Cantata BWV 67 - Discussions

Discussions in the Week of April 22, 2001

Aryeh Oron wrote (April 22, 2001):
Background

This is the week of Cantata BWV 67 according to Pablo Fagoaga's suggestion. While doing my homework for the review of the various recordings of this cantata, I have noticed that 8 of the 11 recordings of which I am aware belong to the old school (which means non-HIP). Furthermore, 6 of these recordings were done before 1970. Furthermore, AFAIK, this is the first of Bach Cantatas to be recorded in its completeness (by Straube), back in 1931! Why was this special cantata so (relatively) popular in those old days, I do not have a clue. Although BWV 67 has some fine movements (which will be reviewed later), IMHO it does not belong to the group of those cantatas, which are satisfying from every angle, like for example BWV 6 that was discussed in BCML not a long while ago.

As a background for this cantata, I shall use this time ‘Oxford Composer Companion – J.S. Bach’, edited by Malcolm Boyd. I received this book, which was favourably reviewed by some members in the BCML & BRML, only couple of days ago. I want to use this opportunity to thank Kirk McElhearn for the tip and recommendation to buy it from Daedalus Books. It cost me only $15.00, while the list price is $49.95! This is an excellent book, which will serve me many hours in the forthcoming years. As a single one source of information, which includes updated and accurate information it is incomparable. However, I miss some entries. Only few biographies of renowned Bach performers are included. I could not find the problematic issue of translation of the texts of Bach’s vocal works into English, or the issue of non-Bach Cantatas (included in the BWV catalogue), or the concept of the Lutheran Church Year (which is very essential for our understanding of the context in which the cantatas were written and composed), and more. Even important terms in the modern performance practice of Bach’s vocal works, like OVPP and HIP, are barely mentioned and not explained. Although every cantata is discussed, the level of guidelines for the listener is not as developed as in the books of Robertson and Young, which I often use as background to my reviews (BTW, these two writers are not mentioned in the Companion at all!). Do not understand me wrong. You can see my small complaints as recommendations for improvements in a new and updated version of this book, if there will ever be one. However, hereinafter is what Nicholas Anderson wrote about BWV 67 in Oxford Companion (I allowed myself eliminating the factual data, most of which appears above):

“Unlike the music Bach had performed during the Easter festival itself, for which he has fallen back on earlier cantatas, Halt im Gedächtnis Jesum Christ was entirely new. Both in respect of content and formal symmetry the work bears an affinity to five other cantatas scheduled for performance in 1724 on the subsequent Sundays leading up to Whitsuntide. This has prompted some writers to suggest that Bach conceived them as a little cycle within the larger annual one embracing the liturgical year.

The text is closely allied to the appointed Gospel reading, St John 20: 19-31, which contains the story of doubting Thomas.”

Complete Recordings

I am aware of 11 complete recordings of Cantata BWV 67, and during last week I have been listening to 9 of them. I missed the two earliest and I am curious to hear what those who have access to these recordings think about them.

(1) Karl Straube (1931)
I do not have this recording. I believe that at least one member in BCML has this CD, which can be purchased only from Bach Museum in Leipzig (they have not answered my messages so far). I would like to hear his (or her) opinion about this pioneering recording.

(2) Reginald Jacques (1949)
I do have this recording in LP form only, and therefore I was not able to listen to it. Until I have it transferred to CD, I found for you a short review of the recording in an old guide from 1955 named ‘The Guide to Long-Playing Records – Vocal Music’ by Philip L. Miller’:
“This cantata, with its special dividend of an attractive and reserved performance of the familiar chorale, is authentic enough in style, if we accept the translation and the sheer Britishness of the voices. I am never quite satisfied with the rather stilted effect of the English in the recitatives, and in the arias even Ferrier’s good diction does not make the texts plain enough. It is, of course, to the contralto’s participation that the performance owes its chief distinction”.

For your convenience I put a biography of Kathleen Ferrier in the Bach Cantatas Website in the following address: Katleen Ferrier (Contralto) - Short Biography

(3) Günther Ramin (1954)
[4] Karl Richter (1958; 1^st recording)
[6] Fritz Werner (1961)
[7] Ernest Ansermet (1969?)
[8] Karl Richter (1973-1974; 2^nd recording)
[9] Gustav Leonhardt (1977)
[10] Helmuth Rilling (1978)
[11] Ton Koopman (1997)
[14] Pieter Jan Leusink (2000)

Review of the Recordings

Mvt. 1 - Chorus
“The supple, declamatory opening chorus scored for SATB with corno da tirarsi, flute, 2 oboes d’amore, strings and continuo, establishes a joyful Easter spirit which is maintained throughout the work. The single sentence of the text, from 2 Timothy 2: 8 (in the Authorised version: ‘Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead’) serves to emphasize the Gospel reading. The movement is impressive not least for the immediacy of its word-painting, one feature of which is the way that Bach always relates the periodic sustained corno da tirarsi notes to the word ‘halt’ (‘hold’).”

(3) Ramin is very slow, but fascinating and very dramatic. The choir is enthusiastic up to getting out of their lines, and the instrumental playing is not clean, but who cares?

(4) Hearing Richter’s recording immediately after Ramin’s, its seems that the pupil took his teacher’s approach as a starting point. I have to admit that he did it better. The playing and the singing in the opening chorus are cleaner and clearer. It is more balanced and details I missed in Ramin’s rendering can now be clearly heard. However, Ramin’s has sense of spontaneity, which the more polished Richter almost lacks.

[6] If I thought that Richter was good, comes Werner from the same school and proves that he can improve upon his colleague. There is kind of tenderness and softness to his approach which cause his rendition to sound more rich and varied and convincing than the recordings by his two predecessors. I could say that his rendition sounds modern, despite the non-HIP instrumentation, but with better sense for drama than Koopman, for example.

[7] Hearing Ansermet’s opening chorus, one can easily say that although he certainly loves Bach, he does not really know how to do it right in this idiom. This is an over-romantic performance, the various lines are not clear, too much emphasis is put on one aspect, which is what seems to him as the leading melodic line. He misses so much of the occurrences, that I can only feel sorry for him.

[8] There is a claim, which I have read more than once (even in the Oxford Companion) that the later Bach Recordings were weaker than his earlier ones. I want those who think so to explain to me what is weaker in the second recording by Richter of BWV 67, about 15 years after he made his first one. It is bolder, more vigorous and more fluent. Indeed not more convincing, because the appris quite different, but it sounds justified in its own way. The first one was more contemplative, while the second is more sweeping.

[9] Leonhardt gives restrained, almost subdued performance. Yet he is so delicate in his word-painting and almost transparent lines. Apparently this is a less showy and forceful performance than some of its predecessors were, but I find it not less effective and dramatic.

[10] With Rilling we return to the older-school, where the feelings are more openly expressed, the dramatic content is more extrovert and the colours are stronger. The singing of the choir is warm and excited. Some of the vocal lines are given to the solo singers rather than to the choir, and I find it most effective.

[11] Koopman’s rendition is too fast for me. How can one follow him and concentrate on the message, where it is finished almost before it started? Leusink [14], whose approach is similar to Koopman’s, achieves more effective results by slowing down the tempo.

Mvt. 2 - Aria for Tenor
“From the chorus key of A major, Bach leads us to E major for the dance-like tenor aria with oboe d’amore and strings. This presents two conflicting emotions, the joy of the Resurrection on the one hand, but doubt concerning its reality on the other.”

(3) Gert Lutze (with Ramin) continues the slow tempo of the first movement, but the consequences here are not as successful. It seems that the singer has some difficulties holding the long lines, and he sounds struggling with his part, rather than expressing his joy.

(4) Peter Pears’ (with Richter 1) expressiveness is marvellous. He succeeds where most of the other singers fail to convey both the joy and the doubt. You can almost portray the question marks in the right places according to his singing. Some might say that his English accent is too much felt, but I like very much his unique timbre of voice.

[7] Ansermet improves in this aria, probably due to the fact that he has to use smaller means and the presence of good and reliable tenor like Werner Krenn. And yet, this rendition still leaves me unmoved, because there is no real dialogue between the singer and the accompaniment.

[8] Peter Schreier (Richter 2) succeeds, exactly as Pears (Richter1) did, in expressing the contrary emotions. A slight hesitation here and there emphasizes the complex situation.

[9] Equiluz (with Leonhardt) lets himself be swept by the catchy melody, but he does not lose control on delivering the complicated feelings. This is a marvellous performance, interesting and full of nuances, to which I am ready to listen over and over again.

[10] If I am not mistaken, Thomas Braatz prefers Adalbert Kraus (with Rilling) in the arias rather than in the recitatives. Here he is given only an aria and I find that he makes the outmost of it. He is flowing with the melody and delivering the complicated message at the same time.

[11] Türk (with Koopman) is given more room to express himself than the choir in the opening chorus. But there is kind of lightness to this rendition, which causes both the singers with his pleasant voice and his accompaniment to miss most of the dramatic potential of this aria.

[14] Hearing Leusink’s recording there is no doubt that Knut Schoch and his accompaniment are happy and joyous. However, I could not hear the doubt, which is a very hard to express feeling.

Mvt. 6 – Aria for Bass with chorale
“The heart of the cantata lies in the bass aria with choral interjections, which contains Christ’s Easter greeting, ‘Friede sei mit euch’ (Peace is unto you’). This A major movement, uniquely constructed among those in Bach’s cantatas, takes the form of dramatic scene for bass solo and three-strand ‘chorus’ (SAT). In it the bass assumes the role of VOX CHRISTI, repeating at intervals Christ’s blessing, while the other voices represent mankind. In this profoundly symbolic section of the work Bach effectively highlights the contrasting elements by adopting a scheme of alternating time signatures, dynamic markings, and instrumental groupings. The vox Christi, for instance, in all but the last of the solo sections, where it is supported by woodwind and strings, is accompanied by woodwind alone (flute and 2 oboes d’amore) in 3/ 4 time. The three interjecting choral episodes, on the other hand, are in 4/4 time and accompanied by strings. In the last of these episodes Christ’s blessing (vox Christi) is united with the remaining vocal strands. It is perhaps hardly surprising to find a movement so affecting and so skilfully constructed as this appearing in another context. Bach, in fact, later parodied it in the Gloria of his Lutheran Missa in A major (BWV 234).”

(3) Ramin saved the energy for this movement, as he indeed should. Johannes Oettel is impressive and authoritative, although his voice is not as warm and merciful, as Mertens for example. His vibrato is too much felt to modern ears. But the tension between the bass and the choir is enormous. They want anxiously to know what is going on and he answers them slowly and patiently.

(4) Kieth Engen (with Richter 1) is as authoritative as Oettel, but his voice is more interesting, his dramatic range is bigger, and the relation between him and the choir sounds truer. They are fearful and troubled. He is comforting and calming.

[6] There is kind of grief to Werner’s rendition of this special movement, which put it apart from most of the others. It is as if all the participants, Jesus himself included, know that although Jesus blesses the worried people with his words ‘Peace be unto you!’, that his blessing cannot cause them to forget the sorrowful circumstances.

[7] The insensitive playing of the accompaniment in Ansermet’s recording continues into this movement. Therefore, their presence is more a source for indifference (in the good case, and embarrassment in the bad case), rather than a partner for the singers, which enlighten inner feelings and describe the background. As a consequence most of the heavy task is laid on the singers’ shoulders and for such a complicated and challenging aria as this one, this is simply not enough.

[8] Fischer-Dieskau (Richter 2) is more sensitive that Engen (Richter 1) was. Every syllable is getting special attention, where Engen was more authoritative. Somehow I feel that Engen’s approach and timbre of voice are more suitable to the circumstances.

[9] The accompaniment supplies a magical atmosphere for van Egmond’s blessing, and there is special empathy and unique chemistry in the relation between him and the people.

[10] Heldwein (with Rilling) is less dramatic and convincing here than some of the other singers in his role are. There are balancing problems in this recording, because the choir and the accompaniment sound closer than the bass singer. Maybe it was done deliberately to convey a certain message (Jesus is giving his blessing from distance?).

[11] Koopman’s rendering is so transparent and delightful, yet most of the dramatic aspect of this movement is not revealed, despite the participation of the incomparable Mertens. Leusink’s rendition [14] is similar to Koopman’s, but contains more drama. Ramselaar is warm and human Jesus.

Conclusion

The older were better, at least in this cantata. Their renderings were more interesting, substantial and dramatic. They were not afraid to be original. The two most recent recordings (Koopman & Leusink) sound almost lightweight incomparison.

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

Marie Jensen wrote (April 23, 2001):
Strange! I just found out, that I had four different versions of BWV 67 on CD's I bought for other reasons. And I have never considered the cantata something special, before Richter (version 75) [8] woke me up!

The purpose of this cantata must be to remove every doubt, that Jesus has risen from the dead. John 20: 24-29 tells the story of the disciple Thomas who did not believe, because he had not seen and touched.

So there are many Thomas Churches and Thomas Schools around the world, places where doubt is removed and changed into faith, and a Thomas Kantor must have faith, and this one has!

I wonder why Richter IMO simply is the best this time. And the answer is: the special enthusiasm he plants in his performers and that he takes the text about faith and doubt very serious.

The other three versions I have are Rilling [10], Koopman [11] and Leusink [14]. The Non-HIPS: Rilling is almost as good as Richter. The HIP’s: Leusink might do, but Koopman is bad. So let me take him first

[11] Koopman is too swift in the opening and in the tenor aria (Türk). Even if Jesus has triumphated, doubt is still there. It has to be heard. Later in the bass/ chorus movement divided in peaceful slow Jesus sections and vivid chorus sections. Jesus (Mertens) seems to fall asleep. Listen to the first time he sings "Friede sei mit euch", not convincing at all. The peace of God has to be given with authority.

[14] Leusink’s tempo is better (more slow) in the opening, but the brass is hoarse compared with Koopman’s. In Schoch’s tenor aria the struggle of faith is heard but perhaps too heavy. The chorale "Erschienen ist der herrlich Tag" is sung swift in a very indifferent and uninspired way. Ramselaar’s Jesus is OK.

[8] Richter: From the very first moment: enthusiasm ...When the choir enters the stage "Halt halt halt” every doubt is swept away. The music shines! The orchestral playing in the tenor aria could be more light and elegant but pay attention to tenor Schreier’s "Erscheine doch". The text is important to Richter. It is clearly heard in the alto recitativos (Reynolds) and in the chorale "Erschienen ist.” What a Halleluja! Fischer-Dieskau is great too in the bass/chorus aria.

[10] Rilling is more restrained in his opening, but the OVPP makes the voices sound clearly.

The best tenor aria of the four is sung by Kraus, who also cares about the text. The conflict doubt/faith can be heard and Rilling’s orchestra does not play with the Richter heaviness. Like Ramselaar and Dieskau, Heldwein sings out God’s peace with authority.

Richter’s approach is not á la mode. But he cares for the message. He goes for the music. So halt in Gedaechtnis Richter! (and Rilling too! )

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 24, 2001):
Aryeh wonders in regard to BWV 67, " this is the first of Bach Cantatas to be recorded in its completeness (by Straube), back in 1931! Why was this special cantata so (relatively) popular in those old days, I do not have a clue."

See: Cantata BWV 67 - Commentary

Comments on recordings that I have:

Mvt. 1 Coro
Richter [8] has the most energetic performance with a feeling of strength and dignity befitting a serious concern for the momentous battle being fought against doubt, fear, despair, etc. Rilling's performance [10] seems more lyrical. The soli instead of chorus, sung by the listed soloists sounded forced and overbearing, as if they were trying to make up for the missing choral voices. The only good thing that can be said about Leonhardt's performance [9] is that it was the only one to actually use the tromba da tirarsi, all the other performances used a trumpet. The choir lacked any sort of conviction and the sound was muffled. Sometimes the tenors and basses could not be heard at all (Sorry, Mr. Herreweghe, who is listed as Chorus Master.) Koopman's version [11] of this movement sounds very 'Gardineresque.' All the precision is there, but it does not suit the content of the text. Actually, it is so fast that it sounds rushed. Leusink [14] is somewhat slower, but I have to contend with those Buwalda-type voices for which I have found another characteristic to define them: they are very nasal, the opposite of open and projecting outward.

