J. S. Bach: Suite No.5 for Cello Solo in C minor, BWV 1011

Media Review / Comparison

---

2026-04-25 — Original posting.

---

Contents

• Introduction — The Recordings
• About the Suite No.5 for Cello Solo in C minor, BWV 1011
  • Scordatura
  • History and Sources
  • The Movements
    • I. Prélude
    • II. Allemande
    • III. Courante
    • IV. Sarabande
    • V. Gavotte I
    • VI. Gavotte II
    • VII. Gigue
• The Interpretations, Overview
• A Note on Ratings
• The Interpretations, Detail
  • Procedure, Technical Aspects
  • Pablo Casals, 1939
  • Pierre Fournier, 1961
  • Anner Bylsma, 1979
  • Hopkinson Smith, 1980 — Lute (BWV 995)
  • Mstislav Rostropovich, 1991
  • Anner Bylsma, 1992
  • Jaap ter Linden, 1996
  • Vito Paternoster, 1998
  • Pieter Wispelwey, 1998
  • Paolo Pandolfo, 2000 — Viola da gamba
  • 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 C minor
      • The Composer, Geoffrey Gordon (*1968)
      • The Work: “Nes qu’on porroit“
      • 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
• Conclusions
• Other Review Posts on J.S. Bach’s Cello Suites, BWV 1007 – 1012
  • Acknowledgements

---

Introduction — The Recordings

This posting is about the Suite No.5 for Cello Solo in C minor, BWV 1011, 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
1980	Hopkinson	Smith	1946		Wiki	Web	a’ = 466	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.5 for Cello Solo in C minor, BWV 1011

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.5 for Cello Solo in C minor, BWV 1011 in a review on a concert featuring the entire Suite No.5:

• 2021-04-25, artist: Anastasia Kobekina (*1994, see also Wikipedia) — The complete 6 Suites for Cello Solo, BWV 1007 – 1012

Scordatura

As the first score sample below indicates, the Suite No.5 assumes a cello with scordatura. That term covers string instruments (of the violin / cello family, essentially) with the strings tuned in intervals other than fifths. Here, the cello tuning is changed from (C – G – d – a) to (C – G – d – g), i.e., the top string (a) is tuned to g, i.e., down by a full note.

This way, some of the three- and four-stop chords can be played as written. However, playing off the sheet music may turn out counter-intuitive. Some cellists perform the suite with standard tuning—most likely with a few simplifications or alterations of chords.

History and Sources

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.

Scordatura in Practice

Just to illustrate the above points about scordatura: both Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy and today’s printed editions accommodate the needs of the musician playing on an instrument with scordatura. In other words, the reader must “mentally downshift” all notes from a upwards by an entire tone. One early edition of the Bach Gesellschaft by Breitkopf & Härtel (BH/BG, Dörffel, 1879/1926, pp. 59–94) tried to illustrate the discord between the notation and the musical outcome, at least on the first page:

For all notes above g, the regular note indicates what the cellist is playing, and a little square next to these notes indicates what the listener is hearing. This publishing approach is futile at best, obscuring the text for both the musician and the reader/listener.

---

The Movements

The sections below show the opening bars or lines of each movement from Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. I’m adding additional remarks as I see fit for the purpose of this comparison.

I. Prélude

The first part of the Prélude is in split time (alla breve, ₵):

Since there is no tempo annotation, it is up to the artist’s discretion on how to approach the movement. Not surprisingly, the interpretations in this comparison differ greatly. I see three groups of approaches:

• The traditional approach is often slow and closely following the notation. Here, the semiquaver figures often form a calm flow, structured by the double, triple, or quadruple string chords on the first beat in most bars. Examples include Pablo Casals (1939) and Pablo de Naverán (2021).
• At the “opposite end”, there are interpretations that view the Prélude as analogous to the first part in a French Overture. In the CDF booklets, several artists explicitly refer to this movement as a French overture. This approach is characterized by double punctuated articulation, such as double-dotted notes instead of single dotting, and punctuated notes instead of nonpunctuated ones. This can be seen as an extreme form of jeu inégal. Prominent examples include Anner Bylsma (1979), Pieter Wispelwey (2012), Thomas Demenga (2014), Sergey Malov (2018), Juris Teichmanis (2019), and to a certain extent Jean-Guihen Queyras (2023). Refreshingly and most consequentially, there is also Anastasia Kobekina (2025).
• A third group of artists typically doesn’t use double punctuation but views this as a slow Baroque movement that deserves additional ornamentation. I’m rather critical of this approach, as I think the many semiquaver (and smaller) notes are already ornamentation, so the movement should not require extra ornaments.
• One peculiarity of this movement is the wide range of tempos: the slowest and fastest interpretations differ by more than a factor of two.

Fugue / Fugato

A typical Baroque French overture has a second part that is larger and faster. Often, this part is a fugue in a different meter. Here, the meter changes from alla breve (₵, split time) to 3/8. Neither the term “fugue” (or fuga) nor a tempo annotation is included in any manuscripts or printed editions. The only “separator” is the change in meter:

Do not expect a typical polyphonic fugue. This piece is mostly monophonic. There are no fugue expositions with canon-like stacking of themes. Apart from a few double stop motifs or moments, there is, of course, hidden polyphony in many of the semiquaver figures. A fugue theme appears throughout the piece as a common thread. Its beginning is easily identifiable by its four quavers. Around half a dozen booklet descriptions refer to the second part as a fugue. A few more mention fugato, “fugal part”, or “quasi-fugue”, while one artist (Mstislav Rostropovich, 1991) explicitly states that the second part is “not actually a fugue“. Only one recording (Vito Paternoster, 1998) has the fugue part as a separate track.

II. Allemande

The Allemande is in split time (2/2, ₵, alla breve) and consists of two parts (both with repeats, and both 18 bars). Here are the first 6 bars in Anna Magdalena Bach’s handwriting:

To illustrate the challenges of working around discrepancies in available source texts, let’s examine a small detail: the first note. In the above manuscript text, the first note (the upbeat to bar 1) is a semiquaver. For the repeat to “work” properly, the convention is that the last bar prior to the repeat sign must be a full bar minus a semiquaver. The same applies to the second part. One problem is that the last bar in either part is short by a quaver, not a semiquaver. Some editions have therefore changed the upbeat to a quaver, while others change the upbeat to a semiquaver in part 2, with the necessary adjustment to the final bar in either part.

A Glance at Bach’s Lute Transcription

However, for this suite, there is an alternate, authentic source, in the form of Bach’s lute transcription. This changes the upbeat to bar 19 (part 2) to a semiquaver, even though the last bar in either part is still short by a quaver. Adding double dotting to the last note / chord or a sixteenth rest would eliminate this inconsistency. The latter point may be a matter of convenience on the composer’s part. Nevertheless, the lute transcription is a good argument for the first note being a semiquaver. The lute version differs from the cello score in several ways. It features extra ornaments, such as an appoggiatura at the beginning of bar 2. More importantly, severai of the semiquaver figures, such as in bars 1, 2, 6, and 7, are written in demisemiquavers. This confirms that the semiquaver motifs are written-out ornaments, not melody.

III. Courante

Of the six Cello Suites, this is the only one with a Courante in 3/2 time.

The above excerpt shows examples of errors in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy: the C in bar 1 must be dotted. The first notes in bar 3 are usually read as E♭-G, not C-G, and the second semiquaver should be B natural, not B♭. In bar 5, the ascending semiquaver figure must be written as quavers, and in the quaver group that follows, the highest note must be d’ (sounding c’), not e’. There are a few more errors in subsequent bars, such as a missing semiquaver bar, a missing bass note in bar 16, differences in articulation annotations, and several differences in slurs.

The main challenge of this movement is not only playing the right note at the right time. Most bars begin with a chord. However, a meter defined by entire 3/2 bars can hardly serve as a basis for a Courante dance, at least not at a moderate pace. Additionally, extra chords often disrupt the rhythmic structure, making this movement feel unruly.

IV. Sarabande

I first encountered Suite No.5 over 55 years ago when I received two LPs as a gift. These featured Suites Nos.1, 2, 5, and 6, performed by Pablo Casals. Suites 3 and 4 weren’t available back then. The Sarabande from Suite No.5 instantly struck me as an expression of extreme grief, sadness, and pain. Casals’ interpretation has been burned into my memory ever since. It’s a very short movement of only 20 (8 + 12) bars:

The slurring in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy is rather sketchy. Some sources group the quavers in slurred pairs. However, both the edition of the Bach Gesellschaft by Breitkopf & Härtel (BH/BG, Dörffel, 1879/1926, pp. 59–94) and the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (Eppstein, 1988) group the quavers in four plus two slurred notes.

Another Glance at Bach’s Lute Transcription

Bach created a nearly identical transcription of this movement, which has a simple, linear structure. The only minor changes for the lute, apart from the transposition to G minor, are the addition of three bass notes to bars 7 and 19 and two bass notes to bar 14. Bach’s manuscript has slurs on the descending quaver motifs in bars 1 – 4, 7, 9 – 12, and 17 – 19.

V. Gavotte I

The two Gavottes are in split time (₵, alla breve). Two apocryphal sources from the late 18th century have the Gavottes in 4/4 time (Ｃ). Both the edition of the Bach Gesellschaft by Breitkopf & Härtel (BH/BG, Dörffel, 1879/1926, pp. 59–94) and the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (Eppstein, 1988) use the ₵ meter from Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. The movement has another notable notation issue: in all sources and editions (including Bach’s lute transcription), the top line in bar 27 reads c’–b–d’–b–c’. However, Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy reads c’–b–c’–b–c’. In all likelihood, this is a typo. Of all the performers, only Mstislav Rostropovich follows that reading.

The first Gavotte is moody in character and alternates between a somewhat heavy, jumping main theme and a second theme dominated by slurred quaver pairs, which one might read as hidden polyphony.

VI. Gavotte II

The second Gavotte forms an unusually stark contrast to its sister movement. It is dominated by fast, rolling quaver triplets:

VII. Gigue

For once, the last movement is not jolly, virtuosic, or fun. Instead, its irregular, dotted rhythm may come across as awkward and capricious. Bach’s own transcription for the lute is quite different. It resembles a two-part invention and fits the common expectation for a final movement in a Baroque suite.

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

---

The Interpretations, Overview

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

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

Repeats

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

---

A Note on Ratings

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

Ratings in Media Comparisons

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

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

Personal Views

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

Audiophile?

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

---

The Interpretations, Detail

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

Procedure, Technical Aspects

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

• I go through the collection movement by movement, i.e., I start with listening to the first movement with all recordings before progressing to the next movement.
• I try to choose a sequence that does not put subsequent recordings at a disadvantage. Typically, I start with slow performances, progressing to faster ones. At the same time, I try using a suitable sequence of 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 performance. 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.
• The change in listening sequence from one movement to the next provides the added benefit of not always comparing or contrasting any given performance with the same “competing” interpretation.

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

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

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

I. Prélude — Fugue (7’19”)

(Overture)

Pablo Casals plays the Prélude with unprecedented intensity, verve, and firmness. He emphasizes every note, even the smallest ones. The intensity never fades, even when he takes back the volume to mp. The dynamics may be compressed in this 1939 recording and subsequent restoration / remastering cycles. Nevertheless, the limited dynamics and Casals’ distinct rubato produce clear phrasing and a big breath. Of course, it would be unfair to compare this recording to more recent ones. Indeed, Casals’ understanding of “speaking rhythm and flow” is far from what we understand as agogics today. Already in the first two bars, the semiquavers vary in duration by an estimated factor of two or more. Undeniably, the Prélude alone leaves a lasting first impression.

(Fugue)

To a 21st-century listener, Pablo Casals’ interpretation of the fugue may exhibit “strange” features, such as a slight tendency to accelerate in some semiquaver passages, especially when the fugue theme is not involved. This contrasts with the very prominent, accented quaver notes in the bass register, which may feel almost too rugged. This is undoubtedly a very strong-minded interpretation!

II. Allemande (3’17”)

This is indubitably Casals, displaying his unmatched verve, intensity, momentum, and presence. The artist remains faithful to the score (Anna Magdalena Bach’s reading) and applies his usual intense yet musical and natural vibrato. The chords are energetic, almost explosive, like pillars supporting the broad dynamic arches. This is an impressive, strong-willed interpretation. Though it does not feel like a dance, it remains compelling throughout. Casals omits the second repeat.

III. Courante (2’03”)

Pablo Casals’ highly energetic interpretation, with its eruptive chords, largely adheres to Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. The tempo is above the average, making it easy for listeners to feel the rhythmic 3/2 dance sway. Even without the additional notes in Bach’s lute transcription, the chords often form a cohesive foundation, especially in the second part.

IV. Sarabande (2’45”)

Interestingly, Pablo Casals’ Sarabande is the fastest in this comparison. He uses vibrato throughout, but not only for sound aesthetics; it is merely a component of his sonority. The most impressive aspect of his interpretation is the phrasing and detailed, expressive dynamics. Casals’ interpretation is compelling and cohesive in the big arches, though not in the same way as Rostropovich’s. There is a richer narration and more focus on one- and two-bar phrases.

The recording is astounding, especially considering the year of the performance. It has, of course, been remastered and cleaned up. The hiss and other deficiencies of the original have been removed. Nevertheless, the recording retains the freshness of recent interpretations, a testament to the artist’s strong creative drive. In this movement, one can often hear the artist’s fingers tapping on the fingerboard, which is not irritating, but a welcome sign of authenticity.

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

Gavotte I

Casals intuitively understood the character of Galanteries in a Baroque suite, switching to a lighter articulation and moving away from his usual intense tone. The opening motif and most chords are performed as light staccato, and many of the slurred quaver pairs are light, ending in a very short second note. The movement is dominated by gentle dance swaying. Casals’ playing can be sensed through the brief, percussive chords.

Gavotte II

The second Gavotte is fluid and playful, focusing less on virtuosity. The quaver triplets gently roll along, with subtle dynamics. The interpretation is identifiable as Casals’ mainly due to the occasional outburst on arches with a high peak note or motif, such as in bars 12/13 and 18.

VII. Gigue (2’30”)

The beginnings and endings of phrases stand out for their verve and determination. As he approaches a climax, Casals’ playing intensifies into a dense, vibrant chant. After the peak, the artist retracts to a soft, almost intimate tone while maintaining tension, suspense, and rhythmic sway in every bar.

Total Duration: 22’24”

Rating: 4 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 4.5 = 4.43

Comment: In the context of the reception history of Bach’s Cello Suites, Casals’s recording is an invaluable document. Beyond that, even after nearly 90 years, it can still compete remarkably well with recent performances.

---

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 — Fugue (7’01”)

(Overture)

With its prominent, virtually ubiquitous vibrato and broad tenuto and legato articulation, one might call this performance just as outdated and old-fashioned as Mstislav Rostropovich’s thirty years later (!). However, Fournier’s performance does not suffer from the major flaws present in Rostropovich’s. Fournier’s interpretation showcases his beautiful, intense and elastic tone, as well as his natural breathing and phrasing. While there is nothing approaching Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) at the level of motifs, and the tempo is slow, albeit not extreme, the interpretation still bears witness to Fournier’s artistry.

(Fugue)

The artist uses differentiated dynamics to highlight motifs, the fugue theme, and echo effects. However, this is one of the slowest fugue performances, and it feels heavy and occasionally clumsy. Apart from the highlighting and the staccato articulation of the fugue theme heads, the stream of semiquavers feels too regular and uniform, often relentless, lacking agogics and rhythmic differentiation.

II. Allemande (4’35”)

With its broad, near-legato articulation and permanent, pronounced vibrato, this is clearly an interpretation from the past century. While the intense, singing tone is beautiful, the performance lacks agogics and dynamic differentiation at the level of motifs. The artist’s tendency to maintain permanent contact between bow and strings leads to occasional dynamic outbursts, e.g., in short notes within dotted motifs, especially when such notes involve a change onto one of the upper strings. This performance hardly stands up to recent interpretations, HIP or non-HIP. Like Casals, Fournier omits the second repeat.

III. Courante (2’06”)

The cellist plays the Courante with his usual verve and intensity. However, the performance lacks agogics and feels somewhat mechanical. Apart from the reduction in volume in the repeats, there is very little dynamic variation. One can recognize some jeu inégal, as pairs of quavers are often slightly distorted, either towards dotting or acciaccatura. In other words, the jeu inégal feels spontaneous rather than systematic.

IV. Sarabande (3’29”)

The vibrato is stronger and more pervasive than Mstislav Rostropovich’s. Despite the faster tempo, his interpretation appears somewhat more fragmented, using shorter phrases. Compared to recent HIP performances, Fournier’s vibrato does not add value or depth to the interpretation.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (5’05”)

Gavotte I

The artist’s performance of the first Gavotte is determined and affirmative. However, it is also rhythmically rigid and schematic, devoid of agogics. It offers a steady, emphatic beat instead of dance swaying.

Gavotte II

Here, Fournier offers a calm, continuous flow with lively dynamic contrasts. Rather than trying to connect to the first Gavotte, he appears to aim at contrast.

VII. Gigue (2’43”)

Of course, there’s again the beautiful, intense tone. I also concede that his constant vibrato is harmonious and fits the interpretation. Fournier creates nice dynamic build-ups, arches, and climaxes. My main reservation is with the permanent, broad tenuto articulation, and even more so with his strict adherence to the 3/8 meter. While one can still feel that Bach’s music has inherent dance quality, Fournier’s strict, metronomic playing, especially with the triple semiquavers, defeats any tension within motifs. This shows that the rediscovery of agogics and Klangrede was long overdue.

Total Duration: 24’59”

Rating: 3 / 3 / 3 / 3.5 / 3 / 3.5 / 3.5 = 3.21

Comment: With the inherent beauty and intensity of its tone, Fournier’s playing is an expression of nobility and elegance. Yet, it clearly coming from an early 20th-century cello school. There may still be an audience for such recordings—one that is likely dying out.

---

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 — Fugue (4’55”)

(Overture)

Interestingly, the earliest historically informed performance is also the fastest in the overture part. I like the sonority, the tone, the articulation and its clarity. However, in view of recent HIP performances, this one can’t really satisfy anymore. The opening octave C-c is surprising already: Anner Bylsma plays this very short, letting the fading resonances fill the gap to the ascending semiquaver line. With the latter, one can instantly feel the unusually fluid pace. There is no room for much acceleration over these semiquaver lines. Moreover, at Bylsma’s tempo, overdotting becomes difficult, especially with demisemiquaver figures. Indeed, the artist avoids overdotting altogether.

An even more prominent feature in this interpretation is the articulation. Bylsma uses staccato articulation on quavers and crotchets, dotted or not. Even crotchets and quavers with a tie to a subsequent semiquaver appear with staccato articulation. There are only rare and minor exceptions to this, such as the last dotted quaver in bar 11 and the dotted figure with trill at the transition to 6/8 meter (fugue, bar 26). Overall, the articulation does not allow for a natural flow or the breathing of phrases, and the piece feels somewhat restless and short-breathed, devoid of the festive or solemn nature often associated with a French overture.

(Fugue)

In many ways, the fugue is less extreme and exposed than the overture part. Anner Bylsma’s articulation is clear and natural. The artist makes the piece feel like a fugue, indeed, in that it highlights the fugue theme even where it is buried in hidden polyphony. As in the overture, there is a slight restlessness, and the breathing in broad phrases could be more pronounced and the dynamics more differentiated. Nevertheless, it is an excellent performance for its time.

II. Allemande (4’05”)

Once again, Anner Bylsma’s 1979 recording is the fastest in this comparison. In fact, it is nearly twice as fast as the slowest performance (Pablo de Naverán). At this pace, overdotting is unnecessary. Rather, the tempo and the artist’s light articulation leave no doubt about the ornamental character of the semiquaver and demisemiquaver figures. Moreover, the performance showcases nice alla breve dance swaying. A slower tempo would have avoided the feeling of a slightly “driven” interpretation and would have allowed for more agogics and “local expression”, i.e., Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983). Nevertheless, for its time it is an amazing interpretation, demonstrating Bylsma’s rank as a pioneer in HIP performances.

III. Courante (1’58”)

In his early recording, Anner Bylsma uses a good, fluid tempo. The performance is full of energy and drive. It features a clear 3/2 dance rhythm, making it a true Courante. The articulation has bite, yet remains light. Some might call it rough, though I’m sure it isn’t careless. The recording engineer didn’t try to make it sound polished. Occasional whirring sounds and scratching from the interaction with the gut strings were left untouched. The only “hair in the soup” is the exaggerated swelling on the half note in bar 12.

IV. Sarabande (3’17”)

In his recording from 1979, Anner Bylsma strips the Sarabande to the bare minimum: almost no vibrato, very little dynamic variation, a calm, uniform (though not mechanical) pace without agogics. Bylsma even ignores most of the slurs; most of the notes are played détaché. The only exceptions are rising and falling second intervals, such as the third and fourth notes in bars 1 – 4, the seconds in bars 5 – 7. Fittingly, falling seconds are sometimes called “lamento interval”, so the selection of slurred notes was not just an aesthetic decision.

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

Gavotte I

Bylsma’s tempo is fast—only Sergey Malov is faster on the violoncello da spalla—and the performance sounds noisier than some recent HIP performances, though not nearly as much as Petr Skalka’s. The tempo often feels pushed, particularly in bars 3 – 10 and 28 – 31. On the bright side, the performance has the lightness of a Baroque dance.

Anner Bylsma’s performance reveals an ambiguity in the notation of the first Gavotte: in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy, bar 27 begins with d’–c♯’–d’–c♯’, whereas in all other sources this quaver motif is d’–c♯’–e’–c♯’. Bach’s own lute transcription uses the second option as well. Bylsma consistently follows Anna Magdalena Bach (d’–c♯’–d’–c♯’), which today’s edition view as an error. One might say it’s just a difference of one note among several errors and ambiguities in Anna Magdalena Bach’s notation. However, this passage is very exposed, therefore listeners will notice it. Benedikt Kloeckner also plays this version, but only in the first passage, not in the repeat.

Gavotte II

Despite the fast tempo, Anner Bylsma’s interpretation retains elasticity and allows for relaxed dance swaying while maintaining clarity and tension throughout the movement.

VII. Gigue (2’13”)

In his 1979 recording, Anner Bylsma uses the same fast tempo as Jean-Guihen Queyras in his 2007 interpretation. With its extremely short semiquavers in the dotted motifs, the performance can be considered virtuosic. However, these détaché semiquavers are so short that they often sound noisy and lack sonority and definition. Jean-Guihen Queyras’ recording demonstrates that playing the semiquavers a tad broader at the same tempo gives them better sonority and definition.

Total Duration: 20’28”

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

Comment: This recording is a key document of a pioneer in historically informed performance practice. For this suite, I slightly prefer this recording to Bylsma’s later one from 1992. However, for Suites 1 through 4, I prefer Bylsma’s later interpretation.

---

Hopkinson Smith, 1980 — Lute (BWV 995)

Astrée Auvidis, ℗ 1981–82 / 1987
Artist: Hopkinson Smith (*1946, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Lute by Nico van der Waals, 13 courses
Pitch: a’ = 466 Hz
See the Comparison Summary for more information on artist, instrument, recording location etc.

Bach’s original Suite No.5 for Cello Solo in C minor, BWV 1011 was presumably composed in Köthen towards 1720. However, Hopkinson Smith performs Bach’s own transcription of that Suite, created between 1727 and 1731. For that instrument, Bach transposed the suite to G minor. A manuscript of the transcription exists, written in French Tablature notation. This transcription is now referred to as Suite for Lute in G minor, BWV 995. As Hopkinson Smith points out in the CD booklet, given the absence of a proper manuscript for the Cello Suite in C minor by the composer, Bach’s lute transcription serves as important alternate source.

The fundamental differences between instruments the lute and the cello preclude a direct comparison. Therefore, my comments below will differ from those on string instruments. I will focus on the specifics of a lute performance, and on fundamental differences between the two instrument classes in performing this music.

A Clarification

Bach’s transcription is authentic: the manuscript has survived the centuries. This does not mean that the transcription is an exact copy of the cello text. Aside from the transposition to G minor, the melody actually is transferred note for note. However, Bach would probably have viewed a “naked” 1:1 transfer as pointless and austere. Therefore, he took advantage of the opportunity to use the lute’s extra strings. Consequently, the transcription features enriched and added chords, an enhanced rhythmic and harmonic foundation, and occasionally, an additional contrapuntal bass voice. Bach also discreetly added extra ornaments to the transcription.

I. Prélude — Fugue (5’33”)

(Overture)

Considering the fundamental differences between the cello and the lute, it’s remarkable how well the transcription captures the essence of the piece. In the overture section, the complete melody line from the cello part is present. Hopkinson Smith plays the overture part with overdotting, though not in a strict, schematic fashion. My only, minor quibble with this part of the interpretation is with the slight acceleration in the consecutive dotted motifs in bars 15 and 18, which accelerate for no apparent reason.

Together with the few extra ornaments in Bach’s transcription, the interpretation feels totally in line with historically informed cello performances. The richer chords also don’t feel “different”, but merely help bring out the lute’s rich sonority. More than the extra notes within chords, the use of the unfretted bass strings stands out, especially where bass notes follow on the second crotchet, reaching down into a range (G,) that is not accessible on the cello. These “extras” don’t sound like additions but rather an integral part of the lute’s “vocabulary”.

(Fugue)

Again, one could argue that everything from the cello score is present here. However, the fugue goes far beyond a mere transcription. In fact, I think this alone makes it worthwhile to listen to this interpretation. It’s more than just repertoire enrichment—it’s a valuable complement to the cello version. Many of the quaver motifs (theme heads) are harmonized, partially (two voices) or fully, with three-, four-, or five-stop chords. Most importantly, though, the lute reveals that the theme actually consists of five quavers (d’–e♭–g–a–b♭ in the first instance in bar 28), a fact that is not obvious in many cello performances. Furthermore, Bach adds numerous instances of the theme (or parts of it) in a second voice, making this a proper two-part fugue. There are even three voices momentarily (bars 48 – 51).

II. Allemande (5’22”)

On the lute, the Allemande demonstrates not only that Bach’s movement is a masterpiece, but also how little it took Bach to convert it into equally masterful and authentic lute music. Here, the overdotting of groups of semiquavers is part of the composition and the natural language of the lute. Simple dotted motifs (dotted quaver plus semiquaver) are not overdotted. However, none of these exhibit a lack of tension. It seems as though the act of plucking a string (along with the accompanying “finger noises”) naturally creates tension. Moreover, Hopkinson Smith uses a repertoire of rich agogics and the addition of occasional simple ornaments to bring life to every moment of this movement—pure joy to listen to!

III. Courante (2’41”)

Hopkinson Smith’s Courante is indeed beautiful lute music, with adequate and fitting extra ornamentation, such as trills, inverted mordents, and subtle jeu inégal. In the repeats, the artist aptly adds more ornaments. The most prominent of these is the triplet sequence in bar 1. In comparison to cello interpretations, the one thing missing in the lute performance is the Courante dance character and the associated 3/2 meter. Bach’s lute transcription retains the 3/2 meter, but in this recording, the tempo is very slow for a Courante, with 1/2 at around 60. However, playing it at a faster Courante pace on the lute is hardly possible and would require removing most, if not all, of the ornaments.

One benefit of the lute transcription is that it is less dominated by chords. The dominant feature is the beautiful melody voice. Additionally, the bass voice becomes independent and far easier to follow than on a cello.

IV. Sarabande (2’50”)

An unsuspecting listener might think that a lute can’t compete with a cello in terms of expression, phrasing, and tension within individual notes. The Sarabande with its simple, linear texture puts this idea to the test. However, given its completely different characteristics, the lute version can’t directly compete with a cello interpretation.

It may be necessary to listen to this recording a few times to fully appreciate the transcription and its interpretation. It pays to listen carefully. Of course, the plucked lute cannot build tension by modulating the volume within a tone. However, agogics, subtle nuances in the timing of the notes, play a key role. Moreover, the recording makes the listener feel when the artist grabs a string, and it feels as if the build-up of physical tension prior to releasing a string is an essential part of the lute’s language. This recording proves that it indeed works beautifully, particularly in Hopkinson Smith’s interpretation, which can stand its ground next to a good cello interpretation. Although the lute version cannot quite offer the depth and intensity of top cello performances, it is an interesting and even fascinating complement to “regular” recordings.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (4’46”)

Gavotte I

In the lute transcription, the first Gavotte feels friendlier, gentler than the original version, even subtle. The chords are mostly harmonization rather than the rhythmic pillars or drivers that they are in most cello performances. This gives the piece an almost radically different character. My one quibble with Hopkinson Smith’s interpretations is that in bars 4 – 8, he accelerates or switches to a faster tempo, only gradually returning to the original pace towards the end of the first part. To me, this doesn’t make sense.

Gavotte II en Rondeau

A similar, pronounced change in character occurs in the lute transcription of the second Gavotte. Here, the quaver triplets feel playful, gentle, and light rather than virtuosic. The transcription features a bass line in crotchets that establishes the primary rhythm, adds a melodic complement, and provides a harmonic foundation.

VII. Gigue (2’39”)

At first glance, Bach’s lute transcription of the Gigue closely resembles the original cello version. However, for the lute, Bach reworked this movement into a full two-part invention. In contrast, the original cello version is strictly linear, with occasional hidden polyphony at most. The difference in sonority and the sound characteristics of a plucked instrument make this a completely different piece of music—and a fascinating, beautiful one at that. Moreover, Hopkinson Smith adorns the repeats with numerous ornaments, such as trills and inverted mordents.

Total Duration: 23’50”

Rating: 5 / 5 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 5 / 5 = 4.79

Comment: This is a beautiful and interesting addition to the discography of Bach’s Cello Suite in C minor, BWV 1011, in its original form. I can definitely recommend this recording (a “heritage” from my LP collection), even though I have not tried looking at more recent recordings of BWV 995. This recording complements, but does not compete with performances on the cello or related instruments.

---

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 — Fugue (7’23”)

(Overture)

Frankly, I find this performance abysmal. The one feature that one might see as positive is that Rostropovich plays every note exactly as written, with the addition of some moderate dynamic differentiation. Also, the prominent, strong vibrato does not add value. The most blatant deficiency is the total absence of agogics. Within a phrase, every note bears the same weight and duration, and the articulation is tenuto or legato throughout. The tempo feels slow to a crawl (though not as slow as the performances by Pablo Casals and Pablo de Naverán).

(Fugue)

In the fugue, the articulation is somewhat lighter, mostly détaché, sometimes approaching staccato. There are also excessively accented notes. Apart from that, the music moves along with the relentlessness of a steamroller, occasionally allowing the tempo to run slightly ahead. This is typical of Rostropovich’s Bach performances. However, given recent performances and recordings, it’s not a joy to listen to. Once again, Rostropovich meticulously follows the notation. The only exception is that the fourth semiquaver in bar 220 (b, written c♯’) is split into two demisemiquavers, c’-b.

II. Allemande (5’11”)

This is another mechanical performance, devoid of agogics and phrasing. It progresses relentlessly with flat dynamics and no sensitivity It’s telling that the appoggiatura in bar 11 is turned into an acciaccatura. 35 years ago—and long before that—the distinction between these Baroque ornaments was common knowledge.

III. Courante (2’26”)

Rostropovich uses somewhat differentiated articulation; that is, he often switches to lighter bowing. When he wants to intensify a phrase, he often switches to broader tenuto articulation. There are traces of agogics and a permanent vibrato. However, by and large, Rostropovich plays with a stiff, metronomic meter, devoid of dance swaying and with minimal flexibility.

IV. Sarabande (3’51”)

This may be Rostropovich’s finest movement. He begins softly, with a strong, yet harmonious vibrato. He steadily increases the volume, reaching an impressive sonority at the climax of the broad arches. Some may call the artist’s dynamics and consequent crescendo relentless and exaggerated. Nevertheless, they showcase the cellist at the height of his artistry. I prefer interpretations with little or no vibrato, but I concede that this performance is impressive in its own way.

V. Gavotte I — (2’47”)

This movement is slow, static, and rhythmically rigid. The articulation feels careless and traditional in its choice of tenuto/legato versus staccato. Even the intonation is occasionally marginal in the second part. In bar 27, Rostropovich plays c’–b–c’–b–c’, as per Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy, which is likely an error, see above. All other sources and editions, including Bach’s lute transcription have c’–b–d’–b–c’. Did Rostropovich research the sources?

VI. Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (2’56”)

This is one of the better movements in this interpretation, even though the flow is too uniform, and the intonation isn’t flawless. The tempo is slightly below average, and the da capo movement follows the ending with almost brutal force.

VII. Gigue (2’25”)

Thirty years separate Pierre Fournier’s recording from this one. Of course, Fournier’s French cello training differs much from Rostropovich’s Russian training. Yet, both use continuous vibrato and tenuto articulation. Rostropovich’s articulation is also broad, but more détaché than Fournier’s. He works more with dynamic contrasts, rather than focusing on smooth, broad arches. Rostropovich is less focused on refined aesthetics, but aims for full and powerful sonority, especially in the darkness of the C string. His rhythm is slightly more elastic, less rigid or schematic, yet it also lacks agogics and dance swaying.

Total Duration: 27’00”

Rating: 2 / 2 / 2.5 / 4.5 / 2.5 / 3 / 3.5 = 2.86

Comment: As I have stated before, Rostropovich should have avoided the Baroque repertoire. By recording this music, he did a disservice to his reputation.

---

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 — Fugue (5’07”)

(Overture)

Over the 13 years since his 1979 recording, Anner Bylsma reduced the tempo of the overture, which is now in the upper mid-range and avoids the restlessness of the earlier performance. Was he moving from “radical HIP” to partial normalization? Along with the tempo, the articulation has also become “milder”. The articulation is broader. There is still mostly, but not always, a gap in dotted motifs. The semiquaver chains now tend to accelerate slightly. There is still no overdotting. In comparison with newer, overdotted performances, the interpretation seems to have less tension and drive. On the other hand, the broader articulation creates more cohesion in phrases. I clearly prefer the 1992 overture performance over the one from 1979.

(Fugue)

Although the overture is slower and more moderate than in the 1979 recording, the fugue is the fastest in this comparison. The interpretation retains the impression of a fugue. It is full of drive and momentum, and it showcases Bylsma’s mastery of the instrument. However, the tempo is at a point where it starts to feel somewhat restless and occasionally limits the amount of detail in articulation, dynamics, and Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983).

II. Allemande (5’24”)

In the Allemande, Bylsma took the same approach as in the overture: the 1979 recording was the fastest in both movements, whereas the 1992 recording is remarkably slower. Here, the difference is even greater: while the first recording pushed the boundaries of tempo and articulation, this new recording feels moderated, exceptionally gentle, and lyrical. The gentle character stems not only from the mellow—though still light—articulation, but also from the absence of overdotting. At the slower pace, overdotting would have added extra momentum and allowed for more dance character.

The 1992 recording offers more spatial plasticity and better sonority overall, compared to the slightly “tubular” sound of the 1979 recording. Nevertheless, I prefer the earlier recording with its lighter, more dance-like character, which puts it more in line with recent, top-of-the-line HIP recordings.

III. Courante (1’49”)

Anner Bylsma’s second recording of the Courante, from 1992, is distinctly faster than his performance from 1979. Only Sergey Malov’s performance on the Violoncello da spalla is faster. This recording isn’t nearly as unruly as the first. Rather, it is almost too smooth and often feels overly pushed, if not rushed, as if the artist wanted to ensure the performance was shorter than the older one. The articulation remains light, of course, without the bite and roughness of the first recording. Strangely, there is a tendency toward excessive swelling of long notes. I certainly prefer the Courante from the earlier recording.

IV. Sarabande (3’13”)

In his second recording, Anner Bylsma moved away from his frugal yet impressive 1979 performance toward an interpretation that follows the notation in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy more closely. Specifically, he now follows the slurring in most editions, which place a single slur over the first four quavers in most bars. Bylsma also uses vibrato more generously. Here, it’s more than ornamental, though not intrusive. Moreover, the artist uses more agogics, and the dynamics are much more expressive. Despite the vibrato, I like the interpretation, even though recent HIP performances offer more, particularly in terms of Klangrede. In its own way, I find the 1979 performance equally interesting.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (4’14”)

Gavotte I

In his 1992 recording, the timing of the first Gavotte indicates a fast (above average) tempo. However, this performance is distinctly slower than his 1979 recording. The first few bars are especially slow and careful. Then, Bylsma accelerates, at least temporarily. Throughout the performance there are episodes where the tempo fluctuates beyond what is now regarded as agogic variation, to the point where it starts to irritate. On a positive note, this performance is less noisy than the earlier one.

As in his 1979 recording, Anner Bylsma opts for Anna Magdalena Bach’s version of bar 27, which is now largely regarded as in error (see above).

Gavotte II

The second Gavotte is the fastest cello performance in this comparison. Only Sergey Malov, playing the violoncello da spalla, plays faster. Anner Bylsma plays this piece with amazing virtuosity, lightness, and clarity—a fast, whirling dance, indeed!

VII. Gigue (1’56”)

Bylsma’s 1979 performance was already very fast. This one is even faster, surpassed only by Pablo de Naverán’s interpretation from 2021. However, the tempo difference between Bylsma’s two recordings is not significant. More importantly, the newer recording is less dry, gentler, and more playful—truly a whirling dance!

Total Duration: 21’44”

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

Comment: Bylsma’s earlier recording from 1979 has a slight edge over this newer one in this Suite. However, both recordings have their specific advantages. Over all Suites, the 1992 recording is recommended more strongly.

---

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 — Fugue (6’07”)

(Overture)

Similar to Juris Teichmanis (2019), which I reviewed prior to this recording, this performances avoids overdotting. As I mentioned in that review, the absence of overdotting is not necessarily negative, as the sources provide no indication that it should be used. Jaap ter Linden does not use dynamics to overemphasize the semiquavers in dotted motifs. However, the tempo is relatively moderate, and while the artist does not highlight these semiquavers dynamically, he seems to apply extra care to these notes, actually stretching them rhythmically. Overall, this feels just as bad, defeating all tension. At least, the performance is not as noisy as Teichmanis’. Jaap ter Linden uses vibrato on all long notes. While not overly intrusive, this still feels somewhat outdated by now.

(Fugue)

The tempo here is slightly above average. However, the articulation is a little too uniform, especially in the long semiquaver stretches. On a positive note, Jaap ter Linden highlights each fugue theme head with careful staccato articulation. Unlike other artists, he focuses not only on the ascending part of the motif (e.g., c–d–e♭ in bars 28/29), but also on the first note—in this case, the a♭ in bar 28, often also with the associated upbeat quaver, where applicable.

II. Allemande (6’33”)

Jaap ter Linden’s tempo is almost identical to Pablo Casals’. Of course, the two recordings are separated by two generations. Jaap ter Linden’s détaché articulation varies between broad and light, but is always clear, harmonious, and gentle. The artist does not apply full double-dotting; dotted motifs are only slightly over-dotted without ever being dogmatic. Overall, the performance is harmonious and expressive. However, I feel a certain uniformity in dynamics, a lack of rhythmic tension, agogics, structure, and clarity in phrasing. It certainly does not feel like a dance.

III. Courante (2’21”)

In the Courante, Jaap ter Linden’s performance is just a tad faster than Ophélie Gaillard’s, which was recorded 14 years later. In Jaap ter Linden’s performance, the chords form a solid, robust rhythmic foundation. The segments connecting the chords are full of drive and momentum. Because of this, the movement feels like a real dance and is compelling. While not a typical Courante, it is nonetheless an enthralling piece.

