OVPP - Part 21

OVPP (One-Voice-Per-Part)
Part 21

Continue from Part 20

Koopman Masses and Magnificat and OVPP

John Pike wrote (June 4, 2008):
While on holiday I read a number of e mails about OVPP. It reminded me of something I read in BBC Music Magazine this month. Koopman was awarded recording of the month for his recording of the Lutheran Masses, Magnificat, Gloria in Excelsis Deo BWV 191 and Sanctus BWV 232. The review includes the comment: "Koopman has always vehemently and publicly rejected the arguments for one-to-a-part chorus". In an interview with him on the opposite page, Koopman states "Some people still claim we should use soloists and no choir for Bach, perhaps simply because it's much cheaper to travel with four soloists and no professional choir than to travel with both! But we know that Bach was paid at one point to educate just over 100 music students, so if he had used only ten of these then he had a bigger orchestra and choir than I use (Koopman uses 16 singers on this recording). The Bach Arkhiv (sic) in Leipzig has also recently discovered some music used in the 1730s by Bach's choir, in which the boys had written in the names of their colleagues, from which we can tell Bach was using up to five sopranos".

My reaction to this: Ton Koopman is a very renowned and excellent performer of Bach, but his suggestion that his peers use OVPP to save money is risible. This attitude really throws into doubt his reliability as a witness as to the recent discovery by the Bach Archiv. Does anyone have any further information about this discovery? What EXACTLY does this music from the 1730s show and does it really support Koopman's claim? Does it show that in a particular performance Bach used "up to 5 sopranos" or does it merely indicate that Bach selected his sopranos from a roster of up to 5? Does it even really indicate that? These are crucial distinctions.

One of the comments in the recent e mail thread was about a quotation relating to the boys coming up to the stands and someone commented that this showed that the boys were sharing music and that therefore Bach was not using OVPP. These two statements are non sequiter. There are a number of explanations other than sharing the same part. They could have been reading their own line from a score with all the choir lines. I don't know if there is any evidence that the boys ever did this in any music by Bach or any other composer, eg in a motet, but it is a THEORETICAL possibility. Another possibility is that the boys only shared a stand, and placed their separate parts on the same stand.

I have read Rifkin's original essay and his book "Bach's Choral Ideal" as well as Andrew Parrott's book. They all present a substantial body of evidence for OVPP, and the idea of selecting singers from a roster, just as a football manager will select his team for a particular game from a roster of players signed with the club, makes very good artistic and administrative sense. However, I am not yet persuaded beyond all doubt that Bach's choral ideal was OVPP. I strongly suspect that he used it for much, if not all, of his choral music after those first few cantatas in Leipzig, but I am not sure whether this was an artistic choice or a situation imposed on him by having students being ill so much of the time. I do also strongly suspect that OVPP was a conscious artisitic preference for certain cantatas of a particularly intimate nature. My doubts are because of the Entwurff and how one translates it and views it. What was his purpose in writing (to increase resources available to him?) and what was his real reason for wanting more singers: was it to cover illness only (so that at the least an 8 part motet could be sung), to highlight lack of resources and singers of the requisite standard or would he really have preferred to have had more singers on each part for certain pieces. Neither the OVPP group nor the non-OVPP group have so far convinced me that the case is proven, although I am currently far more sympathetic to the OVPP cause, and is just sounds so good in practice, to my ears at least.

In Medical research, we have to be very careful that the statements we make are really supported by the evidence and this does not always happen, even with the world's mot eminent researchers. I strongly suspect that Koopman and some others are using "evidence" to suit their own preferences, without really asking carefully enough whether the "evidence" really does demonstrate their claims. It seems to me that Parrott and Rifkin are using evidence more reliably, testing their hypotheses more thoroughly and are really questioning what the significance of particular pieces of evidence is.

Douglas Cowling wrote (June 4, 2008):
John Pike wrote:
< There are a number of explanations other than sharing the same part. They could have been reading their own line from a score with all the choir lines. I don't know if there is any evidence that the boys ever did this in any music by Bach or any other composer, eg in a motet, but it is a THEORETICAL possibility. Another possibility is that the boys only shared a stand, and placed their separate parts on the same stand. >
I'm glad to see that there is at least one other member who wants to respect historical methodoloy and the documentary evidence of the OVPP hypothesis but who has an instinctive gut feeling that it can't be the way Bach performed his works. In some cases -- Cantatas BWV 4 and BWV 106 -- I have been a convert to OVPP. In others, I still think the Sanctus of the B Minor Mass (BWV 232) sounds ridiculous performed OVPP. Suprisingly, I found the "Et Resurrexit" worked very well.

