# Do other Baroque composers reach the level of J. S. Bach?



## BenG

A lot of baroque music, written by for example, Handel, Telemann, and Scarlatti never seem to reach the glory of Bach, in particular his huge masterpieces - Goldbergs, Art of Fugue, Passions, ect. Instead many other baroque composers to me feel like general baroque-sounding uninteresting, light footed pieces. But I probably (almost certainly) haven't listened to enough. What do you think?


----------



## level82rat

I’m all for an underdog story, but unfortunately no contemporary of Bach’s is able to hold my attention for long. The top dog still stands strong.


----------



## Bulldog

Check out the generations before Bach - Buxtehude and Froberger are wonderful composers (definitely not light-footed).


----------



## flamencosketches

I'm rather new to Baroque music beyond Bach but I would definitely say that much of Handel's work is on the level of Bach, if not exactly _similar_ to Bach.


----------



## ORigel

Messiah comes close to the St. Matthew Passion. Israel in Egypt, Solomon, Saul, Jephtha, and Theodora are about as good as the Christmas Oratorio and better than the Easter Oratorio.

Vivaldi's concertos are better than some of Bach's.


----------



## Roger Knox

I feel that Domenico Scarlatti's sonatas are a whole different world than Bach -- whether played on harpsichord or piano. Jean-Philippe Rameau's instrumental music and operas -- _Les Indes Galantes_ is an opera-ballet I like. Henry Purcell, Marin Marais (viola da gamba), Marc-Antoine Charpentier (choral and stage music), & T. Albinoni and G. Torelli (string orchestra) are favourites of mine from the preceding generation


----------



## hammeredklavier

Vivaldi seems pretty individual in style. Listen to the beginning of this, for example: "In furore iustissimae irae"


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## Art Rock

For me, no. NO. Light years apart. And certainly not Handel. And most certainly not the Messiah.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

It's more about what they offer that is different stylistically.























I would never mistake any of these for Bach, and love them for qualities I don't hear in his music at all. To me Handel has one of the most forcefully distinct voices ever, and I prefer it to Bach's even though Bach is "better" overall.

...I unfortunately agree that Scarlatti is boring.


----------



## Fabulin

hammeredklavier said:


> Vivaldi seems pretty individual in style. Listen to the beginning of this, for example: "In furore iustissimae irae"


I often get the impression that Vivaldi could do things only Mozart would otherwise reliably do, two generations later. And he doesn't get enough credit for that.


----------



## Enthusiast

Only Handel comes close although his music is so different that it is hard to compare them. It is a poor caricature but I think of Bach as concerned with the infinite and Handel with the human. Still, we would be very much the poorer - and would have such a warped idea of the creative explosion of the Baroque - if we didn't have Vivaldi, Telemann, Purcell, Monteverdi ..... and so very many others.


----------



## Jacck

BenG said:


> A lot of baroque music, written by for example, Handel, Telemann, and Scarlatti never seem to reach the glory of Bach, in particular his huge masterpieces - Goldbergs, Art of Fugue, Passions, ect. Instead many other baroque composers to me feel like general baroque-sounding uninteresting, light footed pieces. But I probably (almost certainly) haven't listened to enough. What do you think?


none likely reaches his level of mastery of counterpoint, but yes, there are many excellent baroque composers worth exploring. Their music might not be exactly like Bach, but different, great in other ways. Vivaldi, Rameau, Purcell, Biber, Elisabeth Jacquet de La Guerre, Lully, Charpentier, Zelenka, Barbara Strozzi, Pergolesi, Scarlatti

Rameau





Purcell





Biber Mystery Sonatas





Élisabeth Jacquet de la Guerre - Pièces de Clavecin





Zelenka: Missa Omnium Sanctorum


----------



## Phil loves classical

I'm way more moved by adagios from Vivaldi and Corelli than anything by Bach. Handel also wrote magnificent, stirring music. But in counterpoint Bach was supreme.


----------



## Simplicissimus

For me, the three great Baroque composers are Bach, Händel, and Telemann. Bach’s genius towers above the other two. Händel is excellent though. I love his concerti grossi and consider them among the great Baroque compositions, and his Water Music and other incidental music is fun and insouciant in a way that the extremely serious and devout Bach just never seemed to aim at. As @flamencosketches commented, Händel’s and Bach’s sound worlds are quite different, and Telemann is different from both of them. Telemann’s large oeuvre of sonatas for recorder and a whole range of other instruments have an aesthetic character all their own, IMO, and they are not at all “one sonata written in many versions.” They explored and opened up the melodic and harmonic possibilities of wind instruments and ensembles in a unique way, I think. All of the above is why I find Baroque music much more interesting and varied than a lot of other classical music enthusiasts seem to do.


----------



## BenG

Bulldog said:


> Check out the generations before Bach - Buxtehude and Froberger are wonderful composers (definitely not light-footed).


Yes! Buxtehude wrote a "Goldberg variations".


----------



## consuono

Ultimately, no. But that doesn't mean their music isn't beautiful and worthy to hear, play and study.


----------



## hammeredklavier

BenG said:


> Yes! Buxtehude wrote a "Goldberg variations".


Likewise, this is said to be a direct precursor to the Bach WTC


----------



## premont

hammeredklavier said:


> Likewise, this is said to be a direct precursor to the Bach WTC


Talking of precursors to the WTC the Ariadne Musica by JKF Fischer is a more likely candidate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariadne_musica


----------



## consuono

BenG said:


> Yes! Buxtehude wrote a "Goldberg variations".


So did Handel. Compare and contrast.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## consuono

Some remarks by Jeremy Denk in an NPR article from several years ago:


> All of which is to say that the Goldbergs are genetically predisposed to be boring, and they cannot totally elude the trap set for them by their premise. To be fair, Bach charges at this fact with full foreknowledge, even brazenly. He says, in effect, yes this is bound to be boring but I am going to be so masterful that you will be in awe and not care even if you will be bored.
> 
> Brief musicological diversion: I feel pretty strongly encouraged by various scholars (who have presumably done their homework) that Bach was aware of a set of variations by Handel written some decades earlier, published in 1733. It so happens-by a twist of fate-that these variations are on the same first eight bass notes as the Goldbergs, and moreover that the last variation of the 62 (!) is a kind of canon, sort of a primitive harbinger of the amazing canons of the Goldbergs, etc. etc., blah blah blah. The upshot being: if you ever want to suffer an incredibly tedious time, if you want to be impelled to stick a fork in your brain just to stop the endless flood of mundanity, listen to Handel's 62 Variations.
> 
> This made me fantasize a music-historical moment. The postal coach arrives; a big pile of music comes from wherever. Bach sits down after a hearty meal to play through these new Handel variations, fresh off the printing press. I imagine at first a sour look, perhaps a frown of disbelieving distaste, but as he plays through the fortieth uninspired variation this look morphs into a grin, maybe even a smirk; perhaps even at this moment the idea for the world's greatest act of one-upmanship is born. Bach wonders: yes, this is hellaciously monotonous, but what if I multiply these eight notes by four, 8 x 8 x 8 x 8, making 32 total, creating a larger symmetry, giving the harmony some space to breathe? And then what if I write some real canons, not this pathetic excuse?


True. And hey, I love Handel. But...

https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations


----------



## pjang23

If you're a fan of Bach's keyboard suites, then his predecessor and influence Froberger is well worth checking out and is highly expressive music for its era.


----------



## tdc

In answer to the OP, I would say no. However I think that the comment below hits the nail on the head.



Clairvoyance Enough said:


> It's more about what they offer that is different stylistically.


There is a lot of variety in the Baroque, a lot of it very different than Bach and much of it is worth exploring. I am pretty much a fan of all of the big names in the Baroque era.

This work is a masterpiece, Monteverdi - Vespers


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Froberger's compositions were known to and studied by, among many others, Johann Pachelbel, Dieterich Buxtehude, Georg Muffat and his son Gottlieb Muffat, Johann Caspar Kerll, Matthias Weckmann, Louis Couperin, Johann Kirnberger, Johann Nikolaus Forkel, Georg Böhm, George Handel and Johann Sebastian Bach. Furthermore, copies in Mozart's hand of the Hexachord Fantasia survive, and even Beethoven knew Froberger's work through Albrechtsberger's teachings. The profound influence on Louis Couperin made Froberger partially responsible for the change Couperin brought into the French organ tradition (as well as for the development of the unmeasured prelude, which Couperin cultivated)."


----------



## consuono

Criticism of Handel's 62 Variations aside, I think his keyboard suites are great and should be better known than they are. I feel they're more directly related to the Classical keyboard composers who came later:


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## consuono

There are moments in this one that definitely point toward Haydn and Mozart:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Johann Sebastian Bach is attributed with the following remark:
"[Handel] is the only person I would wish to see before I die, and the only person I would wish to be, were I not Bach."

*[ 7:14 ]*


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> Johann Sebastian Bach is attributed with the following remark:
> "[Handel] is the only person I would wish to see before I die, and the only person I would wish to be, were I not Bach."


This quote makes me cringe every time I look at it, I think it is apocryphal. It seems different from the other scraps of knowledge that we have on Bach, out of character. This quote also was not mentioned anywhere in Christoph Wolff's Bach biography. It just sounds made up to me.


----------



## consuono

tdc said:


> This quote makes me cringe every time I look at it, I think it is apocryphal. It seems different from the other scraps of knowledge that we have on Bach, out of character. This quote also was not mentioned anywhere in Christoph Wolff's Bach biography. It just sounds made up to me.


Yeah, I agree. But at any rate I think Bach knew he was a better composer than Handel...and I think Handel knew it too.


----------



## 8j1010

*Have you tried listening to Pachelbel or Kuhnau? *




Also let's just appreciate the "Lute harpsichord", it might be my favorite instrument now, either that or the clavichord :lol:








(I've just learned this piece, my favorite movements in order are: Allemande, Praeludium, Sarabande, Courrante, Gigue, Gavotte)


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> I think Handel knew it too.


If Handel was really jealous of Bach, he would have challenged Bach to a keyboard duel and declared himself the winner regardless of the outcome:


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven was a huge fan of Bach and Mozart, but late in life placed Handel ahead of both.

"Handel is the unattained master of all masters. Go and learn from him how to achieve vast effects with simple means." (Reported by Seyfried)

"Handel is the greatest and ablest of all composers; from him I can still learn." (Said to Gerhard von Breuning in February, 1827) 

"Handel is the greatest composer that ever lived. I would uncover my head and kneel on his grave." (Fall of 1823)

One day Potter asked: 'Who is the greatest living composer, yourself excepted?' Beethoven seemed puzzled for a moment, and then exclaimed: 'Cherubini!' Potter went on: 'And of dead authors?' B. -- He had always considered Mozart as such, but since he had been made acquainted with Handel he put him at the head."

His opinion of Bach wasn't far behind:

"That you are going to publish Sebastian Bach's works is something which does good to my heart, which beats in love of the great and lofty art of this ancestral father of harmony; I want to see them soon." (To the publisher Hofmeister, 1801)

"His name ought not to be Bach (brook), but Ocean, because of his infinite and inexhaustible wealth of tonal combinations and harmonies." (To Freudenberg, 1824)


----------



## 8j1010

This isn't a Baroque composer, and can not compare Bach, but I really like *John Bull*.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> If Handel was really jealous of Bach, he would have challenged Bach to a keyboard duel and declared himself the winner regardless of the outcome...


No, that's exactly what someone as already famous as Handel *wouldn't* have done. I didn't say Handel was "jealous" of anybody.


KenOC said:


> Beethoven was a huge fan of Bach and Mozart, but late in life placed Handel ahead of both.


Late in life I think Beethoven was moving more toward Bach's music, although the Missa solemnis is certainly more "Handelian" than "Bachian". (Not that it isn't simply "Beethoven". It is.) But yeah, Handel was *the* composer for a lot of people in the late 18th- early 19th centuries, I'd say.

Also it should be kept in mind that knowledge of Bach's works was relatively sketchy up until fairly recently.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> No, that's exactly what someone as already famous as Handel *wouldn't* have done. I didn't say Handel was "jealous" of anybody.


I know. I was joking.



consuono said:


> Late in life I think Beethoven was moving more toward Bach's music, although the Missa solemnis is certainly more "Handelian" than "Bachian". (Not that it isn't simply "Beethoven". It is.) But yeah, Handel was *the* composer for a lot of people in the late 18th- early 19th centuries, I'd say.
> Also it should be kept in mind that knowledge of Bach's works was relatively sketchy up until fairly recently.


"From the early 1800s Bach's B-minor Mass was easily accessible to connoisseurs in Vienna. A copy of the Mass is listed in Johann Traeg's sales catalogue of 1804." https://www.researchgate.net/public...minor_Viennese_traditions_of_the_b-minor_mass

"Handel is the unattained master of all masters. Go and learn from him how to achieve vast effects with simple means." (Reported by Seyfried)

As Beethoven's own symphonies show, Beethoven's preferred aesthetic aim was to achieve "vast effects with simple means"*. Of Bach's works that were unknown to Beethoven, which do you think would have made Beethoven reconsider of his view on 'Handel vs Bach' if Beethoven knew them?

Also, considering the "Handelian" keyboard style you mentioned in one of your previous posts, 
wouldn't the arietta of Op.111 be closer to Handel than Bach in aesthetics?


----------



## hammeredklavier

We talked about this before, but here's why I think Beethoven had access to Bach's Musical offering and the Art of the fugue:

1. There's evidence Mozart studied both works.
2. Just as Mozart got his Bach scores from Swieten in 1782, Beethoven also did in 1794.

Pg. 68: "....From this standpoint, let us take yet another look at one of the works which Mozart studied intensively, the six-part Ricercar from Bach's A Musical Offering. Focus on the end of the opening statement (measures 9-11 in Figure 5.4): As the second voice enters, the first voice continues with a sequence of ascending fourths...."
Pg. 69: "....The first movement opens with a simple ascending C minor arpeggio, played forte, followed by a contrasting piano sequence consisting of a descending fifth G-C (inversion of a fourth), and a descending diminished seventh A˛- B˝-the same interval which marks the opening motivic statement of Bach's A Musical Offering (Figure 5.6)..."
"....The first voice descends in half-steps: G-Fˇ-F˝-E˝-E˛-D-again an explicit reference to the descending line in the opening of Bach's A Musical Offering. And, as with Bach's work, it is introduced as a mezzosoprano voice...."
<W.A. Mozart's Fantasy in C minor, K. 475, And the Generalization of the Lydian Principle Through Motivic Thorough-Composition by John Sigerson>






"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."
<Engaging Bach: The Keyboard Legacy from Marpurg to Mendelssohn, By Matthew Dirst, Matthew Charles Dirst, Page 78>

a letter from van Swieten to Beethoven, dating from 1794, when Beethoven 23 years old: 
_Monday, December 15, 
Herr Beethoven
If you are not hindered this coming Wednesday, I wish to see you at my home at 8:30 in the evening with your nightcap in your bag. Give me your immediate answer.
Swieten_
Exposure to bach and Handel's music seems to have been important to Beethoven just as it had been to Mozart. Ferdinand Ries later wrote, "Of all composers, Beethoven valued Mozart and Handel most highly, then J. S. Bach."
Pg.433
Pg.434


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> We talked about this before, but here's why I think Beethoven had access to Bach's Musical offering and the Art of the fugue:


Yeah, and he and Mozart could probably play all through both books of the WTC by heart. It's still nowhere near a full picture of Bach's work.


hammeredklavier said:


> Also, considering the "Handelian" keyboard style you mentioned in one of your previous posts,
> wouldn't the arietta of Op.111 be closer to Handel than Bach in aesthetics?


I think by that time Beethoven had moved past that as far as the keyboard's concerned. The last movement of Op. 109 shows that Beethoven was most likely familiar with the Goldberg Variations. Early Beethoven? That's probably more in the "Handelian" vein. The Arietta from Op. 111 could be Handel, could be Bach, could be whatever...it's just Beethoven ultimately. It's what Beethoven does with it that's significant anyway.


----------



## KenOC

I believe (but am willing to be convinced otherwise) that Beethoven was quite familiar with Bach's 48 (he cut his teeth on them after all), the Goldberg Variations, and possibly the Musical Offering the Art of Fugue as well. But I have seen no evidence that he was very familiar with Bach's greatest vocal works, while whenever he spoke of Handel it was precisely these works he referred to.

My feeling is that Beethoven was a bit frustrated by the lack of success, at least compared with his instrumental works, of his efforts for human voice. This was referred to in 1810 by ETA Hoffman in a famous essay: "Beethoven’s music sets in motion the machinery of awe, of fear, of terror, of pain, and awakens that infinite yearning which is the essence of romanticism. He is therefore a purely romantic composer. Might this not explain why his vocal music is less successful, since it does not permit a mood of vague yearning but can only depict from the realm of the infinite those feelings capable of being described in words?"

This frustration, along with a lack of familiarity with Bach's vocal and choral works, may be at the root of his seeming elevation of Handel over Bach.


----------



## 8j1010

Is this thread about Beethoven or Baroque composers :lol:


----------



## consuono

8j1010 said:


> Is this thread about Beethoven or Baroque composers :lol:


I don't see how discussing the relative influence of individual Baroque composers is all that out of place.


KenOC said:


> I believe (but am willing to be convinced otherwise) that Beethoven was quite familiar with Bach's 48 (he cut his teeth on them after all), the Goldberg Variations, and possibly the Musical Offering the Art of Fugue as well. But I have seen no evidence that he was very familiar with Bach's greatest vocal works, while whenever he spoke of Handel it was precisely these works he referred to.
> 
> ...


Yeah, exactly, although I've read that the B Minor Mass circulated in manuscript at around that time.


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> We talked about this before, but here's why I think Beethoven had access to Bach's Musical offering and the Art of the fugue:
> 
> 1. There's evidence Mozart studied both works.
> 2. Just as Mozart got his Bach scores from Swieten in 1782, Beethoven also did in 1794.
> 
> Pg. 68: "....From this standpoint, let us take yet another look at one of the works which Mozart studied intensively, the six-part Ricercar from Bach's A Musical Offering. Focus on the end of the opening statement (measures 9-11 in Figure 5.4): As the second voice enters, the first voice continues with a sequence of ascending fourths...."
> Pg. 69: "....The first movement opens with a simple ascending C minor arpeggio, played forte, followed by a contrasting piano sequence consisting of a descending fifth G-C (inversion of a fourth), and a descending diminished seventh A˛- B˝-the same interval which marks the opening motivic statement of Bach's A Musical Offering (Figure 5.6)..."
> "....The first voice descends in half-steps: G-Fˇ-F˝-E˝-E˛-D-again an explicit reference to the descending line in the opening of Bach's A Musical Offering. And, as with Bach's work, it is introduced as a mezzosoprano voice...."
> <W.A. Mozart's Fantasy in C minor, K. 475, And the Generalization of the Lydian Principle Through Motivic Thorough-Composition by John Sigerson>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "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."
> <Engaging Bach: The Keyboard Legacy from Marpurg to Mendelssohn, By Matthew Dirst, Matthew Charles Dirst, Page 78>
> 
> a letter from van Swieten to Beethoven, dating from 1794, when Beethoven 23 years old:
> _Monday, December 15,
> Herr Beethoven
> If you are not hindered this coming Wednesday, I wish to see you at my home at 8:30 in the evening with your nightcap in your bag. Give me your immediate answer.
> Swieten_
> Exposure to bach and Handel's music seems to have been important to Beethoven just as it had been to Mozart. Ferdinand Ries later wrote, "Of all composers, Beethoven valued Mozart and Handel most highly, then J. S. Bach."
> Pg.433
> Pg.434


Why isn't this question just answerable by asking the Beethovenhaus whether these Bach works were in his library?


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> My feeling is that Beethoven was a bit frustrated by the lack of success, at least compared with his instrumental works, of his efforts for human voice..


What did he think of the Missa Solemnis and the choral symphony? Was Fidelio not performed much?


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> What did he think of the Missa Solemnis and the choral symphony? Was Fidelio not performed much?


Beethoven made a lot of money on the Missa Solemnis, but mostly on "subscriptions" and sale of scores. He overall lost money on the Choral symphony, aside from his guaranteed income from the second performance since he had it produced by an impresario and his income was guaranteed. Fidelio/Leonore lost money on its first performances in 1805 and (revised) in 1806. I don't know how it did in its final form in 1814, but it was maybe more successful.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mandryka said:


> What did he think of the Missa Solemnis and the choral symphony? Was Fidelio not performed much?


"... We must remember that he served a long apprenticeship in the Opera House at Bonn, accompanying and conducting rehearsals of works in which the vocal writing was of the most grateful type; and that he realized the importance of this part of a composer's equipment is shown by the fact that on his arrival in Vienna he backed up his former valuable experience by going to Salieri for lessons in vocal writing-apparently with the setting of recitative specially in view. He was so well acquainted with good models that his shortcomings are evidently due rather to lack of sympathy with the voice than want of knowledge. Perhaps if he had been a chorister in his boyhood his attitude would have been different. But he seems to have shown no aptitude for singing, and his vocal efforts when trying to over his own works at the pianoforte consisted of the desolating sounds we usually hear from creative musicians in the throes. (In fact, "composer's voice" is now almost a generally recognized classification.) The clue to his ungrateful vocal writing lies in a casual remark: "When I think of a theme, it is always for some instrument." Add to this his constant impatience with any kind of technical limitations, and we can account for those terrible strings of high notes, the ungrateful arpeggios and other florid passages, and the long breathless stretches that make his choral writing so formidable. On the score of excessive range, however, Professor Tovey defends him, saying that the extravagant vocal compass "looks like some enormous violence of Beethoven's genius; whereas it is but little worse than the habits of contemporaries of his who were under no excitement whatever." It was unfortunate for this department of Beethoven's work that he lived in a bad choral period, when the idiom was secular and operatic, and the beauty of unaccompanied singing seems to have been unrealized. Thus in the whole of the Missa Solemnis there are only about a dozen bars in which the orchestra is silent. Moreover, the vocal lines are often obscured by being doubled in an aggressively florid way by the orchestra.
Another reason for Beethoven's shortcomings in writing for the voice was his poor literary sense. He was always unhandy in dealing with words, and a text often hampered rather than inspired him. In this respect he is the very reverse of Bach, who was almost over-ready to respond to the appeal of a graphic phrase. ..."
{ Revival: Beethoven (1933), By Harvey Grace, Page 163 }

"In fact, Beethoven himself seems to have been well aware of this, as he observed in a letter to the librettist Friedrich Kind: 'When sounds stir within me I always hear the full orchestra; I know what to expect of instrumentalists, who are capable of almost everything, but with vocal compositions I must always be asking myself, can this be sung?'"
{ Rossini and Post-Napoleonic Europe, By Warren Roberts, Page 211 }


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Beethoven made a lot of money on the Missa Solemnis, but mostly on "subscriptions" and sale of scores. He overall lost money on the Choral symphony, aside from his guaranteed income from the second performance since he had it produced by an impresario and his income was guaranteed. Fidelio/Leonore lost money on its first performances in 1805 and (revised) in 1806. I don't know how it did in its final form in 1814, but it was maybe more successful.


Fidelio eventually became popular in Vienna. I think we must remember that Beethoven lacked both Bach and Handel's ease at writing for the voice. The other thing was it wasn't until professional orchestras came into their own that works like the ninth symphony were able to be formed properly. And it is relatively recently with the advent of the professional conductor and crack choirs and soloists that we hear from the MissaSolemnis what Beethoven heard in his head. The fact was that like the late string quartets the writing was years ahead of its time


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## Superflumina

Monteverdi and Rameau both consistently reach his level and can even surpass him. I honestly prefer them to Bach when it comes to Baroque composers.


----------



## KRoad

Let us remember that Handel was first and foremost a composer of Opera. He only started with oratorio seriously when Italian opera had become unfashionable with London audiences - and these are essentially a continuation of opera but in the English language and with the addition of a role for chorus. So, if we are constantly going to hear the supposed superiority of Bach over Handel, let us compare Bach's Cantatas (secular and religious) and his passions with Handel's opera and oratorio. Further, let us remove the Bach's tortuous Lutheran dogma and Handel's convoluted libretti from the proceedings and focus on the arias. Handel wins hands down for the beauty of his soaring melodies and his sheer musicality. 

There is no contest IMO. The trouble is, I suspect most of the Bach brigade have hardly even scratched the surface of Handel's operatic output and focus only on his instrumental output - where to be fair - there might be a case for disagreement.


----------



## Jacck

KRoad said:


> Let us remember that Handel was first and foremost a composer of Opera. He only started with oratorio seriously when Italian opera had become unfashionable with London audiences - and these are essentially a continuation of opera but in the English language with the addition of a role for chorus. So, if we are constantly going to hear the supposed superiority of Bach over Handel, let us compare Bach's Cantatas (secular and religious) and his passions with Handel's opera and oratorio. Further, let us remove the Bach's tortuous Lutheran dogma and Handel's convoluted libretti from the proceedings and focus on the arias. Handel wins hands down for
> the beauty of his soaring melodies and his sheer musicality. There is no contest IMO. The trouble is, I suspect most of the Bach brigade have hardly even scratched the surface of Handel's operatic output and focus only on his instrumental output - where to fair - there might becase for disagreement.


I agree about this. I never thought that Bach could compose beautiful and memorable melodies. Vivaldi or Handel (or even Pergolesi) were simply much better at this. Bachs real strength is his keyboard works and counterpoint, where he is unmatched.


----------



## Ariasexta

JS Bach is so dedicated to the religious music, he dared to write lengthy cantatas which are the decisively distinguishing achievement compared to the rest of composers, most contemporaries avoided to write such serious cantatas. There is a consistent severity in all his compositions, instrumental and vocal, while not lacking shining moments of delights. His musical works are indispensable and inimitable. However, I doubt atheist can learn to love his music, his music chooses people, like all the best music does. 

Similar in achievement to JS Bach in music, we can say G Ph Telemann, Gottfried Stolzel, Heinrich Schutz, Henry Purcell. But in stylistic sense, Gottfried Stolzel is the closest in religious music.


----------



## Bulldog

KRoad said:


> Let us remember that Handel was first and foremost a composer of Opera. He only started with oratorio seriously when Italian opera had become unfashionable with London audiences - and these are essentially a continuation of opera but in the English language and with the addition of a role for chorus. So, if we are constantly going to hear the supposed superiority of Bach over Handel, let us compare Bach's Cantatas (secular and religious) and his passions with Handel's opera and oratorio. Further, let us remove the Bach's tortuous Lutheran dogma and Handel's convoluted libretti from the proceedings and focus on the arias. Handel wins hands down for the beauty of his soaring melodies and his sheer musicality.
> 
> There is no contest IMO. The trouble is, I suspect most of the Bach brigade have hardly even scratched the surface of Handel's operatic output and focus only on his instrumental output - where to be fair - there might be a case for disagreement.


Your suspicion is just speculation. I suppose you would consider me part of the "Bach brigade". Yet, Handel is my 2nd favorite Baroque composer, and I am very familiar with all his recorded instrumental/sacred choral/operatic music. In all categories, I have to say that Bach comes in first with me. Scratch that.


----------



## consuono

Jacck said:


> I agree about this. I never thought that Bach could compose beautiful and memorable melodies. Vivaldi or Handel (or even Pergolesi) were simply much better at this. Bachs real strength is his keyboard works and counterpoint, where he is unmatched.


I've often thought the same thing, but then I realize that even after listening to and admiring the work of several Baroque composers, it's Bach melodies that are most often in my head (Air from the third orchestral suite, the supplied accompaniment to what we call "Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring" and "Sleepers Awake", the Goldberg Aria which I do believe is by Bach, all sorts of melodies in the Brandenburg Concertos, loads of arias from the vocal works, too many themes and motifs from the WTC to count and on and on). I think Bach could hold his own in the melodic department and was untouchable when it came to harmonic richness.

The thing is that Bach is so good that the impulse is there to look for imperfections. And if I'm honest I will sometimes take that same tack unfairly with Mozart.


----------



## consuono

KRoad said:


> ... So, if we are constantly going to hear the supposed superiority of Bach over Handel, let us compare Bach's Cantatas (secular and religious) and his passions with Handel's opera and oratorio. Further, let us remove the Bach's tortuous Lutheran dogma and Handel's convoluted libretti from the proceedings and focus on the arias. Handel wins hands down for the beauty of his soaring melodies and his sheer musicality.
> 
> There is no contest IMO. The trouble is, I suspect most of the Bach brigade have hardly even scratched the surface of Handel's operatic output and focus only on his instrumental output - where to be fair - there might be a case for disagreement.


I hear about Bach's "tortuous Lutheran dogma" a lot but strangely nothing much about "tortuous Catholic dogma" when it comes to Palestrina, Gabrieli, Vivaldi, Pergolesi or Mozart. I'm not so sure Handel does win the melodic "contest" hands down when we consider all the arias in the cantatas, Passions or the Magnificat.


----------



## tdc

Personally, the reason I haven't dug that deeply into Handel's large scale vocal works is because I generally don't find them very interesting, I tend to listen to a chunk of the music, get bored and turn it off. I'm sure he is better in this area than I give him credit for but Handel is a bit of a blind spot for me (as is Beethoven) this could be related as Beethoven obviously admired Handel greatly. The vocal work by Handel that I find the most enjoyable by far at the moment is his Dixit Dominus, which I consider an excellent work, but this is Handel sounding closer to Bach possibly than in any other work. Aside from that Handel has grown on me somewhat lately as I've played through some of his keyboard pieces and found them rather good. So I do like Handel, but find the comparisons with Bach (and the genuflection of Beethoven and some others) a little puzzling.


----------



## consuono

I think this, for example (as arranged by Walton) is as melodically memorable as anything in Handel or Vivaldi, and I think it's more simply and fundamentally moving. It cuts to the heart of things without the frilliness. Bach's cantatas are filled with such:





And there's nothing quite like the following. Deficient in melody? Please.






Also this:


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## flamencosketches

tdc said:


> Personally, the reason I haven't dug that deeply into Handel's large scale vocal works is because I generally don't find them very interesting, I tend to listen to a chunk of the music, get bored and turn it off. I'm sure he is better in this area than I give him credit for but Handel is a bit of a blind spot for me (as is Beethoven) this could be related as Beethoven obviously admired Handel greatly. The vocal work by Handel that I find the most enjoyable by far at the moment is his Dixit Dominus, which I consider an excellent work, but this is Handel sounding closer to Bach possibly than in any other work. Aside from that Handel has grown on me somewhat lately as I've played through some of his keyboard pieces and found them rather good. So I do like Handel, but find the comparisons with Bach (and the genuflection of Beethoven and some others) a little puzzling.


I don't see Dixit Dominus as sounding remotely like Bach. What Bach work would you compare it to? If anything, for me, the similarity is with Vivaldi's sacred choral work.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> I hear about Bach's "tortuous Lutheran dogma" a lot but strangely nothing much about "tortuous Catholic dogma" when it comes to Palestrina, Gabrieli, Vivaldi, Pergolesi or Mozart.


Because Mozart (and Pergolesi, to a certain extent) is more about "rococo-operatic sweets-of-sin" LOL.





*[ 24:50 ]*


----------



## tdc

flamencosketches said:


> I don't see Dixit Dominus as sounding remotely like Bach. What Bach work would you compare it to? If anything, for me, the similarity is with Vivaldi's sacred choral work.


It does sound similar to Vivaldi, that is another reason I like it, because I find more intensity and passion in Vivaldi's aesthetic relative to Handel. I know that fans of Handel will often point out that Handel was the more well rounded composer compared to Vivaldi, better at counterpoint, more diverse etc. This might be true, but I find that Vivaldi can spark feeling in me very easily, so as to immediately arouse an emotional response. For me the same is not true for Handel.

Bach was influenced by Vivaldi, so the statements Dixit Dominus is close to Vivaldi and Dixit Dominus is close to Bach are both true in my view.


----------



## tdc

flamencosketches said:


> I don't see Dixit Dominus as sounding remotely like Bach.


Listen to this excerpt, not even remotely similar?


----------



## hammeredklavier

flamencosketches said:


> I don't see Dixit Dominus as sounding remotely like Bach. What Bach work would you compare it to? If anything, for me, the similarity is with Vivaldi's sacred choral work.


This one, maybe? It's also one my favorites in Bach:
*[ 6:50 ]*


----------



## tdc

tdc said:


> Listen to this excerpt, not even remotely similar?


Just re-listened to this clip and wow... the note that is held starting at 1:28, devastatingly beautiful. Moves me to my core.


----------



## flamencosketches

tdc said:


> Listen to this excerpt, not even remotely similar?


This moment does share some characteristics with Handel's Dixit Dominus, but I would call the Magnificat-not exactly the most representatively Bachian work in his catalog-an example of Bach sounding Handelian before I'd call Dixit Dominus Bachian. Splitting hairs at this point. I just don't think it's fair to say that Dixit Dominus, an early work (Handel was something like 20 when he wrote it) by a young composer who'd never heard of Bach, sounds "closer to Bach possibly than in any other work". What's more likely in my opinion, and this is something we can possibly both agree on, is that both were inspired by Vivaldi with these respective works.

Thanks for sharing this clip by the way, sounds like a great performance.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Because Mozart (and Pergolesi, to a certain extent) is more about "rococo-operatic sweets-of-sin" LOL.


Well there ya go, that could be it. QED


----------



## tdc

flamencosketches said:


> This moment does share some characteristics with Handel's Dixit Dominus, but I would call the Magnificat-not exactly the most representatively Bachian work in his catalog-an example of Bach sounding Handelian before I'd call Dixit Dominus Bachian. Splitting hairs at this point. I just don't think it's fair to say that Dixit Dominus, an early work (Handel was something like 20 when he wrote it) by a young composer who'd never heard of Bach, sounds "closer to Bach possibly than in any other work". What's more likely in my opinion, and this is something we can possibly both agree on, is that both were inspired by Vivaldi with these respective works.
> 
> Thanks for sharing this clip by the way, sounds like a great performance.


Well, I don't think the Magnificat is out of place, or not representative of Bach in some way, but rather an example of the variety and depth you will find in his oeuvre. He has a number of compositions that stand out as quite distinct among his works, the double violin concerto, the chromatic fantasy and fugue, and the art of fugue, to name just a few examples off the top of my head.

That said you do have a good point in regards Handel's young age in composing the Dixit Dominus. To be clear I wasn't sure of who influenced who in reference to that work, only remarking that a probable reason as to why I like the work so much is that I find the style closer to Bach's style relative to Handel's other vocal works. You may be right that the primary influence here is Vivaldi.


----------



## flamencosketches

tdc said:


> Well, I don't think the Magnificat is out of place, or not representative of Bach in some way, but rather an example of the variety and depth you will find in his oeuvre. He has a number of compositions that stand out as quite distinct among his works, the double violin concerto, the chromatic fantasy and fugue, and the art of fugue, to name just a few examples off the top of my head.
> 
> That said you do have a good point in regards Handel's young age in composing the Dixit Dominus. To be clear I wasn't sure of who influenced who in reference to that work, only remarking that a probable reason as to why I like the work so much is that I find the style closer to Bach's style relative to Handel's other vocal works. You may be right that the primary influence here is Vivaldi.


Maybe not out of place, per se, but I don't know if it's the first work I'd show someone new to Bach (though maybe, as it is amazingly catchy for a sacred vocal work-much like Dixit Dominus). There is a good deal of variety in Handel too, even within the late sacred oratorios, each has its own flavor, let alone when you factor in his early works in Italy, etc. Handel is a major voice in his time; I can only hope he clicks with you some day as he recently has with me, if only for the myriad amazing music that is out there to discover. If not, there is always enough in Bach for many lifetimes.


----------



## JAS

I wonder if Bach would or could have made the transition to more overtly emotional music, transitioning through the classical period to the romantic. (This is, of course, a purely useless and unanswerable question.)


----------



## SyphiliSSchubert

I think Rameau is the only Baroque composer who could ever dream of reaching Bach's genius.
Handel is amazing too, and his operas and oratorios could very well be close to Bach's best stuff. 
Vivaldi could be pretty close to in terms of instrumental music for the violin.
However, Bach is on a whole different level in all aspects of instrumental and vocal music. 
The thing is that all those composers rule, but Bach is just a miracle.


----------



## NLAdriaan

JAS said:


> I wonder if Bach would or could have made the transition to more overtly emotional music, transitioning through the classical period to the romantic. (This is, of course, a purely useless and unanswerable question.)


Isn't there already quite a lot of emotion in Bach's music? He composed so many moving pieces. Even the somewhat abstract Kunst der Fuge is loaded with it.


----------



## flamencosketches

NLAdriaan said:


> Isn't there already quite a lot of emotion in Bach's music? He composed so many moving pieces. Even the somewhat abstract Kunst der Fuge is loaded with it.


The Violin Sonatas & Partitas are practically Romantic music anyway. This stuff is so deeply passionate and emotional, it's insane. Bach was really spilling his guts with this music.


----------



## Gallus

Yes


----------



## hammeredklavier

I also like this one:


----------



## hammeredklavier

JAS said:


> I wonder if Bach would or could have made the transition to more overtly emotional music, transitioning through the classical period to the romantic. (This is, of course, a purely useless and unanswerable question.)


This is interesting:
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Opera.htm
"one of the complaints about Bach was that his cantatas were too operatic. More than any other composer he introduced the Italian opera style into church music, something his predecessor Johann Kuhnau had always resisted."


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> This is interesting:
> http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Opera.htm
> "one of the complaints about Bach was that his cantatas were too operatic. More than any other composer he introduced the Italian opera style into church music, something his predecessor Johann Kuhnau had always resisted."


Well they would've *really* loved Mozart then. :lol:


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> This is interesting:
> http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Opera.htm
> "one of the complaints about Bach was that his cantatas were too operatic. More than any other composer he introduced the Italian opera style into church music, something his predecessor Johann Kuhnau had always resisted."


This is the influence of Lully on Bach I guess, and Louis Marchand. It's the influence of Louis XIV style. It would be nice if someone who's familiar with the music could post some Italianate music from the cantatas, I don't know them well enough - either the Bach or (for example) Lully's motets.


----------



## DavidA

I think the general consensus is that Bach took the baroque style to its ultimate. Only Handel rivalled him. To choose between the two is a choice between two very different approaches. As Beecham once pointed out they were both masters of completely different styles.


----------



## NLAdriaan

hammeredklavier said:


> This is interesting:
> http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Opera.htm
> "one of the complaints about Bach was that his cantatas were too operatic. More than any other composer he introduced the Italian opera style into church music, something his predecessor Johann Kuhnau had always resisted."


The Mediterranean style was already introduced in Germany by Buxtehude. Listen to his 'Membra Jesu Nostri' and you hear a clear inspiration by Monteverdi. Also, Corelli and Frescobaldi have influenced Buxtehude'style. And Buxtehude used new Spanish musical forms like the Chaconne and the related Passacaglia.

As we know, Bach was a student of Buxtehude, which will likely have inspired Bach to write his own Passacaglia and Chaconne. . We also know that Bach himself studied some of Vivaldi's work.

Even Brahms directly got his inspiration for his own Passacaglia (in the 4th symphony) from Buxtehude.


----------



## BenG

Superflumina said:


> Monteverdi and Rameau both consistently reach his level and can even surpass him. I honestly prefer them to Bach when it comes to Baroque composers.


Can you give me some examples of either of their pieces that "reach his level and even surpass him"?


----------



## Jacck

BenG said:


> Can you give me some examples of either of their pieces that "reach his level and even surpass him"?


Rameau - short excerpts













Rameau - long pieces









Monteverdi 









I am not sure if any of it reaches the level of Bach. I have no musical education and do not know how such things are determined. But I am sure I like these pieces almost as much as i like Bach


----------



## BenG

Jacck said:


> Rameau - short excerpts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rameau - long pieces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monteverdi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure if any of it reaches the level of Bach. I have no musical education and do not know how such things are determined. But I am sure I like these pieces almost as much as i like Bach


Thank you : ) I'll give them a listen.


----------



## Tasto solo

A lot of very subjective contributions to this thread - how on earth can you rationally define a composer's "level" or "genius"? It is always going to be a matter of taste and I fully respect those who are touched more by Rameau or Monteverdi as I respect those for whom there is no "equal" to Bach. What I dislike, and thankfully this thread has generally steered clear, is the Bach cult which try to beatify this composer (ironically the worst thing he could imagine happening after his death judging by his piety) with their "Bach is God speaking through music" nonsense. Bach was a very clever composer and I adore a lot of his music. But I see too much the pattern and repetition in his music to be deeply moved by it. I am much more strongly moved by the music of Zelenka and Graupner who, like Bach, developed very unique personal styles, but could employ counterpoint with a more human touch and (especially in Graupner's case) orchestrated much better than Bach and achieved a much broader range of tone colours. They also developed their styles considerably in their later life whereas Bach, Handel and others basically stayed in their box. So these two composers are generally above Bach's "level" for me, if we want to speak in these simplistic and subjective terms!


----------



## consuono

> I am much more strongly moved by the music of Zelenka and Graupner who, like Bach, developed very unique personal styles, but could employ counterpoint with a more human touch and (especially in Graupner's case) orchestrated much better than Bach and achieved a much broader range of tone colours.


What is "counterpoint with a more human touch"? When I see that phrase I think of Beethoven's "freer" counterpoint in e.g. the last movement of Op. 106, and while it's certainly different from Bach's usual practice it doesn't make the music any more immediate than the Kyrie of the B Minor Mass or the opening chorus of BWV 80. It could even be called "sloppier".

I had seen those two names before but had never really listened to their music, so I gave Zelenka's Miserere in C Minor a listen. It immediately reminded me of the opening chorus of Bach's St John Passion, and it does indeed sound interesting and worthy to hear...but it also reminded me why we still listen to the St John Passion. To me, the Bach is clearly superior. I listened to Graupner's Overture in G and it's fine, but can't really hear any radical improvement on what Bach wrote in the Brandenburgs and orchestral suites. But to each his own.


----------



## level82rat

Tasto solo said:


> What I dislike, and thankfully this thread has generally steered clear, is the Bach cult which try to beatify this composer (ironically the worst thing he could imagine happening after his death judging by his piety) with their "Bach is God speaking through music" nonsense.


I see nothing wrong with the general statement that any good composer is God's gift to us. Heap on to that the fact that JS was extraordinarily talented _and_ deeply religious, and the above statement is even less objectionable.


----------



## Tasto solo

consuono said:


> What is "counterpoint with a more human touch"? When I see that phrase I think of Beethoven's "freer" counterpoint in e.g. the last movement of Op. 106, and while it's certainly different from Bach's usual practice it doesn't make the music any more immediate than the Kyrie of the B Minor Mass or the opening chorus of BWV 80. It could even be called "sloppier".
> 
> I had seen those two names before but had never really listened to their music, so I gave Zelenka's Miserere in C Minor a listen. It immediately reminded me of the opening chorus of Bach's St John Passion, and it does indeed sound interesting and worthy to hear...but it also reminded me why we still listen to the St John Passion. To me, the Bach is clearly superior. I listened to Graupner's Overture in G and it's fine, but can't really hear any radical improvement on what Bach wrote in the Brandenburgs and orchestral suites. But to each his own.


With respect I find your approach, to just take two random pieces from these composers and comparing them to the most famous of Bach's works of a similar genre is not really a fair test. You need to consider the context. The two pieces you chose are probably not the best to start with (half of Zelenka's Miserere is by Frescobaldi!) and in the case of Graupner it is definitely a bad choice because his main creative effort was certainly not in ouvertures (as a very minor side task he had to write party music for the rather frivolous court in Darmstadt rather than the paying musical public in the case of Bach). Anyway, I could also take a random Bach work out of context and argue that another composer is "better". You need to immerse yourself in the broader work of these composers for a while and when you emerge, see what sticks. If I do that with Telemann, Vivaldi and most other baroque composers, very soon I am craving some kind of substance. However, when I started listening to Zelenka about 6 or so years ago (back then I was also quite convinced that there was no baroque composer beside Bach and sometimes Handel who could hold my attention for long) I was amazed and surprised by the depth and breadth of his musical language. The same happened with Graupner, whom I have only known for around 2 years. These composers bring musical completion for me and I would not miss anything if I never heard Bach or Handel again (even though I do like a lot of their works).

If you are interested to get to know these composers better I suggest the following works as good entry points. However, bear in mind that, like Bach, these composers wrote quite unusual works, sometimes with a lot of complexity, sometimes even deceptively simple (Graupner is for me in this latter respect the very first minimalist composer). First impressions are of course useful but the works should be listened to several times to really "get" then. After hundreds of hearings of the absolutely unparalleled Gloria of Zelenka's Missa Dei Filii I still spot something new. When I first heard it, I thought "what the hell is going on here!?"

I will start with Zelenka and cover Graupner in another post. Fortunately I have a good summary to hand for Zelenka because you are not the first, or probably last, person I find myself trying to convince of his qualities! It is important to note that Zelenka developed and varied his style somewhat over his career. It is also important to note that unlike Bach (renowned keyboard/organ virtuoso with a contractual obligation to provide Lutheran cantatas for the church), his almost exclusive focus was on sacred (Catholic) music. He apparently had little time for the composition of orchestral or chamber music (although pretty much all is excellent). As a violone player he did not write for the keyboard.

*Early works*

_Instrumental works:_ 
Trio sonatas (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_l_fMHyE4KX_0j-BIYY9S_q7Iqhb6CCC78 ). All are brilliant but I especially like no. 3 and 5. The zefiro recordings are best in my view although Zelenka champion Vaclav Luks has released an excellent album recently too.

_Vocal works:_
Missa Sanctae Caeciliae (



 )
This is the earliest mass that we know about. It is both beautifully lyrical (Kyrie, Gloria and the Dona Nobis Pacem which is a reprise of the Kyrie) but also shows the early roots of Zelenka's darker style (Credo, Crucifixus etc.)

Gloria (track 4 onwards here https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_l8tphUsW1VHm8vbpJrYMTvcpzK6yIuMyM )
This is a very experimental and personal work (some say it was written just after Zelenka's father, organist in his birthplace and his first teacher, died). Vaclav Luks has assembled it together with other mass sections composed at the same time into a quite convincing _Missa Tota_. However the Gloria stands alone for me. The Cum Sancto fugue is a masterclass in cranking up the tension in contrapuntal writing.

Responsoria - these are works for holy week which Zelenka wrote in the stile antico manner (of course "modernized" here and there in a baroque way). They show how much of the "ancient" music he assimilated during his studies under Fux in Vienna. Telemann was desperate to get hold of the score but it was jealously guarded in Dresden. The Luks version is the best in my view. The response Caligaverunt is my favourite. 




*Middle period*

Zelenka's middle period (1725-1735) was dominated by big changes in his environment. His boss, Heinichen was ill for a long time and then died in 1729. Zelenka deputized and wrote a lot of ceremonial works, especially masses, involving large forces. He also embarked on an ambitious project to produce three complete vesper psalm cycles.

Best masses of the period: this is a tight call because there are several. Probably the two to listen to first are:

Missa Divi Xaverii 



. The Gloria at 10:32 and the Agnus at 40:50 are particular highlights for me. The fugetta Osanna at 38:38 which rises and rises and then explodes is a good example of what I mean by Zelenka's human touch at counterpoint. )

Missa Sancti Josephi https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_kbRIPgqrmgiMy3FRjzuOdHUIojAZAeu7I A wonderfully eclectic work for a very large band. So many highlights in this work but best if all for me is the cum sancto double fugue 



 . Again, this is a very human expression of exuberance through counterpoint which almost bubbles over.

It is also worth checking out the Psalms because Zelenka put a huge effort into exploring the potential of these texts. All surviving Psalms and the two magnificats have been recently recorded over 4 discs by the Zelenka champion Adam Viktora and his Ensemble Inegal. Many are brilliant with exquisite word painting and daring counterpoint. Probably this is my favourite in a fine live performance 



Note that the first episode of the final fugue is atonal!

Then there is the funeral music for August the Strong (he died in 1733, triggering a jostling for composers for favour, leading for instance to Bach's Kyrie and Gloria being delivered to the new Elector - these would later be expanded into what we call the "B Minor Mass". Although not actually the Kappellmeister, Zelenka had to provide all the funeral music. I love the start of the requiem (



) which is suitably regal in D major with muted brass and one expects the chorus to enter like that. But no, he brings the music down to the depths, then pauses... and then we find the choir entering quietly in a minor key. Things are fairly morbid for a while before the basses blast out the words "and light eternal" and are echoed by the full orchestra blasting in D major again. It's like Haydn's "and there was light", but 70 years earlier!

*Late period (1735-)*

_Orchestral music: _
Zelenka composed no separate works in this period but you can get an impression of his late style instrumental music in the overture to his Serenata (basically a short opera) Il Diamante. 



. The final minuet sounds innocent enough but he rather cleverly modifies it into the closing chorus of the serenata, here performed very engagingly as a flashmob 




_Vocal Music_
The late period is dominated by large scale masses and two very intense passion oratorios (these are quite heavy going - better to get to know his music better first!). Clearly the masses were to Zelenka what symphonies were to Beethoven and co and his developments of the form in his late years were both personal and intense. Even though he wrote for a smaller band (strings and wind) his last five masses are much more expansive than the earlier 15 or so. They also contain some of the most spectacular counterpoint and sensitive tunes in the arias. A particular innovation is the orchestration of contrapunctal sections. Whereas all other composers generally had their strings doubling the voice parts, Zelenka developed ways to detach the two, with dazzling effects. The are several good examples, for example in Missa Votiva (



) or in Missa Omnium Sanctorum (



). He also wrote some very nice "through composed" movements, like the Gloria of Missa Sanctissimae Trinitatis (



) and the Credo of Missa Omnium Sanctorum (



)

The two remaining masses, Filii and Patris are probably my favourites and they are certainly most forward-looking. They were already recorded about 20 years ago but desperately need another go by the two Zelenka-championing bands I have mentioned. Parts of Missa Dei Patris seem almost Haydnesque (see for instance the Quoniam 



). That mass also has a most incredible section of the Credo, from Et Ressurexit onwards - 




The Missa Dei Filii is "just" a Kyrie/Gloria, but the Gloria (



) is one of the most incredible settings of that text including an over 10 minute opening sprint, an expressive and desolate Qui Tollis which seems to be a solo aria until it suddenly reinvents itself as a duet, a punchy Quoniam, and then, another of those extended fugues which, at the end, suddenly crashes back into the opening material of the Gloria.

So, I hope that introduction to Zelenka is helpful! Of course there are many many other fine works by him which I have not mentioned here. But if you are drawn further in to his music like I was, you will surely find them. I will post about Graupner in due course.


----------



## consuono

> Anyway, I could also take a random Bach work out of context and argue that another composer is "better".


Not really.  But thanks for the info and recommendations re: Zelenka and Graupner. I truly will give them a listen.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Not really.  But thanks for the info and recommendations re: Zelenka and Graupner. I truly will give them a listen.


Tasto solo is a Bach-hater, btw. LOL



Tasto solo said:


> Zelenka has not been mentioned nearly enough on this thread. In terms of mass-writing he was one of the most prolific composers of the late baroque. He wrote at least 21 masses (further ones are lost or fragmented) and most of those that have been recorded reveal an originality and spiritual intensity that rather underlines the *absurd and over-excessive idolatry that we have paid the B Minor Mass *since it was dug out of the Dresden archive in the 19th century. The irony is that Zelenka's masses could have inspired Bach's great catholic mass and possibly that Bach even sought to complete it after 1745 in tribute to Zelenka (who was reputed to be Bach's friend) and who had died that year.


----------



## Tasto solo

hammeredklavier said:


> Tasto solo is a Bach-hater, btw. LOL


. No I am not, as I have made clear in many of my posts. I posted on the "favourite masses" thread a while back. I still stand wholeheartedly by what I wrote: The b minor mass is over-hyped in my view. Many people who talk with hyperbole about Bach's mass have never heard a note of Heinichen, Zelenka, Ristori, Hasse etc, composers who worked in the location and context for which Bach composed the initial Kyrie-Gloria and quite probably the remaining sections over a decade later. The b minor mass has some wonderful moments but for me it does not have the impact of some of the great masses of the composers I mentioned. I find Bach's approach to assemble a mass by recycling movements from various Lutheran cantatas is inferior to the holistic approach, especially of Zelenka, who clearly composed his masses from scratch and often has recurring themes... See e.g. the Missa Divi Xaverii which is quite a good example of that.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Tasto solo said:


> Many people who talk with hyperbole about Bach's mass have never heard a note of Heinichen, Zelenka, Ristori, Hasse etc, composers who worked in the location and context for which Bach composed the initial Kyrie-Gloria and quite probably the remaining sections over a decade later.


I occasionally listen to Hasse, (masses in G minor, D minor, misereres in D minor, E minor, requiems in E flat major, C major) but he strikes me as a second-rate Kapellmeister. I think that Mass in G minor, being his final and extended composition, may seem like a parallel to Bach's B minor - but doesn't meet Bach's level in quality. I kinda like his misereres, but he can be dull at times - like the C major requiem (1763), for example, the only thing that I found memorable was that it uses the same cantus firmus as Michael Haydn's C minor (1771), which I appreciate greatly.


----------



## tdc

Tasto solo said:


> . No I am not, as I have made clear in many of my posts. I posted on the "favourite masses" thread a while back. I still stand wholeheartedly by what I wrote: The b minor mass is over-hyped in my view. Many people who talk with hyperbole about Bach's mass have never heard a note of Heinichen, Zelenka, Ristori, Hasse etc, composers who worked in the location and context for which Bach composed the initial Kyrie-Gloria and quite probably the remaining sections over a decade later. The b minor mass has some wonderful moments but for me it does not have the impact of some of the great masses of the composers I mentioned. *I find Bach's approach to assemble a mass by recycling movements from various Lutheran cantatas is inferior to the holistic approach, especially of Zelenka, who clearly composed his masses from scratch* and often has recurring themes... See e.g. the Missa Divi Xaverii which is quite a good example of that.


Stated this way it might seem as though Zelenka's approach is better, but it doesn't really tell us very much about the quality of the music itself. Something to keep in mind is Bach often reworked recycled materials such as in the Agnus Dei which is a parody of a 1725 cantata movement, yet it has quite a few changes to it and newly composed passages, Wolff called this movement a "genuine tour de force in enhancing a parody with new material".

Also this point taken from Wolff's book should be considered:

"In the completed score, which embraces a wide spectrum of vocal-instrumental polyphony, Bach was able to underline what he perceived as the timeless validity of the liturgical and musical meaning of the ancient Mass. Hence, the multiple compositional styles that constitute the B-minor Mass cannot be reduced to a mere historical anthology of exemplary settings. True, from where Bach borrowed from existing music, he selected from among the best he had. To some extent, he may also have been guided by the aspect of preservation, for he could see very well the difference between the short-lived fashion of the German cantatas on one hand and the longevity of the Latin Mass on the other...so he chose this most historical of all vocal genres to be a _summa summarum_ of his artistry."

So not only does this Mass contain some of the very best of Bach's music, a further point to be considered is that he added movements in a manner that contains specific symbolism relating to his beliefs and a symmetrical layout, so he organized them in a very specific way and made changes to the movements in a range of places where he felt it necessary for the coherence of the work.


----------



## consuono

Tasto solo said:


> .. The b minor mass has some wonderful moments but for me it does not have the impact of some of the great masses of the composers I mentioned. ...


OK, so you don't care much for the B Minor Mass. How about the keyboard music of Zelenka, Graupner et al? What about those "movements from various Lutheran [Bach] cantatas"? What about the Passions? I listened to Zelenka's Magnificats in D and C, and while it's lovely and fine music it doesn't come close to Bach's Magnificat in quality. Insisting otherwise seems to me like looking for some great contender to come along and retroactively knock Bach off his pedestal. It seems more about reacting to Bach than about the actual music of the others. "I really like these Zelenka Magnificats, but there's that pesky Bach one...maybe if I minimize the Bach one it will make the Zelenka works more noticeable". If I felt that what I've heard so far from Zelenka and Graupner (and Handel and Vivaldi, for that matter) were superior to Bach, I don't have any reason to say otherwise. I'd admit it. And maybe as I listen more there'll be at least passages that equal Bach. At any rate it's fine music and quite OK to enjoy. I'm not a shareholder in some kind of Bach, Inc.


----------



## Jacck

tdc said:


> Stated this way it might seem as though Zelenka's approach is better, but it doesn't really tell us very much about the quality of the music itself. Something to keep in mind is Bach often reworked recycled materials such as in the Agnus Dei which is a parody of a 1725 cantata movement, yet it has quite a few changes to it and newly composed passages, Wolff called this movement a "genuine tour de force in enhancing a parody with new material".


I probably like the Zelenka masses over the Bach masses too. While I acknowledge that Bach is clearly superior in terms of counterpoint (though Zelenka is pretty good too), I simply like Zelenka better in the melodic department.


----------



## Bulldog

Tasto solo said:


> . No I am not, as I have made clear in many of my posts. I posted on the "favourite masses" thread a while back. I still stand wholeheartedly by what I wrote: The b minor mass is over-hyped in my view. Many people who talk with hyperbole about Bach's mass have never heard a note of Heinichen, Zelenka, Ristori, Hasse etc, composers who worked in the location and context for which Bach composed the initial Kyrie-Gloria and quite probably the remaining sections over a decade later. The b minor mass has some wonderful moments but for me it does not have the impact of some of the great masses of the composers I mentioned.


I'm a big fan of baroque music and think highly of the composers mentioned above including Graupner. However, none of them comes close to impacting me as much as Bach does. My hierarchy is:

Bach
Handel
Louis Couperin
Rameau
Buxtehude
Zelenka
Froberger
Francois Couperin
Charpentier


----------



## Mandryka

sd.l;kvcns;.lvmsedlvns


----------



## Mandryka

Bulldog said:


> I'm a big fan of baroque music and think highly of the composers mentioned above including Graupner. However, none of them comes close to impacting me as much as Bach does. My hierarchy is:
> 
> Bach
> Handel
> Louis Couperin
> Rameau
> Buxtehude
> Zelenka
> Froberger
> Francois Couperin
> Charpentier


What is it that you enjoy in Louis Couperin which you don't find in Froberger? (I think others would order them like you do, Egarr for example. But I'm not sure I understand why.)


----------



## Tasto solo

tdc said:


> Stated this way it might seem as though Zelenka's approach is better, but it doesn't really tell us very much about the quality of the music itself.


How are you measuring "quality"? Do you mean by "quality" the "amount I am personally impacted by the work and the frequency which I would go back and listen to this work" or something like that? Just curious, because an absolute, objective measure of quality of a musical work or indeed any work of art does not exist.

Thanks for the interesting quote about the modifications Bach did when parodying earlier material.


----------



## Tasto solo

Bulldog said:


> I'm a big fan of baroque music and think highly of the composers mentioned above including Graupner.


... so we are going to need to find a way to get him onto your shortlist. Given that at most 5% of his works have been recorded/performed, I am confident!


----------



## Tasto solo

hammeredklavier said:


> I occasionally listen to Hasse, (masses in G minor, D minor, misereres in D minor, E minor, requiems in E flat major, C major) but he strikes me as a second-rate Kapellmeister.


I agree with your assessment. He is easily my least favourite of the composers I listed. His main efforts were obviously in opera, not church music. But I am not really into baroque opera.


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> What is it that you enjoy in Louis Couperin which you don't find in Froberger? (I think others would order them like you do, Egarr for example. But I'm not sure I understand why.)


Couperin's music is more regal and ceremonial; I like that effect. Frpoberger is more introspective and probing; I like that also. My small preference for Couperin is mainly based on one of his harpsichord suites; if I remember correctly, it's in D major - love that work.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> What is it that you enjoy in Louis Couperin which you don't find in Froberger? (I think others would order them like you do, Egarr for example. But I'm not sure I understand why.)


Louis Couperin and Froberger should be compared by their keyboard suites, where I find them equal. I think Frobergers contrapuntal works (e.g. ricercari) are more four square and less accessible than the suites and maybe not equally rewarding as the suites.


----------



## SearsPoncho

No. .


----------



## Superflumina

DavidA said:


> I think the general consensus is that Bach took the baroque style to its ultimate. Only Handel rivalled him. To choose between the two is a choice between two very different approaches. As Beecham once pointed out they were both masters of completely different styles.


Yep, and so did Handel/Vivaldi to the Italian late Baroque style and Rameau to the French Baroque. All of them are worthy styles/composers. To put Bach far above the others is a personal preference that many share towards his style of counterpoint-heavy German Baroque over other styles. But Bach and Handel alone don't tell the whole story of the peak of Baroque music.


----------



## Ariasexta

Very informative thread it becomes. I enjoy reading, but got hurted by some comparisons. Clearly many people still hold a hardened mind more or less to early music even started to enjoy JS Bach. Do not be so judgemental


----------



## DavidA

The only baroque composer we can compare With Bach is Handel whose style and genre was very different. That does not mean to say we cannot get enjoyment out of other composers but these two seem to be way ahead of the game


----------



## Tasto solo

DavidA said:


> The only baroque composer we can compare With Bach is Handel whose style and genre was very different. That does not mean to say we cannot get enjoyment out of other composers but these two seem to be way ahead of the game


What does way ahead of the game mean? How do you define that? Because for me and probably others it is not the case. Listen to all the Zelenka masterpieces I recommended higher up this thread. In my opinion these works are not 'behind the game' of any other composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Tasto solo said:


> Zelenka


I was listening to this 'Missa Votiva (1739)' the other day, and the credo reminded me of that of Bach's B minor


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Stated this way it might seem as though Zelenka's approach is better, but it doesn't really tell us very much about the quality of the music itself.





Tasto solo said:


> I find Bach's approach to assemble a mass by recycling movements from various Lutheran cantatas is inferior to the holistic approach, especially of Zelenka, who clearly composed his masses from scratch


I still don't find Zelenka's method to be really superior to Bach's in that regard. Every movement in Mozart's vespers for example, recapitulates with the Minor doxology ("Gloria patri"; with the "Glo" always having a longer note value than the "ri"). By Tasto's logic, wouldn't Mozart's method be better than Zelenka's in that regard?


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I was listening to this 'Missa Votiva (1739)' the other day, and the credo reminded me of that of Bach's B minor


I listened to some of that, and it's good...but it sounds to me a little like C. P. E. and the "galant" style. By the way the Credo from the B minor mass was made from "scratch", based on Gregorian chant.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> the Credo from the B minor mass was made from "scratch", based on Gregorian chant.


I still think Bach's is better, but there are still similarities in terms of feel; both Zelenka's and Bach's being in A (Bach's in A Mixolydian). The Te decet from the Michael Haydn requiem (1771) is based on a Gregorian melody, but it's similar in feel to that of Adolph Hasse's C major requiem (1763). And again, compare the Et incarnatus est and Crucifixus from Michael Haydn's Missa sancti Gabrielis 
with the Crucifixus from Mozart's Missa brevis K.258, 
and the Et incarnatus est  from Beethoven's Missa solemnis.


----------



## hammeredklavier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Dismas_Zelenka#Life
"In 1709 in Prague, Zelenka served Baron von Johann Hubert von Hartig before his appointment as a violone player in Dresden's royal orchestra. Baron von Hartig was a well-known connoisseur of music and a virtuoso musician. He corresponded with many important Italian composers, and amassed a great music library which Zelenka would later have access to, notably including Antonio Lotti's Missa Sapientiae. Zelenka copied this work from Hartig's collection around 1729, and later in the 1730s Johann Sebastian Bach acquired a copy of it from Zelenka's library. George Frideric Handel's copy of the same Mass might also have been acquired through Zelenka. When Johann Hubert died in Prague in 1741, Zelenka dedicated his Litaniae Lauretanae 'Salus infirmorum' (ZWV 152) to his old patron. ...
Bach held Zelenka in high esteem, and the two composers knew each other, as evidenced by a letter of 13 January 1775 from his son C.P.E. Bach to the Bach biographer Johann Nikolaus Forkel. Bach was trusted enough by Zelenka for his eldest son Wilhelm Friedemann to copy out the Amen from Zelenka's third Magnificat (ZWV 108) to use in the Leipzig's St. Thomas' Church, where J. S. Bach was cantor for the last two and a half decades of his life."


----------



## Musicaterina

I think there are several composers of the Baroque era who reach the level of Johann Sebastian Bach but who are partly really underrated. For example Georg Philipp Telemann and Christoph Graupner. I like both very much, and I think their cantatas and orchestral suites are in no way inferior to those of Bach. Here, for example, a suite by Christoph Graupner to which I listen often:


----------



## larold

Bach's greatest music is unmatched by other composers of his era -- St. Matthew Passion, Brandenburg concertos, Goldberg variations, a number of the cantatas, his body of organ music, keyboard partitas and suites, some others. 

There are two other composers that can be compared to him -- Handel and Vivaldi. Handel wrote as many oratorios of highest quality as Bach, perhaps more. Handel's best music aside from the oratorios -- the organ concertos, Royal Fireworks Music, Water Music -- compare to any composer including Bach.

Vivaldi wrote more concertos of high quality for far more instruments than Bach, especially the cello and bassoon, and he wrote sacred choral music such Gloria, Domine ad adjuvandum me and Dixit Dominus that are the match of Bach's Magnificat. His Four Seasons is an unmatched set of concertos in classical music history.

Both Handel and Vivaldi had success writing opera in their day, an area in which Bach did not participate. One of Handel's, Julius Caesar, is still performed today. These are the only two Baroque composers that compare to J.S. Bach, in my opinion, and neither match him. 

Of course, only Mozart and Beethoven match Bach in all of classical music history so being mentioned in the same breath as J.S. Bach is quite an accomplishment


----------



## SanAntone

*Do other Baroque composers reach the level of J. S. Bach?*

Yes. They all do, as themselves - not in comparison to any other composer. Each fulfilled his own destiny as a composer and in this way each composer is on the same high level. What causes a sense of hierarchy is our own subjective appreciation.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> What causes a sense of hierarchy is our own subjective appreciation.


What causes a sense of hierarchy is that some music impresses and moves more people more consistently than this other music. And yeah the Beatles and Stones probably "moved" more people in terms of sheer numbers, but they're already starting to fade while Mozart is still there.
And after all there's also that concert music>film score hierarchy.


----------



## Dave Langlois

Good question! In my opinion, emphatically not. In fact, when people say things like "I like baroque music" it seems to me such a weird abstraction, like saying "I like blue paintings". Depends on the composer in each era. Not only does Bach seem to me head and shoulders above his two 1685 contemporaries and the rest of Baroque composers, but he's also one of the greatest human creators of all time in any form. The concentration, intensity, imagination and ingenuity of his best works can be compared only the Beethoven's late quartets and sonatas and Mahler's symphonies.


----------



## FastkeinBrahms

I am a huge Bach fan, too, however: Not all his work is pure genius, a lot is also "Gebrauchsmusik", with a lot of self-recycled material . No wonder if you have to churn out a new cantata for almost every week for years for your stingy and yet extremely demanding Leipzig employers. Besides, a lot of the texts/lyrics he uses are third rate, mostly amateurish and sometimes involuntarily funny best enjoyed in German by non-German speakers. I feel that a little less exposure to the duopoly of Bach/Händel and a bit more openness to Zelenka and many others would be healthy. Think about the huge number of great Italians beside Vivaldi, for example Porpora, the Scarlattis, or the extremely versatile Rameau, or Lully and Charpentier.


----------



## consuono

> I am a huge Bach fan, too, however: Not all his work is pure genius, a lot is also "Gebrauchsmusik", with a lot of self-recycled material .


I don't understand what's intrinsically inferior about that. The material he re-used in the B minor Mass was recycled with ingenuity, I think...and many of the preludes from WTC I were recycled material. In a way most Baroque music was Gebrauchsmusik.

I'm a big admirer of Rameau and the Couperins as well, but one thing is I don't think their harpsichord works -- which were a huge part of their output -- translates as well to the piano as Bach's do. I know some strenuously object to Bach played on the piano, but still. Scarlatti fares better, and he's hardly neglected.


----------



## FastkeinBrahms

Ok, the B Minor Mass is in its own league, but we do not have to prostate ourselves in awe at run-of-the mill entertainment music such as the Coffee Cantata or the, admittedly well crafted but mainly just pretty Brandenburg Concertos. The good stuff by others of that period für outweighs these.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

consuono said:


> I don't understand what's intrinsically inferior about that. The material he re-used in the B minor Mass was recycled with ingenuity, I think...and many of the preludes from WTC I were recycled material. *In a way most Baroque music was Gebrauchsmusik.*
> 
> I'm a big admirer of Rameau and the Couperins as well, but one thing is I don't think their harpsichord works -- which were a huge part of their output -- translates as well to the piano as Bach's do. I know some strenuously object to Bach played on the piano, but still. Scarlatti fares better, and he's hardly neglected.


I'd agree with this. Most Baroque music doesn't reinvent the wheel and while Bach is undeniably far and above the most inventive, developed, and masterful composer, I don't place any demands on other Baroque to reinvent the wheel in the first place, I find it perfectly enjoyable as is. And other composers were also inventive, just in different ways and like them for their different styles and personalities. Like *larold* wrote above Vivaldi was very creative with his instrumentation choices for chamber music and Telemann adopted a more streamlined approach to his music, injecting polyphony were he felt appropriate.


----------



## hammeredklavier

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I'd agree with this. Most Baroque music doesn't reinvent the wheel and while Bach is undeniably far and above the most inventive, developed, and masterful composer, I don't place any demands on other Baroque to reinvent the wheel in the first place, I find it perfectly enjoyable as is. And other composers were also inventive, just in different ways and like them for their different styles and personalities. Like *larold* wrote above Vivaldi was very creative with his instrumentation choices for chamber music and Telemann adopted a more streamlined approach to his music, injecting polyphony were he felt appropriate.


I too tend to think Bach's inventiveness comes more from his use of harmony rather than invention of new genres or mediums.

https://www.critique-musicale.com/bachen.htm
"In fact, according to all the musicologists, Vivaldi had a great importance in the transformation of the concerto, developping the mind of solist, on the other hand the novelties he carries in the symphonism were incontestable. On the contrary, Bach was a typically conservative who did not change the musical language. He was turned towards the past, prefering religious music, choral song, the ancient forms : fugue, polyphonic writing."


----------



## consuono

FastkeinBrahms said:


> Ok, the B Minor Mass is in its own league, but we do not have to prostate ourselves in awe at run-of-the mill entertainment music such as the Coffee Cantata or the, admittedly well crafted but mainly just pretty Brandenburg Concertos. The good stuff by others of that period für outweighs these.


I'm not a fan of the Coffee Cantata, but the Brandenburgs are the finest of the era. Come on. What "far outweighs" them?


----------



## RogerWaters

Zelenka only. Underrated Gem.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I wouldn’t say “far outweighs,” but I like Handel and Corelli’s concerti grossi almost as much as the Brandenburgs and more than the Orchestral Suites; they are probably my favorite non-Bach Baroque works. Otherwise I can think of no category where other Baroque composers really rival Bach with the possible exception of chamber music (Zelenka’s trio sonatas are superb). Not even Handel, who I greatly admire, dramatic genius as he was, had nearly as much variety in his arsenal as can be found among Bach’s cantatas. And I am not aware of any other Baroque keyboard music that has anywhere near the level of profundity as the WTC, Goldbergs, chromatic fantasia/fugue, and E minor partita.


----------



## consuono

> Otherwise I can think of no category where other Baroque composers really rival Bach with the possible exception of chamber music (Zelenka's trio sonatas are superb).


I don't know.




versus





Or




versus


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think one reason why bach seems in a different league is that he was in one respect very modern. Namely both in his control of musical parameters that others left to performance and in his quasiscientific perfection and fastidiousness. Most others, especially Handel at that time were very different. They often worked in a quick and dirty way, leaving a lot to be improvised. Paradoxically, the style of Handel nevertheless was the most compatible to the tastes of the second half of the 18th century, making him one of the first composers whose works were publicly performed since their premieres. Only a smallish selection, of course. This changed in the 19th century when mendelssohn brought bach into the concert hall. The keyboard works of bach had never been forgotten, though, and the important ones were all available in beethoven's time. And at least in name they must have been familiar not only to connoisseurs as beethoven''s father mentions the wtc in his advertising for the wunderkind. But it might be that mozart when he arranged some fugues for strings was working from a collection of only fugues as he wrote new introduction's instead of using the preludes.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> But it might be that mozart when he arranged some fugues for strings was working from a collection of only fugues as he wrote new introduction's instead of using the preludes.


K.404a is nowadays considered to be probably not written by Mozart.


----------



## Couchie

You only *really* appreciate Bach and Mozart when you become familiar with the work of their contemporaries.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I knew that K 404a was doubtful but thought that mozart''s authorship was still considered likely. It does not matter for the point that there were fugue compilations from wtc without preludes in circulation in the 1780s. Whereas beethoven ca. 20 years later had most of the important keyboard works,even in print. Bach was never forgotten as is sometimes claimed and mendelssohn did not find the st. Matthew score in the attic but got it from zelter.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Bach was never forgotten as is sometimes claimed and mendelssohn did not find the st. Matthew score in the attic but got it from zelter.


Justin Heinrich Knecht (1752~1817), a German composer who influenced Beethoven. He stayed in Biberach (a Southern part of Germany) for his entire life, writing a good amount of organ works:
"-*He completed J. S. Bach's The Art of Fugue (1803), but this has been lost.*
-Vollständige Orgelschule (Leipzig, 1795-1798/1989) - Ludwig van Beethoven owned a copy of this work"



hammeredklavier said:


> Knecht symphony:
> 
> 
> 
> Beethoven Op.125/i:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knecht symphony:
> 
> 
> 
> Beethoven Op.67/iii:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I. Allegretto - Andante pastorale - Allegretto - Villanella grazioso, un poco adagio : 00:00
> II. Tempo mederno (Allegretto) : 09:40
> III. Allegro molto : 12:44
> IV. Tempo mederno (Allegro molto) : 18:38
> V. L´inno con variazioni - Andantino -Coro : Allegro con brio - Andantino : 20:59
> 
> also, notice the continuity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and recalling of themes across movements


----------



## hammeredklavier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Matthew_Passion#Second_half_of_the_18th_century
"The Passion was performed under the Cantor of St. Thomas until about 1800. Specifically, in 1780, the Cantor, Doles, had three of Bach's Passions performed, assumed to include the St. John and St. Matthew, and "possibly the St. Luke"."


----------



## Enthusiast

I may have written this earlier (I haven't gone back through the pages) but the only Baroque composer who can equal Bach was Handel ... and part of that was that Handel was such a different composer, with a strong bias towards the theatrical and commercial.


----------



## cybernaut

J.S. Bach is my favorite composer ever...but there were many fantastic baroque composers and their music brings me much enjoyment. And just because Bach is my favorite, I wouldn't say that means he's the best. Best is subjective.

Here's an example of a piece that I find stunningly beautiful....written by a Bach contemporary:


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Enthusiast said:


> I may have written this earlier (I haven't gone back through the pages) but the only Baroque composer who can equal Bach was Handel ... and part of that was that Handel was such a different composer, with a strong bias towards the theatrical and commercial.


I feel similarly to you. Handel expresses the dramatic, Bach the sacred. They are far and away my two favorite Baroque composers, Bach having a significant edge.


----------



## ArtMusic

Bach is certainly one of the pinnacles of western classical music. He is one of my top five favorite and greatest composers. The other names that hold that place from the Baroque include his contemporaries Handel, Scarlatti, Telemann, and other composers whom he studied and collated music, including Vivaldi, Buxtehude, Corelli and lots more. I think Handel is just as capable of Bach but he was more commercial and business savvy. Handel was never interested in working for the church but he certainly had patrons who were defenders of their respective faith. We are fortunate to have such a great range to listen to today at our fingertips, whether that's Baroque opera or Baroque church music or any type of instrumental music. This shouldn't be taken for granted because if you read up on what was available in say the 1970s or 1980s, you won't even get as much Baroque music from any of the said composers let alone extensive recordings compared to today. I wasn't around then but I am aware of the history of classical music recording and the progress research and performance practice have come since then.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I wouldn't say "far outweighs," but I like Handel and Corelli's concerti grossi almost as much as the Brandenburgs and more than the Orchestral Suites; they are probably my favorite non-Bach Baroque works. Otherwise I can think of no category where other Baroque composers really rival Bach with the possible exception of chamber music (Zelenka's trio sonatas are superb). Not even Handel, who I greatly admire, dramatic genius as he was, had nearly as much variety in his arsenal as can be found among Bach's cantatas. And I am not aware of any other Baroque keyboard music that has anywhere near the level of profundity as the WTC, Goldbergs, chromatic fantasia/fugue, and E minor partita.


My three or so favorite baroque concerti are by Bach (Brandenburg #5, maybe also 3, and the E major violin concerto) but taken as a whole I heretically slightly prefer Handel's orchestral music, partly for more variety in style and the type of bold brassy music (water, fireworks, due cori) that is only found there. I also think the colorful and picturesque orchestral works by Telemann are a bit underrated.

Bach is by far the best in his best keyboard works, but Handel, F. Couperin, Rameau, Scarlatti (to remain in the high/late baroque) are different enough and for me as good as "lesser" Bach works (like the French suites). 
Similarly in the chamber music. I don't think there is anything at the level of the violin or cello solo suites or the 6 violin/harpsichord, but there is quite a bit comparable to the sonatas with continuo or the flute sonatas I think.
Of course, both in keyboard and in chamber music there is rather different music from the mid-late 17th century, like Buxtehude or Biber that is interesting.

In choral/vocal music I rate Handel equally high, he is just rather different. And many pieces are not well known. The Chandos Anthems are IMO as good as a typical/average Bach cantata and hardly known. They should be, they are basically psalm settings in English.
Then there are of course all the operas or the italian secular cantatas that are just rather different in style from Bach, as in turn are the English oratorios. Although by now they probably have been all recorded and quite a few are somewhat regularly performed, I think they are just too many of them overall for most listeners. If there were only 4-5 big major choral pieces like with Bach, it might be different. So Messiah gets most of the attention and the small rest is distributed among a dozen pieces. (I admittedly have also only heard a handful of Handel operas, but most of the oratorios.) I think "Messiah" is great but it's in several ways a rather unusual piece that has little of the drama and characterization we find in "Saul".


----------



## JTS

Bach’s music is absolutely extraordinary - in many ways the St Matthew Passion is the greatest masterpiece ever written. But Handel is also a wonderful composer whose contribution to culture is now being re-evaluated. Similarly with some of the contemporaries


----------



## vtpoet

Jacck said:


> I probably like the Zelenka masses over the Bach masses too. While I acknowledge that Bach is clearly superior in terms of counterpoint (though Zelenka is pretty good too), I simply like Zelenka better in the melodic department.


Zelenka was a great admirer of Bach's music (that with which he was familiar) and Bach (according to CPE) expressed his admiration for Zelenka's works.


----------



## vtpoet

Also, in answer to the OP, there are other baroque composers that _almost_ reach the level of JS Bach, but it is frequently only in passing-maybe a single movement or maybe a moment within individual movements. There are moments in Zelenka, but Zelenka never manages to sustain that kind of inspiration-though he comes close. There's Händel, as others have mentioned, but Händel adopted the Italianate rather than German tradition and so comparing the two is tricky. Händel comes closest to Bach in terms of genius and all around musical ability. But, that said, probably Sylvius Leopold Weiß comes closest to Bach's vernacular while being a lesser composer than Händel (but still among the very best of the late baroque composers). Weiß and Bach were good friends. Bach turned one of Weiß's lute suites into a trio (which was long thought to be by Bach) and it's said that they once spent an evening improvising together. Weiß was to the lute what Bach was to the organ and was equally as famous as Bach.


----------



## atsizat

Is that a serious question when there is Antonio Vivaldi?


----------



## hammeredklavier

vtpoet said:


> Zelenka was a great admirer of Bach's music (that with which he was familiar) and Bach (according to CPE) expressed his admiration for Zelenka's works.
> Also, in answer to the OP, there are other baroque composers that _almost_ reach the level of JS Bach, but it is frequently only in passing-maybe a single movement or maybe a moment within individual movements. There are moments in Zelenka, but Zelenka never manages to sustain that kind of inspiration-though he comes close.


The most remarkable thing about Zelenka is that he uses chromatic harmonies in ways daring compared to his contemporaries except Bach. 



 The characteristic use of rhythm sounds cool at first, but gets slightly tiring with heavy dosage.



hammeredklavier said:


> the "crucifixus" - "sub pontio pilato" double fugue from ZWV21





hammeredklavier said:


> 1:30
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw, this Missa votiva, written in 1739, contains a credo movement that seems to anticipate that of Bach's B minor


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

In terms of expression, emotional gravitas, and innovation IMO only Zelenka stands up to Bach in the Baroque. Some really, really great and striking choral music. Handel, Vivaldi, Corelli, Telemann, et al. I find to have written beautiful, sparkling, life-enhancing music that nonetheless fails to plumb the depths of profundity. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.


----------



## Mandryka

Allegro Con Brio said:


> In terms of expression, emotional gravitas, and innovation IMO only Zelenka stands up to Bach in the Baroque.
> .


Not even Ste Colombe?


----------



## Kreisler jr

I grant all kinds of technical contrapuntal wizardry singling Bach out but I don't see how even a rather modest Telemann cantata like "Du aber Daniel gehe hin" or the choruses from the Passion section of Messiah (to stick with the best known, there are plenty of other examples) are not in the same range of expression and gravitas (or Schütz for music 100 years earlier). Of course, unlike inverted triple mirror fugues, "emotional depth" or gravitas are rather vague attributes.

And while this is a bit of negative cherry picking, I think it is odd that the same Bach who supposedly puts deeply symbolic and profound text exegesis into music is let away with the most blatant parodies from totally different texts in the Xmas oratorio (some work better than others, but a few like "Ich will nur dir zu Ehren leben" or that Echo thing I find rather bizarre). Sure, this is baroque as usual but this is precisely the point: Quite a bit of Bach is baroque as usual and not on a lofty higher level of profundity. (Not going into authenticity questions because I don't think this concerns any major works although I have seen a professional organist claim that a third or so of Bach's organ works would have to be counted as dubious.)

Bach is overall mostly contemplative, even in the passions very little is dramatic (it's a few short passages that together amount to 5, at most 10 min. in a 2-3 hours long work, the one or two dramatic arias in an earlier version of the St. John were later cut); there is a whole dimension of dramatic characterization one finds in the best opera (such as Handel and Rameau) that is absent because Bach didn't do opera (neither quasi-operatic oratorios with characters like Saul or Theodora). This is not a "fault" but I think it is just ignored by people who claim that Bach could of course have easily written a great opera. (The point is _not_ that the two Bach passions might be overall better than most or all baroque operas; I would agree with that if I granted that they were easily comparable.)

I also think that in some other works the focus on the concertato style makes some pieces dragged out and less effective. E.g. in the b minor mass the choir is often treated like a concerto soloist. This is of course often to good effect, if it concerns only one 5-8 min. choir like the first of a cantata, but to have a two minute slow instrumental ritornello in the Kyrie I, then basically the same music by the choir and so on is overdoing it a bit.
Even some of the fast/happy choruses lose effect because Bach has to get in 20 bars of instrumental introduction to conform to that concertato style. Or, if Bach apparently realized that this would weaken the effect and starts with the choir (as in "Et resurrexit") one gets a ritornello put in later on during the piece.


----------



## 59540

Kreisler jr said:


> but I don't see how even a rather modest Telemann cantata like "Du aber Daniel gehe hin" or the choruses from the Passion section of Messiah (to stick with the best known, there are plenty of other examples) are not in the same range of expression and gravitas (or Schütz for music 100 years earlier).


You may not, but others have. The problem with that whole comment is I could use a similar dismissive procedure against *any* composer, or painting or film or novel or poem, for that matter. I can criticize Rembrandt for using brown where gray might have worked. I could talk about the gimmicky chromaticism of Zelenka or even Wagner; the bombast and repetitiveness of Beethoven and Brahms or the schmaltzy sentimentality of Chopin or even Mozart at times. And parody and recycling? Let's talk Handel. With "great" composers the whole is going to be greater than the sum of individual parts.


> E.g. in the b minor mass the choir is often treated like a concerto soloist.


Meaningless. The same could be said in some way about any work for chorus and orchestra.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Let's talk Handel.


Agreed. Kreisler is entitled to his view that stuff like the opening chorus to St. John passion is "rather relentless and a bit grating", however harmonically "dark" and "grave" it is. It's a matter of difference of style. 




 (1:58~2:39)


----------



## larold

I don't think another Baroque composer matches J.S. Bach -- but no other composer not named Mozart or Beethoven from any other era does either. Those that come closest ...

Handel and Vivaldi both did something Bach did not: wrote operas. Handel's career was in opera until he changed to oratorio.

Bach did things with solo instrumental music few in music have matched -- Goldberg variations, cello suites, well tempered clavier and more.

His concertos as a body of work are at least the equal to Vivaldi's and probably better, especially the Brandenburg concertos.

His St. Matthew Passion matches Handel's Messiah and Haydn's The Creation as greatest oratorios.

Others wrote as many cantatas as his but no one else's are played or recorded as often.


----------



## Madiel

how Bach lovers explain the fact that in the baroque era JSB was not regarded as the greatest composer around? He was not even the first choice for Leipzig's Thomaskantor.


----------



## vtpoet

The same way Shakespeare lovers explain the fact that Shakespeare was not regarded as the greatest playwright and even less so in the decades that followed---during the Restoration (when poets like the incomparable Dryden rewrote and vastly improved Shakespeare).


----------



## SanAntone

*Do other Baroque composers reach the level of J. S. Bach?*

No, not in my opinion - which, for my purposes, is the only opinion that counts.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Madiel said:


> how Bach lovers explain the fact that in the baroque era JSB was not regarded as the greatest composer around? He was not even the first choice for Leipzig's Thomaskantor.


"Even before 1750, that legacy had begun to spread, slowly but steadily and irreversibly, primarily through his students and his sons, and first and foremost in circles of professional musicians. But knowledgeable admirers of Bach's art could be found outside German lands as well. A representative voice in this regard is that of the composer and theorist Padre Giovanni Battista Martini in Bologna, who wrote to a German colleague in April 1750, more than three months before Bach's death: "I consider it superfluous to describe the singular merit of Sig. Bach, for he is thoroughly known and admired not only in Germany but throughout our Italy. I will say only that I think it would be difficult to find someone in the profession who could surpass him, since these days he could rightfully claim to be among the first in Europe."" < Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician | Christoph Wolff · 2002 | P. 462 >


----------



## Bulldog

Madiel said:


> how Bach lovers explain the fact that in the baroque era JSB was not regarded as the greatest composer around? He was not even the first choice for Leipzig's Thomaskantor.


There's nothing to explain; how Bach was viewed back then is irrelevant.


----------



## vtpoet

Bulldog said:


> There's nothing to explain; how Bach was viewed back then is irrelevant.


Nah, but it's an interesting question and allows those of us with an interest in music history to happily get our soap boxes out of the closet. Again.


----------



## Bwv 1080

What does level mean? people seem to be referring to depth (whatever that is) but JSB also had this massive breadth. The problem with comparing other Baroque composers to Bach is that JSB would digest their style then produce a mind-blowing masterpiece. 

For either cantabile pieces or uptempo galant, I would put Scarlatti's best work up there, K208-209 or K308-309 for example, with any suite movement from Bach, only the Italian Concerto compares/surpasses Scarlatti's galant works IMO. You have the whole Spanish thing, K239 for example, which Bach never tried to adopt


----------



## Mandryka

Bwv 1080 said:


> What does level mean? people seem to be referring to depth (whatever that is) but JSB also had this massive breadth. The problem with comparing other Baroque composers to Bach is that JSB would digest their style then produce a mind-blowing masterpiece.
> 
> For either cantabile pieces or uptempo galant, I would put Scarlatti's best work up there, K208-209 or K308-309 for example, with any suite movement from Bach, only the Italian Concerto compares/surpasses Scarlatti's galant works IMO. You have the whole Spanish thing, K239 for example, which Bach never tried to adopt


I always thought that The Italian Concerto is same type of thing as the Vivaldi transcriptions.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Mandryka said:


> I always thought that The Italian Concerto is same type of thing as the Vivaldi transcriptions.


I dont particularly think of Vivaldi as galant, and I hear the IC as Bach's most galant work


----------



## Mandryka

Bwv 1080 said:


> I dont particularly think of Vivaldi as galant, and I hear the IC as Bach's most galant work


 Yes, that's why I made the post, I maybe need to think a bit harder about what galant is.

I once heard someone say that the Goldberg Variations includes Scarlatti type pieces, I don't know enough about Scarlatti to comment on that though.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Mandryka said:


> Yes, that's why I made the post, I maybe need to think a bit harder about what galant is.
> 
> I once heard someone say that the Goldberg Variations includes Scarlatti type pieces, I don't know enough about Scarlatti to comment on that though.


Don't have a good definition, a bad one that works is ~proto-classical - more homophonic textures, more rhythmic variety etc. You may be aware that current scholarship terms the 1720s to 1770s as galant, inserting it between baroque and Viennese classicism.

I can see the thinner textures in the Goldberg as 'Scarlatti-like', the main theme for example. Of course all the canons in GV are not typical of Scarlatti


----------



## vtpoet

Mandryka said:


> Yes, that's why I made the post, I maybe need to think a bit harder about what galant is.
> 
> I once heard someone say that the Goldberg Variations includes Scarlatti type pieces, I don't know enough about Scarlatti to comment on that though.


Generally speaking, Bach's Fantasia in c minor is considered the most Scarlatti-like of all his pieces and if he was ever inspired to write in Scarlatti's style, then this is it. There's no documentary evidence to support that, _that I know of_, but it's awfully hard not to think so. If Bach were going to "imitate" Scarlatti's style then this is totally what I would expect.






And for comparison's sake. Glenn Gould playing the same piece:


----------



## Mandryka

vtpoet said:


> Generally speaking, Bach's Fantasia in c minor is considered the most Scarlatti-like of all his pieces and if he was ever inspired to write in Scarlatti's style, then this is it. There's no documentary evidence to support that, _that I know of_, but it's awfully hard not to think so. If Bach were going to "imitate" Scarlatti's style then this is totally what I would expect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for comparison's sake. Glenn Gould playing the same piece:


Well I don't hear it myself, but that probably shows how little I know about Scarlatti. The Goldberg's seems to contain more Scarlatti type music to me - bravura music based around keyboard effects and virtuosity - though formally not like a Scarlatti sonata probably.


----------



## Madiel

Bulldog said:


> There's nothing to explain; how Bach was viewed back then is irrelevant.


I do not know if you have written this reply the way I am reading it (IMO it can be read in different ways) but I like it a lot


----------



## Bwv 1080

vtpoet said:


> Generally speaking, Bach's Fantasia in c minor is considered the most Scarlatti-like of all his pieces and if he was ever inspired to write in Scarlatti's style, then this is it. There's no documentary evidence to support that, _that I know of_, but it's awfully hard not to think so. If Bach were going to "imitate" Scarlatti's style then this is totally what I would expect.


Not familiar with the piece, but does sound a lot like Scarlatti's minor key sonatas (K.1 for example)


----------



## premont

Bwv 1080 said:


> I dont particularly think of Vivaldi as galant, and I hear the IC as Bach's most galant work


I don't - far from it. When Bach is galant its more in works like the sonata for flute and continuo in E.major and the third movement of the trio sonata from Musicalishes opfer.


----------



## premont

vtpoet said:


> Generally speaking, Bach's Fantasia in c minor is considered the most Scarlatti-like of all his pieces and if he was ever inspired to write in Scarlatti's style, then this is it.


I agree with this, even if find Bach's c-minor fantasy far more weighty and substantial than most Scarlatti sonatas. And in the Goldbergs I don't find other similarities to Scarlatti's style than the binary form with repetitions. There is nothing musical in the Goldbergs, which can be compared to Scarlatti.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> I always thought that The Italian Concerto is same type of thing as the Vivaldi transcriptions.


Yes, certainly - and this is why it he called it _Italian_ concerto.


----------



## Mandryka

Carlo Grante in his notes here is actually specific about the Goldbergs/Scarlatti similarity

http://www.carlogrante.com/a-scarla...and-innovation-in-scarlattis-musical-language



> the thirty variations of Bach's work; similarities between his Variations 20 and 29 and Scarlatti's E22, E24 and E29; the transition from Variation 15 to Variation 16; the use of free counterpoint in the final variation.


(I'm off to bed so I haven't checked to see what I think. Good night!)


----------



## Bwv 1080

premont said:


> I don't - far from it. When Bach is galant its more in works like the sonata for flute and continuo in E.major and the third movement of the trio sonata from Musicalishes opfer.





> Throughout the Italian Concerto, elements of the galant style are evident in Bach's structural, harmonic, textural, and melodic decisions. Phrasal and cadential organization, in particular, constitutes one of the most revealing aspects of Bach's integration of the latest fashion. As opposed to the freely spun-out, lengthy, and often improvisatory method of expanding thematic material, Bach chose to utilize balanced, clear-cut, and aurally divisible musical segments. This approach is a distinct contrast to the fortspinnung style of the late Baroque, which favoured continuous musical drive characterized by asymmetry and extensive arabesques.17 The opening ritornello of the work presents a clear instance of the galant tendency for well-defined, proportionate phrase structure - the square, four-bar segment is immediately repeated a perfect fifth above, in measures 5-8 (see Example 1). Such distinctive motives, separated decisively by a quarter rest, represent a vivid embodiment of the arithmetic symmetry 18 and clarity sought after in the galant era. In the third movement - written in the popular ritornello form as the first movement - a similar organizational lucidity can be heard. This time, however, elements of progressivity manifest more strikingly on a larger, structural scale. Beginning at measure 155, for instance, Bach incorporates a "more thorough recapitulation of episodic material" that brings to mind the layout of the "through-composed sonata form common in galant concertos of the 1740s and later" (see Example 2).19 Recapitulatory gestures as such in the outer movements produce a heightened clarity in form that was emphasized in the newer style.


http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/art...-progressive-elements-in-the-italian-concerto


----------



## 59540

Bwv 1080 said:


> I dont particularly think of Vivaldi as galant, and I hear the IC as Bach's most galant work


The first keyboard Partita might qualify, as well as quite a few of the preludes from WTC II.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Bach and Handel = Twin Peaks


----------



## hammeredklavier

In 1789, Mozart traveled to Leipzig and performed on the organ Bach had played at St. Thomas Church. Bach was music director of the church from 1723 until his death in 1750. According to an eyewitness, the German musicologist Johann Friedrich Rochlitz,

Mozart played without previous announcement and without compensation on the organ of the church of St. Thomas. He played beautifully and artistically before a large audience for about an hour…. Doles [Johann Friedrich Doles, a former student of Bach's who had succeeded him as the church's music director] was utterly delighted with his playing and thought that old Sebastian Bach … had been resurrected. With good taste and with the greatest ease Mozart employed all the arts of harmony and gloriously improvised upon the themes, among others of the chorale 'Jesu, meine Zuversicht'…."
"At the instigation of Doles, the cantor of the Thomasschule in Leipzig, the choir surprised Mozart by performing the motet for double choir, 'Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied,' by the patriarch of German music, Sebastian Bach. As soon as the choir had sung a few bars, Mozart started; after a few more he exclaimed: 'What is that?' And now his whole soul seemed to be centered in his ears. When the song was ended, he cried out with delight: 'Now, here is something one can learn from!'
"He was informed that this school, where Sebastian Bach had once been cantor, possessed a complete collection of his motets, which were preserved as if they were a saint's relics. 'That is right, that is fine,' he exclaimed. 'Let me see them' There was, however, no complete score of these songs. He therefore took the separate parts, and then, what a pleasure it was for the quiet observer to see how eagerly Mozart sat down, the parts all around him, held in both hands, on his knees, on the nearest chairs. Forgetting everything else, he did not stand up again until he had looked through all the music of Sebastian Bach. He asked for copies….

The motet, Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied, BWV 225 (Sing unto the Lord a new song), was probably written around 1727. Written as a virtual three-movement concerto for double chorus, its conversing voices give us a sense of eighteenth century "surround sound." Listen to the way the word, "Singet!" joyfully bounces back and forth.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bwv 1080 said:


> http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/art...-progressive-elements-in-the-italian-concerto


The "Galant" Style in J. S. Bach's "Musical Offering:" Widening the Dimensions
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41640497?seq=1


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Bach was increasingly open to the galant style in his later years, and in vocal music this can best be seen in BWV 195, 197, and 198. I think these are all gorgeous pieces, but they are unlike his standard style:


----------



## Bwv 1080

hammeredklavier said:


> The "Galant" Style in J. S. Bach's "Musical Offering:" Widening the Dimensions
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/41640497?seq=1


Hard to tell his position as the article is behind a paywall


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> Carlo Grante in his notes here is actually specific about the Goldbergs/Scarlatti similarity
> 
> http://www.carlogrante.com/a-scarla...and-innovation-in-scarlattis-musical-language


Supposing E 22, E 24 and E 29 means Essercizi 22,24 and 29 i don't se any sense in Grante's claim. The scores can be found at IMSLP.


----------



## premont

Bwv 1080 said:


> http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/art...-progressive-elements-in-the-italian-concerto


Many early solo concerts by Vivaldi - opus 3 and 4 (which very much were Bach's role models in the concert genre) exhibit similar features as the Italian concerto - for example the short well-defined thematic groups and the melismatic spun second movement theme accompanied by regular quavers, so it seems slightly exaggerated to look at the Italian concerto as being Bach's most gallant work, unless of course one considers Vivaldi a gallant composer.


----------



## tdc

premont said:


> Many early solo concerts by Vivaldi - opus 3 and 4 (which very much were Bach's role models in the concert genre) exhibit similar features as the Italian concerto - for example the short well-defined thematic groups and the melismatic spun second movement theme accompanied by regular quavers, so it seems slightly exaggerated to look at the Italian concerto as being Bach's most gallant work, *unless of course one considers Vivaldi a gallant composer*.


Of course Bach was known for adding to the formulas he worked with but perhaps there is something to this actually. Vivaldi was ahead of his time in some ways and maybe it could be argued there are some seeds of galant and even romanticism in his music.

Or coming back to Bach, this work may qualify. The tempo/mood changes are something that seem anachronistic for baroque, and are commonly found in galant music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## Rogerx

BenG said:


> A lot of baroque music, written by for example, Handel, Telemann, and Scarlatti never seem to reach the glory of Bach, in particular his huge masterpieces - Goldbergs, Art of Fugue, Passions, ect. Instead many other baroque composers to me feel like general baroque-sounding uninteresting, light footed pieces. But I probably (almost certainly) haven't listened to enough. What do you think?


Of cause we listen to others than just Bach alone, each is great in his own way.


----------



## Philidor

Funny thread.


level82rat said:


> I’m all for an underdog story, but unfortunately no contemporary of Bach’s is able to hold my attention for long. The top dog still stands strong.


I would try Corelli's violin sonatas op. 5 or Biber's Missa Salisburgensis.

For organ works, at least Buxtehude and Bruhns. With many organ works of Bach it goes this way: You listen to the first 30 seconds and then you know more or less what will happen the next 3 to 7 minutes. With Buxtehude, this is different - stylus phantasticus.

For vocal works, try Zelenka.

For trio sonatas, try Zelenka. Infinite joy ...

For opera, .... ah! Oh! Bach didn't write an opera!

For requiem, ... ah! Oh! Bach didn't write a requiem!

For keyboard music except organ, try Scarlatti.

For organ concertos ... ah! Oh! Bach didn't write an organ concertos, but you might listen to the first movements of BWV 29 and BWV 146. But Handel is not too bad.


flamencosketches said:


> I'm rather new to Baroque music beyond Bach but I would definitely say that much of Handel's work is on the level of Bach, if not exactly _similar_ to Bach.


Handel similar to Bach? I just take a look at the genres ... how many operas did Handel write, how many Bach? Sonatas for violin solo? Organ music?

To my mind, "Handel is similar to Bach" is quite superficial. From Beethoven's perspective, you can regard them as relatives. From Vivaldi's perspective?


ORigel said:


> Messiah comes close to the St. Matthew Passion. Israel in Egypt, Solomon, Saul, Jephtha, and Theodora are about as good as the Christmas Oratorio and better than the Easter Oratorio.


The St. Matthew Passion is music for the service on Good Friday. Messiah is music for the concert hall. The St. Matthew Passion is multi-layered in term of its libretto - the Gospel, free commentaries in madrigalic lyrics, Lutheran chorals. The Messiah's text is composed by words of the Bible alone.

In terms of spiritual depth we could dispute for a long time. I don't deny that "He was despised" has an extra-ordinary depth within the Messiah. But that's exactly the difference - in "Messiah" you immediately remember the one and only piece where Handel goes to depth. In "St. Matthew Passion", you would rather ask, which piece is NOT deep.


----------



## neoshredder

Vivaldi - Four Seasons
Handel - Water Music, Concerti Grossi, Royal Fireworks
Telemann - Tafelmusik
Corelli - Concerti Grossi
Albinoni - Oboe Concertos


----------



## Bwv 1080

Nope, not sure why this has gone on for ten pages 

but Bach was at such a high level, plenty of great music a notch below


----------



## ORigel

Philidor said:


> Funny thread.
> 
> I would try Corelli's violin sonatas op. 5 or Biber's Missa Salisburgensis.
> 
> For organ works, at least Buxtehude and Bruhns. With many organ works of Bach it goes this way: You listen to the first 30 seconds and then you know more or less what will happen the next 3 to 7 minutes. With Buxtehude, this is different - stylus phantasticus.
> 
> For vocal works, try Zelenka.
> 
> For trio sonatas, try Zelenka. Infinite joy ...
> 
> For opera, .... ah! Oh! Bach didn't write an opera!
> 
> For requiem, ... ah! Oh! Bach didn't write a requiem!
> 
> For keyboard music except organ, try Scarlatti.
> 
> For organ concertos ... ah! Oh! Bach didn't write an organ concertos, but you might listen to the first movements of BWV 29 and BWV 146. But Handel is not too bad.
> 
> Handel similar to Bach? I just take a look at the genres ... how many operas did Handel write, how many Bach? Sonatas for violin solo? Organ music?
> 
> To my mind, "Handel is similar to Bach" is quite superficial. From Beethoven's perspective, you can regard them as relatives. From Vivaldi's perspective?
> 
> The St. Matthew Passion is music for the service on Good Friday. Messiah is music for the concert hall. The St. Matthew Passion is multi-layered in term of its libretto - the Gospel, free commentaries in madrigalic lyrics, Lutheran chorals. The Messiah's text is composed by words of the Bible alone.
> 
> In terms of spiritual depth we could dispute for a long time. I don't deny that "He was despised" has an extra-ordinary depth within the Messiah. But that's exactly the difference - in "Messiah" you immediately remember the one and only piece where Handel goes to depth. In "St. Matthew Passion", you would rather ask, which piece is NOT deep.


On music alone, not counting the librettos or "spiritual depth," Messiah is equal to the St. Matthew Passion. That's what I was thinking at the time. Once, I actually criticized the relative lack of dark emotions in Messiah on another site. If Felix Mendelssohn got around to heavily revising his oratorio Elijah (trimming the libretto of much of the non-plot related stuff; making the answer to Elijah's turmoils satisfying instead of trite), it might well be the greatest oratorio outside the St. Matthew Passion.


----------



## Philidor

ORigel said:


> On music alone, not counting the librettos or "spiritual depth," Messiah is equal to the St. Matthew Passion.


The Messiah has no musical structure with double choir and double orchestra.

The multi-layering of the libretto has its mirror in the opening chorus (to give just on example) when the madrigal lyrics ("Kommt, ihr Töchter, helft mir klagen") are overlaid by the chorale "O Lamm Gottes unschuldig".

Besides, this is bitonal - the opening chorus is in E minor, whilst the chorale is written in G major.


ORigel said:


> If Felix Mendelssohn got around to heavily revising his oratorio Elijah (trimming the libretto of much of the non-plot related stuff; making the answer to Elijah's turmoils satisfying instead of trite), it might well be the greatest oratorio outside the St. Matthew Passion.


But he didn't make changes according to our wishes and our ideas of a "great oratorio". If you want it according to your wishes, I am afraid that you have to sit down and write it yourself.


----------



## ORigel

Philidor said:


> The Messiah has no musical structure with double choir and double orchestral.
> 
> The multi-layering of the libretto has its mirror in the opening chorus (to give just on example) when the madrigal lyrics ("KOmmt, ihr Töchter, helft mir klagen") are overlaid by the chorale "O Lamm Gottes unschuldig".
> 
> Besides, this is bitonal - the opening chorus is in E minor, whilst the chorale is written in G major.
> 
> But he didn't make changes according to our wishes and our ideas of a "great oratorio". If you want it according to your wishes, I am afraid that you have to sit down and write it yourself.


I am not a music theorist-- so I find Messiah's tunes almost as good as the Passion's emotional depth.

In some ways (drama and emotional depth), Elijah is greater than Messiah even in its current form. However, it has defects-- a ratio of too much "praise God" music to drama, which makes it uneven, and weak answers to Elijah's anguish in Part 2.


----------



## Philidor

I am mostly shying away from thinking "Oh, composer X did not the best possible job when writing work Y. I know it better, and he should have done it this and that way."

One reason is that the composer worked weeks, months and maybe years for writing the work. So I think he developed one or two thoughts that didn't come to my mind yet.

Another reason is the historical distance. What composer X has done 100 or more years before might have been fully adequate in its time. We are blinded by late 19th century aesthetics which are governing today's concerts' programmes to name just one example. So our competence in judging on earlier works is disputable, to say the least.

Everything imho, as always.


----------



## Ulalume!Ulalume!

Sorry I've a very dull opinion on the matter: I love Handel as much as Bach, depending on my mood one or other comes out on top, with Vivaldi not far behind, so instead I'll share Samuel Butler's more contentious take:


> If you tie Handel’s hands by debarring him from the rendering of human emotion, and if you set Bach’s free by giving him no human emotion to render—if, in fact, you rob Handel of his opportunities and Bach of his difficulties—the two men can fight after a fashion, but Handel will even so come off victorious. Otherwise it is absurd to let Bach compete at all. Nevertheless the cultured vulgar have at all times preferred gymnastics and display to reticence and the healthy, graceful, normal movements of a man of birth and education, and Bach is esteemed a more profound musician than Handel in virtue of his frequent and more involved complexity of construction. In reality Handel was profound enough to eschew such wildernesses of counterpoint as Bach instinctively resorted to...


----------

