|
|
Masaaki Suzuki & Bach Collegium Japan
Cantatas Vol. 27
Cantatas BWV 80, BWV 5, BWV 115 |
|
Suzuki 27 |
|
Thomas Shepherd wrote (May 16, 2005):
Wasting my time on the internet this lunchtime, I looked at the BIS website and saw they have released vol 27 of the Suzuki Cantata cycle - BWV 80, BWV 5, BWV 115: http://www.bis.se/index.php?op=album&aID=BIS-CD-1421
I've ordered it through MDT: http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/product/BISCD1421.htm
and while ordering, I happened to see a 5 CD set of the SACRED MUSIC OF THE BACH FAMILY on the Capriccio label for only £10: http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/product/CC49432.htm
So for some other cantatas! |
|
Michael Telles wrote (May 16, 2005):
[To Thomas Shepherd] I got the new Suzuki last week and am still letting it settle in. There's a whole new cast of characters, save Kooij, as soloists. I wish I had the names in front of me; the counter-tenor sounded very nice, but I found myself missing Nonoshita's soprano. Not to slight the soloist on 27, but Nonoshita is something special.
Will write more later when I've processed it more. I bet others will find BWV 80 to be quite austere in Suzuki's hands. |
| |
|
Suzuki vol 27 on BBC R3 |
|
Thomas Shepherd wrote (May 30, 2005):
Suzuki vol 27 BWV 80 Ein Feste Burg - M1 & M2
Some of us voted to hear this on Radio 3 "CD Review - the Listening Booth"
Until next Saturday, it will be possible to hear the program via the web. The programme is to be found at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/index.shtml?logo
next press the "Listen Again" and when the BBC Radio Player screen appears, find under "A-Z all shows", "CD Review". The last broadcast (28/05/05) will load. "CD Review" is 4 hours long. It starts at 9.00 am and finishes at 1.00pm.
Unless you want to listen to the whole programme you will need to move the programme on to the 3:17 hour mark. There are three buttons - pause, stop and play. Press and hold mouse on the play button and the minutes counter will rush on!
Beware though - it is very easy to go beyond 3:17 and you will have to start from the beginning of the programme.
Happy listening!! |
|
Neil Halliday wrote (May 31, 2005):
Thomas Shepherd wrote:
< Suzuki vol 27 BWV 80 Ein Feste Burg - M1 & M2 >
Wow! This has got to be the biggest Suzuki I have ever heard!
The high-octane energy level does not relax for a moment, with the powerful effect of the music being bolstered by the 16 foot 'Posaune" stop in the organ pedal, as specified by Bach.
Did someone say this was an austere performance? If so, due to the lack of trumpets and drums? Rilling takes the same approach as Suzuki (minus trumpets and drums) but featuring the chorale tune on the massive pedal stop; I find it difficult to describe either performance as austere.
The second movement maintains the excitement, with a rich, full sound.
[The following secco recitative (not broadcast) must be an incongruous step-down in 'size' after the first two movements, if it is presented by Suzuki in the HIP/Harnoncourt manner!) |
|
Michael Telles wrote (May 31, 2005):
[To Neil Halliday] It's entirely my fault that "austerity" found its way into the conversation -- and I apologize; my intent was not to call the perforance austere, however. Given that a frequent criticism of Suzuki's recordings is that their approach to the music sounds, to some, obsessively combed over, I wondered if this Cantata in Suzuki's hands would strike some listeners cold.
I do not feel this way about the recording at all; in this recording, as with many of Suzuki's recordings, I find an electric tension and restrained passion in the music where others seem to find the music airtight or dead at times. Of course, in BWV 80 the tension is not restrained. However, I will take a risk and say that I do find that the Cantata itself has an architectual beauty that demands time to warm up to.
Please be forgiving: I'm a novice and the first time I heard this Cantata was when I put Suzuki's disc into my stereo.
Otherwise, how did you find the new soloists? Ryden, the Soprano, has, I thought, a lovely tonal quality and her voice takes corners much softer than Nonoshita's. Still, I think I'm addicted to Nonoshita's voice at this point. The counter-tenor sounds fine as well. I still need to listen to this disc some more. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (June 1, 2005):
< Wow! This has got to be the biggest Suzuki I have ever heard! (...) The second movement maintains the excitement, with a rich, full sound.
[The following secco recitative (not broadcast) must be an incongruous step-down in 'size' after the first two movements, if it is presented by Suzuki in the HIP/Harnoncourt manner!) >
And the value judgment here is that a "HIP/Harnoncourt manner" (as if that's a fair label of a historically-reconstructed practice, i.e. the normality of Italianate recitative accompaniment) makes things "incongruous" and deficient? What if Suzuki's musicians--in this unheard excerpt--have done quite faithfully what Bach expected to hear in his regular practices? |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (June 1, 2005):
Another thought along this line: if we're referring to the typical Baroque practice of flexible note-lengths in recitative accompaniment, whether the continuo notation looks like a whole note or something shorter... http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/recits.htm
....it goes back to beginnings of seconda prattica music 100+ years before Bach, that freedom to shorten notes in the improvised accompaniment despite the appearance of those notes on a page. It is continuo accompanists doing their job by ear and by taste. And the fact that some amateurs still refuse to accept it really says nothing one way or another about its correctness (but only about amateurish methods of avoiding/disdaining/rewriting context). Scientifically reasoned truth isn't something for amateurs to judge, one way or another, not having access to the broad music history/sources/performance techniques (and the musicologically sound methods of reasoning) that inform the research.
In brief, that performance flexibility arises from the context of normal practices around Bach, and the traditions leading to his work, plus the examples in his own work. The fact Harnoncourt and Leonhardt as continuo players were already doing this note-flexibility as early as 1954 (their record of BWV 170 and BWV 54 with Deller) doesn't make it a "Harnoncourt manner", but only says that these musicians were already interested in taking this researched point seriously in practice. They have allowed their musicianship to be informed by the 100+ years of musical context leading up to Bach's work. They have been approaching Bach's work by taking his own past and contemporary situation seriously; not merely looking back from our past where Bach's music is judged (in part) by what has happened after it.
As for the respect of amateurs toward/against research, I recently read this quote by an author named Ariyaratne, an observation about change:
"When we try to bring about change in our societies, we are treated first with indifference, then with ridicule, then with abuse and then with oppression. And finally the greatest challenge is thrown at us. We are treated with respect. This is the most dangerous stage." |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (June 1, 2005):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>...it goes back to beginnings of seconda prattica music 100+ years before Bach, that freedom to shorten notes in the improvised accompaniment despite the appearance of those notes on a page. It is continuo accompanists doing their job by ear and by taste. And the fact that some amateurs still refuse to accept it really says nothing one way or another about its correctness (but only about amateurish methods of avoiding/disdaining/rewriting context).
Scientifically reasoned truth isn't something for amateurs to judge, one way or another, not having access to the broad music history/sources/performance techniques (and the musicologically sound methods of reasoning) that inform the research.<<
The problem here is that a few 'experts' have utterly overlooked the fact that that which once existed in a different country (Italy) and in a different century (beginning of the 17th century) does not automatically translate nor is it adopted 'lock, stock, and barrel' by a composer/musician of another time and place such Bach without some serious modifications. It is utterly careless from a standpoint of history alone for anyone ascribing to basic rules of the historical process to use "the normality of Italianate recitative accompaniment" as a 'blanket' statement that can be applied to Bach's performance practices in Leipzig in the 1720s. A closer investigation of the primary sources from Bach's time and place should correct the misconceptions that have seemingly been taught in university graduate courses based upon books by Harnoncourt and Dreyfus among others who follow in this tradition.
>>...it goes back to beginnings of seconda prattica music 100+ years before Bach, that freedom to shorten notes in the improvised accompaniment despite the appearance of those notes on a page. It is continuo accompanists doing their job by ear and by taste.<<
and who determines the taste? Musicians who have been taught the 'Haroncourt et al doctrine' as the bible from which they rarely stray.
>>The fact that Harnoncourt and Leonhardt as continuo players were already doing this note-flexibility as early as 1954 (their record of BWV 170 and BWV 54 with Deller) doesn't make it a "Harnoncourt manner", but only says that these musicians were already interested in taking this researched point seriously in practice. They have allowed their musicianship to be informed by the 100+ years of musical context leading up to Bach's work.<<
Their methods of historical research left much to be desired as they pursued their own desire to see early Italian 17th-century musical practices dumped into Bach's lap in the 1720s in Germany as is without as much as 'batting an eyelash.' For this to occur they had to latch onto 'primary' sources from way before or right after Bach's death and read or take an important source such as Heinichen, in the translation of which they disregard the differences between the various types of 'secco' recitatives and take the original German and twist it around so that it would say what they wanted it to say. Only those who can not read and understand the German original would fall for this mistranslation. By doing these things, they created a fictitious musical context that had never existed.
>> As for the respect of amateurs toward/against research..<<
The question here is really how can those few professional musicians and musicologists who perpetrated such a fiction gain the respect of those who might begin to see through what has really happened here: careless research leading to a direction of performance practices that amounts to hearing Bach's music performed according to Monteverdi's own manner of presentation, but certainly not Bach's. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (June 1, 2005):
< Their methods of historical research left much to be desired as they pursued their own desire to see early Italian 17th-century musical practices dumped into Bach's lap in the 1720s in Germany as is without as much as 'batting an eyelash.' >
Wow, being privy to the "own desire" of Leonhardt and Harnoncourt, chief among the musicians being referred to here. And the allegation that their goals as scholarly musicians are less than noble ones! And the insider's view of not only their thought processes and their autonomic nervous systems, as to eyelash control!! It must be wonderful to be inside other people's heads, and such an impartial judge of other people's morality/ethics/motivations. [Meanwhile, my wife as a sociologist informs me that the problem of "Other Minds" is a classic.]
< For this to occur they had to latch onto 'primary' sources from way before or right after Bach's death and read or take an important source such as Heinichen, in the translation of which they disregard the differences between the various types of 'secco' recitatives and take the original German and twist it around so that it would say what they wanted it to say. Only those who can not read and understand the German original would fall for this mistranslation. By doing these things, they created a fictitious musical context that had never existed. >
So, the above defamatory rhetoric (about scholars being too clueless and too dishonest to read German properly, etc etc etc, ad infinitum) amounts to the annual refusal to read the following two articles?
Peter Williams, "Basso Continuo on the Organ", Music and Letters #1 [1969], pp136-54 and 230-45
Arthur Mendel, "On the Keyboard Accompaniments to Bach's Leipzig Church Music", Musical Quarterly xxxvi [1950], pp339-62 |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (June 1, 2005):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>So, the above defamatory rhetoric (about scholars being too clueless and too dishonest to read German properly, etc etc etc, ad infinitum) amounts to the annual refusal to read the following two articles? Peter Williams, "Basso Continuo on the Organ", Music and Letters #1 [1969],pp136-54 and 230-45 Arthur Mendel, "On the Keyboard Accompaniments to Bach's Leipzig Church Music", Musical Quarterly xxxvi [1950], pp339-62<<
The 'bible' which superseded this outdated research is Dreyfus in his "Bach's Continuo Group" [Harvard University Press, 1987], as you well know. This is the book that most proponents of the 'Harnoncourt Doctrine' swear by. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (June 2, 2005):
>>So, the above defamatory rhetoric (about scholars being too clueless and too dishonest to read German properly, etc etc etc, ad infinitum) amounts to the annual refusal to read the following two articles? Peter Williams, "Basso Continuo on the Organ", Music and Letters #1 [1969],pp136-54 and 230-45 Arthur Mendel, "On the Keyboard Accompaniments to Bach's Leipzig Church Music", Musical Quarterly xxxvi [1950], pp339-62<<
< The 'bible' which superseded this outdated research is Dreyfus in his "Bach's Continuo Group" [Harvard University Press, 1987], as you well know. This is the book that most proponents of the 'Harnoncourt Doctrine' swear by. >
So, it's true about that perpetual refto read Williams and Mendel. And the excuse given here is that they're probably not worth anything; therefore there's no responsibility taken to study them before deciding that. Just chuck them onto the bonfire.
Some fallacies here, point by point:
>The 'bible'<
Unfounded assumption, turning a fine piece of scholarship into a straw book to be burned, on account of not fancying the outcomes or understanding the methodology used in it. There's also the implication that anyone who does understand the methodology and the outcomes in Dreyfus's book is acting on nothing more than blind and thoughtless faith...being not smart enough to reject this book, or something. (Not to mention the oblique slur against the whole concept of "bible", and against people who have biblically-based faith.... It's quite blasphemous to assert that Dreyfus's book is any sort of bible, whatever one thinks personally of people who have studied Dreyfus's work.)
>which superseded<
Says who?
>this outdated research<
"Outdated" in the view of one who hasn't even looked at that other research, to see what's in there among the supporting materials and the salient points about organ registration?
>is Dreyfus in his "Bach's Continuo Group" [Harvard University Press, 1987],<
Yes, I was the person who recommended that Dreyfus book here some three or four years ago. This one: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067406030X
It's a terrific reference book, and a cogent argument covering many of the aspects of instrumentation and practice in Bach's vocal music. It's a comprehensive package of source-critical study, organology, performance practice, and musical analysis. Some thanks I get for recommending good musicological sources that are standard scholarly materials in this field!
So, the disappointment against that book, in the estimation of one unscholarly reader who doesn't fancy it, has led to that reader's rubbishing allegations against the whole field of musicology FOR SEVERAL YEARS. That person has to stand in front of all these fine materials proclaiming that they're all worthless, trying to prohibit anyone else reading them, lest they understand the topic better than he in theory and/or practice. Why this insidious fear of knowledge, and fear of other people's careful consideration and free thought, and fear of other people's established expertise?
>as you well know.<
...<> Yes, I "well know" this topic, having a doctoral degree in it. And I've been presenting these resources from my hard-earned study because they are essential material to understanding this topic and doing this professional work well: playing Bach's music correctly and convincingly.
> This is the book that most proponents <
Who?
>of the 'Harnoncourt Doctrine' <
A 'Doctrine' that presumably exists at all, outside the straw-man view of the one who invented that terminology so it can be belittled? The "most proponents" are some vast unwashed mass of misled individuals?
>swear by.<
As if university training is the swearing of allegiance to materials (and presumably esoteric techniques) unknown to the naive and the unstudied? Like it's all some grand initiation into private enlightenment, or something, where smart people dare not participate? That's a rather caustic allegation against accreditation.
<>
Myself, I mention these fine scholarly sources every half year or so, on the off-chance that there's somebody here in this discussion group who has genuine interest in learning the material and understanding performance practice. If even one person reading this goes to a library and makes an interlibrary loan request, to study what's in these articles and books, it's worth it. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (June 2, 2005):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>So, it's true about that perpetual refusal to read Williams and Mendel. And the excuse given here is that they're probably not worth anything; therefore there's no responsibility taken to study them before deciding that. Just chuck them onto the bonfire.<<
If there had been anything truly remarkable in them (overwhelming evidence beyond what the Dreyfus book has to offer, it certainly would have been brought up here on the BCML. However, nothing of this sort was ever mentioned when the last, more thorough discussion of this subject was undertaken. From this it is easy to conclude that there are no hidden gems in Williams and Mendel, and more importantly, the evidence in the HIP Bach cantata recordings accords with Dreyfus' contention. This is what is important for those who listen to the Bach cantatas in HIP versions.
This is all very similar to the hype, spin and innuendo used with Rifkin's new booklet. Those that read it are unable/unwilling (perhaps both) to summarize the main points of evidence. It is a very hollow argument to say "read the booklet/article whatsoever, or have it sent by university loan" when those who have studied it fail to produce the needed evidence which truly backs up a theory such as OVPP or the shortened accompaniment for secco recitatives in Bach's sacred vocal works.
>>...turning a fine piece of scholarship into a straw book to be burned, on account of not fancying the outcomes or understanding the methodology used in it.<<
The methodology is faulty in Dreyfus book, this does not mean that it needs to be burned. It need only be studied with great caution and not simply believed upon faith in the author.
>>It's quite blasphemous to assert that Dreyfus's book is any sort of bible, whatever one thinks personally of people who have studied Dreyfus's work.<<
Note that 'bible' was not capitalized! Some musicians/musicologists may have read and studied Dreyfus' book, but it is very possible that they have done this uncritically because it was something they wanted to believe in the first place after hearing the early recordings of Leonhardt and Harnoncourt.
>>"Outdated" in the view of one who hasn't even looked at that other research, to see what's in there among the supporting materials and the salient points about organ registration?<<
These salient points about organ registration were mentioned in the primary sources from Bach's time. Why does one have to read Williams to get this information second hand, unless one is unable to read it in the original German text from the period?
