Ben & Peter (2/2)
Stephen Wilcox
other smoochy letters. Much of Britten's music was written for Pears
to sing.
Fine. That's common knowledge. But it doesn't tell us anything about
Britten's music, does it?
------
Stephen Wilcox ** Since singing is so good a thing,
wil...@maths.ox.ac.uk ** I wish all men would learne to sing.
Stan Szpakowicz
>So Pears and Britten were gay, were long-term lovers and wrote each
>other smoochy letters. Much of Britten's music was written for Pears
>to sing.
>
>Fine. That's common knowledge. But it doesn't tell us anything about
>Britten's music, does it?
Thanks for pointing it out, Stephen!
I would say more: all that is irrelevant. Incidental. Music matters.
--
Dr. Stan Szpakowicz :: Univ. of Ottawa :: Dept. of Computer Science
sz...@csi.uottawa.ca :: tel. +613 564 2450 :: fax +613 564 9486
Stephen Cornell
To rephrase and generalise your question: does knowledge of biographical
details of an artist help in understanding his/her output?
Most artists want their work to be judged for what it is. A piece of
music should be good enough to stand on its own, even if it needs some
supporting material to explain it (as in the case of programme music).
However, I think it would be untrue to state that further knowledge of the
conditions under which it was written, or even first performed, are of no
interest to the listener. Britten's homosexuality may well be, in some
sense, irrelevant when listening to his instrumental music. However,
I don't think that this can be said of music that has a subject matter, in
particular Britten's vocal music.
Do you think you would understand Christopher Smart's poetry if you didn't
know that he had written it as an inmate in a lunatic asylum? Do you think
you would appreciate Britten's setting of it if you didn't know that the
misunderstood outcast is a recurring theme in his work? Do you think that
you would understand the significance of this if you did not know that he
had struggled with the fact of his homosexuality until his mid twenties
(essentially until he settled down with Pears)?
You might claim that such information is only relevant inasmuch as it is
explicit in the work itself. I would tend to disagree. The superb new
Britten biography by Humphrey Carpenter (if I've got his name right) makes
a very good case for linking all of Britten's output to his personal
philosophy and events in his life. The composer put a lot of detail into
his work that is puzzling until explained in this way. Explanations of
this kind may be no more than plain conjecture, or they may reflect some
truth about the genesis of the work, but I find it an interesting and
worthwhile exercise. To summarise: yes, I think that it should be possible
to enjoy a work of art as it stands, but appreciation can be deepened by
knowledge.
Stephen Cornell
--
A physicist just copies out God's ideas. And he usually gets them wrong. -S. Fry
Roger Lustig
>Stephen Wilcox <wil...@maths.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>So Pears and Britten were gay, were long-term lovers and wrote each
>>other smoochy letters. Much of Britten's music was written for Pears
>>to sing.
>>Fine. That's common knowledge. But it doesn't tell us anything about
>>Britten's music, does it?
>Thanks for pointing it out, Stephen!
>I would say more: all that is irrelevant. Incidental. Music matters.
And what, I wonder, is _Peter Grimes_? _Death in Venice_? Are those
not music? Do you suppose that Britten's life has nothing to do with
his choice of topics for opera?
You might as well argue that Italian nationalist sentiment is
irrelevant to Verdi's music, or Judaism to Schoenberg's.
Considering the condition of homosexuals in Britain and America in
this century (remember: Ben and Peter were *criminals* according
to British law back then--think of Alan Turing), is it utterly
irrelevant to our understanding of Britten's music and his reasons
for composing it?
Music matters indeed. But those dots on the page are not the music.
Music is a human endeavor, made and performed and listened to by
humans, and tied up with all the other parts of the human condition.
Do you suppose that Britten's unquestionalbe role as leader of
the British musical scene for decades had nothing to do with the
change in attitudes toward gayness? Music matters very much,
and Britten's music made Britten matter as well.
Roger
Stan Szpakowicz
> >I would say more: all that is irrelevant. Incidental. Music matters.
>
> And what, I wonder, is _Peter Grimes_? _Death in Venice_? Are those
> not music? Do you suppose that Britten's life has nothing to do with
> his choice of topics for opera?
It sure does -- with the choice of topics. Tell me, though (I really want to
understand): can one talk about homosexual music just as one might talk about,
say, Polish folk music? I would think that no melodic, rhythmic, harmonic
properties of Britten's music are what they are because of his sexual
preference.
