# Bach's WTC deserves it's place in the top tier of TC's most highly recommended works?



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier consists of two sets of 24 Preludes and Fugues - the first set was composed in 1722 and second twenty years later. Bach said of the first set that they were intended:

_"for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study."_

The work was promoted to the top tier just recently (it joins Beethoven's 9th symphony). *Do you think this work deserves to be in the top spot? *


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

The WTC is my favorite music. Whether it will end up in the top tier will depend on the votes of the project's participants.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> The WTC is my favorite music. Whether it will end up in the top tier will depend on the votes of the project's participants.


It is in the top spot:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Its place in the top tier is in my opinion more than appropriate - ranking Bach's WTC so highly is certainly not in any way heretical and it's not an objective list. Bach's WTC is a great body of wonderful works and certainly a stunning example of Bach's masterful use counterpoint.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, well-deserved. In fact, I just happened to be listening to Book 2 by Glenn Gould, from the "big box." Amazing!


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I said yes, but I goofed. I didn't realize that there were only two compositions in that tier - and neither qualify as my top two. Beethoven's 9th wouldn't make my top 10.

Without much consideration, if I had to pick only two, they would be "The Marriage of Figaro" and Schubert's String Quintet. Several Bach works, including WTC, would be in my top 10.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I don’t know of any single work (if the two books of the WTC can be counted as such) in classical music where we are given such a dizzying and complete array of human emotions, combined with jaw-dropping compositional intellect. I think No. 1 most recommended could go to the St. Matthew Passion, but I am totally comfortable with this being on the top tier, as it should IMO.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

jegreenwood said:


> I said yes, but I goofed. I didn't realize that there were only two compositions in that tier - and neither qualify as my top two. Beethoven's 9th wouldn't make my top 10.
> 
> Without much consideration, if I had to pick only two, they would be "The Marriage of Figaro" and Schubert's String Quintet. Several Bach works, including WTC, would be in my top 10.


I was under the impression that this was one of those "status quo" lists, which by nature represent the most commonly held views, not "fringe" outsider opinions.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

It's probably the greatest and objectively most important set of non-organ keyboard music ever composed, so yeah.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I can think of only one thing that can rival it for pole position: The Ring.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

The problem in judging WTC has to do with comparison to what? This is taken together as one work and compared to what work? All the Beethoven piano sonatas? All Chopin preludes? A symphony?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Bigbang said:


> The problem in judging WTC has to do with comparison to what? This is taken together as one work and compared to what work? All the Beethoven piano sonatas? All Chopin preludes? A symphony?


Maybe an equal number of pages of any other work? There are some things that could claim a pound-per-pound victory against WTC (think: Beethoven's 5th), but what single work/compilation is more brilliant than WTC _total_?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Should a concept such as _utility_ be invoked in making such a judgment? By utility, I mean the ability to absorb or experience or "consume'' the piece in one convenient sitting, or in "one continuous motion". It would be difficult (though not impossible) to absorb the WTC in one continuous motion; the Ring?--not so much. A quasi-parallel case might be looking deeply at all of Monet's studies of Rouen Cathedral (though paintings can be cycled through at any pace chosen by the viewer). The WTC might be looked at in this way. I must say that I sat cheerfully through a concert of all of the Brandenburg Concertos at one sitting, so a lot depends on the stamina of the auditor. But a case can be made that a great piece of music should be able to be absorbed and admired as such within a certain timeframe, complete unto itself and not a compendium of similar segments like a musical millipede.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

WTC being top tier is justified by its historical importance, but it's definitely not the most beloved work, not even close.

Having played a handful of them in Book I, I must say deep feelings are abound in WTC that are not apparent at first sight. The range of expression is very broad. It made me realize why it's the (late) Romantics such as Chopin, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich (Debussy to a less extent) that followed this style of writing piano miniatures.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I was under the impression that this was one of those "status quo" lists, which by nature represent the most commonly held views, not "fringe" outsider opinions.


It has both - a little bit of everything. Join in - you might enjoy it, and it will keep you out of trouble with infractions. :lol:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Bigbang said:


> The problem in judging WTC has to do with comparison to what? This is taken together as one work and compared to what work? All the Beethoven piano sonatas? All Chopin preludes? A symphony?


Compare it to any other music you want to. Some folks get a little twisted-up in trying to categorize the WTC. The category I place it in is the best music in the world.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I just read again in New York Times Karl Schnabel's opinion that Bahc's "48" WTC was the Old Testament of pianism and Beethoven's "32" piano sonatas the New Testament.

Schnabel recorded them both, the Beethoven twice. He said he only wanted to record music that was better written than it could ever be played.

I say throw in the Bach 6 Partitas for keyboard and there isn't much need to think about anything else.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

larold said:


> I just read again in New York Times Karl Schnabel's opinion that Bahc's "48" WTC was the Old Testament of pianism and Beethoven's "32" piano sonatas the New Testament.


That originally came from Hans von Bulow if I am not mistaken.

Not sure if appealing to authority is what OP is looking for. It's more about critically examine the relevance of the work in the context of classical music lovers.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

If the question is, are the WTC and Beethoven's 9th better than all other music, then no.

But if the question is, are WTC and Beethoven's 9th reasonably good choices to recommend as representative of the very best of classical music, which is how I'm interpreting this "tiers" business, then yes.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I can think of only one thing that can rival it for pole position: The Ring.


It's the most ambitious work of art, in any genre, in human history.

That's hard to beat.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

ribonucleic said:


> It's the most ambitious work of art, in any genre, in human history.
> 
> That's hard to beat.


I certainly agree but the Ring is so extreme and complete it leaves no room for future developments.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I certainly agree but the Ring is so extreme and complete it leaves no room for future developments.


But there were future developments. Things like Stockhausen's Licht, for example.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> But there were future developments. Things like Stockhausen's Licht, for example.


Touche. I am a huge fan of Stockhausen, hang me.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Not sure if appealing to authority is what OP is looking for. It's more about critically examine the relevance of the work in the context of classical music lovers._

Not sure what the hell that means. The question was, "Bach's WTC deserves it's top tier position - yes or no?" I think anyone that characterizes WTC as the Old Testament probably would vote yes. Me too.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

larold said:


> _Not sure if appealing to authority is what OP is looking for. It's more about critically examine the relevance of the work in the context of classical music lovers._
> 
> Not sure what the hell that means. The question was, "Bach's WTC deserves it's top tier position - yes or no?" I think anyone that characterizes WTC as the Old Testament probably would vote yes. Me too.


Let me clarify. Characterizing WTC as the Old Testament of music is no different from saying that WTC is the most important work in the canon, i.e, WTC is top tier, which seems eerily tautological for me.

The way I see it, OP is asking for more than saying "because it's the greatest, duh". Just because Hans von Bulow said so or the music profession says so does not constitute a good argument.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> I can think of only one thing that can rival it for pole position: The Ring.


How on earth can we compare two such different works?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I certainly agree but the Ring is so extreme and complete it leaves no room for future developments.


Developments of what?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> But there were future developments. Things like Stockhausen's Licht, for example.


My goodness! I've heard it some things but not this!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Just say with Mozart, "Here is something we can all learn from!"


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Developments of what?


Of Opera in the style of Wagner and Wagner's idea of opera as Gesamtkunstwerk.

If you have seen any, let me know.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Just say with Mozart, "Here is something we can all learn from!"


Mozart said that about another work by Bach, Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied BWV 225
https://books.google.ca/books?id=x1fm8XWwvJkC&pg=PA192
https://books.google.ca/books?id=MmBhJ0yFbDAC&pg=PA26
https://books.google.ca/books?id=lSBuAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT354


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I certainly agree but the Ring is so extreme and complete it leaves no room for future developments.


Wagner himself proved that there is always room for future development . Take _Parsifal_ for example - both philosophically and musically very cohesive work. As Nietzsche put it: "Wagner never had better inspirations than in the end." I'm a huge _Ring_ fan but I think that _Parsifal_ and _Tristan_ were even more mature and developed. Wagner understood that not all ideas he had put forth were effective and by the time he wrote _Parsifal_ his style was more developed and "clean". It's also understandable when you consider the long time period which it took to write the _Ring_. While I cannot rank Wagner's late operas, he spoke his last "words" in a very triumphant and concise manner for sure and proved to be able to develop both his philosophical and musical ideas.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

No Bach's WTC and Beethoven's PS >>>>> NO PIANO. (This isn't matter of taste, but musical fact).


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Bach. Beethoven, Brahms and Wagner take up the entire top three tiers. If classical music were the Olympics, Germany would get gold, silver and bronze.

I guess that Bach's _Well-Tempered Clavichord_ or Beethoven's _Symphony #9 "Choral"_ are just as deserving of the highest tier than anything I'd suggest.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart said that about another work by Bach, Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied BWV 225
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=x1fm8XWwvJkC&pg=PA192
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=MmBhJ0yFbDAC&pg=PA26
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=lSBuAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT354


So what's wrong in us saying it about WTC?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Of Opera in the style of Wagner and Wagner's idea of opera as Gesamtkunstwerk.
> 
> If you have seen any, let me know.


Frankly no-one wanted to develop in that style any more. Opera after Wagner was a reaction from his style.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Frankly no-one wanted to develop in that style any more. Opera after Wagner was a reaction from his style.


No one is just able to develop in anyone else's style entirely. All the famous composers had their own style - Brahms, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, R. Strauss etc. The fact that Brahms didn't compose like Beethoven, doesn't make Beethoven worse. The development also doesn't always lead to something better (in Wagner's case it, in my opinion, leads but of course you're free to disagree). It's all about influences.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Frankly no-one wanted to develop in that style any more. Opera after Wagner was a reaction from his style.


You are repeating my point as a counter-argument to my point? Or are we in agreement here?



annaw said:


> Wagner himself proved that there is always room for future development . I think that for example _Parsifal_ is an example of a both philosophically and musically very cohesive work of art. As Nietzsche put it: "Wagner never had better inspirations than in the end." I'm a huge _Ring_ fan but I think that _Parsifal_ and _Tristan_ were even more mature and developed. Wagner understood that not all ideas he had put forth were effective and by the time he wrote _Parsifal_ his style was more developed and "clean". It's also understandable when you consider the long time period which it took to write the _Ring_. While I cannot rank Wagner's late operas, he spoke his last words of opera in a very triumphant and concise manner for sure and proved to be able to develop both his philosophical and musical ideas.


I enjoyed this assessment. What I meant is that it left no development for Future Composers to follow that style.

T&I and Parsifal are both "developed" and sophisticated, sure. But they don't push the boundary or demonstrate the potency of Gesamtkunstwerk as much as the Ring did. Wanger is the end of the line for his own ideal and it's hard to imagine any newcomer could even attempt such an ambitious artistic project, let alone pushing it to a new height.



annaw said:


> As no one has claimed this list to be in any way objective, I don't think its objective greatness should even be discussed. I think almost all of us would rank different pieces differently.


Asking why it deserves its place has nothing to do with "objective greatness". To say "it deserves the top spot just because people voted for it" is circular and does not reveal people's reasoning behind it. To say "I think it deserves the top spot because it is the Old testament of music" is appealing to authority, by definition.

In my view, that does not explain why WTC is great. I give my personal take, that the music is far from being cold, just "compositional genius" like many would think, it could be played and enjoyed like romantic miniatures if you want. And it directly gave birth to plenty of important works during the Romantic era. But whether that's sufficient for top tier position or not, I don't know.

So far, the reason for the top spot seems to be mostly about historical importance. Maybe that's all there is unless I see more reasonings behind it. I certainly would prefer that there is more.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I enjoyed this assessment. *What I meant is that it left no development for Future Composers to follow that style.
> *
> T&I and Parsifal are both "developed" and sophisticated, sure. But they don't push the boundary or demonstrate the potency of Gesamtkunstwerk as much as the Ring did. Wanger is the end of the line for his own ideal and *it's hard to imagine any newcomer could even attempt such an ambitious artistic project, let alone pushing it to a new height.*


Yeah, I see your point now! I think one really needs to be a bit of a megalomaniac to undertake something like _Der Ring_ .

(Edited out the second part of my post - I think I might have misunderstood you.)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You are repeating my point as a counter-argument to my point? Or are we in agreement here?
> 
> .


Composers who followed Wagner went in a different direction.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Composers who followed Wagner went in a different direction.


So we are in agreement.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> My goodness! I've heard it some things but not this!


I've only ever seen Donerstag: it's got the weight of Wagner. _Licht _is certainly not short of ambition.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> T&I and Parsifal are both "developed" and sophisticated, sure. But they don't push the boundary or demonstrate the potency of Gesamtkunstwerk as much as the Ring did.


"Tristan forms Wagner's moment of truth with the "daemonic" element in Western music and drama. It completes his formal revolution in the chromaticism that marks a "turning point" in musical thought.
In classifying Tristan, commentators agree that it is the closest thing by Wagner to his ideal of the Gesamtkunstwerk."
( The Aesthetic State: A Quest in Modern German Thought , By Josef Chytry , Page 291 )


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I've only ever seen Donerstag: it's got the weight of Wagner. _Licht _is certainly not short of ambition.


Could use a bit more Wagner tuba.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Could use a bit more Wagner tuba.


There may be some in this bit


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> "Tristan forms Wagner's moment of truth with the "daemonic" element in Western music and drama. It completes his formal revolution in the chromaticism that marks a "turning point" in musical thought.
> In classifying Tristan, commentators agree that it is the closest thing by Wagner to his ideal of the Gesamtkunstwerk."
> ( The Aesthetic State: A Quest in Modern German Thought , By Josef Chytry , Page 291 )


Thanks for the reference. I respect musicologists' opinion and I will look into it. But outside revolutionary chromaticism in T&I and the coherence of music and symbols and themes and drama etc., T&I is nowhere near as thematically rich as the Ring even though it's closer to greek tragedies that Wagner held high. There is just not that much to read into in T&I, unlike the Ring, which still remains its relevance in the present (even more so right now). For me, the Ring represents something even greater than the narrowly defined Gesamtkunstwerk.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

You folks must be trying to get Wodduck into this thread.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> There may be some in this bit


How the hell did we end up in Stockhausen in a discussion of WTC?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> You folks must be trying to get Wodduck into this thread.


(Don't reveal the secret schemes :lol


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Thanks for the reference. I respect musicologists' opinion and I will look into it. But outside revolutionary chromaticism in T&I and the coherence of music and symbols and themes and drama etc., T&I is nowhere near as thematically rich as the Ring even though it's closer to greek tragedies that Wagner held high. There is just not that much to read into in T&I, unlike the Ring, which still remains its relevance in the present (even more so right now). For me, the Ring represents something even greater than the narrowly defined Gesamtkunstwerk.


I think Wagner's Artwork of the future is something even deeper than Gesamtkunstwerk as an artwork embracing (or striving to embrace) all forms of art. _Parsifal_ has striked me as a more all-embracing work than _Tristan_.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

jegreenwood said:


> Without much consideration, if I had to pick only two, they would be "The Marriage of Figaro" and Schubert's String Quintet. Several Bach works, including WTC, would be in my top 10.


That's a lovely opinion. I think mine would look slightly reversed, with many favorite works being from Mozart and Schubert, but reserving the top spot for Beethoven's 9th because WTC and The Ring need to be split up into fair groups of the same duration.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> Bach's WTC deserves it's top tier position


The short answer is, yes.

