Pièces pour le lut par JS Bach

Jadran Duncumb, volume 2

Bach’s works for lute—an instrument that was perhaps eclipsed by the guitar after the baroque period—I learned are far less a tidy collection, than say, his works for organ, or his three sonatas and three partitas for violin. Some of the issues surrounding performance are detailed in the notes from this second volume of Bach’s lute works performed by Jadran Duncumb. I reviewed his first volume side by side here, with one by Evangelina Mascardi. The pieces not recorded by Dumcumb in his first volume are covered here.

Bach didn’t write most idiomatically for the lute. If we take the sources as written, some require modification. For Duncumb, he changed keys and did what he thought was best to perform these works as true lute pieces. Mascardi, in the notes for her complete lute works recording, mentions transcribing two into different keys, but no further detail is given about the voicing of particular chords. Duncumb’s own working of the pieces is detailed more verbosely.

While I still hold that Mascardi’s release is a strong one, I went back to my original introduction to Bach’s lute works in a recording by Konrad Junghänel, the recording I lived with through college. Both the recording and the interpretations I felt weren’t in the same league as this new recording by Duncumb. It may be unfair to compare a recording from 1990 with one from 2024, but speaking to the audiophiles who read these reviews, multiple veils were removed in the ultimately lucid recording made here for Audax records featuring Mr. Duncumb. We’re most definitely closer to the performer, but also the amount of detail and the dynamic range of the recording are superior. In ways I found the former recording awkward in spots, here there are, I think, better interpretive solutions.

One of the pieces left for us as a lute piece is the violin partita BWV 1006. Bach reused the opening prelude, likely the most recognizable of all the dances, in a cantata. It sounds idiomatic for a lute, too, I think. The tempo used here is probably slower than we expect hearing the same piece on the violin. Duncumb choses a very similar pace to that used by Jakob Lindberg, in his recital of Bach on the Rauwolf lute (BIS). I appreciate how Duncumb voices some of the chords, using a rubato touch to land on the most satisfying resolutions with care. His finger work also introduces a few unexpected ornaments here and there that were delightful touches.

For me the most difficult piece in the BWV 1006 suite is the Loure and how to phrase it. And for that, I think Duncumb has done an excellent job at helping us feel the pulse while keeping the melodic line clear and in command of the way it has been phrased. Evidence of his desire to push and pull at the tempo with rubato carries through in his performances of the Gavotte and Menuets.

Both Duncumb’s tempo and sense of pulse he puts into his playing was more enjoyable to me than Lindberg’s rendition of the Gigue. Junghänel takes the Gigue even faster, but the articulation of all the notes is clearer in this newer recording.

BWV 998, rendered as a prelude, fugue, and allegro, opens this new release. This piece was titled, as such, for lute or the harpsichord. It’s not a suite, per se, as it isn’t rendered as dance movements. The Allegro is written as a continuous string of moving notes, and with constant articulation, is well suited to the lute or a harpsichord which needs help with sustaining harmonies. The binary construction of the movement includes repeats for both halves. The moving melodic line is given support with additional notes for harmony. In this third movement, I better enjoyed Junghänel’s tempo, more fleeting, and his voicing, providing more focus on the running melodic line.

It’s the thing I’ve been searching for in Duncumb’s performances is that movement that moves. Perhaps I’m still in love with Chris Thile’s rendering in his first volume of Bach’s violin sonatas/partitas performed on his mandolin, the final movement of BWV 1001 was a triumph, but admittedly, upon an instrument that allows for faster articulation.

In Duncumb’s rendition of BWV 996, I am in want for more variation in tempo among the pieces. 996 is believed to have been written for not the lute, but for an instrument called a lautenwerk, a keyboard instrument that approximates the sound of a lute. There’s a delicious, strong sense of pulse in his reading of the Courante however it’s this movement that I’d wished went a tad faster. The Sarabande’s tempo seems dependent upon Duncumb’s instrument’s ability to sustain its harmonies, which is beautifully done, one of my favorite tracks from the album. The Bourée is likely one of the most recognizable pieces in this suite. The Gigue isn’t played fast, but it is quick enough to capture all the details without getting into the messier territory experienced on the Junghänel album.

