Expression and Meaning In Bach Performance and Reception: An Examination of the B Minor Mass on Record

Uri Golomb

This dissertation investigates developments in the performance of J. S. Bach’s music in the second half of the 20th century, as reflected in recordings of the Mass in B Minor, BWV 232. It places particular emphasis on issues relating to concepts of expression through performance. Between the 1950s and the 1980s, most Bach performers shared a partial consensus as to what constitutes expression in performance (e.g., intense sound; wide dynamic range; rubato). Arguments against the application of such techniques to Bach’s works were often linked with the view that his music is more “objective” than later repertoires; or, alternatively, that expressive elements in Bach’s music are self-sufficient, and should be not be intensified in performance. Historically-informed performance (HIP), from the late 1960s onwards, has been characterised by greater attention to the inflection of local details (i.e., individual figures and motifs). In terms of expressive intensity, this led to contradictory results. On the one hand, several HIP performances were characterised by a narrow overall dynamic range, light textures, fast tempi and few contrasts; these performances were often considered lightweight. On the other hand, HIP also promoted renewed interest in the practical application of Baroque theories of musical rhetoric, inspiring performances which projected varied intensity within movements. More recently, traditional means of expression have enjoyed renewed prominence. Ostensibly “romantic” features such as broad legati, long-range crescendi and diminuendi, and organic shaping of movements as wholes have been increasingly adopted by HIP musicians. In order to substantiate the narrative outlined above, the significance of the evidence preserved in sound recordings had to be checked against other sources of information. This dissertation is divided into two main parts. The first part focuses on specific “schools” of prominent Bach performers. Complete recordings of the Mass are examined in relation to the biographical and intellectual backgrounds of the main representatives of these schools, their verbally-expressed views on Bach’s music and on their own role as performers, and their style as documented in recordings of other works. The second part examines the performance history of specific movements within the Mass, comparing the interpretations preserved in sound recordings with relevant verbal analyses and commentaries. The dissertation as a whole therefore combines the resources of reception and performance studies. Beyond its specific historical conclusions concerning Bach performance in the post-war era, it also provides specific insights into Bach’s music, its meaning and its role in contemporary culture.

Expression and Meaning in Bach Performance and Reception An Examination of the B minor Mass on Record Uri Golomb King’s College, Cambridge The Music Faculty Cambridge University This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 2004 Abstract This dissertation investigates developments in the performance of J. S. Bach’s music in the second half of the 20th century, as reflected in recordings of the Mass in B Minor, BWV 232. It places particular emphasis on issues relating to concepts of expression through performance. Between the 1950s and the 1980s, most Bach performers shared a partial consensus as to what constitutes expression in performance (e.g., intense sound; wide dynamic range; rubato). Arguments against the application of such techniques to Bach’s works were often linked with the view that his music is more “objective” than later repertoires; or, alternatively, that expressive elements in Bach’s music are self-sufficient, and should be not be intensified in performance. Historically-informed performance (HIP), from the late 1960s onwards, has been characterised by greater attention to the inflection of local details (i.e., individual figures and motifs). In terms of expressive intensity, this led to contradictory results. On the one hand, several HIP performances were characterised by a narrow overall dynamic range, light textures, fast tempi and few contrasts; these performances were often considered lightweight. On the other hand, HIP also promoted renewed interest in the practical application of Baroque theories of musical rhetoric, inspiring performances which projected varied intensity within movements. More recently, traditional means of expression have enjoyed renewed prominence. Ostensibly “romantic” features such as broad legati, long-range crescendi and diminuendi, and organic shaping of movements as wholes have been increasingly adopted by HIP musicians. In order to substantiate the narrative outlined above, the significance of the evidence preserved in sound recordings had to be checked against other sources of information. This dissertation is divided into two main parts. The first part focuses on specific “schools” of prominent Bach performers. Complete recordings of the Mass are examined in relation to the biographical and intellectual backgrounds of the main representatives of these schools, their verbally-expressed views on Bach’s music and on their own role as performers, and their style as documented in recordings of other works. The second part examines the performance history of specific movements within the Mass, comparing the interpretations preserved in sound recordings with relevant verbal analyses and commentaries. The dissertation as a whole therefore combines the resources of reception and performance studies. Beyond its specific historical conclusions concerning Bach performance in the post-war era, it also provides specific insights into Bach’s music, its meaning and its role in contemporary culture. Acknowledgements I wish to thank my supervisors, Prof. John Butt and Dr. Geoffrey Webber. John Butt encouraged me in pursuing my research on Bach performance prior to my arrival in Cambridge, and his knowledge, insights and criticism proved invaluable throughout the process of research, writing and editing. I am particularly grateful to him for continuing to act as my supervisor after he took up his post as Head of the Music Department at Glasgow University. Geoffrey Webber took over as my supervisor in Cambridge, providing valuable feedback and assistance in academic and administrative issues alike. My studies in Cambridge were partly financed by grants and scholarships from the Cambridge Overseas Trust, Cambridge University, King’s College, and the British Library. I would particularly like to mention the British Library’s Edison Fellowship. This fellowship was created with the express purpose of facilitating research at the British Library Sound Archive (BLSA). In addition to financial assistance, it allowed me improved access to the Archive’s invaluable collection. I am grateful to Timothy Day, the BLSA’s Curator of Western Art Music, and to his assistant, Jonathan Summers, for alerting me to this fellowship, and for their generous help and encouragement before, during and after my tenure as a visiting fellow. In the course of my research, I had the privilege of interviewing Ton Koopman, Andrew Parrott, Helmuth Rilling and Joshua Rifkin. I appreciate their generosity in making time for the interviews and for re-examining and approving the quotes prior to their inclusion in this dissertation. I am indebted to Roland Wörner for valuable information and materials on Karl Richter; to Stephen Leys, the Intendant of the Collegium Vocale, for information on Philippe Herreweghe’s recordings of the Mass; to Prof. Lee Rothfarb (University of California at Santa Barbara) for information on Eugen Thiele; and to Dr. Yo Tomita (Belfast University) for allowing me to use his “Bach Musicological Font” I am grateful to Dr. Dorit Tanay, Head of the Musicology Department at TelAviv University, for helping me to obtain a reader’s pass for the Tel-Aviv University Library during 2002-2003; and to Aryeh Oron, convenor of www.bach-cantatas.com, for giving me access to his extensive collection of Bach recordings. -v- - vi My research benefited enormously from continued communication with fellowscholars, my seniors and peers alike. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Kevin Bazzana, Prof. Dalia Cohen, Dr. Dorottya Fabian, Rebecca Lloyd and Bernard Sherman, who shared their own research with me and read early versions of many chapters in this dissertation. Rebecca Lloyd also helped with the proof-reading process, as did Rivka Shindler; I am grateful to both of them for their diligent and intelligent work. I also received much valuable advice, feedback and information from several other scholars and musicians, among them Richard Abram, Nicholas Baumgartner, Prof. Eric Clarke, Prof. Judith Cohen, Prof. Nicholas Cook, Dr. Ian Cross, Dr. Martin Elste, Dr. Martin Ennis, Bruce Haynes, Dr. Andrew Jones, Dr. Daniel LeechWilkinson, Dr. Robert Philip, Erez Rapoport, Dr. Dorit Tanay and Eric Van Tassel. My apologies to anyone whose name was inadvertently omitted from this list. Above all, I wish to thank my parents, Dr. Abigail Golomb and Prof. Harai Golomb, who introduced me both to Bach’s music and to the rigours of academic thinking and writing. Without their love, support (in all senses), advice and encouragement I would not have been able to complete this dissertation. Table of Contents Preface xv 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Intensity in Bach reception 3 1.1.1. Beardsley’s “Canons of Criticism” 3 1.1.2. Intensity and Balance 5 1.1.2.1. Balance as Equilibrium 5 1.1.2.2. Knife-edge Balance 8 1.2. Reception through performance 10 1.2.1. The interactionist approach to reception studies 10 1.2.2. The ideology and performance model 13 1.2.3. Recordings as documents of performative intention 15 1.2.4. Work, text and performance 17 1.2.5. Intensity and performance: The x/x matrix 25 1.3. The Mass as a case study 26 1.3.1. The Mass’s discography 26 1.3.2. “Intensity” and “Balance” in the Mass’s reception 27 1.4. The selection of case-studies 29 1.4.1. The selection of the core group for Part One 29 1.4.2. The selection of movements for Part Two 30 31 1.5. Methodology of listening 1.5.1. Listening and measurement 31 1.5.2. The choice of parameters 33 1.5.3. Objectivity and subjectivity 34 PART ONE: SCHOOLS AND APPROACHES 36 2. Romanticism in Bach Performance 36 2.1. The definition of romanticism 36 2.1.1. Romantic ideology 38 2.1.2. The technical side: Attributes of romanticism 40 - vii - - viii 2.1.3. The mirror image: What romanticism is not 2.2. Romanticism in the Mass’s discography 42 45 2.2.1. Otto Klemperer: The objective “romanticist” 46 2.2.2. Eugen Jochum: Genuine romanticism? 49 2.3. Summary 3. Bach as Lutheran: Richter and Rilling 3.1. Karl Richter 50 52 53 3.1.1. Background: The Leipzig school 53 3.1.2. Richter’s premises 55 3.1.3. Richter’s practices 57 3.1.3.1. Tempo 58 3.1.3.2. Articulation 59 3.1.3.3. Clarity and timbre 59 3.1.3.4. Dynamics and hierarchy 60 3.1.3.5. The overall aesthetics: The “Über-persönlich” 61 3.1.4. Richter’s B minor Mass 62 3.1.4.1. Richter 1961 compared to other performances 63 3.1.4.2. Richter 1961 compared to Richter’s other recordings 66 3.1.5. Summary 67 3.2. Helmuth Rilling 68 3.2.1. Rilling’s premises 69 3.2.1.1. The Bach image 69 3.2.1.2. The role of performance practice research 70 3.2.1.3. Intensity in performance 71 3.2.2. Rilling’s practices 71 3.2.2.1. Articulation 72 3.2.2.2. Dynamics 73 3.2.2.3. Tempo 74 3.2.2.4. Size and constitution of performing ensembles 74 3.2.2.5. Summary 75 3.2.3. Rilling’s interpretations of the Mass 3.3. Summary 76 82 - ix 4. Bach as Rhetorician: Harnoncourt and Herreweghe 84 4.1. The meanings of rhetoric 85 4.1.1. Rhetoric as speech 85 4.1.2. Rhetoric as semantics 87 4.1.2.1. Historical weaknesses of Figurenlehre theories 88 4.1.2.2. The links to performance and expression 88 4.1.2.3. The quest for historical permission 89 4.1.3. Rhetoric as structure 91 4.1.4. Rhetoric as ornament 91 4.1.5. Summary 91 4.2. Nikolaus Harnoncourt 4.2.1. Harnoncourt’s premises 92 92 4.2.1.1. The modernisation of early music 92 4.2.1.2. Harnoncourt’s theory of rhetoric 93 4.2.2. Harnoncourt’s practices 94 4.2.2.1. The evolution of Harnoncourt’s performance style 95 4.2.2.2. A comparison of Harnoncourt and Leonhardt 97 4.2.2.3. “Frontal assault” and “subtle discomfort” 99 4.2.3. Harnoncourt’s recordings of the Mass 100 4.2.3.1. The 1968 version 100 4.2.3.2. The 1986 version 102 4.3. Philippe Herreweghe 4.3.1. Herreweghe’s premises 4.3.1.1. Herreweghe’s theory of rhetoric 4.3.1.1.1. The importance of rhetoric 4.3.1.1.2. Rhetoric as structure, and the function of styles 4.3.1.2. Herreweghe’s theory of Bach performance 106 106 106 106 107 109 4.3.1.2.1. Cantabile and lyricism 109 4.3.1.2.2. The collective nature of Bach performance 110 4.3.1.3. Herreweghe’s Bach image: Balance-as-equilibrium 111 4.3.2. Herreweghe’s performance style 111 4.3.3. Herreweghe’s recordings of the Mass 113 4.4. Summary 117 -x5. Bach as Musician: Rifkin, Parrott and Koopman 5.1. Premises 120 120 5.1.1. Bach image: Against the Fifth Evangelist 121 5.1.2. Performer’s image: The Material-Oriented approach 123 5.1.2.1. The performer’s role 123 5.1.2.2.The listener’s role 126 5.1.2.3. The ideal of perpetual revolution 127 5.1.3. The Bach Choir debate: Some comments 128 5.1.3.1. A brief historical survey 128 5.1.3.2. Bach’s intention 131 5.1.3.3. Greatness, monumentality and the congregational element 132 5.1.3.4. Bach’s place in history 133 5.1.3.5. Expressiveness 134 5.1.3.6. Summary 135 5.2. The recordings of the B minor Mass 137 5.2.1. Rifkin’s recording 137 5.2.2. Parrott’s recording 141 5.2.3. Koopman’s recording 143 5.3. Summary 6. “Neo-romantic” Performances 146 148 6.1. Introduction 148 6.2. Jeffrey Thomas 152 6.2.1. Premises 152 6.2.2. Thomas’s Mass 154 6.3. Thomas Hengelbrock 157 6.3.1. Premises 157 6.3.2. Hengelbrock’s Mass 159 6.4. Summary 161 - xi PART TWO: CASE STUDIES 163 7. Texture, Rhetoric and Shape: First Kyrie 163 7.1. Comments on Bach’s vocal fugues 163 7.1.1. Fugue and Bach’s image 163 7.1.2. Performative implications 166 7.2. First Kyrie: The shaping of the subject 7.2.1. Interpretations in theory 167 167 7.2.1.1. The limits of the subject 167 7.2.1.2.The character of the subject 168 7.2.2. Interpretations in practice 170 7.2.2.1. Smooth shaping 170 7.2.2.2. Statuesque readings 171 7.2.2.3. Lightweight readings 172 7.2.2.4. Rhetorical readings 173 7.2.2.5. Summary 179 7.3. The structure and shape of the fugue 179 7.3.1. Interpretations in theory 179 7.3.1.1. The movement’s structure 179 7.3.1.2. The movement’s shape 182 7.3.1.3. Performative implications 184 7.3.2. Interpretations in practice 185 7.3.2.1. Peak at R2 185 7.3.2.2. The arch and the monument 187 7.3.2.3. The “beautiful” and the “secular” 191 7.3.2.4. Undermining the monument 194 7.4. Summary 8. Archaism and Objectivity: Second Kyrie 8.1. Interpretations in theory 196 198 198 8.1.1. The Second Kyrie and the stile antico 198 8.1.2. Thematic materials and structural divisions 200 8.2. Interpretations in practice 8.2.1. Stile antico readings 203 203 - xii 8.2.1.1. Monumental objectivism 203 8.2.1.2. Lyricism and contemplation 204 8.2.2. “Mixed” readings 206 8.2.2.1. Contrastive renditions 206 8.2.2.2. Continuous renditions 209 8.2.3. Dramatic readings 8.3. Summary 9. The Height of Intensity: Crucifixus 9.1. Interpretations in theory 9.1.1. Individual movements: Symbols of feeling and idea 213 215 217 217 217 9.1.1.1. Incarnatus 218 9.1.1.2. Crucifixus 219 9.1.1.3. Resurrexit 220 9.1.2. Relationship between movements: Continuity and contrast 9.2. Interpretations in practice 221 224 9.2.1. Pre-rhetoric: Architecture and unity 225 9.2.2. The influence of rhetoric 230 9.2.3. Neo-romanticism: Drama and creativity 238 9.3. Summary 10. Summary 242 244 10.1. Historical conclusions 244 10.2. Methodological conclusions 247 10.2.1. Premises and practices 247 10.2.2. Interpretation “in theory” and “in practice” 249 10.3. Ideas for further research 10.3.1. Further case studies within the Mass 250 251 10.3.1.1. The role of performance practice research 252 10.3.1.2. The choice of texts 252 10.3.1.3. The treatment of “secular” influences 253 10.3.1.4. Expressive contrasts (Confiteor) 254 10.3.1.5. Symbolism and expression (Et in unum) 254 10.3.2. Comparisons with other repertoire 255 - xiii 10.3.3. Performer’s intentions: Further sources 256 10.3.4. Objectivity, subjectivity and inter-subjectivity 256 Bibliography 258 Discography 297 Section 1: Recordings of the B minor Mass 297 Section 2: Recordings of other works 367 For chapter 2 367 For chapter 3 369 1. Leipzig Thomaskantors 369 2. Karl Richter 371 3. Helmuth Rilling 373 For chapter 4 376 1. Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Gustav Leonhardt 376 2. Philippe Herreweghe 380 3. Other recording cited 382 For chapter 5 382 1. Joshua Rifkin 382 2. Andrew Parrott 383 3. Ton Koopman 383 4. Other recordings cited 384 For chapter 6 385 1. Jeffrey Thomas 385 2. Thomas Hengelbrock 385 Audio Examples 386 CD 1: Examples for Part One 386 CD 2: Examples for chapter 7 387 CD 3: Examples for chapter 8 388 CD 4: Examples for chapter 9 389 - xiv Timing Tables 391 Introductory Comments 391 Tables for chapter 2 392 Otto Klemperer 392 Eugen Jochum 394 Tables for chapter 3 396 Karl Richter 396 Helmuth Rilling 398 Tables for chapter 4 400 Nikolaus Harnoncourt 400 Philippe Herreweghe 402 Tables for chapter 5 404 Joshua Rifkin 404 Andrew Parrott, Ton Koopman 406 Table for chapter 6: Jeffrey Thomas, Thomas Hengelbrock 408 Table for chapter 7: First Kyrie 410 Table for chapter 8: Second Kyrie 414 Tables for chapter 9 418 Incarnatus 418 Crucifixus 422 Resurrexit 426 Alphabetical list of recordings of the B minor Mass 430 Preface Since the subject matter of this dissertation is sound recordings, it includes a comprehensive discography, in addition to the bibliography. The guidelines for constructing bibliography and discography alike are explained in the introductory comments to these sections. I also include four discs of audio examples, drawn from several of the recordings I discuss. These discs were prepared by Eyal Tsalyuk at the Classical Studio, Herzliyya, Israel. The music examples were prepared using the music notation program “Capella 2002”; I am grateful to Dr. David Halperin for his help and advice in using this program. Within these examples, normal slurs correspond to the original text (I relied, for this purpose, on facsimiles of the original source materials and on Christoph Wolff’s edition). Broken slurs indicate slurs that I added to the score, to delineate legato groupings in the relevant recording. All other dynamic and articulation symbols are my own additions, serving the same purpose. “>” designates an accented note; “_”, an un-accented note; “^”, a strong accent. In quotations in the main text, italics indicate emphases that are part of the original quotation; bold indicates my own added emphases. My interviews with Ton Koopman, Andrew Parrott, Joshua Rifkin and Helmuth Rilling were all taped and transcribed, and these transcripts are the basis of the quotations that appear in this dissertation. I have, however, edited these quotes to ensure clarity and fluency, and to reflect corrections suggested by the interviewees, who approved the quotes prior to their inclusion in the dissertation. This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. The main text of the dissertation does not exceed the word limit set by the Music Degree Committee. The bibliography and discography were exempt from the word count by the Board of Graduate Studies. Uri Golomb July 2004 - xv - 1. Introduction The experience of music is inseparable from performance. Setting aside the vexed philosophical issue of music’s ontology, it is clear that most listeners’ perceptions of music’s structure and emotional ambience are highly dependent on how the music is shaped in performance. Our views of a particular piece’s meaning – or indeed of its very identity – are likely to change through familiarity with different performative realisations of the notation.1 Thus, some aspects of the music’s shape, structure and meaning cannot be studied without reference to the music’s everchanging realisation in performance. In the past, such an examination was virtually impossible: the sounds of a musical performance vanished into thin air after the last note had been struck, and were not available for further examination. With the advent of recording, however, some performances acquired a durable, accessible record, which could be examined repeatedly and in detail, like a musical score. Musicology has been relatively slow in realising the new medium’s potentials (Day 2000: 228-231; Leech-Wilkinson 2001: 2-3; Philip 2004: 1-3). In recent years, however – at least since the publication of Robert Philip’s Early Recordings and Musical Style (1992) – the field of performance studies has been flourishing. My dissertation is part of this ongoing project of examining how “expression, emotion, style and ideology” are “variously specified in [the] sound” (Clarke 2002b: 193) of musical performance, as preserved in recordings. At the same time, it is also part of the study of Bach’s music and its reception. I aim to examine how perceptions of Bach’s music, as well as ideologies on the role of the performer vis-à-vis the musical work, are interlinked with the choices of performing musicians. These issues will be discussed primarily in the context of specific debates about Bach’s music and its performative realisation. In particular, I aim to explore them by suggesting the outlines of a “hermeneutic history” (Bowen 1999: 446) of one work – Bach’s Mass in B minor, BWV 232 – through the investigation of most available 1 In this dissertation, the word “performative” means “in, of, or through musical performance” (see also Levinson 1993). -1- -2recordings, 2 demonstrating how this work has been shaped and defined over a period of about 50 years,3 and seeking to place these changes in the context of major trends in the work’s reception (and Bach reception generally), as well as debates on fidelity, authenticity and historicism in performance. This involves a comparison between the evidence preserved in sound recordings and other sources of information about the work’s reception, and about specific performers’ views and aesthetics. For this purpose, I focus on a relatively small “Core Group” (see 1.4.1, pp. 29f below). In Part One of this dissertation, I will examine these musicians’ recordings of the B minor Mass against their biographical background, their views on Bach’s music and its performance, and their recordings of Bach’s other vocal works, in order to determine the extent to which their recordings of the Mass are representative of their general approach to Bach. In Part Two, I propose a different type of case-study – focusing on the hermeneutic history of three movements in the Mass (see 1.4.2, pp. 30f below). Here, the focus is on the specific meanings and interpretations attached to particular movements. The main advantage in employing a limited number of case-studies is that it allows one to investigate them in greater depth and detail then would be possible with a larger selection of movements or musicians. Nonetheless, my selection of case studies has limited my coverage of the myriad issues that could be addressed under the heading of “Expression and meaning in Bach performance and reception”. Some of the omissions and gaps are discussed towards the end of this dissertation (see pp. 250ff below). In particular, my analyses in Part One, and the choice of case-studies for Part Two, were informed by an association of the concept of expression with emotional intensity, and the examination of the tension, within Bach reception, between intensity and complexity. 2 My survey covers all complete commercial recordings of the Mass available at the British Library Sound Archive, supplemented by my personal collection. These resources, however, did not allow access to the work’s complete history on record (see Discography). 3 Most recordings of the Mass date from 1950-2000; see 1.3.1, pp. 26f below. -3- 1.1. Intensity in Bach reception My study focuses on issues surrounding performative expression: the attribution of emotional expression and/or extra-musical meaning to Bach’s music in general, as well as to particular piece, and the degree and manner in which performers seek to bring these to light. In this context, the word “meaning” can have at least two senses: 1. “Meaning” as “significance”: the lasting importance of Bach’s music, its role in the Western musical canon and in the musical culture of specific writers and performers; 2. “Meaning” as “signification” or “interpretation”: the specific attempts to analyse and decipher the musical or extra-musical message of a particular work, movement or phrase.4 The concept of musical expression plays a complex role in this context. There is a prominent tendency in Bach reception to separate “meaning” (in the second sense) from emotional expression – as typified in Arnold Schering’s distinction of “symbols of feeling” from “symbols of ideas” (see pp. 88f below) – and to argue that the value of Bach’s music (its meaning in the first sense) lies precisely in its avoidance of expressive intensity. Yet there also exists a diametrically opposed strand, which views the expressive power of Bach’s music as its greatest strength. The spectrum of views between these two extremes, and the tension between them, is central to my dissertation. While I do not claim that such a focus exhausts all the issues relating to expression and meaning in Bach, it does encompass some of the most central ones, and opens a window to Bach’s significance in the musical canon. 1.1.1. Beardsley’s “Canons of Criticism” In his magisterial study of aesthetics, Monroe Beardsley argued that most “critical reasons” – arguments raised by critics in justifying their value judgement of artworks – can be classified, “with very little trouble”, into three Canons of Criticism: First, there are reasons that seem to bear upon the degree of unity or disunity of the work [...] Second, there are those reasons that seem to bear upon the degree of complexity or simplicity of the work [...] Third, there are those reasons that 4 The two senses are not unrelated: for example, those who perceive the evocation and expression of Christianity as one of the primary justifications for the canonisation of Bach’s music will naturally focus their interpretations of specific works (especially sacred works) on their (ostensibly) Christian message. -4seem to bear upon the intensity or lack of intensity of human regional qualities in the work.5 (Beardsley 1981: 462) None of these three Canons has been consistently upheld as a virtue throughout the history of art criticism.6 I believe, however, that they are useful for classifying and understanding aesthetic systems; and they are specifically valuable in understanding Bach reception, especially in the late 19th and 20th centuries. With the exception of direct references to Bach’s religious fervour, almost all positive references to his music can be understood as appreciation of its Complexity, Unity or Intensity, either in isolation or in combination. In this dissertation, I focus primarily on the issue of Intensity. In aesthetics of music, this is a particularly controversial issue, given the persistent debates on whether music can or should express human emotions, or convey meaning beyond itself. One prominent position is that Intensity is intrinsic to music, and should not be confused with extra-musical signification (e.g., Meyer 1956: 1-3; Beardsley 1981: 328-332; Davies 1994: 181-182; Treitler 1997: 31-32; Scruton 1997: 170). Adherents of this position often insist on the centrality of structural articulation of expression (Meyer 1956: 5-6 and passim; Treitler 1997: 49-53; Scruton 1997: 156-157, 170): in their view, Intensity emerges cumulatively through the musical structure, rather than being represented or created by specific, localised musical symbols. Meyer defines the above position as Absolute Expressionism (1956: 2-3),7 distinct both from Referentialist Expressionism (the view that musical Intensity points to the extra-musical) and Absolute Formalism (the view that music has no emotional content or impact). He ignores the possibility of Referentialist Formalism: the view that music can make explicit references to the extra-musical, whilst having little or no expressive import. This latter view is also prominent in Bach reception. 5 Beardsley defines “regional quality” as “a property, or characteristic, that belongs to a complex but not to any of its parts” (1981: 83). “Human regional qualities” are defined as “regional qualities that are similar to qualities of human behavior, especially to mental states and processes” (ibid: 328). 6 Beardsley’s assumption to the contrary reveals both the prescriptive nature of his enterprise and its narrow historical scope: his book mostly relies on late 19th- and 20th-century critics (up to 1957, when its first edition was published). For a critique of Unity as a self-evident virtue in music – and particularly of the quest for unity as a primary aim in musical analysis – see Street 1989 and Maus 1999 (however, see also Morgan 2003 for a response to these and similar critiques). Scheibe’s attack on Bach could be read as expressing scepticism concerning the value of Complexity; see also Yearsley 2002: 52-56, 91-96, and passim. Scepticism towards the value of Intensity is a prominent strand in Bach reception, as discussed throughout this dissertation. 7 For a detailed exploration of an Absolute Expressionist position, see Beardsley 1981: 325-352; see also Burnham 1999: 212-216, Cook and Dibben 2001: 49. -5- 1.1.2. Intensity and Balance The word “balance” has [several] meanings [...] One meaning has to do with equilibrium; we say somebody has a wellbalanced personality, for instance. Another invokes the idea of “delicately poised”; we say a situation is balanced on a knife’s edge. In the first image, “balanced” means “stable”; in the second it means “unstable.” (Cohen and Stewart 2000: 245) Balance is not one of Beardsley’s Canons of Criticism; but implicitly, it acts as a Meta-Canon. Beardsley’s theory suggests that a work’s value depends on a proper balance between the three Canons; one should not be allowed to overwhelm the others. Both definitions of “Balance” above are consistent with Beardsley’s model. In the former, more conventional definition, any conflicts and contradictions between the demands of the three Canons have been resolved. In the second, the struggle is closer to the surface. Unity is more dominant in the first type, while Intensity is more dominant in the second; yet in both cases, they maintain some degree of co-existence (cf. Kivy 1995: 162-171). 1.1.2.1. Balance as Equilibrium The word “balance” occurs only occasionally in verbal discourse on Bach; but the concept of “balance” pervades many discussions of his music. In this context, I use the concept of “Balance-as-equilibrium” to refer to the assumption that Bach kept Intensity under strict control, and regarded it as secondary and subservient to the more inherently balanced qualities of Unity and Complexity. This view’s prominence reflects a partial convergence of two contrasting images of Bach, both inherited from the 19th century: the image of Bach as a predominantly religious composer, and the image of Bach the Mathematician, the Abstract Composer. This convergence reflects a particular reading of the “Fifth Evangelist” image, associating sacrality with severity. This association is by no means selfevident. In her article on “Erbarme dich”, Naomi Cumming tells the following revealing anecdote: A Serbian-Orthodox deacon [...] heard the recitative and aria for the first time on CD. His response was disarmingly intense, as emotion seemed to fight with religious expectancy. An involuntary engagement disorientated him, in the expectations of his more ascetical tradition: ‘This music cannot be used for liturgy. It disturbs the inner peace!’ (Cumming 1997: 40) -6The notion that Bach aimed at the disruption of “inner peace” is represented in several 19th- and early 20th-centuries readings of his music, including religiouslyoriented readings like Bitter’s, Spitta’s and Schweitzer’s. Much modern Bach reception, however, is predicated on the assumption that his music is inherently peaceful; this includes several 20th-century Lutheran readings, from Besch (1938) onwards (see also pp. 53ff below). The partial convergence of the Fifth Evangelist and the Mathematician images is demonstrated by writers like Karl Geiringer, who viewed Bach both as “a deeply religious composer” (1966: 134), and as the possessor of “profound intellectualism” (ibid: 135). Geiringer values Intensity in Bach’s mature music insofar as it is kept in proper balance with Complexity and Unity (see also Bukofzer 1948: 260-305).8 He also cites Intensity as the saving grace in early experimental works (pre-1708), written when Bach’s “technical immaturity” prevented him from achieving consistent levels of Unity and Complexity (Geiringer 1966: 136; see also M. Geck 1970: 566). Lutheran images tend to be associated with Referentialist Formalism; more “universalised” views usually veer towards Absolute Expressionism, although many of them continue to marginalize Intensity. Thus, for Stephen Davies (1994: 270, 353354), Bach’s oeuvre represents an archetypal example for music that has so many other strengths that its Intensity can be treated almost as a “bonus”. Douglas Hofstadter (1979: 719) mentions, almost in passing, that Bach’s music contains “beauty and extreme depth of emotion”, but values it primarily as “an intellectual construction which reminds me, in many ways I cannot express, of the beautiful many-voiced fugues of the human mind”. Jordi Savall (2001) alludes, like Hofstadter, to Bach’s technical proficiency, extraordinary complexity and intellectual originality. Yet for him, Bach’s most significant attribute is that he achieved this fusion of Complexity and Unity without “sacrificing the expressive quality and musical eloquence which, even in his most elaborate and complex passages, provide the unbroken thread of Bach’s musical discourse”. Savall’s perspective is similar to Vetter’s (1951), who emphasises Intensity as a central factor in Bach’s Universality. Marshall, in his own “On Bach’s Universality”, 8 Geiringer does not apply these terms in a consistent manner. Here, and elsewhere, I use Beardsley’s categories in the same manner that he used them: as an economic way to summarise various writers’ views. I use the terms balance-as-equilibrium and knife-edge-balance, and designations derived from my x/x matrix (see 1.2.5, pp. 25f below) in a similar manner. -7associates Bach’s “universal validity” (1989: 71) with Unity: the reconciliation of counterpoint and harmony, and of the various national and historical styles at his disposal (ibid: 73-74). Yet his image goes even beyond this, referring to Bach’s production of a musical equivalent of “unified field theory” (ibid: 73). The Marshall-Hofstadter image of Bach as a musical Pythagoras, revealing the mathematical (and mystical) secrets of the world and the mind through his music, might be traceable to Bach’s lifetime (for example, in Birnbaum’s reference to Bach’s perfection of nature in his 1738 response to Scheibe; Wolff 1998a: 345); it becomes prominent in the early 19th century (Blume 1950b: 40-48; Dahlhaus 1978: 193-194, 200-202). In 19th- and 20th-century manifestations alike, it is associated primarily with Bach’s musical “treatises”; images drawn from pantheism, mathematics and science can be more easily attached to Die Kunst der Fuge than to the cantatas or passions, which are linked, through their texts, with specific ideas and emotions. These balance-as-equilibrium views often inspire performative restraint. As I note in Chapters 2 and 3, many Bach performances, especially in 1950-1980, display the convergence of traits inherited from Neue Sachlichkeit on the one hand, and Lutheran ideology on the other. The resulting style places an emphasis on performative clarity (to expose Complexity)9 and Unity. Intensity, when present, is kept under control, its potential to intrude upon other elements severely restricted. The ideal of clarity extends, not only to textures, but also to rhythm, dynamics and form. Voices are to be clearly separable from one another; so are beats in the bar, and sections in a movement. Glenn Gould’s view that “Bach was a director who thought in terms of cuts rather than dissolves” (1984: 22) is a particularly succinct rendering of this ideal. The resulting performances could often be described, paradoxically, as both “sublime” and “mechanical”. The basic parameters – large performing forces, loud dynamics, intense sonority, harsh articulation – project a monumental, larger-than-life image.10 Yet there is something mechanical about the uniformity with which these 9 This relates to a specifically musical sense of the word “balance”: the relationship between various sound sources in the overall sound picture. A well-balanced performance of a contrapuntal piece would be one in which the various strands are audible, and one strand is not allowed to dominate over another. 10 They are also in keeping with Burke’s original formulation of the “sublime” as “vast”, “rugged”, “solid [...] even massive” etc. (A Philosophical Enquiry into the Sublime and Beautiful [1759], Part III, section XXVII; Burke 1998: 157). However, one Burkean criterion for sublimity – “obscurity” – is less frequently sought by these Bach performers. -8parameters are applied (metronomic rigidity, strict terraced dynamics). Musical ebband-flow is not strongly projected, and at times actively stultified. As the ultimate representation of Order, the evocation of ostensibly timeless truths, Bach’s music is; it does not flow. This performance aesthetics fits both the image of the severely religious Lutheran and that of the musical mathematician. The harsher aspects of the sublimemechanical style might not evoke calm and inner peace; but the style does not allow room for struggle within the music. The performers’ struggle to “get it right” might be felt, and the resulting performance might be demanding for the listeners; but it does not encourage listeners to think that elements within the music are in mutual conflict. “Symphonic” conductors (i.e., conductors who performed Bach alongside the standard symphonic and operatic repertoire; see chapter 2) usually adopted a more flexible approach within the balance-as-equilibrium conception, projecting a stronger sense of direction and shape. But even at their most dramatic, their interpretations often conveyed a sense of clarity and inevitability – a powerful, unquestioned progression towards a definite climax. There have also been, in verbal and performative reception alike, more genial views within the balance-as-equilibrium paradigm. In particular, historically-informed performance (hence HIP) – which often promoted lighter textures, more varied articulation and increased awareness of Bach’s stylistic diversity – has contributed to more genial, less mechanical performances (see chapter 5). Implicit in nearly all these images is the idea that Bach’s music not only embodies or expresses equilibrium, but also arouses it in listeners. However, such perfected images can also seem alienating. Paul Henry Lang, for example, argued that Bach’s “Olympian grandeur”, his apparent “infallibility” and “self-sufficiency”, places him beyond the grasp of modern listeners, who “do not enjoy a wondrous security not disturbed by external things and events” (1997: 68-69). Doubts of this kind encouraged efforts to present more humanised, less perfected Bach images. 1.1.2.2. Knife-edge Balance Lang’s 1950 essay “Bach: Artist and Poet” (quoted above) challenges the image of Bach as “the embodiment of greatness in art, beyond reproach and beyond criticism” (1997: 68), but ultimately lays the blame at Bach’s door: to Lang, Bach’s -9music genuinely embodies these qualities, and this makes it difficult for modern listeners to identify with it. Theodor Adorno, on the other hand, argues that balanceas-equilibrium views distort Bach’s deliberately equivocal message. He attacks those who seek in Bach’s music a representation of “the order of Being as such”, as well as those who seek to turn him into “the very church composer against whose office his music rebelled” (1967: 135-136). In his view, both images neglect – even repress – the subjective element in Bach’s music – in other words, his Intensity. Adorno’s article is sometimes cited – and not without justification – as a lone voice in the wilderness, ignored by previous and subsequent writers alike (McClary 1987: 13-14; Chafe 1991: 1-3; Dreyfus 1996: 221-222). However, he was not alone in celebrating Bach’s ambiguity and disunity. As I noted on p. 6 above, the subjective element plays a distinctive role in 19th- and early 20th-century Bach-as-Lutheran conceptions (see also Dahlhaus 1983a: 60-61, and pp. 164ff below). Of these, Schweitzer’s approaches a knife-edge conception – at times going beyond “balance” altogether. In trying to demonstrate the centrality of the pictorial element in Bach’s music, Schweitzer speaks of “recurring singularities, inner affinities [...] inexplicable bizarreries”, elements which a sensitive musician will find inexplicable [...] until he guesses that this music is not self-existent, but has sprung from some external force, that will not obey the laws of harmonious thematic structure. (1911, II: 5-6; see also ibid: 31) On the whole, however, knife-edge-balance readings of Bach have become more prominent in recent years. Laurence Dreyfus, for example, provides a detailed analytic argument against the view that Bach’s music epitomises perfection and inevitability. Dreyfus argues that Bach’s “struggles with the materiality of composition leave their residue in the composition itself” (1996: 188). The resulting imperfections are intrinsic to the music’s value; its power arises “not so much from synthesis but rather from creative solecisms and improprieties” (1997: 191). The wish to present a less monumental, more humanised Bach image is not unique to the knife-edge approach. Paul Hindemith, for example, sought to take Bach off the pedestal (1952: 12 and passim) while retaining the Abstract-Mathematical view. His Bach image is distinctly human only insofar as it views Bach’s music as an equivalent to the greatest scientific discoveries (ibid: 36, 43-44), and avoids its association with religious fervour or divine revelation. However, in his quest to make - 10 Bach’s music valid and attractive for all humanity, Hindemith leaves little room for perceiving struggle within the music as a finished product. Richard Taruskin represents the other extreme, suggesting that Bach’s message is distinctly non-universal and non-balanced: “that the world is filth and horror, that humans are helpless, that life is pain, that reason is a snare” (1995: 310). This view is, however, an exception. Most knife-edge-balance readings of Bach’s music raise the importance of Intensity, but do not deny the centrality of Complexity and Unity. Some of them argue that Bach’s music presents a complicity of Complexity and Intensity: the former generates internal struggles which contribute to the latter. At least one advocate of the knife-edge-balance approach perceived clear performative implications for it: the performer has to be aware of the faultlines in the pieces (that is, how to identify the various components, to be able to render them so as to make their individual qualities of motion heard), and then appear to transcend them by sheer force of will and ingenuity. (McClary 1987: 61) Performances which (arguably) realise the spirit of McClary’s recommendations date mostly from the 1980s and 1990s (see also ibid: 61n), and will be discussed in chapters 4 and 6. The hallmarks of this style are reduced clarity and heightened tension (see p. 98 below). In particular, these readings project the aforementioned complicity between Complexity and Intensity: they provide independent contours to simultaneously-present textural strands, thematic materials and style signifiers, leading them, on occasion, to clash with each other. 1.2. Reception through performance 1.2.1. The interactionist approach to reception studies The survey above touches upon some of the many contradictory responses to Bach’s music; more specific contradictions will be revealed in the course of this dissertation. Such contradictions led some researchers in reception studies to the “resigned conviction” that “an esthetic judgment reveals more about the person who judges than about the matter judged and its content” (Dahlhaus 1982: 86). Too often, no attempt is made to explain how such different reactions could arise in response to what is, ostensibly, the same musical stimulus; this fact is simply stated, and - 11 explanations for varied responses are sought outside the music, in the authors’ cultural-social environments.11 Part of the answer is that it is not exactly the same stimulus: authors in different times and places did not possess the same editions, and did not hear the same performances. Verbal discourse on music is bound to be influenced by what the writers hear; and it is the performers who determine the music’s sound, timing and intensity patterns. Their shaping of the music, in turn, partly reflects on their prior conception, influenced both by previous performances they have heard or taken part in, and by ideas they have read or heard. Differing performative interpretations, then, present changes in reception even more vividly than verbal discourse. However, rather than interpreting differences in performance as further proof of the incommensurability of aesthetic judgements (cf. Everist 1999: 389-390), the study of performance could be used as part of an “interactionist” approach to reception studies. As Scott Burnham notes, Listening to music is a two-way street, regardless of the efforts of various factions of musical academia to legislate one-way traffic, either from an absolute and self-sufficient musical work to the listener or from the relative situatedness of the listener to a decentralized musical work. [...] if we define musical values as those things that we as listeners have come to value in the music, we keep the idea of a two-way interaction open while allowing ourselves to address musical issues. (Burnham 1995: 29) In this view, reception studies cannot account for differing reactions to ostensibly identical musical stimuli solely through an examination of the recipients: it is equally important to ask what factors in the music (as implied sound in scores, or realised sound in performance) could generate these responses. 12 Performers are an ideal case-study of music reception as a two-way street, as they are both recipients (of the notation and its performance traditions alike) and producers. An assessment of their contribution to the music’s reception and meaning demands a close reading of the score and its performative realisations, since they communicate their interpretation by shaping and modifying the sounds as encoded and implied by the notation. Such analysis must, of course, assume at least a partial correspondence between verbal discourse and musical performance. Bethany Lowe (2000: 7-8 and passim) 11 For examples of such methodology, see Wallace 1986, Knittel 1995, DeNora 1995, Everist 1999. 12 For examples of this approach, see Cook 1993: 65-104; Burnham 1995, 1999. - 12 proposes a three-way distinction, in which Interpretation can be realised either in verbal Analysis or in Performance. In this dissertation, I will contrast interpretation “in theory” (verbal discourse) with interpretation “in practice” (performance). 13 Verbal and performative discourse are not entirely commensurable. Verbal reception must treat music, to some extent, metaphorically. It can also take liberties with music’s temporal nature – for example, by discussing adjacently two passages that in performance would be separated by long stretches of intervening material (Clarke 1995: 25; Cook 1998: 72). Performers, on the other hand, must present their ideas in real time and actual sound (see also 7.3.1.2, pp. 182ff below). Perfect translation from verbal to performative discourse is therefore not feasible; nor do most musicians find it desirable. There have been attempts to construe analyses as directions for performance (e.g., Cone 1968, Berry 1989), or to interpret performances as containing implicit analyses (e.g., articles by Cook, Lester, Epstein and Rothstein in Rink 1995a). The philosopher Jerrold Levinson has questioned “the idea that there is such a thing as ‘implicit explanation’” in performance (1993: 37n). However, rather than ruling out the viability of performance analysis, he cautions that: When we hear a striking PI [Performative Interpretation] of a familiar piece, the question we put to ourselves as interpreters of such interpretations should be not, ‘what CI [Critical Interpretation] does that PI embody or convey?’ [...] but instead ‘What CIs might such a PI support or reflect?’ An insightful PI might prompt one to arrive at a new CI, or allow one to confirm the validity of a CI already proposed, or induce one to question a CI regarded as authoritative, and so on, but it cannot itself unambiguously communicate a CI. (ibid: 57; cf. Cook 1999b: 48-49; Bowen 1999: 446-451; Butt 2002a: 88) The opposite claim is equally valid: a CI might be compatible with a PI – but “cannot itself unambiguously communicate” a PI. This is true even of attempts to give detailed accounts of PIs in writing – such as the detailed performance analyses in Philip 1992, Bazzana 1997, Fabian 2003 and this dissertation. As a writer, I have to engage with performance in a verbal medium: I might be discussing interpretations “in practice”, but the result is an interpretation “in theory”. Such writings could not be used for exact replication of the performance they purport to describe. This also applies to a slightly different sort of CI – namely, research into performance practice. 13 Lowe’s terminology is aimed at avoiding the common discourse which regards performance as a realisation of analysis. Her solution, however, privileges analysis over other types of verbal reception. Both her solution and mine, as well as others that have been proposed, neglect a third type of interpretation – the editor’s. - 13 While this research strives towards formulating guidelines for PIs, it cannot prescribe a specific PI in all its details. 1.2.2. The ideology and performance model In attempting to trace the relationships between Critical and Performative Interpretations, this dissertation will follow an “ideology and performance” or “premises and practices” model.14 In Part One, I will examine the relationships between performers’ “premises” (their views on Bach’s music and on their own role as performers) and their “practices” (their performance style, especially in Bach’s music, as documented in their recordings). In Part Two, I will contrast directly the two types of discourse – verbal and performative – as they are brought to bear on specific movements in the Mass: a survey of the movement’s verbal reception will provide an introduction to a detailed study of its reception through recorded performance. In both cases, evidence for the performers’ intention, and its correlation with their actual performance, will be cited where available. However, distinct correlations between verbal and performative discourse (or between different performances) will be pointed out even if no direct connection is evident between writer and performer (or two performers): the fact that two people independently converged on a similar view is likely to be significant.15 Analogies between performances can often be attributed to stylistic connections – a clear illustration being, for example, the similarities between several “symphonic” readings of the First Kyrie (see p. 189 below). The partial resemblance, especially in terms of the movement’s overall shaping, between these performances and several recent HIP versions (see pp. 193f below) cannot be accounted for in a similar manner, but the influence of the symphonic style – and of some of the ideas connected with it, such as the quest for “organic” or “architectonic” shaping for large-scale movements – might still have played a part. It is likely that the musicians responsible for the later performances were acquainted with the older approach (through attending concerts, hearing recordings, or even taking part in performances), but one need not postulate the direct influence of a specific performance or performer. 14 The terms “premises” and “practices” are derived from Bazzana’s Gould monograph (1997). This book is divided into two parts, the first examining Gould’s views on aesthetics and performance, the second examining his performance style in light of these “premises”. 15 For an example of convergence between different writers, see pp. 163ff below. - 14 Relationships between verbal and performative reception are even harder to establish. Even when a CI has specific implications for performance, the realisation of these implications in a particular PI does not necessarily imply that the performing musician is attempting to communicate the message conveyed by the CI. Even when the CI and PI can be safely attributed to the same musician, the exact correlation and causation are not easy to establish. It is always possible that the performer’s words might represent a post-hoc justification for performative choices, rather than representing (at least in part) the thought processes that shaped the performance. In other cases, the performer’s words and the musical choices documented in the recording are difficult to reconcile with each other.16 Even if a correlation has been established (that is, if readers are convinced that the CI under discussion has specific performative implications, and that these are indeed realised in the PI under discussion), the implications of such correlations are not obvious. One cannot always assume that the performer was familiar with the analysis (or vice versa). As with the comparison between performances, a similarity between a performance and an analysis might point to convergence – two musicians arriving independently at a similar view of how the music should be understood or performed. This convergence might sometimes emerge despite provable differences between the musicians involved (whether in their geographical or chronological backgrounds, or in their general views of Bach’s music, its meaning and/or its performative realisation). In the course of this dissertation, I will be making several comparisons between commentators’ explicit views of Bach’s music and the views implicit in some performances (connected, in some cases, with views explicitly expressed by the performing musicians). I will point to such concordances even when, to the best of my knowledge, no direct connections between commentators and musicians can be proven. Some of these will be re-visited in the final chapter (see pp. 249ff below), where I will discuss both the dangers of staking such claims and their possible significance for the study of Bach performance and reception. 16 Such apparent contradictions are discussed in several cases in this dissertation, and the topic is addressed again more broadly in pp. 247ff below. - 15 - 1.2.3. Recordings as documents of performative intention An additional problem in correlating CIs and PIs involves the assumption that a recording documents the performers’ considered interpretation of a work (at least at the time of the recording). Given the way recordings are usually shaped – with multiple takes edited together after the fact, not necessarily by the performers themselves17 – there is always a danger that the final product, as preserved in the sound recording, does not entirely reflect the performers’ own preferred performative interpretation. 18 In the context of studio recordings, it is difficult to assess the performers’ contribution, beyond supplying the raw materials from which the recording was constructed. Unedited live recordings might circumvent the problem of editorial interference (though even here the influence of the balance engineer is by no means negligible), but inevitably reflect the accidental features of a particular evening.19 Only when the performers were intimately involved in the recording and editing process can the recording be safely described as reflecting their interpretation at the time. These issues exacerbate a problem which plagues any attempt to interpret a choral-orchestral performance: the role of the conductor vis-à-vis the other musicians (see also p. 29 below). In some contexts, this problem can be circumvented: as long as the argument does not strongly rely on attributing the interpretation preserved in the recording to the musicians, the recording might be treated “as is” (cf. Johnson 1999: 198). Thus, it makes little difference whether the structural cohesiveness I ascribe to the shaping of the First Kyrie in René Jacobs’s recordings (see p. 193 below) arises from the 17 Technological advances, especially since the advent of digital recording and editing, also enable producers to alter the recorded sounds (modifying balance, reverberation, pitches, note-lengths, etc.). 18 For particularly vivid descriptions of the mechanics of a recording session, see Monsaingeon 2002, part 2 (including scripted mock-recording-and-editing sessions by Glenn Gould), Tomes 2004: 140150, 155-159, and Andrew Keener, in Philip 2004: 54-56, 58. For one illustration of how an edited version of a recording might misrepresent the performer’s interpretation, see Malcolm Bilson in Sherman 1997: 309. For more general discussions of recording techniques and their effect on performance style, and of the production team’s influence on the recording as a finished product, see Gould 1984: 331-368 (esp. 337-343); Day 2000: Chapter One, esp. 23-38, 46-52; Philip 2004: Chapter Two, esp. 42-62. 19 Many recordings described as “live” are actually edited together from several live concerts, supplemented by patching sessions, rather than truly documenting a particular concert performance. Of the recording of the Mass I heard, the only unedited live ones are, to the best of my knowledge, Richter 1969a, Giulini 1974 and Biller 2000. In other live recordings (e.g., Giulini 1994, Abbado 1999), the accompanying documentation specifically refers to several recording dates. In several cases (e.g., Brüggen 1989), the documentation is ambiguous in this respect. - 16 musicians’ planned interpretation or from the record producer’s choice of takes. In this particular case, the aim is to exemplify one option of shaping this movement, and no interpretive-historical significance is attached to the identity of the musicians responsible. Therefore, the important question is whether my analysis convincingly reflects the interpretation as documented in the recording. On the other hand, questions of attribution do affect my claims regarding the lack of overall shaping in some of Herreweghe’s performances (cf. pp. 112f and p. 192 below). Since I partly relate this aspect to Herreweghe’s general approach to interpretation (cf. pp. 109ff below), it should be mentioned that the lack of cohesion might be the result of editing, rather than conductorial intention. The fact that Herreweghe claims to have taken an active part in the editing process is important, but not necessarily decisive. Obtaining precise information on the dynamics of recording sessions is not an easy task, especially as record companies do not always retain producers’ notes (Richard Abram, personal communications) and are not always willing to disclose them (cf. Day 2000: 247). Changes of ownership in several companies further complicate matters. Through personal communications – mostly with the conductors – I have ascertained that several conductors in my Part One core-group (Helmuth Rilling, Philippe Herreweghe, Joshua Rifkin, Andrew Parrott, Ton Koopman and Jeffrey Thomas) are willing to accept their recordings as faithful representations of their views at the time. My working assumption for other performances was that, for the most part, the recordings document the interpretation that these musicians were likely to give in concerts around the period of the recording. Further research could and should be done on the roles of musicians and production teams in creating the final result heard by the listeners. The fact remains, in any case, that recordings provide the best documentation for musical performances; however imperfect that documentation might be, there is no credible alternative for it. - 17 - 1.2.4. Work, text and performance The underlying assumption in much performance-analysis discourse is that performers, whether in concerts or in the recording studio, seek to realise their own interpretation of a work to the best of their abilities. This, however, is not self-evident (see Cook 1999a: 247-252; 1999b: 12-22; 2001: ¶22 and passim; Rink 2002b; Clarke 2002a: 63-64). Performers could arrive at certain convictions about a work’s structure, significance or character, and still choose to downplay these elements – or to introduce features for which they would not claim any analytic or hermeneutic justification. Thus, if one seeks to establish the performers’ intentions, it is not sufficient to examine their views of the music: it is equally important to examine how they view their own role as performers, with respect to such concepts as fidelity, licence and creativity. These considerations have generated scepticism towards the “performance ‘of’ paradigm” (Cook 1999a: 244; 2001: ¶28) – the examination of a musical performance as first-and-foremost a realisation of the score. Cook proposes an alternative, “performance studies paradigm” which focuses on the performers’ actions and interactions, and “seeks to understand performances in relation to other performances [...] rather than in relation to the original vision supposedly embodied in an authoritative text” (2001: ¶16). In my own study, I try to incorporate both elements in this ostensible dichotomy. I examine recordings of the Mass in terms of their “relationship to the horizon of expectations established by other performances” (ibid: ¶16) – of the Mass as well as of other repertoires – and by other modes of reception. That horizon of expectations, however, includes the musical notation (the various existing editions, and several performers’ own research into the original sources), as well as conflicting views on its binding power on musical performance. I therefore operate on the basis of a refinement, rather than a total abandonment, of the performance-of paradigm (cf. ibid: ¶15-¶18, ¶22, ¶28). Indeed, precisely during the period I focus upon (c. 1950-2000), strong doubts have been expressed about the work-concept’s relevance to Bach’s oeuvre in general (e.g., Goehr 1994: 8, 177-178, 200) and to the Mass in particular (e.g., Smend 1956: 78-84, 188-190). The two controversies are distinct: in expressing his doubts about - 18 the Mass’s unity, Friedrich Smend was not questioning the work-concept as such. Rather, he argued that the Mass consists of four separate works. The specific controversy regarding the Mass’s unity has had very little impact on the music’s actual performance. Smend’s view that a sequential performance of the complete B minor Mass is “not only a historical misunderstanding, but also an artistic mistake” (“nicht nur ein historisches Mißverstädnis, sondern auch ein künstlersicher Fehlgriff”; ibid: 188) was ignored, in practice, in all recordings of the Mass from 1956 to the present day. Even performers who were partly sympathetic to Smend’s historical case did not abandon the “Fehlgriff” of sequential performance, and some – notably Robert Shaw (1999) and Wilhelm Ehmann (1961: 12-14) – explicitly argued that a “historical misunderstanding” could lead to artistic success. Ehmann argues that the same musical score can legitimately enjoy different modes of existence, 20 which fit the context of its current reception even if they do not correspond to the composer’s original conception. He accepts that Bach might have conceived the music we now know as the B minor Mass as a series of separate pieces, or as musica speculativa not intended for performance at all. He argues, however, that this should not stop musicians today from presenting it as a unified concert work. Ehmann concedes that the perception and performance of the B minor Mass as a unity could be an anachronism, dependent upon a work-concept that might have been foreign to Bach himself (cf. Dahlhaus 1983b: 9-10; Goehr 1994: 113-115, 253-257). Indeed, the Mass’s performance and publication history began in earnest in the 19thcentury (its first complete performance took place in 1859), inspired by the example set by Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis (Herz 1985: 187-203; Butt 1991: 27-36; Stauffer 1997b: 187-198). Without the work-concept, the Mass might never have been performed in its entirety (however, see Stauffer 1997b: 257-260). By the time Smend’s edition was published, the Mass had already been firmly established in the repertoire; several scholars were quick to defend its position against Smend’s challenge. Georg von Dadelsen, in particular, provided a detailed account of the historical and musical flaws in Smend’s arguments shortly after Smend’s edition had been published (reprinted as Dadelsen 1970, 1989a; see also Blankenburg 1957, Keller 1957). For performers less willing than Shaw and Ehmann to commit a willing 20 Ehmann (1961: 12-13) speaks alternately of different types of existence (“Existenz”) and of different “Lebensmöglichkeit” (literally: possibilities or options for life). - 19 anachronism, Dadelsen’s arguments provided historical justification for continuing to treat the Mass a unity. Few performers and scholars today accept Smend’s specific claims with regards to the B minor Mass. However, the more general controversy over the applicability of the work-concept to pre-1800 music in general, and Bach’s in particular, continues. 21 These debates have certainly influenced 20th- and 21st-century performance practice. For example, in recent decades, Renaissance and Baroque Masses have frequently been performed (at least on record) in the context of a liturgical reconstruction, ostensibly restoring them to their original context; these reconstructions are based on the premise that a sequential performance of such “works” is an anachronism (Dixon 1992: 1065-1067; cf. Walls 2003: 82-83). Such reconstructions are virtually non-existent in the discography of Bach’s Mass.22 Consequently, the recordings of the Mass under the direction of Harry Christophers, John Eliot Gardiner, Philippe Herreweghe and Andrew Parrott have much more in common with each other than the same conductors’ recordings of Monteverdi’s Vespro della Beata Vergine. Parrott and Christophers place Monteverdi’s music within a liturgical reconstruction: they insert “extraneous” music (appropriate chants, short instrumental pieces), and determine the order of Monteverdi’s own compositions in accordance with the liturgy they are seeking to reconstruct. Herreweghe sticks to the so-called original order (relying on the index to the original 1610 publication), adding only Gregorian chants. Gardiner, on the other hand, insists that the concept of the unified work is fully applicable to Monteverdi’s publication, likening his colleagues’ attempts at liturgical reconstruction to “tearing the work limb from limb and then reassembling it in scarcely recognizable form” (1990: 13n). His own performance consists exclusively of Monteverdi’s music, arranged according to the 1610 index (cf. Whenham 1997: 92-94, 134-136). 21 For arguments in favour of the work-concept’s relevance to Baroque music, see White 1997 (compare, however, Erauw 1998) and Walls 2003: 75-89. 22 The only exception is Georg Christoph Biller’s recording, which supplements Bach’s music with “a minimum of relevant liturgical propers [...] appropriate for Whitsun 1748 in Leipzig” (Biller et al. 2001). These are placed between the main sections of the Mass, and hardly disrupt the sense of unity and continuity in the presentation of Bach’s music. Paul McCreesh used Bach’s music as part of a more elaborate liturgical reconstruction, alongside works by other composers (see p. 133n below, and discography for chapter 5). In this case, Bach’s multi-movement sequences (a mass and two cantatas) were combined into a wider context, but each of them remained intact and uninterrupted. - 20 The performances also differ in other elements which, in “work-regulated” repertoires, one would expect to be determined by the notation, namely pitch (including pitch and key relationships between the constituent “movements”; Whenham 1997: 90-91)23 and scoring (the division between vocal soli and tutti, and the addition of instruments; ibid: 87-90). In the latter context, Gardiner goes beyond the strictures implied by a strict interpretation of the sources, arguing that Monteverdi’s scoring indications “are neither prescriptive nor proscriptive” (1990: 18). Others (notably Parrott) adopt a more literalistic approach. In other repertoires of the same period, performances can differ radically even regarding supposedly “work-defining” features such as basic melodic and harmonic content. Again, if one compares Gardiner’s, Nikolaus Harnoncourt’s and René Jacobs’s recordings of Bach’s B minor Mass with the same conductors’ recordings of Monteverdi’s L’incoronazione di Poppea, the differences between their respective performances of the latter work would be much more pronounced. Harnoncourt and Jacobs both accompany the singers with partly-composed instrumental lines from consorts of string and wind instruments, creating rich textures with prominent thematic materials not present in the notation (for their arguments in favour of this approach, see Harnoncourt 1989: 29-32, Jacobs 1990: 33-38). Gardiner accompanies his singers with continuo instruments alone, thereby treating “the surviving sources [...] not as mere sketches needing elaborate amplification [...] but as complete in themselves” (Carter 1996: 21; see also Curtis 1989: xii-xiii). These two cases demonstrate the extent to which performances of the B minor Mass are still regulated by the work-concept. This could partly be ascribed the composers’ status in the repertoire and the canon: the tendency to treat Bach’s notation with greater reverence is not unrelated to his firmer position in the canon, compared to earlier composers. However, the difference is also – perhaps primarily – a reflection of the composers’ different attitudes to notation. The autograph score of the Mass, in particular, is more complete and less ambiguous than the sources of the Monteverdi works mentioned above; it allows less scope for re-orchestration or copious added improvisation. More generally, Bach is considered to have approached a more 23 The debate is largely on the interpretation of the notational evidence: the claims supporting a downward transposition of two movements assume that the transposition is encoded into the notation, not that this was a matter to be determined by the performer. - 21 prescriptive ideal of notation, to have “[taken] away the prerogative of the improvising performer” (Butt 1991: 91), compared to his predecessors and contemporaries (cf. Butt 2002a: 93, 109-114; Fabian 2003: 159-168). This was even commented upon in Bach’s lifetime, especially with reference to the issue of improvisation and ornamentation (most famously in the Scheibe-Birnbaum debate; Wolff 1998a: 338, 347). Where his notation seems less specific, this is reflected in a greater variety of performative approaches – even when the music in question is treated with as much reverence in Bach reception as the Mass (notable examples being scoring and instrumentation in Musikalisches Opfer and Die Kunst der Fuge).24 This is not to suggest that all performers of the Mass adhere to a single ideal of fidelity to the work. Werktreue has arguably acted as an umbrella term for quite divergent ideologies on the relationships between the musical text in the score and the actual performance (cf. Taruskin 1995: 12-13; Sharpe 2000: 112-113, 119-125; and p. 38 below), and indeed the examination of changing concepts of “fidelity to the work” is one of the themes of my research. Given the philological debates surrounding the Mass and the status of its various sources (reflected, inter alia, in conflicting editions), it is also clear that there is no single definitive text which serves as the undisputed basis for all performances. Additionally, the precise meaning of Bach’s notation depends upon the performers’ assumptions on how the notation is to be interpreted. These assumptions have demonstrably changed in the past few decades – as a result, inter alia, of performance practice research. Most performers of Bach’s choral music, however, still consider the realisation of Bach’s instructions as preserved in his notation as, at the very least, the startingpoint for performative interpretation. Re-orchestrations, re-composition and deviations from the established sequence of movements can be traced in the Mass’s performance history, especially in the 19th century (Herz 1985: 188-196), but they are marginal to its performance history over the past 50 years. As already noted (p. 19n above), only one recording (Biller 2000) introduces extraneous music into the sequence. There are no abridged performances: Smend’s view on the Mass’s disunity did not inspire musicians or record companies to perform the Mass’s constituent 24 Several other works by Bach are also frequently recorded and performed in arrangements, notable examples being the organ trio sonatas (which have been recorded in chamber-music arrangements by several HIP ensembles) and the Goldberg Variations. - 22 “works” in isolation, instead of presenting a sequential performance. 25 Changes to the notated rhythms, pitch-relationships and harmonies are rare. Differences between performances in these respects often reflect the use of different editions, or the application of different rules for decoding notation,26 rather than deliberate deviations from Bach’s instructions as the performers understand them. Against this, one could introduce some caveats: 1. In the 1950s and 1960s, several recordings (e.g., Jochum 1957) make small changes to the notated scoring – for example, raising the flutes by an octave in some movements (e.g., the Resurrexit), presumably to ensure their audibility. These and similar alterations are not reflected in any of the scores I examined. 2. Continuo realisation inevitably contains an element of improvisation (unless the keyboard player is relying on a pre-existing, notated realisation). In some cases, these added notes are clearly audible. The piano continuo in Coates’s recording is quite prominent in the soundstage. In several recordings (e.g., Lehmann’s and Richter’s), the organ is conspicuous, especially when it doubles the vocal lines (perhaps in an effort to ensure choral intonation). When a harpsichord continuo is employed (see discography), it is usually more prominent (see especially p. 211 below), as is the theorbo in Harry Christophers’ recording. In most recordings, however, the improvising continuo player is placed in the background (by the conductors, recording producers, or even the players themselves; see also p. 144n below). 3. Ornaments and embellishments can also appear in other instrumental and vocal parts. 4. Continuo realisation involves a choice of scoring. Another area that offers similar choices is vocal scoring – the decision on whether to employ choral or soloistic forces. 27 Until recently, however, the choice 25 There is one exception to this: Telefunken released a recording of the 1733 Missa (Tel. 9581), which was listed in Schwann from August 1972 to April 1979. This LP consists of the Kyrie and Gloria from Nikolaus Harnoncourt’s complete 1968 recording; the decision to release only the Missa therefore had no effect on the performance, which was originally conceived as part of a whole. 26 27 The controversy surrounding the issue of reverse dotting in the Domine deus mixes both issues. One could also note the case of the Benedictus, where Bach’s autograph does not give an instrumental indication. Most editors and performers, however, assume that Bach did have a specific - 23 has been avoided; before the 1980s, only one recording (Shaw 1960) has taken up the challenge raised by Wilhelm Ehmann (1961), and his suggestion that performers could choose between solo (concertino) and tutti (ripieno) scoring. Instead, performers assumed that Bach had already dictated the division between soloists and choir in his notation: by marking a movement as a chorus, he was requesting that it should be performed by the full ensemble.28 At most, they were willing to alter the size of the choir or orchestra (a notable example being Harnoncourt’s 1968 performance). The ideals of fidelity and literalism might well have been among the reasons for the late (and rare) acceptance of unnotated concertino-ripieno alternations as a legitimate option in the performance of Bach’s choral music; “scholars and performers alike have felt uneasy about this approach, precisely because of the liberties it seems to take with Bach’s musical texts” (Rifkin 2002: 39; see also pp. 128f below). In his discussion of the role of notation vis-à-vis performance, Nicholas Cook (1998: 63) states that “the whole art of performances lies in the interstices of notation, in those parts of the music that the score cannot reach”: different performances of the same notation, in western music, differ in their precise realisation of timing, dynamics, timbre, and other elements that cannot be specified in the notation (as opposed to relative pitches and relative durations, which are fixed). As the list of caveats above indicates, Cook’s statement is not literally accurate even with regard to performances of the Mass; but as a generalisation, it does hold. What most listeners today would perceive as liberties still lie primarily in performative interpretation instrument in mind and neglected to notate it; the performer is not supposed to choose the obbligato instrument, but to reconstruct Bach’s original choice (see, however, Stauffer 1997b: 159-160). Schweitzer (1911, II: 324-325) and Stauffer (1997b: 224-231) have also argued in favour of adding colla-parte instruments in the Credo and Confiteor. Most performances, however, adhere to the acapella scoring of Bach’s autograph notation; even Helmuth Rilling, who recommends colla-parte scoring in his book (1984: 103), only employs it in one of his three recordings (Rilling 1988a). This uniformity is striking in comparison to the discography of the Motets, where both a-capella and colla parte options are amply represented. 28 Several performances that are otherwise fully choral allocate the “iterum venturus est” (Resurrexit, bars 74-86) to a soloist – an idea perhaps first suggested by Donald Tovey (1937: 42). However, the first conductor to do so was Harnoncourt (in his 1968 performance), and most modern-instrument conductors, before and since, did not follow suit. - 24 (inflections of parameters such as dynamics, articulation and tempo), rather than in changes to notated pitch and rhythm. It should also be noted that the level of literalism and strict adherence to the score is changing. Recorded performances seem, on the whole, to be more literalistic than several documented performances in the 19th century. Point 1 above notwithstanding, the most literalistic performances on record date primarily from the 1950s-1970s. In the last two decades, performers have increasingly allowed themselves greater liberties in realising the score, in such areas as ornamentation, rhythms, note-lengths and scoring – as well as in “those parts of the music that the score cannot reach” (see especially chapter 6 below). Interestingly, most of these liberties were introduced by HIP musicians. Taruskin was voicing a typical complaint when he wrote that the Early Music movement “has uncritically accepted the post-Romantic work-concept and imposed it anachronistically on pre-Romantic repertoires” (1995: 13). However, if my Monteverdi-Bach comparisons are valid and emblematic, it seems that this claim is valid primarily in repertoires (like the B minor Mass) where the work-concept has already taken hold before the emergence of HIP; and that, even there, it is HIP musicians who are beginning to apply a different, more flexible approach. As Bernard Sherman notes, several HIP musicians use historical knowledge to “undermine” – or at least modify – “the concept of the fixed, perfected work” (1997: 393). For these musicians, seeking greater freedom for the performers in no way contradicts the belief “that a performer’s responsibility might consist in being faithful to the work being performed or, in fact, of adhering as closely as possible to the composer’s intention” (Walls 2003: 75). On the contrary: they believe that the attempt to understand the composer’s intention “helps us to temper the view of musical works as static, timeless objects and allows us to see them as something much closer to the process of performance itself” (Butt 2002a: 85; see also Van Tassel 1997: 708-711; Bilson 1997; Levin 1997, 2004; Walls 2003: 87-88 and passim; Haynes 2005). This development is certainly reflected in the Mass’s discography to date. However, even the freest performances relate closely enough to the score to allow a researcher such as myself to use the latter as a point of departure in discussing and comparing performances. - 25 In treating performances of the Mass as part of the work’s reception – alongside verbal commentaries and analyses – I am assuming that, in some sense (admittedly, not always precisely definable), all these writers and musicians are responding to “the same object”.29 This approach is especially dominant in Part Two, where discussions of the music’s harmonic, melodic, rhythmic and structural qualities (both in my own analyses and in those I cite) are directly linked with analyses of specific performances. At the same time, I also seek to demonstrate how different performances – even if they all can be described as realisations of the same score – create highly divergent musical shapes. 1.2.5. Intensity and performance: The x/x matrix One of the main controversies concerning within the “performance-of” paradigm surrounds the notion of “letting the music speak for itself”. The spectrum of opinion ranges from the advocacy of performative restraint and literalism to the view that performers should “make the implicit explicit” (Bazzana 1997: 56). The controversy is of particular importance for my investigation of Intensity in performance. This issue involves two separate yet related considerations. The first relates to the understanding of the music: how much Intensity do the performers ascribe to the music, and on what grounds? The second concerns the transition from the work’s reception to its performance: to what extent, and in what ways, do performers seek to realise their perceptions? The interaction between these considerations can manifest itself, in a schematic fashion, in four basic ways, relevant both for the performer’s conception and the critic’s reception:30 1. +/+ : This music is expressive, and should therefore be performed expressively; 2. +/- : This music is so expressive that it could (or should) be performed inexpressively; 3. -/+ : This music is not expressive, but should performed expressively; 4. -/- : This music is not expressive, and should not be performed as if it were. 29 To some extent, this assumption would be legitimate even for performances of the counter-examples I offered above (e.g., Monteverdi’s Vespro). 30 This matrix can be applied to Complexity and Unity, as well as to Intensity; indeed, it can be applied to any quality perceived in the music which is amenable, potentially, to performative realisation. - 26 This scheme obviously demands several qualifications – above and beyond the necessity of finding out what performers and critics alike mean by “expressive” and related terms. Furthermore, it refers only to views of a particular work, not to an overarching ideology; no performer or critic regards all music as equally expressive. A scheme for positions “in principle” might recognise the following options: 1. x/+: Performance should always be as expressive as possible; 2. x/-: Performance should always be contained, allowing music to speak for itself whatever its own Intensity; 3. x/x: The level of Intensity in the performance should be calibrated with the level of Intensity in the music. In the course of this dissertation, this scheme will serve as a starting point for discussing aspects of ideology and performance alike. Its application will, however, reveal some of the weaknesses of applying rigid schemata to a more nuanced reality. 1.3. The Mass as a case study 1.3.1. The Mass’s discography A meaningful examination of developments in the performance of Bach’s choral music requires a wide discography, encompassing a variety of styles. Focusing on a single work allows a close comparison between a large number of approaches to the same music. On the other hand, it restricts the range of performances available, forcing the researcher to omit any performer who did not record that particular work. The obvious candidates for this purpose are the Mass and the two Passions. These works have a larger discography than any of the cantatas, featuring performances by musicians who did not perform most of Bach’s other vocal music (e.g., Herbert von Karajan, Eugen Jochum). The Mass’s main disadvantage as a case study is the scarcity of available evidence from the pre-LP era. The Matthäus-Passion was recorded at least eight times before the advent of LP (though most of these recordings were incomplete); the Mass was only recorded twice. For this reason, my dissertation focuses largely on the period between 1950 and 2000, for which the Mass’s discography provides a richer documentation. The Mass’s main advantage, for the purposes of this study, is that it is a predominantly choral work; this facilitates a focus on the conductors’ and ensembles’ - 27 contribution, arguably justifying less attention to the further complicating factor of soloists’ contribution (see also 1.4, pp. 29ff below). The Mass’s internal variety, covering a wider range of moods and styles than the Passions, also contributes to its value as a case study in examining performance as reception, an advantage exploited more in Part One than in Part Two. 1.3.2. “Intensity” and “Balance” in the Mass’s reception The Mass is often regarded as a special case among Bach’s vocal works. The difficulty in classifying it (in terms of its unity, denomination, or its very raison d’être) has led to its exaltation by some, and to a more sceptical approach from others. Attempts to normalise it (i.e., to prove that it is no less “functional” music than the Passions or the cantatas) can be found alongside commentaries that emphasise its uniqueness (for summaries of these debates, see Schulze 1985; Stauffer 1997b: 41-43, 255-265). This is reflected, inter alia, by the role of Intensity in the work’s reception. While the Passions are often held up as supreme examples of Bach’s dramatic and expressive art, references to the Mass often focus on craftsmanship, stylistic diversity and synthesis, and polyphonic mastery – elements more easily related to Unity and Complexity. 31 This partly reflects musical considerations (the Mass’s tonal unity, its predominantly choral texture, the absence of recitatives and ariosi) and partly textual and historical considerations (e.g., the “universal” or ecumenical appeal of the Mass’s text). In Christoph Wolff’s Bach biography (2000: 8), the Mass represents Bach’s highest achievement in “style and compositional technique, from retrospective to modern”, while the Matthäus-Passion represents Bach’s attainment of “large scale form”. “[M]usical affect and meaning” are represented by the church cantatas. Wolff is among the most prominent advocates of the view that Bach intended the Mass as a choral counterpart of encyclopaedic works like Die Kunst der Fuge (see, for example, ibid: 431-442). This view, which links the Mass to Bach’s most “universal” works, is summarised and expanded in Yoshitake Kobayashi’s “Universality in Bach’s B minor Mass”. For Kobayashi, the Mass represents Unity triumphing over all obstacles (stylistic, historical, liturgical). He hears in it a spirit of 31 For example, see Bukofzer 1948: 292-296; Steinitz 1975: 583-584, 653-656; Grout and Palisca 1988: 518-519. Geiringer’s discussion of the Mass (1966: 209-210) focuses on symbolism – but not expression, in contrast with his more directly emotive discussion of other vocal works. - 28 reconciliation – achieved without internal struggle – which also makes the work more accessible for listeners removed from Bach’s spiritual world (cf. Marshall 1989: 69; Schulze 1985: 313, 318-320; Wollny 1993: 13). Such views are typical of the balance-as-equilibrium approach. The music’s perfection might seem super-human, its sheer Complexity threatening; but the presence of human Intensity (including beauty and lyricism), and of Unity, makes it accessible and enjoyable even before one penetrates its Complexity. Through it all, its equilibrium would seem to maintain a sense of inner peace even in moments of utmost Intensity. Lang’s dissent from this comforting view (see p. 8 above) resurfaces in his discussion of the Mass (1942: 498-499). In Lang’s view, the Mass’s ambition to balance contradictory tendencies makes it less accessible; its dimensions are “forbidding”, its “wealth of great music [...] oppressive”. Alignment with the abstract aspects of Bach’s style and oeuvre is not, however, a consistent strand in the work’s reception. For 19th- and early 20th-century writers (e.g., Bitter, Spitta, Terry), the Mass seemed no less Intense than the Passions; some of those who regarded the Mass as less Intense considered this a fault (e.g., Emery 1954). More recently, the abstract-work approach has been criticised as a damaging distortion. For example, George Stauffer (1997b: 255-265) considers it unlikely, on musical-expressive grounds, that the work was conceived on the same abstractdidactic terms as Die Kunst der Fuge; like Marshall, he speaks of a “directness that counterbalances the complexity of Bach’s writing” in the Mass (ibid: 263).32 Even the most emotively-charged accounts of the Mass seem to lie within the balance-as-equilibrium approach. Inner tensions and struggles are rarely cited in the Mass’s verbal reception, although several recent performances seem intent on revealing these aspects. 32 In an article written ostensibly to defend the Mass from Smend’s charges of disunity, Hermann Keller (1957) reveals a deep suspicion towards the very inclusion of arias in the Mass, and generally finds the Mass too operatic and secularised. His negative assessment relies, to a large degree, on the same factors that Stauffer emphasises in his positive assessment. - 29 - 1.4. The selection of case-studies In the course of my research, I consulted more than 70 recordings of the Mass. However, given the limited scope of a doctoral dissertation and the level of detailed analysis I sought, I had to focus on a limited number of performances. My core group thus consists of nine conductors (enumerated in chapters 3-6), who between them made 17 recordings of the Mass. By the same token, I was not able to discuss all the Mass’s movements in equal detail. 1.4.1. The selection of the core group for Part One As I noted above, this study is conducted within an ideology-and-performance framework, and the examination of performers’ ideology must cover both their images of Bach and their view of their roles as performers. I therefore focus on performers who expressed their opinions on both issues verbally. Given the importance of analysing conductors’ views on Bach, I focused primarily on musicians whose discographies cover large segments of Bach’s choral repertoire. This enabled me to examine their approaches to the Mass against general developments in their respective Bach styles, as well as against the traditions they emerged from and/or reacted to. In examining a performance of a choral-orchestral work, it is tempting to ascribe the interpretation to the conductor. There are, however, obvious problems in making this assumption. The actual music-making stems from the players and singers, whose attitude towards the conductor’s interpretation could cover the full gamut from complete disregard to total identification, and whose views and practices could, in turn, influence the conductor’s views (see also 1.2.3, pp. 15ff above).33 Partly to address this issue, I focused on conductors who recorded the Mass with ensembles that they themselves had founded (rather than guest conductors appearing with pre-existing ensembles). This means that the conductor is likely to have shaped the ensemble’s overall style as well as the specific performance – often in cooperation with the musicians (who, in turn, were chosen in part for sharing the conductor’s stylistic preferences, or for their willingness to adapt to them). All the 33 In recordings, the production team could also have a decisive influence on the final product. I have therefore attempted to ascertain their degree of control over the editing and production process, though such information was not always obtainable. - 30 conductors in my core group founded their own instrumental ensembles. With the exception of Nikolaus Harnoncourt, they founded the vocal ensemble as well. I classified these conductors according to their stated aesthetic ideologies: each chapter brings together musicians who share a similar image of Bach, and/or of their own role as performers. This does not necessarily mean that they share the same style of performance. Indeed, Part One could be read as an examination of the relationship between ideology and practice. Chapter 2 is an exception to all the above-stated rules. The musicians I discuss there do not share a performance ideology; most of them are not Bach experts, and only one of them (Eugen Jochum) recorded the Mass with ensembles he had founded. However, since many Bach performers define themselves (and/or are defined by critics) with reference to the notion of “romantic performance”, it was imperative to open Part One with an examination of what this term might mean, in the context of 20th-century Bach performance. 1.4.2. The selection of movements for Part Two In Part Two, I switch my focus from the musicians to the music, through an examination of three case studies (First Kyrie, Second Kyrie and Crucifixus). This enables me to examine my “core-group” performers against a wider background, with extensive references to other recordings. The case studies had to consist of complete movements. Studies which focus on issues of style and technique (e.g., articulation, dynamics and rubato) can be conducted by “lifting” selected phrases from many performances and discussing them in isolation (a technique exemplified, inter alia, in Philip 1992, Johnson 1999, Fabian 2003, and Ornoy 2001). The projection and creation of meaning and expression in performance, however, has to be studied in terms of the shaping of entire movements and their interrelationship. This necessarily limits the number of movements that can be examined. A particularly important issue in this context is directionality – the patterns of tension-and-resolution that affect the sense of goal-orientation in the music. This encompasses both “local directionality” – ebb-and-flow within individual phrases – and “overall directionality” across an entire movement (Cohen 1994: 34-37). The attitude towards directionality – both local and overall – is central to the distinction - 31 between stylistic ideologies in Bach performance. The investigation of this feature was another consideration which mandated the examination of complete movements. Since I have chosen to focus on the work of ensembles and conductors, I have decided to exclude solos and duets from Part Two. The three choruses I selected for Part Two all feature imitative polyphonic textures, and relate to the darker side of the emotional spectrum. Thus, each of them can be used to examine the interaction between Complexity and Intensity, and the potential positive feedback between the two (see p. 10 above); together, they can be used to illustrate the performative implications of balance-as-equilibrium and knife-edge-balance alike (see, however, 10.3.1, pp. 251ff below). 1.5. Methodology of listening 1.5.1. Listening and measurement My decision to focus on complete movements also affected my approach to listening and presentation. Performance studies frequently resort to tempo mapping, tempo being the most measurable aspect of performance (e.g., Cook 1995; Bowen 1996, 1999; Lowe 2000; Grunin 2004). The dangers inherent in such a near-exclusive focus on one musical parameter were noted by some of these researchers (Cook 1999b: 47; Lowe 2002). It is especially dangerous in the context of my study. Tempo modifications play a relatively minor role in most performances of the Mass, compared to phrasing, articulation and dynamics. In the course of my research, I made use of Nicholas Cook’s timing program (http://www.soton.ac.uk/~musicbox/charm5.html). However, I was unable to develop a satisfactory “tapping” technique, essential for the program’s operation. Given my minor problems of motor control, this is not surprising. Even the apparently more straightforward method of using a metronome has proved unsatisfactory in some cases. Again, the attempt was valuable: the ease or difficulty of obtaining a metronome number for a movement was a useful indicator of the performance’s strictness or flexibility. But it led me to give up on my original plan to include a table of metronome marks alongside the table of durations; for such a table to be credible, it - 32 would have to include numerous indications on the reliability of specific data-points, and this would impede the table’s immediate clarity. Other measurement techniques, both for timing and for other factors (such as vibrato) are also time-consuming and therefore tend to be used in research focusing on short phrases, and with references to sparse textures. They are less practicable for studying large-scale patterns in choral-orchestral pieces. In the future, it might be possible to obtain more accurate measurements of several parameters, with a level of detail and reliability which at present is only available to researchers who rely on piano rolls (e.g., Bowen 1999: 440) or on performances played and recorded on MIDI keyboard (e.g., Clarke 1995). In my view, such opportunities should be seized, where available. They can certainly assist in preventing errors in perception (e.g., assuming the existence of tempo fluctuations where an effect might actually be the result of phrasing or dynamics), which are likely to occur when researchers rely, as I have usually done, on their own ears. However, for the data thus obtained to be useful, its interpreters would have to take human perception into account.34 The minutiae documented by the computer may be at odds with most listeners’ perception.35 When such contradictions occur, most researchers would be more interested in the listeners’ perception than in the computer’s analysis. It should also be remembered that there is no single, ideal listener. Listeners differ in time, age, geography, musical experience and education, perceptual and cognitive abilities, and personal character. Whether one relies on listening alone, or on a combination of listening and measurements, one should be careful not to interpret all performances, regardless of their time and place of origin and the performers’ background, against a single yardstick. 34 The subject of listener’s responses to performance has itself been the object of research. See, in particular, the work of Dorottya Fabian and Emery Schubert on the listeners’ perception of Bach performance (listed in bibliography, and discussed on pp. 44ff and 256ff below). 35 As Ian Cross (personal communication) noted, events which a computer detects as occurring successively may be perceived as simultaneous. Research has also demonstrated that performances which listeners perceive as strictly metronomic actually deviate from the steady beat – while truly metronomic renditions are rarely perceived as such (Bruno Repp, cited in Clarke 1995: 23). The reasons for this are, to a great extent, cultural (for example, experienced listeners will expect a ritardando at the end of a phrase, and will therefore consider its absence as speeding up). Consequently, perceptions vary between listeners of different times, places, and backgrounds. - 33 - 1.5.2. The choice of parameters My own practice has consisted primarily of repeatedly listening to performances, ranging from continuous listening to an entire recording of the Mass from beginning to end to direct comparisons of specific movements or passages in various performances. In the course of listening, I made detailed notes (verbal comments and score annotations) – sometimes associative, sometimes according to pre-set list of parameters. These parameters included tempo, dynamics, articulation, phrasing, textural clarity and balance; in several movements (including all the movements featured as case-studies in Part Two), I instructed myself to pay attention to specific passages and their role in shaping the movement as a whole. I also addressed parameters of tone- and voice-production, albeit less systematically. These priorities are reflected in my analyses. One set of parameters missing from this list is pitch, intonation and temperament.36 For modern-instrument performances, this is largely not an issue: in the period under discussion (primarily 1950 onwards), equal temperament is the standard tuning system, and the standard pitch is A = 440. For period-instrument performances, the situation is more complex. To the best of my judgement, all period-instrument performances of the Mass adopt A = 415 as their pitch standard. I was unable to distinguish, through my own listening, the precise type of tuning system used in each performance. However, from consultation both my supervisors (John Butt and Geoffrey Webber, personal communication), I understand that the choice of tuning does not constitute a major factor in shaping performative interpretations of choral-orchestral music of the late Baroque period.37 Choice of basic tuning systems, and the ability to modify tuning in the course of performance, are severely restricted by the need to perform a work scored for various types of instruments and voices, and traversing a relatively large number of keys, and accompany throughout with the same keyboard instrument(s). Many HIP groups therefore adopt a general-purpose tuning system, based on one of the late-Baroque “well-tempered” systems or a modification of equal temperament (cf. Harnoncourt 36 I also did not focus on the scoring and contribution of the continuo instruments, and on the role of ornamentation and improvisation; see, however, p. 22 above. 37 The situation is different in earlier repertoires (where systems of mean-tone tuning are much more prevalent and practicable), and in music for solo instruments or chamber ensembles. - 34 1988: 64-66; Lawson and Stowell 1999: 88-89; Martin Lindley, in Boyd 1999: 476477). The fact that issues of tuning and intonation are largely ignored in otherwise wide-ranging discussions of performance-practice issues in the Mass (cf. Rifkin 1982a; Butt 1991: 38-41; Stauffer 1997b: 206-249) provides oblique corroboration for these observations.38 The issue is also largely ignored in surveys and discussions of Bach on record (e.g., Taruskin 1995; Nicholas Anderson, in Boyd 1999: 410-416; Elste 2000; Fabian 2003; and most record reviews).39 This might reflect the likelihood that most listeners are not consciously affected by the performers’ choice of pitch and intonation system.40 Such choices are likely to affect (unconsciously) many listeners’ perception of other parameters, such as timbre and tone production. However, to properly evaluate this, it would be necessary to conduct a combined study, measuring the tuning as preserved on record and comparing it with listeners’ reactions (cf. p. 32 above) employing experimental methodologies for studying audience response. This obviously falls beyond the scope of the present dissertation. 1.5.3. Objectivity and subjectivity The main disadvantage of my reliance on my own ears is that it might have led to descriptions that are too subjective and personalised, reflecting a listening experience which is, for better or worse, highly unusual, and displaying my own personal biases. My personal strengths and weaknesses as a listener are also reflected in these analyses. I attempted to balance this, both through an investigation into the performances’ reception as documented in record reviews, and through sporadic, informal attempts to compare my reactions to those of other listeners. I attempted to account for my reactions in as much detail as possible, allowing readers to judge the reliability of my hearing and reasoning alike. The recorded excerpts attached should assist in this. 38 Lawson and Stowell, in their survey of performance-practice issues in the Matthäus-Passion (1999: 99-109), discuss pitch (ibid: 103), but not temperament and tuning. 39 Elste discusses pitch and tuning standards in his general chapter on performance practice (2000: 3335) and in his account of performances of Das Wohltemperierte Klavier (ibid: 355-356), but not in his discussion of Bach’s orchestral or choral music. 