|
|
Cantata BWV 135
Ach Herr, mich armen Sünder
Discussions - Part 5 |
|
Continue from Part 4 |
|
Discussions in the Week of October 3, 2026 (5th round)
Cantata BWV 135 ‘Ach Herr, mich armen Sünder’ by Rudolf Lutz compared to 5 other HIP and 1 OVPP recordings. |
|
Frits V. Herbold wrote (September 27, 2026):
The BCW shows 25 recordings so far for this chorale cantata for the 3rd. Sunday after Trinity, starting with a very early recording from 1931 (!) with Karl Straube and many other with famous directors from the 50ies and 60ies as Max Thurn and Wolfgang Gönnenwein (not discussed here) and ending with very recent renditions (2023), many of them only available on YouTube, but neither discussed here.
BWV 135 is the 26th cantata of Rudolf Lutz’s cycle, recorded live at the Evangelic Church in Trogen, on Friday, June 26, 2009 – as usual on the 3rd. Sunday after Trinity in that year. See also the Bachipidia Bachipedia with links to the concert (YouTube), workshop and reflexion. The names of all performers, including all choristers can also be found there. See also my general comments about the Lutz cycle at Rudolf Luts - Discussions Part 1.
Scoring: see NBA: I/16, BC: A 100 and Bach Digital: Bach Digital :
Alt solo, Tenor solo, Bass solo, Sopran, Alt, Tenor, Bass, Cornetto, Trombone, Oboe I, Oboe II, Violine I, Violine II, Viola, Basso continuo
Note: although the original score is extant, this is misleading, since the original parts are lost and we can’t be sure there were original parts for both soloists and ripienists, although they might have existed. Therefore, the OVPP version recorded by Kuijken makes sense. On the other side, I think that Bach’s choir in Leipzig had at least ripienists for movements 1 and 6, both titled ‘chorales’.
Remarks:
1. The NBA I/16 with its ‘Kritischer Bericht’ (critical report) was only published in 1984 (main editor Paul Brainard), meaning that it was only available to conductors after Leusink (not for Leonhardt).
2 Key, Pitch and Temperament. All recordings discussed here are performed in E Minor at the Leipzig Cammerton pitch of a’ = 415 Hz. Lutz uses Young’s or Vallotti’s temperament.
Introduction Cantata BWV 135 by Alfed Dürr (from ‘ The Cantatas of J. S. Bach’ ):
‘This chorale cantata, which was performed for the first time on 25 June 1724, is based on the hymn with the same opening line by Cyriakus Schneegaß (1597), a free paraphrase of Psalm 6. The text is only loosely related to the Sunday readings. The reflection that the Lord comforts us (no. 3) and will strike down our enemies (no. 5) is linked to the Epistle. The most important theme, however— the one that led to the choice of this hymn— is to be found at the end of the Gospel reading: Thus I say to you that there shall be joy before the angels of God over a single sinner who repents’ (Luke 15.10). Thus the repentance of the sinner is the subject of the chorale and accordingly of Bach’s cantata too. The anonymous author who was responsible for the cantata text retained verses I and 6 of the hymn word for word in the first and last movements and paraphrased the four middle verses to form an equal number of recitatives (nos. 2 and 4) and arias (nos. 3 and 5).’
Remarks:
· I don’t think IMHO that any HIP recording with relatively large choirs for movements 1 and 6 are really ‘historically inspired’, considering Bach’s own choir size in Leipzig. In my comments I am including some of such recordings because of their soloists (see below).
· Total times vary around one and a half minutes between the fastest at 14:07 (Suzuki) and slowest 16:33 (Gardiner).
