From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Dance the Light Fandango [Re: Bach and religious feelings]
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:55:40 GMT

In article <28504@goofy.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>In article <1992Jul13.042619.3178@lclark.edu>, larryw@lclark.edu (Larry
>Westdahl) writes:

>> I'm still not convinced.  Compare Bach's influence during his life with
>> those of other composers during their lives, and I think you will find that
>> most of his admirers were students, and those who were "in the business"
>> religiously and musically.  Bach didn't live to see his day! I'm sure
>> Bach was appreciated to some extent, but during his life he did not hold
>> a candle to the people he influenced after him.  Understand, I'm just
>> splitting hairs over the level of appreciation.

>Well, instead of splitting hairs, 
>how about relevant comparisons?  I think that
>would mean comparing Bach's influence during his life with that of other
>composers of the same period who also wrote 
>primarily for the church.  You would
>then find that Bach was at least as highly regarded as any of his peers.

I don't think so.  For one thing, he was the *third* choice for Leipzig
job he held from 1723-50.  Telemann and Graupner were offered the job
before him.  Telemann, whose musical repertoire was similar to Bach's
(though it also included operas) was far better known throughout
northern Europe in their era.  Bach was generally considered
old=fashioned, but a good organist and composer of fugues.

>> The reason I think most of this is silly is because it is only through
>> comparison of other musicians before and after Bach that we can truly
>> appreciate his extroardinary genius.

>Ahem.  In fact, it is only by LISTENING TO BACH'S MUSIC that we can truly
>appreciate his extraordinary genius.  We can learn more about it by comparison
>with other composers, but again, 
>the most fruitful comparison is with his peers,
>not his antecedents or successors.  If we compare Bach to composers of other
>eras, we learn about the music of Bach's era, but not so much about Bach in
>particular.

Why ever not?  By listening to music of other eras, we can (and
necessarily do) recast our experience of Bach's music when we next
encounter it.  And Bach's music offers several particularly fascinating
opportunities for comparison.

>> Bach, in his time, was known as 
>> a genius at the organ, and everything else was secondary.

>To whom?  To the various people who hired him as 
>Kappellmeister because he could
>be counted on to run the chorus and 
>the orchestra impeccably as well as compose
>an uninterrupted flow of the finest ecclesiastical music, 

Actually, Telemann turned down the job because he didn't want to have to
teach the choirboys their Latin...

>*and* play the organ like an angel?  To the crowds of parishioners 
>who heard his music sung and played day in and day out?  

They didn't, of course.  Lots of music other than Bach's was performed
wherever he was the music director; and the vast majority of services
(e.g., the daily ones) had no music of Bach at all.

>To the various patrons who commissioned all the many
>non-ecclesiastical compositions, 

Who might these be?  What commissions are you thinking of?

>and the courts full of people who listened to them?

Are you sure you're not thinking of Mozart?  Aside from the Coethen
court, Bach didn't spend much time in those circles.

But to answer your question, yes.  Most people knew or knew of Bach
mainly as an organist.  In Leipzig he was also an administrator,
composer, teacher, harpsichordist, and violinist; but he was known
throughout Northern Europe mainly as an organist, whereas Telemann and
Handel and Fasch and Hasse and others were known more for their
compositions.  In fact, CPE Bach was far better known in his own time as
a composer than his father ever had been in his time.

>In fact I suspect it was mainly the other musicians and students "in the
>business" who left us with the image of a genius at the organ.  

Well, they're the ones who write about music, mainly, so we have their
impressions of *all* the composers to go on.  

(Also, note that when Bach visited Frederick the Great toward the end of
his life, the invitation was to inspect the king's collection of
keyboard instruments and demonstrate his skill at them -- including
improvisation.  The written composition that ensued (The Musical
OFfering) was an unexpected follow-up.)

>They were the ones who heard all the brilliant improvisation.

Indeed; but nobody much else remarked on the quality of the
compositions.  Bach's publications received little attention in his
lifetime, and there were few of them; whereas Telemann published
hundreds of church cantatas, Bach published exactly one: a very early
one, "Gott ist mein Koenig."  The keyboard works of other composers
attracted much more attention as well.

>> In his time, Bach was first, and foremost, an employee of the
>> church, who happened to play the organ better than anyone in town.
>> Today, he is a great composer.

>He was always one.  

Right -- but nowadays everyone *knows* that.  And in the context of the
musical tastes of his time, he was *not* a great composer, because
nobody cared about his music very much.  It was old-fashioned and
over-complicated.

And had there not been a revival of interest in old music in the early
19th century, which has carried over into our notion of the "Classics,"
Bach would be known to the public about as well as, say, Josquin
actually is nowadays -- and, to most people, Josquin is a name in a
book, not a "great composer."

>I don't see how you can claim that the fact that he worked
>mostly for the church made him any less of a composer, 
>or how he is supposed to
>have become a great composer after he was dead.  

Because greatness is an opinion attached to a work of art by those who
appreciate it.  And in Bach's case, very few people appreciated his
music for a long time.

And besides, the whole concept of "Great composer" didn't exist in his
time, so he *couldn't* have been one.  Certainly not to those who lived
when he did.

>The music speaks for itself, most eloquently.

Bullshit.

NO music speaks.  Ever.  It has to be played and listened to.  It has to
be given a context for listening, and in many cases it needs to be
explained, either in reference to other music, or in reference ot
cultural or historical matters.

Music does NOT speak for itself; we have to make it speak, and we
generally make that music speak which agrees with our opinions.

Roger