A conversation between four scholars of J.S. Bach - Ton Koopman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 сен 2024
- Faces of Classical Music
facesofclassica...
•
Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750)
A conversation (on the St Matthew Passion) between four scholars of Johann Sebastian Bach
Christoph Wolff, Martin Petzold, Peter Wollny, Ton Koopman
2005
(HD 1080p)
•
Faces of Classical Music
facesofclassica...
![Musical Explorations: Discover Bach's Musical Universe with Christoph Wolff [March 13, 2021]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PZsKmybPYBw/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you gentlemen for your wonderfully engaging and inclusive conversation
Ton Koopman spreekt goed Duits.
Thanks for the information, is invaluable.
Wunderbar, diesen Bach-Experten zuzuhören ...
I noticed that they're very group minded people, church people, organists, conductors, orchestral musicians, and they all speak about Bach in terms of these Grand spectacular masses and the larger orchestral church pieces and even the occasional concerti and such; and individual musicians tend to focus on those pieces written for individuals, for violin, lute, cello, harpsichord and these transcribed for piano and guitar. For me the more powerful, solemn and spiritual pieces are the single voiced pieces, and I can easily do without the bombast of the orchestral pieces, the symphonies and masses. It seems to me that the difference is music written for people who need to fill a part of a group to fill secure Within the compass of a large piece and those who want to meditate and commune with the Creator alone. And I would say that those pieces are superior which draw the individual alone into a contemplation of Silence.
An extraordinary review on Bach's Passion by four Bach scholars.
Vielen Dank, Wunderbar!
Saint Bach : )
Thank you for this very interesting discussion. Just one thing to say: this kind of thatrical passions came from Italy. And then one dream: where are the other Bach passionen? This angelical music is waiting in some bibliothek to be discovered!
Hegel and Heine were in the audience. The Nazis rewarded the Jewish Mendelssohn for his services to German music by banning the performance his compositions and the destruction of his statues in Leipzig and Dusseldorf. Heine, also a Jew (doubly condemned by his friendship with yet another Jew, Karl Marx) was rewarded for his contribution to German literature with a Nazi ban on all his writings, the burning of his books on May 10, 1933, in the Odeon Platz, and the destruction of monuments dedicated to his memory.
The talk of these learned gentlemen is quite entertaining, but it has one serious flaw: Its content is mere speculation and fantasy. If we dare an unbiased view on the question of Bach's choir and study the historical evidence without prejudice, we will find that Rifkin and Parrott have very strong arguments for their "one voice per part" theory. We know which vocal parts Bach and his assistants wrote for the performances of the St. Matthew Passion: There are two quartets (SATB), whose parts include the choruses, arias, the Evangelist (T1), Jesus (B1) and the two witnesses (A2 and T2), and some additional smaller parts for Judas, Peter, Pilate ecc. and the "Soprano in ripieno". The old theory by Arnold Schering, according to which three vocalists sang from each sheet, is a mere conjecture - it is, of course, not impossible, but not backed by any evidence, and if it was true, the additional sheets for the smaller parts would not make any sense. The "instructions which emanate from Bach himself" say: A choir must have at least three singers per part so that a double-choir motet can still be sung even if one of them is ill - i.e. a double-choir motet was sung by eight soloists, and Bach's demands refer to the total of disposable singers, not to the actual number of performers. Of course, Koopman's view is biased: If he admitted that Rifkin and Parrott are right, he would have to admit that his own recordings are as "unauthentic" and "outdated" as those of Karl Richter. In the same way, the Leipzig scholars are biased, since to them it seems hard to accept that the Thomaner tradition as we know it is a result of the 19th century and obviously fundamentally different from Bach's own performance practice. Among international scholars, the Rifkin-Parrott theory is more and more accepted, only the Germans feel uncomfortable with it. Saying this, I do not mean that modern performances with a choir are "wrong" or bad - I do not care much about "authenticity" (I even dare to find Karl Richter better than Koopman). I only say: We should honestly admit that our traditions and preferences are quite different from Bach's historical circumstances, and should not try to manipulate history according to our preferences and biases.
"if we dare an unbiased view on the quuestion of Bach..." is an oxymoron.
Why? What do you want to say?
I did not talk about an unbiased view on Bach, but on historical facts concerning performing practice. It does make difference whether your opinions are based on speculation and assumption or on facts and evidence.
RUclips comments are not a suitable place for scholarly discussion, so I can only give some keywords: In 19th century, Bach's works were performed by large amateur choruses - without them the Bach revival would not have been possible. Of course, scholars always knew that Bach's own forces in Leipzig were much smaller. "Historically informed" performing practice has strived for an approximation to Bach's original sound. Basically, there a two theories about the number of singers Bach employed: the hypothesis given by Arnold Schering in the 1930s and the theory by Joshua Rifkin, first published in 1981. Schering dealt with two sources: Bach's "Entwurf einer wohlbestallten Kirchenmusik" in which he demanded at least three singers for each part of the chorus, and the original performing material which in most cases includes only one sheet per part. From this he drew the conclusion that three singers read from each sheet. This is a hypothesis: a thinkable possibility, but without any evidence. Schering's hypothesis was based on the dogmatic presupposition that Bach's music is "choral" music. Rifkin and after him Andrew Parrott showed that Bach's demands in the "Entwurf" refer to the disposable staff for the church music as a whole, not to the actual number of performers in Bach's own works, and they found tons of evidence that in Germany the common practice was to perform cantatas with soloists, sometimes doubled by a "ripieno" group, but there was no "choir" as we are used to expect. Rifkin and Parrott gave us a consistent theory, backed by evidence and facts, without relying on speculation and arbitrary assumptions. This is why it is nowadays widely supported in international scholarly debate: Rifkin's supporters have stronger arguments than Schering's defenders. If you don't want to believe me, then read some books on this topic.
Of course, Mr Koopman has a biased view: From the 1980s, he has made many, many recordings of Bach's works and earned reputation as a leading exponent of a "historically informed", "authentic" performing practice, coming as close as possible to Bach's original sound. In his recordings, he always employed a chorus with 4-5 singers per part: Based on the Schering theory, Koopman believed that this is what Bach wanted. If the Schering theory is proven wrong, then Koopman's recordings are "unauthentic" and he must fear that they will be kicked into the dustbin. So Mr Koopman has a strong interest to resist the Rifkin theory and defend Schering's hypothesis. But what are his arguments?
The older generation of the Leipzig scholars has a biased view, too: They are closely linked to the Thomaner tradition, to them it is hard to accept the fact that this tradition is quite different from Bach's own conditions.
So Mr Koopman and some Leipzig scholars met to a talk about how they imagine Bach's performances of the St Matthew Passion - but there is not the slightest evidence for their opinions. They believe that for such a performance Bach gathered all singers he could get. But facts and evidence lead us to a different conclusion: Bach did not gather all singers he could get, instead he chose the best he could get. Very few were able to sing such a difficult music. It is very, very likely that the St Matthew Passion was performed by two quartets and a few additional singers - this is what the original performing material says. Everything else is mere speculation.
My point is: We can perform Bach as we like it. I don't believe that an "authentic" performance by a period chamber ensemble is eo ipso "better" than an "unauthentic" one with a large chorus and modern symphony orchestra. Our performance practice depends on artistic decision. This should not be confounded with scholarly attempts to clarify historical facts.
Like every uncritical partisan you repeat and repeat "facts and evidence" to support your own views, and "bias and speculation" to depreciate the contrary views. But the OVPP conception has no obvious documentary evidence, there is no document, no source, no real proof, which tells us "Herr Bach used four (or eight) singers in his performance"; there is only presumptive and arbitrary statement, that what Bach demanded in "Entwurff" was unfilled, and Bach didn't expect his demands could be fulfilled. First abuse of OVPP partisans: Bach demands "wenigstens", "at least" 3 singers per part, that means it could be more, 4 or 5, singers. And even if one or two of 12 singers could be ill, it doesn't mean always four of them were ill, and the full staff of 12 singers (at least - I shall remind - 12 singers) could sing. The Rifkin's words, that "Bach demands 3 singers per part to have 2 singers per part", that is just what can be named "an arbitrary assumption". Second abuse of OVPP partisans: Bach demanded at least 3 singers per part, "so wenigstens eine 2 Chörigte Motette gesungen werden kan", "so at least a double-chorus motet may be sung." We have "at least" again, and "double-chorus" in no way indicates, that the same staff of singers couldn't sing as one ensemble on other occasions; the one and the same ensemble can be divided into two "choruses", and can became joint again. And motet was a rather a "chambre" genre, not demanding many performers, then motet can't be a representative pattern.
That's all, here you have "tons of evidence"; because all others OVPP arguments are nothing but to prove one uncertain presumptive evidence by the other uncertain presumptive evidence. On the contrary, and against your statement: we have evidence (e.g. from Weimar) proving that Bach was employing "extraordinary" singers.
But - and it makes OVPP arguments lacking of any value - we have also some documents about number of singers in the churches Bach had in his care; so in 1729 (Bach-Dokumente I Item 180) at St. Thomas, at St. Nicholas and in the New Church 12, at St. Peters 8; in 1744 (Stadtarchiv Leipzig B VIII 26) at St. Thomas and at St. Nicholas 17, in the New Church 13, at. St. Peters 7. We have also the testimony (New Bach Reader, p. 328) of Johann Matthias Gesner, rector of. St. Thomas Scholl in that time, who writes about performances with 30 - 40 members of staff, then half of them or almost half of them were the singers. What is worthy of accentuation, here we deal with the documents, which describe facts, not with the demands, like in Bach's "Entwurff". Yes, you will repeat: "Rifkin and after him Andrew Parrott showed that Bach's demands in the "Entwurf" refer to the disposable staff for the church music as a whole, not to the actual number of performers in Bach's own works". But they didn't show anything of that kind; it is a pure fancy, to have testimonies from documents, and to claim testimonies are in fact no testimonies, because - they assert - Bach didn't use every singer from the staff, to claim it without any support of documented evidence, except fishy understanding of words from "Entwurff": "so at least a double-chorus motet may be sung."
You say: "the St Matthew Passion was performed by two quartets and a few additional singers" "Few", then how many, 2, 5, 8, 15? We have here no evidence about number of singers, and your "few" is a mere arbitrary speculation.
You say: "instead he chose the best he could get." Well, Bach often complains - there is a clear evidence - about quality of performers he has at his disposal.
Did you really read the Wolff's and Koopman's books and articles before criticising them in such a malicious manner?
@@RobertSochan In the case of the Matthäuspassion the original performance material has survived. We have 8 beautiful copies of singers part surviving. Were there more copies original which got destroyed? There is no evidence, and Bach was very careful in organizing his heritage (making "final copies" of his important works towards the end of his life). On the contrary, the part of Jesus is written in the same part book as the "Bass 1", the part of the Evangelist is written in the same part book as the "Tenor 1". Wouldn't this suggest that these parts were sung by the respective soloists. Even more interestingly, some of the minor parts are written on separate sheets of paper (probably, as Rifkin speculates, to be performed by orchestra members, which were also trained singers). These minor parts do not contain the chorales. How do you explain all that? And can you name a single cantata for which more than four (or in the case of double-choir, eight) voice parts have survived? Or do you really think that Bach destroyed the extra parts? Do you have any ideas of what it took to copy a part? Such copies must have been extremely valuable. Why did not a single one of them survive? (Even if he had sold them, they should have survived somewhere else!)
This is great! Is it from a DVD?
Yes. Johann Sebastian Bach: Matthäus-Passion BWV 244, Ton Koopman.
I can't listen to german without wanting to crack up every 5 seconds... their language is just so.... humorous sounding to my ear
Vielleicht, Alf English, bitte?
ho die naamvallen hahahaha
Auf English, bitte.
You night not be aware of this, but the text that appears on screen is actually a translation of the spoken dialogue.