|
|
Cantata BWV 182
Himmelskönig, sei willkommen
Discussions - Part 5 |
|
Continue from Part 4 |
|
Discussions in the Week of July 18, 2025 (5th round)
Cantata BWV 182, Rudolf Lutz compared to other recent HIP and OVPP recordings |
|
Frits V. Herbold wrote (July 18, 2025):
BWV 182 is fourth cantata of Rudolf Lutz’s cycle, recorded live at the Evangelic Church in Trogen on March 7, 2007 – 2 days before the Palmarum Sunday in that year, see also the Bachipidia Bachipedia with links to the concert (YouTube), workshop and reflexion. The names of all performers, including all choristers can also be found there. See also my general comments about the Lutz cycle at Rudolf Luts - Discussions Part 1,
I am comparing all movements with 4 other HIP interpretations: Koopman, Suzuki, and Gardiner and additionally with 6 OVPP recordings: Jeffrey Thomas with the American Bach Soloists, Joshua Rifkin with The Bach Ensemble, The Purcell Quartet, and Eric J. Milnes with the Montréal Baroque, Philippe Pierlot with the Ricercar Consort and Kuijken.
I am not going into the already existing discussion about OVPP interpretations at the BCW, but IMHO this intimate and delicate (first) Weimar cantata clearly justifies single voices OVPP, see introduction by Alfred Dürr (‘The Cantatas of J. S. Bach’).
Scoring: see KB, NBA I /8.1-2 and Bach Digital at Bach Digital
Remarks: both original score and parts of this first cantata of Bachs Weimar period after being promoted to ‘Konzertmeister’ are well preserved, although there are different instrumentations for the several additional versions after the first performance on March 25, 1714, when Palm Sunday and the Mariae Annunciation coincided: the Bach Digital site shows the best condensed scoring information by performance year, after the first original performances of 25 March 1714 at the ‘Himmelsburg’ in the castle church in Weimar (premiere), two other following performance during the Weimar period and a first new performance in Leipzig on 25 March 1724 at the St. Thomas Church and provably two other performances in Leipzig as well:
A*, T*, B*, S, A, T, B, Fl dolce (WA 1728: + Vl I), Vl (WA 1728: Vl II + Ob), Va I/II, Bc (inkl. Vc, Org, WA 1724–1728: Vne),
* = soloists WA = ‘Wiederaufführung’ = following/ performance
Important note: The NBA I / 8.1-2 was only published in 1998 and not available at the time of the 5 first recordings discussed here. That may have played an important role in the scoring (choir and instrumentation) of these interpretations.
See also the information about the total of 6 original performances at BCW of the BCW.
As a consequence, most of the discussed recordings perform different versions at different pitches. This will be discussed for each interpretation.
Introduction Cantata BWV 182 by Alfed Dürr (from ‘The Cantatas of J. S. Bach’)
‘This is probably Bach’s first cantata after his appointment as Concertmeister at the Weimar court, which carried with it the duty of monthly composition of new cantatas. The appointment was announced on 2 March 1714, and three weeks later, on 25 March, Bach carried out his new duty for the first time by performing the present work. The text is probably by Salomo Franck, for although it cannot be found among his printed works, Franck was then in-house poet at the Weimar court; and even if he did not come into consideration on that account, the poetic style undoubtedly points to his authorship, as Spitta rightly acknowledged. The text exhibits the transitional form between the old and new cantata type— characterized by the absence of freely versified recitative— which has so far been found only in Franck’s librettos. It is possible that the cantata was originally designed to end with a repeat of the opening chorus after the last aria, for a da capo indication to that effect is found in several performing parts. Yet there is no doubt that the last two movements were already included in the original Weimar performance. The Leipzig performing parts indicate that there Bach omitted the chorale no. 7. The content of the text is linked with the Gospel for Palm Sunday. The opening chorus states the theme in accordance with the old style of sermon: Christ’s entry into Jerusalem should also be His entry into our own hearts. This idea is thereafter expounded, first from the viewpoint of Christ Himself: strong love has driven the Son of God to fulfil the will of His Father and sacrifice Himself for the salvation of the world (nos. 3– 4). The individual Christian is then summoned to lay his heart at the feet of the Saviour— as the people of Jerusalem once laid their garments— as an unblemished witness of faith (no. 5) and not to depart from Jesus even in times of persecution (no. 6). The two choruses that close the work refer to the heavenly reward that has been bestowed upon the Christian through the Passion of Christ. The ‘Salem of Joy’ (Jerusalem) into which Jesus leads the faithful is now no longer the earthly city in which the Crucifixion will shortly take place, but the heavenly Jerusalem, the City of God, which the heavenly King enters in order to take possession of His Sovereignty and where a place will be granted for us too. The entire text has a mystical, enraptured character, which is manifest not only in the choice of words—‘ Heavenly King’, ‘You have ravished our heart’, ‘Lay yourselves down before the Saviour’— but in the interpretation of the biblical text: entry into Jerusalem, into one’s own heart, into the City of God. These characteristics indicate how close even non-Pietistic Lutheran verse often was to Pietism; and they may also have been in keeping with the disposition of the youthful composer, who found here plentiful stimulation for some richly expressive music. The scoring of the original Weimar version is typical of early Bach in that, contrary to early baroque practice of orchestration in choirs of instruments, individual solo instruments are pitted against one another. Bach’s gain from his engagement with modern Italian genres— the da capo aria and the Vivaldian instrumental concerto— is clearly perceptible. The small space available in the Weimar court chapel may have been better suited to writing in few parts than to lavishly scored music. In any case, up to 1715 Bach shows a marked preference for small-scale, select scoring, as in the present cantata. The only woodwind instrument, largely treated as soloist, is the recorder, which in the fully scored movements is joined by solo violin, stepping forward in a concertante role from a string group in which it plays alongside ripieno violins (but no second violin), first and second violas, and an occasionally independent cello. The work was gradually transformed from this chamber-music conception into a richly scored Leipzig cantata. Ripieno violins took over the entire violin part, and finally the violins were doubled throughout by oboe, the recorder was largely doubled by a new violin part, and a violone added to the continuo group. 54 The recorder part poses several problems for today’s performance practice. Bach’s instrument— in Chamber Pitch (probably Deep Chamber Pitch)— was a third lower than the organ, to which the Weimar strings were accustomed to tune their instruments. Thus the recorder playing in B would sound the same as the G major of the other instruments. When Bach revived the cantata in Leipzig— in G major at Chamber Pitch— he had to raise the lowest passages of the recorder pain the aria no. 5, since they lie unplayable low in G major. Today we have the choice of following Bach in this respect or performing the work at a higher pitch: perhaps in A major with B recorders. For, played with their original compass, the expressive recorder figures give a more striking portrayal of the laying down’ of the text, and the voice parts gain in brightness from a higher pitch.’
Remark: the total times of the discussed interpretations here vary considerably – from 24:16 (Kuijken) to 28:33 (Purcell Quartet). I will discuss tempo, soloists, choir and instrumentation (including the different composition of the basso continuo (BC) of each movement below.
Movement 1: Sonata – Recorder, Violino concertato, violino ripieno (Leipzig), 2 Violas and BC
Introduction by Alfred Dürr: ‘The introductory Sonata depicts the approach of the heavenly King as He enters Jerusalem. Its ceremonial dotted rhythms have associations with the French ouverture, during which the king was accustomed to enter his royal box (this association is still more evident in Cantata 61 for the First Sunday in Advent, when the same Gospel account was read: its first movement literally takes the form of a French overture). The strings accompany pizzicato, changing to long bowed notes shortly before the end of the movement. The impression is thereby formed of a gradual enhancement, which continues in the successive entries of the parts in the following chorus, no. 2, right up to the fully scored greeting salutation.
Jeffrey Thomas / American Bach Soloists (04-1994): this is one of the first OVPP interpretations I am aware of. I like the minimal instrumentation and playing of the American Bach Soloists in this first instrumental movement. Apart from the recorder, Thomas chooses a first ‘violino concertato’ as well as a second violin ‘in ripieno’ and two violas. I am not sure if he uses his full BC (violoncello, violone, archlute and organ) but I can hear clearly one lower pizzicato string instrument and the organ. He might even be using his archlute here, although the liner notes only inform ‘continuo’ for this movement. This interpretation corresponds to the first Leipzig version at the pitch of ‘a = 415 in G Major. His tempo of 2:24 is a good average, and identical to Purcell Quartet’s. What I don’t like is the strong ‘legato’ playing of the first violin in the opening, since the original score only mentions ‘Grave. Adagio’.
Koopman (May 1995): For this movement (and movement 7) Koopman recorded both Weimar and a later Leipzig versions, although both performed at pitch a’ = 415 Hz in G Major.
Weimar: Different from Thomas, he uses only one ‘violino concertato’ apart from the recorder and two violas. His BC consist here of violoncello, ‘violone’ and organ (without specifying which of the 3 organs mentioned, see below). Tempo: 2:02.
Leipzig: as above, with the addition of an oboe (played by Marcel Ponseele). According to the liner notes the ‘violone’ is now called ‘double-bass’ in the BC. I am not sure if these are different instruments, but the BC in this version sounds slightly ‘heavier’. The information about the used organ is also confusing: it says, ‘Organ Continuo /Organ /Chair organ 1 / Chair Organ 2’. Tempo:2:03
I clearly prefer the Weimar version. The addition of the oboe takes away part of the intimate character of this early sonata, but both versions are played very well.
Joshua Rifkin / The Bach Ensemble (08-1995 to 08 1996): this second OVPP Weimar version recording but performed with recorder, both ‘concertato’ and ‘ripieno’ violins, 2 violas and BC consisting ‘only’ of violoncello and chest organ, in this case played by John Finney. Rifkin also produces the expected intimate Weimar atmosphere of this sonata. His pitch is also a’= 415 Hz in G Major and his tempo of 2:02 similar to Koopman’s. I like this interpretation better that the much slower Jeffrey Thomas’.
