# Bach: Matthäus-Passion (“St. Matthew Passion”), BWV 244



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Bach's "Matthew Passion" is currently on the eighth tier of the Talk Classical community's favorite and most highly recommended works.

Wikipedia has a very nice article about it, including some analysis that amounts to a pretty good listening guide.

The best source for recording recommendations is probably Trout's blog post on this work:



> Condensed Listing:
> 
> Gardiner (cond.), Rolfe Johnson, Schmidt, Bonney, Monoyios, Von Otter, English Baroque Soloists, Monteverdi Choir, London Oratory Junior Singers	(1988)
> Richter (cond.), Seefried, Töpper, Fischer-Dieskau, Fahberg, Haefliger, Engen, Münchener Bach-Orchester, Münchener Bach-Chor	(1958)
> ...


Feel free to discuss your own favorite recordings, but here are some threads where that topic has been explored:

Recommend a St. Matthew Passion recording
Favorite St. Matthew's Passion
St. Matthew's Passion 
St Matthew Passion

Of course, Trout's list is special because he's already taken all those threads, and other resources as well, into account!

So as usual, the main questions are: *Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it? What would you want someone new to this work to know about it?*


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

This is one major work of Bach I never seem to want to hear. It's like a lugubrious, pietistic cantata times eight: too much solemnity and sorrow, and too much recitative, spread over too long a time. Magnificent bits, though. I guess you have to dig the message; of the big sacred works I prefer the B-minor Mass, where there's just a standard Latin text I can ignore and there's no evangelist talking, talking, talking.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> This is one major work of Bach I never seem to want to hear. It's like a lugubrious, pietistic cantata times eight: too much solemnity and sorrow, and too much recitative, spread over too long a time.


 You can perk it up quite nicely and hear the good bits in an hour by following my simple plan.

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


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

KenOC said:


> You can perk it up quite nicely and hear the good bits in an hour by following my simple plan.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/bach-s-passions-reader-s-digest-versions


Forget that. I want the whole thing!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> You can perk it up quite nicely and hear the good bits in an hour by following my simple plan.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/bach-s-passions-reader-s-digest-versions


I can see why you don't permit comments. It's butchery. I like it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> Forget that. I want the whole thing!


Seconded here! Why deprive yourself of one of humanity's greatest musical works?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I listened through it once while reading the German bible and it just takes part of the Matthews evangelium and simply sets it to music. I thought the music fitted the words perfectly and honestly liked it more than Mass in B minor. But I have not yet listened to both of these works enough times to say which is the greater masterpiece.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

My favourite piece from my favourite composer. I much prefer it over the Mass in B minor. It's one of the few works that I have a handful of versions of (Richter, Suzuki, Klemperer, Herreweghe, Cleobury). If I could keep just one, it would be the Richter, which was my first encounter with this masterpiece.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

This is, of course, one of the greatest musical works ever written by a human being. Those who feel it lugubrious have probably listened to a leaden footed reading like Klemperer's which mistakes slowness for piety. Done like that it can seem too long. But how much better with swift speeds and a dramatic approach, which is what Bach had in mind, setting the music to dance rhythms. I recently attended a performance by English touring opera in which local choirs took part with ETO soloists and orchestra. A revelation, especially as it was partially acted. Brisk speeds yet incomperably moving with its inexorable build up to Christ's death. With brisk speeds the contaplative moments come across more strongly. 
The last version I bought was McCreesh which really does blow the cobwebs away. Of course there are other ways of doing it and I have many other recordings, including Gardiner, Herreweghe, Harnoncourt's, Karajan and the version that introduced me to this work, Richter 1958, before ge became impossibly slow. All of these versions have got superb evangelists without which the work flounders as the drama is carried forward by these recitatives.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Do people think that it's basically condemning the Jews for killing Jesus, or is Bach offering them forgiveness?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Do people think that it's basically condemning the Jews for killing Jesus, or is Bach offering them forgiveness?


It is the setting of the Bible text which was written by a Jew. like the rest of the New Testament it condemns the Jewish leaders for rejecting and killing the Messiah but certainly does not condemn the Jews as a people. After all, the first Christians and therefore the first recipients of forgiveness were all Jews! The New Testament was written (apart from two books) by Jews and it makes clear salvation is for everyone: 'In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, bond or free.'


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> The New Testament was written (apart from two books) by Jews and it makes clear salvation is for everyone: 'In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, bond or free.'


 Picander and Bach has the crowd of Jews call out



> Sein Blut komme über uns und unsre Kinder. Let his blood be on us and on our children.


The interesting question is whether this blood which is on them is redemptive. Is the aria which follows



> Können Tränen meiner Wangen
> Nichts erlangen,
> O so nehmt mein Herz hinein!
> Aber laßt es bei den Fluten,
> ...


offering redemption to the jews for their deed?

By the way, the translation is disputed around the word _milde _ -- the one I just cut and paste has it as _gently_ but another meaning can apparently be _generously_.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> *Picander and Bach has the crowd of Jews call out *
> 
> The interesting question is whether this blood which is on them is redemptive. Is the aria which follows
> 
> ...


Sorry, not Picander and Bach but the Jewish author of Matthew's gospel. Matthew was a Jew who had found redemption in Christ. The word 'blood' in the NT refers to 'life' as in the OT sense 'the life is in the blood'. When Peter addresses the Jewish crowd at Pentecost (Acts 2) he tells them that with wicked hands they had slain God's Messiah. But now with Christ raised, redemption has come. 'Repent therefore, that your sins be blotted out...' ie there us salvation for everyone.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

*Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it?*

Overall, I respect it more than I love it, although some parts I agree that are magnificent. I usually listen to the entire piece, but my true joy as a listener comes from it's arias and chorus. My favorite recording as of now is Herreweghe's.

*Do you have any reservations about it?*

Yes. I think that it has too many recitatives. Great use of them, the Jesus's "halo" is particularly impressive to me, but yet, too many of them in my opinion.

*What would you want someone new to this work to know about it?*

That there's a *site* in the net which has the complete translation of the text of the piece. Understand what is being sang is crucial to this music, I think.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Relistening to the Klemperer this morning. It is not my favorite recording - Klemperer is a bit square - but it still beats out most period performances which skip through and trivialize the music.

Please let's get past this silly argument that performing this music more quickly somehow makes it less interminable. Is Shakespeare more interesting if spoken at break-neck speed like an auctioneer? To the contrary, it becomes boring and monotonous. It is not the speed that creates interest, it is the MUSICALITY. When I hear Gardiner I hear the recitatives and choruses all sounding the same. What are they even singing about? I can't tell. It is all just notes and rhythms performed efficiently as if this is all that is needed in Bach.

If you want to hear the DRAMA of the St Matthew Passion, with contrast between all the recits and choruses, listen to the 1939 Mengelberg. I purchased this recording 20 years ago in Munich and listened to the entire thing in the airport. I was transfixed as I had never before been by a St Matthew Passion recording. Every single note and word MEANT something. That is how you create interest, not this rubbish about simply speeding everything up.

Furtwangler's is also quite dramatic. Jochum offers for me the best modern, uncut version. Why this beautiful recording is out of print is beyond me. Herreweghe is a musical alternative for HIP, but it is still afflicted by the insanity of the modern fast and efficient crowd.

Top Choices:

Willem Mengelberg (Philips, Naxos, Grammofono)
Wilhelm Furtwängler (EMI)
Eugen Jochum (Philips)
Otto Klemperer (EMI)
Philippe Herreweghe (1999) (Harmonia Mundi)

Further Listening:

Herbert von Karajan (1950) (Verona, Archipel, Urania, Arkadia)
Karl Münchinger (Decca)
Gunther Ramin (Presier, Calig, Documents)
Fritz Lehmann (Vox)
Hermann Scherchen (MCA)
Philippe Herreweghe (1985) (Harmonia Mundi)
Eduard van Beinum (Philips)
Peter Schreier (Philips)
John Eliot Gardiner (DG Archiv)
Karl Richter (1958) (DG Archiv)
Mogens Wöldike (Vanguard)
Helmuth Rilling (Sony)
Masaaki Suzuki (BIS)
Serge Koussevitzky (in English) (Rockport, RCA)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *Relistening to the Klemperer this morning. It is not my favorite recording - Klemperer is a bit square - but it still beats out most period performances which skip through and trivialize the music.
> 
> Please let's get past this silly argument that performing this music more quickly somehow makes it less interminable. Is Shakespeare more interesting if spoken at break-neck speed like an auctioneer? To the contrary, it becomes boring and monotonous. It is not the speed that creates interest, it is the MUSICALITY. When I hear Gardiner I hear the recitatives and choruses all sounding the same. What are they even singing about? I can't tell. It is all just notes and rhythms performed efficiently as if this is all that is needed in Bach.
> 
> ...


*

Sorry it is quite wrong (in my opinion) to say that taking music at the speeds Bach probably intended trivialises the music. For example, the opening chorus is a sarabande - yes a dance!. With Klemperer is has the hallmark of a slow death march. Interminable. This is the mistake that slowness = profundity and reverence. We have to remember that this is a dramatic work as well as a contemplative one. Just as with Shakespeare, I like it dramatic and flowing. Nothing is worse than school Shakespeare. I like my Bach passions dramatic, as they were supposed to sound. You say the Herreweghe is 'afflicted by the insanity' - you mean the 'insanity' of approximating to what Bach might have originally intended?
Now I am not one of these who reckon there is only one way of doing this monumental work. I still have the 1958 Richter version (much better conducted than his later one by which time he had become insufferably slow) and Karajan's romanticised treatment from the performances he conducted at Saltzberg every year, which I listen to when in sentimental mood. But I doubt whether Bach would have recognised it. He might, of course, have been delighted that the BPO was playing it! 
In addition I have the following:
Gardiner 
Harnoncourt 2
Herreweghe 1
Jacobs - controversial in that he records 'in depth' but doesn't really come off but performance is terrific
McCreesh - oh yes, the one using soloists only and a very fast speed for the opening chorus, which becomes a very urgent 'Come my daughters'. Made my hair stand up on end at first but although I miss the bulk of the chorus at times this completely convinces me with its drama. Certainly preferable to the dreary trudge of old-style versions. I'm not dogmatic about HIP but this is where they have blown the cobwebs out of these great works and got us to appreciate what they are - great dramas. We need to appreciate them as Bach intended*


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Relistening to the Klemperer this morning. It is not my favorite recording - Klemperer is a bit square - but it still beats out most period performances which skip through and trivialize the music.
> 
> Please let's get past this silly argument that performing this music more quickly somehow makes it less interminable. Is Shakespeare more interesting if spoken at break-neck speed like an auctioneer? To the contrary, it becomes boring and monotonous. It is not the speed that creates interest, it is the MUSICALITY. When I hear Gardiner I hear the recitatives and choruses all sounding the same. What are they even singing about? I can't tell. It is all just notes and rhythms performed efficiently as if this is all that is needed in Bach.
> 
> ...


Have you heard Scherchen?






I also think you would enjoy Leonhardt and possibly one of Harnoncourt's.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Have you heard Scherchen?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's been a while since I last heard Scherchen. His 1959 Mass in B minor is my favorite version of that work.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Have you heard Scherchen?


I love this one, mostly for Scherchen and the soloists. I wish that this one were actually in print and available. The MCA issue is long OOP, and the Tahra label went under a couple of years ago. It might still be available in Japan.


----------



## ManateeFL (Mar 9, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Sorry it is quite wrong (in my opinion) to say that taking music at the speeds Bach probably intended trivialises the music. For example, the opening chorus is a sarabande - yes a dance!. With Klemperer is has the hallmark of a slow death march. Interminable. This is the mistake that slowness = profundity and reverence. We have to remember that this is a dramatic work as well as a contemplative one. Just as with Shakespeare, I like it dramatic and flowing. Nothing is worse than school Shakespeare. I like my Bach passions dramatic, as they were supposed to sound. You say the Herreweghe is 'afflicted by the insanity' - you mean the 'insanity' of approximating to what Bach might have originally intended?


Do we have that much knowledge about what Bach may or may not have intended as far as tempos are concerned? Sure, many of the individual movements are derived from dances, but these were written as concert works and not for dancing. They are vehicles for musical exploration; stylized, ornamented, and contemplative.

I find Klemperer dramatic as well as contemplative.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> With Klemperer is has the hallmark of a slow death march. Interminable. This is the mistake that slowness = profundity and reverence. We have to remember that this is a dramatic work as well as a contemplative one. Just as with Shakespeare, I like it dramatic and flowing. Nothing is worse than school Shakespeare. I like my Bach passions dramatic, as they were supposed to sound.


If slowness equals profundity then why don't I like the Klemperer? Maybe it is time to admit that your simplistic twisting of my words is misplaced. It is insulting in fact.

As I said in my post, it is the musicality of the performance - not the tempo - that determines interest. To say otherwise is simplistic. Classical music is a story, sometimes a story that takes hours to tell. There is WAY much more to storytelling than simply the basic tempo.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If slowness equals profundity then why don't I like the Klemperer? Maybe it is time to admit that your simplistic twisting of my words is misplaced. It is insulting in fact.
> 
> As I said in my post, it is the musicality of the performance - not the tempo - that determines interest. To say otherwise is simplistic. Classical music is a story, sometimes a story that takes hours to tell. There is WAY much more to storytelling than simply the basic tempo.


Sorry but I did not twist your words at all and frankly I think it is insulting to insinuate I did. You distinctly said that 'most period performances which skip through and trivialise the music.' By that I assume you mean that slow performances - and you name a few - give 'profundity' to the music. In my opinion this thinking is quite wrong. The matter of tempi is not a 'silly argument as you stated but one which is pretty fundamental and lies at the heart of the nature of the works. In order to interpret Bach we must understand his original intentions which - with the forces he had available - were not massive effects like you get in 19th century style performances. We must go back to what Bach's intentions were and build from that - not start from the Victorian and other accretions which have been added. Now I am not one of those who say there is only one way of doing it but I do think it is most misguided to label performances that JSB would himself have recognised as trivial. Too me it is a misunderstanding of the nature of the music. We do not do the Brandenburgs today with massive orchestras and slow tempi - why the passions?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ManateeFL said:


> Do we have that much knowledge about what Bach may or may not have intended as far as tempos are concerned? Sure, many of the individual movements are derived from dances, but these were written as concert works and not for dancing. They are vehicles for musical exploration; stylized, ornamented, and contemplative.
> 
> I find Klemperer dramatic as well as contemplative.


Would we do the Orchestral Suites at funeral tempi to make them profound? The problem is with Klemperer's performance is that it is so far from what Bach would have intended as to be a total anachronism. Just listen to the first chorus. What on earth would Bach have made of it with the forces he had available to him? Sorry but it's stretching things beyond reason.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I did not twist your words at all and frankly I think it is insulting to insinuate I did. You distinctly said that 'most period performances which skip through and trivialise the music.' By that I assume you mean that slow performances - and you name a few - give 'profundity' to the music. In my opinion this thinking is quite wrong. The matter of tempi is not a 'silly argument as you stated but one which is pretty fundamental and lies at the heart of the nature of the works. In order to interpret Bach we must understand his original intentions which - with the forces he had available - were not massive effects like you get in 19th century style performances. We must go back to what Bach's intentions were and build from that - not start from the Victorian and other accretions which have been added. Now I am not one of those who say there is only one way of doing it but I do think it is most misguided to label performances that JSB would himself have recognised as trivial. Too me it is a misunderstanding of the nature of the music. We do not do the Brandenburgs today with massive orchestras and slow tempi - why the passions?


Saying that HIP performances that skip through the music trivialize it is NOT the same as saying slow tempos make the music profound. You ARE twisting my words. Again, why do I not like the Klemperer if I believe slow tempos bring profundity to the music???


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Saying that HIP performances that skip through the music trivialize it is NOT the same as saying slow tempos make the music profound. You ARE twisting my words. Again, why do I not like the Klemperer if I believe slow tempos bring profundity to the music???


Sorry if every time someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of twisting your words, then I fear there is no point in discussion.If you look back on what you said, that is the impression your words give. Why then say that quicker tempi 'trivialise' the music? Your words btw, in that you said the Klemperer 'still beats out most period performances which skip through and trivialize the music.' So you are saying that playing the music as Bach would most likely have conceived - ie in what we now know to be a baroque style rather than a 19th century style - it trivialises it? You are saying Bach was wrong somehow in writing fore the forces he did in the way he did?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

In performing music of the past the "authenticity" argument is of limited merit. It's especially limited as regards the question of tempo. Bach didn't bother to specify tempo; we don't know what tempos he used or preferred - and it just doesn't matter. What matters is expressive singing and playing. The fact that Baroque music is often based on dance rhythms doesn't tell us much; we don't dance to Bach's passions, any more than we dance to Chopin's waltzes.

More fundamentally, an artist's work, once released into the world, belongs to the world. Bach's music belongs to us now. Bach can't care how we perform it - he'd probably be stunned that we perform it at all - but if we could ask him, he would surely want us to perform it so that it would be meaningful to us. Music is for the living. We have no obligation to try to duplicate the forces and conditions for which it was originally intended, and in the case of Bach it's presumptuous to assume that the conditions imposed on him by his employers and venues represented any sort of ideal for him. Does anyone seriously think he would have objected to having two or three times as many choristers - or even more - at his disposal? Composers tend to be flexible about that sort of thing, and in Bach's time it was common practice for works to be adapted to the conditions of performance and the tastes of audiences.

We're all entitled to our tastes in performance style, and if our tastes conform to what's fashionably called "authentic" or "historically informed," we can find performances that cater to them. But arguments that other performance styles are "wrong" are apt themselves to be wrong in ways their proponents don't suspect. What's _right_ is to recognize that we will never know what performers actually sounded like in 1740.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Sorry if every time someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of twisting your words, then I fear there is no point in discussion.If you look back on what you said, that is the impression your words give. Why then say that quicker tempi 'trivialise' the music? Your words btw, in that you said the Klemperer 'still beats out most period performances which skip through and trivialize the music.' So you are saying that playing the music as Bach would most likely have conceived it trivialises it? You are saying Bach was wrong somehow? I can draw no other conclusion.


Now you are backtracking and going to what I actually said. To clarify - which I shouldn't have to do - MUSICIANSHIP is what brings profundity to a performance, NOT slow tempos.

That said, if you play everything fast for the sake of getting through the work more quickly, like a monotonous auctioneer, taking no time for inflection or to differentiate between moods, then YES you are trivializing the music. And this becomes all the more obvious when you experience a performance like Mengelberg's that actually tells a story as opposed to racing through.

And by the way, you don't speak for Bach. Bach's music speaks for Bach. I myself performed his great "Ich habe genug" last year, and I was told by the concertmaster that my use of different colors to illustrate the change in moods between the movements brought him to tears. I would like to think that Bach would approve.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

KenOC said:


> You can perk it up quite nicely and hear the good bits in an hour by following my simple plan.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/bach-s-passions-reader-s-digest-versions


That's a little extreme. I do skip all recitatives when I listen to it most of the time, which knocks about an hour off the run time, and moreover, prevents me from having to listen to all this secco recitative.



DavidA said:


> . Those who feel it lugubrious have probably listened to a leaden footed reading like Klemperer's which mistakes slowness for piety. Done like that it can seem too long.


For me, this is a feature, not a bug. My take is that the work is *supposed* to be lugubrious--The chorales instruct you on what you're supposed to be feeling as you listen, and the instructions are that you are to be swimming in your own tears as you listen and ponder your shared humanity's culpability in the crucifixion. The fact that many performances are peppy and cheerful, and adamantly not lugubrious runs more contrary to Bach's stated intent than any other performance practice imaginable.

I always find it amusing that hipsters always argue about how things were actually performed in Bach's day, as if he was able to completely control and dictate how his music was performed, instead of constantly complaining about the inadequate number and quality of singers and musicians available to him. Bach loved the organ because it was the biggest solo racket he could make. I suspect he would love to hear gigantic choruses and orchestras making the biggest, most emotionally devastating noises they could possibly make.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> More fundamentally, an artist's work, once released into the world, belongs to the world. Bach's music belongs to us now. Bach can't care how we perform it - he'd probably be stunned that we perform it at all - but if we could ask him, he would surely want us to perform it so that it would be meaningful to us. Music is for the living.


The most beautiful thing I've read on this forum. Bravo to you, sir.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

'More fundamentally, an artist's work, once released into the world, belongs to the world. Bach's music belongs to us now. Bach can't care how we perform it - he'd probably be stunned that we perform it at all - but if we could ask him, he would surely want us to perform it so that it would be meaningful to us. *Music is for the living.*'

Exactly! How we perform it NOW. Not according to 19th or early 20th century traditions. The way we perform Bach today is a living entity not to be governed by how revered conductors performed it in the past. I am thankful I hear performances today - in concert and on record - that dispense with the traditions of yesteryear and perform it how we believe TODAY Bach should be performed.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> 'More fundamentally, an artist's work, once released into the world, belongs to the world. Bach's music belongs to us now. Bach can't care how we perform it - he'd probably be stunned that we perform it at all - but if we could ask him, he would surely want us to perform it so that it would be meaningful to us. *Music is for the living.*'
> 
> Exactly! How we perform it NOW. Not according to 19th or early 20th century traditions. The way we perform Bach today is a living entity not to be governed by how revered conductors performed it in the past. I am thankful I hear performances today - in concert and on record - that dispense with the traditions of yesteryear and perform it how we believe TODAY Bach should be performed.


You just summarily dismissed my arguments above by saying it was counter to what Bach himself would have wanted. Now you say music is for the living. If music is for the living, aren't we allowed to debate which is the most effective way to perform his music?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> That's a little extreme. I do skip all recitatives when I listen to it most of the time, which knocks about an hour off the run time, and moreover, prevents me from having to listen to all this secco recitative.
> 
> For me, this is a feature, not a bug. *My take is that the work is supposed to be lugubrious--The chorales instruct you on what you're supposed to be feeling as you listen, and the instructions are that you are to be swimming in your own tears as you listen and ponder your shared humanity's culpability in the crucifixion.* The fact that many performances are peppy and cheerful, and adamantly not lugubrious runs more contrary to Bach's stated intent than any other performance practice imaginable.
> 
> I always find it amusing that hipsters always argue about how things were actually performed in Bach's day, as if he was able to completely control and dictate how his music was performed, instead of constantly complaining about the inadequate number and quality of singers and musicians available to him. Bach loved the organ because it was the biggest solo racket he could make. I suspect he would love to hear gigantic choruses and orchestras making the biggest, most emotionally devastating noises they could possibly make.


the problem is that the lugubrious approach misreads Bach's intentions. The Lutheran chorales were sung by the congregation and were often arrangements of popular tunes. They are not meant to be taken at funereal pace. The passion is a dramatic work not a lugubrious one! The lugubrious approach to the passions is as misguided as Schweitzer's funereal tempi for the organ music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> the problem is that the lugubrious approach misreads Bach's intentions. The Lutheran chorales were sung by the congregation and were often arrangements of popular tunes. They are not meant to be taken at funereal pace. The passion is a dramatic work not a lugubrious one! The lugubrious approach to the passions is as misguided as Schweitzer's funereal tempi for the organ music.


Playing everything at a steady quick tempo does not make music more dramatic. It makes it boring and monotonous. Flexible, shifting tempo and mood is what makes music dramatic.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Exactly! How we perform it NOW. Not according to 19th or early 20th century traditions. The way we perform Bach today is a living entity not to be governed by how revered conductors performed it in the past. *I am thankful I hear performances today - in concert and on record - that dispense with the traditions of yesteryear and perform it **how we believe TODAY Bach should be performed.*


You don't see a problem with this statement?

