Mass in B minor BWV 232 - General Discussions

Mass in B minor BWV 232
General Discussions - Part 16

Continue from Part 15

David Patrick Stearns on the B Minor Mass

Teri Noel Towe wrote (May 14, 2007):
With thanks to DWF: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/entertainment/20070513_Comes_in_all_sizes.html

Neil Halliday wrote (May 14, 2007):
[To Teri Noel Towe] Thanks, Teri, for the link to the entire article.

CPE's Mass in B Minor

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 31, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< It was not JSB who wrote this into the score, but his son, CPE, in 1786. The latter is also responsible for 're-writing' or 're-composing' his father's score (he changed considerably the 'texting' of the music >
I was fascinated a few years ago by the recording of the SMP in it's Mendelssohn arrangement. It would be interesing to hear a pefrormance of of CPE Bach's arrangement of the Mass in B Minor. Stauffer reproduces a few bars of the orchestral introduction which he added to the opening of the Credo.

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 31, 2007):
CPE's erasures in the B Minor Mass, Part II...

< Remember that CPE used a razor blade (Foreword to Rifkin's 2006 Urtext edition, B&H) to erase notes from his father's original composition and then superimposed his own inferior modifications upon them in such a way that it becomes impossible to ascertain for certain what his father had originally intended. >
Talk about a bold assertion! If CPE Bach erased them (with razor blade or other method), such that there's no definite way to know what was there before: how is it possible to know that his own ideas were necessarily "inferior modifications"?

Also, by the way: Rifkin's foreword DOES NOT assert that it was "inferior modifications". You've put those words into Rifkin's mouth, at least by association. In fact, Rifkin there in his foreword lauds the way CPE Bach made good corrections in most places with a "watchful eye", fixing problems that "Bach would most likely have emended if he had written out parts."

He also says that his own (Rifkin's) task is to present Part II "in a form that eliminates so far as possible the interventions of CPE Bach." Eliminating interventions (a process of dealing with facts); that's not at all the same thing as asserting that CPE's work was "inferior modifications" (value judgment). Rather, Rifkin's simply trying to reconstruct what was there before CPE's editorial work, for historical interest in the facts of the matter. "A critical edition by its very nature seeks not to prescribe rules but to open possibilities."

Thomas Braatz wrote (May 31, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>If CPE Bach erased them (with razor blade or other method), such that there's no definite way to know what was there before: how is it possible to know that his own ideas were necessarily "inferior modifications"?<<
It is stated that CPE Bach did catch a few of the apparent errors in his father's autograph score of the "Et in unum", but there are other instances where the actual notes of the JSB's score are "zwar nicht mehr feststellbar" (can no longer be determined, have become unreadable or unrecognizable) [NBA KB II/1, p. 151]. In other words, there is no way for Rifkin, Brad Lehman or anyone else to find out what was there originally and whether CPE's complete razorblade erasures and the subsequent insertions of notes amounted to what might have been corrections for JSB's errors in the original or if this was part of CPE's own new conception of what this mvt. should sound like, in other words, part of his own transcription of his father's original composition.

While it may be interesting to hear CPE's version of his father's work, CPE has done a great disservice to his father's legacy by assuming that his work could possibly surpass in quality what his father had conceived in his mind and presented in its original form. Friedrich Smend's statement which I had quoted makes quite clear that CPE's modifications to this mvt. have caused its structural integrity to suffer. This assertion appears quite reasonable to me as Smend explains how CPE's modification and shifting about of portions of the text destroy the musical symbolism (word painting) which were present in the original. This is how it is possible to know that CPE's ideas in regard to this mvt. are necessarily "inferior modifications" and not to be considered improvements over his father's efforts.

BL: >>Also, by the way: Rifkin's foreword DOES NOT assert that it was "inferior modifications". You've put those words into Rifkin's mouth, at least by association.<<
My sentence structure makes quite clear that "CPE used a razor blade" is derived from Rifkin's Preface and not what which follows; otherwise I would have inserted the Rifkin reference at the end of the sentence.

The incorrect association suggested is one that a careful reader would not make.

BL: quoting Rifkin: ""A critical edition by its very nature seeks not to prescribe rules but to open
possibilities."
Yes, possibilities like hearing more OVPP performances of the BMM. How else can we understand Rifkin's notion that the traditional performances of sacred music in Leipzig under Bach's direction would have been OVPP, an idea which he promotes in his Preface to the Breitkopf Urtext Edition, 2006?

-----

An interesting observation as a followup to Alain's presentation of Rifkin's ideas about Bach's generally non-existent rehearsals is found on p. 793 of Rifkin's critique of the facsimile edition of the score and parts of the BMM found in Notes 44 (1988) where he states that taken as a whole is "less the fruit of long reflection and planning than a brilliant improvisation undertaken at more or less the last minute". To be sure, much material was derived from previous compositions, but new material was added as well. I find this observation by Rifkin to be a confirmation of what Bach's normal composition and copy process was like during his first Leipzig years
as based upon the evidence revealed by the scores and parts.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 31, 2007):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< While it may be interesting to hear CPE¹s version of his father¹s work, CPE has done a great disservice to his father¹s legacy by assuming that his work could possibly surpass in quality what his father had conceived in his mind and presented in its original form. >
Geeze, even CPE Bach gets a slap! I guess his love and promotion of his father's works counts for nothing. Does that mean that Bach should be rebuked for arranging Vivaldi?

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 31, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>If CPE Bach erased them (with razor blade or other method), such that there's no definite way to know what was there before: how is it possible to know that his own ideas were necessarily "inferior modifications"?<<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< It is stated that CPE Bach did catch a few of thapparent errors in his father’s autograph score of the “Et in unum”, but there are other instances where the actual notes of the JSB’s score are “zwar nicht mehr feststellbar” (can no longer be determined, have become unreadable or unrecognizable) [NBA KB II/1, p. 151]. In other words, there is no way for Rifkin, Brad Lehman or anyone else to find out what was there originally and whether CPE’s complete razorblade erasures and the subsequent insertions of notes amounted to what might have been corrections for JSB’s errors in the original or if this was part of CPE’s own new conception of what this mvt. should sound like, in other words, part of his own transcription of his father’s original composition.
While it may be interesting to hear CPE’s version of his father’s work, CPE has done a great disservice to his father’s legacy by assuming that his work could possibly surpass in quality what his father had conceived in his mind and presented in its original form. Friedrich Smend’s statement which I had quoted makes quite clear that CPE’s modifications to this mvt. have caused its structural integrity to suffer. This assertion appears quite reasonable to me as Smend explains how CPE’s modification and shifting about of portions of the text destroy the musical symbolism (word painting) which were present in the original. This is how it is possible to know that CPE’s ideas in regard to this mvt. are necessarily “inferior modifications” and not to be considered improvements over his father’s efforts. >
Dude, your long answer here isn't even logically consistent; nor does it answer the question.

The problem is YOUR assertion that CPE's work is categorically inferior to his father's, and that YOUR assertion is based on unknowable information.

"CPE has done a great disservice to his father’s legacy by assuming that his work could possibly surpass in quality what his father had conceived in his mind" blah de blah de blah de blah...THAT'S all made-up stuff by
Thomas Braatz, asserting an opinion that's not (and can't be) based on seeing what notes were there before...because the notes are gone! There is no way for Thomas Braatz to be absolutely certain that CPE Bach
_____up, or that CPE's work was inferior in any way.

Nor does Thomas Braatz know what was in CPE Bach's mind or assumptions, let alone JS Bach's mind or anyone else's mind.

Thomas Braatz is just erecting his own opinion on top of creatively-interpreted hearsay from Smend, and there it teeters uneasily in the wind. Yee-haw.

"A great disservice to his father's legacy"? Climb down from the 50-meter horse, please, and stop judging him by standards of YOUR time (and indeed, peccadilloes of your own fashioning), as to what he was apparently trying to do with his own skills as a composer. Isn't it possible that the man was giving his best effort to preserving and correcting his father's piece in best idealized form, i.e. the opposite of doing "great disservice" to it?

Thomas Braatz wrote (May 31, 2007):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>The problem is YOUR assertion that CPE's work is categorically inferior to his father's, and that YOUR assertion is based on unknowable information.<<
The word "categorically" misrepresents my original statement because I never used that word. If, however, a general comparison between the compositions of both composer's is made, there is no doubt in my mind which
composer ranks higher. That CPE's modifications of the "Et in unum Dominum" are, for the most part, inferior
musically to his father's original choices is not my assertion but rather that of Friedrich Smend who analyzed and commented upon the original source materials for the first NBA edition.

Rifkin's comment in the Preface to the 2006 Urtext Edition is that CPE "often made corrections with the help of a razor blade, in the process obscuring what his father wrote to the point of unrecognizability....Obviously, a number of problematic passages remain...." If this is not doing a disservice to his father's music then what real
benefit are his actions that prevent us from recreating an Urtext of his father's music? As interesting as a CPE version of the BMM or parts of it may be from the standpoint of intellectual curiosity, it is quite apparent to most Bach commentators that his father's music is not really improved by CPE's changes; on the contrary, it loses certain aspects of its structural and symbolic significance. I am gladly looking forward to anyone who might be able to prove otherwise.

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 31, 2007):
< The word "categorically" misrepresents my original statement because I never used that word. If, however, a general comparison between the compositions of both composer's is made, there is no doubt in my mind which composer ranks higher. >
Let's try one to see if you're up to this. Take the unaccompanied flute sonata in A minor by CPEB, Wq 132, and the unaccompanied flute partita in A minor by JSB, BWV 1013. Both of these compositions are about 12 minutes long, and in the same key. Please list a dozen criteria by which JSB's composition is demonstrably better (such that the "composer ranks higher" in your own idolatrous pantheon), as to suitability for the instrument, expression, variety, balance of phrasing, breathing points, or any other reasonable criteria that you would find convincing. Musical and practical reasons, dude.

