Cantatas BWV 36, BWV 36a, BWV 36b, BWV 36c - Discussions

Cantata BWV 36
Schwingt freudig euch empor
Cantata BWV 36a
Steigt freudig in die Luft
Cantata BWV 36b
Die Freude reget sich
Cantata BWV 36c
Schwingt freudig euch empor
Discussions - Part 2

Continue from Part 1

Discussions in the Week of May 6, 2007

Julian Mincham wrote (May 6, 2007):
Cantatas BWV 36, BWV 36b, BWV 36c - Introduction to Discussion - Week of May 6, 2007

CONTEXT

In introducing this fine but relatively unknown work, I have to confess to some lack of enthusiasm. This is not, I hasten to say, because of any lack of its quality. Unlike some of the works introduced earlier this year (e.g. BWV 143 and BWV 158) there is no suggestion, as far as I know, that this work was not originally composed by Bach himself. In fact it existed in five different versions two sacred and three secular (Boyd) and Boyd quotes this as evidence of Bach's own high regard for the work.

I treat this with some degree of caution. I suspect that Bach's reuse of much of his music was because it was convenient and appropriate for purpose rather than that he had a particular affection for it. However, in this regard, and because of its complicated resurrections, Cantata BWV 36 might be compared with Cantata BWV 80 about whose convoluted history there was much discussion on list last year.

Perhaps BWV 36 will generate further discussion of this kind?

No, my objection is that I would have preferred not to have interrupted our progression through the final quarter of this Leipzig cycle of church cantatas at this point. Certainly it seems that BWV 36 was composed some time in 1725 although I am not aware that an exact date has been determined. So it is important for list members to note that in the discussion of this cantata we have temporarily abandoned the great second church year cycle for an (originally) secular work of about the same period.

Nevertheless it is a salutary reminder that even whilst in the midst of composing fifty-two cantatas within a year as a part of his contribution to his canon of 'well regulated church music' Bach still, amazingly, found time to fulfill other commissions and to give them the same full attention to detail and requirement that his ecclesiastical cycle demanded.

For Koopman's cycle Wolff's notes [11] tell us that the work survives in two versions of which Koopman's recording is of the second. The first version was from a copy made in 1731/2 and possibly dates from 1725, presumably the reason for its inclusion at this time on the weekly list. Subsequently Bach transformed it into a two-part, eight movement piece. Boyd gives a rather more complicated account of the work, existing in five versions.

The first version is thought to have been written as birthday tribute to an academic at the Leipzig University with a text probably by Picander (Boyd).

Minor gripes out of the way, to the work itself.

BWV 36 The cantata of the week Schwingt freudig euch empor Soar Joyfully aloft For the first Sunday in Advent

Part 1 chorus--chorale (sop/alto)--aria tenor)--chorale
Part 2 aria (bass)--chorale (tenor)--aria (sop)--chorale

This version is dominated by the four chorale movements (Mvt. 2, Mvt. 4, Mvt. 6 & Mvt. 8) and the use of Luther's hymn Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland. The opening chorus firstly bids voices to soar into the starry heavens but then asks them to wait, since the distance to the Lord is not great. As so often, Bach writes quite differently for the choir in the expression of these two different thoughts. The idea of 'soaring above' is inherent within the rising imitative entries of the voices (bass, tenor, alto and sop) with writing becoming chordal and homophonic for the later 'stop and wait' commands.

The construction of the ritornello is a minor miracle too complex to describe here; but look at the marvelous ways in which the three ideas in the very first bar are extended and developed---a) the triplet b) four rising semi-quavers and c) the three note da-da-dah rhythm.

The duet (Mvt. 2) is not, in my view as striking a movement as many from the fourteen to be found in the second cycle. The continuo bass line suggests movement or treading ----'come now--- and its increased rhythmic convolutions may be indicative of the marvels of the world. Its melodic structure is derived directly from the shape of the closing chorale.

The tenor aria (Mvt. 3) maintains the minor mode and appears to be a tender and restrained expression of affection rather than of deep love. The first part of the cantata ends with a four-part chorale (Mvt. 4) of gratitude and exultation, returning us to the key of triumph, D major.

And this is also the key of the first movement of part 2, an ebullient bass aria (Mvt. 5) which has certain characteristics in common with the opening chorus. The first bars contain the motivic germs of the entire movement and, just as before, they will be woven into a tapestry of energetic contrapuntal lines. This is an open and extrovert welcoming of the Saviour.

The sixth movement (Mvt. 6) is reminiscent of the Bachian chorale prelude, the tenor intoning the phrases of the chorale amidst swathes of furious counterpoint. This is the most urgent and dramatic movement of the work, presumably intended to represent the Lord's conquest over feeble flesh.

Interposed between this and the closing four-part chorale we come across a soprano aria (Mvt. 7), strongly contrasting in mood------even with enfeebled or mute voices we may praise and adore God in his heaven. The key is major, the time signature that of the traditional pastorale. Counterpoint sweeps around the vocal line suggesting God's all-encompassing benefice. The middle section, returning to the minor, becomes a little more muscular as Bach represents the shouts and resoundings as they shall be interpreted in Heaven:-- even though, whilst offered upon this earth they may seem to be rather mundane efforts!

But there is no formal da capo and no return of the long instrumental ritornello at the end. Bach wants to leave us with the image of the sounds as they are received by God in Heaven rather than with representations of the feeble endeavors we know them to be on earth.

An enjoyable and satisfying work which incorporates many examples of superb compositional skill. But not to, my mind, as experimental or ultimately satisfying as many of the ecclesiastical cantatas written in the same year.

But list members may well prefer to differ.

Cantata link: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV36.htm

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 6, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< I treat this with some degree of caution. I suspect that Bach's reuse of much of his music was because it was convenient and appropriate for purpose rather than that he had a particular affection for it. However, in this regard, and because of its complicated resurrections, Cantata BWV 36 might be compared with Cantata BWV 80 about whose convoluted history there was much discussion on list last year. >
Certainly Bach had a great atttraction to the chorale, "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland". In the cantatas and the organ works, the chorale is the basis again and again for superlative music. I might even suggest that the three organ preludes on the chorale are Bach's finest chorale fantasies. Perhaps because of my prejudice, I thought the duet was quite wonderful.

Do we have any evidence why certain cantatas were written in two parts? I've never been ableto discern any pattern. Some of the two-part cantatas have a direction for "after the sermon", but is there any evidence, documentary or internal, that the second part may have been performed later in the service at the communion? I don't see any specifically eucharistic themes in the second half. Gunther Schiller has a long list of cantatas which he suggests would have been suitable for performance "sub communione" but there doesn't seem to be much scholarly study of the subject.

Ed Myskowski wrote (May 6, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< I suspect that Bach's reuse of much of his music was because it was convenient and appropriate for purpose rather than that he had a particular affection for it. However, in this regard, and because of its complicated resurrections, Cantata BWV 36 might be compared with Cantata BWV 80 about whose convoluted history there was much discussion on list last year.
Perhaps BWV 36 will generate further discussion of this kind? >
The discussion of BWV 80 is on hold, awaiting my obligation to make personal contact with Christoph Wolff. He was unresponsive to eMails (not especially surprising, given the nature of our group), and he canceled a commitment to speak at at he recent Cantata Singers BMM (BWV 232) performance, where I had hoped to 'corner' him. Wolff was not evasive (as if he would notice!), scholarly travel intervened. I have not picked up that thread, but I have not forgotten. BWV 80 provenance is alive, open for comment, and my further input after contact with Prof. Wolff is pending.

Speaking of BMM (BWV 232), isn't that a perfect example of Bach recycling favorite materials into a larger, more enduring, format? It appears to be the single work he pondered the longest, and which has the broadest, most inclusive and central, Christian texts. It also appears that he had little concern for its contemporary (18^th C.) performance, more a legacy for the ages. That would be us. If he could have known, would he have bothered? I think yes.

