# JS Bach choir size. Questions.



## JSBach85

I have been reading about the choir size of JS Bach, particularly for St. Matthew Passion but I am now even more confused than before. I see good points and reasoning under the two perspectives: OVPP and 3-4 voices per part choirs but nothing to conclude, but speculations from both theories.

I even watched a short conversation between four scholars of JS Bach, conducted by Ton Koopman:






Seems that reasoning is more based on speculation and beliefs rather than historical evidence. As far as documented about St. Matthew Passion, it is known which vocal parts Bach wrote for the performances: There are two voices (SATB), whose parts include the choruses, arias, soloists: the Evangelist (T1), Jesus (B1) and the two witnesses (A2 and T2), and some additional smaller parts for Judas, Peter, Pilate. and the "Soprano in ripieno". These are the instructions of JS Bach respectfully: "A choir must have at least three singers per part so that a double-choir motet can still be sung even if one of them is ill" but Bach's demands refer to the total of disposable singers? that means not every singer is engaged in the performance?

Scholars knew that Bach's own forces in Leipzig were much smaller than those used by Richter and other conductors. As far as I know, there are two theories respecfully:

1- Arnold Schering in the 1930s: Based on Entwurf in which he demanded at least three singers for each part of the chorus, and the original performing material which in most cases includes only one sheet per part. From this he drew the conclusion that three singers read from each sheet.

2- Joshua Rifkin thesis theory published in 1981: Rifkin and after him Andrew Parrott showed that Bach's demands in the Entwurf refer to the disposable staff for the church music as a whole, not to the actual number of performers in Bach's own works. They showed evidence that the common practice in Germany (as we know today) was to perform cantatas with soloists, sometimes doubled by a ripieno group, but there was no choir as we are used to expect.

Nowadays, there are more performers following Schering theory rather than Rifkin thesis, at least, there are almost complete cantatas cycles using 3-5 singers per part: Koopman, Leonhardt-Harnoncourt, Suzuki, Gardiner (I mean under H.I.P practice) and following Rifkin thesis, we only have the liturgical cycle by Kuijken and just some random cantatas recorded by Junghanel, Pierlot, Milnes, Rifkin. There are also OVPP recordings for both passions: Kuijken, Parrott, McCreesh, Butt. Regarding Koopman, he uses 4-5 singers per part, wouldn't be oversized?

On the other hand, Rifkin refer to motets practice, but motet was a rather a chambre genre, not demanding many performers, then motet can't be a representative pattern for all the vocal works. Still, I don't see clear evidence supporting Rifkin thesis, neither a clear conclusion of the number of singers Bach used at the moment that actually were engaged at once. It is said that we have evidence (Weimar) proving that Bach was employing "extraordinary" singers, but they were there singing or just in reserve?

If you have read me and can bring me some light in this topic, What is the number of singers that most likely Bach used normally at the time? At least, is there any range of probably singers such as 2-4 voices per part? If OVPP thesis by Joshua Rifkin has any validity in some/any vocal works, which are those vocal works that may used one-voice-per-part practice?

Your comments, contributions will be really appreciated since I am stuck and full of questions regarding Bach choirs.


----------



## Woodduck

If scholars and specialists in performing Baroque music haven't been able to determine the number of singers Bach employed in his official capacity as Kapellmeister, it seems unlikely that anyone here will be able to. But why is it important to know this for any purpose other than the purely academic? The questions of how many musicians (including instrumentalists) Bach had to work with, and of how many he'd have liked to have, are two different questions. It's more than likely that as he sat in his study composing he had no specific number in mind at all. 

18th-century performance practice was nothing if not flexible, and the very nature of the music allows for this and even invites it. The practicalities of budgets and venues had to be accommodated, there was plenty of room for varied artistic choices, and in performing this repertoire these are still basic questions. Do we find it artistically pleasing to differentiate between the sound of a chorus and the sound of solo voices? Does it make sense for the mob crying "Crucify him!" to sound like a mob and not a group of madrigal singers? Does a larger ensemble make a better effect in a large church or concert hall? Then what purpose is served by adhering to the number of singers some church board was willing to pay for in 1724? Is it even conceivable that Bach would have objected to two or four voices per part, or even six or eight had such a number been obtainable?


----------



## Woodduck

Yes, Scratchgolf, that is what our wise overseers consider a punishable offense. Surrender your car keys immediately.

EDIT: I see that our wise overseers have made you disappear. I'm sorry. The head has reasons the heart does not know.


----------



## haydnfan

The letter that Rifkin references as his key evidence is ambiguous. Really we won't know what Bach wanted. But even if it wasn't ambiguous, Bach frequently had to fight over financial matters with his church. I don't see him jumping in to make demands except for the absolute minimum.

I know that it's not very historically informed of me but as for OVPP vs 4 voices per part: either can sound great depending upon the conductor and performers. And both sound much leaner and closer to performance sizes of Bach's era than the gigantic choruses of the romantic era and early 20th century.


----------



## Mandryka

JSBach85 said:


> I have been reading about the choir size of JS Bach, particularly for St. Matthew Passion but I am now even more confused than before. I see good points and reasoning under the two perspectives: OVPP and 3-4 voices per part choirs but nothing to conclude, but speculations from both theories.
> 
> I even watched a short conversation between four scholars of JS Bach, conducted by Ton Koopman:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems that reasoning is more based on speculation and beliefs rather than historical evidence. As far as documented about St. Matthew Passion, it is known which vocal parts Bach wrote for the performances: There are two voices (SATB), whose parts include the choruses, arias, soloists: the Evangelist (T1), Jesus (B1) and the two witnesses (A2 and T2), and some additional smaller parts for Judas, Peter, Pilate. and the "Soprano in ripieno". These are the instructions of JS Bach respectfully: "A choir must have at least three singers per part so that a double-choir motet can still be sung even if one of them is ill" but Bach's demands refer to the total of disposable singers? that means not every singer is engaged in the performance?
> 
> Scholars knew that Bach's own forces in Leipzig were much smaller than those used by Richter and other conductors. As far as I know, there are two theories respecfully:
> 
> 1- Arnold Schering in the 1930s: Based on Entwurf in which he demanded at least three singers for each part of the chorus, and the original performing material which in most cases includes only one sheet per part. From this he drew the conclusion that three singers read from each sheet.
> 
> 2- Joshua Rifkin thesis theory published in 1981: Rifkin and after him Andrew Parrott showed that Bach's demands in the Entwurf refer to the disposable staff for the church music as a whole, not to the actual number of performers in Bach's own works. They showed evidence that the common practice in Germany (as we know today) was to perform cantatas with soloists, sometimes doubled by a ripieno group, but there was no choir as we are used to expect.
> 
> Nowadays, there are more performers following Schering theory rather than Rifkin thesis, at least, there are almost complete cantatas cycles using 3-5 singers per part: Koopman, Leonhardt-Harnoncourt, Suzuki, Gardiner (I mean under H.I.P practice) and following Rifkin thesis, we only have the liturgical cycle by Kuijken and just some random cantatas recorded by Junghanel, Pierlot, Milnes, Rifkin. There are also OVPP recordings for both passions: Kuijken, Parrott, McCreesh, Butt. Regarding Koopman, he uses 4-5 singers per part, wouldn't be oversized?
> 
> On the other hand, Rifkin refer to motets practice, but motet was a rather a chambre genre, not demanding many performers, then motet can't be a representative pattern for all the vocal works. Still, I don't see clear evidence supporting Rifkin thesis, neither a clear conclusion of the number of singers Bach used at the moment that actually were engaged at once. It is said that we have evidence (Weimar) proving that Bach was employing "extraordinary" singers, but they were there singing or just in reserve?
> 
> If you have read me and can bring me some light in this topic, What is the number of singers that most likely Bach used normally at the time? At least, is there any range of probably singers such as 2-4 voices per part? If OVPP thesis by Joshua Rifkin has any validity in some/any vocal works, which are those vocal works that may used one-voice-per-part practice?
> 
> Your comments, contributions will be really appreciated since I am stuck and full of questions regarding Bach choirs.


