|
|
Cantata BWV 110
Unser Mund sei voll Lachens
Discussions - Part 1 |
|
Discussions in the Week of December 13, 1999 (1st round) |
|
Marie Jensen wrote (December 12, 1999):
Bach’s Christmas music is a lot more than the Oratorio. I love BWV 110 "Unser Mund sei voll Lachens" (Rilling) [6] even more for its overwhelming joy and its rich instrumentation.
The opening has a joyful dignity, the same French overture as the Orchestral Suite 4 BWV 1069, but with soloists (especially a grandiose Bass) and chorus. They sing Lachens, so one can hear the ha ha ha (in a good meaning not as laughing at jokes or so).
There are three very different arias and a beautiful "Ehre Sei Gott” I simply love it all.
The flute/Tenor "Himmels Kinder" aria is expressing an uncomplicated pure joy: the flute theme going unworried up to Heaven like children playing, like the smoke of incense burning.
In the oboe/Alto "Menschenkind" aria "Höll ", "Satan" and "Wurm" show up. The joy is gone for a while replaced by the myrrh of suffering: the human oboe playing so moving.
After the beautiful "Ehre sei Gott" we are back in the ecstatic golden joy similar to "Grosser Herr und starker König" from the Christmas Oratorio (BWV 248): a trumpet/Bass aria also with "andachtsvolle Saiten" performed by a fantastic happy violin play from the orchestra filled with energy.
The final Choral makes the same strong impression as its sister from the 3rd part of Christmas Oratorio "Seid froh dieweil" on the same tune. Here starting "Alleluja”.
Listening to BWV 110 is always a great pleasure- sometimes nearly too much.
It is with this feeling in mind I have written this mail, not to recommend and compare versions, let others do that. I just want this cantata to be remembered, in case some of you have forgotten. |
|
Aryeh Oron wrote (December 16, 2000):
Opening Chorus
Since cantata BWV 110 was written for Christmas, and encouraged by the writing of Marie Jensen, I thought that it could be a good idea to re-listen to this wonderful cantata. This time I chose for my comparison the opening Chorus, but it does not mean that I am under-evaluate the beautiful Arias.
Mvt. 1. Chorus (SATB)
Unser Mund sei voll Lachens
(Let our mouth be full of laughter)
SATB, 3 Trumpets, Timpani, 2 Traverse Flutes, Oboe, Fagot, 2 Violins, Viola, Organ, Continuo
Regarding this opening Chorus, I would like to add to what Marie wrote a small quote from Robertson book: “The opening Chorus is a supreme example of Bach’s immense skill of adaptation and the addition of flutes to the scoring… Bach imposes the 4 vocal parts above the start of the allegro…”
And I think that the combination of the voices and the instruments (in the right hands) in this movement sounds so natural and refreshing, that it can cause us to think that we miss something when we hear the first movement of the D Major Overture.
Review of the Recordings
The performances I have listened to are:
[6] Helmuth Rilling (1974; Opening Chorus: 9:12)
This performance sounds very right. There is a good balance between the choir and the orchestra, After the orchestral opening, the chorus enters very naturally and continues the line sketched by the orchestra. When they sing the words ‘Then was our mouth filled with laughter and our tongue with singing”, they really laugh. The solo parts also grow naturally out of the choral parts.
[7] Nikolaus Harnoncourt (1980; Opening Chorus: 7:27)
This performance is very inhomogeneous. It sounds like the orchestra and the choir were recorded separately (I don’t think that is the case, but it sounds that way). When the choir enters after the instrumental opening you are surprised, and I am not sure that this was the intention of JSB. The good part of this performance is the beautiful sound of the old woodwind instruments. But its weakest point is that it lacks real joy. Like a dry English humour.
[9] Philippe Herreweghe (1995; Opening Chorus: 6:38)
This is very delicate and balanced performance. Every voice and every instrument is very clear and the whole performance is very integrated. The choir and the orchestra are charming. If this performance lacks something, it is a real joy. Like a man who is really happy, but does not show it to the others. As he is laughing inside himself.
I would like to hear other’s opinions. |
|
Marie Jensen wrote (December 17, 1999):
[To Aryeh Oron] Agreeing with myself, yes, and thank you for your fine contribution, but BWV 110 is for the first day of Christmas. |
| |
|
File upload: "Ach Herr, was ist ein Menschenkind" |
|
Andreas Burghardt wrote (October 28, 2001):
[M-7] I have uploaded to the file section the alto aria "Ach Herr! was ist ein Menschenkind" from the cantata "Unser Mund sei voll Lachens" BWV 110 sung by Antoine Walter, soloist of the Maîtrise de Colmar. Amarillis, a string trio, is playing on period instruments. Arlette Steyer, direction. From the CD "J.S.Bach Aria" Ambroisi AMB 9907. The recording was made in 2000.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bach_Cantatas/files/AchHerrWasIst.mp3
Antoine Walter sings another aria on the CD, the soprano aria "Ach bleib bei uns Herr Jesu Christ" from cantata BWV 6. I recognized him, when we (Douglas, Peter and me) visited Colmar in May. |
|
Takashi Trushima wrote (October 29, 2001):
[M-7] [To Andreas Burghardt] What a coincidence! I bought the CD just yesterday, and have been listening to it several times since then. Certainly all of the four performances by treble voices are beautiful. 'Ah Herr! was ist ein Menschenkind,' from BWV 110, 'Kreuz und Krone sind verbunden' from BWV 12, 'Gott versorget alles Leiden' from BWV 187, and 'Ach, bleib bei uns, Herr Jesu Christ,' from BWV 6 are beautifully sung by three choristers. I would recommend this album. |
|
Boyd Pehrson wrote (November 1, 2001):
[M-7] [To Andreas Burghardt] Beautiful solo work there by Master Walter. Ahhh, oboe and alto! Your sound file demonstrates how well old oboes and boy altos meld. Andreas, do you know if Master Walter is Alsatian? Thanks so much for uploading something from this choir! I'm very happy to see they are recording Bach in the Alsace! Were you able to attend any concert by the Maîtrise des Garçons? Did you visit the Unterlinden Musée while in Colmar? I would love to hear les Garçons de Colmar singing in the pink Strasbourg Cathedrale! |
|
Andreas Burghardt wrote (November 4, 2001):
[M-7] [To Boyd Pehrson] Antoine Walter is the son of an Alsatian father and a Polish mother. I met his mother and him at the boychoir festival in Poznan. When Douglas, Peter and me visited the choir, we only had a very short time in Colmar. It was somehow adventurous, because when we arrived in Colmar we discovered that we had not the address of the Maîtrise with us. By luck we just managed to be there for the last twenty minutes of a rehearsal. Later we had a short talk with Madame Steyer. Unfortunately we had no time for the Musée. The Maîtrise is part of a normal school and the rehearsals are embedded in the time table. They rehearse almost every afternoon! |
| |
|
Bach's Choir and BWV 110 |
|
Olly Fox wrote (May 25, 2005):
Partially related to recent discussion on Bach's "Choir" or resources available to him in Leipzig, I have been listening to the opening movement of BWV 110.
The markings in the BGA vocal score give the 2 solo passages as "senza ripieni" followed by tutti sections for full forces. Are these markings present in the autograph and how do these directions relate to OVPP arguments?
I would be interested to learn how many of Bach's magnificent choral movementscontain such directions. I can think of a few examples where the music is interspersed by recitative and arioso sections but not ripieni/senza ripieni sections like BWV110. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (May 25, 2005):
Olly Fox wrote:
< Partially related to recent discussion on Bach's "Choir" or resources available to him in Leipzig, I have been listening to the opening movement of BWV 110.
The markings in the BGA vocal score give the 2 solo passages as "senza ripieni" followed by tutti sections for full forces. Are these markings present in the autograph and how do these directions relate to OVPP arguments? >
This issue is addressed at three places in Parrott's book, plus Rifkin's 1981 essay (pp189ff in Parrott).
< I would be interested to learn how many of Bach's magnificent choral movements contain such directions. >
Tables 4A and 4B in Parrott's book.... |
|
John Reese wrote (May 27, 2005):
[To Olly Fox] Another cantata that's a little puzzling in light of OVPP is BWV 10, which I transcribed in Finale earlier this year. The instrumentation of the arias reflects a careful eye towards not overbalancing the soloists -- the obligatto falls silent during most of the vocal passages, and the instrumental parts go from forte to piano whenever the soloist is singing. On the other hand, the opening chorus makes no such compromises for the singers -- the instrumental parts are going full bore from beginning to end.
I should make it clear that I am not taking a position one way or the other on OVPP, as I haven't really felt compelled to do much research on the subject. This little anomoly does require an explanation, though. Some candidates:
1. Bach didn't employ OVPP for all his cantatas
2. The arias were borrowed from another work, which might explain why the instrumentation isn't consistent
3. The singing style expected in a chorus was different from that of the arias (perhaps not simply louder, but different technique entirely)
4. Bach wasn't really paying attention to what he was doing
That last one, of course, seems pretty farfetched.
I admit that this is pure speculation, based entirely on the music written by Bach and nothing else. I do know, however, that there are certain advantages of limiting a choir to one voice per part, especially if rehearsal time is limited. Foremost among these is that the choirmaster doesn't have to spend any time achieving a blend between voices of the same part -- not a trivial task at all. I have known a few choir directors who used OVPP as a fallback position -- if only for the more difficult sections -- if the choir was taking too long to prepare a piece. |
|
John Pike wrote (May 27, 2005):
[To John Reese] I agree with the list of possibilities, although no. 4 seems very unlikely. I think there is another possibility, similar to no. 3, notably that, when 4 people are singing, OVPP, as opposed to just one soloist, it is not necessary for the instrumentalists to play down. I get the impression from comments I have read on the list over recent months, and from my own experience of OVPP recordings, that the balance is just fine in these situations, provided that you have 4 good concertisten singing OVPP, which of course is what is being proposed. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (May 27, 2005):
Bach's Choir and BWV 110 and dynamics
John Reese wrote:
< Another cantata that's a little puzzling in light of OVPP is BWV 10, which I transcribed in Finale earlier this year. The instrumentation of the arias reflects a careful eye towards not overbalancing the soloists -- the obligatto falls silent during most of the vocal passages, and the instrumental parts go from forte to piano whenever the soloist is singing. On the other hand, the opening chorus makes no such compromises for the singers -- the instrumental parts are going full bore from beginning to end. >
Take a look at the Brandenburg Concerto #3, and then at the "Gerne will ich" of the St Matthew Passion (BWV 244) (bass singer, 2 violins, continuo). In both cases, does "forte" in these instrumental parts not simply mean something like "you have the main part now" while "piano" means something like "you're accompanying somebody else's main part now, listen"?
And likewise, take a look at the dynamic scheme and balancing in the Italian Concerto and its companion, the B minor Ouverture...again (arguably?) the tonal contrast of main part against an accompaniment, not necessarily a huge change from quiet to loud as we might expect in 19th century music.
And, since when has "forte" ever meant "go full bore from beginning to end"?
Well, I know we've had this dynamics discussion before, starting off decently until it turned (predictably) into yet another tendentious trashing of Quantz by people who hadn't read his book: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Dynamics.htm |
|
Douglas Cowling wrote (May 27, 2005):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< Take a look at the Brandenburg Concerto #3, and then at the "Gerne will ich" of the St Matthew Passion (BWV 244) (bass singer, 2 violins, continuo). In both cases, does "forte" in these instrumental parts not simply mean something like "you have the main part now" while "piano" means something like "you're accompanying somebody else's main part now, listen"?
And likewise, take a look at the dynamic scheme and balancing in the Italian Concerto and its companion, the B minor Ouverture...again (arguably?) the tonal contrast of main part against an accompaniment, not necessarily a huge change from quiet to loud as we might expect in 19th century music.
And, since when has "forte" ever meant "go full bore from beginning to end"? >
There are many instances in the organ works where Bach seems to use "forte" and "piano" not so much for dynamic effects as to indicate a change of registration colour -- the most famous example is the Prelude and Fugue in E flat ('St Anne') which may have been used for the inauguration of a new organ. Bach also marks the piece "organo pleno" which for a long time was thought to meant a roaring "full organ". It is probably better translated as "using the full tonal resources of the organ". |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 27, 2005):
John Pike wrote:
>>I think there is another possibility, similar to no. 3,[John Reese: "The singing style expected in a chorus was different from that of the arias (perhaps not simply louder, but different technique entirely)] notably that, when 4 people are singing, OVPP, as opposed to just one soloist, it is not necessary for the instrumentalists to play down.<<
But is it not true that the instrumentalists in these OVPP recordings are usually OPPP with the exception that the 1st and 2nd violins might sometimes have 2PPP?
However, in the "Entwurff" Bach specifies his ideal number of instrumentalists, again these would be minimum numbers: at least 2 to 3 1st violins, 2 to 3 2nd violins, 2 1st violas, 2 2nd violas, 2 violoncellos, 1 violone, 2 to 3 oboes, 1 to 2 bassoons and when needed 3 trumpets & timpani. Let's take the ideal top number: 13 string instruments, and when woodwinds are included (which very frequently occurs) add to this number the louder force of 3 oboes and 2 bassoons, not to mention the 3 trumpets and timpani when they join in. How are only 4 good concertisten against such a force going to be properly heard in an opening mvt. of a chorale cantata such as Bach wrote in Leipzig? By singing louder to improve the balance? By having the instruments 'cut way back' in volume? According to Parrott's quotation (p. 132 of "The Essential Bach Choir") of Scheibe who wrote in 1740 that the strings (in a typical Bach cantata) should number at least 4 or 5 per part! All this mumbo jumbo about 'there is really very little difference between 1VPP and 3 or 4VPP, or 1 string per part vs 4 to 5PPP still needs to be proven. It is insufficient to accept Rifkin's, Parrott's or any other OVPP adherent's report that there is negligible difference. Recordings notorioucan artificially balance the sound between the voices and instruments so that they really can not be used as evidence as to what Bach had in mind. There is definitely something very much amiss in the reports, such as Parrott's chapter on "Balance" p. 131ff, despite the attempt at acoustical analysis and descriptions of much softer Baroque instrument volume which conclude that the volume of 4 concertists is about the same as a choir made of 1 concertist per part + 3 ripienists and that there is no problem with balance when 3 oboes and 6 violins conceivably play in unison with all of the remaining orchestra added to this against only 4 concertisten who are trying to 'hold their own' against such a formidable concentration of sound. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 27, 2005):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>There are many instances in the organ works where Bach seems to use "forte" and "piano" not so much for dynamic effects as to indicate a change of registration colour -- the most famous example is the Prelude and Fugue in E flat ('St Anne') which may have been used for the inauguration of a new organ.<<
This is an 'echo' effect which Bach also uses in his cantatas. Obviously the echo is at a lower volume, no matter what registration is used on the organ, than the 'f' forte indication. |
|
Doug Cowling wrote (May 27, 2005):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< This is an 'echo' effect which Bach also uses in his cantatas. Obviously the echo is at a lower volume, no matter what registration is used on the organ, than the 'f' forte indication. >
Is an "echo" always at a lower dynamic? The mere change of voice or instrument is sufficient antiphony. I don't like performances of "Liebster Heiland" in the "Christmas Oratorio" (BWV 248) which send the second soprano soloist out to the cloakroom. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 27, 2005):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>Take a look at the Brandenburg Concerto #3, and then at the "Gerne will ich" of the St Matthew Passion (BWV 244) (bass singer, 2 violins, continuo). In both cases, does "forte" in these instrumental parts not simply mean something like "you have the main part now" while "piano" means something like "you're acompanying somebody else's main part now, listen"?<<
We have discussed this notion before on this list and it does not stand up to closer scrutiny. There are numerous counter-examples which I am not going to look up again right now. Perhaps you can find them on Aryeh's site?
