What do you think?
Rate this book
The Essential Bach Choir
Discussion of original performance conventions of Bach's sacred works - cantatas, Passions, masses - by practising musician and director of Taverner choir.
What type of choir did Bach have in mind as he created his cantatas, Passions and Masses? How many singers were at his disposal in Leipzig, and in what ways did he deploy them in his own music?
Seeking to understand the verymedium of Bach's incomparable choral output, Andrew Parrott investigates a wide range of Bach's own writings, and the scores and parts he used in performance, but also a variety of theoretical, pictorial and archival documents, together with the musical testimony of the composer's forerunners and contemporaries.
Many of the findings shed a surprising, even disturbing, light on conventions we have long taken for granted. A whole world away from, say, the typical oratorio choir of Handel's London with which we are reasonably familiar, the essential Bach choir was in fact an expert vocal quartet (or quintet), whose members were also responsible for all solos and duets. (In a mere handful of Bach's works, this solo team was selectively supported by a second rank of singers - also one per part - whose contribution was all but optional).
Parrott shows that this use of aone-per-part choir was mainstream practice in the Lutheran Germany of Bach's Bach chose to use single voices not because a larger group was unavailable, but because they were the natural vehicle of elaborate concerted music.
As one of several valuable appendices, this book includes the text of Joshua Rifkin's explosive 1981 lecture, never before published, which first set out this line of thinking and launched a controversy that is long overduefor resolution.
ANDREW PARROTT has made a close study of historical performing practices in the music of six centuries, and for over twenty-five years he has been putting research into practice with his own professional ensembles, the Taverner Consort, Taverner Players and Taverner Choir.
What type of choir did Bach have in mind as he created his cantatas, Passions and Masses? How many singers were at his disposal in Leipzig, and in what ways did he deploy them in his own music?
Seeking to understand the verymedium of Bach's incomparable choral output, Andrew Parrott investigates a wide range of Bach's own writings, and the scores and parts he used in performance, but also a variety of theoretical, pictorial and archival documents, together with the musical testimony of the composer's forerunners and contemporaries.
Many of the findings shed a surprising, even disturbing, light on conventions we have long taken for granted. A whole world away from, say, the typical oratorio choir of Handel's London with which we are reasonably familiar, the essential Bach choir was in fact an expert vocal quartet (or quintet), whose members were also responsible for all solos and duets. (In a mere handful of Bach's works, this solo team was selectively supported by a second rank of singers - also one per part - whose contribution was all but optional).
Parrott shows that this use of aone-per-part choir was mainstream practice in the Lutheran Germany of Bach's Bach chose to use single voices not because a larger group was unavailable, but because they were the natural vehicle of elaborate concerted music.
As one of several valuable appendices, this book includes the text of Joshua Rifkin's explosive 1981 lecture, never before published, which first set out this line of thinking and launched a controversy that is long overduefor resolution.
ANDREW PARROTT has made a close study of historical performing practices in the music of six centuries, and for over twenty-five years he has been putting research into practice with his own professional ensembles, the Taverner Consort, Taverner Players and Taverner Choir.
- GenresMusic
240 pages, Paperback
First published February 9, 2000
1 person is currently reading
33 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 15, 2013
This is a very interesting book arguing that Bach mainly used only 1 singer per part in the performances of his own vocal works. The document most cited in this book is the "Entwurff" of 1730 written by Bach to the Leipzig town council. In it, Bach expressed his discontent with the state of the musical resources allowed him by the council; specifically there Bach requests for at least 3 singers per part for each of his four choirs. It is that request that some use to dismiss the use of only 1 singer per part as advocated by Joshua Rifkin in 1981.
The arguments in the first half of the book concentrated on Bach's extant scores (eg, nearly all vocal works had only 1 set of vocal parts), iconography (eg, illustrations of singers not sharing scores), and contemporaneous accounts of Baroque practices. At this point of the book, I was not completely convinced by this information although I was convinced that when Bach asked for 3 per part, he did not mean 3 per part in a performance but rather 3 singers per part in a pool from which he could select from. The arguments in the second half of the book focused on resource (eg, what was available to Bach), balance, and instrument-singer ratio (eg, how many singers and instrumentalists were employed). One interesting consideration presented in the second half is the fact that doubling the number of singers does not double the volume of sound but rather adds sonority and only modestly increase volume. The arguments from the second half are far stronger in my opinion and they strengthen and validate the arguments from the first half. The book is very well illustrated and includes the original text and a translation of the 1730 Entwurff.
Joshua Rifkin's 1981 recording of the Mass in B minor used 1 singer per part. Andrew Parrott's own recording in 1985 used a mix of 1 and 2 singers per part which I consider probably the most satisfying recording of the Mass in B minor that I've ever heard. Rifkin later went on to record a number of Bach cantatas with 1 singer per part. The argument from the 1700s that the use of one singer per part brings clarity and beauty is spectacularly evident in these recordings. For me, the musical result of using 1 or 2 singers per part trumps any historical argument.
Unfortunately for various reasons that I won't go into but are related to the size and nature of today's music venues, 1 singer per part does not work as well in live performances as it does in a recording.
The arguments in the first half of the book concentrated on Bach's extant scores (eg, nearly all vocal works had only 1 set of vocal parts), iconography (eg, illustrations of singers not sharing scores), and contemporaneous accounts of Baroque practices. At this point of the book, I was not completely convinced by this information although I was convinced that when Bach asked for 3 per part, he did not mean 3 per part in a performance but rather 3 singers per part in a pool from which he could select from. The arguments in the second half of the book focused on resource (eg, what was available to Bach), balance, and instrument-singer ratio (eg, how many singers and instrumentalists were employed). One interesting consideration presented in the second half is the fact that doubling the number of singers does not double the volume of sound but rather adds sonority and only modestly increase volume. The arguments from the second half are far stronger in my opinion and they strengthen and validate the arguments from the first half. The book is very well illustrated and includes the original text and a translation of the 1730 Entwurff.
Joshua Rifkin's 1981 recording of the Mass in B minor used 1 singer per part. Andrew Parrott's own recording in 1985 used a mix of 1 and 2 singers per part which I consider probably the most satisfying recording of the Mass in B minor that I've ever heard. Rifkin later went on to record a number of Bach cantatas with 1 singer per part. The argument from the 1700s that the use of one singer per part brings clarity and beauty is spectacularly evident in these recordings. For me, the musical result of using 1 or 2 singers per part trumps any historical argument.
Unfortunately for various reasons that I won't go into but are related to the size and nature of today's music venues, 1 singer per part does not work as well in live performances as it does in a recording.
March 30, 2016
A quick but very dense read. Having prior knowledge of Bach's life and music is a must. Luckily, I took several courses on Bach as an undergraduate music student and much of what is discussed in this book was presented to me in class. I applaud Parrott for presenting his research so succinctly and convincingly. Having heard some recordings of Bach's work performed "one on a part," I must say I prefer it to the conventional "chamber" or "full" choir
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews