|
Leonhardt Matthäus Passion (SMP)
Yoël L. Arbeitman wrote (January 6, 2001):
I recently acquired the 1990 Leonhardt Matthäus Passion and now am listening to it for the first time. It sounds wonderful. My problem is somethings odd with the listings in the booklet. First I assume that he whom they list as the other alto in this all male cast, David Cordier, is the singer of the soprano arias. Why do they list him as alto? Next of the several tenors besides Prégardien, listed as "tenor, evangelist", they don't tell you who does what. Ditto for the several basses listed besides Van Egmond, listed as "Bass, Christus". Most recordings I have or have had list specifically who sings what character or list e.g. Tenor I, Tenor II, etc.
Any information appreciated.
Charles Francis wrote (January 6, 2001):
(To Yoël L. Arbeitman) I must say this is the most satisfactory HIP-recording of the Matthew Passion I've come across. In particular, Leonhard's opening tempo is so much slower than other HIP-conductors and in fact similar to such notables as Furtwangler, Jochum, Karajan, Wöldike and Vaughan Williams.
Regarding your question, we shouldn't forget the solo sopranos from the Tölzer Knabenchor - Christian Fliegner and Maximillian Kiener.
Yoël L. Arbeitman wrote (January 6, 2001):
(To Charles Francis) Thank you Charles, I knew there was something I was not seeing. Yes, now I see them listed and by now I've just finished listening. This as of now is my favourite performance. It was really wonderful and the boy sopranos sang great, not like the one in Harnoncourt's earlier version who simply wasn't up to the job.
Sybrand Bakker wrote (January 6, 2001):
(To Yoël L. Arbeitman) Quoting literally from the listing on page 7 in the booklet.
Solisten/Soloists
Christoph Prégardien Tenor, Evangelista (which obviously means he is a tenor and he sings the Evangelista part, SB)
Max van Egmond, bass, Jesus
Rene Jacobs, Alto, Chor/Choir I
Marcus Schaefer, Tenor, Chor/Choir I
Klaus Mertens, Bass, Chor/Choir I
David Cordier, Alto, Chor/Choir II
John Elwes Tenor, Chor/Choir II
Peter Lika, Chor/Choir II
Solisten des/ Soloists of Toelzer Knabenchor
Christian Fliegner, Sopran/Soprano,Chor/Choir I
Maximillian Kiener, Sopran/Soprano,Chor/Choir II
So, IMO, this listing is one 100 percent unambiguous, unless they have replaced it (I am quoting from the original 89/90 release)
Yoël L. Arbeitman wrote (January 6, 2001):
(To Sybrand Bakker) I will try to explain ad loc. what is not unambiguous to me. Maybe it is, but it is not what I am used to in any of the SMPs I have had over a 40 year period. Please bear with me and be patient. This recording has been a discovery!
Sybrand Bakker wrote (January 6, 2001):
(To Yoël L. Arbeitman) Comments inline. The main issue here is Bach wrote the MP for two choirs, as Picander wrote his libretto as a dialogue between the Daughter of Zion (the Church) and the Faithful). Most modern recordings blur this by using only one set of soloists. Only Leonhardt and the Harnoncourt recording on Teldec of 1971 are faithful to the score.
Yoël L. Arbeitman wrote (January 6, 2001):
(To Sybrand Bakker) I am greatly in your debt and shall print out your explication.
Diederik Peters wrote (January 6, 2001):
(To Sybrand Bakker) So, in order to know who sings what, first look at the track listing. It will tell you which choir is singing. Then, when you look at the libretto for that particular track, you can see whether it's, for example, an aria for tenor. If the tenor is from choir II, then you know that it's Elwes singing.
William D. Kasimer wrote (January 8, 2001):
< Yoël L. Arbeitman wrote: It was really wonderful and the boy sopranos sang great, not like the one in Harnoncourt's earlier version who simply wasn't up to the job. >
Actually, there were two different boy sopranos on the first Harnoncourt version of the SMP, and three different counter-tenors: Esswood, Bowman, and Sutcliffe (the latter only for the duet "So ist mein Jesus nun gefangen" - does anyone know why that was done?). As I recall, only one of the boys was really inadequate; the other wasn't
ideal, but was decent enough.
Bill (who really never enjoys listening to boys singing Bach)
Question re SMP by Leonhardt
Kirk McElhearn wrote (July 26, 2001):
Who sings Erbame dich - is it Jacobs or Cordier?
Johan van Veen wrote (July 26, 2001):
[To Kirk McElhearn] Jacobs. He does sing the alto part in Choir I, David Cordier the one aria in Choir II.
Kirk McElhearn wrote (July 26, 2001):
[To Johan van Veen] That's what I thought. Thanks.
Leonhardt’s SMP
Ehud Shiloni wrote (February 13, 2004):
I purchased this well-known recording only recently, and would like to share some thoughts.
Let me say from the start that Leonhardt's version easily entered my first-line of favorite SMP recordings [out of some 25 different versions]. This is HIP with most of its advantages and hardly any deficiencies. The sound quality is excellent, and the different parts delineation is superb . I could clearly make not only the two choirs but also the different voice entries in the choir [this is normally not easy for my ears]. Everything about this recording is well balanced, and the overall effect is dramatic without recourse to over-dramatization and "tricks".
My taste does not go too well with boys choir singing, but here the Tolzers are superb and they really convinced me.
