The Mysterious Life of J.S. Bach

Pianist Jeremy Denk continues his residency with The Greene Space at WQXR, curating and performing in a series of events exploring Bach’s life and his most iconic work.
There are hundreds of Bach biographies, but not nearly as many facts. Many of the key facts are contentious, arguable, open to many interpretations. Tonight, as Denk continues his residency, we’ll hear from biographers, musicians and from the composer himself to develop a clearer idea of the person behind the work.
A winner of the MacArthur “Genius” Fellowship and the Avery Fisher Prize, Denk will draw audiences into the technical, musicological, cultural and philosophical elements involved in his own approach to this deeply personal work, and through this series look at how these timeless themes and shared aspects of the human experience can help to unite us in these divided times.

[@douglasrowley2641]

As already agreed upon, there is little biographical or autobiographical material available for us to know about Bach. From what I've heard about him, he was a devout churchman --not a theologian; but a consciously faithful servant of the Lord; also a faithful family man who happened to have an amazing facility for musical technique and composition. Considering how musicians of his time, were at the mercy of wealthy and powerful patrons for making a living, Bach had to crank-out artistic works with almost the same urgency as 19th-century coal miners who wore themselves out and went to early graves supporting their families. Of course Bach's milieu was cleaner and more exalted by comparison; but I see him as a man driven by, not only ambition and a love of beauty, but also by the necessity of duty to church, community, and family. I think he was aware of his own genius, but I doubt that he had any idea of the enduring and growing popularity of his works. Indeed, my understanding is that the compositions of his musical sons and descendants, overshadowed Bach's for decades, until his finally eclipsed theirs.

[@jmulcare1513]

Thanks for this rich discussion and expanding insight of the artist/teacher. NY

[@monsieurgrigny]

A very beautiful programme with a very high bar as its remit.

[@rozalinapiano]

Great idea to have the exchange on the subjects related to controversial issues of J.S,Bach. It would have been very helpful to have the names of all participants spelled and listed in the comments, not to mention, provide the links to their work, along with the appreciation for their contribution to the program: Daniel R. Melamed, scholar and author, Melinda Wagner, Pulitzer Prize winning composer Time Andres, pianist and composer James Wood, staff writer for the New Yorker Magazine

[@heidemariegarbe4867]

The key to Bach is his Spiritual Life.... which transcends anything to do with church or religion. He was one with the God-force and the Christ-consciousness. After listening to a wonderful performance of the Great Mass in B Minor in the Thomas Kirche... I wrote that Bach was attuned to the Joy and the Exaltation of the Cosmos!!! I live in Mt. Shasta, California and have a desire/dream to go high up on the mountain and play this music out to the Milky Way.... where it comes from!!!!

[@santiago_moralesduarte]

Bach is life

[@k.scotsparks9247]

In a couple ways, this problem reminds me of the 'essence/energies' (divinity/divine action) discussion among theologians - believe it or not. Though it is plain that the art is not the artist and vice versa [and that actually confusing these is not beneficial], it is also true that taking the work seriously and, therein, taking its signifying power seriously does bring the reasonably cooperative to an even-surprising sense of the agency finally driving such. On the other hand, in a late-mod world, in which a kind of iconoclasm has long pretended and preached that [even profound] form has no innate significance - we feel far more bereft of truly personal information on JSB than we ought. It's probably also true that the dissonance between the works' typical 'winsome working,' say, and the sometimes haughty personal anecdote may lead us either to embrace the former as a truer personal revelation or the latter, as a revelation of tacit hypocrisy. (Maybe we are relatively bereft, furthermore, of substantive personal senses on/of J.S. Bach to the degree that we shun, say, Gadamer's senses of interpretation and embrace Derrida's.)

[@trewq398]

thank you

[@vengerer]

I think the last words of Melinda Wagner on drama in music are very perceptive

[@nannensteinnani1254]

Good comment about the Bachround ;)

[@abcxyz8787]

Of course there's something universal and not personal about Bach because for him music was an expression of the divine and the glory of the divine. I think he was inspired by god and composed to glorify god. And I personally would have liked to be a fly on the wall when Bach composed my favorite works of his. I would loved to know what he felt and thought when he composed them, and yes, who he was as a man. The way he behaved, looked, sounded etc.

[@rozalinapiano]

I appreciate the point about the development process in J.S.Bach’s Music, but it is strange that at the same time the composer SELF-CONFLICTS herself saying she sees no compositional innovations in J.S.Bach legacy.

[@tvine1]

She needs to read Christoff Wolff’s latest book. Bach actually created several compositional innovations.

[@davidriggenbach6672]

We should ask her about BWV 1050 and its cadenza... if that isn't an innovation back in 1720 I don't know what it is.

