Cantata BWV 147
Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben
Cantata BWV 147a
Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben
Discussions - Part 3

Continue from Part 2

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 2, 2004):
Alle Menschen muessen sterbe

< It is commonplace in the Anglican Communion to use one tune in particular in many different times in the Hymnal, all of which have nothing at all to do with the original Choral or its meaning. The Choral in question is "Alle Menschen muessen sterben". The Anglicans use it at Advent, at Easter, and at other times. However, they do not use it at funerals. This in stark contrast to the meaning and intent of the original. The title itself translates to "All men (or mankind) must die"."
So what? It's only a tune. It does not 'mean' anything in the way that the text does. There is no relationship between the words and music of a chorale or hymn tune other than simultaneity. >
I wouldn't say "no" relationship, but the point otherwise is a good one: the familiar tunes get used over and over again in a variety of settings, with a variety of texts and Affekts. (Some of us who compose music for hymnals do try to come up with a specific and exact match to a given text....)

Here's another example, for what it's worth: Paul Hindemith used "Alle Menschen müssen sterben" in a trumpet sonata. And he used Old Hundredth in the finale of "Trauermusik" (viola and string orchestra, a funeral piece) where one might expect something like "Alle Menschen muessen sterben" to be more appropriate by the words.

(By "Old Hundredth" I mean the same tune that Bach used in the "Sei Lob und Preis" inner movement of the "Jauchzet Gott" cantata BWV 51. It picked up the common English name "Old Hundredth" elsewhere, from early textual associations with Psalm 100, back to John Calvin's musical colleagues.)

As for "Alle Menschen", see also Bach's dramatically flashy early setting of it, BWV 1117, in the "Neumeister" chorales. Big chords, lots of very fast notes, with each melodic note broken down into divisions of eight notes. Quite a contrast with the beginning of the piece, where it sounds like it's going to be merely simple and straightforward three-voiced music with the melody in tenor.

Continue of this part of the discussion, see: Cantata BWV 51 - Discussions Part 3

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 2, 2004):
Gabriel Jackson responded:
>>So what? It's only a tune. It does not 'mean' anything in the way that the text does. There is no relationship between the words and music of a chorale or hymn tune other than simultaneity.<<
Thomas Bratz wrote:
< This final generalization should be explained to Bach who in his early version of the SMP had the chorale "O Lamm Gottes unschuldig" played only by the organ. The congregation knew immediately that Bach was referring to the first verse of this chorale without recourse to having it sung as in the later, expanded version." >
Again, so what? The audience associated particular words with a particular tune. That doesn't mean there is any connection between the two other than simultaneity. A sequence of notes does not mean anything in the way the a sequence of words does. If you would like to argue otherwise, what does this sequence of pitches 'mean': FDGFEbFBb?

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 2, 2004):
Dorian Gray wrote:
"But Bach clearly does NOT share this attitude. Often, his choice to embed a particular chorale tune, or choose a chorale tune to express this week's readings is highly influenced by the original text of a chorale, and EVERY tune, to his mind, clearly had an Affekt and an appropriate specific subject matter. One obvious example of this would be Luther's tune that Bach used for 'Christ lag in Todesbanden.' It is based on an even older cantus which is connected with Easter and the resurrection of the dead. The appropriateness for this tune in Bach's easter cantata is justified in his mind because of the original funtion of the chorale tune. Not only that, but Bach continued to use the cantus throughout his life in pieces which, for him, meant the raising up of the dead."
But the tune symbolises (or represents) the text, because of the association between the two. It does not 'mean' the text. If one does not know what text a chorale is associated with, it has no symbolic significance, it is just a sequence of notes.

Thomas Braatz wrote (October 2, 2004):
Gabriel Jackson wrote:
>>Again, so what? The audience associated particular words with a particular tune. That doesn't mean there is any connection between the two other than simultaneity.<<
If by 'simultaneity' you mean the coincidental association of a thought with certain ideas, words, or even letters [whenever I hear B, A, C, H = translate Bb, A, C, B for English-speaking persons, I always associate this sequence of notes with the idea 'Bach' and nothing else. I believe the same would be true of quite a few eminent composers/musicians, even contemporary ones. Do you count yourself among them?], then the intial verbal or non-verbal association of these notes is only coincidental the first time the connection is made. After that the connection may become stronger or weaker based upon the specific group of listeners who hear these notes played. The OED defines 'simultaneity' in the arts as "the simultaneous representation of several views of the same object," but in order for Bach to reference his chorale melodies (just a sequence of notes, as it were) without the words being sung by the performers, but simply played on an instrument, Bach would have to rely upon more than just the coincidental 'simultaneity' of the notes and the words, because, according to the OED definition, other equally coincidental associations could exist side by side.

>>A sequence of notes does not mean anything in the way the a sequence of words does. If you would like to argue otherwise, what does this sequence of pitches 'mean': FDGFEbFBb?<<
Probably nothing significant enough to Bach's congregation to make a specific connection between an idea, thought, words and the posited sequence of notes. But once the powerful connection between the words of a specific chorale had become sufficiently fixed through traditional use and exposure using a 'hymn tune' that might be used for some other chorale texts as well, then such an association is so strong with the listeners that a composer can either choose to put his head in the sand and say that he really meant something else or nothing at all, or, as in the case of Bach, he can choose to capitalize on this rather firm connection and create yet another level on which the music could be 'understood' and appreciated.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 2, 2004):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
"[whenever I hear B, A, C, H = translate Bb, A, C, B for English-speaking persons, I always associate this sequence of notes with the idea 'Bach' and nothing else."
The important word here is 'associate'. Those four notes don't mean anything in themselves.

"I believe the same would be true of quite a few eminent composers/musicians, even contemporary ones. Do you count yourself among them?],"
What is the point of this bizarre question?! Do you think living composers are less familiar with the name of Bach than were those who are now dead?!

">>A sequence of notes does not mean anything in the way the a sequence of words does. If you would like to argue otherwise, what does this sequence of pitches 'mean': FDGFEbFBb?<<
Probably nothing significant enough to Bach's congregation to make a specific connection between an idea, thought, words and the posited sequence of notes."
Indeed, but many Anglican choristers would recognise that sequence of pitches as the opening phrase of the Gloria of Howells' Collegium Regale canticles. You didn't recognise them, I assume, because you don't know the piece. And that is the point. If you don't know the piece, they are just a sequence of pitches. Notes don't mean anything, but a particular sequence cahave a strong symbolic significance that is dependent on the listener being familiar with the melody and the text it is set to.

