Bach Chamber and Instrumental music

[PaulSC]

So there's this church, Notre-Dame des Neiges on l'Alpe d'Huez. Gorgeous modern architecture if you like that sort of thing. Which I do.



The organ is by Jean Guillou, 1978.




And a certain Emilia Baranowska (cello) and Jean-Paul Imbert (organ) recorded a Bach program there, including the three gamba sonatas and the first solo cello suite.



Luckily I thought to preview before purchasing.

It's truly awful.

Tempos are slower than slow, the two performers are regularly a quarter-tone off pitch from each other.

How did this get released? Maybe they were as seduced by the setting and the repertoire as I nearly was.

[Opus106]

Re: their MO, I'm curious to know if the Kuijken Bros. had a reason to use a violin and harpsichord, when Bach specifically has titled it Canon 2 a 2 Violini in unisono? (You can listen to the track here.)

[Antoine Marchand]

Re: their MO, I'm curious to know if the Kuijken Bros. had a reason to use a violin and harpsichord, when Bach specifically has titled it Canon 2 a 2 Violini in unisono? (You can listen to the track here.)

It's explained in the liner notes of the original release, dear Navneeth (I had the same doubt some years ago because that canon is one of my favorites):

It has often been doubted whether Bach ever planned the Musical Offering to be performed in full. The complex canons, in particular, are frequently regarded as mere theoretical demonstrations of the composer's art. Apart from the musical value found in these pieces no less than in the rest of the work, most of the canons feature performance and phrasing marks (trills, slurs, ties and dotting), and scoring is also specified for two of the canons [nos. 4 and 16 in this recording]. The instrumentation chosen for the individual canons poses no great problem if the instruments Bach specifies are taken as a starting-point: in the trio sonata and canon perpetuus [no. 16] that follows it, Bach expressly calls for flute, violin and continuo (the latter consisting of the harpsichord and probably a cello or viola da gamba as well). It turns out that all the canons can be performed with these four instruments, and further pointers are provided by the key and the range of the part. For one canon, the addition of a second violin is in fact a misinterpretation of the heading: the first edition gives the title as "Canon a 2 Violin: in Unisono". This is often understood to mean a canon for two violins, both of which enter on the same note -the colon after the word "violin" being taken either as a misprint for an "i", or as an abbreviation for the same letter, in both cases producing the plural form "violini". But all likelihood, the words need to be grouped differently, reading "Canon a 2: Violin in Unisono", meaning a two-part canon (just as the other canons are "a 2" or "a 4"), with a violin playing the second part of the canon, and entering on the same note as the first part. The first part of the canon is played by the treble line in the harpsichord, since both the flute and the viola da gamba/cello are out of the question for reasons of texture. The position of this canon within the group suggests that the instrumentation of the canons that follow it is intended to follow the same principle, i. e. the harpsichord plays two parts, while the third is given to one of the other instruments, according to register. (For the fuga canonica [no. 8], we even have written evidence of this from pen of C.P.E. Bach.

[Opus106]

It's explained in the liner notes of the original release, dear Navneeth (I had the same doubt some years ago because that canon is one of my favorites):

Thank you so much, Antoine. An interesting suggestion from Kuijken. It is one of my favourite canons from the lot too, and I find the interplay between the violins to be deliciously beautiful. And listening to the sample, the interpretation sounded a bit jarring.

I wonder if the track on CD cover is listed as Canon 2 a 2 Violini in unisono, which, if I'm not mistaken, explicitly describes the use of two violins.

[Antoine Marchand]

It is one of my favourite canons from the lot too, and I find the interplay between the violins to be deliciously beautiful. And listening to the sample, the interpretation sounded a bit jarring.

Same opinion here. If those two violins are not authentic, they should be. Anyway, that performance by the Kuijkens is simply outstanding and a must-have. 

I wonder if the track on CD cover is listed as Canon 2 a 2 Violini in unisono, which, if I'm not mistaken, explicitly describes the use of two violins.

That track is listed:

"4. Canon a 2, Violin: in Unisono [0:49]"

[Opus106]

Same opinion here. If those two violins are not authentic, they should be. Anyway, that performance by the Kuijkens is simply outstanding and a must-have. 

That track is listed:

"4. Canon a 2, Violin: in Unisono [0:49]"

Thanks, yet again. That box, despite its lacking those liner notes, is already on my wish-list, and I'll perhaps buy it at Presto's sale.

[prémont]

Same opinion here. If those two violins are not authentic, they should be.
That track is listed:
"4. Canon a 2, Violin: in Unisono [0:49]"

And same opinion here. The music cries out for two violins.

In this case I do not find Kuijken´s interpretation valid.
If only one violin was meant the title should be:

Canon a 2  Violino in unisono.

The title in Ed. Peters urtext edition (Ludwig Landshoff ed.) is:

Canon 2 a 2  Violini in unisono

Maybe an "i " can be misinterpreted as a ":" , but an "o" can not..

[Antoine Marchand]

And same opinion here. The music cries out for two violins.

In this case I do not find Kuijken´s interpretation valid.
If only one violin was meant the title should be:

Canon a 2  Violino in unisono.

The title in Ed. Peters urtext edition (Ludwig Landshoff ed.) is:

Canon 2 a 2  Violini in unisono

Maybe an "i " can be misinterpreted as a ":" , but an "o" can not..

That argument is simply unbeatable.

You are right. "Violino", not "violin" would be the right word in the context of the Musical Offering.

I have checked out the remaining tracks of Kuijken's disc and the trio sonata is titled "Sonata sopr' il Sogetto Reale a Traversa, Violino e Continuo", and the Canon perpetuus indicates "(a Traversa, Violino e Continuo)".

[FideLeo]

Kuijken's earlier recording clearly used two violins in the canon a 2 piece referred to above.



Don't know what made him to think too hard  the second time round.

[Opus106]

Kuijken's earlier recording clearly used two violins in the canon a 2 piece referred to above.

Don't know what made him to think too hard  the second time round.

I don't know, perhaps Herr Leonhardt had a say in the matter.

[FideLeo]

I don't know, perhaps Herr Leonhardt had a say in the matter.

I seriously wouldn't rule out that possibility.  Kuijken has done great in the da spalla rediscovery, but Leonhardt strikes me as being the better musicologist of the two. 

[prémont]

I seriously wouldn't rule out that possibility.  Kuijken has done great in the da spalla rediscovery, but Leonhardt strikes me as being the better musicologist of the two. 

Certainly. And Leonhardt is credited as musical director of the "first" Kuijken version, so of course Leonhardt was to decide.

[FideLeo]

/[asin]B00005B66V[/asin]

Kuijken isn't the only one thinking to use just one violin in performing BWV 1079.

Gatti also adopts the same stance towards the 'canon 2 à 2 violin: in unissono' inscription by Bach.  Correct or not, we may see more of this option taken in the future.  It must be admitted that, seeing that the music is written on two staves just like for the keyboard, it is tempting to interpret the violin part as an add-on.  After all, the word 'trio' is nowhere to be seen. 



http://www.youtube.com/v/zIKIKTwheCc

[milk]

Has anyone checked out this recording? I guess Cocset had something called a tenor violon alla bastarda made for this recording.

[PaulSC]

Has anyone checked out this recording? I guess Cocset had something called a tenor violon alla bastarda made for this recording.

If I'm not mistaken (but I could be), the tenor violon alla bastarda is a historical instrument — a tenor viola da gamba lightly modified to permit more virtuosic performance. This is the instrument Cocset plays in the gamba sonatas. He plays them well, although he gets a bit scratchy in some fast passage-work, and I feel he's a bit too forward in the mix compared to the organ in BWV 1027. The balance is better in the other two sonatas, where Cuiller plays harpsichord. (Unhappily for me, BWV 1027 is my favorite of the sonatas by a wide margin.)

The more novel instrument on this recording is one dubbed a "viola bastarda", which Cocset plays in some of the "filler" pieces on the program. This is something of a hybrid between the older viol and the newer violin families; there is pictorial evidence for it, but no surviving historical instruments.

I have this recording (I'm a semi-completist when it comes to the Bach gamba sonatas), but I bought it as a download so I don't have the program notes. I dug up some information from George Chien's review in Fanfare 33:1. Maybe someone with notes from the recording can add to, or correct, what I said here.

