Cantata BWV 144
Nimm, was dein ist, und gehe hin
Discussions - Part 2

Continue from Part 1

Discussions in the Week of March 5, 2006 (2^nd round)

Doug Cowling wrote (March 4, 2006):
March 5: Intro to Cantata 144

Week of March 5, 2006

Cantata 144: “Nimm, was dein ist, und gehe hin”

First Performed: February 6, 1724, Leipzig
First Annual Cantata Cycle, 1723-24 (Jahrgang I)

Libretto:
Matthew 20: 14 (Mvt. 1);
Samuel Rodigast (Mvt. 3);
Markgraf Albrecht von Brandenburg (Mvt. 6);
Anon (Mvt. 2, Mvt. 4, Mvt. 5)

Texts:
See: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/144.html
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV83.htm

Translations:
See http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV144.htm

Movements & Scoring

Mvt. 1: Chorus (Concerto)
“Nimm, was dein ist, und gehe hin”
Choir: SATB, Instruments: 2 Ob, Oda, 2 Vn, Va, Bc

Mvt. 2 :Aria
“Murre nicht, Lieber Christ”
Soloists: Alto, Instruments: 2 Vn, Va, Bc

Mvt. 3: Chorale
“Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan”
Choir: SATB, Instruments: Bc

Mvt. 4: Recitative
“Wo die Genügsamkeit regiert”
Soloists:Tenor, Instruments: Bc

Mvt. 5: Aria
“Genügsamkeit Ist ein Schatz in diesem Leben”
Soloists: Soprano, Instruments:Oda, Bc

Mvt. 6: Chorale
“Was mein Gott will, das gscheh allzeit”
Choir: SATB, Instruments: Bc

Liturgical Comments:

Written for Septuagesima Sunday. Septuagesima is the third Sunday before Lent (Quadragesima) and forms a liturgical trio with Sexagesima and Quinquagesima, the last three Sundays when a cantata was required before the “closed” season of Lent. Note that in 1724 Cantata BWV 83 was performed on the preceding Wednesday (Purification)

Other cantatas written for Septuagesima Sunday:
BWV 92 Ich hab in Gottes Herz und Sinn (Leipzig, 1725)
BWV 84 Ich bin vergnügt mit meinem Glücke (Leipzig, 1727)

The orders for Mass and Vespers can be found in an appendix at the end of this posting. Extracted from Wolff.

Texts of Readings:

Epistle: 1 Corinthians 9: 24 - 10: 5; Gospel: Matthew 20: 1-16
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Read/Septuagesima.htm

Introduction to Lutheran Church Year:
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/LCY/index.htm

Chorale Melodies:
Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan
Was mein Gott will, das g’scheh allzeit
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/CM/index.htm

Piano Vocal Score: (free PDF download)
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Scores/IndexScores3.htm

Recordings:
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV144.htm#RC

Music (free streaming download):
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Mus/BWV144-Mus.htm

Links to Commentaries: See Recordings Page

Previous Discussion:
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV144-D.htm

Performances of Bach Cantatas:
See: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Concerts/Concert-2006.htm

Appendix:

ORDER OF SUNDAY & HOLYDAY MASS (Amt) - 7:00 -10:00 am

1. Choir: Hymn in figural or polyphonic setting
2. Organ: Prelude introducing Introit
3. Choir: Introit Motet in figural or polyphomic setting

4. Organ: Prelude introducing Kyrie
5. Choir: Kyrie in figural setting
6. Choir: Gloria in figural setting (minister sings intonation from altar)

7. Minister & Altar Singers (lower form boys):
Salutation & Collect (Prayer of Day) sung from altar
8. Minister: Epistle sung from altar steps

9. Organ: Prelude introduing Hymn
10. Congregation: Hymn of Season (de tempore)
11. Minister & Altar Singers: Gospel with responses sung from altar steps

12. Organ: Prelude introducing cantata
13. Choir: First Cantata

14. Choir:: Credo sung in chorale setting, minister intones from altar steps
15. Organ: Prelude introducing Wir Glauben
16. Congregation: Wir Glauben All (German Credo)

17. Minister: Spoken annoucement of Sermon from altar
18. Organ: Prelude introducing hymn
19. Congregation: Hymn
20. Minister: Text of Sermon & Lord’s Prayer from pulpit
21. Minister: Sermon (8:00 a.m., 1 hour)
22. Minister: Prayers, Announcments & Benediction from pulpit

23. Organ: Prelude introducing hymn
24. Congregation Hymn
25. Mnister & Altar Singers: Preface in Latin from altar
26. Choir: Sanctus in figural setting (without Osanna or Benedictus)
27. Minister: spoken Communion admoniton, Words of Institution
28. Congregation: Distribution of Communion at altar steps

29. Organ: Prelude introducting Communion Cantata
30. Choir: Second Cantata

31. Organ: Prelude introducing hymn
32. Congregation: Hymn during Communion
33. Minister & Altar Singers: Collect with responses sung from altar
34. Minister: spoken Benediction

35. Organ: Prelude introducing Hymn
36. Congregation: Hymn
or
36. Choir: Hymn in figural setting (festal days)

ORDER OF AFTERNOON VESPERS ­ 1:30 pm

1. Organ: Prelude introducing Hymn
2. Choir: Hymn in figural setting

3. Choir: Cantata (repeated from morning)

4. Organ: Prelude introducing Hymn
5. Congregation: Hymn
6. Minister & Altar Singers: Psalm
7. Minister: Lord’s Prayer from altar steps

8. Organ: Prelude introducing hymn
9. Congregation: Hymn

10. Minister: Annoucement of Sermon from pulpit
11. Congregation: Hymn
12. Minister: Sermon from pulpit
[13. Choir: Passion or narrativer oratorio, no cantata]
14. Minister: spoken Prayers, Collect & Benediction from pulpit

15. Organ: Prelude introducing Magnificat
16. Choir: LatinMagnificat in figural setting
17. Congregation: German Magnificat Hymn (Meine Seele)

18. Minister: spoken Responsary, Collect & Benediction from altar
19. Congregation: Hymn ­ Nun Danket Alle Gott

Peter Smaill wrote (March 4, 2006):
BWV 144,"Nimm, was dein ist,und gehe hin" for Septuagesima ( 6 February) 1724, appears to have attracted a relatively low level of interest in the previous cycle of discussions; perhaps on account of its brevity.

It can be argued that its beauty lies in he compactness of the structures; even with the fifteenfold "Genuegsamkeit" ("contentment") expressed in the soprano aria Mvt. 5, the work only takes around 16 minutes to perform, a far cry from the 40 minutes needed for BWV 75, "Die Elenden sollen essen", with which Bach commenced his tenure at Leipzig. By now, if one includes BWV 22 in the reckoning, Bach has completed a full cycle barring the following Sunday for which "Leichtgesinnte Flattergeister" BWV 181, which ends in a chorus, is offered. At 14 minutes it is even shorter, as if we are winding down as a preparation for Lent.

By contrast with its modern obscurity, this cantata, according to Daniel Melamed,"especially its first movement, was particularly well known after Bach's death. Writing in 1759, F.W.Marpurg cited the first movement as an example of admirably clear text declamation in a fugal texture." This setting of a short Spruch or dictum is the gem of the work, with a falling major scale from the sixth to the tonic, with the vigorous countersubject producing clarity of structure. The emphasis on "' at the highest note of the fugal subject and the slow minim rendition of "gehe hin" show Bach's care in fitting the music and text.

The final suspension in the Chorale BWV 144/6 at "verlassen", resolving into the major, is another moment of effective word-painting in a setting of "Was mein Gott will, das g'scheh allzeit." The poignancy of this Chorale, as a meditation by the Prussian prince Markgraf Albrecht of Brandenburg-Culmbach (multiple titles apparently) on the death of his wife Dorothea, was explained in the discussions of the eponymous BWV 111 by Thomas Braatz and others. Its sentiment of resignation to the divine will are entirely appropriate to the exposition of doctrine flowing from the Gospel of the labourers in the vineyard.

After the discussion of the nautical images in BWV 81, from the previous Sunday, it is interesting to see a "Ruder" (rudder) making a brief appearance here, even when there is no cue from Scripture. (Tenor recitative, BWV 144/4; Duerr translates, "Where contentment governs, and everywhere rules the helm"). Was the librettist for both Sundays a sailor?

Raymond Joly wrote (March 5, 2006):
[To Peter Smaill] In order to use RUDER metaphorically, you do not have to be a sailor any more than for being on a steering committee or fearing the blasts of Fortune.

Thanks for the very worthwhile information on BWV 144.

Scott Sperling wrote (March 5, 2006):
Text in Cantata BWV 144

The Readings for the Sunday for which Cantata BWV 144 was written, are 1 Corinthians 9: 24 - 10: 5, and Matthew 20: 1-16. In the reading in Matthew, Jesus tells a parable about a landowner who needed laborers to work in his vineyard. At dawn, he hired workers, who agreed to work for a denarius (a normal day's wages). Three hours later, the landowner saw some idle people in the marketplace, so he hired them also. Then also, at six hours after dawn and nine hours after dawn, he did the same thing. Even "at the eleventh hour", he found some idle in the marketplace, and so he hired them also. At the end of the day, the workers lined up to get paid. The ones who were hired at the eleventh hour were paid a denarius (the same wage that the first workers agreed to be paid). So, the workers who were hired first thought that they would be paid more. But alas!, they also received a denarius. "And when they received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house" (Matthew 20:11). The landowner answered their grumblings: "Friend, I do you no wrong. Did you not agree to work for a denarius? Take what is yours, and go your way. I will give to the last, even as I did to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with what I own? Or are you envious because I am generous?" (Matthew 20: 13-15).

The 1^st Mvt Chorus of the Cantata consists of the words from Matthew 20: 14: "Nimm was dein ist, und gehe hin" ("Take what is yours, and go your way"). These are the words in the parable of the landowner to the grumbling laborers, and by extrapolation, the words of the Lord to grumbling Christians. In the parable, the landowner represents the Lord, inviting laborers to work in "His vineyard". The grumbling laborers represent grumbling Christians who are discontented with what God has given them.

The 2^nd Mvt Alto Aria is an admonition for us not to be like the grumbling laborers: "Murre nicht, lieber Christ, murre nicht, lieber Christ, wenn was nicht nach Wunsch geschicht" ("Grumble not, dear Christian, grumble not, dear Christian, when things do not go as you wanted").