40 Listeners with perfect pitch would, of course, notice the choice of pitch standard, and this might affect their experience. Likewise, some listeners – especially those who have had professional training in tuning as singers or instrumentalists – are more likely to take note of the choice of tuning system. The present writer does not belong to either category. - 35 I also made an effort to account for other reactions – to understand why critics, and other listeners, responded to recordings the way they did. I could not always achieve this even to my own satisfaction. Thus, my view of Thomaskantor Günther Ramin (pp. 54f below) clashes with a critical consensus that regards him as a highly expressive, spontaneous Bach conductor (cf. Trumpff 1962; Frotscher 1965; Kroher 1966; Meacock 1999; Heighes 2000: 42). The writer who came closest to describing the static character I discerned in Ramin’s performances was the Soviet critic A. Anicimov, in his report on the 1950 Bach Festival in Leipzig (quoted in Wehrmeyer and Poldiaeva 2000: 191-192; see also K. Neumann 1970: 41; Fabian 1999: 451, 453).41 The issue is not simply a subjective difference of opinion, but a descriptive discrepancy: several reviews imply that Ramin’s recordings feature a wider dynamic range, and more varied articulation, than I was able to hear. In light of this, I could not help suspecting that some critics were responding to Ramin’s reputation as a Bach expert, rather than to audible features in his recordings (cf. Freeman-Attwood 2002: 13-14). I am aware, however, that analogous prejudices might affect my own listening. In my analyses, I attempt to present my perception of specific parameters within the recordings with sufficient detail and accuracy – and with a sufficiently consistent terminology – to enable readers to comprehend my priorities as a listener, and compare them with their own. Through the ideology-and-performance approach, I also attempt to relate these perceptions to what the performers (primarily the conductors) were aiming to achieve, and to place their interpretations in a broader perspective of Bach reception. Ultimately, I hope to demonstrate how performers’ priorities have changed – not only in regard to how expressive a performance should be, but also in regard to what constitutes performative expression. 41 I also suspect that Ramin was one of Adorno’s targets in “Bach defended against his devotees”; cf. p. 54 below. PART ONE SCHOOLS AND APPROACHES 2. Romanticism in Bach Performance The term “romanticism” is ubiquitous in discussions of Bach performance in general, and the Mass’s discography in particular; yet its use is fraught with contradictions. Over the past 50 years, several prominent Bach conductors have been described alternately as “romanticists” and “objectivists”, even explicitly “antiromantics”. For the purposes of this study, it is important to trace possible sources for these contradictory applications, and to examine whether, and how, the term can applied productively to describe trends in 20th-century Bach performance. 2.1. The definition of romanticism The concept of romanticism in Bach performance is usually associated with three criteria: 1. Anachronism: In music history, “Romanticism” is associated with the 19th century.1 To perform Bach romantically, in this sense, is to perform his music in a style perceived as appropriate to 19th century music. 2. Emotional expressiveness: The OED defines “Romantic” in music as “characterized by the subordination of form to theme, and by imagination and passion”; in a recent program note, András Schiff (2002) defines romanticism as: “Fantastic, imaginative, visionary, aesthetically more concerned with feeling and emotion than with form and order”. Thus, the term could refer to a performer’s application of +/+ or x/+ aesthetics. 1 As Samson (2003: §1) notes, there is no consensus on the precise demarcation of romanticism in musical history; however, most general music histories “extend the Romantic period through to the first decade of the 20th century”. - 36 - - 37 3. Performative freedom and individualism: This is related to the image of romantic performers as ones who allow free reign to their fantasy and rely on their intuition – often in service of expressiveness. 2 There is, to be sure, a common view that 19th-century composers, in their more detailed notation, progressively attempted to curtail performative freedom. This view is, however, an over-simplification at best (Butt 2002a: 98-114). Arguably, strict literalism and performative freedom are both strongly rooted in 19thcentury aesthetics (Goehr 1996). Literalism, however, has become stricter and more pervasive in the 20th-century. Performative freedom has come to be associated with the earliest available recording – early 20th-century sound documents by artists brought up in the 19th century – and consequently labelled “romantic”. In my reading of post-1945 discourse on Bach performance, all references to a performer, a performance, a style or a specific feature (e.g., rubato, gradual dynamic changes) as “romantic” entail the attribution of one of the criteria cited above to the object of discussion. When the same performance is classified, alternately, as “romantic” and “anti-romantic”, there are two possible explanations: 1. The writers disagree on whether a particular criterion applies (e.g., whether gradual dynamics constitute an anachronism in Baroque music); 2. One of the writers classified a performance as “romantic” on the strength of one criterion (e.g., anachronism), while another described it as nonromantic due to the absence of another (e.g., expressiveness). With reference to Bach’s choral music, the term is most frequently applied to conductors of the symphonic-operatic tradition, who are perceived as performing Bach “anachronistically” in the same style they apply to later composers’ music. When that label is attached to performers from a different tradition (e.g., HIP), this is often regarded as an exception to that tradition’s “rule”. In his New Grove Online article on “Romanticism”, Samson (2003: §3) suggests that “we are on safer ground considering Romanticism in relation to ideas and motivations rather than styles, and that if we must invoke styles, we will do better to confine the term to a description of the larger tendencies flowing from those ideas and 2 Laurence Dreyfus (1992: 305) defines his ideal romantic performance in terms of expression and performative freedom, but emphatically denies the identification of romanticism with anachronism. - 38 motivations”. This suggestion is equally applicable to the subject of this chapter. I will therefore consider the issue of what might constitute a 20th-century romantic performance aesthetics before discussing specific stylistic features. 2.1.1. Romantic ideology Kevin Bazzana’s examination of romantic performance aesthetics (1997: 51-58) provides a useful starting point for this investigation. His reference point is pre-WWII performers – specifically those who did not adhere to notions of literalism or Neue Sachlichkeit – and later performers who maintained similar premises and practices. Bazzana lists the following attributes for romantic performance ideology: 1. Belief in the “Romantic aesthetic of absolute music” – coupled with a rejection of literalism; 2. Belief that the performer’s individualism is paramount: “the performer must be true to himself first, before the composer or the audience” (ibid: 52); 3. Willing endorsement of anachronism – shaping elements of performance style without regard for the work’s composer and era, and choosing performing editions without regard to authenticity; 4. Endorsement or realisation of an x/x (or even x/+) ideal, “making the implicit explicit” (ibid: 56). The first clause might seem self-contradictory – but only from the vantage point of later approaches to Werktreue, which identify “work” with “text” (Taruskin 1995: 12). The tenets of romantic performance ideology can be linked to a holistic conception of Werktreue – faithfulness to the spirit, rather than the letter – coupled with a belief that a fine musician would be able to intuit this “spirit” directly from a close examination of the music. This way of thinking – strengthened by the view of the musical work itself as a self-sufficient “monad”, containing within itself the necessary elements for its comprehension – obviates the need for historical propriety or faithfulness to the ‘accidents’ of performance detail. Romantic aesthetics ideally requires performers to be free from their own preconceptions as well. They have a duty to communicate their conception of the work’s spirit to the audience, but they should approach the act of performance in an improvisatory, intuitive manner. Rather than developing a detailed conception prior to performance, they should allow scope for last-minute decisions (see also Goehr 1996: 17). - 39 Romantic performance aesthetics is also associated with the rising importance of the conductor, sometimes described as a specifically 19th-century phenomenon (e.g., Stravinsky 1947: 125-126). Thus, the very presence of a conductor in a performance of Bach’s music is sometimes referred to as an anachronism, comparable to the employment of modern instruments, oversized choirs and so forth (see also Sherman 2003, and 4.3.1.2.2, pp. 110f below). The Maestro as a charismatic, creative artist is also associated with the perception of choral and orchestral music as sublime in the narrow, Burkean sense (as opposed to “beautiful”). This raises again a familiar paradox; “a traditional romantic (and later high-modernist) conception of music’s transcendental mission” (Goehr 1996: 1) is used as an argument both for and against strongly personalised performance. In the context of the three criteria above, views on the relations between this “transcendental mission” and emotional expressiveness are of particular importance: is sublimity conceived as the heightening of emotion, or as transcendence of it? Any ideology that contains a Werktreue element has to justify performative expression in x/x, rather than x/+, terms: un-notated interpretive gestures could be legitimised, even mandated, as being true to the spirit of the work, but only if the music itself is perceived as emotionally intense. Such a perception has been a dominant strand in Romantic Bach reception: the association of Bach’s religious music with a Religion of Emotion (Gefühlsreligion) can be traced back to the reception of Mendelssohn’s performances of the Matthäus-Passion (M. Geck 1967: 67-71; however, cf. Garratt 2002: 62-68, and p. 7 above). In later writings, Intensity in Bach’s sacred music is sometimes directly related to its characterisation as romantic (cf. Spitta 1889, III: 67; Parry 1909: 554; Terry 1924: 31). “Romantic” Bach reception further justified the application of anachronism to his music by viewing the composer himself as “an anachronism [...] standing defiantly outside his times” (Bazzana 1997: 67). Admittedly, there are at least two ways to view Bach as anachronistic – the Bach-as-romantic image is quite different from the Bachas-Conservative image (cf. p. 43 below). In itself, however, the Bach-as-romantic view could be used to justify an “anachronistic” performance style – provided the speaker also adheres to an x/x philosophy. A romantic ideology for Bach performance can thus feature the following precepts: - 40 1. Anachronism: Bach’s music viewed as independent of its historical context, and not bound by the conventions of its time. 2. Continuity: the belief that Bach’s music can be understood in the same aesthetic terms as Beethoven’s (Stauffer 1997a: 207) or Wagner’s (M. Geck 1967: 127-128). This can sometimes be associated with an “organic” conception of Bach’s music – viewing it in terms of gradual changes, of growth and decline of intensity (see also p. 41 below); 3. An emphasis on the music’s expressive richness, grandeur and sublimity; 4. A strong x/x conception, which insists on the performer’s right – even duty – to bring out the music’s expressive character. 2.1.2. The technical side: Attributes of romanticism As a style of performance, romanticism is often viewed as the adoption of performative-expressive techniques developed for 19th-century music. Specific techniques include frequent modifications of tempo, dynamics and timbre. Bazzana (1997: 55), who focuses on pianists, mentions “‘‘melodic rubato’ [...]; a fascination with bringing out inner voices; the casual breaking of vertical sonorities; florid continuo playing”. Fabian (2003: 131) speaks of “a nineteenth-century performance tradition that generally strives for a continuous legato and ‘never-ending’ phrases or melodic lines, covers up the frequent cadence points so typical of baroque music by undulating dynamics, elongated tempo rubato and a climactic emphasis of suspensions and dissonances”. As Robert Philip demonstrates (1992: 208-223 and passim), many of these qualities are present in recordings by artists who were brought up in the 19th century. Stravinsky, in his critique of “Interpretation” (1947: 124-125), alludes to many of the same features. Given his basic x/- philosophy, he condemns them as inappropriate even in 19th-century music. However, he believes that Baroque music is inherently less expressive, and is therefore entitled to a restrained, -/- approach. Leonard Bernstein (1960: 227-228) presents a different view: that Bach’s music should be rendered expressively, but not through the application of 19th-century means. He demonstrates this by presenting – and rejecting – his own attempts at injecting expression into Bach’s music as a teenaged piano student. These apparently incorporated most of the techniques described above, enriched by detailed accentuation patterns (cf. Schweitzer 1911, II: 391). Bernstein’s primary reason for - 41 rejecting them is that they ignore Bach’s Unity of Affect. His talk does not include many positive performance recommendations; and his performance of the MatthäusPassion still features a wealth of dynamic and articulatory inflections – different in degree, but not in kind, to those he applied in other repertoires. One source of detailed prescriptions on romantic performance of one of Bach’s great choral works is Henry Wood’s account of his performances of the MatthäusPassion (1938: 215-227). To the best of my knowledge, his Bach performances have not been documented in sound recordings; but his detailed music examples give some sense of what they might have sounded like. Later British recordings of the Passion (Reginald Jacques, Ralph Vaughan Williams) reveal a similar spirit to that of Wood’s recommendations. They feature mostly legato articulation and myriad dynamic nuances, and highlight the occasional inner strand without guaranteeing consistent clarity. Selective clarity is also typical of Romantic pianists’ approach, wherein “unusual textures were usually brief intrusions into a style that was overwhelmingly oriented towards singing melody” (Bazzana 1997: 148). This is related to another key feature – the treatment of overall structures. Performers who shape Bach’s music with large-scale patterns of tension and release, or strive for dramatic climaxes, are likely to be “accused” of romanticism, especially on the grounds of anachronism. However, as the previous paragraph indicates, romanticism is also associated with dwelling on local details; a concern with shaping a movement into a single, coherent whole might thus seem a “classicist” trend. The Mass is more closely associated with large-scale genres than with piano miniatures; thus, to treat it anachronistically is to treat it like Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis (to cite the most obvious illustration). The concept of a large-scale, overall structure is clearly relevant in this context. Furthermore, the question is not only whether overall structure is taken as a central consideration, but also what means are employed to project it. If striving for climaxes is conceived in dramatic terms, the performance can be more properly viewed as “romantic” than if the same shape is delineated by means of strictly-differentiated blocks (terraced dynamics) and a deliberate restraint of dramatic gestures (see 7.3.2, pp. 185ff below). Tempo also requires comment. Romantic performances are often described as consistently slower. This is not, however, an obvious consequence of romantic ideology. A belief in performative freedom, and in making the implicit explicit, could lead into tempo extremes: a predictable caricature would be ponderous tempi in slow - 42 movements, breakneck speeds in fast movements, and an alternation between nearmetronomic strictness and long-range rubati. In other repertoires, this has sometimes been the case (Philip 1992: 35). José Bowen’s examination of recordings in various repertoires revealed that “there is no overall trend to faster or slower tempos”, but rather a mixture of “all three possible trends” – i.e., some works have been speeded up, others have been slowed down, and in some works the average tempo has not changed (1996: 114). In Bach, however, pre-HIP tempi do seem slower.3 This leads to a more general consideration. I attempted to define some aspects of a romantic performance style of Bach; but, arguably, romantic ideology and stylistic consistency are essentially at odds with each other. One possible reason why some degree of consistency emerges nonetheless is the romantic reliance on intuition – which often translates, in practice, to following the tradition one has absorbed (Taruskin 1995: 78; Persson 2001: 284). On the other hand, compared with some of the alternatives, romantic performers can seem more stylistically varied. The definition of “romanticism” partly relies upon its differentiation from other approaches; and it is this topic that I turn to next. 2.1.3. The mirror image: What romanticism is not The most frequent antonyms to “romantic” with reference to Bach performance are “objective” and “modern”/“modernist” (“classical”, an otherwise common antonym, is not frequently used in this context). “Authentic”, “HIP” and “stylish” are also frequently mentioned. Taruskin famously identified HIP with objectivism and modernism,4 lending credence to a “caricature” of HIP-modernism as “a consistent dogma based around objectivism, positivism, geometricism, depersonalisation and the separability of the aesthetic realm from all other aspects of life” (Butt 2002a: 132; cf. Taruskin 1995: 167, Bowen 1996: 76). Several terms in this list can be converted, via antonyms, into definitions of romantic style and ideology: subjectivism, vitalism (T. E. Hulme, as 3 I only have detailed comprehensive timings for the B minor Mass; however, the impression is strengthened by a less systematic examination of other works by Bach. 4 The modernist source he usually alludes to is the compositions, performances and aesthetics of Stravinsky. He thus downplays other important modernist sources, e.g., Schoenberg (cf. Butt 2002a: 125-131). - 43 applied to musical performance in Taruskin 1995: 108-111), and strong personalisation. One could also cite Taruskin’s characterisation of modernism as “leery of the profound or the sublime” (1995: 167) – and its implicit association of romanticism with the exultation of these attributes. Taruskin, Bowen (1996, 1997) and others regard geometric modernism as characteristic of post-war Western concert music performance in general, in all repertoires. Aspects of “geometric” performance, however, began to emerge in performances of Baroque music already in the 1930s; and their presence was not necessarily justified with reference to modernist ideologies. Of the five elements in Butt’s list, the three most easily audible in performance (objectivism, geometricism, depersonalisation) are often associated with the Fifth Evangelist image, as it evolved in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Wilibald Gurlitt, for example, included a piercing attack on romantic Bach performance in an article which extols the Thomaskantor Bach image (1951a: 76-77; see also pp. 53f below). He views Bach as the guardian of an objectivist, expressivelyrestrained aesthetics of composition and performance alike. He accuses 19th-century composers of re-fashioning Bach in their own image, as a fellow painter and poet in tones.5 The performance techniques associated with this latter aesthetics – crescendi and diminuendi, tempo rubato – were also introduced into Bach performance, distorting his contrapuntal essays into romantic character pieces. Gurlitt viewed the example of Bach’s music as a defence against the excesses of modernism (1951a: 80). Yet his prescriptions for Bach performance are remarkably similar to those of modernists like Stravinsky. The two writers share a disdain towards romanticism in Bach performance; they are surprisingly close in their description of the problem, and suggest similar remedies. Modernism is therefore one appropriate antonym to romanticism, but the performative traits associated with it are also linked to other tropes in Bach reception. In a recent lecture, John Butt (2002b) suggested the existence of “romantic modernism” – seemingly a contradiction in terms. What he had in mind was the 5 Compare Schumann’s characterisation of Bach’s keyboard works as “character pieces of the highest order, at times genuinely poetic creations” (quoted in Stauffer 1997a: 207). Gurlitt was probably reacting to Schweitzer’s Bach interpretations as well. He might also have had in mind some of his colleagues, who discerned in prophetically expressive elements Bach’s music (e.g., Besseler 1970b; see also Adorno 1967: 138). - 44 application of romantic performance techniques in a manner removed from the romantic ideology of performative freedom and individualism. The latter ideology demands variety – turning features like vibrato and gradual dynamic inflection “on” or “off’, and varying their intensity, in accordance to the desired level of expression. “classical modernism” turns these features “off”. “Romantic modernism” turns some of them “on” (e.g., equalised vibrato and legato) while restraining others (e.g., applying a wide dynamic range in a calculated, non-improvisatory manner). Both types of “modernism” avoid spontaneity, preferring to project “an aura of professionalism and specialism”. These developments are not restricted to Bach; they are, broadly speaking, the same developments described in Philip 1992 (see also Day 2000: chapter 3, esp. 149159). Butt, however, emphasises one aspect of this development: techniques that were developed to emphasise moments of special expressive significance have become stylistic norms, and their consistent application stands at odds with the aesthetic purposes for which they were created (cf. Dahlhaus 1982: 95). On the other hand, not all techniques intended to enhance expression can be automatically dubbed “romantic”. Recent decades have seen the emergence of alternative means of creating performative freedom and expression in Baroque music. Under the guise of musical rhetoric (see chapter 4 below), performers sought to project a +/+ approach without employing techniques commonly identified as romantic: far from pursuing legato sostenuto, they aimed to project expression through “small rhythmic-motivic cells that are shaped with strong gestures, creating clearly articulated metric groups” (Fabian and Schubert 2002). This mode of performance attempts to realise expressiveness without resorting to anachronistic techniques; a study in listener responses (Fabian and Schubert 2000, 2002) suggests that many listeners today are convinced by this. Even if the new “rhetorical” style has its own anachronistic features (cf. 4.1.2, pp. 87ff below), they are not necessarily derived from the 19th century. To put it simplistically: Butt’s “romantic modernism” refers to the application of romantic means without pursuing romantic ends; whereas Fabian and Schubert’s “Baroque expressiveness” category refers to an attempt to achieve certain romantic ends (primarily the projection of a +/+ approach) without resorting to romantic means. - 45 - 2.2. Romanticism in the Mass’s discography The value of categorisation is inference: “we can observe some of [an object’s] properties, assign it to a category, and from the category predict properties that we have not observed” (Pinker 1997: 307). Consequently, the danger of dubious categorisation is false inference. An object might be assigned to a category on the strength of just one criterion; on the basis of this false categorisation, it would then be assumed to satisfy other criteria as well. The categorisation of Bach performances as “romantic” often displays this weakness (e.g., a performance is perceived as aiming at expressiveness; therefore it is labelled romantic; consequently it is deemed anachronistic). This is not to say that romanticism (or any other aesthetic category) should be treated as an all-or-nothing designation. Rather, the questions are: what features in a performance can be classified as romantic; and: when can one say that it has reached a “critical mass” which makes its classification as romantic useful and defensible? Romantic performances of Bach’s music are comparatively rare even when one might expect them to be ubiquitous – that is, the pre-WW II era; and they are rarer still in choral and orchestral repertoire. Even performers who are normally seen as romantics often adopt more “classical” features in Bach’s music. The two ends of the spectrum, in Bach’s choral music, are represented by Willem Mengelberg’s and Günther Ramin’s recordings of the Matthäus-Passion. Mengelberg’s range of dynamics, tempi and timbres is very wide; there are myriad local inflections in all parameters. His performance clearly satisfies all three criteria for romanticism: it is anachronistic in terms of contemporaneous received wisdom on Baroque performance; it is geared towards maximising emotional expression; and it reveals the conductor’s eagerness to stamp his own vision on the music. Ramin’s performance reveals opposite tendencies. At the time, Ramin was considered an authority on historical performance. He adhered to an x/- performance aesthetics, and avoided strong personalised gestures. His performance is often statuesque: he not only avoids overall shaping of movements, but often stops local directionality in its tracks through the rigidity of his phrasing, articulation and dynamics, which respond neither to melodic contours nor to harmonic patterns of tension and resolution (see also pp. 54f below). - 46 Among recordings of the Passion made before 1950 (or after 1950 by artists who represented earlier generations), only Vaughan Williams’s approaches Mengelberg’s in its sheer density of tempo and dynamic modifications. Walter and Furtwängler project a monumental conception reminiscent of Ramin’s;6 Koussevitzky and Jacques steer a middle course. Documentation for the Mass during this period is much sparser. The work’s first complete recording (Coates 1929) is closer to Ramin than to Mengelberg. Dynamics do not vary greatly, and while there is much local tempo fluctuation, there are few long-range rubati (though the restrictions of 78rpm recording might have made these harder to achieve). Similar characteristics are notable in the choral excerpts recorded by Edward Bairstow in 1926. Robert Shaw’s 1947 recording is tidier than Coates’s, and closer still to Ramin (see p. 65 below on Shaw’s subsequent development). There are no recordings of the Mass that approach Mengelberg’s in sheer density of local and large-scale inflections and nuances. There are, however, recordings that come close (see chapter 6); and also recordings that have acquired a reputation for romanticism without much justification. 2.2.1. Otto Klemperer: The objective “romanticist” Klemperer is often portrayed as a romantic Bach performer (e.g., Gilmore 1970: 22; Daw 1981: 163n; Taruskin 1995: 136, quoted on p. 224f below). In my view, represents a case of the term’s misapplication: in his ideology and practice alike, Klemperer was far from romantic. Peter Heyworth (1996a: 206) speaks of Klemperer’s “remarkable ability to span the apparently irreconcilable worlds of expressionism and die neue Sachlichkeit”, his “unique combination of romantic intensity and classical equilibrium”. Compared with his prominent contemporaries, however, it is the “neue Sachlichkeit” and “classical equilibrium” that stand out. His recordings attest to this: in all repertoires, he seems to place cohesion and clarity (Unity, Complexity) above expressiveness (Intensity). He often strives to delineate the music’s structure, but in a manner that seems more “classical” than “romantic” (see p. 41 above). 6 Martin Geck (1967: 128) sees Furtwängler as part of a Wagnerian tradition. Furtwängler’s strict approach to dynamics and tempo in the Passion, however, is hardly consistent with his own approach to 19th-century music (cf. Golomb 1998). - 47 Klemperer identified Bach as an “objective” composer, whose aesthetics are closer to those of Neue Sachlichkeit composers than to those of “romantic, subjective” composers like Beethoven (Klemperer 1986: 102). He therefore viewed romantic performance practices as anachronistic in Bach. In a 1942 article, he admitted to having applied dynamic inflection to Bach’s music in his early performances. Since then, however, he came to believe that Baroque music – including Bach’s – “demands that the dynamics be simple, economical, and, above all, restrained” (ibid: 91). Klemperer’s Bach performances in the 1920s and 1930s were characterised by terraced dynamics, sparse string vibrato, small ensembles, light textures, “lithe rhythms”, an absence of ornamentation, and considerable attention to textural clarity (Heyworth 1996a: 299-300; see also reviews cited in 298-301, 318-319, 386, 391). These traits partly represent the direct influence of Günther Ramin, who played harpsichord continuo in Klemperer’s performances of the Johannes-Passion (1929) and the B minor Mass (1932) and acted as Klemperer’s musicological adviser.7 Klemperer’s 1960s Bach recordings are consistent with his stated ideology and with critics’ descriptions of his earlier performance – except, perhaps, on the matter of textural lightness. His approach to the Mass is not as strict and unyielding as that of the Leipzig school (see chapter 3). His dynamics, while narrow, are not as consistently rigid; there are fewer instances of (down)beat bashing; the sonorities in some places (e.g., Christe eleison, Domine deus, Et in unum) are rounder and lighter. There are a few instances of clear build-up of tension and release across an entire movement (see also p. 189 below). Yet Klemperer often avoids local directionality, retains a firm grip on tempo and dynamics, and allows little dramatic contrast. In the absence of recordings, it is impossible to know how much Klemperer’s approach to Bach has changed as a consequence of his encounter with Ramin, and what further changes have taken place thereafter. It is not unreasonable to assume, however, that his 1960s recordings reflect something of his 1920s approach. At that time, neither his supporters nor his detractors categorised him as a “romantic”; and 7 Klemperer spoke highly of Ramin’s contribution in the latter capacity in his “Address to the Berlin Philharmonic Chorus”, December 5, 1932 (Klemperer 1982: 48, translated in Klemperer 1986: 67). Both concerts were dedicated to the memory of Siegfried Ochs, the choir’s founder-director. Ochs’s Bach style was full of pathos; he employed “massive forces”, and his annotated scores featured “a forest of dynamic hairpins” (Heyworth 1996a: 317; see also Schweitzer 1911, II: 247, 325, 418, 443). In seeking and accepting Ramin’s advice, Klemperer allied himself with a more restrained, literalist approach. - 48 very few writers, at any period, consider him a romantic in other repertoires. His approach bears the clear hallmarks of “objectivism [...] geometricism, depersonalisation” (Butt 2002a: 132) and literalism – all characteristics of modernism. Klemperer’s reputation as a romanticist is therefore, in my view, an illustration of the dangers of categorisation based on false inference: the observation of one criterion for romanticism (anachronism) led to mistaken attribution of the other two. By 1960s standards, Klemperer’s approach was already beginning to seem anachronistic – an impression that intensified after his death, as HIP grew more influential. He also bore some of the external hallmarks of romanticism (e.g., relatively heavy sonorities, slow tempi). However, given the consistency and steadiness with which he applied them, Butt’s “romantic modernism” might be a better categorisation of these aspects than just-plain “romanticism”. Arguably, an even better example for “romantic modernism” can be found in Herbert von Karajan’s recordings of the Mass. In recent scholarship, Karajan is sometimes cited among the earliest and most influential representatives of modernism (Bowen 1996: 132-134, 142; Lowe 2000: 210). His 1952 Mass was hailed as revelatory at the time (Robertson 1954; Randolph 1955). More recently, it was described as presaging later developments in Bach performance: lightness of textures and articulation, faster and stricter tempi, restraint in dynamics (Freeman-Attwood 2002: 26-27). This last quality is strongly expressed in Karajan’s frequent refusal to build up movements: even when he seems to start a crescendo, it would frequently dissipate rather than reach its peak (for example, his Et in terra, Cum sancto spiritu, Gratias, Resurrexit; see, however, p. 187 below). In Butt’s terminology, this is akin to “classical modernism”. Karajan’s second recording (1974), however, seems to return to “romantic modernism”: cloudy textures and restrained gestures are now associated with heavy, opulent sonorities and smoother articulation. Karajan thus seems to move in the opposite direction to general developments in Bach performance. This apparent disregard for performance-practice research (and fashion) might seem romantic (endorsement of anachronism and personal intuition). Carlo Maria Giulini displayed a similar direction of change: his live 1974 concert in St. Paul’s Cathedral displayed greater care for textural clarity than his 1994 commercial recording (despite the latter’s more disciplined chorus and less reverberant recording). This is especially - 49 noteworthy in light of several “Lutheran” conductors’ tendency to keep in step with developments in performance practice (see 3.2, pp. 68ff below). 2.2.2. Eugen Jochum: Genuine romanticism? Jochum’s reputation as a romanticist was more consistent than Klemperer’s (not to mention Karajan’s). Jochum himself was uneasy with the application of the term “romantic” to his Bach performances (Jochum 1990: 13-14) – even though it was sometimes used as praise (e.g., Michelsen 1959). In some ways, his two recordings of the Mass come closest to satisfying my three criteria for romanticism; yet even here, some objections can be raised. Jochum employs more moment-to-moment nuances, displays a greater timbral variety and a greater willingness for tempo inflections than Klemperer. This is true whether we discuss Bach or Bruckner. But in Bruckner, the differences are radical; in Bach, they are understated. Klemperer treats Bruckner and Mahler with almost the same calculation and deliberation he applies to Bach; whereas Jochum treats Bach as a special case, avoiding performative-expressive techniques which are ubiquitous in his performances of later repertoire. Compared to other Bach conductors, however, Jochum displays strongly romantic tendencies. His ostensibly anachronistic features are mostly the same as Klemperer’s (p. 48 above), though he also retained symphonic forces when Klemperer opted for a smaller ensemble. In Jochum’s case, however, these features are associated with specific care for emotional expression, and with some strongly personalised gestures (the most notable example in the Mass being the massive ritardando in Et in unum, bars 60ff). For one illustration of these tendencies, consider the Agnus dei in Jochum’s 1957 recording, especially in comparison with Richter’s 1961 recording, which represents a more objectivist tradition (see chapter 3). Both performances feature the same singer (Hertha Töpper). Jochum’s Agnus dei, while it does contain examples of terracing (especially the subito piano at bar 31), proceeds mostly by gradual changes of dynamics and tempo, and these occur in vocal and instrumental parts alike. Richter’s Agnus dei is more variegated than other movements in his own performance, but his approach seems measured and deliberate when compared with Jochum’s. His own subito piano in bar 31 stands out as a unique moment in an otherwise starker context. Töpper, too, - 50 employs a narrower dynamic range, and a more deliberate and calculated approach (fewer slides, more accentuations of individual notes, as if placing each in a predetermined frame) in Richter’s performance. The differences between Jochum and Klemperer are more subtle, especially in comparison with Jochum 1980. Jochum’s overall vision of the work has not radically changed between his two recordings, but most of the changes involve a tightening of parameters: the choir is firmer and less wobbly, dynamic and tempo fluctuations are often smaller and more calculated. Even this performance, however, remains more flexible than Klemperer’s. In sum, Jochum comes closer than most “mainstream” Bach conductors to satisfying the criteria for romanticism. Even he, however, displays a certain amount of restraint, and his romanticism is more apparent in some movements than in others. Another possible candidate for “romantic Bach” is Hermann Scherchen. His two recordings of the Mass come closest to realising pre-war practices: looser ensemble, greater degree of momentary tempo fluctuations, and a lack of concern with internal stylistic consistency. Scherchen’s readings of the First Kyrie are the slowest on record – whereas his readings of the Domine deus are among the fastest and lightest. There are some unique gestures, which place Scherchen high on the “personalisation” scale (e.g., delaying the return to a tempo in Qui sedes until the final ritornello). Similarly, his generally flexible approach to tempo throws into sharper relief his occasional employment of almost metronomic rigidity, especially in the 1950 recording (e.g., Gloria, Resurrexit, first Osanna). Paradoxically, such inconsistency makes it hard to classify particular movements as “romantic”, but strengthens the appropriateness of that label to the performance as a whole (see p. 42 above). 2.3. Summary My purpose in this chapter was to find a meaningful definition of romanticism in the context relevant for this dissertation: Bach performance since 1950. According to my proposed definition, a performance has to satisfy three criteria to qualify as “romantic”: anachronism (in comparison with what was deemed “stylish” or “historical” at the time of the performance), expressiveness (adherence to x/x, x/+ or +/+), and the pursuit of a strongly projected, personal interpretation. By these criteria, - 51 one might conclude that the Mass’s discography contains very few romantic performances. I hope to have demonstrated the viability of my criteria, as well as the problems that arise when a performance is judged romantic on the basis of just one or two of them. I am aware that further reservations can be raised, especially if one takes into account the term’s complex history. For example, the ideal that performers should negate their own personalities and place themselves entirely in the service of the composer is also romantic in origin (Taruskin 1995: 9-10; Goehr 1996: 4-14; Bowen 1997; Butt 2002a: 134-135). In the context of later 20th-century discourse, however, this ideal is usually referred to by other terms (e.g., modernism, classicism, literalism); most critics and performers, when they speak of romanticism in performance, no longer have this aspect of historical romanticism in mind. My three-criteria approach attempts to make sense of the term’s current usage while retaining its usefulness as a performance-stylistic category. The aim is not simply to divide performances into “romantic” and “non-romantic”, but also to be able to point to romantic and non-romantic features within the same performance. 3. Bach as Lutheran: Karl Richter and Helmuth Rilling In his classification of the “spectrum of Bach interpretation”, Helmuth Rilling cites three main trends: the symphonic tradition, historical performance, and “church choirs, and congregational instrumental ensembles, primarily in Protestant (Lutheran) churches” (1985: 4). He identifies most closely with the latter (ibid: 5, 15). Since Bach himself was a Lutheran and, for a significant part of his life, director of music at a Lutheran church, present-day directors of similar institutions believe they have a unique intuitive grasp of the message he sought to communicate in his church music (Baumgartner 1999: 15-19). Some of these church ensembles remained loyal to the all-male chorus. These include the two institutions that claim continuity with Bach’s own tradition: the Thomanerchor (Thomaskirche, Leipzig) and the Kreuzchor (Kreuzkirche, Dresden). Some musicians in these establishments took part in the revival of historical performance practices. Their adoption of historical research was combined, however, with a belief in the validity of living traditions. A newer alternative was represented by the Kantorei tradition: mixed chamber choruses, usually linked to the church, yet also having aspirations for historicity. Wilhelm Ehmann (1961: 7-8), himself part of this tradition, traces these choirs, and the chamber orchestras that accompanied them, to the 1930s Jugendbewegung. This movement placed a premium on the participatory aspect of musical performance, sometimes rejecting professionalism altogether, and expressing a preference for simple, direct music (P. Potter 1998: 8). It embraced Bach as a didactic composer, and explained away polyphony as a symbol of social integration. Its attitude to expression approached -/-, praising Bach’s music for its detachment and avoidance of individualism (Hiemke 2000: 75-83). This philosophy is mostly associated with the first half of the 20th century, especially the 1930s and 1940s. Much of it is clearly irrelevant for the musical institutions I propose to discuss here: Richter and Rilling alike insisted on high professional standards. However, the Jugendbewegung’s austere, -/- view converged on other prominent Bach images – not least the image promoted by the Leipzig School, with which Richter and Rilling were both closely connected. - 52 - - 53 - 3.1. Karl Richter 3.1.1. Background: The Leipzig school For the purposes of this chapter, the Leipzig or Saxon school is defined as the circle of performers associated with the Thomanerchor in Leipzig (directed by Karl Straube, 1918-1940; Günther Ramin, 1940-1956; Kurt Thomas, 1956-1960; Erhard Mauersberger, 1961-1971) and the Kreuzchor in Dresden (directed by Rudolf Mauersberger, 1931-1971), and scholars associated with them (notably Arnold Schering and Wilibald Gurlitt). These musicians’ approach to Bach covered the x/- spectrum. Schering’s approach was +/-. He believed that Bach’s music was rich in expressive, symbolic and semantic content (see p. 87 below), and argued that modern listeners only have a limited understanding of Bach’s musical rhetoric (Schering 1941: 71). When writing on performance, however, Schering argued that Bach’s musical affect was always expressed in clear melodic gestures, which should not be projected too forcefully (1936a: 188). He advocates the use of boy choristers and soloists, who sing clearly and simply, with introverted, unexaggerated attention to meaning; and he ascribes this preference to Bach himself (1931: 171; 1936a: 187-188; 1974: 88-89). According to Schering (1974: 87-88), Lutheran church music is based on an adaptation of Italian seconda pratica music (itself conceived for theatrical, virtuoso singers) to the demands of Lutheran church choirs. German composers had to invest more expressiveness within the music as it was notated, to make it performance-proof. Bach therefore wrote his music with the limitations and virtues of amateur forces in mind; +/-, not +/+, was the proper model for conveying his musical message. This view might be related to the Jugendmusikbewegung’s image of Bach. The ideal of performative restraint is also present in Gurlitt’s writings, but his ideal approaches -/- (see also p. 43 above). Gurlitt’s Bach image is conservative.1 For him, Bach’s virtues are solidity, strictness and severity; polyphonic Complexity and architectural Unity keep emotional, personalised Intensity under control (1951a: 75). 1 This included a portrayal of Bach as a primarily German composer, who resisted foreign influences (Gurlitt 1957: 64, 70; 1959), and on whom Saxony still had a special claim (1951a: 51-52). Gurlitt 1951a was a keynote address at a Leipzig conference, intended partly to counter-balance the secularised image presented by the Russian and East-German contingent (e.g. Chubow 1951; see also Eller 1995: 127-131; Wehrmeyer and Poldiaeva 2000: 192). On Gurlitt’s relationship with the Nazi regime, see Herz 1985: xvii-xx; Kater 1997: 153, 172; P. Potter 1998: 103-104, 107, 118-119. - 54 He regards restraint and sacrality as essential features of Bach’s society and personality alike, and presents Bach as a beacon of order and rationality (ibid: 79). Gurlitt’s and Schering’s visions converge on a similar prescription for Bach performance. Schering’s notion of the ideal boys’ choir was inspired by Straube’s Thomanerchor; and Straube and Ramin alike were enthusiastic collaborators in Gurlitt’s efforts to re-build Baroque organs and re-introduce them into Bach performance (the so-called Orgelbewegung). The Leipzig school was at the vanguard of “historical performance” in the 1940s and 1950s, lending an aura of historical authenticity to their austere aural image of Bach’s music. They were probably also among the main targets of attack and ridicule from opponents of historicism at the time. Ramin, for example, represented most of the features which Theodor Adorno rejected: advancing the Bach-as-Thomaskantor image; restoring original keyboard instruments; presenting “school choirs” as an ideal vehicle for Bach’s vocal music; cultivating uniform intensity, terraced dynamics and literalism (Adorno 1967: 143145). Likewise, Adorno’s characterisation of the Devotees’ Bach image (ibid: 135136) precisely enumerates the main points in Gurlitt 1951a. In his own writings, Ramin attempts to reconcile the religious-conservative image with a more inclusive vision, but his emphasis remained firmly on Bach as a religious composer.2 He denied the presence of overtly secular or operatic elements in Bach’s church music, and praised it for embodying the perfect balance of form and content, objectivity and expression (Ramin 1973e: 58).3 These views are reflected in his performances, which often display the Gurlittian virtues of severity, strictness and a deliberate avoidance of colour.4 He occasionally employs rubati, but other parameters tend to be stable, even static: there is little sense of ebb and flow. He sometimes applies sharper articulation (including 2 Straube and Ramin strove to re-introduce Bach into the liturgy, despite resistance from within the church and from the Nazi and (especially) Communist regimes (Stiller 1973; Hellmann 1990; Hübner 1995; Elste 2000: 48-49; see, however, Hanke 1995: 263). For a more critical view of the Thomaskantors’ role during the Nazi period, see Kater 1997: 174-176. 3 He also proposed Bach’s restrained expressiveness as a source of inspiration for young people (ibid: 61-62). This position reflects, perhaps, the lingering effect of the Jugendmusikbewegung ideology. 4 This last element could be attributed to poor recording quality. Ramin’s cantata recordings were done with little or no rehearsal, and no opportunities for editing. However, his recording of the JohannesPassion was done in studio, with multiple takes and generous editing sessions (Dieter Ramin 1999). - 55 melismatic aspiration)5 to enhance clarity; he thus exposes the music’s building blocks, but blocks they remain. His basic parameters are often those associated with performative expression (intense vocal and instrumental production, legato articulation, slow tempi). But the peak of intensity is often reached at the beginning, leaving little room for change and development. Ramin described Bach’s own approach to expression as “Über-persönlich”, rather than “Unpersönlich” (ibid). This description can also be applied to Ramin’s performance style, which is often unyielding in its monumentality (see also p. 7 above). 3.1.2. Richter’s premises Karl Richter was closely associated with the Leipzig school when its reputation as authentic upholder of Bach’s tradition was in the ascendant. In 1937, the 11-yearold Richter joined the Dresden Kreuzchor. He subsequently served as prefect and assistant to the choir’s Kantor, Rudolf Mauersberger, whilst studying organ with Straube in Leipzig. Ramin appointed him organist at the Thomaskirche in 1949, and frequently employed him as continuo harpsichordist (Wörner 2001: 35-37, 91-93). Richter shared his mentors’ view of Bach as a staunch Lutheran. This image arguably fitted Richter even more than it did Bach. Richter was the son of a pastor; testimonials from clergy at the Markuskirche in Munich (Friedrich Kalb, in Thieke 1982), fellow-musicians (e.g., Auréle Nicolet, ibid) and family (ibid; Tobias Richter 1986) attest to his interest in Lutheran theology and his conservative faithfulness to the Lutheran heritage. Richter attached great emotional significance to his post as Kantor and organist in a Lutheran church, holding to it tenaciously despite the difficulty of balancing it with his international performance career. The contrast with Bach (who sought a higher title than that of a mere Kantor) is telling. Richter’s departure to Munich in 1951 was often described as the formation of a “Leipzig der Bundesrepublik” (Wörner 2001: 49). His earlier recordings, however, reveal that he adopted his own stylistic path shortly after launching his independent conducting career in the West (see also p. 58 below). When he became Kantor of the Markuskirche, Richter took the directorship of the church’s mixed choir, the Heinrich Schütz Kreis. He quickly expanded it, and in 5 The word “aspiration”, used in the context of choral singing, comes from the verb to “aspirate”. It refers to the use of syllables like “he-he-he” in melismas. - 56 1954 renamed it the Münchener Bach-Chor. His subsequent international reputation was closely linked with this choir, which continued to perform in regular church services despite its intensive schedule of tours and recordings (Wörner 2001: 49-51).6 The Bach-as-Lutheran image clearly shaped much of Richter’s approach to the composer’s oeuvre. He considered sacred cantatas central to Bach’s music and his own life alike (Müller 1968; Wörner 2001: 11; Harnoncourt et al. 1972: 27), while virtually neglecting the secular cantatas. In 1970, he launched a project akin to Bach’s Jahrgänge, recording over 60 cantatas in albums arranged according to the church calendar (see discography for this chapter). While rejecting the ascetic, x/- ideal, Richter did believe that Bach’s music should be treated differently from later music. He described rubati, crescendi and diminuendi as romantic, and therefore inappropriate for Bach’s music, and claimed that his choir’s light voices and narrow vibrato make it ideal for Bach, but not necessarily for later repertoires (in Müller 1968). The one means of expression Richter did sanction – on the authority of Straube and Ramin – was legato (ibid; see also Wörner 2001: 22-24, 44-46). His organ students had to join his choir in order to learn how to sing Bach (see also ibid: 16). He also encouraged string vibrato (ibid: 14), and the use of terraced dynamic contrasts for special effect (ibid: 29). Richter’s prescriptions left little room for shaping and modulating expression in the course of a performance: he explicitly rejected two means of differentiation (modification of tempo and dynamics), and implicitly rejected a third (articulation). This apparent demand for uniformity and rigidity, however, stands at odds with his belief in the spontaneity of interpretation, and in realising music’s expressive potential. In rehearsals, Richter reputedly tried out different interpretations, without necessarily deciding which option would be chosen for the concert (ibid: 17-21). This signifies a fundamental aversion to the idea of single correct interpretation, or a fixed manner of realisation. To be meaningful, this questing approach had to incorporate more options than the guidelines described above could provide. Similarly, Richter never endorsed x/- philosophy. Despite his background as a boy chorister, he believed that only mixed, adult vocal forces could produce the powerfully expressive style which Bach’s music demands (ibid: 11-12, 25). He claims 6 After Richter’s death, the choir severed its connections with the Markuskirche, and the church subsequently formed its own choir (Roland Wörner, personal communication). - 57 to have sought a style that would underline musical patterns of tension and release (ibid: 16). It is not clear how this could be achieved when rubati, crescendi and diminuendi are off-limits; in later years, Richter came close to admitting the paradox (1978: 73). Richter also questioned musicology’s relevance for performance (ibid; Wörner 2001: 10, 12-13). In terms of instrumental reconstruction, he did not go beyond what he learned in Leipzig. His employment of a Baroque organ7 represented a continuation of Orgelbewegung mentors. Although he was aware of Leonhardt’s revival of the Baroque harpsichord,8 he remained loyal to the “modern”, Neupert instrument. He was not consistent in adhering to Bach’s original instrumentation, and saw little point in reconstructing historical instruments. He employed fairly large ensembles.9 His choice of editions did not reflect an attempt to keep himself up to date with musicological research. His reputation as a historical performer was largely manufactured for him; he himself had few such pretensions (see also Anderson, in Boyd 1999: 415-416; Freeman-Attwood 2002: 37-39). 3.1.3. Richter’s practices Richter’s reputation is rife with contradictions. He has been praised as a precise musician, whose clarity and sobriety were a welcome relief from romanticism – and as an intuitive, expressive musician. These contradictions are sometimes explained away in terms of changing fashions; Roger Clement (1996), for example, claims that Richter projected “a cool, brisk, almost abstract attitude toward the music”, and was only labelled romantic in comparison with the younger generation of HIP musicians. It should be noted, however, that Richter was perceived as a dramatic, expressive artist in comparison with conductors like Fritz Werner, long before Harnoncourt and Leonhardt were viewed as serious contenders (e.g., Westphal 1965, Koegler 1969). 7 At the Markuskirche, he commissioned the construction of a “Bach organ”, completed by Ott in 1965, in addition to the church’s existing 1936 Steinmeyer organ (Wörner 2001: 57-58). 8 Richter invited Harnoncourt and Leonhardt to appear at the Munich Bach Festival (Mertl 1999: 156; Wörner 2001: 57). 9 The Münchener Bach-Chor consisted of about 120 members; at any given concert, the number of singers was usually about 80 (Müller 1968). It was thus smaller than several choral societies, and similar in size to the Dresden Kreuzchor and the Leipzig Thomanerchor; but it was larger than the Heinrich-Schütz-Kreis (its predecessor) and Rilling’s Gächinger Kantorei, not to mention the chamber choruses employed in Shaw’s Bach recordings, and in Klemperer’s 1967 Mass. - 58 An alternative explanation is that Richter’s own style changed. FreemanAttwood (2000: 36-38) and Anderson (in Boyd 1999: 415) observe a shift towards greater opulence and expansiveness, greater intensity of sound, and a loss of textural clarity and dramatic impact. Wörner (2001: 26) observes an increasing tendency towards slower tempi (see also Worbs 1985: 22). A third explanation argues that Richter’s style combines romantic and nonromantic features throughout. Peter Johnson (1999: 99) regards Richter’s style as the primary example of “the performance topos of ‘reverence’”, characterised by “even line”, “thick textures”, slow and steady tempi, and heavy rhythmic articulation, “lending to the music an air of sobriety and, surely, of authority”. This topos combines romantic features with an anti-romantic consistency and rigidity; it largely falls within the spectrum of “romantic modernism” (p. 43 above). In my view, there is truth in all these interpretations. Richter’s style always contained “modernist” and “romantic” features, but the balance gradually changed. His early style is characterised by accuracy and rigidity. In some parameters, he remained loyal to his mentors (e.g., the employment of terraced dynamics). In other respects, however, he forged his own style. A comparison between Richter’s and Ramin’s recordings of the Passions and of several cantatas reveals this clearly: Richter’s tempi are usually faster and tighter, his articulation more incisive, his textures lighter and clearer, his dynamics more varied. Some of the elements he reacted against (slow tempi, legato articulation) were common to both the “Lutheran” and the “symphonic” traditions. By the 1970s, he became, by his own standards, increasingly expressive (more frequent use of legato) and romantic (greater flexibility of tempo and dynamics). As Wörner (2001: 26) notes, this change took place when Bach performance was moving in the opposite direction. If one nonetheless attempts to characterise Richter’s stylistic ideals throughout his career, the two concepts that come to mind are hierarchy and internal consistency. Both can be related to a near-axiomatic adherence to the Bach-as-ordered-equilibrium image, and the consequent requirements of clarity and unity of affect. 3.1.3.1. Tempo Richter’s tempi are usually slow, at least in comparison to later performers (though initially he preferred faster tempi than those of his mentors). His most consistent feature, however, is the strict, rigid adherence to a movement’s initial - 59 tempo: Richter vividly illustrates the “relative equalization of the beats” which Cone (1968: 70) described as the obvious ideal for Baroque music. 3.1.3.2. Articulation Internal uniformity also characterises Richter’s articulation. His slow movements usually feature the “continuous legato, prominent vibrato, fully held notes, greater overall intensity, and long phrases” which Fabian (2003: 219) observes in many other performers of his generation. In faster movements, he frequently resorts to incisive, staccato articulation, reserving legato for more expressive movements. Another common articulation, especially in moderate-to-fast movements, is tenuto non legato: notes are extended to full values, but clearly separated from one another. Once parameters are set, they remain constant. Changes in the basic articulation (if any) are employed like terrace dynamics: they differentiate between phrases, but do not contribute to internal shaping thereof. The rigid effect cannot be accounted for in terms of articulation alone, however: it remains even where there is clear internal articulatory variety in a phrase (e.g., BWV 180/1), because of the relative strictness of the dynamics. In lightly scored movements with “walking” or pizzicato bass (e.g., BWV 180/2, BWV 182/8, BWV 78/4, BWV 30/5), Richter’s approach is seemingly light: the articulation is non legato without heavy accentuation, the dynamics and timbre soft. Tempo and dynamics, however, are rigid, with no differentiation between strong and weak beats. For listeners who associate lightness with ebb-and-flow, these readings would sound static, and would therefore retain a certain heaviness. Richter’s approach to articulation thus reflects his unity-of-affect aesthetics. His overall range of articulation is wide. However, this variety is usually observable across several movements, rather than within single movements or phrases. 3.1.3.3. Clarity and timbre Clarity was a priority for Richter, and this feature might well reflect his Saxon legacy. It motivated his choice of younger, lighter voices for his choir, as well as the training he gave them (Müller 1968). The choir’s sound is more focused and clean, with much less vibrato, than that of contemporaneous choirs. Depending on Richter’s demands, it could acquire a harsh, shrill quality or a softer timbre. - 60 Richter’s soloists were often more opulent in sound. This did not constitute a departure from the traditions he emerged from; indeed, he shared many soloists with “symphonic” and “church” conductors alike. Even the Kantors at Leipzig and Dresden ignored Schering’s arguments (cited on p. 53 above) against the employment of female soloists and operatic singers in Bach’s music. 3.1.3.4. Dynamics and hierarchy Even in earlier recordings, Richter occasionally departed from strict terraced dynamics. In later years, he became increasingly willing to construct long-range dynamic arches. Distinct ebb-and-flow within a single phrase, and different dynamic contours in simultaneously occurring voices, remain rare throughout his discography. The overall range of a single recording could be very wide, with abrupt transitions from fortissimo to subito pianissimo. The effect of a Richter forte can be overpowering – especially when associated with strident sonorities (from choir and organ alike) and dynamic harshness; and the switch to subito piano is a strongly dramatic effect, especially after the preceding changelessness. In arias, subito piano often served to silence the orchestra, allowing the soloist(s) to occupy centre-stage. In most cases, this was the result of literal application of forte/piano indications in the score (on the problematic nature of such literalism, see Fabian 2003: 124-133). The orchestra usually remains audible even when playing piano, but the sense of hierarchy is inescapable. This is part of Richter’s general pursuit of clear textural hierarchy. Occasionally (e.g., BWV 78/1), he distinguished between different thematic materials, allowing one theme prominence wherever it appeared in the texture. More typically, he forged a hierarchy between elements in the texture: primacy given to the vocal element, then to the obbligati parts, then to the strings, and finally to the bass. This affected not only dynamics and balance (which might be attributed to the recording team) but also the degree of detailed phrasing. Especially in arias, the soloists sing with greater range of articulation and dynamics, and the instrumentalists’ phrasing is more detailed when the voice is silent. This is evident most consistently in Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau’s arias (see also Golomb 2001). In theory, Richter rejected crescendi and diminuendi as inappropriate romanticism (see p. 56 above). In practice, he employed them to highlight movements - 61 (or moments) which he considered especially expressive or worthy of special attention. Deviations from internally set hierarchies were treated in a similar manner. 3.1.3.5. The overall aesthetics: The “Über-persönlich” Clear examples of interpretive flexibility are more common in Richter’s arias than in his choruses. He allows his soloists more leeway in terms of gradual dynamics and varied articulation, and his accompaniments sometimes reflect this. This approach lends an aura of austerity and strictness to many of Richter’s recordings when combined with another tendency: to choose choir over soloists when the scoring is ambiguous.10 In the chorale-and-recitative BWV 92/7 and BWV 178/5, for instance, the “recitative” passages are performed with rhythmic evenness and dynamic rigidity. The comparison with BWV 27/1 is instructive: there, Richter allows an alternation between chorus and soloists, and the latter’s recitatives are more flexible, in dynamics and articulation alike, than the choir’s harsh rendering of the chorale. Two possible explanations for this solo/chorus distinction come to mind. The first is that Richter found +/+ more appropriate for the private, individualised arias than for the more public choruses. If this was his reasoning, one could expect him to treat chorales with special severity. For the most part, he indeed performs them with loud, static dynamics and strident sonorities.11 But there are notable exceptions: the concluding chorales of cantatas 27 and 60, for example, are constructed as wideranged, continuous crescendi, which can easily be labelled “romantic”. Alternatively, one could cite the fact that Richter worked with a large, amateur choir; the work required to get them to produce a clean sound and textural clarity made it more difficult to produce the kind of flexibility that could be achieved with professional soloists. The wider dynamic range in the aforementioned chorales was more easily achieved thanks to their homophonic textures. This explanation, however, fails to account for Richter’s choice of choral forces when soloists were a viable 10 Examples include: the penultimate movement of the Weihnachts-Oratorium; the “suscepit Israel” from the Magnificat; the opening duet in BWV 44/1; the chorales BWV 6/3, BWV 13/3. He also ignores solo/tutti distinctions in cantatas 21, 23, 24 and 76, even though these appear in his chosen edition (the Bach-Gesellschaft). One exception is the use of a soloist in BWV 140/4. 11 His 1968 reading of BWV 4 (with the exception of Fischer-Dieskau’s rendition of the bass aria – the only solo number in this performance) is a case in point. - 62 option.12 Furthermore, there are exceptions to the rules described above – flexible choral performances, rigid renditions of arias. This suggests that Richter’s choices reflected artistic judgement, not constraints imposed by his choir and orchestra (which consisted of performers hand-picked by Richter himself). In arias, the judgement might well have been the soloists’, rather than Richter’s own. Even in more flexible moments, Richter usually avoids clear directionality. His style is not phlegmatic or lacking in purpose – quite the contrary: the sense is constant presence. The expressive parameters are fully established at the beginning of the movement (or phrase), leaving no need or possibility for further development or intensification, or for creating a sense of ebb-and-flow. Richter gradually shed his harshness in his later years – along with much of his rhythmic vitality, which often depended on a consistent staccato articulation. His 1979 Matthäus-Passion, in particular, is characterised by greater dynamic nuance and rounder rhythmic profiles, compared to his 1958 version; by Richter’s own standards, this version of the Passion is more expressive and more romantic than its predecessor. 3.1.4. Richter’s B minor Mass Richter’s stylistic development is not quite reflected in his recordings of the Mass; the Matthäus-Passion gives a better panorama of his evolution. At least three recordings survive for both works; but those of the Mass cover a span of nine years (1961-1969), as opposed to twenty-two years (1958-1979) covered by the Passion. However, even in the Mass, there are some startling differences – suggesting, among other things, that the context of a performance (studio vs. live) is at least as important a factor in Richter’s performance as the stage in his own life. Richter made two commercial recordings of the B minor Mass: the 1961 audio recording, and the 1969 televised version. In April-May 1969, Richter and his forces toured Japan, giving performance of the Mass, both passions and a several cantatas and orchestral works (Wörner 2001: 127). Japanese Television (NHK) recorded one 12 Richter was probably unaware of, or unimpressed by, Schering’s and Ehmann’s research on concertists and ripienists; he operated within the standard choral paradigm, which still dominates even most HIP readings. It should also be noted that he often avoided soloistic textures in his orchestra (cf. BWV 248/41: Richter accompanies this tenor aria, usually accompanied by two solo violins, with full string sections). - 63 of their performances of the Mass, which Archiv released on CD after Richter’s death.13 Richter’s “signature” recording of the Mass (Archiv 1961) represents him at his most austere, strict, stratified and hierarchical. The choral sound is mostly bright and harsh. Tempi are strict, dynamics often unyieldingly terraced. Directionality is avoided. Textural clarity is often exemplary, especially in the choir. The überpersönlich view of Bach is clearly reflected throughout. This strictness could be related to the date of the recording (coming from a relatively early stage of Richter’s career, generally characterised by greater rigidity). The nature of the work might also have affected the performance style: given his general tendency to treat choruses more strictly than arias, it is not surprising that a predominantly choral work would present a sterner profile. The arias too, however, are in Richter’s stricter vein, and one could relate his view of the Mass to the more general tendencies to regard this work as more monumental and less expressive than many of Bach’s other works (see 1.3.2, pp. 27ff above). The 1961 version was not recorded in sequence. The NHK version was recorded live in a single concert, with no editing. To judge by the distant, highly reverberant sound, little or no attempt was made at correcting and balancing what the microphones picked up, either by the original recording team or by Archiv’s remastering team; applause, however, was excised. The video version is a studio recording, with no audience. All performers are visibly present throughout. However, in most movement-to-movement transitions, the performers are invisible, and the camera focuses instead on the church’s frescos or statues. It is possible, therefore, that the work was recorded out of sequence, or at least with longer gaps between movements. It was probably not a single-take performance. 3.1.4.1. Richter 1961 compared to other performances In addition to his own recordings, Richter also appears in another, albeit partial recording: an LP of excerpts from Günther Ramin’s performance of the Mass on July 28, 1950, the 200th anniversary of Bach’s death (see discography). This performance 13 There also exists a CD of a 1968 Moscow performance, but I have not been able to consult a copy of this version. - 64 forms one obvious source of comparison between Richter and his tradition. Two other recordings can also be used for this purpose: Mauersberger 1958 and Thomas 1955.14 Mauersberger’s primary concerns are clarity, proportion and control. There is little trace of Ramin’s überpersönlich approach. He applies a similar articulation throughout: mild staccato with distinct yet not overbearing accentuation. His dynamics are almost consistently static. He achieves remarkable clarity, even in the most complex vocal textures (e.g., First Kyrie, Confiteor). Whether he facilitates the tracing of inner lines, however, is debatable: the consistent separation of notes, and the avoidance of dynamic progression, arguably do not allow notes to coalesce into lines (or leave the assembly work entirely to the listener). Richter is closer to Ramin in his wider range of articulation – in particular, his willingness to use legato – and sonorities. In the “trumpet” choruses (Gloria/et in terra, Cum sancto spiritu, Resurrexit, Et expecto, Sanctus, Osanna), Richter employs constant forte dynamics and heavily-accented, aggressive staccati, coupled with a bright, harsh choral-orchestral sonority. These movements are rigidly metronomic; downbeats – and, in some cases, all beats – are often heavily and uniformly accentuated. The overall effect is sharp, almost brutal. On the other hand, most of the arias and several of the more intimate, reflective choruses (most notably the Qui tollis) feature rounder articulation, softer sonorities and a wider dynamic range than either Ramin or Mauersberger. The latter item (dynamics) is truer of the soloists than of the orchestra. The comparison between Mauersberger’s and Richter’s Domine deus is especially interesting, since they employ the same soloists. Mauersberger is more internally consistent: light staccati in both flute and strings; legato from both singers; uninflected, static dynamics from all concerned. The dry sound is rendered even harsher by the prominent, metallic harpsichord. Richter is more varied. His flautist (Walther Theurer) alternates between gentlydetached articulation and continuous legato; the strings are mostly tenuto non legato. The singers’ dynamic range is wider than it had been in Mauersberger’s recording; their phrasing is more varied (there are some moments of harshness with mild note accentuation) and flexible. The difference in basic tempo is not great, but Richter’s 14 I focus my comparison on the Mauersberger recording, both because it is more easily available for immediate comparison (it is part of my private CD collection, whereas the Thomas is only available on LP), and because the links between Mauersberger and Richter are more obvious. - 65 performance sounds more expansive. His performance also reflects a tendency towards stratification: singers are given more prominence, and greater freedom, than the flautist, who is more prominent and flexible than the strings. However, if Richter seems freer than Mauersberger, Ramin or Thomas, a comparison with Jochum yields an opposite conclusion (see p. 49 above). Mauersberger and Thomas usually maintain internal uniformity within movements. Richter takes greater care to differentiate between sections and to highlight moments of structural or dramatic importance, but he approaches them in the spirit of hierarchy and terraced dynamics. This is clearly illustrated in his reading of the Et in terra (CD 1: 2; see also the movements discussed in Part Two). This movement begins with apparent flexibility: after the harsh aggression of the Gloria (CD 1: 1), Richter switches to a softer sonority, and allows the choir’s dynamics to match the melodic contours. The range of dynamics already narrows to near-static, however, in the following instrumental passage (bars mid-13-20). The first gearshift occurs after the soprano introduces the subject (bar mid-23): the articulation switches to detached notes in the orchestra and mild aspiration on the choir’s melismatic semiquavers. The end of the first fugal exposition is marked, first by a forte on the final entry (second soprano, bar 34) and then with a switch to forte in the entire ensemble in mid-37. The second exposition features the harsh sonority and articulation of the Gloria. There is a slight softening and crescendo in bars 63-65, leading to another massive forte at bars 66ff. The movement is not internally uniform, then, but it is clearly divided into distinct episodes. The use of flexible, directional dynamics seems to be a special effect, used to highlight the contrast between Gloria and Et in terra and for a few short transitional passages; but Richter gradually returns the music to the fuller, more solid and strident image from which he hardly departs elsewhere. The tendency for stark contrasts distinguishes Richter from his Saxon mentors and colleagues, as well as from “symphonic” conductors like Jochum and Klemperer. A similar picture emerges when comparing Richter 1961 with Shaw 1960. Shaw’s recording was, by contemporaneous standards, perhaps the most historically informed (Herz 1985: 200). Shaw uses the controversial edition for the Neue Bach Ausgabe, but disputes Friedrich Smend’s claims against the work’s unity (Shaw 1999). His performing forces are small by contemporaneous standards, and he experiments with - 66 the contrast of concertists and ripienists. This performance is also characterised by a gentle sense of ebb-and-flow: the dynamic range is narrow, but there is much local dynamic nuance. I do not know whether Shaw’s increased flexibility (compared to his own 1947 recording) is related to musicological research. It is, however, interesting to note that the most historically aware recording of the early 1960s is also among the most locally flexible. Coincidentally or otherwise, this sets something of a precedent. In sum: Richter’s studio recording is the most dramatic, highly contrasted version to emerge from the Leipzig school. Slower and intimately-scored movements are more flexible and employ more legato. In trumpet choruses, on the other hand, Richter employs marcato and aspiration even more harshly than his mentors, along with louder dynamics and strident sonorities. Throughout, his reading sounds defiantly rigid and hierarchical, compared with alternative contemporaneous approaches (e.g., Scherchen 1950, 1959; Karajan 1952; Jochum 1957; Shaw 1960). 3.1.4.2. Richter 1961 compared to Richter’s other recordings The impression described above is maintained in the 1969 video version. Poor sound – at least on the copy I consulted – precludes the possibility of reliably detailed comparison; but the performance seems no less rigid than the 1961 studio version. The impression is strengthened when the camera focuses on Richter’s conducting: his gestures are often minimalist, precise and angular. The earlier, live recording from Japan, however, preserves a different interpretation. It features many more local nuances: tempo modifications, directional dynamics, highlighting of individual strands. There are fewer instances of downbeat bashing and aspiration, more shaping of individual phrases. The basic shape of the Et in terra is the same in all three recordings. In the NHK version, however, the sections lead into one another, with fewer obvious breaks. Dynamic nuances are employed even in forte sections. In both Qui tollis and Crucifixus, dynamic directionality is allied with rubato, and strict textural stratification gives way to more shifting hierarchies. In arias, accompaniments are often more active and responsive to the singers, who in turn seem to practise even - 67 greater freedom than their counterparts in the other recordings (dynamic ranges and vibrati are both wider).15 As I noted on p. 56 above, Richter is reputed to have left final interpretive decisions to the moment of performance, rather than fixing decisions in rehearsals. This practice was probably more prevalent in live concerts than in recording sessions. Among other things, it makes it harder than usual to ascribe the resulting interpretation to Richter himself: flexibility in aria accompaniments, for example, might indicate that the players were responding to the soloists’ phrasing, rather than to Richter’s gestures. The application of nuances in the live recording seems arbitrary at times: the use of directional shaping of the bass line in the Et in unum, for example, is inconsistent, as is the highlighting of the violins’ head-motif in the Domine deus. The strictness of the 1961 recording may, then, owe something to a “studio ethics” (Richter’s and/or his producer’s), to a belief that a recording should be devoid of “arbitrary” or idiosyncratic gestures. Richter might also have consciously avoided gestures which contradicted his own theories on appropriate expression in Bach in this documentary context. On the other hand, his aesthetics were undergoing a general transformation by the late 1960s, and the 1969 Japan Mass might reflect this. 3.1.5. Summary Klaus Peter Richter (1998: 84) describes Richter as one of several “Bach der Mitte” performers, standing between the romantic and the “sachlich-neobarocken” styles. There is much truth to this; but the term “middle of the road” implies a genial restraint which is hardly consistent with Richter’s style. Rather than staying in the middle, Richter often went “sideways”: within his discography, one could find examples of both “objective” and “romantic” extremes. In general terms, his approach to expression could be described as a combination of Unity of Affect at any given moment with a broad overall range; and clear attention to clarity of texture and expressive character alike. Musical elements could sometimes draw in opposing directions (in BWV 21/5, for example, Richter employs espressivo articulation and sonority, but effectively rubs out any suggestion of word-painting); but simultaneous textural elements were rarely, if ever, allowed to intrude upon each other. 15 Ernst Haefliger’s Benedictus in this recording is much freer, especially in terms of dynamics, than his three other recordings (Mauersberger 1958, Richter 1961, Maazel 1965). The differences in the alto arias, on the other hand, might owe something to the singers involved. - 68 Richter’s two “studio” recordings of the Mass mostly exemplify the stricter, hierarchical aspects of his artistic personality; his Leipzig legacy is clearly evident. Even there, however, Richter’s approach is highly personalised, his projection of those values more imposing than in his mentors’ recordings. This might explain why even his most rigid performances (e.g., his 1961 Second Kyrie, Gloria or Sanctus) might seem “romantic” to some listeners. In his later years, Richter came closer to the style of symphonic conductors, and there are occasionally performances which can be genuinely defined as romantic. There are initial hints of this in his two 1969 recordings (especially the live recording). In general, however, Richter’s recordings of the Mass remain within the stricter regime of the Lutheran approach, as he inherited it. 3.2. Helmuth Rilling16 Helmuth Rilling has been one of the primary representatives of the Bach-asLutheran approach in the West, at least since he began recording the complete sacred cantatas in 1970. His approach to Bach performance changed considerably during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and these changes reflect general developments in contemporary Bach performance. In most of his recordings, he conducts the two ensembles he founded, the Gächinger Kantorei (1954) and the Bach-Collegium Stuttgart (1965). The size and constitution of these ensembles, however, has also changed during their existence. This sensitivity to external developments is not unique to Rilling. Indeed, it began to register clearly in 1970s Leipzig. Ramin’s direct successors (Kurt Thomas and Erhard Mauersberger) maintained an even stricter, more austere style than Ramin’s own, and initially so did Hans-Joachim Rotzsch, who took over in 1971. In 1979, however, Rotzsch began to collaborate with the Neues Bachisches Collegium Musicum, which Max Pommer founded in 1978 with the aim of forging a more historically-informed performance style (Mikorey and Messmer 1985). The RotzschPommer performances clearly displayed HIP-influenced stylistic traits (faster tempi, incisive and more varied articulation, locally directional dynamics, etc.). In the Mass’s 16 Unless otherwise stated, biographical information on Rilling is taken from his official online biography, available on http://www.helmuth-rilling.de. - 69 discography, this trend is most clearly reflected in Peter Schreier’s 1982 recording with Pommer’s ensemble. While Rotzsch later expressed reservations about HIP influences (in ibid: 31), his successor, Georg-Christoph Biller, expressed a preference for period instrument ensembles (in Baumgartner 1999: 7). His recording of the Mass (with the Gewandhaus Orchestra) reflects his partial assimilation of HIP features. 3.2.1. Rilling’s premises At the beginning of this chapter, I referred to two Lutheran Bach traditions in Germany. Rilling emerged from the second of these – the Western Kantorei tradition, which, like its Saxon counterpart, enjoyed some prestige for historicism. His home base throughout his career, Stuttgart, has been an important West German Bach centre at least from the 1950s. Karl Münchinger, founder of the Kammerorchester Stuttgart, was a renowned representative of the historical approach prior to the emergence of period instruments. Rilling’s own teacher, Hans Grischkat, was also a highlyrespected Bach conductor and scholar. Rilling’s studies of orchestral conducting link him to the more conventional symphonic establishment (including a 1967 masterclass with Leonard Bernstein), as does his wide repertoire. Rilling visits Leipzig frequently and remains in close contact with the leading musicians there. This connection was further strengthened during his tenure as deputy chairman (1978-1990) and first chairman (1990-1996) of the Neue Bachgesellschaft. 3.2.1.1. The Bach image The most detailed account of Rilling’s Bach image is contained in his article “Bach’s significance” (Rilling 1985), written to celebrate the completion of his cycle of the Bach sacred cantatas. This paper, like Ramin’s “Bachs Totalität” (1973b; see p. 54 above), presents an image of Bach’s music as relevant for all humanity – while insisting that Bach’s Lutheran heritage is paramount for our understanding of his legacy. Rilling (1985: 3) lists four reasons for Bach’s universal appeal: 1. “the systematic, orderly quality of Bach’s music”; 2. Bach’s “summation of thoroughly different eras and currents of thought in the history of music”; 3. Bach’s influence on 19th- and 20th-century music; 4. “the Christian message of faith, hope, and love”. - 70 In terms of the Beardsley’s Canons, the first two items deal with Unity and Complexity. Intensity only enters Rilling’s discourse when he discusses Bach’s Christian message. Rilling emphasises that it is not necessary to share Bach’s beliefs in order to understand his music and be moved by it (ibid: 3-4, 15). He believes, however, that Lutherans are at a distinct advantage in understanding Bach’s church music – and, by implication, his musical legacy as a whole. For Bach’s original listeners, the music would have had an unparalleled immediacy: they would have identified both with the texts and with the musical references, such as the chorales (ibid: 7-9). Some of this immediacy can be recaptured when the music is performed in a church, as part of a church services and with an audience of worshippers (ibid: 15). This option, however, is not available to all musicians and listeners; and Rilling finds it important to make the music as widely available as possible. He frequently performs and discusses Bach’s sacred music in places where Christianity is peripheral to the local culture (e.g., Japan and Israel). 3.2.1.2. The role of performance practice research The performer’s aim, in Rilling’s view, is to decipher, “through analysis and reflection”, the message that the composer sought to convey to his own audience, and then to create a performance that would make that message “emotionally relevant and timely” for present-day listeners (1985: 13; see also p. 126 below). Performance practice research plays a marginal role in this process; its discoveries do not necessarily lead to a reconstruction of the original practices. If we conclude that Bach wanted an intense, striking sound at a particular point, we might find that we have to achieve that same end with different means. Modern listeners’ perception of dynamics differs from that of Bach and his contemporaries; and we must ensure that “his forte [is] loud to us and his piano soft to us” (ibid: 13). While Rilling’s philosophy on these matters has not changed since 1985 (cf. Rilling 2001), his attitude towards HIP has. Rilling’s stated ideal has always been to achieve Bach’s intended effects through a combination of modern and historical elements. In recent years, however, there has been a shift in the balance between these elements. - 71 - 3.2.1.3. Intensity in performance Rilling’s Bach image is very much within the balance-as-equilibrium paradigm – he sees this as an essential part of Bach’s uniqueness and his religious message (Rilling [n.d.]; 1985: 3-4). Within this framework, however, his performative philosophy is distinctly x/x. Rilling comes from a tradition which already featured mixed choirs within Lutheran church services, and expresses a strong preference for mixed choir, and an even stronger one for female soloists – over boys and countertenors alike – for reasons of vocal security and musical experience (1985: 11-12). This x/x approach also applies to structure and texture. Rilling believes it is important to project both “the organization of details and the differentiation of small forms” and “the architecture of large-scale movements” (ibid: 10). In texture, x/x translates into a strong demand for clarity (ibid: 10-11). Rilling therefore prefers a reliably even tone production, which enables the achievement of equal intensity, and in which various strands can be heard without having to fight for prominence. 3.2.2. Rilling’s practices Rilling’s Bach discography stretches from the mid-1960s to the present. During this period, his style has changed considerably; this is immediately audible when one compares his 1960s recordings of several secular cantatas with his re-makes of the same works in the late 1990s for Hänssler’s Edition Bachakademie. The changes seem to have taken place mostly after the completion of his cycle of the sacred cantatas in 1984, and involve the adoption of features usually associated with HIP. In “Bach’s significance”, Rilling is mostly critical of contemporaneous HIP. His attitudes have changed in subsequent years. Among other things, he now invites HIP musicians to appear at the Stuttgart Bachakademie’s events. His programming philosophy is clearly reflected in the Edition Bachakademie – a CD edition of Bach’s complete works, published by Hänssler in 2000 (see discography for this chapter). For this project, Rilling conducted all the choral and orchestral works, and selected the performers for solo and chamber music. His heterogeneous approach is represented by Robert Levin’s contribution to the series: the “English” Suites on a modern piano; keyboard concerti on a harpsichord, accompanied by the “modern” instruments of the Oregon Bach Festival Orchestra under Rilling’s direction; and Das wohltemperierte Klavier on a range of historical instruments. - 72 This heterogeneity does not merely represent Rilling’s open-mindedness to styles other than his own. Levin has been collaborating with Rilling for several years. These collaborations – and, in all probability, ideas brought in by members of Rilling’s own ensembles – are reflected in a performance style that is increasingly open to HIP influences. 3.2.2.1. Articulation Rilling cites articulation as the one factor that has changed most markedly between his 1970s and 1990s performances. In “Bach’s significance”, he cited his belief in the importance of architecture as an argument against Harnoncourt’s and Leonhardt’s speech-like articulation (1985: 14). His criticism was directed primarily at the isolation of one slurred group from another, which in his view disrupted the shaping of longer lines. His own ideal was continuity and consistency. While questioning the historical validity of Harnoncourt’s and Leonhardt’s style, Rilling also stated that anachronism is a viable, indeed necessary option, in keeping with his general philosophy which places affect ahead of historical performance practice. If legato-sostenuto articulation can be used to “bring clarity to the structure, architecture, and thereby the meaning of a Bach work” (ibid), then it should be applied – even if it was only developed in the 19th or 20th centuries. Rilling’s earlier recordings feature a wide variety of articulation – but rarely within a single movement. The role of the “articulatory scheme” (ibid) is to project the movement’s general character, which, at the time, he clearly placed ahead of local details. A single work might therefore feature many articulatory strategies – but once a movement’s basic articulation has been established, it is rarely modified. This approach resembles Richter’s in broad outlines, but not in all details. Aggressive, relentless staccati are rare in Rilling’s performances; though he sometimes uses aspiration in choral singing, for example, it is usually moderate and understated. Sempre legato, tenuto non legato and lightly-articulated staccato are more common strategies. Rilling rarely uses articulation to shape phrases or distinguish between them; he usually uses dynamics for that purpose. There is also very little sense of metric accentuation and stress, of distinguishing between weak and strong beats (though harsh accentuation of individual beats is also rare). In his more recent recordings, much of this changes. Although he still avoids articulatory contrasts within a movement, he reveals a greater willingness to shape - 73 individual phrases and motifs separately. Likewise, metric accentuation plays a more active role. In “Bach’s significance”, Rilling already acknowledged that “the dance music of Bach’s time, in all of its variety, is to be found in numerous forms in Bach’s music” (1985: 3), but this aspect comes out more vividly in his 1990s performances. Harsh staccati and heavy accentuation are, if anything, rarer in Rilling’s later performances: detached articulation and short legati are frequently employed, but not strongly projected. In this sense, he is more reminiscent of Koopman (or Gardiner in his less hard-driven recordings) than of Harnoncourt or Leonhardt. 3.2.2.2. Dynamics In this parameter, the direction of change within Rilling’s style is less obviously consistent. In a recent interview with the author (December 2001), Rilling clearly expressed his continued belief in the validity of terraced dynamics to Bach’s music. However, he never applied terraced dynamics as rigidly as Richter and the Saxon school. His verbally-expressed advocacy of terraced dynamics allows for exceptions: “crescendo-diminuendo schemes can be introduced only where the structure of the work itself justifies it” (Rilling 1985: 10). This is coupled with his belief in the viability of employing a wide dynamic range in Bach’s music (see also p. 70 above). Thus, Rilling’s early secular cantatas and complete sacred cantatas feature a wide dynamic range, often within individual movements – alongside uniformly rigid, uninflected dynamics in other movements. Where dynamic inflections are employed, they usually take the shape of long-range crescendi and diminuendi, grouping figures into extended phrases of several bars with a clear, single trajectory. The 1990s recordings retain this alternation between stricter and more wideranged movements, but the rate of change alters: there are more instances of local dynamic inflections, often tracing the contours of individual phrases (though, in most cases, not pursuing different dynamic directionality for simultaneous voices in a polyphonic texture). Local echoes are also more frequent in the newer recordings, although examples can be found throughout Rilling’s recording career. - 74 - 3.2.2.3. Tempo In re-makes of the same pieces, Rilling’s tempi either stay the same or get faster. Metronomic rigidity is rare throughout his discography, though it is more common in earlier recording. Impressions are sometimes deceptive, with a nearly identical tempo sounding faster in the later version because of lighter articulation. 3.2.2.4. Size and constitution of performing ensembles In “Bach’s significance”, Rilling stated a preference for “an ensemble of essentially chamber dimensions” which should nonetheless take into account the drier acoustics of larger modern halls (1985: 15). His precise definition of “chamber ensemble” has changed: he estimates that he has gradually gone down from a 40strong choir to about 24 singers (Parrott and Rilling 2000: 39). He claims that he now has stronger, better-trained voices at his disposal, and using a smaller ensemble allows him to increase clarity without losing strength. Like Richter, Rilling prefers to work with lighter, younger voices; his choristers are mostly aged 25-30 (Rilling 2001). The timbre in the earlier recordings, however, is often darker and rounder than Richter’s. More recent recordings feature a more focused, brighter sound, reminiscent of the chamber choirs associated with earlymusic ensembles. Even in the earlier recordings, however, the choral sound was usually tight enough to enable the projection of inner lines with little or no aspiration. Like Richter (see p. 61 above), Rilling alternates between soloists and chorus in several movements that juxtapose chorale melodies in one strand of the texture with independent materials in other strands. The effect, however, is less starkly contrasted: Rilling allows more freedom to his choir, and can therefore retain a sense of continuity during transitions from soloists to chorus (compare the two in BWV 27/1). While always using modern instruments, Rilling takes care to use original instrument types. Judging by the sound, he seems to have switched from “modern”, Pleyel- or Neupert-style harpsichords in earlier recordings (Elste 2000: 164) to replicas of historical models in recent recordings. In terms of balance, Rilling hardly ever observes strict hierarchies. His ideal is that all strands should be audible: a reduced string section, for example, is essential to allow the woodwinds and choir to come through (Rilling 1985: 10). He often achieves - 75 near-equal balances; to the extent that there is a tilt in the balance, it remains – in earlier and later recordings alike – in favour of the choir and soloists.17 3.2.2.5. Summary In his earlier recordings, Rilling’s central ideal is consistency and clarity. He insists that Bach’s textures and message should be made as clear as possible to modern listeners; his recent reference to listening as “the passive side of Bach’s music-making” (Parrott and Rilling 2000: 39) is implicit in his earlier references to the need to calibrate performances to the needs of the audience. He also assists his audiences through lecture-concerts, articles, books and master-classes. Against this, one can set Rilling’s (undated) “Credo”, quoted in his official biography on the Internationale Bachakademie’s website: Music should startle people and reach deep down inside them forcing them to reflect. It should never be merely ‘comfortable’, never fossilized, never soothing. (http://www.bachakademie.de/bioe_ri.htm) Rilling’s emphasis, however, is on introspection, not on direct emotional response (compare with Harnoncourt, quoted on p. 92 below). His performance style does not seem geared towards startling his listeners or arousing strong discomfort – whether by making the music strongly dramatic or by challenging pre-conceptions. His early recordings maintained either uniformity in all parameters, or an alternation in dynamics aimed at delineating a movement’s overall architecture. Later recordings feature a greater willingness to modulate patterns of intensity to generate local momentum – while still avoiding stark contrasts. Implicit in his new style is the acknowledgement that Bach’s meaning and expression might also reside in local figures and motifs, not exclusively in large-scale patterns. Most of the changes in Rilling’s style reflect general developments in Bach performance: if his earlier style bore the hallmarks of his teacher, Grischkat, and colleagues like Münchinger and Richter, his later style is reminiscent of features in period-instrument performance. 17 Rilling claims that he has worked closely with the production team – especially in his Hänssler recordings – and that the balance in his recordings therefore reflects his own wishes. - 76 - 3.2.3. Rilling’s interpretations of the Mass Rilling’s commercial recordings of the Mass come close to covering the full length of his recording career. The 1977 version is his first recording for CBS, with whom he later recorded the two Passions and the Weihnachts-Oratorium. At the time, Rilling was about halfway through his cycle of the complete sacred cantatas, and his 1977 Mass features soloists who also made frequent appearances in that cycle. The 1988 version was made four years after Rilling had completed his cantata cycle.18 It is his only recording for Intercord, and features an orchestra and soloists with whom he collaborated less frequently, at least on record. The notes are by Ulrich Prinz, the Bachakademie’s academic director. The 1999 recording was the penultimate large-scale choral work to be recorded especially for the Edition Bachakademie, followed only by Rilling’s new WeihnachtsOratorium. Rilling (1999) described this recording of the composer’s “Opus Ultimum” as the culmination of his career as a Bach conductor, coming as it does after he had conducted virtually all of Bach’s music. The ensembles are, once again, Rilling’s own ensembles, and the soloists have also collaborated with him in his other Bachakademie projects (recordings of the secular cantatas, Passions, Magnificat and other vocal works). In an interview with the author (November 2001), Rilling states that he has enjoyed a close collaboration with Hänssler by the time this recording of the Mass was made, and that he was closely involved in the recording and editing process – more so than in his earlier recordings of the Mass. Rilling’s book on the Mass appeared between the first two recordings. Its first edition was published in 1979; he revised it for the 1984 English translation, and again for a second, 1986 German edition (which I have been unable to consult). It provides a movement-by-movement analysis of the Mass, followed by italicised recommendations for performance. George Stauffer (1993: 258) writes that Rilling’s “suggestions for performance are closer to nineteenth-century traditions than to the practices of Bach’s day”. 