# Is Bach's general popularity based on a few tuneful works?



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

I would like to posit the following: J.S.Bach's world-wide popularity is based on the six Brandenburg Concertos, two of the four Orchestral Suites, the three Violin Concertos, a few movements from the 'cello and Violin Sonatas, half a dozen Cantata choruses, the Goldberg Variations, and a handful of organ and harpsichord works. 

If the above is true, then J.S.Bach isn't so much a composer 'for the people' as is Johann Strauss or Verdi (whose volumes of easily-accessible music are far more vast); he is, in fact, a composer of highly-technical music that most people don't appreciate; his popular pieces are not representative of his usual type of composition. 

If the above is true, then J.S.Bach is a composer whose reputation rests upon what the 'experts' say, rather than the music he wrote that pleases the ears of anyone outside of dedicated 'serious' music enthusiasts. 

Should we measure the greatness of a composer by the complexity/technical proficiency of his works, or by the way in which his works appeal to the untrained ear? If either, why?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Well I never thought I would see Bach compared with Johann Strauss!

Just listened to the St Matthew Passion and you will find one of the greatest musical works ever written by a man. Period! No argument about it!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

This thread isn't very productive is it?


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

violadude said:


> This thread isn't very productive is it?


Certainly more productive than comments like yours, which are typical of the kind of fair by established contributors seeking to colour threads before they have been contributed to by people without prejudice or agenda.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Should we measure the greatness of a composer by the complexity/technical proficiency of his works, or by the way in which his works appeal to the untrained ear? If either, why?


Maybe they go together, the technical proficiency can enhance the popular appeal by making the melodies communicate better, as a well crafted composition in painting communicates the feeling or ideas better. I just think Bach belongs to a perhaps less popular and more distant style for the modern age, the baroque.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I would like to posit the following: J.S.Bach's world-wide popularity is based on the six Brandenburg Concertos, the three Violin Concertos, half a dozen Cantata choruses, the Goldberg Variations, and a handful of organ and harpsichord preludes and fugues.
> 
> If the above is true, then J.S.Bach isn't so much a composer 'for the people' as is Johann Strauss or Verdi (whose volumes of easily-accessible music are far more vast); he is, in fact, a composer of highly-technical music that most people don't appreciate; his popular pieces are not representative of his usual type of composition.
> 
> ...


Nope. You started out OK, *except* for ignoring the solo music for violin and for cello - and an inadequate case for ignoring the WTC (it must be specifically addressed) - and establishing a compelling reason for ignoring the various transcriptions. After that first paragraph, everything after that 'then' (bolded by me, for reference) leaks logic like a seine net. Which means that you have established no basis for your last paragraph.

Bach's popularity among classical music listeners (not performers, that's another thing) could be an interesting conversation. I don't think you have nailed up a useful framework though.

Hey, I was wrong once back in January, could be again, eh?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Bach wrote for various audiences during his lifetime. The sacred cantatas and passions were written for church congregations, and are thus more public music than the rest. The concertos were written for musicians. The keyboard works and theoretically inclined works (like Art of Fugue) were written for study, and are more technically inclined than the rest. The B minor Mass was compiled as a kind of life's work. Of course, he wrote all of his music with the spiritual in mind.

Bach's popularity with audiences is based on a few works, perhaps (some of them spurious or definitely not his, like the G major prelude from the Buchlein or the Toccata and Fugue in D minor, the latter of which is not remarkably "tuneful" as such), but his popularity with musicians will keep him in the public eye forever as one of the supreme greats.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Maybe organ works could sometimes be for popular consumption like the cantatas. But neither genre was really that popular beyond the baroque, just because of the change in style/fashion and even society itself. It took the era of recording to really bring many of these works to the audience out there.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Nope. You started out OK, *except* for ignoring the solo music for violin and for cello - and an inadequate case for ignoring the WTC (it must be specifically addressed) - and establishing a compelling reason for ignoring the various transcriptions. After that first paragraph, everything after that 'then' (bolded by me, for reference) leaks logic like a seine net. Which means that you have established no basis for your last paragraph.
> 
> Bach's popularity among classical music listeners (not performers, that's another thing) could be an interesting conversation. I don't think you have nailed up a useful framework though.
> 
> Hey, I was wrong once back in January, could be again, eh?


Nope, you don't understand what I'm saying (or you're trying to sound intellectually superior to me).

I have started this thread as a genuine discussion piece, not as an example of the perfect piece of logic.

I'll spell it out for you, in case you genuinely don't understand: THE VAST MAJORITY OF J.S.BACH'S WORKS ARE NOT POPULAR WITH/KNOWN TO MOST LISTENERS OF 'CLASSICAL' MUSIC. SINCE THIS IS THE CASE, SHOULD HE BE JUDGED AS BEING 'GREAT' BASED ON HIS TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY RATHER THAN HIS ABILITY/WILLINGNESS TO REGULARLY COMPOSE MUSIC THAT APPEALS TO MOST PEOPLE? IF THE AFORESAID IS NOT THE CASE, THEN SHOULD OTHER COMPOSERS OF LESSER TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY BE REGARDED AS BEING 'GREAT' BASED ON THEIR ABILITY/WILLINGNESS TO WRITE A GREATER PROPORTION OF MUSIC THAT HAS PROVED TO BE ATTRACTIVE TO THE EARS OF LISTENERS THE WORLD OVER?

Simple idea for discussion.

By the way, I possess every work ever written by J.S.Bach in my CD collection. I hold J.S.Bach's works in high esteem. However, I began this thread because I think it asks a very realistic question.

*I have included two of the Orchestral suites and reference to some of the movements from the 'cello and Violin Sonatas in the original post. The Well Tempered Clavier consists of far too many movements that are unknown to the average listener; the title may be familiar, but most of the movements aren't.


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

Is the OP implying Bach isn't popular? I for one need to be quick in securing my tickets for the Christmas Oratorio, St Matthew Passion and indeed for any of the multitude of Bach works that are regularly played...


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Nope, you don't understand what I'm saying (or you're trying to sound intellectually superior to me).
> 
> I have started this thread as a genuine discussion piece, not as an example of the perfect piece of logic.
> 
> ...


You do seem a bit touchy. If it's a genuine discussion piece, please let people disagree with you without shouting at them.
I can't join in as I don't know enough, but I will read any well-reasoned replies with interest.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> . . . and a handful of organ and harpsichord works.


Only a handful? His list of works for organ is quite extensive as noted here on the IMSLP site.

Perhaps considered as one of the greatest composers of all time for the organ, I also have equal appreciation for the organ works of Mendelssohn, Buxtehude, Pachelbel, Reger, Brahms and many others.

His popularity is rather strong in many circles ... but Bach is not the only organ composer on my 'pedestal' of gifted composers. I developed my own 'reputation' upon what I heard and have learned to play as a professional organist. No expert influenced me in any way.

The late Dr. Virgil Fox was able to present the organ music of Back in such a manner that most any non serious or dedicated classical listener could also appreciate this great composer.

I don't think there is any one answer regarding how we measure greatness ... we all have our own quests for great music. Some of the most simplest of tunes are equally as pleasing to me as are the most complex pieces - that's both as a listener and a performer, I enjoy both.

Kh ♫


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Nope, you don't understand what I'm saying (or you're trying to sound intellectually superior to me).
> 
> I have started this thread as a genuine discussion piece, not as an example of the perfect piece of logic.
> [...]
> *I have included two of the Orchestral suites and reference to some of the movements from the 'cello and Violin Sonatas in the original post. The Well Tempered Clavier consists of far too many movements that are unknown to the average listener; the title may be familiar, but most of the movements aren't.


Well first off, I am not "trying to be intellectually superior" to you. << I yam what I yam. >> Your post isn't "a genuine discussion piece" in its original form (it works slightly better after your edits).

[YELLING deleted]

Now that I know who/what you are, I will leave you to your own devices.

:tiphat:


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> . . .he is, in fact, a composer of highly-technical music that most people don't appreciate; his popular pieces are not representative of his usual type of composition.


I think this is true of most musicians, classical and non-classical. If Ravel were judged solely on his Bolero, many might find him mere fluff. And on a side note, all of my non-classical or "pop" favorites have pretty dull hits for radio play, but the real meat of their work is rarely heard.

I think with Bach though, even his more popular pieces are finely crafted gems, including those that are erroneously attributed to him.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Well I never thought I would see Bach compared with Johann Strauss!


You have obviously never heard the St. Matthew Waltz.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I'll spell it out for you, in case you genuinely don't understand: THE VAST MAJORITY OF J.S.BACH'S WORKS ARE NOT POPULAR WITH/KNOWN TO MOST LISTENERS OF 'CLASSICAL' MUSIC.


This is true in a trivial sense: there are very few Bach devotees willing to familiarize themselves with his 1000+ opus numbers.

However, I think you'll find that many people who describe themselves as classical music fans, and certainly most professed Bach fans, will also be familiar with the WTC, the inventions, at least a handful of the cantatas, the cello suites, the partitas and sonatas for solo violin, the major masses and Passions and (especially) the late contrapuntal works. In this: Bach is no different than any other major composer: only a few diehards will know everything, people with a particular interest will know the majority of the important works, and casual listeners will have hit the highlights.

