicianship, never seeing the goods until Saturdays? And please, where is all this information documented [preferably inside the NBA!], as to working Friday night shifts specifically to get these chorale parts written out? A couple of days ago I was reading to my daughter a similarly fantasy-based library book, Bach's Big Adventure. This is a picture book, 1999, by Sallie Ketcham and illustrated by Timothy Bush. Throughout this story, young JSB is presented as a petulant ten-year-old. Whenever somebody ticks him off, or points out that he's not yet the greatest organist in all of Germany and all of the world, young JSB throws up his fists and shrieks, "I AM BACH!" So the story here conflates a couple of legends, to make a nice children's book. People keep telling him that old Reincken is better, and young JSB keeps getting petulant, until he goes to meet Reincken. Along the way we get the bit about sneaking a manuscript out of big brother's cabinet, and then he pretends he was sleepwalking. On his summer walking trip cross-country to go meet Reincken, he sleeps in a barn, and he puts a bunch of straw into his shoes to soothe his aching feet. We get the bit where he is starving, and an annoyed innkeeper hits him in the head with a couple of stinky fish heads...which turn out to have coins inside them. Bonanza! He does a little dance and shrieks, "I AM BACH!" He goes and buys cheese. Finally he gets to meet Reincken by sneaking into his church to hear him practice. Reincken turns out to be a totally nice old dude and gives him a free lesson playing duets. Young JSB whips out some of his fish head money and hires himself a carriage to ride back to school in style. My daughter liked the story and the illustrations, even though I explained to her carefully that parts of it were all-made-up. At least the apocryphal fish-head legend shows up in the New Bach Reader, albeit not with the part about doing a little "I AM BACH!" dance or going to buy cheese. |
|
Douglas Cowling wrote (November 6, 2006):[To Thomas Braatz] Your sentimental fantasy about Bach's working method invites flippancy because it is not supported by the documents. Your conclusions about the the capabilities of Bach's singers and his rehearsal schedule are fanciful and neo-Romantic. The notion that Bach put the dog out and wrote the last chorale on Saturday night like Rossini is just silly. You can quote 18th century sources until the Kühe come home, but if you can't bring common sense and practical experience to bear -- or at least consider them as part of the larger picture. -- your conclusions are without merit. The bottom line here is that we do not have sufficient documentary evidence to reconstruct Bach's working method. There just aren't enough records. That means that we have to look at a broader historical context and contemporary experience to give us a generalized perspective. We have to be very careful to distinguish between direct and indirect evidence, but it is bad historiography to dismiss the latter. Keep giving us the 18th century sources -- it's fascinating material -- but stop pronouncing anathemas on other people's suppostions when they are clearly offered as possibilities. |
|
Julian Mincham wr(November 6, 2006):Douglas Cowling wrote: < The bottom line here is that we do not have sufficient documentary evidence to reconstruct Bach's working method. There just aren't enough records. That means that we have to look at a broader historical context and contemporary experience to give us a generalized perspective. We have to be very careful to distinguish between direct and indirect evidence, but it is bad historiography to dismiss the latter. Keep giving us the 18th century sources -- it's fascinating material -- but stop pronouncing anathemas on other people's suppostions when they are clearly offered as possibilities. > The first two sentences from the above paragraph are sadly true and unarguable. However, what we can be reasonably assured about, virtually to the point of certainty, is the following: 1 at the time of the second cycle Bach wrote at least 53 new cantatas--take out BWV 4 and add in the (probable) BWV 36 that makes 53 in 50 weeks going by Wolff's table. There were other composition projects aside (e.g. revision of SJP) and Bach had other duties -----but let's leave them aside for a moment. 2 We also know that there is virtually no evidence of earlier works being recycled apart from BWV 4 and a couple of reworked movements in one of the last cantatas of the cycle. 3 We have a good idea of the time spans in which he had to compose from the authorisations of the texts. That he worked incredibly hard and and great speed seems to be unarguable. 4 Additionally, all these works were rehearsed and performed within this time span in the two major churches of Leipzig. No we don't know HOW he did it but we do know that he DID it. If we knew how, a lot of contemporary choir trainers might be very interested because there can't be many of them around today who could duplicate such a feat. It seems to me perfectly sensible to infer from this, as Thomas Braatz did, that 1 Bach had some excellent instrumentalists and singers 2 he trained them extremely well 3 they must have been good readers in order to cope with a) the volume of work b) its complexity and c) to give performances which satisfied Bach. He himself was an excellent reader (evidenced) and almost certainly had effective teaching methods through which to encourage and develop such skills in his students (reasonable speculation). In the absence of completely water tight evidence being found (and some, such as the remarkably good 'non-dog-eared' condition of parts and Bach's comments upon singers' abilities has been presented) I see no reason at all why an individual should not speculate upon Bach's working methods and conditions, the main proviso being that it is clearly presented as, what it is, speculation. I sometimes wonder if it is possible for Thomas Braatz (with whom I do not always agree) to venture anything on this list without being savaged. It seemed obvious to me that he was (largely) putting forward a speculative, if slightly over-egged, scenario based upon what is actually known. I cannot see how these works were learnt and performed in such a short period of time unless the performers read extremely well. Furthermore, unlike today's Bach musicians who have a long tradition in, and familiarity with the music, for Bach's musicians the music was rather new in style, with 'strange' melodies (the Obituary) and phrase structures that they would have been unlikely to have encountered in the past. I also note a possible danger of apparent inconsistency whereby, on the one hand, we may be cautioned not to apply C21st values to Bach as a man, thinker, theologian etc. but, on the other, may be tempted to apply contemporary attitudes of teaching methods and choral training (by inference at least) to his work. I do not see how contempory practices of training choirs and orchestras (usually now done by different kinds of professionals with different training and backgrounds) helps us to understand how Bach achieved what he did in these areas. So, no we don't know how but we do know something of what------and in between lies a perfectly valid area for informed speculation. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (November 6, 2006):Julian Mincham wrote: < I cannot see how these works were learnt and performed in such a short period of time unless the performers read extremely well. Furthermore, unlike today's Bach musicians who have a long tradition in, and familiarity with the music, for Bach's musicians the music was rather new in style, with 'strange' melodies (the Obituary) and phrase structures that they would have been unlikely to have encountered in the past. > I concur that it probably couldn't have been done unless they read well, as trained. But, it doesn't argue EITHER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER that good reading necessarily implies a Friday/Saturday finish time to the composition or copying of Sunday's music. Good sight-reading (as been pointed out before) is principally a LEARNING skill--the ability to understand one's part efficiently without needing too much supervision, coaching, or undue time wasted by the whole ensemble together to "woodshed" the parts. (In college I happened to play in several ensembles where several of the other students couldn't read their pitches or rhythms; and the time our whole group wasted together so those guys could get their parts by rote was just enormously frustrating....) That efficient learning skill of sight-reading--to get at least the basic notes and rhythms prepared--doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about PERFORMANCE skill. Nor does it necessarily address any expectation to basically sight-read the parts the day before (or the day of) the performance, as regular practice. That latter expectation is a romanticization, a premise that Bach and his gang were so poorly organized, or so stressed-out all the time, that these masterpieces necessarily flowed from last-minute heroic effort by all. The extant written evidence doesn't call for such a conclusion as the only reasonable possibility, or even as the most likely reasonable possibility; decent preparation in the preceding weeks is at least as likely, plus it lines up with the printing of libretti far in advance. Furthermore, why would any of the students or other educators put up with such a perpetually panicked situation, and keep Bach on such a job for more than a year or two, if he exhibited such poor planning (or sloth) as not to deliver the goods until last minute, as regular practice? < (...) So, no we don't know how but we do know something of what------and in between lies a perfectly valid area for informed speculation. > Of course; and let's emphasize the word informed speculation. Informed by actually being musicians who do church music, and knowing what works in practice: which is not to have a batch of teenagers sight-read difficult concerted pieces for the first time, as late as the day before the gig, with any expectation of success. |
|
Eric Bergerud wrote (November 6, 2006):Douglas Cowling wrote: < Betraying my ever-perennial obsession with Bach as a practical musician, it would be fascinating to set up tables for the whole year (say Jahrgang I) showing the lists of music Bach had to prepare for the four churches-- motets, cantatas, chorales, perhaps even organ works -- and see if patterns of orchestration appeared. We have a tendency to ignore the non-Bach repertoire, but there would have been Sundays when an eight-voice motet of Lassus would have been more challenging than the cantata. And then there are the 6 or 7 organ works required. However, the genius of Bach is that he never became a hack: he never provided anything less than the best. Yes, the cantata may have been only heard once, but Bach gave each a profundity that perhaps only he and God appreciated. Those depths are the reason that this is the BCML and not a list devoted to the cantatas of Telemann. > This is an interesting discussion and I am solidly undecided. (Not so tomorrow.) Brad is certainly right that Bach wore more than one hat and that each was an important one. Anecdote suggests his goostudents appreciated his efforts as did the most musically aware members of the community. This implies he took his teaching most seriously and living as he did in the real world might have seen the wisdom on many occasions to keep it simple, or at least manageable. But Bach wasn't a street musician either. He might well have thought he had a higher audience. If the Lord would listen to a prayer and keep track of swallows, perhaps Bach hoped He might likewise listen to a cantata. Actually I think this ties into the lecture Doug described a while back. If Bach's knowledge of scripture and theology was extremely advanced it would have been much more feasible to incorporate complications into the score that might have been over the heads of at least most of the good citizens of Leipzig. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 6, 2006):Bradley Lehman wrote: >>I concur that it probably couldn't have been done unless they read well, as trained. But, it doesn't argue EITHER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER that good reading necessarily implies a Friday/Saturday finish time to the composition or copying of Sunday's music.<< Sight-reading ability is only one of a number of factors pointing toward a Friday/Saturday finish time to the composition or copying of Sunday's music. It is convenient for some to select only one factor to the exclusion of all others that have already been mentioned. BL: >>Furthermore, why would any of the students or other educators put up with such a perpetually panicked situation, and keep Bach on such a job for more than a year or two, if he exhibited such poor planning (or sloth) as not to deliver the goods until last minute, as regular practice?<< Perhaps because it was customary not only in Leipzig but elsewhere in Germany? The expectations they had back then were not comparable to those of today. That is why so many theories based primarily on empirical evidence from the present time would appear ridiculous to soloists and instrumentalists who performed Bach's cantatas under his direction. BL: >>let's emphasize the word informed speculation. Informed by actually being musicians who do church music, and knowing what works in practice: which is not to have a batch of teenagers sight-read difficult concerted pieces for the first time, as late as the day before the gig, with any expectation of success.<< This 'batch of teenagers' were led by concertists who did 'all the heavy lifting'. Almost all of these were between 19 and 29 years old, most of them attending the university or studying music privately with Bach (or both). These soloists sang all the arias and recitatives and also were the voice leaders (concertists) in the choral mvts. All evidence presented thus far indicates that they were well-equipped with talent and skill to sing or play anything that Bach would place before them on short notice. The other choir members (of the primary choir), the ripienists, were also very select vocalists who were distilled by Bach from all the other choirs because they would be able to perform as expected each week in church. It will then be necessary to add the 'magic' of Bach's direction during rehearsals and church performances. Perhaps his charisma as a composer and performer is the final element that is missing in the comparison of teenage-singers then and now (not to mention the very different onslaught of stimuli endured by teenagers today compared with what these select Thomaner experienced in the 1720s, 1730s, and 1740s in Leipzig, Germany). |
|
Eric Bergerud wrote (November 6, 2006):Thomas Braatz wrote: << Composing with a specific user already in mind and getting the music printed with a goal of making money has a normative effect which makes the creation of truly great, enduring music much less likely. >> Douglas Cowling wrote: < * Nonsense. Bach used a collection of the finest motets of the 16th - 17th century for his entite career in Leipzig. I doubt he thought the motets by Lassus were hack work merely because they were popular or widely-published. > I will stand correction on this, but "intellectual property" law was in its infancy in Bach's day. It wasn't until the 19th century that one could see musicians make some real money. (Beethoven was very famous but not rich even in the terms of his own day.) The way to wealth, such as it was, in the world of baroque music was by playing the role of impresario. Händel, depending upon artistic whims, was well off thanks to the box-office take from his operas and oratorios. I should think selling music was more like a cottage industry. If you or a friend had a shop sales might pay off. Indeed, I rather think that if there was substantial money to have been had we would at present have a rather large quantity of printed Bach. He was practical when it came to money after all. (Indeed, in an era where so little wealth existed, the wolf could be at the door in very short order if one didn't watch every penny. I think it's hard for 21st century inhabitants to appreciate how poor the past was.) When intellectual property law developed in the 19th century it was possible to make a small fortune in literature. I'm not saying great art was invariably created for money, but it didn't seem to inhibit the output of gents like Dickens, Twain or Picasso. Indeed, I'd guess it's been a rare artist since the Renaissance that didn't hope his/her work wouldn't generate some kind of return. People like Bach were far from rich (neither was Michelangelo) but they lived better than most of their contemporaries in an era when that really meant something. That meant they got paid for their work. I can't see that it lessens its value. |
|
Julian Mincham wrote (November 6, 2006):Bradley Lehman wrote: < That efficient learning skill of sight-reading--to get at least the basic notes and rhythms prepared--doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about PERFORMANCE skill. Nor does it necessarily address any expectation to basically sight-read the parts the day before (or the day of) the performance, as regular practice. That latter expectation is a romanticization, a premise that Bach and his gang were so poorly organized, or so stressed-out all the time, that these masterpieces necessarily flowed from last-minute heroic effort by all. > None of the above is, I hope, attributed to my posting, nor do I hold any of these views. Yes of course there are many other skills required for a musical performance than sight reading, and I am sure that Bach developed these in his students as well. My point, derived from years of practical experience is that good sight readers tend to learn more quickly than bad ones and are likely to be able to encompass more repertoire. I'm happy to hear of examples of the opposite but usually I haven't come across them.And as Bach was a very good reader himself and had to produce a great deal of repertoire in a very short time it seems eminently reasonable to assume that this was a predominant skill he sought in his pupils. As to the fact that Bach's gang was so poorly organised and stressed out that performances were scrabbled together at the last moment (!!!) I have always argued the precise opposite--that the organisation and teaching must have been of the highest order to enable these performances to happen. You just can't get around the fact that over 50 new cantatas were performed in a lesser number of weeks, plus SJP (BWV 245) and Easter Oratorio (BWV 249) etc--this is simple fact. This required (I humbly speculate, but I reckon it's plain common sense) a massive degree of planning, organisation, quick learning, ensemble and performance skills. I recognise the enormity of the task--and without resorting to pointless romantic cliches which I agree add nothing to the debate, I continue to speculate on how it was achieved. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (November 6, 2006):< But Bach wasn't a street musician either. He might well have thought he had a higher audience. If the Lord would listento a prayer and keep track of swallows, perhaps Bach hoped He might likewise listen to a cantata. Actually I think this ties into the lecture Doug described a while back. If Bach's knowledge of scripture and theology was extremely advanced it would have been much more feasible to incorporate complications into the score that might have been over the heads of at least most of the good citizens of Leipzig. > Also, please note: I haven't said that such things definitely are not in the music. I've said merely that the more immediate practical considerations of writing (and performing) good musical lines are a more direct and reliable way to analyze the music. Some musical bit such as an octave skip is either in the music, directly, or it's not; this much is obviously verifiable (even if some people outside musical-theory training might disagree). The music either leaps an octave, or it doesn't -- and the clogging-up of lots of other notes in between is an obvious moment when it doesn't (i.e. that the octave leap doesn't exist there). A use of Occam's Razor would argue that the simplest explanation is the one to go with. Notes in a scale, or leaps, or arpeggios, or what-have-you, have their primary purpose in sounding appropriately playable/singable on the instruments/voices at hand. Especially so, when they look just like the notes and musical figures in hundreds of other pieces, by Bach and otherwise. Scales and string-crossings are nice things to do, when writing for violins; and, their primary "meaning" (if any) is that they help to fashion a convincing piece of music (i.e. organized sound). The assignment of non-musical "meanings", on the other hand, is an unfalsifiable pursuit when it's done after the composition is completed. Somebody could claim that a particular group of three or four notes in some cantata symbolizes a bite of wasabi, theologically, and this can't be determined either true or false; it can't be proven absolutely that such an idea was in Bach's mind or not. We're on thin ice, then, to assert such things...especially when such pursuits are "doomed to succeed"--that is, the material is rich enough and varied enough that any coincidences can be forced to look deliberate, in that way, especially if we're free to ignore a bunch of notes in between that don't fit. It's the same reason we're not allowed to divide by 0 in arithmetic: the equations run only in one direction and can't be reversed. A / B = C; C * B = A. Wherever B is not 0, C is a unique value, given both A and B. The laws of inverse operations apply. A / 0 = C; ANYTHING * 0 != A, (DOES NOT EQUAL A), unless (coincidentally) A also happens to be 0. The C here isn't a unique value; it can be replaced by any other number real or imaginary, without affecting the inability to reverse the equation. And where A is 0, similarly any number can be substituted into C willy-nilly without affecting the outcome. All the values for C are unfalsifiable. (All of which could obviously be explained better, but I hope that that is sufficient to get the point across.) |
|
Ed Myskowski wrote (November 6, 2006):Bradley Lehman wrote: < a premise that Bach and his gang were so poorly organized, or so stressed-out all the time, that these masterpieces necessarily flowed from last-minute heroic effort by all. The extant written evidence doesn't call for such a conclusion as the only reasonable possibility, or even as the most likely reasonable possibility; decent preparation in the preceding weeks is at least as likely, plus it lines up with the printing of libretti far in advance. > The speculation on Bach's working methods is interesting, but the real accomplishment is the body of work he produced in the first two years in Leipzig. This is not changed by a single note, whatever the method. There is an implication that the accomplishment is somehow more impressive if the cantatas were produced strictly one at a time, in sequence. An alternate, as suggested in Brad's post, allows the possibility of having several works in process at most times. I would find this at least equally impressive, and potentially helpful in considering relations among different cantatas. |
|
Eric Bergerud wrote (November 6, 2006):[To Julian Mincham] I'm not going to quibble with Julian's conclusion that Bach could and did work fast. I think it perfectly possible that he had good forces in the 1720's - I find it hard to see how a composer could ignore such a factor. And yet let's not forget that when Bach did comment on his musicians it was the famous Entwurff - and it doesn't paint a very pretty picture. Nor, by implication, did Birnbaum's argument that Bach's music should be judged not by performance but by the score. (And, as I recall, CPE described the choir as not being very skilled, but I will stand correction.) It is very possible, of course, that things were better in the early years of his stay at Leipzig, especially considering the small pool of talent he had to work with. One variable that I think could be added to Julian's list is the work done by Bach's assistants. He wasn't flying solo, and some good proctors would have greatly aided the effort. (His wife might have been a help also.) And one last point. If one is speculating I think it should be made clear. Nothing wrong with it: informed speculation is the beginning of scientific method and sometimes encompasses entirely works in the "social sciences" (I hate that phrase: a contradiction in terms I think) and humanities. But if one phrases speculation to appear as self-evident truth, that's not good argument and I can't see the problem with others taking strong issue. |
|
