# Does Bach = Clarity and Pride Compared to Mozart and Beethoven?



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think so, I find his music to not have a single unneeded note (clarity) and filled with joyous pride (it boosts feelings of self-esteem).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

This doesn't make it better, I'm just stating why Bach is currently my favorite composer.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Well if there was ever a composer who composed music with great "clarity", I would say it would be Mozart. The man hardly ever (if ever - I'm not sure) made a correction on any of his originals. Whereas LvB crossed out entire pages multiple times before he got it right. I think both Mozart and LvB made many outstanding "clarity" and "prideful" pieces.

Perhaps not for the exact reasons you stated, but JSB is my favorite composer as well.

V


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Varick said:


> Well if there was ever a composer who composed music with great "clarity", I would say it would be Mozart. The man hardly ever (if ever - I'm not sure) made a correction on any of his originals. Whereas LvB crossed out entire pages multiple times before he got it right. I think both Mozart and LvB made many outstanding "clarity" and "prideful" pieces.
> 
> Perhaps not for the exact reasons you stated, but JSB is my favorite composer as well.
> 
> V


I think Mozart can be wordy at times. Bach is so fluid and never hurts my head!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think so, I find his music to not have a single unneeded note (clarity) and filled with joyous pride *(it boosts feelings of self-esteem).*


I say, go for it! It is obvious that Bach "feeds your soul" in a good way, so that cannot be anything but wonderful!

Mozart doesn't seem as personal. Beethoven seems preoccupied with his own angst, while allowing us to look on.

But Bach, Bach..._Bach's music is a gift to us, of pure joy! Pure joy! and Love! _:angel:


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

In the same way Bruckner = ponderousness. But so what?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Varick said:


> Well if there was ever a composer who composed music with great "clarity", I would say it would be Mozart. The man hardly ever (if ever - I'm not sure) made a correction on any of his originals.






"This was actually a passage that was meant to be inserted earlier in the piece and then decided he didn't want that insertion after all. So it represents three if not more attempts to kind of go through the piece and decide what works and what doesn't."

*[ 27:17 ]*





*[ 6:53 ]*









"When he arrived at the projected A on beat 3 of the basses - it remains un-notated in the original bar - he will have realized that a presumably undesired 6-4 had been created. Also, as originally conceived, bar 30 does not provide an opportunity for a further 'Christe' entry, and would have brought to an end Mozart's alternate 'Kyrie' and 'Christe' entries at one bar intervals (bars 27, 28, 29). So, in changing the D minor 6-4 to F major 6-3, Mozart adapted the alto part, shortened the tenor 'Christe' entry that began in bar 28 by adding rests and introduced a further tenor 'Christe' entry on the third beat."
- Simon P. Keefe, Mozart's Requiem: Reception, Work, Completion, p.128-129.








https://imslp.simssa.ca/files/imgln...Requiem_K626_-autograph_fragment-.pdf#page=14


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

MarkW said:


> In the same way Bruckner = ponderousness. But so what?


I have the rare holographic Bruckner that has 100HP. Currently worth more than regular Bach.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I would never call Bach's music, in which every piece was inscribed with the motto "Soli Deo gloria"—glory to God alone—prideful.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think Mozart can be wordy at times. Bach is so fluid and never hurts my head!


www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCud8H7z7vU


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I say, go for it! It is obvious that Bach "feeds your soul" in a good way, so that cannot be anything but wonderful!
> 
> Mozart doesn't seem as personal. Beethoven seems preoccupied with his own angst, while allowing us to look on.
> 
> But Bach, Bach..._Bach's music is a gift to us, of pure joy! Pure joy! and Love! _:angel:


I love Bach's music beyond almost all other music. The one exception to that is the music of Mozart, which seems at least as personal to me, and I'd lay heavy odds that I'm far from alone in that.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think there are pressures on all artists which may prevent them from fully expressing what they need to express.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think so, I find his music to not have a single unneeded note (clarity) and filled with joyous pride (it boosts feelings of self-esteem).


I understand what you are trying to express about Bach's music. "Prideful" is certainly one of the last words I would associate with Bach but I think you are trying to say that it affects you in a unique way that no other composer does? If that is the case then I totally agree. There is no single word to describe the sensation of listening to Bach's music. Perhaps the joy of that sensation for me comes from the fact that I feel humbled when I listen to it rather than prideful. But I think it is fundamentally the same reaction.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Varick said:


> Well if there was ever a composer who composed music with great "clarity", I would say it would be Mozart. The man hardly ever (if ever - I'm not sure) made a correction on any of his originals. Whereas LvB crossed out entire pages multiple times before he got it right. I think both Mozart and LvB made many outstanding "clarity" and "prideful" pieces.
> 
> Perhaps not for the exact reasons you stated, but JSB is my favorite composer as well.
> 
> V


I think the 'flawless music with no corrections' idea is a bit of an Amadeus-inspired myth, I'm afraid.









There are plenty of other examples. Which is not to denigrate your larger point, only that it doesn't require Mozart to be flawless (or nearly so) for his music to be great.

*Edited to add:* I see I've been ninja'd whilst tracking down a relevant page of manuscript! Apologies for duplicating the same information that Hammerdclavier produced earlier


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I understand what you are trying to express about Bach's music. "Prideful" is certainly one of the last words I would associate with Bach but I think you are trying to say that it affects you in a unique way that no other composer does? If that is the case then I totally agree. There is no single word to describe the sensation of listening to Bach's music. Perhaps the joy of that sensation for me comes from the fact that I feel humbled when I listen to it rather than prideful. But I think it is fundamentally the same reaction.


I think it's because Bach was a religious man, and said that all music was to glorify God. It's this quality of "submission of one's ego to recognize God" is the reason his music connects so well to some of us of a more spiritual bent; Bach realized that we were "all in this together" in ways that perhaps Mozart and Beethoven did not.
Their music is very inspiring and heroic, though.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

There was something in Beethoven that appealed to my days of youth, my adolescence and young adulthood; the sense of heroism and drama. As "MillionRainbows" stated, the sense of "angst", but unlike Tchaikovsky, Mahler or Shostakovich who also have a good deal of angst, Beethoven doesn't seem to belabor the point, to dwell in his misery, and even within the "angst" maintains a sense of joy and optimism.

I came to Bach a little later in life, and it wasn't that I didn't like Bach because I did listen to the Brandenburg Concertos, Orchestral Suites, Stokowski transcriptions and so forth; but it took a very long time for me to start liking the religious works, and to see why the _St. Matthew Passion_ and _St. John Passion_ are so great. As I started approaching middle age, I began to think about existential questions, and I became more philosophical and religious; and that's when I really started to enjoy Bach on a deeper level, as a fellow traveler who was concerned with understanding the "Glory of God"; and as John Eliot Gardiner has stated in his book on Bach (and I'm paraphrasing from memory), "The genius of Bach is that his music is at once both human and divine."

