OT Status in alt.music.j-s-bach

[Ioannis]

I know this group is devoted to the works, life and personality of JSB. I,
myself have been following it for a good number of years now.

However, I want to propose a change: In my opinion ANY topic should be
on-topic here. I consider JSB listeners to have reached the epitome of human
wisdom, so they would certainly make interesting philosophers. I really
cannot fathom any other newsgroup where this can be done, as the specific
interests all other newsgroups address are not necessarily a guarantee for
wisdom, however you want to define "wisdom". This is of course a subjective
statement, yet in my opinion JSB is "above all else" in this world.

This newsgroup is relatively free of trolls, and few people visit. (Well,
the wise are always few, it seems :-)

On the other hand, I have closely monitored the people who post here for a
number of years. The greatest percentage of them are moderate, serene,
well-educated, relatively quiet, without too many emotional explosions and
overall good conservationists.

I don't know if I am making myself clear. What I propose, is that ANY topic
can be on-topic here, by virtue of the quality of the participants.

I, for one, am tremendously interested in knowing more about any JSB
follower.

What say ye?

[Andrew Schulman]

Ioannis-

I would be very interested to know more about what JSB considered to be
of interest that was OT, by that of course I mean topics other than
music.

Andrew

[John Mauel]

Post by Andrew Schulman
Ioannis-
I would be very interested to know more about what JSB considered to be
of interest that was OT, by that of course I mean topics other than
music.
Andrew

Well. . . Ummmm... Errrr.... Emmm...
He did have 20 children.

John M.

[John_Sturmond]

Post by John Mauel

Post by Andrew Schulman
I would be very interested to know more about what JSB considered to be
of interest that was OT, by that of course I mean topics other than
music.
Andrew

Well. . . Ummmm... Errrr.... Emmm...
He did have 20 children.

LOL! He also, like a good and proper German, deeply
enjoyed drinking his beer, wine, and spirits. And we have
some evidence that a favorite pastime was simply to sit
and smoke his pipe, reflecting no doubt on the increasingly
high cost of raising a (large) family. There is a charming
poem about pipe smoking (The Edifying Thoughts of a
Pipe Smoker) which has been attributed to him, although
his authorship has not been established certainly.

[Ioannis]

Post by John_Sturmond

Post by John Mauel

Post by Andrew Schulman
I would be very interested to know more about what JSB considered to be
of interest that was OT, by that of course I mean topics other than
music.
Andrew

Well. . . Ummmm... Errrr.... Emmm...
He did have 20 children.

LOL! He also, like a good and proper German, deeply
enjoyed drinking his beer, wine, and spirits. And we have
some evidence that a favorite pastime was simply to sit
and smoke his pipe, reflecting no doubt on the increasingly
high cost of raising a (large) family.
There is a charming
poem about pipe smoking (The Edifying Thoughts of a
Pipe Smoker) which has been attributed to him, although
his authorship has not been established certainly.

For those who haven't seen it:

http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/music/edifying.html

On first sight a superficial ode to tobacco. On second sight a quite
profound and deep statement. Almost reflects my thoughts exactly :-)

[Tom Hens]

John_Sturmond <***@teleport.com> wrote...

<snip>

There is a charming poem about pipe smoking (The Edifying
Thoughts of a Pipe Smoker)

Other people might describe it as an insipid piece of devotional
versification, dwelling on the inevitability of death, and how the
ever-loving God is going to make one burn in hell after one dies.

which has been attributed to him, although
his authorship has not been established certainly.

There is absolutely no reason to attribute the anonymous text of BWV 515,
let alone the music, to J.S. Bach. There is no indication that Bach ever
wrote verse of any description -- if that was one of his hobbies, it must
have escaped the notice of any of his contemporaries, and not a single
snippet of it with his name on it has survived the centuries. Given the
quality of his few surviving bits of prose, it would certainly be
surprising if he was given to writing verse.

"His authorship has not been established certainly" in this context is code
for "someone just made it up".

[Ioannis]

Post by Tom Hens
Given the
quality of his few surviving bits of prose, it would certainly be
surprising if he was given to writing verse.

What are these "few surviving bits of prose" and where can we find them?

Thanks,

[Tom Hens]

Post by Ioannis

Post by Tom Hens
Given the
quality of his few surviving bits of prose, it would certainly be
surprising if he was given to writing verse.

What are these "few surviving bits of prose" and where can we find them?

