Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for pointing out that singers were normally placed in front of, not behind the instrumentalists! Bach scholar Christoph Wolf has spoken of this in lectures, noting that there were music stands for the choristers actually mounted on the balcony rail at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig, obviously putting the singers in front of the orchestra. And yes, Wolf also mentioned how the trumpets and timpani had a special location tucked away behind all the other instruments, in order for them not to sound too prominent. In fact, having the chorus placed in front of the orchestra was a practice that lasted well into the 19th century, even when it required singers to be seated, and/or the instrumentalists to be placed on risers -- or even for sub-conductors to be used. In so many modern performances of works with chorus and orchestra, balance problems are constant; reviving the historical placement practice would solve so many of these problems, so it's frankly bizarre that this is practically never done, even by ostensibly "historically informed" performers.
It's only logical, really. Today, choirs are placed at the back (and despite of its size can still be drowned out by the orchestra) - but soloists are still at the front, and their voices carry well.
Not discussed in your excellent presentation, Is the problems caused by using modern instruments which, in general, are much louder and have a thicker and darker tone quality.
Putting the trumpet behind the other instruments might help with perfomances of Brandenburg #2. Even using a baroque trumpet, it is still loud in comparison to the oboe, violin, and most especially the recorder. The recorder part is difficult and beautiful, and too often it's completely inaudible because of the trumpet drowning it out. This goes double when dealing with modern trumpets.
Agreed and one also needs to appreciate that historically accuracy and artistic merit of a performance are not one and the same thing. Whilst I understand that previous generations were dismissive of the fact that Bach used limited forces to perform his works that doesn't mean being puritanical about faithfully copying this in the modern era is intrinsically artistically better than other interpretations. Not saying that Elam would say this of course but I have encountered such views out there.
Also, there’s an early 19th century drawing of a Handel oratorio performance in Covent Garden, clearly showing the singers in front of the orchestra. This makes complete musical sense, when you think about what’s important in the work.
There are surviving pay records from performances late in Handel's life. The choir was (if I recall correctly) in the low 20s in total, and that includes the soloists, who almost certainly sang in the choral movements as well. It was in the 19th century that the choir came to be huge.@@christiantobiassen4497
This is directly relevant to ripieno markings in Handel’s late scores, when he had extra strings. I wrote about this some decades ago, but was blocked by an established scholar who thought my interpretation was bunk, and that it was a late notation of a standard practice rather than a practice tied to an availability of forces at this late date. These markings, however, only appear in works performed in 1749, when there is also evidence of enlarged orchestral forces.
Thank you. I enjoyed this very much. I've often thought that the bloated choirs used in the big choral works makes everything sound heavy. When I first heard Rifkin's recording of the Mass in B Minor with one on a part, it was a revelation. So beautiful and so pure.
Thanks for this great episode. Just for the sake of precision: the distance between Osnabrück and Leipzig is about 400 km, not 70 km (timestamp 20:38). It's quiet a different place in the German landscape.
You stole my topic suggestions I made in our lecture in Den Haag with you. 😅😅😇😇 Thank you for making this video. I was waiting for a long time to hear some clear words, that where more than " we don't know" and "could be". Thanks for doing this in your calm, objective and entertaining way. I just started to sing out of the manuscripts in original size. It came to me that they might have needed lighting, performing the passions in the winter morning. Holding the light and turning the page must be problematic. Multiple solutions for that problem possible of cause.
Oh my... I was kind of nervous as I saw the title of the video... but thank god it's completely flawless and does not contain any "german old school" defensive nonsense. 😅
Wow. That was EXTREMELY interesting. As a huge Bach lover, I’m a bit of ashamed of having discovered this channel just now… Will have a long week of going over the material here. Thanks a lot! אכן דיון מרתק לגמרי. המון תודה
I was wondering when you would enter the fray on this touchy subject. First learned of the combattimenti di Rifkin e Glöckner at Cambridge in 2011, when it was experiencing yet another flare up in the letters section of Early Music. The same kinds of academic slapfights exist everywhere, I'm sure - certainly in my own trade of instrument making. Thanks as always, lovely work.
Even though I think Rifkin is right, I don’t want to see modern choirs and choral societies being deterred from performing Bach’s “not-choral” choral music (though super large choirs probably aren’t optimal). The music’s wonderful. How can I object to anyone wanting to sing it? We know Bach didn’t compose his keyboard music for the modern Steinway-type piano. But we also have a whole series of excellent pianists performing it thoughtfully and imaginatively on that type of instrument. We don’t have to choose between someone performing it on an 18th century-type instrument and someone performing it on a Steinway. There’s room for both approaches.
Fascinating and informative as always. I know Joshua Rifkin from his beautiful recordings of Scott Joplin's music. I didn't know Rifkin had such insightful views on early music vocal performance. Thanks
I love your videos. I always learn something interesting and new, and my understanding of how modern music is connected to the past is deepened. There is a nothing new under the sun it seems.