I think of Mozart as a colon cleanser for the mind. I find Mozart's music to be very crisp and bright and warm. In my youth I mostly avoided Mozart, thought of it as pretty wall-paper music, and while it is good background music, I now realize that there's also a profoundness to Mozart's sense of beauty and balance that also appeals to me in my middle age. Other composers such as Vivaldi, Telemann, Boyce, and others could produce pretty sounds, and without taking a thing away from those very talented musicians, Mozart's music has more "heart", more "soul", or whatever you want to call it. I'm not a professional musician, and my knowledge of the inner workings of music is very limited, so I can't explain it in more technical terms.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's because Bach was a religious man, and said that all music was to glorify God. It's this quality of "submission of one's ego to recognize God" is the reason his music connects so well to some of us of a more spiritual bent; Bach realized that we were "all in this together" in ways that perhaps Mozart and Beethoven did not.
> Their music is very inspiring and heroic, though.


However, Haydn and Mozart were also both devoutly religious, and both left very great bodies of liturgical music. I believe Beethoven also came to be more religious as he grew older, "religious" meaning especially a personal faith.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

consuono said:


> However, Haydn and Mozart were also both devoutly religious, and both left very great bodies of liturgical music. I believe Beethoven also came to be more religious as he grew older, "religious" meaning especially a personal faith.


Yes, you're right. I wonder what the difference is, then?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Varick said:


> Well if there was ever a composer who composed music with great "clarity", I would say it would be Mozart. *The man hardly ever (if ever - I'm not sure) made a correction on any of his originals. *Whereas LvB crossed out entire pages multiple times before he got it right. I think both Mozart and LvB made many outstanding "clarity" and "prideful" pieces.
> 
> Perhaps not for the exact reasons you stated, but JSB is my favorite composer as well.
> 
> V


This is myth long since debunked. Mozart sketched and revised extensively and he composed at the keyboard. Part of the reason this myth has continued is that 90% of his sketches were lost or destroyed. This has been fully covered in other threads.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> This is myth long since debunked. Mozart sketched and revised extensively and he composed at the keyboard. Part of the reason this myth has continued is that 90% of his sketches were lost or destroyed. This has been fully covered in other threads.


I think it is because Mozart was a child prodigy, and because his music is so beautiful, well-balanced, uncluttered, and seamless; that it's easy to imagine Mozart's music flowing effortlessly from his pen to our ears; almost as if the music writes itself, because that's how it sounds.

In reality, though, there is nothing in art that is masterful that didn't require hard work and great effort, and, probably, it is those works that seem most effortless that required the most hard work and effort.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I think the 'flawless music with no corrections' idea is a bit of an Amadeus-inspired myth, I'm afraid.
> 
> View attachment 141678
> 
> ...


It's at least reassuring to know that Mozart's music was not delivered to him complete and perfect by the stork. Bach's, on the other hand, may have been, since he kept the stork very busy with other orders.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, you're right. I wonder what the difference is, then?


The difference to me is that Bach was a "better" or "greater" composer. At least, that he composed "better" or "greater" music. On the other hand though I do realize that Bach's style and vision of composition compared to Haydn's or Mozart's couldn't really be an exact comparison. Also, it's true that more of Bach's music is overtly religious, which is probably to be expected from someone who was employed as a church musician.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's because Bach was a religious man, and said that all music was to glorify God. It's this quality of "submission of one's ego to recognize God" is the reason his music connects so well to some of us of a more spiritual bent; Bach realized that we were "all in this together" in ways that perhaps Mozart and Beethoven did not.
> Their music is very inspiring and heroic, though.


Bach was a religious man - and Beethoven more so as he grew older even though it was not in an institutional (i.e., raised a Catholic but not a practicing one). I don't know about Mozart.

Have you considered that the difference between Bach, Mozart and Beethoven part of the evolution of the genre of classical period music?

Doesn't all music - and our particular interest - feed the soul?


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2020)

MarkW said:


> In the same way Bruckner = ponderousness. But so what?


It gives me much the same 'pleasure' as watching concrete dry.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2020)

consuono said:


> However, Haydn and Mozart were also both devoutly religious, and both left very great bodies of liturgical music. I believe Beethoven also came to be more religious as he grew older, "religious" meaning especially a personal faith.


My sister recently said to me "don't tell you believe in a transcendent sky zombie"!! I replied that I didn't believe in zombies but that I had a great belief in the composers who believed in a transcendent god, like Bach, Haydn and Mozart. (Sound of crickets)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Caroline said:


> I don't know about Mozart.


Take a look at:



hammeredklavier said:


> On 25 October 1777, Mozart wrote to his father:
> "Papa must not worry, for God is ever before my eyes. I realize His omnipotence and I fear His anger; but I also recognize His love, His compassion, and His tenderness towards His creatures. He will never forsake His own. If it is according to His will, so let it be according to mine. Thus all will be well and I must needs be happy and contented."
> 
> On January 4, 1783, he wrote to his father about his Mass K.427:
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> A few more points I want to add to my previous post: I think (like his father) Mozart considered 'religious music' as the essence of his craft, and identified himself primarily as a religious composer.
> 
> "Mozart wrote the Vesperae de Dominica in Salzburg in 1779, the same year as the Coronation Mass - a work, which the composer himself held in high esteem. It was no doubt this work that Mozart presented to Baron van Swieten when he later sought to introduce himself to the Viennese musical world as a composer of church music in the serious _stile antico_."
> 
> ...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Caroline said:


> Bach was a religious man - and Beethoven more so as he grew older even though it was not in an institutional (i.e., raised a Catholic but not a practicing one). I don't know about Mozart.
> 
> Have you considered that the difference between Bach, Mozart and Beethoven part of the evolution of the genre of classical period music?
> 
> Doesn't all music - and our particular interest - feed the soul?


Yes, but the OP was asking us to compare Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, and emphasized that he connected most strongly with Bach, that it increased his self-esteem, etc., so I was looking for what might distinguish Bach in this regard: differences, not universal similarities. Yes, I agree that all music feeds the soul, but in the OP's case, I saw a particular quality, which I decided to explore. I was not intending to negate Mozart or Beethoven.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Christabel said:


> My sister recently said to me *"don't tell you believe in a transcendent sky zombie"*!! I replied that I didn't believe in zombies but that I had a great belief in the composers who believed in a transcendent god, like Bach, Haydn and Mozart. (Sound of crickets)


There are plenty of "land zombies" around. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

consuono said:


> The difference to me is that Bach was a "better" or "greater" composer. At least, that he composed "better" or "greater" music. On the other hand though I do realize that Bach's style and vision of composition compared to Haydn's or Mozart's couldn't really be an exact comparison. Also, it's true that more of Bach's music is overtly religious, which is probably to be expected from someone who was employed as a church musician.


As I have often said, a composer's music is a result of his "being." Regardless of being a Church employee, Bach might have had a more developed "being" and this is what, as you said, might give the impression that he was a "greater" composer.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Take a look at:


This is a wonderfully illuminating collection of Mozart's beliefs. Thank you for posting. In particular:

On 25 October 1777, Mozart wrote to his father:
"Papa must not worry, for God is ever before my eyes. I realize His omnipotence and I fear His anger; but I also recognize His love, His compassion, and His tenderness towards His creatures. He will never forsake His own. If it is according to His will, so let it be according to mine. Thus all will be well and I must needs be happy and contented."

Do I recall correctly that he wrote the glorious Mass for Constanze after their marriage - should she survive one of her many illnesses. I believe she performed part of this work.

It really is a pity he did not become Kapellmeister. His life may have been a lot better.

Is there a definitive collection fo Mozart's letters (as are the Emily Anderson's 3V set of Beethoven's?)? I see there are a few books and wonder where to start as I would like to read them...


