Continue from Part 1

Thomas J. Wood wrote (April 2, 2000):

I just saw this last night at Best Buys, but was reluctant to plonk down $32 for it (2 disks). I have most of Koopman's cantata series, so I know what to expect. And I know the piece is a conjectural reconstruction from BWV 198 and other cantatas. But has anyone heard this?

Johan van Veen wrote (April 2, 2000):
I have given my thoughts on this recording on a mailing list. Because I am lazy I copy it here. (Sorry for the first part, which you will know already.)

As you will know the music Bach composed for the St Mark Passion has gone lost completely. Several attempts have been made to perform this work. Different solutions have been looked for. Every reconstruction is based on the assumption that Bach re-used previously written music. That is the only way to perform this piece, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this is what Bach did. It is not impossible that he composed new music. For the arias, choruses and chorales the music is taken from other works. The recitatives are problematic. I think Bach hardly ever re-used recitatives. They are so closely linked to a certain text that it is almost impossible to adapt them to other words. Therefore sometimes music by contemporaries is used, or music from another period in order to make a clear distinction with Bach's own music.
Ton Koopman wasn't satisfied with the solutions others have found. I quote from the booklet: "Acting as though I were one of Bach's pupils, I imagined myself being given the following assignment in a composition lesson: 'Here is a libretto; set it to music using whatever you find in the works I wrote up until now (1731). What you do not find, compose yourself'". Hence I think that Ton Koopman's edition has to be assessed on the basis of these two questions: a) does the music he has chosen match the text?; b) does the music he composed himself indeed come close to the style of Bach or his time?

As far as the first question is concerned: during the concert I sometimes didn't believe what I heard. Listening again to the CD recording confirmed my impression that regularly text and music don't match. From time to time the accents are on different places. Sometimes there are not enough notes for the text, and then the last note is simply repeated. It happens that in a repeat a word is shortened. For instance, in the bass aria "Mein Heyland, dich vergeß ich nicht" in the second line the bass first sings "Ich habe dich" and later - otherwise the text is too long for the music - "ich hab'". I can't remember that ever happening in any of Bach's works. In the aria "Angenehmes Mord-Geschrey" there are melismas which I think are inappropriate regarding the text. In the second chorus on the words "Creutzige ihn" the accent is on the wrong syllable: the second. Secondly, the recitatives. They sound like everything except Bach. On some places there are reminiscences of Bach's recitatives, in particular in parts of the texts which are almost exactly like those in the other passions. But on the whole they sound very strange. There are many modulations, but they don't always make sense. As in the arias here are strange accents too. Sometimes a part of a recitative closes with a falling fourth, and then a short piece of text follows, like a vermiform appendix. Sometimes a phrase ignores the comma in the text, on other places there is a split in the middle of a sentence. On several places a note is repeated three times at the end of a phrase, which seems very unnatural to me. The evangelist regularly sings melismas - again that seemed very strange. I checked the SMP: in the whole first part it happens only once - on 'zittern (und zagen)", a highly emotional passage. Bachs recitatives are often surprising, but nevertheless logical. I haven't been able to discover any logic in Ton Koopman's recitatives. They are rather disorientated.

