Recordings/Discussions
Background Information
Performer Bios

Poet/Composer Bios

Additional Information

Recitatives in Bach’s Vocal Works

Part 9

 

 

Continue from Part 8

Why would a musician EVER shorten the notes?!
Recitatives

Bradley Lehman wrote (November 21, 2003):
This posting is intended for the benefit of any members who really wish to learn something: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BachRecordings/messagesearch/620?query=short%20value%20lehman&dir=1

Be sure to page through all the "Previous" links. Over the past 2 1/2 YEARS, I have explained THIRTY TIMES already the various reasons why responsible and well-informed performers would have any reason to play/sing notes shorter than they see on the page of an Urtext edition. Those postings have various subject headings, but almost all touch on some aspects of those musical decisions about shortening various kinds of notes. In one of those postings I even scanned three 17th century pieces showing that the conventions of notation have not always been the same as they are now. Those scans are still available, although they are cluttering up my rented web space and I probably should have taken them down a long time ago.

The overall point is: to play and sing the music, one must learn how to read it according to the expectations of the composer and his contemporaries. What did the notation mean TO THEM, not assuming it means the same thing it does to us looking at a piece of Stravinsky (or whatever).

Obviously, Tom Braatz really does not want to learn the reasons for shortened notes, or is not willing to accept the explanations, as he asked for yet another one last night. He's still bewildered why a fine musician such as Hengelbrock would do anything of the sort, and still complaining here in public about it; as he put it, it's a desecration of the score, and sacrilege. In an "irrational, bizarre, grotesque interpretation of BWV 243a/10" Hengelbrock is being merely "perversely independent and subjective when he treats Bach's score in this manner." (Those are Braatz' own words, from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BachRecordings/message/11560 ) And then Braatz in his false naivete begs yet again to have it explained. As if the 31st explanation will do any good. He didn't get it the first 30 times, and I honestly don't know why I kept trying. (And he's not sure whether Hengelbrock uses an oboe or a Zink?! As if those two instruments could ever be confused with one another, tonally, on an exposed cantus firmus line?! But let's not digress.)

To anybody who really WANTS to understand the musical and historical reasons for shortening any notes, insofar as I've explained them, that's where it is in the archives. Don't just pick at a few of them (postings about recitative or whatever); take it as an over-reaching digest looking at different aspects of different genres within Bach's music. This is about BASIC MUSICALITY.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BachRecordings/messagesearch/620?query=short%20value%20lehman&dir=1

And that's just the BachRecordings list. I explained the same things, similarly, on the BachCantatas list where Tom has been an even more active member than he is here. I'm sure its archives have a similar array of my explanations, using the same search parameters ("short value lehman"); I'm not going to waste my time by re-joining the group and looking it up myself, to be sure. Braatz has had ample opportunity to understand the issues, if he chose to. So may anyone else who cares to learn this, by looking it up. Or, even better, as I keep saying: go to university and study music, formally. That's what it's there for.

As for Braatz' assertions about "Brad wishes to imply (...)" wherever he says them, here or anywhere else: Braatz has no clue about Brad's wishes to imply anything.

Bradley Lehman wrote (November 21, 2003):
Correction: it's way over 30. More like 50 or 60. After exhausting the search for "short value lehman", run "short note lehman" for another batch that doesn't all overlap with those. [Yeah, right, like anybody's really going to read that much.] The point is, the information is available, as to the 'what could they possibly be thinking?!' type of question.

Johan van Veen wrote (November 21, 2003):
Bradley Lehman wrote: < The overall point is: to play and sing the music, one must learn how to read it according to the expectations of the composer and his contemporaries. What did the notation mean TO THEM, not assuming it means the same thing it does to us looking at a piece of Stravinsky (or whatever). >
Mr Braatz and his companions seem to think: you get what you see. If a monkey smiles, it means the same as when a human being smiles. But when a monkey smiles, beware ;)

Why do some people have to learn it the hard way?

Neil Halliday wrote (November 22, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] I think Rilling was on the right track, when he commented on the importance of making the music speak for modern listeners.

The fact remains that, before the subjection of Bach's scores to the latest musicological findings (from about the 1960's on), the world's greatest musicians tended to play the scores with notes at annotated length. This proves to me that the (then) modern musicians and listeners found this to be what they thought was the the appropriate and satisfying method. (I still do.)

For me it's a case of preferring an 18th century palace with 20th century electrical lighting - I think the purists who want to experience the palace, with its 18th century candles, are misguided.

In the case of the sacred cantata secco recitatives, how anyone can claim that often quite long passages of virtually unaccompanied, rhythm-less, theme-less, solo singing are in any way attractive, in the sublime context of the sacred cantatas, is beyond me. (I said virtually unaccompanied, but in reality it's worse, with short, ugly stabs at chords on cellos, and chamber organs that often sound as if they have less power than a recorder).

Richter's art, along with that of other performers of his time, is there for all to hear. (His often problematic employment of the organ in the choruses is another matter). At least leave the reverential, contemplative, and dignified style, that results from this art, for the sacred cantata recitatives; you can have the "spoken" (unaccompanied) style for opera, if you wish.

Johan van Veen wrote (November 22, 2003):
Neil Halliday wrote: < I think Rilling was on the right track, when he commented on the importance of making the music speak for modern listeners.Which modern listeners, may I ask? Not for me. But maybe I am not a modern listener ;)

The fact remains that, before the subjection of Bach's scores to the latest musicological findings (from about the 1960's on), the world's greatest musicians tended to play the scores with notes at annotated length. This proves to me that the (then) modern musicians and listeners found this to be what they thought was the the appropriate and satisfying method. (I still do.) >
What you are saying is that the performance practice intended for 'modern listeners' is the performance practice originally intended for the listeners before the 1960's. Who is 'modern', then, the listeners who still like the style of performance before the 1960's or those who prefer a performance in line with the most recent musicological findings?

< For me it's a case of preferring an 18th century palace with 20th century electrical lighting - I think the purists who want to >experience the palace, with its 18th century candles, are misguided. >
Why 'misguided'? They have a preference which differs from yours, but that has nothing to do with being 'misguided'. But this is beside the point. This debate is not about what we like but what we think the composer intended. Even if you prefer electrical lighting, you won't claim that electrical lighting is whatpalace originally had. It is a 20th century modernisation, just like the way the recitatives were performed before musicology discovered how the composers intended them to be performed.

< In the case of the sacred cantata secco recitatives, how anyone can claim that often quite long passages of virtually unaccompanied, rhythm-less, theme-less, solo singing are in any way attractive, in the sublime context of the sacred cantatas, is beyond me. (I said virtually unaccompanied, but in reality it's worse, with short, ugly stabs at chords on cellos, and chamber organs that often sound as if they have less power than a recorder). >
You don't like it. I don't think anybody will deny you the right to like or dislike whatever you want. But - as said before - this is not the point. Personal preferences shouldn't be supported by unfounded claims of 'authenticity'. You like something Bach seems not to have intended. So what? Do you have sleepless nights because of that?
You are entitled to your preferences, but please don't claim your taste is what Bach always had in mind.

< Richter's art, along with that of other performers of his time, is there for all to hear. (His often problematic employment of the organ in the choruses is another matter). At least leave the reverential, contemplative, and dignified style, that results from this art, for the sacred cantata recitatives; you can have the "spoken" (unaccompanied) style for opera, if you wish. >
It is all a matter of esthetical standards. What you seem to expect from the recitatives in Bach's cantatas is something Bach seems not to have wished to deliver. That is no problem, but don't claim your personal taste with historical facts.

Robert Sherman wrote (November 22, 2003):
[To Neil Halliday] Generally I agree with Neil, but on the matter of recitiatives I find that much musical meaning is hidden there, but only if the singer puts much insight into making the recitative all it can be. I remember hearing Robert Shaw say "I love Bach recitative more than anything else." But it only works if the singer puts much thought into adding meaning to what is not obvious in the score. As just one example, listen to Aldo Baldin's intense and moving "So Stehe Christi" recitative in Leppard's Ein' Feste Burg.

It's also fascinating to compare the SJP performances of Wunderlich (with Forster) against Haefliger (with Richter). Wunderlich has a marvelously beautiful voice, but in the recititatives he just sings the notes. Haefliger, in contrast, takes us into a world of detailed inflection and meaning that Wunderlich never sees.

I also agree with Neil that chamber organs generally should not be used, and it's disappointing that Richter uses one in his SJP. ( I heard him to a live performance in which he used a harpsichord, played it himself quite well.) Here as with the singer, the music is what the performer can make of it. Generally, I find Leslie Pearson to be the most appopriate and inventive continuo player.

Neil Halliday wrote (November 23, 2003):
Johan van Veen wrote: "What you seem to expect from the recitatives in Bach's cantatas is something Bach seems not to have wished to deliver."
Leaving aside the issue of whether this has in fact been settled beyond doubt by musicological investigation, I would draw your attention to the fact that Bach intended the sacred cantatas to be performed a in church setting as part of a devotional, religious service.

He had no idea that, 300 years later, people would be attracted by the sheer musicality of these works, and that technology would enable this music to be enjoyed in the living rooms of listeners who have no connection at all to those 18th century Leipzig church services.

It is my contention that unaccompanied recitative quickly loses its impact in other than live performance situations, in which the sung/spoken words are very much a part of the 'atmosphere' of the occasion. (Whether no accompaniment is better than short, widely-spaced chords that often lack power and fail to communicate the implied harmonisation, is another interesting point in itself.)

Needless to say, one of the joys, for me, of the Richter-Archiv cantata set, is the musicality that Richter brings to the recitatives, (intriguingly, by playing them based on the score as written!) in a situation that was impossible for Bach to have ever conceived, namely, listening to a recording of the music at home, for musical enjoyment.

In conclusion, I would hope that our differing 'likes' and expectations can be met through a flexible approach to this matter of "shortening the notes".

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (November 23, 2003):
[To Robert Sherman] I think, while on the subject, that it is interesting that only the Ramin Johannespassion uses a Harpsichord in the Continuo (which is what the score stipulates), whereas most other recordings use Organ only. This is totally against what the score states. It says "Organo et Continuo", which means that the Organ is not intended as a Continuo instrument, which was in keeping iwth tradition at the time. The Harpsichord was the Keyboard instruemtnt used in Sacred and Secular ensemble works in the Continuo.

Johan van Veen wrote (November 24, 2003):
Neil Halliday wrote: < In conclusion, I would hope that our differing 'likes' and expectations can be met through a flexible approach to this matter of "shortening the notes". >
As has been said before, this discussion is not about what we like or dislike. As far as I am concerned everyone can like whatever he wants. But the debate is about the question what the intentions of the composer were. If a present day listener doesn't give a dime about this, fine. That's his choice. But it is pathetic to try desperately to find some 'evidence' which supports his personal preferences. If one doesn't care about the composer's intentions or performance habits and believes modern performers should do it their way, why bother to find historical evidence? That seems to me a waste of time.

So, about your 'wish': I have no problem with 'flexibility' regarding the 'shortening of notes' in recitatives as far as personal preferences is concerned. But there is no reason for flexibility in regard to the (mis)use of historical evidence to 'prove' those preferences.

I have noticed that some people on this list have terrible trouble in making a clear difference between personal taste and historical evidence.

Douglas S. Armine wrote (November 24, 2003):
Health warning

>>>>>> I think, while on the subject, that it is interesting that only the Ramin Johannespassion uses a Harpsichord in the Continuo (which is what the score stipulates), whereas most other recordings use Organ only. This is totally against what the score states. It says "Organo et Continuo", which means that the Organ is not intended as a Continuo instrument, which was in keeping with tradition at the time. The Harpsichord was the Keyboard instruemtnt used in Sacred and Secular ensemble works in the Continuo. <<<<<
I won't get into any slanging matches on here, but just for the record, the following statements are not accurate in any way, shape or form. I suggest that interested readers look up the definition of "basso continuo" or "continuo" in any musical dictionary or encyclopaedia. As much as I love the harpsichord (I play it and own two), one cannot say in truth that "continuo" NECESSARILY means the harpsichord - not in the 17th or 18th centuries, and not in Europe, at least.

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (November 25, 2003):
[To Douglas S. Armine] There is one point that seems to be ignored here, though. Continuo necessarily means Keyboard Continuo. If Bach meant for the Organ to be in the Continuo (which is not like Händel has it in Messiah), he would have left it at "Continuo" as opposed to "Organo et Continuo". Since the Continuo is a Keyboard Continuo ensemble, the Harpsichord would be inferred, logically. I would recommend that one listens to the Ramin recording of the Johannespassion as a case in point of one following the score here. One could find it at Amazon.com. Another example (although not w/Harpsichord) of this issue is Richter's recoof same work, and also his 3rd recording of the Matthäuspassion (which does use a Harpsichord).

Douglas S. Armine wrote (November 25, 2003):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: <<< There is one point that seems to be ignored here, though. Continuo necessarily means Keyboard Continuo. If Bach meant for the Organ to be in the Continuo (which is not like Händel has it in Messiah), he would have left it at "Continuo" as opposed to "Organo et Continuo". Since the Continuo is a Keyboard Continuo ensemble, the Harpsichord would be inferred, logically. I would recommend that one listens to the Ramin recording of the Johannespassion as a case in point of one following the score here. One could find it at Amazon.com. Another example (although not w/Harpsichord) of this issue is Richter's recording of the same work, and also his 3rd recording of the Matthäuspassion (which does use a Harpsichord). >>>
Umm, actually no, this isn't true either. Please look in a music dictionary or encyclopaedia such as the New Grove. It is perfectly possible to have continuo without any keyboard instrument - for example, with a lute, theorbo, harp etc etc to realise the harmonies; in some genres of music, this was much more common than the use of a keyboard instrument. The indication "continuo" or "basso continuo" or "b.c." does not, and never has, NECESSARILY meant the use of a harpsichord.

I don't know where you get your "facts", but they are not factual.

As you are very interested in the continuo used by Bach in his cantatas, I recommend that you get hold of a copy of "Bach's Continuo Group: Players and Practices in His Vocal Works. Studies in the History of Music, 3. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987. 264 pp. " by Prof. Laurence Dreyfus (who is a great viol player as well as a good musicologist). He studied this topic in great depth. I appreciate that your local library may be limited, but perhaps you could request this on inter-library loan.

In the meantime, perhaps you should try to verify your information in the New Grove or another reputable source before posting "facts" on this list. I'm happy to read everyone's opinions, but pure inaccuracy does rile me.

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (November 26, 2003):
[To Douglas S. Armine] I would rethink that. Either that or write your own Music History textbook. Any of the ones used in Collegate level says that there was always a Keyboard instrument in the Continuo. These were used to supply the Chord Harmonization.

As to the Lute, it was more used in Italian Secular music, not in German music, as a Continuo instrument. The only times I have heard of or seen in scores a Lute used in German music was as a solo instrument or as a "Liuto et Continuo" situation. I would site Heinechen's works here as an example. In a recording I have (on the Delta [Laserlight] label in a set called "Classical Christmas") they have a recording of a Heinichen Orchestral work with a Lute and a Continuo section (which does not include the Lute, but uses a Harpsichord).

Bradley Lehman wrote (November 26, 2003):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < (in retort to Douglas Amrine):
< I would rethink that. Either that or write your own Music History textbook. Any of the ones used in Collegate level says that there was always a Keyboard instrument in the Continuo. These were used to supply the Chord Harmonization. >
David, you are the one writing your own Music History textbook...as a particularly wild book of fiction. If you didn't pay attention at the "Collegate" (sic) level, that is not Douglas' fault (or anyone else's). Douglas knows what he is talking about. And his "health warning" about your postings is a good one.

By the way, I thought your "You are way off base" comment to Carol was impertinent: especially so, coming from a person whose familiarity with the base is...um...imaginative.


The point of recits

Bradley Lehman wrote (November 22, 2003):
< In the case of the sacred cantata secco recitatives, how anyone can claim that often quite long passages of virtually unaccompanied, rhythm-less, theme-less, solo singing are in any way attractive, in the sublime context of the sacred cantatas, is beyond me. (I said virtually unaccompanied, but in reality it's worse, with short, ugly stabs at chords on cellos, and chamber organs that often sound as if they have less power than a recorder). >
The answer, as you have undoubtedly heard many times before (I know I've said it, as have other people, on both lists), is a simple one. Those recitatives were never supposed to sound like melodies and themes; nor were they necessarily intended to be especially attractive in themselves. They are heightened emotional speech, a declamation of the message of the words. Prettified music gets in the way of that directness of the message. The point is to have the listener get the meaning and emotional impact of THE WORDS, not be comfortable in pleasant music.

What do you think of Heinrich Schütz' St Matthew Passion, all unaccompanied?

Charles Francis wrote (November 22, 2003):
Bradley Lehman wrote: < What do you think of Heinrich Schütz' St Matthew Passion, all unaccompanied? >
I once had to sit through the whole thing during a concert in Austria. It taught me a great deal about overrated composers and the relative weakness of early 'Germanic' choral music.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 22, 2003):
Brad asked: >>What do you think of Heinrich Schütz' St Matthew Passion, all unaccompanied?<<
Charles answered: >>I once had to sit through the whole thing during a concert in Austria. It taught me a great deal about overrated composers and the relative weakness of early 'Germanic' choral music.<<
According to Hans Hoffmann [MGG, 1986]:
>>Der im 14. Jh. durch Vortragszeichen besonders abgestufte verschiedene Vortrag der Beteiligten: Erzähler, der spätere Evangelist, der celeriter (fließend) zu singen, zu rezitieren hat, vom Diakon übernommen, die Worte Christi, tarde (also langsam) vom Sacerdos vorgetragen, und die anderen Einzelpersonen mit suprema vox (heftig, laut) vom Subdiakon, die turbae (der Haufe, das Volk) später vom Chor gesungen - atmet dramatisches Leben. Letzte Blüte dieser Passionsdarstellung ist dann Schützens Werk (Matthäus-, Johannes- und Lukaspassion).<<

{
My free translation - corrections and/or additions are welcome}("In the 14th century [regarding the presentations of Passions in a church setting], dramatic effects were achieved ['dramatic life was breathed into the performances'] by using special designations for the various levels of those participating: the narrator, who later was called the Evangelist, was sung or recited flowingly by the Deacon, the words of Christ, slowly by the Sacerdos, the other individuals (disciples, etc.) by the Subdeacons in a loud voice, and finally the turbae (the throng, the masses) sung later by the choir. The SMP, SJP and SLP by Schütz constitute the end of the line of development (dead end; 'the last blossoming forth') of this type of Passion presentation.")

This attempt by Brad to make a meaningful connection here between the performance practices of Schütz and Bach in this regard ('unaccompanied') illustrates once again how willing he is to overlook the results of musicological research by those who have investigated these matters with greater diligence and thoroughness than Brad has.

Brad is once again attempting to lead away from the specific question I posed regarding BWV 243a/10 (not a secco recitative or Evangelist part; also, there is no real bc.) He has the NBA score before him and refuses to explain on what grounds a current HI performance of this music can/may/should shorten drastically the notes which Bach wrote into the score. I await patiently his answer.

Johan van Veen wrote (November 22, 2003):
[To Thomas Braatz] And what do you want to prove by the passage you quote?

The fact that the form remains the same doesn't automatically imply the way it was performed remained the same as well.

There are sources with plainchant repertoire from 18th century France which show ornamentation in the style of French baroque music. That proves that the chants were the same, but the perfwas differe.

There is no reason to exclude the possibility that although Schütz used an ancient form the way that form was practiced and performed was in line with the common habits of his time.

Your quotation does say something about the way the Passion was performed in the Middle Ages, but doesn't say anything about the way the unaccompanied Passion was performed in the 17th century.

This tells a lot about the way you misuse quotations and historical evidence to support your personal viewpoints.

Bradley Lehman wrote (November 22, 2003):
Brad asked: >>What do you think of Heinrich Schütz' St Matthew Passion, all unaccompanied?<<
A Knight of Ni wrote: < This attempt by Brad to make a meaningful connection here between the performance practices of Schütz and Bach in this regard ('unaccompanied') illustrates once again how willing he is to overlook the results of musicological research by those who have investigated these matters with greater diligence and thoroughness than Brad has. >
This is ridiculous. I was simply letting my mind drift idly to another composition that (notably) has all its recitatives unaccompanied. I felt it's an interesting piece for comparison, because the correspondent claimed that the cello/organ punctuation he hears in Bach sounds WORSE than an unaccompanied delivery would sound, in his opinion. That is all.

< Brad is once again attempting to lead away from the specific question I posed regarding BWV 243a/10 (not a secco recitative or Evangelist part; also, there is no real bc.) He has the NBA score before him and refuses to explain on what grounds a current HI performance of this music can/may/should shorten drastically the notes which Bach wrote into the score. I await patiently his answer. >
The director of that recording, Thomas Hengelbrock, knows how to do his job as a musician. There's your answer. There's your shrubbery. If you don't understand musicianship, that is not Hengelbrock's problem. If you really want to know the reasons for his decisions for that movement, you could look him up and ask him. He might be flattered that somebody has listened to his recording and wants to discuss a musical point with him. When you do so, you should probably use conversational German with him, not just a series of "Ni!" "Ni!" interjections about his work. Just a helpful hint there. Maybe you could even get him to give you some free music lessons.

Thomas Braatz wrote (November 23, 2003):
Johan van Veen stated: >>There is no reason to exclude the possibility that although Schütz used an ancient form the way that form was practiced and performed was in line with the common habits of his time.

Your quotation does say something about the way the Passion was performed in the Middle Ages, but doesn't say anything about the way the unaccompanied Passion was performed in the 17th century.<<
Does it make any difference whether the 'recitatives' were recited or sung in the time of Schütz? If you read more carefully, you will see that there are some subtle indications by Hoffmann when he uses the word 'later' twice. This implies that the movement/development over time was away from recitation to a more musical form of presentation. All that seems to matter here is that the recitatives may have been unaccompanied by a bc, a tradition which ended with Schütz (a dead end!).

Brad Lehman stated in this regard: >>Those recitatives were never supposed to sound like melodies and themes; nor were they necessarily intended to be especially attractive in themselves. They are heightened emotional speech, a declamation of the message of the words.<<
The quotation by Hoffmann summarizes the stream of development which began in the Middle Ages and essentially came to a dead end with Schütz. The emphasis here is upon the recitation/singing divided among the various levels/roles in the performance of a Passion. What this quote does not include are the indications of another tradition (not via Schütz) which reaches a high point in Bach. I am certain, Johan, if this interests you, or anyone else, you will be able to find more information on this subject in musical dictionaries/references under the heading 'Passions.'

Brad seems to be hinting as well at another (Monteverdi-Schütz) connection (music as speech, with speech over-emphasized -- a tradition which you, Johann, believe that the musicological experts have amply proven to have been intended by Bach for use in performing his sacred music). I do not share your belief in this matter. The reason that I quoted this source was to show that there is no easy way to jump from the performance practices of Schütz in his Passions to the performance practices which Bach intended in his secco recitatives, particularly in as far as Bach's Passions are concerned.

Bradley Lehman wrote (November 23, 2003):
A Knight of Ni wrote: < Brad seems to be hinting as well at another Monteverdi-Schütz) connection (music as speech, with speech over-emphasized -- a tradition which you, Johann, believe that the musicological experts have amply proven to have been intended by Bach for use in performing his sacred music). I do not share your belief in this matter. >
Try rotating your ankh 38.2 degrees toward the northeast, after first getting your basic sight-line established toward Rosslyn. Then your reception will be clearer. Oh, and don't forget to adjust for the Coriolis effect; that's something novices often overlook, but must be accounted for.

Hope this helps,

Matthew Neugebauer wrote (November 23, 2003):
[To Thomas Braatz] I never liked the "tirades" of rebuttals that may come on this list, but I fear I must take part in one-

< The quotation by Hoffmann summarizes the stream of development which began in the Middle Ages and essentially came to a dead end with Schütz. The emphasis here is upon the recitation/singing divided among the various levels/roles in the performance of a Passion. What this quote does not >include are the indications of another tradition (not via Schütz) which reaches a high point in Bach. I am certain, Johan, if this interests you, or anyone else, you will be able to find more information on this subject in musical dictionaries/references under the heading 'Passions.'

Brad seems to be hinting as well at another (Monteverdi-Schütz) connection (music as speech, with speech over-emphasized -- a tradition which you, Johann, believe that the musicological experts have amply proven to have been intended by Bach for use in performing his sacred music). I do not share your belief in this matter. The reason that I quoted this source was to show that there is no easy way to jump from the performance practices of Schütz in his Passions to the performance practices which Bach intended in his secco recitatives, particularly in as far as Bach's Passions are concerned. >
I wonder: who, in fact, bears the herring?

Besides, I disagree with the very idea that the tradition of passion presentation stopped with Schütz-especially in the treatment of the evangelist and the crowd. Those conventions (even though they are accompanied, the ideas and functions are still there) are quite evident in Bach and Handel (and I'm guessing Telemann etc.), and fade out from there, not from Schütz. They even stretch down to Mendelssohn's oratorios!

Matt, who has recitatives at the top of his guilty pleasure list!

Juozas Rimas wrote (November 23, 2003):
The point of recits (arioso?)

Bradley Lehman wrote: << In the case of the sacred cantata secco recitatives, how anyone can claim that often quite long passages of virtually unaccompanied, rhythm-less, theme-less, solo singing are in any way attractive, in the sublime context of the sacred cantatas, is beyond me. (I said virtually unaccompanied, but in reality it's worse, with short, ugly stabs at chords on cellos, and chamber organs that often sound as if they have less power than a recorder). >>
< The answer, as you have undoubtedly heard many times before (I know I've said it, as have other people, on both lists), is a simple one. Those recitatives were never supposed to sound like melodies and themes; nor were they necessarily intended to be especiallattractive in thems. They are heightened emotional speech, a declamation of the message of the words. Prettified music gets in the way of that directness of the message. The point is to have the listener get the meaning and emotional impact of THE WORDS, not be comfortable in pleasant music. >
What about "arioso" recitatives? On the one hand, they aren't as pretty as the arias/choruses but are more prettified than secco recitatives. If their point is to deliver a message as well, why is music included?

BTW, to me some of Bach's arioso recitatives are more interesting than some of his arias. My favorite arioso recitatives - off the top of my head - are Ich stehe fertig und bereit from BWV 56, Erwaege doch from BWV 80, So geh herein zu mir from BWV 140 and especially the bass recitatives in the SMP (BWV 244).

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (November 23, 2003):
[To Charles Francis] If that is your view, I would think about what list you are on. Schütz is very much a part of Bach's musical heritage.

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (November 23, 2003):
[To Thomas Braatz] I think that the point that was made, though, is entirely valid.

I think here people are getting something mixed up:

In Bach's Sacred Vokalwerke, Bach uses 2 types of Recitative.

1.) Recitativo secco. This is very much like the Recitatives in the Vokalwerke of Schütz and Evangelical composers of his time, the only difference being that it is supported by Continuo. The point of these movements was not "emotional" but rather to move the story along. That is why in the Sacred Vokalwerke most of these movements were either Bible passages or the movement for the Evangelist.

2.) Recitativo Accompognato (this is what I think most of the posts are aiming at). This was usually included in the "Madrigal" movements in Bach's Sacred Vokalwerke. These were accompanied by various instruemtns and Continuo. These were not present in Schütz's Vokalwere and those of his contemporaries. These were intended to comment on the action previously described in the preceding Recitativo secco.

Charles Francis wrote (November 24, 2003):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < Schütz is very much a part of Bach's musical heritage. >
Do you have any specific evidence for that assertion?

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (November 24, 2003):
[To Charlez Francis] Firstly, one should examine the history of Protestant Church music.

Fromthe time of Luther, there has been a stream of Composer/Musicians. Johann Walther and Leonhard Lechner are examples of this stream. Their Passions have no instrumental accomapiment and no interspersing of Choraele and Arien with the story. These also begin with and end with exhortations to meditation on the events of the Gospel. I would also point out here that the same goes for the Chrsitmas, Resurrection, and Ascnesion "Historiae" as well. This line was epitomized with the works of Schütz. At the time of Schütz, a movement was going on to expand these forms and to add instruments. By the mid-17th century, the "modern" Passion form was starting to congeal. This was aided in large part by the new proliferation of meditative writings coming out in response to the Pietist movement. Thus in the 1670s Johann Sebastiani was able to write a Matthaeuspassion that combined both elements together. Also adding to this was the influence on Oratorios from the other Italian musical form that sprung up at the same time as the Oratorio: the Opera. All these elements came together in the Oratorios of the early 18th century. Add to this the sacred literature being written under the influence of the Enlightenment and the various Passionsdichte (Passion Poems) being written, such as the one dating from about 1712 and revised in about 1725 by the Hamburg Councillor Barthold Heinrich Brockes "Der für die Suende der Welt gemarterte und sterbende Jesus aus den vier Evangelisten".

So, to conclude, as an Evangelical musician, Schütz (and Praetorious) were a milestone in the continuous evolution of Sacred Music in theEvangelical lands. To say that he was a musical "dead end" would (to me) be a fallicy since his is the bedstone that most Evangelical musicians built on.

Charles Francis wrote (November 25, 2003):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < Firstly, one should examine the history of Protestant Church music. >
But do you have any specific evidence that Bach ever heard or performed a work by Schütz?

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (November 25, 2003):
[To Charles Francis] His Motteten were still part of the musical staple in Electoral Saxony.

Besides, even if he did not perform or hear does not mean that he was not familiar. There is no evidence of him performing the Fiori Musicali or works by Palestrina, but there is evidence he was familiar with the works (i.e., the fact that he had a copy of the Fiori Musicali).

As I said, Schütz was not a "dead end" but a "cornerstone" for post-Renaissance Evangelical musicians to build on. Evangelical Sacred music is an evolving, not a stagnant, art. In fact, one might argue that Schütz was the Bach of his times. He was the synthesizer of all Evangelical musical knowledge up to his point and time, where as many of his exact contemporaries (i.e., Samuel Scheidt, Heinrich Scheidemann, etc.) were the forebearers of the new style.

Charles Francis wrote (November 25, 2003):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] So no evidence Bach heard Schütz, then?

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (November 26, 2003):
[To Charles Francis] Read the first part of the post again.

Charles Francis wrote (November 26, 2003):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] Who did the research to establish the "Motteten were still part of the musical staple in Electoral Saxony" at Bach's time and where were these results published?