They are all reproduced in volume I of the Bach-Dokumente (part of the
NBA), and if I'm not mistaken available in English translation in The Bach
Reader. They consist mainly of some letters and some expert's reports on
new organs, none of them very long. The most famous surviving text written
by him is of course the memorandum he addressed to the Leipzig city council
on the means he should have at his disposal to properly provide music in
all four city churches, including remarks about the size of the choirs,
that are being hotly debated to this day. That document is pretty long by
his standards, and takes up all of four pocket-book-size pages in an
edition I have.

It seems clear not just from the lack of surviving texts, but from comments
to that effect by C.P.E. Bach, and from the tortuous not to say tortured
quality of his few texts that do survive, that Bach simply wasn't big on
putting things into writing.

[Ioannis]

Post by Andrew Schulman
Ioannis-
I would be very interested to know more about what JSB considered to be
of interest that was OT, by that of course I mean topics other than
music.

Ok, Andrew. So far I see one vote for. Let's wait and see if the motion is
passed. If it is, I'll give some "OT" posts for consideration.

Post by Andrew Schulman
Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Ioannis
Ok, Andrew. So far I see one vote for. Let's wait and see if the motion is
passed. If it is, I'll give some "OT" posts for consideration.

Ioannis-

Looks like another "dead in the water" alt.music.j-s-bach thread, but
nice try...

Andrew

[Ioannis]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Ioannis
Ok, Andrew. So far I see one vote for. Let's wait and see if the motion is
passed. If it is, I'll give some "OT" posts for consideration.

Ioannis-
Looks like another "dead in the water" alt.music.j-s-bach thread, but
nice try...

As a matter of fact, it was quite expected :-)

I am reminded of the old saying:

"Those who speak, don't know. Those who know, don't speak (much)".

So it quite reinforces my appreciation of the fans here!

Besides doesn't one vote for, versus zero against count as passing the
motion? :-)

Post by Andrew Schulman
Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Ioannis
Besides doesn't one vote for, versus zero against count as passing the
motion? :-)

OK, the motion is passed. You said you had some topics you would
present, present away!

There are things I am also curious about re: the life and times of JSB.
For instance, what would a typical Sunday dinner consist of? How
accurate were time pieces (as in "Get me to the church, on tiiiiiime!)?
How often did the lute players change strings, and who made the
strings?

Andrew

[Dirk]

To add my bit here ... I'm very much attracted to the genious of Bach's
music because it exemplifies what any musican strives for ... I believe
a great part of his music thouches us on a higher level, after all, how
is it that manipulating soundwaves can resonate so deeply within us? As
regards his personality, though I went through a stage of reading up a
lot about Bach, I think it was more a case of searching for what
Einstein calls the "unattainable". Now I think Bach's personality as
almost irrelevant, if not possibly slightly afflicted because of his
genius. It's important to treasure the jewel and not idolize its maker.

[Ioannis]

Post by Dirk
To add my bit here ...

[snip]

Post by Dirk
It's important to treasure the jewel and not idolize its maker.

Why not? Let me confess something which may sound a bit self-centered, but
in reality is not:

In the words of a friend professor of Mathematics at the University of Crete
where I work, "you (meaning me) have produced an incredible amount of
work...".

Despite all this work, I am still profoundly sad, because I haven't found
what I was looking for. Different people are looking for different things. I
am disabled by my own limitations and afflictions as much as any other
human, and have had my share of pain and difficulty in this life. And I am
still looking...

JSB's music is a solace for me. I am /glad/ he existed. I could never have
produced much of my work, without his music. In a sense, JSB is sort of a
spiritual inspiration for me, as I grind through his organ works and output
theorems and lemmas. Similarly to me findining JSB an inspiration, perhaps
other people down the time valley will find me an inspiration as well.
Perhaps they will be asking after 2,000 years how the heck did I manage?
Well, there's your answer...

I cannot find anything else even /approaching/ this man's statement of
mission, and this man DID have a mission as clearly indicated by
Anna-Magdalena ("these people pester JSB with everyday unimportance not
realising that he has a mission to do..." paraphrasing freely) which is the
solace of human souls. Some people find solace on their pets. Others on
other people. I have nobody to find solace on, because nothing represents me
in this world, except the music of JSB.

You know, Sybrand sometimes makes me laugh so hard, I almost think he's
losing it. How can one claim that JS /could not/ have forseen the emergence
of interpreting his music on different instruments and at the same time have
JSB forsee that he will be saving /souls/ if I may use this phrase with his
sublime music?

It is really funny, because this man must have seen 1,000 years into the
future.

You know, my dad left us when I was 7. I /need/ an idol. I don't care if he
was a womanizer or a pipe smoker. So was my dad. But my dad was not there.
JSB /is/. Now. And that's what's important. The details of who he was
/really/ are insignificant, in the same way, if you wish, the details of who
Christ was are sort of insignificant against his message.

Christ became an idol. Why not JSB?

Who was it that said:
"JSB is saving more souls than Christ himself"

Apologies for the long-winded apology.

[Dirk]

Yes I suppose you have a point in that you can't really separate the
two, the jewel wouldn't be there without its maker. I just see more
value in the thing itself, one can only guess as to the nature of a
person's inner life and intentions.
Many great performers and composers see themselves as a 'conduit' for a
higher power. After all, it is Bach's work that draws us to Bach, not
Bach's personality that draws us to his work.

[John_Sturmond]

Post by Dirk
Many great performers and composers see themselves as a 'conduit' for a
higher power.

Not Bach, though. Bach knew he was a fallible, mortal man, and he
offered his work to his God humbly. If he were merely notating God's
own musical designs, he wouldn't have been able to offer them back
to HIm as being his own autonomous creations.

Post by Dirk
After all, it is Bach's work that draws us to Bach, not
Bach's personality that draws us to his work.

I'm not at all sure that the two can be separated. If
Bach's personality had been measurably different
than it was, so would his music have been.

[Dirk]

Post by John_Sturmond

Post by Dirk
Many great performers and composers see themselves as a 'conduit' for a
higher power.

Not Bach, though. Bach knew he was a fallible, mortal man, and he
offered his work to his God humbly.
If he were merely notating God's
own musical designs, he wouldn't have been able to offer them back
to HIm as being his own autonomous creations.

I think we have a language problem here; by 'conduit' I mean someone
that is able to translate the Universe's (read 'God') design, not a
profet. I make that quite clear in another reply in this thread.

Post by John_Sturmond

Post by Dirk
After all, it is Bach's work that draws us to Bach, not
Bach's personality that draws us to his work.

I'm not at all sure that the two can be separated. If
Bach's personality had been measurably different
than it was, so would his music have been.

Yes that is so, but your statement does not negate mine (which I
thought was quite nifty ...)

[Tom Hens]

Post by Ioannis
However, I want to propose a change: In my opinion ANY topic should be
on-topic here. I consider JSB listeners to have reached the epitome of
human wisdom, so they would certainly make interesting philosophers. I
really cannot fathom any other newsgroup where this can be done,

If you're interested in talking philosophy, how about using any of the
newsgroups with "philosophy" in their name? On my server, a quick check
turns up 122 of them.

<snip>

Post by Ioannis
I don't know if I am making myself clear. What I propose, is that ANY
topic can be on-topic here, by virtue of the quality of the
participants.

<snip>

Post by Ioannis
What say ye?

I say you don't seem to understand this is an unmoderated alt newsgroup,
and that therefore anyone can post whatever the hell he likes anyway.
Including pointless calls for "votes" on what is on-topic.

Therefore, I vote pineapple with a hint of cinnamon.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Tom Hens
Therefore, I vote pineapple with a hint of cinnamon.

Yechh...

A.

[Ioannis]

Post by Tom Hens

Post by Ioannis
However, I want to propose a change: In my opinion ANY topic should be
on-topic here. I consider JSB listeners to have reached the epitome of
human wisdom, so they would certainly make interesting philosophers. I
really cannot fathom any other newsgroup where this can be done,

If you're interested in talking philosophy, how about using any of the
newsgroups with "philosophy" in their name? On my server, a quick check
turns up 122 of them.

No, I am not interested in talking philosophy with the "philosophers". I am
interested in discussing philosophy with Bach fans. Are you really dense or
do you pretend to be one on usenet?

And btw, I was on usenet before you were a sperm floating in your father's
left ball, so spare me the insinuated patronizing.

Post by Tom Hens
<snip>

Post by Ioannis
I don't know if I am making myself clear. What I propose, is that ANY
topic can be on-topic here, by virtue of the quality of the
participants.

<snip>

Post by Ioannis
What say ye?

I say you don't seem to understand this is an unmoderated alt newsgroup,
and that therefore anyone can post whatever the hell he likes anyway.
Including pointless calls for "votes" on what is on-topic.

