|
Mass in B minor BWV 232
Performed by Konrad Junghänel & Cantus Cölln
Part 1
Recording
Speaking of OVPP recordings
Cantus Cöln and Mass in B minor
Matthew Westphal wrote (April 16, 2003):
The new GRAMOPHONE reports that Cantus Cölln will record the Mass in B minor for Harmonia Mundi.
I heard them do it at the Melbourne Festival in 2000, and it was TERRIFIC.
Riccardo Nughes wrote (May 4, 2003):
[To Matthew Westphal] How many singers they used? SATB or SSAATTBB?
Matthew Westphal wrote (May 5, 2003):
[To Riccardo Nughes] You mean, did they use one singer on each part or two?
They always used one singer per part following Bach's indications. (Well, at least following the indications in my old Baerenreiter score, which, from what I've read, do reflect the designations in Bach's autograph.)
So in the choruses scored for S1S2ATB they used five singers; in the Sanctus they used six; in the Osanna they used eight. In the four-voice choruses where the soprano part is marked "Soprano 1 & 2" (Kyrie II, Gratias agimus tibi, Patrem omnipotentem), they used five singers; in the four-voice choruses where the soprano part is marked "Soprano 2" (Qui tollis peccata mundi, Crucifixus), they used four singers; in Dona nobis patrem, in which the vocal parts are marked "Soprano 1 & 2", "Alto 1 & 2", "Tenor 1 & 2" and "Bass 1 & 2", they used all eight singers.
Riccardo Nughes wrote (May 5, 2003):
[To Matthew Westphal] Thanks for the info :)
Having heard a couple of times CC live (and both times they were terrific) I can only say that I'm really waiting this release.
Johan van Veen wrote (May 5, 2003):
[To Matthew Westphal] If we believe that the B-minor Mass should be performed OVPP, does this mean that the additional singers necessary to perform the 8-part sections, are doing nothing all the time until they have to step in? Or do they share the burden with the other singers? If Bach would have performed his B-minor Mass this way - which he didn't, since the work as we know it has never been performed during his lifetime -, how would he have done it?
Matthew Westphal wrote (May 5, 2003):
Johan says: >>> If we believe that the B-minor Mass should be performed OVPP, does this mean that the additional singers necessary to perform the 8-part sections, are doing nothing all the time until they have to step in? <<<
That's the way Rifkin has done it, and it has always bugged me. Junghänel and Kuijken, when I saw them perform it, used various combinations of the eight
singers they hired.
B minor Mass by Cantus Cölln
Piotr Jaworski wrote (December 4, 2003):
Let's check if it's still Bach Recordings .....
Yesterday evening I put my hands on the brand new copy of 'B minor Mass' performed by Cantus Cölln under the supervision of Konrad Junghänel (Harmonia Mundi HMC 901813.14).
One can attach any label to please his/her needs for labelling everything but there was only one JSB recording this year that left such an immediate impression: OUTSTANDING - Paul McCreesh SMP naturally. Junghänel's 'Great Mass' is from the same, if not greater, category - in my very humble opinion.
Ehud Shiloni wrote (December 4, 2003):
Piotr Jaworski wrote: < Let's check if it's still Bach Recordings ..... >
It certainly still is, Piotr!
The Cantus Cölln B-Minor just went on to my shopping list.
Thanks.
Paul Dirmeikis wrote (December 4, 2003):
[To Piotr Jaworski] Are there some samples anywhere on the Internet ?
Piotr Jaworski wrote (December 4, 2003):
[To Paul Dirmeikis] Don't get me wrong, but judging this (or any other) recording on the Internet samples would equal to such a dillema on wine purchase: you have only Polish ones in your store on the next street but all French in the city centre...
Since we shared - as far as I remember - same feelings about McCreesh, have some trust, please. :-)
Have a break and rush to the CD store.
Bob Henderson wrote (December 4, 2003):
Alas, not yet available in the States.
Kirk McElhearn wrote (December 4, 2003):
There are 30-second RealAudio clips here:
http://www.fnac.com/Shelf/article.asp?PRID=1481495&SID=08ac6730%2D72d6%2Daae6%2D1fde%2D83cf13850426&UID=1BB28B300%2DDD77%2DFF2C%2DC169%2D59B2B5EBBA46&AID=&Origin=FnacAff&TTL=051220031414&NID=115747
Robert Sherman wrote (December 4, 2003):
[To Paul Dirmeikis] Listening to brief Internet samples can be deceptive of course. But based on what I've heard, this isn't my cup of tea. Technically competent, but what I hear is light and fast, with good resolution but no intensity or commitment. It could be nice as background music, though -- I mean that sincerely, not as an insult.
Neil Halliday wrote (December 4, 2003):
[To Kirk McElhearn] A quick run through those samples shows this version to have some good points, but the speed of (particularly) the 1st part of the Sanctus, for me the high point of the whole work, would be a barrier to my purchase of the recording.
Paul Dirmeikis wrote (December 4, 2003):
[To Piotr Jaworski] I don't take it wrong, of course, and I understand your point of view concerning the Internet samples. And I remember very well that we shared our enthusiam for McCreesh's SMP. I could rush to buy any McCreesh or Rifkin new Bach recording, but I have to confess that the 2 Cantus Cölln recordings that I have (the Motetten and Cantatas 4, 106, 196 & 12) are far from being my favourite... So, I trust you but... nevertheless I'd like to listen to a sample or two... Rifkin's and Parrott's B minor Mass recordings are still feeding my soul so well.
Mass in B minor - Cantus Cölln
Paul Dirmeikis wrote (December 7, 2003):
[To Piotr Jaworski] You are right, Piotr. It surely takes more than 30-second samples to make up a mind on the last release of the Mass in B minor by Cantus Cölln directed by Konrad Junghänel... Despite my suspicion of Cantus Cölln, I finally bought the set yesterday, I listened to it about five times, and my impressions are still mitigated and uneasy to express.
For sure, I don't share your complete enthusiasm, and I didn't get the same musical shock than with McCreesh's SMP (BWV 244). Maybe is it because I already know how a OVPP interpretation of the Mass sounds like, since I have Rifkin's and Parrott's versions, which I both love ?
