Discussion:
Please Help identify piece and article
(too old to reply)
Pan
2003-06-23 12:07:56 UTC
Permalink
No, it doesn't. Is there any record of him _saying_ he wrote any work
expressly for performance on then extant forms of what we can broadly
term a fortepiano?
Bach composed the 3-part Ricerare for fortepiano, Michael.
Prove it! You've never proven any such assertion, and you've tired
everyone with your act.
Long after Bach's death.
Incorrect, Michael. Bach refers to the fortepianos of Frederick the Great
as "Clavier".
You snipped too much.
We probably agree that the meaning of the
term "Klavier/Clavier" has changed with time (see my previous post), indeed
the meaning in modern German is piano. So the question becomes at what
point did the meaning change?
Long after Bach's death.

The meaning did not change until the word no longer was being used for
"harpsichord."
And exclusively to same?
Mr. Baaker is the one arguing for exclusivity (harpsichord only), Michael.
I'm not talking to him now; I'm talking to _you_. _You_ are making
false claims.
IMO, harpsichordists such as yourself
I'm not a harpsichordist, and the fact that you'd think so just
demonstrates how little attention you pay to other subscribers to this
newsgroup.

[snip]
notwithstanding Bach's opinion was that the instrument lacked soul.
Citation?
Bull.
How ironic coming from someone who is talking bull, Michael
You're talking through your hat, as usual.
How ironic coming from someone who is talking through his hat as usual,
Michael.
[snip]

You don't even know what fucking instrument I play, so the idea that
you know what I write "as usual" is preposterous! You are the resident
troll.

Michael
Jasper Riedel
2003-06-23 14:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Read this for instance:
http://www.cantos.org/Piano/History/technical.html
Charles, what you are saying is simply wrong!
What is the basis for that claim, Jaspar?
You could also say that Bach loved to go out
by helicopter each Sunday! It was a timely
process to develop the modern piano.
Bach did not own a helicopter, Jaspar, but he did own a fortepiano.
Regards - J
Regards - C
Jasper Riedel
2003-06-23 20:44:35 UTC
Permalink
yes ok, anyhow ;) regards!
Post by Jasper Riedel
http://www.cantos.org/Piano/History/technical.html
Jasper, it is useless to post URLs like this one, as Mr. "Charles"
Francis has been established not to be capable of reading any evidence
that doesn't suit him.
Sybrand Bakker
anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres
Charles
2003-06-23 23:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jasper Riedel
http://www.cantos.org/Piano/History/technical.html
Jasper, it is useless to post URLs like this one, as Mr. "Charles"
Francis has been established not to be capable of reading any evidence
that doesn't suit him.
How ironic.
Sybrand Bakker
2003-06-23 17:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
You are the resident
troll.
And a stupid and stubborn one too.


Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres
Charles
2003-06-23 23:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Post by Pan
You are the resident
troll.
And a stupid and stubborn one too.
How ironic.
Max
2003-06-24 08:22:27 UTC
Permalink
A number of harpsichordists acknowledged that their instrument's lack
of dynamic control was a limitation. Even Francois Couperin expresses
this in a somewhat regretful tone, but he moves on and explains how to
compensate, and it's no different than a pianist explaining how to
cope with piano-specific problems. (Heinrich Neuhaus's book has
recently been republished by the way)

The thing is, CPE Bach had a pronounced distaste for the harpsichord
and takes snipes at it in several places in his treatise. Elsewhere
he attacks the musician whose face remains stolid during performance -
the editor's annotation here says that CPE was referring to his
father, which is a weird assumption. He certainly had an axe to grind
with Baroque music ("pedantry") and so in view of his role as his
dad's PR spokesman and defender, you have to suspect that he tried to
mediate for others the astringent impression left by his father.
-Max
(i.e. you have to take everything he says with a grain of salt.)
Max
2003-06-27 18:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
The thing is, CPE Bach had a pronounced distaste for the harpsichord
and takes snipes at it in several places in his treatise. Elsewhere
he attacks the musician whose face remains stolid during performance -
the editor's annotation here says that CPE was referring to his
father, which is a weird assumption.
Looked into the above and it turns out tht CPE did describe JS's
physical manner at the keyboard as inexpressive. In light of what he
says in the treatise, this very much means that CPE had some negative
opinions of his father's musical tastes. -Max
Post by Max
He certainly had an axe to grind
with Baroque music ("pedantry") and so in view of his role as his
dad's PR spokesman and defender, you have to suspect that he tried to
mediate for others the astringent impression left by his father.
-Max
(i.e. you have to take everything he says with a grain of salt.)
Sybrand Bakker
2003-06-27 20:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
Looked into the above and it turns out tht CPE did describe JS's
physical manner at the keyboard as inexpressive. In light of what he
says in the treatise, this very much means that CPE had some negative
opinions of his father's musical tastes. -Max
It seems JS didn't liked his second son's music too much either. He is
quoted to have said 'It is Berlin Blue, it shifts'


Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres
Sybrand Bakker
2003-06-28 06:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sybrand Bakker
It seems JS didn't liked his second son's music too much either. He is
quoted to have said 'It is Berlin Blue, it shifts'
One should not forget, however, that in his last years Bach visited Berlin.
Was it simply the irresistible allure of the Silbermann fortepianos that
motivated him to make this arduous journey? Or was it also the desire to
visit his son? At any rate, there is nothing to suggest estrangement.
Regards
Charles
Just make up any fairy tale you like. What would be the prime
motivation for JS to visit *Potsdam* (not Berlin!). To visit his son
of course!
To what nonsensical limits will you go to proof Bach preferred the
piano? Your 'proofs' are all fairy tales!
Why would JS judgement of his sons music imply estrangement. *YOU* and
*YOU ALONE* are making that up. You are a master in reading things
behind the lines *THAT ARE NOT THERE*
Why don't you stop making false and nonsensical claims. Why don't you
just *admit* you are *wrong*.




Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres
Qamra
2003-06-28 15:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Just make up any fairy tale you like.
Non Sequitur.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
What would be the prime motivation for JS to visit *Potsdam* (not
Berlin!).
You introduced "Berlin Blue", Sybrand.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
To visit his son of course!
So establishing the strength of the relationship between them,
Sybrand. Doesn't this indicate CPE would have good knowledge of his
father's musical tastes and no reason to lie about them?
Post by Sybrand Bakker
To what nonsensical limits will you go to proof Bach preferred the
piano?
An ironic question coming from one who so frequently posts nonsense,
Sybrand.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Your 'proofs' are all fairy tales!
Another falsehood, Sybrand.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Why would JS judgement of his sons music imply estrangement.
Non Sequitur.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
*YOU* and *YOU ALONE* are making that up.
Impossible Sybrand, since I have made no such assertion.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
You are a master in reading things behind the lines *THAT ARE NOT
THERE*
What is the basis for that claim, Sybrand?
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Why don't you stop making false and nonsensical claims.
You erroneously suppose I make false and nonsensical claims, Sybrand.
Rather ironic, don't you think?
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Why don't you just *admit* you are *wrong*.
Because I have no evidence to suggest that, Sybrand.
My God, are we starting all over again now?
I thought I had finally found a serious newsgroup, but apparently not. Why
can't we discuss whether Bach liked the fortepiano or not without becoming
so personal and insulting, Sybrand and Charles? Just prove your opinion with
good arguments without using the word "YOU". And this "How ironic" is also
making me sick...

