# Bach as a melodist



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

JS Bach is my favorite composer and I'm quite devoted to his music. There is little doubt about what he means in the world of harmony. But some people tend to forget him when discussions about melody appear. I don't know how he can't be mentioned just on the basis of the slow movements of his concertos and suites alone and many numbers in his choral works. 

What do you think about Bach as melodist? In my view none can touch Mozart in that field, and Beethoven, Dvorak and yes, Schubert are quite close. Tchaikovsky is an amazing melodist. Handel wrote great melodies. But I find the same beauty in many of the Kantor's melodies. Don't you?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

You mentioned the slow movements of his concertos. The slow movement from the concerto for two violin in D minor (BWV 1043) just about sums it all up!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I find it odd that anyone would challenge Bach as a melodist. Not only are his melodies highly memorable and range from delightful to solemn, but he was able to have four of them going at once...


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)




----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

What's the difference? (serious question)


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

Bach is not what most people would think of when they think of a melodist. Most people would have someone like Mozart or Tchaikovsky in mind. Especially the lushy-gushy melodies of Tchaikovsky. Bachs melodies are not the standard 8 or 12 measure laid out with a beginning, middle and end, all nicely tied up with a cadence. In fact in Bach, many of the melodies that are like that are not Bachs but have been borrowed. The theme from the Passacaglia and fugue is not his. The melody from Sheep May Safely Graze is not his. Jesu, Joy of Mans Desiring; not his. The melodies that are actually from Bachs pen tend to be shorter and very harmonically driven. Much more like extended themes than full blown melodies. From those small beginnings he is able to spin out elaboration and extensions that, especially in the slow music, seem to be never ending melodies all growing from the seeds of the shorter themes he has started with. The slow movement from the Double Violin concerto has already been mentioned, but also the very famous "Air" (for the G string), the Prelude #8 from the Well Tempered Clavier book 1 and any number of other slow but soaring and achingly gorgeous works are great examples.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2013)

In all honesty, many of his fugue subjects are rather lame, but what he does with them is astonishing! Ironically, one of his most interesting fugue subjects (imo) is in the Ricercare a' 3 from "A Musical Offering"--and he didn't even write it! However, he redeems himself with some beautiful melodies in his slow movements.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

The difference, I think, is that Tchaikovsky's melodies are "for the ear", while Bach's melodies have a "functional" component, i.e., they also must be appropriate for writing a big fugue with them. Bach's melodies tend to be more cerebral and "robotic" because of this. This has to do also with the conception of music as a "craft" and not as a "romantic art" in Bach's days. The fun was in proving the technical ability of the craftsmen sometimes (kings were delighted when Bach improvised fugues in front of them). This purely intellectual appreciation of music was replaced in the romanticism by the appreciation of "pure" emotion, etc. In Tchaikovsky, unlike Bach, the melody by itself is of supreme importance. In recent times, I would say that a combination of the two approaches is sometimes regarded.
Here, the melody is just a necessary element for the important development, the fugue:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Bach has excellent lines, some very catchy and rich material, but don't you feel as they are usually all a part of some chord scheme? Its like he's always implying harmony. As a composer who has written functionally tonal pieces, I know that sometimes my best material comes out of a strange base line that spontaneously develops as I am writing the piece. I think the essence of Bach is in what is born out of the bigger picture of the music, and its clearly fertile material for good ideas to develop, but I'm not sure about his ability to nakedly concieve an excellent melody.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

vertigo said:


> What's the difference? (serious question)


That's the thing, when you start looking into it more, it can be hard to tell where to "draw the line" with melody and lines that are maybe more grown out of the music or harmonically enhanced. Wagner's Tanhauser Overture has a very moving theme, but its intrinsically bound to the harmonies. I can't even know at this point whether without those harmonies, that melody would be at all interesting or even memorable.

But I think that Bach has a lot that is spontenously enjoyable to me personally. However, not all of it is to me. I have to work at some, and some people I've shared pieces of his with that I enjoy, think its just too needlessly technical.

I guess we just have to come back to personal preference? Granted, personal preference really can change more than people give it credit.


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> Bach has excellent lines, some very catchy and rich material, but don't you feel as they are usually all a part of some chord scheme? Its like he's always implying harmony. As a composer who has written functionally tonal pieces, I know that sometimes my best material comes out of a strange base line that spontaneously develops as I am writing the piece. I think the essence of Bach is in what is born out of the bigger picture of the music, and its clearly fertile material for good ideas to develop, but I'm not sure about his ability to nakedly concieve an excellent melody.


Bachs music is very much harmonically driven. The melodies often spring from the haermonic structure rather than the other way around, which is more usual. This is particularly eveident in the faster movements. The famous prelude 1 of the Well Tempered Clavier is entirely harmonic yet the melody is strongly implied. Prelude #2 in the same work is also entirely harmonic.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

drpraetorus said:


> Bachs music is very much harmonically driven. The melodies often spring from the haermonic structure rather than the other way around, which is more usual. This is particularly eveident in the faster movements. The famous prelude 1 of the Well Tempered Clavier is entirely harmonic yet the melody is strongly implied. Prelude #2 in the same work is also entirely harmonic.


Beethoven called Bach "the father of harmony," which always puzzled me until I figured out what he meant.


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> I can't even know at this point whether without those harmonies, that melody would be at all interesting or even memorable.


Thanks for the detailed answer, very useful coming from an actual composer.
Would you say that the first Kyrie eleison in Mass in b minor falls in the above category?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Bach is awesome. And he does enough with the Melodies to keep me interested. Maybe not fully melody driven but you get my point. So much more melody than the modern Composers btw.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

his melodys all sound the same


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

vertigo said:


> Thanks for the detailed answer, very useful coming from an actual composer.
> Would you say that the first Kyrie eleison in Mass in b minor falls in the above category?


I am kind of ashamed to say I don't know the B minor mass at all on the whole, and the Kyrie Eleison is only vaguely familiar as I listen to it now. But my reaction is that it is immediately apparent as moving and powerful musical material. To me, that's just as good as melody, but based on this cursory and admittedly partial hearing, I would say it is in the category with the Wagner, much more harmony based.

On the other hand, Bach does have some fantastic themes that you remember just for the lines themselves. This one is certainly harmonically well built, but the fact that it is wonderfully singable without that says something about the melody itself:





I recall a very similar melody from St. Mathew's passion.

I think some of Bach's orchestral work that looks back towards Vivaldi (like the Orchestral Suite no. 2) is more full of more conventional but wonderful baroque melodic material. Then of course, a few cantatas have a tune that we all know even if we don't know the name of it.


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

But did any baroque composer write melodies without "implying harmony"? Seems to me like that was how they all wrote music.. Even though something like the WTK I Prelude in C is somewhat extreme, you can probably find e.g. keyboard toccatas that are just as chord-based and 'melody-less' by other baroque composers.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Norse said:


> But did any baroque composer write melodies without "implying harmony"? Seems to me like that was how they all wrote music.. Even though something like the WTK I Prelude in C is somewhat extreme, you can probably find e.g. keyboard toccatas that are just as chord-based and 'melody-less' by other baroque composers.


That's another point I thought about, but I still chose to put forth the Bach stuff as fodder for thought, but its a good thing to think about. Handel, Vivaldi, Rameau, Telemann, Purcell, are generally implying harmony as well with their lines too I guess. There is something different about much of Bach though, and that is what I was trying to get at.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2013)

aleazk said:


> The difference, I think, is that Tchaikovsky's melodies are "for the ear", while Bach's melodies have a "functional" component, i.e., they also must be appropriate for writing a big fugue with them. Bach's melodies tend to be more cerebral and "robotic" because of this. This has to do also with the conception of music as a "craft" and not as a "romantic art" in Bach's days. The fun was in proving the technical ability of the craftsmen sometimes (kings were delighted when Bach improvised fugues in front of them). This purely intellectual appreciation of music was replaced in the romanticism by the appreciation of "pure" emotion, etc. In Tchaikovsky, unlike Bach, the melody by itself is of supreme importance. In recent times, I would say that a combination of the two approaches is sometimes regarded.
> Here, the melody is just a necessary element for the important development, the fugue:


Thank you so much for posting this miraculous work. Worlds collide, stars collapse and volcanoes erupt when I listen to this. I regard JS Bach as one of the greatest of all minds in the history of humanity. And I don't care for the labels "workmanlike" or "intellectual". His music was sui generis 'romanticism', IMO. What could be more 'romantic' and ravishing than the music for the Passions?!! In the name of God, he has never been surpassed as a sublime creative force - equalled perhaps, but never surpassed. Listening to his work provides a tiny insight into the workings of that human brain - the B Minor Mass with its ecstatic spirituality and earthly sensuality (both characteristics mark his religious works, IMO). It's this combination of ecstasy and sensuality which is the hallmark of Bach for me. When I hear this music I never cease to be thankful for my very life.

Listen to this brief extract from the B Minor Mass and you'll hear daring melody and harmony - directly anticipating Schoenberg and his followers. Bach's use of dual tonalities simultaneously is singularly noticeable when interpreting the scriptures, for example, to show suffering and pain co-existing with religious ecstasy:






There's a lot of this in the St. Matthew Passion and deconstructing Bach's music is an endless source of joy and pleasure - but not quite the equal of listening to it!!


----------