I dare say that there is not one of us who does not sympathize a bit with the grumbling laborers in the parable. It is the way of the world of commerce (and rightly so), that the one who works the hardest and longest should receive the higher wages. However, the Kingdom of Heaven is not the kingdom of this world, and is certainly not a kingdom based on the rules of commerce. This is the point of the parable. The Kingdom of Heaven is based on the grace of God, and follows the dictates of the will of God. God, in His sovereignty, doles out rewards, as only He sees fit. We must not think of life in the Kingdom of God as an arithmetical process, adding up the good deeds and the bad ones, and coming out with graces or losses according to whether the balance is on the credit or debit side. That is not the proper way to understand the dealings of God with His people. The 3^rd Mvt Chorale speaks of God's sovereignty, and the perfection of His will in dealing with His people: "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, wie er fangt meine Sachen an" ("What God does, that is well done, however He directs my affairs").

In the parable, the reason the workers grumbled was not so much due to how the landowner treated them. Rather, their grumbling was due to the fact that the others, who did not work as long as they did, were given the same wages. If there were no other workers, and the original workers were paid the denarius, they would not have grumbled, for that was the wage they had agreed to at the beginning of the day.

We often see this attitude in this world. A person is content with his house, or car, or job, until he sees a friend get a better house, or car, or job. The 4^th and 5^th Mvts of the Cantata deal with being content with what God has given us. In the 4^th Mvt: "Wo die Genugsamkeit regiert und uberall das Ruder fuhrt, da ist der Mensch vergnugt mit dem, wie Gott es fugt" ("Where contentment rules and everywhere steers the rudder, there people are pleased with what God ordains"); and later in the 5^th Mvt: "Genugsamkeit, Genugsamkeit ist ein Schatz in diesem Leben" ("Contentment, contentment is a treasure in this life"). Much of the dissatisfaction, or grief, or anxiety, that we have in this life is due to our choice not to be content with what God has given us. We can choose to be the grumbling laborers, or we can choose to be content, and rejoice that we had the privilege of working all day in the Master's vineyard.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 5, 2006):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>After the discussion of the nautical images in BWV 81, from the previous Sunday, it is interesting to see a "Ruder" (rudder) making a brief appearance here, even when there is no cue from Scripture. (Tenor recitative, BWV 144/4; Duerr translates, "Where contentment governs, and everywhere rules the helm"). Was the librettist for both Sundays a sailor?<<
Bach set several texts by Johann Rist to music and may well have been acquainted with many more.

1. Johann Rist was born and lived in various places closely connected with the Elbe river where many sea and ocean-faring vessels were seen close at hand and probably had many opportunities to speak with sailors who attended his churches in Rinteln and later in Wedel.

2. In sacred Baroque poetry, a standard, very common metaphor for the course and transitoriness of life is that of the "Kreuzesmeer" ("the sea/ocean of the Cross") or "das stürmische Weltenmeer" ("The stormy sea of the universal sea/ocean"). The "Seelenschiff" ("the ship of one's soul") is protected from the gravest dangers and eternal death by Christ and Death eventually steers this ship out of the raging storm with its extremely high waves to a secure 'Port' which is "God's City of Bliss and greatest Joy". The 'Port' is the eschatological destination of this ship's journey (BWV 56 "the Kreuzstab cantata" mvt. 5 "Komm, o Tod, du Schlafes Bruder, komm und führe mich nur fort, löse meine Schiffleinsruder, bringe mich an sichern Port..") where my control of the 'rudder' of 'my little ship' is finally released. A similar reference to "Port" is found in BWV 108/2: "So kann ich mich getrösten, daß ich zu den Erlösten komm an gewünschten Port."

3. A specific example of the above is found in Rist's "Passion-tide Devotions" where a sonnet covers this subject in detail:

>>Was ist dieß unser Thun / was ist dieß unser Leben? Ein Schiff /ein leichtes Holtz das durch der Wellen Macht wird über See und Sand getrieben Tag und Nacht und muß so zwischen Luft und zwischen Wasser schweben. Nicht anders muß der Mensch den Lüsten widerstreben die lauter Winde seyn / die Wollust Ehr und Pracht sein Klippen / Sand und Stein an die man ohn bedacht offt stösset und den Geist darüber auff muß geben. Hie sind der Räuber viel / Fleisch / Sünde / Teuffel / Todt / die bringen manche Seel in schwere Wassernoth. Drumb selig der sein Schiff so wo weis zu bewahren / daz weder Klippen noch die Wind und grossen Thier Ihn stürtzen in Gefahr / der kann ja nach Begier mit sanfftem Glaubens-Wind ins Himmels Hafen fahren.<<

("What are all of our life's activities and what is this thing we call 'our life'? A ship made of light wood driven day and night by powerful waves over the sea and the sand below and hovering between the air and water. Similarly you (as a human being) must stand firm against all kinds of winds (your desires), against dangerous cliffs/rocks (relishing honor and splendor), against the unseen sands and rocks which you may often carelessly encounter and thus, in such an encounter, give up the spirit (die). There are many pirates/robbers out (t)here: the flesh, sin, the devil, and death. All of these are capable of pulling many a soul under water. Blessed is, for this reason, the sailor who knows how to protect his ship very well so that neither the (rocky) cliffs, nor (treacherous) winds, nor the giant creatures of the ocean/sea would bring him into (great) danger, for this sailor will be able to steer his ship as desired into the harbor of heaven with the gentle wind provided by faith.")

4. Some 'cross'-language etymological correspondences:

a.) to 'cross' [OED nautical term: to set into position across the mast (the long extended arms forming a cross]

b.) Segelrute: sail-yard, yard-arm of a sailing ship -- etymology: from ahd. [Old High German] segelruota, segelruada, segelro&#780;ta, segilro&#780;te; mhd. [Middle High German] segelruote

c.) the ,rood': [OED The cross upon which Christ suffered; the cross as the symbol of the Christian faith.] This word is etymologically related to the modern German word: "Rute"

d.) Kreuzstab: ein Stab mit einem Kreuze ("a staff with a cross") Is there a nautical connection here? (see text reference above)

e.) Kreuzmaß or Kreuzrute: a surveying device, a measuring 'into the cross' (hairs?), a device for area measurement (not length or cubic).

f.) Rute (English: 'rod')[DWB gives, among others, the following equivalent meanings: Ruderstange, Ruder (English: rudder)]

Significant Quotation:

Ruder

"den Steuerruder ihres Lebensschiffes" ("the,steering' rudder of their ship of life') p. 869 in Samuel Butschky, sr. "a-z Pathmos, enthaltend: sonderbare Reden und Betrachtungen", Leipzig 1677; this word also appears as neuter gender on p. 489.

Peter Smaill wrote (March 6, 2006):
[To Thomas Braatz] My thanks to Thomas Braatz for developing the connnection between the "navigatio vitae" images and the Cantatas, particularly to Johann Rist (1618-1677), a chorale writer on whom Bach frequently draws. The persistence of this type of imagery in the Baroque mindset has also been examined, but in a more general sense , by James Day in his "Literary Background to Bach's Cantatas."

The image of the journey through life as a voyage is so entrenched in Baroque form that it is not really a serious suggestion by me that the writers of such texts must have sailed; but, to have seen the sea? John Eliot Gardiner makes a point in his rehearsal DVD of saying that it is remarkable that Bach uses these images when he had never seen an ocean , an unusual mistake (or said for effect?) since Bach visited Lubeck and Hamburg.

Here is what Day said on the allusion:

"The theme of the navigatio vitae was medieval in origin. It is well known to us from the Christmas hymn "I saw three ships". There is a German version , "Uns kommt ein Schiff gefahren", attributed to the German mystic Johannes Tauler (c.1300-1371).......In the seveteenth century, the image was usually connected with the unpleasantness and uncertainty of a sea-voyage, with consequent dangers of storms and so on. In the allegory, these stood for passions and emotions.

The ship is usually the individual soul; though Rumpius (in 1609), Josua Stegman (1627), and Simon Dach (1642) write of the ship of the Church. August Buchner (1628) refers to the waves of human desires; faith is the steersman. Variations of this treatment occur throughout the century; Gryphius, Rist and David Peck ( in "Wenn wir in hoechsten Noeten Sind") being examples of poets who followed this fashion."

Day later reflects on Bach's fidelity to word painting in BWV 56,"Ich will das Kreuzstab gerne Traegen" "the wave figure in the continuo ceases the moment the text indicates that the Christian has landed from the ship."

It is thus that the greatest of all Lutheran/Protestant composers is engaged in elaborating medieval mystical imagery. But then, Lutherans do not consider themselves as a breakaway; they are a confessional Church arising from orthodox Christianity and as such the use of mystical images is part of a natural syncretism which allowed Bach's poet to draw freely from the treasurehouse
of Christian images.

Doug Cowling wrote (March 6, 2006):
Peter Smaill wrote:
< The ship is usually the individual soul; though Rumpius (in 1609), Josua Stegman (1627), and Simon Dach (1642) write of the ship of the Church. >
The main body of a gothic church like St.Thomas is called a "nave" because the building resembles an inverted ship.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 6, 2006):
Peter Smaill wrote:
<Lutherans do not consider themselves as a breakaway>
This strikes me as at odds with Christoph Woolf's interpretation that Lutheran ideology is personal, almost mystical, and very much a breakaway sect from the Roman Catholic orthodoxy of Luther's time. And that the personal, as opposed to institutional, ideology informs Bach's music at it's very core. Perhaps you mean confessional to cover all this?

I don't have any special interest in one position or another, beyond enjoying Bach's music in an appropriate (HIP, even) context. Neither do I have any special attachment for Woolf, if he is superficial or inaccurate. He does seem like a reasonable and accessible source for the casual but serious listener: thorough and well organized for the available length, supported by appropriate references, and with integrity (but that is hard to judge).

If I have misinterpreted your position vis a vis Woolf, or more important, if I have
misjudged his value as an easy source for the casual Bach listener, I would be
interested to hear your opinion, which I respect.

All is wellen that ends wellen (BWV 81/3).