As to whether Bach should be considered "great" or not, well, with respect, my experience is that such discussions are unlikely to be particularly fruitful.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

ahammel said:


> This is true in a trivial sense: there are very few Bach devotees willing to familiarize themselves with his 1000+ opus numbers.


That's one of my musical ambitions! A multi-year enterprise, to be sure.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Certainly more productive than comments like yours, which are typical of the kind of fair by established contributors seeking to colour threads before they have been contributed to by people without prejudice or agenda.


The only prejudiced fare is on this occasion is yours I think judging by your post.
Perhaps Violadude was merely somewhat nonplussed.


----------



## Marisol (May 25, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I would like to posit the following: J.S.Bach's world-wide popularity is based on the six Brandenburg Concertos, two of the four Orchestral Suites, the three Violin Concertos, a few movements from the 'cello and Violin Sonatas, half a dozen Cantata choruses, the Goldberg Variations, and a handful of organ and harpsichord works.


It seems there are some omissions, for instance the St Matthew Passion, but generally I would say these are indeed his popular works of the current time.



Raefus Authenticus said:


> If the above is true, then J.S.Bach isn't so much a composer 'for the people' as is Johann Strauss or Verdi (whose volumes of easily-accessible music are far more vast); he is, in fact, a composer of highly-technical music that most people don't appreciate; his popular pieces are not representative of his usual type of composition.


I do not think that follows at all. What do you think his 'usual type of composition is'? Also in Bach's time many of his works were written as church music and he even wrote some pieces for coffee houses, very much music for the people.



Raefus Authenticus said:


> If the above is true, then J.S.Bach is a composer whose reputation rests upon what the 'experts' say, rather than the music he wrote that pleases the ears of anyone outside of dedicated 'serious' music enthusiasts.


You lost me completely here. Do you think that only the popular works pleases the ear and that the rest, which is most, is highly technical? If so I disagree completely.



Raefus Authenticus said:


> Should we measure the greatness of a composer by the complexity/technical proficiency of his works, or by the way in which his works appeal to the untrained ear? If either, why?


Which composer is the greatest? What is the best work? Is A better than B?

Why does everything need to be put in top ten lists? Music is not a sport!

Listen to music, try music you have not listened to before, get yourself familiar with the meaning of a work, get yourself informed about the background of composers and soon you have a collection of music you can appreciate and listen to. If your neighbor does not like it, so what? If it does not reach the top ten list of talkclassical so what?


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

I think what the OP said is only relevant for people of the general public who don't pay a significant amount of attention to classical music, in which case one could say similar things about Mozart and Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and Beethoven and Fur Elise. It really depends on what is meant by "general popularity". If you are talking about the type of "general popularity" that Bach's "usual style" does not really have, then Strauss and Verdi are certainly not the only ones who "beat" Bach in this sense. Many pop artists who make it to the Top 40 beat Bach in this type of "general popularity" as well. Therefore, this standard of "general popularity" is flawed. However, if you are referring to Bach's general popularity among people who are more exposed to classical music, then I believe that Bach's popularity is _not_ simply based on "a few tuneful works" and that people really do like his "usual type of composition".


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

THE VAST MAJORITY OF J.S.BACH'S WORKS ARE NOT POPULAR WITH/KNOWN TO MOST LISTENERS OF 'CLASSICAL' MUSIC.

Couldn't this be said of most composers? How much of Beethoven's oeuvre is known and popular to the majority of classical listeners beyond the opening of the 5th, a few movements from the "name" sonatas, etc... How much of Wagner's complete oeuvre is known and loved... beyond those few "bleeding chunks" such as "The Ride of the Valkyrie", "The Pilgrim's Chorus", etc...?

Of course the bigger question is just how important a few catchy tunes are to a composer's reputation... not that Bach is lacking in that department:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Certainly one could go on and on... but this isn't the least bit relevant to whether Bach is a composer worthy of his recognition. Few people would claim that the catchy tunes of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik or the opening of Beethoven's 5th are what make Mozart or Beethoven great.

Whether the majority of the classical music listeners are well-versed in the whole of Bach's incredibly huge oeuvre or not is irrelevant. There are more than a few serious classical listeners who are well-versed in or cognizant of Bach beyond the greatest hits. There are more than a few subsequent composers who have recognized Bach's brilliance and built upon his works. There are more than a few critics and academics and musicians who have waxed poetic upon Bach's work.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I don't quite get this. The general popularity of almost any composer is based on "a few tuneful works." In this, I see no difference between Bach and Beethoven, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, etc.


----------



## Marisol (May 25, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio;470685
[MEDIA=youtube said:


> GMkmQlfOJDk[/MEDIA]


Eeww, I dislike this recording. 
Yukky romanticism, and the intonation of the first violin makes my spine shriek.

Now this I think is much better, and thank God no 'fiddeling' with spurious ornamentation by Koopman on the harpsichord here.


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

I'd at least agree on the premise that the listening public generally isn't familiar with the bulk of his work - or even his very best work (Mass in b minor in my opinion). As to why JS Bach is a popular choice as greatest ever, I believe the combination of critical praise and name-dropping done by artists in almost every musical genre has solidified JS Bach's place as a heavyweight (if not THE heavyweight champion).


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

I might get shot for this, but if Bach is not "popular" how the £$%^& did Jacques Loussier sell so many records to non-classical audiences?


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Should we measure the greatness of a composer by the complexity/technical proficiency of his works, or by the way in which his works appeal to the untrained ear? If either, why?


Yes to both: thru analysis and the "test of time," the music must have demonstrable artistic value. As far as the untrained ear goes, I don't believe there is any such thing: we may be hard-wired for rhythm and pitch, but harmonic sensibility is conditioned; did you instead intend to reference the opinion of the musically simple masses? I'd imagine that Johann Strauss, Jr. may win the title if that were the case - or maybe Justin Beiber.


----------



## Marisol (May 25, 2013)

Bone said:


> demonstrable artistic value.


I am curious how you think you can demonstrate something has artistic value or not?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Certainly more productive than comments like yours, which are typical of the kind of fair by established contributors seeking to colour threads before they have been contributed to by people without prejudice or agenda.


You're funny! :lol: You should become as regular a poster as I am, that would be great 



moody said:


> The only prejudiced fare is on this occasion is yours I think judging by your post.
> Perhaps Violadude was merely somewhat nonplussed.


Thanks, Moody. I was a bit nonplussed there after reading the OP.

Had to look that word up to know what it actually meant


----------



## Gabriell (Jun 1, 2013)

I don't think Bach is for everyone (can easily be thought of as antiquated and "mathmatical") but IMO the people that do enjoy it, often enjoy all of it (I've never heard a piece by him I don't like.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

I have the impression that Bach is one of the most explored musicians in his entire oeuvre in history of music by both, ''expert'' and ''non expert'' people.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

violadude said:


> Thanks, Moody. I was a bit nonplussed there after reading the OP.
> 
> Had to look that word up to know what it actually meant


Well you learn something new every day---usually,but looking at a number of threads running at the moment I'm not too sure.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think we due consideration that Bach's popularity is not based on a few tuneful works. It is based on many works of great genius. Just listen to something like the Art of Fugue and hear what he does. It is staggering. And it also a joy to the soul.
Recommend the version by Canadian Brass.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Recommend the version by Canadian Brass.


Agree, with pleasure.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Eeww, I dislike this recording. 
Yukky romanticism, and the intonation of the first violin makes my spine shriek.

Now this I think is much better, and thank God no 'fiddeling' with spurious ornamentation by Koopman on the harpsichord here.

Honestly, the Orchestral Suites are not among my favorite works by Bach, but I certainly agree that I wouldn't turn to some treacle-laden version as a first choice. My two favorites are probably that by Jordi Savall and the version by Masaaki Suzuki and the Collegium Japan. I quite like Koopman as well... he simply hasn't been my first choice for Bach... but he is the "go to man" for Buxtehude.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Well first off, I am not "trying to be intellectually superior" to you. << I yam what I yam. >> Your post isn't "a genuine discussion piece" in its original form (it works slightly better after your edits).
> 
> [YELLING deleted]
> 
> ...


There was another member of late who called himself Vivaldi and used similar tactics. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> You do seem a bit touchy. If it's a genuine discussion piece, please let people disagree with you without shouting at them.
> I can't join in as I don't know enough, but I will read any well-reasoned replies with interest.


I'm not shouting; I'm using capitals for emphasis.

Disagreement is fine; less than courteous language is not.

How about we all debate points raised, rather than criticise the way a post is written? That would seem to be more in the spirit of this forum, to me.



Weston said:


> I think this is true of most musicians, classical and non-classical. If Ravel were judged solely on his Bolero, many might find him mere fluff. And on a side note, all of my non-classical or "pop" favorites have pretty dull hits for radio play, but the real meat of their work is rarely heard.
> 
> I think with Bach though, even his more popular pieces are finely crafted gems, including those that are erroneously attributed to him.


That's a good point, Western.

What I'm really wanting to hear people's opinions on how a composer should be judged 'great'. If someone, such as J.S.Bach, is a few-hit-wonder, does that mean he's less worthy of being judged 'great' than a composer who successfully writes many pieces of music that appeal to many people? If not, then by what yardstick should he be judged 'great'?



Hilltroll72 said:


> Well first off, I am not "trying to be intellectually superior" to you. << I yam what I yam. >> Your post isn't "a genuine discussion piece" in its original form (it works slightly better after your edits).
> 
> [YELLING deleted]
> 
> ...