I can't think of a more canonical work from any period. It is a work all serious pianists must conquer, and a work that most pianists play their entire careers, some use it to warm up for an hour each day. It does not require an orchestra, but Bach created a cathedral out of a few notes in all of the pieces. A musician stands alone with this music, no one is there to prop him up, or help him out of a mess, Bach demands enormous resources from a musician, he is exposed, but the work is also very beautiful and moving.

If I could save only one work from being destroyed from all of music (outlandish premise, yet) I would choose the WTC.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Let's match up BSC with WTC. That will be a fair hour-for-hour comparison. What's BSC you ask? Beethoven Symphonies Cycle.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

annaw said:


> I think Wagner's Artwork of the future is something even deeper than Gesamtkunstwerk as an artwork embracing (or striving to embrace) all forms of art. _Parsifal_ has striked me as a more all-embracing work than _Tristan_.


Parsifal has been my "shame" opera that I couldn't quite get into. I was a big fan of Nietzsche during college days which made me very prejudiced against Parsifal until this day. I found its soundscape so different and not easy to interpret so I have subconsciously overlooked it for a long time. Maybe it's time I revisit that Knappertsbush set and dive into it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> Let's match up BSC with WTC. That will be a fair hour-for-hour comparison. What's BSC you ask? Beethoven Symphonies Cycle.


A better match would be the WTC with Shostakovich's 24 Preludes and Fugues. After that, a good 4-way match would be Chopin's Preludes vs. Rachmaninov's Preludes vs. Scriabin's op. 11 Preludes vs. Shosty's op. 34 Preludes. The best thing would be to listen to this wonderful music and leave Beethoven/Stockhausen/Wagner for another day.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Parsifal has been my "shame" opera that I couldn't quite get into. I was a big fan of Nietzsche during college days which made me very prejudiced against Parsifal until this day. I found its soundscape so different and easy to interpret so I have subconsciously overlooked it for a long time. Maybe it's time I revisit that Knappertsbush set and dive into it.


I struggled getting into _Tristan_ but eventually I (luckily) succeeded! I think Nietzsche had a sort of love-hate relationship with _Parsifal_ (check this out: https://www.monsalvat.no/nietzsche-wagner.htm, a wonderful website). While it was among the reasons why he fell out with Wagner, he also admired the work greatly. He never really seemed to get rid of his fascination and love towards Wagner though, even in his later years. He wrote some beautiful things about him. (Duh, we're off-topic... WTC is great!)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> A better match would be the WTC with Shostakovich's 24 Preludes and Fugues. After that, a good 3-way match would be Chopin's Preludes vs. Scriabin's op. 11 Preludes vs. Shosty's op. 34 Preludes. The best thing would be to listen to this wonderful music and leave Beethoven/Stockhausen/Wagner for another day.


Please add Rachmaninoff's gorgeous preludes to that list, dog.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bigbang said:


> The problem in judging WTC has to do with comparison to what? This is taken together as one work and compared to what work? All the Beethoven piano sonatas? All Chopin preludes? A symphony?





Fabulin said:


> Maybe an equal number of pages of any other work?





Ethereality said:


> Let's match up BSC with WTC. That will be a fair hour-for-hour comparison. What's BSC you ask? Beethoven Symphonies Cycle.


I raised a similar issue a long time ago. I asked "why are Chopin's Nocturnes listed as one identity? Not even as separate groups of Op.9, Op.15, Op.27..?". But no one seemed to care very much. I think it's all just fun and games, not something to be taken seriously. 
Even Chopin himself didn't play his complete Op.28 preludes as a cycle in his own concerts. ( "Each programme also included a selection of the shorter works, such as the nocturnes, etudes, preludes and mazurkas" ) So even though Chopin didn't consider the preludes "one single work", they're grouped together as one work in the list. The nocturnes are clearly published at different times with different publication numbers, but they're grouped together as one work in the list.
I think the list is screwed up, with no logical consistency.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> I raised a similar issue a long time ago. I asked "why are Chopin's Nocturnes listed as one identity? Not even as separate groups of Op.9, Op.15, Op.27..?". But no one seemed to care very much. I think it's all just fun and games, not something to be taken seriously.
> Even Chopin himself didn't play his complete Op.28 preludes as a cycle in his own concerts. ( "Each programme also included a selection of the shorter works, such as the nocturnes, etudes, preludes and mazurkas[/URL]" )
> I think the list is screwed up, with no logical consistency.


I admire the appetite for more logical consistency in the most important list of CM recommendations but this seems to be a tough challenge if not impossible to achieve.

WTC should be treated as a unified body of work, that's kind of the point. The Ballads and Scherzos of Chopin should be treated separately in my view.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I admire the appetite for more logical consistency in the most important list of CM recommendations but this seems to be a tough challenge if not impossible to achieve.
> 
> WTC should be treated as a unified body of work, that's kind of the point. The Ballads and Scherzos of Chopin should be treated separately in my view.


Keep the same exact works as they are, and the same amount of votes, but simply divide the amount of votes by the average length of the piece. That will perfectly reflect hour-for-hour worth. But it must be said "These are just the ratings for the hour-by-hour value in the work" but "here's its rating for the full piece also."

Or else we might as well take Beethoven's Symphony Cycle vs WTC and put it to a vote. No, hour-by-hour listening value is what we want here.

Hammeredklavier is perfectly correct, it currently has no logical consistency to rate a 4 hour WTC against a 1 hour Choral Symphony, when Bach expects us to give him much more advantage in content, time and listening. Not saying he loses: voters will start catching on and taking more notice to everything that needs to be listened to in longer pieces, the full breadth and value they really have relative to shorter works. WTC is better yes, but then, BSC is even better imo. So we get nowhere.

In the lower tiers many people are actually voting for shorter works, because they don't fully engage in or appreciate the breadth of the longer ones, ignoring the full value. For example the recent Tier 43 had more people voting for Barber's 14 minute Essay 1 and 2, then they did whole 45 minute concerts by Tchaikovsky and Elgar, mostly I think because they're not evaluating the full works correctly in all their development. This is not something the accurate version of the system (I proposed) is responsible for. People should know the works they're choosing between.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

^I think another solution would be to just stop making lists like this. There's a lot of stuff that I don't regard as being part of "classical music", it makes me want to ask why not add stuff from other genres (ex. jazz) in it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> In the lower tiers many people are actually voting for shorter works, because they don't fully engage in or appreciate the breadth of the longer ones, ignoring the full value. For example the recent Tier 43 had more people voting for Barber's 14 minute Essay 1 and 2, then they did whole 45 minute concerts by Tchaikovsky and Elgar, mostly I think because they're not evaluating the full works correctly. This is not something the accurate version of the system (I proposed) is responsible for. People should know the works they're choosing between.


Under that system, I am afraid that the beloved Ring cycle will fall to bottomless perdition.

As an example, the Ring cycle needs more than 200 times more votes than that of Bach's little fugue to beat it.

I like the suggestion and the intuition of the system is correct, but the relation between duration and weight on the vote need not be linear or at fixed proportion, it is unclear how to formulate this and I am afraid this will get complicated fast.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Under that system, I am afraid that the beloved Ring cycle will fall to bottomless perdition.
> 
> As an example, the Ring cycle needs more than 200 times more votes than that of Bach's little fugue to beat it.


It would never be expected that most people will actually listen to the full Ring and evaluate it fairly in any system, so we can't do that. But still, it's not a flaw in the system: people are moving _The Ring_ up and down tiers every month because they _want_ to place it in that spot. It's not a _competitive_ evaluation, it's a lot like upgrading to hydro-powered cars for the environment. It causes a lot of confusion at first, but once people catch on that we're voting for the true hour-by-hour worth in composition, The Ring will get a lot more votes, as people will get used to this method of evalulatiing the true length and breadth of works, as in 17x more hours worth of content to be rated as accurately as possible, not a passive "Ring = Choral Symphony" silliness.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> But still, that's not a flaw in the system: people are moving The Ring up and down tiers every month because they _want_ to place it in that spot. It's a lot like moving to hydro-powered cars for the environment. It causes a lot of confusion at first, but once people catch on that we're voting for the true hour-by-hour worth in composition, The Ring will get a lot more votes, and people will get used to looking at the true length and breadth of works in an accurate system makes this possible. It would never be expected that most people will actually listen to the full Ring and evaluate it fairly, and that's nothing any system can fix. Better to stay with a logical system that people will start adapting to more accurately (hydro or solar cars), than a faulty system for convenience sake.


The problem is that one should rather make the assumption that anyone who votes for the Ring, has listened to the Ring, even if such assumption wouldn't be correct. I don't think anyone votes for the Ring because it's the Ring. In case this is the bias (though we don't know if it actually is (?)) then it should be a written rule that before voting, one should have listened to all pieces. Of course this probably decreases the number of votes but that's statistically still better than modelling a relation between the length and relative "greatness" which we'd probably not be able to model without causing just another bias because we cannot create a perfect model. Part of work's greatness is also it cohesiveness and you would destroy that of Der Ring if we were to evaluate it based on 20 minutes. Imagine listening to Bach's Little Fugue for 15 hours .


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

annaw said:


> The problem is that one should rather make the assumption that anyone who votes for the Ring, has listened to the Ring, even if such assumption wouldn't be correct. I don't think anyone votes for the Ring because it's the Ring. In case this is the bias (though we don't know if it actually is (?)) then it should be a written rule that before voting, one should have listened to all pieces. *Of course this probably decreases the number of votes but that's statistically still better* than modelling a relation between the length and relative "greatness" which we'd probably not be able to model without causing just another bias because we cannot create a perfect model. Part of work's greatness is also it cohesiveness and you would destroy that of _Der Ring_ if we were to evaluate it based on 20 minutes. Imagine listening to Bach's Little Fugue for 15 hours .


The bolded is the correct way, but uninforceable.

We can still logically do the non-divided original method, but it wouldn't be a list of "Greatest Recommendations," as there are much better hour's worth to listen to of shorter, lower-tier works. For example, if a 17 hour work VS a 1 hour work are in the same tier, one has much more value per hour, and many works way down the list will by the same reason. Works that many people won't see.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> The bolded is the correct way, but uninforceable.
> 
> However we can still do it this non-divided original way, but we can't name the list "Greatest Recommendations" because there are much better hour's worth to listen to that we would recommended much more, but they make low Tiers because they're shorter, and much more plenty of them.


I think Ring operas would be high even if you considered all the operas separately but as long as we recommend _works_, we should talk about works not hours. It's a different case with recommending hours but that would be an advantage for the longer pieces as well because I think I'd rather listen to an hour of Beethoven's 9th than Bach's Little Fugue ~20 times. I still stick with what I said - evaluating works based on "hours" would lead to destroying the cohesiveness and logic of those pieces. I'm sure there are longer works than Ring which don't get voted nearly as high. The solution would be to make separate tiers grouping compositions based on their length. Then you wouldn't have to compare the Ring and Little Fugue.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> Keep the same exact works as they are, and the same amount of votes, but simply divide the amount of votes by the average length of the piece. That will perfectly reflect hour-for-hour worth. But it must be said "These are just the ratings for the hour-by-hour value in the work" but "here's its rating for the full piece also."
> 
> In the lower tiers many people are actually voting for shorter works, because they don't fully engage in or appreciate the breadth of the longer ones, ignoring the full value.


Shorter works take less time; speed is the essence of our era.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

The problem to me is the apparent arbitrariness of the tiers. Why only include two works in the top tier? Why are the works boldy proclaimed to reside in 'the top three tiers in all of classical music!', for instance, not spread over 1 tier, or 5 tiers?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

RogerWaters said:


> The problem to me is the complete arbitrariness of the tiers. Why only include two works in the top tier? Why are the works boldy proclimaed as 'the top three tiers in all of classical music!' not 1 tier, or 5 tiers?


These tiers are far from an objective evaluation and thus I don't think that claiming this or that to be in x-th tier is actually a problem. They shouldn't be taken too seriously. I rather see them as a good way to myself oneself with new pieces.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> ^I think another solution would be to just stop making lists like this. There's a lot of stuff that I don't regard as being part of "classical music", it makes me want to ask why not add stuff from other genres (ex. jazz) in it.


The good thing is all music has been related to each other through a progression of influences and individual playlists. You can trace Biber to Brahms to Ball Rag to Blues to Beatles, just by looking at history or peoples' own lists. So in this way we don't need a big "recommendation list," when we can find our own recommendation list that fits much better, just by searching YouTube playlists with works you like, and put a - before the composers you don't care for as much, then you find all the new works you will like.

The forum list I feel is trying more to showcase objectivity and competition, rather than truly recommending stuff that fits people.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

annaw said:


> These tiers are far from an objective evaluation and thus I don't think that claiming this or that to be in x-th tier is actually a problem.


Hmmm then why not just have one tier? Why not put WTC in tier 39? (etc.)

It is stated on the list that 'nothing of its kind exists' (or something along those lines), so some importance, at least, is being placed on it beyond it just being a bit of subjective fun.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

RogerWaters said:


> Hmmm then why not just have one tier? Why not put WTC in tier 39? (etc.)


Tiers are there to make ranking pieces at least a bit easier (ranking classical music is in itself quite umm interesting activity). So instead of claiming that e.g Beethoven's 6th is 22nd (subjectively) "best" composition, you say that it's in x-th tier with this and that piece. They are just works which, based on TC members' evaluation, are similar in their "greatness".

EDIT: I don't wish to dwell too much on this subjectivity/objectivity topic. Let's just say that the list is based on TC members' opinions. Whether that's a basis of subjective or objective evaluation is a different discussion I think.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Although I voted "yes," I don't appreciate the WTC as much as others seem to. Though I am slowly coming around.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> Shorter works take less time; speed is the essence of our era.


If speed is so important, then how about "Turbo Ring", which is just regular Ring played on 4× speed, so you can enjoy the Ring cycle by spending the time of a single opera? 

If we measure works by power/sentence, then the Illiad does not stand a chance against the terse poetry of the tweets of the current POTUS. The sum is always greater than its parts for the magna opera.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

annaw said:


> Tiers are there to make ranking pieces at least a bit easier (ranking classical music is in itself quite umm interesting activity). So instead of claiming that e.g Beethoven's 6th is 22nd (subjectively) "best" composition, you say that it's in x-th tier with this and that piece. They are just works which, based on TC members' evaluation, are similar in their "greatness".


Ok. I can see how this would work for, perhaps, everyone's different top 5 tiers. However, beyond this? Like, you guys all actually keep mental track of what peices would be in your individual 33rd tiers as opposed to your 34th?!

Beyond this, I'm wondering how the number of works in each tier is decided? For instance, why does the top tier includes only 2 works?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> *If speed is so important, then how about "Turbo Ring", which is just regular Ring played on 4× speed, so you can enjoy the Ring cycle by spending the time of a single opera? *
> 
> If we measure works by power/sentence, then the Illiad does not stand a chance against the terse poetry of the tweets of the current POTUS. The sum is always greater than its parts for the magna opera.


Metropolitan seemingly managed to record multiple such Turbo Wagner operas during the past century, through different means but still... quite Turbo as far as I've understood .


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

RogerWaters said:


> Ok. I can see how this would work for, perhaps, everyone's different top 5 tiers. However, beyond this? Like, you guys all actually keep mental track of what peices would be in your individual 33rd tiers as opposed to your 34th?!
> 
> Beyond this, I'm wondering why the top tier includes only 2 works?


I actually don't know the answers. I have voted very few times myself and certainly don't know what's in 33rd tier... Maybe some more knowledgeable people are able to answer.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

RogerWaters said:


> Like, you guys all actually keep mental track of what peices would be in your individual 33rd tiers as opposed to your 34th?!


People on this forum have an conscious way of mocking the idea of ranking composers or works, but in doing so they lack the consciousness that this is exactly how we find new music to listen to next. By saying "X work is thrice as good as Y work" one is essentially saying they want to find more works that link to X work and avoid linking to Y work. This is all possible by ranking or 'keeping track.' It's the natural way to go about it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> People on this forum have an conscious way of mocking the idea of ranking composers or works, but in doing so they lack the consciousness that this is exactly how we find new music to listen to next. By saying "X work is thrice as good as Y work" one is essentially saying they want to find more works that link to X work and avoid linking to Y work.


What does it mean by "X work is thrice as good as Y work?". What is being quantified about a work for comparison? Do you mean the "amount of enjoyment/pleasure obtained" from a work of a representative member of the forum?

In my view, the list can only be seen as an aggregated preference list.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> People on this forum have an unconscious way of mocking the idea of ranking composers or works, but in doing so they're not realizing this is exactly how we find what similar music we want to listen to next. By saying X work is thrice as good as Y work, you're able to find recommendations that link to X work and avoid linking to Y work.


My main problem with ranking art is that I feel like evaluating someone's inner expression and feelings... I still enjoy the rankings but often for the purpose of discovering new pieces.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> People on this forum have an conscious way of mocking the idea of ranking composers or works, but in doing so they lack the consciousness that this is exactly how we find new music to listen to next. By saying "X work is thrice as good as Y work" one is essentially saying they want to find more works that link to X work and avoid linking to Y work.


I do not intend to be mocking. I'm just genuinely concerned that asking people to differnetiate their 42nd favourite works from their 43rd favourite will be basically arbitrary, along with the fact I'm struggling to understand how the number of works in each tier is decided upon in any principled way.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> What does it mean by "X work is thrice as good as Y work?". What is being quantified about a work for comparison? *Do you mean the "amount of enjoyment/pleasure obtained" from a work of a representative member of the forum?*


Yes. This is the essential, priceless value of ranking and ordering things. These big polls of the forum's average opinions are just a side-attraction.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> What does it mean by "X work is thrice as good as Y work?". What is being quantified about a work for comparison? Do you mean the "amount of enjoyment/pleasure obtained" from a work of a representative member of the forum?
> 
> In my view, the list can only be seen as an aggregated preference list.


Literally mirroring my own thoughts on the thread I just made about polls.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> Let's match up BSC with WTC. That will be a fair hour-for-hour comparison. What's BSC you ask? Beethoven Symphonies Cycle.


In all honesty I think WTC still "wins". Over the weekend I was playing two of the more "modest" p/f pairs from WTC II, the ones in A major and B flat major. They're still stunning regardless. Beethoven's symphonies are uneven in comparison.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> If speed is so important, then how about "Turbo Ring", which is just regular Ring played on 4× speed, so you can enjoy the Ring cycle by spending the time of a single opera?
> 
> If we measure works by power/sentence, then the Illiad does not stand a chance against the terse poetry of the tweets of the current POTUS. The sum is always greater than its parts for the magna opera.


I think it is called "highlights" and probably the way many listeners "speed" through the work instead of actually listening to the whole thing. To be honest WTC has to be regarded as a greater favorite if Ring listeners are cheating..............


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bigbang said:


> I think it is called "highlights" and probably the way many listeners "speed" through the work instead of actually listening to the whole thing. To be honest WTC has to be regarded as a greater favorite if Ring listeners are cheating..............


I doubt that Bach intended or even imagined that his 48 would be played all the way through (or even just one book) in a recital. He probably would have been astonished. After all, he advertised the work as pedagogical and simply for the pleasure of the keyboardist, not as a performance piece.

Similarly, Shostakovich's Op. 87 seems to have been performed primarily as "entr'actes" in larger concerts, usually a selection of just a few P&F's between more substantial works.

Which is to say, it's hard for me to think of a pick-and-choose approach to listening to the 48 as "cheating." And for me, a similar approach to the ring isn't cheating either, it's simple sanity.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

KenOC said:


> I doubt that Bach intended or even imagined that his 48 would be played all the way through (or even just one book) in a recital.


Actually, his son CPE Bach attested to the fact that Bach performed the WTC in one sitting, more than once.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Actually, his son CPE Bach attested to the fact that Bach performed the WTC in one sitting, more than once.


I'd be interested if you'd let me know where he said that.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Parsifal has been my "shame" opera that I couldn't quite get into. I was a big fan of Nietzsche during college days which made me very prejudiced against Parsifal until this day. I found its soundscape so different and not easy to interpret so I have subconsciously overlooked it for a long time. Maybe it's time I revisit that Knappertsbush set and dive into it.


Why be a fan of a man who was bonkers?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Won't be a fan of a man who was bonkers?


Now you mention it, it was sure interesting why I liked Nietzche's writing at that point in life (his writing is pretty darn good). A philosopher gone mad is as ironic as a composer gone deaf, most likely due to syphilis, the bane of great and ordinary people alike during the pre-modern period.

As annaw pointed out, Nietzche had a conflicting opinion on Parsifal. He did end up liking Parsifal. But his relationship with Wagner was forever poisoned by his vitriolic initial critique of Parsifal.

Nietzsche composed some serious music too.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

So, a "bag" of technical tricks/ keyboard exercises is the most recommended work of a composer that produced many more musically pleasing (and more complex, but not more complicated) works. Isn't this a clear example of snobbism?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

BabyGiraffe said:


> So, a "bag" of technical tricks/ keyboard exercises is the most recommended work of a composer that produced many more musically pleasing (and more complex, but not more complicated) works. Isn't this a clear example of snobbism?


I think this is a very good point. Bach wrote it: "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study" When a concert hall full of us heard Angela Hewitt play all of Book 2 I couldn't help thinking that JSB would have thought we were bonkers as he never meant them to be played as concert pieces like that. The WTC is an incredible work but give me either of the passions any day for my desert island!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I think this is a very good point. Bach wrote it: "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study" When a concert hall full of us heard Angela Hewitt play all of Book 2 I couldn't help thinking that JSB would have thought we were bonkers as he never meant them to be played as concert pieces like that. The WTC is an incredible work but give me either of the passions any day for my desert island!


I actually like this take.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

DavidA said:


> I think this is a very good point. Bach wrote it: "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study" When a concert hall full of us heard Angela Hewitt play all of Book 2 I couldn't help thinking that JSB would have thought we were bonkers as he never meant them to be played as concert pieces like that. The WTC is an incredible work but give me either of the passions any day for my desert island!


Yet you still voted 'yes' - so you did so because of it's influence?

Just curious.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

BabyGiraffe said:


> So, a "bag" of technical tricks/ keyboard exercises is the most recommended work of a composer that produced many more musically pleasing (and more complex, but not more complicated) works. Isn't this a clear example of snobbism?


No, it's just an indication that you don't appreciate the WTC.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Surely a bag of beautiful and _musical_ "tricks."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

janxharris said:


> Yet you still voted 'yes' - so you did so because of it's influence?
> 
> Just curious.


Of course, it is an incredible and foundational work - like the art of fugue. But it doesn't mean that there are other works by the master I don't prefer


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mikeh375 said:


> Surely a bag of beautiful and _musical_ "tricks."


Bach would have agreed that it was a bag of technical tricks - what he set out to do. The fact they were also musical was a tribute to his genius. See also the Art of Fugue.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Of course, it is an incredible and foundational work - like the art of fugue. But it doesn't mean that there are other works by the master I don't prefer


I suppose the rubric:

_'The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works'_

is somewhat vague with 'favourite' and 'recommended' leaving room for interpretation.

Perhaps I am wrong to assume that one is always being asked for one's favourite unless otherwise explicitly stated.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Bach would have agreed that it was a bag of technical tricks - what he set out to do. The fact they were also musical was a tribute to his genius.


So, a piece of music is musical? Great logic.

But all of you missed my main point - disregarding the quality of the work itself, the whole idea behind it being on the top of this list is that this recommendation is totally in spirit of classical music's "pseudo elitism" where people are into something not because they like it, but because it's perceived as technically superior even when the same composer has way more "tuneful" compositions.
Related to this line of thought, Wikipedia has good historical definitions of the word "baroque", I would say plenty of classical music works (especially from 20th century) are in-line with this definition and deserve to be called "baroque" (in this meaning of the word):

"Although it was long thought that the word as a critical term was first applied to architecture, in fact it appears earlier in reference to music, in an anonymous, _satirical _review of the première in October 1733 of Rameau's Hippolyte et Aricie, printed in the Mercure de France in May 1734. The critic implied that the novelty in this opera was "du barocque", complaining that the music _lacked coherent melody, was filled with unremitting dissonances, constantly changed key and meter, and speedily ran through every compositional device_.[3]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was a musician and composer as well as philosopher, wrote in 1768 in the Encyclopédie: "Baroque music is that in which the _harmony is confused, and loaded with modulations and dissonances. The singing is harsh and unnatural, the intonation difficult, and the movement limited_. It appears that term comes from the word 'baroco' used by logicians."[4] Rousseau was referring to the philosophical term _baroco_, in use since the 13th century to describe a type of_ elaborate and, for some, unnecessarily complicated academic argumen_t.[5][6]

The systematic application by historians of the term "baroque" to music of this period is a relatively recent development."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_music#Etymology


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

BabyGiraffe said:


> But all of you missed my main point - disregarding the quality of the work itself, the whole idea behind it being on the top of this list is that this recommendation is totally in spirit of classical music's "pseudo elitism" where people are into something not because they like it, but because it's perceived as technically superior even when the same composer has way more "tuneful" compositions.
> Related to this line of thought, Wikipedia has good historical definitions of the word "baroque", I would say plenty of classical music works (especially from 20th century) are in-line with this definition and deserve to be called "baroque" (in this meaning of the word):


How do you know if a significant number did as you describe?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

BabyGiraffe said:


> So, a piece of music is musical? Great logic.
> 
> But all of you missed my main point - disregarding the quality of the work itself, the whole idea behind it being on the top of this list is that this recommendation is totally in spirit of classical music's "pseudo elitism" where people are into something not because they like it, but because it's perceived as technically superior even when the same composer has way more "tuneful" compositions.
> Related to this line of thought, Wikipedia has good historical definitions of the word "baroque", I would say plenty of classical music works (especially from 20th century) are in-line with this definition and deserve to be called "baroque" (in this meaning of the word):
> ...


I think anyone who quotes Rousseau in defence of an argument has already lost the argument! :lol:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

BabyGiraffe said:


> But all of you missed my main point - disregarding the quality of the work itself, the whole idea behind it being on the top of this list is that this recommendation is totally in spirit of classical music's "pseudo elitism" where people are into something not because they like it, but because it's perceived as technically superior even when the same composer has way more "tuneful" compositions.]


You are so wrong and rather insulting. First, your assumption that Bach has way more tuneful compositions than the WTC is just an opinion which I don't agree with. Second, your assumption that the people who praise the WTC only do so because they find it technically superior is without any evidence and an insult to their basic honesty.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

BabyGiraffe said:


> So, a piece of music is musical? Great logic.


There is a distinction though, depending on how one defines musical. In my book, Bach's technical tricks are way beyond academic pedantry. The surface is refined beauty, the mechanism underneath supports this with the primacy of line over the vertical imv.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I think this is a very good point. Bach wrote it: "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study" When a concert hall full of us heard Angela Hewitt play all of Book 2 I couldn't help thinking that JSB would have thought we were bonkers as he never meant them to be played as concert pieces like that. The WTC is an incredible work but give me either of the passions any day for my desert island!


Yes he did write it for that purpose, but being a great teacher he presented the thing to be learned as beautiful and compelling, and not as a kind of proto-Hanon. That said, I do agree that in the Bach canon there are greater works...the cantatas as whole, for example, or the Passions or B Minor Mass or the Magnificat. Or the four Clavier-Übung volumes.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

consuono said:


> Yes he did write it for that purpose, but being a great teacher he presented the thing to be learned as beautiful and compelling, and not as a kind of proto-Hanon. That said, I do agree that in the Bach canon there are greater works...the cantatas as whole, for example, or the Passions or B Minor Mass or the Magnificat. Or the four Clavier-Übung volumes.


It says something, I think, when the position of one of Bach's works as being his best seems to be more contentious than whether it belongs in a "top tier" of musical compositions. So, what we're more arguing about is why there aren't more of his pieces also on the top tier.
Perhaps there should be a top tier that only has pieces by JSB on it, and then there are lower tiers for the also rans.

And, by the way, I voted Yes on the basis that there is so much beauty in the WTC, not because the pieces may be clever. I don't really care about the technical wizardry, although I do believe that the greatest beauty often arises when creativity operates within a constraint, such as the construction of a fugue.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eclectic Al said:


> It says something, I think, when the position of one of Bach's works as being his best seems to be more contentious than whether it belongs in a "top tier" of musical compositions. So, what we're more arguing about is why there aren't more of his pieces also on the top tier.
> Perhaps there should be a top tier that only has pieces by JSB on it, and then there are lower tiers for the also rans.
> 
> And, by the way, I voted Yes on the basis that there is so much beauty in the WTC, not because the pieces may be clever. I don't really care about the technical wizardry, although I do believe that the greatest beauty often arises when creativity operates within a constraint, such as the construction of a fugue.


To me it is the same league as the Art of Fugue. Bach wrote that as an exercise but when you listen the effect is mesmeric!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Deleted post.................


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Bach wrote it: "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study"


Bk1. No frontispiece for Bk 2. We don't even have a title for the music commonly called "WTC2."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Bach wrote that as an exercise


That's a big assumption, esp for Bk 2. He was writing Clavier Ubung 3, The Goldberg Variations and the Art of Fugue while he was putting together WTC2. And it was not commissioned, he wasn't doing it to make money. Hard to imagine that it was an exercise rather than the result of a creative impulse.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

DavidA said:


> I think this is a very good point. Bach wrote it: "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study" When a concert hall full of us heard Angela Hewitt play all of Book 2 I couldn't help thinking that JSB would have thought we were bonkers as he never meant them to be played as concert pieces like that. The WTC is an incredible work but give me either of the passions any day for my desert island!


I think all of Bach music (clavier) was more or less intended for people to play, not perform as in the modern sense. So his other suites/partitas have a purpose to entertain the performer. I know the Goldberg story--please don't bother. For me, the WTC is too much in one sitting, maybe an hour or less of it at a time. Remember we have all this music from all sources so time is limited.

Sure put it on the bucket list and if enlightenment does not happen, no biggie, move on.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> That's a big assumption, esp for Bk 2. He was writing Clavier Ubung 3, The Goldberg Variations and the Art of Fugue while he was putting together WTC2. And it was not commissioned, he wasn't doing it to make money. Hard to imagine that it was an exercise rather than the result of a creative impulse.


I'm only familiar with Bk I - are you suggesting that Bk II is in contrast to I creatively speaking?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

janxharris said:


> I'm only familiar with Bk I - are you suggesting that Bk II is in contrast to I creatively speaking?


I don't know WTC I well enough to comment.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

I might mention that a classical radio station top forty put out every year hardly has any Bach on it. Sometimes the Brandenburg concertos, etc., but the last one had Mass in B minor, no WTC. Granted the votes come from those who contribute (and listen) to the station. They represent the broader audience and some favor easy and big classical music hits. Bach is too much to take in for the mainstream listeners so it is safe to say WTC would not place in the top tier if voting was done random by a broader group of listeners.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bigbang said:


> I might mention that a classical radio station top forty put out every year hardly has any Bach on it. Sometimes the Brandenburg concertos, etc., but the last one had Mass in B minor, no WTC. Granted the votes come from those who contribute (and listen) to the station. They represent the broader audience and some favor easy and big classical music hits. Bach is too much to take in for the mainstream listeners so it is safe to say WTC would not place in the top tier if voting was done random by a broader group of listeners.


Which is fully recognised:

'Naturally, our list represents the knowledge and tastes of the people who have helped build it. We do not claim that it is the single, official objective canon of art music!'

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Let me clarify. Characterizing WTC as the Old Testament of music is no different from saying that WTC is the most important work in the canon, i.e, WTC is top tier, which seems eerily tautological for me._

Aside from being argumentative, and to use your logic, if someone says well tempered clavier is the most important work in the canon why do you have trouble understanding they think it "deserves it's top tier position" as asked at the beginning of this thread?

It is silly to think WTC is anything but the top tier of keyboard music in classical music.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

larold said:


> It is silly to think WTC is anything but the top tier of keyboard music in classical music.


Why? .


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

janxharris said:


> I'm only familiar with Bk I - are you suggesting that Bk II is in contrast to I creatively speaking?


Not so much a "contrast" as an expansion. There is a little more "polish" in the second set, the preludes in particular are more extensive and are mostly in a binary form such as was used by Scarlatti. The level of skill required is a lot greater, in my opinion anyway. (Right off the bat, the very first fugue is tricky to play at a good speed.) The craftsmanship shown in the contrapuntal writing in Book II is of an even higher quality than in Book I.

On the other hand, Book I in its entirety feels to me more like a single cohesive unit than Book II does. I'm no musicologist or scholar but I get the feeling that Book II didn't have quite the pedagogical purpose that Book I had.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Great logic. it's perceived as technically superior even when the same composer has way more "tuneful" compositions. Related to this line of thought, Wikipedia has good historical definitions of the word "baroque", I would say plenty of classical music works (especially from 20th century) are in-line with this definition and deserve to be called "baroque" (in this meaning of the word):


Hahahahaha, typical BabyGiraffe logic. I know his two favorite activities on TC. One is "to discuss needlessly complicated stuff about some obscure tuning methods in the music theory subforum", and the other is "to denigrate every major canon composer by pigeonholing them in terms of style." 
I remember him talking like "do you know why Mozart is boring? It's because of his galant style". 
Now he uses a similar logic: "do you know why Bach is boring? It's because of his baroque style."



BabyGiraffe said:


> About Mozart - he becomes somewhat more original later in his life, too bad he died so young... Probably the most formulaic famous composer - if you learn more about the galant style, you will understand why.


Appreciation for the WTC has absolutely nothing to do with elitism. I have practiced several pieces from both books, and the "hummable quality" of the voices is astounding. If you play the piano, try playing the D major prelude from the first book or the F minor preludes from both books very very slowly, for example. You'll be mesmerized by the "melodies". Read my previous comment on why Bach is good, and the WTC is full of this feel-good factor. I do think that Bach (and Mozart) were extraordinary in absorbing the best elements of the 18th century practices and techniques and utilizing them to great effect.

The "Galant" Style in J. S. Bach's "Musical Offering:" Widening the Dimensions
Gregory Butler https://www.jstor.org/stable/41640497?seq=1

"one of the complaints about Bach was that his cantatas were too operatic. More than any other composer he introduced the Italian opera style into church music, something his predecessor Johann Kuhnau had always resisted." ("Bach and Opera", Bach Cantatas Website)"



hammeredklavier said:


> in Bach, there's a sense of "innocence" (in works such as the Goldberg variations), strong devotion toward something good and benevolent (such as God; I feel this even in the C sharp minor fugue of WTC I and the F sharp minor fugue of WTC II). Also there are solid craftsmanship, and a sense of willingness to stick to formality, both of which are admirable traits in my view. Bach doesn't always "overload" his music with notes. Certain preludes consist of simple figurations such as the one in the G major cello suite, and he is still capable of evoking all kinds of feelings including happiness and sadness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

consuono said:


> Yes he did write it for that purpose, but being a great teacher he presented the thing to be learned as beautiful and compelling, and not as a kind of proto-Hanon. That said, I do agree that in the Bach canon there are greater works...the cantatas as whole, for example, or the Passions or B Minor Mass or the Magnificat. Or the four Clavier-Übung volumes.


They are most definitely not proto-Hanon (which is more of a physical exercise than a musical one) but proto-Etudes. Chopin's Etudes/Preludes are directly influenced by WTC (less the counterpoints and double down on the peotry). There is a deeper reason why WTC-Beethoven 32-Chopin Etudes are the three canons for modern pianists.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> On the other hand, Book I in its entirety feels to me more like a single cohesive unit than Book II does. I'm no musicologist or scholar but I get the feeling that Book II didn't have quite the pedagogical purpose that Book I had.


I know one thing about people who think they know which pieces are pedagogical or easy to play and which pieces are not. 
They don't have the guts to play with this much precision, clarity, expression in front of a crowd of audience this huge.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

consuono said:


> Not so much a "contrast" as an expansion. There is a little more "polish" in the second set, the preludes in particular are more extensive and are mostly in a binary form such as was used by Scarlatti. The level of skill required is a lot greater, in my opinion anyway. (Right off the bat, the very first fugue is tricky to play at a good speed.) The craftsmanship shown in the contrapuntal writing in Book II is of an even higher quality than in Book I.
> 
> On the other hand, Book I in its entirety feels to me more like a single cohesive unit than Book II does. I'm no musicologist or scholar but I get the feeling that Book II didn't have quite the pedagogical purpose that Book I had.


I'm no technical expert, but I know that I quite frequently listen to WTC 2, whereas I rarely do so with WTC 1. I must remedy that, to see if there is a reason why. Before doing that test, my expectation is that it is because I sensed more poetry in WTC 2.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> I know one thing about people who think they know which pieces are pedagogical or easy to play and which pieces are not.
> They don't have the guts to play with this much precision, clarity, expression in front of a crowd of audience this huge.


How do you know? And "pedagogical" doesn't automatically mean "easy to play".


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> They are most definitely not proto-Hanon (which is more of a physical exercise than a musical one) but proto-Etudes. Chopin's Etudes/Preludes are directly influenced by WTC (less the counterpoints and double down on the peotry). There is a deeper reason why WTC-Beethoven 32-Chopin Etudes are the three canons for modern pianists.


I don't think the WTC is analogous to the Chopin etudes though. The most direct comparison is with the Chopin Op. 28 preludes, a set that was directly emulating the WTC -- minus the fugues of course.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> The most direct comparison is with the Chopin Op. 28 preludes, a set that was directly emulating the WTC -- minus the fugues of course.


The WTC would probably be more like a distant predecessor. Close predecessors to Chopin Op.28 preludes would be early 19th century piano miniature works such as J.N. Hummel's 24 Preludes Op.67, and 24 Etudes Op.125, or Joseph Christoph Kessler's 24 Preludes Op.31, and 24 Etudes Op.20 for piano. Kessler dedicated his Op.31 set to Chopin a decade before Chopin dedicated his own Op.28 set to Kessler. Also there were other guys like Ignaz Moscheles writing miniature sets of the kind. Chopin Etude Op.25 No.1 in A flat major is a direct homage to Kessler's Op.20 No.9, btw.









































Chopin Etude Op.10 No.11
Moscheles Op.70 Etude 2 in E minor


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> The WTC would probably be more like a distant predecessor. Close predecessors to Chopin Op.28 preludes would be early 19th century piano miniature works such as J.N. Hummel's 24 Preludes Op.67, and 24 Etudes Op.125, or Joseph Christoph Kessler's 24 Preludes Op.31, and 24 Etudes Op.20 for piano. Kessler dedicated his Op.31 set to Chopin a decade before Chopin dedicated his own Op.28 set to Kessler. Also there were other guys like Ignaz Moscheles writing miniature sets of the kind. Chopin Etude Op.25 No.1 in A flat major is a direct homage to Kessler's Op.20 No.9, btw.


OK, I'll rephrase it: most direct comparison among those that are remembered by people other than pedants.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Yes I think it is deserving. As far as Bach's comments on Book I, it is interesting but I tend to judge a work on the music, not on a composer's comments, so whether he said the work was pedagogical or his greatest masterpiece, is not really that relevant to the question in my view. I think it is often difficult for composers/artists to judge their own work, sometimes they may be humble and under state their view of a work, some may perhaps have an inflated ego and over state a work's importance. Either way this does not effect any of the notes on the pages.

In terms of Book I vs. Book II as I said in another thread:

Personally I don't find book I more pedagogical and book II more poetic. Book II perhaps seems a little more galant.

Maybe Bach's craft had increased by Book II, but some of the themes in Book I to me seem more initially striking. Book II took me a little longer to warm up to, perhaps this is because I prefer the middle Baroque to the later more galant approach? I'm not sure. Some composers have stated that as their skill in composition increases aspects of their music improve, but that they had the most raw inspiration in their younger years. Not sure if this is true regarding this work, but personally I consider the books approximately equal.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_It is silly to think WTC is anything but the top tier of keyboard music in classical music. Why? _

1. *It set a standard*. It created a standard for equal temperament 1722 and 1742 that is still followed in 2020. Even Schoenberg's new 12 tone system didn't interrupt it -- and WTC outlived that too.

2. *Uniqueness*. There has never been anything like it created in music in 300 years.

3. *Relevance over centuries*. Virtually all piano students are trained on it.

4. *Universality*. Just about all fans of classical music get around to listening to it, admiring it, and loving it.

3. *Confirmation by followers*. Many great (not mediocre) composers have copied the music -- the highest form of flattery -- including Mendelssohn a century later and Shostakovich two centuries later.

4. *Fan verification*. Look at the poll results about 4 to 1 for its place in the pantheon. Anyone that knows anything about classical music knows this.

5. *Musician verification*. Most great pianists and harpsichordists get around to recording it. It is to them what recording the Beethoven 9th is to a conductor -- a landmark to be compared against the greatest that ever did it.

Now take all the music you know and see how much of it can have all this said about it.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

larold said:


> _It is silly to think WTC is anything but the top tier of keyboard music in classical music. Why? _
> 
> 1. *It set a standard*. It created a standard for equal temperament 1722 and 1742 that is still followed in 2020. Even Schoenberg's new 12 tone system didn't interrupt it -- and WTC outlived that too.
> 
> ...


This is all good and acceptable larold - it tells us much about the regard many have for WTC - but I for one wont vote for a piece based on other's opinions. The poll this thread references does ask for one's favourite though there is some ambiguity with the addition of 'recommended'.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I don't know what your confusion is since this was the poll question:

_Does Bach's WTC deserves it's top tier position - yes or no?_

It didn't ask if you liked it.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

larold said:


> I don't know what your confusion is since this was the poll question:
> 
> _Does Bach's WTC deserves it's top tier position - yes or no?_
> 
> It didn't ask if you liked it.


I assumed people would base their vote on whether they liked the work or not - maybe that is a fault of mine. As I say, the TC poll asks for one's favourite.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

larold said:


> It created a standard for equal temperament 1722 and 1742 that is still followed in 2020. Even Schoenberg's new 12 tone system didn't interrupt it -- and WTC outlived that too.


Well-temperament, like the one preferred by Buxtehude and Bach: Werckmeister Preferred Chromatic (Werckmeister III), and meantone-temperament are not the same thing as equal-temperament. I think me and other people told you about this several times in the past, also the fact that Bach didn't "invent" the fugue. (but you keep saying that he did.)

Well v.s. Equal Temperament
"Contrary to what you've been taught, Bach did not compose the Well Tempered Clavier to promote the equal tempered tuning system. Equal temperament actually did not come into use until the *20th* century. Bach's motivation for composing the WTC was to demonstrate the feasability of composing in well temperament and to demostrate the varying key colors in well tempered tuning as one progresses around the circle of fifths. The various well temperaments used in Bach's time are distinct from our equal temperament. Well temperament represented a departure from the various meantone tunings that were used in earlier music.
In fact, western music from the time of Bach until the turn of the 20th century was not intended to be performed in equal temperament. Equal temperament is appropriate for some music of the 20th century, especially atonal music, and music based on the whole tone scale, but not for the works of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Composers of the 17 and 18 hundreds used this in their music. When we listen to their music in our modern equal temperament, we are not hearing their harmonic intentions. Key color has been lost."

An Introduction to Historical Tunings
By Kyle Gann
"Equal temperament - the bland, equal spacing of the 12 pitches of the octave - is pretty much a 20th-century phenomenon. It was known about in Europe as early as the early 17th century, and in China much earlier. But it wasn't used, because the consensus was that it sounded awful: out of tune and characterless. During the 19th century (for reasons we'll discuss later), keyboard tuning drifted closer and closer to equal temperament over the protest of many of the more sensitive musicians. Not until 1917 was a method devised for tuning exact equal temperament.
So how was earlier European music tuned? What are we missing when we hear older music played in 20th-century equal temperament?"


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Lots of interesting discussion here. Perhaps we should switch over to this thread: Bach: Das wohltemperierte Klavier (The Well-Tempered Clavier), BWV 846-893, which is the "official reference thread" for the WTC? Then this discussion would be linked from the project homepage so newcomers would be able to see members' thoughts and opinions.

Otherwise I'm actually somewhat surprised to that see such a large representation of the community thinks the top tier position is well-deserved. I was under the impression that we had quite a few Bach skeptics here, but only 8 of them voted in this poll.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Well-temperament, like the one preferred by Buxtehude and Bach: Werckmeister Preferred Chromatic (Werckmeister III), and meantone-temperament are not the same thing as equal-temperament. I think me and other people told you about this several times in the past, also the fact that Bach didn't "invent" the fugue. (but you keep saying that he did.)
> 
> Well v.s. Equal Temperament
> "Contrary to what you've been taught, Bach did not compose the Well Tempered Clavier to promote the equal tempered tuning system. Equal temperament actually did not come into use until the *20th* century. Bach's motivation for composing the WTC was to demonstrate the feasability of composing in well temperament and to demostrate the varying key colors in well tempered tuning as one progresses around the circle of fifths. The various well temperaments used in Bach's time are distinct from our equal temperament. Well temperament represented a departure from the various meantone tunings that were used in earlier music.
> ...


Well temperament sounds far more musical than equal temperament to my ears.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Well-temperament, like the one preferred by Buxtehude and Bach: Werckmeister Preferred Chromatic (Werckmeister III), and meantone-temperament are not the same thing as equal-temperament.


"Meantone" = syntonic comma is tempered. Any equal temperament that does this can be called meantone.

"Meantone" is a family of regular temperaments. The most accurate, in terms of mistuning so we get good major thirds, meantone edo sequence is basically fibonacci (so, Zarlino's meantone is called the "golden meantone" or "phi meantone"), but with starting terms 5 and 7 . So, 12 equal (5+7) is a type of meantone temperament and you are not right that meantone is different from 12 equal.

Bigger equal temperaments can even have several parallel meantone chains or non-meantone and meantone mappings at the same time - that's useful for adaptive just intonation and Vicentino was the first one to suggest such way to perform music without drifting out of tune.

"Well temperament" means kind of irregular temperament that mistunes all of the intervals of a regular temperament (in this case - 12 equal, but we can create irregular temperament out of meantone or whatever rank-2 temperament). If you check the actual intervals of historical well-temperaments, they have some intervals way worse than equal or regular temperaments, so their use is only in chromatic music that wants marginal improvement over equal temperament for some intervals (in this case- fifths and fourths).


----------