Mvt. 2 Aria (Tenor)
For the best performance it is a toss-up between Richter (Schreier) [8] and Rilling (Kraus) [10]. Both express what is needed in this aria, which demands quite a bit of differentiation. What really amazed me, was that Richter with his 'immense' musical forces, observed Bach's dynamics more carefully than any other recording I have. Rilling, who often overemphasizes the bass line, forgets to 'cut back' the volume when the voice enters. Both Richter and Rilling use the higher pitch (E as we know it today), whereas all the others are at Eb. Leonhardt [9] does not restrain the volume in his instrumental accompaniment, as a result Equiluz has a greater battle on his hands than the words he is singing about describe. He still does an admirable job despite these difficulties. Leusink [14] has a happy dance going on here, but his thick bass is so loud that the tenor does not have much of a chance to do anything but dance along with the rest. Koopman's version [11] is much too fast and sounds very rushed. There is absolutely nothing serious to be felt in this performance because there simply is no time to develop any kind of expression except "let's get this over with as soon as possible."

Mvts. 3, 4, 5 Recitatives (Alto) with Chorale in the middle
Under Richter's direction [8] Reynolds exhibits a very good expressive quality throughout. Richter even abandons his usual long fermati to give us an exhilirating chorale with a distinctive trumpet sound audible above the chorus. Although Rilling [10] also gives a very good rendition of the chorale, the recitatives were very difficult for me to listen to. Murray's operatic rendition and voice are an example of what kept me from seriously listening to Bach cantatas for many years. Koopman with Elisabeth von Magnus [11] was a relief to hear after Murray's attempt to sing Bach. Even the tempo was fine here (a moment of repose in a very much rushed performance of this cantata.) Leonhardt [9] is the next lower choice, particularly because the chorale is much too fast. In doing this, he throws any semblance of dignity that this chorale might have "out the window." Leusink's version [14] is even faster yet, and Buwalda simply is 'not my cup of tea.'

Mvts. 6, 7 Aria (Bass + Chorus), Chorale
The two top contenders among my recordings were Richter [8] and Rilling [10]. Both basses are simply excellent. Rilling was able to conjure up some rather effective dramatic moments in the choral sections and followed that with a chorale pushed forward incessantly to its conclusion. Richter used the long fermati, but this time the pauses made more sense in terms of the entire cantata and that which immediately preceded it. One thing worth listening for in the "Friede sei mit euch" sections is the blend and balance between the woodwinds and the voice (Vox Christi). Richter uses normal ordinary oboes instead of the oboi d'amore indicated by . These oboes together with a metal flute produce a higher, more penetrating sound. Rilling uses the oboi d'amore, one of them played by Manfred Clement. The sound here is more nasal and hardly has the sweeter sound that we have come to expect from these instruments. Leonhardt [9] uses the baroque woodwinds (wooden flute, oboi d'amore that sound like oboi d'amore) but the ensemble is too loud for poor Egmond to sing over. And to add insult to injury, the strong accents are also introduced, canceling out the sweetness that the woodwinds should have here. The choral sections suffer under Leonhardt with some notes not even audible (when you are watching the score). Leonhardt almost transforms the final chorale into a slow waltz. Leusink [14] has almost no body in his instrumental sections, everything being played extremely lightly (the violins sound anemic) with only the thumping bass that can be heard as if a timpani were playing along. In the low range the voices in the choir almost disappear (perhaps that is a good thing), but when they sing "kämpfen" ("fight") it sounds like a group of yodlers. However, the woodwinds are just wonderful. If you have this recording, listen just to that unique sound and then imagine a bass like Fischer-Dieskau singing those marvellous words, that he can project so well. Ramselaar's voice is too small, too self-contained, as if meditating within himself the final note decays and loses itself among the instrumentalists, whereas Fischer-Dieskau has the gift to project and send that final note out into the atmosphere where it can reverberate in your memory long after he has stopped singing the note. Koopman [11] uses OVPP where the singing becomes more difficult, and when these single voices come upon "in dein Ehrenreich" ('into your kingdom of honor") with upward moving notes, the voices are unable to uplift me the same way that Richter's or Rilling's chorus did. Koopman's and Leusink's versions of the final chorale were very good. I was really looking forward to hearing Koopman's interpretation of mvt. 6 (I know that he usually does the chorales very well). The woodwinds were excellent. This was the sound I was looking for and one of my favorite Bach bass singers was given this wonderful aria to sing! Unfortunately Mertens did not have a big enough voice to fill out what is necessary here (Those oboi d'amore coupled with a wooden flute must be louder than we think!) He had the 'peace' that I was looking for, desiring to have, but it was self-contained within Mertens. I could hear it, sometimes just barely, but it did not reverberate and fill my soul after he stopped singing. This was, after all, what Spitta was talking about in the quote I gave above. Let that final phrase reecho in your memory.

Roy Reed wrote (April 26, 2001):
Hello All! Been gone; been ill. This cantata is one of the very first Bach choral works to become familiar to me. I picked up a 10 inch LP of BWV 67 in the early 1950’s. the LP is long gone, but I still have the little Eulenburg score I bought to study the piece. I have no recollection of who those performers were but I recall being particularly impressed with the strangely successful musical/textual literalism of the first movement...holding the word "hold." "How can he get away with that," I thought. But he does. I also was terribly impressed with the bass/choir dialogue at the end. What a wonderful benediction from the gospel lesson. This was my first glimpse of the connection Bach makes between scripture and music. I was fascinated.....and it went on from there.

[11] The only performance I now have is the reading from Koopman. Wonderful, but not exactly satisfying. He takes quicker tempos than I would like. One should point out that the score calls for the opening chorus to be taken in 2, not in 4. Even so, the idea of "hold" only goes so well as a really brisk tempo. He pulls it off, but seems a bit schnell. So does the "believing/doubting tenor aria. Again, it does come off. What does not come off, I think, is the peace benediction before the final chorale. Klaus Mertens (a favorite of mine) wimps out. Rather than a blessing of "peace," it is something diffident, weak, unconvincing. I guess it is an attempt to be truly peaceful. Pretty much misses the point of the Gospel from Jn. 20. The concluding chorale is one of my very favourite tunes.

Enrico Bortolazzi wrote (April 26, 2001):
(1) < Aryeh Oron wrote, regarding Karl Straube recording of BWV 67: I do not have this recording. I believe that at least one member in BCML has this CD, which can be purchased only from Bach Museum in Leipzig (they have not answered my messages so far). I would like to hear his (or her) opinion about this pioneering recording. >
Here's my opinion on this performance. But first some details from booklet:
'BWV 67 is the second cantata that was broadcast in 1931 (the first is BWV 4, ndr); at the same time and is the oldest existing cantata recording of the Thomaner choir and one of the few surviving complete recordings from the first years (of broadcast)'.
Soloists are:
Dorothea Schröder, Alt
Hans Lissman, Tenor
Günter Ramin, Orgel
Friedbert Sammler, Cembalo
Thomanerchor Leipzig / Stadt und Gewandhaus Orchester Leipzig
Date: 12, April 1931 - Leipzig Grassimuseum. TT: 17:31

No other soloists are reported but in the other cantatas of the same period we have Heinrich Tuebig (trumpet) and Rudolf Kempe (oboe d'amore). So I suppose we have them also in this recording. In the booklet we read also that the Thomaner choir consisted of 55-60 boys

The tempi are very slow (my comparision is with Richter - 1974) [8]:
1. 3:56
2. 3:11
3. 0:37
4. 0:47
5. 1:06
6. 6:50
7. 1:04

In particular the first choir is very very slow. Instead mvt. 6 starts with a good rhythm but the tempo change from orchestra and bass (here the choir section, not a soloist) is impressive: at the first it seems as if there's a stop, because the bass start so slow, with the first note so long, that you hardly recognize a tempo. After the first bass phrase the choir enters with the same tempo and after the orchestra entrance they change the tempo. In Richter instead the choir starts changing the tempo. I haven't the score of this cantata so I cannot say nothing about this fact but I'm very curious about it (I hope you can understand what I'm saying). Another particularity of this recording are the 'ritardandi': in the tenor aria, mvt. 2, they are at the end of each phrase. Also in the recitativi and in mvt. 6 they are in well in evidence. This is an exceptional document of the first Bach cantatas performances.

Being a Richter's fan probably my opinion about his recordings is biased. Also in this cantata I find a great performance, with a great control over a big choir and orchestra. Before this week I listened few times to it, because in the CD it follows BWV 4, BWV 6 and BWV 158 and usually the greatness of BWV 4 and BWV 6 obscures a little this one. Listening to it more times make me discover a great work: I think the first and sixth movements are of the best quality. I like very much the contrast in mvt. 6, as well pointed out by Aryeh, and in Richter I find it very moving with the Bass singing very dramatic.

The only thing I find a little disturbing in Richter is the use of a great organ, in particular in the first choir. Instead the trumpet in the 1^st mvt. gives a festive note to the whole cantata. I don't want to compare Straube and Richter, I think the differences are too great above all in the environments and forces. But I have the Richter's 1974 recording: now I want to find the first recording (4). Someone can help?

Well, excuse for my poor English and enjoythis cantata.

Aryeh Oron wrote (April 26, 2001):
[To Enrico Bortolazzi] Thank you so much for the information about Straube's recording of BWV 67.

The details of the first recording of this cantata by Karl Richter appear in the Bach Cantatas Website, in the page that lists his recordings of Bach's vocal works: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Performers/Richter.htm (E-2). This CD is easily available from most of the Internet stores.

Can anybody in the list help me in getting the Straube CD?

Philip Peters wrote (April 26, 2001):
[To Enrico Bortolazzi] If so, I would want to know too...

Enrico Bortolazzi wrote (April 26, 2001):
[To Aryeh Oron, regarding Karl Richter’s first recording] Great page. I visited the site a lot of time but never saw it (I thought to know all the recordings by Richter). I also saw an early BWV 4. These will be my next CD’s.

< Can anybody in the list help me in getting the Straube CD? >
I got mine from the NBG as a gift for the subscription. Probably you can ask them. I have the mail address but if you search in internet they have also a site and probably an e-mail...I searche d and found the site: www.nbg.org. If your search is vain or in the meantime, I can give you a copy. This is legal in this terms: I make a backup copy for myself and borrow it to you; as soon you don't more need the copy you will return it to me or throw it away.

Discussions in the Week of April 2, 2006

Doug Cowling wrote (April 2, 2006):
Week of April 2, 2006 - Cantata 67

Week of April 2, 2006

Cantata 67: Halt im Gedächtnis Jesum Christ

1^st performance: April 16, 1724 - Leipzig

First Annual Cantata Cycle, 1723-24 (Jahrgang I)

Previous Sunday in 1724 (Easter Day)
BWV 31, “Der Himmel lacht” & BWV 4. “Christ Lag in Todesbanden”
Previous Tuesday (3^rd Day after Easter):
BWV 134, “Ein Herz, das seinen Jesum lebend weiß”
Next Sunday (Misericordias Domini):
BWV 104, “Du Hirte Israel”

Libretto:
(Mvt. 1); 2 Timothy 2: 8
(Mvt. 4); Nikolaus Herman
(Mvt. 7); Jakob Ebert
(Mvts. 2, 3, 5, 6); Anon (Perhaps Salomo Franck)
(Mvt. 6) John 20: 19

Text:
See http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/67.html
Translations:
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV67.htm

Movements & Scoring:

Mvt. 1: Chorus
“Halt im Gedächtnis Jesum Christ”
Choir: SATB
Instruments: Flt, 2 Oda, Vn, Va, Bc

Mvt. 2: Aria
“Mein Jesus ist erstanden”
Soloists: Tenor
Instruments: Oda, Vn, Va, Bc

Mvt. 3: Recitative
“Mein Jesu, heißest du des Todes Gift”
Soloists: Alto
Instruments: Bc

Mvt. 4: Chorale
“Erschienen ist der herrlich Tag”
Choir: SATB
Instruments: Cdt, Flt, 2 Oda, Vn, Va, Bc

Mvt. 5: Recitative
“Doch scheinet fast”
Soloists: Alto
Instruments: Bc

Mvt. 6: Aria & Chorus
“Friede sei mit euch!”
Soloists: Bass
Choir: SATB
Instruments: Flt, 2 Oda, Vn, Va, Bc

Mvt. 7: Chorale
“Du Friedefürst, Herr Jesu Christ”
Choir: SATB
Instruments: Cdt, Flt, 2 Oda, Vn, Va, Bc

Liturgical Comments:

Written for the First Sunday after Easter. The name “Quasimodogeniti”
Sunday comes from the opening words of the Latin introit, “Quasi modo geniti infantes” (Trivia: Victor Hugo’s hunchback bell-ringer of Notre Dame was given the name, Quasimodo, because he was found as an abandoned infant on that Sunday)

The orders for Mass and Vespers can be found in an appendix at the end of this posting. Extracted from Wolff.

Other Cantatas written for Quasimodogeniti Sundy:
BWV 42 Am Abend aber desselbigen Sabbats (Leipzig, 1725)

Texts of Readings:
Readings: Epistle: 1 John 5: 4-10; Gospel: John 20: 19-31
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Read/Quasimodogeniti.htm

Introduction to Lutheran Church Year:
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lutheran.htm

Piano Vocal Score: (free PDF download)
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV67.htm

Recordings:
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV67.htm#RC

Music (free streaming download):
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Mus/BWV67-Mus.htm

Chorales:
Du Friedefurst (Mvt 7)
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/CM/Du-Friedefurst.htm
Erscheinen Ist (Mvt 4)
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/CM/Erschienen-ist-der-herrlich-Tag.htm

Commentaries:
See: http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/works/bachjs/cantatas/067.html
See: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=42:65224~T1

Previous Discussion:
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV67-D.htm

Performances of Bach Cantatas:
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Concert-2006.htm

Appendix:

ORDER OF SUNDAY & HOLYDAY MASS (Amt) - 7:00 -10:00 am

1. Choir: Hymn in figural or polyphonic setting
2. Organ: Prelude introducing Introit
3. Choir: Introit Motet in figural or polyphomic setting

4. Organ: Prelude introducing Kyrie
5. Choir: Kyrie in figural setting
6. Choir: Gloria in figural setting (minister sings intonation from altar)

7. Minister & Altar Singers (lower form boys):
Salutation & Collect (Prayer of Day) sung from altar
8. Minister: Epistle sung from altar steps

9. Organ: Prelude introduing Hymn
10. Congregation: Hymn of Season (de tempore)
11. Minister & Altar Singers: Gospel with responses sung from altar steps

12. Organ: Prelude introducing cantata
13. Choir: First Cantata

14. Choir:: Credo sung in chorale setting, minister intones from altar steps
15. Organ: Prelude introducing Wir Glauben
16. Congregation: Wir Glauben All (German Credo)

17. Minister: Spoken annoucement of Sermon from altar
18. Organ: Prelude introducing hymn
19. Congregation: Hymn
20. Minister: Text of Sermon & Lord’s Prayer from pulpit
21. Minister: Sermon (8:00 a.m., 1 hour)
22. Minister: Prayers, Announcments & Benediction from pulpit

23. Organ: Prelude introducing hymn
24. Congregation Hymn
25. Mnister & Altar Singers: Preface in Latin from altar
26. Choir: Sanctus in figural setting (without Osanna or Benedictus)
27. Minister: spoken Communion admoniton, Words of Institution
28. Congregation: Distribution of Communion at altar steps

29. Organ: Prelude introducting Communion Cantata
30. Choir: Second Cantata

31. Organ: Prelude introducing hymn
32. Congregation: Hymn during Communion
33. Minister & Altar Singers: Collect with responses sung from altar
34. Minister: spoken Benediction

35. Organ: Prelude introducing Hymn
36. Congregation: Hymn
or
36. Choir: Hymn in figural setting (festal days)

ORDER OF AFTERNOON VESPERS 1:30 pm

1. Organ: Prelude introducing Hymn
2. Choir: Hymn in figural setting

3. Choir: Cantata (repeated from morning)

4. Organ: Prelude introducing Hymn
5. Congregation: Hymn
6. Minister & Altar Singers: Psalm
7. Minister: Lord’s Prayer from altar steps

8. Organ: Prelude introducing hymn
9. Congregation: Hymn

10. Minister: Annoucement of Sermon from pulpit
11. Congregation: Hymn
12. Minister: Sermon from pulpit
[13. Choir: Passion or narrativer oratorio, no cantata]
14. Minister: spoken Prayers, Collect & Benediction from pulpit

15. Organ: Prelude introducing Magnificat
16. Choir: LatinMagnificat in figural setting
17. Congregation: German Magnificat Hymn (Meine Seele)

18. Minister: spoken Responsary, Collect & Benediction from altar
19. Congregation: Hymn Nun Danket Alle Gott

Peter Smaill wrote (April 2, 2006):
Two very open questions regarding this Cantata, "Halt in Gedaechtnis Jesum Christ," observed by all commentators as particularly effective in its dramatic construction. Firstly, who wrote the libretto?

And, the second, possibly an underexploited line of enquiry, is there some evidence that the compositional methods of in BWV 67 (and indeed last week's BWV 134) relate to the style, techniques and theology of the SJP, performed for the first time on 7 April 1724?

As regards BWV 134," Ein Herz, das seinen jesum lebend weiss", for 11 April 1724, Bach 's librettist (as discussed) employs on a small scale a palindromic or chiastic structure, as is majestically revealed in the SJP where the focus is the Chorale, "Durch dein Gefaegnis."

The SJP has also been analysed in terms of gematria by William H Scheide and others. BWV 134 would also be an interesting subject for this controversial approach but in passing it is noteworthy that the second tenor recitative consists of fourteen lines, the number associated with the number of movements in Bach's first cantatas at Leipzig, BWV 75 and BWV 76, and in gematria terms the number for BACH, revealed by Smend to be the number of notes in the two canonic parts in the Haussman portrait (he also spotted that there are fourteen buttons on the jacket in this famous representation of the composer!).

With BWV 67 the connectivity is perhaps so obvious that it is not much analysed; in BWV 67/6 for Quasimodogeniti, 16 April 1724, there is the exquisite alternation of a Bass voice (representing Christ) and a turba-like orchestral and choral activity, as it were depicting the crowd transformed into the believing multitude after the agonies of doubt and despair.

These techniques rarely appear in the Cantatas but the proximity to the SJP with its turba passages and Bass representation suggests that Bach and his librettist wished to extend the dramatic personification of Christ into the post Passion narratives following Easter. (The nearest comparator to BWV 66 is the "tumult" image in BWV 27 of 1726, "Wer weisse wie nahe mir mein Ende," but there it is the believer who imparts the peaceful response, not Jesus.)

As to poetic structure, BWV 67 is, like BWV 134, of unusual structure and both conform to the "Christus Victor" conception of the Passion. The extreme simplicity of the final chorale, creating a devotional response to the highly-wrought musical drama of the dialogue BWV 67/6, is a masterstroke by Bach, as is the devotional impact of "Ach Herr, lass dein' leib engelein" of the SJP (BWV 245).

The older recordings (e.g. Ansermet) IMO, with their slower tempi at the end, are much more successful in creating this numinous response than the clipped and relatively speeded-up more recent offerings (especially Leusink). Suzuki represents a middle way but the effect needed is that the congregation (for whom the choir is proxy) are felt to respond to the exhortation, "Friede sei mit Euch!" with a quiet but fervent asseveration of the injunction, the recognition of Christ as true Man and true God being the most central doctrine of the Christians.

Who wrote the exceptionally effective libretto ("One of his greatest and most original cantatas"(Duerr)?

Dürr: No suggestion
Whittaker: Christian Weiss, Senr. (?)
Boyd (Nicholas Anderson): perhaps Salomo Franck
Unger: perhaps Salomon (sic) Franck
Daw: supposed to be by Christian Weiss (due to structure-but BWV 67/6 has to be classified as an aria to be so!)

The jury is out!

The question leads also to consideration of who helped Bach in the assembly, adaptation and integration of the Brockes and Postel texts for the SJP (BWV 245). Was the creator of the vivid tensions in the structure of BWV 67 also the editor of the SJP (BWV 245) text, "Here he must have had the assistance of some one with a sensitive poetic faculty..."(Schweitzer)?

Julian Mincham wrote (April 2, 2006):
Peter Smaill writes:
< Who wrote the exceptionally effective libretto ("One of his greatest and most original cantatas"(Dürr)? >
Wolff also writes that the author is 'unknown'. I guess that with all this scholars not being able to crack it, we shall never know; but some of the theories are tantalising.

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 2, 2006):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>Who wrote the exceptionally effective libretto ("One of his greatest and most original cantatas"(Dürr)?
Dürr: No suggestion
Whittaker: Christian Weiss, Senr. (?)
Boyd (Nicholas Anderson): perhaps Salomo Franck
Unger: perhaps Salomon (sic) Franck
Daw: supposed to be by Christian Weiss (due to structure-but BWV 67/6 has to be classified as an aria to be so!)<<
Here are a few others to add to the list:

Philipp Spitta (1873-1880s) : "it is reminiscent of Franck's manner, and if Picander worte, it is better than anything else that he had written"

BWV Verzeichnis (1998) Unknown librettist (Dürr is one of the most important editors of this volume)

NBA KB I/11.1 (1989) p. 41 "librettist is not identified" The text exists in the form of one of Bach's text booklets (1724) which were printed for use by the congregation, but no author is mentioned". Reinmar Emans is the editor of the KB. He continues: "The following poets have been considered as possibilities:

Christian Weiß, Sr. (in Werner Neumann's "Handbuch der Kantaten Joh. Seb. Bachs" Leipzig, 1967; in the 4^th edition of Werner Neumann's "Sämtliche von Johann Sebastian Bach vertonte Texte", Leipzig, 1974, this
conjecture no longer appears;

Christian Weise and/or J. S. Bach in Wolfgang Schmieder's BWV, Leipzig 1950

Mariane von Ziegler in Luigi Ferdinando Tagliavini's "Sudi sui testi delle cantate sacre di J. S. Bach" Padua, 1956, pp. 115ff. (This was based upon some textual correspondences in the group of cantatas BWV 67, BWV 166, BWV 86, BWV 37 and BWV 44." [End of KB]

Konrad Küster "Bach Handbuch" 1999, pp. 230-231: No reference whatsoever to the librettist whether unknown or conjectured

Christoph Wolff/Ton Koopman "Die Welt der Bach Kantaten" 1999 No information about the possible author or that the author is unknown.<<

Doug Cowling wrote (April 2, 2006):
Week of April 3, 2006 - Cantata 67 - Cont'd

Week of April 3, 2006 - Cantata 67

The Bass Aria & Chorus, "Friede Sei" was reused by Bach as the Gloria of Missa Brevis in A Major, BWV 234

1^st performance: 1738 ? - Leipzig;
2^nd performance: 1743-1746 - Leipzig;
3^rd performance: 1748-1749 - Leipzig

Soloists: Soprano, Alto, Bass; 4-part Chorus (SATB)

Orchestra: 2 flutes, 2 violins, viola, continuo

See: Live Streaming: http://www.baroquecds.com/musamples.html

Other cantatas used in the mass: BWV 79, BWV 136, BWV 179

Peter Smaill wrote (April 2, 2006):
[To Thomas Braatz] Thank you for enlarging the group of suspects for the accolade of having structured the text of one of the very best Cantatas drama-wise, the post-Easter BWV 67 "Halt in Gedaechtnis Jesum Christ" which, drawing on St John's Gospel, could be in my view be by the equally unknown hand who assisted with the text of SJP.

