Bach's Passions

Well, I'm not that sure about that. I even think younger people nowadays are more seriously interested in religion and religion-related matters, compared to my own youth days. I was a child during the seventies, and in those days religion was considered 'dumb, dead and buried'. Everyone with a brain would immediately understand that.
Nowadays I feel that Evangelical communities (for instance) attract a growing amount of people, especially amongst the young.

And my little niece (9 years of age) loves the sounds of hobo, clarinet and piano, whilst her parents never listened to classical music! Even her mother, my sister-in-law, is now listening to classical music some more, has fallen in love with the sound of the harpsichord (imagine that!), and has taken up horn lessons! My niece has chosen for the hobo and after summer holidays she will get her first lessons!
A friend of mine teaches children (from 4 to 7 years mainly) and the "Hallelujah" chorus of Händel was celebrated by the lot of them!

Still, in the end I think that classical music will remain only marginally loved, but then again, I'm convinced that this love will never die out.

 

Thanks! I'll send this post to Schlick and ask her for some money then.
About the Max' recordings: I bought the SMP years ago, when it was still to be found in a lot of shops around here (Netherlands), but I also had to wait a while for the SJP. Hopefully you'll get them before Good Friday 2008!

 

Well, I, too, know young people that love classical music. But the trend is towards other kinds of emotion, I think.

COncerning religion, yes, I too, was born in an atheist environment and agree that much more people nowadays seek spirituality (in my time spirituality was love). But I was talking about raw understanding of the emotions of the Passions. I may be quite wrong, but I feel that this kind of emotion is 'out', nowadays. Perhaps I only know the wrong kind of young people; after all, I have no children: I'm too afraid they will turn like the ones I mentioned!

 

I'm just not sure if this is really a nowadays-trend. Was classical music really loved by everyone in those golden earlier times?

I grew up in a roman catholic environment. As a child I was a great admirer of Jesus the Nazarean, and I was deeply moved by the events at Good Friday and Easter. But I preferred to listen to pop and rock music when I was young. (Bach excepted, I must admit. )
Long time ago I've turned into a wicked person, who believes that man created God and not vice versa. The rest of my family, including my brother, sister and their families, still believe in God and go to church, though. I'm the black sheep .
Still, I'm very much moved by the (sometimes raw) emotions of Bach's Passions, and by a lot of other religious music, too. And here, in the Netherlands, the SMP remains by far the most popular classical composition (even Orff is not able to change that!). Every year an amazing amount of Christians, pagans and non-believers, the young and the old, come to live performances of this work and leave the church or concert hall in a state of (dis)belief about what they just heard. But, apart from the Evangelical, every Christian church in this country becomes empty. This is a remarkable phenomenon: the priests no longer seem to be able to move the people with religious sermons, whilst Bach's religious music is!

 

I think it was, because the Harnoncourt propaganda made Baroque music seem thrilling, intellectual and trendy: it was a way of rejecting the kind of high culture our parents practiced but without falling into the rock mob.

Conversations about, say, the difference between Bach and Stravinsky were very common, and everybody in the people I knew knew something about classical music.

That said, I do not consider my youth days 'golden days': there was a trend towards 'revolution' (Mao, Lenin and other mass murderers) I strongly disliked. But it is true that everybody seemed interested in meaningful culture, whereas nowadays that does not seem to happen.

About your other point: Yes, religion fails to excite, but that is just because its message is completely out of keeping with our times. Yes, the Passion is hugely emotional: a man takes it upon himself to redeem humanity by taking upon him ALL the suffering of mankind (because Jesus suffered as a man).

But when, as nowadays, fellows that are truly altruists are just considered stupid and goofy, that kind of emotion can only be carried across through extremely good music. As if there was an exceptionally good film score. Truth is people like the music and the drama, not the religious message. All this IMO, of course.

 

I think Rodrigo is spot-on, it's the immense story, told with passion by Bach, not only a believer but also one of the most accomplished musicians ever to grace the planet. Well, people can feel the emotion in music based on Greek and Roman myths (Gluck's "Orpheus and Eurydice", Handel's "Semele") and Nordic myths (Wagner's Ring). Nobody to the best of my knowledge believes in either the inhabitants of Olympus or Valhalla any more, but the stories and the accompanying music retain their ability to thrill.

The Passion tells the greatest story ever, one man taking on the entire forces of darkness in a combat that will cost him his own life. You don't have to believe the story to be thrilled by it.

 

I'm really curious: in what time and environment did you grow up? Because I think that, in the days when 'our parents' and other people of older generations were practicing high culture and discussing the difference between Bach and Stravinksy, I reckon that most other people of those generations weren't practicing and discussing those items at all. Well, like Wittgenstein said, one should remain silent about things that one really can't speak about, so I'd better shut up .... but still .... (I sort of started this discussion) .
I really think that higher culture has been a privilege for higher or upper classes, and I believe that this has been the case for ages and ages (and it probably will remain that way, although I will try to end my monologue in a rather positive way ).

Nowadays, most of the people I'm working with do not like classical music. But their parents did not either, and for their grandparents goes the same. Those colleagues are listening to hip hop, rap, house, acid, heavy metal or whatever, but their parents and grandparents were enjoying tear-jerkers sung in their own language, and in their homes you certainly could find paintings .... of a weeping gipsy boy. But a lot of those parents and grandparents did go to church, and sang religious chorals, although they never discussed the meaning of them and they never listened to Bach's Passions nor Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, either.

Everybody seemed interested in meaningful culture? Well, they seemed, that might be true, but I wonder if they really did. Maybe politicians were trying to 'educate' the masses, but did the masses really care? Is it possible that when you talk about 'everybody' you're talking about your own social and cultural background? Because I believe that the 'man in the street' just wanted to earn some money to feed his family, and stay out of trouble if possible. Those things had to be within his reach, he would not care if the political and cultural establishment existed of democrats or communists. If Lenin promises me work and food, he's my man; if Hitler does: the same. If any politician that has to be elected promises me goodies: I'll elect him. As a potential leader, you'll just say what the lot of them wants to hear and you'll get the power. When you've got that power, well .... history tells a lot about those 'promising' leaders, I guess.

I must disagree again. Is this really the case if one presents religion as something very strong, with a strong almighty God (or a bunch of almighty Gods) who's able to convict and destroy your enemies, and who gives you the right and power to do the same? That's one of the reasons (maybe) why Constantin the Great embraced Christianity, and in fact people like Bin Laden and George W. Bush do the same in our days. Bin Laden seems to know perfectly what God really wants, and Bush is absolutely sure that God blesses America! No weakness there. This kind of religion is completely in of keeping with our times, and with every time, IMHO.

Well, I agree about Jesus. You should talk with Muslims about him: they just do not understand that someone who is presenting himself in all his weakness (and is getting killed partly because of that) can be considered the Son of the Almighty God. For the same reason Jews can't believe that Jesus is their King, their Saviour, their Messiah. A divine person, sent by God, should be strong, not weak. And I think that Christianity is losing ground because of that. The Islam speaks of a much stronger God and his prophet, a God who's able to convict and destroy your enemies, and who gives you the right and power to do the same. That's why a religion like the Islam is getting more and more power, and why Christianity is weakening. Because of the fact that state and church were seperated in our western culture, the Christian belief (I'm now speaking of an organised organisation, like the Roman Catholic Church, which was very very powerful) did lose its power. Before that, the Church was presenting God as a powerful person, and they were representing him. Everyone that opposed the Church had better watch out. Also, the reformation is partly 'guilty' of the 'Christian decline', IMO. Because protestantism allowed every single person to understand religion and, because of that, allowed everyone to think and discuss about it. And there is no real reason to discuss the ways of an almighty Power, is there? A God has to be powerful, that's all. Just like the political leader(s).

Well, this is rather OT of course, and I know that I did sound rather cynical and sceptical sometimes. But to be honest, I'm not really that sceptical about the chances of a surviving higher culture. I think that, because of the increasing welfare, a lot more people are able to get to know classical music nowadays, compared to older times. A lot of high culture is subsidized in the modern western world, and also it is very 'hip' to be a representive of the business world and support high culture and art, too. Of course, when the economy is weakening, this will change again. But .... when the economy is weakening, a lot of other things will change for the worse, too. For instance: the Lenins and Hitlers will have their chances again. It's all in the game of mankind, I'm afraid.

I'm tired now, and I'm going to bed. Nice discussing with you, though, Rodrigo! We'll meet again.

 

Oh, we will, indeed: but tomorrow perhaps, because it is too late now to address all the fascinating questions you raised and I too must be getting to bed.

 

For those who are interested:

a (more or less) new OVPP recording of Bach's Matthäus-Passion.
Performed by Sigiswald Kuijken and his La Petite Bande.



http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0033627CM
http://www.amazon.de/dp/B0033627CM
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0033627CM

 

This is of course on my wish list.

 

Mmm, Kuijken. Strong notes hard, then rubbato, strong not, rubato... Not sure, but perhaps I will give it a try after you tell me what you think (I'm saving now, we're building a house!).