Some other aspects.
Some 'turbae' are so elaborated that they lose their impact - compare them with the very powerful 'turbae' in the St John Passion. Obviously Ton Koopman thought the number of arias was too small. He added one: "Zerschmettert mich, ihr Felsen und ihr Hügel", an aria Bach used in the second version of the St John Passion (1725) as a replacement for "Ach, mein Sinn". He seemed not happy with that one - it was removed later and never used again. It is a rather operatic piece as frequently used in 18th century passion oratorios. As in the SJP it is sung directly after Peter's denial. But Ton Koopman has done more. He has given the role of Peter to a tenor - in both other passions it is a bass. As a consequence this aria gets a personal character, as if Peter is speaking here. But you don't find any kind of 'personalisation' of the arias in Bach's passions. Obviously Bach didn't want a link between a person and an aria. All the arias are related to the audience. In this case: the listener should think that he himself is like Peter and that in his place he would have denied Jesus as well. Therefore it is no surprise to find an alto aria in SMP and a tenor aria in SJP after the denial of Peter (a bass). In this respect Bach's passions are strikingly different from the passion oratorios of his time, in which arias are given to Peter, Judas and even Jesus. Koopman's decision is a very strange change of Bach's concept. There are two duets in this reconstruction. (There is only one in SMP, none in SJP). For the duet of soprano and alto "Er kommt, er kommt, er ist vorhanden" Koopman uses a duet from Cantata BWV 4 (Christ lag in Todesbanden). A very unfortunate choice, since that is a chorale cantata, every section of which is an arrangement of the chorale. That chorale has twice as many lines as the aria. So there are four lines left. The last two lines of the aria are repeated several times. Bach has used chorale melodies in his arias, but this is different. The continuous repetition of these two lines (and here music and text also don't match very well) is an indication that this isn't the best choice to make. I also question the version of the chorale "Das Wort sie sollen lassen stahn". It is a strophe from Luther's chorale "Ein feste Burg". It is sung here in a rhythmic version, but I think those were out of fashion in Bach's days. Just compare this with the closing chorale of Cantata BWV 80. Only the opening and closing choruses seem more satisfying to me. Otherwise I find the version by Simon Heighes (recorded by Roy Goodman) more convincing..

But the question remains whether the St Mark Passion should be reconstructed at all. It would be worth the effort if any of Bach's music would still exist. But if we start to try to reconstruct every text which we know a composer has set to music, where will it end? Why not try to compose p.e. Schütz' Dafne or Monteverdi's Arianna?

Hou Fang-Lin wrote (April 2, 2000):

(To Johan van Veen) Please, Johan, can you tell me on which mailing list you write articles like this and how one can subscribe to it?

Johan van Veen wrote (April 3, 2000):

(To Hou Fang-Lin) Go to http://www.mcelhearn.com/bach.html and there you'll find three mailing lists: Bach Recordings (that is the one for which I wrote the review), Bach Cantatas and Early Music Recordings. As you will find out, subscribing is very simple. See you there, I hope.

Evan Johnson wrote (April 2, 2000):

(To Thomas J. Wood) There is an interesting article about it in this Sunday's New York Times "Arts & Leisure" section. The conclusion is basically that it's totally inauthentic because the reconstruction is an impossible task, but as long as you realize that it's basically just an arrangement of other Bach pieces and bits by Koopman in the style of Bach it can be interesting.

David R.L. Porter w(April 2, 2000):
(To Evan Johnson) I had a recording of it years ago in a boxed LP set, but sold it. It was, as you say, 'interesting', but I didn't miss it nearly as much as the Mengelberg St Matthew Passion I sold at the same time. The Mark Passion, I'm pretty sure, had Kurt Equiluz as one of the soloists. I can't remember who issued it and I can't find it in the Stereo Guides and Penguin Guides of the period.

George Murnu wrote (April 4, 2000):

(To Davis R.L. Porter) I think it was conducted by Wolfgang Gönnenwein.

Lani Spahr wrote (April 4, 2000):

(To George Murnu) It was a Musical Heritage Society release at one point - Bach, JS St. Mark Passion (reconstructed by Diethard Hellmann) S247 Gönnenwein, Wolfgang Bach Collegium Stuttgart & South German Madrigal Choir, Stuttgart - Erwin, Liskin, Jelden.

David R.L. Porter wrote (April 6, 2000):
(To Lani Spahr) Sorry to muddy the waters further but I think it may have been the 'Luke' Passion I sold… I can't remember (it was the early 1970's). I am pretty sure Equiluz was a soloist but Gönnenwein sounds familiar too. Also I seem to remember it was very attractively boxed, like a sumptious Orff Kluge I had at the time, or the gorgeously boxed Müller Händel Organ Concertos on Archive that I still have and play.

