Orchestral Suites BWV 1066-1069
General Discussions - Part 2

Continue from Part 1

B minor suite 1067 - tempo & character of the opening

Bradley Lehman wrote (May 23, 2003):
Neil Halliday wrote:
< I conceive Scherchen's approach as a symphonic adagio, legitimate because of the unusual stature of this Overture, which embodies a 'timelessness' stretching way beyond the 18th century. (The minor key is perhaps another factor). >
Why this 'timelessness'? Isn't that a sentimentalization of the work? (I mean, it's a good piece, but it's also firmly of the first half of the 18th century!)

< I have Menuhin's recording of the 3rd and 4th Suites. The dotted thythm sections of both Suites time in at crotchet = 60. ie, the same as that which you gave for Parrot in the 2nd Suite. Menhuhin 'sounds right' in the 3rd and 4th.
Question: in view of the more festive nature of Suites 3 and 4 (which feature trumpets and timpani), is it not reasonable to consider a more lively speed for these, in comparison with the first two? Or, to put it the other way, a slower tempo for the first two? Another point, demisemiquavers abound in the first two, are rare in the 3rd, and absent in the 4th, so there is more to 'explore', at a slower tempo, in the first two. (Trills abound in all parts of the 2nd.) >
Why would a group of demisemiquavers need 'exploration'? It's a gesture! A swoop! A sweep! A dollop of whipped cream! A flibbertigibbit, a will o' the wisp, a clown!

As I explained earlier: in dance music, if the basic beat is a crotchet, then the quaver is the "pulse" and the semiquaver is the "tap." The tap is the lowest level of the meter that can receive articulation of individual notes. [Nomenclature from Dance and the Music of J S Bach by Meredith Little and Natalie Jenne.] Anything faster is decorative, and a unit. Once such a group of notes starts, they are supposed to flow straight by with no internal 'exploration'. Flooooooop!

< I hesitate to rush off and buy Parrot's version (of the 2nd Suite) that you speak highly of, because I have already been put off by the violin section of the Taverner Players, in their performance of the Messiah - specifically, the precise and delicate character, lacking passion, of this section of his orchestra. >
This isn't about the Taverner Players. Parrott's recording of the suites 1066-1069 is with a group of freelance players in Boston.

< In conclusion, I am sure we have all heard versions of the 2nd Suite that are much faster than Parrot's; eg, those that 'bounce' along in a jerky fashion. What does Parrot make of the 3rd and 4th Suites? I would not be surprised if his tempo is a good deal faster than Menhuhin's at crotchet = 60. >
And, in gentle contradiction, I'm pretty sure most of us HAVE NOT heard recorded performances of the 2nd suite any faster than Parrott's; to my knowledge the only faster one available is Malloch's, and it is only slightly faster in absolute speed.

Listen to Parrott's, and Malloch's: I have put up 30-second samples at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BachCantatas/files/1067Ouverture/

Both these groups play the [dotted quaver+semiquaver] figure as notated. Malloch's band also play the [dotted crotchet+quaver] as notated, while Parrott's people give that level of the meter some over-dotting, assimilating the quaver to the semiquavers in the other parts.

Also notice how the basic speed for both of these performances is about twice as fast as you're (probably) accustomed to hearing; but the tempo still sounds moderate (and especially a bit gentler in Parrott's)...the beat is at the level of the crotchet, not the quaver as you're accustomed to hearing. Malloch's has a brisker character to it: due more to the emphasis than to the absolute speed, however.

For comparison I have also put up the Klemperer, Guettler, and Mueller-Bruehl (all on modern instruments), and Kuijken and Savall (on period instruments). [I chose these to provide sufficient contrast of style here, while omitting some of my other favorite recordings such as Casals and Manze and Goebel and the later Klemperer. And I can't make an mp3 of the Scherchen as I have it only on LP. Probably someone can supply a web link to that somewhere.]

And, since you asked about Parrott's tempos for the other suites, those are there also.

You can of course draw your own conclusions about "a jerky fashion" as you put it, from the sound of these recordings; but isn't "jerky" a loaded (and negative) word? The over-dotting is done to be elegant and graceful, not to sound like jerks. And the only ones in this group of recordings which do *not* overdot are Malloch, Klemperer, and your Scherchen.

Philly RBH wrote (May 23, 2003):
flibbertigibbit?

Neil Halliday wrote (May 23, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] Brad, thanks for these mp3's of the beginning of the B minor Suite (plus some others).

The most 'authentic' versions of this "timeless" (more on this later) music?

1.Klemperer (this has the same spirit as Scherchen, and I think you said that Klemperer's 2nd version was slower than his first, bringing it even more into line with Scherchen).

2.Kuijken and Savall, who capture the seriousness and dignity of the piece; not surprisingly, they have adopted the next slowest speeds up from Klemperer.

From then on, it goes downhill, as the speed increases. (The other modern instrument versions don't make the grade, for this reason.)

Increasing the tempo we get to Parrot, where the music starts to 'bounce'. Malloch takes it so fast it all starts to merge together again, but the music loses any claim to seriousness or dignity.

Why must we have the complete breaks in sound in this music, that occur with everyone except Klemperer and Scherchen, thus interrupting the motion of the music? (And yet both these conductors do separate one note from another in a subtle and pleasing way.)

I think the issue of "dance", that you raised, explains this, and this is where I want to bring in my thoughts on the 'timeless' nature of this music.

In these Orchestral Suites, Bach has presented us with a formalised set of 18th century dances, and each movement of the Suites has been given a dance name - EXCEPT for the Overtures, which happen to be twice as long as all the 'dance' movements combined. I think Bach intended to introduce these dance movements, (which by the way were not actually meant to be danced to - the suites are meant for concert performance), with elaborate and stylish introductory movements, showing off his talents as an orchetrator of ABTRACT music, which happens to use the then current French overture (not a dance) style for this purpose.

What we have here is the symphonic form in gestation, and it's not surprising to me that Scherchen, 200 years later, looked at this score, and being imbued with the character of modern instruments and symphonic form, came up with his reading of the music, one which is utterly authentic, and which is carried on in the same spirit by Klemperer.

Thanks once again for all those examples.

Neil Halliday wrote (May 23, 2003):
"an orchetrator of ABTRACT music" Whoops! I ran out of time and could not check the spelling. (I don't speak with a lisp:-)

BTW, I am sure the tempo of Parrot's B minor (dotted rhythm section) comes in at crotchet = c.88, noticably faster than the 60 you nominated in a previous post, and double that of Klemperer, who clocks in at crotchet = 40. (I measure the no. of crotchets in 15 seconds and multiply by 4).

As I expected, Parrot's 4th Suite at around crotchet = 96 is much faster than Menuhin's speed of c.60.

Pete Blue wrote (May 23, 2003):
Philly RBH wrote:
< flibbertigibbit? >
Yes! Wonderfully apt quote by Brad from "The Sound of Mucous". Did others get it?

Philly RBH wrote (May 23, 2003):
[To Neil Halliday] That must be the companion piece to the well known cantata "Iphigenia in Brooklyn". To quote,"Only he who is running, running, running......knows! Run, run. run, running knows.

BWV 1070 suite, and Bach’s milleu / Adherense to the score

Bradley Le wrote (September 18, 2003):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote:
< (...) the Goebbel recording of the Orchesterouvertueren (the only recording I know of that also includes the g-Moll Orchesterouvertuere BWV 1070). >
Yes, that recording of 1070 by Musica Antiqua Köln (dir. by Reinhard Goebel) is lovely, and it's a fine piece. They play it with one player per part. As you'll notice in the booklet, it's currently attributed to Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, not JSB.

This group has recorded many other 17th/18th century German Baroque compositions: it's their specialty. So have some other excellent ensembles, for example La Luna (Ingrid Matthews' group) and the Freiburg Baroque Orchestra. It helps give perspective to the other corpus of music out there, well worth hearing even if it's not by Bach.

Bach's music didn't appear in a vacuum. Familiarity with that other music by his colleagues and predecessors (and, as here, his sons) can really help us know how his own music "should" be played, and show us what (if anything beyond the household name) makes his stand apart. That is: I believe it's worth something to know his music from the perspective of the 17th century looking forward [i.e. the way it came to exist at all], not just the 19th and 20th centuries looking backward seeing Bach as the start of something. How else can we know what Bach himself was reacting to, and integrating into his own work?

And this is especially useful in knowing how to read Bach's scores, interpreting what the markings meant to him and his contemporaries, not automatically the same thing the notation means to general musicians now.

But meanwhile, Bach's music is performed quite readily by plenty of people who have almost zero background in the 17th century milieu it came from. That includes most of the other recordings that David recommended at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BachRecordings/message/10701
...Richter, Karajan, Rilling, the Thomascantors, Grumiaux, Helbich....

