Best Bach Complete Cantatas Box

[James]

? ? ? ? ? ?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I don't have a complete set by any one conductor but a generous helping from many. So I chose "other(s)":

Herreweghe
Coin
Gardiner
Rilling
Suzuki

[aligreto]

Gardiner

[kishnevi]

I have Gardiner, Rilling, and Leonhardt-Harnoncourt.

Of the three, I much prefer Gardiner.  Of what I've heard from the others, nothing has made me feel they are better than his, although they may be equal to him.

[Turner]

Rilling. I´ve had the Gardiner 23CD set & own most of the Karl Richter recordings, plus owned a good deal of the Leusink ones but got rid of them.

[Ken B]

It isn't close. Suzuki.

[Marc]

I don't have a complete set by any one conductor but a generous helping from many. So I chose "other(s)":

Herreweghe
Coin
Gardiner
Rilling
Suzuki

I'm not that fond of the old-fashioned Bach, so I prefer HIP/PI or HIP-influenced performances.
And I do like Herreweghe and Coin, too.
And Milnes, Kuijken, Junghänel, Pierlot, et cetera and et al.

But from the integrals (so far), I still think that Leonhardt and Harnoncourt offer the most expressive, thoughful and credible set.
Some (or even many) may dislike the boy sopranos, well, I don't. Most of them doing are doing a very good job IMO.
Paul Esswood was a great countertenor, René Jacobs had a very flexible voice in his younger years, Kurt Equiluz and Max van Egmond were both very impressive Bach singers, and Ruud van der Meer is mostly very reliable, too.
The quality of interpretation stays on level, the quality of playing improves. The same goes for Koopman, whilst Suzuki, for instance, is getting more slick and smooth during his journey. Gardiner's set is live, but the overall quality is truly impressive. Of course there are ups and downs, but I like these 'later' recordings better than many of his earlier studio cantata work for Deutsche Grammophon.
I don't own the integral Rilling, but I do have about 20 discs, and I don't think I'm ever going to buy the entire set. I do admire some great voices from the past, but in most cases Rilling's approach just doesn't seem to work for me anymore.

All of this of course being very personal and subjective, and I do realize that many Bach lovers and listeners will just shake their heads in disbelief, but, there you have it: I like the Leonhardt/Harnoncourt box best!

[San Antone]

I have never wanted to have more than one of the huge block sets of the entire cantatas, but these two are the best ones, imo.  One for absolute completeness at a budget price and the other for quality:

For cost = the Brilliant set by Pieter Jan Leusink

Not 100% "Complete" but all the cantatas for the Liturgical Year, andhaving the best sound and best interpretation (period instruments and OVPP) = Kuijken

The other big sets are on Spotify anyway.

[Dee Sharp]

I have quite a few individual recordings by Gardiner, Suzuki, Rilling and Herreweghe. I listen to Gardiner the most and Rilling the least, so picked "other".

[James]

No one seems familiar with the Koopman box?
Generally in my findings, his Bach is very good.

[kishnevi]

No one seems familiar with the Koopman box?
Generally in my findings, his Bach is very good.

And very expensive, whenever I have gone looking for it.

I must admit that my view of Leonhardt/Harnoncourt is influenced by my general aversion to boy sopranos.

[aligreto]

I must admit that my view of Leonhardt/Harnoncourt is influenced by my general aversion to boy sopranos.

I must admit to having a sometimes, but not always, similar aversion. However, when one can get beyond this the Leonhardt/Harnoncourt versions are very good. I always think that Gardiner [my own personal favourite] owes a fair bit to their legacy. Gardiner, however, has the advantage of of a truly wonderful choir as well as the taut, sometimes electric live performances.

[Marc]

No one seems familiar with the Koopman box?
Generally in my findings, his Bach is very good.

I am 'familiar' with him:
The quality of interpretation stays on level, the quality of playing improves. The same goes for Koopman, whilst Suzuki, for instance, is getting more slick and smooth during his journey.

Overall, Koopman is a solid choice, and during the years he's gained ground on Suzuki in my book, but the remarkable thing is: whilst he can be very playful and virtuoso in Bach's instrumental works (sometimes even too much), he's much more restrained and severe in Bach's religious vocal works (sometimes even too much). And yes, his set is expensive. But a far far far (and far) better choice still than the inexpensive Leusink, whose messy set I just don't like.
My tuppence worth of course.

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

Rilling. I´ve had the Gardiner 23CD set & own most of the Karl Richter recordings, plus owned a good deal of the Leusink ones but got rid of them.