The instrumentalists sound great, and the recording technique offers a very wide, precise and beautiful sound space. Most parts have more rhythmic accentiations (beautiful "Qui Tollis Peccata Mundi"), and apart from the "Gratias Agimus Tibi" and the "Dona Nobis Pacem", they have quite similar tempi than Rifkin and Parrott. I don't really sense that the fast tempo on the "Gratias..." and the "Dona..." improves anything, or makes me see these parts in a new light. [Cantus Cölln: Gratias Agimus Tibi : 2:01 (Rifkin 2:55, Parrott 2:56), Dona Nobis Pacem: 2:18 (Rifkin 3:06, Parrott 3:02)]
If the fast tempo could possibly fit the words of "Gratias Agimus Tibi...", I think that it's not far from a misinterpretation concerning the "Dona Nobis Pacem": we don't leave the Mass and ask God to grant us peace with this sense of haste. If Bach twice the same melody, but a slightly different orchestration and harmonisation, I think that the tempo should also be different in order to make us feel that one spiritually evolves between the almost beginning of the mass and its end. In the SMP, Enoch zu Guttenberg makes the "O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden" melody, which appears 5 times, never sound the same (he alters the tempo or the dynamics) and I like this idea of showing the soul mouvements in its evolution on the ground of a same melody. Shouldn't this be the sense of using a similar melody twice in the Mass (or five times in the SMP - or even more than five, since this chorale also appears in the Christmas Oratorio (BWV 248) and the cantata BWV 161) ? Bach wasn't short of melodic invention, that's the least we can say, so we could suppose that using several times a same melody surely had another meaning for him than "Gee, this tune is gonna be a hit ! Let's use it again !"
Does anyone know a Mass recording where the tempi of the "Gratias..." and the "Dona..." are different ?
Getting back to the Cantus Cölln recording and to my mitigated impression, I'd would just like to add that the singers give me this same feeling I already had when listening to the Motteten recording and the Actus Tragicus recording, and which I can hardly define... A kind of disembodied voices, technically very good, but where the meaning of the words seem only to show on the surface... I know this is very subjective, and far from being a very convincing musical argument. I also remember reading the same kind of criticism about Rifkin's version (cold, lack of passion) although I never felt that with Rifkin... So I can understand why you are so enthusiastic, Piotr, with this new release, which is indeed globally a very good interpretation, but it didn't make me hear and feel something else than already heard and felt with Rifkin or Parrott.
Nevertheless, thank you for informing about this release. These kind of posts are the only reason of my still staying on the list, although it unfortunately represents only 10 % of the posts (90 % being immediately delated, these last weeks, when I read the name of who is posting, and I suppose there are many of us doing the same)
Bob Henderson wrote (December 7, 2003):
[To Paul Dirmeikis] Thanks so much for your review of the Cantus Cölln BMM. Your description of the sound of the group as 'disembodied' and I would add, aloof, fits my experience with the motets and the Altbachisches Archiv. It is music one appreciates more than music in which one becomes involved. And I can't imagine hurrying the Dona Nobis Pacem. I think I will wait on this one. Also appreciated here are your thoughts on the health of the list, which I also share.
Piotr Jaworski wrote (December 9, 2003):
[To Paul Dirmeikis] Apologies for rather late reply.
Your comments - of course - did not disappear among those so many posts the BRML is loaded day after day. Strange that almost none reacted.The new recording of JSB major work does not immediately cause a 'thread' here any longer. Rather pity.
As it happened with McCreesh Passion, the same happens here - it will take long weeks before I formulate my own "Where I Stand" towards this performance. But one seem to be constant and will not change easily - I'm really enthusiastic about this recording.
This year such emotions I felt only two times - early spring with McCreesh and late Autumn with Piotr Anderszewski new Chopin disc.Deepest possible affection from the first sight, feeling that this is the moment when I experience the very nature of Art. A sort of message that comes from the Performer, that the perfectly known work can be interpreted in a different way. That as long as human creativity and imagination are concerned - there are no limits, no barriers, nothing had been 'proved' or 'done'. We are still on the search mission...
I know Cantus Cölln pretty well, after their early German baroque recordings, after famous "Actus Tragicus" was very much curious 'what next'. I thought that my dream recording would be Cantus Cölln and Akademie fur Alte Musik Berlin performing SMP... The Great Mass it's not a disappointment ;-)
I don't want to touch the 'tempos subject' here - it obviously doesn't matter to me that much. I can recall some reactions for McCreesh: "too fast!, unbearably fast!, dance-like performance!!!" Careful listening proved that while somewhere really faster than the rest - in most of the parts - tempos were really 'standard' ones. When listening to Cantus Cölln one can ask loudly: "where do they rush so much?". But this questions comes two or three times only - and one can really - with some time - accustom to that. More - can even try to understand that 'rush'. On the other hand, when I listen to my favourite Hickox, sometimes I have a feeling that it's even faster. Well, may i repeat - no problem for me at all.
Singers and orchestra.... What stroke me from the first notes, first minutes of this recording was rather the relatively 'weak' orchestral force. To some extent - real orchestral OVPP! Three violins(!), single viola and cello! Reduced forces elsewhere .. only organ - no harpsichord. But what result! What a fantastic sound (excellent engineering and production is another issue here), the use of organ in this recording is simply revelatory.
I taste this recording bit by bit, piece after piece.... still not ready for serious review or discussion, decided to write because such posts like yours, Paul, should not come unanswered here.
Uri Golomb wrote (December 9, 2003):
Piotr Jaworski wrote: < The new recording of JSB major work does not immediately cause a 'thread' here any longer. Rather pity. >
In this particular case, this might have something to do with the fact that this recording still seems to be of limited availibility in some places. Strangely, it's not even advertised on Harmonia Mundi's website -- at least as far as I can determine... Even where available, I suppose not everyone rushes to buy the recording upon the very first opportunity. I have high expectations of this particular recording, and have every intention to obtain it -- but it might take a month or two. I will definitely write to the list about it once I've had a chance to heard it propertly. I suppose this applies to several other members.