IV. Sarabande (3’30”)

Jaap ter Linden plays the quavers in pairs. This choice is not controversial, though, as the articulation is a broad tenuto; therefore, bow changes are barely audible. Agogics play a minor role in ter Linden’s interpretation; his main means of expression are the broad dynamic arches and the instrument’s full, warm sonority. The artist applies a mostly inconspicuous vibrato to intense notes, as well as to bar 8 and to some of the crotchets. The interpretation is calm and solemn. Unfortunately, there is little, if any, Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983).

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (5’38”)

Gavotte I

In both Gavottes Jaap ter Linden is a tad faster than Kim Kashkashian. Both movements share a similar, moderate alla breve pace. The first Gavotte sounds somewhat rustic; the articulation is careful, but the rhythmic swaying and dance swaying are rather limited. The intonation is occasionally marginal.

Gavotte II

The second Gavotte feels more natural and has a much more dance-like sway. it’s a nice interpretation with HIP sonority.

VII. Gigue (2’37”)

Jaap ter Linden’s performance of the Gigue uses agogics and dynamics to produce a relaxed, effortless dance swaying. Nothing is rushed, the articulation is light and clear. To my taste, the reverberation from the church acoustics is a bit strong, but workable.

Total Duration: 26’46”

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

Comment: This is a sincere and solid HIP performance. I can recommend it. However, recent HIP recordings offer a richer experience.

---

Vito Paternoster, 1998

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

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

I. Prélude (2’13”) —

(Overture)

This is not the first time that Vito Paternoster has offered an extreme interpretation. He distorts the piece beyond recognition. There is barely a semiquaver figure that he leaves untouched. Overdotting may be OK, even desired, for dotted motifs, but why apply it to plain semiquaver chains, such as in bars 1, 10, and 17? Along with that, Paternoster adds a ton of additional curly—if not sometimes bizarre—ornaments. After all, this movement already has built-in ornamentation. On top of this, there are several instances where the intonation is marginal—and the occasional use of vibrato is not the cause.

Fugue (3’49”)

Not surprisingly, Paternoster does not leave the fugue untouched. At a fluid pace, he again adds many ornaments and strong agogics. While these are not as extreme as in the overture, is odd to see the half the instances of the quaver-based theme head ornamented and the other half left in their original form. At the least, this sounds very odd for a Baroque fugue. Make no mistake, the track is labeled “Fugue” (see the comments above). Also here, the intonation is occasionally superficial. On the bright side: Paternoster often uses strong dynamic contrasts (echo effects) in passages with imitations.

II. Allemande (4’59”)

Vito Paternoster’s performance of the Allemande is reminiscent of his interpretation of the overture: it is equally extreme. Overdotting dominates, and every motif is filled with impulsive energy and tension, almost to the point of feeling convulsive. This applies even to sequences of chained semiquavers. Rather than overdotting by expanding the first note, Paternoster often lifts the bow off the string after the third note, inserting a short pause, followed by a snappish demisemiquaver. Paternoster’s added ornaments are less frequent than in the overture and are never bizarre. I suspect that the artist recognized the ornamentative character of some of Bach’s writing. Still, in motifs of four semiquavers, he occasionally adds a trill or an inverted mordent to the second note.

Paternoster’s articulation and agogics may be debatable. However, they create an excess of focus on individual motifs. Moreover, I feel that they distort the flow, prevent sustained dance swaying, and make the piece appear fragmented.

III. Courante (2’05”)

I’m all in favor of light articulation. Here, however, it is often too terse and the snappiness is exaggerated. Moreover, the artist adds an excess of ornaments, not only in the repeats, but in the first passes as well. All these “bells and whistles” distract from the dance character of the movement, despite the above-average tempo. The intonation is sometimes marginal in this movement as well.

IV. Sarabande (3’30”)

Vito Paternoster plays at the same tempo as Jaap ter Linden. This is their main common feature. Paternoster also plays the quavers in pairs. The second note in each pair is short and light, creating a strongly trochaic meter. This formally follows some 18th-century sources, which also feature slurred pairs of quavers. However, given that the majority of the sources, as well as the current editions of the Bach-Gesellschaft, feature slurred quaver quadruplets (see above), this view seems questionable, to say the least. Paternoster occasionally uses vibrato. In most instances, the vibrato is broad yet rather prominent. One could view this as a kind of ornament. In general, the interpretation feels calm and expressive, though the dynamic excursions at peak notes and phrase climaxes feel exaggerated.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (4’47”)

Gavotte I

Paternoster’s tempo in the first Gavotte is moderate. However, the performance is not without arbitrariness. The dynamics are lively, but the articulation is sometimes coarse and rough with erratic, often swelling accents, and irregularities in flow and tempo. There are often whirring sounds, and the intonation is often careless.

Gavotte II

Here, Paternoster selected the fastest tempo, twice that of Anastasia Kobekina’s performance. At this pace, the piece loses all playfulness and dance character, turning into a mere demonstration of virtuosity.

VII. Gigue (2’32”)

Vito Paternoster’s Gigue is light and nearly joyful, with an almost dance-like sway. In this movement, maintaining the dance-like sway is difficult. Critical moments are transitions between phrases that involve a jump from the bass register to the high strings, such as in bars 7/8, 31/32, and 40.

Total Duration: 23’55”

Rating: 3 / 4 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3 / 3.5 / 4 = 3.50

Comment: A good HIP performance—with the occasional quirk.

---

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 — Fugue (5’45”)

(Overture)

This is an excellent performance. It is highly expressive, with rich agogics and dynamics. Pieter Wispelwey uses overdotting, though not in a meticulous or overzealous way. One key characteristic of this performance is its harmonious, organic, and natural quality. Articulation and dynamic contrasts are never harsh: already the first note (the octave C – c) enters gently, and the chords are mellow, not outbursts. My only quibbles are the slight tendency toward “belly notes” and the slightly “covered” sound of the recording. However, these issues do not detract from the aesthetic and harmonious beauty of Wispelwey’s performance.

At Wispelwey’s tempo, the semiquaver figures appear as ornaments, so there is no need for extra ornamentation. There is just one extra ornament (an ascending scale bridging d and c’) in the middle of bar 20. One might count the very subtle and selective vibrato as ornaments, though.

(Fugue)

The fugue section is equally fascinating. The articulation is light and natural. It is never overly repetitive or uniform, let alone boring. This is a performance full of Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983), down to the level of motifs. The quavers (theme head) stand out with their highly differentiated staccato articulation. In combination with the careful dynamics, Pieter Wispelwey not only keeps the movement clearly structured, but also makes it appear as a proper fugue, even though it is essentially for a single voice. Masterful!

II. Allemande (4’52”)

This is a well-balanced interpretation with light and clear articulation, yet often full and rounded, if not big sonority. The timing indicates one of the faster performances. Pieter Wispelwey does not use overdotting, and the small notes are played with prominent, light détaché articulation, following the notation in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. This gives the small note values a presence that goes beyond mere ornamentation. Yet, one can easily feel the calm breathing and the underlying measured alla breve pace, and the piece retains the character of a slow dance. Beautiful!

III. Courante (2’03”)

This is a marvelous interpretation! It has an excellent tempo for a Courante in 3/2 time, with light articulation. It is enthralling and full of momentum. The chords stand out as energetic accents, yet they are well integrated into the flow; they don’t hinder the 3/2 dance swaying. Wispelwey also maintains a perfect balance between Klangrede (agogics, articulation, and dynamics at the level of motifs) and bigger phrases spanning two or more bars. Masterful!

IV. Sarabande (3’39”)

In both of his recordings, Pieter Wispelwey shares the tempo with Juris Teichmanis and David Watkin. However, Wispelwey’s 1998 performance is closer to Watkin’s, particularly in the articulation. Wispelwey’s articulation is actually lighter and more détaché than Watkin’s, and in this recording he is still often adding some vibrato to longer and emphasized notes,

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (4’27”)

Gavotte I

This is a beautiful performance! It begins with a mild arpeggiated chord and continues with rich agogics, lively dynamics, and “speaking articulation” (Klangrede) throughout. The chords are seamlessly integrated into the flow. They are never harsh or eruptive. My only minor quibble is with some “ballooning” accents that stand out a little too much.

Gavotte II

The second Gavotte offers Klangrede through careful phrasing. The tempo is on average, natural, but feels fluid and almost fast thanks to clear and detailed articulation. The performance is excellent in that it never attempts to show off virtuosity or make more of the piece than it is—a lighthearted rondo-intermezzo.

VII. Gigue (2’24”)

Pieter Wispelwey recorded the Gigue with a fluid tempo and very light articulation. His interpretation focuses on the basic pace of one beat per bar, making it a happily bouncing dance that never feels rushed. The semiquavers have the fleeting lightness of acciaccaturas, or more generally, ornaments. This is a beautiful, excellent and natural yet unpretentious interpretation.

Total Duration: 23’11”

Rating: 4.5 / 4.5 / 5 / 4 / 4.5 / 5 / 5 = 4.60

Comment: Even though it has largely been superseded by Wispelwey’s 2012 recording, this remains one of my favorites. Some may even prefer it to the more recent one because it is less radical in its HIP approach and therefore a little closer to a typical concert performance.

---

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 D minor
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.

In this comparison, both viola da gamba adaptations transpose the C minor suite to D minor. However, Pandolfo does not focus on staying close to Bach’s original. Instead, he often tends to exploit the specific features and possibilities of the viola da gamba, such as extra ornamentation and harmonization.

I. Prélude — Fugue (5’59”)

(Overture)

At first glance, Paolo Pandolfo stays with Bach’s melody line. All of the notes in the score are present in terms of pitch. Yet, a comparison of Pandolfo’s interpretation with a traditional one shows two very different pieces. Some of Pandolfo’s “personalization” can also be seen in recent cello interpretations, especially historically informed ones. For example, Paolo Pandolfo applies double-dotting not only to all dotted notes, but also to motifs where semiquavers follow a longer note, such as in the second half of bar 2.

Specifics for the Viol

The pronounced agogics in semiquaver chains are reminiscent of the style of 16th- and 17th-century French viola da gamba masters (though they don’t go as far as Vito Paternoster’s 1998 cello performance).

Pandolfo steps outside the bounds of normal cello interpretations. Already on the top note of the first chord, the artist applies a strong flattement, a two-finger vibrato described by Marin Marais (1656 – 1728) and other masters of the viol. Flattement also appears in the middle of bar 7, in bars 10, 14, 16, and on the top note in bar 25. Note that the flattement is an ornament, not a substitute for vibrato. Pandolfo complements this with “proper” trills and other ornaments.

In the overture, the flattement is only a small part of Pandolfo’s “viol phraseology”. More importantly, there are broad, sweeping chord arpeggios, and the pronounced breathing, not only in phrases, but also in motifs. Dotted motifs typically appear with an “explosive” long note, followed by a gap, in which the bow leaves the string. This lets one enjoy the rich resonances of the instrument. The calm, measured alla breve pace makes the piece feel solemn, even festive. With all this, Pandolfo truly transports the overture into the French Baroque era. The result is rich and beautiful!

(Fugue)

With the switch to 3/8 time, Pandolfo switches from the moderate overture pace to a fluid, vivid tempo. The second part doesn’t really feel like a fugue but rather like a virtuosic Gigue. The quaver figures, usually seen as the fugue theme, are barely highlighted, but integrated into the flow of semiquavers. Moreover, these quavers often appear with an ornament, typically an inverted mordent on the first or the last beat of a bar. These ornaments partly mask the fugue theme, blending it into the semiquaver chains. Such “casual” ornaments can also be found within semiquaver lines, in line with the “French” style of the performance.

Aside from these ornaments, Pandolfo mostly follows the score’s notation, with very few exceptions in the form of inconspicuous alterations in the semiquaver figures. However, a few moments stand out: the high quaver notes in bars 151 and 152 are underpinned by strong arpeggio chords that drive the performance forward. Similarly, the bass pulses in bars 172 – 174, as well as bars 210 – 220 get an extra push from powerful chords in the bass strings.

II. Allemande (5’26”)

For the most part, Paolo Pandolfo leaves the substance of the movement in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy untouched. He uses double-dotting in all dotted motifs and groups of four semiquavers with a tied first note. Not surprisingly, he enriches or expands Bach’s chords by making use of the viola da gamba‘s additional strings. There are also some added, perfectly integrated ornaments. Additionally, the artist of course could not resist other opportunities that a seven-string viola da gamba offers, such as occasional doubling of notes using adjacent strings, or adding a second voice in parallel sixths to the last three notes in bar 24.

The above paragraph describes the technical aspects of Pandolfo’s “translation” from cello to viola da gamba. However, the musical aspects of the performance and its outcome are far more relevant. Pandolfo’s ability to make Bach’s cello score sound like an authentic viola da gamba piece and bring the movement to life is the central aspect of his performance. It is a true, slow dance from beginning to end. Every bar and motif is filled with expression and momentum—masterful, beautiful, and compelling!

III. Courante (2’29”)

Paolo Pandolfo’s timing is identical to Pablo de Naverán’s, i.e., slower than a typical cello interpretation. Not surprisingly, though, this interpretation sounds completely different. There is energy, verve, and momentum here, too, but it’s all really playful, light, rich, and beautiful. On the surface Pandolfo adheres to the notation in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. However, he adorns the melody line with jeu inégal, trills, mordents, and acciaccaturas.

Together with rich agogics, the piece sounds like a genuine lute work. The 7-string viola da gamba‘s richer resonances, contribute to this impression. Occasionally, Pandolfo adds a second voice in the bass, as in bars 7 – 9 and 17 – 18. He also adds to existing chords. Some of these additions may have been inspired by Bach’s lute transcription. Fascinating!

IV. Sarabande (3’49”)

In the Sarabande, the two interpretations on the viola da gamba (this one and Myriam Rignol’s, both in D minor) have virtually identical timing. However, the timing and basic sonority of the viola da gamba are the only things these two interpretations have in common. Paolo Pandolfo’s interpretation is vastly richer, even though the artist refrains from adding ornaments, harmonies, second voices, or even as little as the few extra bass notes from Bach’s lute transcription. The slurs in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy are not read as articulation or bowing instructions but as phrasing indications. Apart from the slurs, Pandolfo strictly adheres to the score. In that sense, the artist truly lets the music speak for itself.

Paolo Pandolfo plays most of the piece détaché. The main exceptions are the ascending seconds, such as the third and fourth notes in bars one through four. Pandolfo’s interpretation is a true, touching lament: somber, withdrawn, introverted, dull, and mourning. Even the few bars with brighter harmonies seem obscured by a fog of pain and despair. Often, the vibrato-less sonority resembles the sound of the softest, mellow flue registers of a Baroque chest organ.

The interpretation does not tell an extended story with broad phrasing arches. Rather, Pandolfo aims to explore depth and expression in the individual, typically one-bar phrases. It’s an immensely touching interpretation.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (4’23”)

Gavotte I

In both Gavottes, Paolo Pandolfo plays noticeably faster than Myriam Rignol. Once again, these artists’ approaches are vastly different, apart from differences in tempo. In the first Gavotte, Rignol faithfully reproduces the cello score on the viola da gamba. In contrast, Pandolfo makes the piece sound like a “proper” work for his instrument. Interestingly, though, he leaves the core of Bach’s score largely untouched. He does not add complementary voices or overload the piece with his own ornamentation. There are just two inconspicuous ornaments (mordents and inverted mordents) in each part (bars 8, 11, 13, and 30), which he plays in both passes. However, where he sees fit and where it is possible, he expands existing chords by adding notes on low bass strings.

Pandolfo’s beautiful interpretation showcases the full, rich sonority of the seven-string viola da gamba. Unlike in some traditional cello performances, the chords are not erratic blocks. Instead, they are broad and sonorous, yet organically embedded in the musical flow.

Gavotte II

The second Gavotte is fluid and fast, but it does not try to show off virtuosity. Throughout the piece, the bow pressure remains low and the tone is casual and nearly sotto voce. This creates an intimate, busy atmosphere. With the exception of two inconspicuous appoggiaturas on crotchets, Pandolfo leaves the notation unchanged.

VII. Gigue (2’29”)

In contrast to Myriam Rignol’s performance on the viola da gamba, Paolo Pandolfo uses a more moderate tempo, which enhances the sonority of semiquavers in dotted motifs. In the first part, Pandolfo plays the cello score as is. This changes with the repeat, where the artist turns to Bach’s fugato-like lute transcription, which he reinforces with fuller chords towards the climax in bar 15. Even though Bach’s transcription is for the lute, in Pandolfo’s hands, it sounds like genuine music for the viol.

In the second part, Paolo Pandolfo reverses the order. The first pass is enriched with the artist’s own additions, while in the repeat, Pandolfo returns to Bach’s original cello score. This time, the enriched first pass is inspired by, but not taken directly from, Bach’s lute transcription. Pandolfo adds a fragmentary bass voice, as well as numerous chords. The effect is fascinating, making the cello score sound pale in comparison. Beautiful!

Total Duration: 24’35”

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

Comment: This is a fascinating and remarkable interpretation—hors concours, but extraordinary and highly recommended as a complement to the discography of cello interpretations.

---

Steven Isserlis, 2005

hyperion, ℗ 2007
Artist: Steven Isserlis (*1958, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Cello by Giuseppe Guarneri del Gesú (1698 – 1744), Cremona
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 — Fugue (5’55”)

(Overture)

To me, this is a traditional performance. It is played carefully and follows the score closely. In light of recent interpretations, especially in the HIP field, it seems old-fashioned with its persistent, broad, and often quasi-legato articulation, as well as its ubiquitous vibrato. The underlying pulse is calm and steady, agogics and dynamic contrasts are limited. Could this be an attempt to “let the music speak for itself”? This alone does not earn any points these days.

(Fugue)

I have some understanding for the use of (limited) vibrato in slow movements. However, in the fugue it is distracting at best. Steven Isserlis even applies it to some of the semiquaver figures. At first, the articulation is light, but it soon grows broader and more intense, “bigger” and broader, consistently building toward an overly “grand” ending. Overall, the performance feels strained. Its relentless level of focus and energy does not let the music recover between phrasing arches, nor does it give the listener time to breathe.

II. Allemande (5’30”)

Steven Isserlis’ tempo is natural and on the average of the performances in this comparison. I like the double-dotting, gentle yet clear articulation, and lively dynamics. The semiquaver chains could use a little more agogics; otherwise, the interpretation features natural, harmonious breathing in one- or two-bar phrases. Unfortunately, Steven Isserlis’ prominent, almost ubiquitous vibrato causes this interpretation to feel out of time. For a true HIP performance I would also expect more Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) through differentiation in articulation, agogics, and dynamics at the level of motifs.

III. Courante (1’49”)

The tempo is fluid, but the chords—with vibrato on the top note—are overly broad and emphasized. Additionally, the upbeats to some chords are too loud and harsh. While the performance is overly emphatic, the rhythm is too polished and schematic. There are no agogics at the level of motifs. Compared with recent HIP performances, this makes the interpretation seem emotionless.

IV. Sarabande (3’34”)

Unsurprisingly, Steven Isserlis’ vibrato is omnipresent in this movement. The performance is impeccable, of course. However, there are limited agogics: very little, if any, between bar lines, mostly a little hesitation near climaxes and close to end notes. In comparison to recent HIP recordings, there seems to be too much focus on tone and articulation aesthetics, and not enough on Klangrede.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (4’28”)

Gavotte I

Steven Isserlis’ first Gavotte is very resolute, firm, energetic, and somewhat relentless. It features differentiated dynamics, but does not allow for much agogic swaying. Even though it isn’t noisy, it still feels loud. Shouldn’t a Baroque Gavotte be lighter, more lighthearted?

