Jared wrote:
....it's Peter Phillips's 60th birthday today, and I dedicate this Palestrina disk to him, in thanks for all the many happy moments he and the TS have given me over the past couple of years...
A very nice thought Jared and one on which I totally agree with you.
To be is to do: Socrates
To do is to be: Sartre
Do be do be do: Sinatra
<I often think about how challenging it must be for younger artists to make recordings of the warhorses of the canon. How does one compete with the well regarded recordings of so many legends? Besides, how does a company market such artists. I think that the covers of cds occasionally are a bit too much at times (in particular female violinists and pianists). The Passion certainly has a large number of recordings to compete with. Jacobs probably has enough status to push for a recording of his own interpretation. I can see how he as an artist want to partake in making such a recording. Wouldn't most conductors (working in early music and baroque) want a try on such a crucial work?
Hmm, Harnoncourt made three recordings of the Passion, right? How do they compare with each other?>
They are completely different Peter. The first one was a voyage of discovery, when period performance was still in it´s infancy. What many people don´t know is that it´s not totally conducted by Harnoncourt. Sir David Willcocks conducted the choruses and Harnoncourt the arias, from the cello. Harnoncourt wisely thought that at the time he lacked the conducting experience for such a complex work, even though he had already recorded, and conducted the B minor Mass.
The second, a live recording with the Concertgebouw, was made to celebrate the 1985 Bach anniversary. By then period performance was well established and large-orchestra Bach was almost defunct. I think Harnoncourt wanted to show that modern orchestras could still perform baroque music if they follow some period manners.
The 2000 recording, was made when Harnoncourt felt he knew the work inside out, and he had a superb group of singers at his disposal. It´s like his testament for Bach, the sum of 70 years of experience.
Last edited by Jose Echenique on Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<That is a strange one Pepe. I wonder what Jacobs based that idea on? I would certainly like to hear that effect and it would be an interesting challenge for a pair of speakers to see if they could reproduce the depth of soundstage required.>
In the booklet Jacobs quotes scholar Konrad Kuster who maintains that each group needed an organ -mit beyden Orgeln-, and that St. Thomas in Leipzig, only had one, the big organ at the west end of the church.
So, where was the second organ?
Well, dear Fergus, after long research it seems there was another organ in "the swallow´s gallery in front of the Triumphal Arch, that is high above the the passage from the nave into the choir area".
This second organ was dismantled in 1740, so maybe Bach needed a harpsichord for the second group (and this is how Jacobs recorded the Passion, with an organ in the first group and a cembalo in the second.
Furthermore, Jacobs maintains that Bach wanted the "effect" of the second group sounding far, as when one group asks the questions and the second answers in the first great chorus.
This is understandable, and when heard live in an actual space it could make an impression. But a recording can´t reproduce the sound space of a church, so the effect is a little frustrating, especially as I said, in the arias. Stereophonically, as is usually recorded, works much better for home use.
Jose Echenique wrote:<That is a strange one Pepe. I wonder what Jacobs based that idea on? I would certainly like to hear that effect and it would be an interesting challenge for a pair of speakers to see if they could reproduce the depth of soundstage required.>
In the booklet Jacobs quotes scholar Konrad Kuster who maintains that each group needed an organ -mit beyden Orgeln-, and that St. Thomas in Leipzig, only had one, the big organ at the west end of the church.
So, where was the second organ?
Well, dear Fergus, after long research it seems there was another organ in "the swallow´s gallery in front of the Triumphal Arch, that is high above the the passage from the nave into the choir area".
This second organ was dismantled in 1740, so maybe Bach needed a harpsichord for the second group (and this is how Jacobs recorded the Passion, with an organ in the first group and a cembalo in the second.
Furthermore, Jacobs maintains that Bach wanted the "effect" of the second group sounding far, as when one group asks the questions and the second answers in the first great chorus.
This is understandable, and when heard live in an actual space it could make an impression. But a recording can´t reproduce the sound space of a church, so the effect is a little frustrating, especially as I said, in the arias. Stereophonically, as is usually recorded, works much better for home use.
Thank you for that Pepe....a mine of information as ever!
To be is to do: Socrates
To do is to be: Sartre
Do be do be do: Sinatra
