# Modern music is more popular than Baroque or Classical music



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

More analysis of my A la carte polls.

I think we can all agree that the Baroque period is dominated by Bach (in particular), and the Classical period by Mozart and Beethoven (and Haydn and Schubert).
But how strong is this dominance?
And do other composers show any kind of dominance at other times?

I investigated this through a crude measure - first, I looked at the score achieved by the 5th-most liked work per decade, and then I restricted each composer to just one work (their most-liked) per decade and found what the 5th-most liked work was then.

Here's the graph:








The red line on top is the percentage achieved by the 5th-most popular of all works each decade.
The lower green line is the percentage when each composer is restricted to just one work.
_The specific numbers aren't important; it's the general graph shape that I'm interested in. The results might be affected by addition of works not yet in the polls, but the effect is unlikely to be large._

So the red line shows a peak in the Baroque period, a bigger peak in the Classical period, and then after a mid-century dip there's another big peak either side of 1900.
But the green line starts off very different, before starting to mostly converge with the red line from the 1840s onward.

The difference is even more stark when I look at 10th-best rather than 5th-best (although there's a long stretch where there aren't even 10 different composers per decade; as I said before, I don't think addition of more works would significantly alter the outcome, though).








It seems clear that the most popular music prior to the mid-19th century is dominated by a handful of composers, to the extent that when you essentially take those composers out of the picture, Baroque and Classical music don't appear to be especially popular at all - not when compared with the supposedly "unpopular" modern music.

Can we say, even, that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are such outliers that they're not in fact representative of their periods?


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2016)

I don't think our local Co-op has enough snacks in for this one.


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2016)

Does the data confirm all the great composers were Russian?


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

Whatever ensues, hats off to Nereffid for putting the work in on this.

:tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2016)

Dr Johnson said:


> Whatever ensues, hats off to Nereffid for putting the work in on this.
> 
> :tiphat:


Indeed.

popcorn akimbo


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Isn't it more indicative of the fact that there's less consensus? Or perhaps that there are more major figures in the 20th century specifically because of the extended reach of the tradition? There weren't any major Russian composers until the late 19th century, no major Finnish composers until the turn of the century, and no major American or British composers (early Baroque figures excepted) until the 20th century, to say nothing of Japan, South America, and elsewhere.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Well, Bach is not really representative of the Baroque and Beethoven isn't representative of the Classical or Romantic eras...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Isn't it more indicative of the fact that there's less consensus? Or perhaps that there are more major figures in the 20th century specifically because of the extended reach of the tradition? There weren't any major Russian composers until the late 19th century, no major Finnish composers until the turn of the century, and no major American or British composers (early Baroque figures excepted) until the 20th century, to say nothing of Japan, South America, and elsewhere.


Well, yes, though this is really just a more elaborate way of saying 20th-century music is more popular: there's more of it that people like.
The polls only measure popularity, not whether a composer is "major".


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

That's good work man. I'd bet that if you eliminated just the top 3 composers and saw how things fared by era, everything but romantic and modern would fall to near 0.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Great research!

A few years ago I've done something similar with two dozen "top 100 books to read before you die" lists of various provenance - some were published in major news outlets, others in obscure ones, some were compiled using readers' votes, and others were drawn from a bunch of writers/critics choices. I don't have any of my files anymore, but AFAIR, around 70 to 80 percent of any list was literature from the 20th century, followed by some 19th century heavy hitters such as Dostoyevsky. Shakespeare dominated the 17th-18th century choices, and sometimes - particularly if the list was made with some writers' input - there'd be something from Ancient Greece or even Rome, and occasionally something from a non-Western culture.

I think the reason for this, as is the reason for your results, is simply that humans' collective cultural memory spans at best some 200 years - at least for our Western culture. Anything outside that boundary is already based on principles that are too different from the current ones, and consequently is harder to digest. In other words, for all his complexity, Dostoyevsky is still easier to read and think about than, say, Defoe - and not just because of the way the two wrote, but also because we have a lot of context for Dostoyevsky, writers who influenced him and those who were influenced by him. With Defore, it'd be much harder to be in the same position.

The same goes for music - I don't think most people can accurately judge a Bach work, for instance - not without knowing the immediate context, such as works by Buxtehude, Pachelbel, Lubeck, Fischer, Graupner, et al., as well as works by Bach's pupils and relatives (Bernhard Bach's orchestral suites, anyone?). But most people can't even begin to study all that music, because it sounds "all the same" without proper dedication and training (see the recent Corelli thread, for instance). Similarly, something like Defoe's plague journal can only be truly assessed if one is acquainted with contemporary plague literature... which would be hard to read, would read "all the same", and also would be harder to find. In another example, Medieval and Renaissance music presents insurmountable problems for most listeners, since so much of it is purely vocal - definitely something that tires modern ears far too quickly - much like the capitalized nouns, endless repetitions, and the general slow tempo in the original Defoe.

As for the "great composers" (and "great writers"), I think we just choose the people whose vision was closer to our own, or seems that way - or perhaps can be thought of in that way.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Dr Johnson said:


> Whatever ensues, hats off to Nereffid for putting the work in on this.
> 
> :tiphat:


Good work Nereffid:tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2016)

Well done _*Nerre-fiend*_ for the poll research and hard work. I do feel though that we can't draw many meaningful conclusions from it as it is obviously site-specific and based on far too small a sampling panel. At least that is my opinion as someone who knows nothing at all about statistical approaches and so on. There is at least one positive "take-away" from your research: it should close down all those who argue that most people in the "real world" outside of academia don't care for "modern" !!


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2016)

TalkingHead said:


> Well done _*Nerre-fiend*_ for the poll research and hard work. I do feel though that we can't draw many meaningful conclusions from it as it is obviously site-specific and based on far too small a sampling panel. At least that is my opinion as someone who knows nothing at all about statistical approaches and so on. There is at least one positive "take-away" from your research: it should close down all those who argue that most people in the "real world" outside of academia don't care for "modern" !!


No, no, no! The "real world" is everywhere except this forum. Haven't you been paying attention?