18 This paragraph, and all subsequent references to “Rilling 1988”, refers to the recording listed in the discography as Rilling 1988a. Rilling apparently made another recording of the Mass in 1988, with the same orchestra and choir, listed in the discography as Rilling 1988b. Two of the soloists in that recording (Arleen Augér and Wolfgang Schöne) also appeared in the 1977 recording; the tenor, Aldo Baldin, appeared frequently in Rilling’s cantata series. Unfortunately, I only learned of the existence of this album (possibly a live recording, not initially intended for commercial release) recently, and I have not been able to consult it. - 77 Reading the book on its own, that conclusion is understandable. Rilling describes movements in terms of dramatic development, of gathering and release of tension, and believes that these patterns should be realised in performance. Despite his general advocacy of terraced dynamics, he often recommends gradual dynamic build-up towards climaxes. He also recommends variety of articulation as a means of distinguishing between themes or sections; for the most part, he neither prescribes nor proscribes varied articulation within phrases Rilling’s x/x approach does not automatically translate into +/+. He advocates a more “objective” approach in movements which he perceives as less expressive (primarily the Gratias and the Credo in unum deum; Rilling 1984: 27-29, 53-55). In the Qui tollis and Agnus dei, he recommends performative restraint to match these movements’ meditative character (ibid: 34-38, 145-149). Overall, however, Rilling views the Mass as a richly expressive work. He observes notable contrasts between its movements, and while most movements are viewed in terms of unity of affect, he also discerns dramatic and architectural developments within them. A comparison between the book and the performances, however, sheds a different light on the former. Listening to the performances on their own, one would conclude that the 1977 version is more “19th-century” than the 1999 version. Yet the 1988 and 1999 versions realise many more of Rilling’s 1979/1984 recommendations. The differences between the three versions are consistent with the general development described above: the 1977 version reflects the more opulent, static, dynamics-led style of the contemporaneous cantatas, whereas the latter two (especially 1999) demonstrate his increasing adoption of HIP features, and a growing tendency towards local flexibility, variety and directionality. In terms of articulation, the 1999 version is the lightest and most incisive. In terms of dynamics, the picture is more varied. On the one hand, the most wideranging long crescendi appear in the 1977 version (cf. pp. 190 and 229 below); on the other hand, both the 1988 and 1999 versions feature greater moment-to-moment variety. The 1988 version contains more instances of terraced contrasts (with some degree of flexibility within each “terrace”) than either of the flanking performances. In terms of tempo, the 1977 version is the slowest – both in its entire length, and in each and every movement (except for the Second Kyrie). The 1999 version is the shortest of the three, but in several individual movements the 1988 version is the - 78 fastest. The 1988 version also features more frequent, and wider, tempo modifications – especially concluding ritardandi. The one ideal common to all recordings is textural clarity. While rarely resorting to aggressive aspiration, choral singing in 1977 is reminiscent of Mauersberger’s and Richter’s recordings (see p. 64 above), particularly in the use of non legato articulation to clarify textures. In 1988 and 1999, the choir became progressively smaller, and clarity is achieved through more flexible articulation. Several factors can account for the closer proximity between Rilling’s theory and practice in 1988 and 1999. First of all, Rilling’s earlier style is often characterised by dynamic uniformity and an avoidance of strong tensions. This limits the possibilities for generating momentum, inhibiting Rilling’s options for realising his own analyses. The 1977 recording comes closest to the conductor’s own recommendations in movements like the First Kyrie, Incarnatus and Crucifixus, which he projects in single dynamic trajectories. The discrepancies are more clearly felt where the analysis refers to several focal points of tension, or to alternation between several elements (e.g., Second Kyrie, Et in terra, Qui sedes, Agnus dei; Rilling 1984: 12-14, 22-24, 38-41, 149-149). The greater flexibility of his later style allows greater scope for realising such internal diversity. Flexibility is often directly advocated in the book. In discussing the Laudamus, for example, Rilling calls for “a variety of dynamics” in the orchestral parts, to insure textural clarity and clear exposition of “individual thematic figurations” (ibid: 27). There is little trace of this in the dynamically-static 1977 reading. Here, Rilling comes closest to realising his own recommendations in 1988 (in 1999, the requisite variety is present in the solo violin and soprano, but less so in the orchestral strings). Another important area is articulation. As noted on p. 77 above, Rilling mostly advocates articulatory variety between, rather than within, phrases. Even this limited degree of differentiation, however, is not often realised in the 1977 Mass, where non legato is used primarily for clarification. A particularly interesting illustration can be found in the Qui tollis. Here, Rilling sees “the variety within the theme” – the contrast between repeated notes (Qui tollis pec-: Öµ|±±± ) and the following melismas – as an important source of “expressive strength” in the vocal lines (1984: 37). Therefore, he writes, “it is crucial that the nearly static beginning of the theme and its quasiexpressive continuation be clearly articulated” – and differentiated; and the settings - 79 of “miserere nobis” and “deprecationem nostram” “must stand in relief against the theme through the use of consistently legato articulation” (ibid). His 1977 version (CD 1: 13) takes little heed of this advice. Articulation is almost constantly smooth – except for a harsher rendition of several syllabic phrases, including “miserere nobis”. Individual motifs and strands are barely differentiated. Instead, the movement is projected in three dynamic waves (bars 1-29, 30-41, 42end), each with its own pattern of rise-and-fall. In 1988 (CD 1: 14), Rilling placed a stronger emphasis on texture in shaping the movement, in closer accordance with his own analysis. The balance of attention, which in 1977 was focused almost exclusively on the choir, shifts to a more equalised treatment, though the orchestral size seems to have been reduced. In his book, Rilling argues that “Bach wanted all elements of the orchestra to participate in the subjective expression of the movement, with increased agitation from bottom to top” (1984: 36). The general spirit of this statement is adhered to in 1988, though the Rilling’s main orchestral emphasis is on the lower strands: the clearly-separated legato pairs in the violas, and the emphasis on the cellos’ downbeats.19 The vocal parts are shaped with a clear upbeat-to-downbeat trajectory, which provides a sense of direction even when individual crotchets or quaver-pairs are clearly separated. Here, the articulatory patterns proposed in the book are clearly realised in sound. This facilitates a clearer exposition of the relationships between the voices: since each figure is shaped differently, patterns of imitation, and the simultaneous appearances of several figures, are more clearly audible as such. On the other hand, it gives the movement as a whole a somewhat halting effect. The 1999 version (CD 1: 15) seems like a compromise or synthesis of the approaches typified in its two predecessors. Rilling retains the “qui tollis”/ “peccata” / “miserere nobis” contrasts outlined in his book, but in a more continuous context: metric accentuation is lighter, the separation between crotchets and quaver-pairs is more subtle and their connection through directional dynamics clearer. The dynamic range of the 1988 and 1999 readings is smaller than in 1977, but the rate of change is 19 Rilling also suggests that the “independent rhythmic motion of the continuo and cello must be clear enough so that when they abandon their independent lines from time to time in cadential measures [...] and join into the expressive flow of the vocal setting, the change is clearly audible” (1984: 37). This recommendation is not fully realised in any of his readings. The effect is most vividly realised in Hengelbrock’s and Junghänel’s recordings (on the former, see p. 159 below). - 80 more frequent – especially in 1999; dynamic inflections reflect the contours of individual phrase, not just large-scale patterns. The connection between HIP conventions and Rilling’s prescriptions is most readily apparent in the more exuberant, celebratory “trumpet-choruses” (Gloria, Cum sancto, Resurrexit and simile). For these movements, Rilling advocates a fast tempo – not so fast as to jeopardise “a flawless choral performance”, but fast enough to guarantee “an unequivocal, forward-pressing character” and “to make the virtuosic component of the movement immediately perceptible” (1984: 87; see also ibid: 20, 27, 48, 114, 131, 140). Not surprisingly, this is allied with a recommendation for light articulation; and the references to “forward-pressing character” are connected with an advocacy of directional dynamics. In these movements, the 1999 recording usually comes closest to realising Rilling’s stated ideals, while the 1977 version – with its comparatively slower tempo, heavier articulation and more uniform dynamics – is often wide of the mark.20 The faster tempi in the later recordings might reflect Rilling’s growing confidence in his ensembles’ technical capabilities (see p. 74 above), and this might partly explain why he posited lightness as an ideal before proving capable of producing it in practice. Here, too, increased dynamic flexibility plays a part. In 1999 (and, to a lesser degree, in 1988), phrases in Cum Sancto, Resurrexit, Et expecto (Vivace ed allegro), Pleni sun coeli and Osanna (especially second repeats) display clear if subtle delineations of the contours of individual voices, through both articulatory punctuation and small-scale directional dynamics. This helps achieve the textural clarity and sense of forward momentum, which Rilling advocates in his book, and does not really achieve in the more dynamically static 1977 version. Rilling is more ambivalent when he discerns a “playful” element in an ostensibly serious context. Discussing the Qui sedes, he supplies two alternative sets of performance recommendations: a slow tempo, appropriate to “the gravity of the textual message” – or a faster one, which would “emphasize the playful component of the 6/8 meter”. In either case, he insists on rendering the notated staccati “definitely detached, but [...] relatively long”. Too sharp an articulation, rendering the movement 20 For illustration, compare his 1977 and 1999 readings of the Resurrexit (CD 4: 11, 29). - 81 dance-like, “would contradict the theme contained in the text and delineated by the structure of the aria” (1984: 40-41). Predictably, Rilling chose a slower tempo in 1977 (CD 1: 17), and a faster one in 1988 and 1999 (CD 1: 18). Articulation in all three performances is consistent with his set parameters, but the distinction between the legato and staccato portions is clearer in the later two recordings. Both later versions also feature a more restrained basic sound – the basic parameters for 1977 are forte and sostenuto, especially in the strings – and, within it, a greater degree of local nuance (metric accentuation, and directional dynamics proceeding beyond bar lines). The metrical element is most strongly apparent in the 1999 version. In sum: an isolated reading of Rilling’s book, without reference to his performances, could lead to the conclusion that he is presenting a “romantic” vision of the music, and advocates a similarly “romantic” style of performance. Listening to the three performances without reference to the book, listeners might conclude that the 1977 version is the closest to “romanticism”. This label is, however, deceptive in this context. Rilling 1977 might be more profitably viewed as an example of “romantic modernism” (see p. 43 above). Within this context, Rilling still incorporates many features more redolent of the “Lutheran” tradition; the strictness associated with that tradition is felt especially in the “trumpet” choruses. For all its “traditionalist” leanings, however, the 1977 recording is still the furthest from realising the 1979/1984 recommendations. In some movements, this is because the book advocates a lightness, even playfulness, that sits uneasily with the traditions that inform Rilling’s 1970s style. Even ostensibly “romantic”, espressivo recommendations, however, are better realised in the later versions. By then, Rilling reveals a greater willingness to shape individual phrases with localised inflections. Rilling’s newer style, for all its greater lightness, is therefore better suited than his older, “traditional” style to realising his “romantic” vision of the work. Rilling himself is conscious of most of these changes (see, for example, Rilling 1999: 28). He attributes them to his greater acquaintance, both with Bach’s oeuvre and idiom, and with musicological research into performance practice. The influence of period instrument performances, however, is another likely explanation. - 82 - 3.3. Summary Bach is often portrayed as a devoutly religious man, whose highest aspiration was to fulfil the post of church composer. For some adherents of this image, modern musicians who share Bach’s religious beliefs, and hold posts similar to his, have a special bond with him. Through much of the 20th century, such musicians promoted an austere image of Bach, one that distanced his music – particularly his church music – from dramatic-expressive (“Operatic”) and lightweight, dance associations alike. Their approach to expression-through-performance was largely restricted to the x/spectrum. The advent of the period-instrument movement presented these musicians with a dilemma. On the one hand, the belief that their theological and institutional affinity with Bach gave them a privileged position could lead to disdain towards historicism. On the other hand, it also presents one with an obligation towards maintaining the tradition, correcting more recent “errors”. Richter and Rilling reacted differently to these dilemmas. Both musicians believed in the image of Bach-the-Lutheran, operated within the balance-asequilibrium paradigm, and shared ambivalent feelings towards the x/- paradigm and its implications. Richter’s response could be generalised as an intensification of Ramin’s Überpersönlich dictum. He often took maximal advantage of the expressive devices allowed by his tradition. As he became increasingly dissatisfied with the x/aspects of the style he inherited, he began to adopt “romantic” features, projecting greater flexibility of tempo and dynamics. For him, the primary means of achieving an expressive performance remained those of the symphonic tradition. Consequently, his personal development – unfortunately ill-documented in his recordings of the Mass – went in the opposite direction to that of his contemporaries. This tendency also reflected his basic disdain towards the concept of historicism: he saw little value in performance-practice research, and developed his interpretations primarily out of his strongly-held personal convictions. Helmuth Rilling displayed almost the opposite approach. In a review of his 1999 Mass, Bernard Sherman (1999b) characterised his stylistic development as “a barometer of musical taste”, an indicator on the influence of HIP practices on mainstream performance. Like some of his Leipzig colleagues (see p. 68 above), - 83 Rilling displayed an ambivalent attitude towards HIP, but increasingly adopted its practices. This proved to have a decisive influence on his approach to expression, which had always been ostensibly x/x. In the 1970s and early 1980s, his stylistic approach was not dissimilar to Richter’s. In subsequent decades, his style increasingly came to incorporate HIP elements – and this development made it easier for him to realise his own prescriptions for a detailed, expressive rendition of Bach’s music: his “romantic” interpretations of the Mass in his 1979 Mass are more closely realised in his later, HIP-influenced readings. HIP is often assumed to be fundamentally at odds with realising the expressive potential of music, and particularly of Bach’s music. Rilling’s stylistic evolution suggests that the picture is more complex. The next chapter will examine this link from another angle – the attempt by several prominent HIP musicians to realise a specific theory of Baroque expression in their Bach performances. 4. Bach as Rhetorician: Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Philippe Herreweghe Throughout the world, attempts are being made to find a new language for Baroque music, or better, to rediscover its old language, or better still, that which we believe the old language to have been (Harnoncourt 1988: 122)1 HIP is often accused of promoting an x/- approach towards expression. It is also presented as a technical ideology, focused exclusively on achieving the correct text, instrumentation and performance technique. Taruskin, for example, argues that the traditional approach construes intentions “internally” [...] and sees their realization in terms of “effect” of a performance, while the [authentistic approach] construes intentions in terms of empirically ascertainable – and hence, though tacitly, external – facts, and sees their realization in terms of sound. (1995: 99) He further identifies the traditional approach with idealism, “which recognizes a sharp distinction between content and form”, while equating the so-called authentistic approach with positivism, for which “content is a function of form” (ibid: 99-100). This view ignores the existence of a major strand within HIP ideology, which I term the Idea-Oriented approach (as opposed to the Material-Oriented approach; see 5.1.2, pp. 123ff below): seeking to reconstruct not only the original performance practices but also the composer’s (and his contemporaries’) aesthetics, their conception of music, its aims and its means. In Bach performance, the main “Idea” sought out by IO-HIP musicians is the quest to shape performative expression in accordance with the principles of Baroque musical rhetoric (Kerman 1985: 205; Fabian 2003: 245-246 and passim; cf. Dreyfus 1992a: 115 for a more critical view). However, both the historical credentials of rhetorical theories, and the extent to which they have been realised in contemporary HIP practice, have been questioned. Here, I will examine these claims with reference to two conductors who represent, in practice (though not so much in their verballyexpressed theories), strongly contrasted approaches to rhetorical performance. 1 Compare with Tomlinson 1988: 115. - 84 - - 85 - 4.1. The meanings of rhetoric 20th- and 21st-century rhetorical performance of Baroque music is ostensibly based on 17th- and 18th-century music theory. Many theorists of the time, especially in Germany, spoke of music as speech-in-tones. They compared the acts of composition and performance to the creation and delivery of verbal oratory, with reference to the same four stages: Inventio (the creation of appropriate thematic materials); Dispositio (formal organisation); Decoratio (ornamentation or decoration); and Pronuntiatio (delivery or performance).2 They also discuss musical-rhetorical “topics” and “figures” to be used in the composition. These Baroque writers rely on Classical and Renaissance theories of rhetoric, which were part of the curriculum in music education at the time (A. Schmitz 1970: 61-62; Butt 1994: 46-47). Since rhetoric concerns delivery, as well as composition, of speeches, it is easy to assume that it has direct relevance to performance. This assumption proved tempting for HIP musicians from the 1960s onwards, who sought to move away from the uniformity and rigidity of much contemporaneous Bach performance without resorting to allegedly “romantic” means of performative expression. In these musicians’ discourse, one can distinguish three basic assumptions: A. Rhetoric as speech: Music follows the patterns of speech, and should be articulated accordingly; B. Rhetoric as semantics: Musical-rhetorical figures applied at the Decoratio stage have direct extra-musical meaning; C. Rhetoric as structure: Musical works are structured according to the principles of a good oration, as described in classical and Renaissance treatises. 4.1.1. Rhetoric as speech If music is akin to rhetoric, then its performance must be inflected in a speechlike manner. This has obvious implications on several parameters: 1. Articulation: Speech – especially the speech of actors or orators – demands clear punctuation and pronunciation. This stands at odds with the ideal of an undivided sostenuto phrase (see p. 40 above). A rhetorical performance should therefore pay “more attention to the details of the 2 For different versions of this division, see Schmitz 1970: 63-64; Butt 1990: 16; Seymour 1992: 916; Dreyfus 1996: 5-6; Bartel 1997: 68; Krones 1997: 823-826; Buelow 2003: §I: 2. - 86 phrase”, instead of projecting long, uninflected lines (Gustav Leonhardt, in Sherman 1997: 196; see also Butt 1990: 12-15). 2. Rhythm: The flexibility required by speech-like performance is antithetical to the notion of equalised beats.3 As Leonhardt puts it, the 19th century “is for sustained sounds, which are always under tension and always nourished”, whereas Baroque music is “more like speaking, which means wave-like, constantly rising then loosening up even within a single sentence” (in Sherman 1997: 196). Conversely, speech-like performance is also inconsistent with waves of rubato; large changes of pulse are not part of oratory, let alone “normal” speech. Rhetorical performers also emphasise the Baroque concept of metric regularity – an alternation of weak and strong beats – which could be compromised by over-drawn rubati. However, they also advocate flexibility in the application of this regularity, stating that it should be altered with consideration to harmony (Holman 2002: 34; also p. 97 below) and, in texted music, with reference to the text’s prosody (Newman 1985: 56-57; Fabian 2003: 219-222, 241-242). 3. Dynamics: The ideal of “wave-like” performance has obvious consequences for dynamics. On the one hand, it is at odds with the notion of terraced dynamics (Lawson and Stowell 1999: 53-54). Conversely, it is difficult to accommodate large-scale dynamic inflections – be they sudden transitions from forte to piano or long-range crescendi and diminuendi – within a speech-like framework. 4. Sonority: The contradiction between rhetorical performance and uniform intensity also extend to sound. The main characteristic of romantic modernism – consistent intensity of sound (see p. 43 above) – stands at odds with the speech-like flexibility implied by rhetorical aesthetics. The ideal of rhetoric-as-speech could thus be used to target two previous performance approaches – Neue Sachlichkeit and Romanticism – as musically and historically inappropriate (Wenzinger 1968: 38-45; Arlt and Theil 1989: 31). Most discussions of rhetoric-as-speech focus on articulation and phrasing. This has become the focal point of an atomistic theory of Baroque expression, which regards “small figures in the surface” as the focal point of expression and 3 Cf. Taruskin’s discussion of Cone’s ideal of equalised beats (Cone 1968: 70; Taruskin 1995: 115). - 87 signification, and marginalizes “larger music processes, such as the extended crescendo or the prolonged dissonance” (Schulenberg 1992: 105). Taken to its extreme, such a formulation could support a performance style which emphasises articulation above all else. However, as Dorottya Fabian points out, articulation has become “a convenient term that comprises in itself most other components of performance practice”, including tempo and dynamics (2003: 207). Rhetoric-as-speech can have direct relevance to performative expression. While discouraging the employment of some expressive devices, it encourages flexibility and attention to detail, facilitating the projection of tension and momentum. This connection between detailed articulation and the arousal of affections is also commented on in several German Baroque treatises (Butt 1990: 19-24). 4.1.2. Rhetoric as semantics The theory of rhetoric-as-semantics is based on the assumption that Baroque treatises on musical rhetoric reveal a coherent doctrine of the affections (Affektenlehre) and of meaningful musical figures (Figurenlehre), which constitute a theory of expression and meaning alike, and bear some resemblance to Wagnerian Leitmotifs. This theory is rooted in the late 19th-century writings of Hermann Kretzschmar,4 and especially in studies of musical symbolism by his student, Arnold Schering. The latter’s work was continued in the 1940s and 1950s by Hans-Heinrich Unger and Arnold Schmitz, both of whom made more specific references to rhetorical figures. Their Figurenlehre theories became part of standard music history by the mid 20th-century (cf. Lang 1942: 332-443; Bukofzer 1948: 388-393; Blume 1975: 111117). In German musicology, it remains a respected orthodoxy, as is evident in the entries on musical rhetoric in the 1955 and 1997 editions of the MGG (A. Schmitz 1955, Krones 1997) and in the recently-published Bach-Lexicon (Hartmut Grim, in Heinemann 2000: 35-40, 192-194). It also features prominently in several analyses of the Mass (e.g., Blankenburg 1976, Mellers 1980, Rilling 1984, Stauffer 1997b). 4 For translated excerpts from Kretzschmar’s writings, see Kretzschmar 1986, 1988. For discussions of his theories and their context, see Katz & Dahlhaus 1986: 616-617; Hanheide 1990: 129-132; Rothfarb 1991: 10-11; Lippman 1992: 353-359; Bent 1994: 22-25, 106-108. - 88 - 4.1.2.1. Historical weaknesses of Figurenlehre theories More recently, however, this approach has been questioned. Writers like Williams (1983), Buelow (1981b; 1983; 2003: §I:3),5 Dreyfus (1996: 3-10) and Butt (1999b) point out that the figures cited in Baroque treatises usually designated musical techniques like fauxbordon, repetition, chromaticism, sequence, or inversion; they were not intended to communicate extra-musical meanings. While some “representational” figures indicate specific word-paintings, others just indicate general attention to the words. For instance, “Antithesis” is the “musical expression of opposing affections” (Bartel 1997: 197) – but its 17th- and 18th- century definitions do not indicate the musical means for achieving this end. The few figures that do refer to extra-musical ideas often come from writers like Gottsched and Scheibe, whose chronological and aesthetic relevance to Bach is questionable (Dreyfus 1996: 8, 219220, 233-234, 241-242; Butt 1997b: 50-51; for Scheibe’s debate with Bach, see Wolff 1998a: 337-353). This was acknowledged by Schering (1941: 53), but ignored by many of his successors. Even in these later writers’ treatises, there is nothing to support the claim that the German Baroque recognised musical-rhetorical figures for highly specific ideas, such as “sin” (A. Schmitz 1970: 74). 4.1.2.2. The links to performance and expression The first people who systematically explored the application of rhetoric-assemantics to performance were performers. Musicians from Wenzinger (1968) onwards regarded it primarily as a historical justification for flexibility and expressiveness in performance. This assumption, too, is problematic. Many 17th- and early 18th-century writers viewed the act of moving the affections in mechanical terms (Butt 1990: 15; 1994: 41-45). Several 20th-century writers went even further, presenting Affektenlehre as a theory of lexical signification, with little expressive import (Bukofzer 1948: 389; Damman 1967: 234; cf. A. Schmitz 1950: 29; 1970: 66). This intellectualising tendency is clearest in Arnold Schering’s theory of musical symbolism (see also Lippman 1992: 361-365). Schering distinguished between “‘Expression’ [Ausdruck] and ‘Symbolism’ [Symbolik]” (1986: 193n). He divides musical symbols into two types: “symbols of feeling” and 5 Ironically, Buelow himself pursued a rather arcane symbolic interpretation, of a type often criticised alongside Figurenlehre interpretations, in his article on the Kyrie of the B minor Mass (Buelow 1981a). - 89 “symbols of idea”; the latter are sub-divided into “depictive (objectifying)” and “conceptual (intellectual)”. In Baroque music, “the symbolism of feeling had to retreat before the symbolism of ideas” (ibid: 197). “[R]hetorical symbolism” belongs to the most intellectual type – the conceptual symbol of idea (ibid: 201). This system could have direct implications for performance: if the music is meant to arouse specific reactions or signify specific ideas, and modern listeners lack the requisite knowledge to make the connection, performers could respond by becoming more explicit in rendering the relevant musical figures. However, this view was not encouraged by 20th-century Affektenlehre theorists. As I noted on p. 53 above, Schering advocated a strictly +/- approach to Bach performance. Other writers were mostly silent on this issue; Arnold Schmitz (1970: 82) did advocate the application of rhetorical analysis to performance, but made no detailed suggestions. Performers obviously had different priorities. For Wenzinger, emotional expression was a much more pressing priority than lexical signification. Later performers (including Harnoncourt and Herreweghe) placed a more direct emphasis on signification, but their primary purpose remained the justification for a +/+ approach to performative expression. 4.1.2.3. The quest for historical permission Rhetoric-as-semantics purports to cover Baroque (or at least German Baroque) music as a whole. It was, however, primarily developed by Bach scholars, and its appeal might be explained through its promise to lend historical credence to a highly attractive image of Bach. In his Bach monograph, Albert Schweitzer presented a protean, ideally-balanced vision of Bach: expressive and rational, intense and controlled. His Bach uses a mixture of word paintings and what Schering would call “symbols of emotions”, with few “symbols of idea” (see also Blume 1950b: 75-77). Yet his symbols’ lexical clarity allows Schweitzer to open his book with the claim that “Bach belonged to the order of objective artists” (1911, I: 1) without seeming too inconsistent. Schweitzer’s theory is based on analyses of Bach’s text-music relationship. His examination of Bach’s historical background (ibid, I: 50-96) makes no reference to contemporaneous music theory or to rhetoric. He seeks no historical precedence or evidence for his theories of Bach’s musical symbolism (see also Blume 1950b: 73-74; - 90 Hanheide 1990: 152-157). In this sense, his approach is more reminiscent of Deryck Cooke’s The Language of Music (1959) than of Affektenlehre theories. In his analyses of Bach’s vocal music (e.g., Schering 1900, 1942), Schering’s style and outlook closely resembles Schweitzer’s. Both scholars focus on the significance of specific motives, using highly graphic, concrete terms.6 Schering and his successors, however, were historical musicologists; they needed a historical basis for their theories, and sought it in 17th- and 18th-century discourse on musical rhetoric. This might be a scholarly equivalent to a phenomenon which Dreyfus (1992: 300; 1995) and Taruskin (1995: 101, 147, and passim) have observed among “historical” performers: the quest for permission, the refusal to trust one’s musical intuitions without documentary backing. Schweitzer was content to base his theories and analyses on musical insight; writers like Schering would not allow themselves to do so without establishing at least a semblance of historical credibility. Their quest has, in turn, served performers in their quest for permission. Gustav Leonhardt stated recently that his style is based more on his direct experience with old instruments than on theoretical study and reflection (in Sherman 1997: 203). Fabian (2003: 207 and passim) argued that rhetoric-as-speech has been revived by performers (including pianists like Tureck, Rosen and Gould) before it received serious scholarly examination. Their musical (and, in some cases, organological) insights have led them to recognise – and realise in sound – key musical features that were missed earlier, and their performances might well have influenced scholarly research on the subject. For some musicians, however, the need for a credible historical-theoretical footing remained; and rhetoric-as-semantics theories proved a useful source of authority. As Peter Seymour (1992: 919) put it, “the theoretical justification offered by the doctrine of rhetoric surely allows the performer greater freedom for his or her own inspiration and imagination because these can be based on discipline, not on anarchy” – and historical discipline at that. 6 Schering seeks out philosophical and theological implications more frequently than Schweitzer (in this, being closer to Spitta than to Schweitzer). Unlike Schmitz, Schering does not make explicit references to specific rhetorical figures as named in Baroque treatises. However, it could be argued that Schmitz merely sticks rhetorical labels to an otherwise Schweitzer-like analysis. - 91 - 4.1.3. Rhetoric as structure Rhetoric-as-semantics theories focus primarily on Inventio and Decoratio (A. Schmitz 1970: 66). However, some Baroque treatises also devote attention to Dispositio – the shaping of complete movements. This has not been entirely ignored by Affektenlehre theorists (ibid: 64; Unger 1941: 46-54; Damman 1967: 125-127; Krones 1997: 824-825) or by performers who emulated them (Wenzinger 1968: 39; Harnoncourt 1988: 119). Nonetheless, Seymour’s assessment that scholarly investigation into rhetoric consists “primarily in the recognition of musical figures, not so much in terms of structures” (1992: 918) seems largely correct. Among the performers examined in this dissertation, only Philippe Herreweghe placed rhetoric-as-structure at the heart of his discourse. I therefore defer detailed discussion to the section devoted to his aesthetic premises (pp. 107ff below). 4.1.4. Rhetoric as ornament In Baroque treatises, rhetoric was sometimes considered “separately from a consideration of the text and its concomitant emotions”. In the context of performance, in particular, it was often deemed “a system of ornament rather than persuasion” (Butt 1994: 46; see also Emery 1954). For modern readers, “decoration” and “ornamentation” might imply something lightweight, less meaningful and expressive. Baroque musicians would not necessarily have shared this view: Butt (1990: 17) cites several sources, from Praetorious onwards, which strongly associated “free ornamentation” and “rhetoric” with “[e]xpression and arousal of the Affekts”. The link between rhetoric and ornamentation, while at odds with rhetoric-as-semantics, does not invalidate rhetoric’s relevance for achieving performative intensity (ibid: 18). Also, Baroque treatises often promoted a +/+ performance aesthetics (Butt 1994: 49-50), a fact which arguably matters more than whether they cited the word “rhetoric” in that context. 4.1.5. Summary Rhetoric-as-ornament was presented here to cover the full spectrum of 20thcentury understanding of Baroque rhetoric. This strand is part of the critique of Figurenlehre theories; it is not frequently cited by Bach performers. - 92 The other three strands are of central importance in several performers’ discourse. Rhetoric-as-speech is probably the least controversial and the most influential. It is accepted even by authors who reject the rhetoric-as-semantics theories (e.g., Rifkin, in Sherman 1997: 387-388). In helping to generate performances of greater flexibility and local momentum, it has arguably provided a firmer basis for performative expression than arcane conceptions of rhetoric-as-semantics (Butt 1991: 84-85). I devoted more space to the latter because it is central to the discourse of several major performers – not least the two musicians who form the focal point of this chapter. 4.2. Nikolaus Harnoncourt 4.2.1. Harnoncourt’s premises Harnoncourt, like Richter, is regarded as a romantic, expressive artist – and a sober, calculating historicist. In part, this relates to contradictions within his own persona, “Harnoncourt the fiery polemicist and Harnoncourt the man of sentiment sharing an intermittently uneasy co-existence” (Wigmore 1992). Harnoncourt himself sometimes presents inconsistency as a positive virtue (see, for example, Harnoncourt 1989: 7), and seeks out internal conflict in the music he performs. 4.2.1.1. The modernisation of early music music is not there to soothe people’s nerves or bring them relaxation, but rather, to open their eyes, to give them a good shaking, even to frighten them. (Harnoncourt 1991: 11) Harnoncourt is a historical performer; even when conducting “modern” instruments, he continues to support specific interpretive decisions by appealing to historical considerations. His repertoire, likewise, contains little 20th-century music. Despite this, he regards the neglect of contemporary music and the quest for historical performance as related signs of abnormality in contemporary culture (e.g., Harnoncourt 1988: 14-16; cf. Morgan 1988). In the past, he argues, musicians thrived on music of their own time; when they performed historical music, they “translated” it to their musical language, as Mendelssohn did with Bach. Today, however, we do not have a musical language that is as meaningful to us as Mendelssohn’s was in the 1830s. Under these circumstances, a historical style of performance is our best hope - 93 for achieving a performance relevant to today’s needs (Harnoncourt 1988: 23-24; 1989: 53). Harnoncourt regards his own performances of historical music as attempting to reveal its inner meaning; in particular, he sees his mission in dispelling the cherished yet dangerous illusion that music should be beautiful and comprehensible. It is this illusion which drives listeners away from modern music – which fulfils its function by “reflecting the crisis of an age” (1988: 21) – and into a false perception that historical music can be enjoyed without any effort or discomfort. Performers can help rectify this unhealthy situation by de-familiarising historical music, revealing its expressive richness and power. Such performances might facilitate the return of “the attentive listening attitude”, which modern western listeners have “discarded” (ibid: 136), and eventually facilitate a true appreciation of contemporary music (ibid: 12). 4.2.1.2. Harnoncourt’s theory of rhetoric music prior to 1800 speaks, while subsequent music paints. The former must be understood, since anything that is spoken presupposes understanding. The latter affects us by means of moods which need not be understood, because they should be felt. (Harnoncourt 1988: 39) Rhetoric-as-semantics fills a central role in Harnoncourt’s philosophy. It enables him to claim Baroque composers themselves sought to challenge their listeners, explain present-day misunderstanding of their music with reference to a lost code, and develop a style of performance which aims at reconstructing this code – all on the basis of a respectable orthodoxy in German musicology. The contrast between “speech” and “painting” is technically equivalent to distinction between Baroque rhetoric-as-speech and the romantic ideal of long, sustained melodies. Harnoncourt, however, adds an ethical dimension to this distinction. He contends that “the sostenuto, the sweeping melodic line, the modern legato” (1988: 25) was introduced to increase music’s immediate, facile appeal and demolish the aesthetics of Musik als Klangrede, a term Harnoncourt borrowed from Mattheson to designate rhetoric-as-semantics. According to Harnoncourt’s “Origin and Development of Music as Speech (Klangrede)” (1988: 129-136), the entire Baroque era, from Monteverdi onwards, subscribed to this ideal. Composers gradually perfected a system of musical “words”, which provided even instrumental music with extra-musical meaning. Bach took - 94 speech-like figures that have entered instrumental music and brought them back into text-settings, and “added the entire apparatus of counterpoint to, and integrated it with, the principles of rhetoric” (ibid: 134). This narrative closely resembles Schering’s (1974: 87-88), whose work Harnoncourt openly admires. Both writers believe that Baroque music was dominated by conceptual symbols of ideas, whereas the 19th century was dominated by symbols of feelings; both reveal a preference for the former, and both present Bach as the pinnacle of their respective narrative. They part company, however, in their approach to performance. Harnoncourt believes that it is the performer, not the annotator, who should make the music speak. This is directly opposed to Schering’s x/- approach (see p. 53 above). Although he never mentions Schweitzer, Harnoncourt is actually closer to him than to any of the Figurenlehre theorists in his approach to performance. The two musicians share an atomistic, lexical view of Bach’s expressive means, and a +/+ approach to performative expression. Consequently, they both oppose long sostenuto lines, favouring highly-inflected, speech-like performances (cf. Schweitzer 1911, I: 363), with detailed articulation and accentuation and due attention to contrasts between figures. Schweitzer’s occasional yet inconsistent advocacy of fast tempi (cf. Schweitzer I: 381; II: 400-401), and his consistent call for upbeat phrasing (ibid, I: 369, 375; II: 381, 395-396) are also echoed in Harnoncourt’s performances. 4.2.2. Harnoncourt’s practices Harnoncourt’s verbal discourse is rife with images of contrasts, dialectics and struggle. This even affects his interpretation of the original notation: he complains against the prevailing tendency, in performance and editing alike, to correct seemingly inconsistent performance markings. In his view, these markings invariably represent an intentional discrepancy;7 therefore, they should be retained in editions – and highlighted in performance. Given these views, Harnoncourt could well be expected to promote a dramatic, knife-edge-balance vision of Bach’s music, realised in performance replete with harsh 7 For illustration, compare Harnoncourt’s analysis of the marking in BWV 47/4 (1988: 43) with John Butt’s (1990: 125). Harnoncourt’s discussion (1986: 42-44) of the oboe slurs in the Mass’s First Kyrie (oboe d’amore parts, b. 20, in the Dresden parts) likewise ignores the fact that these parts were not written out by Bach – unlike the flute parts, which do not contain the slurs (K. Geck 2000). He thus ascribes great significance to what might have been a copyist’s error. - 95 sonorities, deliberate abrasiveness and ugliness. Such a characterisation has even become part of Teldec’s “official” image of their star conductor: Harnoncourt’s keynote is accent: the sharp contrast, the attack without warning, the abrupt change of mood, the artfully applied shock. (Gurewitch 1995: 13) Elsewhere, he has been credited with revitalising our image of Bach, revealing disturbing, even violent features which were concealed by previous performance traditions (cf. McClary 1987: 61n; Taruskin 1995: 307-315). In my view, such descriptions are one-sided. Even within Harnoncourt’s own ideology, a constantly abrasive approach is not necessarily advisable: frontal assault spares audiences some of the effort in understanding, and is therefore not entirely consistent with encouraging attentive listening. For Harnoncourt, “music that speaks directly to the emotions” (1988: 25) is the problem, not the solution. It is too comprehensible. Perhaps for this reason, his performances feature a mixture of sharp and more subtle projection of tension and unease (see 4.2.2.3, pp. 99ff below). 4.2.2.1. The evolution of Harnoncourt’s performance style Harnoncourt’s earlier recordings (up until the mid-1970s) were perceived as revolutionary at the time (see p. 100 below). However, while his stated aesthetics proclaimed the virtues of ultra-expressive performances, these early performances were often condemned as under-expressive. A comparison with later recordings can strengthen this impression. The changes in Harnoncourt’s style can be explained in several different ways. Technical considerations probably played a part. In the 1950s and 1960s, Harnoncourt and his colleagues, the founders of Concentus Musicus Wien, were engaged in the largely auto-didactic activity of learning to play unfamiliar old instruments. They did this in their spare time, alongside their work as orchestral musicians (most of them were members of the Wiener Symphoniker). The detailed articulation and dynamics which characterise Harnoncourt’s later performances might not have been feasible then, and difficulties were exacerbated by the recording conditions (Harnoncourt 1988: 85-86). The uninflected character of Harnoncourt’s early style might also have been a reaction against the playing style he was accustomed to as an orchestral musician (cf. - 96 Fabian 2003: 246).8 His writings reveal little respect for the way Bach was performed at the time; he explicitly tried to forge “an interpretation which ignores the whole Romantic performance tradition” (1989: 44).9 After leaving the Wiener Symphoniker in 1969, Harnoncourt’s interpretations became freer (see also Mertl 1999: 130-131). He eventually forged an eclectic style, combining the influences of Leonhardt and his earlier self with those of “traditional” conductors. During this time Harnoncourt gradually became a conductor himself. He initially directed his ensemble from the cello; his biographer describes a working relationship in which Harnoncourt was more “first among equals” than authoritarian director (Mertl 1999: 133-137). When he was invited as guest-conductor to the Zürich Opera in the early 1970s, he wanted to employ the same mode of direction; their refusal forced him onto the podium for the first time (ibid: 136). As his cycle of the Bach cantatas (1971-1989) progressed, Harnoncourt gradually moved from cello to podium (first directing everything from the cello, then conducting the choruses, then conducting arias as well, and finally conducting everything). His biographer explains this move in terms of increasing efficiency in recording sessions (ibid); however, it also probably relates to his increasingly detailed interpretations, which were harder to realise without establishing direct eye contact with the entire ensemble. His independent conducting career also brought him back into contact with traditional symphony orchestras, and with the Classical and Romantic repertoire which he previously knew as an orchestral player. This might have provided further encouragement to give free reign to his “romantic” impulses (Mertl 1999: 207-208). Whatever the explanation, Harnoncourt’s Bach performances gradually became more varied and flexible, coming closer to a full realisation of his +/+ stance towards rhetoric-as-semantics. An account of his salient stylistic traits, and their relationship to his personalised brand of rhetorical thinking, can be placed in sharper relief against the “orthodox”, rhetoric-as-speech-inspired style developed by Gustav Leonhardt. 8 It might also be related to neo-classical influences, in particular Harnoncourt’s early association with Hindemith, who conducted Concentus in its “inoffizielles Debüt” – a performance of Monteverdi’s L’Orfeo (Mertl 1999: 278). Harnoncourt also quoted extensively from Hindemith’s Bach essay (Hindemith 1952: 12-16, in Harnoncourt 1989: 111-112) in support of the restoration of original instruments. 9 In more recent interviews, Harnoncourt makes explicit references to pre-war recordings, stating that the current performance style is in fact quite new, “between 30 and 40 years old” (in Canning 1991: 73). However, in 1986 he still believed that the “modern” style he was rebelling against could be traced back to Mendelssohn’s Bach revival in the 1820s. - 97 - 4.2.2.2. Rhetoric as speech and rhetoric as semantics: A comparison of Harnoncourt and Leonhardt Richard Taruskin (1995: 149) presented two recordings of the Brandenburg Concerti – the Leonhardt/Kuijken recording (1976) and Harnoncourt’s second version with Concentus Musicus Wien (1981) – as diametrically opposed; Daniel LeechWilkinson (1984: 14) and Dorottya Fabian (2003: 246) presented them as examples of the same approach. There are arguments in favour of both views. Harnoncourt’s prescriptions on how to make music “speak” are similar to the practical applications of rhetoric-as-speech described above (4.1.1, p. 85ff above). In this, his performance aesthetics resemble those of the Netherlands School, reflecting his collaboration with musicians like Leonhardt, Brüggen and the Kuijken brothers in the 1950s and 1960s. Harnoncourt is particularly adamant in viewing articulation as the key element, to which all others should be subordinate (1988: 39-49, 90-97). He proposes an “interwoven pattern of hierarchies”, consisting of metre (strong and weak beats), harmony (dissonances should be stressed, their resolutions unstressed), rhythm (emphasising elongated notes, even on weak beats) and emphasis (on melodic peaks). These hierarchies combine to “breathe rhythm and life” into performances, replacing “machine-like regularity” with a more humane, speech-like approach (ibid: 40). Thus far, there would be little conflict between Harnoncourt and Leonhardt; and during the years of their collaborative efforts (from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s), the actual contrasts between them were subtle. By the mid-1980s, however, the stylistic differences between the two directors have increased. Both Harnoncourt and Leonhardt have retained their common preference for short, distinct phrases; but they diverged over the degree and manner in which different figures were to be distinguished from each other. The cycle of Bach’s complete church cantatas recorded by the two directors constitutes valuable documentation of their evolving styles. They contributed recordings in parallel, without direct collaboration (though they shared several musicians). Leonhardt’s style did not change dramatically in the course of the cycle. 10 10 Fabian (1997; 2003: 235-241) notes substantial differences between Leonhardt’s 1953 recording of the Goldberg Variations on the one hand, and his 1965 and 1978 recordings on the other. Similarly, his recordings of Bach cantatas with Alfred Deller (1954) and Agnes Giebel (1965) present a different style – more “objective”, less detailed in articulation – compared to his recordings of the same works - 98 Harnoncourt, however, became increasingly interventionist, exploratory and varied as the cycle progressed, and the difference between him and Leonhardt increase accordingly.11 Leonhardt’s articulation mostly consists of gentle non legato. Downbeat accentuations can be quite forceful (especially in chorales); but for the most part, his emphases are ever-present but not strongly highlighted. At times, one could almost mistake his articulation for a continuous legato; and it is this gentler manner that pervades his recording of the Mass (see, however, pp. 233f below). Harnoncourt employs legato more frequently than Leonhardt, but usually in short, clearly-demarcated spans. His dynamic range also widened gradually as the cycle progressed, through a combination of stark, terraced contrasts and subtle, local modifications, tracing the melodic contours of individual voices (leading, sometimes, to simultaneous crescendi and diminuendi). In polyphonic textures, this makes it easier to follow particular lines, but harder to comprehend the texture as a whole. Harnoncourt thus goes against an almost selfevident assumption that clarity should be paramount:12 his ideal is to reveal textural complexity without achieving full clarity. In a well-articulated performance, Our ears penetrate [the texture] in depth and we clearly hear the different levels, which nonetheless merge to form a whole. On the foundation level we hear the “design,” the plan; on another level we find accented dissonances; in the next, a voice which is softly slurred in its diction, and another which is strongly articulated. All of this is at the same time, synchronized. The listener is not able to comprehend everything contained in the piece at once, but wanders through the various levels of the piece, always hearing something different. (Harnoncourt 1988: 44; see also 1986: 36) within the Teldec cycle. On the other hand, there is far less contrast within that cycle, or between it and his subsequent recordings, in the 1990s, of Bach’s vocal music (see discography). 11 John Butt (1999a: 183) notes that as the cycle progressed “Leonhardt takes some of the expressive force of Harnoncourt, and Harnoncourt in particular develops something close to the metrical pacing of Leonhardt”, thereby concluding that their resemblance increased. However, Leonhardt’s adoption of longer note values and varied dynamics is, in my hearing, rather subtle; whereas Harnoncourt’s adoption of metrical pacing sometimes results in forceful emphases rarely approached by Leonhardt. 12 Here, it is arguably Leonhardt who fully realises one of Schweitzer’s dicta (1911, I: 380) – the demand for constantly yet subtly modulated phrasing. - 99 - 4.2.2.3. “Frontal assault” and “subtle discomfort” As Harnoncourt explicitly points out (1988: 45), this ideal of partial clarity can be related to his more general pursuit of subtle irritation: not frontal assault, but rather a discreet challenge to the listener (see p. 95 above). This goal increasingly finds expression in his performances. Doubt, discomfort and unease can lurk beneath deceptively comforting surfaces: full, sensuous sonorities; legato phrasing; and a general avoidance of sharp edges and clipped note- and phrase-endings. But this is combined with internal restlessness. The “legato” consists of “sostenuto fragments”: short spans of smooth articulation, their caesuras rubbing against the beat and clashing with similar caesuras in other voices. Dynamic and agogic nuances are constantly manipulated. Discomfort arises from the accumulated effect of such small gestures. “Frontal assault” and “subtle discomfort” are both rare in Harnoncourt’s earlier Bach recordings; they become increasingly prominent as the cantata cycle progresses. The full gamut is already present in his 1978 recording of Cantata 81. The tenor aria (no. 3) represents his “frontal assault” manner: the musical storm is depicted with sharp, ferocious accents, and a strident string sonority aided by almost constant forte dynamics. The alto aria (no. 1), on the other hand, represents his “subtle discomfort” manner.13 The sonority is mostly soft and sensuous. The articulation consists mostly sostenuto fragments; slurred groups cross beyond the barline (compare Schweitzer 1911, II: 392), subtly undermining the clarity of metre (a frequent feature in Harnoncourt, but a rare one in Leonhardt). The overall affect is of constant local movement which disturbs, rather than enhances, forward progression. The bass aria (no. 5) combines both approaches. The storm is depicted by rising and falling dynamic contours within a series of sostenuto fragments. However, Harnoncourt renders the orchestra’s à Ä ± figures (bars 16 and simile) – an imitation of the bass’s “Schweig, schweig” – with sharp sforzandi. Harnoncourt generates subtle unease even when most musicians would think it is uncalled for. For example, in the ostensibly optimistic “Beglückte Herde, Jesu Schafe” (BWV 104/5, recorded 1980), the meticulous shaping of both voice and 13 It is interesting to compare this performance of BWV 81 with Harnoncourt’s 1973 recording of BWV 25/1, which contains similar figures. In the earlier recording, the phrasing seems more typical of Leonhardt’s style: figures are distinctly separated, but not heavily emphasised. There is less dynamic nuance, and a greater sense of flow. Cantata 25 is a clear example of what Taruskin (1995: 307-315) called “Bach’s dark vision” (contempt for reason and earthly life), but Harnoncourt’s performance contains few of the features that made Taruskin praise him for “facing up” to that vision. - 100 orchestra14 generates a series of sostenuto fragments, each with its own dynamic profile. The aria is thus characterised by a halting effect, all the more disturbing for its contrast with the local directionality of its constituent phrase fragments. The common feature of “frontal assault” and “subtle discomfort” is irregularity and unpredictability, contrasting with the reassuring regularity that characterises many of Leonhardt’s performances (see pp. 194ff, 214f and 234ff below). A fine illustration within the cantata cycle is the contrast between Harnoncourt’s richly-hesitant reading of BWV 99/1 and Leonhardt’s confident rendition of the Bach’s re-arrangement of the same chorus in BWV 100/1 (both recordings were made in 1980). 4.2.3. Harnoncourt’s recordings of the Mass Harnoncourt’s first recording of the Mass was made in 1968, before the beginning of his Teldec cycle; the second was made in 1986, when that cycle was approaching its conclusion. The comparison between them vividly illustrates Harnoncourt’s stylistic evolution in the interim period. 4.2.3.1. The 1968 version The 1968 version was the first recording of the Mass on period instruments. It was received upon publication as revolutionary. Most reviewers focused on the same innovatory features: small performing forces, fast tempi, detailed articulation, and the largely unfamiliar sound of the period instrument ensemble. Admirers like Harden (1968) and Gilmore (1970) considered this a healthy corrective to overblown traditions. Detractors like Lang (1970) and, to a lesser extent, Robertson (1968), Donington (1974: 75) and Mellers (1980: 313-315), thought that Harnoncourt’s reduced forces and restrained manners were insufficient in projecting the music’s expressiveness and grandeur. To listeners like the present writer, accustomed to HIP styles, it is difficult to perceive how iconoclastic Harnoncourt’s rendition sounded in 1968 (see also Stauffer 1997b: 202-204). It is interesting to compare these early reactions with Gordon 14 The bass here is Philippe Huttenlocher, who performed frequently with Harnoncourt (he also took the title-role in Harnoncourt’s Zürich production of Monteverdi’s L’Orfeo); he often seems more at ease with Harnoncourt’s detailed phrasing, compared to several of his colleagues in the Teldec series (see also Golomb 2001). In his recordings with Rilling, however, he stands out against the latter’s relatively uninflected readings of the orchestral parts. - 101 Reynolds’ review of the 1986 CD re-issue. Reynolds praises the performance’s “dispassionate” character and “translucent” sound, adding that several “affectations of ‘authentic’ playing are mercifully absent”.15 A performance that once seemed revolutionary was now received, in retrospect, as “safe”. Gilmore (1970: 23) places particular emphasis on the orchestra’s almost revolutionary approach to matters of phrasing and articulation. Instead of forcing the phrase into one long curved line [...] the phrase structure is allowed to break naturally into many smaller note groups. This description is largely correct, including the attribution of this approach to the orchestra alone: the choir’s articulation is usually smoother, their phrasing less detailed. This might be related to the peculiar arrangement at the recording session (shown in photographs accompanying the original LPs). Harnoncourt directed the ensemble from the cello; Hans Gillesberger conducted the choral passages with his back to the orchestra. This arrangement, which allowed no eye contact between the two directors, persisted in the earlier volumes of the cantata cycle, before Harnoncourt’s own move to the podium (see p. 96 above). Harnoncourt’s approach to articulation is more distinctly audible in the arias; the soloists seem more attuned to his approach than the choir. It is interesting, for example, to compare Helen Watts’s singing of the Qui sedes (CD 1: 19) and Agnus dei in this performance with her readings of these arias for Münchinger and Somary. Her vocal production is less intense in Harnoncourt’s performance, her dynamic range narrower, her phrases shorter and her articulation more detailed.16 In each case, her singing is closely attuned to her accompanists. Harnoncourt’s overall approach in 1968 can be described as anti-romantic – in all three senses. There are few attempts at musical drama, whether cumulative or contrastive. The approach to the Confiteor is especially revealing. Harnoncourt believes that Bach’s tempo markings should be interpreted as demanding a change of emotional character, but that the pulse should remain virtually the same throughout (1968: 10). His actual performance makes few concessions even for character: tempo, dynamics and articulation remain virtually unaltered. 15 Ironically, his prime example of such affectation – the messa di voce effect – was promoted by Harnoncourt himself in later recordings. 16 The latter elements are more clearly evident in the Qui sedes, which is also one of the most detailed and actively-shaped movements in the 1968 performance. - 102 Harnoncourt’s 1968 notes contain a substantial discussion of Bach’s symbolism and rhetoric in the Mass (ibid: 11-12; reprinted Harnoncourt 1989: 191-198), but few indications of how this might affect the performance. The complete package – performance and annotation – is not inconsistent with Schering’s +/- philosophy. Harnoncourt’s approach thus bears a surprising resemblance to the “Lutheran” school, and not only in its use of a boys’ choir. While many of his basic parameters are different, his consistent approach to them is similar: once the timbre, articulation, tempo and dynamics are established at the beginning of a movement, they are rarely altered – though, to use Butt’s terms (p. 43f above), this is closer to “classical modernism” than “romantic modernism”. Only in articulation does Harnoncourt apply more nuance and detail than most of his contemporaries. 4.2.3.2. The 1986 version While the 1968 Mass goes no further than a rhetoric-as-speech approach, the 1986 version presents the consequences of Harnoncourt’s intense commitment to his own rhetoric-as-semantics ideals. It contains few examples of Harnoncourt’s “frontal assault” manner, but “subtle discomfort” is a common feature. The most immediately-apparent difference between the two performances is the employment of a mixed chorus. At the time, Harnoncourt’s official view remained that period-instrument readings of Bach’s sacred vocal music should feature maleonly vocal forces (he did employ mixed forces when performing Bach’s Passions with the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra). His employment of female soloists in 1968 already presented an exception to this rule. At the time, Harnoncourt claimed that “this work goes beyond the limits of music for practical use”, thereby allowing the director to make exceptions (1968: 9). In 1986, he claimed that the music’s connection with Dresden associated it with Catholicism, the opera, and Italian musical aesthetics generally, thereby justifying the injection of “the sensuous flair of adults to the music” (1986: 29). It is interesting to note, however, that after the conclusion of his cantata cycle, Harnoncourt gradually abandoned male-only forces. His 1993 Johannes-Passion and - 103 2000 Matthäus-Passion feature mixed vocal forces alongside period instruments.17 In this sense, the 1986 Mass indeed proved prophetic. The Arnold-Schoenberg-Chor has been working with Harnoncourt since its foundation in 1978. In a recent interview (in Mertl 1999: 174-175), its director, Erwin Ortner, proclaimed his adherence to Harnoncourt’s Klangrede ideals, and his desire to emulate Harnoncourt’s detailed approach to articulation and accentuation (see also p. 149 below on Ortner’s own recording of the Mass). These shared ideals are clearly felt in the 1986 Mass, which Harnoncourt conducted from the podium. The Arnold-Schoenberg-Chor, unlike their 1968 counterparts, projects the same type of articulation and accentuation as the orchestra. The soloists here are, like their 1968 colleagues, also attuned to Harnoncourt’s requirements. To many critics, the use of a mixed choir signalled a return to more traditional values. Other apparent signals to the same effect included: slower tempi; a wider dynamic range; a larger ensemble, producing more bass-heavy sonorities; and a wider articulatory spectrum, with many more instances of legato. If one also takes into account the fact that, by this time, the novelty value of period instruments had partly worn off, the relative apathy that greeted this recording is not surprising. To some reviewers, it appeared as if Harnoncourt has reneged on his revolutionary promise (e.g., Woss 1987; Anderson 1987; Towe 1991c: 57; see, however, p. 148 below). The impression that Harnoncourt has moved backwards might also relate to the absence of “frontal assault” in this recording. The specific elements associated with Harnoncourt’s most aggressive gestures – forte, marcato, strident sonorities – usually appear in the context of celebratory choruses, where they strengthen rhythmic security; and, with the possible exception of the Sanctus, they are not retained unremittingly throughout a movement. In Cum sancto spiritu and the Vivace setting of Et expecto, for example, sharp accentuation is reserved primarily for homophonic passages and for the delineation of specific figures (the strings’ à Ö---µ in Cum sancto, the £ Öµ ± corta figure in Expecto). Harnoncourt takes greater care to differentiate the character of the Confiteor’s three sections than in 1968. The Confiteor is relatively gentle. Harnoncourt guarantees 17 Harnoncourt already made two exceptions in the 1980s, besides the Mass: the Motets and several secular cantatas. Presumably the latter benefited from the same Dresden connection that he used as justification for mixed forces in the Mass. - 104 textural clarity and independent shaping for the polyphonic strands; he articulates the metre and accentuates syncopations, but more gently than elsewhere. He broadens the tempo marginally at the adagio, and softens the dynamics and articulation further. The sharp accentuation and brash sonorities (with highlighted trumpets) at the Vivace’s entry thus emerge all the more clearly. Harnoncourt does not maintain these sonorities throughout the movement, allowing a sense of relaxation and growth (especially in the fugal-exposition passages). Surprisingly, several movements which lack “frontal assault” features sound more discomforting. One illustration is the Gloria/Et in terra (CD 1: 3-4). Phrasing, sonority and dynamics are all softer in this pair of movements; trumpets and drums are mostly subdued. In the Gloria, the variety of phrasing patterns illustrates Harnoncourt’s general theory of polyphonic articulation (see p. 98 above). Several features in his reading undermine the confidence usually associated with this movement – most notably, instances of deliberately hesitant phrasing. The orchestral bass, for example, is shaped as series of legato fragments, each with its own subtlycontoured dynamics, often rubbing against the metre: Example 4.1 Gloria, bars 9-13; Harnoncourt 1986 (CD 1: 3) The movement begins and ends softly. Several homophonic choral passages are rendered forte (bars 29-33, 45-49, 81-83), and sharper accentuation is introduced towards the end (bars 87ff); but these “flashes” of confidence further emphasise the general hesitation. A possible interpretation is that Harnoncourt was aiming at the expression of awe, rather than celebration. Harnoncourt makes his intentions clearer with reference to the Et in terra: There is always an element of the heroic in the Gloria, and the use of trumpets produces a kind of dominating attitude. But the “Et in terra pax” produces an entirely new sound: not only is it centred on “peace” (pax), but the word “pax” is always cried out or shouted, suggesting the ardent call of men who have not yet received that which has been promised to them. (1986: 32) In practice, Harnoncourt follows a similar pattern to the Gloria: subtly-clashing “sostenuto fragments” with independent dynamic contours, are contrasted with - 105 isolated passages of greater confidence (bars 38-45,18 57-60, 66-70). The final passages (bars 70ff) feature more uniform dynamics, allowing the movement to end with greater confidence. This is not entirely consistent with Harnoncourt’s reference to “cries and shouts”; perhaps the passages I described as “confident” are meant to express this. However, the relatively subdued character of this movement is consistent with the view that peace is sought, rather than won. “Subtle discomfort” is more pronounced in several movements expressive of darker emotions (see also pp. 176f, 194ff and 234ff below). For example, in the Qui sedes (CD 1: 20), the basic pattern of dynamics and articulation is largely similar to the 1968 version (CD 1: 19); but they are projected with greater intensity. While many of the notated staccati are realised in broader tenuto non legato, the accents – on downbeats and syncopations alike – are sharper, and wave-like dynamic nuances are applied both more frequently and on a wider range. This, together with the oboe’s frequent deviation from the notated slurs (Ö - - - - µ Ä ' Ö - - - µ instead of Ö - - - - µ Ö - - - - µ), creates a sense of constant activity and restlessness. Harnoncourt’s general image of Bach, as presented in his writings, is within the knife-edge-balance approach. His 1986 Mass is not among the most extreme representations of this image; arguably, he forgoes several opportunities for “frontal assault” (cf. p. 238 below). His reading offers, however, a persistent if subtle challenge to calm, orderly views of Bach’s music in general, and the Mass in particular. His application of a distinctive, +/+ rhetoric-as-semantics logic results in a rich pattern of internal clashes. Obviously, the more complex the texture, the more opportunities there are for such clashes. Thus, polyphony – often a symbol of Bach at his most intellectual and ordered – becomes the locus for internal conflict, as the semi-independent lines within the complex texture disrupt each other (see also pp. 164ff, 194ff and 234ff below). 18 Bar 46 is already subdued. - 106 - 4.3. Philippe Herreweghe Philippe Herreweghe’s links to the rhetorical school are obvious. From 1977 to 1989, he served as Gustav Leonhardt’s chorus-master for the latter’s portion in the Teldec cantata cycle; he has also collaborated with Harnoncourt and Koopman, among others. To this day, he expresses admiration for these musicians, and regards his collaboration with Leonhardt as a formative experience for himself and his choir. Bach’s music has been central to Herreweghe’s discography at least since the release of his first recording of the Matthäus-Passion in 1985. The rest of his repertoire, however, has changed markedly. Until the early 1990s, he focused on Renaissance and early Baroque music (although his discography already featured music by Mendelssohn and Brahms). More recently, he shifted his attention to later music. In 1991, he founded the Orchestre des Champs Elysées in order to perform Classical and Romantic music on period instruments; since 1998, he has been music director of the Flanders Philharmonic Orchestra. He also increasingly performs 20thcentury music, while gradually excluding Renaissance and Baroque music (except German Baroque) from his repertoire (Herreweghe 2001: 45-47; Stewart 2001: 23). Some changes in his Bach interpretations might be related to this shift. 4.3.1. Herreweghe’s premises Herreweghe’s Bach image is not radically different from Harnoncourt’s; but their performance styles differ markedly. There are further differences between the two conductors’ views on the performer’s role in realising Bach’s musical rhetoric. Even within Herreweghe’s own output, theory and practice do not match well. However, both have changed over the last twenty years, and these modifications have also brought them closer together. 4.3.1.1. Herreweghe’s theory of rhetoric 4.3.1.1.1. The Importance of Rhetoric Musical rhetoric was always central to Herreweghe’s verbal discourse on Bach. His 1984 Matthäus-Passion was accompanied by an essay entitled “Bach and Musical rhetoric”, where he declared that “musical rhetoric is THE ONLY VALID KEY TO ALL MUSIC FROM JOSQUIN TO BACH” (1985: 27; emphasis provided). Whereas Harnoncourt’s essays contain few bibliographic references and clearly present his - 107 personalised slant on rhetoric-as-semantics, Herreweghe explicitly cites primary and secondary sources alike, and his views closely reflect the theories presented in the secondary literature he cites (especially Schmitz, Unger and Damman). Like Harnoncourt, Herreweghe stresses the disquieting potential of musical rhetoric. In his view, Renaissance music aimed at “divine perfection” and “equilibrium”. Baroque musical rhetoric, on the other hand, aims at “moving, unbalancing” the listener, arousing in him “a succession of emotional states” which would render him “more receptive to the seduction of a message” (ibid: 28-29; compare Stravinsky 1947: 31-32). Herreweghe believes that this knife-edge-balance view should directly affect performance; a +/+ rhetorical performance can render Bach’s music “much more significant and alive” (1985: 32). His is also a decidedly IO-approach: “the contents of a musical work, its expression and its meaning” must be valued above “paltry squabbles” and “fallacious quarrels” on performance practice issues (ibid: 26). In this sense, his views have not changed: in a recent interview (Herreweghe 1999b), he still declares that his starting points as an interpreter are the musical figures, their significance, and their relationship with the words (their rhythm and their intrinsic meaning – rhetoric-as-speech and rhetoric-as-semantics). However, his use of the word “rhetoric” itself has altered. In 1985, he viewed rhetoric as a key to the music’s content. In a more recent interview (Herreweghe 2001: 47), however, he cites “rhetoric” alongside “ornaments” and “articulation”: technical features that performers have to master, but that are clearly distinct from the pursuit of the music’s meaning and interpretation. 4.3.1.1.2. Rhetoric as structure, and the function of styles One of the main differences between Herreweghe and his predecessors is the focus on rhetoric-as-structure. This issue was mentioned earlier (see p. 91 above), but I deferred detailed discussion to this point. Rhetoric-as-structure theories rely on the assumption that individual movements were formulated along the same lines of a classical speech: 1. Exordium (introduction); 2. Narratio (presenting the issue); 3. Propositio (presenting the speaker’s thesis); 4. Confirmatio (presenting the main arguments supporting the thesis); - 108 5. Confutatio (refutation of opposing arguments); 6. Peroratio/Conclusio (conclusion).19 Herreweghe (1985: 31) concedes that this scheme can often be collapsed into a 3-part da-capo structure: two similar outer sections framing a contrastive middle section (see also Seymour 1992: 916). Indeed, Mattheson’s six-part scheme was probably an expansion of earlier three-part schemes (Unger 1941: 46-50; Butler 1977: 66-68; Bonds 1991: 82). As Bonds stresses (1991: 86-90), Mattheson did not preach a rigid adherence to his six-part division. Given these facts, and the relations between Mattheson’s theory and the “enlightenment” discourse of writers like Gottsched (ibid: 83) and Scheibe (ibid: 80-81, 89; see also p. 88 above), one could question the scheme’s relevance to Bach’s music (see also Buelow 1983). Nonetheless, Herreweghe helps himself to the generalisation that Mattheson’s scheme is applicable “to every Baroque work of any length” (1985: 31). He demonstrates this through an analysis of the Matthäus-Passion’s opening chorus: 1. Exordium: bars 1-16; 2. Narratio: bars 17-38; 3. Propositio: bars 42-51; 4. Confutatio: bars 57-71; 5. Confirmatio: bars 72-82; 6. Peroratio: bars 82-90 (ibid: 30-31). Notwithstanding a suspicious-looking six-bar gap (bars 51-57),20 a strong case can be made for Herreweghe’s sketchy analysis. His Exordium is the opening ritornello. The Narratio presents the main thematic and textual materials, and the basic textural principle (a dialogue between two choirs juxtaposed with a chorale). The Propositio continues this dialogue and (in the text) introduces the key notion of Christ’s sacrifice. The Confutatio presents a more intense musical dialogue, emphasising (in the text) the believers’ guilt. The Confirmatio is a modified da-capo, returning to the music of the Narratio and to the idea of Christ’s sacrifice. The Peroratio is a final repeat of the opening text, returning to the music of the Exordium. 19 This summary is based on Bartel (1997: 68) and Seymour (1992: 916-918). Seymour’s summary, like Herreweghe’s, is based explicitly on Mattheson’s adaptation of Quintilian; Bartel is purportedly a collation of several treatises (see also Butler 1977: 65-72). 20 These bars are the orchestral passage connecting Herreweghe’s “Propositio” and “Confutatio”. Presumably, in the absence of a text, Herreweghe was not sure whether to count this as the end of the “Propositio” or as the introduction to the “Confutatio”. - 109 Even if one accepts the validity of this analysis, however, it hardly proves the scheme’s universal applicability. The da-capo principle is not as ubiquitous in Bach’s music as Herreweghe implies. The Mass, in particular, contains many truncated dacapos, and many of its movements flow into each other (cf. Stauffer 1997b: 250-252). This demonstrates that, even when Bach conceived a movement in accordance with a three- or six-part scheme, he had no qualms about truncating it to facilitate its introduction into a new context. In this light, Herreweghe’s view that the Mass is “shaped by the rhetorical system organising the overall musical structure” (1989) is problematic (see also p. 183 below). The six-fold scheme does not, in itself, constitute a theory of expression, arousal or signification. It could, however, encourage analysts and performers to seek and intensify internal contrasts even in monothematic movements, moving beyond the confines of Unity of Affect. Herreweghe’s own +/+ approach would lead one to expect performances rich in local and global contrasts, detailed in local gestures, and clearly dramatising overall structures (Herreweghe 1985: 33; 1986: 14). These expectations are further enhanced through Herreweghe’s emphasis on Bach’s stylistic diversity, especially in relation to the Mass (see p. 113 below). Alberto Basso, who wrote liner-notes to many of Herreweghe’s recordings, and influenced his approach, also stresses Bach’s stylistic diversity. However, he views Bach’s ultimate aim as the formation of a “synthesis [...] towards absolute abstraction” (1998: 1), an abstraction which particularly characterises the late works (ibid: 39-43). This suggests a relatively dispassionate view of Bach, an impression consistent with other aspects of Herreweghe’s musical-performative philosophy. 4.3.1.2. Herreweghe’s theory of Bach performance 4.3.1.2.1. Cantabile and lyricism Thanks to his apprenticeship with Leonhardt, Herreweghe is associated with the Netherlands school of Bach performance. He is, however, a choral conductor, whereas most of the other prominent Netherlands Baroque specialists are instrumentalists. In this respect, Herreweghe can be more readily associated with prominent British HIP - 110 conductors (e.g., Parrott, Gardiner, Christophers, Hickox) known primarily as choral directors (and, on the other hand, with conductors like Rilling and Richter). Herreweghe regards his vocal background as one of his main advantages. Instrumentalists – primarily harpsichordists – helped singers unlearn the damaging habits of romanticism on the one hand, and of the “motoric” style of Baroque performance on the other; they helped singers appreciate the centrality of small motivic units in Baroque music. But the instrumentalists’ influence has not been entirely beneficial: it inspired a style which was “too edgy, too angular” (Herreweghe, in Sherman 1997: 281), and thwarted the pursuit of melodic lyricism. Herreweghe aims for “a balance between organizational cells that are too small and overly long ones” (ibid; cf. Herreweghe 1999a: 12; Erik van Nevel, in Baumgartner 2002: 40; and p. 139 below). In a recent interview, he claims that his own balance has tilted – from an exaggerated emphasis on “detail, articulation, ornaments” to an increasing pursuit of “longer periods” (Herreweghe 1999b). In itself, a tendency towards smoother articulation is at odds with rhetoric-asspeech, but not with rhetoric-as-structure; legato articulation could even facilitate the shaping of long-range tensions. However, smooth articulation also limits possibilities for sharp contrasts. 4.3.1.2.2. The collective nature of Bach performance Herreweghe believes that conducting Renaissance and Baroque music is fundamentally different from conducting 19th- and 20th-century music. In the latter, the conductor is meant to “sculpt the sound” and shape every aspect of the interpretation. In a work like the B minor Mass, on the other hand, “[e]ach musician is of equal importance”, and the resulting interpretation should emerge from their collective efforts (in Stewart 2001: 23; see also Herreweghe, in Sherman 1997: 284) This view reflects a different vision of the musical styles involved. In Baroque music, it is important to delineate small details; an over-sweeping interpretation might engulf them. The ideal is, therefore, an interpretation that arises from a dialogue between individual musicians, each shaping their own lines. This stands at odds with the articulation of large-scale patterns of tension and release – not to mention striving - 111 towards climaxes. Herreweghe implies that such an approach might be viable for Romantic music – but not for Bach.21 In this light, Herreweghe’s insistence on rhetoric-as-structure might be interpreted as a prescription for bringing out the different characters of individual sections, rather than incorporating them into over-arching patterns. In particular, the level of tension in the Confutatio would be different (in most cases, higher) than in the other sections (Herreweghe, in Sherman 1997: 282; see also p. 183 below). This could be achieved by pointing out the different characters to the musicians and allowing them to shape their lines accordingly (compare with Parrott, quoted on p. 125 below). 4.3.1.3. Herreweghe’s Bach image: Balance-as-equilibrium Herreweghe shares the common view of Bach’s synthesis as the achievement of a whole that transcends the sum of its parts (see also p. 109 above). He stresses that Musica Rhetorica was an arousal theory, not an expression theory (1985: 28-29). His Bach image emphasises symbolism (see esp. Herreweghe 1989) and expression, but downplays the dramatic element – an emphasis consistent with his admission that his own artistic temperament is ill-suited for the projection of musical drama (2001: 45). He draws attention to the emotive impact of individual figures in Bach’s music, and believes they should be brought out in performance – but with care and circumspection. For instance, when discussing “Buß und Reu”, Herreweghe draws attention to the vivid illustration of the word “knirscht” (1985: 30-31; 1999b), and argues that this should be accentuated by the flutes. However, he emphasises the need to “reconcile this rhetorical approach with the large line [...] Otherwise, there is a risk of exaggeration” (1999b). 4.3.2. Herreweghe’s performance style Herreweghe’s aesthetic ideology for Bach performance thus contains contradictory goals. He believes that performers should bring out the unsettling, contrastive elements in Bach’s music – but in a balanced, restrained manner. His emphasis on vocal style stands potentially at odds with his notion that individual figures should be strongly projected. His objection to large-scale sculpting potentially 21 His actual performances of 19th-century music, however, are not markedly different in this sense from his renditions of earlier repertoire. - 112 interferes with his notion of projecting patterns of tension and release – though I already indicated, on the previous page, one way of resolving this last difficulty. The notion of a singing style, likewise, does not necessarily negate the projection of individual figures. As John Butt (1990: 11-15) emphasises, Baroque treatises indeed enjoined instrumentalists to imitate singers. Singers, however, were expected to deliver words clearly and display sensitivity to metrical accents; even in melismas, “a detached performance of runs had priority over a ‘legato’ style” (ibid: 13). The modern conception of cantabile began to develop later in the 18th-century; it should not be confused with Bach’s ideal of a singing style (ibid: 15). An examination of Herreweghe’s statements and practices alike, however, suggests that he has made the very identification which Butt warns against. By Butt’s description, Gustav Leonhardt’s approach to articulation would count as a singing style. As I noted (p. 98 above), Leonhardt often creates an illusion of legato without avoiding the requisite clarity. Even in his earlier recordings, Herreweghe takes this further: he applies detached articulation more gently and less frequently, and employs fewer and softer metric accentuations. His sonority is also softer: he forgoes Leonhardt’s male-only vocal forces for a mixed choir and female soprani, and encourages a gentler sonority from his orchestra. However, the choir’s phrasing is detailed enough, and its sound cohesive enough, to allow textural clarity. In Herreweghe’s earlier recordings, rounded sonority and articulation are allied with a generally restrained approach. While eschewing static or terraced dynamics, Herreweghe employs a narrow dynamic range, spanning short phrases. His tempi are also moderate. There are no sudden transitions in any parameter. This meshes well with Herreweghe’s non-interventionist philosophy and his ideal of vocal lyricism; it is rather harder to reconcile with his +/+ approach towards rhetoric-as-semantics. This it not to say that his performances are completely uneventful. By subtle inflection of parameters, he allows some sections – presumably those he analyses as Confutatio – to acquire a tenser character (see p. 111 above). This effect can be noted, for example, in the opening movement of his 1984 Matthäus-Passion: he slightly intensifies (through sharper articulation and softer dynamics) the question-andanswer dialogues between the two choruses; thus, the area of higher tension includes both Propositio and Confutatio, in terms of his 1985 analysis. In his 1998 recording, he comes closer to realising the performative implications of his analysis, performing the Confutatio with distinctly sharper accentuation and - 113 harsher articulation. The performance on the whole, although smoother in articulation, is more dramatic, thanks to the wider range, and more purposeful inflection, of the dynamics.22 The differences between these two recordings are consistent with Herreweghe’s general development in recent years, confirming his own account of his changing priorities. His articulation has mostly become smoother, his sonorities richer, his phrases longer. This last aspect relates especially to dynamics: his dynamic range has increased, and he shapes phrases in a more distinctly directional manner. The range of articulation has also increased: accents are harsher and more frequent, and stand out more strongly against the generally softer articulation and sound. 4.3.3. Herreweghe’s recordings of the Mass Herreweghe’s two commercial recordings of the Mass are only separated by six years. In several measurable senses, they are not very different. The ensemble size is similar; tempi are often close, with deviations in both directions. There are, however, clear differences between them, mostly consistent with the general developments described above. The 1988 version sounds relaxed and uninflected, even when compared to recordings from the same period (the 1984 Matthäus-Passion, cantatas BWV 78 and 198). In a favourable review, Nicholas Anderson (1989) describes it as moderate and well-balanced, and praises it for bringing out “the supreme contemplative element in the music”. John Butt, in his more negative assessment (1999a: 194), points out the disparity between the “largely uninflected singing” on this recording and Herreweghe’s rhetorical ambitions. Both writers suggest a sense of performative passivity, of “letting the music speak for itself”; Anderson uses the word “safe”. This might remind readers of my description of Mauersberger’s performance (p. 64 above); but Herreweghe achieves clarity without resorting to Mauersberger’s constant note-separation, and allows notes to coalesce into phrases. The sonority is rounder and softer. A better comparison might be with Rifkin’s performance (5.2.1, pp. 137ff below) – notwithstanding the latter’s employment of soloistic vocal forces. 22 Other conductors, however, come even closer to realising Herreweghe’s verbal analysis in sound, notable examples being Gardiner (see Golomb 1998) and Harnoncourt 2000. - 114 Herreweghe’s notes refer both to the Mass’s stylistic heterogeneity – likening it to a 20th-century work which juxtaposes “post-romantic, serial and neo-classical styles” – and to Bach’s “deep desire for unification”, which led him to shape the work into “a monolithic whole transcending stylistic particularities” (1989). The latter element is predominant in his performance, which makes little effort to highlight the contrasts he so vividly describes in his notes. The second performance reveals a much more active approach, with closer attention to detail. The basic articulation is even smoother than before, the sonority even darker; but the dynamic range is wider, and deviations from the basic articulation more notable. However, if Herreweghe indeed follows his own advice, allowing the interpretation to emerge from the interaction between players, one should be especially careful in attributing all differences to changes in his aesthetic outlook. According to Stephan Leys, the Intendant of the Collegium Vocale (personal communication), there were important differences between the two performances. The 1988 sessions were preceded by only one concert, the 1996 sessions by a tour of five concerts. For an interpretation supposedly evolving from the co-operation between members of an ensemble of freelancers, this difference could be decisive. The same applies to changes in orchestral and choral personnel. While some key members are common to both performances (e.g., flautist Patrick Beuckels, oboist Marcel Ponseele, cellist Ageet Zweistra), others have changed – including the leader (François Fernandez, Sirkka Liisa Kaakinen), the organist (Willem Jansen, Herman Stinders), and the trumpet players. Even when the same people are present, they might well have evolved as much as Herreweghe has in the same period of time. Herreweghe himself (1999b; 2001: 47) claims that his instrumentalists now display superior technique and a firmer grasp of Baroque playing style, and that this has allowed him and his fellow-musicians to concentrate on interpretive issues. The two performances were also recorded by different recording teams, in different buildings, though Herreweghe was involved in the recording and editing process in both cases. According to Leys, there was some retrospective dissatisfaction with the choice of venue for the 1996 recording, so perhaps its more reverberant, bass-heavy sound does not entirely reflect the conductor’s wishes. - 115 Judging by the results, the later performance seems to place a greater premium on drama, the earlier one on beauty of sonority. The different conceptions of beauty can be demonstrated through the treatment of the trumpet choruses. In 1988 (CD 1: 56), they never sound harsh or strident; in their soft dynamics and rounded sonority, the trumpets are reminiscent of cornetti. They rarely dominate the texture; instead, they sound “on a par” with other obbligato instruments – a clearly audible effect when they play together, or in close conjunction, with the oboes (e.g., Et in terra, bars 60-62). The same effect appears in 1996 (CD 1: 7-8), but not as consistently as in 1988. There is a stark contrast, for example, between the two renditions of the Gloria. The tempi are virtually identical, but the 1996 reading sounds more energetic: articulation is more incisive, trumpets and drums are more prominent and more sharply etched, and choral dynamics are shaped with a greater sense of purpose (although textural clarity is superior in the 1988 version). In the Et in terra, these differences are even more pronounced. The 1996 reading is noticeably faster than in 1988 (although also more continuous with the Gloria) and more actively shaped. Neither reading attempts an overall shaping of the movement – for example, by making a clear distinction in character between the two fugal expositions, or attempting to link them through a crescendo in bars 40-46 (compare with Jeffrey Thomas, p. 155f below). The 1996 reading, however, features more local crescendi and diminuendi, especially on the fugal subject, as well a continuous build-up towards the end of the movement (bars 65-76). The trumpets, which through most of the 1996 Et in terra are almost as ethereal as their 1988 counterparts, emerge at the end of this crescendo with a fanfare-like, strident sound. The two readings of the Sanctus are similarly contrasted. The 1988 reading (CD 1: 23) is flowing and peaceful, with soft sonority from all concerned and no staccati. There is some local directionality – but it usually carried by one voice (or one group of parallel lines) at a time. The transition to pleni sunt coeli is smooth, and that section has a similar character. The 1996 reading (CD 1: 24) projects a greater sense of momentum. The tempo is faster; the trumpets sharper, and there are several crescendi leading towards their entry (e.g., bars 9-11, 17-19, 39-40 and simile). In imitative passages (e.g., bars 25-27, 30-35), Herreweghe shapes each voice (or group of parallel voices) with its own local directional pattern, emphasising the presence of several independently-progressing, non-coordinated lines. Since the dynamic range is narrow and there are no sharp - 116 accents, the lines do not clash; but there is a clear sense of dialogue. The contrast between Sanctus and pleni sunt coeli is also more notable in the later reading; the latter (as well as the following Osanna) is sharply etched, by Herreweghe’s standards. Similar tendencies can be noted in the solo items. There is not a single soloist common to both recordings, so the different personalities involved could well have affected the results. Nonetheless, in each performance the differences between the soloists’ approaches resemble the differences in Herreweghe’s shaping of the orchestral parts, and can be sensed from the orchestral ritornelli (which, however, might have been influenced, especially in 1996, by the players’ familiarity with the singers’ interpretation). The differences can be vividly illustrated through a comparison of the two alto arias, sung by Charles Brett in 1988 and by Andreas Scholl in 1996. In the Agnus dei, there is an unusually large tempo gap between the two performances. The articulation is largely similar in both cases; but the dynamic range is wider in 1996, with constant manipulation creating a more purposeful, directional impression in the later reading despite its slower tempo. In this case, the difference can be attributed to the different singers: Herreweghe shapes the ritornelli more actively in 1996, but in both performances the orchestra’s dynamic range is narrower in the vocal passages, receding into the background (more notably in 1996 than in 1988) and leaving the singer almost solely responsible for shaping his sections. Here, the contrast between Brett and Scholl is greater than the contrast between their respective accompanists. Scholl’s two most dramatic moves – a frustrated build-up towards bar 31 (the expectation for a peak at 31 replaced by a gap and a subito piano, followed by a further diminuendo), and a crescendo towards an actual dynamic peak at bars 40-41 – take place against a relatively neutral orchestral background. Herreweghe’s most distinct dynamic arch, on the other hand, is on the final ritornello – which by then feels almost like a response to Scholl. In the Qui sedes, however, the orchestra is at least as active as the singer. The tempi are closer, but the sense of momentum is much more palpable in the later reading. In both readings, Herreweghe follows the NBA articulation, and accentuates the strings’ staccato downbeats. His dynamic range in 1988 (CD 1: 21) is extremely narrow; he seems to take no heed of the piano/pianissimo distinction in his score. The only notable tempo modification is at the notated adagio in bars 73-74. - 117 In 1996 (CD 1: 22), the same articulatory patterns are more powerfully projected, with shorter staccati and a more intense sonority (and some dynamic swells – e.g. on the syncopation in bar 3) making the contrast between staccato and legato more palpable. The dynamic range, too, is wider, with small crescendi and diminuendi highlighting individual motifs. There is a marked change of tempo at 68, and a further ritardando, more marked than before, at the notated adagio. In the beginning of the movement, the strings seem more active and varied than the two soloists (Scholl, and the oboist Marcel Ponseele). This changes in bar 51, when Scholl introduces an echo effect, and in the subsequent ritornello, where the oboe becomes more prominent; and the change of pace, particularly in bars 73-74, seems dominated by Scholl – though this might be inevitable (the vocal part contains the smallest rhythmic units, giving the singer greater control over micro-timing). The Qui sedes is something of an exception in Herreweghe’s performance, its intermittently harsh articulation matched only in the Crucifixus (see p. 238 below). It should be noted, however, that the 1988 recording contains no such exceptions. The presence of isolated incisive movements in an otherwise rounder performance complements that performance’s wider dynamic range and more purposeful approach. 4.4. Summary Musical rhetoric was cultivated as a historically viable way of projecting performative expression in Bach’s music. In its least contentious manifestation, rhetoric-as-speech, it suggested that detailed articulation can replace or complement dynamics in creating flexible, expressive performances. Rhetoric-as-semantics, however, proved more controversial. The attempt to forge a performance style based on a +/+ realisation of Affektenlehre theories is one of the most obvious examples of Idea-Oriented HIP ideology; but arguably, the ideas it purports to revive are not entirely historical. This is another case where the “romantic” label is neither entirely accurate nor wholly inappropriate. Both Harnoncourt and Herreweghe have come closer, as their styles have evolved, to satisfying all three criteria for romanticism, at least in comparison to their former selves. - 118 Harnoncourt is not entirely averse to the romantic label. His official biographer speaks of his transformation from purist to romanticist (Mertl 1999: 130-131, 207208), suggesting that this process gradually revealed his true character. This transition is vividly illustrated in the comparison between his two readings of the Mass. The 1986 recording, with its strongly projected gestures and clear adherence to +/+ ideology, clearly fulfils the second and third criteria for “romanticism”. Harnoncourt is also accused sometimes of “anachronism”, both for his reliance on Affektenlehre and for more “technical” reasons (e.g., the use of a mixed chorus, traditionally-trained soloists and slow tempi). On this latter front, however, Harnoncourt clearly realises his own aim – a creative use of lessons derived from history. Many would perceive his frequent use of legato as one of his most “romantic” features. In my view, however, Harnoncourt’s use of legato is highly unorthodox. It is part of his general tendency to generate subtle discomfort through techniques usually associated with comfortable luxuriance, and to reveal potential conflicts and contradictions in what is often seen as the emblem of Order in Bach – his polyphonic textures. Whether this represents a revolt against romantic performance practices is a moot point; but it is certainly a revolt against the ideals “classical” and “romantic” modernism alike. Harnoncourt promotes a distinctly knife-edge-balance image of Bach’s music, thereby ascribing his “subversive” tendencies to the composer himself. Herreweghe’s development has not been as dramatic as Harnoncourt’s. In some ways, he has become increasingly “rhetorical”, drawing more attention to inner tensions, to contrasts between and within movements. However, he retains his ideals of vocal-led lyricism and interpretive restraint. His Bach image likewise stays within the balance-as-equilibrium paradigm. He remains far removed from the strongly disruptive, interventionist style of Harnoncourt. Herreweghe observed that some listeners describe his newer style as “romantic” (2001: 47); even his earlier recordings have sometimes been described as achieving a middle ground between “romantic” and “modern/HIP” approaches (see quotes in Sherman 1997: 280, 292-293). The impression of romanticism is strengthened by the fact that, in seeking to inject more vitality and drama into his style, Herreweghe often abandons techniques inspired by rhetoric-as-speech in favour of expression-throughdynamics and increasing use of legato. Herreweghe has also become a more - 119 interventionist conductor, at least in comparison to his earlier self. However, he still avoids the strongly architectural-organic approach of “romanticists” like Jochum, or “neo-romanticists” like Hengelbrock (see pp. 157ff below). The romantic label is therefore problematic. Herreweghe’s development, so far, consists of a modification of his style, not a radical transition like that evident in Harnoncourt’s and Rilling’s recordings. His pursuit of more strongly projected interpretations did not lead him to abandon his earlier ideals of beautiful sonority, clear textures and rounded phrasing. The differences between him and his mentor Leonhardt are already clear in the early recordings, but they become more pronounced as his career proceeds. It is even more difficult than usual to place a line of demarcation – the time span is relatively short, the changes subtle. Some of the elements I noted here – e.g., rarer yet sharper accents – are also present in relatively early recordings, e.g., BWV 82/1, recorded in 1991 (see Golomb 2001). Both Harnoncourt and Herreweghe, however, reveal that certain types of HIPinspired styles have increased the range of performative-expressive options available for Bach performance. Even Herreweghe, while seemingly reverting to “mainstream” techniques, retains some features inspired by rhetoric-as-speech and uses them to highlight expressive moments. In different ways, both directors realise a less monumental, more “humanised” view of Bach. Herreweghe projects the music with more immediately-appealing lyricism, removing the forbidding aspects of the Überpersönlich image. Harnoncourt realises in sound the notion that the music does not represent divine perfection, that its “special affect” arises “not so much from synthesis but rather from creative solecisms and improprieties”, that its constituent elements are sometimes “in conflict with one another” (Dreyfus 1997: 190-191). 5. Bach as Musician: Joshua Rifkin, Andrew Parrott and Ton Koopman The standard justification for so-called “mainstream” Bach performance can be encapsulated in the following statements from Helmuth Rilling: • The goal should not be to make us hear differently, but rather, to make us learn to understand better (Rilling 1985: 11) • I attempt to make emotionally relevant and timely what I, through analysis and reflection, believe Bach wished to communicate (ibid: 15) The latter point is also applicable to the views of the “rhetorical” performers. Here I propose to discuss performers who represent a more material-oriented (MO) approach to HIP. In terms of their background, the three musicians I grouped for this chapter are quite disparate. However, they share a belief in the viability of genuine historical verisimilitude in performance, and its essential value for understanding the music – rejecting Rilling’s axiomatic distinction between “hearing” and “understanding”. In their view, “analysis and reflection”, unsupported by a systematic engagement with the composer’s sound-world, is inadequate for understanding the music’s message. They also share a similar image of Bach and his music, focusing on the Musician, rather than the Theologian or the Rhetorician. 5.1. Premises The American pianist, conductor and musicologist Joshua Rifkin seems an ideal candidate for illustrating Richard Taruskin’s “authenticism-as-modernism” hypothesis: a former student of Karlheinz Stockhausen in Darmstadt, who turned to HIP Baroque performance after being disillusioned with the avant-garde school (Butt 2002a: 183, 239n; Hitron 2002). As conductor, he covers a varied repertoire, from the Renaissance to the 20th century.1 Andrew Parrott covers a similarly wide repertoire, though his discography primarily represents his work on Renaissance and Baroque vocal music. He can be considered as part of the British HIP tradition, alongside choral conductors like Harry 1 As a pianist, Rifkin is most renowned for his performances of ragtime piano music. Whether this bolsters the authenticist-as-modernist image is a moot point. - 120 - - 121 Christophers and John Eliot Gardiner. Parrott’s scholarly convictions, however, have led him to employ soloistic rather than choral forces in many of his performances. If Rifkin seems an ideal illustration for Taruskin’s thesis, Ton Koopman represents almost the opposite extreme: a musician who, in his words, “always composed in 17th or 18th century style”, gave up composition studies because his teachers tried to force him into avant-garde styles which never interested him, and now engages his compositional faculties in Baroque composition and improvisation (e.g., in reconstructing Bach’s lost or incomplete compositions; Koopman 2003: 48). He studied harpsichord and organ with Gustav Leonhardt, and collaborated with him and with several of his students and colleagues. It might therefore have seemed more appropriate, at first glance, to place him in the previous chapter. However, as will be noted below, his attitude towards musical rhetoric is quite sceptical. 5.1.1. Bach image: Against the Fifth Evangelist Central to Rifkin’s, Parrott’s and Koopman’s MO-approach is the notion that Bach himself was primarily a musician.2 Their Bach image is reminiscent of the view suggested in Friedrich Blume’s “Outlines of a New Picture of Bach” (1963),3 and developed by subsequent writers like Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht (2001: 76-96, 179193 and passim), John Butt (1997b, 1997c; see esp. 1997b: 52), and others. These scholars stress the essential commonality of Bach’s musical style: where earlier writers downplayed the importance of Bach’s secular and instrumental music, they consider them as central to Bach’s oeuvre as his church compositions. They reject the idea that Bach depended on religious inspiration for his most profound musical creations, and that erudite theology was a key element in his compositional process, and should thus be the starting point for modern-day interpretations. All three musicians discussed in this chapter affirm that Bach took his texts – be they sacred or secular – seriously, and sought to convey their message to his audience (cf. Rifkin 1987, 1989a, 1989b, 1991; Koopman 1997a, 2003: 46; Parrott, quoted on 2 Blume (1963: 216) seeks to restore Forkel’s image of Bach as “[a]bove all, and first and foremost, [...] a musician”. Compare with Robin Leaver’s statements that “Bach cannot simply be dismissed as a mere musician without theological competence” (2000: 32), and that “to suggest that [Bach] was only a musician and ‘not a theologian’ is [...] seriously misleading” (ibid: 33). See also Leaver and Marissen in Watkins 2000. 3 Blume (1963: 214) mentions “one isolated attempt at a fundamental revision of the prevailing picture of Bach” prior to his own; this is probably a reference to Knepler 1951. - 122 p. 126 below; see also Butt 1998). However, their emphasis is on Bach’s application of comprehensible word-painting, and on his intensification of the texts’ emotional and expressive impact. Issues related to “symbols of ideas” – such as number symbolism, Figurenlehre codification of abstract ideas, or erudite theology – are either dismissed as irrelevant or ignored. They also do not deny Bach’s private religious convictions, or the institutional and ceremonial context for which his church music was written. Indeed, Rifkin and Parrott reveal a keen interest in how Bach’s music functioned within Lutheran liturgy: this plays an important part in their arguments in support of the OVPP [One-VoicePer-Part] hypothesis. Their emphasis, however, is on the impact of liturgical considerations on Bach’s performance practice. This debate has direct implications for the interpretation of specific works, in theory and in practice alike. As noted earlier, (p. 53 above), writers and performers committed to the Bach-as-Lutheran image tend to downplay secular influences in Bach’s music. Koopman (2003: 43-44) claims such a “puritan”, “fundamentalist” approach is musically damaging, causing performers to show undue restraint and uniformity in the application of articulation, dynamics and ornamentation. It is also wrong-headed: it posits a separation of “sacred” and “secular” idioms which is foreign to Bach’s musical culture. Bach’s own style remained essentially the same, whether he was writing for a church or a coffee-house. His use of dance- or opera-inspired idioms in his church music did not contradict his commitment – as a “normal believer” – to the church, and was hardly unusual at the time. Koopman’s design for his cantata cycle reflects his beliefs: his was the first complete cycle to include the secular cantatas. Rifkin’s and Parrott’s relatively small discographies focus primarily on sacred music. 4 Their stance is, nonetheless, similar to Koopman’s, and this is reflected in their performance style. Whereas the “Lutheran” image has often been associated with the “sublime-mechanical” style, the performances of Koopman, Parrott and Rifkin could sound (at least to some critics) as confirmation of HIP’s avoidance of the profound and sublime (Taruskin 1995: 167). These conductors generally prefer lighter textures, faster tempi, and incisive articulation (the latter being more true of Parrott and Koopman than of Rifkin). On the 4 Of the secular cantatas, Rifkin only recorded three solo soprano works (BWV 202, 209, 210); Parrott recorded BWV 202, as well the Trauer-Ode, BWV 198. The latter work is included in all cycles of sacred cantatas; Koopman, however, featured it on one of the volumes dedicated to the secular cantatas. - 123 other hand, they avoid the detailed, fluctuating articulation associated with rhetorical performance. This is linked to their view that Bach was a musician seeking to convey his message directly to a non-expert audience, not an erudite theologian or rhetorician writing in arcane codes for fellow-scholars. His musical message can therefore come across without resorting to detailed theoretical exegeses, or to a performance style that drives the points home forcefully or pedantically. The only requirements are a subtly underlined, sonically-authentic performance style from the musicians, and an openminded, attentive approach from the listeners. 5.1.2. Performer’s image: The Material-Oriented approach In the context of early music, the meaning of the word ‘authenticity’ is clear: the performance of music on period instruments, using rules of performance practice from the same period, according to the ideas developed at that time as skilfully and as accurately as possible – stepping into the shoes of someone from that period. (Koopman 1987: 2) 5.1.2.1. The performer’s role In the beginning of chapter 4, I noted the common construal of HIP as a Material-Oriented performance ideology, focusing on philology, instrumentation and technique to the exclusion of semantics and affect. This assumption is evident not only in critiques of HIP (e.g., Dipert 1980: 206-207; Temperley 1984: 18; Rosen 1990: 46; Kivy 1995), but also in defences of it. Stephen Davies, for example, cites Koopman’s statement above as a clear-cut definition of “authenticity”, using it as a counter-argument to claims about the term’s ambiguity (2001: 207n, 241-242). Where Dipert (1980) criticised HIP for focusing on sound to the exclusion of experience or effect, Davies (2001: 231-233) responds that the listener’s experience is indeed irrelevant to defining and achieving authentic performance. 