> You might as well argue that Italian nationalist sentiment is
> irrelevant to Verdi's music, or Judaism to Schoenberg's.
Of course it is relevant, but at the same time you _can_ consider the end
product of their work, no matter in what way it was informed or influenced
by their sentiments. Isn't music supposed to transcend national boundaries?
> Considering the condition of homosexuals in Britain and America in
> this century (remember: Ben and Peter were *criminals* according
> to British law back then--think of Alan Turing), is it utterly
> irrelevant to our understanding of Britten's music and his reasons
> for composing it?
Reasons, yes. Psychological background, obviously. But music as such
(as pure, abstract art)?
> Music is a human endeavor, made and performed and listened to by
> humans, and tied up with all the other parts of the human condition.
Right. Tell me, though: when you listen to DesPrez (or any other old, old
master), are you not fully satisfied because you do not know anything about
his feelings, his laundry bills, his paramours (if any :-)? Isn't his
music all we know and perhaps all we care to know *when* we are listening?
Isn't Britten's life important only because it did not yet fall away, leaving
his music to be judged on its merits?
> Do you suppose that Britten's unquestionalbe role as leader of
> the British musical scene for decades had nothing to do with the
> change in attitudes toward gayness? Music matters very much,
> and Britten's music made Britten matter as well.
Yes. This is quite possible. But, as you say, his music made him matter.
Despite his gayness, perhaps. Was it not so good that gayness did not
matter any more?
Gregory Taylor
>So Pears and Britten were gay, were long-term lovers and wrote each
>other smoochy letters. Much of Britten's music was written for Pears
>to sing.
>
>Fine. That's common knowledge. But it doesn't tell us anything about
>Britten's music, does it?
No more than reading Wagner on the Jews does, I suppose. If one holds the
view that objects of contemplation like music or paintings aren't merely
little nodal points which float serenely in some artificially constructed
space unperterbed by context or extra-musical content or the extra-musical
lives of the people who created them, then you're right.
I'm just not one of those people. I would think that, however breathless
Paul's article for the Advocate may have seemed to me [and remember, he
essentially posted to the Internet an article that he wrote for an audience
who *would* care very much about BB's sexual orientation, so one needs to
do a little filtering when reading], I can certainly see that there may be
some real insights into Britten and his work in the letters.
I can imagine that we're heading for a problem here in this exchange; some folks
may be tempted to assume that the only reason for choosing to find the Britten
letters interesting or worthy of consideration would be common, garden-variety
homophobia. It would seem to me that your response is borne of a more general
view of music which would make the same sort of pronouncements about the
irrelevance of Wagner's anti-semitism to your experience of hearing Wagner.
I hope that the followups to your post don't automatically haul out the
tar brush - but I can see that coming, I think. And to hold that view might
be doing you an injustice.
Gregory
--
I could be happy now. From my seat in the airplane/I could imagine the full
enclosures of people/contented and with no needs beyond/private moments
walking the fenceline/before joining the others in the night enclosure
/that is the final shape of countries/Gregory Taylor/Heurikon/608-828-3385
Bill Harrison (713)-743-2789
>>
>> And what, I wonder, is _Peter Grimes_? _Death in Venice_? Are those
>> not music? Do you suppose that Britten's life has nothing to do with
>> his choice of topics for opera?
>
>It sure does -- with the choice of topics. Tell me, though (I really want to
>understand): can one talk about homosexual music just as one might talk about,
>say, Polish folk music? I would think that no melodic, rhythmic, harmonic
>properties of Britten's music are what they are because of his sexual
>preference.
>
In that case, we surely *can* identify the technical aspects of the
music with his sexuality? And yes, "gay music" does exist as an
identifiable genre, in popular music.
>> Considering the condition of homosexuals in Britain and America in
>> this century (remember: Ben and Peter were *criminals* according
>> to British law back then--think of Alan Turing), is it utterly
>> irrelevant to our understanding of Britten's music and his reasons
>> for composing it?
>
>Reasons, yes. Psychological background, obviously. But music as such
>(as pure, abstract art)?
>
Early La Monte Young may(?) be "pure and abstract"... Britten certainly
isn't, IMHO.
>> Music is a human endeavor, made and performed and listened to by
>> humans, and tied up with all the other parts of the human condition.
>
Indeed. Hans Werner Henze has identified the struggle for sexual
liberation with the "overall" battle for social justice. Listen to his
music...