[@herrickinman9303]

This guy is embellishing anecdotes from Forkel's Bach bio into complete fiction.

[@davidliverman4742]

You mean Bach the ghost, the sponge that soaked up everything, renegade. Received buckets of beer for payment. Anything we can get nowadays is welcome!

[@herrickinman9303]

The title "The Mysterious Life of J.S. Bach" is clickbait. A lot is not known about Bach's life. That doesn't make his life "mysterious." _Mysterious_ means "difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify."

[@Sloimer]

I don’t think people are clicking on the video with a narrow, strict definition of that specific word and carefully correlating their takeaways from the video with the word lol.

[@herrickinman9303]

@@Sloimer lol The definition I gave is the actual definition, you fool. But I clicked on this video out of curiosity, not because I know the meaning of _mysterious._ I thought maybe they'd have some new information or profound insights, but they don't. Worse, much of what they say about Bach is some flawed or embellished recollection of something they read in Forkel or Spitta. There are many factual errors in the discourse in this video. E.g., _tonus peregrinus_ does NOT refer to what the host seems to think it does. It refers to a particular variant of the church modes.

[@mercoid]

@@Sloimer ….Like Jan from The Brady Bunch says…, “Exact words Greg. Exact words!”

[@Sloimer]

@@mercoid lol

[@herrickinman9303]

Bach didn't "perfect" anything. There was nothing in need of improvement. He did what he did in the musical language of his time. His predecessors did what they did in the musical language of their time.

[@DelsinM]

Yeah, and Newton was just another scientist.

[@jimrogers7460]

The myth of Bach is clearly just that: a myth. No human being could have accomplished what is attributed to this man. A new cantata every week for 3 years straight - at a time when pens and paper and ink were not so easy to obtain then rehearsing and playing right away - - while teaching, fathering, eating, sleeping , teaching Latin, expert in Bible, organ expert, ....endless astounding works.... for all sorts of instruments....with primitive technology - impossible. I don't know what Bach was but not a human.

[@silencedogood5766]

Yet here we are the music speaks for itself.

[@monsieurgrigny]

Yes, you're right. At the heart of the business of contemplating Bach the man and Bach the musician is an enigma: the sense of the impossibility of explaining the music by mere biography. The music is truly larger than life.

[@edgarvalderrama1143]

Love it!

[@pietrusabalardus1881]

How could one posssibly find one more new paragraph to write about Johann Sebastian Bach, a man who has been written about as much as Abraham Lincoln. Musicology, which I taught, studied oth here and in Europe, published on (JAMS, 1978; MQ 1969, et al.) is turning into the same personalized scam that the study of Literature is.

[@allancerf9038]

The Greene Space at WNYC & WQXR I stopped watching because of time and after one or more participants self-aggrandized ala "I don't know Shakespeare either and here is why I don't want to know." Then why appear on the program that is asking you to make some speculations on Bach's life? The brief was certainly not "please appear on the show and flip the script to call attention to your own noble thinking." I decided to take the opposite tack; and watch a low-budge Bach biography done decades ago and you know - with the 'scant' knowledge available about the man, and reasonable, human supposition (such as the impact of the death of his first wife) a reasonable portrait of the man emerged. I have a couple of points and a question, the question first. I love Bach and enjoy Telemann. I have heard they were great friends though there was one gentleman who put forth a reasonable opinion that his has been exaggerated - they were in fact more acquaintances who saw it made sense to associate their names together. Let's assume the conventional view - they were great friends, LOL, is correct. I cannot find evidence that Telemann kept a diary per se - I mean that literally, "a diary" not a turn of phrase. Either way, the question is this. Did Telemann speak or reminisce at any length about Bach? If so, WHAT did he say about the composer as human being? Actually that begs another question. Where did Bach 'rate' his music in regards to Telemann, Handel and others? This would be illuminating. The degree to which Bach held his work in (whatever) esteem he held it, seems to be a key to this 'mystery.' Any elucidation is appreciated. I've always found it curious that Bach did not travel outside Germany - though I understand the discomforts of traveling in his day. But I wonder if Bach scholars feel this is indicative of some character trait? . Like many I've always found it odd Bach didn't meet Handel. But then, if Beethoven met or studied however briefly with Mozart, while no doubt deeply respectful of Mozart, Beethoven didn't crow or remark on it to any huge degree that I'm aware of. Meaning, could it be, in an earlier age still, than the 'classic' or 'romantic' periods, that is, in Bach's own period - could it simply be that it wasn't the form to reflect too much on how long one's music would endure in the years ahead? No facetiousness intended I mean it quite literally. Thanks for putting this program on! Best, Allan

[@truBador2]

Lack of knowledge about a confounding subject like Bach inspires some minds to interminable discourse and humility in others.