Regards,
Qamra.
Sybrand Bakker
2003-06-28 20:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Qamra
My God, are we starting all over again now?
I thought I had finally found a serious newsgroup, but apparently not. Why
can't we discuss whether Bach liked the fortepiano or not without becoming
so personal and insulting, Sybrand and Charles? Just prove your opinion with
good arguments without using the word "YOU". And this "How ironic" is also
making me sick...
Regards,
Qamra.
There is a need to do so, because Charles has been consistently
misreading, misinterpreting, and constructing things that are not
there.
Does the fact that Bach sold a Silbermann fortepiano demonstrate Bach
*liked* the instrument? Bach sold musical prints of many of his
contemporaries. So the fact that Bach sold a Silbermann fortepiano
doesn't tell anything. Charles however is implying it did. This is an
excellent example of Charles wilfully misinterpreting evidence.
Does the fact that Bach sold a Silbermann fortepiano demonstrate Bach
would have liked the modern grand? According to Charles it does
because the modern grand is a better instrument than the Silbermann
fortepiano. The modern grand however isn't necessarily better, it is
simply *different*. Many 19th century composers preferred their
Erards, never wrote for the Steinway.
So why would Bach have preferred an instrument he simply has never
heard?
It is this ridiculous nonsense that Charles is posting over and over
and over again. He *knows* he has no leg to stand on. he *knows* he
simply always leaves out anything that doesn't coincide with his
views, yet he continues *over and over and over again* to make false
claims. This simply should be stopped as soon as possible, just like
the ridiculous Charles/Francis claim (which will soon come up again,
because Charles simply *LOVES* getting other people in this group
angry, actually IT IS THE SOLE REASON WHY HE POSTS HERE), Bach
composed a *ROMAN* Catholic mass.


Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres
Charles
2003-06-28 23:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sybrand Bakker
There is a need to do so, because Charles has been consistently
misreading, misinterpreting, and constructing things that are not there.
On the contrary, Sybrand, it is you who has been consistently misreading,
misinterpreting, and constructing things that are not there.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Does the fact that Bach sold a Silbermann fortepiano demonstrate Bach
*liked* the instrument?
To address this point, I reproduce a short section from the New Bach Reader
(p. 365-366 ) taken from the notes quoting Bach in Jakob Adlung's Musica
mechanica organoedi, by Johann Freiderich Agricola (1768):

"On Silbermann's pianofortes: ... Mr. Gottfried Silbermann had at first
built two of these instruments [pianofortes]. One of them was seen and
played by the late Capellmeister, Mr. Joh. Sebastian Bach. He praised,
indeed admired, its tone; but complained that it was too weak in the high
register and too hard to play [i.e. the action was too heavy]. This was
taken greatly amiss by Mr. Silbermann, who could not bear to have any fault
found in his handiworks. He was therefore angry at Mr. Bach for a long
time. And yet his conscience told him that Mr. Bach was not wrong. He
therefore decided---greatly to his credit, be it said---not to deliver any
more of these instruments, but instead to think all the harder about how to
eliminate the faults Mr. J.S. Bach had observed. He worked for many years
on this. And that is the real cause of this postponement I have the less
doubt since I myself heard it frankly acknowledged by Mr. Silbermann.
Finally, when Mr. Silbermann had really achieved many improvements, notably
in respect to the action, he sold one again to the Court of the Prince of
Rudolstadt. Shortly thereafter His Majesty the King of Prussia had one of
these instruments ordered and, when it met with His Majesty's Most Gracious
approval, he had several more ordered from Mr. Silbermann. Mr. Silbermann
also had the laudable ambition to show one of these instruments of his later
workmanship to the late Capellmeister Bach, and have it examined by him; and
he received in turn complete approval from him."
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Bach sold musical prints of many of his contemporaries.
So the fact that Bach sold a Silbermann fortepiano
doesn't tell anything. Charles however is implying it did.
This has been discussed in a previous posting, Sybrand. So far you have not
addressed any of the points I raised.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
This is an excellent example of Charles wilfully misinterpreting evidence.
This is an excellent example of your continued use of the Ad Hominem.,
Sybrand. Why not just admit you have no valid counter arguments?
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Does the fact that Bach sold a Silbermann fortepiano demonstrate Bach
would have liked the modern grand? According to Charles it does
because the modern grand is a better instrument than the Silbermann
fortepiano.
Once again you choose to misrepresent my position, Sybrand. What I have
noted in fact, is that unlike Murray Perahia, Bach didn't have the benefit
of a modern Steinway - this point addresses Murray Perahia's choice of
instrument, not Bach's.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
The modern grand however isn't necessarily better, it is
simply *different*. Many 19th century composers preferred their
Erards, never wrote for the Steinway.
Along with two harpsichords and a virginal, I also play a 19th century
piano, Sybrand.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
So why would Bach have preferred an instrument he simply has never heard?
Logically, Bach could not prefer an instrument he had never heard - so
what's your point, Sybrand?
Post by Sybrand Bakker
It is this ridiculous nonsense that Charles is posting over and over and
over again.
How ironic coming from one is posting ridiculous nonsense.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
He *knows* he has no leg to stand on. he *knows*
On what basis do you claim to know my mind, Sybrand?
Post by Sybrand Bakker
he simply always leaves out anything that doesn't coincide with his views,
On the contrary, Sybrand, you are the one who frequently leaves out
anything that doesn't coincide with your views.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
yet he continues *over and over and over again* to make false claims.
On the contrary, Sybrand, you are the one who continues to make false
claims.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
This simply should be stopped as soon as possible,
Here you show your true colours, Sybrand!
Post by Sybrand Bakker
just like the ridiculous Charles/Francis claim (which will soon come up
again, because Charles simply *LOVES* getting other people in this group
angry, actually IT IS THE SOLE REASON WHY HE POSTS HERE),
How ironic, given you have posted so much invective here, Sybrand.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Bach composed a *ROMAN* Catholic mass.
How ironic that you again raise the topic of Bach's Roman Catholic mass,
Sybrand. And how ironic that a database administrator like yourself should
brand as "ridiculous" the findings of professional musicologists such as
Profs. von Dadelsen and George B. Stauffer.
Franneke
2003-06-28 23:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Along with two harpsichords and a virginal, I also play a 19th century
piano, Sybrand.
Could you be a bit more specific about this piano, Charles?
Charles
2003-06-29 13:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franneke
Could you be a bit more specific about this piano, Charles?
Sure! You can hear it at:
http://www.artvista.net/Mp3's/128%20Kbit/reverie.mp3
http://www.artvista.net/Mp3's/128%20Kbit/Liebesdraum.mp3

It's a sampled piano from 1894 manufactured and sold by J.G. Malmsjö to
Esquire Ivar Berg as a wedding gift for his new royal bride.

The Malmsjö Piano Factory in Gothenburg, Sweden, was established in 1843.
This was approximately ten years before Steinway & Sons opened its factory
in the U.S. Malmsjö became the leading piano manufacturer in Sweden and
produced pianos of excellent quality and beauty. Inexpensive pianos from
East Germany increased the competition in the 1960's and the factory closed
down around 1970.


Regards
Charles
Qamra
2003-06-29 17:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Post by Franneke
Could you be a bit more specific about this piano, Charles?
http://www.artvista.net/Mp3's/128%20Kbit/reverie.mp3
http://www.artvista.net/Mp3's/128%20Kbit/Liebesdraum.mp3
Of course it isn't Bach :-) but still it sounds very beautiful, Charles!

Salam,
Qamra.
Charles
2003-06-29 19:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Thanks. Nice clear sound, appropriate for Liszt.
You're welcome!
Of course JS has never heard anything like it.
Indeed we are really very privileged today. Bach could never have imagined,
for example, that people all over the world would one day be able to hear
the same clavichord recital!


Regards
Charles
Qamra
2003-06-29 08:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Post by Qamra
My God, are we starting all over again now?
I thought I had finally found a serious newsgroup, but apparently
not. Why can't we discuss whether Bach liked the fortepiano or not
without becoming so personal and insulting, Sybrand and Charles?
Just prove your opinion with good arguments without using the word
"YOU". And this "How ironic" is also making me sick...
Regards,
Qamra.
There is a need to do so, because Charles has been consistently
misreading, misinterpreting, and constructing things that are not
there.
Does the fact that Bach sold a Silbermann fortepiano demonstrate Bach
*liked* the instrument? Bach sold musical prints of many of his
contemporaries. So the fact that Bach sold a Silbermann fortepiano
doesn't tell anything. Charles however is implying it did. This is an
I agree with you at this point. The fact that Bach sold a fortepiano doesn't
prove anything.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
excellent example of Charles wilfully misinterpreting evidence.
This is what I mean. You could just as well have left this sentence away. It
doesn't add anything, it's only meant to insult.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Does the fact that Bach sold a Silbermann fortepiano demonstrate Bach
would have liked the modern grand? According to Charles it does
because the modern grand is a better instrument than the Silbermann
fortepiano. The modern grand however isn't necessarily better, it is
simply *different*. Many 19th century composers preferred their
Erards, never wrote for the Steinway.
So why would Bach have preferred an instrument he simply has never
heard?
Again I agree. We simply can't know whether Bach would have liked the sound
of a Steinway. But imo it isn't important. I do not like Bach being played
on a Steinway, but if somebody wants to do so and plays Bach with respect
for the music and there are people who like it, what's the problem? If you
don't like it, just don't listen to it.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
It is this ridiculous nonsense that Charles is posting over and over
and over again. He *knows* he has no leg to stand on. he *knows* he
simply always leaves out anything that doesn't coincide with his
views, yet he continues *over and over and over again* to make false
claims. This simply should be stopped as soon as possible, just like
the ridiculous Charles/Francis claim (which will soon come up again,
because Charles simply *LOVES* getting other people in this group
angry, actually IT IS THE SOLE REASON WHY HE POSTS HERE), Bach
composed a *ROMAN* Catholic mass.
So you say he is a troll. Why then do you feed him? It's so annoying to read
all this!
And... this may be a stupid question, I'm relatively new here, but what has
the fact that Bach composed a ROMAN Catholic mass got to do with it?

Salam,
Qamra.
Max
2003-06-28 18:45:04 UTC
Permalink
So establishing the strength of the relationship between them, Sybrand.
Doesn't this indicate CPE would have good knowledge of his father's musical
tastes and no reason to lie about them?
This is precisely the point: he did have a reason to lie or at least
make himself believe what he wanted. CPE had an aggressive and
hostile attitude towards his father's playing style (a passage in his
treatise that is later obliquely revealed in a letter to Forkel as a
description of JS).

Very simply put, CPE found himself in a position establishing his
father's reputation for a post-Baroque Europe that - and this
especially goes for those in CPE's encampment - would have shunned
some of his father's outmoded tastes. Saying that his father was
unsatisfied with the expressionless harpsichord would have redeemed an
embarrassing facet of his father's musicality.

We find the same thing in Kutner's 1774 portrait of JS, approved by
CPE, which "transcribed" the 1748/46 Haussmann JS into a more modern
JS: his outfit is brought up to date and he is given a facelift: a
fiery devil-may-care
countenance.(http://www.npj.com/thefaceofbach/02dw731.html)

Now, CPE may have outright lied about his father, which I strongly
doubt, or he may have simply given himself some liberty in
interpreting a comment made by his father in order to bring it in
accordance with his own strongly held point of view. And this is
EXACTLY what modern biographers are constanly wary of when consulting
witnesses, but in Forkel's time, there was no such concern. Now, this
isn't just my own spouting - I've read other scholars attacking the
reliability of Forkel and CPE.

JS had a passion for collecting harpsichords. His estate lists 12 of
them iirc, and it's a stretch to say that they were all utilitarian
purchases. All it takes is one hearing of a *soulful* harpsichordist
in Bach's music to make you realize that CPE was full of shit.

-Max

"Harpsichords with gut strings sound beautiful, too!"
-JS Bach, probably... :)
Charles
2003-06-29 20:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
So establishing the strength of the relationship between them, Sybrand.
Doesn't this indicate CPE would have good knowledge of his father's musical
tastes and no reason to lie about them?
This is precisely the point: he did have a reason to lie or at least
make himself believe what he wanted. CPE had an aggressive and
hostile attitude towards his father's playing style (a passage in his
treatise that is later obliquely revealed in a letter to Forkel as a
description of JS).
Very simply put, CPE found himself in a position establishing his
father's reputation for a post-Baroque Europe that - and this
especially goes for those in CPE's encampment - would have shunned
some of his father's outmoded tastes. Saying that his father was
unsatisfied with the expressionless harpsichord would have redeemed an
embarrassing facet of his father's musicality.
We find the same thing in Kutner's 1774 portrait of JS, approved by
CPE, which "transcribed" the 1748/46 Haussmann JS into a more modern
JS: his outfit is brought up to date and he is given a facelift: a
fiery devil-may-care
countenance.(http://www.npj.com/thefaceofbach/02dw731.html)
Now, CPE may have outright lied about his father, which I strongly
doubt, or he may have simply given himself some liberty in
interpreting a comment made by his father in order to bring it in
accordance with his own strongly held point of view. And this is
EXACTLY what modern biographers are constanly wary of when consulting
witnesses, but in Forkel's time, there was no such concern. Now, this
isn't just my own spouting - I've read other scholars attacking the
reliability of Forkel and CPE.
Keep in mind the above is pure speculation. And the fact that such
speculation is widespread, tells one more about academia than about Forkel.
Experimental method cannot be applied, so the sole criteria for truth
becomes peer-review. Thus, fashionable ideas get propagated while
unfashionable ones are blocked. And since the recent fashion has been
driven by the revival of historical instruments, arguments that support that
operative paradigm are well received.
Post by Max
JS had a passion for collecting harpsichords. His estate lists 12 of
them iirc, and it's a stretch to say that they were all utilitarian
purchases.
Bach's estate is clearly incomplete, so one can surmise that the most
attractive items were passed to the children as gifts. Those harpsichords
Bach used to rent out, his theological books etc. represent the residue.
Post by Max
All it takes is one hearing of a *soulful* harpsichordist
in Bach's music to make you realize that CPE was full of shit.
I'm endlessly waiting for your promised example!

Regards
Charles
Max
2003-07-01 09:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
Post by Max
So establishing the strength of the relationship between them, Sybrand.
Doesn't this indicate CPE would have good knowledge of his father's
musical
Post by Max
tastes and no reason to lie about them?
This is precisely the point: he did have a reason to lie or at least
make himself believe what he wanted. CPE had an aggressive and
hostile attitude towards his father's playing style (a passage in his
treatise that is later obliquely revealed in a letter to Forkel as a
description of JS).
Very simply put, CPE found himself in a position establishing his
father's reputation for a post-Baroque Europe that - and this
especially goes for those in CPE's encampment - would have shunned
some of his father's outmoded tastes. Saying that his father was
unsatisfied with the expressionless harpsichord would have redeemed an
embarrassing facet of his father's musicality.
We find the same thing in Kutner's 1774 portrait of JS, approved by
CPE, which "transcribed" the 1748/46 Haussmann JS into a more modern
JS: his outfit is brought up to date and he is given a facelift: a
fiery devil-may-care
countenance.(http://www.npj.com/thefaceofbach/02dw731.html)
Now, CPE may have outright lied about his father, which I strongly
doubt, or he may have simply given himself some liberty in
interpreting a comment made by his father in order to bring it in
accordance with his own strongly held point of view. And this is
EXACTLY what modern biographers are constanly wary of when consulting
witnesses, but in Forkel's time, there was no such concern. Now, this
isn't just my own spouting - I've read other scholars attacking the
reliability of Forkel and CPE.
Keep in mind the above is pure speculation.
How much of "the above" is speculation? I'm trying to stay within the
standards of rationale one finds in the legal system: there's the
preponderance of documented physical evidence and then there's CPE's
hearsay..
Post by Max
And the fact that such
speculation is widespread, tells one more about academia than about Forkel.
Experimental method cannot be applied, so the sole criteria for truth
becomes peer-review. Thus, fashionable ideas get propagated while
unfashionable ones are blocked. And since the recent fashion has been
driven by the revival of historical instruments, arguments that support that
operative paradigm are well received.
No.. there's lots of examples where the CPE/Forkel reports are not
trusted and this has nothing to do with an early music agenda. Why do
scholars mistrust Forkel's statement about Bach's motivation to play
the viola? Why do they dismiss the legend of the Goldberg
variations? To promote the early music movement?

Back to CPE

1) CPE had a grudge against the harpsichord
2) CPE's favorite instrument was the clavichord
3) lo and behold, apparently JS Bach *also* thought the harpsichord
lacked soul and *also* preferred the clavichord!

along the same lines..

Now to WF

Didn't Bach therefore prefer his son WF's music to CPE's? (WF's very
own testimony, after all..)
Post by Max
Post by Max
JS had a passion for collecting harpsichords. His estate lists 12 of
them iirc, and it's a stretch to say that they were all utilitarian
purchases.
Bach's estate is clearly incomplete, so one can surmise that the most
attractive items were passed to the children as gifts. Those harpsichords
Bach used to rent out, his theological books etc. represent the residue.
Yes, I don't doubt it, but we're not talking about JSB's sons'
preferences, we're talking about JSB. And just so you know, there's
no evidence that his sons inherited any pianos, as there is that they
inherited clavichords that were not listed as part of the estate.