Peter Bright wrote (December 9, 2003):
[To Uri Golomb] I have just heard a few individual movements, courtesy of Piotr. This was my first response, written in a reply to Piotr while listening for the first time (my opinions may change, both with repeated listening and once I have purchased the entire album):
--------------------------------
First thoughts in real time as listening to each piece:
Crucifixus - Beautiful sound - having Richter as my benchmark, hearing such a stripped down, 'bare' performance is a bit of a shock, but I really like it - you hear much more of the individual strands of the piece when it is one voice per part. I'm not sure it will replace the full 'in your face' qualities of Richter, but I would place this as preferable to Parrot and the ideal choice if you really want to hear the way Bach weaves his musical lines around each other...
Et in spiritum - As I think you know, Parrot is my benchmark here. Cantus Cölln is very fast. Their performance is the most 'conversational' of those that I have heard - there is little emotional intensity, but perhaps this is the way it should be? For some reason I am reminded of the Suzuki approach in the SMP (BWV 244) - you don't need to exaggerate the emotions because, with Bach, the music is so perfect that adding obvious intonation and 20/21 century 'musical predictabilities' is unnecessary - does that make sense? Now it is coming to the end, I realise that I REALLY like this - it's beautiful.
Et incarnatus - I'm not sure this has the haunting impact of Richter, but, as with the Crucifixus, it feels like a great priviledge to be able to (or at least have the impression of) listen to Bach's compositional process at work. This time I am reminded of the new Beatles Let It Berelease, with all Phil Spector's additions and playing around removed. 'Less is more' as the old cliche goes - the music has a 'skeletal' feel but I enjoyed listening to it.
Et resurrexit - Cantus Cölln makes this sound like a dance! It's a very graceful performance, but I would hope for more power from the trumpets (although nobody in my mind can match Richter for that 'trumpets from the heavens' impact - obviously modern instruments help in this regard because of their volume advantage...). It's very nice, but I think my expectations of this piece have been semi-permanently set in stone by Richter. But, I expect that repeated listenings (and listening in the context of the whole album) will increase its stature in my mind...
Gloria - Wonderful! The small forces really convey the joy of this music. It breathes and sounds very playful. This is almost certainly the finest version of this short piece that I know of. More impressive than 'et resurrexit', it grabs the attention throughout. I had to play it again as soon as it was over...
Laudamus te - I have always found this an unusual piece. Have you heard Magdalena Kozena's version (I know you are not a great fan, but I do like it). This, though, is better. Again, a 'matter of fact' performance, but the instrumental passages are very impressive (particularly the violin work which connects the verses). The vocal performance is quite 'reserved', but seems to fit perfectly against this music. I like it!
So, the bottom line is that I am going to have to buy it! I look forward to the time when we can discuss it in more detail... I have been looking for another version of the B Minor mass for some time (I only have those by Richter and Parrot, although I have heard Gardiner), and this seems ideal (and a nice contrast to Richter!).
Piotr Jaworski wrote (December 9, 2003):
[To Uri Golomb] Of course you're right, of course I'm well familiar with all those
circumstances. Bitter irony was behind my words, maybe I should mark it better.
Donald Satz wrote (December 9, 2003):
[To Uri Golomb] I don't believe the set has yet to be released in the U.S.
Bob Henderson wrote (December 10, 2003):
Not available in the States as yet. But recent posts, for which I am greatful, convince me that I will take the plunge. When available.
Mass in B minor - Cantus Cölln
Ehud Shiloni wrote (December 30, 2003):
Finally bought it.
Heard it once.
Comments:
A very polished performance.
Some movements are excellent. Some are less so.
On first hearing it does not add too much to Rifkin's and Parrot's groundbreaking versions.
No "revelations".
Just good stuff. Excellent accoustics, too.
Recommended, but not necessarily an essential "Desert Island" version.
More hearings will follow.....
Season's greetings to all
New Arrival
S.W. Anadgyan wrote (January 6, 2004):
I do wish you three hundred and sixty more good days ...
It was today in Montréal that I was able to purchase the Mass in B Minor done by Konrad Junghänel and the Cantus Cölln. I did listen to it entirely but just once.
My first impression; it is "precious " as in delicate, as in a drive in a convertible antique on a summery Sunday afternoon in the country. It is very nice but it doesn't grab me often. I'm wondering why the Parrott OVPP version was not so " obvious " to my ears as this one is when it comes to minimal forces. There was a section with the violins in the Gloria that was so rendered in a peculiar way, it seemed the emphasis was put somewhere else than what I'm accustomed to.
I was able to acquire the Christmas Oratorio by Nikolaus Harnoncourt and I'm very happy with this recording though again I haven't come around to listen to it more than once. There was the latest Herreweghe, Münchinger's MBM and XO finding their way to my collection thanks to a sale that made their acquisition enticing.
I still intend to pursue my Bach immersion and refine my written expositions; amateurs don't rule !
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (January 6, 2004):
[To S.W. Anandgyan] I have heard Münchinger's Weinachtsoratorium and (not to discourage, but to maybe enlighten) found it wanting (as with his interpretations of the Messe h-Moll, the Magnificat, the Matthaeuspassion, and the Johannespassion).
The chief problem I have with it is the density and the dullness. He seems not to bring out the emotional aspects and the language of the music, but to treat it as a student does his/her books. In other words, it seemed to me that his interpretations were rigid and lifeless.
I have also heard Richter's and Rilling's (for all except the Magnificat) interpretations as well as those of the Thomanerchor Leipaig and Ton Koopman (his interpretation of the Weinachtsoratorium, the Matthaeuspassion, and the Johannespassion) and found these better. Here are some really good recordings, which bring out the life and the language of the music.
So if you want to get Münchinger's recordings, well and good, but be carefull.
Cantus Cölln
S.W. Anadgyan wrote (January 6, 2004):
I'm listening again to their rendition of the MBM and it is the 'Laudamus te' that has left me perplexed with, what I consider, unusual application of tempos.
The beginning of the 'Qui tollis peccata mundi' usually has a mood change to utter softness, near rapture, and now I am looking for it for it is not happening.
These are my two main deceptions, nevertheless the 'Agnus Dei' is quite sumptuous.
I sure look forward to read Uri's take on this recording and other more knowledgeable subscribers' point of view.
Jack Botelho wrote (January 7, 2004):
[To S.W.Anandgyan] Thanks for keeping us informed on your journey through recordings of Bach. This new MBM recording is "hot" and the reference/comparison you made with the old Parott rendition is very interesting. I look forward to input from other members on this point.
Your posts are always very interesting and informative to read!
BWV 232 Cantus Cölln
Thomas Braatz wrote (January 7, 2004):
Yesterday I received my copy of the B minor Mass, BWV 232, performed by the Cantus Cölln under the direction of Konrad Junghänel. This recording, made in February 2003 and released on Harmonia Munid on 2 CDs [CD format 901813.14 or SACD 801813.14], represents one of the most recent attempts to showcase OVPP (one voice per part), a performance alternative first actively promoted by Joshua Rifkin [see appendix 6 of Andrew Parrott’s “The Essential Bach Choir” Boydell Press, 2000] who simply took Arnold Schering’s [Bach Jahrbuch 17, 1920 and “Johann Sebqastian Bachs Leipziger Kirchenmusik,” Leipzig, 1936, pp. 21, 45] recommendation of reduced choral forces (no more than 12 for the cantata performances in Leipzig) to its logical extreme, applying, as it were, ‘Spanish boots’ to Bach’s “Entwurff…” of 1730 and giving the musical world his extreme ‘authentic-Bach” solution: OVPP.
In his argumentation, Rifkin takes Bach’s ‘political’ statement as literally as it would permit: Rifkin’s presentation begins to resemble a ‘shell game’ whereby he sets the rules as follows (similar to Mephistopheles’ description of ‘cut-and-dry’ logical syllogisms in Goethe's 'Faust'):
1) The existing original parts of Bach’s sacred vocal compositions (usually one part per voice/instrument except for violins [a doublet is sometimes provided for the violins and extra parts for the bc]) only allow for one singer/player per part. If Bach only copied or had one part copied, it would automatically mean that only one singer/player could use it (read from it), according to Rifkin’s rules of the game as Rifkin would like to have the game played.
2) Once the former rule is established and accepted as given, the next step is easy: one must accept quite literally Bach’s description of what constitutes each choir in his “Entwurff….” In essence, Rifkin places each choir under a shell (actually, it is Bach who deliberately devises this technique) and asks the reader to watch what happens when differently talented members of these choirs begin disappearing from the choir (playing instruments when needed): the numbers dwindle until only a quartet of soloists remains for the cantata performances Rifkin that in the absence of any other documents or reports from Bach’s Leipzig period other than the “Entwurff…,” it is necessary to accept Rifkin’s observations on this matter of OVPP. For Rifkin OVPP is the only remaining solution to Bach’s problem, hence this is the way Bach must be performed authentically.
What is it that Rifkin has disregarded and not recognized? He has not taken into account sufficiently the ‘political’ aspect of Bach’s “Entwurff….” Bach may have speculated that by presenting and overstating somewhat in great detail the deficiencies in the musical program of the Leipzig churches, the authorities might be moved to spend more money to improve the quality of music (which Bach felt was in decline) and remove these deficiencies so that the musical programs at the churches of Leipzig would continue to uphold the prestige that they had attained for the city of Leipzig.
Unfortunately, Bach was unable to outwit his opponents who held on tightly to the purse strings and who found various reasons not ‘to buy into’ Bach’s ploy:
1) Bach, ever resourceful to get his music performed in the best way possible, found other ways to enhance the performances by engaging former pupils who had left the school, students from the university who were eager to gain some musical experiences and other professionals who lived in the area. For this Bach either paid them out of his own pocket or gave them personal instruction gratis, or provided performance opportunities which they might not otherwise have had. Knowing about these things and noticing that the level of performance was not really noticeably declining, the city/church council members had little inclination or motivation for providing extra monies for this purpose. They would have been thinking or saying: “Things are good enough as they are, so why do anything at all about this situation?” Such would have been their response, had they been asked.
2) Bach also had a notable record in antagonizing authorities through certain comments (such as how unmusical some of these important individuals who had control and influence over these matters affecting Bach really were.) He may also have crossed some of the key individuals who sat in judgment of this matter.
3) Bach encountered great envy which he relates in his letters. Such envy could easily have developed into hatred on the part of some whose only aim in life became reducing and diminishing in every way possible the admiration and fame the Bach was beginning to experience.
This period of crisis in Bach’s life was caused in part by his unsuccessful method for attempting to remedy the situation by making it appear that the music in the churches was on the verge of collapse while, in reality, the performances were probably still of a very high standard. Such a statement as the “Entwurff…” should not, therefore, be automatically accepted as a detailed documentation of Bach’s actual performance practices which according to Rifkin amounted primarily to OVPP and OPPP (one player per part.) Rifkin’s extreme reduction of the number of singers/players to one per part disregards the very likely possibility that at least 3 people could easily be singing/playing from a single part (Schering, p. 30 in the book from 1936 listed above.) Elsewhere in Schering’s book he makes clear just how cramped the performing areas in the balcony lofts were. This left no extra space for extra music stands, etc.
An important question which Rifkin seems to overlook because he is so taken in by his own logic is:
What do Bach’s sacred choral (with instruments) compositions such as the B minor Mass sound like when performed with OVPP/OPPP? Is this the sound that Bach envisioned when he helped to prepare the parts for performance in Dresden?
To obtain a reasonable idea of the size of the musical forces [larger than OVPP/OPPP] available to Bach in Dresden, the reader should consult George B. Stauffer’s book, “Bach: The Mass in B Minor” (Schirmer, 1997) pp. 206-214, the chapter entitled, “Issues of Performance Practice.”
Commentary on the Cantus Cölln recording:
Imagine yourself as Felix Mendelssohn, who had not yet heard the B minor Mass, but who experiences a reduced-in-force performance version of this composition in the home of Schelble in Frankfurt (A. Schweitzer’s “J. S. Bach” Dover, 1966, vol I, p. 246 and vol. II, pp 462-3.) This was time when home performances of Bach cantatas by amateurs were taking place. There was no room for a large choir and orchestra, and often a piano substituted for the orchestra and only 4 – 5 soloists sang the parts. What would your impression of this music most likely be? It would be a revelation of the power and beauty of Bach’s music, although it had not been performed under optimal conditions with appropriate instruments, 1st-class soloists and a choir of at least a dozen people. Bach’s music has this effect upon many people, but does this mean that we have to listen to it this way if we are not actually involved in performing the music? No, as listeners we should be able to choose performances which are not on the fringe of unproven possibilities
OVPP/OPPP performances are certainly not new since Rifkin’s attempt to legitimize with his performances what once used to be perhaps the only way to become acquainted with Bach’s music in the past before the age of recordings. Rifkin was the pioneer for the wave of OVPP/OPPP that followed him: Cantus Cölln, McCreesh, etc. with cantatas and the SMP.
In the Cantus Cölln recording, the opening “Kyrie eleison” sounds rather impressive when you consider that you are only hearing 10 voices supported by a thin, OPPP instrumental ensemble (there is only a maximum of 3 violins playing simultaneously at certain times. The instruments are generally extremely subdued. The best description I can think of is ‘reticent’ except for the very thin-sounding (a metallic-wire sound although these instruments supposedly play on gut strings) violins. The soft baroque oboes lack much in the way of volume or individual character. The bass foundation is appropriately solid, but the trumpets are unbelievably non-existent at times or else extremely soft. The high, suspended notes on the trumpets are indeed the greatest disappointment in this recording. Some of the greatest passages Bach ever wrote for trumpets sound as if they are being played on a soft organ stop in the background.
The highly touted transparency of all the parts and the perfect balance supposedly evident in OVPP/OPPP reveals itself here to be a myth that can not be rectified by all the most sophisticated recording technology in the world. Independent musical lines in the instruments as well as in the voices have a way of disappearing and reappearing again. It makes me wonder why Bach wrote some of these parts in the first place. Simply ‘pour decoration’? This brings up the question of 'demi voix' which tend to display a weakness in the low range (insufficient volume) as they often do here. What happens when such voices descend to lower notes against a background of 4 other voices and the additional instruments colla parte? They disappear and can not be heard or sing softly at a reduced volume.
What are characteristics that can be caused by using OVPP/OPPP, as in this recording?
1) The tempi are generally extremely fast. As a result the orchestral instruments tend to play with a light staccato and the singers sing sotto voce (not with a full voice). The effect of this upon the general impression of the performance of this music is that it loses its dignity and grandeur and is transformed into a light chamber-music composition befitting courtly entertainment. There are numerous ‘bouncy’ and ‘jazzy’ moments that seem entirely out of place here. The melismas are taken very fast and are executed as very light ‘shakes’
2) There are some disingenuous, humorous moments [such as “in remissione” in the Confiteor] when the choir members seem to be thinking “We’re trying very hard to make this sound interesting by ‘jazzing’ things up a bit here.” The Sanctus begins to sound like a secular parody of a sacred piece.
3) Extreme gestu(exaggerations of what is contained in the score) abound in numerous places: The ‘Qui tollis’ has a slow waltz effect created by a strong, heavy 1st beat in the continuo followed by two sharp staccato notes in the strings. (Gesturing gone awry?)
4) Some of the great moments in the B minor Mass that I always look forward to with great anticipation simply lack the ability to move me emotionally here. Either things move to fast (the it’s-over-before-it-even-began syndrome) or there is an uncanny flat (not in pitch), unemotional style of singing in some slower sections. The magnitude and the mysterious power of this work have been watered down and this leaves much to be desired, unless, of course, you have never heard this work before.
Listening to this recording only once confirms many of the suspicions that I have had concerning OVPP/OPPP:
1) It’s an interesting experiment that might work with some early pre-Leipzig cantatas where the possibility exists that they were actually performed this way by professional musicians.
2) The OVPP/OPPP choir and orchestra simply can not do justice to the vision that Bach must have had in mind for the performance of a work such as this.
Uri Golomb, can you explain what you mean by:
>>but his [Koopman’s] actual response fails to address some pretty central points in Rifkin's arguments<<?
Donald Satz wrote (January 7, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz] Interesting review but the first three of the four characteristics Tom mentions as being caused by using OVPP have nothing to do with OVVP. For example, OVVP does not lead to fast tempos.
Tom's basic conclusions appear to be that OVPP is wrong, sounds wrong, and Bach wouldn't like it either. I haven't heard this new version, but I have very much enjoyed the Rifkin and Parrott recordings.
Bob Henderson wrote (January 7, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz] Thankyou so much for your review of the Cantus Cölln BMM. I have only one recording by them, the Motets. Although I spend a good bit of my available money on recordings, I am still careful with my resources. My familiarity with the Motets led me to believe that the KC recording of the Mass might disappoint. Nothing that I have read on this sight - including your good review - lead me to a different conclusion. I love the Richter. Its a reason I came to Bach in the first place. And I find the Gardner exciting. I anticipate the Suzuki. I am not opposefd to OVPP on principle. I like the McCreesh SMM for its drama and its intimacy. But Ill put a hold on the CK - BMM. Thanks again for your thorough and insightful review.
Bradley Lehman wrote (January 7, 2004):
Donald Satz wrote: < Interesting review but the first three of the four characteristics Tom mentions as being caused by using OVPP have nothing to do with OVVP. For example, OVVP does not lead to fast tempos.
Tom's basic conclusions appear to be that OVPP is wrong, sounds wrong, and Bach wouldn't like it either. I haven't heard this new version, but I have very much enjoyed the Rifkin and Parrott recordings. >
I agree, Don, with all the points you've presented in this posting.
And I too have enjoyed the Rifkin and Parrott recordings of the BMM, very much, for many years; just had the Parrott on again a few days ago, incidentally. Haven't heard the Cantus Cölln yet, either. Where is it available in the US yet, if at all, except by import?
Donald Satz wrote (Jaanuary 7, 2004):
[To Bradley Lehman] I haven't found it anywhere through a U.S. source. Around Christmas Time, the lag time from distribution in Europe to distribution in the U.S. rises quite a bit. From some of the release dates given at the ARKIV web site, I think a slew of new recordings will hit the stores starting in mid January.
Matthew Westphal wrote (January 7, 2004):
I've meant to send the group a note ever since this recording first became a topic of conversation on the List, and I apologize for not doing so sooner.
