<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Intimate Bach
Review: Andrew Parrott's wonderful volume is the culmination of many years study and practical application of J. S. Bach performance practice. Many of the conclusions are not new, but follow from the work of Josua Rifkin, made more compelling with easily grasped, definitive scholarship. It is past time for the modern choirmaster and music director to seriously reconsider those grand scale performances, and hear Bach anew, intimate, expressive, and no less powerful.
Rating:
Summary: Putting the Matter Beyond Dispute
Review: Joshua Rifkin's revolutionary thesis about one voice per part performances of Baroque choral works actually began from his studies of 17th century German music, notably Henrich (sic) Schütz. But it was only when he began to argue that the principle may also apply to the immortal JSB, that he provoked the ire of musicians and musicologists. Essays on the subject by Rifkin and his opponents, including Robert Marshall and Christoph Wolff, have been tossed backwards and forwards in various scholarly journals for over twenty years now. Thus Andrew Parrott does Bach lovers a great service by mustering all the relevant evidence into one handsome and well-written book. That Bach's normal practice was to employ solo voices in his cantatas, passions and oratorios should now be considered beyond serious scholarly dispute. Of course, it is perfectly legitimate for conductors to say, as does Philippe Herreweghe, that they simply like the sound of a full choir in Bach, without pretending that this conforms to Bach's own practice. What is less attractive is the efforts of others, such as Ton Koopman, to defend what is merely a personal preference by belittling the Rifkin/Parrott discoveries. Among Bach conductors, Rifkin and Parrott themselves were the first to put the theory into practice in concerts and recordings. Lately they have been joined by Jeffrey Thomas (Koch), Sigiswald Kuijken (DHM), Konrad Junghänel (Harmonia Mundi), Daniel Taylor (Atma) and, most recently, Paul McCreesh, whose single voice recording of the St Matthew Passsion (DGG Archiv) is a revelation. Parrott's book is intellectually convincing; these recordings are aesthetically and emotionally compelling.
Rating:
Summary: Putting the Matter Beyond Dispute
Review: Joshua Rifkin's revolutionary thesis about one voice per part performances of Baroque choral works actually began from his studies of 17th century German music, notably Henrich (sic) Schütz. But it was only when he began to argue that the principle may also apply to the immortal JSB, that he provoked the ire of musicians and musicologists. Essays on the subject by Rifkin and his opponents, including Robert Marshall and Christoph Wolff, have been tossed backwards and forwards in various scholarly journals for over twenty years now. Thus Andrew Parrott does Bach lovers a great service by mustering all the relevant evidence into one handsome and well-written book. That Bach's normal practice was to employ solo voices in his cantatas, passions and oratorios should now be considered beyond serious scholarly dispute. Of course, it is perfectly legitimate for conductors to say, as does Philippe Herreweghe, that they simply like the sound of a full choir in Bach, without pretending that this conforms to Bach's own practice. What is less attractive is the efforts of others, such as Ton Koopman, to defend what is merely a personal preference by belittling the Rifkin/Parrott discoveries. Among Bach conductors, Rifkin and Parrott themselves were the first to put the theory into practice in concerts and recordings. Lately they have been joined by Jeffrey Thomas (Koch), Sigiswald Kuijken (DHM), Konrad Junghänel (Harmonia Mundi), Daniel Taylor (Atma) and, most recently, Paul McCreesh, whose single voice recording of the St Matthew Passsion (DGG Archiv) is a revelation. Parrott's book is intellectually convincing; these recordings are aesthetically and emotionally compelling.
Rating:
Summary: A Rifkin-Marshall anecdote
Review: The first time (or perhaps ALMOST the first time) that Rifkin gave an exposition of his 1-on-a-part idea was at the November 1981 annual meeting of the American Musicological Society in Boston. The paper was read towards the end of an afternoon session, and then formally rebutted by Bob Marshall (at the time a prof at the U. of Chicago, my alma mater for musicology). There was a lively give and take afterwards, but then the cocktail/dinner hour intervened and the audience dispersed. Rifkin and Marshall then repaired to a local McDonald's to continue their debate. My current-day colleagues in the world of commercial r.e. appraisal scoff at the possible interest such topics could raise, until I mention the fascination some of us find in published debates over business enterprise value at shopping malls...ho hum. At that 1981 convention I talked to Rifkin about Edw. Lowinsky's ideas concerning the authenticity and dating of certain motets by Josquin (a debate thereon had arisen due to an article by Thos. Noblitt), and J.R. replied to the effect that such questions were secondary to the quality of the music itself. The same attitude, I believe, is applicable to the Bach choir issue. The music is incredibly lovely when performed by expert singers, one on a part. Does it add anything to our experience to believe that this is the "authentic" means of performance? What about the fact that most people today experience this performance as sound waves emanating from a speaker, or that today's singers are probably healthier than their 18th c. counterparts, etc.? I believe that the intellectual appreciation of "what is authentic" is a valid and interesting exercise in its own right...but that it should be quite separate from the sensuous appreciation of the music, however it is performed. It doesn't do the music any good to be heard with a sense of moral righteousness OR indignation.
Rating:
Summary: A Rifkin-Marshall anecdote
Review: The first time (or perhaps ALMOST the first time) that Rifkin gave an exposition of his 1-on-a-part idea was at the November 1981 annual meeting of the American Musicological Society in Boston. The paper was read towards the end of an afternoon session, and then formally rebutted by Bob Marshall (at the time a prof at the U. of Chicago, my alma mater for musicology). There was a lively give and take afterwards, but then the cocktail/dinner hour intervened and the audience dispersed. Rifkin and Marshall then repaired to a local McDonald's to continue their debate. My current-day colleagues in the world of commercial r.e. appraisal scoff at the possible interest such topics could raise, until I mention the fascination some of us find in published debates over business enterprise value at shopping malls...ho hum. At that 1981 convention I talked to Rifkin about Edw. Lowinsky's ideas concerning the authenticity and dating of certain motets by Josquin (a debate thereon had arisen due to an article by Thos. Noblitt), and J.R. replied to the effect that such questions were secondary to the quality of the music itself. The same attitude, I believe, is applicable to the Bach choir issue. The music is incredibly lovely when performed by expert singers, one on a part. Does it add anything to our experience to believe that this is the "authentic" means of performance? What about the fact that most people today experience this performance as sound waves emanating from a speaker, or that today's singers are probably healthier than their 18th c. counterparts, etc.? I believe that the intellectual appreciation of "what is authentic" is a valid and interesting exercise in its own right...but that it should be quite separate from the sensuous appreciation of the music, however it is performed. It doesn't do the music any good to be heard with a sense of moral righteousness OR indignation.
<< 1 >>
| 
