Dear Tones:\nIn reality, the Mass differentiates quite clearly the intimate and the majestic parts. It would be improbable to sing the Qui tolis with a choir, and the choir parts do not really require the expressive subtlety of oppv. So it seems to me that the Mass, and as I said before, the Passions, really need more that one voice per part, and probably Bach himself preferred the oomph in choir parts and did not call for expressive singing, but rather for \nmajesty (he liked oomph in organs and harpsichords, that much is certain). So I tend to agree with you even if I am quite content with JÃƒÂ¼nghaenel's version of the Mass.\n\nDear Marc:\nI think you have touched one of the very important questions: with ovpp, in choirs, the singers must not be soloists, and their voices should not be too typical in order to blend well: white voices usually work best. I happen to like 'white voices' in the arias too, but I understand that a more expressive approach might be required. \nMcCreesh's Passion is awful. Again, that has nothing to do with the ovpp option: it is simply that McCreesh doesn't seem at ease with Bach and really seems to 'not care' about all the drama. A flat version, really boring. \n\nNOTE: By 'White Voices' (I don't know if the term exists in the English language) I mean the kind of voice one listens to in Praetorius's 'Qvem Pastores laudavere' by McCreesh. The typical male tenor in a choir is also what I call a white voice. Cantus CÃƒÂ¶lln (forgive the earlier 'KÃƒÂ¶ln') manages to have voices that blend in choirs (as white voices do) and that work very well as soloists. \nIn fact, the advent of less characteristic voices, less operatic if you will, is one of the really good things that the Harnoncourt/Leonhardt revolution brought: I do not like old religious music sung operatically.