# why is bach more worshiped than vivaldi on talk classical?



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

why is bach more worshiped than vivaldi on talk classical?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Let me take a stab at this one:

Because Bach was one of the top three composers who ever lived, and Vivaldi was not?

Vivaldi was a fine composer, but rarely reached the profundity that Bach did.

None of that matters, if you love Vivaldi's music. Keep listening and enjoying!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Let me take a stab at this one:
> 
> Because Bach is one of the top two composers who ever lived, and Vivaldi is not?
> 
> Vivaldi was a fine composer, but rarely reached the profundity that Bach did.


Nothing to add :tiphat:


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

hpowders said:


> Let me take a stab at this one:
> 
> Because Bach was one of the top three composers who ever lived, and Vivaldi was not?
> 
> ...


What makes Bach better than Vivaldi? Can you explain?


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

If Bach is stuff like the first movement of the A minor violin concerto, most of the harpsichord concertos, and some other things that sound to me like products of that infamous "sewing machine," then I understand this being a fair fight. Vivaldi sounds like a sewing machine to me too but a slightly more melodic one at least.

But throw in the rest of Bach? Well, there's a ton of it that I could listen to literally twenty times in a row right now without getting bored and every time I'd find something new in whatever I chose. For me it'd be torture to hear anything by Vivaldi more than twice in row; it's repetitive enough as is.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2016)

Because Vivaldi was a ginge.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

This reminds me of the time a thread was started on a food forum I frequent. An op asked: why is chocolate more popular than carrots on this forum? 

Fwiw, I found the defenses of carrots to be much more interesting than the effusions about chocolate, in particular as I love both foods. 

But I digress.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

dogen said:


> Because Vivaldi was a ginge.


Plus, he composed the Department of Work and Pensions 'on hold' music. If you're a British person of working age and have no idea what I'm talking about, consider yourself one of life's successes!


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2016)

Figleaf said:


> Plus, he composed the Department of Work and Pensions 'on hold' music. If you're a British person of working age and have no idea what I'm talking about, consider yourself one of life's successes!


He should never have accepted the commission.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

atsizat said:


> What makes Bach better than Vivaldi? Can you explain?


"Profundity". When I listen to Bach's solo keyboard, violin and cello compositions, I am moved in a spiritual way that I can only duplicate from late Beethoven. For me Vivaldi's music is delightful, but not spiritual. It depends on what you are looking for to get out of music. There are many people here who love Vivaldi. If his music is still alive after 250 years, he must have been doing something right! Enjoy it!


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I love Vivaldi works too!

I think the reason might be that Vivaldi for Baroque music is like J.Haydn for Classic music. Just jealous users can't see both of them own the music of their eras!


----------



## The nose (Jan 14, 2014)

In fact the veneration of Bach it's a relative recent thing. In the XVIII century Vivaldi was way more popular than Bach, and in the second part of the century if you said the name Bach people would have probably thought about Carl Philipp Emauel Bach. J.S. Bach's musics were rediscovered in the XIX century when germans were searching for musicians they could consider part of there national music identity witch was a major discussion in this century. And so they found in Bach and also applied arbirtarily to him a lot of concepts of the XIX century like the supremacy of the instrumental music and so on. Our way of thinking about music is still a lot influenced by romantics argument and probably that's why most people tent to see Bach as more important than Vivaldi in the music of the Baroque era.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

The nose said:


> J.S. Bach's musics were rediscovered in the XIX century


Not exactly. He was just remembered for the _Well-Tempered Clavier_ - Beethoven studied it as a child - which was also the most admired aspect of his work in his own time, when the general consensus was that he was a supremely great organist and composer of instructional keyboard works, but less accomplished as a composer of everything else, because he wrote everything else as though it were keyboard music.

Nevertheless, just on the strength of his keyboard works, "der grosse Bach" was an orthodox candidate for greatest German composer ever in 1799: http://kuscinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/composersun.jpg (Poor Graun.)

