Bach "replacing" library materials? & Sebastian Knüpfer

Bradley Lehman wrote (December 3, 2003):
Boy, I hate to step into this knightly conversation, but here's a question of clarification. Wolff on page 331ff describes the way Bach's study contained both the Thomasschule collection and Bach's own private library. Wolff there says that Bach didn't make much practical use of the old choral library, but continued to build (with his own money) his personal collection. Where, if anywhere, does Wolff say that Bach tried to "replace" the Thomasschule collection? I believe Charles' point, if he wishes us to take it as valid, needs to be explained further in that regard.

I'm also intrigued by one of David's points below, the one about Jakob Handl (Gallus). His motet "Ecce quomodo moritur" is most famous today due to Georg Friedrich Händel's reuse of it (by direct quotation) in a funeral anthem. And that's also an interesting Bach connection, being an old piece that Bach and Handel both knew. The Bach connection is explained on p111 of the New Bach Reader (and was not in the 1966 edition): there was an endowment fund set up in 1668 to have certain pieces performed annually in memory of Rettenbach family members, and this motet by Handl came around every year on January 18^th. Out of curiosity, does anybody know of an instance where Bach also quoted that piece, perhaps in a cantata around that time of year? (I don't, but it would be interesting if there is one.) Wolff then copied that same information from NBR into one of his footnotes in The Learned Musician.

The caution I'd offer for David is: in terminology, don't forget that Bach himself sometimes called his "cantatas" by the name "motetto" when they were for more than one voice. Bach therefore didn't write "only 9" motets; please be careful to keep such generic terms clear in your mind.... The words "motet" and "cantata" can both refer generically to any music that is sung as opposed to played; hence their names, etymologically. It doesn't work to try to segregate them from one another, as neatly as you appear to do. "Motet" sometimes picks up the added connotation of sacred vs secular text, but that distinction is also not completely reliable. [Music history doesn't have the neat little pigeonholes you evidently assume it does. 20th century cataloguing forces some unfortunate, and untrue, assumptions back into music that was not so clearly distinguished!] And I'd second Charles' observation that David's
syllogisms are not especially clear, often.

As for other older motets that Bach might have known: Wolff (back to The Learned Musician) also notes (p58) that Bach might have had exposure to some of Schuetz' music (and other composers' music) way back at St Michael's, although (p59) perhaps not at his own teenaged browsing initiative "roaming around the library." A microscopic point: at the bottom of that page 58, does everybody's copy have the typo (the misspelling of Knüpfer's name, lacking the N), or has that been fixed in later printings of the book? [Not that such a typo would ruin the overall value of the book; merely noting an easily-repaired inaccuracy.]

On that topic of Sebastian Knüpfer: anybody have any recommendations of recordings? I've been intending, for several years, to pick up Robert King's someday...but haven't got around to it yet. Are there others? What is the Cantus Cölln recording mentioned by the reviewer at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004TARW ? I don't know much about Knüpfer, except for seeing the King recording as a cover story and extensive review in Fanfare a few years ago. Guess I should go refresh my memory of that article....

David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (December 4, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] I am aware of that. In this situation, however, I have not read where Händel wrote Kantaten per se, whereas most if not all the works I have read about that were/are by him were Motteten.

As to differentiation between Sacred and Secular texts, Hassler for one wrote some (at least some that I have read and/or heard about) Secular Motteten. My understanding in the differentiation is between Motteten and Kantaten. Schütz (as far as I know), for example, almost exclusively Motteten, whereas Buxtehude for example, wrote few Motteten and more Kantaten. The difference here is between Choral compositions and Compositions for Solo and/or mixed Choral and Solo forces. The Motteten (from what I know) fall in the former category while Kantaten fall in the latter. That (I think) is why Bach's Motteten stand out so much. I have seen the scores of Bach's Motteten and they do differ in that there are some that call for solo and choir interaction.

Continue of this discussion, see: What is a Cantata? [General Topics]

Bach "replacing" the choral library

Bradley Lehman wrote (June 16, 2004):
<< But you forgot the one mid-last year (maybe you weren't in this group yet) where Charles asserted that Bach REPLACED the St Thomas' choral library of fine old motets with his own compositions; and Charles claimed that he got this from a reading of Christoph Wolff's book. When I presented those pages from that book, showing directly that Charles was in error, he still didn't retract it or apologize for the misinformation, or the way he had misused Dr Wolff's work. >>
< I don't recall your receiving your email on that - do post a reference. >
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/BachRecordings/message/11869
From that dialogue I see that I've mis-remembered the phrase "his own acquisitions" as "his own compositions", and I apologize. But, either way, the allegation that Bach "replaced" the library with anything is bizarre (to say the least), and certainly can't be pinned on Dr Christoph Wolff.

Bach's copy of the Galov

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 18, 2004):
Thomas Braatz wrote: < Here is some history which Jean Gribenski seems to have overlooked or not even considered as being important enough to report on correctly: >
And Thomas Braatz, presumably, knows better than a published author when the reporting is being done "correctly"? Why?! And he knows the mind of a published author, as to what the author has "not even considered"???!!!!!! HOW?!

< What do the above error-prone observations thrown out as 'evidence or proof' illustrate? Are these just insignificant, but excusable aberrations on the part of Gribenski or Golomb? Should not those with Music Doctorates be held to a greater accountability, just because they are so critical of comments or information shared by 'dilettante and amateurish' list members? Should these 'degreed' individuals not provide examples of excellence in scholarship, rather than 'simply pasting together rather thoughtlessly information that has been garnered here and there on the internet?' >
Thomas, you owe Dr Golomb an apology, for these dilettantish attempts to overrule his work, and for the defamatory comment that his remarks are "aberrations". And then, your attempts to cast this as a double standard, where you get to make up whatever nonsense you choose (without accountability or responsibility!) but would hold educated members to a higher level of responsibility....this is obscene.

If Gribenski were here, you'd owe an apology there too, among several other apologies.

=====

When those with music doctorates get angry at such obscene mistreatment, at the hands of a person whose main hobby is to belittle academia at every opportunity: our anger is justified. Our whole careers of hard work and dedication are being chucked into the garbage can, by one who refuses to understand anything that he has not invented himself. (Invented through his peculiar misuse of any and all sources he can get his hands on, twisting those sources to use them as weapons AGAINST those who have earned a professional level of respect, all to make real expertise look ludicrous in his own estimation!)

I suggestthat Mr Braatz needs a better hobby than trying to drag everyone down to his level of disrespect for musicianship and scholarship. Since he has this apparently pathological need to destroy, perhaps he could take up skeet-shooting or wrecking-ball operation or demolition derby, or some other hobby in which destruction of property is a respectable goal? Heck, even a good game of bowling might accomplish something.

=====

Bach himself had a favorite passage from Calov's Bible commentary (with theological remarks from Luther et al), about the righteous anger that is appropriate when someone insults and belittles one's rightfully earned professional job. This is on pp121-22 in Robin Leaver's facsimile edition of Bach's copy of the Calov, if you'd care to look it up for yourself. Leaver has some plausible suggestions as to why Bach marked that part of the book in particular. I recommend this Leaver book enthusiastically. It also offers some insights into the way Bach studied scripture in preparation for composing the St John and St Matthew passions.

Meanwhile, Dr Golomb does provide examples of his excellence in scholarship. I have read some of them. He knows his topics and he writes well. His scholarly work has nothing to fear from the personal assaults by Thomas Braatz. And, Dr Golomb has treated Thomas Braatz with an exemplary level of patience and tolerance in the present discussions, even when Braatz' obscenities against the profession are beyond the bounds of human decency. In return for this, he earns the above chiding and alleged correction from Thomas Braatz?! HOW?!

Charles Francis wrote (October 18, 2004):
Bradley Lehman wrote: < Bach himself had a favorite passage from Calov's Bible commentary (with theological remarks from Luther et al), about the righteous anger that is appropriate when someone insults and belittles one's rightfully earned professional job. This is on pp121-22 in Robin Leaver's facsimile edition of Bach's copy of the Calov, if you'd care to look it up for yourself. Leaver has some plausible suggestions as to why Bach marked that part of the book in particular. I recommend this Leaver book enthusiastically. It also offers some insights into the way Bach studied scripture in preparation for composing the St John and St Matthew passions. >
Unlikely, in my opinion, given Bach's copy of the Calov is dated 1733!

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 18, 2004):
[To Charles Francis] Leaver discusses that, explicitly, on pp24-27 and suggests there that Bach may have owned these books earlier than 1733. He offers his reasoning, which see. And on p25 Leaver describes the process by which Bach in 1742, being so much into this Calov stuff, purchased Calov's own copy of Luther's works (when they became available for sale, as a rarity) to supplement this. All this is background for Leaver's own commentary about the SJP and SMP, and Bach's study of scripture.

He also points out that Calov himself had died in 1686. Leaver knows chronology. Bach had a fondness for these antiquarian books. Leaver explains it.

Leaver's scholarship therefore has nothing to fear from one-line potshots from the opinion of Charles Francis.

Charles Francis wrote (October 18, 2004):
[To Bradley Lehman]
Leaver writes, pg 26:

"The fact that both 2 and 3 bear the same year 1733 is both interesting and intriguing. One can take the date at its face value and assume that it records the year the volumes came into Bach's possession. As was outlined above, 1733 was a low year for Bach and marks the beginning of a fallow period in which he virtually abandoned composing church music for some years. According to Blume's thesis, this decline in the composition of religious music is to be explained by the composer's abandonment of the Christian faith. But it is at this significant juncture that he purchased this Bible commentary."

Two points to note:

1) Leaver is, apparently, not suggesting an earlier date than 1733.

2) If an earlier date were proposed as you suggest, it would kill one of Leaver's central attempts to refute Blume's thesis. But given Leaver's obvious "Christian" bias, he might be reluctant to argue for an earlier date for this reason. Perhaps you read of a proposed earlier date elsewhere?

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 18, 2004):
[To Charles Francis] Like what? Like his remark on page 27, which is the reason I cited pp 24-27?

"Further, if the Calov commentary was in Bach's possession before 1733, it may have exerted some influence on his compositions, such as the cantatas in general or specific works like the motet Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied (BWV 225) and the St John Passion (see nos. 18, 63)."

As you can see right there on pp26-27, leading into this, he's postulating that because Bach had a rough time in the years immediately preceding 1733, he may have written down "1733" in his Calov to represent a personal turning-point back toward faith and study. Bach could have had the books for any number of years preceding, and made any use of them (or not) as he saw fit; we simply don't know. Leaver's point is that the "1733" date does not necessarily represent Bach's purchase date, or the beginning of Bach's interest in Calov's work.

Charles Francis wrote (October 18, 2004):
[To Bradley Lehman] Does Leaver offer any evidence for this speculation? It seems very odd to argue that because Bach was having a bad time in 1733, he wrote that year in a couple of books. If this year really was a turning back towards faith, why was he writing religious music for the Dresden court And why did he write so little church music for Leipzig after that?

Uri Golomb wrote (October 18, 2004):
Brad Lehman wrote: < Thomas, you owe Dr Golomb an apology, for these dilettantish attempts to overrule his work, and for the defamatory comment that his remarks are "aberrations". >
Brad: Many thanks for this, and the rest of your spirited defence. For myself, I've just admitted making a mistake in attribution. Anyone -- from dilletants to scholars -- can make mistakes. One of the questions is, what do you do after you've discovered that you made one.

My mistake does not, in any way, touch upon the substance of the claims I quoted, of course; and as far as substance is concerned, I don't see how Braatz's information seriously contradicts or undermines William Weber's work (my own work in this particular case consisted of little more than citing a respected and reliable source).

