bach and zelenka

[beppe005]

I recently discovered Zelenka's music (see http://www.jdzelenka.net/).
It seems that he knew Bach and that J.S.Bach held in esteem Zelenka's work,
as reported in a letter of 1775 by C.P.E. Bach to Forkel:
" In his last years Bach esteemed highly the former Imperial
Oberkapellmeister Fux, Handel, Caldara, Reinhard Keiser, Hasse, both Grauns,
Telemann, Zelenka, Benda, and in general everything worthy of esteem in
Berlin and Dresden. The first four he did not know personally, but the
others he did". (from
http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/acc/hasse.html)

I was a bit surprised of finding Telemann... and perhaps Handel... I thought
there was a bit of rivalry between Bach and Telemann.

So I wonder if the list reflects JSB's real opinion about these composers or
it is "just" a list of the most known composers at that time.

Thanks in advance
Beppe

[Thomas Wood]

Post by beppe005
I recently discovered Zelenka's music (see http://www.jdzelenka.net/).
It seems that he knew Bach and that J.S.Bach held in esteem Zelenka's
" In his last years Bach esteemed highly the former Imperial
Oberkapellmeister Fux, Handel, Caldara, Reinhard Keiser, Hasse, both
Grauns, Telemann, Zelenka, Benda, and in general everything worthy of
esteem in Berlin and Dresden. The first four he did not know personally,
but the others he did". (from
http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/acc/hasse.html)
I was a bit surprised of finding Telemann... and perhaps Handel... I
thought there was a bit of rivalry between Bach and Telemann.
So I wonder if the list reflects JSB's real opinion about these composers
or it is "just" a list of the most known composers at that time.

Bach never met met Handel but he seems to have known Telemann quite well --
Telemann was the godfather of Carl Phillipp Emmanuel. Telemann wrote a
rather touching poem on Bach's death.

Bach sent Wilhelm Friedemann to Halle to meet Handel on one of his visits to
his mother to persuade Handel to visit Bach in nearby Leipzig but to no
avail.

Tom Wood

[Sybrand Bakker]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:15:57 GMT, "Thomas Wood"

Post by Thomas Wood
Bach never met met Handel but he seems to have known Telemann quite well --
Telemann was the godfather of Carl Phillipp Emmanuel. Telemann wrote a
rather touching poem on Bach's death.

Apart from that Bach appears on the subscribers list of Telemann's
Paris Quartets, and, IIRC, he also acted as an agent for Telemann's
publications in Leipzig.

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[beppe005]

Post by Sybrand Bakker
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:15:57 GMT, "Thomas Wood"

Post by Thomas Wood
Bach never met met Handel but he seems to have known Telemann quite well --
Telemann was the godfather of Carl Phillipp Emmanuel. Telemann wrote a
rather touching poem on Bach's death.

Apart from that Bach appears on the subscribers list of Telemann's
Paris Quartets, and, IIRC, he also acted as an agent for Telemann's
publications in Leipzig.
Sybrand Bakker

I read somewhere that Telemann applied for the job as Kantor of the
Thomasschule in Leipzig just to get a raise for the same post he had in
Hamburg, but probably is an interpretation without fundament.
The argumentation was that nobody wanted to teach latin, and Leipzig's
Council decided to make an allowance just for Telemann, who was considered
by the the best man for the post and hired him. But Hamburg didn't want to
make without Telemann and convinced him by increasing his pay, which
Telemann accepted.

I wonder what Bach must have felt... Zelenka too was turned down in favour
of Hasse for the post of Kappelmeister in Dresda, but in this case Hasse
accepted the post.

I still cannot understand why Telemann was preferably to Bach. I haven't
heard Hasse's music yet, and I wonder if it is/was better to Zelenka's as to
prefer him as Kappelmeister.

[Sybrand Bakker]

Post by beppe005

Post by Sybrand Bakker
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:15:57 GMT, "Thomas Wood"

Post by Thomas Wood
Bach never met met Handel but he seems to have known Telemann quite well --
Telemann was the godfather of Carl Phillipp Emmanuel. Telemann wrote a
rather touching poem on Bach's death.

Apart from that Bach appears on the subscribers list of Telemann's
Paris Quartets, and, IIRC, he also acted as an agent for Telemann's
publications in Leipzig.
Sybrand Bakker

I read somewhere that Telemann applied for the job as Kantor of the
Thomasschule in Leipzig just to get a raise for the same post he had in
Hamburg, but probably is an interpretation without fundament.
The argumentation was that nobody wanted to teach latin, and Leipzig's
Council decided to make an allowance just for Telemann, who was considered
by the the best man for the post and hired him. But Hamburg didn't want to
make without Telemann and convinced him by increasing his pay, which
Telemann accepted.

Ulrich Siegele has argued there were two 'parties' in the Leipzig Town
Council.
One party wanted a good *Cappellmeister* and didn't care he also was a
good schoolmaster.
The other party didn't care about music, and primarily wanted him to
be a good schoolmaster.
Telemann didn't want to be a schoolmaster, though his post in Hamburg
at the Johanneum was exactly the same as Bach's in Leipzig. However,
Hamburg didn't belong to Lutheran orthodoxy, so he had much more
freedom to compose for his own sake.

But... Telemann was appointed, he declined the offer, and he did get a
salary raise in Hamburg.

Post by beppe005
I wonder what Bach must have felt... Zelenka too was turned down in favour
of Hasse for the post of Kappelmeister in Dresda, but in this case Hasse
accepted the post.
I still cannot understand why Telemann was preferably to Bach.

Oh, I can.
First of all : Telemann studied law in Leipzig.
Secondly: he was the musical director of the so-called Neue
Gottesdienst which was founded to get rid of the old-fashioned music
of Bach's predecessor Kuhnau.
Thirdly: Bach's music was considered as being old-fashioned, what it
surely was. Also : Telemann's church music is definitely more easy to
listen to than Bach's. Johann Adolph Scheibe labeled Bach's music once
as 'too complicated and unnatural'. The same verdict was given by
Johann Mattheson, who critisizes cantata 21 in his 'Volkommene
Capellmeister'. On the other hand, Mattheson praises Bach for
*contrapuntal mastery*. Bach's contemporaries primarily valued him as
a virtuoso *organist* and not as a foremost Capellmeister.




I haven't

Post by beppe005
heard Hasse's music yet, and I wonder if it is/was better to Zelenka's as to
prefer him as Kappelmeister.

Hasse is as Zelenka as Telemann is too Bach.

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[beppe005]

Post by Sybrand Bakker

Post by beppe005
I still cannot understand why Telemann was preferably to Bach.

Oh, I can.
First of all : Telemann studied law in Leipzig.
Secondly: he was the musical director of the so-called Neue
Gottesdienst which was founded to get rid of the old-fashioned music
of Bach's predecessor Kuhnau.
Thirdly: Bach's music was considered as being old-fashioned, what it
surely was. Also : Telemann's church music is definitely more easy to
listen to than Bach's. Johann Adolph Scheibe labeled Bach's music once
as 'too complicated and unnatural'.

Which means that our perception of Bach's music is quite different from his
contemporaries?
Why his contemporaries were not touched by... say St. Mathew's Passion (to
remain in a religious context)?
Had Bach wanted to write in a simplier way, like Telemann, he could've done
easily I assume; but he didn't.

Beppe

[Sybrand Bakker]

Post by beppe005

Post by Sybrand Bakker

Post by beppe005
I still cannot understand why Telemann was preferably to Bach.

Oh, I can.
First of all : Telemann studied law in Leipzig.
Secondly: he was the musical director of the so-called Neue
Gottesdienst which was founded to get rid of the old-fashioned music
of Bach's predecessor Kuhnau.
Thirdly: Bach's music was considered as being old-fashioned, what it
surely was. Also : Telemann's church music is definitely more easy to
listen to than Bach's. Johann Adolph Scheibe labeled Bach's music once
as 'too complicated and unnatural'.

