Bach's St. Matthew Passion

Started by Bogey, December 10, 2007, 05:56:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

DarkAngel

Quote from: Coopmv on April 25, 2010, 09:42:54 AM
BTW, did you or Elgarian buy some of those Handel Italian Cantatas on the Glossa label?  How were those performances?

Yes we both have them but while very good performances with great intimate sound, they are also "molto caro" (very expensive)

A more sane route would be to first seek out much cheaper Hyperion and Virgin CD sets that are also quite good, hard to go wrong with Handel Italian era cantata sets

Coopmv

Quote from: DarkAngel on April 25, 2010, 09:56:14 AM

Yes we both have them but while very good performances with great intimate sound, they are also "molto caro" (very expensive)

A more sane route would be to first seek out much cheaper Hyperion and Virgin CD sets that are also quite good, hard to go wrong with Handel Italian era cantata sets

I already have a few of the Handel Italian Cantatas.  I will order all 6 volumes of the Handel Italian Cantatas on Glossa at one fell swoop shortly.

DarkAngel



Finally got this overseas from UK vendor........Kiujken has gone very minimalist compared to SMP with Leonhardt 20 years ago, now has bought into Rifkin/Parrott theories doing away with proper choral group and just using 8 soloists, 2 each of:
-soprano
-alto
-tenor
-bass

The effect is very intimate more like a motet or madrigal, choral parts taken by single voices. Kuijken said he researched church records and Bach's student record info as well as financial constraints of church convince him this is most likely the manner this work was performed

Did I read somewhere Antoine Marchand was not pleased with this set.............. ???

Antoine Marchand

#223
Quote from: DarkAngel on May 24, 2010, 09:27:42 AM


Finally got this overseas from UK vendor........Kiujken has gone very minimalist compared to SMP with Leonhardt 20 years ago, now has bought into Rifkin/Parrott theories doing away with proper choral group and just using 8 soloists, 2 each of:
-soprano
-alto
-tenor
-bass

The effect is very intimate more like a motet or madrigal, choral parts taken by single voices. Kuijken said he researched church records and Bach's student record info as well as financial constraints of church convince him this is most likely the manner this work was performed

Did I read somewhere Antoine Marchand was not pleased with this set.............. ???

Hi, DA. This is just to clarify that my disappointment is not about the OVPP theory, but about this specific performance of the SMP by Kuijken and the uninspired singers chosen by him. IMHO, it's an anemic, tired, even pedestrian performance, well performed in the instrumental parts, but totally mediocre in vocal aspects. Vocally speaking its only merit is the predictable clarity of textures, but without to suggest at any moment theological heights, human pains or all that sort of things that, from a rhetorical point of view, the account of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ should suggest... This version doesn't mark any change in my previous favorites for this work (Leonhardt and Hermann Max) and I even consider it inferior to the OVPP version directed by John Butt... But that's just my opinion.  :)


DarkAngel

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on May 24, 2010, 12:41:09 PM
Hi, DA. This is just to clarify that my disappointment is not about the OVPP theory, but about this specific performance of the SMP by Kuijken and the uninspired singers chosen by him. IMHO, it's an anemic, tired, even pedestrian performance, well performed in the instrumental parts, but totally mediocre in vocal aspects. Vocally speaking its only merit is the predictable clarity of textures, but without to suggest at any moment theological heights, human pains or all that sort of things that, from a rhetorical point of view, the account of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ should suggest... This version doesn't mark any change in my previous favorites for this work (Leonhardt and Hermann Max) and I even consider this rendition as inferior to the OVPP version directed by John Butt... But that's just my opinion.  :)

AM does not beat around the bush (ha ha)
I have never been a big fan of OVPP (one voice per part) Bach vocal works, I never listen to my Parrott performances in the Virgin label boxset......just sounds too austere, like a monastary. I should have checked into this closer before purchasing, I just blindly put my money behind Kuijken

I will stick with the hybrid smaller scale forces of Gardiner, Herreweghe etc who have fuller richer sound but still have enhanced textural clarity using reduced size group over older large scale forces.

