Discussions in the Week of March 30, 2003

Aryeh Oron wrote (April 1, 2003):
BWV 68 - Introduction

The subject of this week’s discussion (March 30, 2003) is the Cantata [Dialogue] for Whit Monday [2nd Day of Pentecost] ‘Also hat Gott die Welt geliebt’ (God so loved the world).).

Background

The excellent and extensive commentary below, quoted from the liner notes to the American issue by Nonesuch of the original Cantate recording (conducted by Klaus Martin Ziegler) [4], was written by no less than Joshua Rifkin (1971).

See: Cantata BWV 68 - Commentary

Recordings

The details of the recordings of this cantata can be found at the following page of the Bach Cantatas Website: Cantata BWV 68 - Recordings

Among the 10 complete recordings of this cantata, 7 are non-HIP and three are HIP, and only two of them are recent. Apart from the three usual participants from complete cantata cycles (Rilling [7], Harnoncourt [6] and Leusink [11]), we have also Kurt Thomas, who recorded this cantata twice (1952 [1], 1960 [2]), Fritz Werner (1963) [3], Klaus Martin Ziegler (mid 1960’s, from the excellent series of the German Cantate label) [4], Karl Richter (1974-1975) [5], Hans-Joachim Rotzsch [8], and Christoph Coin (1995, from his mini-series of cantatas with violoncello piccolo) [9].

The roster of soprano female singers is indeed impressive: Ingeborg Reichelt, Elisabeth Grümmer, Agnes Giebel, Ursula Buckel and Arleen Augér (twice) and others. If that was not enough, we can find here the excellent boy soprano Peter Jelosits in his last recording for Harnoncourt [6]. The line of bass singers is not less attractive: Erich Wenk, Theo Adam (twice), Jakob Stämpfli (twice), DFD and others.

A fascinating listening experience is awaiting us!

And is that was not enough, the aria for soprano from this cantata (Mvt. 2), being adopted from the ‘Jagd’ Cantata BWV 208, have been quite popular among soprano singers (see: Cantata BWV 68 - Recordings of Individual Movements), having its first recording back in 1913 by Ernestine Schumann-Heink, and about 20 others using it as a show-piece along the years. For some of them, like Germaine Lubin, Isobelle Baillie and Victoria de Los Angeles, this was their only try at a Bach’s piece.

If I have missed any recording of this cantata, either in complete form or of individual movement from it, please inform me, either through the BCML or to my e-mail address.

Additional Information

In the page of recordings mentioned above you can also find links to the original German text and various translations, four of which have been contributed by members of the BCML: English (Francis Browne), French (Jean-Pierre Grivois), Hebrew (Irit Schoenhorn) and Portuguese (Rodrigo Maffei Libonati).
There are also links to the Score (Vocal & Piano version) and to commentary: in English by Simon Crouch (Listener’s Guide), John Keillor (AMG), and Craig Smith (Emmanuel Music); in Spanish by Julio Sánchez Reyes (CantatasDeBach).

So you have a fine cantata with many recordings, great vocal soloists, poetic libretto and good commentary to read, and score. You are well-equipped, and I hope to see many of you participating in the discussion.

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 2, 2003):
BWV 68 - Provenance:

See: Cantata BWV 68 - Provenance

Neil Halliday wrote (April 2, 2003):
I'm listening to Harnoncourt's version [6] now; although I dislike some aspects of his instrumental ensemble's timbre and articulation, I can readily appreciate the beauty and charm of this opening chorus as he presents it here. The tempo is right for capturing the easy grace of the 12/8 metre. The choir is very pleasing, with good presentation of all four vocal lines.

Mvt. 2 (soprano aria) is light and cheerful (if un-exceptional); the boy soprano (listed as Jelosits) has a steady and clear voice here, and it concludes with an interesting instrumental section (no voice) in which an oboe and violin join the violincello piccolo featured in the previous vocal section.

Mvt. 3 (Bass recitative) is short, setting the stage for

Mvt. 4 (Bass aria) - engaging, foot tapping music (triplets in 4/4 time), with interestimg writing for the oboes. The bass (Meer) perhaps overdoes the vibrato at times, but his voice does have a pleasing timbre here.

Finale (Mvt. 5: Chorus) is unusual in that it has the proportions and grandeur of an opening chorus, well presented here by Harnoncourt, although I can envisage grander realisations than this one.

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 3, 2003):
BWV 68 - Commentaries: [Spitta, Voigt, Schweitzer, Dürr, Little & Jenne, Chafe]

See: Cantata BWV 68 - Commentary

Robin Crag wrote (April 5, 2003):
Mvt. 1: chorus
The structure of this movement feels so "self contained" that it is hard to believe it is built around a chorale. Bach conveys powerfully God's love for the world, and his sacrifice. This chorus seems to me very beautiful in a painful way. Also, later on, it becomes more joyful... but then it finishes with the instruments, like it began. And as that's how the whole thing is "framed", that is somehow what I remember.

Mvt. 2: aria
That cello line is so beautiful! It somehow expresses that rare and wonderful feeling, when your heart sings (Like if you are in love). It still sounds good after listening again a good few times... and it repeats so much in itself as well! The words are telling the heart to rejoice and sing, but it is singing already. I think the "sinfonia" part fits in well, because when a heart sings, it doesn't use words (it is surely above words).

But the words of the first version! Oh dear.

Mvt. 4: aria
Bach conveys wonderfully here a feeling of gratitude... especially around the words "Weil du fur mich genug getan". The bass singer with all those oboes makes an interesting sound somehow. There is something quietly joyful here.

But, again, those words! I actually find it hard to accept that this was originally written for some stupid little earthly king, who was probably living off the sweat of oppressed peasants... The words seem to go further than just praising the prince, it seems like some sort of perverse leader-worship was going on. [Rant over]

Mvt. 5: chorus
This seems to me very scary and intense. I don't think that I can fully appreciate a big fugue like this; it is like some massive cathedral, I can only walk in and look up and say "wow!".

The performance I have listened to (Kurt Thomas with Kantorei der Dreikoenigskirche Frankfurt etc) [1]:

On the whole I like this performance for its intensity. But I think most of it is to slow... except for the big fugue, which seems fast enough to keep moving, but slow enough to be "dignified". Ingeborg Reichelt, in her aria, seems to me a bit unstable + uninspired, but its ok really, if u c? The choir seems to have plenty of guts, so does Erich Wenk (he's convincing, I think)... Unfortunately all the clarity has gone from the record, because its so old, but it has somehow gained something too.

Somehow cantata as a whole has a pleasing structure... the 2 arias and 2 choruses balance each other... and wherewould the whole thing be without a little recitative in the middle?

Alex Riedlmayer wrote (April 5, 2003):
Robin Crag wrote:
< 2^nd movement: aria
That cello line is so beautiful! It somehow expresses that rare and wonderful feeling, when your heart sings (Like if you are in love). It still sounds good after listening again a good few times... and it repeats so much in itself as well! >
Unfortunately, on the Archiv recording [5], it's hard to hear over the organ stops and Edith Mathis!

< I actually find it hard to accept that this was originally written for some stupid little earthly king, who was probably living off the sweat of oppressed peasants... The words seem to go further than just praising the prince, it seems like some sort of perverse leader-worship was going on. [Rant over] >
Would an atheist find the sacred texts less concerned with perverse leader-worship (rather, god-worship) than the congratulatory texts?

< Mvt. 5: chorus
This seems to me very scary and intense. I don't think that I can fully appreciate a big fugue like this; it is like some massive cathedral, I can only walk in and look up and say "wow!". >
I find this the more thrilling of the two choruses in this cantata, rivalling the crowd choruses in the Passions. On Richter's recording [5], the chorus is drowned out by the orchestral 'colla parte' accompaniment; I suspect Rilling [7] might turn out better here.

Thomas Braatz wrote (April 6, 2003):
BWV 68 - Recordings:

This week I listened to the following recordings:

K. Thomas (1960) [2]; Richter (1974-5) [5]; Harnoncourt (1977) [6]; Rilling (1980-1) [7]; Rotzsch (1981) [8]; Coin (1995) [9]; Leusink (2000) [11]

Timings (from slowest to fastest):

Total Timings:
K. Thomas (18:58); Richter (17:52); Rilling (17:17); Leusink (16:53); Harnoncourt (16:49); Coin (16:14); Rotzsch (16:09)

Mvt. 1:
K. Thomas (6:06); Harnoncourt (5:34); Richter (5:32); Leusink (5:12); Coin (5:11); Rilling (4:39); Rotzsch (4:35)

Mvt. 2:
K. Thomas (4:42); Richter (4:10); Harnoncourt (4:02); Rotzsch (4:01); Coin (3:51); Leusink (3:47); Rilling (3:35)

Mvt. 3:
Richter (0:58); K. Thomas (0:52); Coin (0:51); Rilling (0:50); Leusink (0:47); Rotzsch (0:45); Harnoncourt (0:38)

Mvt. 4:
Rilling (4:33); Richter (4:29); Thomas (4:23); Leusink (4:09); Rotzsch (3:54); Coin (3:20); Harnoncourt (3:15)

Mvt. 5:
Rilling (3:32); Harnoncourt (3:20); Leusink (2:58); K. Thomas (2:57); Rotzsch (2:51); Richter (2:43); Coin (2:41)

Comments on Timings:

The only surprise here is Rotzsch with his fastest total time. Rotzsch [8], however, is known for his mixed adaptation of the HIP (use of shorter phrases, stronger accents etc.) and the non-HIP approach (standard pitch, modern instruments, etc.) Otherwise, these recordings generally fall into the general categories of non-HIP being slower than HIP. There may be several reasons for this disparity: Non-HIP renditions with generally larger ensembles vocally and instrumentally find it easier to sustain melodies in a generally more legato style of playing and singing, whereas HIP groups with their smaller numbers, sometimes reduced to a single voice or instrument per part find it easier to sing and play at faster tempi. Many factors which I have mentioned here earlier may be behind these choices. Overriding these major differences is one consideration: what is appropriate for sacred music. Is a ‘lite-’entertainment, ‘this-is-mainly-dance-music’ type of approach suitable for these works when most frequently the text points into the opposite direction? Is an overly dramatic, ‘music-is-simply-spoken-language’ rendering of the text sufficient in order to reconfirm the strong religious beliefs that Bach’s congregation must have felt when they heard this music?

Mvt. 1:

I personally believe that members of Bach’s congregation in Leipzig would have felt more affinity with Kurt Thomas’ [2] presentation of this chorale mvt. as performed by the Thomanerchor and the Leipzig Gewandhausorchester than with the others. Judging solely by the tempo (the slowest of the recordings that I listened to), it might be possible to assume that this is a typical late-romantic treatment with a heavy, ‘syrupy’ orchestral tone with a symphonic choir consisting of operatic voices to match, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Within the sustained sound are also rhythmic accents that emanate naturally from the musical score. There is a vigorous confession of faith that can not fail to move the listener. What Thomas ‘brings to the table’ in this opening mvt. is an element of intensity that permeates every bar of this mvt. Here the long musical lines of the chorale melody in the soprano with its frequently polyphonic underpinning in the lower voices coupled with the independent musical material in the instrumental accompaniment are delivered with fervent conviction as expressed in the phrase “Wer sich im Glauben ihm ergibt” [“Whoever completely relinquishes himself to him in an act of faith.”] All of this is accomplished with great clarity and balance between the separate vocal parts and between the choir and the orchestra.

