Cantata BWV 42 - Discussions

Cantata BWV 42
Am Abend aber desselbigen Sabbatas
Discussions

Cantata 42 (Rilling)

Marie Jensen wrote (April 7, 1999):
[5] I simply have to tell you about one of my favourite Bach arias, in case you might not know it. It is "Wo zwei und drei versammlet sind" from cantata BWV 42 "Am Abend aber desselbigen Sabbats" to 1^st Sunday after Easter (next sunday, but I can't wait so long) [SNIP]

Many greetings from Marie Jensen, Denmark
New member of the club, but devoted Bach fan since 1968.

Wim Huisjes wrote (April 7, 1999):
(To Marie Jensen) Marie, Welcome to the list.

[5] The Rilling performance is available on Hänssler Verlag 98.882, together with BWV 158, BWV 67.

I hope it's the same one you have on tape: Rilling started the cantatas twice: in the early sixties for a small extinct German label (some of his secular cantata performances have been re-issued by Musicaphon, hope the church cantates from that period will follow), the second time around 1970 on ERATO. That undertaking (complete cantatas) made large detours long several labels and ended up at Hänssler. They are available singly right now at mid-price, but that may change in the current Hänssler "Complete Bach" project. To check whether the CD is the same as your tape recording: the Hänssler CD has as soloists: Augér, Hamari, Schreier, Huttenlocher (recorded 1980/1981).

[6] There's an attractive performance by Herreweghe (Harmonia Mundi France HMC 901328, coupled with BWV 21 (with the counter-tenor Gérard Lesne singing your favourite aria (indeed it is breathtaking!).

[4] TELDEC issued a 2-CD set, drawing from the complete cantatas by Leonhardt/Harnoncourt.

Personally I prefer the Rilling BWV 42, agreeing with your comments.

Hidden triple concertos

Olivier Raap wrote (December 4, 1999):
Cantata BWV 99 "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan" opens with a Coro movement that seems to be an arrangement of a part (allegro?) of such a lost triple concerto: a concerto in G for flute, oboe d'amore, violin, strings and continuo. Maybe some major parts of the original work are not used in the cantata, and the solo violin part is relatively unimportant. Perhaps the work originated as a double concerto for only flute and oboe d'amore. If that would be the matter, a second part (slow tempo) of this concerto could be found in the opening Coro of cantata BWV 125 "Mit Fried' und Freud' ich fahr' dahin". Those cantatas are composed in 1724 and 1725, relatively short after the Köthen years. Maybe a Köthen concerto that is lost is borrowed for composing them. I didn't find any 3^rd movement yet.

Another triple concerto, a concerto in D for 2 oboes, bassoon and continuo, can be assembled. For the 1st movement (allegro?) we can use the opening Sinfonia of cantata BWV 42 "Am Abend aber desselbigen Sabbats" For the 2^nd slow movement the alto aria "Wo zwei und drei" can be used, but much reconstruction work has to be done. As a final fast movement the opening Sinfonia of the Easter Oratorio is a good choice. The trumpets and timpani, that probably are added later, have to be omitted.

Discussions in the Week of April 30, 2000

Aryeh Oron wrote (April 30, 2000):
Background

This is the week of cantata BWV 42, according to Jane Newble's suggestion. After so many discussions in previous weeks about early cantatas, such as BWV 131, BWV 106, BWV 196, BWV 4, etc., we have now to discuss a cantata from the Leipzig period. After so many first courses, it is now the time to put our teeth in some meat. And what a wonderful main course was chosen to us by Jane. This is the glorious BWV 42, with its very special subject, a memorable Sinfonia and one of the most beautiful Arias ever composed for Alto. It is also a rare opportunity to listen to one of the great conductors doing a Bach cantata, and to compare his rendition to other performers, more identified with Bach cantatas.

Personal Viewpoint

Based on two LP’s, a single CD and a recorded TV program that I have, Herman Scherchen was a terrific Bach conductor and music maker. True, he was from the ‘Old School’ of conducting and he did not use HIP instruments, etc. (who knew about it in the early 1950’s, except perhaps the very small circle of Leonhardt and his close friends), but he had a very special way of approaching Bach’s music. On the one hand, he was a researcher and intellectual, and knew exactly what were the results he wanted to achieve. This can be seen very clearly from the fascinating TV program, where he is doing rehearsals and conducting a performance of ‘Art of Fugue’. On the other hand he was very emotional and alert, and his Bach’s recordings are among the most vital I know of. The rare combination of intellect and emotion, was Bach’s rare gift, and this special quality makes his music so satisfying for almost every human being. Scherchen was not a composer, but he had similar virtues, and that is why his Bach recordings are so unique and so satisfying from almost every aspect (except, maybe the HIP one). They are sincere, direct, warm, precise, unromantic, and vivid. Scherchen did not afraid to take risks, and was a pioneer in conducting and recording many musical works. He was also a great interpreter of many modern composers, such as Alban Berg. And among the great conductors of his era, he was the only one (except Klemperer) who specialised in Bach's music.

I believe that Scherchen was also among the first to perform Bach cantatas in the modern era, outside of the St. Thomas dynasty, whose Cantor Günther Ramin did parallel mission in Leipzig. According to a private research I have done, Scherchen recorded in the 1950’s and the first half of the 1960's, about dozen cantatas, plus Matthew Passion, B Minor Mass, Brandenburg Concertos and Art of Fugue. His record company was Westminster, which I believe is now defunct (are its legacy belonged now to Polygram?). Almost all Scherchen’s Bach recordings are not available today in any form. There is one record company – ‘Tahra’, specialising in Scherchen (and other veteran German conductors) recordings, but AFAIK they have not re-issued so far any Bach cantata under his conducting, and I do not know if they intend to do so in the near future. The unique combination of intellect, emotion, precision and vitality, which characterise Scherchen’s Bach recordings, make them for me a guideline, according to which other Bach recordings should be examined.

The Recordings

See: Complete Recordings.

Review and comparison of the Opening Sinfonia and the Aria for Alto

Last week I received a book by W. Murray Young - 'The Cantatas of J.S. Bach - An Analytical Guide'. In the introduction to this useful book, Murray wrote: "This tone painting, combined with the mystical-emotional effect on the listener, is usually not fully appreciated by a non-German speaking audience, because without textual comprehension, hearing and 'seeing' do not occur simultaneously. Therefore, a translation and analysis of the texts from which Bach worked is essential for any non-German speaking listener wishing to understand how Bach could mould the plastic word into an emotional or pictorial experience. This book attempts to provide that essential information".

Regarding BWV 42, I would use this time as a reference Murray W. Young’s book to compare the various performances of the opening Sinfonia (Mvt. 1) and the Aria for Alto (Mvt. 3), which for me are the picks of this glorious cantata.

Young wrote:
"For the first Sunday after Easter, Bach composed this masterpiece for solo voices. The librettist is unknown, but Terry suggests Christian Weiss, Sr., and Neumann suggests Bach. The Gospel is John 20: 19-31 - Jesus reappears to His disciples including doubting Thomas - from which the 19^th verse is directly taken for the first recitative. All the other numbers are free lyrical interpretations derived from this beginning. The soli are SATB, with four-part Chorus. The instruments are 2 oboes, a bassoon, 2 violins, a viola organ and Continuo."

Mvt. 1 Sinfonia
"This is likely a movement from a previously composed instrumental concerto, which has been lost. The concert is made up of the woodwinds as the concertino and the unison strings as the ripieno. Its tripartite form is reminiscent of a da capo Aria. The soothing calm of the melody seems to paint the quiet in the countryside at twilight (cf. The Arioso in the St. Matthew Passion (BWV 244)): "Am abend, da kuhle ward" (In the beginning, when it became cool). This is one of Bach's most beautiful instrumental numbers."

One musical point I have noticed is that this Sinfonia is starting with one rich chord, before stating the theme. Other similar known examples in the musical literature are Beethoven's 3^rd Symphony, which starts with 2 identical chords, or the overture to Verdi's 'La Forza Del Destino', which starts with 3 identical chords. I do not know what is the musical meaning of this fact, but I would like to know.

[3] Scherchen's recording (Sinfonia: 9:03) has all the virtues described above. This Sinfonia might be taken from a lost concerto, but it sounds so appropriate here. In Scherchen's rendering you can hear and see the evening falling down, the blowing of the breezes, the gathering of the disciples. Everything is painted with strong colours. I do not recall reading it anywhere, but one could think of the strings as representing the day and the woodwinds as representing the night. The dialog between these two groups represents the fight between day and night, until the night almost win (it is still twilight time and some light still remains).

[1] Ramin (Sinfonia: 7:34), who recorded this cantata 11 years before Scherchen, sounds heavy, less vivid and less pictorial. Everything seems to be immersed in thick soup. This is not one of the best moments of Ramin, whose work I usually appreciate, for his originality and pioneering spirit. There is no tension here, no drive, and no interest. I do not think that anyone who knows the Sinfonia of BWV 42 only through this recording will like it. The comparison to Scherchen put Ramin in even worse position. Comparison of the timings evokes a very strange feeling. This recording is shorter than Scherchen's, but it sounds slower.

[4] Harnoncourt's performance (Sinfonia: 6:18) is so fast, that it does not manage to say anything significant. The colours of the old instruments are beautiful, but in comparison to Scherchen, these are black and white colours.

[5] Rilling approach (Sinfonia: 6:11) is very similar to that of Scherchen, but less varied. I hear fewer nuances in the playing, and some of the details are not revealed. It is also too fast for me. The evening is getting down slower than is offered here.

[6] Herreweghe (Sinfonia: 6:44) is lighter and more transparent than Scherchen. It is no less colourful, but the colours are not so strong. It is very pleasant and soft, but the intensity and the drama are missing. This performance could have stand on its own, unless you hear it after or before Scherchen. Then you realise what you are missing.

[7] Jan Leusink's performance (Sinfonia: 7:03) is moving lightly and quickly ahead, without too much attention to special details or to emphasis the drama. The playing is not very clean, and there are places where the balance between the groups even sounds strange, to say the least. It has some similarities to Herreweghe's recording, less polished, yet brighter. This recording misses most of the potential of this Sinfonia.

Besides these performances, which are all taken from complete recordings of the cantata, there are at least 4 other recordings of the Sinfonia from BWV 42, without the other movements. They are - Amsterdam Combattimento Consort, (Olympia), Roy Goodman/Brandenburg Consort (Hyperion), Thomas Hengelbrock/Freiburg Baroque Orchestra (Deutsche Harmonia Mundi), and Trevor Pinnock/The English Concert. Unfortunately, I have not heard (yet?) any of them. See: Recordings of Individual Movement.

Mvt. 3 Aria for Alto
"Her text begins with Matthew 18: 20, which has nothing to do with the Gospel for the day, yet continues the idea of Jesus' return to His believers. This Aria is long and slow moving despite the full orchestral accompaniment: "Wo zwei und drei versammelt sind / In Jesu teurem Namen, / Da stellt sich Jesus mitten ein / Und spricht dazu das Amen. / Denn was aus Lieb' und Not geschieht, / Das bricht des Hochsten Ordnung nicht". (Where two and three are gathered / In Jesus' dear Name, / There Jesus puts Himself in their midst / And speaks thereto the Amen. / For what happens out of love and need, / That does not break the Highest's decree.)
These last two lines seem to be irrelevant to the first part of the Aria; they seem to belong to an Aria in another work. Did Bach not notice this inconsistency?"

[3] What a great Bach singer Maureen Forester is (with Scherchen; Aria: 10:39). She has a deep and sensitive voice and she is telling you a story through her singing. Part of this Aria sounds as a Recitative and that is why such capacities are so important. You find yourself fascinating by the way she is transferring her message, and there is not even a second when she loses your interest. You fill the fear and the strain, while the dark is covering the earth. The accompaniment is also very sensitive, supports the singer when needed and complements her when it is called for.

[1] I do not recall hearing Gerda Schriever (with Ramin; Aria: 14:09) before. Based on her performance here, I am not sure that I would like to hear more from her. That her singing is very far from contemporary tastes (a lot of vibrato) is understood and accepted and it is not necessarily a disadvantage. What is less forgivable is the total lack of feeling. She does not penetrate under the surface, she does not relate to the words, and she is (dare I say?) simply boring. This is by far the slowest rendering of this Aria, and I appreciate everyone who has the patience to listen along it all.

[4] Paul Esswood (with Harnoncourt; Aria: 10:43) is very expressive, but the two ladies (Forester and Hamari) overshadow him. The accompaniment here relates to what the singer is doing, but their playing is not interesting enough.

[5] Julia Hamari (with Rilling; Aria: 12:10) is very expressive, almost as expressive as Forester is. What I miss is some more fear. On the other hand sometimes she raises her voice, almost shouting, in order to achieve the same results, but for me it is less convincing. The feelings should be more introverted and less exposed, but it is a legitimate approach, of course. The accompaniment is also too prominent to my taste, and sometimes the singer has to fight with it.

[6] Gerard Lesne (with Herreweghe; Aria: 10:13) voice and interpretation are very much to my liking. In his gentle way he is very expressive and tasteful, and he is also helped by the responsive and sensitive, pleasant and delicious accompaniment. This performance is second only to Forester/Scherchen.

[7] I like the special timbre of Sytse Buwalda's voice (with Jan Leusink; Aria: 11:01). What I do not like is the superficiality of his interpretation here. Theaccompaniments are playing on their own without too much relation to what the singer is trying to do.

Another factor I have noticed, was that although the total time of all the recordings of this cantata do not vary much (between 28 to 34 minutes), then the relationship between the timings of the opening Sinfonia and the Aria for Alto differ quite extremely. I believe that the relationship between these two movements in Scherchen's rendering is the optimal, but I am not objective (Who is?).

Conclusion

According to what I wrote in the Personal Viewpoint, the conclusion was expected. But I think that in comparison to Scherchen’s recording [3] of BWV 42, all the others pale. They should have learnt something from him.

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

Marie Jensen wrote (April 29, 2000):
Sorry. I write a little early again. But the next days will be very busy.

Now it is no longer "Am Abend da es kuhle war". It's "Am Abend aber desselbigen Sabbats" a week later. And though there is no direct connection between the two recitatives, listen how different those evenings are. Peaceful after a terrible Friday and now next Friday bubbling with restlessness and anxiety. What is going to happen?

But first comes an overture, cool, elegant and optimistic as the spring breeze itself. At the same time the semiquavers remind me of softly running feet, perhaps the disciples sneaking out in the evening afraid of the Jews after Jesu resurrection. If this is a first movement from a lost concerto, I would love to hear the rest, though it is probably never found. But as Simon writes on his Cantata Page, perhaps the great Alto Aria was its second movement. In my heart I will not believe, that the missing Bach works are gone forever. CPE, you couldn't have been that freezing? ...Some day I hope to read in the paper, that in a library in an old Schloss in former DDR somebody would open a chest never noticed before, and in it would be not STASI files but lots of missing Bach works!

We have reached my absolute favourite, when we talk Bach Arias: "Wo zwei und drei". I could write about this Aria for hours and still not find the right words. The resurrected Jesus comes to the room, where the frightened disciples are hiding. He steps into the middle to say his AMEN, and He does it on the very first note: a chrochet of the vibrating power from the deep strings followed by three bassoon notes. Jesus and three, Jesus and three, or AUM and three. Not to accuse Bach of being a Hindu, but I'm sure he was a person with a first hand religious experience, else he couldn't write such music. It is hard for me not hearing it this way. And on this simple but hypnotising fundament rests the wonderful Alto part, while the oboes circle in arabesques, in different two and three's together. A room is made like the one Jesus entered, of divine safety and best of it all: It lasts long and is repeated!

The intimate B-part is so great like a mountaintop high above the world, a calm place full of light. "Des Hochsten Ordnung" just the voice and a simple continuo. Time changes to three, probably not by chance, and of course there are three performers only. In spite of the contrast between the A pieces and the B piece, between complexity and simplicity, dusk and highlight it is such a whole... Sorry, I shall stop my raving now! Just one thing: when Bach uses a bassoon, what a depth it makes!

[5] Rilling version: (Augér, Hamari, Schreier, Huttenlocher, Gächinger Kantorei, Bach-Collegium Stuttgart).
I have never heard Rilling better than here: Peter Schreier as a mini evangelist building up the anxiety, which immediately is broken by the great Alto Aria sung so wonderful by Julia Hamari. In spite of the very complex music everything breathes in harmony, everybody listens to each other and the movement becomes a whole. I can hardly imagine anything more moving and perfect, so lyrical and breathing.

[7] Leusink version: (Holton, Buwalda, Schoch, Ramselaar, Bach Collegium Holland).
This is a song about the highest order. But this version does not match that fact, though the AUM is clearly heard here too. The instruments do not make the same unit or flow. It's a little bit faster than Rilling's version. I tried to listen several times to Buwalda's voice. I know that it's unusual, but it doesn't have the same calm authority as Hamari, which is so important. But I'm also sure that if this were the only version I knew, I would be caught immediately, because this Aria is fantastic!

The rest of the cantata? A highlight like the Alto Aria is even for a Bach impossible to surpass, but OK even average Bach is great, but again Leusink [7] disappoints me, what a heavy duet (Mvt. 4)! And the "Verfolgung" Aria is not passionate and allegro enough! It is "Verfolgung" not jogging. Rilling [5] does fine again.

Patrik Enander wrote (May 1, 2000):
[6] (About the Aria for Alto) I have only heard Herreweghe's coupled with BWV 21 (I think it is part of their mid-price Bach edition). As you know, I love the singing of Gerard Lesne and this Aria completely blows me away. Marie you have to hear this version.

Roy Reed wrote (May 3, 2000):
What a giant and amazing leap it is to jump in one week from BWV 4 to BWV 42. Different worlds. You look at and see BWV 4 and you immediately know, "This was written by an organist, and not surprisingly, an organist who walked to Lübeck to spend 4 months with D. Buxtehude. And BWV 42, "Who is this?" Someone who is a master of the concerto. Someone who has gone south as well as north. Someone who has heard Vivaldi and who has gone ahead into new territory. Learning from the Italians is an old tradition with German music at this point. Think of Heinrich Schütz who brought north the insights and innovations of G. Gabrieli and Monteverdi. And the cantata itself owes its life to Italian motivations and models.

The opening Sinfonia of BWV 42 is a wonderful novelty. It is a conversation between two trios really. The 3 reeds talk to the three strings. Well, there are 4 string lines, but the violins are mostly in unison. Bach wanted his string part of the dialogue to stand up to the snarrly reeds. (Is that a word?) So the strings are also a trio - Violin, viola and continuo. The B section of this da capo form does touch several tonalities and then cadences in the mediant (f# minor). In the B section the oboes get to sing a bit more and get playful. Most everyone supposes that this is a first movement, or its modification, of some lost concerto. I would say that instinct and knowledge of how Bach operates favours this conclusion. If that is so, then the Alto Aria in G major is most probably the slow movement of this lost concerto...with vocal line and text, of course, added. The piece makes its own good sense...pretty much...without the Alto line. I wouldn't want that to be understood as some denigration of this vocal line and what Bach has apparently done here. It is masterful and wonderful. When I look at it as a piece to perform, it really puts a scare into me. Talk about a minefield of ways to mess up. Holding the whole thing together would be very tricky. It is functionally a trio (two oboes and voice) with a realised continuo accompaniment (bassoon, strings, continuo inst.)

The cantatas are expositions almost always of the Gospel lesson. In this case, John 20: 19-31. The opening recitative quotes almost all of Ch. 20: 19, omitting Jesus' words, "Peace be with you." But Bach will get back to that. This gospel lesson includes the famous "doubting" Thomas episode. Bach avoids this aspect of the text entirely. His entire focus is that first verse and its message about the presence of Jesus in the church. He is not into doubt, but into aand a strong sense of the reality of Christ's comforting and enabling presence. At the opening of the Alto Aria he underscores the contemporary meaning of Jn. 20: 19 by an allusion to Mt. 18:19-20..."where 2 of 3 are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." In the Aria text Jesus pronounces "Amen." "Peace" would seem the right word, but...this must be a meaning the amen also carries, something of an "all is well" blessing. In fact that is the empress of the cantata text as a whole. I have to say that I do not really understand the words of the B section of the cantata. When something happens out of love and need, that doesn't break the Ordnung of the Most High. Duh?? Is the Ordnung of the Hochsten...the resurrection of Jesus itself? I suppose?????

Anyway, I think it is as least clear that the da capo nature of the Aria is dictated in part by the text, or more probably, one of the local clergy or Bach himself fashioned the test the fit an already da capo form.

The choral text of the Soprano/Tenor duet (Mvt. 4) brings us back to some of the demonic strife of good and evil we encountered in cantata BWV 4. The "little band" is yet under attack. Not to fear, Jesus is here, so reminds the bass in his recitative. He is all the protection needed. The recitative end in a brief and dramatic "animoso" on the words, "therefore let the foes rage." The bass sings a little humpback shaped motif appropriate for Quasimodo Sunday. And to think, Bach never even got to Paris.

The final Aria, for bass, underlines the theme of Jesus as shield and protection. It is a 2-part Aria. Modulates to the dominant and then flirts with f# minor before going home. It is really a little rondo, very creative, lively piece.

The final chorale brings us back to the concluding words of Jn. 20: 19..."Peace be with you." This is Luther's version of antiphon "Da pacem Domine in diebus nostris" and the melody is Luther's adaptation of the plainsong hymn "Veni redemptor gentium." Bach's harmonisation is absolutely heavenly. Bach at his inspired best.

F. Oreja wrote (May 4, 2000):
(To Roy Reed) Many thanks for your posting! It was a very interesting view.

(Alto Aria) I really don't think that the vocal line was simply added. It is much probably that the vocal line takes the part of a solo instrument of the (lost) instrumental concert it was taken from. The piece would sound sure good without vocal part, because with Bach the several instrumental lines are always melodically independent and self-sufficient: that is Bach's contrapuntistic 'Meisterschaft'. In spite of it you must see that the vocal line cannot be a simple addition, but an integrating part of the composition without them the key for the understanding of the musical exposition of the piece would be absent.

That must be referred to the previous recitativo. There it is said that the disciples were assembled behind bolted doors, cause they had fear of their foes. When in the Aria Jesus says 'Amen', it doesn't mean 'peace', but something as 'it must be in that way'. "Denn was aus Not und Lieb geschicht" doesn't mean "When something happens out of love and need", but "For what happens caused by love and need"; it (that the feared disciples have to assemble behind bolted doors) doesn't break the law of God because that fact, the persecution, is even an expression of God's will.

Harry Steinman wrote (May 4, 2000):
[7] Like many choral works, I 'found' this wonderful cantata because I read about it here. Only version I have is the Brilliant Classics version, with Pieter Jan Leusink and the Netherlands Bach Collegium, the Holland Boys Choir and d Ruth Holton, Soprano; Sytse Buwalda, Alto; Knut Schoch, Tenor; and Bas Ramselaar, Bass. I love the cantata, but I don't like these singers much. The alto has what sounds to me like a 'tight' not relaxed voice...sounds 'shallow' not full. Not crazy about the others either. Guess who is going to be buying some music now!

Ryan Michero wrote (May 5, 2000):
Thanks to all for the many interesting posts this week. It's always nice to see a little actual "discussion" in here. I've especially enjoyed Roy Reed's recent postings--very nice personal responses to the music. We tend to focus on recordings (this list started from people in the Bach Recordings group, after all), so it's nice to hear more musical/religious analyses of the works. I hope you're enjoying our list so far!

Here's my take on the three versions I have:

[4] This is a fine recording, but I don't think it's completely successful. Harnoncourt starts out with a rollicking account of the opening Sinfonia, marked by strong accents and rather fierce instrumental attacks. Old Nik' almost turns this piece into a country-dance. The period winds are really piquant here, sounding almost like bagpipes or a regal organ (too bad they sound a bit out of tune). I like Harnoncourt's approach here, and in his hands I tend to think of this movement as a lost cousin of the Brandenburg Concerti. Equiluz's account of the next recitative is perfect, perhaps because he is such a natural Evangelist-type singer. I like the performance of the great aria here overall, but I think Esswood is guilty of ignoring the words a bit and just trying to make a beautiful sound. Also, Harnoncourt doesn't achieve great results from his orchestra (compare with Herreweghe here). The duet (Mvt. 4) sounds okay, even if I'm not too fond of the very young-sounding boy telling me comforting words of wisdom. In the bass aria, Ruud van der Meer does his best to be expressive. Unfortunately, the vibrato of his voice exactly matches with the tempo so that it sounds like he is constantly singing repeated notes. Hence, Bach's brilliant climactic final runs on the word "Verfolgung" ("persecution") are robbed of their power.

[6] This is certainly my favourite version. Herreweghe's account of the Sinfonia is lovely and well articulated, but the mushy acoustic brings back memories of Muzak-ized Brandenburg Concerto recordings. Where is the bite in the period instruments here? Luckily, things get much better in the alto aria, where Herreweghe secures playing of rapt intensity from his wind band--really ravishing. I'm sorry to say that Lesne's voice, lovely and dramatic as it is, puts a damper on the magic of this performance. I would like to hear more wonder and amazement in the voice. I mean, Jesus just appeared to you from out of nowhere! I can't help thinking Robin Blaze singing "Sehet Jesus hat die Hand" in Suzuki's St. Matthew recording, the surprise, wonder, and awakening joy in his voice. But I'm being cruel--this really is a wonderful performance of the aria. The duet (Mvt. 4) comes off well, with Schlick not sounding too shrill. I really love the performance of the final bass aria here, though. Herreweghe's violins are exhilaratingly devilish, and Kooy, with beautifully sustained notes throughout and breathtakingly virtuosic runs at the end, is an ideal singer for this piece. The final chorale is really beautiful here too, capping of a fine recording.

[7] Leusink is alternately satisfying and disappointing here. I like his version of the Sinfonia, his period-instrument band sounding beautiful. It sure sounds relaxed compared to Harnoncourt's, though. Knut Schoch sounds disinterested in his recitative. I'm not a fan of Sytse Buwalda's singing, but I must admit he doesn't ruin "Wo zwei und drei" (damning praise?). He is sincere and engaged with the text, and he even sounds beautiful in some parts. But he is also tonally insecure, and his strange vibrato, drastically modulating the volume of his voice, bothers me. I like the duet (Mvt. 4), especially the voice of Ruth Holton. The bass aria is really lacking in tension. If the violins are supposed to represent persecution besettingthe Christians, Leusink must not think the believers have it so bad.

I await recordings by Suzuki and Koopman [9] (and Gardiner?), hoping to find my perfect version of BWV 42. In the meantime I'll listen to Herreweghe's lovely version [6].

Roy Reed wrote (May 5, 2000):
(To F. Oreja) Thank you, F. Oreja for the help with the aria text. It makes sense. As for the "original" voicing of the alto aria in BWV 42, I wonder. If the aria was constructed out of a middle concerto movement, and the alto line was originally a solo instrument, what instrument? Bassoon? I have some troubles with that. Does Bach introduce an instrument not involved in the opening movement? I guess I would stick with my original surmise, counting on Bach's genius and gift for the long, elegant and forwardly impulsed melodic line. Reading Bach is something like reading the Bible...all those pieces you wish you had but can't find...

F. Oreja wrote (May 6, 2000):
[To Roy Reed] May be you are right with the 'additions-theory'. It seems evident that the opening movement of the cantata has its origin in a lost concert. But the supposition that the alto aria comes from a concerto too (it would be the middle slow movement) is no more so evident, although many, as Roy Reed, Alfred Dürr and F. Oreja think it is the case. But supposed it comes from a concerto, it would be still open to discussion if it comes from the same instrumental concerto as the opening piece and what degree of elaboration and transformation found Bach necessary to fit it in the cantata. For that reason, and assuming that the aria comes actually from a concerto too, it would be possible to find there an instrument - be it an oboe or a viola pomposa (no idea) - that cannot be found in similar important position in the opening movement.

There are also several possibilities to choose from and the matter is open to speculations. I feel still that without the vocal line something would lack in the musical exposition. And I count too of course on Bach's genius and gift for melodic lines.

BWV 42 (7): A prayer for peace

Johan de Wael [Aalst - Belgium] wrote (April 8, 2002):
Greetings to all of you, admirers of Bach's beautiful music,

Listening to BWV 42, one of the cantatas composed for this Sunday, Quasimodogeniti (April 8, 1725), the text of the last movement struck me, as it seemed to me very appropriate to the troublesome situation in Israel these days.

Verleih uns Frieden gnädiglich,
Herr Gott, zu unsern Zeiten;
Es ist doch ja kein andrer nicht,
Der für uns könnte streiten,
Denn du, unsr Gott, alleine.

Gib unsern Fürsten und all'r Obrigkeit
Fried und gut Regiment,
Daß wir unter ihnen
Ein geruhig und stilles Leben führen mögen
In aller Gottseligkeit und Ehrbarkeit.

Amen.

Perhaps the magnificent soothing movements (1, 3, 4, 6) of the same cantata
can put our minds at ease for a brief moment. And for what it 's worth: I wish all inhabitants of Israel could live a quiet life free from fear and persecution.

Eitan Loew wrote (April 8, 2002):
[To Johan De Wael] Thank you, Johan

Symbolic instrumentation?

Bernard Nys wrote (April 27, 2003):
As you know, I'm writing a brief analysis of each cantata for the local church magazine. Listening to BWV 42, the magnificent 11' lasting alto-aria, "Where two and three assembled are for Jesus' precious name's sake, there cometh Jesus in their midst", I was wondering if the text "2 or 3 persons assembled in Jesus' holy name" is symbolized by the 2 oboes + 1 bassoon intro. I have the feeling that the alto (Holy Spirit voice) comes down on those 2 or 3 instruments = persons. Am I right or is this too much ?

Koopman's continuo organ in BWV 42 (duet) (Mvt. 4)

Neil Halliday wrote (October 29, 2004):
In looking for an alternative to Rilling's [5] rather fast S,T Duet from BWV 42 (Verzage nicht, o Hauflein klein), I have come across a pleasing, much slower version from Koopman [9] (courtesy of the Zale site), timing 3.03 c.f. Rilling's 2.04 [5].

York and Dürmüller (Koopman) [9] give an expressive, nicely matched performance that is more satisfying than the allegro performance - with much vibrato - from Auger and Kraus (Rilling) [5]. The highly articulate cello in the Koopman recording is also preferable to the somewhat comical-sounding continuo bassoon in Rilling's version.

Both versions are spoilt to some degree by irritating little portable organs - Rilling [5] less so because the organ is mostly 'hidden' by the bassoon. (I have borrowed this description of portable organs, as "irritating", from another internet-based listener, so I am certainly not alone in this consideration).

Once again it occurs to me how much better the Koopman version [9] would sound with quiet, solid chords from a piano, in this highly chromatic movement, compared with the quiet 'tootle' and annoying, clearly-audible noise of the tracker-action of the organ. (Neither do I consider the live 'buzz' of a harpsichord timbre to be desirable for this movement).

I have no doubt a continuo piano would produce better results, from a musical point of view; but will questions of historical exactitude forever preclude such a performance?

I have not heard the rest of Koopman's cantata [9], because downloading from the Zale site is rather time-consuming (where I am), and in any case the main alto aria, on the Rilling CD I have [5], is a splendid 12 minute affair featuring the magnificent voice of Julia Hamari.

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 29, 2004):
< Both versions are spoilt to some degree by irritating little portable organs - Rilling [5] less so because the organ is mostly 'hidden' by the bassoon. (I have borrowed this description of portable organs, as "irritating", from another internet-based listener, so I am certainly not alone in this consideration).
Once again it occurs to me how much better the Koopman version [9] would sound with quiet, solid chords from a piano, in this highly chromatic movement, compared with the quiet 'tootle' and annoying, clearly-audible noise of the tracker-action of the organ. (Neither do I consider the live 'buzz' of a harpsichord timbre to be desirable for this movement).
I have no doubt a continuo piano would produce better results, from a musical point of view; but will questions of historical exactitude forever preclude such a performance? >
Ummmm........oh, never mind.

What's to stop you from getting a few folks together and playing one yourself, on whatever pianos and organs and what-not that you choose to use, more productively than complaining that professional musicians always choose poorly!? Seems to me it's just one long string of gripes after another, here, about the organs and other keyboard instruments used, and the tempos. Well, this music is not tremendously difficult; get some people together and perform it however you want to!

Neil Halliday wrote (October 30, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
"<Seems to me it's just one long string of gripes after another, here, about the organs and other keyboard instruments used, and the tempos.>"
Sorry if the criticism comes across as carping/negative. Rather, I would like my ideas to be taken as positive criticism in the service of Bach's wonderful music. This tendency to the use of smaller and smaller continuo organs in Bach ought to be questioned, IMO.

"<Well, this music is not tremendously difficult; get some people together and perform it however you want to!>".
Interesting suggestion, Brad, but I will have trouble finding vocalists of the calibre of York and Durmuller!

Ludwig wrote (October 30, 2004):
[To Bradley Lehman] First of all using a piano is truly annoying as the Piano is not a good accompaniment to anything as it is like tyand Brass instruments---it wants to dominate.

A Harpsichord would be good as Harpsichord blends well with just about everything and does not seek to dominate.

I have not heard the particular portatif that you speak of but the Organist should not be using anything more than a quiet Gedackt 8' stop and if anything else added perhaps a quiet 2' or 1' to add sparkle. It sounds from what you are saying that perhaps some mixtures are being used, along with perhaps Nazard or Tierce. These last mutations are very useful but when out of balance with the rest of the ensemble dominate and create very unpleasant timbres.

Neil Halliday wrote (October 30, 2004):
Ludwig wrote:
< First of all using a piano is truly annoying as the Piano is not a good accompaniment to anything as it is like tympani and Brass instruments---it wants to dominate. >
Perhaps that should not be directed at Brad, since I (Neil) am the one who is barracking for the use of continuo modern piano in Bach.

Have you heard any of the old Bach Aria Group recordings? The piano by no means "dominates" the proceedings, but rather gives a pleasing timbre to the continuo (figured bass) chords that supplement the cello line. You can listen to this ensemble's version of the alto aria from BWV 116, with piano continuo, on Aryeh's site.

However, in relation to the duet (Mvt. 4) from BWV 42: after looking at the BGA (full) score (which I have on CD ROM), and the piano reduction/vocal score (available at Aryeh's site), I can modify my view, in as much as:

1. The problem with Koopman's otherwise satisfying version [9], is not so much the "small" portable organ, whose part is innocent/innocuous enough, but rather Koopman's treatment of the cello line as the continuo line, when a look at the score reveals that the cello is in fact an obligato instrument, in quavers (doubled by the bassoon, which Koopman ignores), and the continuo is a separate part, largely in crotchets, which is completely inaudible in Koopman's recording.

