|
Mass in B minor BWV 232
General Discussions - Part 10
Continue from Part 9
MBM & cembalo in b.c
BMM. Harpsichord in continuo. (Hickox) [BCML]
Riccardo Nughes wrote (March 22, 2004):
I forward this question from an Italian ML: are there any recent recording (HIP or not)of the MBM where an harpischord is used in the continuo?
Uri Golomb wrote (March 22, 2004):
[To Riccardo Nughes] Most recordings use an organ continuo. However, the following recordings of the MBM employ a harpsichord among the continuo instruments:
Albert Coates, in the work's first complete performance from 1929 (he also uses a piano);
Gunther Ramin (at least in his incomplete, 1950 recording -- I haven't heard his complete 1956 version);
George Enescu (in a 1950s broadcast released on BBC Legends);
Fritz Lehmann;
Kurt Thomas;
Eugen Jochum (in both of his recordings);
Rudolf Mauersberger (the same player on both organ and harpsichord -- so they do not appear simultaneously, only alternately);
Eugene Ormandy;
Lorin Maazel (see my comment on Mauersberger);
John Eliot Gardiner;
Richard Hickox;
Harry Christophers (who also uses a theorbo);
Kurt Redel;
Valentin Radu;
Joshard Daus.
Radu is the only conductor who employs only a harpsichord; all the others use organ as well (and, as I noted, there are additional instruments in the Coates and Christophers versions). My comment on Mauersberger and Maazel might be applicable to others as well; when players are not listed, it's not always easy to tell if organ and harpsichord are used together. In several cases (e.g., Gardiner, Hickox, Christophers), there are separated listings for harpischordist and organist, so the two do appear together -- though the harpsichord doesn't feature throughout (Gardiner and Christophers, for example, omit the harpsichord from the Second Kyrie). When only one player is used, the harpsichord appears more frequently in arias than in choruses.
Uri Golomb wrote (March 22, 2004):
PS to my previous message: I didn't notice, at first, that Ricardo was asking about recent recordings. Well, my list is mostly chronological. Jochum's second recording is from 1980; John Eliot Gardiner's is 1985. So I suppose all the items on my list from Gardiner onwards might count as "recent".
Bradley Lehman wrote (March 22, 2004):
< Most recordings use an organ continuo. However, the following recordings of the MBM employ a harpsichord among the continuo instruments: (...) Radu is the only conductor who employs only a harpsichord; all the others use organ as well (and, as I noted, there are additional instruments in the Coates and Christophers versions). >
And, remarkably, Radu employed a harpsichord without employing a harpsichordIST. His player whacks through Gottfried Mueller's organ realization (the NBA set of orchestral parts: Baerenreiter) literally, without improvising anything beyond a few passing tones and trills, and without the dynamic touch that is an essential feature of harpsichord-playing (even at an intermediate level). Ugh. And it was far too loud in the mix, unnaturally so. Nor was her command of rhythm and tempo up to par...a real struggle against the notes, and a struggle against everybody else's phrasing. Ugh.
I bought this set when it was new, about ten years ago, and recognized immediately what was going on (that's scary, recognizing a written-out continuo realization being played, when it's supposed to be treated as only a sketch for improvisation....). This was confirmed by getting out that keyboard-continuo part and looking at it: sure enough, a literal reading of it. I took the set back to the store for a refund; I wasn't happy with other aspects of the performance anyway. The whole thing was--to me--so unlistenable, even at the low price I paid, I didn't keep it. I couldn't believe that something that amateurish was being sold, and I wanted my money back.
Sometime after that I had the opportunity to work with some of those same solo singers in another performance of the BMM, and I asked about that recording. They weren't happy with it either, and laughed it off as an unfortunate experience. Some of that recording was done as an overdub: the instrumental portions first, and then bringing in the singers to dub in the vocal parts later. Ugh. No wonder it was so stiff, and no wonder the singers sounded uncomfortable in the recording.... Some of the conductor's interpretive ideas were interesting and I'd enjoy hearing the recording again someday, for old times' sake; but there's not much incentive to that.
I also asked them about the keyboard player and it was confirmed that she's a voice teacher and piano accompanist, not a trained harpsichordist. I hate to be so negative about this, but it all just sounded so awful in the recording, it ruined the whole thing for me.... I can listen to just about anything, and find something to appreciate in it, but incompetent continuo-playing is one thing I can't stand.
John Pike wrote (March 22, 2004):
[To Uri Golomb] I can warmly recommend the Enescu recording.
Neil Halliday wrote (March 23, 2004):
A personal impression:
The harpsichord (in the Hickox) plays quite an effective continuo role in the alto aria 'Qui sedes', where it has discernable pitch and musical 'shape'; but in the following bass aria 'Quoniam', we have mostly an annoying pitchless 'buzz'.
I am at a loss to explain this apparent difference; perhaps the acoustic in the latter track is less satisfactory, because I notice the bassoons are not very clear either (this aria is scored for 2 bassoons, horn and continuo).
In the movements with larger scoring, the harpsichord possibly becomes redundant because it cannot be heard; while in some of the other arias, he replaces the harpsichord with organ.
Speaking of harpsichord continuo, today I noted a very interesting realisation in Rilling's BWV 134, movement 5 (secco recitative, over two minutes long) in which the harpsichord plays a very flowing and ornate part, consisting of continuous arpeggiated chords joined together by quasi-melodic elements, over long notes on the cello. The pitch and timbre of the harpsichord are well-recorded. This is one of the best 'secco' (with harpsichord) realisations I have heard.
The listed player is Martha Schuster. A more ordinary (and less pleasing) 'secco' example occurs in the following cantata BWV 135, movement 2, where the harpsichordist is listed as H. Erhard. Hmmm.)
Anyway, what a joy the cantatas are! I recommend at least one CD a day.
Bradley Lehman wrote (March 23, 2004):
< The harpsichord (in the Hickox) plays quite an effective continuo role in the alto aria 'Qui sedes', where it has discernable pitch and musical 'shape'; but in the following bass aria 'Quoniam', we have mostly an annoying pitchless 'buzz'.
(...)
In the movements with larger scoring, the harpsichord possibly becomes redundant because it cannot be heard; while in some of the other arias, he replaces the harpsichord with organ. >
Let me correct a serious misconception here. The misconception is that the harpsichord is in there necessarily for the AUDIENCE to hear, with clarity.
A big part of the harpsichord's function, playing continuo in music of the 17th and 18th centuries, is to help keep all the players/singers together: both with a crisp rhythmic profile, and with expressive nuance that catalyzes/inspires the other musicians to focus and do their best. If the audience can hear it, that's neither here nor there; and sometimes, the audience should NOT hear it. It's not supposed to draw attention to itself, but rather to cement the whole ensemble into a complete unit. It's like the salt in a recipe: one doesn't want to have the cake or cookies or bread taste salty, but something sure is wrong when it's not there at all.
That's not to say that all music has to have harpsichord in it, either; but merely that when it's there, the audience shouldn't expect to hear it all the time, or complain when they don't. If the harpsichordist is doing his/her job wel, in large ensembles, we DON'T hear it all. The same is true for the organ, theorbo, and other improvising continuo instruments. It's the player's job to hold everybody else together and complete the musical texture, more than to be heard with discernible details. It's a thankless job, yet rewarding in its own way.
Charles Francis wrote (March 23, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote : < Let me correct a serious misconception here. The misconception is that the harpsichord is in there necessarily for the AUDIENCE to hear, with clarity. >
Many years ago, I endured some of Bach's cantatas under Nikalous Harnoncourt's direction from the organ loft of the Graz cathedral (appropriately, Graz is the hometown of Harnoncourt and Arnold Schwarzenegger). Needless to say, Harnoncourt's conducting conspired with the cathedral acoustics to obscure much of what Bach had notated. Not that this performance, in a heated venue no less, represented the historical ideal. There were no crying babies for one thing and, thanks to penicillin, no extended coughing bouts. Moreover, the audience in the Catholic Dom was there for the music, not religion. NO, in my opinion it is a serious misconception to attempt to recreate the sound world of the faithful in Bach's time. Rather, let the listener hear the music in the composer's mind. Bach certainly heard the harpsichord clearly when he conducted and I expect no less.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (March 23, 2004):
Charles Francis wrote: < Rather, let the listener hear the music in the composer's mind. >
What does this mean?
"Bach certainly heard the harpsichord clearly when he conducted and I expect no less."
Do you expect to hear all music from the perpspective of the conductor? What the conductor hears is not the same as what the audience, further back in the hall, hears; and the latter perspective is what the composer expects the audience to hear.
Bradley Lehman wrote (March 24, 2004):
< "Bach certainly heard the harpsichord clearly when he conducted and I expect no less." >
Fine; learn to play harpsichord and get yourself some gigs improvising continuo. It's indeed a nice seat from which to experience all the unblended notes of the music, in raw form, if one enjoys that sort of thing. So is the conductor's desk. But a tourist's ears don't belong there, unless he's prepared to take all the musical responsibility also.
At a restaurant do you expect to have all the sights and sounds and smells of the kitchen, or do you just want to be served your food as ordered, courteously and well prepared? Or at the mechanic's garage do you want the sweat and grease and noise, or do you just want to drive away with your machine working perfectly?
Whatever the performers hear and do in their own workspace, to put it all together, is their own business! Balances are odd when heard from too close a perspective. The sound is supposed to project and be focused best where the listeners will be. That's why conductors in rehearsal go out to the room while the music is going, and/or get advice from trusted assistants positioned far away, to know what they need to improve in the balances and phrasing.
=====
>"Many years ago, I endured some of Bach's cantatas under Nikalous Harnoncourt's direction from the organ loft of the Graz cathedral(appropriately, Graz is the hometown of Harnoncourt and Arnold Schwarzenegger). Needless to say, Harnoncourt's conducting conspired with the cathedral acoustics to obscure much of what Bach had notated." <
If it was "needless to say", why say it? And if the occasion was something merely to "endure", why didn't you just leave, or find yourself a better seat where the music was clearer? If you don't care for this conductor's work, OK, but if you had a gram of respect for him you could at least try harder to spell his name correctly.
For that matter, why assume that Bach expected you to be able to hear all of his notation in performance (whether in the Graz cathedral or anywhere else)? Isn't Bach allowed to have composed shapes and effects that blend together in larger groupings? When you buy a box of ice cream, do you take it back complaining that you can't see all the individual atoms?
And, what is the phrase "appropriately, Graz is the hometown of Harnoncourt and Arnold Schwarzenegger" supposed to mean? I have my guesses, but I wouldn't want to take it the wrong way and then be accused of over-interpretation.
Neil Halliday wrote (March 24, 2004):
[To Bradley Lehman]
"If the harpsichordist is doing his/her job well, in large ensembles, we DON'T hear it all".
Point taken, and agreed.
But in a smaller ensemble, such as that reqired for the 'Quoniam' bass aria, I would appreciate a well-shaped keyboard realisation with discernable detail. One which merely 'makes a noise' on a recording, which distracts from the main argument given by the two bassoons, cello, horn and vocalist, would be better, I think, if it were not heard at all. (In other words, this aria probably is already 'large' enough that it could survive, musically, from a listener's view point, without a keyboard continuo).
In the context of smaller ensembles, there are obviously two unrelated matters to consider; namely, the quality of the recording's engineering, and the harpsichordist's artistry (also important for large ensembles, but in this case the 'audience' will not hear the harpsichordist's artistry, as explained by Dr. Lehman).
On the subject of artistry, Schuster's 'florid' combination of arpeggiated chords that descend from the top note, as well as ascending from the bottom note, seems to be particularly effective on the harpsichord, in the example I gave (for those harpsichordists who may be interested in imitating her). It's a pity the context of this particular example appears to be closed to current performers - for you would most likely not want to use such a florid style in an aria, where other instruments, as well as continuo, play an important role.
Bradley Lehman wrote (March 24, 2004):
[To Neil Halliday] It does. I recall playing organ continuo in a performance of BMM where the orchestra had no bassoons at all. They're not missed, much, except here in the Quoniam where they're essential on their own melodic lines! So, the conductor asked me to play the two bassoon parts on the organ (on a registration more interesting than Flute 8) and leave out the continuo improvisation. That worked OK, a little thin, but reasonably OK. If I'd had a second manual available on that instrument I could have done some hybrid where I realized b.c. at least in the parts where the fake "bassoons" weren't playing, or doubled more of the bass line, but it worked decently enough as it was.
Even better, if we weren't able to get bassoons, we at least should have had two keyboard players hired for the whole mass...it would give a lot more flexibility, having harpsichord there as an option, and we could have covered everything in the Quoniam better. And some theorbos or lutes!
One other point about the Quoniam: that's the only thing for the horn player to do. So, typically, he or she sneaks onstage just a bit early, and leaves at intermission. In Bach's orchestras the horn player probably would have played other instruments as well (trumpet? strings?) and therefore had more of a part in the whole performance. Ditto for the viola da gamba in the SMP, and the lutenists in other works: they should probably be playing along in other movements much more than they normally do nowadays, beyond their solo movements. Just because there's no written-out part for them doesn't/shouldn't mean they're forbidden to play!
Ludwig wrote (March 25, 2004):
[To Bradley Lehman] I feel that following the normal tradition of never using a harpsichord unless the Organ is out of commission is the proper way to do any of the Cantatas. In the Magnificat----such as the bass solos are very nicely done with pared downed Organ forces using such stops as a Holflote 8 or a Rhorflote 8 and and if one wishes one could add a quiet 2' or 1' Sifflote or other quieter such stop to add sparkle and piquancy to this. However in my opinion; the bass is the important voice here and the Organshould not try to upstage him with pretty sparkling effect--- these can be done in the obbligato parts if so wished.
We must remember that Bach did not write for Mahlerian forces of a 1000 or so which bury the sound of the harpsichord which those of a romantic nature are so inclined to do just as they do with Handel's Messiah.
Bach's orchestra seldom exceeded 36 people total and more often was pared down to around 12-20 players plus a chorus of 16 SATB with any soloist which usually came from the choristers themselves.
With small ensembles one gets great clarity of lines and the true beauty of what Bach wrote stands out. I have done it both ways---large and small ensembles as a conductor, organist and harpsichordist and think that small is more and better than large in performing Bach.
Santu De Silva wrote (March 26, 2004):
Ludwig writes:
"Bach's orchestra seldom exceeded 36 people total and more often was pared down to around 12-20 players plus a chorus of 16 SATB with any soloist which usually came from the choristers themselves.
"With small ensembles one gets great clarity of lines and the true beauty of what Bach wrote stands out. I have done it both ways---large and small ensembles as a conductor, organist and harpsichordist[,] and think that small is more and better than large in performing Bach."
in response to
Brad Lehman, who wrote:
"If the harpsichordist is doing his/her job well, in large ensembles, we DON'T hear it all".
I think both writers are right. I don't justify it --I think all this pseudo-justification based on old writings and other evidence is not too useful-- except to say that it is my own judgement. Small ensembles have sounded better in performing Bach than large ensembles, and even in such large works (in the sense of forces) as the Matthew Passion, the orchestra-to-continuo ratio is still low. So we can expect the harpsichord to once in a while be drowned out. We can't expect to hear it all the time, as Brad points out. But I, like brother Ludwig, would prefer to hear it most of the time. With a really small ensemble there is no reason not to.
Arch
(I hope referring to the list-member as Ludwig is not a problem.)
Jef Lowell wrote (March 26, 2004):
[To Santu De Silva] You know, I'd love to agree that the small ensembles bring out the lines better than the large, but I've heard the Mass performed both ways, and several in between. The very best performance I've ever heard was Gareth Morell's final performance with the Cleveland Orchestra in Severance Hall several years ago. My ears are still tingling. Large forces--laser control. Friends, bolts of lightning 75 feet long were shooting out into the audience during the CUM SANCTO SPITITU! By contrast, another time, a very excellent Swiss group whose name, alas, escapes me, did bring out much of the linear detail, but I missed the magestic gravity of the larger group.
It's certainly true that it's much easier to keep a small group together than a large one. And how often can you gather a large number of singers (especially) who can cut this stuff? But, all other things being equal, I guess I'd have to put my vote in the larger group column (here, the writer receives gales of derisive laughter from the cognoscenti in the cyber-gallery).
Neil Halliday wrote (March 27, 2004):
Jef Lowell wrote: "The very best performance I've ever heard was Gareth Morell's final performance with the Cleveland Orchestra in Severance Hall several years ago. My ears are still tingling. Large forces--laser control. Friends, bolts of lightning 75 feet long were shooting out into the audience during the CUM SANCTO SPIRITU"
Wow! Yes, I experience a similar sensation with Richter's recording, at concert volume.
"But, all other things being equal, I guess I'd have to put my vote in the larger group column (here, the writer receives gales of derisive laughter from the cognoscenti in the cyber-gallery)."
I wonder if they really are "cognoscenti"?
Juozas Rimas wrote (March 28, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote: < the time, or complain when they don't. If the harpsichordist is doing his/her job well, in large ensembles, we DON'T hear it all. The >
It's great when the harpsichord doesn't get in the way as a continuo. When it is not heard in a harpsichord concerto - that's worse. But it happens! The harpsichord is heard so much less than piano in the BWV 1052 concerto, for instance. I have test-listened a couple of harpsichord versions of this concerto and turned them down for the "smallness" of the harpsichord part, and have the Bach-Akademie rendition, where the orchestra's playing perhaps as delicately as possible, while the keyboard, doing its best to be heard, is like 3 times quieter than the orchestra anyway. So if I want to HEAR the keyboard part, I return to the Gould's recording, where every single notes is heard, no matter how loud the orchestra is playing, and with such dramatic music I enjoy that neither the orchestra nor the solo are modest!
It became a totally piano concerto to me: it's as powerful as Mozart's best piano concertos, whatever was the instrument it was intended for.
Ehud Shiloni wrote (March 28, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas] My thoughts exactly, Jouzas
I recently got hold of two new versions of 1052: One is by Café Zimmermann [on Alpha] and the other by AAM with Manze [on Harmonia Mundi]. Both are SUPERB as far as the orchestral sound goes - lush, energetic, exciting HIP at its best. Both nearly fail when the harpsichord enters, bringing way down the energy level of the performance because of the "weak" presence. I bought also an "old" version from 1947 with Dinu Lipati at the piano, and had the exact opposite experience: The "modern" orchestra sound is heavy and too dense, and the recorded sound quality suffers a lot from age. But when Lipati hits the keyboard everything soars a mile high - true excitement. The same holds true with Gould's version, which you have mentioned.
Will it be a "blasphemy" to ask for a HIP orchestra with a Piano solo? May I suggest Il Giardino Armonico with Ivo Pogorelich at the keyboard?
P.S. Anyone aware if a DVD of Gould's 1052 exists? Many thanks.
Uri Golomb wrote (March 28, 2004):
Ehud Shiloni wrote: < Will it be a "blasphemy" to ask for a HIP orchestra with a Piano solo? May I suggest Il Giardino Armonico with Ivo Pogorelich at the keyboard? >
There is actually a recording of the Triple Concerto with Zvi Meniker and the Akademie fur Alte Musik, Berlin, where Meniker plays a fortepiano -- works fine, though the instrument is not much louder than a harpischord, as far as I could tell (recording balance can also have an effect).
There are some recordings of the harpsichord concerti where the harpsichord is more to the forefront, though even there it doesn't have as much presence as I'd like; I'm thinking primarily about Alessandrini's (and the one concerto on Mortensen's new disc which is accompanied by solo strings, rather than a full section. So I still find myself often turning to piano versions -- Murray Perahia's is a current favourite, and I think it features quite lively and energetic orchestral playing as well. (incidentally, in the notes to Perahia's first disc, George Stauffer speculates that Bach might have written some of his keyboard concerti for the then-newly-invented fortepiano, though I have yet to read something more detailed about this hypothesis).
I'm trying to remember if I ever heard Bach's keyboard concerti played on a harpsichord in a live concert. If I did, the concert can't have been that memorable... But I find it unlikely that it's alwyas the recording's fault. If anything, I'd have thought record producers would give too much prominence to a soloist in a concerto; if the soloist is in the background, that's more likely to be the result of a natural balance. Sometimes -- and here comes a really heretical thought -- I find myself wondering if Bach mis-calculated the balance. After all, he is said to have invented the keyboard concerto (which means that he had no precedents to go on); and if he played the solos himself, how often did he have the opportunity to step back and listen from a distance? Of c, he heard the harpsichord, if he was seated right next to it (and knew what he was playing); and of course, he could have asked a son or a student to play instead, so that he could see what it sounded like on the other side of the coffee-house (where these works were premiered). Who knows?
Of course, one has to check what these concertos sound like when played in Zimmermann's coffee house (which was destroyed, unfortunately, but perhpas one coudl find a venue likely to have a similar acoustics), using the type of instruments Bach and his colleagues were likely to use. Perhaps the balance works fine under those circumstances. But that doesn't solve the problem anywhere else...
The fact remains that I have yet to hear a truly well-balanced performance of the harpsichord concerto -- one in which the harpsichord's solo line is as easy to follow as the solo lines in Bach's other concerti (violin, violin-and-oboe, the violin and flute in the Bradenburg 5th and Triple Concerto, etc. etc. -- or the piano in piano versions of the keyboard concerti). So perhaps Ehud's idea is not so bad...
Johan van Veen wrote (March 29, 2004):
[To Uri Golomb] I have the Leonhardt set and I have no problems with the balance between the keyboard(s) and the (single) strings whatsoever.
And I recently heard a recording with one of the sonatas for keyboard and violin in which the keyboard part was pleyed on a Silbermann fortepiano. I wasn't too enthusiastic about it. Historically I can't see any reason for using a fortepiano, since they were all written before Bach had any knowledge of the fortepiano, and musically it didn't work for me.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (March 29, 2004):
Ehud Shiloni wrote: < Will it be a "blasphemy" to ask for a HIP orchestra with a Piano solo? >
I don't think it would blasphemy, Ehud, but it would be odd! And a bit of a contradiction in terms, as a performance with a piano cannot be described as HIP.
Is it not the case perhaps, that one may be bringing false expectations of balance - a late 19th century concept of what a concerto is, and the degree of prominence the soloist should have - to music which has different criteria?
Uri Golomb wrote (March 29, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] I don't think so -- I just want the harpsichord in a Bach harpsichord concerto to be as audible as a violin in a Bach violin concerto.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (March 29, 2004):
[To Uri Golomb] So do I - and I agree with you it isn't always - but that's not the same as it being as audible and prominint as a piano is in the same music, which is what I was talking about.
John Pike wrote (March 29, 2004):
[To Johan van Veen] I have recordings of the violin and keyboard sonatas played with piano in one set and harpsichord in the other. They both work well. What makes them work is the outstanding musicianship of the artists in both recordings.
Ehud Shiloni wrote (March 29, 2004):
Gabriel Jackson wrote: <snip> I don't think it would blasphemy, Ehud, but it would be odd! And a bit of a contradiction in terms, as a performance with a piano cannot be
described as HIP. <snip>
-Well, the ensemble EXCEPT the piano may be period instruments AKA "HIP". The piano itself will be the odd "transplant".....
<snip> Is it not the case perhaps, that one may be bringing false expectations of balance - a late 19th century concept of what a concerto is, and the degree of prominence the soloist should have - to music which has different criteria? <snip>
-My thinking had little to do with historic expectations, as I am a practical "illiteraty" and all I have to rely on is what my ears [and heart] tell me. From what I hear, this combination may produce wonders.
BMM. Harpsichord in continuo. (Hickox) [BRML]
Ehud Shiloni wrote (March 28, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas] My thoughts exactly, Jouzas
I recently got hold of two new versions of 1052: One is by Café Zimmermann [on Alpha] and the other by AAM with Manze [on Harmonia Mundi]. Both are SUPERB as far as the orchestral sound goes - lush, energetic, exciting HIP at its best. Both nearly fail when the harpsichord enters, bringing way down the energy level of the performance because of the "weak" presence. I bought also an "old" version from 1947 with Dinu Lipati at the piano, and had the exact opposite experience: The "modern" orchestra sound is heavy and too dense, and the recorded sound quality suffers a lot from age. But when Lipati hits the keyboard everything soars a mile high - true excitement. The same holds true with Gould's version, which you have mentioned.
Will it be a "blasphemy" to ask for a HIP orchestra with a Piano solo? May I suggest Il Giardino Armonico with Ivo Pogorelich at the keyboard?