Something you said in an earlier post: 'you cannot sell what you don't
own.' As far as anyone knows, JS worked as an agent for Silbermann,
selling them on commission. (which would explain why he didn't have
to buy any - they were on site)
-Max
Tom Hens
2003-07-01 19:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
Now to WF
Didn't Bach therefore prefer his son WF's music to CPE's? (WF's very
own testimony, after all..)
Amidst the miasma of speculation and pure claptrap that always appears
whenever CharlesFrancis is on the scene, it might be useful to remind
everyone that the *only* source for J.S. Bach's supposed dislike for
C.Ph.E. Bach's music, and his supposed preference for that of W.F. Bach, is
a fourth-hand account going back to W.F. Bach. J.S. supposedly told W.F.
this, who then repeated it to someone else who had never met J.S. Bach long
after his father's death, who in turn repeated it someone else who'd met
neither J.S., W.F. or C.Ph.E. Bach, but did publish it in a book in 1792 --
nearly half a century after Bach's death. Ever since, some people have been
treating this dubious and partisan fourth-hand "quote" as if it were fact.

Is anyone here familiar with the old children's party game called
"telephone"?
Charles
2003-07-02 18:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
No.. there's lots of examples where the CPE/Forkel reports are not
trusted
No doubt you can provide some examples, then.
Post by Max
and this has nothing to do with an early music agenda.
There may, of course, be other agendas.
Post by Max
Why do scholars mistrust Forkel's statement about Bach's motivation to
play the viola?
Good question, given that Bach's estate lists three violas!
Post by Max
Why do they dismiss the legend of the Goldberg variations?
Why use the term "legend" when Malcolm Boyd has written:

"it is quite possible that Bach did present a copy to Keyserligk and was
rewarded for it. Forkel's statement that Bach's own copy of the print
contained some important manuscript corrections has recently been verified
in a quite spectacular way [a reference to the 1974 discovery of Bach's
Handexemplar in Strasbourg]. "
Post by Max
To promote the early music movement?
Maybe Forkel is out of fashion with Christian musicologists, because he
fails to mention Bach's alleged Lutheranism?
Post by Max
Back to CPE
1) CPE had a grudge against the harpsichord
2) CPE's favorite instrument was the clavichord
3) lo and behold, apparently JS Bach *also* thought the harpsichord
lacked soul and *also* preferred the clavichord!
Common musical background? Common genetics?
Sons and fathers often share common traits.
Post by Max
along the same lines..
Now to WF
Didn't Bach therefore prefer his son WF's music to CPE's? (WF's very
own testimony, after all..)
I don't care for either very much.
Post by Max
Yes, I don't doubt it, but we're not talking about JSB's sons'
preferences, we're talking about JSB. And just so you know, there's
no evidence that his sons inherited any pianos, as there is that they
inherited clavichords that were not listed as part of the estate.
Leaving that point aside for the moment, the estate does mention one
veneered piano (Clavier) which the family desires to retain if possible and
four other pianos (Clavier) of less value. There are also two lute
harpsichords (Lautenclavicembalo) and one small spinet as well as three
violas, two violins, two violin picolo, two violincellos, one violincello
piccolo, one viola da gamba and one lute.
Post by Max
Something you said in an earlier post: 'you cannot sell what you don't
own.' As far as anyone knows, JS worked as an agent for Silbermann,
selling them on commission. (which would explain why he didn't have
to buy any - they were on site)
Is there any proof for this oft repeated legend?


Regards
Charles
Charles
2003-07-03 00:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Hens
<snip>
Post by Charles
Leaving that point aside for the moment, the estate does mention one
veneered piano (Clavier) which the family desires to retain if possible
and four other pianos (Clavier) of less value.
No, it doesn't, you lying buffoon.
It lists a "fournirt Claveçin", four further instruments labeled
"Clavesin", two instruments labeled "Lauten Werck", and one "Spinnetgen"
(all spellings as per Bach-Dokumente).
"Claveçin/Clavesin" means "harpsichord". A spinet is a small harpsichord.
A "Lauten Werck" is a harpsichord with gut strings. The generic term
"Clavier" isn't used anywhere, for the pretty obvious reason that an
estate inventory is meant to describe specific objects, and wouldn't use a
catch-all term that can cover several quite different types of instrument.
Your claim that the inventory of Bach's estate mentions any "Clavier" is a
bald-faced lie, and you know it. Your mistranslation of the 18th century
German word "Clavier" as "piano" is also a bald-faced lie, and you know
it.
You may wish to retract your libellous allegations above, Mr. Hens.

The term "Clavier" is taken verbatim from "Bach A Biography", by Charles
Stanford Terry, 2nd Edition, 1928, Oxford University Press. This reference
contains an inventory of the effects of Johann Sebastian Bach on page 271
and uses exactly the terms I indicated.

A modern German dictionary will confirm that the primary meaning of the
German term "Clavier" is indeed Pianoforte.

Lest there be any doubt regarding Bach's usage of the term 'Clavier' in late
life, note the dedication to the Musical Offering (BD I, no. 173) "... With
awesome pleasure I still remember the very special Royal Grace when some
time ago, during my visit in Potsdam, Your Majesty's Self deigned to play to
me a theme for a fugue upon the clavier, and at the same time charged me
most graciously to carry it out in Your Majesty's Most August Presence ...".
Comparison with the 'Spenersche Zeitung, Berlin, May 11, 1747 (BD II, no.
554) shows this "Clavier" was "the so-called Forte and Piano". Moreover,
Forkel's account confirms that the instrument in question was the
fortepiano.
Sybrand Bakker
2003-07-03 19:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
You may wish to retract your libellous allegations above, Mr. Hens.
The term "Clavier" is taken verbatim from "Bach A Biography", by Charles
Stanford Terry, 2nd Edition, 1928, Oxford University Press. This reference
contains an inventory of the effects of Johann Sebastian Bach on page 271
and uses exactly the terms I indicated.
A modern German dictionary will confirm that the primary meaning of the
German term "Clavier" is indeed Pianoforte.
In fact you are making libellous allegations. What's new!

The translation of C.S. Terry is WRONG.

J.S. Bach Leben und Werk in Dokumente (abstract from the BD) has
'clavecin', as Tom says. The other insrruments are labeled in the same
doc as 'dito'
So were does it says Bach owned 4 *piano*. WHERE!!!!
ADMIT you are WRONG, YOU VILLAIN!!!!!!!!

And indeed a *modern* German dictionary will confirm Clavier means
pianoforte. What UTTER NONSENSE, unless your INCAPABILITY to MOVE THE
CONCRETE WALL IN FRONT OF YOUR HEAD, makes you think THE MODERN
MEANING should be APPLIED TO THE 18TH CENTURY/

ANY SENSIBLE COMMENT? NO?

SO IT IS TIME YOU ADMIT YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG AND APOLOGIZE, and
show REPENTANCE AND REMORSE.


Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

To reply remove -verwijderdit from my e-mail address
Charles
2003-07-03 20:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sybrand Bakker
In fact you are making libellous allegations. What's new!
An erroneous and unsubstantiated claim, Sybrand.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
The translation of C.S. Terry is WRONG.
I wouldn't give C.S.Terry a look-in if we were discussing Oracle database
administration, Sybrand.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
J.S. Bach Leben und Werk in Dokumente (abstract from the BD) has
'clavecin', as Tom says. The other insrruments are labeled in the same
doc as 'dito'
So were does it says Bach owned 4 *piano*. WHERE!!!!
ADMIT you are WRONG, YOU VILLAIN!!!!!!!!
The esteemed musicologist Charles Stanford Terry equates this term to
"Clavier", Sybrand.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
And indeed a *modern* German dictionary will confirm Clavier means
pianoforte.
You misquoted me, Sybrand. No surprise there really.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
What UTTER NONSENSE,
On the contrary, Sybrand, a modern German dictionary will confirm that the
primary meaning of the German term "Clavier" is indeed Pianoforte.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
unless your INCAPABILITY to MOVE THE CONCRETE WALL IN FRONT
OF YOUR HEAD,
How ironic coming from one who fails to take account of Bach's usage of the
term "Clavier" in late life, Sybrand.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
makes you think THE MODERN MEANING should be APPLIED TO THE 18TH CENTURY
Lest there be any doubt regarding Bach's usage of the term 'Clavier' in late
life, Sybrand, do note the dedication to the Musical Offering (BD I, no.
173) "... With awesome pleasure I still remember the very special Royal
Grace when some time ago, during my visit in Potsdam, Your Majesty's Self
deigned to play to me a theme for a fugue upon the clavier, and at the same
time charged me most graciously to carry it out in Your Majesty's Most
August Presence ...". Comparison with the 'Spenersche Zeitung, Berlin, May
11, 1747 (BD II, no. 554) shows this "Clavier" was "the so-called Forte and
Piano". Moreover, Forkel's account confirms that the instrument in question
was the fortepiano.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
ANY SENSIBLE COMMENT? NO?
Maybe in your next post, Sybrand?
Post by Sybrand Bakker
SO IT IS TIME YOU ADMIT YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG
AND APOLOGIZE, and show REPENTANCE AND REMORSE.
Don't you think it's time for you to admit you have been wrong and
apologise, Sybrand? And don't you think it's time for you to show
repentance and remorse for your wickedness?
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
Brotherly greetings
Charles
Tom Hens
2003-07-04 22:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
The term "Clavier" is taken verbatim from "Bach A Biography", by Charles
Stanford Terry, 2nd Edition, 1928, Oxford University Press. This
reference contains an inventory of the effects of Johann Sebastian Bach
on page 271 and uses exactly the terms I indicated.
So when you wrote "the estate does mention one veneered piano (Clavier)
which the family desires to retain if possible and four other pianos
(Clavier) of less value.", you *weren't* quoting from the estate inventory
(which can be found in Bach-Dokumente vol. II p. 627), but from Terry's
outdated book, which apparently contains a deeply inaccurate
misrepresentation/mistranslation. The word "Clavier" appears nowhere in the
document, only terms that specifically mean "harpsichord" or variants
thereof (eight of them in all, so even the number of five "pianos" is
incorrect).

That C.S. Terry in 1928 didn't know much of anything about the keyboard
instruments of Bach's time and their nomenclature can be understood. Trying
to make such a biased mistranslation pass for a quote from the original in
2003 makes you a liar.
Post by Charles
A modern German dictionary will confirm that the primary meaning of the
German term "Clavier" is indeed Pianoforte.
What any "modern German dictionary" says is completely irrelevant. You are
fully aware of what "Clavi(e)r" meant in Bach's lifetime, it has been
pointed out to you far more times than anyone cares to remember, with
detailed references. The fact that you keep on knowingly trotting out your
anachronistic mistranslation makes you a liar.
Post by Charles
Lest there be any doubt regarding Bach's usage of the term 'Clavier' in
late life,
Nobody ever doubted that he used the word, as did every other musician of
the day, and that its meaning would automatically have encompassed the few
early Silbermann pianos around, you idiotic troll.

<rest of irrelevant regurgitation snipped>
Charles
2003-07-04 23:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Hens
Post by Charles
The term "Clavier" is taken verbatim from "Bach A Biography", by Charles
Stanford Terry, 2nd Edition, 1928, Oxford University Press. This
reference contains an inventory of the effects of Johann Sebastian Bach
on page 271 and uses exactly the terms I indicated.
So when you wrote "the estate does mention one veneered piano (Clavier)
which the family desires to retain if possible and four other pianos
(Clavier) of less value.", you *weren't* quoting from the estate inventory
(which can be found in Bach-Dokumente vol. II p. 627), but from Terry's
outdated book, which apparently contains a deeply inaccurate
misrepresentation/mistranslation. The word "Clavier" appears nowhere in the
document, only terms that specifically mean "harpsichord" or variants
thereof (eight of them in all, so even the number of five "pianos" is
incorrect).
The quotes are C.S. Terry's, Hens.
Post by Tom Hens
That C.S. Terry in 1928 didn't know much of anything about the keyboard
instruments of Bach's time and their nomenclature can be understood. Trying
to make such a biased mistranslation pass for a quote from the original in
2003 makes you a liar.
The text was English and obviously not original, Hens.
Post by Tom Hens
Post by Charles
A modern German dictionary will confirm that the primary meaning of the
German term "Clavier" is indeed Pianoforte.
What any "modern German dictionary" says is completely irrelevant. You are
fully aware of what "Clavi(e)r" meant in Bach's lifetime, it has been
pointed out to you far more times than anyone cares to remember, with
detailed references. The fact that you keep on knowingly trotting out your
anachronistic mistranslation makes you a liar.
Such usage corresponds to Bach's Musical Offering, Hens.
Post by Tom Hens
Post by Charles
Lest there be any doubt regarding Bach's usage of the term 'Clavier' in
late life,
Nobody ever doubted that he used the word, as did every other musician of
the day, and that its meaning would automatically have encompassed the few
early Silbermann pianos around,
Not everyone accepts this fact, Hens.
Post by Tom Hens
you idiotic troll.
Such invective reflects your lack of morals, Hens.
Sybrand Bakker
2003-07-05 05:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Such invective reflects your lack of morals, Hens.
If there is anyone in this group who doesn't has moral, it is you, you
idiot.
The reply of Tom Hens, COMPLETELY showed you are WRONG.
ADMIT the translation of Terry is INCORRECT, you KNOW it is INCORRECT
and you CAN'T USE it to proof Bach preferred the PIANO.
YOU don't have ANY MORALS. Mr. Hens for the full 100 percent shows you
are MISUSING this text and hence ARE A LIAR
Yet, you still don't admit you are wrong and have been wrong ALL
ALONG.
Maintaining this position demonstrates you DON'T HAVE MORALS.
The ONLY REASON for your presence here is TO POST NONSENSE and TO MAKE
SLANDEROUS CLAIMS to people who don't agree with you, which is about
the rest of the universe.
GO TO HELL were you BELONG


Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres
Charles
2003-07-05 08:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Post by Charles
Such invective reflects your lack of morals, Hens.
If there is anyone in this group who doesn't has moral, it is you, you
idiot.
The reply of Tom Hens, COMPLETELY showed you are WRONG.
ADMIT the translation of Terry is INCORRECT, you KNOW it is INCORRECT
and you CAN'T USE it to proof Bach preferred the PIANO.
YOU don't have ANY MORALS. Mr. Hens for the full 100 percent shows you
are MISUSING this text and hence ARE A LIAR
Yet, you still don't admit you are wrong and have been wrong ALL
ALONG.
Maintaining this position demonstrates you DON'T HAVE MORALS.
The ONLY REASON for your presence here is TO POST NONSENSE and TO MAKE
SLANDEROUS CLAIMS to people who don't agree with you, which is about
the rest of the universe.
GO TO HELL were you BELONG
My, my, such a hateful tirade, Sybrand. I do seem to have touched a raw
nerve!