Which means that our perception of Bach's music is quite different from his
contemporaries?
Why his contemporaries were not touched by... say St. Mathew's Passion (to
remain in a religious context)?
Had Bach wanted to write in a simplier way, like Telemann, he could've done
easily I assume; but he didn't.
Beppe

Yes, it is quite different. It can't be otherwise, as most
contemporaries barely knew any vocal works, and if they knew
instrumental works, primarily knew works for organ and/or harpsichord.
If they knew vocal works they rejected them (Mattheson cantata 21,
Scheibe, cantata 92)

Bach's contemporaries weren't touched by the SMP, simply because they
didn't hear it. The SMP was only performed in Leipzig 4 times during
Bach's lifetime.
Apart from that, there is one comment from Leipzig, were an old woman
was quoted as the Passion has been 'too theatrical'. It is not sure
whether this reflects the SMP, but it is likely.

Bach couldn't write in any other way, as he was too deeply rooted in
the music of his forefathers, and his 17th century teachers like
Buxthudes. In the 1710s he assimilated Italian and French influences,
after 1720 his style hardly changes.


Currently listening to a live performance of the B-minor Mass by the
Bach Collegium Japan. Very fast tempi, but boy they work!
Bach continues to suprise you!

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by Sybrand Bakker
Bach couldn't write in any other way, as he was too deeply rooted in
the music of his forefathers, and his 17th century teachers like
Buxthudes. In the 1710s he assimilated Italian and French influences,
after 1720 his style hardly changes.

How much "poorer" would JSB's music have been were it not for the
French and Italian (esp Vivaldi) influences...?

The Coffee & Peasant cantatas show that JSB had a touch of
"lightness/silliness" in him. Some would even call those Opera-lite.
Why JSB did not compose more of those, I would not know.

Too often, rightly or wrongly, JSB is associated with that which is
eternal, religious, ethereal,etc. and esp. Telemann, rghtly or wrongly,
with that which is temporal, superficial, etc. These two composers
compliment each other perfectly. Many use JSB's output, esp. sacred, to
elevate him. JSB used/abused :-) /re-used a lot of his works in this
regard (Nothing wrong with that at all). Where GPT rarely recycled
works. Amazing, given his vast output (thankfully, that is noways not
much of a source of derision).

Too often we also forget that JSB, JDZ, etc. were also human beings.
Who offered supplications to their "masters" for better pay, etc. JSB
was envious of his Dresden colleagues (of which JDZ was a member) and
their working conditions. JSB also wrote the Leipzig council for funds
to enable the musicians to play mausic in the modern style and current
fashionable tastes.

It is ironic that these composers were on very amicable terms, and yet
today we are sometimes too quick to label composers and their music.

Listen/play without prejudice.

[John_Sturmond]

Post by t***@gmail.com
The Coffee & Peasant cantatas show that JSB had a touch of
"lightness/silliness" in him. Some would even call those Opera-lite.
Why JSB did not compose more of those, I would not know.

I would lay it at the doorstep of practicality. JSB was kept
quite busy at all stages of his career by composing music
for the court and the church. When he did have a chance
to compose 'for himself' - ie the keyboard works - I assume
he was more concerned with using that time for a serious
exploration of his abilities.

[beppe005]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by Sybrand Bakker
Bach couldn't write in any other way, as he was too deeply rooted in
the music of his forefathers, and his 17th century teachers like
Buxthudes. In the 1710s he assimilated Italian and French influences,
after 1720 his style hardly changes.

How much "poorer" would JSB's music have been were it not for the
French and Italian (esp Vivaldi) influences...?
The Coffee & Peasant cantatas show that JSB had a touch of
"lightness/silliness" in him. Some would even call those Opera-lite.
Why JSB did not compose more of those, I would not know.
Too often, rightly or wrongly, JSB is associated with that which is
eternal, religious, ethereal,etc. and esp. Telemann, rghtly or wrongly,
with that which is temporal, superficial, etc. These two composers
compliment each other perfectly. Many use JSB's output, esp. sacred, to
elevate him. JSB used/abused :-) /re-used a lot of his works in this
regard (Nothing wrong with that at all). Where GPT rarely recycled
works. Amazing, given his vast output (thankfully, that is noways not
much of a source of derision).
Too often we also forget that JSB, JDZ, etc. were also human beings.
Who offered supplications to their "masters" for better pay, etc. JSB
was envious of his Dresden colleagues (of which JDZ was a member) and
their working conditions. JSB also wrote the Leipzig council for funds
to enable the musicians to play mausic in the modern style and current
fashionable tastes.
It is ironic that these composers were on very amicable terms, and yet
today we are sometimes too quick to label composers and their music.
Listen/play without prejudice.

To me, now that I have discovered JDZ, and after a huge listening of JSB,
the interesting part is to understand what is the "typical of the time" and
what is "peculiar" to each composer. The inspirational vein vested in
baroque dress... is it possible to perceive the composer's inner heart
considering that he was "limited", limited is not the correct term perhaps
"interlaced" is more appropriate, by the musical language of his age?
I believe that JSB's music offers several hints of humour, here and there
there are funny parts.
IIRC Bach's family used to sing and play somehow trivial or even oscenous
songs by changing words to famous songs. So probably JSB didn't feel the
urge for such compositions, his "funny and wild" side was well taken care
of.

Beppe

[t***@gmail.com]

beppe005 wrote:
To me, now that I have discovered JDZ, and after a huge listening of
JSB,
the interesting part is to understand what is the "typical of the time"
and
what is "peculiar" to each composer.
---------------------------------------
Typical of the time was largely represented by Telemann (Germany),
Vivaldi (Italy and elsewhere), Corelli (same as Vivaldi), Lully
(France). Bach was really the antithesis, in a manner, to all this. He
was heavily influenced by Vivaldi, Corelli, Palestrina. He also admired
the works of Hasse, Telemann, Fasch: Composers which are thought to be
"minor" when (unfairly) compared to him. JDZ had a collection of music
ranging a good couple of centuries (I forgot what JDZ's list is
called), which also incl. music by Palestrina and others. I have to
agree with you wholeheartedly: getting to the zeitgeist of the period
is what is the most beautiful and challenging to me, when listening to
Baroque. A futile venture, but interesting, fun and revealing. If only
I can get my Time Machine fixed.

beppe005 wrote:
The inspirational vein vested in baroque dress... is it possible to
perceive the composer's inner heart considering that he was "limited",
limited is not the correct term perhaps "interlaced" is more
appropriate, by the musical language of his age?
---------------------
I do not think we will ever get a true reflection of a composer's inner
heart and motivations. Why did JDZ take a turn for the worse, so to
speak, when Hasse got the much sought after Kappellmeister post? Would
his compositional style have changed more to the taste of his patron,
who found JDZ's works too long and tiring? Why did JDZ stoop so low
when applying for the post? He basically begged for the post and an
increase in his allowance.

JDZ and JSB share a lot of common ground. But I find JDZ's works, esp.
the Trio Sonatas, much more exciting than any other Baroque work that I
have listened to by any other composer.

[beppe005]

Post by beppe005
To me, now that I have discovered JDZ, and after a huge listening of JSB,
the interesting part is to understand what is the "typical of the time" and
what is "peculiar" to each composer.
---------------------------------------
Typical of the time was largely represented by Telemann (Germany),
Vivaldi (Italy and elsewhere), Corelli (same as Vivaldi), Lully
(France). Bach was really the antithesis, in a manner, to all this. He
was heavily influenced by Vivaldi, Corelli, Palestrina. He also admired
the works of Hasse, Telemann, Fasch: Composers which are thought to be
"minor" when (unfairly) compared to him. JDZ had a collection of music
ranging a good couple of centuries (I forgot what JDZ's list is
called), which also incl. music by Palestrina and others. I have to
agree with you wholeheartedly: getting to the zeitgeist of the period
is what is the most beautiful and challenging to me, when listening to
Baroque. A futile venture, but interesting, fun and revealing. If only
I can get my Time Machine fixed.
The inspirational vein vested in baroque dress... is it possible to
perceive the composer's inner heart considering that he was "limited",
limited is not the correct term perhaps "interlaced" is more
appropriate, by the musical language of his age?
---------------------
I do not think we will ever get a true reflection of a composer's inner
heart and motivations. Why did JDZ take a turn for the worse, so to
speak, when Hasse got the much sought after Kappellmeister post? Would
his compositional style have changed more to the taste of his patron,
who found JDZ's works too long and tiring? Why did JDZ stoop so low
when applying for the post? He basically begged for the post and an
increase in his allowance.
JDZ and JSB share a lot of common ground. But I find JDZ's works, esp.
the Trio Sonatas, much more exciting than any other Baroque work that I
have listened to by any other composer.

Very interesting!
In a way every now and then I think what kind of music would JSB compose
now, or would've composed during the Romantic period. I am incline to think
that the Baroque musical language offered enough freedom to experiment and
enough "discipline" or rigour as not to loose one's bearing, so probably it
was the best milieu... background... for such a musical talent as JSB.

Beppe

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by beppe005
In a way every now and then I think what kind of music would JSB compose
now, or would've composed during the Romantic period.

------------------------
He would have composed exactly like any
Rennaisance/Romantic/Pop/Rap/Rock/Heavy Metal/... composer.

[John Briggs]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by beppe005
In a way every now and then I think what kind of music would JSB
compose now, or would've composed during the Romantic period.

------------------------
He would have composed exactly like any
Rennaisance/Romantic/Pop/Rap/Rock/Heavy Metal/... composer.

But a lot better :-)

[beppe005]

Post by John Briggs

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by beppe005
In a way every now and then I think what kind of music would JSB
compose now, or would've composed during the Romantic period.

------------------------
He would have composed exactly like any
Rennaisance/Romantic/Pop/Rap/Rock/Heavy Metal/... composer.

But a lot better :-)
--
John Briggs

I think there is an "idea" which he, JSB, could have expressed in a
multitude of ways, such as paintings, poetry, novels... or even cooking. I
think there is something peculiar which has to do with a superior cognitive
level he could access. He had a tremendous tecnique and a vast knowledge to
compose music, but it is not just because of this that he composed brilliant
music.
To me in his compositions there are like glittering gleaming diamnods,
sometimes hidden (and more than sometimes not) in the baroque interwaved
musical lines; and these precious musical stones testify the overcoming of a
fashion.

Some heavy metal groups have copied JSB's music, but the magic effect was
not there... it is not some dramatic or magnificent "intro" which make the
trick.

Beppe

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by beppe005
I think there is an "idea" which he, JSB, could have expressed in a
multitude of ways, such as paintings, poetry, novels... or even cooking.
Beppe

Subjectivity. Objectivity.

When looking at art, what makes one declare that X is above all? Y is
mediocre, and Z not even worth a look? When I listen to JSB-philes, I
cannot help but get a feeling that at times there are attempts to
"rectify" the opinion of his peers about him. When someone (Matheson,
Scheibe, etc.) makes a negative assesment of a JSB work, it is normally
seen as "he could not recognize the greatness of JSB", etc.

JSB was just one of many genuises of the day.

[Lawrence]

Post by Sybrand Bakker

Post by beppe005

Post by Sybrand Bakker

Post by beppe005
I still cannot understand why Telemann was preferably to Bach.

Oh, I can.
First of all : Telemann studied law in Leipzig.
Secondly: he was the musical director of the so-called Neue
Gottesdienst which was founded to get rid of the old-fashioned music
of Bach's predecessor Kuhnau.
Thirdly: Bach's music was considered as being old-fashioned, what it
surely was. Also : Telemann's church music is definitely more easy to
listen to than Bach's. Johann Adolph Scheibe labeled Bach's music once
as 'too complicated and unnatural'.

Which means that our perception of Bach's music is quite different from his
contemporaries?
Why his contemporaries were not touched by... say St. Mathew's Passion (to
remain in a religious context)?
Had Bach wanted to write in a simplier way, like Telemann, he could've done
easily I assume; but he didn't.
Beppe

Yes, it is quite different. It can't be otherwise, as most
contemporaries barely knew any vocal works, and if they knew
instrumental works, primarily knew works for organ and/or harpsichord.
If they knew vocal works they rejected them (Mattheson cantata 21,
Scheibe, cantata 92)
Bach's contemporaries weren't touched by the SMP, simply because they
didn't hear it. The SMP was only performed in Leipzig 4 times during
Bach's lifetime.
Apart from that, there is one comment from Leipzig, were an old woman
was quoted as the Passion has been 'too theatrical'. It is not sure
whether this reflects the SMP, but it is likely.
Bach couldn't write in any other way, as he was too deeply rooted in
the music of his forefathers, and his 17th century teachers like
Buxthudes. In the 1710s he assimilated Italian and French influences,
after 1720 his style hardly changes.
Currently listening to a live performance of the B-minor Mass by the
Bach Collegium Japan. Very fast tempi, but boy they work!
Bach continues to suprise you!
Sybrand Bakker
anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

Bach's music was misunderstood or unappreciated for three main reasons:

1. The flowery florid melodic lines. Although other composers used
these also.
2. The length of the melodic lines is inordinate compared to that of
other composers.
3. The texture of the counterpoint is often very thick.

To me, these are all virtues. To average listeners then, when the high
Baroque was already past and modern, homophonic lines were being used
more and more by such as Handel and Telemann, the melodic character of
Bach's pieces was simply over the heads of many listeners. Even today,
I have friends who are classical music fans who prefer Handel and
Mozart much to Bach. Their brains are simply not wired to apprehend
this complex wealth of beauty and appreciate it.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by Lawrence
To me, these are all virtues. To average listeners then, when the high
Baroque was already past and modern, homophonic lines were being used
more and more by such as Handel and Telemann, the melodic character of
Bach's pieces was simply over the heads of many listeners. Even today,
I have friends who are classical music fans who prefer Handel and
Mozart much to Bach. Their brains are simply not wired to apprehend
this complex wealth of beauty and appreciate it.

1. Music with a "complex wealth of beauty": Is that somehow "superior"
to other types of music?
2. Is a 21st century listener's viewpoint of music of the period
"better" than a contemporary of JSB?
3. When you listen to your friends praise GPT, WAM, GFH, etc. do you
have thoughts of "they will never understand JSB"?

These questions are open to all and are not meant to offend. When I
read how ppl mostly belittle GPT, I have thoughts of "they will never
understand GPT". :-)

[Lawrence]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by Lawrence
To me, these are all virtues. To average listeners then, when the high
Baroque was already past and modern, homophonic lines were being used
more and more by such as Handel and Telemann, the melodic character of
Bach's pieces was simply over the heads of many listeners. Even today,
I have friends who are classical music fans who prefer Handel and
Mozart much to Bach. Their brains are simply not wired to apprehend
this complex wealth of beauty and appreciate it.

1. Music with a "complex wealth of beauty": Is that somehow "superior"
to other types of music?
2. Is a 21st century listener's viewpoint of music of the period
"better" than a contemporary of JSB?
3. When you listen to your friends praise GPT, WAM, GFH, etc. do you
have thoughts of "they will never understand JSB"?
These questions are open to all and are not meant to offend. When I
read how ppl mostly belittle GPT, I have thoughts of "they will never
understand GPT". :-)

!. I am only trying to speculate as to why some listeners didn't and
don't 'get' Bach, not establish a value system. When I said 'virtues',
I meant virtues in Bach's case. Certainly a medicore polyphonist's
music would be inferior to the homophony of a great composer.

2. Bach's fame as a composer these days probably gives him a leg up now
as compared with the 18th century when his fame was more as a keyboard
virtuoso.

3. Yes. No slight intended to Telemann, who is certainly a great
composer.

[t***@gmail.com]

Certainly a medicore polyphonist's music would be inferior to the homophony of a >great composer.

OK. Can one be really objective when saying that? You do mention not
trying to est. a value system, but are you not using rules/values,
either obtained thru training, education, personal experience, etc. to
"label" a composer as "mediocre" or "great"?

3. Yes. No slight intended to Telemann, who is certainly a great
composer.

My response usually is: No slight intended to JSB, who is certainly a
great composer. :)

[beppe005]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by Lawrence
To me, these are all virtues. To average listeners then, when the high
Baroque was already past and modern, homophonic lines were being used
more and more by such as Handel and Telemann, the melodic character of
Bach's pieces was simply over the heads of many listeners. Even today,
I have friends who are classical music fans who prefer Handel and
Mozart much to Bach. Their brains are simply not wired to apprehend
this complex wealth of beauty and appreciate it.

1. Music with a "complex wealth of beauty": Is that somehow "superior"
to other types of music?
2. Is a 21st century listener's viewpoint of music of the period
"better" than a contemporary of JSB?
3. When you listen to your friends praise GPT, WAM, GFH, etc. do you
have thoughts of "they will never understand JSB"?
These questions are open to all and are not meant to offend. When I
read how ppl mostly belittle GPT, I have thoughts of "they will never
understand GPT". :-)

I find these arguments very interesting, but probably they deserve a new
thread.
If we change point of view and speculate a bit in an "olistic way" we could
say that "Music" expresses itself throught the centuries and the cultures
and just try to make the most of every "wordly" situation (cultural, social,
economical, etc...) and the composers just give vent to this "musical
energy" according to theis own inclinations and environment: for ex.
painters know that the light is not the same in every country... so they
will develop theis sense of light according to their experiences. Something
similar may apply to music (apart from "folk" and "peasants" influences).

Beppe

[John Briggs]

Post by Thomas Wood
Bach never met met Handel but he seems to have known Telemann quite
well -- Telemann was the godfather of Carl Phillipp Emmanuel.

Which tends to show that "Phillipp" was the name that Telemann used.
Telemann was a friend of Handel.

Post by Thomas Wood
Telemann wrote a rather touching poem on Bach's death.
Bach sent Wilhelm Friedemann to Halle to meet Handel on one of his
visits to his mother to persuade Handel to visit Bach in nearby
Leipzig but to no avail.

I do wonder if Bach wanted tips on how to write Passions :-)

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by beppe005
I recently discovered Zelenka's music (see http://www.jdzelenka.net/).
It seems that he knew Bach

I play Zelenka's Trio Sonata #5 in F Major with my group. We think
it's a great piece. It would not be surprising if in fact Bach knew
his music and held it in high esteem.

Andrew

[beppe005]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by beppe005
I recently discovered Zelenka's music (see http://www.jdzelenka.net/).
It seems that he knew Bach

I play Zelenka's Trio Sonata #5 in F Major with my group. We think
it's a great piece. It would not be surprising if in fact Bach knew
his music and held it in high esteem.
Andrew

The zwv 181? The triosonates is the only cd I could find at the local shop
and so far the only music by Zelenka I could hear.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by beppe005

Post by Andrew Schulman
I play Zelenka's Trio Sonata #5 in F Major with my group. We think
it's a great piece. It would not be surprising if in fact Bach knew
his music and held it in high esteem.
Andrew

The zwv 181?

Yes.

Andrew

[Passacaglia88]

In fact, Zelenka is a very nice baroque composer. Actually, I know a
German (Frauke Mekelburg) organist, who's written a so called Zelenka
Suite on his themes for the organ (http://www.frauke-mekelburg.de/).
To tell you the truth, Bach and Telemann were really good friends, even
if Telemann was a much bigger star at their time. But Bach didn't care
about that.
Bach tried 2 times to meet Händel, but he didn't succeed in reaching
him. It depended first on Bach, because he got sick, but at the second
time Händel didn't want to meet him. I've read, he didn't know Bach's
music, not even his name, and he was too proud to meet a
"middle-classed" composer...
Have fun,
Fery