Taruskin and Button Pushing

Response to “Facing Up, Finally, to Bach’s Dark Vision”
by John Michael McCluskey

Richard Taruskin has certainly earned his status as one the most prominent members of the musical writing community, and this review from the New York Times is representative of exactly what makes his writing engaging, challenging, and so fun to read. This response assumes a working knowledge of the content of the article, and deals instead with the makeup of the Taruskinian article.


Publicity is something Taruskin has never needed to generate. His writings include all the drama necessary to circulate his name, as he is sure to push buttons when they are available, whether they belong to individuals, journals, or even perceptions of beloved composers (the center of the chosen article). Taruskin generates conflict by intentionally using charged words and phrases, and then arguing that the correct definition/interpretation (by no coincidence, Taruskin’s) is different from the general consensus. My favorite example:

“There is no way this music can ever be fun. In fact, it is terrifying--perhaps more now than in Bach’s own time, since we have greater reason than Bach’s contemporaries ever had to wince at the sound of a high-pitched German voice stridently shouting reason down” (312-313).

Taruskin could have taken time to explain to readers that he is not attacking the importance, quality, or greatness of Bach’s works, but is indicating the value of a new interpretation. Instead, Taruskin jumps straight into “there is no way this music can ever be fun,” and in doing so attacks one of the musical values many readers hold as vital: enjoyability. This, of course, instigates reader commentary, backlash, and outrage, which Taruskin incorporates into his 1994 post-script, in order to prove his article’s value in generating discussion amongst the music community.


My favorite example of Taruskin’s button pushing (from this article) comes from his assertion that “Early Music has been ignoring the series since the 1986 releases...” (308). While this may have been true, Taruskin had no reason to include a jab at this prestigious journal. As a matter of fact, Taruskin should have thanked Early Music for not picking up on the detail that is his article’s main point: that Romanticized interpretations of Bach’s music may not be the best way to represent his cantatas. Because Early Music passed on a review, Taruskin was allowed the opportunity, five years after Leonhardt and Harnoncourt publication, to come forth with a new view on Bach’s oh-so-Lutheran works. Taruskin’s is a brilliant maneuver, to say the least; publishing a new, groundbreaking way of thinking about Bach, while simultaneously chastising Early Music for not having already had the same revelation. I believe, in this case, Taruskin manages to have his cake and eat it too.


Make no mistake here, Taruskin never pushes a button when he cannot back it up. However, his willingness to embrace controversy and reader discomfort contributes to making his writing so enjoyable. It helps turn pages, stimulate thought, encourages discussion, and, perhaps most importantly, sell copies.