# "Bach was far more Religious than you might think" (NY Times)



## Guest

This is quite interesting as are the musical excerpts included:



> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/arts/music/bach-religion-music.html


----------



## hpowders

In those days folks were devout. That’s all there was to it. God was real and so was hell. Heretics and non- believers didn’t live long.


----------



## Strange Magic

hpowders said:


> In those days folks were devout. That's all there was to it. God was real and so was hell. Heretics and non- believers didn't live long.


Those who kept their mouths shut did.


----------



## Marc

Christabel said:


> This is quite interesting as are the musical excerpts included:


_Bach Was Far More Religious Than You Might Think_.

Well, I never was "you". No 'news' here.
I always wonder what the author of such a header apparently thinks he/she knows about "you" or "me".


----------



## Pugg

Christabel said:


> This is quite interesting as are the musical excerpts included:


Does it make any difference anyway?


----------



## tdc

Most of the great composers through history have believed in some kind of God or higher being. 

Both this article and different articles that spin Bach as less religious and more 'progressive' are based on a fair bit of speculation. Maybe the truth is in between, I'm not really sure. 

That said it seems to me that this world has been "progressing" in a negative, destructive, and frankly stupid direction for centuries so I don't consider it a knock against someone if they are labelled as not "modern" enough or "progressive" in their thinking. 

"Progressive" is not necessarily a good thing. It depends what one is "progressing" towards.


----------



## Marc

Pugg said:


> Does it make any difference anyway?


It's interesting for those who are interested in these things. 
Personally, I do not mind reading about the historical context. It can be very informative.
In a more general way, it might increase one's understanding of Bach's music and his intentions and, because of that, one's admiration/respect/enjoyment.
And who knows, in some cases it might also increase one's dislike of the man and his music. :devil:

But if it doesn't make any difference: no problem, I would say.


----------



## Guest

In the article in the OP, Marissen takes issue with an interpretation by John Eliot Gardiner of a comment by Bach:



> 'Where there is devotional music, God with his grace is always present.'


If anyone else has read that part, perhaps you could explain the subtle difference of interpretation that Marissen writes about - I can't see it myself.


----------



## Star

MacLeod said:


> In the article in the OP, Marissen takes issue with an interpretation by John Eliot Gardiner of a comment by Bach:
> 
> If anyone else has read that part, perhaps you could explain the subtle difference of interpretation that Marissen writes about - I can't see it myself.


I think Gardiner means 'God' in any sense - a spiritual force - hence even music can be 'God'. Hi ever Marissen us pointing out that to Bach, God was the being believed in by Lutheran Christiaity - ie the orthodox Christian God. Frankly the article held no surprises to me. It has been the modern secularists who have tried to make out that Bach was not as religious as we thought. We know he was no 'Saint' (like the rest of ya) but he was certainly devout.


----------



## Pugg

Marc said:


> It's interesting for those who are interested in these things.
> Personally, I do not mind reading about the historical context. It can be very informative.
> In a more general way, it might increase one's understanding of Bach's music and his intentions and, because of that, one's admiration/respect/enjoyment.
> And who knows, in some cases it might also increase one's dislike of the man and his music. :devil:
> 
> But if it doesn't make any difference: no problem, I would say.


AS much as I agree with you, composers and religion seems to derail quick on the forum.


----------



## Guest

Star said:


> I think Gardiner means 'God' in any sense - a spiritual force - hence even music can be 'God'.


Ah, yes, that variation hadn't occurred to me. I thought he was talking about the difference between God being present in the music (Gardiner) and God being present in us when we listen to the music (Bach/Marissen).


----------



## Marc

Pugg said:


> AS much as I agree with you, composers and religion seems to derail quick on the forum.


*HELL* yeah.

(And on some other sites on the world-wide-web.)

Personally, I try not to care that much, but if I find out that someone here does not believe in the influence of Brian of Nazareth's sermons on Bach's music, I'll smash his/her bloody face in.



_All right, I've warned you!_


----------



## Star

Pugg said:


> Does it make any difference anyway?


It does give us understanding. Bach's music - even his secular music - was an expression of his faith in God - the God who had ordered the universe was expressed in the music. It tells us what viewpoint he was coming from.


----------



## Mandryka

Star said:


> It has been the modern secularists who have tried to make out that Bach was not as religious as we thought.


Can you give me an example of one of these modern secularists, I've not read Gardiner's book, but is he one of them?

(If so I'll get the book!)


----------



## Mandryka

Star said:


> even his secular music - was an expression of his faith in God - the God who had ordered the universe was expressed in the music.


What a potentially interesting idea, that the secular music was an expression of an idea about the universe and that it was at the same time an expression of his beliefs, faith. It would be nice to see the work done to spell it out for (eg) Art of Fugue or Brandenburg 5, or maybe even Musical Offering.

Without the work to spell it out, I have to ask why you believe it?

The other question which I find intriguing is whether the idea that music is "an expression of an idea about the universe" etc is just a JSB thing, otr whether they were all at it -- Scheidt, Sweelinck, Buxtehude, Bohm, Scarlatti, Francois Couperin, Frescobaldi, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven . . . Were they all writing metaphysical treatises loosely disguised as concertos, toccatas, sonatas, suites etc?


----------



## Genoveva

MacLeod said:


> In the article in the OP, Marissen takes issue with an interpretation by John Eliot Gardiner of a comment by Bach:_'Where there is devotional music, God with his grace is always present.'_​
> If anyone else has read that part, perhaps you could explain the subtle difference of interpretation that Marissen writes about - I can't see it myself.


The main argument of Marissen in that J S Bach remained fundamentally wedded to his Lutheran views. This is despite the interpretation that John Eliot Gardiner appears to have placed on the above quotation by Bach.

In the above quotation, JeG suggests that Bach held a more "progressive view" of Christianity in which the music can be a vehicle for "God's" immanance, i.e. where God is held to be present in some form in the music itself. This view contrasts with the standard view in Lutheran Christianity that God does not reveal himself in any form - not in music or anything else - except through his "grace-presence" by those who go about seeking it in the right frame mind, in which case they might experience such through very well composed music which Bach strove to write.

Any individual will have to interpret the exact meaning of "grace-presence" for themselves. To assist, it might help to think of it basically as feeling in some way the presence of God's company, but where that feeling is entirely spiritual. That is why Luther rejected the RC teaching on "transubtantiation" of the host into the body and blood of the Second Person of the Trinity, as Lutherans do not believe in the possibility of any such immanance.

In other words, Marissen believes that JEG placed an incorrect interpretation on Bach's comment. I think that Marissen is right. It is very doubtful in my estimation that Bach changed his view on this matter. It may be of interest to note, however, that Bach's most famous work, the Mass in B Minor, is a fully fledged RC mass. There are reasons for this I won't go into, but it doesn't change the overall picture of all the evidence pointing to Bach's adherence to Lutherism.


----------



## Marc

Mandryka said:


> Can you give me an example of one of these modern secularists, [...]


In a country called the Netherlands, there is a writer (Maarten 't Hart) who is considered by many/some as a true Bach connaisseur. (To me btw, he's just an enthousiastic Bach lover, like me.) He's also written books and articles about Bach, and many times he likes to underline that Bach wasn't such a great believer. In most cases, he brings up the anecdote about the young Bach diving into the church wine cellar during the service.