The Richter [5] and Rilling [7] versions, both decidedly faster, emphasize a very different ‘take’ on the same text. This time the choirs are generally more gentle and reticent in their delivery, as if this were a lullaby (the siciliana/o effect: the music of shepherds on Christmas Eve) or a soft, dreamlike expression of the gentle love that is an outpouring of God, more in the sense “if you wish to accept my love which I happen to send to you in the form of my Son, and if, in your dreams, you decide that you might like to believe in Him, it could conceivably occur that you might live eternally without any suffering. Simply allow yourself to be lulled into this state of belief as if you had gently fallen asleep.” Thus the siciliana/o rhythm serves as a type of pastorale that is suited to lull the listener into a gentle, eternal slumber from which he will not need to awaken for a long time. These versions, as pleasant as they sound with their rather legato rhythms, might serve as good bed-time listening, but they do very little to instill or uphold a strong faith in the midst of turmoil and difficulties. The clarity between the vocal parts in each choir leaves something to be desired. With the Richter choir, the inner parts are not always as clear as they should be, and with Rilling, his professional-trained singers tend to use too much vibrato, a technique that undermines a solid, even sound. For both choirs (with Coin’s Accentus Chamber Choir included [9]), the following statement by Schweitzer is quite appropriate although directed at chorale-singing specifically: “It is a pity that the two upper parts of the chorales are everywhere sung by women’s voices that have not the right timbre and ingenuousness for chorale singing.” The sound of an all-male choir with boy sopranos and altos is truly superior to that of a mixed choir. Unfortunately, however, such an ideal choir sound is, nevertheless, difficult to achieve in reality.

Harnoncourt [6], once again, is the pioneer par excellence of the HIP tradition which continues until the present time. What is striking here is the lack of any firm support anywhere. The strong accents in the instruments and in the voices as well are followed by unaccented notes anpauses that completely destroy any sense of continuity. Even the chorale melody suffers from this deconstructive method which attempts to disassemble this music into myriad sub-phrases and individual notes that are disconnected from any concept which might embrace the entire mvt. The general effect of this version is not one of great conviction, nor does it establish a dream-like like atmosphere, but rather it reveals a watch-maker who is unable to put the individual parts together so that they function harmoniously. The Bach sermon which the listener hears is a puzzle made of individual words and concepts that do not relate to each other, nor do the ideas flow naturally from one idea to another. The listener comes away with a sad feeling of disjointedness, a halting progress with one step forward and two back, and a hopelessness arising from the lack of genuine involvement with the text which is treated clinically and microscopically so that all life has been driven from it. There is a heavy plodding to the eventual goal and great relief on the part of the listener once this mvt. is over. The entire mvt. smacks not of a living performance but of cerebral artificiality or of a conductor desperately trying to keep his forces together.

Rotzsch [8], although still using many non-HIP techniques, has partially adopted some of the detached playing techniques (very short, jagged phrases) of the HIP camp, albeit at a much faster tempo (the fastest of all.) This really begins to sound like a dance-mvt. with the listeners (believers) joining hands and dancing in a carefree (no stress, no suffering) manner toward God’s son in order to join him in eternity where the dance will continue. The choir (again the Thomanerchor) sings in a rather lackadaisical manner, in great contrast to the Kurt Thomas version discussed above. The attitude expressed here is “We’ve got a hopping rhythm going here, we’re really not too excited about it, but if you want to come and join us, we might be able to make it slightly more convincing than it is right now. We really need your help.”

Coin’s version [9] also has less of Harnoncourt’s extreme rhythmic gestures with many pauses that constantly cause the mvt. to break apart, but the accents are nevertheless present. What is striking here is the complete lack of conviction on the part of the choir. Is this simply another lullaby? No, Coin evidently wishes to do more with the movement than just that. His decidedly more rhythmic treatment of the orchestral material precludes the soft, dreamy approach. The Accentus Chamber Choir, according to the notes consisting of 30 professional singers, is unable to rise to the occasion which the instrumental ensemble has prepared for it. It is truly amazing that this choir can give such an apathetic performance, one that does not even fit the orchestral accompaniment. It is as though these two groups, instrumental and choral, are on two entirely different tracks. The only expression that seems to emanate from the choir is one of sadness. Somehow this choir is unable to relate to text of this Bach cantata. Perhaps this choir simply lacks sufficient experience in performing Bach and would be better at singing French language works from the 19th and 20th centuries.

Leusink’s approach [11] to the instrumental accompaniment is again one of the gentle, lullaby variety without the overly strong accents exhibited by Harnoncourt. However, when the choir enters, the spell is broken by the motley group of individualistic voices which demonstrate a great variety of vocal problems that occur when voices are not properly trained. These problems amount to insurmountable difficulties that deprive the listener of having a truly meaningful connection with this great choral mvt. by Bach.

Some additional points regarding Mvt. 1:

The chorale used here is in a typical bar-form with the Stollen (the repeated A-section) creating the usual problem for Bach unless he decides to use a ‘durchkomponierte’ [‘through-composed’] form where the repetition receives a different treatment in the supporting vocal parts than the opening line of the chorale. This process of ‘through-composing’ does not occur here, hence the word-painting will ‘work’ or ‘be effective’ only once; that is, the close association between the words and the movement of the independent parts may be significant in one instance, but not necessarily in the other. The opening line of the chorale, “Also hat Gott die Welt geliebt” illustrates musically, even in the chorale melody, a ‘stepping downward’ as God extends his love from heaven down to earth. This ‘stepping downward’ is even more apparent in the next line of the chorale: “daß er uns seinen Sohn gegeben” where the descent of His Son moves down stepwise for an interval greater than an octave, a movement that is imitated by the falling motifs in the fugal entries of the lower voices. When the lowest note is reached in the cantus firmus (soprano) and held for 14 beats, the lower voices, particularly the altos and basses repeat the entire line with a caressing motion with notes moving back and forth in a very restricted range. The repeat of the Stollen (“Wer sich im Glauben ihm ergibt, der soll dort ewig bei ihm leben“) shows little or no correspondence between text and music, but the line that immediately follows (we are now in the Abgesang of the bar-form) once again demonstrates meaningful movement, this time ascending on the words “Wer glaubt, daß Jesus ihm geboren” as this appeal to believe in Jesus is a looking upward to Jesus, who would then be born for us. On the words “der bleibet ewig unverloren” Bach ‘pulls out all the stops’ and is finally able to treat with word painting the word “ewig” which he had left untreated earlier. Now Bach relishes the treatment of both words “bleibet” and “ewig” which he translates into long, held notes in the fugal entries, which, for the first time begin in the bass and move upwards gradually to introduce finally the cantus firmus in the soprano. On the words “und ist kein Leid das den betrübt,” both „Leid“ [“suffering”] and „betrübt” [“sad”] receive special treatment despite the fact that the negative „kein“ [“no”] would logically remove them from consideration. This does not bother Bach, since he nevertheless finds these words very interesting and provides some unusual harmonies to underscore their meanings. [Another example of which there are quite a few: BWV 63, the final chorus, “Aber niemals laß geschehen, daß uns Satan möge quälen” {“But never let it happen that Satan might torment/torture us.} Despite the negation with “NEVER,” Bach nevertheless proceeds to illustrate with word painting the picture which ‘torment/torture’ evokes through chromatic progressions, just as if he can not resist the opportunity that presented itself.

This brings me to Bach’s treatment of “der bleibet ewig unverloren” [“{whoever believes that Jesus was born for him} he will remain forever ‘unlost’”] in ms. 37. Here Bach has the upper voices (S & A) continue singing long notes, while the tenors and basses have their equivalent dotted quarter notes reduced to simply quarter notes with 8th –note rests between them. This is the only time Bach does this in this mvt. and the significance of this becomes clear when you consider the word painting involved: While the upper parts are extending the notes on the words “ewig {unver}” [“eternally un-“ with the long notes being held ‘eternally,’] the tenors and basses (along with the bc) are directly involved singing the stem syllable of “unverloren” : “lo-“ which here means ‘lost’ because the negative prefix is not being considered by Bach. Possible interpretations: the tenors and basses (+ bc) are becoming lost as they tentatively step their way through the parts assigned to them. Or, to look at this another way: in order for the upper parts to remain ‘on course,’ it is necessary for them to receive strong support from the foundation supplied by the parts below them.What is happening here is the equivalent to the prevailing upper parts lacking the necessary and customary support that is normally given in the bc (here amplified to include the tenors and basses.) It is as though the solo part in a secco recitative is being deprived of the usual support (long sustained notes in the figured bass) that it needs from below. It could then become temporarily ‘lost’ because its dependency upon the solid foundation from below has been disrupted. Here Bach temporarily gives his listeners the musical feeling of what it is like to feel lost when a shortened accompaniment (which is not the norm) is written into the score for this special effect. The normal expectation would be for solid support which, in this instance, is temporarily missing here.

Mvt. 2:

Here is my list of preferred vocalists with the best renditions at the top:

[Jelosits is certainly worth hearing in order to get some idea of what a proficient boy soprano can sound like. There are some aspects that would remove him from this top category: some unnecessary, strong accents forced upon his interpretation by Harnoncourt’s misguided conception of what Bach should sound like and some weakness which Jelosits has in the low range, but otherwise all the other aspects of his voice are truly refreshing and remarkable after hearing the same aria performed by numerous other female sopranos.] [6]

Giebel (K. Thomas) [2] Jelosits (Harnoncourt)

Augér (Rilling) [7]
Augér (Rotzsch) [This version is not quite as good as the other] [8]

Mathis (Richter) [5]
Schwartzkopf (Jones) [M-5]

Strijk (Leusink) [11]

Schlick (Coin) [9]

Mvt. 3 & Mvt. 4 (Bass)

Fischer-Dieskau (Richter) [not so good in the aria] [5]
Adam (K. Thomas) [better in the aria than in the recitative] [2]
Huttenlocher (Rilling) [better in the aria than in the recitative] [7]
Adam (Rotzsch) [Time has taken its toll on the voice] [8]

van der Meer (Harnoncourt) [6]
Schwarz (Coin) [9]

Ramselaar (Leusink) [sotto voce] [11]

Mvt. 5:

K. Thomas [2]
Rotzsch [8]
Rilling [7]
Richter [too staccato + ‘carnival organ playing all vocal parts’] [5]

Coin [‘Lite’-treatment] [9]
Leusink [Caricature] [11]
Harnoncourt [Atrocious] [6]

Bradley Lehman wrote (April 6, 2003):
Robin Crag wrote:
< Mvt. 2: aria
That cello line is so beautiful! It somehow expresses that rare and wonderful feeling, when your heart sings (Like if you are in love). It still sounds good after listening again a good few times... and it repeats so much in itself as well! The words are telling the heart to rejoice and sing, but it is singing already. I think the "sinfonia" part fits in well, because when a heart sings, it doesn't use words (it is surely above words). >
For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness or in health: a person who has attended a lot of English-language weddings, or played music in them, hears this soprano aria (Mvt. 2) with the familiar words: "My heart, ever faithful." It seems that everybody who gets married has a friend who can shriek her way through some of this aria, and that's the way it's most familiar: from the standard books of 'wedding music.'

