Expression and meaning in Bach performance and reception an examination of the B minor Mass on record

447 Pages·3.171 MB·English

by  Uri Golomb

Expression and Meaning
in Bach Performance and Reception

An Examination of the B minor Mass on Record

Uri Golomb
King’s College, Cambridge

The Music Faculty
Cambridge University

This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy
July 2004

Abstract
This dissertation investigates developments in the performance of J. S. Bach’s music in the
second half of the 20 th century, as reflected in recordings of the Mass in B Minor, BWV 232. It
places particular emphasis on issues relating to concepts of expression through performance.
Between the 1950s and the 1980s, most Bach performers shared a partial consensus as to
what constitutes expression in performance (e.g., intense sound; wide dynamic range; rubato).
Arguments against the application of such techniques to Bach’s works were often linked with the
view that his music is more “objective” than later repertoires; or, alternatively, that expressive
elements in Bach’s music are self-sufficient, and should be not be intensified in performance.
Historically-informed performance (HIP), from the late 1960s onwards, has been
characterised by greater attention to the inflection of local details (i.e., individual figures and
motifs). In terms of expressive intensity, this led to contradictory results. On the one hand, several
HIP performances were characterised by a narrow overall dynamic range, light textures, fast tempi
and few contrasts; these performances were often considered lightweight. On the other hand, HIP
also promoted renewed interest in the practical application of Baroque theories of musical
rhetoric, inspiring performances which projected varied intensity within movements.
More recently, traditional means of expression have enjoyed renewed prominence.
Ostensibly “romantic” features such as broad legati, long-range crescendi and diminuendi, and
organic shaping of movements as wholes have been increasingly adopted by HIP musicians.
In order to substantiate the narrative outlined above, the significance of the evidence
preserved in sound recordings had to be checked against other sources of information. This
dissertation is divided into two main parts. The first part focuses on specific “schools” of
prominent Bach performers. Complete recordings of the Mass are examined in relation to the
biographical and intellectual backgrounds of the main representatives of these schools, their
verbally-expressed views on Bach’s music and on their own role as performers, and their style as
documented in recordings of other works. The second part examines the performance history of
specific movements within the Mass, comparing the interpretations preserved in sound recordings
with relevant verbal analyses and commentaries.
The dissertation as a whole therefore combines the resources of reception and performance
studies. Beyond its specific historical conclusions concerning Bach performance in the post-war
era, it also provides specific insights into Bach’s music, its meaning and its role in contemporary
culture.

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank my supervisors, Prof. John Butt and Dr. Geoffrey Webber. John
Butt encouraged me in pursuing my research on Bach performance prior to my arrival
in Cambridge, and his knowledge, insights and criticism proved invaluable throughout
the process of research, writing and editing. I am particularly grateful to him for
continuing to act as my supervisor after he took up his post as Head of the Music
Department at Glasgow University. Geoffrey Webber took over as my supervisor in
Cambridge, providing valuable feedback and assistance in academic and
administrative issues alike.
My studies in Cambridge were partly financed by grants and scholarships from
the Cambridge Overseas Trust, Cambridge University, King’s College, and the British
Library. I would particularly like to mention the British Library’s Edison Fellowship.
This fellowship was created with the express purpose of facilitating research at the
British Library Sound Archive (BLSA). In addition to financial assistance, it allowed
me improved access to the Archive’s invaluable collection. I am grateful to Timothy
Day, the BLSA’s Curator of Western Art Music, and to his assistant, Jonathan
Summers, for alerting me to this fellowship, and for their generous help and
encouragement before, during and after my tenure as a visiting fellow.
In the course of my research, I had the privilege of interviewing Ton Koopman,
Andrew Parrott, Helmuth Rilling and Joshua Rifkin. I appreciate their generosity in
making time for the interviews and for re-examining and approving the quotes prior to
their inclusion in this dissertation.
I am indebted to Roland Wörner for valuable information and materials on Karl
Richter; to Stephen Leys, the Intendant of the Collegium Vocale, for information on
Philippe Herreweghe’s recordings of the Mass; to Prof. Lee Rothfarb (University of
California at Santa Barbara) for information on Eugen Thiele; and to Dr. Yo Tomita
(Belfast University) for allowing me to use his “Bach Musicological Font”
I am grateful to Dr. Dorit Tanay, Head of the Musicology Department at Tel-
Aviv University, for helping me to obtain a reader’s pass for the Tel-Aviv University
Library during 2002-2003; and to Aryeh Oron, convenor of www.bach-cantatas.com,
for giving me access to his extensive collection of Bach recordings.

- v -
- vi -
My research benefited enormously from continued communication with fellow-
scholars, my seniors and peers alike. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Kevin Bazzana,
Prof. Dalia Cohen, Dr. Dorottya Fabian, Rebecca Lloyd and Bernard Sherman, who
shared their own research with me and read early versions of many chapters in this
dissertation. Rebecca Lloyd also helped with the proof-reading process, as did Rivka
Shindler; I am grateful to both of them for their diligent and intelligent work.
I also received much valuable advice, feedback and information from several
other scholars and musicians, among them Richard Abram, Nicholas Baumgartner,
Prof. Eric Clarke, Prof. Judith Cohen, Prof. Nicholas Cook, Dr. Ian Cross, Dr. Martin
Elste, Dr. Martin Ennis, Bruce Haynes, Dr. Andrew Jones, Dr. Daniel Leech-
Wilkinson, Dr. Robert Philip, Erez Rapoport, Dr. Dorit Tanay and Eric Van Tassel.
My apologies to anyone whose name was inadvertently omitted from this list.

Above all, I wish to thank my parents, Dr. Abigail Golomb and Prof. Harai
Golomb, who introduced me both to Bach’s music and to the rigours of academic
thinking and writing. Without their love, support (in all senses), advice and
encouragement I would not have been able to complete this dissertation.
Table of Contents
Preface xv

1. Introduction 1
1.1. Intensity in Bach reception 3
1.1.1. Beardsley’s “Canons of Criticism” 3
1.1.2. Intensity and Balance 5
1.1.2.1. Balance as Equilibrium 5
1.1.2.2. Knife-edge Balance 8
1.2. Reception through performance 10
1.2.1. The interactionist approach to reception studies 10
1.2.2. The ideology and performance model 13
1.2.3. Recordings as documents of performative intention 15
1.2.4. Work, text and performance 17
1.2.5. Intensity and performance: The x/x matrix 25
1.3. The Mass as a case study 26
1.3.1. The Mass’s discography 26
1.3.2. “Intensity” and “Balance” in the Mass’s reception 27
1.4. The selection of case-studies 29
1.4.1. The selection of the core group for Part One 29
1.4.2. The selection of movements for Part Two 30
1.5. Methodology of listening 31
1.5.1. Listening and measurement 31
1.5.2. The choice of parameters 33
1.5.3. Objectivity and subjectivity 34

PART ONE: SCHOOLS AND APPROACHES 36

2. Romanticism in Bach Performance 36
2.1. The definition of romanticism 36
2.1.1. Romantic ideology 38
2.1.2. The technical side: Attributes of romanticism 40
- vii -
- viii -
2.1.3. The mirror image: What romanticism is not 42
2.2. Romanticism in the Mass’s discography 45
2.2.1. Otto Klemperer: The objective “romanticist” 46
2.2.2. Eugen Jochum: Genuine romanticism? 49
2.3. Summary 50

