Continuo in Bach's Vocal Works

Continuo in Bach’s Vocal Works
Discussions - Part 8

Continue from Part 7

Brad's article on playing the continuo

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 18, 2007):
This evening I finally got around to reading some of the articles on the BC website, and among the most interesting to me was Brad's article on the method of recitative playing employing continuo and length or style of strokes. After finishing the article I listened to some files on my computer and came to the conclusion that perhaps the harpsichord is the most natural instrument for continuo. Last year when I wrote about figured bass I experimented with a range of instruments and didn't find anything that I created in Finale that really pleased me. But this evening I went back and removed all but the harpsichord from the file by muting the excess, and found the effect quite pleasing. There is some warmth, but the accompaniment will not dominate or override the singer. Quite naturally there is no sustain, and I am wondering if Bach used this instrument for recitatives more than organ or keyboard, or perhaps other instrumentation.

I'd be interested in hearing from those who play these parts of the cantatas which instruments they prefer if none is specified. I know some scores specify specific instruments. If others have opinions on instrument selection I'd enjoy hearing what they prefer and why.

Thanks,

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 18, 2007):
< This evening I finally got around to reading some of the articles on the BC website, and among the most interesting to me was Brad's article on the method of recitative playing employing continuo and length or style of strokes.>
OK, thanks! But, to be clear: that thing that's linked on "Index of Articles": http://www.bach-cantatas.com/IndexArticles.htm
as "Playing Plain Recitative in Bach's Vocal Works - Bradley Lehman - Apr 2003": http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/Plain-Recitative[Lehman].htm

...is not an article. It was, rather, just an improvised e-mail message on a day four years ago when I was extremely frustrated with the several months of on-list harangue that had gone on before, on the topic of reading basso continuo parts in Bach cantatas. I tried to sum up my understandings of the topic, and the musical procedures I go through in performing this repertoire. That message really shouldn't be linked to the "Index of Articles" page at all, as if it were an article, as I didn't submit it as such to the BCW.

I did make some of that original material into an article, later (in September of that year), and that one is here on my own web site: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/recits.htm
If anything is to be linked from the BCW's page, it should be that version.

And the follow-up discussions continued for at least another year or two, in similarly heated manner. See, for example:
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Recitatives-9.htm
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Recitatives-10.htm

Neil Halliday wrote (May 18, 2007):
Jean Laaninen wrote:
<(by removing all instruments except the harpsichord) There is some warmth, but the accompaniment will not dominate or override the singer>.
I tend to agree with where you are going on this, but I don't think it's a matter of "not dominating the singer" , because Bach's always attractive accompanied recitatives don't have a problem in this regard - rather the problem, in the case of secco recitatives, is to create an attractive accompaniment that supports the singer and conveys the harmonic structure of the recitative.

Those who wish to follow this discussion can try this experiment for themselves. (I presume most people have access to a piano, if not a harpsichord).

First, listen online to all the amazon samples of this week's short secco alto recitative (BWV 87 second movement). You can hear Harnoncourt, Rilling, Leusink, and Koopman at the BCW page.

In my opinion, none of them are satisfactory.

Harnoncourt's minimal accompaniment is stilted, and neither supports the singer nor satisfactorily conveys the harmony (implied by the figured bass). Rilling's prominent, sempre legato, `sempre vibrato' cello, apart from an ugly scraping noise being picked up (created?) by the recording microphone, rapidly becomes tiresome with its `single-voice harmony', even rendering the harmony on the organ difficult to hear. Leusink valiantly tries to bring some variety of instrumental expression to the recitative, by alternately employing the opposing styles heard in the above two examples - but he only ends up proving that two wrongs don't make a right (plus he also has that coarse string sound). Koopman is basically no better than Harnoncourt.

(Interestingly, if we only consider instrumental aesthetics - timbre etc, I think Harnoncourt, in this particular example, has the cleanest instrumental sound, and brightest organ tone, of any of them, so that he could have easily held each chord for at least twice as long, to good effect).

The above examples demonstrate why even 18^th century commentators have argued over the best method for secco recitative accompaniment.

In my view, the basic problem is one of hardware, ie, trying to clearly present (with expression) recitative harmony via inflexible organ tone of sufficient volume to convey 3,4, or 5-part harmony , with the addition of one-part harmony (the bass notes) on the cello, either short or long, is practically impossible.

Now for the second part of the experiment.

Print out the recitative as shown in the BCW piano reduction score, and play the chords on a piano, or harpsichord, simply holding them from one chord to the next (and sing the easy vocal part). Does this produce a better accompaniment than that heard in the recordings? (Or simply memorize the first three chords, which will be sufficient to demonstrate the effect. Notice they are inversions of dominant 7^th E, A, and D chords, on a chromatically descending bass).

My feeling is that it does. I don't miss the note on the cello at all, and - especially on the piano, but I suppose also on a harpsichord - the harmony of the chords is fully conveyed in a musically pleasing manner which is ideal for recitatives, because piano and harpsichord chords (held from one chord to the next), begin to decay immediately, automatically bringing flexibility of expression to the recitative. Attempting to hold such chords from one chord to the next on an organ keyboard will prove unsatisfactory because of the inflexibility of the organ tone. Inflexibility of cello tone, if cello is used, can easily be avoided by letting the cello tone 'die away" over the length of the chord; this is likely to be much better than cutting the cello note prematurely short, with the attendent stilted effect that we hear in Harnoncourt's recording, noted above.

The problem for recordings using harpsichord alone now becomes one of appropriate miking for that instrument, to ensure that something more than the usual pitchless `buzz' ("bunch of rattling wires" is one description I recall) is conveyed to the listener. (I presume a harpsichord is capable of projecting sound, once a chord is struck, over a length of several bars).

So, I can quite understand Jean's conclusions resulting from her own experiments with recitative accompaniment.

William Rowland (Ludwig) wrote (May 18, 2007):
[To Jean Laaninen] You are not quiet right. The Organ is the best instrument for Continuo and was always used during the Baroque period if there was a choice between Harpsichord and Organ. Harpsichord does do well because of it's lighter tones and does not overpower singers. The art of Continuo playing is the art of improvision. Those who play Jazz make good continuo players because the techique is the same---just that jazz progressions are forbidden.

I havenot seen Brad's article if you would be so kind as to send me the address I would appreciate it.

thanks

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 18, 2007):
[To Neil Halliday] Neil on Cantata Recitativo understanding and experiments:

Thanks so much, Neil. I have copied your email to my Word program and printed it out. I see I have come into a rather large topic with my musical curiosity, and I'm very appreciative of the time you took to explain these issues. Now between you and Brad I have enough material to start to absorb and internalize so that I will be kept busy for a bit. That's great!

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 18, 2007):
< I tend to agree with where you are going on this, but I don't think it's a matter of "not dominating the singer" , because Bach's always attractive accompanied recitatives don't have a problem in this regard – rather the problem, in the case of secco recitatives, is to create an attractive accompaniment that supports the singer and conveys the harmonic structure of the recitative. >
No; the basic "problem" (if there is a problem) is not about creating an "attractive accompaniment" that modern listeners might fancy.

The basic "problem" (if there is any!) is on getting some modern listeners and prolific web-writers to understand and tolerate the basic nature of recitative, as a genre (Bach's and others'!): as heightened expressive speech, principally conveying the message of the text. The accompanists' job in this is to be sufficiently supportive and not distracting...which is not the same thing as being "attractive".

The secondary "problem" here (if there is any!) is that some people who haven't taken music lessons in 16th-18th century practices simply don't understand the flexibility inherent in recitative notation, as a genre. And then they press their own blinding literalism and their own expectations ahead of the serious work of people who do understand the work.

Please pardon any grumpiness; a friend of mine died yesterday and I really shouldn't be wasting my time here online at all.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 18, 2007):
[To Bradley Lehman] Brad on his articles on recitative continuo playing:

Thanks Brad. I can see I will have a lot to chew on with this topic, and I really like that fact. Now I am going to learn something indepth that I have primarily only observed to date. That's great. I will respond to the information on these links with a little more detail when I've had a period of time to absorb the detail. I appreciate the detail being available.

Neil Halliday wrote (May 18, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>No; the basic "problem" (if there is a problem) is not about creating an "attractive accompaniment" that modern listeners might fancy.The basic "problem" (if there is any!) is on getting some modern listeners and prolific web-writers to understand and tolerate the basic nature of recitative, as a genre<
I understand your point; one list member once said that I am listening to the wrong music. Still, if something unattractive can be transformed into something attractive....

Sorry to hear about the loss of a friend.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 18, 2007):
Jean Laaninen wrote:
< Brad on his articles on recitative continuo playing:
Thanks Brad. I can see I will have a lot to chew on with this topic, and I really like that fact. Now I am going to learn something indepth that I have primarily only observed to date. That's great. I will respond to the information on these links with a little more detail when I've had a period of time to absorb the detail. I appreciate the detail being available. >
It's worth noting that there is a long dispute among historians whether the harpsichord was permitted in sacred music. Harnoncourt and Leonhardt took a strict reading and only used organ. Leusink as well. McCreesh reads the evidence differently and uses both organ and harpsichord. Does Suzuki ever use harspichord?

The question is very complex. Lawrence Dreyfus lays out the evidence in "Bach's Continuo Group" (Harvard UP 1987) but it's still controverted. Lots of discussion about the role of various bass instruments in the continuo group.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 18, 2007):
[To William Rowland (Ludwig)] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/recits.htm

This is the article in its complete form. The other mention was apparently in the context of regular web postings. I think this article contains everything that was on the BC web pages, plus a good deal more. I didn't bother last night since it was so late to save the url from the article I referred to in the beginning. But the above url has an article I just started reading a bit ago, and it gives me more understanding than I've had to date. I will make it a point from now on to make note of anything I refer to...but I found the information under the section titled Articles.

I imagine that organ may have been chosen because of the size of the church, as the harpsichord sound might not have carried as well. I'm interested in what you think of that concept.

Neil Halliday wrote (May 18, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>Does Suzuki ever use harpsichord? <
Yes, Doug, quite a bit, sometimes both together (as did Werner and Rilling: Richter hardly ever used harpsichord).

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 18, 2007):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< Yes, Doug, quite a bit, sometimes both together (as did Werner and Rilling: Richter hardly ever used harpsichord). >
McCreesh actually uses both in the same performance. Very Handelian.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 18, 2007):
Doug Cowling wrote:
< It's worth noting that there is a long dispute among historians whether the harpsichord was permitted in sacred music. Harnoncourt and Leonhardt took a strict reading and only used organ. Leusink as well. McCreesh reads the evidence differently and uses both organ and harpsichord. Does Suzuki ever use harspichord?
The question is very complex. Lawrence Dreyfus lays out the evidence in "Bach's Continuo Group" (Harvard UP 1987) but it's still controverted. Lots of discussion about the role of various bass instruments in the continuo
group. >
...I had no idea I'd entered into a long historical debate, but I recall that when a harpsichord was given to our church some years ago someone must have thought it too much bother, or inappropriate, and it disappeared quite suddenly.

I used to have a small organ at home, but got rid of it before the move to Arizona. Interestingly, someone has sampled some of the great organ sounds from Europe...I'd have to check my files for the church and organ, and I downloaded these sounds to the sound library I've gradually been building. In the case of sequencing, and working with a wave editor, it is possible to create a more life like quality by creating little breaks in the wave form as in when the hands would be ever so briefly lifted off the keyboard to similate live playing, with longer breaks created where the rests would exist as happens automatically. Then one can make adjustments in other ways, too--processes I haven't had time to explore in practice, but that simulate what is done live.

All of this is very interesting and worth the time in retirement when the gracious thing to do is step aside and give space to the recognition of great younger talent in public performance.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 18, 2007):
Thanks, everyone, for all the information. Today's a hot day in Arizona, so I settled in and read everything recommended. I priced the set on Bach's Continuo Group, but it is a little steep even used ($ 149.00 US), so I think a trip to the university library will be in order one of these days. The other problem here is having so many books and so much music and seemingly shrinking space.

After reflecting a bit I think I will try a little experiment with one of the shorter recitatives. I'll try the notation both short and more extended, and even use my piano as Neil suggested in the little experiment. Then I will record and compare my results. My last voice teacher recently wrote after I sent a recording that she prefers my work with my own piano accompaniment as the flow is more natural. Of course, that'smore work as practice is required.

I contemplate doing something a little extraodinary. I know that one cannot use the piano orchestral reductions that are currently available, so I am toying with using Finale to see how well it will work in taking my Kalmus based notations and creating an orchestral reduction from one of the selections as a test. Then I'll see if I can play the reduction, or how well. I have the time and the interest even though it's a long way of getting at results. I know that I can mic my piano quite well, so that issue is already settled.

I can see from reading the past discussions on this topic and looking at the Grove article on Continuo that there is more than one possibility of how I work things out. Thanks to everyone for all the ideas and information. After some time has passed I will share my conclusions regarding home recording related to what I have learned from this discussion. My most ardent teachers and scholarly friends always emphasize that Bach is of a communal nature and feel at times I should be spending my time in a chorale or working up something to do publicly. But at this point and retired I'm rather inclined toward staying with my current project. At my age I find it takes a lot of time to perfect these works. I improve, and then I hear something else that should be better. My husband cannot figure out how I can continue to work forever on the same numbers, but the vocal complexity for creating something beautiful is substantial. My remote audience (those to whom I give the CDs) enjoy them, and at this stage public performance stress isn't a high priority for me.

But I do love chatting with all of you. Both of my parents were smart people, but my Dad was the one with the highly organized academic mind. Mother was the source of my love of artistry and the one who gave me those gifts. The combination leads to enjoying communicating with people in this web community, because many of the same high standards with which I was raised are present in these conversations and their outflow. Thanks so much.

Ed Myskowski wrote (May 23, 2007):
Jean Laaninen wrote:
< The other problem here is having so many books and so much music and seemingly shrinking space. >
Physicists claim that space is expanding! Some folks (my spouse, for example) claim that our stuff is expanding faster.

Maybe there is a lot of extra space available, and we haven't found it yet?

< But I do love chatting with all of you. Both of my parents were smart people, but my Dad was the one with the highly organized academic mind. Mother was the source of my love of artistry and the one who gave me those gifts. The combination leads to enjoying communicating with people in this web community, because many of the same high standards with which I was raised are present in these conversations and their outflow. Thanks so much. >
Thanks. The feminine perspective is always in short supply on this list. 'High standards' is notably generous.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 23, 2007):
[To Ed Myskowski] Ed's comments below and another idea:

I was just thinking about Ed and his graduate students today. I suppose this is a little far afield, but maybe those graduate students, or some graduate students could be gathered to re-notate the Bach BGA orchestral cantata scores. Now that's a little bit of imagination. On the other hand, would the scores then lose authenticity?

I think, too, that your wife has figured things out. Every time I have to deep clean my office I ask myself where all this 'stuff' and endless paper came from, and it must simply duplicate itself. I've been backing up computer materials for 15 years now, and I think I have a box of stuff for each year. I think of Andy Rooney and his office, and his hilarious TV commentaries when I face the job. It comes up about once a year. No one would want to be in here with me on cleaning day. My husband has threatened to build shelves on the outside of our house if I bring in any more stuff...can you imagine? Maybe that's where more space can be found.

I'm enjoying the visits and I love to type. I hope a few more ladies will join in...I'm sure there are other expansive thoughts and questions that would bring enjoyment to all.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 24, 2007):
Figured Bass and Expected Chord Progressions in the Cantatas

I've been contemplating a little more the discussion about figured bass and continuo practice that I brought up for discussion recently. Exploring beyond the resources we discussed following, I came upon a music web site regarding figured bass and a method for realizing the shorthand. At one point there was a comment to the effect that the shorthand notation of figured bass would have been realized, or should be realized according to the expected chord progressions. I interpret that to mean that looking at the bass line one would then want to be sure that progressions found in tonal music...normal harmonic progressions for Bach would be followed. In the chorales the progressions tend to follow hymn form. In the recitatives I understand now that even the barren sound of a bass line with some chords realized in the right hand would be appropriate...that one does not have to elaborate or create an arrangement unless there is a specific reason for the choice. I listened to Nancy Argenta on a recording I have here, and only the simplest of organ sound guided or undergirded her performance. In the arias where only the continuo is given, or perhaps with a few strings added I have to admit it has taken my ear a little bit of time to adjust to the idea that something could be so plain. Julian mentioned to me in an off topic correspondence that Bach never did anything without a reason. So I am taking the point of view now that even if the sound is very plain to my ears perhaps Bach's stark contrast might be for the reason of wanting his listeners to focus on the words, with the singer serving as a solo instrument.

Then by contrast in other arias and some of the choral work for the choir, Bach seems to take the joys and even the great levels of human anguish to a complexity that reveals the emotions and concerns of his texts.

Having said these things, I am curious to know if any of the scholars in the group have ever given thought to the 'expected chord progressions,' while working with their own figured bass interpretations, or, conversely, if they have employed some unique chords at times. I did read that the use of an accidental not in the given key is an indication of the possibility of an unusual chord choice. Or, perhaps indicates a unique choice, better said.

When I took music theory we did not get into the complex relationship of figured bass and expected chord progressions, and if anyone has some commentary on this subject I'm listening.

Thanks.

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 24, 2007):
< I did read that the use of an accidental not in the given key is an indication of the possibility of an unusual chord choice. Or, perhaps indicates a unique choice, better said.
When I took music theory we did not get into the complex relationship of figured bass and expected chord progressions, and if anyone has some commentary on this subject I'm listening. >
The presence of odd-looking bunches of accidentals in the figuring doesn't necessarily mean that any of those chords are unusual or surprising, for their context. It could simply indicate that the music has already modulated pretty far from the home key.