Bill
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bill Harrison -- University of Houston, TX -- CHE...@JETSON.UH.EDU |
| "Only the extreme is interesting" -- Magnus Lindberg |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Gregory Taylor
>No more than reading Wagner on the Jews does, I suppose. If one holds the
>view that objects of contemplation like music or paintings aren't merely
>little nodal points which float serenely in some artificially constructed
>space unperterbed by context or extra-musical content or the extra-musical
>lives of the people who created them, then you're right.
That ought to read:
>No more than reading Wagner on the Jews does, I suppose. If one holds the
>view that objects of contemplation like music or paintings *ARE* merely
>little nodal points which float serenely in some artificially constructed
>space unperterbed by context or extra-musical content or the extra-musical
>lives of the people who created them, then you're right.
And later on -
>I can imagine that we're heading for a problem here in this exchange; some folks
>may be tempted to assume that the only reason for choosing to find the Britten
>letters interesting or worthy of consideration would be common, garden-variety
>homophobia.
*That* ought to say:
>I can imagine that we're heading for a problem here in this exchange; some folks
>may be tempted to assume that the only reason for *note finding* the Britten
>letters interesting or worthy of consideration would be common, garden-variety
>homophobia.
I'm sorry for the hash in the previous posting. Man....
Michael Whincop
>Stephen Wilcox <wil...@maths.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>So Pears and Britten were gay, were long-term lovers and wrote each
>>other smoochy letters. Much of Britten's music was written for Pears
>>to sing.
>>
>>Fine. That's common knowledge. But it doesn't tell us anything about
>>Britten's music, does it?
>Thanks for pointing it out, Stephen!
>I would say more: all that is irrelevant. Incidental. Music matters.
The relationship between the composer and others is always interesting in the
context of particular works. E.g. Mahler Fahrendes Gesellen/Richter, Mahler
S.10/Alma, Wagner T & I/Mathilde Wesendonck, Beethoven ?/?, Tchaikovsky
S.4/Nadezhda whatshername. The work will be judged on its musical merits.
Surrounding circumstances however can assist in understanding the composer's
intentions and the shape of the final work.
_____________________________________________________________________
Michael Whincop - Law, Griffith Uni, Aust. M.Wh...@law.gu.edu.au
"The Queen of Silence bids me be silent. I grasp what she has concealed;
I conceal what she cannot grasp______________________________________
Mike Quigley
> (Stephen Cornell) writes:
>
> [regarding Britten's homosexuality and its relationship to his music]
> To rephrase and generalise your question: does knowledge of biographical
> details of an artist help in understanding his/her output?
>
> this kind may be no more than plain conjecture, or they may reflect some
> truth about the genesis of the work, but I find it an interesting and
> worthwhile exercise. To summarise: yes, I think that it should be
> possible
> to enjoy a work of art as it stands, but appreciation can be deepened by
> knowledge.
It seems to me that a lot of opinions in this newsgroup take extra-musical
events into consideration when judging certain artists, i.e., the fact that
certain well-known conductors had Nazi sympathies and/or affiliations.
Gerard Henri Rene Milmeister
This is true. I have a french symphonic music guide that lists a lot of
less known composers (and IS very informative) in particular some french
composers I never heard about (which of course doesn't mean that they
are unknown). But if failed to even mention the Austrian Franz Schmidt
(1874-1939), whose 4th symphony is a great work.
Indeed Schmidt had Nazi sympathies and even wrote a hymn or something
like that ordered by the Nazi (please correct me if I wrote something
stupid). But unfortunately the poor man who died in 1939 had not much
occasion to see what a bunch those guys really were.
Nowadays Schmidt is a composer who almost never played or even talked
about.
I recommend the recording of the 4th by Zubin Mehta and the Wiener
Philharmoniker (Decca) coupled with Schoenberg's Kammersymphonie Nr.1
(Schoenberg also born in 1874, but very different music).
Also Neeme Jaervi has recorded some of his symphonies.
Gerard
Roger Lustig
>In article <41...@mindlink.bc.ca>,
>Mike Quigley <Mr_Gi...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>>It seems to me that a lot of opinions in this newsgroup take extra-musical
>>events into consideration when judging certain artists, i.e., the fact that
>>certain well-known conductors had Nazi sympathies and/or affiliations.
>This is true. I have a french symphonic music guide that lists a lot of
>less known composers (and IS very informative) in particular some french
>composers I never heard about (which of course doesn't mean that they
>are unknown). But if failed to even mention the Austrian Franz Schmidt
>(1874-1939), whose 4th symphony is a great work.
