|
Mass in B minor BWV 232
General Discussions - Part 6
Continue from Part 5
Clarity and other Matters
Francine Renee Hall wrote (February 27, 2002):
(dear Bob) I have own both Rifkin's and Gardiner's rendition of Bach's B-minor Mass. The former shouts clarity but, to me, at the expense of obvious common sense. Four great singers in the Rifkin and what do we hear? Gasping breaths, throat straining, a desperate shout to be heard over the instruments. If there were at least 2 singers per part, some of this roughness would not be heard. Surely a musician would catch the obvious flaw of OVPP. Gardiner's takes the middle-of-the-road approach: everything is smoothed out by the voices supporting each other. And there is still clarity.
(dear Brad) Off the track, I admire Christophe Rousset's great achievements in taking on an entire ouevure as he has done in the past. He makes the composers ring, not himself, IMHO.
(dear Tom) And finally, the art of parody (deja vu), Bach in a long line of this age-old tradition.
Please excuse my ramblings. I'm just commenting on a bunch of mails at once.
Query re B Minor Mass and Organ Works
Barry Murray wrote (February 28, 2002):
Well, I've been off ferreting through another bargain CD site and came across 2 Bach recordings. I'd be interested in the views of members.
1. Bach B Minor Mass, performed by The Monteverdi Choir, The English Baroque Soloists & John Eliot Gardiner. I can get this one for approx $10 US. I can get the Parrott recording for a comparable price. Which one would you get? I'd also be interested in a parallel matter. I don't yet own any recordings of Bach's vocal works. Is the Mass a good starting point, or would I do better to look at Cantatas, Christmas Oratorio, or one of the Passions?
2. JS Bach "Greatest Organ Works" Herbert Tachezi. Anyone heard of him? I can get this one for about $5 US.
There are no sound samples available.
Charles Francis wrote (February 28, 2002):
< Barry Murray wrote: Well, I've been off ferreting through another bargain CD site and came across 2 Bach recordings. I'd be interested in the views of members.
1. Bach B Minor Mass, performed by The Monteverdi Choir, The English Baroque Soloists & John Eliot Gardiner. I can get this one for approx $10 US. I can get the Parrott recording for a comparable price. Which one would you get? >
Parrott (I own both recordings you mention)
< I'd also be interested in a parallel matter. I don't yet own any recordings of Bach's vocal works. Is the Mass a good starting point, or would I do better to look at Cantatas, Christmas Oratorio, or one of the Passions? >
The B minor mass is a good starting point.
< 2. JS Bach "Greatest Organ Works" Herbert Tachezi. Anyone heard of him? I can get this one for about $5 US. >
Never heard of this organist. CD with titles like "Greatest Organ Works" are normaly very cheap.
Riccardo Nughes wrote (February 28, 2002):
< 1. Bach B Minor Mass, performed by The Monteverdi Choir, The English Baroque Soloists & John Eliot Gardiner. I can get this one for approx $10 US. I can get the Parrott recording for a comparable price. Which one would you get? I'd also be interested in a parallel matter. I don't yet own any recordings of Bach's vocal works. Is the Mass a good starting point, or would I do better to look at Cantatas, Christmas Oratorio, or one of the Passions? >
Parrott.
I think the Mass is a good starting point.
< 2. JS Bach "Greatest Organ Works" Herbert Tachezi. Anyone heard of him? I can get this one for about $5 US. >
Herbert Tachezi is the harpsichordist/organist of Concentus Musicus Wien. That CD is good, I like especially his rendering of the famous Passacaglia.
Chad Romney wrote (February 28, 2002):
[To Barry Murray] That Gardiner recording is so near and dear to my heart it almost brings tears to my eyes. It was my first Bach recording; I absolutely love it. But being merely an admirer and not really a student of music or recording engineering I have little to offer in the way of actual recommendation. I think the Mass is a good starting point, although I love my recordings of Gardiner's SMP and SJP nearly as much (especially the SMP). And $10 is a great deal. By the way, since I have my eye on the Parrott recording, can you point me in that direction please?
Kirk McElhearn wrote (February 28, 2002):
[To Barry Murray] As a single work, the Christmas Oratorio (BWV 248) might be a good place to start. It is composed of six cantatas, and does not require the large-scale attention that the passions do. It is very joyous as well, and is one of Bach's finest vocal works. This said, the two passions have wonderful arias... and the cantatas, well, they are the cantatas. Tough choice, isn't it?
John Hatford wrote (February 28, 2002):
[To Barry Murray] At that price I would buy both. I personally like the Gardiner very much and the Parrott is the all time favorite of many, though his use of one voice to a part in a work like the B minor Mass is somewhat suspect in my view. I think the B minor Mass is an excellent starting point. And, for that matter, an excellent ending point also.
Johan van Veen wrote (February 28, 2002):
< Barry Murray wrote:
2. JS Bach "Greatest Organ Works" Herbert Tachezi. Anyone heard of him? I can get this one for about $5 US. There are no sound samples available. >
Herbert Tachezi was (still is, as far as I know) the keyboard player of Concentus musicus Wien. He has made very few solo recordings, which is just as well, because I find him pretty dull. I have the complete harpsichord concertos by Leonhardt and his consort, but unfortunately the concerto BWV 1052 is played by Tachezi and the Concentus musicus. That certainly doesn't have the qualities of the other concertos, played by Leonhardt. He has recorded the complete organ works by CPhE Bach, which is reasonably well done, but his recording of the Kunst der Fuge on organ is not great. I have bought it on LP many years ago, because I wanted to have a recording on organ, but I hardly ever played it. I don't know the recording which is on offer, but I wouldn't buy it. I think there are better recordings available, even at bargain prices.
Barry Murray wrote (February 28, 2002):
Thanks to all who gave me recommendations. As for the Parrott Mass, I will get it from MDT www.mdt.co.uk/
If you live in the US, I'm sure you will be able to get a comparable deal from a local source.
Francine Renee Hall wrote (February 28, 2002):
[To Barry Murray] Wow, what a deal! $10 for Gardiner's Mass in H-moll! Like Kirk, if I were to start with just one vocal work, the Christmas Oratorio by Gardiner would do the job. Kirk is so right too-- they're cheerful and inspiring!