Interestingly Spitta speculates (in a sceptical manner) that it could be an early collaboration with Picander; Stephen Daw, in his "Bach: The Choral Works" of 1981 even says that Picander was responsible for the SJP (BWV 245) libretto. I can find no other support for this view, as distinct from the Picander-SMP connection and the association with the text of the St Mark Passion..

According to Konrad Kuester (in Boyd), the first setting by Bach of a Picander/Henrici text is BWV 148, "Bringet dem Herrn ehre seines nahmens "; but it is questionable as to whether the performance date is 19 September 1723 or 25 September 1725. Picander was, however, in Leipzig throughout Bach's time there; "his relations with Bach were perhaps only casual at first" (KK).

Marianne von Ziegler seems even more unlikely, since she is very particularly associated with the series of later Cantatas composed between 22 April and 27 May 1725, "thus succeeding, after a gap of three weeks, the series of chorale cantatas which was inaugurated in June 1724 and came to an end (for no known reason) around Easter 1725." (KK).

Wolff, however, does put forward a reason; and introduces another name to the field of identifiable poets writing for and with Bach in 1724. "The way in which the [chorale Cantata] project began and strongly ended suggests that Bach's anonymous librettist was a close collaborator who reside in Leipzig. According to the most likely among various hypotheses, the author of the chorale cantata texts was Andreas Stuebel, conrector emeritus of the St Thomas school.......Stuebel's death on January 27 1725, after only three days of illness and after he had received the printer texts of the booklet of cantatas to be performed from Septuagesimae Sunday to Annunciation would explain the abrupt ending of the chorale cantata cycle with "Wie schön leuchtet die
Morgenstern", BWV 1.

If Wolff's hypothesis is true then it would be odd to have begun to work with either Picander or von Ziegler in BWV 67, then to have dropped either of them when the new church year proper opened for 1724/5, and picked up again with either post the untimely demise of Andreas Stuebel. Not impossible - but odd in view of the serial, rather than parallel, relationship of Bach to the librettists. He seems to have worked as a rule with one librettist at any time, not chopping and changing.

Neil Halliday wrote (April 3, 2006):
BWV 67: some recordings

I have listened to Richter (1958, BCW sample) [4], Werner (1960) [6], Ansermet (1969, Decca LP) [7], Richter (1974) [8], Rilling (1978) [10], Suzuki (2002) [15].

1^st movement.

The Richter 1 [4] is the slowest of this group, and though cleanly played, sounds slightly laboured. All of the other recordings listed above, except Richter 2 [8], adopt the same (more or less) moderate tempo (about 3.20); Richter 2 is the fastest at 2.58. This last is indeed an exhilarating performance, with good instrumental playing, but the choir is too large. Excellent instrumental sound but choirs that are too large can also noted of Werner [6] and Ansermet [7]. Rilling [10] and Suzuki [15] have the appropriately sized choirs, and for this reason give perhaps the most satisfactory performances, but I found all of these recordings to be enjoyable after studying the score and learning certain aspects of it that are at first difficult to hear in the recordings. For example, Richter 2 has the clearest presentation of the initial long quaver run on the oboes, but I can imagine this part after learning it by heart in those recordings where it is weak. The horn in Suzuki's recording has the peculiar aspect of sounding clear as a bell in the lower register, but is weak in the range above the stave, so we miss the excitement of the horn run at the end (or trumpet, in other recordings), present in the modern instrument recordings. For these reasons I am currently leaning toward Rilling as my preferred recording.

Leonhardt's performance [9] of the tenor aria is especially articulate, however I find all the performances are satisfying.

The recitatives in Ansermet [7] are particularly attractive, because we have a real church organ employing a beautiful, unobtrusive stop including tastefully resonant pedal. It's nice to get away from the usual bare, sometimes coarse continuo strings (whether played long or short); this Decca recording seems to have captured a truly live organ sound stage, rare in recordings, and light years from that horrible little instrument often used in Rilling's recordings [10] (I wish Rilling had gone the whole hog with modern instruments and used a piano in his seccos). The alto is a youthful Helen Watts sounding much more attractive than the norm a decade later in Rilling's recordings.

Ansermet's chorales [7] also get my vote, and Peter (I think) has already commented on the lovely, quiet, devotional atmosphere with which Ansermet endows the last one (the large choir is now simply beautiful in the simple four part harmony). This devotional effect is remarkably similar to Kuijken's lovely OVPP recording of BWV 56's final chorale (IMO), commented on some time ago. Amazing!

Ansermet [7] is also as good as any in the large scale "Peace be with you" movement, with youthful bass vocalist Tom Krause suitably authoritative as the voice of Jesus. The double bass pizzicato in the continuo, in the solo sections, is a charming touch.

Neil Halliday wrote (April 4, 2006):
Layout of BWV 67/1

Following the discussion on palindromes, I have drawn up this schematic description of the sectional arrangement of BWV 67/1.

A. Ritornello

B. Chordal section, consisting of:
1. choir
2. short ritornello
3. choir
4. short ritornello

C. Double fugue (choir, or soloists, with continuo only), leading straight into (without a break, be alert; in Rilling it's easy - it's the spot where the soloists are ousted by the choir):

A. Choir and orchestra (same instrumental layout as the opening ritornello, different key, plus (of course) independent new choral writing).

B. Chordal section, consisting of (note the changed order from B above):
1. short ritornello.
2. choir.
3. short ritonello
4. choir

C. Slightly expanded double fugue (choir and orchestra)

A. As above, return to key of opening ritornello.

If we consider B+C as a unit (eg, B as a prelude to C), we have:

A, B+C, A, B+C, A.

representing the sectional layout of the movement.

---------

The highest note in the movement, f#2, played by unison flute and violin 1 concurrently in the bar with the highest notes of the trumpet run (1^st and 3^rd 'A' sections) occurs in a bar containing the name Jesum Christ in the 3^rd A section. I suppose Bach was aware of this musical exultation of Jesus' name.

Julian Mincham wrote (April 4, 2006):
Neil Halliday writes:
< Following the discussion on palindromes, I have drawn up this schematic description of the sectional arrangement of BWV 67/1. >
Interesting. So often Bach produces movements of precise symmetry occuring on different levels (leaving aside the notions of palindrome or chiasm.) I think I mentioned in an earlier posting Brandenburg 6 (3) and the E major keyboard concerto (1) where a massive A section commenced and ended with the main ritornello theme, and returned unchanged after the B section. This was a large scale structure which Bach obviously felt was particularly successful as he used it in various choral movements in the cantatas as well.

Ed Myskowski wrote (April 8, 2006):
BWV 67

For BWV 67, thlistening details provided on BCW, and comparisons of performances from earlier discussion, are already very thorough. In order to stay in the habit of writing weekly, I will make a few comments which may be new, and which may help others at my level of expertise: enjoying an existing, modest collection, and making decisions on adding to it.

I have the two Richter versions, BWV 67 [4] and [8]. The major differences are the soloists, and the quicker tempos in the second version: 2:58 vs. 3:45 for the opening chorus, and 5:12 vs. 6:11 for Bass/Chor Aria (BWV 67/6). The net result is that the second version is almost two minutes faster, but the relative proportions between the beginning and the concluding portions of the cantata are maintained. I agree with all of Aryeh's comments from 2001 regarding the chorus, tenor, and bass performances. I would only add what a pleasure it is to be able to compare performances by Peter Pears and Peter Schreier. Whichever one you are listening to at the moment is the one you prefer, perhaps a slight edge to Screier for richness of tone.

Aryeh referred to the distinction in the chorus as contemplative versus sweeping, I think that is a fair characterization for the overall effect of the performances as well. When I was younger I might have had a preference for the quicker tempos, now perhaps a slight (emphasis, slight) preference for the slower, contemplative effect. This probably says more about me, and aging, than about the recordings. IMO, you won't go wrong with either one, or both. If you prefer HIP or authentic, the quicker tempos are probably not enough, and you should look elsewhere. You already knew that.

Commentary and musical examples provided by Thomas Braatz in 2001 are not to be missed! I especially appreciate his explanation of the dual meanings for halt (hold, or stop), the very first word of text we hear, which Thomas suggests as an example of Bach's genius. I though to avoid further use of that word (genius), as controversial, but that seems pointless. Better that we use it with the proviso:

John Pike wrote (January 18, 2005):
[To John Reese] Someone once defined genius as 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. I like that. It means none of us are let off the hook. We should all keep trying.........shame about that 10% inspiration though.

The dual meanings of halt also are consistent with the previous discussion by Peter Smaill and Thomas Braatz (BWV 81) of intentional dual meanings (punning) for wellen in that cantata. An appealing interpretation on first sight, and one which I like better the more I think about it.

The instrumentation of BWV 67 is novel, and one more example of Bach's energy in extending his expressive resources (not to say genius, one more time). We have had extended recent discussions re transverse flute. I believe the corna (or tromba?) da tirarsi (substituted by trumpet in both Richter) was the first use, and the oboe d'amore was new to Leipzig with Bach in 1723. The Richter booklet notes are a bit fuzzy on oboe d'amore in BWV 67, both versions. Any clarifications would be welcome.

We have also had a lot of recent discussion re symmetry. I don't want to push the point too far, but I think the architecture of BWV 67 can easily be heard as an arch form with two part opening section (chorus and tenor aria) balanced by two part closing section (bass/chor and chorale), with a three part central section, itself symmetrical (recit - chorale - recit). Indra Hughes recommended an article by Robin A Leaver from Cambridge Companion to Bach, which discusses symmetry. Although Leaver deals with specific larger works, and does not mention BWV 67 directly, I believe the arch form suggestion is consistent with his analysis. To minimize controversy, I will avoid the word Leaver uses to describe this symmetry (but it starts with chi).

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 24, 2001)
Mvts. 3, 4, 5 Recitatives (Alto) with Chorale in the middle Under Richter's direction [8] Reynolds exhibits a very good expressive quality throughout. Richter even abandons his usual long fermati to give us an exhilarating chorale with a distinctive trumpet sound audible above the chorus.

The chorale is not quite as bright, the trumpet not quite as audible, in the earlier [4] version. It feels a bit slower, although the timings are almost identical. On the other hand, the alto in [4], Lilian Benningsen, is at least the equal of Anna Reynolds. I am not a German speaker, but her enunciation sounds perfect. Both Reynolds and Benningsen are superb, it is not in my nature to try to judge one better than the other. Despite all the other great singers on these two recordings, the alto recits framing the chorale are highlights in their own right, because of the outstanding voices.

Is it authentic Bach, is it HIP, operatic altos singing these recits? Wasn't Bach's innovation with the cantata structure with recit to introduce operatic techniques into church music? And wasn't he getting into trouble with the authorities for his efforts? Same as it ever was. I want to stay out of the fray. All I can tell you is, these ladies
can sing! I am happy to have both discs for that reason alone.

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 8, 2006):
BWV 67 (oboe d'amore)

Ed Myskowski wrote:
>>...the oboe d'amore was new to Leipzig with Bach in 1723. The Richter booklet notes are a bit fuzzy on
oboe d'amore in BWV 67, both versions. Any clarifications would be welcome.<<
There should be no 'fuzziness' about Bach's intention to use the oboe d'amore in BWV 67 since both the autograph score and the original parts specifically call for this instrument (in this instance there are two parts).

Ulrich Prinz ("J.S.Bach's Instrumentarium", Stuttgart, 2005) confirms what has been known about this instrument:

1. Johann Gottfried Walther's definition and description of this instrument, which, according to Walther, appeared circa 1720 is the first/earliest documentation that has been discovered thus far. Walther states: "It is the same as an ordinary oboe except that it has a closed bell ("zugemachte Stürtze') at the bottom end which has a 'thick-mouthed' opening the size of a finger. Its range is from a to a2, but sometimes even to a B-flat2 or a b2."

2. Heinrich Christoph Koch, in his "Musikalisches Lexikon" Offenbach, 1802, states that the instrument has fallen into disuse because it is more difficult to play in tune than a regular oboe.

3. The earliest documented use of this instrument by any composer seems to point to Johann Johann Christoph Graupner's bass-solo cantata "Wie wunderbar ist Gottes Güt" first performed on the 3^rd Sunday of Advent, 1717, but the designation given is simply "Hautbois"; however the range of the instrument points clearly to that of an oboe d'amore.

4. Other composers (other than Bach) who made use of this instrument are J.F. Fasch, J. G. Graun, C.H. Graun, J.D. Heinichen, J. G. Janitsch, A. Lotti and J. H. Roman. With these composers, it was used both as an obbligato/solo as well as a chamber-music instrument where it played the 'fill-in' parts.

5. Bach did not always mark the use of this instrument clearly, but often simply used the designation 'Solo' to call for it, particularly in movements of a 'Trio' nature:
BWV 94/7; BWV 100/5, BWV 110/4; BWV 112/2; BWV 116/2; BWV 121/2; BWV 144/5; BWV 197a/6; BWV 201/9; BWV 243/3; BWV 248/47.

6. Until now no evidence has been uncovered to show that Bach used the oboe d'amore before 1723. The first time Bach calls for this instrument is indicated in the parts which he wrote out himself for his audition cantata, BWV 23 performed on February 7, 1723. After that he used it in BWV 75 on May 30, 1723 for his official first performance as music director in Leipzig, and it also appeared a week later in BWV 76. His latest use of this instrument is documented in the existing version of BWV 195 and the 'Symbolum Nicenum" of the Mass in B minor BWV 232.

7. Until recently it was thought that Georg Friedrich Telemann was the first to use the oboe d'amore in his opera "Sieg der Schönheit", Hamburg, 1722), but now evidence has come to light that Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel (Capellmeister at the Gotha court) used this instrument in at least 36 sacred cantatas which he composed for the church year 1720/1721. He used it in a solo capacity as well as in doubling or having it play along with the regular oboes or in alternation with them. Based upon this information, Hans-Joachim Schulze has come to the conclusion that the Court at Gera (or Schleiz, if you will) was one of the first to make consistent use of the oboe d'amore.

8. With no other instrument did Bach use such a great variation of clefs and keys in his notation of it. Sometimes it appeared in "Klangnotation" (the notes given just as they normally sound), but at other times it was notated in a different key.

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 9, 2006):
BWV 67 (Corno da tirarsi)

Ed Myskowski wrote:
>>The instrumentation of BWV 67 is novel, and one more example of Bach's energy in extending his expressive resources (not to say genius, one more time). We have had extended recent discussions re transverse flute. I believe the corna (or tromba?) da tirarsi (substituted by trumpet in both Richter) was the first use...<<
Ulrich Prinz ("Johann Sebastian Bach's Instrumentarium" Stuttgart, 2005) calls the Corno da tirarsi "...möglichweise ein mißglücktes Experiment seiner beiden ersten Leipziger Amstsjahre..." ("possibly an unsuccessful experiment of his [Bach's] first two years in his official capacity in Leipzig"). The Csibas ("Die Blechblasinstrumente in J. S. Bachs Werken" Merseburger, 1994, p. 51ff) describe it as having the same length and playable range as a Tromba da tirarsi which had been around for a much longer time. They think that it was a very tightly curled Corno da caccia in C with a longer adjustable extension behind the mouthpiece. No Corno da tirarsi exists for direct inspection and measurement, but it would appear that the extension would have been 20 cm long. Assumptions have to be made about the possibility of a cynlindrical or straignt bore. In order to play all the notes which Bach demands, it would be necessary to choose the base tone/note/key so that the extension can be pulled out as far as possible.

There are only 3 compositions by Bach that call for this instrument and only one of them calls directly and only for a 'Corno da tirarsi': BWV 162/1 and 6 (a Weimar composition from 1715 and for reusing this cantata in Leipzig, Bach used the reverse of the part to transpose it to the new notation).

The other two are BWV 46/1,3,6 and BWV 67/1,4,7 and they have the following designation: 'Tromba o Corno da tirarsi' (which, of course, means that the Tromba da tirarsi could/would be preferred because it was more easily playable.

Of the 8 mvts. listed above, 4 of them are used to double the vocal part and add color, it is also used to support the viola part in another. Any solo-type use in the other mvts. is very modest and undemanding.

The first mvt. of BWV 67 is written for a Corno da tirarsi in A (i.e. the Corno da tirarsi in C is tuned down to A using an additional 'elbow' between the mouthpiece and the extension.)

Ed Myskowski wrote (April 9, 2006):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
>>The Richter booklet notes are a bit fuzzy on oboe d'amore in BWV 67.<<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< There should be no ‘fuzziness’ about Bach’s intention to use the oboe d’amore in BWV 67 since both the autograph score and the original parts specifically call for this instrument (in this instance there are two parts). >
Thanks as always for the detailed information. I was not very clear, there is no fuzziness about Bach's intention, only about Richter's execution. I did not read the notes carefully enough for the earlier version, BWV 67 [4], where the personnel for the entire CD indicate soloist: Edgar Shann, oboe d'amore (BWV 108 and BWV 127). However, BWV 67 does indicate oboe d'amore I/II, unnamed players.

The later version, BWV 67 [8] is more complicated, perhaps a typographical error. A single oboe is indicated. However, other cantatas in the same set, for example, BWV 104, indicate oboe d'amore I/II.

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 9, 2006):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
>>The later version, BWV 67 [8] is more complicated, perhaps a typographical error.<<
Is this supposed to read BWV 67/8 (the conventional way of indicating the cantata followed by the mvt. number)? In this case there is no mvt. 8, so what does the '8' stand for? Mvt. 6 perhaps?

Bradley Lehman wrote (April 10, 2006):
< 5. Bach did not always mark the use of this instrument clearly, but often simply used the designation 'Solo' to call for it, particularly in movements of a 'Trio' nature:
BWV 94/7; BWV 100/5, BWV 110/4; BWV 112/2; BWV 116/2; BWV 121/2; BWV 144/5; BWV 197a/6; BWV 201/9; BWV 243/3; BWV 248/47. >
Bruce Haynes's 1986 article "Questions of Tonality in Bach's Cantatas: The Woodwind Perspective"
http://www.qub.ac.uk/music-cgi/bach2.pl?22=11689 offers on page 53:

"One other question of tonality concerns pieces with 'hidden' oboe d'amore parts. Bach was not always careful to specify this instrument when he intended it to be used. There are a number of 'oboe' parts in sharp keys that go below the range of the hautbois ordinaire, indicating that the parts were meant for the oboe d'amore. Bach's oboists, handy on a variety of different instruments, would have automatically understood this without special instructions. Pieces with hidden oboe d'amore parts are to be found in Cantatas BWV 17, BWV 29, BWV 45, BWV 94, BWV 169, BWV 193, BWV 214, and BWV 215. In addition, some pieces in the second oboe part to the St John Passion (BWV 245) are more convenient on oboe d'amore, though not all of these are indicated."

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 11, 2006):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>Bruce Haynes's 1986 article "Questions of Tonality in Bach's Cantatas: The Woodwind Perspective"
http://www.qub.ac.uk/music-cgi/bach2.pl?22=11689 offers on page 53:
"One other question of tonality concerns pieces with 'hidden' oboe d'amore parts. Bach was not always careful to specify this instrument when he intended it to be used. There area number of 'oboe' parts in sharp keys that go below the range of the hautbois ordinaire, indicating that the parts were meant for the oboe d'amore. Bach's oboists, handy on a variety of different instruments, would have automatically understood this without special instructions. Pieces with hidden oboe d'amore parts are to be found in Cantatas BWV 17, BWV 29, BWV 45, BWV 94, BWV 169, BWV 193, BWV 214, and BWV 215.<<
Ulrich Prinz ("Johann Sebastian Bach's Instrumentarium", Stuttgart, 2005, pp. 353-359, has some of these listed as probable for oboe d'amore, but not BWV 29 which has oboes playing with ranges of c1-c3 and c1-a2. Why would Haynes have listed these as 'automatically understood'?

BWV 94 Bach, in the autograph score wrote "Aria Soprano è Hautb d'Amore" for mvt. 7. For mvt. 1 he wrote "I H. è Viol." & "2 H. è Viol." where there is nothing in the range of these to call for an oboe d'amore. Only mvt. 3 needs to be decided on the basis of range that two oboi d'amore are called for. As Haynes explains, the players would automatically know which instrument to use based upon the range required. There is nothing 'hidden' about these parts except that Bach and his copyists, in order to save time, simply felt no need to mark them specifically for what appeared to be obvious to all concerned.

BWV 215 does not have any 'hidden' parts either, and for some of the other instances that Haynes mentions, no separate oboi d'amore parts exist. They are simply copied on the same part as the regular oboe parts. When one mvt. is clearly marked 'oboe d'amore' and the one that follows directly below is not marked at all, there is nothing 'hidden' about such a part where the same player glances at the range of the next piece he needs to play and surmises that he will continue playing the oboe d'amore, particularly if the following is an aria or recitative.

In some instances, the NBA editors have 'read Bach's intentions' by examining the ranges that oboes play and have assigned reasonably and accordingly the oboe d'amore as required. The NBA KB will then note that Bach or his copyist 'forgot' to designate which instrument should be used and will then explain how the range of the instrument decides which instrument to assign to an 'unmarked' part.

Bradley Lehman wrote (April 11, 2006):
[Continue of his previous message
That article by Haynes is offered for the benefit of people who are willing to go look it up, or for those who might be interested in those compositions, or the oboe, or the oboe d'amore.

Earlier discussions of same, where it similarly got nitpicked unread:
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Oboe.htm
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Oboe-2.htm

Ludwig wrote (April 11, 2006):
[To Bradley Lehman] Thanks ---it is a travesty not to use the Oboe d'more when it is called for. There is no real substitute for it.

I do not understand what supports Haynes thesis. Could you please englighten us as the range of the d'more is almost the same as the Oboe and the English Horn.

Ed Myskowski wrote (April 11, 2006):
I have a remaining question, which I will restate:

The booklet with the boxed set including Richter's second recording, BWV 67 [8], indicates only a single part: Manfred Clement, Oboe. Could this be a typographic/editing error, or did Richter change the instrumentation for the second recording?

Other cantatas in the same set, for example, BWV 104, indicate oboe d'amore I/II, as does the earlier recording, BWV 67 [4].

Bradley Lehman wrote (April 11, 2006):
http://www.qub.ac.uk/music-cgi/bach2.pl?22=11689
< I do not understand what supports Haynes thesis. Could you please englighten us as the range of the d'more is almost the same as the Oboe and the English Horn. >
There is considerably too much to go into here; read the article....

See also the links I gave to earlier discussion. Differing pitch levels at the venues; Baroque woodwinds and their fingerings (and best scales); tessitura; tone colors; insensitivity of modern editions to practical considerations of Baroque woodwinds; more.

Ed Myskowski wrote (April 12, 2006):
Brad Lehman wrote:
< Earlier discussions of same, where it similarly got nitpicked unread:
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Oboe.htm
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Oboe-2.htm >

I looked. I found "an ill wind that nobody blows good" credited to Victor Borge. Didn't sound exactly right. So I Googled, and found:

Dave Wild (aka David Wild, aka David A. Wild), born in New York City shortly after its purchase by the Dutch [...]
During our 15 years in Ann Arbor, that remarkable town west of Detroit
[...]
I also play piano and occasionally soprano saxophone (best characterized by borrowing Ogden Nash's description of the oboe, as "an ill wind that nobody blows good")

Seems like Ogden Nash wrote it and Victor Borge put it on the map? The world doesn't need more oboe, it needs more d'amore. Or more English Horn.

Cantata BWV 67: Complete Recordings | Recordings of Individual Movements | Discussions

Back to the Top

Last update: ýApril 29, 2007 ý08:20:25