I think 't Hart is a representative of people who were raised in a strict religious way/environment, lost their faith when they began thinking for themselves, and after that will do anything to 'de-religiousize' almost anything in life. For these people it's (almost) impossible to accept how a 'genius' like Bach kept on believing in fairy tales.


----------



## Star

Marc said:


> In a country called the Netherlands, there is a writer (Maarten 't Hart) who is considered by many/some as a true Bach connaisseur. (To me btw, he's just an enthousiastic Bach lover, like me.) He's also written books and articles about Bach, and many times he likes to underline that Bach wasn't such a great believer. In most cases, he brings up the anecdote about the young Bach diving into the church wine cellar during the service.
> 
> I think 't Hart is a representative of people who were raised in a strict religious way/environment, lost their faith when they began thinking for themselves, and after that will do anything to 'de-religiousize' almost anything in life. For these people it's (almost) impossible to accept how a 'genius' like Bach kept on believing in fairy tales.


Sounds that Hartis one of these naive people who has never got over his own teenage rebellion. As someone brought up as a secularist, it was only when I began to think for myself I realised the intellectual flaws in secularism. I say that not to raise it as a point for discussion but to show where I am comng from. We are not talking about the Bach of Hart's own fond imagination but the Bach of history. As for the idiotic point Hart makes that Bach visiting the wine cellar shows he wasn't religious - isn't the founder of the Christian religion reputed to gave turned water to wine?


----------



## Marc

Star said:


> Sounds that Hart is one of these naive people who has never got over his own teenage rebellion. As someone brought up as a secularist, it was only when I began to think for myself I realised the intellectual flaws in secularism. I say that not to raise it as a point for discussion but to show where I am comng from. We are not talking about the Bach of Hart's own fond imagination but the Bach of history. As for the idiotic point Hart makes that Bach visiting the wine cellar shows he wasn't religious - isn't the founder of the Christian religion reputed to gave turned water to wine?


I was bringing 't Hart up because I like to read his stuff about music, but many times I just grin or shake my head. One has to know the man and his biography/history for a full understanding. But I agree about the attitude of many consciously ignorant secularist people. 
When I was studying literature, decades ago, I always appeared to be the 'idiot' who saw/recognized biblical connections in poems or prose, and used that in my interpretation. Well, about 5 out of 10 co-students immediately decided that, if I was right and the Biblical reference was useful in the analysis, the poem or novel was of no value to them anymore. Because writers who referred to such a stupid book full of hate and idiocy like the Bible could not be taken seriously.
Also, these co-students had the idea that, because I remembered something from the Bible due to my religious upbringing, I was the utter example of religious insanity. I think they thought of me as some silly Jesus freak.

The funny thing was, if a work of literature was filled with references to f.i. Greek Gods and mythology, man, the same students were very enthousiastic and considered such 'historical cultural' references as a 'pro'. Don't give us the Yahweh, give us Zeus!

There is a lot of intolerance in the religious world, but, alas, the same goes for the 'secular' world. Such a pity.


----------



## Marc

Mandryka said:


> What a potentially interesting idea, that the secular music was an expression of an idea about the universe and that it was at the same time an expression of his beliefs, faith. It would be nice to see the work done to spell it out for (eg) Art of Fugue or Brandenburg 5, or maybe even Musical Offering.
> 
> Without the work to spell it out, I have to ask why you believe it?
> 
> The other question which I find intriguing is whether the idea that music is "an expression of an idea about the universe" etc is just a JSB thing, otr whether they were all at it -- Scheidt, Sweelinck, Buxtehude, Bohm, Scarlatti, Francois Couperin, Frescobaldi, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven . . . Were they all writing metaphysical treatises loosely disguised as concertos, toccatas, sonatas, suites etc?


Well, many Christians believe that God created universe.

Personally, I won't try to be too metaphysical in describing or understanding Bach, but of course we 'know' the Soli Deo Gloria, we 'know' the Lutheran concept that music was "a sermon in sound" and there's this quote attributed to a certain JS Bach ""the sole and end aim of figured-bass should be nothing else than God's glory and the recreation of the mind. Where this object is not kept in view, there can be no true music but only infernal scraping and bawling."

But frankly, I'm not a 'devoted' part of discussions like these (even though my participation here appears to prove otherwise ). I just like his music. It's nice to know he was inspired by a God and a Holy Book, and I find it interesting to read about it, but it doesn't have any positive/negative effect on my admiration. It sometimes increases my understanding though (or at least I'd like to 'believe' so ).


----------



## Nate Miller

Genoveva said:


> In the above quotation, JeG suggests that Bach held a more "progressive view" of Christianity in which the music can be a vehicle for "God's" immanance, i.e. where God is held to be present in some form in the music itself.


I don't know if you are aware of this, but that's not a "progressive" view of Christianity. I'm Catholic and music has always been a big part of our prayer tradition. Its more likely he held a more Catholic view. The Lutherans are a pretty stiff bunch, you know. they don't even believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist for crying out loud.

but it you want to say that the Catholic Church that was founded by Jesus Christ is more progressive than the protestants, I won't argue that


----------



## Marc

Nate Miller said:


> I don't know if you are aware of this, but that's not a "progressive" view of Christianity. I'm Catholic and music has always been a big part of our prayer tradition. Its more likely he held a more Catholic view. The Lutherans are a pretty stiff bunch, you know. they don't even believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist for crying out loud.
> [...]


Yeah, let's cry out loud.
But give Martin a break: at least he thought that music was a gift from God, and not a human gift. Or, in Bach's reception: my compositions are Soli Deo Gloria.


----------



## Ingélou

Marc said:


> _Bach Was Far More Religious Than You Might Think_.
> 
> Well, I never was "you". No 'news' here.
> I always wonder what the author of such a header apparently thinks he/she knows about "you" or "me".


'You' is just the generic 'you', meaning people in general, not *you* in particular. It does instead of 'one' and is common in Shakespeare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

However, I always thought Bach was religious so am not very surprised.


----------



## Ingélou

Nate Miller said:


> I don't know if you are aware of this, but that's not a "progressive" view of Christianity. I'm Catholic and music has always been a big part of our prayer tradition. Its more likely he held a more Catholic view. The Lutherans are a pretty stiff bunch, you know. they don't even believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist for crying out loud.
> 
> but it you want to say that the Catholic Church that was founded by Jesus Christ is more progressive than the protestants, I won't argue that


Point of information: Luther believed in the Real Presence - it's just that his theory wasn't 'transubstantiation' but 'consubstantiation': he said, 'Christ is present in the Eucharist as fire is present in a red-hot iron'. I remember this from my A-level history, 'Renaissance and Reformation', four years before I became a Catholic. 

http://christianityinview.com/eucharist.html

Note - Mods, please remove this post if I am transgressing against the rules about religion on TC.


----------



## Marc

Ingélou said:


> 'You' is just the generic 'you', meaning people in general, not *you*. It does instead of 'one' and is common in Shakespeare.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you


Yeah, I know. It's probably my own personal problem with generic things. 



Ingélou said:


> However, I always thought Bach was religious so am not very surprised.


Same here.