B-minor Mass / B-minor Mass + late works
Bernard Nys wrote (May 5, 2002):
As you all know, the B-minor Mass is my favorite work and for me, it's a divinely inspired legacy for the future generations. As most of you don't share my faith and vision, I would like to know how you explain the extraordinary length of this Mass. Why did he compose, near the end of his life (it's seems certain that he was working on it during the last months of his life), a 2 hour lasting Latin Mass ? For whom, for which church ? It's a kind of mystery like Mozart's Requiem. Does anyone have a
hypothesis ?
Preparing the Ascension, I heart something new in the introduction : it's difficult to express in words and even more difficult to describe it in notes (because I don't know anything about musical notation), but I have the feeling that the opening expresses something that is flying away from us. The melody is cheerful of course, but seems more restrained than the opening of the Easter Oratorio, which is for me his most solemn and cheerful opening (I have it played by Trevor Pinnock & The English Concert, while "my" Ascension Oratorio is played by Gustav Leonhardt and the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment). Can anyone describe this better ?
Juozas Rimas wrote (May 5, 2002):
< explain the extraordinary length of this Mass. Why did he com, near the end of his life (it's seems certain that he was working on it during the last months of his life), a 2 hour lasting Latin Mass ? >
Can you name all the parts of the mass that were written late in his life? What is your source?
Regarding other late works:
At http://www.whrb.org/pg/JanFeb2000.html I found out that the latest work JSB wrote wasn't the unfinished part of the Art of Fugue but rather an Organ Chorale "Vor deinen Thron tret ich hiermit," BWV 668.
I don't know if the page is trustworthy.
If it is, I wonder why JSB refused to write (to dictate I'm afraid) a couple of bars to finish the AOF and wrote the chorale instead. The name of the chorale is very appropriate for the moment, though...
Uri Golomb wrote (May 5, 2002):
<< explain the extraordinary length of this Mass. Why did he compose, near the end of his life (it's seems certain that he was working on it during the last months of his life), a 2 hour lasting Latin Mass ? >>
< Can you name all the parts of the mass that were written late in his life? What is your source? >
Yes, much of the Mass in B Minor was indeed written late in Bach's life. It used to be thought that Bach completed the entire work before 1740, but this dating -- like much else in Spitta's chronology of Bach's music -- has been refuted. The standard dating for the Mass (first proposed by Georg von Dadelsen in late 1950s, and now accepted
by virtually all Bach scholars) is:
Missa (Kyrie and Gloria): 1733
Symbolum Nicenum (Credo): 1748/9
Sanctus: 1724 (but revised in 1748/9)
Ossana, benedictus, agnus dei, dona nobis: 1748/9
As to why he composed the work -- there are no clear-cut answers. The "Missa" was evidently meant for performance in Dresden -- this is clear from the fact that Bach prepared a set of parts while on a visit there -- though whether such a performance took place is a moot point. But it is still not clear why he took the trouble to turn it into a complete mass by adding the other parts in 1748/9. The most repeated contention these days is that he indeed intended the work as a sort of legacy. Some argue that he wanted to make, as Dadelsen put it, "a contribution to that musical species which was hailed as the most ambitious type of composition from teh days of Dufay, Josquin and Palestrina". They point to the work's enormous stylistic variety (it
covers all the vocal genres Bach ever employed, except for recitatives and chorales), its use of music dating from most of Bach's career (the "Crucifixus" is based on BWV 12 -- an early, 1714 cantata), and say that he wanted to compile somethign that will represent his musical-vocal art in all its variety; and they link the Mass to other "encyclopaedic works" which BAch composed at around the same time (Book II of the WTK, The Art of Fugue, etc.). Others see it as an attempt to create an all-Christian creed, transcending the differences between Luterhanism and Catholicism (for a presentation of this position, see: Yoshitake Kobayashi. "Universality in Bach's B minor Mass: A portrait of Bach in his final years". Translated by Jeffrey Baxter. Bach: The Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute 24/2 (1993): 4-25).
Of course, these views are not mutually exclusive.
It seems to me taht most writers would concede -- some enthusiastically, others more reluctantly -- that BAch did not envisage a complete performance of the work from start to finish, and composed it as a more "theoretical" project. This rather goes against the standard (and mostly well-founded) image of Bach as a practical composer; somehow the idea of a composer writing for posterity, and/or without thought of an immediate performance, seems strange when attached to an 18th-century figure. All the other "encyclopaedic" works were instrumental, and most of them were keyboard works -- suggesting domestic performance, and possible didactic uses. The Mass is obviously different.
Georg Stauffer does suggest a couple of venues and occasions for which BAch might have envisaged a complete performance of the B minor Mass, but he admits that none of these can be conclusively linked with Bach's composition. In the end, as far as I know, *all* the theories proposed about why BAch composed the Mass are open to question and doubt, and Stauffer's final conclusion -- that "we may not be able to pinpoint Bach's specific reason for writing a missa tota" -- is probably correct; barring the discovery of conclusive documents, the enigma will proabably remain..
I hope this isn't an information overload, and that it helps.
Santu De Silva wrote (May 5, 2002):
<< explain the extraordinary length of this Mass. Why did he compose, near the end of his life (it's seems certain that he was working on it during the last months of his life), a 2 hour lasting Latin Mass ? >>
[Rimas]: < Can you name all the parts of the mass that were written late in his life? What is your source? >
[Me]: My understanding is also that the B minor mass is an enlargement of an earlier project (or projects), but that it indeed was undertaken towards the end of his life, and indeed did have a summary purpose. I'm not a scholar, and I can't remember where I read this. I bet reading liner notes will reveal such a statement from any number of sources. In my humble opinion, the B minor mass is a tour-de-force of solo, orchestral, and choral writing, and it was very likely intended to be that.
[Rimas]: < Regarding other late works:
At http://www.whrb.org/pg/JanFeb2000.html I found out that the latest work JSB wrote wasn't the unfinished part of the Art of Fugue but rather an Organ Chorale "Vor deinen Thron tret ich hiermit," BWV 668. >
[Me]: The evidence for this is about as strong or as weak as that for anything else about the last days of the composer. All we know is that the chorale-prelude was written after (most of) the AOF, because, in my incomplete recollection, it's on the same paper. But there's at least some suspicion that one of the Bach sons--possibly Wilhelm Friedmann--was responsible for a unlikely story that the incomplete fugue and the chorale-prelude were the last things he wrote.
