This is almost certainly related to the fact that the wholly undialectical model of Bach thus presented, as a relatively passive product of the norms of his time, is in reality very close to your own highly conservative view. I had thought that this view of Bach had mostly died out after the 1950s, amongst those German musicologists who had moved from exhorting how Bach expressed the spirit of the German race in the 1930s and 40s, to propagating Bach's music as a representation of divine order in the 1950s. But only a highly superficial analysis could manage to override all the many ambiguities, complex emotions, visionary explorations and much more in Bach (which can be analysed in detail through his harmonic and contrapuntal writing, if one is prepared to jettison an approach that imposes overriding hierarchies upon the music from without). Why does this still exist? Just thinking about this right now has clarified something I'm going to be exploring in a paper I'm giving in Manchester this weekend. The very fear of those ambiguities, the fear of emotion when it cannot be 'contained', the need to find some semblance of order in the face of an uncertain world, aspects of the authoritatian personality that are all quintessential characteristics of the British male (and some from former British colonies), are what lead to a particular appropriation of Bach especially by various British HIPsters (the particular use of historical evidence manages to force the music into such a mould in performance). But so much is lost in this quasi-militaristic process, and it really is true to say that 'They say Bach and mean Telemann'. I hadn't realised before now the ways in which gender in particular informed this conception.

It is a shame to see Bach's music marred by such a low-down variety of politics.

What one hears in certain works in these respects also has much to do with the particular performances. There is the world of difference between the relatively uncritical insertion of clear hierarchies, performed light, clean, quickly and affably in numerous works of Bach and others by Norrington or Hogwood, and the use of those same types of hierarchies in order to demonstrate the sometimes almost unbearable tension between the material and its formal context in performances of Harnoncourt, despite all three being HIPsters. And performance decisions in these respects are equally related to wider social/political concerns, rather than the latter just concerning composers, works and listeners.

Here he's calling you a Nazi.

In terms of certain views of Bach bearing a similarity to those propagated by arch-conservative musicologists in Germany, many of who found it very easy to adapt their ideas so as to be able to throw their lot in with the Third Reich, that indeed is what I'm saying.

Ian - I would suggest you should think very carefully indeed about what you're saying here.

Baz - I understand your reaction but if you could keep it as cool as humanly possible that might be good.

Certain ideas have been widely discredited by many who have considered their implications, whatever o-s or Baz think, who would prefer to continue as if that era never happened (and remains an alive concern).

I do not agree - I require nothing less than an apology.

Baz