The word Entwurff has been translated in various ways. The translation is not without issues. For example, a draft implies a rough state, whereas design has more of a connotation of a well though-out plan. Proposal is somewhat more neutral, and memo leans a bit more towards Bach. I myself prefer design, plan or proposal. Bach by nature was a creature of design. However, one can also look at it that he may have designed it carefully, but that the circumstances align with a proposal. Plan is in line with the overall architectural style of Bach's ideas.
Again so well and profoundly made, thanks so much, Elam! Your channel is such an enormous gift to the interested public! Just as a side note on this particular episode: The distance between Osnabrück and Leipzig is far bigger than mentioned, it’s around 315 kilometers by air. But that’s just a petitesse. 🙏Benno
Thanks again for an informative and fascinating video. I first heard the St Matthew performed by Klemperer (in the 70’s probably) but graduated via Harnoncourt and others to the Netherlands Bach crew over 40 years. We are so lucky to be in this revolution. I now love the sound of 1 or 2 singers per part and will usually prefer that, but I can still be amazed at how much people like Klemperer achieved in their own way.
Thank you! Interesting analysis. Clearly, your videos are for those who really really care about early music; count me in! I hope you do something someday on Anthony Holborne.
As someone who has sung Bach with one person per voice, and in small choirs, and in large choirs, I can say that there's something musically to be said for all versions. Nice work as usual, Elam. Lunch invitation stands. Cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
I totally agree! There is something to be said for both options. And not just Bach - for instance I have performed Handel's 'Messiah' with both a huge choir and orchestra in a large concert hall, and two to a part (8 singers at the front, and we all did the arias and recits too) with a small ensemble in a small church (which was very scary, but extremely rewarding)
The Probst engraving which you presented shows musicians (horn, flute and singers) sharing their parts which seems to contradict one of OVPP enthusiasts` key tenets. Reality is that this picture is probably misattributed in terms of dating. Georg Balthasar Probst lived 1732-1801 and published most of his known oeuvre in the 1770s and 80s. Thus this picture more likely represents the practice of Haydn and Mozart`s time. Besides, it stems from Augsburg (i.e. South Germany, predominantly catholic) so the artist must have experienced choral singing in churches much more often than he would in the Protestant dominated lands.
Awesome stuff, Elam! One of my favorite things in renaissance music is the mid-line modulations. Modulation has come up passively in past videos, but can you consider doing a video that's more focused modulation specifically, and their thinking behind it? I feel like I'm starting to link it all together slowly (between your videos on cadences and durum and molle, etc), but you're videos are entertaining and clear that I know it'd be valuable, hopefully to many!
Thank you very much, Elam. I have been a follower of Bach’s Cantatas since Harnoncourt’s/Leonhardt’s early 1970s recordings. Your presentation is extremely valuable to me, as I am not a scholar - yet am able to understand fully what you are saying. Everything makes sense, now. Again, thank you.
Bravo. I think now of the bloated versions of Bach for orchestra or orchestral versions of his organ fugues crafted by Stokowski, using a monstrously huge orchestras, how utterly ludicrous they sound when compared say, to Toronto's "Taffel Musik Ensemble" who would perform Bach's works using a rather small number of players. I think of the various versions of Pachelbel's Canon in D which again you can hear in a stripped down performance played quite briskly or you can hear my favorite (because it was used as extro music on a beloved CBC radio program), the version performed by the Jean Francois Paillard Orchestra, sounding every bit as lush as Stokowski or Beecham.....begging the questions about authenticity and number of performers. So happy to hear your thoughts on this fascinating subject. Yeah for Rifkin!
Very clear presentation of information we've essentially known for forty years, but is still largely dismissed as irrelevant or even as fake news in musical practice.
Balance of course depends on so many things... I've heard McCreesh doing the St Matthew Passion at the Barbican Hall and at St John Smith Square (both in London). The voice/instrument balance was rather dreadful at the Barbican, weighted too much in favour of the orchestra (even though he did use a few ripienists); at St John's, the balance was superb (even though he used no ripienists at all). In retrospect, it wasn't that surprising: the Barbican is probably just too large for that sort of ensemble, whereas St John's -- a not-so-large church with rather dry acoustics (a *good* thing, no over-reverberation) -- is much better suited for it.
When teaching about live performances in our time of digital recordings, I found it very hard to have college students understand how integral the venue was to the tone of the performance.
@@kathyjohnson2043 Of course the room plays a vital role in musical performance, but somehow this is always an argument for performing Bach with three or four or more singers to a part, never for performing a trio sonata with six flutes instead of two or a string quartet with three violins to a part and a bass doubling the cello.
@@jpknijff I would say in general that some halls are simply too large for chamber music. The conclusion could be, of course, to avoid performing chamber music in such venues! That said, I have no objections in principle for orchestral arrangements of chamber music, as long as they are presetned as such. It's not uncommon for string orchestras to perform string quartets. Sometimes I find the results quite compelling, at others I find them unconvincing or even grotesque; but that's a personal aesthetic judgement on a case-by-case basis, not a statement of overarching principle.
A very informative piece, thank you. I can perhaps add another piece to the puzzle. Some years ago I was in Leipzig so (naturally) I had to visit St. Thomas's. While we were looking around four singers turned up for what I'd guess is a regular practice session. The sound just these four made was amazing and easily able to fill what is a very large space. So I'd guess that for this and similar churches you really only needed additional singers to provide texture. There's also positioning -- when this group started singing two were at the back, two in the center and the acoustic effect was very different from when they were all together in a line in the middle of the nave. (The acoustics of a Baroque church are very different from a concert hall. This alone would account for differences in choir size and position -- people end up being positioned where the look and sound the best.)
It's always great when no matter how convincing and definite you think a full choir version of a cantata by Richter sounds, you stumble upon a small ensemble version by herreweghe or koopman and it sounds just as definite and sublime.
Interesting! I'm by no means a HIP expert, but every time I hear Richter I immediately feel the weight and , to me, usually inappropriately slow tempo.... but often beautiful instrumental tone (and yes, often with lack of clarity).
Those dreary, bloated and boring Richter performances were never convincing, and certainly not “definite.” They always sounded like a loaded lorry trying to navigate the Nürburgring at speed.
Thanks so much Elam….the funny part, is seeing the bottles of what you drink when you are with friends…in a party! SO informative!, excellent introduction also for teachers…like me….we dont know enough about Baroque Era in Music, its the foundation of SO much music from Mozart to Mahler and Schoenberg…to Ligeti! so what do you drink?
Vielen Dank. Wir haben sehr schöne Projekte mit BWV 5 und BWV 99 in dieser Aufführungspraxis ( mit minimaler Orchesterbesetzung) aufgeführt. Was wir zukünftig machen werden, den Chor (Doppelquartett), aus dem auch die Soli gesungen werden vor den Instrumenten aufzustellen, macht am meisten Sinn und Klang
Thanks for all this teaching information. I think an analysis of Renaissance archetypes of music influencing on Bach would be so useful. Works such as the Art of Fugue (Fuga a 3 Soggetti especially)...
Bravo! This is all beautifully presented and explained. (And the humour is always very much appreciated.) I can't help but wonder what JSB would have thought of some of the phalanxes of singers that have been deployed in quasi-historical 're-enactments' of his works since the time of Mendelssohn. It likely would've been something like: 'Oh dear, this should be interesting. Perhaps I should first stop off at the Bierhaus for a Krüge or three'. Love all your videos, cheers!
It seems likely to me that this whole debate is caused by musicians assuming that Bach’s ensemble was more like the modern orchestra and chorus than it really was. Today, 4 singers might have difficulty projecting above the instrumental forces described, but baroque strings and keyboards simply do not project as well as modern string instruments (and the orchestra was probably not always the best musicians playing the highest quality instruments - it was a student ensemble, after all). Also, modern choruses of sections of 5-10 or more sound great because they are extremely well trained, but I would imagine that Bach simply did not have that many singers of that quality at hand.
I sometimes get the feeling that many early music performers are too influenced by their standard classical training such that it's just difficult for them to conceive of music in any other way, and they spend their careers shoehorning modern ideas onto old instruments. There's nothing wrong with that, but I reckon there's still a lot left to discover about how this music was performed.
Modern choruses of sections are fine for music written for them, beginning with Beethoven and Mendelssohn. For Bach they are just cumbersome and plodding.
As much as I'm a period-instrument snob (and, believe me, I am), with this particular issue I don't think it's a matter of the type of hardware played as much as it is the number of instrumentalists. The Philadelphia Chamber Music Society has a group -- the Gamut Bach Ensemble -- that does cantatas with one-singer-per-part and modern instruments in (what we would now call) chamber-music numbers. (We could also say "Bach-sized".) I don't think it works nearly as well as period instruments do, but balance between the singers and instruments isn't really a problem with them.
@@liquensrollant Most good period instrument professionals today are well schooled in performance practices required in early music re-creation. It is usually the amateurs that do the damage.
@@peterhill1944 Thanks for your comment (on my comment!), but you have missed the point. I have listened to loads of professionals playing on period instruments both live and on record, and I agree, they are phenomenally well trained and practised (I don't think amateurs do damage, however, at least where I live now they bring a lot to the music - more than some professionals I've come across). But they are nevertheless performing according to the norms of a whole host of modern traditions, even after the historically informed performance movement has reset many of these traditions. I am not a musicologist, and yet even I have come across passages in texts recounting past musical practice which I rarely encounter in modern performances, sometimes never. Singing a Bach cantata from the organ loft with a proper church organ is one of those practices I have yet to observe in person, yet my reading suggested to me that this is how they were performed. One singer to a part is another (though I have come across this in the B minor mass where there are more parts - it was spectacular, too). Even the dynamics employed by modern baroque orchestras tend to follow a set of assumptions for which there is no evidence that I have seen, playing I would argue more for the microphone than for a public church service. I would never say these modern performers are wrong to do it the way they do, but I would like to see more variety and daring in how the pieces are performed. Perhaps I am asking too much, but very occasionally performers will push the envelope and make me wonder, what if? There are other comments here going into more specific detail about what I meant. None if it has anything to do with overzealous amateurs!
