Mass in B minor BWV 232 - performed by Konrad Junghanel & Cantus Colln

Continue from Part 2

Reviews
Reviews / MBM
MBM and OVPP

SW Anadgyan wrote (January 21, 2004):
Greetings everyone and Kirk who may read those French magazines ...

I've been eager to read reviews of the latest Mass in B Minor recording and so far only The Guardian one has come to my attention; ( while waiting for the Gramofile, the Goldberg, the MusicWeb ... )

[Bach: Mass in B Minor: Cantus Cölln/ Junghänel

(Harmonia Mundi, two CDs)

Tim Ashley
Friday January 16, 2004
The Guardian

The blurb for Konrad Junghänel's recording of the Mass in B Minor grandly describes it as "a new take on Bach's choral masterpiece for the 21^st century". In fact, its principal claim to novelty - the deployment of a single singer to each line in the choruses - has been tried before, most notably, albeit controversially, by Joshua Rifkin in the 1970s.Beautifully played and sung by the Cantus Cölln, this is a deeply devotional performance, anchored in the serene confession of faith of the Credo, though the small forces mean that the elation of the Gloria and the majesty of the Sanctus are blunted. The sound is warmly reverberant and the recording carefully balanced to give voices and instruments equal prominence. ]

... I have noticed a couple of reviews from French magazine (Classica, Le Monde de la Musique ) and they are of the three stars kind only (on a possible five).

I was stunned to notice that Jos Van Veldhoven latest XO was given only a 3 ( out of a possible 10 ) in Répertoire. I would have to read it again for I did not purchase that particular issue and alas I cannot write what was their main objection to this recording. It seems to me that the French press has been more severe in their evaluation of the big names latest offerings of JSB oeuvres.

Here's a link to two more reviews from the latest Van Veldhoven and Herreweghe:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue10/bach.htm

I like reading reviews; they either confirm or contradicts hunches I had with my beginner's ears and they make me pay attention to certain aspects of a recording.

Jack Botelho wrote (January 26, 2004):
Reviews / MBM

There have been some fine, insightful posts here and a very pleasant atmosphere - thanks to those who have contributed. Thanks also Anandgyan for bringing up once again this new release of the Mass in B Minor. I have also found it fun to read personal reviews on the JS Bach.org site but have not checked recently if the Junghänel issue is featured there yet. Although I have expressed reservations elsewhere, the singing must be beautiful (judging from previous productions by this ensemble) and their German must be pefect. Further thoughts on this new release is most welcome.

SW Anadgyan wrote (January 28, 2004):
MBM and OVPP

[To Jack Botelho] I'm more like a court jester as a writer ... Anyway, a sensible joke ?

I've come across the very first One-Voice-Per-Part from Joshua Rifkin on Nonesuch.

I'm listening to it for the very first time and I'm happy; there is something quite elegant, sharp and not sterile about this recording. This album doesn't put me at odds with this OVPP approach.

I'm glad I have read Jane Hanford and Don's comments on the Bach Cantatas Website. Knowing it has collected a Gramophone award is no deterrent neither.

If someone has this recording, the very first issue with the signature on the cover, can I be corrected; I'm under the impression that the sleeve is homemade because of the quality of the paper, the absence of liner notes (simply the front cover and the back notes have been scanned, printed. The colours seem right ...). The discs are originals though.

But I could be wrong, yet I wish I could read about the location of the recording and maybe Mr. Rifkin did offer some words about his take on the vocal forces implied in the Bach correspondence.

Anyway, it's a welcome addition to my collection.

Excited about the eventual release of the MBM by Suzuki and van Veldhoven

Salutating everyone.

Jack Botelho wrote (January 28, 2004):
[To SW Anandgyan] The Rifkin reads to be a gem! Perhaps someone here can help by providing the liner notes to this recording or some excerpts? Thanks also for correcting my spelling of "perfect" - that was indeed very kind.

Reading about the building of your collection I always find interesting and exciting (honestly!). I admire your enthusiasm!

For my own part, I have a small mountain of paper-work and notes to contribute here in the near future, and I'm also working through The Bach Reader. The included Forkel biography of Bach originally published in 1802 is a very interesting study in composer mythology, in my opinion, and gives more insight about 19th-century German romanticism than Bach (only IMO) but more on this later.

Super to have you on this list Anandgyan!

Fumitaka Sato wrote (January 29, 2004):
[To SW Anandgyan] I love Rifkin's performance of MBM very much, though I feel that the later portion after Sanctus seems to be more effective with more voices. And I placed an order of the CDs of Mass in B Minor: Cantus Cölln/ Junghänel in my local CD store. I expect an enjoyment, and if I feel something to note I would post a comment.

Thanks for the information.

Fumitaka Sato wrote (January 29, 2004):
SW Anandgyan wrote: < But I could be wrong, yet I wish I could read about the location of the recording and maybe Mr. Rifkin did offer some words about his take on the vocal forces implied in the Bach correspondence. >
My 2CD set of Rifkin MBM is of NONESUCH (1982)/ERATO (1999) edition, and reconding date is described as December 1981 - January 1982. Rifkins own words are not available in the liner notes.

Fumitaka Sato wrote (February 20, 2004):
I have got the Mass in B Minor played by Cantus Cölln (directed by Konrad Junghänel) today, and have listened to it through, with listening to Kyrie and Gloria portions a few more times.

The first impression is as follows:

i) The total performance is somewhat restrained with relatively murky sound quality of timpani and continuo parts, that of vocal parts being clear:

ii) The solo singers appear to try to be more expressive with their personalities than heard in chorus, which can give a queer impression at first listening but can be a merit after repeated listening:

iii) The recorded sound may be more suitable to headphone listening, it probably is because heavy reliance on mixing techniques in CD producing. And the sound of the baroque violin is clearly heard with this sound quality.

It is very enjoyable but I may prefer Rifkin's less restrained performance than this. This can change after more repeated listening.

This is a response to the following:
Jack Botelho wrote: < There have been some fine, insightful posts here and a very pleasant atmosphere - thanks to those who have contributed. Thanks also Anandgyan for bringing up once again this new release of the Mass in B Minor. I have also found it fun to read personal reviews on the JS Bach.org site but have not checked recently if the Junghänel issue is featured there yet. Although I have expressed reservations elsewhere, the singing must be beautiful (judging from previous productions by this ensemble) and their German must be pefect. Further thoughts on this new release is most welcome. >

Bradley Lehman wrote (February 20, 2004):
[To Fumitaka Sato] Thanks to the folks who have mentioned this new Cantus Cölln recording. I look forward to hearing it soon!

Anybody have a comparison of it with Parrott's? I have both Parrott's and Rifkin's and enjoy them both...Parrott's is (IMO) especially good for "late-night" mellow listening.

Both of those are reported not to have any artificial mixing in the production of the recording (only the accusations from people who didn't like the approach, starting rumors about false balances): are you sure that Junghänel's does? That is, in point "iii)" below is it certain that the engineers have enhanced the mi, or is it merely an enthusiastic report that the final product sounds very clear on headphones? [IMO, just about anything will sound clearer on headphones than on speakers, in listening for detail.]

My copy of Andrew Parrott's book The Essential Bach Choir: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0851157866
has finally arrived this week, after a long wait from back-order. I'm about halfway through it so far. He presents a strong argument for the "one voice per part" approach, from a large body of 17th and 18th century evidence (including Bach's documents, of course). This book also presents (as an appendix) the first publication of Rifkin's notorious 1981 lecture: the one that really jump-started this "one voice per part" line of inquiry.

In this same order I also picked up John Butt's new book The Sacred Choral Music of J S Bach: A Handbook: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1557251975
...short essays by himself and four other writers about the background of this music. Recommended!

I agree with this "one voice per part" approach both from the presentation of the historical arguments, and because I feel it sounds terrific in these performances. (Also I used to direct a very small church choir that, many weeks, was only one singer per part...and I've become fond of that sound. I sang in a different little choir, two per part, last Sunday...that has some advantages, too.) Still, on other days, I enjoy listening to larger choirs in this music, just as much.

There are so many different ways for this music to sound at its best--I just can't believe that Bach would ever have wanted it only one way or another, as any single "correct" way, refusing to accept anything bigger [or smaller]. (Parrott and Rifkin don't argue that exclusivity for modern performances: they just point out, according to the evidence, what Bach did in practical situations even if it's not what most people now might have expected.) I certainly don't expect that in my own compositions; I like hearing the different ideas other people have interpreting my music in a way they believe works well, and it tells me things about the music I didn't even realize myself as the composer! I'd rather have a performer think thoughts I've never had, than not to think at all...the more thought that goes into it, the better, because it's commitment to presenting the music as well as one can! So, why would it be any different for Bach--or any other composer who's no longer around--to tell us what "intentions" he or she might have had, on any given day?

For a practical musician: if it sounds good, and if the listeners enjoy and get the point of the piece, why should there be a problem accepting any reasonable and musically intelligent approach to it? I feel, any performance that helps us appreciate the music better is worth listening to. That's why I collect so many different recordings of the same pieces...not to reduce them to any "best" choice but to enjoy them all for different reasons. :)

Fumitaka Sato wrote (February 20, 2004):
[To Bradley Lehman] I won't say anything bad about Junghänel's new CD except that the sound quality of continuo part appears somewhat murky, which I do not favor much. In my conjecture it might be a willful restrained effect of mixing process to balance the total sound picked up through multi-microphones. I have no objection of Rifkin-Parrot-Junghänel approaches per se, though I am not totally convinced of the proposal by Rifkin. And I have no intention of a rumor of any kind. I merely state my personal impression as a music (especially Bach's music) lover.

I do not have Parrott's CD and cannot refer to it, and, as I said in a former reply in January, I love Rifkins performance with clear continuo sound, which is very comfortable to listen to.

Sato Fumitaka wrote (February 24, 2004):
But, as for the sound quality, I must add that after repeated listening to Konrad Junghänel's Mass in B Minor I loved the sound of the baroque violin in these CD's very much.

Jack Botelho wrote (February 24, 2004):
[To Sato Fumitaka] Sounds like this version has some depths that improve with further listening. It has been a long time since I have listened to the B Minor Mass, but have decided to acquire the Parrott for a start. However, I also love the sound of true baroque cello - is this instrument prominent in all the sections? If so, I might choose this release instead.

Of course I'd like one day to become familiar with several versions, but will have to wait and take it slowly. There are some great things about being short of money: some look forward to holidays, but imagine looking forward to listening to a fine version of the MBM! Truly a great life experience.

Thanks for posting these further impressions.

Bradley Lehman wrote (February 24, 2004):
< It has been a long time since I have listened to the B Minor Mass, but have decided to acquire the Parrott for a start. However, I also love the sound of true baroque cello - is this instrument prominent in all the sections? If so, I might choose this release instead. >
To help you decide: the Parrott recording of MBM has more prominent bassoon than most. Sounds terrific, IMO. And any album with Emma Kirkby and David Thomas, as this one is, is worth having. Don't miss the Kirkby/Thomas/Parrott set of the cantatas 82 & 102, also: an uncommon aura of focused stillness, real magic, at so many places in it.

Sato Fumitaka wrote (February 24, 2004):
[To Jack Botelho] I have yet to listen to Parrott's MBM, I cannot compare Junghänel's MBM with Parrott's. But I should say that of Junghanel's is not at the top of the list in my impression. Rifkin's MBM is my favorite listening.

One More BMM From Andante

Sw Anandgyan wrote (March 28, 2004):
'It May Forever Change the Way You Hear the Music' -- Cantus Cölln in Bach's Mass in B Minor
By David Patrick Stearns
Philadelphia Inquirer - 2 March 2004

Bach: Mass in B minor
Cantus Cölln
Konrad Junghänel (conductor)
Harmonia Mundi
(3 stars)

In keeping with performance practices of Bach's time, this recording utterly rejects robust choral sound in favor of assigning one singer to a part. Yet that isn't the recording's most distinctive quality. Conductor Konrad Junghänel's research has prompted some breathtakingly fast tempos that some might find driven, but I find thrilling.

Most radical, however, is the recording's aura: It's the most inward performance of this piece I've ever heard. Spiritually speaking, it's refreshingly entre-nous � more about affirmation than conversion. Also, Junghänel's interpretive convictions (seconded by superb singing) have a quiet strength that suggests he has nothing to prove. His approach is so specific and uncompromising that the recording's appeal is bound to be provisional, but it may forever change the way you hear the music.

� andante Corp. March 2004. All rights reserved.

Donald Satz wrote (March 28, 2004):
[To Sw Anandgyan] Is that three stars out of 10, 5, etc.?

Sw Anandgyan wrote (March 28, 2004):
[To Donald Satz] I assume out of five ...

P.S. So I put it in the CD player and after listening to their 'Actus Tragicus' recording, having fed myself with a OVPP diet of Rifkin, Parrott and McCreesh, I'm not as dismayed as the first time. It is an elegant B minor Mass. I'm slowly warming up to it though it hasn't reached desert-island status.

P.P.S. I did offer the Andante review in full because using a link has an expiration date on it ...

P.P.P.S. I like your humor. It's not that bad !!

P.P.P.P.S. When will I read its review from Music Web ?

Donald Satz wrote (March 28, 2004):
[To Sw Anandgyan] Well, I haven't acquired it yet, and MusicWeb likely sent it to another reviewer. I do have a disc of Bach cantatas from Junghanel - haven't heard it for at least a year but remember it as having some very fast tempos that I didn't appreciate.

