J. S. Bach: Suite No.4 for Cello Solo in E♭ major, BWV 1010

Media Review / Comparison

---

2025-07-08 — Original posting.
2025-11-30 — Added review for Anastasia Kobekina’s 2025 recording.

---

Contents

• Introduction — The Recordings
  • Media Information
• About the Suite No.4 for Cello Solo in E♭ major, BWV 1010
  • The Movements
    • I. Prélude
      • A “Surprise” Text Issue?
    • II. Allemande
    • III. Courante
    • IV. Sarabande
    • V. Bourrée I
    • VI. Bourrée II
    • VII. Gigue
• The Interpretations, Overview
  • Repeats
• A Note on Ratings
• The Interpretations, Detail
  • Procedure, Technical Aspects
  • Pablo Casals, 1939
  • Anner Bylsma, 1979
  • Mstislav Rostropovich, 1991
  • Anner Bylsma, 1992
  • Jaap ter Linden, 1996
  • Vito Paternoster, 1998
  • Pieter Wispelwey, 1998
  • Paolo Pandolfo, 2000 — Viola da gamba
    • Transposition to G major
  • Steven Isserlis, 2005
  • Jean-Guihen Queyras, 2007
  • Ophélie Gaillard, 2010
  • Pieter Wispelwey, 2012
  • Isang Enders, 2012
  • David Watkin, 2013
  • Thomas Demenga, 2014
  • Marianne Dumas, 2016
  • Kim Kashkashian, 2017 — Viola
  • Sergey Malov, 2018 — Violoncello da spalla
  • Emmanuelle Bertrand, 2019
  • Juris Teichmanis, 2019
  • Benedict Kloeckner, 2020
    • Benedict Kloeckner’s Extra for the Suite in E♭ major
      • The Composer, Éric Tanguy (*1968)
      • The Work: “In Between”
      • How Does it Sound?
  • Myriam Rignol, 2020 — Viola da gamba
  • Petr Skalka, 2020
  • Bruno Philippe, 2021
  • Pablo de Naverán, 2021
  • Jean-Guihen Queyras, 2023
  • Anastasia Kobekina, 2025
    • A Surprising “Discovery”
• Conclusions
• Other Review Posts on J.S. Bach’s Cello Suites, BWV 1007 – 1012
  • Acknowledgements

---

Introduction — The Recordings

This posting is 9 the Suite No.4 for Cello Solo in E♭ major, BWV 1010, 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
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
2025	Anastasia	Kobekina	1994		Wiki	Web	a’ = 415	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
2023	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	2025		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.4 for Cello Solo in E♭ major, BWV 1010

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.4 for Cello Solo in E♭ major, BWV 1010 in reviews featuring the entire Suite No.4:

• 2016-05-25, artist: Jonas Iten (*1972) — Suite No.3 in C major, BWV 1009; Suite No.4 in E♭ major, BWV 1010
• 2021-04-25, artist: Anastasia Kobekina (*1994, see also Wikipedia) — The complete 6 Suites for Cello Solo, BWV 1007 – 1012

The Suite in E♭ major, BWV 1010 clearly is more technically demanding than the earlier Suites for Cello Solo. Not surprisingly, just one single cellist chose one of its movements as encore:

• 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)

---

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 explanations on the individual movements, I’m just including short excerpts from that document, showing the first 2 – 3 lines of each movement.

I. Prélude

A suite in an awkward key (string instruments in the violin family favor C and the “sharp” keys of G, D, A, E), and a Prélude that consists largely of unwieldy motifs (with a big jump that skips one or two strings). It’s not only technically tricky, but the sequence of descending “zigzag” motifs makes it difficult for the cellist to connect these motifs into larger phrases. Clearly, Bach is moving toward greater challenges for the artist.

The first part of the Prélude consists entirely of these descending (and later also ascending) “zigzag” quaver motifs. The first part ends in a deceptive cadence at the fermata (bar 49), which feels like a sudden, surprising evasion/retreat. After the fermata, a short semiquaver chain in bars 49 – 51 (which some artists play as cadenza) leads to the richer, more varied, dramatic, and expressive second part. It combines the “zigzag” motif with semiquaver figures, culminating in an actual virtuosic “cadenza” in bars 56 – 61 (not labeled as such, of course) and an equally virtuosic closing passage.

Up to the fermata in bar 49, Bach did not add any slurs or other articulation marks (dynamics, staccato, tenuto, etc.). With this, it is up to the artist to decide to play the détaché notation staccato, tenuto, (near-)legato. Note that also, with the one exception of Bourrée I, there are no dynamic annotations throughout the Suite.

A “Surprise” Text Issue?

I don’t usually meticulously follow the score note-by-note when I listen to music. While I’m not a cellist myself, I’m familiar enough with the Suites that significant deviations from Bach’s text (i.e., Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy) rarely escape my attention. Also, one might expect discrepancies in performances or interpretations if there are obvious ambiguities in the manuscript or clear differences between score editions, since not all artists use the same source text (edition) or interpret the score in the same way. Up until the last addition to this review, I had not encountered obvious, substantial discrepancies between the text and performances of Suite No.4. Occasional, obvious text issues in other Suites are mentioned in their respective reviews.

The latest version of this post includes a review of Anastasia Kobekina’s 2025 recording. Around the release of the recording, the publisher posted an interview with the artist, in which Anastasia Kobekina pointed out a very notable issue with a single note in the Prélude. She is apparently the only artist among those reviewed who has pointed out this issue through her performance. See the comments on her performance below for full details.

II. Allemande

Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy shows a split time signature (₵, alla breve), making this a rather busy dance movement. The other sources have this movement in common time (Ｃ, 4/4), which seems more in accordance with the notation in crotchet periods. Note that the slurs in the manuscript copy appear incomplete or inconsequential. Printed editions typically amend this. Given this, it is not surprising that artists take considerable liberties with where to use slurs.

III. Courante

The E♭ major Courante raises an interesting question: what type of Courante is this? The Wikipedia article on Courante discusses the history of this dance. During the Renaissance era, the Courante was “danced with fast running and jumping steps”. During the Baroque period, however, there were two versions of the dance: the French Courante, typically written in 3/2 time, was a slow dance—the slowest of the French court dances. The Italian Courante, on the other hand, often named Corrente, was a “significantly faster dance”. Bach used both types and typically named them Courante and Corrente, respectively, to distinguish between them. However, editors apparently did not always treat the two types as different dances, see the Wikipedia article for references.

In his Cello Suites, Bach (at least Anna Magdalena Bach, in her manuscript copy) uses French dance titles. Some may doubt that this automatically implies French dance types. The cellists in this comparison—most of them top-ranking artists—predominantly seem to lean toward the Italian type of Courante. The E♭ major Courante is in 3/4 time. With this, I won’t rate the tempo for this movement, unless the artist’s tempo choice causes other musical or technical issues.

One difficulty for the artist in this movement is maintaining a continuous (though not necessarily regular or uniform) dance sway across quaver motifs, quaver triplet motifs, and semiquaver figures.

IV. Sarabande

The Sarabande originated in Spain as a fast dance (zarabanda) in triple time with Arabic influences. Italy adopted it in the 17th century, and in France, it later became a slow court dance. Bach adopted the latter variant in his suites. Despite the enormous tempo range (almost a factor of two), all of the interpretations comply with the common notion of a Sarabande.

Note that Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy includes no ornamentation apart from a single trill on the last note of part I (bar 12). Other 18th-century sources (see Eppstein, 1988 and the Comparison Summary) feature five additional trills (bars 1, 3, 8, 12, and 19) and several appoggiaturas (bars 2, 4, 11, 14, and 17). Most artists today appear to follow Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript. The Neue Bach-Ausgabe (available on IMSLP), which harmonizes Anna Magdalena Bach’s and Johann Peter Kellner’s versions (Eppstein, 1988), retains the trills.

Another issue with the text is that the ties are not used consistently in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. The small excerpt above does not show ties between bars 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, and 5 and 6. However, there is a tie between bars 5 and 7. The Neue Bach-Ausgabe shows ties, though some are dotted. Artists typically select either “tied” or “non-tied” readings. The former comes with the challenge that if the second bar starts with a three-string chord, it is hard or impossible to tie the top note while the bow sometimes needs to reach down to multiple lower strings.

V. Bourrée I

Bach followed the scheme of the baroque Suite (Allemande, Courante, Sarabande, Gigue), which he preceded by a Prélude. It also was customary to insert a pair of Galanteries, such as Minuet, Gavotte, Passepied, or Bourrée, between the Sarabande and the Gigue. In the Suites No.3 (C major) and this one (No.4 in E♭ major) Bach decided to insert two Bourrées:

The Bourrée (Bach sometimes also used the Italian name Borea) is a French baroque dance, that is quicker than the Gavotte. Both Bourrées in this Suite are in E♭ major. Don’t be confused by the five flat signs: two of them are octave duplicates. Bourrée I is in split time (alla breve, 2/2). As the reviews below will show, it is not without its set of technical challenges.

VI. Bourrée II

One peculiarity of the E♭ Suite is the extreme imbalance in the Bourrée movements: Bourrée I is 48 (12 + 36) bars, while Bourrée II is only 12 (4 + 8) bars long. The manuscript excerpt above shows Bourrée II in its entirety. Note that unlike Bourrée I, Bourrée II is in 4/4 (common) time. However, some older editions have this movement in split time (alla breve, 2/2).

VII. Gigue

The final movement is a Gigue in 12/8 time. With the exception of a few phrase endings, the movement consists of slurred quaver triplets. In this Suite (and probably in others as well), the Gigue is the movement with the least amount of variation in tempo / timing. Apart from the title, “Gigue“, the time signature, and the slurs, there are no annotations in this movement, which consists of 42 (10 + 32) bars.

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 exception of the first and last movements, where such blank time is subtracted, plus very few, individual movements with excessive leading or trailing time intervals. 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 recordings 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 a large number of 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 historic 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, 1939

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 (4’35”)

In the Prélude, Pablo Casals and Pierre Fournier have virtually identical overall timing. And indeed, superficially, there is at least one similarity between the two historic interpretations: both open the Suite with tenuto articulation. But that’s where the similarity ends: Pablo Casals’ articulation is percussive, and where Pierre Fournier maintains a dense, vibrant tone. Casals is discharging (most of) the notes, starting with an accent on the first note, then releasing the pressure toward the end of every motif. His tone has “grip”, and clean sonority seems far less important than expression, the dramatic and dynamic arches. A thrilling, characterful interpretation, for sure!

The semiquaver passage in bars 49 – 51 is far from a virtuosic cadenza: rather it’s an artfully crafted transition to the second part, which is vastly more expressive and theatrical than the first 48 bars. The actual cadenza (bars 56 – 61) is particularly dramatic, structured by strong triple and quadruple stop chords: these are full of verve and momentum (so typical of Casals!)—as is the final chord. A movement full of lively agogics and dynamics—masterful!

II. Allemande (3’45”)

This may be the most active, engaged and intense Allemande in this comparison. The tempo is very fluid, and Pablo Casals shapes his phrasing arches with noticeable rubato. He typically starts phrases slowly, almost with a little fermata, or a very brief moment of reflection. Then, he instantly accelerates toward the climax before relaxing again. As in all his recordings, the tone and expression are very intense, the dynamics lively, with little outbursts at highlights in the melodic flow. The vibrato is dense yet not overly obtrusive.

III. Courante (3’56”)

Pablo Casals’ Courante is equally active, engaged, energetic. The articulation is clear and percussive, the vibrato mostly inconspicuous. Interestingly, Jaap ter Linden and Marianne Dumas use almost exactly the same tempo. There may be less dance swaying than in recent recordings, but with its directness and often eruptive dynamics, this recording is thrilling and doesn’t need to hide behind recent HIP performances.

IV. Sarabande (4’10”)

Casals offers an interpretation with undeniable urge and intensity throughout. He never drops the tension or attention—the entire movement forms one single, big arch. Admittedly, one doesn’t immediately think of a dance, and the concept of Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) hadn’t been rediscovered yet at the time of this recording. However, the ubiquitous vibrato and the broad legato articulation serve expression and intensity, not pure sound aesthetics, as in the case of Pierre Fournier, for example.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’37”)

Bourrée I

This is an excellent interpretation, especially considering that it was recorded in 1939. While it’s not offering polished perfection, it does showcase virtuosity in the semiquaver motifs and passages, a singing tone in the slurred quavers, and short, marked staccato crotchets. Casals largely ignores the dynamic annotations and uses his own instead. For example, in bars 4 and 5, there are two ascending semiquaver motifs. Bars 6 and 7 repeat these in p, as an echo. Within each pair, Casals plays the first motif f and the second, lower one p. Strictly speaking, this may be inaccurate, but it adds vivacity to the interpretation.

Apart from the da capo instances, this is the only instance where Casals omits the second repeat. Was this a mishap? Or was this due to a limitation of the recording medium?

Bourrée II

Casals’ interpretation is relaxed, calm in the stepping staccato crotchets of the lower voice. Independently, the artist maintains a beautiful cantilena in the upper voice, unaffected by the staccato crotchets. It’s both beautiful and unique!

VII. Gigue (2’45”)

A notable feature of Pablo Casals’ performances is his resolute articulation. Throughout the piece, he begins every triplet motif with a “percussive beat”. The performance is highly engaged and active. Sound aesthetics are secondary: expression, action, lively dynamics, drive and tension are this artist’s priorities. Unfortunately, today no artist would dare to play like this in concert!

Total Duration: 22’29”

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

Comment: This is undoubtedly a precious historical document and a must-have for anyone (cellists and listeners alike) who is seriously studying Bach’s Cello Suites.

---

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 (4’16”)

Pierre Fournier’s timing is almost identical to that of Juris Teichmanis. Yet, their two approaches seem light years apart. No scratching noise here, but perfect, beautiful, dense and elastic sonority, filled with omnipresent, romantic vibrato. No staccato, but constant, broad tenuto articulation. The first part is relatively straight, relentless, but not static (nor ever pushed). After the “cadenza” in bars 49 – 51, the phrasing becomes more pronounced, through agogics and dynamic variation, with the occasional ritardando and diminuendo toward closures. Clearly the most romantic, traditional interpretation: pure sonority and sound aesthetics.

II. Allemande (4’32”)

Beautiful, singing tone, predominantly legato or near-legato, relentless in the flow, which at times makes the listener feel like running out of breath. Pierre Fournier follows his aesthetic principles, focusing on tone and sonority. His performance is almost devoid of agogics, except for the old-fashioned, broad rallentando in the last bar(s). Overall, this is clearly an interpretation from a past era—even Pablo Casals sounds more “modern” and closer to HIP.

III. Courante (3’46”)

Pierre Fournier’s Courante emphasizes sound aesthetics, a great tone, and blooming dynamic arches. Its timing is identical to Petr Skalka’s recording, made nearly 60 years later. There are minimal agogics, and the articulation is mostly broad, vibrant tenuto or legato, which makes the few staccato quavers stand out all the more. Is it a dance? Not really.

IV. Sarabande (5’07”)

Unsurprisingly, Pierre Fournier’s Sarabande is very similar to Mstislav Rostropovich’s in terms of timing and general approach. Fournier’s vibrato is more prominent and pervasive, and the artist seems even more concerned about pure sound aesthetics. The dynamic arches are smooth (almost featureless), and the articulation is legato throughout. There isn’t a trace of a dance-like quality. It is a mystery why Pierre Fournier plays the fifth note in bar 58 as A♭, distorting the descending branch of the ascending and descending E♭ major chord and destroying the symmetry of the motif: e♭—g—b♭—e♭’—b♭—a♭—e♭. It’s not a mishap, as this also occurs in the repeat, and the alteration makes no sense at all.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (5’06”)

Remarkably, Pierre Fournier’s tempo disposition for the two Bourrées closely resembles those used by artists such as Juris Teichmanis, Petr Skalka, Emmanuelle Betrand, and Vito Paternoster. Within Fournier’s interpretation, the two Bourrées have the best chance of competing with modern (non-HIP) performances:

Bourrée I

What identifies this interpretation as Pierre Fournier’s is the persistent vibrato, the characteristic, beautiful cello sonority, the marked dynamic contrasts and outbursts, the often broad tenuto articulation in non-staccato segments. Compared to HIP performances, it is too regular (occasionally relentless), feeling like common time rather than alla breve, and lacking agogics and dance swaying. Nevertheless, it is a beautiful interpretation.

Bourrée II

A good tempo in common time (4/4): fluid, not overly heavy. The crotchet pace is close to the one in Bourrée I.

VII. Gigue (2’48”)

The interpretation offers smooth and fluid playing. Apart from the prominent ritardandi in bar 10 and the final bars (and to a lesser degree in bar 26), rhythmically, it feels somewhat mechanical. Other than these ritardandi, there are essentially no agogics. The predictable dynamics, such as note highlighting, creating climaxes, and producing echo effects, are predictable, contribute to the impression of a mechanical performance.

Total Duration: 25’35”

Rating: 3.5 / 3 / 3.5 / 2.5 / 4 / 4 / 3.5 = 3.43

Comment: Aside from its historical value, this interpretation is no longer recommended. It follows the philosophy and the aesthetics of performances from the mid-twentieth century.

---

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 (3’52”)

This pioneering HIP recording showcases the Goffriller cello’s full, warm, and dark sonority. Its lower pitch may contribute to this impression. However, time has moved on, particularly in the area of historically informed performances. In retrospect, Anner Bylsma’s articulation in the first part, with its rigid, pronounced staccato, feels stiff: it lacks flexibility and expression. The sonority is unpolished, almost raw and rough. Is this the consequence of close microphone placement?

Things change with the pivotal fioritura in bars 49 – 51, which is so fast that it borders on superficiality. In this interpretation, the bars 56 – 61 intend to demonstrate virtuosity and agility, like a classic cadenza. With all due respect to the artist, Anner Bylsma’s tempo in these bars is at or above the limits. This compromises clarity and definition. The subsequent return of the “zigzag” motif differs from those in the first part: no longer firm or rigid, but soft, mellow, and almost veiled. Strangely, the motifs with the staccatissimo mark on the first note in bars 70 – 77 are somewhat confusing. One would assume that the staccatissimo marks are meant to reinforce the half-bar (alla breve) meter.

Finally: the performance occasionally exhibits marginal intonation issues. For example, the C♯ at the fermata in bar 49 is very slightly off.

II. Allemande (4’09”)

More than in Anner Bylsma’s second recording, one can feel the spirit of pioneering HIP performances. The focus is on demonstrating the presumed sonority of Bach’s time, i.e., the effect of the Baroque bow and bowing technique. Faithfulness to the notation is certainly a key aspect—Anner Bylsma largely follows Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy in the slurs. He typically performs quavers and many non-slurred semiquavers staccato, which can sound somewhat austere, if not scholarly. This recording is a valuable historical document. From today’s perspective, however, a dance sway and Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) would be desirable.

III. Courante (3’32”)

Compared to newer recordings, the main drawback of this early HIP interpretation is the austere, dry, and often rough—if not noisy—sonority. The noisy part of the interaction between the bow and strings is omnipresent, and one often hears the whirring of the gut strings. While one might call this a realistic recording—the likely cause is close microphone placement. Keep in mind that in a live concert setting, these background noises don’t project nearly as well as the music itself.

This recording is the first in the “upper half” with a tempo above the overall average. Although the pace is average, the tempo is not fast, and the articulation is not always as clear or controlled as in newer, “polished” recordings. The amount of “dance feeling” is limited. One peculiarity in this interpretation is that, in bars consisting of three quaver triplets (bars 5 – 7, 44, and 46), Anner Bylsma performs the triplets slightly inégales, lengthening the first quaver and shortening the quavers two and three. An inappropriate alteration of the character of these bars?

IV. Sarabande (3’39”)

At the tempo of Vito Paternoster’s interpretation, Anner Bylsma manages to keep this movement as a calm, even solemn, gently swaying dance. The artist has no need to add ornamentation. He simply lets the music and its melodies flourish. Excellence in simplicity, devoid of exaggerations and peculiarities—beautiful!

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’34”)

Bourrée I

Anner Bylsma’s tempo is certainly fast and virtuosic. However, the artist’s technical abilities allow him to maintain the tempo while still achieving clean and differentiated articulation. Yet, the interpretation feels a tad fast, if not pushed. Despite the lightness and differentiation, the fast pace makes it difficult for the listener to follow the details in phrasing and articulation.

Bourrée II

The second Bourrée is calmly pacing in alla breve style with a measured staccato. The only tenuto notes are the tied crotchets. It’s a beautiful, marvelous island of serenity!

VII. Gigue (3’06”)

Anner Bylsma’s 1979 recording of the Gigue is among the slowest performances. However, it doesn’t feel particularly slow. Instead, it is carefully articulated and follows the slurring in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. The performance shows a certain monotony and relentlessness, as the artist rarely leaves room to breathe. The only “resting points” are at Bach’s phrase intersections, such as in bars 2, 10, 12, 26, and 28. Some additional agogics would have been helpful. However, at the time of this pioneering historically informed performance (HIP) recording, the concept of Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) hadn’t become widely known yet. The sonority, of course, is that of a historically informed performance on an instrument with gut strings. The percussive action of the fingers on the fingerboard is audible but not unpleasant.

Total Duration: 22’53”

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

Comment: The field of historically informed performances has evolved so much over the past 40 – 50 years that this recording is no longer recommended, except for those who are interested in the history of HIP performances or in documenting the evolution of Anner Bylsma’s interpretation.

---

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 (4’26”)

No surprise after Suites I – III: Mstislav Rostropovich plays the Prélude with full, vibrant sonority and broad tenuto articulation, relentless, rhythmically mostly rigid, almost devoid of agogics (at least not stubbornly like a steamroller). There is dynamic differentiation, with p passages, etc., but with the constant, intense “Rostropovich vibrato“, this is a deeply romantic interpretation that very few of today’s cellists would dare to deliver.

II. Allemande (3’33”)

I wish there was time to breathe in this relentless stream of motifs! Yes, there is dynamic differentiation and phrasing—but apart from the double bar lines there is never even a fraction of a second to rest, nor any agogic broadening at phrase intersections, let alone the notion of a dance. Not surprisingly, the articulation is hardly differentiated, mostly between legato and broad tenuto.

III. Courante (3’39”)

Similar to Jean-Guihen Queyras’ two recordings from 2007 and 2023, which both share Rostropovich’s timing in this movement, the transitions between quavers, quaver triplets, and semiquaver chains are seamless. However, this is not because the artist magically integrates them into a harmonious flow. Rather, Mstislav Rostropovich maintains a fairly rigid basic pace throughout the piece, except for short ritardandi at endings. These motifs simply represent different subdivisions of the time between fixed bar lines. From the perspective of technical perfection—such as intonation, clarity, and sound aesthetics—there is nothing to complain about. Beyond that, though, compared to recent recordings, the interpretation feels monotonous and uninspired.

IV. Sarabande (5’10”)

Abstracting from the concept of a Sarabande as a baroque dance, one could at least say that this interpretation features beautiful, broad arches, an intense tone and rich sonority. It’s indeed intense and romantic, with permanent, dense (though not overly strong) vibrato, and quasi-legato articulation throughout. While the movement may appear to convey “romantic” sentiments (I think it doesn’t) , it is not romantic music.

Rather, it should be viewed as a baroque dance within the context of a baroque suite. Mstislav Rostropovich’s interpretation falls short in several ways: his legato and smooth tone are simply incompatible with (and beyond the scope of) the instruments at Bach’s time. Permanent (string) vibrato is inappropriate for baroque music. More importantly, the interpretation is (almost) devoid of agogics, let alone Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983). Overall: yes, beautiful playing and tone, but too romantic and missing the point in most other aspects.

V. Bourrée I — (3’25”)

Paradoxically, but Mstislav Rostropovich’s Bourrée I sounds like a carbon copy of Pablo de Naverán‘s: the tempo initially is identical. The timing is slightly shorter, but that’s mainly because Rostropovich lets the pace accelerate slightly. The logical conclusion would be that Pablo de Naverán copied Rostropovich, of course. However, that’s most likely just a pure coincidence. That said, my comments about Pablo de Naverán’s interpretation apply here as well: the piece hardly sound like a typical Bourrée, and the term Galanterie feels even more inappropriate. The acceleration during the piece feels like a tempo instability and doesn’t help creating the impression of a dance. Rather, Rostropovich’s playing sounds just as heavy, but also static and more conventional, with its constant vibrato and often broad articulation.

VI. Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (2’46”)

Just like Pablo de Naverán, Mstislav Rostropovich keeps the crotchet pace from Bourrée I, which again is acceptable here. However, Bourrée II also feels too straight, lacking tension and dance character.

VII. Gigue (2’39”)

Not surprisingly, there is a constant, relentless flow of quaver triplets that lack agogics and detail in articulation. While there is some differentiation in dynamics, there is also a tendency to let the tempo accelerate slightly. I’m tempted to call this performance careless and superficial.

Total Duration: 25’37”

Rating: 2.5 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3.5 / 3 = 3.00

Comment: Mstislav Rostropovich was certainly one of the foremost and most influential cellists of the second half of the 20th century. However, Bach (and baroque music in general) was “not his thing”; I think he was ill-advised to record Bach’s Cello Suites. Enough said.

---

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 (4’02”)

Thirteen years after his first recording in 1979, Anner Bylsma has slightly reduced the tempo. The overall timing now is right on the average for this comparison. Additionally, the articulation in the first part is no longer staccato, but rather a gentle détaché. The recording sounds much less noisy, let alone rough, or harsh. Interestingly, while other artists indulge in prominent, sonorous bottom notes, Anner Bylsma deemphasized them, as if he wanted to hide them.

The fast semiquaver passages in bars 49 – 61 (cadenza) are as fast as in the 1979 recording, but now clearer, cleaner, and better controlled and defined. In the second part, the “zigzag” motifs are slightly broader (tenuto almost) and gentler. Also, the semiquaver motifs with the staccatissimo marks are far more compelling, and the elegant, fast passages in the closing bars (80 – 91) leave very little to be desired—excellent!

II. Allemande (4’25”)

Anner Bylsma’s more recent recording is gentle in the articulation and features a distinct dance sway. It often feels somewhat restless, driven by exaggerated accelerations within the broad dance motion. At a local level, one can feel slight irregularities in the musical flow. From today’s perspective, I miss the Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) at the level of motifs, as well as the occasional calm and “room to breathe”. Finally: shouldn’t the dance sway be a bit more regular and predictable?

III. Courante (3’19”)

In terms of sonority and articulation, Anner Bylsma’s second recording is far less radical than his 1979 recording. The sound is smoother, and the articulation is neither too noisy nor too close. The sound engineer and the acoustics account for some of these changes. And the pitch is up by a quarter tone.

However, there are more significant changes. The tempo increase of around 7% may seem minor, but the careful first bar is deceptive. Anner Bylsma uses much more pronounced agogics to shape the phrases. Bar 2 with its accelerating, fleeting semiquavers is already indicative of the entire movement. Where semiquaver figures lead into quaver triplets, the latter pick up and even amplify the momentum gained from the semiquavers. The impetus the artist reaches at the climaxes is impressive and enthralling. Anner Bylsma retained the jeu inégal in the quaver triplets from his 1979 interpretation. This feature is a little less pronounced and often inconspicuous but more pervasive. Overall, this is a unique and highly interesting interpretation.

IV. Sarabande (3’13”)

Compared to his 1979 interpretation, the timing for Anner Bylsma’s newer recording is noticeably shorter by over 10%. Only Patrick Demenga undercuts this time. Interestingly, one can hardly feel the difference—at least initially. The bow strokes and articulation are relaxed and unrushed. Only in bar 11 there is extra fluidity towards the closing bar in the first part, as if the artist was letting go of restraints. The second part is definitely more fluid and lighter overall. This is particularly noticeable in certain motifs, such as bars 14 (semiquavers), 27/28, and 31/32 (bar 32 especially in the first pass). Beautiful sonority and persistent dance swaying are present throughout. It’s marvelous playing, to be sure. Overall, however, I expected the movement to be calmer, a little more relaxed.

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

Bourrée I

Anner Bylsma’s 1992 interpretation is the second fastest recording in this comparison. Although it is very virtuosic, it definitely feels rushed. The semiquaver motifs, albeit well-articulated, are hurried and difficult to discern. Differentiation in articulation is only achieved in quavers and crotchets. The performance is a virtuosic masterpiece and a whirling dance, though without the swaying of a real dance.

Bourrée II

As in his 1979 interpretation, the second Bourrée feels like an island of serenity. However, the tempo contrast is so significant that the two Bourrées seem disconnected. It takes time for listeners to adapt to the slow pace, and then Bourrée I returns before they can really enjoy the atmosphere of Bourrée II.

VII. Gigue (2’46”)

Anner Bylsma’s 1992 performance surpasses his earlier one in every way. The tempo is more fluid, the articulation is lighter and more agile, the tone more colorful. The long stretches of quaver triplets still flow relentlessly, but there is vivacity and differentiation in dynamics. There could be stronger agogics and a little more room to breathe between phrases, but this interpretation is still a very pleasant listening experience.

Total Duration: 21’48”

Rating: 4 / 3.5 / 5 / 4.5 / 3.5 / 4 / 4.5 = 4.14

Comment: I would recommend Anner Bylsma’s 1992 recording over his 1979 one without hesitation. Of course, time has moved on in the past 33 years, and today’s HIP performances may offer a richer experience. Nevertheless, this recording is valuable for documenting Anner Bylsma’s artistry.

---

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 (4’22”)

A measured tempo, considerate, never pushed, careful articulation—a light, well-sounding détaché, beautiful sonority, especially in the marked lower notes (C string). There are limited agogics in the initial quaver segment (up to the cadenza in bar 49), but the articulation is both detailed and differentiated, and the artist uses subtle dynamics both within the “zigzag” quaver motifs and within the big, harmonious phrases. The central semiquaver line in bars 49 – 51 is more than a mere cadenza, but feels like a rich fioritura, and the same applies to the subsequent semiquaver figures in the much richer second half. Beautiful playing!

II. Allemande (4’55”)

This is one of the slowest performances, with little to no dance character. The articulation is very soft, devoid of rough edges, rather linear, lacking contours. Despite the moderate tempo, there are often moments when the music seems to “slip away”, thereby dropping the tension. I also miss some calm, natural breathing. The phrases are too long for this tempo.

III. Courante (3’59”)

Following the slowest performances (Pablo de Naverán and Isang Enders) this is the first in a series of interpretations offering a familiar tempo: a pace within common expectations for this type of dance movement. Jaap ter Linden’s tempo isn’t that much faster, but his light articulation creates the impression of extra fluidity. At the same time, the artist maintains a calm, solemn swaying rhythm (in entire bars), which fulfills the requirement for a slow, French Courante, see the notes above. A delightful, well-balanced interpretation with excellent sonority and gripping articulation.

IV. Sarabande (4’53”)

This is a beautiful movement within this interpretation: limited, often inconspicuous vibrato and a calm, persistent dance swaying throughout the piece, despite the relatively slow tempo. Ties are not enforced; however, the second tied note is consistently played, with or without a tie. There are no extra ornaments except for the mordent at the end of the trill in bar 12 and the turn on the semiquaver in bar 19. My only minor objection is that the broad, dynamic accent on the first note in each bar appears so regularly that it is maybe a little too prominent.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (5’18”)

Bourrée I

The basic approach—tempo, sonority, dynamics, articulation according to Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy—is good. However, there is a tendency to let the tempo “run away” within phrases. Some semiquaver motifs are bordering on superficial, and I miss playfulness, gallantry, and free dance swaying.

Bourrée II

This movement is gentle, soft, atmospheric but somewhat tensionless. In Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy, the piece is in common time. Here, the interpretation feels more like alla breve, which creates the impression of a slower movement (1/2 = 62 vs. 1/2 = 70 in Bourrée I).

VII. Gigue (2’52”)

Jaap ter Linden’s performance uses a moderate tempo. The articulation is clear and largely faithful to the score. The agogics and dynamics are well-differentiated. The instrument shows nice, balanced sonority. My main reservation is about the overly resonant church acoustics, which make the recording sound slightly tubular.

Total Duration: 26’19”

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

Comment: Overall, it’s a solid HIP performance. It is generally recommended, although it is not 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 (4’04”)

If Bach did not add slurs or other articulation to the first part of the Prélude (up to the fermata in bar 49), it cannot have been because he wanted the performers to “invent” their own: after all, the second part is very specific about the articulation (slurs, détaché). This collection of recordings shows that the artists still have freedom within the confines of Bach’s “naked” notation in the first 48 bars. The détaché varies from broad tenuto to light, soft staccato, and I even think that Pieter Wispelwey’s 2012 recording with its differentiated articulation within each motif does not violate Bach’s intent. Vito Paternoster, however, overtly slurs notes 2 & 3 in each group of four quavers—which I believe goes beyond what the composer’s intended.

In the second part, Vito Paternoster takes the semiquaver passages as an opportunity to fabulate freely in virtuosic, rapid passages, detached from the metric foundation. It all sounds fascinating, brilliant, fantastic—but here, too, I’m not sure whether it’s really in the scope of what the notation suggests. One detail: the artist changes the dotted motifs in bars 60 & 61 to over-dotting—why? Just extravagance?

II. Allemande (3’39”)

This is an often vehement interpretation that is gripping, light and lively. It has a distinct, almost whirling dance sway. Unfortunately, despite claiming to be stereo, the recording has a distant, “tubular” sound reminiscent of older mono recordings. The articulation is light and has “bite”. The tempo is very fluid—perhaps too fast. Vito Paternoster adds numerous ornaments already in the initial passes. Shouldn’t first passes rather be left alone? The artist plays many of these ornaments, such as short trills, acciaccaturas and inverted mordents, superficially. Some trills and inverted mordents are so blurry that it’s difficult to identify what’s being played.

III. Courante (3’25”)

Vito Paternoster’s performance is detailed in terms of agogics and articulation. There is no excess in extra ornaments, and the tempo is natural and fluid. The main shortcoming of this recording is the poor acoustics and sound management, which make this interpretation less competitive.

IV. Sarabande (3’39”)

I’m not sure whether this interpretation still qualifies as a slow movement or dance in this Suite. The tempo is not the main issue here. There are a few other performances in this comparison that are even faster. Rather, it’s the impression or feeling that the listener gets from this recording. The artist’s light, often capricious articulation and dynamics, his tendency to over-punctuate dotted motifs, and his choice of abundant additional, lighthearted ornaments give this interpretation the air of a Scherzo. It surely is entertaining, to a certain degree even fun. It’s a dance—but not necessarily a Sarabande. Compared to other recordings, the intonation isn’t always perfect.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (5’02”)

Bourrée I

At a tempo close to the overall average, Vito Paternoster presents a capricious Bourrée I. It feels fast in the semiquaver figures, many of which are somewhat superficial, if not careless, in the articulation. Some may question the artist’s decision to add ornamentation in the first pass(es) already and then repeat these extras in the repeat. Additionally, some of the ornaments seem idiosyncratic, such as the inverted mordents on quavers 1 and 3 in bars 6 and 8. I also miss some natural dance swaying: in parts, the flow is too straight, and on the other hand there are occasional, slight irregularities in the tempo and flow.

Bourrée II

The second Bourrée adds a contrasting character. It is rather gruff and careless in articulation and intonation.

VII. Gigue (2’30”)

The tempo is as fast as Mstislav Rostropovich‘s performance. Vito Paternoster interpretation is certainly not monotonous like Rostropovich’s. Paternoster’s articulation is lighter, and his dynamics are richer and more detailed. However, Paternoster could not resist adding his own “bells and whistles”, most notably frequent acciaccaturas. Additionally, the first and often the third triplet in most bars is played inégal (the first quaver is dotted). Neither the acciaccaturas nor the jeu inégal add much value to this interpretation. Rather, they feel idiosyncratic.

Total Duration: 22’19”

Rating: 4 / 3.5 / 4 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3 = 3.57

Comment: One might call this a “spiced up” HIP performance, in which the artist often goes overboard by adding his own “features”. Aside from questions of availability, I hesitate to recommend this recording.

---

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 (4’09”)

Up to the fermata in bar 49, Bach did not add any annotation, such as indications of articulation (slurs, dynamics, etc.). In his 1998 recording, Pieter Wispelwey plays this part with a light, gentle, unenforced staccato, using subtle agogics and dynamic phrasing: unspectacular, far from trying to demonstrate that this is a difficult piece to play. The fermata on C♯ is a preliminary closure, full of expectation—a big, somber and mysterious question mark.

The semiquaver line in bars 49 – 51 is a short, very fluid intermezzo. The “real” cadenza follows in bars 56 – 61: the dramatic climax of the movement, a short, virtuosic outburst. The remaining bars are a mix of unspectacular (but now more expressive) “zigzag” segments and expressive, occasionally moody surprises. Excellent—an interesting, compelling interpretation!

II. Allemande (4’19”)

In my listening sequence from slow to fast(er), this is recording #11. The timing almost exactly on the average. The performance is truly excellent and the most faithful to the notation yet. It is devoid of exaggeration, with calm flow and a very nice, persistent dance sway. The most beautiful aspect here is the lively agogics and Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983). Every motif and phrase is carefully crafted. In the numerous semiquaver motifs with one staccato and three slurred notes, Pieter Wispelwey only alludes to the staccato mark, but gives that note a little extra time, without disrupting the flow. This exemplary interpretation does not require unnecessary “bells and whistles” in the form of added ornamentation.

III. Courante (3’01”)

With this interpretation of the Courante the “fast end” of the comparison has been reached: Bruno Philippe (2021) is the only one undercutting the time by two seconds. Needless to say, the performance is virtuosic—fast yet never losing control. Pieter Wispelwey plays all the non-slurred notes with a crisp, “biting” staccato. Playing the semiquavers any faster is hardly imaginable. As the staccato dominates, the few crotchets and the segments with slurred notes (quaver triplets, mostly) stand out all the more, melodious, intensely singing. In two instances (bars 44 and 46), Pieter Wispelwey applies jeu inégal to quaver triplets. One reservation rermains: as the rapid staccato notes dominate, a dance sway is hard to perceive. If there is dance swaying, it’s in three beats per bar—a fast Italian Courante.

IV. Sarabande (4’58”)

The timing of Pieter Wispelwey’s first recording is nearly identical to that of Jaap ter Linden’s—it is even a bit slower. The two approaches are indeed similar, particularly the persistent, calm dance swaying. Pieter Wispelwey’s vibrato is more subtle and absent in the early, soft parts. The dance swaying is primarily achieved through agogics. Only around the peak of the big phrasing arches does the artist add dynamic swelling to shape the climax. Where written or implied ties lead to a three-string chord, Pieter Wispelwey does not repeat the top note. Rather, he fades it into the chord, to a crotchet, creating the perception of a tie. Shortening the dotted half notes in bars 1, 3, and 13 to crotchets helps maintain focus on the melody. It’s a selfless and wonderful interpretation in the service of the composition.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’41”)

Bourrée I

In his early recording of Bourrée I, Pieter Wispelwey is as fast as Steven Isserlis. The tempo is also almost identical to Pablo Casals‘. However, Wispelwey’s performance is a proper, baroque interpretation. It is also fast and virtuosic, with light articulation. Still, Wispelwey’s playing is far more detailed in terms of articulation, dynamics, and agogics. The semiquavers are clear and never superficial. Wispelwey’s phrases breathe, never sounding mechanical. It is an enthralling interpretation full of life.

Bourrée II

Also in Bourrée II, the tempo is almost identical to Pablo Casals‘. Here, the piece is more measured than Bourrée I, in line with the common time signature (4/4), and featuring marked dynamic accents. This offers an excellent contrast. Yet, it definitely does not feel like a peasant dance.

VII. Gigue (2’57”)

Pieter Wispelwey’s first recording is clear and articulate. The tempo is moderate, and the artist maintains a continuous, though not rigid, flow. He never loses tension but also never pushes forward. The interpretation is relaxed and playful. Wispelwey uses limited agogics; rather he structures phrases through articulation and subtle dynamics. He takes an interesting approach to slurring, playing the last quaver triplet prior to a long note (dotted crotchet + crotchet) détaché (or rather staccato). He also plays select other triplets, often the last quaver triplets in a bar, détaché.

Total Duration: 24’04”

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

Comment: An exemplary interpretation from the last century—strongly recommended, unless you prefer a more radical approach.

---

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 G 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.

Transposition to G major

Paolo Pandolfo transposed the suite from E♭ major to G major. Some might say that the differences in key and absolute pitch change the character of the music. Here, I think that (at least for listeners without perfect pitch) the actual key signature is of secondary importance, assuming we ignore the influence of the key on playability on a given instrument. And one should keep in mind that in this set of recordings, the tuning pitch varies between a’ = 392 Hz and a’ = 440 Hz.

The differences between a cello and a viola da gamba are far more relevant here: not only do the bodies of the instruments sound different, but the strings are tuned differently, and the underhand bow grip on the viola da gamba can also have a profound effect on the articulation.

I. Prélude (4’00”)

In the first part (up to the fermata in bar 49), Paolo Pandolfo stays close to the original (apart from the transposition), using light détaché articulation. And yet, the result is radically different: the bright, luminous, singing sound of the upper strings contrasts with the mellow, but powerful sonority of the bass strings. Paolo Pandolfo makes the low, first notes in every bar sound like the tolls of a big bell, defining a calm, solemn pace.

Inevitably, there are, a few (mostly minor) adaptations for the viola da gamba. In particular, Paolo Pandolfo exploits the extra range of his instrument by altering some of the lowest notes. In bars 9 – 14 in the original, these read E♭ — D — C — B♭ — A — F. Bach can’t descend below the C string on the cello, hence the jump to B♭ in bar 12. In G major and on the viola da gamba, the continuation of the descending line G — F♯ — E — D — C♯ — A, is irresistible and beautiful.

The few other changes in the text are less spectacular (if not minor, inconspicuous): a second voice under the trill in bar 61 (in analogy to bar 81), a gentle chord on the fermata in bar 49, an arpeggiated chord on the first note in bar 88. The absence of more “viola da gamba extravaganza” (additional voices, more chords) is not a disappointment: Paolo Pandolfo still manages to bring this music to his instrument in the best possible way—the result is beautiful, fascinating.

II. Allemande (5’55”)

In the Prélude, Paolo Pandolfo largely followed Bach’s original notation. Besides the transposition to G major, what distinguishes this recording from typical cello performances is the unique sonority of the viola da gamba. The Allemande, however, is a “different beast”! In one of the richest transformations imaginable, Paolo Pandolfo adds harmonization through extra chords and second voices. He incorporates pronounced jeu inégal and an abundance of additional ornaments, such as trills, mordents, inverted mordents, and acciaccaturas. Remarkably, he maintains the feeling of a slow, solemn and graceful dance. Undeniably beautiful!

I have one minor reservation, though. As much as I (very much) like and enjoy this transcription, it sounds less like Bach’s music and more like the compositions by one of the prominent gambists of Bach’s time, such as Carl Friedrich Abel (1723 – 1787)—see also my earlier post featuring solo works by this composer.

III. Courante (3’31”)

Similar to what he did in the Prélude, Paolo Pandolfo adheres more closely to Bach’s original composition for the Courante. The main alterations to the piece are its transposition to G major, changes in sonority and minor adaptations resulting from the use of the viola da gamba. This combination highlights the alto register. Paolo Pandolfo’s other additions are minor and consist of a few extra ornaments and chords, and alterations to existing chords such as those in bars 19 – 21. Extra ornaments also prevent monotony in sequential motifs, as in bars 13 – 17 and 31 – 40.

Paolo Pandolfo’s track timing is nearly identical to Anner Bylsma’s 1979 recording. Interestingly, Pandolfo’s performance feels significantly faster. One explanation is the extra ten seconds of trailing time. Beyond that, however, the quavers are indeed much more fluid, and the articulation is lighter. One could argue that the artist presents the ideal marriage of the slow French Courante (swaying in entire bars) and the fast crotchet pace of the Italian variant of the dance (see the comments above). Fascinating and enthralling!

IV. Sarabande (5’17”)

For the Sarabande, Paolo Pandolfo took a most unusual approach. For the first pass of each part, the musician turns his instrument into a lute or a theorbo by using pizzicato only. This approach feels entirely natural and works out beautifully. The artist only plays the first one of tied notes, letting the string resonate. Reaching down to the lower string(s) beneath the second tied note is of course effortless with this approach, even allowing for the expansion of the chord with extra bass notes. Paolo Pandolfo adds a few, lute-inspired ornaments, but largely leaves Bach’s music untouched. Beautiful playing, marvelous sonority, depicting sentimental loneliness, longing, redemption, and joy.

For the repeats, however, Paolo Pandolfo takes up the bow again. He starts softly and carefully, then transitions from the intimacy of a lute to the more expressive “proper viola da gamba style” with expanded dynamics. The approach to tied notes remains the same: the first note is touched briefly, then the chord beneath the second note sets a marked accent at the beginning of the bar. Often, Pandolfo applies subtle overpunctuation, i.e., shortening of semiquaver notes. At the end of the piece, the artist wanted to close in “lute style” again. After the last bar, he returns to bar 25 to add the final eight bars in intimate pizzicato—transfiguration and redemption: enchanting!

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’11”)

Bourrée I

In the first Bourrée, Paolo Pandolfo leaves the skeleton of Bach’s composition largely intact. He frequently adds small, “curly” ornaments, mostly mordents and inverted mordents, as well as a beautiful chord on the first note of bar 25. Additionally, he generously uses agogics to highlight specific “sweet” moments, as if using a magnifying glass on them. Examples include bar 16 (d’, i.e., f♯’), bars 24/25 (leading up to the chord), and bar 38 (f’, i.e., a’).

Ornamentation and agogics are of course just components of what makes this Pandolfo’s very personal view. Of even bigger important are the specific sonority of the viola da gamba (instrument and bow hold/articulation). Add to this the transposition to G major, which partially moves the piece into the alto register, exploiting the singing character of the upper range of the instrument. Moreover, it allows empty and unused strings to resonate and enrich the sound, whereas on the cello, a composition in E♭ major can rarely exploit resonances from empty or unused strings (C – G – d – a). The result is a ravishingly beautiful rendition of Bourrée I “through the eyes of a viola da gamba“.

Paolo Pandolfo performs Bourrée I without the second repeat, in an effort to balance the durations of the two movements. With this, the performance of Bourrée I lasts 92 seconds. The da capo instance of Bourrée I is played without repeats. In Bourrée II, Paolo Pandolfo takes complementary measures. See below.

Bourrée II

The second Bourrée is even more of a revelation. It is the fastest interpretation in this comparison. Not only does it feel faster than Bourrée I, but the character of the piece in this performance is also unique. This is partly due to the aforementioned factors, but also thanks to the instrument’s rich sonority and the gentle articulation. It’s another gem: a short, ravishingly beautiful piece that captures the spirit of the prominent gambist-composers of Bach’s time, such as Carl Friedrich Abel.

While Bourrée I was streamlined by omitting the second repeat, Bourrée II is performed twice, including both repeats. Furthermore, the artist appends a coda of sorts: two instances (p, then pp) of the last four bars. These are identical to the first part, except for the chord in the final bar. This expands Bourrée II to 70 seconds. Some might see the “coda” as overindulgent, or as an allusion to the “fading loop” encountered at the end of some popular music. However, I can hardly blame the artist for not wanting to let go of this music!

VII. Gigue (2’56”)

Other than transposing it to G major, Paolo Pandolfo leaves the structure and texture of the Gigue intact. His only addition is a soft chord above the crotchet (G, originally E♭) in bar 26, which is very minor and inconspicuous. Instead of altering the slurring in the notation, Paolo Pandolfo uses extensive agogics to shape the phrases. At the level of motifs, he uses expressive dynamics to add Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) to the uniform sequence of quaver triplets. It’s an enthralling, vivid performance!

Total Duration: 25’49”

Rating: 5 / 4.5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 = 4.93

Comment: Some listeners may hesitate to accept Paolo Pandolfo’s approach of “recomposing” some movements. However, to me, the interpretation is a unique, refreshing, and fascinating experience not to be missed. I strongly recommend this recording, though as a complement to others, not as the only one.

---

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 (3’31”)

Steven Isserlis plays the “zigzag” motifs at a relatively fluid pace, with a broad, elastic, “pulled” tenuto articulation. His vibrato is almost ubiquitous, most noticeable in longer, emphasized, and peak notes. Within each motif, the artist focuses on the peak note and then lets the line fall down to the bottom note. Although the lowest notes typically appear as first in a bar, Isserlis emphasizes them less than most other cellists do unless they are on or close to the open C string. There are broad phrases, and Steven Isserlis uses differentiated agogics and dynamics to avoid uniformity in the first part. In bar 49, the artist extends the vibrating fermata note through most of the subsequent rest. This defeats the element of surprise and/or the air of mysterious retraction that many achieve with this deceptive cadence.

The semiquaver passage following the fermata and the subsequent virtuosic segment are played well, flawlessly. However, they feel rather (too) integrated, lacking the air of a cadenza or virtuosic climax. Additionally, there is no indication of the staccatissimo marks in bars 70 – 73. In bars 76 and 77, the notes with such marks are accented, but tenuto, not staccato at all. With its broad articulation, constant vibrato, and focus on sound aesthetics and a flawless tone, this recording is firmly rooted in the late 20th century, missing out on many developments in historically informed performance practice.

II. Allemande (3’27”)

Steven Isserlis’ performance of the Allemande is energetic, vibrant, and sonorous. It has an elastic tone and ubiquitous (though not overly intrusive) vibrato. As the fastest performance, it feels somewhat relentless and forced. Shouldn’t a dance movement be more relaxed, if not playful? Steven Isserlis’ choice to apply staccato to quavers is hardly objectionable. However, their execution is too demonstrative and pronounced, to the point where it sometimes becomes idiosyncratic.

III. Courante (3’23”)

Isserlis plays the Courante carefully with regard to dynamics, articulation, as well as the extra ornaments in the repeats. However, it would be better if there were more agogics and “breathing” in phrases. Not surprisingly, the concept of Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) is absent from this interpretation. The performance feels somewhat mechanical and too polished—not in sound or sonority, but in terms of execution.

One peculiarity: besides Sergey Malov (violoncello da spalla, 2018), Steven Isserlis is the only artist in this comparison playing the last note in bar 34 as d♭’ rather than d’, as found in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. Steven Isserlis’ reading (d♭’) is found in the two alternative sources from Bach’s time, both in the public domain and available from IMSLP:

• a manuscript copy, possibly from around 1726, by Johann Peter Kellner (1705 – 1772), a German organist and composer who knew and met Bach and played an important role in the dissemination of Bach’s music;
• an anonymous manuscript copy from the second half of the 18th century

Many of today’s printed editions have adopted the reading from these alternative sources. However, the consensus among all but two of the many artists in this comparison seems to indicate support for Anna Magdalena Bach’s version within the artistic community.

IV. Sarabande (3’57”)

I like the tempo and phrasing. With its ubiquitous vibrato, it’s a relatively romantic, highly expressive approach, quite far from a recent, “proper HIP” performance. Compared to the latter, the dynamics feel exaggerated. In particular, why is there such a pronounced crescendo in every tied motif? It feels overdone, too demonstrative, perhaps even presumptuous. However, one can still feel dance swaying in Steven Isserlis’ playing.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’43”)

Bourrée I

This is a modern, virtuosic interpretation that imitates historically informed performances (HIP). The articulation is light, active, and energetic, as in HIP. The tempo is fluid, and vibrato is applied where possible. Unfortunately, the alla breve rhythm is maintained mechanically throughout, and agogics are present only in a few moments, if at all. Due to the fast pace and the lack of agogics, there is no chance for fast motifs to be played with care and detail. Most semiquaver figures are indeed superficial. On the bright side, there is energy, drive, and tension throughout.

Bourrée II

After the energetic first Bourrée, the second Bourrée offers a stark contrast. It is restrained, soft, and calm. At first, all motion appears to stop. Unsurprisingly, it isn’t a “proper” baroque interpretation. The ornamentation may not be to everyone’s taste, as it feels more classical-romantic than baroque. However, I can’t deny that it consequently follows an internal logic.

VII. Gigue (2’33”)

Steven Isserlis’ performance is technically flawless. However, to me, his playing lacks agogics and differentiation in articulation. There is constant, relentless flow of quaver triplets. Every half-bar starts monotonously with an accent on the first quaver. This results in a mechanical, metronome-like beat (half-bars at 70 beats per minute). Shouldn’t there be more than a clock-like pulsation—more life, joy, and vivacity?

Total Duration: 21’34”

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

Comment: One might call this a “modern” (non-HIP) interpretation. Is it really “modern”? Wouldn’t that imply adopting elements from historically informed performances? Actually, Steven Isserlis’ interpretation is not entirely non-HIP. In parts, he seems bound to the idea of a steady flow that was prevalent around the middle of the twentieth century. He applies vibrato almost throughout, though not overly intrusively. On the other hand he often uses light articulation, as in today’s HIP performances. In summary, if you dislike performances on gut strings, you may still enjoy this recording. I personally can’t recommend it in good faith.

---

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 (3’57”)

Jean-Guihen Queyras’ interpretation of the Prélude is an understatement. The artist articulates carefully, in a calm flow, with diligent, gentle dynamics, subtle agogics, long phrases—unspectacular, devoid of major tempo fluctuations / alterations, avoiding spectacular features in dynamics and articulation. Only bars 60 and 61 in the cadenza stand out as a major gesture. In the “zigzag” motifs, the articulation is a mellow détaché, uniform and inconspicuous in the first part (up to the fermata in bar 49). Compared to some of the other interpretations, this may seem too modest. However, one can argue that this reflects the absence of any dynamic or articulation markings in Bach’s writing. Jean-Guihen Queyras does not try to make “something of his own” (let alone a spectacle) out of this music.

The second part confirms the above impressions: in my listening sequence, this is recording 16 out of 27, and so far it is clearly the one that deserves the label “most faithful to the score”. The second part does indeed have articulation markings in the form of numerous slurs and explicit staccato markings in bars 70 – 77. The latter are written as short vertical bars (staccatissimo), always on the first note in every half-bar motif. Many artists treat the articulation markings with considerable leniency (if not superficiality). Jean-Guihen Queyras follows the notation not only faithfully, but also with exceptional clarity. An interpretation truly at the service of Bach’s music, not a demonstration of artistry and technical/musical prowess!

II. Allemande (4’35”)

Although at virtually the same tempo as Ophélie Gaillard, Jean-Guihen Queyras’ interpretation is quite different. It is gentle in articulation and attitude—intimate and almost modest. The predominant impression is one of legato and near-legato détaché; even the staccato quavers are gentle and mellow. A natural dance sway is embedded in the broad phrasing arches which gently build up to harmonious dynamic climaxes, avoiding unnecessary spectacle. The sonority is beautiful, and the flow is very natural. There are no exaggerations or extravagances in articulation. Consequently, Jean-Guihen Queyras is restrictive with alterations and extra ornaments. The one small alteration that listeners may notice is in the repeat of the first part, where the artist shifts the position of the trill at the end of bar 2.

A harmonious interpretation, impressive in its modesty and naturalness.

III. Courante (3’39”)

In my listening order, this is #11 out of 27 recordings—the ten preceding performances were all slower. I decided to listen to this prior to the 2023 recording by the same artist, which is close in timing, but a tad slower.

In short, this Courante interpretation is wonderful, if not fabulous, compared to the previous ten recordings. The tempo feels very natural, combining a continuous, slow dance swaying in full bars with beautiful, harmonious, and broad dynamic arches. In the previous ten slower recordings, the transitions between quaver chains, quaver triplet sequences, and semiquaver passages often felt like subtle (or not so subtle) stumbling blocks or disruptions. In his 2007 recording, Jean-Guihen Queyras seamlessly incorporates these rhythmic transitions into the overall flow—masterful!

IV. Sarabande (3’48”)

Coming from the slower performances, this (#19) is the first one that feels distinctly “fluid” and is definitely faster than the average. Thanks to Jean Guihen Queyras’s unpretentious, natural approach, it does not feel “too fast” or “not slow enough”. The dynamics are never exaggerated, the articulation is light, and there is a beautiful dance swaying. In the repeats, the artist adds a few extra ornaments. In the second part, these additions are subtle and fit the style of the composition perfectly. One notable addition is a beautiful fioritura that descends from g’ to b♭, crowning the climax of the first part.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’20”)

Bourrée I

This is one of the fastest performances, full of youthful joy, verve, energy, drive, and momentum. At the same time, Jean-Guihen Queyras’ articulation is clear and differentiated. In terms of dynamics, it is one of the most faithful performance, observing Bach’s p and f marks. It’s one of the most enthralling interpretations, infectious in its joyful spirit. Beautiful!

Bourrée II

In Jean-Guihen Queyras’ hands, Bourrée II is a brief intermezzo that doesn’t try to compete with the virtuosic Bourrée I. Unlike other artists, Queyras doesn’t try to “inflate” the piece by making it overly dramatic, loud or heavy or by turning it into a caricature. The interpretation retains a distinct dance quality. Notably, Queyras keeps the stepping crotchets of the lower voice in the background, to maintain the focus on the melody. Excellent!

VII. Gigue (2’31”)

With four recordings still to go in my review sequence from slow to fast, Jean-Guihen Queyras’ 2007 recording definitely takes us to the domain of the fastest performances. It is notably faster than the recordings of Mstislav Rostropovich and Vito Paternoster. Unlike these artists, however, Queyras’ playing is neither superficial nor careless. In fact, his superb technique and mastery enable him to differentiate articulation and dynamics even at this tempo. The performance feels effortless, full of youth and joy—not pushed or rushed. All phrases “talk”, and the articulation retains clarity—it’s simply masterful!

Total Duration: 22’51”

Rating: 4.5 / 4.5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 = 4.86

Comment: This recording is among my top recommendations, even though Jean-Guihen Queyras’ 2023 recording, inspired by a dance production, has matured and revealed up new facets, offering fresh perspectives.

---

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 (4’34”)

The slowest of the cello performances. Compared to Kim Kashkashian’s even slower viola performance, the détaché quavers feel much more uniform—too monotonous, too “spelled out”. I wish there was more connection between the bar size motifs. Also, apart from the cadenza in bars 49 – 51, the semiquaver segments in the second half aren’t really integrated into the musical flow. Ophélie Gaillard does not try to demonstrate virtuosity. However, although not technically flawed, this interpretation gives the listener a sense of the technical and musical challenges of the piece.

II. Allemande (4’37”)

Ophélie Gaillard seems much more comfortable with the Allemande. She chooses a good, natural tempo (the slowest of around 15 recordings in the mid-field), and her articulation is light. There is also a distinct, but subtle dance sway. She only occasionally appears to lose some momentum. At first glance, the artist appears to treat slurs in a very liberal way. For example, the slurred semiquavers at the end of a bar are often performed with a light staccato (spiccato, rather). However, I concede that Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy has rather sketchy slur markings: some found in printed versions are missing, while others are placed superficially. Given this, it is difficult to criticize the discretion in the articulation, especially if the result is consistent and makes sense.

Ophélie Gaillard’s added ornaments in repeats, such as acciaccaturas and inverted mordents, are well-chosen and fit the character of the piece.

III. Courante (3’26”)

In the Courante, Ophélie Gaillard remains faithful to the slurring indicated in the score. She uses a good, fluid tempo, and her articulation is careful and differentiated, particularly in the quaver segments. However, the quaver triplet sequences and semiquaver chains may feel slightly too agitated. However, the performance never loses drive and tension. One minor quibble: the double punctuation on the trill in bar 25 seems unnecessary. Similarly, in bar 64, the first quaver is punctuated. Extravaganza? Capriciousness?

IV. Sarabande (4’01”)

Similar to Emmanuelle Bertrand and Petr Skalka, Ophélie Gaillard’s tempo is just a tad faster than Pablo Casals‘. Careful in articulation and dynamics, warm in tone, featuring a beautiful and expressive cantilena with limited, selective vibrato. There is a calm, harmonious dance swaying in broad phrases—lovely! In the repeats, Ophélie Gaillard adds a few ornaments. Most feel natural and fit really well (except perhaps the inverted mordent on the last beat of bar 11).

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’56”)

Ophélie Gaillards tempi in the Bourrées are identical to those of David Watkin.

Bourrée I

The similarities to David Watkin’s interpretation extend not only to the general character of the interpretation but also to some of the articulation. However, there are slight idiosyncrasies. For example, when phrases end in three successive crotchets, Ophélie Gaillard performs the first crotchet tenuto. This may seem like a minor detail, but it’s noticeable to the listener. Additionally, why do the four quavers in bar 6 sound like appoggiaturas, while in bar 8, while the identical motif in bar 8—an echo, after all—is performed as two acciaccaturas? Finally, David Watkin’s recording has better acoustics and sonority; this one feels a tad dull in comparison. At the same time, the sound of the fingers on the fingerboard is occasionally a little too prominent.

Bourrée II

The second Bourrée also shows some idiosyncrasies. The aforementioned closing formula appears in bar 4, once again accompanied by a ostensible tenuto on the first note. Additionally, there are several instances of tied crotchets in this short piece. In most cases, Ophélie Gaillard puts a little accent on the second crotchet. Why? This defeats the “syncope effect” of these ties.

VII. Gigue (2’51”)

Once again, overall, Ophélie Gaillard’s tempo is nearly identical to David Watkin’s. Her performance is lively and engaged, with clean articulation. However, the artist does not strictly adhere to the slurring in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. There are many more staccato notes among the quaver triplets. On the bright side, this makes the performance “speak” to the listener. One could certainly not say that the performance is flat, uniform, or academic.

Total Duration: 24’25”

Rating: 2.5 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.5 / 4 = 3.71

Comment: For the most part, I can recommend this recording, though it is neither as compelling nor as consistent as the best HIP performances.

---

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 (4’10”)

Over the 14 years, between his first (1998) recording and this one, Pieter Wispelwey almost exactly maintained the overall timing. However, there are substantial changes already in the first part, up to the fermata in bar 49. The basic articulation still is a light staccato. However, there is far more differentiation, in dynamics and agogics, as well as within the “zigzag” motifs, where the first tones are slightly broader, and the last three notes (up to and including the first note of the subsequent bar) now are very short. Detailed articulation, Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) in every note. Masterful!

The difference between the two parts is not as pronounced in the amount of detail as in the first recording (given the far more elaborate articulation in the first part of this recording), but still, the second part (after the fermata in bar 49) naturally is more dramatic if not theatrical, richer in expression and emotion, but playful, without unnecessary spectacle. There is less focus on clean sonority—which does no harm, but adds to the richness of the interpretation. Both of Pieter Wispelwey’s interpretations are excellent—but this one is truly marvelous!

II. Allemande (4’09”)

Pieter Wispelwey’s second recording of the Allemande feels distinctly faster. However, that’s only partly due to the slightly faster pace (the difference in timing is minimal); rather, it’s due to a lighter, more gripping articulation and attention to every detail in small phrases/motifs. The recording highlights this by exposing the interaction between bow and string, as well as the percussive noise of the left hand fingers on the fingerboard. Nevertheless, the recording does not feel excessively noisy. The sounds illustrate the craftsmanship behind this top-class performance.

Needless to say, the sonority of the cello is excellent, as is the Klangrede in articulation, agogics, and dynamics. As a listener, one doesn’t think about slurs, faithfulness to the score: one can simply enjoy one of the richest and most characterful interpretations. Pieter Wispelwey obviously still sees no need to enrich the Allemande with additional ornamentation, and indeed, nothing is amiss here!

III. Courante (3’07”)

Fourteen years after his first recording, Pieter Wispelwey’s interpretation remains among the three fastest performances, just a tad below his 1998 recording. The two interpretations are indeed similar, though the newer recording is less focused on virtuosity and more differentiated in the articulation (e.g., in the staccato quaver motifs). There is even less vibrato, if any. Most importantly, the artist now uses more agogics within motifs, resulting in more “local expression” and Klangrede. With that added expression and local detail, the dance sway is more pronounced than in 1998 (it is still a fast Italian Courante, needless to say). Pieter Wispelwey again applies jeu inégal to the quaver triplets in bars 44 and 46—here, that effect is even more pronounced.

IV. Sarabande (4’34”)

Pieter Wispelwey’s 2012 performance is only slightly faster than his first recording. While the other changes may seem minor individually, collectively, they add up to a substantial evolution. The vibrato is now further reduced to an absolute minimum. The articulation is lighter and shorter yet more expressive and outgoing. For the ties to three-string chords, the artist consequently keeps the first note (upbeat) shorter, in favor of playing the full chord with a separate bow stroke. Meanwhile, the dotted half notes in bars 1, 3, and 13 are now longer at approximately half a note. In the repeats, the artist sparingly adds a few well-placed extra ornaments.

This interpretation may seem more austere at first, particularly given the shorter articulation and the virtual absence of vibrato. It’s not a performance for “casual” listening. There is nothing casual or superficial about this performance. Attentive, active listening is rewarded by the richness of the more expressive dynamics and stronger agogics. The expression and rhythmic/agogic tension in every motif opens a window to a world of emotions—masterful!

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’25”)

Bourrée I

Also with Bourrée I, Pieter Wispelwey’s 2012 recording is only gradually faster than his earlier one. With that, the tempo is again nearly identical to Pablo Casals’. The differences between Wispelwey’s two recordings are not in the tempo or in the general approach. Rather, the articulation is now more radical: even lighter, and more consequent in its lightness. The crotchets are reduced to ultra-short, almost percussive staccato notes with minimal bowing. It’s radical, yes, but not objectionably so. The performance is full of tension and energy in every note, and the articulation is always clear; the sonority is superb.

Bourrée II

In a stark contrast, Pieter Wispelwey’s 2012 performance of Bourrée II is substantially faster than his 1998 interpretation. It’s the fastest of the cello performances. The artist now definitely reads this as alla breve, far from a comfortable or heavy peasant dance. At the same time, Wispelwey doesn’t make this a caricature. He does, however, highlight the fun aspects with strongly swaying agogics and a deliberate crescendo on the tied crotchets. This is of course not the same as putting an accent on the second tied note. One could debate whether this interpretation follows Bach’s intentions, given the 4/4 time signature. Nevertheless, the interpretation is good fun and a pleasure to listen to. After all, we know that Bach also had a sense of humor!

VII. Gigue (2’58”)

Since his 1998 recording, Pieter Wispelwey’s tempo hasn’t changed much; it is only slightly slower. As in other parts of the recording, however, his interpretation is now more radical and eloquent in almost every aspect, including articulation, dynamics, agogics and phrasing. In the main “theme” (bars 1 – 10, as well as later instances), the artist largely follows the slurring in the score. Later, he often switches to staccato, especially around an expressive climax. There are now strong, expressive dynamic contrasts. The phrasing is more conspicuous, and the structuring is more prominent. The artist exploits the instrument’s characterful sonority and lower pitch. He does not shy away from exposing the “grainy” interaction between the bow and strings up to the marked trill-appoggiatura on the final note, which provides a remarkable closing accent.

Total Duration: 23’22”

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

Comment: Clearly one of my top favorite recordings—highly recommended!

---

Isang Enders, 2012

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 (2’56”)

Bruno Philippe was only 28 years old when he recorded the Cello Suites in 2021. Isang Enders was just 24 years old when he recorded them in 2012. It seems he was aiming for the speed record. Enders’ basic approach in the first part is similar to Malov’s, consisting mostly of short, almost dry staccato, with an emphasis on the bass notes. However, Enders’ cello sounds much nicer than Malov’s violoncello da spalla. And Isang Enders’ rhythm within the “zigzag” motifs is more even, and he applies decent agogics, dynamics, and phrasing.

Isang Enders’ technique is flawless. After the fermata (bar 49), however, the performance devolves into mere virtuosity and technical brilliance. While fascinating, it exceeds the boundaries and the spirit of Baroque music in general and Bach’s Cello Suites in particular. Similarly, Isang Enders applies vastly exaggerated agogics (rubato, rather) in the second part. On the bright side: the artist uses very little vibrato, if any. Perhaps it’s too technical and lacks genuine emotion and expression?

II. Allemande (4’20”)

A careful, reflected interpretation with gentle dance-like sway. Unfortunately, there is too much “ordinary détaché” articulation to the point where it becomes annoying. The artist also tends to use “belly dynamics” on end notes.

III. Courante (4’10”)

This is one of the slowest Courante performances in this comparison. Although the timing is considerably shorter than Pablo de Naverán’s, the basic tempo is very similar. Isang Enders avoids de Naverán’s extreme agogics; his pace is far more regular. It’s actually a bit too regular, occasionally feeling static, even mechanical, lacking drive, motion, and dance swaying. Isang Enders performs the slurred semiquavers in bars 49 – 54 as staccato, which contributes to the dryness of his interpretation. The dynamics often appear exaggerated and “fabricated”. Moreover, Isang Enders tends to apply “belly dynamics” to highlighted notes.

IV. Sarabande (5’07”)

This Sarabande demonstrates polished technical perfection. Its timing is identical to Pierre Fournier’s. Like the latter, it is too slow for a dance movement, lacking agogic swaying. The articulation is lighter, and the vibrato is applied more discreetly and selectively. However, this does little to add expression to the interpretation. Whenever ties lead into a three-string chord (bars 2, 4, 6, 19, 22, 23, and 31), Isang Enders simply omits the tied note on the top string without attempting to maintain a continuous melody line.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (5’17”)

Bourrée I

Isang Enders’ tempo for the Bourrées is moderate. His articulation is very clean, rhythmically straight, almost to the point of being schematic, though it is properly alla breve. Some more rhythmic flexibility and dance swaying would not hurt. The artist remains largely faithful to the score. However, the cleanliness in the articulation reveals a few questionable slurring decisions. For example, bar 6 begins with two pairs of slurred semiquavers, whereas in bar 8 (echo), the same figure only has the first two semiquavers slurred. Also, in bar 34 (semiquavers only, all slurred), the descending scale (second half) is played détaché. The dynamics are often rather demonstrative.

Bourrée II

The performance is careful, clear, but too straight. The dynamics are often exaggerated and too demonstrative. The interpretation feels technical, lacking expression, emotion, and atmosphere.

VII. Gigue (2’56”)

Though not necessarily faithful to the score, this is perfectly played. Isang Enders plays the slurs as written For the main “theme”, but outside of these “thematic sections”, the artists mostly resorts to dry staccato articulation. Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy has no dynamic annotations. Isang Enders adds his own dynamics. Logically, these make sense (e.g., echo dynamics for repeated motifs), but the execution is so poignant that it feels overly didactic and academic. And what is the purpose of the exaggerated Nachdrücken on the final note?

Total Duration: 24’45”

Rating: 3.5 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3.5 = 3.14

Comment: From a technical standpoint, one can hardly criticize this recording: it is clean, flawless, virtuosic, and cold. Musically, however, this performance is rather uninteresting.

---

David Watkin, 2013

Resonus, ℗/© 2015
Artist: David Watkin (1965 – 2025)
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 (3’27”)

Very interesting: in 2013, the late David Watkin (who passed away a few weeks ago) performed just a tad faster than Steven Isserlis in 2005. Both are among the six fastest interpretations, but the two recordings are very, very different. Of course, David Watkin used gut strings and a baroque bow, so naturally, his sound is nowhere near as polished or smooth as Isserlis’. But there is more to it than that. David Watkin uses light détaché articulation, which one could also call light staccato. There is also a richness in Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) through dynamics, articulation, and agogics, which defeats all potential monotony in the first part (up to the fermata in bar 49).

The fast semiquaver segment in bars 49 – 51, the virtuosic cadenza in bars 56 – 61, and the closing bars are all so rich in agogics that they attain the air of stylus fantasticus (a term that, strictly speaking, applies to keyboard music alone). This interpretation also exemplifies the execution of the motifs with the staccatissimo marks in bars 70 – 73. It is an excellent, life-filled, expressive recording performed with outstanding clarity and richness—fascinating!

