In the second part of a small book on the organ and organists first published in 1948 and reissued several times since, musicologist Norbert Dufourcq did not hesitate to organise his remarks thus: 1. The Prophets; 2. The Master; 3. The Disciples.
For the author, the “Master” was none other than Johann Sebastian Bach, of course.
According to a sort of determinism greatly infused with a Christian conception of history – as is evidenced by the vocabulary used – the whole history of a musical instrument was thus reduced to the rise, apotheosis and both lasting and definitive influence of a single composer.
Raised on a pedestal as he was, Bach was becoming the yardstick by which all organ music could, and even had to be assessed.
Consequently, the qualities of organs themselves were determined by how well it was possible to perform the works of the “Master” on them.
The new “neo-classical” creed flouted all that the careful study of historic instruments could have revealed.
In short, all the music of the past as well as of the present and future was supposed to converge towards that sole peak of the art as though actuated by some irresistible centripetal force. |
|
|
|