Blog Us A Blog

I had some qualms with certain parts of the Hudson Review article on Bach; while I believe other parts deserve being repeated. All in all, I enjoyed the read, despite the author’s tendency to ramble and shoot off topic. Maybe the thematic development just lacked forethought. In any case, here goes.

First, I loved this:

Bach is sometimes referred to as the father of Western music … Who else could be the father of Western music? Bach is in the very chemistry of Western musical blood, like red cells, white cells, and platelets in our material plasma.

This reminded me of the analogy the great pedagogue von Bülow concocted. He said that Bach’s WTC is the OT of music, and the 32 Beethoven sonatas are the NT. I like to extend the metaphor and ascribe the Mozart piano works to some apocryphal book in the Bible.

Now, an excerpt from the second paragraph:

For Beethoven, again, many autograph materials providing insights into his “spiritual development” (to use the subtitle of an early biography) and his medical problems, his patrons, his financial independence, his nephew, his deafness, his “immortal beloved.” But what is the feel we get from Bach? In fact, who is this seemingly generic father and why has he failed to solidify as part of our cultural ethos? When we hear “Mozart” or “Beethoven,” we think of a person behind the music. When we hear “Bach,” we think of music only.

Speak for yourself! If you imbibe the music of Bach, and utilize what biographical information is available, you will produce a very real and human mental image of the great maestro.

Then, commenting on changes in musical interpretive style and Bach’s music, the author had this to say:

To make matters worse, today’s pianists, having turned the Mozart concertos into Romantic vehicles, are apt to render them in a melting, exquisite, and precious Chopinesque manner irrelevant to the still fairly linear style even of Classical period music.

You can’t say this enough! If I had a penny for every time I heard a “reputable” pianist contort an idyllic Mozart sonata into some grotesque pseudo-Romantic monster, I’d be a wealthy man.

But then the author missed the mark with this, referring to the twentieth century harpsichordist Wanda Landowska (if you don’t know about her, listen to her recording of the Goldberg variations):

Today, Landowska’s revolution has been largely won, and most performances of Bach’s clavier works are on modern harpsichords.

This is ridiculous. While, the “Landowska revolution” did much to inspire new interest in the Harpsichord—hitherto largely extinct—piano-forte recordings and performances are still by far in the majority. And rightly so. Bach’s music transcends the instrument. The piano provides the most faculty for interpretation at this time. Who knows, it might be different in 100 years. Compare Gould to Perriah for an example of the musical and dynamical extremes allowed by the modern PF.

I have to go. Thanks.