Bach & Grychtolik: St Mark Passion Audio CD Rondeau
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A1 BACH St. Mark Passion (Grychtolik reconstruction) • Markus Teutschbein, cond; Gudrun Sidonie Otto (sop); Terry Wey (alt); Daniel Johannsen (Evangelist, ten); Hanno Müller-Brachmann (Jesus); Stephen MacLeod (bs); Knabenkantorei Basel; Capriccio Barock O • RONDEAU 609091 (2 CDs: 113:50 ) Bach & Grychtolik: St Mark Passion Audio CD Rondeau Recently, in 38:2, I reviewed a recording of the St. Mark Passion, also released by Rondeau but conducted by Jörg Breding. In that review, I provided a lengthy (perhaps too lengthy for some tastes) and detailed overview of the history of various reconstructions of this work for which only the libretto survives, but the music for which is generally thought to have been largely a pastiche that Bach cobbled together from previous creations, with the lion’s share coming from the BWV 198 Trauerode. In that review, I mentioned in passing that documents uncovered in 2009 from a Russian archive show that Bach had revised the work between its first definitively known performance in 1731 and a later one in 1744 to include two additional arias. Lo and behold, we now have here a new musical reconstruction of this work by harpsichordist and musicologist Alexander Grychtolik, the first to reconstruction of this work by harpsichordist and musicologist Alexander Grychtolik, the first to include those two additional arias: “Ich lasse dich, mein Jesus, nicht” and “Will ich doch gar gerne schweigen” (Nos. 12b and 33b in the libretto). Grychtolik allots them respectively to the tenor and alto; the first lasts five minutes, the second only 90 seconds. Since in that previous review I endorsed the Breding recording as the best option for this work, the most immediate question is: How does the Grychtolik reconstruction compare with the Simon Heighes one used by Breding? The short answer is that they are quite different; indeed, less than half of the music utilized by them (the opening and closing choruses, the chorales, and three of the arias) is identical. Readers of my previous review may recall that the major gaps to be filled in are all the recitative material, plus suitable parody adaptations for at least two arias (not counting the two additional ones in the 1744 revised version). For the recitative, Heighes chose to compose his own in the style of Bach for Mark 14:1–25, and thereafter to utilize recitative from an earlier St. Mark Passion usually attributed to Reinhold Keiser, a work Bach is known to have performed in Leipzig. Grychtolik has chosen to adapt recitative passages from Bach’s St. Matthew Passion and St. John Passion instead. I personally have very mixed feelings about this procedure. On the one hand, Keiser’s recitatives, while musically intelligent, do not quite sound like Bach, and so to use Bach’s own music is arguably an inherently superior alternative. However, when that music is so familiar from other and very specific contexts, to hear it utilized in a very different context remains quite jarring, a prime example being the choral interjection of the priests of the Sanhedrin, “Ja nicht auf das Fest.” Yes, it’s Bach, but it sounds entirely out of place; I just can’t get used to it, even after a couple dozen hearings over some two months, and actually prefer the Heighes/Keiser recitatives, but that may just be me. To complicate matters further, Grychtolik also has chosen different music than Heighes for three of the original six arias: “Falsche Welt” in part I, and “Angenehmes Mordgeschrei” and “Welt und Himmel nehmt zu Ohren” in part II. (And, to muddy the waters further yet, the music that Breding uses for “Angenehmes Mordgeschrei” and Grychtolik employs for “Welt und Himmel nehmt zu Ohren” is decidedly similar, though not identical.) I find the Heighes adaptations more convincing; but then, I’m also used to them, so I may simply be harboring a previously established prejudice. And, of course, with Grychtolik one gets the two additional arias. In sum, I can’t say that one reconstruction is definitely superior to the other; but others may establish a clear preference between them, and avid Bach collectors will likely wish to have both. How do the recordings compare in quality as performances of their respective versions? Once again, there is not an entirely clear-cut verdict to offer. Both sets of choral and instrumental ensembles are equally capable and provide no substantive basis for distinction. From the standpoint of conducting, I have a slight but clear preference for Breding over Teutschbein; his tempos are just a little more brisk, and his phrasing a degree more fluid. Likewise, I have a similar slight but clear preference for how the orchestral and choral forces under Breding are recorded; in the Teutschbein version these sound a bit recessed by comparison, though in both sets the soloists are sonically right up front. On the other