Continue from Part 1

BWV 62 OVPP Chorus - MP3 File

Charles Francis wrote (July 30, 2003):
You can download an MP3 of a live One Voice Per Part performance of the chorus from BWV 62 (Bach Players): http://www.earlymusic.org.uk/musicwww/bachwww/client1.html

Cantata Nun Komm Der Heiden Heilend BWV 62 [Choral Talk]

Alexander V. Hendrickson [Organist, St. Paul's RC Church, Johnston City, Illinois / Organist and Director of Music, St. Joseph's RC Church, Benton, Illinois] wrote (April 16, 2005):
Can anybody offer any performing advice for this cantata?? I am looking to introduce it to our choir for Advent '06, and am interested in everybody's opinions on it, and it's performance particulars.

By whom is it published by??, What editions are the best??, and are there arrangements of it for less than the original 2 Oboes, Continuo, and String section??

Anybody that has never heard it before (it is a beautiful piece) may listen to it from my website: www.geocities.com/r37c04x35/mp3s/bwv62.mp3

Many Thanks,

Nicholas Petersen [Vocal/General Music Teacher - Robert Goddard Montessori School - Prince George's County Public Schools] wrote (April 17, 2005):
[To Alexander V. Hendrickson]
Visit the following web-site: http://www.bach-cantatas.com

There are sound recordings of the cantatas, as well as score examples and discussion forums. I'm sure that the web-site will answer many of your questions. Much success to you!!

SDG,

Stephen A. Stomps [Director of Choirs - Auburn High School Choirs, Auburn New York, USA] wrote (April 27, 2005):
Yes, the cantata is for Advent. I have performed this several times in the distant past, always in the the Drinker edition and in English. Being young and dumb and very, very snooty, I just couldn't be happy not performing in German UNTIL the director whom I vastly respected and would do anything to please told us all that 1) the German text was not particularly noble in the first place 2) when using the cantata in a liturgy, the text should be most understandable, fulfilling Bach's original intentions.

All of the Drinker editions of the Bach Cantata's are available for rental from the Drinker Library of the Philadelphia Free Library for very meager cost. I don't remember if they are available generally.

Discussions in the Week of November 19, 2006

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 19, 2006):
Introduction to BWV 62 "Nun komm der Heiden Heliand [II]"

Week of November 19, 2006
---------------------------
Cantata BWV 62, Nun komm der Heiden Heiland [II]
Second Annual Cantata Cycle (Jahrgang II)
1st Sunday in Advent
1^st performance: December 3, 1724 - Leipzig
---------------------------
Bach Cantatas resources
Previous Discussions: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV62-D.htm
Main Cantata page: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV62.htm

Text:
German http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/62.html
English http://www.uvm.edu/~classics/faculty/bach/BWV62.html
French http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Texts/BWV62-Fre4.htm
Score Vocal & Piano: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Scores/BWV062-V&P.pdf
Recordings: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV62.htm#RC
Listen to Leusink recording [7] (free streaming download):
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Stream/BWV62-Leusink.ram
---------------------------
Librettist : unknown [possibly Picander]
Reading:
EPISTLE Romans 13: 11-14: 'The night is far spent; the day is at hand'.
GOSPEL Matthew 21: 1-9: Jesus's entry into Jerusalem

This is a chorale cantata, based upon the chorale of the same name.
Eight-verse hymn by Martin Luther (translation of Veni redemptor gentium).
For more details on this chorale melody see: http://bach-cantatas.com/CM/Nun-komm.htm
--------------------------------------------------------
Structure
1. Choral S + hn ATB ob I,II str bc
2. Aria T ob I,II str bc
3. Recit. B bc
4. Aria B bc + str 8va
5. Recit. Duetto SA str bc
6. Choral SATB bc (+ instrs)

--------------------------------------------------------

Comment (mostly based on Dürr).

In this Chorale cantata the unknown librettist uses the eight verses
of the hymn in the following way:
Mvt. 1 (Choral) = verse 1
Mvt. 2 (Aria T) = free paraphrase of verse 2, 3
Mvt. 3 (Recit. B) = free paraphrase of verse 4,5
Mvt. 4 (Aria B) = free paraphrase of verse 6
Mvt. 5 (Recit. SA) = free paraphrase of verses 7
Mvt. 6 (Choral) = verse 8.

The libretto, as the hymn, is centered on the saviour's birth from a virgin (Mvt. 1), expressing wonder at the mystery of this birth (Mvt. 2), celebrating the joyous course of the luminous Hero come to redeem us (Mvt. 3). By his fighting, he makes us stronger (Mvt. 4), so we honour his birth (Mvt. 5) and praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Mvt. 6).

Luther's chorale melody is very peculiar and presents a remarkable symmetry which has been pointed out by Dick Wursten on this list in 2002: of the four lines of the melody, the 1st and 4th are identical, and the 2nd and 3rd are very similar up to an inversion.

The first movement is a chorale fantasia in style concertante, with cantus firmus in the soprano, reinforced by horn. The instrumental ritornello is a very brillant and lively concertante movement, in contrast to the gravitas of Luther's chorale melody. However quotations of the chorale melody are included at various places in the ritornello.

The introductory ritornello contains a quotation of the 1st line of the chorale by the continuo (in the beginning) and a second quotation in a modified form by the oboes (in the end). We have abridged versions of the ritornello between the vocal blocks, without quotation between line 1 and 2, but again with quotations of the chorale melody between line 3 and 4. The ritornello is repeated in full form after line 4.

Ritornello motives in the instrumental parts accompany the vocal blocks, too. In each vocal block, the three lower vocal parts are treated in imitative style, but not all in the same manner: for the first line of the cantus firmus, the lower parts form an imitative texture based on the choral motive in shorter values; they start in advance of the cantus firmus. For the second line, the lower vocal imitative texture is based on the inversion of the choral motive, and for the third, on the ritornello motive. The fourth line's treatment is an expanded form of the first's.

The joyously animated aspect of this movement, made almost inseparable from its graver aspect by the inclusion of chorale quotations in the ritornello, may refer to the gospel's image of Jesus entering Jerusalem rather than to the hymn's words.

In the Tenor aria, the joyful aspect dominates, but in an intimate mood, with a merry siciliano for an instrumental ritornello, and a sweet soaring melod.

A short Basso recitative leads to the Basso aria, which contrasts sharply with the Tenor aria by its peremptory, martial mood, and its more austere accompaniment (the continuo being doubled by violins and violas in the octave).

The duetto recitative, in a sweet, delicate mood redolent of the Tenor aria's mood, leads to the concluding 4-part harmonized chorale.

-------------------------------------------------------
A more personal comment.

The first movement is admirable, combining harmoniously the joyous energy of the instrumental ensemble with the thoughtfulness of the choral melody and text; the result being both inebriating and awe-inspiring, so to speak. A bacchic Bach? - most unorthodox notion, I'll admit! In any case this chorale fantasia is a splendid ouverture for a new cycle of the liturgical year. The subsequent movements are also significant in this respect, I think. I percieve a more intimate climate: light is soon coming back, we know that ultimately it will shine brightly and bring life back, but in the beginning it will be a 'baby' light, which needs nursing in a warm and cosy place. This sense of intimacy is present in the Tenor aria, of course, and also in the recitatives, which are somehow sweeter than those of previous cantatas. Beside the purely theological aspect of things, I percieve a sense of the cycles of nature. After all, a continuity exists between older pagan (gentile!) traditions and christian traditions. This is all rather subjective (not to say far-fetched), but we're in the 'A more personal comment' section so please bear with me!

Neil Halliday wrote (November 19, 2006):
Introduction to BWV 62 "6/4 genre & choral trills

Alain Bruguières wrote:
< The first movement is admirable, combining harmoniously the joyous energy of the instrumental ensemble with the thoughtfulness of the choral melody and text; the result being both inebriating and awe-inspiring, so to speak. >
It's a measure of Bach's consummate genius that he could set the same text in totally different ways in this cantata and in Cantata 61. 61 welcomes the advent of Christ with a great courtly French overture. Here we have that 6/4 movement which we have encountered before with the same repeated note figures and arpeggiated passagework. I'm still curious to know if this 6/4 movement is a formal genre which has not been identified (it's not a loure)

I am also curious about how various conductors perform the trills which appear in this movement particularly in bar 56 where Bach writes both unprepared and elaborately prepared trils. Leusink [7] like most conductors simply ignores them all. There are many OVPP advocates who point to the extreme difficulty of choral trills as evidence that the choruses were sung by single voices. In modern performances, there are seem to be four schools of thought:

1) Ignore all trills (this is the majority position)

2) Each part sings the preparatory appogiatura and close but not the trill itself

3) Each part sings as in 2) but adds a mordent to suggest the trill. The orchestral accompaniment is often doubling and gives the listener the illusion of a choral trill

4) Each part sings the trill with preparation and close in ensemble but sings the trill individually without ensemble.

2) and 3) at least recognizes that Bach requires an ornament at these points. 4) is not as horrible as it sounds, especially in a fast tempo and with a small choir.

If Bach's choruses were sung by mutliple voices per part, then I suspect we have lost forever the ability to execute a choral trill. Cerainly the opening of the Christmas Oratorio (BWV 248) remains a daunting prospect with all those implied trills on "Lasset das Zagen".

Now we can debate how the first trill in bar 56 was prepared.

Neil Halliday wrote (November 19, 2006):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< I am also curious about how various conductors perform the trills >
Gardiner [5] handles the trills rather effectively. One can listen to the first 20 bars or so: Amazon.com

Notice the trill on the 2nd last note of the chorale theme in the continuo, not in the score, but obviously an intelligent choice, both for its effectiveness in enlivening that continuo statement at that point, and its analogy with the trill on the oboes in the corresponding spot in the CM, at the end of the ritornello.

His handling of the vocal trills in the alto and tenor lines (all we can hear in the sample) is also quite effective, with a mordent followed by vocal vibrato which gives the effect of a trill, given that the preceding notes are sung without vibrato.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 19, 2006):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>I am also curious about how various conductors perform the trills which appear in this movement particularly in bar 56 where Bach writes both unprepared and elaborately prepared trills.<<
Bach may write both 'unprepared and elaborately prepared trills' whatever this may mean to you and others, but this would not affect the way that the vocal trills should be performed in BWV 62/1.

DC: >>There are many OVPP advocates who point to the extreme difficulty of choral trills as evidence that the choruses were sung by single voices.<<
This is a typical response which attempts to apply what we experience with singers today to what Bach must have experienced in a likewise fashion. The fallacy here is that such advocates are unaware of the capabilities that singers had during Bach's time. Similar attempts to argue issues in this manner are frequently made: "Bach deliberately composed the Tromba part for BWV 77/4 to be insanely difficult because he wanted express 'imperfection' which is hinted at in the phrase contained in the text of this aria: 'there is still a lot of imperfection in my ability to love'." This then allows trumpeters who have difficulty playing this part not to be concerned about making obvious mistakes because we are able to explain to the audience that Bach wanted it this way.

