What do you think?
Rate this book
Bach against Modernity
Many scholars and music lovers hold that J.S. Bach is a modern figure, as his music seems to speak directly to the aesthetic, spiritual, or emotional concerns of today's listeners. But, by eighteenth-century standards, Bach and his music in fact reflected and forcefully promoted a premodern world and life view. In Bach against Modernity , author Michael Marissen offers a new look at Bach that considers problems of inattentiveness to historical considerations in academic and popular writing about Bach's relation to the present. He also puts forward interpretive reassessments of key individual works by Bach and examines problems in modern comprehension of the partly archaic German texts that Bach set to music. Lastly, he explores Bach's music in relation to premodern versus enlightened attitudes toward Jews and Judaism and enquires into the theological character of Bach's secular instrumental music.
Throughout, the book provides overlooked or misunderstood evidence of Bach's private engagement with religious and social issues that he also addressed in his public vocal compositions. Marissen ultimately argues that, while we are free to make use of Bach and his music in whatever ways we find fitting, we ought also to guard against miscasting Bach in our own ideological image and proclaiming the authenticity of that image, and hence its prestige value, in support of our own agendas.
Throughout, the book provides overlooked or misunderstood evidence of Bach's private engagement with religious and social issues that he also addressed in his public vocal compositions. Marissen ultimately argues that, while we are free to make use of Bach and his music in whatever ways we find fitting, we ought also to guard against miscasting Bach in our own ideological image and proclaiming the authenticity of that image, and hence its prestige value, in support of our own agendas.
200 pages, Hardcover
Published April 11, 2023
5 people are currently reading
48 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 19, 2024
I bought this book after seeing it reviewed on the WSJ. I'm going through a deep "Bach phase", just finished the John Gardiner biography, so why not? However, overall, this was not for me. Too "academic" in the negative sense, meaning that in many of these essays the author often writes against other academics - which is the nature of 90% of all academic publications, even in my limited experience of them, from literature to history ... even to physics.
For example, the conclusion of his first two essays is that we should be careful about a certain cultural narcissism that leads people to project their own current ideologies onto Bach, and pushes some to state that he was, in fact, much more "modern" than what we're used to think, not only in his music but mainly in his thinking. The concept of "modernity" implying an exaltation of reason, of human agency, of cosmopolitanism and all those things that 21st-century-New-Yorker-readers believe to be universal and objectively GOOD values that "obviously" a god like Bach should have shared… As if he was not a very traditional Lutheran who loved Martin Luther's writings!
Marissen proceeds to destroy these claims, he does it concisely and well, but ... what's the point? What is in this that is even remotely useful to me, a regular, fairly educated Bach listener?
It's like hearing someone say: "You know what? These colleagues of mine? They couldn't be more wrong! Let me tell you why". Now, if his colleagues' theory was in any way: 1) intriguing; 2) serious; 3) mature; 4) deserving of any attention; 5) making any difference for my own listening of Bach's music, then, maybe, I would find some interest in hearing him out.
But the problem is that his colleagues' theory is unwise and totally anachronistic. In short, it doesn't make an iota of sense. So why should we care? I walked out of the first two essays thinking: "thanks for nothing".
Other essays touch on Bach's relationship with his faith from various angles, and I found some of them interesting. But if you, like me, are not an expert on Bach and are not familiar with the academic chatter on Bach, look elsewhere for your Bach reading.
For example, the conclusion of his first two essays is that we should be careful about a certain cultural narcissism that leads people to project their own current ideologies onto Bach, and pushes some to state that he was, in fact, much more "modern" than what we're used to think, not only in his music but mainly in his thinking. The concept of "modernity" implying an exaltation of reason, of human agency, of cosmopolitanism and all those things that 21st-century-New-Yorker-readers believe to be universal and objectively GOOD values that "obviously" a god like Bach should have shared… As if he was not a very traditional Lutheran who loved Martin Luther's writings!
Marissen proceeds to destroy these claims, he does it concisely and well, but ... what's the point? What is in this that is even remotely useful to me, a regular, fairly educated Bach listener?
It's like hearing someone say: "You know what? These colleagues of mine? They couldn't be more wrong! Let me tell you why". Now, if his colleagues' theory was in any way: 1) intriguing; 2) serious; 3) mature; 4) deserving of any attention; 5) making any difference for my own listening of Bach's music, then, maybe, I would find some interest in hearing him out.
But the problem is that his colleagues' theory is unwise and totally anachronistic. In short, it doesn't make an iota of sense. So why should we care? I walked out of the first two essays thinking: "thanks for nothing".
Other essays touch on Bach's relationship with his faith from various angles, and I found some of them interesting. But if you, like me, are not an expert on Bach and are not familiar with the academic chatter on Bach, look elsewhere for your Bach reading.
July 9, 2024
Tentative review esp regarding the modernity stuff until I can reexamine the other literature (i need to finish that begbie monograph….) (I also need to graduate college) Overall a good read, it’s just a bit all over the place.. Some analysis is academic and technical, but then in other chapters, he’s suddenly super conversational. I am not going to say tonal whiplash, since there is simply nothing you could write in the field of Bach studies that would give me whiplash…like it will never be that big of a deal. But the writing does change across chapters, and that’s because the substance itself is scrapbook-y, which is not even me being mean… Each chapter is a keynote he gave, essay he published in NYT already, expanded vers of a YouTube talk he did, foreword he wrote for another book, etc. It feels like he’s speaking to a different crowd every thirty pages because he literally is!! Which is fine ig but challenging to edit I would think! Plus, the number of topics....The whole time reading, i was stressed for him thinking how in the world is he going to tie all of this back together. And then i got to the end and he did not. So that's one solution.
Ig his thesis is that J S Bach, despite innovative approach to composing music, was not a guy who ideologically transcended his time (i/e by being modernist). I suppose some people see Bach’s individuality and creativity in his musical, the universality of its appeal even to modern listeners, and then use that to draw conclusions about the universality of his theology. So this book comes to the reasonable conclusion that Bach, like most people around him, was a traditional Lutheran who followed traditional Lutheran beliefs, and there is really no indication that he would seriously deviate from that. I mean yea, it's hard to argue that Bach would have espoused any significant part of what we understand as modernism (unforch, what i do understand of modernism is very little, so like i said, gonna workshop and circle back in the future)… that he had a modernist relationship with secularism? Or the human condition? Or the church? Obv nothing to do with the fact that his music does appeal to people across philosophical traditions and can inspire non-Lutheran thoughts (in me esp tehe). However, Marissen argues, do not ascribe any sort of modernist intentions to the composer because of that!! Ok fine I won't. Would be more interesting if I did though sorry! Great discussion of OT/NT typology btw.
I think most of the content that directly addresses the central point is in Part II. Highlights are:
Chap 3, Marissen sees the sop. aria from cantata 64 as declaring a sinful present world which cannot be saved by human effort, anti enlightenment. Due to its subject: transient and temporal earth vs the firmness and eternity of what God gives. Marissen’s writing really shines when the topic is very up close on word choice and translations.
Great stuff on the meaning of fulfillment, artistic purpose, what really saves you in the end, etc, from the POV of someone like bach. It’s really beautiful to look at this music, which is already SO emotionally expressive due to where music theory was at the time, and see also how theologically expressive it was or was trying to be. The chapter 4 “existential I” discussion is for later when i learn some reading comprehension!!!!!! Amen.
Also loved discussion of the Lutheran idea of blessed end. Argues that Bach did NOT desire fame and glory posthumously, nor did he see himself in history the way that a modernist artist might see himself or desire himself to be seen. I think.
Part III discusses the way Bach’s cantata librettos are translated; this is part of some collab with Daniel Melamed at indiana. The main issues to keep in mind here are translating the premodern German vocabulary using modern German understandings of the terms, and confusion about the source texts (for example, if the text is quoting the Bible, making sure that you aren’t just translating the Bible, but the wording of the specific German Bible used). Also, making note of further significant biblical allusions or allusions to Lutheran theology of that time, but that's a tool we know and love already I feel. I actually really liked this section, and feel convinced there is valuable new scholarship to be done there so will be keeping an eye out for that collab! I did think that their interpretation of the Mein Freund ist mein duet from BWV 140 was odd and idk if I can cosign, so wish someone can explain further…
Part IV: Was with him on the John-Passion-carries-anti-semitic-rhetoric argument, and that Luther’s trans. did too. However. Why does it seem like we are arguing about whether the original gospel of John itself is anti-semitic…. Put that greek grammar down mama! It wasn’t super necessary to argue that, kind of tangential, kind of also controversial in its actual field of NT studies so i feel like it would more likely muddle his point than strengthen it. Not that it is unimportant but why are we bringing it up here…. I am not hating, but i am looking askance. Anyway his actual argument (that you would encounter more antiJewish sentiment in 1730s Leipzig religious spaces than some people are admitting to) (do NOT ask premodern Leipzig resident what they think about Jewish people) (that the John passion turbae choruses emphasized jewish opposition to jesus enough so that it was probably consciously antijewish and plus that was the main “lie” from Luther’s 1543 “jews and their lies”) was good. BTW this is how i found out that Bach had two copies of that pamphlet……….This chapter was from an essay supposed to accompany a major recording of John Passion, and it got scrapped because the producers said general listeners were not ready for it. Oh! 😐 well that’s not……….
For Chap 9, I thought it was nice article about Bach’s music performed in the more enlightened environment of Berlin salons to mixed christian and jewish audiences.. How to reconcile, what sort of reception in this secular setting etc. Still definitely a reminder of the breadth of topic covered in this short book........
Part V: Chap 10 about misunderstood idea of sacred vs secular dichotomy in Bach music, honestly baroque music in general too... Nothing super new here, but nice to discuss Brandenburg concertos as sacred repertory, and not secular/void of theological meaning just because there aren’t any words. Agree! but i do so on the basis that Bach was religious in that deep irrepressible way which cannot be hidden by form. I think every great artist who loves anything is like this; whether the work is ostensibly for a church or for a patron, if he puts any part of himself into it, our only question is how he will express this religion in the church cantata form vs in concerto form. Anyway. I think there's a good exploration to be made into the way Bach plays with hierarchy and order in his works under his many patrons, religious or no, and how he interacted within his social relationships, which may at times have stood in conflict with his religious and artistic identity right? I think if we look beyond the brandenburgs too, that would be an interesting study. Whatever. Also. Guys i am just not convinced that Bach using his own brandenburgs in Leipzig cantatas is some huge Neither secular nor sacred but all are one in Christ Jesus type of statement. Why is that any different from all the other parody procedures he started doing after moving to Leipzig?? (you can't even call the brandenburgs parody procedure either...literally just concerto to sinfonia) Need more reason than that to support whatever specific sacred secular dichotomy Marissen has Bach in dialogue against via his Brandenburg concerti.
Chap 11 about the quodlibet at the end of Goldberg variations, popularly understood as combining 2 folk-songs, kind of unserious tone. Marissen argues that one of those folksong sources is misidentified and is actually a different hymn. His point is that this quodlibet is not as joking as it’s made out to be. I hadn't heard this before (but i fear that doesn't mean much LOL) Still, what do these chapters contribute to this image of an antimodern Bach? if you put a gun to my head i still couldn't tell you.
Borrowed this copy from boss in the spring, then had to return it, so i had to finish the last section on my freaking laptop🙄 whatever.
Interesting when he argues for examples of anti-modernist expression i.e. actual dialogue with modernity; less interesting when he just gives examples of reflecting premodernist thought; kind of confusing in the sections where he does neither. At times 🤨🤨, and kind of fragmented. I think with some extra editing he would have been clearer about why some of these pieces were advancing his idea of Bach against modernity any more than the average bach article would... And then I wouldn't have to wonder so much about what all of his points were and why he was making them here. But overall I liked.
Ig his thesis is that J S Bach, despite innovative approach to composing music, was not a guy who ideologically transcended his time (i/e by being modernist). I suppose some people see Bach’s individuality and creativity in his musical, the universality of its appeal even to modern listeners, and then use that to draw conclusions about the universality of his theology. So this book comes to the reasonable conclusion that Bach, like most people around him, was a traditional Lutheran who followed traditional Lutheran beliefs, and there is really no indication that he would seriously deviate from that. I mean yea, it's hard to argue that Bach would have espoused any significant part of what we understand as modernism (unforch, what i do understand of modernism is very little, so like i said, gonna workshop and circle back in the future)… that he had a modernist relationship with secularism? Or the human condition? Or the church? Obv nothing to do with the fact that his music does appeal to people across philosophical traditions and can inspire non-Lutheran thoughts (in me esp tehe). However, Marissen argues, do not ascribe any sort of modernist intentions to the composer because of that!! Ok fine I won't. Would be more interesting if I did though sorry! Great discussion of OT/NT typology btw.
I think most of the content that directly addresses the central point is in Part II. Highlights are:
Chap 3, Marissen sees the sop. aria from cantata 64 as declaring a sinful present world which cannot be saved by human effort, anti enlightenment. Due to its subject: transient and temporal earth vs the firmness and eternity of what God gives. Marissen’s writing really shines when the topic is very up close on word choice and translations.
Great stuff on the meaning of fulfillment, artistic purpose, what really saves you in the end, etc, from the POV of someone like bach. It’s really beautiful to look at this music, which is already SO emotionally expressive due to where music theory was at the time, and see also how theologically expressive it was or was trying to be. The chapter 4 “existential I” discussion is for later when i learn some reading comprehension!!!!!! Amen.
