Bach's Impact on 18th Century Music

[robert newman]

To state that the life, methods and works of JS Bach had profound (if little publicised) impact on European music as a whole during his maturity and especially in the decades following his death in 1750 is in one sense not a controversial statement. But to suggest musical theorists across Europe first subjected his works to the most detailed analysis (both during his lifetime and afterwards) before developing styles that were really a reaction to him - these intended to obscure or downplay Bach's significance - is quite another thing.

I'd like to open this thread and submit to it from time to time reactions to Bach from the 18th century. Some of these will already be well known but others less so. My aim is to show the huge and positive impact Bach had but also to identify the source of criticisms/negative reactions towards him and his legacy.

I begin positively with a text first written in Latin by W.H. Friedrich from 1765 - this 15 years after the composer's death at Leipzig -

“If you could understand what he [J. S. Bach] really accomplished, an accomplishment not attained by several of your musicians and innumerable flute players - as he paid attention to all of them simultaneously - and from a group of 30 or even 40 musicians nod to one with his head from the keyboard and indicate to another by stamping his foot, or threateningly using a finger, all the time keeping a third on time with the correct rhythm, etc. etc. and in this means regulating and keeping in order this tremendous noise, then, I say, you would marvel...'



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-21-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
But to suggest musical theorists across Europe first subjected his works to the most detailed analysis (both during his lifetime and afterwards) before developing styles that were really a reaction to him - these intended to obscure or downplay Bach's significance - is quite another thing.

Indeed - but the style galant was not a manufactured reaction to Bach - it was a natural development taking place anyway, even his own sons were developing different styles, or perhaps you are suggesting they too were in on a plot to do in their father?



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[robert newman]

Hahaha!

The sons of Bach wanted to be fashionable like most youngsters. But these short-lived styles gave rise to nothing and there is no logical continuation, no organic development of the sort that can be traced through the Bach legacy. Perhaps this is why we know relatively little of the great man's life from his own sons - they were more attracted by glitter than pure gold.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Hahaha!

The sons of Bach wanted to be fashionable like most youngsters. But these short-lived styles gave rise to nothing and there is no logical continuation, no organic development of the sort that can be traced through the Bach legacy. Perhaps this is why we know relatively little of the great man's life from his own sons - they were more attracted by glitter than pure gold.

That is simply not true - aside from J.C.Bach's influence on Mozart, C.P.E.Bach had a very real influence as far reaching as Beethoven.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Joy]

Speaking of Bach's influence on Mozart, Mozart transcribed three three-voice fugues from Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier for string trio,2 plus Contrapunctus 8 from Bach's Art of the Fugue, with a prelude consisting of a movement from Bach's Organ Sonata No. 3 in C minor; a prelude consisting of a movement from Bach's Organ Sonata No. 2 in C minor, followed by the fugal 3rd movement in C minor from the same sonata; and Fugue No. 8 by W.F. Bach. These six three-part preludes and fugues are known today as K. 404a. Since the preludes that accompany each of Bach's fugues, were not well suited for string instruments, a special string trio prelude was composed for each one, generally considered written by Mozart. As David Shavin wrote in Fidelio, "in these preludes, Mozart was "addressing the developmental potentialities of the fugal material that would have occupied Bach's mind. Mozart, in presenting to the assembly his hypothesis as to how Bach's mind worked, fashioned a powerful tool to aid in his own development, and in the development of those around him."

------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[robert newman]

Hi Joy,

That Mozart dabbled with Bach's music is not disputed. That he mastered fugue is far more open to doubt. That all the Bach works that he transcribed had a huge impact on his output is again far from obvious. And that he actually wrote many of these versions (a good number of which were completed by others) is again open to question.

Works such as K153 and K154 hardly put Mozart as the 'Bach expert' in a good light. And if these works are really from, say, 1782, his involvement with Bach's music is hardly consistent with his legendary 'discovery' of Bach's greatness in 1789 at Dresden etc.

I think the truth is that there was a certain 'ceudos' to be seen in Vienna with a copy of Bach's 48 Preludes and Fugues in the 1780's.
In the very last years of his life (i.e. from around the time of his travels to Dresden and around the time of his exquisite Handel arrangements) Bach's music fascinated him. But I do not believe that he lived long enough to really master Bach's music.

He would allude to Bach but he had come from a very different perspective. If the chorus of the Armed Men in 'The Magic Flute' represented anything to those who first heard it we might describe it as a satire, but not as some bold musical insight by Mozart.