Coop
Do you like this........

Marc

#225
I might have to listen to Kuijken again, but my first impressions were positive. Far better blending chorists compared to f.i. McCreesh (all singing more or less like soloists) and Butt (uneven). Also a more severe protestantic atmosphere, like in Kuijken's own reading of the Johannes-Passion.

And if OVPP is concerned: I don't mind about it. Let them have their fun. If the performance is to my likings: bless them.

This is Bach's own handwritten document, dating from 1729, where he notes down the numbers of chorists for the four Leipzig churches: Thomaskirche, Nicolaikirche, Neue Kirche, Petrikirche.



As everyone can see, these numbers are the same as in Bach's Entwurff which he wrote a year later, a.o. complaining about the small number of chorists and instrumentalists. He wanted to have more musicians, f.i. in case of sickness, and because the level of performing wasn't always to his preferred standards.

All these documents can be viewed by scholars in a.o. the Thomanerbibliothek and the Bach Archiv in Leipzig. They contradict any proof of the so-called fact that Bach had to perform his choir music OVPP.
But the OVPP-school apparently never refers to them, or seems to be determined to give them another interpretation.
Which makes these so-called proven theories by Rifkin, Parrott, McCreesh and Kuijken rather .... odd, IMHO.

There are also a few choir lists of the 1730's and other interesting documents to see in Leipzig. They proof f.i. that not only OVPP wasn't the standard for cantatas, but that for Passion performances the first two choirs were used (= 24 singers of the Thomaskirche and Nicolaikirche) plus ALSO some singers from the third choir (of the Neue Kirche). Bach and his predecessor Johann Kuhnau weren't happy with that (probably because of the inferior quality for such a main event), but the City Council of Leipzig demanded it.

In the Netherlands, Ton Koopman (who's supported by Christoph Wolff btw) has referred several times to these docoments in interviews, and also that he has asked f.i. Rifkin and McCreesh if they knew about their existence and if they were examined by them. Reaction? According to Koopman: none. Just silence. He accuses Parott (who wrote the OVPP bible The Essential Bach Choir) of over-interpretation and incomplete quotations from original documents.

Somehow it looks as if some people want to be scholars and only mention the 'facts' that underline their own hypotheses, maybe only to create some revolution or having their names mentioned. I dunno. It's at least very strange that every evidence which contradicts their 'theories' are to be kept silent and isn't quoted or cited by these people.

No wonder that many scientists look down upon humanities fields. Apparantly it's far more easier for f.i. historians or art scholars to 'force' the facts to one's own opinion, and make so many people believe you.

premont

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on May 24, 2010, 12:41:09 PM
Hi, DA. This is just to clarify that my disappointment is not about the OVPP theory, but about this specific performance of the SMP by Kuijken and the uninspired singers chosen by him. IMHO, it's an anemic, tired, even pedestrian performance, well performed in the instrumental parts, but totally mediocre in vocal aspects. Vocally speaking its only merit is the predictable clarity of textures, but without to suggest at any moment theological heights, human pains or all that sort of things that, from a rhetorical point of view, the account of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ should suggest... This version doesn't mark any change in my previous favorites for this work (Leonhardt and Hermann Max) and I even consider it inferior to the OVPP version directed by John Butt... But that's just my opinion.  :)

Mmm, I listened to Kuijkens St. Matthew passion yesterday (first time experience), and I was indeed moved by its intimate, unaffected and immediate expression. Agree that it does not convey any deep theological interpretation and rather makes Jesus too human, but wasn´t he a human being after all? I found this unpretentious interpretation, which lacks vocal "stars"  in the lineup to be a most refreshing team-work, making me able to concentrate upon the music and the story of the passion. I am often in other recordings annoyed by the "operatic" singing of many of the vocal "stars", who steal the attention too much.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

jlaurson

Quote from: Marc on May 24, 2010, 01:40:35 PM
I might have to listen to Kuijken again, but my first impressions were positive. Far better blending chorists compared to f.i. McCreesh (all singing more or like as soloists) and Butt (uneven). Also a more severe protestantic atmosphere, like in Kuijken's own reading of the Johannes-Passion.