I haven't heard the recording yet -- Harmonia Mundi is releasing it in the US in February -- but I did travel to Australia to hear Cantus Cölln's concert performance (its first) of the Mass in B minor at the 2000 Melbourne Festival. I was particularly intrigued because Konrad Junghänel had told me (in a 1998 interview that I think you can still find at Amazon.com) that he would "never" do a OVPP B minor Mass "because I think it's definitely wrong."
Frankly, I thought the concert was worth traveling to the other side of the globe for. (Not that visiting Australia didn't have appeal of its own, of course.) I found the performance skillfully executed, well-balanced, insightful and, yes, dramatically involved. (It sometimes seemed to me that the singers, especially alto Elisabeth Popien, were almost like actors.)
I know that several observers (here on the List and in various published reviews) have found the Cantus Cölln recording of the Mass somewhat removed and dramatically uninvolved. As I haven't heard this recording, I can't comment directly on that; I have found, though, that while every live Cantus Cölln performance I have heard has been emotionally involved and compelling, I have not found all of their recordings equally compelling. The best example I can think of is the six Bach motets: for all of the Cantus Cölln recording's strengths (and it is my favorite recording of those works), it. doesn't have nearly the emotional impact that the live performances I've heard of the same pieces by that ensemble. I don't know -- perhaps (I'm speculating here) Cantus Cölln is one of those performers/groups that need an audience to do their most inspired work.
But the topic I really wanted to mention to the List is Junghänel's very fast tempos, about which some List members have commented. I'm referring specifically to the "alla breve" movements -- the ones notated, in modern terms, in "cut" time (Kyrie II, Gratias agimus tibi, Credo, Patrem omnipotentem, Confiteor/Et expecto, Dona nobis patrem.) (This may apply to the Crucifixus as well, but frankly, after three years have passed, I can't remember how he treated that movement.)
I asked Junghänel about his tempo choices for those movements, and he told me that he had decided to take the "alla breve" indication at face value -- meaning that he was treating the breve/whole note as the basic pulse of the movement, not the half note (as is typically done). In other words, his basic beat for, e.g., the Kyrie II is not a very fast two, it's a moderate one.
Again, I haven't heard the recording, so I can't comment on how well or poorly the tempo choices work there. My memory of the performance in Melbourne is that (a) I felt considerable initial shock at hearing these movements nearly twice as fast as I was used to, and (b) once I had adjusted, Junghänel's alla breve tempos worked very well. (If there was a movement with which I remained uncomfortable, it was the "Dona nobis pacem: “personally, I just couldn't help wanting a little more breadth in that magnificent final statement. Intellectually, though, I admire Junghänel's decision to read the alla breve notation consistently throughout the Mass rather than giving in to my or anyone else's sentimentalized idea of how the last movement should go.)
Anyway, my primary purpose in writing this is not to defend Junghänel's tempos, but rather to explain, to those who are taken aback by the speed of some movements in his interpretation, that there is a considered rationale behind the choices Junghänel made.
I hope this was of help/interest.
All best wishes to everyone for 2004,
Benjamin Mullins wrote (January 7, 2004):
Matthew Westphal wrote: < I've meant to send the group a note ever since this recording first became a topic of conversation on the List, and I apologize for not doing so sooner.
I haven't heard the recording yet -- Harmonia Mundi is releasing it in the US in February -- but I did travel to Australia to hear Cantus Cölln's concert performance (its first) of the Mass in B minor at the 2000 Melbourne Festival. I was particularly intrigued because Konrad Junghänel had told me (in a 1998 interview that I think you can still find at Amazon.com) that he would "never" do a OVPP B miMass "because I think it's definitely wrong." >
<SNIP>
Here is the link for those interested: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ts/feature/11149/104-0712026-3543965
Thomas Braatz wrote (January 7, 2004):
Uri Golomb shared the following information: >>Well, towards the end of that book (p. 143), Parrott lists the claims which any arguments in favour of "the conventional image of Bach's choir" (i.e., that Bach always used at least 3-4 persons per vocal part) must address. Any serious challenger of the one-per-(vocal-)part hypothesis must either demonstrate these six points as true, or prove that the conventional theory can be supported even if they are not true. The lack of arguments regarding the first, second, fourth and last points is particularly disturbing: Rifkin's and Parrott's refutation of these points lies at the heart of their reasoning, yet most of their critics -- including Christoph Wolff and Ton Koopman -- have not taken the trouble to acknowledge the existence of these arguments, let alone bothered to offer counter-arguments. IF you want to check it out for yourself, Parrott's book also contains the bibliographical references for Koopman's article.<<
Thanks, Uri, for pointing this out.
Let’s begin with Parrott’s overly enthusiastic statement at the conclusion of his book on p. 145:
>>In any case, the venerable image of an ‘ideal’ 12- (or 16-) strong Bach choir singing continuously throughout each and every chorus may now be laid to rest. It is high time to rehabilitate the choir of concertists.<<
[Notice the typical style of reasoning coming into play here in the phrase “singing continuously throughout each and every chorus.” Using this exaggerated, either-or type of statement in a Mephistophelean method for obtaining ‘truth’ will lead away from ‘living’ thought to abstract thinking devoid of the spiritual component. Parrott’s idea seems to say: “Disregard completely the instances where Bach marked ‘Soli’ vs. ‘Ripieni’ (which sometimes happens when very large choirs are used) and consider the ripienists who are constantly being pressured into playing instruments and you have the only logical conclusion: the concertists (those singing ‘Soli’) which are 4 to 5 voices at the most, sing all the choral parts. The larger the orchestral forces needed for the more ambitious cantatas, the greater the likelihood that only 4 soloists will be singing. While the ripienists might easily be pressured to do ‘double duty’ during the arias, it is just in the great choral movements when their presence in the orchestra is most direly needed. Witness the feeble sounds which Junghänel obtains from his treble instruments in the larger choruses of the B minor Mass.] Perhaps this is why Junghänel hesitated and resisted recording this work in the first place. Did the 'bandwagon' effect get the better of him this time as he witnessed others climbing aboard and recording the SMP in this manner?]
Here are the points which Uri referred to (p. 143 ff. in Parrott’s book, “The Essential Bach Choir” Boydell Press, 2000):
[Instead of summarizing Rifkin’s arguments, Parrott points to the questionable nature of the assumptions made by the other side. Perhaps fearing that listing clearly the strongest points in Rifkin’s arguments at the end of the book where readers would usually quickly glance in order to obtain the essence of the arguments that had been presented elsewhere in the book, Parrott chooses instead to use his concluding chapter (Chapter 11, “Conclusions”) to offer challenges to the conservative (in this case with larger forces), non-Rifkian view of choral and instrumental forces which Bach may have used (Parrott wishes these assumptions to be proven):]
1. Cantatas demand the same type of vocal ensemble as the traditional motet repertoire
[This is a typical example of an ‘all-inclusive’ statement that implies that all cantatas (no matter from which time period, whether pre-Leipzig or not, whether motet-like or not) must fit into a single box, a fact which is impossible to prove.]
2. Ripienists are essential in all chorus movements
[Notice once again the word ‘all’ – this is necessary to force thoughts into the syllogistic ‘Spanish boots’ so that a ‘clear’ ‘non-living-thought’ result is possible. There could be some Weimar cantatas that were perhaps performed this way, so why would a knowledgeable person in Bach matters even attempt to make such a claim?]
3. Concertists are inessential in all chorus movements [The obverse of number 2 – same objection applies]
4. Copy-sharing between vocal concertists and ripienists was perfectly feasible and happened routinely
[Notice the word, ‘perfectly’ and try to prove ‘perfectly.’ By presenting as evidence 3 separate versions of the same print pp. 56-7, 122, of the church musicians in a Freiberg church, 1710-14), Parrott fails to convince through repetition of the same material since he has not presented a visualization or description (Schering, for instance, in his “Johann Sebastian Bachs Leipziger Kirchenmusik,” Leipzig, 1936) which describes how, in one of Bach’s Leipzig churches, there is a balcony loft where the singers would not have been spread apart across the balcony as depicted in the Freiberg church balcony.]
5. Large instrumental ensembles always imply large number of singers
[Notice again, the attempt to force existing situations into extreme statements which allow no exceptions! As a general statement this would be considered to be valid. Consider what happens when Beethoven requires four soloists to sing against a full orchestra at the end of the 9th Symphony. I, personally, have not yet heard a recording which entirely satisfies me in this section where the soloists appear as a quartet because even the trained (usually operatic) voices are straining unbearably to sing these parts musically. A Wagnerian orchestra can literally destroy a voice that is pushed beyond its physical limits. Only very few voices are able to survive such a strain (unless they find techniques to cut back – one prominent Wagnerian singer admitted on radio recently, that there are times that he may only be mouthing the words while the full orchestra is playing and nobody really realizes this.)
6. The ‘Entwurff…’ describes a ‘line-up’ of singers for a performance, rather than a ‘pool’ from which Bach would draw both singers and instrumentalists
[Rifkin’s notion of a ‘pool’ similar to the ‘pool’ of football players from which players are chosen at will according to circumstances, a ‘pool’ which consists of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. string players, is forced to serve as an analogy proving the opposite when Rifkin (pp. 197-8 of Parrott’s book) states: “…we can no more assume without qualification that the singers would have performed together in cantatas than we can assume that football teams routinely put forty-five men on the field.” Here Rifkin assumes that we are playing the game according to his predetermined rules (the same ones Bach attempted to use in order to persuade the council to allocate more money), rules which immediately failed in Bach’s time to move anyone, because it did not represent the actual state of things where Bach was still able to manage relatively high-calibre music performances by other methods of ‘fudging’ the strict categories which he outlined in the “Entwurff…” In other words, Bach probably found ways to ‘break the rules’ (1st string singers only sing/play in one church, 2nd string in another, etc.) by ‘commandeering’ certain good singers from the other choirs (‘strings’) by shifting his forces around and, of course, also relying upon other possibilities from outside the school as I have indicated elsewhere.]
(7.) Great music demands great forces.
[This is similar to number 5 above, but it now wishes to call into question that Bach was ever able to assemble such forces and that he may have even dreamed about/envisioned having choral movements from his cantatas, some of which were later used for the B minor Mass, performed with the larger forces that these movements seem to call for.]
Hereare some of Parrott’s assertions (positive, in favor of Rifkin’s hypothesis):
Parrott: >>…if choirs of 12-16 [singers] did exist at Leipzig, Bach would have used them only for the relatively simple ‘motet’ repertoire, and not for his own concerted music. (p. 142)<<
[Notice the words ‘if’ and ‘only’! Again, this is part of the ‘shell game’ which Rifkin capitalizes upon, but which, in reality, represents part of Bach’s failed ploy to obtain greater musical resources for his church music at a time when his supply of ‘fresh blood’ through the Thomaner School was dwindling. The “Entwurff…” is not a document intended as a precise document of Bach’s performance practices for the distant future, it is a political document which seeks additional monies for the church music programs in Leipzig in 1730.]
Parrott: >>“…it is the four concertists who carry all the chorus writing; the occasional doubling by ripienists is clearly inessential.” (p. 142)<< [notice ‘all’ and ‘clearly’!]
Christoph Wolff, in his letter printed in ‘Early Music,’ 26 (1998) p. 541 responded to this as follows: “[Bach’s] introducing a vocal quartet in place of a chorus is to view a fundamental principle through the wrong end of a telescope.”
Parrott: >>”To test the soundness of this conclusion [‘that nearly all of Bach’s concerted ‘chorus’ writing was designed to be performed with just one good singer on each part’ – notice the ‘weasel word,’ ‘nearly’ which covers any probability that this assertion could fail], let us take a final look at one of Bach’s earliest large-scale cantatas, ‘Gott ist mein König’ BWV 71….” p. 141<<
[Why is an atypical, very early cantata being used here to prove the performance practices of Bach’s prime early Leipzig period from 1723-1729, when and where quite different performance conditions prevailed? In regard to the situations that existed in smaller towns like Mühlhausen, Ton Koopman (in “Bach’s choir, an ongoing story,” ‘Early Music’ 26/1, Feb. 1998, p. 118) stated: “…it is nonsense to think that the situation was always as problematic as in the smallest provincial town.”]
Parrott disparages what he terms “orthodox thinking” and “commonsense interpretation[s]” (p. 141) used by the opponents of Rifkin’s theory and favors forcing selected information into restricted boxes which will serve well with ‘cut-and-dry’ syllogisms that are necessarily exaggerated to an extreme and are replete with words such as ‘all,’ ‘always,’ ‘none’ and ‘never’ so as to force an unwitting reader, or any opponent who would dare raise a voice against it, to accept the hypothesis of OVPP/OPPP as if it were a proven fact.
Riccardo Nughes wrote (January 8, 2004):
Listening to this recording only once confirms many of the suspicions that I have had concerning OVPP/OPPP:
1) It’s an interesting experiment that might work with some early pre-Leipzig cantatas where the possibility exists that they were actually performed this way by professional musicians.
2) The OVPP/OPPP choir and orchestra simply can not do justice to the vision that Bach must have had in mind for the performance of a work such as this.
Curiosly enough G.Leonhardt expressed the same opinions in some interviews
^__^
Donald Satz wrote (January 8, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz] I don't think it makes much difference whether OVPP is a proven fact or not. The more I read on the subject, the more I am convinced that no proof is available to support either position. All we are left with is our personal preferences, and that's what really matters, no?
Donald Satz wrote (January 8, 2004):
[To Riccardo Nughes] How do we know what Bach's vision was for the Mass in B minor? Personally, I feel that OVPP versions can be wonderful depending on the quality of performance. The same goes for multiple voice versions as well. We get so hung up on this accuracy matter that ENJOYMENT seems to be a secondary aspect.
Thomas Braatz wrote (January 8, 2004):
Don Satz inquired: >>How do we know what Bach's vision was for the Mass in B minor?<<
We know that he and his family prepared the parts for performance in Dresden, where larger, more excellent musical forces were available.
These parts were prepared for the recipient, Friedrich August II, of Dresden in 1733.
From George B. Stauffer "Bach: The Mass in B Minor" Schirmer, 1997, p. 210:
>>Conditions were far better in Dresden, of course, for Friedrich August I and then Friedrich August II, especially, assembled one of the largest and finest groups of musicians in Europe. The personnel roster of the Court Capella for 1738 lists 12 violinists, 4, violists, 5 cellists, 2 contrabassists, 5 oboists, 3 flautists, 5 bassoonists, 2 corno da caccia players, 2 organists and one lutenist. Trumpets and timpani were manned by the Court Trumpeters, an independent guild....The Dresden ensemble was not only large but was composed of virtuoso players....<<
Why would Bach restrict his performance of the Mass in B minor to the minimum of OVPP/OPPP as envisioned by Rifkin, when he [Bach] knew quite precisely what was going on in Dresden musically and could rely on the high quality performance level which his work would receive there?
Donald Satz wrote (January 8, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz] You ask questions for which there are no specific answers. You have used up quite a lot of tying time over the past couple of years blasting away at OVPP. Why? Does it bother you that others can buy recorded versions using OVPP? Assuming not, and assuming that you are not a professional in the field, what's the big deal about this subject? These are my questions.
Thomas Braatz wrote (January 8, 2004):
Don Satz asks: >> You ask questions for which there are no specific answers. You have used up quite a lot of tying time over the past couple of years blasting away at OVPP. Why?<<
What is ‘tying’ time? I have never heard this word used this way before.
>>Does it bother you that others can buy recorded versions using OVPP?<<
Not at all, if there is a reasonable expectation based upon reliable research that Bach might have performed them this way (as with some of the pre-Leipzig cantatas.)
Other than the sacred works, anything goes as far as Bach is concerned: a soprano sax for the 2nd Brandenburg, Moog synthesizer, etc.
For study purposes a get-together of musicians doing any cantata by Bach even in a non-church setting can produce fruitful results for the musicians and for listeners who may never have heard any Bach cantatas before.
I think a line can be drawn when some important, recognized recording groups present Bach’s sacred music (referring primarily to the large choruses) in this fashion with a claim of authenticity based on the questionable results of research presented by a few musicologists. When such performances with jazzy dance rhythms, extreme gesturing and overly fast tempi begin to sound like secular, humor-invoking parodies of sacred works, they should be relegated to Baroque background (a kind of elevator Muzak) music where they belong. They should not, as they are now, be treated seriously as having presented the spiritual breadth of the ennobling musical message that Bach had intended for such works. Rarely can they do anything that even begins to approach true justice for these sacred works which require a greater understanding, truer intensity (this can be rather subtle), and a more complete admiration and reverence for the genius of Bach than they are capable of delivering when they are forced to restrict themselves with the obvious limitations of OVPP/OPPP performances.
Donald Satz wrote (January 8, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz] Sorry, I meant 'typing time', and you still haven't shed any light on why OVPP issues are important to you.
Here's what's important to me about the Mass in B minor: feeling uplifted, energized, illuminated. The performances that do that are the ones I want to listen to, and they can be OVPP or not. Just what intensions or visions Bach possessed are secondary to my hedonistic priorities.
Neil Halliday wrote (January 8, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz] Yes, it is inconceivable that Bach would have presented the B minor Mass OPPP to royalty in Dresden, with thlarge forces available in that city.
Perhaps we need not be too concerned, since many period groups do present the mass with larger forces (I have the Hickox recording on tape - very enjoyable). Ofcourse, if anyone attempts to pass the OPPP approach as "authentic" (with no clear evidence in sight), they ought to be arrested!
Apparently the "authenticity" claim still carries weight in the marketplace, but I hope that's not the reason why Junghänel changed his mind, after saying he would "never" do an OPPP Mass.
Continue on Part 2
Mass in B minor BWV 232 – performed by Konrad Junghänel & Cantus Cölln: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
Konrad Junghänel : Short Biography | Cantus Cölln | Konrad Junghänel & Cantus Cölln – Recordings | “Actus Tragicus” – by Konrad Junghänel & Cantus Cölln | Motets – Cantus Cölln | Das Alt-Bachische Archiv – Cantus Cölln | BWV 232 - Junghänel & Cantus Cölln
|