P.S. Anyone aware if a DVD of Gould's 1052 exists? Many thanks.
Uri Golomb wrote (March 28, 2004):
Ehud Shiloni wrote: < Will it be a "blasphemy" to ask for a HIP orchestra with a Piano solo? May I suggest Il Giardino Armonico with Ivo Pogorelich at the keyboard? >
There is actually a recording of the Triple Concerto with Zvi Meniker and the Akademie fur Alte Musik, Berlin, where Meniker plays a fortepiano -- works fine, though the instrument is not much louder than a harpischord, as far as I could tell (recording balance can also have an effect).
There are some recordings of the harpsichord concerti where the harpsichord is more to the forefront, though even there it doesn't have as much presence as I'd like; I'm thinking primarily about Alessandrini's (and the one concerto on Mortensen's new disc which is accompanied by solo strings, rather than a full section. So I still find myself often turning to piano versions -- Murray Perahia's is a current favourite, and I think it features quite lively and energetic orchestral playing as well. (incidentally, in the notes to Perahia's first disc, George Stauffer speculates that Bach might have written some of his keyboard concerti for the then-newly-invented fortepiano, though I have yet to read something more detailed about this hypothesis).
I'm trying to remember if I ever heard Bach's keyboard concerti played on a harpsichord in a live concert. If I did, the concert can't have been that memorable... But I find it unlikely that it's alwyas the recording's fault. If anything, I'd have thought record producers would give too much prominence to a soloist in a concerto; if the soloist is in the background, that's more likely to be the result of a natural balance. Sometimes -- and here comes a really heretical thought -- I find myself wondering if Bach mis-calculated the balance. After all, he is said to have invented the keyboard concerto (which means that he had no precedents to go on); and if he played the solos himself, how often did he have the opportunity to step back and listen from a distance? Of course, he heard the harpsichord, if he was seated right next to it (and knew what he was playing); and of course, he could have asked a son or a student to play instead, so that he could see what it sounded like on the other side of the coffee-house (where these works were premiered). Who knows?
Of course, one has to check what these concertos sound like when played in Zimmermann's coffee house (which was destroyed, unfortunately, but perhpas one coudl find a venue likely to have a similar acoustics), using the type of instruments Bach and his colleagues were likely to use. Perhaps the balance works fine under those circumstances. But that doesn't solve the problem anywhere else...
The fact remains that I have yet to hear a truly well-balanced performance of the harpsichord concerto -- one in which the harpsichord's solo line is as easy to follow as the solo lines in Bach's other concerti (violin, violin-and-oboe, the violin and flute in the Bradenburg 5th and Triple Concerto, etc. etc. -- or the piano in piano versions of the keyboard concerti). So perhaps Ehud's idea is not so bad...
Riccardo Nughes wrote (March 29, 2004):
Will it be a "blasphemy" to ask for a HIP orchestra with a Piano solo?
Someone did it ^__^ but I don't know the results...
http://groups.google.it/groups?hl=it&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=b8glrf%249kfre%241%40ID-75468.news.dfncis.de
Donald Satz wrote (March 29, 2004):
[To Ehud Shiloni] I've heard plenty of piano concertos where the piano gets drowned out by the orchestra. Usually, it's just a matter of placement of the keyboard within the sound stage.
I doubt that any performance of BWV 1052 using a period instrument orchestra will have a piano instead of harpsichord - sounds perverse. Would you like to hear the Rachmaninov 2nd Piano Concerto with a harpsichord?
Ehud Shiloni wrote (March 29, 2004):
[To Riccardo Nughes] Great "Blasphemy"!
Brüggen and Anderszweski - now that's a fine combination. And read what Bruggen says, after reluctantly succumbing to the "horror" of a Piano in HIP country:
Quote
`mentality´ is more important than sound
Unquote
Bravo, Frans!
Douglas Cowling wrote (March 29, 2004):
Uri Golomb wrote: < There is actually a recording of the Triple Concerto with Zvi Meniker and the Akademie fur Alte Musik, Berlin, where Meniker plays a fortepiano -- works fine, though the instrument is not much louder than a harpischord, as far as I could tell (recording balance can also have an effect). >
I thought this was a brilliant concept and the interplay between the fortepiano and harpsichord was quite wonderful. Led me to think of performance for harpsichord, fortepiano and portative organ. MMMMMMMMMM.
Juozas Rimas wrote (March 29, 2004):
< Quote
`mentality´ is more important than sound
Unquote >
That's a great quote! I too give little importance to the historical truth as long as I can't hear the soloing instrument in a concerto normally.
Whether Bach knew of the piano or not also doesn't seem important to me. No one knows what we could expect today from a guy who arranged Marcello's oboe concerto for the harpsichord and one of his pieces both for violin solo and for organ in a cantata.
Bach was free-minded about arrangements himself - why do we think his music should be played according certain strict rules?
I'm ready to accept any arrangements of Bach's music: only their presentation matters. I did like Nigel Kennedy and Lynn Harrell's rendition of the Two Part Invention No. 6 In E - is there any historical ground for this recording? No? Nevertheless, it sounds so intereseting and moving I'm almost preferring the violin rendition now to the piano (that I had preferred to the harpsichord version before).
BTW, returning to the original topic of the thread: I would be among those listeners who would enjoy string instruments instead of the harpsichord as a continuo in Bach's cantatas. Even if the strings wouldn't "cement" the ensemble as well (incidentally, isn't the conductor employed for this purpose?), we could hear more than a bundle of wires shaked in the background.
OT: gig, and the BMM "Confiteor"
BMM "Confiteor"
Thomas Braatz wrote (April 4, 2004):
Charles Francis wrote:
>>As far as I'm aware, in the continuo part of the "Confiteor" Bach only notated the bass line without any figured bass (I await correction from the knowledgeable Mr. Braatz if I am in error). For this reason, I don't think Bach intended a keyboard instrument to tinkle along duplicating the voice parts or adding harmony.<<
50 years ago when Friedrich Smend prepared this very early volume of the NBA from the existing autograph scores, he had access only to the original Dresden parts for everything preceding the Symbolum Nicenum, after which he was forced to use only the autograph scores which generally do not include a figured bass. Thus, in the NBA II/1, the figured bass stops abruptly at the end of the ‘Cum sanctum spiritu” mvt., after which only a bass without figures is indicated in the continuo. This would simply mean that a continuo performer would have to devise his/her own figured bass from the score that exists, not that a figured bass was to be excluded entirely from the performance at this point.
