But we feel, Mdm KF, that there is little point in trying to tease out such semantic nuances from a statement that does not even attempt (within its own terms of reference) a definition of "Music". Without knowing what "Music" is there would seem to be little point in arguing about the nature of the adjectives that describe it, or indeed arguing whether or not they are describing it.

If what he pronounced were true, we should be compelled to feel for poor old Monteverdi who - purely because of the chronological accident of his birth - was destined to be deprived of a "true" understanding of "the true being" of "Music". The corollary is obvious: we should be compelled also to rewrite music history in order to register our utter despair that so many potentially-gifted "musicians" (such as Palestrina, Byrd, Tallis, Willaert, Taverner, Dufay, Binchois, Ockeghem, Gesualdo, Machaut, Landini, Perotin, Leonin et al) were similarly deprived and impoverished by the chronological placements of their dates of birth.

Alternatively...we might take a rather more mature approach...

Baziron

We don't think it's quite the same

Not necessarily, Mistress K, for the term 'mystery' had been applied to retellings of biblical tales from the Middle Ages at the very least: the cycles of religious plays given by the guilds in cathedral cities being known as 'miracle' or 'mystery' plays, for example.

I have heard it said the the term "Mystery Play" referred not to the subject matter, but to the performers.  That is, the mystery of the Armourers put on The Slaughter of the Innocents, the mystery of the Fishmongers put on Tobias and the Angel, the mystery of the Mercers put on the Wisdom of Solomon.

Pity really, because the other meaning is rather convenient.

And the Bach passions are certainly not oratorios in the Handelian sense - they are part of church services.  When they are performed in a concert hall, they are as near as blast it technically oratorios.

Its a bit like saying Tristan und Isolde is not an opera, it is a delayed orgasm.  (Sorry for the vulgarity.)

I'd like to believe that, Ron, but as far as I can make out there is a sentence in Wiki which seems to support what I was meaning:

These vernacular religious performances were, in some of the larger cities in England such as York, performed and produced by guilds, with each guild taking responsibility for a particular piece of scriptural history. From the guild control originated the term mystery play or mysteries, from the Latin misterium meaning "occupation" (i.e. that of the guilds). The homophonic similarity between misterium "occupation" and mysterium "secret" eventually became a source of pun humor.

So the word for occupation may have come first.

I can not make sense of the OED, which certainly gives a religious connotation for the etymology of the word mystery used on its own, but not when used with the word play.

This is a diversion.

Back to Bach....  Whatever the English derivation of the term, the Passions could be called a mystery by analogy with the medieval guild plays. 

If we read this discussion of Bach's music as far as half-way down the second page, we reach the inevitable "BUT": we are told that our appreciation of his music - the greatest of all - is merely temporary and partly pathological, and not entirely to our credit. His art does not yet belong to us, we read. Our enjoyment of Bach arises from our own incapacity and is a form of cowardice, since we no longer have the power to make enduring musical beauty of our own.

The author blames what he calls the "1914 syndrome" whereas "1908" would be closer to the mark. Nevertheless there is a good deal of truth in what he writes is there not?

Do not fret Mdm Kerfoops! We need not read beyond line 5 of p.1 to realise that a writer who knows not even how to spell the word "knowledgeable" has no knowledge at all that need detain us.

Baziron

For playing Bach, there is no-one to touch Glenn Gould IMHO.  Simply the best. You just need to set aside quite a lot of time....