Continue of this part of the discussion, see: Bach Composing - Part 4 [General Topics] |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (November 7, 2006):>>It is remarkable that the practical experiece of musicians is rejected in reconstructing Bach's working method, but this little fantasy scenario which sounds like a Hollywood movie is seriously presented. Does Alistair Sim play Bach in a bad wig?<< (...) < Nothing is gained with a flippant remark which only serves to reveal one’s own inadequate and inaccurate assessment of such an important matter as this. > Nothing is gained with a flippant remark which only serves to reveal one’s own inadequate and inaccurate assessment of such an important matter as screenwriting in Hollywood biopics. Or, to pick a more mundane occupation with a lower monetary budget riding on it, and with more employees doing it week to week: church musicianship of singers, choirmasters, and organists. People who perform these roles actually have to be able to produce the goods (the music and going with the flow of liturgical requirements), which observation of job qualification doesn't apply to writing speculative pseudo-musicology daily on the internet. Nothing particularly insightful here, just pointing out the obvious. |
|
Julian Mincham wrote (November 7, 2006):Eric Bergerud wrote: < One variable that I think could be added to Julian's list is the work done by Bach's assistants. He wasn't flying solo, and some good proctors would have greatly aided the effort. (His wife might have been a help also.) > Agreed. But this probably relied to a great extent upon Bach's leadership, personality, teaching and organisational skills as well. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (November 7, 2006):< In music history there is hardly anything comparable where a composer worked under such extreme conditions of productive tension: on one side the strong will to create music with a grand conception, on the other side the reality of routine which literally forced him to experiment and which, however, made necessary compromises of various types. Most of the time Bach had to react to situations on a week-to-week basis. > Please provide the hard evidence of "strong will to create music with a grand conception", of any composer, measured through all possibilities within "music history". What is the reliable scale by which creative "will" is measured, as opposed to measthe work actually produced? And if we want somebody who said directly (and famously) that he was forced to experiment, because of odd and isolated working conditions, how about somebody like Haydn? As for anybody reacting to situations on a week-to-week basis, is that not what professionals in any responsible job do? How does it make Bach special, as to measuring his "will" or whatnot? He himself famously remarked about his musicianship that anyone who worked as hard as he would get as far. Was he joking or something? How do we know? How do we know what he would have produced under different working conditions than those he had, as to his willfulness or whatever? |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (November 7, 2006):< For the purposes of experimentation and making necessary adjustments which could come up on rather short notice (a singer's father died and he had to leave Leipzig for a week or so, a key instrumentalist had injured his hand and would not be able to perform as previously planned a difficult part), it would be much more feasible for Bach to wait until the last moment (the few days previous to the actual performance) instead of having to make major adjustments in the score and as a result in all of the parts. > Please present the hard evidence for some Bach cantata wherein this specific process actually happened, and where it markedly caused a perceptible change in the music that was actually produced (as opposed to whatever Bach had in mind before getting crossed with such bad circumstances). Either a hand injury for an instrumentalist, or the death of a scheduled singer's father causing a trip out of town, will do. Thank you. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 7, 2006):Eric Bergerud wrote: >>(And, as I recall CPE described the choir as not being very skilled, but I will stand correction.)<< Can you provide an accurate source for this, or is this one of Forkel's embellished memories of a conversation he once had with CPE? |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 7, 2006):Bradley Lehman wrote: >>Please provide the hard evidence of "strong will to create music with a grand conception", of any composer, measured through all possibilities within "music history". What is the reliable scale by which creative "will" is measured, as opposed to measuring the work actually produced?<< I suggest writing an e-mail to Martin Geck. I am certain that he will enlighten you on this point. >>And if we want somebody who said directly (and famously) that he was forced to experiment, because of odd and isolated working conditions, how about somebody like Haydn?<< Martin Geck also mentions Haydn and differentiates between Bach and Haydn in regard to this matter. >>As for anybody reacting to situations on a week-to-week basis, is that not what professionals in any responsible job do? How does it make Bach special, as to measuring his "will" or whatnot? He himself famously remarked about his musicianship that anyone who worked as hard as he would get as far. Was he joking or something? How do we know? How do we know what he would have produced under different working conditions than those he had, as to his willfulness or whatever?<< Marvellous questions and speculations, you would do well as a student in Martin Geck's musicology class. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 7, 2006):Bradley Lehman wrote: >> Either a hand injury for an instrumentalist, or the death of a scheduled singer's father causing a trip out of town, will do. Thank you.<< Would you then be able to use this for your next paper submitted to the Early Music Journal? I notice that you are following the discussions more closely than ever now. Perhaps there is even hope that you will examine the chorale samples on the BCW to which I have repeatedly referred and which should provide evidence for Bach's 'unruly' techniques for embellishing and embedding chorale melodies into his compositions. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 7, 2006):Bradley Lehman wrote: >>...church musicianship of singers, choirmasters, and organists. People who perform these roles actually have to be able to produce the goods (the music and going with the flow of liturgical requirements)...<< But Bach produced more than just the goods (the daily requirments of his position); he produced great music in addition to everything else of a mundane nature that confronted him daily. He did this efficiently and quickly under pressure. There is no comparable music of such a high standard being composed today, so I fail understand why this attempt at comparison with Bach keeps coming up here. |
|
Ed Myskowski wrote (November 7, 2006):Jhmincham@aol.com wrote: Eric Bergerud wrote: < One variable that I think could be added to Julian's list is the work done by Bach's assistants. He wasn't flying solo, and some good proctors would have greatly aided the effort. (His wife might have been a help also.) > Julian Mincham wrote: < Agreed. But this probably relied to a great extent upon Bach's leadership, personality, teaching and organisational skills as well. > I was looking for an excuse to say hello to you both anyway. Are these not the precise roles of graduate student and professor? |
|
Ed Myskowski wrote (November 7, 2006):Bradley Lehman wrote: < And if we want somebody who said directly (and famously) that he was forced to experiment, because of odd and isolated working conditions, how about somebody like Haydn? > What sweeter (or more humorous) example than the "putting out the lights" symphony, which in addition exhibits his loyalty and sensitivity to the workers? B.L. >>He [Bach] himself famously remarked about his musicianship that anyone who worked as hard as he would get as far. Was he joking or something? Reply: Nearly thirty years ago, I heard Charles Mingus (USA jazz bass) say exactly the same thing to a Dunkin' Donuts waitress (as Mingus was eating a half dozen donuts between sets). I remember it like it was yesterday. I'll bet the waitress does also. Maybe she was inspired to take up bass, who knows? |
|
Douglas Cowling wrote (November 7, 2006):Ed Myskowski wrote: < Nearly thirty years ago, I heard Charles Mingus (USA jazz bass) say exactly the same thing to a Dunkin' Donuts waitress (as Mingus was eating a half dozen donuts between sets). > Mingus had a couple of Bach moments. His "Canon" is classic Mingus and you hardly notice that it's a strict 4 voice canon. |
|
