|
|
Organ Works BWV 561-570
Discussions - Part 1 |
|
BWV 565 - Transcribed for Piano |
|
Piotr Jaworski wrote (May 2, 2002):
Since the 'alternative' topics are still allowed apart the MDs, I'd like to rise one
Within the couple of last few days I've been listening to several piano arrangements (transcriptions) of the famous Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565. Transcribed by Max Reger, Ferruccio Busoni and Carl Tausig. Those I've heard. These three ones seem to be the best known.
But there are some more existing - and even recorded. Like these by Cortot, Friedman, Graigner ... and ... and here is my question. WHO ELSE transcribed this famous piece for piano? Is there anyone on the List that has most of the mentioned versions - especially the rare ones - of Cortot-Friedman-Graigner?? I'd be grateful for any comments and recommendations. |
|
Piotr Jaworski wrote (May 13, 2002):
I'm getting notorious, but I can't believe that NONE can help me with the question below...
Almost two weeks ago I asked for recommendations of recordings with Toccata and Fugue BWV 565 in various piano transcriptions. No response
....
Everyone has the original "organ" version only??? Even Brad and Don ...? |
|
Hary J. Steinman wrote (May 13, 2002):
[To Piotr Jaworski] One of my favorites is that of Tatiana Nikolayave, "Tatiana Nikolayave Plays Bach" (Olympia 627). The 3-disc set has a slew of transcriptions as well as a basket full of works for keyboard-2 and 3 part inventions, Italian Concerto, etc., etc. One of my fave pieces on this is her transcription of the Chaconne from the 2nd violin partita. |
|
Piotr Jaworski wrote (May 13, 2002):
[To Harry J. Steinman] Apologies for addressing this request to Brad & Don personally, and the unnamed "rest"!
Could you check whose transcription of BWV 565 Nikolayeva plays on your set? Is this one of those "popular" or "rare" ones?
Many thanks & All the best, |
|
Donald Satz wrote (May 13, 2002):
[To Piotr Jaworski] I didn't recommend any piano transcriptions of BWV 565 because I don't have a warm feeling for any of them. This work loses so much when the organ is abandoned. |
|
Piotr Jaworski wrote (May 13, 2002):
[To Donald Satz] Thanks for reply anyway
The piano transcriptions I know differ quite much one from another - for instance the one made by Reger is simply a different work comparing to that by Tausig.Is that true that this work itself "loses so much" on piano? Good question, IMO in case of this one - as in case of quite many other composed by JSB - rather not. The question is transcribes and who plays...
One of my favourite Bach recordings is the set of Liszt transcriptions of organ 'Preludes' BWV 543-548. The pianist is the invaluable Artur Pizarro. The piano versions are simply spectacular. |
|
Thomas Boyce wrote (May 13, 2002):
[To Piotr Jaworski] I second that notion regarding the Liszt transcriptions.
And I'll mention the Stokowski transcription of BWV 565 used in "Fantasia."
And Wilhelm Kempff's 2-CD set on DG of transcriptions and selected pieces from the Eng./Fr. Suites, etc. |
|
Pete Blue wrote (May 13, 2002):
[To Piotr Jaworski] See my post to this List of months ago -- Msg #5672. The Sandor transcription of 565, at least as played by him, is the most powerful recorded performance of the work I know on any instrument. The early-1950s LP it was issued on is Columbia ML 4684. Its subsequent availability is unknown to me. |
|
Piotr Jaworski wrote (May 14, 2002):
[To Pete Blue] Many thanks - I've just picked up your message fro the List archives. Sounds really gorgeous and ... rather distant - in terms of recording availability; but I'll check. |
|
Hary J. Steinman wrote (May 15, 2002):
[To Piotr Jaworski] Sorry for the delay in replying.am getting married in 5 days (but who's counting???) and am a bit overwhelmed. Unfortunately, there is no attribution in the booklet that accompanies the CD. All I can tell you is that I enjoy the treatment (and shouldn't that be enough for anyone???). |
|
Hary J. Steinman wrote (May 15, 2002):
Sorry for the late response to this...I've been a bit busy.
I'm no musicologist; I can only supply experiential evidence. When I listen to this work, I am moved in the same manner that I am moved when I listen to other works by JSB. If this is by another composer, please let me know who he or she is as that composer deserves the same attention that Bach deserves! |
|
Charles Francis wrote (May 15, 2002):
[To Harry J. Steinman] QED |
| |
|
Hello me! [BWV 565] |
|
Matthew Neugebauer wrote (October 26, 2002):
I'm sort of new here (i.e. I just signed up), but I've been on the BCML for a while, so I know the deal!
anyway, I had a small suggestion on the BCML that Tom Braatz suggested that I join this group and start it here:
With Halloween almost upon us (oy-what spooky diction!) why don't we discuss recordings of the great Toccata and Fugue in D min, BWV 565? Its a Haunted house favourite, although I don't do anything for Halloween, but the dissonances etc. can sometimes be freaky if the listener wanted it to be!
<html><H5><FONT color=#003399 face="Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">"Rejoice, oh Judah! and, in songs divine,</FONT></H5>
<H5><FONT color=#003399 face="Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">With Cherubim and Seraphim harmonious join.</FONT></H5>
<H5><FONT color=#003399 face="Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">Hallelujah! Amen."</FONT></H5>
<P> -Judas Maccabaeus, libretto by T. Morrell,</P>
<P> set to music by G.F. Handel summer, 1746</P></html> |
| |
|
BWV 562 |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (May 10, 2004):
<"I have often had problems with his interpretation of the Phantasie und Fuge c-Moll BWV 562. Here are my points of contention:
3. Where is the Fuge? He (much like the vast majority of performers that record this work) leaves the Fuge off.">
According to the 1998 edition of BWV, and the Lohmann (Breitkopf) organ edition, and Robert Marshall's article "Organ or _Klavier_?"--all working separately--the fantasia dates from as much as 25 or 30 years before the fugue; and the fugue exists in autograph as only a fragment, breaking off in bar 27. That is, they probably don't belong together at all, plus the fugue is unfinished. Those are pretty good reasons not to play them together.
And Victoria Horn in "French Influence in Bach's Organ Works" (in _Bach as Organist_ edited by George Stauffer) points out several connections between this 562 fantasia and music by de Grigny. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (May 10, 2004):
<<"I have often had problems with his interpretation of the Phantasie und Fuge c-Moll BWV 562. Here are my points of contention:
3. Where is the Fuge? He (much like the vast majority of performers that record this work) leaves the Fuge off.">>
<According to the 1998 edition of BWV, and the Lohmann (Breitkopf) organ edition, and Robert Marshall's article "Organ or _Klavier_?"--all working separately--the fantasia dates from as much as 25 or 30 years before the fugue; and the fugue exists in autograph as only a fragment, breaking off in bar 27. That is, they probably don't belong together at all, plus the fugue is unfinished. Those are pretty good reasons not to play them together.
And Victoria Horn in "French Influence in Bach's Organ Works" (in _Bach as Organist_ edited by George Stauffer) points out several connections between this 562 fantasia and music by de Grigny.>
Incidentally: the fugue subject (fragment) for 562, according to BWV, is in 6/4 and has a hemiola in the second bar (a pretty interesting and syncopated subject)...not to be confused with 546's fugue that is in cut-C, a completely different fugue. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 10, 2004):
>> According to the 1998 edition of BWV, and the Lohmann (Breitkopf) organ edition, and Robert Marshall's article "Organ or _Klavier_?"--all working separately--the fantasia dates from as much as 25 or 30 years before the fugue; and the fugue exists in autograph as only a fragment, breaking off in bar 27. That is, they probably don't belong together at all, plus the fugue is unfinished. Those are good reasons not to play them together.<<
The NBA IV/5 and KB see this quite differently based upon their editorial policy of presenting Bach’s versions “Fassung letzter Hand” [“based upon the latest point in time when Bach had the music before him and still made changes to the scores/parts.”] I, personally, do not always agree with this policy when Bach’s last versions/revisions do not necessarily improve the music over his first inspiration with definite words and/or singers/players in mind. “Making do with what he had” when he repeated a work from an earlier period is not necessarily an improvement musically over his first conception of the work in question.
Be that as it may, in this instance the’Fantasia et Fuga in c (BWV 562) is nevertheless a ‘unified’ work, one which Bach picked up again twenty to twenty-five years later in order to unite the ‘Fantasia’ with the ‘Fuga’ which he intended at this later date as a completion to the ‘Fantasia.’
In this regard, a passage which I shared about Bach’s masses on the BCML might bear repeating here:
>> Another direction for considering this situation is given by Georg von Dadelsen, who examines the problems surrounding the composition of masses from the standpoint of Bach’s changed attitude toward compositional activity. Von Dadelsen reminds us of Bach’s clearly recognizable effort, beginning in about 1736, “das Geschaffene zu sichten und ihm, wo immer nötig, endgültige Gestalt zu geben” [“to sift through everything already composed and to try wherever possible to put it into its final form”] (“Tübinger Bach-Studien, Issue 4/5, pp. 157 ff.) Dadelsen counts among those works which Bach wants “das Begonnene vollenden oder in einen gültigeren Zusammenhang rücken” [“to complete that which had been begun or to move it into a more valid connection”] possibly also the masses (which includes the Mass in B-minor.) This kind of thinking opens a new perspective.<<
It would appear that Bach, in the last years of his life, was concerned about completing things that he had left unfinished. The ‘Fuga’ BWV 562/2 would be just one of a number of compositions of this sort.
Further evidence which can not be ‘cribbed’ out of the BWV reference book, the Lohmann Organ Edition, nor from Robert Marshall’s books can only be gathered from studying the NBA KB, a recognized and thorough authority on all of Bach’s works. Here are a few salient points, which, if overlooked by any reputed musician or musicologist, could lead to an erroneous conclusion “that they probably don’t belong together at all”:
1) We have both the Fantasia and Fuga in Bach’s own handwriting!
2) The condition of the autograph manuscript is quite good – the paper is only slightly spotty and the ink hardly comes through the other side of the sheet.
3) The KB states: “Es ist nicht ausgeschlossen, daß Bach die Komposition der Fuge weitergeführt, wahrscheinlich sogar abgeschlossen hat: vielleicht ist ein Blatt mit der Fortsetzung und dem Schluß dieses Satzes verlorengegangen“ [„It is quite possible that Bach continued composing the fugue, and probably even finished it: perhaps a page with the continuation and conclusion of this mvt. was lost.”]
4) The ink for the ‘Fantasia’ now appears to be brown-black, whereas the ink for the ‘Fuga’ appears to be brown instead.
5) The entrances for the pedal in both mvts. are marked similarly with ‘Ped:’ or ‘ped.’
6) The use of clefs and staves are the same in both mvts. Even more amazing is the use of the same “Rastral” [a special pen for drawing all five lines of the staff with one stroke] in both mvts. These factors “machen wahrscheinlich, daß die Einrichtung der ganzen Handschrift in einem Arbeitsgang im voraus erfolgt ist” [„make it probable that the setup of the entire manuscript took place beforehand“] {‘beforehand’ = implies Bach’s intention for a fugue to follow the ‘Fantasia’ before he began writing down the notes}
7. Bach’s obviously earlier handwriting at the beginning of the ‘Fantasia’ makes it apparent that it differs considerably from that of the later parts of this composition. The early section (only the 1st page of the ‘Fantasia’ (ms. 1-33) is a clear/clean copy without a single error, ms. 34-75 have a few corrections, while ms. 76 ff. to the end are what is called a composing score. The fugue, what remains of it, is definitely Bach’s handwriting from his late period, the best comparison with the greatest number of similarities would be with the 6-pt. Ricercar from the Musical Offering (BWV 1079/5).
8. Some of the corrections in the final part of the ‘Fantasia’ (in ms. 61-62) “Die letzte Korrektur in der Fantasie, Takt 61b-62, dürfte kaum früher als die Komposition der Fuge vorgenommen sein, da alle Abschriften die ältere Lesart, d. h. die Lesart ante correcturam, bieten. Und dementsprechend ist die Fuge in keiner dieser Abschriften enthalten.“ [“It is hardly likely that the final correction in the Fantasia, ms. 61b-62, was undertaken earlier than the {time of} composition of the Fuga, since all the copies {of the Fantasia} show the older/earlier variant, i.e, the state of the composition before the correction was made. And accordingly the Fugue will also not be found in these copies of the earlier variant.”]
I am including 3 scans of the facsimiles of BWV 562 [from the NBA IV/5 Bärenreiter, 1972] to be found in the files sections of the BCML as BWV562a,b,c.jpg. [Not BRML because I do not have permission to post files there!] |
|
Gabriel Jackson wrote (May 11, 2004):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Here are a few salient points, which, if overlooked by any reputed musician or musicologist, could lead to an erroneous conclusion “that they probably don’t belong together at all”: >
But if overlooked by a musician or musicologist without repute, a different conclusion would be reached.....?!! |
|
Gabriel Jackson wrote (May 11, 2004):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< 6) The use of clefs and staves are the same in both mvts. >
What does this mean?! |
|
Gabriel Jackson wrote (May 11, 2004):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
< Here are a few salient points, which, if overlooked by any reputed musician or musicologist, could lead to an erroneous conclusion “that they probably don’t belong together at all”: >
Does anyone here see why these 'salient points' render the conclusion that they don't belong together erroneous? |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 11, 2004):
<< 6) The use of clefs and staves are the same in both mvts. >>
>> What does this mean?!<<
To an expert familiar with Bach’s holographs/autograph scores/parts, there are noticeable differences between manuscripts of certain periods of his life. These differences, among other things such as how the notes are formed, bars over notes, etc., involve also distinguishing between the types of clefs as well as the actual formation of these clefs, and distinguishing between the various ‘rastrals’ which Bach used at different times throughout his composing career. It really does matter if Bach, who was such an ‘economizer’ with paper, had done the complete ‘rastralization’ in the early time slot with the intention of including the Fuga, but then did not get around to completing this project until much later. It is difficult for modern musicians and composers to imagine a time when blank music sheets with the staves already printed on them were not available.
>> What does this mean?!<<
The true experts, who have actually examined the original sources with understanding are able to ‘get a handle on’ specific indications of Bach’s possible intentions without having to resort to ‘crystal-ball gazing’ or providing ‘off-the-cuff’ judgments based upon spurious musical training and experience with having played Bach’s works.
>> Does anyone here see why these 'salient points' render the conclusion that they don't belong together erroneous?<<
The statement “they probably don't belong together at all” is erroneous as it would defy commonsense to admit both 1) they belong together; and 2) they don’t belong together. Of course, anyone has the right to say that the experts are wrong, but thus far I have not heard a single reasonable argument against having these two movements belong togetother than “it sounds like they don’t belong together, or the Fuga is unfinished.” These latter statements are unreasonable because they have short-circuited the process of consulting all the evidence that is available and reading the expert commentary of those who have actually studied the originals.
>> But if overlooked by a musician or musicologist without repute, a different conclusion would be reached.....?!!<<
Yes, different conclusions will be reached, but in the course of time and by the process of allowing intelligent individuals, whether fully trained in musicology or not, to reach their own conclusions in this matter a reasonable truth can be determined in favor of one or the other of these conclusions. One of these conclusions will soon reveal itself to be lacking true substance, so that the choice of each individual will lead to the more likely one.
One thing is quite clear. Those who perform or record BWV 562 without the Fuga are doing so at their own peril. They open themselves up for justifiable criticism and they have no one else to blame for this except themselves. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (May 11, 2004):
>> Here are a few salient points, which, if overlooked by any reputed > musician or musicologist, could lead to an erroneous conclusion “that they probably don’t belong together at all†<<ť:
> Does anyone here see why these 'salient points' render the conclusion that they don't belong together erroneous? <
Translation: anything he can look up in the Canonical Gospel of NBA automatically trumps whatever anyone else said, but especially if it was me. I must be shown to be erroneous and/or lazy at all costs, in the face of such wondrous knowledge that is available for purchase by anyone who has a spare $35,000 lying around idle. That is, because I posted about BWV 562 at all, whatever I wrote is automatically erroneous, or at least can be given some spin to appear so by a person who has purchased heavier books.
>> One thing is quite clear. Those who perform or record BWV 562 without the >> Fuga are doing so at their own peril. They open themselves up for justifiable criticism and they have no one else to blame for this except themselves. <<
Horrors, the way such hapless organists must be at the mercy of those who have diligently purchased the complete Unchanging and Most Holy Gospel of NBA for use as a weapon. One wonders how good musicians sleep at night, knowing that such guardians of the Absolute and Only Possible Truth are marauding the countryside looking for convenient and unrepentant victims, ready to knock on doors and lop some heads.
What does the Immutably and Incontrovertibly Wondrous Gospel Text of NBA do after the fugue autograph breaks off at bar 27? Hmmm? |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 11, 2004):
>> What does the Immutably and Incontrovertibly Wondrous Gospel Text of NBA do after the fugue autograph breaks off at bar 27? Hmmm?<<
This question is asked by someone whose capabilities as a composer with graduate training in music, as he would claim, could easily allow him to complete this fugue with little difficulty! Once the organist/composer had fulfilled this challenge, the audience might decide whether the missing section was worthy of being placed beside Bach’s beginning. Better yet, the organist would improvise the conclusion on the spur of the moment so that each time it was played or recorded, it would be different. Who knows? Perhaps the audience would return with eager anticipation for each successive performance or else collectors would purchase each new recording of the same fugue as it was released to discover what new pleasures might await them.
Personally, I stand in awe of unfinished movements of music of which there are quite a few in musical history. Adding this one to such a list would place it among noble company including others by Bach, but also Mozart, Schubert, etc., etc. Just hearing the music stop abruptly or even slowly diminish to just two parts or even a single line is a very special experience which, I am certain, other listeners have as well. Perhaps it helps to appreciate more just what has been lost. |
|
Gabriel Jackson wrote (May 11, 2004):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
> It is difficult for modern musicians and composers to imagine a time when > blank music sheets with the staves already printed on them were not available. <
What an absurd claim, and quite without foundation! |
|
Gabriel Jackson wrote (May 11, 2004):
>> Does anyone here see why these 'salient points' render the conclusion that they don't belong together erroneous?<<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
> The statement “they probably don't belong together at all” is erroneous as it would defy commonsense to admit both 1) they belong together; and 2) they don’t belong together. Of course, anyone has the right to say that the experts are wrong, but thus far I have not heard a single reasonable argument against having these two movements belong together other than “it sounds like they don’t belong together, or the Fuga is unfinished.” These latter statements are unreasonable because they have short-circuited the process of consulting all the evidence that is available and reading the expert commentary of those who have actually studied the originals. <
The question remains - Does anyone here see why these 'salient points' render the conclusion that they don't belong together erroneous? |
|
Peter Bright wrote (May 11, 2004):
[To Gabriel Jackson, in response to his recent message] May I put in a request that you deal with these points in a single email, rather than single 1 or 2 line comments in a series of emails to different points of the same original message... It's really cloggin up my inbox! |
|
Gabriel Jackson wrote (May 11, 2004):
[Toi Peter Bright] Fair enough. |
|
Neil Halliday wrote (May 11, 2004):
(Disregarding the bickering), thanks to both Brad and Thomas for the information about this piece.
It seems the Fugue fragment (not the fugue now associated with BWV 546) is associated with the Fantasia; whether one chooses to play the fragment in some form or other must be a matter of choice; if one does choose to play it, the correct place is probably after the Fantasia.
Looking at the files uploaded by Thomas, available in the files section of the BCML, I note the appoggiatura-like treatment of the first two notes of the second half of the subject (a crotchet preceded by a small quaver to the upper left of it) - perhaps this explains Rubsam's treatment of this, which I disliked. (My scores show these notes as ordinary quavers, which I prefer.)
I note that this 5-part fugue (in the autograph) is written in something other than the G-clef in the treble; plus, look at that forrest of notes and rests on two staves (including pedals). Any budding organist care to sight read this fragment from the autograph? . |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (May 11, 2004):
>> What does the Immutably and Incontrovertibly Wondrous Gospel Text of NBA do after the fugue autograph breaks off at bar 27? Hmmm?<<
> This question is asked by someone whose capabilities as a composer with graduate training in music, as he would claim, could easily allow him to complete this fugue with little difficulty! Once the organist/composer had fulfilled this challenge, the audience might decide whether the missing section was worthy of being placed beside Bach’s beginning. Better yet, the organist would improvise the conclusion on the spur of the moment so that each time it was played or recorded, it would be different. Who knows? Perhaps the audience would return with eager anticipation for each successive performance or else collectors would purchase each new recording of the same fugue as it was released to discover what new pleasures might await them.
Personally, I stand in awe of unfinished movements of music of which there are quite a few in musical history. Adding this one to such a list would place it among noble company including others by Bach, but also Mozart, Schubert, etc., etc. Just hearing the music stop abruptly or even slowly diminish to just two parts or even a single line is a very special experience which, I am certain, other listeners have as well.Perhaps it helps to appreciate more just what has been lost. <
At long last, a set of sensible and practical suggestions from Mr Braatz, along with an expressed appreciation for great music and for the people who make it! This is a most welcome turn of events, instead of casting musicians as fools and incompetents. One hopes that his remarks were in earnest, and not merely intended as a patronizing attack on anyone.
Indeed, a friend of mine in grad school improvised a continuation of the unfinished Contrapunctus of KdF right before my very ears, at the harpsichord in a practice room. That's not a lost art among organists, as he was.
The response above still doesn't answer the question, though, which was quite a simple and straightforward one: what does the NBA do at bar 27 of the 562 fugue? Insert some apologetic little notation such as "roll your own", in German?
Lohmann, in his critical notes of the Breitkopf organ edition (6585), explains all nine of the manuscripts from which he constructed his Urtext reading of the fantasia: only one of which (P 490) has the fugue fragment. He devotes a separate section to that P 490 reading in these critical notes. He reproduces a facsimile of that fugue page on page XXIX of the introduction (Bemerkungen zum Inhalt, i.e. remarks about the book's contents) instead of including the fugue fragment as a typeset piece in the main body of the book. [That facsimile page is the same fragment that Mr Braatz has scanned from the NBA.] Lohmann's is a good solution, making the entire extant portion of the fugue readily available (in Bach's own handwriting, of course) in the edition, while not cluttering the book twice with an unfinished piece. Organists who wish to start from the extant portion and then construct or improvise a continuation can simply flip to page XXIX to see what Bach wrote. What's the problem? What value, if any, has the NBA added to this? Hence my question yesterday.
As for listening to unfinished or almost-finished music, recently I obtained the new Harnoncourt recording of Bruckner's 9th in which he speaks to the audience (both in German and English) and plays the reconstructed fragments of the last movement. Bravo! I enjoy the reconstructed third symphony of Elgar, too. |
|
John Pike wrote (May 11, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz, in response to his recent message] ] Indeed, but why do you always have to spoil the helpful aspects of your e mails with such provocative and unhelpful remarks? |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (May 11, 2004):
BWV 562. (and 572 and 565)
> I note that this 5-part fugue (in the autograph) is written in something other than the G-clef in the treble; plus, look at that forrest of notes and rests on two staves (including pedals). Any budding organist care to sight read this fragment from the autograph? <
Why does it have to be a "budding" organist? I played through that page this morning on my harpsichord, from the autograph; it's not really a problem if one is accustomed to the soprano clef (middle C on the bottom line) which is pretty normal stuff for Bach. So is the inclusion of the pedal line in the bass staff, instead of having its own. (See, for example, Peter Williams' article "The Snares and Delusions of Notation" in Stauffer's Bach as Organist.)
The slight difficulty this morning was not the reading itself, but reaching the pedal line without having a pedal-board under my harpsichord. Anyway, it was enough to get a good idea what the piece sounds like, as much of it as exists: and I played it in Bach's own temperament, which revealed nice colors in the music as well. From a contrapuntal perspective those stretti are tantalizing, just before the piece breaks off. It wouldn't be too difficult to work out several other iterations of that invertible counterpoint, stitch it together with a few episodes, and have a completely playable fugue.
Incidentally, in the G major "Piece d'Orgue" BWV 572, all of the first two sections are playable without pedal until the D pedal-point of bar 176ff. And this is the piece that famously has a low B in the "pedal" part of bar 94, a note that goes off the bottom end of all organs, but doesn't go off harpsichords. It's not difficult to surmise that Bach practiced at least part of this piece sometimes at home, on harpsichord (as I did regularly some years ago, when preparing organ performances of the piece); or that it maybe even started out as a harpsichord piece in some now-lost sketch.
The too-familiar Toccata BWV 565 also works almost all the way through without any requirement of pedals to reach all the notes...play it on whatever's handy. This is all basic keyboard musicianship: being able to play pieces either with or without pedals, as occasions arise. |
|
Charles Francis wrote (May 11, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
> Indeed, a friend of mine in grad school improvised a continuation of the unfinished Contrapunctus of KdF right before my very ears, at the harpsichord in a practice room. That's not a lost art among organists, as he was. <
Hopefully, it was a more compelling completion than Tovey or Moroney. I have yet to hear the continuation that sounds like Bach. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 11, 2004):
>> The response above still doesn't answer the question, though, which was quite a simple and straightforward one: what does the NBA do at bar 27 of the 562 fugue? Insert some apologetic little notation such as "roll your own", in German?<<
The NBA prints it as it appears in the Bach autograph. Why should it do it any other way? Lohmann’s solution of only reproducing the facsimile at another point in his Urtext volume rather than right after the ‘Fantasia’ where it belongs is misleading in the least.
>> Lohmann's is a good solution, making the entire extant portion of the fugue readily available (in Bach's own handwriting, of course) in the edition, while not cluttering the book twice with an unfinished piece.<<
This is an unbelievably feeble attempt to defend Lohmann’s bad judgment in this instance. “Not cluttering the book twice with an unfinished piece” is not only the type of poor ‘reasoning’ that leads to the erroneous conclusion on the part those who would conclude that the Fantasia and the Fuga do not belong together, but it is also indicative of a ‘lack of respect’ for actual autograph scores by Bach that have come down to us. Since when is providing a bona fide printed version of anything written/composed by Bach considered “cluttering the book” when almost every reader of the Fuga facsimile would be unable to find and make sense of at least 27 instances (according to the NBA KB) where Bach’s indications need to be clarified?
Another Bach expert, Robert L. Marshall in his “The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, the Style, the Significance” [Schirmer, 1989) p. 274 criticizes Heinz Lohmann as follows: “Lohmann has in fact carried out his selection with few restraints evidently guided by little more than personal taste and inclination.” and “[Lohmann’s approach] is not entirely satisfying in its reliance on personal taste and preference. One wonders whether there may not be more objective criteria on which to base the inclusion or exclusion of particular compositions from a conscientious edition of Bach’s organ works.”
So perhaps we can absolve Lohmann from complete responsibility in removing the Fuga from the Fantasia (since he could apparently not help himself, according to Marshall above) although he [Lohmann] did make it very difficult for even musicians/musicologists with graduate diplomas to see what is clearly the result of a whim on Lohmann’s part, a whim which has nothing to do with solid Bach scholarship. Only those with blind faith in Lohmann’s efforts would allow themselves to be duped into believing that the ‘Fantasia’ and the ‘Fuga’ probably don’t belong together at all.” |
|
Zev Bechler wrote (May 14, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz, in response to his message above]
Did Mr. Braatz actually purchase the NBA for $ 35,000 ??? And were these really "spare $35,000 lying around idle" ?? These questions may put this wretched war in a wholly new, entertaining and fascinating perspective, for a change. They may even hint at a way to quench it. Let's, as Deep Throat said , follow the money, and ask Mr. Braatz, did you or didnt you ? |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 17, 2004):
Zev Bechler inquired:
>> Did Mr. Braatz actually purchase the NBA for $ 35,000 ??? And were these really "spare $35,000 lying around idle" ?? These questions may put this wretched war in a wholly new, entertaining and fascinating perspective, for a change. They may even hint at a way to quench it. Let's, as Deep Throat said , follow the money, and ask Mr. Braatz, did you or didnt you?<<
I have not kept track of the actual amount of money spent which is definitely much less than the present-day amount indicated. In any case, what does $35,000 really mean over a period of time stretching more than a half century? Consider the devaluation of the dollar and the ever-fluctuating exchange rates! The first volumes were purchased very reasonably at an exchange rate of more than DM 4,20 to one dollar. The most recent issues are quite expensive in comparison, but as a collector wishing to obtain the entire set, which is very close to completion now, I am willing to pay these higher prices. My main motivation for purchasing the NBA? My love of Bach's music and the feeling that I have helped to support the scholarship needed to produce this monumental set. I only joined these lists in March, 2001, certainly not with the intention of 'showing off' my collection, but rather to deepen my understanding of Bach's music by contributing to the weekly cantata discussions. For th!
is, of course, the NBA scores were/are of immense help in determining just how various conductors/soloists go about interpreting Bach's intentions.
But how will this help to quench 'this wretched war'? How can referring to the work of experts in the field of musicology and Bach scholarship in order to obtain clarification about certain notions and firmly-held beliefs pronounced by a few individuals ensconced in their ivory towers be considered an act of aggression that warrants such defensive (sometimes verging upon irrational) tactics as those being employed against me here? Perhaps you will be able to unravel this mystery? |
|
Zev Bechler wrote (May 15, 2004):
Mr. Braatz asked:
> But how will this help to quench 'this wretched war'? How can referring to the work of experts in the field of musicology and Bach scholarship in order to obtain clarification about certain notions and firmly-held beliefs pronounced by a few individuals ensconced in their ivory towers be > considered an act of aggression that warrants such defensive (sometimes verging upon irrational) tactics as those being employed against me here? > Perhaps you will be able to unravel this mystery? <
I should have said "enlightening, perhaps, and therefore capable of dissolving the interest of this endless senseless war". Now, could it be that what we have here is just a clash between a poor professional scholar and a wealthy amateur ? Being wealthy, the amateur has easy and immediate access to all kinds of fancy information which are practically barred for the poor scholar. The amateur, however, has been deprived of the professional training (into which the scholar had sank his funds) and so denies the main source of strength of the scholar - his having been once privy to the secrets of professional tradition, secrets which are transmitted only via personal, tacit, daily contact with the bearers of the tradition, secrets which are inarticulable and can be expressed only by subtle gestures and innuendos. The amateur is forever outside this secret circle and it's tradition, and so he hammers those inside it using the explicit and public information which only he is able to posses in his own private study. He has time, leisure, and resources at his fingertips, and within an hour or so is able to lambaste whatever the scholar manages to scramble from his home library, without needing to get into the car and drive who knows how long to the nearest university music library. Could it be that this is the stuff that is driving this truly boring war ? |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 17, 2004):
Zev Bechler wondered:
>> Now, could it be that what we have here is just a clash between a poor professional scholar and a wealthy amateur?<<
This would be a rather unfair, shallow, simplistic criticism/characterization.
Is a professional scholar/musician considered ‘poor’ simply for occasionally overstepping the bounds of solid scholarship by trying ‘wing it’ or by ‘flying by the seat of one’s pants’? Certainly this type of thing occurs in public performances all the time – it can be called ‘imaginative interpretation’ and promotes the aspect of liveliness that comes as a result of ‘off-the-cuff’ innovative performing practice.
Unfortunately this method of presentation is not conducive to sound musical/musicological scholarship where grand gestures that issue ‘from/off the top of one’s head’ are often misleading or even erroneous no matter how many degrees or diplomas an individual possesses In cases such as these, professional training based upon >>secrets which are transmitted only via personal, tacit, daily contact with the bearers of the tradition, secrets which are inarticulable and can be expressed only by subtle gestures and innuendos<< is only as good as anyone’s ability to believe that such esoteric traditions in music actually existed at one time and have been passed down by an unchanging, unwritten, undocumented tradition from Bach’s day until now. Who is to say that Edward Parmentier with his ‘amazing’ collection of scores, reference books, and his index-card file’ had access to such knowledge and was able to transmit it to his students? Who was Parmentier’s teacher and can we follow the line directly back to Bach as a teacher (as if such a thing were even possible without considerable distortion of Bach’s intentions over such a long period of time?)
In lieu of such an unverifiable tradition, any scholar, even reputable musicologists, would have to engage in some detective work, uncovering what might be considered the best, reliable evidence available. There is simply no excuse for overlooking the scholarship contained in the NBA just because it is easier for a professional scholar/musician ‘to manage to scramble [the necessary explicit and public information] from his home library, without needing to get into the car and drive who knows how long to the nearest university music library.” It would be wiser for this professional scholar/musician to withhold judgment rather than to make a pronouncement based upon ‘a professional, gut feeling’ which he feels entitles him occasionally even to make false/erroneous statements without a loss of professional status/believability.
The ‘discussion’ of BWV 562 is indicative and symptomatic of the great gulf existing between some professional musician-scholars who seem to be working according to an agenda, whether deliberate or unconscious, that is skewed toward upholding the sometimes questionable tenets of the historically-informed-performance-practice theories. This agenda leads almost naturally towards overstatement and the use of certain extremes such as exaggerated mannerisms and techniques in the expression of these extremes. This agenda also involves labeling as ‘dead,’ ‘boring,’ ‘romantically overblown,’ ‘too operatic’ etc., etc., anything which does not conform to the extremes of HIP. However, at the basis of this HIP mentality, in an attempt to justify its own practices, there is a pervasive disregard for moderation, balance, and common sense. This has been pointed out by some critics who dared to voice contrary opinions. It is this technique of overstatement issuing from the belief that one has all the answers by sheer musical training (the current vogue overemphasizing all aspects of HIP) that leads to such overly confident pronouncements as that seen in this discussion of BWV 562 (although this discussion does not really touch upon matters truly important to HIP vs. non-HIP.)
This is not a question here of ‘stupid (amateur) wealth’ (I can by nomeans be considered wealthy nor do I belong to those below the poverty level) vs. ‘poor, but smart professional scholars,’ but rather one of the ‘arrogance of entitlement’ vs. the ‘lot of those bereft of professional training’ where ‘true knowledge,’ according to the arrogant, belongs only to those who possess the necessary diplomas and not to those who can read study and think independently. Bach can be performed by anyone, any time, and on any instrument including the voice, but any professional scholar/musician who gives the indication of performing Bach authentically without consulting the information and printed scores contained in the NBA can not be considered truly reputable.
There was a time a few years ago when an honest question would be posted on these lists: ‘Tom, what does the NBA say about this?’ This admirable type of collective search for the best information about Bach's music in the form of questions that arose among the list members seems no longer possible in this environment poisoned by charges which I do not wish to repeat here. Can you imagine now that an admission “I don’t know, but I would guess, based upon my limited knowledge of this matter, that the Fantasia and Fugue should not be played together” was possible back then? But now it is stated this way: ”they probably don't belong together at all, plus the fugue is unfinished. Those are pretty good reasons not to play them together” upon which I offered the contrary information from the NBA KB.
The question here really becomes: Are those interested in Bach’s music and its performance well served by not consulting the NBA and its KBs, but rather by relying upon lesser, more convenient reference works (BWV, etc.) which may provide only extremely succinct highlights? Just how reliable is a ‘gut feeling’ about such a matter, a ‘gut feeling’ which circumvents actually reading and studying what serious Bach scholars have uncovered? Can anyone with reasonable intelligence read and study the NBA KBs (or other similar detailed references) and come to reliable conclusions without having degrees in music performance/musicology? Or does the ‘off-the-cuff’ opinion of a scholar/musician carry greater weight than that obtained by careful reading/studying when undertaken by one without university degrees in these subjects? Does an ‘off-the-cuff’ opinion obviate the need to explain how such an opinion is arrived at or what type of reasoning is used (why, for instance, an incomplete fugue is reason enough not to play the incomplete portion)?
These are some of the issues that I suggest might help to clarify the apparent impasse that creates ‘struggles’ between individuals, ‘struggles’ unfortunately tinged with resentment rather than ‘struggles’ directed toward obtaining the best information available currently on specific matters pertaining to Bach and Bach’s music. What is to be gained, aside from some temporary, ill-perceived advantage on the part of some, from the tautological reiteration of the deficiencies that one wishes to pin upon the other with whom one disagrees vehemently? Why should it be considered inappropriate for those outside of the ‘ivory-tower’ establishment to investigate what is ‘really going on inside the kitchen’ (roughly as Gustav Leonhardt had expressed it) where critical decisions are being made on just how the listening audience will hear Bach’s music performed? To determine the basis upon which such performance decisions are being made is a matter that may interest some, but not all listeners, to be sure. The BCML and BRML should be a forum where such things can be discussed amicably without insinuating all sorts of personal motives on the part of anyone who raises a question or who has a different opinion, motives which are not true and simply lead away from the specific subject being discussed. |
|
Gabriel Jackson wrote (May 17, 2004):
Thomas Braatz wrote:
> Is a professional scholar/musician considered ‘poor’ simply for occasionally overstepping the bounds of solid scholarship by trying ‘wing it’ or by ‘ flying by the seat of one’s pants’? <
Dear oh dear oh dear! Zev clearly meant 'poor' in the sense of impecunious. This is so very very boring. I wonder if there is anyone here who is still remotely interested in Thomas Braatz's anti-musician, anti-scholarship rants. Whatever the origins of his deep resentment of Brad Lehman, and his contempt for the work of so many dedicated musicians that manage to give pleasure, stimulation and great satisfaction to listeners, and serve the music of Bach with such artistry and commitment, I, for one wish he would just get over it. We all know what he thinks by now, and do we care anymore? |
|
Charles Francis wrote (May 17, 2004):
Gabrial Jckson wrote:
> We all know what he thinks by now, and do we care anymore? <
Clearly yes, as the pro-HIP front continues to respond (and almost always with disparaging remarks rather than constructive points about Bach's great music). |
|
Gabriel Jackson wrote (May 17, 2004):
Charles Francis wrote:
> Clearly yes, as the pro-HIP front continues to respond (and almost always with disparaging remarks rather than constructive points about Bach's great music). <
And Charles hates disparaging remarks, and never makes them, of course... |
|
John Pike wrote (May 17, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz, in response to his message above] Another very irritating e mail of the "I'm right, the rest of you are wrong" unbelievably simplistic variety. OK, MAYBE the rest of us are not doing EXACTLY what Bach did, but we ARE able to give good reasons for doing things the way we do. I try to do things the way I do them because I take advice from my teacher who is a top professional, properly trained at conservatoire to do things in a certain way because there are good reasons for doing things in that way.
