Marc, I'd not be so cruel as to say the performances are middle of the road. They are, for me at least, gutsy enough and rough enough to be quite authentic. The Gardiner ones annoy me because they are just too perfect.
Bach's musicians were, undoutedly, excellent performers on thier instruments (otherwise his writting would have been less demanding). However, they were peasants and serving class people mostly, certainly not of the aristocracy. No matter how much the limp-wristed "authentic instrument" champions try to make "authentic" attempts at re-creating music from the era, the fact is no one actually knows.
I've read a lovely biography about Bach (author escapes me but I'll endeavour to look it up in my library) and there are plenty of letters from the great master where he begs the authorities that standards be lifted (at St Thomas' for example).
This would lead me to belive that, unless he was performing, his music was probably just played in a manner that would be "bloody awful".
My two-cents worth
Yeah, I'm a
cruel man.
:smash:
That's why I need and (ab)use Bach's music as a remedy. :grin:
You're right, we know that Bach wasn't happy with the level of performing of his own works. Maybe it's because of that, that I see no reason to be satisfied with middle of the road performances, too. (This being very presumptuous
, yet only a personal opinion of course.)
And I would like to add: if some 'authenticity' movement is going to claim
play your Bach bloody awful, because that's the way it was played in Bach's own time then I'm definitely against such a movement.
Don't get me wrong though: I think the level of playing in Leusink's set is quite good, especially the instrumental parts. But the overall interpretation is superficial, IMHO. Leusink is not entirely to blame for that: he did not get the time, because the entire project started in the autumn of 1999 and had to be finished some time before the end of the Bach-year 2000. The Brilliant Edition had to be 'ready for the press' by then.
John Eliot Gardiner has been mentioned, and he's not my fave Bach interpreter, either. But that has got not much to do with the fact that his musicians play too perfect. The musicians of Musica Antiqua Köln (for instance) played perfect, too. Yet there is a great difference in soul and spirit between those two ensembles, both with musicians who aren't all part of 'authentic aristrocracy' btw. I believe that most of them just love to play ancient music on ancient instruments, that's all.
Personally, I appreciate the work of scholars and 'limp-wristed authentic champions' very much. Fact is that they made it possible to come closer to a historical 'truth'. Nevertheless: real authenticity can never be claimed IMO. I agree with you on that. And therefore this 'truth' shouldn't be imposed as a
dogma. Unfortunately some of these champions seem to think that musical interpretation should be shaped into firm rules, and those who don't accept those rules are almost considered as sinners.
Anyway, in the end this 'truth' is not decisive if my personal preferences are concerned. These are .... errr ....
personal.
From the very first moment I began listening to Bach (at around 13 years of age), I preferred f.i. Harnoncourt to Karl Richter, even though I had not read one scholastic article or book about baroque music at the time.
Compared to many of his contemporaries, I think that Bach's music isn't all that easy to perform. Besides of that: times, societies, music and most instruments have changed. For musicians in 1725, many contemporary performance and interpretation requirements were already part of their 'standard' package and skills. But IMO, in the 21st century we need more time to get a grip of Bach's intentions. That's nothing to be ashamed of.
In the year 2000 Leusink was only given one year for recording 200 cantatas, with an amateur choir of mostly children who weren't born in 1700
. And I guess that Leusink had other things at hand in his life, too.
At least Bach had one year for 52 cantatas, with performers who were grown up in a Lutheran 18th century environment. Which made things all the easier for him .... still, even Bach wasn't satisfied with the results.
I get more satisfaction from the complete Leonhardt/Harnoncourt cantata integral, even though this one is far from perfect, either. But they present this music like I want it to hear: as a serious add-on to the weekly gospel and sermon, with a better sense of the meaning of both notes and lyrics. Herreweghe might be less severe in this, but he adds a wonderful warm-felt soul to the music.
Apart from all this: Leusink's performances constitute a worthwhile set to get to know these wonderful compositions. But I won't take them to the proverbial lonely island.
Of course, like you said: all of this just my tuppence worth.
So please, don't stop posting about your cantata adventures.
I'm always interested in other opinions, even though my own might be different.