Eric Bergerud wrote (November 7, 2006):Eric Bergerud wrote: >>(And, as I recall CPE described the choir as not being very skilled, but I will stand correction.)<< Thomas Braatz wrote: < Can you provide an accurate source for this, or is this one of Forkel's embellished memories of a conversation he once had with CPE? > Probably Forkel. You've got me at a disadvantage, sort of anyway. I'm in St. Paul and all of my music books are in California. I'm not basing my argument on that quote. I do believe that both the Entwurff and the Birnbaum article indicate that JSB was not always happy with the caliber of his musicians. Again, it could be that he either was very lucky early or unlucky later. |
|
Eric Bergerud wrote (November 7, 2006):Thomas Braatz wrote: < But Bach produced more than just the goods (the daily requirments of his position); he produced great music in addition to everything else of a mundane nature that confronted him daily. He did this efficiently and quickly under pressure. There is no comparable music of such a high standard being composed today, so I fail understand why this attempt at comparison with Bach keeps coming up here. > I really do protest making speculation into truth. Implied here is that somehow we contemporaries live in the Age of Iron and Bach lived in the Age of Gold. That he created great music is beyond doubt: we have that. We don't know what it sounded like and what was considered an acceptable standard of performance. Is it not at least possible judging from anecdote that as we've moved up the musical ladder. That each generation of musicians has complained about the difficulty of what was being put before them by innovators. If the innovations become, in turn, the new stand, these difficulties disappear because the musicians "raise the bar." There's no way of proving it of course, (perhaps experts on early 20th century recordings might have some thoughts) but my guess is that a musicians of today are better than those of the past. (This is the view of JE Gardiner anyway. He speculates on one of his DVDs that a contemporary Bach performance would have been punctuated by coughing boys, missed notes, broken strings and other difficulties arising from music being performed by what could be described as a "semi-pro" outfit. He does, however, admit that it's speculation.) By picturing Bach as a wizard at everything he touched creates a picture that I find unreal. I should think some of the problems faced by modern choirs would have directly parallels with Bach's era. And no matter how good the composer, he can't play for his musicians and he can't sing for his choir. If what Bach was doing in Leipzig was like some kind of magic - something that today's musicians can't even comprehend, why pray tell, didn't the word get out a little quicker than it did. We may consider Bach the greatest composer in history, but there's precious little evidence that anyone in Leipzig thought so, and those that found him exceptional, did so because of his instrumental works. Perhaps nobody had invented bad notes by the 1720's and that all music in Germany was something close to perfection. The music of the spheres maybe. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (November 7, 2006):>> Either a hand injury for an instrumentalist, or the death of a scheduled singer's father causing a trip out of town, will do. Thank you.<< < Would you then be able to use this for your next paper submitted to the Early Music Journal? > Another question dodged, I see, and replaced with a personal insult (contempt toward the seriousness of my work), instead of an answer that would support the challenged claim about Bach's compositional process. < I notice that you are following the discussions more closely than ever now. Perhaps there is even hope that you will examine the chorale samples on the BCW to which I have repeatedly referred and which should provide evidence for Bach's 'unruly' techniques for embellishing and embedding chorale melodies into his compositions. > I have examined them. They have most of their thematic notes on the main beats, which was my point before: an orderliness in the way they're composed/improvised. The presence of these relatively "ruly" examples (as decoys) doesn't magically transmute chunks of charcoal into diamonds, on the two web pages to which I already offered my comments of disbelief. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (November 7, 2006):>>Please provide the hard evidence of "strong will to create music with a grand conception", of any composer, measured through all possibilities within "music history". What is the reliable scale by which creative "will" is measured, as opposed to measuring the work actually produced?<< < I suggest writing an e-mail to Martin Geck. I am certain that he will enlighten you on this point. > The question wasn't whether Dr Geck has any such evidence. It was whether internet speculators and non-scholars have any. >>As for anybody reacting to situations on a week-to-week basis, is that not what professionals in any responsible job do? How does it make Bach special, as to measuring his "will" or whatnot? He himself famously remarked about his musicianship that anyone who worked as hard as he would get as far. Was he joking or something? How do we know? How do we know what he would have produced under different working conditions than those he had, as to his willfulness or whatever?<< < Marvellous questions and speculations, you would do well as a student in Martin Geck's musicology class. > I'm sure I would, thank you. But again, the question had nothing to do with whether I personally would fit into such a class. The question was about whether internet-speculators have any evidence whatsoever for their grandiose claims, and (corollary) any willingness/ability to back them up, instead of merely sidestepping reasonable questions (i.e. eschewing responsibility for their statements and actions) as we see here. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 7, 2006):Bradley Lehman wrote: >>The question wasn't whether Dr Geck has any such evidence. It was whether internet speculators and non-scholars have any.<< But it was his point to begin with so would it not be logical to ask him or read his book where this point is made? >>But again, the question had nothing to do with whether I personally would fit into such a class.<< But they were the type of questions and speculations that a musicologist would understand and appreciate. >>instead of merely sidestepping reasonable questions (i.e. eschewing responsibility for their statements and actions) as we see here.<< I guess this refers to you and your criticism of my 'red-coded' notes pointing to chorale melodies embedded in the score samples with which you disagree but have thus far avoided coming to terms with the suggested additional examples from chorale preludes which are available viewing on the BCW as has been pointed out to you numerous times without any direct comment on them from you. It's nice to pretend that they do not exist for you, but it would certainly help move this monotonous non-discussion away from the dead point it has been stuck on for well over a week now. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 7, 2006):Bradleyt Lehman wrote: >>I have examined them. They have most of their thematic notes on the main beats....<< "Most thematic notes on the main beats" This is progress of a sort to admit that the regular, logical rules do not always apply! So it is not 'absurd' nor does it cause 'disbelief' on your part when Bach does this type of variation and embellishment of a chorale melody. You may experience even more amazement (hopefuly not disbelief) when you examine many similar examples from the cantatas pointed out by Alfred Dürr and Friedrich Smend. I am looking at one right now (not my example, but Dürr's) where the first note of the incipit of a chorale occurs at the beginning of a phrase with intervening notes appearing distributed over the next two measures before finally the 2nd note of the chorale melody appears in the 3rd measure where in quick succession the remaining notes of the incipit appear with shorter note values. The point here is the 'irregular' separation of the first note from all the others that follow. I should perhaps assemble a page of all similar score samples by the two Bach experts mentioned above so that any 'disbelievers' will have the opportunity to see what real Bach experts have already uncovered in the cantatas. This is a fascinating insight into the way Bach thinks as he frequently finds ways to incorporate chorale melodies into various mvts. of his cantatas. It is one important (not the only one) way that Bach has to create a unity (and amazing density) between what might seem rather disparate parts/sections/mvts. of a cantata. Be of good cheer! There are more score sample pages to follow. These may perhaps enlighten some readers about yet another, very different level of Bach's composing genius. |
