Cantata BWV 3 - Discussions

Cantata BWV 3
Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid [I[
Discussions - Part 2

Continue from Part 1

Discussions in the Week of February 11, 2007

Chris Kern wrote (February 10, 2007):
Introduction to BWV 3 - "Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid [I]"

Discussion for the week of February 11, 2007

Cantata BWV 3 - Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid [I]

Date of first performance: January 14, 1725 (2nd Sunday after Epiphany)

Information about recordings, biblical readings, translations, etc: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV3.htm

Music example (Leusink [4]): http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Stream/BWV3-Leusink.ram

First off, by way of quick introduction, I've posted to the list for a year or two now (off and on) but this is my first time leading discussions. I'm currently an MA student in the Japanese department of Ohio State University. The OSU music library has a full set of Rilling and H&L cantatas, as well as a full set of NBA volumes, so it's convenient to go there and listen to the weekly cantata. Although I follow along with the NBA I lack the musical acumen to notice every slur and note, so the comments are mostly based on my perception as a more casual listener.

Whittaker praises this cantata very highly; he says that it is "among the finest Bach ever wrote" and that the first movement is "one of the most miraculously flexible and expressive choruses that ever flowed from his truly inexhaustible pen." I'm more inclined to agree with Simon Crouch's rating of 2+ -- the opening chorus is very good but the rest of the cantata is only average to my ears.

The text has nothing to do with the biblical reading for the day; Whittaker comments that it may have some connection to the theme of change that's in the miracle of turning water to wine -- the stanzas of the chorale move from despair to hope and trust in God, and the music follows the same path.

Mvt. 1 is unusual among the chorale cantatas in that the cantus firmus of the chorale is assigned to the bass. The intertwining oboes of the ritornello is somewhat plaintive and calm.

Mvt. 2 mixes 4-part chorale lines with recitative segments commenting on the chorale text; this is something that Bach dabbles in from time to time in the chorale cantatas (Whittaker expresses distaste for the form in one place in a different cantata commentary, but I think it works well). Leusink [4] does this OVPP, which imparts a different flow and feel to the music than the other versions.

In Mvt. 3 we are still in the "despair" section of the text, the feeling of which is illustrated by the continuo. Both arias in this cantata exhibit the same pattern that is found in a lot of the chorale cantatas -- in my mind it's a problem but maybe others appreciate it more. Basically the arias are very long, and unbalanced towards the A section (which is then repeated in full). This is especially problematic for me in a continuo-only aria like this one, and there is a tendency for them to become tedious by the time I'm nearing the end of the repeat of the A section. (Whittaker evidently agrees with this; he comments near the end of this cantata that "it is advisable under modern conditions to shorten the Da Capo in most solo numbers.")

Mvt. 5 is a duet for soprano and alto. In both mood and text it is much happier than the previous numbers. Whittaker says this duet is "perhaps the finest in the cantatas" -- I cannot agree with this (I would put at least BWV 23 and BWV 78 ahead of it), but it is quite nice.

Mvt. 6 is the usual closing 4-part chorale; the journey of the text from darkness to light is complete here and the singers express their faith in Jesus and their desire to be with him.

I listened to three recordings of this cantata: Rilling [3], Harnoncourt [2], and Leusink [4].

[3] Rilling:
I have overall been impressed with Rilling's recordings and I'm liking them more and more, but this one fell flat. I never like the sound of his modern oboes, and neither aria offers anything special (the duet in particular has the "competing operatic vibrato" problem that some of his duets do). The choral singing in the opening movement is the best out of the three, though.

[2] Harnoncourt:
The ritornello in the opening movement is the best I heard. The period oboes have a much richer sound than Rilling's do. Unfortunately the choral singing is not as good. The bass aria is faster than Rilling's and avoids the length problem. The singers in the duet mix together much better; I always like hearing H&L's boy sopranos even when they're not so great -- this one does a good job, I think.

[4] Leusink:
For me (somewhat surprisingly), this is the best version of the cantata. The opening ritornello is not as good as H, but better than Rilling. The choral singing suffers from the same problems that usually dog the Leusink set -- somewhat disjointed, too loud in parts, and not entirely cohesive. The bass aria is very good; even though it's slow, the smooth legato and the very "affectionate" singing of Van Der Meel bring out a lot of feeling in the aria that the other two are lacking. Even though the timing is the longest of the three, I don't lose interest. Holton and Buwalda's voices blend together magnificently in the duet -- it wasn't really until I heard this version that I could see the potential for agreeing with Whittaker in his comments on the duet. The OVPP in the second movement sounds very nice -- it almost makes you wonder what Leusink's cycle would have sounded like if it had all been done OVPP (except when ripienists are explicitly indicated).

(As a side note, this is one reason I like listening to as many versions as possible -- this is not the first time that a cantata has been "rescued" for me by listening to a 2nd or even 3^rd or 4^th version of it.)

Julian Mincham wrote (February 10, 2007):
True its a fine work--but then, how many in this cycle are not? But I don't think it's only the opening chorus which is superb.

A by-the-way question for afficionados. How many can pinpoint three other uses (in the cantatas) of the oboe opening 4 note figure in bar 1 of the chorus?

Also note a common Bachian trick I have mentioned before on list; the use of notes of the minor scale colouring a major key (both the flattened 7^th and 6^th notes of A major occur in the first 2 bars.)

Might the use of the basses to carry the chorale symbolise the heaviness of tread on the sorrow filled pathway to heaven?

The bass aria is similar to that from 76 where it is the hatred of the fiends of hell that drives the bizarre continuo line and the character of the music. Here it is the fear of the torments themselves--similar tortuous chromatic continuo bass lines, lacking an obligato instrument. The shape of the vocal line has great variety;from the fears of hell to the cries of agony on 'Hollenangst und Pein' to the flowing and the almost joyous pleasure of the mention of heaven and the Saviour's name.

Can I suggest that if you follow these subtle moments through the course of the movement a few times Chris, you may find its length and repitition a little less daunting?

The final duet gets to the core of the cantata's message as is so often the case.. The voices rise and fall almost in competition to express their exhuberant bliss and overwhelming conviction as we allow Jesus to take on the weight of our crosses. The minor middle section (and its slightly strange final cadence----a placing of the cross upon the ground??) is suggestive of the pain of the cross--which is why the first section must return in order to re-establish the sense of trust and conviction.

In purely musical terms and a 21^st century perspective I sympathise with Chris's problems of length and repitition. But when one follows the logic of the messages which are being musically unveiled and expressed it becomes a different kind of experience.

Douglas Cowling wrote (February 10, 2007):
Chris Kern wrote:
< Discussion for the week of February 11, 2007
Cantata BWV 3 - Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid [I] >
The recurring principal theme in the opening chorus reminded me of the alto aria, "Wo Zwei und Drei" in Cantata BWV 42, 'Am Abend". I only have the piano vocal score, but I noticed that Bach very carefully adds an acciatura on the word "Herzeleid" in all the voices, but then does not embellish the figure on its many repetitions through the movement -- a good argument could be made that it is implied. Do any of the recordings add the embellishment?

In the second movement, do other recordings give the chorale sections to the full choir or soloists? This is a classic instance of when the score and parts can't tell us what Bach intended.

Is it my imagination or is this a very, very "sharp" cantata? Bach modulates into some very distant keys.

Chris Kern wrote (February 10, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< In purely musical terms and with a 21st century perspective I sympathise with Chris's problems of length and repitition. But when one follows the logic of the messages which are being musically unveiled and expressed it becomes a different kind of experience. >
I thought there might be a response like this -- as I said, Whittaker, writing in the 1940's or so, complained about the length of arias as well, so it's not just a matter of "kids these days have no attention span". There are plenty of lengthy arias and duets that I do like (any of BWV 244's, for instance). It's not the numerical length but the manner in which the piece is structured and performed. Maybe you're right that if I read more about the movement's construction I would like it better.

Julian Mincham wrote (February 10, 2007):
Chris Kern wrote:
< I thought there might be a response like this -- >
and I thought I was being helpful! Apparently not.

as I said, Whittaker, writing in the 1940's or so, complained about the length of arias as well, so it's not just a matter of "kids these days have no attention span".

It's not not what I said. I was offering a positive way through the movements which I have found to be helpful myself.

Maybe you're right that if I read more about the movement's construction I would like it better. It wasn't the movement's construction that I was talking about but the immense variety within the conventional structures.

Sorry you took my comments in the way that you have.

Final question. Have you actually taken the time to explore the immense amount of variety in the writing of the vocal line of the bass aria??

Oh, and I often disagrre with Whitaker.

Chris Kern wrote (February 11, 2007):
Chris Kern wrote:
<> I thought there might be a response like this -- >>
Julian Mincham wrote:
< and I thought I was being helpful! Apparently not. >
I guess I should have written that post a little differently -- I didn't mean to imply that I took offense at your post. I think you're correct that if I did investigate the movement's structure more carefully I might appreciate it more.

Julian Mincham wrote (February 16, 2007):
[To Chris Kern] Fair enough.

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 11, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>I noticed that Bach very carefully adds an acciatura on the word "Herzeleid" in all the voices, but then does not embellish the figure on its many repetitions through the movement -- a good argument could be made that it is implied.<<
"acciatura?"

"Acciaccatura" from Walther's Music Dictionary is a term applied only to keyboard music. It is a 'crushing together of notes which do not belong together'. Domenico Scarlatti has a number of examples of this in his harpsichord sonatas. It does not appear to be used for vocal music.