And if OVPP is concerned: I don't mind about it. Let them have their fun. If the performance is to my likings: bless them.

This is Bach's own handwritten document, dating from 1729, where he notes down the numbers of chorists for the four Leipzig churches: Thomaskirche, Nicolaikirche, Neue Kirche, Petrikirche.



As everyone can see, these numbers are the same as in Bach's Entwurff which he wrote a year later, a.o. complaining about the small number of chorists and instrumentalists. He wanted to have more musicians, f.i. in case of sickness, and because the level of performing wasn't always to his preferred standards.

All these documents can be viewed by scholars in a.o. the Thomanerbibliothek and the Bach Archiv in Leipzig. They contradict any proof of the so-called fact that Bach had to perform his choir music OVPP.
But the OVPP-school apparently never refers to them, or seems to be determined to give them another interpretation.
Which makes these so-called proven theories by Rifkin, Parrott, McCreesh and Kuijken rather .... odd, IMHO.

There are also a few choir lists of the 1730's and other interesting documents to see in Leipzig. They proof f.i. that not only OVPP wasn't the standard for cantatas, but that for Passion performances the first two choirs were used (= 24 singers of the Thomaskirche and Nicolaikirche) plus ALSO some singers from the third choir (of the Neue Kirche). Bach and his predecessor Johann Kuhnau weren't happy with that (probably because of the inferior quality for such a main event), but the City Council of Leipzig demanded it.

In the Netherlands, Ton Koopman (who's supported by Christoph Wolff btw) has referred several times to these docoments in interviews, and also that he has asked f.i. Rifkin and McCreesh if they knew about their existence and if they were examined by them. Reaction? According to Koopman: none. Just silence. He accuses Parott (who wrote the OVPP bible The Essential Bach Choir) of over-interpretation and incomplete quotations from original documents.

Somehow it looks as if some people want to be scholars and only mention the 'facts' that underline their own hypotheses, maybe only to create some revolution or having their names mentioned. I dunno. It's at least very strange that every evidence which contradicts their 'theories' are to be kept silent and isn't quoted or cited by these people.

No wonder that many scientists look down upon humanities fields. Apparantly it's far more easier for f.i. historians or art scholars to 'force' the facts to one's own opinion, and make so many people believe you.

I couldn't agree with you more, on absolutely every point you make. The ideological battlefield of the OVPP-movement, many of the results which I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, reminds me much of the historian's tussle when Daniel Goldhagen's book (H's Willing Executioners) came out and historians like Browning or Saperstein pointed out that he conveniently left out the single most important document that undermined his central thesis (and that he used language in specifically leading ways so as not to undermine that thesis). But then we know why Goldhagen did what he did: the more controversy, the more tenure at Harvard.  ;D What are Parrot, Butt & Rifking getting out it, other than 10, 20 more sold copies and a career in... oh... wait...
I see.  ;)

P.S. I absolutely adore Kuijken's 1-year cycle, btw., even if Koopman is still my over-all-but-nowhere-specifically favorite cantata cycle.

Marc

Yes, the world of science gets 'tricky' if scholars think that they are on a mission from God. ;)

And don't get me wrong, either: I very much enjoy the OVPP performances of f.i. Junghänel and Kuijken.

BTW: years ago, after McCreesh's SMP was recently issued, the good man was interviewed in Dutch music magazine Luister.
Of course, the interviewer wanted to know about OVPP, and McCreesh wasn't surprised that the Dutch in general and Koopman in particular didn't accept it. But IHO they were negatively influenced by their own impressive culture of large SMP performances. Because of the fact that in Britain and the USA Bach's SMP and cantatas weren't traditionally performed as much as f.i. Handel's Messiah, Britains and Americans could study things like this in a far more objective way.

If my memory doesn't fail me, the conversation about OVPP went on something like this:

Interviewer: But Bach wrote in his Entwurff that he wanted 16 singers for each choir, did he not?
McCreesh: Yes, that's what all scholars did want us to believe up to now. But they forgot that Bach was referring to all four churches in Leipzig. Which means that he was talking about 16 singers for 4 churches = 4 singers per church.

