If you are a music lover and particularly, like me, a lover of the music of the 18th century, then you will be fascinated by Barrymore Laurence Scherer's (July 2, 2009) essay in the Wall Street Journal on Thomas Jefferson's musical tastes.
I was not aware that Jefferson was an avid violinist, for example - so much so that he had 'a "kit" — a slender dance-master's pocket fiddle — and had a case for it fashioned for his saddle so he could play and practice while traveling'. Although by political inclination I am more of a 'Franklin man' as among the Founders, I am also a (horrendously bad) amateur cellist with a strong preference for the music of Jefferson's century, and this endears me to Jefferson more than almost any other fact about him. Jefferson's 'kit', for example, reminds me of my Yamaha electric practice cello, which packs down into a compact carrying case that, until 9/11, I often used to carry onto airplanes, until a security person pointed out that the packed cello looked for all the world like a shotgun case.
I was intrigued with what Scherer says were Jefferson's tastes - Corelli, to start with. Well! Well, well! I am a huge fan of the Corelli violin sonatas, and have spent years practicing cello transcriptions of several of them. I own four versions of them on CD; of those, my favorite violinist is Andrew Manze, but the John Holloway version features, on half of them, the rapturous basso continuo of Baroque cellist David Watkin, improvising whole chordal structures. I also have a great fondness for the gamba version of them by Balestracci, using a transcription for gamba that dates back to just a few years after they were composed. Although in the end, Bach is Supreme, alpha and omega, etc., the Corelli sonatas are a form of sweetness that makes one understand why they have never been out of print in hundreds of years.
If you don't follow Baroque music, this post will have to seem pretty opaque - baroque, even - but I came away from reading Scherer's article ready to give Mr. Jefferson a call to suggest we run through a few sonatas together.
I can only conclude that you never saw the wonderful musical (later adapted into a nearly-as-wonderful movie) 1776! :-)
I read somewhere that Andrew Jackson also fiddled, but I have never verified it. I think it was in one of those trivia books about Presidents that I read as a kid. I think they just meant to say Jefferson but somebody accidentally filed it under Jackson.
Beat me to it. At least I can still link to the song:
He Plays the Violin
I'll conjecture that Jefferson became acquainted with Hopkinson's work when young, and by the time Carr was gaining some notice in Philadelphia, Jefferson's attention (musical and otherwise) was elsewhere. But Carr did compose and publish a work that indirectly honored Jefferson during his presidency, The Siege of Tripoli (1804). Siege was a parlor work in the tradition of "Battle" works which had become popular even by the late 19th century. Its finale (and by far best selection) is a nice little rondo on Yankee Doodle.
Now you raise a different issue, which may be partly valid, though stuff like "strings could be used for a weapon" is pretty lame--it might well be easier and shorter to list the things that couldn't be used as improvised weapons. However, your initial comment mentioned only that it "looked like a shotgun case" and that's what I was responding to.
Yes, I would imagine if one were elected, we would have four years of endless 'fiddles while X burns' commentary from the opposition party.
However, did you know the current 3rd in line for presidential succession (Sen. Byrd) recorded an album of fiddle music for County Sales in the 70s?
And, the father of presidential candidate Al Gore, namely Al Gore senior, was a life-time fiddler. The library of Congress has a recording of him playing Soldier's Joy in 1938:
http://memory.loc.gov/afc/afccc/soldiersjoy/gore.mp3
Thomas Jefferson: violin, or 'cello or clavichord
Woodrow Wilson: violin
Richard Nixon: piano
Harry Truman: piano
Bill Clinton: tenor sax
John Quincy Adams: flute
Chester Arthur: banjo
Also worthwhile is this CD of flue music played on a glass flute that belonged to James Madison, and recorded at Montpelier.
I think you're probably referring to the harpsichord, which was a good deal louder than the clavichord (clavichords are so hard to hear they really don't work in ensemble).
In any event, Mr. Jefferson, after being thrown from a horse and severely damaging his wrist in the fall, complained that he had learned the violin and NOT the harpsichord, as the injury made it very difficult to hold the violin properly. He did urge his daughters to learn the harpsichord, however, and in his daily schedule for them blocked out 2-3 hr sessions for their daily practice.
Jefferson was also known to have musical confabs with the musical Royal Governor of Virginia, Gov. Francis Faquier, (and, if memory serves, Jeffertson's law tutor, George Wythe) while studying in Williamsburg in the 1760s.
More info from Colonial Williamsburg: http://bit.ly/NF9Kj
BTW, looks like Franklin wrote a hideous parody string quartet—apparently to be played on open strings alone! (http://bit.ly/Hv7py)(click on link for recording and commentary from NPR's performance today as well as more about Franklin's musical exploits)
It depends. Among serious musicians, Bach never went out of style. Mozart, Beethovan, Chopin and Mendelsohn certainly revered Bach, studied his music, insisted students learn his Well Tempered Clavier and attempted revivals of his music from time to time.
The highly educated public would no doubt been aware of Bach. The unwashed masses less so, but then that's always been the case, even today.
Jefferson traveled in pretty high circles in Paris, and if he were in the right crowd that was serious about music, he certainly would have been at least aware of Bach's importance. The question is whether he was that serious about it. I just don't know.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.