Texte paru dans: / Appeared in:
 
Fanfare Magazine: 43:2 (11-12/2019) 
Pour s'abonner / Subscription information
Les abonnés à Fanfare Magazine ont accès aux archives du magazine sur internet.
Subscribers to Fanfare Magazine have access to the archives of the magazine on the net.

 

MDG 9022104



Code-barres / Barcode : 760623210469

 
Reviewer: James A. Altena

 

Reconstructions of Bach’s St. Mark Passion are now becoming a dime a dozen. I extensively discussed the existing situation in a dual review of recordings by Jörg Breiding and Ton Koopman in 38:2 (2014), and supplemented that in reviews of additional new recordings by Markus Teutschbein and Jordi Savall in 39:1 and 43:1, respectively. Essentially, I concluded that Breiding’s set had rendered all previous efforts obsolete, with Teutschbein being a major new entry as the premiere recording of the Grychtolik reconstruction of Bach’s 1744 revision, and Koopman’s superb but idiosyncratic version being sui generis.

Now, conductor/organist/bass soloist Andreas Fischer has put his oar into these waters with his own reconstruction. He makes the sweeping declaration that all past attempts have been unsatisfactory, either because the reconstructed recitatives (spoken instead of sung, composed in a modern idiom, or borrowed from Reinhard Keiser’s St. Mark Passion) are at too far a variance from Bach stylistically, or because Fischer deems Grychtolik’s solution of adapting recitatives from the St. Matthew Passion for an ersatz “small” St. Matthew Passion to be objectionable. Fischer therefore states that the aim of his own completion is “to achieve a close approximation to Bach’s personal style through exclusive use of his own compositions (except the St. Matthew Passion), and thus to come closer to the hitherto missing qualitative and stylistic uniformity of previous performing versions. This methodologically unprecedented attempt is a novelty, especially as regards the recitatives.” Unfortunately, Fischer provides no details whatsoever as to what he has supposedly done instead. In particular, if he has drawn on Bach’s own compositions other than the St. Matthew Passion for setting the recitatives, from what works has he made those adaptations instead?
 

Suffice it to say that I am unimpressed by Fischer’s rhetoric. As for his recitative settings, they seem plausible enough, but not a revolutionary breakthrough. Unfortunately, it’s hard to make a proper judgment here because the performance is so poor. First, Fischer’s tempos are suffocatingly laborious; his performance is a good 20 minutes longer than that of rival versions, meaning it is almost 20 percent slower.

Second, his soloists are equally bad. Matthias Bleidorn as the Evangelist and tenor soloist is simply wretched, with an irritatingly nasal voice and severely defective intonation; Richard Logiewa as Jesus has a gritty, diffuse, wobbly bass; soprano Katherina Müller has an unpleasant edge to her voice; male alto Jan Börner is a hooty, third-string specimen of that species; only bass Manfred Buittner acquits himself well in his two arias. Third, the orchestra is of the second rank as well, as exemplified by some less than attractive oboe playing. At least the chorus sings well, and the whole is well recorded, with MDG providing detailed notes and a complete German-English libretto. Forget about this misbegotten enterprise and stick with Breiding, Teutschbein, and Koopman.


Fermer la fenêtre/Close window

Sélectionnez votre pays et votre devise en accédant au site de
Presto Classical
(Bouton en haut à droite)

Pour acheter l'album
ou le télécharger


To purchase the CD
or to download it

Choose your country and curency
when reaching
Presto Classical
(Upper right corner of the page)

 

Cliquez l'un ou l'autre bouton pour découvrir bien d'autres critiques de CD
 Click either button for many other reviews