"Accento" or German "Vorschlag" is what you are referring to here. There are various subtypes for this embellishment.

In the instance referred to above, I would certainly hesitate to add this "Vorschlag" everywhere else in the vocal score where a seemingly similar instance occurs which Bach leaves unmarked. There are some reasons for this:

Here we have a set of original parts which Bach has had a chance to check over and to make additions as necessary. If you examine the two oboe d'amore parts, it becomes apparent that Bach is not carelessly and haphazardly throwing in a trill in the first oboe part and then later in the other as if to say to the oboists: "As a reminder to oboists who have difficulty staying awake while sight-reading their parts, I am occasionally adding the trill to keep you on your toes. You should take these reminders to heart so that you will treat each and every dotted-8^th note that you see in your part the same way. This will save me a lot of time (like writing long-held notes in the continuo parts instead of shortening them and writing in many rests instead) which I could devote to doing other things."

There seems to be much more thought given to each instance that Bach indicates. Perhaps he does not want the 2nd oboe in m 18 to add a trill because it suddenly jumps to a note higher than those being played by the 1^st oboe line which should not be covered up by an additional trill by the 2^nd oboe. Likewise in the vocal parts: the "Vorschlag" ("appoggiatura") has a special effect (affect as well) of adding poignancy to the word: "Herzeleid" {"the suffering/pain felt in the heart"). This is very appropriate musically. The next time a similar motif is sung, it would emphasize the word "dieser" ("this") which is not very meaningful in this context. If there is a single other instance where the "Vorschlag" might have been used, it would be on "trübsalvoll" ("full of grief/sorrow/misery"). Later on "wandern" ("to wander") a "Vorschlag" would once again make little sense. To sum this up, Bach, as was clearly pointed out in the Scheibe-Birnbaum controversy, knows what he is doing. He has a better sense, particularly in regard to vocal music that was referred to in those documents, which embellishments or mannerisms are suitable and in good taste (Bach's sense of good taste in music) and which are better left out so that the music does not become overladen with such mannerisms which continually and mechanically repeat themselves.

There are many subtleties involved with "Vorschlag", one of which involves an acute awareness of the harmonic movement in all the other parts (the avoidance of parallel 5ths and octaves would be a stricture placed upon the unthinking, mechanical application of the "Vorschlag" in every instance where a similar musical phrase {the dotted-note pattern in BWV 3/1} occurs.

To be sure, there are other cantatas where we no longer have the original parts to consult in order to give us this vital information. Then the conductor, singer, instrumentalist must proceed cautiously by examining other similar situations from other cantata scores where guidance in these matters can be found.

Douglas Cowling wrote (February 11, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
<< "acciatura?" >>
< "Acciaccatura" from Walther's Music Dictionary is a term applied only to keyboard music. It is a 'crushing together of notes which do not belong together'. Domenico Scarlatti has a number of examples of this in his harpsichord sonatas. It does not appear to be used for vocal music.
"Accento" or German "Vorschlag" is what you are referring to here. There are various subtypes for this embellishment. >
I'm sorry, Master Braatz, that I mistyped the word! You are so right in adopting that cold, condescending tone with me. I am a bad, bad list member who should never dare to post to YOUR website!

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 11, 2007):
BWV 3 - Provenance Revisited

In the previous round of discussions, I had given the provenance of BWV 3 (autograph score and original set of parts). In the light of the very recent discussions on the copy procedure that JSB used, I would like to expand the list of original parts to include the informatiabout who copied what at what point in the copy session. Also included are some new observations on my part based on information which is available:

The Original Parts:

Creation of Parts: in the evening shortly before the 1st performance of BWV 3 on January 14, 1725

The bulk of the copy work was again completed by Johann Andreas Kuhnau who was assisted by 3 anonymous copyists and W. F. Bach who did the continuo doublet. J. S. Bach did the trombone part, revised the other parts, and made corrections.

JSB (Johann Sebastian Bach): almost 40
AMB (Anna Magdalena Bach): 24 [absent]
WFB (Wilhelm Friedemann Bach): 15
JAK (Johann Andreas Kuhnau): 21 JAK was a Thomaner from 1718-1728
CGM (Christian Gottlob Meißner): 17 [absent]
Anonymous IIe (a possible Thomaner?)
Anonymous IIf (a possible Thomaner?)
Main Copyist C (a possible Thomaner?)

The parts include the following (15 parts):

Soprano
JAK: mvts. 1-2, 5
JSB: Mvt. 6

Alto
JAK: mvts. 1-2, 5
JSB: Mvt. 6

Tenore
JAK: mvts. 1-2, 4
JSB: Mvt. 6

Basso
JAK: mvts. 1-3
JSB: Mvt. 6

Trombona/Corno
JSB: 1, 6

Hautbois 1:d'Amour
JAK: Mvt. 1
Anonymous IIf: Mvt. 5
JSB: Mvt. 6

Hautb: 2.d'Amour
JAK: Mvt. 1
JSB: mvts. 5, 6

Violino 1mo
JAK: mvts. 1, 5
JSB: Mvt. 6

Violino 1mo (Doublet)
Anonymous IIe: mvts. 1, 5
WFB: Mvt. 6

Violino 2do
JAK: Mvt. 1
JSB: Mvt. 6

Violino 2do. (Doublet)
Anonymous IIf: Mvt. 1
WFB: Mvt. 6

Viola
JAK: Mvt. 1
JSB: Mvt. 6

Continuo (partly figured bass)
JAK: mvt. 1-5
JSB: Mvt. 6
unknown hand: partly figured bass

Continuo (Doublet)
WFB: mvts. 1-4, 5 (up to m. 64)
JSB: mvts. 5 (from 65 to end), 6

Continuo (transposed and figured)
Main Copyist C: mvts. 1-4
JSB: mvts. 5, 6 and all the figures

The true workhorse again during this copy session is JAK with JSB mainly filling in the final Mvt. 6 (chorale) and once again copying the Trombone/Corno entirely by himself.

As usual, JSB had not yet finished composing the final chorale (Mvt. 6), when JAK began copying the instrumental parts from the score. JAK began with the topmost instrumental line (oboe d'amore I) on the score and gradually worked his way down the page. How do we know this? JAK is only able to copy Mvt. 1, not Mvt. 5 which also calls for both oboi d'amore, because in the autograph score, the last part of Mvt. 5 is on the reverse side of the same page that has the score for Mvt. 6 (Choral.). This may explain the unusual break in the Continuo doublet and Continuo transposed parts as well.

When JAK has worked his way down to the 1^st violin part, JAK is finally now able to include Mvt. 5, but strangely enough he still does not copy Mvt. 6 which ought to be available to him at that point.

Notice that when JAK gets down to the vocal parts, he is able to include Mvt. 5 for the Soprano/Alto duet.

CGM does not participate in any part of the copy procedure. In his place, other unidentifiable copyists are put to work in a stopgap fashion. Are these perhaps a few of JSB's best Thomaner from the Primary Choir? Located in the same building where Bach lived, they would conceivably be available in the evening after school was over (no need to go outside the building and no worry over missing the curfew).

Notice also the absence of AMB, who may have been occupied with a sick baby on the evening when this copy session took place.

The general impression obtained from the careful examination of the copy procedure used here for BWV 3 is one of 'working against the clock'. JSB still had not finished composing the final chorale and perhaps was still finishing Mvt. 5 when JAK began copying out the parts. With more time to spare, a more methodical procedure could have been used. If JSB had composed the entire score earlier with more time for a copyist like JAK to finish the entire copy task alone there would not have to be any switching around of parts as they moved from one person to another. JAK was a Thomaner who lived in the same building as Bach did. During the day, he would have been occupied with his school duties (attending classes, etc.) and most likely would only have a solid block of time for an activity such as this in the evening. This is one more reason to consider that these copy sessions took place the evening before the actual 1st performance early the next morning. The appearance of these yet undetermined anonymous copyists also seems to point to the possibility that these stopgap copyists could be called upon at a moment's notice because they live in the same building where JSB's apartment is located and are easily accessible in case of an emergency such as this one (AMB and CGM not being available).

Chris Rowson wrote (February 11, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Creation of Parts: in the evening shortly before the 1^st performance of BWV 3 on January 14, 1725 >
.What is the source for this dating of the copying? Is it purely your conjecture?

Chris Stanley wrote (February 11, 2007):
Is it pure coincidence that this is the third week in succession where there is a soprano alto duet aria?

Chris Rowson wrote (February 11, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
.< I only have the piano vocal score, but I noticed that Bach very carefully adds an acciatura on the word "Herzeleid" in all the voices, but then does not embellish the figure on its many repetitions through the movement -- a good argument could be made that it is implied. Do any of the recordings add the embellishment? >
I think this is an interesting question (but I also have only the piano score). I agree that a good argument could be made that it is implied.

TB gave a categorical "no", on the basis that there is no "word-painting" justification for it on subsequent occurrences. But what about the third line where it would fall on "Trübsal" (misery/tribulation)?

I am also rather interested by the subsequent occurrences even within the first line, where the appoggiatura seems to be taken before the beat, written out, I think for reasons of harmony.

I also looked at whether the appoggiatura would cause problems with the counterpoint if sung in later occurrences, as TB suggested, but couldn't see any. The later occurrences are, after all, essentially parallel passages.

Ed Myskowski wrote (February 11, 2007):
Chris Stanley wrote:
< Is it pure coincidence that this is the third week in succession where there is a soprano alto duet aria? >
Yes and no! The third week back was out of chronological sequence, but the most recent two are chronologic, and so fair to say, not coincidental.