I am in the process of reviewing the Suzuki French Suites, Rousset English Suites, and the Mustonen 2-cd set of preludes and fugues of Bacand Shostakovich. Although the Shostakovich Op. 87 certainly pays tribute to Bach, I'm not finding that interspersing one composer with the other adds up to much. Also, Mustonen puts a highly individual stamp on the music of both composers, a stamp I'm having some trouble with presently.

Sato Fumitaka wrote (March 29, 2004):
Sw Anandgyan wrote: < I assume out of five ... >
Irrespective of what stars say, I can say it (Konrad Junghänel's BMM) is enjoyable with good sounds, though I prefer more clear continuo sound in the recording.

Bradley Lehman wrote (March 30, 2004):
< 'It May Forever Change the Way You Hear the Music' -- Cantus Cölln in Bach's Mass in B Minor
By David Patrick Stearns
Philadelphia Inquirer - 2 March 2004

In keeping with performance practices of Bach's time, this recording utterly rejects robust choral sound in favor of assigning one singer to a part. Yet that isn't the recording's most distinctive quality. Conductor Konrad Junghänel's research has prompted some breathtakingly fast tempos that some might find driven, but I find thrilling.

Most radical, however, is the recording's aura: It's the most inward performance of this piece I've ever heard. Spiritually speaking, it's refreshingly entre-nous - more about affirmation than conversion. Also, Junghänel's interpretive convictions (seconded by superb singing) have a quiet strength that suggests he has nothing to prove. His approach is so specific and uncompromising that the recording's appeal is bound to be provisional, but it may forever change the way you hear the music. >
I agree with some of that assessment, except that it appears Stearns has not heard Parrott's 1985 recording. It's even more "inward" and "entre-nous" with "quiet strength", more serenity. Junghänel's is more sprightly in character, much of the time.

Coincidentally, I bought the Junghänel recording just a few days ago. I like it very much already, but I'd also like to hear even more specificity and drama in it. Each movement makes a pretty consistent effect, instead of being allowed to change in character or detail from moment to moment. Recalling the distinction from Richard Taruskin's article "The Crooked Straight and the Rough Places Plain", this is one of the straighter and plainer ones. After each movement starts (sometimes initially surprising), it's clear how all the rest of it is going to go, with no surprises. Very well done, if that's the goal, but that's not a goal I enjoy as much as letting the music take less predictable shapes as it goes along. There could be more spontaneity, more irregularity. (I know that Junghänel's cellist is up for more musical spontaneity when the occasion arises; I've played a concert with him, which was delightful. And I wish he'd record the solo cello suites...I heard him play parts of #5 in a way that was really focused, intense, wistful. I get goose bumps just remembering that performance.)

I'd like to hear what Jordi Savall does with the BMM. Or Il Giardino Armonico.

Tempi and Junghänell's Mass

Uri Golomb wrote (April 6, 2004):
PS to my previous message:
I recently listened to -- and reviewed -- Junghänel's version of the B minor Mass. I had some reservations, but on the whole I enjoyed it very much. Junghänel's performance features fast tempi for the most part; its overall timing is 100 minutes. Yet I rarely found it rushed. (Rarely, not never: his Gratias and Dona nobis, in particular, struck me as rather glib and superficial). For the most part, the combination of beautiful sound and detailed, sensitive phrasing made the music sound more expansive, giving a sense of natural flow which one would not expect just by glancing at the timing. Neil is probably right, though, in his assumption that such an effect is easier to achieve in one-per-part. (strictly speaking, Junghänel is not one-per-part -- like Parrott, he alternates between one-per-part and two-per-part. However, I found his purely one-per-part movements to be the most convincing; among other things, he has perhaps the most convincing "Qui tollis" on record).

Gabriel Jackson wrote (April 12, 2004):
Uri Golomb wrote: < My primary objection to Junghanel's reading of the "Gratias" and "Dona nobis" -- which I stil feel are weak points in an otherwise fine performance -- has less to do with his tempo, and much more to do with his approach to phrasing and dynamics. I found him too smooth -- the music didn't seem to go anywhere. I didn't feel that way about his reading of the other alla-breve/Cut-C movements. It might also have to do with my feeling that, on the whole, Junghanel's one-per-part are choruses are more detailed, more alive, more gestural than his two-per-part choruses. (This is not a general preference for one-per-part,
BTW, only an observation about one specific performance). And, incidentally, the adagio "Et expecto" is one of my favourite bits in Junghanel's performance (alongside the "Qui tollis" and the central triptyich of the Credo -- especially the "Crucifixus"). >
I would agree with this. The two-per-part choruses are at times a little bit bland. But by and large I find this a very fine performance - superbly detailed and imaginative; there are one or two less than ideal moments in some of the solo numbers, but these are consort singers (and outstanding ones) rather than 'star' soloists, and this didn't bother me one bit. In all, this recording is full of fresh, interesting, exciting, moving and deeply satsfying things; it has its own coherent identity and has much to tell us about the piece.