Pregardien is an excellent evangelist. While I usually tend to prefer more dramatic renditions, the beauty of his delivery was highly satisfying and convincing. The playing of La Petit Band here is - as I mentioned - HIP at its best: crisp, clear, ear-pleasing. The soloists are generally on a high level too.
One question to the experts: Is it Sigiswald Kuijken himself who plays the violin obligato in Erbarme Dich? I am not absolutely sure by reading the notes, but I can say that the part is played just right. In fact it is so good that I even forgave Rene Jacobs his annoying voice-color in this aria..:-)
There is one stunning discovery [or perhaps two] in this performance, and I am talking about the solo singing of the two Tolzer boy sopranos: Christian Fliegner and Maximillian Kiener. Where I'd expected a boy singer to "squeak" and ruin a solemn performance, I was instead amazed by these two. Kiener's "Blute nur" and Fliegner's "Aus liebe" made my spine tingle. I was so impressed that I went looking for their later achievements as adults, but I failed to find any info. Aryeh's site lists only Fliegner and there is no indication of whether he went on to sing as an adult [the recording was made in 1989]. Does anyone have more information? I'd be grateful. Here is the link: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Fliegner-Christian.htm
No link for Kiener.
The SMP is scheduled to come up for discussion only on June 6th. I can recommend Leonhardt's recording without reto anyone who wants to get ready for the discussion.
Johan van Veen wrote (February 13, 2004):
Ehud Shiloni wrote: < One question to the experts: Is it Sigiswald Kuijken himself who plays the violin obligato in Erbarme Dich? I am not absolutely sure by reading the notes, but I can say that the part is played just right. In fact it is so good that I even forgave Rene Jacobs his annoying voice-color in this aria..:-) >
Since Kuijken is the leader of the orchestra in the first choir I am sure that he is playing the solo violin part.
Donald Satz wrote (February 13, 2004):
[To Ehud:Shiloni] I may be dense, but what schedule are you referring to? To my knowledge, the SMP may be discussed on this site at any time, night or day. Just talking about it has me hungering for the first Herreweghe recording on Harmonia Mundi, so it's on my schedule for today and tomorrow.
Joost wrote (February 14, 2004):
Ehud Shiloni wrote: < There is one stunning discovery [or perhaps two] in this performance, and I am talking about the solo singing of the two Tolzer boy sopranos: Christian Fliegner and Maximillian Kiener. Where I'd expected a boy singer to "squeak" and ruin a solemn performance, I was instead amazed by these two. Kiener's "Blute nur" and Fliegner's "Aus liebe" made my spine tingle. I was so impressed that I went looking for their later achievements as adults, but I failed to find any info. Aryeh's site lists only Fliegner and there is no indication of whether he went on to sing as an adult [the recording was made in 1989]. Does anyone have more information? I'd be grateful. >
There is a Toelzer_Knabenchor@yahoogroups.com - I'm sure someone there can answer your question.
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 14, 2004):
[To Ehud Shiloni] I have heard samples of it.
I very much look forward to discussions on the work, and especially recordings of it.
I honestly, while I do like the fact that they tried to come close to the spirit of the work, have great misgivings with the recording. Firstly (like with any recording [with the exception of Heinz Henning's recording of the Fruehfassung der Matthäuspassion BWV 244b] out there) there is only 1 Orchestra playing. True, it is split in 2, but it is still 1 Orchestra. Secondly, with the exception of the Thomanerchor Leipzig's recordings of the work and the abovementioned Henning recording, the recording follows the way of all the other recordings in having only 2 Choirs performing instead of 3. The Knabenchor is (in the work) only supposed to be used in 2 sections (the opening and the closing movements of Part I). In all the other movements (and even in the two movements just mentioned) there are supposed to be two more Choirs performing. Most recordings get around this by having the principal Choir split in half. The Thomanerchor Leipzig can get away with it because there are truly two Choirs (even though they are jointly refered to as a single ensemble). However, teh other ensembles cannot and should not be able to get away with it. Even Richter doest this (which is the only problem I have with his recordings of the work [aside from the Orchestra issue stated above]).
I also have a problem with Leonhardt's (and most others' except Richter's and Mauersberger's) interpretation of the 1st movement of the work. He (as does most of the others) make it out to be a minor-key Jig rather than a depiction of grievous mourning (which the words themselves intend). I am not sure about most people, but for myself, if I were at a funeral, I would not dance or be playing dance-type music. And to me, that is what Passion music is about-reflection on the sufferring, Death, and Burial of the Saviour of the World. Therefore, it should be played as slow and as gravely as possible (without dragging the music, of course).
Donald Satz wrote (February 14, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr] Herreweghe plays the 1st Movement with dramatic gravity as does Klemperer. Once again, Mr. Lebut has disappointment surrounding him.
Charles Francis wrote (February 14, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote: < Herreweghe plays the 1st Movement with dramatic gravity >
You may enjoy my review (and subsequent discussion) of Herreweghe's SMP 1st Movement: http://tinyurl.com/2j76a
Ehud Shiloni wrote (February 14, 2004):
[To Donald Satz] Every day is a good Bach day, of course!
I was talking about the schedule of discussion for 2004: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Order-2004.htm
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 14, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < Firstly (like with any recording [with the exception of Heinz Henning's recording of the Fruehfassung der Matthäuspassion BWV 244b] out there) there is only 1 Orchestra playing. True, it is split in 2, but it is still 1 Orchestra. >
How are you attempting to differentiate between one orchestra "split in two" and two orchestras?