Or perhaps he was still orthodox Lutheran, and was devoting it strictly to God, completely indifferent to performance? If that is the case, why the careful exclusion of any sectarian (as Bach knew 'sectarian') texts in the BMM (BWV 232)? Strictly, broadly Christian, other than the Eastern Orthodox or coptic sects, which were probably as strange as Turks to him. At least he made his peace with the Popes.

Apologies to Julian if I have overlooked relevant points. I violated my own rule to listen first, then speak. i started writing without reading the rest of the introduction.

It did generate discussion. ¿Better than silence? Hmmm.

Ed Myskowski wrote (May 6, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< Gunther Schiller has a long list of cantatas which he suggests would have been suitable for performance "sub communione" but there doesn't seem to be much scholarly study of the subject. >
Activate the armies of grad students?

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 6, 2007):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< Speaking of BMM (BWV 232), isn't that a perfect example of Bach recycling favorite materials into a larger, more enduring, format? It appears to be the single work he pondered the longest, and which has the broadest, most inclusive and central, Christian texts. It also appears that he had little concern for its contemporary (18^th C.) performance, more a legacy for the ages. That would be us. If he could have known, would he have bothered? I think yes >
There really isn't any evidence to suggest the B Minor Mass (BWV 232) is a closet work intended as some universalized religious statement beyond the petty polemics of various churches. Stauffer shows pretty conclusively that the monumental scale of the mass is consistent with the grandiose manner of settings from the Dresden Chapel Royal. The weight of evidence points to a projected performance in Dresden. Bach's sons referred to it as the "great Catholic mass" without any qualification that it was non-liturgical. Stauffer even suggests that there may actually have been a performance of the mass.

This Romantic attempt to remove the music from its historical context is similar to the mythologizing of Beethoven's "Missa Soleminis". Although it was not finished in time, the Missa Solemnis was commissioned for a specific occasiion, the consecration of an aristocrat as bishop. Its scale does not make it non-liturgical: Mozart's Mass in C Minor is also in this tradition of grand masses which goes back to Bach.

Ed Myskowski wrote (May 6, 2007):
[To Douglas Cowling] No intent on my part to remove the BMM (BWV 232) from its historical context, or to Romanticize it. Generalize perhaps, but that it is the point. My understanding (admittedly superficial, so I post not to expound, but to learn) of the genesis of the BMM (BWV 232) is that it was assembled and composed over the last decade, or more, of Bach's life, and that it was not the only work he wrote in that era without apparent concern for performance particulars (Art of Fugue (BWV 1080), Musical Offering (BWV 1079), more?).

It is perhaps difficult in our day and age of raging wars of Christ (Oil) versus Islam (Oil) versus Judaism (no Oil), to recognize that the details of one Christian (or Islam or Judaic) sect versus another could be a matter of raging concern. That's people.

Is it Romanticizing the issue to speculate (¡Yes, I said it, and I mean it, precisely!) that Bach's scope expanded as he aged and matured, gracefully or not? That he was seeking an inclusive rather than a divisive sense of Christ?

Isn't that the nature of intelligence, after all (not to say genius)? Less flexible minds remain locked in place, often happy as a clam (ACE).

Jean Laaninen. wrote (May 6, 2007):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< It is perhaps difficult in our day and age of raging wars of Christ (Oil) versus Islam (Oil) versus Judaism (no Oil), to recognize that the details of one Christian (or Islam or Judaic) sect versus another could be a matter of raging concern. That's people.
Is it Romanticizing the issue to speculate (¡Yes, I said it, and I mean it, precisely!) that Bach's scope expanded as he aged and matured, gracefully or not? That he was seeking an inclusive rather than a divisive sense of Christ?
Isn't that the nature of intelligence, after all (not to say genius)? Less flexible minds remain locked in place, often happy as a clam (ACE). >
I appreciate Ed's efforts to raise the perspective of inclusion and exclusion. Today Theology as a discipline is as much about diversity in some ways as it is about Christ and the Trinity. My History of Theology Professor at Fuller, the reknowned Collin Brown, began his course with the idea that God is three in one (found in Bach's work), but much, much more than three in one. I treasure that perspective because it keeps narrow mindedness from my door while allowing me to live productively. And I think Ed is correct in mentioning the warring struggles of our day because it was in the character of Bach's writings to deal with the suffering of this world while pointing to a better existence in communion with God. And as Doug points out a vast body of Bach's work is liturgical. But what I love about Bach is that his work has a transcendent quality that takes me and many others well beyond the smallness of our own minds to imagine glorious possibilities. Sounds subjective--I know, but Bach is a communal composer and his music goes beyond simple emotion. He wrote to inspire. In his orchestral writing and choral offerings he embraces the community so we have to say he is inclusive in many respects. I believe it was because he found centeredness in community and his belief in God that he could write as he did. Of course his education and association Buxtehude, helped.

It requires a great deal of understanding of Bach's emotional content to play his piano works, for example, well...not to mention considerable skill.

Really I am all for recognizing the historical elements of Bach's time and the sufferings of those days. And while as Lutherans we employ our creeds on a regular basis I think it is worthy to realize that other Christian bodies have their own statements of faith or explanation of beliefs that also have a deep validity. We are not the only ones who are right--God save us from our pride, I think. I have many Catholic relatives, some Jewish relatives and even a cousin by marriage who is an Arab. I do not divide myself from these folks. And Bach did not compose his works for Lutheran's only as has been pointed out in the recent letters.

To be truly open to others and their experience of Bach, let alone many other issues, we would have had to have been raised in an environment where accepting others with the love of God prevailed over having some kind of imaginary or real enemy. Sad to say many times people cannot function without an enemy. More important to me today is that even though I will never become a great diva as I had once hoped, I can learn Bach's music and record it for friends and family...many who carry burdens even deeper than the wars of our time. If we have the love of God in us, or even a kind humanitarian perspective regardless of denomination or religion and if we carry the inspiration of Bach in our hearts there will be many times when we will want to be loving and kind, and pick our battles I think with great care. I don't mean we need to disregard the history of Bach, but the big question in my mind is how will we use these works today? I would love to hear how forum members use Bach to make a difference today.Will we all in our diversity find a common meeting ground where the value of these works transcends even my own petty thoughts at times, or will we use them to polarize? Ed is right in bringing this to our attention.

Last night I called my 98 year old pastor father and told him about the debates swirling around on the forum. Dad was a championship debater in his youth and loves nothing at times more than a good argument. And he argues Theology, morality and the social issues of the day. But his comment when I finished talking was that people will always use anything they can find as a handle for the points or money they wish to make. I think Bach's works are too great to be used for negative purposes, and as limited as I am since I am sort of a semi-professional musician, I admire beyond words people who have mastered any of the intricacies of Bach. The person who knows all the great recordings and can even compare them to help others find something good to listen to gets my vote of appreciation. There are people who want to know and those with much to offer. The scholar who can tell me about who wrote the poetry gets my vote. The articulate members of other branches of Christianity for what they find in Bach, get my vote. And so on... I was also grateful to the members of the forum last year when I was trying to figure out what these public domain issues amounted to, and to an ASU professor/conductor of Bach Cantata's who pointed me in the direction of the Kalmus scores so I can follow the guidelines.

Yes, people will always be people, but there is so much in Bach that is on the positive side, and even if some of it doesn't match with my modern reality, I want to hear everything even though only just so much will stick at this point...I have senior moments.

Now I am ready to listen to the new cantata for the week and see what imagery will stay with me throughout the coming days.

Thanks to everyone who adds to my knowledge and perspective.

Peter Smaill wrote (May 6, 2007):
In considering the reworkings of this Cantata one of the most interesting questions in the Bach repertoire has been touched on : was the B Minor Mass (BWV 232) intended for use at the Roman Catholic chapel in Dresden- or indeed, anywhere?

Schulze thinks not, because of the insertion of "altissime" in the "Domine Deus"; the text of the Mass is strictly formulated in Roman Catholicism. On the other hand , John Butt agrees that its style in places is imitated by - though its overall length exceeds- Masses by Zelenka and Hasse which were explicitly for Roman Catholic liturgical use. He further observes: "When one considers that Bach lent a set of parts of the Sanctus to Graf Sporck of Bohemia, it is not impossible that the entire work could have been compiled for a Catholic patron."