>>Indeed, I am surprised the NBA has issued such a corrupt edition, which might easily mislead gullible period performers.<<
The performing editions based upon the NBA and printed by Bärenreiter have been criticized even by the likes of Alfred Dürr who pointed out that certain ‘secco’ recitatives had been rendered with shortened accompaniment in contradiction with what was indicated in the autograph score and original parts. Dürr felt that the editors of the performing editions had overstepped their bounds by recommending and making these changes to the Bach Urtext, when this entire matter of performance practice has, according to Dürr, still not been satisfactorily resolved or proven.
Bradley Lehman wrote (April 4, 2004):
<< Perhaps Mr. Francis should demonstrate that he can do any of this work himself, beyond even a second-year university level of competence. >>
< Perhaps not, Brad; you know what I think of ad hominem arguments. >
Indeed: whatever I post, of substance about the music, you automatically calumniate: belittling my expertise with period instruments and techniques, and my university training. You try to knock it down because I said it. That's ad hominem argumentation, used by you, regularly. Obviously you are in favor of that method of argumentation, even though it's not a valid method of proving anything.
The invitation was that you could demonstrate you understand the material, at even a minimal level any director would need to know to rehearse and perform the music properly. (Anyone who ventures to criticize others on their published professional work should be prepared to show that he himself understands the material at some level of competence, as a basis for valid criticism.) Since you refuse to demonstrate that, we can safely conclude you're interested only in ad hominem argumentation rather than substantial musical points; and probably unable to complete the exercise.
Q.E.D.
< Here is a relatively easy tripartite question, from the B Minor Mass'
<< "Confiteor", focusing on the five vocal lines: (...) Such a question would be allotted about half an hour in a university placement exam in music theory, writing the analysis onto the score and a separate sheet. It's a "piece of cake" for anyone coming to this music as a conductor or continuo keyboardist mentally prepared to perform it, knowing what features should be brought out. Therefore, it should also be within the grasp of any who presume to criticize the work of conductors and keyboard players, or belittle our intelligence. Enjoy. >>
< I'm sure this exercise has significant pedagogic value, Brad, and therefore trust you will post your answers in due course. >
The pedagogical point has already been made, by your refusal to answer the exercise with anything but disdain.
<< Print out the NBA vocal score from: http://members.vaix.net/~bpl/confiteor.pdf >>
< Thanks for posting this, Brad; it certainly is a beautiful moment in Bach's masterpiece. But do let me warn you that your edition appears to be in error. As far as I'm aware, in the continuo part of the "Confiteor" Bach only notated the bass line without any figured bass (I await correction from the knowledgeable Mr. Braatz if I am in error). For this reason, I don't think Bach intended a keyboard instrument to tinkle along duplicating the voice parts or adding harmony. Indeed, I am surprised the NBA has issued such a corrupt edition, which might easily mislead gullible period performers. >
What's corrupt here? The pages in question do not include any spurious figures, in that vocal score (Baerenreiter 5102a). The NBA's published organ part (among the orchestral parts), Baerenreiter 5102, also does not include figures in this passage. If your conjecture is that the organ therefore should not play (directly because there are no figures with the bass part)--you will need to demonstrate that with evidence.
But again, that would require you to deal with musical substance, and grapple with serious issues of research. Instead, it appears you're content merely to belittle people who are trained in music and research methods: not only performers, but also the editors and publishers of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe.
Anything "the knowledgeable Mr. Braatz" would contribute here about the figuredbass, from his copious collection of reference books and computer search engines (i.e. his purchases of information, in lieu of specialized training and experience), still would not be about the musical substance of the passage: unless he, in turn, would have a go at the harmonic analysis exercise as given, along with successfully completing the thorough-bass composition exercise posted earlier. It would be only a further demonstration of his prowess in plagiarizing creatively from (and distorting) published research that has been done by other people. So, why ask for it except to distract us away from the music? Perhaps because you require his assistance (his willingness to look up misleading facts for you) in this bizarre crusade of yours against the value of intelligence and accreditation?
An open invitation to both Mr. Francis and Mr. Braatz: instead of the unending and ludicrous posturing against "Historically Informed Performance" on these lists, why not just state forthrightly and honestly that you don't understand and don't enjoy some of the results? And then, leave the appreciation of that musicianship and research to those of us who do understand and enjoy it.
Bradley Lehman wrote (April 4, 2004):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< The performing editions based upon the NBA and printed by Bärenreiter have been criticized even by the likes of Alfred Dürr who pointed out that certain ‘secco’ recitatives had been rendered with shortened accompaniment in contradiction with what was indicated in the autograph score and original parts. Dürr felt that the editors of the performing editions had overstepped their bounds by recommending and making these changes to the Bach Urtext, when this entire matter of performance practice has, according to Dürr, still not been satisfactorily resolved or proven. >
An objection by Mr Braatz that is surely empty argumentation, and irrelevant here, since there are no recitatives in the B Minor Mass.
Charles Francis wrote (April 5, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote: < What's corrupt here? The pages in question do not include any spurious figures, in that vocal score (Baerenreiter 5102a). The NBA's published organ part (among the orchestral parts), Baerenreiter 5102, also does not include figures in this passage. If your conjecture is that the organ therefore should not play (directly because there are no figures with the bass part)--you will need to demonstrate that with evidence. >
Try to get hold of the NBA Urtext edited by Friedrich Smend (you'll find it in most good music stores), then you'll soon realise there isn't a part marked "organ", but rather one marked "continuo". And if you look at this continuo part for the "Confiteor", you'll see it consists of only one line of music (a base line). Your edition adds a keyboard part populated with notes taken from the voice parts.
It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that the NBA makes such editorial additions. It doesn't even present these additions as figured bass, which might be excusable if clearly marked as inauthentic. Instead, it provides a fully worked-out keyboard part (something you've railed against in the past, by the way).
Karl Richter is one conductor who makes extensive use of added organ harmonies along the lines of your inauthentic score. But note that in the Adagio section of the "Confiteor" he cuts this out, allowing the "heart beat" to be clearly heard. The problem arises, when a less able musician sees what the NBA has written and equates it to Bach's intentions.
For those that may be interested, I've uploaded a short sample from Richter's 1962 BMM recording to illustrate these points:
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/BachCantatas/files/
Thomas Braatz wrote (April 5, 2004):
BMM "Confiteor"
On p. 268-9 of George B. Stauffer's "The Mass in B Minor" (Schirmer, 1997), the author provides some details about Georg von Dadelsen's critique of Smend's NBA presentation of the BMM and mentions the NBA-Bärenreiter performing edition based upon the problematical volume of the NBA - it is available in full score, piano-vocal score (as submitted in the link excerpt) and the instrumental parts.
Stauffer then goes on to explain the new Peters edition (1994) edited by Christoph Wolff: in it Wolff has attempted to restore the all-important P 180 autograph score [the score which Smend primarily used] to its original state devoid of C.P.E. Bach's adulterations of his father's score. "The Peters edition thus represents the most accurate text of the B-Minor Mass to date. Second, Wolff fleshes out the scoring, continuo figures, and other performance details in the Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei by widening the range of primary sources to include those of parody models, parodies, and relevant arrangements. Thus in the Symbolum Nicenum portion he provides continuo figures from the recently discovered early version of the "Credo in unum Deum" movement and from C.P.E. Bach's 1786 Hamburg arrangement....The new Peters edition combines thorough source work with a pragmatic concern for performance matters, and it goes a long way towards filling in the gaps in the B-Minor Mass score caused by the lack of performance materials for the Credo, Sanctus (in its revised form), and Agnus Dei. The Peters edition is available in full score, piano-vocal score, and instrumental parts. The vocal parts are printed in modern clefs."
In Smend's NBA II/1 KB p. 351 of the BMM notes, he carefully documents the 'mess' that C.P.E Bach created by the latter's erasures and corrections of his father's work and the addition of C.P.E. Bach's own indications like a stray figured bass notation on the 3rd (quarter-note) beat of ms. 87 of the 'Confiteor' [not reproduced in the NBA score.] All of these along with J. S. Bach's own corrections and erasures on the same autograph score!
Attempting to provide an 'Urtext' version of the BMM has certainly been a monumental editorial task undertaken by various, enterprising editors who have been frustrated by continual problems, beginning with the BGA which had wanted to make the BMM the first work with the number '1' of the complete edition of J. S. Bach's works, but did not succeed because the owner did not want to share the autograph score with anyone else. Eventually the editors of the BGA had to settle for a cantata to begin the series, a series that still reflects the rather random order (not chronological) in which the cantatas were eventually published.
Bradley Lehman wrote (April 5, 2004):
[To Charles Francis] Thanks for the sample. But, the observation that Karl Richter (or any other musician, for that matter) did something on a recording is not proof that anyone should automatically do the same thing, to be correct. The science of musicology does not build upon such shaky evidence.
The only thing proven here, really, is that you personally prefer the work of the dead Karl Richter (in this example, anyway) to the work of some living musicians who make different choices.
And your asinine bit about a "less able musician" is surely irrelevant here, because a less able musician wouldn't be able to improvise and play the part competently at all, thinking actively during the performance and rehearsals instead of slavishly rendering a written-out score. Indeed, as I see from my own copy of that NBA continuo part (Smend edition, further realized by Mueller), bottom of page 92 leading into this Adagio portion of the "Confiteor", I scribbled the marginal note "Out" to myself: to stop playing in this passage, and re-enter in bar 146. That was for one particular performance in 1985; as I recall, I played the passage in some other performances later, going (as always) by listening and improvising something that balances appropriately with the other musicians. I'm glad to see that I'm at least as able as the late Karl Richter to make such musical decisions from practical considerations.
As for any other musicians or non-musicians who might take the NBA's score as gospel: that's their problem, not mine. I daresay it's not a problem for at least 95% of the keyboard players who have partiin recordings of this piece, since 1961. The incompetent usually don't land such gigs; and the competent know how to listen carefully and play something that sounds musically appropriate. Whether that's different from or the same as Karl Richter's decisions on any given occasion, that's neither here nor there.
Charles, since you have set yourself up with the (probably faux) appearance of some expertise in this part, why don't you tell us if you have ever improvised this continuo part in rehearsals, live performances, or recordings? All the way through the B Minor Mass: more than zero times? Be truthful, now. Or are you just some guy who listens to some recordings and flips open a couple of books and picks one favorite rendition, then uses that as if it's proof of anything substantial?
A related question: Charles, as you're on record (in the list archives) as convinced by the one-voice-per-part conclusions as put forth by Andrew Parrott et al, why are you citing this Richter recording (with big choir) as any sort of model for correct performance practice? Your inconsistency is troubling. It suggests that your musical judgment is arbitrary, and that you're merely a buffoon out to irritate and waste the time of serious musicians such as myself. Each time I call your bluffs, you simply come up with more bluffs and inconsistencies; will it ever end?
If you actually have some musical or historical evidence that Bach wanted either "tasto solo" or "tacet" in this passage, strictly for all occasions, by all means present it now with the appropriate scholarly apparatus. Meanwhile, as noted above, a recording by Karl Richter isn't sufficient evidence to prove anything.
Uri Golomb wrote (April 5, 2004):
Charles Francis wrote: < Try to get hold of the NBA Urtext edited by Friedrich Smend (you'll find it in most good music stores), then you'll soon realise there isn't a part marked "organ", but rather one marked "continuo". >
True, but irrelevant. Brad clearly stated that he is referring to "The NBA's published organ part (among the orchestral parts)" -- that is, to one part in a set of separate parts, printed out for individual players and sections. He wasn't referring to the full score.
< And if you look at this continuo part for the "Confiteor", you'll see it consists of only one line of music (a base line). Your edition adds a keyboard part populated with notes taken from the voice parts. >
But, as Brad explicilty stated, he extracted that PDF file from the NBA's vocal score. A vocal score contains all the vocal parts (soli and choir), and a solo keyboard part which represents the entire orchestra. It is intended for use in choral rehearsals and, perhaps, for performances where the organ plays instead of the orchestra (I understand such performances do happen from time to time -- though I have never attended one myself). A vocal score is, explicitly, an editor's reduction. It doesn't pretend to represent an Urtext (at least insofar as the instrumental parts are concerned). I don't think that such an edition is seriously liable to confuse anyone: normally, it would not be used in a full choral-orchestral performance (except, as I said, in the choir's separate rehearsals -- before it is joined by the orchestra). In any case, no-one but the most ignorant musician would confuse the reudction contained in such a vocal score with the composer's intentions. I mean, do you really believe that any musician would pick up such a vocal score and conclude from it that Bach intended the B minor Mass to be accompanied, from beginning to end, by a single keyboard instrument with no orchestra whatsoever? Which is exactly what a vocal score would look like.
