Topic: The Bach Cantatas

[milk]

Three recordings I didn’t know previously. I wanted to find small scale HIP recordings of these (the Kozena recordings has BWV 170).

[milk]

Montreal Baroque are more thrilling in opening the chorus than Kuijken. I still like the old Richter more than either of them, despite the bad sound - he’s got Schreier and FiDi and the choir sing their hearts out.

I’m starting to see what you mean by the emotion of the voices. I also appreciate the flexibility of Montreal. There’s a different emotional register there. It’s often very good. Is that series done? I hope there’s more to come but maybe not.
I’m also starting to listen to countertenors. In the Suzuki, I can see why he sticks by Blaze (Lenhardt featured him too - maybe in a late recording). Blaze has a tonal power and consistency that altos sometimes can’t generate. I still like the paired down approach. I think Colln and Ricercar need to get on my playlist.

[milk]

BWV 78 has a very jolly aria. I like this cantata. Here’s another OVPP that I didn’t know existed.
I had never heard “Nach dir, herr verlanget mich” before. What a surprising work of art. Bach is so inventive, it’s like he never runs out of ideas.

[milk]

A new release.

[milk]

I've been listening to this. This is a wonderful recording with wonderful cantatas, full of life, grandeur and beauty.

[71 dB]

I've been listening to this. This is a wonderful recording with wonderful cantatas, full of life, grandeur and beauty.

I bet. I really like Ricercar Consort and Mirare as a label. 

[Yabetz]

Unashamedly and unapologetically Richter and Rilling. I cherish the box sets I have of both those conductors. With the exception of Suzuki and some Gardiner here and there, HIP doesn't do it for me.

[milk]

Unashamedly and unapologetically Richter and Rilling. I cherish the box sets I have of both those conductors. With the exception of Suzuki and some Gardiner here and there, HIP doesn't do it for me.

I just love the sound of baroque - unless we're talking about abstract work like Bach's keyboard oeuvre. Maybe i'll try a non-HIP cantata some day. I revel in the sound of the baroque baroque world - baroque instruments and the way they're played. I'm not sure I could sit through a modern version of a cantata.

[Yabetz]

I just love the sound of baroque - unless we're talking about abstract work like Bach's keyboard oeuvre. Maybe i'll try a non-HIP cantata some day. I revel in the sound of the baroque baroque world - baroque instruments and the way they're played. I'm not sure I could sit through a modern version of a cantata.

How do you know it's Baroque? HIP is as much 20th century modernism as anything. Which is not to say it can't be interesting as *one* possible approach. But it isn't the only "real" way.

[milk]

How do you know it's Baroque? HIP is as much 20th century modernism as anything. Which is not to say it can't be interesting as *one* possible approach. But it isn't the only "real" way.

I’m not really interested in what’s “real,” and arguments about whether or not current representations of the baroque match what things may have sounded like are certainly lively. I can only have a degree of confidence that the word is meaningful. I have some level of confidence that Bach’s music played by a leading HIP orchestra sounds more like it did in 1720 than it does by most modern orchestras that might stick a Brandenburg before a Beethoven symphony. But if I’m wrong, it doesn’t matter to me much. I like the sound of gamba. I like the sound of baroque violins and cellos, etc., the way they’re played today by leading HIP performers. It’s not ideological; I just love the aesthetic, the style, etc. But I still keep my ears open and try to be sensitive to a sound I might enjoy, wherever it comes from. But I can’t really help it if I’m very turned off vibrato in violin playing, for example. It’s a subjective taste thing. Whether or not what the research and technology and interpretation has produced, vis a vis playing the music, is authentically historical, isn’t very important in the end - though to me it’s the real innovation. If you want to call it modern, instead of innovative, that doesn’t effect me.

[DavidW]

Unashamedly and unapologetically Richter and Rilling. I cherish the box sets I have of both those conductors. With the exception of Suzuki and some Gardiner here and there, HIP doesn't do it for me.

I also love those conductors, especially Richter.  Richter and Rilling represented the first steps towards HIP.  They deliberately tried to move away from the romanticized big band approach.  They might sound traditional compared to current PI recordings but that wasn't their intention.

Speaking of big band Bach, I recently relistened to Klemperer's Mass in B minor.  Klemperer absolutely loved that work and it truly shows in the performance.  It is not for most people on this thread, but if you haven't heard it you might enjoy it.

[Que]

I’m not really interested in what’s “real,” and arguments about whether or not current representations of the baroque match what things may have sounded like are certainly lively. I can only have a degree of confidence that the word is meaningful. I have some level of confidence that Bach’s music played by a leading HIP orchestra sounds more like it did in 1720 than it does by most modern orchestras that might stick a Brandenburg before a Beethoven symphony. But if I’m wrong, it doesn’t matter to me much. I like the sound of gamba. I like the sound of baroque violins and cellos, etc., the way they’re played today by leading HIP performers. It’s not ideological; I just love the aesthetic, the style, etc. But I still keep my ears open and try to be sensitive to a sound I might enjoy, wherever it comes from. But I can’t really help it if I’m very turned off vibrato in violin playing, for example. It’s a subjective taste thing. Whether or not what the research and technology and interpretation has produced, vis a vis playing the music, is authentically historical, isn’t very important in the end - though to me it’s the real innovation. If you want to call it modern, instead of innovative, that doesn’t effect me.

It is hard to explain or to objectify, and we indeed don't have to.    But rest assured: I feel ya!

[(: premont :)]

I’m not really interested in what’s “real,” and arguments about whether or not current representations of the baroque match what things may have sounded like are certainly lively. I can only have a degree of confidence that the word is meaningful. I have some level of confidence that Bach’s music played by a leading HIP orchestra sounds more like it did in 1720 than it does by most modern orchestras that might stick a Brandenburg before a Beethoven symphony. But if I’m wrong, it doesn’t matter to me much. I like the sound of gamba. I like the sound of baroque violins and cellos, etc., the way they’re played today by leading HIP performers. It’s not ideological; I just love the aesthetic, the style, etc. But I still keep my ears open and try to be sensitive to a sound I might enjoy, wherever it comes from. But I can’t really help it if I’m very turned off vibrato in violin playing, for example. It’s a subjective taste thing. Whether or not what the research and technology and interpretation has produced, vis a vis playing the music, is authentically historical, isn’t very important in the end - though to me it’s the real innovation. If you want to call it modern, instead of innovative, that doesn’t effect me.

I feel in the same way and could not have put it better than you.

[Yabetz]

I’m not really interested in what’s “real,” and arguments about whether or not current representations of the baroque match what things may have sounded like are certainly lively. I can only have a degree of confidence that the word is meaningful. I have some level of confidence that Bach’s music played by a leading HIP orchestra sounds more like it did in 1720 than it does by most modern orchestras that might stick a Brandenburg before a Beethoven symphony.

Well I would too...if that's the choice, but it isn't.

But if I’m wrong, it doesn’t matter to me much. I like the sound of gamba. I like the sound of baroque violins and cellos, etc., the way they’re played today by leading HIP performers. It’s not ideological; I just love the aesthetic, the style, etc.

That's probably where HIP loses me. I don't care much for the sound of period instruments, except maybe the Baroque cello -- but I would much rather hear the modern variety. Oh and I do prefer the sound of the Baroque oboe.
But I just canNOT abide countertenors. I've just never understood what virtue there is in putting Bach's music under constraints that he may have hated.

But I still keep my ears open and try to be sensitive to a sound I might enjoy, wherever it comes from. But I can’t really help it if I’m very turned off vibrato in violin playing, for example.

I agree there. I don't like continuous vibrato at all, but I also don't like the (to me) dead, flat, wheezy "period" style of playing. And we have no clear idea whether the music was played at the arbitrarily chosen A=415 or 430 or 445.

[milk]

It is hard to explain or to objectify, and we indeed don't have to.    But rest assured: I feel ya!

I feel in the same way and could not have put it better than you.

Thanks for the comments!

Oh and I do prefer the sound of the Baroque oboe.
But I just canNOT abide countertenors.

I’m trying to learn to like countertenors. Kuijken doesn’t use countertenors in his series BTW.