[Rimas]: < I don't know if the page is trustworthy. If it is, I wonder why JSB refused to write (to dictate I'm afraid) a couple of bars to finish the AOF and wrote the chorale instead. >
!!! Finishing the last (incomplete) of the AOF was not a matter of a couple of bars. It is conjectured that almost a third, or maybe more, of the fugue is left incomplete. scholars have a feel for what the plans for the rest of it were. To repeat, it was not just a matter of slapping on a coda. (You should listen to the incomplete fugue.)
Charles Francis wrote (May 6, 2002):
[To Uri Golomb] The following article by George Stauffer in the New York Times touches on the Mass in B minor in the broader context of how the scholarly views about Bach have changed over the years (you need to register for access, but this is a free, worthwhile, one time procedure): http://www.nytimes.com/library/music/040200bach-music.html
Recording of BWV 232/I?
Marten Breuser wrote (June 16, 2002):
I hope that some of you will be able to help me. I've been told by a friend that there is a recording of the b minor mass containing the early version of Kyrie and Gloria (BWV 232/I), i.e. the verions which Bach origially dedicated to the Dresden Court. Maybe it's a recording by Harnoncourt.
Any comments? Thank you
Uri Golomb wrote (June 16, 2002):
[To Marten Breuer] The basic information (quoted from Christoph Wolff's notes to Frans Brüggen's recording): "Bach gave the parts of the 1733 Mass (Kyrie and Gloria) to the court at Dresden. These are extant, though were largely ignored in the NBA [Neue Bach Ausgabe, edited by Friedrich Smend in 1954]. Compared to the score, they contain a large number of details indicating the sort of soudn Bach intended in this work, including indications of articulation, ornamentation, tempo and specific instrumentation, awell as corrections". The other source is the score, which -- like many of Bach's scores (as opposed to parts) -- is much less detailed; though it does include some variants which Bach might have introduced AFTER 1733.
There are three recordings which openly declare to be based exclusively on the Dresden parts: Joshua Rifkin's and Andrew Parrott's (both based on Rifkin's edition, as yet unpublished, but due soon from Breitkopf); and Frans Brüggen's (based on Christoph Wolff's edition, now published by Edition Peters). Wolff is Koopman's main musicological adviser, so I assume Koopman's recording is also based on that edition. There are several other recordings which incorporate at least some features of the Dresden parts; these include Helmuth Rilling, Peter Schreier (in his 2nd recording -- but not in the first), Jeffrey Thomas, Diego Fasolis, Martin Pearlman, and others.
Perhaps the most audible difference is the dotted rhythm ("Scotch snap" in the "Domine deus", which is present only in the parts, not the score.
As for Harnoncourt: both of his recordings are based on the Neue Bach-Ausgabe, but he was openly critical of that edition -- primarily for its ignorance of the Dresden parts. He therefore made some corrections to it, based on the parts (or a facsimile thereof). In 1968 or '69, Telefunken indeed issued a recording of the "1733 Missa" directed by Harnoncourt; AFAIK, this consisted simply of the Kyrie and Gloria from his recording of the complete Mass.
Hope this helps.
Marten Breuser wrote (June 16, 2002):
[To Uri Golomb] Thank you very much indeed, Uri, your answer was perfect!
Thomas Braatz wrote (June 17, 2002):
[To Marten Breuer & Uri Golomb] Uri’s comments represent accurately some of the more recent attempts to base performances solely to the Dresden set of mainly autograph parts for the “Kyrie” and “Sanctus” sections only of BWV 232, a collection of four separate folders of music that were not considered as a unified work during Bach’s lifetime (in his mind perhaps? And since Bach collected 5 Lutheran “Missae” and 5 individual “Sanctus” in groups, why should there not have been 5 sections to the “Mass in B Minor?”) Friedrich Smend correctly points out that a significant obituary printed in Leipzig in 1754, an obituary in which C.P.E. Bach along with a few other contributors reflected on significant events in J.S. Bach’s life and listed the most important published and yet unpublished works which represented the best compositions for which he was known, contains references to other late abstract cycles or abstractly unified collections, but does not indicate anything that could be construed as a special mass unifying many separate movements. Indeed, even after the death of J.S. Bach, C.P.E. Bach’s performances of his father’s works never included more than a single section of what was later to become the “Mass in B minor.” Curious, isn’t it?
John Butt’s article in the “Oxford Composer Companions: J.S.Bach” [Boyd] summarizes more recent attempts to link all the sections into a complete mass structure. Kobayshi’s evidence seems to indicate that Bach was striving for a larger, encompassing structure, but whether the 4-section mass represents Bach’s notion of a complete work, or was just an interim attempt at unification, is certainly open to question.
Christoph Wolff’s theories include wishing to see the “Mass in B Minor” as the comparable vocal equivalent to the abstract instrumental cycle, “The Art of the Fugue.” See his recent Bach biography for his thoughts on this matter. F. Smend is very careful about proposing such a theory. So it should be no surprise that the quote by Wolff that Uri Golomb kindly included should claim that the Dresden parts were largely ignored by the NBA edition for which F. Smend was responsible. Wolff’s tendentious comment would be rather like claiming that a performance/recording of Bach’s 5th Brandenburg Concerto includes an earlier, hitherto unknown cadenza (Brad Lehman knows all about this because he documented this cadenza by listening to a such a ‘new’ recording, without knowing that the NBA also included it, albeit in the KB rather than the final printed version) that was not taken into account by the NBA. Smend works with both the autograph score and the autograph set of parts (the Dresden parts) and anyone who would wish to reconstruct a ‘pure’ set of parts would not need a facsimile of the parts, but simply have to look at the detailed variants that are included in the KB and copy them back into the score or a copy thereof. Each variant is clearly marked as to which source it comes from. Well, and for Harnoncourt to claim that the NBA should be criticized “primarily for its ignorance of the Dresden parts” only confirms in my mind that he may be more interested in ‘stirring up a hornets’ nest’ and thereby gaining some publicity and fame so that recording companies will want to record his ‘new’ approach to Bach’s music, an approach that even the NBA editors, according to him, seem to have deliberately ignored. In any case, the casual Bach listener, and perhaps even a few more sophisticated ones, might be attracted by just such a pitch, in which a renegade conductor proceeds to thwart the final intentions of a monumental standardization imposed by the NBA.
Smend’s responsibility, a responsibility that he admirably accepted and fulfilled, was to document, analyze, and based upon his conclusions as to which sources were the most reliable and which ones should be followed in the printing of the final version, and to present the most likely final intentions of the composer. His reasons for making certain choices are all explained in the KB. This was not an easy task, but it was done in such a way that all important variants were taken into account and presented for any musical scholar to examine or for any conductor to change, if he/she so desired. Any ‘ignorance’ should fall squarely upon the shoulders of those who wish to make this claim.
In an indirectly related matter having to do with the careful reading of the KB’s of the NBA, even scholars seem to overlook the evidence presented in these KB’s: Alfred Dürr’s notes on the SMP in the NBA KB present evidence that contradicts the facts given by Laurence Dreyfus and others concerning Bach’s manner of executing the bc of a secco recitative. It appears that it is easy even for Bach scholars and those who purport to represent Bach's intentions in performance to overlook, or not read carefully enough, this very important, extremely reliable and detailed source of information.
Uri Golomb wrote (June 17, 2002):
I feel a need to respond to some of Braatz's points, though for most of them I'm probably not the best equipped to respond.
< Uri's comments represent accurately some of the more recent attempts to base performances solely to the Dresden set of mainly autograph parts for the "Kyrie" and "Sanctus" sections only of BWV 232, a collection of four separate folders of music that were not considered as a unified work during Bach's lifetime (in his mind perhaps? And since Bach collected 5 Lutheran "Missae" and 5 individual "Sanctus" in groups, why should there not have been 5 sections to the "Mass in B Minor?") Friedrich Smend correctly points out that a significant obituary printed in Leipzig in 1754, an obituary in which C.P.E. Bach along with a few other contributors reflected on significant events in J.S. Bach's life and listed the most important published and yet unpublished works which represented the best compositions for which he was known, contains references to other late abstract cycles or abstractly unified collections, but does not indicate anything that could be construed as a special mass unifying many separate movements. Indeed, even after the death of J.S. Bach, C.P.E. Bach's performances of his father's works never included more than a single section of what was later to become the "Mass in B minor." Curious, isn't it? >
On the other hand, C.P.E. listed the work as "The Great Catholic Mass" in his list of Bach manuscripts in his possession. So at some point in his life he did come to regard the Mass as a unified wh. For what it's worth, as the Mass was completed in 1748/9, he was not present when his father worked on it.
In fact, virtually no Bach scholar today accepts Smend's wholesale claim that the Mass was not unified in Bach's mind.. There are several clear indicators, that virtually everyone points out, that Bach did conceive it as a unity. I"ll mention a few:
1. Yes, he did provide separate title pages. But he numbered them, consecutively, from 1 to 4. Smend knows this, of course -- he points this out in the introduction to his edition -- but he doesn't say anything about WHY Bach made this numbering. If the "Symbolum Nicenum" was a separate work, having nothing whatsoever to do with the 1733 "Missa", why number the "missa" as no. 1 [No. 1 out of what?], and the "Symbolum" as no. 2 [again, 2 out of what]? Why not simply keep the manuscripts apart? And furthermore, is it really just a coincidence that, when you place the manuscripts in the order suggested by their numbering, the resulting arrangement is identical to the textual order of the Mass Ordinarium text?
2. The indication Soli Deo Gloria appears only at the end of the Missa (which, in 1733, BAch indeed viewed as complete in and of itself) and the Dona nobis pacem. If Bach considered the Symbolum and Sanctus totally separate, unrelated products, he probably would have signed them with the same formula, with which he usually designated the end of a finished work.
3. The musical-tonal unity: all four parts based are centered around the key of D major.
C. P. E. is not an entirely reliable source, and neither is Smend. C. P. E. -- and, I suppose, Smend as well -- thought that the Art of Fugue was BAch's very last work; Smend thought that the Mass was completed by 1739. But research made around the same time as Smend's edition proved that his chronology for the non-Missa sections of the Mass (that is, from Credo onwards) was "off" by about ten years, and that the completion of the Mass dates, in fact, from the end of BAch's life -- and post-dates at least most of the Art of Fugue.
(Another problem with C.P.E. is that he actually 'spoiled' his father's autograph with his own corrections, especially in the Credo, where he inserted instructions towards his own performance of that section. I have recently attended a lecture by Joshua Rifkin on his forthcoming edition, where he showed how C.P.E.'s internvention extended to actually changing the notes in some places -- he usually had little choice, as his father's hand-writing was not clearly legibile in places; but it does make life difficult for the modern editor, trying to separate J. S. from C. P. E.).
This is not to say that the separate parts don't also have an independent existence. Bach also viewed the Christmas Oratorio as a unified cycle, but he clearly intended it to be performed on six separate days. With the Mass, some mystery remains: there is no evidence that he intended it to be performed at all. I think that's one reason why some doubt lingers about its unity: we tend to think of Bach as a practical composer, who would not compsoe anything without a clear opportunity to either perform or publish it. For the most part, that image is probably perfectly justifiable. The Mass is difficult to explain whichever path you take: if practical, no practical use can be made of it; if not, it doesn't sit easily with the other "non-practical" works, which were mostly instrumental collections and had more viability as publishable collections.
In short, it's easy to find flaws in any existing explanation as to why BAch completed the B minor Mass; it's more difficult to find a convincing alternative explanation, that would not have flaws of its own.
< Christoph Wolff's theories include wishing to see the "Mass in B Minor" as the comparable vocal equivalent to the abstract instrumental cycle, "The Art of the Fugue." See his recent Bach biography for his thoughts on this matter. F. Smend is very careful about proposing such a theory. >
Or, to quote John Butt (from his handbook on teh Mass): "Smend is convinced that it is purely a Lutheran work, which therefore -- by deduction -- cannot constitute a single mass cycle"; he therefore seems to have "manipulated all the fact towards the central aim of demonstrating the total independence of the four sections of the Mass".
(Butt's words are, mainly, a summary of Gerog von Dadelsen's 1958-1959 critique of Smend's edition).
