J. S. Bach: Suite No.3 for Cello Solo in C major, BWV 1009

Media Review / Comparison

---

2024-09-15 — Original posting

---

---

Introduction — The Recordings

This posting is about the Suite No.3 for Cello Solo in C major, BWV 1009, which Johann Sebastian Bach (1685 – 1750) wrote as part of a set of six Suites (see the title page above). I am comparing the following recordings in my collection:

Recording	FirstName	LastName	Born	Death	Wiki	Web	Pitch Hz	Review	Summary
2019	Emmanuelle	Bertrand	1973		Wiki		a' = 415	Review	Artist, Media
2020	Boulanger	Lucile	1986		Wiki	Web	a' = 415	Review	Artist, Media
1979	Anner	Bylsma	1934	2019	Wiki		a' = 415	Review	Artist, Media
1992	Anner	Bylsma	1934	2019	Wiki		a' = 432/415	Review	Artist, Media
1936-39	Pablo	Casals	1876	1973	Wiki		a' = 440	Review	Artist, Media
2014	Thomas	Demenga	1954		Wiki	Web	a' = 392	Review	Artist, Media
2016	Marianne	Dumas	1978			Web	a' = 415	Review	Artist, Media
2013	Isang	Enders	1988		Wiki	Web	a' = 440	Review	Artist, Media
1961	Pierre	Fournier	1906	1986	Wiki		a' = 440	Review	Artist, Media
2010	Ophélie	Gaillard	1974		Wiki	Web	a' = 415	Review	Artist, Media
2005	Steven	Isserlis	1958		Wiki	Web	a' = 440	Review	Artist, Media
2017	Kim	Kashkashian	1952		Wiki	Web	a' = 440	Review	Artist, Media
2020	Benedict	Kloeckner	1989		Wiki	Web	a' = 440	Review	Artist, Media
1996	Jaap, ter	Linden	1947		Wiki	Web	a' = 415	Review	Artist, Media
2018	Sergey	Malov	1983		Wiki	Web	a' = 440	Review	Artist, Media
2021	Pablo, de	Naverán	1975			Web	a' = 440	Review	Artist, Media
2000	Paolo	Pandolfo	1964		Wiki	Web	a' = 415	Review	Artist, Media
1998	Vito	Paternoster	1957		Wiki	Web	a' = 440	Review	Artist, Media
2021	Bruno	Philippe	1993			Web	a' = 440	Review	Artist, Media
2007	Jean-Guihen	Queyras	1967		Wiki	Web	a' = 440	Review	Artist, Media
2020	Myriam	Rignol	1988		Wiki	Web	a' = 400	Review	Artist, Media
1991	Mstislav	Rostropovich	1927	2007	Wiki		a' = 440	Review	Artist, Media
2020	Petr	Skalka	1974			Web	a' = 415	Review	Artist, Media
2019	Juris	Teichmanis	1966			Web	a' = 400	Review	Artist, Media
2013	David	Watkin	1965			Web	a' = 415	Review	Artist, Media
1998	Pieter	Wispelwey	1962		Wiki	Web	a' = 415	Review	Artist, Media
2012	Pieter	Wispelwey	1962		Wiki	Web	a' = 392	Review	Artist, Media

Explanations on the Table

• You can sort the table by any specific column (in ascending or descending order) by selecting the respective title field.
• The first field is the year when the respective recording was completed (not necessarily identical to the ℗ or © years).
• The birth year is not known for all artists.
• The fields “Wiki” and “Web” are links to the respective artist’s Wikipedia entry and/or personal Website.
• The highlighted column “Review” contains links to the respective entry in the comparison section (The Interpretations, Detail) below.
• The green column “Summary” contains links to the respective entry in the comparison summary, featuring detailed Media information, as well as notes on artist, instrument, recording, etc.

---

Media Information

Details about the media (CDs) are available as part of the Comparison Summary on Bach’s Suites for Cello Solo. That information includes cover image, title, artists, technical media information (label, label-number, booklet info, barcode, amazon link, where available, plus additional information, as deemed relevant). That summary also features an overall comparison table.

---

About the Suite No.3 for Cello Solo in C major, BWV 1009

I don’t need to give a detailed introduction to Bach’s six Suites for Cello Solo, as they are all well-known. However, you do find some additional information on the Suite No.3 for Cello Solo in C major, BWV 1009 in reviews featuring the entire Suite No.3:

• 2016-05-25, artist: Jonas Iten (*1972) — Suite No.3 in C major, BWV 1009; Suite No.4 in E♭ major, BWV 1010
• 2020-01-21, artist: Lev Sivkov (*1990) — Suite No.3 in C major, BWV 1009; Suite No.2 in D minor, BWV 1008 (Prélude, as encore); Suite No.4 in E♭ major, BWV 1010 (Prélude, as encore)
• 2020-06-28, artist: Chiara Enderle Samatanga (*1992) — Suite No.3 in C major, BWV 1009; Suite No.6 in D major, BWV 1012; Suite No.1 in G major, BWV 1007 (Prélude, as encore)
• 2021-04-25, artist: Anastasia Kobekina (*1994, see also Wikipedia) — The complete 6 Suites for Cello Solo, BWV 1007 – 1012

Clearly, the Suite in C major, BWV 1009 is the most popular among the six Suites for Cello Solo. Artists frequently select a movement from that Suite as encore. Here’s what I encountered so far:

• 2015-06-29, artist: Natalia Gutman — Bourrées I + II
• 2017-11-12, artist: Jan Vogler (*1964) — Sarabande
• 2017-12-18, artist: Pablo Ferrández (*1988) — Sarabande
• 2019-09-26, artist: Gavriel Lipkind (*1977) — Bourrées I + II

---

The Movements

Bach completed his Six Suites for Violoncello Solo senza Basso, BWV 1007 – 1012 around 1717 – 1723 in Köthen (Anhalt), presumably for himself, for the purpose of learning to play the instrument. From the first Suite up to No.6, the technical demands of these compositions grow. For cellists all over the world, this is considered the “Bible” of their repertoire.

Bach’s original manuscript appears to be lost. However, there is a beautiful manuscript, now identified as being a copy that Bach’s second wife Anna Magdalena Bach (1701 – 1760) created around 1727 – 1731. The facsimile of Anna Magdalena’s copy can now be downloaded from IMSLP.

In lieu of detailed explanations on the individual movements, I’m just including short excerpts from that document, showing the first 2 – 3 lines of each movement. I’m adding scarce comments, based on my listening impressions—a “response” to what the artists in this comparison appear to present.

I. Prélude

To me, this is a prime example of “free preluding”, i.e., a free-form, “quasi improvisando” introduction to the more structured movements that follow. Bach did not include a tempo indication. Some might call this “tempo ordinario“. So it’s not surprising that the recordings offer a wide range of views, from “celebrated slowness” to virtuosic “stylus fantasticus” at the extremes. The tempo distribution is not continuous. There are few extremes: the 2 slowest performances (Pablo de Naverán 2021, Paolo Pandolfo 2000) and the fastest (Vito Paternoster 1998). Apart from the extremes, there is a clear divide between the 12 performances below the average tempo and the 11 above. Among the latter, there are again three (Pieter Wispelwey 2012, Bruno Philippe 2021, Anner Bylsma 1992) with almost identical, but noticeably faster tempos. Variety is good, of course—but what was the composer’s intention? We may never know.

II. Allemande

A common understanding of the character of an Allemande as a measured/slow baroque dance has survived to this day. Not surprisingly, the tempo range is much narrower and the spread more even and continuous than in the Prélude. With the exception of two “tr.” annotations, Bach has written out all the ornamentation in plain text. It is fair to assume that this movement does not call for much, if any, additional ornamentation by the artist.

III. Courante

The baroque Courante existed in a French and an Italian variant. The French version was a slow dance, typically in 3/2 time, while the Italian Courante was a fast dance. Bach (or at least Anna Magdalena Bach in her copy, as well as all later derivatives) used the French title, rather than Corrente (for the Italian version). Nevertheless, in this Suite, the third movement is undoubtedly a fast(er) movement, i.e., the Italian Courante type.

IV. Sarabande

The Sarabande originated in Spain, where it was a fast dance (zarabanda) in triple time, with Arabic influences. In the 17th century it was adopted in Italy and later in France, where it became a slow court dance. It is the latter variant that Bach adopted in his suites. Whether the Sarabande needs or benefits from additional ornamentation may be an open question. One could argue that besides the one trill in bar 12, Bach’s writing already contains enough written-out ornamentation.

V. Bourrée I

The Bourrée (Bach sometimes also used the Italian name Borea) is a French baroque dance, quicker than the Gavotte. The first Bourrée is in C major.

VI. Bourrée II

Although the notation shows two flats (♭), the second Bourrée is in C minor. This is a notation feature that Bach retained from pre-baroque tradition. Note that the durations (in seconds) of the two Bourrées are not strictly comparable: both are in split time (alla breve), but the first Bourrée has 28 bars, the second only 24. In other words: if Bourrée I lasts 100 seconds, at the same tempo (metronome reading), the second Bourrée would only last 86 seconds.

VII. Gigue

The Gigue is a lively baroque dance, usually in 3/8 time, that originated in England, where it was called a jig. Among the movements in this Suite, it is the one with the narrowest tempo spread, narrower even than the Allemande. The character of a fast/virtuosic Gigue as a final movement seems to be universal, and the technical demands impose a certain tempo limit.

Alternative Reading

In Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy, bar 19 (the last bar shown above) consists of 6 semiquavers (f♯-a-g-f♯-e-d), with the last note matching the d (crotchet + quaver) in bar 20.

Some printed editions, however, follow the alternative reading and have changed this to a quaver (f♯) + 4 semiquavers (a-g-f♯-e, slurred in pairs). This avoids the duplication of the d in the following bar. This is found in a manuscript copy by Johann Peter Kellner (1705 – 1772) and in two anonymous manuscript copies from the second half of the 18th century. This version is also shown in volume 27 of the “Bach Gesellschaft” edition of Bach’s complete works (Dörffel, 1879/1926, pp. 59–94).

The vast majority of performers in this comparison follow Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. Few of the artists (recent ones, interestingly enough) follow the alternative reading: Marianne Dumas, Myriam Rignol (viola da gamba), Bruno Philippe, and Pablo de Naverán. The two historical interpretations by Pablo Casals (1939) and Anner Bylsma (1979) follow Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy, but extend the first semiquaver to almost a quaver.

Manuscript Source

Anna Magdalena Bach’s digitized manuscript copy is available from the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz. This document is in the public domain and shared under a Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0) International License. It is free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.

---

The Interpretations, Overview

To provide a rating overview, as well as an idea about duration relations between the recordings, I have prepared the table below. Note that the color coding for the duration (blue = longer/slower, red = shorter/faster) refers to the average between the recordings.

I have not corrected the timings for trailing or leading blank time, with the one exception of the first and last movements, where such blank time is subtracted. One should read the timings in the above table with a grain of salt.

Repeats

Not all artists perform all repeats. In the cases where repeats were omitted, the track durations were corrected in the table, by adding the time for the missing repeats to the track duration. In that sense, the durations in the table are to be read as “if the artist had performed all repeats“. For the actual track and overall durations please see the section below. These may differ from the numbers in liner notes: I’m ripping the recording into Apple Music and use the times in the player software, which may use different rounding algorithms.

---

A Note on Ratings

First and foremost: all my ratings reflect my own opinion, hence are inherently subjective. I use a 1 – 5-star rating scheme—simply because that’s what my player software (Apple Music) offers. I use the same scheme for concert reviews. You will note that for these, there are rarely reviews below a 3.0 (★★★) rating. That’s largely because I try to avoid concerts where I anticipate a marginal performance. And I stick to an “absolute” scale, where results below 3.0 are negative.

Ratings in Media Comparisons

In media comparisons, especially reviews involving many recordings, I tend to use a relative scale covering the full range of (close to) ★ … ★★★★★, in order to achieve more differentiation among the many ratings. My rating criteria are similar to the ones in concert, such as

• does the performance reflect the notation, i.e., the composer’s (perceived) intent?
• does it present the character of the piece (e.g., in the dance movements in baroque suites)?

Personal Views

My ratings also reflect how much a recording offers to me, particularly as a listener with interest in historically informed (HIP) performances. With this, I tend to give preference to HIP recordings. I do not mean to devalue the achievements of historic recordings by the great artists of the last century. However, time has moved on, and it is my belief that the in-depth encounter with HIP performances makes it hard(er) to enjoy some of the traditional recordings, especially romantic ones with heavy vibrato, etc. Again: this is my personal view, and I don’t mean to spoil the pleasure that the fans of past great cellists (or of polished, “modern” interpretations) draw from their recordings.

Audiophile?

I should also mention that audiophile arguments play a secondary role in my ratings. My primary focus is on the interpretation, not perfection in recording technique. The latter comes into play mainly where it affects the audibility, clarity, and transparency, e.g., through excess reverberation. And for newer recordings, blatantly dull, “muffled” sound should also have an effect on the rating.

---

The Interpretations, Detail

The review comments below are sorted by recording year, from the oldest (1936 – 1939) to the most recent one (2021). Note: for the artist’s life data, Website and/or Wikipedia entries please see the first table above. Also: in the artist segments below, the pitch is mentioned only where it deviates from a’ = 440 Hz.

Procedure, Technical Aspects

I listen to all recordings in full, typically even more than once. Note that the sequence of recordings below is not the sequence in which I listen to them. I have written about my comparison approach in an early blog post. In essence:

• I go through the collection movement by movement, i.e., I start with listening to the first movement with all recordings before progressing to the next movement.
• I try to choose a sequence that does not put subsequent recordings at a disadvantage. Typically, I start with slow performances, progressing to faster ones. At the same time, I try using a suitable sequence of historical vs. “conventional” vs. HIP interpretations.
• Especially in large comparisons, such as this one, the sequence will typically vary from movement to movement.
• In the sequence in which I listen to the tracks, I typically “just” move forward. If I relate to other interpretations, I refer to recordings I listened to previously, irrespective of the time of the recording. In other words: for older recordings I may use comparisons to interpretations of artists who may not even have been alive at the time of the early version. That may occasionally sound strange. However, in the interest of efficiency, I can’t risk “jumping around” to amend comments that I have already written.
• Naturally, my comments will mostly refer to the recordings immediately preceding the one I’m writing about—in the listening sequence for that given movement (it is impossible to memorize all performances in detail). However, I try my very best to make the ratings absolute, not relative.

Duplications…

It’s been a while since my last review in this series. I try not to delay these reviews too much. However, the delay has the advantage that I can approach this review without bias from the preceding ones. I apologize for duplication with earlier reviews. One benefit of the text duplications is that they help making each review readable by itself, without an excess of cross-links to other postings.

---

Pablo Casals, 1936

EMI Classics, ℗ 1988/2003 / © 2003
Artist: Pablo Casals (1876 – 1973)
Instrument: Mattio Goffriller (1659 – 1742), Venice, 1700
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’28”)

Here is Casals as we know him: dense but elastic tone, resolute, broad and percussive tenuto articulation—percussive even in slurred notes, where the fingers of the left hand can often be heard pounding on the fingerboard. Casals’ musical “language” is one of swaying agogics and lively, detailed dynamics, rather than of light articulation and shaping of individual notes within motifs, as in typical HIP interpretations. It is a pleasure to listen to, preferable to many, many newer recordings, and with more character as well. And a very valuable historical document.

II. Allemande (3’45”)

An interpretation so full of energy, elastic, with verve in every note, the détaché notes as energetic, percussive tenuto. Incessant in its flow, yet naturally breathing. Slurred motifs show exemplary clarity, thanks to Casals’ percussive left hand. I could not say that it dances or offers a regular dance sway—yet Casals’ presence and vitality are fabulous. Some aspects of the interpretation may be dated—but even though the recording is almost 90 years old, I find this interpretation infinitely better than, say, Pierre Fournier’s.

III. Courante (3’14”)

The timing of Pablo Casals’ Courante is exactly on the average of all recordings in this comparison. That’s a coincidence, given the presence of three slower viola da gamba interpretations and three extreme outliers. However, it is very likely that Casals’ interpretation served as a model for many more recent interpretations. Contrary to some recent (especially “historically informed”) interpretations, Casals’ staccato is not harsh or austere, but rather gentle, approaching the effect of a “flying staccato“. Often (e.g., in bars 29 – 40), Casals switches to a “percussive détaché“.

Pablo Casals didn’t always follow the slurs exactly. But he made the music and the articulation sound natural. The concepts of Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) and the use of agogics to make the music “speak” within bar lines had not been rediscovered yet at the time of this recording. Casals’ primary tools were those of (subtle) dynamics, articulation and phrasing. Compared to more recent HIP recordings, Casals’ interpretation seems somewhat breathless.

IV. Sarabande (3’30”)

It’s interesting to note that Pablo Casals plays the Sarabande at the same fluid tempo as Kim Kashkashian (on viola) and Thomas Demenga. The artist probably uses the strongest and most persistent vibrato in this comparison. But somehow this feels acceptable: it fits the intensity, the verve of this interpretation: a very characterful performance with a clear and strong vision. And a historic monument, of course. Even if, in Casals’ view, there is no sustained dance swaying.

In the descant, the second period of bar 7 in the score reads b♭-a-c'(-e♭’). Like Pierre Fournier, Pablo Casals plays b♭-a-b♭(-e♭’). An error in an early printed edition?

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’23”)

Bourrée I

Some aspects of Pablo Casals’ interpretation seem almost modern: his highly engaged, emphatic playing, the clarity of his articulation, the consistency, the clear vision. There is nothing mechanical about his playing, and the recording does not need to stand back behind most of the recent interpretations. Sure, the amount of agogics is limited, and there is occasionally a certain relentlessness. Nevertheless, this is a classic interpretation, thrilling, a milestone!

Bourrée II

Slightly slower, lyrical, more legato, but not without sections of light staccato articulation. From today’s perspective, more phrasing and shorter phrases would be preferable. But it is still very impressive.

VII. Gigue (3’04”)

Undeniably Casals, with his unrelenting energy, his verve, his percussive articulation. Despite an above-average tempo, the artist maintained clarity in every motif, a relentless mental presence: nothing in this interpretation is casual…

Total Duration: 20’26”

Rating: 5 / 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 4 / 4 = 4.36

Comment: Another milestone in recording history, burned into my memory ever since I first listened to it some 50 years ago.

---

Pierre Fournier, 1961

Archiv Produktion / Polydor International, ℗ 1961
Artist: Pierre Fournier (1906 – 1986)
Instrument: Charles Adolphe Maucotel (c.1820 – c.1858), Paris, 1849
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’43”)

Fournier’s timing is identical to Petr Skalka’s. However, their interpretations are, of course, very different. Fournier uses broad détaché for the initial, descending C major scale. After that, though, the movement is dominated by broad tenuto bowing—a relentless, often restless, never-ending stream of semiquavers. There is some dynamic differentiation, traces of agogics for the large phrases, and Fournier observes the slurs in the score. In the arpeggiando section (bars 45 – 60), the artist gradually moves to blurring the arpeggio figures by playing double-stops, combining the G with the following note, then combining notes 2 and 4 into one, while touching note 3. The relentless stream ends with a ritardando toward the chord in bar 77, the beginning of what Fournier intended to be a grand, festive conclusion with big gestures.

This is hardly a model for today’s young cellists.

II. Allemande (3’59”)

There is some elasticity in dynamics and articulation. Rhythmically, however, Fournier’s interpretation is rigid, static, often heavy, almost stomping (despite a tempo that is right on the average in this comparison). A dance? Hardly. Well played, bold, very affirmative and self-confident, sure—but clearly an interpretation of a generation long gone.

III. Courante (3’11”)

Pierre Fournier’s timing is almost identical to that of Pablo Casals. Fournier uses less staccato articulation and focuses more on tone and sonority. There are no agogics. Rather, Fournier moves relentlessly and mechanically through the movement, structuring phrases mainly with exaggerated dynamics, and leaving the listener no time to breathe.

IV. Sarabande (5’00”)

Pierre Fournier’s Sarabande is almost as slow as Mstislav Rostropovich’s, and also rather static. In moments of intensity, Fournier’s tone is as dense and filled with vibrato, the articulation as quasi-legato as Rostropovich’s. However, Fournier uses dynamics to build phrases, his playing is breathing and has a narrative quality. However, despite the dynamic variation, my main objection here is that all the notes, from crotchets down to semiquavers, seem to have the same weight, the same significance, and there are no agogics. As a result, there is also no notion of dance swaying, hardly any notion of musical flow. In the descant, the second period of bar 7 in the score reads b♭-a-c'(-e♭’). Like Pablo Casals, Pierre Fournier plays b♭-a-b♭(-e♭’). An error in an early printed edition?

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’55”)

Bourrée I

Clearly articulated, but somewhat sturdy, rigid, no agogics, little dynamic differentiation (the first repeat and the middle part of the second repeat are played p). Fournier largely ignores the slurs in the notation. At least the interpretation shows contours and emphasis.

Bourrée II

Restrained dynamics, again no agogics, the articulation largely (quasi) legato (lacking differentiation), no dance swaying.

VII. Gigue (3’16”)

Vehement, vibrant and energetic bow strokes with utmost determination and impulse. The articulation softening only momentarily in the sections with alternating semiquavers, bars 21 – 31 and 81 – 91. Unique and impressive in a way, but still far from how artists have been performing Bach for the past 50+ years. This does not diminish Pierre Fournier’s technical and musical mastery. One detail shows this: in bars 93 – 100, he combines the crotchets and quavers on the open G string into a single, seemingly uniform drone under the melody on the upper strings, unaffected by the accentuated articulation in the descant. Impressive!

Total Duration: 23’04”

Rating: 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3.5 = 3.07

Comment: A historical document: clearly an interpretation from the middle of the last century. One that actually feels “older than that of Pablo Casals“! It documents Pierre Fournier’s big, beautiful tone, but also a time when many believed that a continuous, regular flow (which some deride as “sewing machine style”) was a primary feature of Baroque music.

---

Anner Bylsma, 1979

Sony / Essential Classics, ℗ 1979 / © 1999
Artist: Anner Bylsma (1934 – 2019)
Instrument: Mattio Goffriller (1659 – 1742), Venice, 1669; baroque bow
Pitch: a’ = 415 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’07”)

Yes, definitely a pioneer of HIP performances, as can be seen from the dominant, light détaché articulation. After the descending opening gesture, Anner Bylsma formulates fluid 2-bar phrases without playing the motivic pairs (sequences) as “call and echo/answer”. In the light of recent HIP interpretations, however, the long phrase between bars 13 and 20 is not convincing, not natural, but rather constructed. Throughout the movement, Anner Bylsma “thinks” in long phrases—to the point where one senses a certain restlessness/breathlessness. The recording reveals the instrument’s characterful “gut string sound”: slightly rough, but not to the point where it starts to hurt. One peculiarity: in Anner Bylsma’s interpretation, the explicit double trill in bar 85 merges seamlessly with the trill in bar 86, which is also played as double trill.

II. Allemande (4’30”)

In Anner Bylsma’s 1979 recording, the tempo is almost the same as that of Juris Teichmanis. However, in contrast to the latter, Anner Bylsma maintains a clear separation between melody and ornaments (demisemiquavers). To the point that in groups of four demisemiquavers on the beat, the artist often separates the first note (melody) from the following (ornament or transition) notes.

Anner Bylsma’s articulation is also somewhat more fluent and softer. The latter impression may be due to the three semiquavers in the upbeat to bars 1 and 2 (as well as 13 and 14): Anner Bylsma plays these upbeats legato, although there are no slurs in the score. This contrasts with the light, staccato-like articulation of the other, non-slurred semiquavers in the movement. The moderate tempo does not prevent the artist from maintaining a dynamic, swaying flow, and the “breathing” is more pronounced than with Juris Teichmanis.

III. Courante (3’18”)

In terms of tempo, Juris Teichmanis seems to have based his performance on Anner Bylsma’s first recording—as he did in the first two movements. There are even similarities in the approach to articulation and phrasing. However, thanks to the older, more distant/limited recording technique, Anner Bylsma’s interpretation does not sound nearly as austere or dominated by the roughness, the scratching in the interaction between the baroque bow and the gut strings. The focus here is on the larger phrases and breathing, rather than trying to make the movement “dance”. The latter aspect is mostly covered by dynamics (subtle emphasis on the first beat of each bar) rather than by agogics between bar lines.

IV. Sarabande (3’04”)

Interestingly, Anner Bylsma’s two Sarabande recordings are the fastest in this comparison. Already the earlier recording from 1979 is noticeably faster than Sergey Malov‘s performance on violoncello da spalla. And yes, one can feel this as a 3/4 meter with rhythmic dance swaying at about ♩=48–50. What I miss, however, is some agogic breathing: Bylsma does not push the pace, but he leaves very little (if any) room to breathe between phrases. The result feels a bit breathless, especially when compared to more recent recordings.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’09”)

Bourrée I

In his 1979 recording, Anner Bylsma chooses a tempo that is clearly above average (but not as extreme as in his 1992 performance). My impressions: vivid, clear and light articulation, momentum and drive, emphatic, lively and expressive. Anner Bylsma does not strive for perfection or sound aesthetics: buzzing strings and articulation noises remain uncorrected. This is probably a recording with few takes: a realistic representation of a live performance. It’s understandable that thz acoustics and sonority can’t compete with the latest recordings: the interpretation sounds a bit “tubular”, almost like a mono recording.

Bourrée II

For the second Bourrée, Anner Bylsma maintains the tempo of Bourrée I. This makes it one of the fastest Bourrée II interpretations: only his own 1992 recording, Myriam Rignol (on viola da gamba), and Bruno Philippe are faster. Interestingly, the interpretation does not feel fast at all. In the context of the interpretation, the tempo feels entirely natural, the piece integrated into the surrounding instances of Bourrée I.

VII. Gigue (3’11”)

Anner Bylsma sometimes uses extreme tempi (especially on the fast side), but here his tempo is right on the average. Even now, after 45 years, this is a very good HIP performance. The main limitation is the moderate acoustic quality (“tubular” sound, occasionally on the noisy side). However, one can still enjoy the lively, rich and colorful gut string sound.

Total Duration: 20’20”

Rating: 4 / 3.5 / 4 / 3.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 = 3.93

Comment: Although this is definitely a milestone in the history of HIP recordings, I still prefer the artist’s second recording from 1992.

---

Mstislav Rostropovich, 1991

EMI Classics, ℗/© 1995
Artist: Mstislav Rostropovich (1926 – 2007)
Instrument: Cello “Duport” by Antonio Stradivari (1644 – 1737), Cremona, 1711
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’24”)

Frankly: a terrible interpretation. After the opening formulas, Rostropovich unleashes an endless, relentless, incessant stream of uniform, monotonous semiquavers without a trace of agogics. This only ends with the chord in bar 77. The only differentiation (if one can call it that) is in the occasional echo dynamics. In the arpeggio section (bars 45 – 60), the artist blurs the semiquaver figures the same way as Pierre Fournier. Only the last bars (82 – 88) are slightly less static than the rest of the movement. “Sewing machine Bach” at its worst—a real disappointment!

II. Allemande (3’48”)

Static, rigid, uniform, relentless, often heavy, lacking agogics and phrasing, even opportunities to breathe between phrases. Careless. Hard to believe that Rostropovich recorded this in 1991, at a time when HIP performances were long established. In the repetition of the first part, the third note is c instead of c’—an intentional change or a mishap left uncorrected?

III. Courante (3’48”)

In terms of tempo, Mstislav Rostropovich’s Courante “sits” among the three viola da gamba recordings: considerably slower than the average cello interpretation, but not as slow as Petr Skalka‘s and Pedro de Naverán‘s. Rostropovich plays every note with emphasis and intense tone (and vibrato on longer notes, of course). There is some phrasing, some dynamic differentiation (echo effects, p passages), but there is no rhythmic swaying, hardly any rhythmic structure and differentiation, let alone agogics, little room to breathe, relentlessness, and of course no sense of dance at all.

IV. Sarabande (5’18”)

My starting point for this movement, the slowest of the interpretations. In fact, the tempo is glacial. In addition, Rostropovich plays the entire movement quasi-legato, with intense tone and vibrato. Intensity and vibrato are persistent, unrelenting, and the main dynamic differentiation is that the first repetition retreats to p, the second one is mostly played pp. There is no phrasing or musical discourse to speak of. And no agogics, of course. Hard to believe this was recorded in 1991. An interpretation from the first half of the 20th century at best. For reference, I just listened into some of the very few Bach recordings made by the Russian-American cellist Gregor Piatigorsky (1903 – 1976): excerpts from the Sonata for Viola da Gamba and Harpsichord in D major, BWV 1028, recorded in 1954 with cello and piano. And this shows much more differentiation and subtlety!

V. Bourrée I — (1’57”)

Slow, heavy, relentless, devoid of agogics, very little phrasing, undifferentiated, often broad bow strokes (especially where the artist wanted to intensify the tone). In other words: boring.

VI. Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (2’43”)

Rostropovich plays this a little faster and softer than the first Bourrée, but with the regularity and uniformity of a study. Does not stand up to comparison with the other interpretations.

VII. Gigue (3’00”)

At a fast tempo, Mstislav Rostropovich plowed through this piece relentlessly, without agogics—perhaps not quite like a steamroller, but still…

Total Duration: 23’57”

Rating: 2 / 2 / 2.5 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2.5 = 2.14

Comment: Rostropovich should not have recorded Bach: that’s not his world.

---

Anner Bylsma, 1992

Sony Classical, ℗/© 1992
Artist: Anner Bylsma (1934 – 2019)
Instrument: Cello “Servais” by Antonio Stradivari (1644 – 1737), Cremona, 1701; baroque bow
Pitch: a’ = 432 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (2’43”)

Already in his first recording from 1979, Anner Bylsma’s tempo was clearly faster than the average in this comparison. Interestingly, apart from Vito Paternoster‘s extreme view, Anner Bylsma’s second recording from 1992 is the fastest in this comparison, slightly faster than Bruno Philippe and Pieter Wispelwey’s 2012 performance. In fact, Anner Bylsma’s playing is very fluid and smooth. His means of expression are mostly rich agogics and dynamics rather than light and detailed / meticulous articulation. The somewhat unfavorable, fuzzy acoustics contribute to the impression of smoothness. I should mention, however, that Anner Bylsma maintains an impressive, irresistible dramatic “pull”, consistently building intensity from the first to the last bar.

II. Allemande (4’08”)

In his first recording, Anner Bylsma’s Allemande was among the slowest in this comparison. Here, 13 years later, the tempo is very close to the overall average. Not only is the tempo more fluid, but the agogics are more pronounced, the articulation softer, gentler, the flow more harmonious. It’s still an early HIP recording with some minor superficialities and occasional “spontaneous accelerations” (bars 6/7, 9, 21). These indicate that the artist did not record countless snippets for a perfect recording. I don’t see this as a major drawback. On the positive side, I appreciate that the artist is not trying to show off or impress with big volume or grand musical gestures: I see this as an intimate, almost modest interpretation that focuses on Bach’s music rather than on personal traits or extras.

III. Courante (2’28”)

The change in interpretation (tempo, to be precise) of the Courante between Anner Bylsma’s 1979 recording and this second one from 1992 is astounding. The first recording was slower than the average of all interpretations, even significantly below the average tempo if we exclude the slow extremes and the viola da gamba performances. And here, 13 years later, Anner Bylsma has produced the fastest Courante of the entire set. In fact, it is slightly faster than Bruno Philippe’s performance, but without the latter’s extra ornamentation.

Where Bruno Philippe exudes playfulness and lightness, Anner Bylsma seems to focus on continuous, rapid dance swaying (in whole bars), while at the same time keeping an eye on the (larger scale, hidden) melodic components. An amazing performance! The only indication that this is a 20th century interpretation is Anner Bylsma’s distinct ritardando towards the end notes.

IV. Sarabande (2’56”)

Anner Bylsma’s second recording of the Sarabande is the fastest in this comparison, even slightly faster than his 1979 performance. And indeed, it is very fluid in motifs and phrases. But this newer recording is still far better because it leaves room to breathe between phrases. And the phrasing structure is much more palpable here. Yes, it does feel rather fast for a Sarabande: perhaps the artist was trying to combine characteristics of the French and Italian (or even Spanish) variants of this dance?

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (2’29”)

Bourrée I

Interestingly, Anner Bylsma’s 1992 Bourrée I is by far the fastest in the entire comparison, much faster even than his 1979 interpretation. The playing is of course excellent and much cleaner / more “polished” than the earlier interpretation. Despite the tempo, Anner Bylsma does not “swallow” details. However, I don’t really see the advantage of playing this piece at 1/2=116 and even accelerating to about 1/2=124 towards the end. I think this is mainly a missed opportunity to use agogics and Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) at the level of motifs: indeed, the performance often sounds somewhat superficial and summary. This is not a virtuosic Gigue or the like.

Bourrée II

Since Bourrée I was so fast, the only option for Bourrée II was a similar tempo. At least, there is no additional acceleration here. In fact, the fast tempo works better in the C minor Bourrée: the playing is more relaxed and natural. Was the tempo choice in Bourrée I perhaps governed by the artist’s vision for Bourrée II?

VII. Gigue (2’50”)

Interesting: with the exception of the Allemande, Anner Bylsma’s 1992 performance is always among the fastest in this comparison. The Gigue is no exception: only Bruno Philippe is faster here. Surprisingly, Anner Bylsma’s interpretation is not rushed, but sometimes almost relaxed. The articulation is clear, one can feel it as a swirling dance. Of course, the amount of “local detail” in motifs is limited, there is a certain relentlessness, and occasionally I wish there was a little more time to breathe between phrases. Newer HIP recordings offer more Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983).

Total Duration: 17’35”

Rating: 4 / 4 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 = 4.21

Comment: Historically, Anner Bylsma’s first recording from 1979 is probably much more of a milestone in HIP performances. I still prefer this newer recording, despite its tendency to overly fast tempi.

---

Jaap ter Linden, 1996

Harmonia mundi, ℗ 1997/1999
Artist: Jaap ter Linden (*1947, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Carlo Bergonzi (1683 – 1747), Cremona, 1725 – 1730; baroque bow
Pitch: a’ = 415 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’24”)

Jaap ter Linden’s timing is identical to that of Mstislav Rostropovich and Steven Isserlis. Superficially, the main differences between Isserlis and ter Linden (Rostropovich falls off against all others) are the lower pitch and the use of a baroque bow. The latter facilitates, even leads to, lighter articulation, a less dense tone, and a less conspicuous vibrato. Ter Linden’s interpretation also offers richer agogics and more dynamic differentiation, both within motifs and within phrases. I have only minor quibbles, such as the unnecessary ritardando in bars 40 – 44 leading into the “arpeggiando cadenza”, or the somewhat excessive dominance of the open G string in the latter section. Beautiful overall.

II. Allemande (4’20”)

At a tempo that almost exactly anticipates that of Petr Skalka and Pablo de Naverán. However, Jaap ter Linden’s interpretation lacks the idiosyncrasies of these two. However, Jaap ter Linden’s interpretation is not without idiosyncrasies on its own. In terms of articulation, the performance feels like a hybrid between dry, strictly historically informed playing and typical (traditional) interpretations on modern instruments. There is light, mellow HIP articulation, but there is also a tendency towards tenuto, sometimes even quasi-legato articulation. Once my ear begins to notice the latter, it soon seems to dominate, to be predictable. It’s as if the artist wanted to avoid sounding overly percussive or too dry.

The few extra ornaments (though unobtrusive, only in the repeats and not really necessary) compensate for some of the peculiarities. Also, the sonority of the instrument (and the sound of the recording) is beautiful, round, harmonious.

III. Courante (3’27”)

Slightly faster than Kim Kashkashian, Jaap ter Linden offers much more rhythmic continuity and more natural articulation. The music mostly “talks” or “breathes” in 1- and 2-bar phrases. For the listener, the rhythmic base is in whole bars, resulting in a quiet basic pace. Nevertheless, the lively agogics and the dominant quaver structure give the impression of lively movement. One could say that the listener is torn between the calm breathing of the basic (heart) beat and the restlessness, the liveliness, of the quaver motion. All in all, my impression is not that of a fast Courante as a dance. For the latter, I still miss some continuity in the rhythmic/dance swaying. Is there perhaps too much focus on the local phrase as opposed to the overall dance swaying?

IV. Sarabande (4’14”)

Beautiful, broad, solemn, relaxed swaying, wonderful tone. The vibrato is largely inconspicuous, never excessive. My only reservation is that after climaxes in phrases, Jaap ter Linden tends to drop the tension, allowing for a very subtle (but unnecessary) accelerando.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’42”)

Bourrée I

I’m listening to this after Benedict Kloeckner‘s recording, and there are striking differences. Jaap ter Linden uses a baroque instrument and bow, of course, and a lower pitch of a’=415 Hz, both of which make one listen up. Unfortunately, this (positive) “historical perspective” suffers from a setting that makes the recording sound veiled, almost as if the artist were performing behind a curtain. The juxtaposition emphasizes the contrast between the sonority of a historically informed performance (and a recording that attempts to reproduce the historical soundscape) and a modern, close-up recording where the clarity of the acoustic setting is intended to provide a detailed, clear view of the perfection and cleanliness of a recent recording using a modern instrument, bow, and strings.

This contrast is accentuated by Jaap ter Linden’s soft, gentle articulation and an acoustic setting that tends to hide the gaps between bow strokes. The artist’s chords are non-percussive, emphatic, perhaps a tad broader, but never so broad as to disturb the rhythm. The artist’s tempo is moderate, the articulation faithful to the notation and (after a little adaptation) a pleasure to listen to.

Bourrée II

Jaap ter Linden not only maintains the same tempo in both Bourrées, but he also makes the transitions seamless, so that Bourrée II becomes an integral part of the pair, offering only a slight change of mood. Even the modulations to C minor and back to C major are inconspicuous.

VII. Gigue (3’29”)

A nice, historically informed performance with a full, rounded sound. For a HIP performance, the articulation is sometimes a bit broad (still détaché, but not quite tenuto), occasionally lacking the ultimate clarity in rhythm and articulation.

Total Duration: 22’36”

Rating: 4.5 / 4 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 / 4 / 4 = 4.14

Comment: A nice HIP performance, though not (or no longer) my favorite.

---

Vito Paternoster, 1998

Magnatune.com, © 2003
Artist: Vito Paternoster (*1957, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Lorenzo Carcassi (1737 – 1775), Florence, 1792
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (2’21”)

In terms of tempo (twice that of Pablo de Naverán), Vito Paternoster leaves everyone else far behind in this first movement. He chases through the piece as if it were virtuoso study. His articulation is light, the détaché a kind of rapid spiccato. Factually, there are no superficialities, the artist’s playing, the amount of detail, the clarity of articulation are astounding, the dynamics differentiated. Nevertheless, this is a Prélude, not a virtuosic Gigue at the end of a suite. And even in the latter case, I seriously doubt that any performer in Bach’s time (using a baroque cello and bow, of course), let alone the composer himself, could possibly have imagined such an interpretation, such a virtuosic excess.

II. Allemande (3’35”)

Not surprisingly, Vito Paternoster is about 30% faster than the slowest performances. His agility, clarity, and technical skills in general are excellent, articulation and dynamics detailed. There are, of course, agogics and Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983). For a dance movement, however, the agogic swaying should probably be a bit more regular, the rhythm not (occasionally) disrupted by the artist’s impulsive articulation. In general, I find the movement a bit too fast, too lively for an Allemande. The 4/4 beat at ♩= 56 may still be OK, but the liveliness in articulation and dynamics makes the music feel faster, and the artist’s tempo variations (especially in the repeats) sometimes border on rubato. On the other hand, it is safe to say that nothing in this interpretation is ever boring.

III. Courante (2’36”)

As expected, Vito Paternoster is again one of the fastest performers, the fast tempo seems to be the primary feature here. See also my comments on the previous movements. Doesn’t “dance” imply a more playful, freely swaying interpretation? The performance is a sequence of very fast phrases, with unavoidable little pauses in between that limit the continuity of any dance swaying.

IV. Sarabande (4’25”)

Vito Paternoster’s Sarabande shares the tempo with David Watkin, Myriam Rignol, and Pieter Wispelwey’s first recording from 1998. What distinguishes him from these is his vibrato, slightly shorter articulation (especially on long notes), and occasional additional ornamentation. In this group of artists, his interpretation offers the least amount of dance swaying, even though it is rich in agogics. At times, it even feels a little static, formal.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’51”)

Bourrée I

While Vito Paternoster often favors a fast (often virtuosic) tempo, for the Bourrées he chose a moderate, cozy pace: a peacefully swaying alla breve dance with light articulation. His additional ornamentation (both in the first passes and in the repeats) is discreet, well-fitting, and inconspicuous. The artist doesn’t always follow the notation, but the result is harmonious and natural. Vito Paternoster does not try to “blow up” the piece, but leads the second part through a broad, gentle climax.

Bourrée II

The second Bourrée retains the tempo and general character of Bourrée I. There are significantly more added ornaments here. These are again well integrated and not overly intrusive. Personally, however, I would prefer to leave the first passes alone, i.e., to move (most of) them to the repeats.

As in most interpretations, the da capo instance of Bourrée I is played without repeats. However, Vito Paternoster takes this as an opportunity to add yet another layer of ornamentation, thus avoiding a 1:1 replication of the first instance. A nice idea!

VII. Gigue (2’59”)

One can admire Vito Paternoster’s virtuosity on the cello—for me, it feels a bit too fast. Yes, for the most part, it is still articulated clearly and does not feel rushed, but there is still an occasional urge to stay on tempo. There are also moments when the intonation becomes marginal, superficial. And in passages such as bars 43 – 46 and bars 49 – 55, it is difficult to follow the semiquaver figures. On the other hand, there are electrifying moments, such as the passages with alternating semiquavers in bars 21 – 31 and 81 – 91.

Despite the fast pace, Vito Paternoster manages to insert additional ornamentation, some already in the first passes. This is not a strict “no-go”, but I personally prefer the original to be left alone in first passes. Or at least such ornaments should not be too conspicuous or intrusive. This movement does not need extra ornamentation anyway, I think.

Total Duration: 19’47”

Rating: 4 / 4.5 / 4 / 3.5 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 4 = 4.14

Comment: An ambitious (overly ambitious?) interpretation, with an occasional tendency toward fast tempi and ostentatious ornamentation. Historically informed, but far from strict or didactic.

---

Pieter Wispelwey, 1998

Channel Classics, ℗/© 1998
Artist: Pieter Wispelwey (*1962, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Barak Norman (c.1670 – c.1740), London, 1710; baroque bow
Pitch: a’ = 415 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’06”)

The overall timing is the same as Isang Enders‘, but what a difference! Pieter Wispelwey’s détaché is consistently light and uses much less bow pressure. The phrasing is based less on dynamics than on agogics and articulation: everything is natural, breathing, “speaking”, never forced, without “demonstrative” dynamics. The “cadenza” (arpeggiando in bars 45 – 60) is more fluid than the rest. However, it does not attempt to be virtuosic: the faster tempo only nicely exposes the melodies hidden in the upper voices. From bar 71, Pieter Wispelwey uses the ascending scales for a beautiful wave-like build-up to the dominant seventh chord in bar 77. The latter is the beginning of a solemn coda with sonorous arpeggio chords—with verve, but of course without any vibrato. Beautiful!

II. Allemande (4’28”)

In his first recording, the tempo in Pieter Wispelwey’s Allemande (and also in the Prélude) is (almost) identical to that in Anner Bylsma’s 1979 recording. Here, the upbeat semiquavers are détaché. However, the détaché articulation is generally more gentle—typically a mellow staccato, without “rough edges” and very harmonious in combination with the beautiful, resonant sound of the instrument. Gentle agogics and expressive dynamics create a distinctly dancing feeling and make the music speak down to the smallest motifs. Beautiful, for sure! The only small drawback of this recording is the (often) slightly muffled sound.

III. Courante (3’05”)

Pieter Wispelwey’s two recordings of the Courante (this one and the second one from 2012) are very, very close, not only in timing (right on the average of the cello interpretations), but also in concept (overall and in detail). And both are really excellent, leaving (almost) nothing to be desired.

Pieter Wispelwey abandons the idea of a continuous or persistent dance swaying. Instead, he maximizes the use of Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) by letting each motif, every bar “talk”. This is most pronounced in bars 17 – 20, which are presented as dialog, as pairs of question (legato) and answer (staccato). The same can be said for bars 66 – 71. Most of the détaché notes are played as concise but not rough or overly dry staccato. Enthralling!

IV. Sarabande (4’26”)

In his first recording, Pieter Wispelwey chose a tempo almost identical to that of David Watkin, Myriam Rignol, and Vito Paternoster: slow, solemn, with a calm, wide breath. In contrast to David Watkin and Myriam Rignol, Pieter Wispelwey’s playing is slightly more impulsive, with a tendency to “blow up” individual notes, sometimes making them sound like “belly notes”, or notes with an exaggerated “local” crescendo.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’41”)

Bourrée I

Pieter Wispelwey’s tempo in Bourrée I (1998) is very close to Jaap ter Linden’s, close to the overall average. Both artists use the same pitch and historical instrumentation. But the result is quite different. Pieter Wispelwey’s (first) recording is “closer” (but not too close) and shows less reverberation. It’s not noisy, although one can often hear the tapping on the fingerboard. The articulation is lighter, clearer, and somewhat more percussive, richer and more articulate in agogics within motifs. My main quibble is with the exaggerated accent on the final octave (C-c).

Bourrée II

In contrast to Jaap ter Linden, Pieter Wispelwey plays the second Bourrée at a sightly slower tempo and with more restricted dynamics. This way, the piece feels more melancholic, introverted and reflective.

VII. Gigue (3’30”)

Pieter Wispelwey’s first recording is among the performances with a moderate tempo. But it’s not slow at all. Rather, it seems to have everything this movement demands: lively dance swaying, agogics, light and percussive articulation, a gripping, characterful tone, emphasis, expression, constant presence, joy, fun and relaxed lightness. Pure pleasure!

Total Duration: 22’17”

Rating: 5 / 4.5 / 5 / 4 / 4 / 4.5 / 5 = 4.57

Comment: Pieter Wispelwey never disappoints! Already his first recording is really excellent. Sure, the newer recording surpasses this one, not only through superior recording technique. However, that does not diminish the merits of this first recording.

---

Paolo Pandolfo, 2000 — Viola da gamba

Glossa Platinum, © 2004
Artist: Paolo Pandolfo (*1964, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Viola da gamba by Lorenzo Carcassi (1737 – 1775), Florence, 1792
Pitch: a’ = 415 Hz, transposed to F major
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (4’14”)

Paolo Pandolfo’s Prélude lasts almost as long as Pablo de Naverán’s. Here, however, the artist has explicitly stated that he does not intend to play Bach as written. Rather, he presents the “viola da gamba view” of Bach’s original. His liberties are even more pronounced than de Naverán’s: extra and altered / expanded chords (taking advantage of the extra strings), added ornaments (inverted mordents, trills, etc.), strong agogics—an interpretation with unmatched richness. The atmosphere is quite different, not only because of the characteristics of the instrument, but also because the artist transposed the piece up a fourth, playing it in F major.

I think that given the transfer to a different instrument, I don’t expect to hear “just Bach’s suite”, but the artist’s very personal view, which makes his alterations acceptable. On the other hand what would be the point of transferring this music to the viola da gamba? It could be argued that this makes his interpretation (which some purists might reject as inappropriate) “hors concours“. For me, the interpretation is irresistible, fascinating: a beautiful viola da gamba fantasy with a rich narrative. I should add that it may be slower than most cello interpretations, but it is also noticeably faster than de Naverán’s. Overall, the performance feels more coherent, as it does not seem so fragmented. In addition, Paolo Pandolfo does not single out a “cadenza section” as Pablo de Naverán does.

II. Allemande (4’44”)

There are very few triple- and quadruple-stop chords in Bach’s score (1 and 2, respectively), and 9 double-stop intervals. Otherwise, Bach’s Allemande is essentially linear, with some broken chords and certain passages that can be seen as containing hidden polyphony. Paolo Pandolfo, of course, could not resist bringing his “composer’s mind” to the fore with substantial additions. He leaves Bach’s text intact, but underlies Bach’s melody with harmonization through (partial) chords, taking advantage of the extra strings and the narrower tuning of the viola da gamba. Harmonization that he sees as “inherently present in Bach’s notation”. He also occasionally adds small ornaments, such as inverted mordents.

Paolo Pandolfo’s (partial) harmonizations contribute to a considerable change in the character of the piece. However, this change in character is also caused by the higher pitch (F major) and by Paolo Pandolfo’s “spacious bowing” (and the very moderate tempo), by the way he exploits the rich resonances of the open strings of the instrument. Indeed, the rich, captivating sonority of this recording alone is an experience not to be missed, although it is clearly more than “just Bach”. The added notes/harmonies and the full, resonant sound make the listener forget the higher pitch and the very moderate tempo of this interpretation.

III. Courante (3’54”)

In this movement, the three viola da gamba interpretations (this one, Myriam Rignol, Lucile Boulanger) share a similar timing, slower than most cello performances. Paolo Pandolfo’s interpretation is the one with the highest pitch (F major at a’ = 415 Hz, compared to D major at a’ = 400 and 415 Hz, respectively), which moves this piece toward the tenor register of the instrument. In this comparison, the gambists focus on the beauty of Bach’s composition. Most don’t emphasize the character of this Courante as a fast dance. That said: Paolo Pandolfo’s playing is highly expressive, with pronounced agogic and dynamic swaying, and at the same time effortless and virtuosic.

In Paolo Pandolfo’s hands, this becomes a playful, light movement, in which the artist often adds inverted mordents to set highlights, to adjust the weight of a note within a phrase. He does this not only in the repeats, but also (to a lesser extent) in the first passes. He lowers the first note in bars 31 & 33 by an octave: a logical step based on bar 29. Rarely does he add a double or triple-stop chord. In both parts and in both passes, Paolo Pandolfo turns the four bars leading up to the final note or chord into a beautiful, little gem by taking back the volume and adding a gentle chord to the first note in each bar. A marvelous idea (though “not Bach”, of course).

IV. Sarabande (4’20”)

Here, Paolo Pandolfo not only adds his own harmonizations through extra chords, but also makes extensive use of overpunctuation and jeu inégal in many of the semiquaver notes. A very personal approach to this Sarabande. Maybe a little too personal? It is internally consistent, but for me Pandolfo strays a bit too far from Bach’s C major suite. I also miss the dance attitude—or at least it is a very formal, somewhat stiff dance.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’43”)

Bourrée I

This is one of those pieces where Paolo Pandolfo generously adds his own harmonizations. On the whole I enjoy his additions as true and unique enrichments, and there are some real gems among his adaptations. However, I don’t find all of his solutions equally convincing. One such case is the Sarabande above. In this Bourrée, too, I have reservations: especially in the main theme (bars 1 – 4 and equivalent instances), I find the harmonization a bit odd: perhaps not “Bachian” enough, or perhaps slightly trivial? The last part (bars 20 – 28), on the other hand, is beautiful and less intrusive.

Bourrée II

Paolo Pandolfo’s Bourrée II retains the tempo of Bourrée I, but it still forms a stark contrast: a flat tone, no added harmonies, singing in long, flowing phrases, restrained in the dynamics. The only little highlight is the g’ (original: d’) in bar 18 in the first pass. An ethereal intermezzo, reflective and modest.

VII. Gigue (3’38”)

For general comments on the performance of this Gigue on viola da gamba, see my comments on Myriam Rignol’s performance. However, Paolo Pandolfo’s interpretation on the viol seems to contradict some of the statements I made there. In fact, it seems a little unfair to pit these two viol interpretations against each other. Myriam Rignol is an interesting gambist of the next generation, at the beginning of her career. Paolo Pandolfo, on the other hand, is one of today’s grand masters of his instrument, at the height of his mastership. His abilities (his virtuosity, his agility in particular) are matched by very, very few, if any.

Unlike Myriam Rignol (who plays the exact cello score), Paolo Pandolfo (who also considers himself a composer) expands Bach’s score by adding chords/harmonizations, sometimes even extra voices. Paolo Pandolfo’s recording also takes longer than any of the cello interpretations—but not as much as Myriam Rignol’s. The timing alone confirms that even for Paolo Pandolfo, this Gigue is inherently challenging. His interpretation, however, makes the listener forget all technicalities. One should note that Paolo Pandolfo transposed the C major Suite up a full fourth, to F major. This moves it farther away from the original than Myriam Rignol’s D major transposition, but it may also have eased the transition to viola da gamba.

And the Result?

I may have had reservations about Paolo Pandolfo’s adaptations in some of the preceding movements because they felt too far removed from Bach’s original, and/or did not seem to fit in with the style of Pandolfo’s other movements. Here, however, I completely forget such concerns: this interpretation/arrangement is enthralling, effortless, highly virtuosic, simply beautiful and fascinating. And despite the moderate tempo (compared to an average cello interpretation), it feels like a whirling dance. Paolo Pandolfo at his best: not “real” Bach, but a marvelous piece of music for viola da gamba—in the style of Bach’s contemporaries and masters of the viol, such as Carl Friedrich Abel (1723 – 1787)!

Total Duration: 24’34”

Rating: 5 / 5 / 5 / 4 / 4 / 4.5 / 5 = 4.64

Comment: A truly beautiful experience, though clearly an outlier that shouldn’t really be compared to any other interpretation. But a recording that I would not want to miss in my collection!

---

Steven Isserlis, 2005

hyperion, ℗ 2007
Artist: Steven Isserlis (*1958, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Cello “De Munck-Feuermann” (& Parisot) by Antonio Stradivari (1644 – 1737), Cremona, 1730
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’24”)

In this first movement, Isserlis’ timing is identical to that of Mstislav Rostropovich and Jaap ter Linden. But what a difference between Rostropovich and Isserlis! Unlike the former, Isserlis does not celebrate the opening C major scale, but instead begins with a fluid tempo that he essentially maintains throughout the movement. The tempo is not static, though: Steven Isserlis uses rich, “speaking” agogics and dynamics to maintain a lively narrative, with excellent phrasing. Nothing in this interpretation is boring or uniform.

Still, there are aspects that prevent this from being a “proper, historically informed” performance, apart from the modernized instrument (with metal-clad strings) and the modern Tourte-type bow: for a HIP performance (which this is not intended to be), I’d expect lighter articulation and more Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) at the level of motifs. This does not prevent Steven Isserlis’ performance from being an excellent “classic” interpretation.

II. Allemande (3’20”)

Slightly faster than Sergey Malov, Steven Isserlis offers the fastest of the performances. He shares with the former not only the tempo, but also the fact that all demisemiquaver figures are kept as ornaments. In this way, the movement retains its dance character. Like Malov, Steven Isserlis introduces additional ornaments. But not so many: just the odd trill and a double mordent on the last note in each of the repeats. An excellent interpretation. Still, I have a few quibbles: the performance seems rather relentless, leaving no “room to breathe”. And here, too, a little more Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) would not be a waste of effort.

III. Courante (2’44”)

Very fluid, rather relentless—and, if I may say so, a little careless? As in the Allemande, there is little room to breathe. Steven Isserlis uses very limited agogics, keeps linking motifs to endless trails. There is even the odd superficiality (semiquavers in bar 8), the ritardando at the end of each section is unnecessary (old-fashioned?), and the double mordent on the very last note is the same as in the Allemande—an idiosyncrasy? Strangely enough, some of the characteristics remind me vaguely of Mstislav Rostropovich’s interpretation.

IV. Sarabande (3’53”)

Steven Isserlis’ timing in the Sarabande is very close to that of Jean-Guihen Queyras. However, Isserlis’ frequent use of vibrato brings it closer to a typical modern interpretation. Steven Isserlis’ playing is subtle, careful, especially in dynamics, the articulation is mostly light. What I miss is the use of (more) agogics to create Klangrede. An observation I also made in earlier movements.

Not untypical for this artist, Steven Isserlis introduces his “signature” in the form of an odd choice of ornamentation: in the second part, in bar 14 Bach wrote a dissonant augmented second (f’-e’-f’-d’-)c♯’-b♭. In the first pass, Isserlis plays this as written. In the second pass, however, he adds a trill on the b♭ with appoggiatura using natural c’. True, a trill on an augmented second would be odd. However, introducing the natural c’ after Bach’s c♯’ here feels like a foreign object—peculiar, if not queer, isn’t it?

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’17”)

Bourrée I

Steven Isserlis’ first Bourrée is loaded with vibrant energy. Elasticity and high tension, so to speak. The tension is also expressed in an almost omnipresent vibrato. Clearly a modern interpretation, very determined, resolute, and somewhat relentless. The interpretation is undoubtedly very personal and characteristic of Steven Isserlis’ playing. At the same time, it shows that the artist is rooted in more classical schools, as opposed to HIP environments. A little too “pushed”, too technical, lacking the spirit of a playful, relaxed dance.

Bourrée II

The same could be said of Bourrée II, though this C minor piece is slightly slower, p and more restrained and introverted/introspective. The ritardando at the end feels a bit formal, traditional (as does the “end formula” in Bourrée I).

VII. Gigue (3’08”)

The Gigue is a mixture of traditional playing (vibrato, ritardando at the end), influences from the “HIP world” (lighter articulation, avoidance of excessive legato), and, of course, the personality of the artist. Tension in every motif, rather fluid tempo, relentlessness in long phrases, limited use of agogics, “quipping articulation” in 1-bar motifs ending in a quaver, “loaded binding” of 2-note slurs. Some of this could be described as elegant, often sleek, occasionally subtle. Overall, it remains an interpretation with limited HIP features/aspects, “more Isserlis than Bach”.

Total Duration: 19’47”

Rating: 4.5 / 4.5 / 3.5 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 = 4.07

Comment: Not HIP, and not my first choice for conventional/traditional interpretations.

---

Jean-Guihen Queyras, 2007

harmonia mundi, ℗ 2007
Artist: Jean-Guihen Queyras (*1967, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Gioffredo Cappa (1644 – 1717), Saluzzo, Italy, 1696
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’10”)

In my listening sequence from slow to fast, Jean-Guihen Queyras is the first after the clear divide between “below average” and “above average tempo”—and yet Queyras’ and Steven Isserlis’ interpretations are not too far apart. Queyras also uses a modernized instrument and a modern Tourte-type bow. Nevertheless, there are significant differences between the two recordings. Queyras uses much more expressive, livelier agogics on all levels. And the recording offers the better, more “open” sound, revealing the beautiful, characterful sonority of the instrument, the richness of its timbres/colors, the subtlety of Jean-Guihen Queyras’ dynamics. I also like the excellent dynamic balance, especially between the voices in the arpeggiando section.

II. Allemande (4’00”)

Along with four other artists (Kim Kashkashian, Pierre Fournier, Ophélie Gaillard, and Isang Enders), Jean-Guihen Queyras’ tempo is right on the overall average. This is accompanied by an exceptionally well-balanced, coherent and harmonious performance. The artist uses a light, gentle staccato almost throughout. Except for slurred notes, of course, but even the last note in slurred motifs is kept short. There is beautiful dance swaying, supported by agogics and unobtrusive dynamics, and even the final crotchets in repeats are not grand gestures, but taken back to intimacy. Excellent—and hard to believe that the tempo is almost identical to that of Pierre Fournier!

III. Courante (2’56”)

Overall, Jean-Guihen Queyras’ Courante is only slightly faster than Pieter Wispelwey’s 2012 recording. Interestingly, it almost feels a bit slower at first. However, this is on a modern (modernized) cello with a Tourte-type bow, so it sounds smoother, “cleaner” and “less busy” than typical performances on historical instruments, such as Pieter Wispelwey’s. Apart from the obvious differences in sonority, Jean-Guihen Queyras’ focuses less on letting each individual motif “speak”, but rather on larger phrases, a harmonious flow, an organic “breathing” throughout the movement. In this way, he maintains the tension, the attention of the listener: a beautiful, “dancing” interpretation in grand arches.

IV. Sarabande (3’56”)

It may seem unfair to compare Jean-Guihen Queyras’ performance with Marianne Dumas‘ “underhand playing” in the Sarabande (at identical timing/tempo), given the fundamental differences. These include bow grip and type, modern vs. gut strings, and 440 vs. 415 Hz pitch. Despite the modern(ized) instrumentation, Jean-Guihen Queyras is truly “HIP”, offering highly differentiated dynamics and light articulation, “discharging” motifs, gently swaying agogics and dynamic waves, very clear intonation (vibrato is used very rarely), and an often reflective, thoughtful atmosphere. And even with modern strings and a Tourte bow, Jean-Guihen Queyras is able to produce an amazing palette of colors. Beautiful!

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’27”)

Bourrée I

The overall timing (Bourrée I & II) is identical to that of Isang Enders, and both are interpretations on modern(ized) instruments. But what a difference between these approaches! Jean-Guihen Queyras’ Bourrée I is fluid, exuding joy, youth and life from the first note to the last. At this tempo, there is little need for additional ornamentation: Jean-Guihen Queyras adds very few, and these are so natural and well-integrated that the listener barely takes notice.

Bourrée II

This interpretation features one of the biggest slowdowns from Bourrée I to Bourrée II, and so there is a strong change in mood and expression. Here I feel melancholy, intense longing, even a subtle sense of pain, if not despair (though of course not nearly as strong as in the Sarabande of the Suite No.5 in C minor, BWV 1011). With this, the return to the da capo Bourrée I feels like a liberation, a releaf.

VII. Gigue (3’10”)

From the instrumentation, this could be considered a modern performance—it lacks the “HIP sound” (noise and articulation characteristics of gut strings and a baroque bow). However, this is by no means an overly polished interpretation that attempts to demonstrate sterile perfection. Rather, it is a vibrant, engaged performance from a single mold, playful, coherent, consistent, in a single, big dramatic arch. Jean-Guihen Queyras never pushes, relaxed yet maintaining tension, virtuosic and lively in articulation and dynamics. And the interpretation never feels pretentious.

Total Duration: 20’39”

Rating: 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 = 5.00

Comment: For those who dislike HIP recordings with gut strings, etc., I can definitely and warmly recommend Jean-Guihen Queyras’ recording. It is one of my favorites.

---

Ophélie Gaillard, 2010

Aparté / harmonia mundi, ℗/© 2011
Artist: Ophélie Gaillard (*1974, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Francesco Goffriller (1692 – 1750), Udine, Italy, 1737; baroque bow
Pitch: a’ = 415 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’54”)

In my listening sequence from slow to fast(er), this is the third interpretation, and the first (and slowest) in a large “middle field”. Ophélie Gaillard doesn’t always follow the slurs, but the phrasing largely follows convention / expectation. Technically, this movement is not too difficult. Musically, there is a danger of uniformity: very often, identical motifs appear in pairs or even in groups of three. Not only is there little variation / differentiation between such sequential motifs, but the détaché articulation is also rather uniform. What about Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983)?

In the arpeggio section, each motif (4 semiquavers) begins with G, forming a drone-like ostinato. The “action” is in semiquavers 2, 3, and 4 (2 and 4 are always identical, resulting in a 3-note chord). The progression of these chords could be seen as hidden polyphony, with melodies formed by semiquavers 2/4, and 3 in each group, respectively. Here, however, there is too much focus on the ostinato on the open G string. The sonority of this note is nice, round, full, but these G “beats” are too dominant and too uniform, the “melody” semiquavers don’t receive the attention they deserve. This shows me that this popular movement is not without its (musical) challenges.

One more quibble: some of the chords in the last section (especially the one in bar 77, even more so the dissonant one in bar 79) appear as strong (short) crescendos. Why?

II. Allemande (3’58”)

Along with four other artists (Kim Kashkashian, Pierre Fournier, Jean-Guihen Queyras, and Isang Enders), Ophélie Gaillard’s tempo is right on the average in this comparison. Her interpretation is of course far from that of Pierre Fournier. Despite the almost identical pace, it feels noticeably lighter and more fluid than that of Jean-Guihen Queyras, at least at the beginning. Later, the tempo slows down a bit, and there is a very slight tendency for the interpretation to lose some momentum, at least temporarily. Another minor quibble: Ophélie Gaillard tends to widen the initial note in motifs. This widening is a little too obvious: I think it should ideally go unnoticed by the listener. In the repeats, the artist adds a few extra ornaments. Not all of them are equally well integrated (and I don’t think they are needed anyway).

III. Courante (3’06”)

I like the basic approach (tempo, articulation), the sonority. However, I question the artist’s tendency to change the slurring: she often splits off the first note in a slur, or she shifts the slur in cases where it is on the first three notes in a bar. The staccato is often a bit dry, straight. There are sections in which Ophélie Gaillard’s playing seems somewhat fragmented, as 2-bar phrases seem to lack a connection to the surrounding units. There are also longer phrases where this is not the case, but where it is, there is too much focus on local phrases at the expense of a more continuous dance swaying.

IV. Sarabande (3’37”)

In my listening sequence from slow to fast(er), this is the first performance with a tempo clearly above average. Is this noticeable? Actually, yes: for me, the tempo is a little too fluid for the attributes “calm”, “slow”, let alone “restful”. Not only does the tempo occasionally feel slightly unstable, but there are also short (transitional) moments, where the tempo seems to “run away”. I also don’t feel any sustained dance swaying. But the articulation is light, the sonority beautiful, and I like the additional ornamentation in the repeats.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’35”)

Bourrée I

Ophélie Gaillard plays at a natural, unexcited (average / median) tempo. Her articulation is clear and generally light. The decision to play crotchets tenuto on the first beat, but staccato otherwise seems a little too schematic and predictable. The ornamentation is often a bit schematic and predictable as well. Especially in the repeats, the added ornaments sometimes feel a bit heavy and on the verge of affecting the flow. As a result, the artist tends to lose a bit of momentum across the movement, especially in the repeats (and also in the da capo instance).

Bourrée II

The transition to Bourrée II maintains tempo continuity, the main character difference being the change to C minor and the smoothness of Bach’s quaver lines (fewer jumps). I have similar reservations about the ornamentation as in Bourrée I, and also Ophélie Gaillard’s alterations of Bach’s slurring tend to feel a bit schematic and predictable. For example, the four quavers preceding an end note (and many such quadruplets on the second beat) are almost always presented as two slurred pairs.

VII. Gigue (3’23”)

Some minor disruptions in the rhythmic flow & swaying, conspicuously ignores (at least some of) the staccato notation in bars 34, 38, 94, and 98. Otherwise a good interpretation.

Total Duration: 21’33”

Rating: 3 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3 / 3.5 / 3.5 = 3.36

Comment: A fair, good HIP interpretation—though certainly not my favorite.

---

Pieter Wispelwey, 2012

Evil Penguin Records Classic, 2017
Artist: Pieter Wispelwey (*1962, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Baroque cello by Pieter Rombouts (1667 – 1740), Amsterdam, 1710; gut strings and baroque bow
Pitch: a’ = 392 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (2’45”)

Together with Anner Bylsma (1992) and Bruno Philippe (2021), Pieter Wispelwey’s second recording forms a small group of performances whose tempo is noticeably faster than all the others (an extreme outlier, Vito Paternoster also falls into this category). Pieter Wispelwey “talks” persistently, in every motif, in every phrase, maintaining a strong narrative despite the very fluid pace. This tempo also helps the listener to follow the hidden polyphony in the arpeggiando section. The Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) in every motif does not cause fragmentation. The entire movement remains a single dramatic arch, in which the dominant seventh chord in bar 77 is not a “provisional endpoint”. Rather, the artist maintains the momentum through the coda with its chords, the double trill, and the return of the opening motif. An exemplary performance!

II. Allemande (4’17”)

Marvelous. The tempo is moderate, never pushed, almost identical to Jaap ter Linden’s and more fluid than the artist’s earlier recording from 1998. Compared to the latter, Pieter Wispelwey’s articulation is more percussive, stricter, more “gripping”, typically staccato, if not spiccato: very light, bouncing, a real dance movement. And this sound! The artist fully exploits the advantages of C major on the cello, where the characterful sonority of the open C string comes to full bearing, further boosted by the lower tuning (a’ = 392 Hz). Wispelwey’s first recording was already excellent (in comparison, it occasionally seems to lose some momentum)—this one is even more compelling and coherent. But it’s not just perfect: the artist still manages to infuse his personality into the music, making it a unique, one-of-a-kind recording.

III. Courante (3’00”)

Pieter Wispelwey’s two recordings of the Courante (the earlier one from 1998 and this one) are very, very close, not only in timing (right on the average of the cello interpretations), but also in concept (overall and in detail). And both are truly excellent, leaving (almost) nothing to be desired. My comments on the earlier 1998 interpretation also apply to Wispelwey’s second recording. The differences are really minimal: one could almost say that the main differentiator is in the lower pitch of the 2012 performance. My main comment on the evolution between these interpretations is that the newer recording seems more radical, (even) more expressive, more “talking”, less focused on a beautiful tone, perhaps more direct, and with stronger and clearer dynamic contrasts, the tighter interaction in the dialogues. Just as exciting, for sure!

IV. Sarabande (4’10”)

In his second recording, Pieter Wispelwey has moved much closer to the average tempo. Of course, this is not a quality criterion in itself. It simply means that tempo is not a “feature” in this interpretation. Compared to the artist’s 1998 recording, the flow and dynamics are more controlled, while at the same time the interpretation is more radical, almost without vibrato, with natural agogic and dynamic dance swaying, the tone unpolished, full of character. Everything just feels “right”. There are some additional ornaments in the repeats, and these too are both personal and perfectly “in style”. An interpretation as close to (my) ideal as humanly possible.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’17”)

Bourrée I

A stunning, masterful interpretation and recording: clear, close-up acoustics, the performance active, direct, almost radical in its use of dynamics and articulation to achieve a very expressive Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) throughout the movement, consistent in the tempo as well. The sonority is simply fabulous. For me, this interpretation leaves nothing to be desired.

Bourrée II

The use and level of Klangrede is even stronger than in Bourrée I. This distinguishes this interpretation of Bourrée II from all others. The tone, the atmosphere changes, of course, but it is even more expressive, changing only rarely and very momentarily to a more restrained, introverted mood. Excellent and exemplary—my clear favorite.

VII. Gigue (3’11”)

In terms of timing, this matches Jean-Guihen Queyras‘ excellent recording, and it also shares the latter’s momentum, coherence and drive. However, Pieter Wispelwey makes it tempting to raise the rating beyond 5! It’s not about perfection, but about Wispelwey’s extraordinary expression, the richness and detail of his musical language. In his HIP playing, he is uncompromising, even radical, if not sometimes extreme. For me, however, none of this is disturbing or unsettling. Rather, the interpretation is an eye-opener about the range of expressive possibilities (articulation, dynamics, agogics, etc.) within the framework of Bach’s musical writing. Some examples of the above:

• bars 1 – 20 and the corresponding bars 56f. (and indeed the entire movement): utmost clarity in the definition of legato, staccato, and tenuto articulation;
• bars 21 – 32 and corresponding bars 81f.: alert and concise accents on the first semiquaver in selected bars
• bars 33 – 40 and equivalent bars 93f.: deliberately “scratchy” gut string staccato.

Extraordinary and highly personal—astounding!

Total Duration: 20’41”

Rating: 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 = 5.00

Comment: It’s not the first time in this comparison that Pieter Wispelwey’s 2012 recording turns out to be my absolute favorite.