I'd also suggest you listen sometime to CPEB's six "Hamburg Symphonies", Wq 182, and then come up with some dozen criteria by which his music, inventiveness, and musicianship are inferior (in your estimation) to
ANYONE'S.

The six "Hamburg" harpsichord concertos Wq 43 are worth hearing, too.... Are they inferior in any way to his father's harpsichord concertos? Come up with some criteria and try to prove your general assertion about (against) CPE Bach's musical skill demonstrated in his music.

And CPE's keyboard sonatas rival any of Haydn's...and Haydn himself said that they inspired him. What a dude.

< That CPE's modifications of the "Et in unum Dominum" are, for the most part, inferior musically to his father's original choices is not my assertion but rather that of Friedrich Smend who analyzed and commented upon the original source materials for the first NBA edition. >
Hiding behind heroic authority again, I see. Whenever the going gets rough, run and look up a book, and point to it triumphantly that it's the opinion of somebody smart to whom we all should kowtow.

Something in all this rings odd, for you. You're regularly making up specious points that whatever-and-such book you have in hand should win whatever-and-such argument, simply by dint of being newer (i.e. "more
recent Bach scholarship"). So, now with your authoritarian appeal to Smend, and assuming that your arguments should be consistent with one another: what are you doing quoting an edition from the mid-1950s (score 1954, KB 1956), to justify the "no doubt" in your mind? It goes against colorful character, where you usually have to act more up-to-date and more securely informed than anybody.

Bradley Lehman wrote (June 1, 2007):
CPE Bach's importance

< I envy in a healthy way the real scholar who has a deep grasp of such matters. My own mind is not like an encylopedia, but more of a nature to synthesize knowledge and apply material in new ways as needed, so I can see the point of transitions even if something got lost (something always gets lost, anyway). So if a scholar of substantial repute says good things about CPE Bach, I am apt to believe that and hope that others will listen up. Frankly, I always liked CPE even before this discussion. >
CPE Bach's importance was already firmly recognized more than 200 years a.

Burney: "Not only one of the greatest composers that existed for keyboard instruments, but the best player in the point of expression."

Mozart: "He is the father, we are the children. Those of us who do anything right, learned it from him. Whoever does not own to this is a ***."

Beethoven and Haydn both admired CPE Bach's sonatas as models for their own.

Not that any of those people were in any way important to music history...... :)

In Hamburg, CPE Bach was the music director of the five major churches for the last 20 years of his life (following in the footsteps of his godfather, Telemann). Hmm, bigger city than Leipzig. That was after he'd left as unsatisfactory his earlier job working for the king. People tend not to get such jobs in the first place, unless it's clear they have talent and commitment to their field.

Last night on the way to the grocery store I flipped on the car radio, and caught the middle and last movements of CPE's flute concerto in A, Wq 172. (It also exists in versions for cello or harpsichord.) Immediately recognizable as CPE's music, from the way he used melodic inflections, and harmonic and rhythmic surprises. Such groovy and engaging stuff, I made sure I didn't get to the store before the concerto ended. It is a sign.

Bradley Lehman wrote (June 1, 2007):
< Last night on the way to the grocery store I flipped on the car radio, and caught the middle and last movements of CPE's flute concerto in A, Wq 172. (It also exists in versions for cello or harpsichord.) Immediately recognizable as CPE's music, from the way he used melodic inflections, and harmonic and rhythmic surprises. Such groovy and engaging stuff, I made sure I didn't get to the store before the concerto ended. It is a sign. >
My mistake: the cello version is indeed numbered 172, but the flute version of the same concerto is numbered 168.

Carry on.

Jaan Laaninen wrote (June 1, 2007):
[To Bradley Lehman] Great historical details! Thanks Brad.

Federer Messe in h-Moll

Yoël L. Arbeitman wrote (March 2, 2008):
Some of you may recall that I created an upload Bach list at the time of the Bachfest, rather specifically to upload my own poor recording of large segments with Teri Noel Towe. One of Teri's segments was on two pseudonymous early 1950s recordings of the Messe in h-Moll.

One of these was the one ascribed to Alfred Federer.

Although my list had very little public activity, something good came from the uploads I made there. A Bach expert, a specialist collector of ancient recordings whom I know from elsewhere (indeed the very same person who provided me with my long sought Preinfalk Johannes-Abridged-Passion with Rössl-Majdan in that great aria) informed me privately that the Alfred Federer recording is actually the same as the 1953 Fritz Lehmann recording. I put this informant into contact with Teri who indicates that he accepts this solution. The informant does not wish to post and is not on any Bach list at all events. I see from the website that Teri has not contacted Aryeh and so I am finally posting both lists, the Bach Cantatas discussion list and my own upload list where my informant was able to hear Teri's talk and playing of the Credo from the recording in question. Increase in data is always good,

Back to the Top

update: ýMarch 28, 2008 ý10:59:06