Juan I. Cahis wrote (April 4, 2000):

< Evan Johnson wrote: There is an interesting article about it in this Sunday's New York Times="Arts & Leisure" section. The conclusion is basically that it's totally =
inauthentic because the reconstruction is an impossible task… >
I strongly disagree with this opinion. There is practically no doubt about the text, choruses and arias (excerpt one); and that counts for about one half of the work. The dramatic numbers, however (recitatives, turba choruses, etc.) are lost.

Critics are very conservative, and they normally have the tendency to invalidate musicological research too easily… When Deryck Cooke first published his performing version of Mahler's Tenth, horror cries came from many places, but today when the original manuscripts and his score are both published, all the old critics are silent. The same will happen with Carragan's and SMPC's completion of the Finale of Bruckner's Ninth, no doubt!!!

Johan van Veen wrote (April 4, 2000):

(To Juan I. Cahis) You are wrong there. All the music is lost, only the textbook has survived. All the suggestions as to which arias Bach may have re-used for his St Mark's Passion are pure speculation, convincing perhaps, but speculation nevertheless. Even the assumption that Bach only re-used existing material and didn't compose anything new (except for the text of the gospel - recitatives and turbae) cannot be proved. There is a fundamental difference between finishing a composition - like Mozart's Requiem - and reconstructing a work which has been lost completely.

Evan Johnson wrote (April 4, 2000):

(To Juan I. Cahis) But this is not a completion. There is NO music. All we have is a partial text. Much of the music Koopman uses is from other Bach works which seem to fit the scansion, form, etc. of the extant texts and thus may possibly have been reused.

What it is is a Bach potpourri with new texts, interspersed by recitatives by Koopman in the style of Bach. This is a musical reconstruction from nothing, which isn't comparable to the work done by Sussmayr, Cooke, Cerha, Payne, (well, maybe Payne), etc.

Ferd Op de Coul wrote (April 3, 2000):

I heard Koopman's St.Marks Passion and I can recommend this new reconstruction, that is in my view, better than the wellknown reconstruction by Dr. Simon Heighes. Nevertheless, both versions have their own values, but I think, Koopman's own recitatives are, in spite of beeing not composed by Bach himself,

very well made in the spirit of the great master.

Harry Steinman wrote (April 6, 2000):

In anticipation of attending a performance of Koopman's reconstructed Markus Passion, I've been listening to the Brilliant Classics version, with the reconstruction done by Dr. Simon Heighes. (Roy Goodman, conductor with the European Union Baroque Orch and the Ring Ensemble of Finland; Brilliant Classics, 99049). (I don't expect the two to resemble each other, but I thought it would be a nice selection while I work.)

The Brilliant Classics recordings are wonderful for their price, but woeful in that there are no notes, no booklet. So I wonder, does anybody know anything either about this Dr. Heighes or about the reconstruction? Be interested in knowing anything about it!

PS I think I'll post this in the Cantata & Recordings list...so if you're a member of both lists, forgive the double-post!

Marie Jensen wrote (April 6, 2000):

(To Harry Steinman) My initial impression , just got the CD's a few days ago: The very strong english accent of the evangelist (Rogers Covey-Crump) spoils it all. Of course I will give the work a chance, I'm going to a Koopman show too and want to compare, but the evangelist is a very important part of a Bach passion.

Johan van Veen wrote (April 7, 2000):

(To Harry Steinman) Here is some information regarding this reconstruction.

First: Simon Heighes. Studied for his Doctorate at the University of Oxford, where in 1990 he presented a thesis on the music of Handel's contemporaries. He is lecturer and Director of Music and Queen's College, Oxford, and lectures, broadcasts and writes regularly on music of the 17^th and 18^th centuries. He is currently working on a study of Bach's parody technique in his Leipzig choral and orchestral works and editing a book on English music. (This information comes from the programme book of the 1993 Holland Early Music Festival, where his reconstruction of the St Mark Passion was performed under the direction of Roy Goodman.)

These are the programme notes of that performance:

"According to his obituary, Bach compiosed five Passions. But only two of these (SMP and SJP) have survived intact. One of the five was almost certainly the single choir arrangement of SMP mentioned in the inventory of the library of CPhE Bach. The St Luke (BWV 246), long thought to be genuine, is now known to be a copy in Bach's hand of a work by an unknown contemporary. The St Mark Passion, however, was most certainly the work of JSB. The autograph manuscript of the St Mark Passion has been lost, though a copy of the score survived until as recently as 1945. Only the libretto, written by Picander, remains. Yet as early as the 1860's, Wilhelm Rust noticed that several of the stanzas mirrored the metrical structure and rhyme scheme of the main choruses and arias of Bach's Trauer-Ode (BWV 198). He concluded that Bach must have commisioned Picander to write the text of the St Mark Passion in such a way that the chief numbers of cantata BWV 198 could be incorporated into the new Passion with minimum alteration. This, it appears, was how the majority of the new Passion was constructed. From various cantatas Bach selected some of the finest arias and choruses he wished to re-use. From Picander's printed libretto we can see that Bach's third Passion consisted of two large-scale choruses which framed the work, six arias, sixteen chorales, and linking recitatives punctuated by short 'turbae' choruses. By matching Picander's parody texts with the poetic structure of likely cantata choruses and arias, Rust and more recently Friedrich Smend and Alfred Dürr have argued convincingly that the music for the opening and closing choruses and three arias were drawn from the Trauer-Ode (BWV 198), and that the alto aria "Falsche Welt" was a parody of the opening aria of cantata BWV 54. The identity of the two remaining arias is more difficult to establish. Although Smend claimed that the aria "Angenehmes Mordgeschrei" was irretrievably lost, I believe that the soprano aria "Himmlische Vergn Ögsamkeit" from cantata BWV 204 is a very likely candidate. For the final aria I have turned to the bass aria "Himmel reisse", which Bach composed for his revival of the SJP in 1725. This aria was later deleted when he revived the SJP in 1730. The chorales present far fewer problems. Harmonisations of all the requirmelodies are to be found in Bach's cantatas and CPhE Bach's collection of his father's homophonic choral works. The most serious obstacles to a complete reconstruction of the St Mark Passion are, of course, the settings of the Gospel texts (the recitatives and 'turba' choruses). I have borrowed the missing recitative and turba choruses from the St Mark Passion by Reinhard Keiser (1674-1739), a work which Bach performed on at least two occasions and which had a decisive impact on the recitative and and arioso in his own SMP. Of the three surviving sources for the Keiser Passion, two sets of parts are in Bach's hand; they differ considerably from a third independent copy, which suggests that Bach was not simply a passive copyist, but may have added a few 'improvements' of his own. Unfortunately, Keiser begins a little later in the Passion narrative than Bach. The required recitatives have therefore be composed afresh, and the second and third 'turbae' have been drawn from appropriate cantata choruses. Comparison with the SMP suggests that the use of arioso for the Institution of the Holy Eucharist is appropriate, and the music has been borrowed from cantata BWV 187. Simon Heighes"

Harry J. Steinman wrote (April 10, 2000):

I'm sitting on the train riding back from New York to Boston, savoring the memories of a wonderful performance given by Ton Koopman and the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra and Chorus (soloists included Klaus Mertens and Peter Kooy (Bass), Deborah York (Soprano), Annette Markert (Alto), Max Ciolek (Tenor, Evangelist), Paul Agnew (Tenor).

The performance was given at the St. Ignatius Loyola church, a wonderful and beautiful building and Christopher Wolfe gave a brief pre-concert lecture that was mostly an explanation of how Koopman went about the task of reconstruction.

Before I offer my impressions of this performance (Koopman and the ABO recorded the Markus Passion on Erato, 80221) let me offer a caveat, that I don't have the musical training, vocabulary or knowledge to critique the perfomance in the detail that has been done recently by our Dutch friends, Johan van Veen, Tjako van Schie or Sybrand Bakker...things like how a phrase is accented is well beyond my grasp. So, my comments have more to do with the overall experience, the gestalt.

