Don Satz writes:

>Yoel Arbeitman writes:
>
>>The greatness of Bach's music need not depend on the message of his texts.
>
>Like Yoel, I am a Jewish atheist and don't consider the texts that
>Bach set music to as having any significance to the worth of his music.
>Bach's music would have been great even if he was setting music to vulgar
>rap lyrics.  When I listen to the Passions or Mass in B minor, I sure
>don't start feeling like a Christian nor does my religious quotient
>rise above zero.
>
>I don't believe that Bach's greatness has any secrets involved -
>outstanding architecture, melodies, their development, and the contrasts
>among his themes do the trick.

Why must we suppose that Bach has only one secret (or no secrets)?
For a long time Bruckner was a closed book to me, one that only began
to open when I came to hear the symphonies as religious music.  (Texts
are a red herring; they're certainly not necessary for appreciating music
as religious.) I don't think I'm imposing anything on Bruckner when I
say this--I think they *are* religious music--but I also don't think
that this is the only thing to hear in his music or the only way to gain
entrance into it.  Similarly with Bach: I do think there is a depth of
religious feeling in this music that is very rewarding for those who
respond to it, but I don't think that is all there is to respond to.
Perhaps those without religious antennae are able to engage more deeply
with the non-religious elements precisely because they're not preoccupied
with the religious ones.  While I do think that those who cannot hear
the religious in Bach or Bruckner are missing something that really is
there, I don't think that means there is nothing left for them to hear
nor that what they *do* hear cannot be as profoundly affecting as what
is heard by those with religious sensibilities.  But to grant that is
not to deny that there is a religious "secret" to Bach's music.

Nick
[log in to unmask]