Every video a gem. We are learning so many new things about...what's his name again? ;) I have wondered about the large choirs in modern performance...I mean how does one train them properly with individual singing during practice?
The Netherlands Bach Society often utilizes the distinction between cancertists and repienists in many of their cantata performances: it really makes the music much more transparent and the polyphony easier to hear. And, as a church choir master, I really think that it would be beneficial to revive many of these old practices, since they are imminently practical for liturgical and pedogogical purposes: a unison Chorus Choralis to lead congregational singing (beginning singers); and a Chorus Musicus, divided into concertists (most advanced) and repienists ("average" singers).
My argument for multiple singers per part in Bach’s cantata choruses has nothing to do with historical accuracy. These days, even early music singers have too much vibrato when they sing what they perceive as solo parts, but inexplicably are able to reduce their vibrato when they are singing in a “choir.” Since even light vibrato creates utter chaos in Bach’s most contrapuntally complex choruses, I don’t think they should ever be sung with one voice to a part unless the soloists are able to sing with barely any vibrato. Of course, the ridiculously bloated recordings of Bach cantatas that were popular in the 1970s have Wagnerian singers that still have ridiculously unacceptable vibrato even when they sing 10 to a part.
You're right. VOCES8 do a great job singing with a pure tone, as in this recent performance of Josquin ( v=kyGlFisv7Ng ), but even their singers, when performing Purcell or Handel, revert to the use of rather wide, obtrusive vibrato. Maybe eventually more singers will get the message that they really do need to catch up to their instrumentalist colleagues and do the repertoire justice by avoiding anachronistic wobble.
@@dbadagna My point is that I don’t care if it’s anachronistic or not. The wobble also destroys the choral counterpoint in pieces like Mahler’s 2nd or 8th symphonies, and nobody would call this anachronistic.
@@Richard.Atkinson Based on careful listening of early 78-rpm recordings, operatic (solo) vibrato was much narrower even as late as the first decade of the 20th century.
@@dbadagna I remember hearing an old recording of Nellie Melba singing Handel's "Sweet Bird", and she used *barely* more vibrato than Emma Kirkby. And Melba regularly sang Puccini, too.
@@mwnyc3976 In this recording from 1904, it sounds like Melba's vibrato, which she uses more or less constantly, ranges between about 60 and 120 cents in width.
Wonderful video! Speaking as a singer who most certainly would not have qualified as a soloist in Bach's time, and having some small experience with choral performance combined with orchestra - it always seemed to me that there were two reasons for the choir to be behind the instrumentalists. One being, so the choir wouldn't be deafened >.> But also because with these larger choirs it makes more sense for them to NOT be in front, as their sound will be heavier, louder, just by the numbers. I think, too, that the ease of producing so many parts for so many singers and instrumentalists lent itself to having more performers. And certainly in modern practice, church choirs and school choirs often deal with lots of singers, because the interest and will to rehearse for such music is still quite great and of course most communities are much larger than they once were. No doubt the fact that church and school choirs are NOT paid also has its effect. When you have twenty or more people who really, really want to sing - and you don't wish to disappoint anyone... Well, the result is of course bigger choirs overall. And I imagine that changing architecture contributed too, so that acoustic considerations supported the larger overall sound, right? Another thing I noticed in the Entwurff itself, is Bach's implication that not all of his students were "up to standard," which is of course completely normal for any group of musicians; some are more talented, some are more experienced, and some have much enthusiasm. (And the best, of course, have all three!) But, as you point out, these soloist parts were very often much more demanding, more complicated to learn, and overall just not MEANT for five singers for the same part; delicate ornaments like trills just don't work the same with massed voices, becoming muddy and messy. Thinking on it from that perspective - a single voice for each part may have been entirely necessary even if one had dozens of singers at one's disposal. I get the impression too that - as Rifkin's analogy of a sports team seems to say - there was a common practice of HAVING say, 8 or 12 singers...and "benching" some of them for any given performance. Such things make sense if you look at (for instance) important sacred festival days, where it might very well be expected to produce hours and hours of music: you can't expect all (or even most) of your musicians to just perform for hours on end! Even simpler events no doubt did the same thing we do now when we want "continuous" music - several musicians are available, and they do a specific "set" of songs (or one cantata perhaps?) and then go and sit down and let someone else take the stage for the next set. Physical endurance for long events seems like it would not have changed all that much in just a few centuries, but I could of course be completely mistaken, hah!
Another absolutely terrific program from Elam and EMS. The usual combination of expert research, utmost clarity in presentation, quality of sources, selected performances, and humor make this video an essential resource for every Bach lover and performer. One comment and one question: In the Entwurff, Bach is not entirely candid, as he doesn't list his male children and non-resident students among the singers and instrumentalists he had regular access to. According to The New Bach Reader (p.151): these musicians "outnumbered the alumni [resident students] by a very wide margin." So the situation was not entirely as dire as Bach strategically made it sound in the Entwurff to convince the town council to provide him with more resources. Should current practice be guided by the forces that Bach would have liked to have at his disposal, or by the forces that he was forced to work with--both vocal and instrumental? (This is similar to a point often made--with some justification--by those who prefer modern instruments to play Bach, arguing that if he had had access to instruments that offered more range, power, and accuracy, he would almost certainly have written music for them.) Bach's core complaint in the Entwurff is that he wanted more resources than he had, suggesting that the use of 4 or 8 singers for vocal works was not his own choice, or the result of historical practice. What does this imply for today's performers?
I think that we have to presume that Bach was a practical musician and wrote for the forces he had. If he had had more resources, he might have written and performed the music we have or he might have written differently in order to deploy the greater number of musicians. But "might have" means we're speculating.
very convincing laying out of all the evidence. this is really clear! personally I like the way the Netherlands Bach Society organises their voices as a good compromise but for me the real beauty of how this practice might be realised is the way that solo voices can still be heard in "choruses" and especially the anti-theatrical/anti-mimetic way the St Matthew Passion comes across when performed this way
to me, even though the voices don't really blend perfectly the McCreesh St Matthews Passion is such a new perspective on the piece: it is like an "anti-opera", "Jesus" isn't a character but just a voice with words
I present for your enjoyment Rossini. Stabat mater.the final fugue included the soloists plus choir for a rollercoaster ride,especially the 1970s version with Pavarotti. A look to the past? I
I love Bach! When I have a hard time falling asleep, I listen to, some Bach. It is so boring, that I am asleep within 5 minutes, while listening to his music.
Thank you for this excellent video. Just a small remark: something that has not changed over the centuries is the distance between Leipzig and Osnabrück. It is about 400 km.
@@EarlyMusicSources No problem. Your videos are so good, I watch all of them. Your reports are highly interesting and cover topics where little knowledge is otherwise found. I, as a singer in a small ensemble, am very grateful for this.
Thanks for this very interesting and useful education! It might not be relevant, but still: Osnabrück is about 400 km from Leipzig and really a different country at Bach‘s time. I believe that it even was catholic, but am not sure about that.
i always thought joshua rifkin's one-voice-per-part idea was closer to the practice of bach and his contemporaries. rifkin's magnificat, for example, is clear and lucid; absent are the huge, glutted forces of voice and instrument which muddy the sound and tempo, resulting in a luminescent, airy performance.
I've always preferred Bach with small choirs and ensembles. The musical lines are clearer, the music more immediate and personal. I love the recordings of Herreweghe, who uses smaller groups and always seems to "nail it." His St Matthew Passion is stunning -- I've listened to it on repeat.
Toen we dit alles (de terrassendynamiek) een halve eeuw geleden in Vlaanderen en Nederland met het Halewynkoor toepasten, werden we weggehoond. Dank voor die late Wiedergutmachung...
Thank you for this excellent summary. It seems that, in essence, Rifkin was right all along. This is what I'd always suspected, ever since I first heard his pioneering B Minor Mass recording back in the 1980s.
"Massive forces" are obviously anachronistic and inappropriate, but there remains the fact that double or triple voices sound essentially different from a group of soloists. Something about smearing out the individual timbres. Same as what happens with a string section of an orchestra. So we are forced to conclude that Bach did not want this choral effect, and wanted the "chorus" to sound like a group of soloists. I feel like there is still a piece of the puzzle missing.
I wonder if there was also a lot of practical week-to-week limitations Bach ran up against. I mean my church choir couldn't manage to do a different cantata each week, but a set of four professional soloists could basically pull it off--particularly if they were decent sight readers. There are a lot of very tricky passages in Bach's choruses. I suspect that if Bach had 8 or maybe even 12 "dead ringers" he could count on every week at each church under his responsibilities he would probably have been glad to use them. From the solo cantatas, I am guessing that some weeks he was lucky to have one good singer! (I also feel his pain when he wants 12 or 16 in each group, so that with illness and other absences he could at least have 8-part motets! My church choir has similar absence problems... but typically they can't manage one to a part.)
@@joshuaharper372 You are so right. I experienced this as a member of the professional ensemble of 8 at a Christ & St. Stephen’s Church on W 69th Street in Manhattan in the 1980’s and 1990’s directed by organist Robert Russell. We rehearsed at 9:15 AM on Sunday morning and turned out motets and often polyphonic masses by the likes of Byrd and Palestrina by the 11 AM service. It was the best church job in NYC. And just like Bach, we often repeated motets a couple of times a year, not to mention having Palestrina’s Sicut cervus or Byrd’s Ave verum at the back of the folder in case communion ran long….
17:53 At least 11 strings... in "Bach's orchestra" There is also much to say about this... In the context of the "Entwurff", it comes naturally to imply that the instrumentalists are not thought to be distributed amongst the 3 churches where "serious" music was exspected. Yet... the only reason for this intuition is that Bach's most heavily orchestrated Cantatas need about the number of musicians called for in the "Entwurff". Except for the rather strange call for 2 second Violas, which are never needed in any of Bach's own figural music. However... I don't see why the "sports team" approach should be completely dismissed for the strings. In Leipzig, performance parts normally were written out for 2 I. Violins, 2 II. Violins, 1 Viola and 1-2 Bass strings. So 2 ripieno violins doubling the main parts throughout were normal. But not 3. The question is: Does the Entwurff show that Bach by 1730 (late in his career) whished to augment the church string ensemble (in 4 parts) for each cantata performance to 2-3/2-3/2/2/1 = 9-11 instead of 6-7 players? Did he come to dislike the 2/2/1/0-1/0-1 set? He certainly knew about Zelenka's string ensemble in Dresden which was about the size of 4/3/3/3/2 with 2 true double basses. What about the "small-scale" Cantatas without wind instruments in pairs? Are they seriously to be performed with 9-11 strings? Of course not. And what about the Cantatas where there are (like in Brandenburg 3) obviously a large number of solo strings or seperate violin ripieno parts done in the same way as the vocal ripienists? Furthermore: The Brandenburg concertos underwent a similar controversy as the "choir size" debate. The argument for just 6 string players/one to a part for Brandenburg Concertos 12456 is very, very strong. There is also no serious doubt anymore about the Violone part being written for an 8' "german Bass"/ "G-Violone" (possibly lacking a low G' string) instead of a true double bass, with the possible exception of concerto I. Concerti grossi are extremely similar in conception to concerti ecclesiastici. For example, Corelli's Concerti grossi can all be played by 3 players, or with a one-to-part "string capella" added, or even with a capella including trombones and Cornetti or recorders, and multiple string ripienists per part. The common practice to play concerti with more then 1 string instrument per part was slowly gaining track between 1720 and 1750. Even then, Oboes and Bassoons were frequently doubled as soon as strings were more then 10 or so.
A taste for multiple violas was an old-fashioned, 17th century flavour, which some earlier Bach cantatas employed (e.g. BWV 4, BWV 18, plus, of course, Brandenburg 6). Bach revived both cantatas in Leipzig. So I guess he wanted to know he could continue to revive such earlier pieces, even if he was unlikely to compose brand new music with that thicker, démodé, multiple viola sound.
@@georgesdelatour ...or perhaps he wanted to play someone elses music with 2 viola parts. But it seems very strange to me anyway that he mentions this at all in his list. One should excpect a standard orchestra of 4 voices, especially because he is calling for 2 I. violas anywhay and the French, who still were fond of at least 2 if not 3 violas, did heavily overload the exterior parts compared to the viola parts which were left to 1 to a part even in "Bach sized" string ensembles.
Interesting and well presented, thank you. Wondering why you stuck to the cantatas - I’d love to know what Bach wanted for the B minor Mass or Matthew/ John Passions?
Still on the subject of Bach cantatas, are there any sources that mention… audience participation? Considering how important congregational singing was to Luterans, and how very well known chorales were so often the basis of so many of Bach’s cantatas, is there any mention of the congregation joining in for the chorale bits?
Singing one to a part is indeed quite special, and I love it, but a well-trained section is a great thing too, and will balance better against the orchestra. Perhaps the Capella singers’ biggest skill was to perform satisfactorily with very limited rehearsal time.
You only need “a well trained section” to balance against a modern orchestra. I’d rather avoid a modern orchestra trying to navigate Bach’s cantatas and passions.
I don't Elam has done a video on that, but there's a fairly well established consensus on the chorus(es) Handel used in his oratorios: usually four or five singers per part, maybe with a couple of extra boys, who were drawn from the choirs of the Chapel Royal, St. Paul's Cathedral, etc. as needed and available. And it was standard for the soloists to sing along in the choruses. I've suspected for a long time that the choruses in the Latin sacred music that Handel wrote in Rome (for example, Dixit Dominus) were done soloists-only, but I don't know that any clear evidence has survived one way or the other.
Sorry.your presentation destroyed my joke. You all deserve more exposure for your fabulous, research. Any early music lover asks these questions. No-one hadany answers for me .
Very interesting discussion. However, I have often wondered how Bach managed to have a new cantata each Sunday (other than the fact that he was a genius). In addition to just writing the score, there were parts that had to be copied out and distributed (probably by an assistant), but then a choir or vocal rehearsal, and orchestral rehearsal, a rehearsal with both. All in addition to his teaching duties. And all this done every week. Sheesh! makes me tired just to think about it.
You said it: he was a genius--not only at writing music, but also at recycling previously written works. In that respect, his second cycle of cantatas in 1724-25 would have been the most demanding of all in terms of production frequency, since the chorale cantata format that he chose for almost the entire cycle meant that he was not able to recycle any pre-Leipzig work, with exception of BWV 4. Given all the necessary steps that sifridbassoon lists, I've always imagined that Bach had no more than 3 days to compose the work, leaving sufficient time for the copyists to copy the individual parts (and Bach to review them), and then the rehearsal. Then performance on Sunday, and start the whole process again on Monday. Are others aware of any historical documentation about this?
The notion that Bach wrote a cantata every week is very often repeated, but is not quite true. From what I can remember, first, there were seasons of the liturgical calendar for which he did not have to provide cantatas (perhaps Advent and Lent, but I’m not certain), so there were periods where he’d have a few “weeks off,” where he might work ahead. More importantly, if I remember correctly, it took him roughly three years to write a single yearly cycle of cantatas... he would take existing music by other composers and have that performed in weeks where he didn’t have a new composition. Now, this is still an incredibly prolofic pace, especially given the length, quality, and originality of each and every one of his cantatas! But it’s not really one per week. The pace averaged out over several years to something more like one a month, which is still actually jaw dropping, especially considering all of his other duties and that he was writing other music as well!
Sorry, but you are perpetuating the “tireles genius” myth created by the 19th century. As the previous comments clarify, Bach did not write a cantata per week.
@@andrewyarosh1809 I think we need to consider which periods of his life we are talking about here. We don't know enough about the number of cantatas he was asked to write in Arnstadt and Muhlhausen (1703-08), but it most likely was not one a week. We know what Bach was expected to write one cantata per month in Weimar (1708-17). He wrote very few sacred cantatas in Koethen (1717-23)--and two of those were for his audition in Leipzig. In this first two years in Leipzig, he performed about 100 cantatas from his pen. During the first year, most of these works were newly composed, but he also recycled/arranged a number of cantatas that predated his move to Leipzig. In the second Leipzig Jahrgang, the selection of the chorale cantata model for the first 40 weeks meant that at least all these works were new. After 1725, he either relied more on cantatas composed by others, or most of his own cantatas were lost. Assuming that Bach wrote ~300 sacred cantatas, that a third of them was lost (thanks, Wilhelm Friedemann, you criminal), and that he was composing for the church for ~40 years, that's an average of 7.5 cantatas per year. So less that one a month and nowhere near an average of one per week. KAM is right to mention that during advent and lent, no sacred cantatas were needed (which is a blessing, since that gave him the time to put together works like the Passions). That said, there is clear evidence that he wrote an average of about one cantata per week at least from 1723 to 1725. I hope this adds a useful perspective to this conversation.
Yet another Brilliant video. I look forward to each new offering. I was first introduced to Bach's music at age 8. In the last 55 years, whether performing, conducting, or merely listening to Bach's music, it has been proven to me (again and again) that there has been no greater master than he. One particular truth that has been confirmed (over and over) is that regardless of the size and quality of the musicians participating, the listener can (immediately) discern that the work being performed is (indeed) one of the Master's own. Even works which have been arranged for instruments not yet invented when Bach wrote the piece nevertheless sparkle with his genius. I suspect that until such time when mankind can find a way to transport observers back to eighteenth century Leipzig, the best that we can do is to speculate and theorize about how JSB intended and performed his works. Of all the possible ways to while away one's time, that may indeed be one of the best. Thanks so much for this incredibly interesting and thought provoking video.
I (and I suspect many others) have been waiting for a video on this subject, thank you! I read what I could find back when I first heard of the controversy, and while for some time I was on the fence regarding the aesthetic qualities of one singer to a part, I was actually shocked at the intellectual weakness of many of the arguments against it. With musical giants such as Beethoven or Mozart, and Bach in particular, there is an excessive reluctance to entertain different ideas of how to perform them. There is an irony in this: where I live there is even a festival dedicated to performing Bach's music including in all sorts of innovative arrangements, by musicians from all sorts of different traditions; but when it comes to the performances of his choral music "as written", it's with multiple singers to a part, standing behind an orchestra with a modern chamber organ, on a stage instead of the in the organ loft they face. I'm not against this at all, but why can't we have both?
The reason musicians today don't sing and play in the organ loft (except during actual services) is that the audience wants to see as well as hear the musicians they've paid to see/hear. Indeed, the audience wants to see the musicians enough that, if one put them in the loft (where they'd sound better), the audience would spend most of the performance turning around in the pews to try to see them, and they'd develop sore necks. (Which means they'd eventually quit coming to concerts at that church.) One could (and probably should) put the musicians in the choir loft in European churches that use portable chairs rather than fixed wooden pews. But in most North American (and, I presume, Antipodean) churches, that just won't work. (It's too bad -- there's one church in particular here in New York City, one that has been used for concerts often, where the difference between the sound from in front of the altar and the sound from the choir loft is dramatic.)