Gavotte II

This is Steven Isserlis’ best movement yet in this Suite. It isn’t pushing the pace—the tempo is below average—and the tone is gentle, soft, and unassuming. Nice!

VII. Gigue (2’44”)

After the da capo instance of the second Gavotte, Steven Isserlis transitions to the Gigue with little to no pause, playing it quasi-attacca. This is one of the slower Gigue performances, and it is definitely modern, with an elastic tone, relatively broad articulation, and nearly ubiquitous vibrato. A few select long notes are played without vibrato. It’s unclear how the artist chose which notes to play without vibrato; it’s not just long notes or phrase endings. Of course, Isserlis’ performance is technically perfect, with meticulously controlled dynamics and articulation. One might say that there is dance swaying. However, the result feels too earnest and intense; it lacks the lightness and joy of a Baroque Gigue.

Total Duration: 24’10”

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

Comment: By the time this recording was made in 2005, Steven Isserlis’ performance must have felt outdated. It certainly feels that way now; it looks as if Bach is not part of the artist’s core repertoire. However, the price of the recording suggests that Isserlis’ fan base still appreciates it. I don’t.

---

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 — Fugue (6’03”)

(Overture)

Jean-Guihen Queyras’ tempo is one of the fastest in the midrange category. It is substantially more fluid than traditional performances by musicians such as Pablo Casals (1939) and Pierre Fournier (1960). “Faster than average” does not mean too fast. In fact, this is an amazing interpretation that feels natural and relaxed. Unlike some slow performances, one can feel the alla breve pace as a calm pulsation. One can feel a distinct swaying, drive, and tension. There is no rushing.

Queyras uses very little overdotting; the dotted motifs are just barely “sharpened”, if at all. The slurred semiquaver pairs in bar 2 are left untouched. Only the groups of three non-slurred semiquavers in bars 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 19, and 25 appear shortened to approximately the length of a quaver. Some or most of this can be counted as rich, yet natural agogics, which are, of course, prominent in the semiquaver chains in bars 1, 10, 17, and 21 – 25. The artist adds one extra ornament by inserting an ascending passage in the third dotted motif in bar 20. This is an excellent interpretation, splendid in its naturalness!

(Fugue)

The fugue is just as fascinating as the overture part: light and natural, with rich agogics and dynamics. It applies Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) to every phrase. There is a natural breath throughout, with rich expression, but no excess in drama. Beautiful!

II. Allemande (4’51”)

As already in the overture, Jean-Guihen Queyras chose a fairly fluid tempo—again, one of the fastest in the midrange category. The performance feels slightly driven. However, this is not primarily due to excessive tempo, but rather because there is not enough time to relax between some of the phrases. Queyras’ overdotting, articulation, and agogics are excellent and detailed. Apart from the (expected and desirable) added overdotting, the first passes follow the notation in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. The repeats are adorned with the artist’s well-fitting, often highly inventive ornamentation—beautiful! Apart from the added ornaments, the repeats feel more differentiated in dynamics and often subtler, also in the agogics.

III. Courante (2’06”)

Jean-Guihen Queyras’ tempo is slightly above average. His timing is identical to that of Pierre Fournier, Benedikt Kloeckner, and Vito Paternoster. The artist’s focus on the melody line prevents the chords from dominating, and the pace feels fluid. Even though the chords are harmoniously integrated into the flow, the swaying in this performance is predominantly in entire bars, rather than in the 3/2 meter. While this does not make the interpretation feel heavy, it occasionally feels slightly “driven” and defeats some of the (3/2) Courante dance character. Queyras adheres to the text in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy and does not add extra ornamentation.

IV. Sarabande (3’20”)

Jean-Guihen Queyras’ 2007 interpretation is simple and unassuming, yet very touching. The artist plays with diligence and attention to detail in articulation and dynamics, with the expected phrasing in 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 bars in the first part and 1 + 1 + 2 + 8 bars in part two. Crotchet end notes are short and nearly muted. Between phrases, and even more so between parts and repeats, the artist leaves ample room to breathe and reflect. Queyras uses subtle agogics, especially at phrase transitions. Vibrato is used very rarely and only on select notes, e.g., on the first note in bar 7 and on the second note in bar 17, but not on end notes. Beautiful!

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

Gavotte I

Queyras’ performance is melodious, with gentle articulation, even in the chords. Faithful to the notation, it maintains a beautiful alla breve dance swaying. Rather than building it into a “big story”, the performance remains within the framework of a galanterie—graceful, modest, and truly beautiful!

Gavotte II

Despite their contrasting characters, Jean-Guihen Queyras makes the second Gavotte a fitting and completely integrated sister movement. One can feel the same gentle alla breve dance swaying as in Gavotte I, and the second Gavotte is equally unassuming, just more introverted, almost silently humming along.

VII. Gigue (2’15”)

This is a fast performance with very light articulation that sparkles with life and vitality. There is a large-scale agogic swaying, though the 3/8 meter is very fast, precluding noticeable agogics / Klangrede at the level of bars. The crescendi on long notes are occasionally a little too prominent.

Total Duration: 23’34”

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

Comment: This is undoubtedly one of the best performances on the market. While it is historically informed in its lightness of articulation and very restricted use of vibrato, it is non-HIP in terms of sonority, lacking the effects of a baroque bow and gut strings. Highly recommended!

---

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 — Fugue (6’11”)

(Overture)

This is a carefully articulated, well-shaped interpretation at a pace slightly above average, yet it feels calm and unhurried. Ophélie Gaillard uses vibrato sparingly and selectively. Where it is applied, it is subtle and gentle, often hardly noticeable. The main characteristics that spring to mind are as follows: the artist rarely applies overdotting but uses very pronounced agogics, which are even dramatic in the semiquaver chains. Unlike most other artists, Ophélie Gaillard adds extra ornaments. These are typically very subtle and well-adapted, such as mordents and inverted mordents, occasionally more elaborate, e.g., copying the triple semiquavers from the last period in bar 25 to the first dotted motif in bar 26.

One could argue that the absence of overdotting transforms composed ornaments into melodic elements. Extra ornaments should not be necessary, especially when overdotting is used. Overall, however, the interpretation is dynamic, careful, and detailed. This is in contrast to the dramatic, somber interpretations by other artists. Is it too tame, too harmless?

(Fugue)

The interpretation of the fugue is careful and well-proportioned in terms of articulation, agogics and dynamics. It is devoid of exaggerations and features clear structure and phrasing, with natural breathing. The tempo remains natural and controlled throughout, and the performance maintains tension and flow from beginning to end.

II. Allemande (5’40”)

Ophélie Gaillard’s performance of the Allemande is excellent. In the first pass of either part, she largely sticks to Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy, adding very few ornaments of her own (e.g., a mordent in the middle of bar 12). However, she applies lively agogics, and—more importantly—overdotting to most, if not all, dotted motifs, as well as to groups of four semiquavers with a tied first note. In the repeats, especially for the first part, though, Ophélie Gaillard adds numerous, fitting ornaments of her own, mostly small ones, such as mordents, trills, appoggiaturas, and transition notes. The intonation is precise and careful, and the vibrato is minimal and inconspicuous. The tempo (close to average) and flow feel natural. It’s a harmonious interpretation that never exaggerates.

III. Courante (2’24”)

This is a moderate and lyrical interpretation. The articulation is mellow, tending toward tenuto, though never strained. In the repeats, Ophélie Gaillard adds a set of well-adapted, often inconspicuous ornaments, such as trills, inverted mordents, acciaccaturas, and the occasional jeu inégal in quaver motifs. There is a gentle 3/2 dance swaying, though it is not persistent, and the primary character of the interpretation does not feel like a dance movement. Perhaps the phrasing should be more distinct. The agogics are lively, though not entirely relaxed and occasionally slightly breathless. Their interaction with the phrasing is sometimes unclear.

IV. Sarabande (2’54”)

Among the cello recordings, Ophélie Gaillard’s interpretation is one of the fastest; only Pablo Casals’ performance is faster. However, the two performances are not comparable. In terms of timing, all quavers in Casals’ interpretation have a similar weight. Gaillard’s performance feels faster, largely due to her unusually pronounced agogics. In her performance, every motif (every bar, for the most part) forms a sigh: it begins with a broader first quaver and then accelerates across quavers two to four. The last beat in these bars is broader again. Short gaps between phrases provide an opportunity to catch one’s breath. With this, the interpretation never feels rushed. Rather, the piece breathes with a calm pace. In its own way, this is a unique, beautiful interpretation that avoids overindulgence in lament.

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

Gavotte I

I like the tempo and the general approach to articulation, such as following the slurs in the score. My main reservation about the interpretation is the rhythm and rhythm-related articulation. In this performance, it feels as if the artist sometimes didn’t dare to opt for really light articulation, e.g., making crotchets short and light. Some notes are light and accented, yet the tone lingers until the next note. Also, there are moments, such as in bar 8, where the quaver pairs appear ambivalent between regular articulation and jeu inégal. Overall, this creates the impression of an inconsistent, if not slightly negligent, approach.

Gavotte II

The second Gavotte is fluid and one of the faster interpretations, almost virtuosic, with clear articulation. My main quibble is with the decision to play some of the quaver triplets détaché, as light staccato, which doesn’t appear to be founded on the common sources.

VII. Gigue (2’11”)

Ophélie Gaillard’s Gigue is fast, fluid, and well-articulated, especially in the triple semiquavers and the occasional fast added ornaments in the repeats. My main reservation is the slight relentlessness. A more relaxed approach would allow for more free dance swaying—it’s a Baroque dance, after all.

Total Duration: 24’03”

Rating: 4.5 / 4 / 3.5 / 4.5 / 3 / 4 / 4 = 3.93

Comment: This is a fair, historically informed interpretation that does not emphasize the HIP aspects of the performance. While I can recommend it for most of the movements, it isn’t at the top of my list.

---

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 — Fugue (5’19”)

(Overture)

Over the 14 years between the two recordings, Pieter Wispelwey’s tempo in the overture remained largely the same. However, that, is about the only feature that the artist kept in his 2012 performance. The sonority is completely different: the pitch is lower by half a tone, making the piece sound darker. At the same time, the recording setup offers extra clarity and transparency. The microphone placement reveals technical aspects of the performance, such as the interaction between the bow and strings, and the tapping on the fingerboard. This is merely an observation, not a criticism: it contributes to the performance’s liveliness. And what a performance this is! It is undoubtedly the most expressive and most passionate overture recording.

Pieter Wispelwey’s focus has shifted from sound aesthetics to expression. This focus is almost extreme in several ways: the often eruptive agogics, for example, in the accelerations in the semiquaver figures and the nearly aggressive overdotting in dotted quaver motifs (dotted crotchet motifs are not overdotted). There is also the often “biting” (though never noisy) articulation and the virtual absence of vibrato. As in his first recording, Wispelwey adds one extra ornament (an ascending scale bridging d and c’) in the middle of bar 20.

(Fugue)

The fugue performance is just as radical as the overture. I could not resist thinking of the term verismo, even though it seems misplaced in time and in application to chamber music. Compared to Wispelwey’s first recording, my impression is that the presentation of a fugue—if it even is one—and the hidden polyphony have become secondary to the expressiveness of each note. Superficially, the articulation is almost austere in its radicalness. It is persistently light and gripping. The quavers in the theme head are terse and staccato, with the first note is always highlighted with a capricious accent. There isn’s a single note that doesn’t “talk”! Masterful!

II. Allemande (4’46”)

In contrast to Anner Bylsma (1979 and 1992) and Jean-Guihen Queyras (2007 and 2023), Pieter Wispelwey did not alter his pace for the Allemande between his two recordings (1998 and 2012). As in the first movement, however, his performance is now more radical and uncompromising. He uses overdotting and dynamically de-emphasizes the short notes. With this, the alla breve pace, the dance swaying becomes more prominent. At the same time, vibrato has almost entirely disappeared. Wispelwey does not add extra ornaments, except for a descending scale in the second repeat, prior to the final chord. Thomas Demenga also adopted this ornament, though in the first pass, not in the repeat (where he has something else in store), and the effect is stunning in both instances.

III. Courante (2’03”)

Pieter Wispelwey’s timing hasn’t changed at all since his first recording in 1998. Still, the differences are very audible. While the 1998 performance balanced expression, aesthetics, liveliness and dance character, the new recording reveals the radicalness that also characterized the previous movements. The chords are more prominent, sounding like energetic, yet controlled, sonorous outbursts. However, the 3/2 dance sway retains its presence through expressive, strong agogics and dynamics: Klangrede at its extreme!

IV. Sarabande (3’41”)

As with his 1998 recording, Pieter Wispelwey shares the tempo with Juris Teichmanis and David Watkin. The 2012 recording is not only half a tone lower, but also more direct and detailed in its articulation yet more withdrawn and introverted in its expression. The vibrato is almost completely absent. The performance may sound slightly more raw and unpolished, but the concept of Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) is now expanded from phrases down to every single note. The interpretation is a true masterpiece!

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (4’28”)

Gavotte I

In terms of tempo or timing, Pieter Wispelwey’s latest recording of the two Gavottes is nearly identical to the 1998 recording. Not surprisingly, though, the actual result is quite different. In the first Gavotte, the 2012 recording is more radical and unpolished, with less focus on sonority. It isn’t noisy, but it is occasionally somewhat raw. One quibble is the tendency to spread or split chords, which is somewhat too prominent and predictable. I assume the artist wanted to avoid outbursts through excess bow pressure in triple- and quadruple-stop chords.

Gavotte II

The second Gavotte has changed very little since 1998. The most significant changes are the more pronounced agogics and wider dynamics, such as the disappearing ending in the final bar.

VII. Gigue (2’13”)

Pieter Wispelwey’s 2012 recording is a tad faster than his earlier one from 1998. However, the concept of the interpretation has basically remained the same, with only gradual adjustments. The articulation is slightly clearer, the semiquavers have subtly gained sonority and definition, and the recording, of course, benefits from the lower pitch of a’ = 392 Hz. The long, tied notes in bars 15/16, 18/19, 55/56, 61/62, and 64/65 are still devoid of vibrato. They still stand out with their deliberate flatness and crescendo, yet they now feel more organic and embedded in the flow. Bars 55 and 56 still lack a trill. While this may be considered radical, the recording remains enthralling from beginning to end—an ear-catcher!

Total Duration: 22’29”

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

Comment: Through all the suites so far, Pieter Wispelwey’s 2012 recording keeps his place at the top of my list of favorites: excellent, enthralling!

---

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.

In the booklet, Isang Enders states that he used “the written-out ornaments in the Lute Suite in G minor BWV 995, the supposed original version of the Fifth Suite“. This raises several questions. First, the claim that the lute suite predates the cello version is highly speculative at best. Moreover, Bach took advantage of the unique characteristics of both instruments in his compositions. Therefore, the ornamentation of the lute version (see above) can hardly be transferred to the cello version.

I. Prélude — Fugue (5’26”)

(Overture)

Isang Enders uses very clean and clear articulation, and the vibrato can only be heard in a few notes around bar 20 (around the climax, preparing for the cadenza in bars 22 – 25). The pace is slightly above average, fast enough for Bach’s semiquaver figures to appear as ornaments.

In the overture at least, the artist does not adopt the ornaments from the lute version. He picks very few of the lute ornaments (e.g., the first appoggiatura in bar 4), but avoids copying features that are hardly transferable, such as the rich chords. However, Isang Enders adds many embellishments of his own, including ornaments within Bach’s original ornaments (semiquaver figures). I won’t discuss these additions in detail. However, I feel they are unnecessary, given that the movement is already ornamented, and they often overload the melody line. It would have been better to stick to the ornaments of either the cello or the lute version, even though the latter are in “lute lingo” and are often hardly suited for the cello.

As mentioned, the articulation is clear. However, to me, the tone is often too clean and straight, almost “dead”, lacking inner life. In fact, it is so clean that it makes me question the artist’s intonation. I can’t say it’s incorrect, but I occasionally wish for more “expressive intervals” (e.g., narrowed lead intervals, and the like). Playing pure Pythagorean intervals is not “good enough”, it’s actually often a poor choice. Overall, the interpretation fails to engage the listener.

(Fugue)

There is no ornamentation in the fugue of Bach’s lute transcription that Isang Enders could adopt for the cello version. However, Bach added a second voice in the bass, creating a proper two-part fugue. For the most part, this second voice consists of quaver motifs (the fugue theme). There are also sections where the bass voice marks the first beat in every bar, providing a rudimentary bass foundation. Additionally, Bach also often fills the gap between the bass note and the melody with a chord. Enders omits most of these chords, which are typically unplayable on a four-string cello. The low bass notes (pulsations) and most of the bass voice from the lute version are generally out of reach on the cello.

Therefore, Isang Enders’ cello adaptation is limited to small fragments from the lute version in bars 36 – 38, 41, 71/72, 150 – 153, and 178/179. The added benefit from the artist’s adaptation effort is minimal. The additions feel fragmentary; the result as a whole is not compelling. It is far from achieving the impression of a “proper” two-part fugue that one experiences in Bach’s full lute transcription.

II. Allemande (7’15”)

Isang Enders’ performance is one of the slowest in this comparison, though not as extreme as Pablo de Naverán’s. The difference in duration may seem marginal (7’15” vs. 7’37”), but it is enough to make many of the semiquaver figures take on the character of written-out ornaments, which I believe was Bach’s intention (see above for more information). The articulation is very clean and careful, though it often feels too intentional, with a tendency to add crescendo to long notes. This may be OK as an occasional ornament, but when it appears too frequently, it quickly becomes irritating. The artist mostly keeps the tone very straight, but also often adds vibrato to longer notes to let the tone evolve.

Enders adds some extra ornaments, such as appoggiaturas and trills. Some of these are inspired by or taken from the lute version, such as the appoggiatura in bar 2 or the trill in bar 14. Overall, Isang Enders stays close to the notation in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. My main reservation is with the slow tempo, which makes it difficult to perceive larger phrases or to sense the underlying alla breve meter. It also precludes any notion of a dance and limits the ornamental character of many of the semiquaver figures.

III. Courante (2’17”)

Similar to Petr Skalka’s and Juris Teichmanis’, Isang Enders’ tempo is close to the average in this comparison. He plays the Courante with broad, demonstrative, and emphatic arpeggios on chords, especially on triple-stop chords. Between the chords, there is a tendency to accelerate, as if to make up for the time spent on them. He also tends to “inflate” individual notes, especially the notes at the ends of phrases, to the point of irritation. I also have some questions about the intonation, as already in the overture above. Is it maybe too “aseptic”, too clean? There isn’t enough persistent dance swaying to make this a Baroque Courante.

IV. Sarabande (5’27”)

In the Sarabande, Isang Enders presents the slowest performance by far, taking twice as long as the fastest interpretation (Pablo Casals). Was the artist try to achieve maximum expression? The breadth of the interpretation certainly leaves time for contemplation, but it also causes the listener to lose track of the harmonic structure. Initially, Enders approaches the piece with a very light, cautious bow that barely touches the strings. Gradually, he intensifies the tone by applying more bow pressure and highlighting key notes with vibrato. One could call the interpretation perfect, however, that perfection does not automatically create or transport emotion and expression.

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

Gavotte I

Isang Enders’ first Gavotte is nearly as slow as Pablo de Naverán’s first instance of the movement (♩= 90 vs. ♩= 82). Although the rhythmic base is fairly rigid and has minimal agogics, at least the articulation does not feel as stiff and schematic as de Naverán’s. However, it is still far too slow for an alla breve movement, lacking any trace of dance character. Occasionally, the performance even is in danger of losing the little momentum there is.

Gavotte II

Similar to Pablo de Naverán, Isang Enders matches the half note (alla breve) pace of Gavotte II to the pace of crotchets at the end of Gavotte I. At 1/2 = 87, this makes it the second-fastest interpretation of Gavotte II. It is fast and virtuosic, indeed, but also just mechanically babbles along and lacks dance character. As stated for Pablo de Naverán’s performance: the idea to make half notes match the pace of crotchets in the first Gavotte hardly makes sense, given the vastly different character of the two pieces.

