|
Thomas Braatz wrote (August 9, 2001):
BWV 178 - Background:
BWV 178 is the 'other' cantata that Forkel was able to copy in the short time that the entire 2nd cantata cycle (The Chorale Cantata Yearly Cycle) was placed at his disposal for a rather hefty fee (see BWV 9.) The question that remains in the minds of many is, "Why did Forkel choose this cantata over so many other excellent cantatas in what is generally considered to be Bach's best cantata cycle?" Note that Simon Crouch gives this cantata a 3+ rating (with which I do not agree.) We do not know the reason why, but one thing is certain: we can be thankful that he copied it. Forkel's copy of the score is very important in determining the answer to many questions that would otherwise remain, to resolve issues that are raised by the other autograph source: the copies of the parts. W.F. Bach also made a copy of this score for himself, but that copy is much less reliable because he automatically included his own for his own performance of this work. [What does this tell you about the believability of any comments that he might have made (had he done so) regarding performance practices in his father's time? Perhaps WF is just as unreliable as his brother CPE in this regard, a brother who, if we can believe the most recent research, falsified the conditions that existed surrounding the unfinished AoF manuscript, stating that this is the point where his father ceased working at the time of his death.]
Did you know that the horn part did not exist for the original performance?
The absence of a soprano solo part is somewhat remarkable here. It is particularly noticeable in mvt. 5 Choral et Recitativo where all solo voices are represented in the recitative sections except the soprano. Was the soprano soloist not available for the 1st performance for some reason? |