Schmidt is actually pretty well-known in his native Austria. How
often do Roy Harris or Howard Hanson get a symphony played in Paris
or Vienna?
>Indeed Schmidt had Nazi sympathies and even wrote a hymn or something
>like that ordered by the Nazi (please correct me if I wrote something
>stupid). But unfortunately the poor man who died in 1939 had not much
>occasion to see what a bunch those guys really were.
By 1939 he'd had plenty of chances to see. The assassination of
Dollfuss was five years in the past, the thuggery of the SA and the
publication of _Mein Kampf_ well over a decade...
Roger
Stan Szpakowicz
>[...]
>> I would think that no melodic, rhythmic, harmonic
>>properties of Britten's music are what they are because of his sexual
>>preference.
>
>Is that all there is to setting an opera?
>[...]
No, not all. Opera, though, is "a play set to music". I meant music that
is part (obviously, just part, not all) of an opera. I really had in mind
instrumental music (Britten's string quartets, for example). How do you
answer my question now? [I know that too much of Britten's output is
vocal music to ignore extramusical influences, but let's generalize.]
>>> You might as well argue that Italian nationalist sentiment is
>>> irrelevant to Verdi's music, or Judaism to Schoenberg's.
>
>>Of course it is relevant, but at the same time you _can_ consider the end
>>product of their work, no matter in what way it was informed or influenced
>>by their sentiments.
>
>Why would you want to? Is that why they composed it?
Do I listen to Schoenberg because he was a Jew, or because he composed
interesting music? One may understand no Judaism at all and yet enjoy
Schoenberg's work.
I am willing to concede a point when it comes to programmatic music. When,
however, a composer writes and publishes, say, a piano trio, why would I
have to know what he thought when he composed it? He himself hid that.
(Most of those evocative names, such as "Moonlight sonata" come from
publishers or critics, don't they?)
>>Isn't music supposed to transcend national boundaries?
>
>No. What makes you say that? There's an old story about "music is the
>international language," but that's mainly advertising.
Many people seem to have been caught by such advertising. I would really
like you to elaborate. I didn't say "language". I meant that music can
be jolly well accepted and understood regardless of nationalities. Yes,
what is known as Western music is a fairly homogeneous art, but many
nations contributed to its development.
>Is music a pure, abstract art? I hadn't heard. (More precisely,
>I had; but I don't believe it for a minute.)
What makes you disbelieve it? Is that another advertising trick that
I bought, but you saw through (:-)?
>> when you listen to DesPrez (or any other old, old
>>master), are you not fully satisfied because you do not know anything about
>>his feelings, his laundry bills, his paramours (if any :-)? Isn't his
>>music all we know and perhaps all we care to know *when* we are listening?
>
>You're making a virtue of necessity. I'm *more* satisfied when I
>know the circumstances of the composition, the significance of
>the chant it's based on, the references to the patron in question.
"More" is fine. Earlier you appeared to be saying "all".
>However, I don't pretend either that his music has come down to us
>in the way that the binomial theorem or the invention of movable type
Uh. Printing is easily disentangled from human condition??
>has; it is sung because of the musical interests of our time, which
>I am aware of; was preserved because of the musical tastes of *his* time
>and the era that followed; and was forgotten for centuries for similar
>reasons. I know that it belongs to a web of culture that connects
>then and now, however tenuously; and I find the music more interesting
>every time I trace another path through the web.
Agreed: _more_ interesting. I can take it. One puts oneself in a more
receptive frame of mind when one has learned about the background.
>most people still don't know Haydn's music, *because* of Mozart, not beccause
>of any qualities is has or lacks.
You are talking about reasons of popularity or neglect. That's fashion; it is
not much to do with our point.
>It's going to be a long time before the War Requiem and the War are
>completely separate. Should they ever be?
A good rhetorical question (:-). Again, how is that related? There have
been sick and miserable composers who wrote sunny and happy music (some
late Schubert, for example). There have been happy individuals who created
brooding music. One need not go to war to be able to write a War Requiem.
One may survive a war and never be able to compose anything. And so on.
>>> Do you suppose that Britten's unquestionalbe role as leader of
>>> the British musical scene for decades had nothing to do with the
>>> change in attitudes toward gayness? Music matters very much,
>>> and Britten's music made Britten matter as well.
>
>>Yes. This is quite possible. But, as you say, his music made him matter.
>>Despite his gayness, perhaps. Was it not so good that gayness did not
>>matter any more?