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Myriadi said:


> Great research!
> 
> A few years ago I've done something similar with two dozen "top 100 books to read before you die" lists of various provenance - some were published in major news outlets, others in obscure ones, some were compiled using readers' votes, and others were drawn from a bunch of writers/critics choices. I don't have any of my files anymore, but AFAIR, around 70 to 80 percent of any list was literature from the 20th century, followed by some 19th century heavy hitters such as Dostoyevsky. Shakespeare dominated the 17th-18th century choices, and sometimes - particularly if the list was made with some writers' input - there'd be something from Ancient Greece or even Rome, and occasionally something from a non-Western culture.
> 
> ...


IMO, part of greatness is that the music completely transcends its historical context.

Literature may be more temporal, since it's about experience, which is information, and information & experience become more or less obsolete.

Becoming a connoisseur of an obscure historical style may be fun, but it doesn't make you a better judge of true greatness.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I appreciate the labor that went into this, Nereffid, but I worry that your methodology has not accounted for what statisticians refer to as the "bejart variable." Perhaps in addition to crunching the numbers on your own polls you could do the same for Current Listening? Assuming that wouldn't take too long, of course.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> Well done _*Nerre-fiend*_ for the poll research and hard work. I do feel though that we can't draw many meaningful conclusions from it as it is obviously site-specific and based on far too small a sampling panel. At least that is my opinion as someone who knows nothing at all about statistical approaches and so on. There is at least one positive "take-away" from your research: it should close down all those who argue that most people in the "real world" outside of academia don't care for "modern" !!


Yeah, I'd never extrapolate the results beyond TC, and even within TC the findings aren't 100% reliable, but sometimes the data and the patterns are just too obvious.


----------



## chesapeake bay (Aug 3, 2015)

You would also need to take into account how people are able to access this music in order for them to choose what to listen to. e.g. how much Baroque music is played on radio stations vs classical or modern same with availability of cd's of the music etc. I would speculate that if more people had access to the diverse range of Baroque composers it would be more popular.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

dogen said:


> No, no, no! The "real world" is everywhere except this forum. Haven't you been paying attention?


I find actually kind of cool to think that we live in some special surreal dimension.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2016)

Dim7 said:


> I find actually kind of cool to think that we live in some special surreal dimension.


I think we may be two-dimensional beings from an Asimov novel.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> IMO, part of greatness is that the music completely transcends its historical context.


Ah, but how would you be able to give an example of that? One can argue that historically, someone like Bach sits right there in the Baroque period, and doesn't rise above the context. Whatever aspect of his genius you take, it's Baroque bread and butter: his interest in harmony is similar to that of e.g. Weiss, his organ works are all derived from the North German organ school, his cryptic canonic exercises are completely in tune with what e.g. Graupner did, his contrapuntally and harmonically daring orchestral and vocal writing is right in the same picture as Zelenka's, and so on. Not even Beethoven is exempt from this line of thinking, as you can find numerous instances of all kinds of Beethovenian dramatic contrasts, harmonically adventurous or not, in much earlier music - Kraus, Hyacinthe Jadin, etc.

Don't misunderstand me - I love Bach and I think his place among the greats is very much deserved. I just wonder if my love stems in a large part from my ears being accustomed to certain particular strands of the Western tradition.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Outstanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

It raises an interesting question about what popularity means.

There are probably more people who _don't mind_ Dittersdorf than who don't mind Ligeti. If you took a random sample of the general population and played them a bit of Dittersdorf and a bit of Ligeti, the majority would likely say they prefer Dittersdorf.

However, a lot more people _love_ Ligeti than love Dittersdorf. I'd bet that, of our random sample, hardly any of the Dittersdorf-preferring majority would actually go and seek out more of his music. On the other hand I'd bet that Ligeti would get some new lifelong fans out of this experiment.

I don't think it makes much sense to say Dittersdorf is more popular than Ligeti (or Messiaen, Boulez, Xenakis, Saariaho etc).


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> I appreciate the labor that went into this, Nereffid, but I worry that your methodology has not accounted for what statisticians refer to as the "bejart variable." Perhaps in addition to crunching the numbers on your own polls you could do the same for Current Listening? Assuming that wouldn't take too long, of course.


Now that would be interesting. When you include the two locked previous threads of current listening there are over 8000 pages of music. With that amount of data from people who have come and gone over the years, you might get a good sample - I don't know, I'm no statistician.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

^However, listening does not equate to liking necessarily.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I actually don't think it makes sense to examine the baroque or classical periods by the omission of Bach, Haydn and Mozart. They are not the exceptional geniuses of the periods, they _are_ the periods. Baroque is Bach, plus the radiation of his spirit around the respectful composers sitting around him. Classical is Haydn and Mozart, and the composers basking in their radiance. This is not how it went in history, of course, but rather how it goes to _us_, in the light of the history of listening, history of appreciation, history of the canon.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> I actually don't think it makes sense to examine the baroque or classical periods by the omission of Bach, Haydn and Mozart. They are not the exceptional geniuses of the periods, they _are_ the periods. Baroque is Bach, plus the radiation of his spirit around the respectful composers sitting around him.


I wish less people elevated Bach to a godlike status. It makes them blind to the fact that there are other Baroque greats that aren't necessarily lesser, but they are not Bach, if only in the sense that they didn't write like him. I'm thinking of Monteverdi, Handel and Rameau.
Putting up Bach, or whoever else, as THE ultimate Baroque composer, with the huge timespan and variety of styles of that period is quite frankly ludicrous in my opinion.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Chronochromie said:


> I wish less people elevated Bach to a godlike status. It makes them blind to the fact that there are other Baroque greats that aren't necessarily lesser, but they are not Bach, if only in the sense that they didn't write like him. I'm thinking of Monteverdi, Handel and Rameau.
> Putting up Bach, or whoever else, as THE ultimate Baroque composer, with the huge timespan and variety of styles of that period is quite frankly ludicrous in my opinion.


Yes, there are other wonderful Baroque composers, but I don't consider it ludicrous to consider Bach the best of that wonderful group of composers. For me, Bach is the ultimate composer period.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> Yes, there are other wonderful Baroque composers, but I don't consider it ludicrous to consider Bach the best of that wonderful group of composers. For me, Bach is the ultimate composer period.


That's not what I said. I too prefer some composers over others. I mean those who think Bach's way is the only way, he's the objective greatest, other Baroque composers can be good or decent but never can get even close to Bach,...then do things like criticising Rameau's fugues and comparing them to Bach's as if that proves something when that's not the focus of his music.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Chronochromie said:


> That's not what I said. I too prefer some composers over others. I mean those who think Bach's way is the only way, he's the objective greatest, other Baroque composers are can be good or decent but never can get even close to Bach,...then do things like criticising Rameau's fugues and comparing them to Bach's as if that proves something when that's not the focus of his music.