Vital music-making doesn't proceed from beliefs, or from adhering to anyone's "traditions," recent or ancient, but from a feeling encounter with the music. Tradition can help shape our feelings and guide us in our artistic choices, but it's up to us as present-day performers to assess the value of received practice and current theory. If a performer can feel that music's potential is best expressed in a manner that coincides with what he imagines someone three centuries ago might have done, that's all to the good. But that is a very big "if," and no one can assume that his imaginings are not limited, and probably heavily influenced by his own cultural biases. We would almost certainly have some surprises in store for us if we could go back in time and sit in Bach's congregation.

When I listen to music, I'm not listening for traditions that have been preserved or dispensed with, much less feeling thankful for their presence or absence. And I'm not listening to hear anyone's beliefs confirmed. I may have my own beliefs, but I will also have the humility to hold no beliefs where evidence is lacking. I listen to music to be moved, and if I sense that that is the goal of the performer, and if they achieve that goal, I will make no arguments about what "we believe."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> the problem is that the lugubrious approach misreads Bach's intentions. The Lutheran chorales were sung by the congregation and were often arrangements of popular tunes. They are not meant to be taken at funereal pace. The passion is a dramatic work not a lugubrious one! The lugubrious approach to the passions is as misguided as Schweitzer's funereal tempi for the organ music.


I'm old enough to remember when congregations (mine included) sang the sorrowful hymns of the Passion season at a very lugubrious pace indeed. In fact they had to be encouraged by the pastor to move things along! What tempos did Bach prefer? We don't know. Did he take the chorales at the cheery clip we hear on some recent recordings? Extremely unlikely.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Did he take the chorales at the cheery clip we hear on some recent recordings? Extremely unlikely.


Even if he did, would that have been his actual preference when just reckoning with creating the most musical impact, or would that have been a consequence of the logistics of the actual religious observance, and the relative importance of the musical performance pace the religious ceremony?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^ Good point. Listening at home or in concert, we can take our time and just savor the music. We can spread the work out over a few days if the lugubriousness gets to be too much.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> Even if he did, would that have been his *actual preference* when just reckoning with creating the most musical impact, or would that have been a consequence of the logistics of the actual religious observance, and the relative importance of the musical performance pace the religious ceremony?


With respect, I think this is a spurious argument as we simply don't know what Bach's preferences would be - all we know is what he wrote and the probable performing conditions. As I said they are a place to start from. They certainly don't rule out other styles of performance. I have an array of recordings. But to say that to perform the passions the way Bach would have likely performed his own works 'trivialises' them (as has been said) seems to me we are saying we know better than JSB


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> With respect, I think this is a spurious argument as we simply don't know what Bach's preferences would be - all we know is what he wrote and the probable performing conditions. As I said they are a place to start from.


Well, OK, if we don't know Bach's preferences, what are we arguing about? He had maybe sixteen boys and men to sing his cantatas, and used them for solos too. They made a certain kind of noise. What kind of noise should we make performing that cantata? Can we use women's voices? How many singers? 32? 48? 80? Can we use mature, professional soloists, male and female? What would Bach have wanted to hear, given the opportunity and resources? Why should we limit ourselves to doing what he actually did - or, worse, to what we imagine he did or would have wanted to do?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> But to say that to perform the passions the way Bach would have likely performed his own works 'trivialises' them (as has been said) seems to me we are saying we know better than JSB


Statements like this just go to show that you don't care about truth, honesty, accuracy, or integrity. You just want to "win" a debate and will twist someone's words any which way you can to try and do so. Why don't you try debating my arguments on the merits for a change?


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

DavidA said:


> With respect, I think this is a spurious argument as we simply don't know what Bach's preferences would be


We have letters where Bach complains about the small and inadequate number of singers and musicians available to him. It's hardly respecting his preferences to enshrine the performance conditions he himself described as inadequate.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Playing everything at a steady quick tempo does not make music more dramatic. It makes it boring and monotonous. Flexible, shifting tempo and mood is what makes music dramatic.


I don't know how many performances you gave listened to , but the ones I listen to do not 'play everything at a steady quick tempo.' They do have flexible, shifting tempi. The one I'm lustening to now has. The problem is you just seem to have a conception which you want to place on everything. I have no problem with you liking anachronistic performances at Sloane tempi, but please don't say that performing it is but may have done is trivial


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> We have letters where Bach complains about the small and inadequate number of singers and musicians available to him. It's hardly respecting his preferences to enshrine the performance conditions he himself described as inadequate.


Yes but he wrote for those forces in mind. Joshua Rifkin has advanced the theory even of one to a part. That has been argued backwards and forwards by musicologists and I certainly do not think it is been proved conclusively but what it does mean that his forces were not large. This of course does not mean that the passions cannot be performed by choirs and modern instruments, just that Bach's intentions should be taken into account. There are many ways of doing great music . Don't get me wrong, I am not against people enjoying the old style of doing Bach if it suits them. That is their preference . It's when they say that performing it in the style that JSB would have recognised somehow trivialised the music. It doesn't of course. It just blows a lot of fresh air into it rather like restoring an old master to its original glory


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> but please don't say that performing it is but may have done is trivial


I will express my opinion as I see fit, sir. Listening to Gardiner left me cold, thinking of the St Matt as a boring, monotonous work. Furtwängler and Mengelberg then opened up a whole new world for me. I finally heard the drama and narrative.

That is my experience. It is no less valid than yours.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I will express my opinion as I see fit, sir. Listening to Gardiner left me cold, thinking of the St Matt as a boring, monotonous work. Furtwängler and Mengelberg then opened up a whole new world for me. I finally heard the drama and narrative.
> 
> That is my experience. It is no less valid than yours.


You can express of course and your own subjective opinions. I wonder if you'd have heard a performance directed by Bach done in baroque style minus 19th century accretions - what you would have thought?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Statements like this just go to show that you don't care about truth, honesty, accuracy, or integrity. You just want to "win" a debate and will twist someone's words any which way you can to try and do so. Why don't you try debating my arguments on the merits for a change?


I do object, of course, in the strongest possible way, to the questioning of my integrity, I have been debating your argument. You need to realise that because someone is not convinced by your statement - that performing Bach's music in the style Bach that approximates to the way would have done 'trivialises' the music - and then challenges that statement, they are not twisting your words but disagreeing with you. If you make such sweeping statements you must expect people to respond without getting offended. That to me is the basis of mature argument and discussion


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I will express my opinion as I see fit, sir. Listening to Gardiner left me cold, thinking of the St Matt as a boring, monotonous work. Furtwängler and Mengelberg then opened up a whole new world for me. I finally heard the drama and narrative.


I've noticed from your postings on other threads that you seem to prefer much older performances throughout the classical music genre. Just saying.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> You can express of course and your own subjective opinions. I wonder if you'd have heard a performance directed by Bach done in baroque style minus 19th century accretions - what you would have thought?


Why does it matter? I like what I like. It seems you are using the idea of what Bach would have wanted to imply right vs wrong.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why does it matter? I like what I like. It seems you are using the idea of what Bach would have wanted to imply right vs wrong.


 It was your statement that performing Bach in a way he would probably have recognised 'trivialised' the music that sparked off this discussion. You were implying there was a right and wrong way to interpret his music by this statement. Mind you, I do think playing Bach's music in a way Bach would have wanted might be a good idea.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> It was your statement that performing Bach in a way he would probably have recognised 'trivialised' the music that sparked off this discussion. You were implying there was a right and wrong way to interpret his music by this statement. Mind you, I do think playing Bach's music in a way Bach would have wanted might be a good idea.


That was not my statement. Stop lying.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That was not my statement. Stop lying.


Sorry you revert to language like this. As fellow music lovers we need to be able to share differences of opinion without accusing each other of things like that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Sorry if you are going to make offensive statements like that then it's better not to discuss anything with you. Use need to be able to share differences of opinion without accusing each other of things like that.


You are twisting my words. I said nothing about whether Bach would or would not have recognized the performances in question. That is your extrapolation.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You are twisting my words. I said nothing about whether Bach would or would not have recognized the performances in question. That is your extrapolation.


I have not twisted your words at all. If you look at the logical conclusion to your argument you have said that trying to perform the works the way Bach might have intended them 'trivialises' them (your words). What other conclusion should we draw? Or are you saying Bach would have performed them the way Furtwangler did?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> I have not twisted your words at all. If you look at the logical conclusion to your argument you have said that trying to perform the works the way Bach might have intended them 'trivialises' them (your words). What other conclusion should we draw? Or are you saying Bach would have performed them the way Furtwangler did?


Your "logical conclusion" of my words is not the same as a statement of my words. To present it as such is a falsehood. I have no idea how Bach would have performed it, and neither do you. I know what sounds right to my ears, and I gave my justification for it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> I've noticed from your postings on other threads that you seem to prefer much older performances throughout the classical music genre. Just saying.


Yes, for many of the same reasons as my post to which you responded. Say away.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your "logical conclusion" of my words is not the same as a statement of my words. To present it as such is a falsehood. I have no idea how Bach would have performed it, and neither do you. I know what sounds right to my ears, and I gave my justification for it.


We actually do have an idea how Bach would have performed it. I am not saying, however, it is the only way. You can listen to it how you like. If you like 19th century accretions that is fine - I also can enjoy such performances. I would respectfully ask you, however, to respect the fact their are ways other than the ones that appeal to you and they do not 'trivialise' the music in the way you imply.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> I've noticed from your postings on other threads that you seem to prefer much older performances throughout the classical music genre. Just saying.


The old saying:
'If it's old it's gold.
If it's new, it can't be true!'


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> The old saying:
> 'If it's old it's gold.
> If it's new, it can't be true!'


As my post shows, I still listen to new recordings, but I reserve the right to my opinions. I don't go with the crowd. Of course every work I learned from a roughly contemporary recording, as in the case of the St Matt with the Gardiner recording.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

DavidA said:


> With respect, I think this is a spurious argument as we simply don't know what Bach's preferences would be - all we know is what he wrote and the probable performing conditions. As I said they are a place to start from. They certainly don't rule out other styles of performance. I have an array of recordings. But to say that to perform the passions the way Bach would have likely performed his own works 'trivialises' them (as has been said) seems to me we are saying we know better than JSB


No, it means we're paying attention when JSB says he wishes he had more and better singers and instrumentalists than he had.

And we certainly know his intentions as far as his intended affect--unlike his purely instrumental works, the passions are very explicit about how Bach is intending the music to be affecting you, since the chorales express what the congregation should be feeling. If, at the end, you don't feel at all inclined to sit down in tears, the performance was a bust and the performers have failed his intentions.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

At the end of the day, it would be nice if we could discuss and debate actual musical substance as opposed to who has authority to say what. “Bach wanted it this way, so you should too.” “The majority of today’s musicians say this, so you should agree with them.” Such arguments are insulting, evasive, and only drag down the level of discussion.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> At the end of the day, it would be nice if we could discuss and debate actual musical substance as opposed to who has authority to say what. *"Bach wanted it this way, so you should too." "The majority of today's musicians say this, so you should agree with them." *Such arguments are insulting, evasive, and only drag down the level of discussion.


Now you are twisting my words. I never said that. I was objecting to you saying that modern HIP performances 'trivialise' the music, which of course they don't. You have quoted me as saying things I never said. And then you accuse me of arguments which are insulting and evasive. I don't think there is any point in continuing a discussing when you do the very thing you accuse others of doing. Please leave it there.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> No, it means we're paying attention when JSB says he wishes he had more and better singers and instrumentalists than he had.
> 
> And we certainly know his intentions as far as his intended affect--unlike his purely instrumental works, the passions are very explicit about how Bach is intending the music to be affecting you, since the chorales express what the congregation should be feeling. If, at the end, you don't feel at all inclined to sit down in tears, the performance was a bust and the performers have failed his intentions.


Of course Bach is meaning the music to be affecting. Of course he wished he had better singers and maybe more of them. But if he had he probably would have written things differently. He was a baroque composer who wrote for what he had. To me it is a fallacy that to be moved we have to have a slim, lugubrious performance. The passions are dramas and we are moved by the text and the situation . Just think of Peters denial which leads to a bummer da just think of Peters denial which leads to 'Erbarme ditch' - it is a drama leading to a beautiful, moving aria. there is no need for this drama to be slow because the events were happening quite quickly and the aria itself comments on them. No of course there is no reason why larger choirs shouldn't sing the music but do so in a way that bears in mnd what Bach originally intended.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Do people think that it's basically condemning the Jews for killing Jesus, or is Bach offering them forgiveness?


It's a gorgeous piece of music with an antisemitic text. That's why Bernstein, for example, cut it. Bach was a product of his times, and there's no evidence of which I'm aware regarding his feelings about Jews or whether he believed they needed forgiveness, and if so, whether he offered it to them...


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Playing everything at a steady quick tempo does not make music more dramatic. It makes it boring and monotonous. Flexible, shifting tempo and mood is what makes music dramatic.


Agree with you - that's why I don't care for some of the HIP versions (Cleobury, McCreesh, etc. - and I must add that I love them in other recordings). On the other hand, Harnoncourt 2000 is quite flexible, sensitive and varied. Likewise, Rilling 1994, which is not HIP, is quite flexible and shifting, as you say. 
For me, however, Richter 1958 is all-around best.

There have been some acrimonious exchanges here on the issue of HIP vs. MIOF (my invention - modern instruments, old-fashioned). For one thing, who really knows what Bach "wanted"? Second, why not be open-minded to something different that works? We're talking about music here, a form of expression. Finally, even non-HIP conductors like Richter in 1958 and Münchinger in 1965 made use of baroque instruments along with the modern ones. The most audible difference is 440 vs. 415 or so.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Eric Zamir said:


> It's a gorgeous piece of music with an antisemitic text. ...


No, it isn't. That's to say Christians are by definition antisemitic and that the New Testament is by definition antisemitic. They aren't, and it isn't. It's a cheap tactic.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> No, it isn't. That's to say Christians are by definition antisemitic and that the New Testament is by definition antisemitic. They aren't, and it isn't. It's a cheap tactic.


It's not a cheap tactic. The Christian narrative is that the Jews killed Jesus, or caused his death, or betrayed him to his death. By the time Bach rolled around, that narrative had been employed successfully, first by the Catholic Church, then simultaneously by Luther's Protestants as a pretext to dehumanize, ghettoize, persecute and massacre Jews. Cheap tactic on the part of Christians. To this very day, I'm confronted by "but you Jews killed Christ." They are, and it is. But the music is beautiful and uplifting. Luckily, I don't understand what they are saying. BTW, my wife performed the Mendelssohn version here in Israel under Spering. The entire cast were artists of the Israel Opera. And we were all scandalized by the text, while being mesmerized by the beauty of the music.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

Moreover, It's not to say the ALL Christians are by definition antisemitic. Many have renounced the antisemitic aspects of their religion. My mother and her family were saved by a priest. I wrote what I wrote and didn't write what I didn't write.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

Eric Zamir said:


> It's not a cheap tactic. The Christian narrative is that the Jews killed Jesus, or caused his death, or betrayed him to his death. By the time Bach rolled around, that narrative had been employed successfully, first by the Catholic Church, then simultaneously by Luther's Protestants as a pretext to dehumanize, ghettoize, persecute and massacre Jews. Cheap tactic on the part of Christians. To this very day, I'm confronted by "but you Jews killed Christ." They are, and it is. But the music is beautiful and uplifting. Luckily, I don't understand what they are saying. BTW, my wife performed the Mendelssohn version here in Israel under Spering. The entire cast were artists of the Israel Opera. And we were all scandalized by the text, while being mesmerized by the beauty of the music.


If it an historical truth that Jesus was killed because a group of Jews, presumably the leaders of the Jews in Jerusalem at the time, conspired to get the Romans to execute him, then saying that is not anti-semitic. To say that all Jews, past, present and future bare a collective guilt for that would be anti-semitic. So if someone comes up to you and says "but you Jews killed Christ," that is anti-semitic. But for Bach to relate the narrative in the New Testament that the leaders of the Jews conspired to have him put to death, and helped stir up sentiment among the masses to call for his death, that is not anti-semitic. There is a distinction there. True - historically there has been a lot of what you describe. That doesn't mean that any depiction of Christ's execution is guilty of that sin.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Eric Zamir said:


> It's not a cheap tactic. The Christian narrative is that the Jews killed Jesus, or caused his death, or betrayed him to his death. By the time Bach rolled around, that narrative had been employed successfully, first by the Catholic Church, then simultaneously by Luther's Protestants as a pretext to dehumanize, ghettoize, persecute and massacre Jews. Cheap tactic on the part of Christians. To this very day, I'm confronted by "but you Jews killed Christ." They are, and it is. But the music is beautiful and uplifting. Luckily, I don't understand what they are saying. BTW, my wife performed the Mendelssohn version here in Israel under Spering. The entire cast were artists of the Israel Opera. And we were all scandalized by the text, while being mesmerized by the beauty of the music.


It's most certainly a cheap tactic. It's using the emotional blackmail of the Holocaust along with traditional European antisemitism based on a distorted biblical knowledge to paint Christianity ultimately as intrinsically antisemitic. And exactly what "antisemitic elements" would Christians have to renounce to gain your non-antisemitic seal of approval? That's like judging all Jews, Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures based on all the opinions on "*****" expressed in the Talmud. No thanks.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I have performed the St John Passion. The narrative struck me as a very naked, obvious attempt to exonerate the Romans and blame the Jews. I have a hard time believing it really went down that way. But certainly that narrative is convenient considering Christianity essentially took hold in Europe. Take a Jew as your savior, but blame the Jews for his death, and exonerate yourselves.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have performed the St John Passion. The narrative struck me as a very naked, obvious attempt to exonerate the Romans and blame the Jews. I have a hard time believing it really went down that way. But certainly that narrative is convenient considering Christianity essentially took hold in Europe. Take a Jew as your savior, but blame the Jews for his death, and exonerate yourselves.


That makes no sense. Keep in mind that the earliest Christians were themselves Jews, and identified as Jews for quite some time. Yes, later more non-Jews came to join the faith, but it isn't like, as you suggest, some non-Jews took "a Jew as [their] savior, but [blamed] the Jews for his death." If they meant a denunciation of all Jews, then by definition they were denouncing themselves as well. Yes, later on some opportunistic political leaders in Europe used this as a very convenient cudgel (very similar to how leaders in Islamic nations will frequently push blame for their national problems onto the greater and lesser Satans) but the doctrine of Christianity is not intrinsically anti-semitic.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have performed the St John Passion. The narrative struck me as a very naked, obvious attempt to exonerate the Romans and blame the Jews. I have a hard time believing it really went down that way. But certainly that narrative is convenient considering Christianity essentially took hold in Europe. Take a Jew as your savior, but blame the Jews for his death, and exonerate yourselves.


Since it was the Romans who actually, you know, *carried out* the crucifixion -- and only they could -- I don't see how any account in any of the gospels can be seen as "exonerating" Rome.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> If it an historical truth that Jesus was killed because a group of Jews, presumably the leaders of the Jews in Jerusalem at the time, conspired to get the Romans to execute him, then saying that is not anti-semitic. To say that all Jews, past, present and future bare a collective guilt for that would be anti-semitic. So if someone comes up to you and says "but you Jews killed Christ," that is anti-semitic. But for Bach to relate the narrative in the New Testament that the leaders of the Jews conspired to have him put to death, and helped stir up sentiment among the masses to call for his death, that is not anti-semitic. There is a distinction there. True - historically there has been a lot of what you describe. That doesn't mean that any depiction of Christ's execution is guilty of that sin.


IF it's a historical truth. I question that as well. The Church picked and chose which narratives to include in the New Testament. I'm not sure what the "truth" is, and I doubt anyone ever will be. I do know that this version suits the goals of the Church at the time it split off from Jewish traditions, dates, holidays, around 300 years after the death of Jesus.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> It's most certainly a cheap tactic. It's using the emotional blackmail of the Holocaust along with traditional European antisemitism based on a distorted biblical knowledge to paint Christianity ultimately as intrinsically antisemitic. And exactly what "antisemitic elements" would Christians have to renounce to gain your non-antisemitic seal of approval? That's like judging all Jews, Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures based on all the opinions on "*****" expressed in the Talmud. No thanks.


You're flinging slogans here. Which emotional blackmail? Who mentioned the Holocaust? But if you mentioned it, you surely understand that the Holocaust was the natural outcome of 1800 years of Christian dogma and dehumanization of Jews and their religion, right? And which distorted biblical knowledge? What are you talking about? And how much Talmud have you studied? Clearly none. If you're asking a serious question, the serious answer is that the various branches of Christianity have, by and large taken responsibility for their role in antisemitism. By and large. The Catholic Church, by and large, has changed its mass and other prayers calling for the conversion of the Jews. It is no longer mainstream Christian theology to think of Jews as damned, etc.
I'm not asking for anything. Let's talk about music. But yes, the various Passions have antisemitic content. Content which demonizes Jews is antisemitic.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> Since it was the Romans who actually, you know, *carried out* the crucifixion -- and only they could -- I don't see how any account in any of the gospels can be seen as "exonerating" Rome.


The general attitude is that Pontius Pilate was manipulated by the Jews.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Eric Zamir said:


> The general attitude is that Pontius Pilate was manipulated by the Jews.


How is that out of the realm of possibility? And how is it "antisemitic" to think that it is possible? And by "the Jews", the politico-religious establishment is primarily meant. After all, Jewish tradition also holds that "the Jews" killed Isaiah and Jeremiah. Pilate could have said no at any time.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> And we certainly know his intentions as far as his intended affect--unlike his purely instrumental works, the passions are very explicit about how Bach is intending the music to be affecting you, since the chorales express what the congregation should be feeling. If, at the end, you don't feel at all inclined to sit down in tears, the performance was a bust and the performers have failed his intentions.


That may be the way you feel it, but it doesn't apply to lots of folks including myself. I've never felt like crying while listening to or at the end of a musical performance.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> That makes no sense. Keep in mind that the earliest Christians were themselves Jews, and identified as Jews for quite some time. Yes, later more non-Jews came to join the faith, but it isn't like, as you suggest, some non-Jews took "a Jew as [their] savior, but [blamed] the Jews for his death." If they meant a denunciation of all Jews, then by definition they were denouncing themselves as well. Yes, later on some opportunistic political leaders in Europe used this as a very convenient cudgel (very similar to how leaders in Islamic nations will frequently push blame for their national problems onto the greater and lesser Satans) but the doctrine of Christianity is not intrinsically anti-semitic.


That's not really accurate. Jews and "Christian Jews" worshipped together into the Fourth Century. However, from the First Century onward, there were more and more Christian writers who excoriated that behavior (Barnabas, etc.). After Constantine, in the Fourth Century, it became really two separate religions (and there was already a majority of Christians who did not come from Jewish origins), and the Jews began to be persecuted.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

Eric Zamir said:


> The general attitude is that Pontius Pilate was manipulated by the Jews.


Again, if you read the New Testament, it is not the Jewish people in general, but a small cabal of the leaders who viewed Jesus as problematic. And that was certainly not uncommon in Jewish history. There are accounts of both the people killing the prophets (Melachim 1/1 Kings chapter 19, verse 10 - the prophet Elijah recounting to God how his people have killed other prophets and are trying to kill him) and their leaders killing prophets when they told them things they didn't want to hear.