I'm afraid that this ambivalence is here to stay. Barrring a massive discovery of documentary evidence, we're all going to have embrace mutliple approaches to the music.

As to performing scores, singers didn't begin to sing from full choral scores until cheap printing made them affordable in the late 19^th century. There were choirs still singing from individual parts in the 20th century.

On a related note, publlishers abandoned the old C clefs for the soprano, alto and tenor voices about this time, substituting modern G clefs. The Bach Ausgabe adopted modern clefs, unlilke the old BW Gesellschaft which retained the original clefs.

Some Lutheran choirs must have held to the old notation. I was surprised to discover a second copy of the Bach motets in choral scoring but in the old C clefs. That was published in the 20's.

Ed Myskowski wrote (June 4, 2008):
Bach & OVPP

>Some Lutheran choirs must have held to the old notation. I was surprised to discover a second copy of the Bach motets in choral scoring but in the old C clefs. That was published in the 20's.<
1820s? $20 per copy?

Ed Myskowski wrote (June 4, 2008):
>Ton Koopman is a very reknowned and excellent performer of Bach, but his suggestion that his peers use OVPP to save money is risible.<
Here in USA, we might simply say BS.

>This attitude really throws into doubt his reliability as a witness as to the recent discovery by the Bach Archiv. Does anyone have any further information about this discovery? What EXACTLY does this music from the 1730s show and does it really support Koopman's claim? Does it show that in a particular performance Bach used "up to 5 sopranos" or does it merely indicate that Bach selected his sopranos from a roster of up to 5? Does it even really indicate that? These are crucial distinctions.<
That is a bit much to repeat, but that is the crux of the post, no?

>I am not yet persuaded beyond all doubt that Bach's choral ideal was OVPP. I strongly suspect that he used it for much, if not all, of his choral music after those first few cantatas in Leipzig, but I am not sure whether this was an artistic choice or a situation imposed on him by having students being ill so much of the time. I do also strongly suspect that OVPP was a conscious artisitic preference for certain cantatas of a particularly intimate nature. My doubts are because of the Entwurff and how one translates it and views it.<
Persuaded beyond all doubt? Not likely to be enough evidence for that.

Bachs choral ideal? The discussion, and evidence is simply about what he did, not what he woudld might have liked to do. That is the problem! Everyone knows Bach, his dreams, blah, blah ,blah. I could have saved a few keystrokes and written <ETC!> I can use the exercise.

>In Medical research, we have to be very careful that the statements we make are really supported by the evidence and this does not always happen, even with the world's most eminent researchers. I strongly suspect that Koopman and some others are using "evidence" to suit their own preferences, without really asking carefully enough whether the "evidence" really does demonstrate their claims.<
Lordy, Lordy. I hope the Doctors are doing a better job than the Musicians! Sometimes I wonder.

Ed Myskowski wrote (June 4, 2008):
>not what he woudld might have liked to do.<
Try as I might, I cannot find a way to pass that off as an intentional pun, or construction. I expect you understood.

>Lordy, Lordy. I hope the Doctors are doing a better job than the Musicians! Sometimes I wonder.<
Not directed toward any particular Doctor, especially one who might be examining me. Specifically, not to any BCML correspondent. I expect that was understood, as well, but it never hurts to be certain.

James Atkins Pritchard wrote (June 4, 2008):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< I'm afraid that this ambivalence is here to stay. Barring a massive discovery of documentary evidence, we're all going to have embrace multiple approaches to the music. >
Perhaps this is all to the good...

John Pike wrote (June 4, 2008):
Ed wrote: "Bachs choral ideal? The discussion, and evidence is simply about what he did, not what he woudld might have liked to do. That is the problem! Everyone knows Bach, his dreams, blah, blah ,blah. I could have saved a few keystrokes and written <ETC!> I can use the exercise."