Suzuki (April 1996): also plays the Weimar version at a pitch of a’= 415 Hz in G Major, using the recorder and only a ‘violino concertato’ and 2 violas ‘in a ‘dotted rhythm’. His BC consists of violoncello, violone and chest organ. His tempo of 1:56 is faster than the 3 discussed above but maintains a transparency and intimate atmosphere that makes it one of my first choices!
Gardiner (March 2000): with 2:05 minutes this is one of the most ‘light ‘and intimate performances – not always typical for Gardiner. He plays the Weimar version, but at the pitch of a’= 415 Hz and a key of G Major. He uses only the recorder and ‘violino concertato’ with the two violas. His BC (although the liner notes inform 2 violoncellos, double-bass, bassoon, harpsichord and organ) is almost inaudible and certainly very light. I can only hear a violoncello (or double-bass) and the organ. One of my favorite interpretations!
Lutz (March 2007): his tempo of 1:54 is almost as fast as Suzuki’s and sounds perfect. He also uses only the recorder and ‘violino concertato’ with the two violas, and his BC is played with violoncello, violone and chest organ. Recorder and violin are placed in the middle of the small orchestra and the two violas at the far left, one of them mostly invisible. The BC is performed with violoncello, violone and chest organ. This is also the Weimar version played at a pitch of a’= 415 Hz in G Major. Lutz also uses a non-equal temperament following Valotti und Young. The sound master did a very good job here, since the solo instruments sound clear and transparent in the foreground. Also one of my favorites!
The Purcell Quartet (May 2007): this outstanding performance with a tempo of 2:24 is the only played at a lower pitch of a’ = 392 that corresponded to the original ‘low Chammerton’ in Weimar as explained in Dürr’s introduction (see above). Compared to all other performances played at pitch a’= 415 Hz in G Major, this performance is played in B Major (Weimar) instead of all others in G Major(Leipzig). The liner notes inform how the other instruments are tuned: ‘Organ supplied, tuned and maintained by Malcolm Greenhalgh; Pitch: A = 392 Hz (Chammerton: recorder and oboe), A = 440 Hz (Chorton: other instruments)’. Also, the temperament used here follows the modified sixth comma, based on Bach’s 1722 title page of Das Wohltemperierte Clavier (Bradley Lehman's, published 2005, see LaripS.com. The movement uses recorder, both ‘violino concertato’ and ‘violino ripieno’, 2 violas and a BC consisting only of violoncello and organ. As a bonus in the liner notes are the descriptions of the used original instruments or copies / replicas. This information has only been available so far in the Harnoncourt / Leonhardt cycle, not discussed here. This performance is clearly one of my first choices.
Eric J. Milnes / Montréal Baroque (June 2007): although there is no mention in the liner notes about instrumentation, version and pitch, this is with recorder and one violin (‘concertato’) but played at a slightly higher pitch than a’= 415. I guess this is a recording at today’s standard pitch of a’= 440 but the key comes closer to G major. There is also no mention or description of original instruments, and both violin and recorder sound ‘sharper’ as in other HIP and OVPP interpretations. The tempo 2:22 is fine, but the ‘dotted rhythm’ is exaggerated and almost ‘staccato’. Not my first choice!
Philippe Pierlot / Ricercar Consort (November 2007): this I the second recording by Pierlot (see first recording May 1995 with the ' Choeur de Chambre de Namur’). The liner notes don’t inform the tuning / pitch of each instrument, but one can clearly hear that the key is in G major as with the Purcell Quartet, see above, so I assume that his recorder is tuned at a’= 392 Hz and the other instruments accordingly in order to deal with the original Weimar pitch. There is no information about his instruments, but I guess he also uses original or copies / replicas as can been seen in YouTube recordings, e.g. YouTube
His tempo of 2:01 sounds correct; can hear only one violin (‘concertato’) with the recorder and the 2 violas, and his BC sounds very ‘light’, probably only violoncello and organ. This is a very vivid, vibrant and transparent interpretation, reminding the associations with the French ouverture mentioned by Dürr (see above)– one of my first choices!
Kuijken (December 2012): his tempo of 1:52 is somewhat quicker. The liner notes confirm that this is the Weimar version, in B Major at the a’ = 415 Hz Leipzig pitch. Kuijken has a very personal view on the instrumental scoring of Bach’s BC in his cantatas, explained in an additional booklet that accompany his CD Edition 2006 – 2012 recordings, ‘General Introduction – On the Instrumental forces, especially the Continuo Group’. A very interesting reading, although not all Bach scholars may agree with him. Basically, he rejects the use of the violoncello in the BC and uses an 8 foot ‘violone’, considerably larger than today’s cello, called ‘Basse de Violon’ in France, together with a chest organ. Although he has a good bassoon player, they rarely join the BC as can been seen in the many videos available on You Tube.
The instrumentation in this movement follows the majority of all other discussed above: recorder, one ‘violino concertato ‘and a very modest BC, only violone and organ and sounds even better as Philippe Pierlot’s approach: but even more vivid, vibrant and transparent. This is my first choice!
My personal preferences: it is not easy to make a fair assessment of all the above interpretations, since most of them achieve the intimate character of this Weimar sonata, but my preference is
(1) Kuijken – (2) Pierlot – (3) The Purcell Quartet – (4) Lutz – (5) Rifkin – (6) Suzuki - (7) Gardiner – (8) Koopman – (9) Jeffrey Thomas – (10) Eric J. Milnes
Movement 2: Chorus (Soloists or Choir S, A, T, B, Recorder, Violin, 2 Violas, Violoncello and BC
Introduction by Alfred Dürr: ‘The formal structure of this chorus is exceptionally clear: the two identical outer sections of its ABA da capo form begin with a permutation fugue on ‘Himmelskönig, sei willkommen’ (see the partial reproduction in the introduction, Music Example No. 5), which then— via a texture of canonic imitation on ‘Laß auch uns dein Zion sein!’— reaches a homophonic conclusion. The middle section is made up of two similar canonic complexes on ‘Du hast uns das Herz genommen’.
Remark: I clearly prefer the OVPP recordings since they give much more transparency to the permutation fugues and canonic imitations mentioned by A. Dürr above. I am concentrating my discussion on the OVPP soloists or choir and instrumental accompaniment, tempo and BC. I am not repeating the commentaries on each pitch, since this was explained in detail in the first movement above.
Jeffrey Thomas / American Bach Soloists (04-1994): the tempo at 3:09 sounds adequate and is not much different as the other interpretations (around 3:00 and 3:30). All OVPP soloists Christine Brandes (S), Judith Malafronte (Mezzo-Soprano) (A), Jeffrey Thomas (T) and James Weaver (B) sing with a clear, crystal sound and good diction. Recorder, 1 violin, 2 violas and violoncello / violone / archlute and organ in the BC also sound clear and transparent. A very refreshing and inspired interpretation!
Koopman (May 1995): instrumentation and BC are exactly the same as above; also the close tempo of 3:00 but with the large choir of 5 sopranos, 4 altos, 5 tenors and 4 basses the above mentioned clarity and transparency is gone! The sopranos sound slightly shrill at some instances. One of my last choices!
Joshua Rifkin / The Bach Ensemble (08-1995 to 08 1996): this is a similar interpretations to Thomas’, but at a slower tempo of 3:33. All OVPP soloists Susanne Rydén (S), Counter-tenor: Steven Rickards (A), John Elwes (T) and Michael Schopper (B) sound good but not as clear as the soloists with Thomas. The instrumentation differs slightly from the 2 discussed above with both ‘concertato’ and ‘ripieno’ violins and a BC with only violoncello and organ. Not my first choice but still among the more appreciated OVPP recordings!
Suzuki (April 1996): the tempo of 3:22 is similar to Rifkin’s but the large choir with 5 sopranos, 4 altos, 4 tenors and 4 basses although more transparent than with Koopman is too large IMHO. Suzuki employs only the violino concertato with recorder and 2 violas and the BC consist also of violoncello, violone and chest organ. One of my first choices of the non OVPP recordings.
Gardiner (March 2000): although at a much faster tempo of 2:56, Gardiner’s excellent Monteverdi Choir with 6 sopranos, 4 altos, 4 tenors and 4 basses sounds much more transparent than with Koopman and Suzuki. He uses only the recorder and ‘violino concertato’ with the two violas. His BC (although the liner notes inform 2 violoncellos, double-bass, bassoon, harpsichord and organ) sounds very light and discreet. I can only hear a violoncello (or double-bass) and the organ. Apart from the OVPP interpretations, one of my favorite HIP recordings!
Lutz (March 2007): the tempo of 3:24 is similar to Suzuki’s. I would have expected that Lutz would also choose an OVPP interpretation (as he did with many other Weimar cantatas), but this is not the case with his choir of 3 sopranos, 3 altos, 3 tenors and 3 basses, which would correspond closely to Bach’s situation in Leipzig and comes very close in transparency to all discussed OVPP recordings above and below. All his chorister’s voices are technically perfect with clear diction and good timbres. They master the permutation fugues and canonic imitations mentioned by A. Dürr above with exact entries (as well as stops) and crystal clear voices. Instrumentation: recorder, violin, 2 violas and violoncello, violone and chest organ in the BC. One of my favorite recordings.