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 2, 2004):
< A sequence of notes does not mean anything in the way the a sequence of words does. If you would like to argue otherwise, what does this sequence of pitches 'mean': FDGFEbFBb? >
Looks to me like a nicely useful bass line for a cadence into B-flat major.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 2, 2004):
[To Bradley Lehman] Interesting thought.

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 2, 2004):
<< A sequence of notes does not mean anything in the way the a sequence of words does. If you would like to argue otherwise, what does this sequence of pitches 'mean': FDGFEbFBb? >>
< Looks to me like a nicely useful bass line for a cadence into B-flat major. >
Or like a simplified version of the subject from Bach's three-part invention in F, transposed....

Thomas Braatz wrote (October 2, 2004):
Gabriel Jackson wrote:
>>A sequence of notes does not mean anything in the way the a sequence of words does. If you would like to argue otherwise, what does this sequence of pitches 'mean': FDGFEbFBb?<<
The same would be true about the letters of the alphabet as compared to notes in music. Depending on which letters appear in sequence in any given language, the various cultures of the language users would quite possibly come up with different associations for the same sequence of letters in a word. Likewise with a sequence of notes which might have a special meaning in one culture and not another. I may have made the mistake of assuming that all list members who are interested in Bach and his music would naturally be attuned to Bach's world and culture. Such list members would, if they have not already made Bach's culture their own, be interested in finding out just how it was that Bach could speak musically to his congregation without uttering/singing a single word. By using certain sequences of notes, he was able to conjure a thought and/or feeling associated with a specific verse of a specific chorale just because these associations existed in his listeners. To argue that Howells' sacred music culture in England could also evoke similar thoughts and sentiments, simply proves that he is part of a different culture.

The fact that the notes B, A, C, H are recognized internationally places it into the world-culture category of wide recognizability far above what congregations in England and Germany in different times and in different places were/are able to experience. Perhaps the emotional intensity of the latter might have been stronger in some ways, but the recognition of the notes B, A, C, H as a meaningful association of notes belongs to humanity at large. [Which Brandenburg did they send off into space beyond Pluto so that alien beings might understand what represents all mankind?]

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 2, 2004):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
"The same would be true about the letters of the alphabet as compared to notes in music. Depending on which letters appear in sequence in any given language, the various cultures of the language users would quite possibly come up with different associations for the same sequence of letters in a word."
But a group of notes cannot have the concrete meaning that a group of letters that constitute a word does.

"I may have made the mistake of assuming that all list members who are interested in Bach and his music would naturally be attuned to Bach's world and culture. Such list members would, if they have not already made Bach's culture their own, be interested in finding out just how it was that Bach could speak musically to his congregation without uttering/singing a single word."
This is deeply presumptuous in too many ways to enumerate. And, aside from the gratuitous sideswipe, you are confusing the association (with a text) that a sequence of pitches may have, with the notion that that sequence of pitches can have an intrinsic meaning, which it cannot.

"To argue that Howells' sacred music culture in England could also evoke similar thoughts and sentiments, simply proves that he is part of a different culture. "
It proves nothing of the kind. The example I gave was chosen for a reason - to demonstate that unless one is familiar with the words that a sequence of pitches is set to, the sequence in itself means nothing. Its significance, as in the chorale melodies that prompted this thread, lies in its association with a particular text (or word).

"The fact that the notes B, A, C, H are recognized internationally places it into the world-culture category of wide recognizability far above what congregations in England and Germany in different times and in different places were/are able to experience. Perhaps the emotional intensity of the latter might have been stronger in some ways, but the recognition of the notes B, A, C, H as a meaningful association of notes belongs to humanity at large."
So what?

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 2, 2004):
< The fact that the notes B, A, C, H are recognized internationally places it into the world-culture category of wide recognizability far above what congregations in England and Germany in different times and in different places were/are able to experience. Perhaps the emotional intensity of the latter might have been stronger in some ways, but the recognition of the notes B, A, C, H as a meaningful association of notes belongs to humanity at large. [Which Brandenburg did they send off into space beyond Pluto so that alien beings might understand what represents all mankind?] >
Naw, you're just sore because you didn't recognize it was Herbert Howells!

I didn't recognize it was Howells either, because I happen not to know the piece Gabriel mentioned. But I think you're seriously overestimating the cross-cultural recognizability of the B-A-C-H motif by comparison. "Belongs to humanity at large"?!?!? Get real. It's easily recognizable to Bach fans, sure, but you're going to get blank stares if you play it for a roomful of average high-school kids. They're part of humanity at large, aren't they? Or go into any Wal-Mart and play it, for reactions. Heck, go into a Spar supermarket in Germany and play it; you'll still get blank stares.

For recognizability the B-A-C-H motif probably beats out Shostakovich's D-S-C-H, and Schumann's A-S-C-H and S-C-H-A and A-B-E-G-G, but that's not saying much. At least in the US, the B-A-C-H loses hands down to the three-note motif for N-B-C. It probably also still loses to the five-note subject John Williams wrote for alien contact in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

Quiz question: name the piece in WTC book 1 that has B-A-C-H played in it (and not merely a transposition). The first two notes are played by the alto voice, and then the last two by the soprano....

Incidentally, the other copy of the Voyager's metal disk is on display in the Smithsonian in Washington DC. Push the buttons on the display, and some of the recording plays. Here's the playlist: http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/music.html
Do you (anyone) seriously believe they chose Brandenburg 2 on the criterion that it has a B-A-C-H in the bass line, such that aliens will be impressed by that particular achievement of "humanity at large"?

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 2, 2004):
< "I may have made the mistake of assuming that all list members who are interested in Bach and his music would naturally be attuned to Bach's world and culture. >
Would that particular "Bach's world" be the culture of composing, performing, improvising, and enrolling in formal study of music?

Or, to say that another way: how is it possible to be "attuned to Bach's world" without doing any of those things, except by a huge amount of wishful thinking and rationalization?

Bach was a practical man who did music every day. I don't see how those who don't do so can even hazard a guess at what it must be like, to be so "attuned", without that hands-on experience. I'm not implying that they love the music any less, but only saying that there's a hdifference between consuming something and understanding it as a practitioner.

Charles Franciswrote (October 2, 2004):
<< "I may have made the mistake of assuming that all list members who are interested in Bach and his music would naturally be attuned to Bach's world and culture. >>
Bradley Lehman wrote: < Would that particular "Bach's world" be the culture of composing, performing, improvising, and enrolling in formal study of music? >
Do you have evidence for Bach enrolling in the formal study of music? And would he have benefited by doing so?

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 2, 2004):
[To Charles Francis] Read chapter 2 of Wolff's Bach: The Learned Musician describing the formal training he received in music. One of his own teachers had studied under Pachelbel; that's pretty good credentials already....

But the bigger issue is: just because YOU evidently don't believe that formal study (with a real teacher who knows the material) delivers anything worth knowing, and you haven't admitted to enrolling in any yourself, doesn't mean that everybody shares your pooh-pooh attitude about it. Ever taken formal lessons in any instrument, or singing, or improvisation, or composing, or conducting, or thoroughbass, or music theory?

And Bach himself was a professional teacher of music, taking the job seriously, training his own apprentices and developing study material for them. He also expected his own children to take the formal study seriously. Ever tried it yourself? What types of students have come to you seeking musical instruction, and what curriculum did you use? Ever given a lecture about music to university students? Ever played in a live concert with your own students? Ever composed or arranged any pieces for them to play? Did they take the work more seriously than you do (I hope)?

John Reese wrote (October 3, 2004):
Gabriel Jackson wrote:
"But a group of notes cannot have the concrete meaning that a group of letters that constitute a word does."
Not to mention the fact that having a string a letters form words is NOT universal. There are many non-phonetic written languages.

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 3, 2004):
Letter sequences

"The same would be true about the letters of the alphabet as compared to notes in music. Depending on which letters appear in sequence in any given language, the various cultures of the language users would quite possibly come up with different associations for the same sequence of letters in a word."
I agree. Such a comment has implications for performance practices, too. To put across the appropriate meaning, a word needs to be pronounced in the correct language and with inflections appropriate to its sense and context. People who have no command of a particular language, since they're not practical users of it, will obviously miss some things that are perfectly obvious to people who do know the language. Take, for example, the sequence of letters C-O-N. That word has vastly different meanings in English, Spanish, French, and Italian, and various implications in other languages as well. (Pardon my French.) An actor who doesn't understand the language he's speaking will just look like an incompetent, and the material he's trying to present probably won't have enough clarity to be intelligible, due to the way the performance gets in the way.

Music is a language, too. A very simple "word" in music, such as the notes F-E-F-D, could have vastly different meaning and pronunciation (articulation) depending on the context: the genre of the music, the position within a bar, the other things that are happening during those notes, and so much more. It could also be part of some larger phrase or some larger recognizable melody.

Non-musicians who bring only a rudimentary and generic reading skill of recognizing the bare notes--having no day-to-day practical conversational skill within that language of music--will probably miss the proper pronunciations and meanings of those notes altogether...although (incredibly) that doesn't seem to stop them from telling us musicians how it must be done! I think music should be better respected as a language, in this regard.

So, is F-E-F-D part of the Dies irae, or is it part of Karl Jenkins' Diamond Music for the DeBeers jewelry commercials, or something else, or is it to stand on its own? What kinds of articulation are appropriate between those notes? Which notes should receive which types of accents? How strict should the rhythm be? Non-musicians aren't placed to make that judgment. They don't bring reasonable fluency in the language to that table. They don't understand musical context or make sufficient distinctions between genres and styles; all the notes look pretty much alike, to them. I fail to understand, then, why they insist on telling us how they know better than we do how to perform music properly. According to what? Their guesswork? Their pride? Their chutzpah? Their arrogant insinuations that they believe musicians are too stupid to understand our own language?

=====

Pardon my rant. On both the BRML and BCML the assaults on reason, and the assaults on musicians and musicologists, and the assaults on basic logic, have been especially virulent in the past week or so. As a musician and musicologist I'm feeling a wee bit defensive about this: under the renewed onslaught of several non-musicians here whose vendetta it is to show that there's nothing worth knowing in music, and certainly not anything that's knowable by scientific methods. Why do they do this?

I was thinking that these lists are places to have reasonable discussions about music we care about, discussions that respect the material and respect those of us who specialize in it. But instead, it's more of the same again: unreasonable nonsense and frivolous provocations from several who take it upon themselves to snipe against experts (and against the very nature of expertise), all of which makes THE MUSIC suffer as a result. What is the goal of all this? I sure wish they'd say. Maybe they could even shut the **#@*&*@ up and sit there and actually learn something, from dialogue among people who respect the music.

E-C-D-D!

Can we please get back to discussing Bach's music?

Thomas Braatz wrote (October 3, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>Quiz question: name the piece in WTC book 1 that has B-A-C-H played in it (and not merely a transposition). The first two notes are played by the alto voice, and then the last two by the soprano....<<
Since the game allows for switching voices, how about ms. 19-20 of Fuga from BWV 857 in F minor: Alto: B, A Soprano C, and H back to the Alto part....

Or are you going to establish the rules only to favor your answers?

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 3, 2004):
B-A-C-H

[To Thomas Braatz] That's a good answer, but not the example I had in mind. I guess I should have specified that the notes should be evenly spaced in rhythm; whereas this one in 857 speeds up after the first two notes. There's another one elsewhere (not in 857) that's evenly spaced on the big beats, played directly and slowly sort of like a cantus firmus against faster notes in other voices, yet it is very difficult to pick out. So much so that it's probably just a coincidence and not deliberately meaningful as a "B-A-C-H" even though it's those four levers on the keyboard in that order, all in accented positions, and starts on a downbeat. The point is, coincidences come up in any sufficiently large mass of data. They're not always meaningful! It would be somewhat more startling (perhaps) if no B-A-C-H coincidences came up within a collection of that size.

In high school I had a group of friends who looked for coincidences of the notes C-D-B anywhere that motif might come up in any music, in honor of the children's book C D B! by Steig. And we could simply whistle those three notes anytime in a crowd, if spotting one of the other guys across the room. Fun little game. The answer to that whistle is to return the note A, resolving it into A minor: sort of like a secret password or something. Of course, the coincidence of C-D-B[-A] in any piece of music is not proof that the composer meant anything by it w. That's why it was a silly and idle game, but fun while it lasted for several years. We weren't mysticists assigning cosmic significance to any of those coincidences. We were just having fun and honoring the cleverness of Steig's book.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 3, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz] Now.........where have we seen that happen before......?

Brendan (Dorian Gray) wrote (October 3, 2004):
"The fact that the notes B, A, C, H are recognized internationally places it into the world-culture category of wide recognizability far above what congregations in England and Germany in different times and in different places were/are able to experience. Perhaps the emotional intensity of the latter might have been stronger in some ways, but the recognition of the notes B, A, C, H as a meaningful association of notes belongs to humanity at large."
>>So what? <<
Well, heck. Not everybody is going to get it. Just let it go if it don't mean a thang to you. It does happen to mean A LOT to some of us, though...

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 3, 2004):
B-A-C-H

A further hint on finding the one I'm looking at: the harmonic motion during it is all descending roots by fifths, at the same speed as these four notes. And they're all minims. But it's an extremely unlikely way to harmonize those four notes. That's why it's so difficult to hear, and so unlikely that it was a deliberate signature of Bach's name into the piece. That, plus the enharmonic equivalences in play. Needle in a haystack. I'd been playing the piece for at least twelve years and still never noticed it, it's that obscure, until I saw mention of it in Ledbetter's commentary. He doesn't push it to be anything more than a coincidence either. Quite an idle thing to "find".

Brendan (Dorian Gray) wrote (October 3, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
>>And Bach himself was a professional teacher of music, taking the job seriously, training his own apprentices and developing study material for them. He also expected his own children to take the formal study seriously. Ever tried it yourself? What types of students have come to you seeking musical instruction, and what curriculum did you use? Ever given a lecture about music to university students? Ever played in a live concert with your own students? Ever composed or arranged any pieces for them to play? Did they take the work more seriously than you do (I hope)? <<
I'm sorry to do this, Brad. I don't know you, but I do respect and value your opinions very much. I have learned much from your enlightening posts, and I appreciate the time you put into it!

That said, this is really beneath you. I feel you may be inclined to listen to me, because I personally can answer either 'yes' or at length to every question you asked above. If you want to turn amatuers and seekers alike away from the subject you hold dear, the attitude you displayed above will do admirably. I would never dream of talking to my listeners or students in such a way as to make them feel inferior or somehow lacking the knowledge to even begin to understand what I am trying to teach them. Not only that, but the opportunity to learn from others is severly hampered when such an approach is made-Zen mind is the beginner's mind.

I don't mean this to come off as harsh, and you are not the only perpetrator, and not anywhere near the worst, but perhaps by addressing your comment as just one example of many, I might be able to assert my humble opinion of this matter of communication between people of different knowledge and skill levels.

Remember: We all love Bach! You are amongst friends, no matter how frustrated you may become with our lack of appreciation for the things you post here.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 3, 2004):
Dorian Gray wrote:
"If you want to turn amatuers and seekers alike away from the subject you hold dear, the attitude you displayed above will do admirably. I would never dream of talking to my listeners or students in such a way as to make them feel inferior or somehow lacking the knowledge to even begin to understand what I am trying to teach them."
But, Brendan, Brad's questions were directed specifically at someone who has shown nothing but contempt for musicians and for the art and science of music, and who has previously attacked the whole notion of studying music seriously.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 3, 2004):
Dorian Gray wrote:
"Well, heck. Not everybody is going to get it. Just let it go if it don't mean a thang to you. It does happen to mean A LOT to some of us, though..." >
I don't understand this. What doesn't mean a thing to me?

Brendan (Dorian Gray) wrote (October 3, 2004):
Gabriel Jackson wrote:
>>But, Brendan, Brad's questions were directed specifically at someone who has shown nothing but contempt for musicians and for the art and science of music, and who has previously attacked the whole notion of studying music seriously. <<
I realize this, and thank you for metioning that- I should have too. But I believe my comments still apply- even the notion that serious study of music has drawbacks to understanding music must be respected! It is also a valid stance that many talented musicians (maybe not composers) have expressed before.

Even so, one's comments here are heard and seen by everyone- and so regardless of the offensive party, one forms opinions of people based on the way they treat others. These little rants are best directed privately- I would hate to think Brad's commentary is dismissed by others who think he comes off as an ivory-tower figure, REGARDLESS of his target.

Eric Bergerud wrote (October 3, 2004):
On 10/2/04 Thomas Braatz wrote:
< I may have made the mistake of assuming that all list members who are interested in Bach and his music would naturally be attuned to Bach's world and culture. Such list members would, if they have not already made Bach's culture their own, be interested in finding out just how it was that Bach could speak musically to his congregation without uttering/singing a single word. By using certain sequences of notes, he was able to conjure a thought and/or feeling associated with a specific verse of a specific chorale just because these associations existed in his listeners. >
I'm not sure that being "attuned" to Bach's world and culture will tell us all that we want to know by any means. We know quite a bit about central Germany in the first half of the 18th Century. The political chronology is clear. Social historians have been busy as bees in the past 50 years examining and comparing cultural change throughout Europe of this period. We know quite a bit about the theological "party line" of the Lutheran Church of the time. What we don't really know in detail is how Bach the individual fit in with the larger world around him.

As Wolff has pointed out, writing a personal biography of Bach is a pretty dreary affair simply because Bach and his immediate circles were not people of the word. (What a contrast with Mozart with his blizzard of letters, or Beethoven who was constantly surrounded by a cadre that knew they were witnessing the career of an extraordinary genius.) If one wishes to find out what Bach thought about the most central issues of music, one must turn to Birnbaum who presumably was speaking for Bach in the Scheibe debates, his obituary, the memories of his son and pretty scanty local records. Pretty thin stuff. I can think of several issues that pertain to Bach's world that are unclear to me but perhaps important.

1. Who was Bach composing his cantatas for? For God, no doubt, in his mind. But for whom on earth? The congregations at his various posts, particularly Leipzig, would be an obvious answer. But do we know this to be true? Obviously the good German Lutherans were one audience as it was Bach's job to write church music for them. Yet there is little in the record, as I understand it, to indicate that the parishioners of Leipzig (or any other locale) realized they were in the presence of genius. If the Leipzig city and school authorities realized it, they did a fine jobobscuring their admiration. Nor is there any real evidence that Bach was terribly concerned about what the locals thought about him. I certainly don't see that it is at all self-evident that most of the parishioners listening to a Bach cantata would have known all the old hymns by heart and been listening so closely that they would have been able to understand some kind of musical/religious code between composer and believer. It was an age of faith, no doubt. That doesn't mean that a good many of the good citizens of Leipzig weren't thinking of events of the past week or even what was on the dinner menu while Bach's musicians played. Obviously the super-devout were there also. Sure would be nice to know the relative numbers involved.

2. Did Bach share any of the iconoclasm that was a muted but real strain in the Lutheran faith and still was present in Bach's lifetime? When Bach took his appointment at Leipzig, after all, he was cautioned not to be too operatic or shake things up much. There were good reasons for orthodox Lutherans to make such admonishments. Thankfully Luther's love of music tempered some of iconoclastic excesses in the early Reformation: the fury directed at "graven images" could easily have been directed toward the increasingly complex music of the 16th Century. As it was, no art, musical or visual was to be so striking that it would distract individual believers from the special connection that developed between themselves, the entire congregation and the Holy Spirit during service. (This is why Lutherans built an equivalent of Notre Dame. It's also why the larger and more ornate churches like St. Thomas' probably would not have appealed to a good Pietist.) Would Bach have looked upon this idea as a constraint or believed it himself. Whatever the answer, Bach obviously found a way. (The characteristic of Bach's music that mystifies me the most is how he created religious works of such complexity while maintaining a deep piety. I love Mozart's religious music, but I would never describe it as pious.)

3. Did Bach expect his players and choirs to be able to perform the cantatas he composed as he actually wrote them? The obvious answer is yes, because that's why Bach wrote the notes. Let's look, however, at Birnbaum before drawing firm conclusions. Wolf argues that the leitmotiv of Bach's career was the pursuit of "perfection." A perfect beauty, but a beauty not as understood in later years as moving the individual heart but as manifestation of natural order. Wolf also notes, "Bach's idea of musical perfection, as Birnbaum affirmed, included the goal of perfect execution. He was well aware, however, that performances, especially of larger ensemble works, would not necessarily match the degree of perfection represented in the musical composition." At Bach's urging Birnbaum elaborated in 1739: "It is true, one does not judge a composition principally and predominantly by the impression of its performance. But if such judgment, which indeed may be deceiving, is not to be considered, I see no other way of judging than to view the work as it has been set down in notes." (Epilogue, p. 470) From the above is it not possible to imagine Bach composing works, works of remarkable sophistication, knowing full well that the imperfect musicians at his disposal would not likely be able to perform the work as Bach ideally wanted? If so, would it not also be possible for Bach and his assistants to bend the music to have it fit the possible at a given moment. Consider also the following. As Boyd and Wolf both point out, Bach composed much great music that had no obvious function for his career. (One could hardly say that of Mozart.) It does appear that Bach composed because he loved the challenge. And, perhaps, the people that shared the fruits of this love, fellow musicians, students and local music lovers were Bach's real audience, at least on earth. If Wolf is correct, even few of this group appreciated the greatness of Bach's religious choral works. So after Bach's death many of Europe's great musicians, Bach's students and his friends at the University realized that they had lost a genius, and most of Europe knew nothing. But perhaps that would have been enough for Bach. Thus the notes become the outline for the ideal. But perhaps the ideal was never brought to culmination or even realistically intended to be. If anything like this is the case, one might think that sensible musicians and scholars deserve the benefit of the doubt when they set to perform Bach's great works. They might not find the music of the spheres, but the result will likely be beautiful in the way people of the 21^st Century define the term.

Santu de Silva wrote (October 4, 2004):
I think Mr Braatz makes a very valid point.

While in England (& the US) the association between a tune and words is a tenuous thing --e.g. I used any convenient tune withthe proper meter when I was pressed into playing for services at my school-- many of these hymns originated in Germany, and it makes perfect sense that the tune of a hymn means far more in Germany than it might in Britain, say. Even in Britain, there are certain tunes that are closely associated with certain words (At the very least "And did those feet in ancient time" * I don't quite know whose tune it is that I'm familiar with for that poem.) And then there's Rockingham, I believe, which suggests at least to some, the words "When I survey the wondrous cross."

If, indeed if Bach could quote a chorale tune and invoke the feelings conjured up by not only that tune but the words of the chorale with which his congregation associated that tune, it seems to me that he would take the opportunity to do so. Surely there are examples of chorale melodies that are woven into many arias with the view to coloring the affekt without their being sung? So I would like to vote that I believe (and obviously I have no evidence for this that any of you would not have, too) that for Bach, chorale tunes did, indeed, have an association with very definite sets of verses. (IN some cases, those sets might be very large, as in the case of the tune we commonly call O sacred Head).

===============
Eric Begerud quotes Thomas Braatz:
<< I may have made the mistake of assuming that all list members who are interested in Bach and his music would naturally be attuned to Bach's world and culture. Such list members would, if they have not already made Bach's culture their own, be interested in finding out just how it was that Bach could speak musically to his congregation without uttering/singing a single word. By using certain sequences of notes, he was able to conjure a thought and/or feeling associated with a specific verse of a specific chorale just because these associations existed in his listeners. >>

Then he replies:
< 1. Who was Bach composing his cantatas for? For God, no doubt, in his mind. But for whom on earth? The congregations at his various posts, particularly Leipzig, would be an obvious answer. But do we know this to be true? [snip] >

Paul Farseth wrote (October 5, 2004):
Maybe several things happen when Bach quotes a chorale as a countermelody:

1) We may recognize the tune and feel both pleasure at recognizing it and some sense of awe that the counter tune is not just a harmony but an actual theme that manages to complete and fill out a larger vision than the main tune alone.

2) We may recognize the tune as the bearer of our associations with a set of words which may put us in a perceptual frame to recognize a meaning or feeling/affekt added on to the original text and the "feeling" we have from the text and its music. Something like this happens in a modern arrangement of the African-American Spiritual "Let us break bread together on our knees" when "Adoro te devote" is added as a countermelody, that being the tune for the most famous of Thomas Aquinas's communion hymns. (In my ELCA Lutheran hymn book the translation begins, "Thee we adore, O Hidden Savior, Thee, Who in thy sacrament art pleased to be.")

3) We may recognithe affekt or sensibility of the countermelody itself as a compact and coherent strophic comment on our lives in the world, even when we know no words for the tune and have not heard the tune before. The tune itself carries feeling, though not always the same feeling for every listener, yet often similar feelings to listeners from distant cultures. You can sing "Jesu meine Freude" both to the original German tune and to the very different Scandinavian tune, "Gud Skal Alting Mage," as has been common in the United States among different immigrant populations (and their descendents), but the feeling of the hymn is very different with the different tunes, despite the common words. So the tune itself must carry some of the meaning above and beyond the words.

All three of these things happen to me when I listen to the Bach Schübler Chorale Preludes for organ, since I know some of the tunes, know fewer of the texts, and recognize the unknown tunes and counter tunes as coherent objects of miraculous joining in their own right. What Bach does is many-sided, not just one thing, not just one meaning. Freud says that all actions are over-determined, deriving from many impulses and intents that come together in a vector sum that is the act, the performance, the array of all the harmonized and dissonant component motives.

Santu de Silva wrote (October 5, 2004):
Gabriel Jackson writes:
>>So what? It's only a tune. It does not 'mean' anything in the way that the text does. There is no relationship between the words and music of a chorale or hymn tune other than simultaneity.<<
It does not *have* to mean anything, certainly. But many of these hymns originated in Germany, and inevitably it is possible that the tunes themselves have come to mean things in that country that they do not mean for English audiences.

I used to think that certain hymn-tunes did mean very definite things to English audiences, such as the tune for "When I survey the wondrous cross" ((Rockingham?), and even the wonderful "The day thou gavest, Lord, is ended" which Bach uses in the form of "Vor deinem Thron". If Bach was able to assume that his congregation could spot what amounted to a musical allusion, the scope for writing sophisticated programme music was wonderful. Unfortunately English audiences would then all miss the point. I don't think Tom er ... (I'll fill in his name presently) is being fanciful in this instance.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 5, 2004):
>>So what? It's only a tune. It does not 'mean' anything in the way that the text does. There is no relationship between the words and music of a chorale or hymn tune other than simultaneity.<<
Santu De Silva wrote : "It does not *have* to mean anything, certainly. But many of these hymns originated in Germany, and inevitably it is possible that the tunes themselves have come to mean things in that country that they do not mean for English audiences."
There is clearly some confusion here about what 'mean' means (if you see what I mean.......). When I said a string of pitches doesn't mean anything, that is literally true. But of course it can mean something in the wider sense, in that it can signify something (through association with a particular text) that, of course, can be a powerfully expressive tool for a composer.

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (October 5, 2004):
[To Santu De Silva] There again, we get into the English using tunes when the texts do not fit the words they use.

In this case, the tune has two titles of opposing meaning. On the one hand, we have the first use of it in the Choral "Wenn wir in hoechsten Noten sein", which is more Confession-al. On the other hand, we have the alternate use of the tune in the Choral "Vor deinen Thron' trett ich hermit", which is more funerary and looks towards the general resurrection of the dead at the last day. Neither of them, though, has anything to do with evening.

Another evening hymn used by the Anglicans (I forget the text name) uses the tune that Paul Gerhardt used for two of his greatest Choraele. The one is about the departure from this world and is titled "O Welt, ich muss' dich lassen". The other is a contemplation on the Passion which Bach used twice in his Matthaeuspassion and once in his Johannespassion and is titled "O Welt, sieh' hier dein' Leben". The tune itself is even older than that, dating back to around the 1400s and was originally written by Heinrich Isaak to the words "Innsbruck, ich muss' dich lassen".

Charles Francis wrote (October 5, 2004):
Gabriel Jackson wrote:
< There is clearly some confusion here about what 'mean' means (if you see what I mean.......). When I said a string of pitches doesn't mean anything, that is literally true. But of course it can mean something in the wider sense, in that it can signify something (through association with a particular text) that, of course, can be a powerfully expressive tool for a composer/ >
A string of letters doesn't mean anything unless one is able to read and interpret the language in question (think of poetry). Meaning, like truth and morality, is not some absolute, but rather an artefact of individuals sharing a common (sub)culture.

Thomas Braatz wrote (October 5, 2004):
Gabriel Jackson wrote:
>>There is clearly some confusion here about what 'mean' means (if you see what I mean.......).<<
Reminiscent of President Clinton's highly idiosyncratic statement in defense of himself while sill in office: "It all depends upon what the meaning (your definition) of 'is' is."

When arguments come down to attempting to define what 'mean' means and what 'is' is, we have lost the ability to converse or discuss anything 'meaningfully' or intelligently.

Gabriel Jackson wrote (October 5, 2004):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
"Reminiscent of President Clinton's highly idiosyncratic statement in defense of himself while sill in office: "It all depends upon what the meaning (your definition) of 'is' is." "
Not really.

"When arguments come down to attempting to define what 'mean' means and what 'is' is, we have lost the ability to converse or discuss anything 'meaningfully' or intelligently."
Nothing has 'come down to that'. Arguably the loss occurred some time ago, and for very different reasons.

Johan van Veen wrote (October 5, 2004):
Eric Bergerud wrote:
< (The characteristic of Bach's music that mystifies me the most is how he created religious works of such complexity while maintaining a deep piety. >
Why does that mystify you? Why can't complex religious music be pious? And how can religous music not be 'pious'? How do you assess the amount of piety of religious music?

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 5, 2004):
vor deinen Thron

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote:
< In this case, the tune has two titles of opposing meaning. On the one hand, we have the first use of it in the Choral "Wenn wir in hoechsten Noten sein", which is more Confession-al. On the other hand, we have the alternate use of the tune in the Choral "Vor deinen Thron' trett ich hermit", which is more funerary and looks towards the general resurrection of the dead at the last day. Neither of them, though, has anything to do with evening. >
You might enjoy the first chapter of David Yearsley's book: Amazon.com dealing with that chorale prelude specifically, and funerary issues in general. Recommended.