II. Allemande (4’05”)

What a beautiful performance! It is exemplary in its pronounced swaying dance motion, harmonious flow, and preservation of tension and momentum. David Watkin subtly stretches upbeat quavers into a “loaded tenuto“, seemingly charging energy that he doesn’t release until the final note(s), forming very long phrases. Yet, the interpretation leaves room to breathe and does not feel unnecessarily relentless.

III. Courante (3’24”)

This is yet another highly engaged and active interpretation. David Watkin treats the ascending semiquaver figures as energetic “extended upbeats”, accelerating to build momentum for the subsequent bars. Rhythmically and dynamically, it is a measured, swaying dance. Most non-slurred notes (quavers and semiquavers) sound staccato. The focus is on expression rather than polished, pure sonority. David Watkin deliberately left noisy staccati and whirring tones uncorrected. Some may find this too noisy, but its extreme, radical expression is nevertheless enthralling.

IV. Sarabande (3’41”)

Just a tad faster than Jean-Guihen Queyras, David Watkin offers an interpretation that truthfully follows to Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy, devoid of additional ornaments. This does not imply a dry or overly didactic performance, however. On the contrary: without exaggerations or demonstrative “features”, the interpretation is harmonious, expressive, and natural in its articulation, phrasing, and dynamics (with an occasional, very slight tendency towards Nachdrücken). True, other interpretations are freer in the agogics and in the dance swaying, but this is still one of the best HIP performances, rich, exemplary, and marvelous!

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (6’24”)

Bourrée I

In terms of tempo, David Watkin performance is very close to the average among these recordings. However, compared to the twelve interpretations of this movement reviewed thus far, this performance is anything but average. The interpretation is highly engaged, playful, and vivid. The articulation is light and detailed, and the dynamics adhere to Anna Magdalena Bach’s notation without exaggerating contrasts. It’s thrilling and beautiful!

Bourrée II

Here, Bourrée II is far from a comfy—let alone heavy—peasant dance. Rather it is very much a true Bourrée, a fluid dance in common time (4/4) that is light and joyful—amazing!

Like Myriam Rignol, David Watkin performs the da capo instance of Bourrée I with both repeats. Some may not see this as necessary, but given the qualities of the performance, who could object?

VII. Gigue (2’50”)

This is a fabulous performance! It is engaging, joyful, fluid and active. It is lively, almost agitated, and rich in agogic and dynamic detail. The sonority is beautiful. My only minor criticism is that there is a slight loss of momentum after the double barline. However, this does not diminish the listener’s experience and pleasure.

Total Duration: 23’51”

Rating: 5 / 5 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 5 / 5 / 5 = 4.86

Comment: This is one of the best HIP performances in this comparison and highly recommended. It’s a wonderful legacy from the late David Watkin, a beacon among British artists!

---

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 (3’50”)

The overall timing of this recording of the Prélude matches Petr Skalka’s from 2000. Neither artist uses vibrato. Yet, the difference in sonority is astounding. Thomas Demenga plays at a lower pitch (a’ = 392 Hz, like Pieter Wispelwey 2012), which is half a tone below a’ = 415 Hz and a full tone below modern tuning at a’ = 440 Hz. This gives the notes on the C string an extra darkness, and Thomas Demenga clearly enjoys the beautiful sonorities of his Testore cello.

Thomas Demenga’s staccato in the “zigzag” motifs is light and gentle. The natural focus on the bass notes, combined with a very subtle echo effect on paired motifs, makes the tempo appear measured and calm across the broad dynamic arches. Subtle variations in the articulation, such as broadening toward climaxes, prevent any impression of rigidity, monotony, or didacticism.

Nothing in the second part feels exaggerated—it’s all natural. For example, the rich agogics in general, the smooth, rapid flow of the semiquavers in bars 49 – 51 and in the final bars, and the accelerated tempo in the sections with the staccatissimo marks (bars 70 – 73 and 76/77). The same holds true for the virtuosic cadenza in bars 56 – 61: the one thing standing out is the (extra) mordent at the end of the trill in bar 61. Beautiful playing—a gem of an interpretation!

II. Allemande (4’10”)

My listening sequence for the Allemande, the selection progresses from slow to fast. Thomas Demenga follows Kim Kashkashian. One of the lowest pitches (a’ = 392 Hz) follows the highest one (viola, a’ = 440 Hz)—a ninth apart. The contrast is mind-boggling. The striking features in Thomas Demenga’s interpretation are the sonority (full and dark), and the natural musical flow, the broad swaying motion, both in dynamics and in agogics, breathing both in small phrases and in the big arches.

Demenga plays fewer ornaments than Kim Kashkashian in the repeats, but these “extras” feel natural and integrate well into the musical flow. This does not mean that they are “just ordinary”. They are noticeable and personal, and occasionally even unusual (e.g., the trill on the upbeat to the second repeat), but never make the listener question the artist’s choice. The performance does not aim for perfection. One can often hear the interaction between the bow and the strings. However, the recording does not sound noisy. The microphones are far enough away to avoid this, yet close enough to allow for the necessary intimacy and directness.

III. Courante (3’18”)

Thomas Demenga plays at the same tempo as Anner Bylsma in his 1992 recording. Demenga’s agogics are more controlled than Bylsma’s and not quite as impulsive. However, Demenga’s articulation is more differentiated, and the ascending détaché semiquaver figures are more intense, far more than “extended upbeats”, yet still playful. In the quaver triplet sequences, Demenga gradually transitions from legato to détaché, to de-emphasize the last part of a phrase. In the first passes, the artist tends to omit the ornaments—the music is intense enough without them. Conversely, in the repeats, Thomas Demenga expands some of the score’s ornaments and adds more in his own, personal style. He manages to make these sound spontaneous and improvised. This interpretation is real pleasure to listen to!

IV. Sarabande (3’08”)

The fastest Sarabande performance (the last in my listening sequence from slow to fast) is a masterpiece. It’s even faster than Anner Bylsma’s 1992 recording, yet it never feels rushed. Initially, the tempo is certainly surprising, but the listener quickly adapts to the pace. Thomas Demenga’s “trick” is a steady dance swaying in entire bars, combined with very light articulation. He even applies a subtle ritardando at the end of each part. In the first pass, the first part ends with an ascending fioritura (rather than a trill) that leads back to the beginning. Both repeats are enriched with a marvelous set of highly inventive, personal, yet perfectly fitting ornaments—Thomas Demenga’s “watermark”. The performance is pure joy to listen to—serene, playful, relaxed, and dance-like. It is musically mind-boggling and brilliant, yet not intellectual!

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’25”)

Bourrée I

Thomas Demenga’s performance of Bourrée I is fast, but not as extreme as Anner Bylsma’s 1992 performance. Despite the virtuosic tempo, Demenga’s interpretation remains natural, never feeling forced or pushed. It’s no surprise that despite the fast pace, Thomas Demenga adds a few extras, including jeu inégal in the quavers in bar 8, which is varied in the repeat. This amplifies the echo effect. The artist also adds a turn on the last note in bar 21 and additional ornaments in the second repeat. Overall, it’s excellent and enthralling!

Bourrée II

The pace in Bourrée II is slower. Despite the stark contrast in character, Thomas Demenga achieves natural and harmonious transitions. Bourrée II feels vigorous, “big”, and solemn. The beautiful, warm, and full sonority of the low strings—amplified further by the pitch of a’ = 392 Hz—exhibits the calm swaying of the lower voice. In the second repeat, the artist again adds personal details, most prominently the capricious jeu inegal in the descending quaver scale in bar 8. Beautiful!

VII. Gigue (2’59”)

At a tempo that is identical to Isang Enders’, Thomas Demenga presents an interpretation that is infinitely more interesting, differentiated, and full of life. Perfect tone and smooth articulation are not the goals here. Rather, the performance breathes naturally. It “speaks” through agogics and dynamics in every phrase and motif. In the repeats, Thomas Demenga subtly adds inverted mordents on the first note of some quaver triplets, which adds to the liveliness of the interpretation. Beautiful!

Total Duration: 21’50”

Rating: 5 / 4.5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 = 4.93

Comment: One of my top favorite recordings-highly 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.

I. Prélude (4’29”)

The tempo of Marianne Dumas’ Prélude is very close to that of Ophélie Gaillard—one of the slowest in this comparison. The outcome, however, is very different. Here, the articulation is a rather broad, mellow tenuto (as opposed to détaché), which makes the performance sound heavier and slower. This is likely the result of the underhand bow grip, which also makes the numerous string transitions quite audible—too audible. It also points to the technical challenges of this piece. The persistent tenuto articulation in the “zigzag” motifs also limits the amount of Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) within the 1-bar motifs, resulting in a certain uniformity.

A key feature of this interpretation is that Marianne Dumas does not make the descending motifs aim for the final, lowest note. Rather, she launches into the first (highest) note and then releases the tension toward the end of the motif. At the same time, she creates larger dynamic arches—”large scale Klangrede“, so to speak. The interpretation livens up in the short cadenza (bars 49 – 51) and the subsequent second part with fluid, almost dramatic semiquaver passages.

II. Allemande (4’13”)

Unfortunately, that’s a very noisy recording. The microphones must have been placed very close to the instrument. In the articulation, the interpretation is dominated by legato, détaché, and broad tenuto. I miss some contrasting lightness. The broad bowing also makes the interpretation sound heavy, if not occasionally clumsy, and I don’t feel any dance sway—neither in agogics nor in dynamics. There are times when this interpretation appears to keep pushing forward, not leaving room to breathe between phrases. Additionally, I think there should be more differentiation in dynamics. Is the underhand bow hold causing upstroke quavers (in ascending large intervals) often to receive an unnecessary accent?

III. Courante (3’55”)

Marianne Dumas’ Courante is just a tad faster than those of Jaap ter Linden and Pablo Casals. The vastly different outcome may result largely from Dumas’ underhand bow hold. Compared to Jaap ter Linden and Pablo Casals, Marianne Dumas’ articulation is softer, less clearly defined. And certainly less percussive. Where other cellists use staccato, Dumas tends to use broad détaché, if not tenuto articulation. The latter is often rather uniform, lacking tension and definition, especially in longer quaver segments, such as bars 31 – 41. There is also a tendency to use excessive crescendo on longer notes. Occasionally, the performance loses momentum and drive, as in bars 49 – 54. Not entirely convincing.

IV. Sarabande (3’59”)

The tempo of the Sarabande in Marianne Dumas’ interpretation is slightly above the average, but still moderate. Here, there is no pronounced effect from the underhand bow hold. The articulation feels natural, the tone melodious. There is a very slight restlessness within motifs, which makes me wish for a more relaxed approach, more rhythmic breathing, and some agogic freedom in the dance swaying. Finally, the intonation isn’t always as clean as one would expect.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (5’42”)

Bourrée I

That’s not at all convincing. The articulation sounds sloppy—mostly a mix of legato and broad tenuto, only the descending crotchets are staccato. Even worse, the intonation is not just sloppy, but often also careless, and the rhythm is too straight, too regular, devoid of tension and dance swaying.

Bourrée II

For rhythm and the absence of agogics see Bourrée I. Articulation and intonation are slightly better in Bourrée II.

VII. Gigue (2’51”)

Once again, there are occasional superficialities in the intonation. The articulation feels overly busy and often also somewhat careless.

Total Duration: 25’09”

Rating: 3 / 2.5 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 2.5 / 3 = 2.71

Comment: For this Suite at least, I expected too much from the CD’s cover label “Rediscovering the baroque technique“. Not recommended. However, if the label sparks your interest: don’t be disappointed.

---

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 (4’48”)

In this Suite, Kim Kashkashian offers the slowest of the Prélude performances, which may seem counterintuitive, as one might expect the viola, with its higher pitch, shorter strings, and violin-like bowing technique, to have an advantage over the cello. However, the viola presents its own set of challenges, such as the left hand’s finger span.

Kim Kashkashian uses the moderate tempo to articulate every motif / bar carefully, diligently, shaping each note within the motifs with careful, light détaché bowing. The first note in each quaver bars (e.g., up to the fermata in bar 49, and in subsequent quaver segments) gets some extra “space” and a decent, subtle vibrato. This is even more pronounced at the end of the two-bar groups / phrases.

Beautifully played, mostly intimate (rather than dramatic), not trying to show off technical mastery. Compared to typical cello performances, the interpretation also demonstrates the viola’s more even, balanced sonority across the registers. One quibble: with all the care and attention to every note there is a danger of the listener getting lost in the details. There isn’t a strong connection between bars, except for the “responses” in the second half of the two-bar phrases. Nevertheless, the artist forms broad dynamic arches (mostly subtle), and repeated motifs form echoes (question/answer pairs).

II. Allemande (4’11”)

In the Allemande, the viola seems to be at a disadvantage compared to the cello. In the top register, the cello blooms with its intense, singing tone, whereas the viola sounds somewhat thin and nasal. Overall, I like the articulation, but I have a few quibbles. For instance, there are some irregularities in the flow, such as subtle accelerations in the middle of a phrase. Additionally, Kim Kashkashian tends to “sit down” between phrases. This disrupts the flow and prevents a steady dance swaying.

Finally, the artist adds her own ornaments to the repeats: not too many (mordents, inverted mordents, and acciaccaturas), but their placement and selection seems a bit unusual, if not erratic. It’s unclear whether she wants to highlight key notes or “fill” otherwise neglected parts of a phrase. Why are such ornaments often on upbeats, leading notes, or “weak” parts of a phrase?

III. Courante (3’52”)

Kim Kashkashian articulates every note carefully and clearly, maintaining a steady pace throughout the movement. The one shortcoming in this piece is that she is not successful in maintaining a dance swaying across quaver motifs, quaver triplet motifs, and semiquaver figures. Is there too much focus on articulation as opposed to phrasing?

Another peculiarity of Kim Kashkashian’s performance is her decision to omit all the ornaments from Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy for the initial renditions of both Courante parts. Conversely, she expands the ornaments in the repeats (e.g., changing an appoggiatura into a mordent) and adds a few new embellishments. The first passes are also faithful to the slurring in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. However, in the repeats, the artist slurs one pair of notes in most quaver-only bars. She mostly slurs quavers 4 and 5, sometimes 3 and 4, and sometimes none. Should this fall under “ornament”? At the very least, it’s unusual. Additionally, the changing placement of these extra slurs makes the interpretation seem somewhat arbitrary.

IV. Sarabande (3’34”)

I’m listening to this Sarabande after the 1998 recording with Vito Paternoster. Both recordings share a similar tempo and similar characterizations of this movement. Also Kim Kashkashian often uses capricious staccato articulation, though not as consistently as Vito Paternoster. She also “spices up” the repeats by adding her own ornaments. The upward octave transposition for the viola further contributes to the impression of a lighthearted dance. Unlike with Vito Paternoster’s performance, the capriciousness is limited to certain segments of the movement. There are also amiable moments where the viola successfully adds intimacy and tenderness. Overall, one can feel that the artist is articulating carefully and diligently. I prefer this to Vito Paternoster’s interpretation.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (5’28”)

Bourrée I

The tempo is moderate. However, the interpretation is light, elastic, and almost capricious, swaying—which fits the character of a Bourrée nicely. Moreover, the higher pitch and the sonority of the viola ideally support the lighthearted nature of the piece and its interpretation. It’s a pleasure to listen to!

Bourrée II

The tempo is very moderate. However, the crotchet pace is slower than in the first Bourrée, as the time signature suggests. Similar to Pablo de Naverán‘s interpretation, this short movement evokes the character of a peasant dance, without making it a caricature. Prominent yet not exaggerated dynamic accents follow and highlight the lower voice—very nice!

VII. Gigue (2’46”)

This is one of the best movements in Kim Kashkashian’s performance. The viola can showcase its agility, fast response, and the advantages of the higher pitch, all of which suit this Gigue very well. Kim Kashkashian’s articulation is of utmost clarity, her agogics are excellent, and her dynamics are well-differentiated, though not extreme or exaggerated.

Total Duration: 24’39”

Rating: 4 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 4 / 4 / 4.5 / 4.5 = 4.00

Comment: While I wouldn’t recommend this recording as the only one of Bach’s Suites, it makes a worthwhile addition to a collection, highlighting aspects of the composition that are often overlooked in cello performances.

---

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. With one exception, Sergey Malov consequently leaves out all repeats.

I. Prélude (3’01”)

In this comparison, only Isang Enders (2012) plays the Prélude faster than Sergey Malov on the violoncello da spalla. Is this a demonstration of technical prowess? The agility in the “zigzag” figures and later in the virtuosic semiquaver segments is impressive. It sounds as if the violoncello da spalla offers specific technical advantages, at least in the first part. However, the Suite is not a speed competition, and what ultimately matters is the music and the interpretation that the artist creates on his instrument.

The first part, consists exclusively of “zigzag” motifs. Listeners hear two elements. First, there are the bass notes, which are played with a careful, broad staccato. These serve as an “anchor point” in each motif. Due to the instrument’s smaller size and the extra-heavy C string, these notes sound slightly nasal/peculiar. Despite their short length, the tailor-made strings allow for volume. However, this somewhat compromises the sound color/quality. The second element is the cascading “zigzag” motif: while Malov gives the bass notes some extra “space”, the “zigzag” part—with brief, dry staccato articulation—almost appears to rush towards the next motif/bar. The overall impression is not rushed, though it is still a departure from Bach’s all-quaver notation.

Sergey Malov’s agility on the instrument is astounding. The semiquaver passages are really fast and virtuosic, losing clarity and readability; they are definitely beyond the scope of baroque cello music. Overall, it’s a somewhat peculiar recording.

II. Allemande (2’08”)i

Sergey Malov’s interpretation is careful and detailed in articulation, agogics, phrasing and dynamics. Apart from the omission of the repeats, my main quibble is with the accidental acceleration in the second part, starting around bar 31. This may work out OK in a live performance, but in a recording it sounds unintentional, if not negligent.

III. Courante (1’28”)

This interpretation is rather fast in general. It seems to have adopted the impulsiveness, momentum, and strong agogics from Anner Bylsma’s 1992 recording. However, here, the semiquavers feel pressed and pushed, even though they are articulated clearly. The dance swaying is not entirely persistent, and often is in two-bar periods.

One peculiarity of Sergey Malov’s violoncello da spalla caught my attention only in this movement: the sound of the strings is less even than that of a regular cello (the strings are tailor-made for this instrument, see the Comparison Summary). The G string sounds more nasal than the other strings. This results in noticeable color changes when transitioning to the G string from above (d string) or below (C string).

Another peculiarity is that, besides Steven Isserlis (2005), Sergey Maylov is the only artist in this comparison who plays the last note in bar 34 as d♭’ rather than d’, as found in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. See the comments on Steven Isserlis’ recording for details.

IV. Sarabande (1’41”)

Sergey Malov opted for a rather fluid tempo; only Thomas Demenga and Anner Bylsma (1992) perform this faster. The artist’s light articulation and tendency to overpunctuate dotted motifs create the impression of a light, gentle dance. This seems to contradict the slightly muffled sound and instrument sonority. The artist does not play the repeats, but adds some extra ornaments, especially in the second part. With the omission of the repeats, listeners only get to hear the ornamented version of the movement. The articulation is careful and diligent, but there is a tendency for “spontaneous dynamic outbursts” at arbitrary points within phrases, a peculiarity of this interpretation.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (2’56”)

Bourrée I

The performance is fast and virtuosic. Sergey Malov uses agogics, but there is little dance swaying. The artist adds numerous ornaments, some of which seem excessive. At the very least, they are highly personal and unconventional, especially on rhythmically “weak” notes. As he does almost throughout his recording, Sergey Malov omits all repeats, hence listeners don’t get a chance to experience the unaltered composition.

Bourrée II

The second Bourrée feels calmer and more dance-like than Bourrée I. In bars 1/2, 5 – 7, and 9/10, the intonation in the melody voice is occasionally affected by the accompaniment on the low strings. The latter consists of terse staccato crotchets. As a rare exception in this recording, the first repeat in Bourrée II is observed and without additional ornaments. However, the repeat and the second part feature additional ornaments that are slightly less, and less unconventional than those in Bourrée I.

VII. Gigue (1’19”)

Apart from the omission of the repeats, my main criticism here is the dull sonority and almost tubular sound of the recording. This limits the pleasure that listeners can derive from the recording. That said, despite the second-to-fastest tempo, Sergey Malov’s playing is virtuosic and the articulation is clear.

Total Duration: 12’42”

Rating: 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3 / 3.5 = 3.64

Comment: This is an exceptional recording by an artist with impressive virtuosic capabilities. Using a violoncello da spalla seems a viable option from a historical perspective. As period instruments of this type are difficult to find, commissioning a replica may be the only way to pursue this approach. However, using custom-built strings to improve the sonority calls the historicity of this project into question. Also, just to reiterate: the systematic omission of Bach’s repeats should be a non-starter. The only excuse I can think of is that this was initially a private recording (as evidenced by the often limited sound quality), which the artist later decided to publish.

---

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 (4’14”)

At first (after listening to Pablo Casals), Emmanuelle Bertrand’s recording sounded a little dull. On closer inspection, however, it became clear that this was due to the church acoustics, possibly in combination with a rather close microphone placement. The result is a recording with warm, almost intimate sonority. The bowing in the “zigzag” motifs is a broad, but not “thick” détaché without excessive bow pressure.

Engaged playing, never letting go of the intensity of expression, maintaining a steady flow. The dramatic climax is in the cadenza (bars 56 – 61) with its rapid semiquaver passages. Beautiful, wide dynamic arches, harmonious in the agogics.

II. Allemande (3’50”)

The performance feels somewhat relentless, all semiquaver figures sound legato, building long, barely structured chains and lines that leave little room to breathe. Phrase intersections and breathing in phrases are inconspicuous, and Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) is very limited, if present at all. However, the sonority is beautiful: smooth, harmonious, and balanced, never noisy.

III. Courante (3’26”)

The tempo and timing are virtually identical to those of Ophélie Gaillard. Emmanuelle Bertrand’s performance is highly engaged, full of drive and enthusiasm. However, her articulation often borders on superficiality in the quaver triplets, semiquaver segments, and transitions between these. Is there too much engagement? Additionally, the reverberation from the church acoustics doesn’t add much value to the recording.

IV. Sarabande (4’03”)

At tempo close to the average, Emmanuelle Bertrand plays with careful articulation, tone and dynamics. One can characterize her articulation as “light tenuto“: broad, but with discharging dynamics on most notes. The artist remains faithful to Anna Magdalena Bach’s notation and does not add ornaments. The one exception is bar 17, where the alternative sources show three appoggiaturas. Emmanuelle Bertrand omits these in her first pass. Only in the repeat, she appears to play them. She doesn’t, though; rather, plays three acciaccaturas. However, in proper baroque style, these (as well as appoggiaturas) are played on the beat, i.e., as part of the main note, not preceding it.

Another issue is that there is very little, if any dance swaying. Is this due to insufficient agogic tension in general or a subtle softness in some of the dotted motifs? The second dotted motif in many bars (such as bars 9, 10, 25, and 26, and similar instances) feels a tad underpunctuated.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (5’02”)

Bourrée I

This is a good, natural tempo—not too slow, nor ever pushed. Emmanuelle Bertrand’s articulation is careful, clear, and differentiated. It remains faithful to the slurs in Anna Magdalena Bach’s notation. The sonority of the instrument is beautiful and warm, and the artist is not aiming for polished perfection. My main quibble is with the slight excess of reverberation from the church acoustics, especially with the staccato crotchets.

Bourrée II

The artist reads this movement in alla breve time; the crotchet pace is very close to that in Bourrée I. Here, however, the movement’s crotchet texture creates a very different character and atmosphere: warm, cozy, and harmonious. Additionally, the reverberation is much less of an issue given the softer articulation.

VII. Gigue (2’43”)

The timing for Emmanuelle Bertrand’s Gigue performance is identical to that of both Anner Bylsma’s 1992 performance and Pablo Casals’ 1939 recording. Her interpretation is fluid and expressive. She avoids staccato, using only legato and détaché to maintain the harmonious flow of quavers. However, the tempo is fast enough to prevent the seemingly endless sequence of triplets from becoming monotonous. One could imagine an interpretation with more agogics across phrases. Still, the artist carefully articulates every motif and listens for hidden melodic patterns, making the performance joyful and playful—a pleasure to listen to.

Total Duration: 23’18”

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

Comment: Emmanuelle Bertrand offers a solid interpretation that is both engaged and careful. While it is HIP in terms of instrumentation, it is not radical in articulation or sonority. It’s certainly worth recommending.

---

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 (4’17”)

Juris Teichmanis plays the “zigzag” motifs with short, rough, almost harsh staccato articulation: sound aesthetics (let alone perfect sonority) seem to be the least of the artist’s concerns. It takes some getting used to the noise of the bow/string interaction before the listener notices the artist’s phrasing (dynamics and agogics). The first part ends with a broad rallentando toward the fermata, followed by a long pause. The semiquaver passage in bars 49 – 51 is a short, whirling intermezzo, followed by more “zigzag” episodes.

My overall impression: a somewhat rough, “noisy” performance. True, it’s on gut strings—but that doesn’t necessarily justify the amount of scratching (and occasional buzzing) noise: were the microphones positioned too close to the instrument? In fact, the noisiness sometimes even seems to interfere with the intonation clarity. Sure, intonation on string instruments is a tricky, often touchy subject, and it often is a matter of personal preference. To my mind, the intonation here occasionally borders on superficiality.

II. Allemande (5’00”)

This is a solid, honest HIP performance. However, it is often a bit too linear, almost static, lacking tension. Some more agogics, more Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) would also be helpful. At this moderate tempo, the dance character is virtually absent.

III. Courante (3’43”)

Juris Teichmanis’ tempo is natural and right on the average among the recordings in this comparison. His interpretation offers a nice, calm dance sway. My main reservation here is with the somewhat noisy staccato semiquaver chains.

IV. Sarabande (4’33”)

One can hear the interaction between the bow and strings here—at an acceptable level. Still, the sound is a somewhat rough, raw. As for the intonation: it is largely on target, but there are still moments (e.g., in vibrato-less double-stop intervals involving an empty string) that make me question whether it is really clean. Ideally, intonation should never be an issue the listener is aware of. The tempo is calm, close to the average. There is agogic swaying. However, the flow is often slightly erratic (e.g., at the intersection between phrases or motifs), which hinders a persistent dance feeling.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (5’12”)

Bourrée I

This performance has a good, moderate tempo. The articulation and dynamics are clear and faithful to the score. However, it feels rather robust, if not coarse. There is often noise, such as whirring strings in f passages. Overall, this is not exactly what one might expect for a gallant Bourrée dance.

Bourrée II

See above. However, unlike many others, Juris Teichmanis respects the common time (4/4) signature. With this, the pace feels faster than that of Bourrée I, despite the robustness of the interpretation.

VII. Gigue (3’08”)

This is rather raw and often noisy, with whirring strings and the like. The artist makes little or no attempt to hide the transitions between strings. Of course, cello strings never sound exactly the same, so audible transitions are inevitable. This is obviously more of an issue with gut strings. But must the transitions be so evident and irritating? This is the slowest of the Gigue performances and often lacking drive and momentum. As a Gigue dance, it deserves more joy and vivacity.

Total Duration: 25’53”

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

Comment: Juris Teichmanis’ performance is ostensibly historically informed, yet rather noisy. It’s not recommended for listeners looking for aesthetics.

---

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 (4’18”)

In the first part, simple, light détaché bowing dominates—careful, unassuming. Benedict Kloeckner does not try to use much Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) within the “zigzag” motifs. He does, however, use dynamics and rich agogics to form large phrases that follow the harmonic progression. The artist ends the first part with a fermata (bar 49) that feels somber, suspended, like a big question mark. The subsequent semiquaver passage (bars 49 – 51) is not so much a cadenza, but rather a re-entry that rapidly regains the momentum for the second part. If there is a “cadenza“, then it’s in the richly blossoming outburst of virtuosic semiquaver figures in bars 56 – 61.

The last part of the Prélude (bars 62 – 91) forms an extended coda: well formulated, careful, detailed, considerate and differentiated, with rich agogics. In its technical / instrumental approach and use of (moderate, harmonious) vibrato, Benedict Kloeckner offers a modern interpretation. However, it is rich in expression and phrasing: an impressive performance that can easily coexist and compete with the top HIP performances.

II. Allemande (3’35”)

Benedict Kloeckner presents one of the fastest interpretations of the Allemande. There is no problem with the pace; the artist has plenty of technical reserves, after all. Still, the performance is not entirely compelling. The very first notes seem gentle and mellow, but soon, the articulation changes alternating between smooth legato and an often austere, somewhat noisy, rough staccato. For the quavers, the latter is OK, but for the non-slurred semiquavers, the staccato primarily sounds rough, forming too strong a contrast to the slurred semiquaver figures. The same can be said about the contrast between staccato and non-staccato quavers. Benedict Kloeckner follows Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy in the articulation. However, he takes it to an extreme that is no longer convincing.

Finally: Benedict Kloeckner applies rich agogics. However, the musical flow often feels somewhat erratic, and there isn’t a persistent dance swaying.

III. Courante (3’15”)

This is fast, but played diligently and with careful articulation. As for faithfulness to the score: Benedict Kloeckner plays most semiquaver figures legato and occasionally also adds slurred notes within quaver motifs. While this “calms down the flow”, it also takes away some of the excitement, causing these passages to sound overly smooth and slightly superficial by comparison. It’s a modern interpretation, of course, hence the limited Klangrede. The artist achieves phrasing and dance swaying mainly through dynamics and larger-scale agogics. Occasionally the tempo feels slightly rushed.

IV. Sarabande (5’20”)

Benedict Kloeckner’s Sarabande is slow, almost as slow as Pablo de Naverán’s. Yet, the two interpretations are vastly different. Here, the vibrato is more abundant and more prominent, though still moderate and rarely intrusive. The biggest difference is that Benedict Kloeckner offers rhythmic continuity. Unfortunately, he does not use that continuity to create a persistent dance swaying. There are just a few bars with noticeable agogic sway. Compared to Pablo de Naverán’s interpretation, this one feels solemn, relaxed, and resting, but also rhythmically static. Tension is only felt in individual bars, such as around climaxes. Kloeckner plays the trill in bar 12. At the end of the first pass of part I, he adds a short, ascending scale, as a transition back to the beginning.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’43”)

Bourrée I

Kloeckner’s first Bourrée is very fluid, to the point where the semiquaver figures occasionally begin to lose clarity and definition. The tempo often feels driven, pushed. At the same time, there is a tendency to lose momentum and tempo. This creates the impression of occasional tempo instability. Also, the articulation isn’t always consistent, as seen in the successive pairs of slurred quavers (e.g., bar 6 vs. bar 8).

Bourrée II

After the lively first Bourrée, Bourrée II feels unusually slow and almost static. It lacks energy and very slowly sways in entire bars. It’s beautifully played, but is this still a Bourrée?

VII. Gigue (2’43”)

Benedict Kloeckner’s performance of the Gigue is smooth and fluid. It is dynamically differentiated, light, and good in terms of phrasing and agogics. It is carefully articulated: excellent, though non-HIP.

Total Duration: 23’54”

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

Comment: A good, solid, conventional—i.e., non-HIP—performance. It is well played and articulated, often virtuosic. Benedict Kloeckner is an excellent cellist. My interest in this recording stems partly from the concept of each suite being accompanied by a short contemporary piece commissioned by the artist. See below for the companion piece to this Suite.

---

Benedict Kloeckner’s Extra for the Suite in E♭ major

As outlined in the Comparison Summary, Benedict Kloeckner complemented each of the Suites by adding a contemporary piece that he commissioned. In the case of the Cello Suite No.4 in E♭ major, it is a short composition by Éric Tanguy (*1968, see also Wikipedia.fr).

The Composer: Éric Tanguy (*1968).

Éric Tanguy was born in Caen, in northern France, close to the English Channel. He received his early musical training in violin, chamber music, musical theory, and composition at the Conservatoire à rayonnement régional de Caen. From 1985 to 1988, his main teacher was Horațiu Rădulescu (1942 – 2008). He then moved to the Conservatoire national supérieur de musique de Paris (CNSM) to study with Ivo Malec (1925 – 2019), Gérard Grisey (1946 – 1998), and Betsy Jolas (*1926). He was awarded first prize in composition at the same institution in 1991. This launched his international career as a composer, taking him to institutions and festivals all over Europe and the United States. For more information on the composer’s biography and career see again Wikipedia (French, Japanese, and Russian only).

Éric Tanguy has created a substantial body of work, including chamber music, vocal music (choir and solos), symphonic works, concertos, and solo works, as well as a chamber opera.

The Work: “In Between”

The 3-minute (3’10”) solo piece that Benedict Kloeckner commissioned is “In Between“. In the booklet text (© Éric Tanguy), the composer states

"The internationally renowned French composer Eric Tanguy and Benedict Kloeckner have been linked by an artistic friendship for over ten years, which has already resulted in several premieres.
In Between is dedicated to Benedict Kloeckner and was written in 2020. The context of the pandemic is important, between this several waves and the uncertain times everybody was going through. This short work for solo cello expresses these feelings between uncertainty and hope."

As with Benedict Kloeckner’s other “extras” to the Cello Suites, there is no apparent musical connection to the associated (or any) Suite, other than the artist’s intentional pairing and timing. In other words, the artist wanted a contemporary piece to complement his performances of the Cello Suites in concert. His choice of piece was influenced by opportunity—the composers among his acquaintances who were willing and able to collaborate with him on such pieces at the given time.

How Does it Sound?

Not surprisingly, the piece forms a stark contrast to Bach’s Suite. I recommend listening to it a few times until the dissonances mutate from an unpleasant sound to a powerful expression. The composer didn’t intend to shock; rather, the music is highly emphatic and extremely expressive. The piece is atonal, lacking traditional cadences or chords, though it gravitates toward G.

Éric Tanguy works with strong elements that engage in an intense, heated—though not violent—dialogue. The main “actor” is a melodic component or motif, mostly in the descant, that appears throughout the piece. The melody is extremely expressive, vibrating and dense, and urging in tone. Structured by arpeggio chords, it is later accompanied by a second, usually dissonant homophonic voice. Frequent and strong crescendi and outbursts occur over a wide dynamic range. One can read many emotions into this voice, including anguish, pain, rebellion, wistful outcries, hope, and resolution.

When the motif appears in the bass, it conveys menace, threat, and danger, particularly when vibrato and dissonance converge to create ominous, atonal fluttering. The affirmative, intense ending is a double-stop interval of D and G, which can be interpreted as wistful, commanding, undecided, or anxious. Powerful music that leaves a lasting impression!

---

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 G 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.

As noted in the comments on Paolo Pandolfo’s 2000 recording, interpretations on the viola da gamba are in a class of their own in this context. This is primarily due to differences in the instrument configuration (strings / string tuning and bow), and the resulting differences in sonority and playing characteristics. I won’t repeat these comments here, but note that both viol interpretations transpose the E♭ major Suite to G major. This is fairly close to the original key. Myriam Rignol is even closer to the original than Pandolfo because she plays at a’ = 400 Hz; Pandolfo uses a’ = 415 Hz.

Clearly, Myriam Rignol is not trying to imitate Paolo Pandolfo. Although Pandolfo’s alterations to the Prélude are minimal, Myriam Rignol’s reading formally remains close to Bach’s original notation. Furthermore, the sonority of the two interpretations differs greatly from that of a cello performance and from each other. The latter is somewhat surprising—or perhaps not, considering my comments on the Suite No.2 in D minor, BWV 1008.

I. Prélude (3’35”)

At first glance, the volume setting in this recording seems low, and the sound is dull, matte. This is attributable to the sound engineer and microphone placement. The acoustics / reverberation, and lasting resonances of the low strings and instrument body also affect the clarity of this recording. Initially, the interpretation appears to have almost “Aeolian harp” qualities (or piano playing with the sustain pedal held down). Indeed, it takes a few moments to adjust to the sound in order to “read into” Myriam Rignol’s bowing and articulation.