I respect but am not specially convinced of Mozart's knowledge of Bach or even greatly impressed by his use of Bach's music.

Having said all this, I believe that Mozart, time after time, proves to be the most exquisite arranger.

Regards

P.S. Wondered if you have heard of Hans-Eberhard Dentler's work with Bach's 'Art of Fugue' ?

[robert newman]

Peter,

Reference your post of earlier today. It seems you make the assumption that between Bach and Beethoven is a filter called Gluck, Haydn, Mozart and others. I doubt this.

Let's assume for a moment that Taboga is right - that Beethoven's main teacher at Bonn was Luchesi, and this for years. Let's assume also that the young Beethoven probably knew as much (instinctively) as many at Bonn. And that in Vienna he went along with ideas for his further tuition. Such tuition was of dubious value to Beethoven. Why ?

Surely that's the big question if we assume that there is huge distance between Bach and Beethoven ?

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Peter,

Reference your post of earlier today. It seems you make the assumption that between Bach and Beethoven is a filter called Gluck, Haydn, Mozart and others. I doubt this.

Let's assume for a moment that Taboga is right - that Beethoven's main teacher at Bonn was Luchesi, and this for years. Let's assume also that the young Beethoven probably knew as much (instinctively) as many at Bonn. And that in Vienna he went along with ideas for his further tuition. Such tuition was of dubious value to Beethoven. Why ?

Surely that's the big question if we assume that there is huge distance between Bach and Beethoven ?

I was talking about C.P.E.Bach, whose influence you denied - Beethoven particularly admired his sonatas. C.P.E.Bach as the chief representative of the north German school had considerable influence, not least in the development of Sonata form. Beethoven was influenced by many composers other than the big names such as Dussek, Forkel, Cramner, Clementi and obviously Joseph Knecht in his Pastoral symphony - so I don't get your point about J S Bach being filtered through Mozart etc..

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[robert newman]

We can like, even admire composers such as CPE Bach, Pleyel, etc. but Beethoven did something they did not do. He seems to have demanded space for himself, and this within a few years of his arrival in Vienna. It's just my opinion but there is a heaviness or a 'clumsiness' in Beethoven's works sometimes that is very Bach-like. This is the sheer weight of his ideas. He could not be a 'polite' composer in the Mozartean/Hadyn sense.

I wish I knew him more - he seems likely to have been studying very intensely at different stages of his entire life. The Grosse Fugue etc. The Hammerklavier. These are works of such depth on every level that I can only see him as hugely focused on Bach.

But I'm no expert. It just seems this way to me.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

We can like, even admire composers such as CPE Bach, Pleyel, etc. but Beethoven did something they did not do. He seems to have demanded space for himself, and this within a few years of his arrival in Vienna. It's just my opinion but there is a heaviness or a 'clumsiness' in Beethoven's works sometimes that is very Bach-like. This is the sheer weight of his ideas. He could not be a 'polite' composer in the Mozartean/Hadyn sense.

I wish I knew him more - he seems likely to have been studying very intensely at different stages of his entire life. The Grosse Fugue etc. The Hammerklavier. These are works of such depth on every level that I can only see him as hugely focused on Bach.

But I'm no expert. It just seems this way to me.

I agree there is a big Bach influence, but I get very confused by your theories! If Luchesi was the big teaching influence in league with the Jesuits who supposedly are out to stop Bach, what was he doing promoting Bach to Beethoven?

C.P.E's influence on Haydn and Beethoven is discernible in his sudden dynamic changes and odd phrase lengths - just take Beethoven's Op.2/1 - the dynamic markings are strikingly C.P.E and the opening motive straight from Mannheim.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[robert newman]

I'm not sure Beethoven was taught much of Bach at Bonn and I don't suggest Luchesi went out of his way to change that. It seems that Kirnberger's 'Die Kunst des reinen Satzes in der Musik' was at least available to read in Bonn through Neefe and others (?)

[ASSelby]

Indeed, why does everyone not agree with
Robert Newman, give the kudos of all composers to Luchesi, elevate Luchesi to the throne of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven and change the name on all compositions of the above composers to Luchesi.

Then Robert would be satisfied and there would be no more Luchesi correspondence, no more arguments or debates and the Beethoven site could get back to normal and become
a Beethoven site, Oh, dear me! I forgot!
become a Luchesi site.

Agnes.

[robert newman]

Hi Agnes,

Please try to be more accurate. Not a single opus number of Beethoven is being claimed as a work by Luchesi. That's Fact Number 1.

You still wheel out the same smear of 'elevating Luchesi to the throne of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven and (changing) the name on ALL compositions of the above composers to Luchesi'.

Luchesi is not claimed by anyone to have written a single work of JS Bach (who died, in point of fact, when Luchesi was only 9). That's Fact Number 2.

Haydn was receiving many works from other composers (such as Sammartini) long before Luchesi. That's Fact Number 3. And Fact 4 (Beethoven learned nothing from Haydn). Fact Number 5, Johann Schenk in Vienna around 1830 is one of many men who came close to exposing the fraudulent behaviour of Haydn.
Beethoven in 6 months realised Haydn's 'lessons' were of no value to him.

The small number of musical works from Bonn on which there has never been a consensus (even within Beethoven scholarship) includes several that may actually be by Kapellmeister Luchesi, these including two cantatas (one for the death of Joseph and the other for the accession of the Emperor Leopold) but its been suggested Beethoven still had a role in the births of both works.

So please try to be more accurate/fair. A composer contemporary with all 3 men (Hadyn, Mozart and Beethoven) and whose achievements have been obscured/overlooked/downplayed (Andrea Luchesi) is able to shown to have been far more significant to music than your tradition suggests. So says a great deal of evidence, documentary and otherwise.

It's to the great credit of this Beethoven website that such difficult things have been discussed in some sort of agreed context, even though they are controversial and not yet generally accepted.

Beethoven's reputation (unlike that of Haydn and Mozart's) survives intact and is even enhanced in having risen above such 'monkey business'. He did not need a Constanze to lie for him. He did not need a forger to forge signatures and notes in his name. He needed no deletions/edits in his manuscripts or in his correspondence, the wanton destruction of literally years of vital correspondence, the exaggerations of his father, the input of two different censors or the dogmatic production of work lists which include to this day the indisputable creations of others. No - Beethoven was no Mozart.

Robert



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-22-2006).]

[ASSelby]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Hi Agnes,


Again, Luchesi is not claimed to have written a single work of JS Bach (who died, in point of fact, before Luchesi was even born). That's Fact Number 2.
---

OH, THAT IS GOOD TO KNOW. ARE YOU SURE?
PERHAPS LUCHESI WAS BORN BEFORE HIS TIME.
----


So please will you try to be more fair ? A composer who is contemporary with all 3 of these composers (Hadyn, Mozart and Beethoven) and whose achievements have certainly been obscured/downplayed (Andrea Luchesi) is able to shown to have been far more significant than your tradition suggests. So says a great deal of evidence, documentary and otherwise.
-------

PLEASE GIVE US THE EVIDENCE. IT IS EAGERLY AWAITED. ON MY PART IT HAS BEEN AWAITED FOR
SIX WHOLE YEARS.
-------

Beethoven's reputation (unlike that of Haydn and Mozart's) survives intact and is even enhanced in having risen above such 'monkey business'. He did not need a Constanze to lie for him. He did not need a forger to forge signatures in his name. He needed no deletions/edits in his correspondence, the wanton destruction of literally years of vital correspondence, the exaggerations of his father, the input of two different censors or the production of work lists which include the creations of others.
-----

AMAZING. AND YOU HAVE EVIDENCE FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE, ALL DATA PROPERLY RESEARCHED, EVIDENCE INCLUDED AND SO ON. AMAZING!!!

HOW COME NONE OF THE DOCUMENTATION EXISTS AND YOU CAN'T PRODUCE IT.

I KNOW!!! IT IS THE CATHOLICS AND THE JESUITS STILL HOLDING THE REIGNS OF POWER!
NEXT TIME I FIND A STUDENT BEING DISMAYED BY YOUR MISINFORMATION I WILL ASK THE SCHOOL TO TAKE IT UP WITH THE POPE IN ROME AND ASK HIM TO STOP THIS TERRIBLE INJUSTICE AGAINST THE GREATEST COMPOSER OF ALL TIME - LUCHESI.

Agnes.

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-22-2006).]

[robert newman]

Yes, I have evidence for all this. If you ask for specific evidence you can have it immediately. Please specify and I will be happy to do so for you Agnes, as so often offered - right here. (Luchesi was of course a boy at the time of Bach's death - you know that is what I mean).

As far as Jesuits and Catholics are concerned, really, one of these two was banned in 1773 by the Pope in Rome. Which was it Agnes ? You should not assume students are fools.

I wait now for your specific questions.

Regards

Robert



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-22-2006).]