Can't you just admit that MAYBE you are wrong or MIGHT JUST have gaps in your knowledge and skills? |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 17, 2004):
John Pike asks:
>> Can't you just admit that MAYBE you are wrong or MIGHT JUST have gaps in your knowledge and skills?<<
Does the inability to present viable counter-evidence (in this case:: BWV 562) on the part of the group that you seem to be defending necessarily mean that I am unable to admit that I am wrong? Actually that is what you seem to be stating here. However, since the evidence from the NBA KB that I presented about BWV 562 has received no reasonable response from those who presume to be the experts on these lists, it must mean that the erroneous notion presented by one such expert is ‘so far out in left field’ that it should not be considered seriously by anyone who is seeking the ‘current truth’ about this matter. Should not that individual expert who first gave this erroneous opinion ‘just admit that MAYBE he is wrong or MIGHT JUST have gaps in his knowledge and skills?’
If this is how information is ‘twisted around’ by those upholding the ideals of the professional field of musicology and the need for a university education in these matters, is it no small wonder that individuals considered ‘outsiders’ can peer into this guarded realm and easily discover serious misunderstandings/misinterpretations that those ‘with additional benefits conferred’ upon them as a result of a university education have failed to critically appraise?’
Ask yourself: “How has your accusing question shed more light upon the scholarly information regarding BWV 562, assuming, of course, that someone is seriously attempting to find out as much as possible about this composition by Bach, assuming that some list member really wanted to know why the fugue was dropped in some recordings of this work? Have you truly aided this individual in the search for the most reliable, current information on this matter by stating that the NBA probably has less of a chance of being correct in this regard than the opinion rendered by a card-carrying expert who relies primarily on ‘experience’ to concoct theories frequently based upon unwritten assumptions? Your respect for all experts, particularly those with a university education, is admirable, but do you seriousleave all your own critical abilities (the ability to think clearly and independently) behind when reading what they have to say and hearing how they perform the music? |
|
John Pike wrote (May 17, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz] Although I had not changed the subject line, my comments were more about the general nature of exchanges between you and Brad. I was not saying you were wrong or that Brad was right. We will never know the truth about many of these issues related to Bach's music and its performance. I was asking you to admit that you MIGHT be wrong. That was why I wrote MIGHT in capitals. One of the things I object to in some of your e mails is the categorical way in which you make statements. This is a pity because they often start off so well, by listing bits of evidence for a particular point of view. This real scholarship is usually then spoilt by some remarks deliberately intended to antagonise Brad and the dogmatic way in which you express a view.
I am not supporting either view. I am not in a position to since my knowledge is very minimal and certainly light years behind that of both you and Brad. However, I do feel that the way you express your views is questionable and I feel that a little modesty would be in order...ie acknowledging that there ARE gaps in your knowledge and experience, particularly as regards performance. You would be well advised to take note of Brad's expertise and superior knowledge in this respect and behave appropriately in response. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 17, 2004):
John Pike stated:
>> One of the things I object to in some of your e mails is the categorical way in which you make statements. This is a pity because they often start off so well, by listing bits of evidence for a particular point of view. This real scholarship is usually then spoilt by some remarks deliberately intended to antagonise Brad and the dogmatic way in which you express a view.<<
True scholarship does not ‘mince words’ or take on the air of overpoliteness as the example demonstrates that I had posted on the BCML regarding BWV 233-236: >>[The words used by the NBA editors, in this instance, Emil Platen and Marianne Helms, describe Schering’s ‘Sporck-theory’ as “das brüchige Fundament eines labilen Denkgebäudes, das aber als standfester Unterbau für weitere Konstruktionen angesehen wurde” [“the brittle foundation of an unstable mental construct which, however, was viewed {by other Bach scholars} as a steadfast support structure upon which to erect other constructs.” Likewise: “Scherings Behauptungen wurden zwar allgemein von der Bachforschung akzeptiert, halten aber einer kritischen Prüfung nicht stand“ [“Schering’s assertions were, to be sure, generally accepted by the community of Bach researchers, but they can not stand up to a {truly} critical test.”]<< to which I added a personal comment [which is obviously an aside comment]: >>Here we have a situation where the peer-review system completely breaks down and fails. Certainly, a half century of peer-review should have been sufficient to uncover important errors which change substantially the results of Bach research.<<
Anyone has a right to disagree with my statement, knowing full well that it was not stated by the renowned Bach scholars whose original statement I had translated. I also admit that my comments may contain hyperbole, but then I am certainly not alone in using this figure of speech here on these lists. [Use of hyperbole: L. Murray, “English Grammar” 5th Edition, stated: “Hyperboles are of two kinds; either such as are employed in description, or such as are suggested by the warmth of passion.”] However, I do not say things like “Edward Parmentier is a moron.” This type of flaming by placing words in my mouth, words that have never crossed my mind or that I did not express in my postings emanates most frequently from the individual you are trying to defend and protect from imagined slights and insults.
Might I suggest that it is only your personal perception of such a statement/comment (you were not explicit as to which statement(s) you find ‘deliberately antagonizing’) or perhaps even Brad’s overreaction to them using innuendos and exaggerations to castigate my comments rather than rational thought which may draw your attention away from the actual content of my comments and cause you to view them differently as you have done?
John Pike also comments:
>> I do feel that the way you express your views is questionable and I feel that a little modesty would be in order..<<
Obsequiousness, which seems to be part of the request that you are making here, is not part of my nature. You would be asking me to act and comment in a manner contrary to my inner being.
>> You would be well advised to take note of Brad's expertise and superior knowledge in this respect and behave appropriately in response.<<
Respect and honor have to be earned and are not solely based upon degrees and diplomas received. The demonstration of these qualities is sadly lacking in Brad’s behavior and comments on these lists.
Can we get back to our discussions of Bach's music? |
|
Johan van Veen wrote (May 18, 2004):
John Pike stated:
>> One of the things I object to in some of your e mails is the categorical way in which you make statements. This is a pity because they often start off so well, by listing bits of evidence for a particular point of view. This real scholarship is usually then spoilt by some remarks deliberately intended to antagonise Brad and the dogmatic way in which you express a view. <<
Thomas Braatz wrote:
> True scholarship does not 'mince words' or take on the air of overpoliteness as the example demonstrates >that I had posted on the BCML regarding BWV 233-236<
But you have never proven to be a 'true scholar'.
Strangely enough you do what you accuse others of doing: following others' behaviour or ideas without critical thinking of their own. Why would bad behaviour of one scholar be an excuse for the bad behaviour of another?
John Pike also comments:
>> I do feel that the way you express your views is questionable and I feel that a little modesty would be in order..<<
> Obsequiousness, which seems to be part of the request that you are making here, is not part of my nature. You would be asking me to act and comment in a manner contrary to my inner being. <
The fact that others are hurt because you behave according to your character doesn't seem to matter. How sad. And do you really believe 'modesty' is the same thing as 'obsequiousness'? How sad.
How deep can a human being sink? |
|
Charles Francis wrote (May 18, 2004):
Johan van Veen wrote:
> The fact that others are hurt because you behave according to your character doesn't seem to matter. How sad. And do you really believe 'modesty' is the same thing as 'obsequiousness'? How sad.
How deep can a human being sink? <
At least as low as your hurtful remarks, I guess. |
|
Donald Satz wrote (May 18, 2004):
[To Thomas:Braatz, in response to his message above] The problem is that you don't discuss Bach's music. You make rigid pronouncements based on your readings. Also, you keep talking about "balance" and "good taste", but that's entirely subjective in the way you use the words. I also think balance is a major factor in Bach's music, but the balance I'm thinking of concerns voice interaction and emotional content. Your sense of balance seems to refer to your frequent use of term "moderation".
Further, your disdain for the advantages that a performing artist possesses is puzzling. Just because Brad uses this feature to try to gain an advantage over you is no reason to berate those in the profession. |
|
Thomas Braatz wrote (May 18, 2004):
Johan van Veen stated:
>> But you have never proven to be a 'true scholar'. Strangely enough you do what you accuse others of doing: following others' behaviour or ideas without critical thinking of their own. Why would bad behaviour of one scholar be an excuse for the bad behaviour of another?<<
I find the behavior of the scholars that I have quoted quite forthright and refreshing in contrast to others that ‘pussy-foot’ about when attempting an overalsummary of important proofs for an entire book as Andrew Parrott does on the final pages of his conclusions (pp. 143-145) in “The Essential Bach Choir” [Boydell, 2000.]
Wishy-washy waffling on the part of scholars is far down on my personal list. I have not heard much from you on these Bach lists other than short comments and criticisms that do little to ‘calm the raging storms’ Based upon the latter, I am surprised that you see the actions of the scholars that I cited as demonstrating ‘bad behavior.’
>> The fact that others are hurt because you behave according to your character doesn't seem to matter. How sad.<<
Are you holding to your best behavior and acting according to your character when you criticize me? How sad.
>> And do you really believe 'modesty' is the same thing as 'obsequiousness'? How sad.<<
Genuine modesty is difficult to find these days. Are you giving us a good example of this to follow? How sad.
>> How deep can a human being sink?<<
Doesn’t this question touch us all, including you, as we continue the current threads? |
|
Zev Bechler wrote (May 18, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz] Mr. Braatz poses as a scholar and a threat or challenge to the academic tradition and scholarship. That in itself is good. Academy needs such challenges lest its tradition ossify into dogma ( Kuhn's legendary Paradigm). But this can be of value only on the condition that the Academy perceives this and responds in its full capacity as Academy ( NBA at its fingertips and such). Todate, has any fulltime musicology academic responded ? Has Mr. Braatz ever faced his real target in real life under the kind of cold cruel examination which Academy can do once it sets it mind to it ? Until he has done this ( which he can easily, if he chooses to), all the rest is smoke and mirrors.
BTW, I enjoy and treasure the wealth of information Mr. Braatz brings to us and thank him sincerely for his generosity. What I said above pertains strictly to his revolutionary pretensions, nothing more. His personal gestures and mannerisms are of no concern of mine at all. |
|
John Pike wrote (May 18, 2004):
[To Thomas Braatz] It really is time to get back to Bach...one statement by Thomas in an earlier e mail which I agree with 100%. We will just have to learn to live with one another and our different views. We cannot go on trading insult for insult, and I'm not pointing the finger at any one individual there...we are all as guilty as one another. |
|
Johan van Veen wrote (May 18, 2004):
John Pike wrote:
> It really is time to get back to Bach...one statement by Thomas in an earlier e mail which I agree with 100%. <
But that doesn't help as long as postings about Bach's music are riddled with fallacious judgements, distortions of the truth and personal insults. And when a number of rules regarding the appropriate behaviour on this list are set, discussing them and whether members behave according to these rules or not is wholly on topic.
> We cannot go on trading insult for insult, and I'm not pointing the finger at any one individual there...we >are all as guilty as one another. <
No, we are not. What I dislike on this list most it is the tendency to declare everybody equally guilty. Most problems on this list are not merely a matter of the chicken and the egg. |
|
Charles Francis wrote (May 18, 2004):
John Pike wrote:
>> It really is time to get back to Bach...one statement by Thomas in an earlier e mail which I agree with 100%. <<
Johan van Veen wrote:
> But that doesn't help as long as postings about Bach's music are riddled > with fallacious judgements, distortions of the truth and personal insults. <
You are, of course, free to stop doing this.
> And when a number of rules regarding the appropriate behaviour on this list are set, discussing them and whether members behave according to these rules or not is wholly on topic. <
One of the rules is not telling others how to behave, though!
>> We cannot go on trading insult for insult, and I'm not pointing the >> finger at any one individual there...we are all as guilty as one another. <<
> No, we are not. What I dislike on this list most it is the tendency to declare everybody equally guilty. <
I fully agree; it is the intolerance of a few HIPsters that is the problem, IMO.
> Most problems on this list are not merely a matter of the chicken and the egg. <
Agreed. |
| |
|
Continue on Part 2 |
|
|