The phrase "Bach's Choral ideal" was deliberately chosen. That is the title of Rifkin's book. His argument is not just that Bach used OVPP out of compulsion, but that was his IDEAL as well.

Ed Myskowski wrote (June 4, 2008):
John Pike wrote:
>The phrase "Bach's Choral ideal" was deliberately chosen. That is the title of Rifkin's book. His argument is not just that Bach used OVPP out of compulsion, but that was his IDEAL as well.<
Thanks for the clarification, my apologies for overlooking the point.

J. Laurson wrote (June 4, 2008):
John Pike wrote:
>One of the comments in the recent e mail thread was about a quotation relating to the boys coming up to the stands and someone commented that this showed that the boys were sharing music and that therefore Bach was not using OVPP. These two statements are non sequiter. There are a number of explanations other than sharing the same part. They could have been reading their own line from a score with all the choir lines. I don't know if there is any evidence that the boys ever did this in any music by Bach or any other composer, eg in a motet, but it is a THEORETICAL possibility. Another possibility is that the boys only shared a stand, and placed their separate parts on the same stand. ------ <
Of the many intriguing and good arguments that lead tendentially toward OVPP and VeryFewVPP (VFVPP), the "choristers didn't share music" one has got to be the weakest.

While it may not be provable beyond all doubt that they did, it is by far the more reasonable assumption than to strain in somehow proving (or even just claiming) that they didn't. Sure one music stand COULD have held two parts -- but that's a stretch.

To this day, all German boys choirs I am familiar with (I sang in the eldest of them all [from 975 A.D. on] for several years) generally share parts... 2/1 and 3/2. (I distinctively remember getting a painful reprimand, though, when I was too lazy to use my part (one, just for me, as I was in the second row) and instead looked over my two front-mates' shoulders into theirs'.)

Not that this leads us anywhere, because the whole (somewhat tiresome) OVPP-or-not debate is based on variously convincing and well researched conjecture.

No matter how many times one reads Koopman or Rifkin, one will - depending on intuition masquerading as science (or sometimes not masquerading at all) - consider the former an ideologue or the latter a sophist.

John Pike wrote (June 5, 2008):
[To James Atkins Pritchard] I agree with what is written above. Indeed, I seem to remember seeing some other evidence, both written and pictorial, that choristers did share parts, at least some of the time (although current tradition in Germany is not necessarily a good indication of Bach's practice). What such evidence cannot prove, of course, is that they always shared parts, for every piece, by every composer, all of the time. As I said before, based on evidence from both Rifkin/Parrott on the one hand, and from their opponents on the other, I suspect that sometimes they did share parts/sang MVPP and sometimes they didn't, either because too many boys were ill or because the conductor or composer (eg Bach) took an artistic decision to only use OVPP. I also strongly suspect that, on other occasions, the conductor/composer made an artistic decision to use MVPP, when resources allowed. Doug's comments about cantatas BWV 4 and BWV 106 on the one hand, and parts of the B minor mass (BWV 232) on the other hand, seem to me to make eminently good sense. I gather that Gardiner has used OVPP in parts of the MBM (BWV 232) and full choir in other parts. Since we will never know what Bach did (if indeed he ever performed it) this seems to me to be a very sensible artistic decision, creating maximum expressive effect. Given Gardiner's rather harsh pronouncements about Rifkin in the past, it is also a rather interesting and ironic decision. Whatever one thinks about OVPP, I think folk should at least acknowledge the genius of Rifkin in starting this work and sticking with it despite the onslaught from peers (who, like Koopman and Gardiner, really should know better).

As others have commented, I don't think there is enough evidence at present (nor is there ever likely to be) to make categorical statements about how many voices per part should be used in any particular piece. To a certain extent, I don't think it really matters anyway; there are enough recordings out there now to suit all tastes and many, both OVPP and MVPP, are very beautiful. One of the things I like so much about this list is the ability of members (Neil especially comes to mind) to recognise the strengths (as well as weaknesses) of recordings by conductors for whom they would not automatically have an affinity. In any case, Bach's music is so rich, of such beauty and so "flexible" and resilient, that it seems to withstand virtually any treatment, whether it be OVPP, mass choirs, the swingle singers, a Simon and Garfunkel song, Jacques Loussier, a TV advert, or any of the other myriad uses that have been made of it.

Kim Patrick Clow wrote (June 5, 2008):
John Pike wrote:
< I agree with what is written below. Indeed, I seem to remember seeing some other evidence, both written and pictorial, that choristers did share parts, at least some of the time (although current tradition in Germany is not necessarily a good indication of Bach's practice). >
In the Parrott book, there is only a picture of boys sharing a part outside a church, but I don't believe there isn't any suriving illustration that shows them inside a church sharing a part?

>Given Gardiner's rather harsh pronouncements about Rifkin in the past, it is also a rather interesting and ironic decision. <
Yes, given Gardiner's snotty comments and jabs at Harnoncourt as well, plus his reputation for being a bit of a less than diplomatic person with his performers.

>Whatever one thinks about OVPP, I think folk should at least >acknowledge the genius of Rifkin in starting this work and sticking >with it despite the onslaught from peers (who, like Koopman and Gardiner, really should know better). <
Yes, Koopman and Wolff have their own moments of smugness as well. The funny thing is how above this level of tone Joshua Rfkin has been, in any rebuttals or articles, he's polite and cordial. Wolff is certainly no friend for open scholarship, since he pretty much controls access to who can see the Sing-Academy manuscripts in Berlin now.

Douglas Cowling wrote (June 5, 2008):
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
< In the Parrott book, there is only a picture of boys sharing a part outside a church, but I don't believe there isn't any suriving illustration that shows them inside a church sharing a part? >
Looking at pictorial representations of musicians is a fascinating sidebar because you always have to ask if the artist is providiing photographic evidence or an artistic representation.

In the 15^th century Ockeghem miniature we see a group of singers performing from a large choir size book. Particularly interesting are the hands on the shoulders of the person in front -- we see this in many illustration right up to the 18^th century. I like the older singer in the back who has to wear spectacke
http://peterbird.name/choral/Ockeghem_and_his_singers.jpg

Although small printed part-books came into fashion in the late 16^th century, it appears that choir format music remained in service. This Canaletto drawing shows Venetian singers in 1766 performing from one very large book.
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/canaletto/canaletto48.html

Given the centuries-old library at St. Thomas, it would be interesting to know if there were any choir-size books in use (I doubt it because of the change in notatiion)

As early as the Ockeghem miniature, Della Robbia's choir loft in Florence has friezes of choirboys sharing a printed part-book. Again note the hands on the shoulders. The series of friezes is so idealized and classicised that I doubt much evidence can be drawn.

Closer to home and the multiple choirs of the SMP, this frontispiece of the works of Praetorius shows three choirs in separated galleries. In each gallery, a "conductor" with a part-book leans over the railing so that the three ensembles can be kept in sync. Bach must have delegated someone similarly to keep the ripieno choir in the other gallery in sync.

http://www.thecipher.com/braccio_MichaelPraetoriusMusarumSioniarum_1607_FULL.jpg

Douglas Cowling wrote (June 5, 2008):
John Pike wrote:
< Whatever one thinks about OVPP, I think folk should at least acknowledge the genius of Rifkin in starting this work and sticking with it despite the onslaught from peers (who, like Koopman and Gardiner, really should know better). >
Has anyone asked Rifkin if he plans to rerecord an OVPP performance of his wonderful Bach/Beatles cantata spoof, "The Cantata for the Third Sunday after Shea Stadium"?

Uri Golomb wrote (June 5, 2008):
Doug Couwling asked:
< Has anyone asked Rifkin if he plans to rerecord an OVPP performance of his wonderful Bach/Beatles cantata spoof, "The Cantata for the Third Sunday after Shea Stadium"? >
Well, I've met him a few times -- an interview is coming out soon in Goldberg -- and raised the issue. Apparently, he's been performing it from time to time OVPP -- he says it works very well that way, even though he wrote it for choral forces. Alas, no plans yet to release a new recording -- though it might happen.

The entire Baroque Beatles Album is idiomatically written that it would indeed sound better on period instruments; so I do hope he does the whole thing (including a few additional numbers that were prepared for an abandoned sequel) again.

Will be continued�

Back to the Top

Last update: �June 11, 2008 �10:51:05