Barenreiter cites the (vocal) instrumentation for St Matthew's Passion as follows: Sopr. in Ripini / Soli 1 SATB, Chori 1 SATB / Soli 2 SATB, Chori 2 SATB There is no mention of Evangelist, Jesus, or any other soloist roles for the recitativos. However, for recitativos with Soli 1 singing, only Chorus 2 sings. Conversely, when Evangelista or Jesus sing together with choir, only Chori 1 sings, which makes me think that the Evangelista and Jesus were, perhaps, the Tenor and Bass from Soli 1. However, most performances today just have a group of 4 soloists singing all the recitativos (but never joining the chorales or the choruses), a separate Evangelista and Jesus, and the two choirs or multiple people per voice. (However, there is one interpretation of the Netherlands Bach Society where the Chori 2 singers also act as soloists, and Soli 1 sing also in Chori 1)
The Evangelist and Christus were definitely the tenor and bass from Choir 1. The music for the Evangelist is in the Tenor 1 performing part and Christus is in the Bass 1 part. Remember, Bärenreiter doesn't produce scholarly editions; Bärenreiter is in the business of selling rehearsal-and-performance-ready parts and scores for present-day (meaning mostly modern-instrument) musicians. Bach's performing parts for the 1736 performance of the St. Matthew Passion survive, and for the singers, there are only nine in total*: soprano, alto, tenor (includes the Evangelist), and bass (includes Christus) of Choir 1; soprano, alto, tenor, and bass (includes Pilatus) of Choir 2, and a separate "soprano in ripieno" part that includes only the chorale melodies in the first and last movements of Part One. That * refers to the "bit parts" -- the solos for Peter, Pilate's wife, the temple priests who say that can't keep the blood money, etc. -- which are on separate sheets of paper.
My take is Bach's chorals sound much better with small choirs/orchestra settings ....you can really hear the polyphony and interaction between voices and instruments .....there are so many layers to Bach...plus the notion of performance we are used is no where near Bach's.
As thoroughly researched this is, missing is: What is the most MUSICAL approach. Historians constantly claim "authenticity" in contemporary performance based on what were clearly prosaic limitations of 1) Budget and 2) Availability of decent performers in Bach's time. Nobody really knows the truth, and that includes things like use of vibrato. The fact is that ANY contemporary performance of Bach is desirable if it is MUSICALLY competent and inspiring. Bach himself was almost infinitely flexible based on resources available and the ability of those that performed his music. We get FAR too hung up on "being authentic" and historically "accurate" while the most important thing is whether it works and sounds musical.
In the St John Passion, often when the Evangelist announces a chorus, the tenor entries in the chorus are delayed a little, which feels like the Evangelist was joining in. On the other hand, getting a tenor to sing the choruses, the chorales, the Evangelist and Erwäge is quite something to ask.
From the top of my head, I cannot recall any instance of the tenor being delayed as you say. There would be no need to, from a performance perspective. Bach's passions were much grander than his cantatas, and meant to be performed on Good Friday when he had more singers available anyway. The score does call for ripieni singers, so we know the soloists did not have to sing every part. For example, it only makes dramaturgical sense for the turba choirs to be sung by other singers, from a different physical location, than the soloist. And _Mein teurer Heiland_ is a SATB chorale with a bass solo on top, and they overlap. So we know that more than four singers were used for this kind of music.
@@itskarl7575 I could easily imagine that the chorale in Mein teurer Heiland was sung by the ripienists (since it's not very challenging, and we know that even Bach's least skilled performers were expected to be able to sing a 4-part chorale), while the bass solo was sung by a concertist.
@@alfredbackhus6110 If the ripieni were standing apart from the concertantes, it might even be wiser to stick to the concertantes in the more virtuoso choruses, though some choruses in St John lean towards style antico.
Excellent video - great introduction into the mess and confusion of choir strength in Bach's Leipzig. However: how did you come up with 70km between Osnabrück and Leipzig? It's closer to 400km!
@@liquensrollant They are written out carefully so that Bach's singers (however many there were) would have the exact harmony and voice leading that he wanted. If they sang at all, the congregation would be singing the main chorale melody, as best it could. As far as I know, the congregation would have no access to any of Bach's musical lines other than the main chorale melody. And having the ensemble or the organ play out the whole harmonized chorale to which, on a repeat, the congregation would take up in full 4-voice harmony is a preposterous notion. I come to this conclusion having had to attempt such things as a music major in college.
@@dbadagna Probably because it's a question that would require its own video to answer. As I understand it, no one has yet found *completely conclusive* evidence as to whether the congregations in Leipzig sang along with the chorales in Bach's own concerted music. In some towns in Germany, congregations did sing along with the chorales in concerted music, and in other towns, they did not. One detail I saw the last time I was reading about this question is that, once when CPE Bach directed one of his oratorios in Hamburg, he had a note placed at the top of the libretto given to the congregation saying "The congregation is kindly requested not to sing the chorales." There are different ways to interpret that, but my interpretation is that congregations did sing along in Hamburg but that CPE had grown up and been trained in a setting (his father's churches in Leipzig) where congregations did not sing along and maintained that preference for his own oratorios.
1) Reconstruct the acoustics of the Leipzig Churches. 2) Limit the size of the audience accordingly. 3) Ban professional singers, females, and those over the age of 18. (This probably automatically cuts vibrato singing to a minimum.) 4) Consider the size of the organ lofts. 5) Refrain from showy tempos. SOLI DEO GLORIA was the motto. Do all this if you desire to explore the musical experience of the time. To explore the musical substance of the music, study Bach's scores. I have been doing it for the last 60 years. For much of the clavier compositions, there is a historically correct choice of clavichord, harpsichord, or organ. Most of Bach's music sounds great even when interpreted by balalaika ensemble, accordion, or synthesizer. What does that tell you about the Idealbesetzung for the cantatas? Rifkin or Richter, YOU decide.
