READERS who might have preferred the so-called debate on Bach's choir to have concluded long ago – myself included – may nevertheless be curious to understand why it has dragged on for almost 30 years. The foregoing article by Andreas Glöckner may help to supply an explanation. It illustrates how a handful of highly influential German scholars have responded to the challenge of reassessing old certainties, while its studied scepticism invites doubt: is it shaped more by scholarly thinking, or by a simple desire to bury the subject as far beyond the reach of scrutiny as possible?

This response will not restate the detailed case for single-voice choirs, which can readily be found elsewhere, but will merely explore the opposing line of thinking, represented here by Glöckner. A preliminary reminder of the divergent conclusions may not come amiss. At Leipzig the bulk of the élite Choir I's duties consisted of chant, chorales and a fairly undemanding repertoire of traditional motets, all handled not by Bach himself but by the choir's Prefect. In addition, Choir I also sang Bach's own music, ‘incomparably harder and more intricate’ even than other concerted music allocated to Choir II. This belonged to a higher order of music-making, featuring a substantial and independent instrumental ensemble and also providing a vehicle for select singers – a concerto for vocal concertists. One argument is that these singers were responsible not only for solos and duets but also – as Joshua Rifkin has reminded us – for all choruses (as in much Italian oratorio and opera of the period), whether with or without an occasional vocal ripieno group to ‘fill out’ certain types of choral writing. Traditional thinking, by contrast, holds it as self-evident that Bach would always have wanted his own choral music to be sung by all available singers, and at Leipzig preferably by 16 or so.

As we shall see, much of the effort invested in defending the conventional choir can only throw light on the following question: