Weekend!

Michael Drew says:

You’re not in sympathy even with the general intention of expressing religious conviction through art? Or just not when that’s glorifying Christ? Or not when it’s any religious creed with which you don’t have sympathy?

Personally when I think about Bach’s intentions in sacred music (but I don’t really know), I consider them to be 1), as in all his music, to create a musical work of sublime structure and construction (the point of which was surely to glorify God, but in the most general sense of that reflecting that Christians in that time considered that to be the ultimate point nearly all of what they considered worthwhile human endeavor); and, 2), in sacred works like this, to fulfill his role in his religious community (and frankly simply to do his job for which he was well-paid for a musician in that age).

That is to say, without claiming that Bach was not himself devout and motivated by personal religious inspiration (though I also don’t particularly know that he was), my choice is to view him primarily as a hired craftsman at work, meeting the demands for artwork expressing the religious convictions of the religious community that was paying him to do that. I realize that taking on board the religious message is necessary to understand the full intended artistic meaning of his works, but ultimately when we consider Bach’s extraordinariness as a composer, it’s not his inclusion of those religious ideas that we consider at all – that’s exactly what is ordinary for his age. Rather, what is extraordinary is the craftsmanship of the musical ideas – which I would contend (though Bach himself might object in the sense of the intention labeled (1) above) are not related to religious ideas, but instead rank among the most remarkable humanist achievements in European if not world culture.

This would likewise go for the “choice of text” or “version of text” (or, “choice of version of text”(?)). Almost certainly he was responding to a request from his religious community to set this part of the Gospel to music. Plausibly not – perhaps Bach independently determined that Luther’s translation was particularly suitable for this purpose, which purpose – the setting of the Passion according to Matthew – he also independently chose. But regardless, working in the Lutheran church, it would be natural to the point of being almost a given that Luther’s translation would have been the one expected to be set, given that it was available, and that it was the work of the founder of the church himself. (I also don’t know what other German translations would have even been available in Bach’s time.) For that matter, the text may have been chosen by the community specifically to honor Martin Luther (though I think that’s less likely.) In any case, the point is that in the choice of text as well, I think what makes the most sense, or at least is an obvious option, is to see Bach’s “choice of text” as meeting the demands of his religious particular community, which was chosen by him as much for commercial reasons as religious ones – though, again, that is not to say he was not a committed member of that community of belief. Essentially, the choice of text, in other words, was that of the religious community he served (as a salaried worker in the church) as it was of Bach himself.

My point here is to say that, for me, when a piece of music speaks to me, the power of that experience lies in what I experience as a truly personal connection between myself and the creator of the work – a kind of moment of shared humanity that can transcend culture and historical context precisely because of the ability of music to communicate human emotion and experience in abstract, potentially universal terms. I tend to see ultimate musical intention in that light, even though most music has a more immediate, culturally-bounded subject as well. I think, then, we can see that as at some level Bach’s intent (and hopefully therefore be quite easily sympathetic to it), even in sacred music like this. Or in any case we can seek that kind of personal connection with the artist through his creation in abstract musical terms – regardless of his culturally-bounded intent. When I listen to sacred music by Bach I am aware of both intents – to speak to his religious community in his time in religious terms, glorifying God through the craft of the musical expression, and – to speak (across time) to the shared experience (as conceived by Bach them an and the artist, not by his religious community) of being human in quasi-universal, abstract musical terms. But personally my main focus is on the latter intent.

Given the degree of difficulty you have with the historical context of the culturally-bounded part of the intent, and the way you talk about your reaction to the music, to me you imply you share this way of seeking to experience Bach with me. But then I’m not sure why you feel that you are not in sympathy with the intent of the composer, or his choices about the particular cultural material to which the music is attached (which was really not his choice as an artist, but that of his religious community). You don’t feel, when listening to the St. Matthew Passion, that Bach’s intent was to communicate with you in abstract human, emotional terms as much as, or at least alongside, communicating with the people in his religious community who had very particular, historically-bounded expectations and understandings of his work and why he had created it?Report