Ehud Shiloni wrote (February 14, 2004):
[To Johan van Veen] Thanks. I want to tell you that I have come across your review of this recording only today, in the course of searching for Christian Fliegner's "whereabouts". It is an excellent review, and I was glad to see that we share many of the impressions. Here is the link for the benefit of other members: http://www.geocities.com/johan_van_veen/cd_reviews/dhm_RD77848.html
And, BTW, I am told that this was Klaus Mertens' first SMP recording. His "Am Abend" here is as good as DFD's, IMO - a true "force of nature".
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To Donald Satz] Klemperer, however, drags it along.
I have heard Herreweghe's recording (I don't remember the date of it) and have found it a little too fast paced.
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To Charles Francis] I have read the review.
The problem is that the St. Matthew Passion (like the St. John, version II) does not point towards the Resurrection. In fact, neither do the texts that they use (namely Matthew 26:1-27:66 and John 18:1-19:42 respectively). In fact, the only mention in either of the texts of Resurrection is in Matthew 27:63-64, when the Hief Priests and Pharisees go to Pilate and say "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while He was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night, and steal Him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first."
Besides, one should keep in mind that the disciples themselves and the believers truly believed that He was gone for good. Remember how hard it was for the disciples to believe the Resurrection, even when in the face of the proof given by their own eyes. Remember how it was not until a week or so later, when Jesus broke bread with them and ate with them and then revealed unto them the whole of the Scriptures of how the Son of man must suffer before he entered into his glory so that He could pay the penalty and make the atonement for the sin of the world, that they believed. Therefore, whatever joy one feels from the aftermath of Good Friday is totally irrelevant, since it deals with an event that happened afterwards. As one of the ministers I have served under said so poignantly, we must suffer loss before we experience joy-we must suffer (along with the disciples) the loss of the Redeemer during Holy Week before we can truly experience the joy of Easter and the Resurrection.
Bach was conscious of this. This was basic Evangelical theology. That is why, especially in the Matthäuspassion, the whole tone of the work is minor-key and somber, serious emotion. That is why the entire work ends with a Choral movement (in c-Moll) which starts with the words "Wir setzen uns mit Traenen nieder und rufen dir im Grabe zu: Ruhe sanfte, sanfte ruh'!"-"With tears we set Thee low and call unto Thee in the grave: rest gently, gently rest!"
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jac] Look at the credits.
The Thomanerchor is and always has been 2 Choirs. The Heinz Henning recording uses 2 Orchestras(Akademie fuer Alte Musik Berlin and Barockorchester L'Arco). I would say that 99.9% of the other recordings use 1 Orchestra (for example, the Gewandhausorchester Leipzig or the Bach-Collegium Stuttgart or the like) split into two ensembles (so that 1 group is playing the part of the 1st Orchestra and the other is playing the part of the 2nd Orchestra). The same would go for the Choirs.
This is not as Bach had intended. When he meant 2 Orchestras, he meant 2 Orchestras. He, of course, would have made use of the Orchestra already available in the Church, but he would also have used the musicians (professional and amateur) and music students in the city and its other churches for an Orchestra as well. Therefore, he would have had 2 Orchestras. In truth, thusly, the forces should read "3 Choirs and 2 Orchestras", since in two sections (the 1st and last movements in Part I) there is a third Choir of Soprano voices that act as a Ripieno Choir. This is no mere question of semantics here. This is an issue about the true intentions of the music and the composer. So when I read 2 Orchestras, it (at least to me) means 2 Orchestras.
As a side note, I amalso composing a Matthäuspassion. It, too, is scored for 2 Choirs and 2 Orchestras with a third Choir consisting of Boy Sopranos to act as a Ripieno Choir in movements in the work. It will be interesting to see how people will perform it.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 16, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < This is no mere question of semantics here. >
Of course it is. The distinction you are making between two orchestras and one orchestra "split in two" is entirely spurious. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether orchestra 1 is billed as "Akademie fuer Alte Musik Berlin" and orchestra 2 "Barockorchester L'Arco" or whether both orchestras are billed as being drawn from the same ensemble. What material difference do you think it makes? What names(s) the players are given has no bearing on the quality their performances!
Donald Satz wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] Of course Klemperer drags - he has a cross to carry.
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson It is not spurious. It is the difference between the way the organizer and/or performers want to record the work and the way the composer intended. The Henning recording uses 2 different ensembles, which is in keeping with the intentions of the composer (or at least those expressed in the score). Most of the others (including such ones as I like as the Mauersberger and Richter recordings) use 1 Orchestra split right down the middle. That is to say, they have 2 1st Violin sections, 2 2nd Violin sections, etc.
As to the Henning recording, I know of both ensembles. They are truly 2 separate entities. That is my point. In fact, the latter was founded by the conductor himself.
As documentation of what I am talking about, I would call you to the Instrumentiation and Vocal listings for the performance forces required in the score. The one I have is from the Dover edition (which is a reprint of the BGA edition), and goes as follows:
Orchestra (Coro) I
2 Flutes (Flauti traversi)
2 Oboes (Oboi)
(=2 Oboes da Caccia)
(=2 Oboes d'Amore)
Violins I, II (Violino)
Violas
Viola da Gamba solo
Organ and Continuo
Orchestra (Coro) II
2 Flutes (Flauti traversi)
2 Oboes (Oboi)
(=2 Oboes da Caccia)
(=2 Oboes d'Amore)
Violins I, II (Violino)
Violas
Organ and Continuo
and for Choirs
Chorus (Coro) I
Sopranos
Altos
Tenors
Basses
Chorus (Coro) II
Sopranos
Altos
Tenors
Basses
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To Donald Satz] You are missing the point here, though. The music is not intended to depict Christ carrying the Cross, but rather to depict the mourning over the scene. After all, the very first line of the Chorus is "Kommt, ihr Töchter, helft mir klagen"-"Come, ye daughters, help me mourn". Mourning is slow, but not dragging necessarilly. That is why I favor Richter's versions over Klemperer's. Besides that, the entire work is dragging. And before anyone says that I don't know what I am saying, I have owned the recording.