Uri Golomb wrote (April 12, 2004):
Gabirel wrote, about Junghanel's Mass: < by and large I find this a very fine performance - superbly detailed and imaginative; there are one or two less than ideal moments in some of the solo numbers, but these are consort singers (and outstanding ones) rather than 'star' soloists, and this didn't bother me one bit. In all, this recording is full of fresh, interesting, exciting, moving and deeply satsfying things; it has its own coherent identity and has much to tell us about the piece. >
I mostly agree with this. I would have liked a bit more "presence" from the soloists in some of the arias -- I sometimes felt the orchestra was distinctly more interesting -- but this seemed to bother me more when I listened to individual movements on their own than when I listened to the entire performance from beginning to end.

In some movements, the performance was nothing short of revelatory -- the most prominent example, for me, being the "Qui tollis", both in terms of the dialogue between the singers and in the way the continuo-line players accentuated the transitoins from broken pattern (crotchet followed by two-crotchet rest) to continuous rhythms (these moments are also more melodically flowing, in cello and continuo alike: see bars 24-28, 38-41). Ironically, Rilling -- in his book on the Mass -- argues that this difference should be brought out in performance, but doesn't quite achieve this in practice, in any of his performances (the 1988 version comes closest, perhaps).

Rifkin's OVPP Mass was sometimes dismissed as "The B-Minor Madrigal", the term was meant as a mockery -- as if Rifkin (and OVPP forces in general) somewhat reduced the music's stature. But arguably, this way of thinking is based on a gross under-estimation of madrigals. Madrigals have been -- for a large part of the genre's history -- expressively intense pieces, which thrived on the constant dialogue between voices. Cantus Colln are experienced exponents of the madrigal, and of German sacred concerti inspired by Italian madrigals (and which led, eventually, to Bach's cantatas); at their best, they reveal how a "minimalist" approach to Bach's vocal music can enhance its expressive intensity (as well as its textural clarity).

Bradley Lehman wrote (April 12, 2004):
< But by and large I find this a very fine performance � superbly detailed and imaginative; there are one or two less than ideal moments in some of the solo numbers, but these are consort singers (and outstanding ones) rather than 'star' soloists, and this didn't bother me one bit. In all, this recording is full of f, interesting, exciting, moving and deeply satsfying things; it has its own coherent identity and has much to tell us about the piece. >
That's true also of Parrott's 1985 recording. Some of those singers in his "Taverner Consort" were at the same time members of Anthony Rooley's "Consort of Musicke".

Gabriel Jackson wrote (April 12, 2004):
[To Bradley Lehman] Indeed. Incidentally, I've never understood why people are frequently so rude about the singers in Parrott's recordings - they are clearly carefully chosen to articulate a coherent (and, to my mind, persuasive) view of how he wants the music to come across.

(He's also just about the only English director of a 'period' performing group that is universally respected and liked by singers.)

So Wrote Andrew Stewart In Classic FM ( re.: BWV 232

Sw Anandgyan wrote (January 11, 2005):
J.S.Bach - Mass in B minor
Cantus Cölln/Konrad Junghänel
HMC 801813.14

Using one voice per part and a chamber-sized band, Konrad Junghänel manages to set down one of the fastest readings of the B minor Mass on record. His rapid tempos could be heard as symptomatic of the speed fetish common among the early music fraternity. But Junghanel avoids the tyranny of the ticking metronome thanks to elegant phrasing and his persuasive feel for the dance rhythms behind so many of the numbers. Above all, the work's strong echoes of contemporary Italian sacred music ring clearly as performed here, short on sanctimony yet rich in affect.

Cantus Cölln and Junghänel, helped by the warmth of Harmonia Mundi's DSD surround sound recording, work to recreate the likely sound of the ensemble employed by the elector of Saxony in Dresden, noted for its virtuosity and verve. The approach upholds the spiritual depths of Bach's music, intensifying it in the case of the Gloria's central sections and movements such as Et resurrexit. It also throws fresh
light on a score all too often throttled by the dead hand of reverence. Listen, for example, to Et expecto or the Sanctus, presented as if the performers understand and believe every word.

Mass in B minor BWV 232 � performed by Konrad Junghänel & Cantus Cölln: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Back to the Top

Last update: �January 22, 2005 �14:54:03