Donald Satz replies to Robert Peters:

>>>Seriously, I'd wager that Bach could have written great music to just
>>>about any stimuli.
>>
>>Probably but the crucial point is that he did not.
>
>I don't see anything crucial about it, and there is also no evidence
>that Robert's statement is correct.  Robert has no special insight into
>Bach's inner mind anymore than I or anyone else does.
>
>>No, Bach did not choose "just about any stimuli", he was a Christian and
>>wrote highly Christian music.
>
>That's it?  We're going to take perhaps the greatest composer in history
>and just identify him as a Christian who wrote Christian music.

What's wrong with that?  I think it's practically a statement of fact.
Just about everything we know of Bach's life (not much) demonstrates
that he was a believing Christian, and an awful lot (including an
artistically significant part) of his output deals with Christian,
specifically Evangelical Protestant, themes.  These things inspired him.
He had other sources of inspiration as well, just as most adults are not
simply one thing all the time, but it seems bizarre to me to imply or
assert that Bach was "more than a Christian" or a modern-day leave-it-aloner.

As always, we tend to confuse the artist, the work of art, and our
reaction to the work of art.  There are historical reasons for this from
which I'll spare you.  A work of art on Christian themes might have been
inspired by hard-core Lutheranism (or not), but one needn't be a hard-core
Lutheran to love it because one takes it in one's own way -- not just
Bach's music, but anyone's music.  Just because much of Bach's music is
specifically Christian in genesis and intent doesn't mean it belongs to
believing Christians only.  Furthermore, we've already had a thread on
atheists who write wonderful sacred music.  Why not?  However, Bach
wasn't one of them.

Steve Schwartz