It's interesting. I learned to love these (and other Bach works) because of Karl Richter's performances, and yet, for all the years I've been on GMG, I have never once (that I can remember) seen a thread on Karl ("the other Richter" we could call him!). I have a few of the large LP sets of his, as well as some of the CDs and the B minor Mass. Although HIP purists will look down their noses at his performances, and the size of the forces employed, I still find them to be very fine musically, and very much congruent with the spirit of the music. Many, but not all HIP performances cut the melodic lines all to hell and sound quite anemic by comparison--historically defensible maybe, but not what I enjoy listening to. Some of the soloists, incl. Dietrich Fischer Dieskau, Edith Mathis really outclass many if not most other soloists I have heard in these works. Koopman is quite good as well, IMO.

In any case, I am curious to know how many here have listened to all 212 (?) cantatas.
As much as I would like to get a complete set, I know that I would likely never listen to even half of them--not enough time sadly.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I'm not that fond of the old-fashioned Bach, so I prefer HIP/PI or HIP-influenced performances.
And I do like Herreweghe and Coin, too.
And Milnes, Kuijken, Junghänel, Pierlot, et cetera and et al.

But from the integrals (so far), I still think that Leonhardt and Harnoncourt offer the most expressive, thoughful and credible set.
Some (or even many) may dislike the boy sopranos, well, I don't. Most of them doing are doing a very good job IMO.
Paul Esswood was a great countertenor, René Jacobs had a very flexible voice in his younger years, Kurt Equiluz and Max van Egmond were both very impressive Bach singers, and Ruud van der Meer is mostly very reliable, too.
The quality of interpretation stays on level, the quality of playing improves. The same goes for Koopman, whilst Suzuki, for instance, is getting more slick and smooth during his journey. Gardiner's set is live, but the overall quality is truly impressive. Of course there are ups and downs, but I like these 'later' recordings better than many of his earlier studio cantata work for Deutsche Grammophon.
I don't own the integral Rilling, but I do have about 20 discs, and I don't think I'm ever going to buy the entire set. I do admire some great voices from the past, but in most cases Rilling's approach just doesn't seem to work for me anymore.

All of this of course being very personal and subjective, and I do realize that many Bach lovers and listeners will just shake their heads in disbelief, but, there you have it: I like the Leonhardt/Harnoncourt box best!

Sensible. I don't agree with all of it but hard to argue.

But I will say, if "old-fashioned" means I don't have to listen to OVPP or boy sopranos (or God forbid, both ) then more power to "old-fashioned"!

Some of Rilling's singers may indeed seem "overly operatic" but I'm not sure I'd put him in the "old-fashioned" category. For me that's Klemperer, Furtwängler, maybe even Karl Richter, simply because of their tendency to slowness (and "bigness", I suppose). Rilling simply isn't that slow or big.

But one thing to note about "slowness and bigness": it shouldn't be confused with a wholesale heist of the sincerity, or feeling, in the music, which is fundamentally what the music is all about.

To go out on a limb, it's my view that the pursuit for "correctness" has jaded many a listener to what the recordings of the past have to offer. That's unfortunate.

And to go even further out on the limb, I'm not convinced in the least that OVPP is a workable alternative, assuming of course that OVPP was intended as a corrective to "wrong-headed" (old-fashioned) performances. To me OVPP creates a serious imbalance in the cantata - a gaping hole, really - since the chorus is essentially excised. I'd rather have something in the way of massed voices there than practically nothing. To me the OVPP pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction from "old-fashioned".   

Of course, I can't - and won't - go so far as to say OVPP excises feeling, or sincerity, from the cantata, but to me it surely dampens it. To my ears anyway....    

[Dancing Divertimentian]

It's interesting. I learned to love these (and other Bach works) because of Karl Richter's performances, and yet, for all the years I've been on GMG, I have never once (that I can remember) seen a thread on Karl ("the other Richter" we could call him!). I have a few of the large LP sets of his, as well as some of the CDs and the B minor Mass. Although HIP purists will look down their noses at his performances, and the size of the forces employed, I still find them to be very fine musically, and very much congruent with the spirit of the music. Many, but not all HIP performances cut the melodic lines all to hell and sound quite anemic by comparison--historically defensible maybe, but not what I enjoy listening to. Some of the soloists, incl. Dietrich Fischer Dieskau, Edith Mathis really outclass many if not most other soloists I have heard in these works. Koopman is quite good as well, IMO.

Ah, see my post above!

[Marc]

Sensible. I don't agree with all of it but hard to argue.

But I will say, if "old-fashioned" means I don't have to listen to OVPP or boy sopranos (or God forbid, both ) then more power to "old-fashioned"!

Some of Rilling's singers may indeed seem "overly operatic" but I'm not sure I'd put him in the "old-fashioned" category. For me that's Klemperer, Furtwängler, maybe even Karl Richter, simply because of their tendency to slowness (and "bigness", I suppose). Rilling simply isn't that slow or big.

But one thing to note about "slowness and bigness": it shouldn't be confused with a wholesale heist of the sincerity, or feeling, in the music, which is fundamentally what the music is all about.

To go out on a limb, it's my view that the pursuit for "correctness" has jaded many a listener to what the recordings of the past have to offer. That's unfortunate.

And to go even further out on the limb, I'm not convinced in the least that OVPP is a workable alternative, assuming of course that OVPP was intended as a corrective to "wrong-headed" (old-fashioned) performances. To me OVPP creates a serious imbalance in the cantata - a gaping hole, really - since the chorus is essentially excised. I'd rather have something in the way of massed voices there than practically nothing. To me the OVPP pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction from "old-fashioned".   

Of course, I can't - and won't - go so far as to say OVPP excises feeling, or sincerity, from the cantata, but to me it surely dampens it. To my ears anyway....    

I agree that Rilling is a mix, I like some of his recordings and I certainly like Augér, Watkinson (despite vibrato), Baldin, Equiluz, Heldwein and other voices... but I do prefer the HIP-approach of many others, mainly because of the way they express the things they are singing (about). A lot of this has been discussed in the 'casual' Bach cantatas thread (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=117.0) and I do not have the time to repeat myself entirely. I also have my reservations against the historical 'truth' of the OVPP-theory, but as long as the voices blend, I can perfectly enjoy them.

All in all, I was mainly reacting to James's original question... without really wanting to start another debate about the 'what's needed, required or even 'justified' in performances of Bach's cantatas in a historical/musicological/desirable sense', even though it's a legitimate and interesting discussion.

On a personal note though: from childhood on I liked the HIP-recordings most, so my preferences aren't really musicologically based. But, by reading some stuff about Bach and his time, I came to understand better why I apparantly like that 'historical' approach. I also think it's helpful to listen to older music than Bach, because it gives the listener a chance to listen to Bach, Händel, Haydn or Mozart with less '19th-century ears'. And to me, many 'old-fashioned' Bach recordings are still suffering from that 19th-century approach. As if things only got better after him, and his music needed to be enlarged, slowed down or whatever. To me, Bach isn't the beginning of classical music, but he's a Class of his Own. And to me, his work sounds great already, if not better, with the amount of forces he used himself. His work also sounds great, if not better, without the 19th-century dramatic approach in a romantic way, with more legato's, diminuendo's and crescendo's, ritardando's and ritenuto's that weren't customary in baroque music.

That's just my opinion, but of course it shouldn't be a law for each and every musician or music lover. Everybody should enjoy their 'own' Bach. I'm not part of the HIP-army that condemns each and every non-HIP performance. Many music lovers like Bach in a different way, and his music is so good that, in the end, it survives each and every approach. Anyone who likes Richter, Klemperer, Karajan... please do. But it's just not my cup of Bach.

Back to the orginal question: I prefer Leonhardt/Harnoncourt, because I like their music as speech approach, which makes their cantatas sound like musical sermons.
Koopman, Suzuki and Gardiner join 2nd place, I have my reservations against Rilling's approach and I don't seem to be able to enjoy Leusink's set (despite exceptions).

[Jo498]

I do not know the Richter well enough (I have two of the older multi-disc Archiv-volumes grouped for Christmas, Easter etc.) but strange as it sounds his approach could historically be considered as a kind of "proto-HIP" because it uses some historical information although the choir and the "chamber" orchestra are still big sounding ensembles and overall it sounds very different from what we think of as historically informed. (It is not complete but similar to Kuijken in covering most/all of the liturgical year.) Certainly some of the solo singers are very good.

I remember that even when I started listening to classical music in the mid/late 1980s that Richter or Rilling (or e.g. Marriner for orchestral works) was still the "standard" approach and despite more than 20 years of HIP efforts many listeners considered Harnoncourt etc. rather exotic (or even repulsive).

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

Interesting. In terms of proto-HIP, I have a Marcel DuPre disc of Bach's organ music, and the liner notes argue (in rather contorted fashion) that his style was very much historically informed. To my ears, much of it is extremely overblown and overly romantic--much more so than Richter, Münchinger, and members of that generation.

[Jo498]

I am not as informed here as others but  compared to "full blown romanticism" of Mengelberg or Furtwängler Richter uses reduced forces, harpsichord and some other features that would have been considered "informed" in the 1960s. There was also the central German tradition using boys choirs, e.g. Ramin.

As for organ playing, there were several "waves" in the 20th century, starting with Albert Schweitzer or even earlier, all claiming to recover some features of Bach's style that had not been properly heeded in the late romantic way of playing.