:: approach to Bach
Unlike restoring a painting, exploring a piece of old music is a process which must always remain unfinished, there being no finite act comparable to scraping away the accumulated grime of centuries. Musicology gives fascinating insights into ancient styles, but in taking up the challenge of putting them into practice, today's musicians must stay true to their own instincts if they are to give vivid performances.
"One Voice Per Part" performance in Bach's music has been a hotly-debated issue in recent years, but has had relatively few exponents. We are all so familiar with the traditional "choir" that it can seem almost sacrilegious to suggest an alternative, particularly given the beauty of sound that the world's greatest professional choirs can offer, or the heart-warming sense of common purpose one hears from a large amateur group. However, I find very persuasive the arguments in favour of "OVPP" originally put forward by Joshua Rifkin, and expanded by Andrew Parrott in his book "The Essential Bach Choir". Their conclusions are that Bach, in keeping with the general practice of the time in Germany, wrote his own complex "concerted" music for expert solo singers ("concertists"). This "Musik" was not considered in the same category as the simpler motet repertoire of the previous generations, which was indeed sung by a larger ensemble. As a performer, I am keenly aware of the pleasure to be had from this style of performance. However, the goal is not to discover a formula which must be applied to all performances, rather to take up the challenge presented and see what advantages can be found. These certainly include:Having said that, there are occasions nowadays when it can be appropriate to use larger forces, as there certainly were in Bach's time. Festive services provided opportunities to create a fuller texture by adding "ripienists" at certain points, though the addition of only a single extra voice per part seems to have been the standard practice. The solo voice is served differently by different acoustics, with some buildings providing both clarity and reinforcement(see "Architecture" below), but others leaving individual singers struggling to be clearly heard. It is perfectly reasonable simply to prefer a traditional "choir", especially where it represents a crowd, as in the Passions. The debate will no doubt continue, since we shall never know the "mind of Bach". Even though the evidence points to Bach having written for solo concertists, we cannot be sure that this apparent preference was not simply a reaction to the chronic (and vexing) shortage of sufficiently skilled singers and players. For these reasons I do not take a fundamentalist view. "OVPP" is certainly a significant issue, which creates challenges and opportunities for a group such as the Magdalena Consort, but there are many others.
- an increased scope within "choral" parts to project text and personality, and, less obviously,
- the fact that instrumentalists, too, are challenged to take command of their line in a more soloistic way - which is the essence of counterpoint
As a practical musician, I am aware of a range of circumstances which cannot be re-created in the twenty-first century, and we should always bear in mind that historical authenticity is not only unattainable, but the pursuit of it as an end should never be the reason for making music. Indeed, it is striking how many of the elements that make up a modern "historically-informed" musical experience must differ from the original performance, especially when one considers those wider aspects which go beyond the confines of the stage itself. Here are some to consider - some obvious, but worth re-stating, and some maybe less immediately apparent:There are countless other considerations, of course. I have picked a few which highlight the fact that we are not even aware of how many aspects of music-making do not easily yield to musicological demands, and that all historically-informed performances involve a great number of (usually unconscious) compromises. However, that is not to say that we should give up - rather to bear the fact in mind and be modest in our claims. My own instinct is to create circumstances which are likely to lead to interesting, committed performances, and my experience has been that this often involves adopting similar forces to those the composer had in mind. What is clear, however, is that no matter how actively one seeks to incorporate what has been discovered of historical performing styles, it is up to today's musicians to respond to all music imaginatively and with intellectual, emotional and physical engagement, thus bringing the music to life. Only then are we likely to do the same for our audiences.
- Boys - their voices broke much later than now, so Bach had more mature, better-trained boy sopranos and altos. Today we employ professional female sopranos, and either counter-tenors or female altos. The question of counter-tenors is a matter of debate, but women certainly would not have been heard in eighteenth-century Lutheran churches.
- Architecture - the congregation would by and large have been below the musicians in their gallery, and, due to the nature of the box-pews, many with their backs to them, presumably. I know from experience (in St. Thomas', Leipzig, for example) that singers at the front of the gallery - with the orchestra behind them - can be very favourably treated by church acoustics.
- Organs - the performing area in church was dominated by the main organ, generally hung on the west wall of the building. Instead of being physically confined within the group of players, as modern box organs are, the absolute reverse was the case - these organs spatially surrounded the other instruments and singers. To what extent they dominated the sound is a matter for conjecture (and experiment, though this is hampered by organs - even historic ones - being tuned in ways which make them difficult to combine with period instruments), but what is certain is that they had the capacity to be far more present in the texture than in today's performances. The other reason for big organs being so little used nowadays to accompany other instruments is the matter raised in "Architecture" above - we like to be able to watch a performance as well as hear it, and preferably without getting a stiff neck. "Audiences", as opposed to "congregations", pay for their Bach, and consequently today's musicians must perform where they can be observed.
- German language and culture - leaving aside the historial distance and pronunciation questions, any non-German audience will be at an great and obvious disadvantage
- Religious context - the difference between then and now (church services on the one hand, modern concerts on the other) is in some ways an unbridgeable gulf. However, today's "art as religion" culture might not be so far removed from the 18th century bourgeoisie's delight in the weekly cantata; just as in an audience today, there would have been a range of expectations and levels of appreciation. Some present, surely, must have entertained the (furtive?) hope that today Herr Bach would have been able to muster his finest musicians, and that this would be one of those very special Sundays.
