Bach and Mozart today

[Lutemann]

One wonders what the Bachs and the Mozarts of today are doing. Are
they in music and if so, where do they land. There must be more of
these super talents today than in the past because we have more
people. Of course Bach and Mozart were lucky in that they were in a
time where music composition was fairly standardized and well-defined.
It makes me think that great music geniuses might go into other
fields.

[2cts]

...

I think Bach would be doing 12tone music today and Mozart Rock.

[Lutemann]

Post by 2cts

...

I think Bach would be doing 12tone music today and Mozart Rock.

I don't think rock would interest Mozart and nobody does 12 tone music
anymore, do they? When I was in music school 40 years ago, 12 tone
music was passe - truly your grandfather's music.

[2cts]

Post by Lutemann

Post by 2cts
I think Bach would be doing 12tone music today and Mozart Rock.

I don't think rock would interest Mozart

He did that at his epoch as well (we used to call typical
parts of it 'ringing').

Post by Lutemann
and nobody does 12 tone music anymore, do they?

Perhaps a few are still few doing it. Bach surely would.

Post by Lutemann
When I was in music school 40 years ago, 12 tone
music was passe - truly your grandfather's music.

Sure, to get much meaning out of 12 tone music requires
you 2 absolute pitch ears of course.

But sure, you ARE right, man, I didn't really mean 12 tone
music alone but I meant originally atonal music.

Did you ever hear this, btw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurrelieder ?
Now, thats not 12 tone technic but just a bit before, while and after...

[Dicerous]

Post by 2cts

Post by Lutemann

Post by 2cts
I think Bach would be doing 12tone music today and Mozart Rock.

I don't think rock would interest Mozart

He did that at his epoch as well (we used to call typical
parts of it 'ringing').

Post by Lutemann
and nobody does 12 tone music anymore, do they?  

Perhaps a few are still few doing it. Bach surely would.

Post by Lutemann
When I was in music school 40 years ago, 12 tone
music was passe - truly your grandfather's music.

Sure, to get much meaning out of 12 tone music requires
you 2 absolute pitch ears of course.
But sure, you ARE right, man, I didn't really mean 12 tone
music alone but I meant originally atonal music.
Did you ever hear this, btw.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurrelieder?
Now, thats not 12 tone technic but just a bit before, while and after...

I disagree, I feel that both would be recluses and both would be
completely fed up with academic charletonism.

[Dicerous]

Post by Dicerous

Post by 2cts

Post by Lutemann

Post by 2cts
I think Bach would be doing 12tone music today and Mozart Rock.

I don't think rock would interest Mozart

He did that at his epoch as well (we used to call typical
parts of it 'ringing').

Post by Lutemann
and nobody does 12 tone music anymore, do they?  

Perhaps a few are still few doing it. Bach surely would.

Post by Lutemann
When I was in music school 40 years ago, 12 tone
music was passe - truly your grandfather's music.

Sure, to get much meaning out of 12 tone music requires
you 2 absolute pitch ears of course.
But sure, you ARE right, man, I didn't really mean 12 tone
music alone but I meant originally atonal music.
Did you ever hear this, btw.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurrelieder?
Now, thats not 12 tone technic but just a bit before, while and after...

I disagree, I feel that both would be recluses and both would be
completely fed up with academic charletonism.

Bach,most likely working for a church somewhere...Mozart would be an
actor.

[2cts]

Bach, most likely working for a church somewhere...

Btw. Bach was 'not much' religious (because he was not an idiot)...

[Dicerous]

Post by 2cts

Bach, most likely working for a church somewhere...

Btw. Bach was 'not much' religious (because he was not an idiot)...

My mom's an anglican...I am too. Protestants will often claim an
aversion to outward expressions of religiosity. Bach was way ahead of
his time. Also, remember Bach's sentiments were viz the RCC which at
that point in time was a true aversion to ANYONE who claimed any sense
of inward spirtuality (e.g. the superstitions, sinecures, popery...)

[Richard Jernigan]

Post by 2cts
Btw. Bach was 'not much' religious (because he was not an idiot)...

Let's see: 278 sacred cantatas, four or five Passions (only two
survive), at least five masses (of which the B minor is one of his
greatest works), God only knows how many chorale preludes, the
supervision of the music in at least two churches in Leipzig, hundreds
of manuscripts ending in "Solo Dei Gloria"--no, 'not much' religious.

RNJ

[2cts]

Post by Richard Jernigan

Post by 2cts
Btw. Bach was 'not much' religious (because he was not an idiot)...

Let's see: 278 sacred cantatas, four or five Passions (only two
survive), at least five masses (of which the B minor is one of his
greatest works), God only knows how many chorale preludes, the
supervision of the music in at least two churches in Leipzig, hundreds
of manuscripts ending in "Solo Dei Gloria"--no, 'not much' religious.

Yes, there were just NOT any other (common) themes in that age.

They did not share all those ads, that determine the lives of ours...

[Richard Jernigan]

Post by 2cts

Post by Richard Jernigan

Post by 2cts
Btw. Bach was 'not much' religious (because he was not an idiot)...

Let's see: 278 sacred cantatas, four or five Passions (only two
survive), at least five masses (of which the B minor is one of his
greatest works), God only knows how many chorale preludes, the
supervision of the music in at least two churches in Leipzig, hundreds
of manuscripts ending in "Solo Dei Gloria"--no, 'not much' religious.

Yes, there were just NOT any other (common) themes in that age.

Really? Handel, Bach's exact contemporary wrote 42 operas, all on
secular themes. Later in his career, he did turn to oratorios, finding
that in London they paid better than opera. He charged admission.

Bach studied, respected and copied Vivaldi, who wrote over 500
concertos and 42 operas, yet Bach never ventured into the secular
music drama.

Telemann, with whom Bach was well acquainted, wrote 32 operas, as well
as numerous instrumental works. Telemann did write at least five
annual cycles of sacred cantatas, but his interests
clearly were on the secular side.

I recommend Christoph Wolff's "Johann Sebastian Bach, the Learned
Musician" for an in-depth artistic biography. It makes quite clear
Bach's deeply felt religion and how it colored his life and work.

I am not a particularly religious person myself. What I find
remarkable is the feeling of kinship and admiration inpired by Bach's
music, which sprang from a philosophical outlook very different from
my own.

RNJ

[2cts]

Bach never ventured into the secular music drama

He was happy that he could make a live at each stage and he
started with the organ which was clearly bound to churches.

I recommend Christoph Wolff's "Johann Sebastian Bach, the Learned
Musician" for an in-depth artistic biography. It makes quite clear
Bach's deeply felt religion and how it colored his life and work.

We have just a handful written pieces from him and very few trusted
statements about him. That's why whoever wrote a 'colorful' biography
is either a crackpot or he desperately needed the money from a book.
Unfortunately there is no biography, but just kind of novels on him.

It is 'conveyed', that, during the first (?) representation of
his St. Matthew's Passion, he left the church for some time to
get one or two portions of beer in ;)

[Richard Jernigan]

Post by 2cts

Bach never ventured into the secular music drama

He was happy that he could make a live at each stage and he
started with the organ which was clearly bound to churches.

I recommend Christoph Wolff's "Johann Sebastian Bach, the Learned
Musician" for an in-depth artistic biography. It makes quite clear
Bach's deeply felt religion and how it colored his life and work.

We have just a handful written pieces from him and very few trusted
statements about him. That's why whoever wrote a 'colorful' biography
is either a crackpot or he desperately needed the money from a book.
Unfortunately there is no biography, but just kind of novels on him.
It is 'conveyed', that, during the first (?) representation of
his St. Matthew's Passion, he left the church for some time to
get one or two portions of beer in ;)

Christoph Wolff is Adams University Professor of Music at Harvard. He
has also served as Chairman of the Music Department and Dean of the
Graduate School at Harvard. Wolff is also Director of the Bach Archive
at Leipzig. He is probably the most respected living Bach scholar.
With all his appointments he is definitely not "desperately in need of
money from a book", nor is he reputed to be a crackpot.

Wolff's books include Bach: Essays on His Life and Music (Cambridge,
1991), Mozart's Requiem (Berkeley, 1994), The New Bach Reader (New
York, 1998), and Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician, which
was a finalist for the Pulitzer prize in 2001. (New York, 2000). Wolff
(re)discovered a number of works by Bach (notably the Neumeister
Chorales) that were previously unknown or deemed lost.

The "New Bach Reader" is an assemblage of source documents on Bach. It
contains comtemporary accounts, writings on Bach from his sons and
their contemporaries, including some negative criticism of Bach's
music, and essays on Bach's music and reputation from later
generations.

"Johann Sebastian Bach, the Learned Musician" is a scholarly work with
a very extensive bibliography, densely footnoted.

RNJ

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Richard Jernigan
The "New Bach Reader" is an assemblage of source documents on Bach. It
contains comtemporary accounts, writings on Bach from his sons and
their contemporaries, including some negative criticism of Bach's
music, and essays on Bach's music and reputation from later
generations.

Yes, very many trusted statements about him there!

Post by Richard Jernigan
"Johann Sebastian Bach, the Learned Musician" is a scholarly work with
a very extensive bibliography, densely footnoted.

Yes, a really great book.

Andrew

[2cts]

Post by Andrew Schulman
Yes, very many trusted statements about him there!

Nope. Thats the same kind of 'science' like a 'homöopathie'.

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Richard Jernigan
"Johann Sebastian Bach, the Learned Musician"

Bullshit, he was not even an academic.

[2cts]

Post by Richard Jernigan
Christoph Wolff is Adams University Professor of Music at Harvard

I know all that stuff...

Post by Richard Jernigan
"Johann Sebastian Bach, the Learned Musician"

Bullshit. Bach was not an academic, which made him problems:

http://www.dresden.de/en/02/press_service/press_texts_in_various_languages/english/c_04_johann_sebastian_bach_and_dresden.php

Leipzig, on the other hand, actually wanted Georg Philipp Telemann.
Telemann turned the offer down and thus Bach was ceremoniously appointed
to the new position on June 1, 1720.

It was not a dream job. The Bach family lived in the Thomas School next to
the classrooms and the noisy children. Once a month Bach had to supervise
the pupils. In addition, he also had to compose a cantata each Sunday for
mass in the Thomas Church or in the Nicholas Church, where the masses could
last up to four hours. Bach's cantatas were too opera-like for the city
fathers of Leipzig. There was constant friction. In 1720 Bach wrote a
memorandum in which he complained about the poor working conditions and
compared them with the more favourable ones in Dresden "how the musicians
there were paid a salary by His Royal Majesty himself."

[2cts]

Bach never ventured into the secular music drama

He was happy that he could make a live at each stage and he
started with the organ which was clearly bound to churches.

I recommend Christoph Wolff's "Johann Sebastian Bach, the Learned
Musician" for an in-depth artistic biography. It makes quite clear
Bach's deeply felt religion and how it colored his life and work.

We have just a handful written pieces from him and very few trusted
statements about him. That's why whoever wrote a 'colorful' biography
is either a crackpot or he desperately needed the money from a book.
Unfortunately there is no biography, but just kind of novels on him. *)

It is 'conveyed', that, during the first (?) representation of
his St. Matthew's Passion, he left the church for some time to
get one or two portions of beer in ;)

*) Read this book! It is (originally in german) the one that explains
all the truth: http://www.google.com/search?q=B003MTJ49E

It is a MUST read (and a great book):

http://www.amazon.com/Johann-Sebastiaan-Bach-Maarten-t/dp/B003MTJ49E

[2cts]

Bach never ventured into the secular music drama

He was happy that he could make some living in each stage of his
live and he started with the organ which was clearly bound to churches.
He was just never asked (and payed) to write operas.

I recommend Christoph Wolff's "Johann Sebastian Bach, the Learned
Musician" for an in-depth artistic biography. It makes quite clear
Bach's deeply felt religion and how it colored his life and work.

We have just a handful written pieces from him and very few trusted
statements about him. That's why whoever wrote a 'colorful' biography
on him is either a crackpot or he desperately needed the money from
a book. Unfortunately there is nothing like a biography, but just
a lot of fully imaginary 'novels' on him. *)

It is 'conveyed', that, during the first (?) representation of his
St. Matthew's Passion, he left the church for a short time to go
to the market next to the church for one or two glasses of beer ;)

*) Read this book! It is (originally in german) the one that explains
all the truth: http://www.google.com/search?q=B003MTJ49E

This is a MUST read (and a great book):

http://www.amazon.com/Johann-Sebastiaan-Bach-Maarten-t/dp/B003MTJ49E

[Richard Jernigan]

Post by 2cts

Bach never ventured into the secular music drama

He was happy that he could make some living in each stage of his
live and he started with the organ which was clearly bound to churches.
He was just never asked (and payed) to write operas.

I recommend Christoph Wolff's "Johann Sebastian Bach, the Learned
Musician" for an in-depth artistic biography. It makes quite clear
Bach's deeply felt religion and how it colored his life and work.

We have just a handful written pieces from him and very few trusted
statements about him. That's why whoever wrote a 'colorful' biography
on him is either a crackpot or he desperately needed the money from
a book. Unfortunately there is nothing like a biography, but just
a lot of fully imaginary 'novels' on him. *)
It is 'conveyed', that, during the first (?) representation of his
St. Matthew's Passion, he left the church for a short time to go
to the market next to the church for one or two glasses of beer ;)  
*) Read this book! It is (originally in german) the one that explains
all the truth:http://www.google.com/search?q=B003MTJ49E
http://www.amazon.com/Johann-Sebastiaan-Bach-Maarten-t/dp/B003MTJ49E

Here is a short Wikipedia article on 't Hart, whose principal
occupation seems to be novelist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maarten_'t_Hart

He boasts of one distinction that Wolff lacks: "He has publicly stated
that he sometimes liked to wear women's clothing, and he wore it once
at a writers' party with mass media present."

RNJ

[2cts]

Post by Richard Jernigan

Post by 2cts
http://www.amazon.com/Johann-Sebastiaan-Bach-Maarten-t/dp/B003MTJ49E

Here is a short Wikipedia article on 't Hart, whose principal
occupation seems to be novelist.

So what, your principal occupation seems to be an idiot.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by 2cts

Post by Richard Jernigan

Post by 2cts
http://www.amazon.com/Johann-Sebastiaan-Bach-Maarten-t/dp/B003MTJ49E

Here is a short Wikipedia article on 't Hart, whose principal
occupation seems to be novelist.

So what, your principal occupation seems to be an idiot.

I assume English is not your first language. Have you ever heard the
expression "barking up the wrong tree"?

Steve

[Andrew Schulman]

I assume English is not your first language.  Have you ever heard the
expression "barking up the wrong tree"?
Steve

Methinks his use of the moniker '2cts" is inflationary...

Andrew

[Slogoin]

Post by Steven Bornfeld
I assume English is not your first language.
Have you ever heard the
expression "barking up the wrong tree"?

While 2cts may be barking it might not be the wrong tree. There has
been a lot of effort to make Bach out to be kin to the religious right
of today. The RR also seems to think the founding fathers were their
intellectual and religious kin. They even go to great effort to make
it sound like Einstein was a "man of God".

[Dicerous]

Post by Steven Bornfeld
I assume English is not your first language.
Have you ever heard the
expression "barking up the wrong tree"?

  While 2cts may be barking it might not be the wrong tree. There has
been a lot of effort to make Bach out to be kin to the religious right
of today. The RR also seems to think the founding fathers were their
intellectual and religious kin. They even go to great effort to make
it sound like Einstein was a "man of God".

Just because those phoney-baloney religious folk say it, don't mean it
ain't true. I'm officially deflationary!

[Richard Jernigan]

Post by Steven Bornfeld
I assume English is not your first language.
Have you ever heard the
expression "barking up the wrong tree"?

  While 2cts may be barking it might not be the wrong tree. There has
been a lot of effort to make Bach out to be kin to the religious right
of today. The RR also seems to think the founding fathers were their
intellectual and religious kin. They even go to great effort to make
it sound like Einstein was a "man of God".

Have you read Wolff? He hardly strikes me as a member of the modern
religious right. Nor have I any inclination whatsoever to portray Bach
as such. As I said earlier, I find it remarkable that Bach's music has
such an immediate and intimate appeal, coming from a religious and
philosophical position so remote from my own.

The inventory of Bach's estate contains more than 50 theological
works, including the 3-volume Calov Bible with commentary and two sets
of the complete works of Martin Luther: a seven-volume set and a later
8-volume set. Also included are numerous Bible commentaries by
contemporary scholars, commentaries on the Psalms and so on. Given the
high price of books in Bach's time, to me this indicates more than a
casual interest in religion.


RNJ

[2cts]

Post by Richard Jernigan
Have you read Wolff?

Its not too bad, did you read Martin Geck s book?

Post by Richard Jernigan
I find it remarkable that Bach's music has such an immediate
and intimate appeal

That means you feel such a appeal right hard.

Post by Richard Jernigan
coming from a religious

That means God is there and Bach brings him into your soul

Post by Richard Jernigan
and philosophical position so remote from my own.

DEAR! How would which one ever KNOW even "his philosophical position"!

You ARE a moron!

[2cts]

Post by Richard Jernigan
Have you read Wolff?

Its not too bad, did you read Martin Geck s book?

Post by Richard Jernigan
I find it remarkable that Bach's music has such an immediate
and intimate appeal

That means you feel such a appeal right hard.

Post by Richard Jernigan
coming from a religious

That means God is there and Bach brings him into your soul

Post by Richard Jernigan
and philosophical position so remote from my own.

DEAR! How would WHO ever KNOW even "his philosophical position"!

You ARE a moron!

[2cts]

Post by Richard Jernigan
Have you read Wolff?

Its not too bad, did you read Martin Geck s book? *)

Post by Richard Jernigan
I find it remarkable that Bach's music has such an immediate
and intimate appeal

That means you feel such a appeal right hard.

Post by Richard Jernigan
coming from a religious

That means God is there and Bach brings him into your soul

Post by Richard Jernigan
and philosophical position so remote from my own.

DEAR! How would WHO ever KNOW even "his philosophical position"!

You are perhaps more of a moron.

*) http://www.amazon.com/Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Life-Work/dp/0151006482

A Citation follows:

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers
Weekly Starred Review. Surprisingly little is known about the domestic and
professional life of the man many consider the greatest composer who ever
lived, and even this monumental study by a German musicologist has to fall
back on a great deal of supposition of the kind all too familiar from some
Shakespearean biographies. If it is scant on personal details, it is
brilliantly all-encompassing on the music and on the place of Bach in the
musical pantheon, both in his own time and in the present. Geck devotes at
least two-thirds of his book to an exhaustive examination of Bach's
technique and accomplishment in all his major works, and their impact on the
listener. This analysis is not overwhelmingly technical and can be readily
appreciated by an educated enthusiast. In a final section called "Horizons,"
in which Geck meditates on Bach's art, religion and philosophy as displayed
in the music, he offers some remarkable insights. Bach's "overwhelming
density" in places can inspire "shock and awe," as well as "laughter over
the infinity of creation, and tears at one's own insignificance." For Bach,
he says, "every work of music has to be conceived as a perfect likeness of
divine creation." (Dec.) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division
of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist
*Starred Review* More than a century ago, Albert Schweitzer indicted Bach
biographers for a fixation on the composer's technical mastery, contending
that such a focus blinded them to his poetic genius. In 2000 a perceptive
German musicologist finally published a life study so perceptive and
capacious that even Schweitzer would have applauded, and now a gifted
translator has made that award-winning biography accessible to
English-speaking readers. Writing for both the scholar and the general
reader, Geck delivers a portrait of Bach--as man and as musician--more
carefully nuanced and complete than those of any of his predecessors. In his
portrait of the young Bach, for instance, Geck teases from a mere handful of
documents clues as to how a self-taught organ-tuner won exceptional
privileges from Arnstadt authorities. And in probing the repeated
metamorphoses in Bach's artistic styles, Geck shows how Bach's rare creative
talent fused devotion to tradition with experimental daring. The same
analytical sophistication reveals how Bach's music reflects a Christian
faith inspired by Lutheran mysticism and Pietist devotion. But even as he
unveils the origins of Bach's sublime spirituality, Geck reminds readers of
the rooted humanity of a boon companion who relished a mug of hard cider.
Ordinary lovers of music will join specialists in praising this book. Bryce
Christensen Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

[Slogoin]

Post by Richard Jernigan
Have you read Wolff?

Yes. I've read bunches of Bach stuff like others who post here.

Post by Richard Jernigan
He hardly strikes me as a member of the modern
religious right. Nor have I any inclination whatsoever to portray Bach
as such. As I said earlier, I find it remarkable that Bach's music has
such an immediate and intimate appeal, coming from a religious and
philosophical position so remote from my own.

I suggested that his views may have been closer than you indicate if
we compare your views to what passes for the Christian religion in the
US today.

Post by Richard Jernigan
The inventory of Bach's estate contains more than 50 theological
works, including the 3-volume Calov Bible with commentary and two sets
of the complete works of Martin Luther: a seven-volume set and a later
8-volume set. Also included are numerous Bible commentaries by
contemporary scholars, commentaries on the Psalms and so on. Given the
high price of books in Bach's time, to me this indicates more than a
casual interest in religion.

He was a master who could make words glow no matter your religious
preference. I think Bach was much more complicated than most
biographies imply. Some are downright set on making Bach a saint and
own his music claiming it as proof of their version of God.

[Richard Jernigan]

  He was a master who could make words glow no matter your religious
preference. I think Bach was much more complicated than most
biographies imply. Some are downright set on making Bach a saint and
own his music claiming it as proof of their version of God.

But I don't think Wolff's book falls into this category.

RNJ

[Richard Jernigan]

Post by Richard Jernigan

  He was a master who could make words glow no matter your religious
preference. I think Bach was much more complicated than most
biographies imply. Some are downright set on making Bach a saint and
own his music claiming it as proof of their version of God.

But I don't think Wolff's book falls into this category.
RNJ

To me, Wolff's Bach comes off not as a saint, but as "a man with hands
and feet."*

*The eloquent Irish Private Mulvaney in Kipling's "Soldiers Three".

RNJ

[Slogoin]

Post by Richard Jernigan
To me, Wolff's Bach comes off not as a saint,
but as "a man with hands and feet."*

Yes but if you ask the average person they will still say Bach was
more like the Christian Right than like you, which I think is nonsense.

[Richard Jernigan]

Post by Steven Bornfeld
I assume English is not your first language.
Have you ever heard the
expression "barking up the wrong tree"?

  While 2cts may be barking it might not be the wrong tree. There has
been a lot of effort to make Bach out to be kin to the religious right
of today. The RR also seems to think the founding fathers were their
intellectual and religious kin. They even go to great effort to make
it sound like Einstein was a "man of God".

I have a second cousin, of oldest Texan stock, who is fond of
repeating that "America was founded as a Christian nation."

I have never been so rude as to quote to him Jefferson's statement
that he was more proud of his bill disestablishing the Church of
England as the state religion of the Commonwealth of Virginia than he
was of the Declaration of Independence. But I have said that Jefferson
and the other Deists, Washington, Madison (chief author of the
Constitution), Monroe and others were hardly conventional Christians
by today's standards. I have pointed out that throughout his life
Franklin gently twitted the adherents of established religion. All
this rolls off him like water off a duck's back. He never contradicts
or debates me. He simply shows no evidence of ever hearing anything I
say on the subject.

RNJ

[2cts]

Post by Richard Jernigan
I have a second cousin, of oldest Texan stock, who is fond of
repeating that "America was founded as a Christian nation."

Yes. The dollar is quoting and stating: IN GOD WE TRUST.

[Richard Jernigan]

Post by 2cts

Post by Richard Jernigan
I have a second cousin, of oldest Texan stock, who is fond of
repeating that "America was founded as a Christian nation."

Yes. The dollar is quoting and stating: IN GOD WE TRUST.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

"In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States, the U.S.
state of Florida and the Central American nation of Nicaragua.[1]"

"The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely
because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil
War. The motto first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin, followed in
1866 by the 5 cent nickel (1866-1883), quarter dollar, half dollar,
silver dollar and gold dollars. It did not become the official U.S.
national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.
[2][3] It is codified as federal law in the United States Code at 36
U.S.C. § 302, which provides: "'In God we trust' is the national
motto."

"The motto E Pluribus Unum (Latin for "One from many" or "One from
many parts," literally, "From more than one, one," or, traditionally,
"From many, one.") was approved for use on the Great Seal of the
United States in 1782. It still appears on coins and currency, and was
widely considered the national motto de facto.[4] However, by 1956 it
had not been established so by legislation as the "national motto".
The Congressional Record of 1956 reads: "At the present time the
United States has no national motto. The committee deems it most
appropriate that 'In God we trust' be so designated as U.S. national
motto."[3]"

--------End of quotation from Wikipedia-------------

So we see that "In God We Trust" first appeared on coins some 90 years
after the Declaration of Independence, and was not formalized as the
national motto until 180 years after the founding of the country. I
have no doubt that the motto was intended to affirm Christian faith,
but it appeared a bit late to be adduced as evidence of a Christian
basis for the founding of the country. Several of the most influential
of the founding fathers, named above, were specifically opposed to
established Christianity in any form.

RNJ

[Andrew Schulman]

The motto first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin...

Two-cent, 2cts...

Hmmm,

aha!!

Andrew

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Andrew Schulman

The motto first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin...

Two-cent, 2cts...
Hmmm,
aha!!
Andrew

Two cents plain!

Steve

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Steven Bornfeld
Two cents plain!
Steve

Ah, for the good old days...

BTW, both Bach and Mozart were known to hang out in Brooklyn; for the
egg creams.

Andrew

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Andrew Schulman

Post by Steven Bornfeld
Two cents plain!
Steve

Ah, for the good old days...
BTW, both Bach and Mozart were known to hang out in Brooklyn; for the
egg creams.
Andrew

Good article in wiki--note the use of Fox's u-bet--the only acceptable
chocolate syrup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_cream

Steve

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Steven Bornfeld
Good article in wiki--note the use of Fox's u-bet--the only acceptable
chocolate syrup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_cream

I only remember a few things about my Grandma Molly's house in
Brooklyn in the 1950's but preeminent was the jar of Fox's U-Bet in
what she called the "frigidaire" (the refrigerator).

Andrew

[Slogoin]

Post by Andrew Schulman
what she called the "frigidaire" (the refrigerator).

My grandmother called 'em frigifraters!

[Slogoin]

Post by Richard Jernigan
I have a second cousin, of oldest Texan stock, who is fond of
repeating that "America was founded as a Christian nation."
I have never been so rude as to quote to him Jefferson's statement
that he was more proud of his bill disestablishing the Church of
England as the state religion of the Commonwealth of Virginia than he
was of the Declaration of Independence. But I have said that Jefferson
and the other Deists, Washington, Madison (chief author of the
Constitution), Monroe and others were hardly conventional Christians
by today's standards. I have pointed out that throughout his life
Franklin gently twitted the adherents of established religion. All
this rolls off him like water off a duck's back. He never contradicts
or debates me. He simply shows no evidence of ever hearing anything I
say on the subject.

Good approach. To me it's not about being rude but more just a
waste of time since you know where it will end before you even get
started.

[Dicerous]

Post by Richard Jernigan
I have a second cousin, of oldest Texan stock, who is fond of
repeating that "America was founded as a Christian nation."
I have never been so rude as to quote to him Jefferson's statement
that he was more proud of his bill disestablishing the Church of
England as the state religion of the Commonwealth of Virginia than he
was of the Declaration of Independence. But I have said that Jefferson
and the other Deists, Washington, Madison (chief author of the
Constitution), Monroe and others were hardly conventional Christians
by today's standards. I have pointed out that throughout his life
Franklin gently twitted the adherents of established religion. All
this rolls off him like water off a duck's back. He never contradicts
or debates me. He simply shows no evidence of ever hearing anything I
say on the subject.

   Good approach. To me it's not about being rude but more just a
waste of time since you know where it will end before you even get
started.

the hubris of two lopsided apes!

[Richard Jernigan]

Post by Dicerous
the hubris of two lopsided apes!

In my grandfather's prime, gentlemen still did not discuss politics or
religion. I can see why.

RNJ

[Dicerous]

Post by Richard Jernigan

Post by Dicerous
the hubris of two lopsided apes!

In my grandfather's prime, gentlemen still did not discuss politics or
religion. I can see why.
RNJ

there are always n + 1 plateaus my dear richard. I believe it's only
through *the spirit* that we can move to new, unexplored plateaus.
That is, that all things are POSSIBLE through christ. If you can come
up with a better psychology (of religion?) I'm all ears.

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by Richard Jernigan

Post by 2cts
Btw. Bach was 'not much' religious (because he was not an idiot)...

Let's see: 278 sacred cantatas, four or five Passions (only two
survive), at least five masses (of which the B minor is one of his
greatest works), God only knows how many chorale preludes, the
supervision of the music in at least two churches in Leipzig, hundreds
of manuscripts ending in "Solo Dei Gloria"--no, 'not much' religious.

I guess he was an ironic composer...

Andrew

[thomas]

Post by Dicerous
Bach,most likely working for a church somewhere...Mozart would be an
actor.

If Mozart were an actor, would he have starred in Animal House?

[Dicerous]

Post by thomas

Post by Dicerous
Bach,most likely working for a church somewhere...Mozart would be an
actor.

If Mozart were an actor, would he have starred in Animal House?

ha, well I just feel that he might have had an unadultered craving for
attention. The easiest avenue for that is to become an actor. His
genius in composing would have been geared towards productions of some
kind. Maybe Broadway. Like a Sondheim who is better looking and can
act and sing. Broadway tends to be very regimented in terms of who
does what (e.g. lyricist, composer, dance guy, production people,
whatever). He would have been a hybrid.

I don't feel he would much like POP or POP CULTURE per se, if only
because his ideas tended to be harder to develop...not something that
can be finished in the length of a high skool boy's orgasm. Does that
make sense?

[2cts]

Post by Dicerous
I don't feel he would much like POP or POP CULTURE per se

Me does, because it ist not per se any kindaway of bad somehow...

What is dumb about Pink Floyd or someone else like Metal...

What you mean, the problem, is:
is one much more a mathematician (more like Bach)
or much liker than a musician, a player of life, like others else...

[Lutemann]

Post by Dicerous

Post by 2cts

Post by Lutemann

Post by 2cts
I think Bach would be doing 12tone music today and Mozart Rock.

I don't think rock would interest Mozart

He did that at his epoch as well (we used to call typical
parts of it 'ringing').

Post by Lutemann
and nobody does 12 tone music anymore, do they?  

Perhaps a few are still few doing it. Bach surely would.

Post by Lutemann
When I was in music school 40 years ago, 12 tone
music was passe - truly your grandfather's music.

Sure, to get much meaning out of 12 tone music requires
you 2 absolute pitch ears of course.
But sure, you ARE right, man, I didn't really mean 12 tone
music alone but I meant originally atonal music.
Did you ever hear this, btw.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurrelieder?
Now, thats not 12 tone technic but just a bit before, while and after...

I disagree, I feel that both would be recluses and both would be
completely fed up with academic charletonism.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I agree with Dicerous. I would add that they might have severe mental
health problems as well.

[Andrew Schulman]

One wonders what the Bachs and the Mozarts of today are doing.  Are
they in music and if so, where do they land...

Hollywood (and Bollywood, etc.) of course!

Andrew