Cantata BWV 48, Rudolf Lutz & J.S. Bach-Stiftung, St. Gallen, compared to other four main HIP recordings.
This is my first contribution to the discussion group. I have previously posted a general commentary on the complete Lutz cycle at:
My name is Frits V. Herbold, I am an 80 years old Dutch citizen; grew up in the Netherlands and Brazil and studied in Germany, where I sung my first cantatas as bass in a small local choir and reside in Nashville, TN, USA since 2014. As a big fan of J. S. Bach¡¯s cantatas and his other vocal works, I have been hearing and studying the cantatas during the last 60 years of my life, which allows me to compare the many great recordings made available in this time period. I started to appreciate the new Rudolf Lutz cycle with the J.S. Bach-Stiftung, St. Gallen on DVD since its launch in 2006.
BWV 48 is the first cantata of his cycle, recorded live at the Evangelic Church in Trogen. Strangely, the booklet mentions two different recording dates: October 20,? 2006, two days before the 19th Sunday after Trinity and June 5, 2008 (printing error?). See also the Bachipidia link with links to the concert (YouTube), workshop and reflexion. The names of all performers, including all choristers can also be found there.
His minimal choir and orchestration follows the original scoring of the NBA, see with one exception: the preserved sources of both original score and parts (see NBA: I/24) clearly prescribe a trumpet (¡®tromba¡¯ in the score or ¡®clarino¡¯ in the part). During the workshop that accompanies the DVD editions, Lutz announces the use of a ¡®tromba da tirarse¡¯ as brass instrument to play the instrumental chorale melody in the opening movement. Something must have gone wrong here, because during the concert he only uses the two oboes (Kerstin Kramp and Meike Gueldenhaupt) as wind instruments. The BC is performed following Bach¡¯s most usual combination of (chest) organ (Ives Bilger), contrabass (Iris Finkbeiner), violoncello (Martin Zeller) and bassoon (Susann Landert). The two violins are played by Renate Steinmann (concertmaster) and Livia Wiersich and the single viola by Joanna Bilger. Lutz does not use the great church organ. In a private e-mail exchange, he justifies (freely translated from German): ¡®It would have been nice (German: ¡°sch?n¡±) to use the great organ; this (instrument) though, is romantically arranged and would not match the sound of the old? a¡¯= 415 (Hz) instruments. Also, it (the organ) is tuned well-tempered; however, we use the Vallotti and Young (temperaments)¡¯.
The relatively small choir is composed of 3 sopranos, 3 altos, 3 tenors and 3 bases and their excellent performance is successfully proven in the cantata¡¯s very elaborate first movement (Chorus)
Bearing in mind that this is the first performance of the choir in this cycle, they master the below described complexities by A. D¨¹rr with great attention and perfect entries, supported by the fact that Rudolf Lutz conducts this cantata in standing, without playing the organ or harpsichord himself, as in many following cantatas. Both other chorale movements 3 and 7 are equally performed with great clarity.
The alto movements 2 (Recitative) and 4 (Aria), are sung by the invited German mezzo-soprano Ruth Sandhoff (see . She recorded the first version of Bach's Magnificat BWV 243a, singing the soprano II part, with Helmuth Rilling in March 2000 and participated in other 5 Lutz recordings as Mezzo-soprano. In my opinion, she uses too much vibrato and doesn't match the level of other women¡¯s altos in the Lutz cycle like Margot Otzinger, Michaela Selinger or Claude Eichenberger. The accompaniment of oboe and minimal strings (violin 1 and 2, one viola) in the aria is very delicate, transparent and well played.
The voice of German tenor Johannes Kaleschke (see ) in Movements 5 (Recitative) and 6 (Aria) at the other hand is perfect. Kaleschke's repertoire includes all the oratorios of J.S. Bach and his active collaboration with the SWR Vokalensemble Stuttgart and concert tours in Germany and abroad round out his musical activities. He performs in 14 other cantatas with Rudolf Lutz. His diction is clear and his voice very confident with the right timbre and volume in both lower and higher registers. The delicate and minimal instrumental accompaniment is equally good as in movements 2 and 4.
I am comparing movements 1, 4 and 6 with 4 other HIP recordings: Ton Koopman, ?Masaaki Suzuki, John E. Gardiner and Philippe Herreweghe concerning details such as tempo, soloists, choirs, and orchestras.
