Charles Dalmas wrote:

>In much of Bach's instrumental music, but not all, I hear a composer
>merely exercising his craftsmanship, with very little musical inspiration
>behind what to me is often just a demonstration of pure mechanics.  Don't
>get me wrong, Bach is a genius at invention and construction, but, to coin
>a phrase:  "Where's the music?"

Where's the music? It surrounds you.  Whether you let it travel inside is
your choice.

Listen, Bach does not wear his emotions on his sleeve as many romantic-era
composers do.  He provides a subtle yet distinct emotional package that
is readily accessible to most classical music lovers.  Although Bach's
surfaces are enticing enough to make him a master composer, it's below the
surface where his greatness really shines through.  I'm probably being
"smug" here, but I feel that I have a direct pipeline to Bach's intellect
and emotions.  We likely would have been good buddies.  How's that for
projection?

Charles also quoted some "expert" who appears to share his views.  The
problem with all this is that we are really talking about a one-on-one
relationship between composer and listener.  Music reviewers, critics,
and experts are meaningless to this relationship unless they provide
some insight which clarifies the relationship.

The next thing I know, Charles will tell us that he feels no eroticism
in Bach's music.

I have been somewhat "flippant" in my remarks.  But, anyone who knocks
my good buddy will get a negative response from me.  I'm very loyal.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]