From: velde2@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Francois Velde)
Subject: Re: St. Matthew Passion
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:49:25 GMT

In article <BzCxJp.K42@cmcl2.nyu.edu> tony@cns.nyu.edu writes:
>One of the most memorable musical experiences of my life was an Easter
>performance of the Matthew Passion in Munich in 1973 under Karl Richter.
>Last night I picked up the corresponding DGG/Archive CD set ($21 at the
>Tower Annex in the Village, if you're interested), and I'm very taken
>with it. But I'd be interested in others' views on this piece and this
>performance, and on other recommendable issues.

If I am ever touched by grace, it would be because of this work. I think
it is a sublime piece of work, and, of all the religious music I know, one
that affects me the most. There is the sheer genius of Bach, of course, 
but also the specific form that he used, which he did not invent. The
Passion is somewhat more liturgic than an oratorio, but does not follow
a set liturgical text. The text is a mix of the gospel and other "poems",
arranged in groups of three: narration from the gospel, recitativ and aria.
The arias are sung by one, sometimes two soloists: soprano, alto, tenor
and bass alternate.  There are occasional interventions of the choir. 

The choir opens and closes the piece, and constantly intervenes. Indeed,
if one sees the soloists as emanations of the choir, the structure of the
piece would be: the drama unfolding through the narrative parts, and the
choir as "public", witnessing, and responding to the sacred drama.  The
soloists' arias are then the outpouring of emotions from the choir (the
faithful), who know the story, and know how it ends, but cannot try to
stop it from happening ("lasset, bindet nicht.."), suffer grief and shame
("erbarme dich, mein Gott..")--and in the end, resign themselves to follow 
and endure ("kommt-wohin?.."). 

I am reminded of Nietzsche's explanation for the birth of tragedy from the
spirit of music, and I see a similar structure: in the beginning the choir
dreams, lives the drama, and projects it on the surface of its conscience,
by creating the characters and playing out the drama. But the choir always
remains the root of the music, and all the characters (i.e. the soloists)
are but manifestations of the choir's conflicting emotions and sufferings.

That is perhaps why the work is so human: it is not merely a celebration 
or a replay of the Passion: it is at heart the faithful's journey through
the Passion, relived every year at Easter; similar to the penitents in
some Catholic countries who insist on walking for miles on bare feet and
carring a cross (hooded, of course, anonymous, as the choir is).  The
work is so human, indeed, that it is possible to be profoundly affected
by it independently of the Christian context. Anyone who has ever betrayed
anyone could be deeply moved by the aria following Peter's denial 
(interestingly, in the Johannespassion, Bach altered the gospel, and 
included the phrase "und er weinete bitterlich" at the same spot).

I know two performances: Karajan's version with Gundula Janowitz, Christa
Ludwig, Peter Schreier, D. Fischer-Diskau, W. Berry.  The other is 
Harnoncourt on Teldec, with J. Bowman, Paul Esswood, K. Equiluz, Max
van Egmond.  I like them both, for very different reasons. 

The Karajan one is grandiose, solemn, all-encompassing: the direction is
stately. Karajan knows that God speaks through him, and is appropriately
dignified.  The soloists are world-class, and they could carry the work 
on their shoulders. It's a monumental work, a cathedral, awe-inspiring.

The Harnoncourt is predictably different: sharp, crisp, human-scale, 
full of energy and nervousness. He uses boys in some parts, which people
may or may not like: boys' voices are less expressive, but more angelic.

Well, I could go on and on...
-- 

	Francois Velde

Newsgroups: rec.music.classical