3. Bach as Lutheran: Richter and Rilling 52
3.1. Karl Richter 53
3.1.1. Background: The Leipzig school 53
3.1.2. Richter’s premises 55
3.1.3. Richter’s practices 57
3.1.3.1. Tempo 58
3.1.3.2. Articulation 59
3.1.3.3. Clarity and timbre 59
3.1.3.4. Dynamics and hierarchy 60
3.1.3.5. The overall aesthetics: The “Über-persönlich” 61
3.1.4. Richter’s B minor Mass 62
3.1.4.1. Richter 1961 compared to other performances 63
3.1.4.2. Richter 1961 compared to Richter’s other recordings 66
3.1.5. Summary 67
3.2. Helmuth Rilling 68
3.2.1. Rilling’s premises 69
3.2.1.1. The Bach image 69
3.2.1.2. The role of performance practice research 70
3.2.1.3. Intensity in performance 71
3.2.2. Rilling’s practices 71
3.2.2.1. Articulation 72
3.2.2.2. Dynamics 73
3.2.2.3. Tempo 74
3.2.2.4. Size and constitution of performing ensembles 74
3.2.2.5. Summary 75
3.2.3. Rilling’s interpretations of the Mass 76
3.3. Summary 82
- ix -
4. Bach as Rhetorician: Harnoncourt and Herreweghe 84
4.1. The meanings of rhetoric 85
4.1.1. Rhetoric as speech 85
4.1.2. Rhetoric as semantics 87
4.1.2.1. Historical weaknesses of Figurenlehre theories 88
4.1.2.2. The links to performance and expression 88
4.1.2.3. The quest for historical permission 89
4.1.3. Rhetoric as structure 91
4.1.4. Rhetoric as ornament 91
4.1.5. Summary 91
4.2. Nikolaus Harnoncourt 92
4.2.1. Harnoncourt’s premises 92
4.2.1.1. The modernisation of early music 92
4.2.1.2. Harnoncourt’s theory of rhetoric 93
4.2.2. Harnoncourt’s practices 94
4.2.2.1. The evolution of Harnoncourt’s performance style 95
4.2.2.2. A comparison of Harnoncourt and Leonhardt 97
4.2.2.3. “Frontal assault” and “subtle discomfort” 99
4.2.3. Harnoncourt’s recordings of the Mass 100
4.2.3.1. The 1968 version 100
4.2.3.2. The 1986 version 102
4.3. Philippe Herreweghe 106
4.3.1. Herreweghe’s premises 106
4.3.1.1. Herreweghe’s theory of rhetoric 106
4.3.1.1.1. The importance of rhetoric 106
4.3.1.1.2. Rhetoric as structure, and the function of styles 107
4.3.1.2. Herreweghe’s theory of Bach performance 109
4.3.1.2.1. Cantabile and lyricism 109
4.3.1.2.2. The collective nature of Bach performance 110
4.3.1.3. Herreweghe’s Bach image: Balance-as-equilibrium 111
4.3.2. Herreweghe’s performance style 111
4.3.3. Herreweghe’s recordings of the Mass 113
4.4. Summary 117
- x -
5. Bach as Musician: Rifkin, Parrott and Koopman 120
5.1. Premises 120
5.1.1. Bach image: Against the Fifth Evangelist 121
5.1.2. Performer’s image: The Material-Oriented approach 123
5.1.2.1. The performer’s role 123
5.1.2.2.The listener’s role 126
5.1.2.3. The ideal of perpetual revolution 127
5.1.3. The Bach Choir debate: Some comments 128
5.1.3.1. A brief historical survey 128
5.1.3.2. Bach’s intention 131
5.1.3.3. Greatness, monumentality and the congregational element 132
5.1.3.4. Bach’s place in history 133
5.1.3.5. Expressiveness 134
5.1.3.6. Summary 135
5.2. The recordings of the B minor Mass 137
5.2.1. Rifkin’s recording 137
5.2.2. Parrott’s recording 141
5.2.3. Koopman’s recording 143
5.3. Summary 146

6. “Neo-romantic” Performances 148
6.1. Introduction 148
6.2. Jeffrey Thomas 152
6.2.1. Premises 152
6.2.2. Thomas’s Mass 154
6.3. Thomas Hengelbrock 157
6.3.1. Premises 157
6.3.2. Hengelbrock’s Mass 159
6.4. Summary 161