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (November 27, 2003):
[To Charles Francis] Any of the articles written about Bach and his time show that Motteten were part of the Gottesdienstordnung of Leipzig during his tenure. As he wrote 9, and those mostly for what we call "Occasional music", there must be situations where he used Schütz's Motteten, as well as those of other composers.

In addition, while reading the introduction to the section in the booklet that came with the sampler CD for the Edition Bachakademie set by Hänssler Verlag, I found a discussion about Schütz's Motteten and the instrumentation Bach used in his own Motteten.

Charles Francis wrote (November 27, 2003):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < Any of the articles written about Bach and his time show that Motteten were part of the Gottesdienstordnung of Leipzig during his tenure. >
Well that would certainly provide evidence that motets were part of the Leipzig church service during Bach's tenure. But are you really sure this is true of any article about Bach and his time?

[By the way, did you know that Bach chose to replace the inherited archive (containing works by Schütz) with his own collection which apparently didn't contain any works by Schütz?]

< As he wrote 9, and those mostly for what we call "Occasional music", there must be situations where he used Schütz's Motteten, as well as those of other composers. >
I don't follow your syllogism here, I'm afraid.

< In addition, while reading the introduction to the section in the > booklet that came with the sampler CD for the Edition Bachakademie > set by Haenssler Verlag, I found a discussion about Schütz's > Motteten and the instrumentation Bach used in his own Motteten. >
And what was the substance of that discussion?

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (November 29, 2003):
[To Charles Francos] The point of Part II was that since he (Bach, that is) only wrote 9 Motteten (and these only for certain occasions [hence "Occasional Music"]), and that Motteten were a part of the liturgical observances in his post, Bach would have had opportunity, nay a duty, to use the Motteten of other composers (Schuetz being one) to fulfill this aspect of his performance duties required in his post. For instance, all the research (both popular and professional) that I have read about the Karfritag Vespers say that one of the oblig works performed was the Mot"Ecce quomodo moritur" by Jakob Handl (a.k.a. Gallus).

As for Part III, the substance of the discussion was an overview of the total Mottet output. The part specifically mentioning Schütz (in particular his introduction to Geistliche Chormusik of 1648) was that, like Schütz himself, Bach employed instruments (or at least Continuo instruments) in his Motteten. Also like Schütz, Bach followed in the Central German tradition of Doppelchoere Motteten. The divergence is the formal structure of Bach's Motteten.

Charles Francis wrote (December 2, 2003):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] This is fair enough as long as we are careful to distinguish between speculation and establshed fact. Personally, I have all the surviving Motteten from Schuetz (Kanbenchor performance), his Matthew Passion (BWV 244) and many other works. Today, we can listen to these works with objectivity, but for Bachs generation they must have sounded very old fashioned indeed. No doubt, that is why Bach chose to replace the old collection at the Thomaschule (containing Schuetz and others) with his own acquisitions.

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (December 3, 2003):
[To Charles Francis] Actually, I have not heard or read anywhere where Bach replaced anyof the Thomaskirche and Thomasschule music library repertoire with his own acquisitions. The stuff I was talking about was in his (Bach's) own personal library.

Charles Francis wrote (December 3, 2003):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] I believe I read it in the famous book of C. Wolff.


‘Secco’

Bradley Lehman wrote (December 4, 2003):
Thomas Braatz wrote: < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BachRecordings/message/11879
...in which he complained once again about the word "secco". >
Give it a rest, Tom. As you almost certainly already know (and should know if you've read the articles I recommended, having had several years of opportunity to do so), the word "secco" never has been a cornerstone of the argument in deciding how to play the music properly.

You can't simply assassinate the word "secco" (the same way you regularly try to assassinate characters living and dead, and any written evidence that contradicts your foregone conclusions) to prove that the practice--whatever it has ever been called--never existed in Bach's milieu. The attempted destruction of evidence is a faulty method of argumentation; nor would it work anyway, since the evidence is so extensive.

"Secco" is just a convenient modern term (borrowed from operatic practice, 17th and early 18th century forward) to describe what is happening in the music.

It does not matter one dingdong what Bach called that sound (the default recitative texture where a clarifying word such as accompagnato is absent, and where there are no notated lines other than the continuo and voice); the nomenclature alone does not suddenly make us perform it one way or another. We don't have to first write in the word "secco" and then decide what "secco" means and then play that way. That's silly.

The correct way is to play musically and tastefully according to the declamation of the text: and (crucially) to understand that that musical solution (historically) allows notes to be shortened from the way they look on the page. Get that point. Nobody has commanded that they must be shortened. They may be shortened and it's a valid practice, especially as a way of giving the text (which is paramount) the greatest clarity. Get that point. A performer must recognize what the musical texture IS in content and form, and then behave according to what that notation meant to the composer and his musicians. Get that point.

It has been said a hundred times already and yet you still have not got it; you keep refusing to believe anything that disagrees with what you think you see in the scores. Well, your way of reading the scores is based on incomplete information, and you have consistently refused to entertain seriously any counsel in this regard. So, stop begging for counsel and correction (with your false humility) if you're not going to listen to it.

This has gone on way, way, way too long in argumentation against a person who refuses to read or believe scholarly work. Give it a rest, Tom, and go read the scholarly work. Stop thinking of musicology as a vast conspiracy, or a bandwagon, or a club of mysterious initiates: something that you can supposedly knock down through enough repetitive yammering and enough assassination of evidence and characters. Give it a rest. You're certainly welcome to be wrong and obstinate for as long as you want to be; you live in a free country, and you can buy whatever books and recordings you fancy. Enjoy! But as for your whining that sufficient evidence doesn't exist: give it a rest, go enroll in university in musicology, and learn how scientific inquiry in this field works. And check your obstinacy at the door.

Performance practice is all about good taste, and about presenting the music clearly. Geminiani in one of his treatises (not that this has any direct bearing on Bach or recitatives) had a phrase for a person in your position. He said that good Taste is "expressing with Strength and Delicacy the Intention of the Composer. This Expression is what every one should endeavour to acquire, and it may be easily obtained by any Person, who is not too fond of his own Opinion, and doth not obstinately resist the Force of true Evidence."

You might not like what professional musicians do _in good taste_ and in good faith, with the Force of true Evidence in hand. Fine. You're welcome not to fancy it, and you're welcome to take your business (as a consumer) elsewhere. But your dislike is not the same thing as proof that the practice itself is categorically wrong. Get that point.

Nor can you, without training and experience directly in the field of historical performance practice, properly lecture us about how we should do our jobs! That is what you keep doing, being too fond of your own Opinion, but give it a rest! You've told us what you as a consumer prefer, loud and clear; but you're casting it as if you
have the only possible truth, and as if everybody who is a specialist in this field is incompetent, both as scholars and as musicians. That is, quite simply, wrong! Get that point.

There went another coffee break shot to hell. None of this does any good.

For anybody who missed the previous positive materials about this topic, or who cares about anything besides "who's right and who's wrong", I have a practical summary of recitative practice here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/recits.htm

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (December 5, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] Not that I agree or disagree with the position you stated in this post, but I have a question:

Why do you even bring up "Secco" vs. "Accompognato" in this post? If what you are talking about is the playing of the Continuo, why bring up these terms, which have nothing to do with the playing of the Continuo, but with the accompaniament (Orchestral vs. just Continuo)?

Bradley Lehman wrote (December 5, 2003):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] David, good point. This is not only about plain or simple recitative. The bass notes of the continuo can also be played shorter than notated, occasionally, while other instruments are playing in the "Accompagnato" type of recitative. Nobody has said they couldn't or shouldn't, except Mr Braatz. Normal musicianship indeed makes that shortening a viable option, in many places and not only in recitative; for continuo players and for everybody else as well!

It is all part of playing the music clearly, in various building acoustics, and in various liturgical or dramatic situations, and with various skill levels of singers and players. Bass notes ring longer in resonant spaces, and so it is often a very good idea to play them much shorter than notated so the sound will not be muddy where the listeners are. It is simply a very good and practical technique to lighten things up a bit, letting bits of silence be part of the music, wherever there is any dangof obscuring the words, or obscuring the primary melodic lines of the music. This is basic, sensitive, practical musicianship. Good musicians knew it hundreds of years ago, and good musicians know it now. It is all about listening closely at every moment, and not being too glued to the reading of the page.

All these occasions to shorten notes involve musical decisions by experience, and by knowing what was acceptable to Bach and his people (i.e. the historical angle)...knowing the range of interpretive options within the notation, and learning to read the notation as what they meant it to say. That is, learning the writing and reading habits which have changed between then and now, and recognizing the difference.

It is Mr Braatz who wishes us to believe that notes can never be shortened anywhere in Bach's music, and especially where it is customary to do so in that plainest type of recitative (with no other instruments but continuo), the most exposed situation. He wishes us to believe that all the expert researchers and performers are wrong about the existence of that option to play the notes short, in Bach's music-making (historically); and that only Mr Braatz' own style of reading music (i.e. play every note to full value because the page says so) can be the "correct" one.

In effect, Mr Braatz punishes Bach for being (supposedly) lazy or imprecise with notation: for not notating completely the level of silence that Bach normally expected performers to employ during performance.

Perhaps you should take this up with Mr Braatz. He certainly has shown no desire to listen to anything I have counseled in this matter, except to try to shoot it down by any desperate means he can find. Nor has he been willing to believe the books and articles that have been helpfully offered to him; or to listen to the practical experience of musicians. He just tries to "prove" that almost everybody in the field of musicology is wrong or misled (or just plain incompetent and dull-witted), and to "prove" that he is right, against all the historical and musical evidence that is presented.

Mr Braatz would rather hold Bach to strict and stiff notational standards (his own anachronistic expectation that any silences must be written-out), than to let performers do their jobs, and to let music-lovers hear all the options of effective musicianship: performers using their (our) ears and brains and experience.

Good luck with him. Warning: wear gloves. He'll try to bite your hands off.

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (December 5, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] OK, let's put your position to the test. How would you treat the Recitatives of the Johannespassion, and particularly Nr. 2a, with its ties all over the place?

Charles Francis wrote (December 5, 2003):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] I imagine left to his own devices Brad will completely ignore the ties Bach wrote, treating them as if Bach had notated rests. Moreover, since the ties are interpreted as rests, he'll also ignore the figured base Bach notated - interpreting it as a John Cage silence. This he believes is Historically Informed Practice, although he readily admits none of it can be proved empirically. In the presence of reasonable people (and polite company), he may moderate his extreme position somewhat, to appear more reasonable and win the crowd as it were. He'll probably get upset with email (although no offence is intended) and respond with an emotional outburst or ad hominem.

Bradley Lehman wrote (December 5, 2003):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < OK,let's put your position to the test. How would you treat the Recitatives of the Johannespassion, and particularly Nr. 2a, with its ties all over the place? >
The short answer is: musically.

The longer answer is: musically. I ask the Evangelist and the conductor how they plan to put the music across most strongly and clearly in the given room, and with the Evangelist's style of singing. (Experience, strength of voice, etc.) Then I match the interpretation of the basso continuo line to accomplish that goal, in the situation.

When I performed the SJP in Michigan (playing organ continuo in it), we had a very good Evangelist who had already sung the piece at least a dozen times, and who had conducted it all himself. Extremely well-prepared: a top professional hired in for the occasion. And the conductor was a remarkably enterprising doctoral student, in conducting, with strong musical instincts and experience: pulling together a choir, soloists, and hiring an orchestra for the experience of conducting a large Bach work. (Amazing project, at his personal initiative and expense, for his doctoral study.)

Working with these gentlemen, interpretively it was all very easy. We discussed the piece before rehearsal. Then in rehearsal, to demonstrate, the Evangelist conducted the continuo accompaniment himself, with his hand, to match his delivery: sometimes giving us brisk and short strokes, other times broader and gentler: always matching the level of accent and punctuation to the meaning of the words, and to the rhythmic flexibility of his singing. It was all perfectly clear and not a problem. Some notes short, others long, no matter how they looked on the page. And the performance came out beautifully, too: the conductor and we continuo players simply followed the Evangelist's strong declamation of the text, and played accordingly (with varied amounts of accent and weight), using our ears and experience.

Not that I expect this practical musical explanation to satisfy any of the hyper-literalists among us, but that's all you get.

=====

Here's a counter-question to the hyper-literalists. Fermatas in Bach's "Orgelbüchlein" obviously mark the phrase endings (i.e. places to lift for a "breath" on the organ), and appear in almost every one of those pieces, regularly at the end of each phrase of the chorale melody. Take a look. (I have Breitkopf's Urtext, #6587, edited by Lohmann; it's also clear in the reproduced facsimiles of the autograph MS, in the front of the edition.) And, in BWV 629 ("Erschienen ist der herrliche Tag") Bach has those markings also in the pedal, since the chorale is being played in canon: the phrase-endings are marked with fermatas down there, too. Ditto for BWV 633 and 634: canonic chorale in soprano and alto, both marked with fermatas.

But, your expectation from other (later) music is probably that a fermata ("birds-eye" or "corona") symbol means a note should be held longer than normally, while here in context it appears to mean the opposite: notes at those phrase-endings must be played shorter than notated (lifting off early to make the phrasing clear), while other parts continue to flow forward in tempo.

How do you reconcile this, without discarding your notion of literalism in note-lengths in Bach's notation? Don't you agree that we have to read music in the way Bach meant his notation, and not just automatically read generic expectations into what we see?

Johan van Veen wrote (December 5, 2003):
Bradley Lehman wrote: Working with these gentlemen, interpretively it was all very easy. We discussed the piece before rehearsal. Then in rehearsal, to demonstrate, the Evangelist conducted the continuo accompaniment himself, with his hand, to match his delivery: sometimes giving us brisk and short strokes, other times broader and gentler: always matching the level of accent and punctuation to the meaning of the words, and to the rhythmic flexibility of his singing. It was all perfectly clear and not a problem. Some notes short, others long, no matter how they looked on the page. And the performance came out beautifully, too: the conductor and we continuo players simply followed the Evangelist's strong declamation of the text, and played accordingly (with varied amounts of accent and weight), using our ears and experience. >
In an essay on the basso continuo practice of the baroque by a Dutch musicologist I found a quotation which prescribes exactly what has been described here. It is from David Keller (Treulicher Unterricht im Generalbass, 1732):

"Anlangend die Music so muss der General-Bassiste wissen: dass sich der Vocaliste niemahls an dTact binde, sondern seine Freyheit brauche, dannenhero die Singe-Stimme allemahl über den General-Bass geschrieben zu seyn pfleget, damit der Accompagniste sich darnach richten und nachgeben könne".

My translation:
"As far as the music is concerned, the basso continuo player should know that the singer never sticks to the beat, but needs his freedom. Therefore the vocal part is usually written out completely above the basso continuo, so the basso continuo player can follow it and obey it".

Bradley Lehman wrote (December 5, 2003):
Johan van Veen wrote: < In an essay on the basso continuo practice of the baroque by a Dutch musicologist I found a quotation which prescribes exactly what has been described here. It is from David Keller (Treulicher Unterricht im Generalbass, 1732) (...) >
Part of that 1732 Kellner source (from Hamburg) is also cited in Peter Williams' article (1969), for a different point: that it was acceptable and normal accompaniment practice to lift off the right hand earlier than the bass sometimes, as an option. All very practical stuff, really: admonitions to keyboard players go by what sounds good in the occasion, balancing the texture.

Nor am I going to explain Williams' use of it, or his context; interested potential nay-sayers will have to go look up the [copyrighted] article to see what he said first, i.e. go do their homework, if they wish to try to shoot it down.

Anyway: now, I expect, we will see a frantic attempt by someone here to knock off Kellner: either ad hominem or to show some other irrelevance of his wisdom, the same way a character-assassination attempt was made on Daube (and duly addressed on my page). Will it be geography, style, Kellner's presumed mental capacity, Kellner's presumed dishonesty, sacred vs secular mumbo jumbo, or some other strategy this time?

Interestingly, Kellner's piece was also available soon thereafter translated to Swedish (1739) and Dutch (1741). Got around.

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (December 5, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] I see your point here.

I have played a lot of Bach Orgelwerke, and the problem with your statement is that it is not always true whither Bach put ther fermata. A perfect example is the Tokkate d-Moll BWV 565. Here there is an overabundance of fermatas.

As to performance, Ithink thatit would depend on the performer. Bach (unlike many of his conemporaries and successors in the field of Klavier- and Orgelwerke) was more loose in the field of ornamentation (which would include fermatas as well as things like trills, etc.). That is to say, he was more for improvisation in performance of these works. Therefore whilst I might hold them longer (which, I think and find, adds more to the beauty and power of the work), others might shorten.

Case in point: the first note in the Tokkate d-Moll BWV 565 is an eighth note with a trill and fermata over it. I would play an extended (very lengthy) trill on that note. Other would do a very short play of that note and overextend the rest. In other words, I would overextend what the fermata is over, not what is next to it.

I would (somewhat) apply the same to Bach's Vokalwerke. The push for equal time for every note is not necessarily what Bach writes into his music. Also (especially when it comes to the Choraele) it leads to a false sense of the music.

Case in point: the Choraele "Herzliebster Jesu, was hast du verbrochen" in the Johannespassion (BWV 245) and "O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden" are isorhythmic, yet (especially the latter) are performed very evenly. And in the latter even Bach is somewhat at fault. He makes it (the Choral) in common time (which it is in the 3rd line of the Choral) throughout the Choral instead of changing the tempo (which the actual tune does). He saves himself somewhat by placing the fermatas at the end of each line, but still the true rhythm is offset. He does better in the former (especially in the first Choral of the Johannespassion, which comes from v. 7 of the Choral), but instead of placing the longer value on the first word ("O"), he shifts it to the third ("Lieb")and does not even put a longer value on the beginning of the 2nd line ("die"), the 3rd ("Ich"), and the last ("und"). He also shifts the tempo of this Choral as well. He evens it out instead of treating it in its truer tempo.



Continue on Part 10


Articles: The “Shortening of the Supporting Notes” in the Bc of Bach’s ‘Secco’ Recitatives [Thomas Braatz] | Playing Plain Recitative in Bach's Vocal Works [Bradley Lehman]
Discussions of Recitatives:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Continuo in Bach’s Vocal Works: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

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: ýJanuary 29, 2005 ý15:30:54