I don't have the time to get too engaged with this but I thought I'd post to draw your attention to Andrew Parrott's book _Composers' Intentions_, which discusses this question at some length, both generally and in relation to specific works like The St John Passion and some Leipzig cantatas. I recommend the book.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> It's more than likely that as he sat in his study composing he had no specific number in mind at all.


That's an idea I've never come across before.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mandryka said:


> That's an idea I've never come across before.


I would imagine that for the cantatas he probably knew how many singers and the names of every soloist and chorister he was writing for.


----------



## Marc

Mandryka said:


> That's an idea I've never come across before.




All those composers had to deal with their specific circumstances and conditions. Even the quality of the performers were important. In most cases, numbers were small, so every voice/instrument could make a difference. It's useless to write down a flute part when there is no flutist (which was the case f.i. for the Johannes-Passion, first version, 1724).

I personally don't buy anything of the Rifkin/Parrott OVPP 'theory'. It's an interesting hypothesis, but in their further investigations it almost seems that they willfully neglect all contradictory evidence. Evidence that's almost all to find in the Thomanerbibliothek and the Bach Archiv Leipzig. About Bach's own handwritten document for instance, dating from 1729, where he notes down the numbers of chorists for the four Leipzig churches: Thomaskirche, Nicolaikirche, Neue Kirche, Petrikirche.










These numbers are more or less the same as in Bach's _Entwurff_ which he wrote a year later, where he complained about the small number of chorists and instrumentalists. He wanted to have more musicians, f.i. in case of sickness or leaving, and because the level of performing wasn't always to his preferred standards.

There are also lists from the church year 1744/1745, with four choruses mentioned for the same four churches, and 54 names of boys and young men singing in those choruses/churches (17-17-13-7).

For the rest: I'll listen to the performances/recordings that I want to listen to, no matter what either Ton Koopman or Andrew Parrott is saying/claiming. But I'm not very fond of the huge and slow late-romantic stuff, or other recordings with huge choirs and ditto orchestras, with only a few exceptions maybe.

But to each and everyone their own.


----------



## Marc

EdwardBast said:


> I would imagine that for the cantatas he probably knew how many singers and the names of every soloist and chorister he was writing for.


Definitely. He saw and heard them almost every day.


----------



## Woodduck

No doubt Bach knew who he was writing for in a particular case. He may, at the same time, have wistfully dreamed of an ideal chorus whose size we will never know. But would a few more or fewer singers have changed the way he wrote his choral music? Is ensemble size a critical consideration for most choral composers? For most music, ensembles of different sizes can be equally satisfactory, within limits. The limiting factors in Bach should be: 1) clarity: are all parts sufficiently audible? 2) suitability of the ensemble size to the performing space; and 3) the nature of the work: are there good musical or textual reasons for larger or smaller forces? 

The questions of how many singers Bach actually had at his disposal, and of how many he'd have used if he could have, are different questions, but they're both academic. In actual performance, if it sounds good, do it!


----------



## jegreenwood

To be honest, I don't care that much about HIP accuracy in this context. With OVPP I can appreciate the counterpoint writing more readily. While I have a number of recordings using more than one voice per part, I am looking forward to receiving the Kuijken box set next month. In the meanwhile, I've been listening to them on Tidal. I already have OVPP recordings of the two Passions and Rifkin's Mass in B Minor.


----------



## JSBach85

Marc said:


> All those composers had to deal with their specific circumstances and conditions. Even the quality of the performers were important. In most cases, numbers were small, so every voice/instrument could make a difference. It's useless to write down a flute part when there is no flutist (which was the case f.i. for the Johannes-Passion, first version, 1724).
> 
> I personally don't buy anything of the Rifkin/Parrott OVPP 'theory'. It's an interesting hypothesis, but in their further investigations it almost seems that they willfully neglect all contradictory evidence. Evidence that's almost all to find in the Thomanerbibliothek and the Bach Archiv Leipzig. About Bach's own handwritten document for instance, dating from 1729, where he notes down the numbers of chorists for the four Leipzig churches: Thomaskirche, Nicolaikirche, Neue Kirche, Petrikirche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These numbers are more or less the same as in Bach's _Entwurff_ which he wrote a year later, where he complained about the small number of chorists and instrumentalists. He wanted to have more musicians, f.i. in case of sickness or leaving, and because the level of performing wasn't always to his preferred standards.
> 
> There are also lists from the church year 1744/1745, with four choruses mentioned for the same four churches, and 54 names of boys and young men singing in those choruses/churches (17-17-13-7).
> 
> For the rest: I'll listen to the performances/recordings that I want to listen to, no matter what either Ton Koopman or Andrew Parrott is saying/claiming. But I'm not very fond of the huge and slow late-romantic stuff, or other recordings with huge choirs and ditto orchestras, with only a few exceptions maybe.
> 
> But to each and everyone their own.


Wow! I didn't know about this document! Thank you very much for showing me Marc. It is clear that my knowledge is under your dissertation since I need to read more about this topic (until now I only read some articles that I picked from Bach cantatas website and google).

I am confused and I don't know which theory is closer to what Bach actually did so I enjoy listening both approaches, however, there are few recordings and still not a complete cantatas recordings using OVPP theory. As for Koopman, I am really interested in his set, but he uses 4-5 singers per part, not too much? As far as I know, deducted from Entwurf, Bach demanded 3 singers per part (a chorus of 12 singers) and the ideal would be 4 singers per part (16 singers), 5 wouldn't be too many? (that would be 20 singers).

As for the document you posted, is certainly revealing. What Rifkin/Parrott would have said is something like the following: "The old theory by Arnold Schering, according to which three vocalists sang from each sheet, is just a conjecture, and if it was true, the additional sheets for ripienists would not make any sense. The instructions which emanate from Bach state: A choir must have at least three singers per part so that a double-choir motet can still be sung even if one of them is ill". Then, Rifkin claims that each part as soloist had actually only one sheet to read and this seems to be one of his strongest arguments. The problem is that I fail to understand this, I didn't read Rifkin thesis either (and I would be grateful if someone can help me to find it) but I still couldn't find the reason of this statement, why Rifkin affirms that each part had only a sheet (a copy)? Is there any reason/supporting evidence that he gave? Another big issue that I found in Rifkin theory is that I recently read an interview with him where he admitted that an OVPP performance is not easy and he had to make adjustments in his orchestra to find a balance with his vocal forces. These vague explanations do not seem very convincing.

As I said previously, reading about this topic left me even more confused, but I would be really happy to find recordings using Schering theory, 3 singers per part, 12 singers in total.


----------



## JSBach85

jegreenwood said:


> To be honest, I don't care that much about HIP accuracy in this context. With OVPP I can appreciate the counterpoint writing more readily. While I have a number of recordings using more than one voice per part, I am looking forward to receiving the Kuijken box set next month. In the meanwhile, I've been listening to them on Tidal. I already have OVPP recordings of the two Passions and Rifkin's Mass in B Minor.


I am very happy with Kuijken cantatas (I own 6 recordings right now) and I will buy his box set but I disagree in respect of Rifkin. It is said that Rifkin is a good scholar, musicologist, but not as good as performer. I am not happy with him as conductor, neither with his soloists The Bach Ensemble, and I clearly prefer Parrott, Kuijken, Junghanel and Pierlot over Rifkin (as recordings concerns). However, as far as I know, Rifkin was the first performer of Bach works using his OVPP theory and therefore a pioneer and I consider his recordings essential for any OVPP listener. Is more or less what I think about Leonhardt-Harnoncourt cantatas.

