# Do you really understand Bach's music?



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Honestly, my favourite composer is Beethoven - and even though I respect Bach a lot (and definitely like his music), I do not really understand his works at the same level of intensity as Beethoven's. I can listen to Bach as "entertainment" and to soothe my senses, but I can hardly feel passionate for it. Maybe it's something related to their individual styles, but I feel that Bach's music holds something in its breast that is there to be mined - that remains elusive to me even after listening to his works for over 2 years (I know that's short, some people say they have listened to him for decades before "getting" him). Once I get that essence, I might become more attuned to his design and really appreciate it with an immediate passion which is missing right now. I can contrast his music with for example Couperin and Handel, who get boring more quickly - there is something lacking in their music which is present in Bach's - maybe a more thoughtful design, I can only guess.

So, where are you in your journeys with Bach?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Listen to any slow movement from any of Bach's 6 keyboard Partitas; as close to heaven as any of us will ever get. As moving as anything I've ever heard. What's there to understand?


----------



## SARDiver (Jan 6, 2014)

I don't mean to stray from the topic, but here's a question from someone who doesn't know much about music theory:

What is there within a piece to be understood that one can communicate to another? I don't mean that to sound backhanded in any way. I suppose the logical question back to you is why do you listen to Bach? I've always thought of music as a language that communicates what words cannot, and if you're not passionate about his music (which I'm assuming to mean it doesn't stir feelings of one sort or another in you), why continue to listen to it? Are you trying to understand what Bach intended the listener to experience? You mention that it entertains and soothes you. Does it need to be more with this particular composer? Are you trying to understand why others see (or, hear) things in JSB's works that you do not?

Again, I say this respectfully. I'm honestly interested in understanding.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I'm not sure if I know what you mean by "really understand" Bach. Can I follow the structures? Sure. Can I follow the fugues, recognizing each entry of the principal voice and hearing it work together in counterpoint with the various subsidiary subjects? Yes. But do I understand the organ works, for example, the same way that someone who's been playing them for decades does? Not at all.

With a compositional oeuvre as rich as Bach's, there is always more to discover. The depth of his work in all genres is astounding.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

SARDiver said:


> I don't mean to stray from the topic, but here's a question from someone who doesn't know much about music theory:
> 
> What is there within a piece to be understood that one can communicate to another? I don't mean that to sound backhanded in any way. I suppose the logical question back to you is why do you listen to Bach? I've always thought of music as a language that communicates what words cannot, and if you're not passionate about his music (which I'm assuming to mean it doesn't stir feelings of one sort or another in you), why continue to listen to it? Are you trying to understand what Bach intended the listener to experience? You mention that it entertains and soothes you. Does it need to be more with this particular composer? Are you trying to understand why others see (or, hear) things in JSB's works that you do not?
> 
> Again, I say this respectfully. I'm honestly interested in understanding.


Well, your question is only natural. If you don't feel passionate enough about it, why listen?

But I do like his music, it's just that maybe he wasn't communicating something as passionate as Beethoven was. Beethoven's music is more coarse - more like a personal statement about his life and conditions. Bach's music (or any baroque music for that matter) seems to be more straight and sober - even though it expresses things which are worthy all the same. I don't listen to Bach as much - but I keep visiting him as he is so well respected - that I hope to make that connection some day. It could very well be that I am trying the impossible.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I'm not sure if I know what you mean by "really understand" Bach. Can I follow the structures? Sure. Can I follow the fugues, recognizing each entry of the principal voice and hearing it work together in counterpoint with the various subsidiary subjects? Yes. But do I understand the organ works, for example, the same way that someone who's been playing them for decades does? Not at all.
> 
> With a compositional oeuvre as rich as Bach's, there is always more to discover. The depth of his work in all genres is astounding.


It is precisely this depth of creativity that is there in his ouevre (is that spelt right?) that keeps me coming back to his music. It's like this: when you're drunk, you can only perceive a subset of the things you can perceive while being sober. The other things are passed beneath the conscious level, or in a sense "bypassed" - we are happy while we are drunk because we don't understand, and we don't feel the need to understand either. But when I listen to Bach - I can feel there is more going on at some more subliminal and complex level than I can perceive - but I cannot really feel the connection to it. Sometimes I have, like with the Goldberg Variations, but those occasions have been rare. With Beethoven, or Schubert, I feel a more immediate connection which gets me off my chair and really into the music.

Too vague? I know.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

hm I seem to have the opposite frankly, I have always felt something with at least some pieces of bach (I especially love his trio sonata for organ No. 3, which has really a nostalgic feeling, his concerto for oboe damoure and harpsichord (believe it is a rearrangement), his 2nd violin partita and his brandenburg concerto 5), though i also dont know him that long
beethoven i know at least as long and well many things i think i can "understand" or something but ive never been in tears or goosebumbs with his music, or something similar
so i guess its just a personal thing


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

though its true bach and beethoven lived in other periods of time, in baroque music composers were more like artists of popular music, their first motive wasn't to express their personal feelings, but rather to simulate collective feelings ive you understand what i mean (which was a contrast with earlier renaissance in which everything sounded always just beautiful no matter the story of the lyrics) , thats why there were so many affects amd rules of how to create emotion which are unfortunately a bit unnatural and unpersonal, thats why i dont like baroque music in general to be honest
though i find bach is different, cant explain why, he just is to me


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Go back and read my post. To say that Bach couldn't or didn't know how to conjure up emotion is preposterous. Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I understand both Bach and Beethoven on a technical level in that I've analyzed pieces of music by both composers. But I only _emotionally _understand Bach. I don't get Beethoven's hot air. But Bach's harmonic progressions and melodies mean something to me intrinsically, which helps me appreciate the analytical side as well.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I understand both Bach and Beethoven on a technical level in that I've analyzed pieces of music by both composers. But I only _emotionally _understand Bach. I don't get Beethoven's hot air. But Bach's harmonic progressions and melodies mean something to me intrinsically, which helps me appreciate the analytical side as well.


Folks who don't relate emotionally to Bach most likely have not yet encountered his solo violin partitas and sonatas, the solo keyboard suites and partitas, WTC and the Goldberg Variations. More "emotion" than I can handle.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I understand both Bach and Beethoven on a technical level in that I've analyzed pieces of music by both composers. But I only _emotionally _understand Bach. I don't get Beethoven's hot air. But Bach's harmonic progressions and melodies mean something to me intrinsically, which helps me appreciate the analytical side as well.


I'm sold. ................


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

I don't claim to understand Bach's works on a very deep level but I do know that it took me several months of heavy listening before it finally clicked. When I say clicked, I mean that I finally got to a point where I enjoyed his works immensely, whereas before it seemed like I was hearing a foreign language. Specifically, I couldn't enjoy the Well Tempered Clavier in the beginning, but now I see it as the treasure it is.


----------



## SARDiver (Jan 6, 2014)

shangoyal said:


> Well, your question is only natural. If you don't feel passionate enough about it, why listen?
> 
> But I do like his music, it's just that maybe he wasn't communicating something as passionate as Beethoven was. Beethoven's music is more coarse - more like a personal statement about his life and conditions. Bach's music (or any baroque music for that matter) seems to be more straight and sober - even though it expresses things which are worthy all the same. I don't listen to Bach as much - but I keep visiting him as he is so well respected - that I hope to make that connection some day. It could very well be that I am trying the impossible.


Thank you.

You may indeed be trying the impossible. It sounds almost like you're trying to think your way into feeling something you don't feel now.

Not to be taken as a direct comparison to you and JSB:

I've heard most of my life that Moby Dick is a classic book and that Melville was a genius. I forced myself to read it. It didn't start that way, of course. I had an open mind at the beginning. By the chapter on Cetology, I was wondering why I was making myself to slog through the literary torture the book was. I'm certainly bright enough to understand the themes and symbolism, but the book wasn't entertaining. I began to think that most people slog through it and then call it a masterpiece because they don't want others to think they don't get it. My point is that despite what others felt when reading it, there is no way I can think myself into feeling that the book was good. (I felt good that I had the discipline to get through it.)

It sounds like you understand and appreciate the beauty of Bach's work, but are not as moved as you think you should be (based on what Ludwig does for you). You seem to be trying to understand what Bach (or Beethoven, for that matter) wanted the music to convey, rather than trusting what the music actually does convey to you. (I love Aaron Copeland's Appalachian Spring. I get feelings of the joys of life and the sadness of loss whenever I hear it. I have no idea if that was what Copeland intended, and I don't really care. It has meaning to me.)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't listen to Bach as much - but I keep visiting him as he is so well respected - that I hope to make that connection some day. It could very well be that I am trying the impossible.

