So to further discourage discussion on my own upstart Graupner thread (the original! the misguided!), I want to use this thread to go back to "Mein Herze schwimmt in Blut" again. First of all, the text is unlike most others that I am familiar with from Bach's cantatas (perhaps with a few exceptions like "Ach wie flüchtig, ach wie nichtig" or moments from St. John's Passion) in that its texts are so 'graphic' in the contemporary sense of gory -- perhaps, I don't know, even 'expressionistic' is a good word.

This impression, as well as the fact that the final 6/8 number ends without an instrumental postlude helped to convince me of the wrong conclusion that this work was not by Bach. And when Graupner came along to (falsely) claim it, I handed it to him. The other movements, i.e. the recit and the chorale prelude with solo viola, are consistent with Bach's style. Not sure about the opening oboe obbligato, though I can't say for sure why it's giving me static.

So, is this solo cantata not far enough deviant from Bach's broad palette of style to make one wonder whether it is by him? Feel free to say no, and I will admit I was not only wrong, but thoroughly wrong. I'll go back to my hidey-hole.

In any case, perhaps now one can understand the sources of my misunderstanding that doomed the other Graupner thread.

But the thing about grains still sticks. Graupen are groats, or pearl barley. So Graupner's ancestors were barley farmers, or at least people who enjoyed or traded in barley.

Graupner had friends called Heinichen and Fasch. They both get ClassicalNet pages (Heinichen's is very substantial) while Graupner doesn't.

http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/fasch.html
http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/acc/heinichen.html


That's what happens when you start going around with an alcoholic and a Fasch-ist.

I didn't mean he actively claimed it, but the minute someone mentioned to me that it may be by him, I succumbed to the suggestion, based on the aforementioned set of impressions from having once conducted Bach's relatively underappreciated cantata, which I still think is a stylistic anomaly until someone corrects me.

Don't feel bad. I like the image of uploading frenzy. And this thread leaves nothing to be desired. Except more posts!

Which one is Aaron? I can't quite make it out:

Nice to see the Baroque board creaking back into action.

I'm fond of the Graupner I've heard (including indeed the bits Ollie posted), which is mostly the CD by Das Kleine Konzert. It isn't really the kind of music that jumps up and sticks to your face, then sticks a tube down your throat into your stomach and inserts an embryo which later bursts out and eats everyone in sight, but to me there's something exquisite but not-quite-perfectly-made about it which I find attractive. But I'm a bit of a chalumeau nut too.

 
...been trying to write music that does that for years. 

Sorry. I'll run along now.

You beast, Ron! 

The only information I have is that there are 1418 church and 24 secular cantatas. I won't be counting them for myself... a chap called Friedrich Noack catalogued them in the 1920s. Someone started to list them on wiki but only got as far as 1709 which considering that's the year Graupner started writing them in Darmstadt and that he kept on writing them until he went blind in 1753 is less than helpful. As far as I know the Darmstadt court needed a new cantata every Sunday and feast day; Graupner shared the job with Carl Briegel from 1709-1712 and with Gottfried Grünewald from 1713-1739, then he was on his own. They don't seem to have reused pieces.

From 1719-1743 Graupner's main librettist was Johann Conrad Lichtenberg. He was also Graupner's brother-in-law (hey, JSB had Altnickol after all). Don't know what the most typical obbligato instruments are; I think 82 of the cantatas have chalumeau(s).

His manuscript is usually so clear that one of his contemporaries (it may even have been Telemann, I can't find the source just now) said you could hardly tell his manuscript from a professional copy. You can find one on wiki; here's another.