Also, it's in my current hymnal (Mennonite and Brethren) in a four-part arrangement, with a text beginning "With happy voices singing...."

Yes, it's a joyful piece when performed well. :)

I listened to two recordings of this cantata yesterday; might write about them later.

Stevan Vasiljevic [Serbia] wrote (April 6, 2003):
Thomas Braatz says:
< I personally believe that members of Bach’s congregation in Leipzig would have felt more affinity with Kurt Thomas’ [2] presentation of this chorale mvt. <
I have heard many non-HIP and several HIP performances of cantatas (and recently a Matthäus-passion (BWV 244) performance by Otto Klemperer and Philharmonia Orchestra & Choir) with tempos of certain movements so agonizingly slow that they become unbearably boring. Yes, I hear Bach's music, but it serves more to lull me asleep than to "reconfirm the strong religious beliefs".

< ‘lite-’entertainment, ‘this-is-mainly-dance-music’ type of approach <
can also aggravate quality of a performance.

The performers must find a suitable balance between these two extreme approaches.

Donald Satz wrote (April 6, 2003):
[To Stevan Vasiljevic] I don't find anything boring about Klemperer's slow tempos. Yes, he is heavy, but the inevitability of his rhythmic pace is often mesmorizing.

Philippe Bareille wrote (April 6, 2003):
I have several versions of this work: Harnoncourt [6], Coin [9] and Richter [5].

The pick of the bunch: Peter Jelosits marvellously accompanied by Harnoncourt [6] in the jaunty soprano aria (Mvt. 2).

Hugo Saldias wrote (April 6, 2003):
[To Philippe Bareille] Please tell us why do you prefer it [6].

Hugo Saldias wrote (April 6, 2003):
[To Donald Satz] I think the same.I like fast tempi but also slow.

Aryeh Oron wrote (April 6, 2003):
BWV 68 - Background

Sorry, but my review this time will be really short. I have been dedicated most of my free time during last week to transferring the Bach Cantatas Website (BCW) to its new host. The new BCW is now live and kicking, with much more space and better performance. The extra space opens new possibilities, about which I intend to inform you when time comes.

Although last week’s cantata BWV 68 is not exactly a new composition (only the choral movements and the short bass recitative are not parodies of earlier works), it is still one of the most rewarding in the whole oeuvre, regarding both the text and the music. The writing of the poetess Christiane Mariane von Ziegler always inspired Bach, although he altered her original text to his musical needs. There is no need for background to my short review of the recordings of the two arias, because this area is already well-covered by Joshua Rifkin’s comprehensive and excellent commentary, quoted in the Introduction message I sent to the BCML last week, by more commentaries quoted by Thomas Braatz in he review, and by three commentaries available on the Web.

The Recordings - Short review of the two arias

Last week I have been listening to 9 complete recordings of Cantata BWV 68.

[2] Kurt Thomas (1960, 2^nd recording)
[3] Fritz Werner (1963)
[4] Klaus Martin Ziegler (mid 1960’s)
[5] Karl Richter (1974-1975)
[6] Nikolaus Harnoncourt (1977)
[7] Helmuth Rilling (1980-1981)
[8] Hans-Joachim Rotzsch (1981)
[9] Christophe Coin (1995)
[11] Pieter Jan Leusink (2000)

The cheerful aria for soprano: Among the female singers I prefer Ursula Buckel (with Ziegler) [4]. Her light voice and clear delivery soar your spirit highly as no other singer does. She was born to sing Bach, especially this kind of arias. Next to her even renowned and respected singers in the field of Bach’s vocal works, as Elisabeth Grümmer (with K. Thomas) [2], Agnes Giebel (with Fritz Werner) [3], and Arleen Augér (with both Rilling [7] and Rotzsch [8]), all in their prime at the time they recorded this cantata, sound convincing but slightly heavy. Others, as Mathis (Richter) [5], Schlick (with Coin) [9] and Strijk (with Leusink) [11] are definitely not in their class. The boy soprano Peter Jelosits (with Harnoncourt) [6] deserves special recognition. His praises have been sung in the BCML many times, including the discussion of previous week’s cantata BWV 58. The easiness with which he sings this aria causes some of the other singers to sound as if they are struggling unsuccessfully to make something out of this demanding aria, showing off their technical (Mathis) or expressive (Strijk) limitations.

The singer of the aria for bass has to convey sureness in his faith and confidence in his Lord, and he should do it with the outmost simplicity. No one does it better than Jakob Stämpfli, who recorded this cantata twice, with Werner [3] and with Ziegler [4]. I prefer the latter because the accompaniment is more polished and colourful and it is also more sensitive to the singer. Theo Adam, who also recorded this cantata twice, is not far behind. I prefer his recording with Rotzsch’s flexible accompaniment [8] to the cumbersome and stiff Thomas [2]. Surprisingly, Adam’s voice and approach have not changed much in the course of 21 years between these two recordings. Next to Stämpfli and Adam, even DFD [5] sounds over expressive. The other bass singers of this cantata are very far behind these three great Bach singers.

Conclusion

A recording of the complete cantata to take away: Ziegler with Buckel and Stämpfli.
The tenderness and charm with which the choral movements are played and sung in this rendition are pure magic.

Bradley Lehman wrote (April 7, 2003):
This weekend I listened to both the recordings I have: both LPs from the 1970s, of German ensembles. I'm not fond of the overall style in either one of them; but, one is MUCH better than the other one in a crucial area: bringing out the spirit of the text and music.

In the good one, there is an excellent flow all the way through the cantata, across all the movements. The singers and players convey joy, and seem excited by the music. The tempos move easily, the instruments are well-blended, the winds are especially fine, and the music seems natural and unproblematic. "Alert" is a word that comes to mind. The soprano's tone in her aria was a little too bright for me, but the balance was good and the performance exciting. And the bass solo was well-done in character, too (see below).

In the bad one, the movements seem tacked together next to one another, arbitrarily. The orchestral playing is deadly: laborious, too loud, and undifferentiated (especially in the bass line)...just chugging along. In the first and fourth movements, the placement of the graceful figures is anything but graceful: merely stiff and cautious. The bass aria (Mvt. 4) is (IMO) especially a disaster here: the singer and conductor try to preserve the pedantic differences between the notations of the vocal rhythms (various patterns of duplets) and instruments (triplets and dotted figures)...it sounds terribly forced and stiff...an overly literalistic nightmare. [In the better recording, by comparison, everything flows easily and they don't worry so much about what it looks like on the page...they just play and sing it with a spirit of rejoicing, as the text says! The bass singer does seem to be well at-ease and comforted by his salvation, in the character he projects.]

In both of these recordings, the choruses are pretty much mush: it's difficult to pick out any of the words. And both these vocal ensembles have plenty of people who can't control their vibratos. But in the better recording, all the musicians are clearer with dynamics, backing off so that other parts can be heard. In the one I didn't like, everybody just pretty much blasts along loudly: it's graceless and tiring.

Both these recordings have identical total timings, within a few seconds overall (17'45"): but the "bad" one seems to take much longer, due to its lack of grace. When I got to the end of the good one, I wanted to hear it again, and did so. When I got to the end of the bad one (which I listened to first), I was glad it was over, and it had seemed like a dutiful process to get through it once.

So, what are these two recordings? The one I liked is Nonesuch 71256, the Kassel Vocal Ensemble and Deutsche Bachsolisten conducted by Klaus Martin Ziegler [4]. The soloists are Ursula Buckel and Jakob Stämpfli. It has good program notes by young Joshua Rifkin, too.

The one I thought was deadly is Archiv 2533306: Karl Richter with his Munich ensembles and Edith Mathis and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau [5]. In addition to the issues mentioned above (lack of flow, etc.), I agree with Alex: there are serious balance problems in the choruses (instruments overwhelming the choral parts they're doubling) and soprano aria (Mvt. 2) (wiping out the cello).

Someday I'll probably find another recording I like better (stylistically), but until then, this Ziegler performance [4] is a real "find" for me. And I want to go listen to it again now.

Bradley Lehman wrote (April 7, 2003):
Aryeh Oron wrote:
< (...) [4] Klaus Martin Ziegler (mid 1960's) >
Fwiw, Aryeh, my LP copy of this says "(c) 1971 by NONESUCH RECORDS" -- and gives credit as "a CANTATE recording, West Germany." That 1971 date might just be the American issue date.

Whatever the date, I agree with you about its musical excellence. As I wrote in my review just a few minutes ago, this one has such an appropriate spirit to it, from beginning to end!

Neil Halliday wrote (April 7, 2003):
Aryeh Oron wrote:
"A recording of the complete cantata to take away: Ziegler with Buckel and Stämpfli." [4]
I notice on your Bach Cantatas list of recordings that this is an LP set from the 60's. Several people have spoken highly of it.

How do the rest of us get to hear it?

Aryeh Oron wrote (April 7, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] I have the same Nonesuch issue of the Ziegler recording [4].

What a pity that this is the only recording of Bach Cantatas by Klaus Martin Ziegler. The other cantata on this LP, BWV 172 is also one of my favourite. See the discussion of this cantata at the page: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV172-D.htm
I know nothing about this conductor. Is he descendant of the poetess Christiane Mariane von Ziegler, who wrote the libretto of this cantata? I wonder if more recordings of Bach's vocal works conducted by him could be found in the vaults of Cantate label or of Swiss/German radio stations. Is there any member of the BCML who knows how to contact these sources?

Actually, I am very fond of most of the recordings of Bach Cantatas done by the German Cantate label during the 1960's. This series, which included some dozens of cantatas, conducted by variety of German conductors, was loosely connected with the editorial work of the NBA. I have some of the original LP's and the liner notes in all them were written by Alfred Dürr, which can be seen as a certificate for high quality. Many of the original Cantate LP's were issued in the USA during the early 1970's by various American labels, such as MHS, Oryx and Nonesuch. Some of the them were transferred to CD by Baroque Music Club/Oryx last year. Unfortunately most of the others have never been issued in CD form. I wrote to Cantate label about three years ago, asking about these recordings. Their answer was that during year 2000 there will be enough cantata recordings on the market and that do not see any point in reissuing these recordings. The started to transfer to CD some of Rilling's recordings of secular cantatas, which were done for this label during this 1960's. But even this effort was cut in the middle without any explanation.

Continue this part of the discssion, see: PDQ Bach [General Topics]

Christian Panse wrote (April 7, 2003):
Aryeh Oron wrote:
< [Klaus Martin Ziegler] [4]
I know nothing about this conductor. Is he descendant of the poetess Christiane Mariane von Ziegler, who wrote the libretto of this cantata? >
A nice thought, but not very likely, as "Ziegler" should be a one of the many names stemming from job titles: "brick maker", I suppose.

