Bach: St Matthew Passion (Matth?us-Passion)
|
Our Price: $33.98 Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Buy Used: from $19.79 (click here) Category: Music CD See more new music releases 
|
|---|
Buy this Music CD at online store in your country
Canadian Music Store
Canadian Music Store
Free Music Notes for Bach: St Matthew Passion (Matth?us-Passion)
Free Music Review: Surprisingly powerful
Hit: 4 Stars
I bought this recording more out of curiosity than any expectation of being moved by it, yet I find that the one-on-a-part approach works surprisingly well. If you have been stirred by excellent one-on-a part recordings of, say Monteverdi's Vespers of 1610 (by Stubbs, McCreesh, and Alessandrini, in my order of preference), you may find that the smaller scale makes for greater intimacy and subtlety in the work's contrasting moods.
The most surprising thing for me is that the "choral" passages have more bite and dramatic impact here than in most recordings with larger forces. The urgency of the questions "was?" and "wohin?" in the opening chorus, the anxiety of the disciples' question, "Herr, bin ich's," the outrage of "Sind Donner, sind Blitzen in Wolken verschwunden," even the cruel fury of "Lass ihn Kreuzigen" make up for what they lack in sheer volume of sound by sensitive inflection of the text, gradation of dynamics, and rhythmic sharpness. The choice of a fairly large church organ also helps lend weight at key moments of the narrative (e.g., the rending of the temple veil).
Just as the Cavatina of Beethoven's Opus 130 quartet is no less passionate than, say, the funeral march of the Eroica merely because the scale is smaller, so McCreesh's reading of the St. Matthew Passion creates its own intimate intensity.
That I don't give this set a full five-star rating has more to do with the soloists than any dissatisfaction with the small scale. Mark Padmore is a good evangelist, but not as good as Gerd T?rk for Suzuki (a well-paced, sensitive performance that still satisfies after several hearings), or Pears for the wayward but magnificent Klemperer, or Kurt Equiluz or Ernst Haefliger, the leading Bach tenors of the 1960s, apart from the incomparable Fritz Wunderlich. (To my knowledge, Wunderlich never sang the evangelist in any recording of the St. Matthew, though he sang the tenor arias for the stolid Munchinger and the evangelist for a rather ponderous St. John led by Karl Forster, still worth having for its excellent soloists.) I haven't yet heard Ian Bostridge's evangelist for Herreweghe's acclaimed second recording, but I would expect him to be among the best.
Peter Harvey's Jesus lacks vocal authority and charisma when heard beside Fishcer-Dieskau for Klemperer or Mathias Goerne for Rilling (a frustrating recording in which superb soloists are shackled by Rilling's overarticulated, earthbound conducting and the manic melodrama of the evangelist, Michael Schade--by the time the story arrives at the capture of Jesus (still in Part I, mind you), Schade has been over the top so many times already that you just shrug and mutter, "What's he on about NOW?").
Deborah York's soprano solos are agile and pure of pitch but a bit wispy; at times she is all but covered by the accompaniment. Magdelena Kozena's opulent voice seems almost out of place here, though it is a great pleasure nonetheless. Stephan Loges's bass solos are OK, but they aren't a patch on Thomas Quasthoff (whose noble contributions are wasted on Rilling's pedestrian interpretation) or Walter Berry for Klemperer. Late in the oratorio, when Jesus has nothing left to sing but His last words, Peter Harvey takes over in "Komm S?sses Kreuz" and "Mache dich, mein Herze rein" and does them well. (The bass is the weak link among Suzuki's soloists--Chiyuki Urano's voice, like that of Loges, is accurate but small and not especially attractive.)
I'll be keeping this recording along with Suzuki and Klemperer, while dispatching Rilling to the used CD dealer and eventually acquiring the Herreweghe. This is one of the very greatest pieces in the western musical canon, so if you love it as I do, you'll want more than one interpretation of it.
Free Music Review: Beautiful, dramatic, and introspective
Hit: 5 Stars
It's fascinating to me just how much vitriol there is in the classical music community. The performance of the great classics seems to be an almost life and death situation. There are many for whom there is only one right way to perform a work, their way, and anything else is blasphemy. Surely, if one doesn't take anything else from all the music recordings of the past century, the clearest lesson is that great music can be performed effectively in a huge range of styles. No composer benefits more from this than Bach. One of the things that I love about McCreesh's approach, as distinguished from many others in the HIP movement, is his open-mindedness. He doesn't see any need to denigrate other approaches, or to say that Bach's own style of performance is the only valid way of interpreting his works. Historical research simply suggests possibilities of performance, which musicians are free to accept or reject based on their own tastes. Performances or recordings should be judged on their ability to move the listener, and nothing else.
Many reviewers for this album are apparently left cold by it, and certainly that is their right, which I am in no position to contradict. However, what I suspect from the tone of many such reviews is that they are mentally comparing this recording to their personal favorite, and noting differences as flaws. The most common objections are the tempo choices, especially in the opening chorus (which is taken faster than the norm), and the lightness of texture, due in large part to the OVPP approach. From a historical point of view, it seems to me McCreesh is entirely justified in the tempo he takes for the opening chorus. The meter, articulation and texture of the music all suggest the gigue style of fluent eighth notes and vigorously accented beats. One of the most common objections to this is that the subject matter is very serious, and a somewhat lively tempo lightens it. I disagree with this; from the perspective of a keyboardist, the gigue from Bach's a minor partita is certainly very grave and dramatic, even though it is fairly quick (often performed too quickly in fact). That is exactly the impression this recording gives: grave and more overtly dramatic than usual, which I feel fits the words just fine.
