Last year, two very remarkable
recordings of the Matthew Passion have come across my desk — and
remarkable in very different ways. There is the strict
one voice per part (OVPP) 1742 “final performing version” Matthew
Passion with John Butt and the Dunedin Consort & Players
(Linn) and then the “maverick” Matthew Passion
of Enoch zu Guttenberg with his Choral Society Neubeuern
and KlangVerwaltung Orchestra (Farao).
John
Butt’s is not the first Matthew Passion that uses OVPP — Paul
McCreesh has already done that. But it is the first one
to use
the (ca.)1742 version that Bach
presumably used
in his last performance of the “big Passion” as Bach
always referred to it. On the OVPP question: The sophisticated
conjecture about Bach having, or even wanting, just one
voice per part in his Matthew Passion can be followed
in the writings of Joshua Rifkin. I have not yet read
an argument (either pro- or contra-OVPP) that didn’t
willfully ignore information suggesting the opposite
from their held beliefs, or massage the evidence to
necessarily support
their side when it might support it
possibly at
best. I find it curious, though, that Bach should have
wanted the
big Passion” sung with one voice per
part (OVPP), while the St. John Passion’s surviving performing
material indicates at least two voices per part.
Ultimately
I don’t care — as long as the performance is enjoyable
or revealing. The
Historically Informed Performance movement
has brought us
many such performances and should
be welcomed by all music lovers with open arms. As long
as its ‘extreme fringes’ don’t become the new orthodox,
inflexible standard by which to perform Bach (or all baroque
music) which would leave some of the greatest music ever
written the prerogative of specialist groups, HIP only
enriches our musical experience. John Butt notably, laudably
states precisely that in his generally incisive liner notes: “Trying
to follow Bach’s vocal
scoring and the instrumentation
of his last performance is not done in the name of a sort
of pious literalism that condemns every other approach
to the realm of inauthenticity… [H]istorical details might
begin to seem rather trivial if the performance reveals
this work to provide a musical experience that is almost
on the threshold of what is emotionally bearable.” He legitimately
hopes that
his performance provides that experience,
but the ambition is expertly clad in humility.
Upon
first listening, the Dunedin Matthew Passion did precisely
what John Butt must have set out to achieve. Hugely impressive
for its combination of thrust and clarity, the invigorating
play of the Dunedin Consort & Players manage to have
instrumental and vocal strands appear where all-too often
they become part of a greater ‘sound’. This is
nouvelle
cuisine compared the
cuisine classique of decades
past or the musical curry that those conductors have made
of the Matthew Passion, who performed in the tradition
of the massive oratorios. Outstanding, apart from the ever
lively playing, are also the superb basses (a sonorous,
richly wonderful Jesus in Matthew Brook, Brian Bannatyne-Scott
who is simply terrific in “Gerne will ich mich bequemen”,
Roderick Bryce who makes Judas rather appealing), and Evangelist
Nicholas Mulroy — eminently worth hearing.
Unfortunately,
there are also a significant amount of shortcomings that
become increasingly obvious with repeat listening. For
one, the female voices are less pleasant than the male,
notable in the opening “chorus” where they stand out unpleasantly.
Particularly unpleasant is alto Clare Wilkinson. Right
off the bat the first “kla-a-a-a-a-gen” (note esp. bar
24) is most unfortunate sounding. Soprano I Susan Hamilton
is better, but sounds — for better or worse — like a treble
most of the time. The interpolating “Wen, Wie, Was, Wohin?” questions
from the second choir sound more like pecked interruptions
than questions that stipulate the answer of the first choir.
Jesus’ aria “Trinket
alle daraus; das ist mein Blut” is fleet, and has the dance-y
touch to it that makes this performance so airy, but at
the cost of being less touching than it could be. There
are also the odd moments of funny accentuation in the Butt
recording — for example “Aber nicht wie ich WILL, sondern
wie du WILLST” (instead of “Aber nicht wie ICH will, sondern
wie DU willst”). But then “Welchen ich kuessen werde, der
ists!” is done extremely well — both as regards the pronunciation
and the way it is spoken, more than sung. The orchestra
and combined voices in “Sind Blitze, sind Donner…” manage
for something that is terribly exhilarating, as long as
it is not dissected. Here, like in many parts of this performance,
the whole becomes much more than the sum of its parts,
simply because a few of the parts taken on their own are
rather un-lovely. Ironically the Butt-Passion, offering
so much focus and detail, moves from “interesting” to splendid
only once you take the focus away from it. In that sense, ‘just
listening to it’ is a far greater joy than reviewing it,
score in hand. If you don’t get stuck quibbling on these
various issues (chances are you won’t on hearing it the
first few times), the surprising and fresh sweep of the
opening carries you with the performance far into part
one.