The work itself is large, 64 movements which includes only 8 choruses and arias (compared with 10 for the St John Passion, SJP, and 17 for the St Matthew Passion, SMP) but it has 16 chorales (compared with 11 in the SJP and 13 in the SMP). For my personal taste, the Picander text includes 32 recitatives are a bit too much; I'm not crazy about recitatives. (Wolfe explained that the church in which the passion was to be performed would not allow any paraphrase of biblical text; hence there are a lot of recitatives, and some of them are fairly extended.) But I did not find that Koopman's

composing these detracted from the work. In fact there were a few that I found very moving, largely because of the singer's expressiveness and K's interpretation.

Overall, the work was wonderfully sung and conducted. I imagine that Koopman is a pleasure to play for as I could see the faces on the chorus-the expressions of singers who were thoroughly taken by the work. The violinists were swaying, the principal violinist in particular, and I enjoyed watching the chorus and orchestra being moved, literally, by the music.

There were a few highlights that I'd like to share with you. The 13^th movement is a bass aria, "Mein Heyland, dich vergess ich nicht" ("My savior, I shall not forget thee"... For me, this aria was probably the core of the passion. It's an extended aria that begins with the flute playing a descending figure and the flute and singer form a duet, if you will. The music begins simply, almost hestitantly, and builds up its fervor. I heard it as the singer's sorrow developing into faith, hope. I wish I could direct you to the aria that this parodies, but I don't yet have the CD. I wasn't able to hear the technical difficulties with phrasing and accents that Johan van Veen identified; as I said, I don't have the education to render those judgments. All I can say is that I found the experience of this aria very moving. Another list member, Aya Otio, wrote me she'd heard Mertens was sick. If he was under the weather it did not affect his singing!

The duet, "Er kommt, er kommt, er ist vorhanden!" ("See there, see there, he is at hand!" Soprano, Alto) which parodies a movement from BWV 4, 'Christ lag in Todesbanden'. The duet brought me to tears. I could listen to Deborah York all day long and this was a wonderful introduction to Alto Annette Markert. Listening to this wonderful moment, and seeing the singers being moved by the music was one of the highlights of the concert. Again, Johan van Veen notes that since BWV 4 is a chorale cantata, its use for a duet (and the fact that there are extra lines left over in the aria) may be an inappropriate choice. I cannot dispute that; I rest happily in my ignorance and simply enjoyed the living daylights out of this movement! I guess ignorance is truly bliss (or in this case, the gateway to enjoyment???)!

Other highlights for me were the chorale, "Ich, ich und meine Sunden" ("It is I and my sins") So sweet, delicate. Koopman's role as conductor shines here!...the interplay between violins and the Tenor in "Falsche Welt, dein schmeichelnd Kussen" ("Treacherous workd, thy flattering kisses")...the chorale that closes the first half ('Before the Sermon') of the work, "Ich will hier bey dir stehen" ("I will stay beside thee, do not leave me now...") was wonderful. The orchestration is carried by the oboe v. strings (earth and heaven? Men and angels???) and it grows in complexity as the movement progresses. So does the chorus until the 4-part singing held my heart and my attention well past the moment when the last notes decayed into the wonderful church in which this work was perrformed....and curiously, I was impressed by the scarves/shawls worn by the two female soloists-Deborah York had a nice shiny lavender one and Annette Markert had this cool black shawl that she wrapped herself in after her only aria in the first half...Finally, was moved by how completely and how richly the cello filled the chuch-some of the bass arias were accompanied only by cello and organ and it didn't look like the cellist was trying to make big sound but the

sound was really encompassing...

Forgive me but I kept less careful notes of what I'd heard in the second half ('After the Sermon'). All I can say is this: I thoroughly enjoyed the performance. I would have to listen to the CD for a while to comment much more. There is the possibility that the work, as a whole, was a bit disjointed, but I cannot tell if there is a deficiency in the reconstruction, or whether this reaction of mine is only due to being unfamiliar with the work.

Should any of you choose to purchase the CD, or should you have the chance to attend (I know that Marie Jensen and Aya Otoi will be!) I'd love to hear your reactions. I do think that Koopman's reconstruction is relevant: He certainly has the credentials to be taken quite seriously. Wolfe's pre-concert discussion of how K went about creating the reconstruction convinced me of the soundness of K's work. And listening to the concert I concluded that there was nowhere else I'd rather have been yesterday afternoon, than attending this performance.

