9 Sep
2010
9 Sep
'10
2:05 a.m.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 08:55:34AM -0400, David Santamauro wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 17:56:13 +0530
Rustom Mody <rustompmody(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Brother had like 18 kids or something? He made plenty of money; he had a lot of mouths to
feed.
There are two voices I hear here vis-a-vis Bach:
1. Art for art's sake -- the romantic idea
2. Art for money's sake -- the distinction of commercial vs
commisioned being a fine semantic distinction.
Bach himself expressed a view however which does not fit in with
either: *
Anything done other than for the service of God is vanity*
"The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the
glory of God and the refreshment of the soul."
God, unfortunately, doesn't pay for food directly. The refreshment of
the soul alone would have left him starving as well.
Although he was extremely devote and clearly most of his inspiration
was generated by that religious stance, he was not above squabbling for
better pay. The fact that his employer was the church might also had
something to do with that stance as well.
"He regarded himself as a conscientious craftsman doing a job to the
best of his ability for the satisfaction of his superiors, for the
pleasure and edification of his fellowmen, and to the glory of
God." [ Grout & Palisca: A History of Western Music ]
I think it helped his music. He could have made decent, forgettable music and it would
have gotten him paid well enough. Since he thought he was writing music for god,
that's a pretty heavy gig, and I'm sure it drove him to take his music to levels
of perfection and immortality he might not otherwise have acheived.
-ken