# Can someone recommend a recording of Bach's Mass in B Minor?



## LAS (Dec 12, 2014)

I wish Apollo's Fire had recorded it. I would like a crisp, small group, preferably modern instruments. (I know Apollo's Fire doesn't use modern instruments.) There are lots of recordings, but I'm not educated enough to discriminate between performances.

tia
las


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

There are, really, a great number of performances for this work which is both a blessing and a curse. If you want a sound that has HIP influences but is still played with modern instruments two choices stand out in my mind:

1. Helmuth Rilling and the Stuttgart Bach Collegium's 1999 recording of the work.

2. Peter Schrier and the Bach Collegium Musicum of Leipzig's 1983 performance of the work.

Both are excellent performances that have modern instruments but a crisper sound than the more ponderous performances of the 60's and 70's.

My personal favourite performance is Stephen Layton's (quite recent) 2018 recording on Hyperion. The soloists are all quite good, the tempos are judiciously chosen, and the finale is quite probably the most splendid of any I've ever heard; it is on period instruments though.

If by a small group you meant quite small (1-4 voices per part) the Lars Ulrik Mortensen performance is quite beautiful although at times seems a bit slow and airy. The John Butt performances (which is truly OVPP) is also a good choice for a small ensemble.

I hope this helps. There are also a number of other threads on similar things if you use the search function.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Compared with the other ten or so recordings that I know (including most of the usual suspects) I find that these two stand out:

















Both are HIP, I'm afraid. The Bruggen is with quite a large band, the Cohen with smaller forces. Both are exceptionally well played and sung.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Compared with the other ten or so recordings that I know (including most of the usual suspects) I find that these two stand out:
> 
> View attachment 125860
> 
> ...


I found the orchestra was sometimes too prominent to the detriment of the singing in the Frans Brüggen interpretation. It wasn't bad just sometimes a little off. Jonathan Cohen does quite a good job and is a solid recommendation in my mind.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

LAS said:


> I wish Apollo's Fire had recorded it. I would like a crisp, small group, preferably modern instruments. (I know Apollo's Fire doesn't use modern instruments.)


If you want a small group I think you will have trouble finding a performance on modern instruments. But maybe you should try Helmut Muller-Bruhl on Naxos - he conducts a chamber orchestra playing modern instruments. I haven't heard it myself yet. But you can try it out on www.spotify.com









If you want it all scaled down (and you are willing to compromise buying a period recording) maybe you should consider a "one voice per part" recording. I would recommend Konrad Junghanänel on Harmonia Mundi:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

LAS said:


> I wish Apollo's Fire had recorded it. I would like a crisp, small group, preferably modern instruments. (I know Apollo's Fire doesn't use modern instruments.) There are lots of recordings, but I'm not educated enough to discriminate between performances.
> 
> tia
> las


For a small crisp group try Jonathan Butt and Helmut Rilling.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I love the big band, modern instrument versions....the instrumental solos are extensive and difficult....original instruments, for me, simply don't cut it....I love the old Karl Richter on Archiv from the 60s, it's my long time fave....I also enjoy Solti's superbly performed one...both are, for me, powerful and convincing.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

BachIsBest said:


> I found the orchestra was sometimes too prominent to the detriment of the singing in the Frans Brüggen interpretation. It wasn't bad just sometimes a little off. Jonathan Cohen does quite a good job and is a solid recommendation in my mind.


Re the Bruggen live recording, I didn't find that at all - although I did revel in much of the instrumental playing - and found the singing excellent.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I finally got around to hearing Klemperer, and I love it. Tempos are slow but elastic so as not to sound ponderous. All the majesty and beauty of the work comes shining through. The soloists, choir, and orchestra are exemplary. I’ll take this any day over wimpy HIP versions.

Jochum’s 1980 EMI recording is a good central choice in speeds slightly faster than Klemperer.

I’m also a fan of Scherchen. Tempos may be a bit eccentric, but it’s a beautiful, dedicated rendition that never fails to hold interest.

If you prefer HIP, Gardiner provides his customary energetic virtuosity, even if there remains a bit of detachment and lack of solemnity.

Herreweghe is the other extreme, producing a beautiful, poetic sound world but terribly boring as he purposefully mutes the drama. Not an approach for me, touching as it may be in quieter moments.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I'm not sure about that post. I don't think a recording based on old and non-HIP practices can be a "central choice" any more (although I do value both the Klemperer and the Jochum recordings), but more important to me is your seeming to boil down the HIP choices to a choice between two, neither of which would be in my top 10. I do agree with your reservations concerning the two you did choose to represent HIP, even though I'm not sure drama is so important in the Mass.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

cdfwsea>cmfskjbvchsdzkvcnh


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

It’s always been highly amusing to me when I enjoy a performance or recording, and someone “informs” me that I should not like it because it is not “correct.” That sums up everything that is wrong with the HIP movement.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I finally got around to hearing Klemperer, and I love it. Tempos are slow but elastic so as not to sound ponderous. All the majesty and beauty of the work comes shining through. The soloists, choir, and orchestra are exemplary. I'll take this any day over wimpy HIP versions.
> 
> Jochum's 1980 EMI recording is a good central choice in speeds slightly faster than Klemperer.
> 
> ...


If we're going completely non-HIP surely Karl Richter's performances of the work must be in the conversation. His 1961 recording of the mass remains one of my favourites; having DFD sing before the Cum Sancto Spiritus is something not easily forgotten.

I do agree with other posters that your HIP choices may not be the strongest. Gardiner's Sanctus is incredible and the singing is, overall, virtually unbeatable, but I think he fails to reach the more spiritual core of the work. Herreweghe's recording is impressive in its vision and unity of approach but he simply sacrifices too much to achieve it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I usually find Richter to be dull, but I’ll give it a try. Likewise I find Rilling to be lacking in personality.


----------



## Rmathuln (Mar 21, 2018)

My two absolute faves out of almost 50 I own are










*Herreweghe started as a choral conductor. Most conductors that record the mass have their origins with orchestras. The choral unison he achieves is nothing short of remarkable. And he took his force from Belgium to Berlin to make the recording in the justly famous (for acoustics that is) Jesus Christus Kirche*










*Suzuki is, of course, splendidly recorded and executed.
But the special attraction I believe can be attributed to Suzuki's Reformed Christian faith. The performance has passion in it I miss in most others. Witness the overwhelming excitement of Et resurrexit - it bursts forth with the requisite enthussiam appropriate following the sad Crucifixus. Makes leap out my seat every time I listen to it.*


----------



## Phil in Magnolia (Oct 6, 2017)

Andrew Parrott: Taverner Consort; Taverner Players, recorded 1984, St. John's, Smith Square, London. This has been my only recording of this composition.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Listened yesterday to Richter 1961 and Bruggen 2010.

Richter was just as I remember Richter, pedantic and boring.

Bruggen was worth listening once through. I can understand why people like it. If you are a person who goes by criteria and box-checking, then certainly this qualifies as a good recording. Tempos are fast but never sound rushed. The phrasing is exquisite. Everything sounds beautiful, and there is plenty of power in the more dramatic moments.

But in the end I am underwhelmed and unmoved. At least Gardiner and Herreweghe have something to say. What does Bruggen have to say except producing an inoffensive, efficient performance?

I think there is a general divide in reviewers. Some of us have criteria that are either met or not met. If they are met we are pleased, if they are not met we discard.

I am the opposite. I have no criteria. I just need a reason that compels me to listen. It can be slow, it can be fast, it can be old, it can be new. Just say something! The old masters, they were ARTISTS who had something to say. The new crop is obsessed with being perfect and devoid of idiosyncrasy. It's not art anymore. It is regurgitation.

So yes, at this point the only HIP performances I have heard with a true artistic vision have been Gardiner and Herreweghe. The rest strike me as bland and faceless in the same way Richter represents the non-HIP version of bland and faceless. For the box-checkers this suffices. For me it does not.

The versions that remain on my shelf for now include:

Klemperer
Enescu
Karajan '50
Jochum '80
Scherchen '59
Gardiner '85
Herreweghe '98


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Klemperer
> Enescu
> Karajan '50
> Jochum '80
> ...


What do these people "have to say"?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Just listening now to some of Bruggen's first recording, I'm not sure if that's the one being discussed. I just plonked on the second CD, I'm experiencing the credo as I type. I should say that this isn't music I know very well, in the sense that it's many years since I last thought about it or heard the whole thing.