Also loved discussion of the Lutheran idea of blessed end. Argues that Bach did NOT desire fame and glory posthumously, nor did he see himself in history the way that a modernist artist might see himself or desire himself to be seen. I think.
Part III discusses the way Bach’s cantata librettos are translated; this is part of some collab with Daniel Melamed at indiana. The main issues to keep in mind here are translating the premodern German vocabulary using modern German understandings of the terms, and confusion about the source texts (for example, if the text is quoting the Bible, making sure that you aren’t just translating the Bible, but the wording of the specific German Bible used). Also, making note of further significant biblical allusions or allusions to Lutheran theology of that time, but that's a tool we know and love already I feel. I actually really liked this section, and feel convinced there is valuable new scholarship to be done there so will be keeping an eye out for that collab! I did think that their interpretation of the Mein Freund ist mein duet from BWV 140 was odd and idk if I can cosign, so wish someone can explain further…
Part IV: Was with him on the John-Passion-carries-anti-semitic-rhetoric argument, and that Luther’s trans. did too. However. Why does it seem like we are arguing about whether the original gospel of John itself is anti-semitic…. Put that greek grammar down mama! It wasn’t super necessary to argue that, kind of tangential, kind of also controversial in its actual field of NT studies so i feel like it would more likely muddle his point than strengthen it. Not that it is unimportant but why are we bringing it up here…. I am not hating, but i am looking askance. Anyway his actual argument (that you would encounter more antiJewish sentiment in 1730s Leipzig religious spaces than some people are admitting to) (do NOT ask premodern Leipzig resident what they think about Jewish people) (that the John passion turbae choruses emphasized jewish opposition to jesus enough so that it was probably consciously antijewish and plus that was the main “lie” from Luther’s 1543 “jews and their lies”) was good. BTW this is how i found out that Bach had two copies of that pamphlet……….This chapter was from an essay supposed to accompany a major recording of John Passion, and it got scrapped because the producers said general listeners were not ready for it. Oh! 😐 well that’s not……….
For Chap 9, I thought it was nice article about Bach’s music performed in the more enlightened environment of Berlin salons to mixed christian and jewish audiences.. How to reconcile, what sort of reception in this secular setting etc. Still definitely a reminder of the breadth of topic covered in this short book........
Part V: Chap 10 about misunderstood idea of sacred vs secular dichotomy in Bach music, honestly baroque music in general too... Nothing super new here, but nice to discuss Brandenburg concertos as sacred repertory, and not secular/void of theological meaning just because there aren’t any words. Agree! but i do so on the basis that Bach was religious in that deep irrepressible way which cannot be hidden by form. I think every great artist who loves anything is like this; whether the work is ostensibly for a church or for a patron, if he puts any part of himself into it, our only question is how he will express this religion in the church cantata form vs in concerto form. Anyway. I think there's a good exploration to be made into the way Bach plays with hierarchy and order in his works under his many patrons, religious or no, and how he interacted within his social relationships, which may at times have stood in conflict with his religious and artistic identity right? I think if we look beyond the brandenburgs too, that would be an interesting study. Whatever. Also. Guys i am just not convinced that Bach using his own brandenburgs in Leipzig cantatas is some huge Neither secular nor sacred but all are one in Christ Jesus type of statement. Why is that any different from all the other parody procedures he started doing after moving to Leipzig?? (you can't even call the brandenburgs parody procedure either...literally just concerto to sinfonia) Need more reason than that to support whatever specific sacred secular dichotomy Marissen has Bach in dialogue against via his Brandenburg concerti.
Chap 11 about the quodlibet at the end of Goldberg variations, popularly understood as combining 2 folk-songs, kind of unserious tone. Marissen argues that one of those folksong sources is misidentified and is actually a different hymn. His point is that this quodlibet is not as joking as it’s made out to be. I hadn't heard this before (but i fear that doesn't mean much LOL) Still, what do these chapters contribute to this image of an antimodern Bach? if you put a gun to my head i still couldn't tell you.
Borrowed this copy from boss in the spring, then had to return it, so i had to finish the last section on my freaking laptop🙄 whatever.
Interesting when he argues for examples of anti-modernist expression i.e. actual dialogue with modernity; less interesting when he just gives examples of reflecting premodernist thought; kind of confusing in the sections where he does neither. At times 🤨🤨, and kind of fragmented. I think with some extra editing he would have been clearer about why some of these pieces were advancing his idea of Bach against modernity any more than the average bach article would... And then I wouldn't have to wonder so much about what all of his points were and why he was making them here. But overall I liked.
July 1, 2023
I'll be reviewing this for the Yale Journal of Music and Religion.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews