# Why is Bach so good? (No hate)



## Hanspwnz

I'm a big fan of classical music, and I have enjoyed it for years. I love most of them, esp. Mozart, Beethoven and Bach. I don't have any education in music, but I've read about counterpoint etc. I hear a lot of people praise Bach like he's a God, saying that he (and Mozart's) music is so simple yet complex. Especially Bach. Why do people praise him so much? Don't get me wrong, I like his music, but I have never studied any scores. What makes him special?

Also, I love Mozart's 41th symphony, and I understand he creates a giant fugue in the end with 5 melodies. Hasn't anybody done it since? Was he the only one capable of that, couldn't Bach have done the same? Einstein too praised the architecture of their music, and though I do hear reoccuring themes, I don't understand the science behind, and I don't really understand what makes them stand out so much, in regards to Beethoven for example.

Any clarification would be happily welcomed.


----------



## neoshredder

Bach=God. That's why.


----------



## GreenMamba

neoshredder said:


> Bach=God. That's why.


That actually doesn't explain why.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

JS Bach is simply one of the greatest composers of all times. Period. Don't care why.


----------



## neoshredder

GreenMamba said:


> That actually doesn't explain why.


Yeah it does actually.


----------



## Hanspwnz

So any serious answers? 

lol


----------



## millionrainbows

Hanspwnz said:


> I'm a big fan of classical music, and I have enjoyed it for years. I love most of them, esp. Mozart, Beethoven and Bach. I don't have any education in music, but I've read about counterpoint etc. I hear a lot of people praise Bach like he's a God, saying that he (and Mozart's) music is so simple yet complex. Especially Bach. Why do people praise him so much? Don't get me wrong, I like his music, but I have never studied any scores. What makes him special?
> 
> Also, I love Mozart's 41th symphony, and I understand he creates a giant fugue in the end with 5 melodies. Hasn't anybody done it since? Was he the only one capable of that, couldn't Bach have done the same? Einstein too praised the architecture of their music, and though I do hear reoccuring themes, I don't understand the science behind, and I don't really understand what makes them stand out so much, in regards to Beethoven for example.
> 
> Any clarification would be happily welcomed.


Well, the drama that Beethoven accomplished with his dynamic range on soft/loud pianos, Bach had to accomplish with harpsichords which had no such touch dynamics. My theory is that Bach had to create his drama solely on the strength and effect of his harmonic elaborations, and density of texture. "Harmonic elaborations" takes place solely in the realm of pitch, without dynamics per se. "Harmonic elaborations" means tension and resolution.

I don't hear any harmonic "evolvement" between Bach and Beethoven; Bach knew it all back then. Most other Baroque music, like Corelli or Purcell, is good, but seems less adventurous, less knowledgable. Scarlatti and Handel are good, but not quite as harmonically advanced as Bach. The Chromatic Fantasy is a good example...Bach is all over the place, using diminished chords as b7/9 gateways into new key areas...

The Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor uses 11 of the 12 possible notes.


----------



## KenOC

I think if the question were "Why is Beethoven so good?" then the answers would be very subjective -- the emotions or states of mind he arouses in *me*; the ideas (as *I* hear them) of struggle, heroism, etc.; the direct and powerful *to me* use of development and resolution; and so forth.

Maybe any answer concerning Bach must be subjective as well. If you have any facility with the keyboard, pick out, however slowly and clumsily, the fugue to (for instance) the C-major P&F from the first book of the WTC. Even though this is one of his simpler and less ambitious pieces, you may find it astounding. But can anybody really say *why* it's astounding?

Generally speaking, it's difficult to enjoy some music because we're listening for something that's not there, and not hearing what is there. You'll find little or nothing of Beethoven's sensibility in Bach. But plenty of Bach's!


----------



## Manxfeeder

Bach has the holy-smokes factor. Like if you take Vivaldi's L'Estro Armonico concertos, they're great. But then you compare what Bach did to the genre with his Brandenburg Concertos, you say, "Holy smokes."


----------



## realdealblues

Bach is good to me because of his melodies and I like music with melodies.

Listen to Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 "just one time" and you will never forget it. From just one listen you will forever remember it and always know when you hear that melody that it's Bach.

That's Power to me.


----------



## Hanspwnz

realdealblues said:


> Bach is good to me because of his melodies and I like music with melodies.
> 
> Listen to Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 "just one time" and you will never forget it. From just one listen you will forever remember it and always know when you hear that melody that it's Bach.
> 
> That's Power to me.


I understand what you mean, but would you ever forget Rondo Alla Turca?

>:


----------



## Vaneyes

He was the first Minimalist.


----------



## realdealblues

Hanspwnz said:


> I understand what you mean, but would you ever forget Rondo Alla Turca?
> 
> >:


No, and that's why I love Mozart as well. I don't say one is better than the other. I'm not really a "this person is the best" kind of guy. I have favorites like everyone else that I like to listen to more frequently and Bach & Mozart are on my list of favorites.


----------



## KenOC

Manxfeeder said:


> Bach has the holy-smokes factor.


Well said. Kinda what I wrote, but I went on and on about it...


----------



## Jord

i've never fully appreciated Mozarts works, when i listen to his piano pieces on the internet i think they just lack so much depth and bore me so much, but when i hear his piano pieces played in front of me they sound like the greatest pieces ever composed


----------



## Ramako

Hanspwnz said:


> I hear a lot of people praise *Bach* like he's a God, saying that he (and Mozart's) music is *so simple yet complex*. Especially Bach.


Never heard that with respect to Bach. There is not a lot simple about Bach. So much counterpoint...

As for the singling out of a *greatest* composer, that is a regrettable phenomenon, however it really depends which circles you are in as to _who_ is singled out. Canonically it is Beethoven, but it is roughly the same for Mozart and Bach: it depends who you talk to.

Mozart was a master of Classical Counterpoint. Bach was a master of Baroque counterpoint. Palestrina and Josquin were masters of Renaissance counterpoint etc. etc. Each one is often capable of different things, for all their similarities. What makes the last movement of the Jupiter special is that each one of the themes that are combined are self-sufficient and thematic in themselves. I don't know of a case of this in Bach, but I don't know much Bach, and of course he was attempting different things.


----------



## KenOC

Ramako said:


> Mozart was a master of Classical Counterpoint. Bach was a master of Baroque counterpoint.


Mozart loved counterpoint. Bach *was* counterpoint. Beethoven fought counterpoint, a titanic battle indeed. I'm not sure we know yet who won.


----------



## Petwhac

Complete command and mastery of his materials, harmony and counterpoint. The ability or at least the appearance of the ability to say everything that _can_ be said with the greatest economy of means.
The Partitas and Sonatas for solo violin and cello are good examples of this.

Beethoven's words: "Das ist nicht ein Bach, das ist ein Meer" (This is not a brook, this is an ocean)


----------



## KenOC

Brahms on Bach's Chaconne in D minor: "On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind."


----------



## Andreas

KenOC said:


> Mozart loved counterpoint. Bach *was* counterpoint. Beethoven fought counterpoint, a titanic battle indeed. I'm not sure we know yet who won.


Mozart may have loved it, but, alas, he hardly wrote any.

I think Bach, more than anyone before him, explored all possibilities of tonality, harmonical and contrapuntal. He was also among the first generation of composers who almost exclusively wrote pieces in major or minor keys (instead of the old church modes). Many of his works - the two- and three-part inventions, the chorales, the keyboard works - are so comprehensive and instructive that they were (and still are) used as textbooks. Bach was not an educational composer in the strict sense, but his immense catalogue of works makes up a kind of encyclopedia of tonality.


----------



## PetrB

It is precisely those answers, "Bach is God," "He was the ultimate contrapuntist," etc. that make those who would like a better explanation of 'why is Bach so good' think those who so respond are "Bach Nutters." Any fan (fan is derived from 'fanatic') who is so zealous, whichever composer is the ardent object of that fan's zeal, does their beloved composer no good service at all in answering in such a manner.

If you accept a handful of 'generally accepted' criteria by which composers are judged, then Bach is certainly 'right up there' on those Olympian peaks.

He lived in an era when music had been modal, and highly contrapuntal. In his era, music was making a transition from modality to tonality, counterpoint to homophony, and Bach manifested all that within the body of his work.*

He did not _Invent_ any new kind of counterpoint.

What he did do, somewhat a 'conservative' in his own time, was 'recap' all of the musical developments from the previous two hundred years, and worked within the 'new' tonal music while retaining a lot of the older school modal harmony, a fusion, if you will.

His contrapuntal skill was notably remarkable.

He had a knack for taking a theme or motif and continually morphing it over the course of longer scale works, a kind of fresh invention which still had enough of the kernel of the starting idea to structurally and thematically bind the piece together without repeating it as readily or recognizably as we are used to in, say Beethoven.

Some of his works are remarkably beautiful, and (to me) a number of them truly 'inspired.'

He composed, over a long lifetime, over one thousand works, a good handful of those evidently 'inspired' - which if one has to write everyday for a living, is already a sort of 'wonder.' The same can be said of Vivaldi, Mozart, Schubert, and several others who composed so much.

I think a lot of his music is 'perfectly composed,' without technical fault, but very 'workmanlike' and 'academic' or 'uninspired.' Having said that, reread the above paragraph... i.e. that any of those who cranked it out prolifically over a lifetime, that even a few are 'inspired' is phenomenal. (Mozart too, wrote almost entirely 'perfect' pieces, from childhood on.)

As a Lutheran in the established post reformation 'Protestant' society, he produced no operas, those being considered wickedly frivolous. For opera, then, include instead the great oratorios, the cantatas, and then he is another composer who composed music for 'all classical genres,' i.e. symphonic, if not symphonies, works for large ensembles, concerti, chamber music, solo instrumental music and chamber music -- another criterion for 'all round great.'

He truly and fully summarized the music of the two previous centuries, no mean feat: the next to be attributed with the same feat being Stravinsky, often cited in learned texts as 'the Bach of the 20th century.'

That should really be more than enough. Perfectly made works, a huge body of them, and a flexibility and fluency of developing an idea, a sophisticated and supple ability to modulate, and masterly counterpoint.

The 'Bach nutters' seem to not recognize that just about every contrapuntal trick, elegantly done, had been done as early as the 1300's, by one Guillaume de Machaut, and some incredibly fine music, modal and as complex, written by dozens of composers through the following centuries until Bach appeared on the scene; in fact, those composers, collectively, are the composite legacy Bach inherited and had as his teachers and models. Bach Nutters do not claim Bach invented counterpoint, but to listen to them, you might think he had single handed invented all of counterpoint out of thin air 

Whether it is because of his Oratorios, or other works with text of a religious nature, or the influence of learning Bach believed everything he composed was a tribute to 'the glory of God,' many attribute even the driest and most clinical of his preludes and fugues as a manifestation of 'the deity.'

For others, it is my theory Bach's particular sort of (North European) counterpoint so clearly sounds 'orderly' that some attribute the aspect as a direct manifestation of a God-ordered universe.

Well, true or not, it is difficult to argue rationally to anyone zealous about 'divinity' or 'the cosmic engineer.'

Bach's immediate contemporary, the French Jean-Philippe Rameau, is, as per many "cognoscenti," given equal status as one of the greatest of composers.

What may partially account for the severe emphasis on Bach, Beethoven and Brahms could be the frighteningly strong hegemony that German music in general enjoyed throughout western cultures from the mid-1800's until about 1920 or so.

There have been, since Bach, dozens of also great composers whose deployment of counterpoint was also 'utter mastery,' who used it in their own way towards their own ends in their own works as per their individual aesthetic.

I've always found the pronouncement 'X' was the greatest composer, 'like 'ever' and imply or say that all others before or since were far 'less' as simply fatuous. Of that sort, it is most often Bach = pinnacle -- after which all of classical music went downhill. There are different cut-off points for those who hold a similar opinion of other heroes, i.e. it was Haendel - then downhill / Mozart, then downhill / Beethoven; Wagner; Brahms; Mahler _(note all the Germans and Viennese, please!)_ Well, all that is just patently absurd, empiric, silly.

But was Bach one of the best of composers? Certainly.

*Added: many a contemporary harmony student trips up when doing harmonic analysis of Bach by approaching it with the common practice tools of harmonic analysis, i.e. observing only vertical occurrences (disregarding the independent thought of confluent horizontal activity) and by thinking in 'tonal' frames of reference, while they as often as not also use modal means and techniques mixed with 'tonal' applications.


----------



## Krisena

I find Bach's counterpoint ability overrated in relation to the enjoyment I get out of listening to him. I mean, when listening to Bach, is it the counterpoint I really listen to and is awed by? Nope. (It's his melodies, harmony and form!)

And I often feel that the people who only weight to his polyphony abilities have completely misunderstood the guy (or me, or maybe I've misunderstood Bach, or the world, or the world me).

I mean, counterpoint is just a means to end. And it's the end that counts. (And Bach's got it)


----------



## Andreas

Several times I've heard statements like: yes, Bach's the greatest craftsman ever, an unparalleled technician, but frankly, his music is boring.

That's a perfectly reasonable statement from a listener's point of view, I guess. For them, it's only about how much enjoyment they get out of the music. But for composers, I'd guess, it's different; they have to be much more interested in craft and technique, because only complete understanding of the craft and full technical control allow them to write the music they have in mind. So they're usually much more appreciative of Bach's sheer technical mastery. For the general audience, however, it might be less important.


----------



## Lukecash12

Ramako said:


> Never heard that with respect to Bach. There is not a lot simple about Bach. So much counterpoint...
> 
> As for the singling out of a *greatest* composer, that is a regrettable phenomenon, however it really depends which circles you are in as to _who_ is singled out. Canonically it is Beethoven, but it is roughly the same for Mozart and Bach: it depends who you talk to.
> 
> Mozart was a master of Classical Counterpoint. Bach was a master of Baroque counterpoint. Palestrina and Josquin were masters of Renaissance counterpoint etc. etc. Each one is often capable of different things, for all their similarities. What makes the last movement of the Jupiter special is that each one of the themes that are combined are self-sufficient and thematic in themselves. I don't know of a case of this in Bach, but I don't know much Bach, and of course he was attempting different things.


There are numerous such cases with Bach. He's considered the king of that. Take his passions for example. There are several melodies in his passions which are a process of chromatic ascension or descent, which are actually symbols of the cross. They occur in music of all kinds of different general moods, present nonetheless as their own theme.

Bach had the ability to write for so many different ensembles, and to parody and apply musical methods from all around Europe. You'll not find anywhere else in the Baroque such an achievement of musical synthesis. Handel happened to pick up on stuff like the dotted rhythms in French Baroque overtures, which you can see in the stately beginning of the overture to the Messiah. Bach managed to absorb every such technique from France, especially the French organ school. In his Art of fugue, he observes many different styles of writing just that particular type of piece, presenting masterful examples of each. We visit several different countries there, each with a different sense of rhythm, a general direction that their melodies tend to go. Others tended to incorporate just a few elements, like Handel with his french overtures. But Handel's similarities are more superficial. His melodies don't take too much of the same shape. He doesn't capture all of the idiosyncratic tendencies.

Bach brought the art of modulation to a mathematical science. Whilst not breaking too many of the rules he adhered to, he gave us music that was more harmonically complex than we could find for a good while later. I agree with some others here that Beethoven and his contemporaries hadn't yet surpassed Bach in harmonic complexity. And I think there is some room to argue that their melodies weren't nearly as complex either. They didn't observe ornaments from around Europe, didn't insert as much freshness and imagination into one piece as he could. They would have lucid moments, impressive parts of their music. There are entire hour long programs by Bach that seem lucid to me. The more you learn about music, the more you realize he is constantly up to something.