Some object to the choice of one voice per part, in particular, that the texture is too light and undifferentiated. There are moments of intimacy (just listen to the Erbarme dich, the best version I know of), but there are also moments of great drama and power (the choral interruptions in So ist mein Jesus nun gefangen for example). This is no different than any other fine version of the SMP.
If you love the SMP, this is definitely worth a listen. I know I'll cherish it.
Free Music Review: Flawless, clean, beauty in simplicity.
Hit: 5 Stars
I'm reading that many people find this performance to be lack-luster. Because there aren't extremes. Small choir, small orchestra, tempi. But all of these are precisely why I feel this is a fantastic recording, and better than most out there.
The best performances by Bach that I know of (on recording) are by Glenn Gould. Why? If you listen, Gould does not pull tempos forwards and back (though often times his tempi are quite radical - either slow or fast extremes), or make gross-romantic gestures. For instance, you could watch GG perform a complete keyboard concerto of JS Bach without the dampener pedal of the piano (that's the pedal on a piano that sustains the notes on a keyboard). He's extremely refined. He's extremely balanced. He's extremely clean. He's extremely measured. Few would argue Glenn Gould's elite authority on the Bach keyboard repertoire.
However, if you listen to some of Glenn Gould's Beethoven Sonatas - you might find him (GG) to be a second-rate pianist. This is because he is applying the techniques that so identify him with Bach to a radically different source - Beethoven.
Beethoven, who was born just 30 years after Bach's death, shares little in common with Bach - aside from nationality and their instrument of choice. The values on music of Bach day were form, structure, and measured sophistication. But when Beethoven came around, it was much more about expression, revolution, heroism, passion. And you better believe the way we performed music changed with those shifts in social order.
So from just an interpretation standpoint - we can't approach Bach like we would Beethoven. They are now A and B variables; not equal.
This is where I think a lot of current Bach recordings fall short - trying to put too much of todays emphasis on the music of Bach. This is also where I think this recording shines - it's a great interpretation.
Why should we try to recreate music exactly as it may have been heard in its day? Well quite honestly, that is a matter of your personal tastes and values. Are you more concerned with performing music the way you have always heard music to be performed - adapting it today - making it relevant - recreating it. Or are you more concerned with trying to recreate a piece of music with the composers intentions. Valuing the intimacy you find with that piece of music when you truly examine its every detail.
You see as a musician, I will tell you it's much easier to just sit down and play a piece the way I think it ought to go - but it much more satisfying to research the piece, study the composer, and try to perform the music exactly as specified, trying to recreate the time, the story, the passion, of the day. That always makes for a more satisfying performance for me, and that is what I feel that Paul McCreesh has done here.
Furthermore, we lose the characteristics of performing Bach's music that make it work when we don't consider the performance practices and limitations of the day. If we approach ornamentation with today's performance practices, they sound instinctively wrong.
And even more extreme, performing on period instruments:
We must admit - that there are major differences in the instruments that were used by Bach (or Beethoven, for that matter!), compared with the instruments used today.
Intonation is totally different (but let's not even open that can of worms), materials of the instruments are different (reeds, strings, bows, mouthpieces) are all very different today, as are the instruments themselves. Keyboard are different. Anyone could hear the difference between a sackbutt (a distant relative of the trombone) and a standard professional trombone made in the year 2006.
What also changes? Our ears have changed. Or should I say what happens around our ears change - our ears have adapted. But regardless of what way you prefer to word it, the standards of quality music are vastly different today then they were in 1727.
This may be the reason why hearing a performance of Bach done correctly according to the standards of the day sound blatantly and instinctively incorrect to our ears today. We are used to hearing highly romanticized Bach - found in Disney's Fantasia. Or done by Bernstein or Stokowski. And we are used to hearing Bach on modern instruments - with modern interpretation.
I would encourage listeners to have another listen to this recording. Research the music a little more - and more importantly, research the period music.
On a personal note, I like the fact that the instrumental obligatos are raised to the level and volume of the solo voice. Because if you study the counterpoint that Bach uses (Ich will bei meinem Jesu wachen, i.e.) between the solo instrument and the voice, you will find that they are actually in many places of equal importance. It's incredible counterpoint that puts chills on my arms every time I see it. So I would encourage other skeptical listeners, to listen to the two voices as a duet, and less of a voice solo. I think you will appreciate very much in that light.
I recommend this recording whole-heartedly.
Free Music Review: The Passion without the passion
Hit: 2 Stars
I love OVPP performances. They bring out the complexity and flavor of Bach's contrapunctal thought with a clarity and beauty that full choruses never have and never will. Bach himself stated that the ideal piece of music is one in which the instruments participate equally in perfect conversation; and it is hard to have a conversation when there is a bench full of breathless sopranos demanding their say.
But OVPP isn't its own ticket to success, as McCreesh soundly proves.
I would recommend this recording only as a second set for those looking for a very different performance. It has its moments but by in large, McCreesh fails to bring passion to this music. The depth is missing and it is not because of his choice to use one voice per part. One need only compare McCreesh to Bach performances by Junghanel (Mass in b) or Poppen (Morimur) or Parrott (Heart's Solace).
McCreesh's rationale for racing (and "racing" is the right word) through the opening chorus sounds, well, sophomoric. He explains that the speed of the performance reflects the excitement that comes with the passion's telling. Using this reasoning one wonders why there are any slow movements at all.
The best performance, to my ears, remains Gardiner's.
Free Music Review: Strong at story telling, but weak at scene setting
Hit: 4 Stars
I'm very interesting on who "dare" to apply OVPP over this momentous work. Parrott demonstrated the execution of b minor Mass is quite effective. But the Passion, do we really believe it will work?
Upon listening, it shows the pros and cons. When at the story telling mode, it is very effective; but when in the scene setting mode, it is just the opposite side.
I wonder if we use the ripienists should improve the situation. Hope Parrott could give it a try.