Movement 1: Chorale, S, A, T, B, Oboes I and II, Trombone, Strings and BC
Introduction Cantata BWB 135,1 by Alfed Dürr (from ‘ The Cantatas of J. S. Bach’ ):
‘In his setting, Bach had to observe the scheme he had devised himself, according to which the opening movement of this fourth chorale cantata of the cycle would have the chorale melody in the bass and would differ in structure from the three that preceded it. Bach chose a type probably best described as ‘chorale fantasia’, which differs from the concertante type (with independent, thematic instrumental parts) favored by him elsewhere in respect of its contrapuntal structure. This allows all parts, both vocal and instrumental, to share in the chorale theme. All eight chorale lines are treated in like manner in an instrumental fore-structure and an ensuing vocal section, which exhibit the following characteristics: Instrumental fore-structure: three parts (without continuo): oboe I, II and unison strings. Chorale-line melody in long notes (essentially minims and crotchets) in the strings; counterpoints in the oboes, largely constructed out of the opening line in diminished note-values (quavers), which is retained as counter subject throughout all the lines. Afterwards (before the last line) this counter subject figure is taken over by the strings. Vocal section: four parts, with the oboes resting and the other instruments doubling the voices. Towards the end, enhancement by the addition of the oboes and temporary expansion of the texture to six parts. Chorale melody in long notes in the bass, reinforced by continuo and trombone. Again, diminution* of the first chorale line as countersubject. Some aspects of this scheme are modified in the various line sections as and where necessary. For example, the melody of the penultimate chorale line in the bass, to the words ‘Daß ich mag ewig leben’ (That I may live forever’), is augmented to dotted minims— an alteration no doubt motivated by the text. In addition, the instrumental fore-structure and the vocal section are often not sharply demarcated. But altogether the underlying structure is clearly perceptible. From it the movement acquires motet-like characteristics and also a latent antiphony through the stark contrast between the high pitch of the instrumental fore-structure and the markedly low pitch of the vocal section, with its bass cantus firmus reinforced by trombone.’
Remarks:
· I am commenting on size and performances of the choirs as well on the instrumental playing of strings, both oboes and trombone and BC.
· Total times vary around a minute and half; the fastest at 4:47 (Leonhardt) and slowest at 5:24 (Kuijken).
Leonhard (03-1983): uses boy’s voices (sopranos and altos) from the Knabenchor Hannover (see BCW) and men’s voice (tenors and basses) from the Collegium Vocale Gent (see BCW) (leader: Herreweghe!). Although his liner notes are very detailed in most cases, I didn’t find correct size of both choirs, but assume at least 6 choristers per part, which is far too large IMHO. At the other hand these boy’s and men’s voices are closer to Bach’s Thomaner Choir. Nevertheless I like this rendition with the excellent playing of the original 2 oboes and trombone as well as the string section (4 first violins, 4 second violins and 2 violas) and BC consisting of violoncello, violone, bassoon and chest organ. Because of the clarity and good technical performance of the choirs, among my first choices
Leusink (04 & 09 -1999): this rendition is very similar to Leonhardt’s scoring, with the boy’s and men’s voices of far too large the Holland Boys Choir (see BCW) with. There are some unsteady voices in higher regions and the movement doesn’t sound as transparent as above (Leonhardt). The string section is very close to Harnoncourt’s above, but the woodwinds and brass are not perceived as transparent as with many other rendition discussed here. Regarding the trombone, the liner notes only inform a horn as brass instrument and the BC consist of 2 violoncellos, , bassoon. I am not sure if the church organ is playing here, as in some other recordings with Leusink. Mostly because of clarity and transparence of both choir and instruments, average in my ranking.
Koopman (03-2000): the size of Kooman’s choir is informed in the BCW: 6 sopranos, 4 altos, 5 tenors and 4 basses as performed in BWV 34 and similar to most newer HIP recordings, although probably still larger than Bach had at his disposition in his second Leipzig years for the chorale cantatas.. The instruments comprise 5 first violins, 4 second violins and 2 violas as well as the originally scored woodwinds (oboes) and brass (trombone). Curiously, the liner notes for this movement also include a cornetto – probably a printing error, since this horn instrument is used only in the final chorale (movement 6), according to the original score. This is a very equilibrated and transparent rendition; everything sounds crystal clear, the entries of both choristers and instruments are perfect. The liner notes also mention a lute in the BC, but I can’t hear it. Among my first choices.
Gardiner (07-2000): with the renowned Monteverdi Choir (see BCW), with 6 sopranos, 4 altos, 4 tenors and 4 basses and instruments according to the original score (4 first, 4 second violins, viola, 2 oboes and trombone (in this case a sackbut - an early form of the trombone used during the Renaissance and Baroque eras) this rendition comes very close to Koopman’s in tempo, and perfect entries but for some reason (recording technique?) not as transparent and clear. Nevertheless, among my first choices, after Koopman.
Suzuki (06-2010): with a choir size very similar to Bach’s Leipziger choir with 3 choristers per parts and an also reduced string section with 3 first violins, 3 second violins and 2 violas this movement is one of the best recordings compared to all others. The reinforcing bass trombone and both oboes contribute to a very clear, crispy and transparent rendition. The BC comprises violoncello, contrabass, bassoon and chest organ (and also harpsichord in movement 2 to 5). Among my first choices, as good as Koopman.
Kuijken (07-2005): OVPP scoring may be questionable for Bach’s later Leipzig years, but as with most OVPP recordings, I like the transparency of the 4 solo choristers and the reduced instrumentation typical with Kuijken. Among my first choices, but after Koopman, Suzuki and Lutz.
Lutz (05-2009): with 3 to 4 choristers per part – very close to Suzuki, but even more reduced strings (only 1 first and 1 second violins and 1 viola) this renditions is also perfect regarding clarity, entries and transparency. My first choice, even before Koopman.
Ranking: with all these superb recordings of this movement, a ranking is not easy and I don’t think even fair IMHO. That’s why they are all very close but with their individual nuances: (1) Lutz = (2) Suzuki = (3) Koopman = (4) Gardiner = (5) Leonhardt = (6) Kuijken - some distance – (7) Leusink
Movement 2: Recitativo, Tenor and BC
and
Movement 3: Aria, Tenor, Oboes I & II and BC
Introduction Cantata BWB 135,2 and 3 by Alfed Dürr (from ‘ The Cantatas of J. S. Bach’ ):
‘The second movement is a secco recitative which gains dramatic force from its striking figurative portrayal of rapid floods, running tears, and vexation. The aria Troste mir, Jesu, mein Gemüte’, no. 3, is one of Bach’s most charming inspirations. The melody of the two obbligato oboes is reminiscent of a dance; and the vocal melody depicts sinking into death, the stillness of death, and the delighted countenance of the text. At the end, to the words ‘so erfreu mein Angesicht’ (‘Then delight my countenance’), we hear the embellished last line of the chorale.’
Remarks:
· I am only commenting on the voices and performances of the tenor soloists in both recitatives and arias. The playing of both oboes and the BC is very similar in all recordings, although some of them use the harpsichord instead / or with the chest organ.
· Total times for the recitative vary around a minute; the fastest at 0:51 (Gardiner) and slowest at 1:13 (Suzuki).
· Total times for the aria vary around 3 minutes; the fastest at 2:56 (Gardiner) and slowest at 3:37 (Suzuki).
Leonhardt (03-1983): Dutch tenor, conductor and music pedagogue, Marius van Altena (see BCW), has a very forceful and elaborated declamation in both recitative and aria. The frequent coloraturas are technically perfect. Among my first choices.
Leusink (06 & 07-2000): German tenor, Knut Schoch (see BCW), reminds van Altena in technique and timbre, certainly at the same level and among my first choices.
Koopman (03-2000): Christoph Prégardien (see BCW) also performs both recitative and aria with perfection but more intimacy and empathy than both tenors commented above. Among my very first choices.
Gardiner ( 07-2000): English tenor, Vernon Kirk (see BCW) has performed tenor solos in many of Gardiners recordings. He performs as well as most tenors discussed here; his very clear timbre sounds even more forceful than with van Altena. Also among my first choices.
Suzuki (06-2004): German veteran tenor, Gerd Türk (see BCW) also sounds perfect in both renditions. With the same empathy and intimacy as with Prégardien, his declamation is technically perfect and most sensitive. At the top of my first choices.
Kuijken (07-2005): German tenor, Christoph Genz (see BCW) has a very distinct – more distinct and lower sounding timbre compared to all other tenors discussed here. With perfect diction, technique and volume also among my first choices.
Rudolf Lutz (06-2009): less well-known and from a younger generation, German tenor, Hans Jörg Mammel (see BCW), has a pleasant and also forceful timbre, but his coloraturas don’t sound as steady and sophisticated IMHO. Among all other excellent tenors at the end of my first choices.
Ranking:
Ranking: again – as with the first movement - all these superb recordings of both movements make a fair ranking very difficult and not easy. That’s why they are all very close but with their individual nuances: (1) Suzuki = (2) Leonhardt = (3) Koopman = (4) Gardiner = (5) Kuijken = (6) Leusink- little distance – (7) Lutz
Movement 4: Recitativo, Alt and BC
Introduction Cantata BWB 135,4 by Alfed Dürr (from ‘ The Cantatas of J. S. Bach’ ):
‘ Again in the following recitative, no. 4, Bach sets the opening words ‘Ich bin von Seufzen müde’ (‘I am weary with my sighing’, a quotation from the fourth verse) to an expressive transformation of the first chorale line, which is then followed by plain secco. The second aria, ‘Weicht, all ihr Übeltäter’, no. 5, is a most impassioned piece, whose bass melody, accompanied by strings, is characterized by rolling passage-work and large intervallic leaps.’
Remarks:
I am only commenting on the voices and performances of the alt soloists in both recitatives and arias. The playing of strings and the BC is very similar in all recordings, although some of them also use the harpsichord instead / or with the chest organ.
· Total times for the recitative vary around a minute; the fastest at 0:47 (Leonhardt and Leusink) and slowest at 1:07 (Koopman, Kuijken and Lutz).
· Total times for the aria vary around 3 minutes; the fastest at 2:41 (Gardiner) and slowest at 3:13 (Koopman and Lutz).
Leonhardt (03-1983): Belgian counter-tenor and conductor René Jacobs (see BCW), has a longstanding experience as Bach alt soloists aswell as conductor in various other recordings. Gustav Leonhardt and Alfred Deller encouraged him to pursue a career as a countertenor, and he quickly became known as one of the best of his time. His timbre reminds Deller himself. His timbre might not be everybody’s taste, but his technique and declamation –is a good example for his art with a steady range – also in the lower registers. Among my first choices for CT’s.
Leusink (06 & 07-2000): Dutch counter-tenor, Sytse Buwalda (see BCW) has a very different and distinct timbre compared to Deller and Jacobs; his alto range sounds higher – probably neither everybody’s taste, but his good technique and declamation still puts him among my first choices for CT’s, although not at the top.
Koopman (03-2000): German mezzo-Soprano, Annette Markert (see BCW), has a very neutral MS timbre, in some instances somewhat operatic. Her declamation in the recitative sounds somewhat exaggerated IMHO, and she ranks as average in my ranking for MS’s
Gardiner ( 07-2000): English counter-tenor, Robin Tyson (see BCW), sounds almost like a women’s mezzo-soprano and could be easily confounded (as an example, his timbre is almost identical to Markert’s, above! Certainly one of my fist choices for CT’s.
Suzuki (06-2004): French counter-tenor, Pascal Bertin (see BCW), sounds like a carbon copy of Tyson, above. Regarding timbre and declamation at the same level, among my first choices for CT’s.
Kuijken (07-2005): Slovak mezzo-soprano, Petra Noskaiová (see BCW), is an experienced MS in many of Kuijken’ s recordings with a very neutral and enjoyable timbre; she is clearly at the top of my ranking of MS’s.
Rudolf Lutz (06-2009): Swiss counter-tenor, Jan Börner (see BCW), represents a younger generation of excellent counter-tenors and is probably the youngest among them in these recordings. His forceful voice and pleasant timbre makes him clearly my first choice among CT’s.
Ranking:
CT’s: (1) Lutz, (2) Gardiner, (3) Suzuki, (4) Leonhardt, (5) Leusink
MS’s: (1) Kuijken, (2) Koopman
Movement 5: Aria, Bass, Strings and BC
Introduction Cantata BWB 135,5 by Alfed Dürr (from ‘ The Cantatas of J. S. Bach’ ):
‘The second aria, ‘Weicht, all ihr Übeltäter’, no. 5, is a most impassioned piece, whose bass melody, accompanied by strings, is characterized by rolling passage-work and large intervallic leaps.’