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 6, 2006):
[To Douglas Cowling] You may be interested to know that the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem MA opened a new and very expensive expansion in 2003. The architectural inspiration for the atrium, dating from about 1994, was an inverted ship. To reflect our maritime heritage. I did not have any involvement in the planning, but I understand that the idea was considered (or promoted) as highly original. The result is very attractive. Did I say expensive?

Eric Bergerud wrote (March 6, 2006):
[To Ed Myskowski] This is a pretty deep subject. Wolff does a pretty good job in my view of incorporating theology into his biography of Bach, but it is a secondary matter to the music itself as it should be. (I rather think Bach would have thought that way too. I don't doubt Bach's sincerity in the least, but it would be wrong, I think, to view Bach as a dogmatist or fanatic. I'd still wish someone would have recorded conversations had the nights Bach shared some beer and winewith students and faculty from the university. I doubt the conversation dealt solely with music. We'll never know alas.) Peter can speak for himself. However here are a couple of observations. First, the Lutheran church of Bach's era was not the same institution as the evangelical sect just being called "Lutheran" at the time of Luther's death. The core beliefs were there, but the emphasis on many points changed over time. Certainly Bach's era was a time of "peacful coexistence" between Lutherans and Catholics. Obviously Luther and his followers broke away from Mother Church. Indeed, if the Emperor would have got Luther in his mits there would have been a fire lit in an instant. Yet Luther himself often said he didn't realize the full import of his early actions on the European scene. It took several years from the 95 theses to the realization that a reconciliation between Luther and other schismatics was not going to take place with Rome. Second, in general, if one wishes to analyze the bewildering array of sects that arose from the Reformation (some may still be on the way - some of the Christian churches in China and other parts of Asia are taking on an identity very much of their own as I understand it) a good way to start is to identify how far they broke from traditional Catholicism. Luther rejected the Pope, redefined sacraments and rejected good works in favor of redemption from faith. (All were related to the issue of faith. I rather suspect that is what is referred to in BWV 144: the amount good work meant nothing - God's favor was evidenced by redemption through faith alone.) However, Luther and his followers kept much of traditional church's teachings and made relatively small changes in others. I was raised reciting the Nicean creed. The Lutheran scripture isn't in Latin, but the work itself is essentially the same. Although some of Protestants showed a strong streak of iconoclasm, Luther never advocated it (thankfully). Luther saw a role for Latin in evangelical worship. Lutheran theologians continued to study and respect many of the great names from the Catholic past like Augustine. (St. Thomas and the scholastics weren't so lucky at the time.) In any case, very much of the old faith was maintained. Indeed, this factor was no doubt essential for the success of Luther's movement in the areas where it flourished. So Lutherans were indeed free to borrow heavily from the powerful and often beautiful imagery inherited from the Christian past.

John Pike wrote (March 6, 2006):
[To Eric Bergerud] When Wolff's book first came out, I read a review of it in the London Review of Books by Edward Said, that had a number of criticisms about the book. I think it was a very good review of an excellent book. Said's comments were interesting, and one of them was concerned with the interface between Bach's faith and his personal circumstances and suffering. Said suggested, I think, that it would have been incomprehensible for Bach not to have questioned his faith in the face of the terrible suffering in his life, and he criticised Wolff for not discussing that in the book. My own view is that such comments must inevitably be based on speculation and, although Wolff does make some interesting speculative comments, the book is not weakened by too much of this. Different books try to do different things and I think Wolff met HIS objectives admirably. If there is a need for a book with more speculation on the market, Sir John Eliot Gardiner's forthcoming book might fill that lacuna since I understand from an interview he did with the Guardian before Xmas that his book will contain a lot of speculation.

I do wonder a lot whether people like Bach ever questioned their faith in the face of terrible suffering. I certainly review my faith regularly in the face of some of the terrible human suffering that we witness on this planet.

Doug Cowling wrote (March 6, 2006):
John Pike wrote:
< I do wonder a lot whether people like Bach ever questioned their faith in the face of terrible suffering. I certainly review my faith regularly in the face of some of the terrible human suffering that we witness on this planet. >
It is almost impossible to discover the interrior religious disposition of an artist such as Bach because he left no personal memoir or theological writings. Shakesespeare wrote no overtly religious plays and scholars have tried for four centuries to discover his religious beliefs. To no avail -- the most recent "grasy-knoll" theory makes him a crypto-Catholic.

Bach lived in a time and place where religious conformity was required -- legally and socially -- and there is no evidence that Bach questioned his Lutheran context. If he had been a free-thinker, agnostic or dissenter, it is unlikely that he would have taken on a career which involved such an intimate, daily contact with established religion.

What we can do is examine works like the cantatas to see how they fit into the religious and social context of the period. There were a number of streams and schools in Lutheranism at the time and Bach's choice of texts does show their influence. Whether that was from personal conviction or conformity to his position we will never know.

What we cannot do is pluck the cantatas out of their context, dump them in a concert hall and call them "timeless works of art" which transcend their narrow religious origin. I once read with some amusment a programme note which gushed about the dramatic pause between the end of the Credo and the beginning of the Sanctus in the Mass in B Minor (BWV 232). The writer was completely unaware that the two movements in the Lutheran mass were separated by at least an hour of hymns, prayers and sermon.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 7, 2006):
BWV 144 and BWV 181

I hope I may be forgiven if I pre-empt the introduction to the latter of these cantatas set for discussion in the second week of March. The reason is that it seems illuminating to compare and contrast these two works written (or at least performed) a week apart in the second month of 1724.

Both are relatively short cantatas lasting around 13-15 minutes in performance. BWB 144 has six movements, BWV 181 five. Each contains one fully worked out chorus (i.e. not just a simple chorale setting) and two arias.

However it is when noticing the differences in structure that one becomes aware of the range of experimentation in cantata form that Bach explored in his epoch making first cycle, before settling on a more established pattern for the first 40 works of cycle two. For example, BWV 181 has, unusually, no chorale; BWV 144 has two (third and sixth movements). The large scale chorus is the opening movement of BWV 144:- it closes BWV 181. BWV 144 has one recitative; BWV 181 has two, the first of which transforms itself seamlessly into an arioso.

Comparing the two major choral movements it will be seen that that which opens BWV 144 is clearly a traditional fugal motet type movement which is largely vocally self sufficient, requiring virtually no instrumental support (the bass continuo line would press on when the lowest voices were silent and the upper parts may well have been doubled by brass instruments for safety--but that is all). The concluding chorus of BWV 181 is entirely different. This is the Italianate concerto ritornello structure in which the instrumental forces play a large part in introducing the musical material and accompanying the singers (although the word 'accompany' is usually misleading in the context of Bach's contrapuntal textures). Examples of both choral structures are commonly to be found in the cantatas, not least in the first group of the second cyc
where Bach demonstrated his great versatility in bending very different formal principles to the purpose of introducing the selected chorales, phrase by phrase.

The BWV 144 chorus is a very tight fugue of which it need only be said that the subject or opening theme (introduced by the tenors and derived from the shape of the first phrase of the first chorale) has the imperious quality of a command---'take what is yours'---and the countersubject, constructed of quavers and crotchets, conveys the feeling of movement or dispersal. Within the first few bars Bach has musically encapsulated the two fundamental images of the one line text.

Of the arias, three of the four are in minor keys. In fact, minor predominates in BWV 144 with the exception of the two chorales:- the major modes here possibly reflect the light cast by the guidance of the Lord. The first (bass) aria of BWV 181 is particularly striking. Possibly it is this sort of muscular, angular melody which CPE and Agricola had in mind when, in the Obituary they refer to Bach's melodies as being 'strange' and 'unlike those of any other composer!' Bach had a particular liking for 'strange' but greatly energetic bass arias; see, for example, the fourth movement of BWV 40 (earlier in this cycle) and the first movement of BWV 168--a piece of monumental force. What a beginning, in each case! One wonders how the sermon could have adequately followed or matched such drama!

Why are these two short works so differently structured? (a different question from the one which asks why are they so expressively different? Musical character is obviously a direct consequence of the structuring of the basic elements--melody, harmony rhythm etc.)

But one can have the same movement structures repeated time and again but achieving greatly contrasting characters---e.g. the classic symphony or concerto. Here the whole architectural structure is different. Is it simply Bach's need to experiment? Is it directly related to, or derived from the text? Did he consciously seek musical contrast of this kind in weekly adjoining works? Re recordings, Koopman has done a reconstruction of the obligato part of the tenor aria of BWV 181 and he also provides both the earlier and later (from Bach's last decade) versions of the first and last movements.

Neil Halliday wrote (March 7, 2006):
BWV 144

Mvt. 1:
Following on Julian's comments about this fugue, I would add that the fugue subject is introduced in the order T, B and S, A; but the unusual aspect is that the last note of the subject in the tenor is the first note of the subject in the bass, and likewise (an octave higher) for the soprano and alto. Thereafter there is interesting (even moving) quasi-chromatic writing resulting from the combination of long notes in the various voices. The subject, as well as the lively counter-subject (in dactyl rhythm, if I remember the explanation correctly), appears from time to time. Note the syncopation of the incipit of the subject in the tenor - first about half way through the movement, and also after a powerful bass entry, toward the end.

The version I have - Rilling [2] - conveys all this in a pleasing fashion; and to judge from the amazon samples, the music seems to survive all approaches from the heavy and slow (Ramin [1]) to the relatively brisk and light (Koopman [4]).

Mvt. 2:
The alto aria features repeated 1/8 notes ("murmurs/grumbling") in the string parts (except the 1st violins which often carry the melody), which add up to quite rich scoring for the string orchestra. Notice the contrast between the strength of Rilling [2] (and also Leonhardt [3]) in this regard on the one hand, and the quietness and restraint of Koopman [4], on the other. Notice also Ramin [1] does something that Richter often did - due no doubt to their large forces - and that is to quieten the orchestra while the soloist is singing. I prefer Rilling's approach where the orchestra is fully apparent all through the piece.

I note Aryeh did not enjoy the Rilling [2]; I can certainly admit that Watts is not the most satisfying of the singers - Bartosz with Kooman probably claims this accolade; and the counter-tenors also all give a good account - but Rilling's performance seems vital enough to me.

Mvt. 5:
The soprano aria is a lovely piece that admirably serves the purpose of expressing `contented acceptance'. The minor key tonality prevents too happy a mood arising; rather the music ambles along amiably. Rilling [2] has a perky bassoon in the continuo; the others have the usual string-based sound. Once again my favourite singer might be Koopman's soloist (Larsson) [4]. The boy soprano (Pfeiffer) with Leonhardt [3] is certainly very good, as long as he avoids a wobble on the low notes. Auger avoids an overwrought expression and is therefore quite pleasing, in combination with Rilling's distinctive instrumentation.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 7, 2006):
Neil Halliday writes:
< but the unusual aspect is that the last note of the subject in the tenor is the first note of the subject in the bass, and likewise (an octave higher) for the soprano and alto. >
Although seemingly a minor technical point raised here by Neil, it is of considerable interest. He is right in saying this is unusual. Bach usually brings in his subsequent voices so as to form a harmony of some kind where first and last notes overlap---usually a 5^th or 3^rd or 6^th. But he does overlap the note in this way from time to time--the excessively short subject from fugue 111 of WTC Bk 2 is one example as are fugues V1 and XVII from Bk 1--but in all these examples, while the voice announcing the answer comes in on the same note (or octave) it comes rhythmically one quaver later. In BWV 144 the answer settles on the same note at the same time (on the first beat of the bar)---which IS unusual.

It also give the interpreter something to think about for instead of the answer being differentiated from the subject by a) a different timbre and b) a different note, it sounds more like a continuation of a single melody.

Strange too how little details of this kind can take one back to listen to the movement and its interpretation quite differently.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 8, 2006):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>The ship is usually the individual soul; though Rumpius (in 1609), Josua Stegman (1627), and Simon Dach (1642) write of the ship of the Church.<<
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>The main body of a gothic church like St.Thomas is called a "nave" because the building resembles an inverted ship.<<
The histories of the words 'nave' in English and 'Schiff' or 'Kirchenschiff' in German reveal that these words were rather recent in church history and can be traced reliably only back to the late 17^th or 18^th century in both languages [English 1673, German 1793].

Here is the word 'nave' in English as it appears in the OED with full documentation of the first instance of its use:

Entry:

'nave' (from the Latin 'navis' = ship): The main part or body of a church, extending from the inner door to
the choir or chancel, and usually separated from the aisle on each side by pillars.

Earliest documented use: 1673 in Ray's "Journal of the Low Countries" p. 261 "A double isle on each side of the Nave."

Entry:

'nef' or 'neff' (from the French word 'nef' = 'ship' {not a word commonly used to denote a seafaring vessel} = 'nave') : The nave of a church (obsolete).

Earliest documented use in English: 1687 in Lovell's translation of 'Thevenot's Travels" I. p. 187 "The Church is very spaciou, the Nef or Body of it is round."

Here is the word 'Schiff' or 'Kirchenschiff' as it appears in the DWB with full documentation of the first recorded instance the Grimm brothers (and others) were able to find:

Entry:

'Schiff' (from Latin 'navis', Greek 'naos/naus', and Sanscrit 'naus'): an architectural term denoting the middle, main space of the church located between the columns/pillars and 'choirs', starting from the hall all the way up to the 'choir' or the place where the altar stands. Specific types and locations are indicated by 'Hauptschiff', 'Mittelschiff', 'Seitenschiff', 'Langschiff', and 'Querschiff'. This notion of a ship meaning the area where the lay persons of the congregation assemble is relatively old but restricted to Medieval Latin as documented by Charles Dufresne Du Cange in his "glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis..", 1840-1887, and the French 'nef' in this sense may be seen as being derived from such a metaphorical application of the word 'navis' in this Late Latin sense. Without being able to document directly from any of the multitudinous sources used in extracting meanings of words in context and establishing a publishing date of such a source, the DWB resorts to quoting a reference (Herrig's "Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen" Braunschweig,1846) which in turn quotes from study by Johann Leonhart Frisch (Berlin, 1734) where without giving a specific reference there is a quotation attributed to a prolific writer, Johann Geiler von Keisersberg (1445-1510 mainly around Straßburg) who wrote in Latin, but whose sermons, tracts and treatises were translated into German and often modified from the original, hence not entirely reliable in their authenticity. However, despite a rather murky provenance, the DWB nevertheless gives the following quotation (remember that this is a quotation given by L. Herrig in his "Archiv.." 1846, pointing to a study by J. L. Frisch 1734 in which the latter attributes this quotation without giving a specific reference to an original Latin text by Keisersberg which, in turn, had been loosely translated into the vernacular German of the 16^th century by an unknown and probably not very reliable translator):

"die Frauen sollen nit in den Chor gon, das Schiff gehört dem gemeinen Mann, das heist das Schiff worinnen ir [die Zuhörer] jetzund seyd." ("Women should not go into the choir area of the church, the ,ship' (the large open area) belongs to the commoners/lay people, by that I mean the ,ship' where all of you are now.)

1. It would appear that this ,translation' had a very limited distribution/circulation and does not truly represent a language usage that was commonly recognized among architects, construction workers, and church-goers. The fact that no other document written directly in German from the period before the Jean Paul quotation from his "Die unsichtbare Loge" Berlin, 1793 [see below] has been located, seems to indicate that "Schiff" in the meaning of "nave of a church" made a very late appearance in the German language and was not used as an architectural term nor as a common description of a specific area of a church until the end of the 18^th century.

2. It may well be the case the Du Cange, who did not document his source for Latin 'navis' = 'church nave' had looked at the same source that Herrig seems to point to: Keisersberg, who wrote sermons in Latin such as [given in German translation] "Das Schiff des Heils.." ("The Ship of Salvation") and "Das Schiff der Penitentz" ("The Ship of Penitence"). "Nef" in French is already a specialized term used in architecture and does not refer generally to "ship", but just when was this term first used, in the 18th century or much earlier?

Here is the earliest bona fide quotation from an original German source as recorded by the DWV:

Jean Paul (1763-1825) in "Die unsichtbare Loge" Berlin, 1793, chapter 3, page 145:

".im neunten Säkulum muszte sogar der Pfarrer der Patronatkirche zugleich dem Kirchenschiff-Patron als bedienter aufwarten." ("in the 9^th century even the pastor of the patronage church was required to bow to (serve) the patron of the church nave.")

Friedrich Christoph Schlosser (1776-1861) in "Weltgeschichte.." (Frankfurt am Main, 1844-1857):

".mag er [der Dom zu Mailand] auch in der Baukunst jetzt Ungleichheiten aufweisen,.so ist er doch ein Werk erhabener Pracht und Zierlichkeit, das im Innern mit seinem Säulenwald in den fünf Schiffen eine mächtige Wirkung übt." (".even if it {the cathedral of Milan} in its architecture now reveals irregularities,.it is nevertheless an edifice of splendor and gracefulness inside which creates a mighty impression with its forest of columns in the midst of the five naves.")

Summary:

There is no doubt that "Schiff", in contrast to the specialized architectural terms "nef" in French and "nave" or "Nef/Neff" in English, even today still can mean simply 'ship' [not true in English or French] but also include the specialized meaning applied in architecture. In the German language, it also has had the flexibility to be simultaneously used metaphorically in reference to Christian symbols as the "Lebensschiff" [Samuel Butschky (1612-1678) earliest use of word documented from 1659], a "navigatio vitae", even as far back as to the late 16^th and early 17th century. However, it is difficult to substantiate the specialized meaning of "Schiff" referring to 'nave' as one that Bach or any of his compatriots would have known and used.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 8, 2006):
Peter Smaill wrote:
>>The ship is usually the individual soul; though Rumpius (in 1609), Josua Stegman (1627), and Simon Dach (1642) write of the ship of the Church.<<
Douglas Cowling wrote:
>>The main body of a gothic church like St.Thomas is called a "nave" because the building resembles an inverted ship.<<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< The histories of the words 'nave' in English and 'Schiff' or 'Kirchenschiff' in German reveal that these words were rather recent in church history and can be traced reliably only back to the late 17th or 18th century in both languages [English 1673, German 1793]. >
First (1), I truly enjoy the detailed scholarship.

Second (2), I also enjoy a bit of humor. I am greatly relieved that the architect who sold us the inverted ship design in 1994 as a novel invention was not borrowing from ancient history, but from only about three hundred ago. On the other hand, for the cost of the design, it should have been either new, or very ancient. If you ever visit Salem MA, check it out for yourself.. It is very attractive, no question about that. Did I already say expensive?

Eric Bergerud wrote (March 8, 2006):
[To Thomas Braatz] I'll stand correction on this, but as I recall from my days on the naval lists the word "ship" didn't come into wide use in English until the late Middle Ages. I think the German term was Skiff. A great deal of nautical terminology would be fairly recent because until the multi-masted vessels that started showing up in the 13th century, vessels were pretty crude. Things like rudders have been around for eons. Many other items were unheard of in the centuries during which men have risked their neck on open water. But some 600 years back give or take a few generations northern Europeans began to make disctinctions between ships and boats. (Actually the argument isn't completely settled. The Viking "longship" is a term that has worked its way pretty deep into the language. By all modern definitions, however, it's a boat. Of course so is a nuclear powered submarine, some of which are the size of a World War II cruiser.) Oh, yea, ships have always been expensive. Also, my webster's says the nave also means the center of a wheel, something I remember from my farm boy days. (No joke. Our neighbor had an old wagon he loved to work on for parades, hay rides etc. He liked talking to the little kids of which there many in boomer days. Kept a couple of nags out of the glue factory anyway. His father bought the thing to use - stuff gets antistatus fast in our time.)

Alain Bruguieres wrote (March 8, 2006):
<< The histories of the words ‘nave’ in English and ‘Schiff’ or ‘Kirchenschiff’ in German reveal that these words were rather recent in church history and can be traced reliably only back to the late 17^th or 18^th century in both languages [English 1673, German 1793]. >>
According to Le Robert/Dictionnaire historique de la langue Francaise, the french word NEF comes from lat. navis, boat/vessel and in late latin the main body of a church (in reference to its shape and probably also under the influence of greek naos : temple). In French the word NEF appears in 1050 in the sense 'boat/vessel' and as soon as 1150 in the sense 'main body of a church'.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 8, 2006):
[To Alain Bruguieres] Thanks for taking the time to look this up. This brings up two questions:

1. With all the linguistic borrowings from Old French coming into English as a result of the Norman Conquest, why did it take so long for the French word 'nef' to make it into the English language?

