Cantata BWV 79 - Discussions

Cantata BWV 79
Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild
Discussions - Part 2

Continue from Part 1

Cantata 119, 79, dotted rhythm, and French ouverture tempo

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 19, 2003):
Going through some unmarked files this weekend I found an unexpected gift to myself from the past: a photocopy of William Malloch's article "Bach and the French Ouverture" (Musical Quarterly #75, Summer 1991). And it refers back to John O'Donnell's article "The French style and the overtures of Bach" (Early Music, April 1979).

In this 1991 article Malloch wrote about tempo relationships in Bach, Handel, Telemann, Mozart, Bruckner, French operas, and more. He also backed up his research and writing with his own recording of Bach's four suites 1066-69, and it is a useful package for studying this issue. [Earlier than this he also prepared his own orchestration of the Art of Fugue, and had a recording of this made by Lukas Foss and some Los Angeles players.]

The results sound surprising at first, but they can really grow on someone who takes this seriously. As Malloch pointed out in this article, "If this introduction [to suite #2], stormily dramatic at this pace, seems no longer sufficiently slow or even familiar, this, to paraphrase O'Donnell, is our problem, not Bach's."

These issues are apropos of last week's discussion of BWV 119 (in which I said all of Leusink, Harnoncourt, and Herreweghe seem "too slow" to me), and the April discussion of BWV 79 (where my remarks are summed up at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BachCantatas/message/4610 ). Both of those cantatas have opening movements in this "French ouverture" style.

And in this article Malloch said some of the same things about meter (C, cut-C, 2, cut-2, etc.) and emphasis that I have been using to determine basic tempos. And his remarks about tempo words such as "vite", "lento", "lentement", etc seem right on (to me), although they're shocking and alien if one comes to this with more typical expectations about tempo. (Yes, he shocked me too when I first read another article of his in Opus magazine, and listened to his recordings.) I believe his ideas about determining basic tempo have plenty of merit, although most of the classical-music community have ignored them.

These are serious musicological questions in performance practice, not an arbitrary preference for hearing things played fast (which, I must emphasize here, I don't generally enjoy). I believe it is crucial for performers to find and project the correct metric level that is the beat, according to the music, even if we more often hear pieces performed vastly differently from that (usually, much more slowly). When the music is felt and projected at a level we're not accustomed to, it can still seem slow or fast (or whatever) at that level of note values, and retain that expressive character, while internal "problems" (such as the question of double-dotting, and issues of articulation) become non-problems.

Personally, listening to Malloch's recordings, I wish he'd been less rigid once he's found those lucid tempos; the music could breathe more naturally with more flexibility, and come across with even stronger projection of gesture. But the basic tempos themselves, and their relationships, are fine. And the recordings are polemic, to wake people up from their complacency; polemic things have to be extreme and somewhat rigid to get the points across. (And then Andrew Parrott recorded the suites a few years later with most of the same players, and used similar tempos to good effect.)

I'd recommend this article, and Malloch's recordings, to anyone who is serious about the determination of tempo. And, since that affects ALL music...folks, run to look up and read this article!.....

Neil Halliday wrote (May 19, 2003):
Bradley Lehman writes:
"These issues are apropos of last week's discussion of BWV 119 (in which I said all of Leusink, Harnoncourt, and Herreweghe seem "too slow" to me), and the April discussion of BWV 79 (where my remarks are summed up at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BachCantatas/message/4610 ). Both of those cantatas have opening movements in this "French ouverture" style".
BWV 79's opening movement is not of the French overture style, though the discussion there was about tempo and the number of beats in the bar, and cut C versus 4/4 metre.

Re the French overtures of the Suites, Malloch's reading of these works would seem to take no notice of the 4/4 metre, in light of what Brad said about the significance of cut C metre in determining speed (in the BWV 79 discussion), or is there in fact no relationship betwwen tempo and metre (eg, cut C versus 4/4) - the argument seems to be for fast speeds no matter what the time signature of the music happens to be.

