Contemplating what I like about Bach......

Is there something intrinsic different in Bach, Messiaen, Bartok,
Mozart and Ravel?  Something that makes their music stand out as something
special?  I am not sure, but I don't think so, since I never met Bach,
Bartok, Mozart and Ravel in person.  And thinking back to the two instances
when I met Messiaen, the only thing that strikes me now, 15 years on,
was the sense how music was an integral part of his life, seamlessly
connected to everything else he did during the day.

Still, I'll say that what stands out the most for me in above composer's
music and makes me think "they're different" is my OWN frame of mind
towards them.  It is me who sees a unique meeting in them of divine
and urban, of ratio and emotion.  It is my own (hopefully not totally
undevelopped) sense for quality that reaches out to some tiny little
musical facts where it chooses to ignore others.

It's ok, and it's FUN to have this discussion thread.  It is also TRUE
that there is nothing out there but a composer's corpse, a pile of music
scores, thousands of CDS, a few good books and hundreds of concerts.
Don't be tempted by those who explicitly or implicitly claim that the
"sense for quality" is something to be measured individually against
some "objective facts" like Bach being a nice man.  For which, by the
way, we have no way of knowing.  When I say that Messiaen's music is
"different" and ask myself "what" is different, I should really leave
it at describing my own reaction to him and not projecting my thoughts
and reactions on something out there of which I know nothing.

Last friday, I played St.  Matthew's Passion to a friend in two versions,
one by Mengelberg, the other by Herreweghe.  My friend is a guy who
really wants to know, so he says: "which of either way is the way Bach
meant it to be"?  A reasonable question from his point of view, but also
a very dangerous pitfall.  Bach may have wanted this or that, but very
much more relevant is what WE want HERE and NOW.

regards, Jos