Thoroughly beautiful - Karl Richter was an absolute maestro and his Bach recordings can not be beaten - his tempo was old school, right in there with Karl Böhm; every note, every word, exactly as Johann Sebastian Bach wanted it to the glory of God - JJ!
It seems to me this Karl Richter's rendition is the best of the best on all respects. Despite the ''old'' soundtake we can catch all and evry parts of the orchestra and singers and the wonderful musicality of Richter's interpretation. I particularly Love the opening Symphony, with its grave and painful melody as rendered here. What a great recording! 👍👍👍
yeah, often I think Richter understood many things better than the modern ensembles. In particular, 1-voice-per-part seems very artificial to me and lacks the glory that this sort of choir can produce. I love that every voice is properly audible, that must be provided otherwise I don't understand the point of recording Bach.
I love this cantata and great performances from Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau [my favourite, especially in Bach vocal works, as well as lieder such as Schubert, etc.] and of course Karl Richter [ my favourite interpreter of Bach`s music and a great organist and harpsichordist] conducting the Munich Bach Orchestra and Choir. A Great Recording.
zelenkaguru, It would be wrong to call HIP performances «crap.» HIP donductors and musicians are just making attempts to get closer to the original style, it’s called restoring, and there’s nothing wrong with doing that. When several centuries-old buildings are to be restored, style elements from the 1900s are not used. For me, the music experience becomes stronger when I know that the music sounds closer to the original. I compose music in the old style, and appreciate the so-called period instruments(strings). It costs more to rent them, but it is worth it because of the beautiful sound. They have a more colorful sound than the dry modern instruments. It is illogical to call restoration «crap.» abut this line from a listener betrays understanding: «I know that Richter’s performances do not reproduce the original baroque style, but I still prefer Richter’s versions.» Such intelligent lines get no comments from me, for I have no rights to criticize the tastes of others. But you have no right to call restoration work «crap» just because you don’t like the result.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 of course, you have all the "rights", as you know the " original baroque style", according to your zeitgeist of the last 40 years...
Zeitgeistig war Karl Richter, bei dem jeder Bach, Händel und Mozart gleich klang. Jeder Ton gleich laut, egal, ob auf schwerer oder leichter Taktzeit. Und immer gerade im Chor mit unglaublicher stimmlicher Aggressivität gesungen. Man höre nur das gebellte Halleluja am Ende des ersten Verses.
@@helensilver1381 I'm sorry, but I think Richter ever tried to look inside Bach's music, and returned an unlikely image of a genius like the composer from Eisenach. In the middle of the 20th century. Richter insisted on playing Bach's music as he still did in the days of Mendelsohn.
He was certainly well educated on the musical practice of the 18th century, he just choose the most musical performance, to hell with the old - in with the new as far as I am concerned.
Richter was an organist first, and knew the gravitas of the 16' plenum at St. Jacobi, Hamburg or Martinikerk, Groningen (both by Arp Schnitger before the eighteenth century had begun) It is a mistake to assume that all Baroque works are as light and gutless as the Galant. Though I might quibble with certain interpretative details, I believe the character of this recording is much more in accord with historical practice than the lightweight, inoffensive readings today.
@@jeremytingle6404 You only have to read a few 18th century performance treatises to realise how wrong your statement is. Music, especially the one written by a genius like J. S. Bach, is not a pret-a-porter to be exhibited to a superficial audience, but a model to be preserved and studied according to the criteria of its time.
Thoroughly beautiful - Karl Richter was an absolute maestro and his Bach recordings can not be beaten - his tempo was old school, right in there with Karl Böhm; every note, every word, exactly as Johann Sebastian Bach wanted it to the glory of God - JJ!
Karl Richter...you are not forgotten.
Never! My first choice for Bach recordings.
It seems to me this Karl Richter's rendition is the best of the best on all respects. Despite the ''old'' soundtake we can catch all and evry parts of the orchestra and singers and the wonderful musicality of Richter's interpretation.
I particularly Love the opening Symphony, with its grave and painful melody as rendered here.
What a great recording! 👍👍👍
yeah, often I think Richter understood many things better than the modern ensembles. In particular, 1-voice-per-part seems very artificial to me and lacks the glory that this sort of choir can produce. I love that every voice is properly audible, that must be provided otherwise I don't understand the point of recording Bach.
Magnifique Musique et magnifique interprétation. Comme on aimerait entendre davantage cette façon de jouer et chanter Bach.
Bach was only about 20-22 years old when he composed this masterpiece!
I love this cantata and great performances from Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau [my favourite, especially in Bach vocal works, as well as lieder such as Schubert, etc.] and of course Karl Richter [ my favourite interpreter of Bach`s music and a great organist and harpsichordist] conducting the Munich Bach Orchestra and Choir. A Great Recording.
GRACIAS INFINITAS ES BELLISIMA!!!
Simplesmente incrível! Isso sim é música Sacra.
Thanks again.
A revelation of composition.
Thanks.
HOW??? How did he do all that??
With the grace of God.
6:01 my favorite
My tresaure
2 Versus 1 1:37
5 Versus 4 11:57
8 Versus 7 20:48
Aiuta a pregare !
Is the Sinfonia Bach or Barber?
Bach played like Tchaikovsky ahaha
And it is so good - so much better than the dry HIP(py) crap nowadays
Wasted effort friend, this is a channel of troglodytes burying their heads in the sand.
zelenkaguru, It would be wrong to call HIP performances «crap.» HIP donductors and musicians are just making attempts to get closer to the original style, it’s called restoring, and there’s nothing wrong with doing that. When several centuries-old buildings are to be restored, style elements from the 1900s are not used. For me, the music experience becomes stronger when I know that the music sounds closer to the original. I compose music in the old style, and appreciate the so-called period instruments(strings). It costs more to rent them, but it is worth it because of the beautiful sound. They have a more colorful sound than the dry modern instruments. It is illogical to call restoration «crap.» abut this line from a listener betrays understanding: «I know that Richter’s performances do not reproduce the original baroque style, but I still prefer Richter’s versions.» Such intelligent lines get no comments from me, for I have no rights to criticize the tastes of others. But you have no right to call restoration work «crap» just because you don’t like the result.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 of course, you have all the "rights", as you know the " original baroque style", according to your zeitgeist of the last 40 years...
Zeitgeistig war Karl Richter, bei dem jeder Bach, Händel und Mozart gleich klang. Jeder Ton gleich laut, egal, ob auf schwerer oder leichter Taktzeit. Und immer gerade im Chor mit unglaublicher stimmlicher Aggressivität gesungen. Man höre nur das gebellte Halleluja am Ende des ersten Verses.
How much rhetoric and gravity! Poor Richter, he had no idea what 18th century musical practice was.
In all humility, Richter stood before his mentor, Bach. He listened, like Bach, with a true heart. May they both rest in peace
@@helensilver1381 I'm sorry, but I think Richter ever tried to look inside Bach's music, and returned an unlikely image of a genius like the composer from Eisenach. In the middle of the 20th century. Richter insisted on playing Bach's music as he still did in the days of Mendelsohn.
He was certainly well educated on the musical practice of the 18th century, he just choose the most musical performance, to hell with the old - in with the new as far as I am concerned.
Richter was an organist first, and knew the gravitas of the 16' plenum at St. Jacobi, Hamburg or Martinikerk, Groningen (both by Arp Schnitger before the eighteenth century had begun) It is a mistake to assume that all Baroque works are as light and gutless as the Galant. Though I might quibble with certain interpretative details, I believe the character of this recording is much more in accord with historical practice than the lightweight, inoffensive readings today.
@@jeremytingle6404 You only have to read a few 18th century performance treatises to realise how wrong your statement is. Music, especially the one written by a genius like J. S. Bach, is not a pret-a-porter to be exhibited to a superficial audience, but a model to be preserved and studied according to the criteria of its time.