That small cabal of leaders certainly did manipulate Pilate. They knew the Roman laws and traditions, and used Pilates fear of unrest as leverage to convince him to execute Jesus. Again - not all the Jews, but a small group in the leadership who saw Jesus as problematic to them. Now, maybe you want to debate the authenticity of that history, but it isn't, on its face, anti-semitic. And again, this history was passed down from people who were themselves Jews. Jewish people who followed Jesus still identified themselves as Jews, and initially did all of their proselytizing to other Jews.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Look, I have sung the part of Jesus in the St John Passion several times, so I was right there in the crosshairs, and in Part 2 it is painfully obvious that the point of the narrative was to release Pilate from blame. Jesus even says explicitly to Pilate, (paraphrasing) "It's not you, it's they that are to blame."


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Look, I have sung the part of Jesus in the St John Passion several times, so I was right there in the crosshairs, and in Part 2 it is painfully obvious that the point of the narrative was to release Pilate from blame. Jesus even says explicitly to Pilate, (paraphrasing) "It's not you, it's they that are to blame."


And who are the "they?" That is really the issue here. All Jews, or the Jews who set Jesus up to be executed? Saying that Jews killed people is not anti-semitic, anymore than saying Christians killed people is anti-Christian.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ...Jesus even says explicitly to Pilate, (paraphrasing) "It's not you, it's they that are to blame."


Eh? What text is that? That's nowhere in John's gospel, and Jesus' words in the St John Passion are gospel texts. And in the Matthew Passion, when the question is who will betray Jesus, the chorus -- Christians -- sing a chorale that begins, "Ich bin's..." "It is I..."


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> How is that out of the realm of possibility? And how is it "antisemitic" to think that it is possible? And by "the Jews", the politico-religious establishment is primarily meant. After all, Jewish tradition also holds that "the Jews" killed Isaiah and Jeremiah. Pilate could have said no at any time.


Anything is possible. You can think what you want. It is possible to think anything. Believing that an ethnic group killed your God (even though he was one of them), without any firm factual basis, and using that as a justification for persecution is antisemitic. But I'm sure you don't think you are. The fact that Pilate could have said no hasn't stopped anyone. 
Look - just one example of many. While I was living in Italy, a couple of years ago, I told my associated that I was going home for "Pasqua" - Pesach, i.e., Passover (the word Pasqua - Easter in Italian - has its roots in the Hebrew). The woman was astonished. "You celebrate? But you killed Christ!" "NO" I replied. "You killed Christ." "What?" "Yes, the Italians killed him... i.e., the Romans." 
People have an entrenced idea that Pilate was some kind of victim of a Jewish plot. In any event, it doesn't matter. I love Bach's music. I love Chopin's piano music. I enjoy and have sung Wagner. But I call a spade a spade.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eric Zamir said:


> It's not a cheap tactic. The Christian narrative is that the Jews killed Jesus, or caused his death, or betrayed him to his death. By the time Bach rolled around, that narrative had been employed successfully, first by the Catholic Church, then simultaneously by Luther's Protestants as a pretext to dehumanize, ghettoize, persecute and massacre Jews. Cheap tactic on the part of Christians. To this very day, I'm confronted by "but you Jews killed Christ." They are, and it is. But the music is beautiful and uplifting. Luckily, I don't understand what they are saying. BTW, my wife performed the Mendelssohn version here in Israel under Spering. The entire cast were artists of the Israel Opera. And we were all scandalized by the text, while being mesmerized by the beauty of the music.


Sorry but to say th3 New Testament is antisemitic when it was written by Jews shows a massive misunderstanding. Of course it's been used for anti-Semitic purposes but then so has physics been used to make nuclear bombs to annihilate whole cities. My wife is Jewish and she has never been confronted by the thing of 'you Jews killed Jesus' as the New Testament makes it clear that they Messah died for our sins according to the scriptures.' As Christians we believe the new Testament is the fulfilment of the promise is made to Israel. Because it has been distorted does not make it wrong any more than someone distorting the Jewish Scriptures makes them wrong


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> And who are the "they?" That is really the issue here. All Jews, or the Jews who set Jesus up to be executed? Saying that Jews killed people is not anti-semitic, anymore than saying Christians killed people is anti-Christian.


You're missing the key point, which is that it is a ridiculous notion that Pilate was this good guy forced to do a wicked thing. There is an agenda behind that narrative. The Romans were horrible to the Jews. That is the entire historical context of Jesus' life. 40 years after his death the Romans came and destroyed Judea. It was worse in relative terms than the Holocaust. But Pilate was this good guy? And Jesus took pains to exonerate him and cast blame instead at his fellow Jews? C'mon.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> And who are the "they?" That is really the issue here. All Jews, or the Jews who set Jesus up to be executed? Saying that Jews killed people is not anti-semitic, anymore than saying Christians killed people is anti-Christian.


I think we have to recognise that when John says 'the Jews' he is meaning 'the Jewish leaders'. Of course everyone who Jesus was speaking to in his ministry would be Jews. But John uses the phrase 'the Jews' to denote the small cabal of Jewish leaders in Jerusalem who plotted Jesus' death and organised a lynch mob of their followers to bay for his blood. Let's face it all the early Christians were Jews. If they had thought their faith was anti-Semitic they would not have become Christians but as they realised it was the fulfilment of their hopes of the Jewish Scriptures and the promises to Abraham


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You're missing the key point, which is that it is a ridiculous notion that Pilate was this good guy forced to do a wicked thing. There is an agenda behind that narrative. The Romans were horrible to the Jews. That is the entire historical context of Jesus' life. 40 years after his death the Romans came and destroyed Judea. It was worse in relative terms than the Holocaust. But Pilate was this good guy? And Jesus took pains to exonerate him and cast blame instead at his fellow Jews? C'mon.


Show me the text that you say you've sung several times in which Jesus "exonerates" Pilate. To say that the gospels portray Pilate as a "good guy forced to do a wicked thing" is an ignorant caricature. Pilate hasn't been portrayed in Christian thought as a "good guy" but rather as an opportunistic governor who did what was expedient to stay in Rome's favor and keep his position, no matter who he had to kill.

Of course there's an agenda behind that narrative, but it isn't to hate Jews. Marx's "On the Jewish Question", on the other hand...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Look, I have sung the part of Jesus in the St John Passion several times, so I was right there in the crosshairs, and in Part 2 it is painfully obvious that the point of the narrative was to release Pilate from blame. Jesus even says explicitly to Pilate, (paraphrasing) "It's not you, it's they that are to blame."


Sorry but that is not what the text says. Jesus says, "You would have no power over me unless it were given you from above therefore he that handed me over to you has the greater sin."
Rather different. Jesus impresses on Pilate the fact that his much vaunted authority had been delegated to him. It was a sacred trust for which Pilate was answerable to God. He was rendered culpable for his failure to exercise his authority in a just manner. But Caiaphas as high priest had betrayed the trust even more sacred in delivering a man who he knew was innocent to be crucified, a death which they Jews regarded with especial horror as a man under the curse of God. Therefore the sin of the high priest was far greater than the sin of the governor, as he acted knowingly betraying his office as a servant of Yahweh himself.
The new Testament does not exonerate Pilate but holds him guilty.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but that is not what the text says. Jesus says, "You would have no power over me unless it were given you from above therefore he that handed me over to you has the greater sin."
> Rather different. Jesus impresses on Pilate the fact that his much vaunted authority had been delegated to him. It was a sacred trust for which Pilate was answerable to God. He was rendered culpable for his failure to exercise his authority in a just manner. But Caiaphas as high priest had betrayed the trust even more sacred in delivering a man who he knew was innocent to be crucified, a death which they Jews regarded with especial horror as a man under the curse of God. Therefore the sin of the high priest was far greater than the sin of the governor, as he acted knowingly betraying his office as a servant of Yahweh himself.
> The new Testament does not exonerate Pilate but holds him guilty.


Exactly. "HE has the greater sin". Not "THEY".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

consuono said:


> Show me the text that you say you've sung several times in which Jesus "exonerates" Pilate. To say that the gospels portray Pilate as a "good guy forced to do a wicked thing" is an ignorant caricature. Pilate hasn't been portrayed in Christian thought as a "good guy" but rather as an opportunistic governor who did what was expedient to stay in Rome's favor and keep his position, no matter who he had to kill.
> 
> Of course there's an agenda behind that narrative, but it isn't to hate Jews. Marx's "On the Jewish Question", on the other hand...


Pilatus:
Bist du der Jüden König?
Are you the king of the Jews
Evangelist:
Jesus antwortete:
Jesus replied:
Jesus:
Redest du das von dir selbst, oder haben's dir andere von mir gesagte
Do you say this of yourself, or did others say it to you about me?
Evangelist:
Pilatus antwortete:
Pilate answered:
Pilatus:
Bin ich ein Jüde? Dein Volk und die Hohenpriester haben dich mir überantwortet; was hast du getan?
Am I a Jew? Your people and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?

Evangelist:
Spricht Pilatus zu ihm:
Pilate said to him
Pilatus:
Was ist Wahrheit?
What is truth?
Evangelist:
Und da er das gesaget, ging er wieder hinaus zu den Jüden und spricht zu ihnen:
And when he said this, he went back out to the Jews and said to them:
Pilatus:
Ich finde keine Schuld an ihm.
I find no fault in him.

Pilatus:
Sehet, ich führe ihn heraus zu euch, dass ihr erkennet,
Look, I bring him out to you so that you can know
dass ich keine Schuld an ihm finde.
that I find no fault in him

Jesus:
Du hättest keine Macht über mich,
You would have no power over me
wenn sie dir nicht wäre von oben herab gegeben;
if it were not given to you from above:
*darum, der mich dir überantwortet hat, der hat's größ're Sünde.
therefore the one who handed me over to you has the greater guilt*
Evangelist:
Von dem an trachtete Pilatus, wie er ihn losließe.
And from then on Pilate endeavoured to set him free.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> darum, der mich dir überantwortet hat, der hat's größ're Sünde.
> therefore the one who handed me over to you has the greater guilt


"The one". Not "every Jew". And I see nothing in that text that "exonerates" Pilate. The high priest was supposed to have known better.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

Who wrote the New Testament? The analogy with nuclear bombs is apt, although nuclear bombs have annihilated far fewer people than the application of Christian dogma and doctrine. Inquisitions, pogroms, ghettos, etc. A propos coronavirus - during the Black Plague, the Jews suffered fewer fatalities (primarily because they were separated in ghettos, and observed more stringent rules of cleanliness, especially hand-washing). Result? They survived the plague in better shape than others, but were then mercilessly slaughtered as being responsible. A direct result of the original libel - that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Your wife is lucky. I've been physically beaten up for killing Christ. My father, my family, my mom in France, we all bear witness to the fruits of Catholic and Christian indoctrination that Jews are Christ-killers. Thus, although I do enjoy Bach's Passions as great musical works, there is no denying the false and evil story which makes up the text.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

The point is that the story as described in Bach's Matthäus-Passion paints Jews in a bad light. That story has been used to propagate evil deeds. I love music, especially Bach's music, and look beyond that to enjoy the brilliance of his music. One can argue about it ad infinitum. No one is right or wrong. I, and many others who have either listened to, or performed the work, have a certain opinion. When I listen to Richter's 1958 recording, I am moved by the music. I don't really care what the words say. Leonard Bernstein, for one, did not care to record the parts he deemed antisemitic. It's not a far-fetched, esoteric take-away from the plot. Those who are able to watch or listen to it, and take the words seriously, and who nevertheless are able to separate a mythological story from their personal opinions are perhaps blessed. I see some of those words as part of a problem that has caused infinite evil.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

The OP was concerned with which version you find best. *Religious discussion has no place in the main forum* and is not relevant to this thread. Please refrain from detailed exegetical analysis of the text and concentrate on the music.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Eric Zamir said:


> The point is that the story as described in Bach's Matthäus-Passion paints Jews in a bad light. That story has been used to propagate evil deeds. I love music, especially Bach's music, and look beyond that to enjoy the brilliance of his music. One can argue about it ad infinitum. No one is right or wrong. I, and many others who have either listened to, or performed the work, have a certain opinion. When I listen to Richter's 1958 recording, I am moved by the music. I don't really care what the words say. Leonard Bernstein, for one, did not care to record the parts he deemed antisemitic. It's not a far-fetched, esoteric take-away from the plot. Those who are able to watch or listen to it, and take the words seriously, and who nevertheless are able to separate a mythological story from their personal opinions are perhaps blessed. I see some of those words as part of a problem that has caused infinite evil.