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Thank you hammeredklavier. That was great. That's why I stated I was unsure. You are a vat of USEFUL knowledge!



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I think the 'flawless music with no corrections' idea is a bit of an Amadeus-inspired myth, I'm afraid.
> 
> There are plenty of other examples. Which is not to denigrate your larger point, only that it doesn't require Mozart to be flawless (or nearly so) for his music to be great.
> 
> *Edited to add:* I see I've been ninja'd whilst tracking down a relevant page of manuscript! Apologies for duplicating the same information that Hammerdclavier produced earlier


So my next question is (I have never studied this) did Mozart do less corrections than "most" other composers whom we have a large collection of original drafts? It is my understanding that he did make much less than most, if not all. I have heard about his "perfect" first drafts before Amadeus came out. Just curious. I have never read a bio on the man yet. I have a book of his letters that's been sitting on my book shelf for years, that I have not gotten to yet. Thank you.

Never mind, EdwardBast answered this question. So much history... so little time!

V


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

consuono said:


> The difference to me is that *Bach was a "better" or "greater" composer. At least, that he composed "better" or "greater" music.* On the other hand though I do realize that Bach's style and vision of composition compared to Haydn's or Mozart's couldn't really be an exact comparison. Also, it's true that more of Bach's music is overtly religious, which is probably to be expected from someone who was employed as a church musician.


Coming from someone who reveres Bach above all other composers, and agreeing with the emboldened statement above for what we have now in existing music, I have always felt there was an unfair advantage for Bach, being that he lived until the age of 65 and Mozart only 35. Mozart did not write much in the minor keys. Of course I don't know for certain, but I can't imagine him not exploring those keys in later years if he had them. I can only imagine the genius and magnificent works he could have created in those keys if he had the time.

V


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but the OP was asking us to compare Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, and emphasized that he connected most strongly with Bach, that it increased his self-esteem, etc., so I was looking for what might distinguish Bach in this regard: differences, not universal similarities. Yes, I agree that all music feeds the soul, but in the OP's case, I saw a particular quality, which I decided to explore. I was not intending to negate Mozart or Beethoven.


I see. I'll try to do better this time.

It's difficult to express feelings in words. This is for the most part how I can describe the differences between these three masters.

My appreciation for Bach is limited as Baroque music doesn't resonate with me. Just because I may enjoy listening to some of Bach's more popular works - Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, the Orchestral Suites or Brandenburg Concertos, they don't speak to how I experience life and the beyond.

Mozart captures ethereal beauty. His works are crisp and clean; they not merely pleasant to hear but express emotions as well - joy, sorrow over the loss of a child, and it takes me a bit of reflection to identify them (or perhaps find the words to describe?). He exalts God, offers a sacrifice and asks for forgiveness with the Mass in C, the Requiem, exsultate jubilate and so many other well loved works.

An Englishman (I don't think is was Sir George Smart, but another musician?) - paraphrasing - "…there is God, and on earth there is Beethoven."

When I was younger, the music was powerful, majestic, and beautiful - and it remains so for me. Now as then, when I hear his music - I have the strength to overcome whatever challenge lies before me (or help cope with it if I cannot solve it).

As I grew older and learned more about his life, his perseverance and personal courage, I have learned to appreciate his late style. I have wrestled with his and continue to try to understand it. The emotions in his music, whether sadness, defiance or gratitude to God (Op. 132 - "Holy Song of Thanksgiving") for surviving another serious illness, have clarity and meaning.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Caroline said:


> I see. I'll try to do better this time.
> 
> It's difficult to express feelings in words. This is for the most part how I can describe the differences between these three masters.
> 
> My appreciation for Bach is limited as Baroque music doesn't resonate with me. Just because I may enjoy listening to some of Bach's more popular works - Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, the Orchestral Suites or Brandenburg Concertos, they don't speak to how I experience life and the beyond.


When I was learning to play the piano, I was faced with the Prelude in C and the Fugue in C minor. When I saw the detail, the completeness, I was in awe. I knew then that Bach was the highest musical intelligence I had ever encountered.

The others didn't strike me as profoundly.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Varick said:


> Mozart did not write much in the minor keys. Of course I don't know for certain, but I can't imagine him not exploring those keys in later years if he had them. I can only imagine the genius and magnificent works he could have created in those keys if he had the time.


I think you're talking about the fact that vast amount of Mozart's works are in C major, D major, F major, etc. But if you look deeper, you'll see that he still explores many different bright/dark colors within the forms. Listen to stuff like his Hoffmeister quartet, C major quintet or 17th, 21th piano concertos, for example.

You can't really compare this aesthetic practice with Baroque composers who focused on exploring one affect per movement or piece, or early Romantic composers of miniature character pieces such as Schumann (or, for example, Chopin- when he wanted to explore the fantastic feeling of, say "B flat minor", he would often use that as the home key) 
to say that Mozart lacked exploration into minor keys.






Things didn't quite work in those ways (of other composers mentioned above) with Mozart, he always deals with contrasting, opposing forces and their final reconciliation.

gloria: the creeping chromaticism at 3:50
credo: listen for the "drama" that starts in "et incarnatus est" ( 7:18 ), escalates in "crucifixus" ( 8:43 ) and climaxes in "sub pontio pilato" ( 9:21 ) . Notice this sort of dark chromaticism coming back at 11:30
agnus dei: 20:30 see if you can feel the "dark clouds" gradually lifting





Likewise, listen to the "unsettling" credo movement (starting at 8:03), how much of the music is of "sunny, bright feeling" you would expect for a movement in F major?





Here's my personal favorite:
*3:00 ~ 3:24
5:39 ~ 6:41
7:30 ~ 7:50
13:13 ~ 15:27*





*[ 2:50 ]*









Charles Hazlewood: "Such a key for Mozart is that, you put two characters side by side, and it's all about the particular oil they give off when they're applied to each other. It's something I love so much about Mozart. He's so human. He totally understood you can't have joy without pain, terror without consolation, love without grief."

Neoclassicism
"...showed an affinity for the key of C major. Many pages of neoclassic music were prime examples of the term "white music" coined during this period. The composers of the Neoclassic period focused their attention on elegance of style and purity of taste. In *exalting the how over the what*, they were led to the classical virtues of order, discipline, balance, and proportion. ..."


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

I understand and hear his colors between dark and light, brooding and bright, so much within the major keys. But I think with his amazing output in such a short time, I believe he would have explored all those things in many more keys, including the minors. Such was his genius IMO.

V


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I think there are pressures on all artists which may prevent them from fully expressing what they need to express.


I agree. For 'free-lance' artists - speaking for Beethoven - there was a line between what the patron commissioned - and his musical thoughts / thoughts - and this was a consideration in many works.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

The pieces you cite are intricate - and complete. Not being a pianist - but able to read simpler music - I appreciate that they are masterful works. One of my friends is working hard to learn the Inventions - which he loves - and another plays and adores the Well-Tempered Clavier. 

I don't feel the emotion in Bach that I do in Mozart or Beethoven. Mozart - if I recall correctly - said that "Bach is the father of us all and we are the children."


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Caroline said:


> ...
> 
> I don't feel the emotion in Bach that I do in Mozart or Beethoven. Mozart - if I recall correctly - said that "Bach is the father of us all and we are the children."