Dorian Gray wrote (October 19, 2004):
>>Bach himself had a favorite passage from Calov's Bible commentary (with theological remarks from Luther et al), about the righteous anger that is appropriate when someone insults and belittles one's rightfully earned professional job. This is on pp121-22 in Robin Leaver's facsimile edition of Bach's copy of the Calov, if you'd care to look it up for yourself. Leaver has some plausible suggestions as to why Bach marked that part of the book in particular. I recommend this Leaver book enthusiastically. It also offers some insights into the way Bach studied scripture in preparation for composing the St John and St Matthew passions.<<
About righteous anger...it occurs to me that there is a difference between anger and vengeance. "Be as angry as you like," my conscience tells me, "but guard your actions and words." Bach himself was measured, if somewhat sarcastic, in how he chose to express himself to an offending party. But he lost his cool on occasion as we all do. It still doesn't make it right. A strong man, indeed, is the one who can accept criticism with equanimity- never taking offense, never demanding apologies, never puffing himself up to appear larger than others. I hold this standard as the highest, even though I rarely reach it myself. I will never accept that righteous anger can truly be put into action and words by anyone less than the Almighty. Everyone else is practicing hubris in one form or another. Remember: the Lord saith, "Vengeance is mine."

P.S. Would it be so terrible if a novice were to correct an expert? If it were the case, then the expert should thank the novice for correcting him. If the novice is wrong and will not accept the truth, thewhat is anyone to do about it? Move on, for heaven's sake!

Johan van Veen wrote (October 20, 2004):
Dorian Gray wrote: < P.S. Would it be so terrible if a novice were to correct an expert? If it were the case, then the expert should thank the novice for correcting him. >
No problem at all, as long as the novice shows respect for the expert and is ready to acknowledge that he or she is an expert.But you can't expect the expert to accept 'corrections' from a novice when said novice is belittling the expert or even doesn't want to accept that there is a difference between an expert and a novice.That is the whole issue at stake here.

< If the novice is wrong and will not accept the truth, then what is anyone to do about it? >
Maybe try and hope to make someone see reason? And is ignoring someone more respectful than trying to show him the errors of his ways?

Bradley Lehman wrote (October 20, 2004):
Dorian Gray wrote: << P.S. Would it be so terrible if a novice were to correct an expert? If it were the case, then the expert should thank the novice for correcting him. >>
Johan van Veen wrote: < No problem at all, as long as the novice shows respect for the expert and is ready to acknowledge that he or she is an expert.But you can't expect the expert to accept 'corrections' from a novice when said novice is belittling the expert or even doesn't want to accept that there is a difference between an expert and a novice.That is the whole issue at stake here. >
It's some of the issue at stake here. Yes, it's important to offer due respect to expertise (which is relevant in the way to approach experts personally, and in the way to talk about or represent other people's work in public). But it's equally or even more important that the material (i.e. the music and the historical presentation) be correct, in some manner that includes both impeccable reasoning and a full consideration of the evidence. Respect the integrity of the material, and the integrity of any and all witnesses to it. That is, the findings have to be reasonable, supportable, reproducible, and be a useful model with predictive value to other data points: i.e. derived with scientific methods of inquiry.

Nothing reasonable can be derived by starting from a premise that all the dead guys were stupid, incompetent, deliberately deceptive, or dishonest about their own work in their own area of expertise. When apparent anomalies show up in the evidence, within reasonable investigation, the attempt must be made to find any extenuating circumstances and additional information that explains them plausibly. It doesn't do simply to throw out any witnesses one would rather not deal with (as stupid/incompetent/deceptive/whatever); such a process is not research! Rather, one must find a way to hypothesize and to explain the hypothesis, such that all the evidence is accounted for in a reasonable manner.

The "corrections" seen regularly in the present forum, from a dilettante, don't have any scientific rigor to them as to the pseudo-reasoning processes used, and they regularly ignore or change whatever evidence he chooses not to deal with. That is, his "corrections" are meaningless in any scientific sense; they're arbitrary and unreliable. His arrogance in presenting them, with his tone that insults expertise outright and forcefully, is only the frosting on an already unpalatable cake. Experts have as much responsibility to take those "corrections" seriously, as they do to pick up a supermarket tabloid and "correct" their work by its Nostradamus-predictions and its reports of alien spawn.

