Doublereed Archive - Posting 000076.txt from 2003/02

From: PhilFrei@-----.com
Subj: [DR-L] Re: Bach QOD
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:32:39 -0500

<<<"Bach is thus a terminal point. Nothing comes from him; everything
merely leads to him.">>>

>>I think there is at least a grain of truth in Schweitzer's statement. I
have sometimes had occasion to refer to this quality of Bach, and I also
relate it to the history of jazz. For me, it goes like this: Charlie Parker
occupies the same place in jazz that Bach does in art music. Both of them
synthesized all the styles that existed up to their time, and created a new
style. In so doing, both of them unwittingly pointed to the inevitable end
of the style that they themselves had created, because no one else was ever
able to perform (or compose) in that style more successfully then they did.

>>Perhaps there is a little too much hyperbole in that statement, but I
think it does indicate a truth about those two musicians.

>>What do you think?

>>Ed Lacy
>>University of Evansville

Thank you, Ed. What you say is sensible. The case can easily be made that
Bach didn't spawn an industry of imitators or clones in his time. To that
"grain" I will agree with Schweitzer.

But to call Bach a "terminal point" seems so wrong. Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms
(and countless others) did not write fugues because they were inspired by
Palestrina. The Prelude did not blossom in Chopin's hands due to his deep
involvement in the works of Hotteterre. The Brandenburg's were certainly not
the last we heard of the concerto form. Is it possible to write a solo
instrumental piece and not have it fall under the shadow of the Unaccompanied
Sonatas or Partitas?

Bach picked and chose from those before him, as those after him have picked
and chosen (and continue to this day to pick and chose) elements from his
work. His music is every bit as much a source as a destination.

"Bach lives."

- Phil Freihofner