CD review, or Taruskin's views on the aesthetics of listening?

Like several of you have already commented previously: Leave it to Taruskin to turn a CD review into a philosophical investigation on the aesthetics of ‘Enlightened’/modern listeners!

One of my favorite parts of this “review” can be found in Taruskin’s description of what different types of musicians (listeners, performers, and composers/scholars) value in a recording. As I am currently teaching Introduction to Music, opposing values in the aesthetics of music is something I encounter in most class periods. As Taruskin says of modern listeners and musicians, music in post-Enlightened society is often defined in the parameters of its agreeability. (How different from John Cage’s definition of music as “organized sound!”) I find this to be true of most of my students. When I play Cage’s “Aria” or a movement from Schoenberg’s “Pierrot Lunaire,” these pieces are generally met with distaste, and the inevitable discussion on the philosophy of music ensues. One of the most challenging topics to explain to my students is the idea that music can have a greater goal, a greater purpose, than beauty. However, being aware of this idea can also be problematic: as most music graduate students know, the heightened concern of composer and scholars (and I admit to being guilty of this myself) towards the objective analysis of a musical work often trumps our enjoyment of it.

Although I appreciate Taruskin inspiring these philosophical questions within me, some of his statements seem to be purposefully controversial (although, the post-script was quite funny!). For example, to categorize the “essential” Bach as being strictly functional—that is, inspiring awe or fear in God—seems an oversimplification. For example, on page 310 Taruskin writes: “For with Bach—the essential Bach—there is no ‘music itself.’” So, according to Taruskin, the quintessential representation of Bach’s music is undoubtedly sacred. But what about Bach’s time in Weimar? What about The Well Tempered Clavier? What about the Brandenburg Concertos? Bach’s works which conform to the guidelines of the Doctrine of Affections are contrary to the “essential Bach” Taruskin describes: though one may call them studies in a particular emotion, their function is far from instilling Lutheran values in listeners.

I do agree with Taruskin (and I commend him for enlightening his readers on this matter) that an accurate listening of Bach may require a shift in the listening aesthetic of many—that several of the cantatas on this CD are more accurately, both historically and functionally, performed in a harsh or dissonant manner. My criticism lies in his aggressive, extreme language. Clearly, when one writes “…the world is filth and horror, that humans are helpless, that life is pain, that reason is a snare,” (page 310), they aren’t being shy about pushing the readers’ buttons!