< So it should be no surprise that the quote by Wolff that Uri Golomb kindly included should claim that the Dresden parts were largely ignored by the NBA edition for which F. Smend was responsible. Wolff's tendentious comment would be rather like claiming that a performance/recording of Bach's 5th Brandenburg Concerto includes an earlier, hitherto unknown cadenza (Brad Lehman knows all about this because he documented this cadenza by listening to a such a <new' recording, without knowing that the NBA also included it, albeit in the KB rather than the final printed version) that was not taken into account by the NBA. Smend works with both the autograph score and the autograph set of parts (the Dresden parts) and anyone who would wish
to reconstruct a <pure' set of parts would not need a facsimile of the parts, but simply have to look at the detailed variants that are included in the KB and copy them back into the score or a copy thereof. Each variant is clearly marked as to which source it comes from. >
I have yet to go over the KB is detail; but the allegation certainly exists that Smend does not even mention some variants. But, in any case, where is the link between Wolff's claim on the Mass's nature, and his evaluation of the sources? A focus on the Dresden parts is what you'd expect from someone committed to viewing the 1733 Missa as a SEPARATE work, not from soneone committed to unity! AFter all, the parts date from a time when Bach clearly considered the Kyrie and Gloria complete and sufficient.
The variants, in any case, are hardly as significant as the difference between the two versions of the Bradnenburg 5th cadenza. The argument is, more simply, that Bach's scores -- in general -- contain less information for performers than his parts (for the simple reason that the score was for his own use, and he did not need the extra information). In the case of the Missa, the parts were intended to be used by musicians who did not normally work with Bach, and perhaps were to perform the work in his absence (in the event, it's not clear they performed it at all), so he had reason to be even more detailed and specific in his notation. So certainly the parts take some predecedence, because they answer questions which Bach did not bother
to address in his personal copy. Of course, it is possible -- even likely -- that BAch would have changed his mind on some of these performance issues between 1733 (the completion of both score and parts) and 1748/9 (the completion of the Missa into the B minor Mass); if he had produced NEW parts at that point, we might have known what his new views were. SAdly, he did not; and in this respect, the later parts are incomplete (he did not even specify an instrument for the Benedictus -- something he surely would have done if he had prepared parts for it! And the problem is not unique here: there are other cases where a Bach score does not even indicate which instrument is playing, and the parts -- where they survive -- do).
< Well, and for Harnoncourt to claim that the NBA should be criticized "primarily for its ignorance of the Dresden parts" only confirms in my mind that he may be more interested in 'stirring up a hornets' nest' and thereby gaining some publicity and fame so that recording companies will want to record his 'new' approach to Bach's music, an approach that even the NBA editors, according to him, seem to have deliberately ignored. In any case, the casual Bach listener, and perhaps even a few more sophisticated ones, might be attracted by just such a pitch, in which a renegade conductor proceeds to thwart the final intentions of a monumental standardization imposed by the NBA. >
That's nonsense. In this particular case, Harnoncis not even a renegade -- in fact, he represents musicological ORTHODOXY! The hornets' nest was stirred by Georg von Dadelsen, immediately after Smend published his edition; almost all of Harnoncourt's criticisms can also be found in Dadelsen (whom Harnoncourt acknwoeldges in the notes to his 1968 recording), Gerhard Herz and other musicologists; he did not invent them. And in the debate between Smend and Dadelsen, most musicologists -- including NBA editors -- have come to side with Dadelsen. Dadelsen and Alfred Durr were the scholars most responsible for the re-evaluation of the chronology of Bach's music, which is now considered one of the great triumphs of post-WW II musicology (and which Smend ignored -- clinging to Spitta's chronology).
More generally, I must say that I've always been intensely annoyed by Braatz's (and other's) comments on Harnoncourt. I count myself as a qualified Harnoncourt admirer: I do not like everything he does, and sometimes he really gets of my nerves, but I do consider him, on the whole, a marvellous and moving -- not just thought-provoking -- exponent of much of Bach's music, not least the B minor Mass (by which I mean the 1986 recording; I don't care much for the earlier, 1968 version. That said, some people have exactly the opposite view). There is no space here to respond to more general claims about "The Harnoncourt Doctrine". For what it's worth, I agree he is a somewhat doctrinaire performer -- but GENUINELY doctrinaire, that is he really does believe in what he's doing, contrary to Braatz's implication (slander, really) that he is a self-promoting charlatan. In his case, we can actually know many of his doctrines, since he published two books and several recording liner-notes and articles besides. Has Braatz read any of these? (This is not a rhetorical question: I really don't know). Obviously you don't have to read them; and perhaps you won't be convinced by his arguments if you do read them; but if you are intent on attacking a man's doctrine, you should make sure that you know what that doctrine is, and what it's based on; and, if you don't agree, present specific counter-arguments.
Some of Harnoncourt's doctrines might be a bit suspect historically (though the basic idea, for instance, that the meaning of notation symbols has changed between 1700 and 1900 is widely accepted by most of who have researched this subject, even if they would not always agree with Harnoncourt's specific ideas on HOW they changed). In any case, they still work musically, for me, much of the time. Not, I should add, as an exclusive option: I also admire much Bach performance by conductors from Jochum and Ricther, through Leonhardt, Herreweghe and Suzuki to Parrot and McCreesh (and others); and I would hate to see any ONE of these approches becoming predominant to the exclusion of others.
More generally still, Harnoncourt is not the only one who has been accused of being different for the sake of being different, of creating a new "doctrine" just in order to stand out of the crowd. The same allegation was levelled against several others, most notably Joshua Rifkin (and Andrew Parrott, when he became convinced by Rifkin's arguments). Ironically, But having listened to quite a few of their recordings (I'm doing a PhD on recordings of the B minor Mass, under the supervision of John Butt), and read their arguments -- and counter-arguments against them -- I am convinced that they both acted in good faith, out of genuine belief in the historical and artistic relevance of their actions, and devoted considerable thought and research to the matter (though I will admit taht Rifkin's research is more detailed and thorough than Harnoncourt's). This does not mean I accept each and every one of their arguments (I can't do that anyhow -- they vehemently contradict each other). But disagreeing (or being skeptical) is one thing; accusing them of charlatanism is quite another, and I think people should be extremely careful about making such allegations.
< Smend's responsibility, a responsibility that he admirably accepted and fulfilled, was to document, analyze, and based upon his conclusions as to which sources were the most reliable and which ones should be followed in the printing of the final version, and to present the most likely final intentions of the composer. His reasons for making certain choices are all explained in the KB. This was not an easy task, but it was done in such a way that all important variants were taken into account and presented for any musical scholar to examine or for any conductor to change, if he/she so desired. Any ignorance' should fall squarely upon the shoulders of those who wish to make this claim. >
I am myself, admittedly, rather ignorant, having only seen facsimiles of the sources, and that all too briefly. But I hardly think that you can rightly call Georg von Dadelsen, John Butt, Gerhard Herz, George Stauffer, Christoph Wolff and Joshua Rifkin ignorant: all of them have examined the original sources (of the Mass and other works) in great care and detail; and they have all come to the conclusion that Smend's
edition -- INCLUDING the KR -- is deeply flawed in several respects.