I listen to any composer for the pleasure I take in the experience of their music. I have made the effort to make a connection with a composer based upon the opinions of others... although I probably do this far less today. Schoenberg usually leaves me cold. I certainly will not continue to listen to him in the hope that one day I "get it".

Like many others you seem to be moved by the drama in Beethoven's music... which you interpret (romantically) as being deeper in the expressions of emotion or passion than Bach and other composers. In reality, it is YOU who bring the emotion to Beethoven. Bach... Mozart, Haydn, Handel, Rameau... none are more or less "expressive" of emotion than Beethoven.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I understand both Bach and Beethoven on a technical level in that I've analyzed pieces of music by both composers. But I only _emotionally _understand Bach. I don't get Beethoven's hot air. But Bach's harmonic progressions and melodies mean something to me intrinsically, which helps me appreciate the analytical side as well.


That clicks with me completely. Except for exchanging Beethoven for Bach.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I don't listen to Bach as much - but I keep visiting him as he is so well respected - that I hope to make that connection some day. It could very well be that I am trying the impossible.
> 
> I listen to any composer for the pleasure I take in the experience of their music. I have made the effort to make a connection with a composer based upon the opinions of others... although I probably do this far less today. Schoenberg usually leaves me cold. I certainly will not continue to listen to him in the hope that one day I "get it".
> 
> Like many others you seem to be moved by the drama in Beethoven's music... which you interpret (romantically) as being deeper in the expressions of emotion or passion than Bach and other composers. In reality, it is YOU who bring the emotion to Beethoven. Bach... Mozart, Haydn, Handel, Rameau... none are more or less "expressive" of emotion than Beethoven.


You're right - even though you are a little brutal about it. It's also about us, what we like, why we like it, what we find in what we like... maybe the sceptre of respect for Bach is just a sceptre... it's there, but it will slowly fade away or become a real person. Only time will tell.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

though its true bach and beethoven lived in other periods of time, in baroque music composers were more like artists of popular music...

What...? 






their first motive wasn't to express their personal feelings

This is true enough. The idea that the emotions or feelings of the artist (a complete nobody) were important and something worthy of expression did not take wing until the period of Romanticism when the artist was suddenly thought of as some visionary or prophet. But the art... including the music of the Baroque... was not centered upon the expression of personal feelings (it is questionable whether this was ever the primary purpose of art). On the other hand... the _raison d'etre_ was not solely to entertain (although this remained one purpose of art throughout history). Bach's music was often employed in the service of the Church, and thus it was intended to communicate a spiritual message... to inspire the audience/church-goers into sensing something of the "feelings" of the death of Christ or the sadness of the Virgin, etc... Again... this is not something inherently found within the music... but something that the audience brings to the music in connection with their experience, knowledge, etc...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The idea that the emotions or feelings of the artist (a complete nobody) were important and something worthy of expression did not take wing until the period of Romanticism...


Yes. I think anybody who listens to Bach looking for what they hear in Beethoven and later Romantic-era composers is going to be baffled. But what *is* there is sufficient to make Bach the greatest (or at least one of the two or three greatest) composers in our history.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

We don't have to go all the way to Bach. I don't "really understand" Dufay or Josquin or Palestrina. There's more there than I'll ever realize unless someone with more knowledge explains it to me.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

You're right - even though you are a little brutal about it. It's also about us, what we like, why we like it, what we find in what we like... maybe the sceptre of respect for Bach is just a sceptre... it's there, but it will slowly fade away or become a real person. Only time will tell.

Don't get me wrong. I would be the last one to dissuade anyone from exploring Bach. He is the absolute greatest composer ever IMO. I have at least some 250 discs of his music... maybe more considering a somewhat recent purchase of his complete cantatas.

My personal choice not to continue to "waste" time listening to composers that don't resonate with me is based upon having listened seriously to a vast range of classical music for a good many years... and having come to the realization that in spite of continued efforts, some composers fail to speak to me... or rather the small pleasure I gain from their music is not worth the effort IMO... when others continue to bring so much pleasure.

I have no idea how long you have been listening to Bach... or Beethoven... or Mozart, Haydn, Handel, etc... I will say that over the years I grew to greatly love many composers that at first left me cold... or simply confused. Undoubtedly, the same will be true of your journey with classical music.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> though its true bach and beethoven lived in other periods of time, in baroque music composers were more like artists of popular music...
> 
> What...?
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, i didn't mean their music is like mainstream top 40 music of that time or something like that
Of course its just better (if i can say that so easily without explaining) and the only motive isn't entertaining, but theres many so called "popular music" with other motives, even those, and i like them best, that want to express their personal emotions
what i meant was that there are many similarities between baroque music and popular music, in that they both focus on collective emotions, and that they kindoff use "technical tricks" to create them


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> lupinix said:
> 
> 
> > though its true bach and beethoven lived in other periods of time, in baroque music composers were more like artists of popular music...
> ...


Well, he did write some pieces of a popular character that were published during his lifetime and did pretty well.






But much of his work is not popular in style, even when dance rhythms are used, as they often are.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, he did write some pieces of a popular character that were published during his lifetime and did pretty well.


Rather like Beethoven did?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> We don't have to go all the way to Bach. I don't "really understand" Dufay or Josquin or Palestrina. There's more there than I'll ever realize unless someone with more knowledge explains it to me.


I suspect that even if somebody were to "explain it" to us, we'd still be at a disadvantage. People in those days judged music by criteria that are no longer available to us, or natural to our ways of thinking. We may listen to Dufay and say, "Gee, that's real purty," but I doubt we can ever hear it as the composer intended, regardless of the performance or our level of knowledge. It was a different world.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SARDiver said:


> ...here's a question from someone who doesn't know much about music theory:
> 
> What is there within a piece to be understood that one can communicate to another? I suppose the logical question back to you is why do you listen to Bach? I've always thought of music as a language that communicates what words cannot, and if you're not passionate about his music (which I'm assuming to mean it doesn't stir feelings of one sort or another in you), why continue to listen to it? Are you trying to understand what Bach intended the listener to experience? You mention that it entertains and soothes you. Does it need to be more with this particular composer? Are you trying to understand why others see (or, hear) things in JSB's works that you do not?
> 
> Again, I say this respectfully. I'm honestly interested in understanding.


This is a fine question, and I suppose in a way dismisses the arguments put forth and backed up by music theory which point out the sophistication of Bach's modulations, the particular mechanisms of counterpoint he used so fluently, etc.

Meaning, for the average dedicated listener (repeat listening + ______), the appeal is 'the sound' and the draw is completely emotional.

As someone who did study theory, I wonder if those technical wonders accomplished by any of the greats can be conveyed to those who don't know the technical, and, indeed, if something of them is not conveyed to listeners by the music itself if the technical merits even 'count.'

There is a (yawn) progression for those newer to classical music, where Beethoven becomes the first to appeal, their first musical hero. This is in part because Beethoven is so rough, _obvious_ and highly melodramatic (or at least in those many works found and chosen by the newer listener) that access, to a neophyte, is quite immediate.

Often thereafter, it is the mid to late romantics whose music is next embraced, again for similar reasons of ease of immediate access, those composer's more transparent intent to convey personal emotion, and that broader musical gesturing which was not part of earlier eras: that is "the bundle" which makes appeal strong and access quick. Even when late classical or post classical formalism is present, the broadness of the music, its gestures and (supposedly) more plainly emotive force is what, generally, most broadly appeals.

The more detached 'remove' of the classicists, and ironically the baroque (an era of Pathos and high expression in its aesthetic as well), stays less accessible to many, at least initially. Mozart and those who composed before will often enough elude a neophyte listener. (None of this 'what gets the neophyte' is written in stone, some start with Bach and Baroque, others start with contemporary music of their own time. Just sayin', that for many, the door is Beethoven, the extended hall the later mid to late romantics.)

Then, not everyone is up for actually following / hearing the denser contrapuntal activity of J.S. Bach -- which is often all near equally moving parts with no solo melody. That last sounds like the equivalent of watching a machine, which is rather apt and at the same time the criticism often put against the music of Bach, i.e. "Sewing machine music."

Many who love it do love it for that effect, but laud it, of course. The multiplicity of voices, all quite lyrical, can be very satisfying to hear. What Bach was not, pre classical era, was classical form... the fact his compositions are more evolving with a motif forever modified might make 'following the thread' more of a daunting task for a newer listener. (Some, I swear, enshrine Bach and his use of this one style of North German counterpoint as being _"the true sound of the order of the world and the universe,"_ giving it cosmic dimensions beyond which I think any human has license to evaluate, and they get rather -- uh -- obsessive about the music of Bach, spouting about the truth of the numbers found in his scores, etc. like someone endlessly looking for 'the answer to everything' [ = 42] within this music like others keep searching the Kabbalah. These people are generally called Bach Nutters, and anyone might want to steer clear of them, just as one might wish to avoid a Wagner Nutter while not letting the nutter put you off the music of Wagner.)

Why you don't like it as much or it does not speak to you as much as Beethoven or Schubert is because _it is Bach_ and not Beethoven or Schubert. It does take a different developed listening habit. Even if you have that habit, understand the works inside out, not caring for them 'as much' or at all is "all right."

I think half the 'worry' people have with Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart is the exposure to their names before we ever experience the music -- this is like being prepped to revere a named deity and / or their prophet before having any direct spiritual experiences or even knowing what spiritual means 

Almost everyone is loaded for bear with an overbearing weight -- pre-conditioned to accept these composers as _great_, that you need a ladder to climb the column their statue is set upon to get even a glimpse, and several tomes -- preferably college level as part of a degree course -- to 'understand,' their music.

Bah.

Repeat listening, and if a beginner that means maybe listening to some more or other Bach _later down the road_ after some outside life and non-musical things have shaped and changed you. Then, maybe Bach will -- or won't -- be any more interesting for you than it is now.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Rather like Beethoven did?


Sure, but of higher quality, I feel, than collections like Beethoven's German Dances...


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

PetrB said:


> (Some, I swear, enshrine Bach and his use of this one style of North German counterpoint as being _"the true sound of the order of the world and the universe,"_ giving it cosmic dimensions beyond which I think any human has license to evaluate, and they get rather -- uh -- obsessive about the music of Bach, spouting about the truth of the numbers found in his scores, etc. like someone endlessly looking for 'the answer to everything' (which is known, "42") within the music of Bach. These people are generally called Bach Nutters, and anyone might want to steer clear of them, just as one might wish to avoid a Wagner Nutter while not letting the nutter put you off the music of Wagner.)


Douglas Adams (he of the '42') was himself a classic Bach Nutter.

Wagner Nutters are rather difficult to avoid, as Wagner was one.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

I am just starting out listening to classical music and I am also having difficulties enjoying and appreciating Bach's music. I don't mean to ruffle and feathers but compared to Vivaldi, I find Vivaldi's music more enjoyable to listen to. I sometimes think one of the main reasons is that my recordings of Bach's music are not great. I have the Brilliant Classics 40CD Masterworks box and the Glenn Gould Goldberg Variations CDs.

And I am not even close to at a stage where I understand the technical aspects of classical music.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Centropolis said:


> I am just starting out listening to classical music and I am also having difficulties enjoying and appreciating Bach's music. I don't mean to ruffle and feathers but compared to Vivaldi, I find Vivaldi's music more enjoyable to listen to. I sometimes think one of the main reasons is that my recordings of Bach's music are not great. I have the Brilliant Classics 40CD Masterworks box and the Glenn Gould Goldberg Variations CDs.


Gould is not to all tastes, for sure, but both of his recordings of the Goldbergs are considered to be classics.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

what i meant was that there are many similarities between baroque music and popular music, in that they both focus on collective emotions, and that they kindoff use "technical tricks" to create them

I would steer clear of sweeping generalities concerning any artistic era or style. The Baroque was just as complex and multi-faceted a period as any other. Even limiting ourselves to Bach we find an incredible array of music. There is music that might be interpreted as profoundly spiritual and that which strikes us as tragic... but there is also that which is joyful... even playful. Still again there is much that is overwhelming in its formal complex... almost architectural... indeed it may remind one of a Gothic cathedral. What "technical tricks" Bach employs I cannot imagine... unless we are speaking of the "tricks" of the formal language of music... which all music makes use of.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Centropolis said:


> I am just starting out listening to classical music and I am also having difficulties enjoying and appreciating Bach's music.


Based on my own experience, Bach isn't a "natural" for today's listeners. He's more of a "and then the light came on" kind of guy. And it will, I think. Pushing it won't help. Best to listen now to what you like now.


----------



## SARDiver (Jan 6, 2014)

I like much of what I've heard of Bach (particularly the Orchestral Suites BWV 1066-1069), and dislike some others. I think there's an occasional tendency for people to want to be like the Master Sommelier who can detect hints of burnt pencil shavings in an '82 Bordeaux, but I don't really fall into that. Yeah, there may be some hidden gem of musical perfection that my unlearned ear can't pick up, but since I'm listening for enjoyment, it doesn't bother me in the least.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Douglas Adams (he of the '42') was himself a classic Bach Nutter.
> 
> *Wagner Nutters are rather difficult to avoid, as Wagner was one*.


LOL. *That is called extreme narcissism, egomania, etc.*

Do I sense a budding essay on the genetic thread of the musical nutters, a family tree of those with arithmomania as attached to music?

Go On! Spill all the hot dirt


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Looks like I've had one of those "oh" moments. I don't worry very much about feeling an emotion a composer meant to express. I think only a tiny bit of music is actually supposed to work that way. When I think "understand," I'm thinking primarily of issues like structure.

Earlier in the thread someone (perhaps Mahlerian) said he hears the fugues etc. easily. Well, I don't. I can certainly hear that there is imitative counterpoint but without looking at the score I usually get at least a little lost. Put in an inversion or something and I'm gonna need the score for sure. Usually it's enough for me to accept that an inversion (or whatever) is going on without actually hearing it note for note, although that is of course the most rewarding way.

This reminds me of issues in literature and other arts. I maintain that most people understand most art much less than they imagine. You might think Shakespeare is "great" or whatever but until you break it down and analyze the comparisons between scenes, the implied "backstories" of the minor characters, the cultural and political issues that the text deals with, etc. you just aren't really understanding it, even if you're "moved" or entertained or whatever. Same goes for music. You don't understand it, IMO, unless you understand it technically and structurally. Of course it's usually possible to enjoy and even appreciate the music without scholarly level of knowledge. We have to maintain both that anyone can get something real and valuable out of an attentive, thoughtful encounter with the music (or drama or whatever) but also that greater insight ideally leads to greater appreciation.

(Actually that last point is oversimplified. Often greater insight actually leads to less appreciation, because not everything is as great as it seems. If you don't know what a cliche is, you'll enjoy a lot more poetry than I will. But you'll enjoy Heaney less than I will. [A stranger once told me that Voltaire's Pangloss was one of the greatest characters in literature. Well, that guy's standards are different than mine! I'd be surprised if he could believe that and also really appreciate Macbeth or Nick Carraway. But he gets what he gets and I get what I get and there's room for both of us. Someone has to enjoy the likes of Ray Bradbury after all.] The same goes for music and other arts.)


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Do I sense a budding essay on the genetic thread of the musical nutters, a family tree of those with arithmomania as attached to music?
> 
> Go On! Spill all the hot dirt


The musical nuts of all kinds all fall from the same Tree of Musical Mania... grown with the same soil made up of (rotted) nutters before their time, the same water of tears, and the same sun of shared _General Revelation_... this is beginning to sound _poetic_...  :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm sorry for using so much text. All I mean is that maybe someone like Charles Rosen "understands" Beethoven. I, at most, appreciate him. 

And that's fine. 

Having an emotional experience - like whether the music "connects" or "resonates" or whether we enjoy it or whatever other phrase we use for that - is not what I think of as "understanding." That's merely "appreciation" or something like that. I doubt most music is about that kind of thing anyway, and IMO it's not that hard to achieve (to the degree that it's possible to achieve at all - of course we can't hear it the way they heard it in the fifteenth or eighteenth century or whatever, so that's not really a goal worth having in any case). You just listen and let yourself emote to the music and there's nothing to that deserving the word "understand." If that's all you're looking for in music anyway, I'd suggest you probably should be listening to less intellectual music....

Edit: I'm gonna go on here just on my own little tangential rant. 

I wrote, "We have to maintain both that anyone can get something real and valuable out of an attentive, thoughtful encounter with the music (or drama or whatever) but also that greater insight ideally leads to greater appreciation." The "have to" in that sentence is a claim about an ethical imperative. If we state that the less knowledgeable listener actually has a less legitimate experience, we're committing the sin commonly known as snobbishness or elitism. What goes on there is a judging of the person as inferior, as if the person's knowledge about music is an ethical issue. "I'm a superior person because I know more about music." In our contemporary culture this usually has to be done subtly because we all pay at least lip service to democratic values (and on this site there are mods as well), but it's usually a matter of tone and it usually comes across clearly. But that of course is a social posturing thing that won't bear a moment's honest scrutiny, which is precisely why it has to be expressed obliquely as well as, when subject to scrutiny, explicitly denied. No one will actually say, "I'm a superior person because I know more about music," but they will imply it with all get-out, right up until someone points out what they're doing, and then they'll deny it as they must. 

But the challenge is to allow each person to have their experience and to consider it legitimate, while also acknowledging that greater knowledge and awareness is a good thing. We don't want to go all anti-meritocratic. This isn't an ethical principle but an empirical one, and yet there is a semi-ethical aspect to it, in that anyone who considers themselves to have "arrived" at a full understanding of anything like Beethoven's music (another thing that would usually be implied rather than stated, for the same obvious reason) is overestimating themselves and missing out on something worthwhile.

It's a balancing act that we don't pull off very often. We either wind up talking as if any moving encounter with art counts as "understanding" or we (more often) talk as if people who use "atonal" incorrectly aren't worthy to lick the soles of our dirtiest dress shoes.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

PetrB said:


> LOL. *That is called extreme narcissism, egomania, etc.*
> 
> Do I sense a budding essay on the genetic thread of the musical nutters, a family tree of those with arithmomania as attached to music?
> 
> Go On! Spill all the hot dirt


You also get the occasional Beethoven or Mozart Nutter, who insists that their music is rife with Masonic symbolism (Mozart, obligingly, actually _did_ write an opera which is rife with Masonic symbolism.)

I remember a thread recently regarding somebody who is convinced that nearly all of the music attributed to Mozart was composed by others. They let him take credit for it in aid of some vaugely-defined conspiracy.


----------



## Rachmanijohn (Jan 2, 2014)

It's not about understanding, it's about feeling. Bach's music is every bit as expressive as, say, Beethoven. Don't try so hard and let the wonderful counterpoint pour over you.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SARDiver said:


> I like much of what I've heard of Bach (particularly the Orchestral Suites BWV 1066-1069), and dislike some others. I think there's an occasional tendency for people to want to be like the Master Sommelier who can detect hints of burnt pencil shavings in an '82 Bordeaux, but I don't really fall into that. Yeah, there may be some hidden gem of musical perfection that my unlearned ear can't pick up, but since I'm listening for enjoyment, it doesn't bother me in the least.


The technical devices in use are not to be so much discounted: they are, underneath and within "the sound" of most pieces you enjoy very much in play, and truly, known to the listener or not, "what makes that piece work."

Further awareness of them lends another dimension of enjoyment, cerebral, intellectual, and still they will not really affect the sound one hears while they are still quite responsible for what one does hear -- i.e. the visceral plane remains the same for the learned and amateur listener alike.

Contrapuntal play will involve more rigorous listening, "tracking" of those elements both musical and technical, and I think that is where Bach (and most similar counterpoint, regardless of harmonic vocabulary) is either a fascination / delight or a bit of a difficulty for some.

[Completely off-point, if someone is having a recurring sensation of smelling 'fresh pencil shavings' -- the odor that comes along with a just sharpened pencil -- but no such thing has happened, that is (one) known symptom of a brain tumor.]


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

My daughter is a music student, and she analyzes music. She hears and understands the music vastly more than I ever will. I do not feel that I really understand any music - even composers I love.



science said:


> All I mean is that maybe someone like Charles Rosen "understands" Beethoven. I, at most, appreciate him.


I basically agree with this statement. I might go a bit further and say I appreciate and love the music (I'm sure _science_ would say the same). I'm not sure if I will ever spend the time necessary to learn a significant amount about music so I can understand it better. Maybe. So far I have not needed to understand the vast majority of music to adore it.

My first impressions of Bach was of great beauty. That was true of many other composers as well. I'm sure a greater understanding would increase my overall appreciation as it does my daughter's. But I'm equally sure that people do not need that understanding to love even complex music.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> what i meant was that there are many similarities between baroque music and popular music, in that they both focus on collective emotions, and that they kindoff use "technical tricks" to create them
> 
> I would steer clear of sweeping generalities concerning any artistic era or style. The Baroque was just as complex and multi-faceted a period as any other. Even limiting ourselves to Bach we find an incredible array of music. There is music that might be interpreted as profoundly spiritual and that which strikes us as tragic... but there is also that which is joyful... even playful. Still again there is much that is overwhelming in its formal complex... almost architectural... indeed it may remind one of a Gothic cathedral. What "technical tricks" Bach employs I cannot imagine... unless we are speaking of the "tricks" of the formal language of music... which all music makes use of.


okay, youre right that people compare things to much, you can only really appreciate something if you don't care about it being better or worse than or equal to anything else. As for seeing similarities, I can't help it, I am a composer and as my teacher always says composers always see similarities where there aren't. Maybe I should have made clear that its just my personal opinion, but ive said sorry already and if youre still feeling insulted or something (At least I hope you are not, because I respect baroque composers really much and besides even if i would insult baroque music that has nothing to do with you)
Also I've said bach is different, at least to me, so "Even limiting ourselves to Bach" seems a bit out of place to me, at least if it is supposed to be a reply to what i said, though if it isn't, I agree with the things you say about him and theyre also relevant to this threat ^^ And Ive never said anything about the complexity or multi-facetedness of baroque music, and i agree that all periods of classical music are a whole world in themselves to admire. (and i also think that way of nonclassical western music styles)

As for the 'tricks' in baroque music, i meant the "Doctrine of the affections"/Affectenlehre which isn't something i've just came up with myself. You might not yet have heard about it though, it was something which was really used in the baroque that said things like: "Sadness is to be expressed with a slow and languid melody interupted with many sighs" 
also there were specific kinds of intervals and chords that you should or shouldn't used in a certain affect. In later periods theyve abandoned the "lehre", because they felt it was a bit unnatural and unpersonal. I know someone who kindoff writes in a "popular music" style and who once decided to turn a major melody into minor "to make it sound less happy", of course this didn't work (for me at least), I know a lot of minor music thats happy, and some major music thats sad
maybe its a bit romantic to think that way but to me the only real explanation for why it sounded happy, is that he must have felt happy when writing it, which he admitted he did. Though the Affectenlehre is a bit more complex and extensive as that, it always reminds me of that. (how it came to exist btw has a admirable side though, it was just the final step of ultimate text representation for which composers felt need for since halfway renaissance)

And the way i see it their is no universal "formal language of music" and there are also no universal tricks, instead their are many languages. Indonesian Gamelan music uses a whole different language as ours, a bit closer but still really different is for instance jazzmusic, and also within western classical music there are different languages, for instance russian romantic composers wrote in a totally differrent language than composers who belonged to the english renaissance, and all of the best composers have, like bach, created their own musical language. 
How then can we still feel emotions in all those languages of music even though we aren't used to them yet? Because we feel the music comes right from a composers heart. At least thats how i think. 
sorry for the amount of text. At least i hope people find it interesting how i think about it and are open for it, I don't expect anyone to agree but i'd really like to be accepted for what i think if that doesn't sound stupid


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Rachmanijohn said:


> It's not about understanding, it's about feeling. Bach's music is every bit as expressive as, say, Beethoven. Don't try so hard and let the wonderful counterpoint pour over you.


why can't i like this =[ best thing so far ive read in this thread


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I did not actually answer your question. Yes, I do, and yet I find a good deal of his music only cerebral and about as interesting as the musical crossword puzzles games they seem [to me] to be. They are "perfectly made," but they do little for me.

To this composer's credit (and Vivaldi) and any other who wrote, as a job duty perpetually throughout their lives up to and over one thousand works, it is a near miracle that a piece here or there sounds "inspired" at all.


----------



## SARDiver (Jan 6, 2014)

PetrB said:


> The technical devices in use are not to be so much discounted: they are, underneath and within "the sound" of most pieces you enjoy very much in play, and truly, known to the listener or not, "what makes that piece work."
> 
> Further awareness of them lends another dimension of enjoyment, cerebral, intellectual, and still they will not really affect the sound one hears while they are still quite responsible for what one does hear -- i.e. the visceral plane remains the same for the learned and amateur listener alike.
> 
> Contrapuntal play will involve more rigorous listening, "tracking" of those elements both musical and technical, and I think that is where Bach (and most similar counterpoint, regardless of harmonic vocabulary) is either a fascination / delight or a bit of a difficulty for some.


I'm not discounting anything. I just feel no need to be conscious of the technical aspects, any more than one needs to see the brush strokes of a Van Gogh to understand and recognize the brilliance of a piece. I can hear the effects and enjoy them without caring how the proverbial sausage gets made. It goes a little beyond apathy. I don't really want to become too knowledgeable in certain aspects, since I'll end up focusing on them and detracting from my own enjoyment. The cerebral stimulation of music isn't just found within the understanding of the technical.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I certainly do not understand much about the way Bach went about composing. I just love the music and the effect it has on my mind and emotions. Bit like driving a car - no need to know what's under the bonnet to appreciate the drive.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I certainly do not understand much about the way Bach went about composing. I just love the music and the effect it has on my mind and emotions. Bit like driving a car - no need to know what's under the bonnet to appreciate the drive.


Nicely said, though getting some understanding of what's involved makes the music even more enjoyable for me. Regardless, Bach is great driving music!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Many, many or rather innumerable understand Bach's music in the sense that it triggers enjoyment and other very human responses, without even having to be musically educated/trained/whatever - just listen. Very unlike other genres, composers, periods etc.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2014)

I don't know about 'understand', but I don't 'get' Bach in the sense that I'm not drawn to listen to his music. Whilst his popular tunes are enjoyable enough, for me, he's rather like Abba or Slade, or Stevie Wonder - I was happy enough to sing along to them on the radio, but I've never owned more than one 45.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Bach is great driving music!


Just what the great man had in mind and intended of course, popping in a CD or turning on the iPod to add something 'pleasant' to your commute


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Many, many or rather innumerable understand Bach's music in the sense that it triggers enjoyment and other very human responses, without even having to be musically educated/trained/whatever - just listen. Very unlike other genres, composers, periods etc.


Totally *like* "other genres, composers, periods, etc." 
...all various mild to severe limitations as per individual set aside, of course.


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Folks who don't relate emotionally to Bach most likely have not yet encountered his solo violin partitas and sonatas, the solo keyboard suites and partitas, WTC and the Goldberg Variations. More "emotion" than I can handle.


Or perhaps they have and everyone is different?
I have difficulty getting my head around Bach, however as a pianist, I do enjoy the orchestral/choral works more than the keyboard for some reason.
I struggle with these issues too, but I think everyone has a 'great' figure that just _don't get_. I don't have the answer however. (Wish I did)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SARDiver said:


> I'm not discounting anything. I just feel no need to be conscious of the technical aspects, any more than one needs to see the brush strokes of a Van Gogh to understand and recognize the brilliance of a piece. I can hear the effects and enjoy them without caring how the proverbial sausage gets made. It goes a little beyond apathy. I don't really want to become too knowledgeable in certain aspects, since I'll end up focusing on them and detracting from my own enjoyment. The cerebral stimulation of music isn't just found within the understanding of the technical.


I said only they were present and working. Elsewhere I pretty much said that 'following' those elements added only cerebral pleasure, and with or without the cerebral, the visceral pleasure remains the same.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Rachmanijohn said:


> It's not about understanding, it's about feeling. Bach's music is every bit as expressive as, say, Beethoven. Don't try so hard and let the wonderful counterpoint pour over you.


Do I need a special sort of detergent to wipe it off afterwards?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Different strokes for different folks. Personally, Bach always hits me emotionally, and Beethoven very very rarely does.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I've played a fair bit of arrangements for guitar from his lute works and I have been studying his music for years, however his music never fails to amaze me. Even that short passage from his third Brandenburg Concerto consisting entirely of dissonant seventh chords, beginning as if it were to travel through the cycle of fourths but jumps an _augmented_ fourth to heighten the tension before making the modulation to a new key, really got me at the end of last year as something one would rarely see again until....jazz!

Every time I come across a startling thing like that, whether it be a certain way he might use a motif, create a dissonance, fragment a melody, modulate etc. I feel like I am barely scratching the surface when it comes to understanding his works. Sure, I know how a fugue, a cantata, a concerto grosso, counterpoint etc. works and I could analyse his music anytime, but the things I know are simply just rules and guidelines. It's the deviations from these, and especially the way Bach deviates from the rules, that tells me that I can never truly know how he does it. There's only one Johann Sebastian Bach and we are incredibly lucky that he was alive an composing once upon a time.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Nicely said, though getting some understanding of what's involved makes the music even more enjoyable for me. !


Agreed! Understanding obviously has the potential to increase your appreciation of any music.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've played a fair bit of arrangements for guitar from his lute works and I have been studying his music for years, however his music never fails to amaze me. Even that short passage from his third Brandenburg Concerto consisting entirely of dissonant seventh chords, beginning as if it were to travel through the cycle of fourths but jumps an _augmented_ fourth to heighten the tension before making the modulation to a new key, really got me at the end of last year as something one would rarely see again until....jazz!
> 
> Every time I come across a startling thing like that, whether it be a certain way he might use a motif, create a dissonance, fragment a melody, modulate etc. I feel like I am barely scratching the surface when it comes to understanding his works. Sure, I know how a fugue, a cantata, a concerto grosso, counterpoint etc. works and I could analyse his music anytime, but the things I know are simply just rules and guidelines. It's the deviations from these, and especially the way Bach deviates from the rules, that tells me that I can never truly know how he does it. There's only one Johann Sebastian Bach and we are incredibly lucky that he was alive an composing once upon a time.


Great post!

It's funny you say that about jazz because I come from a jazz background and Bach immediately clicked with me, while I had much more trouble with Stravinsky, Debussy or Brahms


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2014)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Even that short passage from his third Brandenburg Concerto consisting entirely of dissonant seventh chords, beginning as if it were to travel through the cycle of fourths but jumps an _augmented_ fourth to heighten the tension before making the modulation to a new key,


Can you post a link to someone playing this bit, so I can understand what you're saying (and Bach more)? Thanks


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Can you post a link to someone playing this bit, so I can understand what you're saying (and Bach more)? Thanks







Starts at about 3:22

Love the performance and the visuals, useful for even the non musician to see things like motion and part writing without having to read music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

mikey said:


> Or perhaps they have and everyone is different?
> I have difficulty getting my head around Bach, however as a pianist, I do enjoy the orchestral/choral works more than the keyboard for some reason.
> I struggle with these issues too, but I think everyone has a 'great' figure that just _don't get_. I don't have the answer however. (Wish I did)


It's possible, but I think my theory is more plausible-most folks who dislike Bach and don't find emotion there have not delved deeply enough into his most personal works-the partitas and sonatas for solo violin and the great solo keyboard works. They listen to some ill-conceived, old-school "sewing machine" performance of his Brandenburgs and they get bored. I couldn't blame them.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> It's possible, but I think my theory is more plausible-most folks who dislike Bach and don't find emotion there have not delved deeply enough into his most personal works-the partitas and sonatas for solo violin and the great solo keyboard works. They listen to some ill-conceived, old-school "sewing machine" performance of his Brandenburgs and they get bored. I couldn't blame them.


It may be 'just unthinkable' for you, but others have heard the liveliest of good performances of the above rep, live, recorded, some have played it, getting to know it first hand, and it all seems as at least emotionally remote to them as some people feel about the music of Webern, there too, regardless of the finest of fine perfomances.

Bach is not as universal to all as some may wish to think. I'm sure no composer is, at least to those who would like to think it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I'm afraid the "They just haven't met the right girl yet," sort of argument about someone not being attracted to Bach -- or any other composer's music -- is about as off as it can get. 

So many varied and fine performances around, and I think that those who at first don't 'get it,' at least with these composers whose names are in nearly everyone's consciousness (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc.) do look and listen far more than once.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I'm afraid the "They just haven't met the right girl yet," sort of argument about someone not being attracted to Bach -- or any other composer's music -- is about as off as it can get.
> 
> So many varied and fine performances around, and I think of those who at first don't 'get it,' at least with these composers whose names are in nearly everyone's consciousness (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc.) do look and listen far more than once.


This is simply not true. There are some composers I just don't 'get' - at least at present. This is to do with taste and sometimes personality. For example, I just don't like the operas of Janacek - or any of his music, for that matter. I'm not saying his music is no god - in fact. There's a lot of people who appear to like it. They are welcome. Just as long as they don't insist I like it too or there is something wrong with me for not liking it.
Interesting that the producer, John Culshaw, said that he could not abide Mahler 's mystic as it made him physically sick. Obviously a personal reaction but one we must allow the individual.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

PetrB - thanks for articulating a lot of my thoughts for me (not to say they weren't primarily your thoughts).

I still like Bach's music... just don't feel a personal connection. When I am moody or in stress, I like Beethoven, Haydn, or Schoenberg more. Even Mahler and Mozart sometimes... I find thei music less well rounded, but more edgy and special - somehow they are not speaking for a large group of people (universally) but to me as a person.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> This is simply not true. There are some composers I just don't 'get' - at least at present. This is to do with taste and sometimes personality. For example, I just don't like the operas of Janacek - or any of his music, for that matter. I'm not saying his music is no god - in fact. There's a lot of people who appear to like it. They are welcome. Just as long as they don't insist I like it too or there is something wrong with me for not liking it.
> Interesting that the producer, John Culshaw, said that he could not abide Mahler 's mystic as it made him physically sick. Obviously a personal reaction but one we must allow the individual.


You have completely misread what I wrote, I think with some other thought already imposed on your screen. So, there is nothing to say to your reaction, so off point to what I said is it.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I don't deny that Bach might reveal a higher understanding or plane of thought - but to say he is always more applicable in every situation and for every purpose sounds a little flawed and presumptuous. 

Perhaps Bach was never what Beethoven often was ...- a musical rogue and hooligan.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> I don't deny that Bach might reveal a higher understanding or plane of thought - but to say he is always more applicable in every situation and for every purpose sounds a little flawed and presumptuous.
> 
> Perhaps Bach was never what Beethoven often was ...- a musical rogue and hooligan.


Of course he wasn't! The cultural norms were very different in Bach's time.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

hpowders said:


> Of course he wasn't! The cultural norms were very different in Bach's time.


In order to appreciate Bach's music, one has to go into the context of his time. The people of Bach's time, just like people of any composer's time, had certain personality traits that made them more suitable for that music than others. For one thing, I'm pretty sure that people had greater attention spans in Bach's time than in Beethoven's time, and then greater attention spans in Beethoven's time than in Stravinsky's time, etc. etc. They also had quite different tastes, where they were far more sensitive to the effects that simple melodies and chord progressions made on them. IV-V-I was once a new idea that thrilled listeners, imagine that! It wasn't just a formula, it was emotional at its core! We've gotten so _desensitized _to the wonder of tonality over time that out of _boredom _we move on to "more complex" music, hence the Romantic era and so forth. We can't always pretend to be those people of the past, but perhaps if you get into the right mood, you can put yourself in their shoes just for an instant, and understand how people were able to relate to Bach or Beethoven in their times. I've met a Baroque/Renaissance junkie or two in my life, and believe me, I think they really get what it means to go "back in time" for fun!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> In order to appreciate Bach's music, one has to go into the context of his time. The people of Bach's time, just like people of any composer's time, had certain personality traits that made them more suitable for that music than others. For one thing, I'm pretty sure that people had greater attention spans in Bach's time than in Beethoven's time, and then greater attention spans in Beethoven's time than in Stravinsky's time, etc. etc. They also had quite different tastes, where they were far more sensitive to the effects that simple melodies and chord progressions made on them. IV-V-I was once a new idea that thrilled listeners, imagine that! We've gotten so _desensitized _to the wonder of tonality over time that out of _boredom _we move on to "more complex" music, hence the Romantic era and so forth. We can't always pretend to be those people of the past, but perhaps if you get into the right mood, you can put yourself in their shoes just for an instant, and understand how people were able to relate to Bach or Beethoven in their times. I've met a Baroque/Renaissance junkie or two in my life, and believe me, I think they really get what it means to go "back in time" for fun!


I wonder what would have become of Beethoven if he came along in 1700? Vienna was quite progressive in 1800 and he could get away with a lot.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

shangoyal said:


> I don't deny that Bach might reveal a higher understanding or plane of thought - but to say he is always more applicable in every situation and for every purpose sounds a little flawed and presumptuous.
> 
> Perhaps Bach was never what Beethoven often was ...- a musical rogue and hooligan.


Many find Bach to be their favorite composer, but no music is "more applicable in every situation and for every purpose." Bach's music is not Mozart's, Beethoven's, Wagner's, Stravinski's, or Boulez's. It is considered the pinnacle of one style or era. That's wonderful, but it's, as you say, not everything.

While I enjoyed Bach immediately, I can easily understand how some would find his music odd or difficult or at least less enjoyable. I like what makes Bach sound different from other eras and, to a lesser extent, other Baroque composers, but others obviously may not.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> You have completely misread what I wrote, I think with some other thought already imposed on your screen. So, there is nothing to say to your reaction, so off point to what I said is it.


It may be, of course, that your posting was unclear in expressing what you meant!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> It may be 'just unthinkable' for you, but others have heard the liveliest of good performances of the above rep, live, recorded, some have played it, getting to know it first hand, and it all seems as at least emotionally remote to them as some people feel about the music of Webern, there too, regardless of the finest of fine perfomances.
> 
> Bach is not as universal to all as some may wish to think. I'm sure no composer is, at least to those who would like to think it.


I guess I just have to accept that not everybody finds such music as profound the way I do. However I have plenty of empathy too, so I won't sweat it.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

hpowders said:


> It's possible, but I think my theory is more plausible-most folks who dislike Bach and don't find emotion there have not delved deeply enough into his most personal works-the partitas and sonatas for solo violin and the great solo keyboard works. They listen to some ill-conceived, old-school "sewing machine" performance of his Brandenburgs and they get bored. I couldn't blame them.


I think this may fit my situation.

(Nice Omega BTW)


----------



## JohnnyRotten (Aug 10, 2013)

I think I understand Bach's music perfectly. What is there not to understand?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Centropolis said:


> I think this may fit my situation.
> 
> (Nice Omega BTW)


Thank you! You are very observant! It's a Speedmaster Professional; the one and only!! 

I would try and obtain a recording of the solo violin sonatas and partitas-Bach at his most monumental and moving! Sample it in bits and pieces. No rush! Let me know how you are progressing if you obtain it.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Thank you! You are very observant! It's a Speedmaster Professional; the one and only!!
> 
> I would try and obtain a recording of the solo violin sonatas and partitas-Bach at his most monumental and moving! Sample it in bits and pieces. No rush! Let me know how you are progressing if you obtain it.


I would spot that watch instantly. I go to WUS to look at things I cannot afford on a daily-basis. 

Yes I will give Bach different tries. So far with my Brilliant Classics box, I feel the performances are very dry and primitive. Hard to explain.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2014)

DavidA said:


> It may be, of course, that your posting was unclear in expressing what you meant!


But it wasn't. I got it. You interpreted PetrB as saying the opposite of what he posted.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

No, I don't think I _remotely_ understand Bach's music. I _enjoy_ Bach's music. Bach was a pro; hard-working, musically-intellectually ahead of his time, and still he worked hard to entertain and inspire an audience that he knew was not up to his par.

I _thank_ Bach for the joy that he's giving to me.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Rachmanijohn said:


> It's not about understanding, it's about feeling. Bach's music is every bit as expressive as, say, Beethoven. Don't try so hard and let the wonderful counterpoint pour over you.


Totally agree! Stop trying to analyze and don't be intimidated. It's all about feelings and emotions. Relax and simply enjoy! Don't have a panic attack over classical music.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2014)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Starts at about 3:22
> 
> Love the performance and the visuals, useful for even the non musician to see things like motion and part writing without having to read music.


Thanks COAG. It's certainly pretty to watch, and I think I got some sense of what you were describing...but I'm so familiar with the piece that I'm not sure that I've "understood" it any more. Even if I had the musician's understanding, I'm not sure I'd be wowed.

I think it's to do with my idea that what I "get" in the music I most like to listen to is the company of the person who wrote it. In Bach's case, I'm happy to tip my hat to him and say "Good Day" but I don't want to invite him round for dinner and intimate conversation, or to get plastered at the local.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Do I really understand Bach's music. No, and thank goodness for that. I appreciate it, and the more I listen, the more I will understand. For me, btw, 'understanding' is a human epiphany, involving the heart as well as the brain. Understanding is feeling & knowing, and being aware that I feel & know, but all at once. 

I once knew someone, in the 1970s, who specialised in being intellectual. He said he believed in 'the linguistic resurrection of Christ', smoked a pipe, and wore a fleecy waistcoat in the Sonny Bono style. I remember once there was a Marx brothers film on the TV in the student common room, but instead of laughing at the film, he watched the others laughing & analysed their reactions. Obviously, it gave him pleasure. But as hpowders says (post 79), it's best not to analyse. If you do, imo, you end up in a narcissistic cloud.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> I remember once there was a Marx brothers film on the TV in the student common room, but instead of laughing at the film,


Peasant !


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Totally agree! Stop trying to analyze and don't be intimidated. It's all about feelings and emotions. Relax and simply enjoy! Don't have a panic attack over classical music.


What is wrong with analysing stuff. Just emotions is shallow to me and just the intelectual part is cold. Music is so wonderful because it engages your intellect as well as your emotions


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Centropolis said:


> I would spot that watch instantly. I go to WUS to look at things I cannot afford on a daily-basis.
> 
> Yes I will give Bach different tries. So far with my Brilliant Classics box, I feel the performances are very dry and primitive. Hard to explain.


I'm on WUS. Could be the performances.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> What is wrong with analysing stuff. Just emotions is shallow to me and just the intelectual part is cold. Music is so wonderful because it engages your intellect as well as your emotions


Nothing at all! That's what's great about our music. It can be appreciated on different levels.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

It's all fine, not having a heart attack over classical music, but it is in the moments of caring too much that the deep secrets are revealed to you. Being level-headed and simple and neutral is all good, there is no trouble in it. But being too taken with something is what gives you that little whiff of what it means on a more holistic level - understanding something from the inside. Such moments of epiphany, as Ingelou says, are indeed rare - but they do come and we do wait for them. And it is indeed for these moments that anybody wrote such great music as Beethoven's string quartets or the Well Tempered Clavier. All great artists, I believe, have been taken with the impossible for a while before they figured out how to package it for the ones who could not see it yet - because the structure of the story might be a very a simple thing, but the content is not. The content is often conspicuous by its absence - it's like the spirit or soul of a living human being - it shows in their face. Only the outer structure, however beautiful or finely crafted, just sits there useless unless it is enthused with a soul.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> What is wrong with analysing stuff. Just emotions is shallow to me and just the intelectual part is cold. Music is so wonderful because it engages your intellect as well as your emotions


Nothing wrong and a lot right about it.

There _are_ however, those whose only real pleasure seems to be in the deep ends of intellectual analysis, while I think that analysis should be a 'temporary' phase -- i.e have some end where you are pretty much done with it and get back to the actual music. The illustration of the man analyzing the crowd reaction to the Marx Brothers film a fine example of how far not to go: you can be analytic and still enjoy what you are analyzing, i.e. have a laugh.

I'd go so far as to say those who get that deep in analysis and no other part of the activity they are analyzing have deliberately distanced themselves from visceral and emotional pleasures they find too personally uncomfortable, so they step to the analytic platform and stay on it, weirdly attracted but somehow unable to participate.

"All things in moderation" comes to mind when I think of either the "emotions only" or "analyze only" sorts... each is only getting one half or less of the import; each is missing out on a lot.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> .....
> 
> I once knew someone, in the 1970s, who specialised in being intellectual. He said he believed in 'the linguistic resurrection of Christ', smoked a pipe, and wore a fleecy waistcoat in the Sonny Bono style. I remember once there was a Marx brothers film on the TV in the student common room, but instead of laughing at the film, he watched the others laughing & analysed their reactions. Obviously, it gave him pleasure. But as hpowders says (post 79), it's best not to analyse. If you do, imo, you end up in a narcissistic cloud.


That would be someone I would conside a "weirdo".  "Linguistic resurrection of Christ" - what does that mean?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> I once knew someone, in the 1970s, who specialised in being intellectual. He said he believed in 'the linguistic resurrection of Christ'


Sounds like one of the many stoned out of their minds posers _who somehow thought 'linguistic' sounded more impressive than 'literal.'_ LOL.

Campuses were littered with those back then. I'm sure they still are: just the costumes have changed.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Fluent in Aramaic or Ancient Greek, I suppose.


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> That would be someone I would conside a "weirdo".  "Linguistic resurrection of Christ" - what does that mean?


it could mean that "everything is in our mind"

and every mind can create its own perception

As for Bach, I do not need to really understand "Chaconne" to love it


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> it could mean that "everything is in our mind"
> 
> and every mind can create its own perception
> 
> As for Bach, I do not need to really understand "Chaconne" to love it


I agree. The "Chaconne" from the Second Partita and the "Fuga" from the Third Sonata are as dazzlingly complex as music can ever be. Yet they can be completely enjoyed when played by the likes of Nathan Milstein as great emotional statements without having to analyze them.


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I agree. The "Chaconne" from the Second Partita and the "Fuga" from the Third Sonata are as dazzlingly complex as music can ever be. Yet they can be completely enjoyed when played by the likes of Nathan Milstein as great emotional statements without having to analyze them.


what can I say?

you replied to the whole question of the thread

whoever has any objections, let him close his eyes and listen to Milstein

there is no doubt that he will understand Bach's masterpieces


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> what can I say?
> 
> you replied to the whole question of the thread
> 
> ...


You and I are in complete agreement on this of course! If one watches performances of Meryl Streep or Laurence Olivier, one enjoys their incredible acting skills and they move you to tears. One doesn't need to attend a seminar that analyzes how they achieve their performances.

If I am considered by some here, guilty of over-simplifying Bach, then I plead guilty: I am a very simple man!!


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> You and I are in complete agreement on this of course! If one watches performances of Meryl Streep or Laurence Olivier, one enjoys their incredible acting skills and they move you to tears. One doesn't need to attend a seminar that analyzes how they achieve their performances.
> 
> If I am considered by some here, guilty of over-simplifying Bach, then I plead guilty: I am a very simple man!!


you are not-oversimplifying Bach

rather the opposite, as it seems

you have a good knowledge

have you read the Alien Corn of Somerset Maugham?

"She got up and went to the piano. She took off the rings with which her
fingers were laden. She played Bach. I do not know the names of the pieces, but
I recognized the stiff ceremonial of the frenchified little German courts and the
sober, thrifty comfort of the burghers, and the dancing on the village green, the
green trees that looked like Christmas trees, and the sunlight on the wide
German country, and a tender cosiness; and in my nostrils there was a warm
scent of the soil and I was conscious of a sturdy strength that seemed to have its
roots deep in mother earth, and of an elemental power that was timeless and
had no home in space."


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> you are not-oversimplifying Bach
> 
> rather the opposite, as it seems
> 
> ...


Thank you.

No I have not read it. A very perceptive and beautiful description obviously written by a person who is not a professional musician, but has very keen perceptive powers and was quite moved by the music. Sure sounds better than "It was a dark and stormy night. The music began with a descending minor third and then quickly climbed the c sharp minor scale..."


----------



## concerto for cowbell (Jan 13, 2014)

One thing I like about Bach is how contrapuntal it gets, it invites you to listen to the insides, to parse out the layers. It puts the ear to work in a way I really relish.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Everybody's different. I don't analyze.


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Thank you.
> 
> No I have not read it. A very perceptive and beautiful description obviously written by a person who is not a professional musician, but has very keen perceptive powers and was quite moved by the music. Sure sounds better than "It was a dark and stormy night. The music began with a descending minor third and then quickly climbed the c sharp minor scale..."


you analysed the text of Maugham very nicely

but as you say in the end, there are 2 cases

1. I do not understand Bach's music but it is powerful and i enjoy every minute of it

2. I do understand Bach's music and it is so composite and full, that i can bring every single note of his work to life,
and get really ispired.

to tell the truth, i always wanted to start a story with

"It was a dark and stormy night. The music began with a descending minor third and then quickly climbed the c sharp minor scale. As the first four movements were a more or less standard format for Bach's dance-based suites, I had the philosophical question, why did he add another movement, which is easily as long as all the others combined? The darkness outside brought to my mind an image of abyss, as i was trying helplessly to remember if a chaconne consists of a repetitive chord progression as well as a basso ostinato, or repeating bass line."

hahaha

thank you


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> you analysed the text of Maugham very nicely
> 
> but as you say in the end, there are 2 cases
> 
> ...


Hey! A fine effort expressing the opposite point of view. However, I would rather live in a world where the more "human" Maugham description predominates. Feelings trump analysis, in my opinion and always will!

You are a fine writer!!!


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Hey! A fine effort expressing the opposite point of view. However, I would rather live in a world where the more "human" Maugham description predominates. Feelings trump analysis, in my opinion and always will!
> 
> You are a fine writer!!!


then Maugham it is, and Bach incomprehensible 

writing is good, with the proper music as background


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> then Maugham it is, and Bach incomprehensible
> 
> writing is good, with the proper music as background


I think you are being modest. You could write well in a vacuum!


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I think you are being modest. You could write well in a vacuum!


muchas gracias señor

my next novel will be written in the International Space Station 

you could play Miles Davis there as loud as you like


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> muchas gracias señor
> 
> my next novel will be written in the International Space Station
> 
> you could play Miles Davis there as loud as you like


Es un placer agradable señora! :tiphat:

Yes! That would be an expansive vacuum alright!

Ha! Ha! Yes. Really loud!!! Either Miles Davis or outer space would simply take my breath away!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Es un placer agradable señora! :tiphat:
> 
> Yes! That would be an expansive vacuum alright!
> 
> Ha! Ha! Yes. Really loud!!! Either Miles Davis or outer space would simply take my breath away!


If it's señorita, lo siento!


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Es un placer agradable señora! :tiphat:
> 
> Yes! That would be an expansive vacuum alright!
> 
> Ha! Ha! Yes. Really loud!!! Either Miles Davis or outer space would simply take my breath away!


usted es un caballero 

I only create art in big spaces hahaha

that would be quite a concert

Mr hpowders plays Miles Davis in the stratosphere


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> If it's señorita, lo siento! [/QUOTE
> 
> no apologies señor
> 
> all women are señoras


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> usted es un caballero
> 
> I only create art in big spaces hahaha
> 
> ...


Thank you! I've been called a lot worse! 

You and I should have starred in Gravity.... with a few different twists. Might have been a better film....

The reviews are in! "Hear Miles Davis in 3D!!! clara s and hpowders like you've never seen them before!" "The film left me breathless!" "Clara s' words seemed to jump off the page when I wore those special glasses!" "A sequel is a must!!"


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Time to get out my Nathan Milstein, Bach Sonata #3 in C.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

clara s said:


> Mr hpowders plays Miles Davis in the stratosphere


That would be sounding, uh, more than a titch on the _thin_ side, like Miles playing in Helium.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I have a special mouthpiece I've been saving for that possibility, just in case.


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Thank you! I've been called a lot worse!
> 
> You and I should have starred in Gravity.... with a few different twists. Might have been a better film....
> 
> The reviews are in! "Hear Miles Davis in 3D!!! clara s and hpowders like you've never seen them before!" "The film left me breathless!" "Clara s' words seemed to jump off the page when I wore those special glasses!" "A sequel is a must!!"


Hahaha

how did you know that I die for good reviews?

and my secret wish was to be doctor Ryan Stone?

that would be a special thread here

"who is the composer that you would love to hear in 3D?"


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Time to get out my Nathan Milstein, Bach Sonata #3 in C.


stay with Nathan and you will not be disappointed


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> stay with Nathan and you will not be disappointed


Finished. See "Current Listening" for what's next, a complete change of pace!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> Hahaha
> 
> how did you know that I die for good reviews?
> 
> ...


Bach's Partitas and Sonatas in 3D would be dazzingly kaleidoscopic, a fitting description of the miraculous universe.

We all die for good reviews. Everyone loves and needs approval.

No problem, so from now on, I will address you as Dr. clara s!:tiphat:


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

PetrB said:


> That would be sounding, uh, more than a titch on the _thin_ side, like Miles playing in Helium.


In such a case, we could entertain you inside the ISS, with special sound effects of Miles


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> In such a case, we could entertain you inside the ISS, with special sound effects of Miles


UMMMM..... Two's company, three's a crowd!!!!


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Bach's Partitas and Sonatas in 3D would be dazzingly kaleidoscopic, a fitting description of the miraculous universe.
> 
> We all die for good reviews. Everyone loves and needs approval.
> 
> No problem, so from now on, I will address you as Dr. clara s!:tiphat:


very well put mr Miles hpowders Davis 

Really now, Bach's music was sent to the outer space


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> UMMMM..... Two's company, three's a crowd!!!!


we are the artists

but we must have an audience hahaha


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> very well put mr Miles hpowders Davis
> 
> Really now, Bach's music was sent to the outer space


Someday you and I will go. We can debate whether PetrB comes along too.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> we are the artists
> 
> but we must have an audience hahaha


I suppose..........


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

All of my recent posts demonstrate that one doesn't have to analyze Bach's complex polyphony and be intimidated by it. I speak for myself when I say great music like the Chaconne of the Second solo violin Partita and the Fuga from the third solo violin sonata can simply be enjoyed as some of humankind's greatest creations. Why destroy the mood by analyzing them?


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Duplicate post.


by the way, Bach was a colossus, and many composers thought him as a top.

Brahms said "Study Bach: there you will find everything."

Beethoven said: "Not Bach (German for "brook") but Ocean should be his name."

Chopin said: "Bach is like an astronomer who, with the help of ciphers, finds the most wonderful stars."

Verdi said: "O you happy sons of the North who have been reared at the bosom of Bach, how I envy you."

Wagner said: "...the most stupendous miracle in all music! [of Bach].


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I've always been attracted to Bach's more intimate forms, not only the solo violin works, but the keyboard partitas, suites, Well Tempered Clavier and Goldberg Variations. They speak to me like very little else.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> by the way, Bach was a colossus, and many composers thought him as a top.
> 
> Brahms said "Study Bach: there you will find everything."
> 
> ...


Nice quotes. I like the Beethoven and Chopin the best!


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Yes, excellent quotes, those!

By the way, my passion for Bach has rekindled recently and I am beginning to grow fonder of the Cantatas these days. It's a nice feeling!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bach puts me in a place like no other.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Just keep in mind that beneath the surface of anything that Bach wrote was the progeniture of twenty children with a profound and spiritual humanity ... Had he lived longer, I like to think that he might have propagated enough children to perform Mahler's 8th 'Symphony of a Thousand.'


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_by the way, Bach was a colossus, and many composers thought him as a top._

You can add Mendelssohn and Shostakovich to that list -- both of whom wrote sequences of preludes and fugues for piano based on Bach's standard that have been oft-recorded and studied. Mendelssohn also wrote what he called Psalms that were modeled after Bach's cantatas and he reintroduced to the world the titanic St. Matthew Passion after it sat unperformed for over a century.

If you are having any difficulty grasping or understanding the humanity in Bach's music I'd recommend you acquire a set of either the Brandenburg concertos and/or the Orchestral suites and play them unrelentingly for a day or two.

There are those that think J.S. Bach an organ-grinding repetiteur who overdid it with everything and was unromantic. There was no "romantic" music in this time but he was among the most humane composers in history. His life was one of tumultuous talent, changes and compositions: he sired 20-some children -- two that became major composers themselves -- wore out two wives, never wrote an opera because he believed it did not serve the will of God, and even spent a night in jail once over a musical dispute. He could play all the instruments and sing all the parts and sometimes displayed a Toscanini-like temperament trying to understand why everyone couldn't do this.

J.S. Bach was anything but a machine and his music, though difficult to learn and perform, offers far greater rewards to listeners than most composers. Many of the greatest performers in history, Sviatoslav Richter and Pablo Casals included, had Bach at the top of their list of composers.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)




----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Do I like Bach? Yes.
Do I understand Bach? No.
However there's millions of things I don't understand, including:
*Why people slow down by 40mph when crossing the new Queensferry Crossing (Road Bridge)
* The film 'Primer' 
* Why people voted for Brexit
* Algebra
* Why we have speedbumps
* Why petrol stations have a "turn your phone off' sign (even though its based on an urban myth) 
* Any language apart from French and English
* Why anyone likes that pratt, Jamie Oliver...... Etc, etc. 

I don't need to understand music to like it. I just need to like how it sounds.


----------