Unfortunately, the interviewer didn't make a ruin out of that statement. One has to remain polite, has one not? ;D

Anyway, I laughed my head off when I read it. So Bach is doing all this trouble & efforts and writing this large Memorandum just to explain that he explicitely needs 4 singers for each and every choir!

At that moment, thanks to mr. McCreesh, I suddenly understood why the Council had not taken Bach's Entwurff seriously! :P

Coopmv

Quote from: DarkAngel on May 24, 2010, 12:53:30 PM

AM does not beat around the bush (ha ha)
I have never been a big fan of OVPP (one voice per part) Bach vocal works, I never listen to my Parrott performances in the Virgin label boxset......just sounds too austere, like a monastary. I should have checked into this closer before purchasing, I just blindly put my money behind Kuijken

I will stick with the hybrid smaller scale forces of Gardiner, Herreweghe etc who have fuller richer sound but still have enhanced textural clarity using reduced size group over older large scale forces.

Coop
Do you like this........

I find it enjoyable, though I clearly do not think it surpasses Herreweghe's second version.

Sorin Eushayson

I'm a fan of the OVPP process and have been quite thrilled by McCreesh's Matthaus-Passion.  Whether the OVPP approach is entirely accurate or not I'm not so certain, having read convincing arguments from both sides.  However, I'd like to point out the the issue is not as clear-cut as Signore Marc has presented it; the OVPP crowd has its fair share of scholarship and proofs, as does the opposing point of view.

Bulldog

#231
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on May 24, 2010, 12:41:09 PM
Hi, DA. This is just to clarify that my disappointment is not about the OVPP theory, but about this specific performance of the SMP by Kuijken and the uninspired singers chosen by him. IMHO, it's an anemic, tired, even pedestrian performance, well performed in the instrumental parts, but totally mediocre in vocal aspects. Vocally speaking its only merit is the predictable clarity of textures, but without to suggest at any moment theological heights, human pains or all that sort of things that, from a rhetorical point of view, the account of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ should suggest...

I'm largely of the same opinion.  Tension and drama, quite lacking in the new Kiujken set, is not a product of size but interpretation.  It's a shame because the vocalists have fine voices and the orchestra plays beautifully.  Ultimately, the St. Matthew is not a work where "Bach Lite" sits well with me.  I'm ready to go back to my favorite SMP, Herreweghe I, which has all the drama and tension I could want.

Marc

#232
Quote from: Sorin Eushayson on May 24, 2010, 07:06:16 PM
I'm a fan of the OVPP process and have been quite thrilled by McCreesh's Matthaus-Passion. Whether the OVPP approach is entirely accurate or not I'm not so certain, having read convincing arguments from both sides.  However, I'd like to point out the the issue is not as clear-cut as Signore Marc has presented it; the OVPP crowd has its fair share of scholarship and proofs, as does the opposing point of view.
Sure, opinions can differ. I have no problems with that at all. For the record though, personally, I find McCreesh's SMP's one of the most boring of my SMP collection: spick and span and shallow, with bad blending choral singing.

And to me, OVPP is not a proven theory, but just an opinion. There's far too much proof against it to make it a proven theory. I don't think you'll find one single scholar of the Bach Archiv in Leipzig who believes in it.
It's f.i. a proven fact that both Kuhnau and Bach had to use between 24 up to maybe 30 singers for their Passion performances. It was decreed by the Leipzig City Council.

So, my personal opinion ;) about the one-sided OVPP theorists is: botched job.
The biggest proof they offer is: there have remained copies of only one part per voice. Which is true indeed.
But, as Alfred Dürr, Christoph Wolff and Ton Koopman have proven: in those days it was pretty normal to share one copy with three or four singers. Sure, the OVPP-theorists say there is no written proof of that in Leipzig. Sure, but this doesn't mean that it didn't happen. It happened all throughout Europe. But the OVPP-school wants to look at Leipzig as one of those solid exceptions with extremely poor musical circumstances. Whilst Leipzig was quite well-known in Germany as a centre of high musical standard; this being one of the reasons for Bach to apply for Thomaskantor .... and for Graupner btw, a renowned composer, and for the very famous Telemann .... although in the end Georg Philipp was more thinking about his wallet. ;D
The second proof is: the word 'chor' or 'chorus' means in fact 'a body of singers', not necessarily a 'choir' as we know it. So, in Leipzig there was a group of Thomasschule singers, and Bach made his choice for the performances. He's writing about 54 pupils in his Entwurff, but many of the boys had no musical talent. Which meant that in the end he selected only a very small account to sing in the cantatas and for the two main churches only 8 boys were good enough (= 2x4 = 2xOVPP).
Of course, this can be true. But it's nothing but interpretation. Interpretation of one word and then change the 'entire' ;) history of music. In the Bach Archiv there are many documents against it: they show f.i. that all four churches in Leipzig had their own choir of at least 12 to 14 singers. There you can also read comments made by Bach about the progress of some boys, and that some of those received a 'promotion' to one of the better choirs. It shows that the non-talented boys did cooperate in church services, the really bad ones only in the Petrikirche, where only homophonic singing was required. But all 50+ boys of the school participated in church singing. Which is pretty normal, because it was simply Bach's job to do that and learn these boys some musical practice. Leaving more than 30 moderate or non-talented singers out would be an impudent violation of his tasks.

Joshua Rifkin also claims that Bach had to use just one instrument per part in the continuo section. But there is f.i. a manuscript of BWV 23 in Krakow, Poland, which says per fagotti, bassoni, violoncello e clavecimbalo. Which means: at least 2 bassoons and 2 violones/contrabasses. Ton Koopman did confront him with this fact and received no answer. Apparently every proof against their theories have to remain undiscussed. Which is a bad attitude for a scholar, IMHO.

During my university years, a teacher once told me: scientific or scholastic investigation is nothing else but ;) defining a problem and a goal, then observing and registering facts, then developing a hypothesis, then observing and registering again, then finding out that the hypothesis isn't 100% correct, then beginning all over again, maybe with a slightly or even entirely different problem or goal, then observing and registering again .... et cetera et cetera. This process takes years and years and in many many cases the ultimate goal can't even be 'reached'. For a good solid theory, one has to discuss and reconsider so many things over and over again .... it's almost disencouraging and scary to even think about it before you start such an investigation.
My opinion is, that the OVPP-theorists just do not want to be disencouraged. They shook up the world of baroque music and want to hold that position. To most of them, their hypothesis is now a proven theory and no proof against it should be viewed or discussed anymore. Well, bless them, but I don't buy it.

knight66

Quote from: Marc on May 25, 2010, 05:34:51 AM
Sure, opinions can differ. I have no problems with that at all. For the record though, personally, I find McCreesh's SMP's one of the most boring of my SMP collection: spick and span and shallow, with bad blending choral singing.


I could not disagree with you more. I think the set is wonderfully sung and highly dramatic. For me it is one set I would never get rid of and the one I listen to most.

Mike
DavidW: Yeah Mike doesn't get angry, he gets even.
I wasted time: and time wasted me.

Franco

I am not interested in academic theories (and/or proofs) for or against OVPP - I just like how it sounds.  What I've got are the Kuijken cantata recordings, and they are wonderful.  I also have a stipped down B Minor Mass directed by Andrew Parrott which is very enjoyable.  The SMP using this style might interest me as well.