5 Such analyses are not so much mistaken as incomplete: while they purport to discuss HIP ideology tout court, they actually respond only to a particular set of HIP ideologies. Even an MO-approach does not inevitably entail an appeal to means to the exclusion of ends. It is interesting to contrast Taruskin’s “content is a function of form” (see p. 84 above) with Peter Walls’s statement (2002: 31) that “getting as near 5 For a critique of the empirical validity of Dipert’s analysis, see Butt 2002a: 87-89 - 124 as we can – literally – to the intended sound world of works from the past is part and parcel of engaging with their essence”. In other words, music’s content and effect can be revealed – at least in part – through the examination of form and sound. MO-ideology, then, does not necessarily deny the importance of understanding the music’s meaning, or achieving its intended effect. Rather, it argues that expressive ends cannot be revealed through analysis or hermeneutics alone, without reference to performative means (see also Walls 2002: 32). If the reconstruction of original practices is essential for an understanding of the music’s meaning, then it should be achieved with as few compromises as possible. MO-HIP musicians usually belong to what Bernard Sherman, in his classification of HIP ideologies (1997: 391-393), called “Type One” artists, who “adhere firmly to the ideal of trying to play music as it was played in its own time”. Conversely, IO-HIP musicians are more willing to posit a separation between sound and content, and consider the latter paramount. Therefore, they can often be found among Sherman’s Type Two musicians, who “flout history openly when they prefer something else”.6 Obviously, the distinction between the “technical” and the “aesthetic” is not hard-and-fast.7 IO-ideology, however, focuses on issues that might not have immediate performative implications; it extrapolates performance directives from them, or uses them as the prism through which to examine performance-related material. MO-methodology starts from performance-relevant material, and works outwards from there. To the extent that it examines general aesthetic issues, it does so through the prism of the practicalities of performance. The difference can be clarified by examining the reactions of Rifkin, Parrott and Koopman to rhetoric-as-semantics. Rifkin has always been sceptical of this theory and its implications (see p. 138 below). While conceding that performers should be aware of gestural elements in the music, he insists that they should not make a conscious effort to project them in performance (in Sherman 1997: 386-388). 6 Sherman’s Type Three performers, who question Werktreue on historical grounds, are less relevant to this particular project (see pp. 24f above). For further discussion of Sherman’s categories, see Butt 2002a: 47-48. 7 For example, Leonhardt’s rhetoric-as-speech approach focuses on issues of performance practice (especially articulation); it seems arbitrary to describe it definitively as IO rather than MO. His own lecture on the Matthäus-Passion (Leonhardt 1999) focuses on MO considerations; when considering broader aesthetic issues, he does not seek their performative implications. - 125 Koopman (2003: 44-45) and Parrott express similar views. While finding it useful to point out rhetorical devices to fellow-musicians, Parrott does not extrapolate explicit performance directives from them: When singers already have a good understanding of the underlying intention of a musical phrase, or if I am able to help them towards such an understanding by drawing attention to ideas that inform a particular compositional choice, performance is almost inevitably affected. I don’t necessarily know how this understanding might manifest itself, nor is there any simple prescription for translating it into practice. To take a very simple example, it might be sufficient merely to point out that a phrase rises (or falls) to match a textual ascent to heaven (or descent to earth). If an idea of this sort then becomes clearer in a singer’s mind, its delivery is likely to become a little clearer, more apparent, too. This, in turn, helps the listener – consciously or subconsciously – to perceive both textual and musical meaning. (Parrott, in interview with the author, February 2002) Here, my formal matrix for expression/performance relationships is severely tested. Rifkin, Parrott and Koopman reject +/- philosophy, which discourages performers from drawing attention to what the music is doing. Their own version of x/x is, however, quite restrained. Rifkin, in particular, is ambivalent about the very concept of interpretation (see p. 138 below). These performers’ attitude towards rhetoric-as-semantics, then, ranges from the sceptical to the derisive. They are much more positive about the prospects for gaining insight into the music’s expressive devices by engaging directly with technical issues. Koopman, for example, claims that his attempt to find the correct pitch settings for Bach’s early cantatas (Koopman 1996: 610; 1997) resulted in a new understanding of Bach’s aesthetic development. He claims that woodwind parts in early cantatas, often thought to have been composed in “closed” keys to create a strained sonority, were actually written in more comfortable, “open” keys. In later works, Bach [...] started to use the sound of closed keys as an expressive – you could perhaps say “rhetorical” – device. [...] if you hear a sense of strain and suffering in the sound of the oboes, that’s how it is meant to sound. But in the early works this element was not in his mind yet. He just composed the most beautiful music, full of sadness. (Koopman, in interview with the author, December 2002; cf. Kivy 1995: 52) Koopman stresses that his aim was to solve practical problems of performance practice; his conclusions on Bach’s aesthetic development were a by-product of this process. Nonetheless, he could not have made these discoveries had he not taken the - 126 trouble “to use the instruments appropriate for the work, and examine the original sources” (ibid). 5.1.2.2. The listener’s role Arguments like those described above assume that performers could rely on “a consistency of listenership, that an ideal human subject will somehow respond identically [or at least similarly] to the same sensual stimuli regardless of age, period or social background” (Butt 2002a: 54; see also Sherman 1997: 88-95; Burstyn 1997: 693-695; Leech-Wilkinson 2002: 209-214). Peter Kivy (1995: 48-53, 197-199) claims such views suffer from a fatal weakness. They conflate “sonic authenticity” (reconstructing historical sonorities) with “sensible authenticity” (recreating the perceived effect of those sonorities upon contemporaneous listeners). In Kivy’s view, the two are not necessarily co-extensive; and “sensible authenticity” is neither feasible nor desirable (ibid: 244-248). MO-musicians claim, however, that modern listeners can learn to appreciate certain aspects of the original audience’s experience, and this can enrich and deepen their understanding of the music. An approximation of “sonic authenticity” is essential for achieving this type of “historical listening”. Kivy counters that Bach’s own contemporaries listened a-historically, adding provocatively that the best way to recapture their a-historical experience is by listening to “mainstream” performers, whose tendency to treat all music in the same style reflects the way most people listened to music before the advent of historical performances (ibid: 70).8 The performers I discuss here have no problem admitting that historical listening is, to some extent, a new phenomenon; this, however, does not diminish its value for present-day listeners (see also ibid: 71-77). For Parrott, historical listening is essential for a serious engagement with Bach’s music today: Some might say: “We live in the 21st century and in a secular society – what does this text about guilt, judgement and divine love have to do with our own experience? If we are to perform this music, we must above all ensure that it appeals to today’s audiences. Its liturgical roots no longer have any real relevance and the work deserves better than to be ‘bound’ to the circumstances of its time, to the ‘inadequate’ performing forces and conventions which gave 8 This claim is not self-evidently true. Bach’s cantatas, for example, were originally performed alongside older music; members of Bach’s congregation might have recognised his references to older traditions (Lutheran chorales, stile antico) more easily than modern listeners could. Parrott (2000: 2125, 32-33, 132-133, 143-144) points out that the older and newer repertoires would not have been performed by the same forces, implying some degree of stylistic difference. - 127 birth to it. So let’s liberate it, make it accessible to larger audiences, in large halls and with familiar, large forces. Let’s emphasise the music’s grandeur, excitement and sheer sonic beauty – but preferably not its text, lest we alienate or discomfort anyone (especially in our multi-cultural society) with the outmoded, irrelevant and often unpalatable ideas it may contain”. If we are open and honest about this approach, there can be no real objection. But I do not subscribe to the view that we get any closer to Bach’s music through mere acceptance of current conventions. Taking the easy route usually just confirms what we already know about ourselves. I absolutely reject – as a self-fulfilling prophecy – the idea that ‘modern ears’ (whose?) necessarily listen in a single, fixed way that differs fundamentally from that of our 18th-century forbears (Bach himself? or his least sophisticated parishioner?). No two people listen identically, and each of us can in any case learn to listen in different ways – which is just what I aspire to encourage both listeners and performers to do. Rather than protecting ourselves from a ‘difficult’ text, we may instead begin to grasp its possible meanings, resonances and associations – which in turn will illuminate our appreciation of its musical setting. Similarly, by opening ourselves up to new (old) styles of playing and singing, to unfamiliar tunings, pitch-levels, tempi, articulations, forces, sonorities, embellishment and so on, we may discover hidden musical worlds that can speak to us every bit as directly as more recent ones. We may still not end up listening ‘as Bach’s congregation did’ (whatever that may mean) but – through a little effort on our part – we may perhaps acquire at least a little of the general understanding that Bach could have expected from his listeners. (Parrott, in interview with the author, February 2002) Historical listening therefore demands an imaginative effort, alertness and a refusal to take received wisdom for granted. Koopman (2003: 49-50) speaks expansively about the possibility of helping the audience by other means of communication, such as articles, video documentaries (e.g., Koopman 1997a) and preconcert talks. He finds this possibility more appropriate than fitting the performance itself to modern prejudices. In a sense, these musicians share with Rilling the notion of a single listenership. But, whereas Rilling’s starting-point is an existing modern listener whom the performer should accommodate, the MO-HIP view posits an ideal listenership that should be striven for. The modern listener is seen as flexible and open enough to be guided in the right direction. 5.1.2.3. The ideal of perpetual revolution If Type One, MO-HIP musicians are suspicious of the audience’s “laziness”, they are even harsher when they perceive a similarly “complacent, over-cautious or unimaginative” attitude among fellow-musicians (Parrott, in Sherman 1997: 392). Thus, Koopman laments younger colleagues’ “dangerous” tendency to rely on their - 128 predecessors’ and teachers’ discoveries, instead of doing their own research and correcting their teachers’ mistakes, if necessary (2003: 48). Rifkin treats the opposite phenomenon – established musicians getting stuck in ruts – in even starker terms: If Early Music has any meaning, then its meaning is perpetual revolution. In this post-modern era, we are tired of perpetual revolution; the last century gave us enough examples of where revolution gets you, and this makes us more sceptical. Nevertheless, this is one of the things that really has to be the motor of the exercise if the exercise is to have any meaning. (Rifkin, in interview with the author, November 2002) This strong stance is consistent with the high stakes all three attribute to performance practice (see also Parrott, in Sherman 1997: 391-392): if the reconstruction of historical practices is essential for gaining insight into the music’s nature, ontology and meaning, then a constant quest for historical truth is indispensable. This shared belief is also at the heart of the recent debate between Koopman on the one hand and Rifkin and Parrott on the other, on the constitution of Bach’s vocal forces. 5.1.3. The Bach Choir debate: Some comments 5.1.3.1. A brief historical survey The issue of the size and constitution of Bach’s vocal forces has been debated at least since the publication of “Die Besetzung Bachscher Chöre” (Schering 1920), though the alternation between concertists and ripienists in some of Bach’s cantatas was already noted by the Bachgesellschaft editor Wilhelm Rust (Stauffer 1997b: 214). Schering pointed to the commonplace 17th- and 18th- century division between “concertists” (who took part in choruses and solo numbers alike) and “ripienists” (who doubled the concertists in choruses). On the basis of an examination of Bach’s vocal parts, he concluded that Bach’s concertists performed some choral passages on their own. His research was continued in the 1950s and 1960s by the conductor and scholar Wilhelm Ehmann, who might have been the first to demonstrate this theory in practice, in his recordings of several Bach cantatas. Although he made no recording of the Mass, he focused on it in his main article on the subject (Ehmann 1961), which Robert Shaw drew on in his second and third recordings of the work. Schering (1920: 77-78) and Ehmann advocated an alternation between soloists and chorus within a movement; Ehmann also believed that some choruses could be sung by soloists throughout. No scholar or performer at the time, however, suggested - 129 that entire works might have been performed by concertists alone. Even Ehmann’s ideas were ignored by the HIP movement,9 which continued to promote the chamber choir as the ideal medium for Bach’s concerted vocal music. Ehmann’s and Shaw’s recordings did, however, affect Rifkin’s own views on these matters: In my early teens, when I first heard the sound of the lightly scored sections with single voices, I said: this is just so much more beautiful [cf. Rifkin 2002: 40]. And from then on I missed that sound in choral performances. At the same time, there was a larger question that anyone conducting Bach’s choral music had to grapple with: what is choral and what is solo? [...] there are many movements and passages where nobody was ever sure whether something should be sung by a chorus or by a single voice: solo chorales, trios, quartet sections, and so forth. [...] I needed to solve these difficult questions for my own performances [...] I knew Schering’s and Ehmann’s theses could not quite be defended, but I also knew that there was a kernel of truth there. [...] I experimented with this kind of combination pretty early on, having passages sung by soloists and so forth, because intuitively I felt it sounded so much better. (Rifkin, in interview with the author, November 2002) Parrott conducted similar experiments in the 1970s; in his 1977 live performance of the Mass, he implemented many of Ehmann’s scoring suggestions. Rifkin was the first scholar to argue that Bach’s vocal forces often consisted of un-doubled concertists. In his view, concertists were the only indispensable component in a 17th- and 18th-century chorus. He re-iterated Schering’s and Ehmann’s observation that ripienists usually joined only in specific passages, not entire movements. This, however, made it difficult to accept another of their key assumptions: that ripienists could read from concertists’ parts (which contained no indications to ripienists when to join in). Instead, ripienists had to read from separate parts. Since Bach rarely wrote ripieno parts, or supplied instructions on how to prepare them, Rifkin concluded that he rarely used ripienists. Rifkin first presented his findings at the annual meeting of the American Musicological Society (Boston, 1981; eventually published as Rifkin 2000). He was initially greeted with scepticism and hostility (see his own description in Baumgartner 2002: 46), though Andrew Parrott was convinced by his thesis at an early stage. The 9 One possible explanation for the neglect of Ehmann’s ideas is that he did not use period instruments, and consequently was seen as an outsider to the movement. Another is that his suggestions ran counter to a prevailing tendency towards literalism (see also Rifkin 2002: 39, quoted on p. 23 above). Nikolaus Harnoncourt (1968) claims to have taken Ehmann’s recommendations to heart in his B minor Mass, but he missed (or wilfully ignored) Ehmann’s crucial point – that ripienists could be dispensed with entirely in some contexts. - 130 controversy still continues. Although I have not studied enough of the original sources to form a definitive opinion, I am increasingly convinced by the solidity of Rifkin’s case. My readings suggest that most published “refutations” (e.g., Marshall 1983; Stauffer 1993, 1995; Smithers 1997; Wolff 1985: 26-27, 1998b, 1999c; Koopman 1998) missed several key points in Rifkin’s and Parrott’s arguments (see especially Parrott 2000: 143), while repeatedly refuting claims they never made. In the 1980s, Parrott and Rifkin were virtually the only musicians actively engaged in one-per-part renditions of Bach’s vocal music. They always enjoyed some favourable reception (Rifkin’s Mass won a 1982 Gramophone award); in an interview with the author (November 2002), Rifkin said that he encountered more opposition among Early Music performers and aficionados than among non-specialist listeners. A gradual change began in the 1990s. Jeffrey Thomas’s American Bach Soloists and the Ricercar Consort used soloistic forces in Bach’s Mühlhausen and Weimar cantatas, while retaining a standard chamber choir in Leipzig works (see also p. 153 below). Other musicians began applying OVPP forces more consistently;10 these include Konrad Junghänel (Cantus Cölln), 11 Paul McCreesh (Gabrieli Consort) and Sigiswald Kuijken (La Petite Bande).12 The Canadian record label ATMA recently announced a new cycle of the complete cantatas, to be performed by Montreal Baroque under the direction of Eric Milnes, which would adopt OVPP scoring. Other performers acknowledge the validity of Rifkin’s historical argument, yet continue to employ standard forces.13 John Butt (1998: 100; 1999a: 191) attributes this development to the emergence of a flexible approach (Sherman’s Type Two) among HIP-musicians and scholars. Rifkin and Parrott themselves, however, adhere to a stricter, “Type One” ethics, as does Koopman. For all three, a choral performance 10 Several ensembles (for example, the Purcell Quartet, the Aradia ensemble and Cantus Cölln) went further than Rifkin’s evidence suggested, applying one-per-part scoring to instruments as well. 11 Junghänel and his ensemble recently issued a recording of the Mass; although I have heard this recording (and reviewed it for a forthcoming issue of Goldberg), it arrived too late for me to give it to the consideration it deserves. See, however, p. 136n below. 12 The Mexican company Urtext Records has recently issued a one-CD selection from a live concert performance of the Mass by La Petite Bande under Kuijken’s direction (catalogue number 68510050). The vocal ensemble in this performance apparently consisted of eight concertists (for more details, see http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232-Kuijken.htm). Unfortunately, I have not been able to consult this recording. 13 One notable example is Roger Norrington (in program notes to his 2000 and 2002 performances of the B minor Mass). Herreweghe’s position is ambivalent (compare his statements in Sherman 1997: 283; Herreweghe 2001: 48; Baumgartner 2002: 47). - 131 of Bach’s vocal music can only be called “historically informed” if Rifkin’s thesis is wrong. Koopman is virtually the only musician who produced a detailed argument supporting the chamber choir as a historically appropriate medium for Bach’s music. The three musicians’ dispute therefore demonstrates that they are divided by a common ideology. Many scholars and performers are still strongly committed, both to Type One MO-ideology and to the standard chamber choir. Their hostility towards Rifkin’s thesis – which says that they cannot have both – is hardly surprising (see also Walls 2003: 46-47). 5.1.3.2. Bach’s intention Both Rifkin and Parrott insist that their main reason for adopting the “single concertists and (at most) single ripienists” model is that this is what Bach had in mind. Their writings consist almost entirely of historical arguments. Parrott explicitly stated that he would revert to the standard choral performance if “serious scholarship” persuaded him that his and Rifkin’s theses are wrong (1998: 649); Rifkin (in an interview with the author, November 2002) even implied that, if OVPP were proved historically wrong, he might stop performing Bach altogether. Koopman, for his part, seeks to persuade his readers that Bach both wanted and obtained the kind of forces he (Koopman) uses. Some scholars and musicians accept (or tacitly acknowledge) Rifkin’s conclusions about Bach’s practices, but argue that Bach only used such small forces reluctantly (Gardiner, in M. Oliver 1989: 642; Brüggen, in S. Johnson 1990: 1452; Taruskin 1995: 45). Parrott and Rifkin, however, claim that there is no real evidence for the alleged disparity between Bach’s ideals and his practices on this matter. Rifkin even proposes circumstantial evidence suggesting that Bach might sometimes have had more musicians than he cared for (Rifkin 1996: 594, 2002: 30-38; Parrott 2000: 101-115; cf. Gardiner 1989: 31; Koopman 1998: 118; Wolff 1998b: 540).14 It should be noted that all three performers claim to be realising their own ideal as well as Bach’s. Koopman speaks of “a minimum under which I do not want to 14 Part of the debate focuses on whether Bach could call upon musicians from outside the church (primarily university students) to perform his music, and what function they would have served. For a recent examination of this question – which explicitly raises more questions than answers – see Martin Geck 2003. - 132 work” (1996: 614; see also Parrott 1997: 299); Rifkin and Parrott provide aesthetic as well as historical arguments to support their position. 5.1.3.3. Greatness, monumentality and the congregational element If the concept of musical greatness is employed to characterize, not merely to celebrate, then two ideas are connected with it: the idea of monumentality and the idea of difficulty, of not immediate accessibility. Pairing of these aspects is precarious: an incomparable example of success in doing so is the opening chorus of Bach’s St Matthew Passion (Dahlhaus 1982: 90) This distinctly “sublime” view of musical greatness probably accounts for much of the hostility towards chamber-scale performances of Bach’s music (Parrott 2000: 143). It unwittingly implies that “great chamber music” is a contradiction in terms, a sacrifice many will not be willing to make (cf. Dahlhaus 1989: 17). Parrott’s likening of Bach’s concerted music to string quartets (2000: 147-148) is designed to drive this point home: reducing the music’s physical scale does not necessarily render it lightweight. Chamber music, however, is “private”, whereas Bach’s church music is often perceived as essentially congregational:15 even if it was performed without congregational participation, it still transcends individualism through its choral sonority.16 This has been cited as an argument against OVPP (Herreweghe, in Sherman 1997: 283; cf. Van Tassel 2000: 36). According to Rifkin and Parrott, this is not what Bach had in mind; his music embodies the interplay of individuals, not the joint power of anonymous masses (Butt, in Boyd 1999: 99; Parrott 2000: 151; Rifkin 2002: 34, 40-41; McCreesh 2002). This position does not deny that Bach’s music served a public role, but it precludes any 15 For some formulations of this stance, see the 1909 Dessau declaration of the “deutschen evangelischen Kirchengesangvereinstag” (cited in Hiemke 2000: 69); Köberle 1936: 16; Besch 1938: 257, 262-263; Schrade 1955: 36-37. 16 This partly accounts for the common tendency to perform chorale melodies – even when allocated to just one voice – with full sections. Herreweghe’s and Koopman’s practices in this regard resemble Richter’s and Rilling’s (among others), though the tendency to treat chorale melodies with particular rigidity is more specific to Richter (cf. p. 61 above). - 133 notion that it was intended for public participation, or was even meant to symbolise it.17 Another version of the “congregational” approach is promoted by amateur choral societies, who played an important role in the 19th-century Bach Renaissance. Rifkin’s and Parrott’s case relies partly on Bach’s insistence that only the best singers are suitable for his music. The obvious implication – “that these great works should never be sung by amateurs” (A. Oliver 2000) – could be perceived as a challenge to the choral society tradition. However, Rifkin (in interview with the author, November 2002) says that he has found more openness to his ideas among “conductors of old-fashioned choirs” than among early music experts. He himself has more respect for this tradition than for the standard “HIP” approach – not least because choral societies harbour no pretences to realise Bach’s wishes and practices. He has even partaken in this tradition himself, conducting the Elgar-Atkins version of the St. Matthew Passion at the 1996 Three Choirs Festival (Rifkin 2002: 40). 5.1.3.4. Bach’s place in history Rifkin’s version of the Mass is sometimes referred as “The B minor Madrigal”. This appellation is usually meant to carry pejorative associations; but it reminds us that there are repertoires where one-per-part performances are now accepted as the norm. This has not always been the case (as indicated by the very existence of “madrigal choirs”); and other repertoires (e.g., Renaissance church music, Purcell Odes) are performed at present by choirs and soloistic consorts alike. Most of the musicians who adopted OVPP scoring also specialise in Renaissance and early Baroque repertoire. This partly explains the relative ease with which they adopted Bach’s chamber-scale scoring. However, it also suggests another reason for the general hostility towards OVPP. Bach’s cantatas emerged from the 17th-century German Sacred Concerti, which combined the Lutheran chorale melodies with expressive means derived from the Italian madrigal (Dürr 2000: 19-21; Konrad Küster, in Boyd 1999: 82-83). The 17 Within the original church services, Bach’s cantatas were clearly separated from communal singing. The point is vividly illustrated in Paul McCreesh’s album Epiphany Mass (see discography for this chapter), which employs large congregation choirs for the communal sections, and a consort of single concertists and single ripienists for Bach’s music. - 134 connection is more immediately audible when madrigals, concerti and cantatas are performed with similar forces. The choral approach places Bach’s vocal music in a familiar environment, alongside the Classical and Romantic choral music. OVPP places Bach in a more “antiquated” environment, in a medium (chamber vocal music) which is otherwise a rarity in the standard repertoire (see, however, p. 130 above). 5.1.3.5. Expressiveness Another argument against OVPP is that it renders the music inexpressive. This argument is based on the problematic yet common assumption that small-scale, intimate forces are ill-suited for dramatic and expressive intensity. But there also exists an opposite view: that reduced scoring enhances intensity. The “B minor Madrigal” label could hint at this: the seconda pratica madrigal is associated with detailed, intense expressiveness. A soloistic approach to Bach’s music could also emphasise its links with opera – a point which, interestingly, is rarely raised on either side of the OVPP debate. The Sacred Concerti, which led to Bach’s cantatas, were themselves influenced by Seconda pratica madrigals. Schering noted this link, but insisted on applying a +/performance ethics for the German genre (see pp. 53f above). The choir’s massed voices could be seen as a means of placing madrigalesque individualism under control. Ehmann arrived at an almost opposite conclusion from a similar standpoint. He argued that madrigalesque movements like the Qui tollis and Crucifixus should be performed by concertists only; their expressiveness and individuality is jeopardised by the full-bodied sound of massed ripienists (1961: 40-41). More recent supporters of OVPP have made similar arguments. Eric Van Tassel, for instance, writes about one of Jeffrey Thomas’s OVPP performances: At the opening words [of BWV 12/2] ‘Weeping, lamenting, grief, anguish’, the concertists are free not merely to sing but to act out each emotion. Such wordpainting hits home here, but would seem affected or absurd in the hands of a larger chorus. (Van Tassel 2000: 33-34) Thomas himself would probably disagree, as his choral performance of the Crucifixus – which consists of virtually the same music – testifies (see pp. 238ff below). Rifkin, on the other hand, avoids such gestures in his recordings of BWV 12/2 and Crucifixus alike (see p. 232 below). Individualised freedom of expression could be the hallmark of OVPP; this is arguably what happened when performances of Renaissance madrigals, especially - 135 Monteverdi’s, moved from “madrigal choirs” to OVPP ensembles (cf. LeechWilkinson 1984: 16n, and pp. 148f below). Rifkin and Parrott refer to these possibilities, but their emphasis is less on Intensity and more on flexibility (cf. Rifkin 2002: 40-41, and quotations on pp. 132 above and 139 below). This is related to their philosophy of performative expression, as described on p. 125 above. This philosophy contrasts quite markedly with Jeffrey Thomas’s more emphatic +/+ approach (see p. 153 below). Like other latter-day exponents of OVPP, he reveals a tendency towards “madrigalism” which is not typical of either Parrott or Rifkin. A comparison of four OVPP versions of the Actus Tragicus, BWV 106 (see discography for this chapter) clearly reveals Rifkin as the most careful and reserved; Konrad Junghänel’s Cantus Cölln version stands at the other extreme (see also Butt 1999a: 190-191). Similarly, Parrott’s account of Christ lag in Todesbanden (BWV 4) is more restrained than Junghänel’s or Thomas’s. A comparison between Parrott and McCreesh in the Magnificat and Oster-Oratorium, however, yields less consistent results, depending on the specific movements examined. I defer direct comparison between Rifkin and Parrott to my discussion of their respective Masses below. 5.1.3.6. Summary Discussion of the broader significance of Bach’s original scoring is still in its early stages (Parrott 1997; 2000: 149-150; Butt 1998: 99-100; Rifkin 2002: 40-41); the energy devoted to debating the facts of the matter detracts attention from serious engagement with interpretations. However, this might change in the near future. More ensembles now perform Bach’s vocal music with OVPP forces; consequently, Rifkin’s findings are being realised in a variety of different styles. This makes it possible to separate the “general” effects of OVPP scoring from the styles and interpretations of specific ensembles and directors. In their own performances, Rifkin and Parrott demonstrate several possible consequences of their theory: 1. Smaller forces make it easier to achieve clarity without resorting to aspiration or strong emphases on inner lines. This allows easier realisation of their modest version of +/+ (pp. 125ff above), though such an achievement is not impossible with larger forces (cf. Parrott 2000: 138). 2. The smaller forces almost make nonsense of the strict hierarchy between parts of the ensemble, as exemplified by Karl Richter (p. 60ff above). - 136 Transitions from soloists to fuller ensemble emerge, not as “terraced” jumps, but as gradual, nuanced and continuous. Parrott, who employs ripienists more often than Rifkin, shades their entries as subtle transitions, rather than bold, emphatic gestures (see also pp. 186f below). Other performers, however, demonstrate the dramatic, “madrigalesque” potential in the use of smaller forces.18 Both approaches stand against a more traditional, monumental conception of Bach’s music; they both reflect, in different ways, a more humanised Bach image. It is thus no coincidence that both Parrott and Rifkin draw on an image of Bach as a practical musician, and reject an overly theological or rhetorical reading of his approach. However, as the case of Koopman demonstrates, accepting this image of Bach does not, in itself, lead into an adoption of OVPP forces. I should add that, although I find the historical and musical arguments for OVPP thoroughly convincing, I am less convinced by the arguments against standard choral performances. For Parrott, performances of Bach’s vocal music which employ ripienists throughout are akin to orchestral performances of string quartets (2000: 148149), or to “a veritable hippogriff in which a plausibly Bachian orchestral body is grafted to an alien, perhaps Handelian, vocal group” (ibid: 142). However, Bach himself scored the Johannes-Passion with ripienists throughout, and the audible results (as heard on Parrott’s recording) are virtually indistinguishable from the sounds produced by a chamber choir. By using strong terms like “alien” and “hippogriff”, Parrott treats scoring and sonority as essential, non-negotiable tenets. It is doubtful if this reflects the attitude of 18th-century composers; as Rifkin readily concedes, Bach probably “took his performance practices more or less as he found them but tried always to realize their maximum potential” (2002: 39; cf. M. Geck 2003). It is not unreasonable to speculate that he would have treated the chamber choir similarly. Perhaps he would have rearranged his music before allowing choral forces to perform it; but for him, there were 18 Konrad Junghänel’s recent recording of the Mass comes closest to realising this potential for the B minor Mass. Like Parrott, Junghänel makes selective use of ripienists, but reserves several choruses for concertists only. In several of the latter, the singers’ independent shaping of their individual lines (also characteristic of their madrigal performances) helps create a palpable sense of dialogue; the most notable examples are the Qui tollis and Crucifixus. See also p. 149n below. - 137 no sharp dividing lines between “preparing a new performance of the same piece”, “arranging” and “re-composing”. The need to distinguish clearly between “original” and “arrangement” reflects more modern concerns, and might therefore constitute an anachronistic feature of Type One, MO-HIP ideology (cf. Walls 2003: 44-50). 5.2. The recordings of the B minor Mass Each of the conductors under discussion here has only made one commercial recording of the B minor Mass; this limits the possibilities of investigating their development within this piece. I did have access to Parrott’s 1977 live performance, presenting his interpretation with standard choral forces, as well as to a 1997 performance by Rifkin; in both cases the differences were not radical (except for the difference in scoring between Parrott’s readings). 5.2.1. Rifkin’s recording Rifkin’s Mass, recorded in 1981-1982, is closely associated with the first presentation of his findings; it has often been viewed as a “demonstration recording”. In an interview with the author (November 2002), Rifkin insisted that this was not his primary motivation. He did, however, acknowledge that the choice of the Mass as the first piece to be performed one-per-part was not coincidental. He wanted to prove that chamber-scale scoring is “applicable to large-scale works, not just small cantatas”; and he felt obliged to choose a Latin work since he did not have, at the time, a roster of singers with reliable German pronunciation. In the notes to his recording, Rifkin takes care not to treat vocal scoring as the single most important feature in the performance. He dedicates the opening section to the Mass’s compositional history and to the question of its completeness. In the section dedicated to performance, he presents “the make-up of the performing forces” as the second of two unusual factors, alongside “the edition of the music” (1982a). Questions of scoring are thus treated as an important issue, but do not occupy the spotlight. There is a deliberate sense of de-sensationalising what was bound to become the most publicly discussed aspect of the performance. The essay as a whole resembles Rifkin’s scholarly articles in its detailed, circumspect style. The performance section focuses on the evidence for Bach’s practices and its practical implications. Rifkin deliberately avoids discussion of - 138 factors like “analytic intuition” and “musical taste”, which obviously affected his interpretation, but are “less readily susceptible to verification”: the core of a performance lies in the deeply subjective encounter between musician and music. About this encounter, it makes little sense to talk; if its fruits are to prove at all hardy, they must do so in the air of aural actuality, not on the printed page. (Rifkin 1982a) Similarly, Rifkin’s discussion of individual movements focuses on philological issues. There are very few references to the music’s structure, meaning, expressive ambience or aesthetic qualities.19 Rifkin’s performance style is similarly careful: he avoids strong, openly interventionist gestures. The 1982 notes, while making no references to rhetoric-assemantics, contain an explicit critique of rhetorical phrasing and articulation. In Rifkin’s view, inconsistencies in Bach’s articulation markings indicate that the composer “imagined the superficially diverse patterns as sounding more or less alike” (compare with Harnoncourt’s view, pp. 94f above). Similarly, he argues that the absence of articulation markings in some cases might reflect “a wish to leave a note or a group of notes plain”. In general, he believes that Bach did not expect “the kind of phrasing, common in Baroque performances today, that so pointedly separates every slurred group from its neighbors” (1982a) Rifkin’s position is based on a systematic exploration of the sources. However, it also reflects his sceptical attitude towards interpretation. In a recent interview, he acknowledges that modern listeners, hearing a work for the hundredth time, might “need interpretation”, whereas early audiences, hearing the same work’s world premiere, might have settled for “a competent run-through” (in Sherman 1997: 380; cf. Philip 2004: 10-12). However, when I asked him how this affects his performances, he responded by positing the notion of an idealized run-through: “Interpretation” [...] demands a greater scrupulousness in the shaping of balances, phrasing, rhythmic projection, and so forth [...] Seen from this vantage-point, you can have an interpretation that does not differ superficially from many a run-through – in other words, does not engage in very noticeable modifications of tempo, does not go to extremes of accent or inflection, and so forth. For myself, I often try to achieve what might be called an “idealized runthrough” – accepting, in other words, that Bach probably conceived of, or at least expected, something reasonably “straight”, but seeking to realize this on the highest possible level of execution and thoughtfulness. It’s a sort of tightrope act: I want the music to feel natural, almost improvised, creating itself, so to speak. (Joshua Rifkin, personal communication, August 2002) 19 Rifkin is less reticent in the notes to his recordings of Bach’s cantatas (1987, 1989a, 1989b, 1991). - 139 Although this statement post-dates Rifkin’s Mass by about twenty years, it probably reflects his aesthetics at the time. His arguments for understated phrasing suggest as much; so does his performance style, which closely fits the description above (with the possible exception of the reference to improvisation – as becomes clear in comparing his performances with Koopman’s). The avoidance of sharply detailed articulation is also related to Rifkin’s distinctly vocal ideal (most clearly articulated in Hitron 2000). His views on this issue are remarkably similar to Herreweghe’s (see p. 110 above): both artists believe that HIP’s starting point ought to have been the voice, rather than the harpsichord; and both agree on the need to foster a more vocal style without losing textural clarity. This resemblance is also reflected in their performance styles (see also Butt 1999a: 190). Both directors prefer legato articulation, with subtle caesuras between phrases, to strong accentuations. Their dynamic range is narrow (albeit with some degree of local directionality);20 their tempi are usually moderate; and they avoid strong contrasts in all parameters. The latter tendency is most evident in potentially dramatic transitions (Gloria-Et in terra; Crucifixus-Resurrexit; the two settings of et expecto; Sanctus-pleni). This restraint is consistent with Rifkin’s general outlook. For him, enhanced flexibility and fluency are among the main advantages of OVPP scoring. Instead of dividing large-scale works into categorically different segments (choral and solo), “the music goes through a very interesting series of nuanced stages”; solo and tutti sections flow into one another, creating “a richer palette of sonorities, of weights, of expressive gestures” (in interview with the author, November 2002). This stands in direct contrast to the hierarchical, terraced conception of artists like Karl Richter. Despite this, Rifkin’s stated aim – “not to highlight the voices but to nestle them among the instruments” (quoted in Van Tassel 2000: 33) – is only partly realised in his Mass (it is more evident in several of his cantata recordings, e.g., BWV 140/1, BWV 147/1). Even the recording balance – which he approved at the time – favours the voices (though instruments are usually audible); and the light orchestral textures further weigh the balance in favour of the vocal component.21 20 21 However, Herreweghe’s range – even in earlier recordings – is normally wider than Rifkin’s. I am referring especially to Rifkin’s use of a single cello and violone, the latter only present from the Credo onwards. For the philological reasoning behind this scoring, see Rifkin 1982a. - 140 More importantly, his singers shape their parts with more detail than his instrumentalists, drawing more attention even when the balance is near-equal. 22 There is, especially in less densely scored movements (e.g., Second Kyrie, Qui tollis, Incarnatus, Crucifixus) and passages (e.g., the first fugal exposition in the Et in terra), a sense of dialogue between the singers, with especially individualised contributions from the alto (Jeffrey Dooley) and tenor (Frank Hoffmeister).23 Transitions from imitative-polyphonic to homophonic passages register with particular clarity in such movements. There are fewer instances of similar interplay within the orchestra, or between singers and players. 24 In summing up the controversy over the Mass’s unity, Rifkin suggests that recording might be an ideal medium for side-stepping the debate. The recording “leaves the ultimate disposition of its content open”; The decision of whether the four parts of the B-minor Mass should stand alone or together lies with the individual listener – whose path through the music thus becomes as private as the music itself. (1982a) Thus, Rifkin leaves the final interpretation of the evidence to the listener. A similar philosophy seems to inform the entire production – from the liner notes (which provide much information and little interpretation) to the performance itself, which seeks to present the music clearly and fluently, but with as little intervention as possible. This approach, coupled with the predominantly vocal sonority, arguably makes Bach’s music sound more like Renaissance, prima pratica church music (or at least modern conceptions and performances thereof) than like seconda pratica madrigals or Lutheran Sacred Concerti. This potential association (which certainly affects my own experience; see also Sherman 1999) is undoubtedly more “sacred” than “secular”; but it is also far removed from the imposing, Überpersönlich sound image inspired by the Bach-as-Lutheran approach. 22 There are exceptions, however; for example, Christopher Krueger’s shaping of the flute obbligato in the Domine deus is more detailed than the singers’ (Judith Nelson and Frank Hoffmeister). 23 In the 1997 Regensburg performance, many of the most distinct contributions come from the bass, Michael Schopper. 24 These tendencies are even more pronounced in the Regensburg concert, where the voices seem more individualised and less “blended”. This might be related to the fact that this was a live concert. There is, however, a similar effect in Rifkin’s 1995/1996 recording of Weimar cantatas, which features four of the five Regensburg concertists. - 141 - 5.2.2. Parrott’s recording Andrew Parrott recorded the Mass in 1984. In an interview with Christopher Cook (for BBC Radio 3’s Bach Year series), he says that he initially planned to use the Taverner Choir, as he had done in previous live performances (see p. 129 above). However, as he became convinced by Rifkin’s arguments, he decided to re-shape his performance accordingly. He consulted directly with Rifkin (who allowed him to use his edition), and with Hugh Keyte, his erstwhile musicological advisor. Parrott’s forces still differ from Rifkin’s on three issues: 1. Ensemble size: Rifkin uses ripienists only when they are explicitly called for in the manuscript sources (i.e., in the Dona nobis); Parrott makes selective use of ripienists in several choruses.25 As far as I could tell, only the Second Kyrie, Gratias, and Dona nobis are doubled throughout, but many other movements featured selective doubling. Parrott also employs a larger string section. 2. Continuo scoring: Keyte (1985: 11) enumerates two deviations from a strict adherence to the parts (in the Missa) or the score (in the rest): adding bassoons throughout, despite their being specified only in the Missa parts; and using a double-bass throughout, despite its absence from the parts. 3. Vocal scoring: Rifkin is convinced that Bach used counter-tenors in Leipzig; Parrott is convinced that he did not. Having disqualified Rifkin’s solution, Parrott decided to use boy altos as his concertists, and a mezzosoprano for the ripieno. The first two decisions resulted in a richer, more solid and cohesive sonority than Rifkin’s. The cohesion was partly undermined by the third decision: the boy altos – especially Panito Iconomou – have a distinct timbre which dominates part of the texture. Parrott did not retain this idea in his later recordings: in his Johannes-Passion, he scored the alto for female concertists and boy ripienists; in subsequent Bach recordings, he used female mezzo sopranos only. 25 Keyte (1985: 10) justified this by claiming that “the Mass gradually floated clear of practical restraints [...] so we are scarcely obliged to re-impose them”. I doubt if Parrott would feel comfortable with this rhetoric today. Rifkin describes Parrott’s recording as “an arrangement [...] openly acknowledged as such” (2000: 66n). Notwithstanding his own avoidance of such arrangements, he considers them a legitimate option – one that could actually “bring us closer to eighteenth-century practices than does the modern all-or-nothing use of the chorus” (ibid: 39). - 142 On the whole, however, Parrott’s forces project a firmer sonority (probably affected by the recording as well). The voices form a more closely blended group (even in passages scored for concertists only), and the orchestra is more dominant. Parrott also projects a firmer rhythmic profile, with more solid underlining of metric accentuation and more incisive articulation. His tempi are usually close to Rifkin’s; when they differ, Parrott is usually faster (notable exceptions include the Sanctus, and central triptych of the Symbolum Nicenum). Parrott’s rendition thus features few of the attributes which led me to associate Rifkin’s version with Renaissance church music; indeed, it is sharper than Parrott’s own performances of earlier repertoires. Parrott is, generally speaking, the more “interventionist” of the two conductors (notwithstanding their similar philosophies of interpretation). This tendency is, however, revealed more consistently elsewhere in Parrott’s discography (e.g., Johannes-Passion, Oster-Oratorium) than in his Mass. In some movements (see p. 140 above), Rifkin’s performance is more nuanced and shaped, as he encourages (or at least allows) greater freedom to his singers. In several orchestrally-dominated movements, however, Parrott’s interpretation is more detailed: in Cum sancto spiritu, Sanctus and Osanna, for example, Parrott reveals more local polyphonic detail, and projects the movements with clearer directionality. Parrott (2000: 151) cites the ease of achieving flexible phrasing as one of the main advantages of employing a smaller vocal ensemble; again, the best illustrations in Parrott’s own discography can arguably be found outside the Mass (most notably his 1997 Trauer-Ode and funeral motets). Interestingly, several movements in the Mass seem to acquire greater flexibility (i.e., an increasing range of dynamics and articulation, with more local inflections within phrases) as the performance proceeds (e.g., Et in terra, Laudamus, Incarnatus, Et in spiritum, second Osanna). It is not easy to tell to what extent this reflects a deliberate interpretive decision, rather than the dynamics of the recordings sessions. These features also affect directionality in both performances. Rifkin and Parrott alike believe that performers should be sensitive to patterns of tension and resolution, underlining them without being too intrusive. In practice, Rifkin is rarely active in this direction. His performance features local directionality in individual phrases, but he does not seem to direct the ensemble with this goal in mind. Parrott projects these patterns more firmly in later recordings, but his Mass already features several - 143 instances (the clearest being the build-up of tension in the fugal expositions of Cum sancto spiritu, esp. bars 112ff). The combination of clearer directionality and sharper articulation also makes several movements in Parrott’s recording seem more distinctly light-hearted or dancelike than Rifkin’s – notable examples being their readings of Christe eleison, Domine deus (especially the respective shaping of the bass line) and Qui sedes (see also my discussion of Parrott’s shaping of the First Kyrie’s subject, pp. 172f below). In this sense, while Rifkin reveals some commonalities with Herreweghe, Parrott sometimes approaches Koopman’s stylistic priorities. 5.2.3. Koopman’s recording Koopman recorded the Mass in 1994. The arias and choruses were recorded separately, as is Koopman’s usual habit; Koopman himself played the organ continuo in the arias.26 His Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra had already been working with him since 1979 (several of its members also performed Bach’s chamber music with Koopman); the Amsterdam Baroque Choir, however, was only founded in 1992. The notes were written by Christoph Wolff, who usually serves as Koopman’s musicological adviser; it is therefore reasonable to assume that the recording is based on Wolff’s edition. Koopman, however, retains the original version of the Et in unum, contrary to Wolff’s recommendation. Although his Bach image and performance philosophy resemble Rifkin’s and Parrott’s, Koopman’s view of the performer’s role is more personalised. He uses the first person more freely in his verbal discourse, with references to his own wishes and his personal signature.27 He displays his own individuality especially vividly in his attitude to improvisation. As a soloist, chamber-music and continuo player, Koopman is known for his active ornamentation (see also Butt 1999a: 186). These tendencies are also audible in his Mass: several arias (e.g., Christe eleison, Laudamus, Qui sedes, 26 This divisions of labour is not specified in the notes, but was confirmed in personal communication with Koopman’s secretary. 27 All three, however, maintain that the conductor/director is ultimately responsible for the interpretation, even allowing for a degree of individual freedom to members of the ensembles. Parrott and Rifkin also make a point of refuting the common view that the conductor is an anachronism in Baroque music (Sherman 2003: 240). - 144 Agnus dei) contain passages where the right-hand improvisations are richer with semimelodic figurations than those of his colleagues on other recordings.28 Koopman also encourages other members of the orchestra to improvise on their parts (see also Koopman 2003: 47). This is particularly evident in the Domine deus. Koopman follows the Dresden parts in applying reverse-dotting,29 and encourages his flautist, Wilbert Hazelzet, to add ornaments in the second ritornello and the ‘b’ section.30 The effect somewhat counterbalances the singers’ more insistent singing (harsher and more detailed accentuation, louder dynamics): while they (and, in some places, the strings) render this section more passionately, Hazelzet’s and Koopman’s ornamentations (consisting mostly of short, lightly articulated trills or runs on consonant notes) lighten the mood. As I noted on p. 91 above, ornamentation was often viewed as an essential part of musical rhetoric, and can be used to enhance expressiveness; this potential certainly exists, for example, in the tenor’s D# in the First Kyrie, bar 35, and analogous passages, where it can emphasise and intensify dissonant harmonies. Koopman’s ornamentations, however, usually do not have this character. In the First Kyrie, his choir produces fast, light trills, which do not emphasise the dissonant appoggiatura note (CD 2: 37-38).31 They are usually associated with fast tempo, light articulation and tone production, and an absence of accentuation, conveying something of a Sprezzatura atmosphere (Taruskin 1995: 137). Other features in Koopman’s style further undermine the impression of the Mass as a monumental, public, massive and unified statement, suggesting instead a 28 On the other hand, they are rather recessed in terms of recording balance; some of them can be picked up only by listening closely, on headphones. This was probably done with Koopman’s consent: the producer was his wife, Tini Mathot, and the sound engineer was Adriaan Verstijnen, who has worked with Koopman and Mathot for over 20 years by the time the recording was made (see also Koopman 2003: 47). 29 The dotting is applied by flute and strings alike, as the parts imply; there is some hint of it in some vocal passages as well. The singers’ dotting is not, however, as insistent and literalistic as in Schreier 1991 and Rilling 1999. 30 The only other recording which features flute ornamentation in this movement is Diego Fasolis’s. The flautist there, Stefano Ret, accents the reverse-dotting more sharply, and introduces ornamentation at an earlier stage (bar 24). On the other hand, the improvisation is restricted to the flautist alone, the overall texture is richer (more sustained articulation from flutes and bass), and there is no hint of dotting in the singing. In Koopman’s version, Hazelzet’s improvisations appear more integrated into the character of the performance as a whole. 31 Compare with Panito Iconomou’s rendering of this ornament in Parrott’s performance (alto part, bar 36; CD 2: 17) - 145 light, intimate, individualised piece of chamber music. The sense of local freedom is also displayed in the encouragement of local light-and-shade, with distinct phrase division and frequent underlining of local directionality in specific parts (though there are never clashes in direction between different simultaneous parts). This hardly ever moves beyond the level of the individual phrase or section – Koopman does not build up to overall climaxes (see also Elste 2000: 193). However, local directionality contributes throughout to a sense of flow, and in specific cases (e.g., Gloria [CD 1: 9], Osanna) to a palpable sense of dance. The sense of lightness can be illustrated by comparing the Qui sedes in Koopman’s recording with the same movement in Harnoncourt 1986 (see p. 105 above) and Herreweghe 1996 (see p. 116 above). Koopman’s tempo is faster and more evenly flowing than either, with a less noticeable drop at the Adagio. Metric accentuation is observed but not emphasised; staccati are lighter and the dynamic range is narrower. While both Harnoncourt and Herreweghe occasionally convey the sense of independence, even clashes, between strands in the texture, Koopman conveys a more “homophonic” impression; the phrases move together, and agree with the metre. Ornamentation does little to impede this impression. It is interesting to speculate how this encouragement of soloistic playing would have translated into the choruses, if Koopman had been convinced by Rifkin’s arguments. There are many instances of (locally) directional choral phrases – the shaping of the subject in the fugal expositions in the Et in terra [CD 1: 10], Cum Sancto spiritu,32 Credo and Et resurrexit, and the clear dynamic waves in the Sanctus, are notable examples. In general, however, choral parts are shaped with less detail. The choir’s dynamic range is similar to the orchestra’s, but their spectrum of articulation is narrower (mostly legato and gently-articulated non legato).33 In Koopman’s few OVPP recordings (BWV 196, 150, 181 and 109), the concertists – 32 There, however, this effect is more clearly felt in the second fugal exposition (bars 80-111; see analysis in Stauffer 1997b: 93), where the choir is supported by orchestral doubling. The subject’s internal dynamic-articulatory structure is clearly articulated in choir and orchestra alike. The crescendo under sustained choral chords in bars 27-30 is projected almost entirely by the orchestra; however, in the equivalent passages in 76-79 and 113-116, the choir also makes a distinct contribution. 33 The choir’s soft, rounded sonority also contrasts at times with the orchestra’s sharper sound – though this is only occurs in specific passages, especially in the trumpet choruses. - 146 members of the Amsterdam Baroque Choir – do not differ markedly in articulation or phrasing from the choir as a whole. On the whole, Koopman’s interpretation is more “interventionist” than Parrott’s or Rifkin’s. This is also clear in his choice of tempi: his range of speeds is wider, and there are greater contrasts between movements. For example, the transitions from Gloria to Et in terra (CD 1: 9-10), and from Credo to Patrem, which in Rifkin’s and Parrott’s are almost the same pulse, are more distinct in Koopman’s version. Compared to conductors who emerged from a similar Netherlandish-rhetorical background (Herreweghe, Brüggen, Jacobs, and of course Leonhardt himself), Koopman appears the most removed from rhetorical considerations (though these tendencies are perhaps more notable in his Mass than in his Matthäus-Passion, Markus-Passion and many of the cantatas). Given his propensity for local phraseshaping and improvisation, the term non-interventionist would be an exaggeration; but all these conductors (with the possible exception of Herreweghe 1988) display a lesser tendency towards actively de-intensifying movements, and greater attention to overall structure and expressive gestures (see also my discussion of Brüggen’s performance on p. 150 below). 5.3. Summary The three conductors discussed here share a similar vision, both of Bach, his music and its meaning, and of their own role as performers. In both regards, they place their perceptions of music’s inner working at the centre, marginalizing (though not necessarily ignoring) considerations pertaining to the work’s extra-musical significance (religious, rhetorical or otherwise). Where they do cite the music’s expressive import, they emphasise its direct communicability, and deny or downplay any notion of arcane signification. Their Bach image is within the balance-asequilibrium paradigm, but they deny the rigidity and austerity which is so often attached to the Bach-as-Lutheran image. Rather, they perceive an inherent unity in his style, a continuity and co-existence between “sacred” and “secular” elements, and between lighter and more affective aspects. They observe little of the strain and struggle that Herreweghe and (especially) Harnoncourt note in Bach’s music. - 147 This does not result in a single, uniform style – any more than Herreweghe’s and Harnoncourt’s similar visions resulted in stylistic concordances. This is partly because of their profound disagreement on the issue of vocal scoring, though other factors might be equally significant. In particular, Rifkin’s suspicious attitude towards interpretation, his preference for an “ideal run-through”, is not entirely shared by either Koopman or Parrott. All three musicians, however, adhere to a limited version of x/x: they seek to understand the basic features of the music and gently underline them, not force the listener’s attention to them. In this sense, too, they go against the image of Bach as forbidding and inaccessible. 6. “Neo-romantic” Performances 6.1. Introduction Several writers have spoken of emerging romantic tendencies in HIP since the 1980s (e.g., Kenyon 1988b: 17; Dulak 1993: 51-61; Butt 1999a: 194-196). Partly in response to such statements, Fabian and Schubert (2002) warned against “blanket use of words such as neo-romantic”, stressing that striving for an expressive performance is not an exclusively romantic tendency (see also p. 44 above). Nonetheless, I contend that some performances can be usefully classified under this heading. In the Mass’s discography, this trend is most clearly represented in the recordings by Jeffrey Thomas and Thomas Hengelbrock, though there are pre-echoes in earlier recordings. Harnoncourt’s brand of rhetorical performance is sometimes cited as the trendsetter. Stauffer (1997a: 217, 1997b: 205) saw his 1986 Mass as heralding “the return of a subjective element in performance practice”, allowing performers to “knowingly – and unabashedly – seek a middle ground between Bach’s conventions and modern tastes”. He thereby implies that “Bach’s conventions” militated against the “subjective element”, the latter being introduced as a concession to “modern taste”. Adherents of rhetoric-as-semantics (even, in some versions, rhetoric-as-speech) might retort that “modern taste” is responsible for the removal of the subjective element; its revival represents a return to “Bach’s conventions”. This approach has certainly informed the increasingly expressive and extrovert approach to Renaissance and Baroque music by ensembles like William Christie’s Les Arts Florissants, René Jacobs’s Concerto Vocale, Paul Hillier’s The Hilliard Ensemble, and Reinhardt Goebel’s Musica Antiqua Köln (see also pp. 134f above) in the late 1970s and 1980s. Like Harnoncourt, these musicians were motivated, at least in part, by an attempt to realise the performative implications of musical rhetoric in their various guises (cf. Christie 1993: 263-264; Sherman 1997: 110-112, 258-265; Taruskin 1995: 319-320; Voss 2003). The resulting performances introduced, increasingly, flexibility and variety in tempo, dynamics, and timbre, and a strongly gestural approach, emphasising moments of heightened expression. These performers were thus promoting – in theory and practice alike – two of my criteria for “romanticism” - 148 - - 149 (expression and individualised interpretation), while clearly rejecting any allegations that the results were anachronistic.1 Taruskin, who shares this view, nonetheless cites Harnoncourt’s Bach performances as a direct provocation against the standard, “geometric” approach, “not unlike the challenge lately issued by the so-called neoromantics to modernist canons of composition” (1995: 149). In my own view (p. 118 above), Harnoncourt’s approach does bear some hallmarks of romanticism; his performances, and his prestige as an HIP pioneer – further intensified by the success of musicians like those mentioned above – probably inspired, and helped legitimise, an even more fullfledged return to romantic interpretation. Harnoncourt, however, is among the strongest advocates for the primacy of articulation. In his usual avoidance – sometimes even obstruction – of long-range shaping, and the concomitant concern with the projection of local motives and figures, he remains opposed to the symphonic tradition (which, however, was in many respects more “romantic-modernist” than “romantic”; see also p. 41 above). For several of his admirers, detailed articulation remained Harnoncourt’s most enduring contribution to Baroque performance style. For example, Erwin Ortner – Harnoncourt’s chorus-master (see also p. 103 above), who recorded the Mass with an orchestra consisting of Harnoncourt’s students, past and present – does not emulate his mentor’s more “romantic” features. His tempi are usually faster than Harnoncourt’s, his dynamic range narrower. He introduces fewer moment-to-moment inflections, and avoids Harnoncourt’s bass-heavy textures. Although he adopts Harnoncourt’s rich patterns of accentuation, he generally avoids sostenuto fragments. Similar features characterise the two recordings by Peter Schreier, who also cites Harnoncourt’s Klangrede ideals as a source of inspiration (Schreier 2001; and in Lewinski 1992: 92-94). One other notable example is Frans Brüggen, who happily accepted his labelling as “as a kind of ‘romantic’ of the historical performance movement” (in S. Johnson 1990: 1453), and in the course of the same interview discusses the use of rubato in 1 In the B minor Mass’s discography, the most direct representative of this tradition is Konrad Junghänel (see p. 136n above), who collaborated with Christie, Goebel and Jacobs (among others). Junghänel’s own ensemble, Cantus Cölln (founded in 1987), specialises in Italian madrigals and in vocal music of the Italian and German Baroque. - 150 Bach’s choral music, his “organic” image of the Mass, and his concern for projecting overall structures. Brüggen’s 1989 Mass features more tempo modifications than most rivals, “HIP” or “modern”. Of particular interest is his employment of “speeding up at points of high tension” (Philip 1992: 35) – most conspicuously in the Et in terra, Cum sancto spiritu and Et expecto; this feature is largely associated with pre-war performance (ibid: 35, 234), and was neglected by many mainstream performers (perhaps because it sounded too uncontrolled).2 More generally, he reveals – in theory and practice alike – a concern for driving movements towards and away from peak points. Other notable candidates for the “HIP-romantic” label include John Eliot Gardiner and Richard Hickox. Gardiner is known, among other things, as an operatic conductor, and frequently speaks of the music he performs – whether operatic or not – in theatrical terms. Hickox’s reputation is not primarily as a Baroque expert or an HIP figure. Both conductors initially performed Baroque music on modern instruments. The most “romantic” features in Gardiner’s Mass are the wide dynamic range and the sharp contrasts between movements. In several movements, Gardiner employs dynamics to shape long-range patterns of tension and release. The most distinct example is the Gratias (and, to an even greater degree, the Dona nobis pacem), which is shaped as a single, long crescendo (and, in the Dona nobis, with mostly legato articulation). Other movements, however, are internally rigid (e.g., Gloria, Resurrexit, the Vivace setting of Et expecto)3 or almost uniformly brisk and cheerful (e.g., Christe, Laudamus, Domine deus, Et in unum). His shaping of the work as a whole seems to rely, in part, on a distinction between harsher and more flexible movements. Hickox’s Mass is characterised by greater flexibility throughout. Martin Elste (2000: 192) characterised his style as combining historical and romantic elements. By “romantic”, he refers primarily to Hickox’s combination of rounded, legato phrasing and flexible, nuanced dynamics – a feature which also characterises Herreweghe (esp. 1996), Jacobs and Christophers. Another feature shared intermittently by these conductors (with the possible exception of Herreweghe, esp. 1988) is their concern 2 Brüggen’s adoption of this feature might reflect the fact that his is a live recording. That too is a matter of ideology: Brüggen only records in live concerts, and presumably one of his aims is to preserve this kind of performative practice, which is likely to be inhibited in a studio context, or editedout in the post-production stage. 3 The trumpets sound sharper and shriller here than in many of Gardiner’s later recordings, which might reflect a change in performance standards rather than a change in Gardiner’s aesthetics. - 151 with projecting movements’ overall structures; this might account, in part, for their predominantly legato articulation. Hickox, however, demonstrates that incisive, rhetoric-as-speech articulation and accentuation can facilitate the projection of a movement’s shape (see pp. 193f below). This can also be demonstrated with reference to several modern-instrument recordings, most notably Rilling 1999 (see 3.2.3, pp. 76ff above) and Abbado. The latter adopts several HIP features (fast tempi, small ensemble, light sonorities, incisive articulation) even more fully than Rilling, yet often retains a “symphonic-romantic” tendency, especially with regard to organic shaping.4 For all the differences in biographical background (their own and their ensembles’) and instrumentation, Hickox’s and Abbado’s Bach styles, as evidenced in their respective Masses, reflect similar aesthetic concerns. In several cases, it is Abbado who maintains a stricter, more solid dynamic profile (e.g., Cum Sancto, Resurrexit, Et expecto). For all the “romantic” features of the above-named conductors and ensembles, I refrain from placing them in my core-group under the “neo-romantic” heading. My main reason is that, to my ears, they usually avoid or discourage strongly personalised performance gestures. To use Taruskin’s terminology (1995: 316-317), they strive towards the “Straight” rather than the “Crooked” end of the interpretive spectrum. It is also debatable whether their more individualised gestures constitute anachronisms, though such accusations are certainly raised. The two performances that form the focal point of this chapter, on the other hand, are unabashedly “Crooked” and, as I will note below, their respective directors have openly marginalized the importance of historical information (and, therefore, are not opposed, in principle, to willing anachronisms). They combine the abovementioned features (wide range of dynamics and tempo, frequent legato articulation and long-range dynamic construction) with highly distinctive, idiosyncratic gestures, willing to risk stylistic “inconsistency” across the work as a whole in pursuit of highly specific interpretations of individual movements. The dynamic range is not necessarily presented across long time scales, as gradual build-ups or waves; widerange crescendi and diminuendi can also occur within short time spans, as can abrupt 4 Seiji Ozawa also adopts many of the same HIP features. However, he retains lighter sonorities and a narrow dynamic range with much greater consistency than Abbado. - 152 dynamic changes. This is evident right from the start: Thomas and Hengelbrock are the only conductors on record to shape the First Kyrie’s introduction (bars 1-4) as a series of distinct dynamic arches (CD 2: 32, 42). In other cases, there are constant alternations of dynamics and articulation – a sense of an unremitting intervention in the shaping of each part, of leaving no note (or at least no motif) uninflected. Other performances feature occasional movements which closely approximate all three criteria for “romanticism”, but none do so as consistently as Thomas and Hengelbrock. 6.2. Jeffrey Thomas 6.2.1. Premises The tenor and conductor Jeffrey Thomas, a former member of Rifkin’s Bach Ensemble, founded the American Bach Soloists (ABS) in 1988, to perform music ranging from Schütz to Haydn and beyond. This group includes many artists who also worked with Rifkin, but the style of the two ensembles is very different: as I noted on p. 134 above, Thomas is much more willing to explore the dramatic potential of oneper-part scoring than either Rifkin or Parrott. In addition to BWV 12/2, already mentioned above, notable examples include the crescendo through the three invocations of “Israel” opening BWV 131/5 and the distinct dynamic-agogic shaping and articulatory contrasts in the Sinfonia BWV 18/1. In terms of ideology, Thomas falls distinctly within Sherman’s Type Two category, stating that “[u]ltimately, I’m not concerned about what Bach did, but about the artistic results now” (in Sherman 1997: 280). This applies to Bach’s aestheticaffective aims, not merely to technical, performance-practice issues. Thomas believes that Bach’s task was to “convey the Lutheran message” (ibid) to a congregation who were meant to absorb it, not just to enjoy the music. Many present-day listeners, however, do not share Bach’s beliefs; they are there for the music, and the musicians should take this into account. In aiming to move and startle modern audiences, Thomas approaches the ideals of Rilling and Harnoncourt. He goes further towards the audience – certainly compared to Rilling – in acknowledging and (in all probability) sharing their preference for “the aesthetic/artistic element”. Thomas also places “the immediate - 153 content of the music” above liturgical-theological considerations (ibid: 279; cf. Marshall 1989: 68; Kivy 1995: 245-247; Butt 2002a: 36-37); this contrasts with Harnoncourt’s deliberate avoidance of clarity and immediacy (see p. 98 above). The difference is reflected in the two conductors’ performances. Harnoncourt and Thomas alike project strongly “gestural” interpretations. Harnoncourt’s gestures, however, are less palpable and immediate, especially when he places several different gestures simultaneously in different voices. Thomas, on the other hand, projects clearer, more exposed gestures, usually placing them in several parts simultaneously or highlighting one (set of) part(s). In his readings, different gestures seldom compete with each other for the listener’s attention. This characterisation is strongly noticeable in their recordings of the Mass. As I noted above (p. 103), Harnoncourt’s 1986 Mass contains few sharp edges and immediately-arresting gestures. Thomas’s Mass, on the other hand, is one of his most theatrical, flamboyant recordings. John Butt (who played continuo in several of Thomas’s recordings, and coproduced the 1992 Mass) relates Thomas’s pursuit of expression to a general revival of “anachronistic”, consciously a-historical thinking: Thomas not only opts for the choral format but also aims for a much weightier, luxurious sound and approach. The slow tempo of the opening Kyrie has probably not been heard for a decade or two, 5 and the highly evocative interpretation of the Crucifixus, nails and all [see pp. 239ff below] might recall the days when directors did not feel that they had to have the composer’s notated direction before embarking on a vivid interpretation of the text. The split between Thomas’s approaches to the early cantatas [recorded OVPP] and to the Mass might also underline Bach’s odd status in contemporary culture, the fact that some works are unequivocally “mainstream” whereas others belong to the field of early music. The mainstream work thus receives the more “traditional,” expansive performance, whereas the esoteric pieces are performed in a more intimate, HIP-inspired manner. (Butt 1999a: 190-191) If this analysis of Thomas’s reasoning is accurate, then his willingness to shape performances according to a work’s reception history, rather than according to historical considerations, constitutes a type of willing anachronism. In any case, the split is one of degree rather than kind: Thomas’s OVPP recordings are often reminiscent of the vivid renditions of Monteverdi madrigals by groups like William Christie’s Les Arts Florissants or Rinaldo Alessandrini’s Concerto Italiano, and might well have been inspired by their example (see also pp. 148f above). Nonetheless, 5 There is one exception to this observation – Harnoncourt 1986. - 154 Thomas’s application of these gestures with full choral forces has a strongly dramatic effect, often moving well beyond what most other performers of Bach’s choral music were willing to countenance. 6.2.2. Thomas’s Mass Thomas’s pursuit of “weighty, luxurious sound” can be seen as part of a more general recent phenomenon: The “vinegar” that record reviewers once found in “period” violin tone has turned to honey in the hands of the latest generation of players [...] Yet this new sound-quality is not just a retreat toward “mainstream” ideals, but a distinct new timbre, gentler than the “modern” string sound, more plaintive and more resonant, more suggestive of the physical gestures of performance. (Dulak 1993: 39) This type of sonority is not unique to Thomas in the Mass’s discography (cf. Harnoncourt 1986, Herreweghe 1996), but Thomas provides some of the most vivid examples – e.g., in the Christe, Qui sedes and Domine deus. In the latter, the rich string sonority is allied with a languorous shaping of the string parts in bars 7-10 and simile (Münchinger treats this motif in a similar fashion). Another element that, as Thomas notes (in Sherman 1997: 277), strikes some listeners as anachronistic is the employment of longer phrases. This does not mean that Thomas consistently produces long, smooth legati. To be sure, he is not averse to such phrasing. But his recordings frequently feature incisive articulation, dividing his phrases into small groups. Whether this fully reflects Thomas’s aesthetics is not clear. He concedes that “it’s hard for the players sometimes, right off the bat, to play a phrase as long as I’d like” (ibid). This hints at tensions between Thomas’s desired phrases and his players’ habits, a suspicion partly corroborated by John Butt (personal communication), who pointed out that Elizabeth Blumenstock (Thomas’s leader) often prefers sharper, more detailed articulation than Thomas himself. The many instances of incisive articulation might therefore reflect the orchestra’s priorities no less than Thomas’s own. The results of this creative tension seem remarkably cohesive (at least to my own ears): separate units meld into longer phrases, held together by long-range dynamic shaping. A good example of this procedure is the ritornello of the Christe: Thomas and his players clearly observe the pattern of slurs and dots indicated in the score, breaking the ritornello’s violin melody into many separate units. But these units are - 155 incorporated within a single dynamic arch. In bars 7-9, the first note of each beat is accented, and each consecutive accented note is slightly louder – thus turning these notes into a single crescendo line. Similar techniques are employed in other movements, creating phrases that are lively (thanks to their incision) and clearly directional (thanks to the purposeful dynamics). I noted similar features – resonant sonority, directional dynamics, legato articulation – in Herreweghe 1996. There are several factors, however, that mark Thomas’s performance as more strongly individualised. Thomas’s dynamic range is wider than Herreweghe’s, and he employs directional “waves” more frequently. Sonority and articulation, too, are more varied. Instances of sharper, harsher sound and articulation stand out in Herreweghe’s performance against the more comfortable background. In Thomas’s performance, there are frequent rapid alternations between smooth and incisive articulation, making it difficult to establish one of them as the “norm” – often even within an individual movement, and certainly for the performance as a whole. Internal contrasts within movements – sometimes gradual, sometimes abrupt – are a significant feature in Thomas’s Mass, and are almost entirely missing in Herreweghe’s. The difference is well-illustrated in comparing the two conductors’ approach to the Et in terra (CD 1: 8, 12). I noted, on p. 115 above, the projection of local and mid-range directionality in Herreweghe’s 1996 reading, but also the absence of overall build-up. Thomas’s musicians, on the other hand, mobilise all parameters to insure a dramatic shaping of this movement, with special attention to the transition between the first and second fugal expositions. During the first exposition, choral articulation becomes increasingly incisive. However, in the homophonic passage (bars 38-45), the articulation becomes more expansive, the tempo slightly slower. Consequently, the entry of trumpets and (especially) timpani is granted a special temporal emphasis. The subsequent speeding up at the beginning of the second exposition is also rendered more noticeable. The second exposition itself is placed “higher” than the first: faster, louder, more incisive. However, a similar effect of retreat-and-enforce recurs towards the end of the movement: the dynamics switch to piano as the oboes (bars 61/2) echo the trumpets (bars 60/1), and the chorus takes its cue from the oboes. The tempo slows down on the drum-roll crescendo (bars 65/6), remaining slower at the graded, sequential choral crescendi in bars 67-70 (where the trumpets repeatedly “cut” the choral subject) – - 156 before returning to the second exposition’s basic tempo at bar 71, when the subject is released from the trumpets’ “interruptions” and is allowed to flow again. These stop-and-go effects are not a constant feature of Thomas’s Mass. While he rarely shapes a movement with a single, uninterrupted trajectory, Thomas’s shaping of rising and falling tension can be more gradual (e.g., First Kyrie, Gratias, Cum Sancto, Et in unum, Agnus dei). Local climaxes, however, are usually enhanced through distinct preparation, creating a series of internal contrasts within movements. These effects are achieved through distinct inflections of tempo, dynamics and articulation alike. It is difficult to imagine such a performance being achieved without a conductor; evidently, Thomas does not believe that, “In Bach, if something is not possible without a conductor, it’s a sign that it’s not a good interpretation” – a view which, though articulated by Herreweghe (in Sherman 1997: 284), is certainly not unique to him (cf. Dreyfus 1983: 317; Butt 2002a: 9-10). Herreweghe and Thomas also differ strongly in their sonorities: Herreweghe’s ensembles – especially his chorus – sound “homogeneous” and unified, whereas Thomas’s choir sounds more like an ensemble of soloists with distinct timbres – which, to some extent, it is (Thomas’s choir consists of “concertists” – who sing the arias – and “ripienists”, who join them only in the chorus; though he does not use concertists alone in any of the choruses). This difference might not be related to the conductors’ ideals. Thomas does state, however, that he asks his orchestra “to play a lot more soloistically” (in Sherman 1997: 277), and allows “the mechanical noises made by the various wind instruments” (Thomas 1992) to remain audible in his recording. It is possible, then, that he was not aiming for the kind of “blend” sought and achieved by Herreweghe (see also Butt, in Sherman 1997: 287-288). To the (admittedly limited) extent that he is willing to abandon ideals of blended ensemble and audible perfection, Thomas is stepping back from ideals of technical proficiency that have influenced the mainstream even before the emergence of HIP, and which have actually increased in HIP itself (largely because they became more easily achievable as the technical proficiency of players improved; see, however, Sherman 1997: 393-395). However, in re-adopting ideological and performative elements that bear the hallmarks of “romanticism” – anachronism, performative freedom and paramount expression – Thomas and the ABS are not retreating into an earlier style. The renewed adoption of legato, long-range phrasing and dynamics, and tempo variations are - 157 coupled with a strong concern for articulation and metric accentuation as expressive devices; the normally fast tempi – notable exceptions being the First Kyrie and Agnus dei – also reflect Thomas’s HIP roots. 6.3. Thomas Hengelbrock 6.3.1. Premises The conductor and violinist Thomas Hengelbrock, a former member of Harnoncourt’s Concentus Musicus, was co-founder (with Gottfried von der Goltz) of the Freiburger Barockorchester (1987). He later founded the Balthasar-NeumannChor (1991) and the Balthasar-Neumann-Ensemble (1995). In his Mass, members of the chorus also feature as soloists/concertists. While the Balthasar-NeumannEnsemble is now Hengelbrock’s permanent period instrument group, his Mass still features the Freiburg orchestra. Hengelbrock’s repertoire stretches from the early Baroque to the present. Opera and modern music are both central to his repertoire. He served as artistic director of the Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie Bremen (1995-1999) and music director of the Vienna Volksoper (2000-2003). Bach is marginal to his discography, and his Mass is partly related to his operatic activities: it originally served as the “sound-track” to a dance-theatre performance which Hengelbrock co-directed with Achim Freyer at the Schwetzingen Festival and the City of Bonn Opera House. His approach to the Mass is unquestionably +/+; he particularly emphasises text-music relationship. The opening paragraph of his liner notes seems to project an unabashedly romantic approach – albeit mixed with scholarly awareness: Like a mighty mountain range we see this musical miracle before us, which later generations have named the “Mass in B minor”. How can we approach it, from which side are we to commence the ascent? The interpretations seem limitless, each summit reached opens up new, hitherto undreamed-of prospects, and the wonder at the towering genius that created all this knows no bounds. (Hengelbrock 1997) This imagery is highly reminiscent of the introduction to an early 20th century edition of the work: The Bach B minor Mass soars above like some huge, primitive mountain rock. Its summit is lost in the clouds, in an infinity of sunlit blue; lonely and sublime, it is unapproachable by any other music. (Volbach [n.d.]: I) - 158 The similarities are, admittedly, superficial. Volbach is committed to a strictly religious image of “J. S. Bach, the greatest German mystic” (ibid). His imagery is consistently sublime and super-human, depicting the Mass as a communication between Bach and God to which we mere mortals cannot hope to have access. Hengelbrock’s vision of the sublime is not quite so forbidding: ascending the heights is difficult, not impossible. Rather than portraying Bach as superhuman, Hengelbrock focuses on the composer’s creative process and stylistic synthesis. It might be significant, however, that he does not use the term “synthesis” itself; with the possible exception of “centrifugal forces”, Hengelbrock avoids the “language of chemistry”, with its “penchant for properties, elements, analysis, synthesis, and balance”, which Dreyfus (1996: 103) describes as the common trope in current Bach reception. Dreyfus contrasts this recent approach with the metaphysical rhetoric of writers like Spitta. These writers, he argues, portray Bach “as a godlike creator” and “as an active personal hovering above his contemporaries”, divorcing his music from its historical context (ibid). Hengelbrock attempts a combination of the two tropes – speaking of Bach’s stylistic synthesis in almost metaphysical terms. The content is very different from Volbach’s, but the style and imagery have much in common. Hengelbrock’s language is also suffused with expressive terminology. Like Thomas, he emphasises the music’s expressive immediacy: Whatever the text in which it is clothed, the music addresses our concerns, our loneliness, despair, joy and rapture. (Hengelbrock 1997) He is therefore ambivalent about the importance of the texts, with their specifically Christian message. At one point, he argues that the Mass’s text is not a useful starting point in interpreting the parody movements; instead, these should be interpreted with reference to the texts that originally inspired them (ibid). Elsewhere, he argues for a hermeneutic approach that could reveal the music’s content through rhetoric-as-semantics, without recourse to any verbal text: the musical material of the “Et resurrexit” and the “Et expecto resurrectionem”, with its resurrection, deliverance and (self-?)liberation motifs, would have lost nothing of its immediacy in the (presumably lost) wordless instrumental version. (ibid; see also pp. 195f below) Hengelbrock’s approach is not a-historical; but he clearly believes that historical information can be used selectively and creatively. Modern interpreters, using contemporary relevance as a criterion, are free to choose which aspects of the original context to focus on and recreate. Dispensing not just with the possibility, but with the - 159 desirability of a definitive interpretation, he seeks a decidedly personalised approach, in which Intensity – and communicability – are paramount. 6.3.2. Hengelbrock’s Mass Hengelbrock’s ideology is clearly reflected in his performance style, which is alternately detailed and brash, highly-inflected and immediately arresting. His choral sound is quite similar to Herreweghe’s. However, he differs from Herreweghe, Thomas, Harnoncourt (1986) and Christophers, among others, in his orchestral sonority. His orchestra sounds smaller and more compact than Thomas’s (although, in fact, it is slightly larger), with an incisive, focused string sonority. In other features, he strongly resembles Thomas: the wide spectrum of dynamics, tempo, and articulation, and the employment of sharp contrasts between movements. His performance approaches both the slowest tempi on record (e.g., First Kyrie, Second Kyrie) and the fastest (e.g., Cum Sancto Spiritu). In this sense, his approach is reminiscent of Hermann Scherchen’s (p. 50 above). Hengelbrock also resembles Thomas in his constant employment of moment-to-moment inflections in all parameters, sometimes as fine nuances, sometimes as dramatic contrasts; it is this feature, above all, that convinced me of the appropriateness of treating both conductors under a single heading. On the other hand, Hengelbrock seems more selective than Thomas in employing these nuances: he reserves them primarily for contemplative or darkly expressive movements (First Kyrie, Second Kyrie, Qui tollis, Qui sedes, Crucifixus, Agnus dei, Dona nobis).6 Here, Hengelbrock emulates some aspects of Harnoncourt’s style: he applies detailed inflections to individual motifs, shaping different parts simultaneously in a way that leads sometimes to mutual clashes. He differs from Harnoncourt in a greater willingness to employ legato articulation and in usually avoiding dynamics and accentuation that go against the music’s metre. For example, Hengelbrock’s Qui tollis (CD 1: 16) closely resembles Harnoncourt’s 1986 Crucifixus (pp. 234ff below), and goes further than Harnoncourt’s Qui tollis, in contrasting strong accentuation of the “static” parts (cello, continuo) with independent flow of the flutes, violins, and chorus. The two types of 6 The Benedictus is perhaps more restrained than one might expect, especially compared with Hickox’s. In both Thomas and Hengelbrock, the Et in spiritum is rich in local nuance, but on a narrow range. - 160 movements are set against each other, with the cello and continuo strengthened by the accentuation and separation of slurred pairs in the viola (initially, at least; the effect gradually subsides). The choral parts, however, are shaped mainly by directional dynamics in a largely legato context. A similar contrast occurs between the continuo line’s sharp punctuations and the violins’ continuous phrases in the Agnus dei; Thomas is similarly expansive – and slower – in this movement, but his bass is shaped in a more neutral, non-disruptive fashion. In movements with lighter, more cheerful affects, Hengelbrock is often more sparing in his application of nuances. His Christe and Domine deus, though by no means static or uninflected, sound understated in their degree of inflection, compared either with the more contemplative movements mentioned above, or with Thomas’s treatment of the same movements. The Laudamus and Et in unum, however, receive more detailed readings. Hengelbrock’s treatment of the celebratory trumpet choruses (see quote on p. 158 above) is more consistent. He takes these movements in a fast tempo – his Cum sancto is possibly the fastest on record (see also his Resurrexit, CD 4: 27). By his own standards (and also compared to Harnoncourt, Thomas, Hickox, and on occasion Christophers and Herreweghe), he employs a relatively narrow dynamic range and avoids distinctive phrase-boundaries (though he does occasionally drive the movements towards a distinct climax – e.g., Cum Sancto, bars 112ff). His main concern is, apparently, to maximise the contrast between these movements and their surrounding – in this respect, Hengelbrock’s performances resembles Gardiner’s. It is possible, of course, that Hengelbrock found it impossible to apply detailed inflections given his fast tempi; even if that is the case, his choice to retain these tempi is significant. In the two cases where a festive sonority is combined with a slower tempo, he does inject more detail. In the Gratias and Dona nobis, he constructs continuous arches, reminiscent of Gardiner (p. 150 above). In the Sanctus (CD 1: 25), his detailed inflections undermine the movement’s customary solidity. Notwithstanding the moderate tempo and the emphatic treatment of trumpets and timpani, his performance does not project a solid, majestic affect. Instead, Hengelbrock creates a sense of flux, of constant ebb-and-flow of tension and release. As I noted (p. 115 above), Herreweghe (1996) also generates subtle momentum through a simultaneous combination of different dynamic trajectories. Hengelbrock’s dynamic range is wider, however, and his dynamic arches span longer phrases. In one - 161 case (bars 9-13), he creates continuity where there is often a clear caesura: the downbeat of bar 13, which usually signals the beginning of a new phrase, is here projected as the culmination and continuation of the previous crescendo. An even longer arch is created in bars 29-40. At the anacrusis to bar 30, Hengelbrock switches momentarily to concertists, creating a lighter texture and – especially in the context of a performance already rich in dynamic inflection – the expectation of a crescendo. The precise location of the choir’s re-introduction is harder to detect, though full choral texture is certainly present by the middle of bar 33. This point, which is not infrequently shaped as a crescendo, here emerges as the continuation and intensification of one, part of a series of increasing waves whose culmination, however, is often subtly thwarted. To some ears (and certainly to the present writer’s), the effect of these techniques is to introduce an element of yearning, of striving towards a goal, into a movement that is usually projected as calm and confident; the view seems reminiscent of Harnoncourt’s description of the Et in terra (see pp. 104f above). The Pleni returns to the more familiar, exuberant-ecstatic mood of other celebratory choruses. The sense of yearning and vulnerability does not, therefore, pervade Hengelbrock’s performance in its entirety; but it is more present here than in most readings of the Mass. His performance is strongly individualised, not only in its personalised gestures and frequent contrasts, but also in questioning the music’s monumentality even when he employs ostensibly monumental parameters (slow tempi, bass-heavy sonorities). 6.4. Summary Thomas and Hengelbrock both had an “apprenticeship” period within an already-established HIP tradition; their own ensembles also period instruments. Hengelbrock’s references to the parody models and to rhetoric-as-semantics constitute an acknowledgement of the value of historical awareness.7 Their primary aim, however, is to communicate directly with present-day listeners, and they are less concerned with reviving aspects of the original context. 7 Indeed, all the components of Hengelbrock’s ideology can be found in Harnoncourt’s essays as well. There is a difference in emphasis; but it should also be recalled that the sources are disproportionate: two essay collections, several liner notes and interview-articles for Harnoncourt, one short essay for Hengelbrock. - 162 Thomas is content with the modern contexts of recording and the concert hall; Hengelbrock imaginatively sought to incorporate the Mass into modern dance theatre. Their quest for immediate communication is linked with their highly dramatic image of Bach, emphasising Intensity as a particularly enduring aspect of his legacy. These features are connected to their unabashedly personalised styles. The need to project emotions vividly to a modern audience encourages the removal of inhibitions: the message is paramount, and means of performance are judged primarily by their effectiveness in communicating it. Consequently, these “neoromantic” musicians are, arguably, closer to realising both the “individualism” and the “emotional expression” criteria than any symphonic Bach conductor, at least within the Mass’s discography (with the possible exception of Hermann Scherchen). The two conductors’ Bach images also have clear knife-edge-balance undertones, and this aspect is vividly portrayed in their recordings: they are keen to explore the music’s internal tensions and conflicts. When shaping a movement, they project the structure dramatically, without attempting to create the illusion of inevitability (see pp. 195ff, 210ff, 213 and 238ff below). Thomas also differs from “symphonic” conductors in treating arias with as much expressive detail as choruses. Hengelbrock is perhaps more traditional in this sense, treating some solo numbers as “lighter relief” between more interpretativelydetailed (and hence, implicitly, more “attention-worthy”) items. Both these aspects have clearly emerged from the conductors’ HIP apprenticeship: the equal treatment of choruses and arias is an HIP commonplace; and the performative realisation of “knife-edge-balance” is no less apparent in Harnoncourt 1986 than in Thomas or Hengelbrock. Many of their specific performative techniques can also be traced back to earlier HIP renditions. Hengelbrock and Thomas combined Harnoncourt’s detail and freedom with other conductors’ return to long phrases as means of expression (one area where they are likely to be accused of anachronism). Through this combination, they create a style richer in contrast and nuance than anything in the Mass’s past discography. Given the still-common claims that HIP has restricted the expressive range available for Bach performance, their performances are highly significant counter-evidence – not just for the “trivial” reason that they employ period instruments, but for the more significant one that their style could not have emerged without the lessons learned from historical performance. PART TWO CASE STUDIES 7. Texture, Rhetoric and Shape: First Kyrie 7.1. Comments on Bach’s vocal fugues1 Bach was forever writing fugues. No pursuit was better fitted for his temperament, and there is none by which the development of his art can be so precisely evaluated. (Gould 1984: 15) The predominance of fugal textures in Bach’s oeuvre in general – and in the Mass in particular – and the division of opinion on their expression and significance, make the treatment of fugue a particularly fertile ground for examination in a project such as present dissertation. This chapter and the next will deal with two of the most celebrated fugal movements in the Mass, which both set the same text. The First Kyrie is regarded as an example of the more modern, Baroque style, whereas the Second Kyrie is said to represent the stile antico; therefore, the former is often considered the more “Intense” of the two. 7.1.1. Fugue and Bach’s image Counterpoint generally, and fugue specifically, are often regarded as the pinnacle of Bach’s achievement, and as primary justifications for the more abstract, cerebral views of his oeuvre (Yearsley 2002: xiii-xiv; see also p. 6 above). His fugues are usually viewed within a balance-as-equilibrium paradigm, embodying a union of melodic and harmonic forces. However, this view has been challenged by more conflicted, “knife-edge-balance” theories. 1 This section should be read as an introduction to both this chapter and the next. - 163 - - 164 Cone, whose views typify the “Equilibrium” position, considers monothematicism the “one formal principle” of all Baroque music, ensuring its stability and balance. This is most evident in ritornelli and fugal expositions, which establish both the tonality and the thematic materials. Even in episodes, however, the modulatory motion has “an apparent inexorability”, reflecting “the regular progression of beat to beat, measure to measure, phrase to phrase” (Cone 1968: 71). A similar image of inherent stability informs Werner Neumann’s J. S. Bachs Chorfuge. Neumann views Bach’s polyphony as essentially architectonic, rather than organic, aiming at exhausting the demands and possibilities of the musical materials and their combinations (1953: 103-105). In his view, textural-dramatic considerations were far from Bach’s own mind, and his polyphony is reminiscent of the abstract voice-leading of Netherlands polyphony (ibid: 101). He therefore focuses on the music’s objective-structural Being (“objektive-strukturellen Sosein”), an element insufficiently explored by writers like Spitta and Schering, whom he considers excessively subjective (ibid: 1-6). Theodor Adorno presents a diametrically opposed view of Bach’s fugal writing: The art of fugue composition is one of motivic economy, of exploiting the smallest part of a theme in order to make it into an integral whole. It is an art of dissection; one could almost say, of dissolving Being, posited as the theme, and hence incompatible with the common belief that this being maintains itself static and unchanged throughout the fugue. By comparison to this technique Bach employs the genuinely medieval one of polyphonic figuration, of imitation, only secondarily.2 (Adorno 1967: 139) “Dissolution” is also central to Ernst Kurth’s theory of linear counterpoint (first published in 1917). Kurth contrasts the “phenomena of thematic consolidation [Verdichtung] and thematic dissolution [Auflösung]” (1991: 60), which distinguish “thematic representation[s]” from “transitional passage[s]” (ibid: 73). “Dissolution” is defined as the dissection and simplification of thematic materials, to the point where they dissolve into “generalization of their dynamic progressions”; transitional passages in works of the most diverse kinds and of the most heterogeneous content evolve certain typical motives, which are identical or at least very similar to one another. (ibid: 65) Kurth’s discourse is suffused with the terminology of tension, opposition and struggle. He regards internal conflict as the source of Bach’s power, and its absence as 2 Müller-Blattau (1963: 88) cites this paragraph alongside Besseler’s references to Charakterthemen in Bach’s fugues, as examples of analyses focusing on the expressive aspects of Bach’s polyphony. - 165 the chief weakness of his 19th-century imitators (ibid: 72). His theory thus exemplifies the knife-edge-balance approach: Complexity and Intensity (and the questioning of thematic Unity through Dissolution) are closely intertwined. Kurth’s theory was applied to Bach’s choral fugues by his student Eugen Thiele.3 Thiele observes two opposing tendencies within Baroque fugue: the objective, “Apollonian” character of Medieval and Renaissance music, represented by polyphonic textures and imitative techniques – and the “Dionysian”, individualistic legacy of the Seconda Pratica, represented by the fugue’s strongly characterised subjects (1936: 12-19, 152-156). In demonstrating this struggle, Thiele relies on Kurth’s concept of thematic dissolution (ibid: 129-139). Thiele argues that Bach’s own fugues increasingly intensify and expose this inherent tension; he speaks of diminishing clarity in Bach’s fugal oeuvre. Bach was thus moving away from Enlightenment ideals just as they were in the ascendant.4 He proposes a theological interpretation for this – albeit one which focuses on restless yearning for God, rather than the calm expression of God’s perfection (ibid: 215-216). Another attempt to question the Fugue-as-stable-balance approach focuses on rhetorical theory. Gregory Butler argues that the concepts of argument and dispute were central to Baroque fugal theory. The theorists he cites do not speak in highly dramatic terms. For example, Mattheson (in Butler 1977: 64) speaks of “combatants” (“Kämpfer”) whose “pleasant dispute” (“Luststreit”) ends in concord; tension, represented in Confutatio sections, is eventually resolved. In Butler’s view, however, most 20th-century theorists downplay the very presence of tension. Their terms for Confutatio (e.g., “episode”, “interlude”), are deceptive: they imply a “relaxation of dramatic tension”, whereas Confutatio’s salient features are “[f]rictions and clashes”, “thematic [...] fragmentation” and “climactic intensification” (ibid: 99). Butler’s discussion is reminiscent of rhetoric-as-semantics theories (though his specific emphasis is on rhetoric-as-structure). In a more recent survey of fugue- 3 Thiele studied with Kurth in Bern; his book is based on a dissertation written under Kurth’s supervision. I am grateful to Lee Rothfarb (personal communication) for this information. 4 Compare with Gould’s explanation of the gradual dissipation of fugal writing in the late 18th century: “In the age of reason the fugue seemed essentially unreasonable” (1984: 16). Walker (2000: 303-315) describes the debate between Bokemeyer (arguing in support of counterpoint) and Mattheson (arguing against the centrality of counterpoint) in terms of a clash between two conceptions of rationalism; for a more general discussion of counterpoint and rationalism (including Bach’s position), see Yearsley 2002: 42-92. On Bach’s resistance of Enlightenment demands for stylistic clarity, see Dreyfus 1996: 131-133. - 166 rhetoric relations, Paul Walker (1999: 161) argues that Butler overstates his case: the relationship between music and rhetoric was “simpler, more general, and less extensive than Butler attempted to assert”. The theoreticians’ discourse has “more to do with the way we humans express ourselves about music” (ibid: 174) than with the way music is composed and heard; and categories of rhetoric-as-structure are illequipped for analysing Bach’s music (ibid: 173-175). Butler’s article implies that the conception of fugue-as-order is a modern invention. David Yearsley, in his recent study of “the meanings that have attached themselves to Bach’s contrapuntal works” (2002: 210), presents a more nuanced picture: the notion of counterpoint as a reflection of divine order was in fact prevalent and central in Bach’s lifetime (ibid: 28-33), but it existed alongside other strands. Bach’s own stance in these debates is not always easy to gauge, but he was certainly aware of counterpoint’s potential for generating conflict and unease (ibid: 99-110). Kurth, Thiele, Adorno and Butler approach fugue from different ideological angles, but they all dispute the idea of the fugue as calm, orderly and balanced in the conventional, “equilibrium” sense. They also converge on a specific analytic point – that “transitions” or “episodes” are more tense and intense than thematic expositions. 7.1.2. Performative implications Cone’s view of baroque music as essentially stable is related to an x/- approach to performance, promoting inflexibility as an ideal. Tensions, where present, can “express themselves naturally in accordance with the varying rhythmic context” as long as performers maintain “a relative equalization of the beats” (1968: 70). A specific conclusion concerning fugues is that, if the subject is indeed the focus of stability, it should maintain a steady character. This view is succinctly represented in Rosalyn Tureck’s prescriptions in “How to Play a Fugue”: Since the basic figure of the subject remains constant, the phrasing of that figure should also remain constant. Thus, throughout a fugue, or any composition built on constant motives, the phrasing for the motives remains unchanged. (Tureck 1960, II: 20) At their most rigid, realisations of such prescriptions reflect a nondevelopmental conception: the subject is consistently phrased in an internally stable, unyielding manner; episodes are treated as momentary relief, devoid of forward momentum (see also p. 185 below). The effect is intensified when the subject is highlighted in all appearances, a feature which Tureck both preached and practised. - 167 As Rothstein (1995: 229-231) points out, this approach is at odds with Bach’s frequent employment of concealed entries (see also Rosen 1996: 3-7). Such formulaic approaches can be seen as the performative equivalents of the fugue-as-law image, which is sometimes cited among the main reasons for the decline of fugal writing and analysis alike in the 19th and 20th centuries (Mann 1987: 6-8, 6369).5 An endorsement of knife-edge-balance views implies a rather different performative realisation of polyphony (cf. McClary 1987: 61, quoted on p. 10 above). Harnoncourt is perhaps the only performer who explicitly advocates a similar approach (see p. 98 above); his scepticism towards the primacy of clarity is reminiscent of Thiele. He is not, however, the only performer to generate tension and conflict within Bach’s polyphonic textures. 7.2. First Kyrie: The shaping of the subject The First Kyrie is usually considered among the most Intense parts of the Mass. Nonetheless, there is a diversity of opinion regarding the sources, degree and character of the movement’s expressiveness. Views range from Spitta’s classification of this movement as “epic” (1889, III: 54) to Wolff’s emphasis on its “driving, modulatory theme” (1991: 102). The range of performative interpretations is, if anything, wider than that of verbal ones. The movement is clearly mono-thematic: the subject is pervasive, and most other motives are derived from it. The shaping of the subject therefore has a significant effect on the shaping of the movement as a whole. 7.2.1. Interpretations in theory 7.2.1.1. The limits of the subject There are two opinions about the subject’s length. Some writers (e.g., Terry 1924: 33; Blankenburg 1974: 27) see it as lasting just over two bars: 5 This concept, however, does have its roots in 18th-century discourse, sometimes with distinctly political overtones (Yearsley 2002: 166-170). - 168 Example 7.1: First Kyrie subject, short version Others (e.g. Stauffer 1997b: 56) extend it further, to encompass four bars: Example 7.2: First Kyrie subject, long version The longer version seems largely irrelevant for performance analysis: while several conductors treat the end of the shorter version as a distinct point of demarcation, none, in my experience, treat the end of the longer version this way. It seems, therefore, that a performer who accepts the longer version, and a performer who finds it undesirable to isolate the subject at all (and for whom, therefore, the precise demarcation of the subject is unimportant), would be indistinguishable in practice. A more important question, in terms of performative realisation, is the treatment of units within the subject. 7.2.1.2. The character of the subject Fugal subjects are often regarded as anchors of stability. Deryck Cooke (1959: 8-9) compares them to “a brick or a block of stone [...] something of no importance in itself, only useful as raw material to be built into a structure”. However, he cites the subject of the First Kyrie among the exceptions – cases where “the thematic material of polyphony is itself expressive, even highly expressive”. Most commentators would accept this view. They differ, however, on the level of internal tension between the subject’s constituent motifs. Charles Terry, for example, views the subject as a single rising gesture which, “shorn of embellishments, reveals itself in its chromatic structure as typical, in Bach’s idiom, of mental grief and torment” (1924: 32-33). - 169 Example 7.3: First Kyrie subject, Terry’s analysis While Terry discards the G-F# appoggiatura from his analysis, John Butt (1991: 87) considers it “the most significant component of the opening harmony”, central to the movement’s motivic structure and expressive import. When properly articulated, with an accent on the off-beat G, it “rubs against the meter – it’s a metrical and melodic dissonance” (in Sherman 1997: 180; see also Butt 1990: 30). Other writers view the subject as a series of connected figures. Stauffer (1997: 55-56), relying in part on Blankenburg’s analysis (1974: 27), enumerates five of them: Repercussio (“Kyrie”);6 a double-layered “wedge”, including Butt’s “sigh” figure in its lower register; a “chromatic digression”; and Exclamatio (the A#-G leap).7 Blankenburg (ibid) classifies the upper register of the “wedge” as Gradatio (cf. p. 174 below); Harnoncourt suggests a rhetoric-as-semantics analysis of its rhythmic pattern: The rhythm Ä | ‚ à ƒ ‚ à Ä | ‚ that pulsates throughout the Kyrie I can be interpreted as a very intensive musical-rhetorical gesture: “Lord, have mercy on us”. (Harnoncourt 1968: 11; reprinted Harnoncourt 1989: 191) If one is urgently asking for something one drops to one’s knees, tugs at garments, and this gesture of supplication has an element of tugging, even when translated into music. (Harnoncourt 1986: 39) Example 7.4: First Kyrie subject, analysed into figures 6 Stauffer defines Repercussio as a “repeated-note motive”. This definition is, however, at odds with all other definitions known to me (cf. Bartel 1997: 372-374; Walker 2000: 443). Blankenburg (1974: 27) uses the German designation “Reperkussionstöne”. 7 Blankenburg contends that this dissonant leap constitutes both Exclamatio and Parrhesia; however, cf. Bartel 1997: 352-356. - 170 Harnoncourt’s imagery is reminiscent of Terry’s (1924: 32): “with hands upstretched to heaven, Ecclesia christiana makes confession of sin and begs forgiveness”. Terry’s gesture, however, is ascending, continuous and flowing (cf. Dickinson 1950: 192; Mellers 1980: 164), whereas Harnoncourt’s is descending, halting and hesitant. To sum up: most verbal descriptions of the subject can be classified into two hearings: a single ascending gesture, or a web of shorter motifs in contrary motion. Though the latter conception is implicit in Kurth’s theory of polyphonic melody, 8 it becomes predominant in analyses informed by rhetorical theory. 7.2.2. Interpretations in practice In this section, I will discuss the subject in its initial appearances: the opening statement by the first flute and first oboe (bars 5-9) and the tenor’s entry commencing the first fugal exposition (bars 30-33). In these appearances, the subject is sufficiently exposed to allow a listener to detect most details in its shaping. Two things, however, must be mentioned at the outset: 1. The subject never appears entirely in isolation; its character is partly determined by the shaping of its surroundings. 2. In most performances, the subject is not shaped identically in all appearances; the statements discussed here are not necessarily representative of their respective renditions. 7.2.2.1. Smooth shaping Within the subject, constituent units can be distinguished by dynamics and articulation alike. The least disruptive option, however, is to avoid these distinctions and perform the subject sempre legato with little or no dynamic inflection. In the absence of the Gradatio’s upward trajectory, a slight separation of the lower appoggiaturas does not alter the basic affect: since there is no rising gesture, neither the appoggiaturas nor the chromatic digression can be felt to disrupt it. This smoother approach is prevalent among symphonic conductors (e.g., Karajan, Jochum, Lehmann, 8 This is reflected in Thiele’s analysis: while ultimately describing the subject as a single rising gesture (1936: 37), he also draws attention to its constituent figures, in the context of Kurth’s theory (ibid: 23, 26, 28). - 171 Maazel, Giulini), as well as pre-1980s, modern instrument Bach specialists like Münchinger, Rilling (1977), Corboz (1979) and Marriner. The most consistent representative of this approach is Karajan (CD 2: 1-2): in both his commercial recordings, the subject is shaped with very little inflection or distinction between components. Most other performances are more varied. For example, Jochum 1957 (CD 2: 4-5) features divisions into short legati in the vocal statement, and a slight crescendo in the Gradatio figure. The lower appoggiatura is slightly distinguished by being sung more piano than its already-soft surroundings. 7.2.2.2. Statuesque readings Before the advent of HIP, the main rival to the “smooth” approach was the sternly articulated interpretation of Ramin, Mauersberger, Richter and Klemperer. The most extreme representative, in this particular case, is Mauersberger (CD 2: 7-8): Example 7.5. First Kyrie, bars 30-32; Mauersberger (CD 2: 8) Here, the subject’s constituent elements are separated, but they all seem to have the same character. The appoggiatura is distinctly isolated from the higher quaver pairs; the latter, however, are not connected to each other. Due to equalised accentuation and static dynamics, there is little sense of overall flow. While this characterisation holds true, in my view, for Richter’s performance of this movement (see p. 188 below), this is only hinted at by his initial shaping of the subject. The two instrumental statements (CD 2: 10) sound meticulously weighted, note-by-note. The vocal shaping (CD 2: 11) is initially more expansive: legato articulation in groups of four; individual notes clearly enunciated, but without Mauersberger’s insistent aspiration. Here, too, dynamic rigidity and bright, harsh sonorities create a statuesque effect, especially in contrast with the softer, more flexible shaping of non-subject materials. Klemperer’s version exemplifies the opposite approach: strict shaping of the subject in a performance which, on the whole, is revealed to be more flexible. - 172 - 7.2.2.3. Lightweight readings Renditions of the First Kyrie’s subject reveal two contrasting trends within HIP: an increasingly light approach, and a growing awareness of internal tensions (see also p. 245 below). The most extreme realisation of the former tendency, however, comes from a non-HIP recording – Schreier 1982. This reading is closer to the Leipzig tradition, not only in its genealogy but also in its specific musical elements. In all instrumental statements (including the bass in bar 22), it combines insistent staccati on quavers with almost equally incisive articulation in the surrounding texture; dynamics are almost uninflected: Example 7.6: First Kyrie, bars 5-7; Schreier 1982 (CD 2: 13) The choral articulation (CD 2: 14) is less incisive, but equally rigid. Schreier’s reading is reminiscent of Mauersberger’s in its dynamic and articulatory rigidity. The light textures, fast tempo and more incisive articulation, however, are more typical of the then-emerging HIP style, as is the treatment of Ö.êµ as a separate figure. A similar, if milder, approach can be found in Parrott (CD 2: 16-18), Schreier 1991 (CD 2: 28), Eby, Koopman (CD 2: 36-38) and Fasolis. The articulation is gently detached;9 the effect is closer to dance-like elegance than to aggressive, harshlyaccentuated staccato. This does not depend on articulation alone: an impression of lightness arguably involves lighter texture, avoidance of heavy emphases or harsh downbeat accentuation, and some degree of dynamic and/or tempo flexibility. 10 Thus, Schreier 1982 generates heaviness through rigid dynamics and accentuation. In Parrott’s case, the lightweight effect is more pronounced in the isolated Ä | Ä Öµ ƒ Ä Öµ Ä |Ä Öµ figure (bars 19-21 and simile; see, for example, his rendition of bars 72-80 at the beginning of CD 2: 18) than within the subject (where an emphasis on the lower appoggiatura balances the lighter effect in the upper register). 9 Schreier 1991’s subject remains, however, more clipped than any period instrument performance. 10 Anything that generates an overly static feel (e.g., terraced dynamics, metronomic rigidity) would also generate heaviness. On the other hand, huge dynamic changes – of the type employed by Jochum and Karajan (1952) – and waves of rubato are also unlikely to generate a feeling of lightness. - 173 Example 7.7: First Kyrie, bars 5-7; Parrott (CD 2: 16) In both Parrott (CD 2: 17) and Koopman (CD 2: 37), vocal statements of the subject are less clipped and more dynamically flexible than instrumental statements:11 Example 7.8: First Kyrie, bars 30-32; Parrott (CD 2: 17) All the above-mentioned performances retain the forward placing of the subject (vis-à-vis other strands in the texture), at least in instrumental statements. This adds to the sense of lightness; the Ä | Ä figure’s buoyancy would probably have been softened by a fuller surrounding texture. These performances typify the features that led critics to speak of HIP/modernist performances as lightweight and inconsequential. Their suggestion of cheerfulness does not correspond to any verbal interpretation familiar to me, and might not have been intended, as such, by the musicians (though it might reflect a +/aesthetics). Detailed examination would be required to test whether many listeners would perceive this expression within these performances.12 7.2.2.4. Rhetorical readings Rhetorically-inclined performers draw out several of the figures that have been read out of (or into) the subject. Emphases on the lower appoggiatura’s “metric dissonance” are relatively rare. There are occasional hints in several performances (including the pre-HIP Scherchen 1950 and Shaw 1960); in other cases, the 11 The difference is much more strongly pronounced in Koopman’s recording, where the vocal statements are shaped with the familiar group-of-four and a small-scale crescendo on the Gradatio figure (with the sighs rendered slightly quieter, but not separated). 12 Schreier 1982 bears the hallmarks that Patrik Juslin (2001: 316) associates with expression of happiness: “fast tempo, high sound level, staccato articulation, large articulation variability, fast tone attacks, and bright timbres”. The other performances described here bear most of these hallmarks as well, but do not match Schreier 1982 for “tone attacks”. - 174 appoggiatura’s first note is emphasised when the subject is stated in the bass (bars 2223), but not in other statements (e.g., Rifkin 1982, Gardiner, Leonhardt, Harnoncourt 1968 and 1986, Rilling 1988). The most consistent emphasis on this figure can be found in Hengelbrock’s choral statements. The Gradatio receives more consistent attention from HIP performers (primarily those of rhetorical inclination). Wenzinger (1968: 42) equated Gradatio with crescendo (compare, however, Bartel 1997: 220-225, 267). There are two ways to realise this identification in the Kyrie subject: three separate crescendi; and linked, continuous crescendi, creating a single gesture out of the three disparate pairs. Leonhardt’s performance demonstrates the first approach. In the instrumental statements, dynamic gradation is implied by articulation: a light upbeat followed by an accented, tenuto, downbeat from woodwinds and bass alike. 13 This latter affect contributes to the Gradatio’s prominence by submerging the lower appoggiaturas. Example 7.9: First Kyrie, bars 5-7; Leonhardt (CD 2: 21) Leonhardt’s vocal statements are phrased in the standard four-note pattern. Dynamics play a more distinctive role here: a subtle internal echo allowing prominence to the Gradatio’s two-note crescendo. Example 7.10: First Kyrie, bars 30-32; Leonhardt (CD 2: 22) 13 In Gardiner’s and Hickox’s instrumental statements (CD 2: 19, 29), a similar effect is achieved through distinct shaping of strong and weak beats in the bass. The continuo line emerges as a distinct melody, but its pattern of accents supports the emphasis on the subject’s Gradatio. - 175 A similar pattern occurs in Herreweghe 1988 (CD 2: 26-27), albeit with more continuous support from the bass and a clearer tendency towards overall dynamic construction. In the vocal statements (CD 2: 27), Herreweghe submerges the lower appoggiaturas by joining them together with the downbeat; the emerging pattern is Ä Ö-µ, rather than the more conventional Ä Ä Öµ. Example 7.11: First Kyrie, bars 30-32; Herreweghe 1988 (CD 2: 27) The vocal statements in Herreweghe 1996 provide the clearest illustration of the Gradatio as a single crescendo:14 Example 7.12: First Kyrie, bars 30-32; Herreweghe 1996 (CD 2: 40) Similar patterns can be found in Jacobs, Hengelbrock (CD 2: 43-44), Koopman (vocal statements; CD 2: 37), Brüggen, Christophers, and Jeffrey Thomas (CD 2: 3334). The last mentioned, however, seems closer to the older tradition of viewing the subject as single rising gesture, especially in the vocal statements:15 Example 7.13: First Kyrie, bars 30-32; J. Thomas (CD 2: 34) 14 In the opening ritornello, the crescendo is created more by the strings (especially bass) than by the winds’ shaping of the subject. 15 This might also be said of Christophers’ and Brüggen’s shaping of the vocal entries. - 176 While not all vocal entries are shaped in precisely this manner, the sense of continuity – within and beyond the phrase – is always palpable. I was unable to find another performance that projects a similar trajectory. Thomas Hengelbrock projects the Gradatio figure beyond (but not through) the lower appoggiaturas (and more clearly in vocal than in instrumental statements). However, his shaping of this figure, and of the subject as a whole, is deliberately hesitant. Hengelbrock shapes the vocal entries as a series of legato pairs. This articulation is by no means unique to Hengelbrock (cf. Brüggen’s instrumental statements, Gardiner’s vocal statements). But Hengelbrock’s tempo is slower, his emphases heavier, the breaths separating the pairs more extended, and the dynamic contrast between higher and lower strata more clearly distinct. Thus, his “sighs”, unaccented though they are, still act as interruptions to the Gradatio. Example 7.14: First Kyrie, bars 30-32; Hengelbrock (CD 2: 44) The same factors are also present in Harnoncourt’s 1986 reading of this movement.16 Harnoncourt’s tempo (± = 50) is not as slow Hengelbrock’s (± = 46). On the other hand, Harnoncourt’s emphases and accentuations are heavier, and the separations between phrases often longer. The “tug in the garment” imagery (see p. 170 above) focuses on a particular figure, but its spirit affects the performance even when that figure is absent: there is a sense of something being dragged backwards, tugged in the opposite direction to its purported motion. Thus, the impression of constant, deliberate interruption is even stronger. In the orchestral statements, this effect is further intensified through the independent shaping of the bass. Earlier (p. 174n above), I cited examples wherein the bass line supporting the subject’s trajectory; here the two are at odds with one another. Harnoncourt does not ignore the strong-weak metric division; but he shapes the bass as an independent melody, whose trajectory only partly coincides with the subject’s. 16 In Harnoncourt 1968, the orchestral statements are clearly articulated, but the effect is of comfortable flow reminiscent of Münchinger. In both cases, this results from a relatively fast tempo, light texture and narrow dynamic range. The choir’s long, uninflected legato probably reflects Gillesberger’s priorities, rather than Harnoncourt’s. - 177 Example 7.15: First Kyrie, bars 5-14; Harnoncourt 1986 (CD 2: 23) - 178 - In the initial vocal statements, the sense of hesitation and instability is created primarily through the voices’ detailed articulation and deliberate accentuation of the subject, combined, as before, with the slow tempo. Example 7.16: First Kyrie, bars 30-32; Harnoncourt 1986 (CD 2: 24) Across the movement, however, it is the mutual questioning of parts which is predominant. Harnoncourt’s and Hengelbrock’s questioning manner is an exception; the clearer trajectories of Herreweghe and Thomas, the elegance of Koopman and Parrott, and the calmer renditions of many others are more common. It is also these influences that “filter” outside the HIP approach into mainstream renditions. In most cases (e.g., Rilling 1988, esp. instrumental statements; Schneidt; Beringer 1994; Abbado; Rilling 1999; Ozawa’s vocal statements), a flowing, dynamically-narrow approach not unlike Münchinger’s reveals HIP influences through its lighter textures and more detailed articulation (short legati, gently-detached non legato); a few performances (e.g., Biller, Ozawa’s orchestra) even approach dance-like elegance. - 179 - 7.2.2.5. Summary Two prominent tropes in the First Kyrie’s verbal reception (the single rising gesture and the Gradatio) focus on the subject’s overall trajectory. Only in recent years has this become a priority in performance as well. HIP musicians, in particular, have explored this issue, enhancing (or, more rarely, deliberately thwarting) the sense of purpose and ebb-and-flow. Few pre-HIP renditions reveal a concern with the subject’s overall shape; for the most part, they focus on projecting its general character, allowing (at most) a few localised dynamic nuances. 7.3. The structure and shape of the fugue Fugal subjects are often said to contain the seeds of the character of the fugue as a whole. In performances of the First Kyrie, this claim might be applicable in terms of affect: how lightly or portentously the subject is performed reliably presages the performance’s general character. But when it comes to predicting the overall shape, a myopic discussion of the subject can be misleading. 7.3.1. Interpretations in theory 7.3.1.1. The movement’s structure The First Kyrie’s classification as a “fugue” is not self-evident. Donald Tovey (1937: 25-28) points out that its opening ritornello recurs twice, almost literally, as the movement proceeds. He also observes, however, that the movement contains two seven-part fugal expositions. In each case, the last two entries form the beginning of the ritornello’s return. In 17th- and 18th-century theory, the term “fugue” could refer to a section within a movement as well as to an entire movement. Roger Bullivant (1971: 157) therefore classifies the First Kyrie – alongside the Et in terra, Cum sancto spiritu and Et resurrexit – as a ritornello movement with fugal episodes (cf. W. Neumann 1953: 67). The fugal element is, however, more prominent in the First Kyrie: the expositions are more extended, and both choral entries commence with such an exposition. - 180 While no counter-arguments to Tovey’s analysis have been offered, several writers (e.g., Mellers 1980: 164-170; Stauffer 1997b: 56)17 analyse the movement as a fugue. Others (e.g., Knapp 1974; Buelow 1981a: 38-39; Butt 1991: 61) follow Tovey’s example in combining ritornello and fugue principles. Emery (1954), who dismisses any reference to fugue in this movement as wrong-headed, proposes a thematic analysis for the ritornello: The ritornello has four themes arranged thus: AAB:CDAB. B ends with a solid cadence (bars 15 and 29). [...] Themes A, C, and D have motives in common; A is also the subject of the fugal sections and occurs twice in the interlude. The ritornello could also be analysed in terms of Wilhelm Fischer’s three-part division of the standard ritornello, as refined by Laurence Dreyfus (1996: 60-66). Emery’s AAB (bars 5-15) corresponds to the Vordersatz: B’s “solid cadence” accords with that section’s tonal-syntactic function of Tonic Definition (the move from tonic to dominant). In the conclusion, that same cadence secures the Tonic Resolution; the final AB (bars 22-29) therefore constitutes an Epilog. The middle CD (bars 15-21) constitutes the Fortspinnung, lacking both Tonal Definition and Tonic Resolution. D (bars 19-21) isolates and emphasises Harnoncourt’s “tug in the garment” figure; it can also be seen as an example of Kurth’s “dissolution” process. 17 Stauffer mentions the role of ritornello in the First Kyrie in his review of John Butt’s book (1993: 261). Mellers quotes Tovey in several instances, though not on the First Kyrie. - 181 Example 7.17: A reduction of the First Kyrie’s ritornello (Tovey 1937: 26). Additional markings indicate the ritornello’s sections. V = beginning of Vordersatz; F1 = beginning of Fortspinnung (Emery’s C); F2 = continuation of Fortspinnung (Emery’s D); E = beginning of Epilog - 182 The movement’s sections could therefore be defined as follows: 1. Introduction: bars 1-4 2. First Ritornello (R1), in B minor: bars 5-29 Vordersatz: bars 5-15 Fortspinnung: bars 15-21 Epilog: bars 22-29 3. First Exposition (E1), in B minor: bars 30-47 4. Second Ritornello (R2), in F#-minor: bars 48-72 Vordersatz: bars 48-58 Fortspinnung: bars 58-64 Epilog: bars 65-72 5. Interlude: bars 72-80 6. Second Exposition (E2), in B minor: bars 81-101 7. Third Ritornello (R3) , in B minor: bars 102-126 Vordersatz: bars 102-112 Fortspinnung: bars 112-118 Epilog: bars 119-126 The word “section”, however, is misleading: the beginnings of R2 and R3 are disguised. A purely-fugal analysis like Stauffer’s (1997b: 56) might correspond better to what listeners perceive, representing the façade which conceals Bach’s “hidden ritornello” (Butt 1991: 68-69). The subject has a definite identity, and its presence and absence registers more strongly in most listeners’ experience than the literal repeat of the ritornello (which does not register clearly at all). Likewise, the Interlude’s solelyinstrumental scoring registers more strongly than the transitions from “Exposition” to “Ritornello”; E1-R2 and E2-R3 register as continuous sequences (a point which Tovey also emphasised). 7.3.1.2. The movement’s shape The contrast between formal and audible divisions in this movement brings to mind the distinction between the analyst’s concept of “structure” (Rink 1990: 323) or “form” (Huray 1990: 19), and the performer’s concept of “shape” – the music’s patterns of “tensions and relaxation, its climaxes, its changes of pace and mood” (ibid; cf. Schmalfeldt 1985: 18; Rink 1990: 323, 2002b: 39). - 183 My table above is an attempt to outline the First Kyrie’s form. In terms of audible shape, however, it might make more sense to divide the movement (from bar 5 onwards) into two sections, starting with R1 and the Interlude respectively. Most commentators agree that the second section has a clear pattern of growing intensity; some observe a similar pattern in the first section as well (e.g., Schweitzer 1911, II: 314; Dickinson 1950: 192). Rilling (1984: 6) writes of the movement as being constructed of “two largescale choral development sections (mm. 30-72 and 81-126)”. Although he regards the second development as more intense, he identifies a climactic point in the first section as well – the bass’s entry in bar 45 (the final entry in E1), further intensified by the orchestra’s doubling of the choir (marking the entry of R2). The second section’s peak is located around bar 102. Rilling also identifies several episodes which “possess no tendency toward development” (ibid), and allow for relative calm between subject-led sequences of rising intensity (see also Stauffer 1997b: 56-57). Herreweghe (in Sherman 1997: 282) implies that the movement’s shape can be discerned in accordance with rhetorical principles, stressing the Confutatio’s contrasting function. He does not, however, propose a detailed analysis comparable to that of the Matthäus-Passion’s opening movement (see p. 108f above). Sherman (ibid: 282n) hypothesises a possible structure, in which R2 (which presents the dominant key) serves as the Confutatio. Another possible candidate is the Interlude, which contrasts with the movement’s dominant affect (see also Buelow 1981a: 26); and if the primary criterion is heightened tension, then E2 might seem the ideal candidate. However, the very uncertainty over the Confutatio’s location might represent another argument against the effectiveness of the six-fold division for analysing an intricate and continuous movement like the First Kyrie (see also p. 192 below). For the most part, the commentaries cited above are complementary. They all present the movement as consisting of two sections, each with a pattern of rising intensity, with the second more intense than the first. For many, the most dramatic moment in the first section is the bass’s entry in bar 45 – the final fugal entry, marked by the bass’s omission until that point. In the second section, commentators focus on bar 102 (the transition into R3) or bar 119 (the bass statement signalling R3’s final Epilog). Stauffer (1997b: 57) writes of “the growing crescendo” starting in bar 45, leading him to view the entire movement “as a - 184 plea for mercy from the depths [...] that proceeds with rising strength and momentum”. In my view, this description is more applicable to the build-up from the beginning of E2 to R3’s Vordersatz. E2 builds up in a composed crescendo “from the depths” – proceeding upwards from the bass (balanced, however, by continued thematic activity of the orchestra’s higher registers: the choir gradually merges into the oboes and violins). 18 Harmonically, too, E2 features a greater build-up of tension. In E1, the alteration of Dux and Comes is straightforward, and each tonic statement of the subject is firmly supported in B minor. E2, on the other hand, is tonally more active and volatile. There are strong cadences, in the bass, on F#-minor (bars 85/6, 91), E minor (bars 96/7), and A major (bars 93/4, 100), as well as B minor. These cadences underpin continued activity elsewhere in the texture, which prevents closure and maintains momentum. The subject’s entries – with the exception of the bass’s at the beginning of the exposition – are not aligned with these cadences, and consequently do not receive the same harmonic support as their E1 counterparts. The second soprano’s tonal entry is avoided altogether: instead, it enters in E minor (bar 97). In the transition to R3 (bar 102), the first soprano’s entry is questioned both harmonically (a tonic entry of the subject underpinned by a strong applied dominant) and texturally (the entry is disguised by the second soprano’s sustained F#). There is no sense of closure at this point; tension is maintained throughout the ritornello’s Vordersatz. Full resolution in the tonic is only attained at the ritornello’s Epilog. 7.3.1.3. Performative implications The discussion above might suggest that purely structural issues are irrelevant to performance. The undisputed fact that the movement features a complex polyphonic texture, with fugal episodes, is sufficient to create a demand for balance and clarity, regardless of whether one views the movement as a “pure” fugue or not. However, formal-generic classification might still affect performance. For those who share the “static equilibrium” concept of fugue (see pp. 163ff above), classifying the First Kyrie as a fugue has obvious implications: expositions should be kept relatively stable, whereas episodes with non-subject material could be treated more 18 In the opening section, the strings are silent through most of E1, joining in only on the bass’s entry in bar 45. - 185 flexibly. The subject should be consistently highlighted, and its phrasing and character should remain unaltered throughout. This approach is illustrated – almost caricatured – in Georg Solti’s performance (see also see p. 190 below). Fugal classification also has an impact on the perception of the movement’s character and shape. Those performers who accept the association of counterpoint and fugue with seriousness and intellectualism are likely to avoid an overly dramatic interpretation. In this context, however, the distinction between “fugue” and “ritornello movement with a strong fugal element” might not be very significant. On the face of it, the ritornello analysis would also be unlikely to affect performance. There are no recordings of Tovey’s performances of the Mass; but given his explicit description of the ritornello as artfully concealed from the listener (1937: 28), it is unlikely that he brought out its entries as a conductor. These entries mark key points in the movement’s shape: the expansion of the orchestral texture at the beginning of R2, the climactic soprano entry at the beginning of R3. These are not, however, points of demarcation: the movement’s two sections reach a peak of tension around, but necessarily at, these points. This basic shape allows for a spectrum of performative realisations. E2 can be shaped as a single, continuous rise in tension, culminating in bar 102 or beyond. Other performances offer a less linear shape, with several ebb-and-flow patterns within E2, making the climax at or around bar 102 less obvious. Finally, there are those who maintain low tension through most of E2, offering only a single crescendo at bars 99102. There are also many performances that do not delineate strong patterns of tension and resolution, but rather project an almost uniform level of intensity throughout. 7.3.2. Interpretations in practice 7.3.2.1. Peak at R2 In the rest of this chapter, I will focus on the shaping of the second section, and especially on bars 81-112 (E2 and R3’s Vordersatz); in most performances, these passages are shaped more actively than the earlier sections in the movement. There are, however, notable exceptions to this rule. Karl Richter, in all three recordings, reserves the most detailed, nuanced treatment to the E1-R2 transition (CD 2: 11). There is a crescendo from bar 44 (just - 186 before the bass’s entry) to the soprano entry at bar 50; and the entry of instruments doubling the choir is strongly highlighted. The rest of the Vordersatz is on the same level, but a further crescendo through F2 creates a sense of arrival at the Epilog’s bass entry. This shape is most vividly projected in the 1969 Japanese relay, with its faster tempo and higher level of local nuance. The second section, however, is not treated with similar flexibility (see p. 188 below). Another option is represented by those conductors who adopt a concertinoripieno division in this movement: Shaw (1961, 1990), Gardiner and Parrott. Ehmann (1961: 50) recommends a division in both sections, employing concertists only in E1 (up to but not including the bass entry) and in the beginnings of the Fortspinnung in both choral ritornelli (F1, bars mid-58-61 and mid-112-115). Shaw, Gardiner and Parrott (in his 1979 live performance) adopt only the first group of suggestions, allocating most of E1 to soloists and then underlining the transition from E1 to R2 by gradually introducing the ripienists. This creates a potentially dramatic gesture at the bass’s full choral entry in bar mid-45, which is unparalleled in the second section. Only Gardiner, however, seizes this gesture’s theatrical potential. In Shaw’s performances, the transition from concertists to full chorus registers as a gradual change in timbre, not a dramatic change in volume. The overall dynamic range in the 1990 version is wider than in 1960, but this is more noticeable within choral sections than in the transitions from soloists to choir. Within the 1990 version, the second section is more dynamically active than the first, despite the absence of concertino/ripieno distinction. Parrott’s recording (CD 2: 17) seems to apply the concertino/ripieno division in greater detail than either Shaw or Gardiner (or Parrott’s own 1979 concert). Even when listening on headphones, however, it is not always easy to tell whether a passage is sung solo or tutti: Parrott’s tutti consists of only two singers per part, and in some passages the balance favours the orchestra. E1 is clearly sung by concertists up to the bass entry, but it is not entirely clear whether there are concertino-ripieno divisions in E2 or the choral ritornelli. In any case, none of the tutti entries registers as a strongly accentuated moment: as in Shaw’s reading, there are more notable dynamic changes within ripieno passages than in concertino-ripieno transitions. Gardiner’s recording (CD 2: 20) remains, therefore, the only one in which this transition has a forceful, dramatic effect. He intensifies this by drawing attention to the vocal bass’s absence up to that point. The harpsichord, clearly present in R1, is - 187 omitted from E1, and the rest of the orchestra is placed in the background. In bar 37 (the soprano entry), Gardiner seems to omit the double-bass and bassoon. All omitted instruments are brought back when the choral basses enter; the introduction of the full choir is enhanced by an emphasis on the strings’ entry, and by a transition to forte. Although Gardiner also modulates the ebb-and-flow in E2, leading into bar 102, this section does not register as dramatically as the transition into R2. For Gardiner, as for Richter, the entry of R2 seems to be the most dramatic, intense moment in the First Kyrie; this also applies to Gardiner’s 1989 Proms performance. 7.3.2.2. The arch and the monument Before 1980, most performances of the First Kyrie could be divided into two groups. In the first group, performers applied detailed local articulation, but did not shape large-scale structures. In the second group, performers projected clear patterns of tension and resolution, primarily through dynamics, but employed relatively uniform articulation. Thus, the performances cited earlier for their detailed renditions of the subject seem relatively uneventful when one examines their shaping of the movement as a whole, and vice versa (though some performances are fairly inactive on both fronts; e.g., Grischkat 1959, Lehmann, Münchinger, Karajan 1974). Two extreme examples are Mauersberger and Karajan 1952. Mauersberger (CD 2: 9) achieves remarkable textural clarity through meticulous articulation (see also p. 171 above) and cohesive tonal production. His dynamics, however, are virtually static. Karajan 1952 (CD 2: 3) is characterised by predominantly legato articulation, with little or no separation between phrases; his texture is treble dominated. On the other hand, he strongly projects the movement’s overall shape (a feature rather atypical of his performance as a whole; see p. 48 above). E2, in particular, is shaped as a single, inexorably rising gesture: a series of crescendi, connected by brief passages of dynamic stasis. There is a slight articulatory emphasis on the first soprano’s forte entry in bar 102; otherwise, the exposition is shaped almost exclusively by dynamics, and the orchestra plays a more dominant role than the choir. An even more interesting contrast emerges from a comparison of two ostensibly less extreme examples: Jochum 1957 (CD 2: 6) and Richter 1961 (CD 2: 12). In both performances, attention is devoted to projecting shape and texture alike. Nonetheless, their conceptions remain radically different. - 188 Richter proves more interventionist than his Saxon mentors and colleagues. Ramin and Thomas, though not as dynamically uniform as Mauersberger, do not attempt to project anything similar to Karajan’s arch of rising tension; Richter goes one step further, seemingly seeking to prevent this arch from arising. As I noted (p. 185 above), Richter’s E1 is comparatively nuanced. As in his Et in terra (see p. 65f above), however, nuance is reserved to less dramatic moments.19 The second section is built in a much stricter, terraced manner – even in the live 1969 relay. Terraced rigidity is already clear in the Interlude (beginning of CD 2: 12), where the four phrases are mutually distinct and internally uniform. The basses then enter sforzando – there is no diminuendo in the end of the Interlude; the subject is shaped more meticulously, resembling the instruments’ weighting of the subject in R1, rather than the chorus’s more expansive approach in E1 (see p. 171 above). This powerful gesture places the climax at the beginning of the second section. There is nowhere to go from this point, unless dynamics are reduced to allow for a new crescendo, an option which Richter avoids. There is a small-scale crescendo in bars 99-104, and a slight lightening of intensity (softer dynamics and timbre) on R3’s F1; but another crescendo through F2 leads back into an intense rendition of R3’s Epilog. These small modifications notwithstanding, Richter’s shaping of the movement creates an unyielding, monumental impression. Eugen Jochum’s vision of the First Kyrie, in both of his recordings, is more organic and developmental. The beginnings of all main structural sections are highlighted – though not necessarily as points of demarcation; there are clear demarcations at the end of each ritornello; the end of the Vordersatz in both choral ritornelli serves as a high point of tension – especially in R3. Tension is maintained, however, even in moments of comparative relaxation. Thus, the dynamics drop at the beginning of each Fortspinnung; but Jochum preserves momentum by highlighting inner strands in F1. The more homophonic F2 serves as a crescendo leading into the Epilog, where the bass’s entry is emphasised in all three ritornelli (CD 2: 6 includes E2 and R3 in their entirety). 19 A similar phenomenon occurs in Marriner’s First Kyrie, though it is less typical of his Mass as a whole. - 189 While several passages in Jochum’s performances can be regarded as “high points” (the transition into R2,20 the beginnings of the Epilogs), the most highly charged passage is in bars 81-112. The contrast between Jochum 1957 and Richter 1961 is revealing. Whilst Richter opens E2 with firm confidence, Jochum begins it misterioso: the basses enter piano, partly submerged, veiled and barely shaped (after a diminuendo in bar 80). The mists are only gradually lifted. The level of local activity increases as the movement proceeds: other voices shape the subject more actively, especially in dynamics. When the tension threatens to flag in bars 95-96 (which feature more melodic flow and less strongly-pronounced cadences), Jochum brightens the sonority and highlights the bass, with its more active melody. The first soprano’s oft-submerged entry in bar 102 is clearly highlighted, but the crescendo continues to mount afterwards. Only at the beginning of bar 112 – when harmonic resolution is reached – does the performance attain a degree of relaxation. Several other performances follow the same trajectory as Jochum (e.g., Scherchen 1950, 1959; Karajan 1952; Klemperer 1961, 1967; Rilling 1977, 1988, 1999; Giulini 1972, 1994), although they usually cover a narrower range of dynamics and colours. Jochum’s 1980 recording projects the same shape with different means: textures are clearer; the crescendo is more clearly subject-led; the dynamic range is narrower; articulation is more varied and detailed. These changes might reflect awareness of general developments in Bach performance between 1957 and 1980. The firmer choral sound, smaller range and more meticulous articulation, however, are also reminiscent of Klemperer 1967, who in turn was probably preserving some of the lessons he learned from Ramin. All the performances enumerated above seem to project a +/+ approach: they discern a clear drive towards a climax (or a climactic area) in Bach’s score, and see it as their interpretive prerogative (or obligation) to bring it out in performance. They share several other characteristics: slow tempi; heavy textures; shaping more through dynamics than through articulation. In most cases, the subject in E2 is treated as part of the overall crescendo, not isolated from its surroundings (Scherchen and Maazel are notable exceptions). Most of them do not attempt (or, at any rate, do not achieve) a 20 In 1957, this is marked by a clear (yet possibly coincidental) emphasis on the violins’ entries, following a clear rise in dynamics at the preceding bass entry. In 1980, the violins’ entry is not so strongly marked – but there is a clear forte from both first and second soprani (bars 48 and 50). - 190 high level of clarity; the most notable exception is Klemperer 1967, followed by Giulini 1972 and Jochum (1957 and especially 1980). Mauersberger, at the other extreme, presents an x/- approach to the movement’s shape: he seems preoccupied with texture above all. It is harder to apply the x/- label to Richter and Ramin: their forceful bass entries at the beginning of E2 constitute a strong, intentional-sounding gesture – born, perhaps, out of an attempt to reconcile a dramatic conception of the movement with a belief in terraced dynamics and a suspicion of gradual build-up (see also Schweitzer 1911, I: 362-363). Nonetheless, they largely share Mauersberger’s marginalization of shape in favour of texture. In later performances related to this tradition – primarily Schreier 1991 and Biller – there is a greater willingness to bring out the movement’s shape. Their meticulously-separated phrases, however, impede the sense of flow, as does their insistence on isolating and highlighting the subject. This latter tendency is especially evident in Schreier 1991, where the alto, first soprano and second soprano entries in E2 are preceded by diminuendi. Schreier thus retreats precisely where other conductors use the à Ä | Öµ Öµ ± figure to intensify the crescendo. Other performances feature a more subtle subject/non-subject distinction. In his 1977 version, Rilling – like several symphonic conductors – projects a continuous E2 crescendo, with no distinction between thematic materials. In 1988 and 1999 (CD 2: 46), however, most forward movement occurs on non-subject material (some of it simultaneous with the subject), without halting the crescendo. Part of the explanation is that the 1977 performance is dominated by dynamic modifications, whereas in 1988 and (especially) 1999, articulation plays a stronger role – especially within the subject. It is still easier, however, to raise the overall dynamic level in legato passages, which is how Rilling treats the à Ä | Öµ Öµ ± figure and stepwise passages even in the 1999 version. In general, the “symphonic” and “Lutheran” approaches to this movement are largely concerned with projecting its grandeur and sublimity, and therefore focus on overall effect, rather than local details. Even performances as strongly contrasted as Jochum 1957 and Richter 1961 can still seem similar when compared to other approaches, which in several different ways make this music less “larger-than-life”. - 191 - 7.3.2.3. The “beautiful” and the “secular” The First Kyrie largely confirms the stereotype that Bach’s music has been speeding up in recent decades – especially from the late 1960s to the early 1990s. This seemingly supports the contention that modern performance is “leery of the sublime” (see also p. 172 above). In the present context, one would expect this “leeriness” to be realised through little attention to dramatic shaping, with no large-scale patterns of tension and release. This tendency can already be sensed in several pre-HIP performances, notably Karajan 1974 and Münchinger. In both performances, the predominant articulation is a seamless legato. Karajan’s dynamic range in this reading is considerably narrower than in 1952 (p. 187 above). Since that reading was shaped almost exclusively by dynamics, the result in 1974 is virtually featureless, except for a rise in volume and intensity of sound in the transition into R2 (c. bar 48). Textures remain unclear, the only distinct lines being those of the two soprani (doubled by the oboes). Münchinger’s choral sonority is rougher than Karajan’s, but the performance is, if anything, even more featureless. His tempo is considerably faster, with a barely wider range of articulation and an even narrower range of dynamics. Both performances make little or no attempt to underline the movement’s overall shape or bring out more localised patterns of tension and relaxation. Instead, they seem to project a sense of equable, peaceful flow. Few HIP performances approach this extreme; the closest is perhaps is Harnoncourt 1968, where sempre legato choral singing renders most vocal sections near-featureless, despite detailed articulation in the orchestra. More common is the tendency towards partial build-up – local patterns of ebb-and-flow, in which the entry of R3 functions as a local point of arrival. 21 When such an approach is connected with a fast tempo and a tripping, dancelike articulation, the result might seem to actively undermine the movement’s potential for grandeur and seriousness. This extreme is approached in Schreier 1982. As I noted on p. 172 above, Schreier is not the only one to treat the subject in this clipped manner. Others, however (e.g., Parrott, Koopman, Fasolis), use this 21 Corboz 1979 presents yet another option: a sudden, unprepared surge in dynamics in an otherwise calm, gently-underlined performance, towards an especially vivid climax at bar 102. - 192 articulation primarily in orchestral passages, phrasing vocal passages more expansively; and this becomes even more apparent in section 2. Parrott’s reading features a definite rise in tension at bar 92, culminating at bars 95-96 with no subsequent emphasis on bar 102. Koopman (CD 2: 38) retains a dancelike lilt in the subject (and in the clearly-audible orchestral parts) even during E2, albeit as echoing legato pairs, not through clipped articulation. His reading features some local crescendi, but no sense of arrival at bar 102. After Schreier 1982, this is probably the most light-hearted, non-monumental reading (Ozawa is another strong contender); some would find it even lighter thanks to its more flowing, less insistently accented articulation. Joshua Rifkin’s performance (CD 2: 15) also features little or no sense of overall build-up; but in his case, this is allied with a moderate tempo, and detailed yet gentle instrumental articulation (discreetly-detached non legato, no sharp accentuation). His singers employ a more consistently legato articulation, and a higher degree of dynamic nuance (including a hint of crescendo in the Gradatio figure in some subject statements).22 The textures are light (if only for the obvious technical reason that Rifkin employs almost the smallest ensemble possible), but the overall effect is not: it is contemplative, peaceful and introverted – a calm prayer reminiscent of the image often associated with Renaissance sacred music (see also p. 140 above). A similar effect is present in several other recordings, among them Leonhardt, Christophers, Max, and Herreweghe 1988. These performances share a rounded sonority, articulation ranging from legato to very gently articulated non legato; they avoid strict uniformity, but do not overtly project the movement’s shape. Unlike Rifkin, they underline bars 99-102 with a slight crescendo, but this is treated as a gentle, local peak. The performance that most strongly resembles Rifkin’s is Herreweghe’s: slightly faster and fuller in sonority, but featuring a similar roundness and a comparatively narrow range of dynamics and articulation alike. As I have already noted (see p. 175 above), Herreweghe’s 1996 performance features the most distinct shaping of the Gradatio figure in the fugal subject, at least in E1. This does not translate, however, to a clear trajectory for the movement as a 22 The 1997 Regensburg performance is largely similar, but features a higher degree of individualised phrasing and internal dialogue in the vocal parts. - 193 whole: it is difficult to deduce, from either of his recordings, where Herreweghe believes the Confutatio is located (see p. 183 above). Instead of a concentrated area of higher tension, Herreweghe 1996 (CD 2: 41) features constant patterns of ebb-and-flow within sections, sometimes different ones for different voices (projected primarily through dynamics). The beginning of R2 and R3 are among the moments of higher tension, followed in each case by a subtle relaxation at the beginning of the Fortspinnung. Disjunctions between simultaneous phrase boundaries are clearly exposed – not least in E2, where the focus of attention constantly shifts between different strands of the texture, and is usually drawn away from the subject. The resulting performance is strongly directional on the level of individual phrases, but does not project a clear overall trajectory for the movement as a whole. For a performance of this movement that realises Herreweghe’s stated ideals (clear patterns of tension and contrast, vocal-led lyricism and conductorial restraint), one might turn to René Jacobs’s recording (CD 2: 35). In this version, all ritornello entries emerge as significant events, and the ritornelli themselves are shaped in an analogous manner (compare with Jochum, p. 188 above): full sonority at Vordersatz; relaxation at beginning of Fortspinnung (or towards end of Vordersatz); insistent unanimity on F2; diminuendo conclusion for Fortspinnung; a fuller and calmer Epilog, concluded with another diminuendo. With the exception of F2’s entries (bars 19, 62, 116), there are no sudden jolts: sections are clearly marked, yet connected and prepared. Jacobs builds up to a clear climax at bar 102. The crescendo only begins on the alto entry in bar 88. Notwithstanding a slight diminuendo at bars 95-96, the overall trajectory is clear from this point, and the first soprano’s entry (and its orchestral doubling) in bar 102 is strongly highlighted – a gesture all the more marked by the lack of emphasis on the subject in previous entries. This dramatic gesture notwithstanding, the performance on the whole maintains a peaceful atmosphere. Since all ritornelli end in diminuendo, heightened tension is always followed by relaxation (in R3, there is also a diminuendo towards the Vordersatz’s cadence, in bars 109-111). This is another feature that differentiates Jacobs from the dramatic-organic performances described in the previous section (pp. 188ff), which usually end with a dramatically affirmative forte (cf. Jochum 1957, CD 2: 6). - 194 Other HIP conductors attempt something closer to this traditional shape, the most prominent example being Richard Hickox (alongside Gardiner, Brüggen and J. Thomas). Hickox’s version (CD 2: 31) differs from traditional performances in many respects: more transparent texture, with greater orchestral prominence; faster tempo; more detailed articulation; and more attention to metrical patterns (see p. 174n above). However, Hickox demonstrates that these features can support the projection of the traditional, single-arch shape. His approach combines “traditional” and “rhetorical” features. On non-subject material, he combines crescendo and legato, particularly on the à Ä | Öµ Öµ ± figure. However, he uses the insistent articulation on the subject (especially the “Kyrie”), as well as the shaping of other voices, to ensure that tension does not flag at any point. These lessons seem to filter back into modern instrument recordings, notable examples being Rilling 1999 (CD 2: 46) and Abbado. 7.3.2.4. Undermining the monument The First Kyrie in Harnoncourt 1986 seems, at first, to bear several hallmarks of the monumental approach, at least compared to rival HIP recordings: slow tempo, bass-heavy texture, larger-sounding choir. Several reviewers picked up on these features (e.g., Anderson 1987, Woss 1987), while ignoring the point which seemed to matter most to Harnoncourt, and which distances him most strongly from traditional approaches – the “tug in the garment” figure (see pp. 170 and 176ff above). Harnoncourt’s performance (CD 2: 25) is dominated by metric dissonances, primarily outside the subject. Having established a clear metre, he brings out small figures (often sostenuto fragments) which begin on a weak beat or between beats, accenting their first notes. This usually occurs in just one or two strands, and therefore rubs against more regular patterns elsewhere. In a sound stage of equal yet alternating balance, this creates a hesitant, halting effect. Harnoncourt appears to drive E2 towards a climax. However, this effect is consistently compromised. The orchestral parts are shaped with much local detail, creating a continuity between the end of the Interlude and the beginning of E2 and maintaining the familiar pattern of metric dissonances. As the choir’s phrasing becomes more distinct (the bass’s entry is partly submerged), more opportunities for clashes emerge. Within this context, the à Ä | Öµ Öµ ± figure provides occasional relief: Harnoncourt phrases it legato, with less interference from other strands, allowing clearer local - 195 directionality. The subject itself, however, disrupts this. Finally, at bar 102, Harnoncourt abruptly disrupts his crescendo with a subito piano for all but the first soprano. This highlights the soprano’s entry, but frustrates the expectations created by the previous build-up. Consequently, R3’s Vordersatz has to start its own build-up, with all the attendant difficulties already referred to. Harnoncourt, like Jacobs, concludes the First Kyrie with a diminuendo; in his case, there is also a pause before the final note. But, where Jacobs’s diminuendo is experienced as a gradual relaxation, Harnoncourt’s is experienced more as an expression of exhaustion. The reasons are clear enough when one compares the level of articulatory detail and accentuation in the two performances. The overall impression in Harnoncourt’s case, beyond the “tug in the garment”, is of strands in the texture pulling in opposite directions and disrupting each other’s flow (as well as their own), of an upward-strive constantly frustrated by weakness and heaviness. Hengelbrock’s performance (CD 2: 45) projects a similar interpretation, albeit with different means. Hengelbrock describes this movement as an expression of mourning: The combination of the individual musical elements (sighing motifs, funeral march rhythms, use of out-of-scale notes and large jumps, chromatically intensified exploitation of the thematic span up to the ninth etc.) decode this movement as a funeral chorus, an “actus tragicus” of unprecedented magnitude. (Hengelbrock 1997; cf. Schering 1936b: 10-11) Hengelbrock’s emphasis on simultaneously-occurring elements is reflected in his performance. He and Harnoncourt bring out many of the same figures. Hengelbrock, however, employs longer stretches of legato, fewer and lighter accentuations (thus facilitating flow, despite employing a slower tempo than any other HIP conductor), and fewer metric dissonances (Hengelbrock’s local dynamic peaks are usually located on strong beats). In E2, Hengelbrock focuses attention on the choir. He brings out the subject’s Gradatio, thereby facilitating clear directionality (although the à Ä | Öµ Öµ ± figure is still the primary motivator in the crescendo). However, he clearly separates the Gradatio from the lower sigh, creating an internal stop-and-go effect. His overall shape is an intermittent crescendo similar to Jacobs’s and Jeffrey Thomas’s: a rise in dynamics in bars 90-94 and 97-102 (esp. 99-102), with an interrupting relaxation in 95-96. The soprano entry in 102 is clearly brought out, and gradual relaxation only commences at - 196 bar 108. The Fortspinnung is somewhat softer, F2 gently insistent. The final Epilog is expansive (bars 120-123 dominated by an intermittent crescendo in the tenor), with a diminuendo (and pause) in the last two bars. Though more flowing than Harnoncourt’s, Hengelbrock’s reading is more heavily accentuated than Jacobs, and his rendition of the E2 crescendo therefore contains a greater degree of struggle. In performances like Hickox, Rilling 1999 and Abbado (not to mention Karajan 1952 and Jochum 1957), one senses the arrival of the climax as the dramatic yet inevitable culmination of a continuous striving upwards. In Hengelbrock’s performance, the feeling is that the goal has been reached with considerable strain and struggle. This, too, can be seen as a reflection of a more humanised, less monumental and perfected Bach image. 7.4. Summary As one of Bach’s large-scale, complex movements, the First Kyrie could be interpreted according to the more austere, objectivist images that have attached themselves to his oeuvre in general, and his contrapuntal output in particular. On the other hand, as the expression of a plea for mercy, and given its tense, chromatic thematic material, it can also be interpreted in accordance with more subjective, expressive views of his music. Given its magisterial proportions, it can be viewed as imposingly monumental, or as demanding large-scale shaping; but given the tensions inherent in its subject, the importance of localised shaping could also be declared paramount. All these options are reflected in the movement’s verbal reception. Performative realisations cover an even wider spectrum: they also feature several lighter readings, though these probably reflect an x/- philosophy of performance, rather than the view that the movement itself is light or cheerful. Such readings could be cited by those who claim that modernist performance, and particularly its HIP strand, is less willing to explore the profounder aspects of music. In this chapter, I proposed a different narrative: that HIP added to the repertoire of affects for this movement. The larger-than-life, monumental approach is largely absent in the movement’s recent discography. Many of the newer options can be related to the exploration of more “humanised” images. The lightweight and the contemplative-lyrical approaches - 197 alike are more immediately engaging, less imposing, whereas the more struggleridden approach undermines the perfected-monumental image. Knife-edge-balance views of Bach’s polyphony have already been proposed in earlier decades by writers like Kurth and Adorno, but their exploration in performance (at least in the Mass’s discography) had to wait for the emergence of the rhetoric-as-semantics approach. Rhetorical performance has also shed new light on the question of micro- vs. macro-structuring. Mauersberger and Karajan (1952) represent two poles among “traditional” approaches: Mauersberger focused on chiselling out local details at the expense of a static reading of the whole, Karajan ignored local details in favour of overall sweep. Others (e.g., Jochum and Klemperer) explored the use of textural details to project forward momentum. Here, too, HIP has expanded the options. Leonhardt and Herreweghe, for example, demonstrate the option of forging local directionality and tension. A more far-ranging approach is represented by Hickox’s combination of localised rhetorical inflection with a “symphonic” build-up – and by Harnoncourt’s and Hengelbrock’s use of localised detail to undermine, or at least question, a global sense of purpose. 8. Archaism and Objectivity: Second Kyrie The Second Kyrie inspired a variety of contrasting interpretations. At one end of this spectrum, one finds Spitta’s intensely dramatic description: As it is expressed in the first Kyrie, the elect people of God are crying to the Redeemer from the very first introduction of sin into the world. As the time of fulfilment draws nearer, their longing is more urgent and passionate; and to depict this is the aim of the short, agitated closing cry of Kyrie, almost desperate in some places (see the last nine bars). The beginning is epic, the close dramatic – if I may be allowed the terms. (Spitta 1889, III: 54) Christoph Wolff stands at the opposite pole: the first Kyrie of the B Minor Mass, with its accent-laden and driving, modulatory theme, should be declaimed in a manner quite different from that to be applied to the second Kyrie, more dynamically and expressively. The second Kyrie knows no periodic accents of meter but moves, evenly flowing, from thesis to arsis in ever suspended mensural manner. (Wolff 1991: 101-102) As in the First Kyrie, the range of performative interpretations is even wider than that of critical interpretations. 8.1. Interpretations in theory 8.1.1. The Second Kyrie and the stile antico The “inexpressive” strand in the Second Kyrie’s reception largely builds on its association with the stile antico, a term designating Baroque music which emulates Renaissance polyphony. In the 17th- and 18th-century, stile antico was sometimes contrasted explicitly with the expressive character of more modern music (Wolff 1991: 85-88); it came to be associated with “Majestas and gravitas, grandeur and seriousness”, and was considered especially appropriate for “liturgical texts far removed from the sphere of subjectivity” (ibid: 102-103; see also 1968: 135-137). The stile antico is particularly associated with Palestrina, whose rules of composition reflect contemporaneous demands for expressive restraint (Jeppesen 1992: 23-24). His music was subsequently presented, from the 17th century to the present, as a model for calm, perfected equilibrium. His rules of composition have been compared to “the rules that guide musical factors in unexcited speech” (Cohen 1971: 108) in various cultures, and even in some non-human forms of communication - 198 - - 199 (Cohen 1983). In this view, Palestrina’s music should appear tranquil and peaceful even to listeners who would not recognise its historical provenance.1 This image has been criticised for relying on a selective view of Palestrina’s style and repertoire (Garratt 2002: 2-3; Lockwood et al. 2003: §11) and for failing to take the effect of performance into account. There is evidence to suggest that this music might have originally been performed with improvised ornaments, which would have partly obviated the careful handling of dissonance and voice-leading on which the music’s balanced character depends (Butt 2002a: 118-121; see also Garratt 2002: 70-71). Even in literal renderings, performers could inject greater expression than a score-analysis would suggest. The picture is further complicated in the context of stile antico. The term does not refer to Renaissance polyphony itself, but rather to 17th- and 18th-century attempts to emulate it; stile antico is a Baroque phenomenon. Christoph Wolff proposes strict criteria for this style, insisting on a distinction between Alla-breve movements, which “represent a mixture of old and new styles” (1991: 92-93), and purely antico pieces. Such distinctions are moot, given the absence of a clear 18th-century definition of stile antico (Miller 2003). This has encouraged Alberto Basso (in Boyd 1999: 469) to adopt less stringent criteria for stile antico, allowing him to subsume music with striking, distinctly non-Palestrinian harmonies under that heading. This broad definition, however, makes the link between stile antico and expressive restraint even more tenuous. For Christoph Wolff, that link is paramount, and is of particular relevance to the Second Kyrie, which in his view represents the stile antico in its purest form (1991: 92-93; cf. Parry 1909: 311; Tovey 1937: 28; Blankenburg 1974: 30-31; Buelow 1981a: 29; Brolinson 1992: 9; King 1997: 6). Other commentators, however, are sceptical of this mono-stylistic view (Herz 1985: 173; Arnold 1985: 29; Butt 1991: 80; Leaver 1998: 4), and suggest that this movement incorporates “elements of Baroque emotionalism” (Stauffer 1997b: 62; see also Garratt 2002: 80). The Second Kyrie’s antico features are primarily rhythmic, melodic and textural. It is in alla-breve metre, featuring the crotchet as the smallest rhythmic value. There are few accents, syncopations and distinct rhetorical figurations (see, 1 For Cohen’s view on the interaction between cognitive and cultural constraints in musical perception, which informs her views on Palestrina’s style, see Cohen and Mondry 2000, Cohen 2003. For a broader perspective on the embodiment or denotation of expressive features in musical styles, see Treitler 1997. - 200 however, p. 201 below). The vocal parts employ mostly stepwise motion, with few leaps larger than a third, especially within phrases. The texture is dense and imitative, with few episodes for less than three voices. The scoring is colla parte, though the continuo part is often independent. Indeed, as often happens in stile antico movements, the Second Kyrie’s continuo part features passages of “incessant, moto perpetuo-like ± motion”, calling for “a persistent détaché articulation, totally foreign to the Palestrina style” (Abravaya 1999: 38). Harmonic considerations further undermine the movement’s pure antico classification. The movement contains several tense, chromatic passages; tonal stability and predictability are repeatedly questioned. These features arguably contradict both the tenets of the stile antico (in its stricter definitions) and the calm, objective expression associated with it. 8.1.2. Thematic materials and structural divisions The two main thematic materials in the Second Kyrie are the fugal subject and what I will term the “subsidiary theme” (“Seitenthema”; Wolff 1968: 95): Example 8.1: Second Kyrie, bars 1-3 (fugal subject) Example 8.2: Second Kyrie, bars 31-33 (subsidiary theme) The latter emerges half-way through the movement, and serves as the basis for three stretto episodes (bars 31-34, 43-45 and 51-53). However, it is already hinted at during the first half (e.g.,. tenor part, bars 13-14 and 22-23). For some writers, the two themes represent the movement’s expressive poles; Schweitzer, for example, contrasts the subject’s “tranquillity” with the subsidiary theme’s “animated” and “ardent” character (1911, II: 315). Others emphasise the emotive contrast between the two - 201 movement’s halves, suggesting that the second half’s more agitated character encompasses the treatment of the subject and of the subsidiary theme alike (cf. Bitter 1865, II: 144-145; Dickinson 1950: 192; Rilling 1984: 13).2 Two factors mark the subsidiary theme as more agitated: its consistently syncopated entries, and its modulatory character. The off-beat syncopation is inconsistent with the rules of Palestrinian counterpoint.3 More importantly, it constitutes a departure from the ostensibly objective character of stile antico (at least in its stricter definitions), its demand that “[e]verything which might have a stiff and abrupt effect must be avoided” (Jeppesen 1992: 135), and its rounded rhythmic contours (cf. Wolff 1991: 99-100; Butt 1991: 78-79). The fact that the syncopation occurs at the theme’s melodic peak strengthens its “modern” effect, as it intensifies the climactic emphasis on a note which, being off-beat, would not have been emphasised in old-style polyphony (cf. Cohen 1971: 101; Jeppesen 1992: 94-97). The theme is harmonically open-ended, articulating a dominant-tonic progression. Its modulatory character is enhanced by the fact that it always appears in stretto imitation, with each entry a fifth away from its predecessor. Consequently, each entry pushes the music forward in the cycle of fifths. Kurth points that most thematic dissolution takes places during fugal episodes; the subsidiary theme, however, appears in three canonic expositions. Thiele (1936: 110-111) therefore views Bach’s treatment of the subsidiary theme as almost paradoxical: what begins as a dissolution of the subject (bars 15-16) is subsequently treated almost as a subject in its own right, its unsettling character intensified when it is awarded the thematic enforcement of strict imitation. These elements contrast markedly with the fugal subject’s character. In its almost purely stepwise motion, arch-like melodic construction, mensural rhythmic construction, narrow range and clear articulation of the tonic, this subject reflects the melodic style of late Renaissance polyphony. Its tonic stability is questioned when it 2 Thiele (1936: 185) suggests a different division, with bar 35 as the point of demarcation. In terms of audible shape, there is some logic in this: the bass’s statement of the subsidiary theme in bar 31 is seamlessly integrated into the preceding fugal exposition, whereas in mid-35, there is something approaching a definite cadence. Thiele also presents the first part as containing more internal contrasts, especially in terms of sonority (the clear presence or absence of the bass) – whereas the second part is more continuous, but also denser and with rising intensity. 3 “The note of least value to be syncopated with another note of equal value is the half note. Therefore a quarter note cannot be tied to a quarter” (Jeppesen 1992: 141). - 202 is brought in canon against itself (bars 35-38, 40-43, 54-57), articulating different tonalities simultaneously; but these canons occur in the latter half of the movement – another argument for a bipartite division. The subject itself, however, already features a chromatic inflection which is inconsistent with its otherwise Palestrinian inspiration, associating it instead with the late 17th-century Neapolitan school. Christoph Wolff considers this an incidental feature, an expressive inflection which has precedents in early 17th-century “old style” compositions like Frescobaldi’s (1968: 60; cf. Butt 1991: 80). He further cites this inflection as the only expressive device in an otherwise calm, “objective” movement (Wolff 1968: 139). Helmuth Rilling, by contrast, describes the introduction of a Neapolitan sixthchord as destructive to tonal order (1984: 12). Within the movement as a whole, Rilling traces a process of “gradual intensification” (ibid: 14): hints of greater intensity in bars 18-29 lead to the entrance of “three choral fugatos” on the subsidiary theme, which “break up the previous strictness and austerity of structure”, and eventually “break into jubilation with the high, syncopated fugato entrances of the four voices” (ibid: 13). Spitta (quoted on p. 198 above) clearly regards “the last nine bars”, starting at the last of these stretti (bars 51-54), as the movement’s dramatic climax (see also Emery 1954; Mellers 1980: 175-176; Stauffer 1997b: 64). The subsidiary theme’s tense character is enhanced here by the unexpected chromatic modulation, placed at a melodic peak and weakly supported by a high-lying continuo line. The soprano’s high A, which upon entry was still a tonic note, becomes, in retrospect, a Neapolitan flattened supertonic in G# minor, the latter key being the first part of a modulatory chain. The tension gradually subsides, with final resolution reached only after the final, canonic statement of the subject. - 203 - 8.2. Interpretations in practice As summarised above, there are three major tropes in discussions of Second Kyrie. The first regards it as calm, objective and archaic. The second views it as passionate and tormented. The third views it as balancing the two elements. All three tropes can be traced in the Second Kyrie’s performative reception on record. 8.2.1. Stile antico readings Christoph Wolff stated that, in performing the two settings of the Kyrie, performers must take the “stylistic-musical contrast” between them into account, “if one is not to misrepresent the composer’s intentions” (1991: 102; see also p. 198 above). This statement implies that, in Wolff’s view, many conductors have approached the Second Kyrie too “dynamically and expressively”. The recorded evidence, however, suggests that the style advocated by Wolff was predominant in the late 1960s, when he expressed these views;4 performances that diverge from his prescription mostly date from the 1980s and 1990s. Even within this spectrum, however, there exists a variety of approaches. 8.2.1.1. Monumental objectivism The two conductors who present the characteristics of grandeur and objectivity most prominently are Eugen Jochum (CD 3: 1) and Otto Klemperer. Both conductors employ slow tempi,5 and maintain them with near-metronomic rigidity. Dynamics are consistently loud (mezzo-forte to forte), with almost no inflections within phrases. There are almost no distinctions between sections or thematic materials. The overall impression is of a grand, monumental reading, with little interpretive intervention beyond setting the initial parameters and guaranteeing textural clarity. Strictness also affects the perception of articulation. These recordings (with the exception of Jochum 1980) mostly employ a continuous legato. Rigidity in other parameters, however, creates the kind of harshness usually associated with aggressive marcati. With both conductors, this is more apparent in the later recording; in their earlier versions, a higher degree of dynamic nuance creates a more flexible effect. 4 5 The quotation is from a lecture originally delivered in 1967 (Wolff 1991: 406). Jochum 1980 is considerably faster than the other three (MM ° = 72, as opposed to 63 in his earlier recording, 58 in Klemperer 1961 and 60 in Klemperer 1967), but the monumental effect is maintained – even intensified – due to weightier sonority and articulation, and uniform dynamics. - 204 Performances from the Saxon school (Mauersberger, Ramin, K. Thomas) predictably adopt a similar approach. Mauersberger’s version (CD 3: 2), in particular, frequently employs marcato articulation. One can observe some differentiation between phrases,6 but internally, each phrase retains an almost statuesque quality (see also p. 207 below). This approach is not, however, specific to the Second Kyrie, but rather emerges as another example of the performances’ overall style. The idea that stile antico movements should be treated more objectively than “modern”, affective ones is more apparent in Jochum’s and Klemperer’s versions, which set static renderings of the two stile antico fugues – the Second Kyrie and Gratias – against more flexible performances of other movements, particularly the First Kyrie (cf. p. 188 above). 8.2.1.2. Lyricism and contemplation The harshly-monumental approach is not the only one consistent with a stile antico interpretation; many performances of Renaissance polyphony (at least from the last 30 years) tend to be flowing and lyrical, rather than harsh and insistent. A similar approach can be found in many recordings of the Second Kyrie. These performances share several characteristics with the monumental approach, most notably the absence of internal contrasts. Most of them also feature moderate to slow tempi. However, I also include under this heading several readings which approach the fastest on record, yet maintain an unhurried effect through the employment of rounded sonority and phrasing. What distinguishes the “lyrical” from the “monumental” is the former’s preference for quieter dynamics, softer vocal timbre, and greater nuances of dynamics, phrasing and tempo – resulting in a more flowing, flexible effect. The lines of demarcation are not always clear; as I note on p. 207 below, some performances alternate between the two modes. Among pre-1980 recordings, the most consistently lyrical is probably Shaw 1960: featuring a similar tempo to the monumental readings, it is notable for its wider dynamic range – realised in gradual changes, not sudden contrasts – and an almost complete avoidance of non legato 6 For example, the first canon (bars 35-38) is given at a slightly slower tempo. However, this and other tempo modifications sound more like gearshifts than gradual changes; one is tempted to ascribe some of them to editing. - 205 articulation, except in the last three bars.7 Karajan 1952 features a fast tempo, but this is balanced by legato articulation (except for the occasional use of aspiration), and soft dynamics and timbre. The lyrical approach is more prevalent, however, in post-1980 HIP versions. Leonhardt’s version (CD 3: 7) stands out as the closest to the “monumentalists’” tempo. However, his texture is lighter, and his phrasing more varied. 8 There are no heavy, marcato accentuations; the continuo line is played with gently-articulated non legato, while choral phrasing mostly consists of short, gently-separated legati. His mezzo-piano contrasts markedly with the forte in Klemperer’s (esp. 1967) and Jochum’s (esp. 1980) versions. All three conductors, however, treat their respective dynamics with internal consistency. Other performances place a greater emphasis on flow. Frans Brüggen’s reading begins in a monumental manner, but for the most part combines restrained dynamics with clear local directionality, supported by nuances in timbre and phrasing (similar characteristics apply with Max, Christophers, Fasolis9 and Pearlman, among others). Other readings employ a narrower dynamic range, and achieve clarity and variety mainly through phrasing and articulation (e.g., Rifkin 1982 [CD 3: 5], Herreweghe 1988, Eby, King, Koopman). In all these performances, the tranquil sense of motion usually associated with stile antico is clearly evident. Parrott’s performance (CD 3: 6), with its near-static dynamics and almost consistently legato articulation, approaches the rigidity of the monumental approach, albeit without the latter’s heavy sonorities and insistent forte. In most of these cases, the treatment of the Second Kyrie is not fundamentally different from that of the Gratias. In some cases (e.g., Koopman, Parrott, Brüggen),10 the contemplative treatment of these movements contrasts with a more incisive, 7 Shaw’s 1947 performance is harsher and less flexible. Shaw 1990 is similar to Shaw 1960 in most parameters, featuring superior textural clarity and a smaller dynamic range. 8 A less varied approach to phrasing creates a more static impression, and less clarity, in Shaw 1947, Münchinger and Marriner. None of these, however, features the deliberate starkness of the readings I classified as “monumental”. 9 Fasolis singles out the canonic expositions of the subject in the second part for harsher treatment, in articulation and dynamics alike. 10 Brüggen, however, differentiates between the Gratias and the Dona nobis, employing a slower tempo and a wider dynamic range in the latter. - 206 sharply-articulated approach elsewhere. In others (Rifkin, Leonhardt, Herreweghe 1988), the Second Kyrie is “of a piece” with the rest of the performance. This is especially true in Rifkin’s case. Within Leonhardt’s and Herreweghe’s performances, the Second Kyrie and Gratias feature fewer accentuations and more rounded articulation than other movements (compare, for instance, Leonhardt’s Second Kyrie with his Qui tollis and Crucifixus), but in the context of performances which generally avoid staccato or sharply-incisive articulation, the difference is subtler than in Parrott or Koopman. 8.2.2. “Mixed” readings The next category includes recordings which draw the listener’s attention to the more agitated elements in the music, while retaining some of its more relaxed characteristics. As I noted earlier, some critical interpretations focus on the dichotomy between different materials and sections, while others describe the movement’s internal tensions as present throughout. A similar distinction can be drawn among those performances that display a more polyvalent approach. 8.2.2.1. Contrastive renditions Some performances draw a clear distinction between subject and subsidiary theme, and consequently between the first and second half of the movement. They often employ a slow tempo, and start in a fairly tranquil, peaceful fashion, and introduce the more agitated elements only when the subsidiary theme enters in bar 31. Such thematic distinctions do not necessarily enhance tension. Hermann Scherchen, in both recordings, highlights each appearance of the subject,11 treating all other materials more flexibly and, for the most part, in softer dynamics (compare with Solti’s rendition of the First Kyrie, p. 185 above).12 Even with this emphasis on the subject, Scherchen’s reading remains within the lyrical-contemplative approach. However, when the subsidiary theme is differentiated from the subject and other materials alike, its arrival can register as a moment of special significance (especially 11 Scherchen 1950 applies this effect more strictly and consistently. In the 1959 version, there is more variety; in particular, the rigid treatment of the subject in the alto-tenor canon (bars 35-38) contrasts markedly with the crescendo in the soprano-bass canon (bars 40-43). 12 Solti’s Second Kyrie is mostly in the lyrical-contemplative mode, except for a sudden rise to forte towards the end of the movement. - 207 if preliminary “hints” of that theme are not brought out). This is sometimes achieved through a juxtaposition of “monumental” and “lyrical” modes. Thus, Enescu treats the subject in a harsh, majestic manner, softening considerably when the subsidiary theme enters. Ramin, Richter (especially in 1961) and Maazel apply the reverse approach – lyrical subject, harsher subsidiary theme. Both approaches project the subsidiary theme’s stretto episodes as unique events in otherwise uniform surrounding. Indeed, it seems at first that the contrast is between themes rather than sections. Richter’s studio reading (CD 3: 3) might not seem flexible in itself: the movement’s first section veers between legato and aspirative emphases in a narrow dynamic range. Nonetheless, the subsidiary theme’s entry in bar 31 registers as a departure: dynamics are louder, note-by-note accentuations become more insistent and aggressive. This effect is retained in the theme’s subsequent appearances. The subject’s first appearance in the second half (the alto-tenor canon in bars 35-38) returns to the softer dynamics and phrasing of the first half. However, the sopranobass canon in bars 40-43 is more agitated, and leads up to an almost militaristic conclusion, in which the subject acquires the subsidiary theme’s harsher character. Of the two conflicting characteristics that Thiele observed in these episodes – the theme’s inherent instability and its strictly imitative presentation (see p. 201 above) – Richter strongly articulates the latter feature while virtually negating the former, rendering the subsidiary theme especially harsh and immobile. The 1969 live performance is more integrated (louder dynamics throughout, more consistently legato articulation); a slight articulatory emphasis on the subsidiary theme’s first appearance notwithstanding, this reading largely resembles more uniformly “monumental” readings. Richter’s approach in both recordings (the video version is closer to the 1961 performance) is in keeping with his general aesthetics. In the 1961 and video versions, the Second Kyrie is “of a piece” with the rest of the performance; in the 1969 Japan version, it stands out as somewhat more static. In his book, Rilling (1984: 14) proposes a distinction between sections, rather than themes: a relatively peaceful rendering of the movement’s first half should be followed by an increasingly intense treatment of the second half, leading towards a climax at bars 51-52. In 1977 (CD 3: 4), this developmental approach is only hinted at: the second half is treated with more insistent articulation and louder dynamics, but each half is internally uniform. - 208 The 1988 performance follows a similar outline, albeit with more dynamic flexibility which enhances local directionality and textural clarity. It is also the only performance in which Rilling realises, right from the outset, his recommendation to isolate the diminished-third “Kyrie” figure from the rest of the subject through “decisive and weighty articulation” (1984: 14). In 1999 (CD 3: 13), Rilling applies a more continuous, graded strategy, which is more consistent with his analysis of the movement: the subsidiary theme’s entry registers as a “point of departure for an intensification”, rather than as a climax in its own right. The performance begins with lyrical parameters: Rilling initially avoids marcato articulation in the subject’s opening phrase, reserving this effect for the canons in the second half. The performance gradually acquires a harsher tone, leading to a climax at bar 51. This constitutes a definite departure from the “terraced” ideal; the more continuous approach is, however, reserved primarily for the second half, which is why I still discuss this performance under the “contrastive” heading. Other performances converge on a similar view, realising several of Rilling’s specific suggestions. Gardiner, for example, observes the “Kyrie/eleison” distinction in the subject more consistently than Rilling has ever done (at least on record). His initial shaping of the subject is reminiscent of harsher, “monumental” readings: the “Kyrie” is articulated marcato; the “eleison” melismas, though internally legato, are sharply separated. As the movement proceeds, he alternates between “monumental” and “lyrical” modes. These sometimes occur simultaneously: in bars 28-30, for example, the bass’s rising chromatic figure is highlighted with an evenly-accented marcato, while other parts are shaped with a more continuous legato crescendo. Gardiner’s rendition also differs from the performances discussed above in drawing attention to more “disturbing” elements from the outset: he accentuates the instrumental bass’s syncopation in bars 1 and 3, and highlights pre-echoes of the subsidiary theme (e.g., tenor, bars 22-24). His performance does, however, articulate the basic shape advocated by Rilling. In the canonic exposition in bars 35-38, he performs the subject piano and legato;13 this serves as the beginning of a prolonged crescendo: a harsh, marcato reading of the bars 48-50 leads into a strident, forte climax in bar 51 and, subsequently, to a forceful, assertive conclusion. 13 In a later performance (at the 1989 Proms), he gives this passage to soloists – the only departure in an otherwise fully choral rendition of this movement. - 209 - 8.2.2.2. Continuous renditions Gardiner’s reading features definite points of demarcation, broadly projecting a two-part division. 14 However, in introducing strident elements in the first part, it suggests an alternative, more continuous view. Other performances pursue this option more consistently. In some cases, the result is a slight intensification of a basically lyricalcontemplative performance. For example, René Jacobs (CD 3: 11) employs the same tempo as Leonhardt (see p. 205 above), and his basic parameters are similar: soft dynamics; short, gently-separated legati. The basis of the texture – the continuo line – is mostly played legato, as opposed to Leonhardt’s discreet non legato. Jacobs’s dynamic range, however, is wider than Leonhardt’s. Leonhardt’s reading is consistently serene. Jacobs projects a largely similar vision – but he occasionally introduces subtle disruptions, departing, if only momentarily, from a generally peaceful atmosphere. The most notable examples are the rising chromaticism in bars 28-29, and the climax at bars 51-54. The former is treated as the start of a crescendo, 15 leading into the tenor entry and the subsequent introduction of the subsidiary theme. This crescendo begins with a subito piano: the entire phrase constitutes a move away from, and back to, the prevailing mezzo forte. This also means that, although the subsidiary theme is clearly articulated, its arrival does not register as a point of demarcation. The climax is also carefully prepared. The sequence of the soprano-alto canon and the second stretto exposition of the subsidiary theme (bars 41-46) had been another subtle crescendo. Maintaining the resulting mezzo-forte as the starting point for a crescendo would have resulted in a distinctive dynamic peak at bar 51 (cf. Gardiner, p. 208 above, and Hickox, p. 211 below). In a seemingly deliberate effort to avoid this, Jacobs introduces a subito piano at mid-bar 47 (over the tenor’s highlighted “eleison”), which is maintained until bar 51. This allows the soprano’s sudden mezzo-forte entry to ring out against its immediate surroundings. Louder 14 Michel Corboz (1979) gives the movement a similar shape (crescendo in 27-30 leading into the introduction of the subsidiary theme, followed by a softening at the alto-tenor canon leading into a continuous crescendo up to bar 51). However, he achieves this at a slower tempo, and almost exclusively through dynamics (articulation remains legato almost throughout, and phrases are gently and discreetly separated from each other), thereby creating a more continuous and lyrical impression than Gardiner. 15 There is no similar crescendo when the same figure occurs earlier, in bars 17-18. - 210 dynamics are maintained in the subsequent stretti, but in the upbeat to bar 58 Jacobs introduces another subito piano, allowing the movement to end with relative calm. Thomas Hengelbrock (CD 3: 12) takes this intensification of the lyrical approach a stage further. Although his overall dynamic range is similar to Jacobs’s, the rate of dynamic change is higher: Hengelbrock frequently applies a moderate form of directional wave dynamics, rising and falling with the melodic contours of the phrase. This is allied with the use of accents and messe di voce to emphasise suspension and syncopated entries. There are several consequences to this: 1. Individual voices become less stable, more apparently erratic; 2. Interaction between the voices becomes more vivid; the listener can sense when voices move in parallel or in opposite directions, 16 and when the start of a phrase in one voice overlaps with mid-phrase in another. 3. Clashes between voices become more clearly audible. Hengelbrock divides the subject into three legato segments. The “Kyrie” is relatively static. The two “eleison” melismas, however, display distinctive dynamic contours. Though clearly separated, they nonetheless form a single unit through dynamics. Example 8.3: Second Kyrie, bars 1-3; Hengelbrock (CD 3: 12) In the subject’s third phrase, Hengelbrock stresses the anacrusis-to-downbeat (“e-lei”). Similar emphases on syncopations and anacrusis-to-downbeat patterns occur throughout the movement. This usually generates subtle momentum in one or two strands in the texture, in conjunction with more tranquil movement in others. Hengelbrock’s overall shaping of the movement is similar to Jacobs’; his articulation of the climax at bar 51, however, is more distinct, and he does not reduce intensity in the last three bars. The slow tempo and avoidance of sharp articulation 16 This effect is also evident in the soprano/bass interaction in Herreweghe 1996, bars 25-26. - 211 prevent this performance from acquiring a dramatic character, but the unceasing dynamic inflections contribute to a sense of restlessness. Philippe Herreweghe (1996) also applies dynamic fluctuations generously, but in a more generic manner. There is no privileging of the transition into the second half, or of the climax; there are also no specific emphases on rhythmic dislocations, as in Hengelbrock’s (and others’) drawing out of syncopations. His articulation is more consistently legato than in 1988; consequently, phrase boundaries are not always clearly distinct. Instead, most of his fluctuations occur on melismas in mid-phrase, creating a sense of movement but not highlighting the independence of lines. This gives his performance a more peaceful character than Jacobs’s and (especially) Hengelbrock’s, despite Herreweghe’s faster tempo and constant fluctuations. Dynamic fluctuations are, however, further intensified when allied with a wider range of articulation, and when applied to the continuo line as well as to the vocal parts. This is clearly illustrated in Richard Hickox’s performance (CD 3: 9). Like Gardiner (p. 208 above), Hickox combines marcato and legato articulation from the first statement of the subject onwards; but there are very few moments of nearhomophonic solidity in Hickox’s version. His marcati never extend to the entire texture, and are not as heavily emphasised as Gardiner’s. Hickox’s shaping of the movement is reminiscent of Gardiner and Rilling 1999: all three strive towards a peak of dynamics and intensity in bar 51, and maintain this intensity right through to the end of the movement (avoiding Jacobs’s sense of relaxation). Hickox, however, projects this shape more continuously. This arises, in part, from his highlighting of the subsidiary theme’s more tentative appearances in the first half (bars 7-10 in the continuo,17 bars 22-24 in the tenor). These appearances clash with other parts in the texture, creating a sense of tension. The clear articulation of the continuo line also allows for greater enhancement of tension. This is partly thanks to his use of the “inimitably crisp attack” (Dreyfus 1987: 70) of a harpsichord, which is more audible and distinct than the more common organ continuo, making it easier for listeners to notice those passages where the instrumental and vocal bass lines are independent. In bar 1, for example, vocal and instrumental bass are phrased with independent dynamic contours, and the latter’s 17 Harpsichordist Alastair Ross’s arpeggiation draws attention to the first notes of the hinted theme (Fsharp in bar 7, E in bar 9). - 212 syncopation is clearly accented. Thus, attention is drawn to the “Neapolitan sixth chord”, and its role as “a purely Baroque ‘jolt’ that energizes the line and propels it forward” (Stauffer 1997b: 63).18 Example 8.4: Second Kyrie, bars 1-3; Hickox (CD 3: 9) Hickox combines a continuous approach with clear distinctions between the thematic materials: for all the accumulated tension in the first half, the second half still emerges as tenser and more condensed. The subsidiary theme’s modulatory stretti are highlighted by sforzandi on the opening syncopations, further enhanced by agitated wave dynamics. Hickox also makes a clear, hierarchic differentiation between the theme’s expositions, treating the second stretto more calmly and reserving the most powerful rendition (in both senses) for the third stretto. The soprano’s entry in bar 51 is probably the loudest and sharpest moment in this performance. Hickox maintains a tense forte throughout this last stretto, which continues into the movement’s remaining bars. In sum, Hickox’s Second Kyrie, like his First Kyrie (p. 193 above), combines constant local fluctuations with an organic-dramatic shaping of the entire movement. The contrast with Jacobs is instructive. Hickox precedes the first two stretti by diminuendi and a softening of the vocal timbre, allowing greater impact for the sforzandi. Jacobs, on the other hand, places his diminuendi earlier to create a crescendo that would encompass the (comparatively unaccented) subsidiary theme and absorb it into a larger unit. The reverse happens towards the climax, which is preceded by a diminuendo in Jacobs (see p. 209 above) and a crescendo in Hickox. 18 Harpsichordist Alastair Ross further emphasises his line’s rhythmic contours by playing, in this case, in block chords rather than arpeggios. Another place where block chords clearly enhance latent tension is the alto-tenor canon in bars 35-38. At this juncture, the continuo wavers between the two competing tonalities presented by the two voices. This hesitation is highlighted by its stop-and-go rhythms, which are brought to the fore by Ross’s stark rendition. - 213 Both performances single out the climax for special treatment; but they seem to be approaching the same goal from opposite ends. 8.2.3. Dramatic readings Even Hickox’s reading, for all its drama, seems balanced between the “ancient” and “modern”, or “tranquil” and “tense”, elements in this movement. There are very few recordings that could be cited as aural corollaries to Spitta’s conception of this movement as predominantly dramatic, almost desperate (p. 198 above). The only obvious examples are Somary, Schreier 1982, Harnoncourt 1986, Ortner, Radu (the fastest on record) and Jeffrey Thomas. Though all these recordings share a fast tempo (MM ° = 88 to ° = 120), this factor alone does not ensure a dramatic character. Harnoncourt’s two recordings are virtually identical in tempo, but the 1968 version exhibits almost total uniformity in dynamics, timbre and phrasing: in this predominantly choral movement, it is possible that the phrasing came from Gillesberger rather than Harnoncourt, though the latter does not take advantage of his position as member of the continuo team to inject more detail into that strand of the texture. In his notes to that recording, Harnoncourt described this movement as an example of prima pratica writing (1968: 11, reprinted 1989: 191); his uninflected performance might well reflect this belief. Schreier (1982), Jeffrey Thomas (CD 3: 10) and Radu alternate between the strongly dramatic and the uninflected. Each of these recordings opens with an arresting gesture, but features uniform phrasing and dynamics in later parts. Schreier starts forte and drops to a subito piano on the third note (the bass’s E-sharp). Radu phrases the “Kyrie” with a distinctive, hushed staccato, which mostly continues into the rest of the subject. Thomas begins quietly and legato, but performs a wide crescendo-diminuendo on the “eleison” melismas. After these opening gestures, however, Schreier’s choir frequently switches to uniform, harshly-aspirative articulation, which continues to alternate with more flexibly-shaped phrases. 19 Radu’s performance features a low dynamic range; legato phrases sound especially static. Thomas’s is more active, but still displays little inclination towards overall shaping: 19 Schreier 1991 features a similar opening gesture, but on a much narrower dynamic scale. The performance on the whole is more flowing, with less aspiration, more legato and greater dynamic flexibility. It sounds more expansive, though in fact the two readings feature a nearly identical tempo. - 214 the articulation is mostly legato (the subsidiary theme is only mildly accentuated), and several passages are barely inflected (e.g., the first subsidiary theme exposition). Ortner’s performance is more consistently active, with almost constant employment of wave dynamics. The range of articulation, however, is relatively narrow: other than a marcato shaping of the “Kyrie” and the accentuation of the subsidiary theme’s opening syncopation, the articulation is mostly legato. As in Herreweghe 1996, there is little sense of shaping beyond phrase boundaries. This is partly the result of undifferentiated articulation. Compared to other performances in its tempo bracket (with the exception of his own earlier version), Harnoncourt 1986 (CD 3: 8) initially seems the least dramatic: it begins quietly, legato and with little dynamic inflection. However, the level of activity rapidly increases from the tenor entry onwards. Once he reaches his first dynamic peak – at the soprano entry in bar 11 – Harnoncourt maintains a constant level of activity and restlessness.20 In one respect, this movement stands out as an exception within the recording as a whole: it is constantly pushed forward, with few (if any) examples of Harnoncourt’s tendency to draw the music backwards. Harnoncourt does, however, accentuate many of the syncopations. He only regains the opening piano in the last two measures; and before this, he reaches two more distinct dynamic peaks, at the second and third stretti (bars 43ff and 51ff),21 allied with the expected sforzando/marcato emphasis on the subsidiary theme’s opening syncopation. The movement closes with another dramatic gesture – a molto ritardando (and diminuendo) towards the end of the penultimate bar. In other performances (e.g., Jacobs), gradual descent creates a tranquil ending; here, this effect is undermined by Harnoncourt’s abruptness. 20 Hickox avoids reaching a dynamic peak at this point by making a subtle diminuendo towards bar 11; he delays his first dynamic peak until the bass’s re-entry on the fugal subject in bar 25, and reserving the most dramatic gestures to the latter half of the movement. This careful grading of tension is one of the main features which led to my classification of Hickox’s version among the “synthetic” rather than straightforwardly “dramatic” readings. 21 The latter arguably sounds less like a climax in this performance, not sufficiently differentiated from the previous “chain”; compare especially with the way it is prepared by Hickox and Jacobs. - 215 - 8.3. Summary At the beginning of the period under examination, the Second Kyrie was treated in a manner consistent with Wolff’s stile antico prescription: even conductors who approached the “romantic” view in other movements usually treated this chorus (and other antico movements) in a stricter, less dynamically inflected manner. However, the “mixed” and “dramatic” views were already prominently enshrined in Bach reception since the 19th century, the former promoted by Bitter and Schweitzer, the latter by Spitta. Both these readings focused on the more tense elements in the music – the modulatory episodes generated by the subsidiary theme, and the tense harmonies and unstable tonality throughout. It is surprising, perhaps, that these readings have had little impact on recorded performance until the last two decades of the 20th century. This can be partly accounted for through the dominance of the balance-as-equilibrium and uniformity of affect in most Bach performance. As often, HIP contributed to the expansion of expressive options for this movement.22 On average, the Second Kyrie has speeded up in recent years. With a few exceptions, the slowest tempi from the 1980s and 1990s stem from conductors of an “older” school. Leonhardt, Jacobs and Hengelbrock match Klemperer 1967, at ° = 60; but the slowest tempi on record remain Scherchen 1959 (° = 46), Maazel (° = 50) and Mauersberger (° = 56). While the importance of this one factor (tempo) can certainly be exaggerated, there are corollaries in other parameters. The “monumental” approach is not represented in recent recordings, while more dynamic approaches seem largely a more recent innovation. The former development could be explained in terms of growing historical awareness and changes in performing forces; the monumental approach is less readily associated with chamber-scale forces. More dynamic performances reflect, in part, the influence of rhetorical approaches. The more contemplative, lyrical approach, in its varieties, seems more of a constant: while speeds have increased, a tendency towards calm, mostly legato articulation and narrow dynamic range, avoiding sharp accents, remains a presence from Karajan 1952 and Shaw 1960 to Koopman and Abbado in the 1990s. It, too, however, has become more prominent in recent years. 