Hence it seems to me I was led to blame the organ for the lack of 'presence' of the continuo part, when in fact it is Koopman's [9] lack of attention to the continuo cello/double bass line that is the problem, resulting in a certain unsatisfying 'liteness' to the whole duet (Mvt. 4).

{This continuo line is audible in Rilling's recording [5] (though rather soft and inflexible), and here the main criticism I have relates to the fast tempo and, perhaps, the vocal vibrato}.

2. Getting back to the piano, have a look at the piano reduction/vocal score (mentioned above.) The piano realisation of the obligato cello and continuo line sounds very splendid indeed (I have printed a copy and played it on piano myself), with some wonderfully complex chords that highlight the chromatic nature of the composition. This realisation, perhaps minus the notes belonging to the obligato cello in the full score, would make a wonderful keyboard continuo part, if a piano was used in a full (with obligato cello, continuo and voices) performance of the piece.

I am convinced that certain movements, especially of a slowish, emotional, chromatic character, as we have here and in BWV 116, would respond marvellously with piano as keyboard continuo, due to the piano's ability to render complex chords in an intelligible, non-invasive (contrary to your assertion) manner.

(Naturally, I am not referring to movements for larger ensembles, where the audience don't necessarily need to hear, on recordings or in live performannce, a keyboard continuo instrument, as discussed some time ago).

Ludwig wrote (October 30, 2004):
[To Neil Halliday] Thank you Neil for taking responsibility and now I guess I owe Brad an apology.

Baroque Music is not Midaevil- Rennaisance Music in which any old instrument is ok.

What you are hearing with regard to Piano is not natural but an engineered effect that can not be duplicated in concert and furthermore is not what Bach intended and while there are a number of legal liberties that one can take with Bach's scores----using a clarinet for the Oboe d'amore (a G.Shirmer score does this) and the Piano is not one of them.

Contrary to what some romanticists (Glenn Gould school) would have you believe--J.S. Bach never used the Piano and never heard of this instrument until about year before he died when one of his sons introduced the father to the Piano in Potsdam. JS by then had just about given up composition because he was so blind that it was such a struggle just to get anything on paper because he had to use family members to write what he dictated.

The Bach sons did write for the Piano but they also wrote for the Organ and harpsichord.

My feeling is that if you will do this to Bach I shutter to think what you would do with my music as I go to great pains to explain what I want and no deviations from that.

William Rowland, composer, member ASCAP

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 30, 2004):
Ludwig wrote:
"Baroque Music is not Midaevil- Rennaisance Music in which any old instrument is ok."
I don't think any old instrument is OK in Mediaeval or Renaissance music either.

John Reese wrote (October 30, 2004):
Ludwig wrote:
< What you are hearing with regard to Piano is not natural but an engineered effect >
...As opposed to all those other instruments that were found roaming free in the wild...?

Neil Halliday wrote (October 30, 2004):
Ludwig wrote:
<"Baroque Music is not Midaevil- Rennaisance Music in which any old instrument is ok.>"
Naturally, I don't regard the modern piano as "any old instrument".

It is the instrument that actually supplanted the harpsichord for a considerable period of time, after Bach's lifetime, when most other instruments that Bach had used, survived with at least their names intact.

However, rather than pursuing this matter on this list, I would like to return to the subject heading; and I repeat that, after perusing the score, I probablty would not have begun this thread had Koopman [9] given a half decent reading of the continuo line, which is simply inaudible (as opposed to the obligato cello line, which he presents quite vividly).

[This is not to say there aren't any problems with the continuo organs in the cantatas; in Rilling's set [5], about a dozen movements are spoilt by an unpleasant, rasping timbre from the chamber organ, along with some fairly trite figured bass realisations (how I wish Bach had written these continuo organ parts out; fortunately, Rilling often uses the less trouble-prone harpsichord in continuo) and in the HIP cantatas, plenty of secco recitatives that already sound incongruously 'dainty' (to my ears, at least) are not improved at all, by the small organs playing short chords].

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 30, 2004):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< [This is not to say there aren't any problems with the continuo organs in the cantatas; in Rilling's set [5], about a dozen movements are spoilt by an unpleasant, rasping timbre from the chamber organ, along with some fairly trite figured bass realisations (how I wish Bach had written these continuo organ parts out; fortunately, Rilling often uses the less trouble-prone harpsichord in continuo) (...) >
But, Neil, thoroughbass is fundamentally an IMPROVISED art, and if too much is written down it loses its spark! Furthermore, Bach himself authored two manuscripts of instructions about it, and he taught it to his students directly, and he left myriad written-out examples (in other pieces of his) of such improvisational ideas, not that it has to be fully written-out ALL the time. Furthermore, one of his most talented sons wrote a full-length book covering thoroughbass principles of harmony and texture thoroughly, as part of the complete package of keyboard technique! What more would you have these fine musicians do for you than they have already do? Have you sat down and studied these materials, working through them with a good teacher, learning to improvise these parts yourself? That's what they're there for..... Thoroughbass is basic practical training in thinking like a composer and improvising like a composer.

It appears to me that you expect musical notation to give a performer everything that is necessary to know, such that it restricts the performer's movements to be an unchanging way to play. (And therefore it would perhaps prevent performers from doing things you don't fancy....) Well, such an expectation goes against fundamental principles, and the very spirit, of late 17^th and early 18^th century music. Thoroughbass is written down as only a sketch because the performers are expected to know how to do their jobs brilliantly, as co-creators of the piece each time it's played: fitting the improvisation to match the venue and the available instrumentation and the performance of the other players/singers in the ensemble. That dynamic process of music-making cannot be pinned down adequately in fully-written-out parts. Thoroughbass is the catalyst that holds the whole ensemble together and helps the music to sound fresh each time, organic, alive. As soon as the parts get written down, it ossifies.

You can keep going on and on as long as you want to, asserting that players have allegedly chosen poor continuo instruments and improper playing techniques (according to your expectations)...but that doesn't change the fact that it's an improvised and dynamic art which you happen not to have studied closely. (Or have you? Prove me wrong!) The better solution here, it seems to me, is to go out there and learn to play those instruments and techniques yourself and see what you come up with, actively, playing with as many different types of ensembles as you can pull together. There's some overlap with liturgical church-organist art, too; the craftsmanship of improvising in such a way that people find it easy to sing and play along, being inspired to do their own best. Thoroughbass is not a spectator sport, even though it gets reviewed that way.

Thomas Shepherd wrote (October 29, 2004):
[To Bradley Lehman] Brad, would you say that the process you describe about being an interesting continuo performer is very similar to a modern jazz standards player who has a page of very basic notation and can often produce some exciting results? As I have heard hours of Chick Korea, Waynne Marsalis, Herbie Hancock et al. in this house as my son get to grips with modern standards, I also know its an art and technique that has to be practiced and learnt!!

Neil Halliday wrote (October 30, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
<"that doesn't change the fact that it's (thoroughbass) an improvised and dynamic art which you happen not to have studied closely.">
Correct. [I never had sufficient keyboard talent to consider performing in public, and therefore saw no use for such study - and opted to spend my spare time more enjoyably through studying/playing/ listening to recordings of the WTC, for example. But this is a forum where lovers of the music, whether professional players or not, are able to offer critiques of specific recordings they have heard].

Your emphasis on the improvisational nature of thoroughbass does raise an obvious point: people can (and will) disagree on the results.(Presumably, if Bach had written the part out, there would be no argument on this aspect of the composition).

For example, consider the tenor continuo aria fron BWV 147. (It consists of two lines only - tenor and continuo).

I happen to much admire Richter's continuo organ "improvisation", but others have thought it too elaborate. Who's view is correct? (I put "improvisation" in quotes, because Richter would surely have composed this part before the recording session? And for that matter, I suppose Koopman's organist [9] in the BWV 42 duet (Mvt. 4) did likewise.)

OTOH, Gardiner (in BWV 147) gives us a much less ambitious part, completely changing the nature of the piece (nevertheless, in this instance, with satisfactory results).

In general, I find that Richter's improvisations, on a larger instrument, (in the arias) more often display some of the brilliance and level of development we associate with Bach's own organ music; whereas with the chamber organ brigade (Rilling [5] and HIP) I often feel I am listening to figured bass realisations in the style of, say, John Bull (c.1562-1628) - in other words, music of a much simpler and less developed technique, at least in relation to keyboard music.

Hence my dismissal of the the organ part, in the Koopman [9] BWV 42 duet (Mvt. 4), as "innocent/innocuous" - due to the small size of the instrument, and the simplicity of the improvisation. (But as I have said, Koopman might have saved the day, by attending to the continuo line itself).

BTW, in the score of that continuo line, Bach even shows a division of some the notes into two notes an octave apart, presumably representing a separation of the cello and double base/violone? Or bassoon? In any case, Bach obviously places some emphasis on this line, all of which is missed in the Koopman recording [9].

Meanwhile, thanks, Brad, for expounding on the state of affairs from the performer's/improviser's/composer's viewpoint.

Discussions in the Week of April 8, 2007

Julian Mincham wrote (April 6, 2007):
Intro BWV 42

CONTEXT

This cantata stands alone as being the only one in this cycle to begin with a large-scale orchestral sinfonia. (C 4 begins with an instrumental interlude but it is scarcely more than an introduction to the first chorus).

Inevitably one asks why?

Schweitzer (vol 2 pp 339-440) offers an extraordinary, and quite misguided, interpretation of this movement. Firstly he states, mistakenly, that it ends in a minor key. The opening ritornello section is in the jubilant D major key and the score terminates with a cadence in F sharp minor. Were Bach to have intended it to end thus, it would have been a unique example within his instrumental repertoire.

The answer is that he clearly intended a 'da capo' direction at the minor cadence, requiring a return to the beginning and a conclusion at the perfect cadence in the tonic key over bars 52/53. This is the obvious place to end, following a version of the original ritornello.

Further supporting evidence comes from the style of the piece. It is highly reminiscent of the opening movements of concerti which Bach had written in Cothen, in particular those for violin and keyboard in the key of E (BWV 1042 & 1053). Not only do all three first movements have a similar 'feel', they also have an identical structure. They are all combinations of ternary (also known as ABA and da capo) and ritornello forms. They all pause on a massive central cadence in a related minor key and then reprise the first section (see also the last movements of the 5th and 6th Brandenburg Concerti). The musical evidence is not definitive but it is strong. It seems highly likely that Bach resurrected this movement from a lost Cothen violin concerto.

It is not difficult to see how a solo line could have been rewritten so as to incorporate the two oboes; much of Bach's richest melodic writing is actually a conflation of two or more single lines. And, perhaps as an even more daring suggestion, might the sixth movement be a version, possibly omitting a middle section, of the last movement of the same work? Of course this is pure conjecture but it is not outside the bounds of possibility. There is precedence for Bach recycling two movements from a previously written concerto within the one cantata; possibly the first two movements of the Easter Oratorio (BWV) and certainly the reuse of two movements from the harpsichord concerto in D minor (BWV 1052) in a later cantata.

If we accept the arguments about the opening sinfonia it makes a nonsense of Sc's interpretation (vol 2 pp 339/340). He must have thought of it performed at a much slower tempo than a typical concerto first movement because he claims it has a similar mood to the opening chorus of C6. The strings, he suggests, paint a picture of 'the hovering shades of evening' which 'melt into each other and become darker and darker'. The first oboe 'sings a hymn of longing, that dies away in the light'. Schweitzer was, of course, not fully aware of the extent of Bach's recycling which modern scholarship has revealed although, ironically, he is sometimes quick to condemn a movement as brought back from another (inferior?) work if he doesn't like it (e.g. C 38).