2. Why was there on the part of the German language (and all of its earlier forms and dialects) either a great lack of knowledge regarding this specialized sense of 'navis' or perhaps even resistance to the
notion that 'navis' = a distinct area of the church?

3. Did the confusion between Greek 'naus' (from which English gets the word "nausea" among other things), Greek 'naos'= 'temple', and Latin 'navis' at a time when all scholars had knowledge of Latin, and possibly Greek as well, cause them to look askance at any normal acceptance of this terminology: 'Schiff' = 'nave'?

Raymond Joly wrote (March 8, 2006):
Thomas Braatz's conclusion («Summary») looks watertight.

Just a few remarks and queries.

Charles du Fresne du Cange (1610-1688) published his GLOSSARIUM AD SCRIPTORES MEDIÆ ET INFIMÆ LATINITATIS in 1678; it went through many editions since then and is still in use.

The obviously 19^th century edition one can peruse on the GALLICA site of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France starts NAVIS with the meaning «nave» and two quotations from Ordericus Vitalis (died 1141) and Suger (died 1151; and did he know about Gothic naves!).

What puzzles me most is that the French began using NEF «nave» as soon as 1150 (Robert's DICTIONNAIRE HISTORIQUE DE LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE), whereas the English and Germans, who read and spoke as much Latin as the French, if not more, apparently did not take to the metaphor at all. By the way, how did the Germans call a nave (SCHIFF, HAUPTSCHIFF), an aisle (NEBENSCHIFF, SEITENSCHIFF), transept (QUERSCHIFF) before they had SCHIFF at all? It is amusing that the metaphor apparently compensated its late introduction into their language by flourishing exuberantly once it had entered it.

Could it be that NEF first appealed as a term in architecture when the Gothic vault, that indeed looks more like an inverted ship than a Romanesque one (let alone a basilical flat ceiling), was invented? And that was in Ile-de-France: Paris and its surroundings. Strange that the triumphal progress of the ogive across Europe did not sweep the metaphor along.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 8, 2006):
Raymond Joly wrote:
>>What puzzles me most is that the French began using NEF «nave» as soon as 1150 (Robert's DICTIONNAIRE HISTORIQUE DE LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE), whereas the English and Germans, who read and spoke as much Latin as the French, if not more, apparently did not take to the metaphor at all.<<
Thanks for your input on this issue. Perhaps the Greek 'naus' vs. 'naos' confusion did after all cause hesitancy on the part of many scholars to accept the specialized meaning of 'nave' Somehow, however, it slipped by the scholarly censors to allow 'nef' to appear in French early on. But why the very long delay before it arrived in England?

>>By the way, how did the Germans call a nave (SCHIFF, HAUPTSCHIFF), an aisle (NEBENSCHIFF, SEITENSCHIFF), transept (QUERSCHIFF) before they had SCHIFF at all?<<
These must all be much later extensions when the German language with its penchant for compounding
simply went crazy adding all these compounds for which there is not a single separate entry in the DWB so
that any first occurrences would be listed. In any case, these terms were shorter than having to say
"Hauptkirchenraum", "Nebenkirchenraum", etc.

>>It is amusing that the metaphor apparently compensated its late introduction into their language by flourishing exuberantly once it had entered it.<<
It is as if all the architects and construction workers who built churches in Germany (and England) had been waiting for a simple, short term that was imprecisely referred to with other words until the time when the word would rather suddenly 'take off' and replace all previous equivalents.

Raymond Joly wrote (March 8, 2006):
Various Schiffs -- BachCantatas] March 5: Intro to Cantata 144

[To Thomas Braatz] Oops ! (That is comic strip diction again, I am afraid.) Grimms do have entries for NEBENSCHIFF and QUERSCHIFF. And they list some more, without separate entries, under SCHIFF.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 9, 2006):
Raymond Joly wrote:
>>Oops ! (That is comic strip diction again, I am afraid.) Grimms do have entries for NEBENSCHIFF and QUERSCHIFF. And they list some more, without separate entries, under SCHIFF.<<
The origins of both compounds 'Nebenschiff' and 'Querschiff' as connected with 'nave' are from the end of the 19th century. So what does this do to change the status of the argumentation and the determination of the first use of 'Schiff' in the sense of 'nave'? All the compounds I listed were from the DWB but none of these entries for compounds of 'Schiff' = 'nave', whether separate entries or appearing in other contexts give any indication that these compound terms existed in German before 1800. Please let us know if you find otherwise.

Raymond Joly wrote (March 9, 2006):
[To Thomas Braatz] «Thomas Braatz's conclusion ("Summary") looks watertight» is what I wrote on a former occasion, and I did not change my mind.

We are dealing in very fastidious fact-finding, though, and every slip of the pen, every misplaced index card (or computerized equivalent thereof) can lead to false conclusions. That is why they should be pointed out. No questioning of the gist of the argument intended, disparaging of the scholar even less.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 9, 2006):
[To Raymond Joly] The ship (not to say knave) looks "watertight" indeed!

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 9, 2006):
BWV 144

I have enjoyed listening to BWV 144 and Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan [6], both for the first time. In fact, I bought this recording specifically to relate to this week's and next week's discussions, as well as to introduce myself to the Suzuki series. The introductory comments by Julian Minchan and Neil Halliday have added greatly to my listening enjoyment. Worth repeating: added greatly! I do not have listening comparisons to make, so I will try to be brief.

My first overall impression was that the sound was almost too live and vibrant, artificial sounding. Then I looked at the photos of the musicians and the (presumed?) recording venue: Kobe Shoin Women's University Chapel. It looks to me like a nave, an inverted ship, if you will (as Douglas Cowling, Thomas Braatz, and others have been writing this week). The overall sound made more sense, sounded more natural. the second time through. It quickly comes to sound correct. I can relate to the Suzuki enthusiasm so often expressed throughout these discussions.

Now I am writing while I listen for the third (and repeated) times. The outstanding impression is Robin Blaze countertenor in the alto aria (Mvt. 2). I had his name confused with Robin Tyson, who many of you have complained about . I will not be making that mistake any longer. I have yet to hear Tyson, but Robin Blaze creates a sound of utmost purity, aided by the vibrant venue. Which provides a nice contrast for me to last weeks alto aria (BWV 83/1) with Helen Watts. Both wonderful, both valid IMO, both completely different. And Bach's structural, architectural, development comes alive by listening to these works (BWV 83 and BWV 144) chronologically, with a prominent alto aria in different positions in each.

Suzuki in his notes [6] is appropriately blunt: "the text , by an unknown author, is in both theological and poetic terms a mediocre piece of work". But what musical marvels the mediocre words inspire! More on this point in future posts. And perhaps the mediocre text is perfect for early February in northern climes. "Do not grumble, Dear Christian," Robin Blazes into poem. Or at least into rhyme, with heavenly sound.

Aryeh, please suggest any format changes which would simplify your job.

Neil Halliday wrote (March 9, 2006):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< I have enjoyed listening to BWV 144 and Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan [6] <> "The outstanding impression is Robin Blaze countertenor in the alto aria (Mvt. 2)".<
http://www.bis.se/index.php?op=people&pID=2396

(Those without this recording, click on '3' at the bottom, and find Mvt. 2).

Another interesting aspect of this recording (Suzuki) [6] is that it is the only one that uses oboes to double the violin I and violin II lines, in the ritornellos (judging from all the other amazon samples at the BCW). The resulting orchestral timbre is quite rich, and nicely complements the purity of Blaze's voice, in this restless, sombre, but consoling music.

[The BGA is sparse in specifying the orchestration for BWV 144; the SATB movements have no indicated instruments at all; and this movement (Mvt. 2) has strings only indicated. I wonder if the NBA has indicated oboes doubling violins, for Mvt. 2? Obviously it makes sense to double the voices with strings and oboes in the opening chorus, and the two chorale movements; I think everyone does this.]

Tom Hens wrote (March 9, 2006):
Douglas Cowling wrote:
< It is almost impossible to discover the interrior religious disposition of an artist such as Bach because he left no personal memoir or theological writings. >
He did buy a lot of theological books, and made margin notes in some of them. Let's be grateful he left no theological writings -- based on what little writing we have from him, they would probably be nearly unintelligible.

< Shakespeare wrote no overtly religious plays and scholars have tried for four centuries to discover his religious beliefs. To no avail -- the most recent "grasy-knoll" theory makes him a crypto-Catholic. >
The kind of people who go for efforts like this tend to be people for whom religion is terribly important, and who therefore assume that it must be terribly important to everyone else too. That someone, for instance Shakespeare, simply might not have any highly specific religious beliefs, or any such beliefs at all, doesn't seem to occur to them.

< Bach lived in a time and place where religious conformity was required -- legally and socially -- and there is no evidence that Bach questioned his Lutheran context. If he had been a free-thinker, agnostic or dissenter, it is unlikely that he would have taken on a career which involved such an intimate, daily contact with established religion. >
That doesn't seem obvious to me at all. I don't think it applies to Bach, but I think you seriously underestimate the power of pragmatism. Any "free-thinker", "agnostic" or "dissenter" (now there are three terms about whose definition one could spend many hours disagreeing) in Bach's time and environment would have had to keep his personal beliefs to himself, would be confronted with established religion on a daily basis, and would be forced to go through the outward motions of belonging to the established religionanyway. I don't think you can deduce anything about Bach's personal religious beliefs from the fact that he took the Leipzig job. There are plenty of purely pragmatic reasons that can be advanced for this career move, and before that, he had been quite happy working for a Calvinist court where he didn't have to write any church music at all. What about his contemporaries Handel or Heinichen, who both happily composed specifically Roman Catholic church music, while always remaining Lutherans, at least nominally?

Tom Hens wrote (March 9, 2006):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< [The BGA is sparse in specifying the orchestration for BWV 144; the SATB movements have no indicated instruments at all; and this movement (Mvt. 2) has strings only indicated. I wonder if the NBA has indicated oboes doubling violins, for Mvt. 2? >
The incipit in BWV 2a indicates that doubling, so if it wasn't in the BG, itprobably is in the NBA.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 9, 2006):
Ed Myskowski writes:
< The introductory comments by Julian Minchan and Neil Halliday have added greatly to my listening enjoyment. Worth repeating: added greatly! >
Thank you for these comments.

As a meticulous reader of all emails about the cantatas hereby offered (and having learnt a lot from them) one thought occurred to me. It is this- whilst there is a great deal of information, scholarship and opinion expressed about the texts, historical background and performance practices and traditions (all relevant and of considerable interest to cantata explorers; I do not criticise it) there seems to be less discussion on the actual substance of the music itself. By this I mean such matters as Bach's constant structural experiments, the combining of established formal principles, his incredible variety of phrase structures, the choice and usage of keys, his melodic contours, harmonic experiments, similarities and contrasts between the works etc. etc. Such matters are touched on sure, but seldom seem to stimulate passionate debate or be followed up as meticulously as, for example, the derivation of particular words of text; and, after all, it is the music itself and its expressive effect which is the heart of the subject. What price the performances without the music? Is this because there is a danger that such discussions may become too technical?--- employing technical language which may not be readily accessible to all? But a lot can be illuminated about the ways in which the music is put together without resorting to overly technical language. I well recall beginning the voyage of discovery of the cantatas years ago and pretty daunting it was, at first. My objective in commenting upon the cantatas each week has been to offer points of composition, structure or comparison which might be helpful to those following this same fascinating path. Nice to know that someone gains something from it. Personally I am happiest when engaging in exchanges of views and observations about the music itself, leaving comparisons of performances to those who, apparently with greater resources than I have, can draw upon a much greater range of comparative interpretations than I am able to do. Good luck to them, though!

Thomas Jaenicke wrote (March 9, 2006):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Viel oder wenig? Schnell oder langsam? Unbegrenzt surfen + telefonieren ohne Zeit- und Volumenbegrenzung? DAS TOP ANGEBOT JETZT bei Arcor: günstig und schnell mit DSL - das All-Inclusive-Paket für clevere Doppel-Sparer, nur 44,85 ? inkl. DSL- und ISDN-Grundgebühr!
http://www.arcor.de/rd/emf-dsl-2 >
I do not see that Grimm states the use of "Schiff" for a part of the church building in new:
here the entry im "Grimms Wörterbuch 1854)

15) schiff, in der baukunst, mittlerer hauptraum der kirche, zwischen den pfeilern und chören, von der halle an gerechnet bis an den chor oder den ort, wo der altar steht, hauptschiff, mittelschiff, seitenschiff, langschiff, querschiff. diese bezeichnung des für die laien bestimmten theiles der kirche ist bereits alt; vgl. schon mittellat. navis bei DU CANGE , 579 und auch franz. nef, sie ist wol erwachsen aus der alten an die oben besprochenen metaphorischen anwendungen erinnernden auffassung der kirche als eines schiffes, das uns aus dem verderben der sündflut rettet in short: Schiff in the art of building names the middle area in a church ... This name for the part appointed to the congregation is already old; compare middle Latin navis with DU CANGE and originates from the old metaphoric use of the church as the ship which saves us from the bane of the Flood.

Also don't forget that ships were much more in use in the olden days for mass transport than nowadays. On every river and every lake you saw ships and boats, so the use of "nautical" terms even in areas far off the sea was very common.

Neil Halliday wrote (March 9, 2006):
Julian Minchamwrote:
>"Is this because there is a danger that such discussions may become too technical"<?
This may be a bit of the problem; for full enjoyment of the music, I often have to `steal' a look at the score.

For example, in BWV 144's soprano aria (Mvt. 5), I straightaway knew that we have interesting writing for the oboe in the ritornello, but, despite what turns out to be an entirely natural, expected, and spontaneous shape for this long, rambling melody, its twists and turns ensured there was no way I could whistle or hum this melody without first playing it on a keyboard, from the score. (The oboe melody starts on the (dominant) F# - a bit hidden in the jumble of notes, if one is using the piano reduction score at the BCW). Once this melody is committed to memory, one can listen to bits and pieces of it cropping up all through the movement, including in the vocal line, as is usual in Bach's practice.
-------
Listening to the way both the fugue counter-subject and answer arise on the last note of the subject at the start of Mvt. 1 certainly illuminates the music (for me, and others apparently) but does such terminology make sense to everyone reading this list? (I did not comment on the way the lively counter subject gradually infuses the score as the movement progresses).

Anyway, I certainly enjoy such comments for the insight they may bring to the music.

Douglas Cowling wrote (March 9, 2006):
Tom Hens wrote:
< What about his contemporaries Handel or Heinichen, who both happily composed specifically Roman Catholic > church music, while always remaining Lutherans, at least nominally? >
Handel is a fascinating example. He was lionized by the Catholic hierarchy while in Italy although there were complaints in Rome that a heretic was writing music for the Catholic liturgy. Handel's decision to leave Italy was probably influenced somewhat by the realization that advancement was probably dependent on conversion. In England, where Lutheran music was forbidden in the liturgy, Handel made the decision to convert formally to the Church of the England whih gave him access to commissions in the Chapel Royal and at other court events such as the coronation.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 9, 2006):
Neil Halliday writes:
< Listening to the way both the fugue counter-subject and answer arise on the last note of the subject at the start of Mvt. 1 certainly illuminates the music (for me, and others apparently) but does such terminology make sense to everyone reading this list? >
Neil---- good question which I will follow with two others.

1--- Should we be too concerned about the use of musical technical information? I ask because in recent weeks there have been some highly technical emails about recording and 'compression' which I don't understand; likewise some of the arguments about the meanings of a particular word or phrase in the text in various languages are very technical for those without a good command of the different languages. So should we be too uptight about technicalities involved in the discussion of musical composition when we accept technicallities in allied areas??

I think there is a compromise situation whereby we do not need to invoke terms like 'counterpoint invertible at the 10th' or a 'dominant 7th in its third inversion'. But there are a range of terms (like 'subject' and 'countersubject' ) which are a) fairly clear b) definable through the glossary or c) which, if any member wants an explanation s/he might ask others on the list to define clearly--I'd be happy to do this for one.

2----who are we writing to and for? Obviously people of a wide range of musical experience and expertise. And in one sense it doesn't matter a jot because individuals will take that which means something to them personally (as I did with the emails on recording and compression---i.e. not a lot!!---but I am sure that others did). But I remember often coming across just one single phrase, image, observation or idea which completely illuminated a new work--or a single movement --leading to a consequent emotional (spiritual??) experience which lasted (sorry---IS lasting!) a lifetime.

Maybe it is possible, occasionally, to do this for each other???

What are people actually seeking within this arena? Do say.

Raymond Joly wrote (March 9, 2006):
Age of SCHIFF «nave» (was: Various Schiffs; was: March 5: Intro to Cantata 144)

[To Thomas Jaenicke] If SCHIFF meaning «nave» in German, not Latin, were really old, one can rightfully surmise that Grimm would have been able to adduce an occurrence earlier than Keisersberg, born 1445, whose works, in their German version, are translations from the Latin or revisions by others (Grimm, vol. 33, list of sources).

John Pike wrote (March 9, 2006):
Tom Hens wrote:
< He did buy a lot of theological books, and made margin notes in some of them. Let's be grateful he left no theological writings -- based on what little writing we have from him, they would probably be nearly unintelligible. >
I have to disagree with this. I think it would have been immensely interesting to have more writings from Bach on this, or any other topic. It could only increase our understanding of the man, and possibly of the music as well.

Thomas Braatz wrote (March 9, 2006):
Neil Halliday wrote:
>>[The BGA is sparse in specifying the orchestration for BWV 144; the SATB movements have no indicated instruments at all; and this movement (Mvt. 2) has strings only indicated. I wonder if the NBA has indicated oboes doubling violins, for Mvt. 2?<<
Tom Hens wrote:
>>The incipit in BWV 2a indicates that doubling, so if it wasn't in the BG, it probably is in the NBA.<<
The NBA KB I/7 pp. 1-29 discusses in detail the problems associated with this issue and even the broader issue whether this cantata is actually by Bach at all.

Serious questions have been raised by Bach scholars about its authenticity (the score, the only real evidence from Bach's lifetime, is in Bach's handwriting without his name assigned (this was done many years later by C.P.E. Bach). Schweitzer, Schreyer (1913) and Schering (1913) give various reasons for not ascribing this cantata to Bach: 'weakness in declamation' (Schweitzer); 'almost entirely made of recycled mvts. not necessarily by Bach', 'an inexplicable scantiness/feebleness/weakness of the 1^st aria', and 'the motivically irregularly rushed character of the introductory chorus' (Schreyer); "this cantata is one of Bach's later church cantatas, not even one of his pre-Leipzig ones, which could have been composed by any of the lesser cantors in the smaller churches of Saxony and Thuringia' (Schering).

Opinions from the other side include those of Leonhard Wolf (1913), Alfred Heuß (1933), and Friedrich Smend (1947-1948). They emphasized, among other things, the 'masterly structure', 'excellent declamation' found in this cantata.

The NBA relies upon C.P.E. Bach's attribution, the placement of 'J.J.' before the designation of the liturgical Sunday in question, the fact that the 4-pt. chorale harmonization was included in the Breitkopf collection chorales (1784-1787), the appearance of the score generally as a 'working' or 'composing' copy with numerous corrections not simply as a result of miscopying from another score.

The problem with assigning oboes which are not indicated on the autograph score is a serious one:

1. A copy of the score which J. Ph. Kirnberger had had made in Berlin before 1787 (the first record of it when it donated to the Joachimsthal Gymnasium) has no instrumentation listed at all.

2. A copy of the score of the 1st mvt. from the estate of C.P.E. Bach which Pölchau, a famous collector of Bach manuscripts, acquired in 1841, likewise has no indication of instrumentation.

3. A copy of the score of the entire cantata which was passed down in the Hauser (Joseph and son Franz) family dates from the first half of the 19^th century and lists 2 Oboi, 2 Violini, Viola, 4. voci. e. Fondamento. [My comment: this copy was made at a time when performance practices had changed considerably with larger choirs and substitution or inclusion of clarinets as indicated by Felix Mendelssohn's performance preferences for Bach's cantatas. Perhaps, also, more operatic voices were also used, allowing the increase in the number of instruments and the choice of different instrumental coloring.]