I understand perfectly well what an "unmoderated alt newsgroup" is, so
before I fly on a tangent with an off-topic post, which would appear to some
to be spam, I thought it prudent to call for a polite vote to see the
reaction of the readers, since I don't want to turn this group into a den of
spam, which is quite different from "discussing" various side issues with
Bach fans.

Post by Tom Hens
Therefore, I vote pineapple with a hint of cinnamon.

I vote that you are an asshole. How's that?

As if Sybrand was not enough, we have a second one.

[Dirk]

Post by Ioannis
No, I am not interested in talking philosophy with the "philosophers". I am
interested in discussing philosophy with Bach fans. Are you really dense or
do you pretend to be one on usenet?

Welcome to the world of music lovers ... I was suprised too to meet
such a patronizing lot of people here, though not that surprised; you
should go to the computing newsgroups ... they take the cake. ... I
totally like your idea of opening up our views into different fields
and SENSIBLY discuss them ... don't be discouraged because of a few...

[s***@yahoo.com]

Actually by responding to the comments of Tom Hens with a flame, you
just demonstrated again how self-conceited and arrogant you are.
In fact you have demonstrated that many times.

I vote you go away here, and start a moderated newsgroup with people of
your own kind, you select.
It would be no problem finding them here, there are many people here
which have a mind, that's similarly closed like yours.

How about hat?

[Ioannis]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Actually by responding to the comments of Tom Hens with a flame, you
just demonstrated again how self-conceited and arrogant you are.
In fact you have demonstrated that many times.

Heheh! The pot calling the kettle "black".

Post by s***@yahoo.com
I vote you go away here, and start a moderated newsgroup with people of
your own kind, you select.
It would be no problem finding them here, there are many people here
which have a mind, that's similarly closed like yours.
How about hat?

No, I don't need a "hat" Sybrand. You are the one who needs a "tinfoil hat".

Post by s***@yahoo.com
--
Sybrand Bakker

[John_Sturmond]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Actually by responding to the comments of Tom Hens with a flame, you
just demonstrated again how self-conceited and arrogant you are.

Sybrand Bakker is far and away the most arrogant person in this group.

Period.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
I vote you go away here, and start a moderated newsgroup with people of
your own kind, you select.
It would be no problem finding them here, there are many people here
which have a mind, that's similarly closed like yours.

Sybrand Bakker possesses the most closed mind in this group.

Period.


How's that?

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by John_Sturmond
Sybrand Bakker is far and away the most arrogant person in this group.
Period.
Sybrand Bakker possesses the most closed mind in this group.
Period.
How's that?

John,
Are you sure?

Andrew

[Dirk]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Actually by responding to the comments of Tom Hens with a flame, you
just demonstrated again how self-conceited and arrogant you are.
In fact you have demonstrated that many times.
I vote you go away here, and start a moderated newsgroup with people of
your own kind, you select.
It would be no problem finding them here, there are many people here
which have a mind, that's similarly closed like yours.
How about hat?

I vote that you and Tom take the cake. Though a newcomer in this group,
this became clear after a few seconds. Your tone is condescending and
abusive.
I think anecdotal knowledge is secondary to Bach's art, so I certainly
won't tolerate abuse on that front. I wonder, do you actually perform
Bach, or is it all just hot air?

[John_Sturmond]

X-No-Archive: Yes

Post by Dirk
I vote that you and Tom take the cake. Though a newcomer in this group,
this became clear after a few seconds. Your tone is condescending and
abusive.
I think anecdotal knowledge is secondary to Bach's art, so I certainly
won't tolerate abuse on that front. I wonder, do you actually perform
Bach, or is it all just hot air?

No, he does not perform Bach - that is clear.

He is only an anal-retentive 'scholar' who thinks he knows
everything about JSB, and everyone else knows nothing.

I think he needs to get laid.

[Tom Hens]

Ioannis <***@olympus.mons> wrote...

<snip>

Post by Ioannis
No, I am not interested in talking philosophy with the "philosophers". I
am interested in discussing philosophy with Bach fans. Are you really
dense or do you pretend to be one on usenet?

If one wants to discuss philosopy online, one goes to a place where people
interested in philosophy meet. If one wants to discuss the music of J.S.
Bach, one goes to a place where people interested in the music of J.S. Bach
meet. Your idea makes as much sense as wanting to discuss favourite
flavours of ice cream, favourite political parties, or favourite sexual
activities only with Bach fans.

Post by Ioannis
And btw, I was on usenet before you were a sperm floating in your
father's left ball, so spare me the insinuated patronizing.

Is this is a sample of the level of "philosophy" we can look forward to
seeing more of in this newsgroup? (I'm somewhat baffled by the assumed
chronology, since I was born long before Usenet existed, and especially why
it would be the *left* ball specifically.)

<snip>

Post by Ioannis
I vote that you are an asshole. How's that?
As if Sybrand was not enough, we have a second one.

So, let's tally the votes so far, to the extent they've arrived on my
server:

Yes: 1 vote (Andrew Schulman). 2 votes if we count Ioannis himself.
No: 1 vote (Sybrand Bakker).
Pineapple with a hint of cinnamon: 1 vote (Tom Hens).
Asshole: 2 votes (Ioannis, Ioannis).

Things are clearly looking up for philosophical discussion in
alt.music.j-s-bach.

[Qamra]

Post by Ioannis
I know this group is devoted to the works, life and personality of
JSB. I, myself have been following it for a good number of years now.
However, I want to propose a change: In my opinion ANY topic should be
on-topic here. I consider JSB listeners to have reached the epitome
of human wisdom, so they would certainly make interesting
philosophers. I really cannot fathom any other newsgroup where this
can be done, as the specific interests all other newsgroups address
are not necessarily a guarantee for wisdom, however you want to
define "wisdom". This is of course a subjective statement, yet in my
opinion JSB is "above all else" in this world.
This newsgroup is relatively free of trolls, and few people visit.
(Well, the wise are always few, it seems :-)
On the other hand, I have closely monitored the people who post here
for a number of years. The greatest percentage of them are moderate,
serene, well-educated, relatively quiet, without too many emotional
explosions and overall good conservationists.
I don't know if I am making myself clear. What I propose, is that ANY
topic can be on-topic here, by virtue of the quality of the
participants.
I, for one, am tremendously interested in knowing more about any JSB
follower.
What say ye?

Dear Ioannis,

From all your posts in this group I have read in the past few years, I
consider you a wise man with very balanced opinions, and I would be very
interested to know what you, and other group members as well, might have to
say about other topics than JSB.
Of course I'm only a lurker here most of the time, just because most people
here know much more about JSB and his music than I do, and I just have very
little to add. But I'm sure that I'm just as much a Bach lover as everybody
else here, and I read every post with interest and am learning a lot from
all of you.
Now there are a few considerations concerning your proposal that I want to
share with you.

First, if we start discussing more diverse matters here, aren't you afraid
that we may attract more trolls and spammers? As you already said, this
group is relatively free of trolls now, and we don't need more of them, do
we?

Then there is a more personal consideration. I think if traffic in this
group will increase, and more diverse topics will be discussed, people who
only come to search for information on JSB may have difficulty to find what
they are looking for.
As for myself, I am visually impaired, which of course is completely
irrelevant to any discussion here, except that it is something I
have in common with JSB in his last year. :) But consequently I can only
access the computer by means of special hardware and software, in my case a
screenreader program with speech synthesizer and a braille display.
This works fine, but in this way it takes lots of time to browse the
internet or look at newsgroups, as I can't use a mouse and have to scan
through all posts using
the arrow keys, reading every message line after line, because my braille
display can only show 40 characters at once.
For this reason I only monitor very few newsgroups, which are all relatively
quiet, and I'm very happy that the group that is dedicated to my favorite
composer also belongs to that category until now.

Now if I may give you my suggestion, why don't you just start a new,
unmoderated alt newsgroup? I don't know how that technically works, but it
should be possible as far as I know.
If you name your group something like "alt.music.j-s-bach.offtopic", you
will probably have the same community we have here, but it will remain clear
where people can find what. It is done that way with other newsgroups as
well.

But if you decide not to do that and just start your philosophical
discussions here, I will continue reading every post as long as time allows.

With kind regards,
Qamra

[Ioannis]

"Qamra" <***@coolplaces.nl> wrote in message news:44546817$0$71862$***@news.wanadoo.nl...
[snip]

Post by Qamra
Dear Ioannis,

[snip]

Post by Qamra
As for myself, I am visually impaired, which of course is completely
irrelevant to any discussion here, except that it is something I
have in common with JSB in his last year. :) But consequently I can only
access the computer by means of special hardware and software, in my case a
screenreader program with speech synthesizer and a braille display.
This works fine, but in this way it takes lots of time to browse the
internet or look at newsgroups, as I can't use a mouse and have to scan
through all posts using
the arrow keys, reading every message line after line, because my braille
display can only show 40 characters at once.
For this reason I only monitor very few newsgroups, which are all relatively
quiet, and I'm very happy that the group that is dedicated to my favorite
composer also belongs to that category until now.

[snip]

A polite suggestion can go quite far.

I'll keep my metaphysics with me.

Thank you for your opinion, Qamra.

Post by Qamra
With kind regards,
Qamra

[Andrew Schulman]

Ioannis-

There is certainly room though to expand topics here, and yet keep the
Bach connection. You mentioned that you had some topics along those
lines, why don't you post them and help[ keep things lively like they
have been over the past week or two!

Andrew

[Ioannis]

Post by Andrew Schulman
Ioannis-
There is certainly room though to expand topics here, and yet keep the
Bach connection. You mentioned that you had some topics along those
lines, why don't you post them and help[ keep things lively like they
have been over the past week or two!

Andrew,

I think it has been lively enough without any off-topic posts :-)

Anyway, the issue I was concerned with was simply how Bach's music ties to
everyone's philosophy. I think it's pretty off-topic, so I'll leave it at
that and not start a new topic.

I recently read a wiki article on existentialism and was simply wondering
how everyone reconciles Bach's music /on a personal level/ with their
philosophical view of existentialism. In particular I was wondering about
the agnostic and atheist existentialists and what kind of impact the music
had on their philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

On a personal level I am more of an agnostic existentialist, but cannot help
beeing drawn to a more "ideal" form of either a Christian or a (generic)
theistic existentialism when I hear Bach's music.

The reason I was curious was because it is clear that the music does this to
me. Otherwise I am quite inert with respect to theistic beliefs, so I was
simply wondering if anyone else experiences that.

I do not wish to start any heated religious debates here, simply noticing
that Bach's music (at least on me) seems to have a strange side-effect: That
of pondering a more theistic view in an otherwise inert mind.

As a side note, I was also wondering what are the readers' opinions on
whether Bach intentionally does that with his secular compositions. In other
words, does Bach /know/ the audience he addresses in advance? And I do not
mean the audience of his times, rather, Bach the creator, who sees into the
future. Does he perhaps /forsee/ that eventually he will be addressing a
higher audience? If not, why does he bother with gematria? If yes, is the
theistic predisposition an accidental side effect of the music's complexity
or do we (at least those of us who experience this side effect) simply
respond favorably to something that /we think/ we are generically familiar
with?

My own opinion is that the music expresses something which deep down we are
all familiar with, but I have no clue what it is or where it comes from,
thus my quandry.

Post by Andrew Schulman
Andrew

[John_Sturmond]

Post by Ioannis
As a side note, I was also wondering what are the readers' opinions on
whether Bach intentionally does that with his secular compositions. In other
words, does Bach /know/ the audience he addresses in advance? And I do not
mean the audience of his times, rather, Bach the creator, who sees into the
future. Does he perhaps /forsee/ that eventually he will be addressing a
higher audience?

Good topics all. It is tempting to see Bach as an all-knowing sage
who knew exactly what effect his music would evoke in listeners of
his and future ages. However, the reality of it seems to be somewhat
different. He faced considerable opposition and criticism in his day,
stemming from what some contemporary critics described as an
'excess of art'. Can you imagine? Of course, Bach's polyphony
was created at a time when more simple homophonic textures
were becoming popular, and in fact after his death came to
dominate the musical scene. It must have been a source of
great frustration for him to have his music discounted by some
as being too brainy or complex for popular enjoyment.

I have no doubt that he was aware of the quality of his music, and
have often wondered if he had any inkling that his creations would
be venerated by future generations for all time. I tend to doubt it -
after all, composing was among other things very much of a _job_
for the man, and he had to do it whether the muse moved him or
not. It seems unlikely that a 3-part invention which he tossed off in
30 minutes would strike him as something that, hundreds of years
hence, would be part of standard and required keyboard literature.

In any case, whether he knew it or not, he left the world a gift
the magnificence of which can scarcely be appreciated. His
must be counted as one of the supreme achievements of
history, among only a handful of others.

For this, I thank his spirit every day of my life.

*

[Tom Hens]

Post by John_Sturmond
It is tempting to see Bach as an all-knowing sage
who knew exactly what effect his music would evoke in listeners of
his and future ages.

Erm... why? Were Vivaldi, Telemann, Rameau, Vivaldi or Handel (to mention
just a few of the most obvious contemporaries) also such all-knowing sages?

[John_Sturmond]

Post by Tom Hens

Post by John_Sturmond
It is tempting to see Bach as an all-knowing sage
who knew exactly what effect his music would evoke in listeners of
his and future ages.

Erm... why? Were Vivaldi, Telemann, Rameau, Vivaldi or Handel (to mention
just a few of the most obvious contemporaries) also such all-knowing sages?

Stop calling me Erm.

No, the others you mention do not have near the image of
JSB as being a near-sacred, bigger than life genius.

[Tom Hens]

Post by John_Sturmond

Post by Tom Hens

Post by John_Sturmond
It is tempting to see Bach as an all-knowing sage
who knew exactly what effect his music would evoke in listeners
of his and future ages.

Erm... why? Were Vivaldi, Telemann, Rameau, Vivaldi or Handel
(to mention just a few of the most obvious contemporaries) also
such all-knowing sages?

Stop calling me Erm.
No, the others you mention do not have near the image of
JSB as being a near-sacred, bigger than life genius.

I don't know of any sane people who think Bach is an "all-knowing sage" and
"near-sacred" (how does one distinguish betweeh a sacred person and a
merely near-sacred one, I wonder?) There are definitely lots of delusional
individuals with such beliefs out there, though.

[Dirk]

Post by Ioannis
My own opinion is that the music expresses something which deep down we are
all familiar with, but I have no clue what it is or where it comes from,
thus my quandry.

I believe this is exactly why we should discuss 'off topic' issues
(although to my mind this is 'on topic') ...
Though I'm a bit of a 'backyard philosopher' (not knowing the proper
terminology), I do know a bit about science. And many issues in science
bring up pilosophical questions.

Here's a scientific take on the issue:

Our Western musical language (and most of the ethnic music I know) is
based on the circle of fifths. The circle of fifths can be closely
approached by divisions by 3 and
multiplications of 2 ... I actually wrote about this topic: see
http://www.ids.org.au/~dbertels/music/constructing_scales.html

Many don't see the significance of this, but I've come to see 'number'
as one of the most fundamental concepts in the universe (with the help
of Plato, Pytagoras, etc...), virtually all else in the universe is
'fuzzy'.

I think it amazing that the interaction of these numbers (creating
harmony and rhythm) creates such beautiful and intricate music. Not
unlike the beautiful 'Mandelbroth images' that can be gotten by
iterating a very simple equation.

Bach's music is somewhat 'mathematical' because in some ways, he thinks
like a mathematician, that is, he can see patterns, see works in their
totality. He also applied number to issues such like the number of
bars a work had, etc ... A great book that explores this issue is
'Godel, Escher and Bach'.

More significantly, he was able to apply rules to aesthetic issues,
such as the well-known 'consecutive fifths and octaves' rules. I think
this combination of aesthetics and his ability of seeing patterns is
what makes Bach's music great.

I think that by listening or playing Bach, the mind is given a taste of
the totality
of the universe (I know, big words), but to my mind this accounts for
the spiritual experience that Bach's music brings.

[Charles]

Post by Dirk
I believe this is exactly why we should discuss 'off topic' issues
(although to my mind this is 'on topic') ...
Though I'm a bit of a 'backyard philosopher' (not knowing the proper
terminology), I do know a bit about science. And many issues in science
bring up pilosophical questions.
Our Western musical language (and most of the ethnic music I know) is
based on the circle of fifths. The circle of fifths can be closely
approached by divisions by 3 and
multiplications of 2 ... I actually wrote about this topic: see
http://www.ids.org.au/~dbertels/music/constructing_scales.html
Many don't see the significance of this, but I've come to see 'number'
as one of the most fundamental concepts in the universe (with the help
of Plato, Pytagoras, etc...), virtually all else in the universe is
'fuzzy'.
I think it amazing that the interaction of these numbers (creating
harmony and rhythm) creates such beautiful and intricate music. Not
unlike the beautiful 'Mandelbroth images' that can be gotten by
iterating a very simple equation.