Two interesting questions remain: why did Bach not make use of the chorale in an opening movement as was his practice in the first forty works of the cycle and why limit the use of the choir to the final chorale only?

The closing Lutheran chorale has a number of features which make it ideal as the basis of a large-scale chorus. It has almost unprecedented tonal variety, set in the (unusual) tonic of F sharp minor and passing through various related keys. Even more stimulating for Bach, one would think, would have been the variety of phrase lengths. So why did he not seize the opportunity to exploit its potential?

Dürr has suggested that Bach may have deliberately given the chorus a break in this work after the intensity of the Easter period; but unfortunately this does not go very far in addressing the various imponderable questions.

THE CANTATA OF THE WEEK BWV 42 Am Abend aber desselbigen Sabbats

In the evening of the same Sabbath
Sinfonia--recit (tenor)--aria (alto)--duet (sop & tenor) (Mvt. 4)--recit (bass)--aria (bass)--chorale.
The forty-third cantata of the cycle for Quasimodogeneti Librettist unknown

The first movement setting text is the tenor recitative (Mvt. 2). It describes the gathering of the disciples in the evening, shutting the doors for fear of the Jews. The repeated notes in the bass suggest the coming together of the disciples with just an echo of apprehension about their enemies. (The mention of Jews and Infidels in these Eighteenth Century texts would appear to be a use of conventional images of depictions of the enemies around us, rather than expressions of a form of deep-seated racialism we might see it as today. I am aware, however that others will hold contrary views although I do not believe that they affect the substance of the music.)

The alto aria (Mvt. 3) is remarkable for both its structure and its length (in performance it will run to around ten minutes, indicating that while Bach may have thought to spare his choir, he certainly did not spare himself or his soloists!). It is richly orchestrated, using a choir of strings and continuo pitted against a woodwind group of two oboes and bassoon. It is a gigantic da capo aria in which the A section describes Jesus coming amongst the assembled disciples and, in the B section, delivering his Amen. Bach goes to considerable lengths to make this differentiation. The first section is very slow and in 4/4 time whilst the second is slightly faster and in 12/8 giving it a pastoral feel such as is to be found (and in the same key) in the Christmas Oratorio. The two oboes weave a filigree of sound around the vocal line, the strings doing little more than supplying the harmonies.

The text of the soprano and tenor duet (Mvt. 4) comes from another chorale by Jakob Fabricius (Boyd p 12) although Bach seems to have made only fleeting uses of its melody. If anything the persistently repeated note on which the words 'Es wird nicht lange wahren'---it will not last long--may have been suggested to Bach by the opening three notes of the closing chorale. It is possible this is the only movement that Bach composed with direct links to that chorale. It is principally an admonition, firstly to the disciples; do not fear or dread the enemy's attempts to destroy you, they will not last long. This is, arguably, the most searingly beautiful movement of the cantata. The two voices imitate each other in lines of great expressiveness about a persistently striding and sinewy chromatic bass line played by bassoon and 'cello. Bach himself added the phrasing to this line (Schweitzer p341) creating a most unsettling effect as it constantly suggests a tension between 3/4 and 6/8 rhythms. This is an excellent example of Bach's setting out two ideas or positions simultaneously. The voices encapsulate a soothing, almost appeasing quality while in the continuo we hear the subdued, but persistent voices of the enemy. Notable are the melismas which give emphasis to the words 'Versage'---despair and 'verstoren'---destroy.

The bass recitative (Mvt. 5) underlines the moral of the previous movements, not without some further intimations of dangers as the strings agitate around the final phrase, suggesting the fury of the enemy. The final aria, however, dismisses all doubt and the expected Bachian optimism takes over. Jesus will protect his people---and the sun shall shine upon them. The bass voice conveys the authority of Jesus from his opening phrase which, structured as it is like a brass fanfare, conveys a strong sense of power and confidence. Both swirling semi-quavers and the overall mood echo the opening sinfonia. Note also the emphasis given to the word 'Verfolgung'---persecution.

The closing chorale (Mvt. 7), is a plea for God to provide the means for peace and good government to our leaders and through them, to us. It is minor thus, and rarely for this cycle, ends the cantata in a mode different from that of its beginning (see also Cantatas BWV 108 and BWV 74). Not only that but it takes us to the remote and relatively unusual key of F sharp minor. It would seem that doubts, fear and the threats of our enemies have not been wholly dismissed. And has anything really changed subsequently over the intervening years? Do we still not look for 'good government' from our rulers? And yet be as often disapointed?

An interesting cantata which, on closer observation, reveals more than it initially promises.

The link to the cantata page is: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV42.htm

Douglas Cowling wrote (April 7, 2007):
BWV 42 - Sinfonias?

Julian Mincham wrote:
< Dürr has suggested that Bach may have deliberately given the chorus a break in this work after the intensity of the Easter period; but unfortunately this does not go very far in addressing the various imponderable questions. >
We hear this suggestion all the time, but is there any evidence that Bach gave his choir a "break" or they weren't up to an opening chorus? Bach also wrote Cantata BWV 67, "Halt in Gedächtnis" for the Sunday after Easter and it has an extremely demanding role for the choir throughout the whole work. No break there!

I've never read a convinicing rationale why Bach chose to write a sinfonia to preface certain cantatas. It's certainly a tradition which goes back to Praetorius: "Christ Lag in Todesbanden" is very much in this tradition. But I've seen any discussion of a pattern in the later cantatas.

Why a concerto movement before this cantata and not before BWV 57, "Selig ist der Mann" which also begins with a tenor solo? If the sinfonia is supposed to be a replacement for the chorus, then why preface the great chorus of #12, "Wir Danken Dir" which a showstopping orcchestral sinfonia based on the E Major Solo Violin Partita? And why not a sinfonia to preface "Ein Feste Burg" which begins without an orchestral introduction?

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 7, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
>>Dürr has suggested that Bach may have deliberately given the chorus a break in this work after the intensity of the Easter period; but unfortunately this does not govery far in addressing the various imponderable questions.<<
I have just read Dürr's discussion of this work in his book: "Johann Sebastian Bach: Die Kantaten", Bärenreiter, rev. edition 2000, in the German original and am unable to find any such suggestion by Dürr. Could you please specify the Dürr source where Dürr makes this suggestion?

Julian Mincham wrote (April 7, 2007):
[To Thomas Braatz] In response to your question copied below, you are correct in that Dürr does not this comments in the article on BWV 42 in his book The Cantatas of JS Bach.

The attribution actually comes from Boyd (Oxford Composer Companions- JS Bach) in his article on BWV 42 p 11 of the paperback edition (now sadly out of print)

I quote Boyd's passage in full

'Alfred Dürr has suggested (in DürrK) that Bach deliberately omitted a full-scale choral movement in order to give his choir a well earned reast after their exacting duties during the Passiontide and Easter festivals'.

Hope this helps.

Peter Smaill wrote (April 7, 2007):
The (?) Dürr theory appears to have been dropped by the time of the English translation of his book on the Cantatas so we are left as Julian Mincham points out with the secondary statement by Nicholas Anderson in Boyd, "Oxford Composer Companion -J S Bach". This is to the effect that this lovely work avoided a Chorus due to the Easter overload on the choir, as suggested from the 5^th (1985) edition of Dürr's "Die Kantaten von Johann Sebastian Bach".

Duerr suggests a specific Cöthen origin for the Sinfonia, the serenata "Der himmel dacht auf Anhalts Ruhm and Glueck", BWV 66a, for the birthday of Prince Leopold on 10 December 1718. According to Whittaker, the score is marked "Concerto da Chiesa". Whittaker also states, relevant to Doug Cowling's line of thought , "It may be questioned whether Bach ever wrote an original Sinfonia to open any Leipzig cantata. In his earlies days they were common, but after Cöthen he relied solely on adaptations".

Whittaker goes on to observe that the violins play in unison, which he belives creates balance problems for the conductor. From a listener standpoint the result is the predominance of woodwinds especially the bassoon and thus a special pastoral quality. Whittaker nevertheless agrees: "Why this Sinfonia has never been placed among the world's concert masterpieces is mystery.....it is a heavenly picture of evening".

Bach's ability to depict this mood of this point in the of day, here, in BWV 6 and the SMP (BWV 244), "Am abend da es kuehle war", is a further demonstration of his skill with "affekten" and the particular significance which concepts of Time have for the composer.

As previously suggested, apart from the unusual verbal suggestion of the Altenburg chorale "Verzage nicht" (only fragments of the associated melody are detectable) and Luther's "Verleih uns Frieden", there may be lurking in the bass line of the last chorale , an allusion to a third chorale complementary in thought, "Dies sind die heiligen Zehn gebot".

Bradley Lehman wrote (April 7, 2007):
< I've never read a convinicing rationale why Bach chose to write a sinfonia to preface certain cantatas. It's certainly a tradition which goes back to Praetorius: "Christ Lag in Todesbanden" is very much in this tradition. But I've seen any discussion of a pattern in the later cantatas.
Why a concerto movement before this cantata and not before BWV 57, "Selig ist der Mann" which also begins with a tenor solo? If the sinfonia is supposed to be a replacement for the chorus, then why preface the great chorus of #12, "Wir Danken Dir" which a showstopping orcchestral sinfonia based on the E Major Solo Violin Partita? And why not a sinfonia to preface "Ein Feste Burg" which begins without an orchestral introduction? >
One possible answer is: it's only our modern expectation for unity that makes us think of a cantata as a stand-alone package. What about any other organ music, or other parts of the service, before and after the thing? And in some cases between sections of the cantata? And other spoken or sung parts of the service, not notated here either?

Not to neglect that Bach more typically entitled them "concerto" or simply "die Musik", instead of "cantata".... This stuff is Gebrauchsmusik, for integration into church services.

All of which is surely already known to the person asking the above questions, as the music minister of a church; but maybe not to some other readers.... If our main way to hear this music today is through packaged recordings, stand-alone and neatly edited and numbered, it's easy to overlook that important context and thereby misunderstand some of its function -- and some of its content. Go to Bach's church and the concerted music is only about 15% (maybe less) of the service. And not the main dish on the menu, either, but rather more like a salad.

Chris Kern wrote (April 7, 2007):
I want to point out a couple of things, and I'll do recording comparisons later.

First off, the this cantata provides excellent internal evidence against the common idea that "Bach's cantatas weren't intended for any entertainment value" -- if they really were the super-serious preaching tools that some people claim, there would be no reason for an instrumental sinfonia followed up by a 10-12 minute aria. I don't think anyone had a problem with some entertainment during the service.

Second, the parts are somewhat interesting for this cantata. In addition to the oboe, singers, and strings, there are the following parts:
Bassono
Transposed continuo (figured), just a fragment apparently
Continuo (figured)
Organo: Continuo (transposed, figured)
Violone

Aside from the unclear "violone" name, it is odd to see three continuo parts all figured by Bach. Even if we leave aside the fragment, we still have an organ part plus another figured continuo part, which would seem to be an almost explicit indication that this cantata was performed with organ + harpsichord support.

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 7, 2007):
Chris Kern wrote:
>>...there would be no reason for an instrumental sinfonia followed up by a 10-12 minute aria.<<
One reason could be that this cantata was meant to be performed after the sermon during communion rather than the opening cantata (before the sermon) which probably would have had an introductory choral mvt. I believe there are some other examples of cantatas not having the same type of first mvt. that is demonstrated by the bulk of Bach's cantatas. By 1731 (after Bach's possible disenchantment for not receiving financial support for this musical program), for the 2nd performance of this work, the cantata text booklet indicates only BWV 42 as we know it now. Could Bach already have cut it back from its original longer form? Could he have substituted some other music (not a cantata as such) for the time slot before the sermon or did he simply drop that slot? Why? Because Bach wanted to spare the choir as Dürr had suggested in 1957 (Bach-Jahrbuch 1957, or its 2nd edition with notes and additions, Kassel, 1976)?

>>Aside from the unclear "violone" name...<<
There is nothing unclear here. This part "Violon." written out entirely by J.S. Bach with his designation of instrument at the top, comes from the later repeat performance of this cantata in 1742 (not 1731 as Dürr had assumed in 1976).

>>it is odd to see three continuo parts all figured by Bach...we still have an organ part plus another figured continuo part, which would seem to be an almost explicit indication that this cantata was performed with organ + harpsichord support.<<
This issue was covered in great detail by Arnold Schering who devotes two chapters (20 and 21) in his book, "Johann Sebastian Bachs Leipziger Kirchenmusik", Leipzig, 1936, and comes to the conclusion, after giving 6 separate reasons, that these instruments (organ and harpsichord) were not playing together at the same tim, nor was there a Handelian tradition in Leipzig in Bach's time which would have the harpsichord generally play the recitatives and arias and the organ the sinfonias and choral mvts. (Schering is certainly well aware of the existence of the harpsichords at St. Thomas and St. Nicholas Churches and even has printed out the detailed lists of names and payments made to harpsichord tuners. Schering also lists in detail all the cantatas which have completely or partially figured harpsichord continuo parts). Here are some of his reasons: 1) often the harpsichord part gives the appearance of not being from the original set of parts for the 1^st performance; 2) the remaining, over 100, cantatas where the parts are available do not have extra harpsichord continuo parts; 3) why depend upon the unstable intonation of the harpsichord when the organ would give a much more stable support (possibly using the Rückpositiv for this purpose of accompanying recitatives, etc. 4) the difficulties of keeping the harpsichord in tune with the organ (the latter playing in a transposed key); 5) having both instruments might only make sense when the music is fully orchestrated (using many instruments), but even here the organ would always be able to stand on its own (so why use a harpsichord along with it?); 6) using both instruments would mean needing yet another player - switching back and forth or imagining Bach sitting at the harpsichord conducting a large choral mvt. with a student playing the organ seems very unlikely.

Chris Kern wrote (April 7, 2007):
>>it is odd to see three continuo parts all figured by Bach...we still have an organ part plus another figured continuo part, which would seem to be an almost explicit indication that this cantata was performed with organ + harpsichord support.<<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< This issue was covered in great detail by Arnold Schering who devotes two chapters (20 and 21) in his book, "Johann Sebastian Bachs Leipziger Kirchenmusik", Leipzig, 1936, and comes to the conclusion, after giving 6 separate reasons, that these instruments (organ and harpsichord) were not playing together at the same time, >
And on the other side, Laurence Dreyfus devotes most of chapter 2 (pgs. 10-71) of his 1987 book Bach's Continuo Group to an examination of the issue, coming to the conclusion that the harpsichord was a standard part of Bach's ensemble and often played with the organ.

I will summarize his main points, but beyond this I'm not going to debate this issue because I don't like second-hand debates that are nothing but quoting sources (also I don't like to eclipse the cantata discussions with these kinds of debates). People can read these books themselves and come to their own conclusion.

Anyway, his main points are:
1. Harpsichords in both Leipzig churches were maintained throughout Bach's tenure (and Bach explicitly calls for harpsichord repairs in preparation for certain performances)
2. Contemporary documents attest to the use of the harpsichord during Bach's cantata performances
3. BWV 198 is explicitly said to have involved organ + harpsichord by an observer
4. There are titled harpsichord parts ("cembalo") for the same performances as organ parts (or in other cases, such as BWV 42, there are multiple figured continuo parts)
5. Some figured organ parts have "tacet" markings
6. There are cantatas with organ solos that also have figured bass parts during the solos

This is just a summary; as I said, I urge people to read the book for themselves (and Schering's book too, which Dreyfus makes numerous references to).

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 7, 2007):
Chris Kern wrote:
>>And on the other side, Laurence Dreyfus devotes most of chapter 2 (pgs. 10-71) of his 1987 book Bach's Continuo Group to an examination of the issue, coming to the conclusion that the harpsichord was a standard
part of Bach's ensemble and often played with the organ....
People can read these books themselves and come to their own conclusion...I urge people to read the book for themselves (and Schering's book too, which Dreyfus makes numerous references to).<<
And the still continuing discussion that the existence of both Kammerton and Chorton continuo parts has provoked which causes strong reactions for or against the 'double accompaniment' by organ and harpsichord in Bach's sacred music.

After Schering (1936) and Dreyfus (1987, there have been the following discussions specifically on this issue by other current Bach experts:

Hans-Joachim Schulze "Bach Jahrbuch 1987" pp. 173ff.

Hans-Joachim Schulze "Bach Jahrbuch 1989" pp. 231-233

Yoshitake Kobayashi "Bach Jahrbuch 2001" pp. 98ff.

Ulrich Prinz "J. S. Bachs Instrumentarium" Kassel/Stuttgart, 2005, avoids this unresolved issue entirely by referring to the above sources and treating only those parts specifically marked "Cembalo".

Douglas Cowling wrote (April 7, 2007):
BWV 42 - Opening Sinfonias

Peter Smaill wrote:
< Bach's ability to depict this mood of this point in the of day, here, in BWV 6 and the SMP, "Am abend da es kuehle war", is a further demonstration of his skill with "affekten" and the particular significance which concepts of Time have for the composer. >
This notion of the opening sinfonia as a tone poem depicting a languid evening has certainly never occurred to most modern conductors who take a prestisimmo tempo. You would literally have to take the movement at half the speed to make it a lyrical "Ode to Evening". This Romantic approach to Bach's music runs all through Schweitzer's commentaries -- he really tries to impose a Wagnerian leitmotiv aesthetic on Bach's music.

Which brings us to the question of whether an introductory orchestral movement has a narrative dimension in Baroque sacred music. It's common to read in program notes even today that the Overture to Messiah is a prayer for the coming of the Messiah because it's in E minor and "solemn" (so much for the Allegro fugue!) It's more likely that Händel thought any vocal piece, sacred or secular, required an overture to shut up the audience and focus their attention.

That problem doesn't really exist for Bach, but do his sinfonias have "meaning"? The opening of "Christ Lag in Todesbanden" is more in the early Praetorius tradition of an "intonazione" designed to give the singers the pitch of the following chorus. Schweitzer has an elaborate program for the sinfonia to "Himmelskönig sei Willkommen" in which the music is supposed to depict the garlanding of Christ's entry into Jerusalem.

And what of this cantata? What does the sinfonia "mean"? It doesn't relate in affect to the opening dictum text from Scripture. Is it the risen Christ flying to appear to the disciples? Unlikely. Or does it preface the cantata because the Easter season require a joyous affirmation before the narrative begins? Slightly less unlikely.

The most interesting work is the Easter Oratorio which opens with a huge three movemnt concerto grosso with voices in the finale (Bach's "Ode to Joy"!) Again, I am intrigued by the similarity to Händel's "La Resurrexione" which also opens with a three movement concerto with the Angel appearing in the last movement. In Händel's oratorio, the three movements are clearly linked with a program which has the opening Allegro as the Resurrection, the Adagio as the sorrowing souls in Limbo, and the final Allegro as the Harrowing of Hell. Händel devotes several movements to the scene in "Messiah" -- "Lift Up Your Heads" refers to the gates of Hell.

The similarity to the Easter Oratorio is quite striking. The narrative of the Harrowing of Hell is only implied in scripture and may not have been in Bach's tradition. The evidence of the libretto might suggest that the "program" of the opening movements is: Allegro - the Resurrection, Adagio - the mourning women come to the empty tomb; and Allegro - the race of the apostles to the tomb.

So much is unique about this work that I could ebe persuaded that Bach encountered Italian oratorios through his Dresden contacts.

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (April 7, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< Which brings us to the question of whether an introductory orchestral movement has a narrative dimension in Baroque sacred music. It's common to read in program notes even today that the Overture to Messiah is a prayer for the coming of the Messiah because it's in E minor and "solemn" (so much for the Allegro fugue!) It's more likely that Händel thought any vocal piece, sacred or secular, required an overture to shut up the audience and focus their attention. >
Perhaps the music does have a story behind it. Philip Pickett has written extensively on the use of rhetoric in baroque music with his understanding of the "story" the music was meant "narrate" (especially in the Brandenburg Concerti for example). He cites many treatises from the period that makes for a very compelling theory.

Johann Mattheson gives many many examples of the use of musical rhythms with their equal in poetry and the moods/themes they were meant to suggest. Oddly though, Joshua Rifkin doesn't put much stock in performances that try to make the most of such readings.

< Again, I am intrigued by the similarity to Händel's "La Resurrectione" ....
The similarity to the Easter Oratorio (BWV 249) is quite striking. The narrative of the Harrowing of Hell is only implied in scripture and may not have been in Bach's tradition. The evidence of the libretto might suggest that the "program" of the opening movements is: Allegro - the Resurrection, Adagio - the mourning women come to the empty tomb; and Allegro - the race of the apostles to the tomb.
So much is unique about this work that I could easily be persuaded that Bach encountered Italian oratorios through his Dresden contacts. >
Interesting, I could do a search on RISM to see if this Händel piece survived in Dresden, but my hunch is that Bach didn't know it, but that doesn't rule out Bach knowing about other Italian oratorios (either the imported type via manuscript or home grown/written by Italian composers at the Dresden court).

I know Telemann*, Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel, and Christoph Graupner all wrote opening Sinfonias to their cantatas as well, but as far as I can tell at this writing, Bach's sinfonias (symphonies really- the term is interchangable) to be definitely the longest (although the timings vary in Bach's pieces to very short to quite lengthy). Bach's opening ritornellos are quite lengthy as well, for reasons I'm not sure.

Speaking of Dresden and religious music: I do remember reading that the Electress of Saxony walked out of the first performance of Zelenka's Lamentations, complaining that it was entirely too long; and the piece was never repeated again. How dreadfully embarrassing for a composer who wanted a promotion.

Happy Easter!

--------------------------------------------------------
Telemann wrote a delightful festive Sinfonia to a cantata for the Feast of the Visitation featuring three trumpets and tympani, and Stoezel wrote one for one for a cantata featuring an obbligato organ akin to Bach's BWV 29.

Bradley Lehman wrote (April 7, 2007):
< And on the other side, Laurence Dreyfus devotes most of chapter 2 (pgs. 10-71) of his 1987 book Bach's Continuo Group to an examination of the issue, coming to the conclusion that the harpsichord was a standard part of Bach's ensemble and often played with the organ. >
A fine book indeed, and indispensable for those of us who actually play this stuff.

Some additional questions about that dual-keyboard hypothesis take up most of Peter Williams's published review (which see) of that Dreyfus book: such as drawing out the possibility that the harpsichord part in its Cammerton keys was used for the rehearsals, but maybe not the performance.

Douglas Cowling wrote (April 7, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< Some additional questions about that dual-keyboard hypothesis take up most of Peter Williams's published review (which see) of that Dreyfus book: such as drawing out the possibility that the harpsichord part in its Cammerton keys was used for the rehearsals, but maybe not the performance. >
It's quite possible that Bach never held a rehearsal in the church. The notion that the church was for actual services only and that rehearsals take place elsewhere was a strong ethos in both Lutheran and Catholic churches. To this day, many churches restrict the times that an organist can practice on the instrument. Certainly the logistics of preparing the choir loft and priming the organ makes it doubtful that many rehearsals were held there. It is more likely that rehearsals took place in the school. That might suggest that a harpsichord was used. Many famous colleges across Europe have organs in their halls. Do we know if the St. Thomas School had a fixed or portative organ in its principal hall?

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 8, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>Some additional questions about that dual-keyboard hypothesis take up most of Peter Williams's published review (which see) of that Dreyfus book: such as drawing out the possibility that the harpsichord part in its Cammerton keys was used for the rehearsals, but maybe not the performance.<<
Obviously Peter Williams has not sufficiently considered why 9 cantatas have continuo parts in Cammerton (BWV 3, BWV 18, BWV 20, BWV 24, BWV 38, BWV 44, BWV 60, BWV 124 and BWV 166) which are only partially figured and there is no rhyme or reason to which mvts. were selected for this treatment and which were not. Or why a continuo part marked "Violoncello" for BWV 172 is completely figured. The possibility suggested by Williams would make Bach appear to be ill-prepared to carry out successful rehearsals with continuo (harpsichord) players who really had no chance of 'getting everything right' because they had to guess what Bach was after in those mvts. which were not figured.

Schering had suggested that the only rehearsal for the weekly cantata was at the Saturday afternoon Vespers, an idea which Doug Cowling immediately criticized as an impossibility. Perhaps certaih Vespers (like the Good Friday Vespers) were devoted more toward presenting sacred music than adhering strictly to a specified liturgy for such a service. Who knows, perhaps the Saturday afternoon Vespers made allowances for a dress rehearsal of the cantata to be presented the next morning?

Bradley Lehman wrote (April 8, 2007):
[To Thomas Braatz] Have you actually read Peter Williams's review of that book, or are you simply making up stuff against his review, and against his intelligence and thoroughness?

Douglas Cowling wrote (April 8, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Schering had suggested that the only rehearsal for the weekly cantata was at the Saturday afternoon Vespers, an idea which Doug Cowling immediately criticized as an impossibility. Perhaps certaih Vespers (like the Good Friday Vespers) were devoted more toward presenting sacred music than adhering strictly to a specified liturgy for such a service. Who knows, perhaps the Saturday afternooVespers made allowances for a dress rehearsal of the cantata to be presented the next morning? >
And Doug Cowling will immediately criticize it again.

The public liturgy in St. Thomas was minutely ordered by statute and by the liturgical books. There was no looseness. The Good Friday wasn't some sort of concert of Bach's favourites. The Passion had a particular place and function to perform. Much of the other music was tightly regulated. At another place in Good Friday service, Bach was required to perform Händel's "Ecce Quomodo" every year.

The notion that a public service such as Saturday Vespers was a dress rehearsal would have offended both Bach and his employers who were dedicated to a well-regulated and devoutly executed liturgy. On Sunday morning, Matins was sung at 5 am by choirboys who received a special stipend. The fact that the church was probably nearly empty except for the clergy and boys is testament to the care that was taken that the "Opus Dei", the work of God, was executed properly. Bach probably never attended Matins but he had the responsibility to ensure that the music was in order.

I think that a good case could probably be made that rehearsals never took place in the church, that the only thing heard in the bulding was the official service. We can't underestimate the esteem and reverence in which the church building was held. The church was simply never a venue for concerts.

And what's the point of having a Saturday rehearsal anyway? I thought Bach was still writing the cantata at midnight and his musicians sight-read all the music without ever having seen it before.

Ed Myskowski wrote (April 8, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< And what's the point of having a Saturday rehearsal anyway? I thought Bach was still writing the cantata at midnight and his musicians sight-read all the music without ever having seen it before. >
Details, details, details. If the parts are done and there is time for a rehearsal, we'll have one. If not, no big deal, we'll just wing it. Close enough for jazz and God, both very forgiving.

Chris Kern wrote (April 8, 2007):
This is a lovely cantata. The opening instrumental sinfonia uses a number of obbligato instruments in an excellent combination, and the alto aria, though very long, has an attractive ritornello. The alto aria reminds me of BWV 3, and the bass aria with the two violins reminds me of the duet in BWV 125, but I don't know if this is intentional or not.

Mvt. 6 is kind of unusual because rather than having solos from violin 1 and 2, it says "Violin 1 divisi"; I don't know why Bach did this. It may have had something to do with a specific performance condition that week.

Rilling [5] is definitely my favorite recording of this cantata. He takes the opening sinfonia at a brisk pace, but that seems to suit the music well -- I'm not sure I want to hear it played at an 8 or 9 minute pace. The alto aria is expansive and calls up a depth of feeling that the Harnoncourt recording lacks -- thankfully the oboes he uses are good this time. The chorale duet (Mvt. 4) is a weak point; a little too fast and the voices don't blend together well.

The Harnoncourt recording is fine, but doesn't quite reach the Rilling [5] one. I do like H's sinfonia. He observes the staccato indications and it creates a contrast to the "cantabile" middle section. The chorale is more legato and slow, and the voices blend together more easily.

Unfortunately the .ram file of Leusink's version [7] on this site is lacking the alto aria, making it difficult to compare. As usual, the duet (Mvt. 4) is a high point with the voices blending together perfectly.

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 9, 2007):
BWV 42 Provenance & Copy Session

BWV 42 "Am Abend aber desselbigen Sabbats"

Provenance:

I. The Autograph Score:

At the time when the J. S. Bach's estate was settled in 1750, the autograph score along with the doublets went to C.P.E. Bach, with whom it remained until the latter's death in 1790 at which time it was acquired by the Berliner Singakademie. In 1855, the Staatsbibliothek Berlin, where it is found today, acquired both the score and the doublets.

The cover page written by C.P.E. Bach at any time after 1750 and before 1790 gives the name of the cantata, but J. S. Bach's title at the top of the 1^st page of the score reads only:

J. J. Do[min]ica Quasimodogeniti Concerto da Chiesa.

There are no conclusion markings at the end (like SDG or Fine or both)

An early copy of the score was made by Christoph Nichelmann (1717-1762), a score which was later acquired by Johann Philipp Kirnberger and upon whose death in 1783 it went to the Amalien-Bibliothek, from there to the Joachimsthal Gymnasium and then, finally, to the BB (Staatsbibliothek Berlin). Documentary evidence (watermark used) proves that it was copied between 1730 and 1733 and that it was copied directly from the autograph score. The cover page has the title: "Joh. Seb. Bach | Concerto da Chiesa | auf den Sonntag Quasimodogeniti | Autographen." The score itself has as its title on top of the 1st page: "Doica Qvasimodogeniti Concerta da Chiesa | di Bach."

In Breitkopf's catalog of manuscripts for sale (1770) there is an offering as follows:

"Cantate, Domin. Quasimodogeniti, Wo zwey und drey versammlet sind, a 2 Oboi, Fagot, 2 Viol. Viola, 2 Voci e Fondamento. in Stimm." (Parts available for a cantata for the Sunday Quasimodogeniti called "Wo zwey
und drey versammlet sind" [now Aria Mvt. 3] with 2 oboes, 1 bassoon, 2 violins, 1 viola, 2 voices and continuo.) If one can assume that cantatas were generally named after the first text that appears, then this entry may mean that the cantata, at a later repeat performance, began with the aria and not with the Sinfonia and tenor recitative.

The listing in Breitkopf's catalog is the only one pointing to this specific set of parts which has been irretrievably lost.

II. The Original Set of Parts:

These parts originally belonged to Count Voß-Buch before going to the Berliner Singakademie where they were combined with the autograph score and doublets which were already there. Both were acquired by the BB in 1855. Both Voß-Buch's and Dehn's Singakademie registers show the title "Am Abend aber desselbigen Sabbaths".

Johann Andreas Kuhnau's original cover page for the parts reads:

Domin: Quasimodoge= | niti | Am Abend aber deßselbigen Sabbaths | â | 4 Voc: | 2 Hautb: | Bassono | 2 Violini | Viola | è | Continuo | di Sign: | J S. Bach

[This confirms the title of the cantata for its original performance on April 8, 1725, but what may have happened to this cantata subsequently when Bach revised it? Did the Breitkopf set of parts represent an earlier or later stage of the work as presented in 1725 and 1731 - for the former we have the autograph score and original parts and for the latter the cantata text booklet from 1731 which gives the same text as found in the former.]

II. Details about the oopied parts:

Copyists involved:

Johann Sebastian Bach (JSB) 40 years old
Johann Andreas Kuhnau (JAK) 22 years old
Johann Heinrich Bach (JHB) 18 years old
Wilhelm Friedemann Bach (WFB) 14 years old
Anonymous IId (Anon IId)
Anonymous IIf (Anon IIf)

The Individual Parts (numbered according to the NBA KB):

B1. Soprano

JAK: mvts. 1-4 (actually only the music for Mvt. 4, the other mvts. are marked "tacet")
JHB: mvts. 5-7 (actually only Mvt. 7, the other mvts are marked "tacet")

B2. Alto

JAK: mvts. 1-3 (actually only Mvt. 3 - ditto)
JHB: mvts. 4-7 (actually only Mvt. 7 - ditto)

B3. Tenore

JAK: mvts. 1-4 (actually only mvts. 2 & 4 - di)
JHB: Mvt. 7

B4. Basso

JAK: mvts. 1-6 (actually only mvts. 5 & 6 - ditto)
JHB: Mvt. 7

B5. Hautbois 1

JAK: mvts. 1-3 (actually only mvts. 1 & 3)
JHB: Mvt. 7 (title and clefs)
Anon IId: Mvt. 7 (notation)

B6. Hautbois 2

JAK: mvts. 1-3 (actually only mvts. 1 & 3)
JHB: Mvt. 7 (incorrect version)
JSB: Mvt. 7 (correct version)

B7. Violino 1mo

JAK : mvts. 1-6 (actually only mvts. 1 & 3 & 6)
Anon IId: Mvt. 7

B8. Violino 1mo (doublet)

JHB: mvts. 1-3 (actually only mvts. 1 & 3)
JAK: mvts. 4-6 (actually only Mvt. 6)
Anon IId: Mvt. 7

B9: Violino 2

JAK: mvts. 1-3 (actually only mvts. 1 & 3)
JHB: Mvt. 7

B10: Violino 2 (doublet)

JHB: Mvt. 1 to m 4
WFB: Mvt. 1 from m 4 to end of mvt.
JSB: Mvt. 3 to m 8
JHB: mvt. 3 from m 9 to end; Mvt. 7

B11: Viola

JAK: Mvt. 1-3 (actually only Mvt. 1 & Mvt. 3)
JHB: Mvt. 7 (incorrect version)
JSB: Mvt. 7 (correct version)

B12: Bassono.

JAK: mvts. 1-3
Anon IIf: mvts. 4-6 (actually only Mvt. 4)
Anon IId: Mvt. 7

B13: Continuo (Primary - untransposed, but figured)

JAK: mvts. 1-6 (but not the figures)
Anon IId: Mvt. 7 (but not the figures)
Unknown: figures for mm 1-27 of Mvt. 1
JSB: all the remaining figures

B14: Continuo (transposed, figured)

Anon IId (all except the figures)
JSB: the figured bass throughout

B15: Organo (transposed, figured)

JSB: mvts. 1-6 (up to m 45 in Mvt. 6) all of the figures
Anon IId: Mvt. 6 from m 46 to end; Mvt. 7

B16: Violon. [This part was created for a later
performance circa 1742.]

JSB: mvts. 1-7

III. Conditions behind and leading into the copy process

Just prior to Easter beginning with the Palm Sunday (A Marian Feast Day - BWV 1), continuing through the performance of the Passion on Good Friday and concluding with the Easter Oratorio (first version) and the other Easter cantatas for Easter Monday (BWV 6) and for Easter Tuesday (BWV 4 "repeat performance"), Bach was extremely busy with musical activities thus almost preventing him, once again, from reaching his intended goal: to have the cantata for the coming Sunday, Quasimodogeniti, ready for performance in time. This lack of available time for composing meant that he was under great pressure (as usual) to finish the complete score so that the members of his copyist team could complete their tasks on time. Realizing that this week's schedule of available time was already severely truncated and perhaps also in consideration of the boys of the primary choir who had recently been singing much more than usual [an opinion once expressed by Alfred Dürr and discussed here recently], Bach began to look into a pile of instrumental concerti that he had brought with him from Cöthen. He found one that looked like it could be adapted easily for use in the opening Sinfonia and even in parts of the other mvts. as well. His composing score reflects clearly what was being reused and what was newly composed: parts of the score based upon the earlier concerto appear to be 'clean copy' while other newly composed parts are definitely typical of a composing score (cross-outs, corrections, etc.).

Nevertheless, despite all his best efforts, Bach, once again, could not finish composing the score of BWV 42. The final chorale mvt. had to be composed during the time when the copy process had already begun. This was not an unusual situation, nor was it a problematic one, since his primary copyist, JAK, could begin copying out the parts from the previous mvts. (on loose, unbound sheets) while Bach finished composing the final chorale on another sheet (only 14 measures/bar of Mvt. 6 were on the back of this sheet).

A quotation from the NBA KB I/11.1 p. 71 [reflecting an objective opinion by those directly involved with the detailed examination of the parts]:

"Die Tatsache, daß insgesamt mindestens sechs Schreiber und Bach selbst an der Herstellung des Notentextes beteiligt waren, weist auf Zeitnot hin. Dies zeigt sich besonders deutlich beim Hauptschreiber Kuhnau, der zunächst den vollständigen Stimmensatz (ohne Satz 7) mit Ausnahme der Dubletten und der transponierten Bc.-Stimme schreibt. Bereits ab Satz 4 wird die Bassono-Stimme jedoch nicht mehr von Kuhnau, sondern von Anonymus IIf fortgeführt. Offenbar hielt die Kopie Kuhnau zu sehr auf, so daß er die Aufgabe weitergab."

"The fact that all together at least 6 copyists and even Bach himself were involved in the preparation of the parts points to [Bach] being in a rush and under the pressure of time. This is particularly apparent in the case of the main copyist, Kuhnau who at first prepares a complete set of parts (without Mvt. 7) with the exception of the doublets and the transposed continuo part. Beginning with Mvt. 4, however, Kuhnau does not complete the Bassono part which is taken over by Anonymous IIf. Evidently the copying of this part held Kuhnau up too much so that he turned this task over to someone else."

IV. The Copy Session:

1. JSB still has not finished composing Mvt. 7 (final chorale)

2. JAK first copies out all the vocal parts except Mvt. 7 which is still not yet available to him.

3. JAK then turns his attention to the instrumental parts: 1^st and 2^nd oboes (all except Mvt. 7); then the 1^st and 2nd violin parts (all except Mvt. 7); the viola part (all except Mvt. 7); the bassoon part (except mvts. 4 & 7); the primary continuo part (all except Mvt. 7 and the figures)

4. When JSB finishes composing Mvt. 7, he turns this page of the score over to JHB so that JHB can complete the vocal parts and any of the main set of instrumental parts which JAK has already completed. However, JHB misreads the score when he copies the 2^nd oboe part for Mvt. 7 from the alto part in the score. Likewise, he mistakenly entered the alto part of Mvt. 7 into the 2nd violin (doublet) part, which he then corrected himself, but the former error (2^nd oboe part Mvt. 7) had to be crossed out and completely rewritten by JSB himself. A similar event occurred with the viola part!

5. As soon as JAK has finished copying the violin 1 & 2 parts, he turns his copies over to JSB for correction and further editing. JSB then gives these corrected parts to others so that they can copy from the revised 1st and 2nd violin copies in order to create the necessary doublets.

6. When JHB begins copying Mvt. 7 into the oboe parts, he runs into difficulties. He only begins entering the title and clefs of Mvt. 7 into the 1st oboe part when Anon IId arrives on the scene and completes it for him. Anon IId does the same with the 1st violin part, completing it with Mvt. 7. With Mvt. 7 of the 2^nd oboe part, JHB creates a real disaster: JSB needs to cross out JHB's version and write out a new, corrected version. The very same thing occurs with JHB's veof the viola part for Mvt. 7. JSB needs to cross it out and write out an entirely new part for that mvt.

7. Once JAK finishes all but Mvt. 7 of the primary continuo part, Anon IId takes over to enter Mvt. 7. Anon IId then takes the completed primary continuo part and creates the transposed continuo part (B14)

8. JSB supplies the figures for the primary continuo part and the transposed continuo part before copying the greatest portion of the transposed organo part (all but the end of Mvt. 6 and all of Mvt. 7 which is added by Anon IId. Later JSB writes in the figures for the organo part as well.

9. WFB helps out only for a short while with the 2^nd violin doublet after JHB gives up or is assigned another task after completing only 4 measures/bars of Mvt. 1. WFB copies Mvt. 1 from m 4 to the end of the mvt. Next JSB begins copying Mvt. 3 up to m 8, but then JHB returns to complete Mvt. 3 from m 9 to the end as well as completing Mvt. 7.

10. Anon IIf is called to the copy table only for a single mvt., Mvt. 4, of the bassoon part of which 3 mvts. had been completed by JAK. However Anon IId completes the final mvt., Mvt. 7.

11. Anon IId's major task is copying and transposing from the primary continuo part a second, transposed part to which JSB later adds figures.

12. Summarizing JSB's contribution to the copy session: JSB personally copies almost all of the organo continuo part (all except Mvt. 6 from m 46 to the end and Mvt. 7 which were added by Anon IId. In addition to some major corrections (recopying entire mvts. which JHB hat botched) and taking over temporarily where JHB and WFB had begun the 2^nd violin doublet (JSB copies only the first 8 measures of Mvt. 3!), JSB adds figures to both of the other continuo parts (not to mention the extensive corrections and additions made to all the parts generally: dynamics, articulation, embellishments, etc.). As noted above, the violone part was created personally by Bach for a later performance circa 1742 and was not a part of the original copy session.

Conclusion:

It is quite evident from a careful examination of the parts which constitute the original set used for the first performance of this cantata on April 8, 1725, that the copy process was carried out in great haste due to the fact that Bach was running out of time before the actual performance would take place. If the target involved was a rehearsal on the day before the performance, there would probably be some form of evidence for such a rehearsal whether direct or indirect. Thus far no clear evidence for Bach's rehearsal schedule has turned up in the historical sources, whereas we do have evidence that sight-reading music during actual performances is more likely than not to have occurred. I still contend that a copy scenario as that clearly presented by the evidence above would have occurred in the evening (going into night time) before the actual performance(s) given the next morning in church and that no rehearsals as such would have taken place since Bach's hand-picked musicians were capable of sight-reading to Bach's satisfaction any music which Bach would place before them. Any rehearsals would ultimately leave various clues in the parts that were used by the performers who handled them; however, most reports on the condition of the original parts point to a remarkable feature: they do not display the usual signs of wear and tear normally encountered when parts are used for private study and/or rehearsals. Arnold Schering indicates that these performances would be very good considering the circumstances, but that we should not expect them to have been completely flawless or without some rough edges. On p. 184 of "J.S. Bachs Leipziger Kirchenmusik", Leipzig, 1936, Schering, for instance, comments on this matter as follows:

"seine Aufführungen können als Ganzes unmöglich auf der Höhe technischer und künstlerischer Vollendung gestanden haben. Alles, die ungleiche Beschaffenheit des Sänger= und Spielerpersonals, die Überbelastung der Kantoreien, die Art des Übens, die Zersplitterung des Musikdienstes, Bach's eigene gemischte Anteilnahme an den Funktionen des Chors, deutet darauf hin, daß es bei allem Ehrgeiz der Mitwirkenden höchstens ausnahmsweise zu reiferen, abgerundeten Leistungen gekommen ist."

(".his performances [Bach's performances in Leipzig], taken as a whole, could not possibly have been at the high level of technical and artistic perfection [that we might want to expect]. Everything points to the fact that no matter how much Bach's performers in Leipzig would be driven by ambition to attain the best results possible, they would at most attain the goal of more mature, well-rounded first-rate performances as an exception and not as a rule, the reasons for this being: the unequal quality of personnel [singers and instrumentalists not all being of the same high level of proficiency], the 'overloading' [by placing too many demands/burdens upon] of the required duties in each of the churches under Bach's jurisdiction [some of Bach's best musicians at the Thomasschule might have to be assigned as prefects (choral assistant conductors) in the 3 other churches where the primary choir was not performing], the kind of practicing the musicians engaged in to prepare for performances [this could be music practice not involving the newest cantatas that were to be performed], the splintering [splitting apart] of the musical services which Bach had to provide into too many different categories, and Bach's own mixed interest and participation in the various functions of the choir [this probably refers to such things as the evidence from the complaints lodged against Bach for not teaching music classes as required and laxness in others matters concerning his obligations to oversee all his choirs and the music being performed in all the churches under his jurisdiction].")

Julian Mincham wrote (April 9, 2007):
[To Thomas Braatz] one question

in the existing score/parts was the 'da capo' instruction missing from the sinfonia? And if so was this replicated in early published editions?

I ask because of Schweitzer's crass error of assuming that it began in a major key but ended in the minor. (Of course he shouldn't have made this assumption anyway, but it might be partly excusable if the score available to him lacked this indication).

Douglas Cowling wrote (April 9, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< It is quite evident from a careful examination of the parts which constitute the original set used for the first performance of this cantata on April 8, 1725, that the copy process was carried out in great haste due to the fact that Bach was running out of time before the actual performance would take place. If the target involved was a rehearsal on the day before the performance, there would probably be some form of evidence for such a rehearsal whether direct or indirect. Thus far no clear evidence for Bach¹s rehearsal schedule has turned up in the historical sources, whereas we do have evidence that sight-reading music during actual performances is more likely than not to have occurred. I still contend that a copy scenario as that clearly presented by the evidence above would have occurred in the evening (going into night time) before the actual performance(s) given the next morning in church and that no rehearsals as such would have taken place since Bach¹s hand-picked musicians were capable of sight-reading to Bach¹s satisfaction any music which Bach would place before them. >
Until we see a set of parts -- or a full score for that matter -- have the dates of copying written on them, this midnight oil scenario is total conjecture.

The copying of parts was not an onerous task. A team of four or five copyists - including teenage sons -- could easly have completed the work in a couple of hours' work. If in fact they all worked at the same time under Bach's direction, it would have been an efficient studio production. The absence of mistakes and last minute changes -- the hallmarks of haste -- just aren't present. This was not a Rossini-like race against the clock.

There is nothing to contradict the proposition that Bach completed the full score weeks or even months before the performance date. The copying of parts was an ongoing part of Bach's work week. It was steady, professional work and the results betray no signs of haste. The idea that Frau Bach cleared the dinner table and they got down to business is just silly. The copying more likely took place in Bach's study where there may have been a table permanently set up for this weekly work. I suspect that there was always copying work to be done on several projects and that it was a part of everyone's schedule. I imagine Bach working at his desk on several projects while his copying team produced the parts, the more expereinced musicians mentoring the work of the young people and Frau Cantor Bach. As a part was finished, it would be brought to Bach who would double-check it. Quiet, efficient work.

The seemingly perfect condition of the parts will always be a conundrum but is no proof for the nonsensical idea that the music was sight-read without rehearsal. There are a number of unprovable possibilities. The surviving parts might collections of exemplars from which performing parts were copied ... Or ... The parts may have been placed on music stands and never touched by the performers except to turn pages.

There's no proof for any of the solutions presented and we would serve history better if the scholarship of others was not mixed up with conclusions which are not theirs.

Neil Halliday wrote (April 9, 2007):
BWV 42

Marie noted the meditative effect (the AUM effect!) of the alto aria, in