What I'm hearing is beautifully elegant and poised, and almost gallant vision. I have no idea if that's Bruggen with something to say or not, but it seems rather an interesting experiment to me. I don't see how anyone could think that this recording is "not art."


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

Leonhardt's approach is austere but impressive


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> What do these people "have to say"?


See my comments on page one.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> See my comments on page one.


I can't see anything relevant, I must be a fool.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I can't see anything relevant, I must be a fool.


I explained how those recordings made an impact on me so that I keep them on my shelf so that I can return to them again.

I described Brüggen as being pleasant enough for one listen but not one I need to hear again.

I described Richter and Rilling as not holding my attention for a complete listen.

And I explained how I don't apply criteria to recordings. They either hold my attention or they don't. It's the purest criteria there is.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Oh sorry, I thought you were saying something about the performances. My bad.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Oh sorry, I thought you were saying something about the performances. My bad.


Huh? That's what I did. Do I need to quote the posts back to you?


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Listened yesterday to Richter 1961 and Bruggen 2010.
> 
> Richter was just as I remember Richter, pedantic and boring.


Although I'll never entirely understand this viewpoint I can see how Richter's vision can sometimes be rather uncompromising and "serious". Richter himself was a deeply religious person and the seriousness of his attitude towards the subject certainly comes through in the music; to me, this deep reverence is one of the greatest aspects of the recording.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

But you seem to be mainly talking about how the performances make you feel, apart from a comment or two about tempo. You don't feel like listening twice to one of them, another doesn't hold your attention. This is about _you_. Not about whether they are art or whether they have a vision etc.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> But you seem to be mainly talking about how the performances make you feel, apart from a comment or two about tempo. You don't feel like listening twice to one of them, another doesn't hold your attention. This is about _you_. Not about whether they are art or whether they have a vision etc.


First of all you are quoting only my summary. My initial posts provided more description about the performances.

Second, you just proved everything I said. I don't react to performances based on a fixed criteria. I react to them based on how I feel when I listen. How can this be only about me and not the performances if the performances are what determine my reaction?

I am a performer myself and I determine my success by my ability to move my audience. I do not determine my success by some supposed objective criteria of what the audience *should* like if only they would know what's good for them. That's not art.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I just find I’m very changeable, whether or not I like something depends very much on what I’ve had for lunch.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Second, you just proved everything I said. I don't react to performances based on a fixed criteria. I react to them based on how I feel when I listen.* How can this be only about me and not the performances if the performances are what determine my reaction?*


Because you refer to your reaction. Others may react otherwise. So your reaction does not define the performance.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Jgjfjgjxmmsnd csmnc sms


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

premont said:


> Because you refer to your reaction. Others may react otherwise. *So your reaction does not define the performance.*


Did I say it does?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Why do you think that Bruggen is “not art” or that he has nothing to say?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Why do you think that Bruggen is "not art" or that he has nothing to say?


I explained why in my post after listening to his recording


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ah I see, it’s not art because you were unmoved. Can you see how your defining the performance, or an aspect of it, by your reaction?

Unless you think that something is art only if it moves Brahmsian horn.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Ah I see, it's not art because you were unmoved. Can you see how your defining the performance, or an aspect of it, by your reaction?
> 
> Unless you think that something is art only if it moves Brahmsian horn.


It's not art if the performer does not engage in a personal identification and communication of the music but instead keeps things on a purely academic level, making music only according to what he thinks is objectively "correct" and approved by some sort of authority as opposed to something felt inside.

And for the record, my exact quote was, "The new crop is obsessed with being perfect and devoid of idiosyncrasy. It's not art anymore. It is regurgitation."

Show me where I mention Bruggen in this quote. He is not even alive anymore. I stated my thoughts on Bruggen. Maybe you should try actually reading them before you respond next time.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not art if the performer does not engage in a personal identification and communication of the music but instead keeps things on a purely academic level, making music only according to what he thinks is objectively "correct" and approved by some sort of authority as opposed to something felt inside.
> .


I'll tell you who that description makes me think of, I'm probably being really unfair to him, Narciso Yepes. Anthony Di Bonaventura too!


----------

