Bach's Christmas Oratorio, as with the Inventions, does not have quite the
stature of its more illustrious companion works including the B minor Mass
and the St. Matthew Passion.  That's probably because it is a festive work
mainly in major keys.  Also, most of the arias are "parodies" - the music
already existed in Bach secular cantatas and was set to new text.  The
Christmas Oratorio has six parts, each one for a particular Christmas day.
The work was composed for the 1734-35 season when Bach was 50 years old.

Four versions are being compared:  Gardiner on Archiv(1987), Herreweghe on
Virgin(1989), Jacobs on Harmonia Mundi(1996), and Koopman on Erato(1997).
Gardiner was my introduction to the work, and I've considered his version
the most appealing although, until now, I have not directly compared it to
any alternatives.  Gardiner tends to use a theatrical approach to Bach's
choral works, and this can work very well with the festive Christmas
Oratorio.  Of course, Herreweghe, Jacobs, and Koopman are outstanding HIP
conductors, so the comparisons should be interesting and highly
competitive.  At this point, the main thing to keep in mind is that this
work is a celebratory one.

I do want to relate that I am not comparing any modern instrument
recordings because, due to my preferences, I would not be able to do them
justice.  Also, I unfortunately do not have the acclaimed Suzuki version on
BIS which has not received extensive U.S.  distribution, although I noted
that CD World seems to carry it.

Part 1 of the Christmas Oratorio contains much outstanding music.  The
opening Coro is a deliciously festive and power-driven piece lasting almost
eight minutes.  The brass are highlighted and very important to the music's
intensity.  Gardiner is perfect here; pacing is superb, excitement is high,
and the brass playing and projection is a joy to behold.  But the choral
work isn't as good as in the Jacobs version which isn't distinctive with
the brass.  Put the two versions together and you have the perfect
performance.  Lower in quality is Herreweghe whose brass are excessively
piercing although there is some fine choral work.  Koopman's has little to
offer.  The brass are underprojected, and there's nothing distinctive
concerning the chorus.  But Gardiner and Jacobs provide great readings.
This opening is every bit as good as the one in the St.  Matthew Passion,
although of an entirely different emotional level.  I've been listening
to the different versions of the piece at full blast for over 2 hours.
I think my wife feels like heading for the hills; I feel like leading
an armed invasion of Columbia to confiscate all the cocaine.  This music
has impact.

Next come two recitatives; the first is for the Evangelist (tenor) and
the second for alto voice with instrumental accompaniment.  The Evangelists
are Christoph Pregardien for Koopman, Anthony Rolfe Johnson for Gardiner,
Werner Gura for Jacobs, and Howard Crook for Herreweghe.  All are excellent
except for Gura whose voice is likeable but not memorable.  The alto
recitative is a gorgeous one with some lovely wind contribution; nobody
wrote the music to recitatives as well as Bach.  Two versions, Jacobs and
Gardiner, feature world-famous vocalists:  Andreas Scholl and Anne Sofie
von Otter.  Scholl does very well, but von Otter takes the prize.  In
addition, Gardiner's winds are delectable and clearly projected; Jacob's
are diffuse.  The other two versions also do not stand up well to Gardiner.
Koopman doesn't place sufficient emphasis on the winds and his vocalist,
Elisabeth von Magnus, can't compare to von Otter.  Herreweghe does well
with the winds, but his singer, Michael Chance, provides the least
effective performance of the four vocalists.

A very interesting alto aria follows the two recitatives.  This is
Germanic music to the core with an infectious swagger.  My opinion is
that Bach wanted an alto to add a husky weight to the music.  At the same
time, the alto voice needs to exude a frailty in keeping with the text.
Gardiner and Koopman use moderate tempos and have their pulse on the music.
But, von Otter, while husky enough, does not display sufficient frailty.
Elisabeth von Magnus for Koopman has the weight and frailty; that gives
Koopman's version the edge.  Herreweghe's interpretation tends to drag a
little, and Michael Chance has no weight at all.  Jacobs sounds a bit
rushed, and Scholl also has insufficient weight.  To get the full impact
of this aria, Koopman's version is needed.

One of the most famous and masterful choral pieces in the literature
follows the alto aria.  "Wie soll ich dich empfangen" is amazing music
and gives testimony to the immense human creative potential.  This piece
raises me up high and with three gentle steps drops me back to Earth with
a renewed spirit.  All four versions do the music full justice.  Jacobs
adopts a very slow tempo, but this fits in well with the music.  I can't
imagine any person not responding to this masterpiece.

A recitative from the Evangelist precedes a combined chorale for sopranos
and bass recitative.  As before, the only Evangelist not quite up to snuff
is Werner Gura for Jacobs; Pregardien for Koopman is proving to be superb
as his voice is highly expressive, vocally secure, and has plenty of
weight/impact.  The chorale/recitative features oboes, sopranos, and bass.
In an excellent performance, the oboes are prominent yet peaceful, the
sopranos are well projected and beautifully reverential, and the bass
is strong and appealing.  Gardiner provides all of that; it's a superb
performance and Olaf Bar is perfection.  Jacob's oboes and bass, Klaus
Hager, are good but not up to Gardiner's level.  Herreweghe and Koopman
were not enjoyable nor enlightening, and their decisions dubious.
Herreweghe makes two critical mistakes.  He only uses one soprano, and the
one he uses is Barbara Schlick; she can be an ordeal to listen to.  Koopman
also makes two mistakes, although the 2nd could come from a different
source.  Koopman's whole approach to the piece is too subdued, and the
sopranos are under-projected as well.  The second problem is that at least
two oboe notes are missing from the conclusion.  That's right.  First, they
take repeats away from us; now they're stealing the notes.  I don't know
where they went.

Technical problem? Interpretive decision? Whatever it is, I don't like it.
Herreweghe and Koopman really hit my negative buttons here.  No points for
them.

Part 1 of the Christmas Oratorio concludes with a bass aria followed by a
chorale.  The bass aria is, for me, a delightfully "macho" piece of music.
There's an infectious swagger to the music generated by trumpets and the
bass voice.  When I listen, I can see myself swaggering down the street
after spending the night with three lovely women (choose your own number
and gender for maximum imagery).  The guys on the sidewalk are looking at
me with envy and respect (I'm very shallow); the women outside feel that
they've missed out on a special event.  No wonder I feel good every time
I listen to this aria.

Now to the four versions of the bass aria.  I was really interested in
hearing how Olf Bar would do for Gardiner since he was so effective in
the bass recitative.  As it happens, Bar is great in the aria, and so
is Gardiner.  But, Klaus Mertens for Koopman is every bit as good, maybe
better, and Koopman is equal to Gardiner.  Herreweghe and Jacobs do a fine
job, but their soloists, Peter Kooy and Klaus Hager, respectively, can't
touch Bar or Mertens.  So, Gardiner and Koopman head the list.

The concluding chorale is about the best ending to a work I could hope for.
It's quite similar to the famous chorale earlier in Part 1 except for one
big difference.  The chorale shares center stage with a fanfare of trumpets
interspersed in the music.  And this is no ordinary Baroque fanfare; it's
a stroke of genius as to when they ring out, how fantastic they sound, and
how perfectly they mesh with the chorus.  Each of the versions is very good
without being superb.  Koopman's trumpets are sometimes underprojected, and
Herreweghe and Gardiner are a little too quick.  I have mixed feelings
about Jacobs.  He employs a slow tempo which suits the music very well, but
he greatly softens the chorus and trumpets in the second and third verses.
To me, that interpretive decision robs the chorale of some strength and
momentum.  But, I could well understand others considering the decision
an excellent one.  Overall, I rate the four versions as equal.

For Part 1, Gardiner easily is the best version.  The wind and brass are
very important to Part 1, and Gardiner is excellent here.  Gardiner also
has the advantage of von Otter, Johnson, and Bar.  And, the pacing that
Gardiner employs is great.  Jacobs and Koopman do well; Koopman's trio
of soloists (von Magnus, Pregardien, Mertens) are as good as Gardiner's.
Jacobs is let down some by his vocalists, and that does include Scholl to
a degree.  He doesn't sound as good as in the other recordings I have of
his.  Herreweghe is at the bottom; I expected better of Peter Kooy, and
Michael Chance is not competitive at all.

The next posting will cover Part 2.  It's important to note that of the
soprano soloists, only Barbara Schlick has had the opportunity to display
her talents.  Nancy Argenta for Gardiner, Dorothea Roschmann for Jacobs,
and Lisa Larsson for Koopman must wait for Part 3 to show how good they
are.  My perceptions before surveying are that Argenta might be a problem
and Roschmann could well be outstanding; I don't have much memory of
Larsson.  I'm very skeptical of Schlick.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]