Regarding tempo (total playing time in minutes) of 13:53 this recording comes close to Herreweghe with 13:30 min. Interestingly, Gardiner ¨C who mostly is faster than other performances is the slowest here with ?15:56 min. Both Koopman with 14:40 and ?Suzuki 14:33 are average in tempo.
These are total times; individual movements can differ ¨C but the main tempo differences are in movement 1.
Movement 1 (Chorus)
?¡®¡ Bach was here able to establish a connection with the concluding chorale, whose first verse can just as well be linked with the instrumental quotation. In structure, the opening movement is three-layered. The introduction, played by strings and continuo, is thematically independent. Its opening phrase also forms a counterpoint to the vocal theme, which is developed after twelve bars in an imitative texture. This theme, which opens with a striking leap of a sixth, pervades the entire movement in manifold exchanges of parts and canonic formations. Alongside it, the trumpet and unison oboes deliver the chorale melody line by line in canon at the lower fourth.¡¯ (D¨¹rr, Alfred. The Cantatas of J. S. Bach (p. 574). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.)
Koopman (October 1998): among the 5 recordings, his tempo of 5:10 (as is Suzuki¡¯s) is average, although I feel it is still too slow after having heard Lutz and Herreweghe. The size of his mixed choir is the largest (total 20 choristers) in comparison to all other recordings, but still very transparent. His strings with 5 first, 4 second violins and 2 violas is huge compared to the other interpretations, except Gardiner (see below).The continuo is performed with 2 cellos, 2 double-basses, bassoon, lute and chest organ (the recitatives and arias are also accompanied by cembalo played by Koopman himself). The instrumental chorale melody is played according to the score with a trumpet and 2 oboes in unisono. I like this very balanced interpretation.
Suzuki (February 2000): with 5:57 minutes, his tempo is even slower than Koopman, but his choir with a total of 12 choristers (3 per each voice) and reduced string section of 3 first, 3 second violins and 2 violas is closer to my taste in terms of transparency. The continuo with 2 cellos, 1 double bass, bassoon and chest organ is well balanced, but the instrumental chorale melody played by a trumpet and two oboes is too loud at some points.
Gardiner (October 2000): with 6:12 minutes, this is the slowest recording, and I don¡¯t like this tempo at all. A similar case are both Gardiners recordings of the sinfonia of BWV 4, 1980 and 2000, which is strange, since Gardiner mostly uses quick tempos. His choir is similar in size to Suzuki, but his orchestra is even bigger than with Koopman. Continuo and instrumental chorale citation with trumpet and 2 (or 3?) oboes is similar to Suzuki. I do not understand why Koopman and Gardiner use three oboes, as I cannot hear or see any difference in their performance. I guess that 2 of 3 oboists play in this movement and the third (best) player performs the solo part in movement 4, see below.
Herreweghe (February 2013): I like this tempo with 4:56 minutes better that the other recordings discussed above (exception: Lutz). Both choir and orchestra are as small as Suzuki¡¯s, leading to ?a very transparent and brilliant sound. Also, his continuo with 2 cellos, 1 double bass, bassoon and chest organ is comparable to both Suzuki and Gardiner. For the instrumental chorale melody, he uses a ¡®trombone da tirarsi¡¯ instead of a trumpet ¡®which is a deviation from the original scoring (see above) but sounds fine, together with the 2 oboes, one of them being the top player Marcel Ponseele (see ).
My personal preference: (1) Herreweghe ¨C (2) Lutz ¨C (3) Suzuki ¨C (4) Koopman ¨C (5) Gardiner. Remark: I would have given both Herreweghe and Lutz a first place; Lutz gets a second place because of the lack of a brass instrument in this movement.
?
Movement 4 (Aria, alto with solo oboe and BC)
¡®The following aria, no. 4, takes us aback with its melodic charm. No threatening sentence of punishment, no contrition is uttered here, but rather a childlike meekness in the prayer that at least the soul should be spared. The obbligato oboe melody, with its almost dance-like swing, is also taken over by the voice, so that alto and oboe form a homogeneous duet over an unthematic continuo part. (D¨¹rr, Alfred. The Cantatas of J. S. Bach (p. 574). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.)
Remark: tempos for this movement don¡¯t vary substantially among all 5 recordings. Focus for this movement are the quality of the alto part as well as the oboe solo playing.