And as for our friend PetrB here:



> Some of his works are remarkably beautiful, and (to me) a numbe truly 'inspired.'
> 
> He composed, over a long lifetime, over one thousand works, a good handful of those evidently 'inspired' - which if one has to write everyday for a living, is already a sort of 'wonder.' The same can be said of Vivaldi, Mozart, Schubert, and several others who composed so much.
> 
> I think a lot of his music is 'perfectly composed,' without technical fault, but very 'workmanlike' and 'academic' or 'uninspired.' Having said that, reread the above paragraph... that any of those who crank it out regularly over a lifetime, that even a few are 'inspired' is phenomenal. (Mozart too, wrote almost entirely 'perfect' pieces, from childhood on.)


I'd very much like to see some of these examples of uninspired work. Of course, I'm sure there is work that is less inspired, but I would have a hard time recollecting something of Bach's that I would label "uninspired". Pretty much none of the material with a religious text seems uninspired to me, especially with his ardent appreciation of the theology, evident in every turn of phrase. The music is absolutely subservient to it, producing each effect on it's account. If we were to frame a picture with the peculiarities of each religiously themed piece of his, it would always come out looking like the text. Just pull every noteworthy compositional element, and think to yourself whether or not it took it's own direction for mere interest's sake. The music tugs and pulls with the image in mind.

Take his funeral motets as an example of this. When satan enters the picture, whether or not you even know the text, it should be obvious that a violent presence has come. Often a rest is taken and forceful melodies come straightway. The harmonic texture actually becomes ugly if one uses the aesthetic of the times. And the character changes entirely after satan is gone. People who don't know that it was about satan can probably remember a part of the piece that was very different in character, and came without warning, leaving just as suddenly.

And I feel I could go on forever about his textual observations.



> Whether it is because of his Oratorios, or other works with text of a religious nature, or the influence of learning Bach believed everything he composed was a tribute to 'the glory of God,' many attribute even the driest and most clinical of his preludes and fugues as a manifestation of 'the deity.'


But he had actually meant that he wrote all of his music towards a religious bent, and of course all of his music was played in church. It all had to fit into a service.


----------



## Lukecash12

Andreas said:


> Several times I've heard statements like: yes, Bach's the greatest craftsman ever, an unparalleled technician, but frankly, his music is boring.
> 
> That's a perfectly reasonable statement from a listener's point of view, I guess. For them, it's only about how much enjoyment they get out of the music. But for composers, I'd guess, it's different; they have to be much more interested in craft and technique, because only complete understanding of the craft and full technical control allow them to write the music they have in mind. So they're usually much more appreciative of Bach's sheer technical mastery. For the general audience, however, it might be less important.


But for those who understand the aesthetics of his day, and his thematic motivations, it seems like a stretch of the mind to say that his music is boring or unemotional. It seems to us that someone is just mentally performing an anachronism, because we have no idea who this Bach is that they are hearing.


----------



## Ravndal

GreenMamba said:


> That actually doesn't explain why.


I agree. Last time i checked didn't Bach travel to Africa and give aids to babies.


----------



## neoshredder

I don't know how anyone can consider Bach boring. To me, he is the most enjoyable Composer ever. Not saying there aren't many other Composers to enjoy well. But I keep going back to Bach. I think his religious beliefs also adds more power to his music. Thus the reference to God. He has so many good works. I can't imagine anyone ever topping it. If there was a Composers I thought was great but boring, it would be Mozart.


----------



## Ravndal

I also like the Bach. And Mozart is indeed very boring.


----------



## KenOC

Andreas said:


> Mozart may have loved it, but, alas, he hardly wrote any.


I think Mozart wrote plenty of counterpoint. Don't forget, the classical guys were brought up on Gradus ad Parnassum! But it's not baroque counterpoint, more often it's what people call "classical counterpoint." Listen to the first movement of the Prague Symphony, or of the C-major Piano Concerto k.503. These are only two of many such from Herr Mozart.

BTW re Bach: Different eras have heard him different ways. When the universe was young (IOW in my early youth), the only "popular" Bach pieces were the Stokowski transcriptions. All else was music for specialists or for the church, music that sounded to most people quite mechanical and soulless. It was probably Glenn Gould, more than anybody else, who changed that in 1955.


----------



## Hanspwnz

Thanks a lot for all the great answers, especially from PetrB !! Bach is indeed good, though with all respect, I do prefer Mozart or Beethoven!


----------



## Carpenoctem

Hanspwnz said:


> Thanks a lot for all the great answers, especially from PetrB !! Bach is indeed good, though with all respect, I do prefer Mozart or Beethoven!


You are not alone my friend, I share the same opinion.


----------



## neoshredder

I feel like putting up a 'Why is Mozart so good' thread but not going to. I feel the exact same way about Mozart as you do Bach.


----------



## Hanspwnz

neoshredder said:


> I feel like putting up a 'Why is Mozart so good' thread but not going to. I feel the exact same way about Mozart as you do Bach.


Tbh I think most people without a deeper musical understanding prefer Mozart to Bach.


----------



## KenOC

Hanspwnz said:


> Tbh I think most people without a deeper musical understanding prefer Mozart to Bach.


I assume you place yourself in the other category?


----------



## Hanspwnz

KenOC said:


> I assume you place yourself in the other category?


If you read my first post you'll know I do.  But who cares, it's not a competetion - I'd love to "understand" the music I'm hearing though.

Just a quick question: is Vivaldi's music as cleverly made as Bach or Mozart's? He's one of my favourites, but I have a hard time determining how 'sophisticated' he is.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Everybody here appear to hold JS Bach in very high regard. That is good. The authority of Bach as a great composer should never ever be challenged.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The authority of Bach as a great composer should never ever be challenged.


The authority of _any _composer should be periodically challenged, so that such authority can be reevaluated. If we stop asking whether and why, we lose our critical faculties.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MacLeod said:


> The authority of _any _composer should be periodically challenged, so that such authority can be reevaluated. If we stop asking whether and why, we lose our critical faculties.


Nice generalisation. But not the great composers. They have been proven over time. John Cage, yes by all means.

Pieces of individual works by the great composers; yes, but their overall statue, no. We have the benefit of having discovered Bach for over two centuries.


----------



## Hanspwnz

I'm not saying Bach is inferior to Mozart, I just enjoy Mozart more. To me, Bach would seem like a kind, yet strict old math teacher, while Mozart would be more of a Mr. Keating, even though I regard them equally high as teachers / musicians.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Nice generalisation. But not the great composers. They have been proven over time. John Cage, yes by all means. Pieces of individual works by the great composers; yes, but their overall statue, no. We have the benefit of having discovered Bach for over two centuries.


You've lost your critical faculties already then, HC. If we've already 'discovered' Bach for over two centuries and we assume he's great because he's always been regarded as great...where's the criticism? Handing on unquestioned traditions is as sure a way as I know of a society falling asleep.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MacLeod said:


> You've lost your critical faculties already then, HC. If we've already 'discovered' Bach for over two centuries and we assume he's great because he's always been regarded as great...where's the criticism? Handing on unquestioned traditions is as sure a way as I know of a society falling asleep.


That's a generalisation without context specific to Bach. Point me an example of where JS Bach's stature as a great composer needs serious re-thinking and you might have a case to prove.


----------



## neoshredder

Hanspwnz said:


> If you read my first post you'll know I do.  But who cares, it's not a competetion - I'd love to "understand" the music I'm hearing though.
> 
> Just a quick question: is Vivaldi's music as cleverly made as Bach or Mozart's? He's one of my favourites, but I have a hard time determining how 'sophisticated' he is.


Great Composer. The Four Seasons is what got me into Classical Music in the first place. I guess that goes with Bach and Beethoven as well. Though not too many of his Concertos are at the level of the Four Seasons sadly.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

neoshredder said:


> Great Composer. The Four Seasons is what got me into Classical Music in the first place. I guess that goes with Bach and Beethoven as well. Though not too many of his Concertos are at the level of the Four Seasons sadly.


Yes, Vivaldi is a great composer. The biggest overlooked fact about Vivaldi is how very original he was during his day, writing the numerous virtuoisc instrumental concertos, which was totally new then, and influenced subsequent concerto writing (the three movement format fast-slow-fast that we all know now). Folks at TC often rage on about originality, influence, new music etc. and Vivaldi was one who had all these qualities, in vast numbers during his day.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> That's a generalisation without context specific to Bach.


That's right. That's exactly what it was. It's a generalisation about all 'greats' - Lincoln, Churchill, Mahatama Gandhi, Jesus...The Great MacGonagall


----------



## crmoorhead

MacLeod said:


> The authority of _any _composer should be periodically challenged, so that such authority can be reevaluated. If we stop asking whether and why, we lose our critical faculties.


Challenged implies a second-guessing of the music. If you want to understand why Bach is great, understand music then listen to any selection of Bach's work. It shouldn't be a challenge, but rather a helpful reminder of why Bach is so highly regarded. It is, of course, in the eye (or ear?) of the beholder, but I can't help but think that there is somethng fundamentally wrong if someone cannot like Bach after listening to fair sample of his works. But that might be just me.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

crmoorhead said:


> Challenged implies a second-guessing of the music. If you want to understand why Bach is great, understand music then listen to any selection of Bach's work. It shouldn't be a challenge, but rather a helpful reminder of why Bach is so highly regarded. It is, of course, in the eye (or ear?) of the beholder, but I can't help but think that there is somethng fundamentally wrong if someone cannot like Bach after listening to fair sample of his works. But that might be just me.


Agree entirely. "_Listen and you will hear_" (HarpsichordConcerto, November 2012).


----------



## Guest

crmoorhead said:


> Challenged implies a second-guessing of the music.


I'm not sure I follow 'second-guessing'. The need for reevaluation is not because the music's intrinsic value has changed, but our cultural values might have done. The music stands still - it's the same as it always was. What changes is our evaluation of the worth to us over time.

Here's an example from another medium: cinema. You'll notice that with the exception of _The Artist_, no-one makes silent movies any longer. Great as _The General_, _Napoleon_, _Greed _are deemed to be, they don't carry the same value any longer, though not a frame has changed. Our culture has shifted and values talkies more.


----------



## PetrB

Hanspwnz said:


> Tbh I think most people without a deeper musical understanding prefer Mozart to Bach.


_That is just not true _ The opposite could be said to be true, with perhaps a little more consensus found within the music 'cognoscenti.'

Fact is this 'best like ever' is not only futile, but ridiculous, imho.


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> Bach=God. That's why.


Isn't that, if one is at all devout, truly blasphemous?


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> Well, the drama that Beethoven accomplished with his dynamic range on soft/loud pianos, Bach had to accomplish with harpsichords which had no such touch dynamics. My theory is that Bach had to create his drama solely on the strength and effect of his harmonic elaborations, and density of texture. "Harmonic elaborations" takes place solely in the realm of pitch, without dynamics per se. "Harmonic elaborations" means tension and resolution.
> 
> I don't hear any harmonic "evolvement" between Bach and Beethoven; Bach knew it all back then. Most other Baroque music, like Corelli or Purcell, is good, but seems less adventurous, less knowledgable. Scarlatti and Handel are good, but not quite as harmonically advanced as Bach. The Chromatic Fantasy is a good example...Bach is all over the place, using diminished chords as b7/9 gateways into new key areas...
> 
> The Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor uses 11 of the 12 possible notes.


Clearly, you have not made an unbiased comparison with all the music of Jean-Phillipe Rameau, then


----------



## PetrB

Ramako said:


> Never heard that with respect to Bach. There is not a lot simple about Bach. So much counterpoint...
> 
> As for the singling out of a *greatest* composer, that is a regrettable phenomenon, however it really depends which circles you are in as to _who_ is singled out. Canonically it is Beethoven, but it is roughly the same for Mozart and Bach: it depends who you talk to.
> 
> Mozart was a master of Classical Counterpoint. Bach was a master of Baroque counterpoint. Palestrina and Josquin were masters of Renaissance counterpoint etc. etc. Each one is often capable of different things, for all their similarities. What makes the last movement of the Jupiter special is that each one of the themes that are combined are self-sufficient and thematic in themselves. I don't know of a case of this in Bach, but I don't know much Bach, and of course he was attempting different things.


Check out the Quadlibet variation in Bach's Goldberg Variations


----------



## PetrB

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Everybody here appear to hold JS Bach in very high regard. That is good. The authority of Bach as a great composer should never ever be challenged.


If each generation did not challenge any and all ideas and works of the past generations, all facility for independent thought, fresh assessment, and any ability to discern, would come to a dead halt.

Tsk, tsk, but that is exactly the sort of near religious 'reverential' "Do Not Question The Church" statement about any artist or composer which will completely turn many a neophyte completely off and away.

_Try it on for size and comfort, "You *must* (not can) *believe*_____."

Really, that sort of 'do not question' statement makes me angry enough to sincerely say, I hope you are in no capacity a teacher of young people, and "Shame on you for saying it."_


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> The need for re-evaluation is not because the music's intrinsic value has changed, but our cultural values might have done. The music stands still - it's the same as it always was. What changes is our evaluation of the worth to us over time.


C'mon, everybody knows that we're right about everything today. They were SO wrong in the past, and if they disagree with us in the future, they'll be SO wrong then!

Isn't that obvious? :lol:


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> Bach=God. That's why.


And here all these years I thought it was Eric Clapton.


----------



## neoshredder

PetrB said:


> Isn't that, if one is at all devout, truly blasphemous?


I'm not devoted. I just think Bach's religion makes his music feel more powerful. And talent plays a big part of that to. If there was a God, he would be proud on what he created.


----------



## crmoorhead

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I follow 'second-guessing'. The need for reevaluation is not because the music's intrinsic value has changed, but our cultural values might have done. The music stands still - it's the same as it always was. What changes is our evaluation of the worth to us over time.
> 
> Here's an example from another medium: cinema. You'll notice that with the exception of _The Artist_, no-one makes silent movies any longer. Great as _The General_, _Napoleon_, _Greed _are deemed to be, they don't carry the same value any longer, though not a frame has changed. Our culture has shifted and values talkies more.


But if you are 'challenging' the assumption that Bach is great, you are doing so in the assumption that it is possible that all those in the current and past generations were mistaken. I'd be the first person to say that one cannot just rely on the opinions, that one should make up one's own mind by actually experiencing the music, but lets not be iconoclastic about this for the sake of it. When I was first getting into music, I was _aware_ of the fact that many revered him, but it took time for me to appreciate his worth in comparison to other composers. I didn't view my experiment in trying out his works as 'challenging' established wisdom, nor do I see that others should. Nor do I think I was brainwashed or unduly influenced by the knowledge that Bach was considered one of the top composers to have ever lived. I came to that opinion through learning more about music and gaining experience of classical music as a genre.

I don't agree with your comparison with silent movies. 'Talkies' added another dimension to the medium i.e. that of sound. It's not simply a matter of silent movies going out of fashion, but rather being replaced by something entirely different. It was a paradigm shift from a single medium to multmedia. A more apt comparison is that of painting or literature where, although aesthetics have changed over the years, there are many figures such as Michelangelo, Rembrant, Shakespeare, Goethe etc that continue to be compared favourably with those working in the same medium centuries later. The same goes for those who were great scientists, philosophers or mathematicians. Times may have changed, but recognition of the raw talent and inspiratonal nature of their achievements cannot be undermined despite those achievements being made obsolete or unfashionable by the passage of years.


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I follow 'second-guessing'. The need for reevaluation is not because the music's intrinsic value has changed, but our cultural values might have done. The music stands still - it's the same as it always was. What changes is our evaluation of the worth to us over time.


When I was 20 years old, I believed that. I thought because I didn't appreciate "old stuff" that *society* didn't. What I've learned in the decades since then is that the inherent value of culture doesn't change because it's part of history and not part of normal everyday life. It isn't the topical aspects that are important, the universal aspects are. You just need a certain amount of life experience under your belt and be willing to project yourself outwards to be able to see the greatness in civilization. Greatness isn't self evident if you don't have the experience to appreciate it, and it isn't possible to understand what it means to be a member of the human race if you limit yourself to just the things you see in your own neighborhood. Lack of greatness in this case is a perceptual problem. The pyramids are still the pyramids whether or not fans of Justin Beber or Lady Gaga realize they're great.


----------



## bigshot

Also, don't underestimate the importance of silent film. I work with animators, and they are very interested in the way Chaplin and Keaton express personality through pantomime. It is a rich and viable artform even if the local multiplex doesn't run them. I watched two silent films this week already myself... Chaney's "The Penalty" and Lang's "Die Nibelungen". Both have just been rereleased on bluray with 5:1 orchestral scores. Silent film is more popular than you might think.


----------



## KenOC

crmoorhead said:


> But if you are 'challenging' the assumption that Bach is great, you are doing so in the assumption that it is possible that all those in the current and past generations were mistaken.


There were plenty of times when only a few regarded Bach as one of the all-time greats. As often as not, his music was treasured by a minority of music "insiders" and not otherwise recognized as germane to contemporary culture. This seems to have been generally the case until the second half of the 20th century -- Baron van Swieten, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and others notwithstanding.


----------



## bigshot

That was more because of the lack of awareness than it was Bach's music. You can't appreciate what you don't know much about.

Also, Stokowski and Landowska had a lot to do with popularizing Bach in the first half of the 20th century.


----------



## KenOC

"You can't appreciate what you don't know much about."

True, but people *didn't* know about Bach and *didn't* appreciate him. So their estimation of Bach is far higher today that it was through (at least) the entire 19th century.

Regarding the second comment: It's true that Bach's popularity began to grow in the first half of the 20th century. But how much? How many people bought the 78 RPM recordings of Landowska's WTC? How much Bach did Stokowski expose people to? I think Bach still remained "comparatively" outside the experience of most of the musical public (as did Haydn and most of Mozart for that matter).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MacLeod said:


> Here's an example from another medium: cinema. You'll notice that with the exception of _The Artist_, no-one makes silent movies any longer. Great as _The General_, _Napoleon_, _Greed _are deemed to be, they don't carry the same value any longer, though not a frame has changed. Our culture has shifted and values talkies more.


That does not jell with Bach. It is simple to defeat your analogy by drawing actual musical examples. He never composed a single opera (one of the most revered and sophisticated genres in all music), none; yet his stature as a non-opera classical composer clearly stands as listeners recognise the deep emotional content in his music, regardless of whether or not the listener is an opera aficionado. There is nothing to suggest there is a cultural shift when you might meet an opera hater who loves the music of Bach.


----------



## bigshot

KenOC said:


> It's true that Bach's popularity began to grow in the first half of the 20th century. But how much? How many people bought the 78 RPM recordings of Landowska's WTC? How much Bach did Stokowski expose people to? I think Bach still remained "comparatively" outside the experience of most of the musical public (as did Haydn and most of Mozart for that matter).


Stokowski put Bach front and center in a Disney cartoon. I have quite a few Bach and Mozart 78s. Gluck, Handel and Haydn too. There weren't complete cycles of works like we have now, but the "greatest hits" were all there in the 78 era. What there wasn't a lot of was Mahler and especially Bruckner. Their works were just too long.


----------



## KenOC

bigshot said:


> Stokowski put Bach front and center in a Disney cartoon. I have quite a few Bach and Mozart 78s. Gluck, Handel and Haydn too. There weren't complete cycles of works like we have now, but the "greatest hits" were all there in the 78 era. What there wasn't a lot of was Mahler and especially Bruckner. Their works were just too long.


Agree about Stokowski, and it wasn't "just" a cartoon either! But still, in that case at least, a single work. To many, that performance defined Bach.

Re Mahler, oddly he seems to have gotten a *lot* of concert performances through the 1920s. But he was too rich for the recording technology of the day and even even for radio concerts, and for whatever reason he received less attention in concert halls as well. Maybe there was a connection there? Then came the LP...


----------



## trazom

Andreas said:


> Mozart may have loved it, but, alas, he hardly wrote any.


I hope that wasn't a serious post.


----------



## BurningDesire

Bach is so good because you like his music.


----------



## neoshredder

BurningDesire said:


> Bach is so good because you like his music.


Yes and I like it very much.  Especially when played on electric guitar.


----------



## bigshot

Electric guitar, yes. But GOD FORBID you should play it on a modern piano!


----------



## KenOC

BurningDesire said:


> Bach is so good because you like his music.


No no no no no no no no! Bach is great because his music has an inherent attribute of "greatness" and is great regardless of our wretched opinions. For that matter, those who cannot recognize his greatness are nekulturny idiots who probably ask for catsup when the filet mignon is served. But that's OK, let us reserve his greatness for those cultured enough to appreciate it properly.


----------



## neoshredder

bigshot said:


> Electric guitar, yes. But GOD FORBID you should play it on a modern piano!


Yeah playing the Godfather of Metal on a piano? Doesn't make sense. lol Electric guitar adds more energy to it similar to a harpsichord. Piano is too smooth for Bach imo.


----------



## bigshot

KenOC said:


> those who cannot recognize his greatness are nekulturny idiots who probably ask for catsup when the filet mignon is served.


I make allowances for the follies of youth. I was a dumb bunny too once.


----------



## bigshot

neoshredder said:


> Yeah playing the Godfather of Metal on a piano? Doesn't make sense. lol Electric guitar adds more energy to it similar to a harpsichord. Piano is too smooth for Bach imo.


The harmonica sound even more like a harpsichord!


----------



## BurningDesire

KenOC said:


> No no no no no no no no! Bach is great because his music has an inherent attribute of "greatness" and is great regardless of our wretched opinions. For that matter, those who cannot recognize his greatness are nekulturny idiots who probably ask for catsup when the filet mignon is served. But that's OK, let us reserve his greatness for those cultured enough to appreciate it properly.


----------



## clavichorder

Regardless Burningdesire, funny, funny, funny.


----------



## clavichorder

That being said, there have been great composers that thought little of Bach. Older composers too, the most notable that comes to mind is Berlioz.


----------



## bigshot




----------



## clavichorder

^^^^^^^
No, just no.


----------



## bigshot

The youth of today know better because they are UP TO DATE! They are reevaluating the things that previous generations valued and replacing them with NEW AND IMPROVED things!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Never mind.


----------



## clavichorder

Never mind.

you didn't see anything


----------



## violadude

Why does everyone say that classical music has no bass? That's like the number one criticism of classical music by the plebes. That, and that it has no beats.


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> Why does everyone say that classical music has no bass? That's like the number one criticism of classical music by the plebes. That, and that it has no beats.


Lol, just like this one dude at my community college. I showed him some of my compositions and he said, "yeah, that's some legit classical sounding ****, but can you make beats?" Ah, I love that.


----------



## neoshredder

bigshot said:


>


lol She started with no comments. I think I'll leave a comment as well.


----------



## BurningDesire

violadude said:


> Why does everyone say that classical music has no bass? That's like the number one criticism of classical music by the plebes. That, and that it has no beats.


Most of them probably don't even have speakers that play the low-end anyway, so what do they even know about bass.


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> Never mind.
> 
> you didn't see anything


I saw it. ........


----------



## KenOC

bigshot said:


>


Ah, that's our future speaking.


----------



## neoshredder

She is mocking our generation btw. See the second video.


----------



## PetrB

Lukecash12 said:


> There are numerous such cases with Bach. He's considered the king of that. Take his passions for example. There are several melodies in his passions which are a process of chromatic ascension or descent, which are actually symbols of the cross. They occur in music of all kinds of different general moods, present nonetheless as their own theme.
> 
> Bach had the ability to write for so many different ensembles, and to parody and apply musical methods from all around Europe. You'll not find anywhere else in the Baroque such an achievement of musical synthesis. Handel happened to pick up on stuff like the dotted rhythms in French Baroque overtures, which you can see in the stately beginning of the overture to the Messiah. Bach managed to absorb every such technique from France, especially the French organ school. In his Art of fugue, he observes many different styles of writing just that particular type of piece, presenting masterful examples of each. We visit several different countries there, each with a different sense of rhythm, a general direction that their melodies tend to go. Others tended to incorporate just a few elements, like Handel with his french overtures. But Handel's similarities are more superficial. His melodies don't take too much of the same shape. He doesn't capture all of the idiosyncratic tendencies.
> 
> Bach brought the art of modulation to a mathematical science. Whilst not breaking too many of the rules he adhered to, he gave us music that was more harmonically complex than we could find for a good while later. I agree with some others here that Beethoven and his contemporaries hadn't yet surpassed Bach in harmonic complexity. And I think there is some room to argue that their melodies weren't nearly as complex either. They didn't observe ornaments from around Europe, didn't insert as much freshness and imagination into one piece as he could. They would have lucid moments, impressive parts of their music. There are entire hour long programs by Bach that seem lucid to me. The more you learn about music, the more you realize he is constantly up to something.
> 
> And as for our friend PetrB here:
> 
> I'd very much like to see some of these examples of uninspired work. Of course, I'm sure there is work that is less inspired, but I would have a hard time recollecting something of Bach's that I would label "uninspired". Pretty much none of the material with a religious text seems uninspired to me, especially with his ardent appreciation of the theology, evident in every turn of phrase. The music is absolutely subservient to it, producing each effect on it's account. If we were to frame a picture with the peculiarities of each religiously themed piece of his, it would always come out looking like the text. Just pull every noteworthy compositional element, and think to yourself whether or not it took it's own direction for mere interest's sake. The music tugs and pulls with the image in mind.
> 
> Take his funeral motets as an example of this. When satan enters the picture, whether or not you even know the text, it should be obvious that a violent presence has come. Often a rest is taken and forceful melodies come straightway. The harmonic texture actually becomes ugly if one uses the aesthetic of the times. And the character changes entirely after satan is gone. People who don't know that it was about satan can probably remember a part of the piece that was very different in character, and came without warning, leaving just as suddenly.
> 
> And I feel I could go on forever about his textual observations.
> 
> But he had actually meant that he wrote all of his music towards a religious bent, and of course all of his music was played in church. It all had to fit into a service.


First, I must go on record and rebut that I have never dared to say that Bach was not sometimes a very highly 'expressive' composer (I cite the aria, "Weichet nur, betrübte Schatten, BWV 202 from the wedding cantata, and that remarkable and 'idealized' empfindsamer Stil arioso middle movement of the Italian Concerto), nor did I say that music was not highly pliant to his command or desired intent. I may not care for a lot of Bach, but I am not an idiot about what he was capable of, so please spare me your often condescendingly deployed 'paint the other guy as an idiot' brush, dude. It is rather tired, mostly ineffective, and it comes far too readily when someone just happens to hold another opinion than you do: it actually lessens you more than the person you have aimed it at 

But for me, about 90% of the six keyboard partitas are ''uninspired'' - (Though I go beyond 'just admiring' No's 1 and 6) I hear so much of them as interminably boring spinning wheel fill-outs, perhaps intellectually interesting to the composer as he was writing, but a composer writing very much in order to 'complete a suite' vs. it all 'being inspired.' Ditto for much of the Solo Cello suites. All that reminds me of Debussy's comment /complaint on Bach made to Durand, a note slipped in with his completed edit for the Durand edition of the WTK book I. "The old Saxon, he gets an idea and just never lets go of it." ('Bruckner boring,' I call that.)

As for 'religious works.' I've never been swayed by the associated text or literal intent, so those too, pall in my mind as neither 'fantastic' or 'inspired.' I've never had a taste for the more 'literal illustrative' aspects of music, either. so the above descriptive passage on the wonders of the 'ugly texture to indicate satan's presence' and such novelty effects, or how those works so utterly reflect and serve the text, well, that just fails to move or impress very much: I also feel, this may be true heresy, they are flamingly obvious, ergo trite. The fact that Bach is often stunningly and amazingly 'clear' is also sometimes to me his downfall - it is as much clear as it is 'too obvious.' Personal take, no reason for others to get their knickers in a twist. I Feel the same about much of Book I of the WTK, too, (where I think he got Much Better and wrote more spontaneously and freely in book II.) My loss, some will say. And so it may be.


----------



## clavichorder

PetrB said:


> But for me, about 90% of the six keyboard partitas are ''uninspired'' - (Though I go beyond 'just admiring' No's 1 and 6) I hear so much of them as interminably boring spinouts, perhaps intellectually interesting to the composer as he was writing, but a composer writing very much in order to 'complete a suite' vs. it all 'being inspired.' .


I have to say, I feel similarly about much of the Partitas. I much prefer the French Suites, even though the Partitas are thought so highly of. Although I love the Gigue at the end of the D major partita. I am a sucker for gigues.


----------



## neoshredder

Everything I've heard of Bach I've liked. I just don't understand those who don't like it. But it's different music taste for everyone I guess.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Personal take, no reason for others to get their knickers in a twist. Feel the same about much of Book I of the WTK, too. My loss, some will say. And so it may be.


Book I ( and II for that matter) have brought me so much delight over the years! I don't feel that my gain has to be your loss, and can only regret if it is so.


----------



## Guest

crmoorhead said:


> But if you are 'challenging' the assumption that Bach is great, you are doing so in the assumption that it is possible that all those in the current and past generations were mistaken.


Yes, a reevaluation does assume that a different conclusion might be reached than that reached by past consumers: but 'wrong'? No. And I'm not being iconoclastic for the sake of it.

The assumption that seems to be made by those who are rejecting my notion of reevaluation is that I don't rate him as great, and/or that I even dislike him. I've not said that as it's not relevant to my point. My opinion of Bach does not matter. But I do reject the notion that just because there's a long tradition of greatness attached to him, that such greatness will continue to apply for eternity _without question_. It's this bit that is important. A reevaluation may well conclude that yes, his 'greatness' is indeed merited; that the criteria/values that we hold about him are just as relevant, if not more so than when he first started composing.

But without the questioning, how can we come to accommodate other composers who work in completely different ways? Over time, 'not-Bach' has been valued and continues to be valued, but it too should also be subject to periodic review.



crmoorhead said:


> I don't agree with your comparison with silent movies. 'Talkies' added another dimension to the medium i.e. that of sound. It's not simply a matter of silent movies going out of fashion, but rather being replaced by something entirely different. It was a paradigm shift from a single medium to multmedia. A more apt comparison is that of painting or literature where, although aesthetics have changed over the years, there are many figures such as Michelangelo, Rembrant, Shakespeare, Goethe etc that continue to be compared favourably with those working in the same medium centuries later. The same goes for those who were great scientists, philosophers or mathematicians. Times may have changed, but recognition of the raw talent and inspiratonal nature of their achievements cannot be undermined despite those achievements being made obsolete or unfashionable by the passage of years.


My comparison was not an analogy to show that Bach ought to be replaced, just to exemplify how our values can shift to accommodate something different. In this case, it was quite a shift, but let's not run away with the comparison. The silent movies I quoted are still revered by those who understand their value, but it so happens that such values are not held by the ticket-paying public. _The Artist_ you'll note did not provoke a rush for silents. It offered audiences (this audience member, for sure) a chance to evaluate the worth and it was certainly a critical success (though I thought the emperor had few clothes).



bigshot said:


> When I was 20 years old, I believed that. I thought because I didn't appreciate "old stuff" that *society* didn't. What I've learned in the decades since then is that the inherent value of culture doesn't change because it's part of history and not part of normal everyday life. It isn't the topical aspects that are important, the universal aspects are. You just need a certain amount of life experience under your belt and be willing to project yourself outwards to be able to see the greatness in civilization. Greatness isn't self evident if you don't have the experience to appreciate it, and it isn't possible to understand what it means to be a member of the human race if you limit yourself to just the things you see in your own neighborhood. Lack of greatness in this case is a perceptual problem. The pyramids are still the pyramids whether or not fans of Justin Beber or Lady Gaga realize they're great.


Ah, I get it, it's just my age (again: I must do something about that!) And what is it with Lady Gaga? Why is she trotted out every time someone wants to take a sideswipe at those with no culture? Actually, even the cultureless masses will move on from Gaga and Bieber to another temporary great. But look back over the history of pop and you will see those that have an enduring quality. In 100 years, it's quite possible that not even those greats (Dylan, Beatles) will have survived and nor will Bach as audiences and critics reevaluate.



bigshot said:


> Also, don't underestimate the importance of silent film. I work with animators, and they are very interested in the way Chaplin and Keaton express personality through pantomime. It is a rich and viable artform even if the local multiplex doesn't run them. I watched two silent films this week already myself... Chaney's "The Penalty" and Lang's "Die Nibelungen". Both have just been rereleased on bluray with 5:1 orchestral scores. Silent film is more popular than you might think.


No, silent film is _not _more popular than I might think, nor is it more valuable than I might think - at least, not to any significant degree. I am sufficiently familiar with the greats of the silent screen - and the world of black and white movies more generally, thank you very much - to know what their value has been and is now.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> That does not jell with Bach. It is simple to defeat your analogy by drawing actual musical examples. He never composed a single opera (one of the most revered and sophisticated genres in all music), none; yet his stature as a non-opera classical composer clearly stands as listeners recognise the deep emotional content in his music, regardless of whether or not the listener is an opera aficionado. There is nothing to suggest there is a cultural shift when you might meet an opera hater who loves the music of Bach.


See my response to the alleged "defeating" of my analogy above. It was an illustration, not a direct analogy.


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> Yes, a reevaluation does assume that a different conclusion might be reached than that reached by past consumers: but 'wrong'? No. And I'm not being iconoclastic for the sake of it.
> 
> The assumption that seems to be made by those who are rejecting my notion of reevaluation is that I don't rate him as great, and/or that I even dislike him. I've not said that as it's not relevant to my point. My opinion of Bach does not matter. But I do reject the notion that just because there's a long tradition of greatness attached to him, that such greatness will continue to apply for eternity _without question_. It's this bit that is important. A reevaluation may well conclude that yes, his 'greatness' is indeed merited; that the criteria/values that we hold about him are just as relevant, if not more so than when he first started composing.
> 
> But without the questioning, how can we come to accommodate other composers who work in completely different ways? Over time, 'not-Bach' has been valued and continues to be valued, but it too should also be subject to periodic review.
> 
> My comparison was not an analogy to show that Bach ought to be replaced, just to exemplify how our values can shift to accommodate something different. In this case, it was quite a shift, but let's not run away with the comparison. The silent movies I quoted are still revered by those who understand their value, but it so happens that such values are not held by the ticket-paying public. _The Artist_ you'll note did not provoke a rush for silents. It offered audiences (this audience member, for sure) a chance to evaluate the worth and it was certainly a critical success (though I thought the emperor had few clothes).
> 
> Ah, I get it, it's just my age (again: I must do something about that!) And what is it with Lady Gaga? Why is she trotted out every time someone wants to take a sideswipe at those with no culture? Actually, even the cultureless masses will move on from Gaga and Bieber to another temporary great. But look back over the history of pop and you will see those that have an enduring quality. In 100 years, it's quite possible that not even those greats (Dylan, Beatles) will have survived and nor will Bach as audiences and critics reevaluate.
> 
> No, silent film is _not _more popular than I might think, nor is it more valuable than I might think - at least, not to any significant degree. I am sufficiently familiar with the greats of the silent screen - and the world of black and white movies more generally, thank you very much - to know what their value has been and is now.
> 
> See my response to the alleged "defeating" of my analogy above. It was an illustration, not a direct analogy.


Hoping you can take a compliment for its face value.... I think I love you, man.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MacLeod said:


> The assumption that seems to be made by those who are rejecting my notion of reevaluation is that I don't rate him as great, and/or that I even dislike him. I've not said that as it's not relevant to my point. My opinion of Bach does not matter. But I do reject the notion that just because there's a long tradition of greatness attached to him, that such greatness will continue to apply for eternity _without question_. It's this bit that is important. A reevaluation may well conclude that yes, his 'greatness' is indeed merited; that the criteria/values that we hold about him are just as relevant, if not more so than when he first started composing.


You still have not responded with specifics but with broad generalisations instead. Let me ask you again. Which aspect(s) of Bach as a great composer needs re-evaluation? If you cannot answer this, then your broad generalisation has no relevance as far as JS Bach is concerned.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MacLeod said:


> In 100 years, it's quite possible that not even those greats (Dylan, Beatles) will have survived and nor will Bach as audiences and critics reevaluate.


Anything is quite possible I guess. In 100 years, maybe pigs will grow wings and fly, too.


----------



## clavichorder

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> In 100 years, maybe pigs will grow wings and fly, too.


Damn, I'm all tripped out now. According to this website I was on, that doesn't seem far fetched.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You still have not responded with specifics but with broad generalisations instead.


I started with a generalisation (actually, a passing comment, not a fully evolved thesis about Bach and all his works) and ended with one.

http://www.talkclassical.com/22320-why-bach-so-good-3.html#post381333

It's only because you think I'm being critical of Bach specifically that you can't see or accept the generalisation, and . I'm not interested in the specifics as they relate to Bach. I'll say exactly the same thing about Beethoven and Mozart, Stravinsky and Shostakovich, Debussy and Satie...

..._ET, Gone with the Wind, Quatre Cent Coups...

_Gladstone, Pitt the Elder, Reagan, Clinton...

Michaelangelo, Picasso, Rembrandt...


----------



## crmoorhead

> Yes, a reevaluation does assume that a different conclusion might be reached than that reached by past consumers: but 'wrong'? No. And I'm not being iconoclastic for the sake of it.





> The assumption that seems to be made by those who are rejecting my notion of reevaluation is that I don't rate him as great, and/or that I even dislike him. I've not said that as it's not relevant to my point. My opinion of Bach does not matter. But I do reject the notion that just because there's a long tradition of greatness attached to him, that such greatness will continue to apply for eternity _without question_. It's this bit that is important. A reevaluation may well conclude that yes, his 'greatness' is indeed merited; that the criteria/values that we hold about him are just as relevant, if not more so than when he first started composing.


I'm not assuming you don't like him, I just have problems with the blanket use of "challenge" and "question" as a systematic attitude. That's the very definition of iconoclastic, or at least enables that attitude. I ask that people use their brain and experience when assessing anyone and that they do so on a personal level. "Reassessing" is another term I have problem with. I am not a conservative or dogmatic person by nature. I'll try anything, regardless of fashion. What it boils down to is really a fundamental difference in philosophy. I view everything as valid, everything as possible of having worth, and it is necessary for us to examine it using our own tools of analysis to find and appreciate that worth. The complete opposite of this viewpoint is that anything and everything contains the possibility of having no worth. Now, to me, this seems a very cynical way to look at things that is just incompatible from how I view the world. I would prefer to use the words "discover" rather than "challenge". Not "rediscovered" or "reassessed", because that implies that those that came before did not have the correct faculties to do the assessing in the first place. These works have already been assessed by minds far greater than ours. Should we accept things without question? This is somewhat of a loaded question. If I answer "yes", then that presupposes that I have the attitude of a dogmatic that states that there is no room for disagreement on any level. One can always disagree on the level of personal preference. Yet I cannot answer "no" because that implies that I agree with the attitude that anything and everything can have no value and I simply don't accept that as an option. You see the conundrum for me?

I think the better question is this: Should we accept things without experiencing them? There is nothing wrong with being cognisant of how things have been previously assessed, but it shouldn't be a factor if we are well-equipped. It isn't our duty to like everything, but it is our duty to give our opinions maximum justification by training ourselves with knowledge and experience. It is said that there are two different attitudes in the world. Those that, when faced with a problem they can't solve, say "there must be something wrong with the problem" and those who say "It must be something with my approach." Of course, the healthy attitude is somewhere between the two, but it illustrates my philosophical disagreement. The world is a much more exciting and challenging place is one accepts that there is always a valid path to a solution rather than see difficult obstacles as insurmountable. In terms of Bach, is it so hard to accept that there must be merit in there somewhere when so many have trodden the path before and traveled to enlightenment through that path?



> But without the questioning, how can we come to accommodate other composers who work in completely different ways? Over time, 'not-Bach' has been valued and continues to be valued, but it too should also be subject to periodic review.


This isn't a balloon debate. There is no finite number of final candidates to be filled. We can accomodate other composers by assessing them on their own merits and enjoying their works. I get what you are trying to say. You are saying that fashion and taste change opinions with time. This, however, does not supersede other means of analysis. Other means which, I think, are more universal. Variety based on taste is a good thing. Variety is the spice of life and it is differences in taste that drive further great works to be created. Antagonism is healthy in creativity. Popular taste between generations thrives on this, but just how much critical assessment goes on with popular appeal? One might as well accept that classical music as a genre has no merit because it is out of fashion. This is no different from saying that "(Insert composer) may have been good at the time, but times and opinions have changed." I don't see how "reassessing" composers doesn't inevitably lead to this conclusion about classical music as a whole. The probability of people being wrong about the details in the past is negligibly small.



> My comparison was not an analogy to show that Bach ought to be replaced, just to exemplify how our values can shift to accommodate something different. In this case, it was quite a shift, but let's not run away with the comparison. The silent movies I quoted are still revered by those who understand their value, but it so happens that such values are not held by the ticket-paying public. _The Artist_ you'll note did not provoke a rush for silents. It offered audiences (this audience member, for sure) a chance to evaluate the worth and it was certainly a critical success (though I thought the emperor had few clothes).


Nor did I suggest that you wanted to replace him, but you did suggest that it was possible that the merits on which he (or any composer or artist) were originally and subsequently judged could be misinformed or become obsolete. Saying that those that "revere" silent movies because they "understand their value" are not wrong, implies that those who do not revere them do not understand their value, does it not? Same thing goes with Bach.

My only disagreement here is on a philosophical level. I do agree that people are allowed to dislike Bach based on taste. I just think that the more I learn about music and the more of it I hear, the higher I value Bach. And, indeed, many other composers.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MacLeod said:


> I started with a generalisation (actually, a passing comment, not a fully evolved thesis about Bach and all his works) and ended with one.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/22320-why-bach-so-good-3.html#post381333
> 
> It's only because you think I'm being critical of Bach specifically that you can't see or accept the generalisation, and . I'm not interested in the specifics as they relate to Bach. I'll say exactly the same thing about Beethoven and Mozart, Stravinsky and Shostakovich, Debussy and Satie...
> 
> ..._ET, Gone with the Wind, Quatre Cent Coups...
> 
> _Gladstone, Pitt the Elder, Reagan, Clinton...
> 
> Michaelangelo, Picasso, Rembrandt...


You don't seem to grasp what I saying. I can accept the generalisation about re-evaluation per se (it is not as if I haven't heard of it before), or almost any generalisation but there has to specifics that the generalisation can apply to otherwise what use is it? Here we are discussing about the great JS Bach and the questionable need to re-evaluate his greatness. I am open to it if you or anyone can show me what is it about his greatness that needs re-thinking. You then suggested that maybe one day in one hundred years time, cultural and aesthetical values might change such that re-evaluation could be unavoidable. That just sounds like a cop out to me.

And by the way, I am not one individual who is exactly short of a critical faculty either, as my opinions about some avant-garde composers and their music here at TC show.


----------



## Guest

crmoorhead said:


> I'm not assuming you don't like him, I just have problems with the blanket use of "challenge" and "question" as a systematic attitude. That's the very definition of iconoclastic, or at least enables that attitude.


My approach is neutral. Iconoclasm is the deliberate act of seeking to destroy icons. That's not what I'm about. As I've already said (though more seems to be being made of this than I think it now warrants) it was the unquestioning approach in HC's post that prompted my first response. Other threads - notably the one started by Mephistopheles/Polednice - have already explored the possibilities of definition of the term 'great', but reached only the same conclusions as always: some just post that x is great and there's an end to it. Others take the yahboosucks approach and defy/deny greatness. A few are left in between, making reasoned attempts to draw out criteria and rejecting criteria that are nothing more than "everyone has always said so" or "it's all pretty subjective in the end, innit?"



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You don't seem to grasp what I saying. I can accept the generalisation about re-evaluation per se (it is not as if I haven't heard of it before), or almost any generalisation but there has to specifics that the generalisation can apply to otherwise what use is it? Here we are discussing about the great JS Bach and the questionable need to re-evaluate his greatness. I am open to it if you or anyone can show me what is it about his greatness that needs re-thinking. You then suggested that maybe one day in one hundred years time, cultural and aesthetical values might change such that re-evaluation could be unavoidable. That just sounds like a cop out to me.
> 
> And by the way, I am not one individual who is exactly short of a critical faculty either, as my opinions about some avant-garde composers and their music here at TC show.


Of course, if a generalisation is going to be valid, it needs to be tested. But I assumed that there are more than enough examples that already exist of such reevaluations - I don't need to specify with Bach in particular.


----------



## Guest

crmoorhead said:


> I get what you are trying to say. You are saying that fashion and taste change opinions with time.


Certainly not. It is not about 'fashion' and 'taste', though I daresay that can't help but play a part. It's because fashion and taste so often drive opinion that such opinions should be reviewed.

It's about what any thinking society values. In the times when what was valued was establishment, continuity, permanence, tradition, music took particular forms. When what was valued was change, equality, an end to deference, music changed.

We question our values all the time, don't we? I mean, society at large, and many individuals too - not that everyone always does, of course. Many cling to their values in the face of criticism, rejection, changing fashions...both valiantly and stubbornly, depending on your point of view.

TC is home to those who want to maintain the value of 'classical' music in the face of commercialism, celebrity culture, hedonism, subjectivism...and the rest. But to suggest that this is a matter of fashion is to underestimate the social forces at work in our societies.


----------



## Andreas

I think comparing Bach with post-baroque composers is also difficult because of the different forms. Bach didn't write any symphonies, operas, string quartets or piano sonatas, all of which became benchmark formats for later composers. Not even his concertos can be adequately compared with those of Mozart or Beethoven because of the formal differences.

Bach was a pre-sonata-allegro composer. The entire psychological dimension of the sonata allegro form that later composers would so marvellously explore was not yet established. Of course Bach had plenty of other means of expressing psychological depth, but the sonata allegro form became so essential that comparisons with older forms, I feel, are almost like apples and oranges.

On the other hand, musical substance as such can be easily compared regardless of form. But when one takes the structure, architecture and overall design of a work into consideration, it's a very different thing.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MacLeod said:


> Of course, if a generalisation is going to be valid, it needs to be tested. But I assumed that there are more than enough examples that already exist of such reevaluations - I don't need to specify with Bach in particular.


I think your reasoning is circling itself.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I think your reasoning is circling itself.


Given that your contributions have been 'generalising' ("He's great and that's it") without any substance, pots and kettles spring to mind. The OP asked for specifics. Millionrainbows, KenOC, manxfeeder, realdealblues and one or two others have offered some thoughts - but not you. You even went so far as to say, "don't care why."


----------



## Arsakes

New Declaration: Vivaldi > Handel > Bach > Telemann

As I like Telemann, so Bach is good too.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MacLeod said:


> Given that your contributions have been 'generalising' ("He's great and that's it") without any substance, pots and kettles spring to mind. The OP asked for specifics. Millionrainbows, KenOC, manxfeeder, realdealblues and one or two others have offered some thoughts - but not you. You even went so far as to say, "don't care why."


"Don't care why" was with some jest, but the real substance as to why Bach is great for millions like myself, as non-musicians, is a simple one: the music reaches us, and I would even suggest the same for millions more who are musicians, from Mozart to Mendelssohn, Schumann to Stokowski who studied Bach's music. So here, I have two hundred years of evidence from non-musicians and musicians agreeing to the greatness of Bach, and I certainly do not need a vacuous presumption that maybe in one hundred years time to come, cultural and aesthetical shifts could result in re-thinking it as far as the great JS Bach is concerned. I could leave the poor souls waiting for one hundred years to come to test this (if they live that long) or I could recommend them to join the millions in discovering Bach's music themsevles (thereby disproving it yet again).


----------



## crmoorhead

MacLeod said:


> Certainly not. It is not about 'fashion' and 'taste', though I daresay that can't help but play a part. It's because fashion and taste so often drive opinion that such opinions should be reviewed.
> 
> It's about what any thinking society values. In the times when what was valued was establishment, continuity, permanence, tradition, music took particular forms. When what was valued was change, equality, an end to deference, music changed.


I think I misunderstood your position then, for you didn't previously (as far as I noticed) state explicitly that it might be the peers and generations previous to our own that were being swayed by the transitory fashions and tastes of _their own_ times rather than a composer simply having no relevance to our own. Regardless, I still think that, in the majority of cases (Bach included), the review process has long since finished. The dust settled on his works centuries ago and 'popular' trends seldom last longer than a decade. Unless you are suggesting that everyone that has praised Bach's (or others) works in the last nearly 250 years were all swayed by popular opinion of their own times, then it seems fair enough to assume that they probably aren't wrong. A large body of reviews and praise written long after the time is not something to be sniffed at. Besides, if you are accepting that others may have been swayed by their times, then it is statistically more likely that any analysis of our own be swayed by our own times. A kind of catch-22 situation. Every opinion can be doubted but our own. Which brings our argument back to whether or not it is a matter of taste. And that works just fine for me. 

Of course, recognising the worth of general opinion should not be merely adopted as one's own opinion without actually becoming aquainted with the music but, as I said, my main criticism is the idea that 'all the greats should be reassessed'. It's like checking up on Newton's mathematics at school. The motive should not be 'challenging' the theory, but rather a personal journey of confirming generally accepted belief based on knowledge and experience.



> My approach is neutral. Iconoclasm is the deliberate act of seeking to destroy icons. That's not what I'm about. As I've already said (though more seems to be being made of this than I think it now warrants) it was the unquestioning approach in HC's post that prompted my first response. Other threads - notably the one started by Mephistopheles/Polednice - have already explored the possibilities of definition of the term 'great', but reached only the same conclusions as always: some just post that x is great and there's an end to it. Others take the yahboosucks approach and defy/deny greatness. A few are left in between, making reasoned attempts to draw out criteria and rejecting criteria that are nothing more than "everyone has always said so" or "it's all pretty subjective in the end, innit?"


I _do_ use the term 'iconoclasm' a little loosely here, but it can be applied to a non-conformist attitude and I translate a mandate that _everything_ must be questioned and challenged as being just that. Which is why I cherish the philosophy of seeing value and potential in everything rather than acknowledging the possibility that anything and everything has no value. I just think that this view leads all to easily to iconoclasty. Not in all cases, but I think that the philosophy of 'nothing has value until I prove it for myself' is a cynical way to do things. I feel perfectly happy accepting the wisdom of others until I do try it for myself so that it has meaning to _me_.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I certainly do not need a vacuous presumption that maybe in one hundred years time to come, cultural and aesthetical shifts could result in re-thinking it as far as the great JS Bach is concerned. I could leave the poor souls waiting for one hundred years to come to test this (if they live that long) or I could recommend them to join the millions in discovering Bach's music themsevles (thereby disproving it yet again).


Vacuous? No, I don't need such an assumption either, nor was I offering one, or asserting one.



crmoorhead said:


> I think I misunderstood your position then, for you didn't previously (as far as I noticed) state explicitly that it might be the peers and generations previous to our own that were being swayed by the transitory fashions and tastes of _their own_ times rather than a composer simply having no relevance to our own. Regardless, I still think that, in the majority of cases (Bach included), the review process has long since finished. The dust settled on his works centuries ago and 'popular' trends seldom last longer than a decade. Unless you are suggesting that everyone that has praised Bach's (or others) works in the last nearly 250 years were all swayed by popular opinion of their own times, then it seems fair enough to assume that they probably aren't wrong. A large body of reviews and praise written long after the time is not something to be sniffed at. Besides, if you are accepting that others may have been swayed by their times, then it is statistically more likely that any analysis of our own be swayed by our own times. A kind of catch-22 situation. Every opinion can be doubted but our own. Which brings our argument back to whether or not it is a matter of taste. And that works just fine for me.
> 
> Of course, recognising the worth of general opinion should not be merely adopted as one's own opinion without actually becoming aquainted with the music but, as I said, my main criticism is the idea that 'all the greats should be reassessed'. It's like checking up on Newton's mathematics at school. The motive should not be 'challenging' the theory, but rather a personal journey of confirming generally accepted belief based on knowledge and experience.
> 
> I _do_ use the term 'iconoclasm' a little loosely here, but it can be applied to a non-conformist attitude and I translate a mandate that _everything_ must be questioned and challenged as being just that. Which is why I cherish the philosophy of seeing value and potential in everything rather than acknowledging the possibility that anything and everything has no value. I just think that this view leads all to easily to iconoclasty. Not in all cases, but I think that the philosophy of 'nothing has value until I prove it for myself' is a cynical way to do things. I feel perfectly happy accepting the wisdom of others until I do try it for myself so that it has meaning to _me_.


I'm very happy with the primacy of personal response, which is where you and I differ from HC (and others). The expressed assumption for HC is that Bach is great, whatever, although he has begrudgingly indicated that it is personal taste for him too ("the music reaches him") without any elaboration. For me, the personal journey is all important, but I'm not content to accept or reject music either on the basis that I've been told that it's great and that should be good enough for me; or on the basis that if it doesn't "reach me" that it can't be great.

I'm very comfortable with my tastes in music, and art more generally. I don't feel a compulsion to have others agree that what I listen to is great, just so I can feel better about myself or, conversely, feel somehow slighted because someone here has told me that Beethoven/whoever is not one of the all time greats. I won't deny that finding others who like what I like and think what I think is sometimes comforting. But I want too much to plough my own furrow (and have others follow me) to merely accept what I'm told. That does not make me iconoclastic, just independent.

When I've finished spending time and money exploring Beethoven and Debussy, perhaps I'll turn to Bach or Wagner or Boulez.


----------



## crmoorhead

MacLeod said:


> I'm very happy with the primacy of personal response, which is where you and I differ from HC (and others). The expressed assumption for HC is that Bach is great, whatever, although he has begrudgingly indicated that it is personal taste for him too ("the music reaches him") without any elaboration.


Where I agree with HC is that the more I learn about music, the more I appreciate Bach and the more favourably he compared with other composers. Of course, the technical aspects of music don't really matter to some people, or some people may not like choral music, the harpsichord or fugues. I can see very easily why these elements might nudge him down a few places on their personal preference list. Furthermore, you can't take Bach out of the Baroque period and all that it entails. I personally see this as no reason to dislike something, but I have very inclusive tastes and revere Bach above all others.


----------



## Lukecash12

PetrB said:


> First, I must go on record and rebut that I have never dared to say that Bach was not sometimes a very highly 'expressive' composer (I cite the aria, "Weichet nur, betrübte Schatten, BWV 202 from the wedding cantata, and that remarkable and 'idealized' empfindsamer Stil arioso middle movement of the Italian Concerto), nor did I say that music was not highly pliant to his command or desired intent. I may not care for a lot of Bach, but I am not an idiot about what he was capable of, so please spare me your often condescendingly deployed 'paint the other guy as an idiot' brush, dude. It is rather tired, mostly ineffective, and it comes far too readily when someone just happens to hold another opinion than you do: it actually lessens you more than the person you have aimed it at
> 
> But for me, about 90% of the six keyboard partitas are ''uninspired'' - (Though I go beyond 'just admiring' No's 1 and 6) I hear so much of them as interminably boring spinning wheel fill-outs, perhaps intellectually interesting to the composer as he was writing, but a composer writing very much in order to 'complete a suite' vs. it all 'being inspired.' Ditto for much of the Solo Cello suites. All that reminds me of Debussy's comment /complaint on Bach made to Durand, a note slipped in with his completed edit for the Durand edition of the WTK book I. "The old Saxon, he gets an idea and just never lets go of it." ('Bruckner boring,' I call that.)
> 
> As for 'religious works.' I've never been swayed by the associated text or literal intent, so those too, pall in my mind as neither 'fantastic' or 'inspired.' I've never had a taste for the more 'literal illustrative' aspects of music, either. so the above descriptive passage on the wonders of the 'ugly texture to indicate satan's presence' and such novelty effects, or how those works so utterly reflect and serve the text, well, that just fails to move or impress very much: I also feel, this may be true heresy, they are flamingly obvious, ergo trite. The fact that Bach is often stunningly and amazingly 'clear' is also sometimes to me his downfall - it is as much clear as it is 'too obvious.' Personal take, no reason for others to get their knickers in a twist. I Feel the same about much of Book I of the WTK, too, (where I think he got Much Better and wrote more spontaneously and freely in book II.) My loss, some will say. And so it may be.


I'm not sure who you thought was responding to you, but I certainly didn't take the route of trying to paint you as an idiot. No one needs to have any regard towards "lessening" here, because we are just talking about music. Let's see, I pretty much said two things there:

1. I wonder which pieces you think are uninspired?
&
2. Example of Bach's use of text.

So, I don't see where you put two and two together. I don't deploy brushes. Maybe you have interest in that kind of thing, but I don't. Don't have the time to think about silliness like who is smarter than whom on some random website. Only time for good and productive things.


----------



## Petwhac

Greatness is a measure of stature. It is conferred upon a person buy their peers and later, only later the layman or public.

If someone asks many people to name the greatest physicist of all time there would be much agreement around the names Newton and Einstein. Very few of us will have read their actual scientific papers (gulp!) but we know that amongst those that have, they are very highly regarded indeed. We the public, take the word of the experts.

Now, music is not science. There are no experiments that can objectively demonstrate the correctness of a composers theories or the 'value' of their work.
Bach was a _great_ composer because his music is valued by so many people, expert and public alike.
If you want to make your own evaluation you need only to listen to and digest his music, that of his contemporaries, his predecessors and those of later generations and make up your own mind.
If you want to do the same for Einstein you need to read and digest his theories in the light of those of his contemporaries, his predecessors and those of later generations.


----------



## neoshredder

MacLeod said:


> Given that your contributions have been 'generalising' ("He's great and that's it") without any substance, pots and kettles spring to mind. The OP asked for specifics. Millionrainbows, KenOC, manxfeeder, realdealblues and one or two others have offered some thoughts - but not you. You even went so far as to say, "don't care why."


Even the thought of queestioning Bach's greatness seems absurd. The greatness is so obvious for me when listening to his music that this is special music. But continue on with your questioning. I don't see a point to it.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> But continue on with your questioning. I don't see a point to it.


Quite. _My _questioning doesn't have to have a point for _you_. But I have said umpteen times that I'm not challenging from the perspective of disbelief, but from the perspective of, "OK - I'm listening - tell me what it is that makes this 'great.'"

You can be satisfied with "It's great because it's great" and think that self-evidence is evidence enough. I don't. It's not enough for me (or the OP, or the question wouldn't have been asked in the first place).


----------



## Kieran

Apart from the obvious taste and evident beauty in his music, I think there must be something architectural about Bach's music, too, that makes it so difficult to dislike. Like Mozart, his foundations are rock solid. And like Haydn - the 'father' of the symphony and string quartet - Bach's innovations and explorations set in chain a lot of musical groundwork that others came along after and built on.

I'd love to know more about his music, and was looking at a version of the Well Tempered Clavier yesterday, with Richard Egarr, but it's on harpsichord, and I hate the sound of the harpsichord! It's way too subtle for my tastes...


----------



## Renaissance

Bach is the unquestionable "father" of classical music, the best teacher for all composers born after him.


----------



## KenOC

I see people writing that we will not reassess Bach, or we need not, or we should not. In fact Bach will be reassessed regardless. He was reassessed by our parents and will be again by our children.

Otherwise, why would he be considered important to our musical world today when he certainly wasn't generally seen that way a century ago, or in fact from the very time of his life? His aesthetic was rejected from the triumph of the Galante style right through the classical and romantic periods.

We may say, "Well, we know better today." Lucky for us we're so smart! In fact we routinely reject the music of composers whose aesthetic we find disagreeable, regardless of whatever virtues they have. Our descendants may well find those composers "great" and Bach less so. And, like us, they will be sure that they have placed these composers, Bach included, properly in the greater scheme of things.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MacLeod said:


> I'm very happy with the primacy of personal response, which is where you and I differ from HC (and others). The expressed assumption for HC is that Bach is great, whatever, although he has begrudgingly indicated that it is personal taste for him too ("the music reaches him") without any elaboration. For me, the personal journey is all important, but I'm not content to accept or reject music either on the basis that I've been told that it's great and that should be good enough for me; or on the basis that if it doesn't "reach me" that it can't be great.


I have never written that I simply swallow the world's general view that Bach is great. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. I wrote very clearly that Bach's music reaches both non-musicians and musicians on a massive scale (member crmoorhead elaborated that one does not necessarily need to understand fugues to enjoy Bach fugues, or even a genius like Mozart was impressed enough to like massive fugal writing as a result of Bach manuscripts on works as late as the _Jupiter_ symphony). Strong positive correlation of preference over time and independence of location/social/cultural values would provide very solid empirical evidence whether or not a great composer remains so.



MacLeod said:


> When I've finished spending time and money exploring Beethoven and Debussy, perhaps I'll turn to Bach or Wagner or Boulez.


All the very best with your discovery. Nothing counts more than personal discovery of music.


----------



## danbrown

You might be interested in an online appreciation of Bach's music that I've written. It's intended for the general reader (and listener); you can see a brief excerpt at www.whybach.com . If you have a look, I hope you enjoy.


Hanspwnz said:


> I'm a big fan of classical music, and I have enjoyed it for years. I love most of them, esp. Mozart, Beethoven and Bach. I don't have any education in music, but I've read about counterpoint etc. I hear a lot of people praise Bach like he's a God, saying that he (and Mozart's) music is so simple yet complex. Especially Bach. Why do people praise him so much? Don't get me wrong, I like his music, but I have never studied any scores. What makes him special?
> 
> Also, I love Mozart's 41th symphony, and I understand he creates a giant fugue in the end with 5 melodies. Hasn't anybody done it since? Was he the only one capable of that, couldn't Bach have done the same? Einstein too praised the architecture of their music, and though I do hear reoccuring themes, I don't understand the science behind, and I don't really understand what makes them stand out so much, in regards to Beethoven for example.
> 
> Any clarification would be happily welcomed.


----------



## Lukecash12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I have never written that I simply swallow the world's general view that Bach is great. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. I wrote very clearly that Bach's music reaches both non-musicians and musicians on a massive scale (member crmoorhead elaborated that one does not necessarily need to understand fugues to enjoy Bach fugues, or even a genius like Mozart was impressed enough to like massive fugal writing as a result of Bach manuscripts on works as late as the _Jupiter_ symphony). Strong positive correlation of preference over time and independence of location/social/cultural values would provide very solid empirical evidence whether or not a great composer remains so.


Hmmm... Not to single you out, but I look at this material, and similar material from others here in this thread and around TC, and I notice that people have a tendency of interpreting text from others with a sense of hyperbole. They take possible implications of the given text, and then they follow those implications about as far as they can go. This is how we get at picking up on implications that we "swallow the world's general view", from language that is not so explicit.

What he was getting at, and I invite him to correct me if I am wrong here, is that his approach to the music is weighted more strongly by just his personal response, than your approach seems to be. He even demonstrates there in that paragraph that he has observed that personal taste is a factor for you as well.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Lukecash12 said:


> What he was getting at, and I invite him to correct me if I am wrong here, is that his approach to the music is weighted more strongly by just his personal response, than your approach seems to be. He even demonstrates there in that paragraph that he has observed that personal taste is a factor for you as well.


Personal taste is one thing. But positive correlation over time and independence over location/social/cultural values would, for any reasonable mind, indicate something deeper going on over and above personal taste. The Japanese are mad about Bach's church cantatas (Bach Collegium Japan, M. Suzuki), and good for them, during contemporary times, despite having cultural and social values that are quite different to Mozart's and Mendelssohn's, or even mine. Why? Personal preference on an individual basis aggregated.


----------



## Dimboukas

Bach is good because he composed music for himself, that pleased himself and not only for some prince's court as many other Baroque composers did. Much of his music was personal, for the education of his children and even experimental such as _The Art of Fugue_. His music is more complicated that other Baroque composers' and my opinion is that Bach is no example of Baroque music; he is a genre on his own.


----------



## Logos

The Japanese (and east Asians generally) are mad about anything that has a veneer of social prestige, and their interest in classical music is just another manifestation of that. I see nothing deeper in it. 500 years ago, social prestige meant scholarly mandarins not cutting their nails to show they didn't work in the fields, today it means learning to play piano and Bach cantatas. It's mere social climbing, not a profound interest in music or ideals.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Logos said:


> The Japanese (and east Asians generally) are mad about anything that has a veneer of social prestige, and their interest in classical music is just another manifestation of that. I see nothing deeper in it. 500 years ago, social prestige meant scholarly mandarins not cutting their nails to show they didn't work in the fields, today it means learning to play piano and Bach cantatas. It's mere social climbing, not a profound interest in music or ideals.


Care to write down everything else you think about the Japanese that has a "veneer of social prestige"? How about an intervew with the Bach Collegum Japan about it?


----------



## KenOC

Hey, he's got the Japanese down cold! Well, Japan never had mandarins, but that's a mere quibble. :lol:


----------



## Logos

KenOC said:


> Hey, he's got the Japanese down cold! Well, Japan never had mandarins, but that's a mere quibble. :lol:


East Asians in general, I said. And seeing as how Japan modeled their entire higher culture on China's, even so far as writing in Chinese, it really isn't an exaggeration to say they had mandarins, not that I said that in the first place. The courts even imported Chinese scholars. All east asian culture is mandarin in that sense, as favoring an isolated, conformist elite.


----------



## Logos

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Care to write down everything else you think about the Japanese that has a "veneer of social prestige"? How about an intervew with the Bach Collegum Japan about it?


I don't doubt there are genuinely interested musicians among the Japanese, but I don't think they account for the cultural movement of classical music in East Asia as a whole.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Logos said:


> I don't doubt there are genuinely interested musicians among the Japanese, but I don't think they account for the cultural movement of classical music in East Asia as a whole.


Anyhow, back to JS Bach...


----------



## Logos

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Anyhow, back to JS Bach...


I get that a lot. Good talk.


----------



## neoshredder

Bach will always be the greatest Composer ever to live for me.


----------



## trazom

neoshredder said:


> Bach will always be the greatest Composer ever to live for me.


Bach lived for you?


----------



## KenOC

trazom said:


> Bach lived for you?


Yes, and he died for you, to take away your...never mind, belay that last!  I was thinking, again, of Eric Clapton.


----------



## neoshredder

Bach died for your sins. Wait. Nevermind. Don't want to go there. lol


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

neoshredder said:


> Bach will always be the greatest Composer ever to live for me.


No, you need more brute force, as follows: JS Bach is one of the very greatest of all composers ever, and this should never ever be challenged, from the first to the last music note that he wrote, to the music recorded on the _Voyager Golden Disk_ to symbolise the best of mankind's music. Period.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

_The Sounds Of Earth_ golden record. No more needs to be said.


----------



## KenOC

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> No, you need more brute force, as follows: JS Bach is one of the very greatest of all composers ever, and this should never ever be challenged, from the first to the last music note that he wrote, to the music recorded on the _Voyager Golden Disk_ to symbolise the best of mankind's music. Period.


May I suggest yet a bit more force. "JS Bach is the greatest composer who ever lived or will live. From the first note he wrote to the last, his music will not be challenged under pain of dismemberment, death, and some superbly imaginative and unpleasant stuff in between." That should cover it.


----------



## lostid

I am a newbie and only heard Beethoven and Mozart. Who is Bach?


----------



## violadude

lostid said:


> I am a newbie and only heard Beethoven and Mozart. Who is Bach?


This is Bach. See if you like it.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I have never written that I simply swallow the world's general view that Bach is great. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. I wrote very clearly that Bach's music reaches both non-musicians and musicians on a massive scale (member crmoorhead elaborated that one does not necessarily need to understand fugues to enjoy Bach fugues, or even a genius like Mozart was impressed enough to like massive fugal writing as a result of Bach manuscripts on works as late as the _Jupiter_ symphony). Strong positive correlation of preference over time and independence of location/social/cultural values would provide very solid empirical evidence whether or not a great composer remains so.


Well, given that you wrote (as I previously cited):



> JS Bach is simply one of the greatest composers of all times. Period. Don't care why


and also



> Everybody here appear to hold JS Bach in very high regard. That is good. The authority of Bach as a great composer should never ever be challenged.


But you already told me that was somewhat in jest. So we shouldn't need to go round that one again, should we? The accumulation of your posts leads to the conclusion that the only reason you offer for his greatness is the accumulation of positive personal response over 300 years; to which you have now added that he was copied by others, who are also deemed great by dint of accumulated personal response over slightly less time...

What you have not offered is any analysis of the content of his music that might contribute to an understanding of what it was he actually wrote that made him great!

_You _may not like to know what makes the rainbow beautiful, but I'm rather keen, actually.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MacLeod said:


> But you already told me that was somewhat in jest. So we shouldn't need to go round that one again, should we?


Well obviously you and I do not share any sense of humour in common. And I need to make no apologies for it. Funny how the members above (who admire Bach's music) can insert a  or two .



MacLeod said:


> The accumulation of your posts leads to the conclusion that the only reason you offer for his greatness is the accumulation of positive personal response over 300 years; to which you have now added that he was copied by others, who are also deemed great by dint of accumulated personal response over slightly less time...
> 
> What you have not offered is any analysis of the content of his music that might contribute to an understanding of what it was he actually wrote that made him great!


I wrote above I am a non-musician. I cannot read music nor do I play any. My ears and listening senses have guided me well enough though, and general reading on musicology and history. I suggest you might like to do the same with regards the latter. There are plenty of excellent books written about the great master.



MacLeod said:


> _You _may not like to know what makes the rainbow beautiful, but I'm rather keen, actually.


There is probably a rainbow discussion forum/science discussion forum that caters for that. In anycase, the heavens where the rainbow comes and far beyond has had the golden disk on Voyager fly through them with _Brandenburg_ #2. (In case if you don't know what the _Brandenburg_ concertos are, these are six great concertos, which together with Handel's opus 6, represent the very peak of Baroque concerti writing).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

lostid said:


> I am a newbie and only heard Beethoven and Mozart. Who is Bach?


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I wrote above I am a non-musician. I cannot read music nor do I play any. My ears and listening senses have guided me well enough though, and general reading on musicology and history. I suggest you might like to do the same with regards the latter. There are plenty of excellent books written about the great master.
> 
> There is probably a rainbow discussion forum/science discussion forum that caters for that. In anycase, the heavens where the rainbow comes and far beyond has had the golden disk on Voyager fly through them with _Brandenburg_ #2. (In case if you don't know what the _Brandenburg_ concertos are, these are six great concertos, which together with Handel's opus 6, represent the very peak of Baroque concerti writing).


I'm not unfamiliar with Bach - who can forget the advert for Hamlet! We had a piano at home when I was a kid, and the first piece of music that I tried to teach myself (about aged 10) - because the manuscript came inside the piano stool - was a Bach Prelude (yes, that one, the 1st in C Major). I didn't learn to play, however, until I learned to Initial Grade when I was 35ish, so I can read music like I type - "hunt and peck". Otherwise, I too am a non-musician.

I've got Concertos 1,2 and 3 by The English Concert/Pinnock, though as it was a giveaway, I've really only listened to it once. It's quite nice. 

I see you've discovered the thread I launched which explains my purpose in being here in the first place.


----------



## Guest

HC - you might appreciate this rendition...


----------



## crmoorhead

If we are going to post suggestions, I might as well get mine in. 






Reach up to the heavens! My favourite Bach piece, however, is the Passacaglia in C Minor, but I won't clutter the post with too many vids.

@HC I was just watching that very same YouTube link yesterday. Also the Harnoncourt Magnificat.


----------



## Lukecash12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Personal taste is one thing. But positive correlation over time and independence over location/social/cultural values would, for any reasonable mind, indicate something deeper going on over and above personal taste. The Japanese are mad about Bach's church cantatas (Bach Collegium Japan, M. Suzuki), and good for them, during contemporary times, despite having cultural and social values that are quite different to Mozart's and Mendelssohn's, or even mine. Why? Personal preference on an individual basis aggregated.


Yet you don't seem willing to go into the realm of what is more objectively valuable about Bach's music. What do the members of the Bach Collegium see in Bach? Noticing "that", and understanding "what" are two different things. We've made the basic observations, now we need to ask questions like "why". Isn't there more value to Bach's music than just a tally of likes/dislikes for 200 years, like he posted something on facebook or youtube? Can it be said that Bach will continue to be valuable if everyone just quits liking his music in a day? Then personal preference will have aggregated in a different direction.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Lukecash12 said:


> Yet you don't seem willing to go into the realm of what is more objectively valuable about Bach's music. What do the members of the Bach Collegium see in Bach? Noticing "that", and understanding "what" are two different things. We've made the basic observations, now we need to ask questions like "why". Isn't there more value to Bach's music than just a tally of likes/dislikes for 200 years, like he posted something on facebook or youtube? Can it be said that Bach will continue to be valuable if everyone just quits liking his music in a day? Then personal preference will have aggregated in a different direction.


As I wrote above, I am a non-musician. Perhaps one day when I am qualified enough to perform and record I can give you a musically objective analysis of the pieces to show "why". I am only aware of general musicological and historical significance of his greatness, and these reasons are convincing enough for me as to "why", plus of course, my own listening senses.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

MacLeod said:


> I'm not unfamiliar with Bach - who can forget the advert for Hamlet! We had a piano at home when I was a kid, and the first piece of music that I tried to teach myself (about aged 10) - because the manuscript came inside the piano stool - was a Bach Prelude (yes, that one, the 1st in C Major). I didn't learn to play, however, until I learned to Initial Grade when I was 35ish, so I can read music like I type - "hunt and peck". Otherwise, I too am a non-musician.
> 
> I've got Concertos 1,2 and 3 by The English Concert/Pinnock, though as it was a giveaway, I've really only listened to it once. It's quite nice.
> 
> I see you've discovered the thread I launched which explains my purpose in being here in the first place.


Pinnock's _Brandenburg_ are very fine though probably not the benchmark. Pinnock's benchmarking Bach recordings in my opinion are the complete harpsichord concertos, especially the solo ones. (These were one of the very first sets of keyboard concertos ever written, together with Handel's organ concertos in England). The box-set is cheap.


----------



## atsizat

Ravndal said:


> I also like the Bach. And Mozart is indeed very boring.


I have to agree on Mozart being boring mostly but there are some musics I like from him. I just don't understand why he did his boring major works. To me it is like those major works are for helping babies to sleep.


----------



## Guest

atsizat said:


> To me it is like those major works are for helping babies to sleep.


Not quite. As everyone knows, Mozart was, on the side, a scientist, who knew that playing music to babies in the womb would one day make them geniuses. He clearly had to write compositions that would simultaneously soothe and excite; stimulating the babies mental faculties without waking him/her up prematurely. It was his skill in achieving this amazing balance that was the core of his astounding success!


----------



## science

Wow, one of the old HarpsichordConcerto battles! This seems to have been one of the last ones. I remember when most of the forum seemed to consist of HC vs. "some guy," and I had more money, less time, and needed less sleep...


----------



## trazom

atsizat said:


> I have to agree on Mozart being *boring* mostly but there are some musics I like from him. I just don't understand why he did his *boring* major works. To me it is like those major works are for helping babies to sleep.


Would you like to buy a new adjective for just 25 internet cents?


----------



## DeepR

This whole Bach reverence seems a lot like religion to me. There is a god and you're just going to have to accept that. He doesn't have to be explained because he exists and if you question his existence and don't believe in him you are misguided. 
Oh well, I guess in the case of Bach it's a rather harmless religion.


----------



## atsizat

trazom said:


> Would you like to buy a new adjective for just 25 internet cents?


No I wouldn't like to buy.


----------



## jdec

Hanspwnz said:


> Tbh I think most people without a deeper musical understanding prefer Mozart to Bach.


I think it is the other way around. Truly great minds of the past adored Mozart's music.


----------



## Blancrocher

Part of the credit, at least, should go to his performers: Leonhardt, Szeryng, Fournier, Heiller, Gould, Casadesus ... the list goes on...and on...and on. It's always tough for me to restrict myself to under 5 recordings of any of his masterworks: there's just such an amazing variety out there.


----------



## jdec

Hanspwnz said:


> Tbh I think most people without a deeper musical understanding prefer Mozart to Bach.





PetrB said:


> _That is just not true _ The opposite could be said to be true, with perhaps a little more consensus found within the music 'cognoscenti.'
> 
> Fact is this 'best like ever' is not only futile, but ridiculous, imho.


I agree with PetrB.


----------



## science

I assume the world of music is like the world of literature: because of the accidents of their education, very, very few people can analyze a work of literature much beyond "it is so moving" or "the prose sparkles." Still, if they read literature, talk about how great an author is, 99.99% of what they say is what they think they're supposed to say. If they say what they really think - most of them would prefer _Twilight_ to _King Lear_ - they will look down on each other, not because they can give very good reasons for preferring _King Lear_ to _Twilight_, but because they know what they're supposed to think.


----------



## PJaye

I think if Bach were around, he would be horrified at people calling him a 'god', or even a misleading term like 'genius'. Not a god because it’s absurd; not genius because it’s a misnomer term to begin with that separates men/women from other men/women and attributes them special qualities of which it presumes the rest of us don’t have access. A convenient copout for some, unwilling, or unable to put in the intense effort, concentration, and work needed to achieve the kinds of accomplishments this term often is associated with. Idolatry is never a healthy choice. There's a quote from Bach 'Anyone who works as hard as I did could achieve the same results.' I think he really meant that, because he saw the process himself by which he came to compose as he did through his hard work and learning.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

PJaye said:


> I think if Bach were around, he would be horrified at people calling him a 'god', or even a misleading term like 'genius'. Not a god because it's absurd; not genius because it's a misnomer term to begin with that separates men/women from other men/women and attributes them special qualities of which it presumes the rest of us don't have access. A convenient copout for some, unwilling, or unable to put in the intense effort, concentration, and work needed to achieve the kinds of accomplishments this term often is associated with. Idolatry is never a healthy choice. There's a quote from Bach 'Anyone who works as hard as I did could achieve the same results.' I think he really meant that, because he saw the process himself by which he came to compose as he did through his hard work and learning.


Like.

My opinion on why Bach is so good....people talk about his counterpoint being great, but I actually think his harmony/ vertical thinking (even though it is the resulting effect of his voice-leading) is what makes his music compelling to most listeners. You could say they aren't mutually exclusive, but I wouldn't - because the greatest pieces of Bach are often the least contrapuntal, IMO.

Even though I've spent a lot of time feebly trying to play the piano, WTC never grew on me; I think a lot of the fugues especially are examples of Bach being polyphonic but sometimes not that powerful otherwise - it doesn't ever sound bland at all but it often doesn't have the UMPH! that I subconsciously look for in music. Art of Fugue might be a good example of music that has that quality AND is very complex contrapuntally - I've been really fascinated with some of the Cantatas lately, and they ones that I like don't have the same kind of rigor as the fugues and other contrapuntal keyboard works.


----------



## Guest

I think there are many reasons why Bach is so good, but I really am too tired to go into it. Any musician worth his/her salt (keyboard player, violinist, 'cellist, singer ...) will know why. What I will say though is that if any educational establishment needs to know the level of potential candidates for entry into elementary conservatoire conducting and composition courses, the usual "quick check" exam question is the harmonization of a Bach chorale. I find it is a pretty good litmus test of harmonic/musical thinking.


----------



## KenOC

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> My opinion on why Bach is so good....people talk about his counterpoint being great, but I actually think his harmony/ vertical thinking (even though it is the resulting effect of his voice-leading) is what makes his music compelling to most listeners.


An interesting comment, and something I've thought about. Even Beethoven, no stranger to Bach's counterpoint, called him "the ancestral father of harmony."


----------



## DavidA

PJaye said:


> I think if Bach were around, he would be horrified at people calling him a 'god', or even a misleading term like 'genius'. Not a god because it's absurd; not genius because it's a misnomer term to begin with that separates men/women from other men/women and attributes them special qualities of which it presumes the rest of us don't have access. A convenient copout for some, unwilling, or unable to put in the intense effort, concentration, and work needed to achieve the kinds of accomplishments this term often is associated with. Idolatry is never a healthy choice. There's a quote from Bach 'Anyone who works as hard as I did could achieve the same results.' I think he really meant that, because he saw the process himself by which he came to compose as he did through his hard work and learning.


Bach, of course, didn't realise his own genius. He was in fact a pretty ordinary guy in real life (he even had a fight outside the church) and would have regarded himself as a craftsman who worked hard. However most of us could work hard for an eternity and not get near him because he was possessed of staggering genius. To call him a 'god' however does him a disservice as he believed the purpose of his music was to glorify God not himself.


----------



## Mandryka

In his lifetime he had a reputation for being good at writing canons, but many people didn't think it made him a good composer, on the contrary, his music had a reputation for being too complex and not very relaxing or catchy.

In fact I think he's a pretty good composer of music, really exceptional in fact, especially at using music to express ideas. Sometimes quite tricky ideas about God and stuff. I think he's probably unsurpassed at that, and that's where his real strength lies. 

Towards the end of his career he was involved in a big project to find a way to make complicated canonic music catchy and fun to hear. Some of Clavier Uebung III is part of this project, as is The Canonic Variations and The Musical Offering. But his ideas never really caught on and music in the style of Mozart and Haydn became all the rage. So the essential Bach style may not have been specially influential in the history of music until . . . maybe never.


----------



## Mandryka

DavidA said:


> Bach, of course, didn't realise his own genius. He was in fact a pretty ordinary guy in real life (he even had a fight outside the church) and would have regarded himself as a craftsman who worked hard.


He was very ambitious, he curried favour with royalty, he was unwilling to play the role of a parish musician, just someone who played services and took care of music in local schools, he wanted to be a mover and a shaker, a big cheese on the music scene nationally and maybe internationally.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

I joined that Bach-love fest for this thread because his compositions are often great, but to be honest, the idolatry has always rubbed me the wrong way of Bach and other composers, and the saturation of the WCM world with his name and music actually takes away from his greatness by robbing it of its novelty.


----------



## violadude

science said:


> I assume the world of music is like the world of literature: because of the accidents of their education, very, very few people can analyze a work of literature much beyond "it is so moving" or "the prose sparkles." Still, if they read literature, talk about how great an author is, 99.99% of what they say is what they think they're supposed to say. If they say what they really think - most of them would prefer _Twilight_ to _King Lear_ - they will look down on each other, not because they can give very good reasons for preferring _King Lear_ to _Twilight_, but because they know what they're supposed to think.


I don't find that too be true. At least not for me or any of the other music lovers I know.


----------



## Woodduck

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I joined that Bach-love fest for this thread because his compositions are often great, but to be honest, the idolatry has always rubbed me the wrong way of Bach and other composers, and the saturation of the WCM world with his name and music actually takes away from his greatness by robbing it of its novelty.


Novelty? Bach has always been known and revered by composers (people like, you know, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Wagner, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, etc.), he's been familiar to the general run of classical music listeners for something more than a century, the full scope of his achievement has become ever clearer in the age of recording, his music is played constantly all over the world, and he's been regarded for most of two and a half centuries as one of the greatest composers who ever lived, sharing that honor with Mozart and Beethoven in almost every opinion poll among musicians and even classical music internet forum members (and what do those yahoos know?).

All this stuff about pseudo-religion and idolatry and ol' Sebastian bein' just a reg'lar hard-workin' stiff and a pretty good composer who didn't know he was anything special and genius being a meaningless idea that just hurts other people's self-esteem and people thinking he's great because they think they're supposed to think that and the cognoscenti probably thinking Mozart is better...

And to think I just stumbled into this thread and found all this on ONE PAGE...!



I was planning to read this whole thread but now I'm scared to.


----------



## hpowders

I'm an instinctive listener and no composer brings me closer to feeling God is near than the secular WTC of Bach.

This had to be composed by a deeply religious man who believed he was composing in the service of God.

Bruckner did too, but Bach was the greater musical genius.

In much of Bach's other secular solo music (Keyboard Partitas, Goldberg Variations, Unaccompanied Violin Sonatas and Partitas, Cello Sonatas, etc.) I also feel the spiritual experience.

So what makes Bach great? "Top three" musical genius combined with a passionate humility to dedicate much of that music to God.

Don't look for this dedication to God on any manuscript pages of his solo keyboard and violin music.

It's in the notes. And it's what makes Bach great for me.


----------



## Andolink

On the other hand, as an atheist, I revere Bach above all other composers for his awe inspiring technical sophistication and the profundity and extreme beauty of his melodies, harmonies and counterpoint. Certainly Bach's personal devout religious convictions were the primary inspiration for his art but the appreciation of his achievement need not have any relation to religious feeling at all. The music essentially speaks entirely for itself.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

Woodduck said:


> Novelty? Bach has always been known and revered by composers (people like, you know, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Wagner, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, etc.), he's been familiar to the general run of classical music listeners for something more than a century, the full scope of his achievement has become ever clearer in the age of recording, his music is played constantly all over the world, and he's been regarded for most of two and a half centuries as one of the greatest composers who ever lived, sharing that honor with Mozart and Beethoven in almost every opinion poll among musicians and even classical music internet forum members (and what do those yahoos know?).
> 
> All this stuff about pseudo-religion and idolatry and ol' Sebastian bein' just a reg'lar hard-workin' stiff and a pretty good composer who didn't know he was anything special and genius being a meaningless idea that just hurts other people's self-esteem and people thinking he's great because they think they're supposed to think that and the cognoscenti probably thinking Mozart is better...
> 
> And to think I just stumbled into this thread and found all this on ONE PAGE...!
> 
> 
> 
> I was planning to read this whole thread but now I'm scared to.


What I was saying was, the ubiquity of Bach takes away from his greatness because novelty is a factor of greatness; greatness always has something unexpected about it but Bach's idiom is to the WCM world as grass is to the ground. Obviously, a lot of listeners still love Bach or other composers of similar stature without ever boring of them their whole lives, and all I have to say is that I don't understand these people.


----------



## Guest

I have a very limited selection, but of what I have I find the violin sonatas and partitas to be utterly fantastic (I've got the Grumiaux set).

I'm still umming and ahhing over WTC and Goldberg because I haven't decided on the instrument; except it won't be the harpsichord. I'm not a fan, I've decided.


----------



## Dim7

Woodduck said:


> Novelty? Bach has always been known and revered by composers (people like, you know, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Wagner, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, etc.), he's been familiar to the general run of classical music listeners for something more than a century, the full scope of his achievement has become ever clearer in the age of recording, his music is played constantly all over the world, and he's been regarded for most of two and a half centuries as one of the greatest composers who ever lived, sharing that honor with Mozart and Beethoven in almost every opinion poll among musicians and even classical music internet forum members (and what do those yahoos know?).
> 
> All this stuff about pseudo-religion and idolatry and ol' Sebastian bein' just a reg'lar hard-workin' stiff and a pretty good composer who didn't know he was anything special and genius being a meaningless idea that just hurts other people's self-esteem and people thinking he's great because they think they're supposed to think that and the cognoscenti probably thinking Mozart is better...
> 
> And to think I just stumbled into this thread and found all this on ONE PAGE...!
> 
> 
> 
> I was planning to read this whole thread but now I'm scared to.


Several religions have been around for centuries, much longer than Bach anyway. Many great minds have been passionate adherents of these religions. Does it mean that these religions offer much in terms of explaining reality?


----------



## beetzart

One of the truly great things about Bach was his composing of cantatas. I have only recently come into receipt of the entire collection of sacred and secular cantatas and so far, of what I have listened to, Bach does not skimp on quality or consistency with any of them. And this is incredible when you consider he usually wrote one a week for about four years (in his Leipzig days, I believe). It is almost as if he had some mathematical formula that produced masterpiece after masterpiece. This can also apply to his secular works. 

I am fanatical about JS Bach and his music never fails to move me although it is relentless. Each piece is perfect and I don't think he wrote a single poor work. I don't think the average lifespan of a human being is long enough to ever appreciate Bach and listen to his music to the point you never want to hear another note written by him. For me that is impossible and to think he wrote his music over a 45/50 year timespan. This is why I posit the idea of a mathematical formula. Although I am probably wrong.


----------



## Bulldog

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> What I was saying was, the ubiquity of Bach takes away from his greatness because novelty is a factor of greatness; greatness always has something unexpected about it but Bach's idiom is to the WCM world as grass is to the ground. Obviously, a lot of listeners still love Bach or other composers of similar stature without ever boring of them their whole lives, and all I have to say is that I don't understand these people.


We are people with preferences, just like you, so very easy to understand.

One more thing. I don't attach much merit to 'novelty', generally considering it to note a new entertainment that doesn't have any staying power.


----------



## science

violadude said:


> I don't find that too be true. At least not for me or any of the other music lovers I know.


You're probably hanging out with an unusual crowd. I don't think anyone I've met since college could tell you what fourth species counterpoint is.


----------



## Rik1

Interesting long thread. I'm someone who has found myself playing Bach more frequently than any other composer. I've always loved Bach, but I didn't think I'd be playing him more than anyone else.

It's quite difficult to describe why Bach is so good. Lots of people here have covered his technical abilities with counterpoint, mastery of tonal composition and his sum up of the previous 200 years of contrapuntal music. So I thought I'd add some things from a performer perspective (I'm a flautist if that puts context into this but have discussed this with string players too).

He is very satisfying for musicians to play, which is possibly why he gets revered so much. I often think that it's because musicians love him so much that Bach has the status he has (more so than listeners). This is because, even in large scale works every player and singer has an independent melody to play almost at all times. Even the violas (who if its Baroque music, often have boring music to play) get a line that no only fulfills the functino of filling in harmony but is actually a satisfying melody in itself. If you take say Mass in B Minor, you can pick any instrumental line and it will sound convincing on its own without any other part. Bach essentially is very good at stacking different melodies together, that when played all at the same time create a new whole that is the piece of music. Each part has a horizontal melodic side, but also a vertical harmonic component. A good example is 'Air on a G String' where the top 3 string parts each have their own separate melody but stacked together create a very complete piece that is beautiful. Every individual part is equally important across the orchestra, but individually each has its own character as well. So there is a sense of the orchestra simply being a large group of individuals somehow and seamlessly working together to create a greater whole. Later Classical music works a little differently, as some parts of the orchestra are more functoinal than having a voice (take all the chugging quavers in Mozart symphonies for example).

There is always a huge sense of going on a journey in the music. You start somewhere, thematic material is explored in every way possible and then we return to the start. It is a very relaxing, cathartic experience (for some this is a akin to a religious experience).

His Lutheran beliefs are very strong in his Religious music, such that he took great pains to ensure the music reflects the text at all times. This dedication and hard work results in very deep music that has many layers. I am not a religious person in any way, but I am still moved by the passion in his religious music that results from him taking the text very seriously. You get a sense he wasn't just doing a job, he was doing something he strongly felt he was born to do through his religious conviction.

Despite his Religious music being very reverent, there is something about the music that feels human and rooted on Earth. I can't explain why, it just is. Perhaps it is because he always roots the Religious in the human experience.

His music for musicians is often like a puzzle box that reveals itself in different ways every time you play it. So an example is the way his orchestration often works. Take the Magnificat opening chorus. He separates the orchestra into small groups - strings, brass, woodwind (oboes and flutes further separated within this). Each groups has it's own fragment of thematic material but when layered on top of each other there is seamless flow or wave of sound moving from strings to oboes to brass to flutes, which each small group overlapping each other to create a continuous melody of flowing semi-quavers. But not one player has the whole complete melody. At the same time, despite all the counterpoint going on he still fulfills the way Baroque music often works - strong beats and weak beats in the bar, dance like rhythms, bass lines providing a rhythm section. He rarely lets the mathematical counterpoint be more important than the emotional power he is striving for.

Although the harmonic progression is really important in his music, his counterpoint often intensifies through the piece coinciding with climaxes in the harmony and the melodic line.

He meticulously writes out ornamentation and specifies how a melody is articulated and embellished heavily, most Baroque music you have to do this yourself. This makes Bach easy to perform because he has done the hard work, it almost speaks for itself.

He never expects anything less than great technical competence from musicians. His music never compromises for less able players/singers, the music comes first for him. Yet despite this (and wind players complaining there is never anywhere to breathe), the music is very idiomatic in its own way for each instrument and singer.

His music is in a way is quite abstract and pure, this makes it suitable for any instrument and any style. Jazz Bach works brilliantly for example. He transcends stylistic trends and aesthetics.

I've been hinting at this, but the duality in his music makes it satisfying to play and listen to as everything is equal. The religious and the human experience, the function of a part and its individual voice, the cold mathematical puzzle box counterpoint/yet the emotional power, the older contrapuntal style / yet fused with a modern Italianate concerto style, the complexity of composition/ but there's always a dance-like lightness, the abstract nature of the music / but also a powerful link to a text, waves of sound vs. many melodies stacked together.

The thing I am always amazed by, is the fact it is actually very dense music. Bach never stops composing, he always has to add in more notes and squash in more counterpoint. He revised his own music constantly, adding in more ornamentation and just more of everything. There are cantatas where you have whole pages of everyone (singers and orchestra) playing semi-quavers all at the same time. A friend of mine who hates Bach says that all he hears is endless semi-quavers in one long stream that is relentless and tiresome. I can understand that view. But, for me somehow the music still makes sense despite on paper looking like it should sound horribly dense and thick. I think the modern way of perform his music with a Baroque lightness has helped Bach's music greatly but still there are older recordings that sound great. That's another duality - the denseness but with a light touch.

I've generally found playing something like a Bach Passion or Mass in B minor a cathartic experience that feels like meditation. Everyone is concentrating and playing a huge amount of notes in a hypnotic fashion, its often exhausting.

Wow, that was a long post - sorry! Hopefully others might make sense of it!

Just to add that some of things described in my post are not unique to Bach, but Bach was extremely good at all these components.


----------



## Rik1

science said:


> I assume the world of music is like the world of literature: because of the accidents of their education, very, very few people can analyze a work of literature much beyond "it is so moving" or "the prose sparkles." Still, if they read literature, talk about how great an author is, 99.99% of what they say is what they think they're supposed to say. If they say what they really think - most of them would prefer _Twilight_ to _King Lear_ - they will look down on each other, not because they can give very good reasons for preferring _King Lear_ to _Twilight_, but because they know what they're supposed to think.


Yes I think you're right. I find it very frustrating. I've always been someone who just says what I like and I have often found (particularly as a musician) I come up against raised eyebrows. I have no problem with saying that I like something simply because it is moving or makes me feel good. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't always want to analysing everything in detail, sometimes it is purely my emotional response that matters. People get very protective about music they like and we often judge others sensibilities based on music and literature taste. Since taste is also something that is linked to class and our upbringing, I think some people do choose types of art to like in order to be part of a particularly social group.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Novelty?
> 
> All this stuff about pseudo-religion and idolatry and ol' Sebastian bein' just a reg'lar hard-workin' stiff and a pretty good composer who didn't know he was anything special and genius being a meaningless idea that just hurts other people's self-esteem and people thinking he's great because they think they're supposed to think that and the cognoscenti probably thinking Mozart is better...
> 
> Sure Bach was a hard worker but composers like Bach, Mozart or even Schubert knew very well that they were not ordinary but exceptional.What people are supposed to think is a different matter.


----------



## Rik1

Mandryka said:


> He was very ambitious, he curried favour with royalty, he was unwilling to play the role of a parish musician, just someone who played services and took care of music in local schools, he wanted to be a mover and a shaker, a big cheese on the music scene nationally and maybe internationally.


Unfortunately he appeared to have shunned opera. For most composers, to be big and famous you needed to write opera. However, despite being ambitious Bach chose not to do that because writing opera meant you had to bow to the demands of the singers and audience. He didn't want that, he wanted to write music on his own terms which is why he fought the influential people so much. So I think he curried favour with royalty any more than any other musician, that was the way things worked then and the only way to get a job. So I don't think its quite that simple.


----------



## Guest

Rik1 said:


> Yes I think you're right. I find it very frustrating. I've always been someone who just says what I like and I have often found (particularly as a musician) I come up against raised eyebrows. I have no problem with saying that I like something simply because it is moving or makes me feel good. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't always want to analysing everything in detail, sometimes it is purely my emotional response that matters. People get very protective about music they like and we often judge others sensibilities based on music and literature taste. Since taste is also something that is linked to class and our upbringing, I think some people do choose types of art to like in order to be part of a particularly social group.


We do not have to take the snob(s) serious.


----------



## Rik1

traverso said:


> We do not have to take the snob(s) serious.


That's very true, and I don't generally take it seriously. Music snobbery is pointless, and I try not to fall into that trap myself.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Three words: the organ music.


----------



## ArtMusic

Three words: the harpsichord music


----------



## Dim7

three words: Bach's music is so mathematical


----------



## science

traverso said:


> We do not have to take the snob(s) serious.


But I choose to do so! After all, I'm one of the best of them.


----------



## Couchie

Bach is an anagram for HACB. HACB is defined as follows by the curators at Urbandictionary.com[1]:

_"HACB. Often used on online forums and the Star Wars Galaxies Bloodfin community. 
Pegasus, a member of a guild Dread would scream in ventrilo during PvP and when people asked him what he said, he said HACB was an abbreviation for *'Holla At Cha Boy'*

Nexis made this term popular in the bloodfin community after using it excessively on the forums.

'Lol, vass. You sucked 2 cocks last night while brisc licked your dog's ***. HACB!'"_

The gesture of a "Holla at" is generally reciprocated with a "Holla back", although this may not always be the case. As Stefani et al. elucidated in 2006[2]:

_"A few times I've been around that track
So it's not just gonna happen like that
'Cause I ain't no hollaback girl
I ain't no hollaback girl

Oh, this my ****, this my ****"_

Have you been around the track? When Bach HACB, will you hollabach??

References:

[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hacb
[2] Stefani, Gwen. "Hollaback Girl". Interscope, 2005.


----------



## atsizat

Dim7 said:


> three words: Bach's music is so mathematical


Some of his musics are but not all of them. For example, these musics are not mathematical. At least they don't sound so to me. But there is sadness in the musics that make me wanna listen to them. I was listening to these musics when I was drunk.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bach is so good because he had a great ear and a super-musical mind. He knew it all, and transcended his own era. His music at times transcends instruments and styles, and becomes pure Platonic idea.


----------



## ArtMusic

And Bach, despite the technical difficulty of his music, always had in mind practical performance (except didactic pieces) to fulfill his duties and to glorify his religion. He was a pragmatic composer, as all composers should.


----------



## regenmusic

I always thought Bach was so great because his music seems to caress the listening, kind of like getting a loving massage. At least the favorites of his seem like that. He seems to want to cheer you up, make you feel in some way healed, at some place in your heart. Of course that could be said for a lot of music, but it's almost like that "Jesus factor" comes out stronger in his music in some way. One feels some kind of saving grace at times listening to his works.


----------



## Mandryka

ArtMusic said:


> And Bach, despite the technical difficulty of his music, always had in mind practical performance (except didactic pieces) to fulfill his duties and to glorify his religion. He was a pragmatic composer, as all composers should.


I was quite surprised to read this because I've always thought the opposite, about the B minor Mass for example. I'd love to know what why that was composed, it's a bit long for a real mass isn't it? Where did you get the idea from?


----------



## KenOC

ArtMusic said:


> Three words: the harpsichord music


Three words: All his music.


----------



## kartikeys

Bach's harpsichord works would sound swell on the piano. 
He would reach out even more.


----------



## Bulldog

kartikeys said:


> Bach's harpsichord works would sound swell on the piano.
> He would reach out even more.


As it happens, Bach's solo keyboard music has been played and recorded more frequently on the piano than the harpsichord for decades.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Three words: All his music.


And all the music that his many children made. As they say, "his organ had no stops." Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......ha ha. Ta-ta, I must be disappearing now. Say hi to the wizard of OZ who controls this whole universe. What an impressive show of power.


----------



## Beth Troy

Has anybody heard the new recording by acoustic guitarist Steven Hancoff: From Tragedy to Transcendence: The Six Suites for Cello Solo for Acoustic Guitar? It is amazing! I don't think there is anything else out there like it. Blue Wolf Reviews wrote: "Hancoff must have often wondered if the ghost of Bach was not sitting on his shoulder inspiring him." And there are lots of other critical responses just as good. If you love the suites -- or the guitar, or music -- "You owe it to yourself to also enjoy deeply these guitar transcriptions sublimely delivered by Steven Hancoff," as another reviewer put it.


----------



## Mandryka

Beth Troy said:


> Has anybody heard the new recording by acoustic guitarist Steven Hancoff: From Tragedy to Transcendence: The Six Suites for Cello Solo for Acoustic Guitar? It is amazing! I don't think there is anything else out there like it. Blue Wolf Reviews wrote: "Hancoff must have often wondered if the ghost of Bach was not sitting on his shoulder inspiring him." And there are lots of other critical responses just as good. If you love the suites -- or the guitar, or music -- "You owe it to yourself to also enjoy deeply these guitar transcriptions sublimely delivered by Steven Hancoff," as another reviewer put it.


I preferred the more vigorous transcriptions by Ludger Rémy.


----------



## Rik1

Mandryka said:


> I was quite surprised to read this because I've always thought the opposite, about the B minor Mass for example. I'd love to know what why that was composed, it's a bit long for a real mass isn't it? Where did you get the idea from?


Well the poster is right in that the vast majority of his music was written pragmatically for a specific group of musicians and a specific performance.

But later in his life, he started compiling sets of works copying them out neatly. I dont know if anyone really knows exactly why he did this, but it is very likely it was because he was compiling a record of the music he felt represented what he had achieved. A kind of cataloguing. He also started work on compiling/composing great works that could be part of his family legacy or something similar. This includes St Matthew Passion and the Art of Fugue (that he never completed). Mass in B minor is in this category. The Kyrie and Gloria were separate works written for Dresden years previously. The Sanctus was an individual piece. Everything else is based on music from cantatas. There are a few freshly composed bits. But essentially, Mass in B minor was never intended for performance. There are similarities to Zelenka's late masses that were never for performance but rather were put together as a personal pet project and works of art, maybe partly as a gift to God? As far as I know, no one really knows for sure his exact reasons.


----------



## beetzart

I'll probably get torn to shreds for saying this but after listening to JS Bach day in day out for several months (and even longer over my life) I feel that music peaked because of him in the 1740s and has never been as good since. Beethoven came close, very close bless him, but even his late output doesn't top what Bach did in his last ten years. WTC II, Art of the Fugue, A Musical Offering, Mass in B minor (I realise this is somewhat of a collection drawn together from previous works), and Goldberg Variations are so simply incredible masterpieces that, personally, I don't feel any composer has come close to beating. Although, Beethoven's 9th, the Grosse Fugue and the 32nd Piano Sonata are probably just about on par, maybe slightly short of, sort of, are maybe as close as any other composer has got to the miracle that is JS Bach.


----------



## Blake

If we could describe why he's so good then he really wouldn't be that good.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> I was quite surprised to read this because I've always thought the opposite, about the B minor Mass for example. I'd love to know what why that was composed, it's a bit long for a real mass isn't it? Where did you get the idea from?


The Art of the Fugue is another example of the "unpragmatic" Bach.

Also, three words: "to glorify God," not religion.

Erase this post! Go ahead! I dare you!


----------



## millionrainbows

Bach had obviously come up with a way of composing music that would "insure the supremacy of German music for the next 300 years!"


----------



## dieter

Bach was good because he was the Greatest. Simple as that.


----------



## Pugg

dieter said:


> Bach was good because he was the Greatest. Simple as that.


I am sure not everyone agree with you though.


----------



## Picander

Pugg said:


> I am sure not everyone agree with you though.


I agree, perhaps Bach wasn't "the Greatest". But I think he really was _the greatest contrapuntist_, so if someone prefer counterpoint music it is very probably he thinks that Bach is really "the Greatest".


----------



## EarthBoundRules

I believe Bach was so great because he was able to compose music that both showed his understanding of music inside and out and was still pleasant to listen to. Very complex music has the tendency to become less pleasant in the hands of an amateur composer.


----------



## ArtMusic

EarthBoundRules said:


> I believe Bach was so great because he was able to compose music that both showed his understanding of music inside and out and was still pleasant to listen to. Very complex music has the tendency to become less pleasant in the hands of an amateur composer.


Absolutely. While he was a technical genius with the art of the fugue (I mean in general terms), his music still showed emotional depth. This contrasts strongly with other composers from other eras who tried similarly but lacking the latter.


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> Absolutely. While he was a technical genius with the art of the fugue (I mean in general terms), his music still showed emotional depth. This contrasts strongly with other composers from other eras who tried similarly but lacking the latter.


Oh really? Name one.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> Oh really? Name one.


Well from my listening experience, I would say

Classicism - Crusell
Romantic - Berwald
Late Romantic - Zemlinsky
20th century - Schoenberg, Wellesz

But getting back to Bach, his music was written for connoisseurs of his time and it did take decades/denturies for his art to be appreciated over time.


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> Well from my listening experience, I would say
> 
> Classicism - Crusell
> Romantic - Berwald
> Late Romantic - Zemlinsky
> 20th century - Schoenberg, Wellesz
> 
> But getting back to Bach, his music was written for connoisseurs of his time and it did take decades/denturies for his art to be appreciated over time.


Schoenberg's music is some of the most emotionally powerful I know, though. Zemlinsky's is quite rich as well. I'm not as familiar with the other names you listed, though I'm not sure they're associated with complexity.


----------



## ArtMusic

Back to Bach, I think his counterpoint examples are the most thoroughly composed pieces of the art, ever. And the few published have long since remained in the repertoire. I think this will continue for centuries to come.


----------



## Adamus

actually JSB was a singer.


----------



## Judith

I find Bach so soothing. When I have one of my headaches, (and I get a lot of them) his music really helps!!


----------



## JosefinaHW

Judith said:


> I find Bach so soothing. When I have one of my headaches, (and I get a lot of them) his music really helps!!


My doctor started to recommend playlists to some other patients and it's been very successful!  'has eliminated some very costly tests in the process.


----------



## hpowders

Bach is so good because he gives us as close a glimpse of the Heavenly Table as we will ever experience on Earth.

Listening to Bach for me is a metaphysical experience.

There is no secular and sacred differentiation. All of Bach's music is dedicated to God's glory.

I would not wish to live without it.


----------



## JosefinaHW

*This thread is a joyous discovery: a thread in celebration of Bach!*

The following is one of those rare YouTube videos: an actual video of Philippe Herreweghe and the Collegium Vocale Gent performing! _Magnificat in D Major_, BWV 243, Antwerp


----------



## Nevum

As an agnostic/atheist I can confirm that Bach=God. No question.


----------



## Larkenfield

Why was Bach so good? Perhaps it was because when you’re writing to the glory of God and eternal Lutheran salvation, you have very high standards of performance, or one might get low marks for carelessness and sloth and end up in the Other Place. Perhaps there’s no retreat in his music because he knew something such as time and immortality were gaining on him. I believe that he successfully outran whatever it might have been. It’s exhausting even to speculate on how much energy he expended in his lifetime, and he evidently lived in the Eternal Now in order to be so monumentally productive and consistently excellent.


----------



## Star

beetzart said:


> I'll probably get torn to shreds for saying this but after listening to JS Bach day in day out for several months (and even longer over my life) I feel that music peaked because of him in the 1740s and has never been as good since. Beethoven came close, very close bless him, but even his late output doesn't top what Bach did in his last ten years. WTC II, Art of the Fugue, A Musical Offering, Mass in B minor (I realise this is somewhat of a collection drawn together from previous works), and Goldberg Variations are so simply incredible masterpieces that, personally, I don't feel any composer has come close to beating. Although, Beethoven's 9th, the Grosse Fugue and the 32nd Piano Sonata are probably just about on par, maybe slightly short of, sort of, are maybe as close as any other composer has got to the miracle that is JS Bach.


There are three peaks in music - Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. The latter two are as great as Bach in their different ways. Mozart indeed was the master of all forms. Late Verdi re presents another peak


----------



## jdec

Star said:


> There are three peaks in music - Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. *The latter two are as great as Bach in their different ways. Mozart indeed was the master of all forms*. Late Verdi re presents another peak


I definitely agree with this.


----------