Regards
Charles
Charles
2003-07-03 01:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Maybe Forkel is out of fashion with Christian musicologists, because he
fails to mention Bach's alleged Lutheranism?
Bach's Lutheranism is NOT alleged.
Forkel received a considerable amount of information from C.P.E. and W.F.
Bach for his biography of J.S. Bach. Chapter 8 is "Bach's Character" in
which Forkel describes at length Bach's virtues and personality. Yet in all
this detail, there is no mention of Bach's Lutheranism. Why is this,
Sybrand?
That is another one of your other stupid claims.
On the contrary, Sybrand. this is another one of your stupid claims.
How come Mr. Charles/Francis the church records show Bach regularly
went to Holy Communion and always went to his confessor in the week
before the service.?
What does that tell you about his 'alleged' Lutheranism?
It tells me that as a Cantor and Capellmeister, Bach who's right to select
hymns was questioned at one point, was expected to attend communion and
confession. It tells me of Bach's responsibility towards his family and the
care he took to make sure he retained employment. As Forkel puts it "His
virtues as a father he showed by his care for and education of his children;
and by his conscientious performance of his social an civil duties".
THAT YOU ARE ALL AND COMPLETE OFF THE MARK AND WRONG
How ironic, coming from one who is so frequently off the mark and wrong.
as YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AND EVER WILL BE BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER EVER
ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG.
How ironic coming from one who has never ever admitted to being in the
wrong.
WHEN WILL YOU STOP BEING DISHONEST AND CHEATING?
What is the basis for that claim, Sybrand?
WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU WILL GAIN BY CONTINUING TO POST YOUR STUPID
CLAIMS?
You're erroneously supposing I am posting stupid claims, Sybrand.
WHEN WILL YOU SHOW REMORSE AND REPENTANCE, AS YOU OUGHT TO?
How ironic coming from one who ought to show remorse and repentance for his
wickedness.
Sybrand Bakker
Brotherly greetings
Charles
Max
2003-07-04 06:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Post by Max
No.. there's lots of examples where the CPE/Forkel reports are not
trusted
No doubt you can provide some examples, then.
Post by Max
and this has nothing to do with an early music agenda.
There may, of course, be other agendas.
Post by Max
Why do scholars mistrust Forkel's statement about Bach's motivation to
play the viola?
Good question, given that Bach's estate lists three violas!
That's not what I meant. The question is what was Bach's motivation
precisely? CPE says one thing (to better conduct the orchestra).
Forkel translated this as: JSB liked to be in the middle of the
harmony. (probably inspired by a similar story circulating about
Mozart)

to quote Tom:
Have you ever played cellphone?
Post by Charles
Post by Max
Why do they dismiss the legend of the Goldberg variations?
"it is quite possible that Bach did present a copy to Keyserligk and was
rewarded for it. Forkel's statement that Bach's own copy of the print
contained some important manuscript corrections has recently been verified
in a quite spectacular way [a reference to the 1974 discovery of Bach's
Handexemplar in Strasbourg]. "
hmm... ya think I don't know that?! It's my thesis, for crying out
loud! It's a non-issue whether Keyserlingk and Goldberg received a
copy. There's no reason to doubt it. The question is whether the
Variations were commissioned by him, and, moreover, because he
couldn't fall asleep!
Post by Charles
Post by Max
To promote the early music movement?
Maybe Forkel is out of fashion with Christian musicologists, because he
fails to mention Bach's alleged Lutheranism?
Ockham's razor:
Maybe Forkel is "out of fashion" like practically every historian
before the 20th century..

(Duckles' praise, notwithstanding)
Post by Charles
Post by Max
Back to CPE
1) CPE had a grudge against the harpsichord
2) CPE's favorite instrument was the clavichord
3) lo and behold, apparently JS Bach *also* thought the harpsichord
lacked soul and *also* preferred the clavichord!
Common musical background? Common genetics?
Sons and fathers often share common traits.
!!
Post by Charles
Post by Max
along the same lines..
Now to WF
Didn't Bach therefore prefer his son WF's music to CPE's? (WF's very
own testimony, after all..)
I don't care for either very much.
Thank you for reminding me what I think is the matter: you're letting
your aesthetic taste color your argument rationale. You just need to
be won over.
Post by Charles
Post by Max
Yes, I don't doubt it, but we're not talking about JSB's sons'
preferences, we're talking about JSB. And just so you know, there's
no evidence that his sons inherited any pianos, as there is that they
inherited clavichords that were not listed as part of the estate.
Leaving that point aside for the moment, the estate does mention one
veneered piano (Clavier) which the family desires to retain if possible and
four other pianos (Clavier) of less value. There are also two lute
harpsichords (Lautenclavicembalo) and one small spinet as well as three
violas, two violins, two violin picolo, two violincellos, one violincello
piccolo, one viola da gamba and one lute.
This issue, then, I don't know. The Bach biographers have always
assumed "clavier" meant harpsichord. Of course, "clavier" could also
mean piano. But as far as "clavier" being synonymous with piano -
that's your thing. The major controversy has been whether "clavier"
meant _clavichord_ to Bach and when it just meant _keyboard_.
Post by Charles
Post by Max
Something you said in an earlier post: 'you cannot sell what you don't
own.' As far as anyone knows, JS worked as an agent for Silbermann,
selling them on commission. (which would explain why he didn't have
to buy any - they were on site)
Is there any proof for this oft repeated legend?
I don't know.
-Max
Post by Charles
Regards
Charles
Charles
2003-07-04 11:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
That's not what I meant. The question is what was Bach's motivation
precisely? CPE says one thing (to better conduct the orchestra).
Forkel translated this as: JSB liked to be in the middle of the
harmony. (probably inspired by a similar story circulating about
Mozart)
Can you think of another interpretation for CPEs remark?
Post by Max
Have you ever played cellphone?
That's why Forkels account is so important, given he was so close to the
source.
Post by Max
hmm... ya think I don't know that?! It's my thesis, for crying out
loud!
It's a non-issue whether Keyserlingk and Goldberg received a
copy. There's no reason to doubt it.
I'll remember that in case the revisionists attack again!
Post by Max
The question is whether the Variations were commissioned by him,
and, moreover, because he couldn't fall asleep!
The story does sit well with Bach's choice of the repetitive variation form.
Post by Max
Maybe Forkel is "out of fashion" like practically every historian
before the 20th century..
Ockham's razor again: Every age believes it knows best.
Post by Max
(Duckles' praise, notwithstanding)
Noted.
Post by Max
Thank you for reminding me what I think is the matter: you're letting
your aesthetic taste color your argument rationale.
Can you be more specific regarding this erroneous claim?
Post by Max
You just need to be won over.
You're erroneously supposing that my aesthetic taste colours my argument
rationale.
Post by Max
This issue, then, I don't know. The Bach biographers have always
assumed "clavier" meant harpsichord. Of course, "clavier" could also
mean piano. But as far as "clavier" being synonymous with piano -
that's your thing. The major controversy has been whether "clavier"
meant _clavichord_ to Bach and when it just meant _keyboard_.
Another interesting perspective.
Post by Max
Post by Charles
Is there any proof for this oft repeated legend?
I don't know.
Noted.


Regards
Charles
Max
2003-07-04 18:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Post by Max
That's not what I meant. The question is what was Bach's motivation
precisely? CPE says one thing (to better conduct the orchestra).
Forkel translated this as: JSB liked to be in the middle of the
harmony. (probably inspired by a similar story circulating about
Mozart)
Can you think of another interpretation for CPEs remark?
Sure..
JSB could better conduct the orchestra.
Post by Charles
Post by Max
Have you ever played cellphone?
That's why Forkels account is so important, given he was so close to the
source.
Forkel's standards were not much higher than Jayson Blair's.
Post by Charles
Post by Max
hmm... ya think I don't know that?! It's my thesis, for crying out
loud!
It's a non-issue whether Keyserlingk and Goldberg received a
copy. There's no reason to doubt it.
I'll remember that in case the revisionists attack again!
Post by Max
The question is whether the Variations were commissioned by him,
and, moreover, because he couldn't fall asleep!
The story does sit well with Bach's choice of the repetitive variation form.
Explain?
Post by Charles
Post by Max
Maybe Forkel is "out of fashion" like practically every historian
before the 20th century..
Ockham's razor again: Every age believes it knows best.
In our age, journalists and historians are expected to check each fact
against other sources for reliability. Journalists: two sources.
Historians: *three*!