I don't want to argue over semantics but would like to say that those who put Bach on a god-like pedestal are entitled to do so and express that view. There are those who put Beyonce and/or Taylor Swift on a god-like plateau; can't see how that hurts anyone either.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

senza sordino said:


> When you include the two locked previous threads of current listening there are over 8000 pages of music. With that amount of data from people who have come and gone over the years, you might get a good sample - I don't know, I'm no statistician.


But it is not representative. Lots of TC'ers (I among them - or ME, if this sounds better ) do not report their listening.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

premont said:


> But it is not representative. Lots of TC'ers (I among them - or ME, if this sounds better ) do not report their listening.


No self-selected sample can be presumed to be representative of a population.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I don't want to argue over semantics but would like to say that those who put Bach on a god-like pedestal are entitled to do so and express that view.


Of course they can. I just find it a bit annoying, that's all.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> No self-selected sample can be presumed to be representative of a population.


Of course. But I just intended to say, that it isn't representative of TC.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Chronochromie said:


> I wish less people elevated Bach to a godlike status. It makes them blind to the fact that there are other Baroque greats that aren't necessarily lesser, but they are not Bach, if only in the sense that they didn't write like him. I'm thinking of Monteverdi, Handel and Rameau.
> Putting up Bach, or whoever else, as THE ultimate Baroque composer, with the huge timespan and variety of styles of that period is quite frankly ludicrous in my opinion.


I sympathize a lot with this opinion. The Bach-worship often gets out of hand, doesn't it? But my post was more about the way of seeing things through the history of the canon rather than through direct experience with the object. I think we look at music through the history of looking at music more than through looking at the actual music itself, and we cannot escape this, and we _should_ not escape this. So, Bach radiates on other baroque composers and the baroque period itself, not because of his inner greatness and our direct knowledge of this, but rather because of tradition and music history. (And I am very suspicious of direct knowledge and experience, even of the aesthetic kind; I have much more faith in tradition and "skewed" history, because that's the way I think understanding works.)


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Chronochromie said:


> Of course they can. I just find it a bit annoying, that's all.


Why? You do not need to follow them.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> I sympathize a lot with this opinion. The Bach-worship often gets out of hand, doesn't it? But my post was more about the way of seeing things through the history of the canon rather than through direct experience with the object. I think we look at music through the history of looking at music more than through looking at the actual music itself, and we cannot escape this, and we _should_ not escape this. So, Bach radiates on other baroque composers and the baroque period itself, not because of his inner greatness and our direct knowledge of this, but rather because of tradition and music history. (And I am very suspicious of direct knowledge and experience, even of the aesthetic kind; I have much more faith in tradition and "skewed" history, because that's the way I think understanding works.)


Very interesting view. I agree that "we look at music through the history of looking at music more than through looking at the actual music itself, and we cannot escape this", but I cannot agree that this is a good thing, or that it's better than direct knowledge. Anyway, you gave me something to think about.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

premont said:


> Why? You do not need to follow them.


And I don't, but when it's so widespread you can't help but notice.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Quite interesting graphs!

I also think it is unfair to dismiss the massive giants from the tallies for Baroque and Classical music. People do not spend equal times on each composer. This is even suggested by how much it changes when you limit the analysis to one work per composer.

Bach is dominant for Baroque music, in part because he's been dominant for Baroque music for a long time. He fell out of fashion for a while, but Beethoven and other later composers loved him, and were influenced by him. Bach sounds more familiar because he was so influential. 

And a lot of the richness of listening to Bach is that we can compare many different performances. You want to hear his keyboard music, but aren't in the mood for Harpsichord? Do you prefer piano or organ? Oh, you like Glenn Gould? Which of his four recordings of the Goldberg variations do you want to listen to? Or maybe you prefer his Mass in b, would you like to hear it played with a giant orchestra as if it were from the Romantic era, Karajan, Klemperer, or Celibedache? Or maybe you prefer a period band? Harnoncourt, Herreweghe, Suzuki... or maybe you want Rifkin without using a chorus? Of course Bach composed many other masses, and there's multiple easily available recordings of each.

Bach was exceptionally prolific, and every single piece he ever composed has been recorded, and most of them in many, many versions. Vivaldi, Handel, Telemann, Purcell and several others are also well represented, and many of them were also prolific. 

Someone that loves Baroque could listen to Baroque constantly without going beyond these five composers of the late Baroque era. They don't necessarily have to explore the work of Giuseppe Torelli, Elisabeth Jacquet de La Guerre, or Jean-Philippe Rameau, much less earlier Baroque composers such as Stradella, Strozzi, Froberger, Carissimi, Gibbons, or Sweelinck. And even if one does decide to explore these composers good luck finding recordings of many of their works. Or more than a couple recordings of any more than their most famous works.


We've had less time as a culture to coalesce behind titans of the modern era.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

No, I think Baroque music is more popular than "modern" composed music. The concert performances, recordings, studies in music schools indicate that. It is also a function of history and time. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> No, I think Baroque music is more popular than "modern" composed music. The concert performances, recordings, studies in music schools indicate that. It is also a function of history and time. Nothing more, nothing less.


You're replying to just the thread title rather than the questions raised in the OP, or any of the subsequent discussion.

I'd be interested to hear what you make of the OP once you've read it.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

SimonNZ said:


> You're replying to just the thread title rather than the questions raised in the OP, or any of the subsequent discussion.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear what you make of the OP once you've read it.


I agree with SimonNZ's assessment.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

senza sordino said:


> Now that would be interesting. When you include the two locked previous threads of current listening there are over 8000 pages of music. With that amount of data from people who have come and gone over the years, you might get a good sample - I don't know, I'm no statistician.


The problem with that is that people use the current listening thread for different purposes. Some only post things of particular interest, others post everything that they listen to every day and often the same thing appears multiple times in their lists. This means that the distribution would be sk[r]ewed in favor of the tastes of the latter. If you eliminated the posts of the top few posters then it would probably be more generally representative


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

premont said:


> Of course. But I just intended to say, that it isn't representative of TC.


Sorry, I meant that to mean *any* population, including the population of TalkClassical.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I agree with your comments about current listening. You can't use current listening to find out what is popular, you can merely find out some of what we're listening to. That in itself I find interesting, and it is my favourite thread.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

The only thing I can see from these graphs is that from 1900 the music become less and less popular.
I would say modern music is less popular here or the works are at least less well known than many think. I have also noticed how modern works get rather low scores and outside the polls there are only a few users that say anything about more modern music.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Myriadi said:


> Ah, but how would you be able to give an example of that? One can argue that historically, someone like Bach sits right there in the Baroque period, and doesn't rise above the context. Whatever aspect of his genius you take, it's Baroque bread and butter: his interest in harmony is similar to that of e.g. Weiss, his organ works are all derived from the North German organ school, his cryptic canonic exercises are completely in tune with what e.g. Graupner did, his contrapuntally and harmonically daring orchestral and vocal writing is right in the same picture as Zelenka's, and so on. Not even Beethoven is exempt from this line of thinking, as you can find numerous instances of all kinds of Beethovenian dramatic contrasts, harmonically adventurous or not, in much earlier music - Kraus, Hyacinthe Jadin, etc.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me - I love Bach and I think his place among the greats is very much deserved. I just wonder if my love stems in a large part from my ears being accustomed to certain particular strands of the Western tradition.


The vast majority of people who love Bach do so because his best music transcends any need to know about minor composers of his time. That's what greatness means: you don't have to know anything about the context or innovations or style to love the music. Same with literature: if you still love a novel even when you don't notice the allusions to other literature etc etc then it's safe to say the novel can affect a person on a higher level than its canonic context. It's the difference between greatness and cleverness.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Sorry, I meant that to mean *any* population, including the population of TalkClassical.


Self-selection is a bugbear of the insurance industry, where it is known as adverse selection. Which is why (for instance) Obamacare requires essentially all otherwise uninsured people to buy insurance. Otherwise, only sick and high-risk people would, which would be a financial disaster.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SimonNZ said:


> You're replying to just the thread title rather than the questions raised in the OP, or any of the subsequent discussion.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear what you make of the OP once you've read it.


I have read it. My reply was as above. Those statistics are simply not credible.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Let me just reiterate what I stated in the OP, because there seems to be some confusion about what I was doing.

First of all, I'm not trying to "dismiss" Bach. What I'm actually doing is highlighting Bach's importance to today's listeners.

Yes, we can argue about how representative the polls are of anything other than themselves. But the basic fact that the polls show here - unassailable purely in the context of the polls rather than anything outside them - is that if you look at Baroque and Classical music without the handful of popular and widely acknowledged "great" composers, the rest of the music of that era doesn't get as many "likes" as music of the latter half of the 20th century.

We kind of know this already, though, don't we? Remove Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi from our music collections, and (for most "general" listeners), what's left of the Baroque? Take Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert out of the orchestral repertoire, and how much music from the period 1770-1830 would we hear?


ETA: I think isorhythm made an excellent point above regarding Dittersdorf v Ligeti. In the "real world" (and perhaps on TC too), any random piece of Baroque or Classical music will probably be enjoyed by more people than any random piece of modern music (that's how classical radio tends to work). So in that sense, sure, Baroque and Classical are more popular than modern; but when it comes down to named composers and named works (as in my polls) it seems to be a different story.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> It raises an interesting question about what popularity means.
> 
> There are probably more people who _don't mind_ Dittersdorf than who don't mind Ligeti. If you took a random sample of the general population and played them a bit of Dittersdorf and a bit of Ligeti, *the majority would likely say they prefer Dittersdorf.
> *


...unless they are Stanley Kubrick fans.


----------



## kartikeys (Mar 16, 2013)

People would live with the music for 
days in the baroque/non-modern times. 
Now you can listen to it again, and again, 
and whenever you want. The impact was 
greater then, I feel, when music had to be 
imagined.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Let me just reiterate what I stated in the OP, because there seems to be some confusion about what I was doing.
> 
> First of all, I'm not trying to "dismiss" Bach. What I'm actually doing is highlighting Bach's importance to today's listeners.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you are saying.

The one thing it appears you statistics prove is that 20th century music is not as reviled as some would like to think it is.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The problem with talking about 20th century music is that, except in terms of calendar time, it is meaningless as it includes everything from Rimsky-Korsakov to the most far-out experimentalist.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Becca said:


> The problem with talking about 20th century music is that, except in terms of calendar time, it is meaningless as it includes everything from Rimsky-Korsakov to the most far-out experimentalist.


We know. That is the point many have been trying to make.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> Sorry, I meant that to mean *any* population, including the population of TalkClassical.


Yes, of course it is true of any population.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

senza sordino said:


> I agree with your comments about current listening. You can't use current listening to find out what is popular, you can merely find out some of what we're listening to. That in itself I find interesting, and it is my favourite thread.


I often wonder what the purpose of the listening thread is. It would be more interesting, if the listening wasn't just reported but also commented. Why report the listening, if one hasn't got anything to say about it? In another forum the title of a similar thread is:_ What are you listening to, and WHY might anyone be interested?_


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2016)

premont said:


> I often wonder what the purpose of the listening thread is. It would be more interesting, if the listening wasn't just reported but also commented. Why report the listening, if one hasn't got anything to say about it? In another forum the title of a similar thread is:_ What are you listening to, and WHY might anyone be interested?_


I take it to mean the listener is interested to hear it, probably enjoys it and it may prompt another person. I'm presuming it's not done out of masochism (or sadism!)


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

premont said:


> I often wonder what the purpose of the listening thread is. It would be more interesting, if the listening wasn't just reported but also commented. Why report the listening, if one hasn't got anything to say about it? In another forum the title of a similar thread is:_ What are you listening to, and WHY might anyone be interested?_


That is an argument that I have made on a number of occasions and that, IMO, the thread should not be used as a diary of everything someone listens to. The only result that I am aware of is that one poster now often includes quotes from magazine/online reviews which is not quite what I had in mind!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Xaltotun said:


> I sympathize a lot with this opinion. The Bach-worship often gets out of hand, doesn't it? But my post was more about the way of seeing things through the history of the canon rather than through direct experience with the object. I think we look at music through the history of looking at music more than through looking at the actual music itself, and we cannot escape this, and we _should_ not escape this. So, Bach radiates on other baroque composers and the baroque period itself, not because of his inner greatness and our direct knowledge of this, but rather because of tradition and music history. (And I am very suspicious of direct knowledge and experience, even of the aesthetic kind; I have much more faith in tradition and "skewed" history, because that's the way I think understanding works.)