>>And likewise, take a look at the dynamic scheme and balancing in the Italian Concerto and its companion, the B minor Ouverture...again (arguably?) the tonal contrast of main part against an accompaniment, not necessarily a huge change from quiet to loud as we might expect in 19th century music.<<
There may be special circumstances involving the harpsichord which can only begin to emulate the wide range of dynamic possibilities on an organ or in Bach's sacred music.
>>And, since when has "forte" ever meant "go full bore from beginning to end"?<<
It helps to keep in mind Johann Gottfried Walther's definition of 'forte' in his "Musicalisches Lexicon...." [Leipzig, 1732]:
"'Forte (ital.) fort, fortement, (gall.)' starck hefftig, jedoch auf eine natürliche Art, ohne die Stimme, oder das Instrument gar zu sehr zwingen."
["Forte (Italian), fort, fortement (French): strong, passionate/intense; however still in a natural manner without forcing too much the voice or the instrument."]
This does not sound like 'going full bore all the way.' an extremist, inflaming expression which is only used here to make the point that 'f' or 'forte' did not mean what Bach intended it to mean.
'Forte' of 'f' in the score/part is not just simply a marker without dynamic meaning as we can clearly read from Walther's description of this term. Now it is important, once again, to remember what Scheibe so aptly described about Bach's notation of his own compositions: everything is given the way he [Bach] wants it to be performed -- no esoteric doctrines contrived in the last few decades can easily 'explain away' what Bach wrote down in his scores or in the parts which he either wrote himself or corrected/edited when others copied them for him. Many present-day musicians are taking far too many liberties with Bach's music without declaring honestly as Busoni or Stokowski did: "This is an arrangement by me for modern-day audiences where I allow my own imagination and my musical abilities to be inspired by Bach's original."
It is only when musicians/conductors claim to be giving an authentic performance, as close as possible to the original sound and period characteristics, that a more stringent set of 'playing rules' based upon Bach's Urtext and his own written documents and letters must be used as a basis of criticism. In any other instance, 'anything goes' and 'anything is possible' with Bach's music as it seems to be nigh indestructible in its nature. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 27, 2005):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>Is an "echo" always at a lower dynamic?<<
Yes, according to Walther, it definitely is. I do not have time to relate Walther's definition of 'echo' now, but believe me, it is quite clear that this is the case. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (May 27, 2005):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
And, since when has "forte" ever meant "go full bore from beginning to end"?
There are many instances in the organ works where Bach seems to use "forte" and "piano" not so much for dynamic effects as to indicate a change of registration colour -- the most famous example is the Prelude and Fugue in E flat ('St Anne') which may have been used for the inauguration of a new organ. Bach also marks the piece "organo pleno" which for a long time was thought to meant a roaring "full organ". It is probably better translated as "using the full tonal resources of the organ".
Well said. I like that latter phrase as interpretation of "organo pleno". Akin to "do something expressive and beautiful, and don't scale it back apologetically"....
That said, I chose to do the "organo pleno" of the Kyrie 671 as pretty much roaring full organ anyway, just because that one happens to sound strong and thrilling that way. The whole principal chorus plus the 16 Bourdon on the Hw, and then the pedal cantus firmus (with its PC and both reeds) coupled over to the Ow so I could give it the Scharff. That organ's spec:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/tb41.html
http://www.taylorandboody.com/organs/opus_41.html
Maybe it was a slightly vulgar overkill, but it sure does sound rich and gutsy. And the point of the gig, both in the recording and the concerts, was indeed to demonstrate the instrument's full range.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/cd1002.html
Two other organists did the St Anne in the dedication week (the one we just had in May 2005, not referring back to Bach's). And I talked the fugue player into using the manual 16 for the last page, which was again a thrilling and powerful effect capping off the progress of the piece. She did a nice buildup of the several sections of that fugue, not just blasting it out the whole time. They did an hour of other chorales between the prelude and the fugue, instead of the ClUb 3 chorales, and they had an ensemble of about a dozen men sing those chorales alternatim with the organ playing, using various 17th and 18th century Germanic vocal arrangements of them. Quite a good concert, IMO.
That organist showed me something very interesting, after I'd turned pages and served as registrant for her on the Saturday where she played one of the CPE Bach wild organ pieces. In the front of her Peters edition the editor presented a spec that was (except for one stop) identical with this organ's. |
|
John Reese wrote (May 27, 2005):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>And, since when has "forte" ever meant "go full bore from beginning to end"?
I was actually referring more to the fact ththe instruments play non-stop from beginning to end (except the trumpet, which plays the cantus firmus). I feel sorry for the oboists.
Actually, the discrepency isn't between the opening chorus and ALL the arias, just the first one. In the first aria, the oboes drop out when the soloist is singing; the second aria is accompanied only by the continuo; and in the third the instruments play only the cantus firmus. The different approach in the last two can be easily be explained by a lightening of the texture, rather than a balancing strategy. |
|
John Reese wrote (May 27, 2005):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< But is it not true that the instrumentalists in these OVPP recordings are usually OPPP with the exception that the 1st and 2nd violins might sometimes have 2PPP?
However, in the "Entwurff" Bach specifies his ideal number of instrumentalists, again these would be minimum numbers: at least 2 to 3 1st violins, 2 to 3 2nd violins, 2 1st violas, 2 2nd violas, 2 violoncellos, 1 violone, 2 to 3 oboes, 1 to 2 bassoons and when needed 3 trumpets & timpani. >
The modern thinking in orchestration is that violins playing in unison don't reach that critical mass so that they sound like an ensemble, rather than a few soloists, until there are four of them. Thus, for anything less than four, you might as well have just one.
Of course, this wasn't necessarily the way Bach thought (and the same may not apply to violins with catgut strings and German bows). |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (May 27, 2005):
John Reese wrote:
< Actually, the discrepency isn't between the opening chorus and ALL the arias, just the first one. In the first aria, the oboes drop out when the soloist is singing; the second aria is accompanied only by the continuo; and in the third the instruments play only the cantus firmus. The different approach in the last two can be easily be explained by a lightening of the texture, rather than a balancing strategy. >
In the first aria, couldn't the dropout of oboes be a timbral consideration, in addition to any issues of volume? Baroque oboes make a focused and penetrating sound, and it tends to compete with voices (rather than reinforcing or blending with them as, say, a cornetto or a Baroque flute would do). |
|
Neil Halliday wrote (May 27, 2005):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
<"I chose to do the "organo pleno" of the Kyrie 671 as pretty much roaring full organ anyway, just because that one happens to sound strong and thrilling that way".>
One spot where a change to full organ is very effective is in the 'Grave" section at the end of the 'Adagio' (middle movement) of BWV 564. Bach has not marked any change in dynamic level here, but the change in the form of the music from melodic (wistful A minor) to contrapuntal (discordant, almost atonal, in 7 parts, ending in resplendent C major) cries out for some impressive change in effect. (Perhaps the 'Grave' marking gives the clue).
Of Marie Alain, Walcha, Rubsam and Germani, only the last organist takes this action, with tremendous effect, on the full organ in the Royal Festival Hall, London. Germani massively increases the registration on the single A in the right hand (not on the crotchet which is the end of the adagio, but on the tied semiquaver which is the start of the 'Grave'; when the 7 parts suddenly enter on the discord on the B flat in the pedals...Wow!.
The others all keep the same registration that is used in the gentle 'Adagio', more or less; and all sound very disappointing in comparison with what Germani makes of this remarkable passage that is really a wakeup call from the reverie of the Adagio and an introduction to the exhilirating fugue that follows.
Give it a go! You'll see what I mean. |
| |
|
Continue on Part 2 |
|
|