>>Yes, I was the person who recommended that Dreyfus book here some three or four years ago. This one: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067406030X<<
Hurray for the one who recommended it! It certainly gives the possibility for anyone on these lists (similar to the Parrott book on OVPP) to look at a good summary of current arguments regarding theories that are affecting immensely the performance practices used in the recordings of the Bach cantatas.
>>Some thanks I get for recommending good musicological sources that are standard scholarly materials in this field!<<
Without these fairly easily available books, there could be no reasonable basis for discussion judging from the way that the proponents of these theories tend to hide behind these sources and treat them as a 'fait accompli' rather than engage directly the counter arguments that are offered elsewhere, as for instance, on this list as documented on Aryeh's BCW.
>>That person has to stand in front of all these fine materials proclaiming that they're all worthless, trying to prohibit anyone else reading them, lest they understand the topic better than he in theory and/or practice. Why this insidious fear of knowledge, and fear of other people's careful consideration and free thought, and fear of other people's established expertise?<<
There is certainly no attempt to prohibit anyone else from reading these excellent summaries of theories that lack sufficient proof and evidence. The fear of other people's careful consideration is really on the part of those who are unwilling to engage directly the key arguments and hard evidence that is available in these books and investigate why translations from the German original have been slin order to make them appear to support the theory in question.
Why do those who support these theories have to use tactics, all of which are devised or used with full intent to sabotage an on-topic discussion from being carried out more completely. What are these tactics and why are they used to avoid a direct confrontation of arguments? Obviously all means necessary must be employed to allow the current theory not to be eroded in any way.
Tactics:
1. only allow the discussion to continue firmly focused on a specific topic until it appears that the theory is being weakened
2. when the latter occurs, quickly switch away from the uncomfortable questions or counter evidence by employing the following:
a) begin a personal attack on the one bringing up uncomfortable evidence to the contrary by emphasizing that only trained experts in musicology can read and interpret original documents and that only true musicians have a feeling for what is correct or appropriate at any given moment in a performance
b) try to change the focus away from what Bach might have done to what did musicians/composers in other countries do or what was customary before or after Bach's main productive period, his early years in Leipzig
c) use inflammatory language and demeaning descriptions as far as it is permissible on the BCML
d) set up a series of test questions, usually having little or nothing to do with the subject matter under discussion, for the respondent to answer in order to prove 'how smart' the questioner wishes to appear
e) begin a heated discussion of an completely unrelated matter as an entirely diversionary tactic
f) avoid revealing concisely and succintly clear evidence and very logical arguments by directing others to sources that are outdated, difficult to find rather than quoting pertinent paragraphs or sections from a work which is close at hand
g) try a humorous, entertaining approach (home-spun analogies at the expense of the one who raises the difficult questions, of course, are great for this)
h) remain as general and evasive as possible, thus not allowing the seeds of doubt to arise which could occur when being too specific about the specific aspect of the theory under discussion
i) repeat as often as possible one's own credentials in case any list member might have missed them along the way (this might even intimidate the questioner or cause him 'to soften' the directness of his argumentation)
j) accuse the hard questioner of the very tactics that one constantly uses oneself (you might be surprised at how many people 'fall for' this tactic since it diverts a normal reader from beginning to question the tactics of the person 'dishing them out'
k) try to insert personal interest stories to illustrate an opposite opinion or to support an argument (politicians know quite well how effective these can be) such as 'my baby immediately knows the difference between this Bach performance and that one' or 'when my wife heard this, she knew that it was better than anything else'
l) attempt to make it appear that presenting counter arguments and counter evidence without having obtained them as a result of a university education with a degree in music/musicology is an attack against higher education and any academic pursuit
m) accuse the questioner of being illogical and do not allow common sense to enter into the picture; however, whenever the opportunity presents itself, make use of non-logical methods as long as attention is not called to them
and the list goes on, but unfortunately many important discussions have been abruptly curtailed as the focus was deliberately shifted away from the specific subject/argument under discussion.
>>As if university training is the swearing of allegiance to materials (and presumably esoteric techniques) unknown to the naive and the unstudied? Like it's all some grand initiation into private enlightenment, or something, where smart people dare not participate? That's a rather caustic allegation against accreditation.<<
But that's just it: the esoteric doctrine being applied to the performance of 'secco' recitatives in Bach's sacred cantatas, etc. is what is being taught (using Dreyfus, as a basic text) and followed without considering: "How can it be that no musician, no text book, musical dictionary, etc. has even hinted that such an unwritten rule for performing Bach's 'secco' recitatives ever existed?" By not questioning this assumption, they do become naive as they continue to perpetuate this myth and ask listeners to believe that they are doing it right because they have earned a diploma in studying this phenomenon.
>>Again, why this grand cynical attempt to keep everyone naive? What is there to gain, other than turning innocent bystanders into caustic and illogical cynics as well?<<
What is to be gained is that there will be a few innocent bystanders who will begin to open their minds and ears to what Bach more likely had in mind for performing his own 'secco' recitatives not according to an esoteric doctrine which was first enunciated by Arnold Schering in 1936 and then blindly expanded by those who followed him on this erroneous path that he had set out. These innocent bystanders will open their minds and ears and wonder about this misguided endeavor to put this theory into practice and why it is that some HIP performers are extremely reluctant to renounce such a questionable theory. This can only be construed as positive as we move into this new century that will provide us with new and better performances of Bach's cantatas more in accord with his intentions rather than what this 'Harnoncourt doctrine' has supplied.
>>What's this profound distrust of academia, that the very nature of responsible scholarship must be rubbished and replaced with nonsense? Why must good articles and books be belittled (preferably unread!) the moment they're mentioned?<<
That is the main question: are some of these books claimed to have the nature of responsible scholarship truly important sources or do they contain questionable, as yet not very well proven, theories?
>>What's this fear against those of us who understand (and play!) basso continuo, which Bach himself said was the soul of music?<<
Bach took great pains and extra effort to add personally the figures to most of his continuo parts? Why should continuo players be so keen on wanting to dispense with his recommendations? Certainly Bach had better taste in these matters than any continuo player alive today.
>>Myself, I mention these fine scholarly sources every half year or so, on the off-chance that there's somebody here in this discussion group who has genuine interest in learning the material and understanding performance practice. If even one person reading this goes to a library and makes an interlibrary loan request, to study what's in these articles and books, it's worth it.<<
If there is any list member who has followed the recommendations given and who has discovered pertinent argumentation and/or evidence in, let's say, Williams or Mendel's articles, which can be used to support or argue against the "Harnoncourt doctine" please share with the BCML any material (a selected paragraph focused on a specific issue would do) that would shed new light on the proofs offered to support the shaky, esoteric, short-accompaniment in Bach's 'secco' recitatives theories so that this ongoing discussion can reach at least an intermediary conclusion. (Avoid sharing, if possible, the same passage that Brad Lehman once related to the BCML.) |
|
Neil Halliday wrote (June 2, 2005):
Suzuki BWV 80;"incongruous" recitatives; and BWV 155.
Bradley Lehman wrote: "<...if we're referring to the typical Baroque practice of flexible note-lengths in recitative accompaniment">
But if the "flexible" note lengths are almost always invariably short as is the case in most HIP examples of Bach cantatas, the resulting fragmented, smale-scale form (one vocalist, mostly unaccompanied) is likely to sound incongruous alongside such music as we have heard in the first two movements of Suzuki's BWV 80.
[BTW, can anyone report on Suzuki's method in the 1st part of the 3rd movement (the second part takes the form of arioso, not recitative), and its effect after the preceding movements?].
This week's cantata, BWV 155, is an interesting example. In the 3rd movement, we have a mixing of recitative and arioso forms. Harnoncourt supplies instrumental accompaniment to the arioso 'bits' but not the recitative sections (other than fragmented, widely separated short chords). It is the typically minimalist, fragmented nature of the instrumental accompaniment in the recitative sections that reduces the stature, appropriateness and impact of the music, IMO.
[The person who realised the piano reduction score (available at the BCW) for this movement, must have been thinking along these lines; the impact of the harmonic progression of these chords is considerable].
>Wow! This has got to be the biggest Suzuki I have ever heard!< |
|
Continue of this part of the discussion, see: Cantata BWV 155 - Discussions Part 2 |
| |
|
|