Matthew Westphal wrote (April 14, 2000): 2:07

While Koopman has long experience as a performer of Bach, I don't know that he is particularly credentialed as a scholar. It's not the same thing.

His one piece of ostensibly scholarly writing that I've seen -- his article on the one-singer-per-partdebate in EARLY MUSIC -- was unimpressive (to put it charitably) with respect to both evidence presented and reasoning. (I have heard it called, by a musician with fairly solid scholarly experience and reputation, "the most pathetic piece of pseudo-musicology I've ever seen in English." I can't really disagree.)

The apparent endorsement by so famous a Bach scholar as Christoph Wolff of Koopman's reconstruction is more impressive. (Although Wolff is primarily a Bach biographer, no?)

Harry J. Steinman (April 14, 2000): 3:33

(To Matthew Westphal ) Point well taken, Matthew. I just ordered the recording of the Markus Passion by K. and when it arrives I'll be better able to evaluate the piece.

Put it this way, I enjoyed the performance; I may think differently when I study the recording.

In the meantime, I just got the McCreech Epiphany Mass and I'm listening to it as we 'speak'... I'm totally stoked-it's great!

PS I don't know how far I'd go in saying that Wolfe endorsed the reconstruction...he certainly explained how K did it in very objective terms. But then, I guess, simply appearing on the bill is kind of an endorsement.

John Graves wrote (April 14, 2000): 4:23

(To Matthew Westphal ) I don't see why you assume that Christoph Wolff endorses Koopman's reconstruction. As far as I can tell, he merely contracted with Lincoln Center to give a pre-performance lecture. He did the same thing when I saw Andras Schiff play the French Suites at Lincoln Center in February--I think Wolff is giving several pre-performance lectures on Bach works this season.

Ryan Michero wrote (April 14, 2000): 6:50

Not really. Wolff is a scholar, historian, and musicologist that has specialized in J.S. Bach and the Bach family for some time now. I have no doubt that he knows as much about Bach as anyone else in the world.

I quote from the inner sleeve of THE LEARNED MUSICIAN:

"Christoph Wolff is William Powell Mason Professor of Music and dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University. He is coauthor of the

BACH COMPENDIUM, coeditor of the research journal BACH-JAHRBUCH, and author of THE NEW GROVE BACH FAMILY. Thirty-two of his numerous journal articles have been collected in his BACH: ESSAYS ON HIS LIFE AND MUSIC."

I assume that Koopman and Wolff are friends as they have worked closely together in the past. Certainly they discussed the matter of the new St. Mark, and there's every reason to think that Wolff would have been more involved if he really agreed with what Koopman wanted to do. Perhaps it is telling that the new St. Mark is not "reconstructed by Ton Koopman and Christoph Wolff".

Johan: Did you mention something about Wolff being critical of Koopman's reconstruction?

Johan van Veen wrote (April 14, 2000): 10:11

(To Ryan Michero) It is not easy to tell to what extent scholars are involved in recording projects. But it is a fact that some scholars write the notes for CD booklets of completely different recordings. I don't think the very fact that they write these notes does imply they agree with the interpretation. It could well be that they have never heard the recording for which they write their notes. After all, being a scholar and being a critic are different things. But I suppose the fact that Wolff and Koopman work together makes it a little difficult for Wolff to criticise Ton Koopman's

performances in public.

Koopman presented his version of the St Mark's Passion for the first time at the Bach Akademie in Stuttgart in September 1998 (he has made some changes since - at that time he presented it as a "work in progress"). On the day after the concert there was a conference by Bach scholars. I think I read somewhere that on the whole most scholars were not impressed with Koopman's edition. I also think that Christoph Wolff was the chairman of that conference, which will have prevented him from commenting on it anyway.