Let me be plain and honest, then:

I friggin' *worship* Bach. Well, not really "worship", but I think along similar enough lines to what you mean. I lost count, of how many times I've lost count, of the times that he totally blew my mind and it seemed like I was having an experience of cosmic proportions.

Guess what? The story is pretty much the same for Monteverdi, and lots and lots of other mind blowing composers. Right now, I just can't help but listen to Chesnokov all the time. Bach has probably taken me there more times than other composers, but what I have a hard time getting is that there's so much incredible music out of these traditions and people don't report having the "Bach" experience with it.

It's beyond me why there are huge swaths of music that seem that good, at least to me, and other people like the folks here at TC, who have presumably had a decent enough exposure to each period (hopefully from Medieval music on), aren't gushing about those composers too. I'll be the first to be totally guilty of gushing about Bach like he's the best thing since sliced bread. Monteverdi's the best thing since sliced bread too. Scriabin practically makes my brain hurt from pleasure.

History can have it's say, but there's still this gap there where I don't comprehend why people don't see this in any more than a few composers.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

premont said:


> I often wonder what the purpose of the listening thread is. It would be more interesting, if the listening wasn't just reported but also commented. Why report the listening, if one hasn't got anything to say about it? In another forum the title of a similar thread is:_ What are you listening to, and WHY might anyone be interested?_





Becca said:


> That is an argument that I have made on a number of occasions and that, IMO, the thread should not be used as a diary of everything someone listens to. The only result that I am aware of is that one poster now often includes quotes from magazine/online reviews which is not quite what I had in mind!


Of all the threads on TC... Current Listening is the one you've got a problem with?

And there's all sorts of communication that takes place on a thread like that, even if it doesn't involve comment - though there's more comment than you might think, even if its not in the form of review.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I don't have a problem with current listening, but I don't find it very interesting for similar reasons stated by Premont and Becca. The other issue is that it is not really possible to have any lengthy discussion in the thread because comments tend to get buried in less than a day.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

SimonNZ said:


> And there's all sorts of communication that takes place on a thread like that, even if it doesn't involve comment - though there's more comment than you might think, even if its not in the form of review.


I have always been weary of making comments concerning music because they are at best only my opinion which may or may not be helpful to others. I keep thinking of all of the contemporary works I like which many hate.

I try to supply samples so members can make up their own minds.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> I have always been weary of making comments concerning music because they are at best only my opinion which may or may not be helpful to others. I keep thinking of all of the contemporary works I like which many hate.
> 
> I try to supply samples so members can make up their own minds.


Just want to say that I appreciate those samples.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> The vast majority of people who love Bach do so because his best music transcends any need to know about minor composers of his time. That's what greatness means: you don't have to know anything about the context or innovations or style to love the music. Same with literature: if you still love a novel even when you don't notice the allusions to other literature etc etc then it's safe to say the novel can affect a person on a higher level than its canonic context. It's the difference between greatness and cleverness.


See, that's what I'm talking about, only you're calling it "greatness", whereas I call it "perhaps some combination of elements that is closer to current taste" - using "taste" here because I can't think of a better word, really.

Also, I'm afraid in Bach, and much Baroque music in general, it is helpful to know a thing or two about the context. One good example that springs to mind is Bach's organ passacaglia. Most 19th century enthusiasts, and most 20th century listeners alike, perceive the work as a tremendous, monumental statement on... oh, I don't know, let's say the human condition. But when you know that the whole thing is literally pieced together from various passacaglias by composers Bach knew and admired, it becomes rather an extremely ambitious attempt by a very young composer to outmatch his predecessors by cramming every variation technique he could find in their works into a giant single piece, nick the 8-bar ostinato idea from Krieger to have more room... and so on. So the affekt of grief and sorrow isn't a personal statement here, but rather one explored in very similar ways by many others.

This also is a good example of what I was talking about earlier. Why does BWV 582 affect us? Because when we first hear it, it is likely the first Baroque passacaglia we hear. The _affekt_ is completely new to us, as are the means of delivering it. The 8-bar ostinato and the appended fugue make for a larger piece, closer in scale to some late Classical or Romantic sonata than a random 17th century passcagalia would be. So it is from a familiar background, and yet completely new in content - voila, we're thrilled, and we'll remember it for life, and from that moment on BWV 582 becomes for us the standard by which other passacaglias are measured. And when we hear a Pachelbel or a Buxtehude piece later, it seems too simple, or too short, or both. And what I wonder about is, whether things would've been very different if a listener was brought up in a chronological way, so to speak, hearing those earlier masters first, developing a love for a few pieces from that earlier era - we did fall for Pachelbel's Canon! - I wonder if Bach's piece would've sounded blown out of proportion, and... inferior?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Myriadi said:


> See, that's what I'm talking about, only you're calling it "greatness", whereas I call it "perhaps some combination of elements that is closer to current taste" - using "taste" here because I can't think of a better word, really.
> 
> Also, I'm afraid in Bach, and much Baroque music in general, it is helpful to know a thing or two about the context. One good example that springs to mind is Bach's organ passacaglia. Most 19th century enthusiasts, and most 20th century listeners alike, perceive the work as a tremendous, monumental statement on... oh, I don't know, let's say the human condition. But when you know that the whole thing is literally pieced together from various passacaglias by composers Bach knew and admired, it becomes rather an extremely ambitious attempt by a very young composer to outmatch his predecessors by cramming every variation technique he could find in their works into a giant single piece, nick the 8-bar ostinato idea from Krieger to have more room... and so on. So the affekt of grief and sorrow isn't a personal statement here, but rather one explored in very similar ways by many others.
> 
> This also is a good example of what I was talking about earlier. Why does BWV 582 affect us? Because when we first hear it, it is likely the first Baroque passacaglia we hear. The _affekt_ is completely new to us, as are the means of delivering it. The 8-bar ostinato and the appended fugue make for a larger piece, closer in scale to some late Classical or Romantic sonata than a random 17th century passcagalia would be. So it is from a familiar background, and yet completely new in content - voila, we're thrilled, and we'll remember it for life, and from that moment on BWV 582 becomes for us the standard by which other passacaglias are measured. And when we hear a Pachelbel or a Buxtehude piece later, it seems too simple, or too short, or both. And what I wonder about is, whether things would've been very different if a listener was brought up in a chronological way, so to speak, hearing those earlier masters first, developing a love for a few pieces from that earlier era - we did fall for Pachelbel's Canon! - I wonder if Bach's piece would've sounded blown out of proportion, and... inferior?