VII. Gigue (2’47”)

Isang Enders’ timing is nearly the same as Steven Isserlis’. It is one of the slowest cello performances in the comparison. As with Isserlis, though, this doesn’t make the performance feel slow. However, the two performances feel very different. Enders’ playing is much lighter and less intense. There is some dance-like swaying, but it is not persistent. Like Isserlis’ take, this one lacks the joy and lightness of a Baroque Gigue. Instead, it feels too construed, and at times sterile in its clean perfection.

A key difference between Isserlis and Enders is not only how they play, but also what they play. Isserlis sticks to the score. Enders does that, too—but only in the first passes. The repeats are very different. As in the first two movements, Enders expands the score by adding bits from Bach’s lute transcription. This works fairly well for most of the first part, at least until the second lute voice moves out of reach on the cello. Using the full lute score on the cello becomes impossible in the second part, when the second voice develops into a full, independent counterpoint. With this, the second repeat turns into a “look alike” at best, “inspired by” Bach’s lute transcription. The result is not fully convincing, perhaps because it goes too far and is “more Enders than Bach”.

Total Duration: 28’54”

Rating: 3.5 / 3.5 / 2.5 / 3.5 / 3 / 3.5 / 3.5 = 3.29

Comment: Isang Enders presents a modern performance in technical perfection. Apart from the some extremes in tempo, his attempt to adopt elements from Bach’s lute transcription is not entirely convincing.

---

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 — Fugue (6’37”)

(Overture)

The movement carefully and gently grows out of silence. The basic tempo is slower than in Pierre Fournier’s interpretation—very slow and calm, measured in the pace of entire bars. However, there is so much life and agogics in every breath, i.e., between the bar lines! Each measure almost feels like a new scene. The four bars of chained semiquaver figures after the quadruple-stop chord in bar 22 feel like a free cadenza, followed by a natural transition to the fugue.

Watkin uses very little or no vibrato. At his slow pace, this tends to expose the slightest intonation impurity. Nevertheless, Watkin’s intonation is impeccable. Still, Watkin’s intonation is impeccable. Listeners accustomed to traditional interpretations, where intonation is obscured by vibrato, may need time to adjust to some of the “naked” double-stop intervals. Needless to say, the tone of David Watkin’s Rugeri cello is warm, characterful, and beautiful.

(Fugue)

The fugue forms a stark contrast to the Prélude: here, the tempo is slightly above the average. What a difference from the stiff, rigid, heavy, or clumsy traditional interpretations of this fugue! David Watkin’s articulation is light and “speaking”. At this tempo, the fugue feels almost dancing, gently swaying, and one can easily follow the theme and find fragments thereof in hidden polyphony—excellent!

II. Allemande (7’09”)

The tempo is one of the slowest in this comparison, just slightly below that of Isang Enders’ performance. It is indeed very slow for a movement in alla breve time, to the point where the listener can hardly sense the meter or recognize larger phrases. Nevertheless, David Watkin’s performance differs greatly from those of Enders and Pablo de Naverán. Watkin uses light articulation and applies double-dotting to all dotted motifs and groups of four semiquavers with a tied first note. These features make the movement feel lighter and more structured. In short, Watkin adds Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) to the motifs. It’s a beautiful interpretation, though I still maintain that a faster pace would allow for more cohesion.

III. Courante (2’36”)

Among the cello performances in this comparison, David Watkin’s Courante is the slowest. The artist follows the notation in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. The main exception is that the quaver figure in bar 10 is modeled after the equivalent figure in bar 13. Overall, I’m not really satisfied with this recording. It all sounds “loud” and aims for a big, dark sonority, with limited dynamic differentiation. Also, the G string dominates the sound to the point where the chord (C-G-e♭) in bar 5 sounds almost the same as the empty fifth (G-d) in bar 4.

Moreover, it is difficult to sense the underlying 3/2 meter, let alone any dance swaying, with very few exceptions. In the second part, there are a few bars (from bar 20 onward) that feature swaying momentum, and a certain lightness. The main structure of the movement seems defined by the chords, which often appear at the beginning of a bar but also at irregular intervals in between. Because of this, it is difficult to discern phrases or other regular structural elements.

IV. Sarabande (3’39”)

David Watkin shares the calm tempo of the Sarabande with Juris Teichmanis and Pieter Wispelwey (1998 and 2012), which is slightly slower than the average in this comparison. Watkin’s articulation is lighter and the tone less intense than Teichmanis’. The phrasing is similar, as it is largely defined by the crotchets. However, Watkin’s interpretation features a more pronounced musical breathing, which almost forces the listener to breathe with the music. More than Teichmanis, Watkin makes the music culminate in a beautiful, gentle climax at the intersection of bars 17 and 18. It’s an impressive and unpretentious performance.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (5’34”)

Gavotte I

The first Gavotte feels very natural, with light articulation, lively agogics and dynamics that producing genuine dance swaying throughout. Beautiful! The last quaver in bar 29 reads e♭ in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy, which breaks the sequence (bars 28 and 29) and the equivalency to the similar sequence in bars 30 and 31. All other sources, including Bach’s own lute transcription, show the note as d. However, David Watkin strictly follows Anna Magdalena Bach’s notation, which is most likely incorrect.

Gavotte II

The second Gavotte is one of the fastest performances. It has an enthralling drive and momentum, maintaining tension through detailed dynamics, including echo effects. Like Pablo de Naverán, David Watkin plays the da capo directly attached (attacca). In the transition, he substitutes the last bar in the repeat of the second Gavotte with a descending figure that seamlessly leads into the opening arpeggio of the da capo of Gavotte I.

Similar to Myriam Rignol and Petr Skalka, David Watkin performs the da capo instance of Gavotte I with both repeats.

VII. Gigue (2’29”)

David Watkin’s Gigue is light and features a pronounced dance swaying. The tempo is natural—close to the average in this comparison—and the articulation has a distinct “bite” that occasionally feels slightly raw. The tone lacks is almost devoid of vibrato. A beautiful HIP performance!

Total Duration: 28’04”

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

Comment: As stated above, this is an excellent, refreshing HIP performance, highly recommended.

---

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 — Fugue (5’37”)

(Overture)

I’m listening to this after Pieter Wispelwey’s 2012 recording. It’s a good combination because both recordings use a lower pitch of a’ = 392 Hz. Both artists seem to favor the warm, dark sonority that this setting produces. Thomas Demenga’s performance bears similarities with historically informed recordings such as those by Pieter Wispelwey and Anastasia Kobekina (2025). Without doing a note-by-note comparison, I’m offering some brief comments on how Thomas Demenga’s recording compares to these and other top-rated ones.

Like others, Thomas Demenga uses double-dotting, starting with the upbeat to bar 4. However, his performance does not feel as rhythmically radical as Wispelwey’s. The semiquaver chains in bars 10, and 17 don’t accelerate as dramatically but appear embedded harmoniously. Like Wispelwey, Thomas Demenga plays dotted crotchet motifs as written. This does not imply that the interpretation is harmless: Demenga does not shy away from using articulation with bite, full of character and rich colors.

Thomas Demenga’s overture is one of the shortest in this comparison, surpassed only by Anner Bylsma’s 1979 performance. However, with the overdotting and the slow beat of the alla breve meter, the listener typically does not sense a defined pace. With two exceptions, Demenga avoids inserting extra ornamentation: the small ornament in the dotted motif at the end of bar 14 and the inverted mordent in the middle of bar 20 are inconspicuous and feel natural. Beautiful!

(Fugue)

In the fugue, Thomas Demenga’s tempo is slightly more moderate than average. This allows the artist to play out his careful and detailed articulation, evident in the light staccato of the quavers and the non-slurred semiquavers. Initially the articulation appears strict; however, it soon undergoes subtle transformations. When Demenga wants to emphasize parts of a phrase, he subtly broadens the articulation. Initially, the quavers in the theme head are almost percussive, but they gradually become integrated into the flow. Occasionally, the artist adds a turn or other, short ornament to the middle quaver.

To me, the interpretation does not present a fugue. Rather, the lively dynamics, differentiated articulation, and rich agogics create an intense discourse between motifs and phrases. This is an excellent example of Baroque Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) in a performance that breathes in broad phrases and never drops tension and drive. The “coda” with the drone C exposes the beautiful, full sonority of the Testore cello, but does not attempt to present a glorious, premature closure.

II. Allemande (4’40”)

At a relatively fluid tempo—only Sergey Malov and Anner Bylsma’s 1979 recording are faster—Thomas Demenga presents an Allemande that features a natural, if not relaxed, flow and beautiful, light articulation. He uses overdotting, but is not dogmatic about it. He overdots the main “theme” and related bars (1/2, 6 – 8, 11 – 13, and 17/18), but not the gentler bars in between (nor the occasional dotted crotchets).

In the repeats, Demenga adds beautiful and inventive ornaments that fit perfectly into the flow. The most remarkable ones are in the final bar, which features a rapid, descending scale in the first pass (as if to gather momentum for the repeat), while at the end of the repeat, notes 3 and 4 are adorned with almost lamenting appoggiaturas: beautiful! It’s a marvelous, harmonious interpretation, never forced or pushed, nor, of course, ever losing tension. Rather, there is a natural alla breve dance swaying.

III. Courante (2’11”)

Based on the timing, the tempo of Thomas Demenga’s performance of the Courante is just slightly above the average in this comparison. Compared to the slower performances, this one is the first featuring a persistent 3/2 dance swaying, thanks to the fluid pace. Beautiful!

However, to me, this is not the key feature of this interpretation. In other recordings, the chords are often heavy, dark, and dominant. Here, they are far less prominent and more integrated into the flow. An attentive listener will notice that Demenga plays more notes than are shown in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. Indeed, the booklet explains that the artist carefully studied Bach’s lute transcription. Demenga attempted to adopt the additional bass voice in the transcription. Inevitably, this “retrofit” is incomplete. Some of the bass voice must be transposed by an octave. Some notes are simply unreachable, and many of the four- and five-note chords are unplayable on the cello. Nevertheless, the bass voice enriches and complements the melody voice, playing a key role in integrating the chords into the flow. Fascinating!

IV. Sarabande (3’14”)

Thomas Demenga’s performance is one of a few that plays mostly détaché, taking the slurs in all editions as phrasing instructions. However, unlike others in this camp, Demenga offers an interpretation that is anything but uniform, let alone boring. The artist showcases the full, warm sonority of his instrument, which is further supported by the low pitch of a’=392. However, the interpretation goes far beyond sound aesthetics: there are agogics, and every single note receives differentiated treatment in articulation and dynamics. In other words, there is Klangrede not only in phrases and motifs, but even at the level of individual notes. Excellent, once more!

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (4’45”)

Gavotte I

This may well be the most playful of the Gavottes in this comparison. It must also be the most ornamented. Demenga’s playing is rich and differentiated in articulation and agogics. The performance almost bursts from life and richness. His virtuosity allows him to add plenty of highly inventive ornaments (trills, mordents, inverted mordents, transition notes, acciaccaturas, etc.) despite the fluid tempo. The artist’s imagination is so rich that many of the added ornaments even migrate into the first passes. My only quibble is that the listener never gets to hear Bach’s original score. However, this is undoubtedly a dance movement!

Gavotte II

Demenga’s performance of the second Gavotte is equally playful and nuanced. However, the nature of this piece calls for fewer added ornaments. Demenga mostly limits them to the occasional crotchet and adds the occasional inverted mordent to selected triplet quavers. Beautiful and ingenious!

VII. Gigue (2’32”)

Thomas Demenga concludes his performance of the C minor Suite with a wonderful interpretation of the Gigue. The tempo is natural, on average in this comparison. The artist remains faithful to the printed score and avoids adding extravagant ornamentation. The articulation and tone are natural, without any attempt at excessive refinement. As always in this recording, the sonority is full and beautiful. The most outstanding aspect of the performance is not just in the swaying agogics, but in the distinct breathing in phrases.

Total Duration: 23’00′”

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

Comment: The rating and the comments above speak for themselves. This is one of my top favorites in this comparison.

---

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 — Fugue (5’49”)

(Overture)

Marianne Dumas’ overture feels rather disappointing. The artist meticulously follows the score, note by note. However, there is no tension through agogics. The only exception is the slight acceleration of the semiquaver lines in bars 1, 10, and 17. There are no buildups, no climaxes, and little breathing in phrases. Within the comparison, the tempo is slightly above average. Still, the performance drags uniformly. The artist avoids double-dotting. On the contrary, there is a tendency to broaden and highlight the short notes in dotted motifs, which defeats the ornamental quality of short notes. This is likely caused by the underhand bow hold, which also leads to persistent swelling or “belly dynamics” in quavers and crotchets.

(Fugue)

The fugue does little to improve the impression. The articulation feels noisy, with sloppy, at times superficial détaché bowing. The movement lacks structure and a compelling dramaturgy.

II. Allemande (5’15”)

Unfortunately, the Allemande is another disappointment. Once again, there is a tendency towards swelling in long notes and motifs. The tempo feels fluid. The artist avoids overdotting. In simple dotted motifs, the short note is often rhythmically ill-defined (too broad or “washed out”) and too loud. This may be caused by the détaché articulation and excessive pressure in the faster bow movement on the short note. It is likely that the artist’s underhand bow hold causes this. If so, this is a strong argument against using this technique.

III. Courante (2’15”)

This is another movement full of oddly swelling notes, especially crotchets. The articulation often feels jittery and overly broad. Sometimes, it’s poorly defined or superficial. Short notes are occasionally “swallowed” entirely. If this is what the underhand bow hold makes the cello sound like, then I recommend avoiding this technique altogether. For a Baroque Courante, I expect more agogics and dance swaying.

IV. Sarabande (3’17”)

The Sarabande leaves a disappointing impression. The articulation is broad, often quasi-legato, and the performance almost devoid of agogics, relentlessly meandering along. Then there are the poorly controlled dynamics, or rather and the oddly swelling notes. Additionally, the tone often whirs with a squeaking quality.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (5’00”)

Gavotte I

Marianne Dumas’ tempo is close to average for both Gavottes. The articulation in Gavotte I is not quite tenuto, but still rather broad. The underhand bow hold does not seem to favor staccato or otherwise very light articulation. Within a phrase, there are often notes that feel drawn out and too broad. Overall, the playing feels too busy to allow free dance swaying to evolve. There are also periods when the tempo accelerates slightly, as if the tempo control were insufficient.

Gavotte II

The second Gavotte has a more natural rhythmic flow. The articulation feels too busy and forced. With this, there is only limited room for free rhythmic swaying.

VII. Gigue (2’25”)

This movement leaves the impression that the underhand bow hold bars the use of staccato and even light articulation with “discharging” of long notes. Rather, there is a trend to use crescendo on every quaver or longer note. There are small gaps after quavers and crotchets, but their effect is overridden by the “crescendo articulation”. At the same time, there isn’t a trace of dance swaying.

Total Duration: 23’59”

Rating: 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2.5 / 2 = 2.07

Comment: If this recording is an example of an earnest attempt to use the underhand bow hold on the cello in this suite, then I fail to see an objective reason to use this approach in Bach’s Cello Suites.

---

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 — Fugue (6’29”)

(Overture)

In the original cello version of the C minor Suite, the dark sonority of the bass strings is prominent, especially in the Prélude. Most bars (up to bar 22) begin with a chord, often with the full, if not growling, sound of the bass strings. With the transition to the viola, however, the lower strings (now alto) lose their relative weight, allowing the top (soprano) register to dominate. I view this shift as unfavorable. I suspect that this impression stems from the diminished rhythmic foundation and structuring through the lower strings. This causes the heavily ornamented upper voice to lose rhythmic definition and structure.

Kim Kashkashian largely sticks to the printed text. The one notable exception is the ascending acciaccatura on the last crotchet period in bar 13, which is a bit unusual but OK. Finally, the a’ string on Kashkashian’s viola is often excessively dominant and a little too pungent—certainly not a gut string.

(Fugue)

Initially, the viola fares better in the fugue thanks to Kim Kashkashian’s light and clear articulation. Later, though, as the non-thematic segments dominate, the performance feels somewhat unstructured. The flow seems to suffer from slight disruptions and sometimes falls apart into one- or two-bar phrases. Within a phrase, the flow does not always feel natural. This movement is technically challenging. It is difficult to maintain an organic flow in phrases involving large jumps across multiple strings.

II. Allemande (4’51”)

Kim Kashkashian’s tempo is fluid. In her first passes, she stays close to the notation in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. As in the fugue, there is not much of a persistent flow, even though within individual two- or four-bar phrases it feels natural. While I don’t expect a continuous, mechanical dance beat, the movement still lacks coherence, and appears fragmented. The repeats fare better in that respect, probably because Kim Kashkashian adds subtle personal touches.

A nice transition ornament at the end of the regular pass leads back to the beginning for either part. Within the repeats, the artist adds small ornaments, such as trills (bar 10), regular or inverted mordents (bars 4, 6, 7, and 16), and acciaccaturas (bars 5 and 11). The second repeat has fewer added ornaments, but subtle rhythmic alterations: bar 21 has no dotting, and bars 26 and 30 mitigate the motifs with demisemiquavers.

III. Courante (2’33”)

This is one of the slower interpretations. Among the cello performances, only David Watkin is slightly slower than Kim Kashkashian on the viola. Her articulation is careful and detailed. It is broad, though she does discharge détaché notes. In general, but particularly the slurring, the performance largely follows Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. In the first repeat, Kim Kashkashian adds several extra ornaments, which are generally well-adapted and integrated.

Unfortunately, the performance is suboptimal in terms of phrasing and flow. For one, some large jumps (most prominently the octave jump B♭-b♭ in bar 7) and many of the triple-stop chords appear to take extra time which is not accounted for in the flow of a phrase. This largely precludes natural dance swaying and a natural flow in general.

IV. Sarabande (3’03”)

In my opinion, transposing the Sarabande up an octave does not benefit the piece. The viola’s intensely singing tone indeed forms an urging lament in the alto register. However, the interpretation sounds like a completely different composition. The articulation is legato for slurred motifs, whereby the last note in motifs, as well as the crotchets, are kept light and short. To me, the vibrato, albeit not overly nervous, is often too strong and ubiquitous.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (5’51”)

Gavotte I

Kim Kashkashian plays the first Gavotte at a relaxed pace, staying faithful to the notation. In the repeats, she adds several fitting and inconspicuous ornaments. There is agogics and rhythmic swaying. However, the extra time needed for chords often causes enough of a disruption to prevent the notion of a dance movement.

Gavotte II

In the second Gavotte, the artist maintains a moderate alla breve pace similar to that of Gavotte I. This movement has a more persistent dance sway.

VII. Gigue (2’32”)

This piece suits the viola very well. Kim Kashkashian plays with light articulation and beautiful agogic and dynamic dance swaying throughout, adorning the repeats with fitting ornaments. This is the best movement in this interpretation.

Total Duration: 25’19”

Rating: 3 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 4.5 = 3.57

Comment: This recording offers fresh, interesting views on this music. However, not all movements in this suite benefit equally from higher pitch of the viola.

---

Sergey Malov, 2018 — Violoncello da spalla

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

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

I. Prélude — Fugue (5’02”)

(Overture)

Based on the timing, Sergey Malov’s performance of this movement indicates a fast pace—clearly faster than average. However, the overture hardly offers the notion of a defined pace. Its flow is irregular, consisting of short bursts, with a strong tendency toward “belly dynamics” in every motif. Malov uses double-dotting and unnecessarily adds some extra ornaments. The omission of the tie in bar 3 feels rather strange. Aren’t the semiquaver notes already ornamentation? In regular cello interpretations, the dark sonority of the bass strings is a key feature in this movement. However, in this recording, the shorter (but heavier) bass strings of the violoncello da spalla cannot compete with a “proper” cello. Their sound is rather nasal and dull. Furthermore, the marginal intonation seems to contribute to the dullness of the sound.

