In a recent Book Review of the New York Times (December 2, 2006), William F. Buckley reviews Martin Geck’s new biography of Johann Sebastian Bach. Of Geck, Buckley writes:
He tells us, on the subject of the complexity of one of Bach’s chorales, such details as that ”the canon voices of the cantus firmus are divided over two separate keyboards” and ”are not acoustically separated from the other parts.” Thus, ”the fabric of constantly intersecting voices is nonetheless barely comprehensible because Bach has overlaid the contrapuntal layer with its traditional opposite. The two voices ‘accompanying’ the cantus firmus canon are expressive solos taken from the slow movements of his sonatas and concerti and tricked out with modern mannerisms and gallant rhythmic changes.” This is the scalpel applied to the Mona Lisa, which brings to mind a recent news story on the scientists who are studying that masterpiece with invisible infrared light, perhaps hoping to establish what the subject ate on the day Leonardo painted her eyes.
What a great metaphor! It’s hard enough to create beauty; don’t go after it with a carving knife.
I’m having a guess that this text refers to the organ chorale prelude “Vater Unser Im Himmelreich”, and while I almost agree with the Mona Lisa reference, I think the reviewer has misunderstood the author’s intentions. The prelude is an extraordinary work in Bach’s output, organ or otherwise, and I believe that is the reason why these devices have been pointed out. Taking scalpels to things can reduce them only to constituent parts, but doesn’t a better understanding of inner workings in the context of the whole aid appreciation and awareness (and put this composer in his rightful place)?
A great site by the way — one of my favourites!