WEll, I could have said more -- but this is already too long...
Uri Golomb wrote (June 17, 2002):
I just looked at what I sent, and it seems that I made a slight error in my phrasing. I used the word "parts" in two senses:
1. Sections of the work (Missa, Symbolum Nicenum, etc.);
2. Separate parts (for soprano 1, soprano 2, violin 1, oboe 1 etc.) as opposed to a score.
In some places, I seem to have used this word in the two senses in the same paragraph or sentence. I hope the result is not too confusing. So, when I said that "the later parts are incomplete", I meant that the later SECTIONS are incomplete -- since they exist only in score, not in separate, performance-oriented parts.
Charles Francis wrote (June 17, 2002):
< Thomas Braatz wrote: Uri’s comments represent accurately some of the more recent attempts to base performances solely to the Dresden set of mainly autograph parts for the “Kyrie” and “Sanctus” sections only of BWV 232, a collection of four separate folders of music that were not considered as a unified work during Bach’s lifetime (in his mind perhaps? And since Bach collected 5 Lutheran “Missae” and 5 individual “Sanctus” in groups, why should there not have been 5 sections to the “Mass in B Minor?”) Friedrich Smend correctly points out that a significant obituary printed in Leipzig in 1754, an obituary in which C.P.E. Bach along with a few other contributors reflected on significant events in J.S. Bach’s life and listed the most important published and yet unpublished works which represented the best compositions for which he was known, contains references to other late abstract cycles or abstractly unified collections, but does not indicate anything that could be construed as a special mass unifying many separate movements. Indeed, even after the death of J.S. Bach, C.P.E. Bach’s performances of his father’s works never included more than a single section of what was later to become the “Mass in B minor.” Curious, isn’t it? >
Glad to see you are back with us again, I assume this is a positive sign!
With regard to the unity of Bach's B minor mass, didn't Bach's son Carl Philipp
Emanuel refer to it as the Great Catholic Mass? von Dadelsen has addressed the
unity of the B minor mass in his notes to the 'Sacred Masterpieces' CD collection
on Archive and has concluded:
"The sum total of its sections represents indeed a complete Roman Catholic Mass
... Its homogeneity becomes so convincingly manifest to the listener, that he
hardly ponders over the reasons leading up to such a result; indeed, the
all-embracing musical coherence of the whole work appears so compelling that
circumstances alone should be capable of dispelling all doubts about the
conceptual unity of the last great vocal composition of J.S. Bach ... We believe
that he [Bach] quite deliberately intended to offer here a contribution to that
musical genre which was hailed as the most ambitious type of composition from
the days of Du, Josquin and Palestrina. Lutheran in spirit and utilising
church music originally intended for use in the Protestant church a work was
created that can yet be properly appreciated only in connection with the great
tradition of the Roman Catholic mass."
Stauffer also views it as a Missa Tota, see:
http://harpo.pads.arts.gla.ac.uk/cgi-bin/bach2.pl?22=13720
Thomas Braatz wrote (June 17, 2002):
Thanks to both Uri and Charles for their informative replies regarding the background to BWV 232 regarding which I am still very much in a learning phase. The main purpose for my criticism arises from the fact that some important musicologists and performers specializing in Bach’s music have come to the conclusion that Friedrich Smend, in preparing the authoritative NBA edition, somehow slipped into unethical behavior by suppressing and partially neglecting entirely evidence presented by the Dresden set of parts which are primarily, but not entirely in Bach’s handwriting. Particularly bothersome to me are Christoph Wolff’s comments which Uri quoted directly:
"Bach gave the parts of the 1733 Mass (Kyrie and Gloria) to the court at Dresden. These are extant, though were largely ignored in the NBA [Neue Bach Ausgabe, edited by Friedrich Smend in 1954]. Compared to the score, they contain a large number of details indicating the sort of sound Bach intended in this work, including indications of articulation, ornamentation, tempo and specific instrumentation, as well as corrections".
Uri, you mention as an aurally evident, very distinctive difference noted only in the Dresden parts the use of the Scotch snap. From what I can gather about this ornamentation or melodic figuration as explained by David Johnson in his article treating this subject (contained in the New Grove Dictionary of Music & Musicians,) its use in the 18th century (an example by Handel is given, but none by Bach) had primarily rustic or naïve associations, certainly not anything that Bach would have in mind for such a serious sacred work as the Mass in B Minor. What else does that leave us to compare? Can you cite a number of clear instances (by mvt. by measure number (NBA score preferred), type of part, which notes within the measure) so that I can determine just what it is that Smend may have ‘conveniently suppressed’ in order to bolster his personal viewpoint on these matters? Smend’s deliberate negligence of the Dresden parts is certainly important enough for all of us to know about. Who knows? Perhaps the NBA publishers will have to consider publishing a supplement volume to correct this grave deficiency exhibited by one of its overzealous editors.
On the other hand, however, perhaps as I have already indicated, the information is already present in the detailed variant listings contained in the KB, in which case Christoph Wolff and Harnoncourt overstated their claims about the ‘serious’ deficiencies in the NBA score and KB references.
The question of chronology only indirectly impacts the printed score in that Smend’s outdated chronology might cause him to make some editorial choices that would favor the autograph score over the parts, but he would nevertheless be obligated to include the variances between both of these sources for all scholars to see without having to examine all 21 separate parts in the Dresden set personally or in facsimile. Let’s focus on these distinct differences between Bach’s score and the Dresden set of parts without bringing in any other issues. This way we should be able to ascertain whose statements are correct, who has overstated his claim, and who has deceptively (or even carelessly) suppressed evidence to substantiate a viewpoint.
Apopos Harnoncourt, here are some morsels quoted directly from his German booklet (Collection of Essays) “Was ist Wahrheit?”