Donald Satz wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] Mr. Lebut has such a literal view of music that he can lose sight of the forest. Given the text and the music Bach wrote, I think it's perfectly reasonable to go with the theme of Christ carrying the cross to his final destination as one of the themes expressed. All it takes is a little imagination - just close your eyes and see what's on the screen.
Owning a recording doesn't guarantee musical insight. We all know that Klemperer's version is very slow. The issue is whether the pacing is effective or not. That's a judgement each individual makes, and there have apparently been sufficient advocates of the Klemperer to keep the recording in print for over forty years. Personally, I'm not thrilled with his tempos, but I do consider them effective enough in the first Movement as a reflection of a beaten physical body on a hellish trudge or as a reflection of mourning. As I indicated earlier, the first Herreweghe is my standard for the first Movement. Much quicker than Klemperer, Hereweghe maintains as much weight and drama.
Mr. Lebut has written that Klemperer is too slow and Herreweghe too fast; he must like a nice moderate pace. That's good also. I tend to think that I'm a fussy person, but Mr. Lebut outdistances me significantly.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] Yes it is spurious. It is purely a question of nomenclature, can you not understand that? Nowhere does Bach indicate that the scoring is for two orchestras WHICH UST HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES, which is what you are claiming! What do you think orchestra means, in this context? How does the use of "truly 2 seperate entities" affect the performance? If, for a performance of the St Matthew Passion, I hire a suitable number of players, disposed into the two groups Bach asks for (and spatially seperated, as is appropriate) and I call one group the "South East London Baroque Players" and the other the "North London Academy for Early Music" do you think the performance will be better than if the exact same players, disposed in two groups in exactly the same way, goes under the overall name of "South London Orchestra"?!!!
Johan van Veen wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] And what about Bach's 'orchestra'? I wonder if it had a name - let alone two different names ;)
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To Johan van Veen] Indeed!
(By the way, Johan, are you by any chance related to pianist Jeroen van Veen?)
Johan van Veen wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] No, I even don't know him.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To Johan van Veen] I just wondered.....
Farhad Saheli wrote (February 16, 2004):
I think Mr. Lebut's point is that Bach was working with the same aesthetics as Stockhausen in Gruppen. Maybe the orchestras should be in different halls with some electronic feedback/delay system in between :D
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To Donald Satz] Yes, at the latter part of the work, but not at the beginning. The beginning, like in Schütz's works, was intended as a prayer to God to help keep the memory of the Passion in our minds and hearts.
Perhaps it takes literalism to bring people back to the score and the words. Bach himself was very literal when it came to words. In his manuscript copies we see that he even was so consumed with words that he put Scripture in red. And for him, especially in cases such as this, he believed that the music should fit the words-both in tempo and in timbre.
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To Farhad Saheli] You are close here, but still are missing one important piece.
Let me put it a little simpler, so that everyone can undertand.
In Bach's day, each Church had its own standard Orchestra. These were primarily taken from students at the conjoining school and any boardethat had musical ability. In some cases (like that of the Georgenkirche zu Eisenach) they also emplyed the town musicians. In the case of the Thomaskirche zu Leipzig, however, that would not have applied. So when Bach performed the Matthäuspassion, he would have, of course, employed the Orchestra already at his disposal. However, as the work required a second Orchestra, he also would have applied for the musicians at the other City Churches and any musician (professional or amateur) available. In the 1736 performance, for example, he could have made use of the musicians of the Collegium Musicum which he directed. This was especially true since the other two City Churches were usually not involved in the annual shifting of localities of the observances of Good Friday. Only the Thomaskirche zu Leipzig and the Nikolaikirche zu Leipzig were involved on alternating years. Therefore, Bach had quite a large mass of people to utilize. In fact, when compared to the amount of musicians at his disposal, the score is rather slim. The same would have gone for the Choral forces required (although, as I said earlier, he probably would have stuck with the two Choirs already at his disposal and would have only needed an additional ensemble for the Ripieno Sopranchor in the first and last movements of Part I).
Donald Satz wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.]
Let me see if I've got this right. Since Bach used two separate entities, it is incumbent that modern performances also employ two separate orchestras?
Donald Satz wrote (February 16, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] I can't go with Mr. Lebut's premise of "intention". Personally, I find nothing literal about the text of the first Movement; I just use the words to help create the musical atmosphere. The instrumental beginning of the first Movement makes me think of the trek to the crucifixion.
As for literalism, it is best confined to scientific endeavors. We're talking here about art.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 17, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < Let me put it a little simpler, so that everyone can undertand. >
You are being very condescending here, considering it is you who cannot, or will not, understand a very simple truth - it doesn't matter what the players are called! Why are you so hung up about what name(s) the players are called/call themselves?
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (Februaty 18, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote: < Let me see if I've got this right. Since Bach used two separate entities, it is incumbent that modern performances also employ two separate orchestras? >
Yes.