---

Isang Enders, 2013

Edel Germany / Berlin Classics, ℗/© 2014
Artist: Isang Enders (*1988, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: “Joseph Gagliano, filius fecit 1720“; modern bow
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’06”)

In terms of tempo/timing, Isang Enders’ performance falls between Thomas Demenga, Anner Bylsma‘s 1979 recording, and Pieter Wispelwey‘s 1998 recording: a fluid, slightly above-average pace. The first part of the movement does not feel as fast as the overall timing suggests: rather, it is the fast, if not virtuosic cadenza (arpeggiando) section (bars 45 – 60) that is responsible for the short, below-average timing.

As in the first two suites, Isang Enders’ interpretation shows instrumental perfection and good (4- or 2-bar) phrasing through agogics and dynamics: the smooth, clear articulation one expects from a modern instrument, strings, and bow. The artist does not try to get into much Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) through articulation at the level of motifs. However, Undeniably, the recording is undeniably aesthetically pleasing, with instrumental perfection and careful, smooth dynamics and phrasing. The arpeggiando section begins carefully, but then rapidly accelerates to a virtuosic tempo, far beyond what one would expect in a historically informed performance. The tempo is gradually taken back again after bar 60, for a big buildup towards the dominant seventh chord in bar 77.

For me, the movement does not end well: Enders adds an exaggerated (if not obnoxious) crescendo to crotchets and top notes in chords. And: Bach’s written-out parallel trill in bar 85 is without slurs, so it’s OK to play this détaché. However, it feels odd that Isang Enders continues this in the “tr.” trill in bar 86, in a rapid, “shaken” détaché double trill.

II. Allemande (3’58”)

Again, instrumental perfection. There are agogics and “breathing”, but Isang Enders creates phrases that are often too long to feel natural, some phrase linking feels “artificial”, unnatural. More importantly, the agogic breathing does not lead to dance swaying—it lacks expression and makes it difficult for the listener to feel compassion and to “go or breathe with the music”.

III. Courante (2’52”)

Instrumentally flawless, but rather mechanical at the level of motifs. It’s not mechanical in the dreaded “sewing machine Bach” sense, though: large jumps/intervals and longer notes impose small “disruptions” in the flow. Overall, the interpretation does not feel organic, nor particularly inspired or imaginative. And it does not dance. Also, in the repeat of the second part, the idea of turning the initial G in bars 73 – 76 into percussive “drum beats” seems far-fetched, doesn’t add value, and isn’t fun: in fact, it sounds rather rude.

IV. Sarabande (4’19”)

Instrumentally perfect, but too metric (especially in small motifs), static in flow, no tension in motifs, no dance swaying. I’m tempted to say that even the intonation is “too correct”, could use more tension, e.g., in lead-intervals. Monotonous, if not notorious “belly dynamics”. Not all of the few additional ornaments are equally “successful” (e.g., bar 13/14, repeat).

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’28”)

Bourrée I

Isang Enders’ tempo and tempo relations are very close to Thomas Demenga’s. But that’s where the similarities end, albeit at a high level. As expected, Isang Enders’ performance and tone are technically flawless. However, different from Thomas Demenga’s interpretation, the repeats are exact replicas of the first passes, and there is no additional ornamentation. And bars 20 – 27 lack expression, seem somewhat mechanical, if not marginal. There are several moments of subtle acceleration, especially in the second part of a long phrase. These strike me as unnecessary, if not counterproductive: was the artist afraid of losing momentum?

Bourrée II

As with Thomas Demenga, the second Bourrée is slightly slower. However, Isang Enders did not seek to create contrast: apart from differences in tempo, key (C minor) and musical texture, the artist’s approach seems quite similar to that in the first Bourrée. Nevertheless, a good recording: the Bourrées are the best parts of this interpretation so far.

VII. Gigue (3’33”)

In terms of tempo, Isang Enders’ interpretation “sits” right on the average among the recordings in this comparison (note that the track ends with a blank time of almost half a minute). Instrumental perfection, as expected: conciseness, clean articulation and intonation. For me, the interpretation lacks expressiveness and emotional commitment (“too technical” some might say). There is a tendency towards exaggerated gestures (climaxes, endings).

Total Duration: 21’15”

Rating: 3.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 4 / 4 / 4 = 3.71

Comment: If you are looking for instrumental perfection, this may be the (a) recording for you. Keep in mind that Isang Enders was 25 at the time of the recording—the youngest of the artists in this comparison. Too young to tackle this pinnacle of the cello literature? Certainly too young for a “definitive” interpretation…

---

David Watkin, 2013

Resonus, ℗/© 2015
Artist: David Watkin (*1965)
Instrument: Francesco Rugeri (c.1628 – 1698), Cremona, c.1670; gut strings and baroque bow
Pitch: a’ = 415 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’01”)

Same timing as Sergey Malov—but what a difference in flow, phrasing and sound! Also here, the first bar is an opening “statement”—but one that maintains the momentum of the descending scale. David Watkin then launches into beautiful, long phrases of 4, then 6 and more bars, full of momentum, never losing the flow, the tension, culminating in the well-balanced arpeggiando section, “landing” on the dominant seventh chord in bar 77. Throughout the movement, the sonority of the instrument is marvelous, the articulation unpretentious, light and clear and natural: simply beautiful!

II. Allemande (4’14”)

Beautiful, natural in tempo and articulation, well balanced and rounded, with dance sway. Quibbles? Perhaps the occasional ritardando towards climaxes in phrases? Or the prolongation of the last note before repetitions (especially in the first part, where the quarter rest is omitted entirely)?

III. Courante (3’08”)

Wonderful, that sway in every phrase, the motion picking up momentum towards the local highlight and relaxing again towards the end of the phrase! David Watkin typically makes the basic “dance beat” out of 2-bar units, creating a festive, almost solemn swaying motion, often divided into 1-bar subunits. Agogics and dynamics work together to best effect, and of course the artist keeps an eye on hidden melodic elements, such as marked bass notes. The impression of “fast” (dance) comes from the fast quaver figures. Beautiful sonority, both in legato and staccato, which is always natural, never harsh or dry. Excellent!

IV. Sarabande (4’37”)

Except for three extreme outliers, this is the slowest Sarabande performance. David Watkin went right to the limit, to the point where he risks losing tension in long notes. I noticed this in the first pass of bar 2, where (at least in the aftermath) the two b♭ (crotchet and punctuated quaver) seem longer than necessary, contrasting with the artist’s otherwise consistent discharging of long notes. This is the only instance that made me aware of this danger: I felt that the artist took a very slightly more fluid tempo in the second pass.

The above is more an observation than a criticism. David Watkin’s interpretation is beautifully calm, with relaxed, wide breathing, which can also be felt as a solemn, ceremonial dance swaying. On top of that, the artist builds wonderful, big dynamic arches. And the sonority (instrument and recording) is marvelous, well-rounded, full of character, but never harsh: a true marvel!

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’00”)

Bourrée I

In terms of timing, David Watkin’s Bourrée I (79″) is very close to that of several others, namely Pablo Casals (82″), Emmanuelle Bertrand (81″), Pieter Wispelwey (2012, 80″), Steven Isserlis (78″), Sergey Malov (78″), Anner Bylsma (1979, 77″), and Jean-Guihen Queyras (77″). These artists, of course, differ in their treatment of Bourrée II. And in the case of David Watkin, the timing is deceptive. He begins with a fairly fresh tempo, but as the piece progresses, he gradually and almost imperceptibly slows down, making the transition to Bourrée II seamless. It takes an attentive listener to notice the slow changes in tempo, which can feel like very slight, temporary losses of momentum. This, of course, does not detract from the excellent experience of this interpretation.

Bourrée II

As noted above, Bourrée II seems to pick up the tempo of Bourrée I, although the overall tempo is definitely slower. Along with the apparent tempo continuity, David Watkin also maintains a similar spirit/attitude in this C minor piece. The transition to softer dynamics, and to a more lyrical-expressive tone is subtle and gradual. A masterful interpretation.

David Watkin does not accelerate during Bourrée II. Therefore, when Bourrée I returns as a da capo, the switch back to the exact original tempo is very obvious. In the da capo instance, David Watkin plays both repetitions (as he does in all of the six suites). In this way, the da capo becomes an exact replica of the first instance, including the gradual slowing toward the end.

VII. Gigue (3’15”)

An excellent interpretation. The timing is identical to Thomas Demenga’s, although the listener’s impression of the tempo is quite different. To me, Thomas Demenga’s interpretation feels more consistent in the tempo than David Watkin’s. The latter’s subtle tempo variations can work well in concert, but may not always feel logical in the more objective context of a recording.

The initial tempo is fluid, with some very slight superficialities in semiquaver figures. Bars 33 – 46 are very slightly (but still noticeably) faster. It’s not a recording artifact (switching between takes), because the same thing happens in the repeat. David Watkin throws himself into this (first) repeat with a powerful, eruptive C major chord, which gives the following bars drive and momentum: a nice idea! The beginning of the second part (up to about bar 72) is slightly slower. The original tempo returns in bars 76 – 92, while from bar 93 on, the tempo is again faster, as in the corresponding section (bars 33 – 46) of the first part.

Total Duration: 22’15”

Rating: 5 / 4.5 / 5 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 5 / 4.5 = 4.71

Comment: An excellent recording that deserves a warm recommendation, even if it doesn’t quite reach or surpass my top favorites.

---

Thomas Demenga, 2014

ECM New Series, ℗/© 2017
Artist: Thomas Demenga (*1954, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Carlo Giuseppe Testore (1660 – 1716) & family, Milano, 18th century; gut strings and baroque bow
Pitch: a’ = 392 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’08”)

Most cellists use the opening gesture, the descending C major scale, to make an “official statement”, either “solemnly celebrating” the scale or otherwise playing it affirmatively, with firm, determined articulation. In Thomas Demenga’s interpretation, this is different: here the scale appears as an almost casual entry, rhythmically free, accelerating from the initial c’ toward the middle of the bar, then “landing” on the open C string.

Thomas Demenga uses gut strings, a baroque bow, and a pitch that is a full tone below a’ = 440 Hz. But these are only ingredients: the baroque bow forces the artist to use less bow and lighter articulation (a less dense tone), the gut strings avoid the polished response of modern metal-clad strings, and the low pitch reduces the pressure on the bridge and resonating body of the instrument (possibly reducing the volume, but also allowing the body to resonate more freely). The most important contribution, of course, is the performer’s articulation, agogics, bow pressure, etc., all of which contribute to an excellent, historically informed performance:

The above impression from the opening notes persists throughout the performance: the tone of the instrument is not dense/intense, but of ravishing beauty, and free of pressure or push. “Light” is the key word here: in articulation, dynamics and phrasing, through sequences, through calls and responses, through build-ups in longer phrases. Demenga does not dissect Bach’s musical language into small fragments. “Lightness” does not mean that Thomas Demenga “just babbles along”: every motif “speaks” and remains part of a larger narrative. The cadenza (bars 45 – 60) builds to a climax without ever resorting to “grand volume”. The final bars, even the chords from bar 77 on, remain relaxed, light. A unique, compelling approach indeed!

II. Allemande (3’48”)

I have very little to add to the above: a most delightful interpretation! What more could one wish for than lightness, dance swaying, natural phrasing, light articulation, playfulness, pure joy? No pushing, no dragging, no trying to produce a consistently perfect tone. Demisemiquavers are what they are meant to be: ornaments. Thomas Demenga begins each repetition with a turn on the third upbeat note, and in the first repeat there is another turn on the last note of bar 13. Otherwise, the artist largely refrains from adding further ornamentation. The only other noticeable variation is at the end of the first pass of the second part, where the last two notes (c and C major chord) are replaced by c – C/c with a mordent on the upper note, which avoids too much closure before the repeat.

III. Courante (2’56”)

A delightful performance! The timing is identical to that of Jean-Guihen Queyras, and indeed the result is equally excellent. At the same time, the impression is completely different. For me, the dominant characteristic of Thomas Demenga’s Courante is the fluid, light-footed staccato / spiccato: pure joy and lightness. The artist often breaks up parts of Bach’s slurs. This is not a problem in this interpretation. Thomas Demenga seamlessly integrates the (remaining) slurred notes into the staccato flow. More importantly, the artist preserves the second function of the slurs as phrasing arches.

The interpretation is a pure pleasure to listen to. My only (very minor) quibble is with the loaded crescendo on the very last note of the repeat of the first part, which contrasts with the general “discharging” of longer notes. As a “little compensation”, Thomas Demenga adds two little ornaments (turns) to the penultimate bar: completely in the spirit of the music and the interpretation.

IV. Sarabande (3’30”)

For the Sarabande, Thomas Demenga joins Pablo Casals and Kim Kashkashian (on viola) in a group of three artists with the same, fluid tempo. A truly beautiful, even masterful interpretation! It’s a chiaroscuro with moments when Thomas Demenga drives the dance swaying, and sections when the artist seems to “suspend” the music, the flow, for reflection, or to build anticipation for the next segment. The articulation is engaged, gentle and light. There are a few chords where Thomas Demenga plays only the lowest note (e.g., the last chord in the second part, before the repeat)—and nothing seems amiss!

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’36”)

Bourrée I

I’m listening to this after Ophélie Gaillard’s interpretation, and I admit that the juxtaposition is unfair. Here, not only the tempo is completely natural, but also the articulation, the musical expression/language as a whole. Thomas Demenga effortlessly captures the character of this casual, almost folksy dance: nothing is demonstrative, let alone didactic, the added ornamentation is seamlessly integrated, and there is no effort to produce perfection in tone and articulation. Beautiful!

Bourrée II

The Bourrée II is noticeably slower and different in character: spiritualized, smooth, naturally flowing, cautious, restrained yet expressive, with appropriate, well-integrated ornamentation.

VII. Gigue (3’14”)

Beautiful! Light and detailed articulation, lively dynamics, rich agogics and Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) embedded in an irresistible rhythmic flow, highly personal, yet retaining all the structure and spirit of Bach’s final movement. Thomas Demenga adds inventive, even witty ornamentation: some already in the first passes, more (of course) in the repeats. Enthralling, playful, fun, entertaining and fascinating!

Total Duration: 20’11”

Rating: 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 = 5.00

Comment: I’m so glad I found this recording—strongly recommended!

---

Marianne Dumas, 2016

Urania Records, ℗/© 2018
Artist: Marianne Dumas
Instrument: Baroque cello by Daniel Josua König (*1980), Leipzig, Germany; gut strings and baroque bow
Pitch: a’ = 415 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

Marianne Dumas plays with underhand bow grip, as commonly used on the viola da gamba (also by Paolo Pandolfo and Myriam Rignol). In the Baroque period this was used alongside the “modern” overhand grip (presumably used by all the other cellists in this comparison). Undeniably, the articulation in this recording sounds quite different from the other cello interpretations. However, I can’t say how much of this effect is due to the choice of grip (as opposed to a conscious choice by the artist).

The underhand grip implies reversed bowing directions (“up” and “down”) compared to the overhand grip, the “weight” / pressure along a bow stroke is not the same. The weight of the bow (the firmness of the contact with the string) affects the sonority, i.e., the density of the tone. In many interpretations, the cello occasionally sounds “airy” due to loose(r) bow contact. Here, the differences in weight distribution across a note or phrase may be more apparent, as the “airy” moments may occur in places where one would otherwise expect the tone to be dense.

I. Prélude (3’52”)

In terms of timing and tempo, this performance is almost identical to that of Ophélie Gaillard. At first, however, the differences to the other, “regular” cello interpretations are a bit confusing: the interpretation feels like a “different dialect”, especially in articulation (the response of the strings to the bow movements) and in the distribution of weight within the motifs. But that’s only the first impression: the ear soon adapts to the “language”. Marianne Dumas doesn’t change the notation, of course—her liberties in slurring are no greater than those of most other interpretations.

However, a few things stand out: the artist plays mostly in (typically 1 bar) phrases, using agogics, dynamics, and often even tiny pauses. Within each phrase, the key note is emphasized—more so than in other interpretations. Occasionally I sense a slight danger that this “explicit phrasing” may sound didactic (e.g., in bars 7 – 12). Would it perhaps be better to “think” in pairs of phrases? One observation: most artists perform bar 86 as double trill—Marianne Dumas just trills on the upper note (there is only one tr sign). Some might argue that the parallel figures (explicit trill) in the preceding bar imply a double trill.

II. Allemande (3’46”)

I’m not really happy with Marianne Dumas’ interpretation of this movement. The artist uses dynamics and agogics to form phrases—but these phrases feel rather long: for example, the joining of bars 1 & 2 into a single phrase feels forced, unnatural. Very often these phrases lack tension and structure, but at the same time feel breathless. Also, the détaché articulation is often rather broad, passive, without tension, and some slurred demisemiquaver figures feel unwieldy, hindering the flow. The latter can’t be attributed to the underhand bow grip—it’s just a matter of the left hand. Furthermore, motifs involving semiquavers and demisemiquavers are often rhythmically superficial (“washed out”). And there are tempo inconsistencies. For example, the beginning of the two repetitions is noticeably faster for no good reason.

III. Courante (3’10”)

Amazingly, although the overall timing is almost identical, there is a huge difference between Marianne Dumas’ interpretation and that of Pierre Fournier. Using the underhand bow grip, Marianne Dumas avoids staccato and limits her articulation to legato and détaché. As a result, her interpretation sounds very sleek, smooth and harmonious. Yet the sonority remains full of character, thanks to the gut strings and their often slightly buzzing sound (especially on the d and a strings). At the same time, the interpretation retains a dancing nature, swaying with a rhythmic foundation in whole bars.

