« Hu-Kwa! | Main | Just So You Know »

Passion

Until Friday, I had not heard Bach's St Matthew Passion in a church. Nor had I heard it performed as written. The composer's 1736 revision, the standard in modern performances, calls for two "cori," meaning not choirs but corps: two distinct groups of musicians. The reason for this division may have been the composer's discovery that, for the performance of large-scaled passions, he could supplement the virtuoso ensemble that performed with him each week in one of the Leipzig churches with a capable but less expert group. This would give the better players a few breaks during a long work, and it would also make possible the call-and-response effect, antiphony, that makes for massiveness and drama.

Because I love great big choruses, I'm not best pleased by the current, allegedly authentic, performance practice of allotting each choral voice to just one singer, but if this was indeed a constraint that Bach had to work with, then the double-chorus construction makes a lot of sense. Because today's choral societies are not about to cede works like the St Matthew Passion to purists, standard performances will continue to ignore Bach's divisions. On almost any recording, you'll find that one chorus does the job (with perhaps a boy choir pitching in the soprano chorale in the two instances where that is called for), four soloists to sing the arias, a tenor to sing the part of the Evangelist, and a baritone to sing the part of Jesus. And one orchestra. As long as you've got a regular chorus, and don't need the second quartet of voices for weight, there's no reason to engage four second-string soloists.

Continue reading about the New York Collegium at Portico.

Comments

I'm glad to see that you are straight on Bach, if not on Earl Grey (Harney and sons is far, far better than Twining's whiney little entry). You've never heard Bach unless it is in a proper church (even though I'm atheist, this is the ONE reason to go to church). I went to Leipzig for that one reason, and I was not disappointed. They have two organs and somebody is playing all the time. It's unbelieveable.

Ryan, can we agree to disagree about Earl Grey? I haven't had Harney's in a while, so I don't remember whether I thought it was one of the too-perfumed blends or one of the too-ordinary ones. But for a while it was much easier to stock than Twinings, and yet I wasn't won over. Perhaps you mean that Twinings is "winey"?

I think I meant whiney in the sense that it is not fragranced enough, but, hey! I think this is one of those things people can agree to dis-agree on. Or, perhaps, we should take this to the Zell Miller school of Bad Behavior and save the petty use-less disagreements for the "real" problems that surround us...

Beyond which, I am now drinking an Earl Grey flavoured with lavender, so........

Thanks for the kind word!

I am a kottke.org micropatron

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2