|
Julian Mincham wrote (November 7, 2006):Ed Myskowski wrote: < Are these not the precise roles of graduate student and professor? > Yep--but who can do it as well as JSB? |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (November 7, 2006):>>instead of merely sidestepping reasonable questions (i.e. eschewing responsibility for their statements and actions) as we see here.<< < I guess this refers to you and your criticism of my 'red-coded' notes > Wrong guess; the question was about providing evidence for the assertion that was made. But, now that's been sidestepped by saying it's Geck's material in the first place, instead of presenting it. A pity. < pointing to chorale melodies embedded in the score samples with which you disagree but have thus far avoided coming to terms with the suggested additional examples from chorale preludes which are available viewing on the BCW as has been pointed out to you numtimes without any direct comment on them from you. > Begging (with a run-on sentence) isn't going to help. "Avoided coming to terms with"??!! I've played all four of those compositions to check them out, from copies that I have in my own collection as a practicing organist; not merely relying on web-page snippets. And I've already provided my comment that they're different in kind (as to hitting main notes usually on main beats, and being normal types of improvisatory technique, etc etc) from the orchestral-line examples. To demonstrate that I know which pieces specifically are being talked about, here's the quote presenting which ones they are: Thomas Braatz wrote (10/31/06): >>Here are some examples to ponder before asserting that notes are ‘picked and chosen to fit a foregone conclusion’ where the context is one of a specific chorale melody: Georg Böhm’s “Vater unser im Himmelreich” near the bottom of: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/CM/Vater-unser-im-Himmelreich.htm (once thought to have been by Bach) Dietrich Buxtehude’s “Herr Christ der einge Gottessohn” BuxWV 192 near the bottom of: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/CM/Herr-Christ-einge.htm Johann Sebastian Bach’s „Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland“ BWV 659 about 1/3 of page down: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/CM/Nun-komm.htm or better yet: Bach’s „Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr’“ BWV 662, BWV 663, BWV 664, BWV BWV 676 BWV 677 not quite half of the page down: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/CM/Allein-Gott-in-der-Hoh.htm << ===== < It's nice to pretend that they do not exist for you, but it would certainly help move this monotonous non-discussion away from the dead point it has been stuck on for well over a week now. > The discussion has been about musical analysis. I offered my conclusions and observations from such. The fact that they're not accepted is not my problem. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 7, 2006):Bradley Lehman wrote: >>Wrong guess; the question was about providing evidence for the assertion that was made. But, now that's been sidestepped by saying it's Geck's material in the first place...<< Who has been doing most of the 'sidestepping' here of late? BL: >>I've played all four of those compositions to check them out, from copies that I have in my own collection as a practicing organist; not merely relying on web-page snippets.<< And? Were my 'snippets' taken from the NBA in any way different than your copies as far as the key melodic line is concerned? I hope not, otherwise you should update your older versions. BL: >>And I've already provided my comment that they're different in kind (as to hitting main notes usually on main beats, and being normal types of improvisatory technique, etc etc) from the orchestral-line examples.<< Two points here: 1. Brad admits that they 'usually' [a crack in the foundation which until recently found it 'absurd' to have any irregularities whatsoever according to what some teach and believe regarding music theory at a university level] hit the main notes on the main beats and that this is a 'normal' type of improvisatory technique. Now Brad considers it 'normal' in improvisatory technique to have occasional irregularities [non-conforming instances which break the rules that Brad and a few others have established as a basic understanding of how Bach does things]. 2. Now a mighty new barrier is suddenly erected by Brad, a barrier which prevents Bach from treating chorales the same way in chorale cantatas with instrumental accompaniment as he does in chorale preludes for a keyboard instrument. The same fluidity and technique used for embellishment in the main musical line of a chorale prelude for organ cannot/must not appear in an orchestral line. Where do you come up with such rules? Do you make them up as you go along? Are you certain that you have studied every orchestral line in Bach's cantatas to see whether this rule can stand up to closer scrutiny? Do you seriously think at this point that Bach would ever have allowed himself to be placed into such a straitjacket devised on the spur of the moment by one who considers himself a specialist in Bach musicology? [These are rhetorical questions which do not require an answer!] BL: >>The discussion has been about musical analysis. I offered my conclusions and observations from such. The fact that they're not accepted is not my problem.<< Whose problem then, Bach's? [again, rhetorical] For the future: your conclusions and observations were presented with such a repulsive reaction on your part toward my presentation of the score samples that a meaningful discussion becomes nearly impossible. It would have been much better to have applied what you consider 'constructive criticism' with equal force and vehemence in examining and reexamining your own article on temperament. As you continue attacking in your usual manner my efforts and contributions to the BCML (unjustified attacks as almost all of them are), you will tend to lose more and more of your credibility among the list members and readers here. (This is only my personal observation and I know there will be some who will disagree with it.) I personally welcome justifiable, objective criticism wherever it may apply to my statements, translations, research, etc., but do not expect me to believe outright many of the current theories about Bach's music and its manner of performance. If/When I criticize certain theories, methods, etc., I am not 'attacking' the originator or the proponents of a theory (even though they may have identified themselves completely with it), I am simply raising some hard questions and attempting to provide counter-evidence wherever this is possible and to the best of my knowledge about these matters. In the pursuit of better knowledge and understanding regarding Bach and his music, it would be best (this is only a suggestion, but I personally believe it should become part of the guidelines for the BCML) that (these are not listed in any special order): 1. Objective criticism is important to advancing one's knowledge and understanding 2. Evidence or suggestions for different viewpoints offered as constructive criticism are helpful whereas a personal attack is not (the past few weeks, unfortunately, are replete with negative examples of this sort) 3. Cooperative effort and sharing of information, speculations, insights, viewpoints, etc. will help to lead away from the confrontational attitude that arises from "I am better than you: I have more training, more experience, more reference books, more this, more that...than you have 4. A good thread/discussion can be very thrilling and exhilarating, but a confrontational "knock him down, drag him out" argumentation is exhausting and unnerving for both the participants as well as the 'onlookers'. |
|