[milk]

If I'm not mistaken (but I could be), the tenor violon alla bastarda is a historical instrument — a tenor viola da gamba lightly modified to permit more virtuosic performance. This is the instrument Cocset plays in the gamba sonatas. He plays them well, although he gets a bit scratchy in some fast passage-work, and I feel he's a bit too forward in the mix compared to the organ in BWV 1027. The balance is better in the other two sonatas, where Cuiller plays harpsichord. (Unhappily for me, BWV 1027 is my favorite of the sonatas by a wide margin.)

The more novel instrument on this recording is one dubbed a "viola bastarda", which Cocset plays in some of the "filler" pieces on the program. This is something of a hybrid between the older viol and the newer violin families; there is pictorial evidence for it, but no surviving historical instruments.

I have this recording (I'm a semi-completist when it comes to the Bach gamba sonatas), but I bought it as a download so I don't have the program notes. I dug up some information from George Chien's review in Fanfare 33:1. Maybe someone with notes from the recording can add to, or correct, what I said here.

Thanks so much for the informative comment. I wonder if I have to get this. In the sample I listened to, It did seem like the balance was off in 1027 - as you say. I love these sonatas. I own five recordings of these including the one by Céline Frisch & Juan Manuel Quintana. Recently I got the Markus Hunninger & Paolo Pandolfo 
recording. I can see why the Pandolfo recording might not be to everyone's taste but I find it intriguing. Now I wonder if I need one more. On the samples, I like the tone of the instrument on the Gamba sonatas. But the balance...

[Antoine Marchand]

I love these sonatas. I own five recordings of these including the one by Céline Frisch & Juan Manuel Quintana. Recently I got the Markus Hunninger & Paolo Pandolfo... Now I wonder if I need one more.

I believe you know exactly the answer in the bottom of your soul: yes, of course. 

Seriously, these two versions are almost mandatory:



viola da gamba/lautenwerk



viola da gamba/fortepiano

[PaulSC]

Those recommendations look good to me, although it's hard to pick favorites from such a broad and diverse field. The Hill/Weber recording takes a bit of getting used to in my opinion; the lute-harpsichord is very bright, and Hill's long opening trill in 1027 is a bit oppressive.

Here's a recommendation, with caveats. There is a recording of the sonatas featuring what is said to be a viola bastarda! Gergely Sarkozy plays them on such an instrument (joined by Peter Ella on organ) on an album which is a bit of a circus:


Sarkozy plays all the instruments named in the subtitle, and the lute harpsichord is reportedly an instrument he built himself. The performances are spirited and great fun; the music's more introspective side comes across as well, although Sarkozy the viola bastardist (?) has a rather thin and tremulous tone. This is probably out of print and/or expensive —33 GBP at Amazon UK, I see — unless you do as I did in purchase a download from the iTunes Store. Even then, it's about twenty bucks for two CDs worth of music. Anyway, something to sample and think about.

[Antoine Marchand]

Those recommendations look good to me, although it's hard to pick favorites from such a broad and diverse field. The Hill/Weber recording takes a bit of getting used to in my opinion; the lute-harpsichord is very bright, and Hill's long opening trill in 1027 is a bit oppressive.

Do you mean this lute-harpsichord is bright compared to other lute-harpsichords, right? Because compared to a regular harpsichord is not bright at all.

I don't exactly know how many discs of these gamba sonatas I have, but I supposse some 13 or 14 and this Weber/Hill is one of my favorite versions. I loved since the first time when I heard it the superb blending between two gut-stringed instruments and the great balance between the performers. I don't almost see weak points in this performance.   

Here's a recommendation, with caveats. There is a recording of the sonatas featuring what is said to be a viola bastarda! Gergely Sarkozy plays them on such an instrument (joined by Peter Ella on organ) on an album which is a bit of a circus...

It's a beautiful set, indeed. Not perfect, but intimate and with a great sense of music-making. 

[milk]

I believe you know exactly the answer in the bottom of your soul: yes, of course. 

Seriously, these two versions are almost mandatory:



viola da gamba/lautenwerk



viola da gamba/fortepiano

I have the Hill/Weber recording. Perhaps I'll have to spend more time with it. Hmm...the Ghielmi brothers recording looks intriguing!