And their "agenda" is to ferret out the
George-Washington-and-his-cherry-tree stories, precisely because
sources (such as CPE) have agendas of their own.
Post by Charles
Post by Max
(Duckles' praise, notwithstanding)
Noted.
Duckles makes a positive assessment of one of Forkel's unfinished
projects (which impressed me, too), but if you're looking for a
defense of his Bach historiography, you won't find it there.
Post by Charles
Post by Max
Thank you for reminding me what I think is the matter: you're letting
your aesthetic taste color your argument rationale.
Can you be more specific regarding this erroneous claim?
Your non-sequitir to one of my points. ("I don't like either's
music.")
Post by Charles
Post by Max
You just need to be won over.
You're erroneously supposing that my aesthetic taste colours my argument
rationale.
Post by Max
This issue, then, I don't know. The Bach biographers have always
assumed "clavier" meant harpsichord. Of course, "clavier" could also
mean piano. But as far as "clavier" being synonymous with piano -
that's your thing. The major controversy has been whether "clavier"
meant _clavichord_ to Bach and when it just meant _keyboard_.
Another interesting perspective.
There is an interesting on-line discussion near the bottom of this
page:
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Life.htm
Post by Charles
Post by Max
Post by Charles
Is there any proof for this oft repeated legend?
I don't know.
Noted.
Regards
Charles
Max
2003-07-07 06:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
Explain?
Repetition is soporific.
Can you imagine our poor Count as he drifts to sleep at the end of var. 15?
Unfinished projects?
Forkel was writing a cultural analysis of the evolution of music. Modern insights.
-Max

j***@sonic.net
2003-06-29 21:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sybrand Bakker
It seems JS didn't liked his second son's music too much either. He is
quoted to have said 'It is Berlin Blue, it shifts'
One should not forget, however, that in his last years Bach visited Berlin.
Was it simply the irresistible allure of the Silbermann fortepianos that
motivated him to make this arduous journey? Or was it also the desire to
visit his son? At any rate, there is nothing to suggest estrangement.
You seem obsessed with trying to prove yourself right.
Charles
2003-06-29 21:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@sonic.net
Post by Sybrand Bakker
It seems JS didn't liked his second son's music too much either. He is
quoted to have said 'It is Berlin Blue, it shifts'
One should not forget, however, that in his last years Bach visited Berlin.
Was it simply the irresistible allure of the Silbermann fortepianos that
motivated him to make this arduous journey? Or was it also the desire to
visit his son? At any rate, there is nothing to suggest estrangement.
You seem obsessed with trying to prove yourself right.
And how does this comment address any of the facts I have presented?
j***@sonic.net
2003-06-29 22:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@sonic.net
Post by Sybrand Bakker
It seems JS didn't liked his second son's music too much either. He is
quoted to have said 'It is Berlin Blue, it shifts'
One should not forget, however, that in his last years Bach visited
Berlin.
Post by j***@sonic.net
Was it simply the irresistible allure of the Silbermann fortepianos that
motivated him to make this arduous journey? Or was it also the desire
to
Post by j***@sonic.net
visit his son? At any rate, there is nothing to suggest estrangement.
You seem obsessed with trying to prove yourself right.
And how does this comment address any of the facts I have presented?
Your stretched extrapolations and speculations from facts are the problem.

You seem to have little sense of where one ends and the other begins.
j***@sonic.net
2003-06-30 08:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@sonic.net
Post by Charles
And how does this comment address any of the facts I have presented?
Your stretched extrapolations and speculations from facts are the problem.
You seem to have little sense of where one ends and the other begins.
1) Bach praised and indeed admired the pianoforte (Agricola)
2) The final design received complete approval from Bach (Agricola)
3) Bach considered the harpsichord lacked soul (Forkel)
What for? Those are all well known. Why on earth do you think I dispute
those in any meaningful way?

Maybe you should try one of your bizzare extrapolations on them.
Charles
2003-06-30 11:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@sonic.net
Post by j***@sonic.net
Post by Charles
And how does this comment address any of the facts I have presented?
Your stretched extrapolations and speculations from facts are the problem.
You seem to have little sense of where one ends and the other begins.
1) Bach praised and indeed admired the pianoforte (Agricola)
2) The final design received complete approval from Bach (Agricola)
3) Bach considered the harpsichord lacked soul (Forkel)
What for? Those are all well known. Why on earth do you think I dispute
those in any meaningful way?
Glad you are so accommodating!
Post by j***@sonic.net
Maybe you should try one of your bizzare extrapolations on them.
You mean like:
1) Bach praised and indeed admired the pianoforte
2) The final design received complete approval from Bach
3) Bach considered the harpsichord lacked soul

Hardly bizarre extrapolations, IMO, but clearly they raise the blood
pressure of some!!!
j***@sonic.net
2003-06-30 17:59:01 UTC
Permalink
1) Bach praised and indeed admired the pianoforte
2) The final design received complete approval from Bach
3) Bach considered the harpsichord lacked soul
Hardly bizarre extrapolations, IMO, but clearly they raise the blood
pressure of some!!!
But you're not performing the same as you have for others. Chances are you
know very well where and what went over the line. How about it? Or have
you sliently retracted those?
Charles
2003-06-23 23:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Indeed so! Moreover, Bach's critical role in the development and
propagation of the pianoforte is well documented.
The history of the piano is well just known.
Charles, what you are saying is simply wrong!
What is the basis for that claim, Jaspar?
You could also say that Bach loved to go out
by helicopter each Sunday! It was a timely
process to develop the modern piano.
Bach did not own a helicopter, Jaspar, but he did own a fortepiano.
Regards - J
Regards - C
Charles
2003-06-23 23:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
You don't even know what fucking instrument I play,
Again, HIP-fascism shows its true colours.
Pan
2003-06-24 02:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Post by Pan
You don't even know what fucking instrument I play,
Again, HIP-fascism shows its true colours.
I play Baroque music on the modern flute, you idiot troll - and I've
never made any secret of that, as you would know if you had ever paid
any attention to my posts. I'm not opposed to Bach being played on the
piano and have often enjoyed listening to pianists play Bach, as I've
posted here repeatedly, but you obviously never pay any attention to
anything anyone other than you posts. Sybrand and I have an
ideological disagreement about the appropriateness of playing Bach on
instruments that didn't exist during his lifetime.

But as for you, you consistently and bullheadedly post made-up stories
in the guise of truth, despite being informed in detail that your
stories are nonsense, and that's contemptible.

Michael
Charles
2003-06-24 09:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
I play Baroque music on the modern flute, you idiot troll -
More invective as expected from someone lacking a logical argument.
Post by Pan
But as for you, you consistently and bullheadedly post made-up stories
in the guise of truth, despite being informed in detail that your
stories are nonsense, and that's contemptible.
More mis-information and invective.
Sybrand Bakker
2003-06-28 20:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Post by Pan
You don't even know what fucking instrument I play,
Again, HIP-fascism shows its true colours.
It is rather your fascistic attitude


Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres
Charles
2003-06-28 20:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Post by Charles
Post by Pan
You don't even know what fucking instrument I play,
Again, HIP-fascism shows its true colours.
It is rather your fascistic attitude
How truly ironic!
Tom Hens
2003-06-24 02:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Max <***@hotmail.com> wrote...

