A Year of Bach

A conversation with political philosopher Rebecca Lowe (The Ends Don’t Justify the Means) about objectivity and musical beauty, the differences between American and British choral singing, and her skepticism about historically-informed performance. Lowe shares favorite Bach works (the E minor flute sonata, the “Great” G minor organ fugue) and her broader musical tastes including Britten, Strauss, Mozart, opera, Stevie Wonder, Chet Baker, and Angela Hewitt.Albums discussed:Angela Hewitt, Bach: The Art of Fugue (Hyperion, 2014)Spotify · Apple Music · YouTubeEmmanuel Pahud and Trevor Pinnock, Bach: Complete Flute Sonatas (2008), which opens with the E minor sonata, BWV 1034Spotify · Apple Music · YouTubeEmmanuel Pahud and Stephen Kovacevich, Pahud plays Debussy, Ravel & ProkofievSpotify · Apple Music · YouTubeGlenn Gould, A Consort of Musicke Bye William Byrde and Orlando GibbonsSpotify · Apple Music · YouTubeGerald Finley and Julius Drake, Barber songsSpotify · Apple Music · YouTubeKarl Richter, Bach cantatasSpotify · Apple Music · YouTubeTranscript:[00:00:00]Evan Goldfine: Hello, and welcome to A Year of Bach. My name is Evan Goldfine, and today my guest is Rebecca Lowe, a political philosopher whose work centers on freedom, rights, and equality. She’s currently a philosophy senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and her excellent Substack is called The Ends Don’t Justify the Means, where she warns about the troubles of consequentialism in a genial way.Rebecca came to philosophy after earning a degree of music at Cambridge, so today we’ll talk about the different pleasures of philosophy and music, and also plenty about Bach. I’ve asked Rebecca to bring her strongest-held opinions, and perhaps if we’re lucky, we’ll see how we’re frustrated by each other’s tastes.Rebecca, welcome.Rebecca Lowe: Hey, thanks so much for having me, Evan. I’m excited about this.Evan Goldfine: So I wanted to start with a little praise for your writing and podcasting. I find your prose to be very lively and bouncy while engaging with deep and sometimes troubling subjects. It’s sort of an interesting strategy about keeping [00:01:00] discussions engaging.I sense you also take a lot of joy in the philosophical argument. Am I onto something here? Does it echo with your enjoyment of music? How did you get your voice?Rebecca Lowe: Oh gosh. I mean, that’s a big question, isn’t it? So I grew up in a family of philosophers. Both my parents are philosophers, so I think philosophical argument is something that I just imbibed.I was talking to a friend, in fact, our mutual friend, Henry Oliver, about this yesterday, and about the idea of how you learn how to do philosophical talking, philosophical arguing, and I think even though the content of a lot of the conversations I had at home growing up was philosophy, I think even if that hadn’t been the case, I think I would’ve had a childhood full of philosophy because the ways in which my parents talk and the ways in which I talk are very philosophy imbued.One of my close friends one time made this joke. She was introducing me to someone, and she said, “Hey, this is my friend Rebecca, [00:02:00] who likes to start her sentences, ‘It is the case that...’” And this just summarizes me very well. So I think I have a way of talking which is broadly the way in which philosophers write, and I think beyond that, though, I am very keen to make philosophy intelligible to people who don’t know about philosophy.I like very plain, straight, dry prose. I’m one of these people who loves, for instance, American novelists and American philosophers who other people find to be overly nitpicky and very, very plain in their writing. I’m probably the only person in the world who thinks John Rawls is a beautiful writer.But I do attempt, at least when I’m writing philosophy, to write it how I talk. So I’ve already ruined that by saying I talk in a philosophical way, but the best bit of advice I was given about writing was from my supervisor at Cambridge, who’s one of my favorite people, and we can talk about him a little maybe, ‘cause he was a great musician.But he one time told me, “Just read out everything that you write.”[00:03:00] And I think this is the best advice you can give to someone who wants their writing to be more understandable.Evan Goldfine: Yeah. So how did that philosophical house be filled with music? Were your parents also musicians? You ended up pursuing music before a proper philosophy degree.What’s your origin?Rebecca Lowe: This is a good question. My dad was very musical. He taught me how to read music and play the recorder. He also had a flute that a friend of his had given to him and he’d never really played, which I think was the main reason for me starting to play the flute. My grandparents had a piano.We used to go visit them every other weekend. I was obsessed by playing the piano. My mom’s probably will listen to this, my dad sadly isn’t alive anymore. But my mom will probably listen to this. She may disagree with this, but I actually think I was really the only person in the household who regularly listened to music.Both my parents loved classical music, but I was obsessed by listening to this stuff from a very young [00:04:00] age. We had some very good audio cassettes. My grandmother, like I say, she was a very good pianist. So music was around, but I do think, and I’ll probably say this as some kind of individualist, I think it was also my own driving of my interest.Evan Goldfine: What hit you early on, as apart from your siblings or your parents?Rebecca Lowe: I think yeah, my brother. He hit me early on.Evan Goldfine: In a different way.Rebecca Lowe: Yeah. I think some of the earliest things I can remember listening to, we had a very good, I totally forgot this until you mentioned it, actually. We had a very nice recording of the Carnival of the Animals.And I really liked the colorful ways in which animals were depicted. I’ve gone on to have a bit of a philosophical interest in this idea of what music can depict. And actually, yes, so I did, my undergrad is in music at Cambridge, which is the worst place to go if you wanna do performance.Although being a performing musician in Cambridge is amazing. You have endless resources and opportunities to make music with wonderful musicians. [00:05:00] But the music degree is not any performance at all. It’s entirely applied math, basically, as the Americans say. It’s very much analysis. You don’t listen to any music in any of your lectures.If you’re doing any composition, it’s in order to show analytical skill, not to actually express yourself through composition. The thing I was interested in was really aesthetics, so the philosophy of art, with a particular focus on music. I did get to do some of that in my second and third years, but I found it very... I mean, I like math, but I was not intending to do a math degree, and doing music at Cambridge was effectively doing that.I think it made me into a better musician. I think it made me a more rigorous thinker. I was already good at writing arguments, but I think this helped me in various ways. But it’s a bit of a funny thing to have done, I think. It has abstract value, and I think being excellent at anything has application value, but-Evan Goldfine: So you learned your voice leading, you learned your counterpoint, you could write [00:06:00] according to the rules that Bach created. But did you create anything that was meaningful?Rebecca Lowe: No. So I was thinking about this. I don’t know what your view is on this. Over the past few weeks I see people tweeting about these AI created Bach chorales and Bach fugues. I haven’t looked at the fugues, but I had a very, very quick look at one of the chorales that everyone was lauding as this perfect, beautiful bit of voice leading, and it’s absolutely dreadful.I mean, there were parallels in the first bar.And I’m like, the problem, because I had this, you kno… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit yearofbach.substack.com

Guitarist and composer Miles Okazaki has been an important guitarist in the New York jazz scene for over twenty years. His latest album is Boomtown, featuring a large chamber jazz ensemble playing his jagged Americana. Miles is best known for his solo-guitar recording of the complete works of Thelonious Monk, and we discuss the art of rhythmic placement in Bach and Monk.Featured are excerpts of Miles’ performances of Bach’s BWV 1005 and one of the Fugues in A Minor.LinksMiles Okazaki* Website: milesokazaki.com* Instagram: @okazakistudio* YouTube: milesokazaki playlistsBoomtown (Pi Recordings, June 26, 2026)* Apple Music* BandcampWORK (2018), the complete Monk compositions on solo guitar* Bandcamp* Full liner notes, track-by-track commentary, and pressArtists mentioned:Andrés Segovia · Julian Bream · John Williams · The Beatles · Jascha Heifetz · Glenn Gould · Thelonious Monk · Charlie Parker · Charlie Christian · Art Tatum · Brad Mehldau · Matt Mitchell · Igor Stravinsky · Nat King Cole · Ella Fitzgerald · Jimmy Scott · Julie London · Frank Sinatra · Coleman Hawkins · Iannis Xenakis · Dan Weiss · Kim Cass · Patricia Brennan · Steve Cardenas · Don Sickler This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit yearofbach.substack.com

Faye Arthurs spent two decades at New York City Ballet dancing Balanchine, Robbins, and Wheeldon. She originated a role in Wheeldon’s Scenes de Ballet while still a student at SAB, and she danced Robbins’ Goldberg Variations. She now writes dance criticism for Fjord Review and Air Mail, and does archival work for the George Balanchine Foundation.We talk about how ballet dancers count from the stage, the special pleasures and challenges of dancing counterpoint, and how and why Bach succeeds (and sometimes doesn’t) for choreographers. Faye’s writing: https://fjordreview.com/blogs/all/new-yorks-finestFaye’s website: http://www.thoughtsfromthepaint.comWorks Mentioned: Robbins, The Goldberg Variations (1971), Fanfare (1953). Balanchine, Concerto Barocco, Agon, The Four Temperaments, Episodes, Symphony in Three Movements. Wheeldon, Scenes de Ballet. Eliot Feld, Organon (2001). Boris Eifman, Musagète (2004). Paul Taylor, Esplanade, Promethean Fire. Mark Morris, Falling Down Stairs.People Mentioned: George Balanchine, Jerome Robbins, Christopher Wheeldon, Wendy Whelan, Jock Soto, Suzanne Farrell, Kyra Nichols, Tiler Peck, Glenn Gould, Mavis Staples, Yo-Yo Ma.Transcript:​[00:00:00]Evan Goldfine: Welcome to the podcast, A Year of Bach. My name is Evan Goldfine, and today I welcome the ballet dancer and dance critic, Faye Arthurs. Faye spent two decades with the New York City Ballet, dancing the works of George Balanchine, Jerome Robbins, and Christopher Wheeldon at Lincoln Center and around the world. She originated a role in Christopher Wheeldon’s Scenes de Ballet when she was still a student at the School of American Ballet, and danced Robbins’ famous adaptations of the Goldberg Variations, and we’ll be talking a lot about that today.Faye has since retired from professional dancing and now writes dance criticism for The Fjord Review, and she is based in New York City, and today from New Hampshire. So Faye, welcome.I’d like to start by talking about counting as a ballet performer. So the works that you danced were choreographed to through composed pieces.In the moment of dancing, what’s your relation to the music as it’s being performed in the pit?Faye Arthurs: That’s a great question, and it [00:01:00] is really dependent upon which piece you’re talking about because some pieces of music are much more difficult to count than others, to play than others. There’s a, a lot of ballet, s- ballet originally started with using so much very even simple 4/4 time structures.The Petipa ballets, the great ballets, Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty, you really don’t have to count those so much. It’s very even. It’s, three reprea- repeats of one phrase, and then there’s like a, a tag into the next thing, it’s very, like you do this one step left and then you do a transition into the next sequence.Th- there’s not much counting that you have to do in-Evan Goldfine: So you’re thinking more in phrases for certain pieces and in counting for others. So it’s depending on the choreography and the music itself.Faye Arthurs: It really is. Okay. A ballet like The Goldberg Variations, we’re counting a lo- it’s a lot of sixes.We’re sticking with the musical meter from Bach, but then within that, there’s a lot of slow [00:02:00] walking sections where you really don’t have to be counting. Like even though you’re stepping on every note, you’re not in your head always counting, becauseEvan Goldfine: it’s just- So you have the tempo in your head.Y- ... the tempo’s in your body, and you’re going step. And is there a musical cue that you’re waiting for to do your next move?Faye Arthurs: It’s just at a certain point you just know these things. Like you, you yes, there is. There is a cue and a count for everything. But you don’t have to actively be counting in your head all the time.You know what I mean? You can be thinking about all sorts of things. You can be thinking about what you’re having for dinner after the show, at a certain point in certain dances, like it’s just so through your bo- almost like a, a breath or a pulse-...Faye Arthurs: If you know the sequences and they’re not that complicated.That being said, you’re dancing Balanchine to, choreography to Hindemith or- ... von Webern and you are counting 21s, 17s, what, you are in your head the whole time you are counting. Actually I was gonna talk maybe with you later about Concerto Barocco, which is Balanchine’s- Surefamous ballet to Bach, [00:03:00] and that is one where you can tune out for some sequences, and then you really have to be counting hard when you’re going in counterpoint, against people counting differently from you doing a similar step. So there, there... I feel when you’re new in New York City Ballet, ‘cause we have so much rep you’re counting all the time, and then it, when you’re like y- 20 years in, you don’t need to count most of Barocco.You’re not actively counting. You’re thinking about things, or you could be counting. You’re humming the melody, something like that. But I’m not in my head going, “One, two, three.” DoesEvan Goldfine: that make- Is that hard? Yeah, of course. Is it harder for a, a counterpoint piece because maybe the melody is a little bit more obscure?Are you focusing more on... In Tchaikovsky you can kind of, “Da, da, da, da, da, da, da, da.” Exactly. Okay, you know exactly where you’re gonna go from one-Faye Arthurs: Exactly ...Evan Goldfine: to the other. But when you’re moving in counterpoint, the melody can sometimes be obscured. So does that make it trickier for you on stage?Faye Arthurs: Well, you’re going against it purposefully. And that was really Balanchine’s great game. It’s like you’re carving [00:04:00] your own channel into the score, and I think that’s part of what makes Balanchine endlessly dazzling. It’s- ... the audience doesn’t necessarily know that we’re counting fives against eights, or fives against sixes, or that half of the stage is in a three-count phrase and half of the stage is in a four-count phrase, but the music is in six. So we’re both- Right ... not in, we’re both not in the composer’s intended speed limit or, time signature. Mm-hmm. So it’s really people are like, “What is it about that keeps me coming back to Barroco or something?”And I think it’s that. I think when you finally can start uncovering some of those games that he’s playing it’s just, for me, dancing it was endlessly fun. ‘Cause you felt like you were stamping your own time signature into a piece, it was like if we are switching roles in a ballet you, you might be feeling a new...different things are accentuated when you’re cutting against a score. You feel it through your body differently, it’s [00:05:00] because your body links up so much with breath and for me, and I think for most- New York City Ballet dancers at least, ‘cause music really is the focus at City Ballet and more than a lot of companies.And, and modern pieces for example, where there is no music or the piece is not choreographed to music or it’s improvisational and you can do whatever. But at, at City Ballet the music is the top of the pyramid, and so we’re all there because that’s what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to like, make music visible in a sense.And I think these little, these little cross currents in the tempos and counting against the actual time signature of the piece is part of just, you know, cutting your way through something, it’s- Yeah ... it’s fun. It just feels, it, it feels like you have a different relationship to a piece of music once you’ve done different tracks through it, different step tracks through it.Yeah. I don’t know. I fo- I found it really fun.Evan Goldfine: When you’re on stage and you’re dancing a [00:06:00] three-part and your compatriots also on the stage are dancing in four- Mm-hmm ... and the music’s in six, is there something where you have to tune out your other dancers - Yeah ... on stage so you don’t fall into their rhythm?Faye Arthurs: For sure. There’s a l- there’… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit yearofbach.substack.com

Lillian Gordis is a Franco-American harpsichordist born in Berkeley, California, and based in Paris. Her latest album is J.S. Bach: Partita No. 6, English Suite & Preludes and Fugues, released in 2026 on the French label Artalinna, and it’s one of my favorite records of the year. Listen on Apple Music | SpotifyIn this episode, Lillian talks about her approach to phrasing on the harpsichord: articulating independent voices, singing through her repertoire in rehearsal, and always resisting automatic performance. We talk about the technical challenges of performing on instruments that vary widely from venue to venue, and her decision to record from the Well-Tempered Clavier Book II.Visit Lillian’s website: lillian-gordis.comAnd subscribe to the show’s Substack: A Year of BachArtists discussed:Harpsichordists / Early Music* Pierre Hantaï* Gustav Leonhardt* Nikolaus Harnoncourt* Jordi Savall* Le Poème Harmonique* Gesualdo Six* Graindelavoix* Il Giardino Armonico* La Petite Bande* Kathy PerlPianists* Sviatoslav Richter* Andras Schiff* Glenn Gould* Lucas Debargue* Piotr Anderszewski* Alexander Kanterow* Daniil Trifonov* Yunchan Lim* Robert LevinTRANSCRIPTEvan Goldfine: [00:00:00] Welcome to the podcast, a Year of Bach. My name is Evan Goldfine, and today I welcome Lillian Gordis, who recently released an excellent double album of Bach on the Harpsichord. It features the sixth English Suite, the sixth Partita, and other selections from Bach’s deep catalog for the keyboard. This is her third album, and the other two feature works of Bach and Scarlatti. Lillian’s been focused fully on the harpsichord since childhood, and as a teenager, she moved to France to study with the great harpsichordist Pierre Hantaï, where she continues to live. She joins us from Paris today. Lillian, welcome.Lillian Gordis: Hi. Thank you for having me. I’m delighted to be here.Evan Goldfine: At first I’ll jump into fan mode for a minute and say that I think you pull off something pretty special in this recording and that’s reflective of your whole approach. I think your phrasing stretches notes and compresses others, and the two hands are phrased very independently from one another. And there’s no shame in fermatas or hanging on rubato for an especially long time. For me, it creates a sort of floating feeling and as I’ve written in the newsletter, it becomes sort of [00:01:00] trance-like, and I get really locked in. I think it’s really rare to hear that in a recording. I’d love to hear a little bit about your approach to phrasing and whether I’m picking up on something that you’re putting out there.Lillian Gordis: Yeah. First of all, thank you. I mean, I appreciate all of that. That’s exactly what I’m trying to do. I think the harpsichord is an instrument. You know, if you have a beautiful harpsichord, it sounds great. If you have a less beautiful harpsichord, it sounds less good. But, and I love harpsichords, but it is an instrument that has dynamic limitations and projection limitations, which is particularly an issue in obviously our modern world, where you’re playing in relatively big halls. And you’re playing recitals, which didn’t exist — you know, historically at all. The format did not exist at the time this music was written. And so I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how to make the harpsichord an instrument that can project as far as possible and as widely as possible. I think the approaches for doing that on recording and in concert are a little bit different just because of the proximity of [00:02:00] microphones as compared to, say, the last row for an audience member. But I’ve kind of — I try to imitate voice as much as possible, particularly vocal ensembles and the way that polyphony and counterpoint come in and out of focus in the way that a vocal ensemble can do, which is obviously not necessarily the most self-evident thing technically to do on the harpsichord. But that’s something that really deeply appeals to me. That’s kind of what I hear in my head, especially with Bach, but also with other composers. And so figuring out, not just between the hands, but also between voices — where can I have a little bit of micro stagger? Where can I have more or less attack? I think a lot about the end of the note too, which is not necessarily something that came up a lot when I was studying, but the end of the note on the harpsichord when the jack comes back down and you stop the resonance — you know, that creates an accent too. And so using a lot of substitutions and shifting to get as smooth a sound as possible. And then [00:03:00] when you want to create an accent, you can, but starting from this linear, horizontal perspective rather than a keyboardistic, vertical one. That’s been something I’ve spent a lot of time working on over the last five, ten years.Evan Goldfine: What is a substitution or an adjustment on the harpsichord?Lillian Gordis: It just means that when you play the note, let’s say, you use your thumb. And then we don’t have a pedal, so you can’t pedal and then shift to the next note. So you have to use your hand as a pedal. So you might shift one and then shift to three without replaying the note so that you can move your hand. Or you might go one to five. Sometimes I shift not just in order to be able to reach, but because it rebalances your hand. So then the next note, you have more control over both the release of the previous note and the attack of the next one. So I shift and substitute a lot, probably almost an excessive amount. I also have relatively small hands, so if I want to control all of that, I need to — for example, I don’t write any fingerings in because it would be too complicated. Like I have [00:04:00] to really just memorize the hand patterns and positions of what I want to do. And then it doesn’t really matter which finger you end up on, as long as you’re in the right hand position.Evan Goldfine: Yeah.Lillian Gordis: So yeah.Evan Goldfine: And when you talk about an attack — because you really can’t create a dynamic shift on the harpsichord — what does that look like when you enter the note?Lillian Gordis: It just means you can create kind of a pop when the plectrum hits the string, or plucks the string, I should say. And if you pluck a little bit faster, so with more attack, you’re really close to the keyboard, but you’re still going to have a little bit more bite that’s going to pop and come out within the texture. So a lot of what we do is: how much do you want? Very little attack. A lot of attack. And then how quiet can you make the end of the notes so that the next thing is either very quiet or louder? And I think making that next step to thinking about it with every voice — and I work through every voice by itself and figure out, okay, if I were one person playing this line, what do I want it to sound like? Then I add the next [00:05:00] voice or the combinations of voices. I’ll do like bass and alto, tenor, soprano, all these different things. And I also sing all the time when I’m practicing. And I found that singing when I’m practicing gives me a really good sense of projection. So like if I arrive in a new venue, I will sing through the rehearsal, which I think organizers sometimes find kind of weird.Evan Goldfine: You’re not going to do this during the show, right?Lillian Gordis: No, I promise. I promise. But it, you know, it sounds a little weird, but the human voice is so much more natural in so many ways. And so it gives me a really great sense of like, how long can this note go? How long should this note go — in a way that if I’m just listening to the harpsichord, I’m going to get kind of sucked into where that resonance point drops off.Evan Goldfine: Yeah. When you’re singing, are you singing normally the soprano line or is it any voice that seems to be the most resonant one in that moment when you’re rehearsing?Lillian Gordis: I am usually jumping around between the lines to sing the thing that I want to hear the most. When I’m practicing at home, I wi… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit yearofbach.substack.com

In this episode of A Year of Bach, Evan talks with keyboardist Alexandra Nepomnyashchaya about her new harpsichord album Transformations, which explores Bach’s adaptations of works by composers including Marcello and Vivaldi. The conversation ranges from Bach as arranger to the expressive possibilities of the harpsichord, the freedom and discipline of interpretation, tempo choices, practice, and the influence of pianists like Sviatoslav Richter, Glenn Gould, and Alfred Cortot.Links worth clicking on:* Alexandra Nepomnyashchaya’s website* Alexandra Nepomnyashchaya, J. S. Bach: Transformations: Apple Music / Spotify artist page* Lillian Gordis, J. S. Bach: Partita No. 6, English Suite & Preludes and Fugues: Apple Music / Spotify* Alfred Cortot: Bach-Cortot, Arioso from Keyboard Concerto in F minor, BWV 1056, Second Movement* Sviatoslav Richter, Richter The Master - Bach: Apple Music / SpotifyTranscript:Evan Goldfine: Hello and welcome to the podcast, a Year of Bach. My name is Evan Goldfine, and today I am welcoming Alexandra Nepomnyashchaya.Alexandra’s a Russian born keyboardist, now based in Amsterdam. In early 2026, she released an excellent album of Bach on the harpsichord.It’s called Transformations, and it was released on the Linn Label and it features Bach’s adaptations of other composers’ works, including Marcelo and Vivaldi. Alexandra’s playing through on this album is exciting throughout. There’s a constant sense of being pulled forward along with the music, a nice sense of pace.So today we’ll talk to Alexandra about her thoughts on Bach as arranger and the different virtues of harpsichord and piano, when playing Bach, and how to choose the right tempi when, the scores don’t tell you what to play. So Alexandra, welcome to the podcast.Alexandra Nepomnyashchaya: Thank you for having me here.It’s a great opportunity and chance to speak again about Johan Sebastian Bach yeah, we get to play a lot, but, we should speak about his, we gottaEvan Goldfine: talk about,Alexandra Nepomnyashchaya: yes, absolutely.Evan Goldfine: So all keyboards are introduced to Bach in their early studies. Were you drawn to his music in the very beginning?Alexandra Nepomnyashchaya: Well, I started to play piano when I was four and a half. And I actually carried on until I was 16, only with piano playing and then when I was 16, I started to play harpsichord and carried on playing Bach on piano and harpsichord too. And then it was joined by organ and Clavichord as well. I think the music of Bach always comes with me. And it’s great to have it along.Evan Goldfine: What’s drawing you to perform Bach on the piano versus the harpsichord? I mean, it’s a choice that you have. There’s so many beautiful recordings on both instruments. But you chose to record this on harpsichord, what drew you particularly?Alexandra Nepomnyashchaya: Well, I personally think that music by Bach can and actually should be played on any musical instrument. it’s, you know, the one famous Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter, the greatest, he’s the greatest Yes. In one of his interviews. so he said that Music of Bach is like a fresh spring water that cleans and refreshes our ears.And I think this is very, very right sentence Yes. To say about we all need music of Bach. And as I grew up, listening to the recordings, of Bach mostly played on piano, so I was exposed only to piano, until I became 16. And among those recordings were for the greatest Sviatoslav Richter, as well as Maria Yudina, the quite important pianist she studied around the same time as Shostakovich.And of course, Glenn Gould was a big hero, for all of the pianists. and, still he’s a absolutely genius.And then of course you can agree or disagree with his interpretations. But, it’s, it’s absolutely incredible the ability, how he hears music, how he hears all the complex polyphony, which Bach writes.So then, coming back to the point, that’s until my 16th, I was only exposed to piano and then I started with harpsichord. And that of course opened completely different path, for me. talking about the harpsichord, it’s. Quite a challenging instrument to make it sound expressive.Evan Goldfine: Yes.Alexandra Nepomnyashchaya: I think due to the mechanic of the instrument, which is, quite, unexpressive because, it you, so the, the harpsichord? Yeah. So it’s a keyboard instrument, which makes sound by plucking the strings. So you basically push the key down and the string is being plucked and it doesn’t matter how hard or how soft you push the key, that will not affect the sound, which means it’s theoretically, it always comes at the same, dynamic and at the same time, we know from Bach that his main demand on playing harpsichord was that it has to be a very singing instrument. So the way of playing has to be very singing and so this is quite challenging for when you face a harpsichord. as I mentioned, for example, the clavichord, which was around the time, and it was Bach’s favorite instrument, so he had it in his room and he practiced on it every day, and he made his sons practice on it as well, and they all loved it because of completely different nature of the instrument. That’s a very expressive instrument. Yeah. So the clavichord, so It’s a like a small, very, very quiet version of piano. So you press ahits the string and it stays there until you press the key, which means you can not only do dynamic on the instrument, but you also can affect the dynamic while you are on the key. So it’s the only keyboard instrument which you can make vibrato on. That is very, very specific. Yes.Of course, it’s not a concert, instrument, but, just with this knowledge of the expressivity in dynamic. So we, I think we have to really try and transform it into. in the harpsichord as well. And so with the harpsichord, of course, we havedifferent tools, how we can make the, using expressive not only by using different registrations on manuals.This is one of the tools, but not the main one. I think that,Evan Goldfine: So if you can’t freely. create any kind of dynamic range. Does it make you play more with rhythm and placement of the notes? Does that become a more important part of your expression?Alexandra Nepomnyashchaya: so I think the length of the notes is extremely important.So for example, where we have to play a polyphony even if it’s only two voices. So we have to make a difference between the sound in one voice comparable to another one. And so we manipulate it with the lengths of the notes and also with the timing, which is crucial and very, very important but I personally believe so that when I play harpsichord, I have to imagine dynamic much stronger and much more precise than when if I would play it on the piano because there is nothing, nowhere to hide. So. While playing harpsichord or with a piano playing, we can hide behind the beautiful sound behind the pedal. So there are,Evan Goldfine: so you can change the dynamic range and that means that the note placement may be less emphasized or, whether you get a run exactly right because you, if you’re pedaling and all these notes are holding together. You have this beautiful cordal shape Exactly. That’s coming around. And with the harpsichord it’s just stark. and exactly. You only have one choice. Yeah.Alexandra Nepomnyashchaya: Yes, And so we have to use lots of over legato, which is, very important to make the sound as long as we can, and to make this difference with the lengths of the notes as well as timing.Also to know exactly what is the phrasing, what we want to say, and so what is the dynamic? And I think that harpsichord, you know, as a still a live instrument. So it sort of listens to your imagination a lot. ‘cause when I play, so if I imagine dynamic, even if I don’t do anything like theoretically, but I feel that the instrument reacts on this and somehow follows that line, which is great.Evan Goldfine: I’ve noticed that sometimes , harpsichordists will, as opposed to piano maybe, roll the notes a little m… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit yearofbach.substack.com

What a pleasure to speak to guitar hero Scott Tennant about playing and teaching Bach. We talked about his early days with the instrument, how he became a nylon pumper, and how strange it is that most of us guitarists love the Spanish classics alongside the adaptations of the German master. Here are the albums mentioned in the podcast:John Williams, El Diablo Suelto, Guitar Music of Venezuela: Apple Music; Spotify. Andrew York, Apple Music: Yamour Spotify: Yamour.David Russell, Apple Music: Music of Barrios Spotify: Music of Barrios.Scott Tennant, Apple Music: Scott Tennant Guitar Recital; Spotify: Scott Tennant on SpotifyLos Angeles Guitar Quartet, Apple Music: LAGQ Spotify: LAGQLinks:Scott Tennant: USC profileA Year of Bach: yearofbach.substack.comEvan Goldfine: evangoldfine.comThe brief clip of guitar when we talk about the first movement of the Lute Suite is from a live John Williams recording.Transcript:Evan Goldfine: Welcome to the podcast, A Year of Bach. My name is Evan Goldfine, and today I welcome Scott Tennant, one of the great classical guitar players and teachers of our era. Scott was a founding member of the Grammy Award-winning group, Los Angeles Guitar Quartet, and he’s currently the chair of the classical guitar program at USC’s Thornton School of Music. Scott, welcome.Scott Tennant: Thanks for inviting me, Evan. Glad to be here.Evan Goldfine: So let’s talk about Young Scott at the guitar. Were you drawn to Bach initially? Was it more like homework?Scott Tennant: Oh boy. I was, yeah, it was Bach. It was mostly the guitar itself and the sound of it. I started taking lessons when I was six at a music store and, what drew me to classical music in general was, you know, in these books that I was, my weekly lessons were in, there were little snippets of Bach, Anna Magdalena Bach, the famous, you know, little minuets and musettes. And then there was Tchaikovsky and I thought, this music sounds really unique as opposed to like the more poppy kind of songs I was working on. And I asked my teacher what. I love this composer. I love that composer. And she said, oh, well, that’s called classical music. And so I started doing a deep dive and, I of course, I then found Bach and it turns out my parents were very involved in having my brother and I listened to a lot of music. My mom had been a musician in her youth. so we were always listening to every kind of music. And we had, you know, remember the records. The LPsEvan Goldfine: SureScott Tennant: had a lot of those. That’s probably where I first heard Bach, and then I got this crazy record. By the then Walter Carlos, who became Wendy Carlos,Evan Goldfine: Switched on Bach,Scott Tennant: on a Moog synthesizer. And that blew me away. I heard the Bach Brandenburg Third Brandenburg, and that’s the first time I really, that’s the first time I heard any of the Brandenburgs on a Moog synthesizer.Evan Goldfine: Very strange.Scott Tennant: You know, and it just proves that Bach is very user friendly. You can play his music on pretty much anything.Evan Goldfine: Yeah.Scott Tennant: And his music is so versatile and so anyway, yeah, I became a fan and slowly learned about Bach as I went onEvan Goldfine: Any special recordings besides switched on Bach from the seventies in those early years.Scott Tennant: Let’s see. We had orchestral recordings. They were mostly these LPs that had a combination of different composers and I can’t, I know the Chicago Symphony was one.Evan Goldfine: Mm-hmm.Scott Tennant: I don’t know, maybe it was Solti or who was conducting at the time. but they were orchestral, renditions and. yeah, my first, Bach listening experience was with orchestra, and frankly, they were kind of orchestral arrangements, I think, of, the famous, you know, the air and the G-string andEvan Goldfine: Sure.Scott Tennant: Those kinds of things. But, I didn’t really start diving into Bach until I started taking classical guitar lessons when I was 11. Then of course it was just like Bach. And I just started discovering, just going crazy, discovering all of this, the Bach that I could play. And then it was a, it was just a. Race track from there. Learn all the Bach. I could.Evan Goldfine: Was it Segovia? Was it Bream? Were these things you were listening to as references or were you just going by reading through it and hearing what it was, underneath your fingers and what your teacher was helping you with?Scott Tennant: Well, it was my first actual Bach album was John Williams playing all of the lute suites.Evan Goldfine: Yes.Scott Tennant: And that, of course, John Williams, I was such a huge fan and still a huge fan of his and I wore the record out. I think my dad had to buy me a second LP of the same recording. It just blew me away. And I realized now a, as a kid, I started things. I was kind of strong-willed and my teacher would tell me, no, don’t play us too hard. You know, and so, but I would start things anyway. And I remember starting the fourth lute suite, right? There are four lute suites. As you probably know, and I started the fourth one, da. And so I remember just struggling through it and I thought, well, you know, I can play it just like John Williams if I just copy him. So I listened to it all the time trying to copy. I kind of figured his fingerings out, which, you know, for a 12-year-old wasn’t too bad. And, of course I can never play it like him. But, that was a start and long story longer. That’s the only box suite I’ve ever actually recorded myself. I played it for years and years in concert, and because of that I started it when I was too young and my teacher was right. I wasn’t ready. I had a hangup on that prelude of the suite, the first movement of the suite. All my life and, to this day. So I stopped because of that prelude. I actually stopped programming Bach because I had such hangups with it.Evan Goldfine: Wait, what? What’s going on?Scott Tennant: I had, you know, because I learned it when it was too hard for me, and I eventually worked it out and was able to play it and learn the whole suite and started programming it. In fact, a lot of times I would begin my program with it, because I thought the prelude made such a great opener. And it does.Evan Goldfine: Yeah.Scott Tennant: But, with all the nerves that go into performances anyway, and my, I should say maybe lack of confidence with that one movement I carried on for a while, for many years, and I just stopped programming that suite. And eventually, I just stopped programming Bach for a while just because I gave myself a hangup with Bach . It was so hard and I didn’t wanna mess up, I didn’t wanna make any mistakes with playing Bach because everybody loved Bach and everybody knew Bach the music. And so I just thought I’ll give it a rest.Evan Goldfine: Huh? I know that recording, it’s from your Guitar Recital record from many years ago. Mm-hmm. And it’s excellent. I love that record. There’s a kind of brashness and youthful confidence and this real, meaty sound. I think it’s great. Especially in that prelude. There’s those moments where the time the downbeat seems to be playing around when it goes down to those two notes back and forth da da da.Evan Goldfine: I came upon this organ piece. You know, there’s like 50 hours of organ music, and I suddenly heard the lute suite again. And I was like, that is strange and familiar. And I like it more on the guitar. I didn’t want all of the sustaining notes as much. I kind of liked the sound of the guitar. Once the note is plucked, it sort of goes away. And so you need to find the different ways to keep those strings and notes echoing or not, as your case of your interpretation might be. What about that moment that I’m talking about, that goes back and forth.Scott Tennant: Right. I know the spot that it happens in the, a section and then later in another key very symmetrically. The version most guitarists play has some element of the solo violin version. Which really opened my ears to … This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit yearofbach.substack.com

A conversation with Erik Hall, a multi-instrumentalist, composer, and one of the most compelling interpreters of the minimalist canon. We talk about the surprising resonances between J.S. Bach and composers like Steve Reich, Charlemagne Palestine, Simeon ten Holt, and Philip Glass. They discuss Hall’s acclaimed trilogy of solo overdubbed reinterpretations, his upcoming ensemble recording of Canto Ostinato with Sandbox Percussion and Metropolis Ensemble, the architecture of rhythm and harmony that links Bach to the minimalists, and what it means to engage deeply with another composer’s work. More at yearofbach.substack.com.Albums Discussed:Erik Hall – Music for 18 Musicians (Steve Reich) (2020) Spotify | Apple MusicErik Hall – Canto Ostinato (Simeon ten Holt) (2023) Spotify | Apple MusicErik Hall – Solo Three (2026) Spotify | Apple MusicDennis Johnson – November (perf. R. Andrew Lee) Spotify | Apple MusicOren Ambarchi – Shebang (2022) Spotify | Apple MusicChilly Gonzales – Solo Piano (2004) Spotify | Apple MusicTodd Sickafoose – Tiny Resistors (2008) Spotify | Apple MusicLinks:Erik Hall website: erikhall.netEvan Goldfine website: evangoldfine.com────────────────────────────────────────[00:00:00]Evan Goldfine:Hello and welcome to the podcast, A Year of Bach. My name is Evan Goldfine and today I’m welcoming instrumentalist Erik Hall, one of my favorite interpreters of what’s often called minimalist music. He’s released a trio of homespun, overdubbed solo records, including my favorite album of 2023, an interpretation of Canto Ostinato by the Dutch composer, Simeon ten Holt.He’s re -recorded that for a new recording with Sandbox Percussion and the Metropolis Ensemble for release in April 2026, which I’m very excited to hear live in New York in a couple of weeks. In January 2026, he also released Solo 3, a new album which includes interpretations of works by Charlemagne Palestine, Steve Reich, and others.Today, we’ll talk about the experience of playing and listening to Bach and the minimalist canon, and we’ll talk about how those rivers intersect. There is an underexplored crossover that I’m sure we’ll all find illuminating. And with that, welcome Erik.Erik Hall:Thank you very much for having me.It’s a pleasure.Evan Goldfine:So prior to these minimalist albums that you’ve recorded, you made some albums under the name[00:01:00]In Tall Buildings, which are more of a pop rock singer songwriter vibe with some electronic elements. And you were also in a band called Nomo, which was heavily influenced by Afro beat music. So where, where’s your origin, with your listening and where did you start? And how did that expand into all these different realms?Erik Hall:Yeah, I mean, It’s been a really winding path, and it started as when I was a kid, and I was always into very different kinds of music. I was studying classical piano, I was playing in a youth orchestra in Chicago as a percussionist.I went to college as a jazz studies drummer. And then, that’s where I kind of discovered Steve Reich and a whole lot of other kinds of contemporary music and joined a band and started going on tour making records. And, just kind of following every thread that seemed interesting to me.Somehow. I stumbled my way back towards classical music in this kind of modern era, this new chapter of mine, making these interpretation[00:02:00]records.Evan Goldfine:How did Bach play into the musical landscape at all? And I guess that was part of your classical studies when you were younger. And how has that music stayed with you even through all of these other bands?Erik Hall:I think Bach is someone we all come back to, always. And there was kind of the initial study when I was a kid, that I think we all do. When I was in college, I distinctly remember, voice leading classes with the great pianist and musicologist James Dapogny.He was a professor at University of Michigan and was one of the leading scholars. of early jazz. And, just an incredible guy. Anyway, he was my college level, Bach, teacher.And then, it was funny. At one point, Nomo ended up at this, like, jazz, it was Aspen, it was Jazz Aspen Snowmass Festival. And we ended up in this clinic, and we were taking[00:03:00]courses from, Loren, Schoenberg, I want to say. I think he’s on Substack, yeah. I wouldn’t be surprised, yeah.I haven’t checked in with what he’s doing lately, but he had this room full of like jazz dudes from all over the country, and every morning we started with him and every day for, I want to say like 10 days, We studied Goldberg variations and it was like, we started out by talking about the Goldberg variations and I think we all thought, well, this is great to talk about.I wonder what we’ll talk about tomorrow. We walked in the next morning and it was, no, still Goldberg variations. And like literally for a week and a half, the whole course was centered around that, that, that body of work. And, we all just, it was incredible. We got so much out of it.Evan Goldfine:What did the jazz guys start digging into the Goldbergs with?Erik Hall:Well, I[00:04:00]don’t actually know that everybody appreciated the level of depth that we took. If I’m being honest, it seemed to be like his kind of pet project that everyone kind of had varying levels of resonance but thankfully I, it’s always kind of stuck with me.And, I know that piece is probably a lot of people’s kind of gateway to Bach, but. For me, it’s, it’s still really, a go -to.Evan Goldfine:Were there any special recordings of Bach from your early years that you would return to as a percussionist? What, what kind of flavors of Bach’s music were you most drawn to?Erik Hall:I didn’t really listen to Bach as a kid. I studied it as a pianist, and it, so for, for better or worse, I had somewhat of an obligatory relationship with it as a kid.I love the Goldberg recordings. I love new[00:05:00]recordings by Vikingur Olafsson and, I, I have this particular kind of somewhat random, super dusty multi LPalbum of chorales, that, that seem to always come out at, at Christmas time. Perfect. It can be a little bit even like a kitschy relationship sometimes. Boy, it, it just, will always have a place in my heart.Evan Goldfine:I had a similar experience, when I was learning to play classical guitar, there’s a whole repertoire of Bach adapted, mostly by Segovia and his contemporaries and followers, adapting all sorts of pieces, the violin sonatas, some cello suites to the guitar, and hearing it, I listened to some records and it didn’t quite sink at first. But playing it along with hearing it, watching the architecture and how that came to life was something that really sparked a seed in me back 25, 30 years ago when I first started playing.[00:06:00]Yeah. And it grows, it’s grown over time as I got deeper.So that’s, that’s been part of the fun part about this project too, seeing how Bach is sort of the anchor point for so much of this music. Yeah. And maybe I’ll ask you how you got back to the minimalist composers and how that became the source of, and we can talk about the word minimalist and how that’s sort of a controversial word in itself.But yes, I use that to cover the style of music largely defined by, like, Steve Reich and Philip Glass in the 1960s and 70s. But how did you find your way back there, being like, this is music that should be reinterpreted in a different kind of way?Erik Hall:It happened pretty organically, honestly.I discovered Steve Reich in college. We focused on his early tape phasing tape loop pieces in my musicology course. But then, I stumbled upon Music for 18 Musicians kind of on my own. And that was like, my kind of,[00:07:00]epiphany, it really made a mark on me and it kind of stuck with me as one of my favorite pieces of music.Evan Goldfine:It is a seminal work of that whole era.Erik Hall:Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s undeniable and it’s so, that was, over 20 years ago and fast forward to, I think it was 20… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit yearofbach.substack.com

Violist and Author Edward Klorman discusses his new book, Bach: The Cello Suites, and adds commentary at the keyboard. Edward's website: http://Edwardklorman.com/A Year of Bach Substack: https://yearofbach.substack.com This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit yearofbach.substack.com

Historian Richard Tedlow joins me to ask what made Bach charismatic in his own time and ours. He also argues that no matter the political situation, “Bach’s music is going to exist as long as the human race exists and can’t be taken away.” Along the way we consider the charisma of Bernstein, Gould, Clinton, Hitler, and Trump. Here’s Richard’s Substack.Playlists of works referenced in this episode, including those by Shostakovich, Bach, Brahms, and Strauss. Apple Music and Spotify below.Transcript: Evan Goldfine: Hello, and welcome to the fifth episode of A Year of Bach. I'm Evan Goldfine. Today my guest is Richard Tedlow, one of our leading historians of business. He was a longtime professor at Harvard Business School and later an instructor at Apple where he taught executives in their internal Apple University. Richard studies how leaders persuade, connect and make decisions how they deceive themselves and others.And he's put a special focus on the elusive force of charisma in leaders. Today we'll speculate a bit on Bach's charisma and what it might have been, and we can see how charismatic conductors act in the world today. We'll also touch on our president's charisma and Richard's deep connection to Bach's music.Richard, welcome.Richard Tedlow: Thank you very much. Pleasure to be here.Evan Goldfine: Before charisma, let's talk about Bach and your connection to the music itself.Richard Tedlow: I didn't start music with Bach. One of the characteristics of Bach is that one finds [00:01:00] oneself listening to his music without realizing that he composed it.The Air on the G-string the Jesu, Joy of Man's desiring, this is part of normal sort of living in this world, and you hear it without necessarily connecting it to the name Bach. I've been listening to music seriously since I was a kid. My parents introduced me to it.The first opera I went to was Carmen with Risë Stevens at the Miami Opera Company in Miami, Florida. And so I've been interested in this kind of music my whole life. I went to Bayreuth three times to hear Wagner's music there. And Bach I began to seriously listen to when I was in college.I graduated from Yale in 1969. And there I first heard the Cantata 140, Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, and other music by Bach, and you realized that this was an [00:02:00] extraordinary creative human being.So here's a question. How much do you have to know? How much do you have to sort of work, if you will to how much does music have the right, if you will, to ask you to invest in it, in order to get the most out of it? Versus to what extent does music hear itself? So you're not involved at all, basically.So move, moving from noise. To really find complex music, how much do you need yourself to invest? And I think the older the music is, and Bach was from 1685 to 1750 the more you have to invest for the most part with the exception of some pieces. The Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor would be a classic example.Everybody's heard that and they don't necessarily [00:03:00] associate it with Bach. On the other hand, at least to me, the Goldberg Variations. You have to concentrate, at least I have to concentrate. And the difference between Glenn Gould's first recording of that set of pieces and the last one is really dramatic.And I saw when I was at Apple, I saw a remarkable presentation about this, and that presentation greatly increased my own ability to enjoy and appreciate it. So that's a question. How much do you have to know, or how much do you have to invest in order to get the most out of the music as opposed to the music just hearing itself?Evan Goldfine: What a beautiful question. I think that you can be a passive listener and enjoy it. You can be an active listener and enjoy, and you can be a player and enjoy. And then you can be a scholar to learn about the historical importance and where each of these composers, Bach included, fit on the great timeline of the composers of Western music.I think you get back what you invest. [00:04:00] And even then some. And just like with anything else, you could glance at a book of poetry. You can read Shakespeare Sonnets on the first glance, and there's some nice stuff and you might not get it, but if you really take your time with it, you're going to unearth more and more things.And, what's great about Bach in particular is that often in some of the pieces, not all of them, but it's a pleasant first listen. And as you listen again, something happens inside as you are processing the multiple moving lines. Often you're hearing different musicians emphasize different parts of the music.So there's the performance side that you're enjoying, and also the core of the music itself. So if you're playing it yourself on a piano or on a guitar, you see the architecture of how things are moving in order to create this thing that just sounds pleasant or moving even. There's really no way to explain why Cantata 140 might move you to [00:05:00] tears.That's not explicable, and that's the beauty of why we're talking about this today, 300 years after Bach's time. Something about that music has really moved us for centuries and many millions of people. And I've described this as a backwards explanation for something divine.I've heard one of my favorite musicians, a bassist named Victor Wooten says that music needs us as much as we need the music. Music can be abstract, but if it's not resonating through a person doesn't exist. It's one of the great mysteries and pleasures of life and Bach is one of the greatest exemplars of how to create it with deep meaning and with deep emotion. Because without the emotional connection, it's just a curiosity.Richard Tedlow: I think that's very well put. I think that there has to be this emotional connection and going through life as you and [00:06:00] I are doing, and just encountering curiosities to use your word as opposed to deep emotional connections is not a very fulfilling way to go through life.So that's one thing that draws one to Bach. What is it about Bach that is magnetic and charismatic, if you will? What is it about it that's so utterly appealing? And I think that once again, to use your phrase, if the first listen is not an invitation, you are not likely to have a second listen or to go to Wagner.If all you hear is the noise, and there is a lot of it in Wagner. You're not gonna go to the next, listen. So there's gotta be something that resonates with you, some, something that is harmonic with you in this music and Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, is just that's that piece. It works. So why? If Bach could've said it another way, he would've said it another way and he would've been a novelist or a poet or you name it, he said it through his music and by almost by [00:07:00] definition tho, those aren't words, even though he is setting words to music.I think that with the words of music, there is a matching of sound and sense that is very powerful with Bach. Can I play a little one snippet of musicRichard Tedlow: From the B minor mass. Okay. It's the Gratias Agimus Tibi. In other words, we give thanks for your great glory.Thinking about the B minor mass, the most accessible part of it is the Gloria. You can't miss it, and I only got to this later, but you listen to it and you listen to it and you realize this is really this, this is glorious, if you will.In addition to the fact that the music is simply beautiful to listen to there is an authenticity about Bach music, which is very hard to capture in words. You have to capture it in music, you have to listen to it. But there's an authenticity, a sense that you are touching the ground truth of a human being and that human being's relationship to [00:09:00] the everlasting the divine.Bach to state the obvious was a profoundly religious Lutheran. And that comes through. I mean the genuine, I mean, in a world where there's so much that's phony, frankly, that to touch something genuine is a large part of the inspiration of Bach and … This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit yearofbach.substack.com

As Commissioner of the FCC during the Clinton administration, Reed Hundt helped shape the modern internet. We speak about his attending the first Beatles concert in the USA (with his friend Al Gore), and the democratization of publishing and broadcasting wrought by the internet. Reed had many questions for me about Bach and my listening, so this is an episode to hear me talk more than I typically do.Here’s the video on YouTube.Transcript below.[00:00:00]Evan Goldfine: Welcome to the fourth episode of the podcast, A Year of Bach. My name is Evan Goldfine. Today we'll explore how policy helps shape who among us gets to hear Bach in the first place.My guest is Reed Hundt, who was the chair of the FCC from 1993 to 1997 in the Clinton administration. Highlights from his tenure include the earliest days of digital television and satellite radio, the launch of spectrum auctions, a massive wiring of schools and libraries for internet access, and the opening of the five gigahertz band that became our modern Wi-Fi. He's a longtime public interest lawyer, an early champion of carbon taxation, and a great fan of Bach. And we'll talk about some of those things today. Reed, welcome.Reed Hundt: Thank you, Evan. Thank you for that very nice introduction.Evan Goldfine: My pleasure. So, over the past 30 years, the landscape of media reflects one of the biggest changes I think in American life, probably even bigger than the changes from the sixties through the start of your tenure in the [00:01:00] nineties.Even this setup that we're doing right now seems unimaginable. We're on real time, high-definition video with automated captioning. My production budget is zero and the distribution is effectively free to everyone in the world. So  I'd like you to reflect on the scale of those changes and maybe some of the things that surprised you about how we got to today.Reed Hundt: That's a great question. Almost everything that we imagined in the early nineties has come true. And then a lot of other things have also happened that we did not imagine. The things that we imagined were all good things. And the good things have mostly come true. And the things that we did not foresee that were not so good; they’ve happened also.So those are my two big sets. So, with respect to the first, you've just mentioned a number of really important attributes. All through the first year of the Clinton [00:02:00] administration we had weekly meetings hosted by my ninth grade classmate Al Gore, to discuss the vision.At the beginning of 1994,  in January , he gave the first speech ever given by elected official in an international forum about the internet of the future.If you go back and look at those artifacts, you'll see the things that came true. What, specifically, we wanted to have is that creators like Bach or like you -- I see two guitars behind you on the Zoom screen.Evan Goldfine: Humbly.Reed Hundt: -- anyone of any talent, any capability anywhere in the world, at almost no cost could get a chance to see if anyone liked their product.That came true. We envisioned that for a video. We envisioned it for, for auditory, for music. We envisioned it for typing and writing. and you see all of this everywhere now. We also [00:03:00] envisioned that it would be possible to gather an audience for output anywhere in the world, which you're doing right now.You have very low cost. You still have to figure out how to market, but you have a chance. You don't have to go through a gatekeeper. We didn't sit there thinking we have these ideas, no one else does. The opposite. We had all kinds of people coming and telling us this is what's possible.And then we adopted. We adopted these ideas as the vision for public policy. You might say, what were the public policies? Number one, we negotiated by the beginning of 1997 a treaty in which 69 countries said they would let the internet come in without taxation.That's a big deal. Secondly, the spectrum auctions that you were kind enough to mention. Not only did we start the digital cellular industry in the United States, we started it worldwide [00:04:00] because in a variety of ways that I won't go into right now because of the shortness of human life, we had it those auctions and the rollout of the same digital technologies for wireless occurring  in every country in the world.And that did actually happen. That is why when Jobs in 2007 got around to inventing the iPhone, there already was an infrastructure there to utilize the iPhone on a global basis, right? It is a chicken and egg story, and you needed to have both the chicken and the egg. so that was the infrastructure part of the story.Aside from the foreign policy part, we had to make sure that all this connectivity would reach everybody in America at the same time. It wouldn't be, you have a lot of money and then your innovation would trickle down, which is the iPhone business model. It was the opposite.We wanted to establish the lowest conceivable cost for the new access technologies. To [00:05:00] make a very complicated story, I will just summarize in one thing. At one point there were 6,000 internet access providers in the United States. Now you think of just the mega companies, and you're right, there are mega companies. But that's what happened over a 30-year story.The start was an absolute cauldron of entrepreneurship, which is what we wanted to create. So here you are , you're the avatar, you're the manifestation of all these dreams come true. There are a lot of horrible things in this new world as well. It turns out you can lie easily. You can lie like a dog on the internet, and everybody believes that you are a human and not a dog.You can lie at the highest levels of power and authority and get the lies heard all around the world. These things are also possible. We didn't think those things were impossible, but we trusted that ultimately public opinion, if it could be mobilized, would create a better world.We, I guess we still have to see if that's true [00:06:00]Evan Goldfine: To that end do the major TV and radio broadcasters still matter in this environment?Reed Hundt: Somewhat, not that much. You asked about public broadcasting. This particular Congress wants to kill anything that has the word public in it. Killing public good as a concept seems to be very, very important to them.We now are told we don't want the public good of messenger RNA. We don't want the public good of research. Apparently, the government does not want those things anymore. I don't think that's the opinion of most people in America or most people all around the world, but I think it is the animating spirit of this particular administration.So, what is the case with public broadcasting? Public broadcasting goes back to the 1960s. My great predecessor, Newton Minow, is one of the fathers of the whole concept. The [00:07:00]  original mission was to have entertainment content that would be in some way enshrining family values, and wouldn't be subject to the constraints of advertising.That does not actually make very much sense anymore. It's not all that powerful an idea now because again, the internet makes almost everything available to anybody. You can find that kind of content on the Net.Evan Goldfine: Yes.Reed Hundt: But what's needed in more volume is non-commercial news. News that isn't dependent on advertisers or beholden to major corporations as for-profit owners, because those corporations can be cowed, intimidated, arm-twisted by the government.Well, that's been happening. So, there's more need than ever before, in my opinion, for nonprofit news. And I'm not alone in believing [00:08:00] that what's publicly broadcast should be reflected in every media. Publicly broadcast news is inquisitive news, investigation and reporting. It’s honesty and reality being presented, not contingent on the business goals of for-profit companies.So, where's that going to come from? This administration doesn't want that to exist… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit yearofbach.substack.com