But the notes in the CD recording are interesting. There are two contributions: the first is by Ton Koopman, in which he tells something about his approach (without reference to the material he used - an unforgiveable omission, IMO), the second by Christoph Wolff, who outlines the state of affairs regarding the St Mark Passion. He doesn't say anything about Koopman's reconstruction, but from what he does say one could conclude that he doesn't agree with Koopman's solutions. As you will know Simon Heighes' reconstruction uses material from cantata BWV 198. Koopman is not convinced that this is the right thing to do. That was one of the reasons for his own efforts. But here is what Wolff says: "Bach scholars very soon recognised that the structure of the St Mark Passion text indicates that Bach intended to reuse music already written. As early as 1873, Wilhelm Rust advanced plausible arguments for the existence of links between the Funeral Ode BWV 198, the funeral music for Leopold von Köthen BWV 244a, and the St Mark Passion. For example, the texts of the opening chorus of all three works have the same metre and rhyme scheme". This sounds more like an endorsement of Simon Heighes' version than of Koopman's. (This is what Koopman says: "It struck me that there were excellent alternatives to the Funeral Ode, which I firmly believe is a much more suitable candidate for the reconstruction of the Köthen Funeral Music, than of the St Mark Passion. Indeed, cantata BWV 198 is far less in keeping with the rest of the work than is generally thought; for example, the unison passages in the closing chorus are wholly incompatible with the text of the St Mark Passion".)

I think on the basis of this quotations one can hardly argue that Wolff endorses Koopman's edition.

Marten Breuer wrote (April 14, 2000): 15:31

< Johan van Veen wrote: Koopman presented his version of the St Mark's Passion for the first time at the Bach Akademie in Stuttgart in September 1998 (he has made some changes since - at that time he presented it as a "work in progress"). On the day after the concert there was a conference by Bach scholars. I think I read somewhere that on the whole most scholars were not impressed with Koopman's edition. I also think that Christoph Wolff was the chairman of that conference, which will have prevented him from commenting on it anyway. >

Exactly, Johan. I attended the discussion which took about an hour. Christoph Wolff being the chairman evidently tried to stay as neutral as he could, calling Ton Koopman his 'friend'. However, I think it was him who critically asked why Koopman had inserted one aria from the St. John Passion.

Others were more direct. Hans-Joachim Schulze (director of the Bach Archiv Leipzig) frankly confessed that he had applauded only the choir as he could hardly imagine how the singers had coped with singing so many syllables. He argued whether the new approach to Bach would be using his music as a 'quarry'.

Helmut Rilling found some of Koopman's 'reconstrutions' well done, others not. He criticized that in some cases, the rhythm of the text didn't fit the rhythm of the music. Koopman replied that he had made up to ten different versions of each aria and then chosen the most suitable.

Robert Levin, who has made a reconstruction of Mozart's Requiem, pointed out that there was a big difference between a 'reconstruction' and Koopman's 'pasticcio'.

That's all I can remember, but as you can see, most of the scholars did not 'endorse' Koopman's version of the St. Mark Passion at all!

Jane Newble wrote (April 14, 2000): 21:59

(To Harry J. Steiman) I did not read this into Harry's words, and as far as I can see he did not use the word 'scholar'. I also think that Koopman has the credentials to be taken seriously. He has given a lot of time and energy to understanding Bach and

performing his music, and on account of that alone he has every right to reconstruct a lost work. 'Credentials' in the Oxford dictionary simply means: "evidence of achievement or trustworthiness", and I'm sure no-oncan argue with that, whether Koopman's work is liked or not. Even if scholars disagreed with the way Koopman has done the reconstruction, that still does not alter his right to do it, as an artist. The fact that he has been awarded an honours degree by a Dutch Faculty of Theology for his work on Bach means that at least some people appreciate him.

Johan van Veen wrote (April 14, 2000): 22:50

(To Jane Newble) But that caused surprise. Originally honorary degrees were given to people with scientific credentials, although they never had been at any university. Over the years that honour has been given to people as a sort of reward for important achievements in politics or society. That considering one could argue that an honorary degree is justified. But what caused most surprise was that he got a degree in theology, although he has never published anything on the relationship between Bach and theology, nor has he shown any particular interest in that subject. Given the fact that Koopman has studied musicology (although never finished it), a degree in that faculty would have been less controversial.

Sybrand Bakker wrote (April 14, 2000): 23:55

(To Johan van Veen) To which I must add the following:

He got a degree at the University of Utrecht. This University has a musicology department. This has always very much concentrated on early music (look at the work of Albert Smijers and Willem Elders and Jaap van Benthem). They also have very good connections with performing musicians and are quite frequently consulted by performing musicians. The only other musicology department in the Netherlands is at the University of Amsterdam, where I graduated. Mr Koopman studied at this University (though probably a few years before me). BTW Frans Brueggen also studied at the same department -and never graduated-, and at least he returned to give

a lecture about HIP (that he at the same time ridiculised the results of musicological research is a different story). If Mr. Koopman followed the same curriculum as I followed he only learned harmony, counterpoint, ear-training, gregorian, mensural notation, and a detailed instruction to music history, so no filological skills!

It is indeed, I agree with Johan, quite suprising he was not honored by the musicology department. IMO this make his honorary degree less valuable.

Matthew Westphal wrote (April 15, 2000): 1:15

< John Graves wrote: I don't see why you assume that Christoph Wolff endorses Koopman's reconstruction. As far as I can tell, he merely contracted with Lincoln Center to give a pre-performance lecture. He did the same thing when I saw Andras Schiff play the French Suites at Lincoln Center in February--I think Wolff is giving several pre-performance lectures on Bach works this season. >

Hence my use of the word "apparent" (see below). Appearing on the same bill will give at least some appearance of an endorsement, even if the latter doesn't necessarily and logically follow the former.

I am grateful to you and others (who have paid more attention than I) for pointing out just what Wolff has and has not said about Koopman's reconstruction.

< Jane Newble wrote: I also think that Koopman has the credentials to be taken seriously. He has given a lot of time and energy to understanding Bach and performing his music, and on account of that alone he has every right to reconstruct a lost work. 'Credentials' in the Oxford dictionary simply means: "evidence of achievement or trustworthiness", and I'm sure no-one can argue with that, whether

Koopman's work is liked or not. Even if scholars disagreed with the way Koopman has done the reconstruction, that still does not alter his right to do it, as an artist. >

Certainly, Koopman has a right to do it. So do you or I or anyone else, for that matter. Were I to attempt a reconstruction-and-recomposition of Bach's Markus-Passion, observers would have every right to consider my background as musician and as musical scholar in assessing the success of my effort -- and the legitimacy of calling the result of my effort a composition by Bach.

Koopman certainly has an eminently respectable record as a performer of Bach's work -- I don't believe anyone here is suggesting otherwise. But the skills Koopman has demonstrated as a performer don't necessarily apply to the musicologial/historical detective work involved in attempting to reconstruct the Markus-Passion.

Harry J. Steinman wrote (April 15, 2000): 22:59

In the last several days, I've waxed rhapsodically about the Koopman Markus Passion and the McCreech Epiphany Mass. Regarding the Koopman Passion; since I don't hear the shortcomings in the reconstruction that the more studied members of the list do, I still have very good memories of the performance. Maybe someday I'll know enough about the music that I won't like it! ;-)

Ditto for the McCreech. With the passing of time (two-and-a-half days!) I find myself listening less to most of the hymns and more exclusively to the Bach. I agree that the recording doesn't sound as crisp as, say, Herreweghe, and while I understand what McCreech was trying to do, I'd have preferred a recording approach that is more clear. But I still very much enjoy the recording and find myself listening to the hymn, "Puer natus in Bethlehem" and to the Kyrie and Gloria of the F major Mass over and over and over-enough so that I don't get to the 2^nd disc enough.

Well, I get excited by new music. I listened to the Mass (and considered my memory of the Passion) in light of the observations of others and I guess I still like 'em both a lot. Go figure.

Continue on Part 3

Markus-Passion BWV 247: Details and Discography
Discussions: General: Part 1 | Part 2
Individual Recordings: BWV 247 - R. Goodman | BWV 247 - T. Koopman
Article: Narrative Parody In Bach's St. Mark Passion [W. Hoffman]