Ed Myskowski wrote (November 8, 2006):Alain Bruguières wrote: < The purport of the text is rather simple: (terrestrial) life is worthless. <snip> Some time ago (when BWV 60 was under discussion), I posted the following remarks. >I have noted three approaches to Time in Bach's cantatas. >The first two concern 'human' time, that is time as percieved by a mortal. <snip> >The third point of view is quite different : a meditation on Eternity - >Time on a divine scale, which is completely beyond our experience. > Not so much beyond our experience, as beyond our ability to conceive (conceptualize) our experience. We can plant our feet on our planet. The chiastic rhythm of those words reinforces our experience. The direct experience of the rock beneath our feet. The difficulty is that our allotted moments are so brief compared to the time we can now measure scientifically, by fossils (my personal favorite, Parvancorina minchami, and by chemical dating of the rocks, that it is difficult to appreciate that geologic time and eternity are one and the same. How much more diffor Bach, when at any moment life, wife, children, might be taken at the whim of <God's will>. How much more miraculous his music of optimism and faith? As I write I am listening to Leusink [7], a few others also on hand. The first time through, I am thinking that Leusink may be my first choice. Let's argue about the music for a few days. Or discuss it. OT: my wife has long considered argue and discuss as synonyms, from the Sp. (she claims). Many of my discussions have turned into our arguments as a result. We eventually resolved this misunderstanding by talking about it. We consider the effort worthwhile. Draw your own conclusions. In BWV 26/1, there is a downward opening figure, with intervals I cannot identify confidently by ear, followed by a quicker rising motive. It is analogous, architecturally, to the octave leaps followed by rising figure of BWV 115/1, at least to my ears. Regardless of the controversy regarding speculation about Bach's working methods, I don't think we should ignore comparisons of works separated by only a couple weeks. Exactly how the similarities came about is speculation. The analogies and contrasts among many of these Chorale Cantatas is not speculation, it is in the music. By considering the music chronologically, BCML has created a unique opportunity for new insights. It would be a shame to waste the opportunity on senseless squabbling. Not to overlook the detailed relations to the Chorales themselves, however difficult agreement on the details of analysis. Thanks, Neil, for some soothing words. |
|
Neil Halliday wrote (November 8, 2006):Doug Cowling has pointed to the highly unusual, significant, and effective use of unison passages in the ATB (non cantus-firmus) voices, at the end of each statement of the successive chorale phrases. Here is an interesting test of your recording(s): these unison passages are presented in two different formats; (a) with the altos an octave above the combined tenors and basses, and (b) with the basses an octave below the combined altos and tenors. If we consider that the chorale has six phrases (the first two phrases are rather short, with only four notes each) then you should be able to hear (a) and (b) presented at (or near) the end of each phrase in the c.f in the following way: 1(a), 2(b), 3(a), 4(b), 5(b), 6(a). The different timbres of the ATB choir that result from the adoption of these two different formats is well captured in Richter's recording [5]. In this chorus, I find the fastest tempos (eg, Richter, Rilling [6], Suzuki [1]) to be most exhilarating, in contrast to BWV 115, where I thought Harnoncourt, with the slowest version, in a "gentle dance" described by Brad, has the most satisfying rendition. Ed writes: "In BWV 26/1, there is a downward opening figure, with intervals I cannot identify confidently by ear, followed by a quicker rising motive." The (downward) intervals are a fourth followed by a major third, the result of three forceful, emphatic chords in succession: A minor, E major, A minor (1st inversion), in a downward fashion. The brilliant rising and falling motives, sometimes occurring simultaneously, are forms of the A minor, and other, scales, in similar (same direction) and contrary motion. The continuo of course joins in the excitement. Toward the end of the ritornello, a little rising and falling figure is tossed around from the 1st oboe (doubled by the flute), to the 1st violin, to the 2nd oboe, to the 2nd violin, to the third oboe, to the violas, to be finally taken up in a modified form in a brilliant passage for the continuo. It turns out that Bach employs exactly this brilliant (continuo) passage in the central section of the bass aria, swapping it between the continuo and the bass voice, to forcefully and frighteningly depict the "the glowing embers (of hell), the rushing, tearing floods, the destruction and ruination of everything". Huttenlocher and Rilling, with a battery of oboes, give a marvellously pompous, powerful, and musically very effective account of this aria. In the tenor aria, Bach revisits his technique of setting brilliant (in this aria) alternating passages of consecutive 10ths and 6ths (and other intervals), between tenor and flute, with the coloraturas on "eilen" ("hasten"). The vocal acrobatics required of the tenor in this aria are astounding; note how he has to emulate the repeated, falling pairs of 16th notes first heard on the flute and violin, in the `raindrops' section. Kraus with Rilling is incredibly accurate at a break-neck speed in an account that vividly captures the dramatic aspects of the text, though I might prefer the less frenetic account of Krebs with Werner [1]. Apart from the very slow opening chorus of Werner, all three of the non-HIP conductors mentioned (which are the recordings I have) give excellent accounts of this wonderfully invigorating cantata. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (November 9, 2006):BWV 26/1 Score Samples Aryeh Oron has kindly posted a few score samples from BWV 26/1 at: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Scores/BWV26-Sco.htm (remember to click again on the image for a larger or better image) These samples are quite different from the longer passages quoting an entire incipit or Stollen of a CM that were evident in some of the chorale fantasias encountered in previous cantatas. Here, BWV 26/1, it almost appears as if Bach, in composing the initial orchestral ritornello, has created a surrealistic landscape with recognizable bits and pieces of the chorale melody appearing in rather unexpected places, often being contorted almost beyond recognition or even creating a partial overlay with another snippet of melody. The main impression, however, is that the primary motifs of ascending and descending scales dominate most of the musical action with a few secondary motifs also achieving some prominence. The allusions to the chorale melody are forced to fit into this odd landscape with partial echoes of the CM flitting (flüchtig) about here and there. A quick glance at the first line of the chorale at the top will demonstrate the origin of the upward scale followed immediately by a downward scale seen/heard clearly in the continuo part m. 2 (not depicted in the samples). Here we can see/hear how Bach has the chorale foremost in his mind without, however, slavishly or rigidly following any rules that require every note of the CM to appear in regular (no long or irregular gaps between successive notes) fashion on the accented portions of a bar/measure. Bach relies upon the fact that his select audience, being well acquainted with the chorale melody, will feel in his preparatory ritornello the closeness of the new musical material to the original with which they are familiar. The ritornello has very strong ties with the CM, even though at first sight or first hearing it seems to be entirely independent of it. Bach's primary focus or emphasis is to create an impression through music of the textual content of the CM's incipit. |
|
Russell Telfer wrote (November 11, 2006):BWV 26 Ach wie flüchtig Aryeh Oron wrote: < It is the time to finish this discussion, which is far remote from Bach. I ask you all to stop sending messages under this thread. Please put your energy and enthusiasm back to Bach, at least on this list. > Well I was right about Jefferson, though as usual my timing was out of kilter. Ach wie flüchtig (BWV 26) was under discussion five days ago, but it seems a long time ago now. I've been looking at this cantata and reminding myself that it has two stupendous movements, the opening chorus and the second aria, and backed up by a powerful chorale. The first (Tenor) aria however: So schnell ein rauschend Wasser shiesst strikes me as a makeweight piece, worthy of other 18th century pens no doubt, but lacking the inspiration of the other movements. When singing it in a choral study group I it difficult and unsatisfying to sing. |