4. A copy of the score by Anton Werner dated 1839 which has the same instrumental designation as Hauser's copy.

5. Another copy of only the 1st mvt (no instruments indicated) by Kirnberger's copyist (2nd half of 18^th century) in a collection entitled 'Motetten v. J.S. Bach" which also included:
1. BWV 226 "Der Geist hilft unsrer Schwachheit auf"
2. BWV 229 "Komm, Jesu, komm"
3. BWV 244/78 (St. Matthew Passion)

6. Another copy of the score from the 19^th century with the same instruments indicated as in Hauser's copy.

Looking at the sources available, the NBA decided there were two main categories:

1. the autograph score (to be kept separate from:)

2. all the other copies of it

The NBA then decided to include the enriched instrumentation for the choral mvts. (1^st and last mvts.) for which there are many original examples where Bach would have done this.

The 2^nd mvt., the alto aria, is, however a thorny problem for which there is no authoritative solution based on the sources available. In view of the reservations caused by the doubtfulness ["Bedenken"] that any clear reasons could be established, the editors decided on an indication of 'Violino ' [remember that Bach has no instruments or voices indicated on the autograph score] with the following: (ed Oboe) for each of the treble instrumental parts at the top of the score. The editors comment that the extremely low range ["Die ausgesprochene tiefe Stimmlage"] for the oboes makes the use of oboes here appear rather/quite doubtful ["läßt diese Zuordnung allerdings recht zweifelhaft erscheinen"]. To play these two parts properly on oboes you would have to allow much more "Oktavknickung" according to the "Umknickverfahren" ["the method used to play parts that go too low by simply jumping up an octave and playing the notes an octave higher"] than one can normally observe in other works that are definitely verified to be by Bach. Despite the fact that oboes are often "Systempartner" ("share the same staff and play the same notes") with the violins in Bach's autograph scores, the editors feel that there is considerable reason to indicate their position by placing this assignation in parentheses on the NBA score with and asterisk referring to this section of the KB where the details of the discussion are given.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 10, 2006):
Julian Mincham wrote:
> What are people actually seeking within this arena? Do say. <
This person was seeking, and found:
(1) reference resource to aid in deciding which recordings to buy to supplement an existing accumulation
(2) analysis to add to the enjoyment of listening to the recordings, old and new

I did not expect to find such a wealth of information on a single site. In my experience getting information on a wide variety of topics from internet sources, the BCW is unique. With that in mind, probably better not to try to fix it if it is not broken. As long as there is a moderator willing and able to do the editing and manage civility, just let it be.

Now that I am on board, I find that listening with the intent to write something encourages me to focus. For me, that is the best, and unexpected, value of BCW.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 11, 2006):
Julian Mincham wrote:
> What are people actually seeking within this arena? Do say. <
A few more (non-comic) thoughts. You asked for it! Once the current chronological cycle is complete (end of next year, more or less?), how about:

(1) Cantata of the week, with structural and musical comparisons to other cantatas, along the lines of what you or Neil (I have forgotten, wait, I'll look it up) (...) It was you, re BWV 144 and BWV 181 (elapsed time, less than a minute, what a luxury), what you have already started, but with no restriction on the comparison subjects. I don't know what the logistics, server space, etc. would be to store and cross-reference discussion that wide-open. Not to mention editing demands, although that hardly seems like it could be any more challenging than it already is. One of those impossible jobs that somehow gets done. Thanks one more time, Aryeh.

(2) Mini-groups of selected cantatas (selected by whom? Whmmm.) with structural or musical similarities, for discussion over some time period. Perhaps four cantatas (on average) every two weeks for about two years.

This would not necessarily replace the comparisons of different recordings of the same cantata, which are useful and enjoyable under any circumstances, and will certainly continue to be so as new recordings are issued. It would provide a fresh emphasis for the next cycle of discussions. It might even create some opportunities for short (please!) books or articles for scholars who need such, and readers who would appreciate the product. If Thomas Braatz doesn't already have them in the dresser drawer, awaiting a publisher. Just kidding, sir, I read, enjoy, and think about your writing very much. I promised non-comic, time to sign off. Plenty of time left to plan the next cycle.

This discussion was brought about, and accompanied by, additional listening to the opening fugue of BWV 144 with your comments in mind. BWV 144, as well as the other four cantatas on the Suzuki CD [6] are among the shortest, and easy to undervalue. This is akin to saying that Opus 95 is Beethoven's shortest string quartet. Indeed it is. Also the most dense, IMO. I hope Beethoven analogies are welcome here. If not, Aryeh can edit me out.

Lew George wrote (March 11, 2006):
Text vs Technique

Julian Mincham wrote:
"By this I mean such matters as Bach's constant structural experiments, the combining of established formal principles, his incredible variety of phrase structures, the choice and usage of keys, his melodic contours, harmonic experiments, similarities and contrasts between the works etc. etc. Such matters are touched on sure, but seldom seem to stimulate passionate debate or be followed up as meticulously as, for example, the derivation of particular words of text; and, after all, it is the music itself and its expressive effect which is the heart of the subject. What price the performances without the music? Is this because there is a danger that such discussions may become too technical?--- employing technical language which may not be readily accessible to all? But a lot can be illuminated about the ways in which the music is put together without resorting to overly technical language."
Julian's suggestions for more discussion and illumination of Bach's work in musical terms are heartily supported here. I think that the avoidance of discussing music in technical terms is because of the limited knowledge and expertise in this arin the community generally.

The technical language of music is only faintly grasped, I would suggest, by most people, even among those with a passionate love of Western classical music. I have a lot of musical friends who both play and listen to music. Those who only listen have the same intense love of and reaction to the music they listen to as those who both play and listen. Yet in the listener only group, not one of them can read music. Some of them still have trouble in identifying whether it is a clarinet, bassoon or oboe they can hear in the orchestra, and if shown photos of various instruments would have trouble identifying many of them, particularly among the brass and woodwind (all this after some 40 years of listening to classical music on CD collections of several thousand).

If a composer miraculously and seamlessly changes key to great emotional effect, as all the great masters did comstantly, this only registers in an indefinable emotional way. Apparently, for this group, it doesn't seem necessary to delve into compositional technique to make the emotional impact greater. The overall shape of a symphonic work is more apparent, as I have noticed they can recognise when for example the development begins, the coda, and so on, even in a large scale work like a Bruckner symphony, but I suspect that difficulty would be apparent if one went much beyond that.

I wonder if technical musical knowledge in the community has ever been surveyed? The result would be an indicator of the extent to which we are entitled to brand ourselves as "civilised".

So, to all the members of this site who are musically trained, especially as professional and teaching musicians, I urge you to take up Julian's challenge, and balance the literary discussion, that is so good and so interesting for the main part, with an elaboration of phrase structures, key relationships, melodic contours and the like, using language we can all understand (if that is possible. A site like this could help change listening habits, with the help of some regular, clearly expressed analysis designed to encourage the listener to listen more closely beyond the surface emotion. Perhaps Aryeh could establish an archive devoted to such analysis, which could also include some more erudite material.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 11, 2006):
Lew George wrote:
< If a composer miraculously and seamlessly changes key to great emotional effect, as all the great masters did comstantly, this only registers in an indefinable emotional way. >
In my engineering days, I had a mentor who said "If you have to be an engineer to operate it, it isn't good engineering."

I think an analogous phrase applies to music: If you have to be a musicologist to listen to it, it isn't good music.

That doesn't mean that learning more about the craft won't add to your enjoyment. Defining the craftsmanship doesn't necessarily destroy the previously indefinable emotional response. Overexposure may destroy it (variety is the spice of life, after all), and overexposure is often necessary to grasp craftsmanship. So study, take a break, and come back to it. You will enjoy it more, the emotional response may be even greater, and you may appreciate the real miracle that distinguishes rare genius from only slightly less rare superb craftsmanship.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 11, 2006):
Ed Myskowski writes:
< In my engineering days, I had a mentor who said "If you have to be an engineer to operate it, it isn't good engineering." >
I think an analogous phrase applies to music: If you have to be a musicologist to listen to it, it isn't good music.

A goog point which, by implication, raises the question of the value of musical analysis. Leaving aside, for a moment the fact there there are numerous levels and approaches to musical analysis, it is still valid to ask what is its function and what do people (hope to) receive from it.

I recall a symposium some years ago lead by the opininated but stimulating Hans Keller. The agreed definition of musical analysis was 'the bringing to the attention and understanding of the conscious mind, aspects of the music which the unconscious has already absorbed and responded to'.

Which goes back to Emysko's analogy with engineering---music is received and appreciated at a very deep level (one of the reasons for the powerful effect it has upon us). We do not need technical knowledge in order to enjoy
this. But a number of different kinds of knowledge (technical, cultural, historic) insights, opinions and images MAY just press certain buttons for certain people which can take them more deeply into the musical experience.

All good teachers know this of course and find their own ways to stimulate their students' imaginations and enthusiasms.

Julian Mincham wrote (March 12, 2006):
Ed Myskowski writes:
< Mini-groups of selected cantatas (selected by whom? Whmmm.) with structural or musical similarities, for discussion over some time period. Perhaps four cantatas (on average) every two weeks for about two years. >
I like this idea. Looking at (listening to!) small cognate groups of cantatas can be illuminative in quite a different way than when looking at them individually.

To make this work it might be best to take the larger subdivions and work out sub-groupings within them

e.g. the first complete Leipzig cycle, the second L eipzig cycle, secular cantatas, the pre-Leipzig religious cantatas, the incomplete third cycle, the late cantatas etc.

If, for example one took the 53 cantatas of the second cycle one might take a group of three or four works at a time for a given month in ways as suggested below---

the three from this cycle which begin with an aria (all for bass)

the two which begin with a recit and the two which begin with a sinfonia

the half dozen which begin with a chorus which is not based upon the phrases of the chorale

cognate groups which begin with a chorale chorus based upon the traditional motet principles

cognate groups which begin with an Italianate ritornello type chorale chorus.

Going beyond the first movement, one could group the three which have a trio---or groups of the 14 cantatas containing a duet--or those which employ a second chorale etc.etc. Also as I suggested recently when mentioning Bach's demonic bass arias, one could even group cantatas because of the congruity of particular arias.

All of these possible groupings are based on the music and musical structure--other groupings related to text and image would be equally valid.