This recording, produced by Duncumb’s mentor, Rolf Lislevand, who has also recorded some of Bach’s lute music himself, showcases a talented musician whose strengths include helping us feel the pulse in the music while also introducing rubato, which I think is highly appropriate in performing Bach. As the liner notes describe, he’s had to find his own solutions for how to perform these pieces upon an instrument that the composer evidently did not have the strongest familiarity for, but of course, we’re only left with what has come down to us. It’s impossible to say that all these pieces were performed upon a lute, or that if they were, that musicians who were themselves masters of the instrument, would have had to replicate the same work undertaken by modern interpreters to make the music fit the instrument.

The only common work between Lislevand’s album, entitled Intavolatura, and this album is the suite BWV 1006a. It’s easy to hear some similarities in interpretation. I preferred the sound of Duncumb’s instrument, but preferred Liselvand’s tempo of the opening Preludio.

Final Thoughts

Its obvious that the music featured on this album has already been picked up by guitarists as well as lutenists, despite the problems with the original source material. I really admired the album by Sean Shibe on guitar (not a complete recording), but otherwise, I’ve stuck to hearing these pieces by lutenists and have also enjoyed at least two recordings featuring the aforementioned lautenwerk instrument. Taking aside the intended instrumentation, the music is by Bach and it’s high quality stuff. I felt this recording revealed that Duncumb is detail oriented and is a sensitive player, responding to Bach’s harmonies and also a desire to fit all the many notes in their places with clarity and good diction. I was reminded re-listening to Junghänel’s recording of how difficult these pieces must be, with his sometimes “noisy” results, which lacked that cleanness that is a hallmark of this album. That technical detail is one to be admired, it’s why musicians practice diligently as they do.

The one thing that is however different about this album than the others I’ve used as comparisons is the obvious sound of Duncumb breathing (and also the instrument creaking). One could compare this with Glenn Gould’s singing, or even Keith Jarrett’s guttural outbursts, captured in those pianists’ recordings. They turn some people off. In this case, because the recording was made so close to the instrument, I’m guessing, you also get the sounds of Duncumb’s breathing.

Back in the late 1990s, When Paul O’Dette played for us in our music history class in Rochester, it was obvious to some students, who had already digested some of his recordings that the “sound” they heard in those was his breathing. He used breathing as a mechanism to phrase the music. But yes, it was audible.

I am not sure why O’Dette’s breathing isn’t more prominent in his own recording, volume 1, of Bach’s lute works (Harmonia Mundi, released 2007). But it isn’t. It isn’t in the aforementioned recordings by Junghänel, Lislevand, Mascardi, or Lindberg. To be sure, the breathing is also audible in the first volume by Duncumb.

As of late, I’ve been doing critical listening using headphones and every detail is rendered clearly in what I’ve been listening to. This album, maybe even more so than Duncumb’s volume 1, is among the best sounding lute recordings I’ve heard. His instrument is rendered in what I might call “full color.” I can’t say if it’s the high resolution files, the instrument itself, or the talents of the engineers at Moosika Studios. But I need to be honest, you also get the sounds of the performer in a way that few recordings do, and for some, it may be a turn-off.

I might offer that Mascardi, O’Dette, and Lindberg all offer compelling, first-rate performances of Bach’s lute works. I’d choose any of these as first-rate examples. With Duncumb we get the sense that the musician chooses to linger in the shadows, the sustain of his instrument, savoring Bach’s harmonies. While I’m always drawn to quicksilver performances, the pace here is a still viable contrast that above other interpretations, showcases his touch in varying dynamics at the smallest detail, among notes in a phrase. This ultimate control is worth our appreciation.

This recording, sonically, is superior to his volume 1 release. But the breathing is an unfortunate artifact that comes along with the production.

This album will be released in early January 2025.