PS. Please, have a look at our topic regarding Bach cantatas in Religious forum.


----------



## jegreenwood

JSBach85 said:


> I am very happy with Kuijken cantatas (I own 6 recordings right now) and I will buy his box set but I disagree in respect of Rifkin. It is said that Rifkin is a good scholar, musicologist, but not as good as performer. I am not happy with him as conductor, neither with his soloists The Bach Ensemble, and I clearly prefer Parrott, Kuijken, Junghanel and Pierlot over Rifkin (as recordings concerns). However, as far as I know, Rifkin was the first performer of Bach works using his OVPP theory and therefore a pioneer and I consider his recordings essential for any OVPP listener. Is more or less what I think about Leonhardt-Harnoncourt cantatas.
> 
> PS. Please, have a look at our topic regarding Bach cantatas in Religious forum.


In my case, I believe Rifkin's B Minor was the first version available on CD, so I grabbed it. (For audiophile nuts - it's also one of my two Warner target recordings.)


----------



## Marc

JSBach85 said:


> Wow! I didn't know about this document! Thank you very much for showing me Marc. It is clear that my knowledge is under your dissertation since I need to read more about this topic (until now I only read some articles that I picked from Bach cantatas website and google).
> 
> I am confused and I don't know which theory is closer to what Bach actually did so I enjoy listening both approaches, however, there are few recordings and still not a complete cantatas recordings using OVPP theory. As for Koopman, I am really interested in his set, but he uses 4-5 singers per part, not too much? As far as I know, deducted from Entwurf, Bach demanded 3 singers per part (a chorus of 12 singers) and the ideal would be 4 singers per part (16 singers), 5 wouldn't be too many? (that would be 20 singers).
> 
> As for the document you posted, is certainly revealing. What Rifkin/Parrott would have said is something like the following: "The old theory by Arnold Schering, according to which three vocalists sang from each sheet, is just a conjecture, and if it was true, the additional sheets for ripienists would not make any sense. The instructions which emanate from Bach state: A choir must have at least three singers per part so that a double-choir motet can still be sung even if one of them is ill". Then, Rifkin claims that each part as soloist had actually only one sheet to read and this seems to be one of his strongest arguments. The problem is that I fail to understand this, I didn't read Rifkin thesis either (and I would be grateful if someone can help me to find it) but I still couldn't find the reason of this statement, why Rifkin affirms that each part had only a sheet (a copy)? Is there any reason/supporting evidence that he gave? Another big issue that I found in Rifkin theory is that I recently read an interview with him where he admitted that an OVPP performance is not easy and he had to make adjustments in his orchestra to find a balance with his vocal forces. These vague explanations do not seem very convincing.
> 
> As I said previously, reading about this topic left me even more confused, but I would be really happy to find recordings using Schering theory, 3 singers per part, 12 singers in total.


In a Dutch magazine, in a interview about his OVPP Matthäus-Passion, Paul McCreesh once defended Rifkin/Parrott by claiming that Bach's ideal of at least 16 singers was meant for all 4 churches, a 'fact' that many scholars had not noticed before, according to him. Yeah, true, one needs at least 4 singers to perform as a choir! Did he really think that Bach had issues with the City of Leipzig because he demanded 4 singers for a chorus? McCreesh also said that 'not accepting OVPP' was a typical Dutch thing, because of their tradition of yearly Matthäus-Passions with huge amateur choirs. Well, I must admit I have never read a more 'scholastic' defense of any 'scholastic' hypothesis.

Anyway, as I wrote before, I'm fine with any performance/recording that I want to listen to. I don't think it's 'just' an academic discussion, but the OVPP-12 debate is far less 'heavy' IMO than the difference between choirs of 100+ (with large orchestras) and around 15-20 (with small ensembles). Kuijken's recordings (for instance) are proof that OVPP can be very convincing.


----------