hand, Teutschbein has overall the better team of soloists, with the biggest difference being in the dominant role of the Evangelist, where Daniel Johannsen is in every way markedly superior to Achim Kleinlein under Breding. Given that both of them also sing the solo tenor aria “Mein Tröster ist nicht mehr bei mir” that opens part II, and that Grychtolik gives the tenor a second aria as well, that alone may be enough to sway many in favor of this new recording. Contrary to my usual preference for female over male altos, I also markedly prefer Terry Wey under Teutschbein to Anne Bierwirth under Breding; the former sings out securely with rich tone and vibrato, whereas the latter unwisely employs a much more “straight” tone with much less appealing results. A further bonus for Teutschbein is veteran Baroque bass singer Stephan MacLeod, who excels in both several comprimario roles (besting Albrecht Pöhl under Breding) and the aria “Welt und Himmel” (where Michael Jäckel under Breding also excels, albeit in a completely different and to my taste much superior musical setting). On the other hand, Breding definitely has the superior soprano in Veronika Winter over Gudrun Sidonie Otto, and by a smaller margin I likewise prefer Michael Jäckel to Hanno Müller-Brachmann as Jesus. In sum, then, for conducting, the soprano, and the role of Jesus, I prefer the Breding version; for the Evangelist and the alto, tenor, and other bass solos, the nod goes to Teutschbein. Evangelist and the alto, tenor, and other bass solos, the nod goes to Teutschbein. In the end, then, I can’t simply come down in favor of one version over another. While a scorecard of objective factors might point to the Grychtolik reconstruction under Teutschbein overall, I still find myself gravitating back to Heighes under Breding as being a more consistent and satisfactory integration of the disparate compositional elements. But both are worthwhile, and readers should audition both and choose one (or both) according to their tastes. Whatever that personal verdict, however, this newcomer is definitely recommended. James A. Altena This article originally appeared in Issue 39:1 (Sept/Oct 2015) of Fanfare Magazine. BACH (reconstructed by Heighes) St. Mark Passion • Jörg Breiding, cond; Achim Kleinlein (Evangelist); Albrecht Pöhl (Christus); Veronika Winter (sop); Anne Bierwirth (alt); Michael Jäckel (bs); Hannover Ch; Hannover Hofkapelle • RONDEAU 7015/16 (2 CDs: 103:20 ) BACH (reconstructed by Koopman) St. Mark Passion • Ton Koopman, cond; Christoph Prégardien (Evangelist); Peter Kooy (Christus); Sibylla Rubens (sop); Bernhard Landauer (alt); Paul Agnew (ten); Klaus Mertens (bs); Boys of the Breda Sacrament Ch; Amsterdam Baroque Ch & O • APEX 2564 645077 (2 CDs: 118:23) Bach: Markus-Passion Audio CD Audio CD Rondeau Production Bach: St Mark Passion Audio CD Apex The St. Mark Passion is the great white whale of the Bach corpus. No other missing composition of Bach has been the subject of so much speculation, or the object of so many attempts at reconstruction of its music to match its surviving text. For various reasons, among them the fact that the St. Mark Passion contains fewer arias (only six) and choruses (only two) but more chorales (16) than the St. Matthew and St. John Passions, it has been generally assumed that the work was largely a parody—i.e., Bach composed very little original music for it apart from the recitatives, but instead recycled various previously existing compositions, to which his librettist Picander (Christian Friedrich Henrici, 1700–1764) wrote texts with an appropriate metrical fit. Various reconstructions have therefore drawn upon that portion of Bach’s musical corpus definitely known to have been composed before 1731 (the first solidly established date for a performance of the work, though musicologist Gustav Adolph Theill has argued for an earlier performance in 1728) in attempts to determine the most likely candidates for adaptation. However, some reconstructions have borrowed a few pieces written likely candidates for adaptation. However, some reconstructions have borrowed a few pieces written after 1731, arguing that metrical fit and other evidence suggest those to be parody adaptations from lost originals of the Passion. (A revised version, to which Bach added two new arias, is known to have been performed in 1734 and 1744, with the evidence for the latter unearthed from a Russian archive as recently as 2009.) The principles for determining Bach’s methods of musical parody were first laid out by musicologist Wilhelm Rust (an editor of the original Bach-Gesellschaft Edition of Bach’s collected works) in 1873, and further elaborated by Arnold Schering (who later became a rabid Nazi collaborator in musical education circles) in 1921. In 1926 Charles Sanford Terry, followed in the 1940s by Friedrich Smend, identified most of the chorale settings (from the collection of Bach’s chorales edited by his son C.