22 The first two “dramatic” renditions (Somary and Schreier 1982) came from modern-instrument ensembles, but in both cases the conductors were aware of performance practice issues. - 216 The emergence of what I called the “synthetic-continuous” and “dramatic” approaches seems to reflect the (re-)emerging prominence of more knife-edge-balance views of Bach in general – which led, in this movement, to a revival of views already present in 19th- and early 20th-century writings. The constantly questing approach of Hickox and Hengelbrock is especially redolent of knife-edge-balance; abrupt, dramatic readings like Jeffrey Thomas and Harnoncourt 1986 might seem to go beyond “balance” altogether, focusing almost exclusively on the music’s agitated elements. All these developments can be related to the emergence of more humanised images of Bach, in a manner similar to that discussed in the summary to chapter 7. 9. The Height of Intensity: Crucifixus The Crucifixus has long been recognised as one of Bach’s most intensely expressive movements; it was singled out as such already in the 19th century (Herz 1985: 196; Stauffer 1997b: 124-125, 190, 195). It receives detailed attention even in analyses and program notes which do not discuss individual movements; and many writers who otherwise avoid expressive terminology provide at least a cursory adjective in referring to this movement.1 The Crucifixus also receives nuanced or contrastive performances in recordings which treat other expressive peaks (e.g., the two Kyries, Qui tollis, Agnus dei) more uniformly. This special treatment is sometimes expanded to include the central triptych of the Symbolum Nicenum. 9.1. Interpretations in theory Friedrich Smend, while denying the unity of the Mass as a whole, emphasised unity-generating symmetries within its constituent parts. His highly influential account of the Symbolum Nicenum’s structure (1937: 52) cites the Incarnatus, Crucifixus, and Resurrexit as the section’s focal point. Viewing these movements as a triptych also implies an emphasis on their inter-connections – in particular, the way the first two movements’ endings lead into their successors. On the other hand, there has also been a tendency to emphasise stylistic and expressive contrasts. 9.1.1. Individual movements: Symbols of feeling and idea There is a basic consensus regarding the affects of the Crucifixus and Resurrexit: the former expresses the height of sorrow, pain or mourning; the latter is an exuberant expression of jubilation. The Incarnatus, however, has inspired more conflicting views, and these, in turn, reflect on the degree of intensity and uniqueness attributed to the Crucifixus. 1 For illustration, see: Knapp 1974; Rifkin 1982; Wollny 1993: 19; Hiller 1993: 17; Hochreiter 1998; Leaver 1998: 7. - 217 - - 218 - 9.1.1.1. Incarnatus The Incarnatus is sometimes presented as having a similar affect to the Crucifixus. Bitter (1865, II: 157) and Spitta (1889, III: 57), for example, regard the two movements as expressing the same emotion, albeit with increasing intensity: in the Incarnatus pain is anticipated, in the Crucifixus it is fully realised. More recently, this view has been articulated by George Stauffer (1997b: 116-119). Other writers view the Incarnatus in terms of “symbols of idea” rather than “symbols of feeling” (see pp. 88f above), seeing it as theologically important but downplaying its expressive impact. They use richly mystical imagery, but avoid the emotive terminology they employ for the Crucifixus (cf. Schweitzer 1911, II: 319320; Volbach [n.d.]: III; Terry 1924: 41). Blankenburg (1974: 75) warns against placing the Incarnatus’s expressive import in the foreground, proclaiming it to be less important than its symbolic dimension. Stauffer cites the same symbolic features as Blankenburg, but focuses on their emotive and pictorial impact. However, while noting the expressive import of all strands in the texture, Stauffer nonetheless stresses “the primacy of voices over instruments”, suggesting that Bach has replaced his habitual “tightly integrated contrapuntal web” with a more stratified texture, in which the voices “seem to ‘float’” above “an atmospheric backdrop” from the instruments (Stauffer 1997b: 118). Stauffer cites this latter element as evidence for the movement’s forwardlooking character. In this, he draws on Christoph Wolff’s discussion on the stylistic relationships between Incarnatus and Crucifixus (1995: 11-14). In terms of their compositional history, these are, respectively, the latest and earliest movements in the Mass.2 In Wolff’s view, this registers in the music: the Incarnatus reflects Bach’s study of Pergolesi’s music, making it one of Bach’s most progressive pieces. For all his emphasis on stylistic contrasts, Wolff also draws attention to “the subtle linking of the two movements”, which prevents the potential “stylistic and aesthetic clash of incompatible music” (1995: 16). In this context, he argues that the Incarnatus’s ostensibly progressive texture is similar to the Crucifixus in terms of the relationship between vocal and instrumental elements. 2 The Crucifixus is based on a 1714 cantata movement, BWV 12/2. Wolff’s conjecture that the Incarnatus is Bach’s last vocal composition (1995: 4) is based on the assumption that the Incarnatus was an afterthought, which was added to the Symbolum after its completion. This view has been recently challenged; see Hengel and Houten 2004. - 219 - 9.1.1.2. Crucifixus When discussing the Incarnatus, Blankenburg describes the primacy of “idea” over “feeling” as a general characteristic of Bach’s aesthetics. This does not prevent him from interpreting the Crucifixus almost exclusively in terms of symbols of feelings. He believes that the ostinato should be interpreted, not merely as a Passus duriusculus, but as a Lamento bass combination of Catabasis and Pathopoeia. 3 He also interprets the repeated rhythmic figures in the orchestra as Suspiratio (Blankenburg 1974: 76-77). His analysis emphasises the music’s expression of pain and mourning. His symbolic mode of description, however, seems to point more towards a lexical representation of the emotions than to their embodiment (see also p. 224 below). An extreme example of a similar tendency can be found in the anonymous essay accompanying Kurt Thomas’s recording, which describes the ostinato as merely “one of the stock devices of the seventeenth century music”. 4 The other extreme is represented in Spitta’s analysis (1889, III: 57-58), which is uncharacteristically rich in pictorial details (see p. 237 below).5 The author’s habitual ambivalence towards pictorialism in Bach’s sacred music is nonetheless clearly reflected. He describes the movement as “pathetic and piteous”, yet “purified from every trace of egotism” (ibid: 57). He stresses the presence of a narrative element, which in his view raises the movement’s intensity (compared, especially, with the Qui tollis). Nonetheless, the focal point of his interpretation is theological; and he is keen on pointing out the hints of consolation within this largely tragic movement. One of the balancing factors in the movement, in Spitta’s view, is the basso ostinato: its repetition has a regulating effect, holding the listener’s attention “spellbound in contemplation of the stupendous scene that is being enacted” (ibid; see also Mellers 1980: 221). Gurlitt (1951b: 244) and Rilling (1984: 76) focus on the 3 Bartel (1997: 359) defines Pathopeia as “a musical passage which seeks to arouse a passionate affection through chromaticism or some other means”. Catabasis also evokes “negative images or affections” (ibid: 214). Passus duriusculus, however, refers to “a chromatically altered ascending or descending melodic line”, without specific references to affect (ibid: 357-358). Bartel’s definitions rely on the terms’ definitions in 17th- and 18th-century treatises, which Bartel quotes and translates in full. 4 This essay is almost entirely devoid of descriptive adjectives; the use of the word “beautiful” to describe the modulatory close of the Crucifixus is almost a radical departure in this context. 5 Conversely, Schweitzer’s description (1911, II: 320) is, by his standards, uncharacteristically devoid of pictorialism. - 220 ostinato’s theological implications, viewing its recurrence as an emphasis on the importance of the Theology of the Cross. The ostinato’s stabilising role could, however, be questioned. Rilling defines passacaglia as “a series of variations over a constant, repeating bass theme” (1984: 76). The Crucifixus, however, cannot be neatly divided into thirteen discrete variations: except in bars 29-37 and 49-53, there is always at least one vocal part in mid-phrase at the transition from one “variation” to the next – at least if one interprets the downbeat as the starting point of each “variation”.6 This also prevents clear harmonic separation between variations: perfect cadences linking one ostinato repeat to the next are often disrupted by sustained dissonant notes in the vocal parts (e.g., the tenor in bars 17 and 24-25, and the alto in bars 20-21). Several writers avoided the terms “chaconne” and “passacaglia” in reference to this movement; for example, Schweitzer (1911, II: 320) and Tovey (1937: 40-41) use the terms “basso ostinato” and “ground-bass” respectively. Robert Cushman (1959) refers to the ostinato as a “chaconne motif”, but does not extend the term to the movement as a whole. Instead, he describes “the voices wander[ing] hopelessly in utter despair” above the ostinato. This bleak account is reminiscent of Bitter’s (1865, II: 158-159); Cushman is, however, the only writer known to me who connects this view with the disparity between voices and instruments (indeed, he is one of the few to draw any attention to this disparity; see also p. 234 below). 9.1.1.3. Resurrexit Most writers view the Resurrexit as a triumphant, jubilant movement. They differ in the level of intensity they ascribe to this affect, and in the specific adjectives and images they evoke; but these are differences in degree rather than kind. Writers also diverge in the precise musical factors (if any) they cite to justify their interpretations, though Stauffer’s account (1997b: 125-126, quoted on p. 237 below) constitutes a comprehensive list of most of the devices cited by previous writers. 6 This is not self-evident. One could argue that each statement of the ostinato commences on the second minim. The vocal phrases frequently begin on the second minim; and the instrumental patterns terminate on the tonic chord on first minim of bar 49, rather than the last minim of bar 48. On the other hand, the autograph slurs in most repeats of the ostinato suggest that repeats of the opening E are to be grouped together, and the first-minim downbeat also seems a more likely starting-point for the sequence than the weaker second minim. - 221 Some exceptions might be noted. Spitta, though describing the movement as powerfully triumphant, argues that it is somewhat restrained in its enthusiasm: the instruments interrupt the choir’s jubilation, dampening enthusiasm “for yet another climax remains” (1889, III: 58) – presumably the Vivace ed Allegro setting of the Et expecto. Blankenburg prefers a symbol-of-idea interpretation, especially with regard to the rising figure (easily classifiable as Anabasis) which dominates much of the movement (1974: 78-79; see also Bartel 1997: 179). Others argue that the movement’s middle section departs from the optimistic atmosphere of the outer sections. Rilling, for example, describes the setting of the “iterum venturus est” (bars 74-86) as a vivid depiction of the “Day of Judgement”, characterised by “great agitation and forcefulness” and “furious vehemence” (1984: 83; cf. Mellers 1980: 226, Stauffer 1997b: 127). This is portrayed, however, only as local contrast, not unexpected in the ‘b’ section of a da-capo movement, and quickly dispelled upon the return of the ‘a’ section. 9.1.2. Relationship between movements: Continuity and contrast A triptych is a static image, implying three distinctly separate panels. Many writers and performers view the relationship between the Symbolum’s three central choruses in similar terms. Others, however, stress the continuity between them. Taken to its extreme, the Unity of Affect view could rule out the building-up of tension and release even within individual movements, not to mention across movements. The only variety that remains is the contrast between movements: Bach’s music [...] was built in great architectural planes; its elements, like mighty arches and columns of stone, maintain their individuality and persist without weakening diversions for superficial variety, from beginning to end of each section. (Canby 1951) Given the interpretations that discern a similarity of affect between Incarnatus and Crucifixus, one can envisage these two movements coalescing into a single “pillar”. On the other hand, each of the movements has its own shape, with notable internal changes. The Incarnatus is divided into three parts (A-A’-B), each with its own pattern of change in texture (polyphonic to homophonic), and its internal pattern of harmonic tension and (partial) resolution. Those few writers who speak of an - 222 overall pattern of tension regard the “B” section as the climax (Bitter 1865, II: 157; Schweitzer 1911, II: 319-320; Wolff 1995: 15-16). The Crucifixus likewise has a clear internal division: I. bars 1-29, on the words “Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato”; II. bars 29-37, on the words “passus et sepultus est”; III. bars 37-49, on the movement’s complete text; IV. bars 49-53, on the words “(passus et) sepultus est”.7 The separation between the sections (which in all cases takes place on the second beat of the transition bar) is straightforward. There are only three phrases in the entire movement in which all four voices begin and end simultaneously: the two statements of “passus et sepultus est” (bars 29-33, 33-35) and the final statement of “sepultus est” (bars 51-53). Elsewhere, each voice has an independent phrase structure. Section IV is also distinguished by its scoring (voices and continuo alone), a significant alteration in its basso ostinato, and a chromatic modulation. Section IV is singled out by several commentators (e.g., Spitta 1889, III: 58; Emery 1954; Cooke 1959: 103; Knapp 1974; Rauhe 1977; Arnold 1985; Wollny 1993). Otherwise, few writers comment on the movement’s shape or structure; the most notable exception is Rilling, who views it as building up towards a climax at the 10th variation (bars 37-41), where vocal lines are “among the most dissonant Bach ever composed” (1984: 73; see also Boyd 1990: 172-173).8 Neither he nor any other writer places an emphasis on section II, but, as I will note below, this section is singled out by several conductors. The Resurrexit’s da-capo structure has already been discussed on p. 220 above. The two most oft-discussed sections in both the Incarnatus and Crucifixus are their respective endings. In both cases, the emphasis has been on those sections’ harmonically inconclusive character. A strong emphasis on E minor in bars 45-46 and a weak cadence (VII7-I) in the final two bars make the Incarnatus’s final B major chord a less-than-convincing tonic. The movement’s last two bars, together with the Crucifixus’s opening chord, can be viewed in retrospect as a VII7/V-V-I sequence in E 7 The words “passus et” appear only in the alto. 8 For an opposite interpretation of these bars, see Wilfrid Mellers (1980: 223). - 223 minor.9 Similarly, the modulation to G major in section IV of the Crucifixus accomplishes part of the transition to the Resurrexit’s D major. The Crucifixus-Resurrexit transition is arguably calculated to enhance the contrast and difference between the two movements. The Crucifixus ends a-capella and piano, while the Resurrexit ushers in the full orchestra on the first downbeat; the Crucifixus ends in descent, the Resurrexit begins in ascent;10 the Crucifixus ends in tonal-harmonic instability, the Resurrexit opens with a bright, unambiguous tonic. But the last two points arguably enhance continuity: the Resurrexit’s opening ascent complements the Crucifixus’s concluding descent, and resolves the tonal tensions generated by the chromatic modulation in the Crucifixus’s final bars. The conflicting demands of continuity and contrast have a direct impact on the performative shaping of these movements. Rilling expresses the ambivalence in his performance directions for the Crucifixus. He points to the possibility of projecting the movement’s shape, with its climax in bars 43-44. However, he also suggests that the movement might be performed with “restrained dynamics throughout”, to enhance the contrast with the Resurrexit (1984: 76). His own recordings illustrate both options: a clear variation-10 climax in 1977 (CD 4: 11; see p. 229 below), restrained dynamics (allied with mostly legato articulation) in 1988, and an intermediary option in 1999 (restrained climax, more through “character of diction” than through dynamics; CD 4: 28). The performative shaping of the Crucifixus is, thus, often strongly dependent on the shaping of the flanking movements. For this reason, the following section, though focusing on the Crucifixus, will include references to its relationship with the Incarnatus and Resurrexit. 9 This view is strongly, even violently projected in Radu’s recording, where the Incarnatus ends with an incisive forte, and there is almost no break between its final chord and the equally aggressive opening of the Crucifixus. 10 Hermann Rauhe (1986: 14) refers to these passages as hypobole and hyperbole respectively – reaching into the lowest or topmost reaches of the register (see Bartel 1997: 307). - 224 - 9.2. Interpretations in practice Richard Taruskin has chosen the Crucifixus to illustrate how far HIP has removed itself from the Doctrine of the Affections: To a vitalist performer such as Otto Klemperer [...] the Crucifixus of the B minor Mass is a statement about a matter of great human concern, emotionally intensified by Bach’s rhetoric of chromaticism, dissonance, and melodic descent. Bach speaks of Christ’s suffering and death, and the performers, identifying with Bach and Christ alike, speak directly to the listener out of their experience both lived and musical. To a modernist like Johannes Martini the Crucifixus is a musical construction, some elements of which have generic semantic connotations – e.g., the tetrachordal ground bass – and for that very reason may “speak for themselves,” independent of the composer, who has not created but merely chosen them and set them in motion, and – needless to say – without any assistance from the executants. (Taruskin 1995: 136) The historical narrative is clear: “in the beginning”, performers identified with Bach’s music, and sought to convey its message. “Authenticists” replaced this spiritual, +/+ identification with a facile, “let-the-music-speak-for-itself”, x/approach. This narrative is equivalent to the tropes which Dreyfus (1996: 103) discerned in Bach reception (see p. 158 above). Klemperer (and, by extension, the vitalist/romantic/traditional approach he represents) corresponds to writers like Bitter and Spitta, who employ rich imagery to communicate the expressive content they discern in Bach’s music – or to writers like Cooke (1959: 103) and Mellers (1980: 221), who draw attention to the ostinato’s historical sources while emphasising Bach’s unique treatment of it. On the flip side, Martini (and the geometric/modernist/ authentistic approach he represents) is akin to the writer who viewed the Lamento bass as just a 17th-century stock device (see p. 219 above). Unfortunately, I have not been able to access a copy of Martini’s recording. Taruskin describes it as fast and light-textured; by associating it with the modernist end of HIP, he also implies that it is rigidly metronomic and devoid of significant inflections of dynamics or articulation. Even if Martini’s performance does not illustrate these tendencies, alternatives could be cited, notably Harnoncourt 1968 (CD 4: 9). Glancing at the tempo table, one might be tempted to conclude that the thrust of Taruskin’s narrative is correct: the movement is getting faster, and slower tempi in the 1980s and 1990s mostly come from “traditional” conductors. Taruskin’s choice of Klemperer as vitalist par excellence, however, is highly problematic: his aesthetics were closer to “geometrism” (see 2.2.1, pp. 46ff above), and his Crucifixus (CD 4: 8) illustrates this as well as any movement in his 1967 - 225 Mass. Taruskin’s description implies a highly-inflected performance, which highlights specific expressive devices. Ironically, the performances that most closely match this description are HIP (as are, admittedly, some archetypal illustrations of the uninflected approach). Klemperer’s rendition, while not constituting an extreme example of internal uniformity, is closer to that end of the spectrum than to the “vitalist” approach Taruskin implies. Klemperer’s basic parameters reflect his belief in the music’s expressive character: a tempo which is among the slowest on record, quiet dynamics with some degree of local flexibility, and a bass-heavy sonority. Klemperer ensures textural clarity, and there are rising-and-falling patterns within individual phrases; but the overall dynamic range and articulatory spectrum are narrow. There are no patterns of tension and release, no high or low points (except for a descent to sotto voce at the final “sepultus est”).11 Overall, he seems to select parameters that would enable the music’s expressive character to speak for itself. Once he has “chosen [these parameters] and set them in motion”, there is little further intervention. 9.2.1. Pre-rhetoric: Architecture and unity Klemperer’s approach is typical of its time: most modern instrument performances – especially before 1977 (Rilling’s first performance) – treat the Crucifixus in a manner consistent with unity of affect and with the “block construction” aesthetics portrayed in the Canby quote (p. 221 above), making, at most, a concession to the distinctiveness of section IV. Furthermore, they set it within a triptych which consists of three contrasted blocks. Some even collapse Incarnatus and Crucifixus into a single block, minimising the differentiation between them. Karajan, in both performances, illustrates the three-blocks approach, and also provides one of the clearest examples of isolating the Crucifixus for special treatment. He opens the triptych in a slow, hushed Incarnatus (CD 4: 1), performed in an almost seamless legato and virtually static dynamics. The Crucifixus (CD 4: 2) is much faster and (especially in 1974) louder, with frequent tenuto-marcato articulation, especially in the orchestra. Karajan maintains an intense forte, with little differentiation between strong and weak beats, and a quick-march-like orchestral articulation through most of 11 In his 1961 recording, there are clearer differences between the sections. These are, however, inflections on a narrow dynamic range (and in the choir only). - 226 the movement. These features stand out in performances which otherwise tend towards soft dynamics and gentle articulation. Only in the final “sepultus est” do timbre, dynamics and articulation soften, and the tempo slows down slightly. This dramatic approach continues into the beginning of the Resurrexit (CD 4: 3): while this movement is mostly performed in Karajan’s habitual moderate-to-soft dynamics,12 it begins and ends forte, maximising the contrast with the hushed conclusion of the Crucifixus. The overall approach seems to maximise contrasts within the triptych, emphasising mystery and un-earthiness in the Incarnatus, pain in the Crucifixus and triumph in the opening gesture of the Resurrexit. An almost diametrically opposed version of the “three-contrasted-blocks” approach is represented by Shaw 1947, Lehmann, Mauersberger (CD 4: 4-6), K. Thomas, Münchinger and Daus:13 a mellow, internally-varied Crucifixus – characterised by soft and flexible dynamics, round articulation and (in some cases) flexible tempo – is framed between two dry, internally uniform movements. In these readings, the Incarnatus is made to sound even more austere than the stile antico movements. The tempo is fast, and dynamics are almost static (with the exception of Thomas’s bars 40-49). Instrumental parts are shaped meticulously, with clearly distinct pairs (in the violins) and almost no dynamic inflection; the chorus is more legato, though in the two performances featuring a boys’ chorus (Mauersberger and Thomas) individual notes are sometimes accentuated to facilitate clarity. The Resurrexit is relatively slow (except in Lehmann’s version), dynamically uniform (within well-defined terraces), and meticulously articulated, with few instances of legato and, especially in Mauersberger and Thomas, frequent melismatic aspiration. These versions seem consistent with the views that separate the Incarnatus from the Crucifixus, and emphasise human-emotional expression only in the latter. One gets the sense that the Incarnatus is treated like a doctrinal statement with almost no expressive-emotional import – more a continuation of the Et in unum than a prelude to the Crucifixus. The latter emerges as the first movement in the Symbolum to be performed with legato articulation and flexible dynamics – the techniques which the Leipzig school identified as espressivo. 12 In 1952, only the first phrase (bars 1-9, first beat) and last phrase (mid-129-end) are forte; the rest of the movement is hushed. In 1974, there are more instances of louder dynamics. 13 King’s Incarnatus is more dynamically active, especially in the “B” section. However, the Incarnatus-Crucifixus relation in his performance is reminiscent of the performances discussed here. - 227 Other performances from the 1950s-1970s (notably Scherchen 1950, 1959; Jochum 1957, 1980; Shaw 1960, 1990; Klemperer 1961, 1967) reflect the view that the Crucifixus intensifies an affect already intimated in the Incarnatus, while contrasting both movements with their surroundings (Et in unum and Resurrexit).14 In both Incarnatus and Crucifixus, these performances feature a slow tempo, legato articulation, soft dynamics and timbre, and an avoidance of strong accents and aspiration. The Incarnatus features some degree of local dynamic inflection, but there is no attempt at overall shaping; for the most part, this is true of the Crucifixus up until the end (with the exception of Jochum 1980; see p. 229 below). Within these parameters, however, the Crucifixus is treated more intensely. Its dynamic range is wider, with a greater degree of local activity. Jochum, in both performances, brings out a deeper, more resonant bass in the Crucifixus, and clearly articulates the individual notes (thereby drawing attention to the rhythmic difference between the two movements’ bass rhythms). Shaw employs a distinctly slower tempo in the Crucifixus (his 1960 and 1990 versions are respectively the slowest and secondslowest on record). Scherchen’s beat in the Crucifixus, especially in 1959, is constantly fluctuating. The later version is also characterised by independent shaping of individual lines, creating a greater sense of movement and directionality despite the slow tempo; this stands out against the relative uniformity of his Incarnatus. Alone among the conductors cited here, Scherchen maximises the contrast between Crucifixus and Resurrexit, softening and slowing down at the end of the Crucifixus to prepare for a Resurrexit which, at the time, was the fastest on record. In none of these performances was there an attempt to increase the tension at the end of the Incarnatus, so that the Crucifixus’s opening E minor chord would sound as a resolution to the Incarnatus’s B major. Instead, they project a calmer continuity between the two movements. One recording from this period, however, stands out in giving a distinct, unmistakeable internal shape to the Crucifixus.15 Richter’s studio version (CD 4: 7) is 14 In this sense, Jochum (in both readings) is an exception: his massive ritardando at the duet’s last section (bar 63, at the introduction of the words “Et incarnatus”) make the transition to the Incarnatus more continuous. 15 Albert Coates ends section I piano, marking the unanimous entry on “passus” with a clear forte. His is also the only recording known to me to feature a crescendo-diminuendo pattern within section IV. - 228 one of the starkest examples of the conductor’s stratified, hierarchical manner. The Incarnatus features an atypically distinct use of gradual dynamic inflection, enhanced by legato articulation (except in the last 9 bars). Against this, the Crucifixus initially sounds harsh, featuring a fast tempo (before Harnoncourt 1968, Richter’s Crucifixus was the fastest on record) and, initially, uniform articulation. There is also a clear hierarchy between three main components of the musical texture: the chorus is at the forefront; the ostinato, though quieter, is audible and distinctly articulated; the rest of the orchestra recedes into the background as the chorus enters. Until bar 29, Richter maintains a combination of rigidity and clarity reminiscent of his Saxon mentors and colleagues; he also achieves a high level of clarity, through a combination of tenuto non legato articulation, clear diction and spatial separation. However, having established a seemingly rigid, hierarchical reading, Richter introduces a subito piano in the transition to the “passus et sepultus est” in bar 29, softening dynamics and timbre alike and switching to a more legato articulation. This results in an inevitable loss of clarity, but imparts a quiet intensity to section II. A similar atmosphere is generated by the concluding “sepultus est” (section IV), where Richter considerably slows down (from ° = 63 to below 50 in the penultimate bar). Richter emphasises the contrast between the first two sections, then, by giving them two different types of performances: literalistic and brightly-lit for section I, hushed and mysterious for section II. The increasing textural complexity in section I is clearly exposed, while section II sounds completely chordal (except for a slight, barely-audible emphasis on the tenor’s second “passus”, bars 30-31). Contrasts are not so clearly marked in the rest of the movement; section III illustrates Richter’s frequent tendency (see p. 65 above) to restrict local dynamic nuances to special moments. In particular, the section’s last phrase (especially the tenor’s “etiam pro nobis”, bars 44-45) gradually softens dynamics and timbre (without loss of clarity), making the transition into section IV smoother than the “break” between sections I and II. On the whole, however, Richter’s stratified reading disrupts continuity within the Crucifixus, making it more difficult to sense continuity in the triptych as a whole.16 16 There is more continuity and local nuance in Richter’s two 1969 recordings, albeit within a similar outline. His 1973/4 reading of BWV 12/2 features even greater flexibility of both tempo and dynamics and more continuous, legato articulation. - 229 More continuous readings of the Crucifixus begin to emerge in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Rilling 1977 (CD 4: 10) shapes the entire movement as a single, rising crescendo culminating in soprano’s held high E in bars 43-44, descending in the last two variations (see also p. 223 above). His performance operates with no reference to the textural changes which were so central to Richter’s interpretation. Jochum (1980; CD 4: 12) modifies his earlier interpretation to include features of both Richter’s and Rilling’s shape. He softens the dynamics slightly at section II, allowing a clear distinction between the sections without sounding as terraced as Richter. He then shapes the dynamics in section III towards and away from a bar 44 climax: the soprano’s E is actually piano, but momentum is maintained by wavedynamics in the altos and basses (bar 44) and tenors (bar 45). Corboz (1979) shapes each of the first three sections with its own, independent arch of tension-and-release. The first three “variations” are hushed, followed by a surge of dynamics in the 4th “variation”, and a gradual, not uninterrupted descent which, by the end of section I, leads back to the opening piano. The homophonic section II is treated as two distinct crescendo-diminuendo patterns. Section III begins quietly, builds up towards a local, treble-dominated climax under the soprano’s extended E (bars 44-45), then droops again with a slight emphasis on the cadential alteration to the ostinato in bar 48. Section IV simply continues this descent. The overall shape that emerges is that of three linked “waves”, each with its own peak. These features suggest a growing interest in the significance of texture. Prior to Corboz 1979, Richter’s recordings were virtually the only ones in which the transitions between imitative to homophonic textures emerged as a significant factor.17 In the 1980s and 1990s, the division of the movement along these lines became increasingly predominant. In his discussion of the Crucifixus, Bitter (1865, II: 159) cites Kirnberger’s references to the movement’s densely imitative, polyphonic texture (cf. Bukofzer 1948: 296). Bitter concedes the accuracy of this observation, but downplays its importance: what matters is the movement’s emotional and theological content. A similar attitude seems implicit in many recordings. If clarity is sought, it is in order to reveal the music’s Complexity, not as a means of generating Intensity. After 1980, however, several performers seem more intent on tying these two aspects. 17 The one exception is Horst, who also introduces a subito piano in bar 29. - 230 - 9.2.2. The influence of rhetoric The three “traditional” performances which clearly distinguish between the movement’s four sections are far removed from the rhetorical approach. Their articulation bears little relation to rhetoric-as-speech: Jochum and Corboz mostly employ legato articulation, whereas Richter alternates between legato and rigid tenuto non legato. Thus, a rhetorical approach is not the only one that could lead musicians to focus on textural considerations. It does, however, encourage such a focus. A speech-like approach to the Crucifixus would involve at least a partial correlation between word-underlay and phrasing. While no performance features caesurae at each and every word-boundary (neither, for that matter, does normal speech), several performances observe the following divisions with varying degrees of consistency: “Crucifixus/ etiam pro nobis/ sub Pontio Pilato”. Since there is little correlation between any two parts in the placement of these boundaries, a performance which brings them out would emphasise the mutual independence of the vocal parts, as well as the transitions from polyphonic to homophonic textures. A belief in rhetoric-as-semantics would provide further motivation to distinguish between the four sections, which set different portions of the text. This in turn would affect the movement’s overall shape: while not ruling out the traditional bar 43/4 climax, it opens up further possibilities. Sections II and IV feature the most homophonic textures and the most regular phrase-structures in the Crucifixus. This, in itself, supports a calmer reading for them. The long, mutually-independent phrases in bars 13-29 and section III present a wealth of sustained foreign notes; clear cadences are few and far between. This contrasts with section II, where the first vocal phrase ends with a perfect cadence, and the second with a clear dominant chord, resolved by the orchestra in bar 37. On the other hand, the abrupt transition between two opposite textures – like other sudden changes in prominent parameters – can be read as a dramatic gesture. It might make more sense to speak here of different types of tension, rather than different degrees. Chordal textures can support a single powerful gesture, or a series of such gestures; polyphonic textures are better suited for cumulative intensity. By shifting the emphasis from one part to another (with frequent overlaps between parts), and deliberately avoiding firm cadences, such textures could be used to intensify and prolong harmonic tensions. The deferment of closure inherent in such a procedure - 231 creates what Dalia Cohen (1994: 37) terms “suspensive directionality”. This “uncertainly [and] suspense as to the direction the music will take” helps generate overall intensity; but it would be difficult to point to a single locus for this effect. The shaping of a section III climax, therefore, rarely takes the form of a definite point of climax; tension peaks and ebbs around bars 43/4, but not with a distinct point of arrival, and only sometimes with a distinct point of departure (bars 45, second beat, a diminuendo initiated by the alto). Section II, on the other hand, allows for definite points of high tension: the syncopated entries, especially of the second phrase (bar 33, second beat). The latter syncopation underscores the most dissonant and ambiguous chord in this section – a VII7 chord above a tonic pedal (or, alternatively, a IV6/4 chord with two foreign notes – the alto’s D# and the bass’s F#).18 The melodic peak at bar 35 is another candidate; it is possible to include both within the same phrase. One recording – Hermann Max’s – treats bars 33-35 as the sole dynamic high point in an otherwise narrow-range, piano reading; others, to be described shortly (see also Corboz, p. 229 above), shape the movement around it. Thus, while divergent shaping of individual lines leads to a clear distinction between polyphonic and homophonic sections, the sections’ relative intensity also depends on other factors. Word-underlay-phrasing can facilitate clarity, gently drawing listeners’ attention to differences in texture. It can also be used as an aid for comfortable breathing. In large choirs, members can breath individually without this being caught by the listeners; this is probably how many of them achieve a seamless legato. Small choirs, or choirs aiming for cohesion and unanimity of attack, will aim for a unified phrase division; in the Crucifixus, some word boundaries are conveniently placed to allow non-arbitrary intakes of breath in the midst of a long phrase (e.g., “-am/ pro” in the bass, bar 20; “bis/ sub” in the tenor, bar 26). In Herreweghe 1988 (CD 4: 22), occasional word-underlay phrasing does little to affect the movement’s overall shape or affect. Breaths at such points (e.g., bars 20 in the bass, bar 23 in the alto, bar 24 in the tenor, bar 25 in the soprano) are gentle and 18 The syncopation on this chord is one of the differences Bach introduced when he re-worked BWV 12/2 into the Crucifixus. In the former, this was an unaccented, melismatic chord with no suggestion of syncopation. It was therefore possible to view it as a transition between the two flanking chords, rather than an independent chord. The word underlay in the Crucifixus, and the resulting syncopation, force listeners to perceive it as an independent chord. - 232 understated, and do not disrupt the overall feel of legato. Likewise, Herreweghe only gently underlines the distinction between the sections, relaxing slightly at section II, and starting a small crescendo in section III which already dissipates by bar 44. Notwithstanding his rhetoric-as-structure theories, Herreweghe does not treat section II (or any other section) as a tense Confutatio (see, however, p. 238 below). A similar gentle underlining characterises Rifkin’s performance (CD 4: 13). His singers – particularly the alto and tenor (see also p. 140 above) – employ wordunderlay as a local modification to a basic legato articulation, but the level of local dynamic activity is occasionally higher than in Herreweghe’s reading (e.g., the alto’s crescendo in bars 13-15). Section II’s homophonic texture is underscored with a unanimous breath at bar 29 (second beat), and a slight slowing down of the tempo and softening of dynamics within section II itself (the slower tempo also carries into the rest of the movement, with a further slowing at IV).19 Rifkin’s chamber-music texture facilitates co-ordinated independence, allowing features such as the change of texture to emerge without strong intervention. The singers carry most of the interpretive burden, with soft, background contribution from the orchestra. The other two one-per-part versions of this movement, however, approach the issue differently. Parrott’s singers (CD 4: 14) are mutually divergent in the more polyphonic sections: David Thomas phrases as broadly as possible, maintaining a continuous legato, while others – especially Christian Immler (alto) and Rogers Covey Crump (tenor) – mostly employ word-underlay phrasing. Dynamics also seem uncoordinated, especially in section I. In III, there is a lead-up towards a high-point in bar 44, but it seems led almost entirely by David Thomas (until bar 42) and Emily van Evera (bars 43-44). The subito piano in bar 45 is more unanimous, however, as is the earlier crescendo-diminuendo pattern in the 9th variation (followed by a clearly weighted, note-by-note ritardando towards section III). The singers’ individualised phrasing is further accentuated by the orchestra’s firm projection of its rhythmic pattern; downbeats and bar-lines are more audible than in Rifkin’s version. 19 Rifkin’s Incarnatus features a faster, steadier tempo (except for a ritardando towards the end), and fewer inflections of dynamics or articulation. Within Rifkin’s entire performance, the Crucifixus emerges as one of the more expressively-nuanced movements. In Herreweghe 1988, there is a similar relationship, although the two movements are closer and therefore there is greater continuity. In both cases, the relationship is more akin to the “intensification of the same affect” than to a distinctly drier treatment of the Incarnatus. - 233 A more cohesive, overall dynamic shaping can be found in Gardiner’s performance (CD 4: 15). His concertists consistently bring out a crescendodiminuendo figure on the opening phrases: Example 9.1: Crucifixus, bars 5-6; Gardiner (CD 4: 15) As the section proceeds, the ensemble builds up a crescendo which is, however, reversed around bars 23-24, leading into the quieter rendition of section II. This dynamic pattern seems more unified, projected across the ensemble rather by individual lines, an impression partly generated by the singers’ more legato articulation. The rise-and-fall pattern in section III is projected more by the orchestra than by the singers. Gardiner places a soloistic Crucifixus between two choral movements.20 This accords with his three-blocks treatment of the triptych; the Crucifixus is contrasted with the Incarnatus in its faster tempo as well as in its soloistic scoring, and the gap between Crucifixus and Resurrexit is unusually long. Rifkin and Parrott, on the other hand, allow a greater sense of continuity between the movements. The performers discussed above employ word-underlay unsystematically, within a predominantly legato context. Leonhardt’s readings of the Incarnatus (CD 4: 16) and Crucifixus (CD 4: 17) combine nearly systematic word-underlay phrasing and downbeat accentuations; when a word boundary occurs off-beat, this results in subtle metric dissonances. In both movements, dynamics are stable, but not static, and there are subtle emphases on moments of greater tension (dissonant harmonies, syncopations); these emphases are, however, more intensely projected in the Crucifixus. 21 20 Jacobs employs soloists in the Incarnatus and full chorus in the next two choruses. He also employs soloists in the Qui tollis. His choices coincide with those of the Berlin Singakademie in their 1834 performance of the Missa and Symbolum Nicenum (Herz 1985: 194-195). 21 In his understated way, Leonhardt retains section III as the climax: accentuation hardens at this section, with a relatively harsh rendition of the soprano’s “sub Pontio Pilato” (bars 42-44). - 234 If Leonhardt points towards the unsettling potential of word-underlay phrasing, Harnoncourt (1986) exploits this potential with a near-vengeance. He performs both Incarnatus (CD 4: 19) and Crucifixus (CD 4: 20) with a mixture of sostenuto fragments and sharp accents, the latter often placed on off-beat word boundaries. In the Crucifixus, he also emphasises each downbeat entry of the ostinato – sometimes by a slight emphasis in the continuo line (e.g., bars 17, 37), sometimes by a sforzando in the full string section (e.g. bars 1, 9, 45). The accents, however, are placed in the orchestra alone; Harnoncourt treats the Crucifixus as an instrumental passacaglia juxtaposed with an independent vocal texture (cf. Cushman, quoted on p. 220 above). The latter is shaped according to word underlay, and each vocal part receives an independent contour in dynamics and articulation alike. Harnoncourt draws special attention to angular, syllabic lines (e.g., tenor in bars 17-20), and emphasises clashes between voices (e.g., alto and tenor in bars 23-24). Through this localised activity, an overall pattern emerges, leading to and away from a climax in bar 33. Tension within the section II is maintained as Harnoncourt exposes “cracks” in the ostensibly chordal texture. The first six chords of section II form a two-part sequence. However, only in the tenor does the word-underlay match the sequence. 22 Most performances downplay this feature. Harnoncourt emphasises it: he separates the two repeats of “passus” in the tenor, and draws a breath between “sus” and “et” in the soprano (bar 30). This pattern of textural clashes leads into the climax at bar 33. Harnoncourt begins bar 33 with a sharp downbeat accentuation, followed by an equally powerful emphasis on the voices’ syncopation in the second beat. He thus maximises the tension between choir and orchestra, which is latent throughout his rendition of this movement. 22 This feature is unique to the Crucifixus; the texture in the equivalent point in BWV 12/2 is straightforwardly chordal. - 235 Example 9.2: Crucifixus, bars 29-36; Harnoncourt 1986 (CD 4: 20) - 236 - In section III, the vocal phrasing is almost continuously legato. Repose is prevented, however, by an intensification of the orchestral accentuation. In the 11th variation (bars 41-44), Harnoncourt accents each downbeat, with increasing heaviness, leading to a sharp accentuation on the opening of the 12th variation (bar 44). This, together with a crescendo on the soprano’s “pas-” in this bar, turns this - 237 moment into a minor climax (after the major climax at bar 33), followed by a notable descent. Section IV is clearly separated from the rest: the orchestra’s prominence up to this point makes its omission in the last four bars more palpable. Hushed dynamics and greater choral homogeneity further intensify the sense of mystery. 23 Harnoncourt maintains an aura of instability even in the Resurrexit (CD 4: 21). The dramatic transition to this movement is reminiscent of Spitta’s imagery: the opening crescendo emerges from “the silence of the tomb” to raise “the standard of the Resurrection”. However, Harnoncourt’s performance also resonates with Spitta’s claim that the Resurrexit’s “vigour and [...] defiant boldness” are somewhat attenuated, that something “tempers the movement and keeps it down” (1889, III: 58; see also p. 221 above). George Stauffer (1997b: 125-126) enumerates the anabasis as one of the factors contributing to the Resurrexit’s “breathless ebullience”, alongside the dance-like atmosphere generated by “balanced phrases, triple meter, emphatic downbeats, delicate detachments”, and the voices’ “free, instrumental figures”. Harnoncourt undermines the “emphatic downbeats”, preventing the articulation of a steady pulse through a combination of sostenuto fragments, weakened dynamics in the bass, and slurring or elongation of repeated notes. Even when Harnoncourt clearly projects items from Stauffer’s list, he does so in a manner not entirely consistent with a “mood of elation”. Numerous sostenuto fragments, and figures like the upbeat corta (¶» õ Ä ), are highlighted and isolated; whilst other performers treat them as elegant ornaments, Harnoncourt uses them to undercut the movement’s forward momentum. Likewise, the hushed dynamics in the two fugal expositions render them more awed than jubilant; and Harnoncourt’s continued use of word-underlay phrasing again generates subtle internal clashes in the choral texture.24 23 Harnoncourt’s basic shape (increased intensity in bars 13-29; climax at bar 33; gradual, noncontinuous descent through section III to a hushed conclusion at IV) need not be realised through his specific means: even the association of Complexity and Intensity can be presented without Harnoncourt’s destabilising gestures. This point is clearly demonstrated in Harry Christophers’ recording, which projects a similar shape while retaining rounder, often legato articulation. 24 Schreier 1991 provides an illuminating counter-example. This is the only other version to consistently bring out the anabasis as a crescendo. Schreier’s points of demarcation and dynamic contours are reminiscent of Harnoncourt’s; but his more resilient articulation, clearer bass, fewer and less prominent emphases on isolated figures and steadier dynamics result in a more dependable and - 238 - 9.2.3. Neo-romanticism: Drama and creativity Harnoncourt’s 1986 triptych vividly illustrates his “subtle discomfort” manner. This becomes clearer when compared to the more direct approach taken by musicians who seek to project drama and discomfort in the Crucifixus – notably Jeffrey Thomas (CD 4: 23). Where Harnoncourt constructed his interpretation through the cumulative effect of small details, Thomas projects his view in large dynamic waves, allied with a single, extremely vivid gesture which dominates the entire movement. Thomas’s incisive, forte-staccato rendition of the strings’ rhythmic figure is reminiscent of Karajan’s march-like Crucifixus (see p. 225 above). This approach remains a rarity; three other recent examples – Herreweghe 1996, Fasolis and Biller – were all recorded after Thomas’s version was released. Herreweghe’s version (CD 4: 25) is the most restrained in this group. In the vocal parts, the relationship between Herreweghe’s first and second versions of the Crucifixus is typical of his general stylistic evolution: longer phrases, projected primarily through directional dynamics. The orchestra, however, is more sharply etched in 1996: it is phrased staccato, and, despite its soft dynamics, has much greater presence. Most change and development, however, takes place in the vocal parts: Section II is slightly louder and more internally uniform, section III begins quietly and builds-up to a crescendo which, unusually, extends almost to the end of the section. This is one of the more extroverted movements in this performance (especially compared to the almost sempre legato Incarnatus), but it can hardly be counted among the most theatrical readings of the Crucifixus. Thomas’s version, on the other hand, is immediately arresting even when heard in isolation (though it is also strongly contrasted with the preceding Incarnatus).25 And, while the other performances cited in this section render the strings’ rhythm with almost uniform intensity, Thomas projects a crescendo-sforzando figure, intended to portray Christ’s nailing to the Cross (Butt 1999a: 191).26 predictable version. Similarly, Leonhardt (CD 4: 18) makes audible many of the strands, and figures, highlighted by Harnoncourt, but provides a more steadily articulated bass, firmer metric accentuation and fewer dynamic nuances. 25 Thomas’s Incarnatus contains two unusual features: the internal echo in the violins’ figure (last two quavers subito piano), and the pauses before bars 45 and 49. It is, however, restrained and introverted in comparison with his Crucifixus. 26 Boyd (1990: 172-173) associates this imagery with “the tortured chromatic vocal lines” in bars 3742. - 239 Example 9.3: Crucifixus, bars 1-5; Jeffrey Thomas (CD 4: 23) In the beginning of section I, this “nailing” figure dominates the texture; vocal and instrumental strands are almost equally prominent. To achieve this, the choir sings forte.27 Their legato phrasing (which does not sound entirely smooth because of their intense production) contrasts with the incisive shaping of the strings. The figure begins to recede in the upbeat to bar 20: its crescendo shape remains, but its dynamics are reduced, allowing greater prominence to the increasingly dense vocal texture. If the figure is meant to portray the crucifixion, its gradual disappearance may be related to the omission of the word “crucifixus” in these bars. As the figure recedes, dynamics and timbre in the entire ensemble soften. In section II, the strings recede into the background, leading to an almost static reading of the section itself. In bars 36-37, the figure returns, heralding the return of the word “crucifixus”. It is less emphatic, however, than in section I, softening and receding in bars 42-45 and becoming almost inaudible in bars 46-47. As before, its recession is linked both with increased vocal activity and with the omission of the word “Crucifixus”; and the tone of the performance becomes softer as the figure recedes. There is a notable drop in both tempo and dynamics in the penultimate variation, coinciding with the cadential figuration of the strings and continuo in bars 47-48. The transition to section IV is not highlighted, but the modulation to G major 27 Compare with Thomas’s discussion of his performance of BWV 198/1 (in Sherman: 277). - 240 does receive special treatment: Thomas draws a breath before the first syllable of “sepultus est”, where the bass departs from the ostinato by ascending back to C-sharp, and further softens timbre and dynamics. The performance ends with an elongated fermata, followed by a long pause (about 10 seconds) between Crucifixus and Resurrexit (CD 4: 24). No other recording – except for LPs which place the two movements on different sides – gives such a long break between these movements.28 Thomas’s approach might be described as creative: whereas Harnoncourt arguably draws attention to latent feature in the score, Thomas uses the orchestra to create a word painting. Thomas does not attempt anything similar in his reading of BWV 12/2; instead, he focuses on the text, encouraging his singers to portray the weeping and wailing of which they sing (see also pp. 134ff above). Within the Crucifixus, the word painting refers to the act of crucifixion: the nailing figure’s presence is contingent on that idea’s immediate presence in the text. This, however, does not correspond to any change in the score, where the strings’ rhythmic figuration remains the same throughout. As often, Hengelbrock’s performance (CD 4: 26) bears a closer resemblance to Harnoncourt’s. However, while the latter capitalised on disparities between choir and orchestra, Hengelbrock bases his interpretation primarily on the vocal strands. His reading also resembles Corboz 1979 (p. 229 above) in featuring parallel trajectories for each section, and shaping each phrase in section II separately. However, where Corboz projected a series of arches, Hengelbrock presents a series of descents: each of the first three sections begins at a higher point than its predecessor, but ends piano.29 Hengelbrock’s notes, unusually, make no reference to the movement’s model (BWV 12/2). He does not focus on the Mass text, either. Instead, he proposes a more universal message: eight times Bach lets individual voices project the “crucifixus” into the difficult harmonies of the orchestra’s passus duriusculus, before the individual notes of the melody are formed [...] Bach’s devastating suggestive power summons up 28 Richter comes close in his video version. The camera focuses on him at the transition, showing him counting the beats and measuring the distance between Crucifixus and Resurrexit. 29 Koopman’s performance features a similar shape: a descent in dynamics in section I and within each variation of section II. Section III is more placid: the soprano’s high E is emphasised, but as an isolated peak, not as the culmination of a cumulative build-up. However, Koopman’s dynamic range is narrower, and his dynamic and articulatory contours are smoother: there are no hesitations, sudden rhythmic jolts, or emphatic accentuations. It is also faster and more flowing than Hengelbrock’s. - 241 not only the image of Golgotha, but that of all the Golgothas of this world. (Hengelbrock 1997) Hengelbrock begins by emphasising the “hardness” of the “steps” with heavy, tenuto non legato articulation in the strings, which transfers into the initial vocal statements (variations 2 and 3, sung by concertists; ripienists join in at bar 13). Afterwards, the articulation softens, alternating between tenuto and short legati, with some word-underlay phrasing. However, the sense of heaviness persists, particularly due to frequent employment of messa di voce. Where Christophers employs continuous crescendi on sustained notes to enhance momentum, Hengelbrock employs rising and falling (or, on occasion, just falling) patterns to impede it. The patterns in section II are more unanimous, but the feeling of impeded momentum is still present. The 9th variation begins with a crescendo, but it subsides after the first downbeat in bar 30. The 10th variation begins louder, drops almost immediately, then picks up again for a short-lived forte in bar 35. As I noted on p. 231 above, it is possible to encompass the commencement of this variation and the melodic high point within the same, sustained forte (cf. Rilling 1977, Corboz 1979, Harnoncourt 1986, Christophers). Hengelbrock, however, deliberately avoids this, creating a sense of strain on the soprano’s high C (bar 33) and E (bar 35) alike. A more constant dynamic peak is maintained in the 10th and 11th variations, intensified by greater orchestral presence, though their non legato articulation (also surfacing in the choir) still maintains a sense of effort. The drop to piano in bars 44-45 (generated by the tenor’s “etiam pro NO-bis”) is coupled with a more consistent legato in the last 8 bars, reminiscent of the smoother contours of Hengelbrock’s Incarnatus. That movement is more unusual in the context of the performance as a whole in its predominantly legato articulation, throwing the heaviness and impeded momentum of the Crucifixus into sharper relief. The Resurrexit (one of the fastest on record, following a Crucifixus which, at least among HIP readings, is among the slowest) is confident and forward-surging, with few internal contrasts. In the broadest of outlines, then, Hengelbrock follows the “traditional” trajectory which sees the 10th-11th-variations sequence as the height of the Crucifixus. Each of the preceding “paragraphs” commences more fully than the preceding one, suggesting an upward trajectory for the entire movement. But the realisation of this shape is almost diametrically opposed to Rilling’s (1977): where the latter shaped a continuous crescendo that cut across all changes in texture, Hengelbrock brings out a - 242 constant sense of struggle and interruption, in which changes in texture and relations between the voices fill an important role (especially in section I). 9.3. Summary The Crucifixus (and the triptych of which it is the central panel) is often considered the heart of the Mass; in several readings, it emerges as a unique moment. In others, the Crucifixus is more typical of the performance as a whole, but still presents the interpreters’ expressive ends and means particularly vividly. This movement is therefore particularly useful for examining changing approaches to the projection of Intensity in Bach’s music. For the most part, recordings in 1950-1980 treat the Crucifixus within a “Unity of Affect” paradigm, sometimes extending this concept to encompass the Incarnatus as well. The two pre-war recordings (Bairstow and Coates) feature clear internal contrasts, but this option was abandoned even by the more “romantic” post-war conductors. Most readings from this period are characterised by a moment-to-moment nuance (especially in dynamics), but do not attempt an overall structure (the most notable counter-example being Karl Richter). As often, the advent of HIP approaches has widened the interpretive range. The claim that HIP musicians are more restrained in their expression is not entirely unfounded (as evidenced in readings like Harnoncourt 1968, Parrott, Herreweghe 1988, and Koopman). But this is only one side of the narrative. Greater attention to texture, to the independent shaping of each part, has not only led to greater local nuance, but also (in some cases) to a clearer realisation of the textural contrasts between the movement’s sections. It has also led to a shift of emphasis from bars 45 to bars 33-35 as the high point of tension in the movement (though several performances attempt to encompass both). In some cases, this has led to a modification of the more traditional approach: different nuances placed within the context of a rounded, legato approach. In others, it resulted in performances which bring out a sense of internal tension. Even a relatively rounded performance such as Christophers’ brought out the potential positive feedback between Complexity and Intensity; readings like Harnoncourt’s and Hengelbrock’s have taken this further. - 243 In the latter cases, this probably relates to the interpreters’ belief in rhetoric-assemantics. Harnoncourt does not provide a verbal imagery for this movement; Hengelbrock’s words are rich in atmosphere but not in pictorial or lexical details. Nonetheless, both interpretations clearly articulate a vision in which every factor in the music carries deep significance and should be realised accordingly. Taruskin has implied that a vitalist reading of this movement is one which would actively draw the listener’s attention to “Bach’s rhetoric of chromaticism, dissonance, and melodic descent”; Harnoncourt and Hengelbrock alike approximate this description more closely than any modern-instrument version. Their readings seem to exemplify a knife-edge-balance approach: they project internal discomfort, even struggle, but not violent outbursts. Thomas’s defiantly theatrical reading (and similar ones, notably Fasolis’), with its sometimes violent gestures, arguably display a vision of Bach’s music which goes beyond even “knife-edge” balance. 10. Summary My aim in this dissertation has been to explore aspects of Bach’s receptionthrough-performance, and to test some of the methodological problems inherent in such an investigation. Here, I want to survey some of the main conclusions, and point out notable omissions and potential directions for future investigation. 10.1. Historical conclusions My main conclusion is that, in the last two decades of the 20th century, there has been an expansion of the range of expressive means in Bach performance, affected partly by the rise of HIP and by ideas of rhetorical performance. These changes are also related to the emergence of more “humanised” Bach images. Most performances of the Mass between 1950 and 1980 display the hallmarks of the x/- spectrum of approaches, in which Complexity and Unity were considered more important – at least in the context of performative realisation – than Intensity. This reflects the partial convergence of different Bach images – primarily the religious and abstract-mathematical views. This convergence is particularly pronounced with reference to performance. The view that extra-musical meaning and emotional expression are marginal to Bach’s music; hermeneutical interpretations that view it in terms of “Symbols of Ideas”, rather than “Symbols of Feeling” (see p. 88f above); interpretations that speak of an emotional expression so powerful that it can speak for itself without the performer’s aid – these views represents different visions of the music, but converge on a restrictive, x/- approach to its realisation in sound. The growing propensity towards literalism at the time is also a significant factor. During this period, there was at least a partial consensus on what constitutes expression in performance (e.g., intense sound; wide dynamic range with much application of wave dynamics; rich nuance; rubato). Those who argued that such techniques were inappropriate for Bach’s music (and/or Baroque music generally) did not propose alternative means of expression. They simply narrowed the range of “legitimate” expressive means available for this music.1 1 Most exceptions to this general rule can be found in recordings by non-Germanic performers (e.g., Robert Shaw, Michel Corboz, Neville Marriner). It should be noted, however, that Herbert von Karajan seems to place sensuous sonority ahead of clarity in both of his commercial recordings. - 244 - - 245 The advent of HIP, at least from the late 1960s onwards, resulted in two contrasting developments. On the one hand, one can diagnose a “leer[iness] of the profound or the sublime” resulting in a decidedly “lightweight” approach (Taruskin 1995: 167). On the other hand, there is a growing awareness of tensions between opposing factors, leading to more dramatic interpretations. Both tendencies are related to a more flexible projection of local directionality, and to greater attention to local detail and nuance, with greater variety of articulation, accentuation, dynamics and agogics within phrases. In lighter readings (e.g., Parrott, Koopman), this is associated with a narrow overall dynamic range, light textures, faster tempi and less differentiation and contrast between phrases and movements. More dramatic performances (e.g., Harnoncourt 1986, Hengelbrock, J. Thomas) employ a wider overall range of tempi, dynamics and timbre, exploring powerful contrasts alongside subtle, local inflections. The latter tendency is coupled with the emergence of new (or renewed) means of expression, partly related to the growing influence of musico-rhetorical theories on performance. In verbal reception, the recognition of the role of motives and figures in Baroque musical expression, and Bach’s in particular, can be traced back to the early 20th century; this has often been translated into an atomistic approach to analysis, focusing on local details and downplaying the importance of long-range formalharmonic tensions. Some writers – notably Schweitzer – regarded such atomism as a key to performance. Figurenlehre theorists, however, usually promoted a +/philosophy (if they considered performance at all). Under HIP influence, however, notions of musical rhetoric have increasingly inspired performances which projected varied intensity within movements (in contradistinction to the uniform intensity which had characterised earlier performances). These trends have been, however, intensely controversial – in analysis and performance alike. More recently, these developments have inspired (or legitimised) the revival of more traditional means of expression. Broad legati, long-range crescendi and diminuendi, and organic shaping of movements as wholes – all previously associated with romantic approaches to Bach – have been increasingly adopted by HIP musicians, sometimes at the expense of the localised inflections, sometimes alongside them. This culminated in what I labelled the neo-romantic approach – a category which requires, however, further investigation and refinement. - 246 While the advent of HIP generally widened the expressive spectrum in Bach performance, it also contributed to the marginalization of at least one approach: “monumental” readings – combining slow tempi, large ensembles, bass-heavy sonorities, and a rigid approach to tempo, dynamics and articulation – are virtually absent from the Mass’s recent discography. Even “traditional”, “mainstream” musicians are increasingly adopting HIP techniques, the most notable illustration discussed in this dissertation being Helmuth Rilling’s stylistic transformation; similar tendencies can be noted in Biller’s, Ozawa’s and Abbado’s recordings, among others. To some extent, these recent trends can be related to a general “humanisation” of Bach’s image in verbal reception. While the perfected image of Bach as a nearlyinfallible composer, concerned more with God and/or Nature than with human emotion, is still highly prevalent (see, for example, Wolff 2000), several recent studies attempt to portray him more as a human being. This approach does not merely reflect the presentation of Bach’s biography: it also entails a more nuanced and contextualized, less perfected image of his music (cf. McClary 1987; Dreyfus 1996, 1997; Marshall 2000; Yearsley 2002; Williams 2004). This did not necessarily entail a marginalization of Bach’s religious convictions, but rather a rejection of the link between religiosity and austerity (as is evident in the views of musicians as diverse as Harnoncourt, Koopman and Jeffrey Thomas). The virtual abandonment of the deliberately rigid, almost statuesque approach to performance (applying the ideal of “terraces” even beyond dynamics), in favour of greater attention to motion, momentum and directionality, could be seen as a performative corollary to this. The stereotypic view that HIP renditions are deliberately lightweight and inconsequential thus proves one-sided. Ironically, both a lowering and a heightening of Intensity are consistent with the efforts to take Bach “off the pedestal”, and recent performances, mostly HIP or HIP-inspired, have demonstrated both tendencies. - 247 - 10.2. Methodological conclusions One of the main purposes of this dissertation was the comparison between verbal discourse and performance. In Part One, the verbal discourse consisted primarily of statements by the musicians themselves; in Part Two, I focused on analyses and commentaries on the music performed. It is worth examining whether, and how, the two types of discourse illuminate each other. 10.2.1. Premises and practices The performers in Part One were grouped according to intentional rather than stylistic criteria. In Chapters 3-5, I brought together performers who shared certain verbally-expressed views, rather than performative-stylistic traits. In chapters 2-4, the performers also shared a common background (a criterion which, if applied consistently, would have placed Ton Koopman in chapter 4). Only in chapter 6 did the initial impulse to place two musicians under the same heading arise from a musical stimulus; but there, too, I demonstrated Thomas’s and Hengelbrock’s common commitment to a strongly individualised, +/+ performance aesthetics, and their placing of the needs of present-day listeners above the demands of historical propriety (the latter issue being among my primary justifications for applying the neo-romantic label). The first conclusion that arises from an overview of Part One is that similarity in performers’ verbally-expressed views is not necessarily reflected in similar performance styles. For example, while Rilling’s verbal discourse has changed little over the past two decades, his performance style has undergone a radical transformation; and Philippe Herreweghe’s early advocacy of a rhetorical performance style is hard to reconcile with his actual performances. In the case of Herreweghe (as well as Karl Richter), I hypothesised that the musicians’ later statements represent a greater degree of self-awareness of their position vis-à-vis the traditions they emerged from, and of their own stylistic development. In the case of Harnoncourt, on the other hand, there is a close proximity between verbally-stated ideals and his performance style (at least since the late 1970s), a sense in which the two illuminate each other. These examinations confirm what one would suspect in any case: that performers’ stated ideals cannot, in themselves, be used to predict their approach in - 248 practice (see also Butt 2002a: 42). More often, the performance would illuminate the verbal discourse, clarifying what performers might have meant in their employment of certain terms or images, or showing how they prioritise between conflicting demands they expresses in words. Within the performers’ verbal discourse, one of my main interests has been in the relation between their views of Bach’s music on the one hand, and of their own role as interpreters on the other; in particular, whether they sought to realise the music’s full expressive potential, or advocated and/or practised restraint. Very few performers (and none within my Part One core-group) adhere to a -/- view of Bach’s music, but several adhere to an x/- view or (in the case of the musicians discussed in chapter 5) an understated version of x/x. The examination of these issues allows one, at the very least, to form expectations on the extent to which the musicians’ renditions – especially their willingness to employ the techniques which they regard as generating expression – fully reflects their conception of the music’s shape and meaning. Even when performances confound expectations, interesting points could emerge, especially if one takes care to examine the musician’s statements and performances alike within a broader context. Helmuth Rilling, for example, has always adhered to an x/x philosophy; in his 1979 book on the Mass, he repeatedly exhorts performers to trace the ebb-and-flow of tension within the music. His earlier performances, however, often display an internal rigidity which belies this ideal. In my view, this disparity might represent the tension between Rilling’s aesthetics and his initial adoption of a performance style better-suited for the projection of strict Unity of Affect. His 1999 Mass reflects clear HIP influences – and also realises his 1979 suggestions more consistently than his earlier recordings; this is yet another testimony to the way HIP has expanded the expressive options for Bach performance. My working assumption is that performers’ public verbal statements constitute a genuine effort on their part to account for their artistic motivations, to explain why they perform the music the way they do. However, verbal discourse might also purport to affect the listening process, to direct the listener’s attention to particular features in music and performance alike (most explicitly when the performer’s statements form part of a recording’s liner-notes). My own approach reflects this: the performers’ words have partly directed my enquiries and affected my listening – not only to their own renditions, but to other performers’ as well. - 249 - 10.2.2. Interpretation “in theory” and “in practice” In Part Two, I cited analyses and hermeneutic interpretations of the movements I discussed: a series of CIs, to introduce and complement my discussion of PIs (to use Levinson’s terminology; see p. 12 above). If the relationship between the same musician’s words and practices proved less than straightforward, the potential problems increase here, since some of the authors cited had no direct relationship with any of the performers discussed. My aim was not just to explore potential correspondences between the content of analyses and the shapes and meanings suggested by performance; style and rhetoric are also important. Two verbal commentaries can divide and interpret a movement in similar ways; yet their rhetoric – dry and careful in one, richly metaphoric in another – could suggest different ways of hearing. Similarly, two performances can draw attention to the same features in the music (emphasising the same motives and strands, building up towards a climax in the same spot), yet project a different expressive ambience (for example, see my comparison of Jacobs and Hickox in the Second Kyrie, p. 212 above). In several cases, I concluded that performances suggested interpretive options which had not been explored in any of the verbal commentaries I read. In others, I attempted to trace an analogy between PIs and CIs based solely on a comparison between them, rather than on historical evidence (see, for example, between Harnoncourt’s 1986 readings of the Second Kyrie, Crucifixus and Resurrexit and Spitta’s discussion of the same movements; see pp. 213ff and 237 above). Such comparisons demonstrate both the potentials and the dangers of allowing oneself to compare verbal discourse and musical performance even when no links between writer and performers can be demonstrated conclusively. It is possible – even likely – that Harnoncourt has read Spitta’s book; however, this does not necessarily mean that he has read the chapter on the Mass in great depth, still less that this directly affected his performances. The analogies I proposed between Spitta’s words and Harnoncourt’s performances are more likely to point to a similar artistic temperament: Harnoncourt and Spitta heard the music in a similar way because both of them tend to seek profound extra-musical messages, and to think in metaphors; they come particularly close in the Triptych since, in this case, Spitta went further than usual in employing richly metaphoric language. - 250 The Spitta/Harnoncourt analogy, however, is part of a larger hypothesis I presented in this dissertation (cf. pp. 158, 197f, 224 and 246f above): that highlyexpressive, knife-edge-balance interpretations of Bach’s music (and particularly the Mass or movements therein), presented by 19th- and early 20th-century writers, are more closely reflected in recent HIP versions than in most earlier versions. For the most part, it is difficult to trace an actual influence here: it is easier, for example, to prove that Harnoncourt’s performance style was directly influenced by Schering than to postulate a link between Harnoncourt and Kurth, Adorno, or even Schweitzer. Nor could I always point to specific performance recommendations by these writers that rhetorical performers – especially Harnoncourt and Hengelbrock – have followed (see, however, p. 94 above). All I could point to was a similarity between certain features in these writers’ analysis of Bach, the verbal discourse of performers like Harnoncourt and Hengelbrock, and the way these performers have inflected and highlighted certain features in the music. More research is required to probe the validity and significance of such analogies. Such an inquiry would have to encompass a wider repertoire than the B minor Mass, or even Bach’s vocal works tout court.2 10.3. Ideas for Further Research In assessing my proposed narrative, it should be remembered that I was unable to listen to all recordings of the Mass, and that the work’s discography has some lacunas. In discussing the greater stylistic diversity in recent years, for example, one must remember that the number of recordings has also increased: of the 101 complete commercial recordings listed in my discography, 63 were recorded after 1980. In the pre-1980 period, several important documents are missing: there are, for example, no recordings of the Mass by Siegfried Ochs, Adolf Busch, Donald Tovey, Wilhelm Ehmann, or Arthur Mendel. My narrative could have been altered had such recordings 2 For one thing, one would need to investigate the types of performance that writers like Spitta, Schweitzer and Kurth were likely to be familiar with. For the latter two writers, this would involve an investigation into early recordings of Bach’s instrumental music (including, of course, Schweitzer’s own recordings of Bach’s organ works); for Spitta and other 19th-century writers, one would have to rely on written sources – from reviews and performance treatises to editions and performers’ marked scores. - 251 existed, or if I had had the chance to listen to several existing recordings that I had been unable to access. The developments I outlined above – the expansion of the expressive spectrum towards greater lightness and greater (and different) Intensity alike – could be related to more general trends, or indeed to global patterns or “pendulum swings” between what is variously described as “ethos” and “pathos”, “classicism” and “romanticism”, and so forth. The assumption that we have been entering a more “romantic” phase – in music and in art generally – has already been cited is discussions of changing performance styles in the 1980s and 1990s (Kenyon 1988b: 17; Hudson 1994: 436439; Taruskin 1995: 149). More specifically, these developments can be accounted for with reference to at least three related factors: reactions against previous trends; increasing interest in, and knowledge of, historical performance practices (applied, however, with increasing freedom and selectiveness and with a more critical approach to the evidence); and the impact of rhetorical theories on performance. While my dissertation has touched upon all these issues, the thrust of my argument focuses on the last. This reflects my own research slant. My dissertation has focused on Bach’s vocal music. The core group for Part One consisted primarily of performers who expressed their views verbally, as well as through performance. Part Two examined the relationship between verbal and musical interpretation, focusing on movements which inspired myriad symbolic and emotional interpretations. I thus focused on the reflection of symbolism, hermeneutics and expressive analysis in performance; the centrality of musical rhetoric to the resulting narrative is hardly surprising. Consequently, I may have under-emphasised other factors of direct relevance to the issue expression and meaning in Mass’s discography, which would require further study. 10.3.1. Further case studies within the Mass Below, I present additional perspectives that could enhance the discussion of the Mass’s history on record, with particular reference to my main concerns in this dissertation – the exploration of expression, meaning, and the relationship between performance and other modes of reception. Some of these issues are touched upon in my dissertation, but they have not been central to it. - 252 - 10.3.1.1. The role of performance practice research The correlation between performers’ choices and the historical information available to them has not been central to my investigation. I discussed the choice of tempi, for example, in terms of its aesthetic and expressive impact, without focusing on whether a given tempo might be considered historically credible, and on what grounds. A discussion of these topics cannot merely consist of a comparison between the performers’ choice of various factors (tempo, size of ensemble, scoring – especially of the alto part and the continuo, etc.) and currently available knowledge on 18th-century performances practices. It is important to assess the information available to these performers, and to determine their own adherence to an MO-HIP ideology. Only on this basis can one decide whether a given choice represents a preference for one historical source over another, an aesthetic choice made independently of historical considerations, or a conscious flouting of historical practices (for studies that proceed along such lines, see Sherman 2000; Ornoy 2001; Fabian 2003; cf. p. 254 below). A more detailed examination along these lines could well lead to a revision of my analysis of “neo-romantic” approaches. 10.3.1.2. The choice of texts In the case of the Mass, particular attention could be devoted to the choice of texts. The Mass has a complex philological history (Rifkin 1982a, 2001; Butt 1991: 29-38; Stauffer 1997b: 267-269; Wolff 1997: 406). While most performers have opted for an existing edition, several (e.g., Harnoncourt, Parrott, Rifkin, Rilling) have either prepared their own editions or examined an existing edition against the sources. The issue is not just determining Bach’s intentions and isolating his own notation from later interferences (a complex matter in itself), but deciding which of his intentions to include (e.g., when information from the 1733 Dresden parts conflicts with later revisions to the autograph score). Editors’ and performers’ choice as to which interpretation of the source seems more plausible could reflect on their own aesthetic and ideological preferences. The issues are of particular importance in the Domine deus and the Et in unum. In both cases, the performers’ choices reflect aesthetic and ideological considerations, as well as philological ones. In the Et in unum, the arguments in favour of the original version (including the words “Et in unum”) often focus on its ostensibly tighter text- - 253 music relationship.3 In the Domine deus, the objections to inserting reverse-dotting (in accordance with the evidence of the Dresden parts; see Herz 1985: 221-229) could be seen as a challenge to the sacred-Germanic-serious image of Bach – both musically (in its potentially “jumpy” character) and by stylistic associations (the use of reversedotting as evidence of Bach’s emulation of contemporaneous French music; cf. ibid: 254-255; Stauffer 1997b: 246-248). 10.3.1.3. The treatment of “secular” influences The “Fifth Evangelist” and related images tend to downplay, even deny, the role of secular genres and influences in Bach’s sacred music – from the impact of dance rhythms to concertante, virtuoso writing (see, for example, Gurlitt 1957: 63-65, 100101 and passim). More recent writers have been more open in their acknowledgement and investigation of these aspects, a development reflected in (and quite possibly encouraged by) HIP renditions. A detailed examination of this subject would entail focusing on a different selection of movements than those I selected for Part Two. Some of the best illustrations within the Mass can be found in arias (for example, the treatment of instrumental and vocal virtuosity in the Laudamus, or the dance element in the Qui sedes; see also pp. 80f above). 4 Indeed, a certain suspicion towards arias – as expressions of individualism and potential sites for operatic and other secular influences – has affected the Mass’s verbal reception (cf. Emery 1954; Keller 1957: 86). An investigation of the extent of this attitude, the arguments for and against it, and the debate’s possible ramifications for performance (and vice versa), could enhance the examination of several of the issues raised in this dissertation (e.g., the contrast between the “fifth evangelist” and humanised images of Bach). In conjunction with the case-studies examined in Part Two, it could also facilitate an examination of performers’ approach to expressive contrasts in Bach’s music. 3 The most famous oft-quoted discussion of text-music relationship in the original version is Friedrich Smend (1936: 54-55; 1954: 147-149, 153-155); see also: Spitta 1889, III: 51-52; Tovey 1937: 38-39; Blankenburg 1974: 71-72; Marshall 1989: 182-183; Butt 1991: 52-53; Stauffer 1997b: 113-115; Hengel and Houten 2004: 97-104. 4 However, useful illustrations can also be found among the so-called trumpet choruses, which clearly display secular and instrumental influences. The Gloria and Resurrexit, for example, might have been based on lost Italian-style instrumental concerti (Butt 1991: 46, 55); the Osanna is based on a movement from a secular cantata (BWV 215/1). A study of these movements’ history on record could focus on the degree and manner in which performers emphasised or downplayed their potential evocation of “some form of worldly rejoicing [and] euphoria” (Butt 1991: 55). - 254 - 10.3.1.4. Expressive contrasts (Confiteor) Arguably the best case study for the latter subject within the Mass is the Confiteor/Expecto sequence, which consists of three highly contrasting sections. It thus provides an opportunity to explore how musicians respond to the implicit demand for immediate expressive contrasts without mediating pauses. Another consideration in this context is that Bach provided several tempo or character indications: the alla-breve time signature in the Confiteor, the “Adagio” marking in bar 121, and the “Vivace ed allegro” marking at the beginning of the Dmajor Et expecto. There has been some debate on whether these indications are a deliberate injunction for contrasting tempi, or whether they merely require a change of character within a largely unaltered tempo (cf. Stauffer 1997b: 239-240, and p. 101 above). The recorded legacy reveals another implicit controversy, concerning the location and type of tempo changes: while some performances present sudden changes of tempo (and, often, dynamics and timbre) precisely at the points where the indications are given at the score, others affect a more gradual transition. Issues of expressive contrasts thus converge on the question of how to decipher the composer’s performance instructions, and how literally to follow them (see also p. 23n above). 10.3.1.5. Symbolism and expression (Et in unum) One of the key issues in my discussion of Bach reception has been the tendency to view his music in terms of “symbols idea” rather than “symbols of feeling”. In Part Two, this issue was not explored in detail, although it did surface in the context of the First Kyrie’s subject and the Incarnatus. Perhaps the best candidate for exploring this issue within the Mass is the duet Et in unum. This movement is often viewed as a richly symbolic but not particularly intense movement (e.g., Spitta 1889, III: 52; Schweitzer 1911 [1908], II: 319; Emery 1954); some commentators, indeed, have found it dry and inexpressive (e.g., Parry 1909: 316; Terry 1931: 41; Dickinson 1950: 198). In short, it is often viewed as rich in “symbols of ideas”, but short on “symbols of feeling”. Despite this, several performances attempt to project a lyrical or intense interpretation of the movement (cf. Tovey 1937: 39; Mellers 1980: 215-217), or to forge a developmental expressive narrative – from a cheerful or matter-of-fact beginning to a more lyrical or intense conclusion. - 255 This movement, then, allows the exploration of several issues, and their interactions, among them: 1. The choice of text, where the original source materials are ambiguous – and its interpretive ramification; 2. The performative response to music which does not have a clear, consensually-accepted Affekt; 3. The realisation of abstract symbolism;5 4. The relationship between structural features and affect.6 10.3.2. Comparisons with other repertoire In Part One, I examined several conductors’ interpretations of the Mass in the context of their general approach to Bach’s music (particularly his vocal music); I did not elaborate on their treatment of other repertoires. Such an examination, however, could shed light upon their treatment of Bach. For example, several writers consider Bach less expressive than other (especially later) composers; more thorough investigations are needed to see which performances reflect this view, and how. There is also considerable interest in examining which other repertoires these musicians perform. For example, most mainstream conductors and ensembles treat Bach as a starting point – performing virtually no music by his predecessors, and very little by his contemporaries. On the other hand, HIP musicians (and Bach experts like Richter and Rilling) are more familiar with earlier Baroque and (in several cases) Renaissance music. Direct familiarity, through performing experience, with the styles that Bach studied and emulated is bound to affect performers’ treatment of Bach’s own music, and it would be interesting to explore this issue. For example, one could investigate Adorno’s oft-quoted complaint “they say Bach, mean Telemann” (1967: 145) by examining those musicians who recorded music by both composers, and checking whether, and how, they differentiate between them. 5 In this case, the treatment of the canon – which has been interpreted as a symbol for the Father and Son, but also as “a simulated echo, common in love duets” (Stauffer 1997b: 113). 6 Several of the performances which attempt a developmental, expressively-varied treatment of this movement – most notably Hengelbrock’s reading – rely partially on underlining the subtle transformation of thematic materials, especially in the ritornelli (see also Butt 1991: 66-68). - 256 - 10.3.3. Performers’ intentions: Further sources The issue of the relationship between the performers’ intentions and their actual performances was among the focal points of my study. I investigated it primarily through a comparison of their public verbal statements with their recorded performances, and by examining the performers’ biographies and possible sources of influence. I also touched upon other issues, such as auditioning, rehearsal and recording procedures, and the musicians’ professional standards. Several of these areas of inquiry could be extended to gain further insight on whether the performances, as preserved on disc, indeed represent the performers’ desired interpretation at the time of the recording, and the respective influence of input from various participants (singers, instrumentalists, conductor, recording production team). These could include a systematic investigation of available information on preparatory procedures (auditions, rehearsals, recording and posttaping sessions) and extensive interviews with performers. Comparisons with tapes of live concerts by the same musicians could also provide valuable materials. 10.3.4. Objectivity, subjectivity and inter-subjectivity As I noted in the introduction (1.5, pp. 31ff above), the analyses in this dissertation are based primarily upon my own listening. I did attempt to supplement my personal experience through an examination of record reviews and by comparing notes with other listeners. Both these approaches could be pursued more systematically. I was a subject in a listening experiment, designed jointly by a musicologist (Dorottya Fabian) and a music psychologist (Emery Schubert), examining how listeners of various backgrounds understood terms such as “expressive” and “stylish” with reference (primarily) to Bach performances (see also p. 44 above). Such studies could provide a useful perspective on current usage of such terms, and on present-day reception of styles and performances. They are, however, of limited historical value. Record and concert reviews (my own investigation was limited to the former) are more useful for gauging contemporaneous reactions; reviews of re-issues can help demonstrate how reactions have changed. Additionally, information on record and ticket sales might provide some indications of a performance’s popularity – although it would give little indication regarding the specific factors that made the audience - 257 prefer one performer over another, and the role of promotion and advertising would also need to be taken into account. *** I hope that this dissertation has demonstrated some of the ways in which performers affect and shape music’s expressive impact and meaning. My aim was to suggest the outlines of a “hermeneutic history” (Bowen 1999: 446) of the Mass by combining the resources of reception and performance studies. Beyond my specific historical conclusions, I hope to have demonstrated that such an examination presents unique insights into Bach’s music, its meaning and its role in our culture. Inevitably, the historical scope of my survey was limited by the availability of recorded evidence. A survey of recordings cannot, for example, document the process of the B minor Mass’s canonisation: by the time the first recording was made, the Mass’s position in the canon had already been firmly established. In his survey of Bach reception, Friedrich Blume wrote: once the greatness of a man has been acknowledged it is never in serious danger, even though the ‘image’ which each succeeding generation creates for itself is subject to the strongest possible variations. (Blume 1950b: 10) This observation might not be universally applicable, but it certainly holds for the performers I discussed in this dissertation: they all share a love and admiration for Bach, but they often project radically different images of his music, revealing that they do not necessarily value him for the same reasons. Arguably, this variety in itself demonstrates the multi-faceted character of Bach’s music; its susceptibility to re-interpretation has, at the very least, contributed to its continued endurance and vitality in the musical canon. A detailed examination of the Mass’s changing identity, as preserved in its recorded history, thus reveals something about the changing concerns and priorities in our culture, as reflected in performing musicians’ efforts to remain faithful to Bach’s musical heritage – while continually re-shaping it in our own image. Bibliography This bibliography aims to constitute a comprehensive list of all the books and articles I consulted in the course of my research, whether cited in the main text or not. I made an exception to this rule, however, with regard to record reviews, recording liner notes, and press interviews with performers. In the course of my research, I surveyed all reviews of recordings of the B minor Mass – and many reviews of other Bach recordings – published in Gramophone, Records in Review (a yearbook gathering all record reviews featured in High Fidelity magazine the previous year), American Record Review, Goldberg, and Fono Forum, as well as many articles and interviews included in these journals. I also consulted the liner notes of all the recordings cited in my discography, wherever possible.1 The bibliography, however, lists only those reviews, interviews and liner notes directly cited in the main text. When citing an interview consisting merely of questions and answers, I list it under the interviewee’s name (e.g., Harnoncourt 1986, Koopman 2003). When the interview is presented as an extended article, featuring substantial contributions by the author-interviewer, I list it under the author-interviewer’s name (e.g., Stephen Johnson 1990). When citing recording liner notes or a review of a recording of the B minor Mass, I indicate this by giving the name of conductor and year of recording, underlined. Thus, “Review of Harnoncourt 1986” should be read as “Review of Nikolaus Harnoncourt’s 1986 recording of the B minor Mass, as listed under the title ‘Harnoncourt 1986’ in the first part of the discography”. When citing recording liner notes for a recording listed in the second part of the discography, I include the relevant citation within the bibliographical entry. All multi-author collections are cited under the editor’s name. This includes editions of Grove’s Dictionary (Grove 1899, Colles 1927, Sadie 1981, Macy 2003), Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Blume 1955, Finscher 1997) and the Encyclopaedia of Aesthetics (Kelly 1998). 1 As I note in the introduction to the discography, I was unable to access several recordings of the Mass, and in some cases the liner notes were missing from the copies I consulted. - 258 - - 259 For the editions of the B minor Mass I consulted, see under Rietz 1865, Volbach [n.d.], Smend 1956 and 1988 [1954], and Wolff 1997. I also consulted the digital facsimiles, available on http://www.bachdigital.de/, of the original autograph score (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Mus. ms. Bach P 180) and of the 1733 performing parts of the Kyrie and Gloria (Sächsische Landesbibliothek-, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Dresden, Mus. 2405-D-21). *** Abravaya, Ido. 1999. Studies of Rhythm and Tempo in the Music of J. S. Bach. PhD dissertation; Tel-Aviv University, 1999. –––––. 2003. “Bach’s tempo practices, the tempo theories of his time – and ours”. Orbis Musicae 13: 81-90. Adorno, Theodor W. 1967 [1951]. “Bach Defended Against His Devotees”. In his Prisms (London: Spearman): 133-146. Translated by Samuel and Shierry Weber. Originally published as “Bach gegen seine Liebhaber verteidigt”, Merkur 5: 535-546. Agawu, Kofi. 1999. “The Challenge of Semiotics”. In Cook and Everist 1999: 138160. Agsteribbe, Frank and Peter Dejans (eds). 1999. Theory into Practice: Composition, Performance and the Listening Experiences. Collected writing of the Orpheus Institute. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Alte Musik in Unserer Zeit: Referate und Diskussionen der Kasseler Tagung. 1968. No editor named. Kassel and Basel: Bärenreiter. Anderson, Nicholas. 1987. Review of Harnoncourt 1986 (LP edition). Gramophone, April 1987: 1440. –––––. 1989. Review of Harnoncourt 1986 (CD edition) and Herreweghe 1988. Gramophone, August 1989: 346. Arlt, Wulf, and Hans-Joachim Theil. 1989 [1973]. “Das Wohltemperierte Klavier”. Notes to 1989 re-issue of Gustav Leonhardt’s recording of Bach’s WellTempered Clavier (Freiburg: Deutsche Harmonia Mundi). First issued in 1973. Translated by Ken Caskie. Arnold, Denis. 1985. Notes to 1985 re-issue of Rilling 1977: 27-31. Arnold, Denis, and John Harper. 2003. “Mass, §III: 1600-2000”. In Macy 2003. Bal, Mieke, and Norman Bryson. 1998. “Semiotics as a Theory of Art”. In Kelly 1998, IV: 263-267. - 260 Bartel, Dietrich. 1997. Musica Poetica: Musical-Rhetorical Figures in German Baroque Music. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Bartlett, Clifford. 2002. “Sources and Editions”. In Burton 2002: 107-122. Basso, Alberto. 1998. A New Approach to Johann Sebastian Bach. Translated by Douglas Martin. Arles: Harmonia Mundi. Battin, Margaret P., John Fisher, Ronald Moore, and Anita Silers (eds). 1989. Puzzles about Art: An Aesthetic Casebook. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Baumgartner, Nicholas. 1999. “Currents in Bach Interpretation in Contemporary Germany”. Bach: The Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute 30/2: 1-26. –––––. 2002. “European Bach Interpretation at the Turn of the Millennium”. Bach: The Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute 32/1: 1-56. Bazzana, Kevin. 1997. Glenn Gould – The Performer in the Work: A Study in Performance Practice. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Beardsley, Monroe C. 1981. Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism. Second edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Becker, Judith. 2001. “Anthropological Perspectives on Music and Emotion”. In Juslin and Sloboda 2001a: 135-160. Benstock, Seymour L. (ed.). 1992. Johann Sebastian Bach: A Tercentenary Celebration. Westport, Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press. Bent, Ian (trans. and ed). 1994. Music Analysis in the Nineteenth Century. Vol. II: “Hermeneutic Approaches”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ben-Ze’ev, Noam. 1995. “Bach’s Disciple”. An interview with Helmuth Rilling. Ha’aretz, April 18, 1995: B1. [In Hebrew; title could also be translated as “Bach’s Emissary” or “Bach’s Apostle”]. Berke, Dietrich, and Dorothee Hanemann (eds.). 1987. Alte Musik als ästhetische Gegenwart: Bach, Händel, Schütz. Bericht über den internationalen musikwissenschaftlichen Kongreß, Stuttgart 1985. 2 volumes. Kassel: Bärenreiter. Bernstein, Leonard. 1960. “The Music Johann Sebastian Bach”. In his The Joy of Music (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson): 225-265. Based on an Omnibus program, telecast: March 31, 1957. Berry, Wallace. 1989. Musical Structure and Performance. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Besch, Hans. 1938. Johann Sebastian Bach: Frömmigkeit und Glaube. Band I: Deutung und Wirklichkeit: Das Bild Bachs im Wandel der deutschen Kirchenund Geistesgeschichte. Gütersloh: Verlag C. Bertelsmann. - 261 Besseler, Heinrich. 1951. “Bach und das Mittelalter”. In Vetter et al. 1951: 108-130. –––––. 1970a [1956]. “Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750)”. In Blankenburg 1970a: 1-22. Originally published in Die Großen Deutschen: Deutsche Biographie in 4 Bänden, ed. Hermann Heimpel, Theodor Heuss and Benno Reifenberg (Berlin: Propyläen-Verlag bei Ullstein), II: 47-63. ––––––. 1970b [1955]. “Bach als Wegbereiter”. In Blankenburg 1970a: 196-246. Originally published in Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 12: 1-39. Biller, Georg Christoph, Martin Petzoldt and Stefan Altner. 2001. “Mass in B minor”. In the notes to Biller 2000. Translator unnamed. German original: “Zur h-mollMesse”. Bilson, Malcolm. 1997. “The future of Schubert interpretation: what is really needed?”. Early Music 25/4 (November 1997): 715-722. Bitter, C. H. 1865. Johann Sebastian Bach. 2 volumes. Berlin: Ferdinand Schneider. –––––. 1873 [1865]. The Life of J. Sebastian Bach. An Abridged Translation from the German of C. H. Bitter. Translated and edited by Janet E. Kay-Shuttleworth. With preface by Sir Julius Benedict. London: Houlston and Sons. Blankenburg, Walter. 1951. “Die Bedeutung des Kanons in Bachs Werk”. In Vetter et al. 1951: 250-258. –––––. 1957. “‘Sogenannte h-moll-Messe’ oder nach wie vor ‘h-moll-Messe’”? Musik und Kirche 27: 87-94. –––––– (ed). 1970a. Johann Sebastian Bach. Wege der Forschung CLXX. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ––––––. 1970b. “Einführung”. In Blankenburg 1970a: ix-xxii. ––––––. 1970c [1950]. “Johann Sebastian Bach und die Aufklärung”. In Blankenburg 1970a: 100-110. Originally published in Auftrag der Internationalen BachGesellschaft, ed. Karl Matthaei (Freiburg and Zurich: Atlantis): 25-34. ––––––. 1974. Einführung in Bachs h-moll-Messe. Third edition. Kassel: Bärenreiter. Blum, Klaus. 1978. Review of Beringer 1978. Fono Forum, March 1978: 276-278. Blume, Friedrich. 1950a. “Vorwort”. In Schering 1950: 5-16. –––––. 1950b [1947]. Two Centuries of Bach: An Account of Changing Taste. Translated by Stanley Godman. London: Oxford University Press. Originally published as Johann Sebastian Bach im Wandel der Geschichte (Kassel: Bärenreiter). ––––– (ed). 1955. Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Musik. 14 volumes. Kassel und Basel: Bärenreiter. - 262 –––––. 1962. “Antwort von Friedrich Blume” [A reply to Dürr 1962]. Musik und Kirche 32/4 (July-August 1962): 153-156. –––––. 1963 [1962]. “Outlines of a New Picture of Bach”. Music and Letters 44 (1963): 214-227. Originally published as “Umrisse eines neuen Bach-Bildes: Vortrag für das Bachfest der internationalen Bach-Gesellschaft in Mainz” (Musica 16: 169-176). –––––. 