The Purcell Quartet (May 2007): although this is a very clear and transparent OVPP recording with well-known soloists Emma Kirkby; Counter-tenor: Michael Chance; Tenor: Charles Daniels and Bass: Peter Harvey, I don’t like both soprano and counter-tenor voices. I don’t think English soprano, Emma (Carolyn) Kirkby (see BCW) nor Michael Chance (see BCW) are at their prime here. The instrumentation is explained in the liner notes: recorder, 2 violins, 2 violas and a ‘light’ BC with violoncello and chest organ. See also individual comments for movements 5 and 6 and remarks on pitch and temperament at movement 1, above. The temp of 3:28 is average. Not my first choice among all OVPP recordings.
Eric J. Milnes / Montréal Baroque (June 2007): although at a much faster tempo of 2:54, the OVPP soloist voices sound crystal clear and their entries nevertheless are perfect. I like this soloists better than those with the Purcell Quartet, especially the soprano and alto voices of – respectively German soprano, Monika Mauch (see BCW) and Canadian counter-tenor, Matthew White (see BCW) - both much younger. The instrumentation is explained in the liner notes: recorder, 2 violins, 2 violas and a BC with 2 violoncellos, double-bass, chest organ. One of my first choices!
Philippe Pierlot / Ricercar Consort (November 2007): these OVPP soloists Monika Mauch, soprano, counter-tenor Matthew White, tenor Charles Daniels and bass: Harry van der Kamp sound even better than the above – very clear and sparkling. The tempo of 3:01 and instrumentation are similar to Milnes’ recording. Also among my first choices.
Kuijken (December 2008): this OVPP interpretation at a tempo of 3:12 with soprano: Gerlinde Sämann, mezzo-soprano Petra Noskaiová, tenor Christoph Genz and bass Jan Van der Crabben is certainly my first choice. The instrumentation and BC follows the remarks in the liner notes, already discussed in movement 1, see above.
My personal preferences: I prefer clearly all OVPP interpretations, in the following order
(1) Kuijken – (2) Pierlot – (3) ErJ. Milnes – (4) Jeffrey Thomas – (5) Rifkin – (6) The Purcel Quartet
Other 4 HIP recordings: (1) Lutz – (2) Suzuki – (3) Gardiner – (4) Koopman
Movement 3 – Recitativo Bass and BC
Introduction by A. Dürr: ‘The following biblical words are no longer set as a chorus, in the old style, but as a recitative (no. 3), perhaps to compensate for the absence of freely versified recitative in Franck’s text. After a short introduction, however, the recitative changes into arioso — a characteristic of the youthful Bach that survives even up to his first Leipzig cantatas.’
Remark: since the BC in all interpretations has been discussed above, I am only evaluating the bass soloist, as in the bass aria, movement 4. See below.
Movement 4 – Aria Bass, Violin (concertato), Violas 1 and 2, BC
Introduction by A. Dürr:’ The scoring of the three arias that follow reflects the changing perspective of the text from Christendom as a whole to the individual Christian.’
Jeffrey Thomas / American Bach Soloists (04-1994): American bass-baritone, James F. Weaver (see BCW) powerful ‘dark’ bass voice in both high and low registers and is one of my first choices in this aria. His excellent voice might be less known in Europe, although he also worked with Philippe Herreweghe. Instrumental accompaniment: ‘violino concertato’, 2 violas and BC with violoncello, archlute and organ. The tempo of 3:28 is among the slower interpretations but sounds adequate.
Koopman (May 1995): well-known German bass-baritone, Klaus Mertens (see BCW) who mostly works with Koopman is also perfect with excellent technique and diction, although the tempo of 2:34 sounds almost too fast. The instrumental accompaniment and BC is identical with Thomas, with the exception of the archlute. I like the ‘round’ and softer voice of Mertens better.
Joshua Rifkin / The Bach Ensemble (08-1995 to 08 1996): German bass-baritone, Michael Schopper (see BCW) has worked previously with Karl Richter, Leonard Bernstein, Nicolaus Harnoncourt, Gustav Leonhardt and Reinhard Goebel (among others) and also has a perfect ‘dark’ bass timbre, reminding James F. Weaver with Jeffrey Thomas. The difference in the instrumental accompaniment is the use of an additional 2nd violin as ‘ripieno’. The BC is minimal with violoncello and chest organ. With a tempo of 2:48 closer to Koopman’s, this is also a perfect interpretation!
Suzuki (April 1996): Dutch bass, Peter Kooy ( correct Dutch spelling: Kooij, see BCW) is also well-known for his participation in the Suzuki cycle and reminds the experience and perfection of Mertens with Koopman. His instrumental accompaniment is minimal: violin (‘concertato’), 2 violas and only violoncello and chest organ in the BC. The tempo is 2:36. Another great interpretation!
Gardiner (March 2000): English baritone, Peter Harvey (see BCW) mostly participates in Gardiner’s complete cycle and does not fall back in technique and timbre compared to all of the above. The faster tempo of 2:30 is similar to the above. His instrumental accompaniment is similar to all other, but with 2 violins. The BC with violoncello, double-bass and chest organ is somewhat ‘heavier’. Again, another great interpretation!
Lutz (March 2007): Swiss baritone and conductor, Raphael Jud (see BCW) might not be as well-known as his colleagues above mentioned, but also gives an excellent performance with a strong dark timbre, at a tempo of 2:34. Instrumental accompaniment: ‘violino concertato’, 2 violas and violoncello, violone and chest organ in the BC.
The Purcell Quartet (May 2007): Peter Harvey (see Gardiner, above) returns 7 years later to this performance and sings even better than with Gardiner. His voice sounds ‘rounder’ and ‘softer’ here. The instrumentation is explained in the liner notes: recorder, 2 violins, 2 violas and a ‘light’ BC with violoncello and chest organ. See also individual comments for movements 5 and 6 and remarks on pitch and temperament at movement 1, above. The temp of 2:51 is a good average.
Eric J. Milnes / Montréal Baroque (June 2007): Dutch bass, Harry van der Kamp (see BCW) reminds Peter Kooij but has a darker timbre, technically perfect! The instrumentation is explained in the liner notes: 2 violins, 2 violas and a BC with 2 violoncellos, double-bass, chest organ. Also one of my first choices!
Philippe Pierlot / Ricercar Consort (November 2007): Swiss bass-baritone, Stephan MacLeod (see BCW), another well-known name who has worked with many excellent performances with Philippe Herreweghe, Michel Corboz, Gustav Leonhardt, Reinhard Goebel (Musica Antiqua Köln), Sigiswald Kuijken, Masaaki Suzuki (Bach Collegium Japan) and Konrad Jünghanel (Cantus Cölln) among many other others and has a solid voice: good diction and very secure in both high and low registers. At a tempo of 2:45, as good as any other voice discussed before! See information about pitch and instrumental accompaniment above in movement 1.
Kuijken (December 2008): Belgian baritone, Jan van der Crabben (see BCW) concludes the review of all these excellent bass voices with a certainly comparable excellence, although his voice here sounds somewhat ‘reserved’ and not as strong as all the others. The fast tempo with 2:23 though, is too hasty and jumpy! The instrumentation and BC follow the remarks in the liner notes, already discussed in movement 1, see above.
My personal preferences: again, it is very difficult to make a fair assessment of all these excellent bass (-baritone) interpretations. Regarding technique, all voices are superb – the differences are mostly in each individual timbre: light / dark/ strong / soft etc. I like all recordings equally, with a small disadvantage for Jan van der Crabben with Kuijken.
Movement 5 – Aria Alt, Recorder and BC
Remark: This intimate and fragile movement speaks directly to one’s soul and is one of my favorite arias! I am only commenting on the alto voices and the recorder playing. The BC’s basically follow the previous movement.
Jeffrey Thomas / American Bach Soloists (04-1994): American mezzo-soprano, Judith Malafronte (see BCW) and less known recorder soloist (see Aldo Brau Website ) are both excellent. I like the mostly average tempo of 7:36 that seems very adequate to enjoy the intimacy of this movement. One of my first choices!
Koopman (May 1995): both German counter-tenor, Kai Wessel (see BCW) and Dutch recorder player, Marion Verbruggen (see BCW) also sound perfect in this combination. The tempo of 6:36 is a minute faster but still has the same intimacy as with Thomas, above.
Joshua Rifkin / The Bach Ensemble (08-1995 to 08 1996): both American counter-tenor, Steven Rickards (see BCW) and recorder soloist Christopher Krueger (see BCW) also make a perfect double at a similar tempo of 7:08.
Suzuki (April 1996): Japanese counter-tenor Yoshikazu Mera (see BCW) sings many alto parts in the Suzuki cycle and is mostly among my first choices in many recordings. The recorder is also very well played by Yoshimichi Hamada (seAnthonello Website) but unfortunately the tempo is too slow IMHO and doesn’t appear adequate.
Gardiner (March 2000): French contralto and conductor, Nathalie Stutzmann (see BCW) although highly praised as opera singer is not my first choice as contralto for Bach arias. IMHO she sounds to operatic and sometimes slightly shrill in the higher register. The recorder is very well played by Catherine Latham (see Feenotes) who also plays the oboe. As with Suzuki, the tempo of 8:44 is too slow for my taste.
Lutz (March 2007): Swiss mezzo-soprano, Claude Eichenberger also has a background as opera singer but is slightly better than Nathalie Stutzmann in this performance but still not my first choice. The recorder is played by Armelle Plantier (see Metason) and her instrument sounds really ‘dolce’. The tempo of 6:43 is a well sounding average.
The Purcell Quartet (May 2007): English counter-tenor, Michael Chance (see BCW ) is regarded today as one of the world's leading and most-sought-after counter-tenors. His performance here is among my first choices, although the tempo of 8:19 is also too slow IMHO. The recorder part played by Rachel Beckett (see Realm of Music) is very well performed with an adequate intimate sound. See also liner notes as informed in movement 1.
Eric J. Milnes / Montréal Baroque (June 2007): Canadian counter-tenor, Matthew White (see BCW) gained an enviable reputation for excellence in a young career and his ever-expanding career includes appearances worldwide. He has a strong and clear voice here, among my first choices. Canadian viola da gamba, cello and recorder player, Mélisande Corriveau (see BCW) is at the same level of all other recorder players here. The tempo of 7:56 sounds like a good average.
Philippe Pierlot / Ricercar Consort (November 2007): Spanish counter-tenor, Carlos Mena (see BCW ) got a diploma of Renaissance-Baroque Music at the prestigious Schola Cantorum Basiliensis, Basel, His technique and ‘intimate’ sounding timbre that makes him one of my first choices in this performance. The recorder is well played by Dutch recorder player and composer Kees Boeke (see Wikipedia) . Unfortunately the exaggeratedly slow tempo of 9:17 is too slow for my taste.
Kuijken (December 2008): Slovak mezzo-soprano, Petra Noskaiová (see BCW ) has a very pleasant, soft and delicate timbre; one of my first choices. The recorder, played by Belgian Bart Coen (see Koninklijk Conservatoriumm Brussel Website) is one of my favorite performances; his instrument is much more in the forefront and the sound technician probably did a good job too. The tempo of 7:28 sounds perfect for this movement. Clearly my first choice!
My personal preferences: I like both women’s and men’s voices:
Women’s voices: (1) Kuijken – (2) Jeffrey Thomas – (3) Lutz – (4) Gardiner
Men’s voices: (1) Eric J. Milnes – (2) Purcell Quartet – (3) Pierre Perlot - (4) Koopman – (5) Rifkin – (6) Suzuki)
Movement 6 – Aria Tenor and BC
Introduction by A. Dürr: ‘The third aria (no. 6), in particular, is full of expressive gestures that must have seemed extravagant at the time.’
Remark: I am only discussing the tenor voices. For the BC see above.
Jeffrey Thomas / American Bach Soloists (04-1994): American tenor and conductor Jeffrey Thomas (see BCW) is Artistic and Music Director of the American Bach Soloists and the American Classical Soloists, with whom he has directed and conducted recordings of more than 25 cantatas, the Mass in B Minor (BWV 232), the Musical Offering, motets, chamber music, and works by Heinrich Schütz, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, Antonio Vivaldi, Haydn, and L. v. Beethoven. I don’t like his interpretation here. His diction is not perfect, and his voice is shrill in the high registers
Koopman (May 1995): German tenor, Christoph Prégardien (see BCW) is widely regarded as among the foremost lyric tenors. His diction and timbre are good here, but not among the best performances in all his recordings with Koopman.
Joshua Rifkin / The Bach Ensemble (08-1995 to 08 1996): German bass-baritone, Michael Schopper (see: BCW ) is not at his prime here, but still sounds better than the 2 above.
Suzuki (April 1996): Japanese tenor, Makoto Sakurada (see BCW) has a soft and technically perfect voice in both low and high registers. His coloraturas are also the best here. One of my first choices.
Gardiner (March 2000): English tenor, James Gilchrist, was a chorister at New College, Oxford, and choral scholar at King's College (see BCW) . Technically perfect but somewhat exaggerated in his expressions. Not bad, but not my first choice.
Lutz (March 2007): Austrian tenor, Bernhard Berchthold (see BCW) is my favorite tenor in this aria. He has an excellent diction and strong voice.
The Purcell Quartet (May 2007): English tenor, Charles Daniels (see BCW) a former Chorister and Choral Scholar of King's College is perfect here. Among my first choices.
Eric J. Milnes / Montréal Baroque (June 2007): Charles Daniels (see above) sings again here, 1 month later and is as perfect as with the Purcell Quartet. Among my first choices.
Philippe Pierlot / Ricercar Consort (November 2007): German tenor, Hans Jörg Mammel (see BCW) has also worked with renown Bach cantata conductors Philippe Herreweghe, Konrad Junghänel, Sigiswald Kuijken and Rudolf Lutz. In this too fast performance (with a very loud BC in the foreground) although technically perfect. His voice is among my first choices, but the fast tempo and loud BC are not ideal.
Kuijken (December 2008): German tenor, Christoph Genz (see BCW) has the ‘lightest’ voice in comparison among all other recordings of this aria but he isn’t quite secure in the few coloratura passages. Not my first choice, but also among the better voices.
My personal preferences: I am always biased when discussing tenor voices in Bach’s cantatas because of the perfect voice of Kurt Equiluz (see BCW) not included in this discussion but difficult to be matched.
(1) Lutz – (2) Suzuki – (3) Purcell Quartet – (4) Eric Milnes – (5) Rifkin – (6) Kuijken – (7) Koopman – (8) Jeffrey Thomas – (9) Gardiner – (10 Philippe Perlot
Movement 7 – Chorale, S, A, T, B as Soloists or Choir, Instruments with Recorder (at 8va) and BC
Introduction by A. Dürr: ‘The chorale ‘Jesu, deine Passion’, no. 7, whose words and melody are identical with those of BWV 159/ 5, belongs to the so-called Pachelbel type of chorale arrangement: each line is prepared imitatively before its delivery by the soprano in long notes. It breaks out of the traditional mold, however, by virtue of the individual shaping of the chorale linein the accompanying parts. Note, for example, the lively motion on ‘Freude’ ( joy’) or ‘Weide’ (‘ pasture’) and the syncopations on ‘Meine Seel auf Rosen geht’ (‘ My soul walks on roses’)’
Remark: I am only commenting on the OVPP choristers or choir with special emphasis on the soprano part and tempo.
Jeffrey Thomas / American Bach Soloists (04-1994): this is a very fresh / clear OVPP interpretation, but with one weak point: a not so clear diction, but that doesn’t hinder me to think of it as one of my favorite recordings. American soprano, Christine Brandes (see BCW) sings her choral part nicely, but also lacks a clear diction. The tempo of 3:02 sounds adequate.
Koopman (May 1995): as for movement 1, Koopman recorded both Weimar and Leipzig version, both at the same (Leipzig) pitch of a’= 415 Hz. The main difference to the Weimar version is the addition of an oboe as well as the use of a ‘double-bass ‘instead of a ‘violone’. Both are fine interpretations, although at faster tempo of 2:29. The IMHO too large choir (5 sopranos, 4 altos, 5 tenors and 4 basses) sounds surprisingly transparent for this size. The soprano choristers sing in a very cohesive way. One of my first choices for full choir recordings.
Joshua Rifkin / The Bach Ensemble (08-1995 to 08 1996): very similar to Jeffrey Thomas but with a better diction of the soloists and a slower tempo of 3:34. Swedish soprano, Susanne Rydén (see BCW) sings the chorale part with a clear and fluid voice.
Suzuki (April 1996): his choir is almost as large as with Koopman (5 sopranos, 4 altos, 4 tenors and 4 basses) and plays at a similar tempo of 3:10. The chorale soprano part is also very well sung. In my taste it is very similar to Koopman.
Gardiner (March 2000): uses practically the same size choir as Koopman and Suzuki (6 sopranos, 4 altos, 4 tenors and 4 basses) but his Monteverdi Choir is technically superior in comparison, including the soprano section. At a tempo 2:44, one of my first choices.
Lutz (March 2007): with the ideal choir strength of 3 singers per voice, this is my very first choice withing the full choir interpretations. The very intimate and transparent individual sections create a very ‘soft’ sounds and the diction is the best here. His tempo of 3:46 sounds, very close to Gardiner also sounds adequate.
The Purcell Quartet (May 2007): this very smooth, intimate and transparent OVPP recording at a tempo of 3:05 is my first choice. Experienced English soprano, Emma Kirkby (see BCW) sings without overshadowing the other soloists creating a very equilibrated interpretation.
Eric J. Milnes / Montréal Baroque (June 2007): this much faster OVPP recording at 2:38 still sounds very transparent and German soprano, Monika Mauch (see BCW) sings her part well with the exception of a shrill sounding triller on ‘si’ in ‘passion’. But as a whole tis is also a fine interpretation.
Philippe Pierlot / Ricercar Consort (November 2007): very similar to Milnes (above) with clear individual solo voices, including English soprano, Katharine Fuge (see BCW). At an adequate tempo of 2:45, one of my favorite interpretations.
Kuijken (December 2008): as usual with Kuijken’ s OVPP performances, very clear and transparent solo voices with a very good dictions. The soprano part by blind German soprano, Gerlinde Sämann (see BCW) is also very discreet, not overpowering her colleagues with the full chorale part. His tempo of 2:41 is close to Perlot’s. One of my first choices.
My personal preferences: I clearly prefer all OVPP interpretations, in the following order:
(1) Purcell Quartet – (2) Pierlot – (3) Kuijken (4) Rifkin – (5) Jeffrey Thomas – (6) Milnes
Other 4 HIP recordings: (1) Lutz – (2 = 3 = 4) Gardiner, Suzuki and Koopman
Movement 8 – Chorus, S, A, T, B as Soloists or Choir, Recorder, Violin, 2 Violas, Violoncello and BC
My personal preferences are the same here as for movement 7. I also clearly prefer all OVPP interpretations, in the following order:
(1) Purcell Quartet – (2) Pierlot – (3) Kuijken (4) Rifkin – (5) Jeffrey Thomas – (6) Milnes
Other 4 HIP recordings: (1) Lutz – (2) Gardiner – (3) Suzuki – (4) Koopman
Final preferences: I have a hard time to classify my preferences for the 6 OVPP recordings; I like them all in their different approaches , soloists and instrumentation.
For the remaining HIP recordings, also very similar in excellence, I prefer:
(1) Lutz – (2 = 3 = 4) Gardiner, Suzuki and Koopman |
| |
|
|