In the first part (up to the fermata in bar 49), Myriam Rignol’s articulation is initially a light détaché—a mellow staccato. In passages of greater intensity, she broadens her bow strokes to tenuto. After the fermata (a deceptive cadence) and pause in bar 49, the artist resumes the flow through the semiquaver line in bars 49 – 51. Only in the virtuosic cadenza in bars 56 – 61 does Myriam Rignol switch to free, improvising agogics. After the cadenza, the bowing in the “zigzag” motifs is mostly broader, and the articulation in the many semiquaver motifs and segments is always clear, careful, and diligent. Having listened to this a few times, I realized that the articulation is not arbitrary, let alone sloppy, but consciously crafted, and devoid of superficialities. And I now really like and enjoy this recording!

II. Allemande (4’19”)

The overall timing is identical to Pieter Wispelwey’s 1998 recording. Myriam Rignol’s interpretation features beautiful viola da gamba sonority throughout the semiquaver figures. I find this interpretation less convincing in the quaver notes. When these notes involve large jumps, Myriam Rignol plays them staccato, which is practically unavoidable on the viol because it requires jumping over “silent” strings. However, where quaver motifs involve small intervals (on the same or neighboring strings), these are typically performed tenuto, if not legato. This gives the impression of being inconsequential. My other reservations concern subtle inconsistencies in the flow, occasional accidental bursts in volume, and the absence of a persistent, recognizable dance sway.

III. Courante (4’08”)

This feels like a true slow (French) Courante: there is subtle, agogic dance swaying and gentle articulation and dynamics, combined with the warm sonority of the viola da gamba. Although the timing is similar to Isang Enders’, this performance feels substantially more fluid and fluent. Some minor quibbles: the breaks at the double bar lines feel a bit long / excessive. More importantly, most quaver motifs are performed as light staccato. Strangely, especially in the repeat, the artist plays the quavers in bars 31 – 41 as broad tenuto, which causes them to lose tension and feel somewhat pale, almost boring.

IV. Sarabande (5’09”)

Myriam Rignol offers a very solemn, calm interpretation. Isn’t this a bit too calm, though? One could call the articulation light, but at this tempo (almost as slow as Benedict Kloeckner‘s), the movement loses any notion of a baroque dance. It lacks flow and even just hints of sway. Additionally, there is a tendency towards swelling and belly notes that is a tad too prominent (i.e., not discreet enough).

Myriam Rignol stays close to the notation in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. She does not add ties. She even avoids some in favor of taking a fresh bow for the arpeggiated chord (including the top note) at the beginning of the new bar. Overall, she treats every potential tie individually. “Proper ties” are rare, but the listener often perceives a tie, when the free string resonance from the first note “bridges the gap”.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (6’52”)

Bourrée I

The first Bourrée appears at a good, moderate tempo. Rhythmically it is perhaps a bit too regular. Some additional flexibility and agogic swaying would help make it feel more like a dance. Additional ornaments appear in the repeats (also in the da capo instance, see below). Their style fits the music nicely. My main quibble is that several of these ornaments appear in close pairs (in successive, identical motifs), which makes them sound predictable. Shouldn’t ornaments ideally sound spontaneous and improvised? There are occasional, slight superficialities in the articulation of semiquaver figures.

Bourrée II

In the second Bourrée, Myriam Rignol’s timing is identical to those of Pablo de Naverán and Mstislav Rostropovich—the slowest in this comparison. However, that’s where any similarities end. In accordance with the time signatures (alla breve vs. common time / 4/4), the crotchet tempo in the second Bourrée is substantially slower, which makes sense. Moreover, the character of the music is entirely different. Here, it’s not a clumsy peasant dance, but rather soft, calmly singing, introverted, even reflective. It’s a stark contrast to Bourrée I—and beautiful, marvelous!

Similar to David Watkin, Myriam Rignol performs the da capo instance of Bourrée I with both repeats, and with ornamentation similar to the initial instance.

VII. Gigue (3’04”)

Myriam Rignol’s tempo is similar to Juris Teichmanis‘; it’s one of the slower performances. However, Myriam Rignol’s performance favorably sets itself apart from the latter in several ways. Not only is there the obvious intrinsic viola da gamba sonority, but the sound and articulation are also smoother and far less noisy. There are also no significant, sudden changes in sonority when transitioning between any of the gut strings. Myriam Rignol’s tempo is also less rigid. She uses subtle agogics, and her interpretation breathes in broad phrases.

Total Duration: 27’07”

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

Comment: Like Paolo Pandolfo, Myriam Rignol transposed the Suite to G major to facilitate the transition to the 7-string viola da gamba. Her interpretation beautifully demonstrates the possibilities and sonority of her instrument, with which Bach was familiar. Unlike Pandolfo, she did not recompose parts of the Suite. Her goal is to explore Bach’s music on her instrument, not to speculate how Bach might have composed the Suite for the viola da gamba.

---

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 (3’50”)

Petr Skalka’s overall timing is identical to Thomas Demenga’s (2014). Apart from the obvious difference in pitch (Thomas Demenga uses a’ = 392 Hz), the two artists also differ in their approach to articulation, phrasing, agogics, and dynamics.

Throughout most of the movement, and certainly in the first part (up to the fermata in bar 49), Petr Skalka plays the “zigzag” motif with rather dry, short (but not harsh or rough) staccato articulation. The bottom note(s) receive subtle emphasis relative to the descending “zigzag” motif. Many of these motifs appear identical pairs—but the score does not indicate echo effects. Consequently, Petr Skalka avoids adding Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) through articulation, dynamics, or agogics. On the surface, the first part sounds relatively monotonous. However, there are big phrases / dynamic arches, essentially following the harmonic progression in the bottom notes, with a climax around bar 25 and a build-up towards the deceptive cadence at the fermata.

After the fermata, Petr Skalka maintains the staccato articulation for the “zigzag” motifs. However, he now adds rich dynamics and very distinct, “talking” agogics, such as very noticeable ritardandi in closures and (almost exaggerated) at transitions. The semiquaver passages and figures are all clear and articulate, even in the very fast, virtuosic segments. Some of the staccato segments in the first part may seem didactic, but the rich second part compensates for this.

II. Allemande (4’52”)

In my comparison, this is one of five slow Allemande performances. Only Jaap ter Linden, Juris Teichmanis, Pablo de Naverán, and Paolo Pandolfo are slower. I am puzzled by the phrasing and articulation of this interpretation. Although it isn’t rhythmically flat, I don’t sense a consistent dance rhythm, the treatment of slurs is inconsequential, and the flow occasionally feels erratic. I also don’t understand the artist’s intent in the articulation of the quavers, which vary between staccato, ordinary détaché, and tenuto in a way that doesn’t make sense to me. And especially in jumping pairs the upper quaver is often very broad—not always, but often enough to make them appear idiosyncratic.

III. Courante (3’47”)

Was it the recording engineer who wanted to “enhance” the cello’s lowest register, or was the artist trying to show off the full, dark sonority of the C and G strings? Either way, the effect is overdone. Petr Skalka’s “biting” articulation draws further attention to the notes on these strings. Similar to Kim Kashkashian’s 2017 viola performance, this performance exhibits idiosyncrasies in articulation and slurring. In sequences of three ascending quaver triplets (e.g., bars 5 and 6), Petr Skalka performs the middle triplet staccato. He does the same to numerous other quaver triplets in the movement. Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy slurs all quaver triplets.

In longer, pure quaver segments (e.g., bars 13 – 17 and 31 – 41) the articulation varies between a slight staccato and broad détaché, even tenuto. The latter feels too uniform, if not ordinary, especially in the repeats, where the articulation is broader.

IV. Sarabande (4’02”)

Petr Skalka plays at a moderate tempo, slightly faster than Pablo Casals. While the latter’s interpretation features an intense cantilena full of expression, Petr Skalka reduces most notes to a short staccato, including the dotted half notes (so nicely drawn in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy!). His articulation is not particularly harsh, broadening in moments of heightened intensity and occasionally even turning into a cantilena. Nevertheless, this approach often leaves a sense of scarcity and emotional dryness. The notes or chords in the accompaniment form a somber drumbeat. For the most part, that beat is very regular and occasionally even stiff, defying the flexibility and naturalness of a dance sway.

There are also instances where the artist “breaks” the rhythmic regularity. One example is at the third beat in bar 23, where reaching down to the bass for the A minor sixth chord after the second semiquaver takes enough time to disrupt the rhythm.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’49”)

Bourrée I

The biggest shortcoming of this recording is the sound of the instrument in this movement. For some reason, the alto register of the cello sounds unpleasantly flat and often bright, like a viola. Why is this movement affected more than others? Could it be bow pressure or position? Or is it microphone placement? Or is it simply the context? I’m listening to this after Juris Teichmanis‘ interpretation, which was at a’ = 400 Hz. Petr Skalka uses a’ = 415 Hz, which offers a partial explanation. Both recordings use very similar tempos. The difference in timing is due to the number of repeats; see below.

The artist remains faithful to the score with respect to slurs, but he largely ignores Bach’s p and f annotations (one of the few movements with such annotations!). Instead, he uses his own dynamics, with gradual transitions and larger p segments than Bach’s echo elements. Petr Skalka skips the second repeat, both here and in the da capo instance. There are also occasional tempo irregularities and rhythmic disruptions, such as sudden broadening in some climaxes. The most prominent example is at the crotchet period in bar 18.

Bourrée II

The second Bourrée feels like a pleasant country dance, slightly heavy but not overly so. It is alla breve rather than common time, but fits well into the context. To achieve a better balance between the two Bourrées, Petr Skalka omitted the second repeat in Bourrée I and expanded the structure of Bourrée II. He plays both repeats, then adds a second pass without repeats, and closes with a fourth instance of part I (with the last bar collapsed into an arpeggio chord). The resulting structure can be written as CCDDCDC’.

VII. Gigue (2’40”)

In the Gigue, Petr Skalka largely disregards the slurs in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. He interprets many of the slurs them as phrasing bows and uses light staccato articulation instead of legato. I can’t comment on the legitimacy of this decision. However, this approach certainly avoids the uniformity present in other interpretations. It does make the performance sound a bit noisy at times, though. On the other hand, I like Petr Skalka’s agogics, especially how he subtly expands and highlights the beginning of a larger phrase.

Total Duration: 24’00”

Rating: 4 / 3 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 4 / 3.5 = 3.57

Comment: This is a HIP performance with a tendency toward austere sonority and articulation. I hesitate to issue a general recommendation.

---

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 (3’25”)

Apart from two outliers (Sergey Malov 2018 and Isang Enders 2012), this is the fastest (shortest) Prélude performance in this comparison—by one of the youngest artists. Bruno Philippe takes a balanced approach to the first part, performing the “zigzag” motifs with light staccato articulation. He avoids highlighting either the bass or the top notes excessively. Rather, the artist shapes every motif individually with subtle dynamics and broadening of the staccato notes around the “micro-climax” in the motif. The articulation is clean—neither too polished nor ever noisy—and the instrument’s sonority is well-balanced across the strings/registers.

Interestingly, Bruno Philippe does not seem to seek much surprise or mystery in the deceptive cadence in bar 49. I rather sense anticipation in the fermata. Here, it’s the rapid semiquaver chain in bars 49 – 51 that appears to emerge from mystery, from a distance. The affirmative return of the “zigzag” motifs is merely a short transition to the virtuosic cadenza in bars 56 – 61. The subsequent coda initially appears reserved, not pushing, maybe playful—as if holding back for the affirmative closing in bars 82 – 91.

Overall, Bruno Philippe’s interpretation focuses more on the first part than other artists, who often present it merely as an extended introduction. Here, the first part is integrated into a long buildup that culminates in the cadenza (bars 56 – 61).

II. Allemande (3’44”)

Bruno Philippe’s overall timing is the same as Pablo Casals’, but without the latter’s rubato. Instead, Bruno Philippe uses rich agogics and detailed, light articulation—Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) at its best! Despite the fluid tempo, the artist plays with exceptional clarity and naturalness—and he even adds the occasional, well-fitting ornament already in the first passes. There are more such ornaments in the repeats—all personal, well-chosen and integrated into the melodic flow, up to the surprising, subtle appoggiatura on the final chord. There is a distinct alla breve dance sway in agogics and dynamics, and the interpretation feels light and even playful—masterful!

III. Courante (2’59”)

Bruno Philippe’s performances are rarely slow. In this comparison, his Courante is the fastest: only Pieter Wispelwey’s 1998 and 2012 recordings come close to his timing. Of course, the artist isn’t competing for speed or virtuosity. Rather, his performance is the result of deep and thorough reflection on the musical and spiritual content of Bach’s Cello Suites. Bruno Philippe must view this as the fast Italian version of the dance. See above for information on the history of the Courante.

The artist indeed operates at the limit at which the fast figures can still be articulated cleanly. It is a wild, expressive, whirling dance—though never out of control, even with fleeting moments of reflection. The performance is all about expression, motion, and emotion. Bruno Philippe certainly has the technical and musical ability, as well as the agility, to perform it flawlessly at this pace. The articulation is clean and detailed, with a lively dance swaying, and rich agogics shaping phrasing arches. These phrases offer cohesion across multiple bar lines, and the tension never drops, even over longer quaver segments. Bruno Philippe even adds extra ornaments in the repeats. In sum, it’s an enthralling and fascinating movement and an astounding performance!

IV. Sarabande (4’18”)

This interpretation offers a persistent dance swaying, and I like the artist’s approach to articulation and phrasing. Bruno Philippe’s tempo is almost exactly on the average in this comparison. Yet, it feels a tad driven. Is it perhaps too regular? Should there be more agogics, or occasionally more room to breathe? Speaking of breath: the microphone must have been very close to the artist. In this movement, one can hear the artist’s breathing—to a degree that is almost irritating. On the bright side, the added ornaments in the repeats prove the artist’s unfailing flair for baroque ornamentation.

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (3’56”)

Bourrée I

Bruno Philippe’s performance in Bourrée I is the fastest in this comparison, only Anner Bylsma’s 1992 recording comes close. While fast and virtuosic, it is overly driven, to the point that some semiquaver motifs become blurred. It is also a missed opportunity to apply Klangrede and attention to articulation and agogics. As it’s played, it hardly resembles a dance movement. Doesn’t “dance” imply a relaxed attitude and freedom in rhythm and motion? It seems as if the goal of this approach was to create the strongest possible contrast with Bourrée II.

Bourrée II

Bruno Philippe keeps the tempo for Bourrée II closer to the average. The performance is straightforward, even simple in tone and articulation—perhaps too straightforward. In fact, the tone is almost raw and deliberately unsophisticated. For a dance, shouldn’t there be more atmosphere, spirit, and emotion, such as joy, or fun? Something seems amiss here. The marked diminuendo and ritardando that ends with a fioritura in bar 11 does not “fill the void”.

VII. Gigue (2’21”)

This is the fastest Gigue performance in this comparison, pushing technique quite to the limits. It is technically impressive and nearly flawless, with a high level of engagement and activity. Naturally, at this tempo, the amount of agogics is limited. However, Bruno Philippe makes up for this with lively dynamics. It’s an amazing performance. One minor point is that the few elaborate “curly” ornaments are perhaps a little overambitious. There is also a very slight loss in momentum in the second part. At this pace, they add little value for the listener and are rather distracting.

Total Duration: 20’43”

Rating: 4 / 5 / 5 / 4 / 4 / 3.5 / 4.5 = 4.29

Comment: This recording is an astounding achievement for such a young artist. It is highly recommended. Naturally, one can expect Bruno Philippe’s interpretation to evolve and develop over the coming years. His performance of the Bourrées suggests that he still has room for improvement.

---

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 (4’01”)

For most of the movements in this suite, Pablo de Naverán’s tempo is among the slowest—this is also true of the earlier suites in this recording. The Gigue (see below) is an exception, and in the Prélude, the overall timing is almost exactly at the average among these recordings.

The interpretation uses soft, light staccato articulation throughout the first part, with Pablo de Naverán subtly emphasizing the first note in each bar, giving it some “extra space”. The descending “zigzag” motif is then presented as a gently accelerating cascade that “lands” on the first note of the following bar. Careful, differentiated in dynamics and agogics, culminating around bar 33, then gradually slowing down / retracting towards the fermata in bar 49.

Bars 49 – 61 form a single cadenza, with smooth, rapid semiquaver lines, in a single dramatic arch. The remaining bars (“coda“) stand out with lively, at times theatrical, though never exaggerated agogics, and again with differentiated dynamics and diligent phrasing. Clear articulation, devoid of vibrato, and impeccable intonation: excellent and interesting!

II. Allemande (5’29”)

Pablo de Naverán presents the slowest cello performance of the Allemande. Paolo Pandolfo‘s rendition on the viola da gamba is even slower, though it is an outlier for this movement. The legato singing and broad swaying of the semiquaver lines create a beautiful soundscape reminiscent of the viola da gamba. However, one can hardly sense the dance character in these bars. This dance quality is more evident in the bars with jumping staccato quavers.

III. Courante (4’31”)

Similar to the Allemande, Pablo de Naverán’s Courante is the slowest performance by a fair margin. While some of de Naverán’s slow movements (in this and other suites) may reflect personal preference, i.e., an expression of how the musician feels about the given piece, the artist may have a valid point here; see the notes above.

From the very beginning, Pablo de Naverán’s interpretation stands out—not primarily because of the tempo, but through its articulation. The cellist plays with determined, vehement, elastic, energy-laden bow strokes. It’s as if every note were a statement, or as if the artist took a microscope to analyze every single note and motif for its value and function. There are not only stark dynamic contrasts, but the agogics are also extreme. For example, the quaver triplets starting in bar 18 are much slower. This is just one instance of many that disrupt the musical flow.

The interpretation is impressive in its thoroughness and consequence. It is clearly deeply reflected and considered. However, with all the focus on the “local events”, it seems that Pablo de Naverán ignored the context and the overall function of a Courante as a dance. The tempo alterations destroy any trace of a halfway regular dance rhythm.

IV. Sarabande (5’36”)

In the Sarabande, Pablo de Naverán continues to deliver the slowest performance in the comparison. Indeed, it is extreme in its slowness. Every note, interval, arpeggio and chord in the interpretation is thoroughly reflected and very carefully crafted in terms of articulation, tone, dynamics, and agogics. A discreet, subtle and harmonious vibrato is applied selectively, typically on longer notes only. The depth, intensity, intimacy and beauty of this interpretation are unparalleled. Where a bar starts with a three-string chord, the artist obviously cannot tie the top note. Nevertheless, despite the slow tempo, he masterfully maintains the notion of a tied note. And apart from the trill in bar 12, Pablo de Naverán does not add ornaments, not even those in the alternative sources.

One question remains, though: at this slow pace, the notion of continuity and dance is lost almost entirely. While most bars have tension and “internal sway”, it is difficult for listeners to keep track of the context, phrases, and big arches. The playing is undoubtedly beautiful—but could this have been Bach’s intent?

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (6’17”)

Bourrée I

True to his approach in the previous movements, Pablo de Naverán presents the slowest performance again. And slow it is, indeed. The artist is careful, diligent, and differentiated in articulation and dynamics. Everything in this interpretation is clearly well considered, from the articulation to the marked dynamic contrasts and the added ornaments (primarily in the repeats). The tone, bow strokes and vibrato sound elastic, and there is a distinctly slow and peaceful alla breve dance swaying. The real question here is whether this still fits the definition of a bourrée or, even more so, of a galanterie (gallantry)? Doesn’t the latter, especially the alla breve notation, imply a faster, lighter, elegant, and perhaps pleasantly capricious character?

Bourrée II

The crotchet pace in Bourrée II is the same as in Bourrée I; however, the notation is no longer alla breve, but in common time and dominated by crotchets. The crotchet pace is adequate here and makes the interpretation sound heavier, “bigger”, more solemn, almost festive. This seems to be in accordance with the notation. It’s not a caricature but perhaps a hidden peasant dance?

This performance—the first one I have listened to for this movement—makes me doubt whether trying to keep the crotchet pace across the two Bourrées is a good idea.

VII. Gigue (2’28”)

While Pablo de Naverán presented the slowest of the cello interpretations in five of the six movements so far, here he seems to be competing for the fastest performance, matching the timing of Jean-Quihen Queyras’ 2007 recording. Unlike Queyras, however, Naverán goes out on a limb. He pushes the tempo to the point where the articulation is in danger of falling apart, as can be heard in bars 9 and 10. The dynamic contrasts also feel exaggerated, as do the extreme, disruptive highlights on some phrase beginnings and climaxes (upbeat and first note).

Total Duration: 28’21”

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

Comment: An impressive performance, and an outlier that does not follow established standards (HIP or non-HIP). There is a tendency towards exaggeration, particularly in terms of tempo. For this reason, I hesitate to give a general recommendation. However, if you want to explore alternative views…

---

Jean-Guihen Queyras, 2023

harmonia mundi, ℗ 2024
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 on the artist’s approach to the Cello Suites see the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007 (first recording, 2007). This 2023 recording was done in conjunction with a ballet project “Mitten wir im Leben sind / Bach6cellosuiten“ featuring Jean-Guihen Queyras playing (most of) Bach’s Cello Suites. See the Comparison Summary for a discussion of that ballet performance (included with the recording, on a Blu-ray disc, recorded in Belgium). The audio recording of the Suites, however, was done separately, in the Vereenigde Doopsgezinde Gemeente, Haarlem, The Netherlands.

I. Prélude (3’54”)

Sixteen years after his first recording (2007), Jean-Guihen Queyras plays the Prélude with virtually the same overall timing—just a tad faster than the overall average. However, the timing is deceptive. In the first part, the articulation is lighter, but more pronounced and less uniform. There aren’t just the broad arches, but there is Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) in every motif, and the motifs in the first part connect to a very impressive, long phrase. This creates the impression of a livelier, if not slightly faster interpretation.

This extra depth, expression and contrast continue into the second part, which begins at bars 49 – 51. Here, these are not a cadenza but rather a brief transition: a soft, rolling fioritura that rushes by. The actual cadenza follows in the virtuosic bars 56 – 61. Actually, one may view the entire segment from bar 56 to the end as an extended cadenza of sorts, interrupted by short “zigzag” reminiscence episodes. The second part is particularly expressive and personal. This is a stark contrast to the first recording from 2007, which was convincing in its own right due to its modesty and its devotion to Bach’s music. The new recording is compelling and impressive because it maintains a natural flow while being lively and expressive in agogics and dynamics. Exemplary!

II. Allemande (4’12”)

The Allemande appears in a completely new, fresh approach—and an astounding one! In the first passes, Jean-Guihen Queyras plays the piece as written. However, his performance is slightly more fluid, gentler and much lighter overall. In the soft parts, it’s as if the bow were hovering above the strings. Then, in bar 11, the music rises to a beautiful, jubilant climax. The articulation is gentle, discharging legato and very light détaché, devoid of harshness or roughness. At the same time, there is this distinct, graceful, gentle and irresistible dance sway—marvelous.

As if the first passes weren’t miraculous enough: Jean-Guihen Queyras transforms the repeats into beautiful fantasias. He harmonizes the piece by adding numerous triple and quadruple stop chords and traces of a second voice. This is reminiscent of Paolo Pandolfo’s viola da gamba transcription. However, Jean-Guihen Queyras’ additions are less intrusive and retain the spirit of Baroque cello music. The repeat of the second part adds a note of playfulness. There are fewer chords, but instead, the artist enriches the part with fanciful, “curly” ornaments, such as transition notes or trill chains in bar 21. Fabulous!

III. Courante (3’43”)

Compared to his already fantastic first recording from 2007, this interpretation features a lighter and more detailed / differentiated articulation. It sounds more outgoing and spontaneous. However, it still retains the naturalness of the first recording in terms of dynamics, rhythm, and expression. On top of the extra differentiation in articulation, Jean-Guihen Queyras adds a rich set of personal ornaments to both repeats, adding a note of playfulness to the performance. It is hard to decide which performance to prefer; both have their strong points. That said, some listeners might find the ornamentation in the repeats a bit excessive.

IV. Sarabande (3’49”)

The tempo in Jean-Guihen Queyras’ most recent interpretation is identical to that of his earlier recording from 2007. Of course, there are notable differences. The articulation is now lighter, agogics and dance swaying are more pronounced, and the dynamics are slightly more outgoing. Overall, the interpretation feels freer (liberated) and more expressive. As in the other movements, the number of additional ornaments in the repeats has increased significantly. These ornaments are more personal, richer, and more inventive. Of course, they are still optimally adapted to the style of the composition, and to Bach’s time. Marvelous, overall!

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’49”)

After my fabulous experience with the Bourrées in Jean-Guihen Queyras’ 2007 recording, I wondered how his interpretation had changed between 2007 and 2023.

Bourrée I

In short: Queyras’ latest interpretation is just as fascinating as his first one. Of course, there are notable differences. The tempo is now more moderate, and the articulation is lighter and more mellow, and more differentiated. The general approach to dynamics and agogics is more flexible without sacrificing faithfulness to the notation. There are also additional ornaments in the repeats, such as the ascending figure in bar 12, variations in bars 15 and 16, inverted motifs in the p segments in bars 27 – 30, and an ornament in bar 37. These aren’t “trivialities” such as simple mordents or trills. Rather, they are Queyras’ personal, inventive and highly original additions that integrate perfectly with the composition.

Bourrée II

In Bourrée II, Jean-Guihen Queyras also switched from a fast tempo to a more moderate one. In line with Bourrée I, the performance feels more flexible and mellow. The interpretation is much more expressive in agogics and dynamics, yielding intimacy, subtlety, and beautiful dance swaying.

The da capo instance of Bourrée I is without repeats but features a different set of equally inventive and original added ornaments.

VII. Gigue (2’34”)

The timing of the Gigue suggests a performance that is about 8% slower than the 2007 recording. However, this difference in tempo is hardly noticeable, at least initially. This performance primarily adds subtlety and vastly more differentiation in dynamics and agogics. I particularly enjoy the subtle “retracting diminuendi” at pivotal moments within phrases. Additionally, the artist almost casually and inconspicuously adds several playful ornaments in the repeats. Technically, this performance is as masterful as the earlier one but substantially richer in dynamics and agogics—brilliant!

Total Duration: 23’01”

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

Comment: Sixteen years have passed between Jean-Guihen Queyras’ 2007 recording and this one. Much of the difference between the two performances can be attributed to the artist’s maturing through concert performances and interaction with other artists. Both recordings are excellent and highly recommended. Each has its own strengths. In comparison, this one feels freer and more liberated. It is also more inventive, with (even) less of a focus on virtuosity.

---

Anastasia Kobekina, 2025

Sony Classical, ℗/© 2025
Artist: Anastasia Kobekina (*1994, see also Wikipedia)
Instruments: 1698 cello “De Kermadec Bläss” by Antonio Stradivari (1644 – 1737), and 1717 cello “Bonamy Dobrée, Suggia“, also by Antonio Stradivari
Pitch: a’ = 415 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

This recording was unavailable when the original review was written. Please keep in mind that this recording was reviewed over half a year after the initial comparison. Unfortunately, I cannot review all of the recordings alongside Anastasia Kobekina’s performance again. Rather, I conducted a limited comparison, re-listening to excerpts from select recordings that I expected would be similar in ranking to the new one. With this, due to the time that has elapsed, my comments may be less in-depth and less likely to relate to other specific performances. For additional comments you may be interested in reading my review of Anastasia Kobekina’s solo recital in Zurich on 2021-04-25.

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.

A Surprising “Discovery”

In an interview related to the release of this recording (see above), Anastasia Kobekina mentioned a prominent “C” in the Prélude, which people typically read as E♭. She described the latter as “ordinary” and in line with common expectations. However, she used adjectives such as “extraordinary” and “special” to describe the “C“. I wondered why such a significant discrepancy wasn’t evident in any of the other interpretations or in discussions about this piece. I wasn’t even aware of what to look for. However, after a single listen, I instantly understood what the artist was referring to. After a short, two-bar “cadenza” in bars 79/80, all printed editions “land” on E♭ as the first note in bar 81:

This is most definitely not what Anastasia Kobekina is playing! Indeed, in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy, bar 81 begins with a C. The placement of this note (and the auxiliary line above) is unambiguous and seems almost highlighted, deliberately and consciously drawn with clarity:

See below for the dramatic effect of this single note. The only explanation for why all the other artists ignore it is that the C sounds truly extraordinary, if not revolutionary. It sounds shockingly “out of place”. However, the evidence in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy…

I. Prélude (3’50”)

For this “add-on” review I re-listened to a selection of the recordings above to compare them with Anastasia Kobekina’s interpretation. In juxtaposition, Jean-Guihen Queyras’ 2023 recording feels expressive and intense. It features large, almost theatrical gestures and a continuous flow in large (dynamic) arches. In contrast, Anastasia Kobekina’s performance feels more agile, with a more fluid tempo and lighter articulation. In the first part (up to the fermata in bar 49) she combines gentle dynamic arches with echo effects in repeated motifs. The artist uses pronounced agogics and dynamic contrasts to make the music “talk”.

The fermata in bar 49 is a muted, somber C♯: a moment of shock, leaving a ghastly void. The subsequent semiquaver passage is not so much a cadenza as it is a hesitant recovery and transition into the second part. The following semiquaver passage (bars 56 – 61) also doesn’t fit the criteria for a virtuosic (let alone superficial) cadenza. It is a microcosm of wild emotion, a rebellious monologue rich in agogics. The remainder of the movement is an extended coda, a turmoil of emotions, ranging from hesitant and introspective moments to an earnest and intense outburst. Bar 81 appears to lead to an affirmative, even theatrical, ending in E♭.

The Moment of Surprise

However, after the trill on D in bar 81, Anastasia Kobekina drops to the C in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript (see above). This is not the expected simple “homecoming” for the final bars, but rather a raw, dark, and loud shock moment. The artist leaves a gap for the shock to “sink in” before resuming the “zigzag” motif for the last bars—light and innocent, as if nothing had happened. Anastasia Kobekina may have deliberately exaggerated the “C shock moment”. However, the effect is indeed dramatic, especially in the context of the early 18th century. There aren’t many examples of such shock moments in music. This is an audacious, unique, and extraordinary approach!

I should add that the “C shock moment” in Bach’s Prélude may come as a surprise, but that is mainly because the note runs against our expectations based on performance tradition. In fact, the second half of Bach’s Prélude is full of harmonic surprises, some of which one might even call revolutionary. Examples are the dissonant chord D–c–f♯–e♭’ in bar 59, or the F♭ major (!) sixth chord in bar 80. In this context, the “C shock moment” is not all that revolutionary. Rather, Anastasia Kobekina’s performance draws our attention to the harmonious intricacies of this movement.

II. Allemande (4’25”)

Beautiful! The articulation is light yet detailed and devoid of superficialities. The performance features very pronounced, and sometimes almost extreme, agogics. The dynamics are always careful, forming gentle, wide arches. They are never loud but often intimate. At transitions between phrases, Anastasia Kobekina often subtly retracts to pp and hesitates briefly before moving into the next phrase without ever disrupting the flow or tension. As the artist mentioned in an interview, she does not imply that Bach’s movements ought to be dansable; rather, they are inspired by dance music. Consequently, her performance features pronounced swaying, but actual dance music would require more regularity and continuity in the swaying.

III. Courante (3’54”)

The Courante‘s timing suggests a tempo that is slightly slower than average. However, this timing is deceptive. Anastasia Kobekina’s approach is highly nuanced. The first part feels impulsive and very engaged—maybe one of the most engaged movements with this artist. The basic tempo is faster than the overall timing suggests. As always with Anastasia Kobekina, the agogics are very pronounced, and I noticed the very careful accents on the crotchet notes, often associated with a slight dilation. She never just storms ahead.

The second part uses and expands on motifs from the first. Here, it almost feels like the development section of a classic sonata movement. Consequently, Anastasia Kobekina uses vastly richer and more pronounced agogics and dynamics. She even allows for subtle, reflective moments. This must be the most expressively diverse interpretation in this comparison. The more I listen, the more I notice the refinement and subtlety of this performance—fascinating!

IV. Sarabande (4’11”)

The timing of Anastasia Kobekina’s performance of the Sarabande is identical to that in Pablo Casals‘ 1939 recording of the piece. However, that can hardly be more than mere coincidence. At least for the treatment of the melody voice, Casals’ interpretation must have served as a model for many performances, especially traditional ones. Yet, once again, Anastasia Kobekina chose her own, personal path. The result feels otherworldly.

Her interpretation feels “timeless” in that the underlying meter seems almost irrelevant. The performance does not focus on a large-scale dance rhythm, which seems to exist as an allusion only. To me, the performance lives “in the moment”, entirely within the local phrase. There is calm, peaceful breathing, and the tone is gentle and soft throughout. The lightness of the articulation is extreme. The first part of many phrases features crotchets in the melody voice, which the artist plays with a mellow tenuto, building up to the local climax. Afterwards, the motifs, which are usually punctuated, are very light and suspended, yet they still build momentum that links to the next phrase.

The notes in the second (lower) voice are often mere, brief hints. Without a strong, dense, and dominating voice, however, the short, isolated secondary tones magically join to form short melodic motifs. Throughout this, the artist’s extreme calmness is evident, and a captivating, expressive narration is present throughout the movement. Endless joy, endless dreaming, endless love—a performance from heaven!

V./VI. Bourrée I — Bourrée II — Bourrée I da capo (4’59”)

Bourrée I

Back down to earth after the heavenly Sarabande! Anastasia Kobekina takes the first Bourrée at a lively pace, of course with very light articulation and differentiated dynamics. As usual, she uses very pronounced agogics. As mentioned with the Allemande above, the artist does not imply that Bach’s movements ought to be danced to; rather, they are inspired by dance music. In that sense, she does not aim to maintain continuous, regular dance swaying, but rather takes the liberty to insert hesitations, little fermatas, and the like. The result is a joyfully bouncing piece, subtly enriched with occasional acciaccaturas and jeu inégal with the slurred quaver pairs in the first part.

Bourrée II

The second Bourrée is slower, forming a stark contrast to Bourrée I. It takes on the characteristics of a peasant dance with a slightly clumsy rhythm and gently heavy—never rough or coarse—accents. There are even fleeting moments of intimacy. Very pronounced ritardandi and accelerations at transitions add a humorous note. Beautiful!

VII. Gigue (2’45”)

Thankfully, Anastasia Kobekina resists the temptation to show off her virtuosity or strive for technical perfection. She avoids extremes. The Gigue combines playfulness with her excellent sense for hidden melodies and her ability to add Klangrede to the seemingly monotonous sequences of quaver triplets. Differentiation in dynamics and subtle agogics and phrasing make the music “speak” without disrupting the constant flow of quavers.

Total Duration: 24’04”

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

Comment: If Anastasia Kobekina’s success on international concert stages did not already establish her as one of today’s top cellists, her recording of the Bach Cello Suites certainly confirms it. This recording is an essential addition to any baroque music discography!

---

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.

Quick summary: The result of this comparison in line with the previous comparison posts (see below), i.e., the “winners” for the Suite No.4 in E♭ major, BWV 1010 are the “usual suspects”:

• Historically informed: Anastasia Kobekina (2025), Pieter Wispelwey (2012), Thomas Demenga (2014), David Watkin (2013), and Pieter Wispelwey (1998)
• Modern(ized) instrumentation: Jean-Guihen Queyras (2023), and still 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)
• Viola: Kim Kashkashian (2017)
• Recent releases: Bruno Philippe (2021), and Pablo Naverán (2021)

If you think you already have the cello recording(s) you like the most: why not expand and enrich your experience? Why not venture listening into performances on one of the above recordings with alternative instruments, such viola da gamba or viola?

---

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
• Suite No.4 for Cello Solo in E♭ major, BWV 1010 — This review
• 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 sent to my address.

---

Literature References

• Harnoncourt, N. (1983). Musik als Klangrede : Wege zu einem neuen Musikverständnis : Essays und Vorträge. Residenz Verlag, Salzburg. ISBN 978-3-7017-0315-9.
• Eppstein, H. (1988). Sechs Suiten für Violoncello Solo, Text I (nach den Abschriften Anna Magdalena Bachs und Johann Peter Kellners) (Neue Bach-Ausgabe, Urtext Edition, Serie VI, Vol. 2). Bärenreiter Verlag.

---