I would say your original post isn't a genuine attempt to engage in discussion on the subject of this thread, but is an attempt to score points by taking issue with the way in which a post is written. What would have sounded a little less argumentative, on your part, would have been to leave out comment on the quality of my logic, and to have asked why I hadn't included the WTC, etc.

Having been on forums like these for a number of years, I am jaded by the typical long-standing contributors' less than gracious ways of addressing new posters.

Now that I can see who/what you are, I will be more dismissive of any rudeness that you may display in future.



Krummhorn said:


> Only a handful? His list of works for organ is quite extensive as noted here on the IMSLP site.


I too love his organ works, Krummhorn; I have all of them on CD, performed by both Ton Koopman and Werner Jacob. That's 36 CDs in total!

The point I was making is that there aren't many that are popular with the majority of listeners. I fully realise that organ enthusiasts love most of them. But that's a tiny percentage of music lovers. I, for one, love the Art of Fugue, and the Musical Offering, but they are not favourites of most 'classical' music listeners.

Just to clarify, I am not saying that most of J.S.Bach's works aren't admired by anyone; I am saying that his exulted status isn't due to his ability/willingness to write well-constructed AND popular music.



ahammel said:


> This is true in a trivial sense: there are very few Bach devotees willing to familiarize themselves with his 1000+ opus numbers.
> 
> However, I think you'll find that many people who describe themselves as classical music fans, and certainly most professed Bach fans, will also be familiar with the WTC, the inventions, at least a handful of the cantatas, the cello suites, the partitas and sonatas for solo violin, the major masses and Passions and (especially) the late contrapuntal works. In this: Bach is no different than any other major composer: only a few diehards will know everything, people with a particular interest will know the majority of the important works, and casual listeners will have hit the highlights.
> 
> As to whether Bach should be considered "great" or not, well, with respect, my experience is that such discussions are unlikely to be particularly fruitful.


Nicely put, ahammel, and fair enough too.

I do disagree with you that most 'classical' music listeners are likely to know all you named, however. I would say most listeners' knowledge of the cantatas, for instance, would be no more than a handful of choruses, chorales, and arias. Having listened through all 60 CDs of my Harnoncourt/Leonhardt cantata series, I would say 98% of it would be unknown to most listeners.

And that's the point I'm making: J.S.Bach's religious music output is nowhere near as familiar as a whole as are plenty of other composers' vocal work oeuvres. And the same goes for his instrumental music.

I realise you disagree with me, and that's fine, but with above being my opinion, I wonder if J.S.Bach should be considered 'great' by so many who know so little of his music.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Jerome said:


> There was another member of late who called himself Vivaldi and used similar tactics. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?


Vivaldi just makes a ridiculous opening gambit and runs, Raefus is at least arguing a point, I'm not really sure _what_ point, but he's at least defending himself.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Just to clarify, I am not saying that most of J.S.Bach's works aren't admired by anyone; I am saying that his exulted status isn't due to his ability/willingness to write well-constructed AND popular music.


And again, I say that's true of all classical music composers. Count 'em up, you'll find that Bach has as many "favorites" as anybody.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Jerome said:


> There was another member of late who called himself Vivaldi and used similar tactics. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?


Excuse me for interrupting your 'private' public discussion, but I'm not a troll; I'm also not going to exercise some arbitrary level of respect for people who have racked-up a sizable number of posts on this or any other site. Sorry if that offends you.



KenOC said:


> And again, I say that's true of all classical music composers. Count 'em up, you'll find that Bach has as many "favorites" as anybody.


Okay. I disagree because I say there are composers with more 'favourites' than J.S.Bach, as well as writing a far higher percentage of 'favourites' insofar as their entire outputs are concerned.



Crudblud said:


> Vivaldi just makes a ridiculous opening gambit and runs, Raefus is at least arguing a point, I'm not really sure _what_ point, but he's at least defending himself.


Hahaha! Thank you, Crudlub.

I'm not really making a point. I'm asking people to tell me why it is that J.S.Bach is considered so highly by so many when so many know so little of his work.

I suppose what's insinuated by that question is that some people's opinions of composers may be coloured by what they're taught or influenced to believe.

I'm now thinking of this from a slightly different angle, thanks to your comment.

Seeing as the majority of listeners aren't familiar with as much of J.S.Bach's works as they are with other composers (if you agree with that premise), then shouldn't his music be considered less 'great' than other music that is generally more popular? If not, then by what criteria are to judge the 'greatness' of any composer's works? If by technical complexity, then shouldn't that lead to a tiered result where the later the composer the generally greater his output?

I could go on into matters of aesthetics versus theory, but I don't want to take over the thread!


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I would like to posit the following: J.S.Bach's world-wide popularity is based on the six Brandenburg Concertos, two of the four Orchestral Suites, the three Violin Concertos, a few movements from the 'cello and Violin Sonatas, half a dozen Cantata choruses, the Goldberg Variations, and a handful of organ and harpsichord works.
> 
> If the above is true, then J.S.Bach isn't so much a composer 'for the people' as is Johann Strauss or Verdi (whose volumes of easily-accessible music are far more vast); he is, in fact, a composer of highly-technical music that most people don't appreciate; his popular pieces are not representative of his usual type of composition.
> 
> ...


As Hilltroll suggests, the two parts of your post don't hang together quite right, but to answer the last question, I'd say that 'greatness' (that much corrupted and debated term) _should _take account of both. The problem is that neither the trained nor untrained ear can lay claim to being an unchallengeable arbiter of 'greatness'.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

moody said:


> The only prejudiced fare is on this occasion is yours I think judging by your post.
> Perhaps Violadude was merely somewhat nonplussed.


And, perhaps, so was I, moody.



Marisol said:


> Why does everything need to be put in top ten lists? Music is not a sport!
> 
> Listen to music, try music you have not listened to before, get yourself familiar with the meaning of a work, get yourself informed about the background of composers and soon you have a collection of music you can appreciate and listen to. If your neighbor does not like it, so what? If it does not reach the top ten list of talkclassical so what?


I agree with you, Marisol, but clearly many disagree with you. Maybe that is why I have started this thread to begin with.



Bone said:


> Yes to both: thru analysis and the "test of time," the music must have demonstrable artistic value. As far as the untrained ear goes, I don't believe there is any such thing: we may be hard-wired for rhythm and pitch, but harmonic sensibility is conditioned; did you instead intend to reference the opinion of the musically simple masses? I'd imagine that Johann Strauss, Jr. may win the title if that were the case - or maybe Justin Beiber.


Very nicely put, Bone. I like the way you appear to think.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I do disagree with you that most 'classical' music listeners are likely to know all you named, however. I would say most listeners' knowledge of the cantatas, for instance, would be no more than a handful of choruses, chorales, and arias. Having listened through all 60 CDs of my Harnoncourt/Leonhardt cantata series, I would say 98% of it would be unknown to most listeners.
> 
> And that's the point I'm making: J.S.Bach's religious music output is nowhere near as familiar as a whole as are plenty of other composers' vocal work oeuvres. And the same goes for his instrumental music.
> 
> I realise you disagree with me, and that's fine, but with above being my opinion, I wonder if J.S.Bach should be considered 'great' by so many who know so little of his music.


I think as more people know Bach's passions than know (eg) Beethoven's or Berlioz's masses or Brahms requiem. Each time the St Matthew or the B minor mass is performed at the Proms it sells the place out.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Bone said:


> I'd at least agree on the premise that the listening public generally isn't familiar with the bulk of his work - or even his very best work (Mass in b minor in my opinion). As to why JS Bach is a popular choice as greatest ever, I believe the combination of critical praise and name-dropping done by artists in almost every musical genre has solidified JS Bach's place as a heavyweight (if not THE heavyweight champion).


I agree with that last sentence wholeheartedly, Bone.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bone said:


> I'd at least agree on the premise that the listening public generally isn't familiar with the bulk of his work - or even his very best work (Mass in b minor in my opinion). As to why JS Bach is a popular choice as greatest ever, I believe the combination of critical praise and name-dropping done by artists in almost every musical genre has solidified JS Bach's place as a heavyweight (if not THE heavyweight champion).


But couldn't you say this about any composer? I mean, how many people are familiar with the bulk of Mozart's works? Or Beethoven's? Or even Strauss' waltzes?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Not that many Strauss pieces are really famous, he does have a clear identity (The Waltz King) and has the advantage of being played at New Year's Concerts every year. Beethoven is the deaf composer, Mozart the wunderkind etc. Haydn and JS Bach don't really have an image so much, but that doesn't seem a very significant way to assess somebody.

However JS Bach's work has clearly been much rearranged and amalgamated within all kinds of music over the last century, just search Bach in popular music and you will see what I mean. There are numerous examples and you can do your own research there.

As for how 'great' he is or isn't that doesn't really interest me so much as whether the music is good or worth listening to or not, and most would think that it clearly is.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2013)

DavidA said:


> But couldn't you say this about any composer? I mean, how many people are familiar with the bulk of Mozart's works? Or Beethoven's? Or even Strauss' waltzes?