<snip>
Let's remember that
as an organist he was as renowned for his *choice of combinations of
stops* as he was for his fearsome pedalling! (This is a very
interesting fact, often overlooked) Forget about the sheer quantity
of transcriptions he made of his own and others' works, he left behind
some extreme examples - imagine recasting a solo violin piece as a
cantata movement! (for god's sakes!)
Or to be more specific, he turned a solo violon piece into a one-movement
concerto for organ, strings, oboes, trumpets and timpani. Quite a tour de
force.
He designed a lute-harpsichord for himself! This was a guy who revelled
in the possibilities of tone colour.
I'm glad someone else is bringing this up, because the lack of this insight
in a lot of writing about Bach is something I have been slightly annoyed
about for a long time. There is this strange notion that Bach's music is
somehow "abstract" or "universal", and that that means he didn't care about
tone colour or which instrument was used. In fact, it's hard to think of
another Baroque composer who reveled in ever-changing and unusual
instrumentation to the extent Bach did. Just compare the instrumentation
of Bach's cantatas to that of Handel's operas (two bodies of vocal works
that are roughly contemporaneous, and roughly comparable in sheer bulk).
Handel, like most composers of the day, in the vast majority of his arias
used strings and BC, and occasionally wandered outside that standard
pattern for effect. In Bach's cantatas and passions, almost every aria gets
its own lovingly varied instrumentation, including (by that time) unusual
instruments for ensemble music like the lute or the viola da gamba, or
obscure new-fangled instruments like the oboe da caccia (which would
probably have been lost to history if Bach hadn't been the only composer to
write music for it). The parallel with what contemporaries report about his
organ-playing is indeed striking.
Max
2003-06-24 07:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Hens
<snip>
Let's remember that
as an organist he was as renowned for his *choice of combinations of
stops* as he was for his fearsome pedalling! (This is a very
interesting fact, often overlooked) Forget about the sheer quantity
of transcriptions he made of his own and others' works, he left behind
some extreme examples - imagine recasting a solo violin piece as a
cantata movement! (for god's sakes!)
Or to be more specific, he turned a solo violon piece into a one-movement
concerto for organ, strings, oboes, trumpets and timpani. Quite a tour de
force.
Although proposed in jest, the theory that the d(racula)-minor toccata
for organ also originated on Bach's violin has nonetheless garnered
some credibile evidence. And I think it's Schenker who speculates the
same of the chromatic fantasy.
Post by Tom Hens
He designed a lute-harpsichord for himself! This was a guy who revelled
in the possibilities of tone colour.
I'm glad someone else is bringing this up, because the lack of this insight
in a lot of writing about Bach is something I have been slightly annoyed
about for a long time. There is this strange notion that Bach's music is
somehow "abstract" or "universal", and that that means he didn't care about
tone colour or which instrument was used. In fact, it's hard to think of
another Baroque composer who reveled in ever-changing and unusual
instrumentation to the extent Bach did. Just compare the instrumentation
of Bach's cantatas to that of Handel's operas (two bodies of vocal works
that are roughly contemporaneous, and roughly comparable in sheer bulk).
Handel, like most composers of the day, in the vast majority of his arias
used strings and BC, and occasionally wandered outside that standard
pattern for effect. In Bach's cantatas and passions, almost every aria gets
its own lovingly varied instrumentation, including (by that time) unusual
instruments for ensemble music like the lute or the viola da gamba, or
obscure new-fangled instruments like the oboe da caccia (which would
probably have been lost to history if Bach hadn't been the only composer to
write music for it).
Interesting.. Bach's aesthetics with respect to instrumentation and
tone-color would make a good dissertation topic for somebody.
-Max
Ioannis
2003-06-25 08:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Tom Hens wrote:
[snip]
CharlesFrancis ...He seems to think
Forkel (b. 1749) was somehow channeling Bach from beyond the grave. Of
course there's no such statement from Bach himself, but that doesn't bother
CharlesFrancis.
It's one thing to be "channeling" Bach beyond the grave and it's another
"to be" Bach.

You guys behave, cause JS is reading this group :*)
--
Ioannis
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/
__________________________________
JC
Jsb1441
2003-06-30 11:33:40 UTC
Permalink
1) Bach praised and indeed admired the pianoforte (Agricola)
2) The final design received complete approval from Bach (Agricola)
3) Bach considered the harpsichord lacked soul (Forkel)
4) Bach wrote the Goldberg Variations for a two manual harpsichord.

John
Charles
2003-06-30 12:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jsb1441
4) Bach wrote the Goldberg Variations for a two manual harpsichord.
We know from Forkel that this piece was written at the request of Hermann
Carl von Keyserlingk to be performed by his house harpsichordists, the 14
year old harpsichord prodigy Johann Gottlieb Goldberg.


Regards
Charles
Sybrand Bakker
2003-06-30 17:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
We know from Forkel that this piece was written at the request of Hermann
Carl von Keyserlingk to be performed by his house harpsichordists, the 14
year old harpsichord prodigy Johann Gottlieb Goldberg.
Regards
Charles
There is NO SCIENTIFIC proof for Forkels ASSUMPTIONS
Nowadays NO ONE assumes Goldberg has EVER played the GV
They were also not labeled Goldberg Variations by Bach

WHY DO YOU POST SUCH UTTER NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????






Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres
Charles
2003-06-30 23:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sybrand Bakker
There is NO SCIENTIFIC proof for Forkels ASSUMPTIONS
Which assumptions are you claiming are Forkel's, Sybrand? Such assumptions
could only be information that he didn't explicitly receive from CPE. Do
you have any evidence that he made such assumptions? After all, the
surviving letters indicate that Forkel was scrupulous in reporting the
precise information he received from CPE.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
Nowadays NO ONE assumes Goldberg has EVER played the GV
No one should assume anything, Sybrand. However, to formulate a best
working hypothesis, we do have a very detailed and specific account from
Forkel. The reference to Bach training Goldberg, for example, is consistent
with his young age (14). The rationale for the use of the variation form is
explicitly provided and the precise reward Bach received is indicated.
There is also the extraordinary claim that it was probably the greatest
reward Bach ever received. There are many other specifics and, moreover,
Forkel specifically indicates that the variations were performed by
Goldberg.
Post by Sybrand Bakker
They were also not labeled Goldberg Variations by Bach
Why is this relevant, Sybrand?
Post by Sybrand Bakker
WHY DO YOU POST SUCH UTTER NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????
Why do you describe Forkel's account as "UTTER NONSENSE", Sybrand? Is it
the lack of a formally dedicated manuscript? Is it that Goldberg was only
14? Is it the lack of a receipt for the reward Bach received? Taken
together, these represent very weak counter-arguments in my opinion.
Max
2003-07-01 09:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles
Why do you describe Forkel's account as "UTTER NONSENSE", Sybrand? Is it
the lack of a formally dedicated manuscript? Is it that Goldberg was only
14? Is it the lack of a receipt for the reward Bach received? Taken
together, these represent very weak counter-arguments in my opinion.
Another example of a hypothesis/prediction confirmed by a test

hypothesis held by many people for many years: the Goldberg variations
were an unlabelled Clavierbung IV

test: sometime in the last 20 years, Wolff notices that a French
overture splits the variations right down the middle...

(as marks the previous three Clavierbung volumes)

-Max
Tom Hens
2003-07-01 19:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
Another example of a hypothesis/prediction confirmed by a test
hypothesis held by many people for many years: the Goldberg variations
were an unlabelled Clavierbung IV
"Unlabelled"? What are you on about? The first words on the title page are:
"Clavier Ubung / bestehend / in einer / Aria / mit verschiedenen
Veraenderungen". It is the fourth volume bearing that title Bach published.
There has never been any doubt or mystery about it, and there's no
"hypothesis" whatsoever involved, or any need for a "test".

Anyway, the whole concept of formulating a hypothesis which leads to a
testable prediction does not apply to the writing of history (musical or
any other kind), or to musicology. They're not experimental sciences.
Trying to apply half-understood concepts from such sciences to them is
pointless.
Post by Max
test: sometime in the last 20 years, Wolff notices that a French
overture splits the variations right down the middle...
(as marks the previous three Clavierbung volumes)
The words "Clavier Ubung" on the title page have marked it as such for the
last 262 years.
Max
2003-07-04 06:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Hens
Post by Max
Another example of a hypothesis/prediction confirmed by a test
hypothesis held by many people for many years: the Goldberg variations
were an unlabelled Clavierbung IV
"Clavier Ubung / bestehend / in einer / Aria / mit verschiedenen
Veraenderungen". It is the fourth volume bearing that title Bach published.
There has never been any doubt or mystery about it, and there's no
"hypothesis" whatsoever involved, or any need for a "test".
Anyway, the whole concept of formulating a hypothesis which leads to a
testable prediction does not apply to the writing of history (musical or
any other kind), or to musicology. They're not experimental sciences.
Trying to apply half-understood concepts from such sciences to them is
pointless.
Post by Max
test: sometime in the last 20 years, Wolff notices that a French
overture splits the variations right down the middle...
(as marks the previous three Clavierbung volumes)
The words "Clavier Ubung" on the title page have marked it as such for the
last 262 years.
Ahem.. a number of scholars (don't remember who exactly, but if you
read Wolff's book of Bach essays, you'll get the list) thought that
since Bach did not, himself, designate the Variations as a
Clavierubung volume, that the publisher must have mistakenly made that
assumption. Probably, they were trying to make the CPE/Forkel story
fit.
-Max
Tom Hens
2003-07-01 03:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jsb1441
1) Bach praised and indeed admired the pianoforte (Agricola)
2) The final design received complete approval from Bach (Agricola)
3) Bach considered the harpsichord lacked soul (Forkel)
4) Bach wrote the Goldberg Variations for a two manual harpsichord.
How dare you try to confuse CharlesFrancis with *facts*!

Tom (wondering if CharlesFrancis will now go off on a rerun of his claim
that "Clavicimbal mit 2 Manualen" on the title page of the Goldberg
Variations doesn't mean "two-manual harpsichord")
Loading...