>
>Does Bach' Lutheranism not matter any more?
Does it matter, say, to Japanese audiences that seem to experience it
and like it despite never so much as touching a Lutheran? Besides,
how does it matter in KdF? in French suites? Goldberg? in the un-Lutheran
mass B-minor?
> Beethoven's deafness and
>the change in character that it brought about? Britten the composer
>who spoke through his music is *part* of the music.
This is transcendental. How could I disagree?
Thanks, and cheers,
Roger Lustig
>Roger Lustig <ro...@astro.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>> I would think that no melodic, rhythmic, harmonic
>>>properties of Britten's music are what they are because of his sexual
>>>preference.
>>Is that all there is to setting an opera?
>No, not all. Opera, though, is "a play set to music". I meant music that
>is part (obviously, just part, not all) of an opera. I really had in mind
>instrumental music (Britten's string quartets, for example). How do you
>answer my question now? [I know that too much of Britten's output is
>vocal music to ignore extramusical influences, but let's generalize.]
I answer that that's not why we would care about the letters that touched
off the whole debate. On the other hand, look how even the people who
reject ideas about biography and composition wind up referring to it
when discussing things like Beethoven's last quartets...
>>>> You might as well argue that Italian nationalist sentiment is
>>>> irrelevant to Verdi's music, or Judaism to Schoenberg's.
>>>Of course it is relevant, but at the same time you _can_ consider the end
>>>product of their work, no matter in what way it was informed or influenced
>>>by their sentiments.
>>Why would you want to? Is that why they composed it?
>Do I listen to Schoenberg because he was a Jew, or because he composed
>interesting music? One may understand no Judaism at all and yet enjoy
>Schoenberg's work.
And yet one would have a hard time *not* asking what those odd words
were about. Can we understand the _Survivor_ or _Moses_ without
knowing a little about the composer and his times? Remember, there's
more to it than "Do I listen." There's *HOW* do I listen? And with
Schoenberg, it involves understanding at least some of the circumstances,
musical and otherwise.
>I am willing to concede a point when it comes to programmatic music. When,
>however, a composer writes and publishes, say, a piano trio, why would I
>have to know what he thought when he composed it? He himself hid that.
At the very least you might be interested in why people wrote piano
trios in the first place; what other music is referred to in this
piece; and so on. Of course we can't know what the composer was
thinking; but we can know, and care about, the circumstances, broad
and narrow, of its composition.
>(Most of those evocative names, such as "Moonlight sonata" come from
>publishers or critics, don't they?)
Sure--but so does the musical tradition that keeps those pieces
alive, to a great extent. Mozart certainly didn't have me in mind
when he composed.
>>>Isn't music supposed to transcend national boundaries?
>>No. What makes you say that? There's an old story about "music is the
>>international language," but that's mainly advertising.
>Many people seem to have been caught by such advertising. I would really
>like you to elaborate. I didn't say "language". I meant that music can
>be jolly well accepted and understood regardless of nationalities. Yes,
And yet it isn't always. Copland and Harris and Ives don't travel
all that well in Europe; Bruckner never made it in France; and so on.
The understanding that we have of all but a very small core repertory
varies widely as we travel from place to place. And once we leave
the so-called West, it often disappears entirely.
SOME music has indeed transcended national boundaries. A great
deal has not. I'm still not aware that it's *supposed* to in the
general case.
>what is known as Western music is a fairly homogeneous art, but many
>nations contributed to its development.
And many nations have huge local traditions not known elsewhere.
>>Is music a pure, abstract art? I hadn't heard. (More precisely,
>>I had; but I don't believe it for a minute.)
>What makes you disbelieve it? Is that another advertising trick that
>I bought, but you saw through (:-)?
Well, yes. (Just had to ask, didn't you? 8-) ) Very little music
has ever been written as pure, abstract art; that idea didn't even
exist before the 19thC. And the Romantic idea of Absolute Music
wasn't really abstract at all.
>>> when you listen to DesPrez (or any other old, old
>>>master), are you not fully satisfied because you do not know anything about
>>>his feelings, his laundry bills, his paramours (if any :-)? Isn't his
>>>music all we know and perhaps all we care to know *when* we are listening?
>>You're making a virtue of necessity. I'm *more* satisfied when I
>>know the circumstances of the composition, the significance of
>>the chant it's based on, the references to the patron in question.
>"More" is fine. Earlier you appeared to be saying "all".
But we *do* know these things about Josquin; and we know his music
in part because we know these things. There's really no separating
one from the other; the revival of his music in our century did not
come from abstract listening alone.
>>However, I don't pretend either that his music has come down to us
>>in the way that the binomial theorem or the invention of movable type
>Uh. Printing is easily disentangled from human condition??
No, but you don't need to know anything *about* the human condition
in 1430 to know all you need to know about building, operating, or
otherwise dealing with a press. Or enjoying its products.
>>has; it is sung because of the musical interests of our time, which
>>I am aware of; was preserved because of the musical tastes of *his* time
>>and the era that followed; and was forgotten for centuries for similar
>>reasons. I know that it belongs to a web of culture that connects
>>then and now, however tenuously; and I find the music more interesting
>>every time I trace another path through the web.
>Agreed: _more_ interesting. I can take it. One puts oneself in a more
>receptive frame of mind when one has learned about the background.
But we only have the opportunity to hear this stuff because there *is*
this enormous background. That's my point.
>>most people still don't know Haydn's music, *because* of Mozart, not beccause
>>of any qualities is has or lacks.
>You are talking about reasons of popularity or neglect. That's fashion; it is
>not much to do with our point.
Uh, the music you do or don't get to hear is a result of that. And your
tastes are obviously conditioned by what you have or have not heard.
>>It's going to be a long time before the War Requiem and the War are
>>completely separate. Should they ever be?
>A good rhetorical question (:-). Again, how is that related? There have
>been sick and miserable composers who wrote sunny and happy music (some
>late Schubert, for example). There have been happy individuals who created
>brooding music. One need not go to war to be able to write a War Requiem.
>One may survive a war and never be able to compose anything. And so on.
I'm talking about the listeners. Will *we* ever separate the two?
Should we?
>>>> Do you suppose that Britten's unquestionalbe role as leader of
>>>> the British musical scene for decades had nothing to do with the
>>>> change in attitudes toward gayness? Music matters very much,
>>>> and Britten's music made Britten matter as well.
>>>Yes. This is quite possible. But, as you say, his music made him matter.
>>>Despite his gayness, perhaps. Was it not so good that gayness did not
>>>matter any more?
>>Does Bach' Lutheranism not matter any more?
>Does it matter, say, to Japanese audiences that seem to experience it
>and like it despite never so much as touching a Lutheran? Besides,
I don't know. What *do* Japanese audiences make of the Pietistic
cantata texts?
>how does it matter in KdF? in French suites? Goldberg? in the un-Lutheran
>mass B-minor?
Not *that* un-Lutheran...but again, Bach isn't identical with the French
Suites.
>> Beethoven's deafness and
>>the change in character that it brought about? Britten the composer
>>who spoke through his music is *part* of the music.
>This is transcendental. How could I disagree?
The point is: *why* did he speak? Why did he compose the things he
did? Especially the vocal music he did?
We should remember, btw, that for most of the history of music, and
in most musical cultures, vocal music predominates, and is considered
the primary form of music. Even in our culture it has only been
a little over two centuries since that condition was challenged anywhere.
Roger
Stan Szpakowicz
Thanks! Just a touch of remaining doubt:
>>Uh. Printing is easily disentangled from human condition??
>
>No, but you don't need to know anything *about* the human condition
>in 1430 to know all you need to know about building, operating, or
>otherwise dealing with a press. Or enjoying its products.
Are you saying this because a book reader is also a performer? That may not
always be the case. Also, operation and what not is a technicality, not
unlike the operation of musical instruments. Your dismissing the art and
craft of printing serves as a rhetorical device, but is not quite fair.
>>>Does Bach' Lutheranism not matter any more?
>
>>Does it matter, say, to Japanese audiences that seem to experience it
>>and like it despite never so much as touching a Lutheran? Besides,
>
>I don't know. What *do* Japanese audiences make of the Pietistic
>cantata texts?
>
>>how does it matter in KdF? in French suites? Goldberg? in the un-Lutheran
>>mass B-minor?
>
>Not *that* un-Lutheran...but again, Bach isn't identical with the French
>Suites.
Wouldn't you say that Bach's "official" face is church music, while his
suites, variations and sonatas are more personal or more courtly (or both)?
Bach isn't identical with cantatas.
Thanks,
David Shengold
sz...@kaml1.csi.uottawa.ca writes:
>Yes. This is quite possible. But, as you say, his music made him matter.
>Despite his gayness, perhaps. Was it not so good that gayness did not
>matter any more?
Grow up.