# St Matthew Passion vs Mass in B minor



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I am involved in planning for a musical venture next year, and we were debating whether to put on Bach's Mass in B minor or St Matthew Passion. One of our board members stated that the Mass in B minor is the more well-known of the two works, and that people don't like the length of the St Matthew.

I thought I would get the forum's thoughts on this. I have always thought the two works to be roughly equal in stature. The St Matthew is longer and performed less often for logistical reasons, but it also in many ways is more "tuneful" and less "academic" than the B minor, almost like a Baroque opera, so I don't agree that it is harder to appreciate for the audience other than being longer.

Any thoughts?

(Another board member is claiming the St Matthew Passion would be twice as costly as the Mass in B minor. I find this hard to believe as well!)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Very different pieces. The Mass is probably more accessible for those who don't listen to a lot of classical music but it needs great choral singing. I don't think it is academic in the slightest! I'm not religious but the Bach Mass provides my picture of what worship of God is all about. The Passion _is _long but the drama might offer might appeal to some people more. I'm not sure it is more tuneful than the Mass. It needs good soloists.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

I wouldn't worry about the audience. The Mass is shorter, but the Passion is more dramatic and varied.

I'm not sure that the Passion would be twice as expensive, but it will be a much bigger challenge to put together - it needs two choruses and orchestras, and additional soloists beyond the usual four.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

I might throw a spanner in the works by suggesting the St John Passion instead. It's only slightly longer than the Mass but less complex chorally; it's shorter than the Matthew Passion but rather more dramatic. Plus, if you've got a good choir, they'll just love singing the choruses, the opening one especially. (No double choirs or orchestras either, which makes life easier.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Or the St Matthew Passion in a modestly (!) abridged form...

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/bach-s-passions-reader-s-digest-versions


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The St Matthew takes two choirs plus a ripieno choir. You also need an expert tenor for the evangelist to move the thing along. Also, you have to think whether you are going to do it in German or English. It seems to me ridiculous to perform it in German to English audiences as Luther's (and Bach's) whole thing was that people should be able to understand what is going on in the Passion story. With the Mass things are much simpler even if the music isn't. Had a really good performance of the Mass recently by local choirs.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I have performed both in productions. The mass is much easier to practice, learn and stage. The passion is essentially an unacted religious drama that requires a bunch of soloists and supporting roles that can "act" the music. Without knowing the performing level of your group, if your people are paraprofessionals or amateurs, it will take an enormous amount of practice to learn and master the passion and the soloists will have to do a lot of their own work on their own time. Your cohort that said the passion would be twice as expensive to stage could be correct depending on the level of your production.

Having said this, the passion is, in my opinion, twice as good (or better) than the mass. Frankly, I don't know what the mass offers to stand up to the St. Matthew Passion, which is perhaps the most profound musical piece in history.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Why not do the passion as a tastefully staged drama? That might put bums on seats. I've seen versions by Jonathan Miller, Katie Mitchell and Peter Sellars and the Miller at least was exceptional.

Another trick is to get some audience participation by getting them to sing along in the chorales. You could get your conductor to rehears them for half an hour before the start of the performance. They're going to sound terrible but it doesn't matter -- that's what it would have sounded like in Bach's church I suppose. Adam Fischer did this in London, I was there, I sang, he rehearsed me, I enjoyed it -- I was with some friends who aren't so interested in music and they really thought it was fabulous, to be rehearsed by a real conductor etc.

A third way to get people interested in coming to your Matthew Passion is to play up the anti-semitic elements. You could do a press release about it beforehand to get coverage in local papers. There's been a book published on this recently called _Bach and God_ by Michael Marissen, so you've got some serious academic research to use as the basis of your PR. I should imagine in the US this would cause quite a buzz.


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

"I'm not sure that the Passion would be twice as expensive, but it will be a much bigger challenge to put together - it needs two choruses and orchestras, and additional soloists beyond the usual four."

I don't disagree, but the Osanna movement in the Mass also requires a double chorus (and the Sanctus is written for six vocal parts). Plus, the 5 parts of the opening Kyrie are usually doubled--sung by five principals and 5 ripienists--on otherwise OVPP performances of the Mass (as the Dunedin consort does on their recording). (I seriously doubt that Bach wanted his Kyrie to be performed one singer to a part.)

I'd choose the Mass in B minor myself. When the question gets asked about which is the greatest choral work composed in the history of music?, for me, after the Renaissance, it comes down to a choice between Bach's Mass in B minor and Handel's Messiah. I don't consider the St. Matthew Passion to be quite on the same level. But I know others will disagree.

Plus, the St. Matthew Passion is a lot longer, as you mention. I certainly wouldn't want to sit through an average, weak, or variable performance of the Passion--so you should definitely consider & weigh the quality of singers and musicians that will be available to you. Do you plan to perform the SMP one voice to a part? with 8-10 singers, as the Dunedin Consort did on their recording?--in which case, you'll need some very fine singers that you can count on, or do you plan to use more singers on a part and larger choruses?

For me, the Mass in B minor works better when sung mostly one voice to a part, with some occasional ripienists added in certain movements, such as the Kyrie (as Jos Van Veldhoven does on his recording), than the St. Matthew Passion. In fact, you don't really need much more than one singer to a part to achieve an optimal size and effect in the Mass (just sample the OVPP recordings by Cantus Cölln and the Dunedin Consort). However, with the SMP, that's not quite as true. For example, the 'crowd' scenes or big choruses probably do require more than 8 singers & 2 ripienists. (Though I wouldn't go above 16-18 singers in total.)
























Or, you could just do Bach's Magnificat & maybe his Cantata BWV 19 instead ...? If I were in your position, I'd be very keen to perform one or several of Bach's Michaelmas Cantatas. John Eliot Gardiner was so excited to perform them--during his Bach Pilgrimage concerts--that he marked the date in bright red on his calendar. The opening fugal movement of BWV 19 is mind blowing, but you have to turn the volume up:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> A third way to get people interested in coming to your Matthew Passion is to play up the anti-semitic elements. You could do a press release about it beforehand to get coverage in local papers.


I think that's a bad idea - opening a can of worms that will distract from the wonderful music.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> I think that's a bad idea - opening a can of worms that will distract from the wonderful music.


I assume that it wasn't a serious suggestion. At least I hope that it wasn't...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Thanks for the advice!

We have an experienced, acclaimed Evangelist ready to go. The soloists are not an issue. All the ones we have contacted are experienced in both works.

I am actually more worried about our choir in the Mass than the Passion. We have a guest conductor flying in and only two available days for rehearsal with both chorus and orchestra together. My feeling is that the St Matthew choruses would be easier to rehearse in a shorter time. In the Mass, it seems the chorus really carries the work.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2018)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Thanks for the advice!
> 
> We have an experienced, acclaimed Evangelist ready to go. The soloists are not an issue. All the ones we have contacted are experienced in both works.
> 
> I am actually more worried about our choir in the Mass than the Passion. We have a guest conductor flying in and only two available days for rehearsal with both chorus and orchestra together. My feeling is that the St Matthew choruses would be easier to rehearse in a shorter time. In the Mass, it seems the chorus really carries the work.


It seems like the obvious person to ask is the conductor you have engaged.

My suggestion is to chuck both and do the Mozart Grosse Messe in c-minor!


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2018)

St. John is shorter and more succinct in its telling of the drama, definitely punchier. Less well known, but more operatic than the Mass or the St. Matthew passion and I'd say it's certainly easier than both.


----------