Santu de Silva wrote (October 5, 2004):
Quotes Gabriel Jackson quoting me:
<< ..." and even the wonderful "The day thou gavest, Lord, is ended" which Bach uses in the form of "Vor deinem Thron". >>
and continues:
< There again, we get into the English using tunes when the texts do not fit the words they use.
In this case, the tune has two titles of opposing meaning. On the one hand, we have the first use of it in the Choral "Wenn wir in hoechsten Noten sein", which is more Confession-al. On the other hand, we have the alternate use of the tune in the Choral "Vor deinen Thron' trett ich hermit", which is more funerary and looks towards the generesurrection of the dead at the last day.
Neither of them, though, has anything to do with evening. >
It might be just me, but we Methodists seem to use evening hymns as appropriate for funerals. I believe that this symbolic connection is found in lots of places. As justification I offer the verse in the famous funeral hymn "For all the saints who from their labors rest":

"The golden sunset deepens in the West,
To faithful warriors soon will come their rest,
Thy name, O Jesu, be forever blest,
Alleluia, Alleluia!"

or words to that effect. (This stanza seems omitted in the copy of the American Methodist Hymnal which I recently stole.) I wonder whether such a tradition exists in Germany? In which case the classes of funeral hymns and evening hymns may have a large number in common, and will certainly contain "The day thou gavest".

(However, certainly, Vor deinem Thron and The day Thou gavest seem indeed to address different aspects of the end of life, namely those of rest and completion, on one side, and completion and judgement on the other.

Santu de Silva wrote (October 5, 2004):
[To Bradley Lehman, regarding vor deinen Thron] I couldn't find any difference in the two excerpts of Example 1.1! Man, I must be slowing down...

Charles Francis wrote (October 5, 2004):
<< Neither of them, though, has anything to do with evening. >>
Santu de Silva wrote:
< It might be just me, but we Methodists seem to use evening hymns as appropriate for funerals. >
Bach also seems to associate evening (good night) with death: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/457.html

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 5, 2004):
[To Santu De Silva, regarding vor deinen Thron] A bass note is different there in that bar 10. And according to Lohmann's edition there's also a different bass rhythm at a place in bar 9....

Anyway, the point of his chapter isn't very much about small differences of the versions, but bigger issues.

Eric Bergerud wrote (October 6, 2004):
[To Johan van Veen] Mr. van Veen did a little bit of snipping on my post: let me restore the lost notes:

(The characteristic of Bach's music that mystifies me the most is how he created religious works of such complexity while maintaining a deep piety. I love Mozart's religious music, but I would never describe it as pious.)

Obviously I can't quantify the amount of "piety" in religious music. Let's accept that it's a subjective judgment. Maybe being brought up Lutheran had something to do with my point. Minnesota Lutherans are very proud of the "simple" country church, of which quite a few still exist. I can well imagine my paternal grandfather waxing eloquent on some good "simple" Lutheran hymn. Please feel free to change the name of the Protestant denomination: a number would fit well enough.

This issue would certainly have been clear enough to the authorities at Leipzig when Bach set up shop. Pietists (who may or may not have impressed Bach at some time in his life) were accusing orthodox Lutheran practice of becoming too social, too ornate, too much in the spirit of the Papists. Simplicity was here clearly equated with godliness. It does seem that their criticism hit a chord. There was no opera in Leipzig. More to the point, Bach was cautioned not to be too operatic or too innovative in his approach to church music. For reasons of his own, Bach did stay within the basic outline of the Neumeister style cantata. If Bach ruffled feathers at Leipzig, it does appear that the issues were personal rather than musical/theological.

I think we can all agree that Bach's music could hardly be described as simple. So let me return to the comparison between Bach and Mozart. Although it would appear that the two are centuries apart musically, young Mozart began composing religious music in 1766. Obviously I can speak for no one but myself. But doesn't Mozart's religious music have a different impact than Bach's on anyone else? If you want a word for the difference, I would suggest operatic. By the late 18^th Century, opera was the musical rage in Europe. It came in all sizes and shapes. (Mozart wrote Magic Flute and La Clemenza di Tito within a very short period: quite a change.) One subject that wasn't touched was anything directly biblical. Why not? Both Testaments are filled with events or themes that should have been irresistable to artists writing for the stage or the opera. Oratorios and Passions and the Mass were considered perfectly acceptable, but the combination of religion and opera, apparently, was considered something unthinkable.

I also stand on another point made in a previous post - that Bach's definition of beauty in music was different from what developed in the next generation or two. Again, I can only speak for myself. Bach's music gives me tremendous satisfaction in a deep and profound manner. Obviously I think it's beautiful. Yet Bach moves me in an entirely different way than say Mozart does in the last act of Le Nozze di Figaro or Beethoven does in one of the great symphonies. I can't really put it into words, but the difference is there nevertheless. Perhaps I have a tin ear.

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (October 6, 2004):
[To Santu de Silva] What Methodists do or use, though, has no bearing on Choraele that originate in German Evangelicalism, whilst they have everything to do with what they (the Methodists) have received from their Anglican forefathers. In any case, for German Evangelicals (Lutherans), evening is evening and funeral is funeral. Or as Berlioz put it once when referring to Sebastian Bach "Bach is Bach, just as God is God". We Evangelicals have a whole set of Choraele that is specifically dealing with evening. Among these are "Ach, bleib' bei uns, Herr Jesu Christ" and "Nun ruhen alle Waelder".

The same problem I have with using "Wenn wir in hoechsten Noten sein" to the abridged English translation of "Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt" (I say abridged, because there is no full-length translation in English that treats all the stanzas in any of the verses, nor the entirety of the verses themselves). Whilst both deal with Confession of sins, they have different meanings. "Wenn wir in hoechsten Noten sein" deals with Confession proper. "Durch Adams Fall" deals with original sin, the nature of man, and mankind's redemption through the sacrifice of Christ. For that reason, it incorporates many passages from Romans and/or 1 Corinthians (I don't remember which).