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 19, 2003):
I wrote:
<< the April discussion of BWV 79 (where my remarks are summed up at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BachCantatas/message/4610 ). Both of those cantatas have opening movements in this "French ouverture" style". >>
And Neil corrected me:
< BWV 79's opening movement is not of the French overture style, though the discussion there was about tempo and the number of beats in the bar, and cut C versus 4/4 metre. >
Right you are, Neil. Sorry, everybody.

But the broader point I was trying to make was about the difference of emphasis (i.e. which note gets the primary beat) when the meter is C vs cut-C. That's where Malloch's article is relevant.

Neil continued: < Re the French overtures of the Suites, Malloch's reading of these works would seem to take no notice of the 4/4 metre, in light of what Brad said about the significance of cut C metre in determining speed (in the BWV 79 discussion), or is there in fact no relationship betwwen tempo and metre (eg, cut C versus 4/4) - the argument seems to be for fast speeds no matter what the time signature of the music happens to be. >
Neil, is your comment here a reaction to Malloch's article, or to his recording, or to hearsay (from me) about them? That is, what exactly is this argument that you're trying to rebut? (I'm interested in discussing that article itself, if you are....)

Alex Riedlmayer wrote (May 20, 2003):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< But the broader point I was trying to make was about the difference of emphasis (i.e. which note gets the primary beat) when the meter is C vs cut-C. That's where Malloch's article is relevant. >
You won't make your point about the metrical difference by exclaiming about the obvious evidence; you should describe how accents and other phrasing could be applied to create the feeling that you claim to have but others have not comprehended.

Neil Halliday wrote (May 20, 2003):
Bradley Lehman asks:
"Neil, is your comment here a reaction to Malloch's article, or to his recording, or to hearsay (from me) about them? That is, what exactly is this argument that you're trying to rebut?"
It's a reaction to the 1st point ie, why is Malloch referring to cut C metres, when the time signatures of the dotted rhythm sections of the Orchestral Suites are common time, not cut C; and the 3rd point ie, your comments on how the speed of BWV 79 relates to its cut C metre.

Re the Suites, I have Scherchen with the Vienna State Opera Orchestra performing the B minor Suite. The (French) overture section sounds utterly 'authentic', in the sense of that word which you recently defined for us (and I applaud you for this definition) ie, it's a living, breathing, engaging performance for present day listeners, not 18th century listeners. Tempo (speed)? About crotchet = 50. The middle section is about double that speed.

The return of the 'slow' section (btw, why do we refer to 'slow-fast-slow') is, unusually, in 3/4 time and marked 'lentement'; the manner in which Scherchen unfolds the same thematic material in bars 1, 3, 5, and 7 on the 1st violins, continuo , 2nd violins, anviolas, respectively, with the flute fluttering over all this, is one of the most beautiful moments in music that I know of.

Conclusion? The Suites cerainly must present different scenarios to different people, judging by the different tempo recommendations!

Re BWV 79, we both agreed that Ramin best captured the spirit of the piece, ie, best portrayed Bach's confidence in the eventual triumph of God over Satan, in the battle for control of human destiny. We are not talking about genteel matters here; if Rilling had employed Ramin's resonating, booming - yet balanced- timpani, instead of the discreet thudding sound we heard with Rilling, I would have rated Rilling's recording almost as highly. The difference in tempo appears to be a secondary factor, as far as the success or otherwise of the performance is concerned, given the range of tempi employed.

You had reservations about Ramin's speed, and went on to say that even the fastest example (Rotzsch, I think) sounded too slow, and you drew some conclusions about the cut C metre. While I agree the Ramin may be a little slow, your desire for a speed which is even faster than the fastest recording (Rotzsch, I think), based on notions of literally pacing to the minims at a certain speed, appears to be misguided, if for no other reason than the empirical evidence of the suitability, more or less, of the tempos chosen by all the conductors. While Ramin may be at the lower limit, Rotzsch is certainly at the upper limit.

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 21, 2003):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< Re the Suites, I have Scherchen with the Vienna State Opera Orchestra performing the B minor Suite. The (French) overture section sounds utterly 'authentic', in the sense of that word which you recently defined for us (and I applaud you for this definition) ie, it's a living, breathing, engaging performance for present day listeners, not 18th century listeners. Tempo (speed)? About crotchet = 50. The middle section is about double that speed. >
I dug out the LP this evening and listened to it. Yes, "authentic"...authentically reverential, and authentically sentimental. (If this suite had been attributed to, say, Graupner or Fasch, would Scherchen have stretched it out to its 27+ minutes without one of the first movement's repeats? Extraordinary!)

I rather like it for that bold approach, and they were clearly committed to the task; but several things really bothered me:

- The flautist spends that whole middle section of the first movement playing all the notes uniformly short; it sounds aimless.

- Throughout the suite everybody in the orchestra plays all the trills as fast as possible, regardless of the Affekt of the passage they're playing them in...it really breaks the mood.

- The Menuett is sooooooooooooo sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.........

- Nothing in the suite seemed to have anything to do with dancing. I feel that something is lost.

< The return of the 'slow' section (BTW, why do we refer to 'slow-fast-slow') is, unusually, in 3/4 time and marked 'lentement'; the manner in which Scherchen unfolds the same thematic material in bars 1, 3, 5, and 7 on the 1^st violins, continuo , 2nd violins, and violas, respectively, with the flute fluttering over all this, is one of the most beautiful moments in music that I know of. >
And I've never heard it played more slowly by anybody; have you?

< Conclusion? The Suites cerainly must present different scenarios to different people, judging by the different tempo recommendations! >
"Love it to death" is one possible scenario, yes. :)

Out of Sequence: BWV 79 and pitch standards

Joel Figen wrote (October 16, 2005):
I'm participating in a local performance of BWV79. I'm singing the bass solos and joining the bass section in the choruses. I immediately noticed that many choir members were having trouble with the tessitura. It's just plain high. The Bass solos are high too, and, for me, so far, the high e-flat, on "Ach!" (appropriately enough) comes out more like "Eek, a mouse!" unless I project it with operatic force, in which case it dominates the recitative inappropriately. No doubt, we'll all learn our parts, and I'll be able to manage a more civilized Ach.

I just looked through the bass part of the opening chorus and noticed nothing lower than a G, the tonic, but Bach is rarely shy about taking the basses quite a bit lower.

This all leads me to the question of pitch standards, yet again. Is it conceivable that this cantata was notated to a lower pitch standard than Chorton? And, perhaps, that this is due to an initial performance situation without an organ?

Any musicological input on this matter will be appreciated.

Also, where does Chorton lie in relation to the modern a=440hz?

Thomas Braatz wrote (October 16, 2005):
Joel Figen wrote:
>>Is it conceivable that this cantata [BWV 79] was notated to a lower pitch standard than Chorton? And, perhaps, that this is due to an initial performance situation without an organ?<<
The NBA KB for this cantata reports nothing unusual about this cantata which was composed for performance with the existing conditions that prevailed in Leipzig. There is nothing unusual to report about the organ continuo part. It conforms to Bach's usual practice in Leipzig.

For a good discussion on Chorton and Pitch Standards for the Bach cantatas, see the special articles on these subjects in "Oxford Composer Companions: J. S. Bach" ed. Boyd [Oxford University Press, 1999].

Douglas Cowling wrote (October 16, 2005):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< The NBA KB for this cantata reports nothing unusual about this cantata which was composed for performance with the existing conditions that prevailed in Leipzig. There is nothing unusual to report about the organ continuo part. It conforms to Bach's usual practice in Leipzig. >
The tenor aria is written in an extremely high register with a rare high B in the vocal part.

Tom Dent wrote (October 16, 2005):
[To Joel Figen] Chorton is about 1 semitone higher than modern pitch. However, the name is misleading. This was actually the organ pitch and the pitch of some wind instruments.

In most Leipzig cantatas, the actual choir parts are notated a whole tone lower than Chorton. So the appropriate transposition is about a semitone below modern pitch.

However, it might also be acceptable to take the choir pitch a minor third below Chorton, thus ending up a whole tone below modern pitch.

If the key signature is rather 'flatty' this transposition would make things easier for the organist - eg G minor for the choir would be E minor for the organist, rather than F minor.

Discussions in the Week of July 29, 2007

Russell Telfer wrote (July 28, 2007):
Introduction to Cantata BWV 79

Topic for discussion from 29^th July 2007

Introduction to BWV 79: Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild
(God the Lord is sun and shield)

The cantata was most probably written in the autumn of 1725 and was used on the 31^st October in that year. It may have been performed five years later as well. It celebrates the Feast of the Reformation.

As all regular list members know by now, just about everything: music, texts in different languages, provenance, commentary and discussion, and music examples - several in the case of this cantata -are to be found on the website.

The cantata has received about a dozen recordings (and rising) and there are ten or more examples of part of the performed cantata online including of course Leusink [11].

The last discussion of the cantata here was in April 2003. As just one illustration of the conditions that prevailed then, I quote Aryeh Oron at that time:

"(Our) ... music examples have some limitations. Firstly, usually they should not exceed the limit of 60 seconds, to cope with the international copyright rules. Secondly, the level is usually inferior to the CD or LP recording. So they are not real substitutes for the actual recordings, but are better than nothing."

Yes, things have changed: meof the BCML has soared since then; monthly output of comment is prodigious and there is an abundance of cantatas available for study on the web, largely thanks to Aryeh Oron and a small circle of enthusiasts.

Details of the movements:

Mvt. 1: Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild
(God the Lord is sun and shield)

A massive opening chorus which rivals BWV 80 (Eine Feste Burg) for power and exuberance. Listening to this, and to some other eighteenth century music, I am puzzled as to how Bach's reputation and standing could be even partly eclipsed by other composers when hearing such displays of potency and musical mastery.

It is scored for two horns, timpani, two oboes, strings, choir and continuo.

It is one of the easier cantata choruses to sing. (It is when the choral parts are very difficult for amateur singers that conductors can be most severely tested.)

One personal reservation I have is that the timpani seem too intrusive. Dare I say this? The part is written, but I feel it needs to be played subtly to avoid literal tub-thumping.

Mvt. 2: God is our true sun and shield!

Next comes an aria for alto with solo oboe. The continuo combines actively to present an engaging interplay between the three parts.

Mvt. 3: Nun danket Alle Gott: Now thank we all our God

This is a powerful Choral to the well known hymn tune. The martial ambience may be explained by a subtext of earthly powers gaining satisfaction from devotion to a God who has helped them in battle to the point of a triumphal celebration with much beating of drums. (There is a contentious underlink to the Reformation, after all.)

Gönnenwein [6] in particular presents relentless punctuation by the timpani during most of the first 29 bars. I also feel that Leusink's [11] use of the timps seems a bit aimless. These are subjective remarks with which others may disagree.

Mvt. 4

A short recit for bass follows. The theme is:
Jesus, thou hast shown us through thy Gospel the proper path to blessedness.

Mvt. 5 is an Aria (or duetto) for Soprano and Bass. This time the violins are in unison on the top line, and the continuo, as usual, underpins the musical argument. For much of the time, the two singers travel together, sharing entries, runs and rhythms overall. Bach is a master of duet writing, as of everything else.

Mvt. 6

The final Choral is based on the hymn melody:
Wach auf, mein Herz, und singe.

The text: Preserve us in the true path, Grant everlasting freedom
To raise thy name in glory Through our Christ Jesus.

Horn and timpani have independent parts and the others double the choral parts. This is a powerful end to a powerful cantata, one of the more popular, judged by the number of performances and recordings it has received.

Neil Halliday wrote (July 30, 2007):
Russell Telfer wrote:
>One personal reservation I have is that the timpani seem too intrusive. Dare I say this? The part is written, but I feel it needs to be played subtly to avoid literal tub-thumping.<
Craig Smith (of Emanuel Music) wrote these words:

"For the line "God, the Lord, is sun and shield" sets off in Bach a chorus more spectacularly military than any other piece in his output. This chorus reminds one of that great Altdorfer painting of the armies of Saul. Row after row, literally thousands of soldiers all in battle formation, fighting for the forces of good."

This is the aspect of the 1^st movement (Mvt. 1) that most captures my imagination. This is powerful music for large forces, and the drums ought to be capable of instilling the fear of God into the opposition! Therefore, while I agree that the passages of extended drum-beats can be problematic (eg, if they sound merely tedious, aimless, unimpressive, or as Russell says, overly "tub-thumping"), I would rather find a solution that does not somehow try to hide the problem. One method might be to have a crescendo from soft to loud over each passage of the (usually from 24 to around 30) drum-beats, with a sforzando on every fourth beat (quaver) to match the metre of the piece, which is 2/2*.

IMO, few of the recordings fully explores the opportunity to both `wow' the audience with what should be powerful and impressive drums, but without driving the listener to distraction; this should be possible through using an expressive variation in timpani dynamics.

For a less overtly martial view of the music, listen to Bach's parody of it in the G major Mass (BWV 236), where he does away with the horns and drums.

*Thanks to Brad for explaining the significance of the 2/2 time signature in previous discussions, even though I disagreed with his conclusions that would see a marked increase in tempo over the existing recordings; these recordings all have the 'left-left-left-' of the marching soldiers reasonably corressponding with the passages
of the minims (though the Rotzsch [8] march is rather quick).

Russell Telfer wrote (July 31, 2007):
Neil Halliday quoted Craig Smith (of Emanuel Music) ....
but I believe that these are Neil's words rather than Craig's:
< while I agree that the passages of extended drum-beats can be problematic (eg, if they sound merely tedious, aimless, unimpressive, or as Russell says, overly "tub-thumping"), I would rather find a solution that does not somehow try to hide the problem. One method might be to have a crescendo from soft to loud over each passage of the (usually from 24 to around 30) drum-beats, with a sforzando on every fourth beat (quaver) to match the metre of the piece, which is 2/2*. >
Yes, I think that is very sensible. Just as phrasing is needed generally to 'steer' a piece of music towards a desired interpretation, so any means that the timpanist can use to make the part interesting, to provide variation without "changing the script" would be worth considering. I don't think I personally would complain though if some of upbeat nores were ppp. Not a purist answer, of course.

John Reese wrote (July 31, 2007):
[To Russell Telfer] I sang the opening chorus (Mvt. 1) of BWV 79 in my high school choir, and it was my introduction to the music of Bach. This was also the first cantata for which I ever purchased a recording (Gönnenwein [6]).

This cantata is interesting because the music of the opening chorus (Mvt. 1) seems to have been derived from the chorale setting in the third movement. The upper horn part isn't actually an independent melody, but a heterophonic elaboration of "Nun laßt uns Gott" -- there are several parallel unisons between the chorale melody and the horn part. Therefore, the opening chorus can be said to be a chorale chorus, in a roundabout way.

The use of the timpani is indeed very unusual. The writing with horns is very different from what would be expected if Bach had written a timpani part to be played with trumpets (in which case, they would tend to play the same rhythms). The fugue subject from the opening chorus (Mvt. 1) (at least in the instrumental parts -- the voice parts are "dumbed down" for singability) was either derived from the timpani rhythm, or vice versa. If the fugue subject came first, then it's clear that the opening chorus and the later chorale were conceived of as a set. Otherwise, it's possible that the chorale movement was written independently, and it was only later that Bach decided to build a cantata around it.

It's interesting that you say it's one of the easiest choruses to sing -- my high school choir certainly found it very challenging compared to our usual repetoire, which normally included Renaissance motets, more modern pieces, and a smattering of Haydn and Mozart. However, the factthat we were able to even attempt it, and never attempted any other Bach choruses, probably lends credence to the claim.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject. This cantata is one of my favorites, partly because of the nostalgic effect it has on me. It makes me wonder how I would view this work if I had only become familiar with it after being better versed in music than I was as a high school student.

Jean Laaninen wrote (July 31, 2007):
Russell Telfer wrote:
< Subject: [BachCantatas] Introduction to Cantata BWV 79
*Mvt. 3 Nun danket Alle Gott: Now thank we all our God
This is a powerful Choral to the well known hymn tune. The martial ambience may be explained by a subtext of earthly powers gaining satisfaction from devotion to a God who has helped them in battle to the point of a triumphal celebration with much beating of drums. (There is a contentious underlink to the Reformation, after all.) >
---This chorale arrangement of Nun danket Alle Gott is one of my favorites. The variations on this work continue into recent times, and during my organist years I also loved playing the Karg-Elert interpretation of this melody and text...in particular for Reformation Sunday. (Scroll down)

< *Mvt. 5 is an Aria (or duetto) for Soprano and Bass. This time the violins are in unison on the top line, and the continuo, as usual, underpins the musical argument. For much of the time, the two singers travel together, sharing entries, runs and rhythms overall. Bach is a master of duet writing, as of everything else. >
---Although I have listened to this cantata once before this week, I did not fully appreciate the elegance of this duet between the soprano and the bass until this listening. The bass provides such a firm foundation for the soprano's graceful upward sweeps, but his part is also interesting for the exchanges.

Neil Halliday wrote (August 2, 2007):
Introduction to Cantata BWV 79: Some observations

It's worth being aware of the order of vocal entries of the fugue subject in the opening chorus (Mvt. 1), since this facilitates the recognition of the subject within the rich counterpoint. The fugue subject is set to the third part of the text, namely "er wird kein Gutes ma-ngeln (lassen den Frommen)", in the order: B,A,S,{T, B in stretto}, A,T,B,S.

The first two parts of the text are set in magnificent homophony.
----------
A detail worth noting in the duet is the varying treatment of the lively `3 quaver plus 4-crotchet' figure in the unison violins. Sometimes, as in the opening ritornello, this figure is concluded with a minim; sometimes this minim is absent, which, in certain places, results in an interesting cross-rhythm being set up; in one place there are six crotchets.

(Be aware that the period violins in some recordings might be too soft to enable some of the preceding to be heard).

This duet features introductory passages for the voices in parallel 10ths, 13ths, and 6ths.
----------
A note on Rilling's drums [9]: they are rather insipid in the Mvt. 1 and Mvt. 3, but resonant, and well recorded in the last movement, with the different pitches quite evident. The only thing lacking (in the last movement) is the (suggested) drum-roll at the end of the phrases (listen to Werner [5] for this).

Rilling/Hamari [9] give a lively account of the alto aria (Mvt. 2), with modern flute and pizzicato double bass.
-------

I think Julian has already pointed to a unifying element in this cantata; the first few notes on the horns in the Mvt. 1 and Mvt. 3, the opening notes on the oboe (or flute) in the alto aria, and particularly the incipit of the vocal part, and the opening vocal motif in the duet all comprise adjacent notes. This compares with last week's cantata BWV 164 where identified unifying elements are the canons with interval leaps at or near the start of the main movements.

Obviously such artistic considerations occupied Bach's genius more significantly in the design of the music than purely textual considerations, even if an aspect or idea in the text is the initial inspiration for the music.

Cantata BWV 79: Complete Recordings | Recordings of Individual Movements | Discussions: Part 1 | Part 2

Back to the Top

Last update: �September 8, 2008 �16:48:11