You probably could. In the same way that you can assert that something 'generally accepted as great' must therefore be great, without having to do much more to substantiate the claim.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I would like to posit the following: J.S.Bach's world-wide popularity is based on the six Brandenburg Concertos, two of the four Orchestral Suites, the three Violin Concertos, a few movements from the 'cello and Violin Sonatas, half a dozen Cantata choruses, the Goldberg Variations, and a handful of organ and harpsichord works.
> 
> If the above is true, then J.S.Bach isn't so much a composer 'for the people' as is Johann Strauss or Verdi (whose volumes of easily-accessible music are far more vast); he is, in fact, a composer of highly-technical music that most people don't appreciate; his popular pieces are not representative of his usual type of composition.


This comes a little too close to "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

IF you think that the popular "half a dozen Cantata choruses" aren't representative of his vocal works generally, 
AND IF you think that the popular "handful of organ and harpsichord works" aren't representative of his organ and harpsichord works generally,
AND IF you think that "the six Brandenburg Concertos, two of the four Orchestral Suites, the three Violin Concertos, a few movements from the 'cello and Violin Sonatas" constitute only a tiny proportion of the 100-or-so Bach works not for voices or solo keyboard,
AND IF you think that all of the works of Johann Strauss or Verdi or any other "composer 'for the people'" are approximately as well-known as each other,

THEN you might be onto something.

You later said:


> I'm asking people to tell me why it is that J.S.Bach is considered so highly by so many when so many know so little of his work.


There are two "so many"s in this sentence and they're not referring to the same thing.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Seeing as the majority of listeners aren't familiar with as much of J.S.Bach's works as they are with other composers (if you agree with that premise), then shouldn't his music be considered less 'great' than other music that is generally more popular? If not, then by what criteria are to judge the 'greatness' of any composer's works?


Oh, so Bach only scores popular hits with <5% of 1000+ works, whereas Dvorak manages >10% of 120 opus numbers, therefore Dvorak is the greater composer. And not only that, but it's important to make this distinction.
What fatuous rubbish.
What a pointless thread.
Graeme


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> You later said:
> 
> There are two "so many"s in this sentence and they're not referring to the same thing.


Actually, Nereffid, they are referring to the same thing; it's a shame you cant see it.



GraemeG said:


> Oh, so Bach only scores popular hits with <5% of 1000+ works, whereas Dvorak manages >10% of 120 opus numbers, therefore Dvorak is the greater composer. And not only that, but it's important to make this distinction.
> What fatuous rubbish.
> What a pointless thread.
> Graeme


Thank you for signposting yourself, Graeme. You're clearly another highly advanced member of the human race, who's capable of conversing with strangers without causing offense. Well done; you must be proud of your position in life.

This is turning out to be an interesting exercise in seeing who is capable of: 
A. Lending an opinion to the thread based on the questions raised in the original post. 
B. Not jumping to conclusions, and thereby managing to remain civilised and/or reasonable with their first response. 
C. Leaving their internet-ego at the door and allowing for the fact that the OP may well have more experience and/or knowledge than the original post may suggest. 
D. Understanding what the original post is asking.

Fascinating.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Very nicely put, Bone. I like the way you appear to think.




Yes, that is an impressive simulation, _Bone_. You had _me_ fooled.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Actually, Nereffid, they are referring to the same thing; it's a shame you cant see it.


They could only refer to the same thing if you actually mean that "the people who consider Bach so highly" = "the people who know so little of his work".
If that is indeed what you mean, then fair enough, in which case I reject the follow-on implication that if people knew more of Bach's work they'd think less of him.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

The greater availability of his work in the era of recording has arguably enhanced his reputation, just like it probably has for others like Mozart, Haydn, Schubert etc.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> This is turning out to be an interesting exercise in seeing who is capable of:
> A. Lending an opinion to the thread based on the questions raised in the original post.
> B. Not jumping to conclusions, and thereby managing to remain civilised and/or reasonable with their first response.
> C. Leaving their internet-ego at the door and allowing for the fact that the OP may well have more experience and/or knowledge than the original post may suggest.
> ...


I suppose the secret of a good thread or post is to present the subject matter plainly to those who may read it.
Talk of internet ego (?)and asking people to be mind readers is not part of my expertise by any means and should not be expected.
If an OP requires an answer he should make his questions and observations transparent.
If the OP is under the misapprehension that he is dealing with a crowd of dunderheads he is mistaken and I would suggest a more civilised and reasonable approach in future.
Who knows he might find nobody willing to answer his threads.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I'm not shouting; I'm using capitals for emphasis.
> 
> Disagreement is fine; less than courteous language is not.
> 
> How about we all debate points raised, rather than criticise the way a post is written? That would seem to be more in the spirit of this forum, to me.


When I first started using social media, I was surprised that some forums actually ban the use of capital letters (for whole words) and that they are known colloquially as 'shouty caps'. I use them myself for emphasis sometimes, but a sustained passage such as you went in for, after accusing your correspondent of sneering at you intellectually, does come across as 'shouting' - (& as rather rude) and he actually called it 'yelling', as I recall.

I thought my response was mild & polite; it was to forestall any adverse notice from moderators, actually. And since you don't seem to know of this IT & internet consensus about 'shouty caps', it's probably as well that I warned you.

Have a nice day.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Seems like the OP pretty much nailed 'popular' from the viewpoint of the general public. That handful of works from Bach is around the same number of handfuls of works by the other masters whose works are known and "popular" with the hoi polloi.

Any TC members are already much further in to music than the mean-line average hoi polloi, so we get a rather surprised sounding statement (from a career organist / church musician) about the lack of mention of the large number of organ works by Bach (lol), or mention of the St. Matthew Passion by people who have actually listened to the entire work, mention of the two books of the Well-Tempered Klavier, or one contributor saying Bach is popular, offering as proof their ticket purchase to an all-Bach concert (a concert I would not be seen at, my personal taste not being for a full evening of Bach.) I hardly think any of those are the popular / populist Bach.

A list of popular and known works from other great and known composers often has no more, or not much more, than on the list of the better-known pieces by Bach listed in the OP.

Bach's popularity,in any way shape or form is due to one of the cognoscenti, one Felix Mendelssohn.

I think if you look at any of the arts, and what is considered great, the status of "greatness" is bestowed and established by other artists, the professionals, those who have devoted their career to becoming one of the cognoscenti, career critics, with the public more than necessary but nonetheless last in the queue of who "officially" rates greatness.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I would say most listeners' knowledge of the cantatas, for instance, would be no more than a handful of choruses, chorales, and arias. Having listened through all 60 CDs of my Harnoncourt/Leonhardt cantata series, I would say 98% of it would be unknown to most listeners.

But wouldn't this be true of any of a number of massive bodies of musical work? How many tunes can most hum from Beethoven's or Haydn's string quartets? How many "hits" are to be found in Beethoven's piano sonatas beyond that single famous movement in a number of the "name" sonatas? How many of Schubert's lieder beyond Ave Maria do most classical listeners know? How much of Debussy's... or even Chopin's music would be immediately recognizable to the majority? There's a difference between a tune that becomes something of a "hit"... recognized by beginners to the classical realm and even many who rarely even listen to classical music and the vast majority of exquisite melodies to be found in Mozart's operas and chamber works, or Bach's keyboard works and cantatas that are not known to the masses.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'm not really making a point. I'm asking people to tell me why it is that J.S.Bach is considered so highly by so many when so many know so little of his work.

I suspect this is true of a great many listeners with regard to a great many composer. There are Beethoven "fanboys" who dismiss Mozart without having ever listened to his operas, or Schubert without having listened to the lieder. But then can one not find Beethoven marvelous based solely upon his symphonies and piano sonatas without an intimate knowledge of Fidelio, the piano concertos, the string quartets, etc...? I know of those who love Bach's orchestral works (the Brandenburgs, the violin concertos, etc...) and others who are enamored mostly of the works for solo keyboard, and still more who find the cantatas and great choral works to be the key to his genius. It would seem to me that part of the reason that Bach is so revered is that his work rises to such a high level across such a broad spectrum that there is something to engage almost any listener.

I suppose what's insinuated by that question is that some people's opinions of composers may be coloured by what they're taught or influenced to believe.

You have suggested that you wish others did not underestimate you. It would seem only fair that you do the same. Personally, the opinions of others... especially those well-versed and experienced in the realm of classical music... are something I will consider. Someone whose experience, opinions, and taste I respect may recommend a given recording or composer, and I may thus be more likely to check this out. However, I will make up my own mind as to whether I like a work or not. Personally, I have more recordings by Bach than I do by many countries so it is quite likely that my opinions on Bach are based upon my personal tastes and not what others have told me.

On the other hand... I would suggest that there often comes a point at which we recognize that our personal preferences... what we like or dislike... are not always one and the same with what is "good" or "great". I personally don't like Schoenberg... but considering his impact upon so many composers and the esteem in which he is held by many well-versed in classical music... I must begrudgingly admit that he likely was a composer worthy of respect. I suspect that even those with just an inkling of Bach's music have come to recognize the incredible formal complexity and innovation as well as the emotional/spiritual profundity. It is not an oeuvre as easy to dismiss as Mozart's than can be mistaken as "simple" and lacking "depth".


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2013)

It seems odd that an unexceptional OP should attract at least two posts that assert this thread as useless or rubbish or words to that effect...and a couple more that seem to want to put the OP in his (her?) place. Admittedly, a bit of internet shouting doesn't ease the tension, but I fail to see why the suggestion that 'greatness' might be too readily attributed by those who're not familar with the entire oeuvre should be subjected to such withering criticism.

Give the member a break!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Bach only scores popular hits with <5% of 1000+ works, whereas Dvorak manages >10% of 120 opus numbers, therefore Dvorak is the greater composer. And not only that, *but it's important to make this distinction*.

This entry was of course dripping with the sarcasm the popularity premise applied to classical literature only deserves 

The premise of popular / populist = great is the fundamental flaw in the OP.

You've tentatively applied _what makes a tune hit the top forty charts_ to classical music, a patently non-populist non popular craft the products of which only about 3% enjoy and consume....

Ergo, by its nature, classical music is "not for everybody" and the works with the catchiest tunes / themes, the most readily accessible, are often not the best or greatest works, even if they top the popularity charts.

Classical music is de facto exclusive, though it is composed by intellectuals for anyone who would care to listen, that 3% audience (including those who only know the most popular) is part of that exclusive, or elitist, fan base.

Rating Dvorak as having more hits, popular, therefore greater, is perhaps more about a common guy's dream that the common vote is the most powerful, by numbers, and makes that opinion count. It only counts in popularity polls, not assessments of "greatness."


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> It seems odd that an unexceptional OP should attract at least two posts that assert this thread as useless or rubbish or words to that effect...and a couple more that seem to want to put the OP in his (her?) place. Admittedly, a bit of internet shouting doesn't ease the tension, but I fail to see why the suggestion that 'greatness' might be too readily attributed by those who're not familar with the entire oeuvre should be subjected to such withering criticism.
> 
> Give the member a break!


You will get to be a moderator soon I'm sure,just keep working at it.
Meanwhile ask why the OP attracted these things,the reason might be that it is pretentious and faulty reasoning.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

* Is Bach's general popularity based on a few tuneful works?*

'General'?...perhaps. But once one digs just the slightest; that is when the greatness becomes clear.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2013)

moody said:


> You will get to be a moderator soon I'm sure,just keep working at it.


Considering that you yourself are just as prone to comment on others' posting habits ("pretentious"), not just the subject matter, I guess I'm in good, nay 'great' company.

Not that I'm remotely interested.



> ask why the OP attracted these things,the reason might be that it is pretentious and faulty reasoning.


As for the substance of the OP, I've already commented twice: agreeing with Hilltroll, but also answering the question posed by Raefus Authenticus. I don't need to again.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Quite happy to converse with strangers. And can do so without offense. But only on subjects worth talking about...
Graeme


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> It seems odd that an unexceptional OP should attract at least two posts that assert this thread as useless or rubbish or words to that effect...and a couple more that seem to want to put the OP in his (her?) place.


You always get that on the internet, people on discussion forums who don't want discussion. A strange paradox. If you think an argument is faulty the best thing to do is actually address it with contrary points and not to say the thread is useless.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> It seems odd that an unexceptional OP should attract at least two posts that assert this thread as useless or rubbish or words to that effect...and a couple more that seem to want to put the OP in his (her?) place. Admittedly, a bit of internet shouting doesn't ease the tension, but I fail to see why the suggestion that 'greatness' might be too readily attributed by those who're not familar with the entire oeuvre should be subjected to such withering criticism.
> 
> Give the member a break!


Mmm well, On my part, "I fail to see why the suggestion that 'greatness' might be too readily attributed by those who're not familar with the entire oeuvre should be" -- awarded any merit. The accolade doesn't require that degree of familiarity to be valid. If you are accurately restating the sense of the OP's argument, that argument _should_ attract criticism.

BTW I haven't been reading _RA_'s posts since he abandoned civility- unless they've been quoted - but I haven't noticed any tendency to wither in those quotes.

[I did read his post complimenting _*Bone*_; that was a beaut.]


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Certainly more productive than comments like yours, which are typical of the kind of fair by established contributors seeking to colour threads before they have been contributed to by people without prejudice or agenda.


Violadude is probably the last person to inject prejudice or agenda into a thread. He meant no harm, there.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

No, Bach is about rich layers (multi-layers) of voices interweaving with each other, and the grandeur of it all using the least amount of themes.


----------



## maestro57 (Mar 26, 2013)

I'll try to answer the question in your thread title in as few words as possible: *NO*.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Considering that you yourself are just as prone to comment on others' posting habits ("pretentious"), not just the subject matter, I guess I'm in good, nay 'great' company.
> 
> Not that I'm remotely interested.
> 
> As for the substance of the OP, I've already commented twice: agreeing with Hilltroll, but also answering the question posed by Raefus Authenticus. I don't need to again.


The times that I have made remarks directly aimed at a member's posting style I have paid for.
Normally I comment on the content as far as its authenticity or otherwise.
In this case I'm directly answering your comments as to why the OP attracted adverse comments and what could have caused such an uproar.
Incidentally if you are not remotely interested why post in the first place?
Also it would appear that Hilltroll and others agreed with me and that a number of normally easy-going members were disturbed by the OP's remarks.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2013)

moody said:


> Incidentally if you are not remotely interested why post in the first place?


I'm not remotely interested...in being a moderator.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

To paraphase Glenn Gould: "Bach's reputation is based entirely on gossip. His works represent a supreme example of a composer on an ego trip."


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> To paraphase Glenn Gould: "Bach's reputation is based entirely on gossip. His works represent a supreme example of a composer on an ego trip."


Now all is clear--if Glenn said so it must be true.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> Now all is clear--if Glenn said so it must be true.


Well, actually he said it about middle-period Beethoven. I suspect he'd never say such a thing about Bach!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Well, actually he said it about middle-period Beethoven. I suspect he'd never say such a thing about Bach!


What was the point of this ?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> What was the point of this ?


No point at all. It's a Cage thing.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> No point at all. It's a Cage thing.


Should you be in it ?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I would like to posit the following: J.S.Bach's world-wide popularity is based on the six Brandenburg Concertos, two of the four Orchestral Suites, the three Violin Concertos, a few movements from the 'cello and Violin Sonatas, half a dozen Cantata choruses, the Goldberg Variations, and a handful of organ and harpsichord works.
> 
> If the above is true, then J.S.Bach isn't so much a composer 'for the people' as is Johann Strauss or Verdi (whose volumes of easily-accessible music are far more vast); he is, in fact, a composer of highly-technical music that most people don't appreciate; his popular pieces are not representative of his usual type of composition.
> 
> ...


I disagree. Many great composers are often only remembered (or until more recently with regards to say Baroque and Classical) by only a handful of works: J.S. Bach (you listed the pieces), Handel (a few orchestral pieces, Messiah oratorio), Vivaldi (a few concertos), Haydn (I don't even think Haydn would be that well known), Schubert (a few songs?), Liszt (a few piano pieces), Debussy, Ravel, Tchaikovsky (a few tuneful melodies) etc. etc. Johann Strauss - what a few waltzes at best, Verdi - what a few tunes from his best arias at best popularised by The Three Tenors?? Wagner (Ride of the Valkrries, ) etc.

What matters is the overall consistency amongst those "ears" who care to listen to classical music - folks over the centuries, musicians over the same period who perform, and now recording industries who put money on the table to invest in artists, irrespective of what Professor of Music might have published in his paper.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Rapide said:


> I disagree. Many great composers are often only remembered (or until more recently with regards to say Baroque and Classical) by only a handful of works: J.S. Bach (you listed the pieces), Handel (a few orchestral pieces, Messiah oratorio), Vivaldi (a few concertos), Haydn (I don't even think Haydn would be that well known), Schubert (a few songs?), Liszt (a few piano pieces), Debussy, Ravel, Tchaikovsky (a few tuneful melodies) etc. etc. Johann Strauss - what a few waltzes at best, Verdi - what a few tunes from his best arias at best popularised by The Three Tenors?? Wagner (Ride of the Valkrries, ) etc.
> 
> What matters is the overall consistency amongst those "ears" who care to listen to classical music - folks over the centuries, musicians over the same period who perform, and now recording industries who put money on the table to invest in artists, irrespective of what Professor of Music might have published in his paper.


Well I disagree with you. I am not aware of where you are based but in the UK we have the radio station Classic FM and while it is not a favourite of mine it has a huge audience.
Secondly recording companies don't invest in artists unless they think they will make a profit.
It has to be people who are interested in classical music who are aware of what "tune" is what--I mean fishing is hugely popular but I know nothing about it because it does not appeal to me.
Therefore it is not popular then of course is it ?
Incidentally I don't remember the three tenors doing much Verdi,do you ?


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

A thread that has descended in stages from being niave, to unpleasant only plateau-out on the wide and open vistas of... bordem.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KRoad said:


> A thread that has descended in stages from being niave, to unpleasant only plateau-out on the wide and open vistas of... bordem.


We certainly don't want boredom to seep into things,but I've been desperately seeking for your interesting input on this thread.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

moody said:


> Well I disagree with you. I am not aware of where you are based but in the UK we have the radio station Classic FM and while it is not a favourite of mine it has a huge audience.
> Secondly recording companies don't invest in artists unless they think they will make a profit.
> It has to be people who are interested in classical music who are aware of what "tune" is what--I mean fishing is hugely popular but I know nothing about it because it does not appeal to me.
> Therefore it is not popular then of course is it ?
> Incidentally I don't remember the three tenors doing much Verdi,do you ?


I was talking about listeners who do not usually listen to classical music at all (or much at all), and therefore not even tune into classical music stations.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Rapide said:


> I was talking about listeners who do not usually listen to classical music at all (or much at all), and therefore not even tune into classical music stations.


Ok, then most of them probably know nothing whatever.
I know nothing about rap because I most certainly do not and would not listen to it. That's contemporary so Classical music has to surmount a bigger obstacle than does rap. (Is that how you spell it?)


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

moody said:


> The times that I have made remarks directly aimed at a member's posting style I have paid for.
> Normally I comment on the content as far as its authenticity or otherwise.
> In this case I'm directly answering your comments as to why the OP attracted adverse comments and what could have caused such an uproar.
> Incidentally if you are not remotely interested why post in the first place?
> Also it would appear that Hilltroll and others agreed with me and that a number of normally easy-going members were disturbed by the OP's remarks.


Perhaps the OP was disturbed by their attitude to begin with.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> It seems odd that an unexceptional OP should attract at least two posts that assert this thread as useless or rubbish or words to that effect...and a couple more that seem to want to put the OP in his (her?) place. Admittedly, a bit of internet shouting doesn't ease the tension, but I fail to see why the suggestion that 'greatness' might be too readily attributed by those who're not familar with the entire oeuvre should be subjected to such withering criticism.
> 
> Give the member a break!


I understand that you do not entirely agree with the premise of the thread I started, but I thank you for your reasonable attitude.

The reason, I would say, that I have attracted criticism from some on this forum, is because I took immediate exception to the rude nature of their responses to my thread-starter.

The sad fact is that, as some people become cosy in their little cyber world, they think they can address 'newbies' with disrespect or less respect than they would others who have more hours of typing on forums under their belt.

Unlike people like hilltroll and violadude, I would exercise common courtesy by welcoming a newcomer to the forum, and asking for clarification of their post, rather than damn it before many had had a chance to contribute. But then, I possess emotional intelligence and am not in possession of an inflated ego based on stripes earned on the internet.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

moody said:


> I suppose the secret of a good thread or post is to present the subject matter plainly to those who may read it.
> Talk of internet ego (?)and asking people to be mind readers is not part of my expertise by any means and should not be expected.
> If an OP requires an answer he should make his questions and observations transparent.
> If the OP is under the misapprehension that he is dealing with a crowd of dunderheads he is mistaken and I would suggest a more civilised and reasonable approach in future.
> Who knows he might find nobody willing to answer his threads.


You may suppose so, moody, but I would argue that the success of any thread is to address people with courtesy, rather than behave in a trumped-up fashion at the first sight of something or someone new.

If a forum member requires courtesy, he should display it first.

If some 'experienced' members of this forum are under the misapprehension they are dealing with a dunderhead, they are mistaken and I would suggest a more civilised and reasonable approach in future.
Who knows, they might find somebody willing to start future threads (and, maybe even value their opinions).


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> They could only refer to the same thing if you actually mean that "the people who consider Bach so highly" = "the people who know so little of his work".
> If that is indeed what you mean, then fair enough, in which case I reject the follow-on implication that if people knew more of Bach's work they'd think less of him.


Nereffid, you are not seeing the distinction between 'popularity' and 'reputation', insofar as those who hold the respective opinions are concerned.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

GraemeG said:


> Quite happy to converse with strangers. And can do so without offense. But only on subjects worth talking about...
> Graeme


So, on subjects that you deem not worth talking about, you converse WITH offense?

Some of the members of this forum appear to be rude and unreasonable beyond my worst expectations; I hope they are the exception.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> The sad fact is that, as some people become cosy in their little cyber world, they think they can address 'newbies' with disrespect or less respect than they would others who have more hours of typing on forums under their belt.
> 
> Unlike people like hilltroll and violadude, I would exercise common courtesy by welcoming a newcomer to the forum, and asking for clarification of their post, rather than damn it before many had had a chance to contribute. But then, I possess emotional intelligence and am not in possession of an inflated ego based on stripes earned on the internet.


I think it's more the case that most people have read the OP as "bach sucks trolololol" and jumped on it. New folk are generally well received, but some people here like to gang up on those who make "controversial" posts, and that goes for new and old members alike. Note that this is just my perception of the situation, not something I necessarily approve of, in fact I'm glad that creating a bold thread like this was your first act here, makes a change from the usual introduction thread.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> I think it's more the case that most people have read the OP as "bach sucks trolololol" and jumped on it. New folk are generally well received, but some people here like to gang up on those who make "controversial" posts, and that goes for new and old members alike. Note that this is just my perception of the situation, not something I necessarily approve of, in fact I'm glad that creating a bold thread like this was your first act here, makes a change from the usual introduction thread.


Thank you, Crudlub.

I happen to own, on CD, every work by J.S.Bach. I consider him to be the greatest composer, as well as artist, in human history.

Unfortunately, a few simpletons may read my thread starter and brush-over a couple of words, and assume a motive, and not allow for the fact that I am _asking questions_, rather than making statements; I'm sure some were intelligent enough to see that.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Should we measure the greatness of a composer by the complexity/technical proficiency of his works, or by the way in which his works appeal to the untrained ear? If either, why?


Well, the thing is that your question has been addressed million of times in this forum. Also, it's a very common question after all.
Personally, I will trust always in the opinion of knowledgeable people and not in the vague impressions of a neophyte in classical music.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Well, the thing is that your question has been addressed million of times in this forum. Also, it's a very common question after all.
> Personally, I will trust always in the opinion of knowledgeable people and not in the vague impressions of a neophyte in classical music.


In response to the first part of your post, I am sure that most questions relating to classical music have been answered on this forum. However, to assume/suggest that a new member should trawl the depths of a forum to find an answer to his question is to neglect two important considerations: 
1. The new poster sees this as a _ forum_, not a library. 
2. Forums are in existence for fresh views by living people, not for established views by people living or dead.

As for the second part of your post, I find your statement of 'trust' very intriguing. I suppose I have the same feeling, at times. But, should we 'trust' anyone at all in matters of artistic merit/worth? I'm not sure we should.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> In response to the first part of your post, I am sure that most questions relating to classical music have been answered on this forum. However, to assume/suggest that a new member should trawl the depths of a forum to find an answer to his question is to neglect two important considerations:
> 1. The new poster sees this as a _ forum_, not a library.
> 2. Forums are in existence for fresh views by living people, not for established views by people living or dead.
> 
> As for the second part of your post, I find your statement of 'trust' very intriguing. I suppose I have the same feeling, at times. But, should we 'trust' anyone at all in matters of artistic merit/worth? I'm not sure we should.


Yes, of course I'm not saying that you should search those ancient discussions, I was just saying that some of those rude answers you got may be related with the fact that this topic has been discussed many, many times already, sometimes to the point of very violent discussions, particularly if you add modern music to the cake, lol.
I think that the subjectivity of art has been overly emphasized. After all, we all are humans, "built" with a common recipe, with brains that function in a similar way for all of us. So I think is very likely that a group of people can be capable of feeling the same thing in front of some work of art. Knowledgeable people has more posibilities to articulate in a rational way why they liked something, and then I can use that information for improving my own listening experience.
The general public just acts viscerally. That's fine, but it's not useful for me, since I can easily have those visceral reactions too.
The appreciation of art has many sides. The intellectual one, the emotional one, etc. All those things are relevant when judging if a work of art is "great".


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Yes, of course I'm not saying that you should search those ancient discussions, I was just saying that some of those rude answers you got may be related with the fact that this topic has been discussed many, many times already, sometimes to the point of very violent discussions, particularly if you add modern music to the cake, lol.
> I think that the subjectivity of art has been overly emphasized. After all, we all are humans, "built" with a common recipe, with brains that function in a similar way for all of us. So I think is very likely that a group of people can be capable of feeling the same thing in front of some work of art. Knowledgeable people has more posibilities to articulate in a rational way why they liked something, and then I can use that information for improving my own listening experience.
> The general public just acts viscerally. That's fine, but it's not useful for me, since I can easily have those visceral reactions too.
> The appreciation of art has many sides. The intellectual one, the emotional one, etc. All those things are relevant when judging if a work of art is "great".


I see what you mean, aleazk.

Fair enough; I generally agree with you.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Nereffid, you are not seeing the distinction between 'popularity' and 'reputation', insofar as those who hold the respective opinions are concerned.