The musical qualities of some of these performances may be strong, and a lot of people might enjoy them, but that's beside the point: without an awareness of 17th century music and its practices, these performers really have no claim to primacy or special "purity" here, as David is suggesting. Rather, it just looks to me (overall) as if David is focused zealously on performers who have German names, plus a few other decent discs he's picked up here and there.

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (September 19, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] Firstly, I do agree that people should be aware of 18^th (not 17th) century practices. That is why I included a lot of leeway in my selections.

My point was that while there might be a lot of recordings out there of Bach works (a there definitely is), and while it is good to have a variety of experiences (that is why I suggested the "Bach: Made in Germany" series: because it does exactly that), one should first look at the scoreand judge for ones self. That is why I pointed out both the good and the bad in some of the recordings I suggested. To me, the music should speak for itsself. The problem(as I stated earlier) is that oftentimes conductors try to inject more of themselves in the recordings and less of the music. While there should be a certain amount of the self inmusical expression, there should be a balance in it and the self should not overpower or overcome the music and how it reveals itsself. That is what I feel is happening in the Harnoncourt and the Rilling interpretation of Movement 1 of the Matthaeuspassion, for example. I don't know much about Harnoncourt's style, but in the case of Rilling I find that he himself is a very energetic individual and that that is what he brings to his recordings, and especially in the abovementioned case. I also would call your attention to the score of the Johannespassion, especially in the case of the Continuo parts. Here is another problem I have with Rilling (and most other conductors, with the exception of Rotzsch, Richter, and Ramin): they have the Continuo parts play once per switch of tone. The score, however, has held and sustained notes in ever continuo part (except in cases where it is more flowing, such as the 1st Movement or the Jesus Rezitativ "Stecke dein Schwerdt in die Scheide"). and in fact when the Continuo should be playing an f minor chord in 2^nd inversion at the word "Kidron", 9 times out of 10 the conductors of the various recordings do not do so (with the abovementioned exceptions).

So, like I said, one should look at the score first and then compare it with the recordings.

Bradley Lehman wrote (September 19, 2003):
< David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: (...) I also would call your attention to the score of the Johannespassion, especially in the case of the Continuo parts. Here is another problem I have with Rilling (and most other conductors, with the exception of Rotzsch, Richter, and Ramin): they have the Continuo parts play once per switch of tone. The score, however, has held and sustained notes in ever continuo part (except in cases where it is more flowing, such as the 1st Movement or the Jesus Rezitativ "Stecke dein Schwerdt in die Scheide"). and in fact when the Continuo should be playing an f minor chord in 2^nd inversion at the word "Kidron", 9 times out of 10 the conductors of the various recordings do not do so (with the abovementioned exceptions). >
Consider this: 9 of the 10 specialists playing that music in recordings (the keyboard players, certainly, and some of the conductors) know more than you give them credit for.

It is the dogmatic modern listeners wedded to their Holy Scores (and an overly literalistic habit in reading them) who go around saying "Ni! Ni!" without really understanding what they're criticizing.

Figures (the numerals, etc) in a continuo bass part are not always PREscriptive, insisting what the keyboard player must play; they are sometimes DEscriptive, merely a shorthand so the musicians understand immediately what the harmony is. This is a fundamental concept in the art of performing continuo parts. Indeed, if the figures change over a bass tone that isn't moving, it's usually right not to play a new chord there; it's simply describing what the voice and any other parts are already taking care of.

See also Peter Williams' two-part article "Basso Continuo on the Organ" from Music and Letters volume 50 (1969) [that's where the first part was published; and the second part soon thereafter].

< So, likeI said, one should look at the score first and then compare it with the recordings. >
So, like I said, one should learn how to read a score in the manner the marks meant to the people who wrote it down, and not automatically assume that 20th century habits of score reading are correct for this music.

If you (David) have a problem with most performers, "with the exception of Rotzsch, Richter, and Ramin", keep in mind that it's your problem. It stems from your own expectations, and your own habits of interpreting score notation without extensive background in 17^th and 18^th century music. (The notation there really is a "different animal" altogether, more than you evidently realize.) It's possible that expert performers now know more about it than you give credit for, and more than the R triumvirate did.

Uri Golomb wrote (September 19, 2003):
< David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote: (...) I also would call your attention to the score of the Johannespassion, especially in the case of the Continuo parts. Here is another problem I have with Rilling (and most other conductors, >
This is really an appendix to Bradley Lehmans' message :I wonder which Rilling recording David is referring to here. I don't know either of Rilling's Johannespassion recordings, but I know enough of his other recordings to note this: In the 1970s and 1980s, Rilling usually sustained continuo notes to full length. Sometime during the 1980s (or early 1990s) he had a change of heart, and in most (perhaps all) of his later recordings -- certainly in tcase of the secular cantatas he recorded in the 1990s -- he switched to short accompaniment.

The switch must have been a conscious one, and I guess it was motivated by consultation with musicologists: Rilling set up the Bach Academy in Stuttgart in the early 1980s (I think), and has been quite keen on keeping up-to-date on Bach research, perhaps more so after completing his cycle of the sacred Bach cantatas than in earlier stages of his career. He must have seen the arguments in favour of short accompaniments -- and found them convincing enough to make an alteration of his own practices. Doesn't that suggest something?

Incidentally, a few months ago I heard a recording of an Alessandro Scarlatti oratorio which, within it, featured the full gamut of responses to continuo playing in recitatives: in some recitatives, notes were sustained to full length; in others, standard short accompaniment was employed; and in others still, notes were sustained beyond the initial strike, but not to full length. The conductor, Estevan Velardi, also edited the score, and he attached to the album a CD-ROM with a facsimile of the manuscript which was his main (but not only) source. I checked it -- and all the alterations to the continuo came from the performers. (Or, perhaps, from another source; but I don't find this likely) The notation was always the same: looking (to modern eyes) as if players were requested to sustain full length, all the way through, in all recitatives.

I must admit that I find Velardi's solution even more convincing than the standard "always short accompaniment" employed in most recordings. Velardi's principle -- I don't know if he actually made all teh decisions, or simply allowed free reign to his continuo players -- seems to be "each case to be judged on its own merits", according to what seems most appropriate to the harmonies, the rhythms, and the mood of that particular passage. Which means that sometimes -- but definitely not always -- notes will be sustained to full length.

Of course, Alessandro Scarlatti is both geographically and temporally removed from Johann Sebastian Bach; the conventions of one (assuming Velardi's practice is historically sound) are not necessarily the conventions of the other. But intuitively, I find the idea behind Velardi's practice quite appealing...

Douglas Amrine wrote (September 19, 2003):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. writes: "Here is another problem I have with Rilling (and most other conductors, with the exception of Rotzsch, Richter, and Ramin): they have the Continuo parts play once per switch of tone. The score, however, has held and sustained notes in ever continuo part (except in cases where it is more flowing, such as the 1^st Movement or the Jesus Rezitativ "Stecke dein Schwerdt in die Scheide"). and in fact when the Continuo should be playing an f minor chord in 2^nd inversion at the word "Kidron", 9 times out of 10 the conductors of the various recordings do not do so (with the abovementioned exceptions). So, likeI said, one should look at the score first and then compare it with the recordings."
David, there is conclusive musicological evidence to support the playing of bass notes and chords of varying length in recitative rather than the notated continuously held notes. I do not maintain a musicological library in my home so I am unable to supply exact references to you, but I am sure that you could find chapter and verse on this quickly in any decent university library.

As Brad has pointed out, it is important to understand music by contemporaries of Bach - which means composers from both the 17^th and 18^th centuries, as we know for a fact that Bach was interested in 17^th-century music (and, indeed, some 16th-century music such as Palestrina), and that he was greatly influenced by it. By familiarity and understanding of Bach's musical environment, we begin to understand Bach's music better.

In particular, we begin to understand Bach's notation, which was a reflection of common practice: he notated his pieces in such a way that they would be understood by his contemporaries. Yes, we should study the score, but there is no point studying the score if we don't understand the musical shorthand which Bach and his contemporaries were employing. A perfect example is the notation of recitatives in which composers did NOT notate exactly what they intended to be played. There are in fact many other conventions of 17^th and 18^th-century notation which may be misleading to the modern eye. Again, I'm sure that you will find plenty of articles and books about this in a good music library.

Peter Bright wrote (September 19, 2003):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< If you (David) have a problem with most performers, "with the exception of Rotzsch, Richter, and Ramin", keep in mind that it's your problem. It stems from your own expectations, and your own habits of interpreting score notation without extensive background in 17^th and 18^th century music. >
Well I guess the majority of us may have a "problem" then, to a greater or lesser extent (apart from you, of course).

Bradley Lehman wrote (September 19, 2003):
[To Uri Golomb] I agree: every note's length is determined by the performers according to the musical character of the moment. And, it could be different from performance to performance of the same piece by the same people...every occasion requires performers to be alert and sensitive. Every room is different, every audience is different, every day is different....

Uniform shortness is just as unmusical as uniform sostenuto: because of the mindless uniformity, not because of the quantity of silence per se. (Admittedly, this is a value judgment by me, and I know that some people reading this will not agree.) Your Mr Velardi is thinking along good lines.

As I said in a Cantatas list posting from April:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BachCantatas/message/4382
it "all involves split-second reaction to what the singer is doing: playing by the ears much more than playing from the paper. The paper simply tells us when the notes start, and suggests the relationships among them; everything else is determined by the context of this particular performance."

Back to more concrete facts, as opposed to merely my value judgments:

Why do we expect a composer to be constrained to write down every note's length exactly as he expected it to be sound, no more and no less? That's a 20^th and 21^st century expectation, not 18th and especially not 17th.

Related areas are lute tablature, Spanish keyboard tablature, and 17th century German keyboard tablature (which Bach himself knew, and used as shorthand in some of his compositions!). Where the music is polyphonic, those systems do not (and cannot) show the exact release times of slower-moving notes while some other part of the texture is flowing in quicker note values. All releases are up to the performer to figure out, from context and experience. In those keyboard tablatures, even the correct octave for playing something is open to interpretation as the notation doesn't (can't) specify it.

Bach, for most of his career, used the more precise score notation instead of tablature where he expected the music to be played by people other than himself; but the tablature thinking habits (as a composer and improviser) were still in part of his brain. Any composer in a hurry--or having only a small piece of paper handy!--doesn't write down more than he has to, to get the job done adequately. That's important. A note that looks long on a page, in score notation and especially in manuscripts (i.e. not for publication), is not guaranteed to be a prescription to play that entire length. From tablature habits, and from writing down the music as quickly as possible, it may very well be merely an indication when the note begins, and zero information about its intended length. (In contrast, when he wrote short notes each separated by the correct quantity of rests--e.g., throughout the keyboard Partitas, for publication--can be pretty confident he really meant silences there.)

It takes much less effort both to write and to read a "whole note" or "tied notes" than to clutter a score or part with rests. The context and the performer's interpretive skill, not literalistic parsing of the page, determine the actual sounding length. Performers of this music have to think like composers and improvisers, not merely follow some supposedly complete set of notated instructions as one expects from some later music.

Back to my value judgments:

Music is art. And it was intended by these composers for live performance, direct communication with listeners who are right there, not the "freeze-drying" of recordings. The note-lengths, along with articulation, dynamics, and many other details not handled completely by notation, are subject to "situational ethics." Performers, to play the music faithfully (borrowing David Lebut's absolutist term here), must use creative imagination and flexibility beyond merely following instructions; and, crucially, must be able to recognize when the instructions are not as precise as one might at first assume them to be.

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (September 19, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] Then why have the notes down at all?

If they are not always to be followed, why write them in at all?

If one Looks at the score of the Continuo parts for, let's say, the 1st Rezitativ movement(that is from "Jesus ging mit seinen Juengern" to "Sie antworteten ihm:"), there are many tied notes and held notes in the Continuo. In the section mentioned, in particular, 34 notes, of which 16 are tied. There are 18 key changes, of which 7 aren't even included in most recordings, especially in the Continuo parts. they occur at the following points: the word "Kidron", the second syllable of the word "verrieth", the word "Judas", the word "Hohenpriester", the second syllable of the word "dahin", the word "und", and the word "ihm". In other words, the 3rd beat of measure 2, the 1st beat of measure 6, the 1st beat of measure 9, the 3rd beat of measure 10, the 1st beat of measure 12, the 2nd beat of measure 13, and the 1st beat of measure 15. While in the Matthaeuspassion such omissions might be understandable (in other words, the listener could pick out when a key change occurs), it is less obvious in the Johannespassion, especially when most of these omissions occur right when a note is either lowered or raised a 1/2 step. Especially in these cases, although they occur with very minimal raising or lowering of tone, the color changes dramatically.

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (September 20, 2003):
[To Uri Golomb] I have had both Rilling recordings, and he does not do this in both recordings.

I have never heard of Rilling recording the Johannespassion in the 1970s or the 1980s. The two I know of (which one can find oftentimes in either retailers or on the internet CD sellers such as Yahoo! Shopping, Amazon.com, or cdnow.com) are dated 1997(/) (which actually might be from the 1980s or early 1990s) and 1996 (the one that was recorded for the Edition Bachakademie series).

BWV 1066-1069

Jonathan Master wrote (October 13, 2003):
I got the disk of the English Concert, playing it via Samsung's new CDRW with 8MB buffer memory, WinXP pro, WinMediaplayer 9 series, AC97 Sound card built in to my A7V8X-X Motherboard, Samsung's MAX-B420 HiFi system and Creative Inspire 2400 Speakers was brilliant in terms of sound.

Anyway - My question is which Suite do any of you think is the best? I think BWV 1067 although 'Air' was better in terms of individual 'tracks' on any CD. Any other ideas about the best music? Take into account every concert does it differently. I personally like the 'decorating' the English Concert did, it seems more colourful if you were to 'convert' sound into vision. I love bach, anything from BWV 565 to Cantata 147. Love his music and it inspires me in many ways. I lost a date I loved - play track no. 8. Meeting a monarch? Play 15 (the BWVs, 1066-1068/9). Anyone gets what I'm saying here?

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (October 14, 2003):
[To Jonathan Master] I personally like BWV 1067. But, as many people who know me well would tell you, I love most works in minor keys. I find too often (nothing against them, mind) that composers treat major keys too superfluously. I find that there is more emotional and spiritual depth and contemplation going on in minor-key works. The same goes form my preference of composer groups. I find that too many times the organ and keyboard composers of the generation before 1650 in Southern Germany and Italy are too monotonous, to the point that I would actually recommend them as music to put peopleto sleep by. In stark contrast are the member (I find) of the "Norddeutsch Orgelschule"-the composers in the Protestant lands of Central and Northern Germany. Also in the South after 1650 things start to get interesting because musicians are starting to go north and bring back to their homelands some of the ideas they learned in the north. A perfect example of this is Kerll's and Pachelbel's and Speth's and Muffat's and Ferdinand Fischer's Organ works and Keyboard works.

Gene Hanson wrote (October 15, 2003):
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote:
< I find that there is more emotional and spiritual depth and contemplation going on in minor-key works. >
At last, something we can agree upon!

Bach Suites: HIP but not sewing machine

Pete wrote (March 10, 2004):
To go along with my post of "not too fast Brandenburgs" - thanks for all of the replies, by the way - I'd like to hear opinions on a CD set of Bach's Orchestral Suites My requirements are, as before: HIP, good sound, must be on CD, and not sewing machine fast. Hogwood has a set with the Academy of Ancient Music that looks promising. Another CD I really want to hear comments on is Rampe's MDG set of "The Early Overtures", which sounds really different but really good (according to ArkivMusic's website description). Thanks.

Riccardo wrote (March 10, 2004):
< I'd like to hear opinions on a CD set of Bach's Orchestral Suites My requirements are, as before: HIP, good sound, must be on CD, and not sewing machine fast. >
Harnoncourt I or Kuijken/Petite Band.

< Another CD I really want to hear comments on is Rampe's MDG set of "The Early Overtures", which sounds really different but really good (according to ArkivMusic's website description). >
Not so really different, but interesting. However, if you're don't like fast tempos, I think this is not your cup of tea ^__^

Pete wrote (Mar 10, 2004):
<< Another CD I really want to hear comments on is Rampe's MDG set of "The Early Overtures", which sounds really different but really good (according to ArkivMusic's website description). >>
< Not so really different, but interesting. However, if you're don't like fast tempos, I think this is not your cup of tea ^__^ >
I looked at a few other CDs of the Suites and compared the times of the various Suites. Suites 2-4 on the Rampe CD occupies 66 minutes while on Pinnock's CD, Suites 2-4 occupies 57 minutes. So the Rampe CD may not be slow, but it is not near the fastest either. Or does the Rampe CD include extra music during the Suites to confuse me?

Riccardo wrote (March 11, 2004):
< Or does the Rampe CD include extra music during the Suites to confuse me? >
Yes, it is so, read the ClassicsToday review: http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=5531
Full track listing here: Amazon.com

Sam G. wrote (March 11, 2004):
Now: aren't you asking for a bit much? . . .

Thomas Wood wrote (March 11, 2004):
[To Pete, inresponse to his 2nd message above] Some recording take the repeats in the overtures, and others don't. Pinnock didn't on his original Archiv recording; not sure about the later one.

The Hogwood recording is very mellow and smooth and the tempi are not at all extreme. I think you might like it.

Terry Simmons wrote (March 11, 2004):
Riccardo wrote:
<< I'd like to hear opinions on a CD set of Bach's Orchestral Suites My requirements are, as before: HIP, good sound, must be on CD, and not sewing machine fast. >>
Ton Koopman's set is very good indeed, and is very convenient (and cheap) because he fits all four onto one CD. There is no suggestion at all, of rushed performances, which was my original fear. Erato 0630-17868-2.

Johan van Veen wrote (March 12, 2004):
[To Pete, in response to his 1st message above] What has tempo to do with a 'sewing machine'? Don't you know that such machines can sew very slowly?

Performances are not labelled 'sewing machine' style because of a very fast tempo, but because of a very strict rhythm, without any freedom, without clear accents within phrases, with the notes treated strictly equally, ignoring the 'hierarchy' of the notes (the difference between 'good' and 'bad' notes).

Most performances of the 60's and 70's from the non-HIP camp can be considered 'sewing machine' style, nevetheless they are mostly slower than, say, Musica antiqua Köln.

Steve Kooins wrote (March 13, 2004):
[To Terry Simmons] I have this one and like it very much. Swift, but reasonable tempi.

Bought it from a UK internet site, but it wasn't too expensive. Does anyone know if it is the same performance that was on an earlier Deutsche Harmonia Mundi set?

Andrew Manze reviewing Bach's Orchestral Suites

Peter Bright wrote (April 1, 2004):
Listeners to BBC Radio 3 might want to know that Andrew Manze will be reviewing the available recordings of Bach's Orchestral Suites on 'CD Review' this Saturday (9am to 1pm, UK time). These shows are kept online for a week following broadcast - you can catch them via: https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3.

Juozas Rimas wrote (April 7, 2004):
[To Peter Bright] Could you give a more exact link to the broadcast: I found myself quite hard to prientate on the website and didn't see Manze mentioned there...

Thanks!

Gabriel Jackson wrote (April 8, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas] I don't think there is a more exact link.Just go the the Radio 3 homepage at www.bbc.co.uk/radio3 and then on the right hand side, under "Programmes on demand" you'll find "CD review" under the classical heading. Click on CD Review and wait for the programme to load. You'll have to skip forward about 25 minutes to get to Manze's segment.

Peter Bright wrote (April 8, 2004):
[To Juozas Rimas] To get the broadcast, go to: https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3

On this page you will see a panel on the right hand side called 'classical'. The second link under this heading is "CD Review". If you click this, it should bring up the BBC player and automatically load the transmission (you may need the latest incarnation of the dreadful RealPlayer to play it, although I'm not sure - try it and see). The Manze section begins just under half an hour after the start of the programme (you can forward the broadcast in 5 minute leaps if you want to bypass Freddy Kempf and others...).

The winner was.... actually I won't spoil it for you...

David Border wrote (April 8, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson] http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/classical/cdreview.shtml
click on "Listen to latest programme at the top of the page.
Or even http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio3_aod.shtml?cdreview
Which is a direct link.

Juozas Rimas wrote (April 10, 2004):
Peter Bright wrote:
< The winner was.... actually I won't spoil it for you... >
The winner was Goebl. Monze mocked at some English recordings for leaden feet (no exact quotation here), bashed Parrot's minimalism and egocentrism and Rilling's distasteful ornamentation. He also offended the best gavotte from the 4th suite I've heard - the one by Bachakademie - for too aggressive drums.

Yet I found his review helpful and interesting. I agree with him with regards to some English recordings, Parrot and Rilling. I also could hear Cologne Chamber Orchestra excerpt (mostly non-HIP instruments, HIP style) and now I'm planning to perhaps get this recording, as I liked the Bruhl recording of the oboe concertos - especially for their sensitive accompaniment by orchestra in slow parts. I expect Bruhl to play overtures fine (the best fast movements to me are by Bachakademie).

Manze viewed upon Bruhl positively but couldn't help offending him too: he said mixing HIP and non-HIP instruments is no good - without any arguments.

P.S. I felt Manze is among those musicians who care very much about how music could have sounded in Bach's time: at the very beginning of his review he showed didactically how the 1st overture most likely sounded and how it didn't sound. He also emphasized a couple of times that Bach re-did the 4th suite for buergers. I'll have to hear some of his own sound clips online.

Juozas Rimas wrote (April 10, 2004):
< egocentrism and Rilling's distasteful ornamentation. He also offended the best gavotte from the 4th suite I've heard - the one by > Bachakademie - for too aggressive drums.>
instead of Bachakademie I meant Akademie fuer Alte Musik Berlin.

more "inferior" Bach

Donald Satz wrote (May 25, 2004):
Jules Asguera wrote::
< Mats, let me get this straight: Bach has a tendency to occasionally forget about his art entirely and write what you call "mediocre" music, and it is up to "tourists in the jury box" to set him (and the 99.9% of music lovers who feel otherwise) straight by practicing the "noble art of making aesthetic judgments about music"? First of all, from where did you get the idea that one should be "sitting in a jury box" when listening to music? That's a really good way to hear absolutely NOTHING in the music. Anyone stupid enough to sit in judgment when listening to music is scarcely capable of making any kind of judgment, much less aesthetic judgments, which, generally speaking(unless they are really idiotic self-important criticisms arrived at by equally idiotic and self-important people who, in their misguided journey through life have arrived at the conclusion that they "know something" about art) tend to be more concerned with criticizing details than with sweeping and condemning statements like yours. It is ignorant to say the least to sit around and say that someone's art is "mediocre" even if it really isn't that great. Why? Because a person trying to create art is at least attempting something creative, and this is helpful to that person, whether or not the art created is of high enough quality to deserve wide-spread praise. And, besides, could you do it? I'm listening to the 1st orchestral suite right now, and I find nothing at all "mediocre" about it. This is exactly how you confuse yourself when you think you are making "aesthetic judgments": it would be perfectly reasonable for you to say that, in your opinion, suites 1 and 4 do not live up to the standard of 2 or 3(which I find highly debatable, especially taking into consideration the gorgeous overture to the 1st suite, which certainly is the equal of any other piece in any of the suites), but it is beyond ludicrous to call them mediocre. That is certainly one of the stupidest statements I have heard in a LONG time, made by, as I'll repeat, an otherwise intelligent person.
But what the hell, we also have Leonhardt and several members of this list criticizing Karajan as being "unmusical".No one who has listened to his profound, detailed, insightful, and ardent recordings of Wagner, Strauss, and Beethoven can let such bull---- fly around. Again, "could I do better?" is the question that one should ask oneself in this kind of situation. I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that nowadays, a lot of people who have an association with "classical" or "serious" music, whether it be as educator, performer, composer, or listener, think that somehow they can claim a connection to the great music of the past. Well, much music written today can be quite interesting, and ithas it's own kind of profound simplicity, but let's not start thinking we're Bach or Mozart or Beethoven, because it just ain't so. >
I love that overture to the 1st Orchesral Suite; it's my favorite of the four. MAK gives a thrilling rendition.

Orchestral Suites

Sw Anandgyan wrote (March 18, 2005):
I just realized recently that it's the instrumental music of J.S. Bach that I've been slow in discovering.

Okay, read that in 'purchasing' because after picking up a few recordings of the Solo Cello Suite for that famous prelude in the 1st one, I noticed I was not able to listen to the well-known 'Air on a G string' from the 3rd Orchestral Suite.

So I did my usual search in reviews section and listened to two CDs at the record store; Christopher Hogwood on Decca andMartin Pearlman on Telarc and I opted for the latter one.

What is your favourite recording of the Orchestral Suites and why?

Bob H. (Philly RBH) wrote (March 18, 2005):
[To Sw Anandgyan] I have always been very satisfied with the Hogwood and the AAM. If you can find it.

New Orchestral Suites

Donald Satz wrote (September 13, 2005):
Just thought some of you would be interested in knowing that BIS has a new release of Bach's Orchestral Suites conducted by (guess who?) - Suzuki.

Bach's Orchestral Suites.

Steven Foss wrote (September 14, 2005):
Since Bach had a proclivity to write or collect in groups of 6 or multiples of 6 (WTC), any one give thought as to the Overtures (Orchestral Suites) having only 4 in the set.

Any candidates for the missing two Suites?

Also any comments on the numbers in Bach's compositions. The First Fugue in WTC has 24 entries of the Subject, and from the Organ Chorale Prelude "This is the Ten Commandments" with 10 entries of the subject (although the piece has been called in print as "a magnificient failure," I guess Bach is allowed a off day now and then).

PS I would have BWV 1064 Concerto for 3 Harpsichords as a candidate for one of the "missing" suites. Anyone with information to the contrary.

Kuijken's set of the four orchestral suites BWV 1066-1069

Bradley Lehman wrote (August 7, 2006):
The classic set of the suites, played by Kuijken and La Petite Bande, is now in the "Last Chance" bin at Musical Heritage Society's web site.Two-CD set marked down to $13.98: http://www.musicalheritage.com

Excellent performance from the early 1980s. It's been available on various labels such as Pro Arte and Deutsche Harmonia Mundi. Since it was new I've always been fond of the graceful delivery in this one, with elegant and very subtle inegal letting this sound like French music.

Continue on Part 3