The
musical difference of the 1742 version to BWV 244 is insignificant
(compared to BWV 244b or some of the different St.John
Passion versions). The difference in scoring (harpsichord
instead of organ as the
basso continuo instrument
for the second choir — in any case a change more likely
born out of necessity than desire) has been replicated
in plenty other recordings, HIP and non-HIP alike. The
recording quality and sound of this Linn disc is, as usual
with this audiophile label, stupendous.
On
my “
Easter
Pilgrimage” last year, I heard
Enoch zu Guttenberg’s
Matthew Passion on the Munich leg of the tour. Guttenberg
and his Neubeuern Choir are a local musical force, much
loved and admired in the region. His pick-up band, which
he coyly named “SoundAdministration Orchestra”, consists
of members of the best European orchestras (Berlin Philharmonic,
Concertgebouw, et al.) and local players — including soloists
from the Munich Philharmonic and the Rosamunde String Quartet.
Guttenberg’s performance of the Matthew Passion around
Easter are an institution, known to be consistently individual, ‘unique’ interpretations.
When I sat in the Philharmonic Hall on Good Friday to listen
to what was my fourth Matthew Passion in six days, I spectacularly
failed to get it.
Part
of the problem: I listened lazily. I didn’t participate;
I simply wanted to let the music do the work of enthralling
me. A miscalculation, as it turned out, because as I did
not bother with the text, the musical choices of Guttenberg
ended up annoying me to no end. Unable or unwilling to
put them in context, I found the interpretation awkward,
the performance disappointed me, and that disappointment
angered me.
A
few weeks after Easter I was sent the Guttenberg 2003 recording
(apparently just now issued or re-issued outside Germany
by Farao and
not the same performance reviewed by
Peter Quantrill on DVD
here). Knowing several expert ears to
be very fond of Guttenberg’s very particular interpretation,
I had the chance to give it another try, to give it its
due time, respect, and engagement. That made all the difference.
Guttenberg’s
version might well remain controversial to many listeners.
Uninitiated listening might have it seem that when Guttenberg
passes the chalice, he hands it over with a cup of crazy.
But it isn’t that simple and it wouldn’t be doing the performance
justice to declare it wilfully romantic or completely over
the top. There is rhyme and reason to all he does. Not
only that, as a musical
interpretation of the gospel
of St.Matthew, it becomes one of the great Matthew
Passion recordings there are.
Whatever
Guttenberg does in the Matthew Passion, he does not out
of a sense of license or sheer, unmotivated exuberance — but
out of a sense of duty to the text and Bach, and the impression
the Matthew Passion must presumably have made on the original
audience. The cry “Barabas”, for example, is not a short,
punctuated staccato interruption, it is an extended, surprisingly
slow and devastatingly disturbing cry that tears through
the fabric of the music, analogous to the when the veil
in the temple is torn as Jesus dies on the cross. The dissonant
chord which, to our ears is no longer shriekingly dissonant,
is played out so harrowingly that the dissonance is again
audible.
The
chorale “Wenn ich einmal soll scheiden” initially sounded
dour to my ears — now I find it as touching as could be,
because I hear in it the utter reluctance to part. The
whiplash of the continuo string instruments and the frenzied
violins in the recitative “Erbarm es Gott!” depicts the
beating of Christ about as vividly as the Mel Gibson film.
The
overly enunciated chorale “O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden” irritated
me in the live performance. Musically, I’m still not particularly
fond of the hacked-off stop-and-go performance the choir
turns in. But realizing how this symbolizes the broken
bones of Christ, how he has suffered, and suffers under
his wounds does make it a truly, appropriately pitiful
moment. If the interpretive device with which Guttenberg
conveys that scene isn’t actually very pleasant, well… neither
is the scene he depicts.
The
coup of Guttenberg’s interpretation of the Matthew Passion
is that he elevates — or rather: uncovers and restores — the
climax of Matthew’s gospel as the highpoint of Bach’s work.
It’s often missed because it is so short, but it’s unmissable
in the story. It is at Matthew 27:54 and part 63b (NBA)
in Bach, when at the end of the crucifixion scene, after
the gruesome death of Jesus and the ensuing earthquake,
the rough heathen Roman executioners and their captain
(of all people!) are the first to grasp the meaning of
what has happened before them. Their hearts change and
they acknowledge (“
Due chori in unisono”): “Truly… truly:
this was the Son of God.” (Notably, it’s the only time
Bach lets both choirs sing
unisono.)
Two
bars, not even 20 notes — but here elevated to the pinnacle
of the whole work. Forty (!) seconds so intense, so heartfelt,
so earnestly passionate, that absolutely without fail I
tear up every time I hear it.
Guttenberg ’s
Matthew Passion is a religious one. In the extensive interview
included in the liner notes, he may admit to knowing no
better than the next guy whether God exists or not, but
declares his love for the gospel of Matthew and — this
is crucial — how he puts the text of the gospel above the
music. As a Bavarian (Upper Franconian) Catholic, emotionality
is important to Guttenberg, and conveying the
emotion of
the gospel by whatever means (including HIP methods) is
his sole goal. The result is an utterly baroque reading
of BWV 244.
I
like to imagine how a few Bach lovers who appreciate the
work of Rifkin, McCreesh, or Junghänel roll their eyes
at this, exclaiming how the last thing they need is a “baroque” reading
of Bach… before becoming aware of the inherent absurdity
of that sentiment.
But
emotionality in the 21
st century
is different
from Bach’s time, our ears perceive music differently,
and the means to recreate a reaction to the text of the
gospel will have to be different, too. We will never know
how Bach’s performances sounded, much less how he
wanted them
to sound and why. Chances are it sounded much more like
Butt’s version (except not nearly as good) than Guttenberg’s.
And yet Guttenberg might be closer to Bach than Butt in
the way he presents the Matthew Passion.
Bach’s
Matthew Passion could just be taken as a piece of music.
Indeed, the miracle of the Matthew Passion is how great
it is, even if we
don’t ‘experience’ it. That even
the naked music of the Matthew Passion will move us, faithful
or faithless. Perhaps not to our every core, but substantially
still. But to be moved
truly, one needs to partake
and understand what Bach says or what Bach gives voice
to. Because the Matthew Passion has, in and of itself,
meaning, it ought not only be
listened to, but
experienced,
too.
Guttenberg’s
interpretation redirects us toward that meaning, but it
also profits from knowing it in the first place. A sensitive
soul may intuitively get Guttenberg’s musical explanations
of the text, but that means that knowing the text is a
prerequisite. It is, incidentally, the only prerequisite.
Belief is
not – because the Passion’s meaning is independent of belief
or faith. Neither Guttenberg’s performance nor this review
is an attempt to proselytize, merely a call to understanding
Bach’s music beyond the notes.
Even
if you accept all of this, it need not mean that you have
to like the interpretation, musically. After all, the intention,
good as it may be, isn’t all-important to the result. But
it is important enough — especially in a work like the
Matthew Passion — not to be separated. If you don’t separate
it, then the Guttenberg recording becomes deserving of
our utmost attention and benevolence. And it will, if approached
like this, reward generously — through Bach — in ways that
musically smoother and less controversial recordings will
not.
John
Butt’s version is exhilarating on first impression — and
exhilarating it remains in many ways. But its flaws (flaws
to my ears, at least) become more notable upon repeat listening,
and less easy to ignore. Put in the proper context, Gutenberg’s
interpretation becomes one of the most intensely felt and
thoughtful Matthew Passions. Neither account would be a
natural ‘first or only recording recommendation’. But for
those who love the work and exploring it in all its facets,
both are essential.
Jens F. Laurson
see also review of the Linn CD by Peter Bright