Those who attempt to find a basis for OVPP based upon what singers cannot do today are certainly mistaken about the abilities of singers that Bach had at his disposal. The argumentation that Bach's singers and players needed weeks of preparation for a cantata performance because that is what is required today for a good performance is similarly misleading and false. In 1706 Martin Heinrich Fuhrmann (1669-1745) published his "Musicalischer-Trichter". In the appendix to this book, Fuhrmann added his method for teaching students who know the rudiments of music to sight-sing in a series of private lessons that would take just three months. According to this 3-month plan, a cantor, giving private instruction with only the aid of a keyboard, could make an excellent musician out of any reasonably talented pupil. This type of private instruction Fuhrmann considered to be the most important and most promising task that a cantor could have.

There are reports from the 17^th and 18^th century in France (Dijon and Chartres) that choir boys were similarly trained: they attended church services with their music teacher, they were taught Latin, Catechism and Martyrology, and in the evening they practiced plain chant, sight-singing and counterpoint. In the evening they also rehearsed the motets and masses to be sung at special church services the next day. After a certain age they had to learn an instrument.

Worth mentioning in this regard is the case of Georg Heinrich Bümler (1669-1745) with whom Bach may well have been personally acquainted although there is no direct evidence to support this claim: Bümler was known far and wide primarily because of his abilities as a singer. Mattheson reported that he had often heard Bümler at the Hamburg Opera sing a trill on a single breath that lasted for more than 20 measures/bars so "daß den Leuten im Parterre bange geworden ist" ("that the people sitting on the ground floor were becominganxious about him") (1722).

Re: the vocal trills beginning in mm 57ff in BWV 62/1:

The best guide for executing these trills properly is found in:

Johann Gottfried Walther "Musicalisches Lexicon.." Leipzig, 1732

>> ,Trillo, pl. trilli (ital.)' ist eine Sing- und Spiel-Manier, zu deren ,expression' (nach Beschaffenheit der Vorzeichnung) entweder die ,Sekunda major' oder ,minor' gebraucht, und diese mit der auf dem Papier gesetzten, und mit einem ,tr', oder ,t' bezeichneten Note, wechselsweise behände und scharff angeschlagen wird: jedoch dergestalt, daß man bey der höhern Note anhebet, und bey der tiefern, als gegenwärtigen, Note aufhöret.<<

("a trill, plural: trills (term derived from the Italian language) is a mannerism [embellishment] used in singing and playing [an instrument] for the expression of which {according to the nature of the tonality} [depending upon which key you happen to be in] either an interval of a major 2nd (a whole step or whole tone above) or a minor 2nd (a half step or semitone above) is used and which is sung/played by alternating swiftly and distinctly ['scharff' = with precision and clarity] with the note on the page having either a 'tr' or a 't' marked above it: this is, however, done in such a way that you begin with the higher note and end with the lower note {the one
indicated on the page}.")

An italicized 'tr' or 't' over a note indicates a specific type of embellishment.

It consists of the note on the page under the 'tr' or 't' and the note above it.

The note above the main note indicated may be either a semitone or whole tone higher than the main note. The size of the interval (a 2nd) depends on the key you happen to be in.

The proper method of singing or playing this embellishment involves alternating quite fast between the two notes and ensuring that each note is distinctly heard.

This type of embellishment always begins on the higher note and ends on the lower, main note that has the 'tr' or 't' indicated above it.

There is nothing here that states that the trill could or would begin before the beat or even have an appoggiatura leading into the trill. Walther clearly distinguishes between the trill and the mordant. A mordant for Walther, and for Bach, is the opposite of a trill and one should not be confused with the other.

My personal advice would be either to execute the trills properly or not do anything at all with the note. All other substitute measures simply move away from what Bach had intended (that is, if you are truly interested in authenticity as far as that can be achieved) and would sound like a Saxon dialect word or pronunciation suddenly appearing here and there. This would be rather distracting as the listener's attention is drawn away from the perfect blend of words and music and begins to focus on "what strange sounds do I hear?"

Douglas Cowling wrote (November 19, 2006):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Bach may write both Ounprepared and elaborately prepared trillsą whatever this may mean to you and others, but this would not affect the way that the vocal trills should be performed in BWV 62/1. >
I wrote this posting specifically to see how insulting you could be.

You never fail to meet our expectations.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 19, 2006):
I had written:
>>Bach may write both 'unprepared and elaborately prepared trillsą whatever this may mean to you and others, but this would not affect the way that the vocal trills should be performed in BWV 62/1.<<
Doug Cowling responded with:
>>I wrote this posting specifically to see how insulting you could be.<<
I had assumed that this question was more about ascertaining what Bach may have had in mind or intended with his trill markings in BWV 62/1. It appears from the response I have received that unwholesome ulterior motives are more important than a forthright participation in what could be an enlightening discussion for all.

For starters, what counterevidence can be presented in regard to Bach's performance practice concerning trills?

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 19, 2006):
Re: on the performance of choral trills in BWV 62/1:

"The modern practice of employing huge choirs, mostly of untrained voices, causes conductors to omit all choral trills and so an invaluable feature is lost. One finds also a notion that such embellishments are undevotional; yet Bach uses the device over and over again. Trills should always be observed; it needs only a little care and practice to secure the unanimity necessary to produce a satisfactory effect"

W. Gillies Whittaker "The Cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach: Sacred & Secular", Oxford University Press, 1959, vol. 2, p. 373

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 19, 2006):
BWV 62 Score Samples

Aryeh Oron has kindly placed on the BCW some score samples of motifs from BWV 62 (mainly those from the 1st mvt.).

They can be viewed at: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Scores/BWV62-Sco.htm
(remember to click on the image again to enlarge it if necessary)

Peter Smaill wrote (November 19, 2006):
Introduction to BWV 62 6/6 Chorale

BWV 62/6 is indeed a simple chorale; Aeolian, and with the melody of the first line identical to the last. What more is to be said ?

There are no flats in the accidentals; It has fourteen sharps, gematric Bach in other words. Likewise, BWV 599, the related chorale prelude from the Orgelbuchlein, commences with fourteen sharps until the sequence is broken by two flats, there being 33 sharps in all.

Whatever one thinks about the gematric possibilities, Bach is using the upward effect of the sharps - a technique observed by Chafe - to put across the message of Hope at the expected arrival of the Saviour.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 19, 2006):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>There are no flats in the accidentals; It has fourteen sharps, gematric Bach in other words. Likewise, BWV 599, the related chorale prelude from the Orgelbuchlein, commences with fourteen sharps until the sequence is broken by two flats, there being 33 sharps in all.
Whatever one thinks about the gematric possibilities, Bach is using the upward effect of the sharps - a technique observed by Chafe - to put across the message of Hope at the expected arrival of the Saviour.<<
Sharps ("Kreuze" in German can mean both 'sharps' as well as 'crosses') are frequently used symbolically by Bach to represent "Cross" (the cross born by Jesus Christ, but also the cross that we (and Bach in reference to his own life) have to bear during our lifetime.

Another interesting perspective on the possibility of Bach intentionally including his musical signature via gematria in this final mvt. of a series of chorale cantatas that have reached a conclusion of sorts (as a bottom line as it were to all of Bach's efforts during the preceding weeks of composing and experimenting with the chorale cantata form) is found in a comment by Konrad Küster in his "Bach Handbuch", Bärenreiter, 1999, p. 276, where he states about BWV 62:

"Die Kantate [BWV 62] bildet den Abschluss einer ersten großen Folge von Choralkantaten (vor der 'Pause' der Adventszeit); in der Gestaltungsvielfalt des Eingangschores, den anspruchsvollen Arien für Tenor and Bass und den kunstvollen Details der Rezitative erscheinen die Mittel, die sich Bach in den zurückliegenden Monaten erarbeitet hat, nochmals auf besondere Weise zusammengefasst. Beim Neustart an Weihnachten werden nur geringfügig andere Akzente gesetzt...."

("The cantata (BWV 62) constitutes the conclusion of a first great series of chorale cantatas (before the quiet time liturgically during Advent in the Leipzig churches). In the creative variety (diversity of forms) of the introductory choruses, in the demanding arias for tenor and bass and in the artistic details of the recitatives, you will find summarized in a very special way [all] the means that Bach had acquired [had worked hard to achieve] during the preceding months. After begianew during Christmas, Bach will only add a few more new directions [to that which he had already accomplished up to this point in regard to the chorale cantata form]...")

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 20, 2006):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Sharps ("Kreuze" in German can mean both 'sharps' as well as 'crosses') are frequently used symbolically by Bach to represent "Cross" (the cross born by Jesus Christ, but also the cross that we (and Bach in > reference to his own life) have to bear during our lifetime. >
Could there possibly be a relation between the first line of the chorale melody 'Nun komm der Heiden Heiland' and the theme of the fourth fugue of the WTC?

Peter Smaill wrote (November 20, 2006):
Alain Bruguieres wrote:
< Could there possibly be a relation between the first line of the chorale melody 'Nun komm der Heiden Heiland' and the theme of the fourth fugue of the WTC? >
Apart from the semitone interval on the second note in WTC Book 1 Fugue 4, (full tone in the Chorale) the themes are indeed comparable, although perhaps the comparison is tentative in view of the short five-note incipit.

However, the circumstantial evidence comparing the sharp-laden BWV 62/6 (whether reading (as I did) the A minor version in Reimenschneider or examing the sharpened note progressions in the B minor original), and this wonderful fugue is quite compelling:

Firstly , it is in four sharps, the key at the heart of the SJP;

Secondly, following the late Dr.Hermann Keller on the equally sharp laden progressions in WTC 1-4:

" This fugue assumes an exceptional place among the clavier fugues of Bach if only through its display of five voices and three subjects........

....if one connects the first note [of the main subject] by a line with the fourth (C sharp to D sharp) and the second with the third (B sharp to E), the figure creates a diagonal, recumbent cross. To Bach himself and his predecessors, this was a well-known symbol; it is found in the Crucifixus of a Mass by Johann Kaspar Kerll, and Bach himself in the crucifixion choruses of the St John and St Matthew Passions. We find ourselves, therefore, in the most subjective, most sacred area of the art of Bach, without intending to class this fugue as a kind of textless church music."

Alain, I think you may thus have found the text which eluded Keller. Bach is introducing the penitential season of Advent with cryptic allusions to the Passion just as the hermeneutics of this Fugue also suggest a religious motive. Try considering the Fugue with the three intertwining subjects representing the persons of the Trinity and the full force of this idea now comes across in the order Son, Holy Spirit and finally the Father.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 19, 2006):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>...following the late Dr.Hermann Keller on the equally sharp laden progressions in WTC 1-4: ....if one connects the first note [of the main subject] by a line with the fourth (C sharp to D sharp) and the second with the third (B sharp to E), the figure creates a diagonal, recumbent cross.<<
For those following this thread: the previous discussion of BWV 62 on the BCW includes my section called "Provenance" where you will find a description of Bach's personal use of "X" in place of "Christ" as part of the title at the top of the 1st page of the score. On the title pages for Parts 2 and 3 of the Christmas Oratorio, Bach also uses the same "X" [which appears as "Xsti"] instead of writing out "Christi" for which there would have been ample room. It was a conscious decision on Bach's part to write it this way [much like writing "Xmas" for "Christmas"].

BWV 846-893 wrote (November 20, 2006):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< I had assumed that this question was more about ascertaining what Bach may have had in mind or intended with his trill markings in BWV 62/1. It appears from the response I have received that unwholesome ulterior motives are more important than a forthright participation in what could be an enlightening discussion for all. >
"Discussion" connotes the open, egalitarian exchange of ideas, not the curmudgeonly rebuke of a self-tenured professor, followed by the usual "enlightening" lecture.

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 20, 2006):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Another interesting perspective on the possibility of Bach intentionally including his musical signature via gematria in this final mvt. of a series of chorale cantatas that have reached a conclusion of sorts (as a bottom line as it were to all of Bach's efforts during the preceding weeks of composing and experimenting with the chorale cantata form) is found in a comment by Konrad Küster in his "Bach Handbuch", Bärenreiter, 1999, p. 276, where he states about BWV 62:
("The cantata (BWV 62) constitutes the conclusion of a first great series of chorale cantatas (before the quiet time liturgically during Advent in the Leipzig churches). >
I agree that from a musical perspective, BWV 62 can be seen as a concluding work within the overall structure of Jahrgang II. However, even from a strictly musical analysis it represents a change in mood from the wistful yearning (thanks, Julian) of BWV 116 at the conclusion of the Trinity season, to a forward looking optimism, appropriate for Advent. Perhaps it is better thought of as a hinge or joining point, rather than a beginning or end?

It is important to maintain the liturgical perspective, that the First Sunday in Advent is the beginning of the year. This point is emphasized by Dürr, who begins his series of detailed analyses with BWV 61 and BWV 62, the two comparable pieces for Advent 1, 1723 and 1724. He comments, regarding BWV 61:
<Bach noted down the order of the Leipzig Advent service in the score of this cantata, which has sometimes led to the conjecture that the work was already composed [...] before 1723. [...] This is neither substantiated, however, nor very likely -- for the Advent cantata with the same opening lines, BWV 62 of 1724, contains a similar entry. In each case, then, Bach's note on the liturgy probably represents an overt emphasis on the start of a new church year. <end quote>

Do we have any knowledge of the position of the text for BWV 62 in relation to other cantatas in the printed booklets? Given the subsequent quiet (penitential) Advent time ending at Christmas, we could logically expect it to conclude a series, but it would be good to have confirmation of this.

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 21, 2006):
Introduction to BWV 62 - 4^th fugue of the WTC

[To Peter Smaill] Thank you for your interest in my interrogative suggestion (or conjecture).

When I first asked the question, I was motivated by the '4 crosses' coincidence, and a general feeling of religiousness I always associate with this 4th fugue, rather close to the mood of BWV 659.

Now that I think of it, there may be more arguments in favour of this conjecture.

During a previous round of discussion, Dick Wursten made a very interesting contribution, explaining that Luther transformed the original ambrosian melody in the sense of greater simplicity and symmetry.

Thomas observed that Bach could not have failed to notice this symmetry.

Bach in turn experimented quite a lot with Luther's melody. In particular, the choral preludes for organ based on Nun komm der Heiden Heiland are famous. The most popular of them (BWV 659) is one of the most elaborately
oramented choral melody Bach ever produced, based (almost ironically) on Luther's drastic simplification of the original melody.

On the other hand, in BWV 62, Bach outsimplifes Luther when he uses the 1st line (and later, a modified version of it) as a substitute and announcement for the whole melody, embedded in the introductory ritornello.

If my conjecture is correct, in the 4th fugue of the WTC he goes a step further: the 1^st theme of that fugue, if indeed it is an avatar of the same melody, is probably the most concise form he could have devised without losing all perceptible relation to the original.

One more remark on that fugue: the ttheme, rather surprising for a fugal theme, because of its conclusive character, is rythmically identical with the 1st line of the chorale, and sounds very much (to my ear) like an 'optimistic' variation on it.

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 21, 2006):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< ....if one connects the first note [of the main subject] by a line with the fourth (C sharp to D sharp) and the second with the third (B sharp to E), the figure creates a diagonal, recumbent cross. >
If one transposes this figure down by a tone and a half (minor third?), and fudges just a bit, doesn't one arrive at BACH? And couldn't the very same connections be made in his thematic motto?

By coincidence, I had dinner out this evening, a relatively uncommon event. I ordered the skewered shrimp. The portion was generous (we are, after all, in the USA). The two skewers came on a large plate, arranged in the form of a recumbent cross! There were a total of ten shrimp (five per skewer) Three times three, plus one!

Draw your own conclusions.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 21, 2006):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
>>If one transposes this figure down by a tone and a half (minor third?), and fudges just a bit, doesn't one arrive at BACH? And couldn't the very same connections be made in his thematic motto?<<
Yes, this has already been pointed out by some Bach experts.

>>By coincidence, I had dinner out this evening, a relatively uncommon event. I ordered the skewered shrimp. The portion was generous (we are, after all, in the USA). The two skewers came on a large plate, arranged in the form of a recumbent cross! There were a total of ten shrimp (five per skewer) Three times three, plus one! Draw your own conclusions.<<
Of course, no reasonable, sensible person would reason this way from a decorative placement made by a chef or
waiter. While it is not a coincidence that the skewers were placed in the shape of a cross, we can still speculate reasonably about the motivation behind this placement and still not make a religious or musical connection to Christ's cross or Bach's name. It is a very different situation when one seriously confronts Bach's music and considers what we know about it and Bach's way of thinking. Then the reference to chiastic structures takes on a new and much deeper meaning as we begin to see how Bach employed them either unconsciously (because he was so steeped in this type of thinking) or consciously (because he deliberately thought and composed on several levels at one time).

On the one hand, we can chuckle, smile, or even laugh at the cleverly ironic comment that Glenn Gould once
made to an audience when referring to the use of gematria [B=2; A=1; C=3; H=8 = total 14] to arrive at one of Bach's 'magic' numbers: "Anyone can see that by doing the same with my name [Glenn = 52 and Gould =
59], the results will be 7 and 14. Such witty comments make light of the fact that Bach was aware of the gematric interpretation of his family name.

On the other hand, there is always a great danger of 'going overboard' in the search for all the possible hidden meanings, symbols, and numbers (gematrically derived) that might be present in Bach's works.

The best course seems to be to tread carefully along a 'middle road' between these extremes, always being aware of the pitfalls while not underestimating Bach's genius. If the BCML is to be somewhat like a 'think tank', then all seemingly reasonable ideas should be 'placed on the table' for all to examine and consider seriously.
<>

Peter Smaill wrote (November 21, 2006):
[To Ed Myskowski] Thank you for the introduction to gastro-hermeneutics! Always remember to check the fish-heads for coins just as JSB did while looking for those pesky mathematical formulae!

Seriously I have every sympathy for the sceptics as my first reaction was to dismiss Smend and gematria at University 30 years ago. Not only that, but a sharp was just a sharp and they are a barrier to playing much of the "48" with ease!

But there are simply too many devices generally in the Cantatas and elsewhere in Bach's oeuvre to justify that extreme. On the other hand, for example,Timothy Smith , whose "discovery" of the "circulatio" recurs in our
discussions, does not quite convince when he talks about the BACH motif transposed and inverted in the SMP. At that point , surely, the four notes have ceased to be the BACH motif since they must be at exactly the right pitch for the allusion to hold?

There is no denying some artifice in Bach. There are the chiastic structures in the SJP and several cantatas; BACH is definitely the musical inference in the unfinished K de F ( it is otherwise an inexplicable choice of
culminating theme as it is a very abstruse,scarcely singable, sequence acoustically); there is a cycle of keys in the SJP; the passus duriusculus does occur often (but not always) in relation to themes of suffering . There are acronyms is contemporary Chorales and in at least two Bach works, BWV 150 and BWV 1127, the former being of his family name. Try explaining the theme of "Dies sind die Heil'gen Zehn Gebot" without reference to number! (The seafood platter will come in handy here). As to the recumbent cross idea; out of context it seems wacky but Dr Keller does give rather more evidence for it than the quotation suggests.

Boyd's take on Smend and gematria (Ruth Tatlow) IMO is about right:

"It is initially puzzling how an eminent musicologist with a great interest in primary sources could have presented such ideas and examples without adequate historical evidence. A close look at his family and educational background shows that he inherited a view of Bach weighted heavily in favour of Bach the church musician. Having studied theology, he knew from church history that the Church Fathers had written about the symbolic use of biblical numbers. Knowing also that Bach's society was steeped in the Lutheran faith and that
Bach himself had a large library of theological books, Smend was perhaps justified in looking for these symbols in Bach's music.......Smend did not develop his ideas on number symbolism until after 1950, and was saddened to to see the direction the subject took.

In spite of the paucity of historical evidence, number symbolism is still an attractive analytical tool today, as it promises a direct path from the musical scores into the heart and mind of the compoaser, by locating the correct
numbers,operating and translating them accurately,it is possible to create a beautiful interpretation of Bach's thought world. This has been done both successfully and absurdly.

For the subject to move forward it must reject much of its past. The priority is to establish the historical plausibility that Bach used numbers as a tool when he composed. Only then will it become clear which forms of
enumeration, operation, and translation he used, and only then will analysts deciphering his compositional process be able to make valid interpretations."

Easier said than done!

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 21, 2006):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< Boyd's take on Smend and gematria (Ruth Tatlow) IMO is about right: >
I agree, and thanks for taking my attempts at humor without offense.

< In spite of the paucity of historical evidence, number symbolism is still an attractive analytical tool today <snip> This has been done both successfully and absurdly. >
By intentionally being very absurd, I was pointing out how easily one can drift across this boundary. I believe you recognized this. I agree with your basic point, that successful and attractive analysis based on number symbolism is valid. Pushing it too far hurts the perception of that validity, so it is best to err on the conservative side. IMO, anyway.

Thanks for the theology thread, BTW, I meant to say that in my miscellaneous comments winding up BWV 116. I think the transition from the mystery of the Trinity in that work, moving toward the mystery of the coming Virgin birth in BWV 62, is especially well illuminated by the apparent heresy you pointed out; the heresy only as a result of logic (theo-logy?) applied to a mystery. The music says itbetter.

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 21, 2006):
I understand that one may and should be careful about seeing symbols everywhere in Bach's works.

It is true that the cross in the 1st theme is not proof that Bach had Christ in mind, and the resemblance to the 1st line of the chorale 'Nun komm der Heiden Heiland' is not obvious. The 1st theme would be a minimalist representation of the chorale.

However, the observation that the third theme also is very similar to the 1st line of 'Nun komm der Heiden Heiland' seems to be one coincindence too many (I find humming them in succession very convincing).

I now tend to think that indeed this whole fugue is - not a religious work in the strictest sense - but a keyboard piece based on thematic material deriving from this chorale and a mood appropriate to this origin.

The relation of the 2^nd theme to the chorale is less clear. However if you start thinking about it, it may well exist. There is a sequence of cross-motives there. I'll investigate! But even if the 2nt theme is a merely instrumental theme, it's not a problem for me. Art isn't systematic!

The fact that the BACH theme is cross-shape is for us a coincidence; but Bach may have interpreted it as a sign... In any case Bach was attentive to the shapes of melodies, and their symmetries. The fact that BACH read backwards is the same as BACH inversed cannot have escaped him. Also, the fact that the 4th fugue is number 4 (4 being the number of branches of a cross), that the signature is 4 Kreutz, and that the theme he used may be viewed as a kreutz cannot have escaped him. After all for him the cross was not some arbitrary sign, it was the most important symbol of all! I cannot imagine that he was not aware of the possible interpretation of shape of the theme as a cross. Maybe he didn't mean it as a cross and, laughing softly in his beard, he thought about some idiotic amateur musicologist of a far future would believe that the theme is a cross. But he must have been aware of that possible interpretation.

Neil Halliday wrote (November 21, 2006):
BWV 62

A striking feature of the opening chorus is its rhythmic vitality, with the many structural elements (apart from the cantus firmus) rippling with joy and exhilaration.[Is Leusink too slow? The others (for which there are samples available at the BCW), from Harnoncourt [3] on, all set a lively pace].

Thanks to Thomas for the examples from the score: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Scores/BWV62-Sco.htm

I love Whittaker's characterisation of those marvellously animated, exhilarating violin figures as "flights of Angels", however fanciful that may be!

The first and fourth lines of the cantus firmus are introduced by the lower voices in the usual imitative fashion (the fourth line with a longer passage); whereas the cantus firmus leads the entry of the other voices in the second and third lines. The combined choral and instrumental sound is wonderfully exalted when the cantus firmus enters with the 1^st and 4^th lines of text.

Notice that the c.f. quoted on the oboes at the end of each relevant ritornello rises over the course of the movement (beginning on B, then E, then F#, then back to B).

[On the subject of choral trills, I like Rilling's treatment [4] of the vocal trills as explicit mordents, even if this does represent an easy solution to a difficult problem].

The tenor aria is melodious and happy (with a vocal descent of the entire G major scale, after the first note), and features some very long melismas on key words. Bach varies the orchestral timbre by omitting the oboes that double the violins from time to time, and the orchestration itself is rich and varied

The bass aria is a very operatic affair, with elaborate (and no doubt difficult to sing) melismas abounding. The stark unison orchestration symbolises the elemental victory of Christ the Hero.

Peter Smaill wrote (November 21, 2006):
[To Alain Bruguieres] Well there is nothing at all unusual at connecting at least one other fugue the WTC to a religious motive, the example of course being the great E major Fugue 9 of Book 2, also in the key signature of four sharps. (Only now does this seem potentially significant!)

"With the exception of two outlying bass-notes this whole fugue is singable by an unaccompanied four part chorus...and has , in fact, been so sung with exquisite effect" (Tovey)

"Of all Bach's fugues in vocal style, this one is nearest to the style of Palestrina" (Keller)

"Riemann has drawn attention to the vocal character of the fugue and has actually suggested a text -"Lob, Preis und Dank sei dem Herr, der uns erloest von dem Tod", which could be fitted to the notes. (Youens)

Stephen Benson wrote (November 21, 2006):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< Is Leusink too slow? >
In a word, and IMHO, "yes".

Since I started listening to the cantatas, BWV 62 has always been right at the top of my list of favorites, and much of the reason for that has been the opening chorus, which is, for me, the embodiment of sheer joy and exuberance. Leusink's turgid tempo, however, sucks the life right out of it. Until this week, I would have said that Herreweghe [6] provided the most satisfying account. Repeated listenings in the past few days, however, to his recording and to those of Gardiner [5], Koopman [8], and Leusink have made me a convert to Gardiner's performance, which displays an incisive energy and an irresistible and infectious buoyancy. I can't get enough of it. I keep playing it over and over because it brings me great joy and makes me feel good, and isn't that what it's supposed to do?

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 21, 2006):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< A striking feature of the opening chorus is its rhythmic vitality, with the many structural elements (apart from the cantus firmus) rippling with joy and exhilaration. >
I agree with the rhythmic vitality and exhilaration, yet 'rippling with joy' is not the phrase which springs to my mind. To me this piece sounds at the same time exhilarating, dramatic and poignant.

< [Is Leusink too slow? The others (for which there are samples available at the BCW), from Harnoncourt [3] on, all set a lively pace]. >
I have Leusink and Harnoncourt [3]; I much prefer Harnoncourt, much more lively indeed, and paradoxically more poignant. The faster tempo enhances both the joyfulness and the 'gravitas' (maybe there is more than tempo to it). Perhaps it is the contrast between the liveliness and the gravitas which enhances both; so if you don't have enough of the one, the other is spoiled.

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 22, 2006):
Neil Halliday wrote: :
<< A striking feature of the opening chorus is its rhythmic vitality, with the many structural elements (apart from the cantus firmus) rippling with joy and exhilaration. >>
Alain Bruguières wrote:
< I agree with the rhythmic vitality and exhilaration, yet 'rippling with joy' is not the phrase which springs to my mind. To me this piece sounds at the same time exhilarating, dramatic and poignant. >
Agreement on the rhythmic vitality and exhilaration is a good beginning.Can we reconcile <rippling with joy> with <dramatic and poignant>?

In the spirit of Advent, looking forward, the joy seems appropriate. On the other hand, in the Leipzig spirit of Advent as a penitential season, without additional music, drama and poignancy are also appropriate. I apologize for putting it into plain language, but Advent One is a tease. Bach nails it, as usual.

And looking back to the text for BWV 116/1, the Prince of Peace was already, by Bach's era, not exactly an unqualified success. Progress in the subsequent years is in the eye of the beholder. Joy, with qualifications. Poignant sounds about right.

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 22, 2006):
Number symbolism [was Introduction to BWV 62 /6 Ch]

Peter Smaill wrote:
< Try explaining the theme of "Dies sind die Heil'gen Zehn Gebot" without reference to number! (The seafood platter will come in handy here). >
You made me work just a bit (thin German skills), but I got it. I would submit that the number ten (10) has special significance for us, predating speech, let alone references, because of the digits on our hands.

Ten Commandments. Coincidence? I think not. Good place to start!

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 22, 2006):
Robertson, re BWV 62/5 (S,A recit, accompanied):

This simple little duet is exquisite. The first violins rise high above the voices as if illustrating the closing line <The darkness frightens us not, we see Thine undying light.>

Julian Mincham wrote (November 22, 2006):
BWV 62 ----contrasting characters

Ed Myskowski wrote:
< Can we reconcile <rippling with joy> with <dramatic and poignant>? >
Yes I think we can. Firstly just to note that it is an interesting and constructive exercise to attempt to describe the character of a piece of music in words (one can obviously never fully succeed in this but it is an effort worth making) and then returning to the music/score to attempt to determine the technical reasons as to how the composer achieved such affects. This is a technique I have often introduced to degree students in an attempt to get them to consider more deeply

1 the character (i.e. expressive effect) of the music

2 the compositional techniques employed and

3 the links between the two---(1) obviously arises from (2).

Just for starters listen to the opening bars of this chorale fantasia. The first two bars (let's, for convenience, call them A) seem light and slightly tentative compared with that which follows(B). The orchestration of A is less heavy and the repeated little three note motive has a tentative, wistful, slightly less certain (poignant??) quality about it.

The following B section is more strongly orchestrated and contains a plethora of continuous semiquaver scalic figures and strongly repeated notes. The first is often exploited by Bach as a way of expressing energy, movement and commotion (e.g. BWV 26 and BWV 78) and the repeated notes have an insistency and dominance that A does not.

So right from the beginning Bach presents us with contrasting ideas, bound together but communicating differing characters. This is a technique more commonly to be found in the later Classical period (the opening bars of Mozart's Jupiter symphony and his C minor piano sonata offer excellent examples) but we find it elsewhere in Bach too, although not always so dramatically stated. One example is the opening two bars of BWV 1 (the last of the set of 40 chorale fantasias from the current cycle) which we will be discussing in the new year.

It's also worth noting that the ritornello as a whole is constructed from a blending and contrasting of A and B. Furthermore, of the four solid chorale blocks, only one merges into an instrumental episode beginning with B--the other three episodes begin with A.

Conclusion? that Bach intends to combine both significant aspects of forcefulness and wistfulness and he certainly does not want the sense of the latter to be lost or over-shadowed by the energy of the former.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 22, 2006):
BWV 62 Additional Score Samples

Aryeh Oron has kindly added some additional score samples to those already existing at: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Scores/BWV62-Sco.htm
[to enlarge the image, click again on it]

Example 2 represents Alain Bruguières' suggestion regarding the possible connections between the chorale melody "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland" and the fugue from the 4^th Prelude & Fugue of the WTC1.

Example 3 points to the 14 crosses/sharps that relate through gematria to Bach's family name. This discovery
was made by Peter Smaill and its significance was discussed earlier this week.

Stephen Benson wrote (November 22, 2006):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< Conclusion? that Bach intends to combine both significant aspects of forcefulness and wistfulness and he certainly does not want the sense of the latter to be lost or over-shadowed by the energy of the former. >
Bach "intends"? And not only Bach "does not want", but Bach "certainly does not want"?

This attribution of intent strikes me as dangerously constructionist. It would not be unreasonable for you to say "This is what I personally hear in this music, and these are the technical aspects in the score that produce that response." To expect others, however, to experience exactly that same response to the music and to attribute that to the purposeful design of Bach amounts to the imposition on his thinking of your own unjustified rogrammatic affective interpretation. The "wistfulness" that you hear in what you call figure A may be nothing more than a puckish twist to impart to the music a sprightly shimmer and to keep it light and dancing forward. With all due respect, neither you nor I is in a position to determine categorically which, if either, is related to Bach's intent. I, personally, continue to hear in this movement nothing more than pure and unadulterated joy.

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 22, 2006):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Example 2 represents Alain Bruguières' suggestion regarding the possible connections between the chorale melody "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland" and the fugue from the 4^th Prelude & Fugue of the WTC1. >
Not only that: you also suggest a connection between the 3^rd theme (or 2nd counnter-subject) and the 2nd line of the chorale which never occurred to me and which I find equally, if not more, convincing!

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 22, 2006):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< Conclusion? that Bach intends to combine both significant aspects of forcefulness and wistfulness and he certainly does not want the sense of the latter to be lost or over-shadowed by the energy of the former. >
Stephen Benson wrote:
< Bach "intends"? And not only Bach "does not want", but Bach "certainly does not want"?
This attribution of intent strikes me as dangerously constructionist. It would not be unreasonable for you to say "This is what I personally hear in this music, and these are the technical aspects in the score that produce that response." >
Isn't that precisely what Julian was doing in the paragraphs preceding his conclusion? And what he stated as his objective at the outset?

I suppose if you really need to quibble, certainly is subjective emphasis. Other than that, the post was very enjoyable, easy to follow, and helpful in understanding some apparently conflicting language in earlier BWV 62 posts.

Julian Mincham wrote (November 22, 2006):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< Conclusion? that Bach intends to combine both significant aspects of forcefulness and wistfulness and he certainly does not want the sense of the latter to be lost or over-shadowed by the energy of the former. >
1 Well, let's tease out Mr Benson's thoughtful, carefully considered and moderately expressed response a little
Stephen Benson wrote:
< Bach "intends"? And not only Bach "does not want", but Bach "certainly does not want"?
This attribution of intent strikes me as dangerously constructionist. >
2 the word 'dangerously" seems to me to be an over reaction. Are the opinions expressed likely to maim? or kill? or place anyone in danger of any kind? Might the use of this adjective be something of an over reaction within this context?

< It would not be unreasonable for you to say "This is what I personally hear in this music, and these are the technical aspects in the score that produce that response." >
3 No it wouldn't be at all unreasonable to say that. Nor, I think would it be unreasonable to assume the subtext of my posting, particularly if the context had been grasped--see below---that these were expressed opinions and not requirements placed upon others, to experience exactly that same response to the music.

< to attribute that to the purposeful design of Bach amounts to the imposition on his thinking of your own unjustified proaffective interpretation. >
4 I could object to the word 'programmatic' which seems to be misused here. However, could Mr Benson kindly explain where, at any point I 'expect others to experience exactly that same reponse?" Who is being 'constructionalist' now? But it is not, fortunately, a matter of immediate danger'

< The "wistfulness" that you hear in what you call figure A may be nothing more than a puckish twist to impart to the music a sprightly shimmer and to keep it light and dancing forward. With all due respect, neither you nor I is in a position to determine categorically which, if either, is related to Bach's intent. >
4 I return to the context of my posting which, it seems to me that Mr Benson has missed or chosen to ignore. It was a question from an active, interested member of the list who asked a perfectly reasonable question i.e. could certain apparently contradictory expressive aspects of the music be reconciled? I attempted to respond by saying yes, I thought they could be and I gave examples to support the argument. Nowhere did I suggest that everyone had to hear the music as I, or others, do. My comments about Bach's intentions (and here we might reach a point of tentative agreement) were all made within the context of attempting a way of answering that (interesting and complex) question. I thought that would have been obvious----clearly it was not.

< I, personally, continue to hear in this movement nothing more than pure and unadulterated joy. >
5 Well good for you. Others hear different things which is where this discussion began. It may be that what you hear is exactly what Bach wanted you to hear, no more and no less---we shall never know. It may also be that those with a more subtle instinct may hear something more complex--and we don't know if Bach would have intended that either. But, as I have said, it appears that some people do detect these complexities which is where the discussion began.

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 22, 2006):
Alain Bruguieres wrote:
< The fact that the BACH theme is cross-shape is for us a coincidence; but Bach may have interpreted it as a sign... >
Ed Myskowski wrote:
>>If one transposes this figure down by a tone and a half (minor third?), and fudges just a bit, doesn't one arrive at BACH? And couldn't the very same connections be made in his thematic motto?<<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Yes, this has already been pointed out by some Bach experts. >
Just the opposite of coincidence. If the recumbent cross symbolism is to be taken seriously, then it needs to be demonstrated that Bach recognized it in his own motto. Otherwise it is difficult to accept that he intended it in four note figures which are transpositions/transformations of that motto.

I am uncertain whether Thomas is citing Bach experts to include the recumbent cross interpretation, or just the transposition. In either case, a more specific reference would be welcome.

Note that any four note pattern can be construed as a cross of some sort, unless it forms a straight line.

I am not questioning the importance of the cross as symbol to Bach. Indeed, one really enjoyable detail is the one pointed out by Thomas on the Bis/Suzuki booklets -- the single note in the middle of crossed music staves, which creates a BACH motto. I am keeping an open mind, just asking for the evidence to convince me.

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 23, 2006):
Stephen Benson a écrit
< I, personally, continue to hear in this movement nothing more than pure and unadulterated joy. >
What you say here really surprizes me. Of course I must believe you. Therefore, on the level of 'affect', this piece can be percieved in completely different (almost opposite) ways! That in itself is a remarkable fact.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 23, 2006):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
>>I am keeping an open mind, just asking for the evidence to convince me.<<
This is certainly the best attitude to have: having an open mind and waiting for convincing evidence.

While having a Bach expert state something directly would carry some weight depending upon the quality of evidence that is given to support a statement, I personally find that Ed's resolve in attempting to find an answer to a question will most likely lead to a successful conclusion if he keeps his mind focused on certain issues. This method works best for me. Sometimes the question marks are resolved quickly but at other times it may take weeks, months or even years before an issue is resolved in my mind. The answer in such a case either comes very unexpectedly from a source which may not have seemed important until the discovery is made (I like to think that I was not yet ready to have a specific insight until the time is ripe in my studies and deliberations). A realization attained in this manner is usually based upon much more than a direct insight given to me by another, as it were, on a silver platter. Also present are all the previous attempts, deliberations, and suppositions from the past leading up to the moment (something like a minor epiphany regarding a specific aspect of Bach's music) where this knowledge finally begins to take on a special meaning.

EM: >>Just the opposite of coincidence. If the recumbent cross symbolism is to be taken seriously, then it needs to be demonstrated that Bach recognized it in his own motto. Otherwise it is difficult to accept that he intended it in four note figures which are transpositions/transformations of that motto.<<
With the dearth of personal utterances or letters by Bach, there is much regarding Bach's music that cannot be proven by demonstrating that Bach recognized it and intended it to be understood. In lieu of Bach's statements, we need to find other methods for determining the likelihood that something related to Bach's life and oeuvre could be reasonably true.

EM: >>I am uncertain whether Thomas is citing Bach experts to include the recumbent cross interpretation, or just the transposition. In either case, a more specific reference would be welcome.<<
You certainly have a right to ask for more specific information or references. I personally know from reading literature on Bach that I have seen a few different instances the 'cross symbolism' applied to patterns of notes in Bach's music. I have only been able to locate one such source quickly: Ludwig Prautzsch "Bibel und Symbol in den Werken Bachs" Kassel, 2000,ISBN 3-8311-1028-X, p13ff. The chiastic structures cited include more than 4 notes as in 'BACH' in notational form.

EM: >>Note that any four note pattern can be construed as a cross of some sort, unless it forms a straight line. I am not questioning the importance of the cross as symbol to Bach.<<
But you do seem to question its validity by stating as an 'obvious' fact 'that any four note pattern can be construed as a cross of some sort'. What is important here is not to find a similar pattern used by another composer to claim the appearance of a cross was coincidental and not intended, but rather to focus entirely on everything we know about Bach, on precisely what the Bach's text is trying to say and how he goes about implementing these ideas. It is important to realize that Bach's way of thinking involved several levels simultaneously. He was a musical 'punster/punner'. He must have delighted in seeing the eyes of others light up when they realized something beyond normal music-making that Bach had intentionally placed into the music. Of course, we cannot go back to him now and ask: "Would you put that in writing please because I know that others won't believe this unless you say so."

We do have to rely on the insights of many Bach experts who have spent sufficient time with Bach's musical materials so that we can be enlightened and gain a better understanding and appreciation of Bach's methods which led to the results that still cause wonderment today. Within reason we should also attempt to discover things for ourselves and, if we are fortunate enough, to share these insights with others who are also searching for a better understanding.

Context is extremely important in determining the possible, reasonable validity of assertions that cabe made about Bach's music. To approach Bach's music with the dry logic of a logician in an effort to determine why his music is still so 'full of life', will lead to a dead end every time as Mephistopheles in Goethe's "Faust I" puts it in his advice to a young student:

>>Wer will was Lebendigs erkennen und beschreiben, Sucht erst den Geist herauszutreiben, Dann hat er die Teile in seiner Hand, Fehlt leider! nur das geistige Band.<<

("Whoever wants to recognize and describe the living element [that which has life in it], Will first try to drive out the spirit/soul, Then he will have [all] the parts in his hand, What's missing, unfortunately, is only the spiritual connection! [between the parts - this connection being the most important element of all that sustains life].")

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 23, 2006):
Introduction to BWV 62 - quotations of CM in the ritornello

One thing has been intriguing me from the start.

I'm in the office, I don't have my Dürr at hand, but I seem to remember Durr saying that, in the opening ritornello to BWV 62/1, we have a quotation of 1^st line of the CM in the beginning, and a quotation of the 4th line in the end.

This is slightly puzzling to me since it seems that 1^st and 4^th line are identical. However the quotations are not: the first is indeed the 1st line verbatim, but the second is something else.

What is this something else? In my introductory message, I described it as a 'modified form of the 1st line'. I do think this is the case, but I would find it difficult to prove. However this assertion of mine hasn't been challenged so far.

If we assume that the second quotation is a modified form of the 1^st line (or 4^th line) of the chorale, then one must admit that Bach took many liberties with this melody. With him it is a variable geometry melody.

Moreover notice that he modifies the melody so as to make it begin with a cross-motive (I use cross-motive merely descriptively, for the geometric form, irrespective of interpretation).

Lastly notice that the ressemblance of the 'modified form' to the theme of the 4th fugue of the WTC is more obvious than that of the unmodified form.

The WTC appeared in 1722. If you assume that Bach had devised fugue 4 with 'Nun Komm...' in mind, then the second 'quotation' might be a (conscious or not) allusion to that fugue. Almost a private joke?

Now perhaps you will have other interpretations of this second 'quotation', I'm very curious about this.

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 23, 2006):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< Note that any four note pattern can be construed as a cross of some sort, unless it forms a straight line. >
The point is, we do not have 'any four note pattern'.

The point is we have 4 notes forming a parallelogram (not any sequence of 4 notes does it).

Now when you draw the 4 vertices of a parallelogram, and want to link them with segments of lines to forme a picture, there are basically two things you can do :

- you draw the perimeter of the parallelogram;

- you draw the diagonals.

From a geometric point of view, drawing the diagonals is very interesting because you notice that in a parallelogram, they intersect in their middle (that is a possible definition for a parallelogram), which forms a cross. In fact when you draw a parallelogram you almost always draw the diagonals, to show pictorially that the middles coincide.

So (at least for some with a geometrical mind) it is perfectly natural, confronted to the 4 notes in question, to consider two shapes, the parallelogram and the cross. The cross being perhaps more pertinent. [Somewhat similarly, when you draw a regular pentagon, you often draw also the pentacle - five branch star, and there you can notice many 'coincidences' involving the golden ratio, but that's another story! indeed all polygons have their associated stars.]

If in addition you are a christian and one who is in the habit of seeking for ways of expressing concepts by means of groups of notes forming significant shapes, then the cross would definitely jump to your eyes, I think.

Neil Halliday wrote (November 23, 2006):
Alain Bruguieres wrote:
< In my introductory message, I described it as a 'modified form of the 1^st line'. I do think this is the case, but I would find it difficult to prove. >
You are correct. The second quotation of the CM (on the oboes) contains a kind of rhythmic diminution of the 1st four notes of the first (straight) quotation of the CM as it first appears in the continuo. The last four notes (occupying a bar and a half) of this CM phrase are identical in length in both cases.

Technically, in the first quote of the CM (continuo), the first four notes are all dotted minims, whereas in the second quote at the end of the ritornello (oboes) the first four notes are given as minim, crotchet, minim, crotchet. So, in the former case, these first four notes of the CM occupy two bars of music (in 6/4 time); in the latter, only one bar. (Notice that this second exposition of the CM might be considered to have a triple time rhythm, while the first exposition might be considered to be in 4/4 time].

Why did Bach do this? That's an interesting question, which I don't have time (and maybe not the ability) to ponder at the moment; it might be purely sytuctural.

BTW, all 4 CM phrases, as sung by the cantus firmus, are 7 dotted minims in length.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 23, 2006):
Neil Halliday wrote:
>>Technically, in the first quote of the CM (continuo), the first four notes are all dotted minims, whereas in the second quote at the end of the ritornello (oboes) the first four notes are given as minim, crotchet, minim, crotchet. So, in the former case, these first four notes of the CM occupy two bars of music (in 6/4 time); in the latter, only one bar. (Notice that this second exposition of the CM might be considered to have a triple time rhythm, while the first exposition might be considered to be in 4/4 time]. Why did Bach do this? ... it might be purely structural.<<
Yes, but the structure may carry another level of meaning.

Here are two speculative interpretations (I am certain that there may be others as well):

1. the initial continuo statement of the CM may represent the congregation (mankind?) on earth saying/singing in a unified voice: "Let the savior of the heathens come down to us" which is in the form of a fervent request: "Let it happen now, we have been waiting for this for a long time." The heaviness of the notes in the bass and the longer duration of notes both indicate the extensive period of waiting for this great event to occur.

The answer in the treble range (heaven) with shorter, but equally shorter length of duration of each note indicates that the realization of the fervent plea of mankind is about to transpire very quickly. It could also refer to the preparatory stage for the great spirit to inhabit a human form through the birth of a small child/baby (treble statement - from the celestial world above; diminution of note values - the child Jesus appearing in such a vulnerable form.)

2. Structurally the diminution of the CM incipit in the 2nd instance helps to build up momentum for that which follows, either for the choral sections that follow it immediately, or at the very end, when the shorter incipit (the hopeful answer from on high) remains in the ears and mind of the listener at the end of the mvt.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 23, 2006):
Alain Bruguieres wrote:
>>The WTC appeared in 1722. If you assume that Bach had devised fugue 4 with 'Nun Komm...' in mind, then the second 'quotation' might be a (conscious or not) allusion to that fugue. Almost a private joke?<<
Perhaps the other way around...
You will need to consider that Bach composed his organ chorale preludes on "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland" during the Weimar period, and was most likely familiar with this chorale 'practically from the day he was born.'

For a quick survey of these chorale preludes and the various shapes of the chorale melody, see the untexted
use of this CM in Bach's works at: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/CM/Nun-komm.htm

In particular I would call attention to BWV 659. Follow the CM all the way through and you will see an example of what some Bach experts like Peter Williams would like to call "selective sieving" (Peter Williams, p. 530 of ISBN 0-521-89115-9) but which others like Alfred Dürr and Friedrich Smend may have used as a model for uncovering other instances where CMs serve as the basis upon which Bach could expound his great mastery of the art of embellishment, embellishment to such a degree that the original CM becomes almost unrecognizable. And yet, the CM remains the basic structure from which these marvelous variations evolve.

BTW, Williams, on the same page, in a discussion of the "Four Duets" from the "Clavierübung III" raises the cry for direct evidence whle in the process discrediting the work of four Bach scholars who have dared to find meaningful connections for the existence of these duets. Williams prefers a simple mundane explanation such as that the duets were merely filler pieces for the convenience of the printer or that Bach offering some skill pieces for the glory of God and as an allusion to music's history.

Does this sound like the Bach that we know: coincidental, mundane reasons for composing pieces (the duets as purely examples of technique as well as for sheer entertainment unrelated to a church service) that will for posterity be included with other pieces related to use in a church?

Spitta, Dürr and Smend would certainly disagree with this type of argumentation.

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 23, 2006):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< You will need to consider that Bach composed his organ chorale preludes on "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland" during the Weimar period, and was most likely familiar with this chorale 'practically from the day he was born.' >
I am certain that you are right. Bach must have had a very intimate connection to the chorale melodies he used; I always felt that 'Nun komm der Heiden Heiland' was one of the closest - if not the closest to his heart. He must have spent quite some time contemplating this particular melody, both in a religious, meditative sense, and in a more playful sense, exploring all the musical possibilities it offers. I hasten to add: this is my personal conviction, everybody is entitled to think differently!

Harry W. Crosby wrote (November 23, 2006):
I read today's four postings relative to BWV 62, its affect, its interpretation, Bach's perceived intent, with real appreciation and interest. This forum is a marvel to me, for here as nowhere else, I can read all sorts of revelations, not only about Bach, but about people who deeply care about his work, and how different they are!

This is fascinating. Not only does it demonstrate the phenomenon of Bach's broad (but obviously selective) appeal, it also reveals the breadth of his listeners perceptions --- and makes me feel more at home among you. I confess, when I first joined up and read a scathing criticism of Herreweghe's interpretation of "Wir eilen" in BWV 78, and of Ingrid Schmithusen's performance, I was devastated; I loved it desperately, and here it was trashed! But time has made me appreciate and pay attention to all these opinions, to consider alternatives, and particularly to remind me of the wonderful range of differences in our company. This is not a cult at all; no one evangelizes, no one doggedly follows.

So? What I'm so slow to get at is a plea that everyone involved not be bashful about expressing his personal perceptions, his choices, his enthusiasms, his rejections. I love it and it certainly puts faces on those who share the great gift of this meeting place.

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 24, 2006):
Alain Bruguieres wrote:
< The point is, we do not have 'any four note pattern'.
The point is we have 4 notes forming a parallelogram (not any sequence of 4 notes does it). >
I stand by my original statement about four note patterns.

This is the first we have heard of parallelograms. Will any four note parallelogram suffice, or only the specific parallelogram formed by BACH? I fully recognize that an X can be inscribed in either case.

I have not made any statements as yet in judgement of the X-tos idea. Ihave only asked for evidence so that I can form an independent opinion. If there is no evidence, the ideas should be labeled as pure speculation. Attribution to unidentified Bach experts does not constitute evidence, IMO. Speculation by identified experts is of interest, but it remains speculation. My experience with true experts is that they are always - always! - clear to make this distinction. Their reputation as an expert depends on it.

I will get you started. You can find some speculation about Christological symbols in Bach at the following site (by Tim Smith): http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/wtc/sdg.html

including the statement:
<In No. 23 of the St. Matthew Passion (left), not only did Bach substitute [X] for Kreuz he coupled both symbols with the melody associated with his name -- his musical symbol for the cross. <end quote>

But note that the intent is to demonstrate that BACH is the symbol for the cross. The proof assumes the point to be proven. Circular reasoning, at best. I believe there is a name for this error in formal logic, as well.

I have been a strong supporter of the idea that speculation has a proper place on an informal forum such as BCML. I see other posts to the same effect. It is all the more important that speculation not bemisrepresented
by vague references and wishful thinking. The value of words is not in the quantity, but in the accuracy.

Chris Stanley wrote (November 24, 2006):
A number of you have written about how sublime the opening movement is. I don't know whether it's because I have access only to Leusink [7] (too slow according to some on this list) or if I'm on another planet but I find the minor key of the cantus firmus and subsequent modulations actually quite malevolent, the up and down runs bringing to mind birds, Hitchcock's birds, actually.

Of course, the rest of the cantata is pure redemption.

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 24, 2006):
Harry W. Crosby wrote:
< I read today's four postings relative to BWV 62, its affect, its interpretation, Bach's perceived intent, with real appreciation and interest. This forum is a marvel to me, for here as nowhere else, I can read all sorts of revelations, not only about Bach, but about people who deeply care about his work, and how different they are! >
By coincidence, I heard some Elington on the car radio while driving to family Thanksgiving yesterday. This morning I got out the LP and noticed in the liner notes:
<In Act IV, Scene 1 of 'A Misummmer Night's Dream' appear the lines: 'I never heard so musical a discord, such sweet thunder.'<end quote> Irving Townsend, notes to Duke Ellington, <Such Sweet Thunder.>

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 24, 2006):
[To Ed Myskowski] Obviously you have a problem with my X-contributions... I'd like to understand what the problem really is, so far I don't. Perhaps I should have given the definition of a parallelogram:

A parallelogram is a quadrilateral whose opposite sides are both parallel and equal in length.

From a geometer's point of view any parallelogram is naturally associated to a cross. Different parallelograms will yield different forms of crosses. BACH is one of them. Nobody ever claimed that the BACH cross was better than another form of cross. The fact is Bach's name was Bach, that was the cross he had to bear... Not everybody bears a name which can be drawn as a cross (no matter what parallelogram you get).

To me (and I think to anyone with a geometrical eye) the cross is obvious in the BACH parallelogram.

If you don't see it, I can only accept the fact that to some people the cross is not visible in the parallelogram. There is nothing I can add to this... I have no evidence other that 'it is evident'.

In fact I don't really understand what you expect of this discussion, since you admit that the X is there. Do you want evidenthat the X is a cross? Do you want evidence that the X which you can see, which I can see, was also visible to Bach? Please explain.

Perhaps some people immediately see a cross in the parallelogram, others do not. Question is: did Bach belong to the 1st set or to the second?

I have given arguments which convince me that he belonged to the 1^st. However if you belong to the 2nd I can well understand that thosearguments do not convince you.

Julian Mincham wrote (November 24, 2006):
Harry W. Crosby wrote:
< What I'm so slow to get at is a plea that everyone involved not be bashful about expressing his personal perceptions, his choices, his enthusiasms, his rejections. >
Hi Harry Great that you really enjoy, and feel a part of the exchanges of opinions. Thart is just as it should be. Tributes to Aryeh for making it all possible.

As to the above quotation, as the Aussies say, 'no worries mate!' I don't reckon there is a lot of bashfulness on this list--- and long may it last.

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 24, 2006):
Alain Bruguieres wrote:
< Obviously you have a problem with my X-contributions... I'd like to understand what the problem really is, so far I don't. >
Ed Myskowski wrote:
>>If one transposes this figure down by a tone and a half (minor third?), and fudges just a bit, doesn't one arrive at BACH? And couldn't the very same connections be made in his thematic motto?<<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Yes, this has already been pointed out by some Bach experts. >
Alain, you a re taking this personally, when I am responding to a thread with other participants. If you don't understand, I will continue to ask: What is the previous work on this topic, or is it new speculation? According to Thomas Braatz, there is previous work (I believe he means), but no on has cited it yet.

< To me (and I think to anyone with a geometrical eye) the cross is obvious in the BACH parallelogram. >
Yes, also in a very large number of other parallelograms which can be defined by four notes, for example, the one created by the notes AABB!

< I have no evidence other that 'it is evident'. >
I suspected as much, but I would like to hear you (and others) say so. We can then label it as speculation, and move on.

< Do you want evidence that the X is a cross? Do you want evidence that the X which you can see, which I can see, was also visible to Bach? Please explain. >
That is precisely what I have asked for. Also, was it especially significant to Bach? That is a very simple question with simple answers:
(1) Yes, and here is the evidence.
(2) We don't know for sure, we can only speculate.
So far, I have seen a lot (a lot!) of vague language, either avoiding or misunderstanding the question.

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 24, 2006):
[To Ed Myskowski] I am taking this 'personally' only in the sense that, when two people of good will do not understand one another, I feel frustrated, and especially if I'm one of them.

What exactly is the statement which you qualify as 'speculation'?

If you consider that the statement that a parallelogram can be suggestive of a cross is mere speculation, I do not agree. It is a geometric fact, not speculation, that a parallelogram defines a cross. I would understand better if you stated exactly what you find speculative in what has been said about BACH and the cross.

Apparently you need a reference to some authority on this question. The following may help. On this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Sebastian_Bach
you will find a picture representing two staves forming a cross with a single note which may be interpreted as B, A, C, H according to how one reads it.

This drawing is a clear illustration of the link between BACH and a cross... Well let me be careful; to me, it is a clear illustration of this link. What is the origin of this drawing? I have seen it somewhere else but right now I don't remember where...

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 24, 2006):
Chris Stanley wrote:
< <snip> I find the minor key of the cantus firmus and subsequent modulations actually quite malevolent, the up and down runs bringing to mind birds, Hitchcock's birds, actually. >
Another tidbit from Duke, Such Sweet Thunder, previously mentioned. One of the numbers is the puckishly titled (Puck, A Midsummer Night's Dream): <Up and down, up and down (I will lead them up and down). With up and down runs on the Ellington clarinets, not to be missed! Not exactly malevolent to those of us with a puckish sense of humor. That includes me, Ellington, Hitchcock, not so sure about Bach. Dare I speculate?

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 24, 2006):
I previously wrote:
< I will get you started. You can find some speculation about Christological symbols in Bach at the following site (by Tim Smith): http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/wtc/sdg.html including the statement:
<In No. 23 of the St. Matthew Passion (left), not only did Bach substitute [X] for Kreuz he coupled both symbols with the melody associated with his name -- his musical symbol for the cross. <end quote>
I now realize that the same site and topic was discussed by Peter Smaill in his intro to BWV 99 in August of this year. Sorry for overlooking this initially, but at least I got to the same source independently.

Peter was focussing on the Becher (cup) half of Kreuz and Becher (cross and cup), and he cautioned against speculative quests for the Grail. If I misinterpret you, Peter, just correct me. I can cope.

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 24, 2006):
Alain Bruguières wrote:
< when two people of good will do not understand one another, I feel frustrated, and especially if I'm one of them. >
Moi aussi (me too), that's why I am still at it!

< Apparently you need a reference to some authority on this question. The following may help. On this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Sebastian_Bach you will find a picture representing two staves forming a cross with a single note which may be interpreted as B, A, C, H according to how one reads it.
This drawing is a clear illustration of the link between BACH and a cross... Well let me be careful; to me, it is a clear illustration of this link. What is the origin of this drawing? I have seen it somewhere else but right now I don't remember where... >
I not only agree, I mentioned this figure in a previous post. It is the one pointed out by Thomas Braatz, included on the Bis/Suzuki CD booklets. See some additional comments coming soon in response to TB post.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 24, 2006):
Alain Bruguières wrote:
>>Apparently you need a reference to some authority on this question. The following may help. On this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Sebastian_Bach you will find a picture representing two staves forming a cross with a single note which may be interpreted as B, A, C, H according to how one reads it.... What is the origin of this drawing? I have seen it somewhere else but right now I don't remember where...<<
It is not on the glass goblet which was presented to Bach c. 1736.

The first time I saw it was as a decorative insert without explanation or indication of source in vol. 2. of the Suzuki cantata series.

I do not remember seeing it anywhere in the older Bach literature: Spitta, etc. Does anyone have any more information about this?

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 25, 2006):
[To Thomas Braatz] The candor and prompt responses are genuinely appreciated! When you first pointed it out, it is so intuitively Bachian that I accepted it as original without giving it another thought.

In fact, without some documentation, it could be anything, including a creation specifically for the Bis series. But this is a perfect example of how research gets done: observation, hypothesis, testing of the hypothesis, conclusion (hypothesis becomes theory).

In the scientific method, the testing usually (but not necessarily always) involves designed experiment.

In the arts, the tesseldom (but not necessarily never) involves designed experiment. Mostly just patient hunting for scraps of original source material, to take a step forward, as I see it.

But I see it from the perspective of someone much more familiar with the scientific method.

Except when I carve stone. In a technique which may parallel (yes, I mean the allusion to the parallelogram discussion) Bach's methods, I try to leave a trace of every tool I use somewhere on each piece. This is not conventional, and not something I learned from anyone else. It is also not so trivial to accomplish, so I do not always succeed 100%. The point is, there are no hidden messages. Exactly the opposite. Did Bach do something similar to me, or something completely the reverse? Despite my joking exchange with Chris Rowson a while back, I do not have a clue. I expect we (BCML) are on a thread where we might learn just a bit, however.

I can feel Old Bach smiling down upon me for that one! Or perhaps it is just the residual glow of a Thanksgiving Feast (including that Ellington surprise), and the anticipation of some leftover turkey and a bit of fresh booze (aside to Julian).

Pal Domokos wrote (November 25, 2006):
[To Chris Stanley] I checked the Leusink recording [7] and indeed found the opening chorus a bit slow. But it still sounded joyous to me.

Both Herreweghe [6] and Gardiner [5] do it much better in my opinion. In fact, I find Herreweghe's CD of BWV 36, BWV 61, and BWV 62 [6] one of hist best.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 25, 2006):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
>>In the arts, the testing seldom (but not necessarily never) involves designed experiment. Mostly just patient hunting for scraps of original source material, to take a step forward, as I see it.<<
With Bach, much of the material sought can be found directly in Bach's scores. Sometimes it is right there looking at us and waiting for someone in the right frame of mind to discover or give a name to it. Thanks to all those BCML contributers who have presented such insights and have enriched my understanding of Bach and his music!

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 25, 2006):
[To Pal Domokos] I have the Leusink [7], but neither Gardiner [5] nor Herreweghe [6] (you must have been peeking). Suzuki [9] is also quick as can be. I am planning some wordier thoughts, but plans do not always materialize (or cyberize).

Meantime, thanks for posting an opinion. Leusink [7] sounds joyous to me as well. But you would really need to make an effort, to screw up Bach so badly that the joy is lost. I have yet to hear a recording that bad. With my luck, one will surface almost immediately.

Sidebar for Julian: the key to understanding Thanksgiving (USA) is the Friday after Thanksgiving (Second Day of Winter in Canada). Leftover turkey, free time for music, and all that other stuff.

Eric Bergerud wrote (November 25, 2006):
I'm not sure how these things happen but I seem to have collected a goodly number of BWV 62 recordings and each are well worth a listen.

Someone else on the list praised Leusink's performance of this work [7]. I'd agree that van der Meel does a fine job on the lovely tenor aria and Ramslelaar doesn't disapoint in the bass parts. There's much to like in Leusink's cycle and I'm very glad I have it. One thing that I don't like, however, appears in BWV 62. I don't know whether this was an artistic or engineering decision but in the opening chorus it's hard to hear the boys and one might think that Buwalda has three or four mikes attached to his collar. I don't think Buwalda is my favorite countertenor in any circumstance and in many of Leusink's choruses his voice comes through loud and clear, much more so than does that of, say, Esswood. I have concluded that the cycle would have been better with a mezzo. But what's good is good indeed and BWV 62 is so good that much good music is here. work.

Gardiner [5] attacks BWV 62 with his usual energy and elan. (It's combined with BWV 61 and BWV 36, making the CD one of the best to my ears of the Archiv Gardiner recordings). Gardiner has a way of getting very good work out of soloists that don't wear household names and Anthony Johnson and Olaf Bar both make lovely music. I like Gardiner's choruses and this one is no exception: it's the shortest of the lot, but considering the upbeat nature of the work, it works for me. To my ears Gardiner is rarely rushed but energetic: guess that makes me a fan.

Koopman's ensemble approach BWV 62 [8] with their customary polish and lovely playing. It comes with two versions of the bass aria if one needs to be reminded that Klaus Mertens can sing Bach. Paul Agnew likewise does a fine job on the gorgeous tenor aria that dominates this work. I do need more Koopman.

I know that Harnoncourt is not universally admired on this list. Personally I'll take the bitter with the sweet on the Teldec cycle. On BWV 62 Harnoncourt's ensemble [3], in my humble opinion, illustrate why their cantata cycle is one of the great recording projects of the century. Harnoncourt does nothing to hide the Tolzer boys and they make wonderful music in Bach's terrific introductory chorus. (Luther must have been in a good mood that day.) Kurt Equiliz, to my ears, is one of the truly great Bach tenors. Indeed, the unusual continuity in the soloists is something that I appreciate in the Teldec cycle. Ruud van der Meer follows with a very nice bass aria. I'd like to point out the short but gorgeous recitative duet by the Tolzer soprano and Esswood. Anyone who doubts that boys should have a place somewhere in Bach's vocal works should listen to this work. This is a wonderful
recording of yet another Bach masterpiece.

BTW: Brilliant has recently published a complete collection of the large choral works of Schütz in three volumes of four CDs per. The works are performed by Cappella Augustana under Matteo Messori. Gerd Türk and Bas Ramselaar sing many of the major parts. I don't know if this is a papal plot to catch the Lutherans with their guard down, but the project is entirely Italian barring the soloists. It is accompanied with very detailed and extremely interesting notes. These works are not reissues but hot off the press and employ what seems to be the most modern scholarship. Messori emphasizes that these are liturgical works and nearly incomprehensible unless accepted in those terms. (One of the works has three voices singing Jesus.) One of the secondary benefits of being on this list is that Mr. Braatz and others have encouraged me to explore the larger world of German church music and Schutz, even though very different than Bach, made music both profound and enchanting. I have other versions of some of the works here, but these are really special.

Pal Domokos wrote (November 25, 2006):
[To Ed Myskowski] If you like Herreweghe in general, you should have this CD [6]. His sensitive approach is just ideal for bringing out the ultimate gentleness of these cantatas. I only prefer Gardiner [5] in one movement, and this is exactly the opening chorus of BWV 62. Exuberant joy is where Gardiner usually excels, anyway.

Thank you for reminding me of how few Suzuki CD's I have. I don't doubt that his version is at least as splendid as anybody else's. The wonderful BWV 8 comes to mind. And the simply perfect opening movement of BWV 7. And the duett from BWV 33. And pretty much everything else I have of him.

I agree with you that it would take some effort to ruin the joy in BWV 62. I have recordings of other works where the performers succeed in ruining pretty much everything in the music.

All the above is my opinion, naturally. Any resemblance to existing opinions is purely coincidental.

Pal Domokos wrote (November 26, 2006):
To Eric Bergerud] I listened to the opening chorus of BWV 62 with Leusink [7] again and you're right, sometimes Buwalda dominates the scene. On the other hand, his voice doesn't irritate me, and he certainly can sing (he sings the choral in BWV 13 nicely).

I agree that Gardiner's BWV 36, BWV 61, BWV 62 CD [5] is good but listen to Herreweghe's [6] once or twice, and then come back to Gardiner.

Unfortunately, I don't have either the Koopman [8] or the Harnoncourt version [3].

Those Hitchcock birds bother me, though. I'm planning to compile a CD for my little nephew. He's more than a year old now so I think it's time for him to get to know at least some of Bach's music. He apparently loves music, by the way. I thought that the easiest-to-understand, joyous/happy movements from cantatas would be just right for this purpose: the closing chorus from BWV 167, the opening chorus from BWV 1, a couple of movements from BWV 248, and the like. I also categorized the opening chorus from BWV 62 as being joyous. Do you think it might scare him?

Stephen Benson wrote (November 26, 2006):
BWV 62 ----contrasting characters--response

Julian Mincham wrote:
< I return to the context of my posting which, it seems to me that Mr Benson has missed or chosen to ignore. >
Guilty as charged. At this point, I'm not sure whether the first or second suggested cause was at the root of my response. It might be that there were things I wanted to say so I just ignored the context and plunged on heedlessly, and then again, maybe I just totally missed the context altogether. More likely it was a combination of the two, my determination to say what I had to say clouding my critical judgment. For whatever reason I flubbed it, and I humbly apologize.

< It may be that what you hear is exactly what Bach wanted you to hear, no more and no less---we shall never know. It may also be that those with a more subtle instinct may hear something more complex--and we don't know if Bach would have intended that either. But, as I have said, it appears that some people do detect these complexities which is where the discussion began. >
Ouch! However, I don't think I ever said that I couldn't hear other characteristics in the music nor did I challenge the possibility of alternative readings. (Oops! I did say just that, didn't I? [From 11/22 — "I, personally, continue to hear in this movement nothing more than pure and unadulterated joy."] I guess I'm forced to concede that what I first considered a cheap shot was neither unjustified nor undeserved.)

If you would be so kind as to give me an opportunity to extricate myself from the hole I have dug for myself — the phrase "nothing more" really is a killer, isn't it? — I would like to say that my clumsily worded assertion does not at all accurately represent my thinking on the matter. Probably the simplest and most direct way to correct that distortion would be to have added the qualifying phrase, "When I listen to the Gardiner... [5]"

I was not, in fact, attracted to the Gardiner interpretation [5] because I could not hear the "complexities" of which you speak. I was attracted to the Gardiner recording because, and I quote from my November 21 post, it displays "an incisive energy and an irresistible and infectious buoyancy" and "it brings me great joy and makes me feel good". Maybe at some point in the future, I will decide this performance is only a cheap thrill and I will put it aside. I doubt it. I believe it is one perfectly valid, and extremely rewarding, reading of the score. But so is the Herreweghe [6], and I will be returning to that often, as well. They both provide their own distinctive kind of satisfaction. Our listening choices are dictated by what we want to hear at the moment.

When one does compare Gardiner [5] to Herreweghe [6] (and I'm arbitrarily limiting my comparison to those two recordings since they present such a clearcut opposition of styles), substantive differences are clear, differences that can be traced to the balance, or imbalance, you described between forceful energy and what you called "wistfulness". The respective aesthetic choices of these two conductors result in diametrically opposed listening experiences — two almost entirely different pieces of music. And it is fascinating that the same score can generate that kind of diversity!

Those aesthetic choices do raise a question about the nature of the "complexity" to which you refer. I assume (and, yes, I realize that making assumptions of any sort on this list is a risky business!) that Gardiner [5] and Herreweghe [6] made conscious decisions how to treat the first two measures of the opening chorus. Let us assume, once again, that Gardiner, or any other conductor opting for this interpretative style, decided to utilize tempo and articulation to complement and support the energy of the following idea. And let us assume as well, for purposes of discussion, that Herreweghe and like- minded conductors decided to utilize a different tempo and articulation to emphasize the contrast between the two ideas. They both looked at the same motif and made decisions to treat it in different ways. Is complementarity, which by its very nature frequently comes across as "simpler", inherently any less complex than contrast, or is it just different means to a different end?

Again, I apologize for my previous obtuseness.

Stephen Benson wrote (November 26, 2006):
Formatting issues resulted in some impenetrable syntax in my previous post on this thread. Dashes simply failed to appear in several places. The only solution seems to be to use multiple hyphens.Please note the following corrections:
(1) A dash should have followed the phrase "From 11/22..."
(2) The phrase "the phrase 'nothing more' is really a killer isn't it?" should have been set off by dashes
(3) The second sentence in the second paragraph from the end should have read: "The respective aesthetic choices of these two conductors result in diametrically opposed listening experiences -- two almost entirely different pieces of music."
My apologies, once again.

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 26, 2006):
Stephen Benson wrote:
< I was attracted to the Gardiner recording [5] because, and I quote from my November 21 post, it displays "an incisive energy and an irresistible and infectious buoyancy" and "it brings me great joy and makes me feel good". Maybe at some point in the future, I will decide this performance is only a cheap thrill and I will put it aside. I doubt it. >
Compliments on the rare, gentlemanly post! I also doubt you will put aside the Gardiner [5]. I have not heard this particular one (BWV 62), but the few others that I have heard convince me I am eventually going to need the whole series. Don't tell my wife yet.

Alain Bruguières wrote (November 27, 2006):
I've just read the analysis of the 4^th fugue of the WTC on Tim Smith's website: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/wtc/i04.html#movie and he remarks that the theme of the fugue derives from 'Nun komm der Heiden Heiland'. So I haven't been the first one to suggest the connection!

I hope in time we will be able to sort out the X-motif issue so that we can decide whether its significance as a symbol in Bach's works reaches the same level of certaias ascending or descending motions...

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 27, 2006):
Alain Bruguières wrote:
< I hope in time we will be able to sort out the X-motif issue so that we can decide whether its significance as a symbol in Bach's works reaches the same level of certainty as ascending or descending motions... >
Yeah, me too! Glad we got there. Almost as much fun as the <frog stoup>. Apologies to the rest of BCML, inside joke between me and Alain.

Actually, we did a bit of that on-list, maybe it can be tracked? Geez, I hope not. As I recall, M. Joly took a bit of offense over the misunderstanding, but we sorted that out as well.

Bonsoir, mon ami (good evening, my friend)!

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 27, 2006):
X-motif [was Re: Introduction to BWV 62 - 4th fugue of the WTC]

Continued from [BWV 159 concert], and

Alain Bruguières wrote:
<< I hope in time we will be able to sort out the X-motif issue so that we can decide whether its significance as a symbol in Bach's works reaches the same level of certainty as ascending or descending motions... >>
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< Yeah, me too! Glad we got there. >
BWV 159, it turns out, is an opportunity to delve into this topic, as soon as the Grad Student turns up. Don't count on Ulysses.

I had a look at the P&V score on BCW last night when I got home, as I heard the Kreuz theme in the text, loud and clear.

A quick look. There is a single Kreuz in BWV 159/1, in the B arioso, no turn anywhere in sight.

In BWV 159/2 there is a repeated text Am Kreuz will ich dich noch umfangen (I will still embrace You on the Cross [tr. Dellal]) in the A voice. No turn on Kreuz, but a stretched turn on will ich dich noch. Two times.

So a total of three (!) Kreuz in Mvt 1 and 2. Two with a turn, in the A voice, one without, in the B.

Here comes some unsupported, but not totally wild conjecture:

The two occurrences in the A voice, with turn, represent the Father and Geist, still in Heaven. The single occurrence in the B voice, without turn represents the Son, preparing his Cross. The astute reader will notice how conveniently this agrees with the standard correlation of A=Geist, B=Jesus, etc.

In BWV 159/1&2, I can quickly spot six or more turn figures not associated with Kreuz. Exactly how many depends on exactly how much stretch is acceptable between a turn and a circulatio.

That is enough for tonight. I think we all agree this is worth pursuing. I think you can see that, despite my puckish sense of humor, I am interested. So interested, I insist we get the basics straight before wandering down some cup and cross strewn dead end.

And this is not a joke. So interested, I think it is a project worthy of a graduate student in search of a degree.

You may have noticed Chris Rowson's post, re the flute theme we have alluded to many times over the past few months. Turns out it was such a good idea, someone was already doing it.

I meant to put this at the beginning. Actually, I guess I did, I put it in the subject line. I support the X-motif terminology. I suggest we make that standard, unless there is something out there already, which is appropriate.

Next, start to work on agreed definitions of circulatio and turn.

Ed Myskowski wrote (November 27, 2006):
Pal Domokos wrote:
< I listened to the opening chorus of BWV 62 with Leusink again and you're right, sometimes Buwalda dominates the scene. On the other hand, his voice doesn't irritate me, and he certainly can sing (he sings the choral in BWV 13 nicely). >
It is good to see a new voice on the recording comment threads, especially one who doesn't start out hating Buwalda. He doesn't irritate me very often, either. But not never.

< I also categorized the opening chorus from BWV 62 as being joyous. Do you think it might scare him? >
If it doesn't scare you, why should it scare him? I guess that is a little naive, and early childhood educators will jump all over me.

How about this. Remember back to your earliest memory. Do you think it would have scared you then?

I just wrote at some length on a live performance of BWV 159, which has some scary moments, what with carrying your own cross to your crucifixion, and stuff. If that isn't scary, what is? There was an infant in a tote bag (or whatever you call those things, it has been a long time for me) at the concert. He looked fine. No screaming, etc.

My opinion? When in doubt, go for it! On the other hand, look where that attitude got me. Writing notes on a computer.

I was so distracted by the concert, the evolving X-motif thread, and other stuff, that I hardly noticed who said what about the recordings. I was just happy to see that it was getting done, and I pretty much agreed with
everything I read..

I did notice Suzuki absent, I believe. My advice is brief, and I think I already said it briefly somewhere back there. If full price CDs are on you menu, get this one. The SACD sound is bright and detailed, the couplings are convenient. If you have heard Robin Blaze, you will want it for that reason alone. If you haven't yet heard Robin Blaze, this is as good a place to start as any.

On to X-mas!

Julian Mincham wrote (November 27, 2006):
BWV 62 ----contrasting characters--again

[To Stephen Benson] a fulsome apology received in the same spirit in which it was offered.

In reflection, your first posting may have done me a favour in that it pointed out an issue of possible confusion. I certainly did not want to give the impression that one MUST hear what I suggest is there in the music. On the contrary, my approach is to suggest that we might try to articulate what we hear in the first instance and then try to determine the technical ways in which the composer achieved such effects. Each person will do this in their own way. My comments, related to the movement from which Ed raised his original question were intended only as personal examples of what I heard myself and from which I considered Bach's intentions might have been.

And of course your later posting makes an excellent point in that the performer/director's approach to the piece may be very different and can be a strong determining factor in what we take from the music itself. It is, of course the nature of interpretation However, It reminds me of a little trick I have often played on first year undergraduate music students (often a rather conservative bunch with preconceptions that really do need to be challenged)

I would set them an exercis eof musical criticism in which they were to hear 2 performances (from record) and write down all the differences in the two interpretations they perceived. I then played two versions of the same Baroque piece--one a 1950s slow, bombastic, heavy approach--big string groups, no harpsichord and turgig rhythms and articulations. The se