Printable View
Handel's family life is somehow obscure (and Bach only existed as an alias of Johann Sebastian Koch, remember?).
His friend Weiss looked after Bach's Kappelmeister affairs propably. He too died in 1750-a month after "Bach did"-for real however I am afraid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
1747 - 7th and 8th May - J.S. Bach visits the court of Frederick the Great at Potsdam and gives organ recital in the Heiliggeistkirche there the next day before a huge audience. Composes and publishes (September.) The Musical Offering. Joins Mizler's Society of Musical Sciences, June 1747, for which he composed the Canonic Variations (BWV869).
1747 - April, London - G.F. Handel personally rehearses and premieres 'Judas Maccabeus'. Performed 6 times in London during April and May of that same year.
Question -
Did G.F. Handel own a helicopter ?
???
Handel might have been present only in the April performances to then let conducting to a substitute (Algarotti? Frédéric le nomma au mois d'avril 1747, chambellan et chevalier de l'ordre pour le mérite or perhaps Antonio Cocchi himself-check him out!) .
As young Frederick's spy(?)* relative "evidence" is shaky at best. Bach's meeting with Frederick has been propably put first on record by CPEBach etc.
But do tell me about Cocchi-Telemann-Rousseau!
*Samuel Cocceji by 1747 he was Großkanzler (grand chancellor) of Prussia.
What 'might' happen is that J.S. Bach could be Handel. That 'might' also be true. But there is not a shred of evidence of that either.
1747 is just one example. There are dozens. Who died in 1750 at Leipzig ? Because one thing is sure. The entire population of Leipzig were sure J.S. Bach had died. It was announced in the newspapers. It is recorded that he died and was buried. He is even succeeded by a new Kapellmeister. Is this most likely because the Kapellmeister Bach really died, or because he was G.F. Handel in disguise ?
And you have not told us who was doing the job of Kapellmeister in Leipzig while GF Handel was for years in London.
Did he take a helicopter trip to Leipzig every week for years ?
The answer, Yanni, is simple. JS Bach was JS Bach. And GF Handel was GF Handel. But the careers of both were closely related. One was a famous/international and iconic figure. Feted in Rome, Venice and across Europe. The other was a Kapellmeister whose music was basically suppressed for almost a century. Two very different men whose music is very, very different.
Handel's background I've already given. He is clearly being patronised by powerful elites in Rome and England, in Hamburg, and Hanover. The overwhelming evidence says so.
But if you can provide evidence to support your view, please do it. The two careers are contemporary. They are both (in theory) composers who should have been ignored by the Holy Roman Empire. Only one of them was. The other was, as said, a tool. And that tool was G.F. Handel. The sheer weight of the evidence clearly shows this. It shows nothing else. Unless you have some to provide. It's your theory, not mine. And it's for you to provide evidence, nobody else.
I think you are just plain wrong.
The elites of the time were determined that Handel (and not Bach) should be a celebrity, effectively blocking out Bach from any recognition, even in England and in lands where the Holy Roman Empire did not have open control. And that is exactly what happened. It fits exactly in to what actually happened. Bach was virtually unknown, even in England. For many decades after his own death. How did THAT happen ? It happened because the men then controlling music across Europe (even in England) wanted it that way. The prospect of Bach's music being widely known and appreciated filled them with dread. It was the one thing they could not afford to allow. What mattered was for them to cement the new idea of the Hanoverian rule of England. Of a superficial German/English alliance. What better than to patronise a 'great' German composer in G.F. Handel ? (The details of whose career would not be too closely scrutinised). And that's what happened. Time speaks volumes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=omYQ...eature=related
If all your evidence in support of Handel being not the same man as Bach are the 1747 Judas Maccabeus performances (not allowing for an eventual trip to Potsdam May 7-8), then kindly provide dates of last two performances and evidence of Handel's relative presence.
http://ml.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/77/4/499 :
Handel’s Judas Maccabeus was performed three times till 8th April 1747 and there are advertisements for more, total six, the fourth and subsequent performances being announced as “with additions and a concerto” on April the 7th (footnote 3).
My sympathy in advance.
PS: Can't you read? I have already supplied you with two "Bach" substitutes for his alleged presence, invisible and insignificant as it was, as Thomaskantor in Leipsig: Leopold Weiss who died Oct 1750, and Algarotti. A third and a fourth alternative-as if any are now needed-were his "son" CPEBach, Frederick's "harpsicordist", and GPTelemann (whom you refuse to touch apparently) towering above Handel and Bach "both" at the time. WFMarpurg could have been a fifth candidate: He was Bach's first "creator" afterall.
Yanni,
I cannot entertain your fantasies much longer. Am too busy with other things. You can believe what you like. That's good. But if you wish to convince others you need to provide evidence, not possibilities. It's a failure you should recognise in your approach.
Thanks
Robert
I understand and sympathise still more:
Your last, much advertised, coup de grâce has proven itself to be yet another one of those miserable failures that we have all grown accustomed to by now.
You should have Handel'd the whole thing, starting with Mozart, with more care!
Bye!
As a neutral watching from the sidelines, I have to say that I think that at this stage Musicology is slightly ahead on points, though yanni appears to have landed a couple of punches in places where M is vulnerable. If I were asked right now to take on board one or other of the offered theories, it would be too close to call. They're both well-presented and each has interesting aspects - but neither has yet shown itself to be unarguably the more convincing.
What I'd really like to see is a third party enter the fray - one who can argue for the more conventional view of history that both yanni and Musicology reject.
It is a basic rule of any study that verifiable evidence is first presented in its support. So that it may be taken seriously. Without which we are wasting our time.
This basic requirement is the core, the foundation, of any academic study. Without it we can invent or imagine anything. Which is a nice game but has nothing to do with reality.
Leaving aside possibilities (which can exist without number) we are left with realities.
On what verifiable realities is Handel said to be J.S. Bach ? Care to name some ? None. None at all. It explains why Yanni refuses to tell us who was Kapellmeister at Leipzig when J.S. Bach was there and when G.F. Handel was living in England. That's not a great start, is it ? It's a sort of basic thing to consider, isn't it ? Does this failure of Yanni make his idea credible ? He ignores the fact that J.S. Bach died in 1750 and refuses to accept that his death in Leipzig that year is a documented, plain fact of recorded history. Are you beginning to see a pattern here ? In such a universe one can drift forever without providing actual, verifiable evidence. Such is the price of a fertile imagination based, as anyone can see, on no actual, verifiable evidence. He has got things completely upside down. And it shows. But I have been willing to consider it all the same.
Again, the fact that the music of Handel and the music of J.S. Bach are very, very different is a further case in point. Here too Yanni is completely silent.
Well, I have tried to entertain his idea. As usual. But you see I can't spend too much time on it.
Regards
Quoted from post 127 http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=51451&page=9 :
The Puzzle of JS Bach's Kochs!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a puzzle in a puzzle, sort of)
Johann Sebastian's early years and musical heritage are still a mystery but the fact is, some bits and pieces of evidence managed to escape the eye and peek of musicology's hawks and, as it now turns out, Johann Sebastian "Bach" was at least as "influenced" by Kochs as Mozart, Beethoven and Goethe were:
His first name was that of his other godfather, Johann Georg Koch, a forester in Eisenach....
Nothing is known for certain about Sebastian early years until 1693...
Bach was indefatigable in copying manuscripts to replace Ahles less adventurous repertory, aided by Johann Martin Schubart, the earliest of his many distinguished pupils, and Johann Sebastian Koch, his choir prefect
1734 wurde Johann Philipp Ostertag, vorher Konrektor am Gymnasium, zum Stadtpfarrer ernannt. Er wurde unterstützt von dem zum Stadtdiakon berufenen in Idstein geborenen Theologen Johann Sebastian Koch, der außerdem am Gymnasium noch einige Stunden Unterricht in der französischen Sprache erteilte.
Ostertag's mentor in "mystagogie" and only reputable biographer however, Wieland, 1802, claims Ostertag was born 1734: de.wikisource.org/.../ADB:Ostertag,_Johann_Philipp
...and as we remember writing not long ago....
...Franziska Koch, a famous singer of her time who drowned her sorrow to sing then (in tune but on and off only) with Wieland and Benda "Romeo and Juliette" and "Alceste", the first german opera seria. Gluck is also frequently mentioned in this book but there is no apparent relation to Mme Koch or Wielands "Alceste" whatsoever....
...and Wieland was in...Zürich in the summer of 1752. After a few months, however, Bodmer felt himself as little in sympathy with Wieland as, two years earlier, he had felt himself with Klopstock, and the friends parted; but Wieland remained in Switzerland until 1760, spending the last year, at Bern where he obtained a position as private tutor. Here he became intimate with Jean-Jacques Rousseau's friend Julie de Bondeli.
IE
There never was a Johann Sebastian "Bach"...
and
...three cheers for the noble science of forestry-musicology!
-The Master Musiciens. Bach. Oxford University Press. Edited by Stanley Sadie.
-Bach, a biography by ES Terry
- http://www.pfarrverein-ekhn.de/web/p...eschichte.html
END of quote
Wieland (aka Rousseau, Gluck, W.C.Koch etc etc) confirms in 1802 that Johann Sebastian Koch, Bach's "choir prefect" and music "source", was alive, french speaking and quite influential in 1734,Leipzig.
www.pfarrverein does not allow anymore access to relative page from which above quote on Ostertag was copied at the time. As however http://www.ostertag-verband.de/g-buch.php reconfirms (further to Wikisource), Wieland is considered a trustworthy source, ie his data on JSKoch are "correct".
Really, this is turgid stuff Yanni. It leads nowhere. It's a mess. I strongly recommend you consider the stuff you are posting. It lacks a foundation. It's full of innuendo leading nowhere in particular and with no substance. You need to get a foundation and take it from there. This is, to me, a feature of your posts. Disconnected wires which are never joined up. Dig deeper. You will find
1) Reality
2) Counterfeit elite interests (employing a cast of willing slaves, managers and propagandists).
Cantata 42
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=Hu3X...eature=related
Regards
I've just looked at some examples of Bach's handwriting, and the way he wrote his music, and compared it with that of Handel. Bach's writing seems to much more rounded, and applying less pressure. There are few if any similarities that I could see, although I freely admit that I know little of music, only a bit of graphology. Is this relevant?
Actually, it is a collection of quotes on JSBach by well respected authors, all mentioned.
You have still to produce an answer in support of "Vienna-first globalist power" and to provide the dates of the last performances of your Judas Maccabeus, 1747, your "killer" helicopter find that collapsed so easily on your grove-ling pile of rubbish!
Here is something on Telemann to keep you company:
Wikiquote:
Legacy
Telemann was the most prolific composer of his time: his oeuvre comprises more than 3000 pieces. The first accurate estimate of the number of his works were provided by musicologists only during the 1980s and the 1990s, when extensive thematic catalogues were published. During his lifetime and the latter half of the 18th century Telemann was very highly regarded by colleagues and critics alike. Numerous theorists (Marpurg, Mattheson, Quantz, and Scheibe, among others) cited his works as models, and major composers such as J.S. Bach and Handel bought and studied his published works. He was immensely popular not only in Germany but in the rest of Europe as well: orders for editions of Telemann's music came from France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, and Spain. It was only in early 19th century that his popularity came to a sudden halt. Most lexicographers started dismissing him as a "polygraph" who composed too many works, a Vielschreiber for whom quantity came before quality. Such views were influenced by an account of Telemann's music by Christoph Daniel Ebeling, a late 18th century critic who in fact praised Telemann's music and only made passing critical remarks of his productivity. After the Bach revival, Telemann's works were judged as inferior to Bach's and lacking in religious fervour. Particularly striking examples of such unfair judgements were produced by noted Bach biographers Philipp Spitta and Albert Schweitzer, who criticized Telemann's cantatas and then praised works they thought were composed by Bach—but which were, in fact, composed by Telemann, as was shown by later research. The last performance of a substantial work by Telemann (Der Tod Jesu) occurred in 1832, and it was not until the 20th century that his music started being performed again. The revival of interest in Telemann began in the first decades of the 20th century and culminated in the Bärenreiter critical edition of the 1950s. Today each of Telemann's works is usually given a TWV number. TWV stands for Telemann-Werke-Verzeichnis (Telemann Work Catalogue).
Telemann's music was one of the driving forces behind the late Baroque and the early Classical styles. Starting in the 1710s he became one of the creators and the foremost exponents of the so-called German mixed style, an amalgam of German, French, Italian and Polish styles. Over the years, his music gradually changed and started incorporating more and more elements of the galant style, but he never completely adopted the ideals of the nascent Classical era: Telemann's style remained contrapuntally and harmonically complex, and already in 1751 he dismissed much contemporary music as too simplistic. Composers he influenced musically included pupils of J.S. Bach in Leipzig, such as Wilhelm Friedmann Bach, Carl Philipp Emmanuel Bach and Johann Friedrich Agricola, as well as those composers who performed under his direction in Leipzig (Christoph Graupner, Johann David Heinichen and Johann Georg Pisendel), composers of the Berlin lieder school, and finally, his numerous pupils, none of whom, however, became major composers.
Equally important for the history of music were Telemann's publishing activities. By pursuing exclusive publication rights for his own works, he set one of the most important early precedents for regarding music as the intellectual property of the composer. The same attitude informed his public concerts, where Telemann would frequently perform music originally composed for ceremonies attended only by a select few members of the upper class.
Hi, Dafydd and wellcome to this forum.
Graphology is not really anymore a science than forgery is and they were expert forgers in the 18th century, some, like Cagliostro, closely linked to my main hero, ie Comte de Saint Germain.
Here is a little something you might care to examine and interpret if Handel/Bach falls in your basket of interests:
TO SIR HORACE MANN. STRAWBERRY HILL, Oct. 24, 1758.: Apropos to them, I will send you an epigram that I made the other day on Mr. Chute's asking why Taylor the oculist called himself Chevalier?[1]
[Footnote 1: Walpole was proud of the epigram, for the week before he had sent it to Lady Hervey. It was—
Why Taylor the quack calls himself Chevalier
'Tis not easy a reason to render,
Unless blinding eyes that he thinks to make clear
Demonstrates he's but a Pretender.
Handel died allegedly less than a year later but because of his rather strange behaviour eversince 1750-went often missing-there were many who did not believe he really died then.
And "Pretender", with a capital P, is highly revealing of Walpole's views on -undercover nomore- agent "Handel"!
Regards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dafydd manton
Graphology is, indeed, not an art, but I still can't quite see why so many of the documents, known to be in reputable collections, and which are so radically different even to the untrained eye, should be confused. Perhaps somebody could explain, but obviously bearing in mind the chief axiom for anybody in the field of Intelligence Collection - Never, ever expand upon a hypothesis. Thank you.
Your axiom is contradicted by intelligence people mostly working on multiple hypotheses and what if scenaria.
But Walpole's verse is nothing like such, it reads instead like "time to do something about it".