Week 2: Your First Check-in

Noel Nguyen This was exactly my impression as well since my friend who first dazzled me at his piano when I didn't know what the instrument was (lol )- spent a lot of time talking about Bach and his religous fervor.. Anyways I have Sir John Eliot Gardiner's book here on my desk.. need to read it carefully..

Also now I recall that about 45 years ago in college my friend and myself both read large sections of that fantastic book called "Godel Escher Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter .. where we had plenty to discuss about both Bach and off course Godel.. :-) lol!

Doug Hello. I didn't "take advantage to capitalize". That implies I somehow benefited which is rather odd way of putting things. This is a forum and I was just adding to the discussion. 

I just pointed out a common error which is that Bach wrote music specifically for the church because he was a Kapellmeister in one of his posts. Though it means "Chapel Master", by Bach's time it was not a specifically sacred post. It was more a music director position in the court of nobility. Though he has important connections to sacred music, he also has an enormous body of secular works (works that tend to be the realm that pianists are most concerned about!). As I already acknowledged in my original statement, he did say that all of his works were "to the glory of God". However, there is a difference between music written specifically for use in the church and music that is inspired by belief. The Well Tempered Clavier, Goldberg Variations, the various dance suites etc. were not intended for performance in church services. That is my point and it is accurate regardless of any inference of Bach's beliefs and values. 

These are key details about J.S. Bach that are part of the curriculum for my students taking their early music history examinations. Knowing Peter from a number of posts now, I thought he would appreciate the extra bit of detail (which he seems to have!). He is taking an excellent path with reading a prominent biography and I value his, and everyone else's, enthusiasm for music history!

Doug brilliantly explained !!.. Soli Deo Gloria - says it all !.. I am so sorry to have started a mini controversy as a total novice. But I understand a lot of what that means as I have visited a monastery in my early years here in the US and the monks of the Cistercian Order exemplify that phrase to the letter. Just hearing some of Bach's works makes one wonder if he took music to be the same as prayer of some sort.. But here I may have already opened a pandora's box most unwittingly.. Dustin may take offense to my rather poorly worded thoughts on the very great master of all time. :-) . Also Dustin was most likely explaining to me that there are secular works of Bach as well. This book here is now beckoning more than usual. Will let you know what I gather from Sir John Eliot Gardner - a music titan.

Peter William No offence taken at all Peter =) Your clear passion for music history is wonderful! Was just offering a little more information due to your wording. 

Dustin Anderson totally get it.. No offense at all. Your playing of the instrument and learning is very vast so I pay careful attention !.. Thank you!

Dustin Anderson  Isn't language a funny thing.  Regarding the "take advantage to capitalize" reference I was merely trying to say that had Peter chose a less specific reference it may have taken some opportunity away of having to address the generally accepted meaning.  By the way, I thought the same thing and would agree with you as I tried to explain.

Now regarding the sacred vs. secular division, what I am about to say is simply just my opinion.  I am not a scholar and truthfully any academic today worth his salt would have to dismiss me and / or ridicule me for having it but that doesn't matter. 

I understand what you are saying but here is my point again if it wasn't understood in the original post.  We can all agree that "The Well Tempered Clavier, Goldberg Variations, the various dance suites etc. were not intended for performance in church services," as you say.  What I am saying though is that in Bach's eyes and mine that the purpose of all these "secular" works is indistinguishable from the "sacred" works.  Other than when and where they were played (ie. Sunday in a church vs. Monday to Saturday played anywhere else) all of Bach's music was created to serve one purpose - Soli Deo Gloria.  Essentially, I am saying that everything Bach wrote can and should be viewed as sacred music effectively (conducive to some form of worship or acknowledgement to God in its purpose).

It may be hard to explain but this is why Peter was sort of right, in my opinion, with how he said it but I just felt it might take some explaining to understand this.   I may not be doing this justice but hopefully I'm shedding some light on the meaning of Soli Deo Gloria.  This would apply to everything Bach did.  He wasn't just a Christian on Sunday?  His "secular" music would have had the same intent as his formal sacred works (in my opinion).  It is just in a different style or tradition. 

By the way, who ascribed the notion of secular works of Bach?  The man wasted a lot of ink and effort then if wrote Soli Deo Gloria on scores of music that should not have had some religious purpose or meaning.

 Dustin Anderson You probably know that Hans von Bülow referred to Das wohltemperierte Klavier as the "Old Testament."

He gets it.  ;-)

Doug I am not sure how to respond as you seem to be conflating concepts here and drawing a number of personal conclusions about Bach in general. I am not looking to challenge you on your personal perception of Bach! You are entitled to connect with his music as you like.

In musicology, "sacred" refers to music specifically written for church services and ceremonies. "Secular" refers to music that is written for non-religious settings such as entertainment, education, dance etc. They are established terms that refer to the setting and context in which a composer intended the work to be performed. For example, an opera is secular while an oratorio (generally) is sacred. How this line is blurred in terms of compositional process and philosophy is an interesting discussion but Bach clearly had works intended for these two different performance environments. He did not strictly compose sacred music intended to be performed in church services. 

Regarding your Bülow reference, you are abridging and re-contextualizing the quote. The quote that is attributed to Bülow is "The Well-Tempered Clavier is the Old Testament and Beethoven's piano sonatas are the New Testament of music." This quote is not saying that these works have a sacredness to them in terms of God or the church. It is a metaphor to say that Bach's WTC was foundational in terms of harmony, counterpoint and compositional process and that Beethoven's sonatas expanded on this foundation. It also communicates that these works have substantial gravity for pianists. People can absolutely find a certain 'sacredness' in these compositions but the WTC and Beethoven's sonatas are secular works in terms of musicology. 

I hope that helps!

Dustin Anderson Doug I was going to respond in a manner similar to how Dustin responded to Doug (referencing sacred versus secular). One of my professors in graduate school taught us that when having discussions it was important to define your terms, and I think that applies here. There is an accepted and understood definition of sacred in the world of music, but then there can be a broader understanding of sacred that we sometimes use in the world at large, and I think this is where the difference is occurring in this discussion.

Michelle R Excellent point!