The microphone must have been placed close to the artist’s face. This resulted in Sergey Malov’s breathing being audible to the point of being irritating, particularly in slow movements.

(Fugue)

The violoncello da spalla fares much better in the “Fugue” part: the sonority limitations are less obvious. The only issues is that the grumbling C drones in bars 209f (coda) lack pitch definition. Malov articulates carefully and remains faithful to the score. However, the interpretation does not create the notion of a fugue, though few cello interpretations ever do. The pace is fluid but not too fast. Sergey Malov applies agogics and lively dynamics. The performance breathes in broad phrases.

II. Allemande (2’14”)

Not all of Sergey Malov’s performances in the Bach Suites are equally convincing. The Allemende, however, is a pleasant surprise. Malov’s tempo is among the fastest—only Anner Bylsma’s 1979 recording is faster. At this pace, one can easily feel the alla breve dance swaying. I like the lively agogics. Despite the fast pace, Malov uses overdotting while retaining clarity in articulation. Rarely, the tempo causes the distinction between semiquavers and demisemiquavers to become blurred, such as in the middle of bar 8.

I dislike omitting repeats, but at least, Malov sticks to the notation in Anna Magdalena’s manuscript copy. Thus, we hear Bach’s original music and not an adorned version. There are very few added, inconspicuous ornaments, such as in bar 18 and bar 29. It’s an excellent interpretation—my main quibble is again with the audible breathing.

III. Courante (0’54”)

Sergey Malov’s performance of the Courante is by far the fastest. Not only that, but despite the fast pace, he also breaks up the slurs in many of the quaver figures. The result is undoubtedly virtuosic, but also overly busy, obscuring the rhythmic 3/2 foundation. There is swaying, but mainly in entire bars or controlled by chords. Since the chords are not evenly spaced, the piece lacks the persistence of a dance rhythm and misses the character of a Baroque Courante. This is interesting, but was this also Bach’s intent?

IV. Sarabande (1’37”)

Malov interprets the slurs, present in most editions, as phrasing indications. Most quavers appear in pairs, and the articulation is consistently light and careful. The dynamics are equally diligent and detailed, applied carefully to each note, occasionally with an exaggerated accent on a highlighted note. This is a warm, considerate, and introverted interpretation.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (2’22”)

Gavotte I

The Gavotte is generally characterized by its elegant and graceful style. Many of the interpretations in this comparison are neither elegant nor graceful. Sergey Malov’s performance of the first Gavotte is the fastest in this comparison. The artist isn’t exactly racing through the movement, but I still wouldn’t use the attributes “elegant” or “graceful” to describe the performance. Sure, the articulation is light, but for a Baroque dance I would expect at least some gentle and relaxed rhythmic swaying. Here, there are passages that feel forced and overly busy. We hear the unadorned original version, and the artist adds his ornaments to the da capo instance only.

Gavotte II

Malov leaves out all repeats throughout his recording, which makes the performance feel incomplete. With the first Gavotte, at least, there is the da capo instance with the artist’s ornamentation that partially compensates for the omission. With the short second Gavotte, though, the missing repeats are particularly evident. It’s unfortunate, as otherwise it’s a virtuosic interpretation with careful and detailed dynamics, articulation, and agogics.

VII. Gigue (1’18”)

For once, Sergey Malov’s tempo is right on average. Could the playing characteristics of the violoncello da spalla pose specific challenges to using a fast tempo? Given the artist’s outstanding technical prowess and his tendency to perform at the fastest speeds, that seems the most logical conclusion. I do indeed appreciate the “normal” tempo. However, I dislike some of the mannerisms in this movement, namely the tendency to apply crescendo to most long notes, especially those preceding triple semiquavers. Also, if the latter is descending, Malov slurs it to the preceding dotted quaver (contrary to the notation), which makes them sound superficial and rushed.

Total Duration: 13’27”

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

Comment: I have reservations about the often excessive tempo. The main issue with this recording, however, is the omission of all repeats. Without them, the recording becomes little more than a “proof of concept” or “trial balloon” to test the acceptance of the violoncello da spalla among the many recordings of Bach’s Cello Suites.

---

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 — Fugue (5’30”)

(Overture)

At Emmanuelle Bertrand’s fluid tempo, there is no need for double-dotting; the pace is fast enough that the small notes feel like ornaments. The performance features a natural, organic flow, rich in agogics. There is breathing in phrases, yet the overture part is held under a single, wide arch. The tone remains natural, and vibrato is rare and used selectively, as a subtle ornament. Beautiful!

(Fugue)

The fugue is a bit too relentless. I like the approach on a grand scale, as well as the articulation. However, given its length, the fugue would profit from more breathing, phrasing, and structure. One detail: the ornament on the E natural in the last chord feels a little too celebrated.

II. Allemande (5’14”)

That’s an interpretation with beautiful, relaxed breathing in full bars. That said, I sometimes wished for extra space between phrases, just a moment to process the previous one and prepare for the next. Without this, the performance feels a little restless, despite the calm alla breve pace. Dance swaying does not necessarily imply

Emmanuelle Bertrand applies mild overdotting in groups of four semiquavers with a tied first note. Interestingly, she often accelerates across the three détaché notes in such groups. Simple dotted motifs are not overdotted. Rather, there is an occasional tendency to broaden or overemphasize the short note. In general, the articulation is light, in that the artist lightens the bow pressure across long notes, but keeps it on or close to the string, as if she were afraid of using staccato. I think the church acoustics often create a near-legato impression: for this movement, the reverberation allows for—or even necessitates—shorter articulation.

III. Courante (2’03”)

The Courante‘s pace feels very fluid—it’s supposed to be a fast dance, after all. The chords have “bite”, yet they are seamlessly integrated into the flow. Unhindered by the chords, the interpretation shows lively dance swaying in 3/2 time. The articulation is light, though partially obscured by the reverberation from the church acoustics. My main quibble is with a slight tendency to accelerate towards the end of a part. Also, the combination of Emmanuelle Bertrand’s additional ornaments (replacing some quaver motifs with chained quaver triplets) and the church acoustics occasionally make the performance sound overly busy.

IV. Sarabande (3’53”)

Emmanuelle Bertrand’s tempo is on the slow side, similar to Mstislav Rostropovich’s. She plays carefully, gently, and cautiously. As far as I can tell, she plays quasi legato, reading the slurs as phrasing arches. She splits many of the slurs into multiple bow strokes. What matters, though, is the outcome, e.g., the weight and sonority of the individual notes. Splitting a slur is not sacrilegious; adding ornamentation to this piece would be, though. The artist adds an ascending scale to the first pass of bar 8 (the end of the first part), apparently in an attempt to tie the two instances of the first part together.

There is an eerie aspect to this interpretation: the microphone placement must have been very close, causing the fading resonances of the last note to mix with the next one. Furthermore, the church acoustics amplify that effect to the point of slight irritation.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (4’46”)

Gavotte I

This is a joyful interpretation. It is light, but perhaps a little heavy and occasionally noisy in the articulation. Shouldn’t a Galanterie be a little gentler and smoother? The combination of dynamic contrasts and light articulation doesn’t work too well with the reverberation of the church acoustics.

Gavotte II

The Gavotte II also feels a little too “big”, too—but at least it fares better in the church acoustics.

VII. Gigue (2’26”)

This is one of the best movements in this interpretation. It features a good tempo and excellent, clear, light articulation, as well as a persistent, joyful dance swaying. It faithfully follows the score without sounding didactic. There are no mannerisms such as an excessive crescendo on long notes. One minor quibble: occasionally, the performance feels slightly restless. A little more breathing in phrases would make it feel more natural.

Total Duration: 23’53”

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

Comment: This is a beautiful, historically informed performance. In some movements, it is slightly affected by excess reverberation. On the other hand, the recording does not exaggerate the HIP aspects of the instrument’s sonority.

---

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 — Fugue (6’08”)

(Overture)

This is another interpretation without overdotting. This alone is not necessarily negative since the sources provide no indication that overdotting should be used. However, Juris Teichmanis seems to put extra emphasis on the semiquavers in dotted motifs, and even more so on the groups of three détaché semiquavers in bars 3, 4, 13, 14, and 19. This makes the performance feel heavy, if not overloaded. The slurred semiquavers in bar 2 also have too much weight and feel clumsy. The artist does apply agogics, e.g., by accelerating the semiquaver chains in bars 1, 10, and 17, but the performance does not show natural breathing. Furthermore, the entire overture feels loud, rough, and noisy.

(Fugue)

Even more so than the overture section, this is noisy, loud, and often scratchy. While it is worth showcasing the additional colors of a historically informed performance (HIP) on an instrument with gut strings, there is no reason to exaggerate the specific characteristics of a HIP performance and force them upon the listener.

II. Allemande (5’29”)

Juris Teichmanis’ tempo is very close to Steven Isserlis’ and Petr Skalka’s, on the average of the performances in this comparison. There is no overdotting. Rather, all non-slurred semiquavers are played with broad détaché, which makes the performance feel relaxed but also lacking in tension and slower than it really is. The interpretation is careful but too tamed and static overall, devoid of a dance feeling.

III. Courante (2’18”)

The articulation is light and the flow is natural, though there are occasional slight pauses where phrases lack a harmonious link. There are limited agogics, though the ritardando at the end of a part feels excessive. The performance features little dynamic differentiation and occasionally sounds slightly noisy. This is hardly a dance, let alone a fast Courante.

IV. Sarabande (3’41”)

Juris Teichmanis uses broad legato and tenuto articulation to create “words” and phrases in an intense, vibrato-less, singing tone. He accomplishes this while maintaining the characteristics of a period instrument with gut strings and a Baroque bow. The phrasing essentially follows the placement of crotchets. The first part is grouped into phrases of one, one, two, and four bars. The second part contains phrases of one, one, two, four, and four bars. It’s a calm and simple, unassuming, yet careful and circumspect interpretation that is compelling and touching in its own way. Occasionally, the artist’s breathing is a little too prominent.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (4’45”)

Gavotte I

This is a very robust—if not rough—performance. It is not only handsome, but also rough and noisy. Its rhythm is also rather metric and rigid—not exactly what one would expect from a Galanterie.

Gavotte II

The second Gavotte follows the pattern of Gavotte I, though its linear writing and the quaver triplet structure make it sound a little more fluent and less “square” and noisy.

VII. Gigue (2’24”)

In general, this is a solid and musical performance with persistent dance swaying. My main quibbles are the slight excess of scratching noise from the bow’s interaction with the strings and the often excessive crescendo or “belly dynamics” on long notes, such as dotted crotchets.

Total Duration: 24’46”

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

Comment: This is a fair, historically informed performance. Its main drawbacks are the often scratchy, noisy sound and the occasional lack of swaying agogics, which often make this recording sound overly robust.

---

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 — Fugue (6’15”)

(Overture)

Throughout the Prélude (overture and fugue), Benedict Kloeckner maintains a moderate tempo. The first part has a calm, almost static musical flow. There is no overdotting, the artist follows the written notation. The articulation is light and gentle. Kloeckner uses vibrato on all quavers and longer notes. The general impression is one of a lack of rhythmic tension, especially when compared to an interpretation that uses overdotting. The only exception to this is in the slurred semiquaver chains (bars 1, 10, 17, and 22 – 25) which accelerate toward the end of the motif. It is a technically clean but emotionally neutral interpretation, devoid of drama. Overall, it fails to engage the listener.

(Fugue)

Also here, the flow is rather static and uniform, with very limited agogics. The slurring in the various sources is inconsistent, which requires the artist to develop their own concept. I have not analyzed Kloeckner’s slurring in detail, but it seems somewhat arbitrary to me. The same can be said about the articulation in general. I fail to understand the principle behind the changes between legato, détaché, and staccato. Not even the quavers in the “fugue theme” are handled consistently: some are staccato, while others are played with elastic tenuto. There is a dynamic buildup toward the beginning of the coda in bar 203. The latter is the most expressive, dramatic, and enthralling part, though perhaps a little too pompous in the final gesture.

II. Allemande (5’15”)

Similar to his interpretation of the overture, Benedict Kloeckner’s performance is calm and largely follows the notation in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. Interpretations with overdotting benefit from the tension within the overdotted motifs. However, Kloeckner does not use overdotting. In dotted motifs, the short note occasionally feels slightly broadened, as if to draw attention to it. This softens the rhythm of these motifs. Also, semiquaver chains appear very linear and almost devoid of agogic tension. In an interpretation that is generally careful about articulation and dynamics, this makes the performance lack tension. A missed opportunity? The one “signature feature” in the interpretation is the surprising downward scale toward the bottom note of the final arpeggio chord in the middle of the last bar of the second repeat.

III. Courante (2’06”)

Benedict Kloeckner adheres to the text in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. The tempo is fluid, and the articulation is careful throughout, though not very differentiated, tending toward tenuto. There is little to no Baroque Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983), i.e., very little agogics. For no obvious reason, the artist tends to accelerate toward the end of a part, which adds a feeling of superficiality.

IV. Sarabande (4’27”)

Following Isang Enders’ extreme recording, this is the slowest performance. However, Benedikt Kloeckner’s interpretation does not feel too slow. The artist links the individual bars to form continuous, broad dynamic arches. The performance is coherent and compelling. Interestingly, as it approaches a climax, the tempo occasionally feels slightly pushed, despite the slow pace. To me, this diminishes some of the expression. With its carefully measured and crafted vibrato and smooth sonority, it is clearly a modern (non-HIP) interpretation.

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

Gavotte I

Benedikt Kloeckner’s first Gavotte is gentle and harmonious in its articulation and dynamics. The one thing I miss is a persistent dance swaying. There is swaying in the segments with chords, but it tends to weaken or get lost in longer segments with quaver doublets.

Kloeckner’s performance reveals an ambiguity in the notation of the first Gavotte: in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy, bar 27 begins with d’–c♯’–d’–c♯’, whereas in all other sources this quaver motif is d’–c♯’–e’–c♯’. Bach’s own lute transcription uses the second option as well. Interestingly, Benedikt Kloeckner initially follows Anna Magdalena Bach (d’–c♯’–d’–c♯’), which was also the choice in Anner Bylsma’s 1979 recording. In the repeat, however, we hear the version that we are used to (d’–c♯’–e’–c♯’). One might say it’s just a difference of one note among several errors and ambiguities in Anna Magdalena Bach’s notation. However, this passage is very exposed, therefore listeners will notice it.

Gavotte II

In his interpretation of the second Gavotte, Kloeckner does not seem to emphasize extroverted virtuosity. Yet, the performance is virtuosic, with its fast tempo and smoothly rolling quaver triplets. Overall, though, the performance is too smooth and sleek, almost breathless in the long phrases, far from a Baroque performance.

VII. Gigue (2’28”)

This is a modern interpretation that feels light, dancing, even jolly. Every bar is full of agogic tension and detailed dynamics.

Total Duration: 24’59”

Rating: 3 / 4 / 3.5 / 4 / 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 = 3.93

Comment: If you are not into HIP performances, Benedikt Kloeckner’s recording is certainly worth considering. In my opinion, it is one of the best non-HIP performances in the context of this comparison.

---

Benedict Kloeckner’s Extra for the Suite in C minor

As outlined in the Comparison Summary, Benedict Kloeckner complemented each of the Suites by adding a contemporary piece that he commissioned himself. In the case of the Cello Suite No.5 in C minor, this is a short composition by Geoffrey Gordon (*1968).

The Composer, Geoffrey Gordon (*1968)

According to Wikipedia, Geoffrey Gordon shares his time between the U.K. and the United States. His works include orchestral, vocal, and chamber music, as well as music for theater, dance and film. See the composer’s website for a detailed biography discussing his oeuvre and career.

The Work: “Nes qu’on porroit“

The 3.5-minute (3’34”) solo piece that Benedict Kloeckner commissioned is “Nes qu’on porroit“, referring to the first line of a ballad by Guillaume de Machaut (1300 – 1377), 3’34”.

In the booklet text (© Geoffrey Gordon), the composer states

“Iterations of the Black Death began striking Europe around 1350, when about one quarter to one-half of the European population was killed by the plague.
Responses ranged from panic to abject grief to a kind of hedonistic abandon.

Not surprisingly, artists reacted as artists do—by creating works which expressed the full range of emotions inspired by this dire situation. One of these artists—and plague survivors—was composer Guillaume de Machaut, of France. He began to explore the creation of secular musical forms even before the plague, writing poems and setting them to music. After the worst of the plague subsided, this musical style, based on the already established verse-poetry forms, gained popularity.

By 1365, the ballade had become one of the most popular secular song forms. And Machaut composed a lot of them. One of the most beautiful comes from his story Le Livre dou Voir Dit, and is titled Nes qu’on porroit. The text of this work—not the music—inspired this work for solo cello… in particular, the reference to separation, and the longing to reunite after an extended period of quarantine.“

The Poem

“Ne que on porroit les estoiles nombrer, Quant on les voit luire plus clerement,
Et les goutes de pluie et de la mer, Et la greve seur quoy elle s’estent,
Et compasser le tour dou firmament, Ne porroit on penser ne concevoir Le grant desir que j’ay de vous veoir.

from Le Livre dou Voir Dit of Guillaume de Machaut

It is no more possible to count the stars, Shining so brightly up above, And the rain drops and the sea, And the shore along which it stretches, And measure the breadth of the heavens, Than it is to imagine or conceive of The great desire I have to see you.

Other plagues would follow, including the Italian Plague of 1629-1631, and the Spanish flu—which took as many as 100 million lives worldwide—in 1918-20. The works of composers who lived through these tragic events—some who survived and some who did not—provide the musical inspiration for this work. Phrases are woven into and across this score, intertwined with my own, in what I hope is a textured collage capturing the essence of the pain and power and loss and perseverance of these events across so many centuries.“

How Does it Sound?

Without the sheet music, I can’t analyze Geoffrey Gordon’s piece. Therefore, my comments merely reflect my auditory impressions and may not align with the composer’s intent. Since these impressions are entirely subjective, I keep my comments short.

On the surface, at least, I don’t see any direct or obvious musical connections between the ballad “Nes qu’on porroit“, B.33 by Guillaume de Machaut (1300 – 1377) and Bach’s Cello Suite No.5 in C minor. However, one can draw parallels to the earnest mood of the Suite in general and, more specifically, to the expression of pain and deep sadness in the Sarabande. The short piece begins with a one-minute melody line that is inspired by the ballad.

Juxtaposing the ballad and Geoffrey Gordon’s melody/theme reveals that therelationship is abstract because Gordon’s melody lacks the medieval ornamentation and is reduced to the melodic skeleton of the top voice. Furthermore, Machaut’s ballad is polyphonic; the additional voices that are an essential part of Machaut’s work are absent from the solo cello piece. For reference: an audio-only recording of the ballad can be found on YouTube.

Impressions

To the modern ear, Machaut’s ballad sounds “foreign” and not particularly sad or somber. However, it is a typical example of his Ars antiqua style, which is far removed from Bach’s Baroque major/minor harmonies. Without Machaut’s ornamentation and additional voices, the simple melodic skeleton indeed appears to lament and express sadness and desolation.

The main section (2.5 minutes) mostly features two voices that often run in grinding dissonances without insulting today’s ears. There is no clear structure in that part, but the composition presents a short kaleidoscope of sonorities and techniques. When the second voice enters, the main melody quotes the beginning of John Dowland’s (c.1563 – 1626) famous song “Flow my tears”.

After that, though, one will barely recognize any melodies. Instead, the piece continues strictly without tonality. There are segments with drone tones in the bass, movements in parallel dissonances, two voices moving against each other, trills, tremolo, percussion (battering on strings and instrument body), glissandi, microtonal grinding between the two voices, sul ponticello playing, fluttering sound effects, simulated reverberation, flageolet, and more. The piece ends with a fading, narrow dissonance.

I don’t think the piece is meant to be analyzed in detail. The above description provides an overview of the scope of the composition. To me, the piece combines deep reflection, especially in the initial segment, with pure expression and emotion. Even without a concrete libretto, the piece feels descriptive. It is fascinating on its own or when juxtaposed with Bach’s Cello Suite.

---

Myriam Rignol, 2020 — Viola da gamba

Château de Versailles, ℗ 2020 / © 2021
Artist: Myriam Rignol (*1988, see also Wikipedia)
Instrument: Viola da gamba (bass viol)
Pitch: a’ = 400 Hz, transposed to D minor
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 — Fugue (6’19”)

Like Paolo Pandolfo (2000), Myriam Rignol transposes the C minor suite to D minor while adapting it for the viola da gamba. Unlike Pandolfo, though, she stays close to Bach’s notation.

(Overture)

Two observations stand out in the overture. The main one concerns the basic sonority of the recording. As mentioned in reviews from other cello suites, the sound of this recording is rather dull and bulbous. It sounds as if the sound engineer reduced the high-pitched components. Was this done to eliminate background noise? Or perhaps to reduce the noise from the interaction between the bow and strings or the player’s tapping on the fingerboard? The CD cover image of the Galerie des Glaces (Hall of Mirrors) at the Château de Versailles creates expectations of Baroque splendor and richness that this recording cannot fulfill.

The second observation concerns the articulation. I understand that the underhand bow hold on the viola da gamba makes achieving a “percussive” articulation, as popularized by Pablo Casals and others, difficult, perhaps impossible. However, I doubt it mandates crescendo on most long notes.

Myriam Rignol’s overall tempo is formally slightly above average. However, this impression is deceptive, as it is difficult to sense the underlying pace. This is due not only to the artist’s pronounced agogics, but also to her reading of the text: chains of semiquavers are fast or at least notably accelerating; motifs with three consecutive semiquavers are played with overdotting; “ordinary” punctuated quavers, as well as motifs with a quaver and two semiquavers, are not. Some of the demisemiquaver pairs appear superficial and partly “swallowed”. Conversely, many motifs without overdotting—punctuated motifs and motifs with a quaver and two semiquavers—sound clumsy next to overdotted notes. Overall, this creates an ambiguous impression.

(Fugue)

Myriam Rignol’s tempo in the fugue is slightly below average. The articulation is a rather uniform détaché for non-slurred semiquavers and staccato for quavers. There is limited differentiation in articulation, and the dynamics tend to be flat. Overall, the movement feels unstructured. In bars 217 and 219 (close to the end), there are two-quaver rests. These lack all tension, leaving the adjacent phrases unconnected.

The fugue is musically challenging. However, I am not sure how difficult this piece is to play on the viola da gamba. Therefore, I do not want to blame the artist for all the shortcomings.

II. Allemande (5’50”)

Myriam Rignol largely follows Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy. Her main additions are the extra, nice and fitting ornaments in the final bar of the first part (first pass only) and in the final bar of the second part (repeat only). Other deviations from the cello manuscript are adaptations from the lute version: most groups of four semiquavers, especially with a tied first note, are overdotted.

In addition to what the lute version does, the artist also overdots the semiquavers in bars 12, 17, and 24. The rapid demisemiquavers in such figures are particularly effective on the lute. They also work well on the cello. Here, however, they make regular, simple dotted motifs (dotted quaver plus semiquaver) appear tame, lacking tension. The same can be said about the longer chains of semiquavers, which would benefit from some extra agogics, such as a slight acceleration. Lastly, there is a tendency to use crescendo on peak and closing notes on the descant string(s), which stand out on their own due to their intense, singing tone. It’s OK, of course, to let certain key notes “grow”. However, if this is done too often, it may become slightly annoying.

III. Courante (2’41”)

For a Courante, this performance feels unusually heavy. For one, the tempo is slower than any of the cello performances in this comparison, matched only by Hopkinson Smith’s lute performance. I also noted a tendency to “smooth out” dotted motifs (e.g., in bar 12). Many of the slurred four-quaver motifs are split into 3+1 or 2+2 notes. I concede that the placement of slurs in Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy is sloppy. However, at this moderate pace, splitting slurs contributes to the impression of heaviness and hinders a persistent dance sway. Additionally, the movement deserves more breathing in phrases and more agogic swaying.

IV. Sarabande (3’48”)

This performance seems to be an attempt to let the music speak for itself. I expect the listener to feel sadness, pain, mourning, and despair. In my experience, this interpretation is devoid of agogics. The articulation is gentle and careful, but broad, linear, and absolutely metric within each of the four-bar phrases, and even variations in dynamics are minimal, if present at all. Is the artist’s intention to depict desolation, void, and forlornness by suppressing all expression? I can’t imagine Bach writing a movement without emotion.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (6’18”)

Gavotte I

This is a careful, diligent, and sincere interpretation. It is faithful to the notation, with a few exceptions. For example, slurred quaver pairs are played détaché, most prominently in bars 17 – 19, as well as in bars 28/29 and 30/31. These segments may be easier to play on the viola da gamba without slurs. However, this may contribute to the impression of a rather tame, too well-behaved interpretation. Or, does the movement simply lack dance swaying agogics?

Gavotte II

The second Gavotte feels lighter and more fluid, more dance-like. The slurring leaves some questions here as well: in bars 15 and 16, the first of two slurred quaver quintuplets is played détaché, which I find questionable. For one, only the descending quintuplets are played détaché, while the slurs are observed in the other (ascending) quintuplets. Also, in bars 15 – 17, the slurred quaver quintuplets are preceded by a separate quaver. However, these are mere observations that don’t really affect the outcome of the interpretation. Could the underhand bow hold make executing the unbalanced 1:5 bow strokes difficult?

Similar to David Watkin and Petr Skalka, Myriam Rignol performs the da capo instance of Gavotte I with both repeats, this time with extra ornamentation.

VII. Gigue (2’23”)

As with the previous movements, Myriam Rignol faithfully adheres to the cello score. However, this performance makes me think that this movement is not ideal for the viola da gamba. The main issue is with the simple dotted motifs, such as in bars 1, 2, 4 – 7, etc., where the semiquaver sounds particularly noisy and barely able to develop a defined pitch. The triple semiquavers fare much better in that respect. One possible explanation is that the underhand bow hold of the viola da gamba creates challenges which such motifs. Or does it require a slower tempo?

Total Duration: 27’19”

Rating: 3 / 3.5 / 3 / 2.5 / 3 / 3.5 / 3.5 = 3.14

Comment: Switching from the cello to the viola da gamba alone does not transform a cello suite into a composition for the viola da gamba. It merely demonstrates the effect that the viola’s sonority and associated bowing technique has on a cello piece that is challenging as such already. Some listeners may have higher expectations. This is compounded by the somewhat dull acoustics.

---

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 — Fugue (4’58”)

(Overture)

Petr Skalka’s basic pace is fast, but it should be manageable. However, I don’t see why the alla breve beats, and even the crotchets, are timed with the accuracy and regularity of a clockwork, apart from rare traces of agogics. Even the semiquavers in bar 10 appear absolutely uniform in their timing. This creates the impression of an extremely schematic performance. Only at the end of bar 20 does the artist begin a ritardando toward the chord in bar 22. The cadenza that follows accelerates dramatically from slow and careful to a virtuosic climax on d’ in bar 25. Then, there is the articulation. Crotchets, as well as dotted and non-slurred notes, are all played as a short, dry staccato that is often noisy or cracking. This makes the piece lose all expression and emotion.

(Fugue)

This is one of the few recordings that separates the fugue from the overture with a brief pause. The fugue’s execution is less schematic and rigid than the overture’s. However, it is dominated by a rather harsh and uniform détaché-staccato articulation on the non-slurred semiquavers. The quaver motifs (fugue theme or idée fixe?) vary strangely varies between staccato and a percussive tenuto. Also, the artist takes considerable liberty in the execution of the slurs, at least relative to the notation in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (Eppstein, 1988). Overall, I have very mixed feelings about the Prélude in this recording.

II. Allemande (5’31”)

I don’t see a clear concept in the artist’s choices, other than perhaps wanting to be different from anyone else? Some features are taken from Bach’s lute transcription, such as overdotting motifs with four consecutive semiquavers (especially ascending or descending) and a tied first note. However, this is not done consistently: there is no overdotting in bars 24 and 29. The booklet mentions Bach’s transcriptions of solo works yet it fails to mention the lute transcription of this suite (BWV 995). The omission of the chord in bar 5 follows Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy, which seems to be the main source for this performance, apart from the overdotting.

The articulation leaves many questions unanswered. As I mentioned elsewhere, overdotting consecutive semiquavers works fine on the cello, but combining this with not overdotting simple motifs (dotted quaver plus semiquaver) tends to make the latter lack tension. Petr Skalka avoids this by playing the semiquaver in such motifs as a brief staccato. However, this makes the motifs feel harsh. Then, there are moments when the articulation feels sloppy, such as the washed-out demisemiquavers in bar 6 and 22, or the demisemiquavers in bar 7 which degenerate to a triplet or quadruplet. Also, the demisemiquavers in bar 26 appear as semiquavers. Overall, my impressions about the interpretation of this movement are very mixed at best.

III. Courante (2’18”)

Petr Skalka’s timing in the Courante is identical to that of Juris Teichmanis‘ recording, though the outcome is quite different. Skalka’s articulation in the chords feels rather square, harsh. In general, the artist alternates between light staccato and extreme, singing legato. The semiquavers in the final bar performed as marcatissimo. Of course, there is no slur, but does that imply such extreme articulation? One can hardly recognize a dance in this performance, let alone a fast Courante.

IV. Sarabande (3’27”)

In the Sarabande, Skalka ignores most slurs, playing most of the piece détaché with minimal bow pressure and broad tenuto articulation for most quavers. Only the lowest notes in each motif are brief and close to staccato. Most of the movement is soft and reserved. The dynamics are nearly flat, with subtle variations at best. There is a gentle, broad climax in the second part. One could call this frugal, though it also approaches boring.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (5’29”)

Gavotte I

Why is this interpretation so raw and crude? The performance is noisy, but the chords in particular are so dry, short, and rough that the lower strings often hardly produce a recognizable pitch. Occasionally, the raw interaction between the bow and strings creates the impression of poor intonation, and some chord sequences sound messy. In any case, “careful” is the last attribute I would use to describe this interpretation. Is there no room for playfulness, warmth, or moments of intimacy?

Gavotte II

The second Gavotte has bite, but is less rough overall. However, it still feels somewhat aggressive and motoric, not as playful, light, and swaying as one might expect from a Gavotte.

Like David Watkin and Myriam Rignol, Petr Skalka performs the da capo instance of Gavotte I with both repeats.

VII. Gigue (1’58”)

This performance of the Gigue is too fast. Only Pablo de Naverán’s and Anner Bylsma’s 1992 recordings are faster. While the tempo itself might be acceptable, here it leads to rhythmic inaccuracies and superficiality. The semiquaver in the dotted motifs sounds rushed and often lacks definition. Most of the triple semiquavers are rushed as well. Strangely, the triple semiquavers in bars 16 – 20 are broadened, as if the bars were written as a quaver plus a semiquaver triplet. Overall, the tempo is pushed and leaves no room for dance swaying. Shouldn’t a Baroque dance be more relaxed?

Total Duration: 23’41”

Rating: 2.5 / 2.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 2.5 / 3.5 / 2.5 = 2.93

Comment: This is definitely not among my favorite recordings.

---

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 — Fugue (5’13”)

(Overture)

This is an excellent—even outstanding and thrilling—interpretation! Bruno Philippe uses highly expressive agogics, with dramatic acceleration in the semiquaver chains in bars 1, 10, and 17. Appropriately, he uses over-dotting and adds a few extra appoggiaturas. Unlike other artists, however, these extra ornaments do not interfere with the built-in ornamentation; rather, they complement it organically. With very rare exceptions, there is no vibrato, yet the intonation is flawless. The transition to the fugue part is stunning, with an extra, breathtaking acceleration in bars 25 and 26.

(Fugue)

The fugue part is equally fascinating, even enthralling. It is very fluid and true to the score, yet rich in agogics and full of momentum. The articulation is light, differentiated, and elastic. The phrasing is supported by careful dynamics. The fugue feels like a dancing gigue. In the second half, Bruno Philippe adds subtle, fitting, and nonintrusive ornaments, such as mordents in bars 137, 142, 170, 176, and 218. In bar 209, he fills the eighth rest (first beat) with an extra c (an octave above the C drone), adding a nice, dissonant appoggiatura on B natural, before proceeding with B♭ on top of the C in the bass.

The last bars are almost dramatic, with bars 214 – 216 strongly accelerating toward the chord in bar 217. Bars 221 and 222 accelerate dramatically toward the closing chords. However, the final chord is not abrupt but rather gently ends the piece with an appoggiatura and trill on e natural—beautiful!

II. Allemande (5’09”)

This is another wonderful interpretation. It flows naturally, uses overdotting wherever possible or suitable, and is full of rich and expressive agogics. There are no “flat” phrases or motifs in this performance. Rather, there is intense alla breve swaying throughout. Apart from the overdotting, the first passes are played as written. The repeats, on the other hand, feature numerous added ornaments, such as appoggiaturas, trills, and inverted mordents. These are all perfectly fitting and integrated—excellent! The performance features natural and relaxed breathing in phrases. My only minor quibble is that, as the artist is physically breathing in phrases, the breath sounds tend to fall into the small gaps between phrases, where they are a little too prominent.

III. Courante (2’03”)

In Bruno Philippe’s hands, the Courante becomes a lively swaying dance with a proper 3/2 rhythm, full of momentum and drive. The artist enriches the performance with subtle jeu inégal and occasional overdotting. The articulation remains light and playful throughout. In the repeats, Bruno Philippe adds numerous ornaments, including trills, mordents, stronger jeu inégal, and additional overdotting. This ornamentation is both fitting and highly inventive, up to the ascending appoggiatura-trill on the final note. A highly interesting and enthralling performance!

IV. Sarabande (3’31”)

The artist performs the Sarabande calmly, with careful and detailed articulation. It is simple and performed without vibrato. The artist creates beautiful, broad dynamic arches. I see this as a successful approach to letting the music speak for itself without stripping the interpretation to the bare minimum. It is beautiful, touching, and unassuming!

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

Gavotte I

This is a beautiful interpretation, full of momentum, verve, elasticity, emphasis, and light articulation. The performance never loses drive or tension, the articulation is clear and detailed, the tempo is natural, and a gentle dance swaying is present throughout. Bruno Philippe adds a few, fitting, and often inventive ornaments, particularly in the repeats. In bar 24 and on the last note, there is a slow, ascending appoggiatura. This element appears in other movements, too. Although several weeks have passed since I last listened to the earlier movements, I instantly recognized this ornament as Bruno Philippe’s. This is a sign that it’s in danger of becoming a stereotype; two more instances appear in the da capo. So, my only quibble is the overuse of that appoggiatura.

Gavotte II

The performance of the second Gavotte is fluid, light, and playful. Occasional trills and inverted mordents fit seamlessly into the piece. The dynamics are detailed and diligent. Agogics and Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) are excellent throughout the movement. The artist omits the final C from the last bar in the second repeat, when moving on to the da capo. Formally, this does not make sense, as Gavotte I begins with a half bar. However, Philippe substitutes the missing note with an appropriate rest so as not to upset the rhythm.

VII. Gigue (2’18”)

This is a very nice interpretation, full of drive and dance swaying, with lively and detailed dynamics. The repeats are adorned with numerous, inventive, and fitting ornaments. My only quibble is that the tempo feels a little too “driven” overall. For a Baroque dance, I prefer a slightly more relaxed approach.

Total Duration: 22’25”

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

Comment: A highly recommended HIP performance by a rising star among the young cellists.

---

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 — Fugue (8’42”)

(Overture)

Along with Pablo Casals’ recording, this is the slowest performance of the first movement. Throughout the previous suites, Pablo de Naverán showed a clear tendency toward slow tempi, and this Prélude is an extreme example of that preference. To me, this performance crosses a line not only because of its extreme slowness but also in the equally extreme, “fluffy” articulation, which is the antithesis of Casals’ “percussive” approach. Although the timing in the Prélude is identical to Casals’ interpretation, Pablo de Naverán’s performance feels twice as slow—to the point where there is no perceptible notion of flow, and long phrases are lost on the listener. Every long note seems to extend for an eternity, and even the semiquaver figures and arpeggio chords crawl at a glacial pace. Naturally, the artist is resorting to a (slow) vibrato to prevent long notes from dying out.

(Fugue)

Also the fugue exhibits a very soft, “airy” détaché in the non-slurred semiquavers and an equally soft staccato in the quaver notes. The artist often plays without vibrato, with the notable exception of highlighted staccato quavers. Despite the slow pace (the slowest in this comparison), there isn’t enough time to breathe between phrases. In fact, there is very little effort to apply phrasing. At least, the phrases are often excessively long—broad dynamic arches, trails of semiquavers crawling along without pause, and with very limited agogics, if any. Is this a relic of the mid-20th century, when Baroque music was conceived as flowing constantly and regularly, like a sewing machine?

II. Allemande (7’37”)

This is one of several instances throughout the suites in which Pablo de Naverán holds the record for the slowest performance. One could say that the artist uses the slow pace to overindulge in sonic beauty. Every bar and motif flourishes under his hands, forming a chain of small, bulbous phrases. Indeed, the sound and the sonority of the instrument are beautiful. However, I think this Allemande is much more than just esthetics or the beauty of motifs and phrases.

In the introduction above I mentioned the ambiguous notation of the upbeat to the first bar in this movement. Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript copy, as well as Bach’s own lute transcription of the Allemande clearly call for a semiquaver upbeat. Unfortunately, Anna Magdalena Bach’s text is inconsistent; the transition to the second part and the final bar point to a quaver upbeat. Pablo de Naverán clearly sides with the quaver upbeat present in some printed editions. Together with the slow tempo, the first note is more than an upbeat. It rather feels like the artist taking a deep breath in preparation for the challenging, long phrases that follow.

Ornament vs. Melody

Throughout the movement, Pablo de Naverán celebrates each note, even the semiquavers. Everything is melody, even the slow, arpeggiated chords. The distinction between melody and built-in ornamentation is lost (see my explanation above). The only ornaments are the rare trills, some by Bach and some added by the artist. With this, the artist suppresses any notion of the underlying alla breve meter, the rhythmic foundation, let alone the feeling of a dance. Furthermore, listeners lose track of harmonic progression and larger-scale melodic elements. I can’t imaging that it was Bach’s intention to reduce the Allemande to eight minutes of dreamy devotion and pure indulgence.

III. Courante (2’29”)

This performance is filled with an abundance of emphasis, not only in the chords, but also in the surrounding notes. Each note is filled with verve and vibrant energy. In comparison, even Pablo Casals‘ interpretation seems pale. Casals was known for occasionally humming while playing. Interestingly, one can hear Pablo de Naverán doing the same at the beginning of the second part. There is momentum in every motif, which one could call intense swaying. Of the slowest performances in this comparison, this is number five. It is the first featuring a persistent dance sway.

The flow occasionally feels irregular, especially when verve and energy are applied to upbeat notes or when energy causes a momentary acceleration around an accented chord or note. However, the constant emphasis and the agogics seem excessive, too much overall.