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (Februaty 18, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote: < I can't go with Mr. Lebut's premise of "intention". Personally, I find nothing literal about the text of the first Movement; I just use the words to help create the musical atmosphere. The instrumental beginning of the first Movement makes me think of the trek to the crucifixion.
As for literalism, it is best confined to scientific endeavors. We're talking here about art. >
That is my point as well. If he intended to paint a picture of the Crucifixion (which he did towards the end of the work) or of Christ dragging the Cross (which he did in Movement Nr. 55(64)-the Evangelist's Recitative "Und da sie ihn verspotten hatten" and the two following movements (Nr. 56(65)-the Bass Recitative "Ja! freilich will in uns das Fleisch und Blut" and Nr. 57(66)-the Bass Aria "Komm, suesses Kreuz,"), he would have done it at those points instead of at the very first movement.
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (Februaty 18, 2004):
Gabriel Jackson wrote: < You are being very condescending here, considering it is you who cannot, or will not, understand a very simple truth - it doesn't matter what the players are called! Why are you so hung up about what name(s) the players are called/call themselves? >
It seems that you are missing the point. The point is that he (Bach) used two totally separate entities (Orchestras and Choirs) in the performances of the Matthäuspassion. So to have 1 large Orchestra split in two (which is how many recordings do it) is out of the question. The point is not the name of the ensembles, but rather the fact that they are totally separate entities from one another. The exception in the case of the Choirs of course would be the Thomanerchor Leipzig, which is in reality two Choirs (see most of the recordings of the ensemble).
Craig Schweickert wrote (Februaty 18, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] The point is what possible difference could it make? Jeesh!
Donald Satz wrote (Februaty 18, 2004):
[To Craig Schweickert] Yes, how will the performance be affected through use of two separate entities?
Gabriel Jackson wrote (Februaty 18, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. writes: < It seems that you are missing the point. The point is that he (Bach) used two totally separate entities (Orchestras and Choirs) in the performances of the Matthäuspassion. So to have 1 large Orchestra split in two (which is how many recordings do it) is out of the question. The point is not the name of the ensembles, but rather the fact that they are totally separate entities from one another. >
It is you that is missing the point, I'm afraid. What do you mean by "two totally separate entities"? You haven't explained what you think the difference between "1 large Orchestra split in two" and "two totally separate entities" is. It is about names, because the only difference between one and the other is the name(s) of the ensemble(s).
Gabriel Jackson wrote (Februaty 18, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. writes: < Yes. >
Apparently, an appropriate number of players, disposed into the two ensembles Bach asks for, is not enough. The two orchestras have to have different names as well. It's very odd...
Donald Satz wrote (Februaty 18, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] I suppose it is odd - so literal that it defies logic UNLESS the listener can tell the difference. I asked this question of Mr. Lebut, but no answer yet.
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (Februaty 20, 2004):
[To Craig Schweickert] The point is that it would follow in line with the composer's (Bach's) intentions-or at least those demonstrated by the scores, manuscripts, and performing parts available to us. The same would go for a performance of a Mahler Symphony (say, for instance, the "Symphony for 1000") performed by a group of only 10 or 20 performers (both Orchestral and Choral) or Brahms's Orchestral works performed by a large Symphony Orchestra. In point of fact, from what I have read and heard and also from the demonstration in recording and program notes (namely the recording of the Haydn Variations, the Tragic and Academic Festival Overtures, and the Four Symphonies performed by the Scottish Chamber Orchestra led by Sir Charles Mackerras, which recreated in recording the original performances of these works in Meiningen), Brahms loathed larger Orchestral forces and much preferred the types of forces we would today call "Chamber Orchestras". Although performances \by a larger ensemble might still be very beautiful (such as the recording of the Four Symphonies of Brahms by Herbert van Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic [or Vienna Philharmonic, I don't remember the one I had]), as a matter of historical accuracy and falling in line with the Composer's intentions, one should do as in the latter case.
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (Februaty 20, 2004):
[To Donald Satz] Firstly, I think it would bring out the more antiphonal aspects of the work. As you know, Bach was very fond of older styles and one of these that I feel he uses most often (especially in the Matthäuspassion) is the practice of antiphony, in which one Choir (or in this case, Orchestra and Choir) seems to be echoing off of the other.
Secondly, I think it brings out the responsorial aspects of Evangelical Liturgy. Often in his larger works (the Apocryphal Lukaspassion and other places), he uses either elements of the Liturgy or music that imitates it (such as many of the Choral movements in the Lukaspassion like "Wir armen Sünder bitten, du wollest uns erhören, lieber Herre Gott!" and "Durch deines Todes Kampf und blutigen Schweiß hilf un, lieber Herre Gott!"). Even Luther himself would probably have encouraged it (there is evidence that he was aware of the works of Palestrina and the like and was very fond of it, especially the antiphonal works).
Thirdly, especially when performed and recorded in such conditions as the work was performed in when Bach was alive, there would be many elements that are missing in many of the recordings we now have. In other words, bigger performance areas encourage writing for multiple ensembles. That is why the Johannespassion (in all versions except for the second) is for 1 Choir and 1 Orchestra. The Nicholaikirche zu Leipzig was a smaller church than the Thomaskirche zu Leipzig. While stilla main church in the city (as opposed to the Neukirche and the Petruskirche), it still had only enough room for 1 Organ, 1 Orchestra, and 1 Choir. One possible reason I could think of was funding. It seems that among the Dukes and Electors and that ruled the part of Sachsen where Leipzig is located viewed the Thomaskirche as the more prestigeous and funded it more than the Nicholaikirche. Another reason might be its former association with the University of Leipzig. Without concrete documentation, we may never know. But getting back to the point, with its very large size, the Thomaskirche had enough room to fit 2 Organs, 2 Choirs, and the potentiality to fit 2 Orchestras.
Donald Satz wrote (Februaty 20, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr] Thanks for the answer. I don't agree with it, but we're all entitled.
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (Februaty 20, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] If you read my previous posts, you will understand.
In the example, for instance, that I gave of conditions during Bach's time, I stated that Bach would have alread had at his disposal 1 Orchestra that was already attatched to the church. For the 2nd Orchestra, he could have and probably did look aroud and applied for other musicians in other ensembles (such as those attatched to the other city churches or such groups as the ensemble he later led, the Colleegium Musicum) or for musicians either in the church schools, in the University, town musicians, or private individuals (either professional or amateur). Since there was only 1 church each year that performed the Passionsmusik for the year (which alternated each year between the Nichoalikirche and the Thomaskirche), the other churches would have been closed and their musicians available.
To this is contrasted the common practice in most recordings of the Matthäuspassion. Here there is only 1 Choir and 1 Orchestra. To get around the fact that it is 1 Choir and 1 Orchestra, they split the performing ensembles in half. In other words, where there might be 8 or more Violin I performers, they split it so that there are 4 or more. The same goes for the 2nd Violin parts, etc., and the Choirs. In the case of the Choirs (as I have said earlier), the only exception to this rule is that of the Thomanerchor Leipzig (which is in fact 2 Choirs). In point of fact, in the 3rd version of the Matthäuspassion (from 1742, which is the basis of the modern version), there are 3 Choirs. The third Choir only performs in the 1st and last movements of Part I of the work and is constituted soley of Sopranos.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 20, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < If you read my previous posts, you will understand >
If you read my previous posts you will understand, more to the point!
"To this is contrasted the common practice in most recordings of the Matthäuspassion. Here there is only 1 Choir and 1 Orchestra. To get around the fact that it is 1 Choir and 1 Orchestra, they split the performing ensembles in half."
IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! Do you think that performances that, as you put it, "split the performing ensembles in half" don't observe the antiphonal division between Choir 1/Orchestra 1 and Choir 2/Orchestra 2? Use your ears - they do!
Re-iterating what you believe to be Bach's practice in this matter doesn't explain what you believe to be the difference between "2 orchestras" and "1 orchestra split in two"; perhaps because the difference only exists in your
imagination.
And in any case, what numbers of players and singers consitute an "orchestra" and a "choir" is open to debate, to say the least.....
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 20, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. writes: < To this is contrasted the common practice in most recordings of the Matthäuspassion. Here there is only 1 Choir and 1 Orchestra. To get around the fact that it is 1 Choir and 1 Orchestra, they split the performing ensembles in half. >
Do you know how these things actually work in practice? When John Eliot Gardiner, or Philippe Herreweghe, or Nikolaus Harnoncourt (etc. etc.) is planning a performance/recording of the St Matthew Passion he will decide how many singers he wants per part in Choir 1 and in Choir 2 (almost certainly the same numbers in each) and how many string players per part in Orchestra 1 and Orhestra 2 (again, almost certainly the same numbers in each); a "fixer" will then book the necessary players and singers for the performance(s)/sessions. They will all be freelance players and singers; many (probably most) will have worked with the conductor before. They will go (in this instance) under the name of "The Monteverdi Choir", "The English Baroque Soloists", (or whatever). Many of these same players and singers will also turn up in on other occasions in performances by the Taverner Players and Consort etc. etc.
Now, does that constitute "1 orchestra split in two" or "two orchestras" in your book?!
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 22, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] It might not matter to you, but it does matter.
I would like you to listen to a recording with 1 Orchestra and 1 Choir and then listen to one with 2 Orchestras and 2 Choirs and compare the differences.
Case in point: In the church I attended when I lived in MI this last time (between 1985 and 1989), there was only 1 Choir. However, every Christmas Eve and Easter, my family and I would go to downtown Detroit to the head church of the Episcopal Diocese of MI (the Cathedral Church of Sts. Peter and Paul), where there are regularly 2 separate Choirs (1 mixed Choir and 1 Men and Boys Choir). True, the differences may have been subtle, but there were and are differences.
Not every Orchestra is the same. Not every Conductor has the same abilities, interests, etc. Not every Orchestra and/or Choir performs the same music the same way. Not every Orchestra/Choir has the same ranges and capabilities.
Bradley Lehman wrote (February 22, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] I retract my congratulations, where I had thought David's main point was about the spatial separation of the groups (and only about that). It seems now that the point really was about two separate standing orchestras of different levels of ability, as he explains below.
David: what evidence do you have that Bach expected two completely different standing orchestras, trained by different directors, to come together cooperatively for the St Matthew Passion? Where the different approach would have been something he deliberately wanted? And even if so, why should that be normative for performance today? Shouldn't a director simply hire all the best people who are available for the job, whether they are a standing ensemble or not? And, the personnel of standing ensembles change all the time anyway; why get too hung up on names of the ensembles? (After all, a business question more than a musical question.)
I was listening this weekend to the Goebel/MAK set of the secular pieces BWV 201/206/207/524/36c, from 1996-7, and flipped open the booklet's page to the orchestra's roster. I noticed that this performance has zero people in common with the disc "De Profundis: German Baroque Cantatas" from 1986, where Goebel himself was still playing. He doesn't play in the 1996-7 set. But in both cases, the group is called "Musica Antiqua Köln" because the director (only) is the same. Whatever project he pulls together, that is "Musica Antiqua Köln".
Similarly, 20 years ago "The Consort of Musicke" (directed by Rooley) and "TavernerConsort" (directed by Parrott) were essentially the same people in their membership; only named something different depending who was directing. Similarly, the Hanover Band, the Parley of Instruments, and the King's Consort have had pretty much the same pool of players as one another. Obviously this could be extended to just about all the similar performing groups, the way players and singers are shared and the ensemble is named only according to the organizers. Especially with those groups in the southern half of England, it would be pretty easy to list at least 20 "different" ensembles large and small having that same pool of players; maybe even 30.
(And in Michigan I used to be a regular member of an ensemble called "Oriana" which was basically one singer plus whoever else she hired for any particular gig. Whenever we did a voice and harpsichord concert somewhere, just the two of us arriving in a car with her harpsichord, this was "Oriana". We also had several cellists and violinists we brought in, sometimes, whoever was available for any particular gig. When she had some keyboard player other than me, before I got to town and after I left, and sometimes when I was still around but unavailable, it was still "Oriana". There was no fixed "Oriana" sound; we just did the best we could with whatever music and people were available in any given situation, and the entity "Oriana" was just the organizational and spiritual guidance of that one singer, whatever she did. Rehearse the music several times, go do the concert, split the proceeds.)
This business about named ensembles is not a problem for musicians; why is it a problem for anyone else?
Bringing this back to the St Matthew Passion: Why (David) would a performance of the SMP that united (for example) Robert King's King's Consort and Philip Pickett's New London Consort as the two "orchestras" be noticeably different in sound, from (say) taking the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment by itself and dividing half the players into each group, and have (say) Paul Goodwin and Roy Goodman rehearse those halves separately, or bring in Mackerras as a guest conductor? If Manze was playing, they could maybe call it the Academy of Ancient Music, and credit the conducting to whichever musician in the room did the most work organizing the gig.
If this seems silly, it's because I believe it is.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 22, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < It might not matter to you, but it does matter.
I would like you to listen to a recording with 1 Orchestra and 1 Choir and then listen to one with 2 Orchestras and 2 Choirs and compare the differences. >
Well it only matters to you, since it is a spurious distinction. Perhaps, since the distinction is yours alone, you could tell us which recordings use "1 orchestra and 1 choir" and which use "2 orchestras and 2 choirs" in your view.
"Not every Orchestra is the same. Not every Conductor has the same abilities, interests, etc. Not every Orchestra and/or Choir performs the same music the same way. Not every Orchestra/Choir has the same ranges and capabilities."
If what you are insisting on is bringing together two groups of different ability, under two directors of differing ability, and with different ideas about the music, perhaps even differently constiuted choirs - one with boy trebles and one with adult women - that is truly bizarre! Who would conduct, by the way - or perhaps they would take it in turns, movement by movement?!
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 22, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] Firstly, I do not favor most of the recordings because they utilize female performers. That is bringing into Bach's music a foreign element. That is one reason why I favor the Thomanerchor Leipzig performances.
Secondly, Bach himself often (especially in those workslike the Matthäuspassion that require two Orchestras and Choirs) faced the same problems that I catalogued. Not to mention the fact that nowadays one would have to deal with multiple conductors anyways (one for each Choir-with the exception of the Thomanerchor Leipzig-and one for each Orchestra). In Bach's day (from what I have read), it was somewhat simpler. 1 person would conduct 1 Orchestra and Choir and another would conduct the other one. That Bach conducted both was remarkable in his day.
Another thing to remember is the role of the conductor in Bach's day (which I think should apply when conducting his music, whether sacred or secular, whether vocal or instrumental). The sole purpose of the conductor was to beat the time. For more illumination into this, see my other posts on conductors and their roles.
But to get back to the issue at hand. If one goes by typical Orchestral and Choral size of Bach's day in Leipzig, he would have had only 20 instrumental performers at his disposal at the Thomaskirche and 40 vocal performers (although it was probably 80 vocal performers at the Thomaskirche). For the rest, he would have had to resort to performers outside the church. I already went over in previous posts the types of performers he would have applied to.
As to the sound difference, as I said earlier, it is more subtle but present nonetheless. For example, if one listens to a recording of 1 orchestra and 1 choir performing, it sound like they are performing at the same pitch and tempo range. However, when two choirc and 2 orchestras are performing together, though it might sound the same, there are inherent differences between the pitch and tempo range of one and the other. It might not be very noticable, but it is present. One might start a little earlier than the other. One might take a passage a little faster than the other. One might be performing a minuscule interval higher or lower than the other. The list can go on and on. However, it is that variety (and the challanges that go along with it to unify the diverse performing elements) that enrich these recordings.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 22, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < As to the sound difference, as I said earlier, it is more subtle but present nonetheless. For example, if one listens to a recording of 1 orchestra and 1 choir performing, it sound like they are performing at the same pitch and tempo range. However, when two choirc and 2 orchestras are performing together, though it might sound the same, there are inherent differences between the pitch and tempo range of one and the other. It might not be very noticable, but it is present. One might start a little earlier than the other. One might take a passage a little faster than the other. One might be performing a minuscule interval higher or lower than the other. The list can go on and on. However, it is that variety (and the challanges that go along with it to unify the diverse performing elements) that enrich these recordings. >
Oh dear, oh dear you're really making a fool of yourself now, with this nonsense. Do you really think poor ensemble enhances a performance?
