Thread: Back to BACH (& other wigs) in 19th century...

..from guys you may not expect.

Many know Mendelssohn's efforts in resurrecting J.S. Bach's choral music in the mid 19th century. Of course, in terms of composers and musicians, Bach's legacy never disappeared. Guys before Mendelssohn, like Mozart and Beethoven were well aware of Bach's music, admired it and where influenced by it.

Then there's Liszt, many of whose works give a fair hint of Bach's influence. Not only his Prelude and Fugue on the name B-A-C-H (for organ, but there's also a piano version) but also that fugue at the end of the Sonata in B minor.

Brahms was also influenced by Bach and the other wigs. In Harold C. Schonberg's book, The Lives of the Great Composers, he conveys how Brahms said (or wrote) that if he'd composed the Chaconne from the Partita for solo violin #2, he probably would have killed himself at the sheer intensity & humanity of it, etc. In terms of Brahms' works testifying to this in some way, look to his variations on themes by Handel and Haydn respectively & more generally, the Baroque complexity of things like his Piano Quintet and String Sextet #2.

Another one is Saint-Saens, who was the first to play all of Mozart's piano concertos since the death of the composer. The counterpoint in the opening cadenza of his PIano Concerto #2 sounds decidedly Baroque, but also deeply expressive, which is what we associate with music of Romantic era. Listen to the Petite Symphonie for wind instruments by another Frenchman, Gounod, and don't tell me it doesn't sound as if he was well aware of things like Mozart's Gran Partita, also for wind instruments?

Bruckner did not care much for Beethoven (eg. he only consulted the scores of Beethoven's late quartets when composing his String Quintet in C). However, as one of the best organists of his day, I would bet he played a fair deal of J.S. Bach, Handel and other greats of the past. I think Bruckner was not much different than Brahms in building upon the past, of which he had a strong knowledge of (eg. his sacred works go back before the wigs to Palestrina, Schutz and Gabrieli).

Then there's Tchaikovsky who adored Mozart - eg. his Rococo Variations for cello and orchestra and also his Orchestral Suite "Mozartiana," are but two examples of this.

In Norway, Grieg with his Holberg Suite similarly reached back to old times, fusing that with the folk music of his own country.

& there are many other examples like these.

My point is that "back to Bach" (and the other wigs) was not only due to Mendelssohn, though he was of course pivotal in this movement. I'm saying there were others at the time doing similar things, esp. based on hearing their music.

Then of course we had this really take off in early 20th century, with musicians like Widor, Casals, Schweitzer, Ysaye, Landowska & so on, promoting Bach's and the other's music in their respective fields...

Mozart and Beethoven were introduced to the music of JS Bach and of course Handel, through the conservative imperial librarian and diplomat Gottfried van Swieten. van Swieten commissioned Mozart to "update" several of Handel's works, including The Messiah, i.e. "modernise" it to suit Viennese taste for private performance behind closed doors. Mozart welcomed these as it was an additional source of income. (BvS was the supporter of Mozart in the film Amadeus).

So this was a case of "wigs promoting older wigs"!

Originally Posted by HarpsichordConcerto

Mozart and Beethoven were introduced to the music of JS Bach and of course Handel, through the conservative imperial librarian and diplomat Gottfried van Swieten. van Swieten commissioned Mozart to "update" several of Handel's works, including The Messiah, i.e. "modernise" it to suit Viennese taste for private performance behind closed doors. Mozart welcomed these as it was an additional source of income. (BvS was the supporter of Mozart in the film Amadeus)...

I don't remember hearing of van Sweiten, it is interesting.

I know that Beethoven was taught by this guy called Christian Gottlieb Neefe, who was an organist, and a big fan of J.S. BAch. I think I also remember something like Neefe revised or edited the harpsichord continuo part of Mozart's The Abduction from the Seraglio, which I recently heard and enjoyed (Harnoncourt's recording, info on my blog here on this forum). So there's a connection between Neefe and Mozart & Beethoven, or some connection.

Also, commonly known is that Mozart had on his piano stand Bach's Well Temepered CLavier, he always played & studied these pieces.

Of course, it is surmised that Mozart and Beethoven met, but by the time Beethoven got back to Vienna from Bonn (attending to his mother, her death, etc.), Mozart was dead, and the job of teaching him fell to Haydn.

...
So this was a case of "wigs promoting older wigs"!

That's similar to my point. I am not arguing that what Mendelssohn did was not of great significance/impact, it's just that going way back, Bach's and the others music never completely disappeared off the radar. In the late 18th and early to mid 19th centuries, the ordinary man in the street didn't know of Bach, but those in/around the music industry definitely did - composers, publishers, musicians, etc.

Once Mendelssohn, Liszt, Schumann and later generations came and went, the stage was set for a revival which continued beyond them, it's a relay race that's still being run, I think.

Revised: I would hope for a more preferred time-line reference here as to when the composers you mention became aware of Bach, especially those from before the Mendelssohn 'reintroduction.' Your point may not at all be inaccurate, both Bach, Palestrina and other masters were known and taught amongst composers. Your presentation gives a stronger impression this was widespread. (By the mid - late 1800's there were conservatories, at least in France, where ALL counterpoint was so out of fashion it was not even taught. - Sorry, read it recently, some reliable source, but am not inclined to keep a memory or other file on this sort of info. Non-academic at heart.)

Mozart studied modal counterpoint, the same that had been in place for centuries. He was not INTRODUCED to this music by Baron van Swieten until he was in his Mid-twenties, over half-way through his short life.
http://www.schillerinstitut.dk/bach.html

I will leave it to you to find in Mozart's letter his expressed amazement about 'this music,' and take note of the date of the letter.

I'm less interested in when Luigi became familiar with J.S. - but must point out when he was summoning up the idea of the Missa Solemnis, that Beethoven wrote to his publisher, requesting the contrapuntal work of 'that guy,' and it was innately understood he was referring to Palestrina, the scores delivered, and the end result of that study is wholly evident in the choral writing of Missa Solemnis, a work I argue is Ludwig von's best and most masterly essay in counterpoint.

Originally Posted by PetrB

What nonsense is this?

Mozart studied modal counterpoint, the same that had been in place for centuries. He was not INTRODUCED to this music by Baron van Swieten until he was in his Mid-twenties, over half-way through his short life.
http://www.schillerinstitut.dk/bach.html

I will leave it to you to find in Mozart's letter his expressed amazement about 'this music,' and take note of the date of the letter.

I'm less interested in when Luigi became familiar with J.S. - but must point out when he was summoning up the idea of the Missa Solemnis, that Beethoven wrote to his publisher, requesting the contrapuntal work of 'that guy,' and it was innately understood he was referring to Palestrina, the scores delivered, and the end result of that study is wholly evident in the choral writing of Missa Solemnis, a work I argue is Ludwig von's best and most masterly essay in counterpoint.

So is this revisionist history 101 we're talking here?

I was talking about being introdcued to the music of Bach and Handel, not counterpoint in general. Do read my post more carefully.

Originally Posted by Sid James

...
That's similar to my point. I am not arguing that what Mendelssohn did was not of great significance/impact, it's just that going way back, Bach's and the others music never completely disappeared off the radar. In the late 18th and early to mid 19th centuries, the ordinary man in the street didn't know of Bach, but those in/around the music industry definitely did - composers, publishers, musicians, etc.

Once Mendelssohn, Liszt, Schumann and later generations came and went, the stage was set for a revival which continued beyond them, it's a relay race that's still being run, I think.

Yep. Even Schumann and Mendelsohn wrote their "updated" versions of Bach's and Handel's works. Schumann had his "updated" version of the St. John Passion done in 1851. These works (especially the Mozart arrangements of the Handel pieces) are particularly revealing with respect to their respective period's taste. They "updated" what was then thought to be rather "old fashioned" using "newer" instrumental colour, such as using the classical clarinet in addition to oboes as Mozart did.

Originally Posted by HarpsichordConcerto

I was talking about being introdcued to the music of Bach and Handel, not counterpoint in general. Do read my post more carefully.

Fine. You may want to revise this a titch, then
"Also, commonly known is that Mozart had on his piano stand Bach's Well Temepered CLavier, he always played & studied these pieces."

Originally Posted by PetrB

Revised: I would hope for a more preferred time-line reference here as to when the composers you mention became aware of Bach, especially those from before the Mendelssohn 'reintroduction.' Your point may not at all be inaccurate, both Bach, Palestrina and other masters were known and taught amongst composers. Your presentation gives a stronger impression this was widespread. (By the mid - late 1800's there were conservatories, at least in France, where ALL counterpoint was so out of fashion it was not even taught. - Sorry, read it recently, some reliable source, but am not inclined to keep a memory or other file on this sort of info. Non-academic at heart.)...

Well in France I think "the wigs" as I called them, had some strong supporters from mid 19th century. I don't know about the conservatoires, but definitely among composers - the likes of Saint-Saens as I said, also Bizet (eg. evident in his Symphony in C, an early work), and also Gounod (also influenced by things earlier than Baroque - eg. Renaissance music, incl. Palestrina, which he heard in his younger years in the Vatican, while a student in Rome). Which suggests that this enquiry into music of the past can be expanded right back, before "the wigs," but I didn't want my topic to be too broad.

Speaking of which, Wagner published an edition of Palestrina's Stabat Mater in the 1870's, not a commonly known fact, I think. He also learnt from the past, counterpoint of a quite complex/involved kind can be found in his music, eg. prelude to Die Meistersinger (no wonder Glenn Gould made that piano transcription of it).

& another one who was in France was Cesar Franck, the composer, organist and teacher from Belgium.

...I'm less interested in when Luigi became familiar with J.S. - but must point out when he was summoning up the idea of the Missa Solemnis, that Beethoven wrote to his publisher, requesting the contrapuntal work of 'that guy,' and it was innately understood he was referring to Palestrina, the scores delivered, and the end result of that study is wholly evident in the choral writing of Missa Solemnis, a work I argue is Ludwig von's best and most masterly essay in counterpoint.

Yes, I know that it is said that Beethoven would most likely have heard Palestrina's music and known it. I am more familiar with his late string quartets and in the slow movement of the Op. 132 there are those harmonies and polyphony found in Palestrina.

Originally Posted by PetrB

Fine. You may want to revise this a titch, then
"Also, commonly known is that Mozart had on his piano stand Bach's Well Temepered CLavier, he always played & studied these pieces."

Well, I wrote that above, not HC. I also came across that info in a reputable source, it may have been a documentary on Mozart. & probably corroborated with my reading on these things.

Basically, the "proof" of Mozart knowing Bach and Handel to at least some degree is in things like that amazing fugue (the final movement) of the Jupiter symphony. Not to speak of things like many passages in the Great Mass in C.

Originally Posted by Sid James

... Basically, the "proof" of Mozart knowing Bach and Handel to at least some degree is in things like that amazing fugue (the final movement) of the Jupiter symphony. Not to speak of things like many passages in the Great Mass in C.

I don't see where any of the above is a 'revelation' -- though of course it is good to know.
It is also no great secret that music scholars and some musicians, littered throughout Europe, were constantly aware of all the earlier modal contrapuntists as well as the later work of Bach.


Yes, he sighs, Mozart knowing of Bach after his introduction to it by Baron von Sweelinck in....
1782 - age 26; nine years of life left

'Great' Mass in C minor (incomplete)
1783 - age 27; eight years of life left
All his modal counterpoint, known since childhood, could readily be the main 'source' of his contrapuntal usage here. That older counterpoint is evident in almost all the work from his mid teens, always 'showing' in the horizontal treatment, the lyric quality, in so many of the instrumental ensemble works he produced throughout his life

Mozart meets Haydn, 1784 - age 28; seven years of life left

Adagio and Fugue (the most telling that he was clearly working within the 18th century style of Bach) &
Symphony 41
1788; age; 32 ... no time left.

Mozart lived without knowledge of Bach for twenty six of his short twenty-five years, over three-quarters of his life. He had studied the old modal -- Gasp, Non-Bach, Non 18th century species counterpoint -- got along just fine til then, thank you.

Mozart heard, just once, the extensive and elaborate Miserere of Allegri, a work of many voices in the modal contrapuntal style, and then wrote it down from memory, perfectly. He was 14 years old at the time (1770.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Y_z...eature=related

For A composer who penned his fifth and sixth symphonies around the age of 10 or 11, who took down the Allegri from memory at 14 (he either 'got' the old counterpoint in a trice or had studied it Already) the influence of Bach may be noted, and of some influence int the instance of the Fugue. For the rest, the man was well versed and in practiced for three-fourths of his life, and already habitually thinking, in those terms. The finale of the 41st symphony is a triumph, it is as 'modal' in its M.O. at least, as it is 'Bach influenced,' motets and simultaneous multiple melodies and canon well in use before J.S.

Your point is well-valid, and it is not nearly as great an influence as you'd like to make of it. Bach is noted, too, for being of no tremendous influence on the shape of music history, not a point against, just a fact.

Originally Posted by PetrB

Bach is noted, too, for being of no tremendous influence on the shape of music history, not a point against, just a fact.

Old JS was not anyway near as influential as his sons were. I think the most influential out of the Bach-clan was CPE, and then to a much lesser extent Johann Christian.

Originally Posted by PetrB

I don't see where any of the above is a 'revelation' -- though of course it is good to know.
It is also no great secret that music scholars and some musicians, littered throughout Europe, were constantly aware of all the earlier modal contrapuntists as well as the later work of Bach.


Yes, he sighs, Mozart knowing of Bach after his introduction to it by Baron von Sweelinck in....
1782 - age 26; nine years of life left

'Great' Mass in C minor (incomplete)
1783 - age 27; eight years of life left
All his modal counterpoint, known since childhood, could readily be the main 'source' of his contrapuntal usage here. That older counterpoint is evident in almost all the work from his mid teens, always 'showing' in the horizontal treatment, the lyric quality, in so many of the instrumental ensemble works he produced throughout his life

Mozart meets Haydn, 1784 - age 28; seven years of life left

Adagio and Fugue (the most telling that he was clearly working within the 18th century style of Bach) &
Symphony 41
1788; age; 32 ... no time left.

Mozart lived without knowledge of Bach for twenty six of his short twenty-five years, over three-quarters of his life. He had studied the old modal -- Gasp, Non-Bach, Non 18th century species counterpoint -- got along just fine til then, thank you.

Mozart heard, just once, the extensive and elaborate Miserere of Allegri, a work of many voices in the modal contrapuntal style, and then wrote it down from memory, perfectly. He was 14 years old at the time (1770.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Y_z...eature=related

For A composer who penned his fifth and sixth symphonies around the age of 10 or 11, who took down the Allegri from memory at 14 (he either 'got' the old counterpoint in a trice or had studied it Already) the influence of Bach may be noted, and of some influence int the instance of the Fugue. For the rest, the man was well versed and in practiced for three-fourths of his life, and already habitually thinking, in those terms. The finale of the 41st symphony is a triumph, it is as 'modal' in its M.O. at least, as it is 'Bach influenced,' motets and simultaneous multiple melodies and canon well in use before J.S.

Your point is well-valid, and it is not nearly as great an influence as you'd like to make of it. Bach is noted, too, for being of no tremendous influence on the shape of music history, not a point against, just a fact.

I'm not sure what you're saying in this post. Mozart certainly wrote contrapuntally before encountering Bach and Handel. But it's widely recognized that after being introduced to their music at the age of 26 or so, his music became more contrapuntal and heavier in its use of dissonance. It's documented that he was familiar with the Well-Tempered Clavier, the Art of Fugue, many of the organ works and probably the English Suites, not to mention Handel's Messiah.

Mozart's fugue in the Kyrie of his requiem couldn't be more Handelian, though I've read that the theme in itself was a typical 18th century fugal cliche.

It's interesting to read all your replies, however in my opening post, I only mentioned Mozart (& also Beethoven) as kind of build up to my main point, that in the 19th century it was not only Mendelssohn who worked to revive J.S. Bach's music (& Bach influenced many others, etc.).

I agree with this actually -

Originally Posted by PetrB

I don't see where any of the above is a 'revelation' -- though of course it is good to know.
It is also no great secret that music scholars and some musicians, littered throughout Europe, were constantly aware of all the earlier modal contrapuntists as well as the later work of Bach...

It's not meant as a revelation, but in terms of how there is a 'grand narrative' that Mendelssohn singlehandedly revived J.S. Bach, that's what I am questioning here. Of course, looks like you all know this. But other members of this forum may not have known it, or at least not seen anything or anything much written about the history of it.

So my aim here was not only start a discussion but also inform people & your contributions have actually informed me too. So I think looking at the history 'hidden' to many by these stereotypes and 'grand narratives' does have a purpose, it's good to question things that are I think maybe closer to legend than some type of reality.

& edit - I remember when I was just getting back to classical in a big way, I had the instinctive feeling that BAch (& other 'wigs') is "in" the musics of guys like Beethoven, Liszt, Saint-Saens, Brahms, and so on, but having now read more, I know this for sure. Some person earlier on this forum I think challenged me to tell him why/how I think J.S. Bach influenced Beethoven and Brahms. Well I think this thread is me thinking out aloud about this and putting it in a way that relates directly to the wider history of the "back to Bach" movement.

I too, thought Bach came to Beethoven via Van Swieten, but in reading Lewis Lockwood's fine book The Music and Life of Beethoven (Norton, 2003), Lockwood says in Chapter One, p.34 (regarding Beethoven's mentor/teacher in Bonn, Christian Gottlob Neefe), that beyond his role as a mentor and teacher of modern styles, Neefe earned his place in history by introducing the young Beethoven to the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. His burnishing of Bach's images emerges in a very important notice that Neefe published about the young prodigy Beethoven as early as March 1783, when the boy was only twelve:
Translated from Cramer's Magazin der Musik; for the original German see TDR,1:150 and Scheidermair, 161f.

The published notice by Neefe refers to himself (Neefe) in the 3rd person, oddly, and here is an extract: ...Louis van Beethoven <sic>, son of the tenor singer mentioned, a boy of eleven years, and of most promising talent. He plays the clavier very skillfully and with power, reads at sight very well, and - to put it as simply as possible - he plays chiefly The Well-Tempered Clavier of Sebastian Bach, which Herr Neefe put into his hands....This youthful genius is deserving of help to enable him to travel. He would certainly become a second Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart if he progresses as he has begun.

For more on Neefe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gottlob_Neefe

Originally Posted by HarpsichordConcerto

Mozart and Beethoven were introduced to the music of JS Bach and of course Handel, through the conservative imperial librarian and diplomat Gottfried van Swieten. van Swieten commissioned Mozart to "update" several of Handel's works, including The Messiah, i.e. "modernise" it to suit Viennese taste for private performance behind closed doors. Mozart welcomed these as it was an additional source of income. (BvS was the supporter of Mozart in the film Amadeus).

So this was a case of "wigs promoting older wigs"!

My feeling is that some of Beethoven's compositions are inspired by Bach's, e.g.

Bach's C minor Partita -> Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata
Bach's Chromatic Fantasy -> Beethoven's Tempest Sonata
Bach's Goldberg Variations -> Beethoven's Diabelli Variations

But it's definitely inspiration more than "influence," because the Beethoven pieces always have a very individual stamp on them. It's more like he used Bach as a source of ideas, as opposed to trying to imitate Bach's style.