(Fafner coming out of his cave with a big yawn)....
Oh, hi! The St-John, hmm? Well, let me start by saying it's my favourite large-scale Bach choral work. The Christmas Oratorio is chockful with individual gems, but it's uneven. Th b Minor Mass is austere and awe-inspiring. Like Bruckner's 9th symphony it's a monument at the highest level that demands the utmost concentration from the listener. It asks as much as it gives.
My view of the two Passions is that Bach has understood their respective sources (the Matthew and John Gospels) as well as - if not better than any theologian. The Passion strucure is not exclusively made up of the Gospels' narratives. In keeping with the genre's well-established tradition, it intersperses the biblical verses (assigned to the Narrator, or Evangelist) with pietist arias and chorales (often sung by the congregation). Musical Passions - at least those of Bach - do not enact Parables or portray miracles. It's a stop and go structure, the narratives prodding the music along, with arias and chorales allowing time for reflexion and musical (spiritual) expression.
In keeping with its source, the Matthew Passion leans heavily towards the 'public' Jesus - his Ministry among the Jews, his sermons, miracles etc. It's very much a spiritual spectacle. As such, its demands are quite unusual: in terms of length, the number of soloists, the choral forces, etc. To this day, Passion plays are still enacted with the same kind of emphasis on "Christ (the Messiah) among us" POV.
Totally different is the St-John Gospel. It skips many events, sermons, parables etc that Matthew scrupulously describes. Remember that Mathew was addressing a jewish audience with the clear aim of demonstrating that everything Jesus said and did proved him to be the Messiah Jews had been waiting for - thereby accomplishing the Scriptures. John, writing much later, was recollecting facts and personal memories long after Christ's death. He couldn't be bothered with that kind of proof by accumulation dear to Matthew. Therefore his narrative is more direct, often very dramatic. He concentrates on key issues and links them directly to the Eternal God (read John 1 for the key to this unique POV).
It's therefore not surprising that Bach's St-John Passion is shorter, more direct and more dramatic than the Matthew. Choral numbers are less numerous, but they can pack enormous punch: the first and last ones are extraordinarily dramatic and affecting. The arias are uniformly sublime. Bach wrote the Evangelist's part differently. Instead of separating the numbers, it
binds them. There is a very strong sense of forward motion throughout. Any production that fails to find the right balance of drama, forward motion and fervour of utterance will fail.
Recordings of the St-John Passion have been on my shelves for more than 3 decades. I'm open to various approaches, but while in the St-Matthew a weak link will not sink the project, the St-John is unforgiving to musical or dramatic weakness. In it, Bach transports us to the celestial spheres from the word go (the gripping, engulfing opening chorus). Any hint of human sloppiness brings it crashing down and destroys the effect. That could be a bovine Evangelist, a braying chorus, a meowing soprano, a croaking tenor, an out of tune orchestra, and worst of all a too churchly approach from the conductor. Fervour and intensity, coupled with impeccable vocalism and a strong musical leadership are a must. Note, too, that the winds have much more to do, and acquire an almost vocal personality in this work.
These specific attributes are seldom united. One has to be happy with recordings that have them, and adjust our sensibilities to the aesthetic on display. IOW it doesn't matter if it's HIP or not, with well-known or unknown soloists. The versions that have always provided me with the most pleasure are the Forster already mentioned, the Jochum (Concertgebouw, on Philips), and the Hungaroton under Lehel. I've never warmed to the Gardiner (had it, sold it). I've extensively sampled quite a few others and despite very good things here and there, the conclusion remains the same: duly accounted for, found wanting, and discarded.
(edited for typo - no new material;)