IV. Sarabande (3’35”)

Pablo de Naverán’s Sarabande tempo is almost exactly average in this comparison. The interpretation feels fluid, faster than the timing would suggest. Pablo de Naverán focuses on broad phrases rather than individual notes or motifs. To me, the vibrato, albeit not overly nervous, is too prominent and ubiquitous—it distracts from the expression. The dynamics are somewhat exaggerated, if not overblown. My main reservation is about the intonation in the second part, which is often less than just marginal.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (5’34”)

Gavotte I

In the first Gavotte, Pablo de Naverán once more presents the slowest performance. Sometimes, slowness reveals new aspects of a piece. Here, however, the interpretation dissects the flow into tiny motifs and feels mannered, distracting, often clumsy, and almost stiff and mechanical. This begins with the opening arpeggio chord, performed in slow motion, which sets the stage for the entire movement. Then, splitting the trilled crotchet in bar four into two quavers, with the second one without a trill, sounds odd, to say the least. All the differentiation in dynamics does not compensate for the effect of the slow pace, which is not alla breve at all, but a slow 4/4 meter (♩= 82) at best.

Gavotte II

In contrast to the first Gavotte, the second is very fluid, if not virtuosic (1/2 = 79 or ♩= 158). The tempo is clearly above average, as if to make up for lost time in the preceding movement. If the intention was to make half notes match the pace of crotchets in the first Gavotte, then this hardly makes sense, given the vastly different character of the two pieces.

Gavotte I da capo

The da capo of the first Gavotte comes with two surprises. First, Pablo de Naverán plays this attacca and even substitutes the second note in the final half-bar of the second Gavotte with the opening arpeggio of the da capo instance, which is rather unusual, to say the least. Then, the da capo is much faster than the initial interpretation (♩= 133 on average), which is faster than the average for this movement. Now, the piece feels playful and light—a stark contrast to the initial version. To me, this breaks the concept of Gavotte II embedded between two instances of Gavotte I, and the da capo performed in “normal” tempo does not retroactively compensate for the extremely slow tempo of the first instance.

VII. Gigue (1’52”)

In this Suite, as well as in Suites 1 – 4, Pablo de Naverán’s tempo is rarely above average. In fact, he often delivers the slowest performance. However, his performance of the Gigue is the fastest. It is even faster than Anner Bylsma’s 1992 interpretation. The latter proves that such a fast tempo is indeed playable. Here, however, the artist operates at a point where the articulation is blurring. It’s not just superficial. On the contrary, the performance feels electric, as if under high tension. Many dotted notes are initially well-defined, but then linger nervously up to the semiquaver that follows. In the first few bars, there is no clear separation between the two notes in the dotted motifs, as if the artist wanted to avoid staccato at all costs. Often, he even pushes the tempo in this piece which is hardly danceable to begin with.

Total Duration: 29’48”

Rating: 2.5 / 3 / 3.5 / 2.5 / 3 / 4 / 3.5 = 3.14

Comment: This is a highly unconventional and subjective interpretation. It is often excessive.

---

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.4 for Cello Solo in E♭ major, BWV 1010, or also the posting on the Suite No.1 for Cello Solo in G major, BWV 1007 (first recording, 2007). This 2023 recording was made in conjunction with the ballet project “Mitten wir im Leben sind / Bach6cellosuiten“ featuring Jean-Guihen Queyras performing most of Bach’s Cello Suites. See the Comparison Summary for a discussion of the included ballet performance on the accompanying Blu-ray disc, which was recorded in Belgium. The audio recording of the Suites, however, was done separately at the Vereenigde Doopsgezinde Gemeente in Haarlem, The Netherlands.

I. Prélude — Fugue (5’30”)

(Overture)

Jean-Guihen Queyras did not change the tempo of the overture in his new recording compared to his 2007 performance. Yet, the new recording sounds completely different. Although the tempo is the same, this performance feels more expressive, forward-leaning, and outgoing. The agogics—e.g., the accelerations within the semiquaver chains in bars 1, 10, 17, and 21 – 25—are much more pronounced, along with the associated dynamics. Moreover, beginning in bar 3, the artist uses double-dotting, which alone makes the performance feel more active. Nevertheless, Jean-Guihen Queyras avoids exaggerating dynamics and maintains a natural, warm tone with little, if any, vibrato.

The end of the overture, the chord in bar 27, is also the transition to the fugue. Consequently, Queyras does not broaden that chord as if it were an intermediate ending, but rather plays it as a short, resolute arpeggio, followed by a little gap. This maintains the drive from the double-dotted final motif in the overture, adding extra momentum toward the beginning of the fugue.

(Fugue)

The resolute, brief ending of the overture indicates that for this artist, the fugue theme begins with the upbeat quaver. Note that in subsequent instances, this upbeat is typically hidden in semiquaver figures.

Compared to Queyras’ 2007 performance, the tempo is now clearly more fluid. Here, the fugue sounds light and playful with lively articulation and dynamics. The phrasing and the way in which the artist turns the stream of semiquavers into lively discourse of voices and motifs are outstanding. Despite all the detail in the performance, the result is enthralling and fascinating. The tone stays light throughout. Only in passages with pulsating bass notes (G in bars 171 – 174, C in bars 209f of the coda) does Jean-Guihen Queyras touches these bass strings with the verve and impulse of the transition chord at the end of the overture. The chords in bars 217 and 219 also replicate the energy of the chord in bar 27. The artist broadens the two closing chords for a gentle, conciliatory ending. A masterful interpretation!

II. Allemande (5’18”)

Similar to Anner Bylsma in his second recording, Jean-Guihen Queyras adopted a more moderate and relaxed pace in his 2023 performance—though the difference is not nearly as pronounced as with Bylsma. This is one of the least notable differences between Queyras’ performances. In fact, the evolution of Queyras’ interpretation between 2007 and 2023 is remarkable. Along with the tempo, the phrasing feels more relaxed, the performance more expressive, the breathing more pronounced, and the dynamics and agogics vastly more detailed and differentiated. Moreover, the artist treats the repeats with even more liberty, using an even richer set of ornaments, and there are moments of amazing warmth and intimacy—marvelous!

III. Courante (2’00”)

The differences between Jean-Guihen Queyras’ two recordings are substantial. Compared to his 2007 recording, his 2023 performance is about 5% faster. Surprisingly, though, it never feels overly driven. The latest performance is much richer and more differentiated in many ways: the articulation is lighter, agogics and dynamics are far more pronounced, detailed and expressive—Baroque Klangrede (Harnoncourt, 1983) at its best! Queyras adds jeu inégal and occasional overdotting on top of this. The repeats are adorned with numerous personal, highly original, and inventive ornaments. The phrasing and rhythmic base are no longer oriented along bar lines or strictly controlled by the chords, but rather follow and support the rhythmic pattern in the melody line.

IV. Sarabande (3’25”)

Sixteen years after his 2007 recording, Jean-Guihen Queyras maintained the same timing, as well as the basic concepts of phrasing and articulation. Otherwise, however, the new interpretation is strikingly different. In some ways, the new recording is almost shockingly extreme. In the first part, Queyras plays sul ponticello, with minimal bow pressure, and without any vibrato. The instrument’s voice becomes hoarse and noisy—almost surreal. It even seems on the verge of breaking completely. In the repeat, there is a tad more bow pressure, and the tone is still simple and unadorned, but now has more substance.

This persists in part two. In the final bars, Jean-Guihen Queyras drew inspiration from Bach’s lute transcription. Bars 17 – 19 each have two left-hand pizzicato crotchet notes in the bass, and the C in bar 20 (albeit arco) also starts with a left-hand pizzicato. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, the crotchet in bar 12 also starts with a subtle left-hand pizzicato.

This interpretation is impressive, daring, and eye-opening. It is an almost pictorial representation of pain and suffering. It may confound and alienate purists and those expecting a more conventional interpretation. I find it moving, touching, and inspiring. It allows listeners to experience the emotions almost physically.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (4’54”)

Gavotte I

In his latest recording, Jean-Guihen Queyras plays the first Gavotte at the same pace as in his 2007 performance. It feels slightly faster, but that’s because of the lighter and shorter articulation, which makes the piece sound more playful. The 2023 interpretation also features livelier agogics and dynamics, with more Klangrede overall and a larger expressive span. A nice, short fioritura leads back to the first repeat. The repeats feature beautiful, inventive personal ornaments as well as interesting alterations to the text. In the three sequential motifs in bars 28 and 29, quavers two through four are turned into falling triads. In the equivalent motifs in bars 30 and 31, these quavers form ascending triads.

Gavotte II

Compared to his 2007 performance, Queyras plays the second Gavotte slightly faster and more playfully. This makes the piece seem lighter in comparison to Gavotte I, creating a greater sense of contrast and complementarity. It resembles a Rondo and serves as an intermezzo. In fact, Bach’s own lute transcription explicitly labels the piece Gavotte II en Rondeau.

VII. Gigue (2’30”)

In general, Jean-Guihen Queyras remained fairly consistent in the tempo between his 2007 recording and this one. Not so in the Gigue. While the earlier recording was fast, he reduced the tempo by almost 17% in 2023. The new recording is not only slower, but also more careful in articulation, more detailed in dynamics, and richer in Klangrede. There is even less vibrato, and the performance feels more relaxed, while every note appears carefully crafted. Clearly, Queyras has freed himself from conventions and expectations. Clean sonority is no longer a priority, and he still occasionally uses exaggerated crescendo on long notes. Is this the fun of a “last dance”?

Queyras stays faithful to the score in the first passes, with very minor exceptions, such as an acciaccatura in bar 36 and the omission of the trills in bars 55 – 57 and 59. In the repeats, he adds powerful chords to the dotted quavers in bars 1 – 3, 6, 7 (first part), 41, 43, 45, and 47 (second part). The character of the repeats changes remarkably with the addition of these few chords.

Total Duration: 23’37”

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

Comment: Compared to his earlier recording, Jean-Guihen Queyras’ interpretation has gained considerable liveliness, freedom, detail and richness. The new recording is one of my top favorites and highly recommended. Most listeners will likely appreciate this development. However, people who prefer a non-HIP interpretation that stays faithful to the printed score can safely select Queyras’ 2007 recording.

---

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.

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. For additional comments see my review of Anastasia Kobekina’s solo recital in Zurich on 2021-04-25.

I. Prélude — Fugue (6’21)

This is #7 in my review sequence for the Prélude. So far I have discussed the slowest performances. This interpretation is a surprise—or rather, a revelation—as suddenly, the movement makes sense! In the overture section, Anastasia Kobekina’s tempo is notably faster than average. In contrast, she chose a very moderate tempo for the fugue section.

(Overture)

The initial double-stop octave is firm, yet not rough or overly grumbling. There is a percussive accent, then the tone fades, merging into a gently accelerating semiquaver chain. This initial phrase culminates in a little climax in bar 2, followed by a gentle descent to a landing on c–e♭ in bar 3. The beginning feels deceptively harmless due to the absence of the dark, dramatic gesture found in traditional interpretations. One immediately notices the simplicity, light articulation, and relatively fluid tempo.

This picture changes at the end of bar 3: from here on, Anastasia Kobekina uses overdotting for all punctuated notes, while keeping the articulation light and leaving gaps after the non-slurred dotted notes. This significantly impacts the piece’s character. The overdotting adds tension to every bar. It also adds momentum and a lively narration. Just as important, in combination with the articulation, the fluid pace makes the short note values (semiquavers and demisemiquavers) what they really are: Bach’s own ornamentation.

Bars 3 and 4 are soft and suspenseful, as if indicating secrecy. The same applies to the intersection of major phrases (e.g., bars 7, 10, 15, and 17). This is in stark contrast to the darkness, drama, gravitas, and heaviness found in some interpretations. Semiquaver chains are not altered rhythmically. They provide moments of relaxation and recovery from the tension. Bars 22 – 25 feel like a free, playful and gentle cadenza, leading into the overture’s closing formula.

(Fugue)

Unlike the overture section, which is lighter and faster than average, Anastasia Kobekina’s fugue is one of the few with a moderate tempo. Her timing falls between Pierre Fournier’s (1960) and Pablo Casals’ (1939), though it is not as slow as Pablo de Naverán’s (2021). Technically, the fugue itself is not very virtuosic. However, the slow tempo makes it musically challenging. Needless to say, Anastasia Kobekina rises to the challenge and masters it.

The key to Anastasia Kobekina’s interpretation lies in her lively agogics and light articulation, as exemplified in the ascending staccato quavers of the theme head. This combination creates the impression of a fluid tempo. Additionally, her phrasing leaves room to breathe. The artist adds distinct broadening to pivotal moments, such as climaxes and intersections between phrases.

The fugue’s phrasing is supported by subtle yet detailed dynamics. The tone is mostly light and occasionally even with reflective traits. Anastasia Kobekina avoids heavy, dark sonorities. However, there are a few exceptions to this, such as when she reveals the powerful, expressive gut string sound in the bass, particularly in the second half of the fugue. Examples include bars 102/103 and 197/198, where the theme head appears on the C string; bars 148 – 153 with the semiquaver part of the theme in the bass; the “drone” bars 171 – 174; and, of course, the coda (bars 209 – 223). The final chord brings a pleasant surprise with the appoggiatura and trill on e-natural—a compelling interpretation throughout!

II. Allemande (5’58”)

In the Allemande, Anastasia Kobekina delivers another astounding performance, placing her among the top interpretations in this comparison. Her tempo is moderate, at the bottom of the mid-range in this comparison. One could argue that it is no longer alla breve time. If a persistent rhythmic foundation is discernible, the base is indeed 4/4 (Ｃ), not alla breve (₵). However, alternate sources feature this movement in 4/4 time. This notation was adopted in an early publication by Breitkopf & Härtel (BH/BG, Dörffel, 1879/1926, pp. 59–94) of the Bach Gesellschaft. This detail originates from two apocryphal sources from the late 18th century.

Anastasia Kobekina doesn’t attempt to create persistent dance swaying. Wherever applicable, the artist uses pronounced overdotting, which is never mechanical or schematic. The overdotting is part of rich and lively agogics that create remarkable momentum and sway within phrases and motifs. The agogics range from impulsive, such as the tension in stretched overdotting intervals, to subtle, as in the semiquaver chains. Nothing is ever static or uniform. Her articulation is exceptionally light, leaving notable gaps in dotted motifs. However, these gaps never disrupt the flow or cause a loss of tension. Rather, the gaps appear instrumental in building and maintaining tension and suspense throughout the piece. The fast semiquaver and demisemiquaver figures not only show elegance and agility, but also express the artist’s youthful temperament. Fascinating!

III. Courante (2’21”)

Although Anastasia Kobekina’s timing is identical to Jaap ter Linden’s, the outcome is an entirely different piece of music. All the unruliness is gone—in Anastasia Kobekina’s hands, the movement is a vibrant, lively dance, a true Courante indeed! This movement is another revelation. Rather than describing the performance in full detail, I’ll outline the key features.

Unlike traditional performances, Anastasia Kobekina’s articulation is light throughout. Her chords aren’t dark, growling pillars, but rather short, energetic, and percussive. There are a few exceptions around climaxes, when she broadens the chords without making them thick or oppressive. More important than that, though, is her pervasive use of jeu inégal: quaver chains are broken up into dotted pairs. Additionally, the performance never becomes loud; rather it occasionally retreats into secrecy and leaves time to breathe without ever losing tension. With this approach, she breaks up the heavy bar rhythm defined by the chords, allowing the music to perform a light dance, full of sway and momentum.

IV. Sarabande (4’09”)

What a masterful interpretation! Anastasia Kobekina opens the piece with an extremely quiet entrance, like a distant hum seemingly out of nowhere, with the bow barely touching the strings. She begins with light, detached notes, gradually connecting them to motifs and phrases. The slurs in the first few bars are merely phrasing indications. The music feels cautious, searching, insecure, and forlorn.

Bar 3 is the first gentle climax, with the first arch ending on the crotchet in bar 4. Bars 5 – 8 feel more intimate and gentler but also more cohesive. First, emerging hope; then, solace. The fading note in bar 8 leaves a long silence. The repeat follows the pattern of the first pass. Now, however, the lowest notes in bars 1 – 4 (A♭ – B – G – C) are firm and prominent, standing out as stepping stones on a path to darkness. Bars 5 – 8 counterbalance this darkness with a stronger message of hope. The final note now extends into the transition to the second part.

In part 2, the first phrase (bars 9 – 12) evolves up to the C in bar 11, but then shies away into silence again. Bars 13 – 18 are more forward-looking and form a longer, cohesive phrase with a broad, but gentle climax. The short closing phrase ties directly into the repeat of part two. In the first phrase of the repeat, Anastasia Kobekina again lets the lowest notes (now E♭ – G – C) stand out. The expression in bars 13 – 20 is now more varied, offering a deep and intense reflection that combines earnestness and beauty in an immensely touching way.

Anastasia Kobekina’s tempo is one of the slowest (only slightly faster than Benedikt Kloeckner’s). Nevertheless, the piece seems timeless, breathing in calm, broad phrases and offering unmatched intensity in all its silence.

V./VI. Gavotte I — Gavotte II — Gavotte I da capo (5’37”)

Gavotte I

What a contrast to the stiff, rigid, or loud traditional interpretations! Anastasia Kobekina opted for a moderate tempo, slightly below average. She keeps the Gavottes soft, gentle, playful, and almost sotto voce. The articulation is very light, and throughout the movement, there is a beautiful, natural dance swaying. Her performance features clear phrasing: the first part has a phrase intersection on the trill in bar four, and the second part also has a phrase intersection on the half note in bar 24. Besides the dance sway, the phrasing is associated with lively, pronounced agogics and dynamics. The ritardandi and accelerandi at phrase boundaries do not disrupt the dance character. Rather, they feel like broad, gentle breaths. I picture a formal Baroque dance with choreographed movements—marvelous!

Gavotte II

Anastasia Kobekina’s second Gavotte is the antithesis of Vito Paternoster’s performance of the same piece. It is the slowest Gavotte II performance. However, it does not feel slow. Instead, this movement is as light and playful as the first Gavotte. The gently rolling quaver triplets stay sotto voce, agogics and dynamics are subtle, and the atmosphere feels intimate and almost pensive. The artist makes the two Gavottes feel complementary, rather than emphasizing the contrast.

VII. Gigue (2’41”)

The interpretation that most closely resembles Anastasia Kobekina’s performance is Pieter Wispelwey’s 2012 recording. Both interpretations share the very light articulation, the (mostly) very short semiquavers, and the highlighting of the long, vibrato-less tied notes. However, Anastasia Kobekina chose a more moderate tempo, which allows for greater clarity and differentiation in the articulation. Around climaxes, she gradually broadens the articulation. Additionally, she uses a wider expressive and dynamic range. There are moments, such as around bar 40, where the music appears to retract to intimacy. It is slower and less radical than Wispelwey’s interpretation, yet every note is filled with tension, even suspense—masterful!

Total Duration: 27’07”

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

Comment: With this recording, Anastasia Kobekina secured and defended the top spot among historically informed cello interpretations. Her performance is simply breathtaking and sensational!

---

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 and continuous vibrato has had its effect on my ratings. And, of course, my preference has “not helped” the rating of traditional performances. Here is a brief, sketchy summary of my findings and top recommendations.

• Histioric landmarks:
  • Pablo Casals (1939) — a classic must-have
  • Anner Bylsma (1979 or 1992) —pioneer in historically informed performances
• Traditional / classic, non-HIP:
  • Pierre Fournier (1961) — for fans only
  • Benedikt Kloeckner (2021) — also because of the “extras”
  • Jean-Guihen Queyras (2007) — approaching HIP
  • Jean-Guihen Queyras (2023) — close to HIP, also because of the ballet DVD
• Historically informed:
  • Anastasia Kobekina (2025)
  • Thomas Demenga (2014)
  • Pieter Wispelwey (2011)
  • David Watkin (2013)
  • Bruno Philippe (2021)
• Alternative instruments:
  • Paolo Pandolfo (2000) — Viola da gamba: hors concours, as complement
  • Hopkinson Smith (1980) — Or possibly another lute recording, for this suite only: an interesting complement

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 alternative instruments?

---

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
• Suite No.5 for Cello Solo in C minor, BWV 1011 — This review
• 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—I have not (yet) reviewed so many of the CDs that they have sent to my address.

---

Literature References

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

---