Recently I put up an outline at the bottom of my page: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/recits.htm
which shows why his pseudo-reasoning has no credibility, directly. (The section entitled "The dilettante's pet fallacies".) His methods of proof and disproof make no scientific sense, because they disdain logic. His syllogisms are so full of fallacies, the whole argument on whatever topic comes across as merely random ranting and polemic, where facts are twisted around to say whatever he wanted them to say: foregone conclusions masquerading as reason. It's all so unreliable!

Furthermore, he misrepresents and changes other people's published work, even as he quotes and translates and tries to explicate it, with the sanctimonious tone that he alone is representing it fairly, and that he is able to judge better than the author what the author's intent was! He regularly chides authors on "not even considering" the things they did not say; how does he know this? He doesn't even know, from experience, the process of preparing original research (at least in this field!) through
peer review and into publication...but he stands above it all to "correct" and belittle it as he sees fit, whenever it doesn't agree with his foregone conclusions. He casts the authors he's quoting as ignorant, dishonest, and worse. He treats his straw-man opponents (set up by himself, of course) even worse than he treats published sources, in that regard.

And then, his belligerence in presenting it to overrule expertise (on whatever topic...he comes up with new ones several times a week, usually as direct response contrary to whatever the real experts present have put up!) is merely adding profound insult to it all: not only in foisting unreliable conclusions, but doing it in such a way that he puts himself above any real responsibility to accuracy, and any responsibility to treat expert methods (and practitioners) with respect. Those with a professional stake in the field have a right to be deeply offended by his presentations. As one of those, I speak up about it (perhaps more frequently than I "should", but his attacks never stop; they just keep turning up notch after notch).

The current round, where he's trying to "prove" that autodidacticism gets to trump expertise automatically, is just more of the same: full of false dichotomies and other fallacies that render the whole thing merely meaningless, except for being polemic that amuses himself. How else are we to take his regular attempts to knock down scientific knowledge, except with a bemused annoyance at his audacity and persistence?

=====

I personally could take his opinions much more willingly--I even agree with some of them--if he'd present them honestly and forthrightly as amateur preferences, and as honestly questing questions about the material. But no; he puts up the facade of pseudo-objectivity around everything, absolutely refuses to admit that he could be wrong, and twists the verifiable facts to suit only his own preferences, as if that's all that could matter. It's his pugnacious and arrogant tone, and his patronizingly destructive treatment of real scholarship, that creates a large part of the problem here for me. Instead of asking questions and listening humbly to the responses, he tries to overrule all the responses, tries to prove that everybody is wrong. It's destructive to discussions rather than participatory. It shows little concern for serious work that has already been done, by those who are qualified to do it accurately. And it gets
some of us, especially me, to waste a lot more time and energy than we should do, going into his unreasonable blind alleys where the whole discernible purpose is merely to beat us up with insults and nonsense.

<< If the novice is wrong and will not accept the truth, then what is anyone to do about it? >>
< Maybe try and hope to make someone see reason? And is ignoring someone more respectful than trying to show him the errors of his ways? >
I've tried both those things, repeatedly. In this particular case, neither of them works. Ditto for argumentation against his cheerleader, who (with ad hominem aplomb) accepts everything he comes up with, at face value, and turns his critical eye only against everybody else's work...especially against the work of experts...often falling into those same fallacious traps himself. He doesn't seem to care that it is all one fallacy after another, strung together; pseudo-science is good enough for his purposes to put up anti-academic .

Then, of course, these two claim regularly that they're being persecuted ad hominem (which complaint itself often reflects fallacious reasoning, and a misunderstanding of the structure of ad hominem argument!), whenever the verifiable fallacies in their work are pointed out, and whenever their names are mentioned in the posting.... Anything to strike back defensively, whenever their work is shown to be verifiably faulty.

A good reference source about various types of fallacies, and how to recognize them: http://www.fallacyfiles.org