For example, so-called 'super-particular' ratios, namely proportions like
2:1, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, 6:5, 7:6, 8:7, 9:8, where the top of the fraction is one
bigger than the bottom. Many of these are musically significant:

2:1 octave
3:2 fifth
4:3 fourth
5:4 major third
6:5 minor third
8:5 minor sixth
9:8 major seventh
16:15 minor second


The German mathematician Andreas Sparschuh has suggested applying this
'super-particular' notion to the circle of fifths, by considering
super-particular factorisations of the Pythagorean Comma as representing
tempering operations. For example, he reinterpreted Werckmeister Nr.3 to
represent the Pythagorean Comma 531441/524288 (i.e., 3^12/2^19) as the
product of four super-particular ratios:
(6561/6560)(205/204)(153/152)(513/512)

To bring this back to Bach, Sparschuh has also proposed that the squiggle on
the cover sheet of Das Wohltemperirte Clavier represents a division of the
Pythagorean Comma into the following 9 super-particular factors:
531441/524288 = (615/614) (921/920) (345/344) (1161/1160) (435/434)
(651/650) (975/974) (1461/1460) (657/656).

Back in 1999 he proposed a different super-particular factorisation also
based on the WTC squiggle. Recently, he has offered an interpretation of the
Bach monogram (also used by Kellner) and this leads to a different
factorisation. Consideration of Suppig's squiggles (similar to Bach and also
from 1722) has led him to yet another super-particular factorisation.

Note, however, that many of these sources can be given an alternative
acoustic interpretation as beats within an octave:

http://bach.tuning.googlepages.com/




Regards
Charles

[Ioannis]

"Charles" <***@datacomm.ch> wrote in message news:4456204f$***@news.bluewin.ch...
[snip]

Post by Charles
For example, so-called 'super-particular' ratios, namely proportions like
2:1, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, 6:5, 7:6, 8:7, 9:8, where the top of the fraction is one
2:1 octave
3:2 fifth
4:3 fourth
5:4 major third
6:5 minor third
8:5 minor sixth
9:8 major seventh
16:15 minor second
The German mathematician Andreas Sparschuh has suggested applying this
'super-particular' notion to the circle of fifths, by considering
super-particular factorisations of the Pythagorean Comma as representing
tempering operations. For example, he reinterpreted Werckmeister Nr.3 to
represent the Pythagorean Comma 531441/524288 (i.e., 3^12/2^19) as the
(6561/6560)(205/204)(153/152)(513/512)
To bring this back to Bach, Sparschuh has also proposed that the squiggle on
the cover sheet of Das Wohltemperirte Clavier represents a division of the
531441/524288 = (615/614) (921/920) (345/344) (1161/1160) (435/434)
(651/650) (975/974) (1461/1460) (657/656).
Back in 1999 he proposed a different super-particular factorisation also
based on the WTC squiggle. Recently, he has offered an interpretation of the
Bach monogram (also used by Kellner) and this leads to a different
factorisation. Consideration of Suppig's squiggles (similar to Bach and also
from 1722) has led him to yet another super-particular factorisation.
Note, however, that many of these sources can be given an alternative
http://bach.tuning.googlepages.com/

If any of you own a Macintosh, and want to experiment with different
temperaments, you can download my program:

http://www.virtualcomposer2000.com/

and play the included pieces by Bach using any of the following
temperaments:

Equal, Pythagorean, Modified Pythagorean, Ptolemaic (Just), Mean-Tone,
Kirnberger III, Werckmeister III, Kellner Wohltemperirt, and any custom
ones, by specifying your own ratios.

The Kellner temperament sounds particularly good, as I got those ratios from
Kellner himself, through this newsgroup. I detect a certain "sweet" quality
of tone, much sweeter than Equal, but the difference requires a keen ear and
a good pair of head phones.

(This is a shareware program, but the playback function is free, for already
existing files)

Enjoy.

Post by Charles
Regards
Charles

[Alain Naigeon]

Post by Charles
9:8 major seventh

You meant major second ?!

[Charles]

Post by Alain Naigeon

Post by Charles
9:8 major seventh

You meant major second ?!

Yes indeed!


Regards
Charles

[Jeroen ter Hofstede]

Ioannis schreef:

[snip]

Post by Ioannis
Anyway, the issue I was concerned with was simply how Bach's music ties to
everyone's philosophy. I think it's pretty off-topic, so I'll leave it at
that and not start a new topic.

As long as Bach is mentioned, it looks on-topic enough to me for this
group. When in doubt, you can always mark a thread with [OT], so it is
easier to skip for people not interested.

[Andrew Schulman]

Ioannis-

As to the spiritual quality of Bach's music, there is an illustration
of this in Jan Swafford's biography of Brahms, an excellent book.
http://tinyurl.com/gpbly

In Brahms last months, as he was dying of liver cancer (though there is
some debate if it was liver cancer or another form of cancer) he spent
a lot of time reading through the Bach manuscripts he owned, especially
cantatas.

Andrew