Remarks:
I am only commenting on the voices and performances of the bass soloists since the playing of strings and the BC is very similar in all recordings, although some of them also use the harpsichord instead / or with the chest organ.
· Total times for the aria vary around 3 minutes; the fastest at 2:41 (Gardiner) and slowest at 3:13 (Koopman and Lutz).
Leonhardt (03-1983): much admired Dutch bass-baritone, Max van Egmond (see BCW), represents the art of a veteran dark bass with a relatively low timbre (especially compared to baritone’s). His technique and declamation makes him one of my first choices.
Leusink (06 & 07-2000): Dutch bass, Bas Ramselaar (see BCW), has a similar timbre as van Egmond but his declamation is not as convincing as with other commented here. Average in my ranking.
Koopman (03-2000): I am a huge fan of German bass-baritone, Klaus Mertens (see BCW), with his slightly higher but warm and ‘rounded off’ timbre and excellent technique, although he is not at his best in this recording IMHO. Nevertheless, among my first choices, if not at the top in this cantata.
Gardiner ( 07-2000): Canadian baritone, Jonathan Brown (see BCW), has also worked regularly with Philippe Herreweghe, touring South America (Christus in J.S. Bach’s St John Passion (BWV 245). Unfortunately Gardiner’s too fast tempo makes his voice sounded hasted and not very steady, although his technique is as good as many other basses. Probably my last choice in ranking, but mostly because of the tempo.
Suzuki (06-2004): Dutch bass, Peter Kooij (see BCW), is also one of my preferred basses in Bach’s cantata oeuvre. His dark timbre, perfect declamation and technique puts him at the top of my preferences, in this case better than Mertens with Koopman.
Kuijken (07-2005): Belgian baritone, Jan van der Crabben (see BCW), with his very pleasant slightly higher timbre and perfect dynamic declamation technique makes him my third choice after Kooij (above) and Häger with Lutz (below).
Rudolf Lutz (06-2009): German bass, Klaus Häger (see BCW), performed also with Helmut Rilling and René Jacobs (among others). His volume is very forceful with a very neutral timbre and very dynamic declamation. Also among my first choices.
Ranking:
Basses: (1) Suzuki, (2) Lutz, (3) Leusink
(Bass)/Baritones: (1) Leonardt, (2) Lutz, (3) Koopman, (4) Gardiner
Movement 6: Chorale, S, A, T, B, Cornetto (Horn), Strings, Woodwinds and BC
Introduction Cantata BWB 135,6 by Alfed Dürr (from ‘ The Cantatas of J. S. Bach’ ):
‘ A plain chorale setting concludes the work.’
And additionally:
‘As a whole, this cantata captivates not so much by brilliant concertante writing as by its intensive textual interpretation. Whoever penetrates deeply into the beauties of the composition will learn to love it for this very reason.’
Remarks:
Whenever Dürr states comments like ‘a plain chorale’ I think that there is nothing ‘plain’ about Bach’s amazing choral harmonizations. There is a lot of discussion in the BCW discussions site about how a ‘perfect’ interpretation of Bach’s chorales should be performed, but I am not entering in this discussion, since this is very much a matter of personal taste. As mostly, I always prefer the OVPP versions because of its transparency and clarity of each voice. With the other HIP recordings, my preference is inversely proportional to the size of the choirs, that defines my ranking.
· Total times don’t vary significantly around a minute; the fastest at 0:58 (Leonhardt and Suzuki) and slowest at 1:16 (Leusink. An exception is Lutz with 2:02 minutes, but this is because Lutz added 7 (self-improvised organ interludes between all lines of this chorale. A very interesting enrichment, although not very frequently performed with other conductors. I asked Mr. Lutz about this and he clarified that this is his own idea of a valid addition.
Regarding the brass instrument ‘cornetto’ in the original score, only Suzuki mentions its use in this final chorale. The other recordings mention only either ‘horn’ or none of other brass instruments, besides the Trombone, which is supposed to be played only in movement 1.
Ranking: Kuijken (OVPP, 1), Suzuki (2), Gardiner (3) = Lutz (4), Koopman (5), Leonhardt (6), Leusink (7) |
| |
|
|
