Bach's Sixth Brandenburg Concerto - A Recording Survey
Woman Playing the Viola da Gamba, 1663
Gabriel Metsu (1629 - 1667)
Bach's sixth Brandenburg concerto BWV 1051, as a whole, is a very problematic concerto, for the performers or for newbie listeners, and I will convince you why:
1) The concerto is scored for two violas, two viols, cello, violone and harpsichord continuo. Note the absence of the violin; all instruments are lower string instruments; this gives the music a darker sound contrasting with the brighter previous concertos and hence the concerto may appear less colorful than the others. Owing to the instrumentation, it may also sound older in style; The use of archaic instruments, namely the viola da gambas, is believed to have been specially designed for Bach's employer Prince Leopold of Anhalt-Kothen, a serious amateur of the instrument.
2) The concerto exhibits some complex polyphony with all the simultaneous
lines provided by the (low) strings. Hence, providing meaningful voicing of the
melodic lines may prove challenging.
3) The melodies are all of a subtle nature; I may even call them plainer
(when comparing this concerto to the other Brandenburgs). The first theme in the first
movement is an ordinary descending sequence of no special effect. The highlight
of the subject in the second movement subject is an ascending interval and a
trill. The third movement also stresses on the rhythmic motive rather than
melody.
Therefore; the range of emotional expression is somewhat restrained and this may not appeal to the newbie listener and equally imposes difficulties on the performer. But upon careful listening, no one can deny that it has a certain appeal or seduction to it.
To conclude: Pulling off a fine performance of this concerto is tricky business, and an ultra-precise care in dynamics is required if you want to show off your interpretation. Before listening to the versions I have here for this survey, I expect no striking differences between the versions in interpretation. However, I can foresee that the slightest bit of change in timbre or dynamics may easily save (or ruin) a version.
Let us now start with our survey.
 |
|
Harnoncourt's first movement does not supply me with enough color to distinguish the lines. The sound is also coarse, and the ‘stringy' effect is unfortunately there. I am surprised that he took this more rough approach to this movement and he went dragging other concertos that needed more momentum as the second or the fifth! Anyway .. let us continue.
His second movement is better by far and shows more sensitivity. I wonder how he could have pulled a great first movement if he only abandoned the violent manner and softened the strings.
The third movement is rather regular and failed to leave a strong impression.
 |
|
Savall takes care of the melodic line more than Harnoncourt. The first movement is taken at a relaxed tempo (timing in 7 minutes) and I do like the sound of the period instruments here, which makes me think that this is the real timbre Bach heard when composing the piece. Dynamics are also very precise, exactly what this movement needs. Good balance between legato and staccato in the phrasing heightens the subtle melody and the result is beautiful.
The second movement is a very fine version too. The third movement is energetic and exhibits brilliant string playing and thankfully nice contributions from the harpsichord.
I actually like Savall for this particular concerto! I frequently had trouble with his timbre and how he equates the soloists with the ripieno. But owing to how this concerto is designed, Savall's approach and instruments are a perfect match.
 |
|
Karajan's recording suffers from excessive hall ambience which ruins any chance that I can judge his recording of this concerto. I have no slightest doubt that Karajan's approach does not fulfill the least sound from what Bach wanted us to hear, particularly in this concerto. This is a mushy cloud of strings playing in space. The second movement crawls with an overly excessive sentimental treatment; I wonder if he read the ‘ma non tanto' marking appended to the ‘Adagio' right at the top of the score. Notice also that the fugal subject' melodic content is plain.
The third movement is boring and devoid of color, especially in the ritornello. It has some very good solo moments are good but regrettably the timbre is unattractive. And where is the continuo harpsichord?! It is inaudible through the whole concerto!
 |
|
As I predicted, Marriner and the Academy of St. Martin give another fine version. You may notice that Marriner's recording exhibits some hall ambience (but not excessive by all means) and despite that his lines are always clear. He proves once more that he is a master of voicing.
He gives the second movement a fast and urgent, but by no means hasty, account. This gives a new concise compact flavor to the subject of this movement. This is pure Marriner and his style of "letting the music speak for itself" is evident.
The third movement is taken at a reasonable tempo and the string playing episodes between the ritornelli is beautiful. Although the interpretation given to this movement is regular, I cannot hide my admiration for the timbre in this version (or with the Marriner set in general).
 |
|
Pinnock's recording reveals a wealthy contribution from his harpsichord, which rings in the background of every movement. The first movement is energetic, same as Marriner's, and is a very good account with balanced and fine voicing and varying dynamics.
The second movement however, is the best version I have heard. Taking an approach opposite to Marriner's, Pinnock deliberately takes a slower tempo and with careful phrasing, he brings out the most heartfelt rendition of this movement. They also use the effect of very subtle ritartandi at the end of phrases to highlight structure; Excellent!!
To contrast with the thoughtful second movement, the third movement is highly energetic and reveals smart staccato phrasing and highly virtuosic string playing in between the ritornello sections. I do not know how I once thought of this movement boring!
 |
|
Let us now take a look at Lamon and the Tafelmusik, on period instruments. The tempo is reasonable. The first movement is taken at 6 minutes, a. On the other hand, I find problems with the voicing. There is some complex polyphony going on here and the fact that all is played by strings does not negate this truth; and I do not like Lamon's approach which makes all the strings sound as if playing in unison.
The second movement is not special when I compare it with other fine versions. The third movement too is somewhat lackluster and failed to find a way into my heart, very much the same way as Harnoncourt's; this is another ordinary contribution from Lamon and her accompanying ensemble.
 |
|
Karl Richter uses a larger ensemble, but his care for voicing is far better than Lamon's. His first movement shows a care for a single melodic line, probably by giving preference to a single instrument from the ensemble throughout the movement. He also highlights the movement's structure as a "ritornello-style composition" with accenting every reprise of the ensemble's ritornello; A refreshing approach!
A similar interesting approach is shown in the second movement. Every entry of the subject is given due care; you can even mark when the stretto comes in!! Beautiful string playing too!
Alas the third movement is less energetic and less successful than the first two. He seems to continue what he started in this concerto, which is showing off the melody as much as he can. But I always find the character of the ritornello theme mainly rhythmic, with some energetic string playing episodes in between, and its melody never caught my ear. This may explain how I find his approach to this movement remarkably stale.
To summarize:
This particular concerto, as I explained above, needs more effort from the performer to provide an exciting account. And here I would have to say that I prefer Pinnock's version, or Savall's version for an alternative; both of course on period instruments. I can notice how period instruments won my heart in this particular concerto: a concerto which requires a certain timbre to fully savor the music.
Marriner follows in their trails with a good account but with an uninteresting third movement. I can also say that Karl Richter's treatment of the first two movements was particularly refreshing.
I do not bother with the remaining versions.
Ahmed Bassiouny