1975 [1955]. Renaissance and Baroque Music: A Comprehensive Survey. Translated by M. D. Herter Norton. London: Faber and Faber. Based on entries in Blume 1955. Blyth, Alan (ed.). 1991. Choral Music on Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bollert, Werner. 1977. Review of Rilling 1977. Fono Forum, December 1977: 1336, 1338-1339. Bonds, Mark Evan. 1991. Wordless Rhetoric: Musical Form and the Metaphor of the Oration. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: Harvard University Press. Bowen, José Antonio. 1993. “The History of Remembered Innovation: Tradition and Its Role in the Relationship Between Musical Works and Their Performances”. The Journal of Musicology 21/2 (Spring 1993): 139-173. –––––. 1996. “Tempo, Duration and Flexibility: Techniques in the Analysis of Performance”. Journal of Musicological Research 16: 111-156. –––––. 1997. “Mendelssohn, Berlioz and Wagner as Conductors: Early Practitioners of ‘Fidelity to the Composer’”. Journal of the Conductors’ Guild 18/2 (Summer/Fall 1997): 76-84. ––––––. 1999. “Finding the Music in Musicology: Performance History and Musical Works”. In Cook and Everist 1999: 424-451. Boyd, Malcolm. 1990. Bach. The Master Musicians. Second Edition. London: Dent. ––––– (ed.). 1999. Oxford Composer Companions: J. S. Bach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Broder, Nathan. 1963a. Review of Shaw 1960 and Richter 1961. Records in Review, 1963: 37-40. –––––. 1963b. Review of Jones 1960. Records in Review, 1963: 40-41. Brolinson, Per-Erik. 1992. “J. S. Bach: Mass in B minor”. Notes to Eby 1990: 8-12. Translated by Christel Garrick. Buelow, George J. 1981a. “Symbol and Structure in the ‘Kyrie’ of Bach’s B minor Mass”. In Essays on the Music of J. S. Bach and Other Divers Subjects: A tribute to Gerhard Herz, ed. Robert L. Weaver (New York: Pendragon Press): 21-42. - 263 –––––. 1981b. “Rhetoric and music”. In Sadie 1981, 15: 793-803. ––––––. 1983. “Johann Mattheson and the invention of the Affektenlehre”. In Buelow and Marx 1983: 393-407. –––––. 2003. “Rhetoric and music, I: §2-§4” (Baroque, Musical Figures, Affects). In Macy 2003. Buelow, George J. and Hans Joachim Marx. 1983. New Mattheson Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bukofzer, Manfred F. 1948. Music in the Baroque Era: From Monteverdi to Bach. London: J. M. Dent. Bullivant, Roger. 1971. Fugue. London: Hutchinson University Library. Burke, Edmund. 1998 [posthumous]. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Sublime and Beautiful and Other Pre-Revolutionary Writings. Edited by David Womersley. London: Penguin Books. Burnham, Scott. 1995. Beethoven Hero. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ––––––. 1999. “How Music Matters: Poetic Content Revisited”. In Cook and Everist 1999: 193-216. Burstyn, Shai. 1997. “In quest of the period ear”. Early Music 25/4: 693-701. Burton, Anthony (ed.). 2002. A Performer’s Guide to Baroque Music. London: The Associated Board of Royal Schools of Music. Butler, Gregory G. 1977. “Fugue and Rhetoric”. Journal of Music Theory 21: 49-109. Butt, John. 1990. Bach Interpretation: Articulation Marks in Primary Sources of J. S. Bach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –––––. 1991. Bach: Mass in B Minor. Cambridge Music Handbooks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –––––. 1994. Music Education and the Art of Performance in the German Baroque. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ––––––. 1996. “Acting up a text: the scholarship of performance and the performance of scholarship” [Review of Taruskin 1995]. Early Music 24/2: 323-332. –––––– (ed.). 1997a. The Cambridge Companion to Bach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ––––––. 1997b. “Bach’s metaphysics of music”. In Butt 1997a: 46-59. ––––––. 1997c. “‘A mind unconscious that it is calculating?’ Bach and the rationalist philosophy of Wolff, Leibniz and Spinoza”. In Butt 1997a: 60-71. - 264 –––––. 1998. “Bach’s vocal scoring: what can it mean?”. Early Music 26/1 (February 1998): 99-107. ––––––. 1999a. “Bach Recordings Since 1980: A Mirror of Historical Performance”. In Schulenberg 1999: 181-198. ––––––. 1999b. Review of Bartel 1997. Early Music History 18: 398-404. –––––. 2002a. Playing with History: The Historical Approach to Musical Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –––––. 2002b. “The Historical Performance Practice Movement: Modern or PostModern?”. Lecture delivered at the National Sound Archive’s Saul Seminar series; 21 May 2002. Canby, Edward Tatnall. 1951. Notes to Scherchen 1950. Canning, Hugh. 1991. “Music for the 1990s: Nikolaus Harnoncourt talks to Hugh Canning about performance practice in Mozart and Beethoven”. Gramophone, November 1991: 72-73. Carter, Tim. 1996. “Towards the Creation of a Genre: Monteverdi’s ‘Poppea’”. In the notes to John Eliot Gardiner’s recording of Monteverdi’s L’incoronazione di Poppea (Hamburg: Archiv Produktion): 18-23. Chafe, Eric. 1991. Tonal Allegory in the Vocal Music of J. S. Bach. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Christie, William. 1993. “The elusive world of the French Baroque”. Early Music 21/2 (May 1993): 263-266. Chubow, W. N. 1951. “Bach und die zeitgenössische musikalische Kultur”. In Vetter et al. 1951: 81-107. Translated from Russian; translator not named. Clarke, Eric. 1995. “Expression in Performance: Generativity, Perception and Semiosis”. In Rink 1995a: 21-54. –––––. 2002a. “Understanding the psychology of performance”. In Rink 2002a: 5972. –––––. 2002b. “Listening to performance”. In Rink 2002a: 187-196. Clement, Roger. 1996. “Remembering Karl Richter: One of the greatest Bach interpreters of this century, on the 15th anniversary of his death”. Unitel Website. http://www.unitel.de/uhilites/1996/021596.htm Clough, Francis F. and G. J. Cuming. 1952-1955. The World’s Encyclopaedia of Recorded Music. London: Sidgwick and Jackson in association with the Decca Record Company, 1952. Supplements: 1951-52, 1953-55. Cohen, Dalia. 1971. “Palestrina Counterpoint: A Musical Expression of Unexcited Speech”. Journal of Music Theory 15: 84-111. - 265 ––––––. 1983. “Birdcalls and the Rules of Palestrina Counterpoint: Towards the Discovery of Universal Qualities in Vocal Expression”. Israel Studies in Musicology 3: 96-123. ––––––. 1994. “Directionality and Complexity in Music”. Musikometrika 6: 27-76. –––––. 2003. “Incorporating Natural Schemata into Musical Analysis”. Orbis Musicae 13: 195-212. Cohen, Dalia and Hanna Mondry. 2000. “More on the Meaning of Natural Schemata: Their Role in Shaping Types of Directionality”. In C. Woods et al. 2000. Cohen, Jack and Ian Stewart. 2000 [1995]. The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World. London: Penguin Books. Second printing. Cohen, Joel, and Herb Snitzer. 1985. Reprise: The Extraordinary Revival of Early Music. Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown. Colles, H. C. 1927. Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Third edition. 5 volumes. London: Macmillan. Colles, H. C., with Walter H. Frere. 1927. “Mass”. Colles 1927, 3: 342-345. Cone, Edward T. 1968. Musical Form and Musical Performances. New York: W. W. Norton. Cook, Nicholas. 1989 [1987]. A Guide to Musical Analysis. Paperback edition. London: Dent. –––––. 1990. Music, Imagination and Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press. –––––. 1993. Beethoven: Symphony no. 9. Cambridge Music Handbooks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ––––––. 1995. “The conductor and the theorist: Furtwängler, Schenker and the first movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony”. In Rink 1995a: 105-125. ––––––. 1998. Music: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ––––––. 1999a. “Analysing Performance and Performing Analysis”. In Cook and Everist 1999: 239-261. –––––. 1999b. “Words about Music, or Analysis Versus Performance”. In Agsteribbe and Dejans 1999: 9-52. –––––. 2001. “Between Process and Product: Music and/as Performance”. Music Theory Online 7/2 (April 2001). http://www.societymusictheory.org/mto/issues/mto.01.7.2/toc.7.2.html. Cook, Nicholas, and Nicola Dibben. 2001. “Musicological Approaches to Emotion”. In Juslin and Sloboda 2001a: 45-70. - 266 Cook, Nicholas, and Mark Everist (eds.). 1999. Rethinking Music. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Cooke, Deryck. 1959. The Language of Music. London: Oxford University Press. Cott, Jonathan. 1984. Conversations with Glenn Gould. Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company. Crutchfield, Will. 1988. “Fashion, Conviction, and Performance Style in an Age of Revivals”. In Kenyon 1988a: 19-26. Cumming, Naomi. 1997. “The Subjectivities of ‘Erbarme dich’”. Music Analysis, 16/1: 5-44. Curtis, Alan. 1989. “Foreword”. In his edition of Monteverdi’s L’incoronazione di Poppea (London: Novello): v-xx. Cushman, Robert. 1959. Notes to Grischkat 1959. Dadelsen, Georg von. 1970 [1958]. “Exkurs über die H-moll-messe”. In Blankenburg 1970a: 334-352. Originally published in Georg von Dadelsen, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Werke Johann Sebastian Bachs, Tübinger Bach-studien, ed. Walter Gerstenberg, vol. 4/5 (Trossingen: Matth. Hohner Musikverlag): 143156. –––––. 1985? [1977]. “Messe h-moll”. Notes to Rilling 1977: 9-18. Page numbers refer to 1985 re-issue. –––––. 1989a [1959]. “Friedrich Smend’s Edition of the B-Minor Mass by J. S. Bach”. Bach: The Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute 20/2: 49-74. Translated by James A. Brokaw, II. Originally published as “Friedrich Smends Ausgabe der h-moll-Messe von J. S. Bach”, Die Musikforschung 12: 315-335. –––––. 1989b [1962]. “Bach: Mass in B minor”. Notes to Richter 1961: 8-13. Translator not named. German original (“Bach: Messe in h-moll”) in ibid: 3-8. Page numbers refer to 1989 CD re-issue. Dahlhaus, Carl. 1974. “Mendelssohn und die musikalischen Gattungstraditionen”. In Carl Dahlhaus (ed.), Das Problem Mendelssohn (Regensburg : G. Bosse): 5560. –––––. 1978. “Zur Entstehung der romantischen Bach-Deutung”. Bach-Jahrbuch 64 (1978): 192-210. –––––. 1982 [1967]. Esthetics of Music. Translated by William W. Austin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Originally published as Musikästhetik (Cologne: Musikverlag Hans Gerig). –––––. 1983a [1970]. Analysis and Value Judgment. Translated by Siegmund Levarie. New York: Pendragon Press. Originally published as Analyse und Werturteil (Mainz: B. Schotts Söhne). - 267 –––––. 1983b [1977]. Foundations of Music History. Translated by J. B. Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Originally published as Grundlagen der Musikgeschichte (Cologne: Musikverlag Hans Gerig). ––––– (ed.; with Ludwig Finscher, Leopold Kantner, Wulf Konold, Friedhelm Krummacher, Silke Leopold, Christoph-Hellmut Mahling, Sigrid Wiesmann and Michael Zimmermann). 1985. Die Musik des 18. Jahrhunderts. Laaber: Laaber Verlag. –––––. 1987. “Bach-Rezeption und ästhetische Autonomie”. In Berke and Hanemann 1987, I: 18-26. –––––. 1989 [1978]. The Idea of Absolute Music. Translated by Roger Lustig. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Originally published as Idee der absoluten Musik (Kassel: Bärenreiter-Verlag). Damman, Rolf. 1967. Der Musikbegriff im deutschen Barock. Köln: Arno Volk Verlag. Daw, Stephen. 1981. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Choral Works. Rutherford, Madison and Teaneck: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Darrel, R. D. 1936. The Gramophone Shop Encyclopaedia of Recorded Music. Foreword by Lawrence Gilman. New York: The Gramophone Shop Inc. Dart, Thurston. 1963 [1954]. The Interpretation of Music. New York and Evanston: Harper Colophon Books. First published in 1954 in the Music Series of the Hutchinson University Library (ed. Sir Jack Westrup). Day, Timothy. 2000. A Century of Recorded Music: Listening to Musical History. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Davies, Stephen. 1994. Musical Meaning and Expression. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. –––––. 1997. “Why Listen to Sad Music If It Makes One Feel Sad?”. In Robinson 1997a: 242-253. –––––. 2001. Musical Works and Performances: A Philosophical Inquiry. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DeNora, Tia. 1995. Beethoven and the Construction of Genius. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Dickinson, A. E. F. 1950. The Art of J. S. Bach. Second edition. London: Hinrichsen. Dipert, Randall R. 1980. “The Composer’s Intentions: An Examination of their Relevance for Performance”. Musical Quarterly 66: 205-218. Dixon, Graham. 1987. “Monteverdi’s Vespers of 1610: ‘della Beata Vergine’?”. Early Music 15/3 (August 1987): 386-388. - 268 ———. 1988. Notes to Harry Christophers’ recording of Monteverdi’s Second Vespers for the Feast of Santa Barbara. London: Hyperion. ———. 1992. “Liturgical Reconstructions: An Apologia and Some Guidelines”. In Paynter et al. 1992, II: 1065-1078. Dolmetsch, Arnold. 1969 [1915]. The Interpretation of the Music of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries Revealed by Contemporary Evidence. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. With an introduction by Alec Harman. Original publication – London: Novello and Co. Donington, Robert. 1974. The Interpretation of Early Music. Revised edition. London: Faber and Faber. Dreyfus, Laurence. 1983. “Early Music Defended against its Devotees: A Theory of Historical Performance in the Twentieth Century”. Musical Quarterly 69: 297320. –––––. 1987. Bach’s Continuo Group: Players and Practices in His Vocal Works. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. –––––. 1992a. “Early-Music and the Repression of the Sublime”. The Journal of Musicology 10/2 (Spring 1992): 114-117. –––––. 1992b. “Mozart as early music: a Romantic antidote”. Early Music 20/2 (May 1992): 297-309. –––––. 1995. “Patterns of Authority in Musical Interpretation: Historical Performance at the Cross-road”. Unpublished lecture given at the international symposium “Authenticity in Interpretation” (Jerusalem, May 28, 1995). –––––. 1996. Bach and the Patterns of Invention. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. –––––. 1997. “Bachian invention and its mechanisms”. In Butt 1997a: 171-192. Dulak, Michelle. 1993. “The Quiet Metamorphosis of ‘Early Music’”. Repercussions 2: 31-61. Dunsby, Jonathan. 1989. “Guest Editorial: Performance and Analysis of Music”. Music Analysis 8/1-2: 5-20. –––––. 2002. “Performers on performance”. In Rink 2002a: 225-236. Dürr, Alfred. 1962. “Zum Wandel des Bach-Bildes: zu Friedrich Blumes Mainzer Vortrag” [A reply to Blume 1963]. Musik und Kirche 32/4 (July-August 1962): 145-152. –––––. 1970 [1957]. “Johann Sebastian Bachs Kirchenmusik in seiner Zeit und Heute”. In Blankenburg 1970: 290-303. Originally published in Musik und Kirche 27: 65-74. - 269 –––––. 2000 [1971]. Johann Sebastian Bach: Die Kantaten. Bärenreiter Werkeinführungen. 8th edition (Revision: 6th edition, 1995). Kassel: Bärenreiter. Eggebrecht, Hans Heinrich. 1970 [1957]. “Über Bachs geschichtlichen Ort”. In Blankenburg 1970a: 247-289. Originally published in Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 31: 527-556. –––––. 1992. Bach – wer ist das? Zum Verständnis der Musik Johann Sebastian Bachs. Serie Musik Piper-Schott. München: Piper and Mainz: Schott. –––––. 2001. Geheimnis Bach. Edited by Albrecht von Massow, Matteo Nanni and Simon Obert. Wilhelmshaven: Florian Noetzel. Ehmann, Wilhelm. 1961. “Concertisten” und “Ripienisten” in der h-moll-Messe Joh. Seb. Bachs. Kassel: Bärenreiter. –––––. 1976. Voce et tuba: Gesammelte Reden und Aufsätze, 1934-1974. Edited by Dietrich Berke, Christiane Bernsdorff-Engelbrecht und Helmut Kornemann. Kassel: Bärenreiter. Eller, Rudolf. 1995. “Bach-Pflege und Bach-Verständnis in Zwei deutschen Diktaturen”. In Schulze et al. 1995: 107-139. Elste, Martin. 2000. Meilensteine der Bach-Interpretation 1750-2000: Eine Werkgeschichte im Wandel. Kassel: Bärenreiter. Emery, Walter. 1954. “Bach: B minor Mass”. Notes to Karajan 1952. Reprinted in Klemperer 1967. –––––. 1983. “Johann Sebastian Bach: Childhood; Lüneburg; Arnstadt; Mühlhausen; Weimar; Cöthen”. In Wolff 1983: 44-81. Erauw, Willem. 1998. “Canon formation: some more reflection on Lydia Goehr’s Imaginary Museum of Musical Works”. Acta Musicologica 70: 109-115. Eschenburg, Hartwig. 1995. “Kirchenmusik und Bach-Pflege in der DDR”. In Schulze et al. 1995: 253-256. Everist, Mark. 1999. “Reception Theories, Canonic Discourses”. In Cook and Everist 1999: 378-402. Ewerhart, Rudolf. 1968. “Wiederbelebung des originalen Klangbildes. Gelöste und ungelöste Fragen”. In Alte Musik in Unserer Zeit etc.: 47-60. Fabian, Dorottya. 1997. “Changing Style in Performing J. S. Bach’s Music 19451978: The Goldberg Variations”. The Consort 53 (Summer 1997): 23-39. –––––. 1999. J. S. Bach Recordings, 1945-1975: ‘St. Matthew’ and ‘St. John’ Passions, ‘Brandenburg Concertos’ and ‘Goldberg Variations’. A Study of Performance Practice in the Context of the Early Music Movement. PhD Dissertation; The University of New South Wales, Australia. - 270 –––––. 2000. “Musicology and Performance Practice: In Search of a Historical Style with Bach Recordings”. Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 41/1-3 (2000): 77-106. –––––. 2003. Bach Performance Practice, 1945-1975: A Comprehensive Review of Sound Recordings and Literature. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Fabian, Dorottya, and Emery Schubert. 2000. “The Multidimensional Perception Space of Baroque Music”. In Woods et al. 2000. –––––. 2002. “Is there only one way of being expressive in musical performance? – Lessons from listeners’ reactions to performances of J. S. Bach’s music”. In C. Stevens, D. Burnham, G. McPherson, E. Schubert, J. Renwick (Eds.)., Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, Sydney, 2002 (Adelaide: Causal Production). –––––. 2003. “Expressive devices and perceived musical character in 34 performances of Variation 7 from Bach’s Goldberg Variations”. Musicae Scientiae, Special Issue 2003-2004: 49-68. Finscher, Ludwig. 1968. “Historisch getreue Interpretation – Möglichkeiten und Probleme”. In Alte Musik in Unserer Zeit etc.: 25-34. ––––– (ed). 1997. Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Musik. Second edition (in progress). Kassel und Basel: Bärenreiter. Forchert, Arno. 1987. “Bach und die Tradition der Rhetorik”. In Berke and Hanemann 1987, I: 169-178. Franklin, Don. 2000. “Bach’s Notation as a Guide for Performance: A Study of Tempo”. Unpublished lecture given at “Performance 2000: 35th Annual Conference of the Royal Music Association” (Southampton, April 2000). Freeman-Attwood, Jonathan. 2002. “Bach and a Play of Passion”. An Inaugural Lecture Delivered at the Royal Academy of Music (January 17, 2002). Also available on web: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/Passion-JFA.htm. Frotscher, Gotthold. 1965. Review of Cantatas BWV 73, 111 (Eurodisc 71 532); BWV 144, 92 (Eurodisc 71 534); BWV 67, 42 (Eurodisc 71 536); BWV 24, 177 (Eurodisc 71 596); BWV 131, 106 (Eurodisc 71 604); BWV 95, 78 (Eurodisc 71 606), conducted by Günther Ramin. Fono Forum, July 1965: 305. Fux, Johann Joseph. 1971 [1725]. The Study of Counterpoint. From Gradus ad Paranssum. Translated and edited by Alfred Mann with the collaboration of John Edmunds. New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company. Gabrielsson, Alf, and Erik Lindström. 2001. “The Influence of Musical Structure on Emotional Expression”. In Juslin and Sloboda 2001a: 223-248. Gardiner, John Eliot. 1989. “An Approach to Bach’s ‘Great Passion’ with a new synoptic division by ‘scenes’”. In the notes to his recording of Bach’s MatthäusPassion (Hamburg: Archiv Produktion): 31-34. See discography for chapter 4. - 271 –––––. 1990. “Vespers in Venice”. In the notes to his second recording of Monteverdi’s Vespro della Beata Vergine (Hamburg: Archiv Produktion): 1122. Garratt, James. 2002. Palestrina and the German Romantic Imagination: Interpreting Historicism in Nineteenth-Century Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geck, Karl Wilhelm. 2000. “The Original Parts of the B minor Missa BWV 232 (SLUB, Mus. 2405-D-21)”. Translated by Virginia L. Geck. Published on the world wide web by the Bach Digital Library: http://bachdigital.uni-leipzig.de/servlets/bachserv.DerivateServlet/Derivate158/frame.html Geck, Martin. 1967. Die Wiederentdeckung der Mathäuspassion im. 19. Jahrhundert: Die zeitgenössischen Dokumente und ihre ideengeschichtliche Deutung. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse Verlag. –––––. 1970 [1967]. “Bachs künstlerischer Endzweck”. In Blankenburg 1970a: 552567. Originally published in Festschrift für Walter Wiora zum 30. Dezember 1966 (Kassel, Basel, Paris, London, New York: Bärenreiter): 319-328. –––––. 2003. “Bach’s art of church music and his Leipzig performance forces: contradictions in the system”. Early Music 31/4 (November 2003): 559-571. Geiringer, Karl (in collaboration with Irene Geiringer). 1966. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Culmination of an Era. London: George Allen and Unwin. Gerhard, Anselm. 1997. “Ausdruck, I-V” [historical survey]. In Finscher 1997, 1: 1043-1048. Gilmore, Clifford F. Review of Harnoncourt 1968. Records in Review 1970: 22-24. Goehr, Lydia. 1994 [1992]. The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Paperback edition. –––––. 1996. “The Perfect Performance of Music and the Perfect Musical Performance”. New Formations 27 (Winter 1995-1996): 1-22. Golomb, Uri. 1998. “Modernism, Rhetoric and (De-)Personalisation in the Early Music Movement”. Seminar paper presented for Prof. John Deathridge’s course “Theories of Modernism and the Avant-garde”, King’s College London, August 1998. Posted on the world-wide web by Bernard Sherman. http://www.bsherman.org/golomb1.htm. –––––. 2001. “Text, music and performative interpretation in Bach’s cantata Ich habe genug (BWV 82)”. Based on a talk presented at a graduate exchange conference (Oxford, November 1999). Revised version posted on the world-wide web by Aryeh Oron. http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/BWV82-Golomb.htm. - 272 Gönnenwein, Wolfgang. 1968. “Historisch-getreue oder gegenwartsnahe Interpretation – das Dilemma der Alten Musik in Unserer Zeit”. In Alte Musik in Unserer Zeit etc.: 73-80. Gould, Glenn. 1984 [posthumous]. The Glenn Gould Reader. Edited by Tim Page. London: Faber and Faber. ––––––. 1999 [posthumous]. The Art of Glenn Gould: Reflections of a Musical Genius. Edited by John P. L. Roberts. Toronto: Malcolm Lester Books. Grosch, Nils. 2003. “Neue Sachlichkeit”. In Macy 2003. Grout, Donald Jay, and Claude V. Palisca. 1988. A History of Western Music. Fourth Edition. New York and London: W. W. Norton. Grove, George. 1899. A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (A.D. 1450-1889) By Eminent Writers, Ancient and Foreign, With Illustrations and Woodcuts. 4 volumes. London: Macmillan. Grunin, Eric. 2004 (in progress). “An Eroica Project”. http://www.grunin.com/eroica/. Last accessed: May 2004. Grüß, Hans. 1995. “Eine Anmerkung zum Thema ‘Bach und die Aufklärung”. In Schulze et al. 1995: 245-247. Guck, Marion A. 1997. “Two Types of Metaphoric Transference”. In Robinson 1997a: 201-212. Gurewitsch, Matthew. 1995. “The Art of Nikolaus Harnoncourt”. In the notes to the 1995 re-issue of Harnoncourt 1986: 10-14. Gurlitt, Wilibald. 1951a. “Johann Sebastian Bach in seiner Zeit und Heute”. In Vetter et al. 1951: 51-80. –––––. 1951b. “Zu Johann Sebastian Bachs Ostinato-Technik”. In Vetter et al. 1951: 240-247. –––––. 1957 [1949]. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Master and his Work. Translated by Oliver C. Rupprecht. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House. Reproduced, with an introduction by Karl Geiringer; New York: Da Capo Press. Originally published as Johann Sebastian Bach: Der Meister und sein Werk (Kassel and Basel: Bärenreiter). –––––. 1959. “Bach, Johann Sebastian”. In Riemann Musik Lexikon: Zwölfte völlig neuberbeitete Auflage in Drei Bänden herausgegeben von Wilibald Gurlitt (Mainz: B. Schott’s Söhne), Personenteil 1: 75-80. ––––––. 1970 [1951]. “Das historische Klangbild im Werk J. S. Bachs”. In Blankenburg 1970a: 121-128. Excerpt from Gurlitt, “Musikgeschichte und Gegenwart: Eine Aufsatzfolge”. Originally published in Musikgeschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1966) II: 68-73. - 273 Hanheide, Stefan. 1990. Johann Sebastian Bach im Verständnis Albert Schweitzers. Musikwissenschaftliche Schriften, vol. 25. Munich and Salzburg: Musikverlag Emil Katzbichler. Hanke, Wolfgang. 1995. “Wirkungslose Behinderungsversuche: zur Situation der Bach-Pflege in den Kirchen der DDR”. In Schulze et al. 1995: 257-267. Hanslick, Eduard. 1986 [1891]. On the Musically Beautiful: A Contribution towards the Revision of the Aesthetics of Music. Translated and edited by Geoffrey Payzant from the 8th edition (1891) of Vom Musikalisch-Schönen: ein Betrag zur Revision der Ästhetik der Tonkunst. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company. Harden, Ingo. 1968. “Noch einmal: Bachs h-moll-Messe: Eine neue Aufnahme des Werks unter Nikolaus Harnoncourt”. Review of Harnoncourt 1968. Fono Forum, November 1968: 672-673. Harman, Alec, Anthony Milner, and Wilfrid Mellers. 1988. Man and His Music: The Story of Musical Experience in the West. New edition. London: Barrie and Jenkins. Harnoncourt, Nikolaus. 1968. Notes to Harnoncourt 1968. Partly reprinted in Harnoncourt 1989: 185-198, and in the notes to the 1995 re-issue: 7-17. ––––– (interviewed by Manfred Wagner). 1986. Notes to Harnoncourt 1986: 8-27 (German original); 28-48 (English translation; translator unnamed). –––––. 1988 [1982]. Baroque Music Today – Music As Speech: Ways to a New Understanding of Music. English translation by Mary O’Neill. Portland, Oregon: Amadeus Press. Originally published as Musik als Klangrede (Salzburg and Vienna: Residenz Verlag). ––––––. 1989 [1984]. The Musical Dialogue: Thoughts on Monteverdi, Bach and Mozart. English translation by Mary O’Neill. Portland, Oregon: Amadeus Press. Originally published as Der musikalische Dialog (Salzburg and Vienna: Residenz Verlag). ––––– (interviewed by Hartmut Krones). 1991. “Beethoven’s music is language at every moment”. In the notes to his recording of Beethoven’s 9 symphonies (Hamburg: Teldec): 11-18 (translation by Clive R. Williams), 49-55 (German original). –––––. 1995. Was ist Wahrheit? – Zwei Reden. Salzburg and Vienna: Residenz Verlag. Harnoncourt, Nikolaus, Karl Richter, Helmuth Rilling, and Helmuth Winscherman (interviewed by an unnamed interviewer). 1972. “Kantaten-Aufbruch: Sechs Fragen an vier Bach-Interpreten”. Fono Forum, January 1972: 26-29. Harrán, Don. 1997. “Toward a Rhetorical Code of Early Music Performance”. The Journal of Musicology 25/1: 19-42. - 274 Haskell, Harry. 1988. The Early Music Revival: A History. London: Thames and Hudson. Haynes, Bruce. 2005 (forthcoming). Authenticity and happiness: In search of Period Style. Heighes, Simon. 2000. “Bach’s Cantatas – the armchair pilgrimage”. International Record Review (December 2000): 42-45. Heinemann, Michael. 1999. “Im Mittelpunkt: Der Thomaskantor”. In Heinemann and Hinrichsen 1999a: 393-459. ––––– (ed.). 2000. Das Bach-Lexikon. Laaber: Laaber Verlag. Second edition. Heinemann, Michael, and Hans-Joachim Hinrichsen (eds.). 1997. Bach und die Nachwelt. Band 1: 1750-1850. Laaber: Laaber Verlag. ––––– (eds.). 1999a. Bach und die Nachwelt. Band 2: 1850-1900. Laaber: Laaber Verlag. –––––. 1999b. “Der ‘Deutsche’ Bach”. In Heinemann and Hinrichsen 1999a: 11-28. ––––– (eds.). 2000. Bach und die Nachwelt. Band 3: 1900-1950. Laaber: Laaber Verlag. Hellmann, Diethard. 1973. Johann Sebastian Bach – Ende und Anfang: Gedenkschrift zum. 75. Geburtstag des Thomaskantors Günter Ramin. Gedanken und Berichte aus der Arbeit eines Thomaskantors. Aufsätze zur Arbeit des Thomaskantors von H. H. Jahnn, G. Stiller und W. Weismann. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel. –––––. 1990. “Die Leipziger Bach-Tradition in der 1. Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts (Die Ära Straube/Ramin)”. In Musikalische Aufführungspraxis und Edition: Johann Sebastain Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven (Regensburg: Gustav Bosse): 9-32. Hengel, Eduard van, and Kees van Houten. 2004. “’Et incarnatus’: An Afterthought? Against the ‘Revisionist’ View of Bach’s B-minor Mass”. Journal of Musicological Research 23/1 (January 2004): 81-112. Hengelbrock, Thomas. 1997. “Thoughts on the B minor Mass by Johann Sebastian Bach”. Translated by Janet and Michael Berridge. Original German: “Gedanken zur h-moll-Messe von Johann Sebastian Bach”. In the notes to Hengelbrock 1996. Herreweghe, Philippe. 1985. “Bach and Musical Rhetoric”. In the notes to his first recording of Bach’s Matthäus-Passion (Arles: Harmonia Mundi France): 26-33. Translated from French by Derek Yeld. See discography for chapter 4. –––––. 1986. Notes to his recording of Bach’s Motets (Arles: Harmonia Mundi France): 11-14. Translated from French by Derek Yeld. See discography for chapter 4. - 275 –––––. 1989. “The Mass in B minor: an approach to performance”. In the notes Herreweghe 1988. Unnumbered pages. Translated from French by Peter Vogelpoel. –––––. 1999a [1988]. Notes to his first recording of Bach’s Johannes-Passion (Arles: Harmonia Mundi France): 10-12. Translated from French by Derek Yeld. Page numbers refer to the 1999 re-issue. See discography for chapter 4. –––––. 1999b. Interview included in the CD-ROM attached to his second recording of Bach’s Matthäus-Passion (Arles: Harmonia Mundi France). See discography for chapter 4. ––––– (interviewed by Brian Robins). 2001. “Philippe Herreweghe: Interview”. Goldberg 16 (Summer 2001): 40-48. Also available on the web: http://www.goldbergweb.com/en/magazine/interviews/2001/09/239.php Herz, Gerhard. 1985. Essays on J. S. Bach. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press. Heyworth, Peter. 1996a [1983]. Otto Klemperer: His Life and Times. Vol. 1: 18851933. Revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –––––. 1996b. Otto Klemperer: His Life and Times. Vol. 2: 1933-1973. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hiemke, Sven. 2000. “Bach-Deutungen im Umfeld der kirchenmusikalischen Erneurungsbewegung”. In Heinemann and Hinrichsen 2000: 63-113. Hildesheimer, Wolfgang. 1985. Der ferne Bach: eine Rede. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag. Hill, Peter. 2000. Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring. Cambridge Music Handbooks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –––––. 2002. “From score to sound”. In Rink 2002a: 129-143. Hiller, Dietmar. 1993. “‘The greatest musical masterpiece of all times’”. Notes to Jacobs 1992: 15-17. Translated from “‘Das größte musikalische Kunstwerk aller Zeiten’” (ibid: 8-10). Hindemith, Paul. 1952 [1950]. Johann Sebastian Bach: Heritage and Obligation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Based on a speech delivered on September 12, 1950, at the Bach commemoration in Hamburg; translator unnamed. Hinrichsen, Hans-Joachim. 1999a. “Die Bach-Gesamtausgabe und die Kontroversen um die Aufführungspraxis der Vokalwerke”. In Heinemann and Hinrichsen 1999a: 227-297. –––––. 1999b. “Zwischen Bearbeitung und Interpretation: Zum praktischen Umgang mit Bachs Instrumentalmusik”. In Heinemann and Hinrichsen 1999a: 341-389. - 276 Hitron, Hagai. 2002. “Authentic at heart”. An interview with Joshua Rifkin. Ha’aretz, January 9, 2002. English translation available on: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=115302 Hofstadter, Douglas R. 1979. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Basic Books. Holman, Peter. 2002. “Notation and Interpretation”. In Burton 2002: 21-48. Holub, Robert C. 1984. Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Methuen. Hochreiter, Martina. 1998. “Johann Sebastian Bach: Mass in B minor, BWV 232”. Notes to Fasolis 1997. Translated by John Blundell. German original: “Johann Sebastian Bach: Messe BWV 232 h-moll”. Howell, Tim. 1992. “Analysis and Performance: The Search for a Middleground”. In Paynter et al. 1992, II: 692-714. Hübner, Maria. 1995. “Karl Straube zwischen Kirchenmusik und Kulturpolitik: zu den Rundfunksendungen der Bach-Kantaten 1931-1937”. In Schulze et al. 1995: 183-191. Hudson, Richard. 1994. Stolen Time: The History of Tempo Rubato. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Huray, Peter le. 1990. Authenticity in Performance: Eighteenth-Century Case Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobs, René. 1990. “On the musical arrangement of ‘The Coronation of Poppea’”. In the notes to his recording of Monteverdi’s L’incoronazione di Poppea (Arles: Harmonia Mundi France): 33-42. Translated from French by Derek Yeld. Jauss, Hans Robert. 1982 [1967]. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory”. In his Toward an Aesthetic of Reception (Brighton: The Harvester Press): 3-46. Translated by Timothy Bahti. Essay originally published as Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft by Constance University in 1967. Jeppesen, Knud. 1970 [1946]. The Style of Palestrina and the Dissonance. With an introduction by Edward J. Dent. New York: Dover. “An unabridged republication, with minor corrections, of the second revised and enlarged edition” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946). –––––. 1992 [1939]. Counterpoint: The Polyphonic Vocal Style of the Sixteenth Century. Translated by Glen Haydon. With an introduction by Alfred Mann. New York: Dover. “Unabridged republication of the edition published PrenticeHall, Inc., New York, 1939”. Jochum, Eugen. c. 1990 [1965]. “On the interpretation of Johann Sebastian Bach’s St. Matthew Passion”. Notes to his recording of the Matthäus-Passion (Philips Classics): 22-31. Translated from “Zur Interpretation der „Matthäus-Passion“ - 277 Johann Sebastian Bachs” (ibid: 13-21). Page numbers refer to CD re-issue. See discography for chapter 2. Johnson, Peter. 1999. “Performance and the Listening Experience: Bach’s ‘Erbarme dich’”. In Agsteribbe and Dejans 1999: 55-101. –––––. 2002. “The legacy of recordings”. In Rink 2002a: 197-212. Johnson, Stephen. 1990. “Bach to the Future: Frans Brüggen, director of the Orchestra of the Eighteenth Century, talks to Stephen Johnson about performing Bach and Mozart”. Gramophone, February 1990: 1452-1453. Jungmann, Joseph A. 1959. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development. Translated by Francis A. Brunner. New York: Benzinger. Juslin, Patrik N. 2001. “Communicating Emotion in Music Performance: A Review and Theoretical Framework”. In Juslin and Sloboda 2001a: 309-337. Juslin, Patrik N. and John A. Sloboda (eds.). 2001a. Music and Emotion: Theory and Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. –––––. 2001b. “Music and emotion: introduction”. In Juslin and Sloboda 2001a: 3-20. Kater, Michael H. 1997. The Twisted Muse: Musicians and Their Music in the Third Reich. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Katz, Ruth and Carl Dahlhaus (trans. and ed). 1986. Contemplating Music: Source Readings in the Aesthetics of Music. vol. 2: “Import”. New York: Pendragon Press. Keller, Hermann. 1957. “Gibt es eine h-moll-Messe von Bach?”. Musik und Kirche 27: 81-87. Kelly, Michael J. (ed.). 1998. The Encyclopaedia of Aesthetics. 4 volumes. New York: Oxford University Press. Kenyon, Nicholas (ed). 1988a. Authenticity and Early Music: A Symposium. Oxford: Oxford University Press. –––––. 1988b. “Authenticity and Early Music: Some Issues and Questions”. In Kenyon 1988a: 1-18. Kerman, Joseph. 1985. Contemplating Music: Challenges to Musicology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. –––––. 1994. Write All These Down: Essays on Music. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Keyte, Hugh. 1985. “Johann Sebastian Bach: B minor Mass”. Notes to Parrott 1984: 8-12. King, Robert. 1997. Notes to King 1996: 4-15. - 278 Kirkendale, Ursula. 1980. “The Source for Bach’s Musical Offering: The Institutio oratoria of Quintilian”. Journal of the American Musicological Society 33: 88111. Kivy, Peter. 1995. Authenticities: Philosophical Reflections on Musical Performance. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Klingberg, Lars. 1995. “Neue Bachgesellschaft und DDR”. In Schulze et al. 1995: 141-167. Klemperer, Otto. 1982 [posthumous]. Über Musik und Theater: Erinnerungen, Gespräche, Skizzen. Edited by Stephan Stompor. Berlin: Henschelverlag. –––––. 1986 [posthumous]. Klemperer on Music: Shavings from a Musician’s Workbench. Edited by Martin Anderson. Preface by Pierre Boulez. London: Toccata Press. Knapp, J. Merill. 1974. Notes to Somary 1974. Knepler, Georg. 1951. “Bemerkungen zum Wandel des Bachbildes”. In Vetter et al. 1951: 308-319. Knittel, K. M. 1995. “Imitation, Individuality, and Illness: Behind Beethoven’s ‘Three Styles’”. Beethoven Forum 4 (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press): 17-36. Kobayashi, Yoshitake. 1993. “Universality in Bach’s B minor Mass: A portrait of Bach in his final years”. Introduced and translated by Jeffrey Baxter. Bach: The Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute 24/2: 3-25. Köberle, Adolf. 1936. Bach, Beethoven, Bruckner als Symbolgestalten des Glauben: Eine frömmigkeitsgeschichtliche Deutung. Berlin: Im Furche-Verlag. Koegler, Horst. 1969. Review of Cantatas BWV 1 and 4, conducted by Karl Richter (Archiv 198 465). Fono Forum, September 1969: 585. Koopman, Ton. 1987. “Some Thoughts on Authenticity”. Musick 8/3: 2-6. –––––. 1996. “Recording Bach’s early cantatas”. Early Music 24/4 (November 1996): 605-619. –––––. 1997a. Introductions to Cantatas BWV 106, 131, 140, 147, 211 and 56. In Ton Koopman conducts Bach (NVC Arts). See discography for chapter 5. –––––. 1997b. “One-to-a-part? Who then turns the pages – more on Bach’s chorus”. Early Music 25/3 (August 1997): 541-542. –––––. 1998. “Bach’s choir, an ongoing story”. Early Music 26/1 (February 1998): 109-121. - 279 ––––– (interviewed by Uri Golomb). 2003. “Ton Koopman”. Goldberg 24 (September 2003): 42-50. Also available on the web: http://www.goldbergweb.com/en/magazine/interviews/2003/09/16243.php. Krause, Joachim. 1962. “Zeichen und Zahlen in der A-dur-Arie der h-moll-Messe Bachs”. Musik und Kirche 32/1: 1-17. Krausz, Michael (ed.). 1993. The Interpretation of Music: Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kretzschmar, Hermann. 1986 [1903]. Excerpts from Anregungen zur Förderung musikalischer Hermeneutik (1903). In Katz and Dahlhaus 1986: 619-629. –––––. 1988. Excerpts from Anregungen zur Förderung musikalischer Hermeneutik (1903). In Music in European Thought, 1851-1912, ed. and trans. Andre Bujic, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 114-120. Kroher, Ekkehart. 1966. Review of Cantatas BWV 119 and 65 (Eurodisc 71 528) and BWV 36 and 57 (Eurodisc 119, 65) conducted by Günther Ramin. Fono Forum, January 1966: 27-28. Krones, Hartmut. 1997. “Musik und Rhetorik”. In Finscher 1997, 6: 814-852. Krummacher, Friedhelm. 1987. “Bachs Vermittlung durch Geschichte”. In Berke and Hanemann 1987, I: 133-137. Kurth, Ernst. 1991 [posthumous]. Ernst Kurth: Selected Writings. Edited and translated by Lee Rothfarb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lang, Paul Henry. 1942. Music in Western Civilization. London: J. M. Dent. –––––. 1969. “Editorial” [review-article on Wolff 1968]. Musical Quarterly 55: 545558. –––––. 1970. Review of Harnoncourt 1968. Records in Review 1970: 24-26. –––––. 1997. Musicology and Performance. Edited by Alfred Mann and George J. Buelow. With an introduction by Christoph Wolff. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Lawson, Colin. 2002. “Performing through history”. In Rink 2002a: 3-16. Lawson, Colin and Robin Stowell. 1999. The Historical Performance of Music: An Introduction. Cambridge Handbooks to the Historical Performance of Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leaver, Robin A. 1997a. “Music and Lutheranism”. In Butt 1997a: 53-45. –––––. 1997b. “The mature vocal works and their theological and liturgical context”. In Butt 1997a: 86-122. –––––. 1998. Notes to Funfgeld 1997: 1-9. - 280 –––––. 2000. “Johann Sebastian Bach: Theological Musician and Musical Theologian”. Bach: The Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute 31/1: 17-33. Leech-Wilkinson, Daniel. 1984. Contribution to “The Limits of Authenticity: A Discussion”. Early Music 22/1 (February 1984): 13-16. –––––. 2001. “Using recordings to study musical performances”. In Aural History: Essays on recorded sound, ed. Andy Linehan (London: The British Library): 112. –––––. 2002. The Modern Invention of Medieval Music: Scholarship, Ideology, Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leibowitz, René. 1970 [1950]. “Die strukturelle Dialektik im Werk J. S. Bachs”. In Blankenburg 1970a: 85-99. Translated to German by Manfred Tessmer. French original published in La Revue Internationale de Musique 8: 55-67. Leonhardt, Gustav. 1999. “Schon wieder ein Matthäus-Passion!”. In Wolff 1999a: 2132. Leslie, George Clark. 1942. The Gramophone Shop Encyclopedia of Recorded Music. Second edition. New York: The Gramophone Shop Inc. Lester, Joel. 1995. “Performance and Analysis: Interaction and Interpretation”. In Rink 1995a: 197-216. Levin, Robert. 1997. “Performance prerogatives in Schubert”. Early Music 25/4 (November 1997): 723-727. –––––. 2004. “Mozart and the Keyboard Culture of His Time”. Min-Ad: Israel Studies in Musicology Online 3. http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/mu/min-ad04/LevinMOZART.pdf. Levinson, Jerrold. 1993. “Performative vs. Critical Interpretation in Music”. In Krausz 1993: 33-60. –––––. 1997. “Music and Negative Emotions”. In Robinson 1997a: 215-241. Levy, Janet M. “Beginning-Ending Ambiguity: Consequences of Performance Choices”. In Rink 1995a: 150-169. Lewinsky, Wolf-Eberhard von. 1992. Peter Schreier: Interviews, Tatsachen, Meinungen. Mainz: Schott, and München: Piper. Lippman, Edward (ed.). 1986. Musical Aesthetics: A Historical Reader. 3 volumes. Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon Press. –––––. 1992. A History of Western Musical Aesthetics. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. - 281 Little, Meredith, and Natalie Jenne. 2001. Dance and the Music of J. S. Bach. Expanded edition. Bloomington and Indianapolis: University of Indiana Press. Lockwood, Lewis, Noel O’Regan and Jessie Ann Owens. 2003. “Palestrina, [Prenestino, etc.], Giovanni Pierluigi da [‘Giannetto’]”. In Macy 2003. Lowe, Bethany. 2000. Performance, Analysis, and Interpretation in Sibelius’s Fifth Symphony. PhD dissertation; University of Southampton, 2000. –––––. 2002. “Issues in analysing the timing of recordings”. Paper presented at the SMA Autumn Study Day “Analysing Recordings”; 26 October 2002. Macy, Laura (ed.). 2003. Grove Music Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.grovemusic.com. Accessed 2003. Maczewski, A. 1899. “Bach, Johann Sebastian”. In Grove 1899, 1: 114-119. Mann, Alfred. 1987. The Study of Fugue. Third edition. New York: Dover Publications. Manze, Andrew. 2002. “Strings”. In Burton 2002a: 67-83. Marshall, Robert C. 1983. “Bach’s chorus: A preliminary reply to Joshua Rifkin”. A reply to Rifkin 1982. Musical Times 124 (January 1983): 19-22. –––––. 1989. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, The Style, The Significance. New York: Schirmer Books. –––––. 2000. “Toward a Twenty-First-Century Bach Biography”. Musical Quarterly 84/3: 497-525. Märker, Michael. 1995. “Bach-Anschauungen unter dem Nationalsozialismus”. In Schulze et al. 1995: 211-220. Maus, Fred Everett. 1997. “Music as Drama”. In Robinson 1997a: 105-130. –––––. 1999. “Concepts of Musical Unity”. In Cook and Everist 1999: 171-192. McClary, Susan. 1987. “The Blasphemy of Talking Politics During Bach Year”. In Music and Society: The Politics of Composition, Performance and Reception, ed. Susan McClary and Richard Leppert (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 13-62. McCreesh, Paul (interviewed by Matthew Westphal). 2002. “Paul McCreesh on Redefining Bach Performance”. Andante August 2002; http://www.andante.com/Article/article.cfm?id=18169. Meacock, Michael. 1999. “Günther Ramin 1898-1956: Thomaskantor 1940-1956”. http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/Ramin-Arton.htm. Originally published in International Classical Record Collector, February 1999. - 282 Melamed, Daniel R., and Michael Marissen. 1998. An Introduction to Bach Studies. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mellers, Wilfrid. 1980. Bach and the Dance of God. London: Faber and Faber. –––––. 1992. “Present and Past: Intermediaries and Interpreters”. In Paynter et al. 1992, II: 920-930. Mertl, Monica. 1999. Vom Denken des Herzen: Alice und Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Eine Biographie. Salzburg and Vienna: Residenz Verlag. Messmer, Franzpeter. 1984. Review of Martini 1984. Fono Forum, October 1984: 52. Meyer, Leonard B. 1956. Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. –––––. 2001. “Music and Emotion: Distinctions and Uncertainties”. In Juslin and Sloboda 2001a: 341-360. Michelsen, Konrad. 1959. Review of Jochum 1957. Fono Forum, February 1959: 16. Mikorey, Stefan and Franzpeter Messmer. 1985. “Neue Impulse: Die Leipziger BachTradition im Wandel”. Fono Forum, June 1985: 28-31. Miller, Stephen R. 2003. “Stile antico”. In Macy 2003. Monelle, Raymond. 2002. “The criticism of musical performance”. In Rink 2002a: 213-224. Monsaingeon, Bruno (producer). 2002. Glenn Gould The Alchemist: Paths through Music. DVD re-issue of a four-part documentary film, originally presented on French Television in 1974. London: EMI Classics & IMG Artists (series: Classic Archive). Morgan, Robert P. 1988. “Tradition, Anxiety, and the Current Musical Scene”. In Kenyon 1988a: 57-82. –––––. 2003. “The Concept of Unity and Musical Analysis”. Music Analysis 22/1-2: 7-50. Moroney, Davitt. 2000. Bach: An extraordinary life. London: The Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music. –––––. 2002. “Keyboard”. In Burton 2002: 49-66. Motte-Haber, Helga de la. 1997. “Ausdruck, VI-VII”. In Finscher 1997, 1: 10481050. Müller, Friedrich (producer). 1968. Karl Richter und sein Münchener Bach-Chor. Television documentary. ZDF-Filmporträt. - 283 Müller-Blattau, Joseph Maria. 1931. Grundzüge einer Geschichte der Fuge. Second edition. Kassel: Bärenreiter. –––––. 1963. Geschichte der Fuge. Third edition. Kassel: Bärenreiter. Nattiez, Jean-Jacques. 1990. Music and Discourse: Towards a Semiology of Music. Translated by Carolyn Abbate. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. –––––. 1998. “Semiology of Music”. Translated by Terri Gordon and Larsen Powell. In Kelly 1998, IV: 267-271. Neumann, Frederick. 1985. “Bach: Progressive or Conservative and the Authorship of the Goldberg Aria”. Musical Quarterly 71: 281-294. –––––. 1989. New Essays on Performance Practice. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press. Neumann, Klaus L. 1970. “Bachs Johannes-Passion: die ganz überzeugende Aufnahme ist noch nicht da”. Fono Forum March 1970: 140-142. Neumann, Werner. 1953. J. S. Bachs Chorfuge: Ein Beitrag zur Kompositionstechnik Bachs. Third Edition. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel. Newman, Anthony. 1985. Bach and the Baroque: A Performing Guide to Baroque Music with Special Emphasis on the Music of J. S. Bach. New York: Pendragon Press. Oliver, A. 2000. “In Praise of Amateurs”. Letter to the editor, BBC Music Magazine March 2000: 6. A response to Parrott and Rilling 2000. Oliver, Michael. “Bach and Offenbach” (an interview with John Eliot Gardiner). Gramophone 69/x (October 1989): 642-643. Ornoy, Eitan. 2001. “Between Theory and Practice: Ideologies and Performance Conventions in the Early Music Movement”. PhD dissertation; The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. [In Hebrew] Osborne, Richard. 1989. Conversations with Karajan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parncutt, Richard. 2000. “Structured Listening to Recover a Performer’s Conception of Musical Structure”. Unpublished lecture given at “Performance 2000: 35th Annual Conference of the Royal Music Association” (Southampton, April 2000). Parrott, Andrew. 1996. “Bach’s Chorus: a ‘brief yet highly necessary’ reappraisal’”. Early Music 24/4 (November 1996): 551-580. –––––. 1997. “Bach’s chorus: who cares?”. Early Music 25/2 (May 1997): 297-300. –––––. 1998. “Bach’s chorus: beyond reasonable doubt”. Early Music 26/4 (November 1998): 637-658. - 284 –––––. 2000. The Essential Bach Choir. Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press. Parrott, Andrew and Helmuth Rilling. 2000. “How many singers does it take to perform a cantata by JS Bach? Two leading Bach conductors present their cases”. BBC Music Magazine, January 2000: 38-39. Parry, Charles Hubert Hastings. 1909. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Story of the Development of a Great Personality. New York and London: The Knickerbocker Press. Paynter, John, Tim Howell, Richard Orton and Peter Seymour (eds.). 1992. Companion to Contemporary Musical Thought. 2 vols. London and New York: Routledge. Persson, Roland S. 2001. “The Subjective World of the Performer”. In Juslin and Sloboda 2001a: 275-289. Peters, Frances and Christopher Swann (producers). 1994. Harnoncourt and Beethoven: The Making of the Symphonies. Documentary film included with Harnoncourt’s filmed concert performance of Beethoven’s 6th and 8th symphonies. Hamburg: Teldec (in co-production with Channel 4 Television). Petzoldt, Martin. 1995. “Erfahrungen mit der Verwendung des Aufklärungsbegriffs in der Bach-Forschung”. In Schulze et al. 1995: 221-230. Philip, Robert. 1992. Early Recordings and Musical Style: Changing Tastes in Instrumental Performance, 1900-1950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –––––. 2004. Performing Music in the Age of Recordings. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Pinker, Steven. 1997. How the Mind Works. London: Penguin Books. Potter, John. 2002. “Singing”. In Burton 2002: 95-106. Potter, Pamela M. 1995. “Musikwissenschaft im dritten Reich und die BachForschung: ein Überblick”. In Schulze et al. 1995: 169-181. –––––. 1998. Most German of the Arts: Musicology and Society from the Weimar Republic to the End of Hitler’s Reich. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Pratt, George. 2002. “Historical Background”. In Burton 2002: 3-20. Prout, E. 1876. “Bach’s Mass in B minor”. Musical Times 17: 487-490, 519-523, 553555. Ramin, Dieter. 1999. “Günther Ramin”. Notes to Bach Made in Germany, vol. I: Günther Ramin (Berlin: Edel Classics). See discography for chapter 3. - 285 Ramin, Günther. 1973a [1940]. “Joh. Seb. Bachs Werk als Ausdruck seiner Lebensauffassung”. In Hellmann 1973: 8-11. Originally published in Musik und Kirche 1940: 73-77. –––––. 1973b. “Bachs Totalität in Werk und Wesen”. In Hellmann 1973: 19-21. Not published previously. –––––. 1973c [1948]. “Joh. Seb. Bachs Kantaten in heutiger Sicht”. In Hellmann 1973: 22-26. Originally published in Universitas 3/10 (1948): 1159-1163. –––––. 1973d. “Der Thomanerchor in der Zeit der Evakuierung (1943-1945)”. In Hellmann 1973: 51-55. –––––. 1973e [1954]. “Johann Sebastian Bach als Ende und Anfang und seine Bedeutung für die geistige Entwicklung der Jugend”. In Hellmann 1973: 56-62 (article by Ramin), 62-72 (“Protokol der im Anschluß an der Vortrag veranstalteten Diskussion”). Originally published in Schweizerische Musikzeitung 94/9 (1954): 3-7. Based on a lecture given in Zurich University (November 11, 1954) and repeated in the Akademie der Deutsche Künste, Berlin. Original publication did not include the “Diskussion” section. –––––. 1973f. “Die Bachpflege des Thomanerchores und ihre internationale Ausstrahlung”. In Hellmann 1973: 73-75. Randolph, David. 1955. Review of Karajan 1952. Records In Review 1955: 23-24. Rauhe, Hermann. 1986? [1977?]. Notes to CD re-issue of Marriner 1977. Reid, Robert H. 1948. The Gramophone Shop Encyclopedia of Recorded Music. Third edition, revised and enlarged. New York: Crown Publishers. Reidemeister, Peter and Veronika Gutmann (eds). 1983. Alte Musik – Praxis und Reflexion: Sonderband der Reieh “Basler Jahrbuch für Historische Musikpraxis” zum 50. Jubiläum der Schola Cantorum Basiliensis. Winterthur, Switzerland: Amadeus. Reynolds, Gordon. Review of CD re-issues of Marriner 1977 and Harnoncourt 1968. Gramophone, July 1986: 199. Richter, Karl (interviewed by Ruth Werfel). 1978. “Bachpflege in unserer Zeit”. Musik und Kirche 48: 70-73. Richter, Klaus Peter. 1998. “Die Bedeutung der „Leipziger-Schule“ für die Aufführungsgeschichte von Johann Sebastian Bach im 20. Jahrhundert”. In Martin Petzoldt (ed.), Bach für Kenner und Liebhaber: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Diethard Hellmann (Stuttgart: Carus-Verlag): 77-86. Richter, Tobias (script-writer and producer). 1986. Karl Richters Vermächtnis. Television documentary. ZDF/Unitel-Filmporträt. Ridley, Aaron. 1998. “Emotions and Music”. In Kelly 1998, II: 109-111. - 286 Rietz, Julius. 1856. “Vorwort”. In his edition of the B minor Mass (Leipzig: Bach Gesellschaft): XIII-XXVI. Rifkin, Joshua. 1982a. “The B-minor Mass and its Performance”. Notes to Rifkin 1982. –––––. 1982b. “Bach’s chorus: A preliminary report”. Musical Times 123 (November 1982): 747-754. –––––. 1983. “Bach’s chorus: a response to Robert Marshall”. Reply to Marshall 1983. Musical Times 124 (March 1983): 161-162. –––––. 1987. Notes to his recording of Cantatas BWV 140 and 51. London: Decca/L’Oiseau-Lyre. –––––. 1989a. Notes to his recording of Cantatas BWV 202 and 209. London: Decca/L’Oiseau-Lyre. –––––. 1989b. Notes to his recording of Cantatas BWV 8, 78 and 99. London: Decca/L’Oiseau-Lyre. –––––. 1991. Notes to his recording of Cantatas BWV 56, 82 and 158. London: Decca/L’Oiseau-Lyre. –––––. 1995. “Bach’s Chorus: Some Red Herrings”. Reply to Stauffer 1993. Journal of Musicological Research 15: 223-234. –––––. 1996. “From Weimar to Leipzig: concertists and ripienists in Bach’s Ich hatte viel Bekümmernis”. Early Music 24/4 (November 1996): 583-603. –––––. 1997a. “Bassoons, violins and voices: a response to Ton Koopman”. Early Music 25/2 (May 1997): 303-307. –––––. 1997b. “Page turns, players and ripieno parts: more questions of scoring in Bach’s vocal music”. Early Music 25/4 (November 1997): 728-734. –––––. 1998. A reply to Wolff 1998b. Early Music 26/3 (August 1998): 541-542. –––––. 1999. “Schering’s Wacky Theory”. Reply to Sherman 1999. Expanded version posted on the world wide web by Bernard Sherman (http://www.bsherman.org/Scherings.htm). Originally published in Early Music America (Fall 1999): 48. –––––. 2000 [1981]. “Bach’s chorus”. Lecture written for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Musicological Society, Boson MA., November 1981. Published in Parrott 2000: 189-208. –––––. 2001. “The Impossible Text: A Postmodern Edition of the B minor Mass?”. Lecture presented at “Understanding Bach through Science, Art and Criticism”, The Fifth Annual Symposium of the Tureck Bach Research Foundation, Oxford, December 2001. - 287 –––––. 2002. Bach’s Choral Ideal. Dortmunder Bach-Forschungen (ed. Martin Geck), vol. 5. Dortmund: Klangfarben Musikverlag. –––––. 2003. “Bach’s chorus: some new parts, some new questions”. Early Music 31/4 (November 2003): 573-580. Rilling, Helmuth. 1979. Johann Sebastian Bachs h-Moll-Messe. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler Verlag. –––––. 1984. Johann Sebastian Bach’s B-Minor Mass. Translated by Gordon Paine. Revised for translation by the author. Princeton, New Jersey: Prestige Publications. Revised version of Rilling 1979. –––––. 1985. “Bach’s Significance”. Bach: The Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute 16/3 (July 1985): 2-16. Translated by Gordon Paine. Also available on the web: http://bachfest.uoregon.edu/bachground/bachbits/signifigance.shtml. –––––. 1999. “On the new recording of the Mass in B Minor”. In the notes to Rilling 1999: 28-29. Translated by Miguel Carazo. German original: “Zur Neueinspielung der h-Moll-Messe” (ibid: 17-18). ––––– (interviewed by Wolfgang Sand). 2001. “Prophet des Thomaskantors”. http://www.cantate-online.de/artikel/0105-1.htm. Originally published in Cantate 5/2001 (September-October 2001). ––––– (interviewed by Caitriona Bolster). [n.d.]. “A Class By Himself: Helmuth Rilling on what we learn from Bach”. http://www.oregonbachfestival.com/bachground/bachbits/rillingonbach.shtml Rink, John. 1990. Review of Berry 1989. Music Analysis 9: 319-339. –––––– (ed). 1995a. The Practice of Performance: Studies in Musical Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ––––––. 1995b. “Playing in Time: Rhythm, Metre and Tempo in Brahms’s Fantasien”. In Rink 1995a: 254-282. –––––. 1999. “Translating Musical Meaning: The Nineteenth-Century Performer as Narrator”. In Cook and Everist 1999: 239-261. –––––. 2000. “Performance Studies: The State of Play”. Unpublished lecture given at “Performance 2000: 35th Annual Conference of the Royal Music Association” (Southampton, April 2000). ––––– (ed.). 2002a. Musical Performance: A Guide to Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –––––. 2002b. “Analysis and (or?) performance”. In Rink 2002a: 35-58. Robertson, Alec. 1953. Review of Grischkat 1953. Gramophone, August 1953: 71-72 –––––. 1954. Review of Karajan 1952. Gramophone, February 1954: 348. - 288 –––––. 1968. Review of Harnoncourt 1968. Gramophone, December 1968: 863-864. Robinson, Jenefer (ed.). 1997a. Music and Meaning. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. –––––. 1997b. “Introduction: New Ways of Thinking about Musical Meaning”. In Robinson 1997a: 1-20. Rockstro, W. S. 1899. “Mass”. In Grove 1899, 2: 226-235. Rosen, Charles. 1990. “The Shock of the Old” [Review of Kenyon 1988a]. The New York Review of Books, July 19, 1990: 46-50. ––––. 1996. The Romantic Generation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rothfarb, Lee A. 1991. “Introduction”. In Kurth 1991: 1-33. Rothstein, William. 1995. “Analysis and the Act of Performance”. In Rink 1995a: 217-240. Sadie, Stanley (ed.). 1981. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. 20 volumes. London: Macmillan. Samson, Jim. 2003. “Romanticism”. In Macy 2003. Savall, Jordi. 2001. “J. S. Bach’s Musical Testament”. In the notes to his album Bach’s Testament (containing his recordings of Musikalische Opfer and Die Kunst der Fuge). Alia Vox. Schering, Arnold. 1900. Bachs Textbehandlung: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis Joh. Seb. Bach’scher Vokal-Schöpfungen. Leipzig: C. F. Kahnt Nachfolger. –––––. 1907. “Kritiken” [reviews of Bach monographs by Wolfrum, Pirro and Schweitzer]. Bach-Jahrbuch 4: 182-189. –––––. 1920. “Die Besetzung Bachscher Chöre”. Bach-Jahrbuch 17: 77-89. –––––. 1931. Aufführungspraxis alter Musik. Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer. –––––. 1936a. Johann Sebastian Bachs Leipziger Kirchenmusik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel. –––––. 1936b. “Die hohe Messe in h-moll: Eine Huldigungsmusik und Krönungsmesse für Friederich August II”. Bach-Jahrbuch 33: 1-30. –––––. 1941. Das Symbol in der Musik. Mit einem Nachwort von Wilibald Gurlitt. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang. –––––. 1942. Über Kantaten Johann Sebastian Bachs. Second edition. With an introduction by Friedrich Blume. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang. –––––. 1974. Vom Wesen der Musik: Ausgewählte Aufsätze von Arnold Schering. Edited with an introduction by Karl Michael Komma. Stuttgart: K. F. Koehler. - 289 –––––. 1986 [1935]. “Musikalische Symbolkunde (The Theory of Musical Symbolism)”. Translated by Edward Lippman. In Lippman 1986, III: 185-205. Originally published in Jahrbuch der Musikbibliothek Peters für 1935. Reprinted in Schering 1941: 117-146, and Schering 1974: 98-120. Schiff, András. 2002. “Chopin and His Idols”. Introduction to a concert series. London: Wigmore Hall. Schmalfeldt, Janet. 1985. “On the Relation of Analysis to Performance: Beethoven’s Bagatelles Op. 126, nos. 2 and 5”. Journal of Music Theory 29: 1-32. Schmitz, Arnold. 1950 (1980?). Die Bildlichkeit der wortgebundenen Musik Johann Sebastian Bachs. Mainz and London: Schott (reprinted Laaber-Verlag). –––––. 1955. “Figuren, musikalisch-rhetorische”. In Blume 1955, 4: 176-183. –––––. 1970 [1950]. “Die oratorische Kunst J. S. Bachs: Grundfragen und Grundlagen”. In Blankenburg 1970a: 61-84. Originally published in Kongreßbericht. Gesellschaft für Musikforschung (Lüneburg) 2: 33-49. Schmitz, Eugen. 1951. “Bachs h-moll-Messe und die Dresdner katholische Kirchenmusik”. In Vetter et al. 1951: 320-330. Schrade, Leo. 1955. Bach and the Conflict Between the Sacred and the Secular. New York: Merlin Press. Schreier, Peter (interviewed by Gabi Zahn). 2001. “Die Breitschaft zum Mitdenken und zum Mitfühlen”. Interviewed on September 3, 2001. Reprinted in http://home.planet.nl/~peter.schreier/artikel_archief02.htm#bauer Schulenberg, David. 1992. “Musical Expression and Musical Rhetoric in the Keyboard Works of J. S. Bach”. In Benstock 1992: 95-109. ––––– (ed.). 1999. Bach Perspectives 4: The Music J. S. Bach – Analysis and Interpretation. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Schulze, Hans-Joachim. 1985. “The B minor Mass – Perpetual Touchstone for Bach Research”. In Peter Williams (ed.), Bach, Handel, Scarlatti: Tercentenary Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 311-320. Schulze, Hans Joachim, Ulrich Leisinger and Peter Wollny, eds. 1995. Bericht über die Wissenschaftliche Konferenz Anlässlich des 69. Bach-Festes der Neuen Bachgesellschaft Leipzig, 29. und 30. März 1994. Passionmusik im Umfeld Johann Sebastian Bachs/ Bach unter den Diktaturen, 1933-1945 und 19451989. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Georg Olms Verlag. Schweitzer, Albert. 1911 [1908]. Johann Sebastian Bach. 2 volumes. Breitkopf und Härtel. Translated by Ernest Newman. Originally published in German by Breitkopf und Härtel. Scruton, Roger. 1997. The Aesthetics of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - 290 Seymour, Peter. 1992. “Oratory and Performance”. In Paynter et al. 1992, II: 913-919. Sharpe, R. A. 2000. Music and Humanism: An Essay in the Aesthetics of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shaw, Robert. 1999 [1961]. “Tradition Versus Artistic Judgment”. In the notes to Shaw 1960: 9-11 (page numbers refer to CD re-issue). Sherman, Bernard D. 1997. Inside Early Music: Conversations with Performers. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. –––––. 1998. “Authenticity In Musical Performance”. In Kelly 1998, I: 166-169. Posted on the web by the author: http://www.bsherman.org/encyclopedia.html. –––––. 1999a. “Rifkin’s Pesky Idea”. Revised and expanded version posted on the web by the author (http://www.bsherman.org/oneperpart.html). Originally published in Early Music America (Summer 1999): 48. –––––. 1999b. Review of Rilling 1999. Originally published in Goldberg. http://www.goldbergweb.com/en/discography/catalog/1999/4618.php. –––––. 2000. “Bach’s Notation of Tempo and Early-Music Performance: some reconsiderations”. Early Music 28/3 (May 2000): 455-466. Posted on the web by the author; http://www.bsherman.org/bachtempo.htm. –––––. 2002 [1999]. “Performing Bach’s B Minor Mass: Thirty Years of HIP”. http://www.bsherman.org/bminormass.htm. Updated version of an article originally published in Goldberg 9 (November 1999): 52-60. Original version available on: http://www.goldbergweb.com/en/magazine/essays/1999/12/230.php –––––. 2003. “Conducting early music”. In José Antonio Bowen (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Conducting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 237-248. Sloboda, John A. and Patrik N. Juslin. 2001a. “Psychological Perspectives on Music and Emotion”. In Juslin and Sloboda 2001a: 71-104. –––––. 2001b. “Music and Emotion: Commentary”. In Juslin and Sloboda 2001a: 453-462. Smend, Friedrich. 1937. “Bachs h-moll-Messe: Bedeutung”. Bach-Jahrbuch 34: 1-58. Entstehung, Überlieferung, –––––. 1956. Kriticher Bericht to his edition of the Mass in B minor (Johann Sebastian Bach: Neue Ausgabe Sämtlicher Werke II/I). Kassel: Bärenreiter. ––––– (ed.). 1988 [1954]. Johann Sebastian Bach: Missa/ Symbolum Nicenum/ Sanctus/ Osanna, Benedictus, Agnus dei, et Dona nobis pacem, genannt: Messe in h-moll, BWV 232. Study Score publication of Johann Sebastian Bach: Neue Ausgabe Sämtlicher Werke II/I. Kassel: Bärenreiter. - 291 Smithers, Don. 1992. “The Original Circumstances in the Performance of Bach’s Leipzig Church Cantatas, ‘wegen seiner Sonn- und Festtägigen AmtsVerrichtungen’”. In Benstock 1992: 111-126. –––––. 1997. “The Emperor’s new clothes reappraised: or Bach’s musical resources revealed”. Bach: The Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute 28: 1-81. Spackman, John. 1998. “Expression Theory of Art”. In Kelly 1998, II: 139-144. Spitta, Philipp. 1889 [1880]. Johann Sebastian Bach: His Work and Influence on the Music of Germany, 1685-1750. 3 volumes. Translated by Clara Bell and J. A. Fuller-Maitland. London: Novello and Company. Original German publication: Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1873-1880. Stauffer, George B. 1983. “Johann Mattheson and J. S. Bach: the Hamburg connection”. In Buelow and Marx 1983: 353-368. –––––. 1993. Review of Butt 1991 and Little and Jenne 1991 [the first edition of Little and Jenne 2001]. Journal of Musicological Research 13: 257-272. –––––. 1995. Reply to Rifkin 1995. Journal of Musicological Research 15: 234. –––––. 1997a. “Changing issues of performance practice”. In Butt 1997a: 203-217. ––––––.1997b. Bach: The Mass in B Minor (The Great Catholic Mass). New York: Schirmer Books. Steinitz, Paul. 1975. “German Church Music”. In Anthony Lewis and Nigel Fortune (eds.), New Oxford History of Music, vol. V: Opera and Church Music, 16301750 (London: Oxford University Press): 557-776. Stewart, Andrew. 2001. “Music’s sculptor: Philippe Herreweghe”. Early Music Today 9/5: 22-23. Stiller, Günther. 1973. “Johann Sebastian Bachs Kantaten in den Leipziger Gottesdiensten unter dem Thomaskantorat von Karl Straube und Günther Ramin”. In Hellmann 1973: 27-50. Storr, Anthony. 1997 [1992]. Music and the Mind. Paperback edition. London: Harper-Collins. Stravinsky, Igor. 1947. Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons. Translated by Arthur Knodel and Ingolf Dahl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Street, Alan. 1989. “Superior Myths, Dogmatic Allegories: the Resistance to Musical Unity”. Music Analysis 8/1-2: 77-123. Taruskin, Richard. 1995. Text and Act: Essays on Music and Performance. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Temperley, Nicholas. 1983. “Johann Sebastian Bach: Bach Revival”. In Wolff 1983: 167-177. - 292 –––––. 1984. Contribution to “The Limits of Authenticity: A Discussion”. Early Music 22/1 (February 1984): 16-20. Terry, Charles Sanford. 1924. Bach: The Mass in B minor. London: Oxford University Press. –––––. 1927. “Johann Sebastian Bach”. In Colles 1927, 1: 155-171. Thieke, Armin (producer). 1982. Immer Kantor bleiben: Erinnerungen an Karl Richter. Television documentary. Bayerisches Fernsehen. Thiele, Eugen. 1936. Die Chorfugen Johann Sebastian Bachs. Bern and Leipzig: Paul Haupt Akademische Buchhandlung vorm. Max Drechsel. Thomas, Jeffrey. 1992. “Performance Notes”. In the notes to Jeffrey Thomas 1992. Tomes, Susan. 2004. Beyond the Notes: Journeys with Chamber Music. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. Tovey, Donald Francis. 1937. “J. S. Bach: Mass in B minor”. In his Essays in Musical Analysis (London: Oxford University Press), 5: 20-49. Towe, Teri Noel. 1991a. “J. S. Bach: St John Passion”. In Blyth 1991: 10-23, 265268. Also available on: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/MBM-TNT.htm. –––––. 1991b. “J. S. Bach: St Matthew Passion”. In Blyth 1991: 24-45, 268-273. Also available on: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/SMP-TNT.htm. –––––. 1991c. “J. S. Bach: Mass in B Minor”. In Blyth 1991: 46-60, 273-275. Also available on: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/MBM-TNT.htm. Treitler, Leo. 1997. “Language and the Interpretation of Music”. In Robinson 1997a: 23-56. ––––– (general editor). 1998. Strunk’s Source Readings in Music History. Revised edition. New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company. Trumpff, Gustav Adolf. 1962. Review of Günther Ramin’s recordings of Cantatas BWV 137 and 79 (Cantate 640226) and Cantatas BWV 41 and 179 (Cantate 640227). Fono Forum, May 1962: 18. Tureck, Rosalyn. 1960. An Introduction to the Performance of Bach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2 volumes. –––––. 1997 [1996]. “Cells, Functions, Relationships in Musical Structure and Performance”. Interactions: Journal of the Tureck Bach Research Foundation, 1: 33-69. Originally published in Proceedings of the Royal Institution, 67: 277318. Unger, Hans-Heinrich. 1941. Die Beziehungen zwischen Musik und Rhetorik im 16.18. Jahrhundert. Musik und Geistesgeschichte: Berliner Studien zur - 293 Musikwissenschaft (Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Arnold Schering), Band IV. Würzburg: Konrad Triltsch Verlag. Van Tassel, Eric. 1997. “‘Something utterly new’: listening to Schubert Lieder. 1: Vogl and the declamatory style”. Early Music 25/4 (November 1997): 703-714. –––––. 2000. “One-to-one with Bach”. Gramophone Early Music, Spring 2000: 3236. Vaughan Williams, Ralph. 1963. National Music and Other Essays. London: Oxford University Press. Vetter, Walter, Ernst Hermann Meyer (eds.) and Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht (Bearbeitung). 1951. Bericht über die wissenschaftliche Bachtagung der Gesellschaft für Musikforschung (Leipzig 23. bis 26. Juli 1950) im Auftrage des deutschen Bach-Ausschusses 1950. Leipzig: C. F. Peters. Vetter, Walter. 1951. “Bachs Universalität”. In Vetter et al. 1951: 131-157. Volbach, Fritz. [n.d.]. “Johann Seb. Bach, Mass in B minor”. Introduction to his edition of the Mass (London and Mainz: Eulenberg): i-iv. “Johann Seb. Bach, Hohe Messe in H Moll” (ibid: viii-xi). Voss, Stephen. 2003. “The Bach family before J. S. Bach”. Notes a re-issue of Musica Antiqua Köln’s 1986 album Cantatas by Members of the Bach Family (Hamburg: Archiv Produktion): 6-8. Translated by Stewart Spencer. German original: “Die Familie Bach vor Johann Sebastian” (ibid: 9-11). Walker, Paul Mark. 1999. “Fugue in the Music-Rhetorical Analogy and Rhetoric in the Development of Fugue”. In Schulenberg 1999: 159-179. –––––. 2000. Theories of Fugue from the Age of Josquin to the Age of Bach. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. –––––. 2003. “Fugue”. In Macy 2003. Wallace, Robin. 1986. Beethoven’s Critics: Aesthetic Dilemmas and Resolutions during the Composer’s Lifetime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walls, Peter. 2002. “Historical performance and the modern performer”. In Rink 2002a: 17-34. –––––. 2003. History, Imagination and the Performance of Music. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. Walton, Kendall. 1997. “Listening with Imagination: Is Music Representational?”. In Robinson 1997a: 57-82. Watkins, Stephen (producer). 2000. “Bach, the Evangelist”. Broadcast on Sunday, 22 October 2000, on “Radio National, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s national radio network of ideas”. Transcript on http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/enc/stories/s202902.htm. - 294 Weber, William. 1999. “The History of Musical Canon”. In Cook and Everist 1999: 336-355. Wehrmeyer, Andreas and Elena Poldiaeva. 2000. “Bach in Russland”. Heinemann and Hinrichsen 2000: 157-205. Wenzinger, August. 1968. “Der Ausdruck in der Barockmusik und seine Interpretation”. In Alte Musik in Unserer Zeit etc.: 35-46. –––––. 1983. “Kompositionsstil und Aufführungspraxis bei Johann Sebastian Bach”. In Reidemeister and Gutmann 1983: 241-266. Westphal, Fritz. 1965. Reviews of recordings of Bach’s Johannes-Passion conducted by Karl Richter (DGA 198 328/330) and Fritz Werner (Christophorus CGLP 75 716/17). Fono Forum, March 1965: 117. Whenham, John. 1997. Monteverdi: Vespers (1610). Cambridge Music Handbooks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, Harry. 1997. “‘If It’s Baroque, Don’t Fix It’: Reflections on Lydia Goehr’s ‘Work Concept’ and the Historical Integrity of Musical Composition”. Acta Musicologica 69: 94-104. Wigmore, Richard. 1992. Review of Mozart’s Symphonies nos. 39-41, conducted by Nikolaus Harnoncourt. Gramophone, May 1992: 40. Williams, Peter. 1983. “The Snares and Delusions of Music Rhetoric: Some Examples from Recent Writings on J. S. Bach”. In Reidemeister and Gutmann 1983: 230240. –––––. 1992. “Performance Practice Studies: Some Current Approaches to the Early Music Phenomenon”. In Paynter et al. 1992, II: 931-947. –––––. 2004. The Life of Bach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wimsatt, William K., and Monroe C. Beardsley. 1962. “The Intentional Fallacy”. In Joseph Margolis (ed.,), Philosophy Looks at the Arts: Contemporary Readings in Aesthetics (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons): 91-104. Wolff, Christoph. 1968. Der Stile Antico in der Musik Johann Sebastian Bachs: Studien zu Bachs Spätwerk. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. ––––– (editor and main contributor). 1983. The New Grove Bach Family. London: Macmillan. –––––. 1985. “The Kantor, the Kapellmeister and the Musical Scholar: Remarks on the History and Performance of Bach’s Mass in B Minor”. Notes to Gardiner 1985: 18-27. Translated by Mary Whittall. German original: “Kantorenmusik, Kapellmeisterstil und gelehrte Kunst: Anmerkungen zu Geschichte und Aufführungspraxis von Bachs h-moll-Messe” (ibid: 6-17). - 295 –––––. 1990. “Bach’s B Minor Mass: Historic Perspectives; Remarks on the edition” Notes to Brüggen 1989: 8-15. Translated by Mary Adams. German original: “Bachs h-moll-Messe: Geschichtlichen Perspektiven; Bemerkungen zur Edition” (ibid: 16-24). ––––––. 1991. Bach: Essays on his Life and Music. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. –––––. 1994. “‘Et Incarnatus’ and ‘Crucifixus’: The Earliest and Latest Settings of Bach’s B-Minor Mass”. In Mary Ann Parker (ed.), Eighteenth-Century Music in Theory and Practice: Essays in Honour of Alfred Mann (Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon Press): 1-17. –––––. 1995. Notes to Koopman 1994: 6-11 (German original), 16-21 (English translation by “Byword”). –––––. 1997. “Nachwort/Postface” to Study Score version of his edition of the B minor Mass (Frankfurt, Leipzig, London and New York: C. F Peters): 399-403 (German), 404-408 (English). ––––– (ed). 1998a. The New Bach Reader: A Life of Johann Sebastian Bach in Letters and Documents. London and New York: Norton. A revised and enlarged edition of The Bach Reader, ed. Hans T. David and Arthur Mendel (London and New York: Norton, 1972). –––––. 1998b. “Bach’s chorus: stomach aches may disappear!”. Early Music 26/3 (August 1998): 540-541. ––––– (ed.). 1999a. Die Gegenwart der musikalischen Vergangenheit: Meisterwerke in der Dirigenten-Werkstatt. Salzburg and Vienna: Residenz Verlag. –––––. 1999b. “Die Gegenwart der musikalischen Vergangenheit: Historischorientierte Aufführungspraxis vom Neoklassizismus zur Postmoderne – Eine Einleitung”. In Wolff 1999a: 9-20. –––––. 1999c. “Bach’s chorus: An Amplification”. Early Music 27/1 (February 1999): 172. –––––. 2000. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician. New York: Norton. –––––. 2003. “Bach, Johann Sebastian, §7-§21”. In Macy 2003. Wollny, Peter. 1993. “Mass In B minor”. Notes to Max 1992: 6-12 (German original),13-19 (English translation by Lionel Salter). Wood, Henry. 1938. My Life of Music. London: Gollancz. Woods, C., G. Luck, R. Brochard, F. Seddon and J. A. Sloboda (eds.). 2000. ICMPC 2000: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (Keele, UK, August 2000). CD-ROM. Keele: Keele University. - 296 Worbs, Hans Christoph. 1985. “Bach im Mittelpunkt: Die Neue Bach-Edition und die Edition Bach Leipzig im Vergleich”. Fono Forum 29/3 (March 1985): 20-25. Wörner, Roland. 2001. Karl Richter, 1926-1981 – Musik mit dem Herzen: Eine Dokumentation aus Anlass seines 75. Geburtstags. Munich: Panisken Verlag. Woss, Egon. 1987. Review of Harnoncourt 1986. Fono Forum, February 1987: 47. Yearsley, David. 2002. Bach and the Meanings of Counterpoint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zenck, Martin. 1997. “Bach reception: some concepts and parameters”. In Butt 1997a: 218-225. Discography Section 1: Recordings of the B minor Mass This section aims to list all complete commercial recordings of the B minor Mass. Additionally, it lists three incomplete recordings, and eight non-commercial recordings, which I consulted in the course of my research. The list contains 112 items, arranged chronologically by recording date. An alphabetical index can be found at the end of the dissertation. For the purpose of this discography, I defined “commercial recording” as a recording which has been available commercially at some point in time. This list therefore includes several recordings that were initially intended for broadcast, rather than commercial release, but which were subsequently published. Of these, I consulted only Enescu 1951, Richter 1969a and Giulini 1972. There is also one studio recording which was abandoned before the editing stage (Klemperer 1961). This list includes 33 recordings which I was not able to consult, yet for which I was able to obtain complete or partial details. These are marked by an asterisk (*). Non-commercial recordings are marked (~). With one exception (Rifkin 1997), these were recordings of BBC Radio 3 broadcasts, which I accessed at the British Library Sound Archive (BLSA). I therefore list their British Library (BL) shelf numbers in lieu of the recording catalogue number. When listing re-issued recordings, I endeavour to include at least one of the recording’s original catalogue numbers. By labelling one or more re-issues as “Copy/copies consulted”, I am stating that I only consulted the edition or editions cited under that rubric; by labelling one or more re-issues as “Additional copy/copies consulted”, I am stating that I also consulted the edition cited under “Original Catalogue number”. When I did not consult the original issue myself, I obtained the original catalogue numbers from the Schwann Catalogue (unless otherwise stated). Details on the size of ensembles are based on the recording liner notes, unless otherwise indicated. In three cases (Harnoncourt 1968, Gardiner 1985, Rilling 1999), the documentation explicitly states that, in several movements, only part of the ensemble was used. I am aware that this might be true of other recordings as well (for example, the size of the orchestra might have been reduced in some of the arias). - 297 - - 298 The term “soloists” refers to singers who, to the best of my knowledge, only took part in arias and duets. The term “concertists” refers to singers who took part in choruses, arias and duets alike. When the copies I consulted did not supply the names of the participating ensembles in the original language, I gave the names in English. *** Edward Bairstow 1926 (incomplete) Orchestra: The Royal Albert Hall Orchestra Continuo: organ Choir: Royal Choral Society Location and date of recording: Royal Albert Hall, London; April 24, 1926 Original catalogue number: HMV C1113-14, 1123, 1127. Copy consulted: Amphion PHI CD 138. Issued 1996. Annotation (in CD re-issue): Martin J. Monkman Special comments: Recorded at a complete live performance of the Mass. Recording includes the following movements: Gloria, Et in terra, Qui tollis, Patrem omnipotentem, Crucifixus, Sanctus, Osanna. The re-issue disc also includes works by Byrd, Gibbons, Bach, Silas and Bairstow played on the organ or directed by Bairstow. - 299 - Albert Coates 1929 Orchestra: London Symphony Orchestra Continuo: organ, harpsichord, piano Choir: Philharmonic Choir Soloists: Soprano 1: Elisabeth Schumann Soprano 2 & alto: Margaret Balfour Tenor: Walter Widdop Bass: Friedrich Schorr Location and date of recording: Kingsway Hall, London; March-May 1929 First catalogue number: HMV C 1710-1726. 34 sides. Issued 1929. Copies consulted: Pearl GEMM CDS 9900. 2 CDs. Issued 1991. Stradivardius STR 78004. 2 CDs. Issued 1994. Annotation: In Pearl re-issue: Alan Jefferson In Stradivardius re-issue: Alberto Cantoni Special comments: First complete recording. The Pearl re-issue is part of a set entitled “Elisabeth Schumann: The Complete Bach Recordings”. - 300 - Robert Shaw 1947 Orchestra: RCA Victor Orchestra Continuo: organ Choir: RCA Victor Chorale Soloists: Soprano 1: Anne McKnight Soprano 2: June Gardner Alto: Lydia Summers Tenor: Lucius Metz Bass: Paul Matthen Location and date of recording: Not specified. First catalogue number: RCA Victor LM 6100. 3 LPs. Issued c. 1947. Copy consulted: CD re-mastering prepared by the British Library Sound Archive (BL shelf number: 1CDR0003653). Annotation: Jules Herford & Robert Shaw Special comments: Last recording to be issued on 78 RPM, and first to be issued on LP. Günther Ramin 1950 (incomplete) Orchestra: Stadt- und Gewandhausorchester Leipzig Continuo: harpsichord, organ Choirs: Thomanerchor Leipzig (dir. Günther Ramin) Dresdner Kreuzchor (dir. Rudolf Mauersberger) Soloists: Soprano 1: Gertrud Birmele Soprano 2 & Alto: Lotte Wolf-Matthäus Location and date of recording: Thomas-Kirche, Leipzig; July 28, 1950 Original catalogue number: Cantate Dokumentation 640 223. Issued after 1950. Annotation: Walter Blankenburg Special comments: Recorded at a complete live performance of the Mass. Recording includes the following movements: First Kyrie, Christe, Second Kyrie, Cum sancto spiritu, Et expecto, Sanctus, Agnus dei, Dona nobis pacem. - 301 - Hermann Scherchen 1950 Orchestra: Wiener Symphoniker Continuo: organ Choir: Wiener Akademie Kammerchor Soloists: Soprano 1: Emmy Loose Soprano 2: Hilde Ceska Alto: Getrud Bugsthaler-Schuster Tenor: Anton Dermota Bass: Dr. Alfred Pöll Location and date of recording: Vienna, Mozartsaal; October 1950 First catalogue number: Westminster WL 50-37/38/39. 3 LPs. Issued 1951. Additional copy consulted: Universal Victor, Japan MVCW-14015-6. 2 CDs. Issued 1998. Annotation: In original LP: Edward Tatnall Canby In CD re-issue: Myriam Herpi Scherchen * Herbert von Karajan 1950 Orchestra: Wiener Symphoniker Choir: Wiener Singverein Soloists: Soprano: Elisabeth Schwarzkopf Alto: Kathleen Ferrier Tenor: Walther Ludwig Baritone: Alfred Pöll Bass: Paul Schöffler Location and date of recording: Musikvereinsaal, Vienna; June 15, 1950 Catalogue number: Foyer 2-CF 2022. 2 CDs. Special comments: Information from Towe 1991c: 273. - 302 - George Enescu 1951 Orchestra: Boyd Neel Orchestra Continuo: organ, harpsichord Choir: BBC Chorus (dir. Leslie Woodgate) Soloists: Soprano 1: Suzanne Danco Soprano 2 & Alto: Kathleen Ferrier Tenor: Peter Pears Bass: Bruce Boyce Location and date of recording: BBC Studio (London?); 17 July 1951 First catalogue number: BBC Legends BBCL 4008-7. 2 CDs. Issued 1998. Annotation: Yehudi Menuhin Special comments: This recording was broadcast on BBC Radio, but was not commercially issued until this CD re-mastering was issued. - 303 - Herbert von Karajan 1952 Orchestra: Orchester der Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Wien (choruses) Philharmonia Orchestra (arias and duets) Continuo: organ Choir: Chor der Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Wien Soloists: Soprano 1: Elisabeth Schwarzkopf Soprano 2 and Alto: Marga Höffgen Tenor: Nicolai Gedda Bass: Heinz Rehfuss Location and date of recording: Musikvereinsaal, Vienna (choruses) & London (arias and duets); October 26-November 5, 1952 First catalogue number: EMI-Angel 3500 C (35015-6-7). 3 LPs. Issued 1954. Additional copies consulted: EMI Réferences CHS 7 63505-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1990. EMI Classics 5 67207 2 5. 2CDs. Issued 1999. Also includes Christe, Laudamus, Qui sedes, Et in unum and Agnus dei from Karajan 1950. Annotation: In original LP: Walter Emery In 1990 CD re-issue: Lionel Salter (English), André Tubuef (French & German) In 1999 CD re-issue: Richard Osborne, Anthony Griffith * Alfred Federer 1953 Orchestra: Rhineland Symphony Orchestra Choir: Rhineland Symphony Chorus Soloists: Soprano: Heidrich Alto: Brunner Tenor: Bochner Bass: Kuntz First catalogue number: Regent 6000. 3 LPs. Issued 1953. Special comments: Information from Index to Record Reviews (1978: 82); Schwann Catalogue (June 1953 to September 1962). - 304 - * Hans Grischkat 1953 Orchestra: Pro Musica Orchestra, Stuttgart Choir: The Swabian Choral Singers Soloists: Soprano: Margot Guilleaum Soprano 2 & Alto: Hetty Plumacher Tenor: Werner Hohmann Bass: Horst Guenther First catalogue number: Vox PL8063. 3 LPs. Issued 1953. Special comments: Information from Gramophone (review by Alec Robertson; August 1953: 71-72); Index to Record Reviews (1978: 82-83). Fritz Lehmann 1953 Orchestra: Berlin Symphony Orchestra Continuo: organ, harpsichord (possibly alternating) Choir: Berlin Chamber Choirs Soloists: Soprano 1: Gunthild Weber Soprano 2 & Alto: Margherita de Ladi Tenor: Helmut Krebs Bass: Karl Wolfram Location and date of recording: Not specified. First catalogue number: Vanguard Bach Guild BG 527/28. 2 LPs. Issued 1953 or 1954. Annotation: Charles Sanford Terry (courtesy of Oxford University Press) Special comments: This recording was issued simultaneously by different companies under three catalogue numbers. These editions are also inconsistent in naming the orchestra and choir. The details cited above are those listed in the copy I consulted at the BLSA. For more details, see Towe 1991c: 54, 274. According to Index to Record Reviews (1978: 83), the earliest review appeared in January 1954, hence my assumption that the recording might have appeared in 1953. - 305 - * Anonymous c. 1955 Orchestra and Choir: The Cathedral Choir and Symphony Orchestra Soloists: Unnamed. Original catalogue number: Gramophone 20164/66 Special comments: Information from Towe 1991c: 54-55, 274. Kurt Thomas 1955 Orchestra: Collegium Musicum Orchestra [Frankfurt] Continuo: organ, harpsichord (possibly alternating) Choir: Choir of the Dreikönigskirche, Frankfurt Soloists: Soprano 1: Lisa Schwarzweller Soprano 2 & Alto: Lore Fischer Tenor: Helmut Kretzschmar Bass: Bruno Müller Location and date of recording: Not specified. First catalogue number: L’Oiseau Lyre OL 50094/96. 3 LPs. Issued 1955. Annotation: Not named. Special comments: According to Index to Record Reviews (1978: 83), the earliest review was published in December 1955. Hence it is possible that the sessions took place earlier in the same year. - 306 - * Günther Ramin 1956 Orchestra: Bavarian State Orchestra (or Orchestra of Bavaria) Choir: Teachers Choral Society (or Chorus of the Lehrergesangverein of Munich) Soloists: Soprano: Uta Graf Alto: Hertha Töpper Tenor: Gert Lutze Bass: Max Proebstl Location and date of recording: Munich, c. 1956 (live recording) First catalogue numbers: Concert Hall CHS1234/ Musical Masterpiece Society MMS 2021. 2 LPs. Issued 1956. Special comments: Information from Schwann Catalogue (September 1956 to June 1957); Index to Records Reviews (1978: 83); Towe 1991c: 51-52, 273; http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232-Rec2.htm. * Fritz Werner 1957 Orchestra: Pforzheim Chamber Orchestra Choir: Heinrich Schütz Chor, Heilbronn Soloists: Soprano 1: Ingeborg Reichelt Soprano 2: Elisabeth Fellner Alto: Renate Günther Tenor: Helmut Krebs Bass: Franz Kelch Location and date of recording: Lutheran church, Weisenberg-Wuettemberg; January 1957 First catalogue number: Musical Heritage Society MH(S) 614-16. 3 LPs. Issued 1964. Special comments: Information from Index to Record Reviews (1978: 83), American Record Guide (August 1985: 1147), http://www.bachcantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232-Rec2.htm - 307 - Eugen Jochum 1957 Orchestra: Symphonie-Orchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks Continuo: organ, harpsichord Choir: Chor des Bayerischen Rundfunks (dir. Kurt Prestel) Soloists: Soprano 1: Lois Marshall Soprano 2 & Alto: Hertha Töpper Tenor: Peter Pears Bass 1 (Quoniam): Kim Borg Bass 2 (Et in spiritum): Hans Braun Location and date of recording: Munich; December 1957 First catalogue numbers: Epic (S)C-6027/Fontana CFL1028-9. 2 LPs. Issued 1958. Copy consulted: Philips Duo 438 379-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1993. Annotation: In German LP release: Joachim von Hecker (Ehmann 1961: 14n) In CD re-issue: Robin Golding (English), Uwe Kraemer (German), Pierre Saby (French), Giovanni Bietti (Italian) Special comments: The CD notes describe this as a live recording, but I doubt if this was the case. On the CD, this recording of the B minor Mass is coupled with a 1965 recording of the Mass in F major, BWV 233, conducted by Kurt Redel. - 308 - Rudolf Mauersberger 1958 Orchestra: Staatskapelle Dresden Continuo: organ, harpsichord (alternating) Choir: Dresdner Kreuzchor Soloists: Soprano: Maria Stader Soprano 2 and Alto: Sieglinde Wagner Tenor: Ernst Haefliger Bass: Theo Adam Location and date of recording: Dresden Kreuzkirche; September-October 1958 First catalogue number: Eterna 8 20 074/76. 3 LPs. Issued c. 1960. Copy consulted: Berlin Classics 0091712BC. 2 CDs. Issued 1996. Annotation (in CD re-issue): Thomas Gerlich Special comments: Original catalogue number from Towe 1991c: 274. Index to Record Reviews does not mention this recording; Schwann only lists the CD reissue. No review in Fono Forum. It is not clear whether the catalogue number listed by Towe refers to the original 1960 release or to a later re-issue. * Fritz Münch 1958 Orchestra: Orchestre Municipale de Strasbourg Choir: Choeur de l'Église Saint-Guillaume Soloists: Soprano: Renée Defraiteur Alto: Lore Fischer Tenor: Helmut Kretschmar Bass: André Vessières Location and date of recording: The International Music Festival, Strasbourg, France, 1958 (live) First catalogue number: Decca 173.863/65. 3 LPs. Issued 1958. Special comments: Information from Towe 1991c: 44, 274. - 309 - Hans Grischkat 1959 Orchestra: Orchester des 35. Deutschen Bachfestes Continuo: organ Choir: Der Schwäbische Singkreis Soloists: Soprano (including Laudamus): Friederike Sailer Alto: Margarete Bence Tenor: Fritz Wunderlich Bass: Erich Wenk Location and date of recording: Probably Stuttgart, between July 1, 1958 and summer 1959 (source: http://www.andreas-praefcke.de/wunderlich/discography/massbm.htm) First catalogue number: Vox VBX7 (mono), STPL511283 (stereo). 3 LPs. Issued 1959. Additional copy consulted: Vox Unique VBX 7. 2 CDs. Issued 2003. Annotation: In original LP: Robert Cushman In CD re-issue: No annotation Special comments: Before obtaining the CD re-issue, I consulted a copy of the mono edition available at the BLSA. Denis Stevens (Gramophone, September 1959: 130-131) describes this as “the first stereo Mass in B minor”. Jochum 1957 is also a stereo recording, but apparently its stereo release post-dates Grischkat’s. - 310 - Hermann Scherchen 1959 Orchestra: Orchester der Wiener Staatsoper Continuo: organ Choir: Wiener Akademie Kammerchor Soloists: Soprano: Pierrette Alarie Soprano 2 and alto: Nan Merriman Tenor: Léopold Simoneau Bass: Gustav Neidlinger Location and date of recording: Vienna Konzerthaus, Mozartsaal; April & June 1959 First catalogue number: Westminster WST-304. 3 LPs. Issued 1960. Additional copy consulted: Deutsche Grammophon 471 253-2. 2 CDs. Issued 2002. Annotation (in CD re-issue): Eva Reisinger Special comments: The BLSA copy of the original LPs lacked liner notes. * Ifor Jones 1960 Orchestra: Bach Festival Orchestra, Bethlehem Choir: Bach Choir of Bethlehem Soloists: Soprano: Lois Marshall Alto: Eunice Alberts Tenor: John McCollum Bass: Kenneth Smith Location and date of recording: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; c. 1960 First catalogue number: Classical Record Library (S)RL 3623. 3 LPs. Issued 1962. Special comments: Information from Broder 1963b. - 311 - Robert Shaw 1960 Orchestra: Robert Shaw Orchestra Size: 29 players (division not specified) Continuo: organ Choir: Robert Shaw Chorale Size: 33 singers (division not specified) Soloists: Soprano 1: Saramae Endlich Soprano 2: Adele Addison Alto: Florence Kopleff Tenor: Mallory Walker Bass: Ara Berberian Location and date of recording: Manhattan Center, New York; June 6, 7, 9, 12-17, 1960 First catalogue number: RCM Victor LM 6157 (mono) LSC 6157 (stereo). 3 LPs. Issued 1961. Copy consulted: RCA Victor Living Stereo 09026 63529 2. 2 CDs. Issued 1999. Annotation: Philip L. Miller, Robert Shaw (reprinted in CD re-issue) Special comments: Information on ensemble size from Nathan Broder’s review (1963a: 38), confirmed by the apparent size of the ensemble in the photograph attached to the CD re-issue. Contrary to statements in several reviews, the soloists did not serve as concertists in the choral movements. The booklet provides a separate list of concertists, drawn from the choir. - 312 - * Walter Goehr c. 1960 Orchestra: Orchestra of the Philharmonic Society of Amsterdam Choir: Choir of the Philharmonic Society of Amsterdam Soloists: Soprano 1: Pierrette Alarie Soprano 2: Catherine Delfosse Alto: Grace Hoffman Tenor: Léopold Simoneau Bass: Heinz Rehfuss. Location and date of recording: “Recorded prior to 1960” (Index to Record Reviews, 1978: 83) First catalogue number: Vanguard SRV 216-17. 2 LPs. Issued c. 1967. Special comments: Information from Index to Record Reviews (1978: 83); http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232-Rec2.htm Karl Richter 1961 Orchestra: Münchener Bach-Orchester Continuo: organ Choir: Münchener Bach-Chor Soloists: Soprano 1: Maria Stader Soprano 2 & Alto: Hertha Töpper Tenor: Ernst Haefliger Baritone (Et in spiritum): Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau Bass (Quoniam): Kieth Engen Location and date of recording: Munich, Musikhochschule, February & April 1961 First catalogue number: Archiv Produktion ARC3177-79. 3 LPs. Issued 1961. Copy consulted: Archiv Produktion 427 155-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1989. Annotation: Georg von Dadelsen (reprinted in CD re-issue) - 313 - * Herbert von Karajan 1961 Orchestra: Wiener Philharmoniker Choir: Wiener Singverein Soloists: Soprano: Leontyne Price Soprano 2 & Alto: Christa Ludwig Tenor: Nicolai Gedda Baritone (Et in spiritum): Walter Berry Bass (Quoniam): Gérard Souzay Location and date of recording: Salzburg Festival; August 1961 (live) First catalogue number: Movimento Musica 03.012. 3 LPs. Issued mid-1980s. Special comments: Information from Towe 1991c: 51, 273. Otto Klemperer 1961 (incomplete) Orchestra: Philharmonia Orchestra Continuo: organ Choir: Philharmonia Chorus (dir. John McCarthy) Date and location of recording: Kingsway Hall, London; December 4-9, 1961. First catalogue number: Testament SBT 1138. 1 CD. Issued 1999. Annotation: Alan Sanders Special comments: Sessions intended for a complete recording of the Mass, subsequently abandoned. Includes the following movements: First Kyrie, Second Kyrie, Gloria, Et in terra, Gratias, Qui tollis, Credo, Patrem, Incarnatus, Crucifixus, Confiteor, Sanctus, Osanna, Dona nobis pacem. Also includes a rehearsal sequence. - 314 - Eugene Ormandy 1962 Orchestra: The Philadelphia Orchestra Continuo: organ, harpsichord Choir: The Temple University Chorus (dir. Robert E. Page) Soloists: Soprano 1: Eleanor Steber Soprano 2 and Alto: Rosalind Elias Tenor: Richard Verreau Bass: Richard Cross Location and date of recording: Philadelphia?, April 1962 (http://www.bachcantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232-Rec3.htm) First catalogue number: Columbia M3L 280 (mono), M3S 680 (stereo). 3 LPs. Issued 1963. Copy consulted: CBS 721114-72116. 3 LPs. Annotation: Extract from Tovey 1937 (in copy consulted) * Robert Shaw 1962 Orchestra: Robert Shaw Orchestra Choir: Robert Shaw Chorale Soloists: Soprano: Unknown Alto: Florence Kopleff Tenor: Seth McCoy Bass: Unknown Location and date of recording: Great Hall, Moscow Conservatory; 27 November 1962 First catalogue number: Melodya S10 26061. 3 LPs. Special comments: Information from Towe 1991c: 60, 275. - 315 - Anthon van der Horst 1964 Orchestra: Orchester der Niederländischen Bach-Vereinigung Continuo: organ Choir: Chor der Niederländischen Bach-Vereinigung Soloists: Soprano: Annete de la Bije Alto (and soprano 2?): Eilhelmine Matthés Tenor: Tom Brand Bass: David Hollestelle Location and date of recording: Not specified. First catalogue number: Telefunken Das Alte Werk AWT 9416-8. 3 LPs. Issued 1964. Annotation: Unknown (the BLSA copy I consulted lacked liner notes). Lorin Maazel 1965 Orchestra: Rundfunk-Symphonie-Orchester, Berlin Continuo: organ, harpsichord (alternating) Choir: Rias-Kammerchor (dir. Günther Arndt) Soloists: Soprano: Teresa Stich-Randall Soprano 2 & Alto: Anna Reynolds Tenor: Ernst Haefliger Bass: John Shirley-Quirk Location and date of recording: Berlin, September 1965 First catalogue number: Philips SPM3-581 (mono), SPS-3-981 (stereo). 3 LPs. Issued 1966. Copy consulted: Philips 426 657. 2 CDs. Issued 1990. Annotation (in CD re-issue): Andreas Glöckner (English, German, French), Christoph Wolff (Italian). Wolff’s notes are a translation of his notes to Brüggen 1989. Glöckner’s notes also appear in Schreier 1991. - 316 - Otto Klemperer 1967 Orchestra: New Philharmonia Orchestra Size: c. 35 players (division unspecified) Continuo: organ Choir: BBC Chorus (dir. Peter Gellhorn) Size: c. 50 singers (division unspecified) Soloists: Soprano 1: Agnes Giebel Soprano 2 and Alto: Janet Baker Tenor: Nicolai Gedda Baritone (Et in spiritum): Hermann Prey Bass (Quoniam): Franz Crass Location and date of recording: Kingsway Hall, London; September & October 1967 First catalogue number: EMI-Angel SC-3720. 3 LPs. Issued 1968. Copy consulted: EMI CMS 7 63364 2. 2 CDs. Issued 1990. Annotation: In LPs: Walter Emery In CD re-issue: Robin Golding (English & French), Ulrich Schreiber (German) Special comments: Emery’s notes are a reproduction of his notes for Karajan 1952. There also exists an unauthorised recording of one of the concerts that immediately preceded this recording, with the same cast (Hunt Productions HUNTCD 727; listed in Schwann-Opus, October 1990). - 317 - Nikolaus Harnoncourt 1968 Orchestra: Concentus Musicus Wien Continuo: organ Size: “Large orchestra” (4-4-2-2-1): First Kyrie; Second Kyrie; Gloria; Gratias; Cum sancto spiritu; Credo; Patrem; Et resurrexit; Et expecto; Sanctus; Osanna; Dona nobis Pacem; “Medium orchestra” (3-3-2-2-1): Et in unum; Crucifixus; “Small orchestra” (2-2-1-1-1): Christe; Laudamus; Domine deus; Qui tollis; Qui sedes; Et incarnatus; Agnus dei Choir: Wiener Sängerknaben & Chorus Viennensis (cond. Hans Gillesberger) Size: “Large choir” (10-10-8-6-8): First Kyrie; Second Kyrie; Gratias; Sanctus (up till Pleni); Dona nobis Pacem; “Medium choir” (6-5-5-4-4): Gloria (alternating with small); Qui tollis; Cum sancto spiritu (alternating with small); Credo; Patrem; Et resurrexit (alternating with small); Confiteor; Et expecto (alternating with small); Pleni sunt coeli (alternating with small); Osanna (alternating with small); “Small Choir” (4-3-3-3-3): Et incarnatus; Crucifixus Soloists: Soprano 1: Rotraud Hansmann Soprano 2: Emiko Liyama Alto: Helen Watts Tenor: Kurt Equiluz Bass: Max van Egmond Location and date of recording: Casino Zögernitz, Vienna; April & May 1968 First catalogue number: Telefunken Das Alte Werk 3-Tel. SKH-20. 3 LPs. Issued 1968. Additional copy consulted: Teldec Das Alte Werk 4500-95517-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1994. Annotation: Nikolaus Harnoncourt (abridged version reprinted in CD re-issue) Special comments: “First Recording with Original Instruments According to the Autograph”. - 318 - * Karl Richter 1968 Orchestra: Munich Bach Orchestra Choir: Munich Bach Choir Soloists: Soprano 1: Ursula Buckel Soprano 2 & Alto: Hertha Töpper Tenor: Ernst Haefliger Bass: Peter van der Bilt Location and date of recording: Great Hall, Moscow Conservatory; 17 April 1968 Catalogue number: Melodyia LP issued 1984. Ars Nova Ars 005/6. 2 CDs. Year of release unknown. Special comments: Information from http://www.jsbach.org/masslive.html; http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232-Rec3.htm; Wörner 2001: 158 - 319 - Karl Richter 1969a Orchestra: Münchener Bach-Orchester Continuo: organ Choir: Münchener Bach-Chor Soloists: Soprano 1: Ursula Buckel Soprano 2 & Alto: Marga Höffgen Tenor: Ernst Haefliger Bass: Ernst-Gerold Schramm Location and date of recording: Main Auditorium of the Bunka-Kaikan, Tokyo; 9 May 1969. First catalogue number: Archiv Produktion 453 242-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1996. Copy consulted: Discs 9 and 10 of the boxed set “Bach: Sacred Masterpieces” (see p. 372 below); Archiv Produktion 463 701-2 (10 CDs). Issued 2000. Annotation: Georg von Dadelsen (reprint of his notes to Richter 1961). 2000 boxed set also includes a note on Karl Richter by Karl Schumann. Special comments: Live recording by NHK (Japanese Television). In “Bach: Sacred Masterpieces”, the recording is marked “P 1985”. However, Deutsche Grammophon’s website lists October 1996 as the date of the first CD release. Perhaps this refers to the European release, whereas 1985 refers to an earlier Japanese release. - 320 - Karl Richter 1969b Film director: Arne Arnbom Orchestra: Münchener Bach-Orchester Continuo: organ Choir: Münchener Bach-Chor Soloists: Soprano: Gundula Janowitz Soprano 2 & Alto: Hertha Töpper Tenor: Horst Laubenthal Bass: Hermann Prey Location and date of recording: Klosterkirche Dießen, Ammersee; September 1969 First catalogue number: Unitel (no catalogue number). Release date unknown. Copy consulted: Video recording from a 1990s broadcast on ZDF. Special comments: Information (in addition to credits included on film) from http://www.unitel.de/ucatalog/concert/61_3.htm; Wörner 2001: 129. - 321 - Karl Münchinger 1970 Orchestra: Stuttgarter Kammerorchester Continuo: organ Choir: Wiener Singakademiechor (dir. Xaver Meyer); see, however, special comments below. Soloists: Soprano 1: Elly Ameling Soprano 2: Yvonne Minton Alto: Helen Watts Tenor: Werner Krenn Bass: Tom Krause Location and date of recording: Sofiensaal, Vienna; May 1970 First catalogue number: London 1287. 2 LPs. Issued 1971. Copy consulted: Double Decca 440 609-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1994. Annotation: Unknown (LP); Clifford Bartlett (CD; a reprint of his notes to Solti 1990) Special comments: According to Anton Schönauer from Wiener Singakademie (quoted on http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232-Rec3.htm), the choir in this recording was not the Wiener Singakademie, but a group assembled especially for this recording. The group’s director, however, was Xaver Meyer, the Akademie’s Assistant-Director at the time. This mistake, if such it is, was apparently present on the original LPs (see, for example, Index to Record Reviews, 1978: 84), as well as the CD re-issue I consulted. - 322 - * Michel Corboz 1972 Orchestra: Ensemble Instrumental de Lausanne Choir: Ensemble Vocal de Lausanne Soloists: Sopranos: Yvonne Perrin, Wally Staempfli Mezzo: Magali Schwarz Alto: Claudine Perret Tenor: Olivier Dufour Baritone: Philippe Huttenlocher Bass: Niklaus Tüller First catalogue number: Erato STU70715-7 (Gramophone, December 1972: 1181), Musical Heritage Society MHS-1708-10 (Index to Record Reviews, 1978: 84). 3 LPs. Issued 1972. Special comments: Division of solos between female soloists not specified. An Erato 1990 re-issue, held at the BLSA and purporting to present this recording (with the erroneous recording date February 1982), is actually a re-issue of Corboz 1979. Carlo Maria Giulini 1972 Orchestra: New Philharmonia Orchestra Continuo: organ Choir: New Philharmonia Chorus (director not specified) Soloists: Soprano: Jenny Hill Soprano 2 & Alto: Janet Baker Tenor: Peter Pears Bass: John Shirley-Quirk Location and date of recording: St. Paul’s Cathedral, London; 10 July 1972 First catalogue number: BBC Legends BBCL 4062-2. 2 CDs. Issued 2001. Annotation: Richard Osborne Special comments: This recording was broadcast on BBC Radio, but was not commercially available until this CD re-mastering was issued. - 323 - Herbert von Karajan 1974 Orchestra: Berliner Philharmoniker Continuo: organ Choir: Wiener Singverein (dir. Helmut Forschauer) Soloists: Soprano 1: Gundula Janowitz Soprano 2 & Alto: Christa Ludwig Tenor: Peter Schreier Baritone: Robert Kerns Bass: Karl Ridderbusch Location and date of recording: Philharmonie, Berlin; September & November 1973, January 1974 First catalogue number: Deutsche Grammophon 2709049. 3 LPs. Issued 1974. Copy consulted: Deutsche Grammophon 459 460-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1999. Annotation: Hans-Elmar Bach (also reprinted in CD re-issue) Johannes Somary 1974 Orchestra: English Chamber Orchestra Continuo: organ Choir: Amor Artis Chorale Soloists: Soprano 1: Felicity Palmer Soprano 2 & Alto: Helen Watts Tenor: Robert Tear Bass: Michael Rippon Location and date of recording: Conway Hall, London; 1973 or 1974 First catalogue number: Vanguard VSD-71190-92. 3 LPs. Issued 1974. Additional copy consulted: Vanguard Classic – The Bach Guild ATM-CD-1242. 2 CDs. Issued 2003. Annotation: In original LP: J. Merill Knapp In CD re-issue: Charles Sanford Terry (excerpts from Terry 1924) - 324 - * Hermann Aschenbach 1976 Orchestra: Heidelberger Kammerorchester Choir: Tübinger Kantatenchor Soloists: Soprano: Charlotte Lehmann Alto: Sabine Kircher Tenor: Raimund Gilvan Bass: Edmund Illerhaus First catalogue number: Oryx 3-CMS-Oryx 1108/10. 3 LPs. Issued 1976. Special comments: Information from Schwann Catalogue June 1976-June 1980; http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232-Rec4.htm Helmuth Rilling 1977 Orchestra: Bach-Collegium Stuttgart Continuo: organ Choir: Gächinger Kantorei Stuttgart Soloists: Soprano: Arleen Auger Soprano 2 & Alto: Julia Hamari Tenor: Adalbert Kraus Bass: Siegmund Nimsgern Location and date of recording: Stuttgart; April 1977 First catalogue number: CBS 79 307. 3 LPs. Issued 1977. Copies consulted: CBS Maestro M2YK 45615. 2 CDs. Issued c. 1985 CBS Odyssey MB2K 45615. 2 CDs. Issued 1989. Annotation (in 1985 re-issue): Georg von Dadelsen (German), Denis Arnold (English) Special comments: In the 1985 re-issue, Dadelsen’s notes are marked ©1977; I therefore assume they were part of the original LP. However, it is possible that the LPs were originally issued in German only: my source for their catalogue number is Bollert 1977. Thus, Arnold’s notes might have been commissioned especially for the 1985 CD re-issue. - 325 - Neville Marriner 1977 Orchestra: Academy of St. Martin-in-the-Fields. Continuo: organ Choir: Chorus of St. Martin-in-the-Fields (dir. Laszlo Heltay) Soloists: Soprano 1: Margaret Marshall Soprano 2 & Alto: Janet Baker Tenor: Robert Tear Bass: Samuel Ramey Location and date of recording: London; November 1977 First catalogue number: Philips 6769002. 3 LPs. Issued 1978. Copy consulted: Philips 416 415-2. 2 CDs. Release date unknown; no later than 1986 (year of Gramophone review). Annotation (in CD re-issue): Hermann Rauhe. Possibly a reprint of LP notes. * Karl-Friedrich Beringer 1978 Orchestra: Amadeus Orchester Neuendettelsau Choir: Amadeus Chor Neuendettelsau Soloists: Soprano: Gerda Hagner Alto: Ingeborg Ruß Tenor: Aldo Baldin Bass: Manfred Volz First catalogue number: Rondeau AC 2905 7701/1-3. 3 LPs. Issued 1978. Special comments: Information from Blum 1978. - 326 - ~ Andrew Parrott 1979 Orchestra: Taverner Orchestra Continuo: organ Choir: Taverner choir Size: 36 singers (division unspecified) Concertists: Soprano 1: Emma Kirkby Soprano 2: Judith Nelson Alto: Catherine Denley Tenor: Neil Jenkins Bass: David Thomas Location and date of recording: St. John’s Smith Square, London; 1979 BL shelf number: T3469BW-T3ER70BW R1-R2. Special comments: BBC Radio 3 broadcast of a concert from the 1979 Early Music Centre Festival. Michel Corboz 1979 Orchestra: Ensemble Instrumental de Lausanne Continuo: organ Choir: Ensemble Vocal de Lausanne Soloists: Soprano 1: Rachel Yakar Soprano 2: Jennifer Smith Alto: Brigit Finnila Tenor: Anthony Rolfe-Johnson Baritone: Philippe Huttenlocher Bass: José van Dam Location and date of recording: Temple de Lutry, Switzerland; October 1979 First catalogue number: Erato STU71314. 3 LPs. Issued 1980. Copy consulted: 0630-13732-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1996. Annotation (in CD re-issue): Catherine Steinegger Special comments: Coupled with Magnificat, on both LP and CD. - 327 - Eugen Jochum 1980 Orchestra: Symphonie-Orchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks Continuo: organ, harpsichord Choir: Chor des Bayerischen Rundfunks (dir. Josef Schmidhuber) Soloists: Soprano 1: Helen Donath Soprano 2 & Alto: Brigitte Fassbaender Tenor: Claes H. Ahnsjö Baritone: Roland Hermann Bass: Robert Holl Location and date of recording: Herkulessaal, Munich, March & April 1980 First catalogue number: EMI-Angel DS-3904. 3 LPs. Issued 1980. Copy consulted: EMI Double Forte 5 68640 2. 2 CDs. Issued 1995. Annotation (in CD re-issue): David Ashman Peter Schreier 1982 Orchestra: Neues Bachisches Collegium Musicum, Leipzig Continuo: organ Choir: Rundfunkchor Leipzig Soloists: Soprano: Lucia Popp (incl. Laudamus) Alto: Carolyn Watkinson Tenor: Eberhard Büchner Bass: Theo Adam Location and date of recording: Paul-Gerhardt-Kirche, Leipzig; November 1981, February 1982 First catalogue number: Ariola-Eurodisc 301 077-445. 3 LPs. Issued 1983. Copies consulted: Eurodisc 610089. 2 CDs. Issued 1984. Berlin Classics 002123BC. 2 CDs. Issued 1997. Annotation: Erich Valentin (Eurodisc CDs, German only), Peter Rümenapp (Berlin Classics CD) - 328 - Joshua Rifkin 1982 Orchestra: The Bach Ensemble Continuo: organ Size: Strings 2-2-1-1-1 Concertists: Soprano 1: Judith Nelson Soprano 2: Julianne Baird Altos: Jeffrey Dooley; Drew Minter (in Sanctus, Osanna & Dona nobis) Tenors: Frank Hoffmeister; Edmund Brownless (in Osanna & Dona Nobis) Basses: Jan Opalach; Andrew Walker Schultze (in Osanna & Dona Nobis) Location and date of recording: Rutgers Presbyterian Church, New York; 31 December 1981 – 11 January 1982 First catalogue number: Nonesuch D79036. 2 LPs. Issued 1982. Additional copies consulted: Nonesuch 9 79036-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1980s. Annotation: Joshua Rifkin Special comments: “First recording in the original version” * Joachim Carlos Martini 1984 Orchestra: Florilegium Musicum Rotterdam, Trompetenensemble Friedemann Immer Choir: Junge Kantorei Soloists: Soprano: Barbara Schlick Alto: Hilke Helling Tenor: John Elwes Bass: Harry van der Kamp Location and date of recording: Rotterdam (?), December 1983-January 1984 (http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232-Rec5.htm) First catalogue number: MD + GL 3146/47. 2 CDs. Issued 1984. Annotation: Joachim Carlos Martini (according to Messmer 1984) - 329 - Andrew Parrott 1984 Orchestra: The Taverner Players Size: Strings 3-3-2-2-1 Continuo: organ Concertists: Soprano 1: Emma Kirkby Soprano 2: Emily van Evera Altos (Members of the Tölzer Knabenchor): Panito Iconomou (including Qui sedes and Agnus dei); Christian Immler (including Et in unum); Michael Kilian (choruses only) Tenor: Rogers Covey-Crump Bass: David Thomas Ripienists (& *concertists in Osanna): The Taverner Consort (Tessa Bonner & Twig Hall, sopranos; *Mary Nichols, alto; * Nicolas Robertson, tenor; *Simon Grant, bass) Location and date of recording: St. John Smith’s Square, London; 4-5 & 10-15 September, 1984 First catalogue number: EMI Reflexe 7 47293 8. 2 CDs. Issued 1985. Additional Copy consulted: Virgin Veritas 5 61337 2. 2 CDs. issued 1996. Annotation: Hugh Keyte, Andrew Parrott (EMI); Mark Audus (Virgin) - 330 - John Eliot Gardiner 1985 Orchestra: English Baroque Soloists Size: Strings 4-4-3-2-1 (+ 1 additional player in each section for Sanctus, Osanna and Dona nobis pacem) Continuo: organ, harpsichord Choir: Monteverdi Choir Size: 5-5-4-5-5 (+ 1 additional 1st soprano, 2nd soprano, tenor and bass, and 2 additional altos, for Sanctus, Osanna and Dona nobis pacem) Concertists: Soprano: Nancy Argenta (including Laudamus, Domine deus); Lynne Dawson (including Christe eleison); Carol Hall (including Christe eleison); Patrizia Kwella (including Et in unum); Jane Fairfield, Jean Knibbs (choruses only) Alto: Mary Nichols (including Et in unum); Michael Chance (including Qui sedes, Agnus dei); Ashley Stafford, Patrick Collin (choruses only) Tenor: Wynford Evans (including Benedictus); Howard Milner (Domine deus); Andrew Murgatroyd (choruses only) Bass: Stephen Varcoe (including Quoniam); Richard Lloyd Morgan (including Et in spiritum) Location and date of recording: All Saints’ Church, Tooting, London; February 1985 First catalogue number: Archiv Produktion 415 514-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1985. Annotation: Christoph Wolff - 331 - Gustav Leonhardt 1985 Orchestra: La Petite Bande Size: Strings 4-3-2-2-1 Continuo: organ Choir: Collegium musicum van de Nederlandse Bachvereiniging Soloists: Soprano 1: Isabelle Poulenard Soprano 2: Guillemette Laurens Alto: René Jacobs Tenor: John Elwes Bass 1 (Quoniam): Harry van der Kamp Bass 2 (Et in spiritum): Max van Egmond Location and date of recording: Haarlem; 13-19 February 1985 First catalogue number: EMI/Deutsche Harmonia Mundi CDC16951-8. 2 CDs. Issued 1985. Copy consulted: Deutsche Harmonia Mundi Editio Classica GD77040. 2 CDs. Issued 1990. Annotation: Walter Blankenburg Special comments: I also listened to a BLSA taping of a BBC broadcast of a performance by the same conductor, orchestra and soloists, but recorded at the Kornelimünster in Aachen. The choir is listed as the Amsterdam Bach Choir, which might still refer to the same ensemble. There were no significant interpretive differences between the two recordings. - 332 - * Helmut Kahlhöfer 1985 Orchestra: Members of the Bamberger Symphoniker Choir: Kantorei Barmen-Gemarke Soloists: Soprano: Mitsuko Shirai Alto: Hildegard Laurich Tenor: Karl Markus Bass: Andreas Schmidt Location of recording: February 1985 First catalogue number: Kantorei Barmen-Gemarke (no number). Issued 1985? Special comments: Information from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232Rec5.htm, http://www.kantorei-barmen-gemarke.wtal.de/CD-Aufnahmenneu/CD-Aufnahmen-neu.html#Bestellung - 333 - Nikolaus Harnoncourt 1986 Orchestra: Concentus Musicus Wien Size: strings 6-6-4-3-21 Continuo: organ Choir: Arnold-Schönberg-Chor (dir. Erwin G. Ortner) Soloists: Soprano 1: Angela Maria Blasi Soprano 2: Delores Ziegler Alto: Jadwiga Rappe Tenor: Kurt Equiluz Bass: Robert Holl Location and date of recording: Konzerthaus, Vienna; April 1986 First catalogue number: Teldec Das Alte Werk 6.35716. 2 CDs. Issued 1986. Additional copy consulted: Teldec Das Alte Werk 2292-42676-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1995. Annotation: Nikolaus Harnoncourt interviewed by Manfred Wagner (original issue) Wolf-Eberhard von Lewinski, Matthew Gurewitsch (1995 re-issue) Special comment: Recording date and venue not provided in documentation; information taken from http://users.libero.it/enrico.gustav/Harnoncourt/Barocco.htm. 1 The booklet names 12 violinists; I assumed equal distribution between the two sections. - 334 - * Alois Ickstadt 1987 Orchestra: Collegium Instrumentale Alois Kottmann Choir: Figuralchor Frankfurt (dir. Rolf Beck) Soloists: Soprano: Ulrike Sonntag Alto: Alison Browner Tenor: Adalbert Kraus Bass: Ernst-Gerold Schramm Location and date of recording: May 1987 First catalogue number: Melisma 7023-2. 2 CDs. Issued c. 1999. Special comments: Information from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232Rec5.htm and http://www.melisma.de. Philippe Herreweghe 1988 Orchestra: Orchestra of the Collegium Vocale, Ghent Size: Strings 5-4-2-2-12 Continuo: organ Choir: Chorus of the Collegium Vocale, Ghent Size: 4-3-4-5-5 Soloists: Soprano 1: Barbara Schlick Soprano 2: Catherine Patriasz Alto: Charles Brett Tenor: Howard Crook Bass: Peter Kooy Location and date of recording: Minderbroederskerk, Ghent; April 1988 First catalogue number: Virgin Veritas VCD 7 90757-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1989. Annotation: Mark Audus, Philippe Herreweghe 2 The booklet names 9 violinists; I assumed a larger first violin section. - 335 - Helmuth Rilling 1988a Orchestra: Stuttgarter Kammerorchester Size: Strings 5-4-4-3-1 Continuo: organ Choir: Gächinger Kantorei Stuttgart Size: 8-8-13-11-113 Soloists: Soprano: Ulrike Sonntag Soprano 2 & Alto: Marjana Lipovšek Tenor: Howard Crook Bass: Andreas Schmidt Location and date of recording: Kirche der Karlshöhe, Ludwigsburg; May 1988 First catalogue number: Intercord INT 885 855. 2 CDs. Issued 1988. Annotation: Ulrich Prinz * Helmuth Rilling 1988b Orchestra: Stuttgarter Kammerorchester Choir: Gächinger Kantorei Stuttgart Soloists: Soprano: Arleen Augér Alto: Anne Sophie von Otter Tenor: Aldo Baldin Bass: Wolfgang Schöne Date of recording: 1988 First catalogue number: Platz PLLC 5004/5005. 2 CDs. Special comments: Information from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232Rec5.htm, http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~hippo/musik/title/bach_bwv232.html. 3 The booklet names 16 sopranos; I assumed equal distribution between the two sections. - 336 - Jörg Straube 1988 Orchestra: Camerata Hannover Size: Strings 4-4-3-2-1 Continuo: organ Choir: Norddeutscher Figuralchor Soloists: Soprano 1: Olivia Blackburn Soprano 2: Regina Jakobi Alto: Ulla Groenewold Tenor: Christoph Prégardien Bass: Carl-Heinz Müller Location and date of recording: Marktkirche SS. Georgii et Jacobi, Hannover; 1988 First catalogue number: Thorofon DCTH 2081/82. Issued 1988. Annotation: Thomas Seedorf Frans Brüggen 1989 Orchestra: Orchestra of the 18th Century Size: Strings 6-5-3-3-24 Continuo: organ Choir: Netherlands Chamber Choir Size: 5-5-6-6-6 Soloists: Soprano (incl. Laudamus): Jennifer Smith Alto: Michael Chance Tenor: Nico van der Meel Bass: Harry van der Kamp Location and date of recording: Vredenburg, Utrecht; March 1989 (live) First catalogue number: Philips 426 238-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1990. Annotation: Christoph Wolff 4 The booklet names 11 violinists; I assumed a larger first violin section. - 337 - ~ Gustav Leonhardt 1989 Orchestra: La Petite Bande Choir: Cantata (dir. Julian Clarkson) Soloists: Soprano 1: Greta de Rheyghere Soprano 2: Guillemette Laurens Alto: Michael Chance Tenor: John Elwes Bass: Max van Egmond Location and date of recording: St. John’s Smith Square, London; August 1989 BL shelf number: B5734/19 ~ John Eliot Gardiner 1989 Orchestra: English Baroque Soloists Continuo: organ, harpsichord Choir: Monteverdi Choir Concertists: Soprano 1: Nancy Argenta Soprano 2: Catherine Robbin Alto: Michael Chance Tenor: Anthony Rolfe-Johnson Bass: Stephen Varcoe Location and date of recording: Royal Albert Hall, London; September 6, 1989 BL shelf number: B4683/03 - 338 - Anders Eby 1990 Orchestra: Drottningholm Baroque Ensemble Size: Strings 6-5-3-2-1 Continuo: organ Choir: Mikaeli Chamber Choir Size: 7-7-9-8-11 Soloists: Soprano 1: Christina Högman Soprano 2 & Alto: Monica Groop Tenor: Howard Crook Bass: Petteri Salomaa Location and date of recording: St. John’s Church, Stockholm; January 22-24, 1990 First catalogue number: Proprius PRCD 9070/1. 2 CDs. Issued 1992. Annotation: Per-Erik Brolinson Georg Solti 1990 Orchestra: Chicago Symphony Orchestra Continuo: organ Choir: Chicago Symphony Chorus (dir. Margaret Hillis) Soloists: Soprano 1: Felicity Lott Soprano 2 & Alto: Anne Sofie von Otter Tenor: Hans Peter Blochwitz Baritone (Et in spiritum): William Shimell Bass (Quoniam): Gwynne Howell Location and date of recording: Orchestra Hall, Chicago; 25, 26 & 28 January 1990 (live) First catalogue number: Decca 430 353-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1991. Annotation: Clifford Bartlett - 339 - Robert Shaw 1990 Orchestra: Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Continuo: organ Choir: Atlanta Chamber Chorus Soloists: Soprano 1: Sylvia McNair Soprano 2: Delores Ziegler Alto: Marietta Simpson Tenor: John Aler Baritone: William Stone Bass: Thomas Paul Location and date of recording: Symphony Hall, Atlanta, Georgia; March 5-7, 1990 First catalogue number: Telarc CD-80233. 2 CDs. Issued 1990. Annotation: Nick Jones Erwin Ortner 1990 Orchestra: Salzburger Barockensemble Continuo: organ Choir: Arnold Schoenberg Chor5 Soloists: Soprano: Maria Venuti Soprano 2 & Alto: Cornelia Kallisch Tenor: Christoph Prégardien Bass: Anton Scharinger Location and date of recording: Musikverein, Vienna; April 1990 (live) First catalogue number: Koch Schwann SCH 312512. 2 CDs. Issued 1994. Copy consulted: Koch Schwann Musica Mundi 3-6757-2. 2 CDs. Issued 2000. Annotation (in 2000 re-issue): Carl de Nys 5 The spelling here is different from the spelling employed by Teldec in Harnoncourt 1986; the choir is, of course, the same choir. The spelling employed here is also the one used on the choir’s website. - 340 - * Sergiu Celibidache 1990 Orchestra: Munich Philharmonic Orchestra Choir: Bach Choir of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (dir. Joshard Daus) Soloists: Soprano: Barbara Bonney Mezzo-soprano: Ruxandra Donose Danila Alto: Cornelia Wulkopf Tenor: Peter Schreier Baritone: Yaron Windmiller Bass: Anton Scharinger Location and date of recording: Munich; November 1990 First catalogue number: Exclusive EXL CD 33 (Schwann-Opus, Winter 1993-1994); EX92T33/34 (http://www.jsbach.org/sergiu.html). 2 CDs. Issued c. 1993. Special comments: Information on http://www.jsbach.org/sergiu.html cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232-Rec5.htm. date and of recording from http://www.bach- Peter Schreier 1991 Orchestra: Staatskapelle Dresden Continuo: organ Choir: Rundfunkchor Leipzig (dir. Gert Frischmuth) Soloists: Soprano 1: Arleen Auger Soprano 2: Ann Murray Alto: Marjana Lipovšek Tenor: Peter Schreier Bass: Anton Scharinger Location and date of recording: Lukaskirche Dresden; January 1991 First catalogue number: Philips 432 972-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1992. Annotation: Andreas Glöckner - 341 - Christian Brembeck 1992 Orchestra: Capella Istropolitana Continuo: organ Choir: Slovak Philharmonic Choir (dir. Jan Rozehnal) Soloists: Soprano 1: Friedrike Wagner Soprano 2: Faridah Schäfer-Subrata Alto: Martina Koppelstetter Tenor: Markus Schäfer Bass: Hartmut Elbert Location and date of recording: Moyzes Hall, Bratislava; 9-19 February 1992 First catalogue number: Naxos 8.550585-6. 2 CDs. Issued 1992. Annotation: Keith Anderson Hanns-Martin Schneidt 1992 Orchestra: Münchener Bach-Orchester Continuo: organ Choir: Münchener Bach-Chor Soloists: Soprano: Annegeer Stumphius Soprano 2 & Alto: Cornelia Kallisch Tenor: Robert Wörle Bass: Andreas Schmidt Location and date of recording: Philharmonie im Gasteig, Munich; March 21, 1992 (live) First catalogue number: Calig CAL 50929/30. 2 CDs. Issued 1994. Annotation: Dietz-Rüdiger Moser - 342 - Richard Hickox 1992 Orchestra & Choir: Collegium Musicum 90 Orchestra size: Strings 4-4-2-2-1 Continuo: organ, harpsichord Choir size (eight parts): 4-4-3-2-3-2-3-3 Soloists: Soprano (incl. Laudamus): Nancy Argenta Alto: Catherine Denley Tenor: Mark Tucker Bass: Stephen Varcoe Location and date of recording: St. Jude’s Church, London; 11-13 & 15-16 June 1992 First catalogue number: Chandos Chaconne CHAN 0533. 2 CDs. Issued 1992. Annotation: Nicholas Anderson Hermann Max 1992 Orchestra: Das kleine Konzert Continuo: organ Choir: Rheinische Kantorei Soloists: Soprano 1: Veronika Winter Soprano 2: Johanna Koslowsky Alto: Kai Wessel Tenor: Markus Brutscher Bass 1 (Et in spiritum): Hans-Georg Wimmer Bass 2 (Quoniam): Stephan Schreckenberger Location and date of recording: Zeughaus, Neuss; 1-6 June 1992 First catalogue number: Capriccio 60 033 2. 2 CDs. Issued 1993. Annotation: Peter Wollny - 343 - Jeffrey Thomas 1992 Orchestra & Choir: American Bach Soloists Orchestra size: Strings 3-3-3-2-1 Continuo: organ Choir size: 5-5-4-5-5 Concertists: Soprano 1: Julianne Baird (Christe, Et in unum); Nancy Zylstra (Domine deus) Soprano 2: Judith Nelson Alto: Zoila Muňoz (Qui sedes); Steven Rickards (Et in unum); Jennifer Lane (Agnus dei) Tenor: Patrick Romano (Domine deus); Jeffrey Thomas (Benedictus) Bass: James Weaver (Quoniam); William Sharp (Et in spiritum) Location and date of recording: St. Stephen’s Church, Belvedere, California; June 1518, 1992 First catalogue number: Koch International Classics 3-7194-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1992. Annotation: Kristi Brown-Montesano, Jeffrey Thomas - 344 - René Jacobs 1992 Orchestra: Akademie für alte Musik, Berlin Size: Strings 6-6-4-3-26 Continuo: organ Choir: RIAS-Kammerchor (dir. Marcus Creed) Soloists (and concertists in Qui tollis, Incarnatus and Resurrexit): Soprano 1: Hillevi Martinpelto Soprano 2 (and Agnus dei): Bernarda Fink Alto: Axel Köhler Tenor: Christoph Prégardien Baritone (Et in spiritum): Matthias Görne Bass (Quoniam): Franz-Josef Selig Location and date of recording: Jesus-Christus-Kirche, Berlin-Dahlem; September 1992 First catalogue number: Berlin Classics BC 1063-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1993. Annotation: Dietmar Hiller 6 The booklet names 12 violinists; I assumed equal distribution between the two sections. - 345 - Eric Ericsson 1992 Orchestra: Drottningholm Baroque Ensemble Size: Strings 5-4-2-2-1 Continuo: organ Choir: Eric Ericson Chamber Choir Size: 6-6-9-8-97 Soloists: Soprano 1: Barbara Bonney Soprano 2 & Alto: Monica Groop Tenor: Klas Hedlund Bass: Gunnar Lundberg Location and date of recording: Berwald Hall, Stockholm; 7-8 November 1992 (live) First catalogue number: Vanguard Classics 99044/45. 2 CDs. Issued 1993. Annotation: None 7 The booklet names 12 sopranos; I assumed equal distribution between the two sections. - 346 - Ton Koopman 1994 Orchestra: Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra Size: Strings 4-4-2-2-18 Continuo: organ Choir: Amsterdam Baroque Choir (dir. Simon Schouten) Size: 6-5-5-5-69 Soloists: Soprano (incl. Laudamus): Barbara Schlick Alto: Kai Wessel Tenor: Guy de Mey Bass: Klaus Mertens Location and date of recording: Wallonne Church, Amsterdam; March & May 1994 First catalogue number: Erato 4509-98478-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1995. Annotation: Christoph Wolff 8 The booklet names 8 violinists; I assumed equal distribution between the two sections. 9 The booklet names 11 sopranos; I assumed a larger first soprano section. - 347 - Harry Christophers 1994 Orchestra: Orchestra of the Sixteen Size: Strings 5-4-2-2-110 Continuo: organ, harpsichord, theorbo Choir: The Sixteen Size: 4-4-6-6-611 Soloists: Soprano 1: Catherine Dubosc Soprano 2: Catherine Denley Alto: James Bowman Tenor: John Mark Ainsley Bass: Michael George Location and date of recording: St. Augustines, Kilburn, London; April 1994 First catalogue number: Collins Classics 70322. 2 CDs. Issued 1994. Annotation: Simon Heighes 10 The booklet names 9 violinists; I assumed a larger first violin section. 11 The booklet names 8 sopranos; I assumed equal distribution between the two sections. - 348 - Carlo Maria Giulini 1994 Orchestra: Symphonie-Orchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks Continuo: organ12 Choir: Chor des Bayerischen Rundfunks (dir. Michael Gläser) Soloists: Soprano 1: Ruth Ziesak Soprano 2: Roberta Alexandra Alto: Jard Van Nes Tenor: Keith Lewis Bass: David Wilson-Johnson Location and date of recording: Herkulessaal, Munich; June 2 & 3, 1994 (live) First catalogue number: Sony Classical S2K 66 354. 2 CDs. Issued 1994. Annotation: Helge Grünewald Karl-Friedrich Beringer 1994 Orchestra: Deutsche Kammerakademie Neuss & Trompetenensemble Läubin Continuo: organ Choir: Windsbacher Knabenchor Soloists: Soprano 1: Christine Schäfer Soprano 2 & Alto: Ingeborg Danz Tenor: Markus Schäfer Bass: Thomas Quasthoff Location and date of recording: Münster zu Heilsbronn; July 18-23 1994 First catalogue number: Hänssler CD 98.959. 2 CDs. Issued 1994. Copy consulted: Hänssler Classic Masterpieces Collection 94.036. 2 CDs. Issued 2001. Annotation: Norbert Bolin (available in PDF format from Hänssler’s website: www.haenssler-classic.de) 12 The booklet names two organists – one on “organ”, one on “organ positive”. - 349 - * Zdeněk Košler Orchestra: Czech National Symphony Orchestra Choir: Kühn Mixed Choir (dir. Pavel Kühn) Soloists: Soprano: Zdena Kloubová Alto: Marta Beňačková Tenor: Jörg Dürmüller Bass: Peter Mikuláš Location and date of recording: Rudolfinum, Prague; September 1994 (live) First catalogue number: ICN 020. 2 CDs. Special comments: Information from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232Rec6.htm, http://www.icn-cnso.cz/cd_en.html * Gerald Kegelmann 1994 Orchestra: Accademia Filarmonica Köln & Trompetenensemble Friedemann Immer Choir: Heidelberger Madrigalchor Soloists: Soprano: Veronika Winter Alto: Kai Wessel Tenor: Dantes Diwiak Bass: Raimund Nolte Location and date of recording: Evangelischen Kirche Walldorf, November 12, 1994; Peterskirche Heidelberg, November 13, 1994 (live) First catalogue number: Heidelberger Madrigalchor; no catalogue number. 2 CDs. Issued c. 1995. Special comments: Information from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232Rec6.htm, http://www.heidelberger-madrigalchor.de. - 350 - ~ Frans Brüggen 1995 Orchestra: The English Chamber Orchestra Choir: Tallis Chamber Choir Soloists: Soprano 1: Lynne Dawson Soprano 2: Lorna Anderson Alto: Derek Lee Ragin Tenor: John Mark Ainsley Bass: Michael George Location and date of recording: Barbican Hall, London; March 1995 BL shelf number: H5025/1 * Paul Kuentz 1995 Orchestra: Paul Kuentz Chamber Orchestra Choir: Paul Kuentz Choir Soloists: Soprano: Hèléne Obadia Alto: Madeleine Jalbert Tenor: Adrian Brand Bass: Paul Gay Date of recording: November 1995 First catalogue number: Pierre Verany PV 730060. 2 CDs. Issued 1996. Special comments: Information from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232Rec6.htm, http://www.cdmail.fr/napv.asp (the Pierre Verany website). - 351 - Kurt Redel c. 1995 Orchestra: Orchestra of the Brunswick-Hanover Bach Festival Continuo: organ, harpsichord (possibly alternating) Choir: Chorus of the Brunswick-Hanover Bach Festival Soloists: Not named. Location and date of recording: Not specified. First catalogue number: Cirrus CRSCD 227. 2 CDs. Issued 1996. Annotation: Robert Matthew-Walker Special comments: Listed here as c. 1995 on the assumption that the recording was issued shortly after the sessions. However, this is not necessarily the case. Valentin Radu 1995 Orchestra & Choir: Ama Deus Ensemble Orchestra size: Strings 3-2-2-1-1 Continuo: harpsichord Choir size: 2-2-4-4-413 Soloists: Soprano (incl. Laudamus): Julianne Baird Alto: Lorie Gratis Tenor: David Gordon Bass: Kevin Deas Location and date of recording: Chapel at Valley Forge Military Academy, Wayne, Pennsylvania; September 1-2, 1995. First catalogue number: Vox Classics 2 7524. 2 CDs. Issued 1996. Annotation: Donna & Valentin Radu 13 The booklet names 4 sopranos; I assumed equal distribution between the two sections. - 352 - ~ Nicholas McGegan 1996 Orchestra: BBC National Orchestra of Wales Choir: BBC National Chorus of Wales Soloists: Soprano: Susannah Waters Alto: Catherine Robbin Tenor: Mark Tucker Bass: David Thomas Location and date of recording: St David’s Hall, Cardiff; April 1996 BL shelf number: H6976/2 Philippe Herreweghe 1996 Orchestra: Orchestra of the Collegium Vocale Size: 4-4-3-2-114 Continuo: organ Choir: Chorus of the Collegium Vocale Size: 4-4-5-5-5 Soloists: Soprano 1: Johanette Zomer Soprano 2: Véronique Gens Alto: Andreas Scholl Tenor: Christoph Prégardien Bass 1 (Et in spiritum): Peter Kooy Bass 2 (Quoniam): Hanno Müller-Brachmann Location and date of recording: Abbaye aux Dames, Saintes; July 1996 First catalogue number: Harmonia Mundi France HMC 901614.15. 2 CDs. Issued 1998. Copy consulted: Harmonia Mundi Bach Edition HMC 2951614.15. 2 CDs. Issued 1999. Annotation: Alberto Basso 14 The booklet names 8 violinists; I assumed equal distribution between the two sections. - 353 - * Michel Corboz 1996 Orchestra: Lausanne Instrumental Ensemble Choir: Lausanne Vocal Ensemble Soloists: Soprano: Sandrine Piau Alto: Bernarda Fink Tenor: Markus Schäfer Bass: Marcos Fink Date of recording: September 1996 First catalogue number: Aria Music 970901. 2 CDs. Issued c. 1999. Special comments: Information from American Record Guide, November/December 1999: 86-87; http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232-Rec6.htm Robert King 1996 Orchestra: The King’s Consort Size: Strings 6-7-4-2-2 Continuo: organ Choir: Tölzer Knabenchor, dir. Gerhard Schmidt-Gaden (soprano & alto); The Choir of the King’s Consort (tenor & bass) Size: 7-7-9-6-615 Concertists (members of the Tölzer Knabenchor): Sopranos: Matthias Ritter (Christe, Domine deus, Et in unum); Manuel Mrasek (Christe, Laudamus, Qui sedes) Altos: Matthias Schloderer (Et in unum); Maximilian Fraas (Agnus dei) Soloists: Tenor: Anthony Rolfe-Johnson Bass: Michael George Location of recording: 27 September – 2 October 1996 First catalogue number: Hyperion CDA67201/2. 2 CDs. Issued 1997. Annotation: Robert King 15 The booklet names 14 sopranos; I assumed equal distribution between the two sections. - 354 - Thomas Hengelbrock 1996 Orchestra: Freiburger Barockorchester Continuo: organ Size: Strings 5-4-3-2-1 Choir: Balthasar-Neumann-Chor Size: 6-5-6-5-516 Concertists: Sopranos: Gundula Anders (Christe); Mona Spägele (Laudamus); Ursula Fiedler (Domine deus, Et in unum) Altos: Jürgen Bahnholzer (Qui sedes, Et in unum); Bernhard Landauer (Christe) Tenors: Hermann Oswald (Domine deus); Knut Schoch (Benedictus) Basses: Johannes Happel (Et in spiritum); Stephan McLeod (Quoniam) Location and date of recording: Evangelische Kirche Gönningen; 4-10 October 1996 First catalogue number: Deutsche Harmonia Mundi 05472 77380 2. 2 CDs. Issued 1997. Annotation: Jens Markowsky, Thomas Hengelbrock Special comments: This performance was prepared in conjunction with staged performances of the B minor Mass given at the 1996 Schwetzingen Festival and at the City of Bonn Opera House by the Freyer Ensemble. The choreography was prepared jointly by Achim Freyer and Thomas Hengelbrock. The production was staged and broadcast, but I have not been able to obtain a copy. 16 The booklet names 11 sopranos; I assumed a larger first soprano section. - 355 - ~ Sigiswald Kuijken 1997 Orchestra: La Petite Bande Choir: Namur Chamber Choir Soloists: Soprano 1: Greta de Reyghere Soprano 2: Marijke van Arnhem Alto: James Bowman Tenor: Jean-Paul Fouchécourt Bass: Geert Smits Location and date of recording: De Singel Concert Hall, Antwerp, Belgium; March 24, 1997 BL shelf number: H8692/1 ~ Joshua Rifkin 1997 Orchestra: The Bach Ensemble Continuo: organ Concertists: Soprano 1: Susanne Rydén Soprano 2: Tone M. Wik Altos: Steven Rickards, Andreas Schmidt (in Sanctus, Osanna & Dona nobis) Tenors: John Elwes, Florian Mock (in Osanna & Dona Nobis) Basses: Michael Schopper, Peter Tilch (in Osanna & Dona Nobis) Location and date of recording: Regensburg Festival; 18 May, 1997 (live) Special comments: A copy of a private recording of this performance was provided to me by Bernard Sherman, with kind permission from Joshua Rifkin. - 356 - Greg Funfgeld 1997 Orchestra: Bach Festival Orchestra Continuo: organ17 Size: Strings 6-5-4-2-218 Choir: Bach Choir of Bethlehem Size (eight parts): 14-21-18-14-11-6-16-8 Soloists: Soprano 1: Tamara Matthews Soprano 2: Rosa Lamoreaux Alto: Marietta Simpson Tenor: Frederick Urrey Baritone (Et in spiritum): William Sharp Bass (Quoniam): Daniel Lichti Location and date of recording: First Presbyterian Church, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; May 1997 First catalogue number: Dorian DOR-90253. 2 CDs. Issued 1998. Annotation: Robin Leaver * Wolfgang Kläsener 1997 Orchestra: Berlin Baroque Choir: Kettwiger Bach-Ensemble Soloists: Soprano: Leonore von Falkenhausen Alto: Ursula Eittinger Tenor: Christoph Wittmann Bass: Thomas Bauer Location and date of recording: Kreuzeskirche Essen; 15 June 1997 (live) First catalogue number: Kettwiger Bach-Ensemble, no catalogue number. 2 CDs. Issued c. 1997. Special comments: Information from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232Rec6.htm; http://www.kettwig.de/vereine/kettwiger-vokalmusik/index.html 17 The booklet names two organists – one on “organ”, one on “portative organ”. 18 The booklet names 11 violinists; I assumed a larger first violin section. - 357 - Diego Fasolis 1997 Orchestra: Sonatori de la Gioiosa Marca Size: Strings 3-3-2-2-1 Continuo: organ Choir: Coro della Radio Svizzera Size: 2-2-6-6-619 Soloists: Soprano 1: Roberta Invernizzi Soprano 2: Lynne Dawson Alto: Gloria Banditelli Tenor: Christoph Prégardien Bass: Klaus Mertens Location and date of recording: Cattedrale di San Lorenzo, Lugano, Switzerland; June 3, 1997 First catalogue number: Arts Authentic 47525-2. 2 CDs. Issued 1998. Annotation: Martina Hochreiter 19 The booklet names 4 sopranos; I assumed equal distribution between the two sections. - 358 - ~ Trevor Pinnock 1997 Orchestra: The English Concert Choir: Choir of the English Concert Continuo: organ, harpsichord Soloists: Soprano: Susan Chilcot Alto: Catherine Wyn-Rogers Tenor: John Mark Ainsley Bass: Gerald Finley Location and date of recording: Royal Festival Hall, London; August 6, 1997 BL shelf number: H9098/2 Joshard Daus 1998 Orchestra: Münchner Symphoniker Continuo: organ, harpsichord (possibly alternating) Choir: Bach-Ensemble der EuropaChorAkademie Soloists: Soprano 1: Hellen Kwon Soprano 2 & Alto: Hedwig Fassbaender Tenor: Peter Straka Baritone (et in spiritum): Wolfgang Newerla Bass (Quoniam): Peter Lika Location and date of recording: Philharmonie im Gasteig, Munich; October 17, 1998 (live) First catalogue number: Arte Nova Classics 47321 63632 2. 2 CDs. Issued 1998. Annotation: Kerstin Siegrist - 359 - * Anders Öhrwall 1998 Orchestra: Drottningholm Baroque Ensemble Choir: Stockholm Bach Choir Soloists: Soprano 1: Christina Högman Soprano 2: Paula Hoffman Alto: Paul Esswood Tenor: Stefan Parkman Bass: Lars Arvidson Location and date of recording: Adolf Frederick Church, Stockholm; October 1998 First catalogue number: Swedish Society SCD 1092-93. 2 CDs. Issued c. 1998. Special comments: Information from http://w1.864.telia.com/~u86410273/bachkoren/index-e.htm (the Stockholm Bach Choir’s website); http://www.jsbach.org/massohrwall.html; http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232-Rec6.htm. * Helmut Winschermann 1998 Orchestra: Deutsche Bachsolisten Choir: Okayama Bach Kantaten Verein (dir. Masatoshi Sasaki) Soloists: Soprano: Barbara Schlick Alto: Bernhard Landauer Tenor: Masatoshi Sasaki Bass: Katsunori Kono Location and date of recording: Japan; 22 November 1998 (live) First catalogue number: Live Notes WWCC-7341/2. 2 CDs. Issued c. 1998. Special comments: Information from http://www.bernhard-landauer.at/disco2.html (Bernhard Landauer’s website), http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232Rec6.htm. - 360 - Claudio Abbado 1999 Orchestra: Solisten der Berliner Philharmoniker Size: Strings 4-4-3-3-2 Continuo: organ Choir: Swedish Radio Chorus (dir. Maria Wieslander) Soloists: Soprano 1: Véronique Gens Soprano 2 & Alto: Anne Sofie von Otter Tenor: Charles Workman Bass 1 (Et in spiritum): Simon Keenlyside Bass 2 (Quoniam): Franz-Josef Selig Location and date of recording: Großes Festspielhaus, Salzburg; March 29 and April 4 1999 (live) First catalogue number: Universal 109 374-2. 2 CDs. Issued 2002. Annotation: Klemens Hippel Special comments: This recording has not yet been commercially issued. The CDs were distributed to patrons of the Salzburg Easter Festival. I obtained my copy through the Salzburg Festival Press Office. - 361 - Helmuth Rilling 1999 Orchestra: Bach-Collegium Stuttgart Size: Strings 6-5-4-3-220 Continuo: organ Choir: Gächinger Kantorei Stuttgart Size: 6-6-6-6-6 Soloists: Soprano 1: Sibylla Rubens Soprano 2: Juliane Banse Alto: Ingeborg Danz Tenor: James Taylor Bass 1 (Et in spiritum): Andreas Schmidt Bass 2 (Quoniam): Thomas Quasthoff Location and date of recording: Stadthalle Sindelfingen; March 1999 First catalogue number: Hänssler Edition Bachakademie, vol. 70 (CD 92.070). 2 CDs. Issued 1999. Annotation: Helmuth Rilling, Andreas Bomba 20 Rilling (1999: 28) cites this as the “maximum size”; “where suitable, we reduced the instrumentation to comply with the structure of a specific movement”. - 362 - Martin Pearlman 1999 Orchestra & Choir: Boston Baroque Orchestra size: Strings 6-5-3-3-1 Continuo: organ Choir size: 4-4-8-6-621 Soloists: Soprano 1: Nicole Heaston Soprano 2: Theodora Hanslowe Alto: Ellen Rabiner Tenor: Mark Tucker Bass: Nathan Berg Location and date of recording: Mechanics Hall, Worcester, Massachusetts; May 1619, 1999 First catalogue number: Telarc 2CD-80517. 2 CDs. Issued 2000. Annotation: Martin Pearlman * Michaela Prentl 1999 Orchestra: Barockorchester La Banda Choir: Chorgemeinschaft St. Sebastian Soloists: Soprano: Marina Ulewicz Alto: Martha Jane Howe Tenor: Johannes Klügling Bass: Christian Immler Location and date of recording: St. Sebastian, Munich (?); December 5, 1999 (live) First catalogue number: Chorgemeinschaft St. Sebastian CD 05. 2 CDs. Issued 2000. Special comments: Information from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232Rec6.htm, http://www.chor-muenchen.de. 21 The booklet names 8 sopranos; I assumed equal distribution between the two sections. - 363 - Georg Christoph Biller 2000 Orchestra: Gewandhaus Orchester Leipzig Continuo: organ Choir: Thomanerchor Leipzig Soloists: Soprano: Ruth Holton Soprano 2 & Alto: Matthias Rexroth Tenor: Christoph Genz Bass: Klaus Mertens Location and date of recording: Thomaskirche, Leipzig; 28 July 2000 (live) First catalogue number: Philips 465 949-2. 2 CDs. Issued 2001. Annotation: Georg Christoph Biller, Martin Petzoldt, Stefan Altner Special comments: The recording, in a concert commemorating the 250th anniversary of Bach’s death, attempts to reconstruct a liturgical performance through the inclusion of “propers” for Whitsun used in Leipzig in Bach’s lifetime. Also available on DVD (Image Entertainment ID0667EIDVD). * Enoch Zu Guttenberg 1999 Orchestra: Orchester de KlangVerwaltung München Choir: Chorgemeinschaft Neubeuern Soloists: Soprano: Anna Korondi Alto: Iris Vermillion Tenor: Deon van der Walt Baritone: Dietrich Henschel Bass: Albert Dohmen Location and date of recording: Wieskirche, Bavaria; 1999 First catalogue number: Arthaus Musik 100 116. DVD. Issued 1999. - 364 - Seiji Ozawa 2000 Orchestra: Saito Kinen Orchestra Continuo: organ Choir: Tokyo Opera Singers (dir. Peter Dijkstra) Soloists: Soprano 1: Barbara Bonney Soprano 2 & Alto: Angelika Kirschlager Tenor: John Mark Ainsley Bass: Alastair Miles Location and date of recording: Naganoken Matsumoto Bunko Kaikan, Japan; 29 August – 4 September 2000 First catalogue number: Philips 468 363-2. 2 CDs. Issued 2001. Annotation: Robin Golding * Theodor Holthoff 2000 Orchestra: Kammerphilharmonie Kaiserpfalz Choir: Domkantorei Paderborn Soloists: Soprano: Jutta Potthoff Alto: Gerhild Romberger Tenor: Michael Nowak Bass: Ulf Bästlein Location and date of recording: April 2000 First catalogue number: Musicom; no catalogue number or issue date supplied. Special comments: Information from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232Rec6.htm - 365 - * Mark Mast 2000 Orchestra: L'arpa festante Barockorchester München Choir: Studio Vocale Kalrsruhe (dir. Werner Pfaff) Concertists drawn from the choir. Location and date of recording: May 2000 First catalogue number: Triptychon 3003 00. 2 CDs. Issued 2002. Special comments: Information from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232Rec6.htm; http://www.studio-vocale-karlsruhe.de/ * Takashi Uematsu 2002 Orchestra: Nagoya Bach Orchestra Choir: Gifu Bach-Choir Soloists: Soprano: Sawako Ogino Alto: Tamiko Ohashi Tenor: Tohru Yuhba Bass: Koichi Hayashi Location and date of recording: Salamanca Hall, Gifu, Japan; 30 November, 2002 Special comments: Available for listening on the web; http://handel.ge.gifuu.ac.jp/GBC/Live33_e.html - 366 - Konrad Junghänel 2003 Orchestra: Cantus Cölln Size: 2-1-1-1-122 Concertists: Sopranos: Johanna Koslowsky (incl. Christe, Laudamus); Mechthild Bach (incl. Domine deus); Monika Mauch (incl. Et in unum); Susanne Rydén (incl. Christe) Altos: Elisabeth Popien (incl. Qui sedes, Agnus dei); Henning Voss (incl. Et in unum) Tenors: Hans-Jörg Mammel (incl. Benedictus); Wilfried Jochens (incl. Domine deus) Basses: Stephan Schreckenberger (incl. Et in spiritum); Wolf-Matthias Friedrich (incl. Quoniam) Location and date of recording: St. Osdag, Neustadt-Mandelsohn; February 2003 First catalogue number: Harmonia Mundi HMC 901813.14. 2 CDs. Issued 2003. Annotation: Peter Wollny * Ryuichi Higuchi 2003 Orchestra and choir: Chorus & Orchestra of the Bach Akademie Meiji Gakuin Tokyo Soloists: Soprano 1: Yukie Ohkura Soprano 2: Michiko Hayashi Alto: Chicko Teratani Tenor: Jiro Takano Bass: Tetsuya Uno Date of recording: March 29, 2003 First catalogue number: BAMG 0004/0005. 2 CDs. Issued 2003. Special comments: Information from http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV232Rec8.htm, http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~hippo/musik/title/bach_bwv232.html. 22 The booklet names 3 violinists; I assumed a larger first violin section. Section 2: Recordings of other works In this section, I list all the Bach recordings (other than the Mass) cited in Part One of the main text. The previous section aimed to present the history of the Mass on record, and to provide a reference list for the recordings I consulted. This section, on the other hand, functions only as an aid to the reader of this dissertation, and makes no claim to present a systematic corpus of recordings. Therefore, it is arranged by the chapters in the dissertation where these recordings are cited or discussed. Where the dissertation discusses a conductor’s overall approach to Bach, this discography lists all his recordings of Bach’s vocal music I consulted. For all other musicians, the discography lists only those recordings directly cited in the main text. Fuller information on most of the recordings cited here – including names of soloists and recording dates for individual cantatas – can be found on www.bachcantatas.com. By using the extensive discographies on that website, readers can judge the extent to which the recordings I consulted are representative of the overall discography for a given performer or work. The discographies on this site do not, however, include catalogue numbers or dates of original release and re-issue. All recordings are complete and in the original language, unless otherwise indicated. *** For chapter 2 Matthäus-Passion: Harvard Glee Club & The Radcliffe Choral Society, Boston Symphony Orchestra/ Serge Koussevitzky. In English. Recorded 1937. 3 CDs; Rockport Records RR5012/4 (issued 2000). Toonkonst Chor & Concertgebouw Orchestra, Amsterdam/ Willem Mengelberg. Abridged. Recorded 1939. 2 CDs; Philips Duo 462 871-2 (issued 1999). Thomanerchor & Gewandhausorchester, Leipzig/ Günther Ramin. Abridged. Recorded 1941. 2 CDs; Preiser Records 90228 (issued 1994). - 367 - - 368 The Bach Choir, Jacques Orchestra/ Reginald Jacques. Abridged, in English. Recorded in 1947-1948. 3 CDs; Dutton Laboratories 2CDAX 2005 (issued 1999). The Westminster Choir & Junior Choirs of the Pius X School of Liturgical Music, New York Philharmonic Orchestra/ Bruno Walter. Part 1, abridged; in English. Recorded 1943 or 1945. 2 CDs; Phonographe PH 5031/32 (issued 1995).1 Wiener Akademiechor, Wiener Symphoniker/ Hermann Scherchen. Recorded 1953. 3 CDs; Universal Millennium Classics UMD 80470 (issued 1998). Wiener Sängerknaben, Wiener Singakademie, Wiener Philharmoniker/ Wilhelm Furtwängler. Abridged. Recorded 1954. 2 CDs; EMI 5 65509-2 (issued 1995). Leith Hill Musical Festival Chorus and Orchestra/ Ralph Vaughan Williams. Abridged; in English. Recorded 1958. 2 CDs; Pearl GEMS 0079 (issued 2000). Boys of Hampstead Parish Church Choir, Philharmonia Orchestra & Choir/ Otto Klemperer. Recorded 1961. 3 CDs; EMI CMS 7 63058 2 (issued 1989). Boys’ Choir of the Church of the Transfiguration, The Collegiate Chorale, New York Philharmonic/ Leonard Bernstein. Abridged; in English. Recorded 1962. 2 CDs; Sony Classical SM2K 60727 (issued 1999). Boys’ Chorus of St. Willibrord’s, Amsterdam; Netherlands Radio Chorus, Concertgebouw Orchestra/ Eugen Jochum. Recorded 1965. 3 CDs; Philips 420 900-2 (date of issue unspecified). 1 The Phonograph re-issue does not name the choir or the orchestra, and gives the recording date as 1943. Another re-issue, by Minerva, gives the date as April 1945, and provides the fuller details listed above. For more information, see http://www.geocities.com/walteriana76/BWrecordsB.htm and http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Vocal/BWV244-Walter.htm. - 369 - For chapter 3 1. Leipzig Thomaskantors My discussion of the Leipzig school is based primarily on volumes 1-4 of Edel Classic’s series “Bach Made in Germany” series (issued 1999). All recordings feature the Thomanerchor and Gewandhaus Orchestra, Leipzig, unless otherwise indicated.2 Vol. 1: Günther Ramin (1940-1956) Leipzig Classics 001800 2BC. 12 CDs: Disc 1: Cantatas BWV 36, 65 (recorded 1952), 57 (recorded 1951). Disc 2: Cantatas BWV 41 (recorded 1950), 73 (recorded 1954), 111 (recorded 1953). Disc 3: Cantatas BWV 72 (recorded 1956), 144 (recorded 1952), 92 (Recorded 1954). Disc 4: Cantatas BWV 67 (recorded 1954), 42 (recorded 1953), 103 (recorded 1951). Disc 5: Cantatas BWV 12 (recorded 1947), 128 recorded 1953), 43 (recorded 1951). Disc 6: Cantatas BWV 117 (recorded 1949), 177 (recorded 1954), 24 (recorded 1952). Disc 7: Cantatas BWV 179 (recorded 1950), 137, 138 (recorded 1953). Disc 8: Cantatas BWV 51 (recorded 1948), 95 (recorded 1952), 79 (recorded 1950). Disc 9: Cantatas BWV 131 (recorded 1952), 106, 119 (recorded 1953). Discs 10-11: Johannes-Passion (recorded 1954). Disc 12: Organ works (BWV 565, 540, 545), played by Günther Ramin at the organ of the Thomaskirche (recorded 1948, 1950). Vol. 2: Kurt Thomas (1956-1960) Leipzig Classics 001812 2BC. 8 CDs: Disc 1: Cantatas BWV 4 (recorded 1959), 11, 68 (recorded 1960). Disc 2: Cantatas BWV 59, 51; Magnificat, BWV 243 (recorded 1959). Disc 3: Cantatas BWV 54, 82, 56 (recorded 1959). Disc 4: Cantatas BWV 111, 140 (recorded 1960), 71 (recorded 1959). 2 For details of Ramin’s recording of the Matthäus-Passion, see p. 367 above. - 370 Disc 5: Motets, BWV 225-230 (recorded 1958-1959). Discs 6-8: Weihnachts-Oratorium (recorded 1958). Vol. 3: Erhard Mauersberger (1960-1972) Leipzig Classics 001819 2 BC. 5 CDs: Discs 1: Cantatas BWV 18, 62 (recorded 1967), 78 (recorded 1970). Disc 2: Cantatas BWV 80, 140 (recorded 1966), 55 (recorded 1968). Discs 3-5: Matthäus-Passion. Dresden Kreuzchor & Thomanerchor Leipzig, Gewandhaus Orchestra/ Rudolf Mauersberger (choruses), Erhard Mauersberger (arias). Recorded 1970. Vol. 4: Hans-Joachim Rotzsch (1972-1991) Leipzig Classics 001833 2BC. 11 CDs: Disc 1 (with Neues Bachisches Collegium Musicum): Magnificat, BWV 243; Cantata BWV 10 (recorded 1978). Disc 2 (with Neues Bachisches Collegium Musicum): Cantatas BWV 172, 68 (recorded 1981), 1 (recorded 1981-1983). Disc 3 (with Neues Bachisches Collegium Musicum): Cantatas BWV 4, 184 (recorded 1981), 14 (recorded 1984). Disc 4 (with Neues Bachisches Collegium Musicum): Cantatas BWV 137 (recorded 1981-1982), 21 (recorded 1981-1983). Disc 5: Cantatas BWV 173a, 173 (recorded 1974), 26 (recorded 1977). Disc 6: Cantatas BWV 29, 119 (recorded 1974). Disc 7: Cantatas BWV 106 (recorded 1975), 31, 66 (recorded 1976). Disc 8 (with Neues Bachisches Collegium Musicum): Cantatas BWV 140 (recorded 1981-1983), 61, 36 (recorded 1980-1981). Disc 9 (with Neues Bachisches Collegium Musicum): Cantatas BWV 110 (recorded 1981-1983), 40, 71 (recorded 1980-1981). Disc 10 (with Neues Bachisches Collegium Musicum): Cantatas BWV 79, 80 (recorded 1981-1982), 50 (recorded 1980-1981). Disc 11: Cantata BWV 198 (recorded 1975). - 371 - 2. Karl Richter Bach: Cantatas (Telefunken) Cantatas BWV 137, 140: Münchener Bach-Chor, Members of the Orchestra of Münchener Staatsoper. Recorded 1957. Copy Consulted: Decca Eclipse reissue, ECSR729 (issued 1973). “Mono recording electronically reprocessed to give stereo effect on stereo equipment”. Cantatas BWV 67, 108, 127: Münchener Bach-Chor, Members of the Orchestra of the Münchener Staatsoper. Recorded 1958. Copy consulted: Teldec Das Alte Werk 9031-77614-2 (issued 1992). Bach: Cantatas (Archiv) Archiv Produktion 439 368-2 (issued 1993). 26 CDs. This set encompasses most of the cantatas which Richter recorded for Archiv Produktion. It is constructed around a cycle of cantatas arranged according to the church year, which Richter began recording in July 1970 (Wörner 2001: 130). Earlier recordings were inserted into liturgically appropriate slots. In two cases (BWV 51 and BWV 26), the producers of the re-issue series omitted a recording made for the cycle, and replaced it with an earlier recording. All recording feature the Münchener BachChor. Cantatas BWV 8, 45, 78, and 147 feature the Solistengemeinschaft der BachWoche Ansbach; all others feature the Münchener Bach-Orchester. The re-issued series is divided into five volumes, along the same lines as the 1970s LP series: Vol. 1: Cantatas for Advent and Christmas, BWV 65, 124 (recorded 1967), 82 (recorded 1968), 61, 132, 63, 121, 64, 28, 171, 58, 13, 111, 81 (recorded 19701971). 4 CDs. Vol. 2: Cantatas for Easter, BWV 108 (recorded 1967), 1, 4 (recorded 1968), 158 (recorded 1969), 92, 126, 23, 182, 6, 67, 14, 12, 87 (recorded 1973-1974). 5 CDs. Vol. 3: Cantatas for Ascension Day, Whitsun and Trinity, BWV 147 (recorded 1961), 21 (recorded 1969), 11, 44, 34, 68, 175, 129, 39, 76, 135, 24, 30, 93, 10 (recorded 1973-1975). 6 CDs. Vol. 4: Cantatas for Sundays after Trinity, BWV 45, 51, 8 (recorded 1959), 78 (recorded 1961), 199 (recorded 1971-1972), 9, 187, 178, 105, 102, 179, 137, 33, 17, 100, 27, 148 (recorded 1976-1978). 6 CDs. - 372 Vol. 5: Cantatas for Sundays after Trinity, BWV 55 (recorded 1959), 60 (recorded 1964), 26, 106 (recorded 1966), 56 (recorded 1969), 96, 5, 180, 38, 115, 139, 116, 70, 140, 130, 80 (recorded 1975-1978). 5 CDs. Bach: Sacred Masterpieces Archiv Produktion 463 701-2; issued 2000. 10 CDs: Discs 1-3: Matthäus-Passion. Recorded 1958. Discs 4-5: Johannes-Passion. Recorded 1964. Discs 6-8: Weihnachts-Oratorium; Magnificat, BWV 243. Recorded 1965, 1961 (Magnificat). Discs 9-10: Mass in B minor. See Discography, section 1, under “Richter 1969a” (p. 319 above). Other recordings Johannes-Passion. Recorded 1970 (Wörner 2001: 132). Film production for ZDFUnitel (dir. Arne Arnbom). Copy consulted: Video recording from a 1990s ZDF broadcast. Further details on: http://www.unitel.de/ucatalog/concert/61_1.htm Matthäus-Passion. Recorded 1971 (Wörner 2001: 133). Film production for ZDFUnitel (dir. Hugo Käch). Copy consulted: Video recording from a 1990s ZDF broadcast. Further details on: http://www.unitel.de/ucatalog/concert/61_2.htm. Matthäus-Passion. Recorded 1978. 3 CDs; Archiv Produktion 413 613-2 (date of issue not listed). - 373 - 3. Helmuth Rilling Early recordings In the 1960s, Rilling recorded a number of cantatas, both sacred and secular, as well as the Missae BWV 233-236. Of these, I consulted the following recordings of secular cantatas. Unless otherwise indicated, these recordings feature the Figuralchor of the Gedächtniskirche in Stuttgart (where Rilling served as Kantor from 1957 to 1988) and the Bach-Collegium Stuttgart. On the CD re-issues I consulted, the cantatas were coupled with recordings of orchestral music, performed by the Deutsche Bachsolisten directed from the oboe by Helmut Winschermann. Cantata BWV 208 (recorded 1965). Cantate-Musicaphon M 51351 (issued 1995). Coupled with Oboe Concerto after BWV 1053 (recorded 1965). Cantata BWV 201 (recorded 1966). Cantate-Musicaphon M 51352 (issued 1996). Coupled with Oboe d’Amore Concerto after BWV 1055 (recorded 1967). Cantata BWV 215 (recorded 1966). Gächinger Kantorei, Figuralchor of the Gedächtniskirche in Stuttgart; Bach-Collegium Stuttgart. Cantate-Musicaphon M 51355 (issued 1998). Coupled with Sinfonias BWV 182/1, 75/8, 21/1, and 1040 (recorded 1966). Cantata BWV 213 (recorded 1967). Cantate-Musicaphon M 51356 (issued 1995). Coupled with Harpsichord Concerto, BWV 1058 (with George Malcolm, harpsichord; recorded 1967). The Complete cantatas Rilling recorded Bach’s complete sacred cantatas, including the OsterOratorium and Himmelfahrts-oratorium, between 1970 and 1984. The recordings were originally issued by Claus Verlag. Most recordings featured the Gächinger Kantorei and the Bach-Collegium Stuttgart. However, Rilling also employed three additional choirs – the Figuralchor of the Gedächtniskirche in Stuttgart, the Frankfurter Kantorei (founded in 1945 by Kurt Thomas, and directed by Rilling in 1969-1981), and the Indiana University Chamber Singers3 – and one additional orchestra, the Württembergisches Kammerorchester Heilbronn. 3 This choir only appears in two cantatas (BWV 21 and 31), both recorded in 1976. - 374 In 1987-1992, Hänssler Verlag issued this series on 69 CDs. This re-issue also incorporated the 1984 recording of the Weihnachts-Oratorium, originally recorded for CBS. Discs were arranged, in part, according to the church year. In 1999-2000, Hänssler incorporated Rilling’s cantata cycle into the Edition Bachakademie; this Edition also included re-issues of the Claus Verlag OsterOratorium and Himmelfahrts-Oratorium. The Weihnachts-Oratorium, however, was newly recorded for the Edition, as were the complete secular cantatas. From the older series, I consulted the following volumes: Vols. 1-3: Weihnachts-Oratorium (recorded 1984). Hänssler 98.851-853. Vol. 13: Cantatas BWV 4 (recorded 1980), 172 (with the Frankfurter Kantorei; recorded 1975), 85 (recorded 1980-1981). Hänssler 98.864. Vol. 14: Cantatas BWV 21 (with the Indiana University Chamber Singers; recorded 1976), 93 (recorded 1979). Hänssler 98.865. Vol. 15: Cantatas BWV 70 (recorded 1970, 1982), 131 (recorded 1975), 79 (recorded 1981). Hänssler 98.866. Vol. 16: Cantatas BWV 61 (recorded 1974), 191 (recorded 1971), 1 (recorded 1980). Hänssler 98.867. Vol. 31: Cantatas BWV 158 (recorded 1983), 67 (recorded 1978), 42 (recorded 19801981). Hänssler 98.882. Vol. 56: BWV Cantatas 109 (recorded 1971, 1981), 38 (recorded 1980), 89 (recorded 1977). Hänssler 98.818. Vol. 61: BWV Cantatas 36 (recorded 1980-1982), 63 (recorded 1971, 1981). Hänssler 98.823. Vol. 68: BWV Cantatas 106 (recorded 1975), 198 (recorded 1983). Hänssler 98.830. From the Edition Bachakademie, I consulted the following volumes: Vol. 4: Cantatas BWV 10 (recorded 1979), 12 (recorded 1972), 13 (recorded 1983). Hänssler 92.004. Vol. 8: Cantatas BWV 23 (recorded 1977), 24-25 (recorded 1977-1978), 26 (recorded 1980). Hänssler 92.005. Vol. 9: Cantatas BWV 27 (recorded 1982), 28 (recorded 1981-1982), 29 (with the Württembergisches Kammerorchester Heilbronn; recorded 1984). Hänssler 92.009. - 375 Vol. 16: Cantatas BWV 46 (recorded 1977-1978), 47 (recorded 1982), 48 (recorded 1973). Hänssler 92.016. Vol. 25: Cantatas BWV 77 (recorded 1972, 1983), 78 (recorded 1978), 79 (recorded 1981). Hänssler 92.025. Vol. 38: Cantatas BWV 119 (recorded 1978), 120 (recorded 1973), 121 (recorded 1980). Hänssler 92.038. Vol. 48: Cantatas BWV 156 (with the Figuralchor of the Gedächtniskirche, Stuttgart; recorded 1973), 157 (recorded 1982-1983), 158-159 (recorded 1983). Hänssler 92.048. Vol. 51: Cantatas BWV 169 (with the Württembergisches Kammerorchester Heilbronn; recorded 1983), 170 (recorded 1982), 171 (with the Württembergisches Kammerorchester Heilbronn; recorded 1983). Hänssler 92.051. Vol. 61: Cantata BWV 201 (recorded 1996). Hänssler 92.061. Vol. 65: Cantatas BWV 208 (recorded 1996), 209 (recorded 1998). Hänssler 92.065. Vol. 67: Cantatas BWV 212 (recorded 1996), 213 (recorded 1999). Hänssler 92.067. Vol. 68: Cantatas BWV 214, 215 (recorded 1999). Hänssler 92.068. Vol. 76: Weihnachts-Oratorium (recorded 1999-2000). 3 CDs. Hänssler 92.076. Vol. 77: Oster-Oratorium (recorded 1980-1981); Himmelfahrts-Oratorium (with the Württembergisches Kammerorchester Heilbronn; recorded 1984). Hänssler 92.077. - 376 - For chapter 4 1. Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Gustav Leonhardt The Complete Cantatas Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Gustav Leonhardt have jointly recorded Bach’s complete sacred cantatas in 1971-1989 for Telefunken/Teldec’s Das Alte Werk label. The complete set was issued on CD twice. The first series was issued in 1985-1989, in 45 sets (most of them consisting of two CDs each) which correspond exactly to the original division into volumes. The second series is part of Teldec’s Bach 2000 edition, encompassing Bach’s complete works, though the set of cantatas is also available separately. It consists of ten volumes, 6 CDs each. Individual discs are also issued separately. In both sets, the cantatas are arranged by BWV numbers. Thus, both sets preserve the original order of recording and release, though the Bach 2000 set does not preserve the original division into albums. Throughout the set, Harnoncourt directs Concentus Musicus Wien, and Leonhardt directs the Leonhardt-Consort. The participating choirs are (by order of first appearance): 1. Wiener Sängerknaben and Chorus Viennensis (dir. Hans Gillesberger) 2. King’s College Choir, Cambridge (dir. David Willcocks) 3. Tölzer Knabenchor (dir. Gerhardt Schmidt-Gaden) 4. Knabenchor Hannover (dir. Heinz Hennig) 5. Collegium Vocale, Ghent (dir. Philippe Herreweghe) In the course of my research, I consulted the complete set in its first CD version. The details are listed below. The year is the year of original release. Catalogue numbers refer to CD re-issues, as listed on the British Library’s copies and database. Vol. 1: Cantatas BWV 1-4, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 1). 2292-42497-2. 1971. Vol. 2: Cantatas BWV 5-6, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 1); Cantatas BWV 7-8, dir Leonhardt (with choir 2). 2292-42498-2. 1971. Vol. 3. Cantatas BWV 9-10, dir. Leonhardt (with choir 2); Cantata BWV 11, dir Harnoncourt (with choir 1). 2292-42499-2. 1971. - 377 Vol. 4. Cantatas BWV 12, 14, 16, dir. Leonhardt (with choir 3); Cantata BWV 13, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 1). 2292-42500-2. 1971. Vol. 5. Cantatas BWV 17-20, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 1). 2292-42501-2. 1971. Vol. 6. Cantata BWV 21, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 1); Cantatas BWV 22-23, dir. Leonhardt (with choir 3). 2292-42502-2. 1973. Vol. 7. Cantatas BWV 24-27, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 1). 2292-42503-2. 1973. Vol. 8. Cantatas BWV 28-30, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 1). 2292-42504-2. 1974. Vol. 9. Cantatas BWV 31, 34, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 1); Cantatas BWV 32-33, dir Leonhardt (with choir 4). 2292-42505-2. 1974. Vol. 10. Cantatas BWV 35-38, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 1). 2292-42506-2. 1974. Vol. 11. Cantatas BWV 39-40, dir. Leonhardt (with choir 4); Cantatas BWV 41-42, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 1). 2292-42556-2. 1975. Vol. 12. Cantatas BWV 43-44, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 1); Cantatas BWV 45-46, dir. Leonhardt (with choir 4). 2292-42559-2. 1975. Vol. 13. Cantatas BWV 47-50, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 1). 2292-42560-2. 1975. Vol. 14. Cantatas BWV 51-52, 54-56, dir. Leonhardt (with choir 4). 2292-42422-2. 1976. Vol. 15. Cantatas BWV 57-60, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42423-2. 1976. Vol. 16. Cantatas BWV 61-64, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3) 2292-42565-2. 1976. Vol. 17. Cantatas BWV 65, 68, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantatas BWV 66-67, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-42571-2. 1977. Vol. 18. Cantatas BWV 69-72, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42572-2. 1977. Vol. 19. Cantatas BWV 73-75, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-42573-2. 1977. Vol. 20. Cantatas BWV 76, 78, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantatas BWV 77, 79, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-42576-2. 1978. Vol. 21. Cantatas BWV 80-83, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3).4 2292-42577-2. 1978. Vol. 22. Cantatas BWV 84-87, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantatas BWV 88-90, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-42578-2. 1979. Vol. 23. Cantatas BWV 91-92, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5); Cantatas BWV 93-94, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42582-2. 1979. 4 Cantata 83, however, is included in a 1970 recording, with Choir 1. - 378 Vol. 24. Cantatas BWV 95-97, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantata BWV 98, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-42583-2. 1979. Vol. 25. Cantatas BWV 99, 101-102, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantata BWV 100, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-42584-2. 1980. Vol. 26. Cantatas BWV 103, 106, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5); Cantatas BWV 104-105, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42602-2. 1980. Vol. 27. Cantata BWV 107, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5); Cantatas BWV 108110, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42603-2. 1981. Vol. 28. Cantatas BWV 111-112, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantatas BWV 113-114, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-42606-2. 1981. Vol. 29. Cantatas BWV 115-116, 119, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantata BWV 117, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-42608-2. 1981. Vol. 30. Cantatas BWV 120-123, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42609-2. 1982. Vol. 31. Cantatas BWV 124-126, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantata BWV 127, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-42615-2. 1982. Vol. 32. Cantata BWV 128-129, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5); Cantatas BWV 130-131, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42617-2. 1983. Vol. 33. Cantatas BWV 132-135, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-42618-2. 1983. Vol. 34. Cantatas BWV 136-139, dir Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42619-2. 1983. Vol. 35. Cantatas BWV 140, 145-146, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantatas BWV 143-144, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-42630-2. 1984. Vol. 36. Cantatas BWV 147-148, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantatas BWV 149-151, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-42631-2. 1985. Vol. 37. Cantata BWV 152-156, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42632-2. 1985. Vol. 38. Cantatas BWV 157-159, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 3 and 5); Cantatas BWV 161-163, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42633-2. 1986. Vol. 39. Cantatas BWV 164-166, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 3 and 5); Cantatas BWV 167-169, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3) 2292426342. 1987. Vol. 40. Cantata BWV 170, 172, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5); BWV 171, 173174, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42635-2. 1987. Vol. 41. Cantatas BWV 175-176, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5); Cantatas BWV 177-179, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42428-2. 1988. - 379 Vol. 42. Cantatas BWV 180-181, 184, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5); Cantatas BWV 182-183, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3). 2292-42738-2. 1988. Vol. 43. Cantatas BWV 185-186, 188, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantata BWV 187, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-44179-2. 1989. Vol. 44. Cantatas BWV 192, 194, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantata BWV 195, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-44193-2. 1989. Vol. 45. Cantatas BWV 196, 199, dir. Harnoncourt (with choir 3); Cantatas BWV 197-198, dir. Leonhardt (with choirs 4 and 5). 2292-44194-2. 1989. Additionally, I consulted the following recordings: Under Gustav Leonhardt Cantatas BWV 54, 170; Agnus Dei from B minor Mass: Alfred Deller (alto), Leonhardt Baroque Ensemble. Recorded 1954. Vanguard Classics 08 5069 71 (issued 1994). Cantatas BWV 51, 202, 209: Agnes Giebel (soprano), Concerto Amsterdam/ Jaap Schröder, Gustav Leonhardt.5 Recorded 1966. Teldec Das Alte Werk 398421711-2 (issued 1998). Matthäus-Passion: Tölzer Knabenchor (dir. Gerhardt Schmidt-Gaden), La Petite Bande. Recorded 1989. 3 CDs; Deutsche Harmonia Mundi RD 77848 (issued 1990). Cantatas BWV 205, 214: Choir and Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment. Recorded 1990. Philips 432 161-2 (issued 1992). Oster-Oratorium, Himmelfahrts-Oratorium: Choir and Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment. Recorded 1993. Philips 442 119-2 (issued 1994). Cantatas BWV 211, 213: Choir and Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment. Recorded 1994. Philips 442 779-2 (issued 1995). Cantatas BWV 27, 34, 41: Tölzer Knabenchor (dir. Gerhardt Schmidt-Gaden), Baroque Orchestra.6 Recorded 1995. Sony SK 68 265 (issued 1996). Mass, BWV 234; Cantatas BWV 115, 180: English Voices (dir. Timothy Brown), Steiniz Baroque Players. Recorded live at St. Bartholomew the Great Church, January 16, 1997. Radio 3 broadcast; BL shelf number: H8339. 5 Identity of director not clear. Jaap Schröder was the leader in these recordings, whilst Leonhardt played continuo harpsichord. 6 The members of this ensemble, listed in the booklet, have all played with the Leonhardt-Consort. - 380 - Under Nikolaus Harnoncourt All recordings feature Concentus Musicus Wien, and all were issued on Teldec Das Alte Werk. Johannes-Passion: Wiener Sängerknaben and Chorus Viennensis (dir. Hans Gillesberger). Recorded 1966. 2 CDs; 8.35018 (issued 1987).7 Matthäus-Passion: Regensburg Domchor (dir. Christoph Lickleder), King’s College Choir, Cambridge (dir. David Willcocks). Recorded 1970. 3 CDs; 2292-425092 (issued 1994). Motets, BWV 225-230: Bachchor Stockholm (dir. Anders Öhrwall). Recorded 1980. 8.42663 (issued 1984). Johannes-Passion: Arnold Schoenberg Chor (dir. Erwin Ortner). Recorded 1993. 2 CDs; 9031-74862-2 (issued 1995). Matthäus-Passion: Wiener Sängerknaben (dir. Norbert Balatsch), Arnold Schoenberg Chor (dir. Erwin Ortner). Recorded 2000. 3 CDs; 8573-81036-2 (issued 2001). 2. Philippe Herreweghe In the course of my research, I consulted most of Herreweghe’s Bach recordings, as listed below; the most notable omission is his second recording of the Johannes-Passion. The recordings are listed by chronological order. All recordings feature one or both of Herreweghe’s two ensembles: the Collegium Vocale, Ghent and the Chapelle Royale, Paris. The appearance of both names does not necessarily indicate the presence of a larger ensemble; in most cases, the members of choir and orchestra are listed under a joint heading, and the size of ensemble is similar to that employed in both recordings of the Mass (see section 1 of this discography). Matthäus-Passion: Choeur d’enfants “In Dulci Jubilo” (dir. Godfried Van de Vyvere), Chapelle Royale, Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1984. 3 CDs; Harmonia Mundi 901155.57 (issued 1985). Motets, BWV 225-230: Chapelle Royale, Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1985. Issued 1986. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901231. Johannes-Passion: Chapelle Royale, Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1987. First issued 1988. Harmonia Mundi HMX 2951264.65 (1999 re-issue). 7 On the original LP, Gillesberger was listed as the conductor (Elste 2000: 230). - 381 Cantatas BWV 78, 198: Chapelle Royale. Recorded 1987. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901270 (issued 1988).8 Weihnachts-Oratorium: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1989. Virgin Veritas 7 90781 2 (issued 1989). Missae BWV 234 & 235; Sanctus BWV 238: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1989. Virgin Veritas 7 59587 2 (issued 1990). Magnificat, BWV 243; Cantata BWV 80: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1990. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901326 (issued 1990). Cantatas BWV 21, 42: Chapelle Royale, Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1990. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901328 (issued 1990). Cantates pour Basse, BWV 56, 82 and 158: Peter Kooy (bass), Chapelle Royale. Recorded 1991. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901365 (issued 1991). Missae BWV 233 & 236: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1990. Virgin Veritas 7 59634 2 (issued 1991). Cantatas BWV 131, 73, 105: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1990. Virgin Veritas 7 59237 2 (issued 1992). Cantatas BWV 39, 93, 107: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1991. Virgin Veritas 7 59320 2 (issued 1993). Himmelfahrts-Oratorium; Cantatas BWV 43, 44: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1993. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901479 (issued 1993). Oster-Oratorium; Cantata BWV 66: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1994. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901513 (issued 1995). Weihnachts-Kantaten, BWV 57, 110, 122: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1995. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901594 (issued 1996). Advent-Kantaten, BWV 36, 61, 62: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1996. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901605 (issued 1997). Cantates pour Alto, BWV 35, 54, 170: Andreas Scholl (alto), Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1997. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901644 (issued 1998). “Mit Fried und Freud” – Cantatas BWV 8, 125, 138: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1998. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901659 (issued 1998). Matthäus-Passion: Schola Cantorum Cantate Domino (dir. Michaël Ghljs), Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1998. 3 CDs; Harmonia Mundi HMC 951676.78 (issued 1999). Also includes a CD-ROM, featuring an in-depth introduction to the work and an interview with Herreweghe. 8 This recording of BWV 198 is also reproduced in the CDs accompanying Basso 1998. - 382 “Wir danken dir, Gott” – Cantatas BWV 29, 119, 120: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 1999. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901690 (issued 2000). Leipziger Weihnachtskantaten, BWV 63, 91, 121, 133; Magnificat, BWV 243a: Collegium Vocale. Recorded 2001, 2002 (BWV 63, Magnificat). 2 CDs; Harmonia Mundi HMC 901781.82 (issued 2003). 3. Other recording cited Matthäus-Passion: London Oratory Junior Choir (dir. Patrick Russill), Monteverdi Choir, English Baroque Soloists/ John Eliot Gardiner. Recorded 1988. 3 CDs; Archiv 427 648-2 (issued 1989). For chapter 5 1. Joshua Rifkin In all his Bach recordings, Joshua Rifkin directs the Bach Ensemble. The Decca re-issues (third and fourth items below) are part of my personal collection. I also consulted the original issues, insofar as these were available at the British Library, in order to read Rifkin’s notes (Rifkin 1987, 1989a, 1989b, 1991). Magnificat, BWV 243 (coupled with Melchior Hoffman’s Meine Seele erhebet den Herren). Recorded 1984. Pro Arte 185 (issued 1985). Cantatas for solo soprano, BWV 202, 209. Julianne Baird (soprano). Recorded 1987. L’Oiseau-Lyre 421 424-2 (issued 1989). Cantatas BWV 147, 80 (recorded 1985), 140, 51, 8, 78 (recorded 1986). 2 CDs; Double Decca 455 706-2 (issued 1997). Actus Tragicus: Cantatas BWV 106, 131 (recorded 1985), 99 (recorded 1988), 56, 82, 158 (recorded 1989). 2 CDs; Double Decca 458 087-2 (issued 1998). Three Weimar Cantatas, BWV 182, 12, 172. Recorded 1995-1996. Dorian DOR93231 (issued 2001). - 383 - 2. Andrew Parrott In all recordings, Andrew Parrott directs the Taverner Consort and Players. Johannes-Passion. Recorded 1990. 2 CDs; Virgin Veritas VCD 5 45096-2 (issued 1995). Magnificat, BWV 243, Himmelfahrts-Oratorium, Cantata BWV 50 (recorded 1989); Cantata BWV 4, Oster-Oratorium (recorded 1993). 2 CDs; Virgin Veritas 561647-2 (issued 1999). Heart’s Solace: Cantata BWV 198, Motets BWV 227, 229. Recorded 1997. Sony Classical 01-060155-10. 3. Ton Koopman In all the recordings listed below, Ton Koopman directs the Amsterdam Baroque Choir and Orchestra, unless indicated otherwise. Matthäus-Passion. Sacramentskoor Breda (dir. Walther Cantryn), De Nederlandsebachvereiniging (dir. Jos van Veldhoven). Recorded 1992. Erato 2292-45814-2 (issued 1993). Ton Koopman conducts J.S. Bach. A TV series, in six episodes, featuring performances of Cantatas BWV 106, 131, 140, 147, 211 and 56, conducted and introduced by Ton Koopman. Recorded 1997. NVC Arts. Copy consulted: A video taping from Israeli Cable Television’s Channel 8. Markus-Passion (reconstructed by Ton Koopman). Recorded 1999. Erato 857380221-2 (issued 2000). The Complete cantata cycle Koopman began recording Bach’s complete cantatas (sacred and secular) in 1995. The cycle was divided into three main groups: cantatas before Leipzig; secular cantatas; Leipzig sacred cantatas. Within each group, the order is approximately chronological. The first 12 volumes, most of them consisting of 3 CDs each, were issued by Erato. After Erato pulled out of the series, Koopman continued the project with Antoine Marchand, a sub-label he created within Challenge Classics. Antoine Marchand has also started re-issuing the first twelve volumes. The project is currently nearing completion. I consulted the following volumes: - 384 Vol. 1: Cantatas BWV 21, 131, 106, 196, 71, 150, 31 185, 4. Recorded 1995. Erato 4509-98536-2 (issued 1996). Vol. 2: Cantatas BWV 12, 18, 61, 172, 132, 182, 152, 199, 203; Quodlibet, BWV 524. Recorded 1995. Erato 0630-12598-2 (issued 1996). Vol. 6: Cantatas BWV 76, 75, 190, 179, 59, 69, 50, 186, 104, 69a, 50. Recorded 1997. Erato 3984-21629-2 (issued 1998). Vol. 7: Cantatas BWV 25, 95, 144, 67, 24, 136, 184, 105, 148, 147, 181, 173. Recorded 1997. Erato 3984-23141-2 (issued 1998). Vol. 8: Cantatas BWV 65, 89, 60, 83, 89a, 40, 46, 64, 167, 109, 81, 77, 90. Recorded 1998. Erato 3984-21629-2 (issued 1998). Vol. 13: Cantatas BWV 1, 62, 96, 38, 93, 33, 133, 122, 92. Recorded 2000. Challenge Classics/Antoine Marchand CC72213 (issued 2003). 4. Other recordings cited9 Cantata BWV 106. In Deutsche Barock Kantaten, vol. VI: Trauerkantaten (coupled with works by Telemann, Boxberg and Riedel). Ricercar Consort. Recorded 1990. Ricercar RIC 079061 (year of release unspecified). Cantata BWV 38 (with Capella Sancti Michaelis, dir. Erik Van Nevel), 131. In Deutsche Barock Kantaten, vol. VIII: Aus der Tiefe (coupled with other 17thand 18th-century settings of Psalm 130 and related texts). Ricercar Consort. Recorded 1991. Ricercar RIC 103086/87 (year of release unspecified). Epiphany Mass, as it might have been celebrated in St. Thomas, Leipzig, c. 1740 (including recordings of Bach’s Missa, BWV 233, and Cantatas, BWV 65 and 180). Reconstructed by Paul McCreesh and Robin Leaver. Congregational Choirs of Freiburg and Dresden, Gabrieli Consort and Players/ Paul McCreesh. Recorded 1997. Archiv Produktion 457 631-2 (issued 1998). Lutheran Masses, vol. 1 (BWV 234, 235). The Purcell Quartet. Recorded 1998. Chandos Chaconne CHAN 0642 (issued 1999). Lutheran Masses, vol. 2 (BWV 233, 236; coupled with an arrangement of the Organ Trio Sonata, BWV 529). The Purcell Quartet. Recorded 1999. Chandos Chaconne CHAN 0653 (issued 2000). Cantatas BWV 9, 94, 187. La Petite Bande/ Sigiswald Kuijken. Recorded 1999. Deutsche Harmonia Mundi 05472 77528 2 (issued 2001). “Actus Tragicus”: Cantatas BWV 4, 12, 106, 196. Cantus Cölln/ Konrad Junghänel. Recorded 2000. Harmonia Mundi HMC 901694 (issued 2000). 9 For recordings by Jeffrey Thomas cited in chapter 4, see the discography for chapter 5. - 385 Christmas Cantatas, BWV 36, 132, 61; Instrumental Suite Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland, after BWV 699 & BWV 659 (arr. Mallon). Aradia Ensemble/ Kevin Mallon. Recorded 2000. Naxos 8.554825 (issued 2000). Magnificat, BWV 243; Oster-Oratorium: Gabrieli Consort and Players/ Paul McCreesh. Recorded 2000. Archiv Produktion 469 531-2 (issued 2001). For chapter 6 1. Jeffrey Thomas In all his Bach recordings, Jeffrey Thomas directs the American Bach Soloists. All his recordings were issued by Koch International Classics. Matthäus-Passion. With the Paulist Boy Choristers of California. Recorded 1996. 3 CDs; 3-7424-2 (issued 2000). Bach Transcriptions: Concerto for Four Harpsichords, BWV 1065, after Vivaldi’s Concerto for Four Violins, RV 580; Tilge, Höchster, meine Sünden, BWV 1083, after Pergolesi’s Stabat Mater. Recorded 1993. 3-7237-2 (issued 1995). Bach Cantatas Vol. 2: Cantatas BWV 156, 198, 8. Recorded 1992. 3-7163-2 (issued 1992). Vol. 3: Cantatas BWV 106, 152, 161. Recorded 1993. 3-7164-2 (issued 1993). Vol. 4: Early Cantatas from Mülhausen and Weimar: Cantatas for Holy Week, BWV 182, 131, 4. Recorded 1994. 3-7235-2 (issued 1995). Vol. 5: Cantatas from Mülhausen and Weimar, BWV 18, 12, 61. Recorded 1994. 37332-2 (issued 1995). 2. Thomas Hengelbrock Tilge, Höchster, meine Sünden, BWV 1083, after Pergolesi’s Stabat Mater. BalthasarNeumann-Ensemble. Recorded 1998. Deutsche Harmonia Mundi 05472 77508 2 (issued 2000). Coupled with concerti by Alessandro Scarlatti and Francesco Durante. Audio examples CD 1: Examples for Part One Gloria-Et in terra 1.-2. Richter 1961 3.-4. Harnoncourt 1986 5.-6. Herreweghe 1988 7.-8. Herreweghe 1996 9.-10. Koopman 1994 11.-12. Jeffrey Thomas 1992 Qui tollis (bars 1-27) 13. Rilling 1977 14. Rilling 1988 15. Rilling 1999 16. Hengelbrock 1996 Qui sedes (bars 56-end) 17. Rilling 1977 18. Rilling 1999 19. Harnoncourt 1968 20. Harnoncourt 1986 21. Herreweghe 1988 22. Herreweghe 1996 Sanctus (bars 1-48) 23. Herreweghe 1988 24. Herreweghe 1996 25. Hengelbrock 1996 - 386 - CD 2: Examples for chapter 7 All examples on this disc are from the First Kyrie. 1. Karajan 1952: bars 5-9 2. Karajan 1952: bars 30-34 3. Karajan 1952: bars 81-104 4. Jochum 1957: bars 5-9 5. Jochum 1957: bars 30-34 6. Jochum 1957: bars 81-end 7. Mauersberger 1958: bars 5-9 8. Mauersberger 1958: bars 30-34 9. Mauersberger 1958: bars 81-106 10. Richter 1961: bars 5-9 11. Richter 1961: bars 30-48 12. Richter 1961: bars 72-107 13. Schreier 1982: bars 5-9 14. Schreier 1982: bars 30-34 15. Rifkin 1982: bars 81-107 16. Parrott 1984: bars 5-9 17. Parrott 1984: bars 30-53 18. Parrott 1984: bars 72-107 19. Gardiner 1985: bars 5-9 20. Gardiner 1985: bars 30-53 21. Leonhardt 1985: bars 5-9 22. Leonhardt 1985: bars 30-34 23. Harnoncourt 1986: bars 5-15 24. Harnoncourt 1986: bars 30-34 25. Harnoncourt 1986: bars 81-107 26. Herreweghe 1988: bars 5-9 27. Herreweghe 1988: bars 30-34 28. Schreier 1991: bars 81-107 29. Hickox 1992: bars 5-9 30. Hickox 1992: bars 30-34 31. Hickox 1992: bars 81-end 32. Jeffrey Thomas 1992: bars 1-4 33. Jeffrey Thomas 1992: bars 5-9 34. Jeffrey Thomas 1992: bars 30-34 35. Jacobs 1992: bars 81-end 36. Koopman 1994: bars 5-9 37. Koopman 1994: bars 30-36 38. Koopman 1994: bars 81-107 39. Herreweghe 1996: bars 5-9 40. Herreweghe 1996: bars 30-34 41. Herreweghe 1996: bars 81-107 42. Hengelbrock 1996: bars 1-4 43. Hengelbrock 1996: bars 5-9 44. Hengelbrock 1996: bars 30-34 45. Hengelbrock 1996: bars 81-107 46. Rilling 1999: bars 81-107 CD 3: Examples for chapter 8 This disc contains complete performances of the Second Kyrie. 1. Jochum 1957 2. Mauersberger 1958 3. Richter 1961 4. Rilling 1977 5. Rifkin 1982 6. Parrott 1984 7. Leonhardt 1985 8. Harnoncourt 1986 9. Hickox 1992 10. Jeffrey Thomas 1992 11. Jacobs 1992 12. Hengelbrock 1996 13. Rilling 1999 CD 4: Examples for chapter 9 This disc contains extracts from performances of the Incarnatus (bars 20-end), Crucifixus (complete) and Resurrexit (bars 1-50). 1. Karajan 1952: Incarnatus 2. Karajan 1952: Crucifixus 3. Karajan 1952: Resurrexit 4. Mauersberger 1958: Incarnatus 5. Mauersberger 1958: Crucifixus 6. Mauersberger 1958: Resurrexit 7. Richter 1961: Crucifixus 8. Klemperer 1967: Crucifixus 9. Harnoncourt 1968: Crucifixus 10. Rilling 1977: Crucifixus 11. Rilling 1977: Resurrexit 12. Jochum 1980: Crucifixus 13. Rifkin 1982: Crucifixus 14. Parrott 1984: Crucifixus 15. Gardiner 1985: Crucifixus 16. Leonhardt 1985: Incarnatus 17. Leonhardt 1985: Crucifixus 18. Leonhardt 1985: Resurrexit 19. Harnoncourt 1986: Incarnatus 20. Harnoncourt 1986: Crucifixus 21. Harnoncourt 1986: Resurrexit 22. Herreweghe 1988: Crucifixus 23. Jeffrey Thomas 1992: Crucifixus 24. Jeffrey Thomas 1992: Resurrexit 25. Herreweghe 1996: Crucifixus 26. Hengelbrock 1996: Crucifixus 27. Hengelbrock 1996: Resurrexit 28. Rilling 1999: Crucifixus 29. Rilling 1999: Resurrexit Timing Tables Introductory comments The tables and charts below list the lengths of complete movements in recordings of the Mass. The first nine tables list the lengths of all movements in performances of the Mass included within my core group. The last five tables list the lengths of the movements discussed in Part Two in most of the recordings I consulted. I omitted from the latter tables several non-commercial recordings which I heard on video-taped format at the British Library, where I had doubts about the reliability of my timing data. In examining recordings on compact discs, I relied on the CD player’s displayed timings. However, my timings aim to list the length of the actual performance, rather than the length of the track (the difference between the two can sometimes extend to 10 seconds, though more commonly it is just 2-3 seconds). In reverberant recordings, it was not always easy to determine the precise ending point of a movement, which means that in some cases the movement might be 2-3 seconds shorter than indicated in the tables. In listening to recordings on LPs (a condition that applies only to Part Two tables), I had to rely on a stopwatch, which might well have impaired the accuracy of my data. However, I tried to listen to the relevant movements more than once, in order to verify my data. Due to considerations of space, I present the data for each Part Two table in two charts rather than one. - 391 - - 392 - Tables for chapter 2 Otto Klemperer 1961 1967 First Kyrie: Introduction 0:34 0:35 First Kyrie (b. 5 onwards) 12:45 13:04 Christe Eleison 6:02 Second Kyrie 4:15 4:12 Gloria 2:13 2:12 Et in terra 5:12 5:26 Laudamus Gratias 5:20 3:08 3:13 Domine deus 6:33 Qui tollis 3:26 Qui sedes 6:16 Quoniam 5:50 Cum sancto Spiritu 4:52 Credo in unum deum 2:52 2:25 Credo/Patrem omnipotentem 2:14 2:08 Et in unum dominum 5:37 Et incarnatus 3:14 3:23 Crucifixus 4:30 4:50 Et resurrexit 4:56 Et in spiritum sanctum 6:58 Confiteor (up to the middle of bar 123) 4:08 4:14 Et expecto – adagio 1:13 2:09 Et expecto – Vivace e Allegro 2:41 2:34 Sanctus 3:26 3:18 Pleni sunt coeli 2:52 2:50 Osanna (first repeat) 3:36 3:16 Benedictus 5:38 Osanna (second repeat) 3:20 Agnus dei 6:27 Dona nobis pacem 3:23 rie 1: I Ky n t r o r i e du 1 ct io (b b. n 5 C ff) hr is Ky t e rie G 2 Et l o r in ia La t e ud r r a am D G us om r a i n t i as e d Q eu ui s Q to l ui l i s s Q ede u C on s um i a sa m nc C to re Pa d o E t tr i n em In u n u ca m r C n at ru u s c R if ix e s Et u u s in rre sp xit Et iri ex t Et p e C o u m n c e x to f i t pe ( a eo c t da r o (V g io iv ) a Pl S e n a c e) i s nc u n tu s tc o O e li s Be a n ne na di c O t us D s on A a n a no g nu na bi s d s pa ei ce m Ky Otto Klemperer 14:24 12:00 9:36 7:12 4:48 2:24 0:00 Klemperer 1961 Klemperer 1967 - 394 - Eugen Jochum 1957 1980 First Kyrie: Introduction 0:41 0:44 First Kyrie (b. 5 onwards) 12:04 11:23 Christe Eleison 5:56 5:18 Second Kyrie 3:57 3:38 Gloria 2:09 2:03 Et in terra 4:42 4:33 Laudamus 5:13 4:44 Gratias 3:01 3:14 Domine deus 5:55 5:53 Qui tollis 4:11 3:37 Qui sedes 5:08 4:41 Quoniam 5:04 5:13 Cum sancto Spiritu 4:12 4:18 Credo in unum deum 2:16 2:28 Credo/Patrem omnipotentem 2:02 2:06 Et in unum dominum 5:26 5:08 Et incarnatus 4:28 4:25 Crucifixus 4:44 4:15 Et resurrexit 4:26 4:18 Et in spiritum sanctum 6:19 6:35 Confiteor (up to the middle of bar 123) 3:00 2:54 Et expecto – adagio 1:30 1:36 Et expecto – Vivace e Allegro 2:14 2:11 Sanctus 3:20 3:29 Pleni sunt coeli 2:31 3:32 Osanna (first repeat) 3:06 3:02 Benedictus 4:49 4:57 Osanna (second repeat) 3:06 3:02 Agnus dei 5:53 5:44 Dona nobis pacem 3:07 3:11 r ie 1: I Ky n tr o r ie d u 1 c t io (b n b. 5 C ff ) hr is Ky te r ie G 2 E t lo r in ia La t e u d rra am D G us o m ra i n ti as e d Q eu ui s Q to u i ll is s Q e de u C on s u m ia sa m nc t C o re P do Et a tr in e m In u n ca u m r C na t u ru c s R i fi x e E t su u s in r r e s p xi t Et i ri ex t C Et pe o n u m e x c t o f it p e (a e o ct d a r o ( V g io ) iv a Pl c e n Sa e ) i s nc u n tu s tc O o e li B e sa ne nn a di c O t us D sa on a Ag n nn no u a bi s d s pa ei ce m Ky Eugen Jochum 14:24 12:00 9:36 7:12 4:48 2:24 0:00 Jochum 1957 Jochum 1980 - 396 - Tables for chapter 3 Karl Richter 1961 1969 Video 1969 Live First Kyrie: Introduction 0:45 0:37 0:38 First Kyrie (b. 5 onwards) 11:23 10:18 10:00 Christe Eleison 5:45 5:26 5:23 Second Kyrie 3:48 3:36 3:58 Gloria 2:00 2:00 2:03 Et in terra 4:45 5:04 4:57 Laudamus 4:28 4:44 4:25 Gratias 3:24 3:40 3:29 Domine deus 6:34 6:44 6:36 Qui tollis 3:59 3:47 3:19 Qui sedes 4:25 5:41 5:28 Quoniam 5:52 6:06 6:09 Cum sancto Spiritu 4:07 4:00 3:57 Credo in unum deum 2:38 2:22 2:10 Credo/Patrem omnipotentem 2:05 2:08 2:06 Et in unum dominum 5:26 5:32 4:54 Et incarnatus 3:38 3:55 3:35 Crucifixus 3:02 3:35 3:22 Et resurrexit 4:24 4:30 4:23 Et in spiritum sanctum 5:34 6:10 5:48 Confiteor (up to the middle of bar 123)3:00 3:00 3:00 Et expecto – adagio 2:05 2:02 1:53 Et expecto – Vivace e Allegro 2:12 2:10 2:08 Sanctus 3:18 3:43 3:35 Pleni sunt coeli 2:27 2:25 2:32 Osanna (first repeat) 2:51 3:05 3:16 Benedictus 4:55 5:51 6:00 Osanna (second repeat) 2:51 3:06 3:05 Agnus dei 6:33 6:50 5:58 Dona nobis pacem 3:20 3:43 3:45 r ie 1: I Ky n tr o r ie d u 1 c ti (b o n b. 5 C ff ) hr i K y st e r ie G 2 E t lo i r ia La n t e u d rra am D G us o m ra i n ti a e s d Q eu ui s Q to u i ll i s s Q e de u C o s um ni a sa m nc C to re Pa d o Et tr in e m In u n ca u m r C na t ru u s R c i fi Et e su xu s in r r e Et s p xi ex ir t C p E t e o it u m ex c t o n f i p e (a t e o ct d a r o ( V g io iv a ) Pl e n Sa c e i s nc ) u n tu tc s O oe l B e sa i ne nn di a c D O t us on sa a Ag nn no nu a bi s s de pa i ce m Ky Karl Richter 12:00 10:48 9:36 8:24 7:12 6:00 4:48 3:36 2:24 1:12 0:00 Richter 1961 Richter 1969 (video) Richter 1969 (live) - 398 - Helmuth Rilling 1977 1988 1999 First Kyrie: Introduction 0:37 0:38 0:36 First Kyrie (b. 5 onwards) 11:45 10:36 10:22 Christe Eleison 5:50 5:22 4:58 Second Kyrie 4:11 3:42 4:14 Gloria 1:45 1:41 1:36 Et in terra 4:24 3:43 3:28 Laudamus 4:50 4:27 4:10 Gratias 2:59 2:42 2:44 Domine deus 6:45 6:25 5:59 Qui tollis 3:43 3:26 3:26 Qui sedes 6:33 4:42 4:48 Quoniam 5:48 4:40 4:58 Cum sancto Spiritu 4:08 3:54 3:50 Credo in unum deum 2:24 2:06 2:00 Credo/Patrem omnipotentem 2:18 1:56 1:48 Et in unum dominum 5:45 5:19 5:05 Et incarnatus 3:56 3:26 3:24 Crucifixus 4:02 3:54 4:00 Et resurrexit 4:11 3:56 3:50 Et in spiritum sanctum 6:16 4:58 4:38 Confiteor (up to the middle of bar 123) 3:36 2:58 2:55 Et expecto – adagio 2:25 1:51 1:59 Et expecto – Vivace e Allegro 2:14 2:11 2:05 Sanctus 3:21 3:07 3:15 Pleni sunt coeli 2:13 2:10 2:09 Osanna (first repeat) 2:44 2:36 2:27 Benedictus 5:47 5:36 5:03 Osanna (second repeat) 2:51 2:25 2:20 Agnus dei 6:45 5:35 5:41 Dona nobis pacem 3:42 3:18 3:05 rie 1: I Ky n t r o r i e du 1 ct io (b b. n 5 C ff) hr is Ky t e rie G 2 Et l o r in ia La t e ud r r a am D G us om r a i n t i as e d Q eus ui Q to l ui l i s s Q ede C uon s um i a sa m nc t C o re P do E t a tr i n em In u n u ca m r C n a tu ru c s R if ix e Et su us in rre sp xit Et ir ex C i tu m p Et e o n e x c to f i te pe ( a o r c t da o ( V g i o) iv ac Pl e n Sa e ) i s nc u n tu s tc o O e li s Be a n ne na di ct us O D on A san a g n no nu a s bi s de pa i ce m Ky Helmuth Rilling 14:24 12:00 9:36 7:12 4:48 2:24 0:00 Rilling 1977 Rilling 1988 Rilling 1999 - 400 - Tables for chapter 4 Nikolaus Harnoncourt 1968 1986 First Kyrie: Introduction 0:26 0:32 First Kyrie (b. 5 onwards) 8:12 9:53 Christe Eleison 5:57 5:15 Second Kyrie 2:57 2:53 Gloria 1:51 1:56 Et in terra 4:36 4:39 Laudamus 4:37 4:05 Gratias 2:50 2:35 Domine deus 5:46 5:56 Qui tollis 2:26 3:00 Qui sedes 5:00 4:46 Quoniam 4:32 5:14 Cum sancto Spiritu 4:15 4:13 Credo in unum deum 2:05 1:50 Credo/Patrem omnipotentem 2:02 2:03 Et in unum dominum 5:37 5:06 Et incarnatus 2:36 2:57 Crucifixus 2:19 3:32 Et resurrexit 4:16 4:24 Et in spiritum sanctum 5:20 5:11 Confiteor (up to the middle of bar 123) 2:54 2:55 Et expecto – adagio 0:38 0:59 Et expecto – Vivace e Allegro 2:13 2:18 Sanctus 2:20 2:05 Pleni sunt coeli 2:25 2:16 Osanna (first repeat) 2:49 2:36 Benedictus 3:36 4:00 Osanna (second repeat) 2:48 2:36 Agnus dei 4:44 5:13 Dona nobis pacem 2:58 2:47 rie 1: I Ky n t r o r i e du 1 ct io (b b. n 5 C ff) hr is Ky t e rie G 2 Et l o r in ia La t e ud r r a am D G us om r a in t ia e s d Q eu ui s Q to l ui l i s s Q ede u C on s um i a sa m nc C to re Pa d o E t tr i n em In u n u ca m r C n at ru u s c R if ix e Et su us in rre Et sp xit iri ex E t p e C o tu m e x c to n f i t pe ( a eo c t da r o (V g io iv ) a Pl S e n a c e) i s nc u n tu s tc O oe l i Be san ne na di c O t us D s on A a n a no g nu na bi s d s pa ei ce m Ky Nikolaus Harnoncourt 10:48 9:36 8:24 7:12 6:00 4:48 3:36 2:24 1:12 0:00 Harnoncourt 1968 Harnoncourt 1986 - 402 - Philippe Herreweghe 1988 1996 First Kyrie: Introduction 0:32 0:34 First Kyrie (b. 5 onwards) 8:41 8:51 Christe Eleison 5:32 5:36 Second Kyrie 3:15 3:24 Gloria 1:48 1:43 Et in terra 5:09 4:44 Laudamus 4:19 4:24 Gratias 2:28 2:36 Domine deus 6:22 5:42 Qui tollis 2:55 3:02 Qui sedes 4:24 4:41 Quoniam 4:32 4:31 Cum sancto Spiritu 3:46 3:55 Credo in unum deum 1:54 1:55 Credo/Patrem omnipotentem 1:48 1:50 Et in unum dominum 4:54 4:44 Et incarnatus 3:03 3:12 Crucifixus 3:10 3:02 Et resurrexit 3:48 4:02 Et in spiritum sanctum 5:03 4:49 Confiteor (up to the middle of bar 123) 2:37 2:38 Et expecto – adagio 1:05 2:16 Et expecto – Vivace e Allegro 2:07 2:10 Sanctus 2:35 2:58 Pleni sunt coeli 2:11 2:07 Osanna (first repeat) 2:29 2:33 Benedictus 3:55 4:04 Osanna (second repeat) 2:30 2:33 Agnus dei 5:23 6:24 Dona nobis pacem 2:30 2:42 r ie 1: I Ky n tr o r ie d u 1 c ti (b o n b. 5 C ff ) hr is Ky te r ie G 2 E t lo in r ia La t e u d rra am D G us o m ra i n ti a e s d Q eu ui s Q to u i ll i s s Q e de C uo n s um i a sa m nc C to re Pa d o Et tr in e m In u n ca u m r C na t r u us c R i fi Et e su xu s in r r e Et s p xi i ri t ex C p Et e o tu m e x c t o n f it p e (a e o ct d a r o ( V g io iv a ) Pl S e n a ce ) i s nc u n tu tc s O oe l B e sa i ne nn di a ct u O D sa s on A n a no g nu n a bi s s de pa i ce m Ky Philippe Herreweghe 9:36 8:24 7:12 6:00 4:48 3:36 2:24 1:12 0:00 Herreweghe 1988 Herreweghe 1996 - 404 - Tables for chapter 5 Joshua Rifkin 1982 1997 First Kyrie: Introduction 0:27 0:27 First Kyrie (b. 5 onwards) 9:08 9:11 Christe Eleison 4:36 4:28 Second Kyrie 3:25 3:10 Gloria 1:46 1:42 Et in terra 4:15 4:01 Laudamus 4:09 3:58 Gratias 2:52 2:50 Domine deus 5:11 5:27 Qui tollis 2:49 2:40 Qui sedes 4:19 3:54 Quoniam 5:22 4:45 Cum sancto Spiritu 3:53 3:39 Credo in unum deum 1:58 2:04 Credo/Patrem omnipotentem 2:04 1:57 Et in unum dominum 4:25 4:11 Et incarnatus 2:26 2:26 Crucifixus 3:17 3:34 Et resurrexit 3:50 3:50 Et in spiritum sanctum 5:41 5:15 Confiteor (up to the middle of bar 123) 3:04 2:57 Et expecto -- adagio 1:29 1:18 Et expecto -- Vivace e Allegro 2:04 2:01 Sanctus 2:10 2:02 Pleni sunt coeli 2:14 2:05 Osanna (first repeat) 2:41 2:33 Benedictus 4:10 4:22 Osanna (second repeat) 2:41 2:34 Agnus dei 4:53 4:49 Dona nobis pacem 3:01 2:52 r ie 1: In Ky tr o r ie d u 1 c t io (b n b. 5 C ff ) hr is Ky te r ie G 2 E t lo r in ia La t e u d rra am D G us o m ra i n ti as e d Q e us ui Q to l u i l is s Q e de u C on s u m ia sa m nc t C o re P do Et a tr in e m In u nu ca m rn C a tu ru c s R i fi x e E t su u s in r r e s p xi t Et ir ex C it u Et pe c o n m e x t o f it e p e (a o ct d a r o ( V g io ) iv a Pl c e n Sa e ) i s nc u n tu s tc o O e li B e sa n ne n a di c O t us D s on a a Ag n nn a no u bi s d s pa ei ce m Ky Joshua Rifkin 10:48 9:36 8:24 7:12 6:00 Rifkin 1982 4:48 Rifkin 1997 3:36 2:24 1:12 0:00 - 406 - Andrew Parrott, Ton Koopman Parrott Koopman First Kyrie: Introduction 0:25 0:34 First Kyrie (b. 5 onwards) 8:35 8:09 Christe Eleison 4:44 5:00 Second Kyrie 3:12 3:39 Gloria 1:43 1:40 Et in terra 3:55 4:37 Laudamus 4:07 4:19 Gratias 2:52 2:50 Domine deus 5:08 5:30 Qui tollis 2:32 3:23 Qui sedes 4:28 4:21 Quoniam 4:32 5:06 Cum sancto Spiritu 3:48 3:42 Credo in unum deum 1:52 2:25 Credo/Patrem omnipotentem 1:52 1:47 Et in unum dominum 4:18 4:16 Et incarnatus 3:00 3:21 Crucifixus 3:20 3:09 Et resurrexit 4:00 3:51 Et in spiritum sanctum 5:55 5:14 Confiteor (up to the middle of bar 123) 2:57 2:44 Et expecto -- adagio 0:54 1:15 Et expecto -- Vivace e Allegro 2:07 2:03 Sanctus 2:56 3:02 Pleni sunt coeli 2:53 2:00 Osanna (first repeat) 2:45 2:27 Benedictus 3:23 4:19 Osanna (second repeat) 2:45 2:29 Agnus dei 4:30 5:18 Dona nobis pacem 2:58 2:48 rie 1: In Ky t r o r i e du 1 ct io (b b. n 5 C ff) hr is Ky t e rie G 2 Et l o r in ia La t er ud r a am us G D om r a i n t i as e d Q eus ui Q to l ui l i s se Q de C uon s um i a sa m nc t C o re Pa d o E t tr e in m In u n u ca m r C n a tu ru c s R if ix Et esu us in rre sp xit Et ir ex C i tu m p Et e o n e x c to f i te pe ( a o r c t da o ( V g i o) iv ac Pl e n Sa e ) i s nc t un u s tc o O e li s Be a n ne na di ct us O D on A san n a g no nu a bi s d s pa ei ce m Ky Andrew Parrott & Ton Koopman 9:36 8:24 7:12 6:00 4:48 3:36 2:24 1:12 0:00 Parrott Koopman - 408 - Table for chapter 6 Jeffrey Thomas, Thomas Hengelbrock Thomas Hengelbrock First Kyrie: Introduction 0:35 0:45 First Kyrie (b. 5 onwards) 9:52 10:39 Christe Eleison 4:47 4:44 Second Kyrie 2:36 4:12 Gloria 1:47 1:37 Et in terra 4:04 4:34 Laudamus 4:10 4:09 Gratias 2:39 3:06 Domine deus 5:41 5:23 Qui tollis 3:04 3:07 Qui sedes 4:25 5:08 Quoniam 4:24 4:38 Cum sancto Spiritu 3:42 3:29 Credo in unum deum 1:48 1:41 Credo/Patrem omnipotentem 1:52 1:42 Et in unum dominum 4:20 4:29 Et incarnatus 3:30 3:02 Crucifixus 3:09 3:45 Et resurrexit 4:05 3:28 Et in spiritum sanctum 5:20 4:58 Confiteor (up to the middle of bar 123) 2:41 2:18 Et expecto – adagio 1:05 1:24 Et expecto – Vivace e Allegro 2:07 1:52 Sanctus 3:36 3:11 Pleni sunt coeli 2:13 2:00 Osanna (first repeat) 2:28 2:17 Benedictus 4:32 4:26 Osanna (second repeat) 2:32 2:17 Agnus dei 6:15 5:37 Dona nobis pacem 3:29 3:24 rie 1: I Ky n t r o r i e du 1 ct io (b b. n 5 C ff) hr is Ky t e rie G 2 Et l o r in ia La t e ud r r a am D G us om r a i n t i as e d Q eus ui Q to l ui l i s s Q ede u C on s um i a sa m nc t C o re P do E t a tr i n em In u n u ca m r C n at ru u s c R if ix e Et su us in rre sp xit Et iri ex t Et p e C o n u m e x c to f i te pe ( a o r c t da o ( V g i o) iv ac Pl S e n a e) i s nc u n tu s tc o O e li s Be a n ne na di ct us O D on A san a g n no nu a bi s d s pa ei ce m Ky Jeffrey Thomas & Thomas Hengelbrock 12:00 10:48 9:36 8:24 7:12 6:00 4:48 3:36 2:24 1:12 0:00 Thomas Hengelbrock - 410 - Table for chapter 7: First Kyrie Conductor Year Duration Coates 1929 11:22 Shaw 1947 10:04 Ramin 1950 10:05 Scherchen 1950 15:18 Enescu 1951 10:19 Karajan 1952 11:25 Lehmann 1953 11:42 Kurt Thomas 1955 10:15 Jochum 1957 12:04 Mauersberger 1958 10:17 Grischkat 1959 10:28 Scherchen 1959 14:05 Shaw 1960 11:16 Richter 1961 11:23 Klemperer 1961 12:45 Ormandy 1962 11:07 Horst 1964 9:46 Maazel 1965 10:08 Klemperer 1967 13:04 Harnoncourt 1968 8:12 Richter video 1969 10:18 Richter 1969 10:01 Münchinger 1970 9:10 Giulini 1972 10:19 Karajan 1974 11:05 Somary 1974 11:40 Rilling 1977 11:45 Marriner 1977 9:43 Corboz 1979 10:21 Jochum 1980 11:23 Schreier 1982 8:00 Rifkin 1982 9:08 Parrott 1984 8:35 Gardiner 1985 8:49 - 411 Conductor Year Duration Leonhardt 1985 8:47 Harnoncourt 1986 9:53 Herreweghe 1988 8:41 Rilling 1988 10:36 Straube 1988 9:29 Brüggen 1989 8:20 Eby 1990 9:34 Solti 1990 9:32 Shaw 1990 9:41 Ortner 1990 8:28 Schreier 1991 8:31 Brembeck 1992 8:56 Schneidt 1992 9:24 Hickox 1992 8:53 Max 1992 8:39 Jeffrey Thomas 1992 9:52 Jacobs 1992 9:31 Ericson 1992 8:56 Koopman 1994 8:09 Christophers 1994 8:17 Giulini 1994 10:23 Beringer 1994 8:40 Redel 1995 9:32 Radu 1995 8:20 Hengelbrock 1996 10:39 King 1996 9:27 Herreweghe 1996 8:51 Rifkin 1997 9:11 Funfgeld 1997 8:41 Fasolis 1997 8:40 Daus 1998 10:58 Abbado 1999 9:04 Rilling 1999 10:22 Pearlman 1999 8:51 Biller 2000 8:50 Ozawa 2000 8:50 Junghänel 2003 8:50 oa Sc a m h e in rc he En n es c Ka u ra Le j an Ku h m a rt T h nn om a J oc s M au h er um sb e G r ge ris r c Sc h k a he t rc he n Sh a R w ic K l h te em r pe re O rm r an dy H or M st a Kl a z e em l p H ar e r e n r R on c ic ht our er t vi de R o M ich ü n te ch r in ge G r iu li Ka n i ra ja So n m ar y R illi M ng ar rin er C or b Jo oz ch um R s aw te Sh C First Kyrie, 1929-1980 16:48 14:24 12:00 9:36 7:12 4:48 2:24 0:00 hr e R ie r i P a f k in G rro a L e rd t t H o n in e ar h r H n o n a rd er c t re o u we rt g R he S t illin r g Br aub üg e ge n Eb So y S h lt i O aw S c rt n Br hr er e m e ie Sc be r h n ck H e id t Je ic f fr ko ey x Th M a om x Ja a s c Er ob s i K C o o c so hr p n is m to an ph G e rs B e iu li rin n i g R er e H en R del ge ad lb u ro H e r K ck re in we g gh e R Fu if k n f in g Fa e ld so l D is Ab au ba s d R P e ill o a r in g lm a Bi n l Ju Oz l e r ng aw hä a ne l Sc First Kyrie, 1981-2003 12:00 10:48 9:36 8:24 7:12 6:00 4:48 3:36 2:24 1:12 0:00 - 414 - Table for chapter 8: Second Kyrie Conductor Year Duration Coates 1929 4:00 Shaw 1947 4:30 Ramin 1950 4:26 Scherchen 1950 4:45 Enescu 1951 4:40 Karajan 1952 3:15 Lehmann 1953 4:38 Kurt Thomas 1955 3:52 Jochum 1957 3:57 Mauersberger 1958 4:45 Grischkat 1959 4:37 Scherchen 1959 5:20 Shaw 1960 4:44 Richter 1961 3:52 Klemperer 1961 4:15 Ormandy 1962 4:24 Horst 1964 4:12 Maazel 1965 5:04 Klemperer 1967 4:12 Harnoncourt 1968 2:57 Richter video 1969 3:36 Richter 1969 3:58 Münchinger 1970 4:13 Giulini 1972 3:44 Karajan 1974 3:13 Somary 1974 2:35 Rilling 1977 4:11 Marriner 1977 4:02 Corboz 1979 4:14 Jochum 1980 3:38 Schreier 1982 3:02 Rifkin 1982 3:25 Parrott 1984 3:12 Gardiner 1985 3:25 Leonhardt 1985 4:06 - 415 Conductor Year Duration Harnoncourt 1986 2:55 Herreweghe 1988 3:15 Rilling 1988 3:42 Straube 1988 4:00 Brüggen 1989 3:48 Eby 1990 2:47 Solti 1990 3:46 Shaw 1990 4:24 Ortner 1990 2:30 Schreier 1991 3:10 Brembeck 1992 2:49 Schneidt 1992 4:22 Hickox 1992 3:13 Max 1992 3:42 Jeffrey Thomas 1992 2:36 Jacobs 1992 4:12 Ericson 1992 3:27 Koopman 1994 3:39 Christophers 1994 3:29 Giulini 1994 4:19 Beringer 1994 3:15 Redel 1995 3:50 Radu 1995 2:14 Herreweghe 1996 3:24 King 1996 3:40 Hengelbrock 1996 4:12 Rifkin 1997 3:10 Funfgeld 1997 3:50 Fasolis 1997 3:56 Daus 1998 3:54 Abbado 1999 3:34 Rilling 1999 4:14 Pearlman 1999 3:01 Biller 2000 3:08 Ozawa 2000 3:08 Junghänel 2003 2:51 oa te s Sh aw R Sc a m h e in rc he En n es c Ka u ra Le j an Ku h m an rt Th n om a M Jo c s au h er um sb er G ger ris c Sc h k a he t rc he n Sh a R w ic K l h te em r pe re O rm r an dy H or s M t aa Kl z e m el p H ar e r e no r nc R ic ht our er t vi de R o M ich ü n te ch r in ge G r iu li Ka n i ra ja So n m ar y R illi M ng ar rin er C or bo Jo z ch um C Second Kyrie, 1929-1980 6:00 4:48 3:36 2:24 1:12 0:00 hr ei R er if Pa k i n G rro a t Le r di n t o H n er ar ha n H on r dt er c o re u we rt g R he illi St n g ra Br u b üg e ge n Eb y So l S h ti a O w r t Sc n e Br h re r e m ie r Sc b e c hn k e H i dt ic Je ko ffr ey M x Th a om x Ja as c Er o b s K ic C o o so n hr pm ist a op n he G rs Be i u l i n rin i g R er ed e H er R a l re d we u gh H en K e g e in lb g ro c R k Fu if k n f in g F a el d so li D s a Ab u s ba R do Pe i l l i ar ng lm a Bi n O l le Ju za r ng w a hä ne l Sc Second Kyrie, 1981-2003 4:48 4:19 3:50 3:21 2:52 2:24 1:55 1:26 0:57 0:28 0:00 - 418 - Tables for chapter 9 Incarnatus Conductor Year Duration Coates 1929 3:31 Shaw 1947 2:56 Scherchen 1950 3:28 Enescu 1951 3:38 Karajan 1952 4:04 Lehmann 1953 3:57 Kurt Thomas 1955 3:12 Jochum 1957 4:28 Mauersberger 1958 2:53 Grischkat 1959 3:29 Scherchen 1959 4:25 Shaw 1960 3:57 Richter 1961 3:38 Klemperer 1961 3:14 Ormandy 1962 4:21 Horst 1964 3:55 Maazel 1965 3:28 Klemperer 1967 3:23 Harnoncourt 1968 2:36 Richter video 1969 3:55 Richter 1969 3:35 Münchinger 1970 2:36 Giulini 1972 3:28 Karajan 1974 4:00 Somary 1974 3:45 Rilling 1977 3:56 Marriner 1977 3:46 Corboz 1979 4:03 Jochum 1980 4:25 Schreier 1982 3:14 Rifkin 1982 2:26 Parrott 1984 3:00 Gardiner 1985 3:24 - 419 Conductor Year Duration Leonhardt 1985 3:13 Harnoncourt 1986 2:57 Herreweghe 1988 3:03 Rilling 1988 3:26 Straube 1988 3:32 Brüggen 1989 3:04 Eby 1990 3:08 Solti 1990 3:32 Shaw 1990 3:12 Ortner 1990 2:39 Schreier 1991 2:56 Brembeck 1992 2:48 Schneidt 1992 2:39 Hickox 1992 4:11 Max 1992 3:25 Jeffrey Thomas 1992 3:30 Jacobs 1992 2:35 Ericson 1992 2:32 Koopman 1994 3:21 Christophers 1994 3:17 Giulini 1994 3:32 Beringer 1994 3:10 Redel 1995 3:22 Radu 1995 3:09 Herreweghe 1996 3:12 King 1996 3:02 Hengelbrock 1996 3:02 Rifkin 1997 2:26 Funfgeld 1997 2:47 Fasolis 1997 2:45 Daus 1998 3:51 Abbado 1999 3:28 Rilling 1999 3:31 Pearlman 1999 2:56 Biller 2000 2:48 Ozawa 2000 3:15 Junghänel 2003 3:05 he rc s he aw te Sh oa En n es Ka c u ra Le j an Ku h m a rt T h nn om a M Jo c s au hu er sb m e G r ge ris r Sc c h k h e at rc he n Sh a R w i K l c h te em r p O e re rm r an dy H or M st a Kl a z e m el H ar pe r e n R on c r ic ht ou e r rt vi de R o M ich ü n te ch r in ge G r iu l Ka i n i ra j So a n m ar y R illi M ng ar rin C er or b Jo oz ch um Sc C Incarnatus, 1929-1980 4:48 4:19 3:50 3:21 2:52 2:24 1:55 1:26 0:57 0:28 0:00 hr ei e R r i fk Pa i n G rro a tt Le r di n H on e r a r ha n r H on d t e r co re u w rt eg h R e i ll i St ng ra Br ub üg e ge n Eb y So lt i Sh a O w rt n Sc e r B r h re e m i er b Sc ec hn k e H id t i ck Je o f fr ey M x Th a x om Ja a s co Er b s K ics C o op o n hr is ma to n ph e G rs iu B e li n r in i ge R r ed e H e r Ra l re d w u eg h H en K e g e in lb g ro c R k F u i fk i nf n ge Fa ld so li D s a Ab u s ba d R o P e i ll in ar g lm an Bi l O le r J u za ng wa hä ne l Sc Incarnatus, 1981-2003 4:48 4:19 3:50 3:21 2:52 2:24 1:55 1:26 0:57 0:28 0:00 - 422 - Crucifixus Conductor Year Duration Bairstow 1926 3:56 (final chord clipped) Coates 1929 4:06 Shaw 1947 4:38 Scherchen 1950 4:41 Enescu 1951 4:32 Karajan 1952 2:44 Lehmann 1953 4:36 Kurt Thomas 1955 3:32 Jochum 1957 4:44 Mauersberger 1958 3:16 Grischkat 1959 4:05 Scherchen 1959 5:07 Shaw 1960 5:39 Richter 1961 3:02 Klemperer 1961 4:30 Ormandy 1962 5:00 Horst 1964 3:56 Maazel 1965 4:04 Klemperer 1967 4:50 Harnoncourt 1968 2:19 Richter (video) 1969 3:35 Richter 1969 3:22 Münchinger 1970 3:57 Giulini 1972 2:40 Karajan 1974 2:40 Somary 1974 4:38 Rilling 1977 4:02 Marriner 1977 3:42 Corboz 1979 4:42 Jochum 1980 4:15 Schreier 1982 2:29 Rifkin 1982 3:17 Parrott 1984 3:20 Gardiner 1985 3:04 Leonhardt 1985 2:48 Harnoncourt 1986 3:32 - 423 Conductor Year Duration Herreweghe 1988 3:10 Rilling 1988 3:54 Straube 1988 2:12 Brüggen 1989 2:57 Eby 1990 2:45 Solti 1990 3:02 Shaw 1990 5:22 Ortner 1990 2:49 Schreier 1991 2:51 Brembeck 1992 3:01 Schneidt 1992 3:26 Hickox 1992 3:15 Max 1992 3:07 Jeffrey Thomas 1992 3:09 Jacobs 1992 3:15 Ericson 1992 2:41 Koopman 1994 3:09 Christophers 1994 3:09 Giulini 1994 2:44 Beringer 1994 2:28 Redel 1995 3:12 Radu 1995 3:08 Herreweghe 1996 3:02 King 1996 3:36 Hengelbrock 1996 3:45 Rifkin 1997 3:34 Funfgeld 1997 2:54 Fasolis 1997 2:41 Daus 1998 3:49 Abbado 1999 3:17 Rilling 1999 4:00 Pearlman 1999 2:52 Biller 2000 2:29 Ozawa 2000 2:50 Junghänel 2003 2:58 irs to w C oa te s Sh Sc a he w rc he En n es c Ka u ra Le j an Ku h m a rt T h nn om a J oc s M au h er um sb e G r ge ris r c Sc h k a he t rc he n Sh a R w ic K l h te em r pe re O rm r an dy H or s M t aa Kl z e m el p H ar e r R non er ic ht c o u er (v rt id eo ) R M ich ü n te ch r in ge G r iu li Ka n i ra ja So n m ar y R illi M ng ar rin er C or bo Jo z ch um Ba Crucifixus, 1926-1980 6:00 4:48 3:36 2:24 1:12 0:00 Sc hr ei e R r ifk Pa in G rro a t Le rdin t o H n er ar ha n H on rdt e r co re u w rt eg h R e illi St ng ra Br ub üg e ge n Eb y So Sh lti a O w rtn Sc e Br hre r em ie b r Sc ec hn k e H idt i Je ck ffr ox ey Th Ma om x Ja as c Er obs K ics C oop on hr m ist a op n he G rs Be iulin rin i g R er ed e H e r Ra l re d w u eg h H en K e ge in lb g ro c R k Fu ifk nf in g Fa el d so li D s a Ab us ba d R o Pe illi ar ng lm an Bi l O le Ju za r n g wa hä ne l Crucifixus, 1981-2003 6:00 4:48 3:36 2:24 1:12 0:00 - 426 - Resurrexit Conductor Year Duration Coates 1929 4:15 Shaw 1947 4:56 Scherchen 1950 3:46 Enescu 1951 4:54 Karajan 1952 3:50 Lehmann 1953 4:34 Kurt Thomas 1955 5:12 Jochum 1957 4:26 Mauersberger 1958 5:03 Grischkat 1959 4:52 Scherchen 1959 3:55 Shaw 1960 4:21 Richter 1961 4:24 Ormandy 1962 4:29 Horst 1964 4:31 Maazel 1965 4:37 Klemperer 1967 4:56 Harnoncourt 1968 4:16 Richter video 1969 4:30 Richter 1969 4:23 Münchinger 1970 4:30 Giulini 1972 4:08 Karajan 1974 4:13 Somary 1974 4:45 Rilling 1977 4:11 Marriner 1977 4:06 Corboz 1979 4:18 Jochum 1980 4:18 Schreier 1982 4:22 Rifkin 1982 3:50 Parrott 1984 4:00 Gardiner 1985 3:44 Leonhardt 1985 3:58 Harnoncourt 1986 4:24 Herreweghe 1988 3:48 Rilling 1988 3:56 - 427 Conductor Year Duration Straube 1988 4:04 Brüggen 1989 3:40 Eby 1990 4:00 Solti 1990 3:58 Shaw 1990 4:21 Ortner 1990 3:52 Schreier 1991 4:06 Brembeck 1992 4:35 Schneidt 1992 3:49 Hickox 1992 3:54 Max 1992 3:52 Jeffrey Thomas 1992 4:05 Jacobs 1992 3:47 Ericson 1992 3:52 Koopman 1994 3:51 Christophers 1994 3:58 Giulini 1994 4:38 Beringer 1994 3:56 Redel 1995 5:08 Radu 1995 3:56 Herreweghe 1996 4:02 King 1996 3:46 Hengelbrock 1996 3:28 Rifkin 1997 3:50 Funfgeld 1997 4:09 Fasolis 1997 3:36 Daus 1998 3:59 Abbado 1999 4:14 Rilling 1999 3:50 Pearlman 1999 3:40 Biller 2000 4:05 Ozawa 2000 3:45 Junghänel 2003 3:36 oa te s Sh Sc a he w rc he n En es c Ka u ra Le jan h Ku m a n rt Th n om a Jo s M au chu m er sb er ge G ris r c Sc hka t he rc he n Sh aw R ich te O rm r an dy H or st M aa z Kl em el p H a r e re no r nc R ich ou rt te rv id eo R ich M ün ter ch in ge r G iu lin Ka i ra ja So n m ar y R illi ng M ar rin er C or bo Jo z ch um C Resurrexit, 1929-1980 6:00 4:48 3:36 2:24 1:12 0:00 hr ei R er if k P in G a rro a L r d tt H eon i n e ar h r H non ar d er c t r e ou we rt g R he i l St l i n r g Br a u b üg e ge n Eb So y S h l ti O aw S c r tn e Br h re r e m ie r Sc b e h n ck H ei dt Je ic ffr ko ey x M Th a om x Ja as c Er o b i K c s C o o so hr p n ist m op an h G e rs i Be u l i rin n i g R er ed H er R e l r e ad we u g H en K he g e in lb g ro R ck Fu if k n f in g F a el d so l D is Ab a u ba s d Pe R i l l o i ar ng lm a Bi n l l Ju Oza er ng w hä a ne l Sc Resurrexit, 1981-2003 6:00 4:48 3:36 2:24 1:12 0:00 Alphabetical list of recordings of the B minor Mass Each item on this list corresponds to a full item in the chronological discography (pp. 298-366 above). Claudio Abbado 1999 Anonymous c. 1955 Hermann Aschenbach 1976 Edward Bairstow 1926 Karl-Friedrich Beringer 1978 Karl-Friedrich Beringer 1994 Georg Christoph Biller 2000 Christian Brembeck 1992 Frans Brüggen 1989 Frans Brüggen 1995 Sergiu Celibidache c. 1990 Harry Christophers 1994 Albert Coates 1929 Michel Corboz 1972 Michel Corboz 1979 Michel Corboz 1996 Joshard Daus 1998 Anders Eby 1990 George Enescu 1951 Eric Ericsson 1992 Diego Fasolis 1997 Alfred Federerer 1953 Fritz Münch 1958 Greg Funfgeld 1997 John Eliot Gardiner 1985 John Eliot Gardiner 1989 Carlo Maria Giulini 1972 Carlo Maria Giulini 1994 Walter Goehr c. 1960 Hans Grischkat 1953 Hans Grischkat 1959 Enoch Zu Guttenberg c. 1999 Nikolaus Harnoncourt 1968 Nikolaus Harnoncourt 1986 - 430 - - 431 Thomas Hengelbrock 1996 Philippe Herreweghe 1988 Philippe Herreweghe 1996 Richard Hickox 1992 Ryuichi Higuchi 2003 Theodor Holthoff 2000 Anthon van der Horst 1964 Alois Ickstadt 1987 René Jacobs 1992 Jeffrey Thomas 1992 Eugen Jochum 1957 Eugen Jochum 1980 Ifor Jones 1960 Konrad Junghänel 2003 Helmut Kahlhöfer 1985 Herbert von Karajan 1950 Herbert von Karajan 1952 Herbert von Karajan 1961 Herbert von Karajan 1974 Gerald Kegelmann 1994 Robert King 1996 Wolfgang Kläsener 1997 Otto Klemperer 1961 Otto Klemperer 1967 Ton Koopman 1994 Zdeněk Košler 1994 Paul Kuentz 1995 Sigiswald Kuijken 1997 Kurt Thomas 1955 Fritz Lehmann 1953 Gustav Leonhardt 1985 Gustav Leonhardt 1989 Lorin Maazel 1965 Neville Marriner 1977 Joachim Carlos Martini 1984 Mark Mast 2000 Rudolf Mauersberger 1958 Hermann Max 1992 Nicholas McGegan 1996 Karl Münchinger 1970 - 432 Anders Öhrwall 1998 Eugene Ormandy 1962 Erwin Ortner 1990 Seiji Ozawa 2000 Andrew Parrott 1979 Andrew Parrott 1984 Martin Pearlman 1999 Trevor Pinnock 1997 Michaela Prentl 1999 Valentin Radu 1995 Günther Ramin 1950 Günther Ramin 1956 Kurt Redel c. 1995 Karl Richter 1961 Karl Richter 1968 Karl Richter 1969a Karl Richter 1969b Joshua Rifkin 1982 Joshua Rifkin 1997 Helmuth Rilling 1977 Helmuth Rilling 1988a Helmuth Rilling 1988b Helmuth Rilling 1999 Hermann Scherchen 1950 Hermann Scherchen 1959 Hanns-Martin Schneidt 1992 Peter Schreier 1982 Peter Schreier 1991 Robert Shaw 1947 Robert Shaw 1960 Robert Shaw 1962 Robert Shaw 1990 Georg Solti 1990 Johannes Somary 1974 Jörg Straube 1988 Takashi Uematsu 2002 Fritz Werner 1957 Helmut Winschermann 1998

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Expression and Meaning In Bach Performance and Reception: An Examination of the B Minor Mass on Record

Expression and Meaning In Bach Performance and Reception: An Examination of the B Minor Mass on Record

Expression and Meaning In Bach Performance and Reception: An Examination of the B Minor Mass on Record

Expression and Meaning In Bach Performance and Reception: An Examination of the B Minor Mass on Record

Expression and Meaning In Bach Performance and Reception: An Examination of the B Minor Mass on Record

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS