4 ms·

Why does that change your connection to his music?

by JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

ianai 8y ago
Hard to explain fully. I love Bach’s music, of course. Anytime I see the word “Bach” in a context outside music there’s that little disappointment that I’m not hearing his music. His last wife was 15-16 years younger than him. Apparently she was a singer herself. But she must have, instead, devoted her life to him and their children. After he died (see below), she and their daughters were left, it sounds like, with relatively nothing. So it’s twofold. For having contributed to the world what he did, Bach’s music is highly valuable. But in his time it sounds like he didn’t receive much wealth. Further, before I read about his life I figured his life must have been the kind to establish his family in a more stable place. From Wikipedia’s entry about his last wife: “After Bach's death in 1750, his sons came into conflict and moved on in separate directions, going to live with other family members. While Bach did everything to educate his sons, his daughters never went to school.[4] Anna Magdalena was left alone, with no financial support from family members, to care for herself and her two youngest daughters, plus her stepdaughter from Bach's first marriage.[4][6] Anna Magdalena became increasingly dependent upon charity and handouts from the city council, ultimately relying on public begging to survive. Probably her only child or stepchild who provided any support to her was her stepson Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, whose letters show he provided regular financial assistance.[7] She died on the street on February 27, 1760, with no money at all,[4] and was buried in an unmarked pauper's grave at Leipzig's Johanniskirche [de] (St. John's Church). The church was destroyed by Allied bombing during World War II.” It’s all a stark contradiction to Bach’s music.

4 ms·

Why does that change your connection to his music?

by JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

Why does that change your connection to his music?

ianai 8y ago
Hard to explain fully. I love Bach’s music, of course. Anytime I see the word “Bach” in a context outside music there’s that little disappointment that I’m not hearing his music. His last wife was 15-16 years younger than him. Apparently she was a singer herself. But she must have, instead, devoted her life to him and their children. After he died (see below), she and their daughters were left, it sounds like, with relatively nothing. So it’s twofold. For having contributed to the world what he did, Bach’s music is highly valuable. But in his time it sounds like he didn’t receive much wealth. Further, before I read about his life I figured his life must have been the kind to establish his family in a more stable place. From Wikipedia’s entry about his last wife: “After Bach's death in 1750, his sons came into conflict and moved on in separate directions, going to live with other family members. While Bach did everything to educate his sons, his daughters never went to school.[4] Anna Magdalena was left alone, with no financial support from family members, to care for herself and her two youngest daughters, plus her stepdaughter from Bach's first marriage.[4][6] Anna Magdalena became increasingly dependent upon charity and handouts from the city council, ultimately relying on public begging to survive. Probably her only child or stepchild who provided any support to her was her stepson Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, whose letters show he provided regular financial assistance.[7] She died on the street on February 27, 1760, with no money at all,[4] and was buried in an unmarked pauper's grave at Leipzig's Johanniskirche [de] (St. John's Church). The church was destroyed by Allied bombing during World War II.” It’s all a stark contradiction to Bach’s music.