|
Richard Mix wrote (November 11, 2006):Th. Braatz wrote: < ...it appears almost certain that these key parts never left Bach's sight even between the rehearsal and Sunday performance( s). The immense pressure upon the players and singers (they were fined for wrong notes during performances in church) in Bach's time... > The first sentence can pass without comment for now, but the fines are startling news to me. Can you please tell more about who kept count and what the rate per mistake was? |
|
Alain Bruguières wrote (November 11, 2006):[To Russell Telfer] Many thanks to Aryeh for reminding us that we are on a Bach cantata list. Many thanks to Russel for bringing us back to BWV 26. Well perhaps we were not completely OT after all, we did collectively give through our posts a nice illustration of the terms 'flüchtig' and even sometimes 'nichtig'... I'm not sure I agree with Russel when he's being so critical of the Tenor aria. I like it, I find it bachian enough. It is true that the opening chorale fantasia and the bass aria are exceptional, the highlights of the cantata. You can't have highlights if other parts of the work are not comparatively in the shade... |
|
Julian Mincham wrote (November 16, 2006):Alain Bruguières wrote: < I'm not sure I agree with Russel when he's being so critical of the Tenor aria. I like it, I find it bachian enough. It is true that the opening chorale fantasia and the bass aria are exceptional, the highlights of the cantata. You can't have highlights if other parts of the work are not comparatively in the shade... > Alain touches upon a vital point in the consideration and appreciation of these cantatas, particularly at this stage of Bach's career, and that is the fact that they are conceived as, and need to be considered as a whole rather than as a collection of individual movements. Without re-opening the discussion about his working methods, it is only common sense to assume that most of these works were composed quickly in a very short period and it follows from this that such a concentrated focus is very likely to result in a highly unified result. Nor is this pure speculation for, as those who have studied the canon in detail know well, there are many example to be found to evidence Bach's 'conception as a whole' approach to each work---the careful balances of major and minor, of recit and aria, the quarrying of the chorales for ideas and motives (as Thomas has been pointing out). The first aria of BWV 26 is the only movement in the major--all others are minor (true the recits both begin on a major chord but return to and resolutely remain in the minor. Too big a topic to deal with here but this sort of change of mode in the recits is often symbolic). Because of its major emphasis the tenor aria takes on some significance in the work as a whole. There is no recit separating this aria from the chorus so clearly Bach wishes to sustain the feeling of energy for as long as possible. Although the cantata as a whole is essentially not a joyful one stressing as it does the ephemeral nature of life---but of course it is this life not the afterlife as the last line of the chorale makes clear.---Bach's typical outlook is essentially not laden with a sense of tragedy. Bach is saddled with a typically pessimistic (at least on the surface) text and he rejoices in the dramatic images it provides. But the wider study of the cantatas reveals that he is almost never entirely pessimistic. He always finds a way of portraying the other side of the coin (often but not always in the final aria) and here the optimism seems inherent within the tenor aria---almost a bridge to the melisma on the word 'Freude'----joy---at the beginning of the following recitative.. Life passes at a hectic rate (I'm sure that must have been true of Bach himself) but the music of the tenor conveys a somewhat different story from the text. Here is life, energy and a degree of optimism, even fulfillment. This aria is Bach's 'on the other hand' statement and it stands out in a different way than does the bass aria, a bizarre, almost distorted 'dance of death' (Boyd). Some speculation of course, but some evidence also derived from a) the essentially optimistic character of the music itself and, even more importantly, b) the practice of Bach to redress the argument and present the optimistic side in countless other cantatas. Note also the images of raindrops falling and disappearing into the abyss in the middle section of the tenor aria. This movement is full of word painting. I can see why Russell finds it a really demanding aria to perform, but that's not unique! But I tend to disagree about the quality of the movement and its significance in the wider structure of the work. For these reasons I find it every bit as fascinating and enjoyable as the bass aria. Oh, and like several other people, I also find it a relief and a pleasure to get back to discussion of the cantatas on this list! |
|
Russell Telfer wrote (November 11, 2006):[To Julian Mincham] I have to admit that you're right, and that when you consider what Bach was doing, in limited time, all of these movements are part of an integrated whole. But there is a catch here, a significant one which often underlies any of the criticisms or comments that any of us make. That is, to follow your analysis is to follow the liturgical or textual logic of the cantata. Which of course is correct. I was, for the moment, giving an honest musical reaction to the tenor aria (with which I had suffered) whilst wanting to shout out loud my admiration of the chorus and bass aria. |
|
Santu de Silva wrote (November 12, 2006):Wow, I hadn't noticed that you folks were discussing this piece! Mvt. 1 is one of my all-time favourite choruses. I first came to know it as one of the movements in Walton's "Wise Virgins" suite. The bass is one of the finest examples of Bach's brilliant bass lines. When the movement ends, I am simply shocked; it's almost like being unable to breathe! Walton's orchestral arrangement, at least, is able to do a grand ritardando that might be out of place in church. (In the Suite, I believe that this movement is followed by a lush instrumentation of the famous Shafe koennen sicher weiden aria, which is able to slowly release the rushing excitement of the BWV26-i.) |
|
Neil Halliday wrote (November 12, 2006):BWV 26 In the ritornello of the tenor aria (Mvt. 2), notice how Bach increases the effectiveness of the image of swirling flood waters, by doubling the flute line with the violin on alternate 'waves' only (bars 1-3 and 6-8, etc.) - an example of Bach's use of instrumental timbre, as well as the motive's shape, to create the desired effect. ------- The writhing, descending 1/16th note figure in the continuo, near the end of the ritornello of the opening movement, effectively suggests a rapid descent into hell, or nothingness; as already noted, this figure is employed in both the vocal and continuo lines in the middle section of the bass aria, where the text makes this image of total annihilation explicit. ------- Rilling [6] and Richter [2], and I suppose all conductors, pounce on the final chord of the 1st movement in staccato manner (without ritardando), not indicated in the score, but obviously a most effective way to end the movement. |
|
Ed Myskowski wrote (November 12, 2006):Douglas Cowling wrote: < The bottom line here is that we do not have sufficient documentary evidence to reconstruct Bach's working method. There just aren't enough records. > Julian Mincham wrote: < So, no we don't know how but we do know something of what------and in between lies a perfectly valid area for informed speculation. > Gradually returning to BWV 26 (what's that?) before the week is out, I extracted this kernel, motive, whatever. Between a couple friends. I tried very hard this time to get the thread straight. A true joy of an open forum such as BCML: the opportunity for informed (or even not) speculation. And a true hazard, eminvestment in such speculation. I am already out of my depth. And I sense Harry edging away. |
|
Ed Myskowski wrote (Nove |