# B Minor Mass...definitely not the pinnacle of western music



## hiroica (Aug 31, 2015)

I love Bach. But I just saw the Mass in B Minor performed thinking that it may illuminate to me the magnificence of this work. It has its moments but I can think of many many others by Bach alone that I am more impressed by, not to mention the vast array of western music that I prefer to this. Am I missing something?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

It may be to some, but I'm more impressed by St. Matthew Passion by Bach, and Monteverdi's Vespers myself.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

You're probably missing something, such as the fact that there _is_ no pinnacle of Western music. But is anything "better" than the B-minor Mass? I can't think of anything, and wouldn't care to try. I'll just sit back and be amazed and grateful for such an achievement, thank you very much!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

If you don't like it, no-one saying you must, but Wood is right, you missing something.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> You're probably missing something, such as the fact that there _is_ no pinnacle of Western music.


Aren't you forgetting "My Sharona"?






"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Aren't you forgetting "My Sharona"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I wasn't forgetting "My Sharona." I had never heard of it. Now I have. Thanks a heap.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Of course, the performance has to capture it well, which is a VERY difficult accomplishment that very few have achieved at the highest level.

All his life, Bach was creating works that were perfectly executed compositions: fugal, contrapuntal, harmonic, ornate, dazzling. One can consider these perfect pieces of music as humble, reverent offerings to God.

With the Mass in B Minor, this culminated and is perhaps the summation and meaning of his whole life. Bach applied the same fundamentals but had mastered them so that he managed to create a music still with perfect compositional form while also taking this art to such a superior state that it seems to transcend "form" itself, existing above it in a purely spiritual, flowing, utterly natural and serene state. It is perhaps the highest, most miraculous state of aesthetics and emotion that any music has achieved.

This rendition may be the best evidence of what I mean: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mSpx-V_scIU/hqdefault.jpg

It is otherworldly, "above" music. A series of actual miracles unfolding. Every moment seems to be leaving this world into an indefinable sense of supernatural event and metaphysical emotional sensation, rising into and surrounding an infinity of luminous space.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

I do view the B minor mass as one of the pinnacles of Western music. I'm particularly impressed with the range of styles that Bach employed throughout this mass. In my opinion, this stylistic diversity serves an important purpose: it conveys Bach's theological interpretation of the mass text. 

For instance, the "Christe" section is written in the style of an operatic love duet. This strikes me as a theological statement about man's relation to Christ, expressing the Lutheran belief that man should strive to develop an affectionate relationship with the Son of God. The following "Kyrie" section uses a more austere contrapuntal style, which might reflect the Lutheran attitude of awe rather than affection toward God the Father.

Indeed, stylistic contrast plays an important role in Bach's mass, as a way of articulating the moods and events described in the text. For instance, the "Crucifixus" employs a chromatically descending bass line, a marker of grief and lamentation - yet this is suddenly interrupted by the triumphant tones of "Et Resurrexit." Instead of gradually transitioning between a lamenting style and a joyful style, Bach shifted abruptly without warning, perhaps to depict the surprise that the onlookers would have felt when witnessing the resurrection. Such shifts create an emotionally moving - and spiritually profound - narrative trajectory.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I'm not certain what you mean . . . oh, sorry. I thought you said "pineapple."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bettina said:


> I do view the B minor mass as one of the pinnacles of Western music. I'm particularly impressed with the range of styles that Bach employed throughout this mass. In my opinion, this stylistic diversity serves an important purpose: it conveys Bach's theological interpretation of the mass text.
> 
> For instance, the "Christe" section is written in the style of an operatic love duet. This strikes me as a theological statement about man's relation to Christ, expressing the Lutheran belief that man should strive to develop an affectionate relationship with the Son of God. The following "Kyrie" section uses a more austere contrapuntal style, which might reflect the Lutheran attitude of awe rather than affection toward God the Father.
> 
> Indeed, stylistic contrast plays an important role in Bach's mass, as a way of articulating the moods and events described in the text. For instance, the "Crucifixus" employs a chromatically descending bass line, a marker of grief and lamentation - yet this is suddenly interrupted by the triumphant tones of "Et Resurrexit." Instead of gradually transitioning between a lamenting style and a joyful style, Bach shifted abruptly without warning, perhaps to depict the surprise that the onlookers would have felt when witnessing the resurrection. Such shifts create an emotionally moving - and spiritually profound - narrative trajectory.


We should remember that many of the sections of the B-minor Mass were adapted from earlier works of Bach, and had different texts in their earlier incarnations. The practice of "parodying" other works was not considered unusual or inappropriate, but we might pause before attributing specific meaning to particular musical ideas - which is not necessarily to contradict your examples (though I do wonder what makes the "Christe eleison" duet a "love duet").


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

hiroica said:


> I love Bach. But I just saw the Mass in B Minor performed thinking that it may illuminate to me the magnificence of this work. It has its moments but I can think of many many others by Bach alone that I am more impressed by, not to mention the vast array of western music that I prefer to this. Am I missing something?


My thoughts exactly. For the life of me, I can't hear what others hear in this work. It is good, but there are a lot of Bach works that I prefer over it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> No, I wasn't forgetting "My Sharona." I had never heard of it. Now I have. Thanks a heap.


Good job Ken! You've infected the last human to escape the plague.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

*B Minor Mass...definitely the pinnacle of western music*

fixed that for you



Woodduck said:


> You're probably missing something, such as the fact that there _is_ no pinnacle of Western music. But is anything "better" than the B-minor Mass? I can't think of anything, and wouldn't care to try. I'll just sit back and be amazed and grateful for such an achievement, thank you very much!


Its truly impressive how you manage to comment on every thread with something usually very eloquent and substantive or at least entertaining


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Bach Mass in b = definitely one of the greatest works of music ever created.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Mass in B Minor isn't my favorite piece, nor one of my favorite pieces, but you just can't surpass it. It is something that I am in awe of when I listen to, something almost truly non-human- like the music that would be played in heaven (sorry to get a bit religious- but then again this is a religious work).

But a pinnacle of Western music? I couldn't say that. There have been so many composers, so many pieces, that one pinnacle is impossible to point out. No- I wouldn't like to think of _one_ piece is the best, I would just like to think of every composer and every piece being the best in their own way. And if there is a pinnacle of Western music, something definitive that stands out above the rest, I wouldn't like to know it. I would just like to listen to great music, and appreciate it, instead of thinking, "Well, this isn't the _pinnacle_ of Western music so this other piece that is _must_ be better."


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> We should remember that many of the sections of the B-minor Mass were adapted from earlier works of Bach, and had different texts in their earlier incarnations. The practice of "parodying" other works was not considered unusual or inappropriate, but we might pause before attributing specific meaning to particular musical ideas - which is not necessarily to contradict your examples (though I do wonder what makes the "Christe eleison" duet a "love duet").


Good point about Bach's adaptation of his own earlier works. Still, I would argue that he chose to "borrow" from works whose style suited the theological points that he wanted to make.

As for my claim about the love duet - the Christe uses several features that are characteristic of the love duets in Italian opera at the time, such as parallel thirds and sixths. There's more information about that in this book on page 57: https://books.google.com/books?id=8...ach parallel thirds christe love duet&f=false

Moreover, the idea of love between man and Jesus was a core tenet of Lutheran theology, which is why I interpreted the style of the "Christe" in the context of operatic love duets. In some of his other religious works (cantatas and such), Bach set a number of texts which explicitly describe the soul as the bride and Jesus as the groom.


----------



## Picander (May 8, 2013)

I love this Mass, but I think St Matthew Passion is far far better.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Bettina said:


> Moreover, the idea of love between man and Jesus was a core tenet of Lutheran theology, which is why I interpreted the style of the "Christe" in the context of operatic love duets.


What is notable about that section is, when the choir asks God for mercy, they come with figures which drop, suggesting bowing in reverence, maybe even a degree of uncertainty about their outcome. When they ask Christ for mercy, it's like their confidence in his love is so firm, they are actually flirting with him. I think it's one of the most charming parts of the B Minor Mass.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I think it's an attempt to give Bach a Don Giovanni or Ninth Symphony.... yet everyone knows Bach's true genius lies in his small form secular works.


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

The singing probably ruins it. I really do not believe classical music should have voice. That's a belief that a lot of people here probably don't share, which is fine.

There are so many pieces by Bach much better than mass in b minor, and it definitely _isn't _the pinnacle of Western Music.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I totally didn't understand this piece until I heard the right interpretation. Before that, it just went in one ear and out of the other. Didn't understand what the fuss was about. But with the right interpretation, it all clicked, and bam - pinnacle of Western music, yep.

For me the right interpretation was, and still is, Klemperer.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

AfterHours said:


> This rendition may be the best evidence of what I mean: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mSpx-V_scIU/hqdefault.jpg


I hadn't heard this one before and I think it's very good, thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I hadn't heard this one before and I think it's very good, thanks for pointing it out.


You're welcome, glad you enjoy it :tiphat:


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Good job Ken! You've infected the last human to escape the plague.


You do realize that "My Sharona" played in retrograde inversion and omitting all bars that contain parallel thirds is identical to Bach's Agnus Dei.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> I think it's an attempt to give Bach a Don Giovanni or Ninth Symphony.... yet *everyone knows Bach's true genius lies in his small form secular works.*


Apparently everyone is you.

Speaking, therefore, as no one, I must say I would never demean the _B-minor Mass_ by comparing it with _Don Giovanni_ - not in any respect or for any reason.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> I totally didn't understand this piece until I heard the right interpretation. Before that, it just went in one ear and out of the other. Didn't understand what the fuss was about. But with the right interpretation, it all clicked, and bam - pinnacle of Western music, yep.
> 
> *For me the right interpretation was, and still is, Klemperer.*


Now you've got me curious!


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Now you've got me curious!


Hmmh? You haven't heard it? It's rather well-known, I think. It's certainly... "different". Idiosyncratic. Something of a love-or-hate affair. You should really hear it, if you haven't yet!


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Xaltotun said:


> Hmmh? You haven't heard it? It's rather well-known, I think. It's certainly... "different". Idiosyncratic. Something of a love-or-hate affair. You should really hear it, if you haven't yet!


Great recommendation. Among more "theatrical/Romantically-inclined" interpretations, Klemperer's is up there with Jochum's.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

hiroica said:


> I love *Bach*. But I just saw the* Mass in B Minor* performed thinking that it may illuminate to me the magnificence of this work. It has its moments but* I can think of many **many others by Bach alone that I am more impressed by*, not to mention the vast array of western music that I prefer to this. Am I missing something?


I agree. As far as Bach is concerned, I would place the magnificent: Keyboard Partitas, WTC, collective solo organ works and Unaccompanied Violin Partitas and Sonatas, ahead of the B minor Mass, as profound musical utterances.

By the way, you and I may be the only two posters on TC who feel this way!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm listening to it for the first time right now, it's beautiful so far.

This version:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm listening to it for the first time right now, it's beautiful so far.
> 
> This version:


Yes, Herreweghe's Bach is beautiful, but so much is sacrificed to please the ear - especially the ear of the "HIP" crowd, who are willing to accept his dainty, mincing phrases, with their fairy-light inflections, little swoons, mannered fadeouts and clipped endings, as "authentic."

My first recording of this work, and one still unequaled in my estimation, was Karl Richter's, whose virtuoso Munich Bach Choir and Orchestra not only made a magnificent sound but played their ever-loving guts out. When those people sang "Kyrie!" you knew they meant it, and you knew you were hearing the real Bach, who loved God and took no sch***se from any of His incompetent children. J. S. would have had Herreweghe and his Historically Deformed ilk pumping the bellows at Sunday services and getting a demonstration of musical moxie at close range.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You're probably missing something, such as the fact that there _is_ no pinnacle of Western music.


Indeed.



Woodduck said:


> But is anything "better" than the B-minor Mass?


I can think of several works that I like as much as the Mass at the least, but I'm a bit bored of lists atm.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> My first recording of this work, and one still unequaled in my estimation, was Karl Richter's, whose virtuoso Munich Bach Choir and Orchestra not only made a magnificent sound but played their ever-loving guts out. When those people sang "Kyrie!" you knew they meant it, and you knew you were hearing the real Bach, who loved God and took no sch***se from any of His incompetent children. J. S. would have had Herreweghe and his Historically Deformed ilk pumping the bellows at Sunday services and getting a demonstration of musical moxie at close range.


Now now, Woodduck. I'm sure Bach would have no clue what was going on if he heard the Richter!


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Yes, Herreweghe's Bach is beautiful, but so much is sacrificed to please the ear - especially the ear of the "HIP" crowd, who are willing to accept his dainty, mincing phrases, with their fairy-light inflections, little swoons, mannered fadeouts and clipped endings, as "authentic."
> 
> My first recording of this work, and one still unequaled in my estimation, was Karl Richter's, whose virtuoso Munich Bach Choir and Orchestra not only made a magnificent sound but played their ever-loving guts out. When those people sang "Kyrie!" you knew they meant it, and you knew you were hearing the real Bach, who loved God and took no sch***se from any of His incompetent children. J. S. would have had Herreweghe and his Historically Deformed ilk pumping the bellows at Sunday services and getting a demonstration of musical moxie at close range.


I have never understood this idea that LOUD and SLOW gets you to profundity, at all.

Richter's OK as that kind of interpretation goes, but to borrow your words - so much is is sacrificed. Many of the notes Bach wrote, to begin with.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> My first recording of this work, and one still unequaled in my estimation, was Karl Richter's, whose virtuoso Munich Bach Choir and Orchestra not only made a magnificent sound but played their ever-loving guts out.


Agree completely, Woodduck. The Richter is superb - big, bold, solid, gutsy....full-throated voices, no wimpy braying, chirping, scratching from the orchestra. I suppose this approach is "dated"...but "I could care less...it is totally convincing for me....I do not find HIP very convincing in much of anything.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Chronochromie said:


> Now now, Woodduck. I'm sure Bach would have no clue what was going on if he heard the Richter!


Bach would love it, I'm sure!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Chronochromie said:


> Now now, Woodduck. I'm sure Bach would have no clue what was going on if he heard the Richter!


And you think he would recognize all the little artifices of Herreweghe? No doubt the younger generations have been indoctrinated by the HIPsters into forgetting what natural, unmannered, heartfelt music-making sounds like.

Some fine things have come out of scholarship since Richter's day, but so has a lot of presumption. I'd hesitate to say for certain what Bach would have a clue about, but I'm sure he would not like having his grandest conceptions starved in the name of historical accuracy.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm listening to it for the first time right now, it's beautiful so far.
> 
> This version:


This one too is great, even if I probably prefer Herreweghe's most recent rendition:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> I have never understood this idea that LOUD and SLOW gets you to profundity, at all.
> 
> Richter's OK as that kind of interpretation goes, but to borrow your words - so much is is sacrificed. Many of the notes Bach wrote, to begin with.


"Loud and slow" doesn't describe the recording I remember. Tempo is not an absolute quantity in any case. We're used to faster tempos in Baroque music now, but speed is not identical with energy.

I'm not saying that Richter's is the last word in Bach interpretation, only that it's a strong and healthy corrective to some of the extreme mannerisms now called "historically informed."


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> And you think he would recognize all the little artifices of Herreweghe? No doubt the younger generations have been indoctrinated by the HIPsters into forgetting what natural, unmannered, heartfelt music-making sounds like.
> 
> Some fine things have come out of scholarship since Richter's day, but so has a lot of presumption. I'd hesitate to say for certain what Bach would have a clue about, but I'm sure he would not like having his grandest conceptions starved in the name of historical accuracy.


Though Richter's/Klemperer's/Jochum's and the Romantically-inclined/theatrical conceptions are amazing in their own right, I do think that Herreweghe's most recent rendition is unsurpassed, and infact (in its own way) even grander, as it achieves an astonishing sense of elevation and infinitely luminous space. I actually think it's much more idiomatic, showing the music to be the culmination of Bach's life's work and ideals: an otherworldly experience, transcendent of form or even "music", on an entirely singular spiritual plane and an emotional experience that is overwhelmingly metaphysical and awe-inspiring as if one really is facing and consumed by the miracles it is evoking.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> And you think he would recognize all the little artifices of Herreweghe? No doubt the younger generations have been indoctrinated by the HIPsters into forgetting what natural, unmannered, heartfelt music-making sounds like.
> 
> Some fine things have come out of scholarship since Richter's day, but so has a lot of presumption. I'd hesitate to say for certain what Bach would have a clue about, but I'm sure he would not like having his grandest conceptions starved in the name of historical accuracy.


I thought your crankiness in the other post was in jest, but now I'm not so sure...I didn't say anything about the Herreweghe.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> And you think he would recognize all the little artifices of Herreweghe? No doubt the younger generations have been indoctrinated by the HIPsters into forgetting what natural, unmannered, heartfelt music-making sounds like.
> 
> Some fine things have come out of scholarship since Richter's day, but so has a lot of presumption. I'd hesitate to say for certain what Bach would have a clue about, but I'm sure he would not like having his grandest conceptions starved in the name of historical accuracy.


A few hours of the Emma Kirkby experience might have you changing your tune.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Ya, got Richter's versions of the Mass, St. Matthew, and Cantatas 140, 147. I prefer Gardiner though.


----------



## pierrot (Mar 26, 2012)

The higher the expectations and the pressure to enjoy, the less you'll actually enjoy any piece.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Ya, got Richter's versions of the Mass, St. Matthew, and Cantatas 140, 147. I prefer Gardiner though.


At one time, Karl Richter's performances were considered to be the "stylish" norm for performing Bach.

We've come a long, long way since then, regarding HIP, but there will always be a place for his moving performances.

His B minor Mass is very fine.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Chronochromie said:


> I thought your crankiness in the other post was in jest, but now I'm not so sure...I didn't say anything about the Herreweghe.


I know you didn't mention the Herreweghe. My crankiness is always serious - but then so are my jests.

I actually like HIP at times, so long as it doesn't shrink the spirit along with the choir. Baroque architecture and painting are extravagant, fleshy and grand, so why has our concept of the sound of Baroque music become so hyperrefined, anorexic and puny? Was the pomp and grandeur of Handel merely a Victorian projection, or do we find it in the culture of his time? Colorful old oboes, detailed phrasing, transparent textures - all good. But the complete elimination of vibrato in string playing? Female voices that pipe and tweet like boys (when they're allowed to participate at all)? Meditative chorales taken at the speed of light? Clipped phrase ends? No ritardandos? Swelling and diminishing on every held note? Things like this are widely taken as "authentic" in Baroque music even though there's no good basis for them, and appear to be accepted because they're "anti-Romantic." Well, no argument there. But what would Bach or Handel say? What did they hear in their heads while composing? What would they like to hear from us? Does anyone know?

Given that we can't even play the music of 1900 the way people played it in 1900, and might not want to if we could, it's foolish to think that we can read a treatise by Quantz and play music the way he heard it played. And why should we anyway? We, in 2017, are the ones playing and listening to it. What any composer wants, ultimately, is that his music be played with spontaneity, naturalness and conviction, and that's what musicians ought to do, regardless of how, or whether, they execute an inverted mordent.

And that is my cranky post on HIP.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> A few hours of the Emma Kirkby experience might have you changing your tune.


Emma is a charming songbird whose voice runs the gamut of emotions from A to B.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I know you didn't mention the Herreweghe. My crankiness is always serious - but then so are my jests.
> 
> I actually like HIP at times, so long as it doesn't shrink the spirit along with the choir. Baroque architecture and painting are extravagant, fleshy and grand, so why has our concept of the sound of Baroque music become so hyperrefined, anorexic and puny? Was the pomp and grandeur of Handel merely a Victorian projection, or do we find it in the culture of his time? Colorful old oboes, detailed phrasing, transparent textures - all good. But the complete elimination of vibrato in string playing? Female voices that pipe and tweet like boys (when they're allowed to participate at all)? Meditative chorales taken at the speed of light? Clipped phrase ends? No ritardandos? Swelling and diminishing on every held note? Things like this are widely taken as "authentic" in Baroque music even though there's no good basis for them, and appear to be accepted because they're "anti-Romantic." Well, no argument there. But what would Bach or Handel say? What did they hear in their heads while composing? What would they like to hear from us? Does anyone know?
> 
> ...


I do agree with what you say, to a certain extent. HIP can be taken much too far, and "authenticity" in place of the spirit of the music happens much too often.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I know you didn't mention the Herreweghe. My crankiness is always serious - but then so are my jests.
> 
> I actually like HIP at times, so long as it doesn't shrink the spirit along with the choir. Baroque architecture and painting are extravagant, fleshy and grand, so why has our concept of the sound of Baroque music become so hyperrefined, anorexic and puny? Was the pomp and grandeur of Handel merely a Victorian projection, or do we find it in the culture of his time? Colorful old oboes, detailed phrasing, transparent textures - all good. But the complete elimination of vibrato in string playing? Female voices that pipe and tweet like boys (when they're allowed to participate at all)? Meditative chorales taken at the speed of light? Clipped phrase ends? No ritardandos? Swelling and diminishing on every held note? Things like this are widely taken as "authentic" in Baroque music even though there's no good basis for them, and appear to be accepted because they're "anti-Romantic." Well, no argument there. But what would Bach or Handel say? What did they hear in their heads while composing? What would they like to hear from us? Does anyone know?
> 
> ...


I have had a lesson in this in recent months, first of all with Paul McCreesh's excellent Berlioz _Requiem_, then more recently with some exploration of the Beethoven Missa Solemnis. I have written more about the latter in another post but, in summary, after finding that most HIP performances seemed to ignore the emotional core of the work, it was a pleasure to come across a new recording by Daniel Reuss & the Orchestra of the 18th Century which abjures setting new speed records and reminds us that this is a solemn mass. HIP can be done thoughtfully.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Now you've got me curious!


It's the only version I listen to. Also, coincidentally, it's the only version i know of that doesn't use harpsichord.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> You're probably missing something, such as the fact that there _is_ no pinnacle of Western music. But is anything "better" than the B-minor Mass? I can't think of anything, and wouldn't care to try. I'll just sit back and be amazed and grateful for such an achievement, thank you very much!


I came here to say this but you've beaten me to it and probably said it better than I would have 

The B minor mass isn't even my favorite Bach work but I wouldn't know how to defend a claim that there is something better.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I came here to say this but you've beaten me to it and probably said it better than I would have
> 
> The B minor mass isn't even my favorite Bach work but I wouldn't know how to defend a claim that there is something better.


I want to know how one could defend a claim that there isn't!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Chronochromie said:


> I want to know how one could defend a claim that there isn't!


Clumsily. :lol:

Fortunately, since no one can defend the claim that there is, those who think there isn't can just relax knowing that their belief can never be effectively challenged.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Emma is a charming songbird whose voice runs the gamut of emotions from A to B.


A's and B's are pretty good grades; I'd give her an A+.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> A's and B's are pretty good grades; I'd give her an A+.


In sight reading, I presume.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I know you didn't mention the Herreweghe. My crankiness is always serious - but then so are my jests.
> 
> I actually like HIP at times, so long as it doesn't shrink the spirit along with the choir. Baroque architecture and painting are extravagant, fleshy and grand, so why has our concept of the sound of Baroque music become so hyperrefined, anorexic and puny?


Has it? I agree with your conclusion, but the bulk of the post reads as if you had been strapped to your seat and tortured by listening to Roger Norrington recordings for 2 weeks. 
Its unnecessary I think to focus on the worst HIP performances, when there are at the same time so many wonderful ensembles who don't do away with vibrato completely or speedrun through pieces as if they were late for an appointment.
It's as if I generalised and talked about Bach performances on modern instruments as being overblown and sluggish. I'm sure not all of them are like that.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

^^^ Yes, the truth is that there are plenty of bad/mediocre "modern instrument" recordings just like with HIP renditions. Just a matter of finding the right ones.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Chronochromie said:


> Has it? I agree with your conclusion, but the bulk of the post reads as if you had been strapped to your seat and tortured by listening to Roger Norrington recordings for 2 weeks.
> Its unnecessary I think to focus on the worst HIP performances, when there are at the same time so many wonderful ensembles who don't do away with vibrato completely or speedrun through pieces as if they were late for an appointment.
> It's as if I generalised and talked about Bach performances on modern instruments as being overblown and sluggish. I'm sure not all of them are like that.


As I say, I like HIP when it's good. The best performers can be quite exciting. But I've sampled too many "period" recordings and not been able to continue listening, especially with opera or oratorio. Granted that performances of Baroque music were often lead-footed before the '70s, they were at least natural and not full of the distracting little mannerisms of articulation that soon became almost obligatory markers of HIP. Things have improved recently, I think, and the general approach is more varied, with performers more comfortable on old-style instruments and less anxious lest they sound too "Romantic."


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> In sight reading, I presume.


I didn't know Emma could read music. With that in mind, I'll raise her to AAA status.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I have always appreciated more than loved the B minor mass. My favorites have always been the more romantic interpretations: Enescu, Karajan (1950), Jochum, Giulini, Klemperer. I also like Herreweghe for HIP, and to an extent Gardiner, though he lacks warmth.

However, my new favorite which has perhaps finally converted me to this work is the beautiful 1959 Scherchen recording. This may be what finally brings the beauty and profundity of the work fully to my conscious:


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> ......Meditative chorales taken at the speed of light? Clipped phrase ends? No ritardandos? *Swelling and diminishing on every held note?* Things like this are widely taken as "authentic" in Baroque music even though there's no good basis for them, and appear to be accepted because they're "anti-Romantic."......


"Swelling and diminishing on every held note?" This is really an annoying mannerism. It completely disrupts a fine legato line, or a lovely melody...it's the "egg-shaped notes" aberration - I remember listening to a work by, IIRC, Corelli [a fine melodist, IME] played by an HIP group - every note had the swell/diminish mannerism stuck onto it...I had to stop listening, I was getting seasick....


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I know you didn't mention the Herreweghe. My crankiness is always serious - but then so are my jests.
> 
> I actually like HIP at times, so long as it doesn't shrink the spirit along with the choir. Baroque architecture and painting are extravagant, fleshy and grand, so why has our concept of the sound of Baroque music become so hyperrefined, anorexic and puny? Was the pomp and grandeur of Handel merely a Victorian projection, or do we find it in the culture of his time? Colorful old oboes, detailed phrasing, transparent textures - all good. But the complete elimination of vibrato in string playing? Female voices that pipe and tweet like boys (when they're allowed to participate at all)? Meditative chorales taken at the speed of light? Clipped phrase ends? No ritardandos? Swelling and diminishing on every held note? Things like this are widely taken as "authentic" in Baroque music even though there's no good basis for them, and appear to be accepted because they're "anti-Romantic." Well, no argument there. But what would Bach or Handel say? What did they hear in their heads while composing? What would they like to hear from us? Does anyone know?
> 
> ...


I love HIP performances and it is realy a pity that I have to be agree with you. Herreweghe is giving us a Bach wich sounded beautiful but it lacks an inner fire wich is so more present in the Leonhardt / Harnoncourt recordings.
Another plaque is the breathless playing without a human face,is that authentic?
I read in a biography about Bernard Haitink a nice quote of Eugen Jochum.
HIP musicians are the Vegitarians in the music .
Luckily there are still very fine HIP performances,so not everything is lost.
Thank you for posting :tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Traverso said:


> I love HIP performances and it is realy a pity that I have to be agree with you. Herreweghe is giving us a Bach wich sounded beautiful but it lacks an inner fire wich is so more present in the Leonhardt / Harnoncourt recordings.
> Another plaque is the breathless playing without a human face,is that authentic?
> I read in a biography about Bernard Haitink a nice quote of Eugen Jochum.
> HIP musicians are the Vegitarians in the music .
> Luckily there are still very fine HIP performances,so not everything is lost.


My view is that nothing has been lost - there have only been improvements. Keep vibrato away from baroque music!


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> My view is that nothing has been lost - there have only been improvements. Keep vibrato away from baroque music!


I agree with you if you speak about constant and excessive vibrato.Let us not be too rigid about these things.There are beautiful HIP recordings with a a healthy amount of vibrato,it is not written in stone that a HIP performance must be without the slightest use of vibrato.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> Keep vibrato away from baroque music!


Why?? vibrato is simply an expressive device, like dynamics, or articulation...why should it be subtracted from the performer's palette?? performing with sensitivity, creativity, expression is the goal, why place such a limitation??


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> Why?? vibrato is simply an expressive device, like dynamics, or articulation...why should it be subtracted from the performer's palette?? performing with sensitivity, creativity, expression is the goal, why place such a limitation??


It's very simple - my enjoyment of baroque music is significantly lowered when vibrato is employed. This seems to be a notion that gets little recognition. Instead, I keep hearing about folks listening to HIP/period instrument performances because they want to be aligned with historical accuracy. I have about as much interest in historical accuracy as I do in reductions or additions to a performer's palette.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> It's very simple - my enjoyment of baroque music is significantly lowered when vibrato is employed...


Do you like vibrato in later periods of music?? Classical,Romantic, modern?? I'm talking about expressive vibrato - not the "electronic switch" style - omnipresent - never changes speed or intensity.



> I have about as much interest in historical accuracy as I do in reductions or additions to a performer's palette.


that to me is a major issue - I have a Baroque vocal disc featuring Handel arias, with HIP orchestra accompaniment - some beautiful oboe solos - all played straight, sans vibrato, with that thin, watery, chirpy baroque oboe sound...it's really rather unpleasant listening for me - I think how lovely it would sound played by one of the great oboe masters - Harold Gomberg, Ray Still, Lifschey, Klein, etc... instead I get this thin, watery parody of oboe playing.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Imagine...one is about to purchase a Bach Mass in B minor set and across the jewel case top it is written: 

"Caution!!! Definitely not the pinnacle of Western Music!!" :lol:


----------



## hiroica (Aug 31, 2015)

Uyyfyyt I used Ty to be t


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

hiroica said:


> Uyyfyyt I used Ty to be t


Huh??  Are you OK? Have you been overdosing on the B Minor mass?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> Do you like vibrato in later periods of music?? Classical,Romantic, modern??etc...


Well, I don't mind a little vibrato in Classical-era music. Moving forward in time, no problem.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Traverso said:


> I agree with you if you speak about constant and excessive vibrato.Let us not be too rigid about these things.There are beautiful HIP recordings with a a healthy amount of vibrato,it is not written in stone that a HIP performance must be without the slightest use of vibrato.


Well applied expressive vibrato was without doubt used in the Baroque age, but to day the problem is, that this expressive vibrato most often is overdone by musicians brought up in the old school tradition.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

hpowders said:


> Imagine...one is about to purchase a Bach Mass in B minor set and across the jewel case top it is written:
> 
> "Caution!!! Definitely not the pinnacle of Western Music!!" :lol:


What about this:

"Caution!!! Definitely the pinnacle of Western Music!!"

?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

premont said:


> What about this:
> 
> "Caution!!! Definitely the pinnacle of Western Music!!"
> 
> ?


I wouldn't buy it, because an opinion is being stated as if it was fact.


----------



## hiroica (Aug 31, 2015)

Bettina said:


> Huh??  Are you OK? Have you been overdosing on the B Minor mass?


Haha!! I guess I pocket posted that. Very funny response though. Actually I have been overdosing on the b minor mass. Have gotten some great perspectives on this thread and have been checking out various recordings. So far my appreciation is definitely growing for this piece so I'm grateful for that! Out of curiousity what are some of your favorite sections (movements??) of this Mass?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

hiroica said:


> I love Bach. But I just saw the Mass in B Minor performed thinking that it may illuminate to me the magnificence of this work. It has its moments but I can think of many many others by Bach alone that I am more impressed by, not to mention the vast array of western music that I prefer to this. Am I missing something?


No single work represents the pinnacle. But the fact is Bach's oeuvre show case so many great pieces that make him one of the pinnacle composers who walked the planet. That's how I view it.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

hiroica said:


> Uyyfyyt I used Ty to be t


I'm similarly at a loss for words when I listen to it


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

On the question of vibrato -

Vibrato, or excessive vibrato, has been criticized as undesirable for centuries. Some have taken this as a reason for eliminating it from singing or playing, at least in music of certain periods and styles. The question of when and how vibrato should be employed is not settled, but we do know from recordings that singers trained as far back as the mid-19th century exhibit continuous vibrato in their singing, and it's reasonable to assume that singers in the preceding periods who trained in the same pedagogical traditions also sang with vibrato.

Vibrato is a natural, involuntary physical function of a fully trained voice of the sort required to sing the difficult music of Baroque and bel canto opera; the idea that complaints about excessive vibrato in these eras argue for its elimination is contrary to the evidence and contrary to nature. And since instrumentalists have long spoken of achieving a "singing" quality in their playing, it's also unreasonable to think that they did not long ago hit upon the idea of imitating the vocal vibrato for heightened expression. Indicative of this, the organ stop known as the "tremulant" has been a part of organ building since at least the 16th century.

Vibratos differ greatly in amplitude (pitch fluctuation) and periodicity (speed of pulsation). The conspicuous, "wobbly" vibratos heard nowadays from many opera singers and even some instrumentalists has probably been condemned in classical music through most of Western history, and even a sampling of recordings from the early 20th century show that it has not been as prevalent even in fairly recent times as it seems to be now. Whatever the reason for the change in tolerance for such intrusive vibrato (I think it's a matter of vocal technique, not of voluntary choice), I find it detrimental to almost any music. But vibrato itself lends to otherwise bland and inexpressive tones an inner life and resonance, and fills otherwise dull long-sustained tones with "vibrant" beauty. It enables Sibelius's cor anglais to sing like a swan rather than quack like a duck.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Is string vibrato an involuntary physical or emotional function?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> Is string vibrato an involuntary physical or emotional function?


Is that a real question?

I think I answered it when I said, "And since instrumentalists have long spoken of achieving a 'singing' quality in their playing, it's also unreasonable to think that they did not long ago hit upon the idea of imitating the vocal vibrato for heightened expression. Indicative of this, the organ stop known as the 'tremulant' has been a part of organ building since at least the 16th century."

In other words, instrumental vibrato is basically an imitation of vocal vibrato. Exactly when and how instrumentalists developed techniques for employing it we don't know, but its usefulness was recognized by organists quite early, and in the organ it has to be built in as a mechanism. Stringed and wind instruments can easily produce it at the pleasure of the player, once one knows how.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Is that a real question?


No, I was just having a little fun. Thanks for the historical perspective.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> No, I was just having a little fun. Thanks for the historical perspective.


You're welcome.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> ....I said, "And since instrumentalists have long spoken of achieving a 'singing' quality in their playing, it's also unreasonable to think that they did not long ago hit upon the idea of imitating the vocal vibrato for heightened expression.
> .......In other words, instrumental vibrato is basically an imitation of vocal vibrato. Exactly when and how instrumentalists developed techniques for employing it we don't know, but its usefulness was recognized by organists quite early, and in the organ it has to be built in as a mechanism. Stringed and wind instruments can easily produce it at the pleasure of the player, once one knows how.


Vibrato applied to wind instrument performance is used as an expressive device, and is an imitation of the singing voice.
Vibrato use for wind instruments has many variations around the world, and has undergone change over the years...At present, generally speaking - vibrato is a standard practice for flute, oboe and bassoon; also trumpet, and trombone/tuba to some extent.
Clarinet and horn not so much, at least in most countries...however, there are variations - the Czechs, Russians and French have a history of using vibrato for horn, and clarinet [Czechs] In past years, the Russians would use huge vibrato for horn, and for trombone.
Now, with the Viennese and Germans, it is a bit different - German bassoonists used no vibrato until well into the 20th century. the Vienna Philharmonic bassoon section never used it until c.1970. now it is used in both locations.
In the US - the early part of the 20th century - the bassoonists used a very pronounced, at times rapid vibrato [Walter Guetter, Wm Polisi and their students] but this went out of style, and a more flexible, singing style has long been the standard.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Is that a real question?
> 
> I think I answered it when I said, "And since instrumentalists have long spoken of achieving a 'singing' quality in their playing, it's also unreasonable to think that they did not long ago hit upon the idea of imitating the vocal vibrato for heightened expression. Indicative of this, the organ stop known as the 'tremulant' has been a part of organ building since at least the 16th century."
> 
> In other words, instrumental vibrato is basically an imitation of vocal vibrato. Exactly when and how instrumentalists developed techniques for employing it we don't know, but its usefulness was recognized by organists quite early, and in the organ it has to be built in as a mechanism. Stringed and wind instruments can easily produce it at the pleasure of the player, once one knows how.


The assumption there is that people in the 16th / 17th century sang with vibrato. Has anyone looked into this?


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> On the question of vibrato -
> 
> Vibrato, or excessive vibrato, has been criticized as undesirable for centuries. Some have taken this as a reason for eliminating it from singing or playing, at least in music of certain periods and styles. The question of when and how vibrato should be employed is not settled, but we do know from recordings that singers trained as far back as the mid-19th century exhibit continuous vibrato in their singing, and it's reasonable to assume that singers in the preceding periods who trained in the same pedagogical traditions also sang with vibrato.
> 
> ...


Man, this post saved my day. It's about time someone defends vibrato (and in a rational manner, on top!)! Thanks, W.!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> The assumption there is that people in the 16th / 17th century sang with vibrato. Has anyone looked into this?


One difficulty with this is in knowing exactly what is being called "vibrato," and in whether the effects mentioned by musicians, critics and listeners over the centuries using terms other than "vibrato" (a word not in common use until the 19th century) correspond to what singers would call vibrato today. Another difficulty is in deciding what's meant by the word even now! The question of definition doesn't arise for instrumentalists, since in playing an instrument any continuous, periodic fluctuation in pitch may properly be called "vibrato." In singing, however, a vibrato is not a vibrato is not a vibrato; there are crucial muscular differences in the ways pitch fluctuations can be produced, resulting in different effects which are rightly distinguished by singers and called by different names (such as "tremolo" or "wobble"). A vibrato in jazz, for example, is most often a deliberate effect very much under the control of the singer, while a vibrato in a classically trained voice is involuntary and controllable only to a limited extent.

Speaking generically, pitch fluctuation has been a recognized phenomenon in singing since at least the 15th century. But its actual place in singing, and the value or disvalue placed upon it, is controversial. Since the natural vibrato of a trained voice can vary greatly in its prominence (determined by differences in pitch fluctuation and speed of pulsation), with different singers' vibratos being narrower or wider and quicker or slower, it's impossible to be sure, when we read in old documents criticisms of voices "trembling" or "shaking," exactly what sort of sound is being objected to. At one extreme, some scholars take criticisms of such effects as indicating that vibratoless singing - "straight tone" - was the norm in early music, even as late as the early 19th century. Most singers and vocal pedagogues reject this view, claiming that because vibrato occurs naturally in technically developed singing (singing such as the demanding music of the Baroque and Classical requires), it is not credible that singers were busy trying to eliminate all vibrato from their voices, and that what was considered unpleasant was not vibrato as such but conspicuous vibrato that interfered with clarity of pitch and subtlety and variety of expression.

This is a complex subject. My own view is that the true, involuntary vocal vibrato has been a part of singing at least since voices were trained in the difficult techniques of Baroque music, and that opinions about what sort of vibrato is desirable have varied through the centuries, with most cultivated tastes in most eras favoring a quick, narrow vibrato that gives life to the tone but does not register as compromising clarity of pitch.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> One difficulty with this is in knowing exactly what is being called "vibrato," and in whether the effects mentioned by musicians, critics and listeners over the centuries using terms other than "vibrato" (a word not in common use until the 19th century) correspond to what singers would call vibrato today. Another difficulty is in deciding what's meant by the word even now! The question of definition doesn't arise for instrumentalists, since in playing an instrument any continuous, periodic fluctuation in pitch may properly be called "vibrato." In singing, however, a vibrato is not a vibrato is not a vibrato; there are crucial muscular differences in the ways pitch fluctuations can be produced, resulting in different effects which are rightly distinguished by singers and called by different names (such as "tremolo" or "wobble"). A vibrato in jazz, for example, is most often a deliberate effect very much under the control of the singer, while a vibrato in a classically trained voice is involuntary and controllable only to a limited extent.
> 
> Speaking generically, pitch fluctuation has been a recognized phenomenon in singing since at least the 15th century. But its actual place in singing, and the value or disvalue placed upon it, is controversial. Since the natural vibrato of a trained voice can vary greatly in its prominence (determined by differences in pitch fluctuation and speed of pulsation), with different singers' vibratos being narrower or wider and quicker or slower, it's impossible to be sure, when we read in old documents criticisms of voices "trembling" or "shaking," exactly what sort of sound is being objected to. At one extreme, some scholars take criticisms of such effects as indicating that vibratoless singing - "straight tone" - was the norm in early music, even as late as the early 19th century. Most singers and vocal pedagogues reject this view, claiming that because vibrato occurs naturally in technically developed singing (singing such as the demanding music of the Baroque and Classical requires), it is not credible that singers were busy trying to eliminate all vibrato from their voices, and that what was considered unpleasant was not vibrato as such but conspicuous vibrato that interfered with clarity of pitch and subtlety and variety of expression.
> 
> This is a complex subject. My own view is that the true, involuntary vocal vibrato has been a part of singing at least since voices were trained in the difficult techniques of Baroque music, and that opinions about what sort of vibrato is desirable have varied through the centuries, with most cultivated tastes in most eras favoring a quick, narrow vibrato that gives life to the tone but does not register as compromising clarity of pitch.


It's not only a question of what sort of vibrato to use, it's a question of whether vocal vibrato was ornamental or continuous.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bach's B minor Mass is okay, and I already listed some of Bach's own works that IMO, surpass it in musical quality.

Outside of Bach? Beethoven's Missa Solemnis surpasses it. 

Haydn's Late Masses and Mozart's Great C minor Mass are also more to my liking.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> As I say, I like HIP when it's good. The best performers can be quite exciting. But I've sampled too many "period" recordings and not been able to continue listening, especially with opera or oratorio. Granted that performances of Baroque music were often lead-footed before the '70s, they were at least natural and not full of the distracting little mannerisms of articulation that soon became almost obligatory markers of HIP. Things have improved recently, I think, and the general approach is more varied, with performers more comfortable on old-style instruments and less anxious lest they sound too "Romantic."


I'm not a specialist of HIP recordings but the recordings I know do sound a lot better and "natural" to my ears then more 50's, 60's, 70's and 80' recordings. I'm talking about Beethoven and Händel mainly.

Could it be that you just happen to like the more "romantic" way of playing baroque-style music but that the HIP style is actually more historically correct? I can't imagine that by doing historic research you come to a less historical correct way of playing, as you seem to believe?

Anyway, I think I'd prefer any HIP performance (good or bad) over this:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I've heard good HIP's, bad HIP's, good modern instruments, bad modern instruments. For me HIP brings out the clarity, colour and texture better than modern, the sound of which get washed over some to my ears. But when the HIP recording does it at he expense of feeling, and becomes cold as ice like McCreesh to my ears, I'll go with whatever else moves me more.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I've heard good HIP's, bad HIP's, good modern instruments, bad modern instruments. For me HIP brings out the clarity, colour and texture better than modern, the sound of which get washed over some to my ears. But when the HIP recording does it at he expense of feeling, and becomes cold as ice like McCreesh to my ears, I'll go with whatever else moves me more.


Excellent, valid points in my book


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Razumovskymas said:


> I'm not a specialist of HIP recordings but the recordings I know do sound a lot better and "natural" to my ears then more 50's, 60's, 70's and 80' recordings. I'm talking about Beethoven and Händel mainly.
> 
> Could it be that you just happen to like the more "romantic" way of playing baroque-style music but that the HIP style is actually more historically correct? I can't imagine that by doing historic research you come to a less historical correct way of playing, as you seem to believe?
> 
> Anyway, I think I'd prefer any HIP performance (good or bad) over this:


I never said that I liked a "Romantic" way of playing Baroque music (whatever that means), or said that scholarship must lead to a less "historically accurate" style of playing. All I've said is that we shouldn't be too confident that our assumptions about period style in singing and playing are authentic, and that we ought not be too hung up on it in any case. We have to please our own ears, not Handel's.

The Scherchen Messiah is a rather extreme example, don't you think? I wouldn't even call it "Romantic." I think it may represent a then-current idea of Baroque style.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> It's not only a question of what sort of vibrato to use, it's a question of whether vocal vibrato was ornamental or continuous.


I don't think vocal vibrato has been continuous in all historical periods, or that singers have ever not varied it for expressive purposes (I prefer "expressive" to "ornamental"). The only thing I feel pretty sure of is that it has never been completely frowned upon and suppressed in any style of music since the Baroque.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think vocal vibrato has been continuous in all historical periods, or that singers have ever not varied it for expressive purposes (I prefer "expressive" to "ornamental"). The only thing I feel pretty sure of is that it has never been completely frowned upon and suppressed in any style of music since the Baroque.


I think that's probably true.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I never said that I liked a "Romantic" way of playing Baroque music (whatever that means), or said that scholarship must lead to a less "historically accurate" style of playing. All I've said is that we shouldn't be too confident that our assumptions about period style in singing and playing are authentic, and that we ought not be too hung up on it in any case. *We have to please our own ears, not Handel's.*
> 
> The Scherchen Messiah is a rather extreme example, don't you think? I wouldn't even call it "Romantic." I think it may represent a then-current idea of Baroque style.


I would disagree with that. I would definitely prefer what Händel would have liked then the result of decades of "misinterpretation" or pleasing the ears of what happenned to be en vogue that day (50's, 60's, 70's...). Although I follow your concern, I have the impression that it's caused by personal preference, which is totally ok (and I have no idea of your own historical knowledge). Anyway, I think it's a bonus that there's at least some distinction between two kinds of approaches.

On the other hand I'm far not educated enough to determine if some HIP-styles have too much "mannerisms", caused by a reaction to the more "romantic" style and as a result going far too much into the wrong direction. But all in all I think these things will be corrected in some way as long as there are educated people like you 

Have you heard the Beethoven symphony cycle of Jos Van Immerseel (anima eterna)? I would love to hear you opinion on that recording.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Razumovskymas said:


> I would disagree with that. I would definitely prefer what Händel would have liked then the result of decades of "misinterpretation" or pleasing the ears of what happenned to be en vogue that day (50's, 60's, 70's...). Although I follow your concern, I have the impression that it's caused by personal preference, which is totally ok (and I have no idea of your own historical knowledge). Anyway, I think it's a bonus that there's at least some distinction between two kinds of approaches.
> 
> On the other hand I'm far not educated enough to determine if some HIP-styles have too much "mannerisms", caused by a reaction to the more "romantic" style and as a result going far too much into the wrong direction. But all in all I think these things will be corrected in some way as long as there are educated people like you
> 
> Have you heard the Beethoven symphony cycle of Jos Van Immerseel (anima eterna)? I would love to hear you opinion on that recording.


If you are, as you say, "not educated enough to determine if some HIP-styles have too much 'mannerisms', caused by a reaction to the more 'romantic' style and as a result going far too much into the wrong direction," then why risk arguing with those who _may_ be educated enough? And if you have "no idea of [my] historical knowledge" - which, on the subject in question, is considerable and has been acquired over fifty years, very nearly the entire period of the HIP phenomenon - then how do you know that my reservations about certain HIP practices are "caused by personal preference" rather than based on consideration of facts available to anyone?

I have personal preferences, yes, and these are independent of orthodox views of what is "correct." In the late 1960s and early '70s, when HIP was new and musicians like Harnoncourt and Malgoire were scrubbing out everyone's ears with period ensemble recordings of Bach and Handel, I was quite excited by the sounds I heard, and I spent a lot of time reading and thinking and even embellishing my trusty copy of Handel's _Messiah_ with what I believed to be authentic ornamentation. I followed with interest and pleasure the flood of recordings which came out during the 70s and 80s, I read quite a bit of scholarly material on early music performance, and I even sang with the Boston-based Telemann Society, a pickup ensemble that put out a number of recordings in an effort to show the world what Baroque music should sound like. That last experience, an experience of music-making under the directorship of people whose ideas about choral singing ca. 1750 were obviously derived from academic studies rather than from actually singing, was my first lesson in how academic scholarship can spawn dogmas and orthodoxies which can lead performers in directions neither historically authentic nor even - more importantly - fundamentally musical.

The directors of the Telemann Society, like you, wanted to hear Handel's music as Handel would have heard it. Trouble is, that is not possible, and if we think it is we are likely to embrace and defend practices that would have caused Handel to hold us out a window and threaten to drop us into the street below, as he did to soprano Francesca Cuzzoni. No one who's done even a little research into early music performance practice would doubt that we know a good bit more about what Handel heard than did Hermann Scherchen and others of his generation. But one who has done a great deal of research, understands the ambiguities of the written word, recognizes the impossibility of translating words about the sound of music into precise aural images, knows that Baroque music is a performer's art as well as a composer's, and knows that where the rubber hits the road -actual musical interpretation by individual human beings - subjective fancy reigns supreme - that person will be the last to propose rigid notions of what is "correct" in the performance of the music of past eras whose experiences and sensibilities are remote from and inaccessible to the present.

If we could keep this larger view in mind, we might at least spare ourselves silly debates about whether, for example, Bach's WTC "should" be played on harpsichord, clavichord, or piano, or how many singers we "should" employ per part in a Bach cantata, or whether a given soprano has the "right" amount of vibrato. The truth is that people were quite flexible about these things in Bach's time, and practices varied widely. We need always to question our presumptions to "authenticity" in our ways of articulating early music right down to the details of attack and phrasing, and, recognizing in humility the incompleteness of our knowledge, realize that what matters in the end is whether the music moves us. Once we've done our academic homework, we are still left with a lot of questions and choices. We should choose according to the dictates of our hearts, not our textbooks. This is music we're talking about, and the last I looked, music was an art, not a science.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

You just can't be dogmatic about HIP practice as anyone with knowledge and sense knows. For example the theory of one singer per part is not at all certain as we simply don't know if there were any other parts (other than those found) or how many singers (up to three?) in Bach's performances shared a part. Certainly there is general agreement that the music comes up better in a slimmed down version rather than the large choirs. But Handel and Bach were both pragmatists and would have arranged the music to suite resources. We know Handel approved several versions of Messiah for instance, one with a large chorus! He may even have approved of Beecham's version! 
I believe Bach and Handel would have scratched their heads in amazement about the dogmatism of some of the HIP debate. They are no doubt enjoying an amused chuckle somewhere!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I think the idea of HIP is (partly) that excluding from performances things Bach probably didn't mean - continuous vibrato and equal temperament quite possibly, modern piano and Klemperer sized choirs more certainly - can help make an interesting, stimulating, moving performance. That's all. It's a bit like reading the score. It's a good idea to make an informed judgement about what he meant.

No one's saying that doing otherwise is silly, are they? By all means, listen to the Swingle Singers and The Art of Fuging if you like it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I* think the idea of HIP is (partly) that excluding from performances things Bach probably didn't mean - continuous vibrato and equal temperament quite possibly, modern piano and Klemperer sized choirs more certainly - can help make an interesting, stimulating, moving performance. That's all.*


If that were all the HIP movement intended, it would have been unnecessary, since people were already interested, stimulated and moved by Bach's music before HIP came along.

For the fun of it, let's look at a few HIP shibboleths.

The size of choirs and orchestras in the Baroque and Classical eras was generally a practical matter and a matter of custom. Mozart once had the opportunity of hearing one of his works played by a very large orchestra, and he was reportedly delighted by the effect. Bach, as a church music director, asked the administrators for a certain number of singers per part in his choir (three, I believe), but it's more than likely that he was asking for the minimal necessary forces within what the church's customary music budget would allow. We have no idea how large a chorus Bach or Handel may have heard in their dreams; given the lavishness and grandeur of Baroque art and architecture, we might reasonably surmise that composers would have been delighted with good-sized choirs if they'd been able to get them. And yet we have people insisting that what are essentially chamber ensembles are "better" in 18th-century music and that Bach and Mozart "would have wanted" them. Joshua Rifkin, going to extremes, even argued that Bach's choruses ought to be sung with a single voice per part, and made recordings to prove his point.

On the matter of the particular keyboard on which 18th-century music was played, we know that Bach was very interested in the fortepiano. How could a musician not be excited by a keyboard instrument which promised dynamic control of the sort other instruments and singers took for granted? But when I was in college there were people asserting that playing Bach's music on the piano was "wrong," and that Baroque music for any ensemble should always be performed with "terraced" dynamics and little or no dynamic variation within "terraces," as if all other instruments should be subject to the dynamic limitations of the harpsichord.

How fast should a French overture be played? Should certain dotted rhythms be double dotted or softened into triplets? Should the string parts be reinforced with winds? How long should an oboist lean into an appoggiatura? Should a note be sung with vibrato throughout, begun with straight tone and increasingly vibrated, or not vibrated at all? Should a group of notes be played as a single phrase, broken up into two phrases, or perhaps four? Should a note be swelled and then diminished in volume? Is this the usual way of articulating long notes on a stringed instrument, or an effect to be be used judiciously? Should the continuo player ornament the accompaniment in a recitative? Should he play a harpsichord or a fortepiano?

It's great to seek answers to these questions, better to recognize that we often have no definitive answers, and best just to do what we find "interesting, stimulating, and moving," whether or not we know what Bach or Handel did or didn't "mean." The chances are that they meant mainly what they wrote on the page, that they expected their interpreters to show some imagination and originality, and that they would be gratefully surprised at any reasonable and genuine effort to bring their music to life centuries hence.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> If that were all the HIP movement intended, it would have been unnecessary, since people were already interested, stimulated and moved by Bach's music before HIP came along.


And others were not. I was not. So a good thing indeed!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> If that were all the HIP movement intended, it would have been unnecessary, since people were already interested, stimulated and moved by Bach's music before HIP came along.
> 
> For the fun of it, let's look at a few HIP shibboleths.
> 
> ...


I'm sure they wanted interpreters to show imagination and originality as you say. And I'm sure that you're right to suggest that they'd have been delighted to have had the opportunity to write for large choirs. And you're spot on to say that Bach was interested in fortepianos, at least towards the end of his life.

I bet Schubert would have been delighted with large choirs too. I could get a large choir to sing Winterreise. That would be a bit imaginative, and it would transform the music quite a bit too. I'm sure someone would love it like that, though. Maybe the same is true, mutatis mutandis, for Klemperer's B minor mass.

Re keyboard dynamics, note that neither f/p dynamics, clavichord dynamics or the illusions of dynamic variation that a harpsichord player can create with (eg) rhythmic rubato, are as extreme as what can be achieved on a modern piano. On reflection I think that you can give a good historically prepared performance of some of Bach's music on a Steinway. Not all of his keyboard music though . . .


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I remember the first time I heard a HIP/period instrument baroque performance. It was in the 1980's, and I hadn't listened to any classical music since around 1960; I didn't know of HIP, period instruments or anything along those lines. I started by listening to a few baroque recordings that happened to be of the modern instrument variety such as I Musici; those recordings didn't sound good at all. I went back to my local record shop and found a new recording of the St. Matthew Passion conducted by Herreweghe. When listening to it at home, I was totally taken over by the fantastic instruments, the pacing, the balance, etc. It was as if I had been lifted to the heavens, and I never looked back. Historical accuracy wasn't even a small thought in my head.

I consider the notion that folks who regularly listen to a lot of baroque music using HIP/period instruments do so in the name of historical accuracy to be a failed notion. With that in mind, I would love the members of this board who often listen to HIP to chime in with their respective reasons for loving this type of performance.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> If you are, as you say, "not educated enough to determine if some HIP-styles have too much 'mannerisms', caused by a reaction to the more 'romantic' style and as a result going far too much into the wrong direction," then why risk arguing with those who _may_ be educated enough? And if you have "no idea of [my] historical knowledge" - which, on the subject in question, is considerable and has been acquired over fifty years, very nearly the entire period of the HIP phenomenon - then how do you know that my reservations about certain HIP practices are "caused by personal preference" rather than based on consideration of facts available to anyone?
> 
> I have personal preferences, yes, and these are independent of orthodox views of what is "correct." In the late 1960s and early '70s, when HIP was new and musicians like Harnoncourt and Malgoire were scrubbing out everyone's ears with period ensemble recordings of Bach and Handel, I was quite excited by the sounds I heard, and I spent a lot of time reading and thinking and even embellishing my trusty copy of Handel's _Messiah_ with what I believed to be authentic ornamentation. I followed with interest and pleasure the flood of recordings which came out during the 70s and 80s, I read quite a bit of scholarly material on early music performance, and I even sang with the Boston-based Telemann Society, a pickup ensemble that put out a number of recordings in an effort to show the world what Baroque music should sound like. That last experience, an experience of music-making under the directorship of people whose ideas about choral singing ca. 1750 were obviously derived from academic studies rather than from actually singing, was my first lesson in how academic scholarship can spawn dogmas and orthodoxies which can lead performers in directions neither historically authentic nor even - more importantly - fundamentally musical.
> 
> ...


First of all, I don't really consider arguing with more educated people a risk. Especially if I get these elaborate long answers as a result (thanks for your time). As I said I figured out that you were more musically educated then me and your views only make me a more critical listener (and reader) of all things concerning HIP or non hip so in a way you changed my views a bit, as I am more aware now that things can get lost too when trying to be too historically informed.

I have had no musical education so you could more or less look at me as a blank sheet whose views are a result of sources (mostly educated and you being one of them) spread over history and I shape my views accordingly as what seems reasonable. But beware, because of my lack of education, my views are very volatile as for every Woodduck there are dozens of other educated people to influence me.

Maybe one last thing, I always felt (and still feel) that the Beethoven piano sonata's should be played on a modern grand piano (or maybe a late 19th century Erard) and not on a "historically correct" piano-forte. But to me it's an essential fact that Beethoven himself played the most of his sonata's on the earlier piano-fortes and find it very interesting to hear recordings on these instruments. But that's just a side-thought, not an argument against your views.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Razumovskymas said:


> Maybe one last thing, I always felt (and still feel) that the Beethoven piano sonata's *should* be played on a modern grand piano (or maybe a late 19th century Erard) and not on a "historically correct" piano-forte. But to me it's an essential fact that Beethoven himself played the most of his sonata's on the earlier piano-fortes and find it very interesting to hear recordings on these instruments. But that's just a side-thought, not an argument against your views.


 Why should?.......


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Chronochromie said:


> Why should?.......


I say: "I feel they should" So it's a personal preference


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Razumovskymas said:


> I say: "I feel they should" So it's a personal preference


The way it's worded is a bit confusing or maybe it's just me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Just to clear up any uncertainty: I like the sound of period instrument ensembles. They sound less homogenized than their modern counterparts, and all else being equal I prefer them in Baroque (and sometimes later) music. One of my favorite recordings of Berlioz's _Symphonie Fantastique_ is the one John Eliot Gardner recorded in the very hall in which the work had its premiere. The colorful winds, the growly serpent and ophecleide, make a sound, emphasized by the dry acoustic, which is - well, fantastique! And even in the 20th century, orchestras used to have distinctive national characteristics rooted in local traditions of instrumental playing. Try some 1950s recordings of the Orchestre de la Suisse Romande under Ernest Ansermet and savor the authentic sound of a French wind section: tangy and sharp, like a well-aged Vermont cheddar, nothing like the bland Velveeta we're typically fed nowadays no matter what country the orchestra is from. Period instruments can indeed bring out qualities in music that modern instruments can't, and given the virtuosity with which people can now play these instruments, this is one aspect of the HIP movement that needn't be debated. (I should add, though, that some technological improvements to instruments have widened their expressive capacity. We can only imagine Bach's reaction to the incredible dynamic control of the modern piano. I imagine him smiling broadly.)


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hiroica said:


> I love Bach. But I just saw the Mass in B Minor performed thinking that it may illuminate to me the magnificence of this work. It has its moments but I can think of many many others by Bach alone that I am more impressed by, not to mention the vast array of western music that I prefer to this. Am I missing something?


I haven't listened to it all - what would you suggest as highlights?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I listened to it just once. I kind of enjoyed it, but I wasn't blown away. Maybe my expectations were too high.
I'll give it another couple of chances. 
For me personally, the work that I feel as greatest ever is Beethoven's Symphony no. 9 and after that his late string quartets, and then Jupiter symphony.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

janxharris said:


> I haven't listened to it all - what would you suggest as highlights?







Bach "H-Moll-Messe" -- Karl Richter -- Janowitz -- Töpper -- Laubenthal -- Prey 1969

Dive in the whole work, much better way then highlights.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Pugg said:


> Bach "H-Moll-Messe" -- Karl Richter -- Janowitz -- Töpper -- Laubenthal -- Prey 1969
> 
> Dive in the whole work, much better way then highlights.


I'm struggling to get past the first ten minutes.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

janxharris said:


> I'm struggling to get past the first ten minutes.


Then perhaps it is not for you.


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

Back to the OP, anyone who writes that they "saw" the B minor mass performed suggests to me that they should go back to watching TV. Just sayin'.

Kind regards, :tiphat:

George


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> ... like a well-aged Vermont cheddar, nothing like the bland Velveeta we're typically fed nowadays no matter what country the orchestra is from.


When they have to print "cheese food" on the label, you can be assured it's neither cheese nor food. :lol:

Kind regards, :tiphat:

George


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I agree that Bach's B Minor Mass is over-rated.

I would place both the Beethoven Missa Solemnis and Verdi Requiem above it.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Barelytenor said:


> Back to the OP, anyone who writes that they "saw" the B minor mass performed suggests to me that they should go back to watching TV. Just sayin'.
> 
> Kind regards, :tiphat:
> 
> George


???...................................


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

janxharris said:


> I'm struggling to get past the first ten minutes.


then start with the Gloria, or the Credo....there's nothing dictating that you must listen to the entire work at one sitting, starting with measure 1 of the Kyrie all the way thru...each section - Kyrie, Gloria, Credo etc is a coherent, unified work in itself...very much like a movement of a symphony or act of an opera...
When I first began listening to the great b minor Mass, I was first attracted to the Gloria....and then went on from there.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Heck148 said:


> then start with the Gloria, or the Credo....there's nothing dictating that you must listen to the entire work at one sitting, starting with measure 1 of the Kyrie all the way thru...each section - Kyrie, Gloria, Credo etc is a coherent, unified work in itself...very much like a movement of a symphony or act of an opera...
> When I first began listening to the great b minor Mass, I was first attracted to the Gloria....and then went on from there.


Thank you - I'll give it a go.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

hpowders said:


> I agree that Bach's B Minor Mass is over-rated.
> 
> I would place both the Beethoven Missa Solemnis and Verdi Requiem above it.


Agree with you on this one. Bach's mass in B minor is a great work no doubt about it, but I prefer the 2 woks you mention, and I would also place both Mozart's Great in C minor mass and Requiem together (for a more comparable duration) above Bach's mass in B minor.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

What I truly love of Bach's B minor is the Kyrie I, and the Cum Sancto Spiritu portion of the Gloria. The rest, not that much really.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

I must admit that I was not over impressed with Bach's B Minor Mass for quite some time, many years in fact. I wondered what all the fuss was about. Each time I tried to listen to it I thought that it seemed excessively long. I much preferred Masses by other composers, especially by Beethoven (Missa Solemnis), Mozart (K 427), Haydn (Nelson Mass), Schubert (Mass 6).

I realised that it was most probably my fault in some way, so I never wrote it off or said to anyone that I didn't much care for it. I'm glad that I didn't do so because I have lately become more impressed by Bach's Mass in B Minor. It so happens, coincidentally, that I heard part of a new, highly recommended version of it yesterday on a radio programme, and it sounded so good that I decided to download the whole Mass. Having done so, I'm very impressed with it. It's a version by Les Arts Florissants if anyone may be interested. It's a "live" recording but it's not noticeable in any way that I have spotted. The sound quality is excellent. The "Gloria" is especially magnificent, but the whole work is a wonder. As of now, this Mass is up with the best of the others in my estimation.


----------