In this post you seem to assume that you know what other listeners feel when listening to Bach's Passacaglia, and then presume to know Bach's exact intentions in composing the work. Too many assumptions! I can tell you I loved the piece before I knew anything about its history and still loved it equally after. You seem to be suggesting that if an artist builds or borrows from previous ideas then the piece cannot be genuinely expressive. Wrong. But if we took this to be the case we would have to start looking at many of what are considered to be 'great' works and re-analyze them as merely ambitious attempts to 'outmatch predecessors'.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Myriadi said:


> And what I wonder about is, whether things would've been very different if a listener was brought up in a chronological way, so to speak, hearing those earlier masters first, developing a love for a few pieces from that earlier era - we did fall for Pachelbel's Canon! - I wonder if Bach's piece would've sounded blown out of proportion, and... inferior?


I was not brought up listening to Western music in a chronological way, but I did take some time where I listened to music more or less chronologically (by composer). I started with Kassia, just to have someone with a name, then went back to Gregorian chants (I had not found much Ambrosian chant to listen to). I then slowly moved through other Medieval music. Hildegard and how she tied the music to the text was a revelation! And then, the glorious invention of polyphony with Léonin and Pérotin! I kept it up over about a month and a half through the Renaissance, in the process finding many composers I keep going back to.

I had previously listened to Medieval music occasionally, but never cared much. It didn't move me. But listening to this music isolated, being able to feel the context was an incredible experience and I really connected to a lot of the music.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

tdc said:


> I can tell you I loved the piece before I knew anything about its history and still loved it equally after. You seem to be suggesting that if an artist builds or borrows from previous ideas then the piece cannot be genuinely expressive. Wrong.


I'm not making any assumptions about Bach's intentions - just offering one way of looking at the piece, which is only possible if you do know its history. As for the listeners - I don't know about you, but certainly a large proportion of those who love the passacaglia regard it as serious, or sorrowful, or melancholic, etc., rather than humorous, witty, and cheerful? I think this broad assumption is permissible in this case.

I also do not suggest that "if an artist borrows ... the piece cannot be genuinely expressive". Of course it can. But in music discussions, one frequently hears people say things like "Only X could've come up with this melody!", or "Those chords are something that makes Y's piece unique!", and I've personally talked to people who held these opinions on Bach on the basis of BWV 582's opening. And if you do that, you're mistaken, that's all - the melody and the chords are not Bach's, and if you enjoy them, you should thank another composer. You can, however, admire the scope of the piece, its ingenuity, its particular ways, nooks, and crannies - there's plenty of all that - and you can experience whatever emotions and/or thoughts the piece instills in you; all that is truly Bach's achievement. So all I'm saying is, listening and enjoying is one thing, but listening and making a sort of an accurate assessment about the composer's actual work is another, and earlier I maintained that the latter kind of listening is not frequently encountered.

It's like that story I've heard a long time ago, about 19th century French organists, who started writing pieces called "Chorale" with main melodies completely of their own invention - unaware of the fact that Bach et al were actually setting pre-existing melodies. I'm sure a lot of them thought Bach was a genius for inventing all those wonderfully simple and eloquent themes.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Myriadi said:


> This also is a good example of what I was talking about earlier. Why does BWV 582 affect us? Because when we first hear it, it is likely the first Baroque passacaglia we hear. The _affekt_ is completely new to us, as are the means of delivering it. The 8-bar ostinato and the appended fugue make for a larger piece, closer in scale to some late Classical or Romantic sonata than a random 17th century passcagalia would be. So it is from a familiar background, and yet completely new in content - voila, we're thrilled, and we'll remember it for life, and from that moment on BWV 582 becomes for us the standard by which other passacaglias are measured. And when we hear a Pachelbel or a Buxtehude piece later, it seems too simple, or too short, or both. And what I wonder about is, whether things would've been very different if a listener was brought up in a chronological way, so to speak, hearing those earlier masters first, developing a love for a few pieces from that earlier era - we did fall for Pachelbel's Canon! - I wonder if Bach's piece would've sounded blown out of proportion, and... inferior?


What's with the "we" business? You have ideas and premises; just state them as your own. As for your speculations, nice try.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> What's with the "we" business? You have ideas and premises; just state them as your own. As for your speculations, nice try.


He might be a king.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> What's with the "we" business? You have ideas and premises; just state them as your own. As for your speculations, nice try.


English isn't my native language. If the plural form appears condescending, or offensive in any way, it was not intended.

That said, "nice try" yourself. Try coming up with some arguments the next time you decide to put someone down.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Myriadi said:


> English isn't my native language. If the plural form appears condescending, or offensive in any way, it was not intended.


I don't think it's condescending or offensive in any way, and it's a fairly common way of speaking. Not formal, but perfectly understandable.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Also, from the responses I have received, I think I haven't emphasized my point enough. So, to clarify: 
a. Bach is one of my most favorite composers, and BWV 582 one of the greatest experiences of organ music I've had.
b. But I do wonder in what part my perception in (a.) was formed by the kind of aural environment provided by modern music, modern understanding of classical music, etc.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> The vast majority of people who love Bach do so because his best music transcends any need to know about minor composers of his time. That's what greatness means: you don't have to know anything about the context or innovations or style to love the music. Same with literature: if you still love a novel even when you don't notice the allusions to other literature etc etc then it's safe to say the novel can affect a person on a higher level than its canonic context. It's the difference between greatness and cleverness.


I disagree. Cleverness is allusion without purpose, or allusion for the sake of allusion.

I might call one approach to greatness to be using allusions and references to more effectively and efficiently communicate.

Yes, one can enjoy a reading of _The Waste Land_ by T.S. Eliot without understanding any of the references; there is rhythm and drive in the very words that make it compelling. But that is not why it is great and celebrated work. If you are already familiar with the Fisher King and Grail stories, St. Augustine's Confessions, the Christian Bible, plays by Shakespeare, Webster, and others, Wagner's operas, and so on, then a few short words can bring a flood of meaning, evoking powerful moods and feelings. Eliot chose his quotes and references carefully, thematically. He was not trying to be clever, he was trying to bring complex elements together, and used those references as short cuts.

Of course most people - myself included! - will never know most of his sources well enough for this to be fully effective. But his goal was not mere reference, but information and resonance. This is also why so many writers in the West make allusions to Classical Mythology, the Christian Bible, and Shakespeare: these works are very well known and it's likely the allusions will be effective!


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

tdc said:


> I don't have a problem with current listening, but I don't find it very interesting for similar reasons stated by Premont and Becca. The other issue is that it is not really possible to have any lengthy discussion in the thread because comments tend to get buried in less than a day.


Might be nice to have a "listening experience of the day/week" kind of thread where people can share some stuff they're excited about enough to actually talk about, all the while with a thread game limit on how often you can post your own listening.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

tdc said:


> In this post you seem to assume that you know what other listeners feel when listening to Bach's Passacaglia, and then presume to know Bach's exact intentions in composing the work. Too many assumptions! I can tell you I loved the piece before I knew anything about its history and still loved it equally after. You seem to be suggesting that if an artist builds or borrows from previous ideas then the piece cannot be genuinely expressive. Wrong. But if we took this to be the case we would have to start looking at many of what are considered to be 'great' works and re-analyze them as merely ambitious attempts to 'outmatch predecessors'.


To me the intentions seem pretty clear there. When you write virtually all of your music in order to be played during a service, you're probably writing it in order to worship God. It's these later heathens whose intentions aren't so clear :lol:

All digression aside, though, I just had an interesting question occur to me: let's posit that all of a sudden we couldn't listen to the "holy cows" for a whole year. My theory is that modern music still wouldn't jump up by comparison if we started Nereffid's process again. I'll even go out on a limb and say that the members here would probably be gushing about other Classical and Baroque composers almost as if they were talking about Beethoven, Mozart, or Bach.

So, what if these other composers got comparable exposure all of a sudden? I think if you took the big names off the list, and for whatever odd reason we had to find other contemporary composers, the polls would still be similarly skewed towards those periods.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Becca said:


> That is an argument that I have made on a number of occasions and that, IMO, the thread should not be used as a diary of everything someone listens to. * The only result that I am aware of is that one poster now often includes quotes from magazine/online reviews which is not quite what I had in mind!*












I mean why miss the opportunity for vivid 'self'-expression?- where one can be a bright and faultless vision, textured out of flaming taffeta and sunbeams, to be loved and worshiped by all. _;D_

Why live a second-hand life?

And post second-hand thoughts?


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I mean why miss the opportunity for vivid 'self'-expression?- where one can be a bright and faultless vision, textured out of flaming taffeta and sunbeams, to be loved and worshiped by all. _;D_
> 
> Why live a second-hand life?
> 
> And post second-hand thoughts?


Marschallin Blair,

I heartily concur with your statement:"Why live a second-hand life...And post second-hand thoughts?"

The above is a profound notion - I will use it in my conversations with friends and acquaintances and will credit you.

Thanx a trillion:tiphat::angel::clap::kiss:


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I disagree. Cleverness is allusion without purpose, or allusion for the sake of allusion.
> 
> I might call one approach to greatness to be using allusions and references to more effectively and efficiently communicate.
> 
> ...


I was talking about novels though. Poetry is utterly dead, and for good reasons: it tries to achieve communication by shifting all the responsibility for its success on the reader, or it puts too much faith in language, it's still in the same prison of brevity as the ancient oral traditions from which it arose, obsolete, the most try-hard of genres, writers trying to look cool is all it is basically or trying to make plain and boring things look cool by doing nothing but using language.

Why would you use such allusions in novels? You have all the pages you need for not taking obscure short-cuts that are bound to hinder communication either now or in the future when the culture has changed. Why strap your novel to the ever-sinking terrain of culture?

Of course, none of this has anything to do with music and the original argument. A composer who tries to put meaning into his music by doing very context-bound things is constructing his structures on quick-sand. It's not greatness if it doesn't last.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Why live a second-hand life?
> 
> And post second-hand thoughts?


Perhaps because others have been there before us and 'said' it already. If the Bard has already found a good way to advise us of the ills of borrowing from friends, it's worth repeating his words to others.

I'm not sure where the taffeta fits in though.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> *Poetry is utterly dead*, and for good reasons: it tries to achieve communication by shifting all the responsibility for its success on the reader, or it puts too much faith in language, it's still in the same prison of brevity as the ancient oral traditions from which it arose, obsolete, the most try-hard of genres, *writers trying to look cool* is all it is basically or trying to make plain and boring things look cool by doing nothing but using language.


I don't think it is 'dead'. I also challenge the idea that we can easily attribute motives to writers, any more than we can attribute motives to composers, or novelists. I don't doubt that some artists want to look cool; others just enjoy the pleasure of playing with language and want to share that pleasure with the willing reader.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Myriadi said:


> See, that's what I'm talking about, only you're calling it "greatness", whereas I call it "perhaps some combination of elements that is closer to current taste" - using "taste" here because I can't think of a better word, really.
> 
> Also, I'm afraid in Bach, and much Baroque music in general, it is helpful to know a thing or two about the context. One good example that springs to mind is Bach's organ passacaglia. Most 19th century enthusiasts, and most 20th century listeners alike, perceive the work as a tremendous, monumental statement on... oh, I don't know, let's say the human condition. But when you know that the whole thing is literally pieced together from various passacaglias by composers Bach knew and admired, it becomes rather an extremely ambitious attempt by a very young composer to outmatch his predecessors by cramming every variation technique he could find in their works into a giant single piece, nick the 8-bar ostinato idea from Krieger to have more room... and so on. So the affekt of grief and sorrow isn't a personal statement here, but rather one explored in very similar ways by many others.
> 
> This also is a good example of what I was talking about earlier. Why does BWV 582 affect us? Because when we first hear it, it is likely the first Baroque passacaglia we hear. The _affekt_ is completely new to us, as are the means of delivering it. The 8-bar ostinato and the appended fugue make for a larger piece, closer in scale to some late Classical or Romantic sonata than a random 17th century passcagalia would be. So it is from a familiar background, and yet completely new in content - voila, we're thrilled, and we'll remember it for life, and from that moment on BWV 582 becomes for us the standard by which other passacaglias are measured. And when we hear a Pachelbel or a Buxtehude piece later, it seems too simple, or too short, or both. And what I wonder about is, whether things would've been very different if a listener was brought up in a chronological way, so to speak, hearing those earlier masters first, developing a love for a few pieces from that earlier era - we did fall for Pachelbel's Canon! - I wonder if Bach's piece would've sounded blown out of proportion, and... inferior?


Talk about cherry-picking your example...


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I don't think it is 'dead'.


In a civilisation with 99% literacy rate, it's pretty dead when it's this hard to publish new poetry. Imagine a civ where there's 99% musical literacy rate but one where almost no one listens to classical music. Hard to imagine, eh? Yet that's the fate of poetry.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> In a civilisation with 99% literacy rate, it's pretty dead when it's this hard to publish new poetry. Imagine a civ where there's 99% musical literacy rate but one where almost no one listens to classical music. Hard to imagine, eh? Yet that's the fate of poetry.


It's not poetry's fault, or literacy's. It's just that people are too sophisticated now to appreciate Robert Service. Everybody's snooty.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> In a civilisation with 99% literacy rate, it's pretty dead when it's this hard to publish new poetry. Imagine a civ where there's 99% musical literacy rate but one where almost no one listens to classical music. Hard to imagine, eh? Yet that's the fate of poetry.


It's not difficult to find instant evidence that poetry is alive and well, even if it is not popular with the masses...



> Now in its fourth incarnation, the Faber New Poets scheme exists to encourage new writers at a crucial point in their career. Open to those who have yet to publish a first collection or pamphlet, the scheme offers mentorship, pamphlet publication and financial support. This year, the scheme welcomed an incredible nine hundred manuscript submissions


http://www.faber.co.uk/blog/and-the-2015-16-faber-new-poets-are/



> Plato wanted to banish poetry from the city. We think it is an essential presence in any city worth living in. This year, _Boston Review_ published over 100 poems, including one poem every day for National Poetry Month in April. Take a look back at our twenty most-read poems of 2013 (in alphabetical order):


http://bostonreview.net/blog/boston-review-brs-20-top-poems-2013

Of course, it could be that the masses consume their poetry in song these days.

http://www.nme.com/blogs/the-big-picture/30-beautiful-song-lyrics


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

MacLeod, that just makes living poetry sound like it's on life-support.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> MacLeod, that just makes living poetry sound like it's on life-support.


How poetic !


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> Why would you use such allusions in novels? You have all the pages you need for not taking obscure short-cuts that are bound to hinder communication either now or in the future when the culture has changed. Why strap your novel to the ever-sinking terrain of culture?
> 
> Of course, none of this has anything to do with music and the original argument. A composer who tries to put meaning into his music by doing very context-bound things is constructing his structures on quick-sand. It's not greatness if it doesn't last.


There are a lot of ways to approach novel writing, and there are many reasons to keep your manuscript from getting overlong. Poetic writing - even in novels - can be rich and fulfilling, and it can give life to great works of the past.

But you're right, this has nothing to do with the original argument about music, which was about how Bach might look if more people had a better understanding of other music written in the same era (and earlier). A similar situation would be considering the plays of Shakespeare in the context of other plays of the time, by Marlowe, Johnson, Kyd, Webster, Middleton, and others. Like Bach, there's a lot of Shakespeare and it is widely distributed and frequently performed. While the others are neglected.

Or for a more recent example, for many people The Beatles are enough pop/rock music from the 60s, except for scattered songs (and maybe the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan, as Handel and Vivaldi). The Beatles released a lot of great music, and it covered a wide variety of styles, but there's still a lot more to rock music in the 60s.

I'm not saying that any of these - Shakespeare, Bach, or the Beatles - are bad. Absolutely not; they're all wonderful. And people should know their work. But I believe an important part of knowing their work, and certainly an important part of knowing Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, or late Baroque music, or 60s rock music, is knowing more than just the towering greats.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

mountmccabe said:


> I'm not saying that any of these - Shakespeare, Bach, or the Beatles - are bad. Absolutely not; they're all wonderful. And people should know their work. But I believe an important part of knowing their work, and certainly an important part of knowing Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, or late Baroque music, or 60s rock music, is knowing more than just the towering greats.


Yes. I think of all the ungreat 18th and 19th century composers I have discovered. I have been listening to recordings of some of the Stamitz Clarinet Concertos and they are great.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> Talk about cherry-picking your example...


Perhaps, but what I most take from Myriadi's comments is that Bach didn't compose in a vacuum. All you have to do is listen to the music of those composers who preceded him to realize the strong links that lead from Cabezon, Trabaci, Sweelinck, Weckmann, Froberger and Buxtehude up to Bach. Not being more than an enthusiast, I can't identify the technical properties of these connections, but I hear and feel them every day. I look at Bach as the ultimate consolidator who also brought a complexity of design to its highest level.

Having brought up complexity, I don't want to leave the impression that earlier composers just wrote simple music which can't compare to Bach's music; some of the best things in life are very simple. Using Weckmann's "Ach air armen Sunder" as an example, this organ work is much less complex than the typical Bach organ work. However, it gets into my bloodstream every time I listen, and when I listen to it I'm not thinking about Bach but approaching the piece as a world unto itself.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> Perhaps, but what I most take from Myriadi's comments is that Bach didn't compose in a vacuum. All you have to do is listen to the music of those composers who preceded him to realize the strong links that lead from Cabezon, Trabaci, Sweelinck, Weckmann, Froberger and Buxtehude up to Bach. Not being more than an enthusiast, I can't identify the technical properties of these connections, but I hear and feel them every day. I look at Bach as the ultimate consolidator who also brought a complexity of design to its highest level.
> 
> Having brought up complexity, I don't want to leave the impression that earlier composers just wrote simple music which can't compare to Bach's music; some of the best things in life are very simple. Using Weckmann's "Ach air armen Sunder" as an example, this organ work is much less complex than the typical Bach organ work. However, it gets into my bloodstream every time I listen, and when I listen to it I'm not thinking about Bach but approaching the piece as a world unto itself.


I can't name anyone who composed their music without strong links to tradition.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

nathanb said:


> I can't name anyone who composed their music without strong links to tradition.


Yes, and I didn't write anything that was contrary to your above posting.


----------