"In the case of the B Minor Mass (BWV 232) perhaps the most useful way of summing up its meaning and content is to consider its "universality", with regard both to its place in Bach's oeuvre and its apparent ecumenism.....the complete work seems to unite both Catholic and Lutheran confessions and the concept of integration is an essential feature of Bach's compositional activity per se."

While in agreement with Butt it has to be said that it is not (yet) proven that the intention was for performance in a Roman Catholic setting.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 6, 2007):
Staying on Subject...and Cantata 36

I will do this from now on. Thanks to Doug's comment that there are those on the forum who desperately want to know Bach the man, but this is impossible, I realize now that knowing Bach the man has not been a primary concern with me. I never considered that anything but superficial knowledge was possible, and as the liberal Paul McCain describes me to be my perspective on the rules and regulations of the time is that they are interesting and historical. Therefore it is nice we have a record of these matters. So I can respect what may have been Bach's views--still harkening back to the Italian Concerto and other pieces of a more secular nature. But if one is looking, and one scholar told me perhaps tongue in cheek that the Italian Concerto, first movement, is a round--perhaps one can find theological aspects even therein. Anyway, Bach's music can be known and it is spendid and I will stick to that side of the discussion .

I found Cantata BWV 36 to be quite lovely. As a musician at heart I found the soprano solo in its gentle range very comforting, and well conveys the idea that God is not deaf. In particular I enjoyed the chorale following and the tonalities at the end that well-portray in my view the Advent season's desires. I enjoy, too, the way Bach often begins a cantata with such variety--here a solo, or duet, or choral work or a sinfonia. Truly the variety adds to why these works have sustained over the centuries. And thanks again to Julian for presenting us with a guide.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 6, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< Schulze thinks not, because of the insertion of "altissime" in the " Domine Deus"; the text of the Mass is strictly formulated in Roman Catholicism. On the other hand , John Butt agrees that its style in places is imitated by - though its overall length exceeds- Masses by Zelenka and Hasse which were explicitly for Roman Catholic liturgical use.
"In the case of the B Minor Mass (BWV 232) perhaps the most useful way of summing up its meaning and content is to consider its "universality", with regard both to its place in Bach's oeuvre and its apparent ecumenism.....the complete work seems to unite both Catholic and Lutheran confessions and the concept of integration is an essential feature of Bach's compositional activity per se." >
Bach also made an error at the end of the Sanctus where he used "gloria eius" rather than changing it to the "gloria tua" of the Roman mass (Luther had altered the phrase to make the quotation exact with Isaiah).

I still don't buy the proposal that Bach was making a universal, ecumenical statement that the churches were all one in common faith. Remember, he did set to music that horrible text about murderous papists and Turks. The texts of the mass were common to Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans buthere is almost no discussion in the 18^th century anywhere in Europe about the commonality of worship. Conversion and compulsion not coooperation and compassion were the norms of the age.

Nor can we simply say that its scale makes it impractical. Stauffer's study has detailed musical examples comparing Bach's work with gigantic settings in Dresden. There may be no documentary evidence of performance in a Catholic mass, but the Mass in B Minor (BWV 232) does not stand in isolation: it is part of a festive mass tradition.

Chris Kern wrote (May 6, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< In considering the reworkings of this Cantata one of the most interesting questions in the Bach repertoire has been touched on : was the B Minor Mass (BWV 232) intended for use at the Roman Catholic chapel in Dresden- or indeed, anywhere? >
Probably the most important thing to remember about this issue is that it is not decided either way; it could have even been both. Stauffer thinks that the title pages of the parts were once folders that the four parts were stored in (later the backs were removed when the manuscript was bound after Bach's death). This, among other things, could indicate that Bach at least foresaw the theoretical possibility of someone performing sections of the work.

I've always found it sort of anachronistically romantic to accept the common view that Bach realized his cantatas would fall into obscurity and composed the BMM to be an eternal testament to his church music ability, but there could be some kernel of truth in that as well.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 6, 2007):
Chris Kern wrote:
< I've always found it sort of anachronistically romantic to accept the common view that Bach realized his cantatas would fall into obscurity and composed the BMM to be an eternal testament to his church music ability, but there could be some kernel of truth in that as well. >
Wolff's account of Bach's final years indicates pretty conclusively that Bach didn't sit around complaining, "Mein Gott, the Classical Period is coming and no one will remember my music!"

Bach considered his library a working library and well before his death he commissioned new copies of several works so that exemplars would exist in more that one place. He divided his music between his sons, giving to each the works which he thought would be most useful. He didn't leave his library to be sold off for very little after his death, as Kuhnau's had been. He assumed that Bach and Sons, Ltd. was a thriving business and his music would continue to be performed as he had performed his relatives' works from previous generations.

The Mass in B Minor (BWV 232) is certainly an encyclopedic microcosm of Bach's entire vocal style -- so is the Magnificat. I have always felt that Bach's greatest achievement is the Cantata Project, the five annual cycles which he began when he came to Leipzig and finished five years later. Because of losses in manuscripts and only the barest suggestion of the overriding design, we are probably doomed to see this monument as a series of individual works rather than a mighty collection of 300 parts with hundreds of movements.

Neil Halliday wrote (May 8, 2007):
BWV 36

The highlights of the opening chorus are its strong rhythmic pulse (in ¾ time), the transparency/clarity of the fugue-like vocal entries, and the syncopation in some phrases in the central homophonic sections.

It's interesting to compare Rilling's 1980's church cantata [4] with his year 2000 secular cantata recording [BWV 36c - 4]. The latter presents one of the most joyous and high-spirited pieces of music imaginable. It's brisk - at 3.31, probably the fastest tempo of all the recordings of this chorus, and in stark contrast with Rilling's former time of 4.40, which is likely to be the slowest of them all. Both are well performed with excellent choral work; the latter (2000) has the better acoustic, and is of course much livelier - the triplet figures are very fast indeed. This joyous music is a good accompaniment to the (sacred) text's idea of voices soaring upward to Heaven to be close to God.

Of the remaining movements, only the three arias are common to both works; the secular cantata has the recitatives (forget them), while the sacred cantata has the interesting chorale movements. However, the secular cantata (BWV 36c, according to the booklet) ends with a joyous - and most enjoyable - chorus (including lovely accompanied recitatives for T, B and S) that leaves me wondering why Bach did not retain it for the church setting.

The main drawback, for me, of Rilling's `sacred' cantata [4] is the unpleasant, `raspy' timbre of the continuo organ, especially noticeable in the SA duet/chorale. [Harnoncourt [3] and Leusink [10], with brighter registration, are better in this regard; Koopman [11] has his rattly little "toy" organ, as usual. Otherwise, I think most listeners will find much to enjoy in any of the recordings].

Overall, Rilling's recent recording [BWV 36c - 4] has the better arias, with excellent soloists (as good as the former soloists), better tempi - and harpsichord, or sometimes lute, in place of the annoying organ. The viola d'amore in the 2000 version of the soprano aria has a sweeter sound than the `con sordino' violin in the earlier recording.

All three arias have tuneful opening phrases that set the stage for each movement. It's worth listening with the text in hand at least once or twice to see how Bach sets the syllables of the words to the notes of the music.

We get to hear the chorale melody from BWV 1 in the second of the four chorale movements. Some of the period performances of this and the last chorale (eg, Herreweghe [7] and Leusink [10], IIRC) seem overly brisk and light, IMO. Aren't these in the nature of congregational hymns (even if not sung by congregation)?

John Reese wrote (May 8, 2007):
I have been silent on this forum for the last year or so, but I've been lurking. I decided to contribute when I saw BWV 36 was up in the batting order because I've been working on a piece based on the ostinato theme from the second movement. I've always been interested in this melody, because it seems like Bach intentionally crafted it to be used contrapuntally in a variety of ways. For instance, it works as a canon at the octave which is invertible at the octave and the twelfth (perhaps the tenth as well -- I haven't tried it out). Strangely, though, Bach doesn't come close to realizing the potential of this melody in the duet where it appears.