BWV 140 & 147: Looking for a full score free or to borrow

Anne DeBlois [Canada] wrote (November 4, 2004):
I have a few projects for my school's string orchestra. Last year, we performed Bach's Cantata BWV 4 (Christ lag in todesbanden), it was a huge success. I would like to perform other cantatas in the future, and my friends told me that church cantatas BWV 140 and BWV 147 are beautiful. I found the vocal score on the Bach Cantatas Web site (with piano acc.), but is there a full score available for free on the Internet (PDF) or can I borrow it from somebody in order to study it?

Thanks in advance,

Douglas Cowling wrote (November 4, 2004):
[To Anne DeBlois] Both of these wonderful cantatas are extremely difficult to perform and have virtuoso instrumental solos (violin in BWV 140 and trumpet in BWV 147). I would suggest "Nun Komm Der Heiland Heiland" which, like "Christe Lag" is scored for strings only (double viola). It has some wonderful movements (Christ knocking at the door with pizzicato strings). The choral and instrumental parts are well within the abilities of a good school choir and orchestra.

Good luck,

Bradley Lehman wrote (November 4, 2004):
[To Anne DeBlois] What about picking up one or both of the Dover reprint volumes from the Bach-Gesellschaft? Accurate enough that you can get to know the pieces, at least. And the price can hardly be argued with!
http://store.yahoo.com/doverpublications/0486249506.html
http://store.yahoo.com/doverpublications/0486232689.html

Or, visit your local university libraries, which should have the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA) or at least the B-G.

Dale Gedcke wrote (November 4, 2004):
RE: BWV 147; Anne's query and Doug's reply (appended below):

MY SUGGESTION:

The Choral from BWV 147 is the beautiful "Jesus bleibet meine Freude" otherwise known as "Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring". The original German words to this choral can be found at http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/bach.html. There is an arrangement for string quartet plus trumpet available from Latham Music Inc. at: http://www.latham-music.com/index.html?mgiToken=KIHY3K71N15OEB. It is not very expensive.

I have played this Latham arrangement with a string quartet. It is scored for a Bb trumpet, but the trills are a little bit easier on a C trumpet. As I recall, the trumpet score is pretty well within the limits of the treble clef. So a reasonably skilled high-school trumpet player should be able to play it. The main challenge will be getting the trills to be smooth and delicate. Otherwise it is easy for a trumpet player. I play trumpet, not strings, but I think the scores for the 1st and 2nd violins, viola and cello will be manageable by reasonably skilled high-school players. You can extend the string quartet parts to a full string orchestra by adding multiple string instruments to the quartet parts. But, you will want to use only one trumpet to achieve clarity and balance.

I don't know of a specific source for the vocal parts to the choral. But, I understand such is readily available. If you find a vocal score that you like, please inform me of the details. I would like to do the same thing you are planning, but with my community orchestra plus chorus around Easter time next Spring.

If you want to hear how this sounds, you can purchase the CD, "Angelic Voices" by the Vienna Boy's Choir. They perform exactly that same arrangement with chorus, string orchestra and trumpet. It sounds great!

Another 'Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring"

Doug Cowling wrote (July 14, 2005):
I need the help of you folks out their with your encyclopedic knowledge of Bach.

I want to find a movement which has the same structure as "Jesu Bleibet Meine Freude" (aka "Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring"). Ideally, it would be a simple chorale with instrumental interludes which could be reduced to solo flute and organ. This is pragmatic, in-the-trenches church music so no sniffiness please.

Iman de Zwarte wrote (July 15, 2005):
[To Doug Cowling] Maybe these are a few of those you're looking for?:
BWV 4 versus 3
BWV 22 last chorale "Ertödt uns"
BWV 75 (not sure what part)
BWV 167 "Sei Lob und Preis"

Although I'm not sure wether the flute player will be happy.......

Thomas Braatz wrote (July 15, 2005):
[To Doug Cowling] Doug, I remember as a teenager buying and reading through at least a dozen organ arrangements of chorale-based cantata mvts. since buying the Breitkopf & Härtel piano-vocal score reductions was a rather expensive way of becoming acquainted with the cantatas. ("Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring" was only available in the famous piano arrangement which did not sound very good on the organ.} Among these arrangements for organ were quite a few of the 1^st mvts. of the chorale cantatas. These mvts. had wonderful orchestral ritornelli which led into and embellished the chorale melody strung out in long notes. Quickly scanning the BWV Verzeichnis, I can find at least 30 to 40 such mvts. involving rather involved scoring for orchestra along with sections of florid choral writing aside from the cantus firmus (BWV 140/1 is a typical example, but very likely this is not what you are looking for here.)

Since Bach, contrary to the typical chorale cantata with an expansive 1st mvt. and only a simplice-stylo chorale at the end of the cantata, repeats certain chorale sections with ritornelli within some cantatas like BWV 147/6,10, a good place to look would be for other cantatas where Bach does the same: BWV 75/7,14; BWV 100/1,6; BWV 117/1,9. Another thing to look for are ritornelli with characteristic, rather virtuosic solo flute parts: BWV 94/1; BWV 99/1; BWV 192/1.

Recently, BWV 22/5 was discussed on this list. Although not characteristically for flute (oboes are indicated), it does have the same 'rolling-along' orchestral accompaniment as BWV 147/6,10.

There is a wealth of music to choose from. In the end, the choice for the arrangement you have in mind will have to be made based on other factors as well, but at least you have a list to begin with. Perhaps some of these organ arrangements that I referred to are still available or new transcriptions have appeared on the market. The flute part could be easily extracted from this or the flautist might even play from the same transcription without having to copy out a part. Otherwise use the piano-reduction scores which are (or at least have been) available on-line. Perhaps someone reading this can point you to such an internet address.

Good luck in finding what you want!

Iman de Zwarte wrote (July 15, 2005):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< (....) Otherwise use the piano-reduction scores which are (or at least have been) available on-line. Perhaps someone reading this can point you to such an internet address. >
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Scores/index.htm
for the piano-reduction scores, or
http://www.mymp3sonline.net/bach_cantatas/mp3.asp
for the complete scores.

Continue on Part 4

Cantata BWV 147a=147.1: Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben [music lost] for 4^th Sunday in Advent (1716)
Discography: Details
Discussions: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5/A> | Part 6