# Difference between Bach's music and Vivaldi's music?



## Gondur

If you were to distinguish between the two of them, how would you do it? From what I hear in Vivaldi's music, especially his sacred music abound with fifth progressions, there is an underlying 'need' or yearning, yet there is an overwhelming recognition of our place in this world. Vivaldi, unlike Bach, realizes that we are lesser beings of God and nothing can change this, despite an 'insatiable need to'. Bach, however, tries to elevate us onto the same standing as God through his music with the assumption that a route to the divine is possible. There is no route to the divine in Vivaldi's music and his music is quite parodistic, assuming there is, when there isn't.

So although I appreciate the intellectual and spiritual magnificence of Bach's music, his music tells me he aspired to sit on the throne of the Divine, alongside God in heaven, which no human being can do, nor has the right to do because we are God's puppets and he our puppeteer. The difference is, Vivaldi's recognizes this whereas Bach does not. In other words, Vivaldi knocks on the gates of heaven, awaiting an answer from God but never receives one. Bach, however, arrogantly strides through the gates, thinking he is God's equal and therefore, takes the leap of faith Vivaldi could never take.

Vivaldi is like the crying child in the corner whom you feel sorry for. Bach is the fatherly figure who comforts this child. And I think Bach was so heavily influenced by Vivaldi for this reason. He found his long lost crying child. Vivaldi was apart of Bach he knew he had inside of himself because listening to the opening of his Easter Oratorio, I know for sure Bach had a strong dormant sense of opera but, for reasons which I am sure you will explain, didn't elaborate on it as Vivaldi was able to in his music.

This is my subjective opinion!


----------



## Cosmos

Interesting way to look at it. Though I think there's a easier way to recognize difference between the two

Vivaldi tends to be more melodic, and focuses on shifting rhythms. He mainly wrote concertos, some choral works, some operas, and some sonatas
Bach wrote in a huge amount of genre, and focuses strongly on counterpoint and polyphony, as well as kaleidoscope harmonies.

Both were genius, and both have a distinct voice that is easy to notice. If someone were to play a Vivaldi work I'd never heard before, and a Bach work I'd never heard before, I could probably immediately tell who wrote which


----------



## hpowders

Vivaldi's music is instantly more melodic, accessible and pleasing in that sunny italian style of the time.

Bach requires a lot more work. His music is more complex with passacaglias and fugues,etc; He was a composing virtuoso.

However, I do believe the effort expended to "get" Bach is much more rewarding than the instant pleasure Vivaldi provides.

Bach is one of the most profound composers ever. Vivaldi, not.


----------



## Gondur

Cosmos said:


> Interesting way to look at it. Though I think there's a easier way to recognize difference between the two
> 
> Vivaldi tends to be more melodic, and focuses on shifting rhythms. He mainly wrote concertos, some choral works, some operas, and some sonatas
> Bach wrote in a huge amount of genre, and focuses strongly on counterpoint and polyphony, as well as kaleidoscope harmonies.
> 
> Both were genius, and both have a distinct voice that is easy to notice. If someone were to play a Vivaldi work I'd never heard before, and a Bach work I'd never heard before, I could probably immediately tell who wrote which





hpowders said:


> Vivaldi's music is instantly more melodic, accessible and pleasing in that sunny italian style of the time.
> 
> Bach requires a lot more work. His music is more complex with passacaglias and fugues,etc; He was a composing virtuoso.
> 
> However, I do believe the effort expended to "get" Bach is much more rewarding than the instant pleasure Vivaldi provides.
> 
> Bach is one of the most profound composers ever. Vivaldi, not.


I'm aware of those differences but mine was more of a metaphorical analysis personal to me.


----------



## PetrB

Germanic North European Protestant mentality 
vs. 
Italianate Latin (Roman / Romance) Southern European mentality.


----------



## violadude

Not to be rude, but I have absolutely no interest in waxing philosophical about what Vivaldi or Bach's music might portray about God, the divine or what pathway to the spiritual each one might contain. 

One of the main superficial differences between the two is the kind of textures they use. As an Italian composer, Vivaldi came from a musical tradition that very much values melody. You can hear this when you listen to his concertos as they are often written in a way where one instrument has the melodic material for quite a while, while the other instruments are serving a supportive role. Obviously, he broke this mold every now and again, but I think working with a homophonic texture was Vivaldi's main modus operandi.

Bach on the other hand, though quite capable of writing in a melodic Italian style as evidenced by many of his pieces, more often than not opts for a denser texture with many instruments serving equally important roles at once. While Vivalid prefers to keep clarity in his melodic material, Bach often builds complex, interwoven webs of thematic material.

I think Bach was very interested in chromaticism too in a way that Vivaldi was not. Vivaldi could be chromatic no doubt, but I think it was important for him to keep his music easier to follow for people. I'm not saying that he "catered to the audience" but I'm saying he himself preferred a more easier to follow style. Where as Bach, within the context of the Baroque style, sometimes went bonkers exploring the harmonic possibilities of music, especially in his more private and personal works.

Those are a couple fairly surface level differences between the two that I can think of off the top of my head. I might come back with more later.


----------



## PetrB

Gondur said:


> I'm aware of those differences but mine was more of a metaphorical analysis personal to me.


Music is not philosophy.


----------



## aleazk

Who's that "God" guy you mention so often?


----------



## scratchgolf

I cherish the music of both and find much of their works to be instantly accessible. I'm not a classically trained musician, nor did I study music beyond what was required for my lowly high school diploma. Although both composers have pieces which "opened up" to me over repeated listenings, I find both to be amongst the most accessible composers in history. Neither required Stockholm Syndrome for me to enjoy their works and I own a huge catalog of each, to include everything with the name Perlman associated with it.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Music is not philosophy.


:clap::clap:..........................................


----------



## SARDiver

I prefer Vivaldi when I want something a little lighter, or when playing music for non-classical listening guests. He may not be a "profound composer", but his music is very enjoyable. He's the musical equivalent of a gateway drug, too. He was heavily in my rotation (along with Bach's orchestral suites) before I branched out a bit.

On a dark, cloudy day, or when you really want melancholy to take over, nothing beats Bach. He's heavy.


----------



## violadude

Gondur said:


> If you were to distinguish between the two of them, how would you do it? From what I hear in Vivaldi's music, especially his sacred music abound with fifth progressions, there is an underlying 'need' or yearning, yet there is an overwhelming recognition of our place in this world. Vivaldi, unlike Bach, realizes that we are lesser beings of God and nothing can change this, despite an 'insatiable need to'. Bach, however, tries to elevate us onto the same standing as God through his music with the assumption that a route to the divine is possible. There is no route to the divine in Vivaldi's music and his music is quite parodistic, assuming there is, when there isn't.
> 
> So although I appreciate the intellectual and spiritual magnificence of Bach's music, his music tells me he aspired to sit on the throne of the Divine, alongside God in heaven, which no human being can do, nor has the right to do because we are God's puppets and he our puppeteer. The difference is, Vivaldi's recognizes this whereas Bach does not. In other words, Vivaldi knocks on the gates of heaven, awaiting an answer from God but never receives one. Bach, however, arrogantly strides through the gates, thinking he is God's equal and therefore, takes the leap of faith Vivaldi could never take.
> 
> Vivaldi is like the crying child in the corner whom you feel sorry for. Bach is the fatherly figure who comforts this child. And I think Bach was so heavily influenced by Vivaldi for this reason. He found his long lost crying child. Vivaldi was apart of Bach he knew he had inside of himself because listening to the opening of his Easter Oratorio, I know for sure Bach had a strong dormant sense of opera but, for reasons which I am sure you will explain, didn't elaborate on it as Vivaldi was able to in his music.
> 
> This is my subjective opinion!


I, again, call into question your knowledge of Bach's life and personality. Yes, he could be a cranky guy but he was very devoutly religious. It is clearly shown through many aspects of his life, not least of which the scores that he literally dedicated to the glory of God, that he was a very humble man with regards to the god that he worshiped. I think Bach, like many Christians, thought man to be God's most divine creation. But this idea that he thought humans were on the same level as God sounds like something you just made up, unless you can provide a biographical source.


----------



## Gondur

PetrB said:


> Music is not philosophy.


Oh really? Are you another one of these pedants who scoff at anything new? It does not matter that music is not philosophy but I take then you're not aware of Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid?


----------



## Gondur

violadude said:


> I, again, call into question your knowledge of Bach's life and personality. Yes, he could be a cranky guy but he was very devoutly religious. It is clearly shown through many aspects of his life, not least of which the scores that he literally dedicated to the glory of God, that he was a very humble man with regards to the god that he worshiped. I think Bach, like many Christians, thought man to be God's most divine creation. But this idea that he thought humans were on the same level as God sounds like something you just made up, unless you can provide a biographical source.


Of course all of what I typed was made up. It was an unsubstantiated personal opinion conveyed through metaphorical language, albeit poorly, which sought to explain the subtle differences between Bach's music and Vivaldi's music.


----------



## violadude

Gondur said:


> Of course all of what I typed was made up. It was an *unsubstantiated personal opinion *conveyed through metaphorical language, albeit poorly, which sought to explain the subtle differences between Bach's music and Vivaldi's music.


I'm all for personal opinions, but you can't make claims about anything and call it a personal opinion. What you said was tantamount to putting words in composer's mouths that they didn't say.

Maybe you were saying that the music of Bach makes you think of humans being on equal footing with gods, if so I apologize. But the way you wrote it makes it sounds like you think this was what Bach thought, which is simply untrue.


----------



## Alypius

Gondur, If you wish to explore the way Bach's religiosity shaped his music, you might consider doing some reading. There are scholars who have investigated these matters with great care and can speak with considerable precision and documentary warrant for their claims. Two standard works:

John Butt, ed., _The Cambridge Companion to Bach_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

Malcolm Boyd, _Bach_, series: The Master Musicians (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).










Also with a more theological orientation, check out Jaroslav Pelikan, _Bach Among the Theologians_ (reissued: Wipf & Stock). Pelikan was one of the great historians of the intellectual history of Christianity in the last century.










I have on order but have not yet read the new work by John Eliot Gardiner, _Music in the Castle of Heaven_ (New York: Knopf, 2013). Gardiner is a major player, of course, given that he oversaw superb performances of the complete cycle of the Cantatas, not to mention his earlier (and excellent) performances of the Passion According to Matthew and the Passion According to John and much else:


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Difference between Bach's music, Vivaldi's music and *Albinoni's music*?






_*Bruckner!*_


----------



## PetrB

Gondur said:


> Oh really? Are you another one of these pedants who scoff at anything new? It does not matter that music is not philosophy but I take then you're not aware of Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid?


I think anyone who goes bonkers correlating math with music has some psychological condition; I think that Escher was a mediocre artist, etc.

Yes I am (familiar with it)... a silly book authored by a pseudo intellectual and not worth the paper it is printed upon.

If I recall properly, the book was in vogue for a while and was hugely popular, but then again, so was Erich von Daniken's _Chariots of the Gods_ and Jacqueline Susann's _Valley of the Dolls._

P.s. What is _new_ about any of this?


----------



## aleazk

PetrB said:


> Yes I am... a silly book not worth the paper it is printed upon.


Indeed, speaking of pedantry and pretentiousness... I remember a section in which the author thought it was a "good idea" to write it in some kind of palindromic way or something like that (I can't remember well). Give me a break...


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> Indeed, speaking of pedantry and pretentiousness... I remember a section in which the author thought it was a "good idea" to write it in some kind of palindromic way or something like that (I can't remember well). Give me a break...


Add _sophomoric_ to that pedantry and pretentiousness, and I'll agree with you


----------



## hreichgott

Poor Vivaldi. So much of his music was written for young student ensembles, which was his job, and now he gets written off as a "lighter" composer who composes things that are boringly easy to follow. I'd like to see a composer hired mainly to write for middle school band come up with anything half as substantial as Vivaldi...

P. S. I read "Bach Among the Theologians" last winter and I think it's great, although you have to bear in mind that Pelikan is a scholar of theology who understands where his expertise is and is not. He had help from Rosalyn Tureck and others in doing his research, but still. It is mainly a book about theology and church history, and how they affected Bach. It might be one of the five best books I've read about the fallout from the Reformation at that period, and I've read a few.


----------



## GioCar

One aspect of Vivaldi which is seldom taken into account is his feeling for *Nature*.
Just think of his various concertos. Not only the 4 seasons, many others are nature-related (la Tempesta di Mare, Il cardellino, etc.). In this sense he almost was a precursor of the romantic aesthetic.
Now, just think on how he used his musical palette.
No such a thing in Bach's music.


----------



## Blancrocher

GioCar said:


> One aspect of Vivaldi which is seldom taken into account is his feeling for *Nature*.
> Just think of his various concertos. Not only the 4 seasons, many others are nature-related (la Tempesta di Mare, Il cardellino, etc.). In this sense he almost was a precursor of the romantic aesthetic.
> Now, just think on how he used his musical palette.
> No such a thing in Bach's music.


Of course, Bach might have had better feelings about nature and the seasons if he'd lived in Venice.


----------



## GioCar

Blancrocher said:


> Of course, Bach might have had better feelings about nature and the seasons if he'd lived in Venice.


Yes, maybe, but I was meaning something different.
Vivaldi was the first composer in history to pay so much attention to nature. From a baroque point of view this is quite weird. The concept of "nature" as an inspiration source was a typical feature of the late classic and romantic periods.


----------



## Mrfourthreetwo

*They both knew!*



Gondur said:


> If you were to distinguish between the two of them, how would you do it? From what I hear in Vivaldi's music, especially his sacred music abound with fifth progressions, there is an underlying 'need' or yearning, yet there is an overwhelming recognition of our place in this world. Vivaldi, unlike Bach, realizes that we are lesser beings of God and nothing can change this, despite an 'insatiable need to'. Bach, however, tries to elevate us onto the same standing as God through his music with the assumption that a route to the divine is possible. There is no route to the divine in Vivaldi's music and his music is quite parodistic, assuming there is, when there isn't.
> 
> So although I appreciate the intellectual and spiritual magnificence of Bach's music, his music tells me he aspired to sit on the throne of the Divine, alongside God in heaven, which no human being can do, nor has the right to do because we are God's puppets and he our puppeteer. The difference is, Vivaldi's recognizes this whereas Bach does not. In other words, Vivaldi knocks on the gates of heaven, awaiting an answer from God but never receives one. Bach, however, arrogantly strides through the gates, thinking he is God's equal and therefore, takes the leap of faith Vivaldi could never take.
> 
> Vivaldi is like the crying child in the corner whom you feel sorry for. Bach is the fatherly figure who comforts this child. And I think Bach was so heavily influenced by Vivaldi for this reason. He found his long lost crying child. Vivaldi was apart of Bach he knew he had inside of himself because listening to the opening of his Easter Oratorio, I know for sure Bach had a strong dormant sense of opera but, for reasons which I am sure you will explain, didn't elaborate on it as Vivaldi was able to in his music.
> 
> This is my subjective opinion!


The fact that they were both writing music using the pythagorean tuning system with a 432 hertz base, AND, the fact that they were both writing "for" God should direct you to the fact that they were both right. AND THAT USING THE HELLISH PIECE OF DUNG 440 HERTZ TUNING today SHOULD MAKE US ALL PUKE.


----------



## Mandryka

Blancrocher said:


> Of course, Bach might have had better feelings about nature and the seasons if he'd lived in Venice.


BWV 202

sp;csolvcjsdolv jxsdolv nmjxsdv nj


----------



## larold

Anyone that has performed music from J.S. Bach and Vivaldi knows the difference.

Vivaldi's music is just as easy to learn and perform as it is to hear. One reason is for the most part he did not write for professionals; he spent much of his adult life in a school for wayward girls and wrote for them. His famous "alla rustica" concerto was written for "rustic" musicians AKA people that knew a little music and lived in the county.

The ease and simplicity of his musical line is its best selling point.

Bach was just the opposite: a genius (even before the term as we know it was defined), a person that could sing all the parts and play all the instruments, a titanic intellect with a temperament to match. His music is intricate, full of two-part writing, and enormously difficult to learn and master -- even the easiest stuff. 

Among the tonal composers I have performed only Beethoven can be equally as difficult to learn and know as J.S. Bach.


----------



## fluteman

Gondur said:


> If you were to distinguish between the two of them, how would you do it? From what I hear in Vivaldi's music, especially his sacred music abound with fifth progressions, there is an underlying 'need' or yearning, yet there is an overwhelming recognition of our place in this world. Vivaldi, unlike Bach, realizes that we are lesser beings of God and nothing can change this, despite an 'insatiable need to'. Bach, however, tries to elevate us onto the same standing as God through his music with the assumption that a route to the divine is possible. There is no route to the divine in Vivaldi's music and his music is quite parodistic, assuming there is, when there isn't.
> 
> So although I appreciate the intellectual and spiritual magnificence of Bach's music, his music tells me he aspired to sit on the throne of the Divine, alongside God in heaven, which no human being can do, nor has the right to do because we are God's puppets and he our puppeteer. The difference is, Vivaldi's recognizes this whereas Bach does not. In other words, Vivaldi knocks on the gates of heaven, awaiting an answer from God but never receives one. Bach, however, arrogantly strides through the gates, thinking he is God's equal and therefore, takes the leap of faith Vivaldi could never take.
> 
> Vivaldi is like the crying child in the corner whom you feel sorry for. Bach is the fatherly figure who comforts this child. And I think Bach was so heavily influenced by Vivaldi for this reason. He found his long lost crying child. Vivaldi was apart of Bach he knew he had inside of himself because listening to the opening of his Easter Oratorio, I know for sure Bach had a strong dormant sense of opera but, for reasons which I am sure you will explain, didn't elaborate on it as Vivaldi was able to in his music.
> 
> This is my subjective opinion!


The distinction may not be as great as you think. Vivaldi's influence on Bach, that you mention, was considerable. Bach's D minor Organ Concerto, BWV 596, was discovered in the 20th century to be a transcription of Vivaldi's Concerto Grosso for two violins, strings and continuo in D minor, RV 565. Bach made many other transcriptions of Vivaldi's work, doubtless because Vivaldi's music was so popular there was a great demand for them. All that transcribing doubtless had a considerable impact. I think Bach's own Concerto for Two Violins in D minor, BWV 1043, very much shows the influence of Vivaldi, including RV 565.

That said, Bach had an amazing ability to incorporate a wealth of ideas from a wide range of sources, including but not limited to Vivaldi, into his own work. Vivaldi, while prolific, did not have nearly as wide a range of styles and approaches. It is not for nothing that Stravinsky accused him of writing the same concerto 600 times.

As for Bach and opera, some of the secular cantatas for me are really mini-operas, especially the wonderful and hilarious Coffee Cantata. But most of his choral music was sacred, especially the major works, either because of his professional obligations or his strong religious inclinations, or both.


----------



## larold

I don't see distinction, just difference. I can tell you their music may be similar in some ways but is miles apart in terms of learning and performing. Bach is enormously difficult and Vivaldi is easy to learn.

Bach was influenced by Vivaldi, of course. Who wasn't influenced by the Italian that wrote more concertos of high quality than anyone who ever lived? Bach copied a few of his organ concertos from Vivaldi themes. He copied other composers too.

Bach didn't write opera because he considered it superfluous and not serving the will of God. It was similar to Beethoven's response about writing an opera on "Italian" themes: he said he couldn't do it, it was just too inane. He wrote his only opera about an "important" topic -- the same one(s) from his 9th symphony: humanity and the goodness of all men and the awfulness of tyranny.

Yes, I know there are operas on those subjects but none by Beethoven. And there are no operas by Bach even though Italian opera was a way to a payday in his time. It's what Handel spent his life doing in London until he lucked out on oratorios.


----------



## BachIsBest

larold said:


> Yes, I know there are operas on those subjects but none by Beethoven. And there are no operas by Bach even though Italian opera was a way to a payday in his time. It's what Handel spent his life doing in London until he lucked out on oratorios.


I believe it was actually the increasingly high costs of Italian singers that caused Händel to make the switch to oratorios.


----------



## lordmarcusaurelius7

Gondur said:


> If you were to distinguish between the two of them, how would you do it? From what I hear in Vivaldi's music, especially his sacred music abound with fifth progressions, there is an underlying 'need' or yearning, yet there is an overwhelming recognition of our place in this world. Vivaldi, unlike Bach, realizes that we are lesser beings of God and nothing can change this, despite an 'insatiable need to'. Bach, however, tries to elevate us onto the same standing as God through his music with the assumption that a route to the divine is possible. There is no route to the divine in Vivaldi's music and his music is quite parodistic, assuming there is, when there isn't.
> 
> So although I appreciate the intellectual and spiritual magnificence of Bach's music, his music tells me he aspired to sit on the throne of the Divine, alongside God in heaven, which no human being can do, nor has the right to do because we are God's puppets and he our puppeteer. The difference is, Vivaldi's recognizes this whereas Bach does not. In other words, Vivaldi knocks on the gates of heaven, awaiting an answer from God but never receives one. Bach, however, arrogantly strides through the gates, thinking he is God's equal and therefore, takes the leap of faith Vivaldi could never take.
> 
> Vivaldi is like the crying child in the corner whom you feel sorry for. Bach is the fatherly figure who comforts this child. And I think Bach was so heavily influenced by Vivaldi for this reason. He found his long lost crying child. Vivaldi was apart of Bach he knew he had inside of himself because listening to the opening of his Easter Oratorio, I know for sure Bach had a strong dormant sense of opera but, for reasons which I am sure you will explain, didn't elaborate on it as Vivaldi was able to in his music.
> 
> This is my subjective opinion!


What was the reason Bach didn't elaborate on his _strong sense of Opera_?


----------



## HansZimmer

violadude said:


> Not to be rude, but I have absolutely no interest in waxing philosophical about what Vivaldi or Bach's music might portray about God, the divine or what pathway to the spiritual each one might contain.
> 
> One of the main superficial differences between the two is the kind of textures they use. As an Italian composer, Vivaldi came from a musical tradition that very much values melody. You can hear this when you listen to his concertos as they are often written in a way where one instrument has the melodic material for quite a while, while the other instruments are serving a supportive role. Obviously, he broke this mold every now and again, but I think working with a homophonic texture was Vivaldi's main modus operandi.
> 
> Bach on the other hand, though quite capable of writing in a melodic Italian style as evidenced by many of his pieces, more often than not opts for a denser texture with many instruments serving equally important roles at once. While Vivalid prefers to keep clarity in his melodic material, Bach often builds complex, interwoven webs of thematic material.
> 
> I think Bach was very interested in chromaticism too in a way that Vivaldi was not. Vivaldi could be chromatic no doubt, but I think it was important for him to keep his music easier to follow for people. I'm not saying that he "catered to the audience" but I'm saying he himself preferred a more easier to follow style. Where as Bach, within the context of the Baroque style, sometimes went bonkers exploring the harmonic possibilities of music, especially in his more private and personal works.
> 
> Those are a couple fairly surface level differences between the two that I can think of off the top of my head. I might come back with more later.


I think that the concertos of Bach are usually homophonic, while the fugues are by definition poliphonic. Basically, he simply wrote a lot of fugues. Am I wrong about this?


----------



## HansZimmer

GioCar said:


> Now, just think on how he used his musical palette.
> No such a thing in Bach's music.


Could you deepen this, please?


----------



## HansZimmer

larold said:


> Bach was just the opposite: a genius


If you write "Bach is the opposite of Vivaldi: a genius" it looks like you are saying that Vivaldi was dumb. I don't know if it's what you want to say.

IMO Vivaldi was a brilliant composer. It's not that the music is of high quality only if it has a supercomplex texture or it's very hard to play. The Four Seasons for example are brilliant because of their expressivity: they are basically one of the highest examples of effective programamtic music, which really evokes the images/situations for which it's meant.


----------



## Couchie

Gondur said:


> So although I appreciate the intellectual and spiritual magnificence of Bach's music, his music tells me he aspired to sit on the throne of the Divine, alongside God in heaven, which no human being can do, nor has the right to do because we are God's puppets and he our puppeteer. The difference is, Vivaldi's recognizes this whereas Bach does not. In other words, Vivaldi knocks on the gates of heaven, awaiting an answer from God but never receives one. Bach, however, arrogantly strides through the gates, thinking he is God's equal and therefore, takes the leap of faith Vivaldi could never take.


Your understanding of God is clearly clouded by Christianity. But in Hindu and mystical traditions, God and the Self are one, and it is their destiny to be united with each other. Bach allows us a glimpse into that holy ecstasy that awaits us when unified with God, not inferior and kneeling before God, but equal to and of God. Brahman and Atman are one.


----------



## ansfelden

Bach sounds protestant, Vivaldi catholic.


----------



## Bulldog

ansfelden said:


> Bach sounds protestant, Vivaldi catholic.


Can a composer's music sound agnostic?


----------



## hammeredklavier

larold said:


> Bach didn't write opera because he considered it superfluous and not serving the will of God. It was similar to Beethoven's response about writing an opera on "Italian" themes: he said he couldn't do it, it was just too inane. He wrote his only opera about an "important" topic -- the same one(s) from his 9th symphony: humanity and the goodness of all men and the awfulness of tyranny.


This sounds like a romanticized view of pre-Romantic-period kapellmeisters. They simply wrote what their employers wanted. In Bach's case, he simply wasn't requested to write opera. He wrote a cantata trashing Catholicism (BWV126) and also wrote Catholic music, but he himself didn't consider it religious hypocrisy.


----------



## khoff999

HansZimmer said:


> I think that the concertos of Bach are usually homophonic, while the fugues are by definition poliphonic. Basically, he simply wrote a lot of fugues. Am I wrong about this?


Bach wrote more polyphonic works than just fugues. For instance, every third variation in the Goldberg Variations is a canon. And the Brandenburg Concertos contain a lot of polyphony. And that just scratches the surface.

BB Concerto #3, Movement 3


----------



## Ethereality

Both composers start with a B, but Bibaldi has two more syllables.


----------



## Highwayman

_What's the argument here? Bach, Vivaldi. One is a god, one is a joke. I love gods, I love jokes. Room for all._


----------



## larold

Vivaldi is deceptively simple, harmonic and melodic; Bach is binary voicing and far more complex. If you have ever performed both you know the difference fundamentally.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Highwayman said:


> _What's the argument here? *Bach, Vivaldi. One is a god, one is a joke.* I love gods, I love jokes. Room for all._


The writer of this article www.critique-musicale.com/bachen.htm disagrees.


----------



## larold

hammeredklavier said:


> The writer of this article www.critique-musicale.com/bachen.htm disagrees.


Yes he says Vivaldi is considered a "secondary" composer. That is his language, his definition. I don't know anyone who thinks Vivaldi second rate though maybe second best to Bach would be apporpriate. He is clearly a very great composer whose now 400-year-old compositions are evergreen, performed, played and recorded often. The fact that he is not J.S. Bach does not change any of this.


----------



## HansZimmer

Highwayman said:


> _What's the argument here? Bach, Vivaldi. One is a god, one is a joke. I love gods, I love jokes. Room for all._


What a biased point of view!


----------



## HansZimmer

hammeredklavier said:


> The writer of this article www.critique-musicale.com/bachen.htm disagrees.


Interesting observation. It's also interesting to note that Bach seemed to like the music of Vivaldi and Mozart seemed to like the music of J.C. Bach, but their judgements are not considered. Did the so called "musical geniuses" took inspiration from "jokes"?

_We would think that the admirers of Four seasons or than the Concerto n°1 of Tchaïkovski are not more sincere than admirers of Art of the Fugue, but the circumstances in which theses masterpieces have become celebrated seem to show a deep difference. It appears that the Four seasons and the Concerto n°1 have obtained their celebrity essentially thanks to the success of concert and recording because these composers (Vivaldi and Tchaïkovski) have never had the support of the musical institutions and medias (shown by the little place they have in music books). Especially Tchaïkovski must acquire his celebrity against the criticism of musicographers (scornful criticism against virtuosity, sentimentality...). That is shown in the book of Rebatet:_


----------



## Highwayman

HansZimmer said:


> What a biased point of view!







I was only half-serious as I don`t actually think Bach is a god.


----------

