Thanh-Tam Le <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>If inspiration means something essential, Bach was inspired.

Certainly Bach was inspired, and in a great deal of his music: the opening
and closing choruses of the St. Matthew; the choruses and chorales of the
B-minor Mass and those of the cantatas; and among his instrumental works,
the D-minor concerto for clavier, and the D-minor for two violins; the
sonata No. 3 for violin and clavier, Der Kunst der Fugue.  etc., etc.
I could go on and on.  My point is I do not hear this inspiration in too
many of his instrumental works, solo or otherwise, to be able to agree
absolutely with Mr.Satz, the original poster.

A number of instrumentalists have told me time and again exactly what
Thanh-Tam Le said about Bach, and I honestly believe that what T.T.  said
about Bach is true for him and for them.  But as a listener and not an
instrumentalist, I hear in too many of Bach's works only the CONSTRUCTION
of a BRILLIANT CRAFTSMAN.  Imagine, if you will, a lengthy poem written
with perfect clarity of form, grammar, syntax, meter, and all the poetic
devices of alliteration, consonance, etc., and that poem was read to us by
an outstanding actor with perfect diction and intonation.  We would all be
mesmerized, right? But what if the words in the poem expressed nothing in
particular, or even anything in general; the recitation was merely a
succession of words being read, beautiful sounding in their context, to be
sure, and leaving you with the feeling you have heard something wonderful?

I guess we could answer with something like "That was terrific!" or "Gee,
that guy really knew how to write poetry."

But what was expressed?

Shakespeare wrote: "If music be the food of love, play on..." Food, by
definition, must contain some nourishment, otherwise it is just filler.

I hope this helps you understand the problem I have with much of Bach's
music.

John Dalmas
[log in to unmask]