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 22, 2004):
[To Bradley Lehman] Spatial separation plays a part, butnot the only factor.
As to evidence, read anything on the practices and performing ensemble sizes in Leipzig during Bach time. The exception to the rule the fact that the Thomanerchor was already two separate ensembles.
As to the issue of whether it should be the normative practice today, I feel it should be if for no other reason than to bring out the Matthäuspassion's (or any other Bach work's) true colors out. The tendancy I find in the current status of HIP recordings is to bring the music to the ensemble or musician playing it rather than the opposite. I would expect the same when playing a Brahms symphony as well. The tendancy of having overflowing orchestral and choral forces should not and does not apply to such works. They would go more appropriately for Mahler or Richard Strauss than for Bach or Brahms.
P.S., the ensembles in the recording that I favor are separate. The Barockorchester L'Arco and the Knabenchor Hanover were both founded (from what I have read) by Heinz Henning. The other orchestra comes from Berlin and you know as well as I do where the othChoral ensembles come from.
Donald Satz wrote (February 22, 2004):
[To David Glenn Lebut Jr.] Females are foreign elements? In that case, I'll go foreign every time.
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (February 22, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] I did not say "poorer" in ensembles, just that there are oftentimes minute differences between ensembles when performing together and that these differences would enrich a recording.
That is why I do not favor High School or Grade School ensembles being used.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 22, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < One might start a little earlier than the other. >
Isn't that poor ensemble?!
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 22, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < That is why I do not favor High School or Grade School ensembles being used. >
Why not? Because they might be together.....?!!
Donald Satz wrote (February 22, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] Perhaps Mr. Lebut likes a staggering technique.
Carol wrote (February 22, 2004):
[To Gabril Jackson] Maybe high school and grade school children should never practice, either, so as not to offend you.
Robert Sherman wrote (February 23, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut writes: < Firstly, I do not favor most of the recordings because they utilize female performers. That is bringing into Bach's music a foreign element. >
This obligates you to oppose women in the orchestra as well as the chorus and vocal solos. Since there were no blacks or Orientals in his performances, you have to oppose those too. So much for Suzuki.
It is true that Bach's society was sexist and regarded women and non-whites as something less than full-fledged human beings. This practice has continued to a lesser degree until quite recent times; it is only in the last few years that women have not been discriminated against in auditions for orchestral first chairs, and even now it's not entirely clear that this abominable prejudice is dead. Whether Bach approved of this practice or was forced into it, I don't know. But clearly, musical performance has paid a severe price for it for centuries, including in Bach's time.
For my part, I want to hear Bach at its best, which can be better than Bach heard it. At concerts, I want central heating, air conditioning, flush toilets, and female as well as non-white performers when they can do it better than available white males.
Johan van Veen wrote (February 23, 2004):
Robert Sherman wrote: < This obligates you to oppose women in the orchestra as well as the chorus and vocal solos. Since there were no blacks or Orientals in his performances, you have to oppose those too. So much for Suzuki. >
Why? The sound of female singers is different from that of boys or male altos. But can you prove that the sound of a female violinist is different from that of a male colleague? Do you know that blacks or Orientals play differently from whites?
< It is true that Bach's society was sexist and regarded women and non-whites as something less than full-fledged human beings. >
This is a very unhistorical and anachronistic view. You just can't use 20th century terms to describe 18th century views and practices. I am not saying that in the 18th century there was no prejudice against women. But the fact that women were not allowed to sing in church is first and foremost the result of a theological view rather than just a negative attitude towards women in general.
The remark about 'non-whites' is even more unhistorical: not many people in the Leipzig of Bach's time will ever have seen or met a non-white person. Germany - which was not a political entity anyway - wasn't a colonial power like Britain was. If you have never seen non-white persons or even don't know they exist, how can you regard them as "less than full-fledged human beings"?
< For my part, I want to hear Bach at its best, which can be better than Bach heard it. At concerts, I want central heating, air conditioning, flush toilets, and female as well as non-white performers when they can do it better than available white males. >
I don't know what central heating, flush toilets etc have to do with the way Bach's music is performed. And whereas you seem to think women are generally better than boys, my experience is otherwise.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 23, 2004):
Carol wrote: < Maybe high school and grade school children should never practice, either, so as not to offend you. >
Why would that offend me?
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 23, 2004):
Robert Sherman wrote: < This obligates you to oppose women in the orchestra as well as the chorus and vocal solos. Since there were no blacks or Orientals in his performances, you have to oppose those too. So much for Suzuki. >
If one is talking about replicating Bach's soundworld (an impossible task of course) the gender or ethnicity of the instrumentalists is irrelevant.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (February 23, 2004):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: < The Barockorchester L'Arco and the Knabenchor Hanover were both founded (from what I have read) by Heinz Henning. The other orchestra comes from Berlin and you know as well as I do where the other Choral ensembles come from. >
And are there audible differences between the sound, pitch(!) etc. of these two ensembles that are not present between the two ensembles that both go under the name of "La Petite Bande" in Leonhardt's recording?
Donald Satz wrote (February 23, 2004):
[To Johan van Veen] That women were not allowed to sing in church is a theological view based on a negative attitude of women.
Continue on Part 2
|