What changed in the 19th century is that his non-keyboard works, and especially his religious works, began to be more widely performed and admired. But since they weren't widely performed or admired in his own time, the correct word for that is maybe not _re_discovery, but just plain _discovery_.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

hpowders said:


> "Profundity". When I listen to Bach's solo keyboard, violin and cello compositions, I am moved in a spiritual way that I can only duplicate in late Beethoven. For me Vivaldi's music is delightful, but not spiritual. It depends on what you are looking for to get out of music. There are many people here who love Vivaldi. If his music is still alive after 250 years, he must have been doing something right! Enjoy it!


I accept that Bach's music is more varied and profound than Vivaldi's. But for me Vivaldi's music :angel: *is* spiritual - not just sublime works like his Stabat Mater, but his violin sonatas (and so on) too. The sheer tender mystical beauty of his melodies stuns my soul.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Partly I think the problem is that Bach survives Academy of St. Martin in the Fields treatment better than Vivaldi - though with HIP settling into its punk rock phase, maybe that's a problem that's going away.

Anyway, rather than focusing on the greater prestige of Bach, I'd think admirers of Vivaldi should be thrilled by how he's shot past the more academically respectable Rameau and D. Scarlatti to vie with Handel for the status of High Baroque Composer #2.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Bach was remarkably consistent and remarkably skilled. His counterpoint and harmonies were so good that every composition is like a master class in composition. He wrote something like 473 chorales, and every one of them could be used in a music textbook as an example of some facet of counterpoint or harmony. Bach was not as concerned about melody as Vivaldi, and for that reason it is easy to understand why some would be more attracted to Vivaldi. Corelli was also very talented and wrote some charming music.

I studied Bach when I majored in music in college. You actually gain a greater appreciation for him the more you study his music. I also played many of his two and three part inventions. The beauty of Bach is in the details. Every line is compositionaly perfect. Every harmony. 

He is one of the only composers who would be considered great by every musicologist in the world. The universal admiration of Bach by musicologists and performing artists is unique.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

These are pretty much the reasons why I like Vivaldi:

Four Seasons, 'Summer': Presto
Cello Sonata in E Minor, RV 40: 3rd movement

These are some of the reasons why I like Bach:

Harpsichord concerto in D minor, BWV 1053
Prelude and fugue in A minor, BWV 543
Prelude and fugue in C minor, BWV 546
Prelude and fugue in C sharp minor, WTC Book 1
Prelude and fugue in C minor, WTC Book 1
Fugue in C minor, WTC Book 2
Fugue in F minor, WTC Book 2
Chorale Prelude "Ich ruf zu dir, Herr"
Duetto in A minor, BWV 805
Contrapunctus 1, Art of Fugue
Partita for keyboard in C minor: Sinfonia, Allemande
Partita for solo violin in D minor
Ricercar a 3, The Musical Offering
Cello suite in C minor: Prelude
Cello suite in D minor: Prelude


----------



## Oliver (Feb 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> Plus, he composed the Department of Work and Pensions 'on hold' music. If you're a British person of working age and have no idea what I'm talking about, consider yourself one of life's successes!


...how do you know?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Vivaldi wrote a fantastic range of music, not just the 500-odd concerti with which he is most associated. He also wrote loads of other music for a wide variety of genres, much of it being wonderful. As an example, his _Gloria_ is, if you forgive the pun, truly glorious - effervescent, joyful, beautifully put together and a real joy to listen to (especially with Emma Kirkby singing). He wrote over 40 operas, lots of sacred choral music, buckets of chamber music, including sonatas for individual instruments, duos etc. Yes, he is a major composer and well worthy of respect, affection and admiration.

Bach, on the other hand, as other posters have said, is a towering genius of great profundity in a very wide range of genre and is widely regarded as one of the greatest peaks of music.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2016)

Vivaldi influenced Bach and infused an Italian style and exuberance in Bach's music that maybe wouldn't have been there otherwise. He was greatly influenced by Vivaldi and Corelli. 

But Bach was a bigger influence to the next generations of musicians and the scope and depth of his work is on a different scale.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I accept that Bach's music is more varied and profound than Vivaldi's. But for me Vivaldi's music :angel: *is* spiritual - not just sublime works like his Stabat Mater, but his violin sonatas (and so on) too. The sheer tender mystical beauty of his melodies stuns my soul.


One person's Bach is another person's Vivaldi. No arguments from me. I simply remain pithy.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

hpowders said:


> "Profundity". When I listen to Bach's solo keyboard, violin and cello compositions, I am moved in a spiritual way that I can only duplicate from late Beethoven. For me Vivaldi's music is delightful, but not spiritual. It depends on what you are looking for to get out of music. There are many people here who love Vivaldi. If his music is still alive after 250 years, he must have been doing something right! Enjoy it!





Ingélou said:


> I accept that Bach's music is more varied and profound than Vivaldi's. But for me Vivaldi's music :angel: *is* spiritual - not just sublime works like his Stabat Mater, but his violin sonatas (and so on) too. The sheer tender mystical beauty of his melodies stuns my soul.


Since I am known for putting the _"l"_ in non-confrontationa_l_, I will sample some of the Vivaldi Violin Sonatas.
If I do not return, you may take that to be a "statement".


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

hpowders said:


> Because Bach was one of the top three composers who ever lived...


Who do you consider the other two to be? "Top three" is a funny way to speak. Are you sure he's not one of the "top two," or "top four" composers that ever lived?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Since I am known for putting the _"l"_ in non-confrontationa_l_, I will sample some of the Vivaldi Violin Sonatas.
> If I do not return, you may take that to be a "statement".


Not arguing at all - I think Bach is marvellous too. I'm just saying that he doesn't have a monopoly of inspiring spiritual experiences. But that's all subjective - don't feel obliged to spend time on Vivaldi on my account.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

hpowders said:


> "Profundity". When I listen to Bach's solo keyboard, violin and cello compositions, I am moved in a spiritual way that I can only duplicate from late Beethoven. For me Vivaldi's music is delightful, but not spiritual. It depends on what you are looking for to get out of music. There are many people here who love Vivaldi. If his music is still alive after 250 years, he must have been doing something right! Enjoy it!





Klassic said:


> Who do you consider the other two to be? "Top three" is a funny way to speak. Are you sure he's not one of the "top two," or "top four" composers that ever lived?


I wasn't speaking. I was writing. Bach is definitely in the top 1803.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

As a bassoon player you have to ask me this?

I actually can play the first movement of the Mozart _Bassoon Concerto_.

Forget any of the Vivaldi. Maybe one has to be a bassoon player who can not play any of the Vivaldi concerti to really be amazed by them.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> As a bassoon player you have to ask me this?
> 
> I actually can play the first movement of the Mozart _Bassoon Concerto_.
> 
> Forget any of the Vivaldi. Maybe one has to be a bassoon player who can not play any of the Vivaldi concerti to really be amazed by them.


I love the Mozart Bassoon Concerto. This dude was definitely in the top 1367 composers of all time.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Just speaking for myself:

1. I love counterpoint and consider Bach the master.
2. I also love melody/harmony and find Bach superior to Vivaldi whose melodies just bounce off my body.
3. The range and depth of emotions. Two immediate examples that come to mind are Variations 25 and 30 from the Goldberg Variations.
4. There are rays of light in Bach's music that I always find stunning, especially in his bleak pieces.

I used to listen to Vivaldi's music but increasingly found it had little impact on me. So, I kicked his music to the curb to concentrate on composers who I really appreciate.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yeah. That too. Nobody wrote more amazing fugues than Bach.

Check out WTC Books One and Two for confirmation.

Can't get enough of those terrific fugues!

I would name my daughter Fuga, but she might get harassed at school.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Uh, a because for years the Four Seasons were pretty much the most overplayed works in the classical repertory -- only in the last few decades replaced by the Pachelbel Canon. There are few Bach works that wear out their welcome similarly.


----------



## Autocrat (Nov 14, 2014)

The vast majority of Vivaldi's output seems to me to be dross. I have never recovered from having to play an alleged concerto for 2 oboes in which the the oboe parts were entirely in thirds.


----------



## Iean (Nov 17, 2015)

The more I read the replies to this thread, the more I admire Bach. He is indeed my number one composer :angel:


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Klassic said:


> Who do you consider the other two to be?


Hildegard and Stravinsky, _duh_.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Autocrat said:


> I have never recovered from having to play an alleged concerto for 2 oboes in which the the oboe parts were entirely in thirds.


Maybe he was trying to do something nice for a couple of his less gifted pupils.


----------



## Heliogabo (Dec 29, 2014)

Bach is unique in this sense, but Vivaldi's late works are highly spiritual music. There is a lot of Vivaldi to be discovered yet.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

Bach has a better press agent.


----------



## Autocrat (Nov 14, 2014)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Maybe he was trying to do something nice for a couple of his less gifted pupils.


Maybe he was. Maybe it should have been left to rot instead of being published.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

ribonucleic said:


> Bach has a better press agent.


Bach also has the advantage of always having an audience in many older listeners who realize their time is getting close, feel the sudden need to reconnect with God without necessarily having to make the commitment of going to church, and pop in a few Bach cantata CDs into the player in hopes that the piety of the music will rub off on them.

Only joking, of course. I really do prefer Bach to most composers(except one). I even bought the Gardiner set "Sacred Masterpieces" and have listened to over half the CDs in the collection so far.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Bach is a much better composer—that's why.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Autocrat said:


> The vast majority of Vivaldi's output seems to me to be dross. I have never recovered from having to play an alleged concerto for 2 oboes in which the the oboe parts were entirely in thirds.


You are a better musician than me. At least you can play the concerto, parallel thirds and all.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

hpowders said:


> "Profundity". *When I listen* to Bach's solo keyboard, violin and cello compositions,* I am moved* in a spiritual way that I can only duplicate from late Beethoven. *For me* Vivaldi's music is delightful, but not spiritual. It depends on what you are looking for to get out of music. There are many people here who love Vivaldi. If his music is still alive after 250 years, he must have been doing something right! Enjoy it!


You have given reasons why you prefer Bach to Vivaldi, but not why Bach is better. This is pretty much always the case when people make value judgements, which is one of the reasons that I never take them at all seriously.

Ditto the last part of your post, though.

As for the OP, my stance: I could not care less what the general consensus is: it means nothing to me other than giving me a starting point to explore. If you prefer Vivaldi to Bach, then Vivaldi is the better composer in your small but entirely relevant existence: a HUGE if here being that appreciation of composers develops over time, and that it is beyond unlikely that you, or any of us really, have discovered all that there is to discover in the music of these composers, learnt how we individually relate to what we discover, and be able to hear it/experience it in real time. Seek to achieve this point of enlightenment, bearing in mind that this reverence is based on the majority who put time in to music appreciation enjoy the music of Bach to a greater degree than that of Vivaldi (which means that you have a higher chance of doing so as well). I don't believe that this means superiority in art: however it does point to certain trends that we should keep in mind for our own benefit (one should also be careful not to quickly give up on something just because it is not generally highly regarded, but it can be difficult to do so when we are not convinced of the rewards of trying/don't have much analysis to lean on from outside sources. The way things are, it is far easier to get into the established canon...but this is certainly a reason why so much neglected music that has the potential to find an audience does not).


----------



## PJaye (May 22, 2015)

Something that stands out for me about Vivaldi was his love of melodic lines and phrases, and making endless examples and variations on them. It often seems to me a focal point in his music, which can be done in a very direct and unconvoluted way, giving it an emphasis, or in slower pieces like a largo, an often meditative quality. He does sometimes simplify things in service of this. To me it’s an essential aspect of his music, and something that challenges the listener in a different way than what Bach does. I think they approached music from very different perspectives and it makes for an interesting comparison of two examples of Baroque composition.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

atsizat said:


> why is bach more worshiped than vivaldi on talk classical?


Bach is worshiped pretty much more than the vast majority of composers. Vivaldi happens to be one. Vivaldi is a great composer of striking originality with his three movement concertos, he pretty much developed it. That's why he wrote so many as his music was enormously popular, accessible and striking then. Still is.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Let's not forget that nationally ambiguous composer who was born in the same year as J.S.Bach... his style was more like Vivaldi with more different styles but with less works.

G.F.Handel


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Would that be the nationally ambiguous composer who's too hot to handle, or the one with the moderately leftist political views (scarlet-y)?


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I've written his name in my previous comment. It's kinda hidden tho!


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2016)

atsizat said:


> why is bach more worshiped than vivaldi on talk classical?


Is he? Am I taking you too literally when you say "worshipped"? I note that he regularly figures in the top end of lists - but "worship" is a strong word. I don't think I 'worship' any of the composers I'd list as favourites.



hpowders said:


> Because Bach was one of the top three composers who ever lived, and Vivaldi was not?


That seems to me a mere restatement of the assertion that atsizat is questioning. I know you like to be brief, but you do also need to be insightful. :tiphat:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Truckload said:


> . Bach was not as concerned about melody as Vivaldi


You may be wrong about that


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> 4. There are rays of light in Bach's music that I always find stunning, especially in his bleak pieces.


This is an interesting idea and one I hadn't thought about before. What were you thinking of?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> This is an interesting idea and one I hadn't thought about before. What were you thinking of?


Many of the bleak preludes and fugues from the WTC have short life-affirming moments. I find the contrasts very compelling. For this to work effectively, the performer has to dig deeply into the underbelly of the human condition.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I completely forgot Telemann.

But it seems after these 4 1st rate Baroque composers (Bach, Vivaldi, Handel and Telemann), none other can come close. Albinoni, Tartini, Corelli? Not really. 
Although I haven't heard Corelli's Twelve concerti grossi.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Bach, the towering giant, puts Vivaldi, the diminishing dwarf, on his shoulder: now who is 'greater'? Personally I prefer the light in Vivaldi's 'light' music over the depth in Bach's 'deep' music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> I completely forgot Telemann.
> 
> But it seems after these 4 1st rate Baroque composers (Bach, Vivaldi, Handel and Telemann), none other can come close. Albinoni, Tartini, Corelli? Not really.
> Although I haven't heard Corelli's Twelve concerti grossi.


Scarlatti? Monteverdi? Lully? Couperin? Rameau? Biber? Schutz? Purcell? Buxtehude?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

1. The Four Seasons. 

2. Bach's influence on or popularity with some big name composers of the romantic era. 

3. Bach's sacred music. 

4. Not many fans of Italian Baroque opera here; we pretty much skip from Monteverdi straight to Gluck.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

violadude said:


> Scarlatti? Monteverdi? Lully? Couperin? Rameau? Biber? Schutz? Purcell? Buxtehude?


Also, Zelenka? Purcell?

Also, would we have a higher opinion of Pachelbel if not for that canon?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

science said:


> Also, would we have a higher opinion of Pachelbel if not for that canon?


No

bsmncbecfbj


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

science said:


> 4. Not many fans of Italian Baroque opera here; we pretty much skip from Monteverdi straight to Gluck.


I once said in a post here that I thought that Italian instrumental music is all downhill after Andrea Gabrieli and Frescobaldi, and people seemed to disagree. It all seems to be made of nothing more than virtuoso gestures and sweet melodies.

Over the years, I have learned to enjoy some of it a little bit: some Merula and some Alessandro Scarlatti and some Trabaci and some Mayone and even some Domenico Scarlatti. At one time I thought it was a cultural thing to do with North/South, but Spain has the towering example of Arauxo.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Arsakes said:


> I completely forgot Telemann.
> 
> But it seems after these 4 1st rate Baroque composers (Bach, Vivaldi, Handel and Telemann), none other can come close. Albinoni, Tartini, Corelli? Not really.
> Although I haven't heard Corelli's Twelve concerti grossi.


Beauty is clearly in the ear of the listener as well as the eye of the beholder then, because I think Albinoni's polished and notably tuneful music does belong in the front rank. For me he's at least the equal of Vivaldi or Telemann.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

TxllxT said:


> Bach, the towering giant, puts Vivaldi, the diminishing dwarf, on his shoulder: now who is 'greater'? Personally I prefer the light in Vivaldi's 'light' music over the depth in Bach's 'deep' music.


I am not sure what you meant by light and deep. If you meant emotion, Vivaldi is full of it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Oh well. At least Vivaldi has finally found his place:

US Public Radio. Ten minutes here....ten minutes there....


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> I once said in a post here that I thought that Italian instrumental music is all downhill after Andrea Gabrieli and Frescobaldi, and people seemed to disagree. It all seems to be made of nothing more than virtuoso gestures and sweet melodies...
> 
> At one time I thought it was a cultural thing to do with North/South, but Spain has the towering example of Arauxo.


Well, Arauxo is contemporary to Frescobaldi, but I'd say any North/South theory is disproved by England - I mean, Purcell isn't _that_ good. To reiterate something I said earlier, it's not the simplification of Italian or French or South German music in the second half of the 17th century that needs explaining. If anything needs explaining, it's why it _didn't_ happen in North Germany. Though maybe even there, the explanation is simply that those hidebound Saxons were half a century late in adopting the new simplicity (c wut i did thar?).

Anyway, what's what wrong with virtuoso gestures and sweet melodies? "Song, Song, and a third time Song, ye Germans!... As a matter of fact the instantaneous apprehension of a whole dramatic passion is made far easier, when with all its allied feelings and emotions that passion is brought by one firm stroke into _one _clear and taking melody, than when it is patched with a hundred tiny commentaries, with this and that harmonic nuance, the interjection of first one instrument and then another, till at last it is doctored out of sight."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Purcell isn't _that_ good.


Right, but Gibbons is, as is Byrd. Purcell's too late, in fact too Italianate!

I'll think about the rest of your interesting post later.

(Added: I can see that we're not quite thinking in the same way, as when I posted that I wasn't thinking of our previous discussion about earlier/later music. You are right!)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Many of the bleak preludes and fugues from the WTC have short life-affirming moments. I find the contrasts very compelling. For this to work effectively, the performer has to dig deeply into the underbelly of the human condition.


I'm sure you're right. I'd noticed it more the other way round, that in joyful music there are moments of extreme sadness. I suspect this is a Lutheran idea: in the nativity there is the "seeds" of the passion.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Harold in Columbia said:


> As a matter of fact the instantaneous apprehension of a whole dramatic passion is made far easier, when with all its allied feelings and emotions that passion is brought by one firm stroke into _one _clear and taking melody


I'm sure this is right, and one reason why galant music was popular.

There's a fabulous "discussion" of these ideas in music, by J S Bach, by the way. BWV 803. I think it's clear which side of the debate Bach is on.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

Iean said:


> The more I read the replies to this thread, the more I admire Bach. He is indeed my number one composer :angel:


Well, Bach using Vivaldi's works must show how much Bach admired Vivaldi. As far as I know, Vivaldi didn't use Bach's works ( If I am wrong, somebody correct me) but Bach used Vivaldi's works. This kind of things ever make you think you should admire Bach way less than you do?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

atsizat said:


> Well, Bach using Vivaldi's works must show how much Bach admired Vivaldi. As far as I know, Vivaldi didn't use Bach's works ( If I am wrong, somebody correct me) but Bach used Vivaldi's works. This kind of things ever make you think you should admire Bach way less than you do?


Interesting logic ... but in answer to your question, 'No, I don't think less of Bach' for that reason

Beethoven wrote 33 variations on a theme of Diabelli .... whereas Diabelli didn't write any on a theme of Beethoven (as far as I am aware). I certainly don't think less of Beethoven than I do of Diabelli for that reason


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2016)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Interesting logic ... but in answer to your question, 'No, I don't think less of Bach' for that reason
> 
> Beethoven wrote 33 variations on a theme of Diabelli .... whereas Diabelli didn't write any on a theme of Beethoven (as far as I am aware). I certainly don't think less of Beethoven than I do of Diabelli for that reason


Webern did a Bach arrangement, but Bach never did a Webern arrangement. I have been bitter ever since.


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

Count me in as another who prefer Vivaldi to Bach, though I admit mostly that his sublime works trump [ugh, hurts to use that verb these days] Bach's technical artistry.


----------