“Hier wäre zu fragen, ob es überhaupt so etwas wie eine Verpflichtung des Interpreten dem Autor gegenüber gibt…. [At this point the question could be raised, whether the interpreter should feel an obligation toward the author (composer)] „In unserem Jahrhundert…entfernte man die…Werke allein auf ihre in Noten festgeschriebene Substanz aus.“ [In our present century (20th) effort was expended in removing everything from the music except the musical notation.] Later: “Buchstabentreue ist nicht Werktreue.” [Remaining true to the letter (the precise notation) does not mean remaining truly faithful to the work itself] “Dann sind technische Details…wieder nur mehr technische Details. Sie sind für sich gesehen, wertlos, ihren Wert können sie aus dem Zusammenhang gewinnen, je nachdem, in welchem Ausmaß sie dies Werkverständnis fördern.“ [Technical details are simply nothing more than technical details. As viewed by themselves, they are worthless. Their value can only be ascertained by viewing them in context according to the degree to which they help to enhance one’s understanding of the work (composition.)] “Es gibt also keine authentische Interpretation eines Werkes von Bach….” [There is no such thing as an authentic interpretation of any work by Bach….]
Why then, as Uri indicated is Harnoncourt so critical of the NBA edition, if his genius allows him to look beyond the notation and the rather minor technical details that suddenly seem important enough to him to come down hard on the apparent lack of scholarship in the NBA:
“As for Harnoncourt: both of his recordings are based on the Neue Bach-Ausgabe, but he was openly critical of that edition – primarily for its ignorance of the Dresden parts. He therefore made some corrections to it, based on the parts (or a facsimile thereof) in 1968 or '69.”
Uri states: < That's nonsense. In this particular case, Harnoncourt is not even a renegade -- in fact, he represents musicological ORTHODOXY! >
Someone who says, “Buchstabentreue ist nicht Werktreue,” is in my book not a ‘representative of musicological orthodoxy’ but rather an iconoclastic renegade among musicians and musicologists. On the one hand, he wants the preserve as an ultimate prerogative the ability to interpret freely (an attitude that would allow him to use any reasonably acceptable edition of a work), but, on the other hand, “Buchstabentreue” involving what you now term as insignificant (not as significant as the cadenza of the 5th Brandenburg) variants between Bach’s autograph score and the Dresden set of parts suddenly becomes very important to Harnoncourt so that he becomes embroiled in musicological arguments involving tiny details (the Rifkin vs. Harnoncourt in ‘vehement contradictions,’ as you indicate.)
What is important to me now is to determine the extent of Smend’s alleged culpability in a musicological crime, that of simply disregarding, whether intentional or not, one of the most important autograph sources of BWV 232.
Bradley Lehman wrote (June 17, 2002):
< Thomas Braatz wrote: (...) Uri, you mention as an aurally evident, very distinctive difference noted only in the Dresden parts the use of the Scotch snap. From what I can gather about this ornamentation or melodic figuration as explained by David Johnson in his article treating this subject (contained in the New Grove Dictionary of Music & Musicians,) its use in the 18th century (an example by Handel is given, but none by Bach) had primarily rustic or naïve associations, certainly not anything that Bach would have in mind for such a serious sacred work as the Mass in B Minor. What else does that leave us to compare? (...) >
I think that the characterization of this "Lombard" rhythm (pairs of quick notes: semiquaver followed by a dotted quaver) as "Scotch snap" is a much too-limiting way of looking at it. The rustic/naive/Scotch sound is only *one* way among many.
Good musicians will pick an amount of inequality (of timing, weighting, coloration, and articulation, all together) that fits the character of any given moment.
Here are some English words that have different degrees of inequality in them: rather, tether, butter, bottle, mother, collar, dollar, miller, candle, carrot, bubble, monkey, puddle, bunny, other, apple, kettle. Pronouncthe words in that list yourself, or give it to anyone else to do, and you'll get a wide variety of performances. The two syllables have different amounts of articulation, volume, and time. There is no single fixed "right" way to pronounce all those words, immutably; everybody will emphasize slightly different things. And if you say the same word several times in succession, you'll probably vary it somewhat as well. And any of these words will get a different pronunciation in the context of a sentence than it will get when spoken in isolation....
And any of those words could be notated in musical symbols as two quasi-equal quavers (slurred together as a pair), or as the "Lombard" rhythm which looks less equal than that (first syllable short, second syllable somewhat longer). They'd all look the same as one another on a page of music; but there's such a range of possibilities!
That's the rhythm we're dealing with in the flute part of the "Domine Deus" in the B Minor Mass.
(This exercise works in other languages, too, of course. Just make any suitable list of two-syllable words, picking a variety of consonants and vowels.)
The "Scotch snap" character is the sharp kind, like the way that one would say "kettle" or "bottle," drawing out the L semi-vowel much longer than the first syllable's vowel, and with a pretty strong articulation at the beginning of both syllables.
At the other extreme are words such as "miller" and "tether" and "other"...typically less snap to those, yes?
-----
As a little comparison, I checked eight of my favorite recordings to hear what they do as a basic approach to this rhythm in the "Domine Deus."
Harnoncourt 1 (Vienna Boys' Choir, c1968...): gentle, only slightly unequal
Harnoncourt 2 (Schoenberg-Chor, 1986): much more pointing but still a predominantly gentle character; the inequality draws attention to itself
Leonhardt: almost equal...reading the notated slurs without trying to emphasize much more inequality than that
Herreweghe 1 (1989): almost equal...ditto
Herreweghe 2 (1998): unequal but very subtle, noticeable on careful listening but not drawing undue attention to itself
Parrott: more strongly pointed than Harnoncourt 2, but more varied during the movement, more flexibility
Klemperer: evenly, making almost nothing of the slurs either
Scherchen: fairly strong articulation of the slurs, and slight inequality; medium-aggressive staccato on the flute's other notes that are not under slurs
The approach in Herreweghe 2 sounds "just right" to me. It's varied throughout the movement, more or less, however the player feels it should go for any given moment. It doesn't beat us over the head with anything musicological, to make any didactic point. It's just easy-flowing music.
But I also enjoy listening to the approaches that are on either side of that: more pointed, or less pointed, as long as it fits the prevailing character of the movement as a whole. All of these can and do work beautifully. (But Harnoncourt 2 sounds to me like a didactic exercise after a while....)
Overall I think the interpretation should have a range to it, some wiggle-room, even within the same performance. To pick just one approach (whether it's pointy or rounded or square) and stick woodenly with that single sound throughout...that reduces the music to a geometric exercise. Why is consistency considered a virtue?
Should we be able to listen to a rendition and say conclusively, "Ah, they're using the Dresden parts!" or "Ah, they've never seen the Dresden parts!" ? I don't think so!
Isn't inequality a continuum, with countless shades of variation between 2+2 and 1+3, and possibly a different ratio for every given moment? How often do all the petals of a flower look exactly the same as one another? How often are ten cornstalks in a row all the same? The birds in the tree outside my window are varying their song all the time, even when they're saying the same "words" many times.
Thomas Braatz wrote (June 18, 2002):
Brad, you stated (and I agree with most of what you have written):
< There is no single fixed "right" way to pronounce all those words, immutably; everybody will emphasize slightly different things. And if you say the same word several times in succession, you'll probably vary it somewhat as well. And any of these words will get a different pronunciation in the context of a sentence than it will get when spoken in isolation....
And any of those words could be notated in musical symbols as two quasi-equal quavers (slurred together as a pair), or as the "Lombard" rhythm which looks less equal than that (first syllable short, second syllable somewhat longer). They'd all look the same as one another on a page of music; but there's such a range of possibilities! I think that the characterization of this "Lombard" rhythm (pairs of quick notes: semiquaver followed by a dotted quaver) as "Scotch snap" is a much too-limiting way of looking at it. The rustic/naive/Scotch sound is only one way among many. >
There is, however, generally a right way to spell each of these words and this is just what I am trying to distinguish: Bach gives us the exact spellings of the words with only occasional hints toward the actual pronunciation of them. (I generally believe that Bach is more precise than many composers of his period by insisting that the words be correctly spelled.) Circumstances and the expressive capabilities of the speaker ranging from a trained stage voice with much experience to that of a child just beginning to speak the words allow for the great variation in the pronunciation of the same word just as you have pointed out. Likewise there are many variable circumstances that will make one musical performance of a mvt. such as the Domine Deus differ from another. But basically the words have been spelled out correctly by Bach. It is about this 'spelling' that musicologists and performers get into heated arguments, not the expressive range of possibilities that arise from a given spelling of a word. If a performer such as Harnoncourt becomes overly concerned about the 'spellings' just as if he were a musicologist, or because he is simply repeating what he has read or heard from other musicologists, and then proceeds to throw overboard whatever he has discovered there by changing the spellings (mind you, not the range of possibilities in the pronunciation of any given word!) the result is complete confusion between the precise notation and the expressive range allowed for any given note or phrase. Somewhere I always perceive between notation and expression a limit, which, when exceeded, simply goes too far. Changing the notation so that 'collar' becomes 'dollar' changes the meaning of the word so that the composer's true intentions are no longer represented. This is the type of 'freedom' that Harnoncourt arrogates for himself on the one hand, while spending time (or heeding the advice of other musicologists) on the other hand to point out the failure of the NBA to include all the information in the Dresden set of parts. This concern for editorial detail and the absolute freedom to do whatever he deems necessary (even changing the given values of notes) are contradictory characteristics that confuse the entire music-making process. More honest indeed would be a designation such as a Bach-Stokowski (in this case Bach-Harnoncourt) arrangement so that the listener could be informed in advance that not everything is performed according to the Urtext. With Bach the Urtext should be the basis of the performance upon which the performer builds and creates a living piece of music without having to alter the notes (the spellings.) Example: If Bach writes four quarter notes in a row in a scale-like passage without a ligature or without staccato indications (and this same pattern does not have any of these markings near the beginning of the piece or section as a model which the performer can follow, then a performer would think twice before applying these markings, but they could still be played in these differing ways, or with ornamentation if suitable, but what should not occur is that all four quarter notes (now as repeanotes at the same pitch) would sound like a whole note, or the quarter notes become eighth notes with eighth-notes rests in between them, or eliminating long value notes entirely as Harnoncourt does in his secco recitative accompaniments. Bach would have written them this way, had he wanted them to be played that way. This is where Harnoncourt usually exceeds the limits of Bach's notation system and disregards the Urtext, which he sometimes considers very important, but at other times deliberately disregards. Harnoncourt can be very inconsistent and illogical.
< Why is consistency considered a virtue? >
I love consistency in fugal entries, for instance, when the separate vocal parts emulate the expression (style, phrasing, dynamics) of the voices that begin the fugue. The same happens when both violins in the famous double concerto become as one, answering each other in the same way (not trying to be overtly different or to accent egocentric characteristics.) They listen intently not only for their own performance, but carefully for the subtle variations in tone that the other player creates. It is as though these artists, vocal or instrumental, sacrifice a part of their individuality in order to unite in a greater common cause. Consistency can be thrilling, but there is a delicate balance to be maintained here: too much individuality - no good, too much sameness (Jascha Heifitz playing both parts, Wynton Marsalis playing all ?? parts himself) - also no good. It's the sacrifice of chaotic individual expression for a harmonizing consistency of tone and manner of playing or singing that moves me. When all members of a choir attack precisely and consistently the initial chords in a musical phrase of a chorale, and when the notes they sing are perfectly in tune and blend with each other (another form of consistency) without revealing the strange timbres of individual voices, then I begin to perceive a unity that is greater than its parts. There is no place for inconsistency here. A choir may not consistently sound the same from performance to performance, but the effort toward consistency is the ideal which the members of the choir are always attempting to achieve.
I like the idea that the buttons on my shirt are all the same size. I don't have to worry about them fitting the button holes improperly. With fancy buttons made of shell, I can even lose myself in admiring the subtle iridescent patterns that they radiate. Thus I can appreciate the differing qualities in each, but I can completely rely upon the fact that I won't have to struggle with them early in the morning when I am in a hurry to go somewhere. Just imagine a shirt where reliable consistency is replaced with excessive individualistic expression, where the buttons adjust their size to however they happen to feel on that day. That is what a Harnoncourt Bach phrase would be like: one button would be so large that it wouldn't go through the button hole (I'd have to get a pair of scissors to enlarge the hole), and the next button would be much too small (so that I'd have to sew up a portion of the buttonhole.)
Now I suppose someone will again point out how I have maligned poor Mr. Harnoncourt. If he had not made himself so conspicuous with his now almost manneristic style of performance and his deprecatory comments on the lack of scholarship that went into the BWV 232 NBA edition, he certainly would not be the recurring object of my discussion.
Continue on Part 7
|