The surprises (i.e. motion against expectation) come in when Bach occasionally cuts across the circle of 5ths to unprepared keys, instead of getting there through more typically smooth progressions. Forkel pointed out -- correctly! -- that Bach did not use these sudden changes very often; rather, Bach's progressions normally give the effect that he's never left the home key (even if he has). Certainly by contrast with CPE and Wilhelm Friedemann, in their music where they did those things for starker effect, more frequently than their father did....

I chose to open my organ set with an audacious piece by young JSB where he did cut across the circle of 5ths with a bunch of surprises. T's the type of playing in his early 20s, where he got censured by the church authorities for confusing the congregation! Track 1 at: http://tinyurl.com/qv6cw "Gelobet seist du", BWV 722.

The start of the "recitative" section in the Chromatic Fantasy, BWV 903, has to be surprising to anybody! :) That piece has some of the boldest stuff Bach did with sudden modulations.

Sorry my remarks are more about the solo keyboard music -- harpsichord and organ -- than the cantatas, on this point! But there are also some terrific harmonies of surprise in, for example, the opening movement of the "Wedding Cantata" BWV 202, or in the chorale at the end of "Ich will den Kreuzstab" BWV 56.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 24, 2007):
Brad Lehman wrote:
< I chose to open my organ set with an audacious piece by young JSB where he did cut across the circle of 5ths with a bunch of surprises. That's the type of playing in his early 20s, where he got censured by the church authorities for confusing the congregation! Track 1 at: http://tinyurl.com/qv6cw "Gelobet seist du", BWV 722. >
The modulations in Brad's piece are worth a listen. I can see where this piece would have confused the congregation. And, I can identify with this story as once I was turning pages for an organist and she went into a series of modulations on a hymn tune that the congregation could not follow. The pastor actually stopped the music and asked her to play it straight. Later on that day I had a number of people cornering me and telling me I should talk to this woman about her disruptive playing. I did not...but I get the picture.

In the cantatas, creating figured bass on the fly I would imagine as you've already indicated previously that simplicity is often best, and not to detract from the soloist. But there still could be something unexpected, perhaps as a diminished seventh chord over one of the other notes of the scale, that might also be interpreted in another way. Theory being theory, I learned that people sometimes see things or describe them in different ways, and I remember a few red marks on my paper, or a time or two being given a chance to go back and take another look and see if I could envision a different result.

Thanks for your comments.

Cara Emily Thornton wrote (May 26, 2007):
[To Jean Laaninen] I don't necessarily find even weird modulations distracting - they were kind of common practice at a certain church I used to go to. On the last verse, one just had to stop singing from the four-part harmony printed in the hymnal, and sing the melody, and everything was fine. But as far as continuo goes, I can say two things here:

1. I admit to very conservative tastes as far as harmony is concerned. The reason I mention this is that some time back, we needed to write out a realization of the BC for BWV 80 'Komm in mein Herzenshaus' for my ensemble, and since I myself am not a keyboard player (just the 'chief handmaiden', which means that if none of us has time to do it, that means I get stuck with it), I had my gambist's harpsichordist wife go over it.

The result was that she made some modifications which clearly went in the direction of preserving a certain concept of 'Baroque figuration' (not in the sense of the little numbers, but in the sense of set patterns of ornamentation), at the expense of strictly following the harmony. Our organist and I ended up agreeing that we preferred the opposite approach - to err on the side of perhaps 'not quite standard Baroque' figures, while strictly preserving the harmony.

2. All that having been said, the texture of a given continuo part, I think, has to depend in part on the instrumentation. If there are many other instruments in the ensemble for a given aria, movement, etc., then it needs to go more in the direction of 'just harmonies', while if it's just voice and continuo with no other instruments, it can go so far in the other direction that it's tough to tell anymore whether it's 'just continuo', or obbligato.

For example, in the piece I mention above, there was evident two-voice counterpoint between the bass line and the voice, so I decided to make the right hand a third voice in the counterpoint. Now, in two places during this aria, there are huge melismas for the voice, with a bass suggesting perhaps only chords as an accompaniment. But that is not the only possible solution - another one is to treat it as two-voice counterpoint between the right hand and the voice, with bass accompaniment...

My two cents (or dwa grosze? ;;) )

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 24, 2007):
[To Cara Emily Thornton] Thanks for these interesting comments. Every time someone explains a little more about what he or she does in regard to writing or performance or interpretation I grow mentally just a bit more. I also find that the discussions have truly informed my own playing and singing, and that's exciting.

Will be continued…

Back to the Top

Last update: ýAugust 18, 2007 ý23:26:55