You're probably right, though I could probably make some sort of petty argument against you to make me seem fiendishly clever or at the very least extremely pendatic. I think this highlights the problem with any claims regarding "greatness" or "popularity". Your definitions may not be the same as my definitions. For instance, when someone say things like "most people" or "the people" or "most listeners", these are rather nebulous terms that perhaps we all might agree on, but perhaps not. So maybe by "listeners" one person might mean people who might occasionally listen to a piece of classical music, whereas a second person might mean people who are interested enough in classical to (for example) contribute to an Internet forum on same. Sometimes it's clear from the immediate context, sometimes not.
So I think any discussion that has to invoke individuals' perceptions about how (undefined masses of) other people perceive something is just an open invitation to misinterpretation.
Not saying the questions shouldn't be asked, just that all interested parties might need to spend a couple of hours agreeing on definitions of terms before they even begin the discussion.:cheers:


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> You're probably right, though I could probably make some sort of petty argument against you to make me seem fiendishly clever or at the very least extremely pendatic. I think this highlights the problem with any claims regarding "greatness" or "popularity". Your definitions may not be the same as my definitions. For instance, when someone say things like "most people" or "the people" or "most listeners", these are rather nebulous terms that perhaps we all might agree on, but perhaps not. So maybe by "listeners" one person might mean people who might occasionally listen to a piece of classical music, whereas a second person might mean people who are interested enough in classical to (for example) contribute to an Internet forum on same. Sometimes it's clear from the immediate context, sometimes not.
> So I think any discussion that has to invoke individuals' perceptions about how (undefined masses of) other people perceive something is just an open invitation to misinterpretation.
> Not saying the questions shouldn't be asked, just that all interested parties might need to spend a couple of hours agreeing on definitions of terms before they even begin the discussion.:cheers:


I'm sure you could make petty arguments against me, Nerrefid! A few have already.

The amusing side to all of this, so far, as far as I'm concerned, is the apparent keen interest of some to take issue with the wording (read 'motive') of the thread starter, rather than the _bleeding obvious_ subject and question raised.

Rather than spending hours agreeing on definitions, surely reasonable-minded people could just post their thoughts on the subject of the thread. Surely!

Maybe the whole thing's just too complicated or confusing. Or maybe there's a secret, underlying design that a fiendish troll is using to sabotage this sacred forum with! If anyone honestly thinks that, or even cares about such childish and unimportant things, I sincerely hope the day comes when they grow up.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> surely reasonable-minded people could just post their thoughts on the subject of the thread.


I thought I did, and maybe some others too. Those who didn't, well maybe it's best not to give them more importance. I haven't seen you reply that much to some things where the topic has been addressed. Maybe you just want it addressed in a way that suits you but you have to accept people looking at things from different angles if you want to defend an opinion.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

aleazk said:


> I think that the subjectivity of art has been overly emphasized. After all, we all are humans, "built" with a common recipe, with brains that function in a similar way for all of us. So I think is very likely that a group of people can be capable of feeling the same thing in front of some work of art. Knowledgeable people has more posibilities to articulate in a rational way why they liked something, and then I can use that information for improving my own listening experience.
> The general public just acts viscerally. That's fine, but it's not useful for me, since I can easily have those visceral reactions too.


Agreed. I hate when it when people say everything is all subjective. It's all subjective in the sense that people have different experience of a style/work. However if they add to their experience and put more time into something then perhaps they can reach a more considered rather than an all too immediate judgement of something. And it's within considered opinions where agreement can be reached more.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

starry said:


> I thought I did, and maybe some others too. Those who didn't, well maybe it's best not to give them more importance. I haven't seen you reply that much to some things where the topic has been addressed. Maybe you just want it addressed in a way that suits you but you have to accept people looking at things from different angles if you want to defend an opinion.


I'm not expressing an opinion, starry; I'm asking a question.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

You're asking a question but then you aren't addressing most of the answers. So what is your opinion now on this topic? You did have an opinion before and that was that it was worth questioning why Bach's music was popular with many people. I don't mind you having that question, but I'm interested in what your opinion is to responses.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I find your statement of 'trust' very intriguing. I suppose I have the same feeling, at times. But, should we 'trust' anyone at all in matters of artistic merit/worth? I'm not sure we should.


Question always, but at some point, knowing the experience of the source giving you an opinion, consider that source.

Then, if nineteen out of twenty people in a room say the object on the floor in the middle of the room is a table _[[ADD: they are expert in identifying said type of object]]_, that object is most likely a table 

P.s. Some dilettantes get seriously frosted when their relatively new and less than expert opinion is not given the same weight as experts in the field -- go figure.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Question always, but at some point, knowing the experience of the source giving you an opinion, consider that source.
> 
> Then, if nineteen out of twenty people in a room say the object on the floor in the middle of the room is a table [[ADD: they are expert in identifying said type of object]], that object is most likely a table


Yes, but then you are comparing a solid object, of known shape, which is being detected by the retina which is sending a signal to the brain. This might be said to be an objective experience.
For music it is somewhat different. There is of course a certain objectivity. Four example the craftsmanship involved by the composer, the complexity of the music, etc. However things then become far more subjective. Music doesn't just work on our objective senses it also works and has subjective feelings. Hence people may have a very different reaction to the music of Bach Beethoven, Wagner, et cetera, according to temperament and other non-objective senses.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Yes, but then you are comparing a solid object, of known shape, which is being detected by the retina which is sending a signal to the brain. This might be said to be an objective experience.
> For music it is somewhat different. There is of course a certain objectivity. Four example the craftsmanship involved by the composer, the complexity of the music, etc. However things then become far more subjective. Music doesn't just work on our objective senses it also works and has subjective feelings. Hence people may have a very different reaction to the music of Bach Beethoven, Wagner, et cetera, according to temperament and other non-objective senses.


oh, please.

I cannot imagine what help is needed for one who takes what is an obvious analogy so literally, but if anyone does know how to reach those who do take most everything literally, they're welcome to take a crack at it.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Most people rate Shakespeare as a great writer.
If nineteen or twenty people in a room had no education / had never read English older than the 20th century / had no concentration span/ hated the school system - they might agree that Shakespeare was codswallop. It wouldn't make him codswallop.
If nineteen or twenty people in a room had no education / had never read English older than the 20th century / had no concentration span - but they needed/wanted to be thought cultured, they might agree that Shakespeare was the best writer who ever lived. It wouldn't make it so.
If nineteen or twenty people with knowledge of Shakespeare and of other writers, with intelligence, a large vocabulary & the gift of empathy agree that he is a great writer, it's worth more - but then you start quibbling about you mean by knowledge, intelligence, empathy et al.

Democracy can't settle matters of taste. It needs to be argued out on criteria of complexity, satisfying structure, emotional intelligence etc, and there will still then be people who disagree.

But heck, it's fun arguing.


----------



## lll (Oct 7, 2012)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I would like to posit the following: J.S.Bach's world-wide popularity is based on the six Brandenburg Concertos, two of the four Orchestral Suites, the three Violin Concertos, a few movements from the 'cello and Violin Sonatas, half a dozen Cantata choruses, the Goldberg Variations, and a handful of organ and harpsichord works.
> 
> If the above is true, then J.S.Bach isn't so much a composer 'for the people' as is Johann Strauss or Verdi (whose volumes of easily-accessible music are far more vast); he is, in fact, a composer of highly-technical music that most people don't appreciate; his popular pieces are not representative of his usual type of composition.
> 
> ...


That must be the dumbest thing i've ever heard in my entire life.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> Most people rate Shakespeare as a great writer.
> If nineteen or twenty people in a room had no education / had never read English older than the 20th century / had no concentration span/ hated the school system - they might agree that Shakespeare was codswallop. It wouldn't make him codswallop.
> If nineteen or twenty people in a room had no education / had never read English older than the 20th century / had no concentration span - but they needed/wanted to be thought cultured, they might agree that Shakespeare was the best writer who ever lived. It wouldn't make it so.
> If nineteen or twenty people with knowledge of Shakespeare and of other writers, with intelligence, a large vocabulary & the gift of empathy agree that he is a great writer, it's worth more - but then you start quibbling about you mean by knowledge, intelligence, empathy et al.
> ...


The fundamental issue here is that, in matters such as art and music, so much of the value placed in the work is subjective. Sure, there are certain technical aspects that we can rate fairly objectively. For example, you might rate some of Bach's work based on the complexity of the counterpoint used. You might also rate it based on the difficulty of playing it. Those can get at some objective ratings of the works. But deep down, most people put a greater value in the more subjective aspects. As I understand it (on a very limited basis), some of the 20th century work by the likes of Schoenberg and others of that school is very technically skilled. And yet Schoneberg doesn't have the overall favorability of Bach.

As to the OP, the biggest problem - and I think others have already said this - is that, in all likelihood, outside of actual musical scholars, most people don't know the entire collection of any given composers works. When you go back prior to Beethoven, those works numbered much higher. But does it require an exhaustive knowledge to truly find the works of a composer genius? I don't know every single one of Haydn's symphonies, but I still believe him to be an exceptional composer of symphonies, based on the ~25% of his symphonies that I know fairly well.

People consider Einstein a genius, yet who knows anything about him beyond E=mc^2? Not that many. Does that mean, because most people consider him a genius based on a very limited knowledge of his ideas, that we should rethink how highly we rate his intelligence? And should we let lesser known ideas of his drag down his intelligence? Who has considered his work as a patent clerk?

I believe that the high esteem given to Bach is a combination of factors - many who study music rate his music highly, many who don't study music but are avid classical music listeners rate his music highly, many who have listened to his entire collection of works rate his music highly, and many who have only a passing interest in classical music, and maybe have only heard some of his most popular works, rate his music highly. There are few composers that generate a positive consensus across such diverse groups, but Bach is certainly one of those. As with the 1st movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony, there are several works of Bach that have a near universality of recognition, at least in the Western world - Jesu, Joy of Man's Desire, Toccata & Fugue in D Minor, Brandenburg Concerto No. 3, "Air" on the G string from Orchestral Suite No. 3. But his general popularity, though, is driven, not by those that couldn't even tell you who wrote those works, but by those who listen to classical music. And of those, they generally know a lot more - the Sonatas and Partitas for solo violin, the Cello Suites, the entire collection of Brandenburg Concertos, the entire collection of Orchestral Suites, the Goldberg Variations, the Violin Concertos, the Well-tempered Clavier, the Passions, the B Minor Mass, several of the Cantatas, several of the organ works, and so on. THAT is what makes Bach popular. How many different conductors, either in the past or currently, are undertaking the task of recording the entire collection of his cantatas? Would any recording studio have green-lighted such a project had they not thought it would generate interest?

Bach's popularity derives from many who deliberately listen to classical music having a broad interest in a large chunk of his works, not just the tuneful ones.


----------



## Marisol (May 25, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Jesu, Joy of Man's Desire


"Jesu (sic) , Joy of Man's Desiring" was not composed by Bach and the idiot who translated this from German should have demanded his money back from his German teacher.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Marisol said:


> "Jesu (sic) , Joy of Man's Desiring" was not composed by Bach and the idiot who translated this from German should have demanded his money back from his German teacher.


But the arrangement everyone knows was indeed by Bach, and the same goes for the famous Passion chorale.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Marisol said:


> "Jesu (sic) , Joy of Man's Desiring" was not composed by Bach and the idiot who translated this from German should have demanded his money back from his German teacher.




It's pretty much Standard Practice in these forums to 'assume the IMO'. It requires a little familiarity with the poster to assume the 'harumph'.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2013)

Marisol said:


> "Jesu (sic) , Joy of Man's Desiring" was not composed by Bach and the idiot who translated this from German should have demanded his money back from his German teacher.


I am not referring to the words, but the orchestration that is very well known by that name, is frequently used in weddings, and comes from the 10th movement of BWV 147, the "Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben" cantata.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> But the arrangement everyone knows was indeed by Bach, and the same goes for the famous Passion chorale.


Scratched my head when I read this, because "arrangement" seems way too weak a word. But what word can we use? Is there such a thing as a "strict fantasia"? In any event, Bach's version is far more than might be suggested by the original rather chunky hymn. To say that Bach didn't compose it is like saying that Rachmaninoff didn't compose Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Marisol said:


> "Jesu (sic) , Joy of Man's Desiring" was not composed by Bach and the idiot who translated this from German should have demanded his money back from his German teacher.


"Jehovah" is another complete brain-fart from as read and then locally pronounced and subsequently, written down in ink. (Derives from a misread 'Jaweh' from Hebrew or Greek translation

Is there a category on TC for Obvious Displays of Education involving the minutia of petty academic nit-pickings, or an established twelve-step group to help those with such addictions?


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2013)

lll said:


> That must be the dumbest thing i've ever heard in my entire life.


Your unpleasant and inaccurate comment says more about you than about the OP.



DrMike said:


> As to the OP, the biggest problem - and I think others have already said this - is that, in all likelihood, outside of actual musical scholars, most people don't know the entire collection of any given composers works.


So, that's a clear vote in favour of one side of the debate posed by the OP. That's not 'a problem' at all.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Originally Posted by lll
"That must be the dumbest thing i've ever heard in my entire life."



MacLeod said:


> Your unpleasant and inaccurate comment says more about you than about the OP.
> [...]


_lll_'s comment qualifies as discourteous, but you assume too much by labeling it 'inaccurate' - unless you are familiar with his 'entire life'. If you are still auditioning for a moderatorship, you should be aware that the Krew values precision.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Scratched my head when I read this, because "arrangement" seems way too weak a word. But what word can we use? Is there such a thing as a "strict fantasia"? In any event, Bach's version is far more than might be suggested by the original rather chunky hymn. To say that Bach didn't compose it is like saying that Rachmaninoff didn't compose Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini.


Arrangement has to cover it in English, though that is anything from just a bit more than a transcription to a real reworking. The Germanic languages use their word for reworking for such pieces, I think literally more accurate.

So, "A reworking" then, without casting it specifically in variations, or other formal tags.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Arrangement has to cover it in English, though that is anything from just a bit more than a transcription to a real reworking. The Germanic languages use their word for reworking for such pieces, I think literally more accurate.
> 
> So, "A reworking" then, without casting it specifically in variations, or other formal tags.


I'm not sure whether 'Jesu Joy' comes into this category, but I know Bach worked a lot of common hymn tunes into his chorales. Luther and his friends had set a lot of hymns to popular tunes which the common people could sing in worship and Bach incorporated them into his works.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

lll said:


> That must be the dumbest thing i've ever heard in my entire life.


The answer to the OP's question may be obvious to many people, and the OP's definition of "general popularity" may be ambiguous and flawed, but I really don't think the question is so invalid and "stupid" that it deserves this type of remark. No need to be mean. =/


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

We are all like a bunch of fan boys. I love Bach but I am not going to claim his greatness is some absolute thing. That's icky. Ruins Bach for me when people do that.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> We are all like a bunch of fan boys. I love Bach but I am not going to claim his greatness is some absolute thing. That's icky. Ruins Bach for me when people do that.


More than well-said. Zealots can turn people off to what otherwise is a good thing.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> _lll_'s comment qualifies as discourteous, but you assume too much by labeling it 'inaccurate' - unless you are familiar with his 'entire life'.


Quite right. It did occur to me to make some observation about the range of dumb things _lll _might have come across, and whether they might be more or less dumb than Raefus' post, but on this occasion I chose to be direct, not smart: Raefus' post was not dumb at all so taking _lll _'s post at face value, it was inaccurate.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

lll said:


> That must be the dumbest thing i've ever heard in my entire life.


Please explain the following for me, sir:

1. How is it possible for you to deduce dysfunction of my vocal chords by reading my original post? 
2. How is it possible to have degrees of an absolute, such as an inability to use one's vocal chords?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

But why carry on an argument with someone over an insult instead of discussing the original point which is what some try and do in this thread?


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

starry said:


> But why carry on an argument with someone over an insult instead of discussing the original point which is what some try and do in this thread?


Good question, starry.

Here's a question for you: why insult the OP?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I guess someone may do that because they think that's what you were enticing originally, and maybe if you respond to them a lot in return (even if in a reasonable manner) that could suggest to them that you like it turning into a discussion over that rather than your original point. Because you have shown more interest in that discussion than the discussion over Bach.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

starry said:


> I guess someone may do that because they think that's what you were enticing originally, and maybe if you respond to them a lot in return (even if in a reasonable manner) that could suggest to them that you like it turning into a discussion over that rather than your original point. Because you have shown more interest in that discussion than the discussion over Bach.


starry, your post contained three errors of reasoning/judgement:

1. "...they think that's what you were enticing originally..."; we're onto the 9th page, so that misapprehension should have been addressed by now.

2. "...your original point."; I made no point, originally; I asked questions.

3. "... you have shown more interest in that discussion than the discussion over Bach."; no I haven't. My level of interest in either the insulting and/or discourteous posts leveled at me or the topic of this thread are for me to know, and you to apparently misunderstand or willfully inaccurately describe.

I'll make the following two statements for your delectation, matey:

1. Whether or not I choose to lend an opinion to this thread is as much my choice as it is yours.

2. I notice that you haven't seen it fit to defend me against the 'insults' leveled at me; I can't imagine why not. I mean, someone as upstanding as your good self would surely see it less fit to take exception to my responses than the 'insults' that I respond to... or maybe not.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Of course it's your choice, I know that. It's just that it's unusual for someone to make a point (a question can be a point in the issues it raises) in their original post and then not really have much interest in any real discussion about it later on. That's all. I just find it frustrating, but others may see worse intent I suppose. Not saying I agree with but you obviously got sidetracked by others, I'm just trying to look at the bigger picture. You said you wanted discussion on your question but you were more concerned with other people who wanted to sidetrack things.

And actually I did defend you after I was one of those who had tried to get some discussion going on your original question/point. So I think that shows you maybe haven't concentrated on what I said in this.

http://www.talkclassical.com/25928-bachs-general-popularity-based-5.html#post471436

I made my point there and I thought that was enough, I'm more interested in discussing music on this forum than forum etiquette.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

starry said:


> It's just that it's unusual for someone to make a point (a question can be a point in the issues it raises) in their original post and then not really have much interest in any real discussion about it later on.


I told you that I was asking a question, not making a point. I still tell you that I was asking a question, not making a point.



starry said:


> ... you obviously got sidetracked by others, I'm just trying to look at the bigger picture. You said you wanted discussion on your question but you were more concerned with other people who wanted to sidetrack things.


No. I replied to rude comments, and responded to other on-topic comments; have a look at the thread for evidence of this.



starry said:


> ... I'm more interested in discussing music on this forum than forum etiquette.


Great. So discuss music, rather than taking exception to who I respond to and why.

***WARNING: if you take my advice, you might not get as many valuable 'likes' from some 'important' people on this forum***


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

We obviously disagree about what a point is. Anyway if people are rude to you I would recommend using an ignore list (under options) to block them. Because the more you feed some people attention the more they love it. Anyway we can leave it at that perhaps.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I'm going to bed this thread has lost its interest. 

Might even put some Bach on the gramophone, maybe the Goldberg Variations.... Not bad for a provincial musician who achieved only limited fame during his lifetime.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I don't need a musicologist to enjoy the Goldberg Variations, OR the Passacaglia and Fugue


----------