Charles Francis wrote (April 6, 2004):
Brad Lehman wrote: < Thanks for the sample. But, the observation that Karl Richter (or any other musician, for that matter) did something on a recording is not proof that anyone should automatically do the same thing, to be correct. >
You are right, Brad, there was no intent on my part to prove anything. After all, what is there to prove? That the erroneous keyboard part in your version of the Confiteor was not written by Bach? Or that I don't possess weapons of mass destruction? Do US academics still not grasp the fallacy of proving a negative?
< The science of musicology does not build upon such shaky evidence. >
Hopefully not!
< The only thing proven here, really, is that you personally prefer the work of the dead Karl Richter (in this example, anyway) to the work of some living musicians who make different choices. >
Not at all!
< And your asinine bit about a "less able musician" is surely irrelevant here, because a less able musician wouldn't be able to improvise and play the part competently at all, thinking actively during the performance and rehearsals instead of slavishly rendering a written-out score. >
So a less able musician deserves the assistance of the NBA-editors to inform performance choices?
< Indeed, as I see from my own copy of that NBA continuo part (Smend edition, further realized by Mueller), bottom of page 92 leading into this Adagio portion of the "Confiteor", I scribbled the marginal note "Out" to myself: to stop playing in this passage, and re-enter in bar 146. That was for one particular performance in 1985; as I recall, I played the passage in some other performances later, going (as always) by listening and improvising something that balances appropriately with the other musicians. >
Then presumably you question the NBA editorial policy of adding a keyboard
accompaniment that Bach didn't write and that you chose to ignore?
< I'm glad to see that I'm at least as able as the late Karl Richter to make such musical decisions from practical considerations. >
I'm sure we all are, Brad.
< As for any other musicians or non-musicians who might take the NBA's score as gospel: that's their problem, not mine. I daresay it's not a problem for at least 95% of the keyboard players who have participated in recordings of this piece, since 1961. The incompetent usually don't land such gigs; and the competent know how to listen carefully and play something that sounds musically appropriate. >
I suspect some on this list might disagree with that, though.
< Whether that's different from or the same as Karl Richter's decisions on any given occasion, that's neither here nor there. >
Isn't that why an Urtext (e.g. Smend) is to be preferred for performance, rather than an editorial guess at Bach's intent?
< Charles, since you have set yourself up with the (probably faux) appearance of some expertise in this part, why don't you tell us if you have ever improvised this continuo part in rehearsals, live performances, or recordings? All the way through the B Minor Mass: more than zero times? Be truthful, now. Or are you just some guy who listens to some recordings and flips open a couple of books and picks one favorite rendition, then uses that as if it's proof of anything substantial? >
Would a response one way or the other, imply that the organ should mirror the voice parts during the Adagio section of the "Confiteor"?
< A related question: Charles, as you're on record (in the list archives) as convinced by the one-voice-per-part conclusions as put forth by Andrew Parrott et al, why are you citing this Richter recording (with big choir) as any sort of model for correct performance practice? Your inconsistency is troubling. It suggests that your musical judgment is arbitrary, and that you're merely a buffoon out to irritate and waste the time of serious musicians such as myself. >
So it troubles you that I can appreciate the work of competent musicians without recourse to musicological doctrine?
< Each time I call your bluffs, you simply come up with more bluffs and inconsistencies; >
Can you provide examples of such alleged inconsistencies and bluffs, Brad? And why would anyone want to call my bluff?
< will it ever end? >
That's for you to decide, Brad.
< If you actually have some musical or historical evidence that Bach wanted either "tasto solo" or "tacet" in this passage, strictly for all occasions, by all means present it now with the approscholarly apparatus. >
Did they not teach you about the fallacy of burden-of-proof, Brad? You're the one defending the NBA editorial decision to create an organ line out of the voice parts in the "Confiteor", without any evidence that Bach ever wrote such a part.
< Meanwhile, as noted above, a recording by Karl Richter isn't sufficient evidence to prove anything. >
Certainly not sufficient to prove a negative.
Gabriel Jackson wrote (April 6, 2004):
Charles Francis wrote: <
<< As for any other musicians or non-musicians who might take the NBA's score as gospel: that's their problem, not mine. I daresay it's not a problem for at least 95% of the keyboard players who have participated in recordings of this piece, since 1961. The incompetent usually don't land such gigs; and the competent know how to listen carefully and play something that sounds musically appropriate. >>
< I suspect some on this list might disagree with that, though. >
Would they be right though?
Uri Golomb wrote (April 6, 2004):
< Did they not teach you about the fallacy of burden-of-proof, Brad? You're the one defending the NBA editorial decision to create an organ line out of the voice parts in the "Confiteor", without any evidence that Bach ever wrote such a part. >
Actually, Brad didn't defend that decision, for the simple reason that there was no such decision to defend: the NBA did not create such an organ part. You made a simple yet lamentable confusion, mistaking a vocal score for a complete score. I already explained this on: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/BachCantatas/message/7483.
Charles Francis wrote (April 6, 2004):
Uri Golomb wrote: < Actually, Brad didn't defend that decision, for the simple reason that there was no such decision to defend: the NBA did not create such an organ part. >
Do you have any evidence that Bach wrote the part, then?
< You made a simple yet lamentable confusion, mistaking a vocal score for a complete score. I already explained this on: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/BachCantatas/message/7483. >
Not at all! Mr. Lehmann has admitted performing from such a corrupt edition and scribbling the marginal note "Out" to himself: to stop playing in the "Adagio" and re-enter at bar 146.
But just imagine the scene back in 1962: the organist, certificates neatly displayed above the keyboard, and the voice of Karl Richter screaming up to the organ gallery: " Raus! "
Continue on Part 11
|