He is portrayed here (in German): http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/z/ziegler_k_m.shtml

According to this, he was above all a mentor of modern church music. One Cantate CD under his direction can be found here (1997, currently out of print):
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000027G57/heinzpeterkat-21

Philippe Bareille wrote (April 8, 2003):
[6] [To Hugo Saldias] Despite all the castigation of Harnoncourt (the last piece is that he cannot even read music! half the notes are missing..etc) I still believe that he often reveals hidden treasures and captures perfectly the spirit of this music. He knows that a cantata is to put across a message and not just to entertain an audience. He has revisited Bach old music infusing the work with so many different colours, and has reclaimed some of its original spirit. In the soprano aria (Mvt. 2), not only does he play the violoncello piccolo very well, but he simply revitalises this music. The boy Jelosits is outstanding: strong voice, no problem with intonation and good diction. Listening a good boy soprano who is naturally endowed with inner musical abilities is often very moving especially in this repertoire. Even Tom seems to recognise the talent of Peter Jelosits.

Keys

Julian Mincham wrote (August 14, 2006):
A bit of a technical question.

I have been looking closely at the last dozen cantatas of the second cycle. One, BWV 68 is unusual in a lot of ways--for one thing the only one of these not to end with a four part setting of the chorale. Instead it ends with a choral fugue doubled, motet style, by instruments.

But the strange thing is that it begins in one key (A minor) and ends in another (D minor).

My questions are

1 Does anyone know of any other substantial last movement of any movement by Bach which begins and ends in different keys?

(some slow middle movements sometimes end not in their tonic but on the dominant of the key of the final movement e.g. keyboard concerto in F minor---but that's a different matter).

2 Does anyone have any thoughts as to why Bach chose to do this most unusual (for the period) thing in this particular case (Chafe has something to say on it but it's not really a full explanation).

Bradley Lehman wrote (August 14, 2006):
< But the strange thing is that it begins in one key (A minor) and ends in another (D minor).
1 Does anyone know of any other substantial last movement of any movement by Bach which begins and ends in different keys? >
It's rather hard to guess from the sound of the piece that the organ piece "Kyrie, Gott heiliger Geist" BWV 671 is in Phrygian (and not E-flat major), until the G finalis shows up.

Granted, that's not the last movement of the service but only an internal stop.

And obviously your question excludes minor-key pieces that simply end with a Picardy third, not really being a different key?

=====

If you're looking at larger pieces as a whole, and not only the last movement:

- B minor mass

- Both of the big passions

- WTC, both books if played as a whole

- Various chorales that end on the dominant

Julian Mincham wrote (August 14, 2006):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< And obviously your question excludes minor-key pieces that simply end with a Picardy third, not really being a different key? >
Yes of course--that's a change of mode not key

=====

< If you're looking at larger pieces as a whole, and not only the last movement: >
No Graham Goerge dealt with these sorts of relationships well in his book Tonality and musical structure.
-
< Various chorales that end on the dominant >
Chorales and recits I am excluding. I am looking at large scale movements, ecclesiatical or secular which begin and end in different keys. There aint a lot of them--hence my question to see if anyone has noticed any I might have missed.

Thomas Braatz wrote (August 14, 2006):
Julian Mincham wrote:
>>I have been looking closely at the last dozen cantatas of the second cycle. One, BWV 68 is unusual in a lot of ways--for one thing the only one of these not to end with a four part setting of the chorale. Instead it ends with a choral fugue doubled, motet style, by instruments. But the strange thing is that it begins in one key (A minor) and ends in another (D minor).<<
Konrad Küster ("Bach Handbuch",Bärenreiter/Metzler, 1999), who strangely classifies this cantata as belonging to the 3rd cantata cycle, says the following about this last mvt. [summary-translation]:

There is here a broadly conceived theme/fugal subject (treated with large orchestration) that is used as the basis for this mvt: it consists of the main fugal subject on "Wer an ihn gläubet" and a "Fortspinnungs" subsection that serves as a cadence. This expansiveness determines the dimensions of the following, second section: after presenting all the entrances of the fugal subject the original counterpoint of "wer aber nicht gläubet" is used as its own theme and combined with a new counterpoint. After all the voices have entered in this portion of the fugue, Bach returns to the original combination again in order to present this as a quasi da-capo "Rückmodulation" ("a section modulating back to the beginning"). This is very similar in some of the details to what Bach does in BWV 103/1 "Ihr werdet weinen und heulen". In that mvt. and well as this one, Bach uses the second fugal section in a different harmonic environment, thus the second section, while related to the first and presenting similar or related material, can be presented in a different harmonic environment and lends itself to an independent treatment of the material which both sections share with each other."

It would appear from this statement that the structure of the movement, is in its musical structure based on the biblical text "whoever believes" vs. "whoever does not believe". The text in the second half is almost the same as that in the first half, the negative putting the second section into a completely different harmonic (independent, yet unresolved) environment. Perhaps listeners are asked to complete the cycle by returning to the original key in their own minds through their own imagination so as not to be judged by Christ or God (Bach even sets up the composition of this mvt. so that the music wants to go back to the original key established at the beginning of the mvt.)

Julian Mincham wrote (August 15, 2006):
[To Thomas Braatz] Many thanks Thomas for the Kuster reference which is of considerable interest; although for me it still doesn't quite explain things. The reference to BWV 103/1 is interesting but the movements are quite different. In 103 there are actually three fugal expositions two before and one after the inserted recitative phrases. The first takes us from Bm to Em, the second Em to F sharpm and the third Am back to the tonic Bm. The only somewhat strange thing about this is the unusual modulation from F sharp to A--not related keys, and the structural use of Am which is not a member of the family of keys related to Bm. Most importantly, BWV 103 being and ends in the same key which BWV 68 does not.

What is also interesting in your posting Thomas (and new to me) is the suggestion that BWV 68 might not be a part of the second but the third Leipzig cycle. In its favour is the fact that it is the only one that doesn't end with a simple 4 part chorale setting. On the other hand it does begin with a chorale fantasia--and there is no reason, is there to suppose that BWV 175 and BWV 176, composed after it were also part of the third cycle??

The fact is that after BWV 4 was brought back for the 1725 Easter celebrations, the last 12 cantatas of the second cycle are a structurally a bit of a ragbag, as we shall see when we come to them on list next year.. Only two begin with a chorale fantasia, two begin with a recitative, one with an extended sinfonia (the omly one in the cycle) and three with a bass aria (Mvt. 4). The remaining four begin with large scale choruses, either fugal or in the form of a great tone poem.

As for BWV 68, loathe as I am ever to claim that something is completely unique in Bach's output, it would seem that in starting and finishing in different established keys, this may well be.

Discussions in the Week of June 10, 2007

Julian Mincham wrote (June 9, 2007):
BWV 68 Introduction

CONTEXT

(See comments for Cantata BWV 128)
This is the second and last chorale fantasia movement of the works comprising the last quarter of the cycle. Like BWV 74 it contains re-arranged movements from earlier works. Two arias originated in the Hunt cantata, Cantata BWV 208, written in 1713.

The cantata of the week BWV 68 Also hat Gott die Welt geliebt
God so loved the world.
Chorus/fantasia (Mvt. 1)--aria (sop) (Mvt. 2)--recit (bass) (Mvt. 3)--aria (bass) (Mvt. 4)--chorus (Mvt. 5).
The fifty-first cantata of the cycle 2^nd day of Pentecost. Librettist:- Mariane von Ziegler.

The opening movement (Mvt. 1) of Cantata BWV 68 is set in brooding D minor. The chorale, used nowhere else in the cantata, was by Salomo Liscow and its eight phrases are ornamented to an unusual degree, declaimed by the sopranos, doubled by a horn.

The mood is elusive and enigmatic. There can be few greater contrasts in mood than that which occurs when the first aria (Mvt. 2) bursts upon us---my heart ever faithful sings---Jesus is here! An effervescent piccolo cello sets the tone in the first four bars and much of the movement can be perceived as a duet between it and the soprano. The long concluding quartet which explores a second exposition of the main theme is an oddity.

The bass recitative (Mvt. 3) continues the theme of joy in being part of Jesus' mission as arbiter between man and God.

The bass aria (Mvt. 4) demonstrates a very different facet of Bach's art as an arranger. .The new text requires a much tougher, more sinewy treatment which would explain why he takes the trouble to rewrite much of the latter part of the aria.

The last movement (Mvt. 5) is virtually unique in Bach's literature since he clearly begins in one key (A minor) and ends in another (D minor). The reason for this is obviously symbolic as well as demonstrating an example of long term tonal planning.

Uniquely for the cycle, there is no concluding chorale.

Cantata link: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV68.htm

Douglas Cowling wrote (June 9, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< The opening movement (Mvt. 1) of Cantata BWV 68 is set in brooding D minor. The chorale, used nowhere else in the cantata, was by Salomo Liscow and its eight phrases are ornamented to an unusual degree, declaimed by the sopranos, doubled by a horn.
The mood is elusive and enigmatic. There can be few greater contrasts in mood than that which occurs when the first aria (Mvt. 2) bursts upon us---my heart ever faithful sings---Jesus is here! An effervescent piccolo cello sets the tone in the first four bars and much of the movement can be perceived as a duet between it and the soprano. >
Do any of the other recordings take the opening movement faster than Leusink [11]? I know there is a lot of ornamentation in the instrumental lines, but I found the tempo very flaccid.

It's worth noting that the soprano aria (Mvt. 2) is one of the most frequently performed cantata movements. It's ubiquitous in soprano aria collections and is a perennial favourite at weddings.

Jean Laaninen wrote (June 9, 2007):
[To Douglas Cowling] The constrasts of mood in Bach reveal darkness and light in such a perceptive manner. I have performed the soprano aria (Mvt. 2) three times in English, once in German, and once with the flute. I consider the piece to be one of my signature numbers. But the differences in tempo can be striking in the aria, too. When I learned it and first performed it the tempo was a lot slower than the one I used later for the German. By then I had attained the professional tempo and was able to take it at the speed done by Arleen Augér [7], whose work I admire greatly, and I have numerous of her recordings. Of all the numbers I have ever sung in my life, this one reflects my confidence personally that my life is going to somehow be alright, so I have loved singing it when the opportunity has been available. But I have to say I did not actually retain any knowledge about which cantata this was from, because I didn't know anything about the cantatas when I learned the number at age 21. I did not know of the wedding context that Doug mentions below, but certainly this would be an appropriate use.

Julian Mincham wrote (June 9, 2007):
Jean Laaninen wrote:
< Of all the numbers I have ever sung in my life, this one reflects my confidence personally that my life is going to somehow be alright, so I have loved singing it when the opportunity has been available. >
It's a stunning piece.

But why the odd proportions?

And can anyone suggest why Bach used the picc cello as the obligato instrument?

Was it because it (rather than a flute) was available?

But might there be deeper musical reasons?

Thomas Braatz wrote (June 9, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
>>And can anyone suggest why Bach used the picc cello as the obligato instrument? Was it because it (rather than a flute) was available?<<
According to Ulrich Prinz (JSBs Instrumentarium, 2005) p. 589, there are a few facts and some reasonable speculation involved concerning possible players of this instrument:

Christian Rother (a city piper from 1708-1737), named as the "Primgeiger" ("Primary violinist") for Bach's performances which employed the city pipers.

Georg Gottfried Wagner received musical instruction from Bach and for whom Bach wrote a letter of recommendation to the City Council of Plauen on September 26, 1726 confirming that Wagner could play the violin, the violoncello and other instruments well.

According to Walter F. Hindermann (author of "Die nachösterlichen Kantatendes Bachschen Choralkantaten-Jahrgangs" Hofheim, 1975, p. 29) the obbligato violoncello piccolo parts were still played holding the instrument in one's arm until April 2, 1725 (BWV 6), but thereafter it was held between the legs. Possibly C. F. Abel, with whom Bach was well acquainted, came from Cöthen to Leipzig to perform violoncello piccolo parts. The violoncello piccolo part in BWV 68 may thus have been one of the first performances using this new method of playing.

Peter Smaill wrote (June 10, 2007):
The austere fugal Chorus concluding this (chiastic structure) Cantata, BWV 68/5, is quite unusual, being a text from Scripure set contrapuntally as a final movement. It is set in three sections; subject; countersubject and then a double fugue. Bach thus emphasisise the antithesis of the text.

There has been some speculation that the truncation of the last line relative to the exposition of the earlier words implies a parody as with other movements. However, Melamed rejects this analysis since there are other instances. "The delaying of the last text unit cannot be reliably interpreted as demonstrating parody".

Without disagreeing I think there may be some influence in thematic material, note rhythms and structure between this movement and the C Sharp Minor Fugue (IV) from Book 1 of the WTC. I would be interested to know if others feel the same . The third subject of the WTC fugue does in my view appear episodically in the Chorus but is not there fully developed; there is a remarkable similarity nonetheless.

Joel Figen wrote (June 11, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< It's a stunning piece.
But why the odd proportions?
And can anyone suggest why Bach used the picc cello as the obligato instrument?
Was it because it (rather than a flute) was available?
But might there be deeper musical reasons? >
I haven't read the whole libretto, or even listened to a recorded performance of the whole cantata, so my interpretation might be from left field, but this soprano solo has always moved me, and I did read the words when I prepared a midi file of it for practice by a soprano friend of mine.

Anyway, try this interpretation on for size: The moment depicted is that of entering into beatific vision. At this moment, "Jesus ist da." (at least for believing christians...). The disproportionate sinfonia at the end represents the beatific vision itself, with the newly-joined instruments representing the two members of the trinity not explicitly mentioned in the text. By deduction, then, the obligato vcpic has represented Jesus from the from the very start. Now,one might use a flute to represent Krishna or Pan, but it would be far from my first choice to represent the entirely human/entirely divine all male Savior of the Christians. (Unless I were in a new-agey mood :)

By extension, then, the soprano represents the soul, in perfect innocence, so a very fluty boyish voice would be ideal. A flute obligato wouldn't provide much contrast, musically speaking.(Though in a new-agey mood it might stress the similarities betweenthe soul and god.)

Also, the range of the vcpic is much greater than the flute, and this obligato uses a lot of it. Then again, bach would have written different notes, had he chosen a different instrument.

As for flutes not being available, that strikes me as inherently unlikely. The flutes are always with us.

One thing I can say about the charm of the movement is that it depends greatly on having the right continuo realization, at least until the Trinity chimes in, at which time the right hand might as well just as well fall silent. Too much continuo fill or too little damages the feeling of innocent delight.

Julian Mincham wrote (June 11, 2007):
I was interested in Joel's responses to my questions about BWV 68/3---an example of the sort of discussion based directly on the cantatas, of which I recently lamented the lack.

I agree that the use of the cello/pic was likely to have been a musical and practical decision---I was also interested in the theory of explanation for the (virtually unique) extended instrumental section.

Sometimes when Bach reuses material it is easy to be mistaken about the musical imagery being derived from the text, simply because the original text not the subsequent one would have generated the ideas (e.g. opening of the Christmas Oratorio)

However 68/3 is not such a case because Bach has radically rearranged the music to suit his new purpose (a common characteristic of his reuse of earlier material in this cycle). The original text (from BWV 208) was built around some banal words of fleecy flocks adorning far-flung pastures and was for soprano and continuo line only. For 68/3 Bach completely rewrote (and substantially improved) the vocal line and added a new continuo line. The original continuo had been the cello solo of the later version---a typical example of Bach's combining the two functions (i.e. obligato and continuo lines) into one line.

So for 68/3 we have

a new sop line

a new continuo line

the addition of flute and violin in order to make up a quartete for the 'expression of the vision'

the retained original continuo line now given to cello/pic. And because he does not alter the key, this line lies in exactly the right range for cello and this is a good practical reason for ascribing it to the solo picc cello rather that a higher instrument which might seem to be more appropriate for the joyous sound.

We know of several examples where Bach reused earlier compositions with minimal alteration. This is something quite different; an example of a composer completely rethinking his earlier work, retaining the best bits of it and wholly adapting it to the new text.

An excellent model for students of arrangement and composition.

Jean Laaninen wrote (June 11, 2007):
[To Julian Mincham] Following the discussion below, would there be other cases within the cantatas where Bach used the cello/pic in an emotionally heart-warming text? I hope this does not sound too simple, but when you first raised this question having sung this piece numerous times, I was drawn to the idea of the warmth of the instrument along with the concept of confidence that comes out of being able (in my view) to have a faithful heart...a matter at hand in the text. I don't think the flute would convey the text of the soprano aria (Mvt. 2) in the same manner, being a little too jubilant, perhaps. But I leave this answer to those who know comparable instances of the instrumental use.

Julian Mincham wrote (June 11, 2007):
Jean Laaninen wrote:
< Following the discussion below, would there be other cases within the cantatas where Bach used the cello/pic in an emotionally heart-warming text? >
Yes I have often thought it would be a useful exercise to collate the arias which have the same obligato instrument in common (picc cello, various oboes, flute, violin, trumpet etc) and make comparisons with the texts.

Something I may get around to in the future. Having recently bought the new Bärenreiter complete edition of the cantata scores, I at least have the basic material.

Jean Laaninen wrote (June 11, 2007):
[To Julian Mincham] That sounds like a great idea.

Thomas Braatz wrote (June 11, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
>>I have often thought it would be a useful exercise to collate the arias which have the same obligato instrument in common (picc cello, various oboes, flute, violin, trumpet etc) and make comparisons with the texts.<<
No need to repeat this exercise which has already been accomplished in great detail by Ulrich Prinz in his "J.S. Bachs Instrumentarium" 2005. Here is what you will find there on pp. 595-596:

Violoncello piccolo

As an obbligato instrument played by a single instrument only:

Expressly designated as "Violoncello piccolo" in

BWV 6
BWV 41
BWV 49
BWV 68
BWV 85
BWV 115
BWV 175
BWV 180 (via P46)
BWV 183

In Chronological Order:

BWV 180 (Oct 22, 1724)
BWV 115 (Nov 5, 1724)
BWV 41 (Jan 1, 1725)
BWV 6 (Apr 2, 1725)
BWV 85 (Apr 15, 1725)
BWV 183 (May 13, 1)
BWV 68 (May 21, 1725)
BWV 175 (May 22, 1725)
BWV 49 (Nov 13, 1726)

Assumed to be used (probable, possible instances; most of these based on research by Alfred Dürr - these range from good possibilities to vague suggestions):

BWV 5/3
BWV 71/6
BWV 139/4
BWV 197a/4
BWV 199/6
BWV 234
BWV 1012 (for 5-string violoncello)

Not original conception, but used in repeat performances and/or later versions:

BWV 6/3 (on an additional page added to the viola part)
BWV 41/4 (Part B 12 - 1st violin doublet)
BWV 68/2 (a reworking of BWV 208/13)
BWV 139/4 (a later version uses a violin instead)
BWV 175/4 (a reworking of BWV 173a/7)
BWV 199/6 (for the performance on Aug 8, 1723; before
that point in time the Viola obligata or Violoncello
or Viola da gamba had been used)

Used as a solo instrument:

BWV 1012 (5-string violoncello)

Used as part of a trio setting (chronologically listed)

BWV 199/6 with soprano (repeat performance)
BWV 5/3 with tenor (Dürr's supposition)
BWV 180/3 with soprano
BWV 41/4 with tenor
BWV 6/3 with soprano
BWV 85/2 with alto
BWV 183/2 with tenor
BWV 68/2 with soprano
BWV 175/4 with tenor

Used as part of a quartet setting (chronological) (Another instrument, Violoncello piccolo, Voice, Continuo)

BWV 115/4 with traverso and soprano
BWV 139/4? with oboes 1 & 2, and bass
BWV 49/4 with Oboe d'amore and soprano
BWV 197a/4? with traverso 1 & 2, and alto

Used as part of an orchestral mvt."
BWV 71/4 with bass (middle section, mm 23-40)

Division according to voice parts:
(in chonological order)

Soprano

(BWV (199/6)
BWV 180/3
BWV 115/4
BWV 6/3
BWV 68/2
BWV 49/4

Alto

BWV 85/2
BWV 197a?

Tenor

BWV (5/3)
BWV 41/4
BWV 183/2
BWV 175/4

Bass

BWV 71/4;
BWV 139/4?

Julian Mincham wrote (June 11, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< No need to repeat this exercise which has already been accomplished in great detail by Ulrich Prinz in his "J.S. Bachs Instrumentarium" 2005. Here is what you will find there on pp. 595-596: >
Many thanks for this information.

I don't know Prinz's book but clearly should!

Does he list uses of the other obligato instruments (flute, oboes etc) in similar detail?

Neil Halliday wrote (June 11, 2007):
Peter Smaillwrote:
>The third subject of the WTC fugue (C# minor fugue Book 1) does in my view appear episodically in the Chorus but is not there fully developed; there is a remarkable similarity nonetheless.<
Yes, I heard this in my mind as soon as I read it. In fact the WTC third subject is very like the incipit (first six notes) of the counter-subject of this chorus.

BTW, both Robertson and the OCC mention that Bach borrowed, from BWV 208, the instrumental trio that concludes the soprano aria (Mvt. 2), but I cannot find that section in the BGA.

Thomas Braatz wrote (June 11, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
>>I don't know Prinz's book but clearly should! Does he list uses of the other obligato instruments (flute, oboes etc) in similar detail?<<
Yes, and much more, but he will not include any speculation about the symbolic significance of any instrument as it appears in Bach's sacred music. That is a book that still remains to be written by someone else (BCML members?]. However, armed with Prinz's book, the tedious chore of assembling this information on instruments has already been completed.

Thomas Braatz wrote (June 11, 2007):
Neil Halliday wrote:
>>BTW, both Robertson and the OCC mention that Bach borrowed, from BWV 208, the instrumental trio that concludes the soprano aria (Mvt. 2), but I cannot find that section in the BGA.<<
The instrumental trio is known as BWV 1040. The NBA has it as an "Anhang" to BWV 208. Perhaps the BGA also included at the very end of BWV 208 or has it elsewhere as an instrumental composition. Look up BWV 1040 in the BGA catalog.

This mvt., I believe, was discussed in some detail a few years ago on the BCML. Do a search on "BWV 1040" and see what might come up.

Bradley Lehman wrote (June 11, 2007):
< The instrumental trio is known as BWV 1040. The NBA has it as an "Anhang" to BWV 208. Perhaps the BGA also included at the very end of BWV 208 or has it elsewhere as an instrumental composition. Look up BWV 1040 in the BGA catalog. >
"The BGA catalog" is the BWV (Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis), unless you're referring to the old index volume 46 of the original redbound Bach-Gesellschaft (the books), which predates that numbering system by Schmieder.

The piece that Neil Halliday seeks is in BGA volume 29, pages 250-251, which is part of the appendix to that volume that also includes "Was mir behagt". It includes the interesting feature that some of the continuo line is only in tablature instead of staff notation (so, they just left that third stave blank for part of the way, and printed the letters under it instead).

The BWV is the index into both the BGA and the NBA, and it also contains information that's newer than both of them, at least where it refers to NBA volumes that are more than 10 years old by now.

The current (i.e. 1998) edition of BWV has both BWV 208 and BWV 1040 listed together as the same entry, on page 212. And at 1040 in the numerical listing, p. 423, it sends us back to that entry on page 212.

It also mentions there on p. 212 that the ritornello (which gets its own incipit on page 214) was used in BWV 68 mvt 2.

In plain English, we're talking about the instrumental bit that introduces the famous "My Heart Ever Faithful" aria, in BWV 68, as used in zillions of weddings and elsewhere.

As for the main melody of this aria, the current hymnal for Mennonite/Brethren churches (and perhaps some other hymnals as well) has a four-part arrangement of it at #83, with a text "With happy voices singing" from 1888. Yes, for four-part singing, either unaccompanied or accompanied, and no ritornello. A decent arrangement, D major, and easy to sing.

Julian Mincham wrote (June 11, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< The current (i.e. 1998) edition of BWV has both BWV 208 and BWV 1040 listed together as the same entry, on page 212. And at 1040 in the numerical listing, p. 423, it sends us back to that entry on page 212. >
This makes sense because the trio and aria (combined in the one movement in BWV 68) are clearly not two individual pieces but two different developments of the same theme.

The unanswered question is, was the trio (listed as BWV 1040) used as a part of BWV 208 the earlier work? and if so at which point?

Bradley Lehman wrote (June 11, 2007):
< The unanswered question is, was the trio (listed as BWV 1040) used as a part of BWV 208 the earlier work? and if so at which point? >
A reduction of it (no oboe or violin) became the basso continuo of movement 13, the aria "Weil die wollenreichen Herden".

Thomas Braatz wrote (June 11, 2007):
BWV 68 Introduction (BWV 1040)

BWV 1040

[based on Alfred Dürr's discussion of this mvt. in the NBA KB I/35 (which includes BWV 208), pp. 46-47]

I believe this matter has been discussed before on the BCML, but here is what Dürr says about this trio mvt.:

The autograph score ends with a "Fine" after which BWV 1040 is included.

What purpose it served is not clear, but some conjectures are possible.

It was not appended at a later date but rather was added to the score at the same time (not later in the Cöthen or Leipzig periods - this is based upon the shape of the c-clef which Bach used).

The use of the same thematic material as BWV 208/13 proves that it was not composed independently for a different occasion.

It may have been composed in connection with either one of the performances of the cantata that took place in Weißenfels or Weimar.

It certainly was not a draft based on BWV 208/13 and composed in preparation for its use in BWV 68/2.

It appears slightly altered as an appended Ritornello in BWV 68.

A specific necessity for its reuse in BWV 68/2 cannot be established. Evidently it was added only so that this trio mvt. would not be completely forgotten and because it is related thematically to the preceding aria.

What purpose/function may this mvt. (BWV 1040) have originally served? There is no definite answer to be given here.

Conjecture 1:

Perhaps it was already intended to be added on to BWV 208/13 and the original parts, if they had been available now, would have had it placed where it really belonged.

Conjecture 2:

Perhaps it was played at a different point in the cantata [BWV 208] and served a linking function such as to fill out the time when a presentation was being made to the prince/ruler.

------

In any case, BWV 1040 is so intimately connected with BWV 208 that it should appear in print as part of the same cantata.

Bradley Lehman wrote (June 11, 2007):
[To Thomas Braatz] Conjecture 3: perhaps it was a wholly separate piece, or a draft of a piece. It could have been composed on (and used for) any other occasion, either before or after BWV 208, or with it for some performance. We can't prove that it was, and we can't prove that it wasn't. It just happens to be preserved on the last page of autograph score for that piece. There could have been any number of other copies, on any other occasions, either with this 3-part instrumentation or some other arrangement. WE DON'T KNOW; nor do we know what instrument(s) played the continuo. Hey, part of a page of manuscript paper free, and a nifty bass theme already proven to work nicely, let's whip out a little instrumental arrangement for some other occasion!

As the critical report of the BGA points out (P. G. Waldersee, in Eisenach, October 1881; page XXVIII of volume 29 of BGA), it's a piece of special interest because it's built on the basso ostinato theme of that aria "Weil die wollenreichen Heerden" from "Was mir behagt" (i.e. BWV 208).

As indeed it is.

=====

"...based on Alfred Dürr's discussion of this mvt....", based on it how loosely?!

Whatever liberties have been taking in reporting and/or distorting Dürr's work (blending fact from Dürr and opinion from Braatz together into a seamless whole!):

- The evidence is too scanty to assert a conclusion that it "certainly was not a draft based on BWV 208/13" ; the person writing that isn't Bach and doesn't know.

- The evidence is also too scanty to assert a conclusion that "evidently it was added only so that this trio mvt. would not be completely forgotten" ; the person writing that isn't Bach and doesn't know.

- The evidence is furthermore too scanty to assert a conclusion that "It was not appended at a later date but rather was added to the score at the same time"; why couldn't it have been at some date within a couple of months or a year, when Bach was still using a similar style of clef? Well, the person writing that isn't Bach and doesn't know.

=====

My own opinion, with the piece of music right here onscreen (from BGA vol 29), and having sight-read through it here at my harpsichord:

It's a pleasant little piece, 27 bars of music for violin and oboe and continuo. Bach could have had any number of reasons for writing/preserving it, not known to us. Why restrict him to "certainly not" doing any such-and-such? It could have been played any number of times, at any number of occasions with or without the vocal music from BWV 208. WE DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS, OR WASN'T.

But, it's not necessarily so "intimately connected" with BWV 208 "as part of the same cantata". It just happens to be based on the same theme, and handwritten in otherwise unused space on the last page of the score. And as I already noted earlier today, 8 of the last 9 bars didn't fit onto the page anyway, so he did the continuo part of those in tablature instead of score...

Bradley Lehman wrote (June 11, 2007):
[To Bradley Lehman] Making this musical/thematic interconnection obvious, here's the piece in the "BWV1040" folder: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/BachCantatas/files/

Thomas Braatz wrote (June 11, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>Conjecture 3: perhaps it was a wholly separate piece, or a draft of a piece. It could have been composed on (and used for) any other occasion, either before or after BWV 208, or with it for some performance. We can't prove that it was, and we can't prove that it wasn't.<<
Yes, but Dürr's assessment seems to rank higher and to appear slightly more credible as a reasonable conjecture than your wild guesses which you suggest on the spur of the moment without giving this matter much thought.

BL: >>As the critical report of the BGA points out (P.G. Waldersee, in Eisenach, October 1881; page XXVIII of volume 29 of BGA), it's a piece of special interest because it's built on the basso ostinato theme of that aria "Weil die wollenreichen Heerden"from "Was mir behagt" (i.e. BWV 208/13).<<
This is the thematic link that Dürr referred to.

BL: >>"...based on Alfred Dürr's discussion of this mvt....", based on it how loosely?! Whatever liberties have been taking in reporting and/or distorting Dürr's work (blending fact from Dürr and opinion from Braatz together into a seamless whole!)<<
If you distrust this information so much, why not check out the source and report back here what you have found?

BL: >>- The evidence is too scanty to assert a conclusion that it "certainly was not a draft based on BWV 208/13" ; the person writing that isn't Bach and doesn't know.<<
Well, that person is Alfred Dürr who as a true Bach scholar knows more about and has much more experience with Bach's music than you do!

As I interpret Dürr's "keinesfalls", it is clear that Bach did not touch or use the space at the end of BWV 208 (after the 'Fine') at any point in time after the repeat performance in Weimar. BWV 1040 may actually have been physically written down for the first performance, but it cannot be entirely ruled out that it might have been added as a 'space/time' filler in Weimar, but not after that time (like in Cöthen for a courtly function or in Leipzig in preparation for BWV 68/2.) The argumentation is based on the fact that Bach changed the way he wrote his c-clefs. In Weimar he still used the old way exclusively, but in Cöthen, Bach was already mixing the old with the new style and in Leipzig, he never used the old style anymore.

BL: >>The evidence is also too scanty to assert a conclusion that "evidently it was added only so that this trio mvt. would not be completely forgotten"; the person writing that isn't Bach and doesn't know.<<
Well, that person is Alfred Dürr who as a true scholar knows more about and has much more experience as well
as a better track record with Bach's music than you do!

The word "evidently" is my translation of "offenbar".

BL: >>But, it's not necessarily so "intimately connected" with BWV 208 "as part of the same cantata". It just happens to be based on the same theme, and handwritten in otherwise unused space on the last page of the score.<<
The same way that Bach still had to add the final chorale to his scores in Leipzig after the copyists had already begun copying out the parts; except that in this instance, after composing BWV 208 and writing down 'Fine', he probably received a late request from the master of ceremonies that he would like to 'interrupt' the for a short presentation ceremony. This makes eminent sense compared to your "we simply cannot know anything for certain" or "it just happens to be based on the same theme". What we have here with Dürr's comments are some very reasonable conjectures based upon a lifetime of academic and musical experience with Bach's works. Your 'arguments' here sound more like cheap shots which anyone might bring up if they need to indulge in empty criticism.

BL: >>And as I already noted earlier today, 8 of the last 9 bars didn't fit onto the page anyway, so he did the continuo part of those in tablature instead of score...<<
Bach composed rapidly and only needed to prepare the score sufficiently so that he could copy out these parts very quickly before performing BWV 208 along with this additional instrumental composition that is intimately linked to one of its arias: BWV 208/13. He probably composed this 'ritornello' as fast as he did his final 4-pt. chorales. He seemed to compose his best music when under extreme pressure of time and, at the 1st performance, the musicians probably had to sight-read the parts since they had no opportunity to study them beforehand.

Jean Laaninen wrote (June 12, 2007):
[To Bradley Lehman] Almost every week someone cites Durr, as below , and looking at the work on Amazon.com he seems to provide a pretty good overview of the cantatas. I plan to get a copy soon, but I would be interested in knowing the relative strengths or any omissions in this reference. Thanks...I appreciate it.

Bradley Lehman wrote (June 12, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< (...) He seemed to compose his best music when under extreme pressure of time and, at the 1^st performance, the musicians probably had to sight-read the parts since they had no opportunity to study them beforehand. >
That's the closing sentence of a posting that purports to be factual and scholarly?

But there it is.

Douglas Cowling wrote (June 12, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< He probably composed this 'ritornello' as fast as he did his final 4-pt. chorales. He seemed to compose his best music when under extreme pressure of time and, at the 1^st performance, the musicians probably had to sight-read the parts since they had no opportunity to study them beforehand. >
And once again the 'Saturday Night Fever Copying Scenario' and the 'Superhuman Sight-Reader Fantasy' make their ever-anticipated appearance.

Ever notice that the former is never mentioned when Bach has to provide three cantatas on three consecutive days as on Pentecost Sunday, Monday and Tuesday?

Bradley Lehman wrote (June 12, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Well, that person is Alfred Dürr who as a true Bach scholar knows more about and has much more experience with Bach's music than you do! >
I'll grant cheerfully that Dr Dürr has been conducting Bach scholarship since before my birth. That (alone) doesn't prove that he's absolutely infallible on every occasion, or any particular occasion; nor that I'm mistaken on any particular occasion, either.

I'm curious, in your game of haughty one-upmanship and authoritarian thwacking (i.e. your hero is brought in to be smarter than a person who happens to disagree with you):

Where does your attitude leave our fine citizens who don't have any music degrees, don't perform any of Bach's music regularly, and haven't taken (or taught!) any lessons on any of Bach's instruments? But, whose enthusiasm for the material is only through reading books they've purchased, and listening to recordings? Are they all unworthy, next to those of us who do have degrees and who do perform/study/teach those instruments? Or are those people (like yourself) conveniently smarter than me, too?

Santu de Silva wrote (June 12, 2007):
BWV 68

"Mein glaubiges Hertze" is an aria I became familiar with when my mother learned it in 1965, or thereabouts. With the accompaniment played on a piano, it didn't appeal to me, and it strained my mother's talents to the utmost. Then, I heard it on "Voices of Angles" (Leonhardt/Harnoncourt), a collection of arias and choruses, and I immediately fell in love with it, a feeling that was confirmed when I heard Julianne Baird sing it in her Baroque Christmas collection. [One wonders why it doesn't get used as a wedding aria! Surely more appropriate than Sheep may safely Graze?]

In English publications, I have often found the combination of the aria and the trio that follows it called "Aria and Concerto", for whatever reason. There is no doubt in my mind that the two parts were conceived of as an organic whole, but given that Bach can make anything sound like anything he wanted, this means absolutely nothing.

I'm somewhat bemused by all this ranting and raving concerning learned opinions about this item. If we know for certain what the antecedents of (the elements of) a piece of music are, by all means, let us talk about them. But it is a trial to witness this controversy over nothing! I read up what Alec Robertson wrote about the piece, and he seemed a little vague. He ended his discussion saying that it seemed that Bach simply liked that little 'concerto', and we know that Bach frequently did what he liked to do, even if it meant putting something out of proportion with the related elements.

Two instances come to mind:
the cadenza of the final version of the fifth Brandenburg.
the turba of the angels praising god, saying "glory to god in the highest..." in the Christmas Oratorio.
To an objective mind, both things might seem out of proportion.

Once one gets accustomed to these two items, they do not seem excessive; I daresay most members would come down on the side of saying that neither item is excessive in the least. Similarly, the Concerto of BWV 68(3) seems perfectly _right_ exactly where it is, and I suspect that no analysis we can bring to bear will enlighten us further!

As for me and my house, we thoroughly enjoy the little concerto. It is utterly endearing and innocent, a delightful surprise where it lies, serving as an extended coda for the aria, probably almost a proof for the existence of god!

Thomas Braatz wrote (June 12, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>Ever notice that the former is never mentioned when Bach has to provide three cantatas on three consecutive days as on Pentecost Sunday, Monday and Tuesday?<<
Obviously he reused some cantatas from earlier years, but these would have been sight-read (perhaps with even greater facility because many of the performers would have participated in the first sight-reading performance a year earlier.

Even Rifkin, as first reported to the BCML by Alain, has offered this opinion about Bach's performances (little or no preparation/rehearsals before the actual 1st performance). What do you think of that?

Thomas Braatz wrote (June 12, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>> That's the closing sentence of a posting that purports to be factual and scholarly?<<
The word 'conjecture' was used repeatedly and yet you have overlooked this deliberately?

There are reasonable conjectures which can aid one's understanding, but there are also very unhelpful statements such as yours that state that "nothing is really knowable for certain and that anything is just as possible as any other conjecture that anyone 'can dream up'".

I prefer to live with those which are reasonable generally, are more reasonable than others and make sense to me personally. I discount those which leave anything open to all conjectures regarding any specific issue being equally possible or equally unknowable.

Douglas Cowling wrote (June 12, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Obviously he reused some cantatas from earlier years, but these would have been sight-read (perhaps with even greater facility because many of the performers would have participated in the first sight-reading performance a year earlier. >
You can only sight-read once, dude.

And who made me the defender of everything Rifkin says? I've always expressed my reservations.

Casimir Vetter wrote (June 12, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Obviously he reused some cantatas from earlier years, but these would have been sight-read (perhaps weven greater facility because many of the performers would have participated in the first sight-reading performance a year earlier. >
I'm new but some of this is really surprising. All the high school and college musicians I knew, some were music MAJORS, had to work on their music for usually at least 3 or 4 weeks. More if it was something tricky. If they did something especially easy maybe 1 week, but that wasn't Bach's music, and they still got to see it way ahead of the show!

Mr Braatz what level of school music do you teach, or instruments you play, where anybody sight reads their performance? Or remembers something they did a year ago, well enought to go right into it again? Did you perform some Bach yourself without any practice, or ever had any music teacher who expected it?

Thank you, hope this isn't a silly question everybody already thought about.

Casimir Vetter wrote (June 12, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>> That's the closing sentence of a posting that purports to be factual and scholarly?<<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< The word 'conjecture' was used repeatedly and yet you have overlooked this deliberately?
There are reasonable conjectures which can aid one's understanding, but there are also very unhelpful statements such as yours that state that "nothing is really knowable for certain and that anything is just as possible as any other conjecture that anyone 'can dream up'".
I prefer to live with those which are reasonable generally, are more reasonable than others and make sense to me personally. I discount those which leave anything open to all conjectures regarding any specific issue being equally possible or equally unknowable. >
I'm sorry, I don't get it. What are you talking about? Aren't some things reasonable to know by studying the music, and asking people who play it?

Also what was that book you were looking things up in? What if some other book says something different, how do you decide.

Thank you,

Thomas Braatz wrote (June 12, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>> That's the closing sentence of a posting that purports to be factual and scholarly?<<
The word 'conjecture' was used repeatedly and yet you have overlooked this deliberately?

There are reasonable conjectures which can aid one's understanding, but there are also very unhelpful statements such as yours that state that "nothing is really knowable for certain and that anything is just as possible as any other conjecture that anyone 'can dream up'".

I prefer to live with those which are reasonable generally, are more reasonable than others and make sense to me personally. I discount those which leave anything open to all conjectures regarding any specific issue being equally possible or equally unknowable.

One type of conjecture stimulates the mind to gain new insights, even if they need to be changed in the face of new evidence later on, the other deadens it with a gloomy aspect of futility that arises from despairing and losing hope that anything can ever be known.

Thomas Braatz wrote (June 12, 2007):
Casimir Vetter wrote:
>>All the high school and college musicians I knew, some were music MAJORS, had to work on their music for usually at least 3 or 4 weeks. More if it was something tricky. If they did something especially easy maybe 1 week, but that wasn't Bach's music, and they still got to see it way ahead of the show!<<
Can you, for just a moment, imagine the possibility that the approach to musical performances in the 1720s in Leipzig might have been quite different from what we have come to expect today?

There is, as I see it, a grave problem connected with the empirical method you and other musicians today employ when they attempt to come to terms with Bach's performances: it is a very one-sided view, biased, for the most part, by our current standards and singing/playing abilities which can not easily be compared with Bach's.

Douglas Cowling wrote (June 12, 2007):
[To Thomas Braatz] Actually, all the rest of us are arguing for a multi-dimensional perspective on Bach. You are the only one who unilaterally dismisses practical music-making as if we are all trying to play Bach on harmonicas. There isn't a music historian in the world who would posit that there is no continuum between performance practice in Bach's time and contemporary usage. Your animus against performers leads you into absurdities like your sight-singing fantasy. The reasonable approach is to place historical evidence side by side with practical techniques and see how they inform each other.

Casimir Vetter wrote (June 12, 2007):
[To Thomas Braatz] Wait sir, what makes you think I'm a musician? I asked what you teach, but instead of answering you're just being mean.

But the musicians I know say Bach is hard.

Casimir Vetter wrote (June 12, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< Making this musical/thematic interconnection obvious, here's the piece in the "BWV1040" folder: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/BachCantatas/files/ >
I looked up that music there, pretty cool. But where are the numbers for the figured bass, and wouldn't that be hard to read the parts where it's the weird clef, or where it's blank with just the letters instead of notes? How does the guy know what to make up for the other hand. Espeically if he is sight reading as somebody else said, and it looks like fast music?

Casimir Vetter wrote (June 12, 2007):
[To Douglas Cowling] Can you say this simpler please? It makes sense to me we should ask people who do music, is that what you are saying. Like we could learn SOMETHING useful by taking lessons now, I hope!

He said current standards can not be compared with Bach, and I don't get why not. Practicing hard is practicing hard!

Did Mr Braatz read it in some book, or from a music class about performance? I wish he would tell where he got his idea from, because I want to learn how Bach's students could sight read that much without practicing. We could at least look it up.

Thank you

Julian Mincham wrote (June 12, 2007):
Oh God, here we go again.

What started as a series of comments and conjectures about the two sections of the soprano aria (Mvt. 2) (and their interesting genesis) has degenerated into the usual, flogged-to-death stuff about sight reading and rehearsal with all the personal insult, diatribe and one upmanship thrown in.

Of course we MIGHT have had interesting discussions on such topics as the rather peculiar ornamentation of the chorale in the first movement, the lack of the final chorale, the subtle rewriting of the bass aria (Mvt. 4) or the symbolism suggested by the peculiar tonal structure of the last chorus (Mvt. 5).

But no, we go over the same old tired ground and miss most of the interesting points of this quite unique work.
<>
The web site continues to be a marvellous resource. <> there are many more interesting and stimulating matters that might be discussed.

Alain Bruguières wrote (June 12, 2007):
[To Casimir Vetter] We've beeen through all this before. These questions hae been discussed at length. There is nothing obvious about this. My personal opinion is that indeed, musical practice was totally different from what it is now. (Or different than, I you like that better). Please refer to the list archive. If you feel like discarding this opinion as obviously stupid (as has been the attitude of several list members) you might give it a chance out of fairplay by reading an interview of Rifkin's which I have posted previously on the list but has been carefully hushed up by those who usually profess great consideration for Rifkin's writings.

Here is the reference

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

I submit to your attention the following quotation from Rifkin's interview by Bernard Sherman which I found here: http://www.bsherman.org/rifkin.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Rifkin quot:

It's pretty obvious and well known that "interpretation," as we have inherited this idea in the performance of standard repertory in the twentieth century, was foreign to most earlier music making [1]. <http://www.bsherman.org/rifkin.html#1> I think it was Nicholas Kenyon who said that, by all the evidence we have, music making in the eighteenth century was more like what we would call "readings" than what we would call "interpretations." Except for operas, we know that they were lucky to have two rehearsals of a piece, or even one, and a rehearsal basically meant a read-through. When I try to imagine how this all went, I think of the jingle session—a modern situation in which musicians come in to a performing space of some sort, are handed a newly written piece of music, read it once or twice through, play it more or less flawlessly with a sense of its basic stylistic assumptions, and then go home. Of course, this notion is quite distant from the way we think of performing the great masterpieces, which we imagine to require much more profound insight born out of years of reflection.

This much is easy and obvious enough, I think, but there are aspects that are less easy and obvious. To get at these I would refer to an experience I had a couple of months ago, when I recorded several of the "London" Symphonies of Haydn [2] <http://www.bsherman.org/rifkin.html#2>. I was dealing with an extremely good period-instrument orchestra, very experienced, technically very capable; yet we all found this music exceedingly difficult. I myself had underestimated its difficulty, not simply in terms of the individual parts (particularly the violin parts) but also in terms of the ensemble demands and even the directorial demands that they posed. In the course of the sessions the producer and I had a conversation which led to some further thought. He asked, "What must this have sounded like in London at its first performance? Given the lack of rehearsal, what kind of effect could it have made?" In fact, by all evidence, it made an absolutely stunning effect, and people just loved it. The reviews were enthusiastic beyond measure.

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

My apologies to whoever may be shocked by this text.

Neil Halliday wrote (June 12, 2007):
Santu de Silva wrote:
>As for me and my house, we thoroughly enjoy the little concerto. It is utterly endearing and innocent, a delightful surprise where it lies, serving as an extended coda for the aria, probably almost a proof for the existence of god!<
Thanks for this post. It is a pleasure to read, expressing as it does a real appreciation of the music.

[I'm wondering if I can hear, in this delightful instrumental conclusion, traces of the equally captivating (reconstructed)concerto for oboe, violin, strings and continuo in D minor].

Nicholas Johnson wrote (June 12, 2007):
[To Santu de Silva] Adding bits and pieces like this concerto reminds me of a French friend who when playing the F minor concerto used the F minor fugue from book II as a cadenza.

Looking at BWV 68 I enjoy reading off the names of people who bought a copy of the 1866 edition

Seine Majestät der König von Preussen 20 copies
Prinz Albert von Sachsen-Koburg-Gotha 1 copy
Frau Dr Schumann Clara (Baden-Baden) 1 copy
Herr Dr Spitta Oberlehrer (Sondershausen) 1 copy
Herr Abbé Dr Liszt Franz (Rom) 1 copy

John Garside wrote (June 12, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< Oh God, here we go again. >
Quite right, I thought I might learn something by joining this list.

Well, I have, but not mostly what I thought I would. I learnt that several of the participants, primarily from academic backgrounds it has to be said, who ought to know better, can't resist showing off, displaying their egos etc. etc. You put it quite succinctly Julian (if you'll forgive the familiarity) in your next paragraph. I discovered the cantatas only just over a year ago and rapidly found a wonderful musical world that had hitherto been unknown to me. I had hoped to learn a lot more by coming here. However, it differs not much from many of the other groups I've visited, except perhaps the level of the discussion. It tends to re-inforce a prejudice I have about academics and the real world. However it is a prejudice but I feel it rapidly growing into a discrimination. ;-]

prejudice = preconceived opinion, bias (against, in favour of, person or thing) etc.
discriminate = Be, set up, or observe, a difference between, distinguish from another, make a distinction, observe distinctions carefully. etc.
Source OCD; extracts from.
<>

Neil Halliday wrote (June 12, 2007):
BWV 68 : Analysis of final chorus

Those who can take some time to familiarise themselves with the subject and countersubject of the fine closing chorus will likely obtain greater listening pleasure.

First, we have successive entries of the subject in the order B,T,A, and S. Naturally enough, the latter three entries of the subject are accompanied by the countersubject, in the order B,T,A.

Straightaway, the sopranos (not the defunct TV program) burst forth immediately with their first exposition of the countersubject, beginning the process in the reverse direction - S are followed by entries of the countersubject in the order A,T, and B. The subject is not heard in this section. Note there is a half bar `bridge' between the entries, which facilitates key changes.

Next, the subject returns, in the order T,A,S, and B; interestingly, the first three entries are in major keys, while the last (B) entry changes back to the minor (A minor). Note this B entry begins a beat sooner than expected, on the penultimate note of the subject's S entry). If listeners are alert, and their recordings are good, they might be able to hear (amongst the counterpoint) the countersubject (in the order T,A,S) accompanying the above A,S,B entries of the subject, But the first step is to clearly hear the respective entries of the subject.

Finally, in a kind of coda, we have a beautiful homophonic section. The sopranos lead the other three voices, and the movement concludes, in a marvellously expressive `piano' section, with the subject taken up for the last time by the sopranos.

The setting of the text is complex; in places, up to all three phrases are sung simultaneously!

[The three phrases are (German word order):

1. "Who in him believes, he becomes not judged";
2. "who but not believes, he is already judged"; and
3. "for he believes not in the name of the only begotten Son Of God"].

Suffice it to say, it is sufficiently rewarding to be able to hear all the entries of the subject and countersubject within the rich counterpoint, with vocal lines reinforced by awesome-sounding brass, along with woodwinds and strings.

Julian, I notice the key of the first and last expositions of the subject, in the sopranos, is D minor; so might the reason for the D minor conclusion (with the final D major chord) be purely structural?

John Garside wrote (June 12, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< You can only sight-read once, dude. >
Really?
So a practising musician having read and played a piece once, a year or so before, can remember what was written and, even though it has been rewritten, using much of the same material, no longer has to sight read it? My dictionary includes "having had no opportunity to practise".

Q. If you have an opportunity to read a score before the 1^st performance but have no opportunity to play/sing it, when you play/sing it for the first time are you still sight reading?

I think I'm looking for a definition of "sight reading" is it reading or simultaneously reading and playing/singing (for the 1st time)? Could it ever be for a subsequent time if you've completely forgotten that you had played it before and don't remember it when you see it again?

The reason I ask is because I do something that I call sight reading but perhaps isn't. When I see a score for the first time with little opportunity to rehearse, I browse it, pick out the most complex parts and maksure I can play those then sight read the simpler bits at the performance.

I await your verdict with trepidation.

Casimir Vetter wrote (June 12, 2007):
[To Alain Bruguières] I like to figure out who I'm talking to by looking them up on the internet, so i can see if I might believe them. Joshua Rifkin I already heard of from his CD of Scott Joplin! (very nice) and I see he also taught at universities, does research and makes Bach recordings. So he clearly knows what he's talking about in music.
<>
Anyway I thought about what you wrote below about sight reading Haydn's music. It says Rifkin says it was hard when they did it, even for pro specialists. They had to work on it. At least he tried out his idea with real musicians! OK maybe the 18^th century people just didn't care as much about it being sloppy or having mistakes. But still, a Haydn symphony doesn't have singers and doesn't change speed as much as the Bach cantatas I heard. It doesn't prove to me that Bach at his school didn/'t have people practice. It's not the same kind of music. And those were just boys, not pros.

Didn't Bach want the music to go right, so he had them work on it? At least the students who wrote out the copies for the musicians, and the people doing solos! Music in church isn't a "jingle session," Rifkin's word here- even if the musicians were good.

They still have to figure out and practice where it goes around the other stuff in the program don't they? I would guess Bach and the preacher had to work it out ahead or time and make sure everybody was ready, not just throw it together. How long does Mr Cowling work on stuff with his people ahead, at his church job?

I guess I should find some samples of cantata BWV 68, what recordings do you people like?

Thank you

Neil Halliday wrote (June 12, 2007):
Casimir Vetter wrote:
>I guess I should find some samples of cantata BWV 68, what recordings do you people like?<
Do you have broadband?

Samples of some recordings are available at this web page: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV68.htm
(click on the amazon link shown for each recording).

It would be great if more people could post some remarks on the recordings.

I'll be commenting on a lovely opening chorus (68/1) by Werner, among others, later in the week.

Stephen Benson wrote (June 12, 2007):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< It would be great if more people could post some remarks on the recordings. >
For what it's worth, of the three recordings I have -- Gardiner [10], Koopman [12], and Leusink [11] -- the Gardiner has the greatest appeal for me. Leusink strikes me as too flaccid and lethargic, although I am sure good arguments can be made for some of his interpretative decisions. I like the Koopman a lot and will return to it from time to time, but I get more overall satisfaction from Gardiner. His choral singing particularly impresses me with its crispness, balance, and clarity, all of which help to give greater definition to the fugal textures. In addition, in this cantata his opening chorus has a gentle swing -- dare I say "dance quality"? -- that I find particularly attractive.

Jean Laaninen wrote (June 13, 2007):
This afternoon I took another opportunity to listen closely to this cantata. There is a symmetry to the poetry that occurs from time to time. In the choral opening we find the word 'geliebt', meaning loved (by God), and referring to the world. In the choral ending we have the word 'gerichtet'. The words do not really rhyme, but one means loved and the other means judged (or directed). Singers are trained to notice most important words, or the ways words begin or end, and to add various kinds of strengths in performance. This is part of the process of conveying a text. We also have the word in the first choral section 'ergibt', or gives. These days I am looking at ways in which I might retain the cantatas better in my mind. I am more a concept thinker than someone who easily remembers BWV numbers. Such parallels as I have described will be found in other cantatas. In Cantata BWV 52 the concept of God holding onto the individual is expressed in the word 'blieben' in the initial recitative, and in the final aria using the word 'bleiben', also relating to the same idea. In the case of the second word I was puzzled, and then learned that one was a Germanic form, and the second more likely from Hebrew.

Many times in Bach a singer does not have the option due to tempo to bring special emphasis to these highly significant elements. However, as I continue to study the texts and the music I am impressed with the poetry and in what way the librettist chose words with some similarity to sometimes outline the message of a cantata. Sometimes, perhaps the choices were just related to the natural flow of the language, but as a singer I have discovered that clear diction is quite essential in Bach due to such similarities. In the context of worship in Bach's churches the soloist therefore had an important responsibility, and the choir, too.

I also enjoyed listening more to the bass aria (Mvt. 4), with its wonderful smooth flowing character reflecting 'confidence'. The focus on small words, or on terms that outline a work is a source of checking for text painting, and for pin-pointing connections to Biblical texts used for a particular Sunday or event. Someone had mentioned earlier the connection between the pastor and the choir master, and key words could play a role in such preparations.

Most likely many on the list have seen these connections before, but now I will be looking at the poetry in-depth for these highlights as I continue to grasp a little more of the over-all picture.

Paul T. McCain wrote (June 13, 2007):
[To Jean Laaninen] Thanks for a post that is a beacon of light and a ray of hope in what have become recently here an incessant squabbling over absolute irrelevancies and ultimately entirely unanswerable questions when it comes to issues of choir practices and so forth. <>

Jean Laaninen wrote (June 13, 2007):
[To Paul T. McCain] Thanks, Paul. I can't speak for anyone else, but although I have not yet posted a musicology question to the BMML, I have decided to move my questions of that nature there when they arise. I wrote one note today to the BMML mentioning that I would be making this change when a question or topic of the other nature comes up. I understand that list is not very active, and that Brad has tried to move his questions to this other list, but they keep coming up again in this forum. Guess we will see what happens, and thanks again for your comments.

Ed Myskowski wrote (June 14, 2007):
<< (...) He seemed to compose his best music when under extreme pressure of time and, at the 1^st performance, the musicians probably had to sight-read the parts since they had no opportunity to study them beforehand. >>
< That's the closing sentence of a posting that purports t