# Bach - how is his music so "perfect"?



## JamieHoldham (May 13, 2016)

Decided to make a thread on this because I wanted to know after trying to research about it myself I couldn't find any evidence that Bach made any sketches of his works at all, he wrote over a 1000 works of utmost technical perfection without making any mistakes?

I know he did go over work he already completed to see if there were anything to revise or change, but thats just icing on top of the cake - making good music even better.

Just want to know other peoples thoughts.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Just because the sketches of his works are not to be found does not mean he did not sketch them out. He has been dead for over 250 years. It is believed some of his works have been lost.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm not a scholar but doesn't baroque music tend to follow certain contrapuntal "rules" or at least conventions? Certainly fugal writing does, though there is still a lot of latitude even then. I'm not saying it's formulaic but maybe the writing becomes second nature when you have perfected a nearly mathematical style.

Also, couldn't the same be said of Mozart?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I'm not sure what "perfect" means when talking about music other than really good (or perhaps, "I love it").


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> I'm not sure what "perfect" means when talking about music other than really good (or perhaps, "I love it").


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> I'm not sure what "perfect" means when talking about music other than really good (or perhaps, "I love it").


People can love anything (and there's probably no piece of trash or trivia that someone somewhere doesn't love). "Perfect" means impossible to improve or to imagine better, and in the case of the greatest music it means that something difficult and unusual has been flawlessly achieved, with every part falling into place to constitute a coherent and striking whole. Considering the complexity of Bach's contrapuntal idiom and his passion for meeting its every challenge (and inventing new challenges for himself), his ability to produce a steady flood of work on a supreme level of craftsmanship and profound inspiration has earned him a reputation for perfection, or as near to it as has thus far appeared in music.

And no, I don't want to argue who was the greatest composer! (But I'll take JSB. )


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Weston said:


> I'm not a scholar but doesn't baroque music tend to follow certain contrapuntal "rules" or at least conventions? Certainly fugal writing does, though there is still a lot of latitude even then. I'm not saying it's formulaic but maybe the writing becomes second nature when you have perfected a nearly mathematical style.
> 
> Also, couldn't the same be said of Mozart?


Fugue is a much freer procedure than you might think, not mathematical at all. Bach's works are stunningly varied and original, not at all formulaic.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> People can love anything (and there's probably no piece of trash or trivia that someone somewhere doesn't love). "Perfect" means impossible to improve or to imagine better, and in the case of the greatest music it means that something difficult and unusual has been flawlessly achieved, with every part falling into place to constitute a coherent and striking whole. Considering the complexity of Bach's contrapuntal idiom and his passion for meeting its every challenge (and inventing new challenges for himself), his ability to produce a steady flood of work on a supreme level of craftsmanship and profound inspiration has earned him a reputation for perfection, or as near to it as has thus far appeared in music.
> 
> And no, I don't want to argue who was the greatest composer! (But I'll take JSB. )


I'm not trying to go down the argument about objective standards. Even allowing for objective standards, I'm not sure "perfection" is really the right word for music and art. Sure, we all use the word from time to time. But it sounds like we're evaluating music the same way we'd evaluate a gymnastic routine. And when the OP talks about "technical" mistakes, I wonder if that doesn't do a disservice to what Bach accomplished, which wasn't all about technique.

I suspect Bach benefits form the fact that we often see him as defining to rules/standards. So he's "perfect" by the measure which uses him as the yardstick. But I still say it's not the right word.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm listening to Book 1 of the WTC right now, Schiff's most recent ECM version. If this isn't "perfect" then the word has no meaning at all.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

KenOC said:


> I'm listening to Book 1 of the WTC right now, Schiff's most recent ECM version. If this isn't "perfect" then the word has no meaning at all.


If not perfect they are the closest there has been.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Bach was just the best. He was a godly man of tremendous work ethic, high intelligence, and true character. Maybe those qualities of his were greater than his musical gifts, and ultimately more instrumental in him achieving what he did? I sometimes wonder.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

clavichorder said:


> Bach was just the best. He was a godly man of tremendous work ethic, high intelligence, and true character. Maybe those qualities of his were greater than his musical gifts, and ultimately more instrumental in him achieving what he did? I sometimes wonder.


I think his work ethic helped him write so much.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

clavichorder said:


> Bach was just the best. He was a godly man of tremendous work ethic, high intelligence, and true character. Maybe those qualities of his were greater than his musical gifts, and ultimately more instrumental in him achieving what he did? I sometimes wonder.


Good analysing from clavichorder.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Weston said:


> I'm not a scholar but doesn't baroque music tend to follow certain contrapuntal "rules" or at least conventions? Certainly fugal writing does, though there is still a lot of latitude even then. I'm not saying it's formulaic but maybe the writing becomes second nature when you have perfected a nearly mathematical style.
> 
> Also, couldn't the same be said of Mozart?


Mozart sketched extensively - his wife burned 90% or more of the sketches. He also relied on a piano when composing. The popular myths propagated by movies like Amadeus are BS.

Bach undoubtedly sketched his complex contrapuntal music. There would have been no reason to preserve the sketches. And can you imagine the clutter if he had? He was generally writing practical music for specific functions and occasions and not for posterity. Eventually I'm sure he could write arias and chorales in his sleep and might not have needed to sketch them at all. He could improvise fugues and chorale preludes.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> I think his work ethic helped him write so much.


And the 20 kids he had to feed!


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Mozart sketched extensively - his wife burned 90% or more of the sketches. He also relied on a piano when composing. The popular myths propagated by movies like Amadeus are BS.
> 
> Bach undoubtedly sketched his complex contrapuntal music. There would have been no reason to preserve the sketches. And can you imagine the clutter if he had? He was generally writing practical music for specific functions and occasions and not for posterity. Eventually I'm sure he could write arias and chorales in his sleep and might not have needed to sketch them at all. He could improvise fugues and chorale preludes.


And over 250 years since he died. And the wars that have been fought in Europe things are now gone forever.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I'm listening to Book 1 of the WTC right now, Schiff's most recent ECM version. If this isn't "perfect" then the word has no meaning at all.


I would say it is perfect _and_ that the word has little meaning.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> I'm not trying to go down the argument about objective standards. Even allowing for objective standards, I'm not sure "perfection" is really the right word for music and art. Sure, we all use the word from time to time. But it sounds like we're evaluating music the same way we'd evaluate a gymnastic routine. And when the OP talks about "technical" mistakes, I wonder if that doesn't do a disservice to what Bach accomplished, which wasn't all about technique.
> 
> I suspect Bach benefits form the fact that we often see him as defining to rules/standards. So he's "perfect" by the measure which uses him as the yardstick. But I still say it's not the right word.


I'm with you as far as conceding that "perfection" is not the only criterion for greatness in art. We sometimes speak of something being "coldly perfect," implying a lack of other values that give the thing meaning. Bach offers plenty of those other values in addition to his awesome compositional technique. But aesthetic perfection is not a superficial accomplishment; it operates synergically with the intangibles of inspiration to create the experience of profundity people report finding in Bach's music.

I don't think Bach is seen as defining rules or standards. Other composers do different things according to their own artistic goals. I think we simply recognize that when Bach did things of a kind other composers of his time did, he tended to do them better, with greater fecundity of ideas, complexity of craft, and depth of expression. The concerto grosso was a popular form, but no one wrote anything as rich and imaginative as Bach's Brandenburgs. We can say something similar about many of his works compared to those of his contemporaries.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> And the 20 kids he had to feed!


He had that real and most basic kind of necessity... that'll drive things.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

clavichorder said:


> He had that real and most basic kind of necessity... that'll drive things.


How do you come so wise ?( I am not kidding)


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

clavichorder said:


> He had that real and most basic kind of necessity... that'll drive things.


And he did not want to take a hard labor job working outside.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Pugg said:


> How do you come so wise ?( I am not kidding)


I didn't **** up my initial good idea this time, with interminable and meandering wordy speculation?

Also, I don't have kids, I lack that level of necessity and I want to be at least some fraction as awesome as Bach. He's good idolatry.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

clavichorder said:


> I didn't **** up my initial good idea this time, with interminable and meandering wordy speculation?
> 
> Also, I don't have kids, I lack that level of necessity and I want to be at least some fraction as awesome as Bach. He's good idolatry.


Sometimes it take a while to understand people around here, I am getting there .:tiphat:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JamieHoldham said:


> Decided to make a thread on this because I wanted to know after trying to research about it myself I couldn't find any evidence that Bach made any sketches of his works at all, he wrote over a 1000 works of utmost technical perfection without making any mistakes?
> 
> .


Are you sure? I thought the manuscripts contain corrections, drafts at the bottom of the page.


----------



## JamieHoldham (May 13, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Are you sure? I thought the manuscripts contain corrections, drafts at the bottom of the page.


Do they? I have read atleast a dozen of his original Manuscripts but have only found a single mistake where he crossed out a part where he obviously accidently put the wrong note. If you any more extensive sketches of his I would be interested in seeing them.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JamieHoldham said:


> Do they? I have read atleast a dozen of his original Manuscripts but have only found a single mistake where he crossed out a part where he obviously accidently put the wrong note. If you any more extensive sketches of his I would be interested in seeing them.


Removed (I need to think about it to be confident about specifics!)


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

starthrower said:


> And the 20 kids he had to feed!


This old canard again.  
He fathered 20 children but at no point in his life did he have "20 kids to feed".
By the time the youngest child, Regina, was born in 1742, 11 of her siblings were dead (10 of them by the age of 5), and Friedemann and Emanuel were already several years into their own careers.


----------



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

You'd probably find he was autistic. Or maybe even Asperger's!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> This old canard again.
> He fathered 20 children but at no point in his life did he have "20 kids to feed".
> By the time the youngest child, Regina, was born in 1742, 11 of her siblings were dead (10 of them by the age of 5), and Friedemann and Emanuel were already several years into their own careers.


Yes! And I'll bet the older kids were part of the work force from an early age, the fourth (or more?) generation in the family business. I'd be surprised if WF, CPE, and JC weren't put to work copying parts, especially since such copying was a staple of pedagogy at the time.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The concerto grosso was a popular form, but no one wrote anything as rich and imaginative as Bach's Brandenburgs. We can say something similar about many of his works compared to those of his contemporaries.


Oh come now, please. With the Bach's BCs, I think Handel's Op.3 and more particularly his Op.6, bare positive comparison. As for Bach's Oratorios please weigh these against Handel's own many Oratorios. And as for Bach's Cantatas (which can be considered the equivalent of mini-operas at a stretch) there is a very rich body of Handel full-length operas against which to compare them.

So I can't really agree with your comment and I would certainly never place one above the other in terms of a: _greater fecundity of ideas, complexity of craft, and depth of expression_


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

JamieHoldham said:


> Do they? I have read atleast a dozen of his original Manuscripts but have only found a single mistake where he crossed out a part where he obviously accidently put the wrong note. If you any more extensive sketches of his I would be interested in seeing them.


You seem to be confusing manuscript with sketch. A "manuscript" would often be the final, fair copy of a work, where one would not expect to find mistakes. That's what sketches are for, to solve all the problems and correct all the errors and make revisions to the initial ideas. The family probably used the sketches as kindling. (That's what I do.  ) Or to wrap fish. They aren't good for anything else and no one would have wanted to save them.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

KRoad said:


> Oh come now, please. With the Bach's BCs, I think Handel's Op.3 and more particularly his Op.6, bare positive comparison. As for Bach's Oratorios please weigh these against Handel's own many Oratorios. And as for Bach's Cantatas (which can be considered the equivalent of mini-operas at a stretch) there is a very rich body of Handel full-length operas against which to compare them.
> 
> So I can't really agree with your comment and I would certainly never place one above the other in terms of a: _greater fecundity of ideas, complexity of craft, and depth of expression_


Bach was at his best and most unique in a select number of specific keyboard and organ works, with few exceptions (Chaconne in D minor comes to mind as an exception). What I've heard of Handel in any genre doesn't come even close to the best of Bach's keyboard works. Not even remotely in the same league.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KRoad said:


> Oh come now, please. With the Bach's BCs, I think Handel's Op.3 and more particularly his Op.6, bare positive comparison. As for Bach's Oratorios please weigh these against Handel's own many Oratorios. And as for Bach's Cantatas (which can be considered the equivalent of mini-operas at a stretch) there is a very rich body of Handel full-length operas against which to compare them.
> 
> So I can't really agree with your comment and *I would certainly never place one above the other in terms of a: greater fecundity of ideas, complexity of craft, and depth of expression*


I would. And that is not to belittle Handel in any way. There's no disgrace in being the second-greatest composer of your time, if Bach is the measuring stick.

Handel excelled in opera and oratorio, of which Bach wrote none of the former and few of the latter, the passions and cantatas having, by and large, a different purpose and spirit. Handel wrote gorgeously for the voice, like an Italian; in Bach, the vocal line tends to be a thread in the contrapuntal fabric. So sure, there are some things Handel did "better," largely because Bach didn't do them at all, or had different techniques and goals. This makes direct comparison in these areas a little beside the point. As for the concerto grosso, Handel's are splendid, but the Brandenburgs are just startling in their originality. We may easily forget that because they're so familiar.

Bach himself said that Handel was the one composer he would like to have met. Some people underestimate Handel, but it seems Bach didn't, and neither do I.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Leave the Handel, take the Rameau.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

GG on Bach's craft over his career:


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> There's no disgrace in being the second-greatest composer of your time, if Bach is the measuring stick.


But this only begs the question about Bach - as seen as a measuring stick - that leads one to rate him more highly as a composer than Handel.

Is it perhaps the sheer contra-punctal density of Bach's writing interwoven with Lutheran Hell and damnation imagery (at least in his vocal works) that leads you (and others) to claim this? If so, fair enough. But surely the criteria of greatness should not be confined to technical virtuosity/mastery alone. Music must _move_ the listener and, as the cliche goes, different folks-different strokes.

I draw an analogy with jazz. Bebop requires technical and theoretical mastery second to none in the genre. As you will know, harmonically it is extremely dense. Modal jazz on the other hand, with its harmonic sparseness and lack of chordal clutter leaves more melodic head room and, since I like a good tune, is for me far more accessible and pleasing to the ear and imagination.

In a similar way I relate to Handel, his arias (indeed his music in general) connect with me at an emotional level. Bach connects with me on an intellectual level but at the end of the day I would choose Handel as my favoured (or in respect of the OP) my _perfect_ composer. Again, I would not and could not say one composer is intrinsically better than the other.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KRoad said:


> But this only begs the question about Bach - as seen as a measuring stick - that leads one to rate him more highly as a composer than Handel.
> 
> Is it perhaps the sheer contra-punctal density of Bach's writing interwoven with Lutheran Hell and damnation imagery (at least in his vocal works) that leads you (and others) to claim this? If so, fair enough. But surely the criteria of greatness should not be confined to technical virtuosity/mastery alone. Music must _move_ the listener and, as the cliche goes, different folks-different strokes.
> 
> ...


I did say "if"... 

There's no arguing with taste. Mine tells me that Bach's _B-minor Mass_ beats any choral work of Handel (or anyone else). His concertos (keyboard, violin, grosso) and his solo keyboard works (organ, harpsichord, etc.) far surpass Handel's in range and depth. His orchestral suites are superior to Handel's _Water Music_ and _Fireworks Music_. His violin/harpsichord sonatas are as good as Handel's, his _St. Matthew_ and _St. John_ are as fine as Handel's oratorios, and his works for solo violin and cello have no parallel in Handel. The _Art of Fugue?_ I just watched that Glen Gould documentary and was stunned (though not for the first time) how, in listening to Bach, intellectual apprehension and feeling seem to become one integral state of consciousness. Cerebral it may be, but somehow that flips over into something profound and powerful - for me, I hasten to add. Maybe not for you.

I like a good tune too, and I love Handel's facility for writing them. I also like a striking and pregnant motif and its resourceful working out. That's the archetypal Italian/German polarity, and it occurs to me that there's a parallel here with Wagner and Verdi, another pair of composers born in the same year (Bach and Handel 1685, Wagner and Verdi, 1813).


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

KRoad said:


> Oh come now, please. With the Bach's BCs, I think Handel's Op.3 and more particularly his Op.6, bare positive comparison. As for Bach's Oratorios please weigh these against Handel's own many Oratorios. And as for Bach's Cantatas (which can be considered the equivalent of mini-operas at a stretch) there is a very rich body of Handel full-length operas against which to compare them.
> 
> So I can't really agree with your comment and I would certainly never place one above the other in terms of a: _greater fecundity of ideas, complexity of craft, and depth of expression_


 think you are isolated with these views - I more or less agree with what woodduck just said.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> You seem to be confusing manuscript with sketch. A "manuscript" would often be the final, fair copy of a work, where one would not expect to find mistakes. That's what sketches are for, to solve all the problems and correct all the errors and make revisions to the initial ideas. The family probably used the sketches as kindling. (That's what I do.  ) Or to wrap fish. They aren't good for anything else and no one would have wanted to save them.


Or they could have been recycled and other music written on it after the other was erased.


----------