Marc

#235
Quote from: Marc on May 25, 2010, 05:34:51 AM
Sure, opinions can differ. I have no problems with that at all. For the record though, personally, I find McCreesh's SMP's one of the most boring of my SMP collection: spick and span and shallow, with bad blending choral singing.
Quote from: knight on May 25, 2010, 08:18:38 AM
I could not disagree with you more. I think the set is wonderfully sung and highly dramatic. For me it is one set I would never get rid of and the one I listen to most.
Quote from: Franco on May 25, 2010, 08:40:45 AM
I am not interested in academic theories (and/or proofs) for or against OVPP - I just like how it sounds. What I've got are the Kuijken cantata recordings, and they are wonderful. I also have a stipped down B Minor Mass directed by Andrew Parrott which is very enjoyable. The SMP using this style might interest me as well.
Because Bach is my fave composer, I also got interested in reading stuff about him. Since there is little known about his biography (in contrast to a.o. Mozart or Beethoven), this meant that very soon I went along reading more 'theoretical' articles. This certainly has got my interest (as you might have guessed already ;)), but in the end I agree with you: as a music lover, the results in performance or recording do interest me (far) more. But sometimes the stiff-headed 'certainties' of these self-pronounced scholars annoy me, because of the already mentioned hard evidences against their theories.
But yes, even though I do not agree with the 'proven' OVPP-theory, I certainly like some OVPP recordings. The Kuijken cycle being a fine example of that. I'm less positive about Rifkin, Parrott and McCreesh, though. In most cases, if Bach is concerned, they remain on the surface of the compositions and don't dare to dig really deep IMO. To my ears, they fail to offer us a spiritual and religious Bach. F.i. McCreesh's SMP sounds very bold and dramatic indeed, but his reading leaves me cold and unmoved.
Of course, this is only my tuppence worth. Knight Mike likes McCreesh's SMP very much, and that's great. James likes Gould playing Bach on piano, Premont prefers Leonhardt on the harpsichord, Mike loves McCreesh and Marc adores Herreweghe. Each and everyone of us can have their share and choose a different part of the Bach-pie. If this wasn't the case, then there was nothing to talk or discuss about and a board like this would be utterly boring. :)

Quote from: Bulldog on May 24, 2010, 09:44:54 PM
[....] I'm ready to go back to my favorite SMP, Herreweghe I, which has all the drama and tension I could want.
There's another favourite of mine. This one is a spiritual sermon to me. Another good example of that: the Leonhardt version.

Opus106

Quote from: Marc on May 25, 2010, 09:03:04 AM
If this wasn't the case, then there was nothing to talk or discuss about and a board like this would be utterly boring. :)

But I found the academic talk refreshing. :)

Please, go back to that, now that we know what everyone likes. ;D
Regards,
Navneeth

Franco

Another OVPP recording that I discovered looking up the McCreesh:

Matthew Passion (Final Performing Version, c. 1742) [Hybrid SACD - DSD]
Dunedin Consort, John Butt


Receives high marks from the Amazon reviewers.

Antoine Marchand

#238
Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750)
Matthäus-Passion BWV244. (Passion selon st. Matthieu / Passione secondo Matteo)
Christoph Prégardien (evang) & Tobias Berndt (Christus).
soloists choir 1: Dorothée Mields sop, Damien Guillon alt, Colin Blazer ten and Matthew Brook b.
soloists choir 2: Hana Blažiková sop, Robin Blaze alt, Hans Jörg Mammel ten and Stephan McLoed b.
Collegium Vocale Ghent; Philippe Herreweghe cond.

This concert has been performed ten times: the 23 March at the Konzerthaus of Vienna (Austria), the 24 March at the Festspielhaus of Sankt-Pölten (Austria), the 26 March at the 'Philharmonie' in Essen (Germany), the 27 March at the 'Alte Oper' in Frankfurt (Germany), the 28 March at the 'Philharmonie' of Köln (Germany), the 29 March at the 'Bozar' in Brussels (Belgium), the 31 March in 'deSingel' in Antwerp, the 01 April in the 'Muziekcentrum de Bijloke' in Ghent (Belgium), the 2 April at the Congresszentrum of Innsbruck (Austria) and the 03 April at the 'Tonhalle' of Zürich (Switserland).
This recording was made in the Kölner Philharmonie the 28 March 2010 and broadcast by '3sat' the 2nd April. The whole Matthäus-Passion has been posted in 29 parts on ou-Tube.

Some samples (double-click on the windows to watch on You Tube):


Bach: Blute nur, du liebes herz!





Bach: Gerne will ich mich bequemen





Bach: Komm, süsses kreuz





8)


Opus106

Regards,
Navneeth