Re: [Leica] In defense of Tchaikovsky (was: Highquality porn)

[Krechtz@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/7/00 8:50:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
bosjohn@mediaone.net writes:

<< Bach doesn't tickle me: he's too intellectually clever.  I'm sure he was
 > brilliant, but I listen to music for aesthetic, emotive, and empathic
 > reasons, not intellectual ones.  Which, I guess, is why I can quite happily
 > listen to Tchaikovsky and Mozart, but find Bach rather boring -- he adheres
 > to rules too much, rather than playing with them.
 > 
 >
 This is a common mis-conception about Bach and can be attributed I believe to
 the large body of bad Bach recordings we here especially Glenn Gould.  He was
 a fantastic and brilliant pianist but either did not know much about baroque
 performance practice or didn't apply his knowledge. Bach, and his
 contemporaries, when performed in a more historicaly accurate fashion have
 much in common with Romantic music and is not at all mathmatical or rigid. 
 Just as an example, music notation in Bach's time was not considered nearly 
as
 rigid as was the custom in the late 19th and early 20th century.  Just 
because
 a page of notation indicated measure after measure of sixteenth notes did not
 mean they were all the same.  Harpsichords and organs of the time had no
 internal dynamics like the piano forte and in order to feel the beat and
 measure of the music, a performer would change the time values of the notes
 within the measure often by holding the first beat slightly longer and 
leaving
 space between notes,  in a way a bit like a conpound triple rythmn. Sorry
 about the off topic post but I couldn't resist
 John Shick
 
  >>

    The issue of the integrity of Baroque performance practice is a hotly 
debated one.  It is my understanding that Bach and his contemporaries, Handel 
being a notable example, were by our standards almost indiscriminate in their 
adaptation of musical ideas of their own, and even of other composers, from 
one musical or instrumental setting to another. 
    A keyboard piece could be performed with equal legitimacy on any number 
of diverse keyboard instruments then in common use, even including the organ. 
 The division between sacred and secular music was far more pronounced than 
that between or among pieces to be realized on clavichord, harpsichord, 
virginal, etc.
    This having been the case, 20th century artists believed themselves 
entitled to realize Baroque music in a more contemporary manner, consciously 
introducing phrasing and tonal nuances of which the earlier instruments were 
incapable.  Gould is a prominent exponent of that school of thought.  Others 
have approached piano performance of Bach more conservatively and less 
individualistically, probably with wider acceptance.
    As to the question whether Bach was too bound by rules of composition, I 
believe the observation that he was brilliant and highly intellectual has 
some bearing.   Every period of music history has followed certain formal 
rules, or at least conventions, of composition.  As to a given composer, the 
threshold question is whether he or she entirely or predominantly followed 
pre-existing guidelines or, in the alternative, bent, broke, shattered or 
even rewrote them, so as to have been imitated by contemporaries and followed 
by later artists.
    The reason Bach is so universally accorded a virtually unique place in 
the history of Baroque music is that he essentially rewrote the book on the 
technique of composition.  It was inconceivable in his day that formal music 
could be formless, so he did indeed adhere to rules concerning harmony and 
counterpoint and compositional forms.  However, he either modified or 
disregarded most of the rules he was taught.  He was like Michael Jordan, in 
that he genuinely "changed the game" for the better, setting far higher 
standard of performance than had previously existed.  
    The difficulty in appreciating the extent to which Bach "raised the bar" 
lies in our lack of familiarity with the rules he changed.  While we know 
when we hear the music of Pachelbel, for instance, that it is not as powerful 
or challenging as that of Bach, in general it is only the musical scholar who 
knows why.  Perhaps a more recent comparison would illustrate.  Anyone 
remember when the big debate in pop music was as to the relative merits and 
staying power of the Beatles and the Dave Clark Five?  Anyone remember the 
Dave Clark Five?  At all?

Joe Sobel