Recordings/Discussions
Background Information
Performer Bios

Poet/Composer Bios

Additional Information

Recordings & Discussions of Cantatas: Cantatas BWV 1-50 | Cantatas BWV 51-100 | Cantatas BWV 101-150 | Cantatas BWV 151-200 | Cantatas BWV 201-224 | Cantatas BWV Anh | Order of Discussion

Cantata BWV 36
Schwingt freudig euch empor
Cantata BWV 36a
Steigt freudig in die Luft
Cantata BWV 36b
Die Freude reget sich
Cantata BWV 36c
Schwingt freudig euch empor
Discussions - Part 2

Continue from Part 1

Discussions in the Week of May 6, 2007

Julian Mincham wrote (May 6, 2007):
Cantatas BWV 36, BWV 36b, BWV 36c - Introduction to Discussion - Week of May 6, 2007

CONTEXT

In introducing this fine but relatively unknown work, I have to confess to some lack of enthusiasm. This is not, I hasten to say, because of any lack of its quality. Unlike some of the works introduced earlier this year (e.g. BWV 143 and BWV 158) there is no suggestion, as far as I know, that this work was not originally composed by Bach himself. In fact it existed in five different versions two sacred and three secular (Boyd) and Boyd quotes this as evidence of Bach's own high regard for the work.

I treat this with some degree of caution. I suspect that Bach's reuse of much of his music was because it was convenient and appropriate for purpose rather than that he had a particular affection for it. However, in this regard, and because of its complicated resurrections, Cantata BWV 36 might be compared with Cantata BWV 80 about whose convoluted history there was much discussion on list last year.

Perhaps BWV 36 will generate further discussion of this kind?

No, my objection is that I would have preferred not to have interrupted our progression through the final quarter of this Leipzig cycle of church cantatas at this point. Certainly it seems that BWV 36 was composed some time in 1725 although I am not aware that an exact date has been determined. So it is important for list members to note that in the discussion of this cantata we have temporarily abandoned the great second church year cycle for an (originally) secular work of about the same period.

Nevertheless it is a salutary reminder that even whilst in the midst of composing fifty-two cantatas within a year as a part of his contribution to his canon of 'well regulated church music' Bach still, amazingly, found time to fulfill other commissions and to give them the same full attention to detail and requirement that his ecclesiastical cycle demanded.

For Koopman's cycle Wolff's notes [14] tell us that the work survives in two versions of which Koopman's recording is of the second. The first version was from a copy made in 1731/2 and possibly dates from 1725, presumably the reason for its inclusion at this time on the weekly list. Subsequently Bach transformed it into a two-part, eight movement piece. Boyd gives a rather more complicated account of the work, existing in five versions.

The first version is thought to have been written as birthday tribute to an academic at the Leipzig University with a text probably by Picander (Boyd).

Minor gripes out of the way, to the work itself.

BWV 36 The cantata of the week Schwingt freudig euch empor Soar Joyfully aloft For the 1st Sunday in Advent

Part 1 chorus--chorale (sop/alto)--aria tenor)--chorale
Part 2 aria (bass)--chorale (tenor)--aria (sop)--chorale

This version is dominated by the four chorale movements (Mvt. 2, Mvt. 4, Mvt. 6 & Mvt. 8) and the use of Luther's hymn Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland. The opening chorus firstly bids voices to soar into the starry heavens but then asks them to wait, since the distance to the Lord is not great. As so often, Bach writes quite differently for the choir in the expression of these two different thoughts. The idea of 'soaring above' is inherent within the rising imitative entries of the voices (bass, tenor, alto and sop) with writing becoming chordal and homophonic for the later 'stop and wait' commands.

The construction of the ritornello is a minor miracle too complex to describe here; but look at the marvelous ways in which the three ideas in the very first bar are extended and developed---a) the triplet b) four rising semi-quavers and c) the three note da-da-dah rhythm.