Mozart was referring to C.P.E. Bach there.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

See what you can learn on a Sunday morning....


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Varick said:


> I understand and hear his colors between dark and light, brooding and bright, so much within the major keys. But I think with his amazing output in such a short time, *I believe he would have explored all those things in many more keys, including the minors.* Such was his genius IMO.


Exploring minor keys has nothing to do with genius. And Mozart was certainly capable of creating ingenious music in those keys for his entire career had he wished to. It's just that in the era of Haydn and Mozart, the minor mode was relatively out of favor for aesthetic reasons, with the result that, in the big instrumental genres, the ratio of major mode versus minor mode works is about 8:1. The root of this is that in the musical aesthetics of the High Classical era the connection between music and emotion was relatively weak compared to what it was in the Baroque or the Romantic eras. The minor mode was avoided and more rarely exploited because dark and tragic works were not in demand - they were too explicitly expressive for the sensibility of the time. The ratio of major to minor mode works is less skewed in Beethoven, but still heavily favors the major mode.



Caroline said:


> I don't feel the emotion in Bach that I do in Mozart or Beethoven. Mozart - if I recall correctly - said that "Bach is the father of us all and we are the children."


To expand on consuono's statement: If one referred to Bach without a first name in the Classical Era and a bit into the Romantic as well, it was assumed one was talking about the more famous one, CPE.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Exploring minor keys has nothing to do with genius.


I think it does, in the sense that minor keys are more chromatic, and part of genius is demonstrating a chromatic ability which lies at the outer realms of diatonic tonality, as Wagner did. I think Mozart was at his best in minor keys,



> And Mozart was certainly capable of creating ingenious music in those keys for his entire career had he wished to. It's just that in the era of Haydn and Mozart, the minor mode was relatively out of favor for aesthetic reasons, with the result that, in the big instrumental genres, the ratio of major mode versus minor mode works is about 8:1. The root of this is that in the musical aesthetics of the High Classical era the connection between music and emotion was relatively weak compared to what it was in the Baroque or the Romantic eras. The minor mode was avoided and more rarely exploited because dark and tragic works were not in demand - they were too explicitly expressive for the sensibility of the time. The ratio of major to minor mode works is less skewed in Beethoven, but still heavily favors the major mode.


So what are we to gather from this; that Mozart was a trend-follower or a sell-out? Shouldn't a genius "explore" (your term) the 'darkness' and the minor mode? If he doesn't, that's not exactly my idea of a genius.



> To expand on consuono's statement: If one referred to Bach without a first name in the Classical Era and a bit into the Romantic as well, it was assumed one was talking about the more famous one, CPE.


It looks like for you, the minor-key Bach is the source of this "problem" of genius, and "fame" trumps it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> *I think it does,* in the sense that minor keys are more chromatic, and part of genius is demonstrating a chromatic ability which lies at the outer realms of diatonic tonality, as Wagner did. I think Mozart was at his best in minor keys,


No, that's called basic competence.



millionrainbows said:


> So what are we to gather from this; that Mozart was a trend-follower or a sell-out? Shouldn't a genius "explore" (your term) the 'darkness' and the minor mode? If he doesn't, that's not exactly my idea of a genius.


We should gather that Mozart was a professional composer who preferred eating to starving. 



millionrainbows said:


> It looks like for you, the minor-key Bach is the source of this "problem" of genius, and "fame" trumps it.


Wrong again. I was pointing out to Caroline an historical fact that wouldn't likely occur to anyone who grew up in an era when "Bach" unqualified invariably means J.S.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> No, that's called basic competence.


Well, I'm glad you recognize its existence.



> We should gather that Mozart wanted to be a professional composer and preferred eating to starving.


Miles Davis said "If you want to put groceries on the table, then open a grocery store."



> Wrong again. I was pointing out to Caroline an historical fact that wouldn't likely occur to anyone who grew up in an era when "Bach" unqualified invariably means J.S.


You are so knowledgeable about history.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Miles Davis said "If you want to put groceries on the table, then open a grocery store."


Miles had Wayne Shorter, Joe Zawinul, and others helping him with the composition work.



millionrainbows said:


> You are so knowledgeable about history. My point was, what about J.S. Bach?


Nice non sequitur.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> The root of this is that in the musical aesthetics of the High Classical era the connection between music and emotion was relatively weak compared to what it was in the Baroque or the Romantic eras. The minor mode was avoided and more rarely exploited because dark and tragic works were not in demand - they were too explicitly expressive for the sensibility of the time.


I think the Classical era was the first time composers demonstrated that they can write a piece in C major and still fully express different colors with minor keys within the form.

See the mood changes (that are expressively freer than previous eras):

*[ 2:30 ]*





*[ 2:30 ]*





Here's what I wrote about K.243 in another thread:
"I find this to be the most interesting work Mozart wrote at 20. 
It consists of 9 movements, but there are elements of contrast and connections between them:
_"hostia sancta"_ (9:24), which comes after the dark, solemn _"verbum caro factum"_ (8:03) feels brighter by contrast, but it also has its dark elements of contrast constantly injecting a sense of tension, within itself:
[10:55]: _"stupendum supra omina miracula"_,
as if "darkness" wasn't yet fully achieved, it naturally leads through a transition to the darkest movement of the work,
[13:45]: _"tremendum ac vivificum"_.
[21:48]: the diminished 7th that concludes _"dulcissimum convivium"_ leads to the diminished 7th that opens the 'otherworldly' _"viaticum in domini morientum"_.
[24:04]: _"pignus futurae gloriae"_, a large double fugue styled distinctively unique from the Baroque tradition.
[34:25]: _"miserere nobis"_ (the final movement) quotes _"kyrie eleison"_ (the first movement) and develops on the theme."

14.1 - Piano Concerto in D minor
"... Just as Haydn was more or less the inventor of the modern string quartet, so Mozart was the father of the piano concerto. He set out the structural framework of the piano concerto, one that lasted into the romantic era, here it is. Mozart developed a stereotypical approach to the first movement of the concerto. It goes by several names, concerto form, double exposition form are the two most common. Double exposition form is a good name for this form because there are as you can see, two expositions. We have one exposition as we had in sonata-allegro form development, recapitulation. But now we have another exposition added at the beginning. The first exposition allows the orchestra to present most of the themes by itself. The pianist will add a couple later on, and do so all in the tonic key.
Well I hope you'll share with me my beliefs that this is an extraordinary movement, and how different from the ethos or the feeling of a Baroque concerto of the sort that we experienced with Bach and Vivaldi. Baroque concertos usually just have one mood for a movement. Mozart is full of many different moods. And that helps make these classical movements very exciting, very dramatic. And with its D minor sound, it's almost demonic. ..."


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> I think the Classical era was the first time composers demonstrated that they can write a piece in C major and still fully express different colors with minor keys within the form.


What do you mean? Any C major Bach fugue does that.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> What do you mean? Any C major Bach fugue does that.


Yes, but not quite to the extent to create "opposing/contrasting forces". It's because in the baroque era, there was this thing called "doctrine of the affections".


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, but not quite to the extent to create "opposing/contrasting forces". It's because in the baroque era, there was this thing called "doctrine of the affections".


They're there for contrast. In the Classical era minor key episodes are rather fleeting, and "doctrinally" speaking that was good form.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

consuono said:


> What do you mean? Any C major Bach fugue does that.


Oh yes! The minor key entries in the fugue from the Toccata, Adagio, and Fugue in C, for example, are dark, delicate, and glorious!


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Oh yes! The minor key entries in the fugue from the Toccata, Adagio, and Fugue in C, for example, are dark, delicate, and glorious!


Yes, and there's this opening chorus from BWV 19, also in C major. Opposing/contrasting forces, literally:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Yes, and there's this opening chorus from BWV 19, also in C major. Opposing/contrasting forces, literally:


I can sense the aesthetics pointing towards Classicism, but still, in Bach, I don't feel "mood contrast in a single movement" such as these: 
(I don't mean to put down Baroque music such as Bach in any way. I consider the different aesthetic methods as apples and oranges)

*[ 9:20 ]*





*[ 4:10 ]*





*[ 11:40 ]*





*[ 9:47 ]*





*[ 1:45 ]*


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> I can sense the aesthetics pointing towards Classicism, but still, in Bach, I don't feel "mood contrast in a single movement"


 It's in da capo form, and (along with the text) the mood most definitely contrasts in the middle or "B" (minor key) section. If you don't "sense" it, it's because you don't want to. And I don't think the aesthetics in that one point to Classicism at all. Classicism moved away from such. Btw the minor key "mood shift" you highlighted in the first video lasts for about 30 seconds, and then it's right back to the major -- typical for the Classical era.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Btw the minor key "mood shift" you highlighted in the first video lasts for about 30 seconds, and then it's right back to the major -- typical for the Classical era.


Refer back to my post, #35
*K.257*
gloria: the creeping chromaticism at 3:50
credo: listen for the "drama" that starts in "et incarnatus est" ( 7:18 ), escalates in "crucifixus" ( 8:43 ) and climaxes in "sub pontio pilato" ( 9:21 ) . Notice this sort of dark chromaticism coming back at 11:30
agnus dei: 20:30 see if you can feel the "dark clouds" gradually lifting


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Refer back to my post, #35
> *K.257*
> gloria: the creeping chromaticism at 3:50
> credo: listen for the "drama" that starts in "et incarnatus est" ( 7:18 ), escalates in "crucifixus" ( 8:43 ) and climaxes in "sub pontio pilato" ( 9:21 ) . Notice this sort of dark chromaticism coming back at 11:30
> agnus dei: 20:30 see if you can feel the "dark clouds" gradually lifting


Yes, I agree that they're all lovely works hammeredklavier, but in every single one of your examples above there is no extensive exploration of minor key within a major key context. They're all momentary, which is fine. The Baroque da capo form actually was more of a major-minor-major one (or some other variation) within one self-contained section. Here's another example, this one a Walton arrangement of a Bach aria:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I can sense the aesthetics pointing towards Classicism, but still, in Bach, I don't feel "mood contrast in a single movement" such as these:


Generally, there are stronger contrasts of theme in Classical movements. But in Baroque fugues, concerto movements, and so on there can be strong contrasts of mood because of shifts in mode and texture, even when the same theme is used throughout.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Yes, I agree that they're all lovely works hammeredklavier, but in every single one of your examples above there is no extensive exploration of minor key within a major key context. They're all momentary, which is fine. The Baroque da capo form actually was more of a major-minor-major one (or some other variation) within one self-contained section. Here's another example, this one a Walton arrangement of a Bach aria:


Wow. So you're _seriously_ using *da capo arias* as the best example of strong baroque use of dramatic contrast within a movement? I think this just validates the presence of the "doctrine of the affections" in baroque music. 
Yes, there are proto-Classicist tendencies (striving towards "refined form") in late Baroque. (Look at the binary form, for example.) Of course, Bach modulates to minor keys in a major key piece, as do all other common practice masters, I don't know what point you're trying to make. 
What I actually meant wasn't "extensive exploration of minor key". I was talking about "dramatic change of character in gesture and effect by alternating between major/minor" in a single movement. The more I read your posts the more I'm convinced there's none of that in Bach.
Again, take a look at credos of Mozart K.192 or K.262. Especially at the dramatic climaxes (ex. 10:30 )





*[ 4:35 ~ 5:50 ]
[ 9:25 ~ 11:10 ]*







consuono said:


> In the Classical era minor key episodes are rather fleeting, and "doctrinally" speaking that was good form.


They aren't "fleeting". They are written with a sense of proportion with the rest of the movement, take the glorias of K.220, K.258 (which I posted earlier) for example, which last 1~1.5 minutes in 3~4-minute movements.

From the conversations we've had in this forum, I guess you're one of those people who simply don't get why other people use terms like "sewing machines". I mean anyone who doesn't find value in stuff like Ricercar a 6 of Bach's musical offering is supposed to be "ignorant and deaf", according to you. =)


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Wow. So you're seriously using da capo arias as the best example of strong baroque use of dramatic contrast within a movement?


Yes, but not only that. There are shifts from major to minor or vice versa all throughout Baroque music. It's not some Classical innovation.


> They aren't "fleeting".


When it's a matter of seconds, it's fleeting. It may be quite beautiful, like the minor key episode in the first movement of K. 488, but it isn't anything Bach or Handel wouldn't have done.


> I mean anyone who doesn't find value in stuff like Ricercar a 6 of Bach's musical offering is supposed to be "ignorant and deaf", according to you. =)


Yes. =)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I believe the way Bach changes from major to minor are striking, but more incidental and not necessarily dramatic as in being used in an underpinning like in the Classical era, otherwise there would be no need for composers like Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert (I'd argue the last made basically no impact, but is still a star of his generation and is relevant today).


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe the way Bach changes from major to minor are striking, but more incidental and not necessarily dramatic as in being used in an underpinning like in the Classical era, otherwise there would be no need for composers like Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert (I'd argue the last made basically no impact, but is still a star of his generation and is relevant today).


Well then it's likewise "incidental" in every Classical example that was offered up, or conversely it's just as much an "underpinning" in the Baroque era. Besides, I don't know why a da capo or binary form wouldn't be legit, but using a minor-key episode in a sonata-form movement is. I think the "innovation" of the Classical era is the (more homophonic) use and manipulation of relatively short themes rather than chromatic complexity.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

consuono said:


> I think the "innovation" of the Classical era is the (more homophonic) use and manipulation of relatively short themes *rather than chromatic complexity.*


Yes, I agree with the first part, but this includes harmonic innovation (root movement, chord color, diminished mechanisms, etc.); I don't see it as opposed to chromatic complexity. Chromaticism can also be manifest in root movements and non-diatonic moves into key areas, like Beethoven's Ninth.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Well then it's likewise "incidental" in every Classical example that was offered up, or conversely it's just as much an "underpinning" in the Baroque era.


It's not. As I said, Bach has a certain quality of "being subdued under religiosity" compared to later eras and "constant uniformity" in terms of effect in each movement. (Hence the term "doctrine of the affections"). This does not mean Bach was limited in any way as a composer - it was just the norm of his time. You don't quite get a different feeling until you move to the next movement. Look at all the pieces you consider as Bach's masterpieces: the Art of the Fugue. Ricercar a 6 from musical offering, for example. Each movement has one constant feeling from start to finish. 
You don't seem to understand Classical practice of effect, and it's probably why you keep bringing up random Bach fugues and say you're "not sure if the writers heard these pieces" every time I cite published articles and books that discuss the connection between Mozart's K.426/K.546 and the fugal textures of late Beethoven.



consuono said:


> Besides, I don't know why a da capo or binary form wouldn't be legit, but using a minor-key episode in a sonata-form movement is. I think the "innovation" of the Classical era is the (more homophonic) use and manipulation of relatively short themes rather than chromatic complexity.


Classical dramatic effect isn't just about having some material repeated in minor, which was in practice ever since the advent of tonality. It's also about creating contrast using expressive variety in dynamics and rhythm, dramatic gestures, expansion of form, or deploying chromaticism to evoke contrast of feeling within a diatonic context of a piece. A lot of Bach works also contain expressive chromaticism, but it isn't quite there to evoke dramatic contrast within each movement. And again, the binary form isn't Classical. Look at C minor or F minor preludes from WTC book 2. Can you point to us where you think there are "dramatic contrasts of effect?" Let's hear them, if there's any. The sudden C minor entry of "crucifixus" in K.262 (refer to my earlier post) that hits like a thunder in the midst of the serene, lyrical "homo factus est", and almost anticipates the opening of Beethoven's 5th in dramatic gesture - there aren't expressions like that in Bach.


























See how this has "different feelings" at 1:00 and 3:05









 Look at these dissonant strettos "et vitam venturi" of Missa longa K.262 "sticking out" to create contrast with the rest of the fugue, in a sense of "operatic drama". You don't quite find this in Bach fugues. (I know Bach uses expressive dissonance in works such as the B minor fugue of WTC I, but again, it's "subdued" in terms of dramatic effect and contrast within the context of the movement)

Again, look at this sudden chromaticism that modulates from G minor to E major in the gloria of Missa trinitatis K.167: 



 , which foreshadows Mozart's later K.550 symphony.










Baroque composers used da capo arias in operas and oratorios, but saying that they're essentially the same as Classical innovations is like calling certain Classical operas "Romantic" just because their use of color influenced Berlioz and other later composers.
( "According to David Cairns Mozart's opera Idomeneo may be seen as an influence on Berlioz, not only because of its Gluckian affinities, but in its almost 19th-century use of colour." http://www.hberlioz.com/Photos/BerliozPhotos8.html )

*[ 26:00 ~ 32:30 ]*
*[ 1:23:30 ~ 1:28:30 ]*
*[ 2:01:00 ~ 2:06:00 ]*
*[ 2:21:30 ~ 2:27:30 ]*






You don't seem to really "get" the comparative styles of baroque and classical, (btw, I don't know why you keep classifying everything contrapuntal in the 18th century as either Bachian or Handelian, even though I keep telling you the fact that there were many other influential contrapuntists in that period.)


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammererklavier said:


> You don't seem to understand Classical practice of effect, and it's probably why you keep bringing up random Bach fugues and say you're "not sure if the writers heard these pieces" every time I cite published articles and books that discuss the connection between Mozart's K.426/K.546 and the fugal textures of late Beethoven.


That's in response to your constantly bringing up that Mozart 2 piano fugue and how like Bach it is. In addition to how Bach-like Mozart's contrapuntal writing is. You can't tell me that the "doctrine of affections" rules Bach's BWV 548 throughout every measure any more than it does Mozart's counterpoint. You can't have it both ways.
As for late Beethoven, the idea that his whole approach during that period was based on a couple of Mozart fugues is silly. Get out more.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> That's in response to your constantly bringing up that Mozart 2 piano fugue and how like Bach it is. In addition to how Bach-like Mozart's contrapuntal writing is.


I would not say Mozart's fugal writing is necessarily "Bachian". I think it's "Mozartian" (he was still influenced by Bach). You often seem to be worked up to find in my posts if there's any implication that "Mozart copied Bach's style" or "Mozart's fugal writing matches Bach's". I have not claimed any of these things. (Think of it this way: regardless of whether Beethoven's Op.18 meets the craftsmanship of Mozart's Haydn quartets, people still call early Beethoven, "Mozartian". Likewise, calling certain aspects of Mozart "Bachian" is not a disservice to Bach.)
Again, in terms of counterpoint, Johann Ernst Eberlin (1702~1762), for example, was a bigger role model for Mozart during his Salzburg period than any other baroque masters. I think it would be fair to call Mozart's counterpoint "Mozartian", and Eberlin's counterpoint "Eberlinian", just as we call Bach's counterpoint "Bachian", and Handel's "Handelian". Listen to the fugues of Missa longa K.262 (such as the triple fugue "cum sanctu spiritu - amen - amen" in the gloria) and the finales of string quartets K. K.168, K.173, or pignus futurae gloriae from litaniae K.125 (which he wrote at 16) - you'll see how Mozart's fugal style developed.

"it is a mistake to think that the practise of my art has become easy to me. I assure you, dear friend, no one has given so much care to the study of composition as I. There is scarcely a famous master in music whose works I have not frequently and diligently studied." -Mozart (a remark to Conductor Kucharz in Prague, who led the rehearsals for Don Giovanni in 1787).



consuono said:


> You can't tell me that the "doctrine of affections" rules Bach's BWV 548 throughout every measure any more than it does Mozart's counterpoint. You can't have it both ways. As for late Beethoven, the idea that his whole approach during that period was based on a couple of Mozart fugues is silly. Get out more.


I guess this is one of those rare cases where Mozart incorporates baroque elements in such a way that Classical principle of "contrasting feelings" doesn't explicitly apply, -but the sound is still "Classical" in terms of articulation, rhythm, dynamics, orchestration etc. I mean you can't mistake it for a baroque sound. (Think of the opening of Mozart's C minor piano concerto, for example). I think Beethoven was influenced by Mozart's idea of seemingly creating a "dissonant mess" in a Classically dionysian way and solving it with counterpoint. (Again, I acknowledge Bach's contrapuntal mastery, but I'm talking about the "Classical way of making effect" here. This 



 for example is clearly "Classical".). To be precise, the similarities between Mozart K.546 and Beethoven Op.111 first movement are obvious: the motivic working on the three-note fragments, the use of ominous trills in the bass, and the subjects ending on the leading tone in minor. Beethoven actually copied out the Mozart fugue in full as a study.
I guess Laudate pueri dominum from Vesperae solennes de confessore in C major, K.339 (which I posted earlier) is a better example of Classical contrapuntal movement where there is a clear contrast of feelings.

I agree there's more to late Beethoven than just some fugal textures. I think much of his late piano sonatas is aesthetically like early Romantic lieder. (The A major, and E major sonatas and the arietta. Personally I'm not heavily into this sort of "poetry" aesthetics, but I still acknowledge the profundity) 
Btw, many of the most profound utterances in late Beethoven are also in major keys: the cavatina from Op.130 and the Op.127 first movement, for example. Overall, I think you can't judge a Classicist solely by how many major-key pieces they wrote- Their musical philosophies worked differently from other eras in this respect.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

This composers comparison is futile. Every composer in history, or almost every, gave us some new, beautiful things and made our (musical) life a little bit better. Is this not enough?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> *[ 1:45 ]*


I'm kind of shocked by this fugue. I don't think it's that great, and not one of Mozart's best efforts.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> It's not. As I said, Bach has a certain quality of "being subdued under religiosity" compared to later eras and "constant uniformity" in terms of effect in each movement. (Hence the term "*doctrine of the affections*").


It's consistent with the national stereotype, that Germans would codify a 'doctrine' of the affections. I particularly like the idea that certain musical figures could elicit the emotion of 'obstinacy'.

https://www.britannica.com/art/doctrine-of-the-affections


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think so, I find his music to not have a single unneeded note (clarity) and filled with joyous pride (it boosts feelings of self-esteem).


Why stop at comparing Bach with just two composers?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm kind of shocked by this fugue. I don't think it's that great, and not one of Mozart's best efforts.


You're right; it's not as good as a Bach fugue.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> I can sense the aesthetics pointing towards Classicism, but still, in Bach, I don't feel "mood contrast in a single movement" such as these:
> *(I don't mean to put down Baroque music such as Bach in any way. I consider the different aesthetic methods as apples and oranges)*
> 
> *[ 1:45 ]*


Quite the contrary; by posting this Mozart fugue, it seems to me a put-down of Mozart!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm kind of shocked by this fugue. I don't think it's that great, and not one of Mozart's best efforts.


Perhaps not one of his best efforts but it has good points too. I really like the immediate dissonances on the beat as soon as the second voice enters. And there is nice, crunchy dissonance (mostly chain suspensions) throughout. There is some clever stretto as well. My main complaints would be that's it's just too long and there were a couple of passages where a sequential figure was repeated too many times consecutively.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Lots of pianists have turned in memorable performances of that fugue - for example Rudolf Serkin, Samuel Feinberg, Glenn Gould.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> Quite the contrary; by posting this Mozart fugue, it seems to me a put-down of Mozart!


by posting that, I was pointing out that the prelude contains a lot of 'dark colors', though. At 1:45, it vaguely reminds me of a section from the Waldstein piano sonata first movement.

btw, I also like these:









K.608 is another piece Beethoven studied:
https://library.sjsu.edu/beethoven-auction-database/transcription-beethoven-mozart’s-k-608


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

While I love and admire Mozart's talent very much, I have to agree that the piece in question is rather poor. I'd much rather prefer Bach. Yes, the fugue has wonderful dissonance. But there is some bad counterpoint (one instance of melodically repeating the same exact note as two sixteenths); and there is hardly any rhythmic variety at all--constant prevalence of straight 4-note sixteenth groupings one after the other for many measures at a time as well as an eighth, sixteenth, sixteenth, eighth, eighth figure repeated ad nauseum in the melody. It really drags on the ear. Bach puts much more variety and interest into his fugues.

And as was mentioned by EB, the down a step, down a 4th, up a step figure is probably the most prevalent figure in the fugue and is also repeated ad nauseum in sequential fashion. And in my opinion, the instances of sixteenth, eighth, sixteenth rhythm and the related sixteenth, eighth, sixteenth tied to a sixteenth are extremely awkward and clumsy.

The fantasy doesn't seem that dramatic or impressive to me either. It's quite predictable for a fantasy with it's consistently symmetrical phrasing and constant repetition of ideas developed only as sequences one after the other over and over again, most of them quite banal.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

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


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Although I consider Bach's contrapuntal mastery unsurpassed. I don't understand any of the arguments that criticize the alleged "repetition and lack of rhythmic variety" of Mozart in this thread. 
Take the C sharp minor from WTC I, for example. Once this subject enters, Bach has the phrase repeated practically every measure (in different registers).
View attachment 141752


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Not nearly the same level, IMO. Take a look again at the Mozart. See how many times he introduces a four note grouping of sixteenth notes and then repeats it several times in a row and then does the same thing again the next bar and then again and again and again. Sequence after sequence. Doesn't compare to Bach in my estimation.

For Bach, see the following. It is musical and fugal perfection. There are no such issues.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Although I consider Bach's contrapuntal mastery unsurpassed. I don't understand any of the arguments that criticize the alleged "repetition and lack of rhythmic variety" of Mozart in this thread.
> Take the C sharp minor from WTC I, for example. Once this subject enters, Bach has the phrase repeated practically every measure (in different registers).
> View attachment 141752


For me, it has too many passing tone notes (maybe the Emperor Joseph's crew were right!) that weren't doing all that much. I also feel the harmonic motion wasn't really that strong or distinctive. I'm only referring to the fugue. I didn't really pay too much attention to the Fantasy. There isn't anything really wrong. I just see Mozart as human for once.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> For me, it has too many passing tone notes (maybe the Emperor Joseph's crew were right!) that weren't doing all that much. I also feel the harmonic motion wasn't really that strong or distinctive. I'm only referring to the fugue. I didn't really pay too much attention to the Fantasy. There isn't anything really wrong. I just see Mozart as human for once.


I agree. The harmony is weak and very awkward. Just take the beginning for one example. The last statement in the exposition ends in C Major and the first Episode is stated in E Minor. The transition between the two starts in A Minor (even cadences in the key) then lands on E Major which in this context sounds like the V of A Minor instead of a new key. But instead of stating the Episode in A Minor like it sounds like it should, it has this weird jolting E Minor statement suspending us in this sort of unresolved v of A Minor. Very awkward, sounds weird, and is harmonically weak for a fugal transition, IMO.

It would have been better to perhaps have gone through a progression following the circle of fifths in the transition and move the music forward, arriving at a satisfying conclusion and new entrance of the episodic statement.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I've been listening to Bach a lot the past few days, he really does it for me. I think he's the best composer of all time!


----------



## Martin70 (Jun 13, 2018)

I must admit I am not trained in music, so I do not understand the finer points of this discussion. However, I decided to look at my collection and see what percentage is by Bach and what percentage is by all other composers. I have recently transferred all my CDs to FLAC and it turns out over 35% of all my music is by Bach, other composers comprised just under 30%, the rest was a mixture of everything from rock to world music. My wallet, ears and heart seem to prefer Bach by a long way.

Taste is often personally preference, but I find Bach's music meets my human condition and ministers to it. I admire other composers and enjoy Mozart a lot, but none of them seem to be the balm that Bach's music is to me. That said I would not put down another composer, it is just my opinion and taste. I own more copies of Bach's Mass in B-minor than any other work and suffering from depression, often Bach's Mass and Cantatas can lift me out of depression when no other music can. While I cannot explain why, no other composer seems to have that gift.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Although I consider Bach's contrapuntal mastery unsurpassed. I don't understand any of the arguments that criticize the alleged "repetition and lack of rhythmic variety" of Mozart in this thread.
> Take the C sharp minor from WTC I, for example. Once this subject enters, Bach has the phrase repeated practically every measure (in different registers).
> View attachment 141752


Even more so here. You're right: "unsurpassed".


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I agree with the first part, but this includes harmonic innovation (root movement, chord color, diminished mechanisms, etc.); I don't see it as opposed to chromatic complexity. Chromaticism can also be manifest in root movements and non-diatonic moves into key areas, like Beethoven's Ninth.


Indeed. And chromatic complexity in the Classical period you could say started with Haydn. And to switch gears and pay Mozart compliments, he was one of the most chromatically innovative at the time. Not only was there frequent use of chromatic passing tones, neighbor tones, appoggiaturas, etc., there were the following innovative uses of chromatic harmony

Secondary dominants which was customary but he would even have passages of several in a row making for very chromatic lines.
Secondary diminished triads and seventh chords.
Modulation to distant keys by common tone such as Fantasia K. 475 bars 24-27 using f# to go from b minor to D major. And bars 6-16 has extreme chromaticism using direct modulations. There is modulation in a single line of music in Sonata K. 576 mvt 2 bar 26 where it goes from D maj to e min to f# min over 3 bars.
He frequently used the neopolitan sixth, a chromatic chord. Such as sonata K. 310 mvt 1 bar 108.
Augmented 6th chords were his specialty. Countless examples. He even used all 3 versions in 1 bar in Sym 40 K. 550 mvt I bar 15.
Lastly, his other specialty was the common tone diminished chord. Sonata K. 545 mvt 2 bar 3 and PC no 21 mvt 2 are 2 examples.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Torkelburger said:


> ...And to switch gears and pay Mozart compliments, he was one of the most chromatically innovative at the time.




Yes, I like Mozart the most when he is harmonically innovative. I've yet to get enough of an overview on Mozart (his catalogue is so large) that I don't have a list of my 'best of' works which exhibit the features you listed.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I don't have the vocabulary to dissect the music and compare that way, but I can say that Bach makes me feel grand. Everything I've heard from him is perfection! I really think he may be the greatest musical mind to ever grace Earth.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> by posting that, I was pointing out that the prelude contains a lot of 'dark colors', though. ...


I still don't get it. In the relatively short prelude in A from WTC II there are likewise "a lot of dark colors" in the transitions to F# minor, E minor etc. I think Baroque music is more expressive in that regard compared to the Classical era, which to me often seems like a plastered-on never ending smile.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Classical era, which to me often seems like a plastered-on never ending smile.


I wasn't really saying that Bach lacks "expressivity" due to the doctrine of the affections, as I said previously the baroque idiom has its own advantages. And having a "plastered-on never ending smile" wasn't Mozart's aesthetic goal. Listen to the credo of this ( 4:34 ~ 8:43 ):
I also want to point it out that the "fugue" is a form of strict counterpoint, it is not exactly synonymous with the term "counterpoint". I think the art of contrapuntal logic in the form of fugue culminated in Bach, but later composers such as Mozart also wrote interesting "passages of counterpoint" (such as in the B flat minor "et in spiritum sanctum" @ 7:30 ).





"He (Chopin) said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords. That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint." 
<The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, By Carl Schachter, Page 57>






"The hypothesis that Mozart learned (presumably in 1782) from his study of the Art of Fugue how to combine a fugue subject with its own inversion ignores the composer's earlier experimentation with rectus and inversus combinations in the revision of the K. 173 finale and in the K. 401 keyboard fugue; there is, moreover, no firm evidence linking Mozart to The Art of Fugue. The only item left on this list, the "full exploitation of contrapuntal devices" in K. 426, is the one aspect of this work that is so atypical - for Mozart, his contemporaries and most of his predecessors - as to suggest the influence of J. S. Bach and no one else. ...
... Even the progression of events in K. 426 has a kind of relentless logic to it, as if Mozart was going down an elaborate checklist (something akin to my Table 3.2) as he composed this fugue, with the intention of utilizing his subject in every conceivable combination with itself."
< Engaging Bach: The Keyboard Legacy from Marpurg to Mendelssohn, By Matthew Dirst, Matthew Charles Dirst, Page 78, 80 >


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> I also want to point it out that the "fugue" is a form of strict counterpoint, it is not exactly synonymous with the term "counterpoint".


Well yeah, that's understood, but there's a difference between good large-scale use of counterpoint and isolated passages. I don't think either Mozart or Beethoven come anywhere near Bach in that regard. The last movement of Symphony 41 indicates Mozart might have moved in that direction, but alas.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> I wasn't really saying that Bach lacks "expressivity" due to the doctrine of the affections, as I said previously the baroque idiom has its own advantages.


You're very hooked on this 'doctrine'. It's not an immutable law, is it? Like F=ma?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> You're very hooked on this 'doctrine'. It's not an immutable law, is it? Like F=ma?


I know it's not addressed to me, but I'd say it isn't...and at any rate the "principles" aren't anything that can't be applied to music of just about any era.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Hammeredklavier,

Why is it so important to you that a piece of music must express different colors, keys, moods, dynamics, and articulations in a single movement? Why the fascination? What does it matter?

Do you think that a single movement of music that contrasts two different moods is somehow “better” than a piece that expresses one? How? On what basis?

You think it adds more drama? Does more drama = better? Does more drama = more expressive? I’m not so sure. If so, Sonata Form would always be more expressive than say, a basic ternary Adagio which isn’t always the case. Further, single movements of Mahler can have three or more principle themes as compared to Mozart’s two in his symphonic sonata forms. Does that mean Mahler’s symphonies are better than Mozart’s? And Mahler changed moods much more frequently than Mozart and expressed them “freer” than Mozart. Still means he is better?

In a lot of pieces, changing to a contrasting mood would detract from the expressiveness, not add to it. Like if you expressed a different mood in the middle of Bach’s Air from Suite No. 3 BWV 1068 it would completely detract from the musicality of the piece.

Or look at Samuel Barber’s Adagio for Strings, one of the most expressive pieces in all of music. On paper, it looks uninteresting: monothematic, modal (not much chromaticism), a single mood, not much change in articulation. But if you put a contrasting section in it for “freer” expression, it would ruin it. And I would bet anything if you asked anyone on the street listening to Adagio for Strings or anything you’ve posted in this thread which one was more expressive, people would choose Adagio for Strings every time.

It seems to me you are buying into the myth that Romanticism is somehow the IDEAL form of music, which ALL music should strive to emulate. Therefore, we should aspire to perform all music, no matter what period it is from, with romanticized sensibilities; and compose all music with Romantic aesthetics as the goal, etc., etc., etc. It’s as if Baroque music is twice removed from Romanticism, and Classicism was one step closer to the ideal form of music, a step in the right direction, so to speak. That is a fallacy in my opinion and detrimental to all aspects regarding the aesthetics of classical music: performance, composition, appreciation, interpretation, etc., (it is, actually, also an ethnocentric position).

BTW, Baroque music is not always lacking in the expression of dynamics, so I don’t know where you got that idea. I’ve heard and participated in many performances where careful attention to detail was paid to creating a dynamic arc in the music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Torkelburger said:


> Why is it so important to you that a piece of music must express different colors, keys, moods, dynamics, and articulations in a single movement? Why the fascination? What does it matter?
> Do you think that a single movement of music that contrasts two different moods is somehow "better" than a piece that expresses one? How? On what basis?


I do not think the Classical method is objectively better than the Baroque one. The difference to me is like, for example, ballade in F major and 24 preludes in Chopin -apples and oranges.
I was just trying to advocate the "Classical method of writing a lot of pieces in major keys with fewer accidentals like C major, F major, G major", which was criticized by some people in this thread. In the process of stressing my points, I may have sounded a little as if the Classical method was objectively better - I actually do not think it is.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

What you said is


> I think the Classical era was the first time composers demonstrated that they can write a piece in C major and still fully express different colors with minor keys within the form.


and I think that just isn't so.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

What’s the problem with BWV 870? Or Frescobaldi’s 11th Toccata?


----------