----------



## Nate Miller

Ingélou said:


> Point of information: Luther believed in the Real Presence - it's just that his theory wasn't 'transubstantiation' but 'consubstantiation': he said, 'Christ is present in the Eucharist as fire is present in a red-hot iron'. I remember this from my A-level history, 'Renaissance and Reformation', four years before I became a Catholic.
> 
> http://christianityinview.com/eucharist.html
> 
> Note - Mods, please remove this post if I am transgressing against the rules about religion on TC.


Luther was a Catholic priest trying to reform the Church, so that's not a shocker

but I run the adult conversion program at my parish, and when I am teaching protestants I find the big difference between them and us is the concept of the Real Presence. All you have to do is look at all the noise and commotion in the main Church at any protestant service and you can see for yourself if those people believe in the Real Presence or not. And that is what I am basing my comments on. I don't know protestant theology.

and if talking about God and Jesus is offending anybody, feel free to delete my posts, too


----------



## JosefinaHW

'Almost running to go out the door, but what I think would be interesting is to learn if other members hear these differences in theological beliefs in his music. I haven't heard this type of difference in his music: IMO, of course, it is very Universal, catholic with the lowercase "c". He is very strong in his desire to "console," "uplift," convey hope and faith," in his congregation--this speaks to entire human condition.

Given the TofS, this is a difficult one to determine where is the line about offending and not offending, etc., *but* it belonged here more than where it was originally placed and that is NOT a criticism of the OP!


----------



## Star

Nate Miller said:


> Luther was a Catholic priest trying to reform the Church, so that's not a shocker
> 
> but I run the adult conversion program at my parish, and when I am teaching protestants I find the big difference between them and us is the concept of the Real Presence. All you have to do is look at all the noise and commotion in the main Church at any protestant service and you can see for yourself if those people believe in the Real Presence or not. And that is what I am basing my comments on. I don't know protestant theology.
> 
> and if talking about God and Jesus is offending anybody, feel free to delete my posts, too


I don't know what churches you have been to but you apoear to be forgetting that the Bible is a Jewish book and for the Uews noise was part of worship. Just read the Psalms. Obviously there is a time for quiet too. But we had better not get into that as we are discussing Bach's faith and not our own.


----------



## Genoveva

Nate Miller said:


> I don't know if you are aware of this, but that's not a "progressive" view of Christianity. I'm Catholic and music has always been a big part of our prayer tradition. Its more likely he held a more Catholic view. The Lutherans are a pretty stiff bunch, you know. they don't even believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist for crying out loud.
> 
> but it you want to say that the Catholic Church that was founded by Jesus Christ is more progressive than the protestants, I won't argue that


There appears to be some confusion over terminology here. If you haven't already done so may I sggest that you read the NY Times article.

Here is a very short quick summary:

- It starts out by saying that there is a current view held in some quarters that: _ "Bach was a forward-looking, quasi-scientific thinker who had little or no genuine interest in traditional religion"._

- Rather, this modern view holds that Bach held religious views that are more akin to what is referred to as "progressive" Christianity. This is a recent movement within Protestantism, which you can "google" if you wish to find out more.

- The author of the article then refers to a 2013 book by John Eliot Gardiner in which Gardiner appears to endorse the notion that Bach was a "progressive" Christian, on the above definition. As evidence, the author refers to a section within JEG's book that cites a note written by JSB as follows: _'Where there is devotional music, God with his grace is always present.'_

- The article then states that this quotation by JSB does not indicate that he was a "progressive" but on the contrary that it is consistent with standard Lutheran doctrine.​
Therefore what I wrote is a correct summary of the article, using the terminolgy used there. The notion that JSB held a Catholic view, as you suggest, is inconsistent with the article, and not a view that I would agree with.


----------



## Nate Miller

Star said:


> I don't know what churches you have been to but you apoear to be forgetting that the Bible is a Jewish book and for the Uews noise was part of worship. Just read the Psalms. Obviously there is a time for quiet too. But we had better not get into that as we are discussing Bach's faith and not our own.


spare me the theology lecture, please. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about


----------



## Nate Miller

Genoveva said:


> There appears to be some confusion over terminology here. If you haven't already done so may I sggest that you read the NY Times article.
> 
> Here is a very short quick summary:
> 
> - It starts out by saying that there is a current view held in some quarters that: _ "Bach was a forward-looking, quasi-scientific thinker who had little or no genuine interest in traditional religion"._
> 
> - Rather, this modern view holds that Bach held religious views that are more akin to what is referred to as "progressive" Christianity. This is a recent movement within Protestantism, which you can "google" if you wish to find out more.
> 
> - The author of the article then refers to a 2013 book by John Eliot Gardiner in which Gardiner appears to endorse the notion that Bach was a "progressive" Christian, on the above definition. As evidence, the author refers to a section within JEG's book that cites a note written by JSB as follows: _'Where there is devotional music, God with his grace is always present.'_
> 
> - The article then states that this quotation by JSB does not indicate that he was a "progressive" but on the contrary that it is consistent with standard Lutheran doctrine.​
> Therefore what I wrote is a correct summary of the article, using the terminolgy used there. The notion that JSB held a Catholic view, as you suggest, is inconsistent with the article, and not a view that I would agree with.


the NY Times is hardly an authority on any sort of religious topic :lol:


----------



## JeffD

MacLeod said:


> In the article in the OP, Marissen takes issue with an interpretation by John Eliot Gardiner of a comment by Bach:
> 
> If anyone else has read that part, perhaps you could explain the subtle difference of interpretation that Marissen writes about - I can't see it myself.


With these transcendent things it is hard to explain what you can't see.


----------



## JeffD

Nate Miller said:


> the NY Times is hardly an authority on any sort of religious topic :lol:


Well they come from a point of view, (as we all do I guess), and necessarily are blind to what that point of view cannot see.


----------



## Genoveva

Ingélou said:


> Point of information: Luther believed in the Real Presence - it's just that his theory wasn't 'transubstantiation' but 'consubstantiation': he said, 'Christ is present in the Eucharist as fire is present in a red-hot iron'. I remember this from my A-level history, 'Renaissance and Reformation', four years before I became a Catholic.
> 
> http://christianityinview.com/eucharist.html
> 
> Note - Mods, please remove this post if I am transgressing against the rules about religion on TC.


That's correct. Luther had no problem with the idea of the "real presence" in the Eucharist. However, he rejected the notion of transubstantiation, i.e conversion from bread/wine into body/blood of Christ. Instead the term "consubstantiation" is used to refer to Luther's view about the real presence, but I don't believe he ever used that word in his writings. Instead his writings were based on the doctrine of "ubiquity". Here, basically Luther rejected the notion that God dwells in any particular place, since God the Creator is everywhere. Since Christ is God, He too is everywhere. The exact understanding of the "real presence" by modern day Protestants of different persuasions varies considerably from church to church.


----------



## Star

Nate Miller said:


> spare me the theology lecture, please. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about


then answer my point instead of being rude!


----------



## Nate Miller

Star said:


> then answer my point instead of being rude!


rude? what you said to me was patently offensive. I can see, though, that in your ignorance you did not understand what you were saying and so I'm not angry or offended.

In the spirit of the Easter Season, you are forgiven


----------



## Star

Nate Miller said:


> rude? what you said to me was patently offensive. I can see, though, that in your ignorance you did not understand what you were saying and so I'm not angry or offended.
> 
> In the spirit of the Easter Season, you are forgiven


What I said was not offensive at all. Just raising a question. No need to feel threatened by it. Actually, I full well understood what I was saying but I can see you did not. If you had done so you would have answered my point instead of huffing and puffing. Never mind, you are forgiven too.


----------



## hpowders

Of course Bach was very religious. Anyone who composed all those religious cantatas, masses, Lutheran organ works AND worked most of his life as a church cantor and organist, had to be religious!!

Thanks, NY Times for pointing out to those of us with thinking brains what is so damn obvious!!


----------



## fluteman

Christabel said:


> This is quite interesting as are the musical excerpts included:


But, I was well aware that Bach was very religious, as is anyone who has studied him and his life at all. Moreover, his main career was composing and performing sacred music for the Lutheran church. The fact that he was able, almost as a sideline (certainly not for fame or fortune), to create a massive body of brilliant and profound secular music with no religious aspect or message whatsoever, and that in many ways has never been equaled, is a testament both to his fecundity and his genius.
Ed.: Sorry, hpowders, obviously you've already made my first point.


----------



## Taggart

The thread is about Bach's religion. Please avoid general criticism and discussion of religion.

Some posts have been removed.


----------



## Blancrocher

fluteman said:


> But, I was well aware that Bach was very religious, as is anyone who has studied him and his life at all. Moreover, his main career was composing and performing sacred music for the Lutheran church.


Still, the composition and dedication of the Mass in B minor makes it difficult for me to take him all that seriously as a Lutheran.


----------



## hpowders

fluteman said:


> But, I was well aware that Bach was very religious, as is anyone who has studied him and his life at all. Moreover, his main career was composing and performing sacred music for the Lutheran church. The fact that he was able, almost as a sideline (certainly not for fame or fortune), to create a massive body of brilliant and profound secular music with no religious aspect or message whatsoever, and that in many ways has never been equaled, is a testament both to his fecundity and his genius.


I disagree-a lot of Bach's secular music was inspired by his faith-play any of the Sarabandes from the Keyboard Partitas; the great fugues of the WTC; and the great climaxes of the Unaccompanied Chaconne from the Second Partita and towering Fuga from the Third Sonata. IMHO, these works, though considered as secular, can only have been composed by one who was a firm believer in God and the glorious afterlife to come. Secular, as labeled. Religious in intensity. Glorious in every meaning of the word!


----------



## Star

hpowders said:


> I disagree-a lot of Bach's secular music was inspired by his faith-play any of the Sarabandes from the Keyboard Partitas; the great fugues of the WTC; and the great climaxes of the Unaccompanied Chaconne from the Second Partita and towering Fuga from the Third Sonata. IMHO, these works, though considered as secular, can only have been composed by one who was a firm believer in God and the glorious afterlife to come. Secular, as labeled. Religious in intensity. Glorious in every meaning of the word!


Yes it seemed that Bach wanted to reflect the order he saw in creation in his music.


----------



## Star

Blancrocher said:


> Still, the composition and dedication of the Mass in B minor makes it difficult for me to take him all that seriously as a Lutheran.


The liturgy Bach set is common to both RC and Lutheran traditions. He also composed 'Lutheran Masses' which are set to a Latin text


----------



## Ingélou

Christabel said:


> This is quite interesting as are the musical excerpts included:


Yes, the article is interesting - not only in discussing Bach's (possible) approach to religion and music but in pointing out the fashionable way of looking at Bach and his religion that is now current.

It's impossible to stand apart from one's age & remain unaffected by fashionable ways of looking at things or the zeitgeist in general. 
My late mother used to enjoy pointing out, when we were watching old Hollywood films of the 1930s (say) about English history, that the women's dresses and make-up, though supposedly based on the period portrayed, always had a 1930s gloss. You'd always be able to tell when the film had been made.

Thank you for posting, Christabel. :tiphat:


----------



## Blancrocher

Star said:


> The liturgy Bach set is common to both RC and Lutheran traditions. He also composed 'Lutheran Masses' which are set to a Latin text


Fair enough, but he gave the work to a Catholic. This is not to say that he was irreligious (an idea I find very unlikely), but it's less certain how seriously he took confessional affiliations. The source of his paychecks may have been relevant to such things.


----------



## fluteman

hpowders said:


> I disagree-a lot of Bach's secular music was inspired by his faith-play any of the Sarabandes from the Keyboard Partitas; the great fugues of the WTC; and the great climaxes of the Unaccompanied Chaconne from the Second Partita and towering Fuga from the Third Sonata. IMHO, these works, though considered as secular, can only have been composed by one who was a firm believer in God and the glorious afterlife to come. Secular, as labeled. Religious in intensity. Glorious in every meaning of the word!


You are certainly welcome to that opinion. And I should have said, directly religious. Ultimately, Bach would have viewed every aspect of his life, including his music, in religious terms. However, there is a strictly-observed division in his work between sacred and and secular or non-sacred music. The very much secular Coffee Cantata, essentially a comic opera about a typical rebellious teen and her worried father, is not thematically "religious" in the way the sacred cantatas are. Nor are the Well Tempered Clavier, or the keyboard and violin music you cite. And intensity may evoke religious feelings in you, but not in other listeners.


----------



## bz3

NYT thinks its readers don't know Bach was religious? Begs the question, who does NYT think its readers are these days? Certainly not me anymore.


----------



## Pugg

bz3 said:


> NYT thinks its readers don't know Bach was religious? Begs the question, who does NYT think its readers are these days? Certainly not me anymore.


Don't even go there please , it's vicious enough as it is.


----------



## Star

Blancrocher said:


> Fair enough, but he gave the work to a Catholic. This is not to say that he was irreligious (an idea I find very unlikely), but it's less certain how seriously he took confessional affiliations. The source of his paychecks may have been relevant to such things.


You are making assumptions about his faith. Bach had a family to feed!


----------



## Guest

Nate Miller said:


> the NY Times is hardly an authority on any sort of religious topic :lol:


But the author of the article does have some cred as a music writer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Marissen


----------



## Guest

Ingélou said:


> My late mother used to enjoy pointing out, when we were watching old Hollywood films of the 1930s (say) about English history, that the women's dresses and make-up, though supposedly based on the period portrayed, always had a 1930s gloss. You'd always be able to tell when the film had been made.


And it's still true, even when comparing historical movies from the 60s, 70s, 80s...



bz3 said:


> NYT thinks its readers don't know Bach was religious?


No, I don't think so. The title included the intensifier '_more_'. That allows for all readers of the NYT to know that Bach was religious, but more than they might have considered. The title is, of course, deliberately challenging the reader - it's called clickbait, but in this case, of a specialised kind. Ignore the title and enjoy the article.


----------



## Genoveva

MacLeod said:


> No, I don't think so. The title included the intensifier '_more_'. That allows for all readers of the NYT to know that Bach was religious, but more than they might have considered. The title is, of course, deliberately challenging the reader - it's called clickbait, but in this case, of a specialised kind. Ignore the title and enjoy the article.


What you say is correct.

I get the impression from some comments (by others, not you) that they haven't read or understood the NYT article properly. It's not saying that Bach was not religious or gradually lost his religion. It's saying that the evidence points to his religious views remaining loyal to his Lutheran roots, rather than becoming more "progressive" in the manner suggested by some authors. For "progressive" I'm not going to attempt a definition, except to say that as it's a modern rag-bag of loosely based Protestant theology


----------



## Guest

Star said:


> You are making assumptions about his faith. Bach had a family to feed!


Devotion to a god and feeding a family are not mutually exclusive. It was possible for Bach to walk and chew gum at the same time.


----------



## Guest

This is absolutely staggering music!! Look at this excellent analysis. What I'm wanting to know, actually, is how this leaves room for basso continuo and how that might be realized when what goes on 'above' is so complex.






If you 'need' devotion to God as a motivation to compose like this then BRING IT ON.


----------



## Marc

There are a few 'misunderstandings' about BWV 232, I think.
Bach didn't compose the entire Mass to feed a family. The piece Bach wrote for a RC court (Dresden) was a short Mass, in the 'Lutheran way': Kyrie and Gloria. In his introduction Bach himself wrote about a "small product". (Hehe.)

The Sanctus of BWV 232 was already composed, in a slightly different version, for Easter Vespers in Leipzig in 1724 and 1727.

At the end of his life, Bach decided to use other earlier stuff (and some new stuff) to expand the piece and compose, without any order and/or commission that we know of, an entire Mass.

Since Lutheranism never officially rejected any part of the regular 5 pieces of a Roman Catholic Mass, it's possible that Bach wanted to write a large piece with movements that would have been acceptable for both Lutheran or RC services.

But it's still a guess, educated or not.


----------



## Star

Marc said:


> There are a few 'misunderstandings' about BWV 232, I think.
> Bach didn't compose the entire Mass to feed a family. The piece Bach wrote for a RC court (Dresden) was a short Mass, in the 'Lutheran way': Kyrie and Gloria. In his introduction Bach himself wrote about a "small product". (Hehe.)
> 
> The Sanctus of BWV 232 was already composed, in a slightly different version, for Easter Vespers in Leipzig in 1724 and 1727.
> 
> At the end of his life, Bach decided to use other earlier stuff (and some new stuff) to expand the piece and compose, without any order and/or commission that we know of, an entire Mass.
> 
> Since Lutheranism never officially rejected any part of the regular 5 pieces of a Roman Catholic Mass, it's possible that Bach wanted to write a large piece with movements that would have been acceptable for both Lutheran or RC services.
> 
> But it's still a guess, educated or not.


It's always seemed to me a mass all Christians can adhere to.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

The Inquisition would have sharpened the mind, in terms of being religious


----------



## KenOC

Star said:


> It's always seemed to me a mass all Christians can adhere to.


I believe in "one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." That passage, from the Credo, might be a bit tough for protestants.


----------



## Genoveva

Marc said:


> There are a few 'misunderstandings' about BWV 232, I think.
> Bach didn't compose the entire Mass to feed a family. The piece Bach wrote for a RC court (Dresden) was a short Mass, in the 'Lutheran way': Kyrie and Gloria. In his introduction Bach himself wrote about a "small product". (Hehe.)
> 
> The Sanctus of BWV 232 was already composed, in a slightly different version, for Easter Vespers in Leipzig in 1724 and 1727.
> 
> At the end of his life, Bach decided to use other earlier stuff (and some new stuff) to expand the piece and compose, without any order and/or commission that we know of, an entire Mass.
> 
> Since Lutheranism never officially rejected any part of the regular 5 pieces of a Roman Catholic Mass, it's possible that Bach wanted to write a large piece with movements that would have been acceptable for both Lutheran or RC services.
> 
> But it's still a guess, educated or not.


It's well known that Bach didn't write the Mass in B Minor in a single composing exercise. Some parts had been composed earlier in his career. The whole work was finally put together in the last years of his life, and it comprised 4 sections labeled 1 to 4. During that time it's possible that he re-worked some of its constituent parts to make it all fit together better, but that's speculation. The work was given greater publicity by his son C P E Bach who referred to it as a "Catholic mass" (as opposed to a Lutheran mass).


----------



## KenOC

Christabel said:


> This is absolutely staggering music!!


As in so much of Bach, we have to ask, "How'd he do that???"


----------



## Marc

Genoveva said:


> It's well known that Bach didn't write the Mass in B Minor in a single composing exercise. Some parts had been composed earlier in his career. The whole work was finally put together in the last years of his life, and it comprised 4 sections labeled 1 to 4. During that time it's possible that he re-worked some of its constituent parts to make it all fit together better, but that's speculation. The work was given greater publicity by his son C P E Bach who referred to it as a "Catholic mass" (as opposed to a Lutheran mass).


It's well known, but, after reading some of the postings here, maybe not by everybody... (here's the generic 'you' 'we' and 'one' problem again ).


----------



## Star

KenOC said:


> I believe in "one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." That passage, from the Credo, might be a bit tough for protestants.


Protestants believe in 'one holy, catholic (small c meaning 'universal') and apostolic (founded by the apostles) church. Where they differ from the Roman Catholics is the meaning they put behind the words


----------



## Genoveva

Star said:


> Protestants believe in 'one holy, catholic (small c meaning 'universal') and apostolic (founded by the apostles) church. Where they differ from the Roman Catholics is the meaning they put behind the words


I realise that you are just referring to one part of the mass, but there's a very wide variety of Protestant denominations, and where they differ from Roman Catholics is more complex than solely over the meaning of "_one holy, catholic and apostolic church"_, as in the Nicene Creed. The mass has a different meaning for Catholics as it is the vehicle for "transubstantiation", which non-Catholics do not accept. Some Protestant denominations (Lutherans included) accept the "real presence" in the Eucharist, but not via transubstantiation.

The specifics of the mass aside, some forms of Protestantism are very different from Roman Catholicism. Even among the more conservative varieties of Protestantism, such as the Lutherans and CoE, there are some sizeable differences compared with the RC Church. These are usually expressed by the "five Solas" as set out by the Lutheran and other reformed churches in the 16th C.

_"Sola Scriptura_:" The Bible is the sole authority for Christian beliefs and practices. (The Roman Catholic Church stresses a balance between Biblical support and the tradition of the Church itself.)

"_Sola Gratia_:" A person obtains salvation through grace alone, given to the believer by God directly. (The Catholic Church also teaches that salvation is implemented by grace from God alone, but stresses that the church's sacraments are the channel for God's grace.)

_"Sola Fide_:" Salvation is by the individual's faith alone in trusting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. (The Roman Catholic Church stresses the importance of church sacraments, and other "good deeds", eg alms-giving.)

_"Solus Christus"_, or "only Christ": It means the exclusion of the priestly class as necessary for dispensing of the sacraments.

_"Soli Deo gloria"_, or "glory to God alone": This is in opposition to the veneration, as perceived by the early Lutherans, by many in the RC Church of Mary the mother of Jesus, the saints, angels, etc.​
Apart from the above differences, there also exists a gap between the two groups on other matters of belief and church practice, particularly with regard to authority within the church, church organization, freedom of the individual, freedom of each congregation, etc.


----------



## Marc

Genoveva, I see that you posted 666 times on this board...


----------



## Genoveva

Marc said:


> Genoveva, I see that you posted 666 times on this board...


Heavens! so I have.


----------



## Star

Genoveva said:


> I realise that you are just referring to one part of the mass, but there's a very wide variety of Protestant denominations, and where they differ from Roman Catholics is more complex than solely over the meaning of "_one holy, catholic and apostolic church"_, as in the Nicene Creed. The mass has a different meaning for Catholics as it is the vehicle for "transubstantiation", which non-Catholics do not accept. Some Protestant denominations (Lutherans included) accept the "real presence" in the Eucharist, but not via transubstantiation.
> 
> The specifics of the mass aside, some forms of Protestantism are very different from Roman Catholicism. Even among the more conservative varieties of Protestantism, such as the Lutherans and CoE, there are some sizeable differences compared with the RC Church. These are usually expressed by the "five Solas" as set out by the Lutheran and other reformed churches in the 16th C.
> 
> _"Sola Scriptura_:" The Bible is the sole authority for Christian beliefs and practices. (The Roman Catholic Church stresses a balance between Biblical support and the tradition of the Church itself.)
> 
> "_Sola Gratia_:" A person obtains salvation through grace alone, given to the believer by God directly. (The Catholic Church also teaches that salvation is implemented by grace from God alone, but stresses that the church's sacraments are the channel for God's grace.)
> 
> _"Sola Fide_:" Salvation is by the individual's faith alone in trusting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. (The Roman Catholic Church stresses the importance of church sacraments, and other "good deeds", eg alms-giving.)
> 
> _"Solus Christus"_, or "only Christ": It means the exclusion of the priestly class as necessary for dispensing of the sacraments.
> 
> _"Soli Deo gloria"_, or "glory to God alone": This is in opposition to the veneration, as perceived by the early Lutherans, by many in the RC Church of Mary the mother of Jesus, the saints, angels, etc.​
> Apart from the above differences, there also exists a gap between the two groups on other matters of belief and church practice, particularly with regard to authority within the church, church organization, freedom of the individual, freedom of each congregation, etc.


I realise this. I was just replying to a specific point.


----------



## Genoveva

Star said:


> I realise this. I was just replying to a specific point.


Sure. What you wrote was fine. I just thought I'd latch on to what you wrote to explain in brief terms the areas where J S Bach, as a Lutheran, would differ in his views about religion compared with RC.


----------



## isorhythm

What a strange article - it's written as though the notion of Bach as "a forward-looking, quasi-scientific thinker who had little or no genuine interest in traditional religion" were the prevailing mainstream view. In what world?


----------



## Bulldog

isorhythm said:


> What a strange article - it's written as though the notion of Bach as "a forward-looking, quasi-scientific thinker who had little or no genuine interest in traditional religion" were the prevailing mainstream view. In what world?


The world of the New York Times.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> As in so much of Bach, we have to ask, "How'd he do that???"


Yes absolutely. Just the famous Chaconne. When Johannes Brahms stumbled upon Bach's "Chaconne" in 1877, he simply couldn't believe his eyes. "On one stave, for a small instrument, the man [Bach] writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind."


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> As in so much of Bach, we have to ask, "How'd he do that???"


Simple (?): he was one of the greatest human minds in history.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Christabel said:


> Simple (?): he was one of the greatest human minds in history.


So glad he had a Human one


----------



## Capeditiea

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> So glad he had a Human one


What if he had an alien brain?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Capeditiea said:


> What if he had an alien brain?


That would explain why he won my Bach vs Mozart vs BeetH poll


----------



## Guest

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> So glad he had a Human one


I didn't say I was!!!!! And here is my namesake:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christabel_(poem)


----------



## Eschbeg

isorhythm said:


> What a strange article - it's written as though the notion of Bach as "a forward-looking, quasi-scientific thinker who had little or no genuine interest in traditional religion" were the prevailing mainstream view. In what world?


I believe Marissen is writing from the perspective of someone old enough to remember the drastic revisions in Bach's biography in the 1960s, which overturned the previous image of Bach that historians had inherited from the 19th century.

In a nutshell: in the 1880s, the German musicologist Phillip Spitta wrote a biography of Bach that purported to establish a complete chronology of Bach's works. According to this chronology, among Bach's last works were the chorale cantatas (i.e. cantatas based on Lutheran chorales). Spitta tended to believe, as we still do today, that a composer's overall output can be thought of as a linear process of stylistic growth and evolution, and that the last works of a composer are a "culmination." Consequently, the fact that the chorale cantatas appeared to be the culmination of Bach's career was proof that Bach was a fundamentally religious composer.

Then, in the 1950s and 60s, it was discovered that Spitta's chronology was wrong: the chorale cantatas were actually spread out over the course of Bach's career rather than coming at the very end. They were not a culmination at all. The religious image of Bach was therefore called into question. Here is a quote from an article by Friedrich Blume entitled "Outlines of a New Image of Bach" published in 1963: "Did Bach have a special liking for church work? Was it a spiritual necessity for him? Hardly. There is at any rate no evidence that it was. Bach the supreme cantor, the creative servant of the Word of God, the staunch Lutheran, is a legend. It will have to be buried along with all the other traditional and beloved romantic illusions." (It's not a coincidence that this unreligious Bach emerged at the height of modernism, when musicians were eager to hear all music, even pre-20th century music, as formalist exercises in pitch content, structure, etc.)

Anyway, I think Marissen is reacting to this revisionist version of Bach that existed mostly in the heads of musicologists of several decades ago. I'm guessing most of us were never aware that this unreligious Bach was ever a thing in the first place.


----------



## Guest

Marissen's article refers to what he calls an "indicative book" entitled _Bach's Dialogue With Modernity_ and seems to imply that it is part of a tradition of modernising Bach and setting aside the religious in his work and life. In fact, the particular book he chooses as indicative (and in which Marissen himself gets a positive name check) quite expressly doesn't do - or doesn't appear to do - what he accuses the 'modern' tradition of doing. I say 'appear' because I've not read the book, but am sampling its purpose from the introduction, available on Amazon.

Whilst there may be a tradition of seeing Bach as "a forward-looking, quasi-scientific thinker who had little or no genuine interest in traditional religion." the book he points to doesn't seem to belong to it. In other words, Marissen may, though an irrelevant reference, have created a straw man.

One of the thoughts the introduction to the book actually prompts is an obvious one, all too easy to overlook if one is only concerned to the extent to which Bach was "religious" (or not). That is, that as a composer of the 1700's, he was a modernist for his time. If all that Bach had done was write music that confirmed the musical traditions of his forbears, he may well have been lost in obscurity (and he was for period, wasn't he?) But he didn't. Whatever his religious beliefs, he contributed to the development of music (arguably, the illusion of the forward _progression _of music) - and could justifiably be placed in the line of 'modernising' as much as Palestrina before him and Beethoven and Debussy after him.


----------



## St Matthew

Bach was a very religious man but he had a dark side that was not so holy, as his music expresses. While I am one in Christ with him, his flaws are freely available to read to the world. His musical side is a genius but his personal side, not so much. Luckily I only have to experience his beautiful music


----------



## KenOC

St Matthew said:


> Bach was a very religious man but he had a dark side that was not so holy, as his music expresses. While I am one in Christ with him, his flaws are freely available to read to the world. His musical side is a genius but his personal side, not so much. Luckily I only have to experience his beautiful music


While it's always fun to assess the character of somebody who lived 300 years away in a totally different culture, based on the most fragmentary of evidence, perhaps we shouldn't take it too seriously.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> While it's always fun to assess the character of somebody who lived 300 years away in a totally different culture, based on the most fragmentary of evidence, perhaps we shouldn't take it too seriously.


Why would you want take 'seriously' the character of one of the greatest minds in history? After all, you're not likely to learn anything much about religion and piety, the nature of genius or humanity in general.


----------



## Guest

Absolute ecstasy:


----------



## Larkenfield

It's possible that even the article's author, Michael Marissen, may have misunderstood "Bach's Dialogue With Modernity." Maybe he has good reason, but he obviously doesn't like the book because he doesn't even mention the author's name: John Butt. Readers can get a better idea of Butt's thinking by reading the Introduction and Preface to his book (but not the book itself online) and deciding for themselves. Butt says at the end of it:

_"He [Butt's recently deceased father] perhaps makes a cameo appearance in the Introduction as that (perhaps increasingly rare) type of figure within modernity who could somehow both be a scientist and retain some religious convictions, with neither direct conflict nor seamless connection." _

I get the impression from his Preface, since I do not feel motivated to read his book, that Butt himself may also be trying bridge the gap between the secular/scientific mind and the retention of certain religious convictions within modern society, with a study of Bach's Passions, like his father did. But I somehow get the feeling that his father may have been well ahead of his son in his understanding of Bach and the most suitable context in which to place him. On the basis of the Preface, I distrust a book of this nature that appears to superimposed the author's own values and apparently nitpicks and perhaps misunderstands the composer's writings 300 years after his death in order for Butt to sort out his own thinking. And Marissen himself got a late start in writing about Butt's 'Bach...", which is already 10 years old.

Some scholarly studies can be fascinating, but I believe that so much of Bach's devotional yet secular character is self-evident in his music and there's no great mystery what kind of a man he was and what he offers the modern listeners of today: http://www.langtoninfo.com/web_content/9781107404601_frontmatter.pdf

Another by Leon Fleisher: Bach: "On the Departure of a Beloved Brother"






Wonderful too by pianist Polina Osetinskaya ...


----------



## fluteman

Larkenfield said:


> I get the impression from his Preface, since I do not feel motivated to read his book, that Butt himself may also be trying bridge the gap between the secular/scientific mind and the retention of certain religious convictions within modern society, ....


Without delving too deeply into all of this, I think it's very safe to say that the idea that a brilliant secular/scientific intellect is somehow inconsistent with deeply-felt religious convictions would be incomprehensible to Bach. And not only to Bach. The important English mathematician Thomas Bayes (1701-1761) was a Presbyterian minister. The geneticist Gregor Mendel (1822-1894), one of the most important scientists of the 19th century, was an Augustinian friar. 
Bach is probably best not analyzed through the lens of our modern society.


----------



## Guest

Thanks Larkenfield for posting those two very different works by Bach. Fleischer is such a superb pianist; I cannot get enough of his work lately. The Bach D Minor Piano Concerto, as you know, is a transcription of one of his violin concertos. My recording of this work is that by Richter with a Russian orchestra in the mid 1950s and superb it is too.

We were talking about Vivaldi on another thread and I mentioned his repetitions and sequences - which Bach employed at another order of magnitude. Just one tiny example; at *3:20* on the U-Tube clip you get one passage and it is part of a sequence with fabulous new keys/tonality. It's repetition and sequencing PLUS PLUS.

The third movement of this work; well, what can one say? On your knees, people!! The orchestra is almost surplus to requirement. At *20:40* a spiraling sequence which ends with a complete inversion of the melodic material in a convoluted retreat backwards, more intricately, down the scale. At *22:00* a phenomenal, brief cadenza.

Just unbelievable!! The invention of this composer knew no bounds.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> It's possible that even the article's author, Michael Marissen, may have misunderstood "Bach's Dialogue With Modernity." Maybe he has good reason, but he obviously doesn't like the book because he doesn't even mention the author's name: John Butt. Readers can get a better idea of Butt's thinking by reading the Introduction and Preface to his book (but not the book itself online) and deciding for themselves. Butt says at the end of it:
> 
> _"He [Butt's recently deceased father] perhaps makes a cameo appearance in the Introduction as that (perhaps increasingly rare) type of figure within modernity who could somehow both be a scientist and retain some religious convictions, with neither direct conflict nor seamless connection." _
> 
> I get the impression from his Preface, since I do not feel motivated to read his book, that Butt himself may also be trying bridge the gap between the secular/scientific mind and the retention of certain religious convictions within modern society, with a study of Bach's Passions, like his father did. But I somehow get the feeling that his father may have been well ahead of his son in his understanding of Bach and the most suitable context in which to place him. On the basis of the Preface, I distrust a book of this nature that appears to superimposed the author's own values and apparently nitpicks and perhaps misunderstands the composer's writings 300 years after his death in order for Butt to sort out his own thinking. And Marissen himself got a late start in writing about Butt's 'Bach...", which is already 10 years old.


Error compounded by error, it seems, if Marissen misunderstood Butt, and Butt misunderstood his father and you and I possibly misunderstanding all!

This could be resolved by reading the book in its entirety, but I suspect that's not likely to happen. Without doing that, we risk misjudging Butt (Jnr) and perhaps we should instead stick to the Marissen article.


----------



## Star

St Matthew said:


> Bach was a very religious man but he had a dark side that was not so holy, as his music expresses. While I am one in Christ with him, his flaws are freely available to read to the world. His musical side is a genius but his personal side, not so much. Luckily I only have to experience his beautiful music


I think the vast majority of us have a 'dark' side which is not so holy which produces flaws in character. What we lack is Baxh's genius!


----------



## Madiel

MacLeod said:


> If all that Bach had done was write music that confirmed the musical traditions of his forbears, he may well have been lost in obscurity (and he was for period, wasn't he?) But he didn't. Whatever his religious beliefs, he contributed to the development of music (arguably, the illusion of the forward _progression _of music) - and could justifiably be placed in the line of 'modernising' as much as Palestrina before him and Beethoven and Debussy after him.


Listening to what music was before and during his lifetime denies this, alas no evidence can beat the Bach myth these days.


----------



## Guest

Madiel said:


> Listening to what music was before and during his lifetime denies this, alas no evidence can beat the Bach myth these days.


Sorry, I'm not sure I understand...what are you denying?


----------



## Madiel

MacLeod said:


> Sorry, I'm not sure I understand...what are you denying?


Bach and Debussy don't belong in the same paragraph when it comes to novelty/innovation, Bach is the summa of what came before him, Debussy of what will come after him; just suppose you are familiar with pre-Bach German music, then listen to Bach and to one of his contemporaries - for the sake of the example let's take Graupner - then tell me who is the moderniser?


----------



## Guest

Madiel said:


> Bach and Debussy don't belong in the same paragraph when it comes to novelty/innovation, Bach is the summa of what came before him, Debussy of what will come after him; just suppose you are familiar with pre-Bach German music, then listen to Bach and to one of his contemporaries - for the sake of the example let's take Graupner - then tell me who is the moderniser?


Any Google search for 'Bach' and 'innovation/innovative' will turn up articles and books drawing attention to the contribution he made to the development of music after he composed. I'll post just one for illustrative purposes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...sons-from-johann-sebastian-bach/#6c0df7122f32

In fact top of the search list is a talkclassical thread!

As for comparing Debussy and Bach, I think you miss my point. Anyone who traces the development of classical music over the last 600 years who misses out Bach would surely be as erroneous as if they had missed out Beethoven and Debussy. I'm not saying that their contributions were exact equivalents (in terms of 'modernising') but that all deserve to be on that timeline.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Any Google search for 'Bach' and 'innovation/innovative' will turn up articles and books drawing attention to the contribution he made to the development of music after he composed. I'll post just one for illustrative purposes.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...sons-from-johann-sebastian-bach/#6c0df7122f32
> 
> In fact top of the search list is a talkclassical thread!
> 
> As for comparing Debussy and Bach, I think you miss my point. Anyone who traces the development of classical music over the last 600 years who misses out Bach would surely be as erroneous as if they had missed out Beethoven and Debussy. I'm not saying that their contributions were exact equivalents (in terms of 'modernising') but that all deserve to be on that timeline.


Bach developed everything they gone before him to vastly higher level than had ever been achieved before. Just take the opening chorus of St Matthew Passion - it is quite unlike anything that had been written before in terms of musical shock. Take the Chaconne so admired by many composers. Just how did he do it? Greatness is not all innovation of new forms.


----------



## Madiel

sorry, but I find well-known scholars more reliable than big G results 
but maybe we can agree while disagreeing if we accept that influence and innovation are two different things that in Bach's case do not go hand in hand. Bach the innovator would have been a laughable concept to his contemporaries, but what's more is that the influence Bach has had on later generations of composers has more to do with his fortune than his merits, history is made with what we know, what would have happened if Mendelssohn - the guy who revived Bach - had had access to the music of the baroque masters we are slowly re-discovering today? we'll never know.


----------



## Guest

Madiel said:


> sorry, but I find well-known scholars more reliable than big G results
> but maybe we can agree while disagreeing if we accept that influence and innovation are two different things that in Bach's case do not go hand in hand. Bach the innovator would have been a laughable concept to his contemporaries, but what's more is that the influence Bach has had on later generations of composers has more to do with his fortune than his merits, history is made with what we know, what would have happened if Mendelssohn - the guy who revived Bach - had had access to the music of the baroque masters we are slowly re-discovering today? we'll never know.


By all means refer me to a "Well-known scholar" who we can all agree conclusively makes the case you propound. As we all know, it's difficult to come by scholars of anything whose cred is universal on the internet (regardless of their cred in academia).

(BTW, it wasn't me that referred to innovation but you. I don't think 'modernising', which I did refer to, is synonymous with innovative.)


----------



## Madiel

MacLeod said:


> By all means refer me to a "Well-known scholar" who we can all agree conclusively makes the case you propound. As we all know, it's difficult to come by scholars of anything whose cred is universal on the internet (regardless of their cred in academia).
> 
> (BTW, it wasn't me that referred to innovation but you. I don't think 'modernising', which I did refer to, is synonymous with innovative.)


I could be wrong, but how do you make something modern without breaking with the past through innovation?
As for the rest John Butt could be an excellent example of a scholar who has tried in numerous books to put Bach into a historical - both musically and culturally - context, sticking to what we know about his times and life, so avoiding the "works of fiction" that the article in the NYT - though in a different scenario, the religious one - wisely exposes. 
John Butt is a contemporary scholar but I have read similar idea in writings by Massimo Mila, but what's more is that unlike to what was possible in Mila's times - when a lot of baroque music was still unavailable to the public - nowadays after reading we can make our own ideas by simply listening to the music we've read about.


----------



## Blancrocher

As an aside, I was kind of impressed that the NY Times published an article expressing enthusiasm over interpreting Bach's notes and marginalia in a family study Bible. If I knew things like that were being published, I'd consider subscribing. Weird that newspapers are having such trouble these days.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Bach developed everything they gone before him to vastly higher level than had ever been achieved before. Just take the opening chorus of St Matthew Passion - it is quite unlike anything that had been written before in terms of musical shock. Take the Chaconne so admired by many composers. Just how did he do it? Greatness is not all innovation of new forms.


I think you've nailed most of it. Remember that Bach's sons called him "the old Wig", referring to him living in the musical past. Bach was innovative with complex polyphony/counterpoint - nobody is his equal in this respect. Then there's the "Well Tempered Klavier". If that wasn't 'innovative' then nothing else in music is either.


----------



## Woodduck

I suspect that a lot of the argument over who is "innovative" arises because new ideas used by later composers become familiar to us, while new ideas that no one makes use of pass by without receiving the recognition they deserve. Our sense of what's innovative is affected by the influence it exerts. Hence certain composers such as Bach and Mozart, having written works overflowing with creative imagination but living at times when musical fashion was rapidly changing in directions at variance with theirs, appear to be traditionalists rather than innovators.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that a lot of the argument over who is "innovative" arises because new ideas used by later composers become familiar to us, while new ideas that no one makes use of pass by without receiving the recognition they deserve. Our sense of what's innovative is affected by the influence it exerts. Hence certain composers such as Bach and Mozart, having written works overflowing with creative imagination but living at times when musical fashion was rapidly changing in directions at variance with theirs, appear to be traditionalists rather than innovators.


Very true, and the nature and extent of an artist's influence on future generations is a very difficult thing to predict, or even easily explain in retrospect, as too many and varied factors are involved. But there is no doubt that Debussy had a profound and lasting influence on western music, as did Stravinsky, as did, much as some people here resist the notion, Schoenberg. As did Wagner and Chopin before them.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that a lot of the argument over who is "innovative" arises because new ideas used by later composers become familiar to us, while new ideas that no one makes use of pass by without receiving the recognition they deserve. Our sense of what's innovative is affected by the influence it exerts. Hence certain composers such as Bach and Mozart, having written works overflowing with creative imagination but living at times when musical fashion was rapidly changing in directions at variance with theirs, appear to be traditionalists rather than innovators.


Except for the not insignificant fact that even when making a musical 'point' about temperament with the "Well Tempered Klavier" JS Bach was nothing less than profoundly musical. There's nothing remotely traditional about that.


----------



## Gallus

Wrt Bach having been a religious conservative: I thought such a statement was obvious? This is the composer who literally wrote an aria beginning "Shut up, useless reason"!!! I never imagined him to be a friend of the Enlightenment...


----------



## DavidA

Gallus said:


> Wrt Bach having been a religious conservative: I thought such a statement was obvious? This is the composer who literally wrote an aria beginning "Shut up, useless reason"!!! I never imagined him to be a friend of the Enlightenment...


I think that to use one line of a Bach Cantata (the words of which he didn't write) to try and make your point is not good reasoning in itself. Even just looking at the context of the words 'Hush, hush then, giddy intellect!' makes it clear that in the context the writer was not telling people to abandon reason but to put their faith in God whatever the circumstances surrounding them.


----------



## Gallus

DavidA said:


> I think that to use one line of a Bach Cantata (the words of which he didn't write) to try and make your point is not good reasoning in itself. Even just looking at the context of the words 'Hush, hush then, giddy intellect!' makes it clear that in the context the writer was not telling people to abandon reason but to put their faith in God whatever the circumstances surrounding them.


1) Bach chose what texts to set to music in his cantatas.
2) It's one example of a general spirit of Bach's religious ethos: the next cantata begins "See to it that your fear of God is not hypocrisy".
3) Of course Bach is not telling telling the parishioners to "abandon reason" entirely, he's telling them simply that reason is inferior to faith. 
4) I'm not sure what the argument is here. What makes you believe that Bach was a friend of the Enlightenment?


----------

