Bach's Third Brandenburg Concerto - A Recording Survey
A Stainer Violin (1668):
Bach is said to have owned and
played on Stainer violins. Stainer was
one of the most famous violin-makers
in his time.
Let us now arrive at the third Brandenburg concerto BWV 1048. This concerto is thought to be the earliest concerto. The concerto is written for 9 strings with a continuo, a feature that contrasts with the "exotic cocktail" instrumentations of its siblings. To be precise, there are three in each "group": three violins, three violas and three cellos -all supported by violone and harpsichord, obviously taking the continuo function.
Without doubt, this instrumentation plays a role in indicating that this concerto is an early one. Some musicologists regard this concerto an early Germanic tradition of ensemble writing, way before Bach got influenced by Vivaldi's Italian ritornelli. However, appearances are deceptive; the concerto may appear to be a basic monochromatic texture; but the three instrumental groups exchange and combine motifs; even single instruments may detach occasionally in short solo-like episodes. Hence the concerto at face value may look basically homogenous, but there is some complex writing underneath that also suggests that it can not have originated from Bach's earlier days.
A fair conclusion we can reach then is: that to give a good performance of this concerto, one has to avoid giving a monochromatic performance. This can be attained by attaining enough dynamic shadings and instrumental color in order to differentiate the three instrumental "groups" (the violins, violas and cellos). Another approach is to concentrate on putting the melodic line on display with the help of careful phrasing and tempi selection.
Let us take a look at the first movement; the one permeated with the repeated rhythmic toh'-ti-toh' motive. Generally, you can give the first movement one of two approaches; the first approach is to deliver a sharp reading with urgent tempo and plenty of staccato. Lamon gives the first movement her usual sharp precise treatment, very well done. Savall's phrasing is brilliant as always but the account seems hurried and nervous. Pinnock gives us a very good reading too for this movement, with even more shadings and color than Lamon, and less tension than Savall as he uses a more relaxed tempo.
 |
|
The other approach is to give the movement a more relaxed tempo with a more connected and smoother phrasing, allowing the strings to breathe and the violinists to use their bows a little more. Karajan demonstrates this approach perfectly; I like his version. Harnoncourt shows a very good deal of legato phrasing, and is also slower than most. I cannot fault his version.
 |
|
The two problematic recordings in this movement were Marriner and Richter. Marriner's performance is stale and boring; apparently he fell in the "monochromatic" trap. On the other hand, Richter's is muscular and forced, not mentioning his larger ensemble. One has to acknowledge Richter though that he cut down the size of the ensemble to a great extent from his contemporaries back in his day, however -quoting a comment I read on the net- he can be regarded as a dinosaur when comparing him to the authentic ensembles of nowadays.
In the first movement, I find myself leaning towards a relaxed tempo. I consider this movement very atmospheric; it just transfers you to a ball thrown in the Prince's castle. Therefore, I cannot see the point in giving an urgent approach. Savall's version is hurried and nervous, that is why I can't identify with his version. The best in this movement will be Pinnock, who gives a relaxed tempo but with splendid shaded dynamics and more color in the instruments. In his recording, you can distinguish between the three "groups". Karajan and Harnoncourt are equally effective because they give a relaxed and more legato approach which suits my imaginary "ball room" atmosphere perfectly.
 |
|
Let us now jump to the second movement. But wait... what second movement? Do you mean these two chords? Sure. The second movement is expected but non-existant! These two chords are probably one of the most problematic chords in Bach's music and were the subject of much disagreement among scholars. Some say they should be executed as is, but if that holds any logic, then why did Bach mark them "Adagio"?! Others believe it is just a placeholder for an improvisation that should be concluding on this very Phrygian cadence just before the launch of the third movement. But if it is an improvisation, the question that remains is: which instrument? The implication that Bach was supposedly to intrude by a keyboard improvisation cannot be proved until this day. Let us cast the guessing aside and return to the reviewed recordings and how do they approach this "movement".
 |
|
Alas, most versions come benign and inconsequential when one was waiting for virtuosic or even some melodic inventiveness. The most conservative and humble approach was taken by Karajan; he played the chords as is... with only a background flourish from the keyboard!
Two rather short and inconsequential violin improvisations can be found on the Harnoncourt and the Lamon accounts. The only improvisation on the violin which I found tasteful, albeit short, was the one in Pinnock's recording. In the Savall and the Richter accounts you can hear harpsichord improvisations. The noted Bach scholar Malcolm Boyd thinks that choosing the harpsichord as an instrument for the improvisation raises it to a status that Bach had not assigned in the rest of the work. However, I find keyboard improvisations very effective; to contrast with the "dominantly-stringy" outer movements of the concerto.
Marriner is unique in that he executes the Adagio alternate movement from the Sonata for violin and harpsichord BWV1019a. I see this as a welcome addition to his set, irregardless of the authenticity of this effort.
 |
|
Another interesting, and a more elaborate, effort ironically comes from a midi file I found floating online. To this day, I have not known who the sequencer is. Besides, I am not positive if he is the composer of this elaborate improvisation or if he copied it from a performance he heard. I tend to believe that he, the sequencer, is the composer; but until now, the composer of this simple organization remains unknown; and I welcome any tips from the readers.
 |
|
In order to give a fine version of the third movement; you have to deliver pure energy. It is in fact interesting, that how Bach asks virtuosity here not for a soloist or two, but from the whole ensemble. The writing can be equally set to a virtuoso keyboardist but here it is the string ensemble. It will be an amusement to listen to (or watch) this movement in a keyboard transcription (the most famous perhaps is the Bach-Reger for 4 hands) but I have never attempted to seek it.
Most versions give nice accounts of this movement. Marriner, however, is the exception here; I find his effort boring and fruitless; apparently he fell into that same trap again.
As a summary:
You can trust many versions when it comes to the third concerto. Marked only for a string ensemble with a continuo, this concerto does not require very much thought or nitpicks, from both listener and performer.
 |
|
Karajan's version has beautiful sound and his recording provides a more ethereal atmosphere. Harnoncourt is similar in concept but on period instruments. Versions with sharper phrasings come from Lamon, Savall and Pinnock; with Pinnock boasting fine shading of dynamics, Lamon is dead-ending serious; and Savall comes as a compromise but he is too tense. Two recordings I don't like are Marriner's, who is too plain, and Richter's who presents an overly muscular account. If I have to go with only two, I will probably go with Pinnock and Karajan... very wide apart renditions!
Ahmed Bassiouny
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| BRNDBG3B.MID | 123.4 KB |