I have had the idea to use this as a fugue subject since I was back in college, but I've finally started working on it in earnest. I've ended up writing it as a triple fugue where Bach's melody is the third subject. I'm more than halfway finished with it -- when I'm done I'd be glad to show it to anyone who's interested.

Anyway, back to lurking...

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 9, 2007):
John Reese wrote:
< I decided to contribute when I saw BWV 36 was up in the batting order because I've been working on a piece based on the ostinato theme from the second movement. I've always been interested in this melody, because it seems like Bach intentionally crafted it to be used contrapuntally in a variety of ways. >
This might explain why Bach was so attracted to the "Nun komm" chorale melody: it has such rich contrapuntal possibilities. We can see Bach experimenting in the series of organ preludes on the chorale, most spectacuarly in the fantasia-lilke three-voice fugue over the chorale in the pedal.

Please post your fugue to the files here.

John Reese wrote (May 11, 2007):
[To Douglas Cowling] I've added the file as "nunkomm_3.mid". It's largely complete, but still needs a lot of polishing.

If you want to skip to the part with Bach's subject, it's at the 4:50 mark.

Discussions in the Week of January 18, 2009

Chris Kern wrote (January 20, 2009):
BWV 36 intro

Discussion for the week of January 18, 2009

Cantata BWV 36 - Schwingt freudig euch empor

Date of first performance: December 2, 1731

Information about recordings, biblical readings, translations, etc: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV36.htm

Music example (Leusink [10]): http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Stream/BWV36-Leusink.ram

BWV 36 is the third cantata of our Advent discussion. It has a relation to several secular cantatas, and the cantata itself has no recitatives, instead having arias and chorales interspersed (added to an opening choral movement). This is one of my favorite cantatas; every movement is strong. In particular, the two movements based on Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland (Mvt. 2 and Mvt. 6) are standout movements and provide yet another occurrence of the recurring chorale theme in the Advent cantatas.

Mvt. 1
The first movement is a choral opening, exhorting believers to sing joyfully of Christ's imminent coming. I especially like the way that Rilling [4] introduced a solo violin to play one of the violin lines in this movement -- perhaps inspired by the seeming solo nature of the florid Violin 1 line.

Mvt. 2
This is my favorite movement of the cantata. It consists of a lengthy soprano and alto duet based on the first verse of NKDHH. This sort of movement shows the endless variations which were possible on the basic chorale tunes that Bach expected (probably?) his listeners to be familiar with. As often, I really like Leusink's version [10] of this -- Buwalda and Holton's voices blend together very well.

Mvt. 3
A tenor aria with obbligato oboe d'amore. The lyrics once again develop the theme of the approaching birth of Jesus compared with the entry of Jesus into the personal life of a believer.

Mvt. 4
This is a 4-part chorale of stanza 6 of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern. This is an interesting chorale because it also showed up in BWV 61, the first Advent cantata of our cycle. However, BWV 1, the chorale cantata based on this chorale, was written for the Annunciation. Of course the Annunciation is connected to the birth of Jesus. The lyrics themselves are not particularly tied to either holiday, but it must have held some connection to Jesus' birth either to Bach, or to the Leipzig church as a whole.

Mvt. 5
A sprightly bass aria with string accompaniment -- once again, Rilling [4] makes Violin 1 a solo violin, which creates a nice effect. The bass sings about accepting Jesus into his heart, a theme that was seen in both the BWV 62 and BWV 61 cantatas.

Mvt. 6
This movement is the tenor singing the chorale (NKDHH) unadorned, with accompaniment from two oboes d'amore. This is one of my favorite types of cantata movement, and there are relatively few of them in Bach's oeuvre. Whittaker says that "Bach is merciless towards the oboes d'amore, they are allowed scarcely any time for breathing." The movement is marked "allegro molto" in the score, perhaps to avoid the chorale line becoming too slow and the tune hard to interpret.

Mvt. 7
This is a soprano aria with violin obbligato. The Harnoncourt recording [3] of this is a standout -- the boy soprano is one of the best that Harnoncourt has in any of his recordings, and the slow pace allows the movement to blossom. Whittaker, after showing examples of the "dramatic" effect in the B section: "Yet the present writer has been pilloried in the press for making Bach's church music sound dramatic!"

Mvt. 8
The normal closing chorale (NKDHH again).

William Hoffman wrote (January 21, 2009):
BWV 36: Art of Parody

Cantata BWV 36 exists in as many as four variant versions, composed and compiled between 1725 and 1734. They represent Bach's compositional endeavors at arrangement and adaptation as well as parody or new text underlay. The cantatas are essentially celebratory works with parodied lyric, madrigalesque core music which Bach adapted to church usage through the insertion of chorales in place of the traditional free-verse recitatives containing biblical paraphrases related to the scriptural readings for the appointed service in the church year.

The original version or template is BWV 36c: "Schwingt frudig euch empor" (Soar up in Jubilation); April 5, 1725; congratulatory cantata for the birthday of Leipzig teacher Johann Matthias Gesner; text probably by Picander; nine movement (lyric opening and closing choruses and three arias interspersed with four recitatives; original score survives; parts utilized for subsequent versions.

This initial version was composed during Bach's watershed six-week period of Lent Season 1725. Bach had no responsibilities to present any of his second cycle of chorale cantatas for the four Sundays in Lent and Passion or Palm Sunday. Instead, he took a composer's holiday. On February 12, he produced a sacred wedding cantata, BWV Anh. 14 (text only), which had four arias which may have been parodied in his Great Mass in B-minor (BWV 232). On February 23, he premiered a lengthy shepherd's serenade, BWV 249a, for the birthday of the Duke of Weißenfels. He presented his final chorale cantata in the original cycle, BWV 1, for the Annunciation Festival, on March 25. He repeated, revised and expanded, his St. John Passion, BWV 245, adding several chorale-derived arias and a chorus from the remnants of his Gotha-Weinar Passion of 1717, for Good Friday, March 30. He parodied BWV 249a, as an Easter Oratorio, BWV 249(c), reusing the core lyric choruses and arias, for Easter Sunday, April 1, 1725.

Like Cantata BWV 36c, which had two sacred and secular versions, BWV 249(c) was adapted in its final sacred oratorio version in the mid-1730s while it's original secular version was revised as a dramma per musica with new recitatives, BWV 249b, presented as a congratulatory cantata for the birthday of a Leipzig notable, Count von Flemming, on August 25, 1726; both secular texts were published by Picander in his poetry collections.

Cantata BWV 36c underwent metamorphosis in its subsequent guises. To open the church year for the Advent Festival of 1725 or 1726, four core lyric numbers (opening chorus and three arias) were parodied and interspersed with new biblically-related recitatives, as BWV 36(d), also entitled "Schwingt freudig euch empor" (Raise yourself up joyfully), to a new next probably by Picander, with a closing four-part chorale, Verse 7, of Luther's popular Advent hymn, "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland." The next secular version, BWV 36a, "Steigt freudig in die Luft" (Soar gladly through the air) was for the birthday of the Princess of Köthen, on Noveber 30, 1726, two dbefore the Advent festival. Its final secular version, BWV 36b, "Die Freude reget sich" (Joy is stirring), another congratulatory cantata, was probably presented in 1735 for the Rivinius family and this score survives.

All of this shows Bach's mastery as a borrower or recycler, a popular, prevalent practice during the Baroque. Bach's general practice usually involved new text underlay for the lyric choruses and arias, with new text recitatives having event-specific references; although some 20% of Bach's parodied vocal moveents do involve some form of text substitution in the recitatives.

Prior to Lent season 1725, Bach had parodied four Köthen serenades for the Monday and Tuesday services in the three-day Easter and Pentecost Festival (BWV 66, BWV 134, BWV 173, and BWV 184) with simple new-text underlay, some revision of the pertinent recitatives, and new closing chorales. Bach's 1725 church service hiatus gave him the opportunity to establish a new "modus operandi" for parodies. He composed secular music conceived for one special occasion and adapted it for use as sacred cantatas such as BWV 36, for sacred oratorios such as BWV 249, and for sacred Latin contrafactions such as the Mass in B-Minor, BWV 232, and the four Kyrie-Gloria liturgy, BWV 233-36.

Another form of recycling or reusing existing works involved no text changes but musical revisions and additions. These involved some 20 church cantatas composed previously in Weimar and usually expanded for the same church-year event in Leipzig with closing chorales. In the case of three Weimar Advent and two Lent cantatas banned during the Leipzig tempus clausum (BWV 70a, BWV 186a, and BWV 147a; and BWV 54 and BWV 80a), Bach added new recitatives and chorales for other appropriate church-year services. All these cantatas were utilized during Bach's first Leipzig church cantata cycle, 1723-24, when he presented some 60 original works. The lone Weimar cantata exception is BWV 132, for the Fourth Sunday in Advent in Weimar, which Bach's son Carl Philipp Emanuel inherited.

For Advent 1731, Bach produced the final eight-movement form of Cantata BWV 36. He divided it into two parts, before and after the sermon, replaced the interspersed recitatives with three new chorales and the four-part chorale. Technically, BWV 36 is not considered one of Bach's 53 chorale cantatas. It lacks an opening choral fantasia, based on the chorale melody, as well as the use of consecutive chorale stanzas in the subsequent movements, either as written (per omnes versus) or paraphrased. Instead, Cantata BWV 36 has a literal chorale duet for soprano and alto, a literal tenor chorale aria set as a polonaise, and two four-part chorales closing Part 1 and Part 2. Bach uses the text of three verses of Luther's hymn, "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland," and closes Part 1 with a verse from Nicolai's "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern."

In the three secular versions of BWV 36, Bach substituted new recitatives for the special occasions, retained all three arias, and parodied the closing gavotte-style chorus which was replaced with four-part chorales in the two Advent Festival versions, BWV 36(d) of 1725/26, and BWV 36 of 1731.

Cantata BWV 36 was presented on December 2, 1731. It is considered part of Bach's third, incomplete cantata cycle of 1725-27, since C.P.E. Bach inherited both its score and parts set. It came at the end of what may have been Bach's last period of presenting his church cantatas on a regular basis. Bach apparently revived cantatas from his first and third cycles throughout 1731, composing Cantata BWV 140 for the final, rare 27^th Sunday after Trinity, November 25, one week prior to Advent Sunday.

Bach left three complete, exemplary cantatas for the Leipzig Advent Festival, the First Sunday in Advent: his popular Weimar cantata, BWV 61, "Nun komm der Heiden Heiland I"; his chorale cantata, BWV 62, "Nun komm der Heiden Heiland II"; and his festive secular parody with four chorales, BWV 36, "Schwingt freudig euch empor." Bach presented only one documented revival of his Advent cantatas. Sometime after 1732, he reprised chorale cantata, BWV 62.

Bach considered setting a fourth Advent cantata in Leipzig. Picander in his published libretto cycle for 1728-29, left a text, beginning with the chorus "Machet die Tore weit" (Psalm 24:7-10) for November 28, 1728. The only possible surviving remnant is the closing chorale, "Gottes Sohn ist kommen," which may survive as Bach's four-part setting, BWV 317, also known as "Gott, durch deine Güte." Bach wasn't finished with Advent. On November 28, 1734, he presented Telemann's cantata to the same opening text, "Fling the doors wide open," TVWV 1:1074, followed by the Christmas Oratorio, BWV 248, for the six services of the Christmas Season.

Ed Myskowski wrote (January 21, 2009):
William Hoffman wrote:
>To open the church year for the Advent Festival of 1725 or 1726, four core lyric numbers (opening chorus and three arias) were parodied and interspersed with new biblically-related recitatives, as BWV 36(d), also entitled "Schwingt freudig euch empor" (Raise yourself up joyfully), to a new next probably by Picander, with a closing four-part chorale, Verse 7, of Luther's popular Advent hymn, "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland." The next secular version, BWV 36a, "Steigt freudig in die Luft" (Soar gladly through the air) was for the birthday of the Princess of Köthen, on Noveber 30, 1726, two days before the Advent festival.<
Thanks for the very detailed and informative post, like so much of your work (even of the Fugitive variety)!

If I read this correctly a secular version was performed in 1726, either a year after, or virtually simuoltaneously with, a sacred version. This would seem to contradict one bit of evidence cited on these pages for Bachs sacred inspiration: that a work never reverted to secular use once a sacred parody was created, nor was a sacred work ever parodied for secular use. Comments?

Neil Halliday wrote (January 21, 2009):
Mallon BWV 36 (was: Suzuki Vol. 41)

Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
>I love the hall Suzuki records in, which has a wonderful resonance<
Similar to the resonance heard in Mallon's recording [9] of BWV 36c? Amazon.com

I like the effect of the resonance here too. Gardiner [6] also has one of the better recordings of BWV 36, though the soprano aria in both of them suffers from exaggerated strong-note/weak-note articulation by the singer.

(I note the comment from one reviewer of the Mallon [9]: "The ensemble (Mallon's) is led with a healthy vitality, and the recording mercifully spares us the very tiresome sforzando, sighing attacks and straight-tone fussiness that ruin so many well-intentioned Bach releases", something I have complained of in relation to many HIP examples).

Rilling's 36c version [BWV 36c - 4] gets my vote, for the soprano aria (proving the text is not as important as the music).

I like multiple voices on the S,A chorale lines in 36/2, but have not found the ideal version of this elaborate music; the vocal lines in Rotzsch come close but the continuo has problems.

The enlivening violin triplets in 36/1 are weak/inaudible in Koopman [11] and Herreweghe [7].

(I'm looking forward to the release of Suzuki's BWV 36).

John Pike wrote (January 21, 2009):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< If I read this correctly a secular version was performed in 1726, either a year after, or virtually simuoltaneously with, a sacred version. This would seem to contradict one bit of evidence cited on these pages for Bachs sacred inspiration: that a work never reverted to secular use once a sacred parody was created, nor was a sacred work ever parodied for secular use. Comments? >
Ed at his on-topic, thoughtful best.

Ed Myskowski wrote (January 21, 2009):
John Pike wrote
>Ed at his on-topic, thoughtful best. <
Thank you for noticing, and bringing to the attention of the whiners. Wit, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. As is that pesky log, in the words of Jesus.

Neil Halliday wrote (January 22, 2009):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
>This would seem to contradict one bit of evidence cited on these pages for Bachs sacred inspiration: that a work never reverted to secular use once a sacred parody was created, nor was a sacred work ever parodied for secular use.<
The OCC article on BWV 36 confirms this observation.

The history of the soprano aria is interesting.

The first version - secular (1725) - has obbligato viola d'amore; the final sacred version (1731) has obbligato muted violin ("con sordino"); the final secular version (1735) has obbligato flute.

Conclusion: Bach's parodies can be in either direction - secular to sacred, or sacred to secular.

Interesting side-bar: the booklet with Rilling's recording of BWV 36c (secular) [BWV 36c - 4], discussing parody, notes Spitta's views in 1880: "Bach later used most of the music in the secular cantatas in church music without making substantial changes....from this it follows that the music cannot have been entirely well-suited to its purpose in the original form".

William Hoffman wrote (January 22, 2009):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< If I read this correctly a secular version was performed in 1726, either a year after, or virtually simultaneously with, a sacred version. This would seem to contradict one bit of evidence cited on these pages for Bachs sacred inspiration: that a work never reverted to secular use once a sacred parody was created, nor was a sacred work ever parodied for secular use. Comments? >
William Hoffman replies: You are correct in your observation. BWV 36 appears to be the only cantata originating as a secular work to be parodied as a sacred work and then, some five years later revert to a parodied secular work. Virtually all Bach's parodies are secular to sacred because as originally occasional secular works, their use was fulfilled and Bach was able to reuse them as sacred works available for further sacred use, usually repeats in the church year.

We also have many secular works which were repeated with a name change or parodied for further, usually different types of secular occassions: BWV 36, 201, 204-208, 210, and 212. These are all considered repertory secular pieces for multiple use, by Hans Joachim Schulze. Interestingly, for the Kyrie-Gloria parodies, BWV 233-236, virtually all are parodies from church-year cantatas, which could have been repeated. These individual contrafactions (arias and choruses) serve dual purpose in the well-ordered sacred repertory.

We also have curious cases of piecemeal parodies of individual numbers, often from secular cantatas where the original is "lost" for works such as the Ascension Oratorio and possibly the lost Pentecost Oratorio. These "originals," all BWV Anh. with only surviving texts, were probably proto cantatas for specific birthdays, weddings, and other special celebrations and then mined or "cannibalized" by Bach for special, usually sacred uses. Some of these individual pieces went through multiple use.

Neumann's Cantata Handbuch (last edition, 1984) has an extensive Appendix 15, Parodies and Parallels, pp. 294-302. The most intriguing lost Appendices (Anhang) cantatas are those "proto" works which have one parody aria from an existing secular work, where the text layout (line length, syllable stress, rhyme schemes) fits.

We also have the texts of two "lost" important secular works which are quite intriguing in that none of the movements is an apparent parody from or to an established Bach movement. There are BWV Anh. 9, "Entfernet euch, ihr heitern Sterne," 5.12.1727, for August the Great's Birthday; and BWV Anh. 13, "Willkommen! Ihr herrschenden Goetter der Erden!," 4.28.17.38, the serenade for Saxon royalty, Gottshed text, with Bach's most progressive music. That's a lot of lost music -- or maybe someone else actually set the text or it was never set.

Finally, there is the intriguing sacred cantata, BWV Anh. 14, "Sein Segen fliesst dahger wie ein Storm," 2.12.1725. William Scheide in a recent article in <About Bach,> essays for the Christoph Wolff festschrift, suggests that as many as all four arias may have been parodied in the B-Minor Mass.

So, Ed, Thanks for letting me open up a box of pandoras.

Neil Halliday wrote (January 22, 2009):
William Hoffman wrote:
> Cantata BWV 36 exists in as many as four variant versions, composed and compiled between 1725 and 1734.<
In summary, according to the OCC, three secular versions, 1725 (36c), 1726 (36a), 1735 (36b); and two sacred, the first between 1726-1730, and the second in 1731 (BWV 36).

Ed Myskowski wrote (January 22, 2009):
BWV 36 - Art of Parody (Christian texts?)

I wrote in response to Fugitive Will, quickly attaining legendary status WOLGS):
>This would seem to contradict one bit of evidence cited on these pages for Bach's sacred inspiration: that a work never reverted to secular use once a sacred parody was created, nor was a sacred work ever parodied for secular use.<
Neil H. responds, with characteristic aplomb, brevity, and clarity (ABC?)
>The OCC article on BWV 36 confirms this observation.<
Those with very deep appreciation of the bon mot will note that my introductory line is slightly longer than Neil's comment. Who knows how long the chat will be. Guaranteed, it will be on-topic, if occasionally tangential, even axial (google a picture).

I remember like it was yesterday, summer of 2007, there was nobody hanging and talking but Julian and Neil. At the time I had no idea it was two guys from Oz, all I knew was . So every week I would write a little post, along the lines of <Thank you guys for writing, it adds to my listening enjoyment>. Note to students: I did not do a cut and paste, I changed a word here and there, to give it a flavor of originality. At this point, I was thinking of introducing some advice from my absolute maestro, so high in the sky I occasionally forget that I am channeling him: James Aloysius (sp?) Joyce, JJ to his friends. Astute readers will of course note the uncanny similarity to Bach and JJ: Jesus Juva. Life flows. Anyway, the point is: James Joyce is like my God the Father, higher than high. His advice, as I understand it: dont waste time on originality, there is so much out there just rework what you can use. Has Bachsih ring to my ears, JJ to JJ.
Honored to be listening/reading you guys, keep going.

That is a pretty long paragraph, but no time for ed. or Ed now, make the next one (thivery one) short for balance, perhaps a little intro (intrada?) to a scherzo:
Behind dinner, I heard Utah Phillips (RIP May 2008 [per student announcer, confrim before formal citation]) describe a communion ceremony for a Unitarian Church, which debates whether or not there was Jesus (or maybe it is only the Christ aspect they debate), and hence, with whom is the communion. The preacher had an inspiration: use some hi-cal bread, instead of those paltry, unleavened, wafers. The response from the communicants: 

Mvt. III
That is actually as much stuff as I had in mind, left over from dinner. TBContinued. Or not.

Ed Myskowski wrote (January 22, 2009):
William Hoffman replies:
>You are correct in your observation.<
Fugitive to fugitive, thanks, man. Perhaps the whiners will notice that while they were thinking of things to whine about, I was reading your post, responding to it, most important: taking a moment to say thanks for doing the work! Thanks is an alien concept in most other places I have toiled. Including graduate school, as a former WOGS. Here is a deal, you be WOLGS, and I will continue with my old Worlds Oldest Grad Student (WOGS). Just occurred to me: is that how the L got in there to begin with.

Those who did not take Aryehs hint to listen to the Town Council Election cantatas missed a wonderful amplification to an already oveer-the-top event. To those of you who are <bewitched, bothered, and bewildered>, so am I. But I write. I hit send. Give it a try. As best I can read (considerable), no one responded to Aryehs suggestion but me, and no one responded to my responses.

Off-topic? Most of you (especially the one who bitches most about my writing) are Off Planet (and I don't mean on Saturn with Sun Ra)! Although that might not be such a bad place to be. Sun y Ra, saw him many times, always with a smile, more important, always with a crew of devoted musicians. Including Pat Patrick, father of the governor of my state, Deval Patrick, Massachusetts.

To all my old friends, and to more recent friends like Will: BCW, better than a book. You think you will get this kind of interaction working on amanuscript? Not in my experience.

More things I wish I had thought of first: Love you madly! (E. K. Ellington) Honored (as distinct from Pride) to share your name, Duke!

Art and Parody? Parody and Art? Since the first guy stuck his hand in the mud and plastered it on the wall of the cave, 30k years ago (but see footnote), all art has derived from prior art.

Footnote: When Jakob Bronowski wrote the <Ascent of Man> in the early 1970s, there were many new ideas, not least the title: We [homo] have ascended, not desecended from the Apes (hominids).

Now, forty years later, we know a little more: there is a new group, hominins, between hominids and homo (none of these guys spoke Greek), and more startling to me, the first tools, the first artifacts (hence art?) predate homo by just a bit. They belong to hominin, by best present dating methods. This stuff changes fairly rapidly at the cutting edge (the edge of the tool, if you enjoy that analogy. I know Francis does), so dont write your grandmother just yet.

I dont know, is that too long for one post? Not long enough? I can see from the uproar, insults, etc., that everyone would like to see fewer posts from me. I presume that means longer, but not so many, posts?

Let me anticipate, save you the trouble of groping for the words. Just do a <cut and paste>, plenty of formats for that in the Lutheran dogma archives, on the following phrase.

<No, no, no. We did not want him to write longer, we wanted him to write less.>

My answer, prepared in advance, a quote from the great NYC songster, Lou Reed:
<You can all go take a f?!kin walk>

And from me. No need to shoot the messenger. If you must have violence, go to the source. Or perhaps you want the Fugitive, Old Dude (Sr.), even the Shadow. But not me. Youhave the wrong guy.

Douglas Cowling wrote (January 22, 2009):
William Hoffman wrote:
< You are correct in your observation. BWV 36 appears to be the only cantata originating as a secular work to be parodied as a sacred work and then, some five years later revert to a parodied secular work. Virtually all Bach's parodies are secular to sacred because as originally occasional secular works, their use was fulfilled and Bach was able to reuse them as sacred works available for further sacred use, usually repeats in the church year. >
To be a little more precise, Bach reused the secular cantata with a sacred text -- an "upward" adaptation. He then went back to source cantata and made a "lateral" revision with another secular text. I haven't looked at the music of the various revisions, but I doubt that the sacred cantata was the source for the second secular cantata. As far as I remember, there are no original sacred cantatas which were reworked with a secular text. Bach's compositional scruples seem to be preserved even in this instance.

Ed Myskowski wrote (January 22, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>To be a little more precise, Bach reused the secular cantata with a sacred text -- an "upward" adaptation. He then went back to source cantata and made a "lateral" revision with another secular text. I haven't looked at the music of the various revisions, but I doubt that the sacred cantata was the source for the second secular cantata. As far as I remember, there are no original sacred cantatas which were reworked with a secular text. Bach's
compositional scruples seem to be preserved even in this instance.<
With all due respect to expertise, because this is a serious topic, I think we need a diagram. It would be more clear to me. Dougs final sentence is the crucial one for the argument. Mind you, the argument is one that I personally would not consider worth making one way or the other. In plain language, I have no horse in this race. But I do enjoy the analysis of information, and conclusions. They are usually called logical conclusions, but if you dig even a broken finger nail beneath the surface, you will strike human emotion.

If I may be so bold (dicing with scholars), the questions are:
(1) Is there a downward adaptation (sacred to secular) in the history of BWV 36, or
(2) Can all the data be interpreted as either upward or lateral.
(2a) Does a lateral adaptation leave the sacred scruples intact? I think not, but I also think it is analogous to arguing about number of angels on the head of a pin.

After the Working [Mans] Mmusic orgy(r) ended, I asked my spouse what she would like to hear. <Anything but Bach> is the standard answer (I usually just put some Bach on without asking). <Play some Duke>. That is probably the closest I will get to anyone actually calling me Duke. We are listening to <Such Sweet Thunder>, fresh in my mind from rereading the BWV 62 archives; from thinking about JJ, hence Puck (up and down); and especially for . Never fails to remind me, with some sort of twisted grin, of Brad and Braatz. You can look it up, almost all of it. BCW, better than a book! Undoubtedly. More fun than FW: the sequel? Under consideration.

Julian Mincham wrote (January 22, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< As far as I remember, there are no original sacred cantatas which were reworked with a secular text. Bach's compositional scruples seem to be preserved even in this instance. >
Agreed-- both Boyd and Dürr trace back to the 1725 original birthday cantata which served as a model for later versions (at least 4 of them, 2 secular and 2 sacred). There is no exception here of bach's neglecting his one way process of deifying the secular.

Ed Myskowski wrote (January 22, 2009):
BWV 36 - Chronology of Parodies

The chronology for BWV 36 and variants, extracted from Durr:

(1) BWV 36c, 1725, birthday of a teacher (Leipzig?)

(2) BWV 36a, Nov. 30, 1726, of new text to same music, birthday of Princess Charlotte Friederike Wilhelmine of Anhalt Cothen.

(3) Unnumbered sacred cantata, for Advent 1, before and leading to (4)

(4) BWV 36, a radical reworking of (3)

(5) BWV 36b, anothsecular work based on (1) and (2), around 1735

The sequence as given here is clearly secular, sacred, secular. I believe it is in agreement with the data presented by Will.

Douglas Cowling wrote:
>As far as I remember, there are no original sacred cantatas which were reworked with a secular text. Bachs compositional scruples seem to be preserved even in this instance.<
Julian Mincham wrote
>There is no exception here of Bachs neglecting his one way process of deifying the secular<
I believe Wills post, the Art of Parody, is in essential agreement with Durr, except that Durr specifically refers to five versions, while Will mentions four (1, 2, 4, 5), and Will has the final version, the secular 36b, as 1734 instead of 1735.

On the essential point of discussion, the sequence of a secular parody of a sacred work, Will and Durr indicate that BWV 36b and 36 represent that compositional process, Doug and Julian disagree. It is difficult to see on what basis.

Although this may seem like nitpicking (I certainly would have laughed it off as such three years ago), it is quite essential to the argument in favor of sacred texts as inspiration for the music, what Doug calls Bachs compositional scruples. Further, the potential for preservation is much greater for works that finish their life in sacred format. To state the reverse, a secular parody of a sacred original (or intermediate) would be more easily lost over the centuries. There is no reason to presume that BWV 36b, following BWV 36 is unique, merely that it is the only such to survive.

Julian Mincham wrote (January 22, 2009):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< On the essential point of discussion, the sequence of a secular parody of a sacred work, Will and Durr indicate that BWV 36b and 36 represent that compositional process, Doug and Julian disagree. It is difficult to see on what basis. >
For myself the basis is that the later parodies could as well have been based upon the original work of 1725. We don't know precisely which version Bach actually took as his model for the later parodies, nevertheless what seems clear is that the first version was definitely secular--and later ones would have eminated from that in one form or another.

Bradley Lehman wrote (January 22, 2009):
> As far as I remember, there are no original sacred cantatas which were reworked with a secular text. Bachs compositional scruples seem to be preserved even in this instance.<
If we can step outside the use of text: the E major harpsichord concerto (BWV 1053) is dated 1738, according to the BWV. All three of its movements are rework of cantata movements. The first two come from cantata 169, and the third from 49. Both of those are dated 1726.

Ed Myskowski wrote (January 22, 2009):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>If we can step outside the use of text: the E major harpsichord concerto (BWV 1053) is dated 1738, according to the BWV. All three of its movements are rework of cantata movements. The first two come from cantata 169, and the third from 49. Both of those are dated 1726.<
Nice point, easily overlooked (I cerainly did, or I would have mentioned it), concisely stated. No snips required. Smack the last nail in the coffin of that dead hypothesis (never rising to theory). Does anyone have a hammer? Alas, I am equipped only with the rapier of my wit.

Julian Mincham wrote (January 22, 2009):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< If we can step outside the use of text: the E major harpsichord concerto (BWV 1053) is dated 1738, according to the BWV >
I'd like to know the basis of this dating? ?1053 has many characteristics in common with other concerti from the Cothen period and there is quite a substantial sway of opinion that?believes its genesis was a violn concerto from that period.

Certainly if it was not based upon a violin model that would make it unusual--if not unique. Maybe?it 36 this might be thought of as another work that began as a secular composition, subsequently reworked in both secular and ecclesiastical forms.

Even if such works are exceptions to Bach's usual practice, they are very rare ones. And rare exceptions, though perfectly possible, should be treated with guarded scepticism.

Bradley Lehman wrote (January 22, 2009):
[To Julian Mincham] 1738 is just the date given for all seven harpsichord concertos together in the BWV entry. It says it's based on work by Kobayashi.

I concur with all your remarks about this here, Julian.

Are there any available recordings of this on violin? I vaguely remember once hearing it played as a recorder concerto (Bruggen in a radio transcription LP?), transposed to F.

And I have here in front of me a CD claiming to be the first recording of it as a reconstructed oboe concerto, in E-flat. The recording is from 1983. Stephen Hammer plays the solo, and Rifkin conducts his reconstruction. In the booklet notes, Rifkin remarked: "The creation of the E-flat concerto probably belongs in the years around 1720."

John Pike wrote (January 22, 2009):
[To Bradley Lehman] The Hänssler oboe reconstructed version is in F. I am not aware of any reconstructed violin version recordings. The Haenssler disc includes 1045, 1052R, 1056R and 1064R.

Julian Mincham wrote (January 23, 2009):
[To Bradley Lehman] I have heard about a violin transcription but never actually heard it, Bet someone's done one though.

Incidentally on the subject of the reuse of this work in the cantatas i love the way bach manages to work a dim 7^th chord in the original work (2^nd movement) on a word (war? stress?or something like that??) that just fits it perfectly when the text is added. Can't recall the details--will look it up when I get a mo.

Douglas Cowling wrote (January 23, 2009):
BWV 36 - Parodies - Tastless or Blasphemous?

Julian Mincham wrote:
< For myself the basis is that the later parodies could as well have been based upon the original work of 1725. We don't know precisely which version Bach actually took as his model for the later parodies, nevertheless what seems clear is that the first version was definitely secular--and later ones would have eminated from that in one form or another. >
I'm talking through my hat here because I haven't looked at the various versions. But I'm willing to bet that the subsequent secular versions written take their revisions from the first secular cantata not the sacred parody. We may not have much sympathy for Bach's scruples, but I think the principle was important to him as it was for the composers before him. Palestrina and Lassus wrote masses based on quite racy madrigals, but there are no examples of sacred works parodied as secular works. I suspect that such an adaptation would be considered, at worst, blasphemous, and, at least, in poor taste.

Ed Myskowski wrote (January 23, 2009):
BWV 36 chronology

>I'm talking through my hat here because I haven't looked at the various versions.<
Nothing the WOGS (perhaps WOLGS as well?) enjoy more than academia in action

>But I'm willing to bet that the subsequent secular versions written take their revisions from the first secular cantata not the sacred parody. We may not have much sympathy for Bach's scruples<
It is not sympathy we are after, it is evidence!

>but I think the principle was important to him as it was for the composers before him. Palestrina and Lassus wrote masses based on quite racy madrigals,but there are no examples of sacred works parodied as secular works. I suspect<
Suspect? Evidence please.

>that such an adaptation would be considered, at worst, blasphemous, and, at least, in poor taste.<
Considered by whom.?

Ed Myskowski wrote (January 23, 2009):
>I'm talking through my hat here because I haven't looked at the various versions.<
This is a perfect example of what I mean by write thoughtfully. In other words, be careful not to leave an opening for some low-life wag to derail your whole argument before it gets started.

Elliot Carter Orgy(r) continues tomorrow for those who do not let their choices in life be dominated by trivia like work and/or sleep. Work and sleep? What a combo, if I had thought of it sooner I might ....

Neil Hallid wrote (January 23, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>I'm willing to bet that the subsequent secular versions written take their revisions from the first secular cantata not the sacred parody.<
I'm inclined to agree, especially if this is the only example in Bach's parodies where it appears that a secular version (c.1735) follows a sacred version (1731).

But consider the case of someone who heard the cantata in church in 1731, and then happened to be present at the secular presentation in 1735. "Bach's scruples" might be intact, but what of the hypothetical listener's sensibilities? (Bach apparently was not concerned by the
possibility).

Of course, such concerns are slightly amusing in the 21^st century - we can love the music - sacred or secular - in a church or a concert hall.

Douglas Cowling wrote (January 23, 2009):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< Of course, such concerns are slightly amusing in the 21^st century - we can love the music - sacred or secular - in a church or a concert hall. >
Actually, modern sensibilities are much more puritanical about secular works becoming sacred works. I regularly read program notes which suggest that a raunchy chanson becoming a Kyrie is somehow offensive. It never bothered Palestrina or Lassus. Romantic commentators were very sniffy about Bach's recasting of secular music into sacred guise -- as if sacred music must be pure and uniquely "inspired". Bach had no such problems with the traditional path of adaption, but I would still maintain that he would have disapproved of an original Sunday cantata being reused for an entertainment in Zimmerman's. Go figure.

Julian Mincham wrote (January 23, 2009):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< If we can step outside the use of text: the E major harpsichord concerto (BWV 1053) is dated 1738, according to the BWV. All three of its movements are rework of cantata movements. The first two come from cantata 169, and the third from 49. Both of those are dated 1726. >
I looked up the context of the use of the second movement of this concerto which I referred to (vaguely) in another email. The unexpected touch of Dm in a D major/Bm context (bars 9/10 of BWV 169/5, alto aria) is present in the original concerto. Bach does not waste this little moment. He contrives to use it as the harmonic background to accentuate the principal notion of this text ‘deiner Liebe Stirb in mir’---let the love of the world, die within me. Bach’s eye for detail is unfailing (the text of this aria deals with the love of worldy goods dying within the human breast so as to allow room for the cultivation of God rather than worldy pleasures). The musical touch of sadness here conveys a sense of sadness and regret at the loss of worldy pleasures---something that Bach, with his apparent enjoyment of food and drink, tobacco and procreation would surely have understood! The wedding of words and music is so perfect that it would be easy to assume that Bach conceived these phrases as a unity. But if, as i believe the available evidence strongly indicates, Bach was adapting a previously composed concerto movement it simply goes to demonstrate his great attention to detail, even in the contruction of parodies.

Ed Myskowski wrote (January 23, 2009):
Doug;as Cowling wrote, in response to Julian Mincham:
>But I'm willing to bet that the subsequent secular versions written take their revisions from the first secular cantata not the sacred parody. We may not have much sympathy for Bach's scruples, but I think the principle was important to him as it was for the composers before him.<
Both Doug and Julian overlook the point I tried to make early in the thread. There are statements in BCW archives, by both Tom Braatz and Paul McCain, I believe, to the effect that Bach never parodied a sacred work for secular use, and that once a secular work was parodied for sacred use, it never had additional use for a secular function.

BWV 36 contradicts the second half of the hypothesis, and Brads examples contracict the first half. The hypothesis, as stated, including the very strong word never, is deader than a doornail. Not a big deal, exactly, although the spiritual point the proposers of the hypothesis were trying to make was important to them, and is now discredited.

Neil Halliday wrote (January 25, 2009):
BWV 36 F# minor duet

I reommend that all capable (or budding) pianists play through the rather effective piano part composed for the S,A duet (Mvt. 2), available at the BCW vocal & piano score: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/IndexScores.htm

This piano realisation fully expresses all the wonderful modulations and chromatic episodes of this elaborate F# minor duet, in the most effective harmonies, most of which are not not available to be heard in the recordings which have have as usual the single cello line backed by vague/inaudible keyboard realisation.

Jane Newble wrote (February 3, 2009):
[To Neil Halliday] Thank you, Neil, for this recommendation.

I printed it out, and it is a revelation, playing through this wonderful music. The harmonies jump out and make it a very rewarding experience!!

Again I thought of the closing remarks in Maarten 't Hart's chapter on Bach's chamber-music:
(translated from Dutch) ".......filled with immense gratitude to the composer, who, when you play his music, knows how to give you the overwhelming feeling that you have been allowed to compose the music yourself."

Neil Halliday wrote (February 4, 2009):
Jane Newble wrote:
>I printed it out, and it is a revelation, playing through this wonderful music. The harmonies jump out and make it a very rewarding experience!!<
Another revelatory BCW vocal and piano score is the realisation for the continuo only tenor aria from BWV 182. This is obviously the work of an accomplished composer/arranger; note the beautiful right hand proto-melody in bars 6-9, derived from the opening ritornello, and in bar 44 (closing a long melisma on "crucify") we have the most striking chromatic harmonies. This arrangement would make a wonderful duet for flute and piano, with the flute taking the tenor part (playing in the treble clef as written).
-------
Back to the BWV 36 duet (Mvt. 2): it's worth noticing that the vocal parts (S and A lines) consist largely of canonic episodes of varying length (I count at least a dozen such episodes).

Eg, at the start of the second section, the alto follows the soprano at a distance of one and a half bars, at a 4th below.

This chorale melody is unusual in that the 4^th (last) line is the same as the first; Bach varies his material in this duet, with S (a 5^th above) following A at a bar's distance in the first line, whereas S follows A at *one and a half* bars distance,in the fourth line. The climax of the piece is reached where S takes the lead from A, with the chromatic scale in bar 44 ("God ordained such a birth to Him").

Neil Halliday wrote (February 4, 2009):
Neil Halliday wrote:
>This chorale melody is unusual in that the 4^th (last) line is the same as the first;<
Or rather, the chorale melody on which this duet (Mvt. 2) is based.

Back to the Top

Last update: ýFebruary 5, 2009 ý20:02:56