Leonard Bernstein is not the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable; there's no requirement that Jews or any other group must be shown always in a positive light, and there's no evidence that Jews as a group have always been angels; the body count for Nietzsche and Marx would be far greater than for any biblical text; there is absolutely no New Testament injunction or justification to persecute Jews or any other group for any reason whatsoever. Zero. Quite the contrary.

Anyway, favorite recording? Mine would be Richter's from 1958 I believe.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

You are absolutely correct. There is absolutely no New Testament injunction or justification to persecute Jews or any other group for any reason whatsoever. That, however, was not the point. The point was that a narrative was created which has influenced countless Jew-haters to this very day. You are again correct that Leonard Bernstein is not the arbiter. However, no one said he was. It was an example. You are also correct in pointing out that there's no requirement that... any... group must always be shown in a positive light. However, when a member of one group paints another group in a negative light, in the Western world I inhabit, that often raises questions of bigotry, racism, etc. You mentioned Marx a couple of times. Why is that? 
Anyway, let's agree to go back to music! And getting back to the OP: Do you like this work? Do you love it? I love it.
Why? Because it is the ultimate expression of Bach's genius - there is a wide palette of emotions expressed in the music, and a great performance brings that out.
Do you have any reservations about it? Yes, the antisemitism...
What would you want someone new to this work to know about it? I would want them to listen to a few different styles of recordings and look for one where the performers explore and interpret each segment on its own. Some of the modern recordings rush through it like Vivaldi's Four Seasons. I like Richter (1958), Münchinger (1965), Herreweghe (1999), Harnoncourt (2000) and Rilling (1994), among others. Richter, Münchinger and Rilling in the "modern instruments, higher pitch" department, and the rest, HIP... These recordings combine fine artists, great sound, sensitive conducting, including varied tempi and dynamics, to provide an enveloping listening experience!


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I've said my piece and I'll follow the moderator's suggestion to refrain from religious or political debate here.

I also like the Rilling recording from the 70s, I believe, but I think a weakness in his is that he doesn't use a boys' choir. Still Rilling is probably my favorite Bach conductor.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> I've said my piece and I'll follow the moderator's suggestion to refrain from religious or political debate here.
> 
> I also like the Rilling recording from the 70s, I believe, but I think a weakness in his is that he doesn't use a boys' choir. Still Rilling is probably my favorite Bach conductor.


On balance, I prefer the Quasthoff (1994) Rilling recording by a hair over the 1978 one - the tempi are more varied and interesting, and the sound is better. Huttenlocher, however, is excellent, as are Hamari and Auger. Have a listen to "Erkenne", "Geduld!", the introduction to "Erbarme dich" and to "Mache dich" from each, and tell me what you think.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Eric Zamir said:


> On balance, I prefer the Quasthoff (1994) Rilling recording by a hair over the 1978 one - the tempi are more varied and interesting, and the sound is better. Huttenlocher, however, is excellent, as are Hamari and Auger. Have a listen to "Erkenne", "Gedult", the introduction to "Erbarme dich" and to "Mache dich" from each, and tell me what you think.


Thanks, I'll look for the later recording and give it a listen. I got the box set of the Passions, Mass in B minor and Magnificat a while back (after getting the complete cantatas set...a steal at about $60 btw) and I think the recording in that one is the one from 1978.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> Thanks, I'll look for the later recording and give it a listen. I got the box set of the Passions, Mass in B minor and Magnificat a while back (after getting the complete cantatas set...a steal at about $60 btw) and I think the recording in that one is the one from 1978.


I have that set; it's excellent. The later recording is on Hänssler Records - you can download a FLAC or get the CD's.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Just sharing this magnificent aria to help us take a deep breath and get back to the thread topic and the great unifying, healing power of Bach's music.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eric Zamir said:


> You are absolutely correct. There is absolutely no New Testament injunction or justification to persecute Jews or any other group for any reason whatsoever. That, however, was not the point. Tae point was that a narrative was created which has influenced countless Jew-haters to this very day. You are again correct that Leonard Bernstein is not the arbiter. However, no one said he was. It was an example. You are also correct in pointing out that there's no requirement that... any... group must always be shown in a positive light. However, when a member of one group paints another group in a negative light, in the Western world I inhabit, that often raises questions of bigotry, racism, etc. You mentioned Marx a couple of times. Why is that?
> Anyway, let's agree to go back to music! And getting back to the OP: Do you like this work? Do you love it? I love it.
> Why? Because it is the ultimate expression of Bach's genius - there is a wide palette of emotions expressed in the music, and a great performance brings that out.
> Do you have any reservations about it? Yes, the antisemitism...
> What would you want someone new to this work to know about it? I would want them to listen to a few different styles of recordings and look for one where the performers explore and interpret each segment on its own. Some of the modern recordings rush through it like Vivaldi's Four Seasons. I like Richter (1958), Münchinger (1965), Herreweghe (1999), Harnoncourt (2000) and Rilling (1994), among others. Richter, Münchinger and Rilling in the "modern instruments, higher pitch" department, and the rest, HIP... These recordings combine fine artists, great sound, sensitive conducting, including varied tempi and dynamics, to provide an enveloping listening experience!


Without violating the moderators instructions, you might wonder that people who persecuted the a Jews were not following the New Testament at all, which has at its heart the words of its founder: ' But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also'. 
To say that this is the new Testament which is incited the persecution of Jews is absolutely ridiculous. It is the bigotry of men. You might just as well say the Communist manifesto has of itself murdered over 100 million people during the 20th century. Certainly men who took up that manifesto did.
Getting back to Bach there is no anti-Semitism in the Bach settings as I have explained. But if you want a decent interpretation of the St Matthew Passion in a more traditional way of doing it then Richter in 1958 is probably the best.
Else Harnoncourt's second version the best all round although some stunning versions from McCreesh, Gardiner, Herreweghe, Jacobs.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Without violating the moderators instructions, you might wonder that people who persecuted the a Jews were not following the New Testament at all, which has at its heart the words of its founder: ' But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also'.
> To say that this is the new Testament which is incited the persecution of Jews is absolutely ridiculous. It is the bigotry of men. You might just as well say the Communist manifesto has of itself murdered over 100 million people during the 20th century. Certainly men who took up that manifesto did.
> Getting back to Bach there is no anti-Semitism in the Bach settings as I have explained. But if you want a decent interpretation of the St Matthew Passion in a more traditional way of doing it then Richter in 1958 is probably the best.
> Else Harnoncourt's second version the best all round although some stunning versions from McCreesh, Gardiner, Herreweghe, Jacobs.


For the first part of your response, we'll have to agree to disagree, because you're not getting my point. I know what Jesus is said to have preached. And we all know how well his followers have lived up to that over the ages. What bothers me and others about the Passions is not what Jesus preached, but the completely distorted and historically flawed narrative that the Jews did it. Men will be men, yes. But that story has fueled gross breaches of simple humanity, let alone official Christian teaching.

As for the recordings, I tend to agree with you: Richter 1958, Harnoncourt 2000, with kudos to the others you mentioned. I would also include Rilling in the top three. Aside from the well-known 1978 version which is readily available, I like the 1994 version on Hänssler, which is somewhat esoteric but no less interesting, combining conventional instruments (with exceptions) and pitch, with excellent singers, like Quasthoff in his prime, and more modern and varied tempi.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eric Zamir said:


> For the first part of your response, we'll have to agree to disagree, because you're not getting my point. I know what Jesus is said to have preached. And we all know how well his followers have lived up to that over the ages. What bothers me and others about the Passions is not what Jesus preached, but the completely distorted and historically flawed narrative that the Jews did it. Men will be men, yes. But that story has fueled gross breaches of simple humanity, let alone official Christian teaching.
> 
> As for the recordings, I tend to agree with you: Richter 1958, Harnoncourt 2000, with kudos to the others you mentioned. I would also include Rilling in the top three. Aside from the well-known 1978 version which is readily available, I like the 1994 version on Hänssler, which is somewhat esoteric but no less interesting, combining conventional instruments (with exceptions) and pitch, with excellent singers, like Quasthoff in his prime, and more modern and varied tempi.


The narrative is merely that found in the New Testament written by Jews. As Christians we believe that through Christ's death grace and forgiveness is offered to all, both Jews and Gentiles. This is the story of the passions of grace and forgiveness. If people read hate into it they completely miss the point. Interesting my wife as a Jew has had nothing but love and acceptance in Christian circles. Very sorry about your experience. The people concerned of course we are not fulfilling the commandments of Christ
Filling has of course taken over Richter's place as a Bach interpreter.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

DavidA said:


> The narrative is merely that found in the New Testament written by Jews. As Christians we believe that through Christ's death grace and forgiveness is offered to all, both Jews and Gentiles. This is the story of the passions of grace and forgiveness. If people read hate into it they completely miss the point. Interesting my wife as a Jew has had nothing but love and acceptance in Christian circles. Very sorry about your experience. The people concerned of course we are not fulfilling the commandments of Christ
> Filling has of course taken over Richter's place as a Bach interpreter.


I like the Richter recording - Rilling not so much. To be honest, I gravitate more towards the HIP recordings of this work - Herreweghe is my favorite, but I've been listening to the Jacobs recording and enjoy it a great deal. And then totally out of character with that, I really enjoy Klemperer's take on it!


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

I keep seeing recommendations for Richter 1958, a recording that I've tried on numerous occasions over the years, and find little to enjoy. What is it that I'm missing? Haefliger is fine, as is Fischer-Dieskau, but that's really about the best that I can say about it.

I normally don't do music on DVD or Blu-Ray, but during the pandemic, I've been catching up on some things that have accumulated. This St. Matthew, conducted by John Nelson, is outstanding, with particularly fine solo work from Werner Güra, Christine Rice, and Matthew Brook.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

wkasimer said:


> I keep seeing recommendations for Richter 1958, a recording that I've tried on numerous occasions over the years, and find little to enjoy. What is it that I'm missing? Haefliger is fine, as is Fischer-Dieskau, but that's really about the best that I can say about it.
> 
> I normally don't do music on DVD or Blu-Ray, but during the pandemic, I've been catching up on some things that have accumulated. This St. Matthew, conducted by John Nelson, is outstanding, with particularly fine solo work from Werner Güra, Christine Rice, and Matthew Brook.
> 
> View attachment 134987


I have a soft spot for the Richter 58 as I learned the St Matthew from it. But by the side of modern versions it is found wanting.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

wkasimer said:


> I keep seeing recommendations for Richter 1958, a recording that I've tried on numerous occasions over the years, and find little to enjoy. What is it that I'm missing? Haefliger is fine, as is Fischer-Dieskau, but that's really about the best that I can say about it.


You're not alone. I don't enjoy it either. A pretty good solo team, but I think there are much better "old-school" options if one is wanting slower tempi and larger choirs. The only thing I really like about it is the use of organ as continuo instead of the jangly harpsichord. Richter doesn't vary the basic tempo or conception at all and comes off sounding stodgy and lifeless - something that I think he does in most of his Bach conducting (even though his B Minor Mass is palatable). Jochum is much preferable for me for a similar interpretation that is much more flexible and nuanced.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Speaking of "old school", I don't have the recording and have only come across this on YT, but this 1952 recording conducted by Günther Ramin is interesting: (edit: after listening to this I *want* this recording)(PS - sorry if this one has already been linked/brought up, I haven't gone through the entire thread)


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Jochum is much preferable for me for a similar interpretation that is much more flexible and nuanced.


I agree - also Scherchen, Gönnenwein, Solti, and even Swarowsky. And all of these have better soloists.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

wkasimer said:


> I agree - also Scherchen, Gönnenwein, Solti, and even Swarowsky. And all of these have better soloists.


I've listened to some of the Jochum recording and it just sounds a little bombastic to me...just a bit "too much" of something or other.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

DavidA said:


> The narrative is merely that found in the New Testament written by Jews. As Christians we believe that through Christ's death grace and forgiveness is offered to all, both Jews and Gentiles. This is the story of the passions of grace and forgiveness. If people read hate into it they completely miss the point. Interesting my wife as a Jew has had nothing but love and acceptance in Christian circles. Very sorry about your experience. The people concerned of course we are not fulfilling the commandments of Christ
> Filling has of course taken over Richter's place as a Bach interpreter.


The moderator gave an order to avoid this kind of discussion. However, since you insist on missing my point, I'll restate it. The story that the Jews killed Christ has been used by Christians of all kinds to perpetrate horror on the Jews, for the past two millennia. Whether those Christians missed the point or not is up for debate. I say they didn't miss any point, that the text was written that way in order to alienate Christians from Jews. BTW, Luke and Mark were not Jews, and none of the authors of the New Testament was an eyewitness. 
I also forgot to mention having been beaten up in Catholic school by an entire group of my classmates - in 1970 - and then being punished by the priest for defending myself! I could go on and on. So your Jewish wife was accepted by Christians... so my family was saved by a priest. There are good people out there. But the demonization of the Jews in Christianity is not really something you can deny - and NO, I'm not talking about all the good things it preaches (which were taken from Judaism), but about the obvious effort to cast us as a people with an inferior religion who have failed to see the truth, and who are in need of forgiveness, and who are responsible in some way for the suffering of your god. And that's the problem I, and many others, have with the Passions. 
Now, let's please leave it.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> I've listened to some of the Jochum recording and it just sounds a little bombastic to me...just a bit "too much" of something or other.


I just listened to that the other day - not bad, actually, but doesn't really add to what Richter, Harnoncourt or Rilling have to say. It's very reverent, and as far as big-orchestra/big-choir recordings go, I would definitely rate it over behemoths such as Solti (too mechanical for me), or HvK. Jochum manages to introduce a nuance of intimacy and emotion. If I compare it to Klemperer, yeah, definitely works better for me - Klemperer confuses slowness with reverence, the way modern HIP recordings often confuse speed and authenticity.
Bottom line - if I'm looking for the conventional version, Recent Rilling (1994) and Retro Richter (1958) are my favs.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> Speaking of "old school", I don't have the recording and have only come across this on YT, but this 1952 recording conducted by Günther Ramin is interesting: (edit: after listening to this I *want* this recording)(PS - sorry if this one has already been linked/brought up, I haven't gone through the entire thread)


I'm listening as I write this... look, I do appreciate sparkling sound. Even the Richter '58 version sounds great. This is ok.
During this pandemic I've gone through something like 20 versions of the Passion; I keep coming back to Richter (58), Harnoncourt 2000, and the 1994 Rilling I recommended to you. That's two old-style and one HIP, although the Rilling takes some lively tempi.
Most of the other "HIP" recordings I've listened to are fast for the sake of being fast.
And as for the old-style ones, I've pretty much eliminated all the recordings that include Walter Berry (like the Jochum, Klemperer, etc.) because he sounds like he has a stuffed nose. DFD, Tom Krause, Philip Huttenlocher, early Quasthoff, all excellent. As for the contraltos, I haven't really heard a bad one among what's available. 
Regarding Jacobs, Leonhardt, etc., I don't really care for male versions of Erbarme Dich, or any of the other usually-female roles. Call me old-fashioned. Meanwhile, this Ramin recording is long, so I'll report later.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eric Zamir said:


> The moderator gave an order to avoid this kind of discussion. However, since you insist on missing my point, I'll restate it. The story that the Jews killed Christ has been used by Christians of all kinds to perpetrate horror on the Jews, for the past two millennia. Whether those Christians missed the point or not is up for debate. I say they didn't miss any point, that the text was written that way in order to alienate Christians from Jews. BTW, Luke and Mark were not Jews, and none of the authors of the New Testament was an eyewitness.
> I also forgot to mention having been beaten up in Catholic school by an entire group of my classmates - in 1970 - and then being punished by the priest for defending myself! I could go on and on. So your Jewish wife was accepted by Christians... so my family was saved by a priest. There are good people out there. But the demonization of the Jews in Christianity is not really something you can deny - and NO, I'm not talking about all the good things it preaches (which were taken from Judaism), but about the obvious effort to cast us as a people with an inferior religion who have failed to see the truth, and who are in need of forgiveness, and who are responsible in some way for the suffering of your god. And that's the problem I, and many others, have with the Passions.
> Now, let's please leave it.


The moderator has already told us to avoid this in this thread. Please start another thread in religion if you want to discuss it.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

DavidA said:


> The moderator has already told us to avoid this in this thread. Please start another thread in religion if you want to discuss it.


Uh-huh, and you wrote everything I responded to AFTER the moderator spoke his piece, so please don't shut ME up when I respond to you. You really want the last word? Go for it.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Eric Zamir said:


> Uh-huh, and you wrote everything I responded to AFTER the moderator spoke his piece, so please don't shut ME up when I respond to you. You really want the last word? Go for it.


I'll try the last word. Look, if you've got such an anti-Christian bug up your butt, Bach would probably thank you if you didn't bother with his music at all. Bach's faith is totally bound up with the work he produced, especially his choral works. It mystifies me that those who absolutely cannot stomach Christianity think that they can somehow suck the Christianity out of Bach's religious choral music like sucking juice out of an orange. If you're virulently anti-Christian, find something else. It wasn't intended for you and your approval. And I would've said the same thing to Leonard Bernstein or anyone else who tries to mold Bach in their own anti-Christian image. This is like an antisemite critiquing klezmer music or a synagogue cantor.
By the way, last point I will make on the matter:


> I say they didn't miss any point, that the text was written that way in order to alienate Christians from Jews. BTW, Luke and Mark were not Jews, and none of the authors of the New Testament was an eyewitness.


That runs counter to all except the most extremely fringe "liberal" NT scholarship. The first Christians WERE Jews, and there was even disagreement between Paul and Peter over whether gentiles could even *be* Christians, and that disagreement and tension is frankly depicted within the NT itself. If there was any prejudice toward anybody among the earliest Christians, it was toward gentiles. And now I'm done with the topic.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> I'll try the last word. Look, if you've got such an anti-Christian bug up your butt, Bach would probably thank you if you didn't bother with his music at all. Bach's faith is totally bound up with the work he produced, especially his choral works. It mystifies me that those who absolutely cannot stomach Christianity think that they can somehow suck the Christianity out of Bach's religious choral music like sucking juice out of an orange. If you're virulently anti-Christian, find something else. It wasn't intended for you and your approval. And I would've said the same thing to Leonard Bernstein or anyone else who tries to mold Bach in their own anti-Christian image. This is like an antisemite critiquing klezmer music or a synagogue cantor.
> By the way, last point I will make on the matter:
> That runs counter to all except the most extremely fringe "liberal" NT scholarship. The first Christians WERE Jews, and there was even disagreement between Paul and Peter over whether gentiles could even *be* Christians. If there was any prejudice toward anybody among the earliest Christians, it was toward gentiles. And now I'm done with the topic.


I'm not anti-Christian - I think I pointed out several times that I and my family owe our very existence to the compassion and heroism of devout Catholics. The family friend who hid my mom's family; the priest who then took them in; the priest who was honored at my bar-mitzva in France for saving Jewish orphans (and not trying to convert them, as was often done in Italy during and after the war). I believe Christianity teaches great things. And I believe music is universal and not intended for anyone's approval. I'm not virulently anti-Christian. I am virulently anti-antisemitism, of which the Church in its various iterations has not been exempt. In fact, I'm against any kind of religious or racial prejudice. 
Of course the first Christians were Jews, including the apostles. I mentioned Luke and Mark, who were apparently not. Moreover, no one can refute the fact that none of authors of the New Testament was en eyewitness, so to talk about what the Jews did or didn't say or do, or Pilate, etc., is conjecture. And that's why this Passion story upsets a lot of us.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Eric Zamir said:


> ...
> Of course the first Christians were Jews, including the apostles. I mentioned Luke and Mark, who were apparently not. Moreover, no one can refute the fact that none of authors of the New Testament was en eyewitness, so to talk about what the Jews did or didn't say or do, or Pilate, etc., is conjecture. And that's why this Passion story upsets a lot of us.


OK, one more thing. The NT has *the most* manuscript testimony and attestation of any ancient document. The details -- political, architectural etc -- show that if the authors were not eyewitnesses, they were very close to someone who *was*. On those skeptical grounds then the assassination of Julius Caesar would be just as "conjectural".


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> OK, one more thing. The NT has *the most* manuscript testimony and attestation of any ancient document. The details -- political, architectural etc -- show that if the authors were not eyewitnesses, they were very close to someone who *was*. On those skeptical grounds then the assassination of Julius Caesar would be just as "conjectural".


I don't think anyone doubts that Caesar was assassinated, or that Jesus of Nazareth was murdered by the Romans. I don't. I'm not certain, however, whether Caesar actually said "et tu, Brute" or if he used Shakespeare's language... "Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look." Etc. Have a good weekend.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Eric Zamir said:


> I don't think anyone doubts that Caesar was assassinated, or that Jesus of Nazareth was murdered by the Romans. I don't. I'm not certain, however, whether Caesar actually said "et tu, Brute"


If you had several roughly contemporaneous documents stating that that's what he said, it would most likely be canonical. The closest you can get is probably Suetonius over a century later.


> or if he used Shakespeare's language... "Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look." Etc.


 Shakespeare was writing a play roughly 1600 years after the fact.


> Have a good weekend.


You too.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> If you had several roughly contemporaneous documents stating that that's what he said, it would most likely be canonical. The closest you can get is probably Suetonius over a century later.
> Shakespeare was writing a play roughly 1600 years after the fact.
> You too.


https://www.chorusamerica.org/singers/why-bach-passions-are-problematic


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

https://www.chorusamerica.org/singers/why-bach-passions-are-problematic


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

*Why the passions are problematic - from chorusamerica.org*



DavidA said:


> The moderator has already told us to avoid this in this thread. Please start another thread in religion if you want to discuss it.


https://www.chorusamerica.org/singers/why-bach-passions-are-problematic


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> But as performers of this music, what do you think our approach should be to this music?


Here's a suggestion: if you find it so problematic, ignore it. Move on. Do some Shostakovich or Bernstein or something.

(edit)Anyway, from that site:


> You can also make the case that Bach's musical choices in both Passions go a long way toward opposing the argument that the Jews killed Jesus. In the chorales and the arias that surround the biblical text, Bach consistently brings the responsibility for Jesus' death back on the community of sinners-which includes everyone.


Bach does so because that's what the biblical texts say and mean.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> Here's a suggestion: if you find it so problematic, ignore it. Move on. Do some Shostakovich or Bernstein or something.
> 
> (edit)Anyway, from that site:
> 
> Bach does so because that's what the biblical texts say and mean.


This discussion should not include your opinion on what I should listen to. It was about handling the dichotomy between beautiful music and problematic theme (or parts of it). It's a legitimate discussion, not a religious discussion. I'm sure Bach didn't hate anyone. The story is problematic to many people, of many faiths, and the article handles it well. You don't need to go snide. Remember, your bible is not everyone else's bible, and one need not accept a hateful myth, even as one revels in the beauty of the music.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Eric Zamir said:


> This discussion should not include your opinion on what I should listen to. It was about handling the dichotomy between beautiful music and problematic theme (or parts of it). It's a legitimate discussion, not a religious discussion. I'm sure Bach didn't hate anyone. The story is problematic to many people, of many faiths, and the article handles it well. You don't need to go snide. Remember, your bible is not everyone else's bible, and one need not accept a hateful myth, even as one revels in the beauty of the music.