I don't know what the group has agreed--possibly that (from the present position half way through the first cycle) we should proceed with all the following cantatas chronologically---if so, fair enough. The only (tiny) criticism about this approach is that an awful lot has been already been said on the website about many of these individual works (just look, for example about what has been written about the next one coming up, BWV 18). Maybe a cognate grouping of the kind suggested might bring a little more light to bear on the works than individual chronogical scrutiny? And make additional links for those in the process of exploring this great canon of music?

Obviously subscribers and Aryeh would need to agree the process--which comes back to the question, what are people looking for in this subscriber list?

Tom Hens wrote (March 13, 2006):
John Pike wrote:
(in response to something I wrote about Bach's non-existent theological writings):
< I have to disagree with this. I think it would have been immensely interesting to have more writings from Bach on this, or any other topic. It could only increase our understanding of the man, and possibly of the music as well. >
It was a tongue-in-cheek remark, but it does have a serious basis. The harsh truth is that Bach, based on what little writing of his survives, was a terrible writer. It's no surprise that we know from C.P.E. that he disliked writing in the first place, and that he preferred to leave any unavoidable correspondence to secretary. The famous "Entwurff" about his musical requirements addressed to the Leipzig town council could have been crystal-clear. Instead, it's a muddled mess, allowing people centuries later to keep on arguing about the exact interpretation of what he wrote. If he was that bad when writing about very concrete aspects of performance practice, such as how many singers he wanted, imagine how unfathomable he would have been when writing about the finer points of Lutheran theology.

Eric Bergerud wrote (March 13, 2006):
Julian Mincham wrote:
< I don't know what the group has agreed--possibly that (from the present position half way through the first cycle) we should proceed with all the following cantatas chronologically---if so, fair enough. The only (tiny) criticism about this approach is that an awful lot has been already been said on the website about many of these individual works (just look, for example about what has been written about the next one coming up, BWV 18). Maybe a cognate grouping of the kind suggested might bring a little more light to bear on the works than individual chronogical scrutiny? And make additional links for those in the process of exploring this great canon of music?
Obviously subscribers and Aryeh would need to agree the process--which comes back to the question, what are people looking for in this subscriber list? >
I think the present course is reasonable. It's true that the archive contains many posts. But at present there are a lot more members who didn't participate the first time around. Beyond that, I think a second listening (what, four years down the road?) will be a most pleasant experience for all involved. And, there are a few new recordings out. Full steam ahead says I.

Eric Bergerud wrote (March 13, 2006):
[To Tom Hens] Well, we'll never know. Bach led the type of life that allowed him to do most of communication face to face: probably pretty common in those days. Wonder how much we'd know about Mozart if he hadn't felt the desire to keep up correspondence with his father: a moot point in Bach's case. (And Bach never felt the need to beg money from rich friends, another major source of Mozart's letters.) And the prose of the 17^th or 18^th century can get a little dense unless it's in the hands of a literary master like Swift or Montaigne. (Fortunately for the early Republic, George Washington was a much better President than literary stylist and he wrote thousands of letters. And the people that knew him never accused him of being a dope. Or track down a copy of Ossian if you're having trouble getting to sleep.) Unless I misread Wolff and Boyd Bach was quite friendly with a number of students and faculty from the University at Leipzig. That was roughly the equivalent of Stanford in 18^th century Germany. So perhaps Bach never had the need to hone writing skills. I do not think that implies that he would not have had some very interesting things to say. He was a genius after all.

And the Entwurff? The city council of Leipzig would have known the context of the problem. Sadly, we don't or there wouldn't be an OVPP debate one way or the other. Bach's words might have been perfectly clear to them.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 13, 2006):
Ed Myskowski wrote:
< Mini-groups of selected cantatas (selected by whom? Whmmm.) with structural or musical similarities, for discussion over some time period. Perhaps four cantatas (on average) every two weeks for about two years. >
Julian Mincham wrote:
< I don't know what the group has agreed--possibly that (from the present position half way through the first cycle) we should proceed with all the following cantatas chronologically---if so, fair enough. The only (tiny) criticism about this approach is that an awful lot has been already been said on the website about many of these individual works >
I hope the thread is clear. I do not mean to be presumptuous, making suggestions for the next five years or so after being with you for a few weeks. I have known people like that. I am sure you have, as well.

I certainly did not mean to suggest interrupting the chronological sequence. Not that I would necessarily object, just not what I had in mind. How about inviting cross references during the chronological discussions and if Aryeh can handle the editing, let that develop the next discussion cycle. Just thinking out loud (or at the fingers, as Bach and Beethoven might have thought).

Raymond Joly wrote (March 13, 2006):
[To Eric Bergerud] I am a non believer, but Bach was quite the opposite. I appreciate everything that may enrich our understanding of what went on in the world around him (and in his head) and shaped his work.

Please: I still do not get emoticons, and I think I guessed right about IOW and IMO. But what is OVPP? Maybe our site should have a little glossary for non-native American speakers.

Graig Chase wrote (March 13, 2006):
[To Eric Bergerud] Considering that I have only recently joined the group I suggest that you may want to pursue whatever path you have completed so far. Please do not negate or delete any of the BWVs that have been reviewed previously to this point, since I'm sure there are many like myself who have not covered some of the earlier material. I know this is an inconvenience for many who have been with the program since the beginning. I would suggest recycling thru the curriculum once you have completed it.

Tom Hens wrote (March 16, 2006):
John Pike wrote:
< It is certainly true that Bach's writing style was very verbose but that in itself gives us some information about him. >
It's not any verbosity that is the problem, IMO. Somebody who left that little in writing can hardly be accused of being verbose.

< The difficulties we have in interpreting the Entwurff today are not necessarily the fault of Bach. As Eric pointed out, the authorities would have known a lot more about the background to the document than we do. Bach was writing for them, not for us. I can well understand that he thought he had made himself crystal clear. >
Of course, and that's a problem with the interpretation of any historical document. Many things that are self-evident to the writer and the intended readers aren't written down, and only become a problem when people without that shared background are trying to interpret things centuries later. For instance, the members of the Leipzig town council to which Bach's memorandum was addressed knew perfectly well how many singers were normally used for cantata performances, they saw that for themselves every Sunday. But (again, IMO) the problem with Bach's few surviving writings goes beyond that. If you compare them to texts written by, say, C.P.E. Bach, or Telemann, or Mattheson, the difference is huge. Just try and parse some of Bach's sentences -- a lot of the time it's just impossible, they're a mess of meandering subclauses without any clear structure. The lack of clarity isn't just due to a lack of background knowledge.

< There is nothing inherently opaque about this document. It is just that we lack the background to understand it in full. hence, a number of varying interpretations and translations have emerged, many of them reasonable ideas (and some of them unreasonable translations). >
The fact that a lot of discussion on this issue goes on between people who don't have German as a native language, or even as a decently mastered second language, certainly adds to the confusion.

Tom Hens wrote (March 16, 2006):
Eric Bergerud wrote:
< Bach led the type of life that allowed him to do most of communication face to face: probably pretty common in those days. >
People in Bach's day and in comparable social positions kept up huge amounts of correspondence, and so did institutions. Bach dealt with many people he couldn't meet face to face, and he preferred to leave such correspondence to secretaries. One of thefew interesting aspects in Klaus Eidam's terrible book about Bach is his documentation of how the Leipzig town council and the church authorities during their conflicts communicated in writing, even though their offices were, quite literally, within shouting distance of each other (and remember, all of Leipzig was just 30 to 40 thousand people). If Bach's dislike of putting things in writing had been par for the course, C.P.E. wouldn't have commented on it.

<snip>
< (And Bach never felt the need to beg money from rich friends, another major source of Mozart's letters.) >
He certainly felt the need to send letters to people who had rented instruments from him and didn't return them on time.

< And the prose of the 17^th or 18^th century can get a little dense unless it's in the hands of a literary master like Swift or Montaigne. >
Now there's a sweeping generalisation. "The prose of the 17^th or 18^th century", two whole centuries, and across English, French and German?

As it happens, what we're talking about here, early 18^th century written German, is generally quite understandable to someone who knows modern German. And Bach's prose is considerably less understandable than that of many other people of the same period.

< (Fortunately for the early Republic, George Washington was a much better President than literary stylist and he wrote thousands of letters. And the people that knew him never accused him of being a dope. >
Who ever said anything about anyone being a dope? (Although I have no idea of whether or not George Washington was a dope, or how he got dragged into this discussion in the first place. Maybe this is something that needs to be pointed out to Americans: George Washington isn't a terribly prominent figure in history if you aren't an American. Educated people outside the US tend to know he existed and gave his name to the capital, but that's about where their knowledge ends.)

< Unless I misread Wolff and Boyd Bach was quite friendly with a number of students and faculty from the University at Leipzig. That was roughly the equivalent of Stanford in 18^th century Germany. >
Cultural references like this don't travel well. I have no idea what you mean by "the equivalent of Stanford". I know Stanford is a university in California, but what's special about it or why it would be particularly comparable to the university of Leipzig in the first half of the eighteenth century, I don't know. Let alone why any of this would be relevant to the fact that Bach was a terrible writer.

Ed Myskowski wrote (March 17, 2006):
Please make two small corrections to my earlier post re BWV 144, Suzuki [6] recording:
(1) The CD booklet clearly states (it is not presumed) that the recording venue is the Shoin Women's University Chapel. This information is not adjacent to the photo, and I overlooked it.
(2) Specific performance notes are by Suzuki, but the generalized notes, including those relating to texts, are by Klaus Hofmann (as correctly attributed by John Pike in his commentary on BWV 73 a few weeks ago, before I joined BCW).

BWV 144 - Septuagesima Sunday (Feb. 8, 2009, third Sunday before Lent)

Ed Myskowski wrote (February 13, 2009):
Brian McCreath chose BWV 144 in the Koopman performance [4] for his regular Sunday AM broadcast on WGBH-FM and www.wgbh.org. I did not listen in real time, the reasons are nobodys business but my own. I did look up the choice on the playlist, and get to listen a few days late, missing the communal radio experience, but at least keeping up with the real-time liturgical thread.

The Koopman performance [4], with a featured aria for alto Bogna Bartosz is especially relevant to the parallel Koopman thread. Uncanny! One might almost think Brian is reading our minds, or at least our posts.

Continue on Part 3

Cantata BWV 144: Nimm, was dein ist, und gehe hin for Septuagesima Sunday (1724)
Discography: Details & Complete Recordings | Recordings of Individual Movements
Discussions: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4