Peter Smaill wrote (February 11, 2007):
BWV 3 was one of the first releases in the Harnoncourt series [2] and the whole work, which I have'nt listened to for two decades, was overshadowed by the superb but unnamed boy treble of the Wiener Saengerknaben who interweaves the exquisite vocal line of the duet, BWV 3/5, "Wenn Sorgen auf mich dringen", with the alto Paul Esswood.

What is striking on return is that the word-painting, identified by the commentators here and there, is in fact part of a consistent and unified textual and musical approach. As has been noted, the text is little at all to do with the Gospel for the day; and the Chorale, which is also given out as the funerary "O Jesu Christ mein Lebens Licht", is at beginning and end, and in the dialogue of BWV 3/2; but fothe rest we are not much reliant even on the chorale.

So what is the poet's purpose in BWV 3, if not to elaborate on either the sermon or the chorale by Martin Moller? The key is IMO the word "widerspentig" ("oppositional") which occurs in BWV 3/2. Throughout the work , which has two duet/dialogues, ideas are in contrasting pairs: earth and heaven, flesh and blood, earthly and eternal,flesh and spirit,; friendship and goodness versus anguish and pain; joy and grief; mine and yours; need and want versus treasure and wealth.

To this Baroque pattern of antitheses Bach responds musically. Firstly, in BWV 3/1, he unusually gives the cantus firmus to the low-lying Basses, illustrating the heartbreak of the human condition; but allows the sopranos at the end the trill upwards at "zum Himmel wandern still" ("to heaven travel").

Bach also disposes the trombone, uniquely, to accompany the basses in the opening chorus but then aligns them with the sopranos in the final chorale, emphasising the journey from heartbreak to faith. The chorale may sound straightforward but at "sterb" Bach intrudes an unusual harmonisation B -F sharp- G sharp- E ,resolving to B -D sharp -A -F sharp, setting death against the flowing harmonies of the step-wise faith motif.

The intervening movements BWV3/2 to BWV3/4 maintain a tension, full of "yet" and "though" and "if"; the uncertainty only disappears at the end of BWV 3/4, "Mein Jesus wird mein Scatz und Reichtum sind" ("My Jesus will be my treasure and wealth")

The duet BWV 3/5, a favourite of Robertson and Whittaker, begs the question as to why its simplicity is yet so compelling. The elaboration of "will ich in Freudigkeit zu meinen Jesum singen" is as the latter says a "ringing bell-like series of quavers", the intervention of joyfullness against the rising and falling of the the expression of care in the opening motives of the duettists. It is set in four sharps, as we discussed, the key of the central Chorale of the SJP and of the fourth fugue of WTC 1; thus it is perhaps no coincidence to find the line in BWV 3/5, "Mein Kreuz hilft Jesus tragen" (Jesus helps me to bear my Cross").

It is this allusion from the Passion that confirms the the zeugma and leads to the Cantata's close in which, in contradistinction to the prior, extensive, use of opposing voices to illustrate separation, the thesis of the work is resolved in unifying four-part homophonic harmony. It is a Cantata which as a whole repays analysis beyond the evident surface beauty ( Duerr says "a grand eloquent lament") of its opening chorus and the celebrated ST duet.

Douglas Cowling wrote (February 11, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< To this Baroque pattern of antitheses Bach responds musically. Firstly, in BWV 3/1, he unusually gives the cantus firmus to the low-lying Basses, illustrating the heartbreak of the human condition; but allows the sopranos at the end the trill upwards at "zum Himmel wandern still" ("to heaven travel"). >
Is the trill marked in the full score? It's not in the piano/vocal.

Peter Smaill wrote (February 11, 2007):
[To Douglas Cowling] Here In saying "trill upwards" I meant the looser definition i.e., an ascending run, rather than the strict musical definition as a type of shake. Sorry for any confusion!

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 11, 2007):
Chris Rowson wrote:
>>What is the source for this dating of the copying? Is it purely your conjecture?<<
It is conjecture based upon the evidence available from considering the manner in which the parts were copied. Any other supposition, to my mind, appears to be less reasonable than that which I have posited.

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 11, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>Here In saying "trill upwards" I meant the looser definition i.e., an ascending run, rather than the strict musical definition as a type of shake.<<
Nonetheless, just to make this matter quite clear: the sopranos in m 52 of BWV 3/1 on the syllable "-dern" (dotted 8th note) do not have a trill (tr) marked whereas the 1st violins, playing here at this point in unision with the sopranos, do. This appears to be intentional on Bach's part.

Chris Rowson wrote (February 11, 2007):
Chris Rowson wrote:
>>What is the source for this dating of the copying? Is it purely your conjecture?<<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< It is conjecture based upon the evidence available from considering the manner in which the parts were copied. Any other supposition, to my mind, appears to be less reasonable than that which I have posited. >
But why assume it was Saturday night for a Sunday performance? Could it not equally have been to get the parts ready for a rehearsal that might have been scheduled for Saturday? Or Friday? .

Besides which, I am not so convinced that the evidence for the timeline proposed is conclusive. Some parts of the interpretation seem rather strained. (Vide references to "may explain", "strangely enough still does not", not to mention the need to posit a sick baby.)

Chris Rowson wrote (February 11, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>Here In saying "trill upwards" I meant the looser definition i.e., an ascending run, rather than the strict musical definition as a type of shake.<<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Nonetheless, just to make this matter quite clear: the sopranos in m 52 of BWV 3/1 on the syllable "-dern" (dotted 8th note) do not have a trill (tr) marked whereas the 1st violins, playing here at this point in unision with the sopranos, do. This appears to be intentional on Bach's part. >
My experience of performing from early 18^th C handwriting is that you see a trill on figures like the end of the soprano line of BWV 3/1 whether the ink is there or not.

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 11, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>Bach also disposes the trombone, uniquely, to accompany the basses in the opening chorus but then aligns them with the sopranos in the final chorale, emphasising the journey from heartbreak to faith.<<
"them"? trombones? brass instruments? According to the NBA score which reads the Trombona/Corno part as stating quite clearly that two different instruments are used, the final chorale has a horn (not trombone) playing colla parte with the sopranos. Nevertheless, the movement from the bass cantus firmus (Mvt. 1) to the soprano cantus firmus (Mvt. 6) still stands as a significant observation.

To those becoming familiar with this cantata for the first time:

This cantata deserves more than a superficial hearing or two. In time, with the help of a score and with careful study which includes reading various commentaries, its somewhat hidden beauty and profundity will be increasingly revealed to the listener.

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 11, 2007):
Chris Rowson wrote:
>>But why assume it was Saturday night for a Sunday performance? Could it not equally have been to get the parts ready for a rehearsal that might have been scheduled for Saturday? Or Friday?<<
But where is the evidence for Bach having scheduled rehearsals? The only conjecture, to my knowledge, which actually assigned a single rehearsal to a specific time and place is that given by Arnold Schering who placed the usual rehearsals (without citing any evidence for this) in the Saturday afternoon Vespers, services which he claimed were poorly attended and which had a longer period of silent prayers for the congregation. Doug Cowling immediately criticized this notion based upon his notion of what the Vespers service entailed. This has caused me to revise my thinking on this matter as well with the possibility of sight-reading the music directly in the early morning Sunday service in one main Leipzig church followed by another performance in the other main church late morning/early afternoon.

>>Besides which, I am not so convinced that the evidence for the timeline proposed is conclusive. Some parts of the interpretation seem rather strained. (Vide references to "may explain","strangely enough still does not", not to mention the need to posit a sick baby.)<<
Perhaps you will be willing to conjecture another possibility to explain why AMB is present at certtimes but not at others? If she is involved in copying, why is she always involved with those tasks which come at the end of a copy session? Perhaps you could try to come up with another scenario to explain where these mysterious anonymous copyists come from. Dürr's list of these seems to be quite long: examples: Ia, Ib,...Ik etc. and IIa, IIb,..IIf etc. (Roman numerals probably representing the cantata cycle year in which they appear).

If you desire certainty in the study of Bach and his music, then I suggest instead reading sources such as that written by Ross W. Duffin ("How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony", Norton, 2007, p. 148) who states that Brad Lehman had deciphered and published Bach's encoding of the temperament for the WTC. Here you will find no phrases such as "may explain","strangely enough still does not", etc. but only that the days of doubt "ended for good in early 2005 when ... Bradley Lehman deciphered and published Bach's encoding...." and "There is no question that Lehman convincingly solved Bach's puzzle" and "Bach's temperament is not ET" and "In fact, the...temperament given back in figure 7 is Bach's own 'well-temperament' as deciphered by Lehman. This was Bach's ideal for keyboard music, not ET."

I suggest that you will enjoy reading such published testimony with conclusive evidence and prefer its certainty and clarity to my attempts to unravel material which does not as easily lend itself to a treatment like that given by Duffin above.

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 11, 2007):
Chris Rowson wrote:
>>My experience of performing from early 18^th C handwriting is that you see a trill on figures like the end of the soprano line of BWV 3/1 whether the ink is there or not.<<
Bach, however, compared to other early 18th-century is different. The Scheibe-Birnbaum controversy has documented this fact. Bach wrote out in greater detail what he expected from his performers than most other composers of that period who expected the performers to embellish their parts according to an established method.

Peter Smaill wrote (February 11, 2007):
Hello Thomas et al

Indeed so - a single trombone with the Basses in the Chorus BWV 3/1, and according to Melamed, it is a cornetto with the sopranos in the Chorale BWV 3/6 as you rightly also say using the NBA. However checking my error (well Duerr just says "+instrs! ) prompts another little discovery.

