My own conclusion (which one should also not take on faith) is that Bach meant the “Patrem” to be faster than the Credo—a solution used very effectively in Brüggen’s recording. This conclusion reflects my reading of the time signatures in the autograph: the Credo signature is ¢, but the “Patrem” signature is (the 19th-century Bach Gesamtausgabe edition “regularized” it to ¢).

I also suspect that when, as an afterthought, Bach inserted the “Et incarnatus” chorus after the “Et in unum” duet, he expected the new chorus to be faster than the following “Crucifixus.” One reason is that the latter has a time signature, 3/2, that implies something slower than the 3/4 of the “Et incarnatus.” As Rifkin, Jacobs, and Hengelbrock demonstrate, slowing down for the “Crucifixus” can have a potent effect. Once again, historical reasoning should not be used as a straitjacket—other approaches might be just as moving—but in this case, it can lead to a deeply expressive result.

How Small is Beautiful?

HIP musicians all perform the Mass with small ensembles, compared to the huge choral societies that have propagated the work since the early 19th century. The small ensembles help one to hear all the lines of Bach’s complex polyphony.

But how small? Goldberg readers will have heard (more than some would like to) of Joshua Rifkin’s argument that Bach expected most of his choral music to be sung by only one singer to a part. Rifkin and his defenders have skirmished repeatedly with scholars and performers who insist that Bach preferred something larger. As of early 1999, there appears to be no consensus on the subject within the community of Bach scholars. This represents progress for Rifkin, because ten years ago the consensus was strongly against him. (For the sake of full disclosure, let me say that I once dismissed Rifkin’s idea but now consider it the more convincing reading of the evidence.)

Whichever side one takes on this issue, it raises the question of historical fidelity with an added twist. Suppose that Rifkin’s position becomes generally accepted. As with the question of tempo, some musicians would ask, “Why should I be constrained by what Bach did?” But a more common argument for the use of a chorus adds something: it suggests a gap between what Bach seems to have done in fact and what he would have done if possible. Even when Bach was forced to use one singer per part, some musicians argue, he would still have preferred three or four per part. Proponents usually claim that this ideal is laid out in Bach’s famous memo to the city council of Leipzig complaining about his working conditions.