Koopman (October 1998): the Austrian Bernhard Landauer (see ) is a fine counter-tenor with a clear diction and a silvery, clear, light and pleasant timbre. The excellent solo oboe part (probably played by ?Patrick Beaugireaud) and the very intimate continuo (according to the BCW with cembalo, but clearly also with organ) makes this one of my favorite interpretations.
Suzuki (February 2000): the English counter-tenor, Robin Blaze is not as his best in this aria. His voice sounds shrill and has a slight vibrato on ¡®s¨¹ndlichen¡¯ and ¡®Wille¡¯. The oboe solo part (probably played by Masamitsu San'nomiya) and the continuo are comparable to Koopman, but I clearly prefer the other interpretations
Gardiner (October 2000): the English counter-tenor, William Towers (see comes closer to Bernhard Landauer with Koopman; his lower range is good, but I hear some insecurity with higher notes. The oboe solo part (probably played by Xenia L?ffler) and the continuo are comparable to Koopman and Suzuki. Not bad, but not my first choice.
Herreweghe (February 2013): the French counter-tenor, Damien Guillon is clearly my favorite in many alto recitatives and arias, but I don¡¯t think he is at his best in this movement. The excellent oboe part played by Marcel Ponseele and the also very intimate continuo makes this interpretation my second choice after? Bernhard Landauer.
My personal preference: (1) Koopman¨C (2) Herreweghe¨C (3) Gardiner ¨C (4) Suzuki¨C (5) Lutz.
?
Movement 6 (Aria, tenor with strings, oboe I, oboe II and BC.)
¡® The second aria, no. 6, separated from the first only by a brief secco recitative, resembles it in its rhythmic swing, which is here still more perceptible in the constant alternation between hemiola 3/ 4 (a disguised form of 3/ 2) and standard 3/ 4 time. The compact string texture (with oboe I doubling violin I) lends the aria a confident character that accords with the text and stands out in relief against the tenderness of the previous aria.¡¯ D¨¹rr, Alfred. The Cantatas of J. S. Bach (p. 574). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Remark: tempos for this movement don¡¯t vary substantially among all 5 recordings. Focus for this movement are the quality of the tenor part as well as the oboes and strings.
Koopman (October 1998): the very experienced German tenor, Christoph Pr¨¦gardien (see ) is technically very proficient, and his voice has ?the right timbre, also proven as ¡®Evangelist¡¯ in St. Matthew recordings with Harnoncourt and Herreweghe. I like the balanced and delicate playing of soloist, strings (although too many?), oboes and BC and the average tempo used here..
Suzuki (February 2000): the German tenor, Gerd T¨¹rk (see ) is a well-known Bach tenor who studying baroque singing and interpretation with Ren¨¦ Jacobs and Richard Levitt at the Schola Cantorum Basiliensis. This interpretation though, is disappointing for me. In the higher registers he sounds even shrill sometimes. Also, the tempo is too fast IMHO and lacks the delicate and balanced playing I appreciated so much with Koopman. Not my first choice.
Gardiner (October 2000): the English tenor, James Gilchrist (see ) has received critical acclaim in particular for his performances of J.S. Bach and George Frideric Handel. I like his performance in this aria and the balance of the accompanying instruments as well as the tempo. Very similar to Koopman.
Herreweghe (February 2013): the English tenor, Thomas Hobbs (see: ) reminds the voice of the above discussed James Gilchrist with Gardiner but is not my first choice. Herreweghe¡¯s tempo is fast and almost jumpy, reminding a dance movement or the ¡®rhythmic swing ¡® described above by A. D¨¹rr that sets it apart from the other 4 recordings.
My personal preference: (1) Lutz¨C (2) Koopman¨C (3) Herreweghe ¨C (4) Gardiner¨C (5) Suzuki.
?
Final remarks and ranking
I like this cantata mainly because of the many choir movements (1, 3 and 7). The playing of Bach¡¯s chorales in his cantatas has risen many discussions in this group and is very much a matter of taste. Comparing the chorale movements 3 and 7 for these 5 recordings, and considering the above comments, my final ranking is as follows:
(1) Herreweghe and (2) Lutz, but both a very close first, mainly because of the transparence obtained with the minimal choirs and instruments, although Lutz¡¯s 1.st movements lacks the brass instrument and his alto aria is not good. (3) Koopman, (4) Suzuki and (5) Gardiner are all three very close to a third place.
Frits V. Herbold, Nashville, TN, April 2025
