Texte paru dans: / Appeared in: |
||||
| Strongly recommended |
Outil de traduction ~ (Très approximatif) |
|||
|
Reviewer: Jerry
Dubins What we have here is a rather strange program of five works proven to be by Bach, three of which are presented as originally written and two of which are given in arrangements—Alfredo Bernardini calls them orchestral reconstructions—that Bach could not have imagined, the reason why to be addressed momentarily. The first oddity of this program is that perhaps as many as two dozen recordings of Bach’s Orchestral Overtures (or Suites as they are still often called)—most of them performed by period-instrument ensembles—have managed to fit all four of them, BWV 1066–1069, onto a single disc. Here, the second of the overtures, the one in B Minor that features a prominent role for solo flute, has been dropped in favor of Bernardini’s speculative orchestral arrangements of the opening choruses from two of Bach’s cantatas. The second oddity—one actually pointed out in the album note—is that in one instance we know of, Bach himself reverse engineered the opening movement of the Suite in D Major, BWV 1069, for use as the opening chorus to his Cantata, BWV 110, “Unser Mund sei voll Lachens.” But his “arrangement” runs in the opposite direction, from overture to cantata. Others, of course, have conflated various cantata movements featuring a solo instrument—an oboe, for example—to fabricate a concerto, but this is my first time encountering a movement from a cantata contrived to pose as the opening overture to a non-existent Bach suite. In part, the problem, alluded to in the first paragraph, is chronology. Bach did not compose all of his four Orchestral Overtures at one time. The date of the First, BWV 1066, is uncertain, but is generally acknowledged to be circa 1718. The Second (not included on this release), BWV 1067, was composed much later, in 1738–39. The Third Overture, BWV 1068, is dated 1731; and the Fourth, BWV 1069, is dated 1725. The two cantatas Bernardini has cannibalized for his orchestral reconstructions are dated 1730 for “Preise, Jerusalem, den Herren,” BWV 119, and 1723 for “Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest,” BWV 194. In other words, in the case of BWV 194, it was composed before three of the overtures, BWV 1068, 1067, and 1069; and in the case of BWV 119, it was composed before two of the overtures, BWV 1067 and 1068. In the case of the above-noted cantata, BWV 110 of 1725, Bach adapted the opening chorus from the Overture, BWV 1069, he’d already written. There are many examples of Bach borrowing movements from his concertos and other orchestral works for use in his cantatas, or of recasting an existing orchestral or instrumental work in the context of another orchestral or instrumental work; and of course, the opening orchestral sinfonias of a number of Bach’s cantatas are often played as stand-alone works, as written. But other than the conflations of cantata movements to create concertos—as, for example, three movements from the Cantata, BWV 35, performed as an organ concerto—there are precious few, if any, authentic examples of Bach reverse engineering in the other direction, from cantata to orchestral or instrumental work. I suspect that’s because the bulk of Bach’s orchestral and instrumental works were written early and mostly before his heavy output of sacred cantatas. Thus, he could not have created an orchestral work from a cantata not yet in existence, whereas it was easy and logical to create new cantatas from bits and pieces of orchestral and instrumental works long extant. What I’m suggesting here is that Alfredo Bernardini’s orchestral reconstructions from Bach’s cantatas are conceptually backwards. But all of this is leading me to another question. The timings of Bernardini’s two contributions—4:40 and 4:22, respectively—add up 9:02. If you were to eliminate those two items and subtract them from the total album timing of 74:40, the total album timing without them would be 65:38. Now, taking Martin Pearlman’s single-disc recording of the compete overtures with the period instrument Boston Baroque as a benchmark, the B-Minor Suite, BWV 1067, takes 17:17. That, added back to the present album’s 65:38 shorn of the two Bernardini arrangements, would have brought the current release, with BWV 1067, to 82:55, a timing that is hardly unprecedented on modern CDs. So, the twofold question is: Why wasn’t BWV 1067 included instead of the Bernardini items, and who wants a recording containing three of Bach’s four orchestral suites? Here’s another question to ponder as well. Pearlman’s single Telarc disc containing all four suites has a total timing of only 73:32; yet as has already been illustrated, if BWV 1067 were added to Bernardini’s release in place of his two reconstructions, it would time out at 82:55, or 9:23 longer than Pearlman’s effort. So what are we to make of this? Perhaps Pearlman and others who fit all four suites onto a single disc skip repeats to do so, or Bernardini’s tempos are painfully slow. Which is it? Well, the first thing I can tell you is that Bernardini’s tempos are not slower than Pearlman’s; in fact, in a number of instances, they’re marginally faster. But my Eureka moment came when I looked at the timings. In every case, Bernardini’s timings for the opening French Overture movements were almost exactly double those of Pearlman’s, the reason being that Bernardini takes the double repeat. You have the slow, dotted-rhythm introduction with a first- and second-ending repeat indicated, essentially AA. That is followed by the lengthy fast fugal section, B, which ends with an abbreviated return to A, in effect BA. But that ending A, like the opening A, is also marked with a first and second ending repeat, except that the repeat in this case goes all the way back to long, fast, fugal B. The form of the movement is thus ||:AA:||:BA:||. Bernardini takes the BA repeat; Pearlman doesn’t. Pearlman does, however, take all of the other indicated repeats in the shorter dance movements that make up the suites. Except then for small differences in tempo—Bernardini is faster than Pearlman by a second or two in some movements and a second or two slower in others—it’s that lengthy secondary repeat in the opening Overtures that accounts for the big difference in timings; and I realize now that in taking those secondary repeats there was no way Bernardini could have fit all four suites onto a single disc, because it would have added considerably more minutes to the album timing than I calculated above. And therein lies a cautionary tale for all potential buyers who believe they can get uncompromised performances of all four suites on a single CD. Without having heard every single-disc version of the suites, I’m now convinced it’s not possible for any conductor who observes those secondary repeats in the Overture movements, as Bernardini does, to fit all four suites onto a single standard audio CD. This has been a rather circuitous journey for me in which I’ve come to really like a release I was initially skeptical and critical of at the outset. I’ve long loved Pearlman and the Boston Baroque in Bach’s suites, but now I love Bernardini and Zefiro more, and not just because of the repeats. Alfredo Bernardini has presided over a number of different period instrument ensembles both as conductor and renowned oboist. In 1989, he became one of the cofounders of Zefiro, an ensemble of period instrument players some 23 strong, which thus far has seven albums to its credit, including a CD of Telemann suites I reviewed very favorably in 37:6. The group is spirited and polished, playing with exceptional unanimity of articulation, tonal refinement, and a full-bodied sound that belies its numbers. Nor does Bernardini encourage his musicians to contribute anything beyond the most modest, tasteful, and period-appropriate decorations to the line on repeats, as some are wont to do. The more I listen to Bernardini and Zefiro in these performances, the more right they feel to me and the more I am convinced that this is how Bach’s suites should sound. The only question is if and when will we get a recording of the missing B-Minor Suite from these players, and if and when we do, what will it be mated with? Meanwhile, very strongly recommended. | ||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
Cliquez l'un ou l'autre
bouton pour découvrir bien d'autres critiques de CD |
||||
