Juozas Rimas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Is it known whether Bach's music was regarded archaic by his
>contemporaries? I read it somewhere and lately have had an opportunity to
>get a proof: listened to some Renaissance music (15-17th century) on the
>radio.  Man, that was very nice and Bach-like: not exactly the tunes but
>rather the overall harmony and accords.

Bach was regarded as rather archaic in his lifetime, but not necessarily by
his contemporaries, but rather his successors.  C.P.E.  Bach was 34 or so
at the time of his father's death and was writing music that was a definite
departure from what the elder one was writing.  In fact, many of the late
Bach works were considered antiques after they had just been written.

As far as Bach's similarity to Renaissance composers, I would have
to disagree.  While the somewhat simplistic nature of some of Bach's
compositions (especially some of the chorales) might resemble Renaissance
compositions, I think upon further investigation you'll find Bach's work
much more complex and intricate (at least in a harmonic sense) than the
works of Palestrina or Tallis.  In beginning music theory students use and
study the same rules that Bach used as a foundation.  While some later
Renaissance composers (e.g.: Gesualdo or Byrd) incorporate some more
Baroque techinques, I generally think you'll find a big difference between
the two styles of music.

Happy listening,

Jonathan Knapp