But yet everyone is supposed to accommodate *your* "hateful myth".
The story of Mt Sinai is problematic to "many people". The imprecatory Psalms: problematic to "many people". The story of the US Constitution is problematic to "many people". Being Jewish and not a Palestinian Muslim is problematic to "many people". Postmodernism, atheism, identity politics: problematic for "many people". I'm sorry, but neither you nor the ADL nor the Southern Baptists nor the Roman Catholic Church nor any other individual or group get to define what's "acceptable" in art and what's "problematic". If you don't "approve" of this or that Bach work, don't listen to it. Don't perform it. The real problem, the real sticking point, is that Bach was a Christian, and Christians still exist. Lots and lots of them. And I don't even agree with Bach's Lutheran theology in every single particular, especially the "Church as the New Israel" aspect dating from the time of Constantine - which I think is where antisemitism seeped into Christianity. But if Christian belief were solely dictated by Jewish sensibilities there wouldn't be much of it left. Pointing to alleged antisemitism in NT texts is just a cheap and convenient tactic. Don't try to tar Christians of every era and region with the sins of Nazi Germany. It doesn't compute.

Done.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

This thread is for a discussion of the musical work, St. Matthew Passion. It is not an appropriate place for religious discussions about the bible, antisemitism, or Christianity. We have a sub-forum, Politics and Religion in Classical Music, where _religious aspects of works_ may be discussed. If you wish to discuss purely religious issues, please do so in the Groups area and not on the main forum.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

mmsbls said:


> This thread is for a discussion of the musical work, St. Matthew Passion. It is not an appropriate place for religious discussions about the bible, antisemitism, or Christianity. We have a sub-forum, Politics and Religion in Classical Music, where _religious aspects of works_ may be discussed. If you wish to discuss purely religious issues, please do so in the Groups area and not on the main forum.


I've certainly tried to follow that.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

consuono said:


> I've said my piece and I'll follow the moderator's suggestion to refrain from religious or political debate here.
> 
> I also like the Rilling recording from the 70s, I believe, but I think a weakness in his is that he doesn't use a boys' choir. Still Rilling is probably my favorite Bach conductor.


So, on to more musical things - based on what you wrote above, I went through my recordings, and could only find Münchinger (1965), Richter '58, and possibly Harnoncourt 2000, Spering (Mendelssohn version) and Gardiner that used a childrens' or boys' choir. Can you recommend some others? I'm sure the last Cleobury version also does, although last time I listened to it, I was somewhat unimpressed; it seemed needlessly fast.
Indeed, the presence of the kids adds a celestial aspect... did Bach actually specify children? Anyway, I'll be happy to get some recommendations.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Eric Zamir said:


> The point is that the story as described in Bach's Matthäus-Passion paints Jews in a bad light. That story has been used to propagate evil deeds. I love music, especially Bach's music, and look beyond that to enjoy the brilliance of his music. One can argue about it ad infinitum. No one is right or wrong. I, and many others who have either listened to, or performed the work, have a certain opinion. When I listen to Richter's 1958 recording, I am moved by the music. I don't really care what the words say. Leonard Bernstein, for one, did not care to record the parts he deemed antisemitic. It's not a far-fetched, esoteric take-away from the plot. Those who are able to watch or listen to it, and take the words seriously, and who nevertheless are able to separate a mythological story from their personal opinions are perhaps blessed. I see some of those words as part of a problem that has caused infinite evil.


Who cares, JS Bach is the musical messiah, he saved humanity through his music. I would not allow people to complain about any piece of his music, if possible I would deprive anyone of access to all of his music who ever complains, why only Matthaus Passion, which piece of his is not as great as this composition?


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Eric Zamir said:


> The moderator gave an order to avoid this kind of discussion. However, since you insist on missing my point, I'll restate it. The story that the Jews killed Christ has been used by Christians of all kinds to perpetrate horror on the Jews, for the past two millennia. Whether those Christians missed the point or not is up for debate. I say they didn't miss any point, that the text was written that way in order to alienate Christians from Jews. BTW, Luke and Mark were not Jews, and none of the authors of the New Testament was an eyewitness.
> I also forgot to mention having been beaten up in Catholic school by an entire group of my classmates - in 1970 - and then being punished by the priest for defending myself! I could go on and on. So your Jewish wife was accepted by Christians... so my family was saved by a priest. There are good people out there. But the demonization of the Jews in Christianity is not really something you can deny - and NO, I'm not talking about all the good things it preaches (which were taken from Judaism), but about the obvious effort to cast us as a people with an inferior religion who have failed to see the truth, and who are in need of forgiveness, and who are responsible in some way for the suffering of your god. And that's the problem I, and many others, have with the Passions.
> Now, let's please leave it.


JS Bachs music is enough to make people good they do not need your teaching, I feel like biting a mouthful of sand seeing you talking about non-musical controversies in your own Bach thread. I also have a ton of new age ideologies, posted in some other forum, but never here. But cheers, I do not mean to offend you, just I highly agree with mod this time. Lets stop the those controversies.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

Ariasexta said:


> Who cares, JS Bach is the musical messiah, he saved humanity through his music. I would not allow people to complain about any piece of his music, if possible I would deprive anyone of access to all of his music who ever complains, why only Matthaus Passion, which piece of his is not as great as this composition?


You're a little late to the game. We moved on. If you would not allow anyone to complain about something, or deprive someone of access to music, you're probably not someone I would like to exchange opinions with. Second, I never, ever, complained about Bach's music. Perhaps English is your second language?


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

Ariasexta said:


> JS Bachs music is enough to make people good they do not need your teaching, I feel like biting a mouthful of sand seeing you talking about non-musical controversies in your own Bach thread. I also have a ton of new age ideologies, posted in some other forum, but never here. But cheers, I do not mean to offend you, just I highly agree with mod this time. Lets stop the those controversies.


The discussion was not about religion. It was about the well-known issue of how a singer or listener with a conscience approaches an anti-semitic narrative in Bach. If you want to eat sand, go for it. I already moved on, so I don't understand why you posted vitriol after the fact, only then to agree with the mod! What's with you people?

I really wanted a recommendation of a great recording of the Passion with a super childrens' or boys' choir. Otherwise, I'll stick with Richter.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Eric Zamir said:


> The discussion was not about religion. It was about the well-known issue of how a singer or listener with a conscience approaches an anti-semitic narrative in Bach. If you want to eat sand, go for it. I already moved on, so I don't understand why you posted vitriol after the fact, only then to agree with the mod! What's with you people?
> 
> I really wanted a recommendation of a great recording of the Passion with a super childrens' or boys' choir. Otherwise, I'll stick with Richter.


I can not care less about JS Bachs personal problems, *his music saved the world that is enough*. Many people here also love Bach, this is the most important thing. You are welcomed to share and join related topics, so, start over.

I can not trust Harnoncourt anymore after he recorded outside Teldec, I do not like his late approach to JS Bach. Leonhardt is definitive for me, Ton Koopman is luxury in tonal richness. Btw I must recommend you to forget those secondary topics while listening.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Suzuki for me:









This is his 2020 recording; the one he did back in about 1999 is also very good, but he's obviously got a lot of Bach choral mileage under him by now which he was lacking the first time around.


----------



## PSchiefelbein (Mar 17, 2021)

Having worked my way through the entire thread (even where it devolved into a discussion of anti-Semitism) I was disappointed to find only one brief mention of my personal favorite, the one done by Mogens Woldike in 1959. The soloists are superb, the performance heartfelt, and it strikes me as a remarkable balance between earlier performance styles and the later HIP ones which sometimes strike me as being more concerned with performance practice than what the piece is trying to say. (Which brings to mind is Wanda Landowska’s famous comment that “you do Bach your way and I’ll do it HIS way”.) This is the one I go back to when I need to center myself for Holy Week.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

PSchiefelbein said:


> Having worked my way through the entire thread (even where it devolved into a discussion of anti-Semitism) I was disappointed to find only one brief mention of my personal favorite, the one done by Mogens Woldike in 1959. The soloists are superb, the performance heartfelt, and it strikes me as a remarkable balance between earlier performance styles and the later HIP ones which sometimes strike me as being more concerned with performance practice than what the piece is trying to say. (Which brings to mind is Wanda Landowska's famous comment that "you do Bach your way and I'll do it HIS way".) This is the one I go back to when I need to center myself for Holy Week.


So what is "HIS way" then?


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

PSchiefelbein said:


> Having worked my way through the entire thread (even where it devolved into a discussion of anti-Semitism) I was disappointed to find only one brief mention of my personal favorite, the one done by Mogens Woldike in 1959. The soloists are superb, the performance heartfelt, and it strikes me as a remarkable balance between earlier performance styles and the later HIP ones which sometimes strike me as being more concerned with performance practice than what the piece is trying to say. (Which brings to mind is Wanda Landowska's famous comment that "you do Bach your way and I'll do it HIS way".) This is the one I go back to when I need to center myself for Holy Week.


So, I began working my way through SMP's last year, during Passover/Easter/First Lockdown, and came up with a list of favorites. That list has evolved through the past year, after listening to untold hours of this great work.
I had downloaded Woldike at the time - I liked it, but the sound was boxed in and detracted from the grandness of the piece (for me). I also didn't get the heartfelt part. 
Mind you, I am not ideological when it comes to Baroque - I just like whatever hits my heartstrings, 440/415 or HIP/modern be damned!
I'll re-listen to the Woldike; it's been a while. In the meantime, the ones I go to most often are Richter-1958 and Gardiner-1988 followed by Schreier (as conductor)-1987. I confess I also drift over to Solti and Rilling's 1994 version with Quasthoff fairly frequently. 
Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Try this, it's very nice.


----------



## Eric Zamir (Apr 8, 2020)

Hi ArtMusic:
Just skimmed through the highlights. Delightful! Well-played, and belies the notion that only massive forces can convey the majesty of the piece. OTOH, vocally, it would not be my go-to version. I do like the fact that he included the boy choir. Anything "bad" I might have to say falls into the categories of nitpicking and personal taste, and therefore, I choose to refrain! Overall, I would have been pleased to attend this performance! Thanks for sharing!


----------



## PSchiefelbein (Mar 17, 2021)

I, too, will try listening to others as I agree that Woldike’s sound is definitely from 1959. But when I say “heartfelt”, it was a reflection of the fact that Walter Berry singing “I am Jesus’ tomb and sepulcher”, and the whole closing section for that matter, brings me to tears nearly every time I hear it. The other soloists,too, (and especially Teresa Stich-Randall) also seem to really care about the words they are singing. I have yet to find an alternative recording that affects me the same way. Woldike himself provides an always flowing accompaniment that, for me, recognizes the inherent dance element but interprets them in service to the words. With instrumental soloists among the best Vienna had to offer, and the smaller forces employed, I have always seen it as the perfect halfway house between old and new performance traditions.
I just re-read the entire thread and wanted, as a Lutheran pastor, to comment on the anti- Semitic part of the thread as it relates to the St. Matthew Passion. Anti-Semitism had long and deep roots in German culture (Martin Luther himself being a prime offender). Thus the real surprise for me concerning the Passion is that Bach consistently chooses recitative and aria texts from Picander as well as familiar chorales which stress the listener’s complicity in the sins that resulted in Jesus’ death and call for recognition of that fact and repentance for it. The suggestion is that we are prone to the same sins in our day as were the Jews and Romans of Jesus’ day, and we might have crucified Jesus just as surely as they did. It would have been much easier on Good Friday to choose texts taking the usual medieval route of blaming it all on the Jews and sending the congregation out to punish them. That Bach didn’t, and that his church seems to have accepted it without question (the major criticism being that it was “too operatic”) suggests to me that the path of salvation, and not anti-Semitism, was meant to be the primary focus of the work. 
And doing Bach “his way” was just Landowska’s rather snarky way of suggesting that only she was doing things in a way Bach would have approved of. I don’t agree with her as I believe we are enriched by approaching Bach from many different directions and styles.


----------

