Probably based on pre-Leipzig material (including the Sonata for Violin and Harpsichord in G Major, BWV 1019a, which might have appeared as late as 1725), the parodic performance history of  Gott, man lobet dich in der Stille (BWV 120) is convoluted and confusing.  Sources are contradictory.  A definitive chronology, if one exists, would be most appreciated.  Unfortunately, I believe, too many unresolved questions prevent that from happening.

Three distinct and separate uses of three of the movements (1, 2, and 4) have resulted in separate designations of BWV 120a, BWV 120b, and BWV 120, with probable first performances in that order.  BWV 120a was a wedding cantata probably first performed in 1729; BWV 120b was performed in celebration of the 200th anniversary of the Augsberg Confession on June 26th 1730; BWV 120 followed a few months later, probably on the Monday following St. Bartholomew’s Day (August 24) as part of the annual installation ceremonies of the Leipzig municipal administration.  (Would that we lived in a world where governments merited, let alone understood or appreciated, such tributes!) 

                                                         Alte Rathaus, Leipzig

1742 is also cited in connection with BWV 120, but in all likelihood this was a repeat performance: a limited number of Ratswahl cantatas were used and recycled during Bach’s 28 years in Leipzig. (I suggest this despite a definitive statement in the Bach volume of the Oxford Composer Companions which states that this cantata was “performed no earlier than 27 August 1742.”  Of course, the same entry points out: “The complex parody relationships of this work remain incompletely understood.”  Dürr, too, points to the 1742 date: “The autograph score, however, dates from around 1742, and more recently this date has been considered an accurate reflection of the cantata’s status as the latest in this series of parody-related works.”)  A fourth significant appearance of the brilliant chorus occurs in variation as the “Et expecto” of the Mass in B Minor.  More extensive analysis of BWV 120’s parody development and performance history from Round One discussions can be found at http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV120-D.htm .  A clear and concise description of the organization of the Leipzig city government and the procedures surrounding its annual installation can be found in the liner notes to the Herreweghe recording, which were reproduced and supplied to the BCW by Johan van Veen at http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Performers/Herreweghe-C13.htm .  Relevant samples from the scores of BWV 120 and its kin can be accessed at http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Scores/BWV120-Sco.htm .  I would particularly like to thank Francis Browne, whose interlinear translations prove to be of such inestimable utility in following the texts of the cantatas.  It would appear that, from the June 2008 entry dates listed on the translations for BWV 120 and BWV 120a, he has provided them expressly for these Round Two discussions.  (See http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Texts/BWV120-Eng3.htm and http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Texts/BWV120a-Eng3.htm .)

 

 

Setting aside the labyrinthine chaos of the compositional chronology, the music itself is absolutely wonderful.  This, to me, is one of Bach’s most enchanting creations.

 

The quietude of the opening alto aria — “Gott, man lobet dich in der Stille” — is unusual for such a celebratory piece. Rhythmic patterns, mostly in the continuo and pulsating along beneath the melisma,  provide a gentle, but secure foundation to a melodic line varying in intensity between the magical hush of the phrase “in der Stille” and the florid melisma of the remainder of the alto line.  The “in der Stille” phrases provide oases amidst the turmoil of the churning melisma, and the contrast between those sections is amplified by the contrast between this movement and the following chorus, “Jauchzet, ihr erfreuten Stimmen”, a contrast heightened by the absence of an intervening recitative.

In that chorus, moreover, with the brilliance of its brass and its full-throated choral climaxes, we experience joy personified. The interweaving of two primary figures — arpeggios of the rejoice (jauchzet) motif and spiraling sixteenths climbing (steiget) to heaven — create a sense of excitement and exhilaration. In this da capo chorus, polyphonic outer sections framing a homophonic center treat those two primary figures to fugal development that screws up the excitement one notch at a time and results in thrilling and inspiring climaxes.  That Bach himself loved this movement can be seen in the simple fact that he incorporated it in at least four works — here in BWV 120, in BWV 120a, in BWV 120b, and in the Mass in B Minor.

The next three movements focus on the advantages to Leipzig, the “city of lindens”, of securing the blessings of both the Father and the Son.  The first is a bass recitative, “Auf! du geliebte Lindenstadt”, an exhortation to the citizens of Leipzig to open themselves through homage and prayer to the blessings of God’s fatherly love.  The third is a tenor recitative, “Nun, Herr, so weihe selbst”, petitioning for the Son’s protection.  Between those two recitatives lies a soprano aria, “Heil und Segen”, which Dürr describes as “an exceptionally lovely jewel among Bach’s arias.” That aria, based on the third movement of the Sonata for Violin and Harpsichord, BWV 1019a, exhibits a florid violin accompaniment that beautifully recalls and complements the singing of the alto in the cantata’s opening aria.

Bringing the cantata to a contemplative close is the chorale “Nun hilf uns, Herr, den Diernern dein”, the fourth stanza of Martin Luther’s 1529 Te Deum, yet another request for Christ’s assistance.  Bach had used this same stanza to close BWV 119, but, whereas in BWV 119 he utilized only four of the eight verses, here he cites it in its entirety.)

 

In reading through the discussions in Round One, I was struck by the amount of space devoted to comparisons of the available recordings of BWV 120. This cantata being one of my personal favorites, I would love to hear what people think today, seven years later.  In particular I would be VERY curious to know whether people retain their preferences.  I know mine change as I learn more about the music and become better acquainted with the performance styles of different Bach interpreters.  Karl Richter was my introduction, and for several years my benchmark, for many of these cantatas.  Despite the profound impression he made on me, I only rarely play his performances today.  Strong opinions were expressed about BWV 120 during the first round.  I wonder how many of them hold up today.

Highlights