In table 10-2 of "J.S. Bach and the German Motet", Melamed sets out all the uses of cornetti and trombones with all the motet-like movements.

This escalation from Basses/trombone to sopranos/Cornetto is also found in BWV 135, "Ach Herr, mich armen Suender straf nicht in deinem Zorn", which as the title suggests starts with a movement of low-lying supplication such that the sinner avoids divine anger; also an unusual use of the basses for the chorale as with BWV 3/1.

The transition is from penitential depth to the highest height: "Ehr sei in Himmels Throne mit hohem Ruhm und Preis dem Vater und dem Sohn",("Homour be in Heaven's throne with high renown and praise to the Father and Son").

Thus Bach uses twice this word-painting technique in a similar contextual position. BWV 135 is for 25 June 1724 ; and BWV 3 for 14^th January 1725. The normally undemonstrative Duerr says of the first-composed,

"as a whole, this Cantata captivates not so much by brilliant concertante writing as by its intensive textual interpretation. Whoever pentrates deeply into the beauties of the composition will learn to love it for this very reason"

and of BWV 3:

"A work particularly impressive for the quality of its invention".

The epithets strike me as interchangeable and Bach has been especially inspired in both to derive his inventiveness from the texts.

Douglas Cowling wrote (February 11, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< Here In saying "trill upwards" I meant the looser definition i.e., an ascending run, rather than the strict musical definition as a type of shake >
The soprano figure at "wandern soll" certainly looks like a preprared trill to the high A.

Douglas Cowling wrote (February 12, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Nonetheless, just to make this matter quite clear: the sopranos in m 52 of BWV 3/1 on the syllable "-dern" (dotted 8th note) do not have a trill (tr) marked whereas the 1st violins, playing here at this point in unision with the sopranos, do. This appears to be intentional on Bach's part. >
Looks like we're channeling Bach again!

Eric Bergerud wrote (February 12, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< But where is the evidence for Bach having scheduled rehearsals? The only conjecture, to my knowledge, which actually assigned a single rehearsal to a specific time and place is that given by Arnold Schering who placed the usual rehearsals (without citing any evidence for this) in the Saturday afternoon Vespers, services which he claimed were poorly attended and which had a longer period of silent prayers for the congregation. Doug Cowling immediately criticized this notion based upon his notion of what the Vespers service entailed. This has caused me to revise my thinking on this matter as well with the possibility of sight-reading the music directly in the early morning Sunday service in one main Leipzig church followed by another performance in the other main church late morning/early afternoon. >
I am getting more than a little confused. Are we suggesting that morning service was used for practice and then, with the kinks worked out, Bach would roll out the finished work in all of its glory for those taking in the matinee? There is a lot in Wolff I don't understand if this "instant cantata" model makes any sense. Unless I misunderstand Wolff totally, New Church and St. Thomas' at different choirs and cantors. I don't even see that it is clear from Wolff that the same musical program on any given Sunday was the same in the two. (Wolff does mention that the hymns were chosen by the cantors. And would it be unreasonable to assume that morning service on a normal Sunday was the most heavily attended?) And what does one make of Wolff's note that "each alumni cubicle either contained or provided easy access to a keyboard instrument, so that students could prepare for lessons and learn their cantata parts." And lastly, if Bach's music was so hot off the presses that the boys had to practice in front of the congregation, why would Bach print, at his own expense, handouts for the congregation containing cantata texts for six weeks in advance? No one doubts Bach's genius, but he was the head of an organization and no organization functions without structure, planning and some kind of planning. Frankly I think you give Bach and his artists capabilities I doubt anyone could have possessed.

On another point, in Wolff's description of teaching at St. Thomas School he claims students had seven hours of required musical instruction under Bach per week. How would this stack up with a modern boys music school?

Neil Halliday wrote (February 12, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
<"..the sopranos in m 52 of BWV 3/1 on the syllable "-dern" (dotted 8th note) do not have a trill (tr) marked whereas the 1st violins, playing here at this point in unision with the sopranos, do.">
One detail: in the same bar in which the sopranos begin their final run on "wandern", the 2nd oboe leads the instruments into a repeat of the opening ritornello; which results in this (2^nd oboe) part, which has the flattened (ie, naturals on) F and G (commented on by Julian) in the second beat of the next bar (same as the in 2nd bar at the start of the movement), clashing against the F# and G# that conclude the 1^st violin's trill in this bar (noted above). Of course this will probably only be noticed if one plays these parts on a keyboard (although I expect the 2^nd oboe and the 1st violin players might be aware - and surprised - by it). Nevertheless, Bach must have had some fun writing those parts (A major clashing against a form of A minor?).

Shifting tonality is certainly a feature of this movement. Each choral episode ends with the polyphony in tupper voices (SAT) set over a pedal point in the basses and continuo (this pedal point being the last note of the cantus firmus for each line of text), and concluding with chords in F# minor, E major, B minor, and A major respectively. As well, a pedal point (F#) supports the TAS voices preceding the 4th line's cantus firmus. The third line ("the narrow way is full of trouble") has particularly chromatic harmony.

I have Rilling's [3] and Harnoncourt's [2] recordings of this cantata.

In the opening chorus, Harnoncourt [2] has the better oboes, but Rilling [3] the better strings and choir (I can identify more of the SAT lines), so I listen to Rilling.

Rilling's bass aria [3] suffers from the addition of a double bass to the already `dire' cello line; Harnoncourt's cellist [2] bring better phrasing and expression to the line. Both singers are good. I prefer to listen to Harnoncourt.

The pleasantly tuneful duet is most enjoyable in both performances; both have a relaxed `andante' approach to the music. There is more vibrato from Rilling's female singers [3], but H's singers [2] are not without vibrato either.

[I think I would present the `chorale with recitative' movement with a piano realisation of the continuo (see BCW score), to get a break from the overused cello and expressionless organ.]

Bradley Lehman wrote (February 12, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< If you desire certainty in the study of Bach and his music, then I suggest instead reading sources such as that written by Ross W. Duffin ("How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony", Norton, 2007, p. 148) who states that Brad Lehman had deciphered and published Bach's encoding of the temperament for the WTC. Here you will find no phrases such as �may explain�,�strangely enough still does not�, etc. but only that the days of doubt "ended for good in early 2005 when ... Bradley Lehman deciphered and published Bach's encoding...." and "There is no question that Lehman convincingly solved Bach's puzzle" and "Bach's temperament is not ET" and "In fact, the...temperament given back in figure 7 is Bach's own 'well-temperament' as deciphered by Lehman. This was Bach's ideal for keyboard music, not ET."
I suggest that you will enjoy reading such published testimony with conclusive evidence and prefer its certainty and clarity to my attempts to unravel material which does not as easily lend itself to a treatment like that given by Duffin above. >
1. This topic that you're bringing up: what does this have to do with the present discussion, at all? I'm curious, because I have offered no comment about BWV 3; I had the computer turned off all day yesterday, and wasn't here for any participation. Nor does Dr Duffin's book mention BWV 3, or any other vocal music by Bach. But thanks for the nice advertisement of Dr Duffin's fine book, and its enthusiastic words about my work! It's encouraging that you're beginning to endorse good recent scholarship in this way.
http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall06/006227.htm
http://music.cwru.edu/duffin/Norton/Letter.html

2. Which other pages of Dr Duffin's book have you read, in addition to page 148 (which you've quoted from several times already in the past month, but only that one page each time)? You're implying here that Dr Duffin's book is an enjoyable read (which I've done four times so far, start to finish), so I'm just curious how much of it you've personally read and enjoyed too, and which other bits you might single out as especially useful in ensemble intonation. I think it's a terrific book, very enjoyable and informative, and I've been recommending it to friends and colleagues over the past several months. I had a professional bassoonist over to the house on Saturday to rehearse some Telemann, and I had Dr Duffin's book right there on the harpsichord to talk about
afterwards. We also discussed the differences between modern bassoon reeds and Baroque bassoon reeds, and I have learned quite a bit from this colleague who plays both. For our rehearsal on Saturday I set up the basic intonation system recommended in Dr Duffin's book (i.e. regular 1/6 comma), and it worked perfectly for this Telemann piece. Not surprisingly, since it was a system published by Telemann himself.

Bradley Lehman wrote (February 12, 2007):
<< "Acciaccatura" from Walther's Music Dictionary is a term applied only to keyboard music. It is a 'crushing together of notes which do not belong together'. Domenico Scarlatti has a number of examples of this in his harpsichord sonatas. It does not appear to be used for vocal music.
"Accento" or German "Vorschlag" is what you are referring to here. There are various subtypes for this embellishment. >>
In case anybody's interested in understanding this topic: 17th/18th century use (leading into Walther's definition) had nothing to do with the chirping 19th-century type of melodic acciaccaturas that we normally think of, whenever the term comes up today among people who have taken music lessons. (Like the bit at the start of Mahler 4, or in Ponchielli's "Dance of the Hours"--the part in "Fantasia" with the dancing hippos and crocodile....)

Rather, it was a specialized way of souping up the harmony within basso continuo practices, and considered to be an essential feature of really good taste in expert musicianship (as cited by Geminiani and others). Bach himself supplied some notated examples: for starters, those in the sarabandes of the E major French Suite, E minor Partita, and G minor English suite. And Heinichen in his book made a distinction between the ones that use half steps vs whole steps.

An excellent survey article by Peter Williams covers the Walther reference, Scarlatti, and lots more. That's in the October 1968 issue of Musical Quarterly, which see.

Bradley Lehman wrote (February 12, 2007):
< Is it my imagination or is this a very, very "sharp" cantata? Bach modulates into some very distant keys. >
It certainly looks that way, especially in the duetto. But also keep in mind: it probably didn't sound as "sharp"-oriented as it looks on the page. The continuo organist was playing down a whole step and with two fewer sharps; and the two oboi d'amore playing/reading up a minor third and with three fewer sharps.

Net result there in that duetto: violins and any bowed-string bassline played in E major; but organ played in D major, and oboes in G major.

Even when the music modulates as far around as G# minor, there, that's only putting the organ part into F# minor and the oboes into B minor.

Similar remarks for cantata 49 with its several concerted movements. The obbligato organ solo is being played in D major, while the strings are in E and the oboe d'amore in G.

And in the "O Mensch bewein" at the end of St Matthew, part 1: same thing. Strings and flutes in E, but continuo in D and oboi d'amore in G.

Or "Et in Spiritum sanctum" of the B minor mass: bowed bass in A, but continuo organ in G and the oboi d'amore in C.

Or the "Kyrie II" there: F# minor, but it's only E minor for the continuo organ and A minor for the oboi d'amore.

In character, from the central perspective of the basso continuo on the organ, playing in all its original keys: the "B minor Mass" is the "A minor and C major Mass". This also puts the "Agnus Dei" into F minor instead of G minor, of course; with the gravitas of F minor befitting that subject, just like in the F minor "Ich ruf' zu Dir" of
Orgelbüchlein. The character for the ensemble's expression comes from the keys the organist is playing in...not necessarily matching all pitches, of course, but more at the level of grabbing the overall expressive mood that is created by the key itself. More on all that: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/vocal.html

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 13, 2007):
BWV 3/1 Time Signatures

The time signature in the Alto, 2^nd Oboe d'amore, and Viola parts for mvt. 1 is cut-time (C with a vertical slash), but the remaining parts have only a C (4/4) time signature. These 3 parts were copied by J A Kuhnau, an otherwise very reliable copyist. Also, Bach made no effort to change this time signature when he corrected the parts. What does this mean?

I have noticed this irregularity only a few times in the past, but have not paid close attention to the frequency of its occurrence. I do remember, however, coming upon a comment somewhere in the NBA KBs where the editor indicated that Bach did not appear to distinguish between these two time signatures, but also that is was more apparent or restricted to the Leipzig period or some portion thereof. Since seeing it just once, I have not been able to find this comment which could be potentially important.

A recent serious attempt to wrestle with this problem and many others pertaining to Bach's tempi and rhythmic practices has been made by Ido Abravaya in his "On Bach's Rhythm and Tempo", Bärenreiter, 2006. There we find statements such as the following:

p. 41: "It should be questioned, whether a distinction between cut-time (C w/vertical slash) and simply C (4/4) in Bach's printed works is always purposefully intended, or meaningful."

p. 176: "Quantz and Kirnberger represent the extreme opposites of tempo philosophy: Quantz (perhaps on grounds of practicality rather than principle) presented a rigid, quasi-proportionistic picture of tempo as a variable, whereas Kirnberger regarded it as a flexible, rubber-like entity. Equally conspicuous is the discrepancy between Quantz's precepts and the tempo indications in his own music. But it is their difference of method, ultimately leaving one with the dilemma of choosing between impractically rigid 'practical' instructions, or precepts vague enough as that may never become explicitly wrong. But examining Bach's actual policy of tempo indications is even more perplexing, as its lack of system does not even approximate any of the tempo philosophies of this time -- or ours."

Bradley Lehman wrote (February 13, 2007):
< p. 176: "Quantz and Kirnberger represent the extreme opposites of tempo philosophy: Quantz (perhaps on grounds of practicality rather than principle) presented a rigid, quasi-proportionistic picture of tempo as a variable, whereas Kirnberger regarded it as a flexible, rubber-like entity. >
Cool! Kirnberger's secret contribution to the history of rubber should probably be added to this handy and fascinating timeline: http://www.bouncing-balls.com/timeline/timeline2.htm
Too bad he didn't figure out vulcanization way ahead of Goodyear, and go into a lucrative side business for himself.

Anyway, thanks for yet another reference to a fine recent book, really being on a roll to read and recommend new stuff. Ido Abravaya, "On Bach's Rhythm and Tempo", Bärenreiter, 2006. Looks like another enjoyable one to read. Do you know of a good US distributor for it, or is it just easiest to go from German Amazon? Amazon.de

What's his intriguing-looking idea about "durational strata" as advertised there? Is it like "the big beat" and "hypermeter" that I'm familiar with, or the "tactus" distinctions in George Houle's excellent book Meter in Music, 1600-1800: Amazon.com or something else entirely? Houle's is an absolutely essential book to have, IMO....

Ed Myskowski wrote (February 13, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< Too bad he didn't figure out vulcanization way ahead of Goodyear, and go into a lucrative side business for himself. >
Hold on a second! Or was that Salieri's line. Charles Goodyear was almost on my block. I have done geology programs for second-grade guys at the Goodyear School in Woburn MA.

My life goal would be to have an elementary school named for me, except they are all named for me. Where you go for Edziu-cation.

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 13, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>What's his intriguing-looking idea about "durational strata" as advertised there?<<
For music before 1600, Abravaya quotes Willi Apel for the most succinct description of durational strata:

"In looking over, for instance, the works of Orlando di Lasso or Palestrina the uniformity of the notation is striking..The old masters.[wrote] all their pieces in the same note-values, chiefly "brevis, semibrevis, minima", and "semiminimum", the "fusa" being used only in groups of two for a quick cadential ornamentation in the character of a mordent."

Limiting himself at first to the conservative motet (vocal) style, Abravaya observes that "uniform notation" is one of the essential features of this style:

p. 8: "Within this uniformity, each stratum fulfills definite functioins, which may be described as follows (for 'tactus allabreve {cut-time} notation):

I. The slow stratum (semibreve and longer notes), the level of the old-style 'tactus' beat, that is, one hand motion (either up or down) of a 'tactus allabreve.' On this level alone, there is little differentiation here between lighter and heavier beats. Harmonically, this level is the strictest, allowing no dissonances.

II. The middle stratum (minim) allows - albeit not often - dissonances as passing notes; but they occur primarily as syncopated suspensions, which are also prepared and resolved at the same (minim) level. The Palestrina style has often been regarded as a hovering style, free of dynamic accents, lacking differentiation between light and heavy beats; but this applies mainly to the slow stratum (I). In the middle stratum, the rules of dissonance 'per se' are an adequate differentiation between weak and strong minims (even ignoring dynamic accentuation). This level is also the domain of syllabic singing, while faster strata are normally melismatic.

III. The fast stratum (semiminim), the level of melismatic 'virtuoso' singing. Fast singing imposes certain vocal melodic limitations (like avoiding ascending melodic skips from downbeat notes). Conversely, some liberties in dissonance treatment are granted (passing and auxiliary notes, anticipations, 'cambiatae', etc.) Only very limited syllabic activity is allowed.

IV. The vocal-'ornate' stratum (fusa) is the fastest one in 16th-century vocal style. There is practically no distinction at this level between consonance and dissonance; but melodic movement is most limited, allowing no skips at all. Its vocality is emphasized in that it is usually limited to short ornamental figures in groups of two (seldom four) notes; longer groups of 'fusae' are normally avoided in vocal music."

p. 33
>>"The age of thoroughbass" is the famous epithet given by Hugo Riemann to the Baroque era. The 'Basso continuo' became the main hallmark distinguishing Baroque styles from earlier periods, as well as from the following Classical era. The rhythmic concomitant of the basso continuo, the so-called 'walking-bass' texture - although it is inseparably associated with the bass line, hence with harmony in general - also governs an entire 'durational' stratum, the middle one (II), lending it particular significance. The walking bass persisted from Monteverdi's time to Bach, but still often occurs in compositions of later generations as well. As we shall see, the walking-bass element was also used in Baroque 'stile antico' as an additional 'modernizing' factor, whereas in the next generation, the late 18^th century, it represented a 'retrospective' element. In other words, it is the same stylistic component signaling musical modernism in early Baroque, and conservatisim in the Classical .<<

p. 116-117
"Did Bach use proportional tempi? The idea that Bach, or most of his contemporaries, regarded rhythmic and tempo proportions (i.e., long-term simple arithmetic relations between the durations of a given note value), as a universal or general principle, should apparently be ruled out. But this does not preclude the use of arithmetic proportion for more limited aims and ranges, for example, over metric changes within a single piece, or even between adjacent pieces or movements. Here Bach refers to changes of the modern (17th-century) time signature ('Taktart') in its older sense of proportional sign, either simultaneously or consecutively. The persistence of a constant beat pulse throughout such changes may be particularly 'apparent/conspicuous' when it occurs jointly with 'the persistence of a cantus firmus', in the form of a chorale melody. Well-known examples are in the passage from Verse 2 (3/2) to Verse 3 (9/4 or 9/8) of "O Lamm Gottes unschuldig", BWV 656, as well as the concluding chorale of the cantata "Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht" (BWV 105/6) where the 'proportional retard' of the string tremolo (16ths - triplets - eighth notes) is cued by changing time signatures in the string parts (C - 12/8 - C), while the vocal tempo remains constant."

Bradley Lehman wrote (February 13, 2007):
[Abravaya's book about rhythm - thanks for these excerpts:]
< p. 8: �Within this uniformity, each stratum fulfills definite functions, which may be described as follows (for �tactus allabreve {cut-time} notation):
I. The slow stratum (semibreve and longer notes), the level of the old-style �tactus� beat, that is, one hand motion (either up or down) of a �tactus allabreve.�(...)
II. The middle stratum (minim) allows � albeit not often � dissonances as passing notes; but they occur primarily as syncopated suspensions, which are also prepared and resolved at the same (minim) level. (...)
III. The fast stratum (semiminim), the level of melismatic �virtuoso� singing. (...)
IV. The vocal-�ornate� stratum (fusa) is the fastest one in 16th-century vocal style. There is practically no distinction at this level between consonance and dissonance; but melodic movement is most limited, allowing no skips at all. >
So basically...this stratification of function (different levels within the metric structure) is almost the same as the "rules" in writing Fuxian counterpoint, as to what types of dissonances or leaps are allowed to happen at which layers.

And it's apparently also similar to the stratification of Phrase, Beats, Pulses, and Taps: as analyzed throughout the book Dance and the Music of J S Bach by Meredith Little and Natalie Jenne.

Stile antico, dance music, whatever: they exhibit these strata of different note-values moving at different speeds, and having different functions in the construction (and performance) of the music.

...All of which represents one of the important processes musicians work out by practicing and rehearsing the music, i.e. learning it thoroughly to prepare for performance. :)

- Which notes are more important than which other notes, belonging to which layers;

- How much accentuation or articulation they should receive, according to their layer;

- How much room there is to bend the notes with rubato or an inegal within a layer (but not across layers);

- How the word underlay fits or goes against the scheme of these layers;

- Which whole bars or beats should be "weak" or "strong" (or in 18^th century terms, "bad" or "good") vis-a-vis other bars or beats, so they receive more or less emphasis in the performance (such as singing weak syllables more quietly or shortly than strong syllables, just as they would be done in speech....);

- Which layer of the meter the conductor should be indicating as the basic unit, for each different section of the music (here's where the C-vs-cut-C stuff comes in, I believe);

- Which layer(s) of the music are appropriate for the musicians to introduce additional ornamentation, whether it's Italianate divisions or French-styled signed ornaments. The ornamentation belongs to the notes in these various layers, and it's important to recognize that some of the layers themselves already are ornamentation, to be played/sung with the appropriate freedom and making it sound improvised.

All of which is basic to the musicianship of Harnoncourt, Leonhardt, and other fine musicians who have studied these rhythmic principles. This is why the performances don't simply sound like a steady chug of sight-read notes, all the same as one another; and why weak bars/beats/syllables are performed more quietly/shortly than strong ones.

It's tied to an understanding of rhetoric and speech patterns, too. The music can be viewed like an outline of main points and sub-points and decorative points, etc, and played/sung that way too, to bring out its structure and message most clearly.

Thomas Braatz wrote (February 13, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>All of which is basic to the musicianship of Harnoncourt, Leonhardt, and other fine musicians who have studied these rhythmic principles. This is why the performances don't simply sound like a steady chug of sight-read notes, all the same as one another; and why weak bars/beats/syllables are performed more quietly/shortly than strong ones.
It's tied to an understanding of rhetoric and speech patterns, too. The music can be viewed like an outline of main points and sub-points and decorative points, etc, and played/sung that way too, to bring out its structure and message most clearly.<<
The disjointed and unmusical performances by these performers (this is a general statement which means 'more often than not' but certainly not 'always') appear to be exaggerations of the principles of 'Affekt' and any theoretical rules established by musicologists. Often the over-emphasis of these principles in practice results in distortions such as increased emphasis on certain notes and an increased detachment between one note and another in a phrase. The unaccented notes simply disappear, become inaudible. This is no longer musical rhetoric but the destruction of a melodic line or the removal of the underpinning of the vocal declamation of a recitative. The equation: speech heard on the street is the same as what should be heard in a recitative as well is another exaggeration caused through misunderstanding of "Klangrede". Just because Harnoncourt believes that ugly ideas must sound very ugly in music with aggressive sounds which tax the singer and/or instrumentalist to the limit, does not mean that Bach would have performed certain passages the way Harnoncourt does nor would Bach have followed the dogmatic pronouncement by Monteverdi that the singer should sing the way he normally speaks ("recitar cantando" with a much stronger emphasis upon 'recitar' than 'cantando'). Harnoncourt makes the mistake of conflating Monteverdi's goals in performance practice with those which he considers Bach would have followed likewise.

Neil Halliday wrote (February 14, 2007):
BWV 3/1; chromatic structure of main motif

An aspect of the main motif of BWV 3/1 (apart from the chorale melody) is its chromatic structure (as opposed to its nature, which is obvious), which had escaped me until now (thanks to Thomas for pointing it out in the previous discussions).

This two-bar motif, first appearing on the 2^nd oboe and lasting for two bars, is built on a descending chromatic scale of 6 notes, from A down to E inclusive, with each note of the chromatic scale occurring in succession on the beat (on beats 2,3 and 4 in the first bar, and beats 1,2 and 3 in the second bar).

I had been regarding the motif as merely a major scale figure (in A major at the start) with G and F naturals occurring toward the figure's conclusion, but a superior consideration sees its structure as actually being built on the 6 descending chromatic notes, as outlined above.

And yet this motif, and the ritornello in general, retains more than a hint of major scale sweetness, in contrast with the severity of the trombone reinforced bass cantus firmus in the choral sections.

Chris Rowson wrote(February 14, 2007):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< An aspect of the main motif of 3/1 (apart from the chorale melody) is its chromatic structure (as opposed to its nature, which is obvious), which had escaped me until now (thanks to Thomas for pointing it out in the previous discussions). >
.Yes, and this degree of chromaticism reinforces my "tentative conclusion" that this was not written for people to sight-read at Divine Service. Look at Oboe 2 in bar 9! Even at the very slow tempo I favour for an Adagio, this is likely to be misread the first time.

And how could anyone going to play continuo for this without having heard it and not have some horrible accidents?

Julian Mincham wrote (February 16, 2007):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< And yet this motif, and the ritornello in general, retains more than a hint of major scale sweetness, >
Neil I think I look on it slightly differently. It is built upon the descending chromatic scale certainly but I feel that the significant notes are the G and F naturals (rather than the G and F sharps) -each occurring on one of the main beats of the bar. I feel that they are crucial in establishing the character of the movement. Thus for me it's not quite that a major key sweetness remains despite the chromatic scale but the other way around----- rather a minor key somberness colours and subdues the (usually somewhat brighter) major qualities.

I labour the point a bit because I have found numerous examples where Bach has created effects of exquisite sadness from the major mode and one inevitable seeks to find how he does it. Time and again one part of the explanation is the incorporating of the minor notes (i.e. flattened 3^rd, 6^th and 7^th) into the otherwise major melody or harmony. There are examples of all three occurring within a couple of bars.

The flattened 3rd often occurs harmonised with a diminished 7^th chord. One of my favourite examples of this is the alto aria from BWV 30--an incredibly jazzy 'blues-like' effect.

Bradley Lehman wrote (February 14, 2007):
< Yes, and this degree of chromaticism reinforces my "tentative conclusion" that this was not written for people to sight-read at Divine Service. Look at Oboe 2 in bar 9! Even at the very slow tempo I favour for an Adagio, this is likely to be misread the first time.
And how could anyone going to play continuo for this without having heard it and not have some horrible accidents? >
I have some similar comments about Mvt. 5, the Duetto for soprano and alto, being impractically hard for an ensemble to sight-read accurately. Fine music, of course, but needing serious work from musicians at any level.

The Duetto has two singers, two oboes d'amore in some reasonable unison with violins, and improvised continuo from an unfigured bass line. And this is one of Bach's relatively easy bass parts to improvise from, most of the way, although a sight-reader from this (seeing only his own part in isolation) will be hitting a lot of downbeat resolutions way before the melodic parts are ready to finish their 4-3 suspensions. Whoops. The way to learn those is to hear the other parts in rehearsal, and/or write in cautionary figures so the organist knows what to expect.

There are also some unexpected chords that are simply going to be missed on first go, such as the third and fourth bars into the middle section (i.e. after the fermata that marks the A-B-A structure). Right there it's not at all obvious from the unfigured bass part alone that we're modulating into F# minor, let alone in a harmonic inversion. It looks like C# minor, B major, E major, and A major, going only by the bass notes; but it's really C# minor, then an E# diminished 7^th with the soprano's surprising D natural (whereas a C# and a 4-2 chord would be the first guess after B major is wrong), and then F# minor (but inverted) on the downbeat. But that's just the organist's problem. Whoops.

We also have to deal with several oboe and violin players all accurately counting their syncopated entrances, through the whole aria. The difficulty of unison blend between strings and oboes has already been mentioned, too: unison is a notably difficult texture to play cleanly.

And the alto singer's part stays up higher than average. And his second entrance is at a surprising time interval, only one bar behind the soprano instead of two. Meanwhile, the soprano gets to deal with various leaps of fourths, fifths, sixths, sevenths, and octaves; and runs going up and down after them, with long melismas, and presumably with clear diction. Should we mention stamina? This aria alone goes on for some seven to nine minutes.

Xavier Rist wrote (February 16, 2007):
BWV 3 Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid

On Mvt. 1 Chorus
The atmosphere of quiet resignation and abandonment of this piece is really sublime and poignant. Bach achieves this expressive goal through an extremely rich polyphonic and harmonic writing (of usually at least 6 real parts) and the wonderfully interlaced braid (or would you say strap work?) of the two oboe d'amore parts in the opening tutti, later resumed by the upper voices of the choir, the basses and trombone providing with the choral line the only element of trust to which the Christian can cling to, on the "narrow way" of his redemption. In a previous post, Thomas Braatz has given us an accurate and thorough analysis of the movement, to which I wish to add just a few remarks.

Let's notice in passing the resemblance between the first notes of the oboe theme and the main motive of BWV 109 "Ich glaube, liebe Herr" opening number, another of Bach's most extraordinary chorus. In BWV 3, I am sure it has been noted that the main theme has two slightly different "profiles", weather it is given to the oboe or to the voices. The four first notes are the same and then the melodic design of the next two beats is different in the instrumental and vocal versions, before coming back to identical again. Since this is not so common, I have been wondering about it for some time before understanding why. Here is the explanation: if Bach would have left the melody exactly as it is in the first bars, he would not have been able to do close fugue entrances in the vocal parts. The theme simply doesn't lend it to such a treatment under that form. In order to elaborate the contrapuntal section he had in mind for the choir he had to change the melodic design of those two beats in the middle. The wonder is that he kept those two "faces" of the melody coexisting during the whole movement, making a virtue of necessity. This kind of detail says a lot about his compositional process, and the supreme freedom with which he invents his own rules along the way, refusing to feel constrained in any way by his material.

I also would like to single out the alternation between chromatic passages (the ones that come from the three first bars "kernel") and diatonic ones, like bars 4 and 5 where Bach introduces the "sigh motive" on a moving bass line. This motive allows Bach to use harmonic retardations that form dissonant 7th and 9th chords on every beat, in such a way that the musical tension is maintained on a very high level, despite the fact that it is tonally steady. Then, from the end of bar 7 to bar 9, he will combine the two motives (a slight variation on the sigh motive under the return of the chromatic oboe dialog) adding another level of enrichment, before returning to a safer and relieving A major in bar 10 and 11.

Let's finally turn our attention to the three first bars, the "kernel". It is worth it because, as so well put by Thomas in his commentary, "it is very much like a seed from which everything organically unfolds and evolves". It is not easy to explain it clearly without the help of musical examples, but I will try. The bass line holds on all along a tenuto A. On that tonic pedal is built a harmonic scheme following a chromatic descendant line in the oboe parts: 1st beat : low A (continuo) - 2^nd beat : middle A (2nd oboe) - 3^rd beat : G sharp - 4^th beat : G natural / 1^st beat : F sharp - 2^nd beat : F natural - 3^rd beat : E - 4^th beat : high E (1rst oboe) / 1^st beat : D sharp - 2^nd beat : D natural - 3^rd beat : C sharp - 4^th beat : C natural / 1^st beat : B (here the bass line leaves the pedal and goes to an E, the next bars being in E major and not anymore chromatic as I explained before).

It is important to understand that, although this chromatic line can be cut in half (2 times 6 descending notes separated by an octave jump), the harmonic pattern on pedal tells us clearly that it is indeed a 3 full bar unit. Let's not forget the rest of the strings which, in the background, complement the harmonies by drawing ascending diatonic movements. In other words the chromatic/diatonic dialectic that we have seen is going to play such a role in the course of the piece is already expressed in those first bars.

But here comes the intriguing part. Although being present all along the piece (except in the diatonic parts) and governing the harmonies, this descending chromatic line, obviously the core of the movement (one could say the kernel of the kernel), is indeed a "ghost" line and you have to guess it among the twists and turns of the melody more than you really hear it. Never, not once, is it expressly enunciated melodically and the notes that form it are never placed one besides the other and are always separated by passing notes, embroideries (hope it's the right English term) and other appoggiaturas. As a matter of fact there is not, in any part, one single chromatic descending movement in the entire piece. I don't know if there is any other Bach movement where chromaticism plays such an organic part (and God knows there are many) which share that amazing characteristic. For me, it can only be intentional but, unable to furnish any valid explanation other than conjectural, I leave it to your reflection. One last thing. On the fact that the last note of each choral period is prolonged in the basses and trombone (a process Bach uses rather often), I differ from Thomas' interpretation. I see it as a reminder of the first bars pedal, not the other way around. But it is really a nuance.

Cheers all. I will be away for a few weeks.

Stephen Benson wrote (February 16, 2007):
Discussion re. BWV 3 has gotten a little bit lost in the shuffle this week, and with all the talk about Harnoncourt on another thread, I don't want the week to slip by without mentioning van Egmond's BWV 3 bass aria in the Harnoncourt recording [2].

Chris Kern wrote:
< In Mvt. 3 we are still in the "despair" section of the text, the feeling of which is illustrated by the continuo. Both arias in this cantata exhibit the same pattern that is found in a lot of the chorale cantatas -- in my mind it's a problem but maybe others appreciate it more. Basically the arias are very long, and unbalanced towards the A section (which is then repeated in full). This is especially problematic for me in a continuo-only aria like this one, and there is a tendency for them to become tedious by the time I'm nearing the end of the repeat of the A section. (Whittaker evidently agrees with this; he comments near the end of this cantata that "it is advisable under modern conditions to shorten the Da Capo in most solo numbers.") >
Commentary on this cantata generally seems to support the view expressed here of the bass aria as "long" and "tedious". I don't find that to be true, nor do I agree with its characterization as an expression of "despair". The text rather seems to indicate the joyful suppression of despair, i.e., "Although I may feel hell's anguish and pain, yet always in my heart there must be a true heavenly joy." Van Egmond's supple and agile bass at an animated tempo infuses the melody with that joy.

One of the playlists I keep on my iPod is a collection of personal cantata movement favorites entitled "Bach Cantata Highlights", and this recording is right at the top of the list. The more I listen to Harnoncourt [2], the more I find that this movement is not atypical of his overall approach to Bach. One thing he is particularly good at is communicating this sense of joy, not only as a reflection of the text, but in the very act of music making itself. Cantatas BWV 26 and BWV 37 are two other excellent examples.

Ed Myskowski wrote (February 16, 2007):
Chris Stanley wrote:
< Is it pure coincidence that this is the third week in succession where there is a soprano alto duet aria? >
As I mentioned earlier, it seems unlikely that it is coincidence between BWV 124 and BWV 3, especially at this crucial stage of the chorale cantata cycle, early in the half of the liturgical year from Advent to Trinity, with Bach at the absolute peak of his creative intensity. This is a convenient place to note that Bach was very likely interrupted or diverted by the death a few weeks later (Jan. 27, 1725) of the probable librettist of the cycle so far, Andreas Stübel (Wolff, B:LM, p. 278, among numerous sources).

I find the S/A duets especially enjoyable in the Leusink cycle [4], since we get to hear the oft-maligned Buwalda at his best, and paired with S Ruth Holton, who some of us imagine (note the careful choice of word, spare the flame) to be both boyish and Bachian. It makes a pleasing sound to my ears.

I hope to listen in more depth and post some comments on Sunday, but if not, even with all the distractions, there has been substantial discussion of the music the past two weeks. Thanks to everyone, especially new member Xavier.

Xavier Rist wrote (February 17, 2007):
Some quick notes about the recordings of BWV 3. I have listened to Leusink [4], Harnoncourt [2], Rilling [3], Koopman [6] and Suzuki [7].

Mvt. 1 Chorus
Leusink [4] starts beautifully, his instrumental introduction is among the best. Alas, as soon as the choir comes in, all pleasure is spoiled - at least for me. The sound that comes from his sopranos and altos is so... strange (to put it mildly) that it makes me physically uncomfortable. Oh, and the 2nd oboe plays an awful wrong note in bar 9 (fourth beat: he plays C sharp instead of C natural). It is clearly not an accident, since he does it again in the coda, and it doesn't speak very highly of Mr Leusink's hearing abilities...

Rilling [3] displays his usual musical qualities, but I am not crazy about his version, mainly for sound balance reasons. In the beginning I find that his oboes are too far away and the strings are too loud. And when the choir enters, Basses and trombone are too much in the foreground and tend to cover the other parts.

Also for sound reasons, Koopman [6] is less than satisfactory. Not only is it recorded from far, like you are sitting in the 30th row, but they all seem to be playing behind a thick cotton curtain. As for the continuo part, it is so barely audible that they might as well have been playing in the vestry. Needless to say, most of the expressive power of the piece vanishes with such a treatment. You expect the richly layered depth of a Rembrandt or a Georges de la Tour and all you get is this pale, watery aquarelle...

Suzuki [7] is well polished but I can't help feeling he stays on the surface. The slow tempo he chooses to adopt doesn't really allow the music to move along. In the "sigh motive" bars the accents are so exaggerated that you feel you are stuck in moving sands and you loose sense of the overall line. The choir sounds good but their German articulation is really too imprecise.

In Harnoncourt version [2] I like many things: the tempo (not too slow), the fact that the oboes are very present and also their sound, meaty and unrefined yet very expressive. In the choir sections, the balance between the choralline, the other voices and the orchestra is exactly right. The whole movement has a kind of raw quality that I find very idiomatic. More importantly it is for me, by far, the most moving rendition.

Mvt. 2 Choral/Recitative
This original little piece of "teatro da chiesa" alternates three elements: a small continuo ritornello (based on the beginning of the choral treated in shortened values), the periods of the choral in a simple four voices harmonisation, and recitative sections given in turn to each solo voice.

The main differences between versions reside in the tempo of the ritornello and choral which go from slow (Rilling [3]) to moderate (Leusink [4], Harnoncourt [2]) to fast (Koopman [6], Suzuki [7]), and of course the soloists, but they are generally good so everybody will choose according to his own preferences. I personally like Harnoncourt the best, his rendition is pure and simple with excellent singers. Leusink chooses to have the four soloists sing the choral: it is a good idea and they do it extremely well.

Mvt. 3 Bass Aria
Although it has its beauty, I must admit I don't particularly care for that aria, and none of the versions I heard was convincing enough to have me change my mind.

Mvt. 5 Alto/Soprano Duet
In this heavenly duet, four parts of equal importance (continuo, violins in unison with oboe d'amore and the two voices) interweave and overlap like in a perfect little construction set, conveying an overwhelming feeling of felicity. Unfortunately you don't get that feeling in most versions I listened to.

Harnoncourt [2] is really laborious, like he is worried that his boy soprano won't be able to finish the aria. And indeed the child sounds scared all along. Not exactly what the text and music say... Also, Harnoncourt cuts the violin phrase in so many slices that one looses sight of the overall line.

Rilling [3] treats it in the exact opposite way, all legato and "à la corde", and it is not better. His alto doesn't sing so well, with an ugly vibrato, and the result sounds more heavy and awkward than joyful.

Koopman [6] is ridiculously fast, his singers become quickly very agitated, busier to keep up with the tempo than to make music.

Suzuki [7] is less fast, but still too fast. His implacable tempo lacks any form of flexibility - a tendency that I have already noted in his interpretations even after listening to only a few of them - and the general impression is one of indifference.

Not only Holton and Buwalda's rendition with Leusink [4] is clearly above all other versions, it is for me the only one that really does justice to this divine piece. The tempo is perfect with a gentle swinging quality, the four parts are well balanced and the violins and oboe line is phrased just right. Both singers seem perfectly at ease and enjoy themselves. When performed like that one would listen to this movement over and over, like it is a foretaste of paradise.

My conclusion is that this cantata has not been as lucky as some others with recordings. For the opening chorus, there is only one version that I truly like (Harnoncourt [2]). It is the same for the duet where only Leusink [4] satisfies me fully.

Ed Myskowski wrote (February 20, 2007):
Chris Kern wrote:
< Discussion for the week of February 11, 2007
The text has nothing to do with the biblical reading for the day; Whittaker comments that it may have some connection to the theme of change that's in the miracle of turning water to wine -- the stanzas of the chorale move from despair to hope and trust in God, and the music follows the same path. >
A bit of a stretch, but it is consistent with the theology of Bach's librettos (not necessarily, in my mind, the same thing as Bach's individual beliefs): earthly life (water) is nothing, in comparison to life after death (eternal life in heaven, wine). Presumably, the alternatives to heaven are something analogous to wine gone sour?

This is reminiscent of the following notes by Alan Lomax, to the LP (Atlantic 1351) 'Negro (sic) Church Music':

<Death have Mercy, sung by Vera Hall, Livingstone, Ala. White spirituals express a real love of death and a longing for the release from the earthly torment in the orderly pleasures of heaven. [This concise statement agrees with my understanding of the Lutheran outlook] Negro spiritual composers take a somewhat different view. They look forward to heaven as a place of rest, where there will be love, equality, and joy. Death itself is feared. <end guote>

I think the question of Bach's personal theology in relation to 'orthodox' Lutheran theology is a topic open to a lot more discussion, regardless of the theology expressed in the cantata librettos. I find Bach's lifelong encounters with death, as detailed and analyzed in Gaines (Palace of Reason), much different from the Lutheran doctrine, perhaps better expressed by the Negro spiritual outlook (at least as interpreted by Lomax).

< Mvt. 6 is the usual closing 4-part chorale; the journey of the text from darkness to light is complete here and the singers express their faith in Jesus and their desire to be with him. >
<O my Savior, if I were only with You!>, in the Pamela Dellal (c) translation of the closing line. Lutheran? Bach? What's the rush, I say, and I wonder if Bach wouldn't agree.

< [2] Harnoncourt:
The singers in the duet mix together much better; I always like hearing H&L's boysopranos even when they're not so great -- this one does a good job, I think. >
I have only just now got around to giving this a quick listen, a very impressive version of the duet.

< [4] Leusink:
Holton and Buwalda's voices blend together magnificently in the duet >
As is this one, which I previously mentioned briefly. A nice opportunity for comparing Ruth Holton with a boy soprano, which I will get back to.

< (As a side note, this is one reason I like listening to as many versions as possible -- this is not the first time that a cantata has been "rescued" for me by listening to a 2nd or even 3^rd or 4^th version of it.) >
Not to mention the possibility of assembling in mind the 'ideal' composite performance, probably just a bit different for each of us.

Sorry (or blessedly?), I am out of time for the moment.

Harry W. Crosby wrote (February 21, 2007):
Ed Myskowski's response to Chris Kern resonated with me in ways other than those of the moment. Chris had said of the Harnoncourt recording of BWV 3 [2]:
CK: < The singers in the duet mix together much better; I always like hearing H&L's boy sopranos [2] even when they're not so great -- this one does a good job, I think. >
EM: < I have only just now got around to giving this a quick listen, a very impressive version of the duet. >
CK: < Leusink [4]: Holton and Buwalda's voices blend together magnificently in the duet >
EM: < As is this one . . . A nice opportunity for comparing Ruth Holton with a boy soprano >
HC: Also, to me, a good opportunity to observe of this pair that I have found Buwalda [4] particularly effective in duets. The lower parts of his range tend to be fuller, stronger than those of the typical counter-tenor, therefore a more effective contrast with either sopranos or tenors. Good examples abound throughout the Leusink series.

CK: < As a side note, this [comparison] is one reason I like listening to as many versions as possible -- this is not the first time that a cantata has been "rescued" for me by listening to a 2^nd or even 3^rd or 4^th version of it. >
EM: < Not to mention the possibility of assembling in mind t'ideal' composite performance, probably just a bit different for each of us. >
HC: Amen to all of this. I bought the BACH EDITION largely for the purpose of acquiring another 70 or so cantatas not represented in my collection. Since then I have been continually surprised to find Leusink & Co.'s [4] versions more to my taste than others by better known conductor/groups long admired by me, and reportedly by members of this comment group. This is not a blanket endorsement. In some comparisons, I found Leusink wanting, sometimes very much so. But in my tests, with my individual taste, he is winning near half the time. I find his soloists generally strong, especially Holton and Remselaar, and all of them capable of excellent recitative delivery. I attribute part of my admiration for Ruth Holton to her style of delivery and the very quality of her voice --- which some find unimpressive. Often, when I hear her sing an aria, recitative, or duet, her voice realizes my preference in style and tone quality. A few minutes ago, I compared her version of the lovely recitative in BWV 59 after listening to two of her competitors on the two different Gardiner recordings. I found this a straightforward example of the elements that attract me (and by no manner of means the most vivid such contrasts).

Neil Mason wrote (March 4, 2007):
You wrote:
< The Duetto has two singers, two oboes d'amore in some reasonable unison with violins, and improvised continuo from an unfigured bass line. And this is one of Bach's relatively easy bass parts to improvise from, most of the way, although a sight-reader from this (seeing only his own part in isolation) will be hitting a lot of downbeat resolutions way before the melodic parts are ready to finish their 4-3 suspensions. Whoops. The way to learn those is to hear the other parts in rehearsal, and/or write in cautionary figures so the organist knows what to expect.
There are also some unexpected chords that are simply going to be missed >
Did JSB himself play the continuo part in the cantatas? If so, he'd know what to expect!

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 11, 2007):
BWV 3

This cantata brought out a lot of discussion, so much that it was difficult keeping up with the reading, never mind adding commentary. One item that slipped by was the Gardiner recording [5].

The specific performance is my first choice, although both Leusink [4] and Koopman [6] are nearly as good, if you happen to have those already. To my ears, tempo extremes are the single item which make a performance difficult to listen to (wannabe drummer's perspective?). There are none of those in this instance, although certainly at other places in Gardiner [5] (indeed, in all the current series).

Given that, the live perfomance recording adds a lot to my enjoyment. Is that a distinction I can prove to you, conclusively? Can I point out details that say 'this is live'? Can I even find words to describe the overall effect that I like?

No, no, and no.

I did not attempt a side by side comparison of individual movements. If I did, I suspect I might prefer Buwalda and Holton [4] in the duet, which some of us liked enough to comment on previously. Overall, Gardiner's performance [5] seems to have a special quality, a continuity, often lacking in some of the studio pastiches, however fine the soloists and other performance details.

This is a set worth considering for a number of reasons, and it has had predominately positive comments in the past. Besides the live recording and pilgrimage concept, which may or may not appeal to the individual listener, the packaging is attractive, and the notes add original insights to our (the big WE) thinking. The layout on disc, by liturgical day, prepares us for round three of the discussion a couple years down the road. If chronology is horizontal, then having a look by across the chronology by liturgical reference, as Doug (and Julian, and me) have suggested, may be termed 'vertical' (?).

Long way to go before then, but never too soon to prepare. And with gardiner, you can do a quck and easy preview for the sets already released, when they come up in the chronologic discussion, as in this case. It will be another level of illumination.

Cantata BWV 3: Complete Recordings | Recordings of Individual Movements | Discussions: Part 1 | Part 2

Back to the Top

Last update: �February 26, 2008 �08:37:42