Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:14:54 PST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
John Smyth wrote:
>Isn't the power of Bach's music in the polyphony.....
No. The power of Bach's music was Bach's ability to compose wonderful
music that transcends time periods. Polyphony was merely one of the means
he used to do so. Don't get me wrong; I'm glad he used polyphony, but Bach
could have used any form and created timeless music. It couldn't possibly
be the polyphony which renders it timeless.
>Polyphony is a *logical* argument which shouldn't be affected by
>orchestrational tampering.
By all means, let's get logical. John's argument, as stated, would mean
that an "arranger" could do anything he/she wanted to with a Bach work, and
it would still be "Bach" as long as the polyphony was retained. So, if I
turned Bach's work inside-out, but retained the polyphony, all Bach lovers
would just salivate at the results. No, I'd have to say that Bach would be
gone - polyphony would stay.
Arrangements do not represent the original composer. They represent an
adulteration that might or might not be appreciated by the listener. There
are many musical adulterations that I enjoy; Stokie's is not one of them.
Boy, I am getting tired of this Stokie business. His arrangements just
aren't worth the time I'm spending on them, so you will hear no more from
me on this subject. Yes, I'm well aware that I started this thing, but
I don't think I'll be the one ending it.
Don Satz
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|