# Bach vs. Mozart: Counterpoint vs. Harmony



## millionrainbows

I can tell the difference between Bach and Mozart when I listen to their keyboard music. So many of the ideas of Mozart would simply not be the same, or as effective, unless they were the result of "harmonic" thinking. I see counterpoint as more limiting in this regard, and more of a spontaneity in Mozart's harmonically-derived ideas. Bach's polyphony was a "sideshow" to the extent that it was a technique with very specific and limited capabilities.
Mozart and Beethoven were both "harmonic" thinkers, which was the "new way" of thinking. It's well-known that Bach rejected the harmonic theorizing of Rameau, and preferred to use his archaic, limited figured-bass system, which could not adapt to later harmonic developments which were too complex and varied for the old system.

In his defense, Bach is a "snapshot" of music's harmonic development, but was quickly surpassed by later harmonically more complex music.
What are your thoughts?


----------



## Phil loves classical

In counterpoint there is always harmonic thinking, both vertical and horizontal, but not the other way around. I would say most of Mozart's music did include counterpoint, even though not as striking or dramatic as Bach.


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> In counterpoint there is always harmonic thinking, both vertical and horizontal, but not the other way around. I would say most of Mozart's music did include counterpoint, even though not as striking or dramatic as Bach.


That's true to an extent, but de-clarifies the point. Mozart's music sounds like "shorthand" compared to Bach's worked-out and laborious counterpoint. I say, you should be looking for differences, not similarities, in light of later harmonic development.

"Harmony and counterpoint constrain each other," so they are different ways of thinking, with different results. Bach's figured-bass way of thinking proved to be unsuitable for more complex chords, and so fell into disuse.


----------



## Bwv 1080

No real limitations to Bach’s harmony- there is very little, if anything harmonically in Mozart that you cannot also find in Bach. The only difference between 19th century practice and Baroque figured bass was the addition of Roman numerals for chord functions and some nomenclature, it was not limiting to a composer of JS Bach’s abilities


----------



## DavidA

Mozart and discovering Bach)s works is Reported to have exclaimed ‘there is something we can all learn from’. One great master acknowledging another. I just cannot see why we must set one up against the other as it was a master of the particular forms in which they wrote.


----------



## Mandryka

So one point to start to think about is whether Bach was able to write harmonically imaginative music, but chose to focus elsewhere. And if so why. 

There’s the F major Brandenburg concerto, the first movement, for example.

And of course vice versa for Mozart,,i.e. that he was perfectly able to construct music where the harmonies are determined by the contrapuntal logic, but chose not to. And as before, why this should have been better suited to his purposes.


----------



## isorhythm

They're different styles...no reason to see one as an advance over the other.

I would be curious to know some specific passages in Mozart that you think demonstrate his harmonic advances over Bach.


----------



## mikeh375

Nobody I know considers counterpoint (especially Bach's) limiting and I certainly do not. In fact one could go further to say that counterpoint is a liberation from harmony, one where melody and her inevitability of line has the potential to override vertical influence. Contrapuntal thinking is a state of compositional mind and Bach's counterpoint is a majestic and virtually unrivalled example - a pinnacle in the art of music. Calling it a 'sideshow' because you deem it limiting is with respect, startlingly misguided and just plain wrong imv MR. To achieve anything close to Bach's work requires a prolonged study, a deep understanding of harmony and a gift rarely seen.

Besides, figured bass and counterpoint are 2 different things as you are well aware and conflating figured bass conventions with being responsible for some sort of restriction in Bach's harmonic thinking due to his preference for counterpoint is to my mind absolutely not the way Bach composed. You must have looked at some of his harmony, his preference for line has created some wonderful, beautiful dissonance.

Harmony and counterpoint are differing paradigms for a composer that meet in the middle for compromise, or wing their own separate ways. Limiting, no, liberating, absolutely.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I would say most of Mozart's music did include counterpoint, even though not as striking or dramatic as Bach.


I think Mozart did superb job in bridging Bach and Beethoven - couldn't have done it more perfectly:

at first glance K399 may look like an exercise in old style, but there's an unique 'character' to it that makes it sound different from older works such as Bach Fantasie und Fuge BWV542 (just as Beethoven's Pathetique sounds unique from Mozart's K475)


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> No real limitations to Bach's harmony- there is very little, if anything harmonically in Mozart that you cannot also find in Bach. The only difference between 19th century practice and Baroque figured bass was the addition of Roman numerals for chord functions and some nomenclature, it was not limiting to a composer of JS Bach's abilities


Even in the introduction of the book "Essay on the True Art of Keyboard Playing" by C.P.E. Bach, the authors admit that Bach's thorough bass practice would become unwieldy as more chords were added to the harmonic collection. Rameau's 'root system' was far smaller and easier to work with.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> They're different styles...no reason to see one as an advance over the other.
> 
> I would be curious to know some specific passages in Mozart that you think demonstrate his harmonic advances over Bach.


Not just styles, but different ways of thinking. It would be too tedious to baby-walk you through examples; if you can't already hear what I'm talking about, it's pointless.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> No real limitations to Bach's harmony- there is very little, if anything harmonically in Mozart that you cannot also find in Bach. *The only difference between 19th century practice and Baroque figured bass was the addition of Roman numerals for chord functions and some nomenclature*, it was not limiting to a composer of JS Bach's abilities


Mozart was still a transitional figure, closer to Bach than Beethoven. There, with Beethoven, you'll start running into difficulties sustaining your argument.
I'm asking you to hear the differences before you make such defenses._ Can't you hear in Mozart how the thinking is harmonic, or had you never considered this?_


----------



## Guest

The example that stands out in my mind is the Fuge on Kyrie in Mozart's Requiem. It is masterful counterpoint but it strikes me as having more willful and adventurous harmonic shifts than a typical work in the same vein by Bach.

The basic idea behind counterpoint is that you hear independent melodies, and they seem to form an interesting harmony, as if by accident.


----------



## Woodduck

There's nothing lacking in the harmonic organization of Bach's music. How he "theorized" harmony is irrelevant.


----------



## EdwardBast

Figured bass is not, nor is it reflective of, a harmonic theory, so the comparison to Rameau is a category error. This statement is therefore meaningless:



millionrainbows said:


> It's well-known that Bach rejected the harmonic theorizing of Rameau, and preferred to use his archaic, limited figured-bass system, which could not adapt to later harmonic developments which were too complex and varied for the old system.


Bach's use of figured bass was exactly right for his purposes. It was neither archaic nor limited. Moreover, Bach's view that different vertical configurations of the same notes do not have the same harmonic and structural significance is borne out in modern theory books and theory pedagogy, not to mention the obvious fact that the figures he used, 6, 6/4, 4/2, 4/3, +6, and so on, are all still in use to indicate inversions and altered intervals.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Not just styles, but different ways of thinking. It would be too tedious to baby-walk you through examples; if you can't already hear what I'm talking about, it's pointless.


I understand the differences between Bach's and Mozart's treatment of harmony pretty well. I'm trying to understand why you think Mozart's represents an advance.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Without getting too far into the technical weeds (in which I'd quickly become hopelessly lost), the way I've always tried to describe what I hear between Bach and Mozart is that Bach made drama out of music, while Mozart made music out of drama. The distinction being that just inherent in the nature of harmony and counterpoint are dramatic ideas that depend on nothing but the working out of the music harmonically. Bach seemed to exploit this to the fullest. However, there is also a more music-independent drama that music can be utilized to enhance to express. When Mozart was composing concertos, where you had a lone (or a few) instruments contrasted with an orchestra, or when he had stories/characters/conflict as in his operas, he seemed to utilize music to maximize the drama within these relationships without relying solely on purely musical principles. 

I feel like Handel was a huge influence in this respect. When Mozart said he went to Handel to learn "affect," and that when Handel desires he "strikes like a thunder-bolt," that's what I think he meant. If we think of something like Handel's Hallelujah! Chorus, one reason it "strikes like a thunderbolt" is that Handel has withheld the horns until that climax, and he's been quite judicious in his use of counterpoint; this is so that WHEN he uses them means as much as any fact about HOW he's using them, ie, saving them for dramatic effect. 

To me, Mozart and later composers after Bach seemed to use counterpoint more selectively as a dramatic device as opposed to being a mode of composition in which to explore harmony. I've often likened it to making what was once a main dish into a spice. Personally, I prefer counterpoint as a spice rather than a main dish, and that also perhaps comes with my preferring what I hear as Mozart's (and Handel's, and Beethoven's) more "music out of drama" approach to composition.

EDIT: FWIW, I wouldn't want to press this distinction too much, or suggest that Bach wasn't capable of similar "music out of drama," or Mozart incapable of "drama out of music." I think of it more as a spectrum in which one generally (even if not always) better suits a composer's temperament and style, but in which most composers will generally spend some time working in both "modes."


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> I can tell the difference between Bach and Mozart when I listen to their keyboard music. So many of the ideas of Mozart would simply not be the same, or as effective, unless they were the result of "harmonic" thinking. I see counterpoint as more limiting in this regard, and more of a spontaneity in Mozart's harmonically-derived ideas. Bach's polyphony was a "sideshow" to the extent that it was a technique with very specific and limited capabilities.
> Mozart and Beethoven were both "harmonic" thinkers, which was the "new way" of thinking. It's well-known that Bach rejected the harmonic theorizing of Rameau, and preferred to use his archaic, limited figured-bass system, which could not adapt to later harmonic developments which were too complex and varied for the old system.
> 
> In his defense,* Bach is a "snapshot" of music's harmonic development, but was quickly surpassed by later harmonically more complex music.*
> What are your thoughts?


My thoughts are this doesn't make sense, since harmony is considered Bach's strong point and his music is known for it's complexity and depth. If Bach is just a snapshot and limited why did he use harmonies that didn't resurface again until 20th century music? The classicists did take steps forward in a horizontal sense, but were working within a new structural format and took a step back in terms of vertical harmony.

I don't think Bach's use of harmony has been surpassed in terms of the vertical aspects, Debussy I think has come closest to equalling his harmonic genius. The classicists I do think deserve credit primarily for their expanded sense of drama (which relates also to their use of rhythm) their horizontal contributions to harmony and form, which certainly are impressive. I think Mozart of all composers probably had the best sense of balanced long range harmony within sonata form. Beethoven of course also excelled in this area.

As far as the system composers use whether it be Rameau's, Bach's, something else or a combination is not really that important to me. I care more about the quality of the music that results.


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> My thoughts are this doesn't make sense, since harmony is considered Bach's strong point and his music is known for it's complexity and depth. If Bach is just a snapshot and limited why did he use harmonies that didn't resurface again until 20th century music? The classicists did take steps forward in a horizontal sense, but were working within a new structural format and took a step back in terms of vertical harmony.
> 
> I don't think Bach's use of harmony has been surpassed in terms of the vertical aspects, Debussy I think has come closest to equalling his harmonic genius. The classicists I do think deserve credit primarily for their expanded sense of drama (which relates also to their use of rhythm) their horizontal contributions to harmony and form, which certainly are impressive. I think Mozart of all composers probably had the best sense of balanced long range harmony within sonata form. Beethoven of course also excelled in this area.
> 
> As far as the system composers use whether it be Rameau's, Bach's, something else or a combination is not really that important to me. I care more about the quality of the music that results.


What would you cite as an example of Bach's harmonic excellence? I am astonished that you don't consider his harmony as having been surpassed...though I probably haven't heard as much of his music as yourself.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eva Yojimbo said:


> To me, Mozart and later composers after Bach seemed to use counterpoint more selectively as a dramatic device as opposed to being a mode of composition in which to explore harmony. I've often likened it to making what was once a main dish into a spice. Personally, I prefer counterpoint as a spice rather than a main dish, and that also perhaps comes with my preferring what I hear as Mozart's (and Handel's, and Beethoven's) more "music out of drama" approach to composition.


I still feel counterpoint was central to Mozart's study of composition and development throughout his life. As Leopold _"admonished his son openly in 1777 that he not forget to make public demonstration of his abilities in "fugue, canon, and contrapunctus.""_ It seems to me this is how he "learned to do stuff" from childhood essentially and based his technique around as he progressed. https://www.talkclassical.com/63077-telemann-greater-than-bach.html#post1700169
The genre also overlaps, in many aspects, with his sense for 'classical containment' and 'economy of material' and 'motivic variation':

I find this movement remarkable (although it's not a fugue) for its similarity to a fugue how it develops. First off, there's balance of voice-leading between both hands. At 0:17, 1:30, 2:56 each time the main theme develops intricately like a subject in a fugue would. And the passage at 1:04 sounds like an episode in a fugue. (kind of like this: 



)






In Contrapuntal Study in B minor K620b, I hear both Der welcher wandert diese strasse from Die Zauberflote and Introitus from his Requiem





At 2:05, I hear Kyrie from his Requiem 








0:30


----------



## Ethereality

tdc said:


> I don't think Bach's use of harmony has been surpassed in terms of the vertical aspects, Debussy I think has come closest to equalling his harmonic genius. The classicists I do think deserve credit primarily for their expanded sense of drama *(which relates also to their use of rhythm) their horizontal contributions to harmony and form, which certainly are impressive*. I think Mozart of all composers probably had the best sense of balanced long range harmony within sonata form. Beethoven of course also excelled in this area.


Interesting perspective. I think Beethoven's harmonies (and perhaps Brahms's 60 years later) are the most impressive overall due to this understanding of their implication within the whole form of music, what you call horizontal. Then where classical and romantic finally broke away, it can be argued that harmony hasn't suffered very much since then. Bach has simply given much more intelligence and perfection to it all. Beethoven is the one who truly _mastered_ harmony though in my estimation, which was not necessarily about him being as creative and diverse as Bach, but about him being true to music as a complete form. Perhaps we have different definitions of 'mastering,' as in, the term for you means one composer mastered aspect (A) of music, then another came along and mastered (B). While this holds true in a lesser sense of mastery, we forget that Beethoven is the one who kind of did it all with one stone, much more unequivocally. Obviously my opinion, but one others would argue. It's as though a higher level of musical understanding naturally flows to harmonic mastery, one you can't have with just counterpoint and creativity.


----------



## tdc

janxharris said:


> What would you cite as an example of Bach's harmonic excellence? I am astonished that you don't consider his harmony as having been surpassed...though I probably haven't heard as much of his music as yourself.


I hear harmonic excellence throughout his oeuvre. It might be helpful to remember when listening to Bach that he is using harmony as his primary vehicle for expressivity, as opposed to dynamic contrasts or rhythmic dramatic gestures. If you look at how much popular music uses dynamics/loudness and rhythm as its major method of expressivity I believe this is related to the fact that using harmony is actually a more advanced, and sophisticated approach to musical expression - it is more difficult to do.

There are a couple examples of Bach's sophisticated harmony that is ahead of its time in this video by Rick Beato:


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> I hear harmonic excellence throughout his oeuvre. It might be helpful to remember when listening to Bach that he is using harmony as his primary vehicle for expressivity, as opposed to dynamic contrasts or rhythmic dramatic gestures. If you look at how much popular music uses dynamics/loudness and rhythm as its major method of expressivity I believe this is related to the fact that using harmony is actually a more advanced, and sophisticated approach to musical expression - it is more difficult to do.
> 
> There are a couple examples of Bach's sophisticated harmony that is ahead of its time in this video by Rick Beato:


The chord that Rick highlights at the beginning of Cantata 54 is indeed startling for the time.


----------



## Ethereality

Interesting video. Based on my familiarity with Bach's work, I'm considering that the complexity of his compositions (ie. more variations, creativity, the higher speeds at which these develop) are getting to people often more than the harmonic_ mastery_ or _utility_ sculpted therein, when compared to the composers after him. I think a perfect mastery of harmony involves too mastering the interconnectivity of supporting musical features, as this gives definition to _the means_ by which something is being mastered. I'm certainly familiar with Bach's genius and whole impact to music, but I believe harmony's use has been done much more skillfully and sophisticatedly, as one might say, by the horizontal approach to composition. As noted, this may come down to what our definition of real mastery is.


----------



## mikeh375

Pondering this further, MR implies that Mozart's thematic material may have been different if his approach to composing was more contrapuntal. I feel there could be a case made for this, but absolutely not to the detriment of Bach nor even comparison with Bach. 

Generally and superficially speaking, Mozart's approach to material has a freer, broader lyricism to it, the rhetoric often feeling more expansive in scope. Counterpoint on the other hand is less able to roam in terms of intervals, range and Bach's style of counterpoint needs more concise, recognisable rhythm and motifs. Also, one needs to think ahead more so in a contrapuntal environment whilst composing than one does in lyrical mode. Mozart's work will often exploit harmony as a rhythmic arpeggio (eg, the beginning of Eine Kleine Nacht Musick), whereas Bach might generally speaking, prefer stepwise movement to favour the linear interplay to ease complications when merging thematic/motivic material - double and triple counterpoint needing careful attention. So in a way there is a sort of technical restriction, but that depends on your aesthetic point of view. Composers embrace both modes as and when they see fit.

I'm groping a bit here, going on a gut feeling without any real score consultation other than what I know already, but there might be something in it after all....any takers for this line of thinking?


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> I understand the differences between Bach's and Mozart's treatment of harmony pretty well. I'm trying to understand why you think Mozart's represents an advance.


Music DID become more harmonically complex after Bach (sevenths, ninths), but Mozart simply represents the newer harmonic way of thinking in a more stylistic way. Bach's figured-bass thinking would have become unwieldy, according to respected authors already mentioned: in the introduction of the book "Essay on the True Art of Keyboard Playing" by C.P.E. Bach, the authors admit that Bach's thorough bass practice would become unwieldy as more chords were added to the harmonic collection. Rameau's 'root system' was far smaller and easier to work with.

Mozart's harmonic approach sounds more like other music which follows: Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Rachmanninoff, etc. In this way, it sounds like later Western music. If you want to argue that Bach is just as harmonically advanced, that's fine, but it's not really the point I'm making.

In other words, for what I'm saying to make sense, you are forced to recognize the counterpoint style of Bach for what it is, and how it earned its monicker as "the old style." As I said, this is not a "dis" of Bach; merely a recognition of the differences between contrapuntal and harmonic thinking.


----------



## isorhythm

^I think I accept your broader point here. You might be interested in the introduction to Charles Rosen's _The Classical Style_ where talks about this in detail.

I think figured bass vs. Rameau's number system is a red herring. I believe Mozart disparaged Rameau's system in a letter to his father, though I can't find the reference now (I think it might be in _The Classical Style_, actually.) I don't think Mozart "thought in" Roman numeral chords any more than Bach "thought in" figured bass - they thought in music.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> ^I think I accept your broader point here. You might be interested in the introduction to Charles Rosen's _The Classical Style_ where talks about this in detail.
> 
> I think figured bass vs. Rameau's number system is a red herring. I believe Mozart disparaged Rameau's system in a letter to his father, though I can't find the reference now (I think it might be in _The Classical Style_, actually.) I don't think Mozart "thought in" Roman numeral chords any more than Bach "thought in" figured bass - they thought in music.


Hmmm...I've been listening to Mozart's piano sonatas, and I can hear differences with Bach. There are way more "isolated" melodies accompanied by chords in Mozart. The melody is perceived as a separate entity, and the chords seem more separate and "blocked in." You don't hear that? It's called _homophony._


----------



## Phil loves classical

mikeh375 said:


> Pondering this further, MR implies that Mozart's thematic material may have been different if his approach to composing was more contrapuntal. I feel there could be a case made for this, but absolutely not to the detriment of Bach nor even comparison with Bach.
> 
> Generally and superficially speaking, Mozart's approach to material has a freer, broader lyricism to it, the rhetoric often feeling more expansive in scope. Counterpoint on the other hand is less able to roam in terms of intervals, range and Bach's style of counterpoint needs more concise, recognisable rhythm and motifs. Also, one needs to think ahead more so in a contrapuntal environment whilst composing than one does in lyrical mode. Mozart's work will often exploit harmony as a rhythmic arpeggio (eg, the beginning of Eine Kleine Nacht Musick), whereas Bach might generally speaking, prefer stepwise movement to favour the linear interplay to ease complications when merging thematic/motivic material - double and triple counterpoint needing careful attention. So in a way there is a sort of technical restriction, but that depends on your aesthetic point of view. Composers embrace both modes as and when they see fit.
> 
> I'm groping a bit here, going on a gut feeling without any real score consultation other than what I know already, but there might be something in it after all....any takers for this line of thinking?


I think Mozart uses more passing notes like in his scale runs in his piano concertos, more rhythmically varied, and focuses on harmonizing more on the triad or chord (as does Beethoven and Telemann) over longer stretches than Bach, which gives it its lyricism. Bach's counterpoint includes more 2nds and 7ths, and has more emphasis on the shorter term, and more chord changes over a given period of time. That's my gut feel.


----------



## Bwv 1080

You all are just hitting on stylistic differences between Baroque and Classical styles that have little or nothing to do with Rameau. Classical has a slower harmonic rhythm, greater use of figurations (like Alberti bass) and more rhythmically varied phrasing. If anything, the harmonies are simpler, not more complex, with late Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven as outliers.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Hmmm...I've been listening to Mozart's piano sonatas, and I can hear differences with Bach. There are way more "isolated" melodies accompanied by chords in Mozart. The melody is perceived as a separate entity, and the chords seem more separate and "blocked in." You don't hear that? It's called _homophony._


I genuinely can't tell if this is supposed to be a joke and/or insult.

Taking it at face value...yes, I can hear this lol.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> I genuinely can't tell if this is supposed to be a joke and/or insult.
> 
> Taking it at face value...yes, I can hear this lol.


Well, when you make statements like "_I don't think Mozart "thought in" Roman numeral chords any more than Bach "thought in" figured bass - they thought in music," _you sound off-subject, as if you are "defending" one or the other, and as if the differences in their approaches was something you wished to avoid.


----------



## MarkW

I think you're restating the distinction between Baoque and Classical in the evolution of Westerm music that has been accepoted for 150+ years.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Well, when you make statements like "_I don't think Mozart "thought in" Roman numeral chords any more than Bach "thought in" figured bass - they thought in music," _you sound off-subject, as if you are "defending" one or the other, and as if the differences in their approaches was something you wished to avoid.


No idea how you would get that from anything I wrote.

The difference between Bach's polyphony and Mozart's melody with accompaniment is basically how you would explain the difference between the Baroque and Classical styles to small children, and indeed is readily audible to small children.

I assumed you were trying to get at something a little deeper about harmony with this thread.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Remember homophony and the idea of chords as entities music began with the baroque, not the classical period- it was the main stylistic difference between composers like Monteverdi and the late Renaissance. Figured base is not polyphony it is a system of chord nomenclature.


----------



## isorhythm

Bwv 1080 said:


> Remember homophony and the idea of chords as entities music began with the baroque, not the classical period- it was the main stylistic difference between composers like Monteverdi and the late Renaissance. Figured base is not polyphony it is a system of chord nomenclature.


I was going to say something like this earlier but I think you can make the case that figured bass is more closely linked to counterpoint than the Roman numeral system? At least I think that's what million meant.


----------



## Bwv 1080

isorhythm said:


> I was going to say something like this earlier but I think you can make the case that figured bass is more closely linked to counterpoint than the Roman numeral system? At least I think that's what million meant.


Figured bass communicates conventions in voice leading, but it is a chordal system. There was no change from this in the 18th or 19th centuries - common practice harmony retained all the figured bass, it just added the chord nomenclature to it, so rather than the bass notes G G C with 6/4 7 written over the first two notes, as it would be written in the Baroque, in the 19th century you have now I6/4 V7 I.


----------



## EdwardBast

Bwv 1080 said:


> Figured bass communicates conventions in voice leading, but it is a chordal system. There was no change from this in the 18th or 19th centuries - common practice harmony retained all the figured bass, it just added the chord nomenclature to it, so rather than the bass notes G G C with 6/4 7 written over the first two notes, as it would be written in the Baroque, in the 19th century you have now I6/4 V7 I.


Exactly. This is what I was driving at in #15. We all still use figured bass in teaching and learning basic theory.



tdc said:


> There are a couple examples of Bach's sophisticated harmony that is ahead of its time in this video by Rick Beato:


Rick Beato has trouble distinguishing sophisticated counterpoint from sophisticated harmony. He is not a good source for this sort of analysis.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

tdc said:


> I hear harmonic excellence throughout his oeuvre. It might be helpful to remember when listening to Bach that he is using harmony as his primary vehicle for expressivity, as opposed to dynamic contrasts or rhythmic dramatic gestures. *If you look at how much popular music uses dynamics/loudness and rhythm as its major method of expressivity I believe this is related to the fact that using harmony is actually a more advanced, and sophisticated approach to musical expression - it is more difficult to do.*


I don't find that measuring advancement, sophistication, or difficulty/complexity is a good measure of expressivity at all. Just because something is easier to and requires less learning to achieve doesn't, in any way, limit the power of end result; and I think that goes for just about everything in life. The fact that we even look at things like difficulty in art is more indicative to me of our instincts for competition rather than a desire to be expressive. This is not saying that advanced/sophisticated/difficult-to-do harmonies can't be extremely expressive--obviously Bach proves they can be--but the fact that many composers (and other musicians/artist) didn't utilize them but still managed to be profoundly expressive is evidence that they're not the be-all, end-all method.


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> Rick Beato has trouble distinguishing sophisticated counterpoint from sophisticated harmony. He is not a good source for this sort of analysis.


Actually I find him a very good source because he looks at music holistically. He is interested and has studied various forms of music so his views aren't narrowly defined by one way of thinking. He touches on this in the video actually when he mentions that some people try to suggest Bach's harmonies were somehow less advanced because he was just using 'suspensions' and not chords. I think this kind of pedantry obfuscates the issue. What is more important is the sounds he achieved, not the technical method he was using.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> Figured bass communicates conventions in voice leading, but it is a chordal system. There was no change from this in the 18th or 19th centuries - common practice harmony retained all the figured bass, it just added the chord nomenclature to it, so rather than the bass notes G G C with 6/4 7 written over the first two notes, as it would be written in the Baroque, in the 19th century you have now I6/4 V7 I.


Yes, but I'm asking you to see the differences, not the similarities. That's why "Baroque" is "Baroque", unless you see this as strictly a chronological designation, which you probably do, but will proceed to deny.


----------



## tdc

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't find that measuring advancement, sophistication, or difficulty/complexity is a good measure of expressivity at all. Just because something is easier to and requires less learning to achieve doesn't, in any way, limit the power of end result; and I think that goes for just about everything in life. The fact that we even look at things like difficulty in art is more indicative to me of our instincts for competition rather than a desire to be expressive. This is not saying that advanced/sophisticated/difficult-to-do harmonies can't be extremely expressive--obviously Bach proves they can be--but the fact that many composers (and other musicians/artist) didn't utilize them but still managed to be profoundly expressive is evidence that they're not the be-all, end-all method.


I absolutely agree that difficulty and complexity itself is not _that_ important, but it does play a role, I think these things are about striking a balance. You have said something similar in the past that one thing that draws you to heavy metal is the high level of musicianship. This is tied into the difficulty concept.

I only mentioned this at all because some people bring up rhythmic advancements in music as a way of perhaps suggesting Bach's music was too simplistic in this aspect. I was just pointing out that what the classicists did with rhythm and what Bach did with counterpoint are not equal musical achievements. It is relatively easy to be rhythmically complex in music compared to mastering counterpoint.


----------



## millionrainbows

_Figured bass communicates conventions in voice leading, but it is a chordal system. There was no change from this in the 18th or 19th centuries - common practice harmony retained all the figured bass, it just added the chord nomenclature to it, so rather than the bass notes G G C with 6/4 7 written over the first two notes, as it would be written in the Baroque, in the 19th century you have now I6/4 V7 I._



EdwardBast said:


> Exactly. This is what I was driving at in #15. We all still use figured bass in teaching and learning basic theory.


Well, Bach did not recognize or acknowledge chord inversions. His figured bass method only recognizes specific forms of harmonic stacks. This is needlessly tedious, and a whole level of abstraction, which elegantly identifies a "C major" as a "C major," regardless of the inversion, is absent. By this, Bach was not interested in chord progressions or harmony, but only in identifying specific textures created as the result of voice movement. This is for counterpoint, and things have moved on. 
Also, it seems to be an after-the-fact identifier of voicing, not an identifier of chords in a key which would be useful in creating progressions.


----------



## Bwv 1080

millionrainbows said:


> _Bach was not interested in chord progressions or harmony, but only in identifying specific textures created as the result of voice movement. This is for counterpoint, and things have moved on.
> Also, it seems to be an after-the-fact identifier of voicing, not an identifier of chords in a key which would be useful in creating progressions._


_

Bach was not interested in chord progressions or harmony??? Have you played any of his music? Most everything is within the framework of clear chord progressions. Look at the solo violin or cello sonatas - every line has an implied underlying chord progression, same with the fugues. Like with the LCC, you are extrapolating a rather trivial issue way beyond any reasonable conclusion. Yes there were some differences in theoretical views between Rameau and CPE Bach that actually stretched all the way to Schenker taking up CPE's linear flag in the 19th century, but it is not that big of a deal. You seem to be looking for grand theories of music that just don't exist._


----------



## premont

Concerning Bach it feels futile to discuss harmony versus counterpoint, because these two concepts melt so perfectly together in his music, that it is difficult to tell which of them came first to his mind, when he composed. One can say that he had a holistic view upon music.


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> Actually I find him a very good source because he looks at music holistically. He is interested and has studied various forms of music so his views aren't narrowly defined by one way of thinking. He touches on this in the video actually when he mentions that some people try to suggest Bach's harmonies were somehow less advanced because he was just using 'suspensions' and not chords. I think this kind of pedantry obfuscates the issue. What is more important is the sounds he achieved, not the technical method he was using.


No, Beato's interpretation of Bach is anachronistic and wrong. He can't seem to tell linear/contrapuntal phenomena from harmonic ones. For the most part, the exotic "harmonies" he describes aren't harmonies, they are the result of underlying chords he misinterprets combined with dissonances resulting from non-harmonic tones. What is advanced in these cases isn't Bach's harmonic language, it's his linear treatment of dissonance.


----------



## Mandryka

premont said:


> Concerning Bach it feels futile to discuss harmony versus counterpoint, because these two concepts melt so perfectly together in his music, that it is difficult to tell which of them came first to his mind, when he composed. One can say that he had a holistic view upon music.





EdwardBast said:


> No, Beato's interpretation of Bach is anachronistic and wrong. He can't seem to tell linear/contrapuntal phenomena from harmonic ones. For the most part, the exotic "harmonies" he describes aren't harmonies, they are the result of underlying chords he misinterprets combined with dissonances resulting from non-harmonic tones. What is advanced in these cases isn't Bach's harmonic language, it's his linear treatment of dissonance.


I just want to check I'm following the arguments here,

I think these two postulates aren't compatible. That's to say, Edward believes that in Bach the contrapuntal thinking dominates. That may sometimes result in interesting dissonance, but nevertheless it's the independence of the voices which is driving the music's construction, not the harmonic patterns.


----------



## mikeh375

I totally agree with Edward. My fugal studies taught me that the impetus in Bach's linear thinking often over-ruled the vertical, it just so happens that when it did there was glorious sounding (innovative too) vertical happenstance.


----------



## Mandryka

mikeh375 said:


> My fugal studies taught me that the impetus in Bach's linear thinking often over-ruled the vertical, it just so happens that when it did there was glorious sounding (innovative too) vertical happenstance.


It would be nice to have an example of that.

My favourite contrapuntal exercise by Bach is this duetto, which starts out very tame, like a parody of gallant music, and then has an extreme contrapuntal section and then . . . does what exactly?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Mandryka said:


> I just want to check I'm following the arguments here,
> 
> I think these two postulates aren't compatible. That's to say, Edward believes that in Bach the contrapuntal thinking dominates. That may sometimes result in interesting dissonance, but nevertheless it's the independence of the voices which is driving the music's construction, not the harmonic patterns.


And how is that also not true of, say, the opening of K.465?


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Well, Bach did not recognize or acknowledge chord inversions. His figured bass method only recognizes specific forms of harmonic stacks. This is needlessly tedious, and a whole level of abstraction, which elegantly identifies a "C major" as a "C major," regardless of the inversion, is absent. By this, Bach was not interested in chord progressions or harmony, but only in identifying specific textures created as the result of voice movement. This is for counterpoint, and things have moved on.
> Also, it seems to be an after-the-fact identifier of voicing, not an identifier of chords in a key which would be useful in creating progressions.




Every sentence in the above is erroneous. The errors have already been amply discussed above. Let's try again taking one sentence at a time:

Well, Bach did not recognize or acknowledge chord inversions.

Bach recognized there were different ways one could vertically arrange the pitches of triads and he recognized that each arrangement had to be treated differently. So do modern theory books, in case you haven't noticed. Figured bass symbols more simply and elegantly indicate inversions than Roman numeral analysis; The term or concept of inversion would not have been useful or particularly meaningful in his style so why would he adopt it?

His figured bass method only recognizes specific forms of harmonic stacks.

Figured bass doesn't recognize anything. It's just a compositional shorthand, not a method of functional analysis. Comparing it to later analytic methods just confirms that you don't understand what figured bass fundamentally is.

This is needlessly tedious, and a whole level of abstraction, which elegantly identifies a "C major" as a "C major," regardless of the inversion, is absent.

As BMW 1080 has shown, all the figures Bach used in his figured bass are still used in modern functional analyses of the same passages. Why can't you get it through your head that "identifying a C major as a C major, regardless of the inversion" is almost always a mistake in functional analysis?

In the key of C major this vertical arrangement of pitches is usually not a C major (tonic) chord, but rather a dominant chord with unresolved non-harmonic tones, or the result of neighbor or passing motions:

E 
C
G

This arrangement, likewise, is often not a tonic chord:

C
G
E

Why would Bach use a term like inversion that tends to obscure distinctions, like the above, that were essential in his style?

By this, Bach was not interested in chord progressions or harmony, but only in identifying specific textures created as the result of voice movement.

In his use of figured bass Bach was interested in one thing: that the right pitches be played above the bass note. Using this shorthand indicates nothing about his interest in chord progressions or anything else. Obviously, Bach's music is governed by clear and rational harmonic progressions.

This is for counterpoint, and things have moved on. 

Wrong. The same figures Bach used are still in use in every modern harmony text.

Also, it seems to be an after-the-fact identifier of voicing, not an identifier of chords in a key which would be useful in creating progressions.

No, it is a before the fact indicator of what damned pitches to play!


----------



## EdwardBast

Mandryka said:


> I think these two postulates aren't compatible. That's to say, Edward believes that in Bach the contrapuntal thinking dominates. That may sometimes result in interesting dissonance, but nevertheless *it's the independence of the voices which is driving the music's construction, not the harmonic patterns.*


That's not my position. The underlying harmonic patterns drive the sense of forward motion, the linear dissonances inflect it in interesting ways, adding urgency, tension and beauty. IMO.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> Bach was not interested in chord progressions or harmony???


Bach was not interested in chord progressions or harmony _per se._


----------



## millionrainbows

premont said:


> Concerning Bach it feels futile to discuss harmony versus counterpoint, because these two concepts melt so perfectly together in his music, that it is difficult to tell which of them came first to his mind, when he composed. One can say that he had a holistic view upon music.


Yes, but the thread is asking you to see the differences, not the similarities.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> No, Beato's interpretation of Bach is anachronistic and wrong. He can't seem to tell linear/contrapuntal phenomena from harmonic ones. For the most part, the exotic "harmonies" he describes aren't harmonies, they are the result of underlying chords he misinterprets combined with dissonances resulting from non-harmonic tones. What is advanced in these cases isn't Bach's harmonic language, it's his linear treatment of dissonance.


Anybody who has read your posts would know that you wouldn't like Rich Beato, because he is creative and flexible in his thinking. You are always opposed to those kinds of thinkers.


----------



## premont

EdwardBast said:


> That's not my position. The underlying harmonic patterns drive the sense of forward motion, the linear dissonances inflect it in interesting ways, adding urgency, tension and beauty. IMO.


When Bach had got a subject to improvise a fugue upon, he began in his mind to seek out all the ways the subject could be combined, inverted and so on, before he started to play. You know the famous story (from Forkel, I think) where Bach and his son CPE attend a recital by another organist, and they compete about first telling each other which combinations of the subject the organist would use. In such cases it seems as if the counterpoint is more decisive for the harmonic progression than the other way round, but generally with Bach I think they are deeply interwoven. I do not subscribe to the claim, that Bach's music isn't but filled out harmonies.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> It would be nice to have an example of that.
> 
> My favourite contrapuntal exercise by Bach is this duetto, which starts out very tame, like a parody of gallant music, and then has an extreme contrapuntal section and then . . . does what exactly?


And then .. it repeats the first "gallant" section.

An example, where linear thinking (thematic imitation) overrules the harmonic thinking is the end measures of the second great Kyrie in CÛ III (BWV 671) creating very strong dissonances.


----------



## robin4

millionrainbows said:


> Bach was not interested in chord progressions or harmony _per se._


https://musescore.com/user/1982711/scores/1263241

WTC

Book 1, Prelude 1 in C Major

I see chord progressions and harmony.

I see no counterpoint.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

tdc said:


> I absolutely agree that difficulty and complexity itself is not _that_ important, but it does play a role, I think these things are about striking a balance. *You have said something similar in the past that one thing that draws you to heavy metal is the high level of musicianship. This is tied into the difficulty concept.*
> 
> I only mentioned this at all because some people bring up rhythmic advancements in music as a way of perhaps suggesting Bach's music was too simplistic in this aspect. I was just pointing out that what the classicists did with rhythm and what Bach did with counterpoint are not equal musical achievements. It is relatively easy to be rhythmically complex in music compared to mastering counterpoint.


This is something I find easier to appreciate with regards to musicians rather than composers. In metal, the musicians _are_ the composers so there's no separating them like one can in classical. In classical, I can appreciate the talent of a pianist like Marc Andre Hamelin even if I'm not a fan of whatever composer he's playing. As I mentioned in the Atonal thread, it's a factor I can appreciate, but it would not be enough for me to like the music if that's all I felt it had going for it.

What you mention about rhythm vs harmony is a good point of illustration. In general, I care more about rhythm than I do about harmony. To me, rhythm is the most primal aspect of music that reaches as far back to our collective unconscious as music can (long before we even made music we felt the rhythms of time; our heartbeats, footsteps, etc.). A big reason that I still listen to rock/pop/metal/jazz at all is because I crave the rhythm that drums/beats can create. Hell, lately I've been watching YouTube drum cam videos of various artists/bands. I've just got rhythm in my soul in a way that harmony is not:





This isn't, of course, to say that harmony is unimportant or inferior, but I absolutely reject the claim that it's superior merely because advanced usage of it is more complex/difficult.


----------



## hammeredklavier

robin4 said:


> https://musescore.com/user/1982711/scores/1263241
> 
> WTC
> 
> Book 1, Prelude 1 in C Major
> 
> I see chord progressions and harmony.
> 
> I see no counterpoint.


also his chorales mostly consist of chord progressions and harmony


----------



## millionrainbows

This completes my five volumes of Glenn Gould Jubilee Edition: Mozart, The Piano Sonatas Vol. 1.

The more I listen to these sonatas, the more I realize that this music would not be possible if Mozart had been stuck in the old counterpoint way of thinking.

Melodic figures exist independently, melodies proliferate freely. The music can now be more gestural, dramatic, and playful. Melodic figurations can now be employed and exploited.


View attachment 124004


----------



## millionrainbows

robin4 said:


> https://musescore.com/user/1982711/scores/1263241
> 
> WTC
> 
> Book 1, Prelude 1 in C Major
> 
> I see chord progressions and harmony.
> 
> I see no counterpoint.


Remember the qualifier _per se._ This prelude is an odd example, grasping at straws. It's really not "melodic" in the familiar sense; it seems to be a series of figurations which are relatively static. It seems here that Bach was outlining a harmonic scheme, but with no real "melody" _per se._

I don't call this "harmonic thinking" so much as an etude-like demonstration of what harmonic changes of one note can do. The changes are always of one note or so, closely adjacent to what precedes. In this sense, it is counterpoint, not "blocks" of harmony.


----------



## tdc

Eva Yojimbo said:


> This is something I find easier to appreciate with regards to musicians rather than composers. In metal, the musicians _are_ the composers so there's no separating them like one can in classical. In classical, I can appreciate the talent of a pianist like Marc Andre Hamelin even if I'm not a fan of whatever composer he's playing. As I mentioned in the Atonal thread, it's a factor I can appreciate, but it would not be enough for me to like the music if that's all I felt it had going for it.
> 
> What you mention about rhythm vs harmony is a good point of illustration. In general, I care more about rhythm than I do about harmony. To me, rhythm is the most primal aspect of music that reaches as far back to our collective unconscious as music can (long before we even made music we felt the rhythms of time; our heartbeats, footsteps, etc.). A big reason that I still listen to rock/pop/metal/jazz at all is because I crave the rhythm that drums/beats can create. Hell, lately I've been watching YouTube drum cam videos of various artists/bands. I've just got rhythm in my soul in a way that harmony is not:
> 
> This isn't, of course, to say that harmony is unimportant or inferior, but I absolutely reject the claim that it's superior merely because advanced usage of it is more complex/difficult.


The source of the rhythms used by the classicists derives from early opera buffa composers, it is actually not something that originated with Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven. The classical style in its origins is a comic style, and this is why it can be perceived as more gestural and playful, in its very nature it is less 'serious' than the contrapuntal approach by Bach.

The steadier rhythms typically found in Bach, I find symbolic of a steady heartbeat, the regular movement of the planets, the divine order of the universe. As you admit yourself complexity in itself does not equate to superiority, I find Bach's steady use of rhythm highly effective and perfect for his style of composition. The majority of the most popular music today features steady rhythms. Bach's use of complex harmony with more straight forward rhythms is part of why I feel his music is so effective. It provides a balance between complexity and simplicity and from my perspective allows him to say more in less time than later composers who relied heavily on the devices of sonata form, more dependent on time, and harmonically weakened at the local level. There is no arguing that the large scale use of harmony by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven is highly impressive, but to my tastes less effective than Bach's approach. That said I do consider Mozart as equal to Bach, because his compositional temperament was perfectly suited to the classical style and his keen sense of harmonic subtlety allowed a perfect contrast and balance between light and shade, the playful and melancholy. He was also the most adept in counterpoint among the classicists.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

tdc said:


> The source of the rhythms used by the classicists derives from early opera buffa composers, it is actually not something that originated with Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven. The classical style in its origins is a comic style, and this is why it can be perceived as more gestural and playful, in its very nature it is less 'serious' than the counterpuntal approach by Bach.
> 
> The steadier rhythms typically found in Bach, I find symbolic of a steady heartbeat, the regular movement of the planets, the divine order of the universe. As you admit yourself complexity in itself does not equate to superiority, I find Bach's steady use of rhythm highly effective and perfect for his style of composition. The majority of the most popular music today features steady rhythms. Bach's use of complex harmony with more straight forward rhythms is part of why I feel his music is so effective. It provides a balance between complexity and simplicity and from my perspective allows him to say more in less time than later composers who relied heavily on the devices of sonata form, more dependent on time, and harmonically weakened at the local level. There is no arguing that the large scale use of harmony by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven is highly impressive, but to my tastes less effective than Bach's approach. That said I do consider Mozart as equal to Bach, because his compositional temperament was perfectly suited to the classical style and his keen sense of harmonic subtlety allowed a perfect contrast and balance between light and shade, the playful and melancholy. He was also the most adept in counterpoint among the classicists.


Besides our different tastes/preferences I don't really disagree with any points you're making here. In terms of rhythm, I can appreciate steady 4/4 and 3/4 as much as the next guy, but sometimes it's fun to hear odd time signatures, or polyrhythms, or polymeters, or even the illusions of such. As one YouTube jazz drummer said when reacting to Meshuggah: "you could feel this in like 4 different ways." That stuff's cool too, at least as a spicy alternative to steady rhythms (whether they be found in Bach or Bieber).


----------



## hammeredklavier

As the above example, I can tell homophony apart from polyphony in Bach, as in sections such as 8:35





Mozart is famously known for being harmonic,
3:32
10:38
20:20
but often there are bits like these that are not a fugue (unlike the section at 13:07), 
but still strike me as being contrapuntally-driven.





9:13
10:37





Generally there's more contrapuntal moments, fugues, canons (a lot of intricate skills and tricks in AOTF) in Bach than Handel and Mozart, but I find that generally when Bach chooses to be harmonic, he's just harmonic, like them. When he chooses to be contrapuntal, he's contrapuntal, like them.
I don't agree with the notion, "even in his most harmonic moments, Bach is contrapuntal, unlike Handel and Mozart".

There's no basis for claiming the beginning of Bach Brandenburg Concerto No.6 is more contrapuntally-driven than that of Mozart String Quintet in C K515, for example.

btw, I think people often neglect how Bach is also a master of monophony as much as he is of homophony and polyphony, as demonstrated in the unaccompanied cello suites, sonatas and partitas for violin


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> As the above example, I can tell homophony apart from polyphony in Bach, as in sections such as 8:35
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mozart is famously known for being harmonic,
> 3:32
> 10:38
> 20:20
> but often there are bits like these that are not a fugue (unlike the section at 13:07),
> but still strike me as being contrapuntally-driven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9:13
> 10:37
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally there's more contrapuntal moments, fugues, canons (a lot of intricate skills and tricks in AOTF) in Bach than Handel and Mozart, but I find that generally when Bach chooses to be harmonic, he's just harmonic, like them. When he chooses to be contrapuntal, he's contrapuntal, like them.
> I don't agree with the notion, "even in his most harmonic moments, Bach is contrapuntal, unlike Handel and Mozart".
> 
> There's no basis for claiming the beginning of Bach Brandenburg Concerto No.6 is more contrapuntally-driven than that of Mozart String Quintet in C K515, for example.
> 
> btw, I think people often neglect how Bach is also a master of monophony as much as he is of homophony and polyphony, as demonstrated in the unaccompanied cello suites, sonatas and partitas for violin


Bravo! Good examples well presented.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> The source of the rhythms used by the classicists derives from early opera buffa composers, it is actually not something that originated with Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven. The classical style in its origins is a comic style, and this is why it can be perceived as more gestural and playful, in its very nature it is less 'serious' than the contrapuntal approach by Bach.
> 
> The steadier rhythms typically found in Bach, I find symbolic of a steady heartbeat, the regular movement of the planets, the divine order of the universe. As you admit yourself complexity in itself does not equate to superiority, I find Bach's steady use of rhythm highly effective and perfect for his style of composition. The majority of the most popular music today features steady rhythms. Bach's use of complex harmony with more straight forward rhythms is part of why I feel his music is so effective. It provides a balance between complexity and simplicity and from my perspective allows him to say more in less time than later composers who relied heavily on the devices of sonata form, more dependent on time, and harmonically weakened at the local level. There is no arguing that the large scale use of harmony by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven is highly impressive, but to my tastes less effective than Bach's approach. That said I do consider Mozart as equal to Bach, because his compositional temperament was perfectly suited to the classical style and his keen sense of harmonic subtlety allowed a perfect contrast and balance between light and shade, the playful and melancholy. He was also the most adept in counterpoint among the classicists.


At least tdc seems to _vaguely_ recognize the differences in harmonic and contrapuntal thinking, and mention these. The rest of it seems to be a "defense" of Bach, which is not the point of this thread. Anyone who listens to Mozart's piano sonatas should be expected to hear the differences: spare textures, isolated melodies against triads, arpeggios for arpeggio's sake, melodic figurations in the left hand which have nothing to do with counterpoint, "block" statements of triads, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *Mandryka* 
_I think these two postulates aren't compatible. That's to say, Edward believes that in Bach the contrapuntal thinking dominates. That may sometimes result in interesting dissonance, but nevertheless *it's the independence of the voices which is driving the music's construction, not the harmonic patterns.*_



EdwardBast said:


> That's not my position. The underlying harmonic patterns drive the sense of forward motion, the linear dissonances inflect it in interesting ways, adding urgency, tension and beauty. IMO.


"Underlying harmonic patterens" in Bach are the result of voice movement.

"Linear dissonances" is a distraction, since sonance is relative.

The "independence of the voices which are driving the music's construction" clearly describes counterpoint, not harmonic block-chord thinking.


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> Anyone who listens to Mozart's piano sonatas should be expected to hear the differences: spare textures, isolated melodies against triads, arpeggios for arpeggio's sake, melodic figurations in the left hand which have nothing to do with counterpoint, "block" statements of triads, etc.


but then even in the piano sonatas, there are the late ones K533, K570, K576, which make ample use of imitation, stretto techniques


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> At least tdc seems to _vaguely_* recognize the differences in harmonic and contrapuntal thinking, and mention these. The rest of it seems to be a "defense" of Bach, which is not the point of this thread. A*nyone who listens to Mozart's piano sonatas should be expected to hear the differences: spare textures, isolated melodies against triads, arpeggios for arpeggio's sake, melodic figurations in the left hand which have nothing to do with counterpoint, "block" statements of triads, etc.


I also touched on it in post 25....just sayin'


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> but then even in the piano sonatas, there are the late ones K533, K570, K576, which make ample use of imitation, stretto techniques


But surely you can hear that this is not counterpoint? Listen to the left hand, people!


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> But surely you can hear that this is not counterpoint? Listen to the left hand, people!


Yes, this is mostly harmonic. I was saying that while there's more purely contrapuntal pieces and passages in Bach than Mozart, -- Bach (who is known mostly as a "contrapuntist") also has moments that are result of 'harmonic thinking'. Mozart (who is known mostly as a "harmonist") also has moments that are contrapuntally-driven.






There are also moments like these in Mozart that are explainable in terms of the Handel example above, 
in terms how he switches between contrapuntal thinking and harmonic thinking.

0:30
1:12
2:36
4:40
5:23
and so on..


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, this is mostly harmonic. I was saying that while there's more purely contrapuntal pieces and passages in Bach than Mozart, -- *Bach* (who is known mostly as a "contrapuntist") *also has moments that are result of 'harmonic thinking'. *Mozart (who is known mostly as a "harmonist") also has moments that are contrapuntally-driven.


I don't think that Bach conceived of his compositions in terms of "blocks of harmony" or "areas of harmony" that were clearly defined as such. I think that the _appearance_ of such thinking to the listener is simply serendipity, the result of single voices crossing and aligning.

Mozart, by comparison, is _blatantly_ harmonic and homophonic.


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> also his chorales mostly consist of chord progressions and harmony


No, not "chord progressions," because chorale melodies are essentially "monophony set to harmony."

Chorales use a pre-existing melody, so this "automatically" makes a harmonization of it a necessarily separate thing, skewing it towards being seen as a homophonic conception. 
There is also a thing called "homophonic rhythm," in which all four voices coincide. This is probably closer to the way Bach conceived his "harmonizations" of these chorale melodies.
Do you think that a harmonization of a Gregorian chant theme would "change it" into a harmonic conception? I think not; this is just a harmonization of monophony.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> No, not "chord progressions," because chorale melodies are essentially "monophony set to harmony."
> 
> Chorales use a pre-existing melody, so this "automatically" makes a harmonization of it a necessarily separate thing, skewing it towards being seen as a homophonic conception.
> *There is also a thing called "homophonic rhythm," in which all four voices coincide. This is probably closer to the way Bach conceived his "harmonizations" of these chorale melodies.*
> Do you think that a harmonization of a Gregorian chant theme would "change it" into a harmonic conception? I think not; this is just a harmonization of monophony.


I don't see that MR. Bach was well aware of composing with the vertical and did so. The conclusion drawn from a homophonic element in the Riemenschneider (specifically rhythm), that you state above, is a red herring imv because these harmonisations are meant to be sung by an SATB choir - these tunes are arranged with a choir (and congregation) singing words in mind - simplicity is required. That is surely Bach's approach and besides, conceptually the harmonisations consist of passing notes and (contrapuntal/line) part writing which dispels any overt homophonic aspect. Bach was not thinking homophonically imv, to the extent you suggest, rather he was being practical and the essentially step wise motion and similarity of rhythm in the individual parts is good practice when writing chorally - no other explanation or assumption is needed as far as I can tell, the man was after all, a jobbing muso too.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Bach recognized there were different ways one could vertically arrange the pitches of triads and he recognized that each arrangement had to be treated differently.


This is a procedural method, having more to do with the mechanics of voice leading than with harmonic identity or identification. This is a "craft technique," not an abstract theoretical idea like Rameau's elegant inversion theory.



> Figured bass symbols more simply and elegantly indicate inversions than Roman numeral analysis; The term or concept of inversion would not have been useful or particularly meaningful in his style so why would he adopt it?


Okay then, figured bass only indicates placement of notes above a bass note, and does not identify it as a certain type of chord, such as C major. That's limited.



> Figured bass doesn't recognize anything.


Exactly!



> It's just a compositional shorthand, not a method of functional analysis. Comparing it to later analytic methods just confirms that you don't understand what figured bass fundamentally is.


No it doesn't; it shows that I recognize its craft-like mechanical limitations as a "main method" of doing anything. Remember, Bach rejected Rameau's idea of inversion. This would have held-back the development of musical analysis if we had not adapted to Rameau's more elegant ideas.



> As BMW 1080 has shown, all the figures Bach used in his figured bass are still used in modern functional analyses of the same passages.


But you just said that "figured bass doesn't recognize anything," and that "it's just a compositional shorthand, not a method of functional analysis."



> Comparing it to later analytic methods just confirms that you don't understand what figured bass fundamentally is.


Isn't this what you just got through doing? You can't have it both ways!



> Why can't you get it through your head that "identifying a C major as a C major, regardless of the inversion" is almost always a mistake in functional analysis? In the key of C major this vertical arrangement of pitches is usually not a C major (tonic) chord, but rather a dominant chord with unresolved non-harmonic tones, or the result of neighbor or passing motions: E
> CG ...This arrangement, likewise, is often not a tonic chord:CGE... Why would Bach use a term like inversion that tends to obscure distinctions, like the above, that were essential in his style?


These are exceptions, not the norm.

"Identifying a C major as a C major, regardless of the inversion" is almost always a mistake in functional analysis" makes no sense.



> In his use of figured bass Bach was interested in one thing: that the right pitches be played above the bass note. Using this shorthand indicates nothing about his interest in chord progressions or anything else.


You'e obfuscating, using overly-literal thinking to obscure the abstract truth of chord identification, which BTW turns out _not_ to be so "abstract:"
 
_To be a C major chord is simply to belong to this equivalency class - or in other words, to contain all and only the three pitch-classes C, E, and G. We can therefore represent the C major chord as the unordered set of pitch classes {C, E, G}. -Tymoczko, p. 36_



> Obviously, Bach's music is governed by clear and rational harmonic progressions.


But not his methodology.
Figured-bass numerals express distinct intervals in a chord only as they relate to the bass note _(not a root function). _*They make no reference to the key of the progression *(unlike Roman-numeral harmonic analysis).Because that would be "harmonic thinking."

Bach's methodology, and his way of thinking, is contrapuntal, and is NOT as clear and rational harmonically as you say it is.

This is misleading, and tends to lose its meaning in light of what you've said above. You seem to want to have it "both ways."

This figured-bass thinking was perhaps a method which worked its way into the stylistic arsenal of composers, and yes, they had to be handled in specific ways, but the abstracted convenience of thinking harmonically is still in evidence to modern analysts. Figured-bass tends to get bogged-down in voice-leading details which ignore a purer, freer abstract distillation of harmonic considerations. And as harmony got more complex, what happened to figured bass thinking? It failed, or rejected more complex harmony. Figured bass is an ideological artifact of a bygone way of thinking. We have bigger, more complex fish to fry.


----------



## isorhythm

EdwardBast said:


> No, Beato's interpretation of Bach is anachronistic and wrong. He can't seem to tell linear/contrapuntal phenomena from harmonic ones. For the most part, the exotic "harmonies" he describes aren't harmonies, they are the result of underlying chords he misinterprets combined with dissonances resulting from non-harmonic tones. What is advanced in these cases isn't Bach's harmonic language, it's his linear treatment of dissonance.


I don't know if he "can't tell," so much as he's putting forth an argument that they should be considered harmonies. Schoenberg said the same thing. I take no position, but it's not obviously crazy or wrong.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> The conclusion drawn from a homophonic element in the Riemenschneider (specifically rhythm), that you state above, is a red herring imv because these harmonisations are meant to be sung by an SATB choir - these tunes are arranged with a choir (and congregation) singing words in mind - simplicity is required.


The original homophonic melody that the choral is based on uses words, so that is also a "red-herring" given. To say that _"these tunes are arranged with a choir (and congregation) singing words in mind"_ is misleading; the original homophonic melody that the choral is based on was already designed for singing.



> Bach was not thinking homophonically imv, to the extent you suggest, rather he was being practical...


He was using a "chorale melody," so the net result is the same; and Bach had to adapt to it.



> ...and the essentially step wise motion and similarity of rhythm in the individual parts is good practice when writing chorally...


As well as when writing contrapuntally, as well as in _any _music which conveys a sense of tonality. You're not saying anything specific to your case.


----------



## tdc

The truth is different voicings of the same chord can sound very different, what voicing or what inversion of a chord is used can make a critical difference in how a piece of music sounds. It might make it easier in analysis to refer to many different combinations of C-E-G as a C major chord, but in reality there _are_ differences, and we are in a sense simplifying it for the sake of reducing complexity.

MR suggests the problem with figured bass is it becomes unwieldy, however figured bass recognizes the differences between different voicings of the same chord, Rameau's method does not. In this light Rameau's method can be seen to be actually more limited than Bach's. One could argue that perhaps figured bass is not unwieldy at all but more specific, acknowledging the uniqueness of different harmonic configurations.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> This is a procedural method, having more to do with the mechanics of voice leading than with harmonic identity or identification. This is a "craft technique," not an abstract theoretical idea like Rameau's elegant inversion theory.
> 
> Okay then, figured bass only indicates placement of notes above a bass note, and does not identify it as a certain type of chord, such as C major. That's limited.
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> No it doesn't; it shows that I recognize its craft-like mechanical limitations as a "main method" of doing anything. Remember, Bach rejected Rameau's idea of inversion. This would have held-back the development of musical analysis if we had not adapted to Rameau's more elegant ideas.
> 
> But you just said that "figured bass doesn't recognize anything," and that "it's just a compositional shorthand, not a method of functional analysis."
> 
> Isn't this what you just got through doing? You can't have it both ways!
> 
> These are exceptions, not the norm.
> 
> "Identifying a C major as a C major, regardless of the inversion" is almost always a mistake in functional analysis" makes no sense.
> 
> You'e obfuscating, using overly-literal thinking to obscure the abstract truth of chord identification, which BTW turns out _not_ to be so "abstract:"
> 
> _To be a C major chord is simply to belong to this equivalency class - or in other words, to contain all and only the three pitch-classes C, E, and G. We can therefore represent the C major chord as the unordered set of pitch classes {C, E, G}. -Tymoczko, p. 36_
> 
> But not his methodology.
> Figured-bass numerals express distinct intervals in a chord only as they relate to the bass note _(not a root function). _*They make no reference to the key of the progression *(unlike Roman-numeral harmonic analysis).Because that would be "harmonic thinking."
> 
> Bach's methodology, and his way of thinking, is contrapuntal, and is NOT as clear and rational harmonically as you say it is.
> 
> This is misleading, and tends to lose its meaning in light of what you've said above. You seem to want to have it "both ways."
> 
> This figured-bass thinking was perhaps a method which worked its way into the stylistic arsenal of composers, and yes, they had to be handled in specific ways, but the abstracted convenience of thinking harmonically is still in evidence to modern analysts. Figured-bass tends to get bogged-down in voice-leading details which ignore a purer, freer abstract distillation of harmonic considerations. And as harmony got more complex, what happened to figured bass thinking? It failed, or rejected more complex harmony. Figured bass is an ideological artifact of a bygone way of thinking. We have bigger, more complex fish to fry.


All of the above is meaningless nattering because you haven't grasped the most basic point: Figured bass as used by Bach has nothing to do with analysis or harmonic theory. It's just a way of notating the pitches to be played by the person realizing the figured bass. That is its only purpose. Hence: You haven't grasped what figured bass is


----------



## PlaySalieri

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think that Bach conceived of his compositions in terms of "blocks of harmony" or "areas of harmony" that were clearly defined as such. I think that the _appearance_ of such thinking to the listener is simply serendipity, the result of single voices crossing and aligning.
> 
> Mozart, by comparison, is _blatantly_ harmonic and *homophonic*.


do you mean "monophonic"


----------



## Ethereality

As far as Bach, I've been digging my head into him for a while and I haven't found myself overly impressed. In fact I attempted writing a piece in his style, steady movement with some contrapuntal and twisting harmonies, and I ended up preferring my own piece over his stuff. Strange! In any case, I think his harmonies leave me a bit to be desired where other composers have greatly expanded their bounds in other ways of development, timing, theme-building and harmony (all the flavors out nowadays.)


----------



## janxharris

Ethereality said:


> As far as Bach, I've been digging my head into him for a while and I haven't found myself overly impressed. In fact I attempted writing a piece in his style, steady movement with some contrapuntal and twisting harmonies, and I ended up preferring my own piece over his stuff. Strange! In any case, I think his harmonies leave me a bit to be desired where other composers have greatly expanded their bounds in other ways of development, timing, theme-building and harmony (all the flavors out nowadays.)


Can we hear it?


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> All of the above is meaningless nattering because you haven't grasped the most basic point: Figured bass as used by Bach has nothing to do with analysis or harmonic theory. It's just a way of notating the pitches to be played by the person realizing the figured bass. That is its only purpose. Hence: You haven't grasped what figured bass is


Then don't use this argument again when the discussion turns to "Baroque "Chord" Progressions." You're using it to obfuscate things, and to be a 'right-fighter.'


----------



## millionrainbows

PlaySalieri said:


> do you mean "monophonic"


No. I meant 'homophonic.' That's a melody with accompanying chords, as opposed to counterpoint. Listen to Mozart's piano sonatas.

'Monophonic' means a single voice, like Gregorian chant.


----------



## tdc

Ethereality said:


> As far as Bach, I've been digging my head into him for a while and I haven't found myself overly impressed. In fact I attempted writing a piece in his style, steady movement with some contrapuntal and twisting harmonies, and I ended up preferring my own piece over his stuff. Strange! In any case, I think his harmonies leave me a bit to be desired where other composers have greatly expanded their bounds in other ways of development, timing, theme-building and harmony (all the flavors out nowadays.)


Great post, brilliantly reasoned, your command of the English language is astounding. And you also have your own composition?

Wow.

/end thread.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> The original homophonic melody that the choral is based on uses words, so that is also a "red-herring" given. To say that _"these tunes are arranged with a choir (and congregation) singing words in mind"_ is misleading; the original homophonic melody that the choral is based on was already designed for singing.
> 
> He was using a "chorale melody," so the net result is the same; and Bach had to adapt to it.
> 
> As well as when writing contrapuntally, as well as in _any _music which conveys a sense of tonality. You're not saying anything specific to your case.


Upon re-reading, I can accept what you're saying up to a point. However, a glance at the actual music suggests a more typical Bach approach of counterpoint and harmony. The homophonic nature is not always evident and the lines are given interest where possible via passing notes and suspensions - not just your typical tune and chords. They also happen to be a classic CP guide to voice leading and creating interest in lower parts, being as much contrapuntal in design as they are harmonic. Homophony isn't necessarily defined the way these arrangements are written, which are more hybrid in nature. He approached this work pretty much the way he did with everything else - the perfect marriage of melody (line) and harmony - so I still contest your assertion that he approached the harmonisations in just a homophonic mode.

The title of this thread is provocative, but ultimately mis-leading imv. In baroque and classical times, counterpoint still had to oblige harmony even if Bach flouted the rule often. If you have ever attempted to write in Bach's style (no-one can without a few years of intense study and even then....!!!), or even simpler studies into counterpoint, you would understand that the primacy of line is underpinned by harmony but in Bach's work, it always reserves the right to continue unimpeded irrespective of the momentary dissonances and it is these dissonances that are the spice in Bach's music, the emotional punch and is what distinguishes him from other schools.


----------



## mikeh375

Mandryka said:


> *It would be nice to have an example of that.
> *


A quick play through some of the 48 revealed these dissonances, chosen at random out of so many. They are often the result of single and double suspensions, passing notes and dogged motivic work. Admittedly they are fleeting moments but in context they are paradigmatic of Bach's approach to the supremacy of line over harmony. They are all easily explained away today and are mild to our ears, but whilst writing, Bach would have been well aware of their sound, which was different and his approach to dissonance spanned across all registers as evinced by some of the spacings. Make no mistake though, Bach was thinking vertically too. It's fun to play the chords one after the other or collaged in some way for an interesting modern progression that could easily spawn a new piece.

Isolating these dissonant moments exaggerates his seeming recklessness towards the vertical but these moments are what gives his music such a breadth of expression and distinguishes him as the ultimate master of line and harmony for many, me included.
PS look at the pdf labelled Bach2, I couldn't delete the others. The last example is from the second movement of the Italian concerto.

View attachment bach2.pdf


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Upon re-reading, I can accept what you're saying up to a point. However, a glance at the actual music suggests a more typical Bach approach of counterpoint and harmony. The homophonic nature is not always evident and the lines are given interest where possible via passing notes and suspensions - not just your typical tune and chords. They also happen to be a classic CP guide to voice leading and creating interest in lower parts, being as much contrapuntal in design as they are harmonic. Homophony isn't necessarily defined the way these arrangements are written, which are more hybrid in nature. He approached this work pretty much the way he did with everything else - the perfect marriage of melody (line) and harmony - so I still contest your assertion that he approached the harmonisations in just a homophonic mode.


That's okay, as long as the larger point is made: you can't credibly use the chorales to demonstrate that Bach was a harmonist rather than a contrapuntalist.



> The title of this thread is provocative, but ultimately mis-leading imv. In baroque and classical times, counterpoint still had to oblige harmony even if Bach flouted the rule often. If you have ever attempted to write in Bach's style (no-one can without a few years of intense study and even then....!!!), or even simpler studies into counterpoint, you would understand that the primacy of line is underpinned by harmony but in Bach's work, it always reserves the right to continue unimpeded irrespective of the momentary dissonances and it is these dissonances that are the spice in Bach's music, the emotional punch and is what distinguishes him from other schools.


That may be true, but all along I have been using Mozart, mainly the piano sonatas, as a contrast to Bach. When you do that, the ambiguities disappear and Mozart is seen as the harmonic thinker, not Bach.

Everybody is still distracted by a defense of Bach, and that's a fort I abandoned before this thread.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> A quick play through some of the 48 revealed these dissonances, chosen at random out of so many. They are often the result of single and double suspensions, passing notes and dogged motivic work. Admittedly they are fleeting moments but in context they are paradigmatic of Bach's approach to the supremacy of line over harmony. They are all easily explained away today and are mild to our ears, but whilst writing, Bach would have been well aware of their sound, which was different and his approach to dissonance spanned across all registers as evinced by some of the spacings. Make no mistake though, Bach was thinking vertically too. It's fun to play the chords one after the other or collaged in some way for an interesting modern progression that could easily spawn a new piece.
> 
> Isolating these dissonant moments exaggerates his seeming recklessness towards the vertical but these moments are what gives his music such a breadth of expression and distinguishes him as the ultimate master of line and harmony for many, me included.
> PS look at the pdf labelled Bach2, I couldn't delete the others. The last example is from the second movement of the Italian concerto.


Excellent observation. I agree with this, and have always heard this in Bach. The seeming "major seventh" chords (WTC Prelude 1), or minor chords with flat-sixes (Sinfonia No. 9), and many more instances which convinced me that Bach knew what he was hearing.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> That's okay, as long as the larger point is made: you can't credibly use the chorales to demonstrate that Bach was a harmonist rather than a contrapuntalist.
> 
> *That may be true, but all along I have been using Mozart, mainly the piano sonatas, as a contrast to Bach. When you do that, the ambiguities disappear and Mozart is seen as the harmonic thinker, not Bach*.
> 
> *Everybody is still distracted by a defense of Bach, and that's a fort I abandoned before this thread.*


However I am consistently saying that the dichotomy does not exist except superficially. Bach could not write his music without thinking harmonically. His preferred way of writing is contrapuntal for sure, but it is underpinned by harmony - how can it not be - the vertical thinking is essential. Mozart's approach is different but only in the tools and presentation used, harmony is the basis for both men.

The technical motors driving the printed page (line, homophony) do differ between them generally speaking, different paradigms often creating an easily discernible difference in approach between say the Mozart sonatas and the 48, but ironically in the context of this thread, the harmony is arguably more adventurous with Bach _because_ of his emphasis on line and conversely Mozart is often clearly partial to contrapuntal techniques.


----------



## Bwv 1080

It's still a false distinction because the counterpoint you refer to in Bach is in Mozart as well - it's basic voice leading which did not leave western music until the late 19th century with Liszt and Debussy. You won't find dissonances in Mozart that aren't 'contrapuntal' either. Look at the intro to K465, it's all counterpoint


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> However I am consistently saying that the dichotomy does not exist except superficially. Bach could not write his music without thinking harmonically. His preferred way of writing is contrapuntal for sure, but it is underpinned by harmony - how can it not be - the vertical thinking is essential. Mozart's approach is different but only in the tools and presentation used, harmony is the basis for both men.


In other words, "the dichotomy does not exist except superficially...Bach could not write his music without thinking harmonically" means that Bach's music _manifests itself (superficially)_ as counterpoint, not blocks of harmony or chord figurations. Same net result.



> His preferred way of writing is contrapuntal for sure, but it is underpinned by harmony - how can it not be - the vertical thinking is essential.


"His preferred way of writing" manifests the music as counterpoint.

You're splitting the issue into "music as written on paper vs. way of thinking" which obscures everything. 
It is assumed that "by writing counterpoint" that this was the _primary_ way Bach thought, and the way he wanted his ideas manifest. 
Mozart, on the other hand, presents his sonatas with unmistakeable harmonic signatures: isolated melodies with chord-figuration accompaniment, etc.

Your argument makes about as much sense as asserting that "Mozart thought contrapuntally," even though the music is not manifest as individual voices. You're going to have to make up your mind which is which.

You seem to be defending Bach as a contrapuntal thinker by saying that he also thought harmonically. 
It's self-evident that music has both a vertical (harmonic) and horizontal (counterpoint, lines moving in time) aspect; what is important is what was written down, and how each man chose to present his ideas.



> *The technical motors driving the printed page (line, homophony) do differ between them generally speaking, different paradigms often creating an easily discernible difference in approach between say the Mozart sonatas and the 48, *but ironically in the context of this thread, the harmony is arguably more adventurous with Bach _because_ of his emphasis on line and conversely Mozart is often clearly partial to contrapuntal techniques.


And what is your point? What does this clarify, in terms of Bach's and Mozart's stylistic differences and the overall gestalt effect of their music on the listener? I feel as if I have presented two different colors, and you insist on stirring the pot into a muddy brown.

Myself? I revel in differences; I appreciate Mozart for the way he presents his ideas, likewise Bach. I'm interested in their unique qualities, which distinguish them from each other; not in numbing overall similarities.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Then don't use this argument again when the discussion turns to "Baroque "Chord" Progressions." You're using it to obfuscate things, and to be a 'right-fighter.'


I have no idea what, if anything, this is supposed to mean. The use of figured bass has no particular connection to Baroque chord progressions. The whole premise of this thread is erroneous because you've mistaken a shorthand form of notation for a harmonic theory. Is that clear enough for you? Or am I obfuscating?


----------



## Phil loves classical

I agree with MR in the general difference with Bach and Mozart (or other baroque such as Handel, Telemann, Vivaldi). There is no question that this by Mozart is more harmonic than contrapuntal. The passing notes in the scale runs don't really deviate from his harmonic thinking. The point of the video I think Rick Beato was making was there were incidental harmonies (whether or not as a result of counterpoint, which of course is) that were not heard until the 20th century.

I don't agree Bach's counterpoint is limiting in any way, but rather the opposite. He is able to get away with a lot of dissonances that couldn't be achieved harmonically without the radical changes in the 20th century.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> I have no idea what, if anything, this is supposed to mean. The use of figured bass has no particular connection to Baroque chord progressions. The whole premise of this thread is erroneous because you've mistaken a shorthand form of notation for a harmonic theory. Is that clear enough for you? Or am I obfuscating?


I'm sorry, Edward, I can't help you on this. Your reply is just as erroneous. You forgot to mention that Bach rejected Rameau's harmonic theories. Surely this is indicative of some basic difference in their thinking.

The fact that figured bass was not used by Bach to further harmonic analysis is irrelevant, since he did not have any kind of 'harmonic theory.' I merely posit Bach's thinking as being represented by thorough bass, characterizing him as a 'non-harmonic' thinker, although it seems that many here would rush to Bach's defense.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> There is no question that this by Mozart is more harmonic than contrapuntal. The passing notes in the scale runs don't really deviate from his harmonic thinking.


I often get the impression from the way you and millionrainbows talk, that Mozart's concertos or sonatas are the only kind of stuff Mozart wrote. But I wonder what you think of the passing tones in these. Are these moments results of harmonic thinking or contrapuntal?






13:43






Also I haven't got a conceiving explanation from MR yet how stuff like these is not a result of harmonic thinking.






the arpeggios of the fantasia:


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> I agree with MR in the general difference with Bach and Mozart (or other baroque such as Handel, Telemann, Vivaldi). There is no question that this by Mozart is more harmonic than contrapuntal. The passing notes in the scale runs don't really deviate from his harmonic thinking. The point of the video I think Rick Beato was making was there were _incidental harmonies _(whether or not as a result of counterpoint, which of course is) that were not heard until the 20th century.
> 
> I don't agree Bach's counterpoint is limiting in any way, but rather the opposite. He is able to get away with a lot of dissonances that couldn't be achieved harmonically without the radical changes in the 20th century.


But this is known only in retrospect, using modern harmonic analysis of "chords," which, as EdwardBast was eager to point out, were not acknowledged in Bach's time.


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> I often get the impression from the way you and millionrainbows talk, that Mozart's concertos or sonatas are the only kind of stuff Mozart wrote. But I wonder what you think of the passing tones in these. Are these moments results of harmonic thinking or contrapuntal?
> Also I haven't got a conceiving explanation from MR yet how stuff like these is not a result of harmonic thinking.


"Harmony and counterpoint constrain each other." Tymczyko, p. 36, so any 'passing tones' which are not "leaps" will enhance counterpoint. It's a continuum.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> I often get the impression from the way you and millionrainbows talk, that Mozart's concertos or sonatas are the only kind of stuff Mozart wrote. But I wonder what you think of the passing tones in these. Are these moments results of harmonic thinking or contrapuntal?


Both Bach and Mozart wrote a mix of harmonic and counterpoint, but MR is trying to point out the differences. I wouldn't say the difference is only really of baroque vs. classical, since Handel, Vivaldi and Telemann are generally less bold than Bach also. With your examples of Mozart, I still feel he rarely deviated from the clear harmonic structures, but then counterpoint doesn't necessarily need to. A better example may be where it was suggested that Brahms noted "true dissonance" in Mozart, 0:40 to around 0:55.


----------



## tdc

Another difference between the general approach of Bach and the classicists, is that Bach used more tonicization, or brief modulations, hinting towards another key and quickly returning, chord changes are more clearly pronounced. The change of rhythm and the way clear chord changes were blurred by techniques like alberti bass allowed the classicists to create larger areas of tonal space, and modulations thus occur over longer periods of time. Although vertical dissonance became less pronounced, the modulations created large scale horizontal dissonance, which needed to be treated, and resolved through mapping out key changes effectively over longer stretches of time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I wouldn't say the difference is only really of baroque vs. classical, since Handel, Vivaldi and Telemann are generally less bold than Bach also. With your examples of Mozart, I still feel he rarely deviated from the clear harmonic structures, but then counterpoint doesn't necessarily need to.


I was talking about elements of counterpoint and harmony in Bach and Mozart, not necessarily about "boldness" though. 
I believe "boldness" with counterpoint and harmony is another topic. Counterpoint isn't really about writing whatever you want either. There are also rules of counterpoint you have to abide by. (Like not using parallel fifths, for example)

If the extent and depth to which a composer acquaints himself with counterpoint is the measure of his "boldness" in common practice (is that what you're saying?) Do you have an example of a contrapuntal composer who mostly wrote counterpoint but still lacked "boldness"? If so, would you say "he did not deviate from harmonic structures" because of that? Would you consider him a "non-contrapuntal harmonist" compared to Bach?

Anyway speaking of Brahms' comment on Mozart's use of dissonance. It's worth noting Brahms used the term "harmony".

https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135
_Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What *harmony!*_

Also Beethoven admired Bach as a "progenitor of harmony":
_"Finally we have in this letter new proof of Beethoven's admiration for the genius of Bach. In the same year, in a letter to Hofmeister, he had spoken of the great art of this progenitor of *harmony.*"_
https://books.google.ca/books?id=W8KZBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA44

In his late years, Mozart criticized his "former idol" Johann Ernst Eberlin, comparing with Bach and Handel on use of counterpoint (not harmony):
https://books.google.ca/books?id=Ep4PXMszMv4C&pg=PA149
_"With due respect for his four-part composition I may say that his clavier fugues are nothing but long-drawn-out voluntaries..."_

I believe Bach and Mozart both matured as both harmonists and contrapuntists throughout their career. Yes, there's more counterpoint in Bach, but the chorales of St. Matthew's Passion BWV 244 are homophonic. The Et Vitam Venturi triple fugue from Missa Longa in C K262 is contrapuntal. I don't understand the logic of people who argue against these things.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> but then counterpoint doesn't necessarily need to.







I believe counterpoint helps to add variety in texture. It's an element that adds to formal structure (which is seen as "beauty and art" in baroque and classicism) From certain perspectives, it can be seen as an element that limits freedom with other stuff. (say, if you were writing a poem, and you were forced to use literary devices such as "rhyme", "alliteration" etc each time, it would restrict your freedom of what words you can use.)
It is after all known as the "strict" style. This is why canons and fugues are hard to write, because there are so many rules you have to abide by, it's hard to write something catchy with it.

You could say, if Brahms didn't "restrict" himself with contrapuntal thinking in this intermezzo, he could have had himself more freedom with what chords to use.





I think this is basically what MR is saying: Mozart was an essentially a "harmonic thinker" and that his use of counterpoint limited his expression in harmony. (whereas Bach was the opposite)



millionrainbows said:


> So many of the ideas of Mozart would simply not be the same, or as effective, unless they were the result of "harmonic" thinking. *I see counterpoint as more limiting in this regard*, and more of a spontaneity in Mozart's harmonically-derived ideas.


I think we'll never know the answer to this. It's like asking "if Beethoven tried to write more elaborate melodies in 7th symphony 2nd movement, would it have become catchier?"






I find the inversion at 2:16 very catchy: "Qui habi tare fa.." It adheres to Mozart's Handelian affinities: "strike like a thunder when needed". If Mozart didn't use contrapuntal techniques of inversion and imitation there, would it have become a better work in harmony? Nobody knows.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> If the extent and depth to which a composer acquaints himself with counterpoint is the measure of his "boldness" in common practice (is that what you're saying?) Do you have an example of a contrapuntal composer who mostly wrote counterpoint but still lacked "boldness"? If so, would you say "he did not deviate from harmonic structures" because of that? Would you consider him a "non-contrapuntal harmonist" compared to Bach?


I'm saying Bach was more prone to having his counterpoint override traditional harmony than any composer as far as I know in the Baroque or Classical Eras. Most composers deviate little in their counterpoint from more regular harmonic structures, while Bach did more. That's what I'm referring to as boldness. Telemann, one of many for example, didn't do that generally. I'm not really saying one is better than the other. Take Gesualdo, his music deviated from traditional common practice harmony more than Rameau, before common practice harmony was firmly established. I'm sure Rick Beato or anyone can pick out instances of very 'advanced' incidental harmonies in Gesualdo. Is one more advanced or better than the other. Just different in my view.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> So one point to start to think about is whether Bach was able to write harmonically imaginative music, but chose to focus elsewhere. And if so why.
> 
> There's the F major Brandenburg concerto, the first movement, for example.
> 
> And of course vice versa for Mozart,,i.e. that he was perfectly able to construct music where the harmonies are determined by the contrapuntal logic, but chose not to. And as before, why this should have been better suited to his purposes.


I imagine old Bach hearing the new style -- gallant, simpler, showing off with obvious and predictable chord relationships, dramatic but not in the religious sense. It might have seemed childish or impudent or behaving affectedly. Of course, he never heard mature Haydn or Mozart.


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> No. I meant 'homophonic.' That's a melody with accompanying chords, as opposed to counterpoint. Listen to Mozart's piano sonatas.
> 
> 'Monophonic' means a single voice, like Gregorian chant.


I've read that the piano sonatas were composed as teaching pieces. Amateurs can play them all. The quartets and quintets are more interesting.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> I've read that the piano sonatas were composed as teaching pieces. Amateurs can play them all. The quartets and quintets are more interesting.


I'm not sure what you're saying. What does technical difficulty of piano playing have to do with anything being discussed here?
I'm an amateur and I can easily play all of Bach Well Tempered Clavier and most Chopin Etudes too. These were also composed as pedagogical pieces. (The Etudes are mostly technically easy except some show-off pieces like Op.10 Nos. 1, 4, Op.25 Nos. 6, 11.) But again, stuff like the march of Polonaise Op.44, and the left-hand octave ostinato of Op.53, the scale spam in the coda of Ballade Op.23 and all that Romantic piano hedonism of "virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity" isn't that interesting in this regard either, in the same way less interesting pieces of Alkan and Liszt aren't.


----------



## KenOC

Bach wrote quite a few "easy" keyboard pieces that have been valued for generations.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying. What does technical difficulty of piano playing have to do with anything being discussed here?
> I'm an amateur and I can easily play all of Bach Well Tempered Clavier and most Chopin Etudes too. These were also composed as pedagogical pieces. (The Etudes are mostly technically easy except some show-off pieces like Op.10 Nos. 1, 4, Op.25 Nos. 6, 11.) But again, stuff like the march of Polonaise Op.44, and the left-hand octave ostinato of Op.53, the scale spam in the coda of Ballade Op.23 and all that Romantic piano hedonism of "virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity" isn't that interesting in this regard either, in the same way less interesting pieces of Alkan and Liszt aren't.


The Mozart sonatas are for teaching facility etc. at the piano. They're clever and innovative, but the quartets and quintets are great music.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Bach wrote quite a few "easy" keyboard pieces that have been valued for generations.


Which ones?

......

added:
Is that a sketch of Beethoven, Ken?


----------



## KenOC

Luchesi said:


> Which ones?


I was thinking of the pieces from the Anna Magdelana book, but there are others, movements from the Partitas and the English and French Suites. Also some of the Two-part Inventions and even some of the preludes from the WTC.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> I was thinking of the pieces from the Anna Magdelana book, but there are others, movements from the Partitas and the English and French Suites. Also some of the Two-part Inventions and even some of the preludes from the WTC.


The only ones easy to play are from the Notebook. But, of course, that's always a debatable opinion.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> I imagine old Bach hearing the new style -- gallant, simpler, showing off with obvious and predictable chord relationships, dramatic but not in the religious sense. It might have seemed childish or impudent or behaving affectedly. Of course, he never heard mature Haydn or Mozart.


Well at least they were trying to develop classical forms in all those pieces. Mozart's first piano sonata for example: the first movement is 100 measures in total, 38 measures in the exposition and 62 measures in the development and recapitulation sections. The "golden ratio". So they were trying to experiment other areas of complexity based on the idea of "writing music based on set of rules." There are moments Italian concerto BWV971 in Bach, he didn't always refuse to embrace the aesthetics of galant. 
And btw, I'm more curious what all of the masters you mentioned above would have thought of the ABA-ternary form piano miniatures by some composer in the later era that neither experimented with form or texture in any way. Especially the ones that remind of the pub piano style of late 19th century America. And oh he *himself* was so ashamed of his *own* compositions he wished them destroyed upon his death.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Well at least they were trying to developing classical forms in all those pieces. Mozart's first piano sonata for example: the first movement is 100 measures in total, 38 measures in the exposition and 62 measures in the development and recapitulation sections. The "golden ratio". So they were trying to experiment other areas of complexity based on the idea of "writing music based on set of rules." There are moments Italian concerto BWV971 in Bach, he didn't always refuse to embrace the aesthetics of galant.
> And btw, I'm more curious what all of the masters you mentioned above would have thought of the ABA-ternary form piano miniatures by some composer in the later era that neither experimented with form or texture in any way. Especially the ones that remind of the pub piano style of late 19th century America. And oh he *himself* was so ashamed of his *own* compositions he wished them destroyed upon his death.


Chopin put great effort into the works he would publish. He didn't want the others to be published but Fontana disregarded his wishes.

I don't know about such conclusions about the Golden Ratio. Masonic mysteries and all that search for meaning.


----------



## hammeredklavier

--------------------------------------


----------



## tdc

I think the idea that Mozart's piano sonatas are 'easy' pieces is a myth. As an amateur pianist myself and one that has played some Mozart and discussed this with a number of other musicians, they agree they are difficult.

Rosen discusses some of the Mozart's piano sonatas in his book _The Classical Style_ and refers to them as masterpieces.


----------



## hammeredklavier

-------------------------------------------------


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> In other words, "the dichotomy does not exist except superficially...Bach could not write his music without thinking harmonically" means that Bach's music _manifests itself (superficially)_ as counterpoint, not blocks of harmony or chord figurations. Same net result.


Obviously, except when he writes in "block harmony" (and Mozart writes contrapuntally!). The counterpoint still has an underpinning of harmonic thought though, irrespective of motifs in any accompaniment (arpeggios etc.) or presentation.



millionrainbows said:


> You're splitting the issue into "music as written on paper vs. way of thinking" which obscures everything.
> It is assumed that "by writing counterpoint" that this was the _primary_ way Bach thought, and the way he wanted his ideas manifest.
> Mozart, on the other hand, presents his sonatas with unmistakeable harmonic signatures: isolated melodies with chord-figuration accompaniment, etc.


Music written on the paper is manifestly the way of thinking, there is no obfuscation and certainly no 'black and white' divide because both composers have used all techniques in their work. Bach's counterpoint is underpinned by harmony, just as Mozart's is - it's not guesswork that happens to be in tonal concordance with itself. Witness the modulations to different keys during the progression of a fugue through its formal sections (episodes, middle entries) for example - how does that happen? There is a key structure implemented via harmonic progression, oft times transient and at other times more obvious. Harmonic thinking is baked into a contrapuntal thought process, especially when he gets flashy with his canons and triple counterpoint.



millionrainbows said:


> You seem to be defending Bach as a contrapuntal thinker by saying that he also thought harmonically.
> It's self-evident that music has both a vertical (harmonic) and horizontal (counterpoint, lines moving in time) aspect; what is important is what was written down, and how each man chose to present his ideas.


 It is absolutely correct to say that Bach thought harmonically as an exponent of counterpoint. If one studies stylistic counterpoint this becomes self evident. However one writes down music or composes, it generally does not negate underlying theory in the periods under discussion, so the absence of a block chord does not imply Bach was only thinking in a linear way, that doesn't come until the 20thC.



millionrainbows said:


> And what is your point? What does this clarify, in terms of Bach's and Mozart's stylistic differences and the overall gestalt effect of their music on the listener? I feel as if I have presented two different colors, and you insist on stirring the pot into a muddy brown.
> 
> Myself? I revel in differences; I appreciate Mozart for the way he presents his ideas, likewise Bach. I'm interested in their unique qualities, which distinguish them from each other; not in numbing overall similarities.


My point ultimately is that in Bach's case, harmony underpins counterpoint. 'Harmony v counterpoint' exists at some levels of decision making and presentation, where of course, material treated in one or the other way has an effect on the way it is initially written, how it develops and of course, an effect on the listener. From a composers' pov the decision making is quite involved and convoluted yet is inclusive of all basic theory which has to be brought to bear on the process regardless of the direction taken. 
I'm not stirring up a muddy brown, merely syphoning out misconceptions about Bach's contrapuntal process seemingly being divorced from harmony.

Your thread and your "two different colours" now seems to be a lot more superficial in nature than I first thought, so yes, let's agree (and certainly hope too) that one can easily distinguish between a contrapuntal work and a homophonic one. One might also say that generally speaking, a homophonic approach will probably feel less dense texturally and possibly create a significant difference in emotional impact depending on the material. But most of what you seem to be trying to determine is self-evident as is everything I have said imv.


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> ......I'm an amateur and I can easily play all of Bach Well Tempered Clavier and most Chopin Etudes too. These were also composed as pedagogical pieces. (The Etudes are mostly technically easy except some show-off pieces like Op.10 Nos. 1, 4, Op.25 Nos. 6, 11.) But again, stuff like the march of Polonaise Op.44, and the left-hand octave ostinato of Op.53, the scale spam in the coda of Ballade Op.23 and all that Romantic piano hedonism of "virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity" isn't that interesting in this regard either, in the same way less interesting pieces of Alkan and Liszt aren't.


That's impressive for an amateur. I love the phrase "scale spam", but as a Chopin fan I couldn't possibly laugh (too much)..


----------



## millionrainbows

Luchesi said:


> I've read that the piano sonatas were composed as teaching pieces. Amateurs can play them all. The quartets and quintets are more interesting.


That's misleading. Mozart called his Sonata No. 2 in F one of his "difficult" ones.


----------



## hammeredklavier

---------------------------------------------------------


----------



## isorhythm

tdc said:


> Although vertical dissonance became less pronounced, the modulations created large scale horizontal dissonance, which needed to be treated, and resolved through mapping out key changes effectively over longer stretches of time.


Yes exactly. This is what I thought (hoped?) MR was getting at in the first place.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Obviously, except when he writes in "block harmony" (and Mozart writes contrapuntally!). The counterpoint still has an underpinning of harmonic thought though, irrespective of motifs in any accompaniment (arpeggios etc.) or presentation.


A point to consider is if Bach can be said to _really write "harmonically"_ when there were no conceptions at that time (or after, into Mozart's and Beethoven's time) of what he was actually doing; and if viewed in terms of CP harmony, if there ever was, until things freed-up into the twentieth century.

Instances of Bach's 'dissonances' in his counterpoint are heard (by me at least) as harmonically daring, and these were no doubt intentional, but if there is no "name" for them within the context of CP's harmonic language, it can't be said 'properly' and credibly that these are really 'harmonic entities' (chords). 
If CP harmony does not recognize these as 'chords,' then they don't really exist as members of the CP harmonic language until much, much later. This not only includes these dissonant seventh and ninth chords, but the very _idea_ of these being chords at all. Most scholars would consider them as simply the result of coincident tones, which must be resolved.

Examples are "major seventh chords" and "minor ninth chords."

Listen to this:











There are dissonances which occur at:

0:53
1:22
2:49
4:03

which can be heard as "ninth" chords, but are passing tones which are resolved. I hear them harmonically; but I know they are not really chordal entities, but the result of voice movement.

I'm sure Bach heard this as well, but it doesn't mean he was "thinking harmonically." He was thinking contrapuntally, and these instances of "harmonic" effect are the result of voice movement, not "chordal" thinking.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> Although vertical dissonance became less pronounced, the modulations created large scale horizontal dissonance, which needed to be treated, and resolved through mapping out key changes effectively over longer stretches of time.


Yes, the vertical dissonances of Bach (and all their glory and harmonic wonder) did become less pronounced in Mozart, and gave way to larger 'dissonances' of modulation. It looks like to me that a lot was lost, (harmonically speaking), and that Mozart became 'trapped' in the harmonic system of CP. That's one reason I see Mozart as generally less daring than Bach.


----------



## Bwv 1080

millionrainbows said:


> A point to consider is if Bach can be said to _really write "harmonically"_ when there were no conceptions at that time (or after, into Mozart's and Beethoven's time) of what he was actually doing; and if viewed in terms of CP harmony, if there ever was, until things freed-up into the twentieth century.
> 
> Instances of Bach's 'dissonances' in his counterpoint are heard (by me at least) as harmonically daring, and these were no doubt intentional, but if there is no "name" for them within the context of CP's harmonic language, it can't be said 'properly' and credibly that these are really 'harmonic entities' (chords).
> If CP harmony does not recognize these as 'chords,' then they don't really exist as members of the CP harmonic language until much, much later. This not only includes these dissonant seventh and ninth chords, but the very _idea_ of these being chords at all. Most scholars would consider them as simply the result of coincident tones, which must be resolved.
> 
> Examples are "major seventh chords" and "minor ninth chords."
> 
> Listen to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are dissonances which occur at:
> 
> 0:53
> 1:22
> 2:49
> 4:03
> 
> which can be heard as "ninth" chords, but are passing tones which are resolved. I hear them harmonically; but I know they are not really chordal entities, but the result of voice movement.
> 
> I'm sure Bach heard this as well, but it doesn't mean he was "thinking harmonically." He was thinking contrapuntally, and these instances of "harmonic" effect are the result of voice movement, not "chordal" thinking.


Seventh and Ninths chords are treated the same 'contrapuntal' way in Mozart and throughout the 19th century. Check out the contrapuntal rules for ninth chords in Tchaikovsky's harmony book:


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> Seventh and Ninths chords are treated the same 'contrapuntal' way in Mozart and throughout the 19th century. Check out the contrapuntal rules for ninth chords in Tchaikovsky's harmony book:


Yes, but just because Mozart treated these tones the same way doesn't mean they will be heard in the same way, or as often, as we hear them in Bach's counterpoint.

I don't hear these kinds of "chordal" dissonances as obviously, or if ever, in Mozart.

Plus, (esp. in the sonatas) Mozart was skipping the counterpoint (along with the passing tones which might have brought more dissonance), in favor of chordal figurations and simpler block-chords in the left hand.

Mozart's 'harmonic thinking' tended to sweeten up the dissonances by simply avoiding them, because CP harmonic thinking had no place for such things.


----------



## Bwv 1080

So find me an example where Mozart skipped counterpoint around dissonances in his figurations. Every one I have seen follows all the same rules


----------



## Mandryka

K 608 maybe


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> So find me an example where Mozart skipped counterpoint around dissonances in his figurations. Every one I have seen follows all the same rules


You seem to have re-framed my assertion into something else. When I said Mozart "skipped counterpoint" in certain instances, I meant just that: he didn't use counterpoint. This is evident in many places.

The whole first 30 seconds of this sonata is written "harmonically," not with counterpoint. Listen to the left hand: it's playing simple chordal figures. If you try to say this is counterpoint, we have nothing further to discuss.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Yes, the texture is homophonic, but all the counterpoint-inspired rules of voice leading are followed in the Alberti bass here if you just played them chorale-style as block chords. the figuration and slower harmonic rhythm is the key difference between baroque and classical styles, but that has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> Yes, the texture is homophonic, but all the counterpoint-inspired rules of voice leading are followed in the Alberti bass here...


Of course they are...we can't have any _real_ dissonance, can we? God forbid if these entities ever became_ real chords...
_


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> A point to consider is if Bach can be said to _really write "harmonically"_ when there were no conceptions at that time (or after, into Mozart's and Beethoven's time) of what he was actually doing; and if viewed in terms of CP harmony, if there ever was, until things freed-up into the twentieth century.
> 
> Instances of Bach's 'dissonances' in his counterpoint are heard (by me at least) as harmonically daring, and these were no doubt intentional, but if there is no "name" for them within the context of CP's harmonic language, it can't be said 'properly' and credibly that these are really 'harmonic entities' (chords).
> If CP harmony does not recognize these as 'chords,' then they don't really exist as members of the CP harmonic language until much, much later. This not only includes these dissonant seventh and ninth chords, but the very _idea_ of these being chords at all. Most scholars would consider them as simply the result of coincident tones, which must be resolved.
> 
> Examples are "major seventh chords" and "minor ninth chords."
> 
> Listen to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are dissonances which occur at:
> 
> 0:53
> 1:22
> 2:49
> 4:03
> 
> which can be heard as "ninth" chords, but are passing tones which are resolved. I hear them harmonically; but I know they are not really chordal entities, but the result of voice movement.
> 
> I'm sure Bach heard this as well, but it doesn't mean he was "thinking harmonically." He was thinking contrapuntally, and these instances of "harmonic" effect are the result of voice movement, not "chordal" thinking.


Well after considering the point you make, I say that although a clever tact, your logic is erroneous. His momentary dissonances are perfectly explainable in CP technique when considered in context (as I have explained earlier). The weakness in your stance is that you are missing experience and know-how of actually writing stylistic counterpoint to a good standard for in doing so you would understand that you cannot write counterpoint alla Bach and Mozart without thinking harmonically too. This is a honestly and truly, on my life your honour, a given and not really open to any speculation or alternative theory. You undoubtedly will still see it differently.

I've already asked in a previous post how one can imagine concord and form being achieved without thinking harmonically. Bar by bar, beat by beat, the options for line are underpinned and dictated to by harmony, harmonic flow and cadence. Key changes occur as part of this consideration as do transitions and development.

When we see that Bach flouts harmonic principles we are witnessing an aspect of his genius, one that allows the primacy and inevitability of line to temporarily overrule that of the dictates of harmony. In this regard, according to George Oldroyd, Bach was no iconoclast, progressive and virile yes, but also simply a successor to Palestrina. There is quite possibly a case for suggesting that Bach's regular practice of overriding harmony's sway might actually confirm his harmonic thinking rather than negating it - he clearly had a sense of vertical adventure, breaking the rules he obviously knew.

Anyway, it's clear you wont take my word on this and I can't take it any further with you, so I urge you to read these pages instead.....page 30 +31 of a classic text by Oldroyd.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Chopin put great effort into the works he would publish. He didn't want the others to be published but Fontana disregarded his wishes.


Op.24: 4 Mazurkas _dedicated_ to Comte de Perthius 





ta-da-ta-da-ta-da... great effort indeed


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Well after considering the point you make, I say that although a clever tact, your logic is erroneous. His momentary dissonances are perfectly explainable in CP technique when considered in context (as I have explained earlier). The weakness in your stance is that you are missing experience and know-how of actually writing stylistic counterpoint to a good standard for in doing so you would understand that you cannot write counterpoint alla Bach and Mozart without thinking harmonically too. This is a honestly and truly, on my life your honour, a given and not really open to any speculation or alternative theory. You undoubtedly will still see it differently.
> 
> I've already asked in a previous post how one can imagine concord and form being achieved without thinking harmonically. Bar by bar, beat by beat, the options for line are underpinned and dictated to by harmony, harmonic flow and cadence. Key changes occur as part of this consideration as do transitions and development.
> 
> When we see that Bach flouts harmonic principles we are witnessing an aspect of his genius, one that allows the primacy and inevitability of line to temporarily overrule that of the dictates of harmony. In this regard, according to George Oldroyd, Bach was no iconoclast, progressive and virile yes, but also simply a successor to Palestrina. There is quite possibly a case for suggesting that Bach's regular practice of overriding harmony's sway might actually confirm his harmonic thinking rather than negating it - he clearly had a sense of vertical adventure, breaking the rules he obviously knew.
> 
> Anyway, it's clear you wont take my word on this and I can't take it any further with you, so I urge you to read these pages instead.....page 30 +31 of a classic text by Oldroyd.


I like happy endings.


----------



## Bwv 1080

millionrainbows said:


> Of course they are...we can't have any _real_ dissonance, can we? God forbid if these entities ever became_ real chords...
> _


'Real' chords came into being with basso continuo in the 17th century. Chords don't exist per se in Renaissance music, but do in Baroque. Bach used them as did Mozart. Rameau recognized inversions differently than JS Bach, but they are still 'real chords'. You can also find plenty of figuration in baroque music - Alberti died before Bach and Scarlatti's music also is full of 'classical-like' figures


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> That's misleading. Mozart called his Sonata No. 2 in F one of his "difficult" ones.


I assume you're talking about interpreting them as works of art and using them for self expression. I'm talking about the teaching of rudimentary playing skills.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Op.24: 4 Mazurkas _dedicated_ to Comte de Perthius
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ta-da-ta-da-ta-da... great effort indeed


You don't think these are good enough to be published? What are you comparing them to?

Ask yourself what the goal was. Think about the times and the setting.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Well then read about it. http://fibonaccifacts.blogspot.com/2014/11/mozart-and-golden-ratio_2.html It's not a "masonic mystery".
> I'm far more disturbed by people like you trying to associate all kinds of meaning such as "poetry" into Romantic swoon fest and its reliance on sentimentality. It just reminds of the fans of Yuki Kuramoto and Yiruma


I don't think I do that. I've never thought about it.

If I do it to some extent it won't be that extreme. After all, you need some of that Spirit in order play with feelings of self expression.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mr. Luchesi. Coming to a thread about harmony and counterpoint to talk about piano performance technique - you're just like "those people" I've met. Just look back at the comments you've written on this thread. Aren't you just being sore about the things I've written on other threads, by any chance?

Best harmonist among the Romantics?
Mozart or Chopin: Piano Works



Luchesi said:


> I imagine old Bach hearing the new style -- gallant, simpler, showing off with obvious and predictable chord relationships, dramatic but not in the religious sense. It might have seemed childish or impudent or behaving affectedly.





Luchesi said:


> I've read that the piano sonatas were composed as teaching pieces. Amateurs can play them all. The quartets and quintets are more interesting.





Luchesi said:


> I assume you're talking about interpreting them as works of art and using them for self expression. I'm talking about the teaching of rudimentary playing skills.





Luchesi said:


> You don't think these are good enough to be published? What are you comparing them to?
> Ask yourself what the goal was. Think about the times and the setting.


Actually I'm not quite sure what your point is. Your argument seem to be going back and forth between "quality in music composition" and "technical difficulties in performance".
Tell you what. The way you talk reminds me of how Chopin goes about doing stuff, which you seem to admire so much for some reason. Those numerous petty miniatures in ABA ternary form fking around in over-sentimentality and all its new-agey-ness, not saying anything substantial. I agree with Mendelssohn's opinion on Chopin, Mendelssohn himself would not have written anything like those spammy Polonaises. All that brainless spamming of E-D#-C#-B for two pages straight.. Sigh. Who else besides Chopin would write like that? Remember when asked about the finale of Sonata Op.35, Mendelssohn answered: "Oh, I abhor it." I believe Mendelssohn was talking about Chopin's lazy mentality of "just not caring for the left hand". https://books.google.ca/books?id=nTxwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA203 you should know what I mean. That mentality of Chopin's: "When in doubt what to write for the left-hand, just write both hands in unison all the way!"



Luchesi said:


> Amateurs can play them all.


Amateurs can write like Chopin. If conservatory students in composition around the world wrote like his fugue, they wouldn't even graduate.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Amateurs can write like Chopin. If conservatory students in composition around the world wrote like his fugue, they wouldn't even graduate.


Aren't you getting tired of bashing Chopin day after day after day?


----------



## Larkenfield

OK HK. You’re an amateur composer and pianist—you’ve tried writing at least four Classical piano sonatas that were mentioned on another CM forum—so let’s hear your “Chopin” that’s so easy to write.... Here’s a hint: it’s not the sentimental melodies you think it is, or both hands always moving in the same direction, or never any counterpoint… It’s not what you think it is, and that’s the problem with your mean-spirited and shortsighted analysis of this harmonic and melodic genius who has been played by the greatest pianists in the world for almost 170 years—and for good reason—as you continue to paint yourself into a dark corner with a self-destructive grudge that could eventually lead to your permanent departure from this forum... It’s not enough to tear somebody down who is one the most famous and brilliant composers in the world; there’s another side that you’ve failed to see. I’m sure everyone will look forward to your new “Chopin” Piano Sonata, or whatever you have in mind, that’s so easy to imitate.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> Aren't you getting tired of bashing Chopin day after day after day?


So you don't see anything wrong with Luchesi's odd behavior in this thread? I sense extreme toxicity and salt in it.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> So you don't see anything wrong with Luchesi's odd behavior in this thread? I sense extreme toxicity and salt in it.


Your postings stand out to me; it's like you're on a vendetta.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> OK HK. You're an amateur composer and pianist-you've tried writing at least four Classical piano sonatas that were mentioned on another CM forum-so let's hear your "Chopin" that's so easy to write.... Here's a hint: it's not the sentimental melodies you think it is, or both hands always moving in the same direction, or never any counterpoint… It's not what you think it is, and that's the problem with your mean-spirited and shortsighted analysis of this harmonic and melodic genius who has been played by the greatest pianists in the world for almost 170 years-and for good reason-as you continue to paint yourself into a dark corner with a self-destructive grudge that could eventually lead to your permanent departure from this forum... It's not enough to tear somebody down who is one the most famous and brilliant composers in the world; there's another side that you've failed to see. I'm sure that everyone will look forward to your new "Chopin" Piano Sonata or whatever you have in mind that's so easy to imitate.


I too am interested in hearing hammeredklavier's faux Chopin sonatas.

On another thread someone claims to have written something he thinks superior to Bach. I wonder how many unsung geniuses are hiding on this forum. Let us plead with them not to deprive the world any longer!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> Your postings stand out to me; it's like you're on a vendetta.


Everytime I'm critical about Chopin, I do it because I'm disturbed by other people overrating him by making unreasonable claims and unfair comparisons with the real masters. Just go through all those threads. Do I ever derail or write irrelevant stuff on any thread out of sheer hatred or bias? 
In that Best Harmonist Among the Romantics thread/poll, Chopin was actually winning the poll when I wrote all that criticism. 
Do you ever see me going into threads on "technical difficulties of performing Chopin" and discuss what I think are "his compositional failures"? 
I even tolerate people saying Chopin's Waltzes and Mazurkas are masterpieces as long as those people don't compare them with works of the real masters.



BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> You have the Mazurkas in the wrong category.


----------



## jdec

hammeredklavier said:


> Amateurs can write like Chopin.


You mean handwriting, right?
I probably could too... not that difficult, apparently...


----------



## jdec

hammeredklavier said:


> Amateurs can write like Chopin.


Or did you mean "Amadeus can write like Chopin"?


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Everytime I'm critical about Chopin, I do it because I'm disturbed by other people overrating him by making unreasonable claims and unfair comparisons with the real masters. Just go through all those threads. Do I ever derail or write irrelevant stuff on any thread out of sheer hatred or bias?
> 
> I even tolerate people saying Chopin's Waltzes and Mazurkas are masterpieces as long as those people don't compare them with works of the real masters.


How noble of you to "tolerate" other people's heartfelt love of inferior music! It must be a terrible strain. Luckily you can always trot out the brain-dead juvenilia of David C. F. Wright to supply some "sheer hatred and bias" when tolerance becomes unbearable.


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> Everytime I'm critical about Chopin, I do it because I'm disturbed by other people overrating him by making unreasonable claims and unfair comparisons with the real masters. Just go through all those threads. Do I ever derail or write irrelevant stuff on any thread out of sheer hatred or bias?
> In that Best Harmonist Among the Romantics thread/poll, Chopin was actually winning the poll when I wrote all that criticism.
> Do you ever see me going into threads on "technical difficulties of performing Chopin" and discuss what I think are "his compositional failures"?
> I even tolerate people saying Chopin's Waltzes and Mazurkas are masterpieces as long as those people don't compare them with works of the real masters.


But HK fine musicians across the world rate him as well so one assumes they disturb you too. I have another question for you if I may?
You stated earlier that you can play most of Chopin's Etudes (and Bach's 48 for that matter) which for an amateur is quite something. Now I'm getting a vibe that's hinting to me that you are not so enamoured with his music, so my question is, why did you bother going to all the trouble of learning them, did you have to? Playing those pieces well is no easy feat, that I can vouch for, did you get them up to speed?

I'd also have to disagree that an amateur could write like Chopin. Larkenfield is right about his harmonic mastery and especially his melodic gift - to find that sort of eloquence and effortlessness one needs a little more than 3rd year harmony.


----------



## janxharris

According to Dr. Wright, Chopin wasn't a great composer because he didn't write stage works, symphonies or string quartets.

What a statement.


----------



## mikeh375

janxharris said:


> According to Dr. Wright, Chopin wasn't a great composer because he didn't write stage works, symphonies or string quartets.
> 
> What a statement.


What an idiot.....


----------



## hammeredklavier

mikeh375 said:


> You stated earlier that you can play most of Chopin's Etudes (and Bach's 48 for that matter) which for an amateur is quite something. Now I'm getting a vibe that's hinting to me that you are not so enamoured with his music, so my question is why did you bother going to all the trouble of learning them, did you have to?


There was a time I used to practice a lot of them and pieces by other composers as a hobby (but not so much anymore), I admit I especially enjoyed practicing the one in D flat major from the Trois Nouvelles Etudes, where fingers 1,2 of the right hand are played in staccato and fingers 4,5 are played in legato simultaneously. I find that there's a lot of techniques requiring "awkward" stretches (between fingers 4,5 and stuff) in Op.10 No.8 etc. As for WTC, I sightread through many. Of course, there are hard ones like the A minor from Book I, but there are no officially accepted tempo markings for them, (different performers play at various tempos), so unlike the Chopin pieces, there's no pressure to play at a specific, fast tempo. The point is, they're not that crazily harder than Mozart sonatas such as K310, K332, K533 in terms of technique. That's what I meant by "I can also play the Bach and Chopin as an amateur." Actually, it is often said they're ALL hard to play as a professional. I believe professional pianists pointed out Mozart sonatas are also hard to play without making mistakes. (with minimum use of the pedal and evenness of touch throughout.)



mikeh375 said:


> Playing those pieces well is no easy feat, that I can vouch for. I'd also have to disagree that an amateur could write like Chopin. Larkenfield is right about his harmonic mastery and especially his melodic gift - to find that sort of eloquence and effortlessness one needs a little more than 3rd year harmony.


Sure, I admit that there's artistry in the works. But why would you blame me for the "shitstorm" when someone else "trolled" to start it in this thread first? I see statements such as _"amateurs can play them all"_ in this thread a deliberate attempt to troll and get a rise out of people. How else should I have reacted?



Larkenfield said:


> OK HK. You're an amateur composer and pianist


I never said I'm a composer


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> There was a time I used to practice a lot of them and pieces by other composers as a hobby (but not so much anymore), I admit I especially enjoyed practicing the one in D flat major from the Trois Nouvelles Etudes, where fingers 1,2 of the right hand are played in staccato and fingers 4,5 are played in legato simultaneously. I find that there's a lot of techniques requiring "awkward" stretches (between fingers 4,5 and stuff) in Op.10 No.8 etc. As for WTC, I sightread through many. Of course, there are hard ones like the A minor from Book I, but there are no officially accepted tempo markings for them, (different performers play at various tempos), so unlike the Chopin pieces, there's no pressure to play at a specific, fast tempo. The point is, they're not that crazily harder than Mozart sonatas such as K310, K332, K533 in terms of technique. That's what I meant by "I can also play the Bach and Chopin as an amateur." Actually, it is often said they're ALL hard to play as a professional. I believe professional pianists pointed out Mozart sonatas are also hard to play without making mistakes. (with minimum use of the pedal and evenness of touch throughout.)
> 
> Sure, I admit that there's artistry in the works. But why would you blame me for the "shitstorm" when someone else "trolled" to start it in this thread first? I see statements such as _"amateurs can play them all"_ in this thread a deliberate attempt to troll and get a rise out of people. How else should I have reacted.
> 
> I never said I'm a composer


It sounds like you don't play much anymore, if so I hope you will find your way back to playing.
BTW, I personally haven't and am not, blaming anyone for the "shitstorm".


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Mr. Luchesi. Coming to a thread about harmony and counterpoint to talk about piano performance technique - you're just like "those people" I've met. Just look back at the comments you've written on this thread. Aren't you just being sore about the things I've written on other threads, by any chance?
> 
> Best harmonist among the Romantics?
> Mozart or Chopin: Piano Works
> 
> Actually I'm not quite sure what your point is. Your argument seem to be going back and forth between "quality in music composition" and "technical difficulties in performance".
> Tell you what. The way you talk reminds me of how Chopin goes about doing stuff, which you seem to admire so much for some reason. Those numerous petty miniatures in ABA ternary form fking around in over-sentimentality and all its new-agey-ness, not saying anything substantial. I agree with Mendelssohn's opinion on Chopin, Mendelssohn himself would not have written anything like those spammy Polonaises. All that brainless spamming of E-D#-C#-B for two pages straight.. Sigh. Who else besides Chopin would write like that? Remember when asked about the finale of Sonata Op.35, Mendelssohn answered: "Oh, I abhor it." I believe Mendelssohn was talking about Chopin's lazy mentality of "just not caring for the left hand". https://books.google.ca/books?id=nTxwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA203 you should know what I mean. That mentality of Chopin's: "When in doubt what to write for the left-hand, just write both hands in unison all the way!"
> 
> Amateurs can write like Chopin. If conservatory students in composition around the world wrote like his fugue, they wouldn't even graduate.


I was responding to you and others.

I don't know what your emotional problem is with Chopin so I can't help you. You could tell us what your feelings are.


----------



## Luchesi

"Amateurs can write like Chopin. If conservatory students in composition around the world wrote like his fugue, they wouldn't even graduate."

Chopin probably composed the Am Fugue in his mid to late 20s. We should remember what happens to our brains in our early to mid 20s. He didn't publish it. It's clear that he didn't offer it as a fine composition of his. I don't think he expected it to see the light of day. It's fun to play.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> There was a time I used to practice a lot of them and pieces by other composers as a hobby (but not so much anymore), I admit I especially enjoyed practicing the one in D flat major from the Trois Nouvelles Etudes, where fingers 1,2 of the right hand are played in staccato and fingers 4,5 are played in legato simultaneously. I find that there's a lot of techniques requiring "awkward" stretches (between fingers 4,5 and stuff) in Op.10 No.8 etc. As for WTC, I sightread through many. Of course, there are hard ones like the A minor from Book I, but there are no officially accepted tempo markings for them, (different performers play at various tempos), so unlike the Chopin pieces, there's no pressure to play at a specific, fast tempo. The point is, they're not that crazily harder than Mozart sonatas such as K310, K332, K533 in terms of technique. That's what I meant by "I can also play the Bach and Chopin as an amateur." Actually, it is often said they're ALL hard to play as a professional. I believe professional pianists pointed out Mozart sonatas are also hard to play without making mistakes. (with minimum use of the pedal and evenness of touch throughout.)
> 
> Sure, I admit that there's artistry in the works. But why would you blame me for the "shitstorm" when someone else "trolled" to start it in this thread first? I see statements such as _"amateurs can play them all"_ in this thread a deliberate attempt to troll and get a rise out of people. How else should I have reacted?
> 
> I never said I'm a composer


It's amazing how you think. There are some very emotional posters in this forum.

" I see statements such as "amateurs can play them all" in this thread a deliberate attempt to troll and get a rise out of people."

My statement is true. How well an amateur would play them varies greatly.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Chopin probably composed the Am Fugue in his mid to late 20s.


No. He wrote it around the same time as Fantasy in F minor Op.49 and Ballade Op.47 in A flat. 1840~41. His age of maturity.


----------



## hammeredklavier

-------------------------


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> I don't know what your emotional problem is with Chopin so I can't help you. You could tell us what your feelings are.





Luchesi said:


> " I see statements such as "amateurs can play them all" in this thread a deliberate attempt to troll and get a rise out of people."
> My statement is true. How well an amateur would play them varies greatly.


Again, "amateurs can play them all" is not the only thing you wrote in this thread. Please stop trying to derail it. You're the one having emotional issue over the things I write on other threads, it seems. Get over yourself, geez.


----------



## tdc

Luchesi said:


> My statement is true. How well an amateur would play them varies greatly.


The same can be said for any piano piece in the repertoire though.

I also noticed you seemed to suggest Mozart's pieces are pedagogical and Chopin's are 'self-expressive'. It seems a subtle knock occasionally levelled at some Mozart and Bach. I think speculating about a composer's _complete_ intentions in composing music is, well speculative. You can't know their inner world. The 'self-expression' thing just seems to be a way that some fans of Romanticism like to try to elevate the music of that era. I find the point vague (it doesn't actually point to anything objective in the music) and lacking substance.


----------



## isorhythm

I've never heard that Mozart's sonatas were pedagogical. I thought they were written for amateurs to play at home.


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> The same can be said for any piano piece in the repertoire though.
> 
> I also noticed you seemed to suggest Mozart's pieces are pedagogical and Chopin's are 'self-expressive'. It seems a subtle knock occasionally levelled at some Mozart and Bach. I think speculating about a composer's _complete_ intentions in composing music is, well speculative. You can't know their inner world. The 'self-expression' thing just seems to be a way that some fans of Romanticism like to try to elevate the music of that era. I find the point vague (it doesn't actually point to anything objective in the music) and lacking substance.


I don't know what you're referring to in my posts.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, "amateurs can play them all" is not the only thing you wrote in this thread. Please stop trying to derail it. You're the one having emotional issue over the things I write on other threads, it seems. Get over yourself, geez.


You're too emotional to reply to. Personal attacks and nonsense.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> No. He wrote it around the same time as Fantasy in F minor Op.49 and Ballade Op.47 in A flat. 1840~41. His age of maturity.


How do you know that?


----------



## hammeredklavier

isorhythm said:


> I've never heard that Mozart's sonatas were pedagogical. I thought they were written for amateurs to play at home.


Beethoven sonatas are pretty much of the same difficulty as Mozart's except a handful of harder ones such as Appassionata, Hammerklavier, Waldstein, and late piano sonatas.
The third movement of Mozart K310 contains fast leaps. 



 The first movement contains arpeggios in the left hand going back and forth between pianissimo and fortissimo, and sustained tones and dotted notes around black keys in the right hand that are "awkward" to play smoothly: 



 K310, K576, K475&K457, K533, K332 are considered fairly hard compared to most Beethoven sonatas except the harder onces.
Mozart's Prelude and Fugue in C K394 is considerably difficult, with passages of arpeggios, thirds, sixths, octaves. 









Most of Chopin's own pupils were amateurs (including 'countesses' such as Delfina Potocka and daughters of wealthy families, such as Charlotte de Rothschild) and he made them play his Nocturnes, Waltzes, Mazurkas, which fill more than half his own output. Except some virtuousic moments like the octave spam (again, played with both hands in unison) of Op.48 No.1 in C minor, they're not that hard for amateurs compared to Mozart sonatas, contrary to Luchesi's claims. In Chopin, you can even always use _"Tempo Rubato"_ as an excuse to not play strictly on the metronome. They call it "freedom of interpretation", I call it "indulgence in sentimentality". Plus, you can resort to using the pedal to make certain passages sound more legato.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> The same can be said for any piano piece in the repertoire though.
> 
> I also noticed you seemed to suggest Mozart's pieces are pedagogical and Chopin's are 'self-expressive'. It seems a subtle knock occasionally levelled at some Mozart and Bach. I think speculating about a composer's _complete_ intentions in composing music is, well speculative. You can't know their inner world. The 'self-expression' thing just seems to be a way that some fans of Romanticism like to try to elevate the music of that era. I find the point vague (it doesn't actually point to anything objective in the music) and lacking substance.


I agree. You're pretty much the only one here who assesses the situation from an unbiased viewpoint. I'm wondering why Larkenfield and Bulldog would not demand Luchesi post recordings of himself playing all the pieces he claims "amateurs can play".


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> *Harmony had moved on.* As I see it, the large steps, from Byrd to Mozart, and again from Hummel to Schumann, and then Liszt to Mahler, in each comparable interval of time in music history the *earlier harmony had been surpassed* (for human expression, not for listening and modern day collecting).
> 
> Even without looking at the score Brahms doesn't sound like Mozart. Why didn't Berlioz and Brahms use the harmony of Haydn's time? What would the audiences have thought?


I remember Mr. Luchesi once even tried to claim something to the effect: "Bach's harmony was surpassed by Chopin's". And now he's bragging how Chopin is better than Mozart in testing capabilities of human anatomy.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> How do you know that?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...édéric_Chopin_by_genre#Without_opus_numbers_5

https://books.google.ca/books?id=61oyAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA4
_"Chopin's little-known A-minor Fugue also belongs to his late period, though it is a simple two-part fugue. When I once played it to Alan Bush, one of the few masters of the fugue, he guessed this to be a work of Chopin's student years and was surprised by its date of 1841." _
Song in Gold Pavilions: Ronald Stevenson on Music


----------



## Luchesi

With a little bit of googling it's interesting to me that the Fugue came down from Natalie Janotha, who probably got it from Princess Czartoryska. The Princess died at the age of 89 when Chopin was 25?
Of course we know that Chopin wanted it burned.


----------



## Luchesi

Further googling and Natalie Janotha is suspected of evolving the composition (Fugue) out of a fragment by Chopin.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> I remember Mr. Luchesi once even tried to claim something to the effect: "Bach's harmony was surpassed by Chopin's". And now he's bragging how Chopin is better than Mozart in testing capabilities of human anatomy.


Yes to both, but you're twisting my words.

A quick note, more than 50 years passed between the birth of Mozart and the birth of Chopin.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> With a little bit of googling it's interesting to me that the Fugue came down from Natalie Janotha, who probably got it from Princess Czartoryska. The Princess died at the age of 89 when Chopin was 25?
> Of course we know that Chopin wanted it burned.





Luchesi said:


> Further googling and Natalie Janotha is suspected of evolving the composition (Fugue) out of a fragment by Chopin.


Mr. Luchesi, the topic of this thread is not about questioning or discussing the conventionally accepted knowledge that Chopin composed his "fugue" (or should I call it "invention") in 1841. You can create a new thread to discuss that issue specifically.
Likewise, if you don't have anything significant to say regarding the actual topic of this thread, - but would like to continue argue which keyboard composer is most taxing on human anatomy or interested in going beyond its limits, - you can also create a new thread for that. If you do make one, I'll be happy to come and discuss how Scarbo from Ravel's Gaspard de la nuit and Balakirev's Islamey are "more professional" (by your logic) than Chopin.


----------



## tdc

Luchesi said:


> I don't know what you're referring to in my posts.


These quotes:



Luchesi said:


> I've read that the piano sonatas were composed as teaching pieces. Amateurs can play them all. The quartets and quintets are more interesting.





Luchesi said:


> The Mozart sonatas are for teaching facility etc. at the piano. They're clever and innovative, but the quartets and quintets are great music.





Luchesi said:


> I assume you're talking about interpreting them as works of art and using them for self expression. I'm talking about the teaching of rudimentary playing skills.


Judging from these posts, it would seem that you once read that Mozart's piano sonatas were composed as 'teaching pieces'. (As far as I know some have speculated that but there is no concrete evidence.)

You then seem to take the attitude that it logically follows that because these were allegedly composed as teaching pieces, the natural view to take is that they are not 'great', or very 'interesting', and you do not view them as 'works of art' or music to be used for 'self expression', but believe their proper function is 'the teaching of rudimentary playing skills'.

Have I misinterpreted your view?


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Mr. Luchesi, the topic of this thread is not about questioning or discussing the conventionally accepted knowledge that Chopin composed his "fugue" (or should I call it "invention") in 1841. You can create a new thread to discuss that issue specifically.
> Likewise, if you don't have anything significant to say regarding the actual topic of this thread, - but would like to continue argue which keyboard composer is most taxing on human anatomy or interested in going beyond its limits, - you can also create a new thread for that. If you do make one, I'll be happy to come and discuss how Scarbo from Ravel's Gaspard de la nuit and Balakirev's Islamey are "more professional" (by your logic) than Chopin.


Okay, you brought up the Fugue and now you don't care about it.


----------



## tdc

I wonder Luchesi do you know what the word étude means? Can those pieces ever be 'great' or 'works of art'? How about Bach's WTC?

How about the *fact* that every masterpiece created inevitably will become a 'teaching piece'? Does this then reduce them to vehicles for teaching rudimentary composition skills?


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> I agree. You're pretty much the only one here who assesses the situation from an unbiased viewpoint. I'm wondering why Larkenfield and Bulldog would not demand Luchesi post recordings of himself playing all the pieces he claims "amateurs can play".


Leave me out of your arguments. I have zero interest in listening to Luchesi (or anyone else here) play the piano.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> I wonder Luchesi do you know what the word étude means? Can those pieces ever be 'great' or 'works of art'? How about Bach's WTC?


I personally love every étude in the WTC. I keep then on the same CD as my several versions of Cage's 4'33".


----------



## Luchesi

Without reading up about it -- after I made a casual remark about them being teaching pieces (what was I responding to?), I’m further assuming that Mozart wrote them as high quality, clever pieces by which he could make more than the average amount of money by selling them as teaching pieces to well-off families.

To me, and people I know who are musicians, they will grade the quartets and quintets more highly. None of this is controversial.

If in a recital they are successful for self expression by a world-class pianist then I'm delighted. Has this become the issue here?


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> The Mozart sonatas are for teaching facility etc. at the piano. They're clever and innovative, but the quartets and quintets are great music.


Where have you possibly read such a thing that they are pedagogical for teaching purposes? I've never read or heard that ever, and they don't sound like it, at least to me. They sound like pure works of art that a student might somehow have the privilege of studying if he or she had the talent. They might be _used_ by some teachers for pedagogical reasons but they were certainly not _composed_ for pedagogical reasons. You're a piano teacher so maybe you have used them that way. But when making a statement like that have something to back it up, otherwise it sounds like a gross assumption. I've heard them and would never consider any of them pedagogical in the slightest. Making them playable to a wide variety of performers does not make them pedagogical. Mozart was Horowitz's favorite composer and I doubt if he thought he was playing sonatas for teaching purposes. The thought of it is like fingernails on a chalkboard.


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> I wonder Luchesi do you know what the word étude means? Can those pieces ever be 'great' or 'works of art'? How about Bach's WTC?
> 
> How about the *fact* that every masterpiece created inevitably will become a 'teaching piece'? Does this then reduce them to vehicles for teaching rudimentary composition skills?


You'll need to define all those terms if we're going to seriously debate this.


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Where have you possibly read such a thing that they are pedagogical for teaching purposes? I've never read or heard that ever, and they don't sound like it, at least to me. They sound like pure works of art that a student might somehow have the privilege of studying if he or she had the talent. They might be _used_ by some teachers for pedagogical reasons but they were certainly not _composed_ for pedagogical reasons. You're a piano teacher so maybe you have used them that way. But when making a statement like that have something to back it up, otherwise it sounds like a gross assumption. I've heard them and would never consider any of them pedagogical in the slightest. Making them playable to a wide variety of performers does not make them pedagogical. Mozart was Horowitz's favorite composer and I doubt if he thought he was playing sonatas for teaching purposes. The thought of it is like fingernails on a chalkboard.


This was sent to me in an email. It night be interesting to you.

"It sometimes seems that where Mozart's piano sonatas are concerned, the composer gets too much credit. These works surely contain moments of infectious energy and subtle introspection, but generally they convey little more than a sense of charm, innocent pleasures innocently taken.

At his recital in Carnegie Hall on Thursday night, Murray Perahia, who has become one of the premiere Mozart interpreters of our time, may have sensed this, for he deliberately tried to make something more ambitious of these works. He tried to make the case that Mozart was a grand master of the piano repertory: profound, vigorous, tirelessly inventive and rarely simply charming. But so peculiar was Mr. Perahia's presentation that it reinforced my recurrent suspicions that many of these works are overrated."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Without reading up about it -- after I made a casual remark about them being teaching pieces (what was I responding to?), I'm further assuming that Mozart wrote them as high quality, clever pieces by which he could make more than the average amount of money by selling them as teaching pieces to well-off families.


You mean Chopin didn't compose to make a living?
Remember, he's the type who would call his publishers anti-semitic names for not giving him enough money:

_"I didn't expect such Jewish behavior from Pleyel… If we have to deal with Jews, let it at least be with orthodox ones…. Jews will be Jews and Huns will be Huns-that's the truth of it, but what can one do? I'm forced to deal with them…."_



Luchesi said:


> To me, and people I know who are musicians, they will grade the quartets and quintets more highly. None of this is controversial.


Well, to me and people I know who are musicians will grade Liszt Sonata in B minor far above anything Chopin wrote. None of this is controversial.
If I tell you Mozart Fantasie K608 shreds Chopin's Op.49 to pieces, I know you'll say "they're different pieces. Why would you compare them."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> At his recital in Carnegie Hall on Thursday night, Murray Perahia, who has become one of the premiere Mozart interpreters of our time, may have sensed this, for he deliberately tried to make something more ambitious of these works. He tried to make the case that Mozart was a grand master of the piano repertory: profound, vigorous, tirelessly inventive and rarely simply charming. But so peculiar was Mr. Perahia's presentation that it reinforced my recurrent suspicions that many of these works are overrated."


So you're quoting "Edward Rothstein", a journalist.
Can I quote Schumann, Wagner, Mendelssohn, John Field, and David C F Wright regarding Chopin's music?

https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34
_"In Schumann's other writings about Chopin that exist from 1836 through 1842, there is a good deal of positive feedback, although one will likely glean that Schumann was disappointed that there was not more significant development or innovation. In fact, he said more than once that Chopin's work was instantly recognizable because it was all so similar. He acknowledged Chopin's original showing as fabulous, and worried that it was too much for him to be more than that. "When he has given you a whole succession of the rarest creations, and you understand him more easily, do you suddenly demand something different? This is like chopping down your pomegranate tree because it produces, year after year, nothing but pomegranates." And furthermore: "We fear he will never achieve a level higher than that he has already reached. . . . With his abilities he could have achieved far more, influencing the progress of our art as a whole."_

https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/frederick-chopin.pdf
_"The obvious example is the Fantasie-Polonaise Op 61, a simply dreadful work of stops and starts, as stated by many well-known pianists and many other musicians. It reveals his mood swings, lack of form and incoherence and many have opined that it is the work of a sick mind. Liszt hated it. Even its musical grammar is wrong but few people would bother about that. One famous and revered pianist said that every printed copy of this work was the waste of a tree! Another famous pianist said that playing this
work was like having a Do it yourself Caesarean! For about a hundred years critics and musicians, dismissed it but that had the effect of people coming to its rescue and some calling it a masterpiece!
The work begins in 3/4 but the first bar is in 29/4 with a fermata bars 2, 7 and 8 are said to be in 3/4 but are in 20 plus over 4. Bars 10 -20 are still in four flats but full of sharps and a change of key signature is needed. The grammatical errors are legion...one chord is E sharp over C double sharp whereas it is grammatically correct as F natural over D natural. Later, Chopin does change key into E and then B. It is a dreadful piece and is positively loathed by many."_


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> You mean Chopin didn't compose to make a living?
> Remember, he's the type who would call his publishers anti-semitic names for not giving him enough money:
> 
> _"I didn't expect such Jewish behavior from Pleyel… If we have to deal with Jews, let it at least be with orthodox ones…. Jews will be Jews and Huns will be Huns-that's the truth of it, but what can one do? I'm forced to deal with them…."_
> 
> Well, to me and people I know who are musicians will grade Liszt Sonata in B minor far above anything Chopin wrote. None of this is controversial.
> If I tell you Mozart Fantasie K608 shreds Chopin's Op.49 to pieces, I know you'll say "they're different pieces. Why would you compare them."


Chopin could be nasty. He had different issues bubbling around him from his childhood to worries about hi homeland.

Liszt Sonata has less of Chopin's tastefulness, whatever people back then meant by that. We don't live in those decades.

How many years apart are K608 and Op49?


----------



## tdc

Luchesi said:


> You'll need to define all those terms if we're going to seriously debate this.


You were the one who used the terms, so you can use your own definitions.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> So you're quoting "Edward Rothstein", a journalist.
> Can I quote Schumann, Wagner, Mendelssohn, John Field, and David C F Wright regarding Chopin's music?
> 
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34
> _"In Schumann's other writings about Chopin that exist from 1836 through 1842, there is a good deal of positive feedback, although one will likely glean that Schumann was disappointed that there was not more significant development or innovation. In fact, he said more than once that Chopin's work was instantly recognizable because it was all so similar. He acknowledged Chopin's original showing as fabulous, and worried that it was too much for him to be more than that. "When he has given you a whole succession of the rarest creations, and you understand him more easily, do you suddenly demand something different? This is like chopping down your pomegranate tree because it produces, year after year, nothing but pomegranates." And furthermore: "We fear he will never achieve a level higher than that he has already reached. . . . With his abilities he could have achieved far more, influencing the progress of our art as a whole."_
> 
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/frederick-chopin.pdf
> _"The obvious example is the Fantasie-Polonaise Op 61, a simply dreadful work of stops and starts, as stated by many well-known pianists and many other musicians. It reveals his mood swings, lack of form and incoherence and many have opined that it is the work of a sick mind. Liszt hated it. Even its musical grammar is wrong but few people would bother about that. One famous and revered pianist said that every printed copy of this work was the waste of a tree! Another famous pianist said that playing this
> work was like having a Do it yourself Caesarean! For about a hundred years critics and musicians, dismissed it but that had the effect of people coming to its rescue and some calling it a masterpiece!
> The work begins in 3/4 but the first bar is in 29/4 with a fermata bars 2, 7 and 8 are said to be in 3/4 but are in 20 plus over 4. Bars 10 -20 are still in four flats but full of sharps and a change of key signature is needed. The grammatical errors are legion...one chord is E sharp over C double sharp whereas it is grammatically correct as F natural over D natural. Later, Chopin does change key into E and then B. It is a dreadful piece and is positively loathed by many."_


Did Schumann even understand all of Beethoven?

As you know, you can't appreciate Op61 unless you've memorized it and made it your own. Chopin's mind was at an end.


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> This was sent to me in an email. It might be interesting to you.
> 
> "It sometimes seems that where Mozart's piano sonatas are concerned, the composer gets too much credit. These works surely contain moments of infectious energy and subtle introspection, but generally they convey little more than a sense of charm, innocent pleasures innocently taken.
> 
> At his recital in Carnegie Hall on Thursday night, Murray Perahia, who has become one of the premiere Mozart interpreters of our time, may have sensed this, for he deliberately tried to make something more ambitious of these works. He tried to make the case that Mozart was a grandmaster of the piano repertory: profound, vigorous, tirelessly inventive and rarely simply charming. But so peculiar was Mr. Perahia's presentation that it reinforced my recurrent suspicions that many of these works are overrated."


Well, who was the source of that quote? Consider the source or, better yet, more than one source. I am on the side of Perahia that Mozart was a master and these sonatas are works of art that are far more than simply charming works. They're considered essential to the piano literature. It sounds like you are you're just speculating, sensing, that he was trying to make more out of them than they merited. These sonatas have been recorded countless times and not because they were intended for teaching purposes or pedagogical reasons. I believe you're reading things into Perahia's interpretation that he didn't mean at all and that he actually considers these great works. I doubt if he was inflating or exaggerating anything, including their importance. You're guessing about the intentions of a great pianist and not questioning the source of certain statements in an _email_ about Mozart. Surely such points require verification and study. I hear nothing pedagogical about these works or anything authoritative as a reference that backs that point of view_. I would never propose such a point of view unless Mozart literally said so himself. _

On the other hand, it could be easily argued that some of Bach' works were pedagogical, such as his WTC that takes the performer through all keys, and the Art of the Fugue which is instructive on fugues based upon one theme with many examples. Since Chopin has to be dragged into everything even if it has nothing to do with him, he used to recommend that his students practice Bach's WTC on a daily basis, including to strengthen their wrists. Bach was trying to pass on his learning to those who were interested and some of this works are indeed instructive. Going through all the major and minor has to be instructive because he's taking the student through each one systematically.


----------



## tdc

Whether or not a piece of music was created for a pedagogical purpose has zero impact on its musical value. Debating about a composer's intention behind writing something is not a very useful way of gauging its musical value. I don't think any composers even fully understand their own compositional processes. The best we can do is look at the music itself.

Mozart's String Quintets have become pedagogical. Beethoven's String Quartets have become pedagogical, Bach's Mass in B minor, Stravinsky's Rite etc etc. Pedagogical. 

This Romantic notion that composers are just making the composition an outlet for their inner personal thoughts, and this is somehow the ideal or the highest goal of art, is frankly nonsense, and it doesn't even accurately reflect the compositional process. As PetrB used to say "I don't care if he had a tooth ache while writing it."


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Well, who was the source of that quote? Consider the source or, better yet, More than one source. I am on the side of Perahia that Mozart was a master and these sonatas are great works of art that are far more than simply charming works. They're considered essential to the piano literature. It sounds like you are you're just speculating, sensing, that he was trying to make more out of them than they merited. These sonatas have been recorded countless times and not because they were intended for teaching purposes or pedagogical reasons. I believe you're reading things into Perahia's interpretation that he didn't mean at all and that he actually considers these great works. I doubt if he was inflating or exaggerating anything, including their importance. You're guessing about the intentions of a great pianist and not questioning the source of certain statements in an _email_ about Mozart. Surely such points require verification and study An email does not authoritative as a starting point or a frame of reference, as far as I'm concerned. I see nothing pedagogical about these works or anything authoritative as a reference that backs that point of view_. I would never propose such a point of view unless Mozart literally said so himself. _
> 
> On the other hand, it could be easily argued that some of Bach' works were pedagogical, such as his WTC that takes the performer through all keys, and the Art of the Fugue which is instructive on fugues based upon one theme with many examples. Since Chopin has to be dragged into everything even if it has nothing to do with him, he used to recommend that his students practice Bach's WTC on a daily basis, including to strengthen their wrists. Bach was trying to pass on his learning to those who were interested and some of this works are indeed instructive. Going through all the major and minor has to be instructive because he's taking the student through each one systematically.


You asked where I would have read such a thing. It's everywhere. We talk about it in our ensemble. It doesn't detract from a sparkling genius producing those 17 famous sonatas and their worth.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Did Schumann even understand all of Beethoven?
> As you know, you can't appreciate Op61 unless you've memorized it and made it your own. Chopin's mind was at an end.


So you're saying Schumann criticized Chopin because he "did not understand" Chopin, while random people criticizing Mozart sonatas understand the sonatas perfectly. At the same time, you're deeming Schumann a lesser musical mind than Chopin. 
People like you are one of the reasons why I'm so critical about Chopin. Just like those fanatics in the TwoSetViolin video I talked about. They would never accept any criticism against Chopin ever. "Chopin's orchestration is not weak, it's just different." (despite Chopin's shallow understanding of part-writing), "Chopin surpassed Bach in harmony." I heard all kinds of things from them.



hammeredklavier said:


> A few months ago, TwoSetViolin (a massive fan-based youtube channel run by two Asian guys who study violin to be classical musicians in Australia) uploaded a video wherein they discussed and ranked major classical composers based on their greatness by alphabetical letters, S, A, B, C, D.. In the video, the guys first ranked Chopin at C, and later moved him to B.
> The comment section was completely full of angry comments, "how could you rank Chopin so low?" Eventually, TwoSetViolin had to take down the video. They ranked Paganini at D, but nobody complained about that.


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> You were the one who used the terms, so you can use your own definitions.


You think I used those undefinable terms? What did you learn from the context?


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> So you're saying Schumann criticized Chopin because he "did not understand" Chopin, while random people criticizing Mozart sonatas understand the sonatas perfectly. At the same time, you're deeming Schumann a lesser musical mind than Chopin.
> People like you are one of the reasons why I'm so critical about Chopin. Just like those fanatics in the TwoSetViolin video I talked about. They would never accept any criticism against Chopin ever. "Chopin's orchestration is not weak, it's just different." (despite Chopin's shallow understanding of part-writing), "Chopin surpassed Bach in harmony." I heard all kinds of things from them.


 "Chopin surpassed Bach in harmony."

part writing? The appreciation of dissonances, constrained ambiguity, had moved on by about 100 years.


----------



## Larkenfield

Grigory Sokolov... sublime:






Charles Ives called the Mozart Piano Sonatas "lady finger music." While many of the sonatas sound delightful and cheerful, they can be fiendishly difficult to play. I consider them a tremendous window into Mozart's soul, sparkling jewels, even if he didn't plumb the depths as Beethoven did... I rate them far more consistent in quality than Beethoven's. There is a musical purity of invention that I find sublime, but harmonic development didn't stop with him and others took it farther and in a different direction.

I'm more interested in what the world-class pianists have to say than the opinion of any amateur who thinks that anyone can write like Chopin. Music evolved and continued to expand its emotional range. Forget any amateur trying to play these etudes on a competently high level with its interpretive demands and technical brilliance. This was a new world that left the 18th-century behind with its unprecedented chromatic harmonic development and consistently melodic singing voice. It was nothing like Mozart, nor was it intended to be. There had already been a Mozart.

The tremendous performance of Lukas Genjušas...


----------



## tdc

Luchesi said:


> You think I used those undefinable terms? What did you learn from the context?


Your original points were vague and flimsy and when challenged on them you feign forgetfulness and become even more vague. This is what I've learned from this.


----------



## tdc

Larkenfield said:


> While many of the sonatas sound delightful and cheerful, they can be fiendishly difficult to play. I consider them a tremendous window into Mozart's soul, sparkling jewels, even if he didn't plumb the depths as Beethoven did... I rate them far more consistent in quality than Beethoven's. There is a musical purity of invention that I find sublime, but harmonic development didn't stop with him and others took it farther and in a different direction.


You have some good points Larkenfield. Beethoven certainly did some innovative things with form he deserves recognition for, but I'm not convinced he 'plumbed the depths' or was any 'deeper' of a composer than the masters before him. I think it is more related to different musical personalities. Some people will tell a story they clearly have complex feelings about yet they relay the information to you in a relatively even-keeled way, clear and concise. Another person may become more emotional in the process, weeping at times, shouting at others, perhaps going off on more side tangents here and there. To me this reflects a difference in temperaments, not 'depth'.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> You have some good points Larkenfield. Beethoven certainly did some innovative things with form he deserves recognition for, but I'm not convinced he 'plumbed the depths' or was any 'deeper' of a composer than the masters before him. I think it is more related to different musical personalities...


Well, Beethoven's sonatas have been called the "new testament of keyboard music," after Bach's 48. Most would agree that they have a breadth and depth, and an enormous variety, that is entirely unmatched in the sonatas of either Mozart or Haydn. In fact, I really don't understand how anyone can make a contrary claim.


----------



## Larkenfield

tdc said:


> You have some good points Larkenfield. Beethoven certainly did some innovative things with form he deserves recognition for, but I'm not convinced he 'plumbed the depths' or was any 'deeper' of a composer than the masters before him. I think it is more related to different musical personalities. Some people will tell a story they clearly have complex feelings about yet they relay the information to you in a relatively even-keeled way, clear and concise. Another person may become more emotional in the process, weeping at times, shouting at others, perhaps going off on more side tangents here and there. To me this reflects a difference in temperaments, not 'depth'.


Well said. Every listener is different of course. But I find that I'm always eager to hear any one of the Mozart sonatas because I weigh them as different but still having relatively equal value and quality. Not so with the highs and lows of the Beethoven except for the famously named ones, such as the Pastoral, Waldstein, Hammerklavier, Moonlight. Pathetique, and so on, which I find tremendous. Some of the others I consider more exploratory and seem to lack melodic interest, though Beethoven is still one of my all-time favorites, especially the Claudio Arrau performances of the sonatas that I find so irresistible and satisfying. Best wishes.


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


> Well, Beethoven's sonatas have been called the "new testament of keyboard music," after Bach's 48. Most would agree that they have a breadth and depth, and an enormous variety, that is entirely unmatched in the sonatas of either Mozart or Haydn. In fact, I really don't understand how anyone can make a contrary claim.


I made contrary claims to that in other threads:



hammeredklavier said:


> Simply being part of the main, popular repertoire doesn't make a work great.
> On the contrary, if there is disproportionately extreme love for certain works in the general community, you can make an argument about them being overrated.
> As a casual piano player I feel that Beethoven, Chopin are revered like gods of piano by many piano students today (while Mozart is criticized for not having met their standard) mainly because Beethoven and Chopin's style of piano writing greatly benefited from the advancement of the piano technology starting around 1800, which suits the general piano fans' taste better. (Elements like reliance on "banging" in both Beethoven and Chopin and "sentimentality with the pedal" in Chopin, I think)
> Also Schubert's piano sonatas just base around the technique of writing good "songs". I think they're considered greatest of their kind just cause of "good melodies", Schubert's forte. Just look how D960 is rated on this forum. Is it really fair?
> Likewise, I feel that some of Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas and much of Chopin's output consisting of miniatures are not up to the quality, but are revered just because they're core of the curriculum and the fandom keeps using expressions like "New Testament of Piano Music" to describe them and don't take time themselves to look carefully if the works are truly that great.
> Also it is documented that Beethoven himself and 19th century composers studied Mozart Fantasies K608, K594. In terms of historical significance, there are no grounds to call Beethoven and Chopin "Bibles of music" whereas Mozart's solo keyboard works are considered trivial stuff like they are today by many. As I explained in https://www.talkclassical.com/63010-mozart-chopin-piano-works-2.html#post1697500
> I hate to say this again but, I find the second movement of Beethoven's Op.111, for example, a little weak and disappointing (in terms of sense of direction) for something I would expect from Beethoven, (I already explained, it's not something you would expect from the same composer of Apassionata and Tempest Sonatas) https://www.talkclassical.com/62178-your-favorite-best-greatest-4.html#post1667948
> As I said there are lots of people who criticize Mozart sonatas for not being as good as Beethoven, but won't see that both composers simply had their own individuality:
> By their logic, one can also make an argument about Beethoven's Fantasie Op.77 not being as good as Mozart's K475, K511, K394, K397





hammeredklavier said:


> Some of Beethoven 32 piano sonatas are kind of overrated to be honest. There's a fair amount of trivial stuff in the set, but it is enormously popular to piano students (I know this because I was one) and they have to learn it just because it is part of the core curriculum and considered some sort of "Holy Book" altogether. If Beethoven diverged his creative powers and wrote significant pieces in genres such as Fantasies for piano or obscure pieces for organ and stuff like that, they wouldn't have enjoyed popularity like his so-called 'Holy Book' does. Beethoven organized his pieces more homogeneously under the unified title "piano sonatas" (which helps people search for his pieces conveniently) and it does immensely contribute to his status and prestige as a keyboard composer.
> And how many times do I have to mention how much influence Mozart's K475, K511, K394, K397, K540 had on Beethoven and later composers. It's documented that Beethoven actually copied out K608, K594 by hand.
> And I told you before several times, Brahms said his criticism on Beethoven in the final year of his life. So, after a lifetime of study on Beethoven's work, Brahms found flaws in Beethoven's work that are not normally found in Bach, Mozart, Haydn's.





hammeredklavier said:


> http://www.cmpcp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PSN2011_Chueke.pdf
> _"Written between May and June 1785, Mozart C minor Fantasy KV 475 is a perfect illustration example of what Brahms had in mind when proclaiming Mozart as "a fellow modernist."Extremely controversial, generating doubts and questions from the very first measure, musical ideas far ahead of their time make the adventure of exploring this piece with performance purposes one of the most exciting... The very first intriguing aspect we encounter is the non-establishment of any specific tonality, due to the absence not only of a key signature but also of a central tonality which
> would justify the allusion to C minor in the title...
> ...Through the Fantasy's musical discourse, *the confirmation of C minor as the main key
> is held until the end of the piece,* justifying the term "musical plot"; the "mystery" will be
> solved only at the end, like in his operas. Unity and coherence mingle with ingenious - almost
> nonchalant - fluency of discourse, building expectation, which apparently will never be
> satisfied; these are the cornerstones of the mystery."_
> 
> http://musicstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Popovic_JIMS_0932106.pdf#page=9
> _"Mozart's Phantasie transcended the historical and stylistic moment in which it was created, thus what Mozart began was finished by Liszt in his piano composition Sonata in B-minor (1852-1853). It is perfectly reasonable that Mozart's Phantasie served as a model to Franz Liszt for a typological definition of his one-movement sonata cycle."_
> 
> works by later composers influenced/inspired by K475:
> Schubert:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tchaikovsky:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grieg:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Beethoven made his own copy of K608 and procured a copy of K.594."
> ("Automatic Genius: Mozart and the Mechanical Sublime" by Annette Richards)
> 
> "As Wolfgang Plath has pointed out, the influence of Mozart's Fantasy in F minor, K. 608 was considerable in the nineteenth century. Aside from the editions, manuscripts, and arrangements already mentioned, many public performances can be documented. Beethoven owned the work and made his own arrangement of the fugue. Schubert's F Minor Fantasy for piano four-hands, op. 103 (D. 940, 1828), suggests his reaction to the whole of Mozart's piece, whereas Franz Lachner's Wind Octet in B flat, op. 156 (1859) demonstrates his reception of the Andante"_
> https://www.loc.gov/collections/mol...e-to-archives/allegro-and-andante-in-f-minor/
> 
> As I said there's no basis to claim Schubert, Chopin were more influential or innovative with the keyboard than Mozart.





hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think I'm displaying more 'bias' than other people here. As I did in the Chopin thread, the message I want to get across is quite simple. Based on these simple criteria below, I don't think there's really a 'weakness' in Mozart's keyboard writing. It's the same reason why I consider Bach great, for example.
> 1. writing for structure: sonatas, fantasies, rondos, variations, fugues
> 2. writing for texture: melody, harmony, counterpoint
> 
> K475: the sheer sense in introducing A -> B -> C -> D.. with flow and making them coherently connect with transition is masterful. At Tempo Primo (9:15) and the final resolution, I'm like "wow.. what a structure.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K394: the dynamism of the fantasie constrasts with the fugue's restraint and Mozartian expression of the Bachian feel of "expanding universe". The modulations at 9:05 are euphoric like climatic moments of Mozart's instrumental works
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K511: exploration of chromaticism in each of the sections (3:00, 5:55, 8:00) is otherworldly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K608: a masterpiece in motivic development: fugue of the initial allegro eventually turns into a stormy double fugue (8:48) for a dramatic ending, starkly contrasting with the more lyrical, contrapuntal variation (3:07) of the andante middle section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K594: the polar opposite of K608, the initial adagio and the final adagio (5:33) express desolate feelings, contrasting with the more lively, ceremonial-feeling sonata-form middle section (1:52).


----------



## hammeredklavier

Robert Levin discussing "The slow movements and the human formula" regarding Mozart sonatas at 4:48








hammeredklavier said:


>





hammeredklavier said:


> It is my opinion Chopin never comes to sublimity of the harmony at 6:15


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## tdc

KenOC said:


> Well, Beethoven's sonatas have been called the "new testament of keyboard music," after Bach's 48. Most would agree that they have a breadth and depth, and an enormous variety, that is entirely unmatched in the sonatas of either Mozart or Haydn. In fact, I really don't understand how anyone can make a contrary claim.


Beethoven's sonatas certainly form an impressive body of work. He put a lot into those pieces, there is a lot of breadth, and variety in there. I have to admire some aspects of his approach, even though often times his musical temperament over all is so far removed from what I perceive as tasteful. I can see why many people admire his sonatas and feel they are the pinnacle of the classical piano repertoire. All I'm saying is that I prefer Mozart's aesthetic and I don't believe Beethoven has any more 'depth' in his music. I believe the depth of Beethoven is a little more out in the open or on the surface, where in Mozart there is a deceptive simplicity on the surface, but a profound underlying depth.


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> Beethoven's sonatas certainly form an impressive body of work. He put a lot into those pieces, there is a lot of breadth, and variety in there. I have to admire some aspects of his approach, even though often times his musical temperament over all is so far removed from what I perceive as tasteful. I can see why many people admire his sonatas and feel they are the pinnacle of the classical piano repertoire. All I'm saying is that I prefer Mozart's aesthetic and I don't believe Beethoven has any more 'depth' in his music. I believe the depth of Beethoven is a little more out in the open or on the surface, where in Mozart there is a deceptive simplicity on the surface, but a profound underlying depth.


In my opinion this discussion between you and Ken demonstrates how vacuous the idea of semantic depth is in music.

But Ken mentioned other things which may be more rewarding to home in on: variety and breadth - I'm not sure if they're the same or not,

All these spacial metaphors - depth, breadth, profundity - are a source of dreadful nonsense. Best avoided, best to speak without them.


----------



## millionrainbows

So what is it now, Beethoven vs. Chopin, or Mozart vs. Chopin? It's funny how the mods closed my "guilt" thread in Area 51 for going off-topic, and yet this sort of rambling is allowed to go on and on...


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> Your original points were vague and flimsy and when challenged on them you feign forgetfulness and become even more vague. This is what I've learned from this.


I was trying to be polite to you. I didn't use those undefinable terms. Now you accuse me of feigning forgetfulness.


----------



## tdc

Luchesi said:


> I was trying to be polite to you. I didn't use those undefinable terms. Now you accuse me of feigning forgetfulness.


Look at the quotes of yours I presented in post #173. You use both the terms 'great' and 'works of art'. Are these not the terms you are now saying are undefinable and that you did not use?


----------



## Xisten267

There is *a Mozart vs Bach poll* here. Bach is winning by a wide margin at this moment.


----------



## KenOC

Rather than to go on at soul-numbing length, as one member here tends to do, I'll just mention that I've started a poll on classical-period keyboard sonata composers *here*.


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


> Rather than to go on at soul-numbing length, as one member here tends to do, I'll just mention that I've started a poll on classical-period keyboard sonata composers *here*.


Well, everything I wrote there can be summarized into these 3 points:
1. In terms of historical significance (influence on later composers), Beethoven's keyboard works aren't any more significant than Mozart's. 
2. Yes, Beethoven was very good at writing keyboard sonatas and variations. But we can't say the same for his ability to write fantasies (Look at his best attempt, Op.77) or fugues. In this respect, there's just as much variety in Mozart in terms of instruments, forms, texture if you count all the miscellaneous works. At least Beethoven does minimalism better than Mozart, (in the variations of Op.111) I can give him credit for that.
3. Beethoven's set of 32 sonatas does NOT match Bach's WTC in consistency of quality. People labelling it the "New Testament of Music" are overrating it.

And I keep saying this: *TC polls and rankings don't mean anything.* (I won't mention their names specifically, there are even actually people who consider pop music just as great as classical music, in this "classical music" forum, for god's sake.) 
TC tends to be really biased and produce bizzare results. This is one example of their extreme bias: What is the greatest string quintet? how can I expect them to make "objective judgements"?



KenOC said:


> Well, Beethoven's sonatas have been called the "new testament of keyboard music," after Bach's 48. Most would agree that they have a breadth and depth, and an enormous variety, that is entirely unmatched in the sonatas of either Mozart or Haydn. In fact, I really don't understand how anyone can make a contrary claim.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> And I keep saying this: *TC polls and rankings don't mean anything.* (I won't mention their names specifically, there are even actually people who prefer pop music over classical music, in this "classical music" forum, for god's sake.)


Let's identify them and give them a whipping.:clap:


----------



## Larkenfield

...............


----------



## Larkenfield

* hammeredklavier*

How about taking a break from your obsessive opinions on everything you object to about other composers or take exception to as overrated?-which is essentially everyone other than Mozart. How about actually sharing what you get out of the music personally as a human being? How does it touch you? How does it make you feel? What are your emotional reactions? Something human for a change. Enough is enough in trying to objectify everything. People listen to music because it touches them in some way and not just because of historical or academic interest. I've never seen such a narrow range of interest in music. Others try to open the doors to enjoying a wide range of interests while you only seem interested in closing them. I reject that as too narrow and negative. People listen to music because it makes them feel better and gives them a human experience, one that's more than intellectual, academic or factual. What about its spirit and soul?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> How about taking a break from your obsessive opinions on everything you object to about other composers or take exception to as overrated?-which is essentially everyone other than Mozart.


What are you talking about. I consider Haydn, Hummel, CPE Bach underrated, and I rate JS Bach above Mozart. 
I perfectly respect other people's preferences, it's just that it pisses me off when people make unreasonable claims on stuff. Such as https://www.talkclassical.com/63010-mozart-chopin-piano-works-6.html#post1698851


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, everything I wrote there can be summarized into these 3 points:
> 1. In terms of historical significance (influence on later composers), Beethoven's keyboard works aren't any more significant than Mozart's.
> 2. Yes, Beethoven was very good at writing keyboard sonatas and variations. But we can't say the same for his ability to write fantasies (Look at his best attempt, Op.77) or fugues. In this respect, there's just as much variety in Mozart in terms of instruments, forms, texture if you count all the miscellaneous works. At least Beethoven does minimalism better than Mozart, (in the variations of Op.111) I can give him credit for that.
> 3. Beethoven's set of 32 sonatas does NOT match Bach's WTC in consistency of quality. People labelling it the "New Testament of Music" are overrating it.
> 
> And I keep saying this: *TC polls and rankings don't mean anything.* (I won't mention their names specifically, there are even actually people who consider pop music just as great as classical music, in this "classical music" forum, for god's sake.)
> TC tends to be really biased and produce bizzare results. This is one example of their extreme bias: What is the greatest string quintet? how can I expect them to make "objective judgements"?


1. Beethoven's solo keyboard works are way more significant than Mozart's. There is expression more fully realized and instrumental technique there not found in Bach, Haydn or Mozart. Who's solo works had more influence on Liszt's technique? I also saying this because the level of lyricism in Mozart's piano concertos is generally not found in his piano sonatas.

2. He wasn't good at writing fugues? How about the one in his Quartet Op. 131?

3. I agree it doesn't nearly match Bach's WTC in consistency of quality. Some are a lot more mind-blowing than others (for music written up to that time). Can we expect them all to be the same consistently mind-blowingness? I know you don't want to hear that, and it probably annoys you, because maybe you're underrating them? I don't care if it's only 5 of the 32 that are great (there is way more than that), it depends how far the great ones go, and they go farther than anyone has the ability to criticize.

I agree with you on one thing. That polls don't mean a thing. Bach vs. Mozart vs. Beethoven. I say each had a greatness that can't be measured with each other. Also I say the worst kind of comparison anyone can do between great composers is compare by quantity of good works. Mozart still remains my favourite of the 3 BTW, I'm not a Mozart hater.


----------



## Bulldog

Phil loves classical said:


> I also saying this because the level of lyricism in Mozart's piano concertos is generally not found in his piano sonatas.


I have not heard this now before, and I don't agree. However, it's all subjective.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> 1. Beethoven's solo keyboard works are way more significant than Mozart's. There is expression more fully realized and instrumental technique there not found in Bach, Haydn or Mozart. Who's solo works had more influence on Liszt's technique? I also saying this because the level of lyricism in Mozart's piano concertos is generally not found in his piano sonatas.


I find it frustrating that people never read what I write, and complain I write too much. https://www.talkclassical.com/63010-mozart-chopin-piano-works-9.html#post1704594

http://www.cmpcp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PSN2011_Chueke.pdf
_"Written between May and June 1785, Mozart C minor Fantasy KV 475 is a perfect illustration example of what Brahms had in mind when proclaiming Mozart as "a fellow modernist."Extremely controversial, generating doubts and questions from the very first measure, musical ideas far ahead of their time make the adventure of exploring this piece with performance purposes one of the most exciting... The very first intriguing aspect we encounter is the non-establishment of any specific tonality..."_

http://musicstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Popovic_JIMS_0932106.pdf#page=9
_"Mozart's Phantasie transcended the historical and stylistic moment in which it was created, thus what Mozart began was finished by Liszt in his piano composition Sonata in B-minor (1852-1853). It is perfectly reasonable that Mozart's Phantasie served as a model to Franz Liszt for a typological definition of his one-movement sonata cycle."_

Explain more on "instrumental technique". I think that was expected for his time, typical early 19th century piano technique. The stuff inherited from Mozart, Haydn, Clementi. Have you listened to Hummel's Etudes Op.125, for example?



Phil loves classical said:


> 2. He wasn't good at writing fugues? How about the one in his Quartet Op. 131?


That's not even a keyboard work. 
BTW, speaking of fugues for strings, 
everyone seems to be obsessed pointing out how great first movement of Beethoven's Op.111 is..
Nobody seems to care about the fact it's inspired by Mozart Adagio and Fugue K546 (or fugue for two pianos K426 



)
The first movement of Op.131 still sounds like lot like a chorale to be a complete fugue to me ('homo-rhythmic' in many parts).



Phil loves classical said:


> 3. I agree it doesn't nearly match Bach's WTC in consistency of quality. Some are a lot more mind-blowing than others (for music written up to that time). Can we expect them all to be the same consistently mind-blowingness? I know you don't want to hear that, and it probably annoys you, because maybe you're underrating them? I don't care if it's only 5 of the 32 that are great (there is way more than that), it depends how far the great ones go, and they go farther than anyone has the ability to criticize.


I still think there's nothing like first movement of K533 (for example 



) in Beethoven. I acknowledge Beethoven's innovations. Beethoven was good at doing his stuff, whereas Mozart was good at doing his. I don't think there's constant need to hype how he's better than Mozart.



Phil loves classical said:


> I agree with you on one thing. That polls don't mean a thing. Bach vs. Mozart vs. Beethoven. I say each had a greatness that can't be measured with each other. Also I say the worst kind of comparison anyone can do between great composers is compare by quantity of good works. Mozart still remains my favourite of the 3 BTW, I'm not a Mozart hater.


If you like them, that's fine. I'm just very annoyed by people obsessed making polls about everything everytime. I just don't like this attitude: "Hey, 80% of TC members chose X over Y, now you must all accept that X is better." I know Larkenfield and others find me annoying. But there's something about other people I find annoying as well.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Larkenfield said:


> * hammeredklavier*
> 
> How about taking a break from your obsessive opinions on everything you object to about other composers or take exception to as overrated?-which is essentially everyone other than Mozart. How about actually sharing what you get out of the music personally as a human being? How does it touch you? How does it make you feel? What are your emotional reactions? Something human for a change. Enough is enough in trying to objectify everything. People listen to music because it touches them in some way and not just because of historical or academic interest. I've never seen such a narrow range of interest in music. Others try to open the doors to enjoying a wide range of interests while you only seem interested in closing them. I reject that as too narrow and negative. People listen to music because it makes them feel better and gives them a human experience, one that's more than intellectual, academic or factual. What about its spirit and soul?


The problem I have is less with the constant academic, objective analysis (as one can learn from such things), and more with presentation, which reduces to a failure to follow Pope's dictum:

Men must be taught as if you taught them not, 
And things unknown proposed as things forgot.

If knowledge is a hammer it should be used as a tool to build and not wielded as a weapon to destroy.


----------



## KenOC

(deleted to keep the peace…)


----------



## Woodduck

"Odious Comparison" is a game similar to "Monopoly," except that players tend to imagine that accumulating more fake money actually makes them richer.


----------



## Larkenfield

*Now Hear This "The Riddle of Bach"*

"Scott Yoo goes to Germany to learn Bach's sonatas and partitas, widely considered among the greatest works ever written for solo violin. There, he discovers a riddle Bach left behind in his portrait. In trying to solve it, Scott discovers that Bach based his melodic style on Vivaldi and his rhythms on the music of the French court, which leads to a spectacular finale in Paris."

https://www.pbs.org/video/now-hear-this-the-riddle-of-bach-0gvsgj/

Delightful performances. Scott Yoo can play (a name that was new to me). Alice Sara Ott on keyboards. Illuminating and thought-provoking on the great German master. Where Bach drank beer in Weimar before moving to Leipzig. Visit to Bach's church and where he lived. The dances that inspired Bach. A triple fugue on one of Bach's organs. Marvelous displays of musicianship. :cheers:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The problem I have is less with the constant academic, objective analysis (as one can learn from such things), and more with presentation, which reduces to a failure to follow Pope's dictum:
> 
> Men must be taught as if you taught them not,
> And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
> 
> If knowledge is a hammer it should be used as a tool to build and not wielded as a weapon to destroy.


You accuse me of being a cold critic, but in my eyes, it's the Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert extremists who always keep using vague words "transcendence", "poetry" to glorify their idols while dismissing Mozart as being nothing but fluff.
Mozart has his own "realm of abstractness" such as






the chromatic sections 'Piu Allegro - Tempo Primo' of Fantasie K475 




_"You're a "higher intellectual being" if you appreciate Beethoven Op.111 more than Mozart"_, - I constantly sense this annoyingly arrogant air of attitude from Beethoven, Chopin extremists. Maybe I'm the one who should be telling them, not everyone has to admire all that "boogie-woogie and minimalism drenched in Beethovenian flavor" to be considered an intellectual. It's funny how people accuse me of being dogmatic, without realizing how much "Romanticism-centric dogma" there is in the classical music community.



Luchesi said:


> Did Schumann even understand all of Beethoven?
> As you know, you can't appreciate Op61 unless you've memorized it and made it your own. Chopin's mind was at an end.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

hammeredklavier said:


> You accuse me of being a cold critic...


No, I didn't, that was Larkenfield in post #211. Not a good look to criticize others for not reading you while failing to have read others correctly.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Everytime I'm critical about Chopin, I do it because I'm disturbed by other people overrating him by making unreasonable claims and unfair comparisons with the real masters. Just go through all those threads. Do I ever derail or write irrelevant stuff on any thread out of sheer hatred or bias?
> In that Best Harmonist Among the Romantics thread/poll, Chopin was actually winning the poll when I wrote all that criticism.
> Do you ever see me going into threads on "technical difficulties of performing Chopin" and discuss what I think are "his compositional failures"?
> I even tolerate people saying Chopin's Waltzes and Mazurkas are masterpieces as long as those people don't compare them with works of the real masters.


Your assertion regarding those you consider to be the 'real masters' belittles those who don't agree with you HK. It's not enough to appeal to popularity as a measure.


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> Look at the quotes of yours I presented in post #173. You use both the terms 'great' and 'works of art'. Are these not the terms you are now saying are undefinable and that you did not use?


Thanks, I apologize, I went back and looked through my posts in my profile and I couldn't find what you were talking about. Now you've listed them.

When talking to each other we 'know' what those terms mean, in our personal lives, but they can't be used in a serious debate without defining them. You seemed to want to debate the 'greatness' of keyboard studies. We would probably disagree about what we mean by 'greatness'.

As for works of art, I didn't mean that that phrase was undefinable. Why did you list it?


----------



## tdc

Luchesi said:


> Thanks, I apologize, I went back and looked through my posts in my profile and I couldn't find what you were talking about. Now you've listed them.
> 
> When talking to each other we 'know' what those terms mean, in our personal lives, but they can't be used in a serious debate without defining them. You seemed to want to debate the 'greatness' of keyboard studies. We would probably disagree about what we mean by 'greatness'.
> 
> As for works of art, I didn't mean that that phrase was undefinable. Why did you list it?


Apology accepted.

In the quote of yours I posted you created a dichotomy between something being treated as a work of art and something being treated solely for developing rudimentary keyboard skills.

I think you'll find that given certain works by composers like John Cage and the fact that some people feel that essentially anything can be viewed as art, you will find that a universally agreed upon definition of a 'work of art' is not so easily arrived at.

You can think about these things if you'd like, or not. It's your choice. Thank you for your time, I would like to remove myself from this dialogue with you now.


----------



## Larkenfield

j


Eva Yojimbo said:


> No, I didn't, that was Larkenfield in post #211. Not a good look to criticize others for not reading you while failing to have read others correctly.


I never used the words "cold critic" in #211. I'm being misquoted. Whoever said it, it was not me. Sometimes attributions can get lost or become confused, that is if someone actually said it in the first place... I do not consider HK a cold critic. Badly misguided and acutely misinformed-yes, indeed and he's going to let everyone know who the true masters are even after misrepresenting the ones he doesn't understand or care to. One could list countless world-class pianists who play the works that he doesn't care for to little avail, but onward and upward because he's the authority though being unable to adequately play the works he condemns, such as the Chopin Etudes that require professional talent, brilliance, and humility to play without sounding like an amateur. That takes _cajones_... and of course, any amateur can write like the Polish master with never any example presented. Nothing easier:


----------



## Luchesi

deleted - too personal


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> You accuse me of being a cold critic, but in my eyes, it's the Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert extremists who always keep using vague words "transcendence", "poetry" to glorify their idols while dismissing Mozart as being nothing but fluff.
> 
> _"You're a "higher intellectual being" if you appreciate Beethoven Op.111 more than Mozart"_, - I constantly sense this annoyingly arrogant air of attitude from Beethoven, Chopin extremists. Maybe I'm the one who should be telling them, not everyone has to admire all that "boogie-woogie and minimalism drenched in Beethovenian flavor" to be considered an intellectual. It's funny how people accuse me of being dogmatic, without realizing how much "Romanticism-centric dogma" there is in the classical music community.


The curious compulsion some people have to prove that great composer A is better than great composer B always leads into a briar patch of difficulties. I don't deny that one composer, or one work, may be superior to another, based on particular criteria. But in threads like this people rarely agree on criteria, and generally end up saying a lot of silly and irrelevant things. I rarely participate in such threads - the word "versus" sends me running for my sanity - but when I see a post like this complaining that music lovers are using "vague words" to describe what they're experiencing, I just have to shout, "OF COURSE THEY'RE USING VAGUE WORDS! THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC WORDS FOR EXPRESSING THE EXPERIENCE, MEANING AND VALUE OF MUSIC!"

You may think otherwise. You may believe that a nicely constructed fugue by Bach or Mozart can be shown to be better music than a "poetic" fantasy by Chopin or a "transcendent" sonata by Schubert because you can talk about the fugue without resorting to "vague words." But if you do believe that, I think you are mistaken. All you generally end up showing is that you prefer the artistic goals and styles of Bach and Mozart to those of Chopin and Schubert.

The meaning of music lies in the transaction between the music and the listener, and that transaction is a complex physiological-psychological process that will be different for different listeners and will result in impressions that may not be even remotely describable in specific terms. The techniques employed by the composer may be fairly easy to describe, but it's not so easy to prove that those techniques have been used to produce anything of particular value; a fugue filled with clever thematic transformations may be describable in its physical aspects, but it may leave most listeners cold. On the other hand, an apparently awkward and unpredictable fantasia may fascinate and move people deeply, even though they find it impossible to utter much more in praise of it than "vague words" like "poetic" and "transcendent." But it's perfectly possible that only such words can come anywhere close to the heart of what makes the music remarkable. There are things for which we have no words, and those may be the most important things of all. That is true in art as well as life.

Of course, you're not required to accept "vague words" as recommendations. You may have a legitimate preference for music whose virtues can be described in a vocabulary you consider more specific and comprehensible. But don't imagine that your vocabulary comes anywhere near summing up the meaning and value of _any_ music. I think it was Mahler (among others, no doubt) who observed that if he could express himself in words, he wouldn't need to write music at all.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> The curious compulsion some people have to prove that great composer A is better than great composer B always leads into a briar patch of difficulties...


All the more reason that we should simply accept the judgments that the more discerning listeners among us find intuitively obvious. For example, that the force, depth, and majesty of Beethoven's works completely outshine the far tamer and less imaginative efforts of Mozart. There are, of course, those who refuse to accept such judgments, as obvious as they may seem to the rest of us. We can only hope that such listeners assiduously improve their own tastes until they recognize the truth of these things!


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


> All the more reason that we should simply accept the judgments that the more discerning listeners among us find intuitively obvious. For example, that the force, depth, and majesty of Beethoven's works completely outshine the far tamer and less imaginative efforts of Mozart. There are, of course, those who refuse to accept such judgments, as obvious as they may seem to the rest of us. We can only hope that such listeners assiduously improve their own tastes until they recognize the truth of these things!


https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false
"You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like."

_"his variations and the like."_









So true..
Can't agree more..


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> All you generally end up showing is that you prefer the artistic goals and styles of Bach and Mozart to those of Chopin and Schubert.


I said many times now, I respect other people's preferences. It's people like KenOC who refuse to.


----------



## KenOC

hammeredklavier said:


> "You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like."


Sorry, I must raise my voice and cry "BS alert!" Many of B's greatest works were written on commission. For instance, the Eroica was commissioned by Prince Lobkowitz, to whom it is dedicated. The 5th Symphony was commissioned by Count Franz von Oppersdorff, as was the 4th. The Opus 18 quartets were commissioned, again, by Lobkowitz, while the Opus 59 quartets were commissioned by Count Razumovsky, and the central three of the late quartets by the Russian Prince Golitsin. I could go on…but what's the use?

(I won't even add that The Philharmonic Society of London commissioned the 9th Symphony in 1817.)


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


> A bit of BS there. Many of B's greatest works were written on commission. For instance, the Eroica was commissioned by Prince Lobkowitz, to whom it is dedicated. The 5th Symphony was commissioned by Count Franz von Oppersdorff, as was the 4th. The Opus 18 quartets were commissioned, again, by Lobkowitz, while the Opus 59 quartets were commissioned by Count Razumovsky, and the central three of the late quartets by the Russian Prince Golitsin. I could go on…but what's the use?


maybe Brahms in his late years thought they weren't really that great .. I dunno


----------



## Ethereality

KenOC said:


> All the more reason that we should simply accept the judgments that the more discerning listeners among us find intuitively obvious. For example, that the force, depth, and majesty of Beethoven's works completely outshine the far tamer and less imaginative efforts of Mozart.


What about the opinions of Schubert, Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Dvorak, Strauss, and Beethoven himself? I've read the sources that they all preferred Mozart to Beethoven.


----------



## KenOC

Ethereality said:


> What about the opinions of Schubert, Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Dvorak, Strauss, and Beethoven himself? I've read the sources that they all preferred Mozart to Beethoven.


A very simplistic view. Certainly Chopin and Tchaikovsky (probably) placed Mozart ahead of Beethoven. Haydn, to my knowledge, never had anything to say on the matter. The opinions of the rest, in some cases changing from day to day, might be interesting to discuss.

_Schubert_, on hearing Beethoven's Op. 131 quartet shortly before his death: "After this, what is there left for us to write?" He asked to be buried alongside Beethoven.

_Brahms_: "I shall never write a symphony! You can't have any idea what it's like always to hear such a giant marching behind you!"

I'll let you supply quotes for some of the others.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I said many times now, I respect other people's preferences. It's people like KenOC who refuse to.


I said nothing about respect. i think you missed the point of my post. Too bad, since I spent a lot of time on it.

Carry on with the "my daddy can beat up your daddy" bickering, boys.


----------



## Ethereality

@KenOC I found it interesting that the trend in biographies we _do_ have at their respective times (for Schubert, Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Dvorak, Strauss, and Beethoven himself), say they all favored Mozart to Beethoven. Whether these are somehow inaccurate? is less interesting or known than the fact that they all form a sweeping pattern.

For example, most famous composers all loved Mozart. Many of these composers were said to be either harsh or less interested in Beethoven's music.


----------



## KenOC

Ethereality said:


> @KenOC I found it interesting that the trend of the quotes we _do_ have at their respective times, all favor Mozart. Whether these are inaccurate, is less known than the fact that they are all here.
> 
> Also, all the other famous composers loved Mozart, while some are harsh about Beethoven. Everyone seems to have only the best things to say about Mozart.


Without agreeing with your conclusion, it's certainly true that Mozart is inoffensive.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Without agreeing with your conclusion, it's certainly true that Mozart is inoffensive.


Not only that! Mozart is the most inoffensive composer who ever lived!


----------



## Ethereality

KenOC said:


> it's certainly true that Mozart is inoffensive.


"Inoffensive" wasn't the term used by these select class masterminds. Revered is the term.

In any case, I write this just to counter the comment on what 'discerning minds' think. Perhaps there's a different argument you can find.


----------



## KenOC

Ethereality said:


> "Inoffensive" wasn't the term used by these select class masterminds. Revered is the term.


It's certainly true that some composers were quite intimidated by Beethoven (see a couple in post #234) and may have been somewhat resentful. Not surprising.


----------



## Ethereality

KenOC said:


> it's certainly true that Mozart is inoffensive.


I think "inoffensive" is your own choice of wording or philosophy on Mozart. While it's clear what you mean, I doubt the composers I listed share that as their main philosophy or take on why they loved and favored him. Just to contrast this with something more sensible: _silence_ is inoffensive. _Music_ doesn't exactly qualify for such oversimplification.



KenOC said:


> I'll let you supply quotes for some of the others.


The exact quotes would be nice. Here's another user who agrees with these sources, listing to the best of their knowledge each composer's favorite composers: Composers' Lists of Greatest Composers



KenOC said:


> It's certainly true that some composers were quite intimidated by Beethoven


Beethoven is up there in reverence with Mozart, so certainly.



KenOC said:


> intimidated by Beethoven and may have been somewhat resentful . Not surprising.


I struggle to see why anyone would be resentful, at least as the overarching theme to this lesson. That wording doesn't seem right.


----------



## Larkenfield

Beethoven was the Babe Ruth of composers. But Mozart was the Sandy Koufax. :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> Beethoven was the Babe Ruth of composers. But Mozart was the Sandy Koufax. :tiphat:


"The air was shattered by the force of Ludwig's mighty blow..."


----------



## tdc

The recent comments on Mozart's music being 'inoffensive', reinforce my view that his music is more easily misunderstood than the music of many of the other major composers.

In one of the videos hammeredclavier linked to in this thread Robert Levine comments on aspects of Mozart he considers 'rude, but delectable.' Charles Rosen describes much of Mozart's music as violent, and works like the k 466 concerto reflecting a side of Mozart's compositional personality he views as 'daemonic'.

Kierkegaard wrote an essay on _Don Giovanni_, and behind it is the idea that music is a sin. The following excerpts are taken from Rosen:

"Behind Kierkegaard's essay on _Don Giovanni_ stands the idea that music is a sin: it seems fundamentally sound that he should have chosen Mozart as the most sinful composer of all. What is extraordinary about Mozart's style is the combination of physical delight - a sensuous play of sonority, an indulgence in the most luscious harmonic sequences - with a purity and economy of line and form that render the seduction all the more efficient.

...In all of Mozart's supreme expressions of suffering and terror - the G minor Symphony, _Don Giovanni_, the G minor Quintet, Pamina's aria in _The Magic Flute_ - there is something shockingly voluptuous. Nor does this detract from its power or effectiveness: the grief and the sensuality strengthen each other, and end by becoming indivisible, indistinguishable one from the other. (Tchaikovsky's grief, for example, has an equal lubricity, but his diffuse and wasteful technique of composition make him far less dangerous.) In his corruption of sentimental values, Mozart is a subversive artist.

Almost all art is subversive: it attacks established values, and replaces them with those of its own creation; it substitutes its own order for that of society. The disconcertingly suggestive aspects - moral and political - of Mozart's operas are only a surface appearance of this aggression. His works are in many ways an assault upon the musical language that he helped to create: the powerful chromaticism that he could employ with such ease comes near at moments to destroying the tonal clarity that was essential to the significance of his own forms, and it was this chromaticism that had a real influence on the Romantic style, on Chopin and Wagner in particular...Beethoven's attack was naked, no art was less accommodating in its refusal to accept any other conditions than its own. Mozart was as unaccommodating as Beethoven, and the sheer physical beauty, prettiness, even, of so much of what he composed masks the uncompromising character of his art."


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> The recent comments on Mozart's music being 'inoffensive', reinforce my view that his music is more easily misunderstood than the music of many of the other major composers...


When we review Mozart's symphonies, we find quite a few that are *spurious*, or doubtful, or were simply overlooked by the good Herr Kochel. Can you imagine Beethoven's reaction if this happened to him? Ladies and children, avert your eyes!

The fact is that several of Mozart's less notable symphonies (and yes, there are many such) served as outhouses for the laborers building Beethoven's far more grandiose mansions. That's just the way it is.


----------



## isorhythm

Symphonies aren't a good place to look, most of them are juvenilia.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

tdc said:


> The recent comments on Mozart's music being 'inoffensive', reinforce my view that his music is more easily misunderstood than the music of many of the other major composers.


Great post. Not only would I say he's misunderstood, but I'd say that there's a huge amount of historical revisionism happening. Mozart certainly wasn't inoffensive in his own time. For those who've read contemporary reviews and responses to many of his works, especially the chamber music, many people were quite perplexed as to what he was doing. Perhaps the reason so many find Mozart inoffensive now is simply because the classical style itself seems inoffensive; all those major key and all that melody, surely there can't be anything offensive about that, right?


----------



## KenOC

And aside from being inoffensive, and writing music that's 90% bowing and scraping, showing the knee and fluttering the handkerchief, Mozart invented aleatoric music with his "*Musikalisches Würfelspiel*." Thus we have Mozart to thank for John Cage! I'm sure there are other crimes as well to be laid at his feet.


----------



## hammeredklavier

----------------------------------------


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, you never really properly listen to what I say.


Perhaps this will help. 

hammeredklavier, I have to ask, and pardon me if this is too personal (if it is, just ignore), and know that I truly and honestly mean no offense by it; are you by any chance autistic? I ask because I've known people who are that remind me of you; extremely intelligent, bright, analytical, but lacking in social skills and have a tendency to take everything literally. Like, when I said about Mozart: "all those major key and all that melody, surely there can't be anything offensive about that, right?" I was clearly imitating those who find him inoffensive, I certainly did not mean that I agreed with that sentiment. I would think that would be obvious from the context of that comment.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Perhaps this will help.
> 
> hammeredklavier, I have to ask, and pardon me if this is too personal (if it is, just ignore), and know that I truly and honestly mean no offense by it; are you by any chance autistic? I ask because I've known people who are that remind me of you; extremely intelligent, bright, analytical, but lacking in social skills and have a tendency to take everything literally. Like, when I said about Mozart: "all those major key and all that melody, surely there can't be anything offensive about that, right?" I was clearly imitating those who find him inoffensive, I certainly did not mean that I agreed with that sentiment. I would think that would be obvious from the context of that comment.


I apologize. I admit, over the years I've been getting very sensitive over topics like these, - from meeting other people who talk so much bullsh about how "Mozart, Haydn wrote in major keys all the time". And English isn't my first language, I tend to misinterpret sometimes.


----------



## Woodduck

I haven't asked him to confirm this, and he has characteristically declined to explain himself, but I'm pretty sure KenOC was joking about Mozart being inoffensive. I know I was joking when I then proposed that Mozart was the most inoffensive composer of all time (this IS a competition for honors, right?). Still, it might be true that in 2019 Mozart's music offends only people violently allergic to Alberti bass and cadential trills on the supertonic. Why, oh why, are the trills never on the leading tone? Bach puts them in both places, often prolonging and elaborating them for maximal expression and tension. Bach wins the trill competition. No offense.


----------



## hammeredklavier

---------------------------------------------


----------



## Bwv 1080

Mozart could be quite offensive

_Leck mire den A… recht schon,
fein sauber lecke ihn,
fein sauber lecke, leck mire den A…
Das ist ein fettigs Begehren,
nur gut mit Butter geschmiert,
den das Lecken der Braten mein tagliches Thun.
Drei lecken mehr als Zweie,
nur her, machet die Prob'
und leckt, leckt, leckt.
Jeder leckt sein A… fur sich._


----------



## Ethereality

Still, the issue is not that Mozart is inoffensive. He is inoffensive. Rather, the issue is that it's great we can look 200 back at Mozart's original creations and say how offensive other composers are by comparison, without such music we would have no basis on defining 'inoffensive.' Such quality is not among the reasons any major composers largely revere Mozart, but simply that he was original in writing loads of their favorite music. This is why polls vs ratings yield such different results--polls only gauge what people think is the very best, and that quality of Mozart is what we read from the big composers' quotes and biographies at least; if those are wrong then I guess Beethoven wasn't more criticized and disliked after all.

Nothing about 'everyone's favorite' equates to 'inoffensive.' If something is a favorite then it naturally implies there's much more to it without even having to know exactly what it is, or how to put words on it. It's only possible we can open our minds to really understand why, or in the process, fail to understand all the great composers' perspective on Mozart which they shared.

Again, this is quite a different story than a 'Rotten Tomatoes' scenario for instance, where 100% of people lukewarm-like a film and yet it's nobody's favorite. Everyone loving a composer to death is a very polar-opposite phenomenon, and I can't claim to know all the esoteric intricacies of their infatuation with Mozart. That would require me to be a great, like them. Instead, I'm open to the idea of understanding in part. Simply me intuitively already enjoying Mozart isn't enough: I used to not care for _Bach,_ but among reading composer biographies and how revered Bach is, I started listening and changing my mind more.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> And aside from being inoffensive, and writing music that's 90% bowing and scraping, showing the knee and fluttering the handkerchief, Mozart invented aleatoric music with his "*Musikalisches Würfelspiel*." Thus we have Mozart to thank for John Cage! I'm sure there are other crimes as well to be laid at his feet.


We also have Mozart to thank for minimalism; some of those left-hand figurations, if repeated, would sound just like Philip Glass' piano music. Maybe we have Nadia Boulanger to thank for this Mozart influence on Glass.


----------



## hammeredklavier

-----------------------------------------


----------



## hammeredklavier

-------------------------------------------


----------

