Donald Satz wrote:

>I am aware that Stoki at least provided listeners some exposure to Bach
>at the time.  But, was it Bach?

I remember a seminar in aesthetics...we were discussing arrangements of
music.  One of my fellow students was a band director who was all for band
arrangements of the symphonic literature.  He lived in a small town which
did not have an orchestra.  He said, "how else are we going to hear a
Tchaikovsky Symphony done live?" Our teacher's response was "what makes you
think they are hearing a Tchaikovsky Symphony when it is being played by a
Band?" I should interject that this particular arrangement was not very
well done and was published under the title "Tchaikovsky's Pathetic
Symphony."---no joke intended.

For me, Bach-Stokowski is not Bach, nor is Bach-Webern or Bach-Respighi
or Bach-Schoenberg, or Bach-Casella, or Bach-Ormandy, or Bach-Calliet,
etc.  Bach.  However I enjoy many of them and find that I can take them
seriously.  On the other hand I found it both impossible to enjoy (come to
think of it, I did find it funny) or take seriously that band arrangement
of the Tchaikovsky Sixth!

Karl