The duet (Mvt. 2) is not, in my view as striking a movement as many from the fourteen to be found in the second cycle. The continuo bass line suggests movement or treading ----'come now--- and its increased rhythmic convolutions may be indicative of the marvels of the world. Its melodic structure is derived directly from the shape of the closing chorale.

The tenor aria (Mvt. 3) maintains the minor mode and appears to be a tender and restrained expression of affection rather than of deep love. The first part of the cantata ends with a four-part chorale (Mvt. 4) of gratitude and exultation, returning us to the key of triumph, D major.

And this is also the key of the first movement of part 2, an ebullient bass aria (Mvt. 5) which has certain characteristics in common with the opening chorus. The first bars contain the motivic germs of the entire movement and, just as before, they will be woven into a tapestry of energetic contrapuntal lines. This is an open and extrovert welcoming of the Saviour.

The sixth movement (Mvt. 6) is reminiscent of the Bachian chorale prelude, the tenor intoning the phrases of the chorale amidst swathes of furious counterpoint. This is the most urgent and dramatic movement of the work, presumably intended to represent the Lord's conquest over feeble flesh.

Interposed between this and the closing four-part chorale we come across a soprano aria (Mvt. 7), strongly contrasting in mood------even with enfeebled or mute voices we may praise and adore God in his heaven. The key is major, the time signature that of the traditional pastorale. Counterpoint sweeps around the vocal line suggesting God's all-encompassing benefice. The middle section, returning to the minor, becomes a little more muscular as Bach represents the shouts and resoundings as they shall be interpreted in Heaven:-- even though, whilst offered upon this earth they may seem to be rather mundane efforts!

But there is no formal da capo and no return of the long instrumental ritornello at the end. Bach wants to leave us with the image of the sounds as they are received by God in Heaven rather than with representations of the feeble endeavors we know them to be on earth.

An enjoyable and satisfying work which incorporates many examples of superb compositional skill. But not to, my mind, as experimental or ultimately satisfying as many of the ecclesiastical cantatas written in the same year.

But list members may well prefer to differ.

Cantata link: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV36.htm

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 6, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< I treat this with some degree of caution. I suspect that Bach's reuse of much of his music was because it was convenient and appropriate for purpose rather than that he had a particular affection for it. However, in this regard, and because of its complicated resurrections, Cantata BWV 36 might be compared with Cantata BWV 80 about whose convoluted history there was much discussion on list last year. >
Certainly Bach had a great atttraction to the chorale, "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland". In the cantatas and the organ works, the chorale is the basis again and again for superlative music. I might even suggest that the three organ preludes on the chorale are Bach's finest chorale fantasies. Perhaps because of my prejudice, I thought the duet was quite wonderful.

Do we have any evidence why certcantatas were written in two parts? I've never been able to discern any pattern. Some of the two-part cantatas have a direction for "after the sermon", but is there any evidence, documentary or internal, that the second part may have been performed later in the service at the communion? I don't see any specifically eucharistic themes in the second half. Gunther Schiller has a long list of cantatas which he suggests would have been suitable for performance "sub communione" but there doesn't seem to be much scholarly study of the subject.

Ed Myskowski wrote (May 6, 2007):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< I suspect that Bach's reuse of much of his music was because it was convenient and appropriate for purpose rather than that he had a particular affection for it. However, in this regard, and because of its complicated resurrections, Cantata BWV 36 might be compared with Cantata BWV 80 about whose convoluted history there was much discussion on list last year.
Perhaps BWV 36 will generate further discussion of this kind? >
The discussion of BWV 80 is on hold, awaiting my obligation to make personal contact with Christoph Wolff. He was unresponsive to eMails (not especially surprising, given the nature of our group), and he canceled a commitment to speak at at he recent Cantata Singers BMM (BWV 232) performance, where I had hoped to 'corner' him. Wolff was not evasive (as if he would notice!), scholarly travel intervened. I have not picked up that thread, but I have not forgotten. BWV 80 provenance is alive, open for comment, and my further input after contact with Prof. Wolff is pending.

Speaking of BMM (BWV 232), isn't that a perfect example of Bach recycling favorite materials into a larger, more enduring, format? It appears to be the single work he pondered the longest, and which has the broadest, most inclusive and central, Christian texts. It also appears that he had little concern for its contemporary (18th C.) performance, more a legacy for the ages. That would be us. If he could have known, would he have bothered? I think yes.

Or perhaps he was still orthodox Lutheran, and was devoting it strictly to God, completely indifferent to performance? If that is the case, why the careful exclusion of any sectarian (as Bach knew 'sectarian') texts in the BMM (BWV 232)? Strictly, broadly Christian, other than the Eastern Orthodox or coptic sects, which were probably as strange as Turks to him. At least he made his peace with the Popes.

Apologies to Julian if I have overlooked relevant points. I violated my own rule to listen first, then speak. i started writing without reading the rest of the introduction.

It did generate discussion. ¿Better than silence? Hmmm.

Ed Myskowski wrote (May 6, 2007):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< Gunther Schiller has a long list of cantatas which he suggests would have been suitable for performance "sub communione" but there doesn't seem to be much scholarly study of the subject. >
Activate the armies of grad students?

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 6, 2007):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< Speaking of BMM (BWV 232), isn't that a perfect example of Bach recycling favorite materials into a larger, more enduring, format? It appears to be the single work he pondered the longest, and which has the broadest, most inclusive and central, Christian texts. It also appears that he had little concern for its contemporary (18th C.) performance, more a legacy for the ages. That would be us. If he could have known, would he have bothered? I think yes >
There really isn't any evidence to suggest the B Minor Mass (BWV 232) is a closet work intended as some universalized religious statement beyond the petty polemics of various churches. Stauffer shows pretty conclusively that the monumental scale of the mass is consistent with the grandiose manner of settings from the Dresden Chapel Royal. The weight of evidence points to a projected performance in Dresden. Bach's sons referred to it as the "great Catholic mass" without any qualification that it was non-liturgical. Stauffer even suggests that there may actually have been a performance of the mass.

This Romantic attempt to remove the music from its historical context is similar to the mythologizing of Beethoven's "Missa Soleminis". Although it was not finished in time, the Missa Solemnis was commissioned for a specific occasiion, the consecration of an aristocrat as bishop. Its scale does not make it non-liturgical: Mozart's Mass in C Minor is also in this tradition of grand masses which goes back to Bach.

Ed Myskowski wrote (May 6, 2007):
[To Douglas Cowling] No intent on my part to remove the BMM (BWV 232) from its historical context, or to Romanticize it. Generalize perhaps, but that it is the point. My understanding (admittedly superficial, so I post not to expound, but to learn) of the genesis of the BMM (BWV 232) is that it was assembled and composed over the last decade, or more, of Bach's life, and that it was not the only work he wrote in that era without apparent concern for performance particulars (Art of Fugue (BWV 1080), Musical Offering (BWV 1079), more?).

It is perhaps difficult in our day and age of raging wars of Christ (Oil) versus Islam (Oil) versus Judaism (no Oil), to recognize that the details of one Christian (or Islam or Judaic) sect versus another could be a matter of raging concern. That's people.

Is it Romanticizing the issue to speculate (¡Yes, I said it, and I mean it, precisely!) that Bach's scope expanded as he aged and matured, gracefully or not? That he was seeking an inclusive rather than a divisive sense of Christ?

Isn't that the nature of intelligence, after all (not to say genius)? Less flexible minds remain locked in place, often happy as a clam (ACE).

Jean Laaninen. wrote (May 6, 2007):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< It is perhaps difficult in our day and age of raging wars of Christ (Oil) versus Islam (Oil) versus Judaism (no Oil), to recognize that the details of one Christian (or Islam or Judaic) sect versus another could be a matter of raging concern. That's people.
Is it Romanticizing the issue to speculate (¡Yes, I said it, and I mean it, precisely!) that Bach's scope expanded as he aged and matured, gracefully or not? That he was seeking an inclusive rather than a divisive sense of Christ?
Isn't that the nature of intelligence, after all (not to say genius)? Less flexible minds remain locked in place, often happy as a clam (ACE). >
I appreciate Ed's efforts to raise the perspective of inclusion and exclusion. Today Theology as a discipline is as much about diversity in some ways as it is about Christ and the Trinity. My History of Theology Professor at Fuller, the reknowned Collin Brown, began his course with the idea that God is three in one (found in Bach's work), but much, much more than three in one. I treasure that perspective because it keeps narrow mindedness from my door while allowing me to live productively. And I think Ed is correct in mentioning the warring struggles of our day because it was in the character of Bach's writings to deal with the suffering of this world while pointing to a better existence in communion with God. And as Doug points out a vast body of Bach's work is liturgical. But what I love about Bach is that his work has a transcendent quality that takes me and many others well beyond the smallness of our own minds to imagine glorious possibilities. Sounds subjective--I know, but Bach is a communal composer and his music goes beyond simple emotion. He wrote to inspire. In his orchestral writing and choral offerings he embraces the community so we have to say he is inclusive in many respects. I believe it was because he found centeredness in community and his belief in God that he couwrite as he did. Of course his education and association with Buxtehude, helped.

It requires a great deal of understanding of Bach's emotional content to play his piano works, for example, well...not to mention considerable skill.

Really I am all for recognizing the historical elements of Bach's time and the sufferings of those days. And while as Lutherans we employ our creeds on a regular basis I think it is worthy to realize that other Christian bodies have their own statements of faith or explanation of beliefs that also have a deep validity. We are not the only ones who are right--God save us from our pride, I think. I have many Catholic relatives, some Jewish relatives and even a cousin by marriage who is an Arab. I do not divide myself from these folks. And Bach did not compose his works for Lutheran's only as has been pointed out in the recent letters.

To be truly open to others and their experience of Bach, let alone many other issues, we would have had to have been raised in an environment where accepting others with the love of God prevailed over having some kind of imaginary or real enemy. Sad to say many times people cannot function without an enemy. More important to me today is that even though I will never become a great diva as I had once hoped, I can learn Bach's music and record it for friends and family...many who carry burdens even deeper than the wars of our time. If we have the love of God in us, or even a kind humanitarian perspective regardless of denomination or religion and if we carry the inspiration of Bach in our hearts there will be many times when we will want to be loving and kind, and pick our battles I think with great care. I don't mean we need to disregard the history of Bach, but the big question in my mind is how will we use these works today? I would love to hear how forum members use Bach to make a difference today.Will we all in our diversity find a common meeting ground where the value of these works transcends even my own petty thoughts at times, or will we use them to polarize? Ed is right in bringing this to our attention.

Last night I called my 98 year old pastor father and told him about the debates swirling around on the forum. Dad was a championship debater in his youth and loves nothing at times more than a good argument. And he argues Theology, morality and the social issues of the day. But his comment when I finished talking was that people will always use anything they can find as a handle for the points or money they wish to make. I think Bach's works are too great to be used for negative purposes, and as limited as I am since I am sort of a semi-professional musician, I admire beyond words people who have mastered any of the intricacies of Bach. The person who knows all the great recordings and can even compare them to help others find something good to listen to gets my vote of appreciation. There are people who want to know and those with much to offer. The scholar who can tell me about who wrote the poetry gets my vote. The articulate members of other branches of Christianity for what they find in Bach, get my vote. And so on... I was also grateful to the members of the forum last year when I was trying to figure out what these public domain issues amounted to, and to an ASU professor/conductor of Bach Cantata's who pointed me in the direction of the Kalmus scores so I can follow the guidelines.

Yes, people will always be people, but there is so much in Bach that is on the positive side, and even if some of it doesn't match with my modern reality, I want to hear everything even though only just so much will stick at this point...I have senior moments.

Now I am ready to listen to the new cantata for the week and see what imagery will stay with me throughout the coming days.

Thanks to everyone who adds to my knowledge and perspective.

Peter Smaill wrote (May 6, 2007):
In considering the reworkings of this Cantata one of the most interesting questions in the Bach repertoire has been touched on : was the B Minor Mass (BWV 232) intended for use at the Roman Catholic chapel in Dresden- or indeed, anywhere?

Schulze thinks not, because of the insertion of "altissime" in the "Domine Deus"; the text of the Mass is strictly formulated in Roman Catholicism. On the other hand , John Butt agrees that its style in places is imitated by - though its overall length exceeds- Masses by Zelenka and Hasse which were explicitly for Roman Catholic liturgical use. He further observes: "When one considers that Bach lent a set of parts of the Sanctus to Graf Sporck of Bohemia, it is not impossible that the entire work could have been compiled for a Catholic patron."

"In the case of the B Minor Mass (BWV 232) perhaps the most useful way of summing up its meaning and content is to consider its "universality", with regard both to its place in Bach's oeuvre and its apparent ecumenism.....the complete work seems to unite both Catholic and Lutheran confessions and the concept of integration is an essential feature of Bach's compositional activity per se."

While in agreement with Butt it has to be said that it is not (yet) proven that the intention was for performance in a Roman Catholic setting.

Jean Laaninen wrote (May 6, 2007):
Staying on Subject...and Cantata 36

I will do this from now on. Thanks to Doug's comment that there are those on the forum who desperately want to know Bach the man, but this is impossible, I realize now that knowing Bach the man has not been a primary concern with me. I never considered that anything but superficial knowledge was possible, and as the liberal Paul McCain describes me to be my perspective on the rules and regulations of the time is that they are interesting and historical. Therefore it is nice we have a record of these matters. So I can respect what may have been Bach's views--still harkening back to the Italian Concerto and other pieces of a more secular nature. But if one is looking, and one scholar told me perhaps tongue in cheek that the Italian Concerto, first movement, is a round--perhaps one can find theological aspects even therein. Anyway, Bach's music can be known and it is spendid and I will stick to that side of the discussion .

I found Cantata BWV 36 to be quite lovely. As a musician at heart I found the soprano solo in its gentle range very comforting, and well conveys the idea that God is not deaf. In particular I enjoyed the chorale following and the tonalities at the end that well-portray in my view the Advent season's desires. I enjoy, too, the way Bach often begins a cantata with such variety--here a solo, or duet, or choral work or a sinfonia. Truly the variety adds to why these works have sustained over the centuries. And thanks again to Julian for presenting us with a guide.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 6, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< Schulze thinks not, because of the insertion of "altissime" in the " Domine Deus"; the text of the Mass is strictly formulated in Roman Catholicism. On the other hand , John Butt agrees that its style in places is imitated by - though its overall length exceeds- Masses by Zelenka and Hasse which were explicitly for Roman Catholic liturgical use.
"In the case of the B Minor Mass
(BWV 232) perhaps the most useful way of summing up its meaning and content is to consider its "universality", with regard both to its place in Bach's oeuvre and its apparent ecumenism.....the complete work seems to unite both Catholic and Lutheran confessions and the concept of integration is an essential feature of Bach's compositional activity per se." >
Bach also made an error at the end of the Sanctus where he used "gloria eius" rather than changing it to the "gloria tua" of the Roman mass (Luther had altered the phrase to make the quotation exact with Isaiah).

I still don't buy the proposal that Bach was making a universal, ecumenical statement that the churches were all one in common faith. Remember, he did set to music that horrible text about murderous papists and Turks. The texts of tmass were common to Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans but there is almost no discussion in the 18th century anywhere in Europe about the commonality of worship. Conversion and compulsion not coooperation and compassion were the norms of the age.

Nor can we simply say that its scale makes it impractical. Stauffer's study has detailed musical examples comparing Bach's work with gigantic settings in Dresden. There may be no documentary evidence of performance in a Catholic mass, but the Mass in B Minor (BWV 232) does not stand in isolation: it is part of a festive mass tradition.

Chris Kern wrote (May 6, 2007):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< In considering the reworkings of this Cantata one of the most interesting questions in the Bach repertoire has been touched on : was the B Minor Mass (BWV 232) intended for use at the Roman Catholic chapel in Dresden- or indeed, anywhere? >
Probably the most important thing to remember about this issue is that it is not decided either way; it could have even been both. Stauffer thinks that the title pages of the parts were once folders that the four parts were stored in (later the backs were removed when the manuscript was bound after Bach's death). This, among other things, could indicate that Bach at least foresaw the theoretical possibility of someone performing sections of the work.

I've always found it sort of anachronistically romantic to accept the common view that Bach realized his cantatas would fall into obscurity and composed the BMM to be an eternal testament to his church music ability, but there could be some kernel of truth in that as well.

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 6, 2007):
Chris Kern wrote:
< I've always found it sort of anachronistically romantic to accept the common view that Bach realized his cantatas would fall into obscurity and composed the BMM to be an eternal testament to his church music ability, but there could be some kernel of truth in that as well. >
Wolff's account of Bach's final years indicates pretty conclusively that Bach didn't sit around complaining, "Mein Gott, the Classical Period is coming and no one will remember my music!"

Bach considered his library a working library and well before his death he commissioned new copies of several works so that exemplars would exist in more that one place. He divided his music between his sons, giving to each the works which he thought would be most useful. He didn't leave his library to be sold off for very little after his death, as Kuhnau's had been. He assumed that Bach and Sons, Ltd. was a thriving business and his music would continue to be performed as he had performed his relatives' works from previous generations.

The Mass in B Minor (BWV 232) is certainly an encyclopedic microcosm of Bach's entire vocal style -- so is the Magnificat. I have always felt that Bach's greatest achievement is the Cantata Project, the five annual cycles which he began when he came to Leipzig and finished five years later. Because of losses in manuscripts and only the barest suggestion of the overriding design, we are probably doomed to see this monument as a series of individual works rather than a mighty collection of 300 parts with hundreds of movements.

Neil Halliday wrote (May 8, 2007):
BWV 36

The highlights of the opening chorus are its strong rhythmic pulse (in ¾ time), the transparency/clarity of the fugue-like vocal entries, and the syncopation in some phrases in the central homophonic sections.

It's interesting to compare Rilling's 1980's church cantata [5] with his year 2000 secular cantata recording [BWV 36c - 4]. The latter presents one of the most joyous and high-spirited pieces of music imaginable. It's brisk - at 3.31, probably the fastest tempo of all the recordings of this chorus, and in stark contrast with Rilling's former time of 4.40, which is likely to be the slowest of them all. Both are well performed with excellent choral work; the latter (2000) has the better acoustic, and is of course much livelier - the triplet figures are very fast indeed. This joyous music is a good accompaniment to the (sacred) text's idea of voices soaring upward to Heaven to be close to God.

Of the remaining movements, only the three arias are common to both works; the secular cantata has the recitatives (forget them), while the sacred cantata has the interesting chorale movements. However, the secular cantata (BWV 36c, according to the booklet) ends with a joyous - and most enjoyable - chorus (including lovely accompanied recitatives for T, B and S) that leaves me wondering why Bach did not retain it for the church setting.

The main drawback, for me, of Rilling's `sacred' cantata [5] is the unpleasant, `raspy' timbre of the continuo organ, especially noticeable in the SA duet/chorale. [Harnoncourt [4] and Leusink [11], with brighter registration, are better in this regard; Koopman [14] has his rattly little "toy" organ, as usual. Otherwise, I think most listeners will find much to enjoy in any of the recordings].

Overall, Rilling's recent recording [BWV 36c - 4] has the better arias, with excellent soloists (as good as the former soloists), better tempi - and harpsichord, or sometimes lute, in place of the annoying organ. The viola d'amore in the 2000 version of the soprano aria has a sweeter sound than the `con sordino' violin in the earlier recording.

All three arias have tuneful opening phrases that set the stage for each movement. It's worth listening with the text in hand at least once or twice to see how Bach sets the syllables of the words to the notes of the music.

We get to hear the chorale melody from BWV 1 in the second of the four chorale movements. Some of the period performances of this and the last chorale (eg, Herreweghe [8] and Leusink [11], IIRC) seem overly brisk and light, IMO. Aren't these in the nature of congregational hymns (even if not sung by congregation)?

John Reese wrote (May 8, 2007):
I have been silent on this forum for the last year or so, but I've been lurking. I decided to contribute when I saw BWV 36 was up in the batting order because I've been working on a piece based on the ostinato theme from the second movement. I've always been interested in this melody, because it seems like Bach intentionally crafted it to be used contrapuntally in a variety of ways. For instance, it works as a canon at the octave which is invertible at the octave and the twelfth (perhaps the tenth as well -- I haven't tried it out). Strangely, though, Bach doesn't come close to realizing the potential of this melody in the duet where it appears.

I have had the idea to use this as a fugue subject since I was back in college, but I've finally started working on it in earnest. I've ended up writing it as a triple fugue where Bach's melody is the third subject. I'm more than halfway finished with it -- when I'm done I'd be glad to show it to anyone who's interested.

Anyway, back to lurking...

Douglas Cowling wrote (May 9, 2007):
John Reese wrote:
< I decided to contribute when I saw BWV 36 was up in the batting order because I've been working on a piece based on the ostinato theme from the second movement. I've always been interested in this melody, because it seems like Bach intentionally crafted it to be used contrapuntally in a variety of ways. >
This might explain why Bach was so attracted to the "Nun komm" chorale melody: it has such rich contrapuntal possibilities. We can see Bach experimenting in the series of organ preludes on the chorale, most spectacuarly in the fantasia-lilke three-voice fugue over the chorale in the pedal.

Please post your fugue to the files here.

John Reese wrote (May 1, 2007):
[To Douglas Cowling] I've added the file as "nunkomm_3.mid". It's largely complete, but still needs a lot of polishing.

If you want to skip to the part with Bach's subject, it's at the 4:50 mark.

 

Continue on Part 3

Cantatas BWV 36, BWV 36a, BWV 36b & BWV 36c: Details & Complete Recordings of BWV 36 | Recordings of Individual Movements from BWV 36 | Details of BWV 36a | Details & Complete Recordings of BWV 36b | Details & Complete Recordings of BWV 36c | Discussions: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Recordings & Discussions of Cantatas: Cantatas BWV 1-50 | Cantatas BWV 51-100 | Cantatas BWV 101-150 | Cantatas BWV 151-200 | Cantatas BWV 201-224 | Cantatas BWV Anh | Order of Discussion

Introduction | Cantatas | Other Vocal | Instrumental | Performers | General Topics | Articles | Books | Movies | New
Biographies | Texts & Translations | Scores | References | Commentaries | Music | Concerts | Festivals | Tour | Art & Memorabilia
Chorale Texts | Chorale Melodies | Lutheran Church Year | Readings | Poets & Composers | Arrangements & Transcriptions
Search Website | Search Works/Movements | Terms & Abbreviations | Copyright | How to contribute | Sitemap | Links



 

Back to the Top


Last update: ıOctober 2, 2011 ı07:26:49