IV. Sarabande (3’56”)

In my listening sequence from slow to fast, this Sarabande (and the one by Jean-Guihen Queyras with the same timing) is the first with a tempo clearly above average. However, the notion of tempo pales in comparison to the artist’s strong tendency towards Nachdrücken and exaggerated “belly notes”. Moreover, the performance often lacks agogic tension and dance swaying. Rather, there are sections that are far too straight, lacking any tension. Only in the last two bars does the articulation change from a continuous tenuto to a lighter staccato.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’59”)

Bourrée I

One can “feel” the underhand bow hold through the artists’s tendency towards broad détaché articulation, often quasi-legato. This makes me long for a more “percussive” approach. And one that feels lighter, more effortless.

Bourrée II

Marianne Dumas’ second Bourrée is noticeably faster than the first one. Apart from the faster basic tempo, the second part has a tendency to “run away”, to the point of being slightly irritating. It seems that the underhand bow hold causes changes in articulation and bow pressure that make the instrument sound very similar to a viola da gamba.

VII. Gigue (3’25”)

Interestingly, the underhand bow hold appears to have little effect on virtuosic and staccato passages. It does, however, seem to lead to occasional fuzziness in articulation, and to some of the quavers being played quasi legato, almost negligently. Overall, though, this is one of the better movements in this interpretation.

Total Duration: 22’08”

Rating: 4 / 2 / 4.5 / 2.5 / 3 / 3 / 3.5 = 3.21

Comment: The subtitle “Rediscovering the baroque technique” leads to inflated expectations, I think. It is true that the underhand bow hold was used on the cello in the Baroque period, but not exclusively. It is at least unclear (even doubtful, I think) whether Bach had the underhand bow hold in mind for these suites. Would “Rediscovering a baroque technique” be a more appropriate subtitle? Note that I’m far from attributing all the shortcomings in this performance to bowing technique.

---

Kim Kashkashian, 2017 — Viola

ECM New Series, ℗/© 2018
Artist: Kim Kashkashian (*1952, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Viola by Stefan-Peter Greiner (*1966), Bonn / London / Zürich
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’31”)

For me, the C major Suite, with its frequent use of the open C and G strings, is one of the works that particularly indulges the roundness, the warmth of the cello’s sonority. The juxtaposition of a viola interpretation next to a cello makes the former sound almost shrill. It takes some time to get used to the higher viola register. Despite this drawback (I see no advantage in moving the Prélude up an octave), Kim Kashkashian presents a good interpretation, not unlike Benedict Kloeckner’s in terms of tempo, flow, and phrasing. She avoids static, regular flow, as well as short 1-bar phrases. My main quibble is with the somewhat nervous vibrato on quavers at the end of phrases and in crotchets (especially in the last section).

II. Allemande (4’01”)

At the higher viola pitch (up an octave), and with Kim Kashkashian’s light articulation (at a tempo that is right on average), the Allemande becomes a light, pleasant and joyfully bouncing dance movement: very nice! Kim Kashkashian uses lively dynamics and agogics. She adds some appropriate ornamentation to the repetitions—unnecessary, but still attractive and well suited to the light(er), agile nature of the instrument. Vibrato appears only on the crotchets at the end of both parts—it is unobtrusive and will not offend critical HIP ears.

III. Courante (3’33”)

From the slow extremes and the viola da gamba recordings to the faster ones, Kim Kashkashian leads us into a wide middle field, with durations ranging from 3.5 to about 3 minutes. The tempo, however, is secondary. The artist articulates carefully and with exceptional clarity, détaché notes appear as staccato or rather spiccato, almost martelé, which makes longer end and peak notes and slurred notes stand out all the more. Each motif has carefully crafted dynamics and agogics, and the tenor pitch seems well suited to this movement. In the repeats, Kim Kashkashian adds some appropriate and fitting additional ornamentation.

My main objection here is about the lack of continuity (not regularity!) in the rhythmic swaying. Rather, the interpretation seems fragmented into a series of short phrases, which defeats any notion of larger arches and, at the same time, of a dance.

IV. Sarabande (3’30”)

A little faster than Ophélie Gaillard’s performance, the first in a group of three recordings with a timing of 3’30”, together with Pablo Casals and Thomas Demenga. Obviously a vastly diverging group. Here the fluid tempo suits the lighter character of the instrument. One can indeed feel sustained dance swaying, and on the whole, Kim Kashkashian’s additional ornamentation in the repeats is very nice. The main thing I dislike is the persistent and rather intrusive vibrato. That said: I don’t see much need to move this Sarabande to the viola, an octave higher. However, I can’t deny that Kim Kashkashian’s interpretation has a certain (dance) appeal.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’01”)

Bourrée I

For those who expect a lighter, faster interpretation from the higher viola register: Kim Kashkashian’s performance of Bourrée I is among the slower recordings in this comparison. It’s a lovely interpretation with appropriate additional ornamentation in the repeats. The one reservation I have here is that the artist takes her time with chords (arpeggios) and for transitions between phrases and phrase climaxes, which seems to interfere with the rhythmic continuity of a true dance movement.

Bourrée II

See my remarks on Bourrée I.

VII. Gigue (3’33”)

Kim Kashkashian is slightly faster than the viola da gamba interpretations (Myriam Rignol and Paolo Pandolfo), but also at least slightly slower than all the cello recordings. Her playing (articulation and agogics) is careful and detailed (see below for some deviations from the score). What I miss is the aspect of a virtuosic Gigue, especially its dance character. The latter would require more rhythmic continuity (see also my comments on the Bourrées).

In the repeats, the artist adds a few extra ornaments (mordents, inverted mordents). These are mostly inconspicuous. However, I do find it a bit questionable that in the repeats, bars 33/34, 37/38, 93/94, and 97/98 appear quasi-legato, ignoring the staccato dots in the score. There aren’t many articulation annotations in Bach’s writing, so where they are present, I think they should be observed.

Total Duration: 22’09”

Rating: 3.5 / 4.5 / 3.5 / 4 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 = 3.71

Comment: I definitely like Allemande and Sarabande more than the other movements.

---

Sergey Malov, 2018 — Violoncello da spalla

Sony / Solo Musica, ℗/© 2020
Artist: Sergey Malov (*1983, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Violoncello da spalla by Dmitry Badiarov (*1969), Den Haag, The Netherlands; baroque bow
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007. Sergey Malov consequently leaves out all repeats.

I. Prélude (3’02”)

Sergey Malov’s timing is virtually identical to David Watkin‘s, and the interpretation can be described as “historically fairly informed”. However, there are limitations to the latter aspect, if only because of the special, custom-made strings that support the sonority of the smaller instrument body. The latter definitely shifts the sonority towards that of a viola, adding a slightly nasal character. In general, the sound of the instrument also tends to be slightly “covered”, less “open” than a full-size instrument (let alone one with gut strings).

All in all, the interpretation is quite OK. I have a few quibbles with the occasionally erratic, impulsive flow. The very first bar switches from an energetic beginning to a decisive “closure” on C. The phrasing is sometimes a bit short breathed, fluid segments alternating with predictable broadenings for phrase highlights / emphasized motifs. The dynamics in small phrases are somewhat exaggerated, giving the impression of fragmentation. In the cadenza (bars 45 – 60), the G drone (open G string, first note in each four-note motif) is not oppressively loud. However, its nasal character still makes it stand out unfavorably.

II. Allemande (1’44”)

The second fastest interpretation. And of the 25 recordings so far (only the fastest, by Steven Isserlis, remains), this is the one that most clearly presents all the demisemiquaver figures as ornaments. Despite the fluid tempo, all these written-out fast figures are articulated clearly, not superficially, and Sergey Malov even adds some (pleasant, fitting) extra ornamentation. With its focus on quavers and semiquavers, the movement does indeed feel like a beautifully swaying dance—Sergey Malov’s best movement so far. Sure, the systematic omission of all repeats is inexcusable, but I still really like this movement!

III. Courante (1’22”)

Sergey Malov’s interpretation is slightly faster than that of Isang Enders. And in this juxtaposition, the somewhat “covered” (dull?) sound of Malov’s recording and the nasal sound of the small-bodied instrument seem rather pronounced. The baroque bow can’t be the reason for the dullness, but the custom-made strings (more than the instrument) and/or the recording technique/setup might contribute. All in all, a fair interpretation, except for the systematic refusal to play repeats. However, the idea of linking the Courante and the Sarabande by making the last chord of the Courante the beginning of the Sarabande (the chords are indeed identical) makes no sense at all, seems rather odd.

IV. Sarabande (1’40”)

See above for the strange direct linking of Courante and Sarabande. In the latter, the direct linkage breaks the opening motif—not a good idea (as is the omission of the repeats). The fluid tempo (only Anner Bylsma’s performances are faster) allows for a remarkable (and sustained) agogic dance swaying.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (1’58”)

Bourrée I

The tempo in Bourrée I is identical to Steven Isserlis’ tempo in this piece, and both play at “a’=440 Hz”. In juxtaposition, however, Sergey Malov’s interpretation initially seems a bit “off”, i.e., lower in pitch. It could well be that Steven Isserlis is actually using a’=442 Hz, maybe even a’=444 Hz, i.e. modern concert tuning. Did this tuning difference trigger my intonation scrutiny? Is it perhaps just my imagination that Sergey Malov’s intonation isn’t quite as clean as that of other artists? Or does it reflect the intricacy of playing a violoncello da spalla?

Compared to Steven Isserlis, Sergey Malov uses more agogics. At the same time, the flow isn’t always quite as regular and natural as I would expect from a dance movement. As always, the systematic omission of all repeats is a disgrace. Here at least, the da capo instance of Bourrée I gives the artist a chance to show off his extra ornamentation. Unfortunately, Sergey Malov takes this too far, greatly exaggerating the number and richness of his ornaments—in a folksy dance movement that requires little or no extra ornamentation.

Bourrée II

The interpretation of the second Bourrée is much closer to my expectations: restrained, almost thoughtful, with a subtle melancholy. Here (more than in other movements) the sonority approaches that of a viola.

VII. Gigue (1’36”)

Even faster than Vito Paternoster and at the limit of what the listener can “digest”: It is indicative that the artist needed to “stretch” bar 52 to make the jump from f’ down to C and back up to f’. There are no additional ornaments, but (of course) also no repeats. And short movements like this one suffer the most from the absence of the repeats.

Total Duration: 11’22”

Rating: 3.5 / 4.5 / 3.5 / 4 / 3.5 / 4.5 / 4 = 3.93

Comment: See my comments on Sergey Malov’s recording of the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

---

Emmanuelle Bertrand, 2019

Harmonia mundi, ℗/© 2019
Artist: Emmanuelle Bertrand (*1973)
Instrument: Carlo Annibale Tononi (1675 – 1730), Venice, early 18th century; gut strings and baroque bow
Pitch: a’ = 415 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’29”)

Emmanuelle Bertrand’s tempo / timing is close to or identical to that of Benedict Kloeckner, Kim Kashkashian—and Pablo Casals. Her interpretation offers a beautioful, natural flow and articulation, with an emphasis on continuity, flow, and large arches rather than singling out individual, short phrases. The artist uses agogics and dynamics to highlight key notes/moments in motifs and phrases. Emmanuelle Bertrand’s tone is natural and full of character, as one would expect from a baroque cello with gut strings and a baroque bow. Tone and articulation are natural, not polished and smooth, and not as dense as in many modern interpretations. In the final section, with the quadruple-stop chords, the recording benefits from the acoustics, with the reverberation filling the pauses after the chords and giving them purpose.

II. Allemande (3’46”)

Beautiful sonority, natural phrasing, dance swaying, breathing phrases. In fact, not only the phrases breathe, but one can hear the artist breathing as well: the microphone was probably a little too close? Some of the (short) motifs feel a bit casual (if not slightly superficial), lacking local tension. The other notable thing about this interpretation is the slurring: very often, groups of four ascending, slurred demisemiquavers are played détaché. I think this gives too much weight to these notes, elevating them above the level of (written out) ornamentation by attracting extra (unnecessary) attention. Moreover, this “conversion” is not done consistently throughout the movement. None of these criticisms, however, detract from the overall positive impression of this interpretation.

III. Courante (3’06”)

With a timing identical to that of Opélie Gaillard, Emmanuelle Bertrand’s interpretation is less differentiated in dynamics, and there is less focus on shorter (2-bar) phrases. However, the performance clearly offers more rhythmic continuity, more of a permanent swaying throughout. However, the dance character is not the most prominent feature of this performance, in which the basic rhythm seems to be based on whole bar units. One quibble with this interpretation is the limited dynamic range and differentiation. Or could it be the recording technique/engineer?

IV. Sarabande (4’05”)

Emmanuelle Bertrand’s timing in the Sarabande is right on the average of the recordings in this comparison. My impression from the first pass, especially in the first part: gentle, lyrical, mellow, wide phrases. There seems to be a very slight tendency to soften the rhythmic contours, which lowers the “motivic tension” and defeats the dance character of the movement: my main quibble here. In the repeats, however, the artist not only adds occasional ornamentation to the upper (melody) voice, but she also adds some beautiful ornaments to the secondary (middle, lower) voices. I’m delighted!

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’20”)

Bourrée I

There are movements in which the reverberant acoustics help Emmanuelle Bertrand’s interpretation. Here, however, they are rather detrimental. The reverberation probably contributes to the impression that the artist is superficial in the articulation and definition of some quaver motifs, making some of the performance sound blurred. The fact that Emmanuelle Bertrand often uses broad articulation and tends to attach quaver notes to preceding crotchets does not help either. Combined with the rather soft articulation, the reverberation also makes successive crotchets (such as in bars 8 and 16) sound somewhat ill-defined.

Bourrée II

Also here, the articulation often feels blurry. Overall, the performance lacks contour and definition.

VII. Gigue (3’13”)

I suspect that the tempo was a bit too fast for the artist’s intentions. The articulation as such may be mostly OK and clear enough. However, there are often transitions between motifs that seem “fuzzy” and hasty, e.g. the jumps to the semiquavers in bars 10/11 and 14/15. The last note in phrases also deserves (I think) a more “percussive”, affirmative articulation, so as not to appear casual, marginal. And the semiquaver passage in bars 43 – 46 also has superficialities. Similar observations apply to the second part. Was the artist’s goal too ambitious? A slightly slower, more careful approach would have benefited the interpretation.

Total Duration: 20’59”

Rating: 4.5 / 4 / 4 / 4.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3 = 3.86

Comment: I like Emmanuelle Bertrand’s interpretation of this Suite up to the Sarabande. I wish I could say the same for the last movements!

---

Juris Teichmanis, 2019

Decurio, ℗/© 2019
Artist: Juris Teichmanis (*1966)
Instrument: Anonymous, 18th century; gut strings and baroque bow
Pitch: a’ = 400 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’09”)

The timing is almost identical to that of Jean-Guihen Queyras. But the result of this recording is completely different. This is partly due to the baroque instrument, the gut strings, the baroque bow, and the low pitch (ca. 3/4 tone below a’ = 440 Hz). However, the HIP features don’t automatically make this recording better or more attractive. Here are my observations: In the first part, Juris Teichmanis uses somewhat jumpy agogics, with a very noticeable acceleration towards climaxes. There are also some prominent moments where he omits the slur in the first quarter, e.g., in bars 15 and 18. The former can be explained by analogy with bars 16 and 17, but that “excuse” does not apply to bar 18.

The arpeggiando section (bars 45 – 60) and the following bars up to bar 70 are noticeably faster, which gives this section the character of a cadenza (and avoids the danger of uniformity). A potential drawback of this recording is the slightly “noisy” sound, possibly caused by a close microphone placement. If you like a “raw gut string sound”, this recording might be for you?

II. Allemande (4’37”)

Aside from the outlier in this comparison, Paolo Pandolfo, this is the slowest performance. However, slowness/tempo is not the main issue here. Juris Teichmanis’ articulation is light, clear, detailed, and very careful. Too careful, maybe? The artist pays as much attention to melodic elements (semiquavers, quavers, and longer notes) as to the demisemiquavers, which I consider “explicit ornaments”. In fact, I don’t sense a distinction between ornament and melody. Also, at the level of motifs, the interpretation lacks rhythmic tension—it is devoid of dance swaying. It is true that Juris Teichmanis uses agogics to form phrases. This can be seen as “quiet breathing”. But still: combined with the very moderate pace, the interpretation feels static, lacking drive and momentum, too “well-behaved”.

III. Courante (3’23”)

I like Juris Teichmanis’ overall phrasing, the arches, the agogics. But why is the tone so rough, the staccato (rather: martelé?) so harsh, austere? A (small) part of it can be attributed to microphone placement and sound management. But that’s no excuse: what counts is the end result for the listener. Not much of a pleasure to listen to! It’s not impossible that some performances in the composer’s time may have been this noisy. But shouldn’t a recording today first and foremost try to convey the music rather than trying to reproduce the possible adversities and imperfections of past, historical performances?

As already in the first two movements, Juris Teichmanis’ timing is very close to that of Anner Bylsma’s 1979 recording. Could it be that the artist modeled his performance on Anner Bylsma’s early recording?

IV. Sarabande (4’06”)

Very slightly faster than Pieter Wispelwey’s stellar second recording, this is almost exactly on average tempo. Although it is also “fully historically informed”, it can’t quite compete with Wispelwey’s, especially in the naturalness of flow, swaying, and breathing. Juris Teichmanis’ interpretation seems a little less outgoing, more introverted. Pieter Wispelwey’s recording also offers the better sound, the better sonority, and a little less noise from the interaction between bow and string. I also prefer Wispelwey’s intonation, although these are really nuances.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’57”)

Bourrée I

A solid, sturdy “no frills” interpretation (no additional ornamentation), occasionally austere/raw in sonority, faithful to the notation. I understand that the artist wanted to give an honest, historically informed performance. As in the previous movements, the result is often a bit noisy, with buzzing strings, etc.

Bourrée II

See Bourrée I, however, more “tamed” in the sonority, as Juris Teichmanis takes this p, with gentler articulation.

VII. Gigue (3’29”)

Often rough, scratchy, if not noisy and somewhat careless in tone. There are also occasional, slight irregularities in the flow, such as brief hesitations that disrupt the dance swaying.

Total Duration: 22’41”

Rating: 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3 = 3.43

Comment: I would not make a general recommendation for this recording, given its often rough tone and articulation.

---

Benedict Kloeckner, 2020

Brilliant Classics, ℗/© 2021
Artist: Benedict Kloeckner (*1989, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Francesco Rugeri (c.1628 – 1698), Cremona, c.1690
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’34”)

In my listening sequence from slow to fast, this is the first recording in a group of seven with timing between 3’34” and 3’24”. After Pierre Fournier and Petr Skalka (3’43” each), this feels noticeably more fluid. Yes, also the slower performances have “flow”. Here, however, the term “momentum” must apply—not only overall, but also within each phrase. And Benedict Kloeckner definitely uses larger phrases, typically 2 or 4 bars, with remarkable, swaying agogics. He achieves a compelling overall flow from the first to the last bar. An excellent modern interpretation with clear but harmonious (slightly “percussive”), never dry détaché articulation. The artist is largely faithful to the slurring in the score—natural and without ever sounding too explicit or didactic.

II. Allemande (4’14”)

A nice interpretation with light, natural articulation. The timing is identical to David Watkin’s. My main quibbles are with the occasional tendency to use “belly highlighting” on longer notes, conspicuous legato articulation on the last notes in phrases. I also don’t understand why Benedict Kloeckner tends to accelerate in transitional sections. And in the repeat of the first part, the artist moves the first phrase up an octave. This doesn’t hurt (it’s not in the score), but what’s the point?

III. Courante (3’08”)

Again, Benedict Kloeckner’s timing is identical to David Watkin‘s. A modern interpretation, perfect in sound, articulation and phrasing. The artist uses a light, natural staccato (though not in bars 29 – 35 and 73 – 79), detailed and diligent agogics and dynamics, rich in narrative. The latter prevails over a continuous dance-like swaying. It should be noted, however, that Bach’s writing makes it difficult to maintain continuity in the dance swaying.

IV. Sarabande (4’14”)

Benedict Kloeckner’s timing in the Sarabande is identical to Jaap ter Linden’s—close to the overall average. The overall approach (tempo, phrasing, even articulation) is similar, the artist’s control of tempo (and tension) is excellent. Of course, the recording and interpretation reflect the use of a modern(ized) instrument, and the artist’s vibrato fits this pattern. In the repeat of the first part, Kloeckner “circumscribes” the punctuated motifs in bars 1 & 2 with identical ornaments. For me, this repetition is a bit of a fad (especially in this exposed position). The first passes are left alone, but there are other embellishments in the repeats. These additional ornaments are all personal, and not all of them fall into what many would consider “normal baroque style ornamentation”. Some (e.g. appoggiaturas) may be a bit too experimental.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’44”)

Bourrée I

In his interpretation, Benedict Kloeckner proves that following Bach’s slurs is not incompatible with a gently swaying Bourrée. The overall timing is right on average across the recordings. However, there is often a very slight rush that seems to conflict with the leisurely nature of this movement, and I don’t quite understand why the artist accelerates further in thge last 8 bars of the second repeat.

Bourrée II

Benedict Kloeckner is one of a small minority of artists (along with Jean-Guihen Queyras and Petr Skalka) who play the second Bourrée noticeably slower than the first one. This gives the movement a more melancholic and reflective tone, making it more introverted and intimate: nice! The only drawback to this tempo choice is that the return to the da capo instance of Bourrée I doesn’t feel quite as natural and harmonious as in other interpretations. On the other hand, the nice additional ornamentation in the penultimate bar (second repeat only) emphasizes the difference in character between the two related movements.

VII. Gigue (3’22”)

I like the general attitude, the rhythmic swaying, the tempo, the presence, the tension, and the play with “foreground vs. background”. For me, though, the non-slurred, non-staccato notes are a bit too conspicuously broad, even quasi-legato.

Total Duration: 22’16”

Rating: 4.5 / 3.5 / 4.5 / 3.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 = 4.07

Comment: Recommended as a modern interpretation, especially given the bonus (encore) pieces that the artist commissioned for each of the suites—see below.

---

Benedict Kloeckner’s Extra for the Suite in C major

As outlined in the Comparison Summary, Benedict Kloeckner complemented each of the Suites by adding a contemporary piece that he commissioned himself. In the case of the Cello Suite No.3 in C major, this is a short composition by the South African Bongani Ndodana-Breen (*1975, see also Wikipedia).

The Composer, Bongani Ndodana-Breen

Bongani Ndodana-Breen was born in Queenstown, Cape Province, Republic of South Africa. Wikipedia calls him a “composer, musician, academic and cultural activist”, member of the Xhosa clan. Ndodana-Breen took his education from St. Andrew’s College and Rhodes University in Grahamstown, where he graduated with a PhD in Music Composition, followed by further studies in composition in Stellenbosch. His compositions have won him several awards, as well as commissions from all over the world. Ndodana-Breen oeuvre includes operas, orchestral and chamber music works.

The Work: “Soweto Cello Riffs”

The 4-minute (4’16”) solo piece that Benedict Kloeckner commissioned is called “Soweto Cello Riffs”. In the booklet text (© Bongani Ndodana-Breen), the composer states “Dr. Ndodana-Breen’s music is a blend of African and classical styles. Some of his music reflects on various scenes from his native Xhosa culture (such as Hintsa’s Dances, which is based on the life of Paramount Chief Hintsa ka Khawuta, Apologia at Umzimvub and Sons of The Great Tree). He is the composer of Winnie, The Opera based on the life of Winnie Mandela, and Harmonia Ubuntu commissioned for and performed by the Minnesota Orchestra. Dr. Ndodana-Breen holds a PhD in Composition from Rhodes University. He was awarded the Standard Bank Young Artist Award in 1998 and was one of the Mail & Guardian 200 Young South Africans of 2011.“

How Does it Sound?

Highly interesting and entertaining! “Soweto Cello Riffs” evolves from a small nucleus, a short signal-like, punctuated motif, harmonically open, not tied to any defined Western tonality. The one, vague references to Bach’s C major suite that I recognize is that the punctuated motif may be a reference to the rhythm in the first bars of the Sarabande. This “theme” keeps recurring throughout the piece, typically varied / altered both melodically and harmonically, but retaining references to the punctuated rhythm.

These instances of the nucleus and its variations alternate with highly varied, inventive episodes of variable length, forming a kind of kaleidoscope. These episodes range from beautiful short melodic fragments to rhythmic pizzicato, tremolo elements, whistling flageolets, flautando, exclamations and crescendo chords, jazzy moments, dialogs between bass and descant (questions and answers).

The brevity of the nucleus makes the piece feel fragmented. However, the recurring reminiscences of the initial motif “hold the piece together”. What’s more: as stated, the nucleus seems harmonically undefined at first, but through the recurrences and the folksy and/or dance-like episodes, a harmonic progression seems to take shape, though I don’t detect instances of authentic (V-I) cadences. If anything, half-cadences (endings on the dominant) are a recurring harmonic element. The more I listen to this piece, the more I’m intrigued!

---

Myriam Rignol, 2020 — Viola da gamba

Château de Versailles, ℗ 2020 / © 2021
Artist: Myriam Rignol (*1988, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Viola da gamba (bass viol)
Pitch: a’ = 400 Hz, transposed to D major
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

Compared to Paolo Pandolfo‘s interpretation, this interpretation is much closer to typical cello interpretations. For one, Myrial Rignol transposed to D major (as opposed to Paolo Pandolfo’s F major), and with her pitch setting of a’ = 400 Hz, she is less than a quarter tone above C major interpretations at a’ = 440 Hz. And then, Myriam Rignol’s approach is not to transform Bach’s composition into music for viola da gamba (as Pandolfo did), but mainly to demonstrate the differences in sonority and articulation between the cello and her instrument.

Overall, the sonority of Myriam Rignol’s viola da gamba is a bit more “matte” than that of a typical cello interpretation—but that’s not a disadvantage at all. The viola da gamba tuning in fourths and thirds (combined with 3 additional strings) creates challenges with wide triple and quadruple stop chords. However, this is hardly noticeable in this recording.

I. Prélude (3’51”)

In addition to the sonority of the instrument, it is striking how Myriam Rignol forms phrases with pronounced dynamic arches, often retracting to pp for the transition between phrases. She also tends to use longer phrases than (for example) Marianne Dumas. This creates a distinct sense of broad, calm (and harmonious) breathing. In bars 7 – 12, Myriam Rignol plays the even bars more softly, creating an echo effect and pairing the phrases. The idea of playing the arpeggiando section (bars 45 – 60) very softly (pp) is very nice! One small quibble: the unnecessary crescendo on the top note in some of the chords in the last bars. Since this is a “proper Bach interpretation” (as opposed to Paolo Pandolfo‘s), there is no need for extra ornamentation and the like. And even without extras, this is a rich and subtle interpretation!

II. Allemande (4’09”)

The difference between cello and viola da gamba is very pronounced in this movement. Although, as mentioned above, Myrial Rignol essentially plays the cello part 1:1. The only obvious change for the viola da gamba is in bar 7, where the artist has moved the four A notes (drones, G in Bach’s original) up an octave to a. The transposition to D major is not responsible for the stark difference in the auditory experience. Rather, the difference is due to the baroque bow and underhand grip, which results in less percussive, less aggressive articulation and string response. Then there’s the tuning of the instrument in fourths and thirds, which changes where open strings can or must be used. This (and the instrument’s body construction) also has a major impact on internal resonances and sonority.

The result is not a typical viola da gamba piece, but Bach’s cello music in the guise of viola da gamba sonority—warm, gentle, intimate, harmonious, intensely singing in the descant, dark and rounded in the bass.

III. Courante (3’35”)

All three viola da gamba interpretations in this comparison (Paolo Pandolfo, this one, and Lucile Boulanger) have a similar timing of about 4 minutes in this movement, slower than most cello interpretations. In part, this can be explained by the characteristics and sonority of the instrument, which leads to softer articulation and offers the possibility of a more “flowery” musical language. However, the three performances differ in their respective approaches.

As in the other movements, Myriam Rignol remains faithful to the notation and resists the temptation to add “viola da gamba features” (using the extra strings for additional harmonization or bridging large jumps). Instead, her interpretation reveals the intimate beauty of the instrument’s sonority. At the same time, one senses the extra effort that Bach’s suite demands of the gambist through the need to “jump strings” in large intervals: this is clearly not music written for the viola da gamba! The result is perhaps not a light, fast Courante dance, but beautiful music nonetheless.

IV. Sarabande (4’27”)

Myriam Rignol’s Sarabande is only slightly faster than David Watkin’s, but shares many of his characteristics: the calm, wide breathing, the solemn swaying, the careful phrasing. The viola da gamba adds a more intimate, yet richer sonority, a tone that varies between intense singing tone and the slightly nasal (archaic?) characteristics of soft passages, so typical of this instrument. Beautiful!

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’03”)

Bourrée I

In Bourrée I, Myriam Rignol’s interpretation is among those with a moderate tempo. It compares well with many typical cello interpretations. My only (minor) reservations are about the rather dull acoustic setting and Myriam Rignol’s tendency to overemphasize peak notes in the descant. The care with which Myriam Rignol approaches the motifs with large jumps suggests the difficulties that this Bourrée poses for the viola da gamba, which may also explain the moderate tempo.

Bourrée II

Bourrée II is even faster than the one in Anner Bylsma’s 1992 recording: the C minor Bourrée is clearly well suited to viola da gamba. Excellent playing, even with additional ornamentation such as inverted mordents: I’m tempted to give this interpretation the highest rating. My main reservation is that the huge difference in tempo breaks the relationship between the two sister movements. Indeed, the return to Bourrée I (with both repeats even in the da capo instance) makes this movement feel somewhat heavy, unwieldy, even occasionally awkward.

VII. Gigue (4’04”)

Of course, the viola da gamba is not simply “an older version of the cello”. Transferring a cello part to this instrument can present considerable challenges, and within the C major suite, the Gigue is clearly the most challenging movement. It is therefore not surprising that the two viola da gamba interpretations of the Gigue (Myriam Rignol and Paolo Pandolfo) are the ones with the longest durations.

Myriam Rignol transposed the Gigue up a tone (to D major), presumably to make it easier (or playable) on her instrument. She stuck to the notation and avoided simplifying or otherwise altering the text. And indeed, the result remains true to the notation, while at the same time showing beautiful viola da gamba sonority. Unfortunately, the acoustic setting is a bit dull—but the listener’s ear soon adapts.

All in all, compared to typical cello performances, the recording shows that this Gigue is not made for the viola da gamba. The extra effort required of the gambist in this music is palpable, especially in the passages with rapidly alternating, non-adjacent strings. The result does not feel like a Gigue, let alone a virtuosic one, and it feels anything but effortless. The least convincing of the movements in this suite.

Total Duration: 24’19”

Rating: 4.5 / 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 3.5 = 4.21

Comment: Not a substitute for a “real” cello recording, but an interesting complement nevertheless. It shows the warm, intimate characteristics of the viola da gamba, but also limitations of this instrument in cello literature.

---

Petr Skalka, 2020

Claves, ℗/© 2023
Artist: Petr Skalka
Instrument: Cello by Giuseppe Guarneri “filius Andreae” (1666 – c.1739/1740), c.1700
Pitch: a’ = 415 Hz
gut strings, anonymous baroque bow, mid-18th century
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (3’43”)

Throughout the Prélude, Petr Skalka is meticulous about Bach’s slurring—sometimes to the point where the interpretation begins to feel didactic, if not pedantic. Apart from the slurring, the articulation varies. The opening, descending scale appears as a resolute, clear détaché. Then, until bar 8, Skalka plays tenuto, almost legato, so that the slurred notes are integrated into the flow. For much of the middle section, Skalka uses clear détaché, then switches to a light staccato in the unslurred bars 67 – 71. In a departure from the meticulous observation of slurs, the slurred ascending scales in bars 72 – 75 appear détaché.

Interestingly, in bars 77, 79, and 80, Skalka makes no attempt to prolong the chords on the first note (in fact, he lowers the volume), leaving the half-note rests as tensionless, gaping holes, as if the music had fallen into a void. After the last of these voids, the last eight bars break in with broad chords, with firmness and determination, for an affirmative ending.

I don’t mean to suggest that the movement as a whole feels didactic (though momentum and drive are certainly not dominant attributes here). Apart from the bowing variations mentioned above, the artist makes limited use of agogics. There are subtle variations in tempo and dynamics in the course of larger structures, rather than Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) at the level of motifs and short phrases.

II. Allemande (4’22”)

This movement leaves me even more puzzled than Pablo de Naverán’s Allemande (coincidentally with identical timing). I like the characterful, often slightly rough tone, the general approach. However, there are occasional superficialities in demisemiquaver motifs—something I would not expect from a (hopefully) careful recording session. There are also frequent minor hiccups, such as tiny breaks within demisemiquaver motifs, where the slurring is sometimes ignored or inconsistent, or the bow direction changes within a slurred motif. At other times, fast figures are “overformed” as if to compensate for earlier superficialities. Frankly, it feels as if the artist was sight-reading and figuring out the “right” bowing (and correcting) as he played?

III. Courante (4’14”)

This is the slowest of the performances in this comparison. Before tackling this movement, I quickly explored the range of interpretations by listening into an intermediate tempo performance, the fastest recording, and this one. My initial reaction to the latter wasn’t far from disbelief, if not consternation. In direct confrontation, Petr Skalka’s sounds extremely didactic, schematic, rigid, even uninspired. The artist duly follows (most of) Bach’s slurring. The non-slurred quavers appear as a straight, barely structured series of détaché notes, and even the slurred motifs tend to sound portato. The only rhythmic “feature” is a slight accentuation of the first note in each bar, which actually reinforces the impression of slowness and gives the feeling of a comfortable, relaxed sequence of unstructured 6/8 bars. The piece, however, is in 3/4 time.

Some of this can be attributed to the “shock impression”: further inspection reveals that there are agogics and subtle dynamics, careful articulation, phrasing (typically in 2-bar units, but also in longer arches). However, I can’t see that this fits the description of a (fast, Italian) Courante (see above). It feels as if Petr Skalka wanted to force it to be a (slow) French Courante. The latter would be in 3/2 time. Also, the placement between an Allemande and a Sarabande hardly calls for another slow movement.

IV. Sarabande (4’04”)

Interesting: Petr Skalka has almost exactly the same timing as Emmanuelle Bertrand in the Sarabande. And yet his interpretation feels completely different. Emmanuelle Bertrand focuses on continuous flow, mellow contours and articulation. Petr Skalka keeps end note in motifs short and often uses light staccato articulation, while keeping the interpretation introverted, soft. One can feel some rhythmic dance swaying, but this is often defeated by strict, dry articulation. Like Emmanuelle Bertrand, Petr Skalka adds his own, personal ornamentation to the repeats: more even, and richer, if not abundant. And not all of these ornaments feel equally “successful” to me.

I have some slight reservations about Petr Skalka’s intonation. There is a tendency to “oversharpen” dissonant and lead intervals: in my opinion to the point where it starts to affect the listening comfort. However I can’t really say that the intonation is “off”.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’48”)

Bourrée I

Petr Skalka’s articulation is exemplary in clarity and detail: light, percussive, gripping, concise, with “bite”. It is one of the fastest interpretations of Bourrée I (only Anner Bylsma’s 1992 recording and Bruno Philippe‘s performance are faster). At this pace clarity and definition don’t suffer (yet), but one feels that the artist has sacrificed the regularity of free dance swaying in favor of tempo: chords and climaxes (the emphasis on peak notes) in phrases and motifs tend to get in the way of the dance character of the piece. For moments, the performance even feels a bit careless, rough.

Bourrée II

Here, Petr Skalka forms a strong contrast, choosing a much slower tempo: elegiac, broad, quasi-legato articulation—pain, longing, melancholy. As in the Sarabande, I don’t always feel completely at ease with the artist’s intonation. But I don’t want to analyze and dissect the performance note by note.

As in the other suites, Petr Skalka plays the da capo instance of Bourrée I with both repeats. He does not add additional ornamentation, though: at this tempo, this would hardly make sense.

VII. Gigue (3’14”)

I have the impression of a casual interpretation and recording. There are superficialities in semiquaver motifs, erratic hesitations (especially around big jumps), generally small irregularities in the flow. And, as already in the Sarabande, it sometimes seems as if the intonation is also affected by superficialities—or are these the artist’s personal preferences? Interestingly, the timing and tempo are identical to those of Anner Bylsma’s first recording (1979).

Total Duration: 23’25”

Rating: 3.5 / 2.5 / 3 / 3.5 / 4 / 3.5 / 3.5 = 3.36

Comment: For me, the interpretation is inconsistent in quality and outcome. Controversial, to say the least.

---

Lucile Boulanger, 2020 — Viola da gamba (Partial)

Alpha Classics / Outhere Music France, ℗/© 2021
Artist: Lucile Boulanger (*1986, see also Wikipedia.fr)
Instrument: 7-string bass Viola da gamba by François Bodart, Andenne / Belgium, 2006, after an instrument by Joachim Tielke (1641 – 1719), Hamburg, 1699; bows by Craig Ryder and Luis Emilio Rodriguez Carrington
Pitch: a’ = 415 Hz
Recorded at Abbaye de Noirlac, Bruère-Allichamps, France (2020-12)
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For detailed media information and a detailed discussion of the complete contents of Lucile Boulanger’s CD set (2 CDs) see my separate media review from 2024-01-02. I have briefly discussed the movement below in that posting and even compared it to the two complete viola da gamba interpretations that are part of this comparison (Paolo Pandolfo, Myriam Rignol). I don’t want to duplicate my remarks in that earlier posting. However, I though that tor the sake of completeness it might be interesting to include the essence of my findings for that movement from that earlier posting in a format that matches that of this comparison.

A Partial Recording Only

In her recording “Solo Bach-Abel”, gambist Lucile Boulanger did not include a complete cello suite. Rather, in an attempt to explore why Bach did not compose for solo viola da gamba, she put together a suite of her own, consisting of

• A viola da gamba arrangement of the Prelude in C major (here: D major) from Bach’s Prelude and Fuge in C major, BWV 846 (from “Das Wohltemperierte Clavier, Book I“
• Viola da gamba arrangements of the movements Allemande, Sarabande and Gavottes I/II from the Cello Suite No.6 in D major, BWV 1012
• A viola da gamba arrangement of the Courante from the Cello Suite No.3 in C major, BWV 1009, transposed to D major
• A Gigue in A major by Carl Friedrich Abel (1723 – 1787), transcribed by the artist “in the manner of J.S. Bach”

III. Courante (4’00”)

Lucile Boulanger’s timing in this movement is virtually identical to that of Pedro de Naverán. However, timing and tempo are secondary here: together with Paolo Pandolfo and Myriam Rignol, she belongs to the group of “outlier recordings” on viola da gamba, all with similar timing and slower than the average of the cello interpretations. Lucile Boulanger’s performance is situated between Paolo Pandolfo’s “richly baroque” transcription, which creates a piece of “proper viola da gamba music” from Bach’s cello piece, and Myriam Rignol’s “1:1 cello approach”, which closely follows Bach’s notation.

Among the viola da gamba recordings, Lucile Boulanger’s offers the richest, most direct and “open” sound. A close-up recording, but without excessive noise: simply excellent. It is as expressive and rich in agogics and dynamic swaying as Paolo Pandolfo’s. At least in the first passes. Lucile Boulanger remains faithful to the notation, except for occasional adjustments to the slurring. In the repeat of the first part, she adds a few extra ornaments, and in bars 29 – 34 she changes to semiquavers, doubling the figures and making this a rapid arpeggiando. The second repeat is more generous with ornaments: not only inverted mordents, but also richer in variety and more virtuosic and elaborate than Paolo Pandolfo’s. In both repeats, the last bars retain the structure, but become wonderful little cadenzas. Beautiful, fabulous!

Total Duration: 4’00” (Courante only)

Rating: 5.00 (1 movement only)

Comment: One may regret that Lucile Boulanger did not take up the challenge of recording the complete suite, let alone the complete set of six suites: her goal with this recording was different (see my separate media review). Nevertheless, it is good to have this “snippet” as a testimony to her art: highly recommended!

---

Bruno Philippe, 2021

Harmonia mundi, ℗ 2022
Artist: Bruno Philippe (*1993)
Instrument: Carlo Annibale Tononi (1675 – 1730), Venice; gut strings and baroque bow
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (2’44”)

Along with Anner Bylsma (1992), Pieter Wispelwey (2012), and Vito Paternoster‘s extreme view, Bruno Philippe’s recording belongs to a small group of performances whose tempo is noticeably faster than all the others. It is very fluid and smoother than Wispelwey’s (often “busy”, bordering on some modern interpretations, especially in the slurred sections), focusing on larger phrases rather than detailed articulation at the level of motifs. Very well balanced, for sure, and far, far from interpretations that “celebrate” the first movement as a “grand statement”.

II. Allemande (3’31”)

With ♩= 58 – 60, Bruno Philippe is even a bit faster than Vito Paternoster’s interpretation. However, Bruno Philippe’s pace is slightly more regular. Still, it feels somewhat fast for an Allemande. Despite the rather fluid tempo, the artist adds a fair number of extra ornaments—not only acciaccaturas, but also some prominent appoggiaturas (e.g. on end notes), and not only in the repeats, but in both runs. The character and frequency of these ornaments may be debatable, but they at least give testimony of the artist’s inventiveness and sparkling vitality.

III. Courante (2’35”)

Bruno Philippe is one of the 3 fastest performers of the Courante, sharing the overall time with Vito Paternoster. Yes, he is fast, but at the same time very virtuosic and yet playful, even relaxed and never breathless. In contrast to Vito Paternoster’s impulsive, eruptive playing, Bruno Philippe offers continuity in the dance swaying (in whole bars), and the interpretation breathes naturally, creating a single, compelling flow. The fast tempo doesn’t prevent the artist from adding extra ornamentation. There are a few such additions in the first passes, but of course many more in the repetitions. These “extras” are mostly inverted mordents. However, Bruno Philippe has an unmistakable feel for the number and placement of these ornaments, so that they never seem predictable, let alone idiosyncratic. Excellent!

IV. Sarabande (3’50”)

In my listening sequence from slow to fast, Bruno Philippe’s Sarabande is the last one with a tempo close to average (“normal”, so to speak), slightly faster than Steven Isserlis (and 7 faster performances still to go). The first and lasting impression is one of a dark, but intensely warm sonority, calm, restraint, intimacy, calm agogic swaying. The latter isn’t regular and sustained enough to make the movement feel like a slow dance. But I don’t think that was the artist’s primary intention. Rather, the emphasis must have been on the atmosphere of the interpretation.

At the end of the first part, Bruno Philippe adds a wonderful, short and “curly” cadenza transition that leads back to the beginning for the repeat. That repeat contains some beautiful additional ornamentation (true marvels!), but it ends pp, with a simple, empty octave. Part II continues the attitude of the first part, but now in a more earnest mood. This time there is no cadenza transition to the repeat, and the repeat lacks additional ornamentation, except for the last two bars. The absence of more ornamentation in the second repeat seems a pity (given the beauty of the ornaments in the first repeat). However, the more serious, contemplative nature of this part may have led the artist to leave (most of) Bach’s music as it is?

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (2’55”)

Bourrée I

Fabulous! The timing indicates a fast (but not exaggerated) tempo—and the playing feels fluid, but not too fast, let alone pushed. The interpretation is so full of life, playfully swaying, pure joy! And once again, Bruno Philippe’s sense of placement and choice of additional ornamentation is unmistakable, exquisite, from the first mordents, turns and trills (already in the first passes, more in the repeats, of course) to the appoggiatura on the last note. And in all this, there is no pretentiousness, the artist simply seems to “live the music”, careful and diligent in articulation and dynamics.

Bourrée II

The same goes for Bourrée II, which Bruno Philippe plays at about the same tempo as Bourrée I. There is no forced attempt to create an extra contrast, such as a different character or mood (except for the change to C minor and the softer, more restrained dynamics): the same dance swaying. An ideal, natural complement to Bourrée I. What more could one ask for?

VII. Gigue (2’50”)

Bruno Philippe’s interpretations are often fast—and here he is the fastest of the lot. It is indeed very fast, and yet, the artist masters it with ease, without losing details, with excellent, detailed articulation, with agogics, and even with additional, well-fitting ornamentation. There are additional ornaments in the first passes as well, but they are not too intrusive, rather they fit the character of the music and the interpretation. It’s true that recordings such as Pieter Wispelwey’s offer more detail at the level of motifs, more Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) in general. However, Bruno Philippe’s approach is different—that of a playful, highly virtuosic, whirling dance: amazing!

Total Duration: 18’25”

Rating: 4 / 4 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 5 / 5 / 5 = 4.57

Comment: One of the real discoveries in this comparison project—a truly excellent interpretation by one of the youngest artists. Highly recommended!

---

Pablo de Naverán, 2021

Claves, ℗/© 2023
Artist: Pablo de Naverán (*1975)
Instrument: Carlo Antonio Testore (1687 – 1765), Milan, 1723
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

For general comments concerning recording quality and settings, acoustics, as well as the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007.

I. Prélude (4’42”)

No surprise here, based on the reviews of Suites 1 & 2: with very few exceptions, Pablo de Naverán is selecting below-average tempi. Here, he clearly is the slowest among all the recordings. Mellow in the articulation, almost unctuous, very cautious, extremely subtle in the dynamics, carefully shaping arches across motifs and phrases. In Pablo de Naverán’s interpretation, the movement is in three parts:

• the main section, up to bar 44
• a cadenza-like section (bars 45 – 60), and
• a closing section (bars 61 – 88)

Overall, this is an extreme interpretation is several ways, with substantial liberties. The first part not only features a very slow pace, but also extreme agogics in every bar, every motif (e.g.: the fifth semiquaver in bar 5 is the end note of a phrase and appears twice as long as the following semiquaver). It’s all beautifully and diligently articulated. However, with the slow pace and the focus on motifs (as opposed to the grand arches), the interpretation is in danger of “falling apart”.

A Cadenza?

The first part actually ends with bar 36, almost retracting to a moment of reflection. Thereafter, Pablo de Naverán starts a build-up to an intense climax that culminates in a virtuosic cadenza: in 45 – 60 the artist seemingly doubles the tempo, performing the arpeggios in demisemiquavers, with a light bow. A sudden outburst of virtuosity. In the aftermath, this may explain the slow pace in the outer parts. After that “cadenza“, the semiquavers carry momentum from the arpeggios, forming a broadening crescendo towards the chord in bar 73. This is followed by a solemn, intense and grandiose closure.

Indubitably an impressive, “big” interpretation—though leaving me with concerns about fragmentation in the slow first part, and about the movement appearing “too big / grandiose” for a prelude to a suite. Some may also doubt that the artist’s liberties are still in the scope of Bach’s intent?

II. Allemande (4’22”)

A controversial interpretation! I like the light, clear articulation, the basic tempo, the sonority, as well as the acoustic setting. However, I have problems with the artist’s tendency to elevate passages / motifs that he considers important to “grand gestures”, often supported by “spontaneous expansions” that border on arbitrariness. I find it even more curious that the artist “compensates” for these expansions by letting the tempo “run away” in transitional passages, such as sequences or repetitive patterns. On the other hand, there are intersections between two phrases or motifs where one might expect a little expansion (an implied fermata, perhaps), and Pablo de Naverán just keeps going, as if afraid of losing momentum. One could see this as a forced demonstration of the artist’s point of view (on the composer’s intentions). Or is it just arbitrariness, caprice?

III. Courante (4’01”)

Not far from the slowest recording (Petr Skalka), Pablo de Naverán’s interpretation is less rigid, more generous, with rich agogics and natural articulation, full of elasticity and poetry, never didactic or austere. Sequences appear as gentle, swaying waves, the falling motifs harmoniously pick up motion towards a soft landing on the lowest note. Unlike Petr Skalka, the artist avoids the perception of a slow tempo, even though he also plays in entire bars. For the most part, there is a distinct sense of dance except when two-bar phrases dominate, disrupting a continuous rhythmic sway. One could say that the interpretation alternates between local expression and dance flow. A beautiful rendition of this movement!

IV. Sarabande (5’17”)

Given Pablo de Naverán’s notoriously slow tempo, it is not surprising that his Sarabande shares its timing with the slowest recording by Mstislav Rostropovich. Even Pierre Fournier’s 1961 recording is faster. Neither of these, however, should be taken as references. Quite to the contrary. Pablo de Naverán’s Sarabande is indeed as slow as Rostropovich’s. But it lacks the latter’s unrelenting urge and pressure. Rather, Pablo de Naverán’s Sarabande is characterized by a very slow, relaxed breathing, in which each motif is discharged, often followed by a moment of pause, of reflection. In fact, every motif feels like a reflection in itself, pensive, pondering, contemplative—a sequence of little eternities.

I would not call the interpretation static. There is constant flow, a broad swaying, albeit almost infinitely slow, and of course any notion of dance is far, far away. Yes, the interpretation is extreme and may not follow Bach’s intentions. Nevertheless, I feel nothing obnoxious about it (unlike Rostropovich’s). The music speaks to me and is definitely the result of intense reflection on the part of the artist.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’29”)

Bourrée I

The first Bourrée is almost as slow as Mstislav Rostropovich’s. In this case, however, the slow tempo is not detrimental. Quite the contrary: Pablo de Naverán fills every note, every phrase with tension, plays with elasticity and emphasis, articulates very carefully, makes the music dance despite the slow tempo. Beautiful and full of momentum in every phrase, with fitting additional ornamentation in the repeats. My only quibble is with the unnecessary emphasis (and often widening) on upbeats to a new phrase.

Bourrée II

Pablo de Naverán keeps the tempo of the second Bourrée close to that of the first one. And yet the atmosphere is radically different.That’s partly due to the softer dynamics, the careful articulation. In addition, the artist makes this piece sound “archaic”, not only through a “flat” tone (little or no vibrato), but also through intonation: he deliberately widens or narrows semitones (seconds), to the point where they feel pungent, almost off. Interesting, unconventional, if not marginal.

VII. Gigue (3’34”)

In this interpretation, the Gigue follows (quasi) attacca after the da capo instance of the first Bourrée: an element of surprise—why not? Formally, Pablo de Naverán’s interpretation is the slowest of the cello recordings. This is within a relatively narrow tempo spread, and in fact the movement doesn’t feel (too) slow at all. Pablo de Naverán’s playing could be described as extreme in the its use of agogics and dynamics (Klangrede, in general), both within bars/motifs, as well as in every phrase. He leaves ample time for accents in climaxes, as well as for transitions between phrases (closure, “breathing”, beginning of the next phrase). His accents / climaxes are often vehement, highly emphatic, big, almost theatrical gestures. Captivating, exciting, and certainly unique in many ways (liveliness, for sure).

Pablo de Naverán does not strive for sound aesthetics. Rather, the listener can enjoy his characterful, gripping tone, the clear and emphatic, percussive articulation: fascinating! The one drawback of this interpretation: the extreme agogics lead to a rather irregular rhythmic flow, which makes it difficult to imagine someone dancing to this music.

Total Duration: 26’26”

Rating: 4.5 / 3.5 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 = 4.29

Comment: An artist with a strong personality and vision: unconventional, unique, often extraordinary, sometimes extreme. Certainly interesting.

---

Conclusions

The table above should be self-explanatory, especially in combination with the detailed comments for each of the recordings. Keep in mind that the ratings reflect my own opinion. I have stated that I prefer historically informed performances. To some degree, this has of course influenced the results above. More so, my aversion against strong vibrato has had its effect on my ratings. And, of course, my preference has “not helped” the rating of traditional performances.

Overall, this comparison is very much in line with the conclusions for the Suite No.1 in G major, BWV 1007—therefore, I won’t repeat these here. My top recommendations for the Suite No.3 in C major, BWV 1009 in brief:

• Historically informed: Pieter Wispelwey (2012), Thomas Demenga (2014), David Watkin (2013), Pieter Wispelwey (1998), Bruno Philippe (2021)
• Modern(ized) instrumentation: Jean-Guihen Queyras (2007)
• Milestones in recording history: Pablo Casals (1936), also Anner Bylsma (preferably the second recording from 1992)
• Viola da gamba: Paolo Pandolfo (2000, rather an outlier), Myriam Rignol (2020)
• Recent releases: besides Bruno Philippe (mentioned above), with this Suite also Pablo Naverán (2021) offers an interesting, highly personal approach.

---

Other Review Posts on J.S. Bach’s Cello Suites, BWV 1007 – 1012

• The 6 Suites for Cello Solo — Comparison Summary
• Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007
• Suite No.2 for Cello Solo in D minor, BWV 1008
• Suite No.3 for Cello Solo in C major, BWV 1009 — This review
• Suite No.4 for Cello Solo in E♭ major, BWV 1010 (planned / upcoming)
• Suite No.5 for Cello Solo in C minor, BWV 1011 (planned / upcoming)
• Suite No.6 for Cello Solo in D major, BWV 1012 (planned / upcoming)

---

Acknowledgements

The author would like to express his gratitude to:

• Myriam Rignol for her help by clarifying the author’s open questions about her recording (i.e., its documentation).
• Claves records for the pre-release copy of Pablo de Naverán’s 2021 recording, as well as for Petr Skalka’s 2020 pre-release CD set. I’m grateful for their patience with me—I have not (yet) reviewed so many of the CDs that they keep sending to my address.

---

Literature References

• Dörffel, A. (1926). Joh. Seb. Bachs Werke ((1879) ed., Vol. 27.1, pp. 59–94). Breitkopf und Härtel/Bach Gesellschaft. (Original work published 1879). Public Domain.
• Harnoncourt, N. (1983). Musik als Klangrede : Wege zu einem neuen Musikverständnis : Essays und Vorträge. Residenz Verlag, Salzburg. ISBN 978-3-7017-0315-9.

---